Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.05.2002Exhibits for Blue Creek Ranch PUD Public Hearing held on August 5, 2002 Exhibit Letter Exhibit • . %-. - -., --_,L,------,: _ _-• -7.,7.- , „ , _.„-- A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations F Staff Memorandum G Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Application" II Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Appendices" Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Site Plan Development "Sheets" booklet produced by Sopris Engineering J Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from David Horn, Inc, dated June 25, 2002 K Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated June 24, 2002 L Letter from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering, LLC to Glen Hom dated June 17, 2002 M Email to Kim Schlagel from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department dated May 17, 2002 N Referral Comments from Jim Sears of the Garfield County SheriffDepartment dated June 6, 2002 0 Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated June 13, 2002 Referral Comments from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. dated June 5, 2002 Letter to the Garfield County Planning Commissioner from James M. Mindling representing the St. Finnbar Homeowner's Association dated June 5, 2002 R Letter from Janet Buck of the Town of Carbondale to the Garfield Planning Commission dated May 31, 2002 S Letter from Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District to Kim Schlagel dated May 15, 2002 T Letter to the Garfield County Planning Dept. from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated May 6, 2002 U Letter to Kim Schlagel from Celia Greenman of the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology dated May 16, 2002 V Letter to Kim Schlagel from Justin Martens of the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated May 13, 2002 Memorandum to Kim Schlagel from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department Y Letter to Kim Schlagel from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated May 22, 2002 Letter to Mr. Beck from Ken Jacobson of the Army Corps of Engineers dated April 10, 2002 AA Letter to Glen Horn from Sopris Engineering dated June 3, 2002 BB Letter to Kim Schlagel from Tom. Zancanella of Zancanella & Associates dated June 4, 2002 CC Letter to Glen Horn of Davis Horn, Inc. from Kim Schlagel dated June 6, 2002 DD Letter to Mark Bean from Tim Beck of Zancanella & Associates dated January 8, 2002 EE Letter to Rob Cumming from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering dated September 7, 2000 Letter to Fred Jarman of Garfield County Planning Department from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated June 28, 2002. GG Letter from Fred Jarman to Tim Beck of Zancanella & Associates dated June 2 8, 2002. HH Matrix of Proposed PUD Uses and Dimensional Requirements 1Q Letter from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering to Glenn Hom dated June 17, 2002 JJ Letter from Glenn Horn to Kim Schlagel of the Garfield County Planning Department dated April 12, 2002 - lE Letter to Mark Bean of Garfield County Planning Department from Bill Gavette, Deputy Fire Chief of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District dated June 29, 2002 LL Letter from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering to Glen Horn dated July 8, 2002 MM. Fax from Jim Mindling to Fred Jarman dated July 9, 2002 NN Fax Letter from Dan Missey to Planning Commission and Planning Department dated July 9, 2002 00 Email Letter to Fred Jarman and the Planning Commission from Marilyn Mann dated July 9, 2002 PP Letter to Fred Jarman i Planning Commission from Susan Hunke, executive director of the Mountain Regional Housing Corporation dated July 10, 2002 QQ - Position Paper submitted by Lion's Ridge Estates HOA dated July 10, 2002 RR Rendering of second Entrance as viewed from St. Finnbar produced by WindRiver dated July 10, 2002 SS Blue Creek PUD presentation materials as presented by Glenn Horn for WindRiver dated July 10, 2002 - TT Planning Commission Resolution approving the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 1J1J Letter from Sopris Engineering to Garfield Planning Department dated July 12, 2002 VV Flood Plain Special Use Application submitted by Zancanella & Associates dated July 17, 2002 WW Letter regarding Roaring Fork River Analysis provided by Zancanella & Associates dated July 24, 2002 XX Onsite Wastewater System Design Report with Technical Specifications for Blue Creek Ranch prepared by Church & Associates, Inc on February 8, 2002 VY Letter from Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District to the Garfield Planning Department dated June 29, 2002 ZZ Letter regarding Roaring Fork River Analysis provided by Zancanella & Associates dated July 30, 2002 REQUEST: • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary Plan review for the Blue Creek Ranch to include: 1) Planned Unit Development 2) Subdivision (Preliminary Plan), and 3) Floodplain Special Use Permit DATE: August 5, 2002 (Public Hearing) APPLICANT: WindRiver Development, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn, Inc LOCATION: 3220 County Road 100 ("Catherine Store Road") SITE / ZONING: 81.33 acres / A/R/RD I. PROJECT SUMMARY The Applicant requests land use approvals to develop the Blue Creek Ranch which is located at the intersection of County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road) and Highway 82. Specifically, the proposal includes subdividing the 81 acre site into 49 residential lots ranging from 5,000 sq. ft. to 5 acres, of which, nine (9) units shall be deed -restricted affordable housing units. All lots will tie into central water and wastewater systems. In addition to the residential uses, the development proposes approximately 49 acres of common open space, a bike trail, and a park and ride facility to be adjacent to County Road 100 and Hwy 82, and public river access. • • II. LAND USE REQUESTS In order to accomplish this proposed development, the Applicant requests the following land use approvals. It should be noted, the Board of County Commissioners are to make determinations on the PUD, Subdivision (Preliminary Plan), and Special Use Permit requests as outlined below. The decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan from low to high density residential has already been made by the Planning Commission and is not part of the pending decisions before the Board. I) Rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) The Applicant proposes to rezone the property from its current zoning of A.IRJRD to PUD in order to modify the dimensional requirements and uses of the zone district for the subject site. Staff has provided a matrix (see Exhibit HH) that compares the dimensional requirements under the existing zoning to what the Applicant proposes through this PUD. In effect, the PUD zoning will reestablish the zoning parameters for this site specific development. Subdivision (Preliminary Plan Review) The Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into ten (10) tracts that contain a variety of uses. Primarily, the property will be subdivided into 49 residential lots. Other portions of the site and their proposed uses are shown in the matrix below: Proposed Land Use Acres %A of Property 49 Residential Lots (Total area) 26.149 32% Common Open Space Conservation Easement (19 ac.) Agricultural Use on Tract 3 (16 ac.) Tract 41 Pond Area (12 ac.) 49.091 60% Public Open Space 1 Park 2.249 3% Utilities & Parking Zone 3.844% Total 81.333 100% 3) Floodplain Special Use Permit The southern most portion of the property is located in the 100 -year floodplain which includes areas defined as flood fringe and flood way of the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant is proposing to construct approximately 11 single-family dwellings in the flood fringe and two small road sections and an outfall / discharge structure for the wastewater treatment plan within the delineated flood way. As such, the Applicant is required to obtain a Special Use Permit allowing construction of these improvements related to the subdivision within the floodplain. IIL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Blue Creek Ranch PUD 1 Preliminary Plan request on July 10, 2002. As a result of that meeting, the Planning Commission took the following action: 1. The Commission approved an amendment (by a 7 to 0 vote) to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use District for the subject property from Low Density 2 • Residential (10+ ac/DU) to High Density Residential (<2 ac/DU). Staff has included the Resolution memorializing this action as Exhibit T'T); and 2. The Commission recommended approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners for the PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan requests by a 7 to 0 vote. The conditions of approval as recommended by the Commission are included at the end of this Memorandum. IV. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Section 4.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations states "no PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master / Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned above, the Commission amended the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use District Map for the subject site from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Asa result, Staff finds the proposed density of the project (1.6 acres per dwelling unit) generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use District Map. In addition, Staff finds the proposed development generally conforms to the applicable policies of the Plan in the following ways: • Protecting visual corridors by preserving existing agricultural uses on the north end of the site (existing pasture lands along HW 82); Proposing creative cluster -type site design for residential lots in an effort to preserve the site's open space and mature vegetation (sensitive to unique site characteristics); > Provision of deed -restricted affordable housing (9 units or 18% of the total units); Providing more than adequate open space (approximately 54 acres or 68% of the development); • Placing a conservation easement on environmentally sensitive areas and donating it to a local land trust; > Providing an improved "park and ride" area for the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA); • Improving and donating a public park for river access to the Roaring Fork River; and A Providing a bike and pedestrian trail from the site to the improved park and ride for improved access to mass transit. The proposed development also generally complies with the Garfield County Maps that delineate potential hazard areas or constraints to the property. Specifically, the property is located on CR 100 which is delineated as a good road in the County Road profile. The site contains no slope hazards, and has a low wildfire hazard. The maps do indicate the site constraints include septic constraints due to a high water table in the area and the property is partially located in the 100 - year floodplain which includes sensitive riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River. However, the Applicant proposes to effectively mitigate these site constraints in the following ways: 1) Septic Constraints: The Applicant proposes to construct an on-site wastewater treatment system that has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment negating the need for individual septic systems and associated leach fields which would impact ground water sources due to the high water table which effectively mitigates the sites septic constraints. 3 • • 2) Floodplain Areas: With the exception of two road sections and the wastewater outflow structure, the Applicant designed the residential component in such a way as to avoid development in the flood way. However, the Applicant proposes to construct 11 residential building envelopes in the flood fringe which is allowed provided the finished floors of those dwellings are constructed at 1 foot above the 100 -year floodplain. The Applicant has proven the development in the floodplain will not effect base flood elevations in a 100 -year event. The Applicant is placing the southern portion of the site (located in the floodplain including the riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River) in a perpetual conservation easement to be donated to a local conservation land trust. Regarding the proposed density, the Planning Commission found the subject property and proposed development generally conforms to the methodology used to determine suggested land uses in this area. In short, the proposed development (a high density proposal) is consistent with the methodology used by Garfield County to determine future land uses in Study Area 1. Further, the Planning Commission officially approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan suggested density of the property from low to high density residential. As a result, the proposed density requested is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. REFERRAL AGENCIES A. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comment received B. Town of Carbondale: The assistant town planner responded to the application with concerns regarding the proposed septic system and requested that the system be operated and maintained by a certified wastewater treatment plant operator rather than a HOA. See Exhibit R. C. Carbondale Fire District: Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, responded to this application with comments regarding access, water supply, and impact fees. Please see attached letter, see Exhibit S. The District also commented that they would be able to cross the road section of Bristlecone Drive in the event of a 100 -year flood (See Exhibit YY). D Colorado Division of Water Resources: Kenneth Knox, Assistant State Engineer responded to this application with comments regarding application efficiency of water use inputs, water depletion rate of the sewer treatment system, and irrigation water rights. Overall, it is of the opinion of the DOWR that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate. Additionally, the DOWR has pointed out that the use of irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval ofa change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. See attached letter, see Exhibits T and K. E. Colorado Geological Survey: Celia Greenman, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water detention, culverts, and quality assurance that the proposed finished floor elevations will meet FFIP specifications. Overall, CGS recommends approval of the development be contingent upon a revision of the 1999 flood plain study and drainage report. See attached letter, see Exhibit U. F. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Comments indicated that the plans for the 4 • driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. The Applicant will have to obtain new access permits for the additional road cuts on CR 100, see Exhibit P. G. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Justin Martens, District Wildlife Manager, responded to the application with recomrnendations to minimize impact on wildlife in regards to domestic animals, fencing, bears, trash removal, maintaining existing vegetation, and the control of noxious weeds. See attached letter, Exhibit 1'. H. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Director, responded to the application with noxious weed concerns. Steve is requests the applicant provide a map and inventory of any Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property. Additionally, it is requested that the Applicant provide a weed management plan for any noxious weeds found on the property, and that the Applicant should provide a revegetation bond to the County for the amount of land area to be disturbed. See attached memo, Exhibit X. I. Garfield County Sheriff, Jim Sears: The Sheriffs Office commented that the width, length, and tum-arounds of roads need to be compatible with emergency response equipment. In addition, addresses should be legible from all roads. (See Exhibit N.) J. Sopris Engineering: Sopris Engineering provided Staff with an analysis indicating that the overall result per the design of placing reflector poles along the sides of the roadways within the 100 -year flood plain will not increase the depth of flow in the floodway at the road crossing. (See .Exhibit UU). K. AT&T Broadband: No comment received. L. Qwest Communications: No comment received. M. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comment received. N. Holy Cross Electric: No comment received. 0. KN Energy: No comment received. P. Garfield County Housing Authority: No comment received. VI. STAFF COMMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan As discussed above, the overall proposed density for this development is one (1) dwelling unit per 1.6 acres which is consistent with the newly amended Comprehensive Plan's proposed density for the area in the Comprehensive Plan of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit. In addition, Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Water Supply The Applicant proposes to access domestic and fire protection water from central supply wells on the adjacent Aspen Equestrian Estates property. This is to be done pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District via a Water Service Agreement with Aspen Equestrian Estates. Regarding supply, Michael Erion of Resource Engineering indicated the existing 200,000 gallon storage tank supplied by direct diversion from wells will be appropriate to handle domestic and fire protection water for Aspen Equestrian Estates and Blue Creek Ranch only if a backup power supply is provided for each well (see Exhibit 0). In response, the Applicant represented that a pump will be used to move water from the wells to the proposed water tanks. In the event of electric failure, the pump will be powered by a ten horsepower diesel generator which will meet the peak water need of the PUD (see Exhibit.. ). As a result, Kenneth Knox from the Division of Water Resources (DOWR) 5 • • has determined that the proposed water supply for the subdivision will not cause material injury to decreed water rights (see Exhibit A). C. Open Space / Conservation Easement / Park & Ride / Public Park / Bike Trail The Applicant proposes to designate approximately 54 acres ofthe property as common open space which includes a conservation easement and public park providing for public river access. Other amenities proposed for the development include a bike and pedestrian trail, an improved park and ride facility at the intersection of County Road 100 and HW 82. The Applicant plans to donate approximately 19 acres of land located at the south end of the property adjacent to the Roaring Fork River in a perpetual conservation easement to a local land conservation trust. The Applicant intends the use of this property to be limited to trails and passive recreation. The Applicant also proposes to dedicate approximately 2.2 acres of open space to be dedicated to the public as a public park primarily for river access for anglers and boaters. This park, containing a gravel parking lot for 6 vehicles, will be donated to the Roaring Fork. Land Conservancy which will be maintained by the Blue Creek Ranch HOA. In addition, the Applicant intends to place a strip of property directly along the entire Roaring Fork River frontage into a Fisherman's Easement for the benefit of angler access to the public. The large tract of land on the north end ofthe property adjacent to HW82 containing approximately 16.8 acres, currently used as irrigated pasture lands, will remain in agriculture use as proposed by the PUD. The Applicant proposes a bike and pedestrian trail on the western property boundary along CR 100 from the Roaring Fork River to the park-and-ride and along the north side of the property adjacent to HW82. The Applicant has offered to dedicate this trail to Garfield County. It should be noted, this trail alignment is also the future rail corridor as proposed by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The proposed trail will be designed to accommodate rail needs in the event rail infrastructure is developed. The Applicant will also reserve a railroad easement which will be dedicated should a railroad be developed. D. Development proposed within the 100 -year floodplain As mentioned above, the Applicant proposes to construct two road sections and the wastewater treatment outfall structure in the 100 -year floodplain requiring approval from the County. The Applicant also proposes to construct 11 of the residential dwellings in the flood fringe. Regarding the flood way, Staff proposes three (3) lots within the subdivision, Lots 23, 24, 25, will be isolated by water should a 100 -year flood event occur on the property. The Applicant is concurrently applying for a Special Use Permit to construct this road in these locations indicated by circles in the plan on the following page. The specific road segments in question are Bristlecone Drive and Ponderosa Pass Road. The dark grey area delineates the 100 -year flood way and the light grey area delineated the 100 -year flood fringe. The Applicant provided an analysis from Sopris Engineering projecting that there would be 1 foot or less 6 • of water covering a road constructed at grade in the 100 -year flood way. In addition, the velocity of water would be low because it would not be within a channel (see Exhibit 11). The analysis also proposes placing reflector posts every twenty-five (25) feet along each side of the section of road within the 100 -year floodplain to delineate the road in the event it is covered by water. The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District stated they concur with the Sopris Engineering analysis of a 100 -year event to those two sections of road and they would be able respond to an emergency on Lots 23, 24, and 25 during a 100 -year flood event (see Exhibits KK and .1). The Applicant provided evidence (see Exhibit LL) that the proposed reflector posts every twenty- five (25) feet along each side of the section of road to delineate the road section in the event is covered by water would "not be considered an obstruction within the floodway." Sopris Engineering provided Staff with an additional analysis indicating that the overall result per the design of placing reflector poles along the sides of the roadways within the 100 -year flood plain will not increase the depth of flow in the floodway at the road crossing. (See Exhibit UU). This satisfies this requirement. The design shown to the right is the design detail of the proposed river discharge element of the on-site wastewater treatment facility. It is proposed to be located just east of the Catherine Store Bridge at the edge of the Roaring Fork River, The proposed outfall structure will not increase base flood elevations as it is buried underground and will not obstruct debris flow in a 100 -year event. Please note, the Army Corps of Engineers have provided approvals to the Applicant to construct the outflow structure in its proposed location (see Appendix 26 of the Appendices submitted by the Applicant). EMBED 4 -INCH PVC OUTLET PIPE IN GRAVEL RIP RAP RIVER DISCHARGE DETAIL E. Roaring Fork River Channel Fluxuation It is apparent; the site may contain old 1 currently abandoned river channels of the Roaring Fork River. This issue was raised in the HP Geotech report provided in the application which stated, "The flood evaluations should also consider the possibility of river reoccupation of the abandoned channels and the possible need for river bank stabilization." Additionally, this point was also raised by Celia Greenman of the Colorado Geological Survey, where she commented "the drainage report and the Federal Flood Insurance Plan do not take into account the possibility of channel migration and erosion of river banks." This issue was also noted by Michael Erion in his letter dated May 22, 2002. Colorado Geological Survey noted that there is a 1999 study prepared by BRW for the Colorado Water Conservation Board that illustrates channel instability in the Roaring Fork River. The section of river that borders the subject property is shown as "stable." Colorado Geological Survey recommends the Applicant use this study as a starting point to prepare a review of more detailed 7 • geomorphology of the river in that particular area over the last 30 years. This analysis should be prepared by a person qualified to conduct such studies. Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that this study of the river's geomorphology be made a condition of approval. Since the Planning Commission review, the Applicant provided Staff with additional information and analysis conducted by Zancanella & Associates regarding this issue and Staff has included it as Exhibit WW and ZZ. This analysis ultimately indicates that the BRW study shows the portion of river adjacent to the subject property is "stable." Further, they indicate, "there is a small area of instability centered approximately 300 feet upstream from the project boundary, and a larger area of instability approximately 3000 feet upstream. Zancanella & Associates ultimately points out that I) the areas of greatest instability are downstream from Blue Creek which were caused by development in the river upstream from the site and unlikely that similar development activity will occur; 2) the floodway provides a buffer against some river movement and none of the building envelopes are close to the floodway or active channel; 3) the area of instability above the property is out of the Applicant's control; and 4) the probability of any significant movement of river channel affecting the proposed development is impossible to ascertain. Lastly, Zancanella & Associates suggest the Commissioners require the Applicant place a plat note on the Final Plat that would make the potential purchasers aware of the possibility that the Roaring Fork River is a dynamic Stream and the current channel could move from its present position. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. F. Waste Water Treatment Plant The Applicant proposes a wastewaster treatment facility to serve the entire development. The Applicant submitted the "Onsite Wastewater System Design Report with technical Specifications" compiled by Church & Associates, Inc. to Staff on April 24, 2002. Specifically, the report defines the proposed treatment plant that will receive septic tank effluent (STE) from the proposed septic tanks at the individual residential units. Screened STE from the collection system will flow to a recirculation tank. An effluent pumping system will dose the surface of a recirculating sand filter. The treated effluent is directed to a dosing tank where it is pumped to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection before discharge to the Roaring Fork River. This report includes facility specifications related to design criteria, septic tank and collection system, recirculation tank, total capacity, estimated average daily flow, UV dosing tank, sand filter, disinfection system, flow monitoring, construction, operation. and maintenance. (The Applicant provided Staffwith two copies of the technical specifications for the proposed system and would be happy to provide those documents for review if so desired by the Commissioners.) This proposed system is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which delineates this area as having severe septic constraints due to a high water table and therefore unsuitable for individual septic systems and leach fields. A site application for a central recirculating sand filtration system has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on November 2I, 2001. This approval expires exactly one year from the date of approval. As recommended by Michael Erion of Resource Engineering (see Exhibit Y), an "inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan" for the proposed septic tanks should be developed and included in the covenants. In addition, design guidelines for the septic tanks to include a solids screen on the effluent outlet should be 8 included. This is important since the sewer pipelines are designed at grades below minimum standards for typical wastewater, but acceptable for effluent without solids. The Applicant represented the water and wastewater facilities will be managed by the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) which will be an incorporated entity to serve the PUD. In addition, By -Laws will be established for the HOA which will address the utility management. The wastewater treatment plant will be paid for and constructed by the developer and dedicated to the HOA. The HOA will pay for on going operations by billing homeowners for services. Provisions shall be made for special assessments to address needs for capital repairs. The Town of Carbondale provided comments requesting the system be operated and maintained by a certified wastewater treatment plant operator rather than a HOA. G. Soils/Geology HP Geotech provided a preliminary geotechnical evaluation on this property on September 11, 2000 and did not find any soil or geologic hazards within the proposed development area. However, the potential exists for sink holes on the property and individual site specific soils and geotechnical investigations are necessary for the proposed development. The requirement for site specific engineering reports concerning soils and geologic conditions are addressed in the covenants. Celia Greenman, Geologist, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water detention, culverts, and quality assurance that the proposed finished floor elevations will meet FF IP specifications. Overall, CGS is recommending that approval ofthe development be contingent upon a revision of the flood plain study and drainage report. Michael Erion reviewed additional analysis provided by the Applicant regarding the flood plain study and drainage report and believes the Applicant has adequately addressed the issues raised by CGS. H. Road/Access The proposed residential development will have two (2) access points offofCounty Road 100 with an additional access point off of CR 100 for the public park. Internal access within the subdivision is to be provided by a looping internal road system. The road system, as proposed, provides for a 50 - foot wide access easement to service the parcels. Based on the anticipated design capacity of the development, Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the applicant provide a 60 - foot wide minimum right-of-way. As discussed earlier in this report, pursuant to Section 4.05.02, the Board of County Commissioners may waive this requirement if it is determined that the modification is consistent with 'best engineering practices' as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. The development proposes 49 new units. The traffic analysis provided by Sopris Engineering (see Appendix 22 of the application) uses a figure of9.57 trips per dwelling per day for trip generation analysis. As a result, the total residential development of 49 units would produce a total of469 trips per day from the development. The Garfield County Subdivision regulations (see Section 9:35) require that developments that produce between 401 and 2,500 trips per day be classified as minor collectors to be designed with widths of 60 feet. The Applicant proposes that since there are two access points onto CR 100 from the development, the internal traffic will be split between the two access points: half ofthe generated trips will use the 9 • • route to exit A and the other half of trips will use the route to exit B. Because of this proposed internal traffic pattern, the Applicant proposes that the internal roadway will ultimately only carry half of the trips and should be classified as such which results in a narrower road (50 feet). While this proposed internal traffic pattern may or may not be true, the County regulations do not discern between multiple exits off the development. In short, the development produces 469 trips as an entire development which requires a minor collect or 60 feet in width. The County has retained Michael. Erion of Resources Engineering, who stated in a letter to Garfield County Planning Department dated June 13, 2002, "Based on our meeting with Garfield County Staff, the prediction of future traffic patterns within the subdivision is an unacceptable approach for the determination of road classification. Michael Erion recommends all roads within the subdivision should be designed as a minor collector with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet (see Exhibit FF). This standard is a basic requirement. As adjacent lands develop and future internal connections are made between projects, the internal roads should be constructed in a consistent manner to accommodate future traffic flow demands. However, in this case, the Applicant is proposing this development as a Planned Unit Development which allows for variations / modifications from certain conventional dimensional standards including this road width standard in an effort to foster a more creative and sensitive site plan design. Staff acknowledges the proposed clustering of lots preserves a significant amount ofopen space and reducing the road width will also act as a traffic calming mechanism within the development on the internal road system which provides for the safety of residents. The Planning Cornmission recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the road width variation from 60 to 50 feet by a 7 to 0 vote. Lastly, the site is not located in a Traffic Study Area as defined by Garfield County and therefore not subject to paying road impact fees on average daily trips generated for the development. 1. Fire Protection Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, responded stating the proposed fire storage system for the subdivision will meet the needs of the Fire Department, (see Exhibit S). The proposed spacing and location of the fire hydrants is acceptable for the subdivision. The development, however, will be subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the new residential lots. These fees, as to be determined, will be due prior to the recording of the Final Plat. J. Drainage A drainage study dated October 10, 2001 has been provided by Sopris Engineering, LLC. Michael Erion of Resource Engineering has reviewed the drainage plan and has provided the following comments within his review (see Exhibit Y): A floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) will be required for the proposed fill and construction within the 100 -year flood plain. An application was submitted by Zancanella and Associates (see Exhibit W). The submittal indicates that the minimum finished floor elevation of all lots will be elevated at least one foot above the 100 -year base elevation. 2. Use of the existing pond for detention appears feasible. The Applicant shall provide Staff with the proposed detention mechanism for detention storage for storm water in the southern 10 • half of the property which discharges onto the St. Finnbar property via the lower ditch culvert crossing as a condition of Final Plat approval. 3. There is no detail or analysis regarding the outlet from the existing pond for purposes of detention storage releases. This detail and analysis should be provided at Final Plat. K. Wildlife The Division of Wildlife provided the following suggestions to mitigate impacts to wildlife in the area, (see Exhibit V). Some of these suggestions include: 1. Dogs and cats shall be prevented from running at large. 2. Wire fencing should be held to a minimum with a maximum height of42" with no more than 4 strands and a 12 " kickspace between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be held to a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. 3. The Applicant should use bear -proof trash cans. 4. Bird feeders should be strung up from the ground with a seed catchment and humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the houses. 5. Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. 6. BBQs should be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when not in use. 7. Eliminate the planting of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding. 8. Maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. L. Affordable Housing The Applicant is proposing to designate 9 of the 49 residential lots as for sale deed -restricted affordable housing lots which are located in one of the free-market residential clusters. Garfield County Regulations require a minimum of 10 percent of the proposed units are deed -restricted in the PUD. (Ten percent of the proposed 39 free market housing is 3.9 units.) The Applicant proposes 18.3% of the units to be affordable housing which almost doubles the County requirement. Additionally, the Applicant has committed to constructing units on 4 of the lots and allowing qualified purchasers of the remaining five lots to construct their own units. Section 4.07.15.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution refers to the Computation of Required Affordable Housing Units and Mix of Housing Units. Pursuant to these regulations, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least 15.6 bedrooms will be constructed in these affordable housing units based on the calculation in the regulations and the number of units the Applicant has committed as affordable housing units. Section 4.07.15.03(2) discusses the determination of the mix of units. At present the Applicant has not indicated what the mix will likely be. However, as a condition for Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a detailed analysis of how the affordable housing will work within the PUD. Section 4.07.15.03(2) discusses the intent of these regulations that affordable housing units for sale and for rent are built and available for sale or rent at the same time that the other houses are available for sale or rent. The regulations state "the County shall require of the applicant security in a 11 • • reasonable amount to insure that the affordable units are constructed, or some other requirement such as issuing building permits for ten free market houses only after the issuance ofa building permit for one affordable housing unit. The applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that she/he understands and will comply with these regulations and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines." Staff has included this as a condition of approval to be consistent with this intent. Staff has required the Applicant to demonstrate to Staff and the Board of County Commissioners how the Applicant will provide assurance to Garfield County that the five (5) remaining affordable housing lots will be constructed as required by the AH Regulations. This is to be discussed as part of this preliminary plan review. M. Assessment / Fees This development is not located in Traffic Study Area and thus is not subject to any traffic impact fees. School impact fees and Carbondale Rural Fire Protection impact fees, as to be determined, shall be paid at the time of Final Plat. VII. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA The following section presents the required review standards and criteria used to determine the proposed development's compliance with Garfield County Subdivision and Planned Unit Development regulations. The applicable standards are in bold and italicized text followed by Staffs response. A. Planned Unit Development Review Standards The Applicant is requesting that the underlying zoning be changed from A/R/RD to PUD. As such, the following standards apply: 4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's' Master/Comprehensive plan(s). iflien appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part ofa PUD application. Any application for Master/Comprehensive Plan am ndment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon criteria for establishing land use designations contained in the :Waster/Comprehensive Plan. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding On July 10, 2002, the Applicant applied for and the Planning Commission granted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based upon the current Comprehensive Plan criteria for establishing land use designations. Section 4.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations states "no PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master / Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned above, the Commission amended the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land use District Map for the subject site from Low Density Residential (10 acres or more per dwelling unit) to High Density Residential (less than 2 acres per dwelling unit). As a result, Staff finds the proposed density of the project (1.6 acres per dwelling unit) generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land use District Map. In addition, Staff finds the proposed development generally conforms to the applicable policies of the Plan in the following ways: 12 • > Protecting visual corridors by preserving existing agricultural uses on the north end of the site (existing pasture lands along HW 82); > Proposing creative cluster -type site design for residential lots in an effort to preserve the site's open space and mature vegetation (sensitive to unique site characteristics); > Provision of deed -restricted affordable housing (9 units or 18% of the total units); > Providing more than adequate open space (approximately 54 acres or 68% of the development); > Placing a conservation easement on environmentally sensitive areas and donating it to a local land trust; Providing an improved "park and ride"area for the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA); > Improving and donating a public park for river access to the Roaring Fork River; and > Providing a bike and pedestrian trail from the site to the improved park and ride for improved access to mass transit. The proposed development also generally complies with the Garfield County Maps that delineate potential hazard areas or constraints to the property. Specifically, the property is located on CR 100 which is delineated as agood road in the County Road profile; it contains no slope hazards,. and has a low wildfire hazard. The maps do indicate the site constraints include septic constraints due to a high water table and the property is located partially in the 100 -year floodplain and sensitive riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River. However, the Applicant proposes to effectively mitigate these site constraints in the following way: 1) Septic Constraints: The Applicant proposes to construct an on-site wastewater treatment system that has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment negating the need for individual septic systems and associated leach fields which would impact ground water sources due to the high water table which effectively mitigates the sites septic constraints. 2) Floodplain Areas: With the exception of two road sections and the wastewater outflow structure, the Applicant designed the residential component in such a way as to avoid development in the flood way. However, the Applicant proposes to construct 11 residential building envelopes in the flood fringe which is allowed provided the finished floors of those dwellings are constructed at 1 foot above the 100 -year floodplain. The Applicant has proven the development in the floodplain will not effect base flood elevations in a 1 00 -year event. The Applicant is placing the southern portion of the site (located in the floodplain including the riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River) in a perpetual conservation easement to be donated to a local conservation land trust. Regarding the proposed density, Staff as well as the Planning Commission found the subject property and proposed development generally conforms to the methodology used to determine proposed land uses in this area. In short, the proposed development (a high density proposal) is consistent with the methodology used by Garfield County to determine future land uses in Study Area 1. 13 • 4.05.02 It is recognized that the uniqueness of each proposal for a PUD requires that the specifications, standards and requirements for various facilities, including but not limited to, streets, highways, alleys, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, parks, play- grouude, school grounds, storm drainage. water supply and distribution, and sewage collection and treatment, niay be subject to modification from the specifications, standards, and requirements established in the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County for like uses in other zone districts. The County Commissioners may, at the time of zoning as a PUD, waive or modify the specifications, standards and requirements which would be otherwise applicable, as requested bt'the applicant Any waiver or modification of specifications, standards and requirements will only be approved if it can be demonstrated that the proposed waiver(s) is consistent with "best engineering practices," as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The Applicant proposes 49 new units. The traffic analysis provided by Sopris Engineering (See Append& 22 of the application) uses a figure of 9.57 trips per dwelling per day for trip generation analysis. As a result, the total residential development of 49 units would produce a total of 469 trips per day from the development. The Garfield County Subdivision regulations (see Section 9:35) require that developments that produce between 401 and 2,500 trips per day be classified as minor collectors which are 60 feet wide. The Applicant proposes that since there are two access points onto CR 100 from the development, the internal traffic will be split between the two access points: halfofthe generated trips will use the route to exit A and the other half of trips will use the route to exit B. Because of this proposed internal traffic pattern, the Applicant proposes that the internal roadway will carry half of the trips and should be classified as such which results in a narrower road (50 feet). While this proposed internal traffic pattern may or may not be true, the County regulations do not differentiate between multiple exits off the development. In short, the development produces 469 trips as an entire development which requires a minor collect or 60 feet in width. The County has retained Michael Erion of Resources Engineering, who stated in a letter to Garfield County Planning Department dated June 13, 2002, "Based on our meeting with Garfield County Staff, the prediction of future traffic patterns within the subdivision is an unacceptable approach for the determination of road classification. Michael Erion recommends all roads within the subdivision should be designed as a minor collector with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet (see Exhibit FF). This standard is a basic requirement. As adjacent lands develop and future internal connections are made between projects, the internal roads should be constructed in a consistent manner to accommodate future traffic flow demands. However, in this case, the Applicant is proposing this development as a Planned Unit Development which allows for variations from certain conventional dimensional standards including this road width standard in an effort to foster a more creative and sensitive site plan design. Staff acknowledges the proposed clustering of lots preserves a significant amount of open space and reducing the road width will also act as a traffic calming mechanism within the development on the internal road system which provides for the safety of residents. The Planning Commission recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the road width variation from 60 to 50 teet by a 7 to 0 vote. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners is being asked to allow this variation from 60 to 50 feet in width. 4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 14 • 4.07.02 The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the Court°. Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors: (1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD; (2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses; (3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking areas is proposed Staff` Finding For residential uses, the minimum off street parking standard (Section 5.01.02) requires either 1 space for every 600 sq. ft. of floor area or one space per dwelling unit which ever is greater. This development proposes four (4) off street parking spaces for each of the thirty-nine (39) free market single-family dwelling units and three (3) off street parking spaces for each of the nine (9) deed restricted affordable housing dwelling units. The development does not propose joint use of these parking spaces. Non -dwelling uses in include the public park adjacent to the Roaring Fork River which will include six (6) off street parking spaces to accommodate day use of the park. Staff finds the number of proposed off street parking spaces for both residential and park uses satisfy the off street parking requirements pursuant to the Zoning Resolution. 4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1) or more of then is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. Staff Finding The existing nature of the property consists of pasture! agriculture lands, mature Aspen and Cottonwood vegetation and contains the Roaring Fork River forming the south property line. The surrounding area in which the PUD is proposed consists of a mix of residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. More specifically, the surrounding area includes three residential subdivisions with varying densities from 1.2 to 6.7 acres per dwelling unit, the Catherine Store, and agricultural pasture lands. This PUD application primarily proposes clustered residential development in and among existing mature vegetation. As such, the visual impacts of the development will be minimized as seen from the two roads adjacent to the property: SH82 and CR100. In addition, the site design proposes to preserve an existing large tract of land (16.8 acres) on the north of the property, adjacent to SH82, historically used for agricultural purposes. This buffer, in addition to the existing mature vegetation, will also serve to minimize visual impacts from SH82. Regarding density, the property currently maintains the Agricultural! Residential / Rural Density (AIR:' RD) zone district which allows a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. The development proposes a slightly higher density of 1.6 acres per dwelling unit. The Planning Commission amended the Garfield Comprehensive Plan to rezone this area to high density residential of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit. Staff finds the proposed density is not only consistent with the methodology used in the Comprehensive Plan and the density map itself, but also allows a creative site design preserving a large amount of open space, mature vegetation, water bodies and courses through the site as well as other environmental site elements such as wetlands. Staff finds this 15 • • proposal effectively reinforces the value of a PUD as an important planning / zoning tool which will further reasonably minimize adverse affects to the surrounding area. Moreover, Staff finds the location the development relative to an existing retail /service commercial use (Catherine Store) is directly related to minimizing the adverse affects generated by the development specifically related to traffic generation. In short, residents in this subdivision will able to walk or ride their bikes on the bike / pedestrian path provided by the developer to the store for convenience items such as milk or eggs rather than having to get in their vehicles to accomplish any task or satisfy any convenience need. Staff believes this factor will reduce the suggested ADTs indicated by the ITE manual. Further, it should be mentioned that the pedestrian / bikeway developed by this developer will benefit not only Blue Creek Ranch but neighboring developments such as St. Finnbar residents by providing a safe route to the RFTA bus stop and Catharine Store. (2) The PUD shall provide an adequate interna! street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. Staff Finding The development proposes an internal private circulation plan that is essentially one large loop through the center of the property serving the four clusters of single-family dwellings with access from CR 100. These private streets are to be classified as "rural access roads" which shall be required to meet the Garfield County Street and Roadway design standards. The Applicant has requested the Board of County Commissioners modify the road width standard from 60 feet to 50 feet in width. The Planning Commission also recommended the Commissioners approve this request. The Carbondale Fire Department has responded to this application stating that the access for the proposed development appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. Additionally, the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District stated they concur with the Sopris Engineering analysis of a 100 -year event to those two sections of road and have indicated to the Applicant, they would be able respond to an emergency on Lots 23, 24, and 25 during a 100 -year flood event (see Exhibits KK and J ).The Garfield County Road and Bridge Department commented the proposed driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. Comments indicated that the plans for the driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. The Applicant will have to obtain new access permits for the additional road cuts on CR 100, see Exhibit P. The Sheriffs Office commented that the width, length, and turn-arounds of roads need to be compatible with Emergency response equipment. [n addition, addresses should be Iegible from all roads. (See Exhibit N.) The development proposes a bike path along both the north and west property line, adjacent to HW82 and CR 100 respectively, which provides easy bike and pedestrian access to the RFTA park and ride at the intersection of HW82 and CR 100 and Catherine Store for not only Blue Creek Residents but also residents of St. Finnbar development. In addition, the development proposes internal bike and pedestrian paths providing good access for residents through the site to the common areas, the pond, and the Roaring Fork River. Lastly, the Applicant contends that due to the limited traffic within the PUD, riders and pedestrians will also be able to use the proposed road system. Staff finds the proposed circulation plan of private roads and bike and pedestrian paths through the PUD satisfy this standard. 10 • (3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation, safety convenience, separation and screening. Staff Finding Staff finds the development proposes adequate off street parking to serve the residential development. The development also proposes six (6) off street parking spaces serving the public park adjacent to the Roaring Fork River which is not a requirement. Staff finds the location of the residential parking spaces on each of the lots appear to be primarily located in garages and therefore screened from the streets within the PUD. Further, the six (6) spaces provided to serve the proposed public park adjacent to the Roaring Fork River appear to be completely screened from CR100 with mature vegetation. This configuration will remedy an existing problem of anglers and boaters who currently park their vehicles along CR100 just west of Catherine Bridge. These six spaces will provide a safer alternative to parking along side CR 100. Staff finds this standard to be met. (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain. Staff Finding The subject property contains approximately 8 l acres. The PUD is designed such that 54.9 acres will be common open space. This equates to approximately 66 percent of the PUD dedicated to open space. This is illustrated by Figure 3 of the application. As mentioned earlier, the development proposes to preserve 16.8 acres (Tract 3) which is Located on. the northern portion of the property adjacent to SH82 as an agricultural use as it currently exists. Further, the developer has committed to dedicating Tract 5 (comprised of 19 acres located at the south end of the property along the Roaring Fork River) as a perpetual conservation easement to be given to a local land trust and limited to trail and passive recreational use. Tract 6, which contains 2.2 acres, will be dedicated as a public park located at the southwest corner of the property intended to provide river access for fishermen and boaters. Staff finds the provision of 54 acres of the site as open space effectively preserves the natural features of the site that primarily include the sensitive riparian areas in the 1 00 -year floodplain adjacent to the Roaring Fork River on the southern property line and the agricultural pasture lands on the northern portion of the site. Staff finds the proposed uses within the PUD are more than adequately served by the provision of open space throughout the PUD. Staff finds the applicant has far exceeded the standards requirement of open space provision of25% with this proposal and therefore finds this standard is met. It should be noted that while residential development could not occur in the floodplain areas that have been deemed as open space, the applicant has still exceeded the open space requirement on other very developable lands on the property which is the direct result from creative "cluster type" site design encouraged through a PUD. (5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. Staff Finding Regarding housing types, the Applicant proposes a mix of approximately 18% single-family affordable housing units and 82% free market single-family units which exceed the affordable 17 • housing g requirement by almost 10%. In addition, the affordable housing ("for sale" housing) is set within a residential cluster that includes free market housing as well. As mentioned above, the PUD provides more than sufficient open space. Please refer to the body of this memorandum for an in- depth discussion regarding the proposed affordable housing and density. Staff finds this standard to be met. (6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units. Staff Finding The residential dwelling units are proposed in clusters that are located in such a manner as to provide adequate privacy between clusters. As a matter of reference, the underlying zoning of A/R/RD, permits the minimum side yard setbacks to be 10 feet from the property line. In this case, it appears the development proposes building envelopes for each lot that indicate a 5 foot setback from the side yard property line. In effect, the distance between actual building envelopes is 10 feet which is half of what the underlying zone district would allow. However, the County Commissioners may vary this standard through this PUD. (7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms ofsafeo., separation, convenience, and access to points of destination and attractiveness. Staff Finding The development proposes a bike and pedestrian path along the north and west property line along the CR 100 and HW82 frontages that serves as safe and easy access to the RFTA park and ride mass transit access point. The Applicant intends to dedicate this path / trail to Garfield County. In addition, the development proposes internal pedestrian trails (as shown on. Figures 3 and 4 of the application) to points of interest associated with the property: the pond and the Roaring Fork River. Lastly, the Applicant proposes to dedicate approximately 2.2 acres of open space to be dedicated to the public as a public park primarily for river access to anglers and boaters. This park, containing a gravel parking lot for 6 vehicles, will be donated to the Roaring Fork Land Conservancy which will be maintained by the Blue Creek Ranch HOA. This action will alleviate an existing problem along CR 100 on either side of the Catharine Store Bridge where anglers and boaters park and load and unload boats to access the river. This park provides a safer access to the river from traffic traveling CR 100. Staff finds the development has adequately provided pedestrian ways as part of the development not only on an internal basis for access to the pond and river, but also to the park and ride facility on HW 82. Staff finds this standard is met. (8) Ifcentralized water and/or wastewater facilities are proposed within the PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that shall contain its own performance standards. No land within any utility zone district shall apply toward any category of open space calculation or requirement. The PUD shall demonstrate how common water and wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed by the future owners within the PUD. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The developer proposes centralized water and wastewater facilities within the PUD. Specifically, the developer has entered into a Water Service Agreement with the neighboring property to the west (across CR 1 00) known as Aspen Equestrian Estates (AEE) to share their water facilities that consist of two wells: the Arabian and Appaloosa Wells that are adequate to serve both properties as well as the treatment plant which are all located on the AEE property. (This agreement is included as 18 Appendix 6 in the Application materials.) It should be mentioned that the methodology used to determine adequate supply includes not only assumed residential use of 3.5 people using 100 gallons per person / per day, but also 20 livestock units in the water service plan. In addition, the developers have applied for well permits (known as the Snipe and Goose Wells) in case future supply is jeopardized from AEE or additional capacity is required. Regarding wastewater, the developer proposes an on-site wastewater treatment facility to serve the PUD. The developer has obtained a site application approval from the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment which is included as Appendix 8 of the application materials. The state found the site application to be in conformance with the Water Quality Control Commission's "Regulations for the Site Application process." As a result the application was approved with five (5) conditions as stated in Appendix 8 of the application and included in this memo. The approval requires that "prior to the operation of the facility, a discharge permit will be required which will specify the final conditions and limitations of the operations of the facility." Staffhas also included this as a condition of approval. (9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40%, shall be the minimum necessary to meet the development needs. with a revegetation and geotechnical plan submitted with the PUD application; (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The subject site is primarily flat and does not contain slopes in excess of 40%. As a result, the proposed development will not disturb any slopes in excess of40%. Further, the subject site is not identified as having any slope hazards on the Garfield County Slope Hazard map. Staff finds this standard is met. (10) If communityfacilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entity shall be responsible for the provision of and payment for the proposed facilities. The facilities shall also be included within the overall common infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water, wastewater and parking requirements. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding Community facilities included in the PUD include open space, common barns, roads and utilities systems that are all maintained by the HOA. Roads and utility systems are to be paid for and initially developed by the Applicant. Since the 9 affordable housing units are "for -sale" units, Staff suggests the Applicant create a separate HOA for the 9 affordable housing units so that they are not required to be responsible for a disproportionate share of fiscal burdens required for the overall maintenance of the common facilities and roads throughout the PUD. Staff would entertain alternate methods within the master HOA that would effectively achieve the same end regarding undue burdens placed on the owners of the 9 affordable housing units. As a result of the Planning Commission public hearing, the Applicant has proposed language to Staff that will achieve the same spirit as the proposed condition of approval which has been included in the conditions of approval. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the Joliowing characteristics of the proposed building: 19 (1) It's geographical location; (2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain; (3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity; (4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air circulation or loss of view; (5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open space; and (6) Uses within the proposed building. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes the maximum height of all buildings throughout the PUD to be 25 - 28 feet tall which is consistent with the underlying zone district of A/AIRD. Stafffinds this standard is met. 4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the mininutm setback restrictions may be decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate specific building types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted to provide flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with useable common open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accommodate contemporary building t}pes which are not spaced individually on their own lots but share common side walls. combined service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style ofbuildings shall not be a basis for denying approval of a FUD application. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes building envelopes for all residential lots within the PUD. The residential dwelling units are proposed in clusters or nodules that preserve greater open space. As a matter of reference, the underlying zoning of AIRIRD, permits the minimum side yard setbacks to be 10 feet from the property line. In this case, it appears the development proposes building envelopes for each lot that show a 5 -foot setback from the side yard property line. The Applicant also proposes that front porches shall be allowed to extend outside the building envelopes and be as close as ten feet from internal roads. The Applicant has set the maximum site coverage for each individual lot from 40% - 45%. As a practical matter, the underlying zone district allows for maximum site coverage of 15 percent. Ultimately, the distance between actual building envelopes for many of the lots is 10 feet which is half of what the underlying zone district would allow. However, the County Commissioners may vary this standard through this PUD. Practically, all the lots, some of which are as small as 5,000 sq. ft. contain building envelopes. The sizes and lot coverage are a function of the clustering design approach. Some of the lots actually extend into the floodplain, however, the building envelopes remain in the flood way which is acceptable so long as the first finished floor remains 1 foot above base blood elevation. In addition, Staff has included a condition of approval prohibiting any lot owner from developing any portion of their respective lot that extends into the flood plain outside of their building envelope. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.06 The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special district (as defined by Section 32-1-103(20), CR.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning, classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, such densities being determined by reference to the maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and parking standards of such prior zoning classification. The overall average • residential density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the PLD. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance to the purposes of this section through appropriate utilization of the area within the PUD to achieve high standards of design and livability. The density of dwelling units in any particular area may be greater than the maximum permitted fora like use in other zone district. (A. 83-93, A. 96-87, A. 97-109) Staff Finding The property is approximately 81 acres in size. The current zoning ofA/RIRD allows for a density of 2 acres per unit. The Applicant proposes 49 residential lots which is approximately 1.6 acres per dwelling unit which is slightly less than the underlying zoning regulations. Nine of those units are affordable housing units. The Board of County Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (1 S) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems are readily available and the prior zoning classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre. In this ease, the Applicant has approval to tie into the existing central water system currently serving the adjacent Aspen Equestrian Estates. Additionally, the Applicant proposes a central wastewater treatment facility to serve the entire project. The Applicant proposes this slightly higher density than the underlying zone district indicates by transferring of densities within the PUD in order to achieve higher standards of design and livability and as a result, the Board of County Commissioners may grant density of dwelling units in any particular area that are greater than the maximum permitted for a like use in other zone district. The Planning Commission amended the Comprehensives Plan Proposed Land Use District Map for the site from a low residential density of 10 + acres per unit to a high residential density classification of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit. Staff finds the proposed density of 1.6 acres per dwelling unit is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the intent of the PUD to modify density as a dimensional requirement from 2 acres per dwelling unit to 1.6 acres per dwelling. The proposed density is an integral part of the cluster type of development being proposed in this site plan. The proposed density is not only consistent with the methodology used in the Comprehensive Plan and the density map itself, but also allows for a creative site design preserving a large amount of open space, mature vegetation, water bodies and courses through the site as well as other environmental site elements such as wetlands. Staff finds this proposal effectively reinforces the value of a PUD as an important planning / zoning tool which will further reasonably minimize adverse affects to the surrounding area. Moreover, Staff finds the location the development relative to an existing retail /service commercial use (Catherine Store) is directly related to minimizing the adverse affects generated by the development specifically related to traffic generation. In short, residents in this subdivision will able to walk or ride their bikes on the bike / pedestrian path provided by the developer to the store for convenience items such as milk or eggs rather than having to get in their vehicles to accomplish any task or satisfy any convenience need. Staff believes this factor will reduce the suggested ADTs indicated by the ITE manual. Further, it should be mentioned that the pedestrian / bikeway developed by this developer will benefit not only Blue Creek Ranch but neighboring developments 21 such as St. Finnbar residents by providing a safe route to the RFTA bus stop and Catharine Store. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.07 The litl?Pillluin number of acre+ that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres. Staff Finding The subject property contains 81.33 acres which far exceeds the minimum acreage requirement for PUDs. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.08 A11 uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. may be permitted in PUDs. (A. 95-043, A. 97-109) The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD. Staff Finding The development proposes single-family dwellings which are uses permitted by right in the underlying A/R/RD zone district for the clustered residential areas. The utilities and parking zone will contain mass transit park and ride facility including shelter, wastewater disposal plant, trail, and railroad. Private common open space zone will include barn, agriculture, picnic shelter, barbeque, trail, equestrian uses and passive recreational activities. Public Common Open Space will include barbeque, trail, picnic, parking, and passive recreational activities as uses. Stafffinds this standard is met. 4.0 09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty jive percent (25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open space. Of the 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no more than 40% of the 25% total required, shall be limited use open space, with the balance being retained as one or more of the remaining open space categories, listed above. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by the design of and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and that the needs of the occupants of the PCD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PLD. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The PL D proposes 54 acres or 66 percent of the subject site to be dedicated open space which far exceeds the minimum 25 percent requirement. More than that, if the Applicant did not include the area in the proposed conservation easement in the 100 -year floodplain, the remaining proposed open space would still exceed the required 25%. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.10 If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such ownership shall be those that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PUD. Staff Finding The PUD does not propose and timeshare or fractional fee ownership for any of the residential dwellings. The residential dwelling units are to be single ownership in fee. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.08.05 Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the Subdivision Regulation requirements will supersede the following PUD requirements where the same information or more detailed information is required as a part ofa subdivision application. The 22 • • applicant shall include with the written request for PUD zoning which does not include a subdivision Prelimittaty Plan application the following information: (1) A statement of the ownership interest in the property to be included in the PhD and the written consent of all of the owners; Staff Finding The Applicant has represented the sole owner of the subject property is Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC A Colorado Limited Liability Company. (See Appendix 1 and 2 of the application). Staff finds this requirement is met. (2) A PhD Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development. Such Plan shall clearly indicate: (a) The n:a.vhnum number of dwelling units proposed within the overall area: Staff Finding The plan proposes a total of 50 residential units on the 81.33 acre property. Specifically, the 50 units are comprised of the following: 1 existing single-family unit and 1 existing ADU, 39 free market units, 9 affordable housing units. As discussed above, this produces an overall density of 1.6 areas per unit. Staff finds this requirement is met. (b) The minimum acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open Space; Staff Finding The Applicant proposes a total of 54 acres (66%) of the property is devoted to common open space. Please refer to Sheet 3 of the application for a rendering of the proposed open space. Staff finds this requirement is met. (c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each use; Staff Finding Please refer to Sheet 3 of the application which details the uses and their associated acreage as proposed in this development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (d) Major internal circulation systems; Staff Finding Please refer to Sheet 3 of the application for a plan of the internal road system. In addition, the subsequent Sheets include finer details of the street system and their adjacent lots. Staff finds this requirement is met. (e) The acreage, which will be dedicated for school, sites; Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to dedicate land for a school site at the Blue Creek Ranch. The Applicant shall provide the appropriate cash -in -lieu of a land dedication. Staff finds this requirement to be met. 23 • • J) The general nature and location of commercial and industrial uses, if any, to be located in the PUD; Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any commercial or industrial uses as part of this PUD. Stafffinds this requirement is met. (g) Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if applicable; and Staff Finding The Applicant has provided a letter from Sopris Engineering, dated January 17, 2002, which outlines the utilities proposed for this development. In addition, the Applicant has provided a Utility Plan on Sheets 18-26 of the plans prepared by Sopris Engineering which includes details for proposed utility lines throughout the development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (h) Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building setbacks, height limits, access requirements and grade or slope restrictions to be applied to particular areas. written in the form of a zone district text the same as, or in similar form to. the Garfield County 'Zoning Resolution; and Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed the following uses and dimensional requirements or development restrictions as part of this PUD. In addition, Staff has provided a detailed matrix showing what the underlying zoning (AIR/RD) allows compared to what the Applicant proposed thorough this PUD. (See Exhibit HH.) The Applicant has also proposed a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and. Restrictions for Blue Creek Ranch that are included in the Applicant's submission Appendix 9 of the Appendices. a. Cluster Residential Zone Uses by Right: Single Family dwellings and customary accessory uses. b. Public Common Open Space Uses by Right: This is defined by the land owned by Blue Creek HOA but given to a local land conservation trust intended for passive recreational use by the general public. Specific uses include picnic, trail, parking, and passive recreational activities. Buildings are prohibited. c. Private Common Open Space Uses by Right: This defined as land owned in common by the Blue Creek HOA intended for use by Blue Creek residents and wildlife. Primary activities are passive recreation and agricultural. Other uses for the private common open space include barn, agriculture, picnic shelter, barbeque, trail, equestrian uses and passive recreational activities. d. Lots Minimum Setback: (See application, pages 42-45) 1) Front Yard (facing courtyard commons): 2) Rear Yard (facing parking open space): 3) Side Yard: 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet e. Maximum Height: (See application, pages 42-45) 25 — 28 feet 24 • f. MIaximuni Site Coverage: (See application, pages 42-45 40% 45% (i) If more than one phase is proposed, u phasing plan shall be included in the applicatio►t that delineates the proposed phasing of the development (A. 97-109) Staff Finding: The Applicant plans to complete the construction of the Blue Creek PUD / Subdivision in one phase. Specifically, the Applicant plans to begin road and utility installation in the late summer of 2002 and 2003 to be completed by the fall of 2003. The lots will be developed following the completion of the aforementioned site development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (3) A regional location map showing the relationship of the site to connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural fitcilities and surrounding land uses; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a vicinity map showing the relationship of the site to connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding land uses. This can be viewed on Sheet 1 provided by the Applicant. Staff finds this requirement is met. (4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing;oning; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing zoning. This can be viewed on Sheets 2-6 of the submitted application. Staff finds this requirement is met. (5) .4 site topographic neap showing at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding. This can be viewed on Sheet 7 of the submitted application. Staff finds this requirement is met. (6) A legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PUD; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PUD. This can be viewed in Appendix 1, Title Policy, in the Application. Staff finds this requirement is met. (7) A written statement containing the following information: (a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved b; the PUD; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided an explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD which are as follows: 25 • • 1. Identify and preserve environmentally sensitive lands unsuitable for development such as wetlands and areas prone to flooding; 2. Enhance State Highway 82 (SH82) visual corridor by preserving the existing irrigated pasture located adjacent to SH82; 3. Develop clustered housing surrounding common courtyards separated from vehicle traffic; 4. Limit single-family detached housing to building envelopes which are carefully selected to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and existing trees; 5. Preserve land along the Roaring Fork River as common open space; 6. Work with RFTA and CDOT to develop a well landscaped park and ride lot on the site; 7. Develop and dedicate a bicycle / pedestrian trail along CRI 00 from Catherine Store to the Roaring Fork River; 8. Improve public access to the Roaring Fork River for fishermen and boaters; and 9. Create a street system with low volumes of traffic which provides safety for pedestrians and bike riders. Staff finds this requirement is met. (b).4 development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed; Staff Finding: The Applicant plans to complete the construction of the Blue Creek PUD / Subdivision in one phase. Specifically, the Applicant plans to begin road and utility installation in the late summer of 2002 and 2003 to be completed by the fall of 2003. The lots will be developed following the completion of the aforementioned site development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (c) Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which will govern the use or occupancy of the PUD; provided, however, that the applicant may impose additional covenants, conditions and restrictions on any particular area in connection with the platting of such area; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a copy of draft Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Blue Creek Ranch PUD. This is found by viewing Append& 9 of the Applicant's submission. Staff finds this requirement has been met. 26 • • (d) A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200) feet of the boundaries of the PUD and their addresses; Staff Finding: Appendix 10 is a copy of the owners within 200 feet of the subject property as listed in the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Staff finds this requirement to be met. (e) 4 statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and documentation, which shall provide evidence of the following: (4. 97-109) (i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to service the PCUD, Staff Finding Regarding a legal and adequate water supply, the Applicant has provided documentation in the form of a letter, dated January 24, 2002 from Zancanella & Associates concerning documentation of a legal and physical water supply which can be found in Appendix 6 of the application. Further, and as mentioned in the body of this memorandum and represented by the Applicant, the PUD proposed to access water from Aspen Equestrian Estates. The Applicant also provided a letter to Staff, dated June 24, 2002 from the Division of Water Resources stating the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights (see Exhibit A). (ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application proposes to utilite existing, central facilities, the application shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess capacity currently exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will be expanded to adequately accommodate the development; (4. 97--109) Staff Finding The Applicant proposes a wastewaster treatment facility to serve the entire development. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which delineates this area as having severe septic constraints due to the high water table and therefore unsuitable for individual septic systems and leach fields. A site application for a central recirculating sand filtration system has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on November 21, 2001. This approval expires exactly one year from the date of approval. As recommended by Michael Erion of Resource Engineering (see Exhibit Y), an "inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan" for the proposed septic tanks should be developed and included in the covenants. In addition, design guidelines for the septic tanks to include a solids screen on the effluent outlet should be included. (ih) The proposed method in which storm drainage wilt be handled, demonstrating that adjoining property owners would not be damaged by the development; and (A97-109) Staff Finding The Applicant provided a Drainage Study for Blue Creek Ranch prepared by Sopris Engineering which can be found in Appendix 11, completed on October 10, 2001. A separate analysis of the drainage issues based on this Sopris Engineering Study was conducted by Celia Greenman of the Colorado Geologic Survey (see Exhibit U). Ms. Greenman, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water detention, culverts, and quality assurance that the proposed finished floor elevations will meet FFIP specifications. Overall, CGS recommends approval of the development. 