Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 PC Staff Report 09.25.2002PC 9/25/02 MLB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD subdivision APPLICANT: The Berkeley Family Partnership, Miriam Berkeley PLANNER: Land Design Partnership ENGINEER: High Country Engineering LOCATION: Parcel located in portions of Sections 32, 33 and 34, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th PM WATER: Well supplied central water system SEWER: Spring Valley Sanitation District ACCESS: County Roads 114 and 119 EXISTING ZONING: Planned Unit Development ADJACENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (Spring Valley Ranch & CMC) to the northeast and southeast) and A/R/RD in the rest of the areas. I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 2000 Comp Plan indicates that this property is an existing subdivision on the Study Area 1, Proposed Land Use Map. The PUD was originally approved in 1979, with a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat approved for the project, but not recorded due to an inability of the developer to gain access to a central sewage treatment facility. Subsequently, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has increased capacity of the sewer system to accommodate the development. Some relevant goals of the comp plan follow: Section III -2.0 Housin : " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future 1 residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment". Section III -6.0 Agriculture: "To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review". Section III -7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development." Section III -8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land, and is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County." H. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: The property is located approximately four (4) miles southeast of Glenwood Springs and on the northwest side of the CMC property. The property is split by CR 114 in a north to south direction and the potion of the property on the west side of CR 114 is split again by CR 119. The area to the west of CR 114 is presently a sod farm, with some areas of sage brush. The applicant's house and the ranch facilities for the sod farm are all located on the property to the west of CR 114. The area to the east of CR 114 has a pond that is adjacent to the road, with a smaller pond to the northeast and the remainder of the property being unimproved sage brush land. B. Development Proposal: The plan is to divide the 441 acre tract into 198 residential lots, with 194 single family dwelling and 16 multi -family lots. The residential development takes up approximately 257 acres, with 152 acres of open space/common area. The lots ----rannge ein sizeo 5.050 to 15.876 acres in size. Access is directly off of CR 114, via eight different access points, which are all proposed to be 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface Water is to be provided by a central water supply, to be developed by the applicant. Sewage will be treated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District, via a sewage collection system that will transport the wastewater down to the treatment facility located south of the CMC campus III. REVIFW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS: A. Town of Carbondale: No response B. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No response C. RE -1 School District: Shannon Pelland, Finance Director, RE -1 School District 2 notes that the development will be subject to the school site acquisition requirements of the County Regulations. Consistent with those regulations the District has requested cash -in -lieu of land, subject to the formula in the County Subdivision Regulations. (See exhibit I pg. l9 ) D. Holy Cross Energy: No response E. Public Service Company: No response F. U.S. West Communications: No response G. Garfield County Road & Bridge: No response H. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: Ron Biggers, Fire Protection Analyst, Glenwood Springs Fire Department notes that the proposed development is not within any fire district. He provided some general comments that would apply to the development if it were in the District. (See exhibit J pgs. W ) Colorado Dept. of Public Health: Verbal verification from the Department of Health indicated that the new Spring Valley Sanitation District treatment facility was constructed according to plans and specifications, but at the time of the conversation, was not on line. J. Colorado Div. of Water Resources: The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the water supply, which is supported by a court ordered water augmentation plan and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They note that the project water supply will not result in material injury to decreed water rights and the physical supply is adequate, "so long as valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated ....". The Division does note that well permits 56292-F and 56293-F could expire by August 16, 2002, if Well Construction, Pump Installation and Test Report are not received by the Division prior to that date (See exhibit K pgs. Z (- 22 ) K. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Kelly Wood, Division Wildlife Manager identified a number of issues related to dogs, bear/trash removal, riparian/wetland areas, indemnification of DOW against claims from wildlife damage, (See exhibit L pgs. 23-25) L. Garfield County Sheriff: Jim Sears, Undersheriff, stated that all roads need to be sized to accommodate all types of emergency vehicles and be clearly marked with County Road numbers and names. Also, that all houses be properly addressed and that all wildfire recommendations be met. (See exhibit N pgs. 2 ) M. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony reviewed the Preliminary Plan documents and determined that the applicants have addressed most of his concerns by inventorying and mapping noxious weeds and developing a weed management plan for existing and future weed management. He did recommend that the applicants quantify the area to be disturbed for road cut and utility disturbances and the need to reseed the areas. He suggested a revegetation bond for all disturbances created as a result of new road cuts and utility line placement and construction.. (See exhibit M pgs. 2 G 2 2 3 N. Colorado Geologic Survey : The CGS has reviewed the HP Geotech report and noted that it is dated and not consistent with the plans. Additionally, they noted that there is no detail oll the four (4) cluster lots, so no comments were offered. (See exhibit 0 pgs. 9-' 33 ) The following is a summary of the comments: 1) A large portion of the site is identified as being landslide deposits in more current publications, but it was not discussed in the report. These landslide deposits should be evaluated for slope stability before development occurs on them, potentially reactivating portions of the slide. 2) Evidence for slope stability (such as a stability analysis) and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures should be included in the preliminary plan documents for areas around Lake Springs Drive and within the Qls mapped unit. 3) The County should identify the locations of slopes greater than 30% prior to preliminary plan approval and restrict development in these areas. 4) Erosion control measures should be established and implemented to prevent off- site sediment transport or accelerated erosion. Prompt reseeding should occur to prevent slope ravel from occurring. 5) HP-Geotech does not recommend placement of structures on the faults. Faults are often zones of shearing which can be quite wide. Locating a building envelope around such a zone may not be possible. The fault locations should be evaluated prior to preliminary plan approval. 6) The building envelope for lot 13 is in the drainage. The steep slopes and narrow ridge may not be suited for development, leaving this lot unbuildable. A detailed investigation of this lot should be conducted prior to preliminary plan approval and the lot should be removed if development can not safely occur. 7) Shallow groundwater and swelling soils are all geologic characteristics found on this site. Detailed study regarding these subsurface conditions should be done on a lot-specific basis during the design phase of the project. 8) All subsurface foundation elements should include foundation drains, and basement construction may not be feasible for lots near the valley floor. 9) Expansive soils are present throughout the site, not just west of CR114 in the lake deposits These clay deposits may be related to the landslide deposits on the site, and swell testing shows that they have expansive properties when wetted. Expansive soils require special mitigation techniques and foundation design. Water infiltration will increase the risk of expansion. In summary, there are geologic conditions that may impact the proposed development. Preliminary plat approval should not be granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post-development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are 4 steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot -specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. As a result of these comments, the applicant requested a continuance of the original hearing scheduled for August 14th, to this date. ( See supplemental information ) HP Geotech updated the 1997 study and that information was provided to the CGS for comment. The CGS provided the following responses (See exhibit 0): 1) The revised phasing plan has several lot/building envelop changes that the County should ensure translate through all of the planning documents. 2) Plat notes, or another form of disclosure should be included to inform future property owners of the risk of evaporite deformation and fault locations. 3) HP Geotech states that if homeowners are not willing to accept the risk of future deformations, that foundations systems can be heavily reinforced and that structures should not include basements. Introducing water into the soil may also contribute to deformation; fortunately this area will include sewer systems and not septic systems. Irrigation should be minimized, however, to prevent unnecessary water infiltration. 4) CGS concurs with the recommendations made by HP Geotech and suggests that they be strictly adhered to. 5) CGS still has concerns regarding lots 11, 12 and 13 on Spring Valley Court — the potential for flooding and stream bank erosion should be fully investigated. High Country Engineering is aware of this concern and is currently investigating the flow effects in this channel. 0. Spring Valley Sanitation District: Dean Gordon, SGM engineers Inc. and Spring Valley Sanitation District engineer indicated that the new treatment plant will be up and operating by September 18th and that they will have capacity to accommodate the proposed development. He has stated that the proposed wastewater collection system "meets the general requirements and intent of the rules and regulations of the Spring Valley Sanitation District." Additionally, he requested that prior to any final plat approval, the district have to opportunity to review and approve the sewer line plans for the development. (See exhibit P pgs. 3i --J3 ) P. Michael Erion, Resource Engineering has provided comments on the proposed application. The following comments were made in a letter of August 7, 2002 and then his responses to the revised plans are included in bold lettering (See 5 Exhibit Q pgs. 36 - 4/ ): 1. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system, including the nature of the legal entity which own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. The supplemental information did not address this information, but based on a telephone conversation with the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, the Central Water System must be approved by the State pursuant to the New Water System Capacity Planning Manual as authorized by State Statutes, prior to any preliminary plan approval. 2. The water system layout should consider making looped connections to minimize the interruption of service during repair and maintenance of the system. Revised plans include the suggested looping. 3. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. No agreement has been provided. 4. An engineering report with analysis and calculations supporting the design of the wastewater collection system was not submitted. The appropriate documentation has been provided. 5. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should provide comment on whether the proposed low pressure sewer collection system is acceptable to the District. Michael Erion did not have the benefit of the letter from the District engineer, since it was received the same day as the response letter was written. See SVSD letter noted previously. 6. There is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for detention storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. No supporting calculations, analysis or design has been provided. 7. Due to the presence of expansive clays, evaporite related ground defamations, flow stability issues, and faults, a plat note should be added that requires all lots to have an individual site specific geotechnical analysis. A plat note will be included. 8. A fault appears to cross through lots 13 through 20 in the eastern area of the project. A site specific study should be conducted on these lots to determine if a fault is actually present and determine if the lots and/or building envelopes need to be adjusted/deleted. The fault line has been reviewed and the applicants have adjusted the lots by removing a lot and adjusting building envelopes to stay 50' from the fault line. 9. The geotechnical engineering study for the project is five years old and should be updated for the proposed configuration of roads, lots and utilities. An updated study was done. 6 10. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope. This area should specifically be reviewed by HP Geotech in an updated study. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope which exceeds the recommended parameters in the HP Geotech reports. Grading plans are available for this road and the issue should be specifically review by HP Geotech consistent with their recommendation in the September 9, 2002 report. 11. A significant channel runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2. This area should be reviewed for potential debris flow which may affect building envelopes on those lots. The drainage channel which runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2 has been reviewed by HP Geotech. HP Geotech concurs that high sediment concentration storm water flows should be considered in the hydrologic and hydraulic design and that the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect Lots 11, 12 and 13 should be analyzed. New comment. The building envelopes for Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2, Lots 3, 10, and 18 of Block 8, and Lot 12 of Block 7, also include areas steeper than 30%, which is not recommended for development by HP Geotech. 12. Based on visual inspection, we believe wetlands and "waters of the U.S." exist in the agricultural open space meadow. The proposed improvements to Spring Valley Road would impact these areas and would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An appropriate Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be obtained prior to approval of any final plat which includes construction of Spring Valley Road improvements which cross the wetlands and "waters of the U.S." that exist in the agricultural open space meadow. 13. Spring Valley Road has as estimated ADT of 680 and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12 foot lane width and a 4 foot minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11 foot paved lanes with gravel shoulders. Spring Valley Drive, High Alpine Circle, High Alpine Drive, Lake Springs Drive, Lake Springs Court, Van Cleave Lane, are all cul-de-sacs or dead end roads which exceed the maximum length of 600 feet. Although this road configuration is generally consistent with the approved PUD layout, provisions for appropriate fire protection and emergency egress and access for the proposed design should be provided. No change in his position. 14. The drainage detail on sheet 40 has been shifted onto the adjacent detail and should be cleaned up. This has been resolved. 15. Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. This was included as a recommended covenant amendment. IV. STAFF COMMENTS A. Zoning, Subdivision, and Phasing: The Lake Springs PUD was originally approved in 1979 by Resolution No. 79-64 and subsequently amended by Resolution No. 79-153. A Preliminary Plan was approved for the project in 1980, but due to a Final Plat not being recorded in a timely manner, the applicant' s are required to resubmit a Preliminary Plan application for the project to deal with the current conditions. The present application is consistent with the PUD approved in 1979. The Preliminary Plan shows lots for 194 single family dwellings and four (4) cluster lots, to have 4 dwellings on each lot. The division of the cluster lots will require resubdivision of those lots at a future date, based on the development plans at that time. Section 7:00 of the Subdivision Regulations governs the redivision of lots after Preliminary Plan approval. The following sections will apply to the present application: Section 7:10 The redivision into separate interest of any lot, block, parcel or multiple - dwelling unit, or the major relocation of or addition to any roads within a subdivision, shall be considered a resubdivision and shall be governed by the Subdivision Regulations. 7:20 The redivision into separate interests of large tracts or blocks of land, designed with the intention of resubdivision and so indicated on a recorded plat, may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision regulations, which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision. 7:30 The redivision, through conversion into condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision Regulations which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan and/or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision, provided the proposed conversion will not substantially increase land use density. Since the applicant has not determined what type of development will occur on the cluster lots, it will be necessary to have the cluster lots subject to Preliminary Plan review, on a lot specific basis. Included in the application is a phasing plan that shows five (5) phases. Section 4:34 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states that a Preliminary Plan is valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of 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. Developments of over one hundred (100) lots may be phased over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) years. Any phasing must be approved by the Board at Preliminary Plan. 8 While the applicants have defined the units to be phased, there is no commitment to completing the phasing plan within the period of time allowed by the regulations. Any approval of the Preliminary Plan should include language requiring the developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years. B. Water: Water is to be supplied through a central system supplied by three wells drilled on site, with the water pumped to a 400,000 gallon storage tank. A water augmentation plan has been approved for one of the well permits and the other two were issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The water rights associated with the wells will supply the 210 dwelling units proposed, 2500 sq. ft. of lawn and garden per residence and a fire protection water supply. The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the water supply, which is supported by a court ordered water augmentation plan and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They note that the project water supply will not result in material injury to decreed water rights and the physical supply is adequate, "so long aw valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated ....". The Division does note that well permits 56292-F and 56293-F could expire by August 16, 2002, if Well Construction, Pump Installation and Test Report are not received by the Division prior to that date. The applicant has requested an extension from the Division via letter dated July 25, 2002 and the Division has verified that the extension was approved to August 16, 2002.. Since the proposed water system will serve more than 15 houses and 25 people, it will be subject to review by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Tech Services Unit review for drinking water quality. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the Plans and Specifications for the drinking water system must be submitted to the CDPHE, Technical Services Unit, for Capacity Development approval. C. Fire Protection: The site is located in either the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, who were not properly identified as the fire protection agency for the property and have not had an opportunity to provide comments until recently. Originally, it was staff s understanding that the property was not located in a fire district. Given the recent agreement between the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District and the Landis Metropolitan District to provide fire protection to the area, the application was referred to Glenwood Springs. As noted previously, the development will have a 400,000 gallon supply water to the development, with a fire flow of 1500 gpm for two (2) hours. The Glenwood Fire Department has provided comments regarding the need to have properly sized roads, an adequate water supply and delivery system, firewise landscaping and building construction to protect against wildland fire and sprinkler systems in large homes. These comments should not be considered with the same weight as those from the 9 Carbondale Fire District, who hope to have comments to the County by the time the Planning Commission meets to consider this development. Regardless of the other comments from the Carbondale Fire District, staff can say without any formal request that the District will request that the applicant pay the impact fee required of all new developments in their boundaries. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has reached an agreement with the developers of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD (Chenoa) to provide fire protection to the development an equipped fire station in the development. Staff would suggest that the Lake Springs Ranch PUD explore being annexed into the Landis Metropolitan District to share in the cost of providing fire protection to the area. D. Sewer: Included in the application is a letter from the Spring Valley Sanitation District stating that the District can and will serve the proposed development. A sewage main was extended through the Lake Springs Ranch PUD to the Spring Valley PUD, The on-site collection system will utilize the central gravity flow with several low-pressure sewer system branches. Each residence will have its own `E/one' grinder pump station that reduces all forms of sanitary waste to a non -clogging slurry which is pumped through a small diameter pressure pipe to the gravity system. The system proposed is touted to be virtually maintenance free and to run eight to ten years between service calls. The same type of systems are in use in the Elk Springs PUD that is a part of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The Spring Valley Sanitation District recently completed the construction of a new sewage treatment plant. As noted in the Review Agency comments, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has verbally indicated that the new treatment plant will be online by the end of September and capable of handling the sewage needs of the development. They did ask that the developer be required to get the District's approval of the Final Plat sewage line improvements prior to the approval of the Final Plat. E.. Geology: HP Geotech states that the site should be possible to develop as proposed, without encountering severe constraints or hazards associated with the geology. The study was done in 1997 and is based upon the development being 96 single family lots, a neighborhood commercial district and open space. As noted previously, the Colorado Geologic Survey has some serious reservations about any preliminary plan approval being granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post -development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot - 10 specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. The applicant's consultant, HP Geotech has reviewed the letter from the CGS and acknowledged that the 1997 study was done for a different development proposal. A review of the current proposal has resulted in the following recommendations: 1. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite deformation. If the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement. 2. It is recommend that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a fault is not present or, if present, the fault is not geologically young . 3. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposits . 4. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations. 5. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and fill slopes should be 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed. 6. The channel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge and include provisions for a high sediment concentration flooding. Hydrologic analysis in this area should also consider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. 7. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. 11 F. Wildlife: The applicants had Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. provide a wildlife report to minimize wildlife -human conflicts. DOW submitted comments of their own, which included a number of recommendations that are not completely consistent with the applicant's consultant. 1. No house should have more than one dog and offspring up to three months. 1. No dogs allowed on site by visitors. 2. Restrictions that dogs must stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam free. 3. Wildlife proof or resistant trash/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes to prevent problems with wildlife. 4. Rail fencing may be used along lot lines, not to exceed 42 inches in height, 12 inches in width (top view), with an opening in the lower half at least 16 inches to allow the passage of deer fawns and elk calves. 6. CDOW indemnification against future claims due to wildlife damage. 