HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Report BOCC 01.12.04Exhibits for BOCC 01/12/04 (Ranch @ Coulter Creek)
A Proof of Mail Receiots and Postins
B Proof of Publication
C Garfield Countv Zonins. Reeulations of 1978. as amended
D Garfield Countv Comorehensive Plan of 2000
E Garfield Countv Subdivision Rezulations of 1984. as amended
F Staff Mernorandum
G Application Materials submitted bv the Apolicant
H Letter from the Garfield Countv SherifPs Deoartment dated l2l0ll03
I Letter from Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District dated 12103103
J Merno from Steve Anthonv dated lll25l03
K StaffMerno to the BOCC dated 5lt9l03
L Leffer from Road and Bridee Department dated l2l4l03
M lnformative Brochure from the BLM regarding Fisher Creek Special Managernent
Area
l\/
-3+ \uw,,^yt hU Cl,-,,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
01/12/04
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICAI{T:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) review for the Ranch at Coulter Creek
A request to subdivide approximately 479 acres into
26 single family residential lots and rezone the
property to PUD
Snowmass Land Company
TG Malloy Consulting, LLC
The property is located west of the intersection of
County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road (CR 113)
in the Missouri Heights area
Central Water Systern
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems [SDS)
County Road 115
A/R/RD (Agricultural/ResidentiallRural Density)
A/R/RD & Open Space (BLM)
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
As a matter of background, the Board of County Commissioners recently reviewed the subject
application in the form of a preliminary plan for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivisioz as it was
originally proposed last summer (2003). As a result, the Board approved the preliminary plan on
Jlurne2,2003, which is memorialized in Resolution 2003-41.
The project, Ranch at Coulter Creek, was originally intended to be a private (o'gated") development
where the internal roads within the project would be private roads managed by the homeowners
association rather than be public roads dedicated to the public as required pursuant to Section 9:34 of
the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. This requirement was disclosed to the applicant
during sketch plan review as well as made an explicit condition of approval in Resolution 2003-41
which granted approval for the proposal. However, due to an apparent oversight on the part of the
applicant, this request was never explored during the preliminary plan process.
From a regulatory perspective, in order to vary this subdivision requirement, the applicant would
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0lll2l04
Page2
need to submit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to the county, thereby pursing the
appropriate avenue allowing the Board to make a decision as to whether private or public roads are
appropriate for this development.
@,{rffi i6 r{d$'*ifff lffthu Ruheli Ef eusffef Crddtrft i W"dffi .
M, to rosuha*eeprdirinm5rrphn boeausc'.&oBc*,*siE[ffitfffffiBffimffittffit' rrr. "7htfl6h exiiliCitly'r6quffi ip{d5 TU'dbdicaffitwt{ru1ntilb;' tfiNer
ourd"rcgutfiuiy ff60edirie re!-arding ambnding resolutions of approval'gfehtetl"Uy thtrtlOutqigil''
apd,icagt.he*"moths,roourge other thdn fesubmffing the aitire Bieliminaiy plan.'
Lastly, because the subject of the proposal is to address the request for the private / public nature of
the intemal road systern and the fact that the proposed preliminary plan is exactly as that which
received approval by the Board in June, 2003, Staff has focused its substantive review on the road
issue and whether or not the applicant has satisfied the PUD requirements in the ZonrngResolution
of 1978, as amended
II. DEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to rezone the Ranch at Coulter Creek from its underlying zone district of
A/R/RD to PUD in orderto vary the requirement of Section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations of
1984, as amended. Again, this regulation requires that all roads within a subdivision be dedicated to
the public. The applicant requests the Board vary this requirement to allow internal roads to be
private and gated.
By rezoning the property to PUD, the applicant proposes that all of the uses (by right, special, and
conditional) as well as the dimensional requirements (height, setbacks, minimum lot size, etc.)
remain those of the underlying zone district as applied to the property. Therefore, the sole purpose of
rezoning the property to PUD is to request the Board vary the road standard. The applicant is seeking
approval for private roads for the following main reasons:
l) Private roads are a"part of the overall strategy to preserve as many of the open space and
environmental values of theproperty as possiblewhile still achieving areasonable financial
return from the development";
2) "Keeping the roads private will contribute to the quiet rural appeal of the property";
3) "Practical limitations [of the property] that make private roads a logical solution are the site's
terrain and public ownership of adjacent lands. None of the proposed roads would connect to
any existing roads, nor are they likely to connect to any public road in the future and as a
result, the roads are de facto private"; and
4) Allowing private roads would limit the liability and maintenance expense that can
accompany public roads."
The applicant proposes to construct automatic gates at both entrances to the development offof
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0l/12104
Page 3
CR I 15 (Red Canyon Road). Further, the applicant states that the proposed gate systems will not
interfere with the provision of emergency services personnel (sheriff/ police, fire, ambulance) to
the development due to the gate's technologies:
I) Legally,ffilirLrftrilr;trmh
q*rfnungrsuIryffinuEr"dgf ffi fi iih;
2) Physically, ith a key pad and an emergency service key
entry where the code and key are provided in advance to emergency services personnel. The
key pad also functions as an intercom providing communication to residents and ranch
manager who can open the gate rernotely. The gate has automatic sensors so that it
1 automatically opens for outbound vehicles. If a power failure occurs, the gate has a battery
backup systern that will take over to open the gate and leave it open until power is restored.
ilI. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The application was referred to the following agencies for comments. Comments that were received
have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable.
1. Garfield County Road and Bridge Departrnent reviewed the proposal and did not oppose
the conversion from public to private roads (See Exhibit L)
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (see Exhibit I)
RE-l School District: Larry Estrada (Transportation Manager) reviewed theproject and
indicated that a school bus route travels along CR 115 in front of the development
however it will only stop outside the gates and will not enter the subdivision.
Garfield County Sheriff Department (see Exhibit II)
Garfield County Vegetation Manager (see Exhibit J)
Bureau of Land Management
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IV. APPLICABLITY
Pursuant to section 4:3lof the Subdivision Regulations, the Board shall hold an advertised public
hearing on the proposed subdivision within sixty (60) days after completion of the Planning
Commission hearing. Trspturfftryemfifitrsf6fniflUffiffi rcitftrgUft mtr
'rd;f,ffi '6fffiffimu,rhsiBodw-Drswrbw'l&,ffi& "
V. RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREHENSIVE PLA}[
The subject property is designated on the 'Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area I' map in the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential. The recommended density in this
land use category is 10 acres or more per dwelling unit. Using this standard, the property could
accommodate approximately 48 dwelling units, twice the proposed number of units.
A number ofpolicies in Comprehensive Plan are aimed at reducing density in future developments
and preserving opens space and agricultural uses. The following statements from the
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0IlI2l04
Page 4
Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies are applicable to this application:
5.0 Recreation and Open Space
Objective:
5.0(a) Open Space and Trails
Goal:
5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development
approved by Garfield County.
5.1(B) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable
mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat.
Policies:
5.1(A) All projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be required to mitigate
any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include some or all of the
following:
a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property boundaries;
b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
c) Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife Resources Information Systern (WRIS) will be required to propose
mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures
shall include the following:
a) Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
b) Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building envelope
restrictions or cluster development concepts;
c) Conservation easements.
,Ag#'Anhaoae existing open space uses.
6.1
6.3
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 01,112/04
Page 5
6.0 Agriculture
Goal:
To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility
issues are addressed during project review.
Obiectives:
6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches.
6.2 Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity adjacent uses.
6.3 Developments adjacent agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for
flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
Policies:
Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of high-
intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use
and the proposed project.
Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential
incompatible uses.
7.0 Water and Sewer Services
Obiective:
7.1 Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to
provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project approval.
7.3 Projects proposing the use of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I.S.D.S) will be
required to assess the site's capability to accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
Policies:
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water andlor sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval.
7.3 The County will require developers proposing I.S.D.S to provide data that demonstrates
to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
7.4 Where I.S.D.S. is not feasible, Garfield County will require a sewage disposal system
approved by the State of Colorado.
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0l/12104
Page 6
Natural Environment
Goals:
Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes that environmental sensitivity
of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interests of
the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County.
Objectives:
8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and
design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment.
Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration.
Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique to the proposed
site.
Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical
wildlife habitats are protected.
Policies:
8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so that cumulative impact of public and
private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed
the capacity of natural or conskucted drainways, or to subject other areas to an increased
potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to
streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water.
8.7 Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor
environmental constraints to mitigate physical problems such as minor rockfalls, 17 to 24
percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow
percolation, radioactive soils and/or corrosive and expansive soils.
\.I. STAFF COMMENTS
As mentioned above, because the subject of the proposal is to address the request for the pivate I
public nature of the internal road system and the fact that the proposed preliminary plan is exactly as
that which received approval by the Board in June, 2003, Staff has focused its substantive review on
the road issue and whether or not the applicant has satisfied the PUD requirements in the Zonng
Resolution of 1978, as amended. (Staffhas attachedtheoriginal staffmemolseeExhibitKlwhrch
was presented to the Board to se.rve as additional information as it relates to the issues raised in the
preliminary plan review.)
A. Zoning
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from A/R/RD to PUD. In general, the intent of a PUD
8.0
8.3
8.5
8.6
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0lll2l04
PageT
ilttreourqadodgn'flexibilityr,th€mcb5, cnabling the,.applicant to oepitalizo"ono,sits-edoeimhle
fs*alwirmlp&*",wmdd b'prohibitsd trnder the othorwire applieable zoning,h.&i,t**sertha
epnll*g+l,vishssroc,hge the undeflying zd{ring:for ep,roperty which ahdy has aa ann*mrs4,si}e
ryecjIla@ &y.rooorrin$ the' pr6paty $o FUD, th€ a@l#.popeoc,*at
'&li'tfFfterrw{bsriahr spocia},rard conditional) as vrell'as the dimensional"reQuirbrtienf$Gr&ght,
sett*fts;'inffii tt'h'size, etc.) remain those of the underlying zone distriff as'&pfiAlff"ttft
proputy. Thir,is,rccsptahle becarue the prqirct was originally designed to be consisEfirwtfifthe
devdopment"p4lqp.reters of the A/R/RD zone district. The applicant'does not wistt to varyany,of
thtrforsmelers. Thgeft,re, the sole puqpose ofrezoning the property to PUD isto r€qu€s'*re Board
vaqr*{rc'*rcd'stffidard. '@ptsido of this one requost, the project is consistent with the rurdorlyiog
zoaing(*&{RD}wuh tsugn, if rezoned, it would bt designated PUD.
B. PUD Review Standards
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the PUD standards for review in Section 4.07 through
4.07.10. Based on the unique and very specific nature oftheproposal, Staffhas limited the following
discussion to the main question at hand as well as to points not adequately addressed by the
applicant. Again, the site specific development plan approved by the Board is consistent with
development parameters proposed by the applicant which are also those of the underlying zone
district.
Iheerrlystmdrrds'tl'^trliurrth ^ddresstbe"iseueofprhlie"ysrfluspdy,ntsrg4dflJgr.kls,%$lsdi$iion
ueua* fu.pul*ou atl}"fffd'ffotedtruf ifwiatrffittfctf. Staff referred the
application to thc@tftfihltltle'friit Rrft'alnPiro Frstvetior.Dishiot,an*.dp@
dtpffidbnf fis@ffii0y*8lt€fiff *nd,irl*od thr*''m lomg'w,,the.6hrrifFe .€ffioo*aa*,.thF,0foe.neffi'acooss,torrsidents; he"had'ns' isnre withthc propbsdfs€g"E3uf, bfiT l.