27 • (iv) The proposed method in which provision will be made fir any potential natural hazards in the area such as avalanche areas, landslide areas, flood plain areas, and unstable soils, and the extent and mitigation of such hazard(s); (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The site is relatively flat and contains stable soils. It appears that floodplain hazards are the only natural hazard affecting the subject property. The Applicant has developed the site plan in such a way as to minimize any encroachment in the floodplain and wetland areas. The Applicant does propose to construct two road sections and the wastewater treatment plat outfall structure in the floodway that are mentioned and discussed in detail in this memorandum. The Applicant has applied for a Floodplain Special Use Permit to construct these improvements in the flood plain concurrently with this PUD / Subdivision application. Please refer to the aforementioned discussion regarding soils and floodplain issues in this memo. Staff finds this requirement is met. (F) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to the PUD and/or documentation demonstrating access shall be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement within two (2) years of any PUP approval and said access shall be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way; (A. 97-109) and Staff Finding Please refer to Appendix 14 which is a letter from Patrick & Stowell, dated September 7, 2000, which demonstrates legal access to the Blue Creek Ranch from CR 100. Staff finds this requirement is met. (G) Evidence that the FUD has been designed with consideration of the natural environment of the site and the surrounding area and does not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or unique natural or historical features. Staff Finding The Applicant has designed the PUD in consideration of the natural environment of the site including consideration for wildlife, natural vegetation as represented by the following: 1) Appendix 4 is a wetlands investigation prepared by Andy Antipas; 2) Appendix 5 is a wildlife assessment prepared by Steve D. Dahmer of NatureTech Consultant Services Corp.; 3) Appendix 15 is a Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist which provides an inventory of on-site wildlife; 4) Appendix 16 is a wetlands encroachment request to the Army Corps of Engineers in the form of a letter to Grady McNare date January 8, 2002. The Applicant has represented that they will follow the recommendations provided in Appendix 4 and I5. Staff has also made these recommendations conditions of approval. B. Floodplain Special Use Permit Review Standards Section 6.08 of the Zoning Resolution describes the administrative procedures to obtain a floodplain special use permit. Any floodplain special use permit application must address the following criteria. Staff has provided the criteria in bold italics followed by a Staff Finding: (1) To assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State Law, including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 28 • Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1344. Staff Finding The Applicant has provided approvals from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for the wastewater treatment plans as well as a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for work in the wetland/ floodplain areas. Both of these approvals are available in the application. (2) To determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding, and that the structure will be in compliance with the applicable provisions for uses and standards for construction set forth in this Resolution. Staff Finding The development proposes 11 building envelopes within the flood fringe on the property. As required, the Applicant has produced a site plan showing all the finish floor elevations for each of these building envelopes in the subdivision at one foot above the 100 -year floodplain. The Applicant further represented that all individual owners / builders on each individual lot will be required to construct to this represented elevation and will be required to meet any other applicable floodplain regulations at the time of the construction of the structure. Further, Staff has included a condition of approval that is as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, the Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Building and Planning Department with an official survey indicating the proposed home location was surveyed and the finished floor elevation must be constructed at one foot above the floodplain elevation. Again, the Applicant represented the finished floors for all the proposed building envelopes in the subdivision will be one tbot above the floodplain elevation, which will meet the floodplain regulations. This survey is to be completed by a licensed surveyor who shall sign and stamp the survey submitted to this Department." (3) To determine if the proposed development is located in the floodwa . If located in the floodway. assure that encroachment provisions of Section b 09.01(1)(A) are met. Staff Finding The Applicant provided Staffwith a Flood Insurance Rate Map ofthe area showing the development is in the general area ofthe floodplain. In addition, the Applicant has further delineated the proposed lots throughout the subdivision and where the flood way and flood fringe are located. While portions of many of the lots are located in both the flood way and the flood fringe, no building envelopes are located in the flood way. The proposed development that is the subject of this Special Use Permit review regarding the flood way are the two sections of road and the wastewater treatment plant outfall structure. Staff finds this standard is met. (4) To assure that adjacent communities, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been notified of the proposed watercourse alteration or relocation. Staff Finding The Applicant does not propose to relocate any waterway. 29 (5) To assure that the carrying capacity of the altered/ relocated watercourse is maintained. (A. 85-211) Staff Finding The Applicant has represented that the sectional area of the floodway will be maintained and there will be no decrease in carrying capacity. The Applicant provided an analysis from Sopris Engineering projecting that there would be 1 foot or less of water covering a road constructed at grade in the 100 -year flood way. In addition, the velocity of water would be low because it would not be within a channel (see Exhibit II). The analysis also proposes placing reflector posts every twenty-five (25) feet along each side of the section of road within the 100 -year floodplain to delineate the road section in the event is covered by water. The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District stated they concur with the Sopris Engineering analysis of a 100 -year event to those two sections of road and have indicated to the Applicant, they would be able respond to an emergency on Lots 23, 24, and 25 during a 100 -year flood cv cnt (see Exhibits KK and J). The Applicant provided evidence (see Exhibit LL) that the proposed reflector posts every twenty- five (25) feet along each side of the section of road to delineate the road section in the event is covered by water would "not be considered an obstruction within the floodway." Sopris Engineering provided Staff with an additional analysis indicating that the overall result per the design of placing reflector poles along the sides of the roadways within the 100 -year flood plain will not increase the depth of flow in the floodway at the road crossing and should in theory decrease the flow depth. (See Exhibit UV). This satisfies this requirement. 6.09.01 Floodway (1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the Floodway: (4) Encroachments, including fill. new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the baseflood Food discharge. If the technical evaluation satisfies the requirement, all new construction and substantial improvements shall be required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section 6.09.02(3). Staff Finding The Applicant represented the proposed development in the floodway will not decrease the cross sectional area or carrying capacity ofthe floodway. The delineator posts proposed alongside the road sections can be of a type to prevent any significant accumulation of debris during a flood event. Again, as mentioned above, the Applicant provided evidence (see Exhibit LL) that the proposed reflector posts every twenty-five (25) feet along each side ofthe section of road to delineate the road section in the event is covered by water would "not be considered an obstruction within the floodway. "Sopris Engineering provided Staff with an additional analysis indicating that the overall result per the design of placing reflector poles along the sides of the roadways within the 100 -year flood plain will not increase the depth of Clow in the floodway at the road crossing. (See Exhibit UU). This satisfies this requirement. (8) The storage or processing of materials that in times offloading are buoyant, flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life (C) The disposal of garbage or other solid waste materials. 30 • • (D) The placement of any structures, either fixed or mobile, for purposes of human occupation, either permanent or temporary. (E) Any abstraction which would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity of a designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others. Staff Finding The Applicant represented that none of these activities noted in Standards (B) through (E) are proposed. Staffwill make these standards conditions of approval as well as require the developer to include them as conditions in the Declaration of protective covenants so that they are disclosed to the potential purchaser. (2) Permissible Uses. The following Special l :ses are permitted in the Floodway if present underlying zoning allows such uses: (.4) A aicrrlture. such as farming, grazing and forestry. (It) Loading and parking areas for industrial and commercial uses not requiring paving or grading. (C) Recreation and open space uses such as parks, golf courses, picnic grounds. green belts. wildlife preserves and trails systems, provided that no permanent structures are constructed. (D) Any fence, pipeline or structure fir which the primary use is the diversion or storage of water or the control offloading or any similar use. (A. 85-211) Staff Finding The Applicant agrees with the permitted uses listed above to be permitted in the floodplain if consistent with underlying zoning. Section b. 09.02 Flood Fringe/Flood Prone Areas: (1) Prohibited Uses and Activities The following uses and activities are prohibited in the !'lurid Fringe/Flood Prone Areas: (A) The development, use. fill. construction, substantial improvement or alteration on or above any portion of the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas which alone, or cumulatively with other activities, would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters. Staff Finding The Applicant has represented that the proposed fill in the flood fringe areas where the proposed building envelopes are proposed will be a controlled earth fill and will not introduce materials that will result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters. (B) The storage or processing of materials that in times offloading are buoyant, flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life. Staff Finding The Applicant represented that no storage of materials is proposed nor envisioned which would not be consistent with a residential subdivision. Staff further requires that the materials mentioned above shall be stored on the finished floor elevation at the very least and not at all within any other areas outside of the designated building envelopes. (C) The disposal of garbage or other solid waste materials. 31 • Staff Finding This project will not result in the disposal of garbage or other solid waste material. (D) Any obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity of a designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others. Staff Finding This project will not cause an obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency or restrict the flow capacity ofa designated floodplain. (2) Permissible Uses. All Special Uses permitted in the Floodway, and all la uful uses permitted by the underlying zoning, subject to Section 6.09.02(1) of this Regulation and the regulations concerning the Special Use Permit, are permitted in the Flood Fringe and Flood Prone Areas. Staff Finding A single family residence is a permissible use in the AIR/RD zone district. (3) Performance Standards. The following performance standards must be met for development in the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone .4reas: (A) The lowest floor, including basement, of any new or substantially improved building designed for residential occupancy shall not be less than one (1) foot above the maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood. Staff Finding All proposed features have elevations one foot above the 100 year floodplain. (B) .411 new construction or substantial improvements shall be reasonably safe from flooding. Staff Finding All proposed improvements will be safe from flooding based on the finished floor elevations. (C) Any new construction or substantial improvement designedfor commercial or industrial uses shall either: (i)Elevate the lowest floor level, including basement, to not less than one (1) foot above the maximum water surface elevaaon of the 100 rear Flood; or (ii)Provide flood proofing improvements so that below an elevation of one (1) foot above the maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood the structure, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, is water tight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Structural components shall be capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. Evidence shall be submitted and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood proofing meet the standards as set forth herein. Staff Finding All proposed improvements are to be one foot above the 100 year Floodplain and are safe from flooding. The Applicant further represents that if builders 1 owners of individual lots wish to vary from these approved elevations, they will bear the burden of proof of those elevations above the 100 year flood plain elevation. 32 (D) Any proposed development shall be reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator to insure that the potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood is minimized, that all public utilities andfacilities are located, designed and constructed so as to minimize damage by the 100 Year Flood and that adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards. Staff Finding The potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood has been minimized by elevating the finished floor elevation of all structures to one foot above the 100 year floodplain. (E) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, he constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and be constructed by methods that minimize flood damage. Staff Finding All proposed construction will be adequately anchored. (F) New or replacement water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration offlood waters. On-site individual sewage disposal systems shall be located so as to avoid impairment of them or contamination from them during a 100 Year Flood. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes to construct an on-site wastewater system that has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment negating the need for individual septic systems and associated leach fields which would impact ground water sources due to the high water table which effectively mitigates the sites septic constraints. The proposed treatment plant itself is not located in the floodplain. The Applicant proposes to construct the outfall structure in the floodplain which will has approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to do so. VIII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan (subdivision), and Floodplain Special Use Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning 33 Resolution, as amended; 5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. IX. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION By unanimous vote, the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission, recommend the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the Blue Creek Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Preliminary Plan with the following conditions: Water Conditions 1. The Applicant shall provide the same information to the County as was submitted to the State regarding their analysis of the water supply. This material shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department prior to Final Plat. 2. Due to the fact that the water system for Blue Creek Ranch PUD shall be a merged system with the Aspen. Equestrian Estates Subdivision, the Applicant shall incorporate language addressing the interaction between the two Homeowners Associations in the B -Laws which indicated the responsibilities of both Associations for the shared water system. Wildlife Conditions 3. The Applicant shall adhere to the following recommendations of the Division of Wildlife included within their letter dated May 13, 2002: a) Dogs and cats shall be prevented from running at large. b) Wire fencing should be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" with no more than 4 strands and a 12" kickspace between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be held to a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. Privacy fencing may be allowed in the residential clustered areas within building envelopes only. c) The Applicant shall use bear -proof trash cans. 4. The Applicant shall include the following recommendations of the Division of Wildlife within the Homeowner's Association covenants as recommendations for homeowners to consider regarding the presence of wildlife on the property; a) Bird feeders should be strung up from the ground with a seed catchment and humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the houses. b) Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. c) BBQs should be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when not in use. d) Eliminate the planting of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding. e) Maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. 34 • Weed Management Conditions 5. The Applicant should conduct a weed inventory and provide the locations on a map. Weeds that may be in the area include: plumeless thistle, Scotch thistle, Canada thistle, and possibly oxeye daisy close to the Roaring Fork. In addition, the Applicant should provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. This information shall be sent to and reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Department prior to Final Plat. 6. Common area weed management -The Open Space Plan lists various areas of the site as conservation easements, private open space, general open space, public parks, public trail, or CDOT dedication. Please detail the entity that will be responsible for weed management in each of these areas and also any roadways in the project. (This information shall be sent to and reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Department prior to Final Plat.) 7. Weed management for the Homeowners Association and each individual lot owner shall be addressed in the covenants. 8. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) 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. e) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil f) A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. g) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 9. The Applicant shall provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. 10. The Applicant shall include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment. Right -of -Way and Drainage Conditions 11. The Applicant shall provide a detailed analysis regarding the outlet flow from the existing pond regarding detention storage releases by the time of Final Plat. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all six (6) special conditions stipulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their letter dated April 10, 2002 relating to the nationwide permit to discharge dredged or fill material in waters of the United States for outfall structures and maintenance, minor discharges, and linear transportation crossings. These include. 35 • • a) The Applicant must submit pre -construction photographs of the outfall conditions to the Roaring Fork River along with post construction photographs to establish recontour and grade matching activities effecting above and below the ordinary high water mark. b) Plant species identified and delineated by the Andy Anitpas report dated August 8, 2000, must be restored in the compensatory mitigation area using a combination of the following trees and shrubs; Pupulus angusti folia, Alnus incana, Cornus stonifera, Picea pungens, and Salix exigua. c) Topsoil from the delineated 1,505 square feet of impacted wetlands adjacent to building lot 21 must be moved to the area of compensatory mitigation and placed below the existing grade. The area of compensatory mitigation is directly east of building lots 18 and 19, within tract 5 ofthe final plat map submitted to this office and dated January 4, 2002. d) The Applicant must submit prints of photographs depicting the degree to which performance criteria has been met for the 2300 square feet of compensatory mitigation wetland in a wetland mitigation report. e) The Applicant must send a signed letter of certification to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days after completion of the work (see general condition number 14). A copy of the certification statement is included for your use. f) The Applicant must comply with any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved state or local management requirements for building activities within the 100 year floodplain identified by your Existing Conditions / Topography Map dated September 21, 2000. RO. The Applicant shall provide a signed copy ofan agreement with St. Finnbar Ranch regarding the relocation of the `lower ditch' within the property by the time of Final Plat. 14. The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfield County Street and Roadway design standards in designing the internal private road network as well as the access points into the PUD from CR 100 as part of the Planned Unit development. As such, all roads and rights-of-way within the subdivision shall be designed to no Iess than a width of 50 feet in accordance with the Secondary Access classification as defined in Section 9:35 ofthe Garfield County Subdivision regulations. 15. Additional straw bales shall be located in the drainage ditch along County Road 100 between Ponderosa Pass Road and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage, and along County Road 100 between Bristlecone Drive and the Blue Creek drainage as recommended by Michael Erion in his review letter dated May 22, 2002. Construction documents shall reflect these changes by the time of Final Plat. 16. The Applicant shall indicate within the covenants which lots within the development have existing wetlands and areas within flood fringes and / or flood ways of the Roaring Fork River. 36 • The covenants shall state that disturbance of these wetlands and floodplain areas are prohibited. 17. The Applicant should use a 1999 study prepared by BRW for the Colorado Water Conservation Board illustrating channel instability in the Roaring Fork River as a starting point to prepare a review of more detailed geomorphology of the river in that particular area over the last 30 years as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey. This analysis should be prepared by a person qualified to conduct such studies. This report shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department at the time of Final Plat. Wastewater Treatment Plant Conditions 'r 18. The Applicant shall provide an inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan for the proposed septic tanks ofthe sewer system to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. This plan shall be included within the subdivision covenants and provided the Staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Garfield County Building Department for any residential lot on the property. 19. Prior to the operation ofthe facility, and consistent with the requirement imposed by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Applicant shall obtain a discharge permit which shall specify the "final conditions and limitations ofthe operations of the facility." This permit shall be submitted to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department prior to Final Plat. _ + c �•� 20. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as stated in the letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC dated November 21, 2001 and included as Appendix 8 in the applications materials, as the same may be modified or superceded by any final discharge permit issued by the Department for the subject facility. Further; a) This site approval will expire one year from November 21, 2001 if the construction ofthe project has not commenced by that date. If expiration occurs, you must apply for a new site approval. Construction is defined as entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of materials, equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings that are to be part of a domestic wastewater treatment works. b) The design (construction plans and specifications) of the treatment works must be approved by the Division prior to the commencement of construction and all construction change orders initiating variances from the approved plans and specifications must be approved by the Division. c) The Applicant's registered engineer must furnish a statement prior to the commencement of operation stating that the facilities were constructed in conformance with the approved plans, specifications, and change orders. 21. Since the nine (9) affordable housing units are "for -sale" units, the applicant shall provide appropriate language to the Planning Department that demonstrates that the affordable housing 37 • units are not unduly burdened by a disproportionate share of fiscal responsibility required for the overall maintenance of the common facilities and roads throughout the PUD. 22. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the Final Plat: a) "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect ofliving in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." b) "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and 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." c) "All 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." d) "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." e) "Each lot shall have 500 s ware feet of irrigation r atide • ,s^""' k4/ \kms That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing efore the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission. 24. The Applicant has agreed to delete "greenhouse" from the "Uses By Right" in Private Open Space areas as defined in the application such as Tract 3 (pasture lands on the north end of the property.) 25. The Applicant shall present Staff with further details as to the proposed nature of how the remaining five affordable housing lots undeveloped by the developer are to be sold within the regulatory parameters of the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines. 38 • • 26. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Garfield County Board of Commissioners approve the Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Preliminary Plan, and Floodplain Special Use Permit with the aforementioned conditions as voted upon by the Planning Commission as well as the additional conditions presented here below: Water Conditions 27. The Applicant shall obtain and provide the County with the necessary well permits for the Appaloosa and Arabian Wells located on the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision as issued by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources at the time of Final Plat. Affordable Housing Conditions 28. The Applicant shall provide nine (9) affordable housing units within the PUD. Four (4) of such units shall be deed restricted, constructed by the Applicant, and sold in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines as codified in Section 4:14 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution (the "AH Regulations"). While the Applicant has committed to the construction of four affordable housing units, the Applicant shall demonstrate to Staff and the Board of County Commissioners how the remaining deed restricted lots are to be sold and developed. Further, the Applicant shall provide assurance to Garfield County that the five (5) units will be constructed as required by the AH Regulations. a) Specifically, the Applicant shall provide a detailed proposal for how the five (5) affordable housing lots which will not be constructed upon by the Applicant will be sold in a manner which will address the regulatory intent of the AH Regulations. b) All nine (9) affordable housing units shall be included within the homeowners association for the PUD. However, the Declaration of Covenants shall include adequate provisions to assure that the affordable housing units will never be unduly burdened by a disproportionate share of fiscal responsibility required for the overall maintenance ofthe common facilities and roads throughout the PUD. Floodplain & Roaring Fork River Conditions 29. The Applicant shall provide language within the protective covenants for the development as well as incorporate into a plat note on the Final Plat which lots within the development have existing wetlands and areas within the flood fringe and 1 or floodway ofthe Roaring Fork River. In addition, the covenants shall state that disturbance of any such designated wetland or floodway areas are prohibited without receiving the proper approvals from the necessary jurisdictions. The Applicant shall include a plat note as well as language in the protective covenants stating that no development shall be allowed on any portion of any lot which is 39 designated as a wetland or located within a delineated floodway. 