HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.10.2000BOCC 07/10/00
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+/- 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: AIR/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). The applicant shall incorporate with any final plat a plat note
that will require any future lot owner of Lot 52, prior to the initiation of any grading
or construction upon said Lot, to submit to the Garfield County Department of
Building and Planning detailed engineering drawings of the proposed driveway
accessing Lot 52. Further, the proposed access easement with dimensions, 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.
IL 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.
3
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.
24-27), 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 28,29), 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.30),
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.31),
the Sheriff's Department stated 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.
These will be conditions of any Final Plat approval.
Carbondale Fire District: In a letter dated March 3, 2000 (See p.32), 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.
K. Colorado Division of Wildlife: In a letter dated 03/22/00 (See pgs. 33-38), 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 with the
following revision: Short term outside storage of trash, not within bear proof
containers will be allowed upon the condition that the applicant incorporate within
the Protective Covenants, acceptable limitations (not longer than 12 hours) on such
short term outside storage which are adequate to satisfy the purpose addressed by
CDOW Comment 5..
Comment number 8, CDOW Indemnification, as outlined in the letter. Note: For
Preliminary Plan to the Planning Commission, staff recommended that
indemnification for CDOW be a condition of any approval. However, upon
further discussion with the County Attorney's office, it was determined that the
County had no means to enforce this condition/requirement. Thus, it has been
decided by staff that this should no longer be a condition of any approval. As
such, staff's recommendation at the end of this report has been modified
accordingly to eliminate this condition as well as the accompanying plat note.
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, 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."
6
"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." As per the note above, this plat note shall be removed.
"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."
L. 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. 39-42), 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,
7
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
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.43), Noel Huff of RFRHA states,
"As there are no proposed access over or encroachments upon railroad corridor, I 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 a PUD.
O. RFTA: In a memorandum dated 03/15/00 (See pgs.44-50), 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.51),
Road and Bridge responded, "I do not see any physical road impacts as all traffic
8
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.52-54 )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.55-58), Sue Nall,
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.
U. Town of Basalt; The Planning Department mistakenly determined that the Town of
Basalt was not within the two (2) mile area of influence for this project since we
were not in receipt of up-to-date maps of the boundary of the Town of Basalt. As
such, the Town of Basalt was not given the application until Wednesday, July 5,
2000 for them to make comments. In a meeting with Glenn Hartmann of the Town
of Basalt; Planning Department on July 5, 2000, he verbally commented that the
Town of Basalt would like to request that this application be continued until the
Town of Basalt has an opportunity to comment on the application. This is confirmed
in a letter from the Town of Basalt dated July 5, 2000 (See pgs. 59,60). In addition,
a letter has been sent to Mr. Glenn Hartmann (See p.61), stating that the Town of
Basalt has twenty-one (21) days to comment on this application from July 5, 2000
(the day the application was received by Glenn Hartmann) according to C.R.S. 30-
28-136(2). The twenty-one (21) day time limit will be up on July 26, 2000. As such,
the next Board of County Commissioners hearing date after July 26, 2000, would be
August 7, 2000.
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).
9
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.
Comment 3 from Wright Water Engineers will be a condition as stated in the letter
(for any Final Plat submittal).
Comment 4 from Wright Water Engineers will be amended to require that State
approval of the water treatment and distribution system be obtained by the applicant
prior to Final Plat approval.
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.
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.
10
(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.
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.
(5)
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.
(7)
This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
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 fromfront lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet
11
from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet 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 Rectuirements: 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." In 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
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: Access
permits which have been reviewed and approved with any necessary conditions by
CDOT must be submitted or at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing upon
the Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board
that the proposed access to State Highway 82 complies with the State of Colorado,
STATES HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE (Volume 2, Code of Colorado Regulations
601-1).
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.
12
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.
5. 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
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
13
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.
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.
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 with the
following revision: Short term outside storage of trash, not within bear proof
containers will be allowed upon the condition that the applicant incorporate within
14
the Protective Covenants, acceptable limitations (not longer than 12 hours) on such
short term outside storage which are adequate to satisfy the purpose addressed by
CDOW Comment 5.
