HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 11.10.2009PC 11/10/99
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan
OWNER: Wintergreen Homes, Art Kleinstein, Avon, Colorado
LOCATION: 300 acre parcel located north of Highway 82 and directly west of the
Dakota Subdivision. Most of the site is in Garfield County; a small
portion is in Eagle County.
SITE SIZE: 300 acres
WATER: On site wells feeding a common water system
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
ACCESS: Highway 82 (main entry plus emergency access)
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in the Medium Density Residential Area (6 to less than 10
ac./du) and Low Density Residential Area (10 and greater ac./du), on the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan of 1995, Proposed Land Use Districts Map, Study Area I. The
proposed density of the project is approximately one lot per 4.5 acres, and most of the land
is either in wetlands or hillside above 40% slope.
In most cases, building envelopes are located along the toe of the slope. The applicants are
proposing to preserve large amounts of land in the hillside, wetland and Highway 82 corridor
areas. There are three lots proposed adjacent to the Highway 82 including lots 65, 66 and
67.
1
Although the proposal includes ADU rights as an attempt to provide affordable housing, the
lot sizes and buildable area proposed are less than required by County Code in almost all
cases.
91 acres of agricultural land would be preserved in a common open space easement over
individual lots.
In this case, a small portion of the site extends into Eagle County. No structures are planned
for this area, it is all proposed for a common open space easement. Paul Clarkson of the
Eagle County Planning Department has indicated that Eagle County will probably seek an
IGA for this portion of the subdivision and will be involved in the review process.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is a mostly vacant parcel generally located north Of
Highway 82 and west of El Jebel's Dakota subdivision. There are no dwellings on
the property and it is currently used for pasture. There are various wetland habitats
on the property, related to the ponds and the river.
B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 300 acres to
allow the construction of 67 single family homes with accessory dwelling units. The
property would be divided among the individual lots and the areas designated for
open space would be preserved by an easement over the individual lots (see sketch
plan map in application). The lots are proposed to be 10.2 to 2 acres in size and the
developer has committed to providing "at least an acre" of land of less than 40%
slope on each lot. The lots are to be served by water from on-site wells. Each of the
lots (single family plus ADU) is proposed to be served by an engineer -designed
individual sewage disposal system. One primary and one emergency access is
proposed directly off of Highway 82.
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Colorado Division of Wildlife: The DOW has provided a lengthy letter noting a
number of issues, with suggested miti ation measures that could be incorporated into
a preliminary plan. (See letter pgs. / 7 )
2. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: The District Board noted that the continued
use of irrigation water rights is important; that revegetation of disturbed areas is
important to weed prevention and that the wetlands should be properly protected
during construction. (See letter pg. / 8 )
2
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Zoning: All of the proposed lots meet the two acre minimum lot size in the A/R/RD
zone district. The A/R/RD zone district only allows one dwelling unit per lot as a use
by right. The proposal for ADU rights on each lot does pose a problem. Fully 38
of the 67 lots are less than the 4 acre minimum required by section 5.03.021 of the
County Zoning Resolution. Furthermore, the Zoning Resolution requires that 2 acres
of that 4 acre site must be below 40% slope. Only a couple of the lots meeting the
four acre lots size minimum for ADU's appear to have at least 2 acres of less than
40% area. This would virtually eliminate the possibility of ADU's as proposed by
the applicant.
B. Roads: The proposed access to the lots is essentially via a long cul-de-sac. There
is an emergency access proposed at the east end of the cul-de-sac onto Highway 82
however, there is no indication of whether CDOT will approve this access. The
linear shape of the developable land on this property does not lend itself well to a
looped road. Staff suggests that a 12' paved bike path be added parallel to Highway
82 which would provide emergency vehicles a looped access to the subdivision and
meet goals for bike path development. The bike path would need to be extended
along the entire south boundary of the subdivision with emergency vehicle access at
the primary entrance and at the cul-de-sac bulb at the southeast corner of the site. A
couple of remaining secondary cul-de-sacs appear to exceed the 600' limit set in the
County Subdivision Regulations.
C. Traffic: According to the traffic report submitted, the Cerise Ranch/Hwy 82
intersection will be operating above acceptable standards if left unsignalized. The
current level of traffic on SH82 does not indicate immediate need for signalization,
however, as the general level of traffic increase in this area, this intersection may
need signalization. In addition, the traffic report is recommending the addition of left
turn acceleration and deceleration lanes into the proposed subdivision.
D. Water and Sewer: The applicants propose a common water system fed by on site
wells. Section 4:91 requires that there be a report as a part of the Preliminary Plan
"indicating the availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable depths ....the
expected quality and long-term yield of such wells, with the written report by a
registered professional engineer..." It will also need to be demonstrated where on
the lots the wells would be drilled, to allow for the review of proposed ISDS.
In addition, staff recommends that a geologist evaluate the location of the water
supply tank in relationship to geologic hazards and their impacts.
3
The applicants are proposing to use engineered ISDS for sewage disposal. Section
4:92 requires "evidence as the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations
to determine maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock. Staff
prefers to see the applicant use a packaged central sewage processing system. The
nature of the site and the small areas of useable land make the use of ISDS
questionable. Additionally, it will need to be demonstrated that any proposed ISDS
can meet the setback requirements from live streams, waterways, property lines and
wells. The applicants need to consider this as an option at the time of any Preliminary
Plan submittal. Staff has additional concerns about possible impacts of a spring on
lot 48.