30. While this approval grants a Floodplain Special Use Permit for constructing dwellings within the designated building envelopes in the flood fringe, the two road sections and the wastewater outfall structure in the flood way, the Applicant shall incorporate language in the protective covenants for the development that indicates to the future purchasers of those lots that contain building envelopes located within the flood fringe that they are subject to the Garfield County Floodplain regulations for other activities. 31. This Floodplain Special Use Permit, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the entire Blue Creek Ranch property as described herein, shall constitute the necessary Special Use Permit approval for development on each of the lots subject to the Floodplain. Regulations in the Garfield County Zoning Resolutions. Further, as each such lot is developed, the owner / developer shall be required to demonstrate to Garfield County Building and Planning Department as part of the building permit process that the finished floor elevation shall be constructed at one foot above the floodplain elevation. This condition shall be included as a plat note on the Final Plat. 32. Prior to the issuance ofa certificate of occupancy for each lot subject Garfield County Floodplain Regulations , the applicant for the CO shall provide the Garfield County Building and Planning Department with an official survey indicating the proposed dwelling location was surveyed and the finished floor elevation must be constructed at one foot above the floodplain elevation. This survey is to be completed by a licensed surveyor who shall sign and stamp the survey submitted to this Department. This condition shall be included as a plat note on the Final Plat. 33. The Applicant shall place a plat note on the Final Plat that would make the potential purchasers aware of the possibility that the Roaring Fork River is a dynamic Stream and the current channel could move from its present position. 34. The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Final Plat: a. The 100 -year flood way; b. The 100 -year flood fringe; c. The building envelopes for all lots in the development; and. d. The elevation for each building envelope at 1 foot above the base flood elevation. C D» 2Jci ' L )4U- ) �) , .4 ;, . p,.., 4 7---/ "e--). (12 F7 40 Blue Creek Ranch Garfield County Board of County Commissioners August 5. 2002 Staff Presentation (10 Minutes) 1) Project Location / Adjacent Land Uses 2) Brief description of proposal 3) Floodplain Requests 4) Roa r` ng Fork River Issue 5) Affordable Housing 6) Basic Project Overview 7) Planning Commission Recommendation 1 • Land Use Requests 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD) 2) subdivision (Preliminary Plan Review) 3) Floodplain Special Use Permit 2 • • Adjacent Land Uses Current Zoning: A/R/RD (2 ac. / DU) >Catherine Store (Commercial) ➢Aspen Equestrian Estates (L2 ac. / DU) >St. Finnbar Subdivision (6.7 ac. / DU) >Te Ke Ki subdivision (<3 ac. / DU) >Cerise Ranch Lion's Ridge (<3 ac. / DU) oRanch @ Roaring Fork (<3 ac./ DU) Development Proposal Total of 49 Residential Lots (5,000 sq. ft. to 5 ac.) i'39 Free Market Lots >9 Affordable Housing Lots (Deed -Restricted) 1 Existing Single Family Dwelling with ADU 49 acres of Open Space (600/0): ►-Conservation / Fisherman's easement >Public Park (dedicated to Garfield County) >Trail >Common Open Space / Pond ?North Pasture Lands on HW 82 • RFTA "Park & Ride"/ CDOT Dedication / Rail Alignment Water System shared with Aspen Equestrian Estates re On-site Wastewater System 3 • • Development Proposal: Site Plan Proposed Open Space 4 Floodplain SUP Request: Road Section Floodplain Request: Outfall Structure EMBED 4 -INCH PVC OUTLET PIPE IN GRAVEL RIP RAP RIVER DISCHARGE DETAIL Approvals from Army Corps of Engineers to Construct the outfall structure Will not increase base flood elevations or obstruct potential debris flow in 100 -year event 5 Roaring Fork River Issue Potential re -braiding through the property Zancanella & Associates Determination > Greatest instability downstream (from the 1999 BRW Report) ➢ Floodway is current practice for avoiding water hazards on properties • "instable"' area upstream is not on Blue Creek Ranch property D Accurately predicting river channel movement is impossible Course of Action: Plat note disclosing the potential of for possible re -attainment of abandoned river channels through the property. (Staff & Resource Engineering Concur). 6 Affordable Housing #Providing 9 deed- restricted AH Lots (19%) >Constructing 4 Units (19% PUD requirement) How will Applicant commit to the sale of the '' 5 un -built AFI units? 7 Basic Project Overview r Project Issues > Slightly Higher Density than A/R/RD at 1.6 acres per unit via PUD y Internal Road System (60' vs. 50') Development in floodplain a. Road Sections /Outfall structure b. Building Envelopes r Roaring Fork River Channel Issue r Affordable Housing for 5 un -built lots Project Benefits >Preservation of Visual Corridor on 82 Creative "Cluster" Design Approach >Central Water and Wastewater Systems 'Conservation Easement / Open Space and Fisherman's Easement .Public Park / Trail / Future Rail >Improving RFTA'Park & Ride" >19% Affordable Housing (2x...) Building 4 (10%) now Land Use Review Process Planning Commission 1) Final Decision Maker regarding on Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2) Forward recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding: • Planned Unit Development • Subdivision Board of County Commissioners 1) Final Decision Makers regarding: • Floodplain Special Use Permit • Planned Unit Development • Subdivision 8 Prior Land Use Action: Planning Commission Approved Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by a vote of 7 to O. Recommendations to the Board: Panning Commission recommends Approval with Conditions on the PUD, Preliminary Plan by a vote of 7 to 0. Staff Recommends Approval with Conditions The End • • STATE OF COLORADO 'ma:cared prteekaing dna-ritiprormR tri 'Fell/111 one) etnveheiilrleelr rt me f (f' a [1,( rite en regio Rill Owens, Governor Jane E. Norton, Executive Director Grand Junction Regional Office 222 S. 6th St., Rrn 232 Grand Junction CO 81501-2768 Fax (970) 248-7198 hup.Wwww.cdphastate.co.us August 29, 2002 Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC Clo Robert Cummings, Jr. 19351 Colorado Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 RECEIVED SEP 0 4 2002 (ARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Colorado Department elf Public I lealth and t;nvircmrnenl Re: Design Review, Blue Creek Ranch, Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC, Garfield County Dear Mr. Cummings: The referenced design submitted by Zacanella and Associates has been reviewed in this office in accordance with the Design Criteria Considered In The Review Of Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Site Application #4565 which was approved November 21, 2001 and has been found in conformance. The design is hereby approved and subject to the following condition(s): The facility owner's registered professional engineer must certify at the completion of construction that the treatment works was constructed according to plans, specifications, and significant amendments approved by the Division. This certification must be submitted to this office. "As Recorded" drawings clearly showing any major alterations to the approved plans shall be prepared and furnished to the owner and the Division at the completion of the work. The facility as approved consists of: Individual Septic Tanks, liflstation (intergral to recirculation tank), recirculating sand filter, and Ultraviolet disinfection. The facility hydraulic and organic capacity is: Hydraulic Capacity - - - 0.020 MGD Organic Capacity - - - 50 lbs. BODsiday Based upon the Water And Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements, Regulation No. 100, the facility treatment system is classified as a Class "D" facility, and the collection system classified as a Class "1" facility. The name and certification number of the operator in responsible charge who holds valid certifications at least equal to these levels must be submitted to this office prior to the time these facilities become operational. This review does not relieve the owner from compliance with all local regulations prior to construction nor from the responsibility for proper engineering, construction, and operation of the facility. Compliance with the discharge permit requirements is the responsibility of the permitteelowner. The Water Quality Control Division's review and approval of the design does not relieve the perrnitteelowner from compliance responsibilities. w'lease retain this letter for your permanent records. Sin Y 1 4.4...--.. _.."*--- uwain P. tson Tom Schaffer, P.E. District Engineer Regional Office Supervisor, TSU Water Quality Control Division Water Quality Control Division cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Tom Zacanella, Z and Associates E.O. Church and Associates William A. McKee, Watershed Coordinator, WQCD/CDPHE Permits Unit, WQCD/CDPHE Facility Operators Program (Betsy Beaver) Water Quality Information Bulletin contact Tom Schaffer, Regional Office Supervisor, TSU, WQCD/CDPHE File P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 l Z4rC4NELL4 4140 455OC14TES, Inc. Et4cInEESifIG CONSULT4nT5 October 29, 2002 Mr. Dwain Watson CO Department of Public Health 222 South Sixth Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 RE: Blue Creek Ranch Dear Dwain: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax RECEIVED OCT 3 u 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Enclosed please find a copy of the signed bid which includes the Blue Creek Ranch wastewater plant. The plant is now under contract for construction as per your plans approval letterdated August 29, 2002. You will note on the Bid Schedule, page B-11, is the wastewater treatment facilities treatment plant. If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. Encl. cc: Rob Cumming w/o encl. Scott Miller w/o encl. Mark Bean w/o encl. Larry Green w/o encl. Z:120000'+20729 Blue Creek Ranch\cdphe-bid sch.wpd • Mr. Glenn Horn Davis Hom, Inc. 215 S. Monarch, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Blue Creek Ranch Dear Mr. Horn: • Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 15, 2002. This letter is in reference to a letter that I sent to Mr. Cummings of WindR Iver Development, LLC on September 5, 2002. The letter contained an invoice for services rendered by Resource Engineering for the billing period of July 1 — 31, 2002. The invoice involved has been paid to Resource Engineering by the Garfield County Planning Department. As of this date, we still have not received your payment for this review. I have enclosed a copy of the original letter and a copy of the invoice involved for your review. Please make check payable to the Garfield County Treasurer and mail it to the Garfield County Planning Department at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. Thank you for your attention in this matter and if you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, Ceittiah- 7t. Cathi Edinger Planning Technician Enclosure cc: Fred Jarman 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 4.111: • Garfieid Co linty B I II. DI .\ G S. PLANNING DEPARTMENT WindRiver Development, LLC Ace Lane Robert M. Cumming, Jr. 19351 State Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review Dear Mr. Cummings: December 19, 2002 This letter is in reference to billing for professional services rendered by Resource Engineering, Inc. for the billing period of November 1 through November 30, 2002. This invoice has already been paid to Resource Engineering, Inc. by Garfield County Planning Department. Invoice #23058 (November 2002) Amount Due: $98.00 I have attached a copy of the invoices involved for your review. Please make check payable to the Garfield County Treasurer and mail it to the Garfield County Planning Department at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention in this matter. If you have any questions pertaining to this letter please give us a call. cc: Fred Jarman Sincerely, Cathi Edinger Planning Technician 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 • Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 108 W. Eighth St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Invoice # 23058 In Reference To: Invoice # 23059 • Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 December 17, 2002 RECEIVED DEC 18 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY 8UL DING & PLANNING Service tax/ Payments/ Fees/ Sales tax/ Credits/ Costs Interest Refunds Blue Creek Ranch PreI3minary Plan Review - 885-10.0 598.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lake Springs Ranch Review - 885-6.0 $833.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 In Reference To: Sun Meadow Estates - 885-7.0 Invoice # 23060 (fka Mamms View Subd.) 50.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($73.50) $0.00 50.00 Prev. Ball New Chgsl Pm/Cr/Ref/ New Bal $0.00 598.00 50.00 598.00 50.00 5833.00 50.00 $833.00 $73.50 $0.00 (573.50) $0.00 RESOURCE • r Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 December 17, 2002 Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 108 W. Eighth St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review - 885-10.0 Invoice # 23058 Billing Period: November 1, 2002 through November 30, 2002 Professional services 11/13/02- Report Review 11114/02- Report Review For professional services rendered Balance due Hours Amount 0.25 24.50 0.75 73.50 1.00 $98.00 $98.00 EE: rRESOURCE ■.!! OMEN G N E E 1 N G INC ' ov 21 02 02:03p Lane Industries 0 E ,CR *: R A N C1-1 84"7-554-2399 4111 November 21, 2002 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building & Planning Dept. 109 8th St., Ste. 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Blue Creek Ranch Dear Fr p.2 This correspondence serves as authorization that 1, Arthur Schiller, representative of Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC, hereby authorize Davis Horn Inc. to submit a land use application for Blue Creek Ranc'i, and act as representative on behalf of Blue Creek Land Hold;ngs, LLC. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (847) 291-5703. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best Regards, Arthur Schiller Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC GB/rr c s.-Nare rywe CampytieslL ne industries. 1nct9ue Geek1MRF nz rr 112E02-acc. 3220 County Road 100 * Carbondale, C0 81623 • Phone: (970) 704-9007 * Fax: (970) 704-9006 flov 21 02 02:03p Lane jndustr~ i es X47-552399 RANCHill FACSIMILE P. 1 To: Fred Jarman - Garfield County (970) 384-5OO 4 pie Glenn Horn - Davis Horn Inc. (970) 925-5180 Rob Cumming — WindRiver Development (616) 682-8260 From: Arthur Schiller Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC Date: 11/21/2002 Subject: Authorization for Blue Creek Ranch No. of pages: 2 Notes: Pease see attached. _.tv+uca\WA Ucet,Auuarl tans„ :1242 dm 3220 County Road 100 * Carbondale, Co 81623 * Phone: (970) 704-9007 * Fax: (970) 704-9006 411 Aug -16-02 04:59P Yu sem Horn 970 924 DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED 215 South Monarch Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone - 970-925-6587 Telecopier - 970-925-5180 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET TO: Fred Jarman FROM: Gl ern Horn FAX #: 384 3470 RE: Sopris Engineering Letter DATE: November 13, 2002 TOTAL # OF PAGES ( includes cover sheet) : 3 MESSAGE: Transmitted with th:s FAX is the July Mark Sutler which we discussed today. Nod ., 2002 4ARFIELL) COUNTY 8, 2002 letter from P.01 Aug -16-02 04:59P Yusern/Horn w Davis Horn Incorporated 215 South Monarch. Suite 104 Aspen. CO 81611 Re. Preliminary Plan Review Comments Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision. Skcrch Plan and PUD SE fob No. 20089.01 Dear Glen: 1.0 INTRODUCTION 970 9254- P-02 July 8, 2002] We have taken a closes review of our storm water detention design as proposed in the Drainage Study dated October 10, 2001 and determined that the detention method proposed is not feasible because of the variable amount of irrigation water and off site storm water that must be conveyed within tete same basin and ditches as the on sire storm drainage. We do feel however that the methods we have proposed will be efficient in decreasing and delaying the storm water peak. 2.0 IRRIGATION AND OFFSITE STORM VOLUME Based on the Basin and Middle ditch flows, listed below, the Blue Creek drainage area below the pond i5 currently able to city Irl cfs irrigation water and up to 33 cfs of on and off site storm water. The past development discharge increase was determined to be 2r s. The total change 2 cfs/43 cfs is only a 550 increase without any detention or peak reduction All storm water i5 routed to the Roaring Fork. River, either directly across the southern section of the site or through the Blue Creek drainage area. The Blue Creek drainage area is within the 1O0 -year flood plain and connects to St. Finnbarr wherc the basin is also in the 100 -year flood plain. Because no construction is allowed within the 100 -year flood plain and ali Roads must account fora 100 year flood ilia drainage arca should have unobstructed flow to the Roaring Fork River. Ditch flows shown on the Sopris Engineering letter dated June 3, 2002. Basin Ditch: 18 cfs total. Irrigation -6 cfs. Off site storm - 10 cfs, on sire storms - 2 cis Middle Ditch 15 cfs total. Irrigation - 4 cfs. Off site storm - 9 cfs, on site storm • 2 cis Lower Ditch T 1 cfs total, Irrigation -- 1 ] cfs 3.0 STORM PEAKING DELAY Of the 4.0 cfs ou site post development storm water fifty perceru will route through the pond and exit over the 22' broad creased weir into the wetlands. The effective peak flow will be lowered from 2 cfs to 1.4 cfs and the peals runoff will be delayed by 1.2 hours. The conunuous irrigation flow between 1 and 10 cfs keep the pond at a constant level the storm water will only cause a slight increase in pond surface level over the'i2 wide stone weir. Detention is not required when propeny is adjacent to a major river. We have provided 5700 c.f. of detention by Lois 28-39 ro protect flooding of the Lower ditch as it enters Sr. Finnbarr. We have provided a means of routing storm water and reduced the peaking. The increased peak flow will not be significant and to cause any long-iern, adverse impacts to the development or any property between the site and the Roaring Fork river_ 507Main Street • Suite AB • Carbonctale. CO 81623 • (9(0) 104-031T • Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPRIS ENGINFERINC • LLC Civil c nsuitantS Aug - 16-02 04 : 59P Y—n1 Horn 970 92' 4- P . 03 • If you have any questions or need any additional information please give us a call Sincerely, SOPRIS ENGINEERING fikW611•12/t Mark A. Thaler, P.E. Project Engineer Cc; Rob Cummings SE. JOB 20089.01 .:uly 8, 2002 Page 2 TOTAL P-02 P.U. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave.. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 "<„\ • Z4t4C4NELL4 4140 4550Ci4 TES, INC. EIWIGINEERIfIG COMSULT4e4TS July 5, 2002 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Blue Creek Ranch Dear Fred: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Z 8LI 11 cusia334. As per our discussion, attached please find a copy of the fax memo and table that was sent to John Redding at the Colorado Division of Water Resources in reference to Blue Creek Ranch. If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. ‘E.,.�tiirti1 �'� �t ri C� ►.,r Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. Attachments cc: Glenn Horn Rob Cumming Scott Miller Z:120000\20729 Blue Creek Ranch\jarman-egrtable.wpd 13,0. Box 1908 0305 Cooper Ave. aenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4t4C4NELLA 4140 4550041ES,'MC. ENGINEErliNC CONSULTANTS (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Fax Cover Sheet To: Company: CO Division of Water Resources From: Tom Zancanella Fax No: 303 866-3589 Pages: 2 , including this cover sheet (original will not follow by mail) Date: June 17 2002 (9:56am) Job #: RE : Blue Creek Ranch John Redding "9/ 1 n structionsIComments: Per our discussion today, we have revised the Table 2 of Blue Creek Ranch to reflect the typical lot sizes for the subdivision. We have assigned the EQRs based on the size of the lots. If you have any problems receiving this transmission of document(s), please call (970) 945-5700 Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual T Domestic Demands W of Residential EORs 50 0 EQRs persons'EQR 3 5 cap!EQR 4 gallons/person/day 100 gpcd Percent Consumed 5% Lawn trngation 2500 sq-WUCQR Application Efficiency 80% Crop ling regmnt (CIR) 1 99 fl Diversion Requirements Table 2 Blue Creek Ranch Estimated Water Requirements Water Use Inputs it Commercial Demands a „f Commercial EQRs 2 0 EQRs sr personsfEQR 3 5 capfEQR # gallons/person/day Percent Consumed Lawn Irrigation Application Efficiency Crop trig regmnt (CIR) (1) (2) (3) (4) Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Pond In-house In-house Irrigation Evaporation (ac.ft) (ac•ft) 1 665 1 504 1 665 1 611 1 665 1 611 1 665 1 665 1 611 1 665 1 611 1 665 19.600 Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Water Resources Engineers Glenwood Springs. GO 0 07 0 06 007 0 08 007 0 06 0.07 0 07 006 0 07 0 06 0 07 0.78 (ac41) (ec4t) 000 0 00 0.00 023 141 1 78 1.69 1 10 0 93 0 30 0 00 0 00 0.05 L' 13 G 24 4147 069 069 0 92 !i62 0.53 0 31. 0.15 0 05 7.44 526 Units 100 gpcd 5% 2500 sq-t1JEQR 80% 1 99 is Water Use Calculations (5) Live- stock (ac -ft) 0 029 0026 0.029 0 028 0029 0 028 0 029 0 D29 0 028 0.029 0 028 0 029 (6) Total (act) 1 81 1 72 2 00 241 386 438 4.37 3 67 3 16 237 1 86 1 81 (7),. Average Flow (gpm) 132 139 146 182 28 2 330 319 26 8 238 173 140 132 (8) Domestic In-house (ac -ft) Other Demands •11,•-i-•.1,. • 190 acres 2 77 ft 20 00 units 15 00 gpud 0 00 acres 80% 1.99 n Pored Surface Area Annual Net Evaporation Livestock Livestock Consumption Irrigated Open Space Application Efficiency Crop Irrig regmnt (CIR) Consumptive Use (9) (10) Commercial Dom\Comm hi -house (ac -ft) (11) (12) (13) (14) Pond Live- Average Irrigation Evaporation stock Total Flow (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac•ft) (ac -11) (gpm) 0 083 0 00 000 0 05 0.029 0 17 1 2 0 075 000 0.00 0 13 0 026 0.23 1 9 0083 000 000 0.24 0029 0.35 26 0081 000 019 047 0028 0.77 58 0 083 000 1 13 0.69 0 029 1.93 14 1 0081 000 143 089 0028 243 183 0083 000 135 092 0029 2.39 174 0 083 000 0 88 0.82 0 029 1 81 13 2 0 081 000 0.74 0.53 0.028 1 38 10 4 0083 000 024 031 0029 066 48 0 081 0 00 0.00 0.15 0 028 0 26 2 0 0 083 0 00 0 00 0.05 0 029 0 17 1 2 0.34 33.42 20.87 0.98 9 Single Family Affordable Units 37 Single Family Freemarket Units (d1 2 Single Family Large Lots C� 10.000 Sq Ft Commercial Total 1 00 100 2 00 p.04 5.95 5.26 0.34 12.56 7.75 EQR/Urllt EQR/Unit EQR/Unit Total EQRs 9 00 37 00 4.00 2.00 52.00 Typical Lot size 012.0.2acres 05- 15 acres 40-6M acres 06£17£2002 Zancanella & Associates. Inc EQR BLUECREEK4.80%.123 JUL-19-2002 12:56PM FROM -Colorado Garcal 5urvay 3039662461 fa T-494 P OO1/C6I F-564 Greenman, Celia From: Greenman, Celia Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:25 PM To: "fjarman@garfield-co.com' Subject: Blue Creek Hi Fred --I talked to Robert Krehbiel, who was an author on the BRW report and who is now with Matrix Design. He says Garfield County already has a copy of the report, it was given to Bob Szrot in Engineering. Additional copies can be obtained from the Colorado River Conservation District in Glenwood Springs, talk to Don Meyer. The report is available in hard copy and GIS. Mr. Krehbiel says he recalls that stretch of river being generally stable. For additional detailed work, he is available, phone 303-572-0200_ There is also Bill Johnson at Earth Resources in Carbondale. 970-963-1356, who could perform an evaluation. Celia ===x„,r,y_ FrcA— e 1 • • HIE:LN Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT WindRiver Development, LLC Ace Lane Robert M. Cumming, Jr. 19351 State Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Blue Creek Ranch Dear Mr. Cummings: July 29, 2002 This Letter is in reference to billing for professional services rendered by Resource Engineering, Inc. for the billing period of June 1 through June 30, 2002. This invoice has already been paid to Resource Engineering, Inc. by Garfield County Planning Department. Invoice #21035 (June 2002) Amount Due: 51,636.10 Invoice #20676 (May 2002) Still Outstanding: 53,697.53 Total Due: $5,333.63 I have attached a copy of the invoices involved for your review. Please make check payable to the Garfield County Treasurer and mail it to the Garfield County Planning Department at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention in this matter. If you have any questions pertaining to this letter please give us a call. Sincerely, Cathi Edinger U Planning Technician cc: Fred Jarman 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 109 Eighth St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Invoice # 21035 In Reference To: Invoice # 21036 Resource Engineering, 10 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 July 19, 2002 Fees/ Costs Blue Creek Ranch $1,634.50 $1.60 Service tax/ Sales tax/ Interest Preliminary Plan Williams Co. SUP - 885-11.0 In Reference To: Glen Invoice # 21037 In Reference To: Invoice # 21038 $724.00 $1.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Payments/ Credits/ Refunds Review - 885-10.0 ood Caverns Review - 885-12.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($3,697.53) $0.00 $0.00 ($1,483.80) $0.00 $0.00 ($1,297.90) $0.00 $0.00 Mamms View Subdivision Review - 885-7.0 Prev. Bali New Chgs/ Pm/Cr/Ref/ New Bal $3,697.53 $1,636.10 ($3,697.53) $1,636.10 $1,483.80 $725.20 ($1,483.80) $725.20 $1,297.90 $0.00 ($1,297.90) $0.00 :::::RESOURCE !•s�� ■•UU E N g I N E E R I N p 4NC • Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 July 19, 2002 Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 109 Eighth St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review - 885-10.0 Invoice # 21035 Billing Period: June 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 Professional services Hours Amount 613102- Report Review 0.50 49.00 6/4/02- Report Review 2.50 245.00 6/5/02- Transmittal of Information 1.00 98.00 - Meeting 1.00 98.00 - Report Review 1.00 98.00 6/6/02- Report Review 2.50 245,00 6/11102- Preparing Correspondence 0.25 9.50 6/12/02- Preparing Correspondence 0.50 19.00 - Report Review 1.00 98.00 6/13/02- Preparing Correspondence 0.25 9.50 - Engineering Report 2.00 196.00 6/27/02- Report Review 2.00 196.00 6/28/02- Preparing Correspondence 0.75 28.50 - Transmittal of Information 0.50 49.00 - Engineering Report 2.00 196.00 For professional services rendered 17.75 $1,634.50 RESOURCE Garfield County Page 2 Additional charges: Amount 6/1/02- Copies 1.60 Total costs $1.60 Total amount of this bill $1,636.10 Previous balance $3,697.53 7/12/02- Payment - thank you, check 23174 ($3,697.53) Balance due $1,636.10 'RESOURCE E N. OINIERING INC Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 June 14, 2002 Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 109 Eighth St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review - 885-10.0 Invoice # 20676 Billing Period: May 1, 2002 through May 31, 2002 Professional services 2/25102- Report Review 2/26/02- Records Management 2/27/02- Report Review 3/6/02- Transmittal of Information 4/23/02- Report Review 4/24/02- Report Review 4/26/02- Report Review 4/29/02- Report Review 4/30/02- Report Review 5/6/02- Report Review 5/9/02- Report Review 5/10/02- Report Review 5/20/02- Report Review 5/21/02- Site Visit - Report Review Hours Amount 1.75 171.50 0.25 8.50 3.50 343.00 1.00 98.00 1.00 98.00 2.25 220.50 3.50 343.00 1.00 98.00 2.00 196.00 3.00 294.00 2.00 196.00 1.00 98.00 3.50 343.00 3.00 294.00 3.50 343.00 ""RESOURCE - h< G N E E R 1 N i3 Garfield County 5122102- Preparing Correspondence - Construction Inspection - Engineering Report 5123102- Preparing Correspondence For professional services rendered Additional charges: 5/1/02- Copies 5/21/02- Mileage 2 -WH Total costs Total amount of this bill Balance due h"Ni.,40401/101 Page 2 Hours Amount 1.00 2.00 3,00 0.50 34.00 196,00 294.00 17.00 38.75 $3,685.50 1.80 10.23 512.03 $3,697.53 $36697,53 .....RESOURCE E E .r G 1 G • • Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 5, 2002 WindRiver Development, LLC Ace Lane Robert M. Cumming, Jr. 5680 Grand River Dr. N.E. Ada, MI 49301 Re: Blue Creek Ranch Dear Mr. Cummings: This letter is in reference to billing for professional services rendered by Resource Engineering, Inc. for the billing period of July 1 — 31, 2002. This invoice has been paid to Resource Engineering Inc. by the Garfield County Planning Department. i have attached atopy of the invoice for your review. Please make check payable to the Garfield County Treasurer and mail it to the Garfield County Planning Department at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. Invoice # 21417 (July 1-31, 2002) Amount Due: $1,078.00 Total Due: $1.078.00 Thank you in advance for your attention m this matter and if you have any questions please give us a call. Sincerely, 32ez, Cathi Edinger Planning Technician Enclosure cc: Fred Jarman 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 0 Resource Engineering, Inc, 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 109 Eighth St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Invoice # 21417 August 15, 2002 RECEIVED AUG 16 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Prev. Ball Service tax/ Payments/ New Chgs/ Fees/ Sales taw" Credits/ Pm/Cr/Ref/ Costs Interest Refunds New Bal Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Planeview.0 $1,078.00 $0.00 In Reference To: Williams Co. SUP - 885-11.