HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 05.17.2000PC 05/17/00
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review of the Cerise Ranch
Subdivision.
APPLICANT: Wintergreen Homes.
ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering.
PLANNERS: The Land Studio, Inc.
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in portions of
Sections 29, 32 and 33, Township 7 South,
Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Garfield and
Eagle County. Approximately five (5) miles
east of Carbondale on the north side of
Highway 82, directly west and north of the
Dakota subdivision
SITE DATA: 301.520+7- acres.
WATER: Shared Well (Willow well).
SEWER: I. S. T. S. (Individual Sewage Treatment System).
This means secondary treatment will be
supplied.
ACCESS: Highway 82.
ZONING: A/R/RD.
ADJACENT ZONING: East (Northerly portion): A/R/RD.
East (Southerly portion): Dakota
Subdivision.
West: A/R/RD.
North (Westerly portion): PUD.
North (Easterly portion): Subdivision.
South: A/R/RD.
1
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located approximately five (5) miles east
of Carbondale on the north side of Highway 82, directly west and north of the
Dakota subdivision. The far easterly portion of the property is in Eagle County and
is proposed to be open space.
The southern portion of the property is relatively flat and is crossed by Blue Creek
and a few existing irrigation ditches. A large amount of the southern portion of the
property is within the 100 year flood plain of Blue Creek and is also designated as
wetlands. All of this area except a small area of wetlands will be preserved as open
space. The small area of wetlands not to be preserved as open space will "be
restricted to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and
driveways", as noted in the applicant's submittal. This will need to be a plat note on
any Final Plat to be recorded (See language in staff recommendation section of this
staff report). The northern portion of the property is above 40% slope and is subject
to geologic constraints. The great majority of this area will not be developed. Only
the northwest portion of the subject property where there are steep slopes will be
impacted with development. A road is proposed to be built through a portion of the
property above 40% slope to access the proposed water tank which is to be located
in an area of greater than 40% slope. A driveway is proposed to be built across two
(2) proposed lots (lots 53, 54) within an area above 40% slope to access one (1)
proposed lot (lot 52). Details of the improvements for this driveway to be built must
be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Preliminary Plan review by the
Board of County Commissioners. Further, the proposed access easement with
dimension, as shown on the submitted Preliminary Plan must be included on any
Final Plat for recording. The proposed lot (lot 52) has a building envelope which is
less than 40% slope. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any
construction in areas above 40% slope will be conditions of any Final Plat.
The site is currently occupied by a house and other out buildings, some of which,
including the house, will be retained on one of the proposed lots (Lot 68). The site
is currently actively used for grazing of cows and horses.
The existing pond on the property which is dry will be abandoned. A new pond in
the designated Open Space area may be constructed at a later date for aesthetic
purposes only. This will not be a part of this application. However, if in the
construction of this pond, ground water is to be exposed, a well permit will be
required.
Three types of plant communities/ecosystems exist on the subject property. These
are oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pasture lands, and wetland communities.
2
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the tract into a total
of sixty-eight (68) residential lots with 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), one (1)
on each of fourteen (14) lots (lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 36, 52, 53, and
68) for a total of 82 units. The lots range in size from 2.004 acres to 40.748 acres.
The development is proposed to be built in two phases as described in the submittal.
As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, since this proposal is for less
than 100 lots, all lots must be final platted within five (5) years. Water is to be
supplied by a shared well (Willow well) through a well sharing agreement.
Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) are proposed for each lot. These
provide more treatment of sewage than ISDSs (secondary treatment). Access will be
via a single access off of Highway 82 in the western portion of the subject lot with
an additional emergency access off of Highway 82 in the eastern portion of the
subject lot.
II. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area 1, 1995 designates the subject
property as Medium Density Residential (6 to less than 10 AC/DU). The proposed
subdivision proposes a density of approximately 3.68 AC/DU. This is in excess of the
designated density for the subject property. However, this proposal is directly adjacent to the
existing Dakota Subdivision which is designated as high density residential and is approved
for higher density than the Cerise Ranch proposal.
Objective 5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan states:
The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development
and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and
enhance existing open space uses.
Cerise Ranch proposes to maintain a significant amount of the subject property as open
space which will promote this objective.
Objective 5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states:
Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies
will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas.
Cerise Ranch is proposing to place the majority of residential lots away from Highway 82
which will allow the homes to blend more into the existing back drop. In addition, the four
(4) proposed lots in the southeast portion of the property which are close to Highway 82 will
be in close proximity to the existing Dakota subdivision and other developments which are
of a higher density lending a transition zone to the proposed open space on-site.
Thus, this application is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Colorado Division of Water Resources: In a letter dated, March 21, 2000 (See pgs.
19-22), the Division of Resources states, "...the proposed water supply is physically
adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, provided the
applicant obtains valid well permits for the proposed uses." Obtaining valid well
permits will be a condition to be met prior to Final Plat approval since the applicants
have an approved water contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District.
The letter from the Division of Water Resources also states:
"Also note that well permits are necessary prior to the exposure of ground water by
the proposed ponds, and that well permits for residential use will require that
engineered individual sewage treatment systems be of the non -evaporative type
unless otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates...Our
records also indicate that several exempt wells may exist within the proposed
development (Two pages listing eight wells are attached). If any of these wells are
within the proposed subdivision, they must either be included in the District's TSSP
or an augmentation plan, or will be required to be plugged and abandoned pursuant
to the conditions of the new well permits for the development." These will all be
conditions of any Final Plat approval.
B. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comments were
received from the Department of Health.
D. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comments were received from the Mount
Sopris Soil Conservation District.
E. Garfield County Vegetation Management: In a memorandum dated 03/13/00 (See
pgs 23, 24), Steve Anthony, of Garfield County Vegetation Management states, "The
plan doesn't address weed control or revegetation." With this, he includes four (4)
comments which are summarized below:
1. Request the applicant to conduct a noxious weed inventory.
2. Ask the applicant to submit a written Weed Management Plan.
3. The revegetation plan within the application needs to detail revegetation
plans for all proposed disturbances and include a seed mix, method of
planting, and reseeding planting schedule.
4. The covenants should address noxious weeds.
These comments as outlined in the memorandum received from the agency (See
pgs. 23, 24), must be adhered to with any Final Plat submittal.
4
F. Holy Cross Energy: No comments were received.
G. Garfield School District No. Re -1: In a letter dated, April 14, 2000, (See p. 25),
Garfield School District No. Re -1, states, "...the District is requesting cash -in -lieu
of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with the District's formula as
adopted by Garfield County earlier this year."
H. Garfield County Sheriff's Department: In a letter dated March 9, 2000, (See p. 26),
the Sheriff's Department stated the following concerns:
The need to ensure all access roads are of sufficient width to accommodate
fire and EMS equipment.
2. Any roads that are a dead end or cul-de-sac type should have an ending
radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS equipment's turn around
ratio.
3. All roads and roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road
numbers and names.
4. All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County road or
access roads.
These will be conditions of any Final Plat approval.
Carbondale Fire District: In a letter dated March 3, 2000 (See p. 27), the Carbondale
Fire District is favorable to the provisions for fire protection as presented by the
applicant in the submitted application. Homes over 3,600 square feet are to be
equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, and impacts fees in the amount of
$417.00 per single family lot are to be paid. These will be conditions of any Final
Plat.
J. Colorado Department of Transportation: In a telephone conversation with Mike
Smith, of CDOT, he indicated that no comments or permits have been issued for this
application due to a back log at CDOT. He also indicated, that although not
guaranteed, once he had time to review the applications for primary and emergency
access, it was likely that the applicant would receive such permits with conditions.
As such, please refer to the section within this staff report on access for a detailed
examination of this issue.
Colorado Division of Wildlife: In a letter dated 03/22/00 (See pgs. 28-33), numerous
comments were presented by CDOW. The following are those which will be
conditions of any Final Plat approval:
5
As per Garfield County regulations, one dog per lot will be allowed, and it must be
confined within the owner's property boundaries..
Comment number 3, Fencing, as outlined in the letter.
Wildlife mitigation should only be considered if avoidance is not possible.
Comment number 4, Wildlife Mitigation: As per "Response to Division of Wildlife
Letter Dated 01/18/00", included in Section 14, of the applicant's submittal, which
states in Item 9, "The applicant will establish a wildlife mitigation trust fund to be
used to mitigate for wildlife impacts on site or adjacent to the site. The applicant will
contribute $100.00 per unit to the wildlife mitigation trust fund upon the sale of each
unit. Use of the trust fund money will be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association."
Comment number 5, Bears/Trash Removal, as outlined in the letter.
Comment number 8, CDOW Indemnification, as outlined in the letter.
Comment number 9, Open Space Management, as outlined in the letter.
Comment number 11, Educating Residents, as outlined for small developments.
These comments (#3, 5, 8, 9, and 11) as included in the CDOW letter of March 22,
2000, and the application submittal ("Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated
01/18/00" Item 9, in Section 14) must be included in any recorded covenants for this
application. In addition, the following plat notes must be included on any Final Plat
for recording:
"One dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries."
"Fencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife
movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. See
covenants for specific restrictions."
"The comment received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Comment #5, titled
Bears/Trash Removal in their letter of March 22, 2000, and included in the
covenants must be adhered to by all residents"
"The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife
damage."
"The subdivision shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing
of other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off open space areas.
This provision shall apply during winter and production periods. Winter periods are
defined as December 1 through April 30 and production periods as May 1 through
June 30."
"General brochures available from CDOW with regard to wildlife to educate
homeowners will be distributed to all homeowners upon the purchase of a lot."
U.S. West Communications: U.S. West Communications returned their copy of the
application with no comments.
M. Colorado Geological Survey: In a letter dated March 18, 2000 (See pgs. 34-37), the
Colorado Geological Survey comments included (Please note that these comments
were in reference to the original submittal which has been modified with respect to
these comments and those from Wright Water Engineers):
"We recommend that the County require the developer provide a comprehensive
mitigation plan prior to approval." This was in reference to debris flow hazards.
"A slope stability analysis should be performed at this location to quantify the effects
of additional toe excavations for the road alignment. The county should not give
approval until this is resolved. If mitigation is being considered it should be designed
and included in the grading plan." This was in reference to the grading for Road B
at the toe of the mapped landslide which is active.
"The building envelopes for lots 23 and 26 lie within the outer subsidence risk zone.
We recommend that those lot envelopes be readjusted so that actual building
footprints lie outside of the subsidence risk zones. Potential lot buyers should also
be made aware of the risks of future subsidence."
With regard to collapsible/compressive soils it was stated, "The geotechnical
consultant's recommendations must be complied with for foundations on these soft,
compressible soils... The report did not clearly distinguish the well rounded packed
river gravel from the alluvial fan gravel...Their foundation performance is much
poorer than river gravel and could be prone to settlement and compaction, especially
if wetted....We reiterate that control of surface drainage and subsurface water is
important to the performance of foundations and slabs on grade."
Under "Other Considerations" it was stated, "The odd narrow lot configurations and
shallow ground water levels may severely impact the design of ISDS.
It was concluded, "Provided the additional work and recommendations we stated
above are required by the county prior to approval and the results of that additional
work is satisfactory, the CGS finds no inherent geologic hazards that would preclude
7
the bulk of this development as it was intended."
All of these comments were taken into consideration by Wright Water Engineers, in
their review of the most recent (April 12, 2000) application on behalf of the County.