E. Soils/Geology: As noted above, the soils information submitted with the application
indicates some potential for rockfall and slope slippage. Staff recommends more
extensive analysis of geologic hazards and how they affect the buildability of
individual lots.
F. Comprehensive Plan: The applicant has provided their own interpretation of the
Comprehensive Plan. While the analysis is generally correct, the actual conditions
of the site and the subdivision may not support some of the conclusions drawn and
the proposed design.
Recreation/Open Space: The proposed dedication of the steeply sloped and
wetland portions of the property appear appropriate. The subdivision of
narrow linear lots under these common open space easements is not an
optimal proposal as having small portions of the open space under control of
many different people can cause problems. Staff would prefer to see a PUD
design that allows for clustered building lots amid deeded common open
space lots. With this configuration, adequate provision for maintenance,
restrictions on the use of lots including prohibiting fencing in these areas
would be easier to accomplish.
Water and Sewer Services: The applicants propose a common water system
fed by on-site wells and engineered ISDS. Language in Policy 7.3 states "the
County will require developers proposing I.S.D.S. to provide data that
demonstrates to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these
systems prior to project approval." Staff prefers a package sewage system be
used for the entire project.
Natural Environment: There are geologic hazards on this site. Staff would
like a more in depth analysis of how these hazards effect the buildability of
individual lots as proposed and how impacts will be mitigated where
necessary.
4
This project includes both flood plain (Blue Creek) and wetlands issues that
need to be addressed in any subsequent application.
Density: The density without the additional rights to ADU"S of 1 unit per
4.5 acres is higher than the recommended density in the Medium Density
District of the Comprehensive Plan. The density proposed is more consistent
with Medium/High Density district.
G. The following issues will need to be included in the covenants of the proposed
subdivision:
1. One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within subdivision and
the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property
boundaries. The requirement will be included in the protective covenants for
the subdivision with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a
dog from the area as a final remedy in worst cases.
2. No open-hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an
subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-
401, et. seq., 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.
3. Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting be
the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting 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.
4. Extensive restrictions should be applied to open space areas in order to
preserve the natural landscape without unsightly storage, uncoordinated
landscape schemes or fencing.
5. Garfield County has a Right -to Farm -and -Ranch regulation, which
recognizes the important contribution agriculture makes to this County.
Nuisance complaints made against customary and legal agricultural
operations and practices will not be pursued.
H. Overall: The applicant shall either reduce the number of lots in order to increase the
amount of acreage and buildable area per lot to allow ADU's or remove ADU rights
5
from the subdivision proposal. DOW issues should be addressed in any subsequent
application. The road system needs to be designed so that cul-de-sacs in excess of
600' long are not created. Indication of CDOT approval of the emergency access
is needed. The intersection with Highway 82 present and future traffic concerns
should be addressed at Preliminary Plan. Lot buildability as far as the presence of
springs, wetlands and geologic hazards must be well documented.
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the
Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented
to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant will have to submit
an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the
original application.
a W/Ll.dt-- /SLC- e-0Yy1
/4/Vallititot.>
4(A/k
6
Nov 02 99 09:09a Eric Schaller
J / U J am. L (_
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Department of Natural Resources
DATE: 08/31/99
TO: Mark Bean, Staff Planner, Garfield Co.
FROM: Eric Schaller, District Wildlife Manager, CDOW
SUBJ: Wildlife Comments- Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan
After reviewing the application for the subdivision
sketch plan, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as a
Garfield County referral agency offers the following
recommendations regarding wildlife impacts and mitigation
measures. The CDOW recognizes that Garfield County will
make the final decision on wildlife mitigation.
The following are comments and wildlife mitigation
measures that the Colorado Division of Wildlife most
commonly recommends. Also included are comments specific
to this application. I would also recommend an independent
wildlife review of the application by a qualified wildlife
biologist resulting in a "Mitigation Plan". The CDOW would
be willing to contribute input into this mitigation plan in
addition to the comments enclosed.
PUD SPECIFIC COMMENTS
There are a number of recommendations mentioned in the
wildlife report and application with which I am in
agreement. Some examples are maintaining building
envelopes, holding building envelopes to the bottom of the
slope, avoiding impacts on oak/sagebrush habitat, and
control and limitations on family pets. It is obvious that
the applicant has taken wildlife into consideration to a
certain extent. There are, however, a number of other
wildlife considerations that still need to be addressed.
This development contains mule deer and elk winter
range. While many of the building sites have been located
off of the oak/sagebrush slopes, below the ditch, a number
of the sites are still placed up onto the hillside (25-54).
Nov 02 99 09:09a Eric Schaller
Their positioning on the important sagebrush slopes will
result in a loss of available winter range habitat for mule
deer and to a certain extent elk. Building envelopes will
help to minimize this impact, however human activity will
still limit the amount of use by wintering mule deer.
Initially, these animals will be able to disperse onto
adjacent, unimpacted areas. Review of land ownership
reveals a lack of public land (ie. BLM, USFS, CDOW etc...)
with suitable habitat to absorb displaced wintering big
game in this area. Adjacent private property cannot be
relied on to replace the lost habitat in the long run as
future development of those properties could further reduce
usable wildlife habitat as well.
The preservation of agricultural open space does not
really serve as mitigation for lost wildlife habitat as the
location between the highway and the row of homes isolates
these fields from big game animals. Open meadows, during a
normal to severe winter are not usable to most species of
wildlife. While they may be currently used to some extent
for grazing by mule deer and elk, it does not provide the
browse vegetation that would be available during a typical
winter which these animals require. The meadows, with the
exception of riparian areas would be a much more suitable
location for residential lots than the brushy slopes
currently used by wildlife for winter range.