7. Educate residents about wildlife in the area, how they are stewards of the wildlife in the area. As noted, the application includes a wildlife study done by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. The impacts to wildlife are possible to mitigate to a degree, provided the recommendations of the consultant are incorporated into the covenants and design of the subdivision. It should be noted that the consultant recommended a maximum number of dogs in excess of the subdivision regulation limit of one (1) dog per house and the covenants allow for two (2) dogs per lot. The consultant also notes a need for the HOA of the subdivision to "hold the CDOW harmless from any and all claims for damage to landscaping improvements, fencing , ornamental and native plants, and garden plants resulting from the activities of wildlife." Additionally he suggests a fee be imposed one time on home owners to be spent for conservation projects within the development or the donation of all or a portion of the money to the DOW for mule deer habitat projects. The covenants do not appear to incorporate all of the recommendations listed by the DOW and Beattie Natural Resource Consulting, Inc.. The "hold harmless" clause should also be a plat note on any final plat and the suggested payment of the one time HOA payment for wildlife conservation purposes. G. Road/Access: The application proposes a single access directly off of CR 114, via eight (8) separate access points off of CR 114. Six of the eight roads accessing the development are cul-de-sacs, and four of the cul-de-sacs exceed the 600 ft. length limitation contained in Section 9:33 (A) of the County Subdivision Regulations, which reads as follows: Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred feet (600') in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45 ) from the center 12 of the cul-de-sac to road edge and fifty foot (50') right-of-way for residential development ... The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design; The original PUD was approved in the early 1980's and the 600 ft. limitation was not a part of the subdivision regulations. Steve Crockett has provided the applicant with an analysis of the wildfire hazard in the area, with a consultation with the Colorado Forest Service. The report concludes that the wildfire hazard is generally low or moderate for most of the project. No comments from the Carbondale fire district have been provided at this time, to determine whether or not they have concerns. Spring Valley Road (CR 119) cuts through the west third of the project and will be upgraded to a 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface. County Road 114 cuts through the project and will need to be improved due to this and other projects in the area. The 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface will apply to all of the internal roads in the development. Section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations requires an applicant to address the road impacts from the development on County Roads. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Average Vehicle Trips per day for a single family dwelling is 9.57 on a weekday. The applicant's engineer rounded off the daily trips to 10 per day and calculated that the development would generate 2100 ADT per day. The proposed development is located in Traffic Study Area 10 of the County Capital Improvements Plan of 1997, which requires $195/ADT. Using the applicant's figures, this would require a contribution of $409,500 to the County for road impacts over the life of the project. Fifty percent of the applicable amount will be due at the time of platting, with the remaining 50% being paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. H. Drainage: The application states that the natural drainage will be left intact, which will result in the overland flow following the predictable historic paths. The existing drainage is mostly sheet flow to the Spring Valley draw, which is located in the center of the development and is also the location of the sod farm that is presently located on the property. In general, on-site drainage will be captured by roadside ditches and conveyed by culverts and grass lined swales and directed off-site. Detention will be necessary to deal with the increase in peak storm water runoff from the developed flows over the historic flows during the 100 -year storm. Michael Erion noted that the calculations for the drainage retention structures is not included in the application to verify the capacity of the proposed retention structures and the supplementary information has not addressed this issue. 13 I. Assessment / Fees: As determined by recently amended Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant will be required to pay fees in lieu of dedicating land for schools. It will be necessary to have an appraisal of the property that has been done within the last 24 months to be used as a basis for calculating the school site acquisition fees. The Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District will require the payment of impact fees prior to the approval of a Final Plat. As noted earlier the applicant will be also be required to pay road impact fees in accordance with the formula contained in the appendix of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should be aware that he has the cost responsibility of all required subdivision improvements as specified in the SIA and by the final plat requirements. J. Plat Notes The following items need to be shown as plat notes : "Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a site specific foundation study done by a qualified registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado." "Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things, that "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." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions are included in the covenants that allow for the removal of a dog from the area, as a final remedy in worst cases." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined 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." "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." "A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners shall be conducted by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado for design level recommendations and the report will be submitted as a part of any building permit application. 14 K. Covenants: The applicant has included proposed covenants as a part of the application. The following issues need to be corrected or addressed: 1. Section 8.16, Animals and Pets, needs to be modified to allow for only one (1) dog per household, rather than the two proposed. 2. Section 8:24 and 8:25 prohibit the development of oil or gas wells on the property. Should the mineral interests be severed from the property, an owner of that right could develop an oil or gas well on the property, provided they comply with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations that regulate such activity, regardless of the covenant. V RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 2. That the meeting before the Planning Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended; 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; VI. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan, with the following conditions of approval: 1. All representations of the applicant made in the application and at the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless approved otherwise by the Board. 2. As a part of any Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall include an analysis of the traffic impacts of the phase being platted and include at least 50% of that fee at the time of platting and include in the disclosure statements to prospective and new property owners a statement identifying their obligation to pay the remaining 15 50% at the time of building permit approval. 3. The applicant will provide an appraisal of the property prior to development that is no more than 24 months old, to be used to establish the school site acquisition fee to be paid at the time of final platting of the property. 4. Impact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization of the final plat. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. 5. The improvements included with the Final Plat will include a revegetation provision for the disturbed areas associated with the improvements for the subdivision, along with security to guarantee that the revegetation has been successful. 6. Approval of the Preliminary Plan requires the developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years and the first Final Plat must be recorded within one year of the final approval of the Preliminary Plan. 7. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies shall be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form of a plat note. Those recommendations include the following: a. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite deformation. If the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement. b. It is recommend that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a fault is not present or, if present, the fault is not geologically young . c. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposits . d. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations. 16 e. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and fill slopes should be 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed. f. The channel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge and include provisions for a high sediment concentration flooding. Hydrologic analysis in this area should also consider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. g. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. 8. Since the applicants have not determined what type of development will occur on the cluster lots, it will be necessary to have the cluster lots subject to Preliminary Plan review, on a lot specific basis. 9. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the Plans and Specifications for the drinking water system must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Technical Services Unit, for Capacity Development approval. 10. That prior to any final plat approval, the Spring Valley Sanitation district will have to opportunity to review and approve the wastewater collection system plans for the development. cies of Inc oration for e Sprin anch PUD omeo s Assoction, hall be fidwith the S e of Colorad y the appli t prior he appy al of the Final Pla 12. The following plat notes shall be placed on the final plat: "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds." "Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a site specific foundation study done by a qualified registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado." "Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things, that "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 17 I �r 13. in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions shall be developed for allowing the removal of a dog from the area, as a final remedy in worst cases." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid - fuel burning stove as defined 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." "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to allow or safety lighting that goes1beyond the prop rty boundaries." r The following amendments to the covenants n ed to amended or added. a. Section 8.16, Animals and Pets, needs to be modified to allow for only one (1) dog per household, rather than the two proposed. b. Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. 14. The developer explore being annexed into the Landis Metropolitan District to share in the cost of providing fire protection to the area. 15. That the Final Plat submitted, include a digital copy of the Final Plat and attached documents on disk, to a standard acceptable to the Garfield County information Technology Department. (7 0/d ei fig• ��/ `TSO 74°& 18 Exhibits for Lake Springs Ranch PUD Public Hearing held on September 25, 2002 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended F Project Information and Staff Comments G Lake Springs Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Application" H Lake Springs Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Supplementary Information" I Letter from Shannon Pelland, RE -1 School District, dated August 1, 2002 J Memo from Ron Biggers, Glenwood Springs Fire Department, dated June 25, K _2002 Letter from Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, dated September 20, 2002. L Letter from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources dated September 20, 2002 M Memo from Kelly Wood, Division of Wildlife dated August 8, 2002 N Letter from Doug Thoe, Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. dated October 1, 2002 0 Memo from Jim Sears, Garfield County Undersheriff, dated August 5, 2002 P Memo from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management, dated August 8, 2002 Q Letters from TC Wait, Colorado Geological Survey dated July 31, 2002 and September 17, 2002 R Letter from Dean Gordon, SGM/Spring Valley Sanitation District dated September 16, 2002 S Letters from Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, dated August 7, 2002 and September 18, 2002. T Letter from Tom Smith, Holland & Hart, dated November 5, 2002 U A6, -,E .7.e,07 - ..7-1/- / '4A4 J em/4S — roe, /fsrUe'fj wa-kr V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG BOCC 11/12/02 MLB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD subdivision APPLICANT: The Berkeley Family Partnership, Miriam Berkeley PLANNER: Land Design Partnership ENGINEER: High Country Engineering LOCATION: Parcel located in portions of Sections 32, 33 and 34, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 61' PM WATER: Well supplied central water system SEWER: Spring Valley Sanitation District ACCESS: County Roads 114 and 119 EXISTING ZONING: Planned Unit Development ADJACENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (Spring Valley Ranch & CMC) to the northeast and southeast) and A/R/RD in the rest of the areas. I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 2000 Comp Plan indicates that this property is an existing subdivision on the Study Area 1, Proposed Land Use Map. The PUD was originally approved in 1979, with a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat approved for the project, but not recorded due to an inability of the developer to gain access to a central sewage treatment facility. Subsequently, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has increased capacity of the sewer system to accommodate the development. Some relevant goals of the comp plan follow: Section III -2.0 Housing: " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future 1 residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment". Section III -6.0 Agriculture: "To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review". Section III -7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development." Section III -8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land, and is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County." II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: The property is located approximately four (4) miles southeast of Glenwood Springs and on the northwest side of the CMC property. The property is split by CR 114 in a north to south direction and the potion of the property on the west side of CR 114 is split again by CR 119. The area to the west of CR 114 is presently a sod farm, with some areas of sage brush. The applicant's house and the ranch facilities for the sod farm are all located on the property to the west of CR 114. The area to the east of CR 114 has a pond that is adjacent to the road, with a smaller pond to the northeast and the remainder of the property being unimproved sage brush land. B. Development Proposal: The plan is to divide the 441 acre tract into 198 residential lots, with 194 single family dwelling and 16 multi -family lots. The residential development takes up approximately 257 acres, with 152 acres of open space/common area. The lots Ve range in size from 1.0 to just over 1.5 acres in size. Access is directly off of CR 114, via .eigffdifferent access points, which are all proposed to be 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface Water is to be provided by a central water supply, to be developed by the applicant. Sewage will be treated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District, via a sewage collection system that will transport the wastewater down to the treatment facility located south of the CMC campus III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS: A. Town of Carbondale: No response B. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No response C. RE -1 School District: Shannon Pelland, Finance Director, RE -1 School District 2 notes that the development will be subject to the school site acquisition requirements of the County Regulations. Consistent with those regulations the District has requested cash -in -lieu of land, subject to the formula in the County Subdivision Regulations. (See exhibit I pg. _.2A) D. Holy Cross Energy: No response E. Public Service Company: No response F. U.S. West Communications: No response G. Garfield County Road & Bridge: No response H. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: Ron Biggers, Fire Protection Analyst, Glenwood Springs Fire Department notes that the proposed development is not within any fire district. He provided some general comments that would apply to the development if it were in the District. (See exhibit J pgs. 21 ) I. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: It was determined that the proposed development is in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District after the initial mailing to review agencies. The District notes that the proposed fire flow is adequate for homes up to 3,600 square feet; the development needs to meet the Colorado State Forest Service standards; and the development will be subject to the District's impact fee requirements. (See exhibit K pgs. 22 ) J. Colorado Dept. of Public Health: Verbal verification from the Department of Health indicated that the new Spring Valley Sanitation District treatment facility was constructed according to plans and specifications, but at the time of the conversation, was not on line. K. Colorado Div. of Water Resources: The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the water supply, which is supported by a court ordered water augmentation plan and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They note that the project water supply will not result in material injury to decreed water rights and the physical supply is adequate, "so long as valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated ....". The Division does note that well permits 56292-F and 56293-F could expire by August 16, 2002, if Well Construction Pump Installation and Test Report are not received by the Division prior to that date (See exhibit L pgs. 23-24) L. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Kelly Wood, Division Wildlife Manager identified a number of issues related to dogs, bear/trash removal, riparian/wetland areas, indemnification of DOW against claims from wildlife damage, (See exhibit M pgs. 25-27) M. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Doug Thoe has reviewed the proposed plan and notes that there are to many access points to the County road. He feels that the plan could be modified to reduce the number of access points. The realignment of County Road 119 (Kindall Rd.) is acceptable, provided the conveyance and vacation of a portion of the road can occur legally. (See exhibit N pgs. 28) N. Garfield County Sheriff: Jim Sears, Undersheriff, stated that all roads need to be 3 sized to accommodate all types of emergency vehicles and be clearly marked with County Road numbers and names. Also, that all houses be properly addressed and that all wildfire recommendations be met. (See exhibit 0 pgs. 29) Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony reviewed the Preliminary Plan documents and determined that the applicants have addressed most of his concerns by inventorying and mapping noxious weeds and developing a weed management plan for existing and future weed management. He did recommend that the applicants quantify the area to be disturbed for road cut and utility disturbances and the need to reseed the areas. He suggested a revegetation bond for all disturbances created as a result of new road cuts and utility line placement and construction.. (See exhibit P pgs. 30-31) Colorado Geologic Survey : The CGS has reviewed the HP Geotech report and noted that it is dated and not consistent with the plans. Additionally, they noted that there is no detail on the four (4) cluster lots, so no comments were offered. (See exhibit Q pgs. 32-36) The following is a summary of the comments: 1) A large portion of the site is identified as being landslide deposits in more current publications, but it was not discussed in the report. These landslide deposits should be evaluated for slope stability before development occurs on them, potentially reactivating portions of the slide. 2) Evidence for slope stability (such as a stability analysis) and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures should be included in the preliminary plan documents for areas around Lake Springs Drive and within the Qls mapped unit. 3) The County should identify the locations of slopes greater than 30% prior to preliminary plan approval and restrict development in these areas. 4) Erosion control measures should be established and implemented to prevent off- site sediment transport or accelerated erosion. Prompt reseeding should occur to prevent slope ravel from occurring. 5) HP-Geotech does not recommend placement of structures on the faults. Faults are often zones of shearing which can be quite wide. Locating a building envelope around such a zone may not be possible. The fault locations should be evaluated prior to preliminary plan approval. 6) The building envelope for lot 13 is in the drainage. The steep slopes and narrow ridge may not be suited for development, leaving this lot unbuildable. A detailed investigation of this lot should be conducted prior to preliminary plan approval and the lot should be removed if development can not safely occur. 7) Shallow groundwater and swelling soils are all geologic characteristics found on this site. Detailed study regarding these subsurface conditions should be done on a lot-specific basis during the design phase of the project. 8) All subsurface foundation elements should include foundation drains, and basement construction may not be feasible for lots near the valley floor. 9) Expansive soils are present throughout the site, not just west of CR114 in the lake deposits These clay deposits may be related to the landslide deposits on 4 the site, and swell testing shows that they have expansive properties when wetted. Expansive soils require special mitigation techniques and foundation design. Water infiltration will increase the risk of expansion. In summary, there are geologic conditions that may impact the proposed development. Preliminary plat approval should not be granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post -development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot -specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. As a result of these comments, the applicant requested a continuance of the original hearing scheduled for August 14th, to this date. ( See supplemental information ) HP Geotech updated the 1997 study and that information was provided to the CGS for comment. The CGS provided the following responses (See exhibit Q): 1) The revised phasing plan has several lot/building envelop changes that the County should ensure translate through all of the planning documents. 2) Plat notes, or another form of disclosure should be included to inform future property owners of the risk of evaporite deformation and fault locations. 3) HP Geotech states that if homeowners are not willing to accept the risk of future deformations, that foundations systems can be heavily reinforced and that structures should not include basements. Introducing water into the soil may also contribute to deformation; fortunately this area will include sewer systems and not septic systems. Irrigation should be minimized, however, to prevent unnecessary water infiltration. 4) CGS concurs with the recommendations made by HP Geotech and suggests that they be strictly adhered to. 5) CGS still has concerns regarding lots 11, 12 and 13 on Spring Valley Court — the potential for flooding and stream bank erosion should be fully investigated. High Country Engineering is aware of this concern and is currently investigating the flow effects in this channel. Spring Valley Sanitation District: Dean Gordon, SGM engineers Inc. and Spring Valley Sanitation District engineer indicated that the new treatment plant will be up and operating by September 18th and that they will have capacity to 5 accommodate the proposed development. He has stated that the proposed wastewater collection system "meets the general requirements and intent of the rules and regulations of the Spring Valley Sanitation District." Additionally, he requested that prior to any final plat approval, the district have to opportunity to review and approve the sewer line plans for the development. (See exhibit R pgs. 37-38) P. Michael Erion, Resource Engineering has provided comments on the proposed application. The following comments were made in a letter of August 7, 2002 and then his responses to the revised plans are included in bold lettering (See Exhibit S pgs.39-44): 1. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system, including the nature of the legal entity which own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. The supplemental information did not address this information, but based on a telephone conversation with the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, the Central Water System must be approved by the State pursuant to the New Water System Capacity Planning Manual as authorized by State Statutes, prior to any preliminary plan approval. 2. The water system layout should consider making looped connections to minimize the interruption of service during repair and maintenance of the system. Revised plans include the suggested looping. 3. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. No agreement has been provided. 4. An engineering report with analysis and calculations supporting the design of the wastewater collection system was not submitted. The appropriate documentation has been provided. 5. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should provide comment on whether the proposed low pressure sewer collection system is acceptable to the District. Michael Erion did not have the benefit of the letter from the District engineer, since it was received the same day as the response letter was written. See SVSD letter noted previously. 6. There is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for detention storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. No supporting calculations, analysis or design has been provided. 7. Due to the presence of expansive clays, evaporite related ground defamations, flow stability issues, and faults, a plat note should be added that requires all lots to have an individual site specific geotechnical analysis. A plat note will 6 be included. 8. A fault appears to cross through lots 13 through 20 in the eastern area of the project. A site specific study should be conducted on these lots to determine if a fault is actually present and determine if the lots and/or building envelopes need to be adjusted/deleted. The fault line has been reviewed and the applicants have adjusted the lots by removing a lot and adjusting building envelopes to stay 50' from the fault line. 9. The geotechnical engineering study for the project is five years old and should be updated for the proposed configuration of roads, lots and utilities. An updated study was done. 10. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope. This area should specifically be reviewed by 1-IP Geotech in an updated study. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope which exceeds the recommended parameters in the HP Geotech reports. Grading plans are available for this road and the issue should be specifically review by HP Geotech consistent with their recommendation in the September 9, 2002 report. 