As such, the comments from Wright Water Engineers (WWE) addresses all of these
concerns and WWE's comments will be used as conditions of approval as stated
below. However, this does not exempt the applicants from performing any
engineering/design/building etcetera that was presented in the applicant's submittal
(i.e. what was included in the applicant's geotechnical consultant's report).
N. RFRHA: In a memorandum dated 03/01/00 (See p. 38), Noel Huff of RFRHA states,
"As there are no proposed access over or encroachments upon railroad corridor, T see
no potential impacts to the railroad right-of-way from the application...The applicant
may want to consider a future connection across Highway 82 to this trail system
during the development of the PUD." Please note: this application is not PUD.
0. RFTA: In a memorandum dated 03/15/00 (See pgs. 39-45), Roaring Fork Transit
Agency states, "RFTA would like to see the developer cover the associated transit
costs of the development and at a minimum, cover the startup capital costs of transit
which are estimated to be around $140,000 ($77,000 for vehicles and $63,000 for
Park -and -Ride spaces). This is approximately $2,000 per dwelling unit and could be
paid at the time of building permit."
Staff notes: There are no provisions in place to require these fees as requested by
RFRA and thus, they will not be made a condition of any approval.
P. Eagle County Planning Department: No comments were received.
Q. AT & T Cable Services: No comments were received.
R. Garfield County Road and Bridge: In a memorandum dated 03/09/00 (See p. 46),
Road and Bridge responded, "I do not see any physical road impacts as all traffic
enters and exits onto State Highway 82."
S. Garfield County Engineer (Michael Erion, Wright Water Engineers): Wright Water
Engineers commented in a letter dated May 2, 2000, (See pgs. 47-49)with respect to
a number of issues including Water Supply, Water System, Wastewater, Drainage,
Soils/Geology, Wetlands/404 Permitting, Roads, and Miscellaneous Comments. The
majority of specific comments will be addressed in the appropriate sections below.
With respect to the Miscellaneous comments (14, 15, and 16), all of these comments
will be conditions to be met for Final Plat submittal to be reviewed by the Board of
County Commissioners.
T. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: In a letter dated 04/05/00 (See pgs. 50-53), Sue Nall,
8
states, "The Chief of Engineers has issued nationwide general permit number 3
which authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United
States for maintenance related activities...Your project can be constructed under this
authority provided the work meets the conditions listed on the enclosed information
sheets...This verification is valid until February 11, 2002. 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."
All representations by the Corps of Engineers in this letter will be conditions of
approval of any Final Plat.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Water Supply; Water is proposed to be supplied via a shared well (Willow Well). As
per the Division of Water Resources comments, all necessary well permits will have
to be obtained prior to Final Plat approval (included in any Final Plat submittal).
The comments received from the Division of Water Resources detailed in the agency
comments section of this report must be adhered to as a condition of Final Plat.
Wright Water Engineers states in comment number 2, "A permanent augmentation
plan will be decreed for the project by the Basalt Water Conservancy District and
paid by the applicant. This cost should be paid by the applicant or included in SIA
prior to any Final Plat approval." If this cost is to be paid out -right by the applicant,
it will need to be done prior to the recording of any Final Plat. If a SIA is to be
entered into, it will need to be submitted with any Final Plat submittal (before Final
Plat approval). For simplicity, it is assumed that a SIA will be entered into by the
applicant, and as such, this condition has been placed in the recommendation section
as required with any Final Plat submittal.
Comments 3 and 4, from Wright Water Engineers will be conditions as stated in the
letter (for any Final Plat submittal).
2. Zoning: The subject property is zoned A/R/RD.
Uses by right:
Single family dwelling and customary accessory uses.
Accessory dwelling unit approved as part of a public hearing or meeting on a
subdivision.
This application is proposing 14 accessory dwelling units on lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14,
15, 16, 17, 25, 36, 52, 53, and 68.
9
Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit: Use of a structure as an accessory
dwelling whether approved by Special Use, use by right in a new subdivision
approval, or an existing lot must meet the following standards, as well as all other
standards applicable to residential use:
(1)
The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site which
slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size.
All of the proposed lots for ADUs meet this criteria.
(2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq.
ft.
(3)
This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by
covenant if applicable.
This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
(4) Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit.
(5)
This criteria has been met according to the letter received from the Division
of Water Resources. However, all comments and conditions with regard to
water supply contained within this staff report must be met to ensure this is
ultimately met.
Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations
or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage
treatment facility.
This means that an adequate single ISTS can be constructed to serve both the
primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit, or, two separate adequate
ISTSs may be constructed, one for the primary dwelling and one for the
accessory dwelling. However, it must be noted that domestic waste water
cannot exceed 2000 gallons per day (gpd) on any individual lot regardless if
there is one or two ISTSs. If domestic waste water is to exceed 2000 gpd on
any lot, state approval would be required. This will be a condition of any
Final Plat approval.
(6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed.
This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
10
(7)
That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code
requirements. (A.95-076)
This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%).
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or
fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet
from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feel from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the
principal building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Height of Building: Twenty-five feet.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section
5 (Supplementary Regulations).
3. Roads: Access is to be via a single entrance in the westerly portion of the subject
property directly off of Highway 82. An emergency access is to be placed in the
easterly portion of the subject lot, also directly off of Highway 82.
Section 4:60 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations states, "Evidence that all lots and
parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way, as required by Colorado
states law."
At this time, no road access permits have been submitted. However, as discussed
above, CDOT has not had an opportunity to review the applied for access permits
due to a severe back log. According to Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 43-2-
147(5)(a), "If the department of transportation undertakes to administer access
permits in a jurisdiction (as is the case in Garfield County), it shall act upon
requested access permits within forty-five days of request. If the department of
transportation fails to act within forty-five days upon a requested access permit, such
permit shall be deemed approved. Access permits shall be issued only in compliance
with the access code and may include terms and conditions authorized by the access
code." It this case, in excess of forty-five days have elapsed. Thus, the permits are
technically "issued". However, to avoid any confusion as to what improvements will
11
be required for the applied for ("issued")accesses, and to accommodate the applicant
since they have done everything in their power to receive access permits, these
permits will be required (must actually be reviewed and issued by CDOT with any
necessary conditions) prior to review of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County
Commissioners and not at this time. Comment 13, from Wright Water Engineers
also states the need for these permits prior to preliminary plan approval (by the
Board of County Commissioners).
With regard to the Army Corps of Engineers, all conditions of the nationwide
general permit number 3 as approved, will have to be adhered to by the applicant as
a condition of any Final Plat approval.
4. Waste Disposal: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) are proposed for
each lot. These systems provide secondary treatment of sewage. These systems
should be adequate for this application. However, all representations made by the
applicant within the submitted application with regard to ISTSs including but not
limited to the report submitted by HP Geotech dated January 26, 2000, the ISTS
management plan included in the covenants, and the ISDS requirements included in
Section 18 must be adhered to.
As stated in comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers, all Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems (ISTSs) must be designed by a registered professional engineer.
This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
In addition, from the comments received from the Division of Water Resources,
"...individual sewage treatment systems be of the non -evaporative type unless
otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates."
These will be conditions of approval of any Final Plat.
Soils/Geology: There are a number of soil/geology issues present on the subject
property including slopes over forty percent (40%), subsidence zones, and landslide
areas. These can be adequately addressed by following the information submitted by
the applicant and the comments received from Wright Water Engineers. Comments
9, 10, and 11 from Wright Water Engineers will be conditions to be met for Final
Plat submittal.
6. Wetlands: As per the comments received from WWE, "Impacts to wetlands and
waters of the U.S. have been permitted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the Road A and Road F crossings of Blue Creek."
In addition, as stated in the submittal by the applicant, the small area of wetlands not
to be preserved as open space will "be restricted to no development and be avoided
through careful design of lots and driveways." This will require the following plat
12
note to be included on any Final Plat to be recorded: "Any wetlands on this property
not to be preserved as open space will be restricted to no development and be
avoided through careful design of lots and driveways."
7. Fire Protection: Based on the letter received from the Carbondale Fire Protection
District, all provisions for fire protection represented by the applicant in the
submitted application including paying the $417.00 development impact fee per
single family lot will be conditions of any Final Plat approval. Homes over 3,600
square feet in area are to be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, as
represented by the applicant, and thus, language to this effect must be included in
any covenants to be recorded, and the following plat note must be included on any
Final Plat to be recorded: "Homes in excess of 3,600 square feet shall be equipped
with automatic fire sprinkler systems." Language in the covenants will be a condition
of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval).
8. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board of County Commissioners make a
decision regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and on the conformity or compatibility of the proposed
subdivision with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
The Subdivision Regulations require that the Board review an application based on
compatibility with various issues including the Comprehensive Plan.
As discussed above, this application is in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan.
9. Vegetation: As outlined above, the recommendations of Garfield County Vegetation
Management (See pgs. 23-24) must be addressed within any Final Plat submittal to
be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners.
10. Drainage Plan: Comments 6, and 7 from Wright Water Engineers will be conditions
to be addressed for Final Plat submittal.
11. Wildlife: As discussed above, the Division of Wildlife made several comments
concerning wildlife. The ones that will be conditions of approval of any Final Plat
have also been detailed above, and are as follows:
As per Garfield County regulations, one dog per lot will be allowed and will have to
be contained on the owner's property.
Comment number 3, Fencing, as outlined in the letter.
Wildlife mitigation should only be considered if avoidance is not possible.
13
Comment number 4, Wildlife Mitigation: As per "Response to Division of Wildlife
Letter Dated 01/18/00", included in Section 14, of the applicant's submittal, which
states in Item 9, "The applicant will establish a wildlife mitigation trust fund to be
used to mitigate for wildlife impacts on site or adjacent to the site. The applicant will
contribute $100.00 per unit to the wildlife mitigation trust fund upon the sale of each
unit. Use of the trust fund money will be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association."
Comment number 5, Bears/Trash Removal, as outlined in the letter.
Comment number 8, CDOW Indemnification, as outlined in the letter.
Comment number 9, Open Space Management, as outlined in the letter.
Comment number 11, Educating Residents, as outlined for small developments.
Further, the required plat notes as discussed previously in the comments section of
this staff report will need to be included on any Final Plat to be recorded.
12. Radiation: In a letter dated September 8, 1999, and included in Section 12 of the
submitted application, CTL/Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers states, "In our
opinion, our data indicates normal background radiation at this site." Thus, radiation
does not appear to be a concern on this site.
13. School Fees: School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 as determined using the
required formula must be paid as a condition of any Final Plat approval.
14. Road Impact Fees Since the subject parcel does not directly access a county road, no
road impact fees will be assessed.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
1. That the proper publication and pubic notice and posting were provided by law for
the hearing before the Planning Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at the hearing.
3. That the proposed Subdivision can be determined to be in the best interest of the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
4. That the application has fully met the requirements of the Garfield County
14
Subdivision Regulations of 1984, Section 4:00 Preliminary Plan.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed subdivision with the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
meeting before the Planning Commission, shall be considered conditions of
approval.
2. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall
be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or
conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted
by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval.
Prior to Preliminary Plan review by the Board of County Commissioners:
3. Access permits which have been reviewed and approved with any necessary
conditions by CDOT must be submitted.
4. Details of the driveway improvements for the driveway to access proposed lot 52
must be submitted.
As part of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval):
5. Valid well permits for all proposed wells must be obtained and submitted.
6. The four (4) comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management must be
addressed.
7. Comments 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, from Wright Water Engineers must
be addressed.