The following measures should help minimize the loss
of effective mule deer winter range and other wildlife
habitat.
1) Moving lots 25-54 off the of the slope and onto the
flat meadows.
2) Reducing the duel roads into and out of the round-
abouts to single roads.
3) No boundary fencing on any residential or ranch
lots.
4) Seasonal use restrictions on trails and open space
for wildlife. (ie. Dec. 1 -April 30 on mule deer
winter range, Feb. 15 -July 15 on riparian areas for
waterfowl nesting)
5) 15,000 sq. feet building envelopes for residential
lots.
6) No land disturbance outside of the building
envelopes in order to maintain natural vegetation.
The only exception would be for CDOW approved
habitat improvement manipulations.
7) Weed control to maintain native vegetation.
Nov 02 99 U9:10a Eric Schaller
8) 100 foot development setbacks from all riparian
areas and wetlands.
9) Use restrictions within riparian and wetland areas
(ie. no trails, no human activity from Feb. 15 -
July 15)
10)Restrict the use of motorized vehicles to
established roads and development envelopes.
I would also suggest that the applicant enter into
some sort of wildlife habitat preservation/restoration
program, in order to mitigate for lost habitat. A couple
of options might be a wildlife mitigation trust, a
voluntary real estate transfer tax or other such program of
their choice. This would provide funding for habitat
improvements on the development site or habitat acquisition
adjacent to the development site. The CDOW would be
willing to discuss the available options with the applicant
as well as requirements for the use of these funds for
wildlife habitat.
Residents should be informed of potential wildlife
conflicts and wildlife laws pertaining to the use of their
property prior to purchase. For example:
1) Wild predators such as bears, coyotes and mtn.
Lions will continue to use this area occasionally
after development occurs. Measures should be taken
by residents to minimize potential conflicts
2) Feeding or baiting of wildlife is prohibited (with
the exception of birds)
3) Harassment of wildlife is prohibited.
4) Dogs chasing wildlife is prohibited.
5) The CDOW is not liable for damage to ornamental or
other non agricultural plants by wildlife.
6) .Any horse hay, or other livestock feed must be
fenced or otherwise protected from wildlife damage
by the owner.
7) Occasionally, wild animals may die on their
property. Owners are responsible for proper
disposal of dead wildlife if they want them
removed.
Disturbed ground caused by road construction should be
reclaimed using vegetation that is not palatable to large
Nov 02 99 09:10a Eric Schaller
J /U JL't LLJJ
mammals. This is in order to avoid attracting deer and elk
to roadsides where collisions with motorist might occur.
COMMON RECOMMENDATIONS
1) PETS -
Each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot
will be permitted to have up to two dogs and offspring up
to three months old. Residents, lessees and/or owners will
be prohibited from harboring dogs on their property unless
they have adequate facilities (i.e., a fenced yard, dog
run, or kennel) to contain the animals. Enclosed runs must
be located immediately adjacent to the home, within the
permitted disturbance zone (building envelope). If
facilities are inadequate to contain the dog(s), the
animal(s) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision
until adequate structures can be built. At no time are
dogs to be allowed to run freely.
Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on
a leash under the direct control of its owner or authorized
representative.
Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the
appropriate governmental entity (Garfield County or the
proper municipality), and must wear the numbered
identification tags provided.
Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited
from bringing dogs onto the property.
Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from
bringing dogs to the subdivision/PUD site. Workers who
violate this provision shall be barred from the
subdivision/PUD for 10 working days for the first offense
and permanently for any future offense.
These provisions also apply to multi -family units if
located within the subdivision/PUD boundaries.
Stray dogs may also be controlled by the
County/Municipality and CDOW (Colorado Division of
Wildlife). 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.
Cats should be kept indoors or in kennels. Even well
fed domestic cats are efficient predators and can
Nov 02 99 09:10a Eric Schaller
J IU -JL't GLJJ
contribute significantly to the mortality of small mammal
and avian wildlife populations including nesting waterfowl.
2) FENCING -
Fencing will be restricted throughout the development
to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat
availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. If peripheral
fencing of the subdivision is required to restrict domestic
livestock grazing on adjacent properties, fencing shall
employ a three strand barbed wire fence, with strands
located at 18, 30, and 42 inches above mean ground level.
(Optimum wildlife fence would be 14, 26 and 38 inches)
If wood rail fencing is used it should not exceed 42
inches in height and 12 inches in width (top view), and an
opening in the lower 4 of at least 16 inches to allow
passage of deer fawns and elk calves.
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 impaired.
3) HORSES AND OTHER LIVESTOCK -
To minimize fencing and the degradation and loss of
critical wildlife habitat, it will be expressly prohibited
to board or keep any livestock, including, but not limited
to horses, within the Subdivision. (This provision applies
to development in important wildlife habitat only. If
development is to take place in irrigated fields &/or
pastures, then horses and other livestock would probably be
OK. If the area where horses will be kept is within 4 mile
of critical wildlife habitat then only certified weed free
forage shall be used as feed).
All storage of hay should be enclosed by an 8 foot
high mesh fence at the expense of the owner.
4) BUILDING ENVELOPES -
To minimize wildlife habitat loss and disturbance,
building envelopes should be restricted to 15,000 square
feet and depicted on the subdivision submittal maps. No
structures or habitat disturbance should occur outside the
building envelope, with the exception of access road,
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Scalal lej
driveways, utility and infrastructure construction. Any
such disturbance should be revegetated immediately with
native plant species.