11. A significant channel runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2. This area should be reviewed for potential debris flow which may affect building envelopes on those lots. The drainage channel which runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2 has been reviewed by HP Geotech. HP Geotech concurs that high sediment concentration storm water flows should be considered in the hydrologic and hydraulic design and that the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect Lots 11, 12 and 13 should be analyzed. New comment. The building envelopes for Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2, Lots 3, 10, and 18 of Block 8, and Lot 12 of Block 7, also include areas steeper than 30%, which is not recommended for development by HP Geotech. 12. Based on visual inspection, we believe wetlands and "waters of the U.S." exist in the agricultural open space meadow. The proposed improvements to Spring Valley Road would impact these areas and would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An appropriate Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be obtained prior to approval of any final plat which includes construction of Spring Valley Road improvements which cross the wetlands and "waters of the U.S." that exist in the agricultural open space meadow. 13. Spring Valley Road has as estimated ADT of 680 and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12 foot lane width and a 4 foot minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11 foot paved lanes with gravel shoulders. Spring Valley Drive, High Alpine Circle, High Alpine Drive, Lake Springs Drive, Lake Springs Court, Van Cleave Lane, are all cul-de-sacs or dead end roads which exceed the maximum length of 600 feet. Although this road configuration is generally 7 consistent with the approved PUD layout, provisions for appropriate fire protection and emergency egress and access for the proposed design should be provided. No change in his position. 14. The drainage detail on sheet 40 has been shifted onto the adjacent detail and should be cleaned up. This has been resolved. 15. Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. This was included as a recommended covenant amendment. IV. STAFF COMMENTS A. Zoning, Subdivision, and Phasing: The Lake Springs PUD was originally approved in 1979 by Resolution No. 79-64 and subsequently amended by Resolution No. 79-153. A Preliminary Plan was approved for the project in 1980, but due to a Final Plat not being recorded in a timely manner, the applicant's are required to resubmit a Preliminary Plan application for the project to deal with the current conditions. The present application is consistent with the PUD approved in 1979. The Preliminary Plan shows lots for 194 single family dwellings and four (4) cluster lots, to have 4 dwellings on each lot. The division of the cluster lots will require resubdivision of those lots at a future date, based on the development plans at that time. Section 7:00 of the Subdivision Regulations governs the redivision of lots after Preliminary Plan approval. The following sections will apply to the present application: Section 7:10 The redivision into separate interest of any lot, block, parcel or multiple - dwelling unit, or the major relocation of or addition to any roads within a subdivision, shall be considered a resubdivision and shall be governed by the Subdivision Regulations. 7:20 The redivision into separate interests of large tracts or blocks of land, designed with the intention of resubdivision and so indicated on a recorded plat, may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision regulations, which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision. 7:30 The redivision, through conversion into condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision Regulations which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan and/or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision, provided the proposed conversion will not substantially increase land use density. Since the applicant has not determined what type of development will occur on the 8 cluster lots, it will be necessary to have the cluster lots subject to Preliminary Plan review, on a lot specific basis. Included in the application is a phasing plan that shows five (5) phases. Section 4:34 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states that a Preliminary Plan is valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of 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. Developments of over one hundred (100) lots may be phased over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) years. Any phasing must be approved by the Board at Preliminary Plan. While the applicants have defined the units to be phased, there is no commitment to completing the phasing plan within the period of time allowed by the regulations. Any approval of the Preliminary Plan should include language requiring the developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years. B. Water: Water is to be supplied through a central system supplied by three wells drilled on site, with the water pumped to a 400,000 gallon storage tank. A water augmentation plan has been approved for one of the well permits and the other two were issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The water rights associated with the wells will supply the 210 dwelling units proposed, 2500 sq. ft. of lawn and garden per residence and a fire protection water supply. The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the water supply, which is supported by a court ordered water augmentation plan and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They note that the project water supply will not result in material injury to decreed water rights and the physical supply is adequate, "so long aw valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated ....". The Division does note that well permits 56292-F and 56293-F could expire by August 16, 2002, if Well Construction, Pump Installation and Test Report are not received by the Division prior to that date. The applicant has requested an extension from the Division via letter dated July 25, 2002 and the Division has verified that the extension was approved to August 16, 2002.. Since the proposed water system will serve more than 15 houses and 25 people, it will be subject to review by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Tech Services Unit review for drinking water quality. Prior to the approval of a fmal plat, the Plans and Specifications for the drinking water system must be submitted to the CDPHE, Technical Services Unit, for Capacity Development approval. C. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, who were not properly identified as the fire protection agency for the property and have did not have an opportunity to provide comments until recently. Originally, it was staff's 9 understanding that the property was not located in a fire district. Given the recent agreement between the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District and the Landis Metropolitan District to provide fire protection to the area, the application was referred to Glenwood Springs. As noted previously, the development will have a 400,000 gallon supply water to the development, with a fire flow of 1500 gpm for two (2) hours. The Glenwood Fire Department provided comments regarding the need to have properly sized roads, an adequate water supply and delivery system, firewise landscaping and building construction to protect against wildland fire and sprinlder systems in large homes. The Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District provided comments regarding the adequacy of the fire protection water system, wildfire protection and impact fee requirements. The Deputy Chief noted that the proposed fire flow of 1500 gpm for two hours would meet the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) 1997 Edition, Appendix III -A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings for homes up to 3600 sq. ft.. He also notes the need to comply with the Colorado State Forest Service standards for wildfire mitigation. The District also has an impact fee that would be required of the development, if it is approved. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has reached an agreement with the developers of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD (Chenoa) to provide fire protection to the development an equipped fire station in the development. Even though the development is within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, staff would suggest that the Lake Springs Ranch PUD explore being annexed into the Landis Metropolitan District to share in the cost of providing fire protection to the area. D. Sewer: Included in the application is a letter from the Spring Valley Sanitation District stating that the District can and will serve the proposed development. A sewage main was extended through the Lake Springs Ranch PUD to the Spring Valley PUD, The on-site collection system will utilize the central gravity flow with several low-pressure sewer system branches. Each residence will have its own `E/one' grinder pump station that reduces all forms of sanitary waste to a non -clogging slurry which is pumped through a small diameter pressure pipe to the gravity system. The system proposed is touted to be virtually maintenance free and to run eight to ten years between service calls. The same type of systems are in use in the Elk Springs PUD that is a part of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The Spring Valley Sanitation District recently completed the construction of a new sewage treatment plant. As noted in the Review Agency comments, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has verbally indicated that the new treatment plant will be online by the end of September and capable of handling the sewage needs of the development. They did ask that the developer be required to get the District's approval of the Final Plat sewage line improvements prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 10 E.. Geology: HP Geotech states that the site should be possible to develop as proposed, without encountering severe constraints or hazards associated with the geology. The study was done in 1997 and is based upon the development being 96 single family lots, a neighborhood commercial district and open space. As noted previously, the Colorado Geologic Survey has some serious reservations about any preliminary plan approval being granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post -development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot - specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. The applicant's consultant, HP Geotech has reviewed the letter from the CGS and acknowledged that the 1997 study was done for a different development proposal. A review of the current proposal has resulted in the following recommendations: 1. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite deformation. If the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement. 2. It is recommend that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a fault is not present or, if present, the fault is not geologically young . 3. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposits . 4. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations. 5. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and fill slopes 11 should be 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed. 6. The channel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge and include provisions for a high sediment concentration flooding. Hydrologic analysis in this area should also consider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. 7. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. F. Wildlife: The applicants had Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. provide a wildlife report to minimize wildlife -human conflicts. DOW submitted comments of their own, which included a number of recommendations that are not completely consistent with the applicant's consultant. 1. No house should have more than one dog and offspring up to three months. 1. No dogs allowed on site by visitors. 2. Restrictions that dogs must stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam free. 3. Wildlife proof or resistant trash/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes to prevent problems with wildlife. 4. Rail fencing may be used along lot lines, not to exceed 42 inches in height, 12 inches in width (top view), with an opening in the lower half at least 16 inches to allow the passage of deer fawns and elk calves. 6. CDOW indemnification against future claims due to wildlife damage. 7. Educate residents about wildlife in the area, how they are stewards of the wildlife in the area. As noted, the application includes a wildlife study done by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. The impacts to wildlife are possible to mitigate to a degree, provided the recommendations of the consultant are incorporated into the covenants and design of the subdivision. It should be noted that the consultant recommended a maximum number of dogs in excess of the subdivision regulation limit of one (1) dog per house and the covenants allow for two (2) dogs per lot. The consultant also notes a need for the HOA of the subdivision to "hold the CDOW harmless from any and all claims for damage to landscaping improvements, fencing , ornamental and native plants, and garden plants resulting from the activities of wildlife." Additionally he suggests a fee be imposed one time on home owners to be spent for conservation projects within the development or the donation of all or a portion of the money to the DOW for mule deer habitat projects. The covenants do not appear to incorporate all of the recommendations listed by the 12 DOW and Beattie Natural Resource Consulting, Inc.. The "hold harmless" clause should also be a plat note on any final plat and the suggested payment of the one time HOA payment for wildlife conservation purposes. G. Road/Access: The application proposes a single access directly off of CR 114, via a number of separate access points off of CR 114. Six of the roads accessing the development are cul-de-sacs, and four of the cul-de-sacs exceed the 600 ft. length limitation contained in Section 9:33 (A) of the County Subdivision Regulations, which reads as follows: Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred feet (600') in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45) from the center of the cul-de-sac to road edge and fifty foot (50') right-of-way for residential development ... The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design; The original PUD was approved in the early 1980's and the 600 ft. limitation was not a part of the subdivision regulations. Steve Crockett has provided the applicant with an analysis of the wildfire hazard in the area, with a consultation with the Colorado Forest Service. The report concludes that the wildfire hazard is generally low or moderate for most of the project. No comments from the Carbondale fire district have been provided at this time regarding the road system, to determine whether or not they have concerns. County Road and Bridge has noted that the large number of access points is a concern due to safety issues. The applicants are not required to modify the road system since the PUD approval included the proposed road system and to modify it would require an amendment of the PUD. Spring Valley Road (CR 119) cuts through the west third of the project and will be upgraded to a 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface. County Road 114 cuts through the project and will need to be improved due to this and other projects in the area. The 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface will apply to all of the internal roads in the development. Section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations requires an applicant to address the road impacts from the development on County Roads. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Average Vehicle Trips per day for a single family dwelling is 9.57 on a weekday. The applicant's engineer rounded off the daily trips to 10 per day and calculated that the development would generate 2100 ADT per day. The proposed development is located in Traffic Study Area 10 of the County Capital Improvements Plan of 1997, which requires $195/ADT. Using the applicant's figures, this would require a contribution of $409,500 to the County for road impacts over the life of the project. Fifty percent of the applicable amount will be due at the time of platting, with 13 the remaining 50% being paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. H. Drainage: The application states that the natural drainage will be left intact, which will result in the overland flow following the predictable historic paths. The existing drainage is mostly sheet flow to the Spring Valley draw, which is located in the center of the development and is also the location of the sod farm that is presently located on the property. In general, on-site drainage will be captured by roadside ditches and conveyed by culverts and grass lined swales and directed off-site. Detention will be necessary to deal with the increase in peak storm water runoff from the developed flows over the historic flows during the 100 -year storm. Michael Erion noted that the calculations for the drainage retention structures is not included in the application to verify the capacity of the proposed retention structures and the supplementary information has not addressed this issue. Assessment / Fees: As determined by recently amended Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant will be required to pay fees in lieu of dedicating land for schools. It will be necessary to have an appraisal of the property that has been done within the last 24 months to be used as a basis for calculating the school site acquisition fees. The Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District will require the payment of impact fees prior to the approval of a Final Plat. As noted earlier the applicant will be also be required to pay road impact fees in accordance with the formula contained in the appendix of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should be aware that he has the cost responsibility of all required subdivision improvements as specified in the SIA and by the final plat requirements. J. Plat Notes The following items need to be shown as plat notes : "Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a site specific foundation study done by a qualified registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado." "Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things, that "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." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions are included in the covenants that allow for the removal of a dog from the area, as a final 14 remedy in worst cases." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined 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." "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." "A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners shall be conducted by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado for design level recommendations and the report will be submitted as a part of any building permit application. K. Covenants: The applicant has included proposed covenants as a part of the application. The following issues need to be corrected or addressed: 1. Section 8.16, Animals and Pets, needs to be modified to allow for only one (1) dog per household, rather than the two proposed. 2. Section 8:24 and 8:25 prohibit the development of oil or gas wells on the property. Should the mineral interests be severed from the property, an owner of that right could develop an oil or gas well on the property, provided they comply with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations that regulate such activity, regardless of the covenant. V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the 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 that hearing; 3. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended; 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 15 VI. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan, with the following conditions of approval: 1. All representations of the applicant made in the application and at the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless approved otherwise by the Board. 2. As a part of any Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall include an analysis of the traffic impacts of the phase being platted and include at least 50% of that fee at the time of platting and include in the disclosure statements to prospective and new property owners a statement identifying their obligation to pay the remaining 50% at the time of building permit approval. 3. The applicant will provide an appraisal of the property prior to development that is no more than 24 months old, to be used to establish the school site acquisition fee to be paid at the time of final platting of the property. 4. Impact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization of the final plat. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. 5. The improvements included with the Final Plat will include a revegetation provision for the disturbed areas associated with the improvements for the subdivision, along with security to guarantee that the revegetation has been successful. 6. Approval of the Preliminary Plan requires the developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years and the first Final Plat must be recorded within one year of the final approval of the Preliminary Plan. 7. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies shall be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form of a plat note. Those recommendations include the following: a. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite deformation. If the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it 16 11. The following plat notes shall be placed on the final plat: "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds." "Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a site specific foundation study done by a qualified registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado." "Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things, that "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." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions shall be developed for allowing the removal of a dog from the area, as a final remedy in worst cases." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid - fuel burning stove as defined 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." "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." 12. The following amendments to the covenants need to amended or added. a. Section 8.16, Animals and Pets, needs to be modified to allow for only one (1) dog per household, rather than the two proposed. b. Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. The d oper explo eing annexe to the L. . . is Metropolit istrict to thin e cost of providing f protection to the area. 14. That the Final Plat submitted, include a digital copy of the Final Plat and attached documents on disk, to a standard acceptable to the Garfield County Information Technology Department. 18 can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement. b. It is recommend that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a fault is not present or, if present, the fault is not geologically young . c. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposits . d. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations. e. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and fill slopes should be 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed. f. The channel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge and include provisions for a high sediment concentration flooding. Hydrologic analysis in this area should also consider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. g. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. 8. Since the applicants have not determined what type of development will occur on the cluster lots, it will be necessary to have the cluster lots subject to Preliminary Plan review, on a lot specific basis. 9. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the Plans and Specifications for the drinking water system must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Technical Services Unit, for Capacity Development approval. 10. That prior to any final plat approval, the Spring Valley Sanitation district will have to opportunity to review and approve the wastewater collection system plans for the development. 17 15. The names of the roads within the subdivision will be changed to avoid confusion with other county roads for safety purposes. 16. Prio approval of e Board of Court' Com ssioners, the app ant will plore optio o the existin ad access ants to the Cou oad to resolve potents ety issues. 016e 7< r — 3, 4- C -2.7//y2,/,?.e_41 72-6 /0e• et4 19 AUG -02-02 FRI 10:50 AM RFSD it Roaring Fork School.. bietri'ct RE -1 ' 14 Gf id Avenue Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 384-6000 .;. August 1, 2002 Garfield County Planning Dept 109 8`a Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 FAX N0, 9709459240 RE: Request for comment — Lake Springs Ranch PUD To Whom It May Concern: EXHIBIT # e: ocA. FRED A> WAIL. Supwlmenden1 any IMPTON TALL„ Asaal*,(SupM*ntendsnl eNANHOM PE.LAMD, fesnw greeter Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Lake Springs Ranch PUD application. As you are aware, Roaring Fork School District has adopted a resolution regarding land dedication or fees -in -lieu to be applied, with the County's assistance, to new residential development. Roaring Fork School District already has an elementary site dedicated at the former Los Amigos Ranch subdivision. Accordingly, the District would request that the formula for fees -in -lieu of land dedication, as adopted by the County, be applied to all residential units in the subdivision, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-384-6003. Sincerely, CCA- n/tpcelcuk,,(_ Shannon Pelland Finance Director 806 GLENWOOD SPRINGS Glenwo deSprngs, CO 81601 FIRE DEPARTMENT August 5, 2002 Garfield County Planning Department, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, CO Staff Planner: Mark Bean EXHIBIT Comments on: Lake Springs Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan My comments on this planned subdivision can only be of a general nature because this subdivision is not in the Glenwood Springs Fire Departments' District. In checking Garfield Counties Fire Departments Districts map, the geographic location of this proposed subdivision is not in any Fire District. Should the developers wish to discuss ideas on how to resolve this problem, the Fire Department is open to meeting with them. The following are some recommended fire protection items for the developer to consider: 1. Roads and driveways are built to code and Fire Department standards i.e., width, overhead clearance, surface, turn a rounds, etc. 2. Develop an adequate water supply and delivery system to meet fire flow requirements. 3. Create a Firewise landscaping and building construction plan, to address wildland fire concerns. 