8. Language must be included in the covenants which states that homes over 3,600
square feet in area will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
9. The cost for a permanent augmentation plan must be paid for by the applicant or
included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
10. Comments 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 as included in the CDOW letter dated March 22, 2000,
and the "Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated 01/18/00", Item 9, in Section
14 of the applicant's submittal must be included in the covenants.
11. The Final Plat must include the proposed access easement to lot 52 with dimensions
15
as was submitted for Preliminary Plan.
12. Required Plat notes:
"One dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries."
"Fencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife
movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. See
covenants for specific restrictions."
"The comment received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Comment #5, titled
Bears/Trash Removal in their letter of March 22, 2000, and included in the
covenants must be adhered to by all residents"
"The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife
damage."
"The subdivision shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing
of other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off open space areas.
This provision shall apply during winter and production periods. Winter periods are
defined as December 1 through April 30 and production periods as May 1 through
June 30."
"General brochures available from CDOW with regard to wildlife to educate
homeowners will be distributed to all homeowners upon the purchase of a lot."
"Any wetlands on this property not to be preserved as open space will be restricted
to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and driveways."
"Homes in excess of 3,600 square feet shall be equipped with automatic fire
sprinkler systems."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sec., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances."
"All 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."
16
"Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights,
sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and
necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy
ranching 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 part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. -
"All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law
and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation
ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets 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 of information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield
County."
As part of any Final Flat approval:
13. All comments received from the Sheriff's Department in the letter dated March 9,
2000.
14. The comments regarding wildlife as detailed in this staff report.
15. All representations of the Army Corps of Engineers in their letter dated 04/05/00,
and all conditions of the issued nationwide general permit number 3.
16. Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit, of the Subdivision Regulations, must be
complied with.
17. Comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers which requires all ISTSs to be
designed by a registered engineer.
18. As stated in the letter dated March 21, 2000, from the Division of Water Resources,
individual sewage treatment systems must be of the non -evaporative type unless
otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates.
19. Impact fees for fire protection must be paid.
20. School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 must be paid.
17
21. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, with regard to phasing, all lots
must be final platted within five (5) years.
22. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any construction in areas
above 40% slope.
23. As per the Division of Water Resources comments, any exempt wells which exist
within the proposed development must either be included in the District's TSSP or
an augmentation plan, or will be required to be plugged and abandoned pursuant to
the conditions of the new well permits for development.
24. As per the comments received from the Division of Water Resources, if any ground
water is to be disturbed for the proposed ponds, well permits will be required.
18
gfRiftbfienoRADo
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
March 21, 2000
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Planning Dept
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Cerise Ranch —Wintergreen Homes Preliminary Flan
SW%SE% Sec. 29, N%2 Sec 32 & NW% Sec. 33, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Mr. Laurien:
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
We have reviewed the additional information concerning the above referenced proposal to
subdivide a parcel of approximately 301 acres into 68 single family residential lots, with an
additional dwelling unit (ADU) to be located on 14 of these Tots. Water will be diverted to irrigate
up to 3,000 square feet of lawn for each single family dwelling, with an additional 1,500 square
feet of lawn for each ADU. 12.3 acres of ponds, which will intercept ground water, are also
proposed. Total water use for the development is estimated at 81.5 acre-feet, with a consumptive
use of 48.47 acre-feet. The applicant proposes to provide water through wells used in a central
system pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). A copy of
the contract has been provided with the additional information. Sewage disposal is proposed to
be provided through individual engineered sewage treatment systems.
A report from Zancanella and Associates, Inc., included with the submittal indicates that
a monitoring hole was completed under MH -37772 on the property. The monitoring hole was
test pumped on February 10 and 11, 2000, at 85 to 120 gallons per minute for about 26.5
hours. The initial water level was 11.6 feet, and the maximum drawdown was approximately
5.2 feet below this level. With adequate storage capacity this monitoring hole should be able to
produce a sufficient physical supply for the proposed use.
proposed supplywould tributary to the Roaring Fork River,
The source of the r0 OSec. water Su � be tributary
which is a tributary of the Colorado River. Due to the fact that the Colorado River is
overappropriated, a plan for augmentation is required to offset depletions caused by the
development. However, since this development is within area A of the District's temporary
substitute supply plan (TSSP), this office may initially be able to approve well permits as
provided therein. Take note that TSSP's are temporary by definition, and that to provide for a
permanent water supply the development must either be included in the District's plan for
augmentation or pursue their own plan.
Also note that well permits are necessary prior to the exposure of ground water by the
proposed ponds, and that well permits for the residential use will require that the engineered
individual sewage treatment systems be of the non -evaporative type unless otherwise requested
and supported by consumptive use estimates.
Currently, no permit applications for this development have been submitted for review
by this office, and inclusion in the District's TSSP does not guarantee that such permits can be
Jeff Laurien March 21, 2000
Cerise Ranch — Wintergreen Homes
issued. Our records also indicate that several exempt wells may exist within the proposed
development (Two pages listing eight wells are attached). If any of these wells are within the
proposed subdivision, they must either be included in the District's TSSP or an augmentation
plan, or will be required to be plugged and abandoned pursuant to the conditions of the new
well permits for the development.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed
water rights, provided the applicant obtains valid well permits for the proposed uses. We
suggest that approval of the final plat be withheld until the necessary well permits are approved.
If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this
office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
Enclosures: List of exempt well permits (two pages)
KWK/CML/Cerise Ranch Wintergreen Homes ii.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
REPORT DATE
Thu Mar ;6 09:59:07 MST 2000
PERMIT 0 CTY OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS
COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUCES
1ST USED ANN AREA GEOL
WD MD Dfl USE DATE APB IRR
WELL
WELL WTR SEC LOC
DRTH I EV MORD
PAGE 1
TWN P
QIRS SEC SRP RNG M
LU
124059
Ud C S,u unit
5 GAR CERISE NUMBERT 12072 HWY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 fl9 0301-1925_ 0
0
1540
25_
0
950N 1520E
NWNE
32
7S_
87W
S
48638
5 GAR NIDAY RICHARD CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 8
t0 -1Z-1971
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
SENE_
32
LS
87W
S
110772
5 GAR WEIDE W L CARBONDALE, CO 81623
09-17-1979 38 0 0 I
0
0
0
Q
0
0 0
SWNE
32
LS
87W
S
NP
112034
5 GAR DENNIE J B CARBONDALE, CO 81623
10.05-1979 RC 11-t9-1979 38 0 0 8
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
_WNE
32
25
87W
S
NP
24947
5 GAR EDMONDS GENE CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 8
Q&16-1965
0
0
20 00
49
19
0 0
SWNE
32
za
87W
S
25694
5 GAR MORITZY JOHN CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 8
10-29.1965
0
0
20 00
42
16
0 0
SWNE
32
7S
87W
S
25695
5 GAR MORITZY JOHN CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 8
10-30-1965
0
0
20.00
41
15
0.0
SWNE
32
7S
87W
S
rfECEJVc
at
:PORT DATE'
u Mar 16 09:49:56 MST 2000
COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUCES
PAGE 1
:RMIT D CTY OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANN AREA GEOL WELL WELL WTR SEC LOC TWN P
CD DATE CD DATE Wfl MD DB USE DATE APR_ IRR AGER YIELD DPIH LFV MORD GIBS_ SEC SHP RNG_ M
9316 5 EAG NAGEL HENRY 0215 WILLITS LN CARBONDALE• CO 81623
EP 38 0 0 8 9 0 0 GW 0 0 0 1250N,2400E NWNE 33 7S 87W S
RECr vtni'
IT )7) 1
j� l •�. -
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff Laurien
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan
Date: March 13, 2000
Jeff,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Cerise Ranch preliminary plan. Eric Schaller from the
DOW in his letter of 1/18/00 indicates that "it is obvious to all parties that significant weed control would
be needed". The plan doesn't address weed control or revegetation.
My comments are as follows:
1. Request the applicant to conduct a noxious weed inventory for the weeds listed on Garfield County's
Noxious Weed List (enclosed).
2. Ask them to submit a written Weed Management Plan provide for the management of any listed weeds
located on the property. Irrigation ditches are common sources of weed infestations. Their Weed
Management Plan should address weed management along all irrigation ditches. The property is
located in an area known to have severe thistle problems, specifically plumeless, Canada, and possibly
musk thistle. Spotted knapweed is found in the El Jebel area. The applicant should be cognizant of
the aforementioned weeds when conducting the weed inventory.
3. Revegetation of disturbed lands isn't specifically addressed in the plan. The applicant should detail
revegetation plans for all proposed disturbances (including all road cuts). The revegetation plan
should include a seed mix (plants listed by common name and scientific name), method of planting,
and reseeding planting schedule.
4. The Covenants should address noxious weeds. Section 9.1 B should have language that reminds
the landowners that it is their responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, to manage
any County Noxious Weeds that are on their property. Section 9.3 A should specifically designate
roadside weed control responsibility. Section 9.2 should address weed control responsibilites for the
common areas.
23
GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST
Common name Scientific name
Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula
Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens
Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitalis
Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides
Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale
Common burdock Arctium minus
Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense
Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa
Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa
Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica
Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris
Hoary cress Cardaria draba
Saltcedar Tamarix parviflora
Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima
Oxeye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucantheum
Jointed Goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica
Chicory Cichorium intybus
Musk thistle Carduus nutans
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria
Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia
2�
oaring rk School>%:District RE -1
1:405 Grand.:Auenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (970) 945-6558
April 14, 2000
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Cerise Ranch - - Wintergreen Homes Preliminary Plan
To Whom It May Concern:
FRED A. WALL, Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent
SHANNON PELLAND, Finance. Director
The following is submitted in response to your request for comments on the Cerise Ranch -
Wintergreen Homes Preliminary Plan.
As you are aware, Roaring Fork School District has developed a formula for determining school
site land dedication or fees -in -lieu -of land dedication for residential development within the
district's boundaries. Based on the number of units included in the preliminary plan, application
of this formula results in total land dedication of an amount less than the minimum requirement
for a school site. Accordingly, the District is requesting cash -in -lieu of land dedication to be
calculated in accordance with the District's formula as adopted by Garfield County earlier this
year.
Shannon Pelland
Finance Director
Enc.
2
RECEIVED A .r,
2000
THOMAS P. DALESSANDRI
Sheriff of Garfield County
Date: March 9, 2000
To: Building and Planning
From: Jim Sears, Undersheri
Re: Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan
GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.
P.O. Box 249 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(970)945-0453
Fax (970) 945-7651
RECEIVED Ms 5 9 2011,
The Sheriff's Office has reviewed the attached sketch plan for the Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan
and would like to address the following concerns. 1) The need to ensure all access roads are of
sufficient width to accommodate fire and EMS equipment. 2) Any roads that are a dead end or
cul-de-sac type should have an ending radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS
equipment's turn around ratio. 3) All roads and roadways shall be clearly marked with correct
County road numbers and names. 4) All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the
County road or access roads.
OM"
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
March 3, 2000
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cerise Ranch - Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed Cerise Ranch Subdivision. I would offer
the following comments:
Access
The proposed road access within the subdivision has been changed somewhat from the sketch
plan. The new proposal is an improvement from the previous plan and should provide improved
access for emergency apparatus.
Water Supply
Homes over 3,600 square feet are proposed to be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
The proposed fire flows have been have been increased from 1000 gallons per minute to 1500
gallons per minute. The proposed water system and fire hydrant layout appears to be adequate.