In areas where wildfire clearing has to be
conducted, building envelopes may be enlarged to
20,000 sq. ft.. Any and all vegetation
manipulation for wildfire control must be
contained within that 20,000 sq. ft. building
envelope.
Prior to any disturbance the building envelope shall
be delineated by flagging, plastic snow fence, silt fence
or some such marker. This will permit all contractors,
subcontractors, etc. who work on the site to stay within
the allowed disturbance zone.
5) WILDLIFE MITIGATION -
A) One possible approach to assist in mitigating
wildlife impacts include: An on-site analysis will be
conducted, by a qualified wildlife biologist, to determine
the wildlife impacts. This will enable a determination to
be made as to the cost of mitigating the adverse wildlife
impacts for the life of the impacts. A dollar amount (this
amount is figured through a fairly simple formula) will be
deposited in a Wildlife Mitigation Trust which will then be
used to mitigate those negative impacts. Interest
generated by this account will be used for authorized
wildlife enhancement projects in Garfield County. The
principal will never be used, as the fund needs to generate
interest for the life of the impacts, which is considered
to be perpetuity. On-site mitigation would generally have
the highest priority, followed by mitigation or enhancement
in adjacent areas.
Although, wildlife habitat enhancement is probably the
most often used method to offset negative impacts, it
should not be considered the only one. Conservation
easements are another means to mitigate adverse impacts.
How one writes the terms of a conservation easement is
limited only by one's philosophy and creativity. There may
also be some tax advantages in using conservation
easements.
Trusts are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage
Foundation, a non-profit organization sanctioned by the
state.
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller
.J ( IJ JL t LLJ J
B) Another approach to the mitigation of wildlife
impacts is to instigate an internal real estate transfer
fee that will place money into a wildlife enhancement fund.
Developments such as Eagle Ranch, just south of the Town of
Eagle, are using a fee of .2%. This money is collected by
the developer or the Home Owners Assoc. on all property
transactions and placed in a wildlife fund that is then
used to mitigate the wildlife impacts. This method is
fairly simple and has no up front costs.
The administration of the Wildlife Mitigation Trust or
the internal real estate transfer fee is done through a
committee made up of a representative of the
PUD/subdivision, CDOW, County/Municipality, BLM &/or USFS.
This committee determines the enhancement projects and the
who, what, when, where, how, etc. If the
proponent/developer is opposed to the idea of a mitigation
trust, a mitigation plan that will offset the impacts for
the life of the project should be prepared by a qualified
wildlife biologist.
6) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL-
➢ There shall be no outside storage of any trash or
garbage, no matter how briefly (e.g., overnight), 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 these structures are more likely to be broken
into by bears. The use of bear -proof trash containers
is the best method to avoid bear problems. This
includes trash can sin parks, open space, commercial
properties etc...
> Residents will be prohibited from using compost
piles unless such piles are contained in an approved
bear proof receptacle.
D There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of
refuse within the development.
> Pets shall not be fed outside.
➢ With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding,
baiting, salting, or other means of attracting
wildlife to individual yards will be prohibited.
7) 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.
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 P•J
A 75 foot setback from the high water mark plus any
additional riparian habitat shall be the setback from any
stream, creek, river, etc.. The total setback will vary
depending on the nature of riparian habitat along the
waterway, but at no time be less than 75 feet. During all
construction activities the setback shall be defined on the
ground by flagging or plastic snow fence to guarantee no
disturbance occurs within the setback.
Drainage and runoff should be contained and filtered
prior to entering riparian/wetland areas. Small berms,
swales, dips etc. may be constructed during construction
and post construction to naturally hold and filter runoff.
In proposals where snow plowing and storage are
issues, areas shall be delineated where the runoff will be
contained and filtered before it can enter any riparian or
wetland area.
In many instances riparian and wetland areas have been
detrimentally impacted by past land management practices.
In these instances, enhancement in addition to development
avoidance, would be beneficial.
A note on the final plat or deed shall be used to
inform all property owners that setbacks from water
features are to be left in a natural state and may not be
altered!
Locations where water crossings (roads, trails, bike
paths, etc.) are necessary, naturally spanning bridges
shall be used and not culverts. This will allow free
movement of aquatic life and help reduce beaver problems.
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 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).
8) 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.
9) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION
The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future
claims in regards to wildlife damage.
10) GOLF COURSE AND/OR OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT-
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller
The subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from chasing,
scaring, frightening, disturbing or other forms of
harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off golf
courses and 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 golf course tees, greens,
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.
Current Best Management Practices (BMPs), shall be
incorporated into a Management Plan for Golf Course
Maintenance and Operation. The plan shall describe the
proper procedures for the application of fertilizers,
herbicides, pesticides and any other chemicals. Drainage
shall be depicted in the plan to ensure that no runoff from
the golf course can reach any waterways, wetlands or
riparian areas.
11) 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.
12) EDUCATING RESIDENTS -
A brochure or pamphlet shall be developed by the
proponent educating homeowners about the local wildlife
community, the planning that went into the design of the
development to accomodate 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.
In large PVDs 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, racoons,
bats, swallows, woodpeckers, coyotes, etc.).
13) ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS -
/LC
Nov 02 99 09:12a Eric Schaller
Jib ,J1_1 LL•J �:
If the wildlife mitigation measures are incorporated
into covenants then these covenants shall not be amended
without the written consent of the CDOW, County (or Town),
and Subdivision homeowners. The above wildlife related
covenants, can be enforced by the CDOW and/or County.