Comment number 8, CDOW Indemnification, as outlined in the letter. As per staff's
earlier note, this will not be a condition of any approval.
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 Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at the hearing.
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
Subdivision Regulations of 1984, Section 4:00 Preliminary Plan.
5. That the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that the
proposed access to State Highway 82 complies with the State of Colorado, STATE
HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE (Volume 2, Code of Colorado Regulations 601-1).
15
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At a special hearing of the Planning Commission held on May 17, 2000, Planning
Commission recommended 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 or at the Board of County Commissioners'
hearing upon the Preliminary Plan, applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Board that the proposed access to State Highway 82 complies with the State of
Colorado , STA IES HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE (Volume 2, Code of Colorado
Regulations 601-1).
As part of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval):
4. Valid well permits for all proposed wells must be obtained and submitted.
5. The four (4) comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management must be
addressed.
6. Comments 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, from Wright Water Engineers must
be addressed. Comment 4 being revised to require State approval of the water
treatment and distribution system be obtained by applicant prior to Final Plat
approval.
7. 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.
8. The cost for a permanent augmentation plan must be paid for by the applicant or
included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
9. Comments 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 as included in the CDOW letter dated March 22, 2000,
16
with the revision to Comment 5 as outlined in this staff report, 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.
10. The Final Plat must include the proposed access easement to lot 52 with dimensions
as was submitted for Preliminary Plan.
11. Required Plat notes:
"Prior to the initiation of any grading or construction on Lot 52, detailed engineering
drawings of the proposed driveway accessing Lot 52 must be submitted to the
Garfield County Department of Building and Planning for review and approval."
"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, as modified, 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
17
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, but not into private property."
Note: the following information is not part of the approved motion of the
Planning Commission, rather it is an explanatory note to the Board of
County Commissioners: The bolding above is added to clearly show the
modification approved by the Planning Commission in their motion, to
the plat note recommended by staff to the Planning Commission. In
discussion with the County attorney's office, staff has been informed that
this modification cannot be legally enforced upon the applicant. Thus,
staff will be making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners below, that does not include this modification. The rest
of the plat notes below are part of the approved motion of the Planning
Commission.
"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 Plat approval:
12. All comments received from the Sheriff's Department in the letter dated March 9,
2000.
13. The comments regarding wildlife as detailed in this staff report.
14. 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.
15. Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit, of the Subdivision Regulations, must be
complied with.
16. Comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers which requires all ISTSs to be
designed by a registered engineer.
17. 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.
18. Impact fees for fire protection must be paid.
19. School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 must be paid.
20. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, with regard to phasing, all lots
must be final platted within five (5) years.
21. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any construction in areas
above 40% slope.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The proposed 300,000 gallon water tank must be painted and screened through the
use of landscaping and/or berming to minimize its visual impact.
19
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Given the recent request from the Town of Basalt to continue this hearing until the Town
has had an opportunity to comment, staff recommends that this hearing be continued to
August 7, 2000, a date which will give the Town of Basalt the twenty-one (21) days required
to comment. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and has been verbally informed that
the applicant is in agreement with this recommendation. This is to be confirmed by the
applicant at the hearing of July 10, 2000.
Staff would like to note that staff was prepared to recommend approval of the proposed
Subdivision with the following recommendations until the request from the Town of Basalt
was received (The only difference from staff's recommended conditions and Planning
Commission's recommended conditions above is the two notes included in the staff report
explained above with regard to a plat note referencing lighting, and CDOW
indemnification):
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 or at the Board of County Commissioners'
hearing upon the Preliminary Plan, applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Board that the proposed access to State Highway 82 complies with the State of
Colorado , STATES HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE (Volume 2, Code of Colorado
Regulations 601-1).
As part of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval):
4. Valid well permits for all proposed wells must be obtained and submitted.
5. The four (4) comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management must be
addressed.