Wildfire Hazards
The applicant has agreed to provide defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building materials for
residences on slopes that may present a wildfire hazard.
Impact Fees
The applicant has agreed to pay the current development impact fees of $417.00 per single
family lot.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
27
'',KIEL! COUNTY
DEPARTMENT
109 H ST. - SUITE 303
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
RECEIVED MAP, 0 6 2000
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
Mar 22 00 02:03p Ke11Wood
J
TO: JefLaurien
FROM: Kelly Wood
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Department of Natural Resources
970-963-6523
DATE: March 22, 2000
SUBJ: Wildlife Comments -Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan
After reviewing the application for the subdivision preliminary plan, the Colorado
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as a Garfield County referral agency offers the following
recommendations regarding wildlife imparts and mitigation measures. The CDOW recognizes
that Garfield County will make the final decision on wildlife mitigation.
The following are comments and wildlife mitigation measures that the Colorado Division of
Wildlife most commonly recommends. Also included are comments specific to this application.
1) DOGS -
The covenants allows one dog for each lot. I would suggest that the owners will be
prohibited from harboring dogs on their property unless they have adequate facilities (ie., a
fenced yard, dog run, or kennel) to contain the animals. Enclosed runs must be located
immediately adjacent to the home, within the permitted disturbance zone (building envelope).
(This area is known to be frequented by mountain lions, it is strongly recommended that tops be
included on dog runs and/or kennels to avoid potential predation). If facilities are inadequate to
contain the dog(s), the animal(s) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision/PUD until
adequate structures can be built. At no time are dogs to be allowed to run freely.
Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on a leash under the direct control of
its owner or a responsible party. It is the owner's responsibility to ensure compliance.
Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the appropriate governmental entity
(Garfield County or the proper municipality), and must wear the numbered identification tags
provided.
Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from bringing dogs onto the property.
Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from bringing dogs to the subdivision/PUD
site. Workers who violate this provision shall be barred from the subdivision/PUD for 10 working
days for the first offense and permanently for any future offense.
The County/Municipality and CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife) may also control
stray dogs. Persons not in compliance with these dog restrictions will be responsible for any and
all costs incurred by the County and/or CDOW for enforcing these provisions.
2) CATS -
Cats should be kept indoors or in kennels. Even well fed domestic cats are efficient
predators and can contribute significantly to the mortality of small mammals and avian wildlife
populations including nesting waterfowl.
k
p.2
Mar 22 00 02:03p Ke11y Wood
970-963-6523
3) FENCING-
Fencing
ENCINGFencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements,
optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. If peripheral fencing of the subdivision
is required to restrict domestic livestock grazing on adjacent properties, fencing shall employ a
three strand barbed wire fence, with strands located at 18, 30, and 42 inches above mean ground
level. {Optimum wildlife fence would be 14, 26 and 38 inches).
If wood rail fencing is used it should not exceed 42 inches in height and 12 inches in width
(top view), and an opening in the lower 1/2 of at least 16 inches to allow passage of deer fawns and
elk calves. Other fence materials such as wood slats, electric, synthetic, etc. may be used but must
be wildlife friendly and not exceed 42 inches in height. CDOW is available to determine
compatibility with wildlife.
Homeowners will be permitted a privacy fence, (greater than 42" in height with no
openings), to enclose up to 2,500 square feet, provided it is immediately adjacent to the residence
and is entirely within the permitted building envelope.
If security fencing is needed the following measures should be incorporated: Security
fencing must not be less than seven feet in height and must be so constructed that wildlife
movement between and through the subdivision/PUD & iots is not lost or impaired.
4) WILDLIFE MITIGATION —
Wildlife mitigation should only be considered if avoidance is not possible. Mitigation rarely, if
ever, offsets the actual impacts created and the end result is a loss in wildlife habitat resulting in a
permanent loss of wildlife numbers. Once land -use decision makers decide that development shall
or is likely to occur in wildlife habitat, a mitigation plan shall be prepared, by a qualified wildlife
biologist, to off -set impacts for the life of the project. The following are two examples of
mitigation plans that developers have found acceptable:
A) An on-site analysis will be conducted, by a qualified wildlife biologist to determine the
wildlife impacts. From this analysis the number of acres of wildlife habitat destroyed or impacted
can be determined. Once this determination is made the cost of mitigating the adverse wildlife
impacts can be made. A dollar amount (this amount is figured through a fairly simple formula) will
be deposited in a Wildlife Mitigation Trust, which will then be used to mitigate those negative
impacts. Interest generated by this account will be used for authorized wildlife enhancement
projects in Garfield County. The principal will never be used, as the fund needs to generate
interest for the life of the impacts, which is considered to be perpetuity. On-site mitigation would
generally have the highest priority, followed by mitigation or enhancement in adjacent areas.
Although, wildlife habitat enhancement is probably the most often used method to offset
negative impacts, it should not be considered the only one. Conservation easements are another
means to mitigate adverse impacts. Only one's philosophy and creativity limit how one writes the
terms of a conservation easement. There may also be some tax advantages in using conservation
easements.
Trusts are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation, a non-profit organization
sanctioned by the state.
B) Another approach to the mitigation of wildlife impacts is to instigate an internal real
estate transfer fee that will place money into a wildlife enhancement fund. Developments such as
Eagle Ranch, just south of the Town of Eagle, are using a negotiated fee of .02%. Other projects
such as Adam's Rib and Buckhorn are proposing 0.2%. The actual percentage depends on the
size of the development and the impacts. This money is collected by the developer or the
2
p.3
Mar 22 00 02:03p Ke11Wood
970-963-6523
homeowners association on all property transactions and placed in a wildlife fund held by the
Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation. The money is then used to mitigate the wildlife impacts
through projects as discussed in A) above_ This method is fairly simple and has no up front costs.
The administration of the Wildlife Mitigation Trust or the internal real estate transfer fee is
done through a committee made up of a representative of the local subdivision/PUD community,
CDOW, County/Municipality, BLM &Jor USFS. This committee determines the mitigation
projects and the who, what, when, where, how, etc.
If a developer is not interested in the above examples he or she is free to develop a wildlife
mitigation plan that has the ability to offset impacts for the life of those impacts.
5) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL-
» There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage, no matter how briefly, at
any residence or anywhere within the property, with the exception of bear -proof
trash containers. Refuse should not be kept within detached garages or sheds
because bears may break into these structures. The use of bear -proof trash containers
is the safest and best technique to avoid bear problems.
➢ Residents will be prohibited from using compost piles unless such piles are contained
in an approved bear proof receptacle.
➢ Only those receptacles certified by the North American Bear Society, National Park
Service or the CDOW shall be considered to be "bear -proof'
> There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of refuse within the development.
❑ Pets shall not be fed outside.
➢ With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of
attracting wildlife to individual yards will be prohibited.
6) RIPARIAN/WETLANDS-
Riparian & wetland areas shall be avoided. Buffer areas shall be established adjacent to
these areas to ensure that construction and development impacts do not degrade them.
A 75 -foot setback from the high water mark plus, any additional riparian habitat shall be
the setback from any stream, creek, river, etc. The total setback will vary depending on the nature
of riparian habitat along the waterway, but at no time be less than 75 feet. During all construction
activities the setback shall be defined on the ground by silt fencing to guarantee no disturbance
occurs within the setback
Drainage and runoff should be contained and filtered prior to entering riparian/wetland
areas. Small berms, swales, dips etc. may be constructed during construction and post
construction to naturally hold and filter runoff.
In proposals where snow plowing and storage are issues, areas shall be delineated where
the runoffwill be contained and filtered before it can enter any riparian or wetland area.
In many instances riparian and wetland areas have been detrimentally impacted by past
land management practices. In these instances, enhancement in addition to development
avoidance would be beneficiaL
A note on the final plat or deed shall be used to inform all property owners that setbacks
from water features are to be left in a natural state and may not be altered.
Locations where water crossings (roads, trails, bike paths, etc.) are necessary, naturally
spanning bridges shall be used and not culverts. This will allow free movement of aquatic life and
help reduce beaver problems.
p.4
Mar 22 00 02:04p Ke11y Wood
970-963-6523
Designs for development/construction in riparian and wetland areas shall avoided. Any
construction work that may cause impacts to creeks, streams and rivers shall be restricted to the
time period of July 15 to October 1. Current best management practices must also be used to
reduce and minimize the discharge of fines, silt and sediments into the waterway(s).
7) RAPTOR SURVEY
A raptor survey should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist if the development
proposal is located in an area where raptor nesting normally occurs. The local CDOW officer is
available to advise if a survey will be needed.
8) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION
The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage.
- 9) OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT- frightening, disturbing or
The subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, gh g, g
other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off open space areas. This provision
shall apply during winter and production periods. Winter periods are defined as December 1
through April 30 and production periods as May 1 through June 30.
The subdivision/PUD shall have the right to locally restrict wildlife from landscaping
chimps and other sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any
fencing erected shall not restrict free movement of wildlife but should be used in small, isolated
areas to help alleviate possible problems.
10) SEASONAL USE RESTRICTIONS -
Use of important wildlife habitats can create additional negative impacts. Areas that need
extra protection may have seasonal use restrictions placed on them, i.e. big game migration
corridors, elk calving areas, waterfowl nesting areas, great blue heron rookeries, severe winter
ranges, winter concentration areas, etc.
11) EDUCATING RESIDENTS -
A brochure or pamphlet shall be developed by the proponent educating homeowners about
the local wildlife community, the planning that went into the design of the development to
accommodate future needs of wildlife, explaining what residents must do to ensure this wildlife
use continues. The informational pamphlet should stress that residents have certain stewardship
responsibilities that will enable them to coexist with wildlife. For small developments, there are
general brochures available through the CDOW.
In large PUDs this document should go into specifics on how to deal with
the bats,
y
nuisance animal situations that will no doubt occur (species such as skunks, he,
beavers, swallows, woodpeckers, coyotes, etc.).
12) ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS -
If the wildlife mitigation measures are incorporated into covenants then these covenants
shall not be amended without the written consent of the CDOW, County (or Town), and
subdivision homeowners. The above wildlife related covenants, can be enforced by the CDOW
and/or Town/County.
Subdivisions/PUDs have also been including all wildlife related mitigation measuresinto
separate "Mitigation Plan document This can be very helpful to new residents when properties
p.5
Mar 22 00 02:04p Ke11j Wood
970-963-6523
are sold so they will know just what is expected of them The "Mitigation Plan" is then added to
the covenants and enforced accordingly.
13) ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR COVENANTS &/or PUD GUIDELINES -
It has been the CDOW's experience in working with a large number of subdivisions and
PVDs; the effectiveness of covenants depends on the Homeowner's Association. Too often the
Association becomes lax in the enforcement or doesn`t want to enforce covenants or guidelines
because the violators are neighbors or the only real remedy is to go through court action. In
talking with some representatives and attorneys of associations, it appears there may be an easier
way of ensuring compliance:
A) An enforcement section should be written for the Association's guidelines or
covenants. Due process should be provided in that violators are officially warned first, second
offense is a fine (has to be enough to be meaningful --$100.00), third offense is a fine (at least
double the amount of the second offense fine --$200.00), fourth offense can either be a doubling of
the third offense fine or in the case of dog/livestock violation a removal of the animal(s) causing
the problem for a period of not less than six months.