4. Install 13D or R sprinkler systems in large homes. Sincerely, 12+/-6( Ron Biggers Fire Protection Analyst Cc. Mike Piper (Chief) September 20, 2002 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0C110 1/‘ 0111::° FIRE • EMS • RESCUE RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan Dear Mark: 1 EXHIBIT :RECEIVE SEP 9 3 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY lUILDING & PLANNING I have reviewed the preliminary plan submittal for the proposed Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. I would offer the following comments: Access The proposed access for the subdivision appears to be adequate for emergency vehicles. Water Supply for Fire Protection A central domestic water system is proposed for the subdivision supplied from a 400,000 -gallon water storage tank. A fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours is proposed and would meet the requirements the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) 1997 edition, Appendix III -A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings for homes up to 3,600 square feet. There appears to be an error both in the master utility plan drawings and the written submittal which indicate that the base elevation of the proposed tank will be at an elevation of 7202 feet. The road and profile drawings indicate that the elevation will actually be 7302 feet. 7302 feet of elevation is also consistent with the submitted fire flow analysis. The proposed fire hydrant locations for the subdivision are acceptable and meet the requirements of the UFC. Wildfire Hazards The Colorado Stated Forest Service (CSFS) has completed a wildfire hazard review of the subdivision. Mitigation within the subdivision should be completed according to CSFS standards. Impact Fees The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the 210 proposed new residential units. 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. Sincerel , .e0oveit ieba Bill Gavette Deputy Chief -� 22 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGI Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us EXHIBIT Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 STATE OF COLORADO July 25, 2002 RECEIVED Ill _ 9 ?002 GARFIELD COUNTY WILDING & PLANNING Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Sections 32, 33 & 34, T6S, R88 Ai & Sec. 4, T7S, R88W, W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Dear Mr. Bean: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 441.62 acres into 198 residential lots and 151 acres of common open space. 194 lots will be limited to one single-family dwelling, with one four -family dwelling unit on each of the remaining 4 lots, for a total of 210 single-family dwellings. Water for the dwellings and 2500 square feet of lawn and garden per residence (12.05 acres total) is to be provided through a central system supplied by the wells with permit nos. 55366-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well C), 56292-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well D) and 56293-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well E). The first permit was issued per consolidated court case nos. W-3751, W-3752, W-3753, W-3754, W-3997, and case nos. 91 CW005, 95CW078 and 95CW079A. The last two permits were issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). Zancanella and Associates, Inc. estimate well water use at 121.06 acre-feet of diversions and 28.18 acre-feet of consumptive use for 222 EQR's. Central sewage treatment will be provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The well with permit no. 55366-F is permitted to provide water for a development not exceeding 220 single family residential equivalent units with 7.6 acres of lawn and other irrigated area, and the irrigation of a 100 acre portion of a 450 acre tract. Note that fire protection is included as a decreed use for this well. The wells with permit numbers 56292-F and 56293-F are permitted to provide a water supply for 196 residential units and 2 commercia! units and 11.36 acres of landscape irrigation. Since the uses per the court case and the District contract are cumulative, the permitted uses of these wells are adequate for the proposed uses. Note that we have not received a Well Construction and Test Report for permit no. 56293- F, a Pump Installation and Test Report for permit nos. 56292-F and 56293-F, or a Statement of Beneficial Use for either of these wells. If these documents are not received prior to August 16, 2002, the subject well permits will expire and be of no effect. The report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc. indicates that Lake Springs Ranch Well D (permit no. 56292-F) was completed under MH -25625. A well test conducted August 2 and 3, 2000 by the Samuelson Pump Company indicates that the well produced 90 gallons per minute over a twenty-five hour period, and that the well recovered to its initial static water level within a few minutes after pumping ceased. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use. Garfield County Building and Planning July 25, 2002 Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Our records also indicate the well with Permit No. 160677 was issued for and constructed on the existing parcel. Note that CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt well must be included in either the District's substitute supply plan or an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned, since the provisions of CRS 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of this well permit will no longer apply. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated in the preceding paragraph. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, ,L.,_ 1J. Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/Lake Springs Ranch ii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 Rug 05 02 08:01a Kelly Wood STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Department of Natural Resources 970-963-6523 DATE: 08/02/02 1 1 EXHIBIT H TO: Mark Bean FROM: Kelly Wood, DWM SUBJ: Wil I V ' e Comments -Lake Springs Ranch -PUO The following wildlife mitigation measures are ones the Colorado Division of Wildlife most commonly recommends. The easiest method to alleviate wildlife impacts is to locate all development out of native vegetation, as most native vegetation at lower elevations is usually critical wildlife habitat for one species or another. There are other methods that include, tightly clustering the units to preserve as much open/natural space as posle, reduction in densities, conservation easements, etc. . 1) DOGS - Each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot will be permitted to have up to one dog 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). an areas known to be frequented by mountain lions, it is strongly recommended that tops be included on dog runs andlor kennels to avoid potential predation). If facilities are inadequate to contain the dog(s), the animal(s) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision/PUD until adequate structures can be built. At no time are dogs to be allowed to run freely. Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on a leash under the direct control of its owner or a responsible party. It is the owner's responsibility to ensure compliance. Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the appropriate governmental entity (Garfield County or the proper municipality), and must wear the numbered identification tags provided. Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from bringing dogs onto the property. Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from bringing dogs to the subdivision/PUD site. Workers who violate this provision shall be barred from the subdivision/PUD for 10 working days for the first offense and permanently for any future offense. These dog provisions also apply to multi -family units if located within the subdivision/PUD boundaries. 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. Rug 05 02 08:01a Ke11y Wood 970-963-6523 p,3 2) CATS - Cats should be kept indoors or in kennels. Even well fed domestic cats are efficient predators and can contribute significantly to the mortality of small mammals and avian wildlife populations including nesting waterfowl. 3) FENCING- Fencing ENCINGFencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. ff 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 Y2 of at least 16 inches to allow passage of deer fawns and elk calves. Other fence materials such as wood slats, electric, synthetic, etc. may be used but must be wildlife friendly and not exceed 42 inches in height. CDOW is available to determine compatibility with wildlife. The application suggested a minimum 8 foot high fence. This is discouraged because of the impediment to 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. 4) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL- ➢ There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage, no matter how briefly, at any residence or anywhere within the property, with the exception of bear -proof trash containers. Refuse should not be kept within detached garages or sheds because bears may break into these structures. The use of bear -proof trash containers is the safest and best technique to avoid bear problems. • Residents will be prohibited from using compost piles unless such piles are contained in an approved bear proof receptacle. • Only those receptacles certified by the North American Bear Society, National Park Service or the CDOW shall be considered to be "bear -proof'. • There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of refuse within the development Pets shall not be fed outside. 5) RIPAR.IANNVETLANDS- 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. 6) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage. 7) EDUCATING RESIDENTS - A brochure or pamphlet clan be developed by the proponent educating homeowners about the local wildlife community, the planning that went into the design of the development to 2 Rug 05 02 08:01a Kell y Wood 970-963-6523 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.). Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 947-2931. Sincerely, fn 471,s Kelly d District ildlife Manager �r p.4 Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 1015 School St., Gienwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-6099 ph. & FAX, School St. 970-945-1223 ph, 945-1318 fax, Cattle creek 10-01-02 Garfield County Building & Planning Attn: Mark Bean, Randy Russell. Garfield County Legal Dept. Attn: Don DeFord, Carolyn Dahlgren Re: Lake Springs P.U.D. iv D EXHIBIT Planners & Counselors, Regarding the plat as presently drawn, my first impression is that there are entirely too many access roads entering County Road 114 (CMC rd.) from the Lake Springs subdivision. Within a distance of approximately 2400 linear feet, there are 8 subdivision roads intersecting the existing County rd. As traffic volume increases in the future, as it surely will when the Spring Valley P.U.D. builds out, that traffic will have to contend with the hazards of 8 side traffic sources instead of one. Upon studying the plat, I can easily visualize both the east and west sections of the P.U.D. entering at a single intersection with CR114, (Lake Springs dr.), with minor changes in property lines and no change in density. This would reduce the number of traffic hazard sources and allow signalization for the intersection should it become necessary in the future. I see no easement drawn for the recently installed sewer main that I believe runs through the property, and which may encroach on the building envelopes of several of the lots as platted. The realignment of CRl 19 (Kindall rd.) is acceptable to Road & Bridge, since this section of 119 is contained within a 2.8 mile section of public, but non -maintained County rd. (Garfield County maintains .84 mile of the northerly end of CRI 19.) The legal issues of vacating this portion of CR 119 and deeding the new alignment to the County to assure continued public access is beyond the scope of Road & Bridge, but must certainly be addressed. It is the understanding of Road& Bridge that the new alignment of CRl 19/Kindall rd. contained within the P.U.D., now in the form of Spring Valley rd, will become the maintenance responsibility of the Lake Springs Homeowners association. Sincerely, Douglas Th ad Foreman, EXHIBIT Io THOMAS P. DALESSANDRI Garfield County Sheriff August 5, 2001 To: Building and Planning r From: Jim Sears, Undersheriff Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan P.O. Box 249, 107 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81602 Telephone: (970)945-0453 Fax: (970)945-6430 RECEIVED -ilial GARFILLD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING The Sheriff's Office has reviewed the attached Preliminary Plan for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and would like to address the following concerns: 1) Ensure that all roads and cul-de-sacs are adequately sized for use by all types of emergency response equipment. 2) All roads and roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road numbers and names. 3) All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County road or access roads. 4) Ensure that the developers follow the recommendations of the local fire district and State Forester as they pertain to wildfire mitigation and control. EXHIBIT 1 ? MEMORANDUM To: Mark Bean From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Lake Springs PUD Date: August 8, 2002 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on Lake Springs. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds A. Inventory and mapping -The applicant has mapped and inventoried the property. B. Weed Management -The applicant has provided a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. C. Common area weed management -The applicant states that the Lake Springs Ranch Association will implement weed management on Common Elements within the property. D. Covenants -Weed management for the Association and each individual lot owner is addressed in the covenants. 2. Revegetation The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. The applicant has provided the plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat, that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation. It is stab's recommendation that we request a revegetation bond for all disturbances created by new road cuts and utility line placement and construction. Please quantify in terms of acres the amount of land to be disturbed. The applicant may include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment. The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if the project has: A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds. A potential to impact watershed areas. A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors. Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas. Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater) The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 3. Soil Plan The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Please feel free to contact me at 625-3969. EXHIBIT 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 July 31, 2002 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 STATE OF COLOFADO RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2002 Legal: S32, T6S, R88W GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan CGS Review No. GA -03-0002 Dear Mr. Bean; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on July 30, 2002. The site was originally reviewed by the CGS in November 2001. Lot layout changes in the southern portions of Phase 1 and 2 have occurred since that time. No additional geologic work has occurred since the initial review. Comments made in the initial CGS review were not addressed. The site consists of approximately 441.62 acres and is being platted to include 194 single-family and 16 multi -family residential lots averaging about 1 acre in size. Lots will be serviced with water from a central well distribution system and sewer through Spring Valley Sanitation. Included in the review package were: Preliminary Plan Application (5/8/02) by High Country Engineering Drainage Report (4/2/02) by High Country Engineering Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study (8/29/97) by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Preliminary Plan Documents (4/8/02) by High Country Engineering Building envelopes were designated on the site plan. There were several inconsistencies with lot numbering between the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and the Preliminary Plat that should be corrected to avoid confusion. No details were available regarding the four cluster housing tracts shown on the plat. These tracts will need to be reviewed at a later time when specific details as to locations, building types, and densities are known. This review will only cover the proposed 194 single-family lots on the site. The site is located within Spring Valley and the adjacent slopes. Topography consists of gentle to steep slopes and minor drainage swales that were dry at the time of the site visit. The proposed development will primarily occur on the east side of the valley, with a small area of development on the western side. No development is proposed within the center of the valley. The geology of the site is quite complex, including regional evaporite collapse, highly plastic lake sediments, landslide deposits, and hard basalt bedrock that is near surface in the eastern portions of the site. Two normal faults are located in the eastern portion of the site, which may affect some of the eastern lots. The HP Geotech report is somewhat dated and does not reflect accurate lot layouts. Published geologic maps of the area do not appear to have been incorporated in the report; specifically, the geologic map of the Carbondale Quadrangle (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997) which shows a large portion of the site as being landslide deposits, was referenced, but not discussed in the report. These landslide deposits should be evaluated for slope stability before development occurs on them, potentially reactivating portions of the slide. Recommendations made in the HP-Geotech report regarding earthquakes, excavation, and design recommendations should be followed. After a literature review and site visit, CGS has the following comments: • Slope Stability The majority of the site lies within an area described as being landslide deposits on the Carbondale Quadrangle geologic map (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). Steep, uneven terrain exists throughout the property. Subsurface borings by HP Geotech show clay deposits at depth throughout the site, although not discussed in the geotechnical report. Geomorphically, the area does appear to contain old landslide deposits, which may be reactivated during development and road cuts. Further geotechnical study should be conducted at this site, as suggested in the previous CGS review letter. Evidence for slope stability (such as a stability analysis) and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures should be included in the preliminary plan documents for areas around Lake Springs Drive and within the Qls mapped unit. Water can greatly affect slope stability and irrigation should be eliminated or minimized on the site. Lot -specific stability analysis should be conducted during the design phase of the project for lots with grades greater than 20%. Several areas of the site, specifically along Lake Springs Drive, are exceedingly steep. HP- Geotech does not recommend building on slopes greater than 30%. The County should identify the locations of slopes greater than 30% prior to preliminary plan approval and restrict development in these areas. Construction on grades greater than 30% will require specific foundation designs and potentially costly mitigation. Road construction may require significant cuts and fill sections to accommodate appropriate road grades. The County engineer should approve grading plans for roads and lot access. Erosion control measures should be established and implemented to prevent off-site sediment transport or accelerated erosion. Prompt reseeding should occur to prevent slope ravel from occurring. • Fault Traces Mapped fault traces run through the eastern portion of Phase 2. Lots 13 through 20 should be evaluated for potential movement associated with the fault. HP-Geotech does not recommend placement of structures on the faults. Faults are often zones of shearing which can be quite wide. Locating a building envelope around such a zone may not be possible. The fault locations should be evaluated prior to preliminary plan approval. • Surface Drainage Several dry swales were observed during the site visit. One swale in particular may preclude the development of lot 13 in the northern portion of Phase 4 off Spring Valley Court. This lot consists of a sharp ridge with steep slopes and a steep -sided ravine extending from east of lot 12. The ravine is likely to run during heavy precipitation and during seasonally wet times. There is significant area upgradient such that debris flows and flash flooding may impact the lot. The building envelope for lot 13 is in the drainage. The steep slopes and narrow ridge may not be suited for development, leaving this lot unbuildable. A detailed investigation of this lot should be conducted prior to preliminary plan approval and the lot should be removed if development can not safely occur. Generally, construction should not be permitted within drainage swales. 33- • Subsurface Conditions Shallow groundwater and swelling soils are all geologic characteristics found on this site. Detailed study regarding these subsurface conditions should be done on a lot -specific basis during the design phase of the project. Shallow groundwater can be expected for lots located along the sides of the valley. This includes Phase 4 and 5 lots. Additionally, induced shallow groundwater following development of the other lots on the site may occur as a result of irrigation. Shallow groundwater can affect foundation design elements as well as influence soil conditions such as swell, collapse, and stability. All subsurface foundation elements should include foundation drains, and basement construction may not be feasible for lots near the valley floor. Expansive soils are present throughout the site, not just west of CR114 in the lake deposits. Thick clay was encountered in the boreholes throughout the site underlying the basaltic boulders and colluvium. These clay deposits may be related to the landslide deposits on the site, and swell testing shows that they have expansive properties when wetted. Expansive soils require special mitigation techniques and foundation design. Water infiltration will increase the risk of expansion. In summary, there are geologic conditions that may impact the proposed development. Preliminary plat approval should not be granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post -development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot -specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. These concerns should be addressed prior to preliminary plan approval. During the design phase of the project, lot -specific evaluations of subsurface conditions and stability should be addressed. Please note that the cluster home tracts for this site were NOT evaluated at this time due to the lack of information regarding those tracts. If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-866-3518. Sincerely TC Wait Engineering Geologist Cc: file LW, Q_c) ;gid _ ,� 8(1(c Z. -39 September 17, 2002 Legal: S32, T6S, R88W Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan Resubmittal CGS Review No. GA -03-0002b Dear Mr. Bean; Further information regarding the Lake Springs development was received by CGS on September 16, 2002 for further review. This information was sent to CGS in response to the review letter written 7/31/02. Contained in the resubmittal package was an updated geologic review by HP Geotech (9/9/02) and a revised phasing plan (9/13/02) by High Country Engineering reflecting fault locations and slopes greater than 30%. During the course of the review, CGS has discussed these documents with HP Geotech and High Country for clarification. The HP Geotech letter reflects updated site layout and addresses the CGS comments. The revised phasing plan has several lot/building envelop changes that the County should ensure translate through all of the planning documents. Generally, the revised layouts reflect the comments offered in the 7/31/02 review letter. Areas with slopes greater than 30% have, for the most part, been avoided. A 50 foot building envelope setback along the faults in the eastern portion of the site have been established. Plat notes, or another form of disclosure should be included to inform future property owners of the risk of evaporite deformation and fault locations. CGS expressed concern regarding slope stability in the feature mapped as Qls on the Carbondale Geologic Quadrangle (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). The HP Geotech letter states that this feature was not included in their original site work because "we were not able to find definitive field criteria for separating the `Spring Valley Landslide' from adjacent areas shown as collapse debris." CGS concurs with this statement and is in the process of revising portions of the Carbondale quadrangle. However, this does not address the potential for ground movements following development. HP Geotech does not consider the features to have "recent" movement, but development on the site may affect the underlying slopes. HP Geotech states that if homeowners are not willing to accept the risk of future deformations, that foundations systems can be heavily reinforced and that structures should not include basements. Introducing water into the soil may also contribute to deformation; fortunately this area will include sewer systems and not septic systems. Irrigation should be minimized, however, to prevent unnecessary water infiltration. CGS concurs with the recommendations made by HP Geotech and suggests that they be strictly adhered to. Details regarding the cluster housing tracts were not included and should be reviewed as specifics are known. CGS still has concerns regarding lots 11, 12 and 13 on Spring Valley Court — the potential for flooding and stream bank erosion should be fully investigated. High Country Engineering is aware of this concern and is currently investigating the flow effects in this channel. The concerns expressed by CGS in the 7/31/02 letter have been addressed. Recommendations made by HP Geotech should be followed. If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-866-3518. Sincerely, TC Wait Engineering Geologist Cc: file SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS September 16, 2002 Mark Bean 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 GLENWOOD SPRINGS 18 W. 6TH, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945- 1004 FX: 970-945-5948 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Review Comments Dear Mark: PEN P.O. BOX 2 1 55 ASPEN, CO 8161 2 970-925-6727 FX: 970-925-4157 CRESTED BUTTE P.O. BOX 3088 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81 224 970-349-5355 FX: 970-349-5358 860 j �D/1/G P� UNTY NNj This letter is written on behalf of the Spring Valley Sanitation District and is supplemental to its correspondence to you dated August 14, 2002. In that prior correspondence, the District indicated that, as the District's Engineer, I would be responding to you with specific technical review comments. Please note that I have also reviewed the comments provided by Mr. Michael Erion of Resource Engineering, Inc. dated August 7, 2002. Basis of Review This review is based on the submitted Preliminary Plan. In conformance with its rules and regulations, the District must approve construction plans and specifications prior to any actual construction of each phase of this development. Wastewater Treatment Facility The District has recently completed the construction of a 0.