6. Comments 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, from Wright Water Engineers must
be addressed. Comment 4 being revised to require State approval of the water
treatment and distribution system be obtained by applicant prior to Final Plat
20
approval.
7 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.
8. The cost for a permanent augmentation plan must be paid for by the applicant or
included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
9. Comments 3, 5, 9, and 11 as included in the CDOW letter dated March 22, 2000,
with the revision to Comment 5 as outlined in this staff report, 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.
10. The Final Plat must include the proposed access easement to lot 52 with dimensions
as was submitted for Preliminary Plan.
11. Required Plat notes:
"Prior to the initiation of any grading or construction on Lot 52, detailed engineering
drawings of the proposed driveway accessing Lot 52 must be submitted to the
Garfield County Department of Building and Planning for review and approval."
"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, as modified, and included
in the covenants must be adhered to by all residents"
"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."
21
"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."
"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 Plat approval:
12. All comments received from the Sheriff's Department in the letter dated March 9,
2000.
13. The comments regarding wildlife as detailed in this staff report.
14. 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.
22
15. Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit, of the Subdivision Regulations, must be
complied with.
16. Comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers which requires all ISTSs to be
designed by a registered engineer.
17. 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.
18. Impact fees for fire protection must be paid.
19. School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 must be paid.
20. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, with regard to phasing, all lots
must be final platted within five (5) years.
21. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any construction in areas
above 40% slope.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The proposed 300,000 gallon water tank must be painted and screened through the
use of landscaping and/or berming to minimize its visual impact.
23
Dr: �� Y, i �t�f;L � gi
tErAft leLORADO
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 Plan
SW'/4SE'/4 Sec. 29, N1/2 Sec 32 & NW1/4 Sec. 33, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Mr. Laurien:
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 lots. 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.
The source of the proposed water supply would be tributary to the Roaring Fork River,
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
m
Jeff Laurien
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.
March 21, 2000
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
DRT DATE
Mar 16 09:59:07 MST 2000
COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUCES
PAGE 1
MIT 0 CTY OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANN AREA GEOL WELL WELL WTR SEC LOC TWN P
CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APB IRE AOFR YIELD DPTH LEV COORD OSRS SFC SHP RNG M.
159 5 GAR CERISE NUMBERT 12072 HWY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
08 0 B. 9 03-1 -1924 0 0 15_00 25 0 9S0N 1620E N WNE 32 1S 8i6!
18 5 GAR NIDAY RICHARD CARBONDALE. CO 81623
38 _0 8 10-17-197_1 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 SENE 32 75 87W S,
r72 5 GAR WEIDE W L CARBONDALE, CO 81623
NP 09-17.1079 38 0 _0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWNE 32 ZS 87W S,
734 5 GAR DENNIE J B CARBONDALE. CO 81623
NP 10-05-1979 BC 11-19-1979 38 _0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 00 SWNE 32 15 87W S4
47 5 GAR EDMONDS GENE CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 8 08-16-1.965 0 0 20 00 49 19 0 0 SWNE 32 ZS 87W S ,
94 5 GAR MORITZY JOHN CARBONDALE, CO 81623
38 0 8 1929-1364 0 0 20 00 42 16 0 0 SWNE 32 75 87W S
95 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
1 ^t7 r
21- DATE%
3r 16 09:49:56 MST 2000
COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUCES
PAGE 1
IT 0 CTY OWNER INFORMATION
,CTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANN AREA GEOL WELL WELL WTR SEC LOC TWN
'D DATE CD DATE WO _1D DB USE DATE APR IRI? HOER YIELD DPTH LEV MORD MRS SEC SEP RNG
5 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
MWEDMAS:
P
1
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.
R
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 dura
Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica
Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris
Hoary cress Cardaria draba
Saltcedar Tamarix parvora
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
Roar;ng I`ork School.
1 6 Grarid::Avenue
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 Fipance: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.
RECEIVED AF,r.
CHOMAS 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 liAR 6 9 2,
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.
eco ig6
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.