B) If violators refuse to pay fines in a timely manner (not to exceed 30 days after notice
given) then this constitutes a separate violation and the process starts anew. In other words, the
first day after the fine becomes overdue a warning is given, the 2°'i day=a notice of a fine of $100,
3rd day -4200 fine, 4th day $400 fine, etc. As you can see the dollar amount can add up quickly if
someone willfully refuses to pay his or her fines. The same can be used when a resident is notified
to remove an offending dog(s) or livestock or to comply with fence guidelines. Instead of going
to court and attempting to get a court decision to collect, liens can be placed on the offending
person's property.
All fine money from violations of the wildlife covenants should be deposited in the Wildlife
Mitigation Fund. A small percentage (not more than 15%) of the fine money can be used for the
administration of this process.
C) A separate provision should be added to ensure consistent and stringent enforcement
by the Association. If the Association or authorized agent(s) knowingly fail to enforce the
guidelines or covenants, the Association and/or the individual will be in violation and be fined
according to the fine structure outlined in the covenants.
14) SPECIFIC COMMENTS -
The response to Division of Wildlife's letter dated 01/18/00 indicated the reduction of
lots 44-47 from 4 to 3 lots. These lots are still in the P/J slopes, but the clustering will help
reduce impact to wildlife. (Now lots 50-52).
There was mention of a wildlife mitigation trust fund but I did not find reference to it in
the convenants and conditions.
The movement away from the wetlands of lots 65-67 will reduce the impact and may have
potential for improvement of this area.
SUMMARY
The cumulative effects of the Cerise Ranch along with developments in surrounding
properties could have severe and permanent impacts on wildlife populations as there is little public
land to absorb the effects of this type of habitat loss in the part of Garfield County. As private
lands, that have traditionally been in agriculture, now become developed, it becomes more and
more difficult for the CDOW to manage wildlife populations. This is due to the permanent loss of
p.6
Mar 22 00 02:05p Ke11y Wood
970-963-6523
the most critical habitats in the life cycle of these animals, that being winter range and
reproduction areas, which are most often located on private land. Our hope is that by providing
these comments, Garfield County will be able to use them to mitigate for the impacts that these
developments are having on the wildlife in our county. May we continue to enjoy healthy wildlife
populations for years to come.
Thank you for your time.
P. 7
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
March 18, 2000
Mr. Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
GA -00-0010
RE: Cerise Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plat Geologic Hazard Review
Dear Mr. Laurien:
wiP1-41
NDEPARTMENRT AL OF
ATU
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
Thank you for your submittal of the Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan to the Colorado
Geological Survey. At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has
reviewed the submitted subdivision and conducted a field inspection on March 16, 2000. The
site is located on the north side of the Roaring Fork Valley about 1 mile east of Catherine.
The property borders the north side of Highway 82. We have reviewed the preliminary plan
application that included the following reports that pertain directly to this review:
1. An original and revised Geologic Hazard Investigations and a Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation by CTL/Thompson, Inc.;
2. Drainage Study by High Country Engineering; and
3. Drainage Basin Analysis by Zancanella and Associates for an earlier version of Cerise
Ranch development.
In broad terms the development has many restrictions that result in a relatively narrow band of
land that is suitable for development. Those restrictions are wet ground and 100 year flood
hazards in the main flat terrace areas adjacent to Highway 82 and very steep slopes of the
valley side to the north.
We have reviewed the geologic hazard and geotechnical reports and generally concur with
their content. The CGS also believe that debris flows, landslides and potentially unstable
slopes, and ground subsidence and collapsible/compressive soils are the major hazards that
affect this property. In addition potential shallow ground water may impact residential
foundation, basement, and septic system construction.
We judge the rockfall hazard to be relatively low and has being adequately addressed by the
consultant. The following discusses the major hazards individually and includes any
additional concerns, comments, and recommendations we have.
sim-
x . -t•'" 30+3
e,TV ` tril , SF , Sa :,
ILLLJVELt MAil, L. 7 2000
)
Debris Flow Hazards
The CGS believes that there is significant debris flow hazards on the two center allvuial
(Basin 3 and 4) fans and flash flooding hazards from the main drainage (Basin 2) above the
Cerise home site.
During our inspection we found very recent small flows that still had the capability to raft
boulders in the 2 to 3 foot diameter range down both small drainageways of Basin 3 to the
existing ranch 4WD road. The upper portions of the building envelopes of lots 38 through 42
would be impacted by a similar sized flow. It would be prudent to interview the Cerise family
to ascertain the extent of historic flows they might be aware of. While we found no visible
evidence of recent debris flows for Basin 4, it is a larger basin and could generate flows larger
than what is evident at Basin 3. As such we would consider lots 33 through 37 to also be at
risk.
The geologic consultant mentions mitigation for these areas but we find no plans in the
preliminary plan application. While the drainage reports discusses debris flow potential it
dismisses Basin 3 (where we saw recent evidence) and we found no discussion on bulking
factors and mitigation planning. Because of the close proximity of the homes on the alluvial
fans, a comprehensive mitigation plan is needed. Site specific mitigation by lot owners is not
feasible if it is to rely on channelization, redirection, and conveyance of debris between lots.
Only Basin 2 drainageway has been channelized in the grading plan
We recommend that the County require the developer provide a comprehensive mitigation
plan prior to approval.
Landslides and Potentially Unstable Slopes
For the most part potentially unstable slopes are being avoided in the layout of the
development plan.
The grading for the Road B alignment will require a 25(±) foot high cut in the toe of the
mapped landslide. The consultant's report indicates that the toe of this slide is active (we
concur) and gives precautions about further disturbance of this slope. A slope stability
analysis should be performed at this location to quantify the effects of additional toe
excavations for the road alignment. The county should not give approval until this is
resolved. If mitigation is being considered it should be designed and included in the grading
plan.
Ground Subsidence
The consultant has adequately addressed the causes for formation of sinkholes in this area.
The entire low-lying area within the flood plain in the center of the property is likely a
downwarping of the alluvial terrace, also in response to dissolution of the evaporitic bedrock.
There is some low risk that spontaneous sinkhole formation is possible on this property. The
prominent sinkhole on the property is in a higher terrain area near Highway 82 and the
developer has grouped four lots around it. The building envelopes for lots 23 and 26 lie
within the outer subsidence risk zone. We recommend that those lots envelopes be readjusted
so that actual building footprints lie outside of the subsidence risk zones. Potential lot buyers
should also be made aware of the risks of future subsidence.
Collapsible/compressive soils
Compressible sandy clays were noted in the preliminary geotechnical report. This material
was deposited in the distal portions of the alluvial fans. The geotechnical consultant's
recommendations must be complied with for foundations on these soft, compressible soils.
Most of the deeper borings were done in the previously flood irrigated property so the clay
soils were fairly saturated. Where these soils are dry, they can also be hydrocompactive and
hydrocompressive when wetted.
The report did not clearly distinguish the well rounded packed river gravel from the alluvial
fan gravel. They are different with widely different properties. River gravel is sorted by
water and is deposited in a packed arrangement and is generally excellent foundation material.
Debris flow gravels are water transported but not sorted and can be dispersed in a lower
density matrix of collapsible and compressive sandy clay debris. Their foundation
performance is much poorer than river gravel and could be prone to settlement and
compaction, especially if wetted.
It's worth noting that severe settlement problems have occurred to residential structures in this
area of the Roaring Fork River in soils very similar to these (colluvial and alluvial fan soils
derived from the Eagle Valley Formation) that have become wetted and saturated. We
reiterate that control of surface drainage and subsurface water is important to the
performance of foundations and slabs on grade. Even with subexcavations of the clay
soils and recompaction and densification, if the wetting front reaches unmodified soils below
and the clayey soil column is thick enough, settlement can still occur, though more evenly
balanced and less destructive.
Other Considerations
The odd narrow lot configurations and shallow ground water levels may severely impact the
design of ISDS. Lot sizes are in the 2 to 10 acre size. In reality that is misleading because the
developable areas as shown by plat and building envelopes are relatively small and tightly
spaced together. If this lot layout was to satisfy certain lot area criteria for ISDS it should be
examined closely by the county planning and health departments.
We recommend that lot boundary should be more realistically sized to the building footprint.
The excess of those long ribbon-like lots should be included as common space or
conservation easements, administered and owned by the HOA. Those long lot ownership
3
3C
boundaries could become potentially litigious if rockfall or debris flow from one lot impacts
the other(s).
Provided the additional work and recommendations we stated above are required by the
county prior to approval and the results of that additional work is satisfactory, the CGS finds
no inherent geologic hazards that would preclude the bulk of this development as it was
intended. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-3551.
Sincerely,
Senior Engineering Geologist
4
Memorandum
To: Jeff Laurien, Garfield County Planning
From: Noel Huff, Roaring Fork railroad Holding Authority
Re: Cerise Ranch PUD
Date: March 1, 2000
I have reviewed the information submitted for the PUD, which consists of 68 single
family plus 14 ADU's on 203.47 acres. This property lies across Highway 82 from
the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority's (RFRHA) rail corridor. As there are no
proposed access over or encroachments upon the railroad corridor, I see no
potential impacts to the railroad right-of-way from the application.
For the applicant's information, the railroad right-of-way was purchased for public
transportation and recreational uses. The current valley -wide trail plan for the right-
of-way shows a public trail alignment along side the railroad tracks where they are
currently in place in this portion of the corridor. The applicant may want to consider a
future connection across Highway 82 to this trail system during the development of
the PUD. The railroad corridor is also being studied for potential passenger and
freight train use in this section of the corridor. The preferred alignment will leave the
current railroad right-of-way at Catherine Store Rd. and follow adjacent to Highway
82 between the frontage road. The transit alignment would then reconnect with the
current railroad right-of-way at Wingo Junction. No mainline transit service is
currently proposed in this area, although connector routes could possibly service the
development from Highway 82. These routes would connect with the mainline transit
station proposed at El Jebel.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this land use proposal. Please contact
me at 704-9282 if you have any questions.
cc: Tom Newland
RECEIVED ►1I-2 7000
ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY
ASPEN, COLORADO
Memo
To: Jeff Laurien
From: Mike Davis
Date: 3/15/00
Re: Cerise Ranch Transit Impacts
nogg
Cerise Ranch development is located West of the Dakota subdivision and East of
Catherine Store on Highway 82. (See Attachment I.) The development is proposed
to have 68 single-family homes and 14 accessory dwelling units. RFTA has
reviewed the development proposal and analyzed the transit impacts. The analysis
includes estimated ridership, capacity constraints, and costs.
Ridership
Cerise Ranch will generate 10,108 new riders annually and about 15 round -trips daily
(See Attachment II Part B). Since this development is outside of the 1/4 mile buffer
around existing transit stops it is estimated that 100 percent of bus riders will access
transit using a Kiss/Park-and-Ride facility (See Attachment 1). These facilities exist at
Catherine Store and the El Jebel Park -and -Ride. Both of these facilities are in
deplorable condition. Neither of these facilities are paved and the El Jebel facility is
leased.
Capacity Constraints
Under current conditions, capacity is hard to estimate. Local valley service in the
summer time averages about 40 passengers per trip with the average vehicle having
42 seats. Buses providing service to the Catherine Store bus stops have higher
• Page 1
passenger loads than the average bus accessing the El Jebel Park -and -Ride. In
general, the capacity is constrained during the peak hours in the peak direction and is
somewhat constrained throughout the day.