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility to service the properties within the District, including Lake Springs Ranch PUD. That plant will be started up on September 18, 2002, and has the physical capacity to serve the Lake Springs Ranch PUD as proposed by the submitted Preliminary Plan. Wastewater Collection System The wastewater collection system, as detailed on the High Country Engineering drawings entitled "Preliminary Plan Document" and dated 4/8/02, meets the general requirements and intent of the rules and regulations of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Additional comments are as follows: The system consists of a gravity collection line along County Road 114, with the majority of the remaining collection system being a small -diameter, low-pressure collection system. A low-pressure system is acceptable to the District, noting that there are several locations where gravity collection lines might be extended further than shown on the drawings. Such extensions will be considered by the District along with any other appropriate final design criteria for the low-pressure system at the time of final plat approval for each phase by the District. In addition, at the time of construction document submission, specific plans for the mitigation of potential odor problems on longer low-pressure sewer lines during the early stages of development will also be required. EXHIBIT Pg. 2 of 2 September 16, 2002 It is assumed the County will require the developer obtain the District's approval of construction drawings as a condition of Final Plat approval by the County. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information or clarification to the above. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean W. Gordon, P.E. Principal Cc: Lee Leavenworth Greg Boeker DWG:dIr/1503 ":RESOURCE •..i. ..... ..... ■■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G INC. Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD — Preliminary Plan Review Dear Mark: EXHIBIT � S August 7, 2002 RECEIVED AUG 0 9 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE), has reviewed the revised preliminary plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD. The preliminary Plan Application Submittal is dated May 8, 2002. We reviewed the technical issues related to water rights and water supply, wastewater, drainage, geology/soils, wetlands, and roads. We conducted a field review with the Applicant's engineers in the fall of 2001. Our comments are presented below. WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY 1. The project is proposed to be served by a central water system supplied by wells. The wells are decreed junior water rights that are augmented by a Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) water allotment contract. BWCD contract No. 292 has been amended to provide for 198 units and to include the use of Well E. The additional 16 units added to the project since last fall will be augmented by the decree in Case No. W-3571. 2. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system, including the nature of the legal entity which own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. 3. Although the hydraulic analysis indicates adequate flow and pressure throughout the system, the water system layout should consider making looped connections to minimize the interruption of service during repair and maintenance of the system. WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 1. Wastewater will be treated at the expanded Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility. The District has indicated that it can and will serve the project upon completion of construction and commencement of operations of the new District treatment plant and inclusion of the Berkeley property into the District boundaries. The new treatment facility has been constructed. Any approvals of this project should require inclusion into the District prior to any final plat approval. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. 2. An engineering report with analysis and calculations supporting the design of the wastewater collection system was not submitted. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 945-1137 39' Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 August 7, 2002 3. The proposed low pressure sewer system will result in long detention times for sewage prior to discharge into the gravity system and eventually reaching the wastewater treatment facility. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should provide comment on whether the proposed low pressure sewer collection system is acceptable to the District. DRAINAGE 1. The drainage plan is generally adequate. However, there is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for detention storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. GEOLOGY/SOILS 1. Due to the presence of expansive clays, evaporite related related ground defamations, flow stability issues, and faults, a plat note should be added that requires all lots to have an individual site specific geotechnical analysis. 2. A fault appears to cross through Tots 13 through 20 in the eastern area of the project. A site specific study should be conducted on these lots to determine if a fault is actually present and determine if the lots and/or building envelopes need to be adjusted/deleted. 3. The geotechnical engineering study for the project is five years old and should be updated for the proposed configuration of roads, lots and utilities. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope. This area should specifically be reviewed by HP Geotech in an updated study. 5. A significant channel runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2. This area should be reviewed for potential debris flow which may affect building envelopes on those lots. VEGETATION/WETLANDS 1 The Beach Environmental Report indicates that there will be no impact to any wetlands, jurisdictional or not, as a result of the Lake Springs Development proposal. Based on visual inspection, we believe wetlands and "waters of the U.S." exist in the agricultural open space meadow. The proposed improvements to Spring Valley Road would impact these areas and would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ROADS 1. Spring Valley Road has as estimated ADT of 680 and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12 foot lane width and a 4 foot minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11 foot paved lanes with gravel shoulders. Spring Valley Drive, High Alpine Circle, RESOURCE NGINEERING I N C Mr. Mark Bean August 7, 2002 Page 3 High Alpine Drive, Lake Springs Drive, Lake Springs Court, Van Cleave Lane, are all cul-de-sacs or dead end roads which exceed the maximum length of 600 feet. Although this road configuration is generally consistent with the approved PUD layout, provisions for appropriate fire protection and emergency egress and access for the proposed design should be provided. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The drainage detail on sheet 40 has been shifted onto the adjacent detail and should be cleaned up. 2 Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, RESOURC,ENG E - ING, INC. Michael J. Er n, P.E. Water Res'urce Engineer MJE/mmm 885-6.0 mb lake springs pud 885 RESOURCE ENCINFERINS INC .....'RESOURCE ••••• ■■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building Planning Dept. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 September 18, 2002 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan - Supplemental Review RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2002 Dear Mark: GARFIELD COUNTY F3UILDING & PLANNING At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE), has reviewed the supplemental information submitted for the preliminary plan application for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. The supplemental information includes Sewage Disposal Report for Lake Springs PUD prepared by High Country Engineering dated September 3, 2002, water system calculations dated March 25, 2002 and August 28, 2002, letter from Beach Environmental dated September 12, 2002 regarding wetlands, letter report from HP Geotech dated September 9, 2002, and a map labeled Sheet 2 entitled Lake Springs PUD Phasing Plan Updated 9/13/02 for Slopes and Faults prepared by High Country Engineering. The supplemental submittal addresses the issues identified in our August 7, 2002 review letter, except as noted below. WATER RIGHTS / WATER SUPPLY 2. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system including the nature and legal entity which will own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. New comment. Based on our telephone conversation with the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, the Central Water System must be approved by the State pursuant to the New Water System Capacity Planning Manual as authorized by State Statutes, prior to any preliminary plan approval. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 1. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. 3. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should review and approve the construction drawings for the Wastewater Collection System prior to final plat approval. The District must also indicate that the newly constructed 0.5 mgd Wastewater Treatment Facility is operational prior to any final plat approval. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-6777 • Fax (970) 945-1137 Mark Bean Page 2 DRAINAGE September 18, 2002 1. The drainage plan is generally adequate. However, there is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for the tension storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. GEOLOGY / SOILS 4. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope which exceeds the recommended parameters in the HP Geotech reports. Grading plans are available for this road and the issue should be specifically review by HP Geotech consistent with their recommendation in the September 9, 2002 report. 5. The drainage channel which runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2 has been reviewed by HP Geotech. HP Geothch concurs that high sediment concentration storm water flows should be considered in the hydrologic and hydraulic design and that the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect Lots 11, 12 and 13 should be analyzed. New comment. The building envelopes for Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2, Lots 3, 10, and 18 of Block 8, and Lot 12 of Block 7, also include areas steeper than 30%, which is not recommended for development by HP Geotheh. VEGETATION / WETLANDS 1. An appropriate Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be obtained prior to approval of any final plat which includes construction of Spring Valley Road improvements which cross the wetlands and "waters of the U.S." that exist in the agricultural open space meadow. ROADS 1. Spring Valley Road has an estimated ADT of 680 from the proposed Lake Springs PUD and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12' lane width and a 4' minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross-section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11' paved lanes with gravel shoulders. RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C Mark Bean Page 3 September 18, 2002 Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE-ENGIINEER jNf„INC. Michael J. rion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer /A MJE/dIh 885-6.0 mb Ik sp prel plan supp review.885.wpd RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C. NOV-05-02 14:05 FROM:HOLLAND&HART DENVER• ASPEN BOULDER • COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER TECH CENTER BILLINGS • BOISE CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE SALT LAKE CITY • SANTA FE WASHINGTON, O.C. ID: 9709259367 HOLLAND & HART LLL' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 104 ASPEN, COLORADO 81 01 1-1 991 November 5, 2002 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office Garfiled County Courthouse 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: EXHIBIT ar TELEPHONE (970) 920-1476 FACSIMILE (970) 925-9867 Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr. (300) 840.9360 Fax aferguson(Qhollandhart.com RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Application This letter is being submitted on behalf of Spring Valley Development Corporation in connection with its review of the referenced application. This letter should be included in the staff report that is submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for the November 12 hearing as the comment from Spring Valley Development Corporation. I have enclosed for your review and consideration a copy of a letter that was prepared by David E. Hattan, P.E. of the engineering firm of Felsburg Holt & Ullevig regarding the traffic that will be generated by the Lake Springs Ranch PUD that will use the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 114. Mr. Hattan's letter also recites the permitting requirements of the State Highway Access Code. We found it curious that your staff did not include a condition on its recommendation for approval of the subject application that requires coordination with the County for the filing for such a permit. The County imposed the following condition on Spring Valley Development Corporation's PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan approval: 26. The applicant shall make application to Colorado Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 12(b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat documents, specifically the subdivision improvements NOV-05-02 14=05 FROM=HOLLAND8MART Mark Bean November 5, 2002 Page 2 ID=9709259367 HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. As you are aware, the costs associated with any such improvements are to be borne by all parties that affect the intersection, including the County. Accordingly, there is no reason for not imposing the same condition on any approval that is granted for the Preliminary Plan of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. In the event you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me or Todd Grotstein directly. Thank you for your consideration_ ABF cc: John Schenk, Esq. Todd Grotstein 3007937_1_0OC Sincely, PAGE 3/4 5 �N`11ur E. erg , Jr. of Hollan & art LLP NOV-05-02 14:05 FROM : HOLLAND&HART FELSBURG (‘HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation spludons November 4, 2002 Mr_ Todd Gmtstein Spring Vall..4 ati.w;:'...prrient, loc.. 411 Fast Hyman Avenue, Suite 101 Aspen, CO 81611 ID: 9709259367 PAGE 4/4 RE: Spring Valley Ranch P.U.O. - Comments on Lake Springs Ranch PUD FHU Project #t00-014 As you requested, we have examined the analysis of traffic for take Springs Ranch PUD (LSR) that was included in its Preliminary Plan Application to Garfield County. This analysis consists of a calculation of traffic that would be generated by the development, assuming ten daily trips per residence. While the traffic volume calculations noted in the LSR analysis are acceptable, 1 believe that this analysis does not adequately address an important issue with regard to the traffic that will be generated by this development. We expect that most of the 2,100 vehicles per day generated by this development wilt be added to CR 114 and will ultimately use the intersection with SH 82 to access the regional highway network. Based on our previous analyse. this traffic will more than double the volume on CR 114 at that intersection. GDOTs State Highway Access Code stipulates that an access permit is required if the traffic accessing a state highway is increased by more than 20%. Based on this volume forecast. Garfield County should require LSR to coordinate with CDOT to obtain an Access Permit. In addition. any additional analyses should include considerations of growth in background traffic from other developments along CR 114_ Please call if you have any questions or need additional information_ Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG David E. Hattan. P.E. Associate 303.72 ].1440 fax 303.721.0632 thadiucrte com Gtccnwrciod Carpark Plaza 7951 E. Mevkwood hvc. S. Z00 Gr=nwood VElingc. CO 80111 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Spring Valley Development, Inc., whose address is 415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, hereinafter "Spring Valley", and The Berkeley Family Limited Partnership, whose address is c/o Michael Berkeley, 3961 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601, hereinafter "Berkeley". In connection with the proposed development plan for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD, the parties agree as follows: 1. Background Information. On November 12, 2002, Berkeley will appear before the Garfield County Commissioners for approval of the preliminary plan for subdivision of Lake Springs Ranch PUD. The Lake Springs Ranch PUD zoning was originally approved as a planned unit development on June 18, 1979, which approval is memorialized in Resolution No. 79-64 and is recorded as Reception No. 285037 on June 17, 1979, in Book 530 at Page 93 of the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. It is understood and acknowledged that due to constraints of the statutes, rules and regulations governing the subdivision process, Berkeley must retain the essential design characteristics of the PUD as approved in said Resolution No. 79-64. Spring Valley is concerned with certain aspects of the preliminary plan as submitted, which concerns are set forth and addressed herein. Berkeley and Spring Valley have agreed to resolve such concerns by entering into this Agreement that shall, as between these parties, govern future development of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. IA ctt 2. Roadways. The current preliminary plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD proposes fourteen separate accesses onto Garfield County Road 114, hereinafter "CR114". Notwithstanding any governmental approvals which may be obtained for the currently proposed design of the roadway accesses for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD from CR114 and the present design of improvements to CR114 through the Lake Springs Ranch PUD, Berkeley agrees to the following criteria: a. Grade of Garfield County Road 114 at Intersections: At intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development roads, the vertical alignment of Garfield County Road 114 shall have grades no greater than 5% for a minimum distance of 25 -feet as measured from the centerline of the intersecting road. b. Grade of Intersecting Road at Intersections: At intersections with Garfield County Road 114, all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall have grades no greater than 4% for a minimum distance of 120 -feet as measured from the centerline of Garfield County Road 114. c. Angle of Intersections: Intersections shall be designed as nearly to right angles as possible, with no intersecting angles of less than 85 degrees. The centerline of intersecting roads shall be designed with a tangent at the intersection with a minimum tangent length of 60 -feet as measured from the centerline of Garfield County Road 114 to the first Point of Curvature (P.C.) on the intersecting road. d. Proximity of Adjacent Intersections: Where two Lake Springs Ranch development roads intersect Garfield County Road 114, the intersecting centerlines shall be directly aligned, or shall be separated not less than 200 -feet as measured between intersecting centerlines. In the event that one or both of the intersecting streets requires that County Road 114 be provided with auxiliary lanes (acceleration and/or deceleration lanes) as provided for herein, then the intersecting street centerlines shall be offset sufficient distances so that the minimum length of the auxiliary lanes, as required for herein, are provided and do not overlap. e. Requirement for Auxiliary Lanes: Intersections of all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall be provided with auxiliary lanes (left turn deceleration lanes, right turn deceleration lanes, right turn acceleration lanes, and left turn acceleration lanes) applying criteria set forth in Section 3.9 of the Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998. f. Design Criteria for Auxiliary Lanes: The design of all required auxiliary lanes shall be in accordance with then applicable Garfield County specifications, as applicable, and Section 4 - Design Standards and Specifications of the Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998. g. Intersection Sight Distance: At intersections of Lake Springs Ranch development roads and Garfield County Road 114, clear zones shall be designed and maintained to provide sight distance for the vehicle on the intersecting road (stop or yield) to observe a moving vehicle on Garfield County Road 114. The clear zone shall be maintained free of all vegetation and objects taller than 24 -inches except for traffic signs. The sight distance shall be measured from a point on the intersecting road (stop or yield) which is 10 - feet from the edge of pavement on Garfield County Road 114. The minimum intersection site distance for intersections with Garfield County Road 114 based on a 35 MPH design speed shall be 350 -feet. h. Access Points: Direct accesses onto Garfield County Road 114 by individual lots shall be prohibited. No individual lot shall access a Lake Springs Ranch development road within a distance of 100 -feet from an intersection with Garfield County Road 114, as measured from the nearest edge of pavement of Garfield County Road 114. i. Utilities and Street Construction: Street and road construction shall not proceed beyond subgrade preparation until all utilities which are intended to be placed under any part of the street or road are complete, including all service lines, and all utility trenches are backfilled and compacted in accordance with the street or road construction specifications as provided by a registered geotechnical engineer. j. Other Design Criteria: Except as modified above, CR 114 shall be subject to the following design parameters: Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria Design Capacity (Vehicles Per Day) 2500+ Minimum Right of Way Width 80 -feet 2 Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria Type of Surface for Driving Lanes and Shoulders Asphalt Pavement Design and Subgrade Stabilization Prepared By Registered Geotechnical Engineer Based On Site Specific Soil Analysis And Anticipated Traffic Volume For 20 -Year Design Life Minimum Driving Lane Width 12 -feet Minimum Shoulder Width 6 -feet Ditch Width and Storm Drainage Culverts Designed by Professional Engineer to Provide Minimum Hydraulic Capacity to Convey Peak Flow From 100 -year Storm Event Cross Slope 2% to 8% Based on Superelevation Design of Roadway by Professional Engineer Shoulder Slope Identical to Cross Slope 35 MPH Minimum Design Speed [Miles Per Hour] Minimum Centerline Radius [Feet] Varies with Superelevation Rate of Superelevation: 2% Crown Section 610 -feet 2% 470 -feet 4% 420 -feet 6% 380 -feet 8% 350 -feet Minimum Percentage of Runout on Tangent 80 % Minimum Runout Length [Feet] Varies with Change in Rate of Superelevation Change in Rate of Superelevation: 4% 84 -feet 6% 126 -feet 8% 168 -feet 10% 210 -feet 12% 252 -feet 14% 294 -feet 16% 336 -feet Maximum Centerline Grade 10% Minimum Centerline Grade 1% K -Value for Crest Vertical Curve 40 minimum K -Value for Sag Vertical Curve 50 minimum tilt the time final construction plans are prepared for CR114, they will discuss and seek to implement the installation of berms and landscaping along CR114 for the aesthetic and mutual benefit to each of their properties. 3 Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude Berkeley from reconstructing CR114 in segments so longas each segment includes improvements necessary to serve the phase of La eSprings Ranch tan developed. Nothing r his Agreement is intended to shift or modify any obligat of Spring Valley imposed or assumed i respect to the development of its adjacent proper‘, or reconstruction of CR114. Except as expressly Prov d herein, Berkeley's obligati ns for off site road improvements shall be governed by applicable Gar ' - ld County regulator s% Spring Valley is required to improv CR11 s set forth in its Conditions for Preliminary Plan Approval. To the extent the cost of con: cting CR114 in compliance with the criteria specified in Paragraphs a through j of t i s -Section exceeds Spring Valley's obligations under Spring Valley's Preliminary Plan Appr6val, such costs sha/ be borne solely by Berkeley. At the commencement of improvemen s-o(CR114 the parties shall co as to the respective costs to be borne by each party for s i h improvements and shall provide fundi or each party's respective obligations at the tires such funding is required. The parties acknowledgthat it is presently unclear as to which party shall be the first to initiate the improvements to CR.04. The party making,suusequent modifications to the improved roadway shall bear the cost of repairs So restore CReg4 to its condition prior to such subsequent modifications. 3. Well Monitoring. Lake Springs shall participate with Spring Valley and other land owners in the Spring Valley area in a ground water monitoring program to monitor water levels in the Spring Valley Aquifer, as described in the Memorandum dated December 6, 2000, authored by Anne Castle and Chris Thorne of Holland & Hart attached as Exhibit A. The data collected pursuant to the monitoring program shall be provided to and maintained by the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the "Basalt District"). If and when the monitoring program, or other reliable data and information, provide evidence of a long term trend that indicates an inability of the Spring Valley Aquifer to satisfy expected demand associated with decreed water rights owned by Lake Springs, Spring Valley, and the other parties participating in the monitoring program, Lake Springs, Spring Valley and the other parties have agreed to cooperate with the Basalt District to identify and implement necessary and appropriate corrective measures which may include: (a) implementation of water conservation measures and/or (b) evaluation of the opportunities for provision of a substitute water supply from a supplemental source. 4. Fire Protection. Under the current approvals for Spring Valley's property, Spring Valley will be developing a fire station within its project that is planned to be proximate to the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and which, for all practical purposes upon construction, will be the first responding fire protection station to any fire within the Lake Springs Ranch PUD which is currently in the Carbondale Fire Protection District. Accordingly, if a fire station is so constructed within the Landis Creek Metropolitan District, Berkeley agrees to use reasonable efforts to include Lake Springs Ranch PUD within the Landis Creek Metropolitan District fire protection umbrella so long as the ultimate cost of fire protection services are no greater than would be imposed by the Carbondale Fire Protection District or, in the alternative, to assist in reasonable efforts to have funds paid by Lake Springs Ranch PUD property owners for fire protection services directed to the Landis Creek Metropolitan District. In addition, Berkeley 4 agrees to work with Spring Valley to coordinate discussions between the Landis Creek Metropolitan District and the Carbondale Fire Protection District to provide for appropriate reimbursement of costs to Landis Creek Metropolitan District for any emergency responses it may make to properties located within the Carbondale Fire Protection District. 