Subdivisions have also been including all wildlife
related mitigation measures into a separate "Mitigation
Plan". This can be very helpful to new residents when
properties are sold so they will know just what is expected
of them. The "Mitigation Plan" is then added to the
covenants and enforced accordingly.
14) 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
recourse is to go through court action. In talking with
some representatives and attorneys of associations, it
appears there may be a 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 --$150.00),
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 (warning, 1st fine, 2nd fine, 3rd fine, 4th fine, 5th
fine, etc.). As you can see the dollar amount can add up
quickly if someone willfully refuses to pay their fines.
The same can be used when you notify a person to remove
offending dog(s) or livestock or 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.
Nov 02 99 09:12a Eric Schaller
LLJ.J
All fine money from violations of the wildlife
covenants should be deposited in the Wildlife Mitigation
Trust Fund.
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.
SUMMARY
The cumulative effects of a 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 this 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 the most critical habitats in the
life cycle of these animals, that being winter range and
reproduction areas, which are most often located on private
land. Our hope is that by providing these comments,
Garfield County will be able to use them to mitigate for
the impacts that these developments are having on the
wildlife in our county so that we will continue to enjoy
healthy wildlife populations for years to come.
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 1302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
October 29, 1999
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Sir:
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil
Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan
for the Cerise Subdivision.
The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by
the landowners so they are maintained. With water quality and
quantity a main concern for this valley, the Board recommends that
a raw water delivery system be installed. A raw water delivery
system would allow the use of untreated water to be used on yards
and open spaces. This system would reduce the cost of water to the
lot owners and reduce the size of treatment plant needed for this
development. This system could be easily installed during
construction stages of development.
Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent
erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for reseeding,
with monitoring done on the growth of seeded vegetation. A plan
should be developed and followed to control noxious weeds.
The best way to control weeds and reduce soil erosion is to keep
the areas of exposed soil to a minimum at all times and to seed the
area to desirable vegetative species. Seeding recommendations are
available from Natural Resources Conservation Service or the County
Extension staff. Pesticides should be applied by properly
licensed and bonded applicators to insure safe and proper use of
pesticides. All chemical label directions should be followed.
The use of silt fences should be a requirement for the Cerise
Subdivision to protect the existing wetlands. Silt fences should
be required at all construction sites to reduce erosion and
sediments that may reach any water areas. A complete erosion
control plan should be developed to reduce wind and water erosion
during the development of this project.
Sincerel
Scot Dodero, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
NOV-04-99 THU 07:58 AM COLOTRUST
Roaring: Fpr{C .Sctiool.tJistrCct R7,1
140 Grne.Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
• Telephone (970) 945.6558
November 2, 1999
Mark 13can
Garfield County Planning Department
109 811' Street, Suits 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
FAX N0. 18773110220 P. 04
FRE& A, WALL, Superintendent
JUDY NAP.TONSTALL, Assi$(ant Superintendent
SHANNON PELLAND, Finance Director
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Sketch Plan for Cerise
Ranch.
It is our understanding that the project includes 67 single family residential lots. In
applying the District's land dedication 'formula for residential development, the number
of units in the project would not provide adequate acreage for a school site. Accordingly,
the District is requesting fees -in -lieu of land dedication based on the formula prescribed
by the District and incorporated in the County reqs.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely,
C1
;..:�(4frviiiink1
Shannon Pclland
Finance, Director
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning Department
November 17, 1999
Wintergreen Homes
Art Kleinstein
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan
Dear Mr. Kleinstein:
At the Garfield County Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 1999, the Cerise Ranch Sketch
Plan was reviewed. All of the comments contained in the staff report and comments from other agencies
should be considered to be advisory and to provide suggestions for any subsequent subdivision plans. The
comments made during the meeting will be kept on file in the Planning Department.
The Sketch Plan comments are valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning
Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield
County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan
application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. It may be
necessary to repeat the Sketch Plan review.
Completion of the Sketch Plan process shall, in no way, constitute approval of the proposed plan. If you
have any questions about the comments made at the meeting or about the next steps in the subdivision
process, you may call or write to this office, at your convenience.
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
945-8212/fax 945-7785 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
o l
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
October 27, 1999
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cerise Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Application
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed the sketch plan application for the Cerise Ranch project and would offer the
following comments.
Access
The general road layout appears to be adequate for fire apparatus.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The proposed water system consists of a 300,000 gallon storage tank with proposed minimum
fire flows of 1000 gallons per minute. This is consistent with the Uniform Fire Code for
residences up to 3,600 square feet. If larger homes are anticipated to be constructed in the
development, minimum fire flows should be increased accordingly. An alternative would be to
require automatic fire sprinklers in residences exceeding 3,600 square feet. Required fire flows
for the project should be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Appendix IH -A:
Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings, with fire hydrants located in accordance with UFC
Appendix HI -B: Fire Hydrant Locations and Spacing.
Wildfire Hazards
Some of the proposed lots have slopes of grass, sage, gambel oak, pinion and juniper which may
present a wildfire hazard. Defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building construction features
should be implemented in these areas.
RECEIVEf OCT 2 8 1999
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan, continued...
Impact Fees
The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be
required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees.
This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot
impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Sincere
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
2
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 1302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
October 29, 1999
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Sir:
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil
Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan
for the Cerise Subdivision.
The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by
the landowners so they are maintained. With water quality and
quantity a main concern for this valley, the Board recommends that
a raw water delivery system be installed. A raw water delivery
system would allow the use of untreated water to be used on yards
and open spaces. This system would reduce the cost of water to the
lot owners and reduce the size of treatment plant needed for this
development. This system could be easily installed during
construction stages of development.
Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent
erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for reseeding,
with monitoring done on the growth of seeded vegetation. A plan
should be developed and followed to control noxious weeds.
The best way to control weeds and reduce soil erosion is to keep
the areas of exposed soil to a minimum at all times and to seed the
area to desirable vegetative species. Seeding recommendations are
available from Natural Resources Conservation Service or the County
Extension staff. Pesticides should be applied by properly
licensed and bonded applicators to insure safe and proper use of
pesticides. All chemical label directions should be followed.
The use of silt fences should be a requirement for the Cerise
Subdivision to protect the existing wetlands. Silt fences should
be required at all construction sites to reduce erosion and
sediments that may reach any water areas. A complete erosion
control plan should be developed to reduce wind and water erosion
during the development of this project.
Scot Dodero, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
Nov 02 99 09:09a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 P.2
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Department of Natural Resources
DATE: 08/31/99
TO: Mark Bean, Staff Planner, Garfield Co.
FROM: Eric Schaller, District Wildlife Manager, CDOW
SDBJ: Wildlife Comments- Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan
After reviewing the application for the subdivision
sketch plan, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as a
Garfield County referral agency offers the following
recommendations regarding wildlife impacts and mitigation
measures. The CDOW recognizes that Garfield County will
make the final decision on wildlife mitigation.
The following are comments and wildlife mitigation
measures that the Colorado Division of Wildlife most
commonly recommends. Also included are comments specific
to this application. I would also recommend an independent
wildlife review of the application by a qualified wildlife
biologist resulting in a "Mitigation Plan". The CDOW would
be willing to contribute input into this mitigation plan in
addition to the comments enclosed.
PUD SPECIFIC COMMENTS
There are a number of recommendations mentioned in the
wildlife report and application with which I am in
agreement. Some examples are maintaining building
envelopes, holding building envelopes to the bottom of the
slope, avoiding impacts on oak/sagebrush habitat, and
control and limitations on family pets. It is obvious that
the applicant has taken wildlife into consideration to a
certain extent. There are, however, a number of other
wildlife considerations that still need to be addressed.
This development contains mule deer and elk winter
range. While many of the building sites have been located
off of the oak/sagebrush slopes, below the ditch, a number
of the sites are still placed up onto the hillside (25-54).
Nov 02 99 09:09a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 p•3
Their positioning on the important sagebrush slopes will
result in a loss of available winter range habitat for mule
deer and to a certain extent elk. Building envelopes will
help to minimize this impact, however human activity will
still limit the amount of use by wintering mule deer.
Initially, these animals will be able to disperse onto
adjacent, unimpacted areas. Review of land ownership
reveals a lack of public land (ie. BLM, USFS, CDOW etc...)
with suitable habitat to absorb displaced wintering big
game in this area. Adjacent private property cannot be
relied on to replace the lost habitat in the long run as
future development of those properties could further reduce
usable wildlife habitat as well.
The preservation of agricultural open space does not
really serve as mitigation for lost wildlife habitat as the
location between the highway and the row of homes isolates
these fields from big game animals. Open meadows, during a
normal to severe winter are not usable to most species of
wildlife. While they may be currently used to some extent
for grazing by mule deer and elk, it does not provide the
browse vegetation that would be available during a typical
winter which these animals require. The meadows, with the
exception of riparian areas would be a much more suitable
location for residential lots than the brushy slopes
currently used by wildlife for winter range.
The following measures should help minimize the loss
of effective mule deer winter range and other wildlife
habitat.
1) Moving lots 25-54 off the of the slope and onto the
flat meadows.
2) Reducing the duel roads into and out of the round-
abouts to single roads.
3) No boundary fencing on any residential or ranch
lots
4) Seasonal use restrictions on trails and open space
for wildlife. (ie. Dec. 1 -April 30 on mule deer
winter range, Feb. 15 -July 15 on riparian areas for
waterfowl nesting)
5) 15,000 sq. feet building envelopes for residential
lots.
6) No land disturbance outside of the building
envelopes in order to maintain natural vegetation.
The only exception would be for CDOW approved
habitat improvement manipulations.
7) Weed control to maintain native vegetation.
Nov 02 99 09:10a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 p.4
8) 100 foot development setbacks from all riparian
areas and wetlands.
9) Use restrictions within riparian and wetland areas
(ie. no trails, no human activity from Feb. 15 -
July 15)
10)Restrict the use of motorized vehicles to
established roads and development envelopes.
I would also suggest that the applicant enter into
some sort of wildlife habitat preservation/restoration
program, in order to mitigate for lost habitat. A couple
of options might be a wildlife mitigation trust, a
voluntary real estate transfer tax or other such program of
their choice. This would provide funding for habitat
improvements on the development site or habitat acquisition
adjacent to the development site. The CDOW would be
willing to discuss the available options with the applicant
as well as requirements for the use of these funds for
wildlife habitat.
Residents should be informed of potential wildlife
conflicts and wildlife laws pertaining to the use of their
property prior to purchase. For example:
1) Wild predators such as bears, coyotes and mtn.
Lions will continue to use this area occasionally
after development occurs. Measures should be taken
by residents to minimize potential conflicts.
2) Feeding or baiting of wildlife is prohibited (with
the exception of birds)
3) Harassment of wildlife is prohibited.
4) Dogs chasing wildlife is prohibited.
5) The CDOW is not liable for damage to ornamental or
other non agricultural plants by wildlife.
6) .Any horse hay, or other livestock feed must be
fenced or otherwise protected from wildlife damage
by the owner.