The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District indicated that they are satisfied with the proposal
and that the method of access provided will be adequate for their needs (see Exhibil,I). However,
they offered the following comments:
Page 22 of the submittal indicates that an easernent with be set forth to establish legal access for
emergency service vehicles and personnel. We request an opportunity to review the easement
language before it is finalized for the plat.
Resolution No. 2003-3 of the Fire District, which conditionally approved annexation ofaportion
ofthe Ranch, requires that the developer grant the District an access and utility easement forthe
.8.|11ifftff*.rrfuh. rqrk*+ ld5y4t-tfu PJA.*U ptrlddr
*L#iWi ${Dn'ffigfiedftr the type of tralfic genirated, safety,frdrii'ffiffi$bfrs,w*stecfiithcCi!*s:'"'Priyaid lntbrndl stieas may be permittbt, p,rovided ihal mteffi&b bttarss
"Orbbrttaaniin ibraai r"rthinfie'sab'Js "ffi itfri*t tsi:tettttfiI pu rp ti s e s.
l.
Ir--f
\.st{
.N.\
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0lll2/04
Page 8
radio antenna site. This easement was intended to run from the public roads to the antenna site.
If the roads will be private, the Fire District will need a perpetual non-exclusive easement from
County Road 115 to the antenna site. We request that the language of such an easement be
negotiated and approved by the District prior to approval of the final plat. This easement would
allow access by Fire district personnel, contractors, or subcontractors to the antenna site for all
uses of the antenna site, including installation and maintenance.
3. The water system described in the engineering report (Attachment 12) refers to the previously
proposed water system and does not match the current master utility drawings. The current
drawings contain a note "see Mclaughlin Rincon drawings for details of pump station and
storage tank installation". Since the Mclaughlin Rincon drawings are not included in the
submittal, the Fire District would like to review and approve the drawings for the prior to final
plat approval.
Therefore based on t-b-ese -comm,,gnts,#W€e$ffi offi 3*re'iddli6 i'iiope#, ti6?lng' an' *#iE6iffilictattsfisdrffindr*"em
*tffinymdffi f. tfdff ffi ds fl ik'$iilHard,tu rnct.
It appears the only standard not addressed by the applicant is the following:
The applicant states that this is "not applicable to purpose of PUD (private roads)." Stafffinds this is
an inadequate response to Section 4.07 .03 which states The PUD shall meet thefollowing site plan
criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (7) or more ofthem is not applicable or that
a practical solution has been otherwise achieved The development proposes only one type of
residential housing (single-family) and a result ofthe unit to acreage ratio, only one type of density
(low) is proposed. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the request for private roads
determines that this standard does not apply. While a request to pivatizethe roads is the impetus for
applyrng for a PUD, an applicant cannot pick and choose which standards they should address as a
result. Stafffinds this standard applies and the applicant has not adequately dernonstrated why it is
not applicable.
C. Other Issues
Other issues worth noting include the fact that the applicant has now received their final decree for
their augmentation plan for the proposed central water supply system and the Carbondale & Rural
Fire Protection District has conditionally annexed the property into the district. Lastly, while work
was being completed on the Weed Managernent Plan, a sensitive plant called Harington's
penstemon was discovered on the property in July, 2003. Staff referred this issue to the County
Vegetation Management Director who provided the following comments (see Exhibit,I).
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0lll2l04
Page 9
The response of RCC/AVLT (dated October 23, 2003) to my earlier memo of October 15,
2003 regarding Harrington's penstemon is acceptable.
The applicant states that they will provide the County with a map of the occurrences of
Harrington's penstemon in 2004, We lookforward to seeing that information
In the same memq there are recotwnended changes to the Protective Covenants that would
help minimize impacts to Harrington's penstemon. Staff encourages the adoption of these
recommendations.
As a result, Staff has included those recommended changes as conditions of approval.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the
hearings before the Planning Commission and before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were
submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings.
The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forttr in
the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County.
5. The proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County ZoningResolution of
1978, as amended.
6. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V[I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Preliminary Plan and
PUD request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek subject to conditions of approval.
Ix. PLAI\NING COMMISISON RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission forwards a recorrmendation of approval to the Board of County
Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek
subject to the following conditions of approval:
J.
4.
hil
ipt
,P.rJ
o\n 'o
I6$
l' ,r\
\
]r
_N
l.
,?
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0lll2l04
Page 10
That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the
public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of
County Commissioners.
All conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 2003-41as approved by the Board of
County Commissioners (except that condition #7 therein shall be eliminated) shall also be
conditions of approval for this application and will be included in a new resolution that shall
be superseded and replaced in fulIby a new resolution containing these conditions listed
herein.
The Applicant shall provide a Deed of Easement dedicating a perpetual access easement over
and across all roads within the subdivision allowing unfettered access for all applicable
emergency services personnel. These easements shall be shown on the final plat. As part of
the final plat submittal to the county, the applicant shall obtain a letter signed by the
applicable emergency services agencies indicating an agreement to the terms ofthe easement
agreement and that proper access codes and keys have been provided to those agencies.
Resolution No. 2003-3 of the Carbondale and Rural Fire District, which conditionally
approved annexation of a portion of the Ranch, requires that the developer grant the Dishict
an access and utility easement for the radio antenna site. This easement was intended to run
from the public roads to the antenna site. The applicant shall provide the Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection District aperpetual non-exclusive easement from CountyRoad 115 to
the antenna site. The applicant shall provide the language of such an easement to the District
in order to be negotiated and approved by the District prior to approval of the final plat. This
easement would allow access by Fire district personnel, contractors, or subcontractors to the
antenna site for all uses of the antenna site, including installation and maintenance.
The water system described in the engineering report (Attachment 12) refers to the
previously proposed water systern and does not match the current master utility drawings.
The current drawings contain a note "see Mclaughlin Rincon drawings for details ofpump
station and storage tank installation". Since the Mclaughlin Rincon drawings are not
included in the submittal, the applicant shall provide the Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District with the referred to "Mclaughlin Rincon drawings" for review and
approval prior to final plat approval.
The Applicant shall incorporate the recommended changes to the Declaration of Protective
Covenants proposed by Lisa Tasker and Dawn Keating regarding the Harrington's
penstemon as included in theirmerao to Tim Malloy dated October 23,2003. Accordingly,
The Applicant shall provide the County Vegetation Manager with a map of the occurences
of Harrington's pensternon in 2004. These changes the covenants are included below:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0lll2l04
Page 1 1
Page 5. 6. General Requirernents. b. Site Location:
...the Architectural Committee shall exercise its judgment to atternpt to preserve
the natural characteristics of each Lot, including trees, vegetation, particularly the
Harrington's penstemon, and the natural setting.
Page 9. 8. b. Defensible Space:
(ix) When implementing a plan to reduce flammable material around structotres,
survey the area to be treatedfor the Harringtonb penstemon and avoid removing or
trampling it.
Page 12. 12. Domestic Animals:
. ..horses may be kept in a stable and a small corral upon any Lot so long as the corral
is not in a location that the Harrington 's penstemon has been mapped. If the
penstemon has beenfound, the location of the corral shall be altered in order to seek
to avoid the penstemon.
Page 13" 3. Underground Utility Lines:
All water, electrical and telephone lines, within the Subdivision, shall be buried
underground beneath Subdivision roads and driveways or in such other locations
that shall seek to avoid the Harringtonb penstemon, and shall not be carried on
overhead poles...
Pages 14 - 15. 7. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems:
Each ISDS shall be designed and located to minimize hee removal, seek to avoid
the Harringtonb penstemon, and changes to the natural contours of the land.
0 Paee 15. 8. Trees and other Significant Plants:
All construction...shall seek to avoid the Harringtonb penstemon,minimizethe
removal, and maximizethe preservation, of trees...
g) Page 15 - 17. Additional Restrictions on Lots:
Add 10. Construction Management. In order to protect the Haningtonb penstemon
and other native vegetation, all construction activity, storage of materials, fill and
debris, parking ofvehicles and equipment shall occur within the building envelope.
The Applicant shall refer the application to the Bureau of Land Managernent for comments
with a follow up phone call prior to the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners
hearing.
The Applicant shall provide the most current brochure regarding the Fisher Creek Special
Managerrent Area to future lot purchasers as part of the closing documentation.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
7.
8.
L "-,vnol', q
Board of County Commissioners
Preliminary Plan & PUD 0l/12104
Page 12
Note: As a practical matter, the Board should entertain a motion on the request for the PUD
(rezoning) first, then entertain a motion on the Preliminary Plan.
')r\^'-
t\L+
lha,)*y Pr)
Ytn -l. g^w)- /*f ol/) '
\
,3|
/,Lr5',
/ ^ lv-'t't ?r,
- Jrt0t-
Lou'/a[[aio
Sturiff of Qafut[county
Fred Jannan
Lou Vallario
Qtauttood Spittgs, CO 81601
Te[ep fioru 970-9 45-04 53
fa4 97G945-6430
MEMORANDUM
TO:'
FROM:
DATE: December 1,2003
SUBJECT: Coulter Creek Ranch Subdivision
Thank you for the copy of thp proposed changes at the Coulter Creek Ranch Subdivision. I am satisfied that the
concerns we might have regarding the project becoming a gated have been met as described on page
22 and23 of the rezoning proposal. As long as the Sheriff s Office and the Fire Deparhnent have reasonable
access to the residents, I see no issue with the proposed rezoning to a gated community.
CC:
RED-s\M3x
iiiiit:tiii:t::iiiit:tit:t:ri\?r(\\S\\'1
ru|.
-1, , ! i '.' .. Da{i,r^ I .. '1 L}
iltt ri b 2003
.oni{!:
I i:.,*1.; -'j.i,iN fY
BUIL$iI{i} & PLANNING
December 3,2003
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Planner
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek,
FIRE.EMS.RESCUE
PUD
l.
Dear Fred:
I have reviewed the submittal for the proposed Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD. I would offer the
following comments:
Page22 of the submittal indicates that an easement with be set forth to establish legal access for
emergency service vehicles and personnel. We request an opportunity to review the easement
language before it is finalized for the plat. ,
Resolution No. 2003-3 of the Fire Disfiict, which conditionally approved annexation of a portion
of the Ranch, requires that the developer grant the District an access and utility easement for the
radio antenna site. This easement was intended to run from the public roads to the antenna site.
If the roads will be private, the Fire District will need a perpetual non-exclusive easement from
County Road 115 to the antenna site. We request that the language of such an easement be
negotiated and approved by the District prior to approval of the final plat. This easement would
allow access by Fire district personnel, contractors, or subcontractors to the antenna site for all
uses of the antenna site, including installation and maintenance.
The water system described in the engineering report (Attachment 12) refers to the previously
proposed water system and does not match the current master utility drawings. The current
drawings contain a note "see Mclaughlin Rincon drawings for details of pump station and
storage tank installation". Since the Mclaughlin Rincon drawings are not included in the
submittal, the Fire District would like to review and approve the drawings for the prior to final
plat approval.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive. Carbondale, CO 81623 '9701963-2491 Fax 963-0569
3.
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Fred Jarman
Steve Anthony
Rare Penstemon at Ranch at Coulter Creek
November 2512003
The response of RCC/AVLT (dated October 23,2003) to my earlier memo of October
15,2003 regarding Harrington's penstemon is acceptable-
The applicant states that they will provide the County with a map of the occurrences of
Harrington's penstemon in 2004. We look forward to seeing that information.
In the same memo, there are recorlmended changes to the Protective Covenants that
would help minimize impacts to Harrington's penstemon. Staffencourages the adoption
of these recommendations.
BOARD: 5/1
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE (S):
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
DilSTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Preliminary Plan review for the Ranch at Coulter
Creek Subdivision
A request to subdivide approximateLy 479 acres into
26 single family residential lots.
Snowmass Land Company :
Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) and TG Malloy
Consulting,LLC.
The property is located west of the intersection of
County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road on
Missouri Heights.
Central Water System
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (SDS)
County Road 115
ry (Agricultural/Residential/Rr:ra1 Density)
A/R/RD
I. DE\TELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 479 acres of land into 26 lots.
II. BACKGROUNI)
The Applicant provided a detailed history of the subject property beginning on page I of the
l
I
*Represents the existing house to remain as ranch *ir"g"rb ""it.
I
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9/03
Page2
application. The subject parcel is one of two parcels that have been known as the Laurence
Ranch ("Ranch"). The North Parcel, undeveloped, consists of approximately 1,300 acres and is
located just east of the Consolidated Reservoir. The South Parcel, the subject of this application,
contains approximately 479 acres. Until recently, the Ranch had been,operatgd by Roger
Laurence, who put the ploperty up for auction in 2000, in part to satisff estate ta:res due as a
result of the death of his father. After a deal with the highest bidder from the auction fell
through, the Aspen valley Land Trust ("AVLT") purchased the South parcel.
AVLT solicited proposals from land development companies and entered into an agreemant to
sell the South Parcel to the Snowmass Land Company provided that they would 1) develop the
property under a cluster approach with a small number (26) of residential lots, and 2) place a
conservation easement over the balance of the property. The conservation easement has been
executed, but not recorded, and a copy catr be seen in more detailed in Attachment 6 of the
application
The subject p:operty is located in the Missouri Heights area approximately 5 miles northeast of
Carbondale. The properfy is located to the north and west of County Road 113. County Road
1 15 runs along the north side of the site. The property is approximately 3 % miles north of
Highway 82 along Catherine Store Road (County Road 100) just past the intersection with Cattle
Creek Road.
The vicinity map, in Figure 1 of the application, delineates the surrowrding land uses. The
subject property abuts BLM land to the west and south. The privately owned lands that abut the
subject property on the north and east are curently utilized for agricultural purposes. Uses in the
surrounding area are primarily agricultural, howevetr, there are other nearby residential
subdivisions which include the Panorama Ranch and High Aspen Ranch subdivisions.
The Ranch contains the existing homestead which consists of one farmhouse, abarn, and a
historic 1800's log house, There was an additional ranch house, which was in poor condition and
potentially dangerous, that was removed in July of 2002. The main farmhouse is curre,lrtly being
remodeled. A portion of the stnrcture willbe used for a ranch manager's dwelling and the
remainder of the structure will be used for an on-site sales office.
There are four decreed ponds on the subject property which are used for irrigation. One of the
ponds has been improved to acoommodate the necessary augmentation water as specified in the
"watetr augmentation plan" (see Attachment 4).
The property has rolling terrain that includes a large toott on the south end of the Ranch. There
is a steep cliff along the southwest edge of the property, which forms a natural boundary betrveen
l
Ranch at courter 1",:T,:*ffii:l
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 3
the Ranch and BLM land. The current property owner resumed haying operation in the sunmer
of 2002, which had not occurred on site for the last two or three seasons.
rv.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The26 new lots will comprise of approximately 155.6 acres ofthe approximately 479 acres of
land that is the subject of this application. Proposed rights-of-way will occupy approximately
20.6 acres. The remainder of the Ranch will be common open space for the use of the lot owners
and will be permanently persevered under the provisions of a conservation easement to be held
bi AWT. The common open space will continue to be ranched.
Building envelopes have been established for each site. The building envelopes constitute
approximately 50.6 aqres or less than 11 percent of the total acreage on the site. The Applicant
indicated that all residential stnrctures and landscaping will be confined within the proposed
building envelopes. The building envelopes have been designed to comply with the minimum
setback requirements for the A/R/RD zone district.
The Applicant has volunteered to limit the floor area of the homes on Lots 3 through 26 to 8,000
square feet. The floor area on Lots I and 2willbe limited to 12,000 square feet. This
commitrnent is reflected in Article III of the Protective covenants.
The Applicant asserted that the lots have been located to minimize visibility from the
surrounding area while also minimizing encroachment into historically irrigated axeas. The lots
are arranged in several clusters. The lots are located around the perimeter of the agricultural
areas of the property. The lots range in size from 4 acres to 11 areas.
V. RJLATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSTVE PLAN:
The subject properly is designated on the 'Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area 1' map in
the GarEeld County Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential. The recommended density
in this land use category is 10 acres or more per dwelling unit. Using this standard, the property
could accommodate approximately 48 dwelling units, twice the proposed number of units.
A number of policies in Comprehensive Plan are aimed at reducing density in fuflre
developments and preserving opens space and agricultual uses. The following statements from
the Comprehensive Plan Goais, Objectives and Policies are applicable to this application:
5.0 Recreation and Open Space
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5/19/03
Page 4
Objective:
5.3 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the
development and implementation of zoning, subdivision, and PUD regulations designed
to retain and enhance existing open space uses.
5.0(a) Open Space and Trails
Goal:
5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development
approved by Garfield County.
5.1(B) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable
mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat.
Policies:
5.1(A) All projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be required to mitigate
any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include some or all of the
following:
a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property boundaries;
b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
c) Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior
to iszuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2(A)Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife Resources Information Systern (WRIS) will be required to propose
mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures
shall include the following:
a) Fencing and dog reskictions consistent with DOW recoulmendations;
b) Avoidance of critical portions of theproperty, through the use of building envelope
reskictions or cluster development concepts;
c) Conservation easements.
6.0 Agriculture
I
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page 5
Goal:
To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility
issues are addressed during project review.
Objectives:
6.1
6.2
6.3
Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches.
Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity bdjacent uses.
Developments adjacent agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for
flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
6.1
6.3
Policies:
Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of high-
intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use
and the proposed project.
Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential
incompatible uses.
7.0 Water and Sewer Services
Objective:
Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to
provide adequate and safe provisions for these senrices before project approval.
Projects proposing the use of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I.S.D.S) will be
required to assess the site's capability to accommodate these systerns prior to project
approval.
Policies:
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water andlor sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval.
7.3 The Corurty will require developers proposing I.S.D.S to provide data that derronstrates
to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
7.4 Where I.S.D.S. is not feasible, Garfield County will require a sewage disposal systern
approved by the State of Colorado.
7.1
7.3
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.6
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 6
8.0
Goals:
Natural Environment
Garfield County will encourage a land use pattem that recognizes that environmental sensitivity
of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interests of
the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County.
Obiectives:
Proposed projects will be required to recogpize the physical features of the land and
design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment.
Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration.
Development proposalq will be required to address soil constrainls unique to the proposed
site.
Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical
wildlife habitats are protected.
Policies:
Natural drainage pattems will be preserved so that cumulative impact of public and
private land use activities will not cause stolm drainage and floodwater pattems to exceed
the capacity of natural or constructed drainways, or to subject other areas to an increased
potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to
streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water.
Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor
environmental conshaints to mitigate physical problems such as minor rockfalls, 77 to 24
percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow
percolation, radioactive soils and/or corrosive and expansive soils.
REFERRAL AGENCIES:
The application was referred to the following agencies for comments. Comments that were
received have been integrated.throughout this memorandum where applicable.
1. Garfield Cor:nty Road and Bridge Deparknent: Exhibit H & I.
2. Garfield County Engineering Department: No written comments.
3. Colorado Geological survey: No comments.
4. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit K.
5. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit N & O.
8.3
8.7
w.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5lI9l03
Page 7
Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibit J.
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection Diskict: Exhibit L & M.
RE-l School Diskict: No comments.
Holy Cross Eleckic: No comments.
KN Energy: No comments.
US West Communications: No comments.
Colorado Deparknent of Public Health and Environment: No comments.
Bureau of Land Managernent: No comments.
\[I. APPLICABLITY:
Pursuant to section 4:20 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Plaruring Commission shall hold an
advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Commission.
The Commission shall complete its review and make its recommendation to the Board at the
public hearing on the Preliminary Plan or continue the hearing to the next'regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting for additional information or public input before making a
decision.
The Planning Commission may recommend approval, conditional approval or disapBroval of the
Plan. The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth in the minutes
of the meeting or in a written Resolution. If the Final Plat is to be phased, the Planning
Commission shall recofilmend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval.
VI[I. STAFF COMMENTS:
A.Zsning
A single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses, only where it is accessory to the uses
listed in section 3.02.01, are uses by right in the A/R/RD zone district. The gross density of the
project (not including the existing house which will be used as ranch manager's unit) is
approximafe1y 1 unit per 18.4 acres, which is below that allowed in the A/R/RD zone diskict.
The AIRIRD zone distict allows for I unit per 2 acres or approximately 239 units, giving the
density of the property.
The Applicant indicated compliance with all applicable zoning requirernents. Building
envelopes, within which all residential skuctures and landscaping will be confined, have bee,n
established to comply with minimum setback requirements. The building envelopes vary from
1.5 acres to 2 acres in size. The building envelopes for Lots 1l through 16 have also been
located so that a2l-foothigh building located within the envelope should not be see,n from
j
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 8
Cattle Creek Road. The Applicant asserted that this setback from the ridge was field verified and
it has been labeled only on the Illuskative Site Plan as "View Shed Setback Line". This View
Shed Setback Line should be delineated on the Final Plat and referenced in the Protective
Cove,nants.
Water Supply
Domestic water for the proposed lots is intended to be provided via a central water systern which
will be designed by Sopris Engineering. According to the engineering report prrp*.d by Sopris
Engineering, potable water will be supplied by three wells delineated on the plans. The raw
waterwill be pumped from each well via supply lines to the central water freatnent facility. The
water will be chlorinated at a central treatment facility and distributed through the dishibution
mains to all the lots. The distribution system serves as a supply line to the 150,000 gallon
storage tank that will provide volume for 2 days of in-house use plus required fire flow storage.
The Ranch compound will also have a service line to supply water required by the barn and
livestock facilities. Dornestic consumption usage per lot is based on 2 EQR's per lot and
expected to be an average of 700 gallons per day.-
The report from Zancanella and Associates, Inc. (see Attachment 5) provides information on the
reliability and potablity of the water from the three wells (RCC Weli#s, RCC Well #7, and,Lot
#Z4Well). Wells RCC #5 and RCC #7 werepumped continuously at40 gallons per minute
(gpm) for the length of the test. Lot #24 Well test began at 30 gpm, but was reduced to 25 gpm' when it appeared that the well would probably not be able to sustain the higher rate for the entire
24how test. According to the report, all three wells appear to recover normally. The rates,
when added together, yield a total flow rate of 105 gpm, which is well above the peak month's
continuous average diversion of 39.3 gpm. The report concludes that from the pump test datq
with sufficient storage, the three wells shouid be able to provide adequate water for the proposed
development.
Water samples were collected during the pumping test and sent to Evergree,n Analytical, Inc. for
independent anaiysis. The results received show that all potential contaminates for which tests
were conducted was below the Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the Colorado
Deparhnent of Public Health and Environment.
The water systern will be installed as part of the infrastructure and the cost of installation will be
incorporated in the price of lots. Once installed, the system will be owned, operated and
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This is all reflected in Article V, subsection 6 of
the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachmerlt7).
A letter from Kelureth W. Knox, of the Colorado Division of Water Reso'urces, dated March27,
2003, was received regarding the proposed water supply through the wells that will be
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 9
augmented (Exhibit N). Mr. Knox noted that "due to the lack of water court approved
augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds...that the proposed water supply will cause rnaterial
irUury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." At Sketch Plan, the same determination was
made regarding the proposed water supply (Exhibit O). The Applicant was made aware at
Sketch Plan that at Preliminary Plan application, the Applicant would need to show compliance
with the requirements of the State Engineers Office.
Mr. Knox also indicated that according to their records several exempt wells may curre,lrtly exist
within the proposed development. Pursuant to CRS section3T-92-602(3Xb)(I[), "the
cumulative effect of all wells in the subdivision shall be considered when evaluating material
irjory to decteed water rights. Therefore, the existing exernpt wells must be included in an
augmentation plan, ormustbe plugged and abandoned since the provisions for CFIS 37-92-602
which allowed for issuance of the well permits will not longer apply.,,
With respect to the legal status of water rights and their adequacy for the proposed development,
the Applicant noted that an application for underground water rights with an augmentation plan
has been filed with District Court of Water Division #5. A copy of the application and
augmentation plan is included in the application as Attachment 4 (also see Exhibit Q). Ttre
Applicant acknowledges that approval of the water rights application and a final decree of water
rights will be required prior to Final Plat approval as permitted in Section a.91(A)(4) of the
Subdivision Regulations.
Section 4.91(AX4) reads as follows:
ooErtid,ence that public or pribarc usater owners can and. will supply utater to the
proposed. subd'iaision, including the amount of usater aaailablefor use within the
subd,iuision by such proaid,ers, the feasibility of extend,ing seraiee to the area, proof
of the legal dependability of the proposed uater supply and the reprelentation that
all necessary water rights haue been obtairued or uillbe obtained, or ad,judbated,
prior to subrnission of thefi,nal plat."
Pursuant to CRS Section 30-28-136(1XhXI), the State Engineer of the Division of Water
Resources is required to render an opinion to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether
or not the proposed subdivision will cause material injury to decreed water rights. If the State
Engineers renders an opinion indicating they could not detersrine if there is an injury or not, the
Board of County Commissioners may still approve the subdivision. Staffand the Attomey's
Ofifi.ce strongly recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not approve this or any
subdivision until an opinion of no material injury has been deterrnined by the State Engineer.
To-date no determination from the State Engineer's Office has been received due to the
augme,ntation pan not being approved by the courts.
t
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page 10
Without an affinnative recommendation from the state engineer, it is difficult if not impossible for
staff to make the finding of an adequate legal and physical water supply required by section a:91(A)
of the Subdivision Regulations. As a result, the planning staff continues to not recommend approval
at this time, since the Applicant has not demonstrated legal and adequate source of water.
Exhibits Q, R & S were distributed by Scott Miller at the Planning Commission meeting on April
9,2003. These documents relate to the Plan for Augmentation for the project, as follows:
Exhibit S is a copy of the application for water rights (Augmentation Plan).
Exhibit R is a letter from Sean McAllister, State of Colorado Department of Law, to Scott
Miiler of Pakick, Miller & Kropf, P.C., water attorney for the applicant, requesting
additional information to supplement the Augmentation Plan.
Exhibit Q is a letter from Mr. Miller to Mr. McAllister regarding the supplernental
information.
The Planning Commission reviewed all the information and considered testimonyregarding the
water supply issue. In conclusion, the Planning Commission recofltmended approval with the
following condition:
Prior to Final Plat, tke water augJnentation plan shalt be approved by the water court
and the State Engineer Office. In addition, prior'to subrnission of Final Plat, the
Applicant shall provide approved well permits for each well in place with the physical
adequacy of the water source proyen up.
C. Waste Water
Individual Sewage Disposal Systerns are proposed for each lot. According to the Septic System
Constraints Map contained in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, no constuaints
relative to septic systern functions are identified for the subject property on this map. Percolation
tests were performed by HP GeoTech and the results are contained in the Geotechnical Study
(Attaehment 12). The study shows that there are no geologic conditions on the property that
would render the project infeasible.
According to the engineering report prepared by Sopris Engineering, the type, dime,nsion and
design of the on-site wastewater systems (OWS) will vary based on specific conditions at each
building site. Required setbacks from on-site wells, irrigation ditches, dwellings and property
lines must be maintained. Most lots will be suitable for conventional systerns and/or modified
engineered systems, though a few lots may require advanced heatrnent components be
incorporated in the design of the OWS if certain constaints are encountered. The Applicant
noted that a more detailed analysis of the soils and the design for the individual system for each
1.
2.
3.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preiiminary Plan
Board: 5119/03
age 11
lot wi1l be provided with the building/ISDS permit applications. Sopris Engineering
recommends that the foliowing note e include on the Final plat:
"Building perntit applications for each lot shall include plans and specifications for an
onsite wastewater treatment system. Each system shall be designed by a State of Colorado
registered engineer and must be approve.d pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Septic
Disposal System (ISDS) regulations before a building permit will be issued. The type, size
and location of each individual on-site wastewater system (OWS) wilt be site-specifi.c based
on existing Garfield County and State /,SD,S design criteria and required site-specific geo-
technical evaluations. 77te soil absorption/dispersal systems shoutd be located withii the
building envelope on each lot as identified on the Final plat.',
Th9 engtneering report from Sopris Engineering aiso includes a basic outline for a management
plan for on-site wastewater treafinent systerns, *fri.tr appears to be reflected in Article V,
subsection 7, of the Declaration of Protective Covenants. The recommendations for management
include:
Bi-annual inspection of the septic tank, absorption field and dosing tank (if applicable)
For a properly designed system, septic tanks should be pumped every 2 - 4 years.
Absorption fields shall be maintained with suitable cover and kept free ofplants with
invasive roots.
Positive surface drainage away from the absorption field should be maintained.
Utilities
Holy Cross Energy and Qwest have indicated that electric and telephone services will be
provided to the project from County Road 115. Letters of will-serve are attached to the Sopris
Engineering report (Attachment 10). These senrices will be buried within the roads and
driveways to each of the residences, as reflected in Article V, subsection 3 of the protective
Covenants. Natr:ral gas and cable television service are not available in the area of the property.
E. Floodplain / lYetlands
There are no floodplain or wetland issues on the subject property. There are no lakes or sfreams
located on the zubject property. Coulter Creek is located to the east of the subject property. The
Applicant asserted that a lot of care had been taken in locating the proposed lols, roads and
building envelopes to accomplish a variety of objectives for tt
"
proi".t. One objective of the
development was to preserve as much of the irrigated land as possible for agriculnral use. Care
was taken to minimize the visibility of building sites from nearby roads and developed areas.
F. Soils/Geology
I.
)
3.
4.
D.
t
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 12
According to the soil survey, from USDA Soil and Conservation Service, the soils on the subject
property consist of:
1. Acree Loam (6to l2%) -#4
2. Cochetopa-Antrobus Association (12 to 25%) - #1,8
3. Empedrado Loam (6 -12 %) - #35
4. Fughes Stony Loam (3 - 12%) -#48
5. Lyers Loam (6to25%) - #59
6. Morval-Tridell Complex (12 - 50%) - #87
7. Showalter-Morval Complex (5 -15%) -#94
8. Showalter-Morval Complex (15 -25%) - #95
9. Torriorthents-Cambrothids-Rock Outcrop Complex (6 - 65yo)'#104
10. Tridell-Brownsto Stony Sandy Loams, extremely stony (12 - 50%) - #106
The interpretation tables for these types of soils can be seen in more detaii in the application in
Attachment 8. It appears that some of the soils present on the subject property are poorly suited
for homesite developmert, as well as the installation of conventional septic systems.
A Geotechnical Study for the subdivision was conducted for the project by Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech"), which can be seen in more detail in Attachme.nt 12.
According to IIP GeoTech, there are several conditions of geologic nature that should be
considered in futue project planning and design. According to the study, these conditions
should not have a major impact on general project feasibility, but some modifications to the
currently proposed building location would reduce potential risks associated with major landslide
reactivation. According to the study:
"the landslide complex along the northern Cattle Creek Canyon side appears to have
been dormant with respect to large scale moyementfor sotne time, but the landslide may
be undergoing sgasonal creep moyements,...Although active creep may be occurring, it is
the opinion of HP GeoTech that the likelihood of a major landslide reactivation during a
reasonable exposure timefor the project is low. In the unlikely event of a maior landslide
reactivation the large scale moyements would probably be restricted to the mapped
landslide boundary shown on Figs 1A, 18, and lC [attached to the studyJ, but they could
potentially extendfurther to the northeast of the present landslide boundary. If a low risk
of major landslide reactivation is not acceptable, then buildings or other rilovement
sensitivefaciltties should not be located within about 150 feetfrom the landslide
boundary shown on Figs 1A, 18, and 1C. As presently planned, parts of theproposed
buildingenvelopes onLots 11,12, 13, 16 and 17 arewithin I50feetofthepresent
landslide boundary. The 150 foot setback is approximate and when specifi.c building and
otherfacility locations have been determ,ined, their location should befi.eld revi,ew to
I
Ranch at coulter 1",*i*ffii:l
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 13
determine that an appropriate setbtack has been considered.. "
Sean Gaffney of the Colorado Geological Survey indicated that to ensure that development on
Lots 11, L2,13,16 and 17 will not be affected by the landslide complex, theproposed 150 foot
setbacks from the crest of the slope should be delineated on the development plat (see Exhibit P).
Mr. Gaffrrey noted that plans show that the configuration of the proposed subdivision should
provide ample space to accommodate an effective setback, however, an engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide a formal design recommendation.
The Applicant has modified the building envelopes for Lots 1 1 through 17 to address the
concems raised by Mr. Gaffney. The modifications to the building envelopes can be seen in the
Supplemental Exhibit A of Exhibit V. HP GeoTech, in their supplernental comments dated April
24,2003, seen in Supplernental Exhibit B of Exhibit V, indicated that the modified building
envelopes on Lots 11 *uough 17 are adequate for slope stability considerations. A copy of the
revised plans was sent to Mr. Gaffrrey for additional comments. No comments were received
from Mr. Gaffneyprior to diskibution of this memorandum.
Pursuant to section 5:11, Geolo g1cHazaxdAreas, of the Zoning Resolution, the purpose of this
section is to insure that all developments affected by one or more geologic hazards are
engineered, developed and utilized in a manner that will minimize significant hazards to public
health and safety and to properfy. Pursuant to section 5.16.02, Guidelines for Development in
Landslide Areas",
'oCorrection of ad,uerse cond.itions through engineered d,esign a,nd, construction rnay
be an acceptabl,e mitigation technique if the methods are supportedby careful
inaestigation and, eualuationby a qualified professional engtneer or geol,ogist. Such
inaestigation a,nd, eaaluation must consid,er the physical extent, the seriousness, and
the causes of the geologic problems, Comection ircthods may irusolae annong others
refrainingfro* remoaing natura,l support m,aterial in the area immediately
beneath or adjacent to the sli.d,e area; addition of artifr,cial support to the area, in
theform of rock or earthfillbuttressing, retaining walls or cribbing) concrete
slurry, rock, bohing and reinforced pilings; perrnanent itnproaem,ent and, control of
surfoce and subsurface drainage; stabilization of the slide areaby chemical
treafinent, bridging u:eak zones, remoaal of wnstable material, and aaoid,ance of
laading on unstablc areas.
Mr. Gaftey noted that Lots 18, 19, 20,21 and22are located on slopes that are greater than 30%
grade (see Exhibit P). Mr. Gaffirey suggests that a slope stability analysis is completed in this
area to ensure that the proposed building envelops are adequately sited to minimize the risk of
slope moveurent after construction. Pursuant to section 5.04.02 of the ZonngResolution,
developmeat on40o/o slopes is prohibited.
!
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preiiminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page 14
The Applicant provided a slope.analysis, seen in Supplemental Exhibit C of Exhibit V. It
appears that none of the building envelopes on Lots 18, 19, 20,21, and22 contains slopes in
excess of 4O%. As noted previously, all development on the Lots will be within the approved
building envelopes. As represented by the Applicant, there will be no structures erected outside
of the approved building envelopes for each of the lots. A11 development will be located within
the approved building envelopes.
HP GeoTech noted in their supplemental comments dated Api124,2003, (see Supplemental
Exhibit C of Exhibit V), that steep slopes are locally present on parts of Lots 18, 19, 20,21, arrd
22,bttt the building envelopes are in terrain iess than 30% grade. HP GeoTech does not
anticipate any problems with construction related slope instability for grading typically
associated with residential construction on these five revised building envelopes, if the grading
recommendations as presented in preliminary geotbchnical engineering report are followed. A
copy of the slope analysis was sent to Mr.'Gaffney. No comments were received from Mr.
Gaf fney prior to diskibution. of this memorandum.
Mr. Gaffirey noted that the subject properfy is in the Carbondale Collapse Center. This area has
the potential to contain sinllholes, voids in the bedrock that may or may not be filled with
unconsolidated soil and rubble. Although the site's topography does not display any obvious
signs of sinkholes activity, HP GeoTech's recommendation to further evaluate the presence of
sinkholes and the potential for solution deformation to affect site development should be
followed when site-specific geotechnical investigations are completed. In addition, the building
envelopes for Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, shall be retocated way from the evaporate deformation
faults to minimize the potential for damage associated with gror.urd movement.
AsseeninSupplementalExhibitAof ExhibitV. ThebuildingenvelopesforLots 18, 19, 20and
2lhave been modified to avoid the evaporate deformation faults that lie within the area of these
lots. HP GeoTech, in their supplemental comments, seen in Supplemental Exhibit B of Exhibit
V, indicated that the modified building envelopes on Lots 11 through 17 are adequate for slope
stability considerations. A copy of these revised plans was sent to Mr. Gaf&rey for additional
comment. No comments were received from Mr. Gaf&rey prior to distribution of this
me,rnorandum.
Mr. Gaf&rey indicated that the clay and claystone swell potentials, measured by HP GeoTech,
illustrate a low to high risk across the site. A plat note should clearly identify the presence of
swelling clays and state that mitigation maybe necessary to build on a lot. Due to the presence of
swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations. Perimeter drains
prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the overall potential
for expansion or consolidation.
G.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page 15
HP GeoTech provided conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development,
subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, and their experience in the area.
The Study indicates that the recoilrmendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design,
but site specific studies should be conducted for the individual development facilities and for
building on each lot. The 'Preliminary Design Recommendations' outlined by HP GeoTech in
the study include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, underdrain system, site grading, surface
drainage, and pavement subgrade shall be adhered.
According to HP GeoTech (Attachment 12), the proposed development is not located in an area
where geologic deposits are expected to have unusually high concentations ofradioactive
minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. HP GeoTech
indicated that it is difEcult to assess the potential for future radon gas concenffations in buildings
before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas can be done when the residences and
other occupied structures have been completed.
H. Drainage
Drainage on the subject properfy is address in a Drainage Study compiled by Sopris Engineering
(see Attachment 11 and Sheets 5 and 6 of the drawing set).
According to the study, the overall land slopes to the north. There are several conce,nfration
points where runoffleaves the property. However, of the total nr:rnber of small watershed
basins, only one basin is large in area. Runoff from the largest drainage exits the site near the
northeast corner of the site and then drains into Coulter Creek, approximately 1000 feet to the
east. Due to the position of this site on the landscape, the site is not subject to offsite drainage.
The existing drainage basin areas and discharge point locations will not change as a result of the
development. No residential structures shall be located in natural drainage ways. Based upon
insignificant increase in runoffwith the development of this project, no detention is proposed. In
summary, the report indicates that 1) the results from the dralnage study suggest thaino long-
term, adverse impact to storrnwater drainage are anticipated with the development of the Ranch
at Coulter Creek, 2) onsite peak discharge will not increase measurably with development, 3)
historical drainage patterns will be maintained, and 4) compliance with the Garfield County
Drainage Standards will be adhered.
I. Road/Access
The Comprehensive Plan defines County Road 115 as a road in "good" condition. The proposed
road system within the Subdivision includes a loop road that utilizes two eristing ranch roads
accessing onto County Road 115. The Applicant asserted that based on the anticipated trip
l
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 16
generation and assuming traffic wi1l be distributed in both directions on Cattle Creek Road, the
estimated traffic will be roughly 161 average daily trips (ADT). The rationale for this estimate is
included in the engineering report provided by Sopris Engineering (see Attachment 10). Given
these assumptions, the Applicant indicated that the proposed roads qualiff under the 'oRural
Access" category in the County's Road standards [section 9:30 of the Subdivision Regulations].
The main road, Cattle Creek Ridge, wili be chip-seal surface. The roads are designed without
curb or gutter. The Applicant asserted that no segment of the main road exceeds 10 percort
gade. Though the roads are intended to be private and will be maintained by the homeowrier's
association, a 50 foot right-of-way has been provided in the event the subdivision roads are ever
tumed over to the County. Roads within the subdivision are not considered private. Pursuant to
section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, "All streets are dedicated to the public but all
streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and
maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the
Subdivision " 'llhis shall be reflected in the Protective Covenants.
According to Article VII, subsection 1, of the Protective Covenants, "Primary access to the
subdivision isfrom Garfield County Road 115. The costs of maintaining Red Canyon are shared
by all uses of the road pursuant to a Road Maintenance Agreement recorded in the records of
Garfield County...".
Bobby Branham of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Deparhnent provided comments with
respect to the access to the Subdivision, which were supported by the County Engineer
Departrnent and can be seen in more detailed in Exhibit H. One itern of clarification in Mr.
Branhamos oomments is the requiranurt that "all culverts should be 18 inches or larged'.
Staffnnderstands from Mr. Branham that the 18" culverts mentioned in his letter dated Apil2,
2003,(Exhibit H) related to the entire subdivision, not just where Cattle Creek Ridge Road
intersects with County Road 115. The Drainage Study prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC. for
the project addresses proposed culverts throughout the zubdivision (see Attachment 11). The
proposed culverts vary from 18 inches to 36 inches based on an approximate headwater depth of
1.5 times diameter. According to Mr. Branham, the 12" culverts outlined in the Drainage Study
are adequate. The installation of the culverts through the subdivision shall follow the
recommendations of the Drainage Study dated February 7,z}}3,prepared by Sopris
Engineering,LLC.
Mr. Branhaln indicated that the proposed western entry is in a very undesirable location, due to
poor visibility. Mr. Branham recortmends that this particulax access point should be not used
and that a more suitable site be chosen. Doug Thoe, former Forernan for the Glenwood Springs
Garfietd County Road and Bridge Office, provided comments at Sketch Plan @xhibit I) which
outlined concenm with respect to both access points. Staff understands that the Applicant met
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 17
with Mr. Thoe on site in January to address his concerns. However, no written communication
from Mr. Thoe was received summarizing the agreed upon solutions to the western access point.
Prior to Board of County Commissioners review of this request, the Applicant shall work with
the Garfield County Road and Bridge Departrnent and the County Engineer Departunent to
determine an appropriate solution to the westem access point, The Applicant has worked with
Mr. Branham on the westem entry. Staffunderstands that Mr. Branham is agreeable to the
western entry with some agreed upon improvements.
Cul-de-sacs
Most of the proposed road system length is comprised of the main loop road. However, there are
several spur roads with cul-de-sacs that provide access to the residential lots.
The Applicant noted that the proposed road plan for the Subdivision includes two cul-de-sacs
longer than 600 feet. One of these cul-de-sacs is referred to as Fisher Creek Lane which is
located in the west end of the property and the other is called Saddle Drive and provides access
to the knoll at the south end of the properfy. However, it appears on the plan that Coulter Lane,
which provides access to Lots 23 through 26, is a cul-de-sac which also exceeds 600 feet in
length.
Fisher Creek Lane is roughly 925 feetin length and provides access for three lots (Lots 5, 6 & 7).
Access for Lot 8 utilizes a private driveway that extends roughly 980 feet beyond the end of the
cul-de-sac. The Applicant asserted that Fisher Creek Lane and the private drive exte,nsion were
designed to minimize the amount of irrigated land lost to road construction and to minimize
distr.rbance to steep slopes in the area on the west side of Lots 8 & 9. The proposed road and
private drive follow the alignment of an existing irrigation ditch and loop aror.md an irrigated
meadow. In the event that multiple emergency vehicles were dispatched for an emergency
situation on Lots 6 &7, the terrain along the proposed access road and driveway extsnsion would
allow Emergency vehicles to maneuver during times when there was no snow.
Saddle Drive includes two cul-de-sacs that serve Lots 18,20,21, & 22 and a private drive to Lot
19. The Applicant indicated that the area served by these cul-de-sacs is a large knoll with few
options in terrrs of access road alignments. The Applicant asserted that the road has been
located in a draw that offers the least impactive route to the proposed lots. Due to the orientation
of this draw, only portions of the road shall be visible from few locations. The road has bee,n
designed with the shallowest grade possible given the terrain.
Coulter Lane, the third cul-de-sac, appears to be longer than 600' in length. This cul-de-sac will
serve Lots 23,24,25 &26.
)!
Ranch at coulter 1"r"j,};:ffii;
Boatd: 5119/03
Page 18
Section 9:33 of the Subdivision Regulations outlines the standards for cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs
are limited to 600 feet in length, with a turnaround radius of no less than (45') from the center of
the cul-de-sac to road edge, and 50'right-of-way. "The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs
for topographic reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergeflcy egress and access
is provided as part of the longer design." The Applicant asserted that due to the physical
characteristics ofthe properfy and the conservation objectives ofthe project, cul-de-sacs are
utilized in the road design
The Applicant has been working with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District in
establishing pull-outs throughout the subdivision for emergency vehicles, as well as other
reasonable improvements to the subdivision roads. Preliminary locations for the pull-outs for the
project have been identified on the Revised Subdivision Layout Plan (see Exhibit V). Staff
understands that these puli-out locations will be refined, at the direction of the Fire District, and
included on the Finai Plat. Sheriff Lou Vallario noted that the recommendations from the Fire
Chief will be acceptable to the Sheriffs Deparhnent (see Exhibit X). The Applicant has also
agreed to widen the private driveways serving Lots 3, 8, and 1,9 to aminimum width of 16 feet as
requested by the Fire District.
It appears that the Deed of Conservation Easernent (Attachment 6) for this subdivision does not
include language regarding the right to use the land for emergency access. In Section 3(I),
Permitted Uses, of the Easement agreement, "construction, maintenance, repair and develoBment
of.amenities, roads, utilities and infrastructure'2 is allowed, 'but only to the extent permitted by
and consistent with the Devetopment Approvals." The Applicant has indicated to Staffthat the
Conservation Easerrent does include provisions for ernergency access, as needed.
J.Fire Protection
A portion of the property is located within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District
("Fire Disticf) and a portion is located outside of the Fire Diskict. The Applicant submitted a
petition to expand the District boundaries to include the balance of the properfy within the
bi.tri.t. A copy of the petition has beenincluded within the application as Attachment 13
The Applicant indicated that each of the proposed homes in the subdivision will be equipped
with a sprinkler system for fire suppression. In addition, the project's water system will include
fire hydrants that will provide adequate flow for firefighting pulposes for Lots 11 through 17 arld
23 ttrough 26. Details of the proposed hydrants are shown on Sheet 13 of the Preliminary Plan.
For lots where pressure is not adequate for fuefighting purposes, a minimum 5,000 gallon water
storage tank willbe provided within the approved building envelopes for the lots. This tank will
provide storage for domestic water and will also be fitted with a dry hydrant for fire fighting.
The tanks and dry hydrants will be designed to comply with the specifications required by the
Fire District.
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 19
The Applicant noted that the main water storage tank will be available for firefighting purposes
as needed. This tank will contain 150,000 gallons and will be located on the west end of the
property as depicted on the Preliminary Plan.
The Applicant has been working with the Fire District to resolve some issues prior to the
Carbondale and Rural Fire District Board ("District Board") approving the annexation of the
entire ranch into the Fire Diskicts boundary. A letter from Robert Emerson, attorney
representing the Fire District, noted that the District Board meet on April 23,2003,regarding the
Petition for Inclusion (see Exhibit W). According to Mr. Emerson, at the public hearing on April
23'd,the District Board agreed to the essential issues and conditions of conclusion, and directed
Mr. Emerson to draft a Resolution for their next meeting on May 21,2003. A copy of the
Resolution can also be seen in more detail in Exhibit W.
Mr. Emerson noted that certain issues need to be resolved before the Resolution can be finalized.
These issues include 1) a determination by the District Board and Garfield County regarding
whether the site for the radio repeater antenna is to be granted by way of perpetual, exclusive
easement or conveyed in fee via dedication or general warranty deed, and2) the wildfue haz.afi
mitigation pian ('?ian") needs to be finaiized so that the Fire District is satisfied with the plan
including design of roads within the subdivision and other matters addressed in the plan. A copy
of the Plan, prepared by Crockett and Associates, dated April 23,2003, can be seen in more
detail in Supplemental Exhibit D in Exhibit V.
Incorporated in the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment 7d), are Requirements
for P.rotecting Structures from Wildfire. Construction specifi.cations and defensible space are
required to be met for conskuction within the Subdivision. A reference to the Wildfire Hazard
Mitigatioq Plan and Wildfire HazardAnalysis shall be referenced in the Protective Covenants.
It was recommended by the Planning Commission that the Sheriff s Deparhnent have the
opportunity to comment on the proposed development'(see Exhibit X). SheritrLou Vallario
indicated in his comments that since the Sheriffs Deparffirent does not have real fire-fighting
capabilities, the Fire District would be contacted to assist with any fues within the area of the
ranch. SheriffVallario notes that annexation into the Fire Diskict would en$re the best possible
fire protection for theresidents of the subdivision
According to recent discussions with Mr. Emerson, an easernent for an antennae site is being
established near the top of the knoll on the property, adjacent to Lot 18. This antenna will
improve ernergency radio communication for fue fighters and other emergency personnel in the
surrounding area. Staffunderstards that there is a future possibility of,the Fire Deparhnent
providing co-location for private entities on the antenna site, however, there is no reference in the
amended conservation easement, discussed below, of possible private use of the site.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page20
A *py of the "Amendment To Deed Of Conservation Easement" between AVLT and the
eppiicant to allow for this antennae site within the easement can be seen in Exhibit Y. Staff
understands that the Fire District has had a chance to review this document and has no
objections. However, nothing in writing to this effect has been provided.
The easement for the antenna site and the easement for access shall be delin6ated on the Final
Plat. In addition, an Easement Agreement for the antenna site shall be submitted prior to Final
Plat. The proposed antenna for the Fire District falls under the definition of "Communication
Facility" thich requires a Special Use Permit in the A/R/RD zone district. The co-location of
future private entities on the antenna site shall be addressed in the Special Use Permit
application.
K. Wildlife
The Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW") identified the proper{y as winter range for both
Elk and Mule Deer and severe winter range for Elk. Figures 5 and 6 delineated the mapped
wildlife habitat. The Applicant asserted that the proposed subdivision has been designed to
retain corridors in several locations throughout the property for animal movement. The bulk of
the property has been preserved as common open space. The landowners intend to establish a set
of conservation guidelines, which will be communicated to all property owners within the
development and will be administered by the homeowner's association. These guidelines have
been prepared and incorporated into the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment
7d).
The Applicant indicated that in order to allow animal movernent through the property several
-overrr.nt corridors have been established as part of the site design. One of these corridors is
located between the building envelopes on Lots 7 and 8 along the west side of the proper[y. The
second corridor is located between the building envelopes on Lots 77 and 18. The third corridor
is located to the south of Lots 23 ttrough 26. Andlast corridor which allows animals to move to
and from Coulter Creek is located to the east of the subject properfy.
Comments from Kelly Wood of the Colorado Departrnent of Wildlife, have not been received by
the Planning Departrnent for this Preliminary Plan. Attached to this meurorandum is Ms. .
Wood's letter she provided to staffduring Sketch Plan (see Exhibit J). Below is as summary of
her recommendations:
Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing recommendations.
If hay will be stored on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife out.
The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use dr.ring the winter
months. Dogs shall always be on a leash outside of the house fooprint. The number of
1.
2.
J.
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
PreliminarY Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page2l
dogs per residences should be limited to one. During construction of the residences,
contractors should not be allowed to have dogs on site.
Since cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept indoors at
all times.
CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping &om wildlife.
The homeowner's should install bear-proof dumpsters or trash bins.
Hunting should not be prohibited. The adjacent BLM land is a popular hunting area. The
homeowners should be aware that it is a legal hunting area.
The Applicant is willing to comply with all of the recomrnendations except for Item 7. 'I\e
Applicant feels that there would be significant safety concem if hunting were to be allowed on
thi property. The corlmon open space on the property is intended to be used by residents of the
Subiivision for walking, equestrian and other activities. Hunting on the property would not be
compatible to these activities. Kelly Woods requested that a provision be included in the
Protective Covenants to allow the Colorado Division of Wildlife hunting on the subject property
for the purpose of bear and lion control. The Applicant agreed to this request.
It does not appear that all of these recornmendations from the DOW, except Item7, have been
incorporatea in thr Protective Covenants. The Protective Covenants shall incorporate all the
recommendation wildlife habitat mitigation measures, exce,pt for Item 7.
Vegetation
The Applicant provided a Vegetation Report conducted by Dawn Keating of Wildlife
Management Consulting (see Attachment 9). According to Ms. Keating, the for:r main plant
communities found on the property include: Big Sagebrush, Gambel Oak, Two-Needle Pinyon-
Rocky Mountain Juniper / Gambel Oak / Big Sagebrush and irrigated hay pastures. Big
Sagebrush covers nearly 50% of the property. Garnbel Oak comprises more than2l/o of the
total vegetative cover and is the dominant shrub. Irrigated hay pastures, a man-made
community, is comprised of mixed introduced grass and forb Species that cover approximately
50% of the property.
Ms. Keating noted that there is potential that Henington's Penstemon may occur on the properfy.
This plant is identified as "globally wlnerable" by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Ms.
Keating recommends additional field study to determine whether this plant is present on the
property.
Pursuant to section 4.07 of the Garfield CountyNoxious Weed Managernent Plan, adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners on May 1, 2000, "at the discretion of the Board of County
Commissioners, as part of the Planning and Zoning approval process, for land disturbances
outside of the builiing envelope, the County may require, at preliminary plan and prior to Final
4.
5.
6.
7.
I
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
PreliminarY Plan
Board: 5119103
Page22
P lat, the following items "
A Soil Plan
A Revegetation Plan
A Revegetation Securify (which shall be in an amount to be determined by the Board)
The Applicant indicated that a weed control expert has been contracted to begin the process of
treating existing noxious weeds. Matt Johnson, Roaring Fork Vegetation Management
Compiny, has been retained to implernent a noxious weed control program. The Applicant noted
that weed control will be * ongoirrg project at the Ranch and the services of a weed control
specialist will be paid for out of the Homeowner's Association dues.
SteveAnthony, Garfield County Weed Managernent Director, provided the following cornments
with respect to the proposed Subdivision (See Extribit J):
1. Noxious Weeds:
Inventory and mapping: The Applicant has inventoried the property for vegetation and
does mentior.ro*iolr, weeds, however the information is general and does not provide
specific locations of the County-listed noxious weeds on amap. The Applicant shall
provide a map that would represent these locations.
Weed Managernent: The Applicant has provided a proposal from a contractor for weed
services. il..-Jis infonnation, like the inventory is general, and does not desc:ribe a specific
weed management p1an. A weed managsment plan should be based on a detailed
inventory and provide for follow-up manageme'lrt.
Common area weed management: The Applicant states that the Coulter Ranch
Homeowners Association will implement weed management on the Common Open
Space within the property. It is also stated that the Applicant has made aranganenls
with a local rancher to pirform agricultural operations on the property. If this does not
happen, there could be severe *"id management is$ues on the areas that were previously
used for hay production.
Coverrants: Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article IV,
Section 2. TheApplicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under Article IV,
Section 6. The language should remind each lot owner that it is their responsibility under
the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan to
manage County-listed noxious weeds.
1.
2.
J.
A.
B.
C.
D.
2. Revegetation:
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page23
A. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Managemgnt Plan
calls for the following:
a) Plant material list.
b) Planting schedule.
c) A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
d) A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan.and prior to Final Plat.
Mr. Anthony noted that the Applicant has not provided any of the above items in the Preliminary
Plan application. A map or information shall be provided, prior to Final Plat that quantifies the
are4 in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility
disturbances. This information will help deteimine the amount of security that will be held for
revegetation.
The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation secr.rity is necessary if
the project has:
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds.
A potential to impact watershed areas.
A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors.
Steep slopes (l 5o/o or greater) or unstable areas.
Disturbs large rireas (Half an acre or greater)
The secr:rity shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the Reclarnation Standards in the County Weed Managernent Plan.
The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staffto evaluate the
reclamation prior to the release of the security.
3. Soil Plan:
A. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil Management
Plan that includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed
for a period of 90 days or more.
1)
2)
3)
M.Assessment / F'ees
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
P age24
1. Qtf:Site Road Impact
Regarding haffic generation, the Applicant provided an estimated taffic generation arralysis
based on a total of 26 new single-family residences. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6*
Edition uses 9.57 trips per day per residence. At that rate,26 proposed new residences produce a
totalof 248.82 trips per day. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic
Study Area 11. This area cails for an impact fee payment to Garfield County of $384.00 per
average daily kip (ADT) generated by the subdivision. The Applicant has calculated a total
payment of $3,614.79 per dwelling unit to the County: The final impact fee amount shall be
determined prior to finalization of the Final Plat. Pursuant to section 4:94 of the Subdivision
Reguiationt, SO%of the road impact fees shall be collected at the Final Plat for the Subdivision.
All other road impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
2. Site Acquisition Fee
Pursuant to Section 9.80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners
may seek land or cash-in-lieu of land for parks and I or schools during the subdivision review
process when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future
residents.
The property is located with the RE-1 School District. Pursuant to Section 9:81 of the
Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners may require a developer of
residential housing to make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land. The Applicant has
provided a fee calculation for the proposed project on pagg 16 of the application. The Applicant
has calculated the fee for the project to be $5,159.81. The final School Site A.cquisition Fee shall
be determined prior to the finalization of the Final Plat. No comments from the RE-l School
District were received.
J.Open Space
The proposed subdivision will rezult in the permanent preservation of approximately 303 acres of
agricultr.ral land and open space identified as "Common Open Space". The common open space
willbe owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. In addition, all development
and landscaping on the proposed lots will be limited to the building envelopes shown on the
Preliminary Plans. Since the building envelopes contain approximately 5l acres, the other 104
acres contained in the proposed lots will remain in essentially its curent state. Nearly 84 percent
of total acreage (approximately 400 acres) willbe preserved as open space.
The subject properfy is also located immediately adjacent to a large area of public lands owned
by BLM. The Fisher Creek Special Management Area, which is part of the BLM lands, abuts the
property on the west and includes tails open for pubtic use.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5l|9l03
Page25
A trail system has been planned for the common open space. The preliminary alignment ofthe
kail system is depicted on the Illustrative Site Flan and the Preliminary Plan. For the most part,
the trail system will be located within the easements for the private roads or within the Common
Open Space.
The Applicant has delineated eight (8) Open Space Tracts throughout the Subdivision (Tracts A
- H). Six of these tracts arc greater than2 acres in size and can retnain "Open Space Tracts".
However, Tracts B and C are less than} acres. The creation of lots / tracts less than 2 acres in
size violates the County's minimum lot size requirement in the A / R / RD zone district.
Therefore, these 2 lots will need to be reconfigured to increase the lot size to a minimum of 2
acre or eliminated.
N. Phasing of the Development
The Applicant indicated that all infrastructure improvements will be constructed in a single
phase.
o.Additional Comments:
Exhibit T, a letter ftom James Petersoq an adjacent property owner, to Marttra Cochran of
AVLT, was inadvertently not distributed to the Planning Commissioners on April 9, 2003. Mr.
Peterson did address the concerns outlined in his letter to the Commissioners. Since this letter is
relevant to the project, a copy has been attached to this mernorandum.
Exhibit Z is adraft copy of the minutes from the April 9, zll3,Planning Commission meetin!.
Homeowner's Association Documents: The Applicant has provided draft copies of the following
Homeowner'S Association documents:
1.Articles of Incorporation of Ranch at Coulter Creek Homeowner's Association
(Attachment 7a)
Bylaws of the Ranch at Coulter Creek Homeowner's Association (Attachment 7b)
Subdivision Improveme,nts Agreement for Ranch at Coulter's Creek Subdivision
(Attachment 7c)
Declaration of Protective Covenants for Ranch at Coulters Creek Subdivision
(Attachment 7d)
Architectural Guidelines: Although the County does not have regulations for architectural type
guidelines, the Applicant indicated that arehitectural guidelines are being developed to address
the uppear*ce and fuirction of structures ou the property. The Applicant noted that the
2.
J.
4.
I.
2.
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page26
guidelines will include recortmendations for "green" architecture. No plan to instail street
lighting of any kind is proposed on the Ranch. The Applicant noted that iandscape lighting for
individual residences will be addressed in the architectural guidelines and in the covenants.
PLA}INING COMMISSION FINDINGS :
That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before
the Planning Commission;
That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard atthathearing;
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, orde,r, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County;
That the application is in conformance with the 1.978 Garfteld County ZontngResolution,
as amended;
That the application is in conforTnance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
of 1984, as amended
PLANNING COMMISISON RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission forwarded arecommendation APPROVAL to Board of County
Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Preliminary
Plan, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Note: The conditions of approval below that have been'stricken, in staffs opinion, have been
addressed by the Applicant. The underlined changes to the conditions of approval below are
recommendations of Staff with explanation of the changes in italics.
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at ttre public
hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically
altered by the Planning Commission.
3,
4.
5.
2.The Applicant shall include in the Protective Covenants for the Subdivision the
following:
A. The view Shed Setback Line for Lots I !,'!.2,13, 14, 15 & 16 shall be addressed.
B. The following wildlife habitat mitigation measures shall be incorporated:
1
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
PreliminarY Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page27
Fencing shall be kept to aminimum and follow the CDOW fencing
recofirmendations.
If hay wil1be stored on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife
out.
The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use during
the winter months. Dogs shali always be on a leash outside of the house
footprint. The number of dogs per residences should be limited to one.
During construction of the residences, contractors should not be allowed to
have dogs on site.
Since .utt *. a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept
indoors at all times
CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping from wildlife.
The homeownetr's should install bear-proof dumpsters or frash bins.
The CDOW shall be allowed on the property for the purpose of bear and lion
control. Hunting in this circumstance only shall be allowed.
Reference or incorporate the Wildfu'e Hazard Mitieation Plan and Wildfire
Hazard Analysis . Tithe Wild@ Hazard Mitigation Plan and Wildffi Hazard
Analysis should be referenced or incorporated within the Covenants.
11.
111.
1V.
v.
vi.
vii.
v111.
J.The following geologic hazwdmitigation measures shall be adhered:
A. The recommendations by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ("IIP GeoTech")
outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study for the Subdivision dated February
28,2003, [Job No. 103 115] shall be adhered. These Preliminary Design
Recommendations include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, under-drain
syste,m, site grading, surface drainage and pavernent subgrade.
be loeated approxknately 150 feet frem the lardslideboundar delforcated on ligrres
1*; 18; and l€ of the frelkr*rary Geoteehffred Sh#y eondueted by IF GeoTeett
e, frior to&e Board of €ounry €ormnissioaers review; a slope stability andysis shall be
il
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page28
eondireed kr the area of Lots 18; 19; 20;21 & 22; e ensure that the proposed buildinE
eensm*e#e*
18; 19; 20; and 21, The loeation of buildings or sther movement sensitive faeilities
Pretiminary €eetee
ffi
In addition to the drain systerns for foundations recommended by HP GeoTech, due
to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around
foundations. Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from sattrating the
soils and thus reduce the over potential for expansion or consolidation.
Due to the possible presence of radon gas in the area, testing for radon gas shall be
done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Garfield County Road and
Bridge Departrnent, dated April 2,2003, exce,pt for internal culverts which shall comply with the
recommendations outlined in the Drainage Report prepared by Sopris. Engineering ?LLC. dated
February 7,2003. I'rior te Board of eoruttr* eoannissioners review; the \pPlieant shdl work
wtth *re Itoad and Bridge Deparmrent and eetntty Engheer to deterntkre an appropriirte solution
obby Branham, Garfield County Road and
Bridge Department, is agreeable with the western access point with adiustments
the+inalPta* Prior to Final Plat submiual. the Applicant shall finalize. with thp Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection Diskict. the locations forpull-outs for emereency vehicles. These pull-outs
shall be delineated on the Final Plat. This recommended change reflects the recent work the
Applicant has donewith the Fire District to designate appropriate pull-outs throughout the
subdivision to accornmodate the cul-de-sacs that exceed 600 feet in length.
E.
F.
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
PreliminarY Plan
Board: 5119103
Page29
6. The roads / streets sha1l comply with the "Rural Access" standards outlined in section 9:30 of
the Subdivision Regulations.
7. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, all streets / roads within the
subdivision shall be dedicated to the public. Repair and maintenance of these roads shall be the
responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the Subdivision.
8, frior to*re Board of eounty €ormnissioners review; the f,,pplieant shdl subldt a eoFY of
g. , Prior to the recording of the Final
P1at. the Applicant shall provide a written approval of the final determination by the Carbondale
and Rural Fire Protection pistrict regardinjtie annexation of the property in to the Fire Distict'
as well as the court order to include the property within the District. .This recommended change
atternpts to deal with a "Catch-22". Staffunderstands that the Fire District Boardwill not
opprir" the annexation of the property in the District, until the County has granted Final Plat
approval to the subdivision. Upon approval of the subdivision by the County, the Fire District
iiil opprore the aranexation thiougi i Resolution of approvat (see Exhibit W), at which point the
Fire
-District
will petition the ,ori to include the property within the District as required per
CRS i2-1-401(t)(c)0.
10. Prior to installation of an antenna(s) for the pr:rpose of improving emergency radio
communication for fire fighters and other emergency personnel, the Applicant, Fire Diskict or
designated entity shall obtain a Special Use Permit with the County.
11. An Easement Agreement shall be submitted at the time of Final Plat for the antenna site.
adiacent to Lot 18.
12. The Applicant shall provide the following weed management information for review and
approval Uy ttre Cameld County Weed Management Director frior to the submittal of Final Plat: I
A. Noxious Weeds:
i. Inventory and mapping: The Applicant shall provide a map that represent specific
locations of County-listed noxious weeds on the property.
entities.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 30
Weed Managernent: The Applicant shall provide a weed management plan
should be based on a detailed inventory and provide for follow-up management.
Common area weed management: The Coulter Ranch Homeowners Association
will implement weed management on the Common Open Space withil the
properly. In addition, ilrangements have been made with a local rancher to
poior- agricultural operations on the property. If weed managernent does not
o.r* oo tI. properfy, there could be severe weed management issues on the areas
that were prwiously used for hay production. The Applicant shall address this
issue.
Covenants: Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article
fV, Section 2. The Applicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under
Article IV, Section 6. The language should remind each lot owner that it is their
responsibility under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County
Weed Management Plan to manage County-listed noxious weeds.
B. Revegetation:
i. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed
Management Plan calls for the following:
ii.
111.
1V.
a).
b)
c)
d)
Plant material list.
Planting schedule.
A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building
envelopes)
A revegetation bond or security shall be detennined at+reliminanr+laa A
Final Plat and paid prior to Final Plat submittal.
11.
C.
Prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide a map or information that
quantifies the are4 in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded
on road cut and utility disturbances.
Soil Plan:
i. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil
Management Plan that includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregatepiles.
a)
b)
t)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 31
c) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
13. The property is located within the RE-l School District. The Applicant shall pay the
School l,ana Oiaication Impact Fee or pay cash-inlieu of that land dedication which shall be
due at the time of Final Plat submittal. .Ihe total impact fee amount shall be determined prior to
the subrnittal of the Final Plat.
14. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic Study Area 11. The
total impact fee payment shall be determined prior to Final Plat. The fee shall be calculated in
accordance to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations. Fifty percent (50%) ofthe road
impact fees shall be collected at the submission of Final Plat for the Subdivision. A11 other road
impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
15. The following additional information shall be.delineated on the Final Plat:
A. The View Shed Setback Line along the west side of Lots 11,12,13,14,15 and 16.
The Landslide Boundary and the evaporate deformation faults.
Tracts B and C shall eliminated or recbnfigured to increase the lot size of these tacts
to a minimrm of 2 acres.
The fiqal locations for the pull-outs for emereency vehicles.
The easernent for the Fire District antenna site ard access to the site.
16. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
A. Building permit applications for each lot shall include plans and specifications for an
onsite wastewater treatrnent systern. Each system shall be designed by a State of
Colorado registered engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County
Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) regulations before abuilding permit will
be issued. The type, size and location of each individual on-site wastewater syste,l4
B.
C.
F.
G.
C.
B.
D.
F.
G.
H.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03'Page32
(OWS) will be site-specificbased on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design
criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. The soil
absorptionidisiersal systems should be located within the building envelope on each
lot as identified on the Final Plat.
Historical drainage pattems shall be maintained on the properfy. No structures or
uses shall be located within the natural drainage way on the property.
Development on 4OYo slopes or gleater is prohibited on the lots.
Swelling soils, clay and claystone, are present on the site. Appropriate mitigation
may be necessary to build on a lot.
A11 exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward, towards the interior of the 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 residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries.
No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption.
One (t; new solid-fuel buming stove as defi.ed by C.R.S. 25-7'401, et. seq., and the
regulations promulgated there under, will be allowed in any dwelling unit' All
dwelling rxrits will be allowed an unrestricted nr.unber of natr.ral gas bunring stoves
and appliances.
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
ranching secior. All *rtib. prepared to encounter noises, odor,lights, mud, dust,
smoke chernicals, machineryon public roads, livestock on public roads, storage'and
disposal of manure, and the appiication by spraying or otherwise of che'rnical
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.
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 r.rnder contol, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining prop€rty.
Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and
)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 33
responsibilities and act 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.
17. Prior to Final Plat, the water augmentation plan shall be approved by the water court and
the State Engineer Office. In addition, prior to submission of Final Plat, the Applicant shall
provide approved well permits for each well in place with the physical adequacy of the water
source proven up.
STA.F'F" S RECOMMEIIDA.TION
Staffrecommended that the Garfield County Planning Commission recommend denial to the
Garfield Cor.rrty Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch
at Coulter Creek Preliminary Plan for the following reasons:
Division of Water Resources cannot determine if there is "material injury to decreed
water rights", therefore the Applicant has not demonstrated a legal and adequate source of
water pursuant to Section 4:91(4.) of the Subdivision Regulations;
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed longer cul-de-sacs can provide
adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access, pursuant to Section 9:33 of the
Subdivision Regulations; and
The wildfuehazardmitigation plan has not been approved by the Carbondale and Rural
Fire Protection District and the Garfield County Sheriffs Deparhnent.
Staff continues to maintain that the Applicant has not dernonstated a legal and adequate source
of water pursuant to Section 4:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations, since the Division of Water
Resources cannot determined if there is "material injury to decreed water rights", which will be
deted'nined upon approval of the Augmentation Plan.
Items 2 and 3 have been addressed and in stafPs opinion rue no longer issues.
1)
2)
3)
Garfield County
Road and Bridge, District 1
7300 Hwy 82, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
97A-945-L223 ph' 945-1318 fax
Date: 12-04-03
To: Fred Jarman
Re: Coulter Creek Ranch
From: Bobby Branham
The Road and Bridge dept. does not have any opposition to the proposed gating of
the entances of Coulter Creek Ranch.
BobbyBranham
&66j2/
District I
Road and Bridge
12/10/2003 03.20 FAX ST0 345 0833 IO iIALLOY CONSULTING
M;:r
=. l-"! -.n13 L.i @
3H t=f fiiE PII E
EI *EF f;ei 3[i Fxa FEr *p,s o;: !tr
E Tg BB5d.=E{i ii\.\i:\'t
ilie'
dt g g* fls-ir € ;q ;Eg B .gB g!i r -e -F
E gr
==o-8aooE i 56*,atge6'u6E'Et.6IEE
$3f,+
J.. I
I\9A
-
ogt
s
=-ma
s
Ic
3
=D'!q
c]Aoo
['otEq
*aoEDa
E
lcr_
.9
E
'
;^!,
,C,o u .l tc t
(t,
o
(D
oos
FISHER CREEK AREA
(Haff Pasture)
ThiS Area ircludes aboul l,O4O acres ol land
aoquired by the BLM lrorn the Crystal River Fanch
Company-lhrdugh a land orchange in July, 1995.
The area neidhbors cnher puHic hrds alor6
Catlle Creek, and wilt help ptotect important d6er
and elk habital end other open spaee vaft.rcs. The
oroperly is open to puuic tgcr€daonal use under
crial Management Area tedrictions lo plolecl
Iile habitat. Uses and activilies allowed
include suoh non-motorized aclivilies as canpirrg,
picnicking, hi king, horseback riling, rnotartain
bicycling and hunting. Access to the area is
auailable lmrn County Road 115 and Gourrty Road
113.
Nble: Olher public lands orlsiie ol the Fisher
Creek Area are subiecl to general rules lor public
land, and are nol subiect to the Special
Managemenl Area use reslnctions.
VISITOR USE ETHICS '
Wilhh ail Pl6/lic lands-.-a lG.p Ana Cloan, padr orrt al tr6tr and
lilar,
I Use sclf conlglrcd lofl€ts. or bury human
flaste ;i liesf 2OO ll.awry tronr recreation
siles, roads, tails and all water sdrrces.
O Gamp affiiy fiohr ruaiel sourc€s ard avoid
blockirq mads or lrats-
O Camplire must be ertinguibhed before
leavirq it tnatlended. Buld lire on slb,ve, grill,
fireplace or ring in an ama free oI flarrnable
rnakriallo prevefl ils escape.
O Shooting fireanns orarry otheru6pon
ercrclss or wihin 50 lt. d a prbfic mad is
pmhbiled.
O Rcspecl thc land rd fhe raghls of olhsl
vislors.
a Stty on publb land, privale tandlb not
open lo prblic use withorrt the landowneds
pennissbn
Cartlon: The road lrom Cattle Greck noilh alorg
the powerline is sleep and ough, adpassable
or{y ry high cleararrce 4WD or O[ Highway
Vehicla. ll may be impass*le when wetl
For Furthrr lntormation Gontact:
Btreau cf Land Management
50629 Highvray 6 & 24; P.O. Box lO09
Glenuood Spnngs, CO 81601
(s701 947-2ss,
n-
Department of the lntBrior
Bureau of Lard Managdmenl
Glermood Springs Besource Area'
(Rav.9/95),
c3
H
F)
ti
=o
CJ
J
J
6
F
so
coo
(,
?
O
F
fl
L!
1
CDo
C{
o
c{
J
In Gaseof Emcrgrncry:
Fire, Ambulance
GarlieH County Sherifi
91t
945-9151
Opntlwt tuneTrrbt
You can hah stop gama poachlng!
Call t{OG332{1 55 (Statearlde)
SPECIAL MANAGENilENT AHEA
USE RESTRICTIONS
Wlttin lhe Fishq Cr*kArs..-
I All motorized vehic.le usc is proh0bited
year rourd, irrcluding snpyurnobiles, exces on
the Fisher Creek Cernetery Road.
O Non-motorized mechanized vehicle use,
irrluding mountain bicrycles, is allowed on
islinq lrails but not allowed oll the rods arrd
Non-motorized meclranized vehicle rrse is
prohibited during the winter Imm Decenrber 1
lo April30.
I Cross counlry skiing is prohbited,
t Dogs are nol allowed in the area dudng lhe
winter Jrom December 1 to AprilSO.I Carnping along the Fisher Cemetery Road
.and within 2OO n.flom water eources b'prohibited.
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Tamara Pregl
Steve Anthony
Ranch at Coulter Creek
October 15,2003
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Noxious \ileeds
The applicant has addressed my prior concerns specified in my March 25,2003 memo to
you. The inventory, Weed Management Plan, and change in covenant language are all
acceptable. The Weed Management Plan actually goes beyond what the County would
require the applicant to manage, as it identifies six species (absinth wormwood,
bouncingbet, sulfur cinquefoil, common tansy, cheatgrass, bindweed) that are not on the
County's Noxious Weed List.
Staff recommendation:
I would encourage the applicant to fully implernent this plan and follow the
recommendations as outlined in the Plan. This would include the management of non-
County listed noxious weeds as stated in the Plan. This property is high in agricultural
and ecological values, this Managernent Plan reflects that. It is important that this Plan
serve as a ternplate for future weed management on the property and not merely serve as
a mechanism to satisfr County requirernents and promptly be cast aside.
The State Weed Law and Garfield County Weed Management provide us with
enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the proposed Weed Management Plan
followed.
Revesetation
The applicant has addressed all of my eadier revegetation comments. The applicant
has stated that approximately 55 acres will need to be reseeded.
Staffrecommendation:
Staffrecommends a revegetation security in the amount of $110,000 based on a rate of
$2,000 per acre for 55 acres.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed Management Plan Reclamation
Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff
to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security.
SoiI PIan
The applicant has addressed these concerns.
Rare plant occurrences
In Attachment 9, page 4, of the February 2003 Preliminary Plan Application the applicant
states that the rare plant Harrington's pensternon may be found in nearby areas. It
doesn't state specifically that the plant is found on the property. On page 5 the applicant
states that "the occurrence of this species in surrounding areas...justifies additionalfield
study during the summer to see if this plant is present on the property".
Staff is raising the question; did the Jield study take place?
If the plant is found on potential building sites I believe it is a topic worthy of discussion
to see if there are solutions to mitigate impacts to Harrington's penstemon as the
applicant did represent that a field survey was forthcoming.
This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an 53 by the Colorado Natural
Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is
"vulnerable through its range orfound locally in a restricted range (21 to 100
occurences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known to be only in 37
locations centered around Edwards in Eagle County.
As an attachment, I have included the section from the CNHP's Roaring Fork Yalley
Biological Inventory Q997) that discusses this issue in the Missouri Heights area.
Attachment: Roaring Fork Yalley Biological Inventory Q997), pg. I 14
The above revisions should support the goals stated in the last half of Article L
PURPOSE OF COVENANTS, beginning with "It is the purpose of this Declaration to
create rules and a decision making process to strengthen iheiommunity, to preserve the
present natural beauty, character and views of the Subdivision to the gieatejt extent
reasonably possible, and to protect the Lots as much as possible withiespect to uses,
structures, landscaping and general development.,,
Clearer guidelines for exterior surfaces should foster a desirable compatibility ofexterior surfaces of structures within the subdivision without restricting architectural
design and creativity. The additional protection of the rural chara.t". Jf thi, agriculturalvalley as well as structures within this development should have a overall posltire resultfor Ranch at Coulter Creek homeowners. The abovementioned guidelines should create a
more appropriate and responsible statement of the vision for this development as
expressed by Snowmass Land company and Aspen valley Land Trust.
We trust our suggestions will be considered in the Covenants submitted with thefinal plat. Thank you for your continued goal to make this a better development.
Sincerely,
James Peterson, general partner
Coulter Creek Valley Ranch, LLLP
cc. Aspen Valley Land Trust
Garfield County Planning Department t/
Garfield Coun$
BT]ILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 7,2003
Kerry Sundeen
Grand River Consulting Corporation
710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek water supply
Dear Mr. Sundeeru
On June 2,2113,the Board of County Commissioners approved the Preliminary Plan forRanch
at Coulter Creek, a subdivision locatid west of the interiection of County Road 115 and Cattle
creek Road on Missouri Heights. As part of the Preliminary Plan approv{, the following
conditions regarding water GpfV *uJupptou.d by the Board of County Commissioners,
The Board of County Commissioners accepts the recommendation of the State Engineer's
ffice detaited in the Mry, 29, 2003, tettei of Kenneth Knox. Prior to Final Plat
aiproral, the ipplicant siall provicle the Countywith a copy of afinal-Water Court
Dicrrr yo, the pianfor augmintationfor the Subdiv*ion as stated in the letter dated May
29, 21yjfriiin ipg o/the State ingineer. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the
Applicant shall priiide tie County witi copies of approved well permitsfor eachwell
which is to be pbt of the water sipply tyti*. i" ilri event that the Applicant intends to
drill additionit *rttr, or dffireniiells,- than those which hwe already been pump tested
andfound to proriai an aiequate wate:r supply by the Zancanella and Associates' report
now in the record, then, as part of the finif itaiapproval procesr the Applicant slwll
provide test results which dt*ontt rte, to either tlw ffice of the St1tl Engineer or to a
private consultant retained by the County ot th9 expense of the-Applicant' that such
additional or dffirent wells will providi an adequate physical supply ofwatgr to the
-
Subdivision. fne .eppticont agries to pay for thi services of a private consultant to the
Board of County Commissionbrs to review the Zancanella and Associates' report
regarding otiiiay drilled wells should the State Engineer ryt cl1ltQ its lack of comments
oi the piysical idequacy of the water supply in the May 29, 2003, letter.
The Applicant has requested that County obtain the services of a consultant to review the
Zancarcllaand Associates' report r.g*dirrg the drilted wells since the State Engineer haq not
provided ro**.ot, orrtt. physical.a"qr*V ofthe water supply for the Su$ivision'
108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(g70) 945-8212 (970) 255-7972 Fax: (970) 384-j470
Sincerely,
TamaraPregl
Senior Planner
Sundeen
Page2
It is my understanding from Mark Bean that the 'Agreement for Needed Engineering Services,will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for signatrne on Minday, lugust 11,
?093. I am taking the liberty of forwarding you the Zancarrcllaand Associates, Inc. report dated
February 4,2003, and a supplemental report-dated February 18,2004. I have also attached theletter fromthe State Engineer's office dated MrayZg,ZOCB:
Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.