Sinc re
c
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
1
.RFIELD COUNTrt
N -N: ,I G DEPARTMENT
109 8TH ST. - SUITE 303
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81801
RECEIVED MAR 0 L 2000
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
ar 22 00 02:03p Kelly Wood
TO: Jeff Laurien
FROM: Kelly Wood
SUBJ:
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Department of Natural Resources
1 :9 11 It a,
970-963-6523
DATE: March 22, 2000
After reviewing
the application for the subdivision preliminary plan, the Colorado
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as a Garfield County referralmency . s
thee f OW recognizes
ng
recommendations regarding wildlife imparts and mitigation
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 owners will be
-
The covenants allows one dog for each lot.would suggestvadequateefacilities (ie., a
prohibited from harboring dogs on their property
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. ennel or og run must be o time are dogs to be on a leash under the direct control of
to run freely.
Dogs outside their yard,
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 bringingproperty.
to dogs
s►onto the e subdivision/PUD
Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from bringingdogs
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 catsavi
ient
predators and can contribute significantly to the mortality of small mammals
populations including nesting waterfowL
p•2
lar 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 2 deer inchesfin width
ns dth
(top view), and an opening in the lower 1/2 of at least 16 inches to allow passage
oand
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 m 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 & lots is not lost or unpaired.
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 dverse wildlife
die will
impacts can be made. A dollar amount (this amount is figured througha fairlysimple)
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. organization
Trusts are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation, a non-profitg
sanctioned by the state. an internal real
B) Another approach to the mitigation of wildlife impacts is to instigate
estate transfer fee that will place money into a wildlife enhancement fiord. 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
p.3
2
tar 22 00 02:03p Ke11y Wood
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 thehano up front a costs.
cts
through projects as discussed in A) above. This method is fairly simple
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 &./or 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/TRASII 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.
y 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.
O pets shall not be fed outside. or other means of
> With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting,
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 phis 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 cob constructed during construction and ed and filtered prior to entering wetland
areas. Small berms, swales, dips etc. may
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 areab ast
In many instances riparian and wetland areas have been detrimentally impactedy P
land management practices. In these instances, enhancement in addition to development
avoidance would be beneficial e owners that setbacks
A note on the final plat or deed shall be used to inform all property rtY
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
lar 22 00 02:04p Ke11Wood
970-963-6523
p.5
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- fri tenin disrturbing or
The subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, gh 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
clumps 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
o w n rs about
the local wildlife commof the development unity, the planning that went into the design
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 many
nuisance animal situations that will no doubt occur (species such as skunks, raccoons, bats,
beavers, swallows, woodpeckers, coyotes, etc.).
12) ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS -
If the wildlife mitigation measures are incorporated into covenants t Toe se ), and covenants
shall not be amended without the written consent of the CDOW, County
(orsubdivision 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 measures into a
separate "Mitigation Plan" document This can be very helpful to new residents when properties
41111
lar 22 00 02:04p Ke11Wood
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
PUDs; 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 ay after the fie becomes overdue a warning is given, the 2' day=a notice of a fine of $100,
3`d day $200 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 fme 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.
P.6
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
X31
lar 22 00 02:05p Kelly 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
y prthro iding
these comments, Garfield County will be able to use them to mitigate for the imp
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:
M41
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
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.
RECEIVED IllA R 2 7 211f
rzi,F),FKID COUNTY
1'•1 TI.1 ST, -tA.L, CO ""1
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.
2
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
4-
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 MAR 0 3 2000
ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY
ASPEN, COLORADO
Memo
To: Jeff Laurien
From: Mike Davis
Date: 3/15/00
Re: Cerise Ranch Transit Impacts
' `CrJVED MR 1 ?
2000
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 '/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 I). 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 Toads 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
publictransitsystem is estimated to be $16,611 annually with a one -tire -`cost of
$62,480 to construct park-and-ride spaces (See Attachment I1 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_ o _see.thedeveloper cover the associated transit costs of the
development an to 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 thelife of building permit.