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 In Reference To: Sun Meadow Estates - 885-7.0 Invoice # 21418 (fka Mamms View Subd.) $1,690.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,636.10 $ 1,078.00 $0.00 $2,714.10 $725.20 $0.00 $0.00 $725.20 $441.00 $1,690.50 $0.00 $2,131.50 `MERESOURCE rrrrr ■rrrr N €3 I N E E R. N G INC Garfield County • • Page 2 Prev. Ball Service taxi Payments/ New Chgs/ Fees/ Sales tax/ Credits/ Pm/Cr/Ref/ Costs Interest Refunds New Bal GRAND TOTAL WRY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,802.80 $0.00 $0.00 $2,768.50 $0.00 $5,570.80 =:RESOURCE N y ry EERING 1 N c. • Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 970-945-6777 Fax: 970-945-1137 August 15, 2002 Garfield County Attn: Mark Bean 109 Eighth St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 In Reference To: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review - 885-10.0 Invoice # 21417 Billing Period: July 1, 2002 through July 31, 2002 Professional services Hours Amount 7/8102- Meeting 7/10102- Meeting - Transmittal of Information 7/26/02- Report Review 7/30/02- Transmittal of Information - Report Review 8/5/02- Meeting For professional services rendered Previous balance Balance due 1.00 3.25 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 4.00 98.00 318.50 98.00 24.50 98.00 49.00 392.00 11.00 $1,078.00 $1,636.10 $2,714.10 ••-RESOURCE ENEEING I N C. P.O. Bax 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 • /X\ Z/4NC4tIELi4 4N1) 455O(ldtE5, Inc. E'NGiNEERING Cons(iLF414 Ts June 4, 2002 Ms. Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review Dear Kim: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax In reference to Resource Engineering's letter of May 22, 2002 for Blue Creek Ranch Item 1 under the Drainage heading, it should be noted that there are two types of construction proposed to be located within the floodway. One type of construction proposed in the floodway is the road construction shown on plan and profile sheets 15 and 16 for Ponderosa Path and Bristlecone Drive. Even though the construction of these roads will cross the floodway, the grades proposed will require that the final, finished surface elevation will be at or below the existing grade elevation. Therefore, the cross sectional area that the original floodway calculations were based on will not be decreased. Therefore, the construction will not result in an increase in flood level during the base flood discharge. The same reasoning applies to the other construction proposed within the floodway, the protection around the end of the wastewater treatment outfall structure. It will also be kept within existing ground contours. In reference to Item Number 1 underthe Irrigation Ditches heading, the lower ditch is the only ditch that serves other users that is proposed to be relocated. An agreement has been reached with St. Finnbar Ranch regarding the relocation of this ditch. A signed copy of the agreement will be provided by Final Plat. I€ you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours. Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Thom 44 s A. Zancanell., P.E. Timo P. Beck, P.E. 2:120010120729 Blue Creek Ranch\garco-ditches.wpd Davis Horan Incorporated 215 South Monarch, Suite 10 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Preliminary Plan Review Comments Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision, Sketch Plan and PUD SE Job No. 20089.01 Dear Glen: • This letter comprises our response to questions and comments from Colorado Geological Survey dated May 16, 2002 and Resource Engineering, May 22, 2002. Colorado Geological Survey Confluents dated May 16 1) Undulating topography: The site plan allows most of the undulating ground to be outside the developed areas. The lower areas lie mainly within wetland areas, riparian areas and the 100 year flood plain. Our intent for the project is to minimize the disturbance to the exiting topography therefore we have recommended against any mitigation of these areas. The site plan grading and drainage along the proposed roadways and development has taken the undulating grade into account with roadside ditches draining into the wetlands as much as possible. We anticipate that lots will be graded according to each house design a6 time of building permit to flow into the wetlands, 1041 year floodplain or roadside ditches. 2) Ditches. The proposed site plan indicates that all irrigation ditches are to remain in approximately the same location, as they exist today with a couple of exceptions. A small irrigation lateral off of the Basin ditch that serves Lot 1 wild be rerouted and piped underground to Lot 1. The remainder of the Basin ditch will be rerouted along the East property line. A section of the Lower Ditch will be rerouted so that the main course supplying St. Finnbarr will be located below proposed lots. The size of the ditch has been desired to accommodate historic irrigation flows. The realignment of this ditch has been reviewed and approved by St. Finnbarr. Also note that the numerous small onsite ditch laterals were designed primarily for irrigation water conveyance and are there for maintained at high points in the topography. We do not anticipate any large volume of storm water to be collected into these ditch laterals from on site. The roadside ditches have been designed to collect storm water from the roadways and do not drain to the ditch laterals on site. The main irrigation ditches listed below will collect some offsite and on 46. . drainage. The estimated storm and irrigation volumes are Listed below. 4) Ditch sizing with irrigation flow. on and offsite drainage flows included. Refer to standard ditch detail, Grading and Drainage Details on Sheet 27 of engineering drawing set for ditch cross section. Basin Ditch: The Basin Ditch only provides irrigation water to the northern section of the Blue Creek Ranch property. The off site supply originates north of Highway 82 and flows under the highway through a 24" culvert. The Blue Creek Ranch irrigation right on the Basin Ditch is 6 cfs. The Basin ditch is to be rerouted along the east property line bordering Cerise Ranch until it reaches the wetlands north of Lot 15 at which point all storm water or irrigation water will be routed through the wetland to the on site Pond. The Basin Ditch will capture any off site storm hater from 562 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 Sornis ENGINEERING • LLC c,o„u,nt, • • SE. JOB 20089.01 June 03, 2001 Page 2 Cerise Ranch that occurs north at this wetland. The maximum off site storm volume from Cerise Ranch was calculated to be 10 cfs. On site storm volume that may be captured by the Basin Ditch was calculated to be 2 cfs. The Basin Ditch will be design to convey a total potential flow of 18 cfs. Where the wetland intercepts the proposed roadway on the flow path to the pond two 24" culverts are proposed The culvert capacity of 40 cfs, exceeds the required flow of 18 cfs. Middle Ditch: The Middle Ditch only provides irrigation water to the center section of the Blue Creek Ranch property The Blue Creek irrigation right on the Middle Ditch is 4- cfs, The middle ditch may capture any storm water from Cerise Ranch that occurs below the wetland mentioned above and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage wetland. The ma..Ximarn off site storm volume from Cerise Ranch was calculated to be 9 cfs. On site storm volume is calculated to be 2 cfs. The Middle ditch flow will be conveyed to the on site pond through two proposed J8" Culverts under the proposed roadway. The culvert capacity of 22 cfs exceeds the required flow of 15 cfs. Lower Ditch. The Lower Ditch provides irrigation water to the Lower section of Slue Creek Ranch and irrigation water conveyed through to St. Finnbarr. The irrigation rights on the lower ditch are 6.5 els to Blue Creek Ranch and 4.5 conveyed through to St. Finnbarr. Off site storm voltune is calculated to be 5 cfs. The Lower Ditch will be designed to convey historic flow of 11 cfs minimum onto site. The section of the ditch that serves St. Finnbarr is to be realigned and will be constructed to convey a minimum of 45 cis. The capacity of the ditch can be limited by the depth and slope of the ditch. Additional storm water will be allowed to overflow and flood into the 100 year flood plain South of all lots and flow toward the Roaring Fork River. Other storm Drainane: Off site Storm drainage between the Middle Ditch and Lower Ditch will be conveyed through the wetlands shown as Blue Creek Ranch drainage. 5) Detention: The 41,328 cf of storm water for the 25 -year storm will actually be split between the 70,500 sf. pond and the 105,000 sf. wet lands. The split will be about 50%. At the 25 year storm volume the pond. will raise 3.5 inches and the wetlands will raise 2.3 inches. The effluent from the pond at 3.5" depth will increase by 12 cfs assuming a 22' wide crested weir. 6) Culverts: The 15" culvert size for roadways should actually have been stated `driveways" The drainage desim indicates a 1.5' deep by 6' wide roadside ditch along most of the roadway. As driveways are located off the roads a 15" culvert will be required to maintain the design flow of the roadside ditch. • Resource Engineering Comments May 22, 2002 SE. JOB ?0089.01 June 03, 2001 Page 3 A) Water RitrhtsWWater Supply: 2,4)Water rights and supply issues are addressed by Zancaneila and Associates and or Patrick. Miller and Cross. 3) We assumed that our letter dated September 8. 2000 addressing water supply and tank sizing had been included with the submittal. In case it was omitted, we have attached a copy. B) Wastewater: Wastewater design issues are addressed by Zancanella and Associates. C) Drainage: 1) Flood plain Special use permits are addressed by Zancanella and Associates and or Patrick Miller and Cross. 2) The storm water flow to St. Finnbarr along the Lower Ditch will be limit by the capacity of the irrigation ditch. However drainage from. the Basin defined by the area including Lots 28-39 could flow directly to the 36" culvert that crosses under County Road to St. Finnbarr. We have calculated that the post - development 25 -year detention required for this area will be 5700 cf. We have proposed a 1 foot berm north of the Lower Ditch lateral extending from the south west corner of Lot 36 across Tract 4 with a 6" culvert draining to the Lower Ditch. At 2.2" depth this shallow basin will provide the required detention volume. This basin defined above will drain naturally toward the detention. A culvert under the proposed trail should be installed to allow drainage from the edge of County Road 100 to cross the trail into the detention. 3) The outlet flow from the pond will be detailed at final plat_ The anticipated outflow for a 25 -year event is shown in #5 Detention above. 4) Water rights: Covenant notes to be addressed by Balcomb and Green at final Platt. D) Wetlands: Covenant notes to be addressed by Balcornb and Green at final Platt. E) Soils'Geoloer•: Covenant notes to be addressed by Balcornb and. Green at final Platt. F) Irrigation Ditches: Refer to Final Platt by Baleomb and Green. G) Miscellaneous Comments: We agree that additional straw bales should be located in the drainage along County Road 100 to control erosion. Consrruction documents will reflect changes. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give us a call. Sincerely, SOPRIS ENGINEERING 9// Mark A. Butler, P.E. Project Engineer Cc; Rob Cummings \yindriver Holdings, LLC Cumming i a t tacit wf 2'2 -Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Re: SE Sob Na Supply 20089.01 • Dear Rob: o cOne option for Blue Creek water supply system . w thme information agreement with tthethe Aspe nEquestr'.afl Estates Estates wajer connect t0 ttleir extsttr��, i+daur ��aram, w system and water requirements on information reccivcd from Zancanella and Associates on September 21, 2000. Aspen Eaueatrian Estates water system and re uirements Aspen Equestrian Esrates (AEE) water system includes three wells. Two wells are designed to pump 75- gailon per minute each to a water treatment system and then into a 200,000 -gallon storage tank. Only one of these wells has been installed at this time. A third well on site is not connected to the tank at this time and is being used for non -treated irrigation water. Water from the tank is pumped into the domestic AEE water system through two variable speed pumps each with a capacity of up to 100 gpm at 75 psi. A location for an additional variable speed pump is available in the pump house. The estimated average flow for the go units at AEE during the peak month of June is 52.6 gpm. Assumptions are that each residence has 3.5 people at 100 gallons per person per day. Also 3400 square feet of lawn irrigation per unit. A fire pump located i n the pump house; is rated at 1500 gpm at 45 psi. A suction fire hydrant located near the AEE tank is provided to connect to a fire trick pumper incase of power outage - An 8" water main is in place tram me pump haus to a fire hydrant within 100 feet of County Road 100. The approximately length of this main is 665 L.F. Blue creek Requirements Tlic 8" water main on the AEE property will have to be extended approximately 167 feet across County Road 100. From this point we recommend an 8" looped twain sy$tern on the Blue Creek property. We estimate that two 1500 L.E. legs would serve the proposed residential properties. Our calculations indicate that at the farthest point on the " "t r'ii,1500 gallon per minute would be available at 25 -psi pressure. Approximately 1600 gpm fire flow should be available at 20 psi according to the pump curve and friction loss calculations. The estimated average flow for 42 units at Blue Creek for the rnont of June is 30.5 gpm. We are assuming 3.5 people per lot at 100 gallon per person per day. Also 3-4-00 square feet of irrigated area for luxury homes and 2500 square feet area for nnediurn density homes. The addition of a third pump in the AEE pump house is possible if additional flow is required. B 'Creekfnd Aspen Equestrian Estates combined renuirements ..Tiirpiak month deed for the month of June would be 52.6 gprn at AEE plus 30.5 gprn at Blue Creek for a total of 83.1 sprat. The two existing wells can supply 150 spm. An additional well needs to be brought on line at build out. We would recommend that the additional well have a minimum capacity of 50 gpm flow. 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, C0 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 S8PRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultant • • SE. JOB 99089,01 September 7, 2000 Page 2 Fire flow storage requitement is 180,1100 gallon to maintain 1500 gallon per minute for a 2 -hour period. Typical storage for domestic use is 2 days of average daily demand. Water storage for AEE would be 236,000 gallon. Storage for Blue Creek would be 209,400 gallon. Total storage for A.EE and Blue Creek combined in the same system would be 265,400 gallon; (((80 units 142 units) x 3.5 capfunit x 100 gpcd x 2 day) +180,000 fire flow reserve). Since the system's water source is from two, possibly 3 separate wells, we can assume that one well will be active at all times. A well pumping 75 -gallon per minute or 108,000 gallon per day can be subtracted from the required domestic use storage. Summary The AEE water system is adequate to supply fire flows and domestic water needs for the Blue Creek Project. In our opinion the existing 200,000 storage tank located on AEE property is adequate to serve both projects. We would recommend that as the two projects develop, an additional variable speed pump be brought on line. Also we recommend an additional well be permitted for future connection as the projects reach full build out. We would also recommend that Blue Creek develop an an -site separate non -treated irrigation system. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give us a call. - Sincerely, SOPRIS ENGINEERING Mark A. Butler, P.E. Project Engineer Z6//;) Y. `Nichol, P.E. Principal Cc; Glen Horn TQM Zancanella May 31. 2002 • RECEIVED J 3 2002 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 Colorado Avenge Carbondale, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Blue Creek Ranch P.U.Q. Dear Commission Members: This letter is regarding the Blue Creek Ranch P.U.D. which the Garfield County Planning Commission will review at their June 12, 2002 meeting. The Town has concerns regarding the operation of the proposed Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS). The submittal states that a Homeowner's Association will operate the ISDS. The Town's Public Works Department has concerns with a private Homeowner's Association operating a sanitary sewage disposal system. The ISDS will be situated up gradient from our Roaring Fork River well fields. If the disposal system is not operated in accordance with established operating parameters, with proper discharge monitoring and adherence to State mandated regulations, the Roaring Fork River could experience a degradation of water quality. If Garfield County approves the development with the ISDS, the Town would ask that the system be operated and maintained by a certified wastewater treatment plant operator rather than a Homeowner's Association. The operator needs to be licensed at a level equal to, or greater, than the requirements for the facility. We ask that the County consider this issue as the Blue Creek Ranch P.U.D. is reviewed and discussed. Thank you for allowing the Town the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely. Janet M. Buck Assistant Planner (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 rill! FR IESlab FRCEll° RECEIVED MAY Z A9 7002 ■■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Ms, Kim Schlegel Garfield County Building & Planning Dept. 109 Eighth St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Blue Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan Review Dear Kim: May 22, 2002 At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the preliminary plan for the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision. The preliminary plan application submittal is dated April, 2002. We reviewed the technical issues related to water rights and water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, drainage, geology/soils, wetlands and roads. We conducted a field review on May 21, 2002. Our comments are presented below. WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY 1. The project proposes to provide potable water through the existing Aspen Equestrian Estates (AEE) central water system. Additional wells will be drilled on the Blue Creek Ranch property if needed to supplement the physical water supply for the system. 2. Blue Creek Ranch has obtained Basalt Water Conservancy District Contract #383 to provide the legal water supply for the potable water system. However, the amount of this contract is 12.9 acre feet and the required contract amount, based on the application, is 13.1 acre feet. An amended BWCD contract should be obtained prior to final plat. 3. There is no documentation on the adequacy of the existing AEE water distribution system to supply the peak demands for both the AEE and Blue Creek Ranch projects. For example, is the booster pump station adequate to also meet the demands of Blue Creek Ranch? Is the storage tank adequate? The storage requirements for a subdivision are typically based on the fire flow requirement plus the peak day demand. The peak day demand for the two subdivisions is approximately 160.000 gallons. The fire flow requirement for AEE is 120,000 gallons. The fire flow requirement for Blue Creek Ranch has not been identified in the application. Assuming the fire flow requirement is the same for both projects, the total storage requirement would be approximately 280,000 gallons. The existing AEE system has 200,000 gallons of storage. 4. The water rights for the potable water system provide for 2500 SF of irrigation per lot. This restriction should be indicated in the covenants and in a plat note. If additional irrigation water rights are available to a lot, this should be clearly indicated in the covenants. WASTEWATER 1. A site application for a central recirculating sand filtration system was approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on November 21, 2001. This approval expires November 21, 2002.. L;Onsulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO B1601 II [970) 945-6777 • Fax [970) 945-1137 • • Kim Schlagel Page 2 May 22, 2002 2. An inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan for the proposed septic tanks should be developed and included in the covenants. In addition, design guidelines for the septic tanks to include a solids screen on the effluent outlet should be included. This is important since the sewer pipelines are designed at grades below minimum standards for typical wastewater, but acceptable for effluent without solids. Additionally, solids will foul the recirculating sand filtration media. DRAINAGE 1. A flood plain special use permit will be required for the proposed fill and construction within the 100 -year flood plain. An application was submitted by 2ancanella & Associates under cover of a January 8, 2002 letter to Mark Bean. The submital indicates that the minimum finished floor elevation of all lots will be elevated at least one foot above the 100 -year base flood elevation. The flood plain special use permit submittal does not address construction in the floodway as required in Section 6.09.01 .A of the Garfield County Flood Plain Regulations. 2. Use of the existing pond for detention appears feasible. However, it does not provide detention storage for storm water in the southern half of the property which discharges onto the St. Finnbar property via the lower ditch culvert crossing. The application needs to address the potential impact to the St. Finnbar property from increased run off from the Blue Creek Ranch southern drainage area. 3. There is no detail or analysis regarding the outlet from the existing pond for purposes of detention storage releases. This detail and analysis should be provided at final plat. 4. The Roaring fork River is a very dynamic stream system that is constantly undergoing changes due to significant sediment transport. The field visit revealed several old abandoned river channels through the property. These are also identified in the H.P. Geotech September 11„ 2000 report (Appendix 13). Since development is proposed on an island between a major old channel and the river, the potential and risk for reoccupation of these channels due to a large flood event should be addressed. WETLANDS 1. Two nationwide permits and a regional permit were issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on April 10, 2002 for the proposed impacts to wetlands for the project. 2. The proposed 50' setback from wetlands appears consistent with other County approvals. 3. The covenants should indicate that wetlands exist on portions of some lots within the subdivision. These lots should be identified and the covenants should indicate that disturbance of these wetlands is prohibited. "'RESOURCE • Kim Schlegel Page 3 SOILS/GEOLOGY May 22, 2002 1. There were no identified soils or geologic hazards within the proposed development area. However, the potential exists for sink holes on the property and individual site specific soils and geotechnical investigations are required in the covenants. IRRIGATION DITCHES 1. The applicant proposes to relocate ditches within the property which also serve adjacent property owners. Based on a recent Supreme Court decision, a property owner should secure the approval of the downstream water right owners or secure court approval for relocation of ditches with owneship by downstream users. Evidence of such approval should be presented at final plat. ROADS Based on the traffic analysis, the proposed roads meet the applicable County regulations and standards. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS On sheet 24, additional straw bales should be located in the drainage ditch along County Road 100 between Ponderosa Pass Road and the Blue Creek. Ranch drainage, and along County Road 100 between Bristle Cone Drive and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer MJE/dlh 885-10.0 ks hi ck filch viral revtew.885.wpd CC: Glenn Horn, Davis Horn, Inc. eaeen R E S iL l U I 1 C. E • • MEMORANDUM To: Kim Schlagel From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Bine Creek Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Date: May 16, 2002 thanks for the opportunity to comment on the PUD. My comments are as follows: 1. Wetlands In Appendix 26, Mr. Ken Jacobsen of the Army Corps of Engineers alludes to an August 8 report by Andy Antipas that identifies plant species. Maybe l missed it, but I couldn't find a copy of said report in the Preliminary Plan. Would it be possible to get a copy? 2. Noxious Weeds ▪ Inventory and snapping -Mr. Dahmer's letter and Mr. Antipas' letter both mention noxious weeds and "thistles", but there isn't a detailed inventory of County -listed noxious weeds. The applicant should conduct a weed inventory and provide the locations on a map. Weeds that may be in the area include: piumeless thistle, Scotch thistle, Canada thistle, and possibly oxeye daisy close to the Roaring Fork, • Weed Management -The applicant should provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. Common area weed management -The Open Space Plan lists various areas of the site as either conservation easements, private open space, general open space, public parks, public trail, or CDOT dedication. Please detail the entity that will be responsible for weed management in each of these areas and also any roadways in the project. • Covenants -Weed management for the Association and each individual lot owner should be addressed in the covenants. 2. Revegetation The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) 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. The applicant needs to provide a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat, that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. The applicant may include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment. The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if the project has: 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 (15% or greater) or unstable areas. Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater) The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached 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. 11 is the recommendation of the Vegetation Management Department that we request a revegetation security bond for this project. As stated above, the applicant may provide their own estimates for revegetation costs or we will calculate the costs based on current market prices that will include estimates for time and materials. Again, as stated above, the applicant shall quantify the amount of surface area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed. 3. Soil Plan 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. Please feel free to contact me at 625-3969. • • GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common name Leafy spurge Russian knapweed Yellow starthistle Plumeless thistle Houndstongue Common burdock Scotch thistle Canada thistle Spotted knapweed Diffuse knapweed Dalmatian toadflax Yellow toadflax Hoary cress Saltcedar Saltcedar Oxeye Daisy Jointed Goatgrass Chicory Musk thistle Purple loosestrife Russian olive Scientific name Euphorbia esula Acroptilon repens Centaurea soistitalis Carduus acanthoides Cynoglossum officinak Arctium minus Onopordum acanthium Cirsium arvense Centaurea maculosa Centaurea diffusa Linaria dalmatica Linaria vulgaris Cardaria draba Tamarix parvOora Tamarix ramosissima Chrysanthemum leucantheum Aegilops cylindrica Cichorium intybus Carduus nutans Lythrum salicaria Elaeagnus angustifolia • Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines From the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan -1.06 Revegetation and Rehabilitation: A crucial part of any weed management plan is the reintroduction of site appropriate vegetation. Establishing a desirable plant community after noxious weeds have been removed from a highly infested area requires timely cultivation and reseeding. Since the seeds from noxious weeds may lay dormant for many years, removing all visible signs of the noxious weeds does not ensure against their return. Revegetation can help prevent the germination of weed seeds. It is important to inspect the land regularly to identify and treat small, new infestations. For proper reclamation, managed irrigation of dry areas, fertilization, and reseeding are essential to establish desirable plant communities. Native plants are most appropriate when the goal is restoration (trying to restore native habitat). Weed -free seeds of native Colorado grasses, wildflowers or plant species appropriate to the site may be purchased, but the best source for seeds is from native species that grow in the immediate vicinity of the infestation. They will be best adapted to local conditions and will help maintain local integrity and genetic viability. Using native plants or seeds to reclaim disturbed land reduces degradation of native ecosystems, reduces the need for herbicides and conserves water resources. Native plants will provide a broad biological diversity and help keep Colorado looking like Colorado with a unique regional landscape that sets us apart from other areas of the country. When the goal is reclamation (reseeding for quick ground cover establishment or erosion control), it may be appropriate to use introduced, non-aggressive grasses and forbs. Contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service or Colorado State University Cooperative Extension for seeding recommendations. The Native Plant Revegetation Guide for Colorado, published by the Colorado State Parks Natural Areas Program, is an excellent guide for native plant reseeding. Contact the Garfield County Vegetation Management office for further information on this material. STRATEGIES: • Study all vegetation in the area and surrounding areas. • Preserve plant species native to Colorado. • Test the soil for pH balance. Try to retain and utilize as much on-site topsoil as possible. • Select a predominant species that is appropriate to the site. Then choose a few complimentary species to provide a balanced plant community. • Choose plants that are healthy, vigorous and pest free. • Use weed -free seeds. Use non -hybrid seeds. Avoid commercial seedpackets containing exotic plant species. 