5. Future Amendments of PUD or Preliminary Plan. Prior to the submission of an application to amend the PUD and preliminary plan, Berkeley and Spring Valley shall confer together using their respective best efforts to improve the horizontal and vertical alignment of CR114 as it traverses the Lake Springs Ranch PUD, and the design of the intersections of all Lake Springs Ranch road accesses from CR114 consistent with Garfield County regulations and the criteria set forth above. 6. This Agreement will be submitted by Spring Valley at the November 12, 2002, hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to be included as a condition of the approval of the subject preliminary plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD. 7. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties to it and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 8. This Agreement is made under, and is to be construed and enforced, in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding on the dates written below. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 5 Spring Valley Development, Inc. Date: By: The Berkeley Family Limited Partnership Date: By: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ) ss The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by as of Spring Valley Development, Inc. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ) ss Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by as of Berkeley Family Limited Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 3010751_1.DOC Notary Public 6 • 1407/2000 11:15 FAX 303 295 8261 HOLLAND & HART LLP VIA FACSIMILE TO: HOLLAND & HART LLP Z002 MEMORANDUM December 6, 2000 Lori Satterfield / Scott Balcomb, Basalt Water Conservancy District Lee Leavenworth / Greg Hall, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership John Schenk, Berkeley Family Limited Partnership Kevin Patrick / Ramsey Kropf, Colorado Mountain College FROM: Anne Castle Chris Thorne Spring Valley Aquifer - Groundwater Monitoring Plan This memorandum follows up on our meeting in Glenwood Springs on November 15, 2000, concerning the proposal of Spring Valley Development, Inc. ("SVD") for joint implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan by the major land owners that use or plan to use groundwater withdrawn from the Spring Valley Aquifer to supply development on their respective properties. The primary purpose of the proposed plan is to monitor aquifer levels and productivity as this resource becomes more widely utilized in upcoming years. SVD was pleased to learn that each of the landowners identified above is interested in participating in the plan, as this will increase the utility and quality of the data to be developed. At the November 15 meeting, we agreed that within an appropriate period of time, each landowner will identify the well or wells to be including in the monitoring program. We further agreed that the Basalt Water Conservancy District would be the best entity to serve as a central repository for the data to be collected, and the Basalt District has agreed to fill this role. As January 2001 would be an opportune time to commence joint data collection, we suggest that each landowner identify to the Basalt District the well or wells to be included in the program by December 31, 2000. Each participant should receive a copy of the designation of wells to be monitored. Bill Lorah's November 14, 2000, letter identifies three SVD wells to be included in the program. SVD has been monitoring these wells for several months. SVD will also designate an additional "upland well" for monitoring as suggested at the November 15 meeting. We agreed that static water levels and total monthly diversions for each well should be recorded and reported to the Basalt District's engineers on a monthly basis. The Basalt )District will compile the reported data and report it to the participants in spreadsheet format. The data reported to the Basalt District will be 1t'407/2000 11:16 FAX 303 295 8261 HOLLAND & HART LLP Z003 publicly available. It is anticipated that the Basalt District may utilize the reported data in discussions with the Colorado Division of Water Resources concerning the Basalt District's augmentation program and temporary substitute supply plans. Once again, SVD appreciates your interest in this plan, which we hope will prove to be a useful tool for all of the Spring Valley water users. Please let us know if you have any suggestions or concerns regarding the procedures for implementing the monitoring plan as described above. If we do not hear from you by December 18, 2000, we will assume these procedures are acceptable. In the meantime, do not hesitate to contact either of us with any questions or comments you may have concerning this memorandum or the proposed groundwater management plan. cc: Bill Peacher Cam Kicklighter Bill Lorah 2740083_1,DOC 2 Exhibits for Lake Springs Ranch PUD Public Hearing held on September 25, 2002 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended F Project Information and Staff Comments G Lake Springs Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Application" H Lake Springs Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Supplementary Information" I Letter from Shannon Pelland, RE -1 School District, dated August 1, 2002 J Memo from Ron Biggers, Glenwood Springs Fire Department, dated June 25, 2002 K Letter from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated June 25, 2002 L Memo from Kelly Wood, Division of Wildlife, dated August 2,2002 M Email from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department dated August 8, 2002 N Referral Comments from Jim Sears of the Garfield County Sheriff Department dated August 5, 2002 Letters from TC Wait, Colorado Geological Survey, dated July 31, 2002 and September 17, 2002 P Letter form Dean Gordon, SGM, Spring Valley Sanitation Disitrict. dated September 16, 2002 Q Letters from Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, dated August 7, 2002 and September 18, 2002. R Letter from Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, dated September 20, 2002. S T U V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG - is- e -e, -4t-74/(0( z -t/ /2-7,ezi zi44 " .iletrY1 /444 `7LAA/t& LAt 50 /0 iptie,A-j Qx,e - /2j/ex- • 62„14_ 4/ _ (25z/0"e/a ,17 /�� .tea �e��� o7,Sek�_ eip/c . , --)?.4.(,e' ia-)1 k - c)tr' - /VW -"' e'Lt-'11 c -AJ --qt( -el ,A`IL_74-1-,---/ -e74, ;1`y1_ i€iLr!. .44#-iiv i -efelot-r-- - e4 // 4 �lJ�-GCGi 6% 1P6( I2L/6J/Q: � � CsJd-'C��� rt�"�"11 //- / g‘2. _I-. (c-eirT ao--eee- , , itz- _ . 1 - /1)0 / a9 et e e _ - _ / '14 7/ jai-I/I/It/I' ./lc -4- .112X'-1/ '4 ,A/e A- c -e -e---- , 4`L-(-1-/yt-�y .(/ A -X2.- V,c-4640/ .G," -Gf� JL, ) - aVS' ' - ,7 ..-,-, .--72e, 2-p-e,c.„ ,--&,-lii/Aa/-6,-2--. A41-'(,(-,/ _ ee-e ,01 /2_ //1 ,i / /y ,It__ -/L ,--e-ei-<A1-1e-t4 ' 1�,C2al-t,,w_ L,t-f-4-e,-2"-ri-Ir A;IrLrrw 12,a-rc I€ 1 _, w/e-LW ..-1/rTh ta/t-al �aR /irk/ OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGI Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 STATE OF COLORADO July 25, 2002 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 200 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Sections 32, 33 & 34, T6S, R88W & Sec. 4, T7S, R88W, 6th P.M. W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Bean: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 441.62 acres into 198 residential lots and 151 acres of common open space. 194 lots will be limited to one single-family dwelling, with one four -family dwelling unit on each of the remaining 4 lots, for a total of 210 single-family dwellings. Water for the dwellings and 2500 square feet of lawn and garden per residence (12.05 acres total) is to be provided through a central system supplied by the wells with permit nos. 55366-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well C), 56292-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well D) and 56293-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well E). The first permit was issued per consolidated court case nos. W-3751, W-3752, W-3753, W-3754, W-3997, and case nos. 91 CW005, 95CW078 and 95CW079A. The last two permits were issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). Zancanella and Associates, Inc. estimate well water use at 121.06 acre-feet of diversions and 28.18 acre-feet of consumptive use for 222 EQR's. Central sewage treatment will be provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The well with permit no. 55366-F is permitted to provide water for a development not exceeding 220 single family residential equivalent units with 7.6 acres of lawn and other irrigated area, and the irrigation of a 100 acre portion of a 450 acre tract. Note that fire protection is included as a decreed use for this well. The wells with permit numbers 56292-F and 56293-F are permitted to provide a water supply for 196 residential units and 2 commercial units and 11.36 acres of landscape irrigation. Since the uses per the court case and the District contract are cumulative, the permitted uses of these wells are adequate for the proposed uses. Note that we have not received a Well Construction and Test Report for permit no. 56293- F, a Pump Installation and Test Report for permit nos. 56292-F and 56293-F, or a Statement of Beneficial Use for either of these wells. If these documents are not received prior to August 16, 2002, the subject well permits will expire and be of no effect. The report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc. indicates that Lake Springs Ranch Well D (permit no. 56292-F) was completed under MH -25625. A well test conducted August 2 and 3, 2000 by the Samuelson Pump Company indicates that the well produced 90 gallons per minute over a twenty-five hour period, and that the well recovered to its initial static water level within a few minutes after pumping ceased. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use. Garfield County Building and Planning July 25, 2002 Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Our records also indicate the well with Permit No. 160677 was issued for and constructed on the existing parcel. Note that CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt well must be included in either the District's substitute supply plan or an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned, since the provisions of CRS 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of this well permit will no longer apply. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated in the preceding paragraph. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, ,/,_,..._ 1,1/4.J ;4 Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/Lake Springs Ranch ii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 Rug 05 02 08:01a Kell j Wood TO: Mark Bean FROM: Kelly Wood, DWM 970-963-G523 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Department of Natural Resources DATE: 08/02/02 SUBS: Wildlife CommentLake S rin?s anch_Pi7IJ The following wildlife mitigation measures are ones the Colorado Division of Wildlife most commonly recommends The easiest method to alleviate wildlife impacts is to locate all development out of native vegetation, as most native vegetation at lower elevations is usually critical wildlife habitat for one species or another_ There are other methods that include, tightly clustering the units to preserve as much open/natural space as possible, reduction in densities, conservation easements, etc. . 1) DOGS - Each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot will be peg ►allied to have up to one dog 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). (In areas known to be frequented by mountain lions, it is strongly recommended that tops be included on dog runs andlor kennels to avoid potential predation). If facilities are inadequate to contain the dog(s), the animals) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision/PUD until adequate structures can be bufit_ At no time are dogs to be allowed to run freely. Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on a leash under the direct control of its owner or a responsible party. It is the owner's responsibility to ensure compliance. Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the appropriate governmental entity (Garfield County or the proper municipality), and must wear the numbered identification tags provided. Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from bringing dogs onto the property. Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from bringing dogs to the subdivision/PUD site. Workers who violate this provision shall be barred from the subdivision/PUD for 10 working days for the first offense and permanently for any future offense. These dog provisions also apply to multi -family units if located within the subdivision/PUD boundaries. 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. Rug 05 02 08:01a Kelly Wood 970-963-6523 p.3 2) CATS - Cats should be kept indoors or in kennels. Even well fed domestic cats are efficient predators and can contribute significantly to the mortality of small mammals and avian wildlife populations including nesting waterfowl. 3) 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 1/2 of at least 16 inches to allow passage of deer fawns and elk calves, Other fence materials such as wood slats, electric, synthetic, etc. may be used but must be wildlife friendly and not exceed 42 inches in height. CDOW is available to determine compatibility with wildlife, The application suggested a minimum 8 foot high fence. This is discouraged because of the impediment to 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. 4) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL- ➢ There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage, no matter how briefly, at any residence or anywhere within the property, with the exception of bear -proof trash containers. Refuse should not be kept within detached garages or sheds because bears may break into these structures. The use of bear -proof trash containers is the safest and best technique to avoid bear problems. • Residents will be prohibited from using compost piles unless such piles are contained in an approved bear proof receptacle. > Only those receptacles certified by the North American Bear Society, National Park Service or the CDOW shall be considered to be "bear proof". > There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of refuse within the development. n Pets shall not be fed outside. 5) 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. 6) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage. 7) 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 2 Rug 05 02 08:01a Kelly Wood 970-963-6523 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. 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.). Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 947-2931. KellyWtod District ddlife Manager p.4 MEMORANDUM To: Mark Bean From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Lake Springs PUD Date: August 8, 2002 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on Lake Springs. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds A. Inventory and mapping -The applicant has mapped and inventoried the property. B. Weed Management -The applicant has provided a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. C. Common area weed management -The applicant states that the Lake Springs Ranch Association will implement weed management on Common Elements within the property. D. Covenants -Weed management for the Association and each individual lot owner is addressed in the covenants. 2. Revegetation The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. The applicant has provided the plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat, that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation. It is staffs recommendation that we request a revegetation bond for all disturbances created by new road cuts and utility line placement and construction. Please quantify in terms of acres the amount of land to be disturbed. The applicant may include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment. The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if the project has: A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds. A potential to impact watershed areas. A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors. Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas. Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater) The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 3. Soil Plan The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Please feel free to contact me at 625-3969. THOMAS P. DALESSANDRI Garfield County Sheriff August 5, 2001 To: Building and Planning From: Jim Sears, Undersheriff P.O. Box 249, 107 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81602 Telephone: (970)945-0453 Fax: (970)945-6430 RECEIVED _Nto GARFiti-D COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan The Sheriff's Office has reviewed the attached Preliminary Plan for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and would like to address the following concerns: 1) Ensure that all roads and cul-de-sacs are adequately sized for use by all types of emergency response equipment. 2) All roads and roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road numbers and names. 3) All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County road or access roads. 4) Ensure that the developers follow the recommendations of the local fire district and State Forester as they pertain to wildfire mitigation and control. 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 July 31, 2002 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2002 Legal: S32, T6S, R88W GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan CGS Review No. GA -03-0002 Dear Mr. Bean; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on July 30, 2002. The site was originally reviewed by the CGS in November 2001. Lot layout changes in the southern portions of Phase 1 and 2 have occurred since that time. No additional geologic work has occurred since the initial review. Comments made in the initial CGS review were not addressed. The site consists of approximately 441.62 acres and is being platted to include 194 single-family and 16 multi -family residential lots averaging about 1 acre in size. Lots will be serviced with water from a central well distribution system and sewer through Spring Valley Sanitation. Included in the review package were: Preliminary Plan Application (5/8/02) by High Country Engineering Drainage Report (4/2/02) by High Country Engineering Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study (8/29/97) by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Preliminary Plan Documents (4/8/02) by High Country Engineering Building envelopes were designated on the site plan. There were several inconsistencies with lot numbering between the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and the Preliminary Plat that should be corrected to avoid confusion. No details were available regarding the four cluster housing tracts shown on the plat. These tracts will need to be reviewed at a later time when specific details as to locations, building types, and densities are known. This review will only cover the proposed 194 single-family lots on the site. The site is located within Spring Valley and the adjacent slopes. Topography consists of gentle to steep slopes and minor drainage swales that were dry at the time of the site visit. The proposed development will primarily occur on the east side of the valley, with a small area of development on the western side. No development is proposed within the center of the valley. The geology of the site is quite complex, including regional evaporite collapse, highly plastic lake sediments, landslide deposits, and hard basalt bedrock that is near surface in the eastern portions of the site. Two normal faults are located in the eastern portion of the site, which may affect some of the eastern lots. The HP Geotech report is somewhat dated and does not reflect accurate lot layouts. Published geologic maps of the area do not appear to have been incorporated in the report; specifically, the geologic map of the Carbondale Quadrangle (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997) which shows a large portion of the site as being landslide deposits, was referenced, but not discussed in the report. These landslide deposits should be evaluated for slope stability before development occurs on them, potentially reactivating portions of the slide. Recommendations made in the HP-Geotech report regarding earthquakes, excavation, and design recommendations should be followed. After a literature review and site visit, CGS has the following comments: • Slope Stability The majority of the site lies within an area described as being landslide deposits on the Carbondale Quadrangle geologic map (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). Steep, uneven terrain exists throughout the property. Subsurface borings by HP Geotech show clay deposits at depth throughout the site, although not discussed in the geotechnical report. Geomorphically, the area does appear to contain old landslide deposits, which may be reactivated during development and road cuts. Further geotechnical study should be conducted at this site, as suggested in the previous CGS review letter. Evidence for slope stability (such as a stability analysis) and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures should be included in the preliminary plan documents for areas around Lake Springs Drive and within the Qls mapped unit. Water can greatly affect slope stability and irrigation should be eliminated or minimized on the site. Lot -specific stability analysis should be conducted during the design phase of the project for lots with grades greater than 20%. Several areas of the site, specifically along Lake Springs Drive, are exceedingly steep. HP- Geotech does not recommend building on slopes greater than 30%. The County should identify the locations of slopes greater than 30% prior to preliminary plan approval and restrict development in these areas. Construction on grades greater than 30% will require specific foundation designs and potentially costly mitigation. Road construction may require significant cuts and fill sections to accommodate appropriate road grades. The County engineer should approve grading plans for roads and lot access. Erosion control measures should be established and implemented to prevent off-site sediment transport or accelerated erosion. Prompt reseeding should occur to prevent slope ravel from occurring. • Fault Traces Mapped fault traces run through the eastern portion of Phase 2. Lots 13 through 20 should be evaluated for potential movement associated with the fault. HP-Geotech does not recommend placement of structures on the faults. Faults are often zones of shearing which can be quite wide. Locating a building envelope around such a zone may not be possible. The fault locations should be evaluated prior to preliminary plan approval. • Surface Drainage Several dry swales were observed during the site visit. One swale in particular may preclude the development of lot 13 in the northern portion of Phase 4 off Spring Valley Court. This lot consists of a sharp ridge with steep slopes and a steep -sided ravine extending from east of lot 12. The ravine is likely to run during heavy precipitation and during seasonally wet times. There is significant area upgradient such that debris flows and flash flooding may impact the lot. The building envelope for lot 13 is in the drainage. The steep slopes and narrow ridge may not be suited for development, leaving this lot unbuildable. A detailed investigation of this lot should be conducted prior to preliminary plan approval and the lot should be removed if development can not safely occur. Generally, construction should not be permitted within drainage swales. • Subsurface Conditions Shallow groundwater and swelling soils are all geologic characteristics found on this site. Detailed study regarding these subsurface conditions should be done on a lot -specific basis during the design phase of the project. Shallow groundwater can be expected for lots located along the sides of the valley. This includes Phase 4 and 5 lots. Additionally, induced shallow groundwater following development of the other lots on the site may occur as a result of irrigation. Shallow groundwater can affect foundation design elements as well as influence soil conditions such as swell, collapse, and stability. All subsurface foundation elements should include foundation drains, and basement construction may not be feasible for lots near the valley floor. Expansive soils are present throughout the site, not just west of CR114 in the lake deposits. Thick clay was encountered in the boreholes throughout the site underlying the basaltic boulders and colluvium. These clay deposits may be related to the landslide deposits on the site, and swell testing shows that they have expansive properties when wetted. Expansive soils require special mitigation techniques and foundation design. Water infiltration will increase the risk of expansion. In summary, there are geologic conditions that may impact the proposed development. Preliminary plat approval should not be granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post -development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot -specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. These concerns should be addressed prior to preliminary plan approval. During the design phase of the project, lot -specific evaluations of subsurface conditions and stability should be addressed. Please note that the cluster home tracts for this site were NOT evaluated at this time due to the lack of information regarding those tracts. If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-866-3518. TC Wait Engineering Geologist Cc: file Ema.,lQd each -Cernju_ ��,,,,, Bit (o Z_ September 17, 2002 Legal: S32, T6S, R88W Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan Resubmittal CGS Review No. GA -03-0002b Dear Mr. Bean; Further information regarding the Lake Springs development was received by CGS on September 16, 2002 for further review. This information was sent to CGS in response to the review letter written 7/31/02. Contained in the resubmittal package was an updated geologic review by HP Geotech (9/9/02) and a revised phasing plan (9/13/02) by High Country Engineering reflecting fault locations and slopes greater than 30%. During the course of the review, CGS has discussed these documents with HP Geotech and High Country for clarification. The HP Geotech letter reflects updated site layout and addresses the CGS comments. The revised phasing plan has several lot/building envelop changes that the County should ensure translate through all of the planning documents. Generally, the revised layouts reflect the comments offered in the 7/31/02 review letter. Areas with slopes greater than 30% have, for the most part, been avoided. A 50 foot building envelope setback along the faults in the eastern portion of the site have been established. Plat notes, or another form of disclosure should be included to inform future property owners of the risk of evaporite deformation and fault Locations. CGS expressed concern regarding slope stability in the feature mapped as Qls on the Carbondale Geologic Quadrangle (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). The HP Geotech letter states that this feature was not included in their original site work because "we were not able to find definitive field criteria for separating the `Spring Valley Landslide' from adjacent areas shown as collapse debris." CGS concurs with this statement and is in the process of revising portions of the Carbondale quadrangle. However, this does not address the potential for ground movements following development. HP Geotech does not consider the features to have "recent" movement, but development on the site may affect the underlying slopes. HP Geotech states that if homeowners are not willing to accept the risk of future deformations, that foundations systems can be heavily reinforced and that structures should not include basements. Introducing water into the soil may also contribute to deformation; fortunately this area will include sewer systems and not septic systems. Irrigation should be minimized, however, to prevent unnecessary water infiltration. 