7) Occasionally, wild animals may die on their
property. Owners are responsible for proper
disposal of dead wildlife if they want them
removed.
Disturbed ground caused by road construction should be
reclaimed using vegetation that is not palatable to large
Nov 02 99 09:10a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 P.5
mammals. This is in order to avoid attracting deer and elk
to roadsides where collisions with motorist might occur.
COMMON RECOMMENDATIONS
1) PETS -
Each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot
will be permitted to have up to two dogs and offspring up
to three months old. Residents, lessees and/or owners will
be prohibited from harboring dogs on their property unless
they have adequate facilities (i.e., a fenced yard, dog
run, or kennel) to contain the animals. Enclosed runs must
be located immediately adjacent to the home, within the
permitted disturbance zone (building envelope). If
facilities are inadequate to contain the dog(s), the
animal(s) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision
until adequate structures can be built. At no time are
dogs to be allowed to run freely.
Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on
a leash under the direct control of its owner or authorized
representative.
Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the
appropriate governmental entity (Garfield County or the
proper municipality), and must wear the numbered
identification tags provided.
Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited
from bringing dogs onto the property.
Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from
bringing dogs to the subdivision/PUD site. Workers who
violate this provision shall be barred from the
subdivision/PUD for 10 working days for the first offense
and permanently for any future offense.
These provisions also apply to multi -family units if
located within the subdivision/PUD boundaries.
Stray dogs may also be controlled by the
County/Municipality and CDOW (Colorado Division of
Wildlife). 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.
Cats should be kept indoors or in kennels. Even well
fed domestic cats are efficient predators and can
Nov 02 99 09:10a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 P•6
contribute significantly to the mortality of small mammal
and avian wildlife populations including nesting waterfowl.
2) FENCING -
Fencing will be restricted throughout the development
to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat
availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. If peripheral
fencing of the subdivision is required to restrict domestic
livestock grazing on adjacent properties, fencing shall
employ a three strand barbed wire fence, with strands
located at 18, 30, and 42 inches above mean ground level.
(Optimum wildlife fence would be 14, 26 and 38 inches)
If wood rail fencing is used it should not exceed 42
inches in height and 12 inches in width (top view), and an
opening in the lower 41 of at least 16 inches to allow
passage of deer fawns and elk calves.
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 impaired.
3) HORSES AND OTHER LIVESTOCK -
To minimize fencing and the degradation and loss of
critical wildlife habitat, it will be expressly prohibited
to board or keep any livestock, including, but not limited
to horses, within the Subdivision. (This provision applies
to development in important wildlife habitat only. If
development is to take place in irrigated fields &/or
pastures, then horses and other livestock would probably be
OK. If the area where horses will be kept is within k mile
of critical wildlife habitat then only certified weed free
forage shall be used as feed).
All storage of hay should be enclosed by an 8 foot
high mesh fence at the expense of the owner.
4) BUILDING ENVELOPES -
To minimize wildlife habitat loss and disturbance,
building envelopes should be restricted to 15,000 square
feet and depicted on the subdivision submittal maps. No
structures or habitat disturbance should occur outside the
building envelope, with the exception of access road,
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 p.7
driveways, utility and infrastructure construction. Any
such disturbance should be revegetated immediately with
native plant species.
In areas where wildfire clearing has to be
conducted, building envelopes may be enlarged to
20,000 sq. ft.. Any and all vegetation
manipulation for wildfire control must be
contained within that 20,000 sq. ft. building
envelope.
Prior to any disturbance the building envelope shall
be delineated by flagging, plastic snow fence, silt fence
or some such marker. This will permit all contractors,
subcontractors, etc. who work on the site to stay within
the allowed disturbance zone.
5) WILDLIFE MITIGATION -
A) One possible approach to assist in mitigating
wildlife impacts include: .An on-site analysis will be
conducted, by a qualified wildlife biologist, to determine
the wildlife impacts. This will enable a determination to
be made as to the cost of mitigating the adverse wildlife
impacts for the life of the impacts. A dollar amount (this
amount is figured through a fairly simple formula) will be
deposited in a Wildlife Mitigation Trust which will then be
used to mitigate those negative impacts. Interest
generated by this account will be used for authorized
wildlife enhancement projects in Garfield County. The
principal will never be used, as the fund needs to generate
interest for the life of the impacts, which is considered
to be perpetuity. On-site mitigation would generally have
the highest priority, followed by mitigation or enhancement
in adjacent areas.
Although, wildlife habitat enhancement is probably the
most often used method to offset negative impacts, it
should not be considered the only one. Conservation
easements are another means to mitigate adverse impacts.
How one writes the terms of a conservation easement is
limited only by one's philosophy and creativity. There may
also be some tax advantages in using conservation
easements.
Trusts are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage
Foundation, a non-profit organization sanctioned by the
state.
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 p.8
B) Another approach to the mitigation of wildlife
impacts is to instigate an internal real estate transfer
fee that will place money into a wildlife enhancement fund.
Developments such as Eagle Ranch, just south of the Town of
Eagle, are using a fee of .2%. This money is collected by
the developer or the Home Owners Assoc. on all property
transactions and placed in a wildlife fund that is then
used to mitigate the wildlife impacts. This method is
fairly simple and has no up front costs.
The administration of the Wildlife Mitigation Trust or
the internal real estate transfer fee is done through a
committee made up of a representative of the
PUD/subdivision, CDOW, County/Municipality, ELM &/or USFS.