Costs
The operating and maintenance cost of carrying about 10,000 new riders is
estimated to be $22,570 annually (See Attachment II Part E). The capital bus
replacement costs for serving these riders is about $7,500 annually or $77,000 every
15 years (See Attachment II Part G). These costs, however, are reduced by the fare
revenue generated, which is estimated to be around $13,500. When you add in
park-and-ride maintenance costs, the net annual cost of this development on the
public transit system is estimated to be $16,611 annually with a one-time cost of
$62,480 to construct park-and-ride spaces (See Attachment II Part J.)
Site Design
RFTA does not currently have any stops in the vicinity of the development and does
not have plans to add any stops to serve the development. Since this is not a transit
oriented design (TOD) area, RFTA will not review it as such. RFTA ridership will
however increase as a result of the development. For example, residents can
access transit at park-and-ride Tots.
Recomendations
RFTA would like to see the developer cover the associated transit costs of the
development and at a minimum, cover the startup capital costs of transit which
are estimated to be around $140,000 ($77,000 for vehicles and $63,000 for Park -
and -Ride spaces). This is approximately $2,000 per dwelling unit and could be
paid at the time of building permit.
• Page 2
Cerise Ranch Transit Accessibility
SH 82 and Catherine Store
0.9
0
JW DR and SH 82
Badger Road West
0.9
1.8 Miles
Legend
Cerise Ranch
Existing Bus Stops
Park -and -Ride Lots
1/4 Mile Buffer
Garfield County
S
I auamIDP11V
Attachment II
Transit Mitigation Assessment Form
In The Roaring Fork Valley
A. Input Data
Name of Development:
Nearest Community:
Nearest Commercial Center
Cerise Ranch
El Jebel/Eagle
Roaring Fork Market Place
Commercial Square Footage of Proposed Development
Fill In One
Number Of Dwelling Units:
82
Or Population at Buildout:
B. Ridership
Residential Land Use
El Jebel/Eagle
Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate
(One-way Psgr-Trips per Capita)
Cerise Ranch
Residential Population
Commercial Land Use
Roaring Fork Market Place
Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate
(One-way Psgr-Trips per 1000 SF)
Cerise Ranch
Cerise Ranch One -Way Daily Trips By Season
Average Vehicle Occupancy
Required Number of One -Way Trips
Service Days Per Season
One -Way Ridership by Season
One -Way Annual Ridership
Estimated
Population
4,000 (1)
213
Commercial
Square Footage
311,234
0
Average Daily RFTA Ridership
Summer Off -Season Winter
578 (2) 380 (2) 586 (2)
0.14 0.10 0.15
31
100 (3)
0.32
0
31
41
1
99
3,049
20
31
66 (3) 102 (3)
0.21
0
20
22
1
114
2,310
0.33
0
31
30
1
152
4,748
10,108
C. Peak Direction/Peak Period Ridership Cerise Ranch
Summer
88% (2)
Proportion of Transit Demand in Peak Direction
Daily Passenger Round -Trips in Peak Direction
Proportion of Transit Demand in Peak 4 -Hour Period 54%
Daily Passenger Trips in Peak Direction in Peak Period
Average Vehicle Occupancy
Required Number of Round -Trips
Off -Season Winter
14 9 14
7 5 7
41 22 30
0.2 0.2 0.2
Page 1 of 4
T'�
D. Total Miles and Hours of Sevice Cerise Ranch
Summer Off -Season Winter
Seasonal Totals
One -Way Daily Trips
Service Days Per Season
Budget Factor
Miles/Trip
Revenue Miles
One -Way Running Minutes
Revenue Hours
Mileage Deadhead Factor
Total Miles
Hourly Deadhead Factor
Platform Hours
Annual Totals
Total Miles:
Platform Hours:
9,866
366
0.8 0.9 1.0
99 114 152.0
10%
23.00 (5)
1,899 2,635 4,019
45.0
15.4% (4)
31.2% (4)
62 86 131
2,190 3,040 4,636
81 113 172
E. Operating and Maintenance Costs
Seasonal Totals
Operating Cost/Platform Hour
Annaul Operating Costs
Maintenance Cost/Total Mile
Cerise Ranch
Summer Off -Season Winter
$26.85 (6)
$0.86 (6)
$2,180
Annual Maintenance Cost $1,884
Direct Annual Operating Costs $4,064
Fixed Cost/Platform Hour $11.65 (6)
Total Fixed Costs $946
Annual Totals
Direct Annual Operating Costs
Total Fixed Costs
Total Gross Cost
$18,308
$4,262
$22,570
$3,026 $4,616
$2,614 $3,987
$5,641 $8,603
$1,313 $2,003
F. Passenger Revenue Cerise Ranch
Trip End
Aspen
Snowmass
Pitkin County
Basalt
Eagle County
Carbondale
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs
Percentage (2)
54%
10%
8%
14%
3%
6%
1%
5%
Annual
Passenger
Trips
5,416
984
837
1,371
260
632
72
537
Average
Fare Per
Passenger Fare
Trip (7,8) Revenue
$1.57 $8,526
$1.57 $1,548
$1.25 $1,047
$0.80 $1,095
$0.40 $104
$0.80 $505
$0.80 $57
$1.20 $643
Total
100%
Annual Passenger Revenue
$13,525
10,107
$13,525
Page 2 of 4
G. Vehicle Requirements & Cost Cerise Ranch
Summer Off -Season Winter
Direction Peak Period 0.2 0.2 0.2
Required Number of Round -Trips Peak
15% Spare Ratio
Number of Required Vehicles
Capital Costs of Vehicles
Annualized Capital Cost of Buses
0.28
$76,861
$7,567
0.21 0.25 0.28
H. Housing Assistance Needs
Platform Hours
Service Days
Drivers Needed
Mechanics Needed
Supervisors Needed
Total Employees Needed
Cerise Ranch
366
365
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.0
I. Park -and -Ride Lot Requirements
One -Way Passenger Trips
Percent Driving To Transit Stop
Passenger Per Automobile
Park -and -Ride Spaces Needed
Park -and -Ride Costs
Annual Maintenance Costs
Cerise Ranch
31
100% (8)
1.25
12
$62,480
$3,046
J. Summary Sheet
Annual Ridership
Housing Units Needed
Buses Needed
Total Operating and Maintenance Costs
Annual Passenger Revenue
Park -and -Ride Costs
Total Costs
Cerise Ranch
10,108
1.0
0.3
Annual
$7,567
$22,570
$13,525
$3,046 and
$16,611
One Time
$62,480
$62,480
L. References Cerise Ranch
Note 1: July - 1997 Population Estimates: Demography Section of the Colorado Division of Local Affairs
Note 2: 1998 RFTA Ridership Surveys
Note 3: 1998 RFTA On/Off Survey
Note 4: 1998/99 RFTA Winter ATC 33 Report
Note 5: 1999 RFTA Service Standards
Note 6: 1998 RFTA Budget
Page 3 of 4
Note 7: 1999 RFTA Fare Structure
Note 8: 1998 RFTA Passenger Survey
Page 4 of 4
RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2103
Garfield County Road
& Bridge
Memo
To: Jeff Laurien — Planning department
From:Tom Russell
Date: 03/09/00
Re: Cerise Ranch
Jeff,
I have reviewed the information that you provided to me on Cerise Ranch.
I do not see any physical road impacts as all traffic enters and exits onto State
Highway 82.
If you need any other information from me, feel free to call.
Tom.
• Page 1
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602
(970) 945-7755 TEL
(970) 945-9210 FAX
(303) 893-1608 DENVER DIRECT LINE
May 2, 2000
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Planning Office
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan — Revised Submittal
Dear Jeff:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the April 12,
2000 Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan submittal. Our comments on technical issues are presented
below and replace our March 23, 2000 review letter. Comments that remain the same are repeated
in this letter for clarity of comments.
WATER SUPPLY
1. It appears an adequate potable water supply can be developed using the "Willow" wells on
the property, one of which has already been drilled and tested.
2. From an engineering point -of -view, the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) water
allotment contract is adequate for the project. A permanent augmentation plan will be
decreed for the project by the BWCD and paid for by the applicant. This cost should be
paid by the applicant or included in the SIA prior to any Final Plat approval.
The BWCD water allotment contract includes water to augment pond evaporation. There
are no proposed ponds on the plans; however, ponds are not required for any technical
purpose for the project.
WATER SYSTEM
3. The proposed water storage tank is located at the edge of landslide and potentially unstable
slope area. A detailed geotechnical study will be required prior to final plat for final site
location and grading in this area.
4. The water treatment and distribution system should be approved by the State prior to Final
Plat submittal
DENVER (303) 480-1 700
DURANGO (970) 259-741 1 BOULDER - (303) 473-9500
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Planning Office
May 2, 2000
Page 2
WASTEWATER
5. The proposed Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) utilizing Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems (ISTS) designed by a registered professional engineer for each lot
should be adequate for the project.
DRAINAGE
6. The intersection of drainage ditches and irrigation ditches at Lot 1 and Lot 65 should be
better defined to ensure that the Lot 65 building envelope is not impacted.
7. The debris flow mitigation plan presented in the drainage report appears adequate.
However, the plan should be presented in the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheets 8 and 9)
with a typical detail for the berm. The debris flow mitigation structures should be
referenced on the Plat and in the covenants so that final grading and landscaping on the
affected lots will not alter the function of the berms and swales.
8. Adequate provisions for Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater have been
included in the construction drawings and the General Development Guidelines for
individual lots.
SOILS/GEOLOGY
9. The turnaround for Road C and the water storage tank access road includes excavation into
the toe of a landslide area. A geotechnical study should be completed to address grading,
retaining walls, or other special construction requirements in this area.
10. A portion of the building envelope for Lot 27 is located within the subsidence area. The
building envelope should be adjusted or the area demonstrated to be "buildable."
11. Referencing Plat Note No. 11, there are numerous other building sites with soils issues that
require proper foundation design. Therefore, we recommend that the Plat Note be changed
to reflect text similar to the following: A site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be
conducted for each lot to determine proper foundation design and mitigation of potential
geologic hazards.
WETLANDS/404 PERMITTING
12. Impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. have been permitted with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for the Road A and Road F crossings of Blue Creek. The proposed driveway
for Lot 52 spans the Basin 2 channel and would not require a permit.
E:\Work\WWE\921-047.100\RevisedSubmittalReview.doc
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Planning Office
May 2, 2000
Page 3
ROADS
13. The applications for State Highway Access Permits have been submitted to CDOT. These
permits should be obtained prior to any preliminary plan approval.
Miscellaneous Comments On The Drawings And Covenants
14. Drainage easements should be provided for the debris flow mitigation swales for Lots 35
through 44.
15. Section 4.14.D of the covenants should be edited to be a complete sentence.
16. The covenants should indicate the HOA is responsible for maintaining the Basalt Water
Conservancy District water allotment contract and/or other water rights for the potable
water system.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WAT ' EN INEERS, INC.
cc: Jim Leuthauser, Esq., Garfield County Legal
Eric Tuin, High Country Engineering
E:\Work\W WE\921-047.100\RevisedSubmittalReview.doc
47
Bv•
ichael J. Erio x, P.E.
Project Manar
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814-2922
April 5, 2000
Regulatory Branch (199875467)
Mr. Art Kleinstein
Winter Green Homes
Post Office Box 978
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Mr. Kleinstein:
I am responding to your request, submitted by consultant
Andrew Antipas, for a Department of the Army permit to replace
and upgrade two crossings of Blue Creek at the proposed Cerise
Ranch development. The project is located about one mile east of
Catherine's Store on the north side of Highway 82 along Blue
Creek just downstream of Dakota Subdivision within Sections 32
and 33, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Garfield County,
Colorado.