32- CGS concurs with the recommendations made by HP Geotech and suggests that they be strictly adhered to. Details regarding the cluster housing tracts were not included and should be reviewed as specifics are known. CGS still has concerns regarding lots 11, 12 and 13 on Spring Valley Court — the potential for flooding and stream bank erosion should be fully investigated. High Country Engineering is aware of this concern and is currently investigating the flow effects in this channel. The concerns expressed by CGS in the 7/31/02 letter have been addressed. Recommendations made by HP Geotech should be followed. If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-866-3518. Sincerely, TC Wait Engineering Geologist Cc: file SCI-IMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS September 16, 2002 Mark Bean 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 GLENWOOD SPRINGS ASPEN CRESTED BUTTE I I8 W. 6TH, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 2I 55 P.O. BOX 3088 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 ASPEN, CO 81612 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81 224 970-945-1004 970-925-6727 970-349-5355 FX: 970-945-5948 FX: 970-925-4157 FX: 970-349-5358 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Review Comments Dear Mark: This letter is written on behalf of the Spring Valley Sanitation District and is supplemental to its correspondence to you dated August 14, 2002. In that prior correspondence, the District indicated that, as the District's Engineer, I would be responding to you with specific technical review comments. Please note that I have also reviewed the comments provided by Mr. Michael Erion of Resource Engineering, Inc. dated August 7, 2002. Basis of Review This review is based on the submitted Preliminary Plan. In conformance with its rules and regulations, the District must approve construction plans and specifications prior to any actual construction of each phase of this development. Wastewater Treatment Facility The District has recently completed the construction of a 0.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility to service the properties within the District, including Lake Springs Ranch PUD. That plant will be started up on September 18, 2002, and has the physical capacity to serve the Lake Springs Ranch PUD as proposed by the submitted Preliminary Plan. Wastewater Collection System The wastewater collection system, as detailed on the High Country Engineering drawings entitled "Preliminary Plan Document" and dated 4/8/02, meets the general requirements and intent of the rules and regulations of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Additional comments are as follows: The system consists of a gravity collection line along County Road 114, with the majority of the remaining collection system being a small -diameter, low-pressure collection system. A low-pressure system is acceptable to the District, noting that there are several locations where gravity collection lines might be extended further than shown on the drawings. Such extensions will be considered by the District along with any other appropriate final design criteria for the low-pressure system at the time of final plat approval for each phase by the District. In addition, at the time of construction document submission, specific plans for the mitigation of potential odor problems on longer low-pressure sewer lines during the early stages of development will also be required. Pg. 2 of 2 September 16, 2002 It is assumed the County will require the developer obtain the District's approval of construction drawings as a condition of Final Plat approval by the County. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information or clarification to the above. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean W. Gordon, P.E. Principal Cc: Lee Leavenworth Greg Boeker DWG:dIr/1503 '•..."•RESOURCE .. ..... ■■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD — Preliminary Plan Review August 7, 2002 RECEIVED AUG 0 9 2002 Dear Mark: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE), has reviewed the revised preliminary plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD. The preliminary Plan Application Submittal is dated May 8, 2002. We reviewed the technical issues related to water rights and water supply, wastewater, drainage, geology/soils, wetlands, and roads. We conducted a field review with the Applicant's engineers in the fall of 2001. Our comments are presented below. WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY 1. The project is proposed to be served by a central water system supplied by wells. The wells are decreed junior water rights that are augmented by a Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) water allotment contract. BWCD contract No. 292 has been amended to provide for 198 units and to include the use of Well E. The additional 16 units added to the project since last fall will be augmented by the decree in Case No. W-3571. 2. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system, including the nature of the legal entity which own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. 3. Although the hydraulic analysis indicates adequate flow and pressure throughout the system, the water system layout should consider making looped connections to minimize the interruption of service during repair and maintenance of the system. WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 1. Wastewater will be treated at the expanded Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility. The District has indicated that it can and will serve the project upon completion of construction and commencement of operations of the new District treatment plant and inclusion of the Berkeley property into the District boundaries. The new treatment facility has been constructed. Any approvals of this project should require inclusion into the District prior to any final plat approval. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. 2. An engineering report with analysis and calculations supporting the design of the wastewater collection system was not submitted. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists -3� 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 945-11 37 Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 August 7, 2002 The proposed low pressure sewer system will result in long detention times for sewage prior to discharge into the gravity system and eventually reaching the wastewater treatment facility. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should provide comment on whether the proposed low pressure sewer collection system is acceptable to the District. DRAINAGE 1. The drainage plan is generally adequate. However, there is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for detention storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. GEOLOGY/SOILS 1. Due to the presence of expansive clays, evaporite related related ground defamations, flow stability issues, and faults, a plat note should be added that requires all lots to have an individual site specific geotechnical analysis. 2. A fault appears to cross through lots 13 through 20 in the eastern area of the project. A site specific study should be conducted on these lots to determine if a fault is actually present and determine if the lots and/or building envelopes need to be adjusted/deleted. 3. The geotechnical engineering study for the project is five years old and should be updated for the proposed configuration of roads, Tots and utilities. 4. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope. This area should specifically be reviewed by HP Geotech in an updated study. 5. A significant channel runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2. This area should be reviewed for potential debris flow which may affect building envelopes on those lots. VEGETATION/WETLANDS 1 The Beach Environmental Report indicates that there will be no impact to any wetlands, jurisdictional or not, as a result of the Lake Springs Development proposal. Based on visual inspection, we believe wetlands and "waters of the U.S." exist in the agricultural open space meadow. The proposed improvements to Spring Valley Road would impact these areas and would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ROADS 1. Spring Valley Road has as estimated ADT of 680 and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12 foot lane width and a 4 foot minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11 foot paved lanes with gravel shoulders. Spring Valley Drive, High Alpine Circle, isor g1 - RESOURCE ■EEEE E N G I N E E R I N G N C Mr. Mark Bean Page 3 August 7, 2002 High Alpine Drive, Lake Springs Drive, Lake Springs Court, Van Cleave Lane, are all cul-de-sacs or dead end roads which exceed the maximum length of 600 feet. Although this road configuration is generally consistent with the approved PUD layout, provisuons for appropriate fire protection and emergency egress and access for the proposed design should be provided. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The drainage detail on sheet 40 has been shifted onto the adjacent detail and should be cleaned up. 2 Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, RESOUR ENG E' ING, INC. Michael J. Er' n, P.E. Water Res % rce Engineer MJE/mmm 885-6.0 mb lake springs pud 885 -3� RESOURCE ENGINEERING INC Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building Planning Dept. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 September 18, 2002 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan - Supplemental Review Dear Mark: At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE), has reviewed the supplemental information submitted for the preliminary plan application for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. The supplemental information includes Sewage Disposal Report for Lake Springs PUD prepared by High Country Engineering dated September 3, 2002, water system calculations dated March 25, 2002 and August 28, 2002, letter from Beach Environmental dated September 12, 2002 regarding wetlands, letter report from HP Geotech dated September 9, 2002, and a map labeled Sheet 2 entitled Lake Springs PUD Phasing Plan Updated 9/13/02 for Slopes and Faults prepared by High Country Engineering. The supplemental submittal addresses the issues identified in our August 7, 2002 review letter, except as noted below. WATER RIGHTS / WATER SUPPLY 2. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system including the nature and legal entity which will own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. New comment. Based on our telephone conversation with the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, the Central Water System must be approved by the State pursuant to the New Water System Capacity Planning Manual as authorized by State Statutes, prior to any preliminary plan approval. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 1. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should review and approve the construction drawings for the Wastewater Collection System prior to final plat approval. The District must also indicate that the newly constructed 0.5 mgd Wastewater Treatment Facility is operational prior to any final plat approval. Mark Bean Page 2 September 18, 2002 DRAINAGE 1. The drainage plan is generally adequate. However, there is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for the tension storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. GEOLOGY/SOILS 4. Lake Springs Drive has a significant cut along a steep slope which exceeds the recommended parameters in the HP Geotech reports. Grading plans are available for this road and the issue should be specifically review by HP Geotech consistent with their recommendation in the September 9, 2002 report. 5. The drainage channel which runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2 has been reviewed by HP Geotech. HP Geotech concurs that high sediment concentration storm water flows should be considered in the hydrologic and hydraulic design and that the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect Lots 11, 12 and 13 should be analyzed. New comment. The building envelopes for Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2, Lots 3, 10, and 18 of Block 8, and Lot 12 of Block 7, also include areas steeper than 30%, which is not recommended for development by HP Geotech. VEGETATION / WETLANDS 1. An appropriate Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be obtained prior to approval of any final plat which includes construction of Spring Valley Road improvements which cross the wetlands and "waters of the U.S." that exist in the agricultural open space meadow. ROADS 1. Spring Valley Road has an estimated ADT of 680 from the proposed Lake Springs PUD and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12' lane width and a 4' minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross-section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11' paved lanes with gravel shoulders. Mark Bean Page 3 Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer MJE/dlh 885-6.0 mb Ik sp prei plan supp review.885.wpd 4 i September 18, 2002 5 g a'IVOS OlHcIVIID NORTH 1 "0 2 2 2 2 2 2 DDDD D. Co Co 00 00 CO 0) rn rn rn rn rn CA 44 Co ha 7- -, 1 4- - - g BERKELEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO LAKE SPRINGS P.U.D. PHASING PLAN UPDATED 9/13/02 FOR SLOPES and FAULTS / HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. /517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101 14 WVERNEES DFIVE EAST, 81E C436 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81501 ENGLEWOOD, 00 80112 P110070) 946-8676 P11.1303) 925-0554 FX(970) 945-2555 FM303) 925-0547 DES. DJW NO. DATE REVISION BY DR. DJW 1. 9/12/02 ADJUST LOTS AROUND FAULTS, ADD SLOPE SHADING, ETC. DJW CK. DATE 4/8/02 FILE PHASING PC 9/25/02 MLB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD subdivision APPLICANT: The Berkeley Family Partnership, Miriam Berkeley PLANNER: Land Design Partnership ENGINEER: High Country Engineering LOCATION: Parcel located in portions of Sections 32, 33 and 34, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th PM WATER: Well supplied central water system SEWER: Spring Valley Sanitation District ACCESS: County Roads 114 and 119 EXISTING ZONING: Planned Unit Development ADJACENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (Spring Valley Ranch & CMC) to the northeast and southeast) and A/R/RD in the rest of the areas. I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 2000 Comp Plan indicates that this property is an existing subdivision on the Study Area 1, Proposed Land Use Map. The PUD was originally approved in 1979, with a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat approved for the project, but not recorded due to an inability of the developer to gain access to a central sewage treatment facility. Subsequently, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has increased capacity of the sewer system to accommodate the development. Some relevant goals of the comp plan follow: Section III -2.0 Housing: " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future 1 residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment". Section III -6.0 Agriculture: "To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review". Section III -7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development." Section III -8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land, and is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County." II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: The property is located approximately four (4) miles southeast of Glenwood Springs and on the northwest side of the CMC property. The property is split by CR 114 in a north to south direction and the west side of CR 114 is split again by CR 119. The area to the west of CR 114 is presently a sod farm, with some areas of sage brush. The applicant's house and the ranch facilities for the sod farm are all located on the property to the west of CR 114. The area to the east of CR 114 has a pond that is adjacent to the road and the remainder of the property being unimproved sage brush land. B. Development Proposal: The plan is to divide the 441 acre tract into nine 198 residential lots, with 194 single family dwelling and 16 multi -family lots. The residential development takes up approximately 257 acres, with 152 acres of open space/common area. The lots range in size from 5.050 to 15.876 acres in size. Access is directly off of CR 100, via a 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface, that is also to provide access to the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision. Lots 1-5 are accessed via a 1006 ft. long cul-de-sac with a 58' radius and a 16 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface. Lots 8 and 9 are to be served by a 30 ft. wide access and utility easement with a 12 ft. wide chip and seal surface that ends at Lot 8. III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS: A. Town of Carbondale: No response B. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No response C. RE -1 School District: Shannon Pelland, Finance Director, RE -1 School District 2 notes that the development will be subject to the school site acquisition requirements of the County Regulations. Consistent with those regulations the District has requested cash-in-lieu of land, subject to the formula in the County Subdivision Regulations. (See exhibit pg. ) D. Holy Cross Energy: No response E. Public Service Company: No response F. U.S. West Communications: No response G. Garfield County Road & Bridge: No reponse H. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: Ron Biggers, Fire Protection Analyst, Glenwood Springs Fire Department notes that the proposed development is not within any fire district. He provided some general comments that would apply to the development if it were in the District. (See exhibit pgs. ) I. Colorado Dept. of Public Health: Verbal verification from the Department of Health indicated that the new Spring Valley Sanitation District treatment facility was constructed according to plans and specifications, but at this time is not on line. J. Colorado Div. of Water Resources: The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the water supply, which is supported by a court ordered water augmentation plan and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They note that the project water supply will not result in material injury to decreed water rights and the physical supply is adequate, "so long aw valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated ....". The Division does note that well permits 56292-F and 56293-F could expire by August 16, 2002, if Well Construction, Pump Installation and Test Report are not received by the Division prior to that date (See exhibit pgs. ) K. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Kelly Wood, Division Wildlife Manage identified a number of issues related to dogs, bear/trash removal, riparian/wetland areas, indemnification of DOW against claims from wildlife damage, (See exhibit pgs. L. Garfield County Sheriff: No reponse M. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony reviewed the Preliminary Plan documents and determined that the applicants have addressed most of his concerns by inventorying and mapping noxious weeds and developing a weed management plan for existing and future weed management. He did recommend that the applicants quantify the area to be disturbed for road cut and utility disturbances and the need to reseed the areas. He suggested a revegetation bond for all disturbances created as a result of new road cuts and utility line placement and construction.. (See exhibit pgs. ) N. Colorado Geologic Survey : The CGS has reviewed the HP Geotech report and noted that it is dated and not consistent with the plans. Additionally, they noted that there is no detail on the four (4) cluster lots, so no comments were offered. (See exhibit pgs. ) The following is a summary of the comments: 3 1) A large portion of the site is identified as being landslide deposits in more current publications, but it was not discussed in the report. These landslide deposits should be evaluated for slope stability before development occurs on them, potentially reactivating portions of the slide. 2) Evidence for slope stability (such as a stability analysis) and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures should be included in the preliminary plan documents for areas around Lake Springs Drive and within the Qls mapped unit. 3) The County should identify the locations of slopes greater than 30% prior to preliminary plan approval and restrict development in these areas. 4) Erosion control measures should be established and implemented to prevent off- site sediment transport or accelerated erosion. Prompt reseeding should occur to prevent slope ravel from occurring. 5) HP-Geotech does not recommend placement of structures on the faults. Faults are often zones of shearing which can be quite wide. Locating a building envelope around such a zone may not be possible. The fault locations should be evaluated prior to preliminary plan approval. 6) The building envelope for lot 13 is in the drainage. The steep slopes and narrow ridge may not be suited for development, leaving this lot unbuildable. A detailed investigation of this lot should be conducted prior to preliminary plan approval and the lot should be removed if development can not safely occur. 7) Shallow groundwater and swelling soils are all geologic characteristics found on this site. Detailed study regarding these subsurface conditions should be done on a lot-specific basis during the design phase of the project. 8) All subsurface foundation elements should include foundation drains, and basement construction may not be feasible for lots near the valley floor. 9) Expansive soils are present throughout the site, not just west of CR114 in the lake deposits These clay deposits may be related to the landslide deposits on the site, and swell testing shows that they have expansive properties when wetted. Expansive soils require special mitigation techniques and foundation design. Water infiltration will increase the risk of expansion. In summary, there are geologic conditions that may impact the proposed development. Preliminary plat approval should not be granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post-development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot-specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for 4 lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. These concerns should be addressed prior to preliminary plan approval 0. Spring Valley Sanitation District: Dean Gordon, SGM engineers Inc. and Spring Valley Sanitation District engineer has verbally indicated that the new treatment plant will be up and operating by the end of September and that they will have capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Additionally, he requested that prior to any final plat approval, the district have to opportunity to review and approve the sewer line plans for the development. (See exhibit pgs. ) p. 'PO Ajyty 2.Oji\")3(-) /15.1JoA. \(1'11\/ Michael Erion, Resource Engineering has provided comments on the proposed application. The following comments were made (See Exhibit pgs. ): 1. 10. The submittal does not include required information regarding the central water system, including the nature of the legal entity which own and operate the water system, and the proposed method of financing the water system. The water system layout should consider making looped connections to minimize the interruption of service during repair and maintenance of the system. A copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 2000 should be submitted to the County. This Agreement must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. An engineering report with analysis and calculations supporting the design of the wastewater collection system was not submitted. The Spring Valley Sanitation District should provide comment on whether the proposed low pressure sewer collection system is acceptable to the District. There is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for detention storage referenced in the drainage report and shown on the drainage plan. Due to the presence of expansive clays, evaporite related ground defamations, flow stability issues, and faults, a plat note should be added that requires all lots to have an individual site specific geotechnical analysis. A fault appears to cross through lots 13 through 20 in the eastern area of the project. A site specific study should be conducted on these lots to determine if a fault is actually present and determine if the lots and/or building envelopes need to be adjusted/deleted. The geotechnical engineering study for the project is five years old and should be updated for the proposed configuration of roads, lots and utilities. Lake prings i► 've has a significant cut ong a steep slope. This area should 5 specifically be reviewed by HP Geotech in an updated study. A significant channel runs through Lots 12 and 13 of Block 2. This area should be reviewed for potential debris flow which may affect building envelopes on those lots. 12. Based on visual inspection, we believe wetlands and "waters of the U.S." exist in the agricultural open space meadow. The proposed improvements to Spring Valley Road would impact these areas and would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 3. Spring Valley Road has as estimated ADT of 680 and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12 foot lane width and a 4 foot minimum paved p y� \y shoulder. The typical pavement cross section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11 foot paved lanes with gravel shoulders. Spring Valley Drive, High Alpine Circle, High Alpine Drive, Lake Springs Drive, Lake Springs Court, Van Cleave Lane, are all cul-de-sacs or dead end roads which exceed the maximum length of 600 feet. Although this road configuration is generally consistent with the approved PUD layout, provisions for appropriate fire protection and emergency egress and access for the proposed design should be provided. 14 The drainage detail on sheet 40 has been shifted onto the adjacent detail and should be cleaned up. Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage structures. IV. STAFF COMMENTS A. Zoning, Subdivision, and Phasing: The Lake Springs PUD was originally approved in 1979 by Resolution No. 79-64 and subsequently amended by Resolution No. 79-153. A Preliminary Plan was approved for the project in 1980, but due to a Final Plat not being recorded in a timely manner, the applicant' s are required to resubmit a Preliminary Plan application for the project to deal with the current conditions. The present application is consistent with the PUD approved m 1979. The Preliminary Plan shows lots for 194 single family dwellings and four (4) cluster lots, to have 4 dwellings on each lot. The division of the cluster lots will require resubdivision of those lots at a future date, based on the development plans at that time. Section 7:00 of the Subdivision Regulations governs the redivision of lots after Preliminary Plan approval. The following sections will apply to the present application: Section 7:10 The redivision into separate interest of any lot, block, parcel or multiple - dwelling unit, or the major relocation of or addition to any roads within a subdivision, shall be considered a resubdivision and shall be governed by the 6 Subdivision Regulations. 