This committee determines the enhancement projects and the
who, what, when, where, how, etc. If the
proponent/developer is opposed to the idea of a mitigation
trust, a mitigation plan that will offset the impacts for
the life of the project should be prepared by a qualified
wildlife biologist.
6) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL-
➢ There shall be no outside storage of any trash or
garbage, no matter how briefly (e.g., overnight), 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 these structures are more likely to be broken
into by bears. The use of bear -proof trash containers
is the best method to avoid bear problems. This
includes trash can sin parks, open space, commercial
properties etc...
➢ Residents will be prohibited from using compost
piles unless such piles are contained in an approved
bear proof receptacle.
➢ There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of
refuse within the development.
➢ Pets shall not be fed outside.
➢ With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding,
baiting, salting, or other means of attracting
wildlife to individual yards will be prohibited.
7) 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.
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 p.9
A 75 foot setback from the high water mark plus any
additional riparian habitat shall be the setback from any
stream, creek, river, etc.. The total setback will vary
depending on the nature of riparian habitat along the
waterway, but at no time be less than 75 feet. During all
construction activities the setback shall be defined on the
ground by flagging or plastic snow fence to guarantee no
disturbance occurs within the setback.
Drainage and runoff should be contained and filtered
prior to entering riparian/wetland areas. Small berms,
swales, dips etc. may be constructed during construction
and post construction to naturally hold and filter runoff.
In proposals where snow plowing and storage are
issues, areas shall be delineated where the runoff will be
contained and filtered before it can enter any riparian or
wetland area.
In many instances riparian and wetland areas have been
detrimentally impacted by past land management practices.
In these instances, enhancement in addition to development
avoidance, would be beneficial.
A note on the final plat or deed shall be used to
inform all property owners that setbacks from water
features are to be left in a natural state and may not be
altered!
Locations where water crossings (roads, trails, bike
paths, etc.) are necessary, naturally spanning bridges
shall be used and not culverts. This will allow free
movement of aquatic life and help reduce beaver problems.
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 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).
8) 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.
9) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION
The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future
claims in regards to wildlife damage.
10) GOLF COURSE AND/OR OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT-
Nov 02 99 09:11a Eric Schaller 970-524-2255 p.10
The subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from chasing,
scaring, frightening, disturbing or other forms of
harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off golf
courses and 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 golf course tees, greens,
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.
Current Best Management Practices (BMPs), shall be
incorporated into a Management Plan for Golf Course
Maintenance and Operation. The plan shall describe the
proper procedures for the application of fertilizers,
herbicides, pesticides and any other chemicals. Drainage
shall be depicted in the plan to ensure that no runoff from
the golf course can reach any waterways, wetlands or
riparian areas.
11) 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.
12) EDUCATING RESIDENTS -
A brochure or pamphlet shall be developed by the
proponent educating homeowners about the local wildlife
community, the planning that went into the design of the
development to accomodate 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.
In large PVDs 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, racoons,
bats, swallows, woodpeckers, coyotes, etc.).
13) ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS-
Nov 02 99 09:12a Eric Schaller
970-524-2255 p.11
If the wildlife mitigation measures are incorporated
into covenants then these covenants shall not be amended
without the written consent of the CDOW, County (or Town),
and Subdivision homeowners. The above wildlife related
covenants, can be enforced by the CDOW and/or County.
Subdivisions have also been including all wildlife
related mitigation measures into a separate "Mitigation
Plan". This can be very helpful to new residents when
properties are sold so they will know just what is expected
of them. The "Mitigation Plan" is then added to the
covenants and enforced accordingly.
14) 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
recourse is to go through court action. In talking with
some representatives and attorneys of associations, it
appears there may be a 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 --$150.00),
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 (warning, 1st fine, 2nd fine, 3rd fine, 4th fine, 5th
fine, etc.). As you can see the dollar amount can add up
quickly if someone willfully refuses to pay their fines.
The same can be used when you notify a person to remove
offending dog(s) or livestock or 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.
Nov 02 99 09:12a Eric Schaller 970-524-2255 p.12
All fine money from violations of the wildlife
covenants should be deposited in the Wildlife Mitigation
Trust Fund.
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.
SUMMARY
The cumulative effects of a 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 this 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 the most critical habitats in the
life cycle of these animals, that being winter range and
reproduction areas, which are most often located on private
land. Our hope is that by providing these comments,
Garfield County will be able to use them to mitigate for
the impacts that these developments are having on the
wildlife in our county so that we will continue to enjoy
healthy wildlife populations for years to come.
Memo
To: Mark Bean
From: Guy Meyer
Subject: Cerise Ranch Application
Date: October 15, 1999
The following are my comments on the Cerise Ranch Application.
1. The CTL/Thompson Geologic Evaluation identifies a number of geological hazards this
development is exposed to. I would recommend that the Developer be required to met the
recommendations outlined in the report.
2. Due to the vegetation and slopes in the project, I would suggest that some consideration be
given to requiring a Wildfire mitigation assessment be completed by the State of Colorado
Forest Service.
10/12/99 15:15 FAX 9702487294
CDOT R3 TRAFFIC j 02
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Region 3 Awes& Manapet
Trak Section
222 South 8°' Street
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
(970) 248-7230
October 6, 1999
Joe Hope
High Country Engineering, Inc.
923 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Joe,
As per our conversation, upon application approval an access permit may be granted to the
Cerise Ranch provided that all the terrns and conditions of the State Highway Access Code, 2
CCR 606-1, have been met.
If there are any further concerns or questions, please feel free to contact this office at the above
referenced address and number.
Region 3 Access Manager
jms_JMS
xc: File