• Page 2
Cerise Ranch Transit Accessibility
0.9
0
0.9
1.8 Miles
Legend
•
Cerise Ranch
Existing Bus Stops
Park -and -Ride Lots
1/4 Mile Buffer
Garfield County
s
I quamu3e33V
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
l Roaring Fork Market Place
Commercial Square Footage of Proposed Development
Fill In One
Number Of Dwelling Units:
82
Population at Buildout:
B. Ridership
Estimated
Residential Land Use Population
El Jebel/Eagle 4,000 (1)
Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate
(One-way Psgr-Trips per Capita)
Cerise Ranch
Residential Population 213
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
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 20 31
100 (3) 66 (3)
0.32 0.21 0.33
102 (3)
0 0 0
31 20 31
41 22 30
1 1 1
99 114 152
3,049 2,310 4,748
10,108
C. Peak Direction/Peak Period Ridership
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
Cerise Ranch
Summer Off -Season Winter
88% (2)
14 9 14
7 5 7
41 22 30
0.2 0.2 0.2
Page 1 of 4
D. Total Miles and Hours of Sevice
Seasonal Totals
One -Way Daily Trips
Service Days Per Season
Budget Factor
10%
Cerise Ranch
Summer
Off -Season Winter
0.8 0.9 1.0
99 114 152.0
Miles/Trip 23.00 (5)
Revenue Miles 1,899 2,635 4,019
One -Way Running Minutes 45.0
Revenue Hours 62 86 131
Mileage Deadhead Factor 15.4% (4)
Total Miles 2,190 3,040 4,636
Hourly Deadhead Factor 31.2% (4)
Platform Hours 81 113 172
Annual Totals
Total Miles:
Platform Hours:
9,866
366
E. Operating and Maintenance Costs
Seasonal Totals
Operating Cost/Platform Hour
Annaul Operating Costs
Maintenance Cost/Total Mile
Annual Maintenance Cost
Cerise Ranch
Summer
$26.85 (6)
$0.86 (6)
$2,180
$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
Off -Season
Winter
$3,026 $4,616
$2,614 $3,987
$5,641 $8,603
$1,313 $2,003
F. Passenger Revenue
Trip End
Aspen
Snowmass
Pitkin County
Basalt
Eagle County
Carbondale
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs
Percentage (2)
54%
10%
8%
14%
3%
6%
1%
5%
Cerise Ranch
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
Required Number of Round -Trips Peak Direction Peak Period 0.2 0.2 0.2
15% Spare Ratio 0.21 0.25 0.28
Number of Required Vehicles
Capital Costs of Vehicles
Annualized Capital Cost of Buses
0.281
1 $76,8611
$7,567
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
1. 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:
Note 8: 1999 RFTA Fare Structure
1998 RFTA Passenger Survey
Page 4 of 4
0
RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2UZ3
Garfield County Road
& Bridge
Memo
To: Jeff Laurien — Planning department
From:Tom Russell
Date: 03/09/00
Re: Cerise Ranch
Jeff,
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
�4.
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.
The water treatment and distribution system should be approved by the State prior to Final
Plat submittal
irk,/ 1"0 /ii r c-4 a .�.
4.1
•�^�
DENVER (303) 480-1700 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
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....)] (11't (LAI.
O. 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."
is
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
411. "S-3
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
6,4 --(6 easements should be provided for the debris flow mitigation swales for Lots 35
through .44.
1.5. Section 4.14.D of the covenants should be edited to be a complete sentence.
tC(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.
Bv:
cc: Jim Leuthauser, Esq., Garfield County Legal
Eric Tuin, High Country Engineering
E:\Work\W WE\921-047.100\RevisedSubmittalReview.doc
ichael J. Eno P.
Project Manan. =r
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 a 6 2000
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 origin.] pe.rmit 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 replacemdnt 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 7
1111P 7 -
This information sheet was prepared 03 October t997.
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 3
Page 3
b. The State of Nevada has certified all NWP's with the following exception:
"404 Certification is denied for all NWP's when a discharge permit is
required by the Division of Environmental Protection for the proposed project. These
discharge permits include, but are not limited to NPDS Permits, Storm water Permits, State
Discharge Permits, Rolling Stock Permits, etc."
10. Coastal Zone Management: In certain states, an individual state coastal zone
management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (see Section 330.4(d)).
11. Endangered Species:
(a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such
designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which is
likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-federal vr
permittees shall notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be
affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and shall not begin work on the activity until
notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.
(b) Authorization of an activity by a nationwide permit does not authorize the
"take" of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Federal Endangered
Species Act. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a
Biological Opinion with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), both lethal and non-
lethal "takes" of protected species are in violation of the ESA. Information on the location
of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from
the offices of the USFWS and NMFS or their World Wide Web pages at
http://www.fws.gov/ -- r9endspp/endspp.html (USFWS) and
http://kingfish.spp.mnfs.gov/tmcintyr/prot_res.html#ES and Recovery (NMFS).
12. Historic Properties: No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or
eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the District
Engineer. has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C. The
prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect
any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee
has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of
the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.
Information on the location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State
Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see
33 CFR 330.4(g)).
This information sheet was prepared 03 October 1997.
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 3
Page 5
3. Suitable Material: No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of
unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.,) and material discharged
must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water
Act)
4. Mitigation: Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site
(i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer approves a compensation plan that the District
Engineer determines is more beneficial to the environment than on-site minimization or
avoidance measures.
5. Spawning Areas: Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
6. Obstruction of High Flows: To the maximum extent practicable, discharges mut-~
not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the
relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters).
7. Adverse Effects From Impoundments: If the discharge creates an impoundment of
water, adverse effects on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water
and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
8. Waterfowl Breeding Areas: Discharges into breeding areas for migratory
waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
9. Removal of Temporary Fills: Any temporary fills must be removed in their
entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.
C. FURTHER INFORMATION:
1. District Engineers have the authority to determine if an activity complies with the
terms and conditions of a nationwide permit.
2. Nationwide permits do not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local
permits, approvals, or authorizations required by law.
3. Nationwide permits do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
4. Nationwide permits do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
5. Nationwide permits do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed
Federal project.
This information sheet was prepared 03 October 1997.
JUL YJJ UU u.D. lOr I'1 I VWI1 Ur HL I
01� IDDLAND AVENUE • BASALT, CO 81621
(970) 927-4701 • FAX (970) 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 Cerise 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 Mile 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 referral
period.
The Town has worked closely with the County and your Planning 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 its 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 Plan that may result from increasing
demands for urban type services.
4. Division of Wildlife concerns should continue to be strongly 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
'� Y
JUL UD - ✓ U ✓J.7 • .LOr1'I I UWI Y Ur DHJHL I
r.
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.
8. 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 buming fireplaces, and allow gas
fireplaces and wood burning stoves that are EPA compliant
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 both the County and
Town working toward implementation of our respective master plans.
Sincerely,
til
Aet
Tom Baker
Basalt Town Administrator
CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Community Development Director
Jeff Laurien, Garfield County Planner
Basalt Board of Trustees
Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission
Doug Pratte, The Land Studio
GL
•
July 5, 2000
Glenn Hartman
Town of Basalt
101 Midland Ave.
Basalt, CO 81621
Dear Mr. Hartman,
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning Department
As per our meeting today, this letter is to confirm your receipt of the Preliminary Plan application for Cerise
Ranch at this meeting of July 5, 2000. Per Colorado Revised Statutes Section 30-28-136 (2), The Town of
Basalt has 21 days from today to make comments regarding this application. If we do not receive comments
within 21 days, as per this Section of the C.R.S., it will be assumed to be a recommendation of approval from
the Town of Basalt.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the Building and Planning Department.
Sincerely,
JefltLaurien, B.E.S., M.Sc.P.
Senior Planner
109 8th Street, Suite 303
81601
C d
945-8212/fax 945-7785 Glenwood Springs, Colorado