The Chief of Engineers has issued nationwide general permit
number 3 which authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill
material in waters of the United States for maintenance related
activities. 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. You must send finished photographs
and 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.
This verification is valid until February 11, 2002. 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.
RECEIVED APR G 6 2000
c)
NATIONWIDE PERMIT #3
MAINTENANCE
(Sections 10 and 404)
Effective Date: 11 February 1997 Expires 11 February 2002
Note: Additional information on this and other Nationwide permits can be obtained on the
internet at http://wetland.usace.mil
The Corps of Engineers has issued a nationwide general permit (NWP) authorizing the
repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable,
structure or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3,
provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified
or contemplated for it in the orifi n. {, rl.iit or the most recently authorized modification.
Minor deviations in th3 structure's configuration or filled area including those due to changes
in materials, construction techniques, or current construction codes or safety standards
which are necessary to make repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are permitted, provided ...—
the environmental effects resulting from such repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are
minimal. Currently serviceable means useable as is or with some maintenance, but not so
degraded as to essentially require reconstruction. This NWP authorizes the repair,
rehabilitation, or replacement of those structures destroyed by storms, floods, fire or other
discrete events, provided the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement is commenced or under
contract to commence within two years of the date of their destruction or damage. In cases
of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes or tornadoes, this two-year limit may be waived by
the District Engineer, provided the permittee can demonstrate funding, contract, or other
similar delays. Maintenance dredging and beach restoration are not authorized by this NWP.
NATIONWIDE PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a
NWP to be valid:
1. Navigation: No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on
navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance: Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained,
including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion and Siltation Controls: Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be
used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil
and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line,
must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
RECEIVED APR 0 721111
This information sheet was prepared 03 October 1997.
JUL 17 '00 09: 50PM TOWN OF BHSALT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Wheeler & Members of the P&Z Commission
FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Coordinator
DATE: 7/14/00
SUBJECT: Cerise Preliminary Plan, Referral from Garfield County
F 2
I. Background
Included with this memo are the following items that provide background information on
the Cerise Preliminary Plan Subdivision request.
• Garfield County Staff Memo
• Map Excerpts from Application
• Minutes from past review by P&Z (11/99)
• Initial Referral Comments from Town (Letter dated 7/3100)
The Garfield County referral process included comments from several important reviewing
agencies including the Division of Wildlife and CDOT. Their comments are referenced in
the County's Staff memo, with more detailed information available by contacting Town
Hall,
The application is currently before the Board of County Commissioners with favorable
recommendations from both the County P&Z and the County Planning Staff The Town
did not receive a referral on this item, which has resulted in the unfortunate timing of our
review. The Board of County Commissioners continued their hearing from fast Monday,
July 10th to August 7th to allow the Town to formalize comments. The Town submitted a
set of initial comments and a request for the continuation. a copy of which is attached for
your review.
We have met with the County Planning Staff and Doug Pratte the applicant's planner,
along with several other members of the development team. We hope to bring insight
from these various meetings to you as part of your deliberation on formal referral
comments. We also expect to follow-up with the applicant on the P&Z recommendations
and concerns prior to presenting them to the County in August. The applicant's have
expressed a willingness to listen and respond to Town concerns. As with the prior P82
review last fall we have invited Doug Pratte to participate in your discussion of this referral
item.
11. Analysis and Comments
1. Urban Services Areas & Master Plan/Comp Plan Compliance: The proposed
development extends beyond the designated urban services boundary and as such is
located in an area which the Master Plan designates for agricultural and rural character
activities. The densities proposed by the development significantly exceed the
recommendations of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. It is this added density
M: \ghartmann\word\pamemo71300(ceri se). doc
JUL 17 '1710 09:510H TC Nt 1 OF B SHL T F.3
that appears to have given the applicant's planners too few options for creating a more
rural development pattern. The resulting plan falls short of adequately defining an edge
for this immediate area of the West Basalt Planning area, and runs the risk of perpetuating
more suburban type development in this section of the Roaring Fork Valley. Based on
this key issue alone, it is Town Staff's opinion that the proposal is cut of compliance with
both the County and Town long range planning documents. (note: the Garfield County
Planning staff has made a finding of general compliance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan)
2. Rural Character: One option for dealing with density and rural character is to
shift density to accessory dwelling units (adu's). This could be accomplished by adjusting
the plan to decrease the overall number of lots while increasing the number of lots that are
allowed adu's. The adu option could be further enhanced by allowing detached adu units
while including additional design standards for the units. This type of flexibility is
consistent with the Town's typology guidelines for the Agricultural/Mixed Typology
(Typology #5), while stilt maintaining the overall unit density, it also offers some
opportunity for affordable housing in the creation of adu's.
3. Site Pan: .. The applicant's planners have made an important effort to maintain
a large portion of the site in open space. Additional clustering still appears to be possible
even in light of concerns about Garfield County's lot size and sewage disposal standards.
Easements to allow for individual sewage disposal systems within the common areas (in
sorne cases across private road easements) are options that would open up additional
clustering potential. The proposed lot configurations ere already somewhat
unconventional (long narrow 2 acre plus lots) and adjustments to allow clustering seem
very feasible. Clustering of units will provide additional opportunities to avoid
environmentally sensitive and/or hazardous areas of the site (see comments below).
4. Referral and Technicel/Engineering Issues: The applicant has provided the
County with extensive information on technical issues. The following outline provides a
brief summary of staff comments on key topics,
• Traffic: CDOT access permits have been issued and traffic studies indicate
that impacts will be addressed by construction of acceleration and deceleration
lanes for the expanded access point. Practical safety concerns remain for staff
based on our experiences with uncontrolled high speed intersections such as
is proposed. Examples are found at Dakota, Blue Lake, Willits, and East
Valley Rd. While the proposed plan seems in conflict with CDOT policies for
this "expressway" designated section of highway, few alternate options for
access appear available at this time. Consideration should be given to
restrictions on traffic movements such as right-in/right-out only that would
eliminate the most dangerous left turn movements. Provision of easements to
provide for potential joint access in the future should be considered
• Water/Sewer: Technical studies indicate that provision of adequate
facilities to serve the development have been assured. Covenant previsions
detailing maintenance responsibilities for ISTS sewage disposal systems
should be strengthened and made enforceable by the County. Ground water
quality monitoring should be considered based on the unit density proposed.
• Fire Protection: Staff supports the Fire District recommendations for fire
protection and payment of impacts fees, and the provision of a secondary
emergency access point.
M.\ghartmann\word\pzmemo71800(cerise).doc
JUL 17 '00 09: S2AMf TOWN OF BASALT P.4
• Soils: Hazards associated with sink holes and soils constraints are
addressed in the soils analyses, An overlay of lot locations on the soils
constraints mapping would assist in reviewing how responsive the
development is to these Concerns. In general Staff would encourage further
restricting buildings in areas identified with soils and sink hole hazards.
• Slopes: The applicant's studies have identified a number of areas with rock
fall and debris flow hazards. While plat notes requiring site specific studies for
each lot are proposed, the applicant's revised Geologic Hazard Evaluation
(2/3/00) references the "further quantification of the magnitude of potentia!
debris flow" as being beyond the scope of their report. Staff recommends
that such evaluation be completed prior to final plat approvals. This would
allow for minor adjustments to lot configuration and the establishment of
design standards for mitigation to be established, Given the engineering
complexity of modeling debris and mud flowe staff recommends it be
addressed as part of the development review process.
• Wildlife Impacts: Concerns of the Division of Wildlife should be addressed
and where mitigation policies are included in the protective covenants those
covenants should be enforceable by the County with prohibition against
amendments inconsistent with the County's conditions of approval and
applicant's representations.
• School Impact Fees: Staff supports the payment of school impact fees,
but have some concern regarding the inclusion of undevelopable, high hazard
areas in the acreage calculations portion of the fees in lieu formula.
• Open Space — Pedestrian Connections: Staff is unclear on the ultimate
purpose and management proposals for the open space dedication proposed
to Eagle County. Staff would also like the applicant to consider creation of
public easements for potential future trail connections to adjoining parcels,
While these option appear limited today it would be an investment it future
opportunities,
#it. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the P&Z direct that an updated referral comment letter be prepared
for the Chairman's signature based on the above staff comments and additional input and
editing by the Commission. In addition to the specific concerns noted above, the primary
positions recommended for inclusion in the letter are summarized as follows:
a. That the application not be approved in its current form and at the proposed level
of density based on both the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and Town of
Basalt Master Plan,
b. That revisions and adjustment to the proposed plan can be developed that
address major areas of concern and provide a better fit with the long range plans
for the area.
c. That such revisions can be accommodated within the basic structure and layout of
the development through adjustments to lot configurations, clustering, and similar
strategies outlined in the Town Master Plan and Typology concepts and other
similar Planning and Landscape Design guidelines for rural character.
M:\ghartmann\w ord\pzmerno71800(cerise).doc
JUL 17 '00 09:52AM TOWN OF BASALT
101 MIDLAND AVENUE • BASALT, CO 81621
(970) 927-4701 • FAX (910) 927-4703
July 5, 2000
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
109 8`" St, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cerise Ranch
Board of County Commissioners:
The Town of Basalt wishes to formalize our intent to submit referral comments on
the proposed Cense Ranch Development Preliminary Plan. While we did not receive
official notification of your current review process, we are prepared to generate
comments on this important development located within the Town's Three Miie Planning
Area in a timely fashion.. In order to facilitate our preparation of comments we
respectfully request that you continue the currently scheduled public hearing. Staff
meetings between our Planning Departments have identified a standard 21 day ''eferra!
period.
The Town has worked closely with the County and your P!annorg Staff over the
past several years including presentations to your Planning Commission on our recently
adopted Master Plan, The Town's Master Plan contains numerous elements, goals, and
objectives relevant to the site and is impact on how the valley will continue to grow. We
look forward to providing comments on many of these topics with an initial outline of
concerns noted below:
1, The Basalt Master Plan shows this site outside of the Urban Service Area and
with an agriculture designation on the West Basalt Planning Area, Future Land
Use Map.
2. The Development accesses directly onto State Highway 82. Safety issues
regarding the proposed access onto this highway. which recently received an
expressway designation by the State should be thoroughly resolved at this time,
3. The project reflects an increase in density over the recommendations contained
in the Garfield County Master Plan, The County's recommended densities would
likely better preserve the rural character of this portion of the County and help to
avoid conflicts with the Town's Master Pian that may result from increasing
demands for urban type services.
4, Division of Wildlife concerns should continue to be strongiy considered especially
where the project extends into the transitional habitat between the valley floor
and upland vegetation.
5. Opportunities to link the project to neighboring developments in Garfield and
Eagle Counties, for pedestrian purposes, transit use and vehicular usage should
be strongly considered.
Established in 1901
T
I li
6. The Town supports the County's requirements for heightened standards for
sewage disposal treatment systems and protection of ground water resources.
7, The Town supports the County's efforts to address impacts from the
development through your schedule of mitigation fees. Consideration should be
given to whether the development is adequately addressing impacts resulting
from its higher densities and suburban character.
B. Guidelines for management of the common areas including agricultural uses
should be well defined and include practical considerations based local ranching
expertise. Establishment of conservation easements should be considered as a
means of assuring the common areas remain permanently as well managed
open space.
9. Additional consideration should be given to potential geologic hazards associated
with soils and steep slopes.
10, County should consider wood burning regulations within the project, consistent
with Town provisions that prevent wood burning fireplaces, and allow gas
fireplaces and wood burning stoves that are EPA comcliant
The Town appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal and your
favorable consideration of our request for a continuation of the scheduled public hearing,
Cooperation on future development review is an important part of Doth the County and
Town working toward implementation of our respective master plans.
Sincerely,
ke:y"/
Tom Baker
Basalt Town Administrator
CC. Mark Bean, Garfiela County Community Development Director
Jeff Laurien. Garfield County Planner
Basalt Board of Trustees
Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission
Doug Pratte, The Land Studio
J �_ 1 .:_llj •_i .hi i I 'AA
P4 Z.. M.kkNL 11-1b-'
Commissioner Bacheldor suggested having a vertical planting area on the west side of the
parking area to provide shade. Guy said that ash and honey locust trees would be amenable to
the suggestion. Bacheldor thinks that a four foot wide stairway is too narrow, especially when
passing.
Philp reviewed the PUD text amendment language and said that the Towri Attorney is making
sure it is in compliance.
Regarding the flood variance, Staff suggests that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the
variance so it will move on to the Board where it can be scrutinized more closely. Staff
suggested accepting the conditions in the Oct. 29 memo as amended by Nov. 12th memo with
the inclusion of tonight's discussion,
Commissioner Bacheldor thinks that the housing is too restrictive and would like to see the
housing open to people who work in the general area Philp and Hartmann suggested opening
the housing requirement to those who work in West Basalt. The Commissioners suggested
expanding it to be open to those who work in the Mid -valley. This will make policing a much
easier job.
Staff is going to recommend that if it is legally feasible, children will be restricted from the
deveiopment. Commissioner Bacheldor would like it better if children were not restricted.
Commissioner Maron pointed out that given the housing shortage in the valley, people are going
to live wherever they can.
MIS MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PUD TEXT AMENDMENTS ON THE KEELTY SPECIAL
REVIEW AS OUTLINED IN THE OCT. 29 STAFF MEMO AND REVISED IN THE NOV, 2ND
MEMO WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: OPTION A CHOSEN FOR PARKING,
OPTION B FOR THE OVERALL. SITE PLAN, ENCOURAGE SHADE TREE LANDSCAPING,
CHANGE STIPULATION TO THAT ONE RESIDENT MUST BE AN EMPLOYEE IN THE MID -
VALLEY, INCREASE STAIR WIDTH FROM FOUR TO FIVE FEET, WITH THE SUGGESTION
THAT CHILDREN BE ALLOWED IN THE DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONER FOX-RUBIN
FIRST WITH COMMISSIONER MARON SECOND. MOTION CARRIED.
MIS MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR FLOOD DAMAGE PROTECTION TO THE
KEELY SPECIAL REVIEW PER THE OCT. 29 STAFF MEMO AS REVISED ON NOV. 12
UNDER THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT CAN NOT BE APPROVED DUE
TO THE CURRENT LACK OF INFORMATION AND WITH THE HOPE THAT THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES CAN REMEDY THE SITUATION. COMMISSIONER FOX-R.UBIN FIRST WITH
COMMISSIONER DUNN SECOND. MOTION CARRIED.
F.
Referral Comments to Garfield County - Cerise Ranch
Hartmann introduced Doug Pratt who is representing the Cerise Ranch project. Pratt indicated
the location of the project which is just down valley from the Dakota development. He outlined
the proposal. The project has 67 two to six acre lots with individual septic and a community
water system. Blue Creek flows through the property. Hold 92 acres of hillside in common
easement - slopes are 40% or greater. He explained the intricacies of Garfield County code,
Pratt thinks they'll be able to get about 12 ADUs on the project. The Division of Wildlife (DOM
is concerned with the building envelopes next to the hillside because the snow melts quickly on
6
JUL 1 r ' 0@ 09: 54AN TONN OF BASALT
F.
the south facing slopes, thus drawing more deer and elk close to the development. Street
widths are 24 feet. A pedestrian trail runs along the main road, Six acres in Eagle County are
planned to be kept as open space. Regarding trail connections, Dakota abandoned an
easement on a lot that would connect the Cerise Ranch pedestrian trail with the trails in Blue
Lake/Dakota, That lot is in the hands of an individual,
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Zuena had to leave the meeting but left comments read by Chairman Wheeler:
Commissioner Zuena is concerned that there is no mention of impact fees to Willits or school
impact fees to RE -1; there will be about 200 cars in the subdivision and he is concerned with the
access point to Highway 82 especially at rush hour; he would like to require a sewer system
because he is not in favor of individual septic systems for full time residents: there is no mention
of a lighting plan but he suggests that it be similar to the Basalt code and, finally, he is
concerned about the placement of streets and trails.
There followed a discussion about why Garfield County denied seer service to this project.
Commissioner Elice is concerned about the type of growth in the valley and this low dersity plan
is suburban dwelling at its worst, Water quality is being ccmpromised. He cannot support this
plan. The idea of putting houses in a pasture is incomprehensible to him.
Commissioner Fox -Rubin agrees with Commissioner Elice, The project is still too dense and is
auto -oriented, He is not sure if this meets any community requirements for either Basalt or
Carbordale, Wildlife habitat 's being fragmented. Water quaiity is a major concern, He asked it
it possible to put a conservation easement on the lowland, especially near the wetland where
there will be problems with homes, and building some free market, expensive homes on the
other end of the development. He thinks this is an insidious way to pave the valley.
Commissioner Dunn said this goes against everything the Cornmission is trying to do, There will
be nothing but houses all the way from Catherine Store to Et Jebel, She recommends denial.
Commissioner Marin does not consider this the highest and best use for this parcel. However,
it is not in this county and does comply with code so there is not much more to be said about this
project,
Commissioner Bacheldor likes that the majority of the pasturelano is still held as pastureland
and would like to see agricultural use continue. He would like to see the houses near the
highway pulled back into one of the cul-de-sacs. He wondered if there are
acceleration/deceleratior lanes at the project's entrance Pratt said there is. Bacheldor would
like to see more aggressive use of agricultural land on the property.
Commissioner Elice said that nobody is trying to deny ranchers a chance to benefit from growth
in the valley but this proposal does nothing to control sprawl. It seems that there would be a
better way to :luster more of the housing. Pratt said that Garfield County code restricts their
planning creativity due to the County's denial of sewer service. Individual septic systems require
more space. Elice asked how this Commission could help the developer become more
responsible with its application.
7
,•JUL 17 '00 i9: 55AM TOWN OF BASALT
Commissioner Fox -Rubin sees this project as the property owner cashing out. He would like to
see 35 acre lots if there has to be some buildout. Have the property owners seriously
considered a conservation easement? Pratt said they are not interested. Aspen Valley Land
Trust has met with the family to no avail, Pratt reiterated that he thinks this plan does the best
job that it can considering its constraints.
Chairman Wheeler does not support this plan either. He also is concerned about water quality,
density, location, and sprawl.
Commissioner Elice again asked Pratt if there is any way this Commission can help the
developer make this a better development that incorporates the values of the valley,
Chairman Wheeler asked about contacting the Ranch at Roaring Fork and working with them
regarding sanitation. Pratt said this has been attempted Basically all the proposed
developments outside the Urban Services Boundaries are in the same unfortunate situation,
Hartmann said Staff will draft a recommendation letter with these comments and bring it to the
next meeting for approval.
Final Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Dunn suggested allocating more than an hour for the Continued Hearing of
Riverwalk at the December 7th meeting.
Commissioner Fox -Rubin suggested switching the Cardimone/Gottlieb and Dolezal items to
7.15 and the Riverwalk hearing to 8:15 at the December 7th P&Z meeting.
The minutes of November 2, 1999 were approved as read.
M/S MOTION TO ADJOURN WITH COMMISSIONER ELICE FIRST AND COMMISSIONER
MARON SECOND. MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
TOWN OF BASALT
PLANNING AND ZONLNG COMMISSION
By: ATTEST:
Gary Wheeler, Chairman Denise Mytty, Recorder
8
V
RECEIVED DEC 1 1 2000
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. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80230-6928
TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090
Located in Glendale, Colorado
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us
November 22, 2000
Jeffery M. Spaul, Manager
Wintergreen Homes
P.O. Box 1530
Avon, CO 81620
970/949-4120
RE: Final Permit, Colorado Discharge Permit System — Stormwater
Certification No: COR -033536
Cerise Ranch Subdivision
Garfield County
Local Contact: Dale Hope, Owners Representative
970/ 376-4319
Anticipated Activity: 11/1/2000 0:00:00 through 7/31/2001 0:00:00
On 301 acres (31 acres disturbed)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
Enclosed please find a copy of the permit certification which was issued to you under the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act.
Your certification under the permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated
times. You are legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of your certification.
Please read the permit and certification. If you have any questions, contact Nathan Moore or
Kathy Dolan at (303) 692-3500.
Sincerely,
Susan Nachtrieb, Manager
Permits Unit
Water Quality Control Division
Enclosure
xc: Regional Council of Governments
Local County Health Department
District Engineer, Technical Services, WQCD
Permit No. COR -030000
Facility No. COR -033536
PAGE 1 of 17
CERTIFICATION
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT
STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Activity: Construction of a 68 lot residential subdivision.
This permit specifically authorizes: Wintergreen Homes
to discharge stormwater from the facility identified as Cerise Ranch Subdivision
which is located at: 17072 Highway 82
Carbondale, Co 81623
part of
in
Section: 29 Township: 7S Range: 87W Qtr:
Garfield County
to Blue Creek to Roaring Fork River
effective: 11/22/2000
Annual Fee: $185.00 (DO NOT PAY NOW. You will receive a prorated bill.)
SENT BY:CORPS OF ENGINEERS ; 3-21- 0 ; 16:40 ; CORPS*OF*ENGINEERS-,
•
Fax Header Sheet
4ccic) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
Western Colorado Regulatory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563
970. 243. 1199
Fax: 970.241.2358
Date: 3/21/00
Toted Number of Sheets: 1
;# 1/ 1
To: Mr. Jeff Laurien, Garfield County.Planning Dept. 384-5004
From. Ms. Susan Nall, Environmental Engineer, Corps of Engineers
Signature:
Comments: RE: 3/15/00 SITE VISIT TO CERISE RANCH
At the request of wetland consultant, Mr. Andy Antipas, I met with
him, planner David Pratt, and a gentleman w/Fligh Country Engineering
last Wednesday at the proposed Cerise Ranch site. We spent approximately
20 minutes reviewing two proposed access crossing sites on
Blue Creek in which :I believe nationwide general permits are
applicable. I was also questioned about the permitting options
for impacts to "waters of the United States" located just north
,,of the existing farm house that would access three proposed lot
sites, a water storage tank, and involve construction of a debris
flow channel. I asked about the necessity of this portion of
the project and explained that this work, in combination with
1;. the access crossings, may require a more involved individual
permit. In addition, we would ask that a detailed alternatives
analysis be included in any submittal for this type of work to
:gain, consider the necessity of these three lots and alternative
ways to access. This aspect of the project seemed to involve
significant road cuts and hillside disturbance with large Le-
c has not been received
`�;, taming walls. While a formal application ,
I understood from our meeting that these 3 lots would be re-
considered and likely withdraw from the plan. Based on this,
1 I indicated that the remaining two impact areas could likely be
pocessed by nationwide general permit.
Vkiej