1 • • Choose plants that are horticulturally appropriate, i.e. plant species that are adaptable to climate, soil and topographical conditions of the designated area. • Consider the use of water, its availability and the vegetative requirements. • To landscape for wildlife, choose native plants that provide cover, forage, browse, seeds for birds and rodents, and shade. * Be site-specific; revegetation strategies may vary for small lots, farms, ranches or construction sites. • Establish a vegetative cover that is diverse, effective and long lasting, capable of self - regeneration. • Stabilize the surface. • • Garfield County Requirements (Adopted May 7, 2001) • At the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, as part of the Planning and Zoning approval process, for land disturbances outside the building envelope, the County may require, at preliminary pian and prior to Final Plat, the following items: A Soil Plan to include: 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. A Revegetation Plan to include: Plant material list (be specific, scientific and common names required) Planting schedule (to include timing, methods, and provisions for watering, if applicable) A map of the area impacted at preliminary plan (where the soil will be disturbed) A revegetation bond. (Agricultural practices are exempt from revegetation requirements unless they are in association with a subdivision or land use proposal.) A revegetation security may be required if, in the determination of the Board of County Commissioners, the proposed project has: 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 (15% or greater) or unstable areas. Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater) The revegetation security will be in an amount to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners that will be site-specific and based on the amount of disturbance. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the following 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. 3 Reclamation Standards (Adopted May 7, 2001) Site stability A. The reclaimed area shall be stable and exhibit none of the following characteristics: I, Large rills or gullies. 2. Perceptible soil movement or head cutting in drainages. 3. Slope instability on or adjacent to the reclaimed area. B. Slopes shall be stabilized using appropriate reshaping and earthwork measures, including proper placement of soils and other materials. II. Soil Management Topsoil management shall be salvaged from areas to be disturbed and managed for later use in reclamation. 1II. Erosion Prevention The surface area disturbed at any one time during the development of a project shall be kept to the minimum necessary and the disturbed areas reclaimed within ninety days to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation resulting from erosion. A. The soil surface must be stable and have adequate surface roughness to reduce run-off, capture rainfall and snow melt, and allow for revegetation. B. Application of certified noxious weed free mulch or erosion netting may be necessary to reduce soil movement, retain soil moisture, and promote revegetation. C. Soil conservation measures, including surface manipulation, reduction in slope angle, revegetation, and water management techniques, shall be used. D. Sediment retention structures or devices shall be located as close to the source of the sediment generating activities as possible to increase their effectiveness and reduce environmental impacts. V. Revegetation When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, and reduce visual impacts. Specific criteria for evaluating revegetation success must be site- specific and included as a part of the reclamation plan. 4 1 A. Vegetation production, species diversity, and cover, shall support the post - disturbance land use. Areas where the post -disturbance land use does not include lawns, gardens, and flower beds; shall approximate the surrounding undisturbed area or be revegetated to a desired plant community with a composition of species and plant cover typical to that site. 13. The vegetation shall stabilize the site and support the planned post -disturbance land use, provide natural plant community succession and development, and be capable of renewing itself. This shall be demonstrated by: 1. Using certified noxious weed free seed. 2. Successful onsite establishment of the species included in the planting mixture andlor other desirable species. 3. Evidence of vegetation reproduction, either spreading by rhizomatous species or seed reproduction. 4. Evidence of overall site stability and sustainability. C. The revegetation plan shall provide for the greatest probability of success in plant establishment and vegetation development by considering environmental factors such as seasonal patterns of precipitation, temperature and wind; soil texture and fertility; slope stability; and direction of slope faces. D. To insure the establishment of a diverse and long-lasting vegetative cover, the permittee shall employ appropriate techniques of site preparation and protection. species diversity should be selected for long-term land uses and to provide for a reduction in visual contrast. E. Where revegetation is to be used, a diversity of vegetation species shall be used to establish a resilient, self-perpetuating ecosystem capable of supporting the post -disturbance land use. Species planted shall include those that will provide for quick soil stabilization, provide litter and nutrients for soil building and are self -renewing. F. Integrated Weed Management (1WM) methods shall be employed for all noxious weed species on the Garfield County List. Weed management methods shall be used whenever the inhabitation of the reclaimed area by noxious weeds threaten nearby areas, G. Where revegetation is impractical or inconsistent with the surrounding undisturbed areas, other forms of surface stabilization shall be used. Contact Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, at 970-625-3969 for information on weed management and reclamation. Contact Dennis Davidson, Natural Resources Conservation Service, at 970-945-5494, ext. 101, for reclamation and seeding recommendations. 5 RE CEWED MAY 2 POS • STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division or Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-261 1 FAX: (303) 866-2461 Ms Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning 109 8th St Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Blue Creek Ranch CGS Review No. GA -02-0009 Dear Ms Schlagel: May 16, 2002 31 T7S R87W DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Gove inru Greg E. Watcher Executive Director Michael B. Lung Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972) I visited this property to review the plat. The development plan contained the following reports pertinent to this review: ♦ Drainage Study prepared by Sopris Engineering (October 2001). • Flood Plain Development Permit prepared by Zancanella and Associates (January 2002); ► Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by HP Geotech (September 2000). The site is about 80 acres bounded by the Roaring Fork River, Highway 82 and CR 100. Roaring Fork Flood Plain. The chief concern at the site is the potential for flooding from the Roaring Fork. Base flood elevations were established by FEMA and published in a 1986 FIRM. A portion of the development that is planned lies within the flood fringe, which is permitted by the Federal Flood Insurance Plan (H -1P) under the condition that construction is designed a minimum height above flood levels. The drainage report (and the FFIP) does not take into account the possibility of channel migration and erosion of fiver banks. This potential was alluded to in the HP report: -the flood evaluations should also consider the possibility of river reoccupation of the abandoned channels and the possible need for river bank stabilization." There is a 1999 study prepared by BRW for the Colorado Water Conservation Board that illustrates channel instability in the Roaring Fork. The section of river included in the site is shown as stable. We recommend that this report be used as a starting point to prepare a review of more detailed geomorphology of the river in the area of the site over the last 30 years. This analysis should be performed by persons experienced in geomorphology. The valley is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite, and dissolution of the bedrock facilitates channel migration in some places. This study would avoid what could be a simplistic approach to .just raise the finished floor grades above expected flood levels. Also, it is anticipated that with no overlot grading and the "undulating topography" described in the drainage report that there will be some areas where water will tend to pond during storm events. These should be identified and there should be plans for mitigation of these areas. Ditches. During the site visit I was told by the owner that all irrigation water in ditches would be piped. This would address the concerns of overtopping and seepage from the ditches. However, there is no mention in the drainage report about what might be the volume of storm flows in the ditches during periods of irrigation, and how the pipes will be sized. • • Blue Creek Ranch, pi Page 5 of the drainage report states that "offsite drainage between the Middle Ditch and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage and the drainage between the Blue Creek Ranch drainage and the Lower Ditch is addressed on the site Grading and Drainage Plan." The plan shows these features, but there is no indication of flow volumes. These should be calculated. Page 4 of the drainage report states that "this network of irrigation ditches conveys overbank flows of the Roaring Fork River through the site during spring snowmelt peak runoff periods." However, there is no mention of what the overbank flow volumes are. These should be calculated and taken into account for the sizing of irrigation pipes. Detention. It appears that detention will be provided by the existing wetlands and the pond; however there is no indication of how much runoff will be directed to the wetlands or the pond. Sopris has calculated that development will produce an additional 41,328 cf of storm water for the 25 -yr design storm, and that this volume would raise the level of the pond 7 inches. However, it is not clear what percentage of runoff the pond will receive, given that wetlands are supposed to provide detention, as well. Also, there is no mention of what the water level rise would be for the 100 -yr storm event, and whether the pond could accommodate this volume. The spillway elevation and its relation to flood control should be discussed. Culverts. The drainage report states that the minimum culvert size for all roadways is 15 inches. This culvert size will permit adequate conveyance without a significant headwater depth at the culvert inlet." There is no indication of how this conclusion was arrived at. Quality assurance. There should be some documentation to ensure that the finished floor elevations meet FFIP specifications. Either the county should provide building inspections for each home or an engineer should sign off on this item. No subgrade construction should be included with the home designs. Utility installation should be designed to resist the effects of flooding and high groundwater. In summary, the flood plain analysis should include a detailed evaluation of the historical geomorphology of the Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the site. The drainage report omits discussion of some important items, listed above. We recommend that approval of the subdivision be contingent on the satisfactory completion of the flood plain study and revision of the drainage report. Please call me if there are any questions. Yours truly, Celia Greenman Geologist • RECEIVED MAY ? `' 211h2 May 15. 2002 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street. Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 8160.1 BEAIL FIRE • EMS • RESCUE RE: Blue Creek Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan Dear Kim: have reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch PUD. I would offer the following comments: Access Access for the proposed development appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. Water Sunnh The proposal indicates that water for fire protection will be supplied from the adjacent Aspen Equestrian 1:states subdivision. The Aspen Equestrian Estates system consists of a 200.000 -gallon water storage tank vv ith a lire pump rated at 1.500 gallons per minute. This system vvould meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). Appendix 111-A. "Fire Flow Requirements ibr Buildings". for residences up to 3.600 square feet. The proposed spacing and location of lire hydrants is acceptable for the subdivision. Impact Fees The development k subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the proposed new residential lots. The developer vv ill be required to enter into an agreement vv ith the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincere I3i11 Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 • PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Wind River Development LLC has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan approval, pursuant to Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations, as amended and also an amendment of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See attached Practical Description: 3220 CR 100 The PUD Preliminary Plan application proposes to develop a 8133 acre parcel into 49 dwelling units with 72.105 acres of open space, a bike trail, and public river access. All persons affected by the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan application are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the proposed subdivision. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 1st day of July, 2002, at 1:15 p.m, in the County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County May 16, 2002. Ms Kim Schlegel Garfield County Planning 1098th St Suite301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Blue Creek Ranch CGS Review No. GA -02-0009 Dear Ms Schlegel: • 3I T7S R87W In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972)1 visited this property to review the plat. The development plan contained the following reports pertinent to this review: ♦ Drainage Study prepared by Sopris Engineering (October 2001): • Flood Plain Development Permit prepared by Zancanella and Associates (January 2002): • Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by HP Geotech (September 2000). The site is about 80 acres bounded by the Roaring Fork Diver, Highway 82 and CR 100. Roaring Fork Flood Plain. The chief concern at the site is the potential for flooding from the Roaring Fork. Base flood elevations were established by FEMA and published in a 1986 FIRM. A portion of the development that is planned ties within the flood fringe, which is permitted by the Federal Flood Insurance Plan (FFIP) under the condition that construction is designed a minimum height above flood levels. The drainage report (and the FFIP) does not take into account the possibility of channel migration and erosion of river banks. This potential was alluded to in the HP report: "the flood evaluations should also consider the possibility of river reoccupation of the abandoned channels and the possible need for river bank stabilization." There is a 1999 study prepared by BRW for the Colorado Water Conservation Board that illustrates channel instability in the Roaring Fork. The section of river included in the site is shown as stable. We recommend that this report be used as a starting point to prepare a review of more detailed geomorphology of the river in the area of the site over the last 30 years. This analysis should be performed by persons experienced in. geomorphology. The valley is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite, and dissolution of the bedrock facilitates channel migration in some places_ This study would avoid what could be a simplistic approach to just raise the finished floor grades above expected flood levels. Also, it is anticipated that with no overlot grading and the "undulating topography" described in the drainage report that there will be some areas where water will tend to pond during storm events. These should be identified and there should be plans for mitigation of these areas. Ditches. During the site visit I was told by the owner that all irrigation water in ditches would be piped. This would address the concerns of overtopping and seepage from the ditches. However, there is no mention in the drainage report about what might be the volume of storm flows in the ditches during periods of irrigation, and how the pipes will be sized. • • Blue Creek Ranch, p.2 Page 5 of the drainage report states that "offsite drainage between the Middle Ditch and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage and the drainage between the Blue Creek Ranch drainage and the Lower Ditch is addressed on the site Grading and Drainage Plan." The plan shows these features, but there is no indication of flow volumes. These should be calculated. Page 4 of the drainage report states that "this network of irrigation ditches conveys overbank flows of the Roaring Fork River through the site during spring snowrnelt peak runoff periods." However. there is no mention of what the overbank flow volumes are. These should be calculated and taken into account for the sizing of irrigation pipes. Detention. It appears that detention will be provided by the existing wetlands and the pond; however there is no indication of how much runoff will be directed to the wetlands or the pond. Sopris has calculated that development will produce an additional 41,328 cfof storm water for the 25 -yr design storm. and that this volume would raise the level of the pond 7 inches. However, it is not clear what percentage of runoff the pond will receive, given that wetlands are supposed to provide detention. as well. Also. there is no mention of what the water level rise would be for the l00 -yr storm event. and whether the pond could accommodate this volume. The spillway elevation and its relation to flood control should be discussed. Culverts. The drainage report states that "the minimum culvert size for all roadways is 15 inches. This culvert size will permit adequate conveyance without a significant headwater depth at the culvert inlet." There is no indication of how this conclusion was arrived at. Quality assurance. There should be some documentation to ensure that the finished floor elevations meet FFIP specifications. Either the county should provide building inspections for each home or an engineer should sign off on this item. No subgrade construction should be included with the home designs. Utility installation should be designed to resist the effects of flooding and high groundwater. In summary. the Flood plain analysis should include a detailed evaluation of the historical geomorphology of the Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the site. The drainage report omits discussion of some important items. listed above. We recommend that approval of the subdivision be contingent on the satisfactory completion of the flood plain study and revision of the drainage report. Please call me if there are any questions. Yours truly. Celia Greenman Geologist • 6161 -44-1 4 %agpnd surwn, 114. Wm.". I RI.Ms41nn. 11-1 �.aa.I ROARING FORK and FRYINGPAN RIVER MULTI -OBJECTIVE PLANNING PROJECT CHANNEL INSTABILITY -100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Area 4 1018 y'rvll f fe.dPGun w,b- halm knew channel' plow howl C. hannel IrigaR.l i r>' YMls l• 1•4444,4 —ten n4,an>tMN, Ian*.r.Now I "pow,. IwI 1•4444 4' 44, 44414.4 a.ilt 444•M4.44,*.444.s4444Ilius 444444 ■,ssk C... Slug 141,.9,0 W-rgraaw iM.ay M. r4444444 4414,44441444 444164.1,44.14 nn -44x.. -x1441, L4.+.., 11.444414 .b. 'I I 1444114444 4444444 144411.• 1-•1 1 ,14441 mina. ww 4.44411.44.4.444, wti e..a't1..v 144 11144e441 44441141 •4„ awe..+ 11.444/ 111 .. 14111111 S144•444. 44444 r. r14444444•11114•44 1......r 4i44g11 eed 9 lien Ror JIM fie u • 14t faltimf .w40w 1 rns.. tm lout oltert.lr 0.4111tvd. Unna... WW1 PtundW n+ (Awry Nwtot arra timtattc I:sMMmr 40,144.+'. Hoitmart• AlarMay • IC.alllwt)YYm. ••47 J.'I ROARING FORK and FRYINGPAN RIMER MULTI -OBJECTIVE PLANNING PROJECT CHANNEL INSIABILI IY - 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Area 4 IBB V.I. 1 ktraul.0.1 n 'APP.4 Watt. WA*. rider.• 11. t7o+l t I..WHlity. 4 Mail .• ,•.rte a...p.s..yw..rw M 4. Prof ".w.a •ae.. M... r.+.,.r..w. w.l.., ra.l.pw. tf...11.0 dl.ulyi.. ..dials g.. h.f ...... km rs...,w tilt New r... ra ..,arra — r..tei A...!".. .... bYw/, l••YM aM.l $.ear ................ marf .yl...r. 4...d ymwri1 Mon Map 1141 TO 101 •• I.0 --ma • • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Resell George, Director 6C60 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 May 13, 2002 Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Blue Creek Ranch. PUD Dear Kim: 110 For 1lldlije- For People 1 have reviewed the information and visited the site for the Blue Creek Ranch PUD. This parcel does not lie within any big game mapped areas, partially due to its close proximity to existing development and already present disturbances, like County Road 100. What is ofwildlife importance to the area is the lush riparian area that lies adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and just south of the proposed development area. With a mixture of deciduous species as well as some older Ponderosa Pine, this area provides some interesting habitat for many different types of birds. The conservation easement that is to extend north from the Roaring Fork River is a great way to preserve this habitat in perpetuity and the cluster developments that have been planned will aid in reducing wildlife conflicts. Occasional deer may be seen grazing in some of the fields, but most of the wildlife usage in this area will be due to small mammals, birds, and perhaps a few raptors. Due to the fact that there is an existing subdivision on the other side of the road and the other disturbances, the impacts on wildlife should be minimal as long as certain recommendations are followed: 1. Dogs and cats need to be prevented from running at large. They can have a devastating effect on nesting birds and other small animals. Partially fencing yards or runs for animals will be necessary to prevent dogs and cats from having free roam of the conservation easement area thus making it more attractive to resident wildlife. 2. Although there may be very little usage of the area by deer, fencing should be held to a minimum, and when necessary, wildlife friendly fencing should be used. For wire fencing, a maximum height of 42" with no more than 4 strands and a 12" kickspace between the top two strands is sufficient. Rail fencing should be held to a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. 3. Bear/human conflicts have not been a problem here in the past and can be kept to a minimal provided: • Homeowners use an approved bear -resistant container for storing all trash/garbage. • Bird feeders should be strung up from the ground with a seed catchment and humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the houses. • Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. • BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when not in use. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION. Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Mamma Rafiapouios, Secretary Members, Bernard Rack • Tom Burke • Philp James • Mark LeValey • Owe Valdez Ex -Officio Members. Greg E. Walcher and Don Ament • Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding on expensive landscaping. 4. Maintaining as much of the existing habitat as possible will also promote continued wildlife usage. If trees need to be cut for safety reasons, topping rather than removing all together can help provide raptor perches and snags for cavity nesting birds. 5. There are quite a few noxious weeds that inhabit the area. Large areas of disturbed earth will encourage more weed growth. A weed mitigation plan can help eliminate the weeds that are there, help keep them from coming back, and make the area more attractive to homeowners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Justin Martens District Wildlife Manager Carbondale 970-947-2933 ( )11 ICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER 11tviion 01 Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Rooni 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 13033 866-3581 FAX: (3031866-3589 htip)lwaterstate.eo,uslsl 'LINA hu,- Kit Lyon Garfield County Planning Dept 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 • STATE OF OLOIADO RECEIVED MAY 1 ,, 2002 May 6, 2002 Re: Blue Creek Ranch Pi In orarmtrsa`' Plan SW'/4 NE 'A Section 31, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walls her Executive Direcior RAI D, Simpson, P.E Stare Engineer Dear Mr. Lyon: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 81.3 acres into 48 lots and open space tracts. One single-family residence will be located on 47 of the lots, one lot will contain one single-family residence, an accessory dwelling and agricultural buildings. The open space will contain a 1.65 acre pond and sprinkler -irrigated pasture. Water will be diverted to irrigate up to 2500 square feet of lawn at each residence, and a total of 20 livestock units are included in the water service plan. Total water use for the development is estimated at 34.48 acre-feet, with a consumptive use of 12.56 acre-feet. The applicant proposes to provide water for the residential lots through central supply wells pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District) via an agreement with the Aspen Equestrian Estates. A copy of the contract and the agreement was provided. The applicant claims an interest in the Basin Ditch (equivalent to 6.4 cfs) is to provide for continued irrigation of the pasture land. Sewage disposal is proposed to be provided through a central system. Our records indicate that the applicant has obtained well permits for the Arabian and Appaloosa Wells (permit nos. 053323-F and 053322-F) which were issued on March 1, 2000 for domestic and commercial use. A well test completed by Shelton Drilling Corp. indicates that the Arabian Well (permit no. 053323-F) produced 110 gallons per minute over a twenty-four hour period on December 13, 2001. With adequate storage capacity the well should provide an cdeq l.A i:^J i.e J1-41-lply for the proposed Ilse. Inspection of the applicant's "Water Use Inputs" reveals an application efficiency of 70%, however, we require a minimum application efficiency of 80% unless site specific information is provided for our review to support the claimed application efficiency. Further. the EQR/unit should be independent of whether the unit is a Single Family Affordable Unit or Freemarket Unit. The applicant's Demand Table must therefore be altered to reflect these requirements and resubmitted for our review. The sewage treatment system is described as a central system with individual septic tanks sized for each lot, which implies that some loss/storage of water may occur on-site. Such loss/storage would cause an additional depletion to the stream system. The 5% consumptive use rate is typically claimed for systems where all of the sewage is treated at a central facility. The applicant must prove that the claimed consumptive use is appropriate for this system. 1 • Garfield County Planning Dept Blue Creek Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan May 6, 2002 Page 2 Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights, an is inadequate. Also, the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance,. KW KfCMLIBIue Creek Ranch.doc Sincerely, 7//x Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 FtEPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT410 B APR i 1 OF ARMY r�' �. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922 April 10, : . 02 Regulatory Branch (200275010) Mr. Timothy Beck Zancanella and Associates, Incorporated Post Office Box 1908 105 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mr. Beck: We are responding to your request for a Department of the Army permit to; 1) place fill below the ordinary high water mark of the Roaring Fork River for a waste water treatment plant outfall, 2) impact wetlands adjacent to Blue Creek for two road crossings, and 3) impact wetlands adjacent to building lot 21 within the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision. The project site is located on the Roaring Fork River, near Catherine Store, and within Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Garfield County, Colorado. The Chief of Engineers has issued nationwide general permit numbers 7, 14 and 18 which authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States for outfall structures and maintenance, minor discharges and linear transportation crossings, respectively. We have determined that your project will not affect threatened or endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Your project can be constructed under this authority provided the work meets the conditions listed on the enclosed information sheets and the six. special conditions identified below: 1) You roust submit pre -construction photographs of your outfall conditions to the Roaring Fork River along with post - construction photographs to establish recontour and grade matching activities effecting above and below the ordinary high water mark, 2) Plant species identified and delineated by the Andy Anitpas report dated August 8, 2000, must be restored in the compensatory mitigation area using a combination of the following trees and shrubs; Populus a,ngustifolia, Alnus incana, Cornus sLolonifera, Picea pungens, and Salix exigua. 3) Topsoil from the delineated 1505 square feet of impacted wetlands adjacent to building lot 21 must be moved to the area of compensatory mitigation and placed below existing grade. The area of compensatory mitigation is directly east of building lots 18 and 19, within Tract number 5 of the final plat map submitted to this office and dated January 4, 2002. 4) You must submit prints of photographs depicting the degree to which perfo.unance criteria has been met for the 2300 square feet of compensatory mitigated wetland in a wetland mitigation report. 5) You must send a signed letter of certification to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days after completion of the work (see general condition number 14). A copy of the certification statement is included for your use. 6) You must comply with any applicable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) -approved state or local management requirements for building activities within the 100 -Year Floodplain identified by your Existing Conditions/Topography Map dated September 21, 2000. This approval is predicated upon information provided by Zancanelle and Associates to this office. If any of this information proves to be false, we will adjust our permit verification accordingly. This verification is valid until April 9, 2004. If you have not completed your project by that time, you should contact the Corps of Engineers to obtain information on any changes which may have occurred to the nationwide permits. You are responsible for remaining informed of such changes and for ensuring that all contract personnel are familiar with the terms and conditions of this permit. • We have assigned number 200275010 to your project. Please refer to this number in any correspondence with this office. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mark Gilfillan of this office or telephone number (970) 243-1199, extension 15. Sincerely, Ken Jacobson Chief, Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory. Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Enclosures Copies Furnished: Mr. Ron D. Velarde, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 711 Independent Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Mr. Al Pfister, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • JOHN A THULSON EDWARD MULHALL. JR SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R GREEN TIMOTHY A THULSON LORI J. M. SATTERFIELD CHRISTOPHER L GEIGER ANNE MARIE CALLAHAN AMANDA N. MAURER DEBORAH 0Av18• • ADMITTED SO FRACYN;E IN NEW YORK AND MISSOURI VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: BALCOMB & GREEN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW •ECEJVELJ S P. 0. DRAWK 790 818 CO1.OKAfO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO o M t 602 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.9769 April 23. 2002 Kim Sehlagel, Senior Nei finer Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8I1 Street, Suite 303 G!env+ood Springs. CO 81601 Re: Blue Creek Ranch PUD Dear Kirn: OF COUNSEL - 3 2D92 KENNETH EiALCOMB Last Friday. April 19, 2002 we had a telephone conversation concerning your suggestion that the zone text language for Blue Creek Ranch PUD be inserted into the Declaration of Protective Covenants for the community. At that time I indicated to you that for a number of legal reasons I do not believe that protective covenants are the best vehicle to ensure that the provisions of the zone text appear in the recorded chain of title of property within a PUD. I believe that it is preferable. from both the developer and the Count!, •s point of view. that the zone text language be attached as an exhibit to anv resolution of approval oldie Pt) D. and that such resolution, together with the attached zone text exhibit, be recorded. In that way. tIhe rote text language. as well as anv other material conditions or approval imposed upon the PUD, will. appear. in one recorded document, thereby giving notice of all such terms and conditions to all purchasers of property within the development. On behalf of the developer of Blue Creek Ranch PUD, and assuming a resolution of approval is forthcoming al the conclusion oldie public review process, it is agreed that the Blue Creek Ranch PUD zone tem provisions be attached to and recorded with such resolution of approval. Please do not hesitate to contact elle if you have any additional questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. LRGfbc xc: Glenn horn Robert M. Cumming • GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: April 25, 2002 Comments Due: May 16, 2002 Name of application: Blue Creek Ranch PUD Sent to: Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify Kim Schlagel in the event you are unable to respond by 05/16/02. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: Kim Schlagel 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-5004 Phone: 970-945-8212 E-mail: kschlagel@garfield-county.com General comments: Name of review agency: - By: Date: Apr -11-e02 12:11 P.02 APR ; ;. 2U2 REPLY no LT7FNTfQH or DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO C0RPS OF ENGINEERS 13as r SMELT SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 45414-2922 April 10, 2002 Regulatory Branch (200275010) Mr, Timothy Beek zancanella and Associates, Tncorpot t d Post Office Box 1908 105 Coope=r Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81502 Dear Mr. Beck: We arc resecr:d.ing to your request tor a Departmere oL the Array permit to; 11 place Li__ below the ordinary hiah water Mark of the Roaring Fork River for a waste watt- treatmenr c ut ta_1, 21 impact wetlands acij accnt to Blue Creek f o i _we road crossings, and 3i impact wetlands adjacent to beildi.na lot 21 within the Bi.ue Creek Ranch Subdivision. `l'he project .: to is located on the Roaring Fork River, near Catherine ew ee, .end withir. Section 31, Township .' ; Ruth, Range 87 West, '.1e,r±ie d County, Colorado. The chief of Engineers has issued nationwide general permit. numbers ,, 14 &id 18 wh_cn autt'.:)r_ze :he disehaxge of irr dge d ur films T[latcria1 in waters of the United States for matt; -71 structures and rna :.nt..e tianc:e, minor discharges • nci linear r.rar.sportat. cn er•ossinas . re=spec~ ve=iy. We have dere ei r e..f! I_ ..iL your protect will not affec:r threatened or endangered epecios protected by he Endangered Species Act. Your pco j ect cer he constructed under :.his. authority provided the wc.r"k ::nets the c ondiLiofs listed on the enclosed in or atic_. sheets aed t.hc six special conditions Identified ociow: 1) You must submit pre -construction photographs of your outfall conditions to the Roaring Fork River along with post - construction photographs to eetablish recontour and grade matching activities effecting above and below the ordinary high water mark. 2) Plant species identified and delineated by the Andy Anitpas report dated August 8, 2000, mut be restored in the compensatory mitigation area using a combination of the following trees and shrubs; PQpulus angustlfolies, Aldus incana, cornus stolonifera, Picea pungens. and Salix trxiguat. Apr -11-02 12:11P P.05 • COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Permit File Number: 200275010 Permit Type' Nationwide permits 7. 14 and le. Name of Permittee: Mr. Tiror.hy Krok Zanoanella and Associates, Inc. Post Office box 1900 :.005 Cooper .+►vc:e'tfi' Glenwood Springs, CO 8101: County Where Work was Performed: Cartic1ct Date of Ieeuance: April 10. 2002 Upon completion of the activity aut:nnri.a.crt by rh'i $ pEarmd l and illy mitigation rwIL.ired by 'Athy permit. sign this certificaticn and reti.:r:: it to .he fc_lowirg address: Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory Qttice U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento 1 i :3t.r ict Wayne N. Aspinall Federal Building 402 Rood ?,VC:O':R, Room 142 Grant .:Jn ,;t. ton. Colorado 81501-2563 Please note that your permitted activity is subject rn a ::ompl iar'ce inspection ry a U.S. Army Corps of F:ngineer8 representative. If you `ail to comply with the terns and condition: of the permit your authorization may bo.. suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certiti.-ari on, please contact the Corps of Engineers ottic:c: in E;rand ,:,tns :.:can, telephone number (970) 243 1199, extension . t hereby r_rrr. i f y Char rhe work au thori zed by the above referenced permit, including all rhe required mitigation, was completed in accordance with rhr_ terms and conditions of the permit verification. Signatt:re of Permittee Date Apr -11-02 12:11P P.03 -2- 3) Topsoil from the delineated 1505 square feet of impacted wetlands adjacent to building lot 21 must be moved to the area of compensatory mitigation and placed below existing grade. The area of compensatory mitigation is directly east of building lots 18 and 19, within Tract number 5 of the final plat map submitted to this office and dated January 4, 2002. 4l You must submit prints of photographs depicting the degree to which performance criteria has been met for the 2300 square feet of compensatory mitigated wetland in a wetland mitigation report_ 5) You must send a signed letter of certification to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days after completion of the work (see general condition number 14) . A copy of the certification statement is included for your use. 6) You must comply with any applicable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) -approved state or .local management requirements for building activities within the 100 -Year Floodplain identified by your Existing Conditions/Topography Map dated September 21, 2000. This approval is paedi:.e.•ed upon infcrnatrc,n provides by Zancare1le and Associates to ttiis office_ If any of this information proves to be false, we will adjust our permit verification accordingly. This verification is valid un l i April 9, 2004. If you have not completed your project by Ulat. t m , yt_a,.1 should contact the Corps of Engineers tc ;obtain ir.Lormw_ _on on any ch r:yen which may have occurred Lo the i at icr_w_dc permits. You are rewpons ible for remaining unformed of s.�:ch chances and for ensuring that all contract personnel are familiar with the terms and conditions of th s permit. Apr -11-02 12:11P P.Q4 -3- We have assigned number 20027S010 to your proje w . V1ease refer to this number in any oorre:vo,tidence with this off -,..:e. Tf you have any questions, please contact. Mx . Mark Gilfi_lan of office or telephone number (970) 243-1199, extension 15. Keri taco. on C'rii' , 1 o:"ado/Gunai ('n Basin Req atory Otfice 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado $1501-2G3 Enclosures Copies Furnished: Mr. Ron. U. Velarde, Colorado Division of Wildli Tndepentdent. Avenue, Crand Junction, Colorado Mr. Al Mester, U.S. Fish and Wild? . fe Service, Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, Colorado Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 100 Rth Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 te, 71: AI501 764 Horizon 61506-946 Suits.: 1 RECEIV DEC f ? 2a01 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Jane E. Norton, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 5. Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co.us November 21, 2001 Laboratory and Radiation Services Division 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 (303) 692-3090 Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC c/o Robert Cummings, Jr. 19351 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Site Application #4565 Garfield County Dear Mr. Cummings: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment The Water Quality Control Division has reviewed and evaluated your site application and supporting documentation for construction of a wastewater treatment facility to be located in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 31, T7S, R87W, to serve Blue Creek Ranch, and to discharge to the Roaring Fork River. Prior to the operation of the facility, a discharge permit will be required which will specify the final conditions and limitations of the operations of the facility. Enclosed is an application for the permit. We find your application to be in conformance with the Water Quality Control Commission's "Regulations for the Site Application Process". Therefore, the site application is approved with the following conditions listed below. 1. Based upon application information, the system design will be for: Average Daily Flow Capacity — 0.020 rngd Organic Loading Capacity — 50 lbs. BOD5Iday Treatment Processes to be used — Individual septic tanks, lift station, recirculating sand filter, and UV disinfection 2. Preliminary Effluent Parameter Values: BODS— 30/45 mg/1 (30-day/7-day average) Suspended Solids -- 30/45 mgfl (30-day/7-day average) Fecal Coliform — 6,000/12,000 #/100 mi (30-day/7-day geometric mean) Design for values in excess of those contained in conditions 1 and 2 above, or failure to comply with any other conditions contained herein, will render this approval void and another site application will have to be processed. 3. This site approval will expire one year from the date of this letter if the construction of the project has not commenced by that date. If expiration occurs, you must apply for a new site approval. Construction is defined as entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of materials, equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings that are to be a part of a domestic wastewater treatment works. Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC c/o Robert Cummings, Jr. November 21, 2001 Page 2 of 2 • • 4. The design (construction plans and specifications) for the treatment works must be approved by the Division prior to commencement of construction and all construction change orders initiating variances from the approved plans and specifications must be approved by the Division. 5. The applicant's registered engineer must furnish a statement prior to the commencement of operation stating that the facilities were constructed in conformance with approved plans, specifications, and change orders. In accordance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission regulations, this approval is subject to appeal as stated under Section 22.8 (7) of "Regulations for the Site Application Process". This approval does not relieve the owner from compliance with all local regulations prior to construction nor from responsibility for proper engineering, construction, and operation of the facility. Sincerely, J. David FIolm Director Water Quality Control Division JDH:tlb cc: +Garfield County Planning Department — Attn. Mark Bean Zancanella & Associates — Attn. Tom Zancanella Thomas Bennett, Environmental Protection Specialist, WQCD Dwain Watson, Environmental Protection Specialist, WQCD-Grand Junction Susan Nachtrieb, Permits Unit Manager, WQCD Bill McKee, Upper Colorado Watershed Coordinator, WQCD Plant Operator Certification Board, CDPH&E REPLY TO ATTENTION OF • DEPARTMENT OETHE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814.2922 January 19, 2002 Regulatory Branch (200275010) Mr. Timothy Beck Zancanella and Associates, Incorporated Post Office Box 1908, 105 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mr. Beck: RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2002 I am responding to your written request dated January 8, 2002, on behalf of the Blue Creek Ranch subdivision, for road crossings and outfall activities associated with your development project. This property is located on the Roaring Fork River within Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Garfield County, Colorado. While reviewing your proposal, I have determined that more information is essential before a permit decision can be made. Please provide the following: 1. Your plat indicates that a wetland delineation has been done on at least a portion of the property. However, as of the date of this correspondence we have not been provided a copy of this delineation or verified its accuracy. Please provide this office with a copy of the wetland delineation report for verification. 2. The permittee must avoid impacts to waters of the United States and wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. If impacts are unavoidable a compensatory mitigation plan will be required as part of the application. Additionally, regarding permit decisions please be aware that all impacts must be cumulatively considered as part of a single and complete project. -2- Your application cannot be processed until all requested information has been furnished. 1 have assigned number 200275010 to this project. Please contact me and refer to this number if you have any questions regarding your project at telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 15. Sincerely, Mark Gilfillan Regulatory Project Manager, Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Copy Furnished: t/iMr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Grand Junction Regional Office 222 S. 6th St., Rm 232 Grand Junction CO 81501-2768 Fax (970) 248-7198 hitp://svww. cdphe. state. Hca. us October 18, 2004 RECEIVED OCT 1 9 2004 CA' `' Tom Zancanella SL Blue Creek Ranch PO Box 1908 Glenwood Springs, CO 81 602 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Subject: Compliance Inspection of Wastewater Treatment Facility (CDPS No. COG -584074); Blue Creek Ranch; Garfield County Dear Mr. Zancanella:. This letter serves to report the results of the compliance inspection conducted by the Technical Services Unit of the Water Quality Control Division ("the Division") on the above -referenced facility on September 23, 2004. The assistance of Tom Zancanella was very helpful and greatly appreciated. I have enclosed a copy of the inspection report for your records. Violations During the inspection, the following permit violations were noted and need to be brought to your attention: Violation: The facility had both BOD and TSS percent removal violations during plant startup. Facility plans to request waiver of TSS percent removal requirement. Permit Issues These items may assist the Division during the next discharge permit renewal or to provide clarification for an amendment to the current permit. During the inspection, we observed the following facility conditions that are not accurately represented in the permit: Issue: The permit requires influent flow measurement be installed to be measured continuously and recorded. Comments And Recommendations The following are comments and/or recommendations only and require no written response on your part. The recommendations will enable your system to better conform to the requirements of applicable design criteria or other industry standards: No comments or recommendations. Tom Zancanella Blue Creek Ranch October 18, 2004 Page 2 Attached to this letter you will find a Customer Satisfaction Survey. We would greatly appreciate it if you would take a few moments to complete this survey and return it to us. Simply fill out the form, fold it according to the directions and drop it in the mail. The postage is already paid! If you have any questions, please contact me at 970 248-7156. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Dwain Watson, District Engineer DW/WW Technical Services Unit Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Encl. cc: Leslie Simpson/MS-File, Compliance Assurance & Data Mgmt., WQCD-Denver Betsy Beaver, Water Quality Protection Section, WQCD-Denver Environmental Protection Agency, 8ENF-T Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning File Code N COPS Permit No. COG -584074 Name of Facility COPS FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT Insp. Date Insp Type Inspector Facility Type Rating Biomonitoring 9/2312004 C S Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Physical Location: 3220 County Road 100, Carbondale, CO Name(s) of On -Site Representative(a) Tom Zancanella Facility Mailing Address: 2 Entry Time 11:0D:00 AM Phone No. 970-945-5700 4 F QA Permit effective date: 1/212004 Permit expiration date: 1/31/2004 County No. 23 Tom Zancanella, PO Box 1908, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Treatment Facility Level: Operator Level Certificate #: Operator in charge: Email Address: # of Operators: [Phone #: C C 4380 C-4380 Sonny Cantebury 2 970-945-5700 Name(s) of Person(s) Conducting inspection [Dwain Watson hit S Permit Records/Reports Site Review On Site Analysis: Contract Lab Total Taps: Facility Level: Operator Level Certificate #: Collection S 2 936 2-936 Operator in charge: Email Address: Sonny Cantebury # of Operators: Phone #: Title: 2 970-945-5700 District Engineer (5 = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, NIA = Not Applicable, N = Not Eraluatstd) U Flow Measuring S Laboratory U Effluent/Receiving Water pH, D.O. West Glenwood 5 Industrial Taps Design Capacity - Hydraulic (MGD): 0 0.02 Design Capacity - Organic (#/day): 0.002 Barscreen _Activated Sludge 'Aerobic Digester Coagulation Other Treatment COMMENTS: Outfall n/a S Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Self monitoring Sample Per Permit: Yes Does Permit Match Facility?: Ell N El Phone No. 970-248-7156 Operations/Maintenance Biosolids Disposal Stomzwater SSD CMOM No. of Lift Stations 0 1/1 Problem: Treatment Process(es) Used Present Hydraulic Loading (MGD): Present Organic Loading (#/day): Treatment Units iComminutor Trickling Filter Mechanical Bar Screen RBC Filter Press Polishing Pond fSBR {Centrifuge Lagoon 11 Drying Bed Aerated Lagoon Hydraulic Capacity Used %: 5500 Organic Capacity Used 96: 0000 Grit Removal rSecondary Clarifier CL2 DeCL2 !Land Trmt / Reuse 1 'Primary Clarifier Anaerobic Digester 2 SUV ri_Filter n Wetiand Septic tanks, Recirculation tank, Recirculating Sand Filter Facility had start up permit violations, has applied for waiver of TSS removal requirements. Facility is required to have influent flow measurement per permit. Latitude Longitude Flow Device Date Calibrated Accurate? Outfall Name 001 39 24 59.6 3001 39 24 10.2 107 09 12.9 rated pump wRomer 107 09 00.8 none Yes Outfall Influent SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW EVALUATION Entity Name: Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Permit Number: COG -584074 Date of Inspection: 9/23/2004 General Information Size of service area (acres): 150 Population of service area: 15 Number ofpump ,stations: 0 Feet (or miles) of sewer: 5000' Age of collection system: 1 year Number with back-up power supply: 0 Comments: 11. Evaluation Information Inspection observation verifying SSO events YES NO N/A 1. Sewer back-ups into basements? X X 2. Manholes overflow during high flow? X X 3. Bypasses from collection system? X 4. Pipe blockages or breaks? X 5. Inflow/infiltration plan in place? - X 6. Testing for inflow/infiltration? X If yes to any of questions 1-4: 9. Number of SSO's? YES NO N/A 7. Were SSO's reported to the State upon discover? X 8. Was the public notified? _ X 9. Number of SSO's? 0 10. Quantity (volume) of any SSO? 0 Comments: 4. Break during construction.. No SSO. revised July 13, 2001 October 30, 2003 CHURCH & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 'CE1VED Windrlver Companies, Attn: Gavin Brooke ' 0 2003 3220 County Road 100 IGLU JU Carbondale, Colorado 81623 1G & PLANNiNG Subject: Installation Observations - Blue Creek Ranch. Site Application # 4565 Garfield County, Colorado Job No. 13280 Gentlemen, The installation of the onsite wastewater system (OWS) at the subject site was observed during June and July 2003. The design was approved under Site Application #4565. The design of the OWS was done under Job No. 13,280, dated March 25, 2002. The system includes: one 13,000 gallon fiberglass 20,000 gallon recirculation tank. an 4000 S.F. Recirculating Sand Filter, a 1500 -gallon dosing tank and a Sanitrori' UV disinfection system. The UV disinfection system and control panel for the system are located in a heated building, as indicated on Sheet No. 03 and 04. The system was installed in accordance with our design. As -built plans are attached. If there are questions or if we may be of further service, please call.. Sincerely, CHURCH and Associates, In Edward O. Church, P.E. 3 copies sent with attachments Copies to: Colorado Department of Health and Environment Garfield County Health Dept., Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Sopris Engineering, ATTN Mark. Butler, P.E. SCG Enterprises. Inc. DENVER 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 www.geo-church.com 303.463.9317 Fax: 303 463.9321 Toll Free -1.877.248.3123 SCALE 1"=40' EMBED 4 -INCH PVC OUTLET PIPE IN GRAVEL RIP RAP RIVER DISCHARGE DETAIL RECIRCULATING SAND FILTER (SEE SHEET NO. 4) COUNTY ROAD 100 FUTURE TREATMENT SYSTEM EXPANSION AREA 2 -INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE TO RIVER DISCHARGE. MINIMUM 4 FEET BURIAL AT 2% GRADE NOTE: ALL FINAL GRADING IS TO BE SUCH THAT SURFACE DRAINAGE IS DIRECTED AWAY FROM THE TREATMENT SYSTEM COMPONENTS. CHURCH & Associates Inc. ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 4501 Wadsworth BotteS+ ad Wtet Ridge, Cokzado 90033 Phone: (903) 483.9317 1 SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT FROM `•. COLLECTION SYSTEM PROPOSED 13,000 GALLON RECIRCULATION TANK SUV DOSING TANK PROPOSED 1,500 GALLON pRif FLOOD LINE 500 -GALLON PRE -CAST CONCRETE TANK WITH SUMP PUMP TO RETURN LIQUID FROM UV BUILDING FLOOR DRAIN BACK TO THE RECIRCULATION TANK. Aep PROPOSED DISINFECTION BUILDING JOB NO. 13280 BLUE CREEK RANCH RECIRCULATING SAND FILTER SYSTEM LAYOUT SHEET NO. 03 NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE 2 A[v FUTSIE E OPOitSIIOM !U. Otilhe POSMCH OF "iconic SEWAGE CO xt-nri+ PIPE Am S004I1.1.01i 1 N IM SUMP RPP 70 MIMI. LiCUO F O1 ur Kama WR Mal PAM TO TA1K 2/4/02 3/13/02 ENG INEER: DESIGN BY: DNB DRAWN BY: DNB CHECKED BY: RJS DATE- 11/7/2001 Recirculating Filter System 50, 12" A 2" PVC Pipe (TYP.) Pumps 3 & 4 CHURCH & Associates, Inc. ENGINES & GEOLOGISTS 4501 Waaswor1 Boulevarc Whew RIdt, Oaxc ado 80(1:33 7hoc e: (303) 4rs317 Rec rc./Dilution Tank 13,000 Gal. JOB NO. 13280 Effluent Pump System 011**00 oe� Orencc Systems incorperatec 814 A4RWA`.' AVENUE 12" 51111-ERLIN. OREGON 87479-9012 Distribution Pipe 1" Class 200 PVC at 2' O.C. with 1/8" orifices at 2' 0.C. 4" Slotted Class 125 PVC Underdrain Pipe IUEPHONF: (54 r) 4,5S-4449 (BOO) 348-9843 FACSIMILE (541) 4.55-2884 Automatic Distributing Valve Assembly Model V6605A (Typ.) 2" PVC Pipe (TYP.) 4- Septic Tank Effluent From Collection System Recirculating Splitter Valve Mode! RSV40 BLUE CREEK RANCH REC9F4CULA T 1NG FILTER SYSTEM PLAN SHEET NO. 04 NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE: ENGINEER: DESIGN BY: DNB DRAWN EIY: DNB CHECKED BY:3,15 DATE: 11/7/2001