7:20 The redivision into separate interests of large tracts or blocks of land, designed with the intention of resubdivision and so indicated on a recorded plat, may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision regulations, which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision. 7:30 The redivision, through conversion into condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision Regulations which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan and/or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision, provided the proposed conversion will not substantially increase land use density. Since the applicant has not determined what type of development will occur on the cluster lots, it will be necessary to have the cluster lots subject to Preliminary Plan review, on a lot specific basis. Included in the application is a phasing plan that shows five (5) phases. Section 4:34 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states that a Preliminary Plan is valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of 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. Developments of over one hundred (100) lots may be phased over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) years. Any phasing must be approved by the Board at Preliminary Plan. While the applicants have defined the units to be phased, there is no commitment to completing the phasing plan within the period of time allowed by the regulations. Any approval of the Preliminary Plan should include language requiring the developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years. C. Water: Water is to be supplied through a central system supplied by three wells drilled on site, with the water pumped to a 400,000 gallon storage tank. A water augmentation plan has been approved for one of the well permits and the other two were issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The water rights associated with the wells will supply the 210 dwelling units proposed, 2500 sq. ft. of lawn and garden per residence and a fire protection water supply. The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the water supply, which is supported by a court ordered water augmentation plan and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They note that the project water supply will not result in material injury to decreed water rights and the physical supply is adequate, "so long aw valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated ....". The Division does note that well permits 56292-F and 56293-F could expire by August 16, 2002, if Well Construction, Pump Installation and Test Report are not 7 received by the Division prior to that date. The applicant has requested an extension from the Division via letter dated July 25, 2002 and the Division has verified that the extension was approved to August 16, 2002.. Since the proposed water system will serve more than 15 houses and 25 people, it will be subject to review by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Tech Services Unit review for drinking water quality. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the Plans and Specifications for the drinking water system must be submitted to the CDPHE, Technical Services Unit, for Capacity Development approval. D. Fire Protection: The site is located in either the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, who were not properly identified as the fire protection agency for the property and have not had an opportunity to provide comments until recently. Originally, it was staff s understanding that the property was not located in a fire district. Given the recent agreement between the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District and the Landis Metropolitan District to provide fire protection to the area, the application was referred to Glenwood Springs. As noted previously, the development will have a 400,000 gallon supply water to the development, with a fire flow of 1500 gpm for two (2) hours. The Glenwood Fire Department has provided comments regarding the need to have properly sized roads, an adequate water supply and delivery system, firewise landscaping and building construction to protect against wildland fire and sprinkler systems in large homes. These comments should not be considered with the same weight as those from the Carbondale Fire District, who hope to have comments to the County by the time the Planning Commission meets to consider this development. Regardless of the other comments from the Carbondale Fire District, staff can say without any formal request that the District will request that the applicant pay the impact fee required of all new developments in their boundaries. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has reached an agreement with the developers of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD (Chenoa) to provide fire protection to the development an equipped fire station in the development. Staff would suggest that the Lake Springs Ranch PUD be annexed into the Landis Metropolitan District to share in the cost of providing fire protection to the area. E. Sewer: Included in the application is a letter from the Spring Valley Sanitation District stating that the District can and will serve the proposed development. A sewage main was extended through the Lake Springs Ranch PUD to the Spring Valley PUD, The on-site collection system will utilize the central gravity flow with several low-pressure sewer system branches. Each residence will have its own `E/one' grinder pump station that reduces all forms of sanitary waste to a non -clogging slurry which is pumped through a small diameter pressure pipe to the gravity system. The system proposed is 8 touted to be virtually maintenance free and to run eight to ten years between service calls. The same type of systems are in use in the Elk Springs PUD that is a part of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The Spring Valley Sanitation District recently completed the construction of a new sewage treatment plant. As noted in the Review Agency comments, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has verbally indicated that the new treatment plant will be online by the end of September and capable of handling the sewage needs of the development. They did ask that the developer be required to get the District's approval of the Final Plat sewage line improvements prior to the approval of the Final Plat. F. Geology: HP Geotech states that the site should be possible to develop as proposed, without encountering severe constraints or hazards associated with the geology. The study was done in 1997 and is based upon the development being 96 single family lots, a neighborhood commercial district and open space. As noted previously, the Colorado Geologic Survey has some serious reservations about any preliminary plan approval being granted until further geologic work and possible lot changes have been made. Specifically, the landslide deposits covering the majority of the site should be evaluated and slope stability analysis, using post -development conditions, should be conducted. Steep slopes should be evaluated for creep and slope stability, and the County engineer should approve the road alignments and grades. The County should evaluate areas of the site that are steeper than 30% grade and consider eliminating lots in these areas. A lot - specific subsurface evaluation should be done to determine fault zones and lots should be eliminated or modified as necessary. The drainage and narrow ridge near Lot 13 in the north end of Phase 4 may preclude development of that lot. Plat notes should be included that explain the geologic hazards of the site, particularly the requirement for lot -specific stability analysis and the presence of fault zones. Irrigation should be minimized or eliminated to help minimize damage from perched water, swelling soils, and slope movement. The applicant's consultant, HP Geotech has reviewed the letter from the CGS and acknowledged that the 1997 study was done for a different development proposal. A review of the current proposal has resulted in the following recommendations: 1. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite deformation. It the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement. 2. It is recommend that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a fault is not present or, if present, the fault is not geologically young . 9 3. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposits . 4. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations. 5. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and fill slopes should be 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed. 6. The channel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge and include provisions for a high sediment concentration flooding. Hydrologic analysis in this area should also consider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. 7. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. H. Wildlife: The applicants had Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. provide a wildlife report to minimize wildlife -human conflicts. DOW submitted comments of their own, which included a number of recommendations that are not completely consistent with the applicant's consultant. 1. No house should have more than one dog and offspring up to three months. 1. No dogs allowed on site by visitors. 2. Restrictions that dogs must stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam free. 3. Wildlife proof or resistant trash/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes to prevent problems with wildlife. 4. Rail fencing may be used along lot lines, not to exceed 42 inches in height, 12 inches in width (top view), with an opening in the lower half at least 16 inches to allow the passage of deer fawns and elk calves. 6. CDOW indemnification against future claims due to wildlife damage. 7. Educate residents about wildlife in the area, how they are stewards of the wildlife in the area. As noted, the application includes a wildlife study done by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. The impacts to wildlife are possible to mitigate to a degree, provided the 10 recommendations of the consultant are incorporated into the covenants and design of the subdivision. It should be noted that the consultant recommended a maximum number of dogs in excess of the subdivision regulation limit of one (1) dog per house and the covenants allow for two (2) dogs per lot. The consultant also notes a need for the HOA of the subdivision to "hold the CDOW harmless from any and all claims for damage to landscaping improvements, fencing , ornamental and native plants, and garden plants resulting from the activities of wildlife." Additionally he suggests a fee be imposed one time on home owners to be spent for conservation projects within the development or the donation of all or a portion of the money to the DOW for mule deer habitat projects. The covenants do not appear to incorporate all of the recommendations listed by the DOW and Beattie Natural Resource Consluting, Inc.. The "hold harmless" clause should also be a plat note on any final plat and the suggested payment of the one time HOA payment for wildlife conservation purposes. I. Road/Access: The application proposes a single access directly off of CR 114, via eight (8) separate access points off of CR 114. Six of the eight roads accessing the development are cul-de-sacs, and four of the cul-de-sacs exceed the 600 ft. length limitation contained in Section 9:33 (A) of the County Subdivision Regulations, which reads as follows: Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred feet (600) in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45 ) from the center of the cul-de-sac to road edge and fifty foot (50) right-of-way for residential development ... The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design; The original PUD was approved int ;,. : 0's and the 600 ft. limitation was not a part of the subdivision regulationspthete o Spring Valley Road (CR 119) cuts through the west third of the project and will be 7 -upgraded to a 60 ft. right-of-way , with a 22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface. This same width right of way will apply to all of the internal roads in the development. Section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations requires an applicant to address the road impacts from the development on County Roads. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Average Vehicle Trips per day for a single family dwelling is 9.57 on a weekday. The applicant's engineer rounded off the daily trips to 10 per day and calculated that the development would generate 2100 ADT per day. The proposed development is located in Traffic Study Area 10 of the County Capital Improvements Plan of 1997, which requires $195/ADT. Using the applicant's figures, this would require a contribution of $409,500 to the County for road impacts over the life of the 11 project. Fifty percent of the applicable amount will be due at the time of platting, with the remaining 50% being paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. J. Drainage: The application states that the natural drainage will be left intact, which will result in the overland flow following the predictable historic paths. The existing drainage is mostly sheet flow to the Spring Valley draw, which is located in the center of the development and is also the location of the sod farm that is presently located on the property. In general, on-site drainage will be captured by roadside ditches and conveyed by culverts and grass lined swales and directed off-site. Detention will be necessary to deal with the increase in peak stormwater runoff from the developed flows over the historic flows during the 100 -year storm. Michael Erion noted that the calculations for the drainage retention structures is not included in the application to verify the capacity of the proposed retention structures. K. Assessment / Fees: As determined by recently amended Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant will be required to pay fees in lieu of dedicating land for schools. It will be necessary to have an appraisal of the property that has been done within the last 24 months to be used as a basis for calculating the school site acquisition fees. The Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District will require the payment of impact fees prior to the approval of a Final Plat. As noted earlier the applicant will be also be required to pay road impact fees in accordance with the formula contained in the appendix of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should be aware that he has the cost responsibility of all required subdivision improvements as specified in the SIA and by the final plat requirements. L. Plat Notes The following items need to be shown as plat notes : "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds." "Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a site specific foundation study done by a qualified registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado." "Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things, that "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." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions are 12 included in the covenants that allow for the removal of a dog from the area, as a final remedy in worst cases." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined 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." "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." M. Covenants: The applicant has included proposed covenants as a part of the application. The following issues need to be corrected or addressed: 1. Section 8.16, Animals and Pets, needs to be modified to allow for only one (1) dog per household, rather than the two proposed. 2. Section 8:24 and 8:25 prohibit the development of oil or gas wells on the property. Should the mineral interests be severed from the property, an owner of that right could develop an oil or gas well on the property, provided they comply with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations that regulate such activity, regardless of the covenant. V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 2. That the meeting before the Planning Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended; 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 13 VI. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan, with the following conditions of approval: 1. All representations of the applicant made in the application and at the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless approved otherwise by the Board. 2. As a part of any Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall include an analysis of the traffic impacts of the phase being platted and include at least 50% of that fee at the time of platting and include in the disclosure statements to prospective and new property owners a statement identifying their obligation to pay the remaining 50% at the time of building permit approval. 3. The applicant will provide an appraisal of the property prior to development that is no more than 24 months old, to be used to establish the school site acquisition fee to be paid at the time of final platting of the property. 4. Impact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization of the final plat. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. 5. The improvements included with the Final Plat will include a revegetation provision for the disturbed areas associated with the improvements for the subdivision, along with security to guarantee that the revegetation has been successful. 6. Approval of the Preliminary Plan requires the developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years and the first Final Plat must be recorded within one year of the final approval of the Preliminary Plan. 7. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies shall be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form of a plat note. 8. Since the applicants have not determined what type of development will occur on the cluster lots, it will be necessary to have the cluster lots subject to Preliminary Plan review, on a lot specific basis. 9. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the Plans and Specifications for the drinking water system must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Technical Services Unit, for Capacity Development approval. 14 10. That prior to any final plat approval, the Spring Valley Sanitation district will have to opportunity to review and approve the sewer line plans for the development. 11. Articles of Incorporation for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD Homeowners Association, shall be filed with the State of Colorado by the applicant prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 12. The following plat notes shall be placed on the final plat: "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds." "Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a site specific foundation study done by a qualified registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado." "Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things, that "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." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions shall be developed for allowing the removal of a dog from the area, as a final remedy in worst cases." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined 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." "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." 13.Section 8.16, Animals and Pets, needs to be modified to allow for only one (1) dog per household, rather than the two proposed. 15 } October 3, 2002 Ron Liston Land Design Partnership 918 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs CO, 81601 Dear Ron, Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Preliminary Plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD Subdivision will be heard before the Board of County Commissioners at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, November 12, 2002, in the Garfield County Courthouse Plaza, Commissioners Hearing Room, Room 100, 108 8th St., Glenwood Springs. Prior to the hearing you will receive a staff report and an agenda which will indicate the approximate order your hearing will take place. The applicant is responsible for the publication, posting, and mailing of all notices and shall present proof of publication and mailing at or before the hearing. Notice for the hearing shall be given as follows: (1) Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the subject lot, a description ofthe proposed use and nature ofthe hearing, and the date, time and place for the hearing shall be given once in a newspaper of general circulation in that portion of the County in which the subject property is located at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of such hearing, and proof of publication shall be presented at hearing by the applicant. (2) Notice by mail, containing information as described under paragraph (1) above, shall be mailed to all owners of record as shown in the County Assessor's Office of lots within two hundred feet (200') of the subject lot and to all owners of mineral interest in the subject property at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to such hearing time by certified return receipt mail, and receipts shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant. The site shall be posted such that the notice is clearly and conspicuously visible from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department. The posting must take place at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the hearing date and is the sole responsibility of the applicant to post the notice, and ensure that if remains posted until and during the date of the hearing. (3) 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 Failure to complete the above stated noticing requirements will require re -noticing for a future hearing. It is your responsibility to ensure the legal description you provided to this office, included in this notice, is accurate. If you have any questions about the public notice process, please contact this office. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the Berkeley Family Limited Partnership has applied to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant Preliminary Plan approval for the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. Subdivision in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See attached Practical Description: Located approximately 4 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs, off of County Road 114. Said Preliminary Plan is to allow the Petitioner to subdivide a 441.62 acre tract into 194 single family lots, 16 multi -family units and 151.875 acres of open space on the above described property. All persons affected by the proposed Preliminary Plan are invited to appear and state their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter regarding the Preliminary Plan, as the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for Preliminary Plan. This Preliminary Plan application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. That public hearing on the application for the above Preliminary Plan has been set for the 12th day of November, 2002, at the hour of 1:15 p.m., at the Garfield County Courthouse Plaza Building, Room 100, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County NOTICE TAKE NOTICE /�AI/L 4t../7 ) &TAJt&"° That #24 &eP-64(1/ Y has pplied to the � c (641t/ItieSSAtieeer Garfield, County pursuant to au► 4;,56, 409ivieezo CAGEyS&7ffr15P' Gal/Maus of /% / -4S 6 to allow : ,-DA E / fJ' c 4 111 G Z 4e. 14e174 /A"lb /91 Sr Gaal` ,-lam' U475 i4M As/. A7S 4C. cc 4 J . E' on this property. A public Ae4r. n on this applicati9n will be held in the MMASSIot2e. /l t,6 .) *en /GO, /46 6711 Glenwood Springs, Colorado on /2, 2002 (date) at /:/S ,R /Li. (time) Date Notice Was Posted : By: For additional information, contact the RAAJ/U/Al4 Ve.0447kteitir at rr 8L'2 , 108 8th St. Suite 20/ , Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JOHN R. SCHENK DAN KERST WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III CAROLYN M. STRAUTMAN SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, LLP A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 302 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 310 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447 TELECOPIER: (970) 945-4767 September 20, 2002 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Courthouse 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 HAND DELIVERED Re: Lake Springs Dear Mark: RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING In review of the conditions of approval proposed by the Staff, it was noted that proposed Condition No. 11 requires the filing of Articles of Incorporation for the homeowners association. That action has been accomplished. Please find enclosed a Certificate of Good Standing issued by the Colorado Secretary of State for Lake Spring Ranch Owners Association. If you require additional documents, please advise. JRS/clh Enc. cc: Dr. and Mrs. Berkeley (w/o enc.) Ron Liston (w/o enc.) \\H,I\I\M N\Leke Springe'J1een 2,0 • DEPARTMENT OF STATE CERTIFICATE I, DONETTA DAVIDSON, Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that, according to the records of this office, LAKE SPRINGS RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION (Colorado NONPROFIT CORPORATION) File # 20011090856 was filed in this office on May 3, 2001 and has complied with the applicable provisions of the laws of the State of Colorado and on this date is in good standing and authorized and competent to transact business or to conduct its affairs within this state. Dated: September 12, 2002 ,s, For Validation: Certificate ID: 590137 To validate this certificate, visit the following web site, enter this certificate ID, then follow the instructions displayed. www.sos.state.co.usNalidateCertificate f' // SECRETARY OF STATE ■ ■ Exhibits for Lake Springs Ranch PUD Public Hearing held on September 25, 2002 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended F Project Information and Staff Comments G Lake Springs Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Application" H Lake Springs Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Supplementary Information" I Letter from Shannon Pelland, RE -1 School District, dated August 1, 2002 J Memo from Ron Biggers, Glenwood Springs Fire Department, dated June 25, 2002 K Letter from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated June 25, 2002 L Memo from Kelly Wood, Division of Wildlife, dated August 2,2002 M Email from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department dated August 8, 2002 N Referral Comments from Jim Sears of the Garfield County Sheriff Department dated August 5, 2002 Letters from TC Wait, Colorado Geological Survey, dated July 31, 2002 and September 17, 2002 P Letter form Dean Gordon, SGM, Spring Valley Sanitation Disitrict. dated September 16, 2002 Q Letters from Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, dated August 7, 2002 and September 18, 2002. R Letter from Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, dated September 20, 2002. S T U V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG