HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 06.02.03EXHIBITS
RANCH AT COULTER CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT
Board of County Commissioners - June 2, 2003
Exhibit A: Proof of Certified Mailing Receipts
Exhibit B: Proof of Publication
Exhibit C: Garfield County ZontngRegulations of 1978, as amended
Exhibit D: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
Exhibit F: StaffReport dated May 19,2003
Exhibit G: Application Materials
Exhibit H: Letter from Bobby Branham, Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department, dated Apil 2, 2003
Exhibit I: Letter from Doug Thoe, Garfield County Road and Bridge Departrnent,
dated October 30,2002
Exhibit J: Letter from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Director, dated
March 25,2003
Exhibit K: Letter from Kelly Woods, Colorado Division of Wildlife, received
November 18,2002
Exhibit L: Letter from Bill Gavette, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District,
dated March 28,2003
Exhibit M: Letter from Ron Leach, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District,
November 18,2002.
Exhibit N: Letter from Kenneth Knox, Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated
March 27,2003
Exhibit O: Letter from Kenneth Knox, Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated
Novernber 19,2002
Exhibit P: Letter from Sean Gaffrrey, Colorado Geological Survey, dated April l,
2003.
Exhibit Q: Letter from Scott Miller to Sean McAllister dated February 25,2003
Exhibit R: Letter from Sean McAllister to Scott Miller dated January 23,2003
Exhibit S: Application for water rights for SlC-Laurence, LLC, Case No. 02CW108
Exhibit T: Letter from James Peterson to Martha Cochran dated March 25,2003
Exhibit U: Email from Bobby Branham, Garfield Road and Bridge Deparhnent, dated
Apil2l,2003
Exhibit V: Supplemental Information for the Board hearing for Ranch at Coulter
Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plan submitted by TG Malloy Consulting,
dated April25, 2003. [Attached separatelyJ
Exhibit W: Letter from Robert Emerson dated April 28, 2003, regarding the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Board of Directors
Exhibit X: Letter from Lou Vallerio, Sheriff s Department, dated }y'ray 4,2003.
Exhibit Y: Copy of an Amendment to Deed of Conservation Easement
ExhibitZ Draft copy of the Planning Commission meeting (April 9,2003) minutes.
ExhibitAA: Letter from Sean Gaffney, Colorado Geological Survey dated May 15,
2003
Exhibit BB: Letters from Bob Emerson: Letter to staff dated May 16, 2003; Letter to
Balcomb and Green dated May 15, 2003; and letter to staff dated May 16,
2003.
Note: The above listed exhibits were included with the May 19, 2003, staff
memorandum to the Board of County Cornmissioners. Since the previous packet
material was extensive, an additional copy will not be distributed. If needed, please
bring the May 19, 2003, staffmernorandum to the meetingfor reference.
ADDITIONAL EXIIIBITS
Exhibit CC: Staffmemorandum dated Jwrc2,2003
W,ul"t ge
BOARD: 612103
Continued public hearing from 5/19/03
TP
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATTVE (S):
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Preliminary Plan review for the Ranch at Coulter
Creek Subdivision
A request to subdivide approximately 479 acres into
26 single family residential lots.
Snowmass Land Company
Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) and TG Malloy
Consulting,LLC.
The property is located west of the intersection of
County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road on
Missouri Heights.
Central Water System
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
County Road 115
A/R/RD (AgriculturaVResidential/Rural Density)
A/R/RD
This is a continued public hearing from the May 19, 2003, Board of County Commissioners
meeting. This request was continued by the Commissioners to allow the Applicant time to
obtain written documentation from the State Engineer's Office indicating that there is no material
injury to decreed water rights, which would demonstate that the project has a legal and adequate
source of water in accordance with Section a:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations.
According to the Applicant, the State Engineer's Office has agreed to submit a revised letter
regarding material injury to deqeed water rights. Staffdid not receive a copy of the revised
letter from the State Engineer's Office, or the Applicant, prior to the distribution of this
memorandum. If a letter is obtained, a copy of the letter will be provided at the meeting.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 612/03
Page2
II. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT A}[D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Board shall move to approve the following findings of fact forwarded by the Planning
Commission for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision:
l. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before
the Planning Commission (Board of County Commissioners);
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission (Board of County Commissioners)
was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submifted
and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing;
3. 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;
4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County ZorungResolution,
as amended;
5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
of 1984, as amended.
6. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of
2002.
At the April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation APPROVAL to
Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek
Preliminary Plan, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Note: The conditions af approval below that have been stricken, in staff's opinion, have been
addressed by the Applicant. The underlined changes to the conditions of approval below are
recommendations of Staffwith explanation of the changes in italics.
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically
altered by the Planning Commission.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 612103
Page 3
2. The Applicant shall include in the Protective Covenants for the Subdivision the
following:
A. The view Shed Setback Line for Lots 11,12,13,14,15 & 16 shall be addressed.
B. The following wildlife habitat mitigation measures shall be incorporated:
i. Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing
recommendations.
ii. If hay will be stored on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife
out.
iii. The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use during
the winter months. Dogs shall always be on a leash outside of the house
footprint. The number of dogs per residences should be limited to one.
During construction of the residences, contractors should not be allowed to
have dogs on site.
iv. Since cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept
indoors at all times.v. CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping from wildlife.vi. The homeowner's should install bear-proof dumpsters or trash bins.vii. The CDOW shall be allowed on the property for the purpose of bear and lion
control. Hunting in this circumstance only shall be allowed.viii. Reference or incomorate the Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan and Wildfire
Hazard Analysis. Tithe Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan and Wildlife Hazard
Analysis should be referenced or incorporated within the Covenants.
3. The following geologichazardmitigation measures shall be adhered:
A. The recommendations by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech")
outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study for the Subdivision dated February
28,2003, [Job No. 103 115] shall be adhered. These Preliminary Design
Recommendations include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, under-drain
system, site grading, surface drainage and pavement subgrade.
+gures
This condition has been addressed with
modification of these lots. The Colorado Geological Survey supports the lot
adjustments.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 6/2103
Page 4
ine
eenstn*e+iorThis condition has been addressed with modification of these lots. The
Colorado Geological Survey supports the lot adjustments.
ies
@This condition has been addressedwith modi/ication of
these lots. The Colorado Geological Survey supports the lot adjustments.
E. In addition to the drain systerns for foundations recommended by HP GeoTech, due
to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around
foundations. Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the
soils and thus reduce the over potential for expansion or consolidation.
F. Due to the possible presence of radon gas in the area, testing for radon gas shall be
done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Garfield County Road and
Bridge Departrnent, dated Apt',l2,2003, except for intemal culverts which shall comply with the
recommendations outlined in the Drainage Report prepared by Sopris Engineering,LLC. dated
February 7,2003.
to the western aeeess po:nt for the subdiv:sion, I ccording to Bobby Branharn, Garfield County
Road and Bridge Department, the western access point is suitable with adjustments.
5.
the+inalPla* Prior to Final Plat submittal. the Applicant shall finalize. with the Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection District. the locations for pull-outs for emergency vehicles. These pull-outs
shall be delineated on the Final Plat. This recommended change reflects the recent work the
Applicant has done with the Fire District to designate appropriate pull-outs throughout the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 612103
Page 5
subdivision to accornmodate the cul-de-sacs that exceed 600feet in length.
6. The roads / streets shall comply with the "Rural Access" standards outlined in section 9:30 of
the Subdivision Regulations.
7. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, all streets / roads within the
subdivision shall be dedicated to the public. Repair and maintenance of these roads shall be the
responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the Subdivision.
8. issieners.review, Prior to Final Plat. the Applicant
shall submit a copy of the final'kildftehazardmitigation plan" that has been reviewed and
signed offby both the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and the Garfield County
Sheriffs Department. This recommended change reflects one qf the issues the Applicant is
working out with the Fire District Board, prior to annexation of the propertv within the District
boundarv. A draft copv of the Plan has been submitted to the Fire District and review. however.
the District is waiting-for afinal version o.f the Plan.
f . issioners.review, Prior to the recording of the Final
Plat. the Applicant shall provide a written approval of the
recorded Resolution by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Board regarding the
arurexation of the property into the Fire District. as well as the court order to include the property
within the District boundary. This recommended change attempts to deal with a "Catch-22".
Staffunderstands that the Fire District Bogrd will not approve the annexation of the property in
the District, until the County has granted Final Plat approval to the subdivision. Upon approval
of the subdivision by the County, the Fire District will approve the annexation through a
Resolution of approval (see Exhibit W), at which point the Fire District will petition the court to
include the property within the District as required per CRS 32-1-401(I)(c)(I).
10. . Prior to installation of an antenna(s) for the purpose of improving emergency radio
communication for fire fighters and other emergency persorurel, the Applicant, Fire District or
designated entity shall obtain a Special Use Permit with the County.
11. An Easement Agreernent shall be submitted at the time of Final Plat for the antenna site.
adjacent to Lot 18.
12. The Applicant shall provide the following weed managernent information for review and
approval by the Garfield County Weed Management Director prior to the submittal of Final Plat:
A. Noxious Weeds:
i. Inventory and mapping: The Applicant shall provide a map that represent specific
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 6/2103
Page 6
locations of County-listed noxious weeds on the property.
Weed Managernent: The Applicant shall provide a weed management plan
should be based on a detailed inventory and provide for follow-up management.
Common area weed management: The Coulter Ranch Homeowners Association
will implement weed management on the Common Open Space within the
property. In addition, arangements have been made with a local rancher to
perform agricultural operations on the property. If weed management does not
occur on the property, there could be severe weed management issues on the areas
that were previously used for hay production. The Applicant shall address this
issue.
iv. Covenants: Weed managernent is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article
IV, Section 2. T}lre Applicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under
Article IV, Section 6. The language should rernind each lot owner that it is their
responsibility under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County
Weed Management Plan to manage County-listed noxious weeds.
B. Revegetation:
i. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed
Management Plan 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 shall be determined at*reliminaqT.*lan at
Final Plat and paid prior to Final Plat submittal.
ii. Prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide a map or information that
quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded
on road cut and utility disturbances.
C. Soil Plan:
i. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil
Managonent Plan that includes:
a) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
ll.
iii.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 612103
PageT
b) A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
c) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
13. The property is located within the RE-l School District. The Applicant shall pay the
School Land Dedication Impact Fee or pay cash-in-lieu of that land dedication which shall be
due at the time of Final Plat submittal. The total impact fee amount shall be determined prior to
the submittal of the Final Plat.
14. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic Study Area 11. The
total impact fee payment shall be determined prior to Final Plat. The fee shall be calculated in
accordance to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations. Fifty percent (50%) of the road
impact fees shall be collected at the submission of Final Plat for the Subdivision. All other road
impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
15. The following additional information shall be delineated on the Final Plat:
A. The View Shed Setback Line along the west side of Lots 11,12,13,14,15 and 16.
B. The Landslide Boundary and the evaporate deformation faults.
C. Tracts B and C shall eliminated or reconfigured to increase the lot size of these tracts
to a minimum of 2 acres.
@
@
F. The final locations for the pull-outs for emereency vehicles.
G. The easement for the Fire District antenna site and access to the site.
16. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
' A. Building permit applications for each lot shall include plans and specifications for an
onsite wastewater treatment system. Each system shall be designed by a State of
Colorado registered engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County
Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) regulations before a building permit will
B.
C.
D.
E.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 6/2/03
Page 8
be issued. The type, size and location of each individual on-site wastewater systan
(OWS) will be site-specific based on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design
criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. The soil
absorption/dispersal systems should be located within the building envelope on each
lot as identified on the Final Plat.
Historical drainage patterns shall be maintained on the property. No structures or
uses shall be located within the natural drainage way on the property.
Development on 40Yo slopes or greater is prohibited on the lots.
Swelling soils, clay and claystone, are present on the site. Appropriate mitigation
may be necessary to build on a lot.
All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions
may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries.
No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption.
One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the
regulations promulgated there under, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. A11
dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances.
Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights,
sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and
necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy
ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust,
smoke chernicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical
fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which
may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent agricultural operations.
All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 612103
Page 9
Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and
responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
inhoductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield
County.
17. Prior to Final Plat, the water augmentation plan shall be approved by the water court and
the State Engineer Office. In addition, prior to submission of Final Plat, the Applicant shall
provide approved well permits for each well in place with the physical adequacy of the water
source proven up.
III. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended that the Garfield County Planning Commission recorlmend denial to the
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch
at Coulter Creek Preliminary Plan for the following reasons:
1) Division of Water Resources cannot determine if there is "material injury to decreed
water rights", therefore the Applicant has not demonstrated a legal and adequate source of
waterpursuant to Section a:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations;2) The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed longer cul-de-sacs can provide
adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access, pursuant to Section 9:33 of the
Subdivision Regulations; and
3) The wildfire hazardmitigation plan has not been approved by the Carbondale and Rural
Fire Protection District and the Garfield County SherifPs Deparhnent.
Staffcontinues to maintain that the Applicant has not demonstrated a legal and adequate source
of water pursuant to Section a:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations, since the Division of Water
Resources cannot determined if there is "material injury to decreed water rights", which will be
determined upon approval of the Augmentation plan.
Iterns 2 and 3 have not been resolved, however, the Applicant and the Fire District has been
working resolved this issues prior to Final Plat, which is reflected in the above recommended
conditions of approval by the Planning Commission.
MAY-l 5-2003 I 0:56AM FR0ltFColorado 6eolor'-- | Surv0tl ?-6r ? Doz/ooz F-sra Eykih,l+
STA]EOFCULORADO *K
3038 862161
COLORADO GEOLOCICAL SUNVEV
Deoodment of Noturol Resoutces
i3l5 Shernon Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorodo 8020J
Phone (503) 866-2611
FAx (305) 866-2161
MaY 15,2000 l-eg6l Locailon: S6,T7S, R87llU
GGSCasa No. GAJ$0olo
ffi
DEPARTMENTOF
NATI.JRAL
RESOURCES
I
I
i
i/b.Tamara Pregl
l{itrnro co.,r,tv Fhnning Depaffnant
rog Eiohth Srcet, Suite SOg
clsndod SPringE, CO 81601
He Harch at CoutierCreek, Gar{teld Cowrty' Cokado
DearTmrara:
t lave ]E'dera,ed the revbions totrte RarEh atCoulterCreek Preldna4r Plat ardthe Apd24'Axx} bmcrlm
ii ;#r;s intrdng envetopes.a,nav f rom trre existins oeobsical
tuards on O'E propertr nanrelythe landslite.#&;ilii'riJr""itto doig the so,th proporty line'
Elll ft,rltr
Gofil,
GrEo E. tol(ltrt
fdA;vs Otxtr
Fon Cottml
Dndshn tllqa
Ron gotlon,
Acrnq Sloto 0loloqct
ond firccler
Please feel lrce to oontact me if 1rcu havs any addiiicnal questions'
SincarelY,
k"'"" m
RECEIVED
t,lAY 15 2003
GARFIELD COUNW
in.Dlttc & PLANT{Ii{G
\.\
MAJ, 16,200.3 3:l8PM N0,327 P. r*wE' 'ON GREEN
LAW OFF|CEA
ROEIERT E. EMERgON. P.C"
€€ EOIJTH THTFID STFIEET
GAFEONE,AI€ COI€FaAtrC tl€4e
(rzo) re+saco
FTCES'T B EMER''CN
IvIay 16,2003
\4A EACSIMILE TO 945-285
Gadeld Couoty Planning De,parment
Attention: Tarnara Prcgel
108 Eight} Street Suite 2oI,
Glenwood Springs, GO 81601
Easeuent is iilrcorrect. The F
of rheFirc Diffi.duding
Re: Crbondale and Rrffal Fire Protection Disuict/Ranch at Coult€r Cteek
DearTamara;
I am writing to follow up on our tel@honc conversation today. As I mcutioaed to
yon, there still are a Endosed is a copy of myletter to
Iarry Green dated ldlar 15, 2003. Ttris lener sets forft the outstanding issues. In
addition, I now understurd that the developcr may be requestirrg ftat thc Fire Difiict
agee [o a aew, butunspecified location furtre radio antenna site.
I also wanted to point out ttut the statement in )rour staffreport on page 2o that
the Fire Dilsticthas arrd approrred the Deedof Conseruadon
f,ot sscn this documeot,
andwc have
advised the danelopet's attoroeys of ttris position- Howam, siuce lssues relating to tlre
height of &e tower and antenna harre notbeen resolved or:r srrggesed changes harre not
yet been grven to the attoraeJrs for the developer.
. Fire Chief non lffi& will be prcseot at the commissioneds meeti.ng on Monday to
address ttrese matters and an"swer any questions regarding the Fire Disuict's positiou,
Slnctreln#*
Robem B. Emerson
RBE/mccc: Iawreuae Grreeu (w/o mdosrJre$) via f;acsimile
Roq Leactr (w/o endosures) via facsimile
ra:c (grc) r.ia tE66
MAY, 1 6, 2003 3: 1 BPM t ]ON OREEN
FiOEEFff & EI*EIIACN
lvlay 15,2003
VIA FACSIMII,E TOJ45"O76A
lawreoceR. Gtren
Auoruey atlaw
Bdcomb & Greeo, P.C.
P. O. Drawer 790
Glmwood Springs, CO 81502
Law oFFlcEg
ROEERT B. EMEFISON. P.G
16 AOI.TH THIF'D STF'EET
O,AFIEONE'ALE. GE'LORAOO AISZ'
(ltol r*anoo
N0,327 P, 3
F x (gro) tc+crars
Re: Carbondale Rrrral Eire ProteCtionDistrict/Snourmass land
Dearlarry-
IamvnritingtofollowuponorrqeetingT\resdayregardingtlismattcr. Enclosed
is a copy of the renised Agrccmentfor lnpact Fees. I would aPPreciate ltif 5ou could
prwideme with the legpldescription for the eutire randr parcel to attadr as ExtribitA to
iHs egreepent' nso euclosed is ttre form of proposed Deed of Basernent wtth a
corrected sxhibit.q"
My uuderstandingwas thatyou were going to revise the proposed resolution
approUnL the petition for inclusion for my rerriew based on our discrssion" Ttre otlrcr
ousmnains iszues ioelude the nsed to reach ag€emeot on the size of the radio antenn t
tower, modification of the ameodneot to Deed of Consenration Easement obraining a
dtle insrrrarrce cornmi enrt for the easement and release or zubordination of the
rrnderlyfiU Deed of Trrst, fina[zation of the,Wlldfire Cause of Mitigation Plan and
apgroral ty Ron leacb and making arrangemenu to include as Public improveuen$ in
ttie Counry SIA those improrrcm.ents which are reErired by the Fire Disuict- I also want
to make sure tUat tbe proposed covenanu for the properry do not Feclude or limit the
anterura height g traven't seen the covenanm). Fmaltn you were going to look at the
water rights to see if fire protecEon Purposes is induded in the adjudicadon.
MAY, 16, 2003 3: l9PM t 'l0N GREEN
lawrence R Green
May 15, 2Oo3
Page 2
I look forward to hearing back from ]rou soon. Girrcn the unfinished details, it
maybe that ttre Fire Distict Board will need to condnue this mafier until &e Jrrne
meeting.
Sincerely,
/64
RBE/mc
Endosrrrcs
ce RonLeach@endosures (viafacsimile)
Robem B. Ernerson
P,2MA,Y. t 6, 2003 3 : 46 PM E' 'ON GREEN
FtoEEil F. EtvtEnaoN
LAl t CFFTCEAROE}ER:r E,. EMERSON, P.c'
EE EOUTT.I THIF'O STF'EET
cAREOlyOAr.p. OOLO4AE|O €r€AEr
(azol ecaazoo
N0,329
rrr< (e:ol rGr.orrrs
I[ay lG Z00B
VIA FACEIMII,E T.O 945.--CS
$_rrff qd Connty planri4g Deparftrent
Attention: Tamara pregel
1OB Eighrh S{rffi, SuitJZOf
Glenwood Springs, CO 91601
Re: Carbondale and Rural Fire prcteftion DisuictZBarrch at CoulterCreek
Dear Tenrara;
The followi4g are a couple of additional pda8 uot contained in my earlier lctter:
Sqgopn gr prylLO of yoq repo_rr irdtc?tes rnat the wildfire HazardMitigatiour pIaD bas beenre'icrued ana;ffid;c" rt, in" ,ir. DisuictRis is incorrecl The Fire niruict h,
'Ii'-pr*ff, il not-!{et b"* ;r;:_ Iffi ffi irmffi"Tf#",indusiou by ttre mre distria ar? tt ri., chief approve tbe ftr,al rrersion ofthis plan.
rhe dnaft resoluflon 9f the Fire District Board which I sent you (Exfiibit w)I4 [kety be chanted. lr"ry er.* i,
eange4 perhaps ,iioin rotri, mi il*u.ot* by ttre Firc Disuicr Board.
-
.MlY 1 6, 2003 3:46PM
Tamara pregel
May 16,2008
Page z
I ]ON OREEN N0,329 P, 3
3. Yotrr rcpon does not specifically discuss Fire Distria impact ftes. pa5mrcnt
of Firc Distdctimpactfeee will be a condition of approriral of inepson byr]teFire District
If you harrc auy quesdors, please let me knovrr.
"{ehr^*-d.4u
Robert B. Emersoa
RBVmcce laurence Green (l,r/o qrclosnres) via faesimile
Ron Lcactr (w/o enclosucs) via fucsimile.
l{Ay-29-2003 THU 02: 40 Pt{ Pt{r
PATRTCK, MILLER & KROPF, P.(l'
Main Oflice ftVriter RePIY):
?30 EEstDrant Ave.
SuiE 200
Aspeu CO 81611
970.920.t028 (EA
970.925.6M1(fq)
www.waterlav/.cot!
Co: John SarPa
Stcphcn Perlmutter
Marttra Cochrart
Tim Malloy
Lany Gteerq Esq.
FAX#: 945-7785
384-5005
923-430s
847-748-3161
945-0833
e45-8902
EROM: Scott C. Miller, Esq.
mll/rr@twaterfu,epq
SIJBJBCT: Ranch at Coultcr Cteok Prelimirury PIan
Application; State Eugineer Rsfenal
Comments aud Plan for Augmomtation, Case
No. 02CW108, Water Div. 5.
FA)( N0, g70t' \41 P, 0lllB
TO: r' DATE: MaY 29,2ao3
Don DeFord, Esq., CountY AttomeY
A bard copy--witl -x-willoot
tbllo* eisu.S' hrcil
Tamara andDon-
Attaohed iE a letter ft,om the State Enginoer's OfHoo (*SEO) updating its
prwions referral cornment lettor of Marsh 27,2003 regarding'tnaterial injury'' in the
above refercnced matter. This shouldhave also been faxed directly ftom ttrc SEO to
Tarnara today. AIso attached is a Stipulation and Agrcsnent between the Applicant aad
the SEO in Water Cotut Case No. 02CWl08 resolving the SEO's opposition to this caso.
Wo unOerstao{ we may have just mimed the '!aoket" deadline for these items, however,
we fax these to you for yotu advauoed rEviar. riVe will be prcpalcd to pre-scut these
itens to the Garfield County Board of Commiseioners on Monday, June 2no. Please sall
me if you have any questiors or ooncerns.
Srnil, C. l4ilh*
W:\9 L Cr88 M3\FilacFrcgl DsfqdClisnt 5-2943.d0c
*i\r lDD
Arizona Ofllcel
310 SouthMill Ave.
Suite 201
Ternpe, AZ8528l
480.e2t.4w (tel)
4t0,921.8688 (fE)
, PAGES: 17, i*uaing
this covcr Page
(our fiIe
#t8M3 )
tlAY-2s-2003 THU 02141 Pt1 Ptltr
s I'iRY-zg-2ffi 12157 I LNTER R, SO.,RCES
FAX N0, 9709^-'847 P. 02/18
sE:l ffi6 .Dt,: r'ww
STATEOFC@O
OFHCT OF IHE StrAft O{GTNEEN
Di/idoo olllhE hcorcci
Drprtrar of uxunl Errqer
lStt Stclrtnr SstGt, Roo,rr tl6
Derrf,r. Color$ t0?03
?hllrE0t, tt6a'5El
FAr. (rotl866-35t0
wl**G*rh-co.u3
Tamera Prcgl
G$tltld OountyRtiHhg ald PlanninE
10E Eh st$8201
Glerrurcod Sfin$ CO 81601€055
ffim
May29,20tr3
Re Rf,ndr dGouk Cru* Skctfi Pftan
Sedbns 6 e 7,T7S, RtrW,6fi Pnl
Sedon l,T7S, RBEVlr,6h Pt/l
waEr DivBbn 6, W.E obfitu 38
Dcarlrt Pregt
We a13 prwfllr'€ trls httsr dua b a drarqe ln trc da0rB d Cffi No. dEWl0E wtrEh
corrbins me uf,rirr tlghdand Plan frr augnrntrton 6f ttc €bovo lgferencd Propffil b
*d;rM;#1r8r#; paraofi'ftzo tuilryrt"r* rlrs and open spee.I ltllq. fisrwlfi bc
a rurctr rnarqsfs ,g;i*c":
"i equesfiiin-EAny, ue f Un irm*, and 1.0,000 aernrefrd of
EC;,rd rittih pnr€sfiilt6*q"q"g [rr rancr mme/s rulidau} Tlrappficant
prcposeslt proUbette-rmgrs,+elytrlugh'i,EllEblc Jugm.nrd pcrsgidpdtdrp crc' The
toe ara b be sEn sd by individGifiPsc;#E!rc; Tho sout+ of tte dropmed f:qypU wuJd
be tilrr. tr ffiutery b;$u R*ri,EFot* Rh,Er, whidr is a thu$ry of ttrc Cdopdo RiYer. Ite
Colorado Rlrleris dteeeptoP,latei, Ure EbtE in orgnnnmn plan ls rcquimd bofrct
depletbn* caumd Ey lhe use of u,EtErforthle dffiprnnt
$nccthcfrme sf ornrsfenallefrilof dabd Usrdt tl,?{i06he StahEJtg{pg/r Of6ca
tus enfiOlrrU a sfeuiefon inO Agrralrtlu,irr ilt eppfi*nt in Caae No 02C[IV108' lt ts il16
$[ut opilig;l ur.t ff6-pmpced-urfr* suptly;[ not ci rse hiury bdacructl uater tigrds co ffit
es u1E uffi r6hb *rd Fffif"r ntnprm#,tihnaity +pru,ed byih. wabr Court are no lm
reticrirre 61ar hggE fre".rd an ,ffi Smdit*a;dLirurnpn{. We rrcorrmrnd thd addene
dfic trtd docruo h/ m'Wder Oorrt d pr*t rGd b ti cttflt/ *ryP ePPrsvetg_tc-Fftd FEt
rcr ot octlroprrnt rtre tnt purr,r.r,t tb cfs g0€9130(0),]{it lfitr nay-ttd be uecd aa
evU"ttoc tn aii aOmlnptraUve drce"Oh$ onceminE uaerrfnt Oeemhdon$ or
admlnis&afion. Abo, due to mnems $tab0ln oui pdvious nfur, we ar€ unablo to comrpnt or
uie ptl),8iml adequecy-of ttra waer arppfy, and El* ul. exampt ncll it3ue, also o,Plain€d in oul'
peviorts h$er, s{ll aPPlics-
tf yon orthc apFllCant har ffiy guestbtts corrccming tiie matbr, pleace Eonhct CleE
Lk olthis office forassisilanoe'
srrroauly,
tIOiril
Cguittt,
c(3a'i&ElofhrBt#
lLl o.ShlpELPAg5qr,{sr
#r+
/L<a,l 2k
l(annstrW.ltts(
Ct*Ef Donry$rE Eryltrer
KlrVl0Ctr,lL/ Randr at Coultsr Otsk.doc
ce Alan ttlahlhro, Adfurg DMtfon Englrner
Bill Ehkpelee, wrhr Comrttissimer, Dlsffia 38
TUNL P,EI
r{AY-29-2003 THU
,SY'!0400t lt:0t
02:41 Pll Pl,ltr
FmD* ilAlUiAr
FA}( N0, g70g^-"947
s0ttissltt lto ?.!0anll i'tl1-.)tfifi8
P, 03/18
DISyIRISI COLIRT, WATERDMSION 5, COLORADo
CdddCudyCorhtur
lOe S Sma, tililc I0*
CknroodSffi*eO tlfl)t
wwf"iw5
N TTTE AETICATIO{ FOR XIAIER RI T$I
FOR SIC-IALmE{CB ItrC iE ffild Couy
'l cdlBfusoilLY -
a-
E
Abrn ux Scsa C. MIl6r, #t6l8l e.etdrbGi:
ItrdqM&r&xrqqP.C. leCnnor
730EDrilr!fi, $fis?00
Aryco,CO 816ll
9lt,gl0-102t'Telcphoo:n0m5#l -Facrinile
uflla@wuLw.cm
grrygT.AflON AT{D AGNEMEI{T
IIc noplisu. tllC-Iamace, Ifg by 8d fu'orrg! iu mcy, fgicf,ItfiIIs &.
KrtFG, PC, g-lieptlcuf), md t: Obiccu, tIiloE D- GbD Sht6, 1* ffi Yj*Sd ifCo6rd; ua eUo C. }{ralluo, DivEtnElfhlcrfrrmE Divitm 5' Ey lflr
t oNl* i".*ir.y,t -imry Gmrl's Ofiee fdicEilfi") bGs*y tdstls ud rgr:e u
Sllsffi;
trIIINESSEIIH:
uffiEBEAS, rbG OUBE brs ElGd a rindy sunril sf oppalrim b &E sol'G.
qgdmdurclud
U/HEREaS, &e rnuy of r Dccnr $oD rErut !o lcr rcrniaiw fu fro* miued b
thc FopolGd fUlinie "f frrt, Cgalusoot of kw aaa 51r1gpaqs rad Dcelt. mhst r Drhtffi;if u.iJlq r*id;-eo omd;tof thr oW.sE $gldirg thB urs ri$nl ild Ph ft E
ryffimdcrcibciltkGfu
HAY-29-2003 THU 02141 PI'l Pl{'
ttY.!l-t008 lt:!8 Fi0pffi IIATUR^I #30mffi
Ditricr Coun, Wo:rDivision 5
hgp 2
CascNo, ([?CVl08
SdpuhfimudAstrnmd
FA}( N0. 9701',
3!rri8til3
bfthtYt[i! tc&cocg
of rnd bG U[ftg qo tr bcir] c*sc!806,
ofitcplticahmEto-
EmEs url qruuicg cmainlg es
2003,
rnr SAI-AZAB
AilmryGcoGrrl
Nffirlnrrorrn*&Esttitmil
ll.cdm
AfficYt &tl SEE DdDiYhioB
Eughilrs
141
r'l?0
P. 04/18
P.!0iru17 H{1
NOW, TIIEREFOBE ftruditl of lbt uuual gcml$B of, 6\ffi
wlned tlltio, tD, Pc&! tdPtdrc on u ftllorr:
Obiccffi Gn Apilicilt rgr* E
aoudnd in thsFiffht8p ofFros'
arv of I DffiiG m hs rclufuiltr tm too3
,ffirt itle* ild JufiEEot ild DGEcG rmdd
b:muBt$ir'A'md
2, rdr egffimrs rhrll brse o
rfuinimm+ rocccrnaq rsd
Thig aEcclncu cu*irusc 6s
rioruncocrc, ofrl, Ecec-qrtio* EnE DEtof. Atl
DoiEeb albgpd .Eletocg'
arbjetumrbertqfrErE
Efiostiwti! 3&0rY of
730 E. Ufimt Smcs, SuiE 200
A+En'C,.O tl6lt
AmFflselbc.{fp[ss
G.s'EmGuDGlu,€ &G pmict ud rycrtpdcr rll
;ftdcrrr.drg ofilGPslits ri6 rcecgtto Sc
ald coryorucnrr eon'rurmm' t4{t1
PAINrcT MTIJET,& EROFF, P'C,
cllnUOq#.*l0l gl 5{110! d.&c
t{Ay-29-2003 THU 02:41 Pl{ Pl{f
SY4l't0!t l2t0l Fil.0ot illUiAt '-Jufrl8
DigEict Cotfl, truerDivisioo 5
Prgs3
CarNo.0agill08
SdpulniolaodeEccqcat
I haety o€td& tbu o tis : drY-
tno 6qoie $IIPIIIATIO{aI{D AG
JuiiEGI.iEL m $! bIowitlt:
leyI[a0MmABq.
falD. OtEEtLES&
C*lrq tluncd& Prddoclg U,C
1?00 HEIn Smcq Sfitc 3900
Da$,mi, CO S@F+S39
SconB{mD,8r{.
Balconb &(ktco, P'e'
P.O,DEnrur?r0
Glcuwood$Ehtl, CO tl60l
JfuC}rfl'Eq.
AdSffiAfisffiyff,?od
i-s2s 3[cffimstiotsnFb@
Dcorcs, CO il1203
C $Elfrfteulfl tS t{''.ts ildi!
FA)( NO,
3!ll8t8$l
9709!'^q47
tl0
P. 05/18
P.lltrull t'rf{
20(8, ruuedGEoEtooDY
mdcascwrr$nrcd!'ir
HAY-29-2003 THU
IAI-lC-t0!t ll:01
02t42 Pl{ PHf
F*m ilATURAl ,-"dmEt
47
A?B ?.0cE/ulr l'!/r/r
DIL|FT' \t[fl 2t,2W3
Paricls Miller & IftoPf' Pc.
FA)( N0. 9709',
r0il8lllll
P, 06/','
DITITRXCT CQT,RT, WA1EB DT1IEION 5, COLOBADO
tufiddCouyC.rrt"rt
lD 8lsurre Suia l0+
Asnoodsqh$'C0 tl60t
970/r1'$5tr5
IN TIIE EDFI,K*IIO}{ FOB S'AIERru$II5
roR S.GLAIJRH,ICE IJ.C h ffi.ld Cqfiy
couEr !r03-g!ll,I._____g
Asmys ltomQ Milkrrfzdt8t Crttuncr:
tufchltfilhE&trftt8{,P'C' leCrytOe
730 E. Dtru, $itr2oo
A{G!,Co El6lt
970fit0.1048 - Iclclhffi
nUn 4E/i7 -FrsdEill
rfihs@ffirw.cs
BUI^trNC OT'NEFENffi
Tb! $oyc ddod epplbafuc wrs filcd o-APdt l0' ?[e-rnd u Anrads! eppEsAm
mr flcd on;6l rr,irirpl;ia *t '.tu;i E tu urda;tg*d u vu x.e$c tu wG
Di,*lont.ro. s,Bffi 'of iilInae, t fr;'ii; rrdp oe.rio-crq h-fco{qc lq.Atd"t'
9, of firl, ii'C;ftdo-Ra,ir.d'$nag tf7j, hJm 15 Ib wa3r Risls Dttlshdiot Ed
AdddsaionAlrof 1969.
Ard tE *siepcd &fulc fiviry Dr& raf, Uvstg4irop -rs PC.rlcclssy P
rtmhr ",t O.0 c-g; G Am.ffi iniUc epgti.Uon It EIE ild hilfug bcc6r fulF
dffiwlbffic n t $Di"ca E5gr o(lb riP$.d* dg3r h.r:b)'urt ttc trlosiry
rtcrnoimiurad&rling rit! A.egc bfris n*rr, !o wit
W
l) The m:o iu 6c Applicaion lss Eu!'
HAY-29-2003 THU 02142 PH PlT
t\I.ll-t00t llr04 Fml.O0t ilATtlt .0UltE3
Digrict Court lItarcr Dlvidon I
rup2
CescNo.02c\[rl0t
RnliugofnsFrc
FAx N0, 9709'=^947 P. 07/lg!0ilts$lt ,t20 P.ool/olr sq
DBAFr-M6yn,2W3
Padclq Miller & I(rryf' P.C.
t)NEc, athcs d tclcpboc scubcr of Applisffi
SlC.Iemcnoc,IJ.C
c/o PtiaE, lfilhr & Eru0t P,C,
7J0E DEdSt"$dn200
A*rErCO tI6lI
o?o)ezsl@t
ruBgf CTAIM
COIITDITIOT{AI I'lIDER!ilfi'lTD WAEB}IGTET
Nut ofwefl tEusruns! I-ursucc Xnsb Ylctt No. I
LosrocclacbWdlNo.2
lrrmuecBnstWcllNo,3LutlcIafilVdlNo4
lrlluccBmc[Wdl]ikr 5
Dcrciltm of C@diti@st Wamr Riglnr:
3)
4)
c
D.
I,rgrt OoluUtm of ftn FUd (dl h ffiGld CotsDr Itrl lsacc REd
WiU Xoc, i:f "ru br bcscd ia r welt fcttl m itc {S0 rrc Lflwc BEr}
!ilqGsty (r/9r nncn * Coulur Ch€tI trtir;b Prectylorndd; rs tct[y
icirttrO u hlov!, dshmrs6pUcalty mfrcurcEtt ElHffi*rt'
Ior 5 of SccdE t, b Tomfip 7 soult Xago 88 ll/e* oftto 6t D-Jtr' W }{ SE
y. .Err.w v4 ilil I.gg3 6,7 j,dS ef Sccdm-6, N )t !G ,/r SW % liE 7+ *d NE
y. rtfr-v., .ll b St 'd*-Zf*,linf , S,trdt nry &7 W* of o! ot fJf,
([s:fuftr rftmd p p nllntupc REc[ FoPEty.")
gorcc tu dl udt* (trtuulwu Eilx63y o CmH ftdT tlticb b Eltgg;y
p Cdc ftrclc, vtich it uftfiry E tu nffiht Fd Biwr.
ApProPlidm dEG ftr G.d wcl[ Iur*y l7,2Wld;sft frr crc6 wel[ 0.O c3r OS0 e,p*), ccd6od. l5a armldw
uoorl. dvsgius too rll rvells frn rll ura wil Dc 9,*.75t1 acc &cr
Usec &r crA wc[: Dornic, ttt frmdsa, *oelnrffif od biEilim fu W
to 6J acms (tpuinrrly lqfiI) rytrt Slt pcr h) of lffiri Ed jrd&
ooundurd willtin the Irnwt Bsch llopclty,
s)Tb umc md ddrrrs ofrlc owlcr of ftc ld qpm wtscb rbc eofu of drsrico of tc
rc[r md ft"pl*e ofurc ir locmd ir: Applicur
HAy-29-2003 THU 02:42 pt{ pt )
flY'lt-!00t llrll Fno}il.ll flr^r 'd$OUitrt
Dissiot Court WsDiviriou s
PISBs
CrseNo.0aCWl0t
tuIto8sfRc&ree
DBAIT-MrY 2t,2003
Pauich Millcr & I(ryq, P-c.
FA){ N0, g7t
r0!iEtltlt
'841
r{lE F.lCrulI Fr+Yr
P. 08/18
SEEOND CI.AIM
cql{Drrlp,NAtwarf, #,fl.f oR^SBIEEF5
o Nue oflluncarer; I.entooePouilNo' I
ImucaPodNo2
IrrrwscIbaANo' 3
LlnuccPmd No, a
No&: Ls*ue Pod l,ht. I dmus 4 ruu FfiiotCy dEtffiql iB Crt t{o' 95Gryp4'
*r* pr'tm xo. i,; i,Iry 28;lee6 ffiffiH"ffi*H$dccrca AFIicfi bEEfo rc& ro rdd lucw,
rtpcruucfircr, rsfr[ow*
Uaofudm of Codtiord wrtr 8logltF RfuFt"
A f*flDmipdmof(io0rfiEldCourY):
n
B.
Lnmoe Pmd No. I: Thr ccffi of Lnmncc lud tilo. 1 i!^hct!!al tB ltc
NsIt/* of rhc sE v. of iff;e-fimfip 7 sout. nEEe 87 W-e* ofttc
F'Pl[.; ililii-;;tfEii* oc 'im 3lcdoB tino u 2ffi0 frB
fimtaro ridmtire ofdd Eccdm 6.
Lmtoae pmd No, 2: Tbp cceEr oflrrc+ Pcd lih. 2 il loEnEi ia ltt
sm/4 of UE SEI/4.f S*ffi?ilmttft ? SouL IoIG f y* of
t j;pf,frilii.iit0o e![ dfi 6c r&h t.cti6 E[. En r?to ftrt
fiutt cffi rrdm liu: ofnid Sccdm 6.
Lgr:aB BuilNo. 3l lte ccmr oflnrace PmdNo 3 tc lod h fic
!El/4 of oG swl/r oiEffi-i;1;";$b 7 sot{!' IrF ll}vtll of
ffi 'dt ;-ilil;';ril-itt0 ril' rf-- s.dfr rcsdoB ttu d 1600 ft6
ttn ts wcst lcctsr lllG ofgrill llcs{m 6'
Luucc FEd No, * ltc cm ofllrasc Fud No.4 b bc!filn h &3
sEr/4 sf tc swt/4.f Eil* 6;t"6rth ? gnrr' nng! qT.Jvo tf
t F ;1,il;;Fdd tiro eo, itm tc rcn." $criotr g,G-nd l4s0 eG
tou fu Yr* lccilm llrc of ni4 Sccdm 6.
Dil6 [td b ffIl Iarrcocc Bud Noc. l-t: I^urtacc Ditfi'-IvE P$sl.of
drladm bced o ttc Wcrt bmk of IdGr* irc* a fu SE ltN9Ytof Scsds
36i*r.Hpt g.re n-[ tt w;;f 6. e P14. a r noiu-ufimcc tlp Er*
ouau Couct of nirl i*fo-iot *, Soo gz o 3b' Ea$ !3s-ftrr ry W
;fi t d-ffir;vffi ;i ; c+.*ry or urr.r, r.scrce N 4.0 e,t*
r{AY-29-2003 THU 02142 Pt{ PI{'
HY4g-!00! lt:01 tmm iAlllt * -$UlE$
Disriq cotm, wrtg Dlvision 5
Pes4
esrNo.[ZCf,rl0B
Rttligtofn fueB
FA}( N0, 970r yl
illlStttll ri!38
P, 09/18
DRAFT-Mgy 2t,2N3
Patrick, Milllr & IftoP{' P'C.
E.
Smre of Wffi ftE Llrmtcc PEd Nos, 14 Ncrw tha: Melr glc* vh tc
l^arrnsi plut, wUeU il strrry r C-f* e'dt v6ich it trSmBy p O6c
C;dt, uttich is EDutrry to tc Ho*ing Fd nhlrr
D. DucdApprryinim&rNcwtuttrdooUra: Iuryy 15,2W"
Hs* +!iELd* vrs iddrcd: Fout{tdc of hcil !9 -rp?II vlffi E
[n fi.in dq *ra um*om' mvcy, nmmmi'm-g4 tcaU 0erctiptm'
Orc rru titioem tfosficirl utc tu nunrutim lVA
AumnChbcd:
Ienrecc PotslNo. I: 20 ree Sc, cudrharl viB E dght tr CIl Ed rcftl
oqgfindy Vsr romd in fiuitY.
Iarstncc Pud No 2: 20 rsrr fc* conrlidmt wiE rtc righ o fll md tdE[
eufiunuty )rer roud iu Pirfry.
Ianmsc Pod No. 3: 30 *re @ orddffiL f,,i6 rEddr to f[ ud ttflt
effioutU y:r rund in FioEfY'
Lmce Pwd No 4: 30 rolt ftGfr eodEmrL a'fib ftE tid[ !o fitt rtd rcdll
eminrorulY Yxr tmil il FhitY.
I{lw' Addftiod uce chinc& erynmom fo fr! ure h ilfi flm'mchdhg
tr d6r lo slo1e .*rryf*oo[Edil.gdml tlU 1gy rpof nimdargy
biffi ffi; Liwiril rme Noa 14 sd Etc1rcr of met ry 11y lilt
bt -trtdt t"-mcntmtm 'd ttpt*** Fnoac* rr dorcnibcttr b us
ryn:mdesptm'
Srtfue rrtt ofhlfb l;Er lina; ndrurn tcirs ofdm b esB hogi! of dE ir
&a:
Isrucl Dmd No, l: sficG rrr I s.0 rrq hdrU - 15 qrg FngS - {g q'G
Iffi, FodNo. 2: trffirf ger = 5.0 rstd lcifo ' l5 4tB lcor$- 500 *t
Llrrec Fod No- 3: rEficG anr * 5,0 sta; b!i$n= 15 ftRi hlgE = I99 f&
Irunace Pmn Wo. ct .utficB ltn' SO arro{ bsiEr - I 5 &* ltngfl - fl10 &cr
Tocl cf*ity ofnpenrufur il rcm Sa:
kincooc Pmd No. l: rcfi/G cryrciry - 20 nrt &q dod *crgp - 0'
ra"tilccmoe No- 2: tsti!'E criri*'zorctefccq dcrdnq;c-0'
IanocrPucNo. 3: activr crirri6''Eo nro ftcr rtcrd a*lgp - o
IeurtoccPrdNo.4: rcdvc.+.dt -3oles B.ct dlrd 3E8lgF=0'
F.
G.
E
ilAY-29-2003 TtlU 02:43 PH Pr
ST.8C.?!08 l3r0{ FmlFfil llAltti. ,d3qntr3
Di*is: Cout, WtgDividon 5
PqgE 5
CrreNo (ECVIOt
R$tingofRe&gcs
l0)
tl)
12) MDoiutofdivtsion:
13) Soucc:
l4) epnrceC$mdmudmmt*
FA)( N0, 970
s0a$01$t
947
t lto
P, t0/18
P.o0lrulI Ft'ttl
DRA$T - It4aY 2t, 2003
Patrick, Mitla & KroPt, P,C-
8)
e)
NUrr ud rd&rlrer of o*ucrr tpo rldet my rmcmtte lt lc€tcd, EG wUich rgr
ll q wiU bs *orcE s upg wUicL urac ir fo uriU EG PlrEG( to boddel rul: Tt;
Irntrcr Pild l.troi l"+;rc bcsd o lod dely orrm:d by ApPlicDB 6s Lmtacs
D[Ehh:rdEtE E locrtEd m lrod omsdby GmdE Rm&BJvcr,IIs, ttrOEr$ MliE
strer, s[it3206,A+co, @ 8I6t2.
Ilu*lrr Iauracc Pmd Nos. t+ Co uor ndwil 1gt httctcft gomdxrffi'
l.locof*rocars CuolidmdRstnfo
h&qdo 8s oddr.l d.!!rrt!
Tts $q&Ers cod of tu da of Cosolidasd Rscnroir b lomd r qD4fiP
ufld.[ ttc couum q.TG" c@a13 of gcG.ffi 19 Ed 2& Tou.[h 6 gglfi.
B*$ 8? wcrt ofils S P^Itil.' DGIrr Na6 r0l90' Errt, r dnmsc ot;u 2 w'
Cilrolidiod lrraroh tor;c of sUry i! fim tle lfc* bilcb of Coubcr
eldg ffirruy o Cmlc Ctrdt, tihnry o nodqg Fd liva,
Cuolidmd n*erdr - Scfmbr t, 1t98.
595 ecrt fu, ebso[llq ofwftEb I 19 Ec Stn ee om:il ty 6s Amfiflf,'
lf) Hmh Urq: Agplicu'r fuilfflB b tL, CarolidfiEtt lacrruir lle bcGs Ild- ' UriUrrtty; f,oui-fiSc qeorr"n1t*y Utl mrsr of hry ucrdovq F f80 .*o
I-{5tqac irlc[ Ibryqd. fdiocrtm or-ddr lt*uiroaUy ileuad hd ir tumo th
me n dpd rs Ufuurf gl Hprcvq, n* t rtru-$orf rym 4 4pfoa'rir*Hr b umy yeur Irr ror uorm;rl p r EtlI i33igign ryly ftE tG Zll rcn*
llrro h.s UGco divqred qd $Er.I trSul& h fr. Cmre[AiEd R:rBvodr fpo
Snan C*ltl$ttr,c/,,Wt DwdmUrfrrEOtrdttW)WM3
Gmrcihrl
8:ravo&
cr.2t{4tcrtda
CoryDhisrGosr
s AF, ftoh(20tic
ll9.lF)
zrtxtnl ilmo0
tlAY-29-2003 THU 02 r43 Pl{ Pl{"
tttY-!3400t llr0l FUlm il IURA. .-S|JnCEs
Dirrie Cour, $hrg Divicio 5
Prge 6
CwNo.0?CI[I08
RulingofReftrs+
FAX NO, 97OI'
tolttis$i
147-flo P.010/!lr F{4t
P. 11/18
DneFT-lvtay 28,2003
ro
*Dr0rdmlntty rbc drrc of 6c TFotriafi0n &E of Scpomltr 8, lt9t p tc FGEt
&r. Dlvtnims isofu n scrvofo ilEcffiitilrllr fuou$out thc ytr.
tg) Nmcofcrmucr rl be r,tEnnpd:
I^stose Roe[ Wsll ttro. l, r: Ccnribci in fu firs C1tin *m.
l"stocs RmA WclI No. 2, rc dactft.rt b tls FhS qrin lDoe!.
I^mc:Rmeh WcU H0.3, as dagibciirtll Firs Cl&l
Luroee lmeh WdlNo. r[ u dsrcribad iB fu FiEl Chio abo!'a
lxrruce Rrnc[ Wctl lrlo. 5, g dcccr&cd in fr, FiEt Clritu rDow.
Pariclg Milter & X(ropf' PC'
Ptf,Do[ed cI[F! Applics lGetr tp c[[gc 3l.rt sc ,i!tt of AFSGu's omsdfu
fu6c0t h es i6l priodry of Cq*lldsc| Ba3gvoir fs ur g ngnrocim o(ou3d-
Fifliry conry& rttrg d4|dms rsocimd wie &rehmm of llc l.urm
hae'ErFsty'dttctDcd to di Plu tst ua ugn t.l uu of
bifut!.[y fo6ail;d hDd wU te pafma6v nioycd i{m 15ffiic ;gistfiq W ft?
cslsiffi oirr'-o$gt in iEigddn13l6 ud rtc darulopmru ofnr&' bffiucase
.!dtm" 51tC mei.f uri of ey-rp *trls idcsdfod oq 6. u* uclctlb!'P q
BhiUt'ts," Amlfuffi scc&r E demlae Ed cnfrE tbc conrydve u1 fcolea
"dm
er limii'inlltm of rhp E,l j3tt p te &iad rp mC th: tll? d&E $ovc-
drrcrD.dwffi tid*; ruch rrmqp, A[dicm'c GmdnGGf s*iarnr me ccnamfdrts
u* crrdt rrd$li trq frr Hffifu-idgLtq1 cf I[3 8'1 rgqr Lr lJ6 nt-tFctttcr.aca
ttr 1r6-.fl'e flr D* .* fglrc fr Cffiting cmlrytv" urc omr& orty +Plfur E
ttr g.f ffiE hd ii.dfcd b tir pl3[ En Q*iwdy do.r Ei TPIy.n, Pn--it
.oy .ilffiEpdd-,.tc A4:rtUfon n dG ig 6it dGoSc?-&,E, tr norfofog blnoriclty
toiFtrd h'it SuEh dry rry witll Drh ffidl&h 14J5 ro+S6 ef eunrnp6lp ure
en&f,i. ttsrc cmsrndrc use cro6lt *$TE s &G ftltowhs tnoffity brri" -0,-p .Iio
A$lll e75 din lfry3-t'6t uuJtrs r"lt *t lus 2.ti dhABrn$ LF lfh
S'iil.hbq ild 035 riU Oomor, Agplicut" 66eUco3 trsdcradaoi ht Sla rcct-
iii oiifinrromf ngcrtoil rrgp'rffi ir rrmdarcd wilL tb hiilslc irigldo of
ttr-Li is# of lud Eldog too ;&il fts qeticdu rrts mnsit lffii tod rtr!tr
f,N!.
lnp mc urt rdfut of fu omlr 0f ihc l6d rpm vtdcl fu piEE of dtvcrrim rt
loffi tJhipd Src nunm ofma Ummgi. lte uuo ol ldrtrr oftc smcr
of &c lmd uno rtich i[p aav phsc of qrc ir IosEeiL Ap!ffiGtlt
l7)
A.
E.
c.
D.
B
I{AY-29-2003 THU 02:43 Ptl PHr
T!{e'il0| 12:01 lffiDL lllflllt *l0tlmlt
FAX N0. 9709' '47 P, t2/18
E0tlCStltS .'620 P'0ll/ElI t'l+l
DRAFT-1\,I8y 28,2W3
Pariclq Millcr & KIoPC P.C.
Distric Coruf Watg Divirioa 5
PrgcT
CFgNo.OZCvfl0S
R[lisgofRcfcrcc
l9) DqccipdonofwffidgF[s ntcurc0 ftrrrtmcusaim:
t uucc Pmd !{oa t{, u dcrcribqlhfu grcild Ctrh Sovr.
Curytivo usc oedir rsooircd u/i6 ey{p of lildr ti*odcttlv hri8rEd
undcsvrg sl$$ &r tlc Cosollducd R!.ayofu, rs dctcribcd h 6c fifon qrio
sbott.
20) SmencmsfPhfrreupomdm-
Ailicu iffi& to daclop 26 ttrrqEy tE iilrr m tc 4t0 rrm tmtoo: narih
Ftqclty. rv&b L cililri$ uact trrC i! ttc CcrlE fto* &du$ lrrr ttc oof,sooc
witl CouUs ec.e. Ic ddidoo lo ftc 26 buc ci!r+ 6E|! will bc r tlmou ilorltdl
rrddae., .! rqnsd.a finlity md rry b lEtl (10) !fficr. Ttc hfr. Ctilc ilX t3
d;rctopd gfuadly o fu uo;ryisuIult pcdmt of Or rt80 rcrcr ud fu il.[hg
.il1 fubt opcrdoa witl trurin lrgdy tilrfi.
A[ dmcds srl Ux,r/gEdEB iEiStdsE rncr wrll be xmt;d by dlrmdoDr fu mB
WcIs drteibod h tc Fi* Cun rbovc, xftich {,IIl bc Gmd o r pdvab Giltl
vm appty 3)ffi. Atl rrrrr d$g' rypErn fu ad involnnl lltldB ut r;ut of rn
iryrs*lffiIcr qryply plm. AIt do4ed3 hsors! wrmrr:c will bo dryoed of
Uoir*UvlCrut t@ imk @d rac[ fiddr rnd ir rsmod r bo 15% or$va
l.Dl cshmd ycr rqrod wurr dtqmd br ttc r:dddrl dtt!0hg SE od tc
I!f,ra/gftda ilri8uioq utt tr srodrerl cmstmfEv,e usc ls rcr ffi b rts TrblF
s*tid rdlr Ff,HHt "c." ltp c*icEed lnfisuigtuitdhg rrutr d:om4 hlr tcEo
eosvaned r E4rirnlc* Redrhatirl Ifrtu @R's! rvbct I EQR it &&d $ b'
hfldhg dcoei fo r.s pct!fir urhr 100 grllmr pcr lGlrmpcr ds" q1o EQ$ at
rcsnd &r crrD of the C0 tmc+ bduhg ry r,lodued renc$Gy &'dlhg uiB Ed
us EQB b ermcd ftE tbg rucD nurgdt nddacs, blrdlry qr rscid
rmc*oy &vglhE ruit lhir r$$B in 53 EiIPr &EeE bhpc rrb dmld il ftl
buih out o(to dsrch4nrot Acilrl rlrnrltr ofts dsUopAEry vty' !o tnf rs lbG
toEl EQR wm CcmiC eorrcmd Lssunds ir aot eeodsil A qDilsE i! ilix of urer
shrll bc *fsonod Fy 6G Dflvirim HgirGlr,
In rddftto to ta ln toncc ugct rbcca cfll bc ry r 6I nrcr of lrrD. tEdGo ed
ladrcp idsdm (mnroxfudly l0,0ql rqprc ftct pcr lot). Tbc fl*tE dmtl fu
isifrio ir 2.I9 rrgrE SBt pe rcrc uioe tc BlmGy Gid|Ie E.6Ed. Coonrydve u*
frr tHt HErdm dmmd Ia 1.76 r:c ftca D.r acrc, emry*m utEd ftr oc Blrry
Giddh eilyrir rG ts Sllorwr: Avagc osmry eralgluiron rut qomwr nt
Errcrl ou Arpcr od Gkuwood S!ftsr rvcolr tmttd! drn drusd F{eotdE&U ty
6e clqdodof rte Eip ryocific locnim wi& nrycct p thc clsyrtim of ft; two s0ltis04
csop gount cucfieiem-for hsy wrc urct ad irrirdm rrtnB md pcrea &yliF
horsrqrbr*donlocrdm.
A
B.
HAY-29-2003 THU 02144 PH PHr
ItI'19-!00t l!;0i Fn0[l{t llArur'- '-'SllilES
Diltist Courl lVrtcr Division 5
hge9
CsscNo.02CWl0t
RulingofBc&rcc
P.0ll/0ll F{1{
DRAFT-I\[aY 28,2003
Patrick, Miltcr & Kropf, P.e'
FA}( N0, 9709'
t08l30t6il
P. 14/t8
nl
?t) Itn*y Stmcusof@rition wne fihdinthbrn*uby: T!'ln tlE Bcrstroir&
c6d cqsy,ifiIffitgb tci; smd-Caltor limmd & Ftdtl6d$ I.I,ci
Cruoltd*cd d;*,rtu, h.. 6 -Otitough-d* *tmff Edomb & Gn:a'- P.ci
diqrdo wm-Coriirvrtfo'gos+ tv-rd lbtllE ihcir *mcy' H colmdo
inil67 Ge.rat .d; ,!. St 33 d piViim EEiBGT+ Ly eC &oug[ tdr g16lv'
r[c Cohrrdo Anffisy Gcocral.
+i(,rcn uBloll3 ffi,I4s'I
TbG BG&rtG fldt t[a r ooryldg AppUsilim 16d AfrGrdcal eppltcgtm wat psvitlrf
;u"b rdAu#Iy dct rfrd iu rnrl'ri#. c[qr ofwerridc'.TffiP.q
itrmh,Ed drdn -m0
va,e rhly eublilLcd ud rdcqu$t loqcc-w5 qI"dT f IqT:t t"1l pg'*ei u Ctr-S. Fr.92-304 ftc Bc&ccc .I3o fD& tel t€ tdicrrcqugEl
tSrIIffii ",iil-d-r.Edoririruny nq.t"Gd in trap5s*ioa ui erodc
ft#;-#--,td"i p.blie wrhc *s i.r*tica ft. Brfttcc lbrt; firdr S'1 tbe
il;1,6 h.rtfo i! vith 6*.0. tf I ptu ir nrgcnrUm rs dsdred ia C'n'S', gll''Z'
i08(9), h 6"ffit ort rha n{iiccr etir or mmqUonpv{dsr ? dryibd poEru !o
#ff1rtuffirtfx,6. dritafilc ftrufrocsdrt nttuvtc 0anxepcu of rrw
or rHsc ms c Pofu of dvtn[m.
Ifir Cg6t h;r jdrdicdm svrr ts subier nm:r of thlt Afserdo pnals p C'*S'
937-nF?fi,
u, E nlecccnctlB-ts AfDJicd hs hids€d t *sd,#T[1$l.rT4tflffi- rfuet fu rtic[tc +fUeCIai-t*bccon*btstb' er ol
ttlm it rnryopissl inm $'dlrblG ftr Efontglm'
WirL rrryccl n *s cCIddsrl s*tr rigtr hEd!' ec nl&rc cscl[{b| it APlfulfir
Drc &llmrurH el tEqdfrE *n $c?-i! EFrEFIirdm*uc rhuugLigglt1f!
rrrs sffciGu r placcnrfun pcricr o mties-od tS S3 ilrus isttolveil E:rcn cS roo
rill bc fi/Eu4 ilffi{ ;';il.fw* .W** Flt tgtd nd EDldlcrl o4 tdl F
bIoEEdtIy ,rsei uA-d"_- t[. F,"jcc1 !o'j{o[ ilo ",g: it firrtnad ru od I7i[ bc
qlasd wirL diligtole ud wilUn r nrrs$la tine,
rtc grdius of ttir Amlfu*ioo wi[ rcruloc uaeirl i{t"7 F.ry tl1ryi*cf&acA intto*-irrc,r dfi $&iS b 6My to S hr-il ftr ror*ts of ,ryP-Iy t;.
Conr6o nit{r, $ long o rilE s ui.ddr63 "ftis niling E! corylidvitL
ts,
25)
26)
tlAY-29-2003 THU 02 r 45 PH Pl'4
llY:lt-t0!t l!:0! Flot"SL tlAIlMr #i0HEt
Disric Corr, W*cr Divirim 5
I[Ss 10
CescNo, (ECWIffi
Buliuf ofBcerce
FA}( N0, g70r '947
S0tlisltlt r'!20 P'01{'/0t? F {11
DRAfT-Mry 2t' 2003
Fauick, Mlls & KloPf, P.C'
P. t5/18
Epclt4l[$.iilDDEgFD* . .
lle Rc&rue &69 thlst&6; cucludc th$ fu r[ove<drled AgP[otdm tDod4 bc
grmodgblhls
l, Itcappflces$atlbc gmdr&cFBfrrcil6ifoDrlf,t16ri$63asblhts;
c.
Fq 0-10 cfi (tto &ps.) fu 6c laulsc Bncu xrcl No t ftr Oc Ppoccl.of
A-.rd"iliftrp.*iiil ilignie md scr*sEbe Wq +rsopaca
O*c of ls,,Lry ti, ZOm.
' I1f, c@ddvr m;gl fivcrduc ita Lmwc
RmAWdl Noc. I dmq[ 5 b 34'75 rcp Sct
& Se OrO cfi (130 &Ps.) ftr 6G Isue XnS Wctr !{o' ?.ac E lry{d63i" rEq'fu eitGciiod, t',i8rdf,B md s4rutoS, udn aA fpgpmm
air of luriry ti eOm.'fd cwt*rc ed ihrcstu f,m I'wcsoe
IactWsllNo* I ftqrl[s ip3+15 rc$Sct-
Fs 0.r0 eA (lto 8.0s.) Sr rte l"utace BmA WclMe 3 S" tr ryg
dm:*b ra:, fit pttcciq idfldm d rmchr$EinS, t'i.Oq rwopdrlnn
ffi-flJdG-is, xru,'nli onruld,c md dil:dff fim I''otuc
ntr.h WdI N*. 1 fu$ S ir Yll rsrc Eet
Fc 0.,{0 €& OsO 3ra') frr il! l"utoce,nmcL Wc[ No. 1 tu qd" gpm. ef
dffi.ltc,l'c frc iiffi; hi& nd o*nmbs wlF m* qoUce
Om of lm.Lry ti, eOm.
- td cuntrtve mud disGldfis ton I'amuc
RnchWc[No* I tbuui[J ir3d":7irssftct'
Fc 0.40 cfi (lg0 gpm-) for ltc Lrurppe RfiGh Wdl No' 5 E ec prpoloc- of
ffi;d, ;Eq-tufr'ffifl uidid;lro rc.t wmcrnl nF il{ ryry{g
d$r #}."G-i1 i1;p.J T# smildt* t@rl &i'6m fim l^src
ndwdlNA I EuuEb 5ir9475 ecmfter.
Fc20 ure &cturt6ts drtsn ffi udlt6lt emrimrr{yytrdhg+y
m m l^ilErocc Bmd No" I hr tG acrw rrlditisnrl FIDolGi orlglmoq
hEhIli[8 thG dSil u' sqrc ce{EFttil tuc cndiu seimld wio dly q.08
HrfidAV inilsd fi;tre ttttl m qntqtt t* dffi &r r*mccom
psrgclct of Iutty 15, 20O1.
For 20 rlr Fct rdh fts dfts 19 llt ad rdn o@rotrly ytn rololl b FiqlEy
ilG-inmd. rmi-xili mr te err rddfttorl prrPo1ct ot rg:omm'-
i;'Iodt g 6".lgr !o *m cmnmemc urc c=aitr lsidrea wfib ey up.of
Hicifit i ri&a a"rsryc, *t il lpsPfidon drtc tu *rperni.m
prrpo*r of Juurry 15, 20fiL
E,
F.
lt
HAY-29-2003 THU 02 r45 Pl{ PI'f-
IA!-!C-!008 lt:0l lftlFool' llAIUhr d801fi{Es
Di*kr Csrrrt, WrgDivirim 5
Prgc ll
CaseNo.02CVI08
RulingofRcfrcc
P.0l!/!l? F411
DRAFT-I'ldtr.i,28,2W3
Parictr, Miller & Krup[, P.C.
FA)( N0, 970.
t0il8i$il
147
f-m0
P, tB/t8
E $or 30 rcrr Slt wi6 tht ridrp fill adilfll emriluorly frrand iapdoftI
ftr rbc Lar*rocc Foot No; 3 fu tc em rddirioal EgiEsGr C rugnddr'
hcludl[g sG rithr b rtslE mrrydvc rsg Gllalist luicmd wl6 &y uP^of
hinui,saltv fuifi$d ,.ilrsn, wit m ryfogrirtiaa dsc frr argncrmo
ptrposrr of ,Imuy 15, 20@.
Fr30 rcrg &ct wimturitE h fll rdsqfl coemuOyycrrrormdhFiiliy
fs ec Ls'Eact Pod No. 4 ffi 6G a:w eddiriorl FEtpolcg of ulEcmie,
hdtrdht tlc ti& F *m cmsmrdrt rrcc crtdits tsmgrcf rffi &v rf- of
Uslortcdly igigmd strSB vilb m +FcEeirrrEm dm Sr rnFctr*iil
puporcfJat*y 15,2W2.
1}r ep,UeraS thdl Dc SpIG{ a drqr* cg6fmhf r ctpp otqr1lrr df$ rr dltsDAl
httc lltod ChftE, lcdn.
ThF Applicu shr[ bc gffid a dcerac cofiudug tc merydrc use aditr of 1.76
rr dt tu ilF ey up olt.l rj1gr of U16icrfly igigpd hnd+ wib E E6U ccdis rs
HDEI Ir tLg Ttid Cldm, bcrdu
ftc fplicur st ll Ec graud r dsp rypovbg frE Ple &r Atrgniuntim, lt
dsito{ io tbc Fo,r{L Cldn, h;$ir"
Wffir 60 dIF of oouplcion of cortuarim of ttc Lul4g nrcb Xltll No.. t't'
ilrrlrB E r i,Glt peuii, ru3 ameca3 tull rori& tbb CoBn Ed ftG Dh,ids of XrrEi
Eltotme of Ih3'Drldre bcilifo of !tr6 \trdl(s). h ay ryplhdeo b rrb tl'
aonrt$mrl gfod'q6pr tighp $m4d hrdr $i*tm, frE APelic+l tft;ll E!ild& ec
+Gdfc pofu of drErdg1-ud-tc remr ud omdds 46tstry o rvsiil it$Ey- E
dhE wti.r d1ttr too tbc woll Foryhg s t[ Ioc*lm, b t €rtcs s6 bp*l ln
ur bGrn iddfisd iE tig crc. fHr rry r:crtt b dmfrcr ro tc mr nd cudtiru of
ti, Bdi$ udDecroc rb* m Tceifit p ltu uFn+s toccion ofils WG[(3).
Ilc Inmoe BilcU Wcll Ns. I ftf,S 5 (anU* oOlE wsllr Er uadfiod iu
reeordroca rdth frii ndht) url r[c larrm fq( mc. I ttmugfi 4 nry bc qqn h
lcffidacG wirh 6b mt& wilhou *;c rfuhhriw cutuihrat ftr ltc tco!ft-of
lmis mooel*o+ m lcn$ rs tbc t*tn. ud cmfittmr lcffih rst fry{[ rg fitlly
@6 tlionsorafrc o?.ftdoa of ffs Pm e8 ilgnetdoq srbjcct u lcrdol37;
9aJ05(g), C.B-S: r5rdcf ndich tUG Diviioi Erdrccs Ed Sulo Eryillcr Srll clolal $
fit of pEieEiW diwsiml, ih. delcdmt fim wld6[ rr9 nol nftrrcd ro $ lo lclvau3
iduryHlegpdrc dg[t+
HAY-29-2003 THU 02:45 Pl{ Pt{'
f,tY:il't008 llr0t Fill'O0t llAllllAr hIl0tlltEs
Disris Cotst, W*:t DiYisim 5
PagE 12
CrscNo. @Cryl0t
RnliegofRsftr€G
FAX N0, 970r y7 P. 17/18
80816t!tlt t't20 P'0lt/01? F tu
URAFT-lvlaY 28,2003
Patick, Miller & Klopq, P.C.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
tl.
ltis Cffir lns juidimim orcr Uc aUUGcr trffi of &ir Apflk{dm pmu p CR.S,
F74A-39(6I C&S,. fr rmddsrdon of hitry ro &3 vaspd dgE of o&on tu r. paiod of Evo (5) !,Esr rSEr 75}t of hildor* of tlc 26 hmc rimc alrccdbql h Fgt
Chin $ma Apilisut will aotifr ftc tllitr Court md Se Dfvidm ErSiH retla
75% hdtl+uT it m60il Aftcr cosddmniq of Oc qrs6 rlf,G !rlrot?!4 md Oo
rdmno[ rnEE[ rGSusE Uc f,c&lse fildD fu erb p.dod lr reerlsy E rsBE fui m
Sury slrll oerc to vc*ed dgs by eG opcfrnior of tlc Desea Sue pqiod drfrdjd*licdo lbrtl sqfur nrturderl* *oddEd. tovcvu, ttrt ftG Dctild of tdldjnedsdo nry bc qadcdupor tffilr dGdlis ty fu Cout tm nm,ocuruc of
hiiury shall uor trryc beco cmchrdvdy cstrblilbcd punud p Scsrh 37-gbl0{(qb
c&s.
the oum offuc ardidmrl wrcr righlr $r[ Eod& H. cld 6f6r Ws Cqfi d
rnystrptp! butshgrddes ud upcur qts ortm&ofthb ooililimlwmd&
drtog tc mcceedhg diligcoce edod, tto tucftca $rll file *|fi fu Ws Cult r
EodceofErr*rprururnrr lhl,fu W*cr CmttrU1c 9.
I[m rcquc* bv ta Dividm Entintr, tc AFliEEt iudl Fotl& t[l DNrlrim
Fnfiqct ** oGdH of r[ reontr rd rso@ od'otff e6 hfialoms rgcnd Dy
tsDividm Eagincr u wiU rlhy &rtu rtuhisrdm oftispla,
Ile fiflicm rhrlt in$rll nffirirg dilhc+ ptvld. rcounring md lllpDry
c{culdru rqrrdbg ttc timiqg of rtrdlsdu+ r ury D? rcqdrd ty lilG Dtvitiil
ETSECT &r.opcmim sf tis plu" IIG {plfuru ibdl elr fic u @rt rrport rim
lte Di?idm Ersim by Ndtrabfi lSil of erh ycu rredztag dwlios 8d
rrphcqmn nado ud:r tlis phu
1p $p[em &dt clttDllrh aimcowr' rsciltim wUc[ shdt Dc cAuelc erqigilgtilr[c MB ud cunttiml offir dms mnil,
TtB thEEg d.ll tc fibd wiE[ ilc Wmr Oc* arlic rjudidrl nsicr.
A copry of thit ltttlhg lbrlt be filcd cilb to rypmpirc Diviim Egilce d llE
Engircar,
I'1AY-29-2003 THU 02: 46 Pl{ P}11
IAY:ti'2001 lt:0t Fffifl'Dil llAl[Ur ESlItr3
Dinict Coutt W*rDivirim 5
PagP 13
CascNo(trCVlOE
S.DlingofREercc
DRAFT-DIaY 28,2@3
PariGIq Mllcr & I&roPS P.C.
FAX NO, g?OPJ
30s!r88!ll
^,47
.,180 P.0lI/0lI r{1
P. 1Bl18
rppfledc ftr r llcrcsohl fhdry offarm&lc Dt[fmsc er tu soglidf,rl p96dtrsfils"trfur.i*ffi*-orlu .,],, =., 'zm.--q1i
",tv.b6 cttafir lrr-Omrfir-ro lmg y qP c$mm fg1?:]rP_}.]ffiH&ffiffi &.railtm-lrs t..o Edc u$ ttffi dqooat
uru dtm tilvc Desc $rohm lqt rlrry- bI.Ytt'tHgl*SH
WlgUnoul,
DEdfdr-dryof _,___1N_*
WAIB,BEFEBEB:
ffiffi-
WsDividotih.l
$cueofColsrtb
No utuilrrr fillib&irEffi. rardhCy, fu el?FhgnnningiramtlEriad
mgre-fi fil13O.i.dgr.cnd;*dof &-Cop_tprtrvidal'.tmutrr.t*,rivcutril; F;Fr-.d uA Um*iny-aaAc of tF $qGct wec_dgne-fo rcfvsdnmtu Jlr Pff
ogmt;-rb.tt t r!b,'*i u rccm*AsUir W ttc WG Iudfc m tu Sanios of ElEv s
tF v!#i dCE ofdsr e&s oy pam lodnmco mgfi c."aoft,53AligdmEcdod
po*tfrcdtovc.
DGltli!-fiyof 20-
9r:rr r €tlt W O Dr/rf t l.llt.8 Glt^ill*
Etr oo1
06/02/2003 11:5?FAx 19709459789 LARRY GREEN
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
AttorneYs at Law
P.O. Drawer 790
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970)945-6546
rEt-rconeR: (970) 94s-9769
TxlLLlctLtr
June 2,2003
3, induding cover sheet
Tamara Pregl, Senior Planner
970-38+3/.70
ln case of a problem call BRffT at (970) 94ffi546
LAImENGE R. GREEN'S TELECOIIFR NUilBER ls 9?0'9{s-9769
BALcoIstB & cRE;T,'i']ci5 aann reilecofuei NUIIBER ls s7o'e4slBeo2
Cornme ntsll nstru ction s:
The irilonnation contBined in rhis faaimite r."'"ry i. .ptS"$*--by ATToRNEYIoUENT AlltyoR THE
ArroRNEYrwoRKPRoDUc-TPRMTLEGES-lL::ffi*":[g,m:['l*"*Xffii?3[i,1"ffi ti5#rhe irtumation contained in !tP..flq!1il",^ :1=ff^,:
ffi g$i*mi$rylfulj[.ifii"::#8ff i,r,m:*T"f"r'rumg;'mlv.mmm:lr,ws*ml,i,t'#,8:iiih:#1ffi ,im------------:l"iH;g'*,::;3;r:ffr,;;nr,r*sH*t#: 8ffifi*;'g#HH
received;fr - il ;ddt;ts via tfie U's' Postal service' Thank vdl'
E -
0B/02/2003 11:58 FA-X 19709459769 LARRY GREEN
TTANCIT AT CoULTER Cnnnx Sugp
@o03
#try
-2''-)rf
PNOTOSTD COIYDMON OF ATPNOVaL TTEGARDING WATER SUPPLY Pun.rr
+1,,L hAnrta a4ru)0 k3 \l*- =-lrLFn&-9-tL*
testresults which
a*+dtkl. l/u_-tL\rlq
tffl-
\
Lun*-"1',*R.
.j
r
l-
t(
S @-Frfi'ilas%,b4'
06/02/2003 11:57 FAX 1970945976s LARRY GREEN @ ool
WILLI^|-trBALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Drawer 790
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970)e456546
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-9769
FA9SIMILE TRAl,lSillSSlON NOTE
ln case of a problem call BRrfT at (970) 945€546
LAWRENCE R. GREEN'S TELECOPIER NUIIBER IS 970-9'15-9769
BALCOIIB E GREE}I, P.C.'S ATAIN TELECOPIER NUTIIBER IS 970.94ffi902
Comments/l nstructions:
THIS FACSIilILE TRANSI'II$SION IS CONFIDENTIAL
The hformetbn contained in tris facsimile meesage is protected by ATTORNEY/CUENT Af{tyOR T}lE
ATTORNEY/WORK PRODUCT PRMILEGES. lt iB intended onlybrthe use of t]re indivilual namod above, and lhe
privileges are not waived by viilrc of this having been sent by facsimile. lf the person actualy roooiving lhis facsimih
or any other mader of the facaimile is not the named reciprient, or the employee or agent responsibb to deliter it to tle
nanredrecipient,anyuse.dissemination,distributionorcopyingofthbcommunicatbnissUicllyprohibited. lfyouhave
received this communicetion in enor. please immedhtdy notiff us by telephone, and retum the original message to us
at the abore address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.
Date: June 2,2003
# of Pages: 3, including cover sheet
To:
FAX #
From:
Tamara Pregl, Senior Planner
970-384-3/.70
Lawrence R. Green
06/02/2003 11:57 FAI 19709459769
.roHN A. TxuLgoN
EDI,AFO MULHALL, .JR
Scorr BALCoHE
l-AwRENcE R. GaEEx
TIXoTHY A. IHT,L3Oil
f,xvE C, Hau-F*o
CHiISIOF{EN L. GE'OEF
A{T{E }IAFIE CAU.AHAI
Ar.rAr{DA N. I{AUREF
DEboRAH DIVIST
Davro P- .rorts
"AlroAsrcFffindev*^NM€56
VIA TACSIMILE TO:
LARRY GREEN
ITAI,C()MET & GREEI\T,
ATIORNTYS AT I,A\{
P. O. DR^V/ER 7AO
al.a Cor.on rPo Ar.E!{rrE
Gr,ENwooD sPRrNes, CoLoRADo a 16(}2
@ oo2
OF COUN3EL:
KEXiETH EIAI.eOT.B
TelePhone: 970.945.6546
Facsimib: 970.945.9769
2,2003
(970) 384-3470
Tamara Pr€gl, Se,nior Planner
Garfield County Buildingand Plmnirg pepartrent
108 86 Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Sp,rings, CO 81601
Re: Ranch at Coultu Creeh
DearTamara:
I have attached d dmft Condition of Approval r€garding water supply plan which I believe
is consistent with the discussion we all had h Don's office a little bitago. By copy of this letterl
am providing Carotyn, I\{ark, and Don with a oopy of this proposed Condition- If any of you have
any questions or comments on this draft, and if you have a chance, please give me a call before the
meeting.
Thu&s again for your time.
Verytrulyyours,
BALCO}IB & GREEN, P.C.
LRG/bc
xc; Scott Miller, Esq.
Tim tdalloy
John Sarpa
CarclynDahlgren, Esq.
Mark Bean
flonDefor4 Esq.
06/02/2003 11:58 FAX 19709459769 LARRY GREEN @ oo3
Ra.xcn ar CoULTER Cnsnx Susnw$roN
pRorospn CoxnrnoN or'Appnovlr, Rncanunvc WatER SUPPLY PLAN
4/"'' ' t ' Prior to Final Plat approval the Applicant shall provide the County with a copy of a final
Water Court Decree for the plan for augmentation for the SuMivision as stated in the letter dated
Nlay 29,2003 from the olfice of the State Engineer. kior to recording of the Final Plat the
Applicant shall provide the County with copies of approved well pernrits for each well which is to
be part of the water srryply system- In the event that the Applicant intends to drill additional wells,
ordifferentwetls, thanthosewhichhave alreadybre.upumptestedandfoundtoprovideanadequate
water supply by the Zancanella & Associates' rcport now in the record, then, as part ofthe Final P[at
approval process, tbe Applicant shall provide test results which demonstrate, to either the office of
the State Engineer or to a private consultant retained by the County at the expense ofthe Applicant,
that such additional or difrerent wells will provide an adequate physical supply of wder to ttre
subdivision' gllf*idt corzcr4 ( Au r h ,tznz*.u W qr4 es oueoalca<2fu,.
ln-fla //tr-t4/ Yl*{fuk a ,(ac/c { (vlz
-iae+ 2.ut ta+Wz
Vna.ft. J4(1740?
7,qa2. /? y',k.,
z ?, zooz latr ca)o kr)
acL/ /tzAr eoutd fu-nu,qel{a a-2ta( 7fo,z7aou'.rz q"
/
uaflruf i4 C*uz.
516
y sub-
l plan
ed by
) state
*tion
[*
l:'+:
I Lg the
Im
lffi
lffi
lt*
l:*
County Planning and Building Codes
Source: L. 71: p. 885, $ Z. C.n.s. 1963: $ 106-2-36.L. 86: Entire section amended,
$ 122, effective JulY 1.
30-28-136517
30-28-134. Telecommunications reSearch facilities of the United States - inclusions in
pfu""inS "ra ro"i"g. Any zoning plan, modiflcation thereof, or variance therefrom adopt-
;;;Eft;;tu"a"? tt ir purt f 6ri or after April 23, 1969, shall complv with the require-
ments'of part 6 of article lL of this title.
Source: L. 69: p. 238, $ 2. C.R.S. 1963: $ 106-235'
30-2g.135. Safety glazing materials. The board of county-commissioners of each coun-
t, i" tfrir rtute it aU"uEopt siandards governing the use of safe_ty Sla{n-g materials f9t -!y-
,"A"ri, f".rtilriin tt
"'unincorporaied
areaiof the county' No building permit.shall be
[*"a tor the construction, recoilstructior], or alteration of any structure in thq unincorpo-
iated areaof such county unless such construction, reconstruction, or alteration conforms
i;"Ih" ;;.d"iai uaopt"O pursuant to this section. The county building inspector sh-all
;d;;iffi;;"s to a&...it" whether such places are in compliance with the staudards for
the use of iafety glazing materials'
30-2S-136. Referral and review requiiements' (1) Upon receipt "f .i:9Tl-l:1:^pj"^tl}-
i"uw pi* submission, the board-of county commissioners or its authorized representatrve
shad distribute copies of prints of the plan as follows:
(a) To the applopriate school districts;
ibi i; """t t'o.rliy "imuniciparity
wiihin a two-mile radius of any portion of the pro-
posed subdivision; r,-L_.: -L'-(.) io "ny
uiitity, local imBrovement and service district, or ditch company, when
applicable;-[Ji--to the Colorado state forest service, when applicable;
Gi To the appropriate planning commission;(fl To the tocliiSit cooiervatio"n aisriJuoaiO within the county for explicit review and
t"id*-""Autions regarding soil suitability, floodwater problems, and watershed protec-
tior,. SuCt r.t"rrui tir?U U";";d;;; tnoiigtr all.or paf o( a proposed subdivision is not
located within the boundaries of a conservation district'*G) -d;;;'"ppri"rur",1"it
" 9r*1v, district, orregional treflltr a99ir-1m-11:i^*:::1"
O"i,?m"ni of piiUli. fi"Litt ioa enulii,nm"rt iot its-review of the on-lot sewage disposal
;"i;ir, i;,,"ri.r* iltrr"-ui";r*y;a*trfu ol proposed s.e.yagg treatment works.to han-
dle the estimated effluent, ut d foiu report oi thd wa-ter quality of-the proposed water sup-
;il;:;;;;ffi;tiiri;id. The depaitment of public neatttr and enviionment or countv'
district, or regional health department towhictr the plan iS referred may lequiie the subdi-
vider to submit "JOiti*"I""gi*"ii"g or geological.eports.or data and to conduct a study
of the economic i*riUifity oia se*a[e ttlut*Jrt wori<s-prior to making its recomrnenda-
tions. No prun rrru-riiJ""ii" A;;ppt&ui oi it " board of county commissioners unless the
department ot p"u11" heutth and 6rivironmerrt or county,-districi, or resional health depart-
ment to wtrictr thl'p-t;;;;"f";fi h;s;;a; u tuno.u'rjr" recommendation regarding the
proposed method of sewage disposal'
-*,'-(f,i ti) io tr,"iiut" J"gineir for an gPinion regarding *1tl*]llil1lll:Y^t:.::T*
to decreed *ut"iiieh6 Li rlrt"" of diversi6n of water necessary or proposed t" P: lt-:-q t'
supply the.propose"cl subdivision und uO: -ffi +f l"#rHT.opirtgl,x-y,Iiif -,:,,,1:l-::1*"*"1*X,::T;il;ffi;;r;;id;h;r;;"n for h"is findin!, including, burnot W:d to, the amountor
;"diii;;;i;i'"*.ri*g";;;;iir;i;;i b; d.i"ired to [i"u"r't *:f injqy. 1J*-:]^"::Jl:."uai"i'i"' i' ufp-i"a''ili;ith';;;aG th.ltut" engineer's gplii:lr-!1"-,::1*:l1""1.ili.ll It
furnish to allPoi6ntial purchasers a copy of the state engineerb on'n'o',lfltf'pl"tiff,;ffi.,J\
;;;A;;t-;1'the opioio"; except thaf itre subdivider need not -sgnl.ll
chaser with a copy ot ru"ii'Jpi*5" "iiyrr"ptii if, in the opinion of the board of countv com- )
missioners, the subdividli ffi;;;;;;t"i tfrl,t inirry oiiruh"qru"y tet forth in the state ""V
neer's finding
^
30-28-136 Government -.County s18
(ltl A.municipality or quasi-municipality, upon receiving the preliminary plan desio-
:,1i,n^g :T9,,tllli:lq1li1{ or, quasi-municipalitj, ajtrre source oI *ut,i,:ioi u n;6;;;; *rt.uslon, snall tlle' wlth the board of county commissioners and the state engirieer, a st;G-meht documgnting the amounr of wateiwhich can b" rr;;li; by said municioalitv ^,quasr-munrctpaltty to proposed subdivisions without causing iniurv tb existins wati:r riJli'lhe.state engineer shall flle, with said board of county coirmissibners, writien .o**?"t,on.the report. If, in the judgment of the state engineerjthe ;;il;6i;r"fflcient t" iri* .,opinion, the state eneinerishall notify the boaid or dountv io*-i*i"r"iil" irrir "Ii".iindicating the deflcieicres.(i) to ttre Colorado geological survey for an_ evaluation of those geologic iactors whichwo.uld have a signiflcant impa-t on the pioposed use of the tuna.
--- .--
,^11)^..10:,ugencies named in this sectionihall make recommendations within twenty-onedays alter the mailingby the county orits authorized representative of such plans ,"i"rr'unec€ssary extension of not more.lhan thirty days has been consented to by the suuai;-i,iland the board of county commissioners of the county in wtrictr itre suboiuirion u."u i, to.ut-
:*:*^31I:: ".1riy igency to respond within twenty-one days or within the period of anextenslon shall, tor the purpose of the hearing on the plan, be deemed an apprbval of suctr'frKpt that, where such.plan involves tienty or more dwelling n"iir, i i.frool distict
's{::1,11?:lP3ll
*lirylsaid,time rrmf'specifici"""*-"'io"'ii-i;ith respect toe ldeqrJacy of school sites and the adequacy of school structures.(3) 'r'he provisions of this part 1. shall-not modify the duties or enlarge the authority ofthe. state engineer or the division engineers ,"; div1J th";t"r"";;il3r irliirjrli.#li,rJiactions concernins water right deter;inations ana. aaminist;tt*;;;ilh;Jt "ii"rJ'"prrniof the state enginJer submiited *"d;;;rb;;;;ion (r ) (h) of this section nor any finding by a
*:|"-ll":nty -commis.sioners concerning subciivir'k;" *;;;;-;;piry *utt.i, ;;;;i?;;presumptlon concerning injury.or no-ninjury to water rights; and neither the state "rgi"".iiopinion nor the flnding of the board of coirnty commissioners may be used as evidence in
1I^lgglittrative proceeding or in any judiciat pr".""airg .-""..i*ing watei iigrriI"i""mrnatrons or administration.(4) Each month the board of county commissioners or its appointed representativeshall transmit to the colorado land use c6mmission copies of the noti;;inri"E "rij?irrir:mary. of information of each. subdivision preliminar'y pian ;;d;i;i ,uu*it6Jio tt
"m,together with a report:j -"3-.!."_t"llption gran_ted by'trie uoara 6f county commissionerspursuant to section 30-28-101 (10) (d), on sich form is may be prescriuea"uyih; a;6;il;land use commission.
Source: L.722o.504, g^8:_C.F.S. 1963: gtO6-2_37.L_?31_qp. 78t,L087,1088, g $ 2,1,1.L' 75: (1)(h) R&ilE, p..iooz, g r, enectiue iury rt. L. 772 (2) amended, p. r453,g 3, effec-tive May 24. L. 92: (2).amenaed, p.96i,6, g i, erective J,i,; i. ,. -ri,
tfXgl-"*!ra;a,;.2801, $ 561, effecrive'firly f .
Cross ieferences: For duties of the state geologist upon receipt of copies of prints of the plans, see$ 34-1-103(4).
- Law reviews. For article, "1974 La_nd Use reports. Shoitaugh v. Board of countv com-Legislation in cororado", see sr pen. ii. +oi mr.s,3l colo. App. ss, d;iljizi"(1fis1]"*(1974). For article, "Property Tax I".;oti;;. i;; . n'uilori;tI;
"'.i o" l"po.t impriciL If u nli,o- ,Imflementing Soil cbnserv-a1io.n fiogiams ning department or a board of county cominis-under constitutional raxing Limitationjl sii ;;";;'h;;-;; "ila"iity"t. consider and act on59 Den. L.J. 485 (1982). reports. required by this section, particularlyZoning ana subai#ion regulations ar.e-sepa- . . *ti"r" tt "yin&"u 1l'u{*urd,to the public, thenrate and distinct legislation ind serve differint tl" g"rdl p;rp;i! t'ilL"*"a by enacting thepurPoses' Shoptaugh v. Board of countv Com- regrilatio-ns'w.j"ra L"-uitiut"a. Sn.Jtrrg"r,-".m'rs, 37 colo. App. 39, 543 p.2d.524 (Lg7s). Biard ot county -coii.,rr,
37 coro. App. 39,. A subdivider must firsr meet zoning r6gda- i43p2i\iir97si"*"'tions and then additionany musr_.d'pt';rh - Ti;;;;;;L"io, o. vioration of petitionerrstate and^county subdivision regulations."shop- a."iro"u.lJirriii
""ro"ra,, consideration oftaugh v. Board of Couhty.Corim,rs, 37 Colb. lre;gelr;t;;;;i.. ffiph;h-;. il;rd ;;App. 39; 543P2d 524 (1975).
lggqty Comm'rJ, g7 Colo. App. 39, 543p2d,524
^^:I:_:f.ri9, is desilnedio alow a ptanning (1t7si: --*-
coDmission to make a decision on a pr&minar! ' A Jubdivision proposal may be denied basedplat without waiting indefiniterv f";d;i"r' .rp;;;fi#;".fl"r'"Ii-"r ariailabre schbols to
l1
p
rve the residentr
. County C
airbridge,929 P.1
3' Board of county
'its drscretion whel
h subdivision to ct
comment and re
approval. Once- t
requirements ot t
'froposed Plans for
. or not to requue i
30-28-137. (
{uotil the sub{iv
sone or a combir
", (a) A subdi
':imProvements s
cient, in the jud
-said improveme
: (b) Other ai
.ble for the cons
"ments which, in
of said irnprove
-, (2) AsimPr
'i commissioners
inspection and I
. any of such imPi it shall furnish
collateral suffic
sioners determ
accordance wit'and employ frc
improvement ir
(3) TheQo,
of .land subject
ments agreem(
the enforceme
transfer of anY
Such authoritY
fer of title of;
restriction set'
.,shall be comn
reqrlired or ot
or tracts of lar
(4) In add
missioners, or
have the airth<
note, plat ma'
arising out of
of a subdivisi<
county comrtr
Source: L.
July 14. L. 92
Law review
Legislation in
(7e74).
30-28-138.
contrary, the
II|AY-15-2003 l0:56AM FR0lrl-Colorado 0eolosicat Survay 3038 66246 r P D02/002 F-5r2
STATE OFdOLORADO
COLOHADO GEOLOGICAL SUEVEY
Oeportment of Noturol Resources
'l3lJ Shcrmqn Street, Roorn 7'15
Denver. Colorodo 80203
Phone (i03) 866-2611
FAx (30i) 866-2161
May'15,2003
Ms.TamaraPregl
Garlletd C,ounty Planning Depafiment
109 Elghth $reet, Suite 309
Glenwood Spdngs, CO 81601
l*gal Locatlon: 56,T7S, RSTtltl
CGSCass No. G&G,-0oto
DEPATUMENTOF
NATT.JRAL
RESOURCES
Eill 0rrtu
Govttflo,
Sca [. Tolchrr
frculiva lhccto.
Fon Cottony
[livilin 0irenor
Re: Rarnh at Coulter Creek, Garfield County, Colorado
DearTaman:
I luve rwier,rred the revisions to the Raneh at Coutter Qreek Prellmlnary Plat; and the April 24,2O6 iettcr
from HP Geolech, vtrhich comments on the development revisions. I arn ln agreement with the changee tO
the configurations of Lots 1I thmugh ?2. The revisionE to the subdMsion hput rettec-t the original
recommEndations of HPGeotech to ste the proposed builOing envelopes awayfrom the exisfmg geological
hazards on this propeftlf, namely the landdide conrplex and laults loeated along the south prope(y line.
Plgase feel f ree to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sinaerely,
Ros Collon)l
l\cdnq Sloto Gldoitt
6nd Ditlctef
ffi
RECEIVED
t4AY 1 5 2003
E$FIELD COUNW
Dt i.DtNG & PUltt{tilG
MAY, 16,2003 3:1BPM EMERSON CIREEN
Sincereln#*
N0, 327 P.2
FAr( (grc) t€E oeEE
l3\/v €FPICEA
FT()BEH'T E. EMERSON' P'C'
E€ EOUTH THIRD gTEEET
GAFEONE)AIT COtroFAtrO tl€ag
,-oGoo
RQrtETgT B g{6UEcN
MaY 16,2003
vIA F.ASSIMIIE TO g$s-',:rqs
Garfield Cousty Ptanniog Deparment
Anentioo: Tamara Prcgel
108 Eighth Street Suite 201
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Re: carbondale and Rtlral Fire Protection Disuict/Ranch at coulter Cteek
DcarTamara:
I am writing to follow up ou our telephof,e env.ersation today' As I mentioaed to
fou, there sdll are', "r-fo of .r*tof*d it*o" Enelosed is a copy of my lener to
I^arry Greeu dated *;y *S,- rpOS, ftit ftfier seut forth the ouetanding issues' ln
addition, I now *;;#;e tf,at ttre a*.!pq riaf le requesting. rlat the FirE District
"gr*ffiou*r,
U"i.i"tpoin d,lo..tioo foltte radio anter,ra site'
I also YyaEfed to poinr out tttitt the statement in your staffrepom-on page 2O that
the Fire Dfutrict fras-reriL,v*d and *pp**a tf'u emendhrent to Deed of Consemation
Easemerrt is iacorrect. The Fire District Board has not seen tlis doctment' but the staff
of the rire Uisuicr,'incluA"g ryt.f, *iU U. tog,od.g t"to4 "t'Tq::^Td
we have
advised tle ae,efJt6;*"*E; ofrfris iostio[ notio'ut, since issues l#titg to *,u
height of the ro*d*a *to,tr" hr;;#Gen resolved, our suggested changes harae not
y*iU.*n Spen to the attomeys forthe developer'
. Fire Chief Ron Leac& will be PIesent at the cOmmissioneds meeting on Monday to
address these mafters and answer *y-goouo* regardirrg the Fire Disuict's position''
Roben B. Emerson
RBE/MC
cc:.I.awrenceGreen(w/oerrclosures)viafacsimile
Rou l,eactr (w/o enctosures) vil fsgsimils
I
06/01/2003 23:14 FAX 970 945 r
O5,rcAnAg3 L4227 9769234:u2o
ddl?Al?lilAt L4:.22 974-7a4-O3L3
TG I,IALLO\, CONSULTING
ShlotlMASS LAND CO
SFRtg ENqIEERII*I
uaoo1l0o2
aLt62PAGE
PA@ 6I
Joc Eozcr
3uowuasl^lttd froPenY
no.Dil6119gwmrrinrlqCO 8f6$
Ro: Rrtrdr et Coultrr CGoB W;rlat Rrquhg1U ,or Prattdnrry pl6 tr1ryticadm.
SBJob$to, Alt5,01 r?.
i$/01/2i03 23;14 isii i:i', rr.i"1 l,;jlr LJi'rO:"'
,Ptr3-"J, ri., '1'' .1
-)'i' ::
''ii$id#i$mfo#rrnAdon bthe coghccringrcput tn lrspoilortha"rl(dnrryflnang.fredgn b.qt6cld
Omty tr Ui iioeooca n rch x Coultci G!€l( $ubdMlbn, Thc iotlorirrg $c urd dodfn lrftrtodon ts ln
rocu'druroa n*d *c suppl€m.ilrl hrfrrru*thn rnd rwirlocr to tho udor dlculbu{oo plm.
Itni :'1' l::r;'
,, i.
ic 58,210eel dmrestlc tntet dtomd + 60,0008d flre stong-c- 1
". . .riitt . :, ,
di#iti:dd.i* cernd'na beiiot tt uarc on (vory sniar,$tv6ty) 2 EQB'I por lo! and expictod lo bg m,rlu?fts of
?OQ grllont pg3 dey. Tulg EQR'3 inchde imletion of up r 6,0OO rqrrrre feet of lrum atte. Thr hsirrc0 Prrlt lF
tU t6qh B{iiilc'ti* of fr*r ot otlrer eqglvJont outsidl uecs at crctr rerldoncc. Thcrdorc rn rddldood 40CI
Metn Strtet r'Sutre At . Glruondate. C0 816A9 . (970) 704-b311 . Fix,{970) 704.0010
$oPnts [rnrilrlnllre o llG clvil oonsullants
08/01/2003 23:14 FAX 970 845 ' 1
O5l3Ol2OO3 L4=21 9789234uetg5(.3al2oa3 14t22 370-?64-8313
I0 I'lALL0Y C0NSULTINE
SNOWMASS LAND CL
SPRIS EISII€ERIIS
@oo2/oo2
a2/s2FAGE
PAE A2
Joo Enzsr
sE. JOB 21185.01
Mary X)rfuU3
prgr z
EirqFfiEtliptr
f1u ccutral ratcr cygrca Inafidcs componcnt: frr flro purodom Frruant to EO gtidolin:r. Itc frqporad
ruidflc.s wtll bc ! Enilnun of two (Z) ilorl$ ln ilclght and wtll be of Class V conrruclon (ghal(e/shln$c twf
ryrteur pmhiHtad). All propoeal lots rtr ulthin fte miles of the Carbondrlc rnd Rurel Fuo ProtacEon Dlrtric
(CRF?D)Miarirrili.i$trslub*$ion. AllduruIlirrgrwlllbooqulppedwlthfirccuppcttlonryrinllcrsyttotut
ryuing Nariond Fha ltamctlon Stalrdatrt I3R (I{EPA l3). Wet or &y hydranE wlll bc hcltsd within 1000 tar[ o,
eU bulldilUp. Tte rarimurn water $uttla dianice fiom i dwolling u r pmpoced wct hJrctrail (S0Ggptrr2ht
dwrdon) apprcfimalcly tqD f!rt. Ttc uain stdtrgc iltk h$ becn sizcd b sccomrnedltc the 60r0tX) gal nccc$st]t
fotfin florv.
If you hrra aay qrcrthm c nccd any additionrl hfurtion plour Sfiru mo r call.
Slnorrly,
SOPRITI EX{GI.IEEBINE
YmryNhltol,P,E
hojcotEngoect
Page 1 of I
From: Bobby Branham
Sent: Thursday, May 22,2003 7:05 AM
To: Tamara Pregl
Subject: Re: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Tamara,
I spoke with the owner and have no problems with the adjusted design. Sight visibility is ok and 12" culvert is
ok.
Bobby
--- Original Message ---From: Tamara Pregl
To: Bobby Branham
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:Sl pM
Subject: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Bobby,
It was my understanding that we had worked with the project managers for the Ranch at Coulter Creek on
the western entrance that was of concem. Can you please give me Jome insight in to this entry way.
Thanks
Tamara
s122t2003
STATEOFCOLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Deportment of Noturol Resources
1313 Shermon Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorodo 80203
Phone (30J) 866-261 1
rAX (303) 866-2461
RECEIVED
MAY 19 2003
DEPARTMENTOF
NATI.JRAL
RESOURCES
Greg E. Wolcher
Executive Dkector
Ron Coltony
DMsion Dhector
Ron Cotlony
Acting Stote Geologist
ond Dkector
May 15,2003 Legal Location: 56,T7S, R87W
CGS Case No. GA-@-@10
GARFIELD COUNTY
Ms. Tamara Pregl A.H.Dlt'lG & Pll{l{t{lt{G
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Ranch at Coulter Creek, Gadield County, Colorado
DearTamara:
I have reviewed the revisions to the Ranch at Coulter Creek Preliminary Plat; and the Apn124,2003 letter
from HP Geotech, which comments on the development revisions. I am in agreement with the changes to
the configurations of Lots 11 through 22. The revisions to the subdivision layout reflect the original
recommendations of HPGeotech to site the proposed building envelopes awayfrom the existing geological
hazards on this property; namelythe landslide complex and faults located along the south property line.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
/^&l*a
3:3[,[;f*""'"// u
Bill fuens
Governor
rage I or I
Tamara Pregl
From: Steve Anthony
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:31 AM
To: Tamara Pregl
Subject: RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Tamara,
I determine it and it is based on assessing the amount of projected future disturbance (areas outside of
building envelopes). We would look at road cuts, utility line easements, that sort of thing. Anything that
will need reclamation in the future. The applicant needs to quantify the amount of disturbance on a map.
Here's my comments:
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfreld County Weed Management Plan calls for
the following:
o Plant material list.
o Planting schedule.
o A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
o A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
The applicant has not provided any of the above items in the Preliminary Plan application.
Please provide a map or informationo 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.
Does that help?
Steve
---Original Message---
From: Tamara Pregl
Sent: Friday, April25,2003 3:36 PM
To: Steve Anthony
Subject: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Steve,
Conditional approval by the PC was granted at the beginning of April. One of the conditions was
that "a revegetation bond or security shall be determined at Preliminary Plan and paid prior to Final
Plat." Steve, how is this determined and who determines this? This Preliminary Plan application is
scheduled for the Board on May I 9tr.
Tamara
51712003
Page 1 of1
Tamara Pregl
From: Catalina Cruz
Sent: Wednesday, April02, 2003 5:02 PM
To: Carolyn Dahlgren; Tamara Pregl; Mark Bean; Don K. DeFord (dkdeford@garfield-county.com)
Subject: Ranch at Coulter's Creek Emergency Access
t have reviewed the Deed of Conservation Easement re: the Ranch at Coulte/s Creek and there is NO
language regarding the right to use the land for emergency access. However in Section 3(l)Permitted Uses it
does allow "construction, maintenance, repair and development of amenities, roads, utilities and infrastructure,
but only to the extent permitted by and consistent with the Development Approvalsl' Off-road vehicle use is a
prohibited use under section 4 of the Conservation Easement. I hope this answers your question as there is
no specific language re: emergency access. Catalina
41212003
COTORADO GEOTOGICAT SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Ceology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAx: (303) 866-2461
April 1,2003
STA|E OF COLORADO
Ki:rt.;:#; h' v tJ'Il
Ir.t":i f i 2CI03
-ffii"ftU F3l'il|llo"sat Location : s6, r7s, Rszw
CGS Gase No. GA.03.0010
Ms. Tamara Pregl
Garfield County Planning Department
10$ Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Ranch at Coulter Creek, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Ms. Pregl:
ln response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited this property to
review the plat. The proposed twenty-six lot residential subdMision is located on approximately 480
acres of agricultural land. The topography of the site varies fom gentle slopes in the center and
northem parts of theproperty to moderately steep along the south and easi property lines. Potable
water and wastewater will be handled on site by wells and lsDS, respectively.
'
The following conditions were described in the refenal and observed during the site visit:
1) Slope Stability. I am in general agreement with the slope stability assessment and related
construction recommendations included in the HP Geotech report. As noted in the HP Geotech
report, Lots 1 1 , 12, 13, 16 and 17 are located adjacent to a landslide complex. ln order to ensure
that the proposed development will not be affected by this landslide, the proposed constuction
setbacks, ftom the crest of the slope, should be clearly delineated on the development plat. The
plans show that the configuration of the proposed subdivision should provide ample space to
accommodate an effective setback; however, an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer
should be consulted to provide a formal design recommendation.
Lots 18, '19,20,21 and22 are located on slopes that are greater than 30% grade. I strongly
suggest that a slope stability analysis is completed in this irea to ensure tnal tfre proposeJ 6uilding
envelopes are adequately sited to minimize the risk of slope movement after construction. tn most
cases, hazard mitigation efforts can reduce the risk of building on steep slopes; however, the
mitigation needs to be considered early in the planning stages.
2) Swelling Soil. The clay and claystone swell potentials, measured by HP Geotech, illustrate a lour to
high risk across the site. Swell values ranging ftom > 1% to approximately 5.5% were recorded
within the site. Given the properties of the swelling clays at this site, CGS recommends that the
grading plan and infrastructure designs include mitigation methods as outlined in HP Geotech's
preliminary report. Plat notes forthis site should cteirty identiff the presence of swelling clays and
state that mitigation maybe necessary to build on a fot.
Due to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations.
Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the
overall potential for expansion or consolidation. CGS is in general agreement with the drain
systems recommendation in the HP Geotech report.
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
E=-1r4r
DEPARTMENT OFNAIURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Governor
. Page2 April 1,2003
3) Evaporite Deformation. As noted in the HP Geotech report, the site in the Carbondale Collapse
Center. This area has the potentialto contain sinkholes, voids in the bedrock that may or may not
be filled with unconsolidated soil and rubble. Although the site's topography does not display any
obvious signs of sinkhole activity; HP Geotech's recommendation to further evaluate the presence
of sinkholes and the potential for solution deformation to affect site development should be followed
when site.specific geotechnical investigations are completed. I also agree with HP Geotech's
recommendation to site building envelopes away from the faults identified on lots 18, 19, 20 and
21. This should be done to minimize the potential for damage associated with ground movement.
ln summary, the hazards presentwill likely constrain the proposed development; however, engineered
mitigation of these hazards should be easy to accomplish. This office suggests requiring the developer
to consider revising the subdivision layout to include the recommendations in the HP Geotech Report.
Please feel fee to contact me at (303) 866-2611 if you have any questions or @ncems.
Sincerely,/*reh
sean P. eafrney / //
Geologist
Tamara Pregl
From: Bobby Branham
Sent Monday, March 31, 2003 4:29 PM
To: Tamara Pregl
Subiect Ranch at Coulter Creek"
Just-rmtEd tpdrop a line and.Grl ygr knouv that after having looked at the site with Jeff Nelson, neither of us.,
. like the secg{arY agce.ss gn.lhe sh.arp corner. We have contacted Mark Beckler and are requesting a
meeting with him to look at altrernatives.
Tamata,
Thanks
Bobby
4nD0a3
OFTICE OT THE STATE ENCINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
'1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3s89
www.water.state.co. us
Tamara Pregl
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601-3355
APii fi !r 2003
GAiTT -1il TUUNTY
BUtl"ntil,lG & Pl-ANNING
STA|E OF CCLORADO
R}tril ffi},VED
March 27,2003
fleiw\l\'\r-lRE: Ranch at Coulter CreelgSketCfi Plan
Sections 6 & 7, T7S, R87W, 6th PM
Section 1, T7S, R88W,6th PM
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Ms. Pregl:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 478.7-acre par@l into 26 lots and
open space. The applicant proposes to provide the water supply through wells to be augmented per
pending Case No. 02CW108. The lots will be served by individual septic systems.
The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary to, the Roaring Fork River,
which is a tributary of the Colorado River. The Colorado River is overappropriated, therefore an
augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the use of water for this development.
Our records indicate that several exempt wells may currently exist within the proposed
development. Note that Section 37-92-602(3XbXlll), CRS, requires that the cumulative effect of allwells
in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the
existing exempt wells must be included in an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned
since the provisions of CRS 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of the well permits will no longer apply.
Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant
to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), C.R.S., that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to
decreed water rights and is inadequate. lf you or the applicant have any questions concerning this
matter, please contact John Redding of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Bill Owens
Covernor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, PE.
State Engineer
/&2u
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KW!(JWRyRanch at Coulter Creek i.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
OFFICE OT THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room B1B
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3s89
STATE OF COLOI1ADO
BECEIVED
JUN 0 5 2003
May 29, 2003
www.water.state.co. us
E:fi:',:Ell,',lrrffi''iffi,m
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601-3355
RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek Sketch Plan
Sections 6 & 7, T7S, R87W,6th PM
Section 1, T7S, R88W,6th PM
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Ms. Pregl:
We are providing this letter due to a change in the status of Case No. 02CW108, which
contains the water rights and plan for augmentation for the above referenced proposal to
subdivide a 478.7-acre parcel into 26 luxury home sites and open space. ln addition, there will be
a ranch manage/s residence, an equestrian facility, up to ten horses, and 10,000 square-feet of
lawn and garden per residence (including the ranch manager's residence). The applicant
proposes to provide the water supply through wells to be augmented per said pending case. The
lots are to be served by individual septic systems. The source of the proposed water supply would
be from, or tributary to, the Roaring Fork River, which is a tributary of the Colorado River. The
Colorado River is overappropriated, therefore an augmentation plan is required to offset
depletions caused by the use of water for this development.
Since the time of our referral letter of dated March 27,2003 the Sflate Engineefs Offioe
has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement with the Applicant in Case No. 02CW108. lt is the
State's opinion that the proposed water supply will not Gluse injury to decreed water rights so long
as the water rights and plan for augmentation finally approved by the Water Court are no less
restrictive than those proposed in the Stipulation and Agreement. We recommend that evidence
of the final decree by the Water Court be provided to the county before approva! of the Final Plat
for this development. Note that pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(3), this letter may not be used as
evidence in any administrative proceedings concerning water right determinations or
administration. Also, due to concerns stated in our previous letter, we are unable to comment on
the physical adequacy of the water supply, and that the exempt well issue, also explained in our
previous letter, still appl i-e,,S.
!f you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig
Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, PE.
State Engineer
Bill Owens
Covernor
'1r 2*
Kenneth W. Knox
Chief Deputy State Engineer
]$V[(CMU Ranch at Coulter Creek.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Acting Division Engineer
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Exhibit M:
Exhibit N:
Exhibit O:
Exhibit P:
EXHIBITS
RANCH AT COULTER CREEK PRELIM'
Board of County Commissioners - Ma1
Proof of Certified Mailing Receipts
Proof of Publication
Garfield County ZontngRegulations of 1978, aS a*- . ---
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
Staff Report dated May 19, 2003
Application Materials
Letter from Bobby Branham, Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department, dated Apil 2, 2003
Letter from Doug Thoe, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department,
dated October 30,2002
Letter from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Director, dated
March 25,2003
Letter from Kelly Woods, Colorado Division of Wildlife, received
November 18,2002
Letter from Bill Gavette, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District,
dated March 28,2003
Leffer from Ron Leach, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District,
November 18,2002.
Letter from Kenneth Knox, colorado Division of water Resources, dated
March 27,2003
Letter from Kenneth Knox, colorado Division of water Resources, dated
Novernber 19,2002
Letter from Sean Gaffney, Colorado Geological Survey, dated April l,
2003.
Exhibit Q: Letter from Scott Miller to Sean McAllister dated February 25,2003
Exhibit R: Letter from sean McAllister to scott Miller dated January 23,2003
Exhibit S: Application for water rights for SlC-Laurence, LLC, Case No. 02CWl08
Exhibit T: Letter from James Peterson to Martha Cochran dated March 25,2003
Exhibit U: Email from Bobby Branham, Garfield Road and Bridge Department, dated
Apil2l,2OO3
Exhibit V: Supplemental Information for the Board hearing for Ranch at Coulter
Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plan submitted by TG Malloy Consulting,
dated April25, 2003. [Auached separatelyJ
Exhibit W: Letter from Robert Emerson dated April 28, 2X[3,regarding the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Board of Directors
Exhibit X: Letter from Lou vallerio, SherifPs Department, dated May 4,2003.
Exhibit Y: Copy of an Amendment to Deed of Conservation Easement
ExJnibitZ: Draft copy of the Planning Commission meeting (April 9,2003) minutes.
BOARD: 5119103
TP
PROJECT INFORMATION AI\D STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE (S):
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Preliminary Plan review for the Ranch at Coulter
Creek Subdivision
A request to subdivide approximately 479 acres into
26 single family residential lots.
Snowmass Land Company
Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) and TG Malloy
Consulting,LLC.
The property is located west of the intersection of
County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road on
Missouri Heights.
Cenhal Water System
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
CountyRoad ll5
AIR/RD (Agricultural/ResidentiaVRural Density)
A/R/RD
I. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 479 acres of land into 26 lots.
U. BACKGROT]ND
The Applicant provided a detailed history of the subject property beginning on Page I of the
*Represents the existing house to remain as ranch manger's unit.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page2
application. The subject parcel is one of two parcels that have been known as the Laurence
Ranch ("Ranch"). The North Parcel, undeveloped, consists of approximately 1,300 acres and is
located just east of the Consolidated Reservoir. The South Parcel, the subject of this application,
contains approximately 479 acres. Until recently, the Ranch had been operated by Roger
Laurence, who put the property up for auction in 2000, in part to satisff estate taxes due as a
result of the death of his father. After a deal with the highest bidder from the auction fell
through, the Aspen Valley Land Trust ("AVLT") purchased the South Parcel.
AVLT solicited proposals from land development companies and entered into an agreement to
sell the South Parcel to the Snowmass Land Company provided that they would 1) develop the
property under a cluster approach with a small number (26) of residential lots, and 2) place a
conservation easement over the balance of the property. The conservation easement has been
executed, but not recorded, and a copy can be seen in more detailed in Affachment 6 of the
application.
III. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located in the Missouri Heights area approximately 5 miles northeast of
Carbondale. The property is located to the north and west of County Road 113. County Road
1 l5 runs along the north side of the site. The property is approximately 3 % miles north of
Highway 82 along Catherine Store Road (County Road 100) just past the intersection with Cattle
Creek Road.
The vicinity map, in Figure I of the application, delineates the surrounding land uses. The
subject property abuts BLM land to the west and south. The privately owned lands that abut the
subject property on the north and east are currently utilized for agricultural purposes. Uses in the
surrounding arca are primarily agricultural, however, there are other nearby residential
subdivisions which include the Panorama Ranch and High Aspen Ranch subdivisions.
The Ranch contains the existing homestead which consists of one farmhouse, a barn, and a
historic 1800's log house. There was an additional ranch house, which was in poor condition and
potentially dangerous, that was removed in July of 2002. The main farmhouse is currently being
rernodeled. A portion of the structure will be used for a ranch manager's dwelling and the
rernainder of the structure will be used for an on-site sales office.
There are four decreed ponds on the subject property which are used for irrigation. One of the
ponds has been improved to accommodate the necessary augmentation water as specified in the
'kater augmentation plan" (see Attachment 4).
The property has rolling terrain that includes a large knoll on the south end of the Ranch. There
is a steep cliffalong the southwest edge of the property, which forms a natural boundary between
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 3
the Ranch and BLM land. The current property owner resumed haying operation in the suillmer
of 2002, which had not occurred on site for the last two or three seasons.
rv.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The26 new lots will comprise of approximately 155.6 acres of the approximately 479 acres of
land that is the subject of this application. Proposed rights-of-way will occupy approximately
20.6 acres. The remainder of the Ranch will be common open space for the use of the lot owners
and will be permanently persevered under the provisions of a conservation easement to be held
by AVLT. The common open space will continue to be ranched.
Building envelopes have been established for each site. The building envelopes constitute
approximately 50.6 acres or less than 11 percent of the total acreage on the site. The Applicant
indicated that all residential structures and landscaping will be confined within the proposed
building envelopes. The building envelopes have been designed to comply with the minimum
setback requirements for the A/R/RD zone district.
The Applicant has volunteered to limit the floor area of the homes on Lots 3 through 26 to 8,000
square feet. The floor area on Lots I and2 will be limited to 12,000 square feet. This
commitrnent is reflected in Article III of the Protective Covenants.
The Applicant asserted that the lots have been located to minimize visibility from the
surrounding area while also minimizing encroachment into historically irrigated areas. The lots
are arranged in several clusters. The lots are located around the perimeter of the agricultural
areas of the property. The lots range in size from 4 acres to 11 areas.
V. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREIIENSIYE PLAN:
The subject property is designated on the 'Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area 1' map in
the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential. The recommended density
in this land use category is 10 acres or more per dwelling unit. Using this standard, the property
could accommodate approximately 48 dwelling units, twice the proposed number of units.
A number of policies in Comprehensive Plan are aimed at reducing density in future
developments and preserving opens space and agricultural uses. The following statements from
the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies are applicable to this application:
5.0 Recreation and Open Space
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 4
Objective:
5.3 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the
development and implementation of zoning, subdivision, and PUD regulations designed
to retain and enhance existing open space uses.
5.0(a) Open Space and Trails
Goal:
5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development
approved by Garfield County.
5.1(B) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable
mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat.
Policies:
5.1(A) All projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be required to mitigate
any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include some or all of the
following:
Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property boundaries;
The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife Resources Information System (WRIS) will be required to propose
mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures
shall include the following:
Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building envelope
resffictions or cluster development concepts;
Conservation easements.
Agriculture
a)
b)
c)
a)
b)
c)
6.1
6.2
6.3
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5119103
Page 5
Goal:
To ensure that existing agncultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility
issues are addressed during project review.
Objectives:
Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches.
Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity adjacent uses.
Developments adjacent agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for
flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
Policies:
6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringernent and associated impacts of high-
intensity land uses through the establishment ofbuffer areas between the agricultural use
and the proposed project.
6.3 Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential
incompatible uses.
7,0 Water and Sewer Services
Objective:
Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to
provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project approval.
Projects proposing the use of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I.S.D.S) will be
required to assess the site's capability to accommodate these systerns prior to project
approval.
Policies:
All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer
systerns will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval.
The County will require developers proposing I.S.D.S to provide data that demonstrates
to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
Where I.S.D.S. is not feasible, Garfield County will require a sewage disposal system
approved by the State of Colorado.
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.4
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision- Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 6
8.0
Goals:
Natural Environment
Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes that 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.
Objectives:
8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and
design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment.
8.3 Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration.
8.5 Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique to the proposed
site.
8.6 Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical
wildlife habitats are protected.
Policies:
8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so that cumulative impact of public and
private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed
the capacity of natural or constructed drainways, or to subject other areas to an increased
potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to
streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water.
8.7 Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor
environmental constraints to mitigate physical problerns such as minor rockfalls, 17 to 24
percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow
percolation, radioactive soils andlor corrosive and expansive soils.
VI. REFERRAL AGENCIES:
The application was referred to the following agencies for comments. Comments that were
received have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable.
l. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit H & I.
2. Garfield County Engineering Departnent: No written comments.
3. Colorado Geological Survey: No comments.
4. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit K.
5. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit N & O.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
PageT
6. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibit J.7. Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District: Exhibit L & M.8. RE-l School District: No comments.9. Holy Cross Electric: No comments.
10. KN Energy: No comments.
11. US West Communications: No comments.
12. Colorado Deparhnent of Public Health and Environment: No comments.
13. Bureau of Land Management: No comments.
VII. APPLICABLITY:
Pursuant to section 4:20 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Commission shall hold an
advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Commission.
The Commission shall complete its review and make its recommendation to the Board at the
public hearing on the Preliminary Plan or continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting for additional information or public input before making a
decision.
The Planning Commission may recofllmend approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the
Plan. The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forlh in the minutes
of the meeting or in a written Resolution. If the Final Plat is to be phased, the Planning
Commission shall recommend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval.
VI[. STAFF COMMENTS:
A.Zoning
A single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses, only where it is accessory to the uses
listed in section 3.02.01, are uses by right in the A/R/RD zone district. The gross density of the
project (not including the existing house which will be used as ranch manager's unit) is
approximately I unit per 18.4 acres, which is below that allowed in the A/R/RD zone district.
The AIR/RD zone district allows for I unit per 2 acres or approximately 239 units, giving the
density of the property.
The Applicant indicated compliance with all applicable zoning requirements. Building
envelopes, within which all residential structures and landscaping will be confined, have been
established to comply with minimum setback requirements. The building envelopes vary from
1.5 acres to 2 acres in size. The building envelopes for Lots 11 through 16 have also been
located so that a2l-foot high building located within the envelope should not be seen from
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 8
Cattle Creek Road. The Applicant asserted that this setback from the ridge was field verified and
it has been labeled only on the Illustrative Site Plan as "View Shed Setback Line". This View
Shed Setback Line should be delineated on the Final Plat and referenced in the Protective
Covenants.
B.Water Supply
Domestic water for the proposed lots is intended to be provided via a central water systern which
will be designed by Sopris Engineering. According to the engineering report prepared by Sopris
Engineering, potable water will be supplied by three wells delineated on the plans. The raw
water will be pumped from each well via supply lines to the central water treatrnent facility. The
water will be chlorinated at a central treatrnent facility and distributed through the distribution
mains to all the lots. The distribution system seryes as a supply line to the 150,000 gallon
storage tank that will provide volume for 2 days of in-house use plus required fire flow storage.
The Ranch compound will also have a service line to supply water required by the barn and
livestock facilities. Domestic consumption usage per lot is based on 2 EQR's per lot and
expected to be an average of700 gallons per day.
The report from Zancanella and Associates, Inc. (see Attachment 5) provides information on the
reliability and potablity of the water from the three wells (RCC Well #5, RCC Well #7, andLot
#24Well). Wells RCC #5 and RCC #7 werc pumped continuously at 40 gallons per minute
(gpm) for the length of the test. Lot #24Well test began at 30 gpm, but was reduced to 25 gpm
when it appeared that the well would probably not be able to sustain the higher rate for the entire
24 hour test. According to the report, all three wells appear to recover normally. The rates,
when added together, yield a total flow rate of 105 gm, which is well above the peak month's
continuous average diversion of 39.3 gpm. The report concludes that from the pump test data,
with sufficient storage, the three wells should be able to provide adequate water for the proposed
development.
Water samples were collected during the pumping test and sent to Evergreen Analytical, Inc. for
independent analysis. The results received show that all potential contaminates for which tests
were conducted was below the Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the Colorado
Departrnent of Public Health and Environment.
The water system will be installed as part of the infrastructure and the cost of installation will be
incorporated in the price of lots. Once installed, the systern will be owned, operated and
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This is all reflected in Article V, subsection 6 of
the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment 7).
A letter from Kenneth W. Knox, of the Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated March27,
2003, was received regarding the proposed water supply through the wells that will be
v
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 9
augmented (Exhibit N). Mr. Knox noted that "due to the lack of water court approved
augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds...that the proposed water supply will cause material
injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." At Sketch Plan, the same determination was
made regarding the proposed water supply (Exhibit O). The Applicant was made aware at
Sketch Plan that at Preliminary Plan application, the Applicant would need to show compliance
with the requirements of the State Engineers Office.
Mr. Knox also indicated that according to their records several exernpt wells may currently exist
within the proposed development. Pursuant to CRS section3T-92-602(3Xb)(IID, 'othe
cumulative effect of all wells in the subdivision shall be considered when evaluating material
injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exonpt wells must be included in an
augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned since the provisions for CFiS 37-92-602
which allowed for issuance of the well permits will not longer apply."
With respect to the legal status of water rights and their adequacy for the proposed development,
the Applicant noted that an application for underground water rights with an augmentation plan
has been filed with District Court of Water Division #5. A copy of the application and
augmentation plan is included in the application as Attachment 4 (also see Exhibit Q). The
Applicant acknowledges that approval of the water rights application and a final decree of water
rights will be required prior to Final Plat approval as permitted in Section a.91(A)( ) of the
Subdivision Regulations.
Section 4.91(AX4) reads as follows:
'oEaidence that publin or priaate u)ater ou)ners can and will supply water to the
proposed, subdiaision, includ,ing the amount of water aoailable for use uithin the
subd'iaision by such proaiders, the feasibility of extending seraice to the area, proof
of the legal dependability of the proposed, u)ater supply and the representation that
all necessary u)ater rights haae been obtained or willbe obtained, or adjudicated,
prior to submission of thefinal pla,t."
Pursuant to CRS Section 30-28-136(lXh)(I), the State Engineer of the Division of Water
Resources is required to render an opinion to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether
or not the proposed subdivision will cause material injury to decreed water rights. If the State
Engineers renders an opinion indicating they could not determine if there is an injury or not, the
Board of County Commissioners may still approve the subdivision. Staffand the Attorney's
Office strongly recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not approve this or any
subdivision until an opinion of no material injury has been determined by the State Engineer.
To-date no determination from the State Engineer's Office has been received due to the
augmentation pan not being approved by the courts.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5/19103
Page l0
Without an affirmative recommendation from the state engineer, it is difficult if not impossible for
stafftomakethe finding ofan adequate legal andphysical water supplyrequiredby section4:91(A)
of the Subdivision Regulations. As a result, the planning staff continues to not recommend approval
at this time, since the Applicant has not demonstrated legal and adequate source of water.
Exhibits Q, R & S were distributed by Scott Miller at the Planning Commission meeting on April
9,2003. These documents relate to the Plan for Augmentation for the project, as follows:
Exhibit S is a copy of the application for water rights (Augmentation plan).
Exhibit R is a letter from Sean McAllister, State of Colorado Department of Law, to Scott
Miller of Patrick, Miller & Iftopf, P.C., water attorney for the applicant, requesting
additional information to supplernent the Augmentation Plan.
Exhibit Q is a letter from Mr. Miller to Mr. McAllister regarding the supplemental
information.
The Planning Commission reviewed all the information and considered testimony regarding the
water supply issue. In conclusion, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the
following condition:
Prior to Final Plat, the water augmentation plan shall be approved by the water court
and the State Engineer Office. In addition, prior to submission of Final Plat, the
Applicant shall provide approved well permits for each well in place with the physical
adequacy of the water source proven up.
Waste Water
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems are proposed for each lot. According to the Septic System
Constraints Map contained in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, no constraints
relative to septic systern functions are identified for the subject property on this map. Percolation
tests were performed by HP GeoTech and the results are contained in the Geotechnical Study
(Attachment l2). The study shows that there are no geologic conditions on the property that
would render the project infeasible.
According to the engineering report prepared by Sopris Engineering, the type, dimension and
design of the on-site wastewater systems (OWS) will vary based on specific conditions at each
building site. Required setbacks from on-site wells, irrigation ditches, dwellings and property
lines must be maintained. Most lots will be suitable for conventional systems andl/or modified
engineered systems, though a few lots may require advanced treafinent components be
incorporated in the design of the OWS if certain constraints are encountered. The Applicant
noted that a more detailed analysis of the soils and the design for the individual system for each
1.
2.
3.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9/03
Page 11
lot will be provided with the building/IsDs permit applications. Sopris Engineering
recommends that the following note be include on the Final Plat:
"Building permit applications for each lot shall include plans and specifications for an
onsite wastewater treatment system. Each system shall be designed by a State of Colorado
registered engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Septic
Disposal System QSDS) regulations before a building permit will be issued. The type, size
and location of each individual on-site wastewater system (OWS) will be site-speciJic based
on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design criteria and required site-specific geo-
technical evaluations. The soil absorption/dispersal systems should be located within the
building envelope on each lot as identified on the Final Plat."
The engineering report from Sopris Engineering also includes a basic outline for a managernent
plan for on-site wastewater treatment systerns, which appears to be reflected in Article V,
subsection 7, of the Declaration of Protective Covenants. The recommendations for management
include:
Bi-annual inspection of the septic tank, absorption field and dosing tank (if applicable)
For a properly designed system, septic tanks should be pumped every 2 - 4 years.
Absorption fields shall be maintained with suitable cover and kept free of plants with
invasive roots.
4. Positive surface drainage away from the absorption field should be maintained.
D. Utilities
Holy Cross Energy and Qwest have indicated that electric and telephone services will be
provided to the project from County Road 115. Letters of will-serve are attached to the Sopris
Engineering report (Attachment 10). These services will be buried within the roads and
driveways to each of the residences, as reflected in Article V, subsection 3 of the Protective
Covenants. Natural gas and cable television service are not available in the area of the property.
E. Floodplain / Wetlands
There are no floodplain or wetland issues on the subject property. There are no lakes or streams
located on the subject property. Coulter Creek is located to the east of the subject property. The
Applicant asserted that a lot of care had been taken in locating the proposed lots, roads and
building envelopes to accomplish a variety of objectives for the project. One objective of the
development was to preserve as much of the irrigated land as possible for agricultural use. Care
was taken to minimize the visibility of building sites from nearby roads and developed areas.
l.
2.
J.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 12
F.Soils/Geology
According to the soil survey, from USDA Soil and Conservation Service, the soils on the subject
property consist of:
l. Acree Loam (6 to 12 %) - #4
2. Cochetopa-Antrobus Association (12 to 25%) - #18
3. Empedrado Loam (6 -12 %) - #35
4. Fughes Stony Loam (3 - l2%) - #48
5. Lyers Loam (6 to 25%) - #59
6. Morval-Tridell Complex (12 - 50%) - #87
7. Showalter-Morval Complex (5 -15%) - #94
8. Showalter-Morval Complex (15 -25%) -#95
9. Torriorthents-Cambrothids-Rock Outcrop Complex (6 - 65%) '#104
10. Tridell-Brownsto Stony Sandy Loams, extremely stony (12 - 50%) - #106
The interpretation tables for these types of soils can be seen in more detail in the application in
Attachment 8. It appears that some of the soils present on the subject property are poorly suited
for homesite development, as well as the installation of conventional septic systems.
A Geotechnical Study for the subdivision was conducted for the project by Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech"), which can be seen in more detail in Attachmett 12.
According to HP GeoTech, there are several conditions of geologic nature that should be
considered in future project planning and design. According to the study, these conditions
should not have a major impact on general project feasibility, but some modifications to the
currently proposed building location would reduce potential risks associated with major landslide
reactivation. According to the study:
"the landslide complex along the northern Cattle Creek Canyon side appears to have
been dormant with respect to large scale movementfor some time, but the landslide may
be undergoing seasonal creep movements....Although active creep may be occurring, it is
the opinion of HP GeoTech that the likelihood of a major landslide reactivation during a
reasonable qcposure timefor the project is low. In the unlikely event of a maior landslide
reactivation the large scale movements would probably be restricted to the mapped
landslide boundary shown on Figs lA, 18, and lC [attached to the studyJ, but they could
potentially extendfurther to the northeast of the present landslide boundary. If a low risk
of major landslide reactivation is not acceptable, then buildings or other movement
sensitive facilities should not be located within about 150 feet from the landslide
boundary shown on Figs IA, IB, and lC. As presently planned, parts of the proposed
building envelopes on Lots I I, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are within 150 feet of the present
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 13
landslide boundary. The 150foot setbackis approximate andwhen specific building and
otherfacility locations have been determined, their location should befi.eld review to
determine that an appropriate setback has been considered."
Sean Gaffiiey of the Colorado Geological Survey indicated that to ensure that development on
Lots 11,12,13,16 and 17 will not be affected by the landslide complex, the proposed 150 foot
setbacks from the crest of the slope should be delineated on the development plat (see Exhibit P).
Mr. Gaffirey noted that plans show that the configuration of the proposed subdivision should
provide ample space to accommodate an effective setback, however, an engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide a formal design recommendation.
The Applicant has modified the building envelopes for Lots 1l through 17 to address the
concems raised by Mr. Gaf&rey. The modifications to the building envelopes can be seen in the
Supplernental Exhibit A of Exhibit V. HP GeoTech, in their supplernental comments dated April
24,2003, seen in Supplonental Exhibit B of Exhibit V, indicated that the modified building
envelopes on Lots 11 through 17 are adequate for slope stability considerations. A copy of the
revised plans was sent to Mr. Gaffney for additional comments. No comments were received
from Mr. Gaffirey prior to distribution of this memorandum.
Pursuant to section 5:11, GeologicHazardAreas, of the ZoningResolution, the purpose of this
section is to insure that all developments affected by one or more geologic hazards are
engineered, developed and utilized in a manner that will minimize significant hazards to public
health and safety and to property. Pursuant to section 5.16.02, Guidelines for Development in
Landslide Areas",
ooCorrection of ad,uerse conditions through engineered design and construction may
be an acceptabl.e mitigation technique if the methods are supported by careful
inaestigation and. eaaluation by a qualificd. professional engineer or geolagist. Such
inaestigation and, eaaluation must consid,er the physical extent, the seriousness, and,
the causes of the geologic problems. Cotection methods may inaolae drnong others
refrainingfro* remoaing natural support material in the area immed,iately
beneath or adjacent to the slid.e area; addition of artifi,cial support to the area in
theforrn of rock or earthfi,llbuttressing, retaining walls or cribbing, concrete
slurry, rock bohing and reinforced pilings; perrnanent improaenxent and, control of
surface and subsurfoce d,rainage; stabilization of the slide areaby chemical
treatnxent' brid'ging uteale zones, remoaal of unstable material, and, aaoid,ance of
loading on unstabl,e areas."
Mr. Gaffney noted that Lots 18, 19, 20,21 and22are located on slopes that are greater than3IYo
grade (see Exhibit P). Mr. Gaffrrey suggests that a slope stability analysis is completed in this
area to ensure that the proposed building envelops are adequately sited to minimize the risk of
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 14
slope movement after construction. Pursuant to section 5.04.02 of the ZoningResolution,
development on40o/o slopes is prohibited.
The Applicant provided a slope analysis, seen in Supplernental Exhibit C of Exhibit V. It
appears that none of the building envelopes on Lots 18, 19, 20,21, and22 contains slopes in
excess of 40o/o. As noted previously, all development on the Lots will be within the approved
building envelopes. As represented by the Applicant, there will be no structures erected outside
of the approved building envelopes for each of the lots. All development will be located within
the approved building envelopes.
HP GeoTech noted in their supplemental comments dated Apil24,2003, (see Supplemental
Exhibit C of Exhibit V), that steep slopes are locally present on parts of Lots 18, 19, 20,21, and
22,but the building envelopes are in terrain less than 30o/o grade. HP GeoTech does not
anticipate any problems with construction related slope instability for grading typically
associated with residential construction on these five revised building envelopes, if the grading
recofllmendations as presented in preliminary geotechnical engineering report are followed. A
copy of the slope analysis was sent to Mr. Gaffney. No comments were received from Mr.
Gaffney prior to distribution of this mernorandum.
Mr. Gaf&rey noted that the subject property is in the Carbondale Collapse Center. This area has
the potential to contain sinkholes, voids in the bedrock that may or may not be filled with
unconsolidated soil and rubble. Although the site's topography does not display any obvious
signs of sinkholes activity, HP GeoTech's recommendation to further evaluate the presence of
sinkholes and the potential for solution deformation to affect site development should be
followed when site-specific geotechnical investigations are completed. In addition, the building
envelopes for Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, shall be relocated way from the evaporate deformation
faults to minimize the potential for damage associated with ground movement.
As seen in Supplemental Exhibit A of Exhibit V. The building envelopes for Lots 18, 19, 20 and
2lhave been modified to avoid the evaporate deformation faults that lie within the area of these
lots. HP GeoTech, in their supplemental comments, seen in Supplemental Exhibit B of Exhibit
V, indicated that the modified building envelopes on Lots l1 through 17 ue adequate for slope
stability considerations. A copy of these revised plans was sent to Mr. Gaf&rey for additional
comment. No comments were received from Mr. Gaffrrey prior to distribution of this
memorandum.
Mr. Gaftrey indicated that the clay and claystone swell potentials, measured by HP GeoTech,
illustrate a low to high risk across the site. A plat note should clearly identifr the presence of
swelling clays and state that mitigation maybe necessary to build on a lot. Due to the presence of
swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations. Perimeter drains
prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the overall potential
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page l5
for expansion or consolidation.
HP GeoTech provided conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development,
subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, and their experience in the area.
The Study indicates that the recoflrmendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design,
but site specific studies should be conducted for the individual development facilities and for
building on each lot. The 'Preliminary Design Recommendations' outlined by HP GeoTech in
the study include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, underdrain system, site grading, surface
drainage, and pavement subgrade shall be adhered.
G. Radiation:
According to HP GeoTech (Attachment l2),theproposed development is not located in an area
where geologic deposits are expected to have unusually high concentrations of radioactive
minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. HP GeoTech
indicated that it is difficult to assess the potential for future radon gas concentrations in buildings
before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas can be done when the residences and
other occupied structures have been completed.
H. Drainage
Drainage on the subject property is address in a Drainage Study compiled by Sopris Engineering
(see Attachment l1 and Sheets 5 and 6 of the drawing set).
According to the study, the overall land slopes to the north. There are several concentration
points where runoffleaves the property. However, of the total number of small watershed
basins, only one basin is large in area. Runoff from the largest drainage exits the site near the
northeast corner of the site and then drains into Coulter Creek, approximately 1000 feet to the
east. Due to the position of this site on the landscape, the site is not subject to offsite drainage.
The existing drainage basin areas and discharge point locations will not change as a result of the
development. No residential structures shall be located in natural drainage ways. Based upon
insignificant increase in runoffwith the development of this project, no detention is proposed. In
summary, the report indicates that 1) the results from the drainage study suggest that no long-
term, adverse impact to stormwater drainage are anticipated with the development of the Ranch
at Coulter Creek, 2) onsite peak discharge will not increase measurably with development, 3)
historical drainage patterns will be maintained, and 4) compliance with the Garfield County
Drainage Standards will be adhered.
I. Road/Access
The Comprehensive Plan defines County Road 115 as a road in "good" condition. The proposed
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 16
road system within the Subdivision includes a loop road that utilizes two existing ranch roads
accessing onto County Road 115. The Applicant asserted that based on the anticipated trip
generation and assuming traffic will be distributed in both directions on Cattle Creek Road, the
estimated traffic will be roughly 161 average daily trips (ADT). The rationale for this estimate is
included in the engineering report provided by Sopris Engineering (see Attachment 10). Given
these assumptions, the Applicant indicated that the proposed roads qualifu under the "Rural
Access" category in the County's Road standards [section 9:30 of the Subdivision Regulations].
The main road, Cattle Creek Ridge, will be chip-seal surface. The roads are designed without
curb or gutter. The Applicant asserted that no segment of the main road exceeds l0 percent
grade. Though the roads are intended to be private and will be maintained by the homeowner's
association, a 50 foot right-of-way has been provided in the event the subdivision roads are ever
turned over to the County. Roads within the subdivision are not considered private. Pursuant to
section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, "All streets are dedicated to the public but all
streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and
maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the
Subdivision " This shall be reflected in the Protective Covenants.
According to Article VII, subsection l, of the Protective Covenants, "Primary access to the
subdivision is from Ga(ield County Road I 15. The costs of maintaining Red Canyon are shared
by all uses of the road pursuant to a Road Maintenance Agreement recorded in the records of
Garfi.eld County...".
Bobby Branham of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department provided comments with
respect to the access to the Subdivision, which were supported by the County Engineer
Department and can be seen in more detailed in Exhibit H. One item of clarification in Mr.
Branham's comments is the requirement that "all culverts should be l8 inches or larger".
Staff understands from Mr. Branham that the 18" culverts mentioned in his letter dated Apt'lil2,
2003, (Exhibit H) related to the entire subdivision, not just where Cattle Creek Ridge Road
intersects with County Road 115. The Drainage Study prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC. for
the project addresses proposed culverts throughout the subdivision (see Attachment 1l). The
proposed culverts vary from 18 inches to 36 inches based on an approximate headwater depth of
1.5 times diameter. According to Mr. Branham, the 12" culverts outlined in the Drainage Study
are adequate. The installation of the culverts through the subdivision shall follow the
recorrmendations of the Drainage Study dated February 7,z}}3,prepared by Sopris
Engineering,LLC.
Mr. Branham indicated that the proposed western entry is in a very undesirable location, due to
poor visibility. Mr. Branham recommends that this particular access point should be not used
and that a more suitable site be chosen. Doug Thoe, former Foreman for the Glenwood Springs
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 17
Garfield County Road and Bridge Office, provided comments at Sketch Plan (Exhibit I) which
outlined concems with respect to both access points. Staff understands that the Applicant met
with Mr. Thoe on site in January to address his concerns. However, no written communication
from Mr. Thoe was received summarizing the agreed upon solutions to the western access point.
Prior to Board of County Commissioners review of this request, the Applicant shall work with
the Garfield County Road and Bridge Departrnent and the County Engineer Department to
determine an appropriate solution to the western access point. The Applicant has worked with
Mr. Branham on the western entry. Staff understands that Mr. Branham is agreeable to the
western entry with some agreed upon improvements.
Cul-de-sacs
Most of the proposed road systan length is comprised of the main loop road. However, there are
several spur roads with cul-de-sacs that provide access to the residential lots.
The Applicant noted that the proposed road plan for the Subdivision includes two cul-de-sacs
longer than 600 feet. One of these cul-de-sacs is referred to as Fisher Creek Lane which is
located in the west end of the property and the other is called Saddle Drive and provides access
to the knoll at the south end of the property. However, it appears on the plan that Coulter Lane,
which provides access to Lots 23 through 26, is a cul-de-sac which also exceeds 600 feet in
length.
Fisher Creek Lane is roughly 925 feet in length and provides access for three lots (Lots 5,6 &7).
Access for Lot 8 utilizes a private driveway that extends roughly 980 feet beyond the end of the
cul-de-sac. The Applicant asserted that Fisher Creek Lane and the private drive extension were
designed to minimize the amount of irrigated land lost to road construction and to minimize
disturbance to steep slopes in the area on the west side of Lots 8 & 9. The proposed road and
private drive follow the alignment of an existing irrigation ditch and loop around an irrigated
meadow. In the event that multiple emergency vehicles were dispatched for an emergency
situation on Lots 6 & 7, the terrain along the proposed access road and driveway extension would
allow emergency vehicles to maneuver during times when there was no snow.
Saddle Drive includes two cul-de-sacs that serve Lots 18,20,21, & 22 and a private drive to Lot
19. The Applicant indicated that the area served by these cul-de-sacs is a large knoll with few
options in terms of access road alignments. The Applicant asserted that the road has been
located in a draw that offers the least impactive route to the proposed lots. Due to the orientation
of this draw, only portions of the road shall be visible from few locations. The road has been
designed with the shallowest grade possible given the terrain.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 18
Coulter Lane, the third cul-de-sac, appears to be longer than 600' in length. This cul-de-sac will
serve Lots 23,24,25 &26.
Section 9:33 of the Subdivision Regulations outlines the standards for cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs
are limited to 600 feet in length, with a turnaround radius of no less than (45') from the center of
the cul-de-sac to road edge, and 50'right-of-way. "The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs
for topographic reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access
is provided as part of the longer design." The Applicant asserted that due to the physical
characteristics ofthe property and the conservation objectives ofthe project, cul-de-sacs are
utilized in the road design.
The Applicant has been working with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District in
establishing pull-outs throughout the subdivision for emergency vehicles, as well as other
reasonable improvements to the subdivision roads. Preliminary locations for the pull-outs for the
project have been identified on the Revised Subdivision Layout Plan (see Exhibit V). Staff
understands that these pull-out locations will be refined, at the direction of the Fire District, and
included on the Final Plat. Sheriff Lou Vallario noted that the recommendations from the Fire
Chief will be acceptable to the Sheriff s Department (see Exhibit X). The Applicant has also
agreed to widen the private driveways serving Lots 3, 8, and 19 to a minimum width of 16 feet as
requested by the Fire District.
It appears that the Deed of Conservation Easertrent (Attachment 6) for this subdivision does not
include language regarding the right to use the land for ernergency access. In Section 3(I),
Permitted Uses, of the Easement agreernent, "construction, maintenance, repair and development
of amenities, roads, utilities and infrastructure" is allowed, "but only to the extent permitted by
and consistent with the Development Approvals." The Applicant has indicated to Staffthat the
Conservation Easernent does include provisions for emergency access, as needed.
J. Fire Protection
A portion of the property is located within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection Disfict
("Fire Districf') and a portion is located outside of the Fire District. The Applicant submitted a
petition to expand the District boundaries to include the balance of the property within the
Distict. A copy of the petition has been included within the application as Attachment 13.
The Applicant indicated that each of the proposed homes in the subdivision will be equipped
with a sprinkler system for fire suppression. In addition, the project's water system will include
fire hydrants that will provide adequate flow for firefighting purposes for Lots 1l through 17 and
23 through 26. Details of the proposed hydrants are shown on Sheet t3 of the Preliminary Plan.
For lots where pressure is not adequate for firefighting purposes, a minimum 5,000 gallon water
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 19
storage tank will be provided within the approved building envelopes for the lots. This tank will
provide storage for domestic water and will also be fitted with a dry hydrant for fire fighting.
The tanks and dry hydrants will be designed to comply with the specifications required by the
Fire District.
The Applicant noted that the main water storage tank will be available for firefighting purposes
as needed. This tank will contain 150,000 gallons and will be located on the west end of the
property as depicted on the Preliminary Plan.
The Applicant has been working with the Fire District to resolve some issues prior to the
Carbondale and Rural Fire District Board ("District Board") approving the annexation of the
entire ranch into the Fire Districts boundary. A letter from Robert Emerson, attorney
representing the Fire District, noted that the District Board meet on Apt',l23,2003, regarding the
Petition for Inclusion (see Exhibit W). According to Mr. Emerson, at the public hearing on April
23'u,the District Board agreed to the essential issues and conditions of conclusion, and directed
Mr. Emerson to draft a Resolution for their next meeting on May 21,2003. A copy of the
Resolution can also be seen in more detail in Exhibit W.
Mr. Emerson noted that certain issues need to be resolved before the Resolution can be finalized.
These issues include 1) a determination by the District Board and Gaffield County regarding
whether the site for the radio repeater, antenna is to be granted by way of perpetual, exclusive
easement or conveyed in fee via dedication or general warranty deed, and 2\ the wildfire hazard
mitigation plan ("Plan") needs to be finalized so that the Fire District is satisfied with the plan
including design of roads within the subdivision and other maffers addressed in the plan. A copy
of the Plan, prepared by Crockett and Associates, dated Apil 23 , 2003 , can be seen in more
detail in Supplernental Exhibit D in Exhibit V.
Incorporated in the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment 7d), are Requirements
for Protecting Structures from Wildfire. Construction specifications and defensible space are
required to be met for construction within the Subdivision. A reference to the Wildfire Hazard
Mitigation Plan and Wildfire Hazard Analysis shall be referenced in the Protective Covenants.
It was recommended by the Planning Commission that the Sheriff s Departrnent have the
opportunity to comment on the proposed development (see Exhibit X). SheriffLou Vallario
indicated in his comments that since the Sheriffs Department does not have real fire-fighting
capabilities, the Fire District would be contacted to assist with any fires within the area of the
ranch. SheriffVallario notes that annexation into the Fire District would ensure the best possible
fire protection for the residents of the subdivision.
According to recent discussions with Mr. Emerson, an easement for an antennae site is being
established near the top of the knoll on the property, adjacent to Lot 18. This antenna will
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page20
improve emergency radio communication for fire fighters and other emergency personnel in the
surrounding area. Staff understands that there is a future possibility of the Fire Department
providing co-location for private entities on the antenna site, however, there is no reference in the
amended conservation easernent, discussed below, of possible private use of the site.
A copy of the ooAmendment To Deed Of Conservation Easement" between AVLT and the
Applicant to allow for this antennae site within the easement can be seen in Exhibit Y. Staff
understands that the Fire District has had a chance to review this document and has no
objections. However, nothing in writing to this effect has been provided.
The easement for the antenna site and the easernent for access shall be delineated on the Final
Plat. In addition, an Easement Agreunent for the antenna site shall be submitted prior to Final
Plat. The proposed antenna for the Fire District falls under the definition of "Communication
Facility''which requires a Special Use Permit in the A/R/RD zone district. The co-location of
future private entities on the antenna site shall be addressed in the Special Use Permit
application.
K.Wildlife
The Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW") identified the property as winter range for both
Elk and Mule Deer and severe winter range for Elk. Figures 5 and 6 delineated the mapped
wildlife habitat. The Applicant asserted that the proposed subdivision has been designed to
retain corridors in several locations throughout the property for animal movement. The bulk of
the property has been preserved as cornmon open space. The landowners intend to establish a set
of conservation guidelines, which will be communicated to all property owners within the
development and will be administered by the homeowner's association. These guidelines have
been prepared and incorporated into the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment
7d).
The Applicant indicated that in order to allow animal movement through the property several
movement corridors have been established as part of the site design. One of these corridors is
located between the building envelopes on Lots 7 and 8 along the west side of the property. The
second corridor is located between the building envelopes on Lots 17 and 18. The third corridor
is located to the south of Lots 23 through 26. And last corridor which allows animals to move to
and from Coulter Creek is located to the east of the subject property.
Comments from Kelly Wood of the Colorado Department of Wildlife, have not been received by
the Planning Department for this Preliminary Plan. Attached to this mernorandum is Ms.
Wood's letter she provided to staffduring Sketch Plan (see Exhibit J). Below is as summary of
her recommendations:
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page2l
1. Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing recommendations.
2. If hay will be storqd on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife out.
3. The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use during the winter
months. Dogs shall always be on a leash outside of the house footprint. The number of
dogs per residences should be limited to one. During construction of the residences,
contractors should not be allowed to have dogs on site.
4. Since cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept indoors at
all times.
5. CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping from wildlife.
6. The homeowner's should install bear-proof dumpsters or trash bins.
7. Hunting should not be prohibited. The adjacent BLM land is a popular hunting area. The
homeowners should be aware that it is a legal hunting area.
The Applicant is willing to comply with all of the recorlmendations except for Itern 7. The
Applicant feels that there would be significant safety concern if hunting were to be allowed on
the property. The corlmon open space on the property is intended to be used by residents of the
Subdivision for walking, equestrian and other activities. Hunting on the property would not be
compatible to these activities. Kelly Woods requested that a provision be included in the
Protective Covenants to allow the Colorado Division of Wildlife hunting on the subject property
for the purpose of bear and lion control. The Applicant agreed to this request.
It does not appear that all of these recommendations from the DOW, except lterrT,have been
incorporated in the Protective Covenants. The Protective Covenants shall incorporate all the
recommendation wildlife habitat mitigation measures, except for Item 7.
L. Vegetation
The Applicant provided a Vegetation Report conducted by Dawn Keating of Wildlife
Management Consulting (see Attachment 9). According to Ms. Keating, the four main plant
communities found on the property include: Big Sagebrush, Gambel Oak, Two-Needle Pinyon-
Rocky Mountain Juniper / Gambel Oak I Big Sagebrush and irrigated hay pastures. Big
Sagebrush covers nearly 50% of the property. Gambel Oak comprises more than25Yo of the
total vegetative cover and is the dominant shrub. Irrigated hay pastures, a man-made
community, is comprised of mixed introduced grass and forb species that cover approximately
50% of the property.
Ms. Keating noted that there is potential that Herrington's Penstemon may occur on the property.
This plant is identified as "globally vulnerable" by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Ms.
Keating recommends additional field study to determine whether this plant is present on the
property.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page22
Pursuant to section 4.07 of the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners on May 1, 2000, "at tlte discretion of the Board of County
Commissioners, as part of the Planning and Zoning approval process, for land disturbances
outside of the building envelope, the County may require, at preliminary plan and prior to Final
Plat, the following items "
l. A Soil Plan
2. A Revegetation Plan
3. A Revegetation Security (which shall be in an amount to be determined by the Board)
The Applicant indicated that a weed control expert has been contracted to begin the process of
treating existing noxious weeds. Matt Johnson, Roaring Fork Vegetation Management
Company, has been retained to implement a noxious weed control program. The Applicant noted
that weed control will be an ongoing project at the Ranch and the services of a weed control
specialist will be paid for out of the Homeowner's Association dues.
Steve Anthony, Garfield County Weed Management Director, provided the following comments
with respect to the proposed Subdivision (See Exhibit J):
l. Noxious Weeds:
A. Inventory and mapping: The Applicant has inventoried the property for vegetation and
does mention noxious weeds, however the information is general and does not provide
specific locations of the CountyJisted noxious weeds on a map. The Applicant shall
provide a map that would represent these locations.
B. Weed Managernent: The Applicant has provided a proposal from a contractor for weed
services. This information, like the inventory is general, and does not describe a specific
weed managernent plan. A weed managernent plan should be based on a detailed
inventory and provide for follow-up management.
C. Common area weed management: The Applicant states that the Coulter Ranch
Homeowners Association will implement weed management on the Common Open
Space within the property. It is also stated that the Applicant has made arrangements
with a local rancher to pe.iform agricultural operations on the property. If this does not
happen, there could be severe weed management issues on the areas that were previously
used for hay production.
D. Covenants: Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article IV,
Section 2. The Applicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under Article IV,
Section 6. The language should rernind each lot owner that it is their responsibility under
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page23
the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan to
manage County-listed noxious weeds.
2. Revegetation:
A. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan
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.
Mr. Anthony noted that the Applicant has not provided any of the above items in the Preliminary
Plan application. A map or information shall be provided, 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.
The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if
the project has:
1) A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds.
2) A potential to impact watershed areas.
3) A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors.
4) Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas.
5) 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 Reclamation Standards in the County Weed Management Plan.
The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the
reclamationprior to the release of the security.
3. Soil Plan:
A. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil Management
Plan that includes:
1) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
2) Atimetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
M.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page24
3) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed
for a period of 90 days or more.
Assessment / Fees
l. Off-Site Road Impact
Regarding traffic generation, the Applicant provided an estimated trafEc generation analysis
based on a total of 26 new single-family residences. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6*
Edition uses 9.57 trips per day per residence. At that rate,26 proposed new residences produce a
total of 248.82 trips per day. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic
Study Area 11. This area calls for an impact fee payment to Garfield County of $384.00 per
average daily trip (ADT) generated by the subdivision. The Applicant has calculated a total
payment of $3,614.79 per dwelling unit to the County. The final impact fee amount shall be
determined prior to finalization of the Final Plat. Pursuant to section 4:94 of the Subdivision
Regulations, 50Yo of the road impact fees shall be collected at the Final Plat for the Subdivision.
All other road impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
2. Site Acquisition Fee
Pursuant to Section 9.80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners
may seek land or cash-in-lieu of land for parks and I or schools during the subdivision review
process when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future
residents.
The property is located with the RE-l School District. Pursuant to Section 9:81 of the
Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners may require a developer of
residential housing to make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land. The Applicant has
provided a fee calculation for the proposed project on page 16 of the application. The Applicant
has calculated the fee for the project to be $5,159.81. The final School Site Acquisition Fee shall
be determined prior to the finalization of the Final Plat. No comments from the RE-l School
District were received.
J.Open Space
The proposed subdivision will result in the permanent preservation of approximately 303 acres of
agricultural land and open space identified as "Common Open Space". The common open space
will be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. In addition, all development
and landscaping on the proposed lots will be limited to the building envelopes shown on the
Preliminary Plans. Since the building envelopes contain approximately 5l acres, the other 104
acres contained in the proposed lots will remain in essentially its current state. Nearly 84 percent
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page25
of total acreage (approximately 400 acres) will be preserved as open space.
The subject property is also located immediately adjacent to a large area of public lands owned
by BLM. The Fisher Creek Special Management Area, which is part of the BLM lands, abuts the
property on the west and includes trails open for public use.
A trail system has been planned for the corlmon open space. The preliminary alignment of the
trail system is depicted on the Illustrative Site Plan and the Preliminary Plan. For the most part,
the trail system willbe located within the easements for the private roads or within the Common
Open Space.
The Applicant has delineated eight (8) Open Space Tracts throughout the Subdivision (Tracts A
- H). Six of these tracts are greater than2 acres in size and can remain "Open Space Tracts".
However, Tracts B and C are less than2 acres. The creation of lots / tracts less than 2 acres in
size violates the County's minimum lot size requirement in the A / R / RD zone district.
Therefore, these 2 lots will need to be reconfigured to increase the lot size to a minimum of 2
acre or eliminated.
N. Phasing of the Development
The Applicant indicated that all infrastructure improvernents will be constructed in a single
phase.
O. Additional
Exhibit T, a letter from James Peterson, an adjacent property owner, to Martha Cochran of
AVLT, was inadvertently not distributed to the Planning Commissioners on April 9, 2003. IvIr.
Peterson did address the concerns outlined in his letter to the Commissioners. Since this letter is
relevant to the project, a copy has been attached to this memorandum.
Exhibit Zis a draft copy of the minutes from the April 9, 2003, Planning Commission meeting.
Homeowner's Association Documents: The Applicant has provided draft copies of the following
Homeowner's Association documents:
1.
)
J.
4.
Articles of Incorporation of Ranch at Coulter Creek Homeowner's Association
(Attachment 7a)
Bylaws of the Ranch at Coulter Creek Homeowner's Association (Attachment 7b)
Subdivision Improvements Agreonent for Ranch at Coulter's Creek Subdivision
(Attachment 7c)
Declaration of Protective Covenants for Ranch at Coulters Creek Subdivision
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page26
(Attachment 7d)
Architectural Guidelines: Although the County does not have regulations for architectural type
guidelines, the Applicant indicated that architectural guidelines are being developed to address
the appearance and function of structures on the property. The Applicant noted that the
guidelines will include recommendations for "green" architecfure. No plan to install street
lighting of any kind is proposed on the Ranch. The Applicant noted that landscape lighting for
individual residences will be addressed in the architectural guidelines and in the covenants.
l.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS :
That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before
the Planning Commission;
That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at that hearing;
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;
That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County ZoningResolution,
as amended;
That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
of 1984, as amended.
PLATINING COMMISISON RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation APPROVAL to Board of County
Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Preliminary
Plan, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Note: The conditions of approval below that have been stricken, in staff's opinion, have been
addressed by the Applicant. The underlined changes to the conditions of approval below are
recornmendations of Staffwith explanation of the changes in italics.
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically
altered by the Planning Commission.
2.
3.
4.
5.
x.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5/19/03
Page27
2. The Applicant shall include in the Protective Covenants for the Subdivision the
following:
A. The view Shed Setback Line for Lots I 1,12,13, t4,15 & 16 shall be addressed.
B. The following wildlife habitat mitigation measures shall be incorporated:
i. Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing
recommendations.
ii. If hay will be stored on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife
out.
iii. The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use during
the winter months. Dogs shall always be on a leash outside of the house
footprint. The number of dogs per residences should be limited to one.
During construction of the residences, contractors should not be allowed to
have dogs on site.
iv. Since cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept
indoors at all times.
v. CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping from wildlife.vi. The homeowner's should install bear-proof dumpsters or trash bins.
vii. The CDOW shall be allowed on the property for the purpose ofbear and lion
control. Hunting in this circumstance only shall be allowed.
viii. Reference or incorporate the Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan and Wildfire
Hazard Analysis. Tithe Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan and Wildlife Hazard
Analysis should be referenced or incorporated within the Covenants.
3. The following geologichazardmitigation measures shall be adhered:
A. The recommendations by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech")
outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study for the Subdivision dated February
28,2003, [Job No. 103 115] shall be adhered. These Preliminary Design
Recommendations include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, under-drain
system, site grading, surface drainage and pavement subgrade.
igffes
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page28
iry
eonstruetior
ies
ffi
E. In addition to the drain systerns for foundations recommended by HP GeoTech, due
to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around
foundations. Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the
soils and thus reduce the over potential for expansion or consolidation.
F. Due to the possible presence of radon gas in the area, testing for radon gas shall be
done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Garfield County Road and
Bridge Department, dated April 2, 2003, except for internal culverts which shall comply with the
recommendations outlined in the Drainage Report prepared by Sopris Engineering,LLC. dated
February 7,2003.
to tfte western aeeesspoint for thesubdivis:on, Bobby Branham, Garfield County Road and
Bridge Department, is agreeable with the western access point with adjustments.
5.
the-FinalPla* Prior to Final Plat submittal. the Applicant shall finalize. with the Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection District. the locations for pull-outs for emergency vehicles. These pull-outs
shall be delineated on the Final Piat. This recommended change reflects the recent work the
Applicant has done with the Fire District to designate appropriate pull-outs throughout the
subdivision to accommodate the cul-de-sacs that exceed 600 feet in length.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page29
6. The roads / streets shall comply with the "Rural Access" standards outlined in section 9:30 of
the Subdivision Regulations.
7. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, all streets / roads within the
subdivision shall be dedicated to the public. Repair and maintenance of these roads shall be the
responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the Subdivision.
copy qf the Wildfi.re Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted to the Fire District and the
Sheriff's Department. Stqffunderstands that this plan has been reviewed and signed offbJt both
entities.
f . issioners-review, Prior to the recording of the Final
Plat" the Applicant shall provide a written approval of the final determination by the Carbondale
and Rural Fire Protection District regarding the annexation of the property in to the Fire Disfrict,
as well as the court order to include the property within the District. This recommended change
attempts to deal with a "Catch-22". Staff understands that the Fire District Board will not
approve the annexation of the property in the District, until the County has granted Final Plat
approval to the subdivision. Upon approval of the subdivision by the County, the Fire District
will approve the annexation through a Resolution of approval (see Exhibit W), at which point the
Fire District will petition the court to include the property within the District as required per
CRS 32-1-401(1)(c)@.
10. Prior to installation of an antenna(s) for the purpose of improving emergency radio
communication for fire fighters and other emergency personnel, the Applicant, Fire Disfrict or
designated entity shall obtain a Special Use Permit with the County.
11. An Easement Agreement shall be submitted at the time of Final Plat for the antenna site.
adjacent to Lot 18.
12. The Applicant shall provide the following weed management information for review and
approval by the Garfield County Weed Management Director prior to the submittal of Final Plat:
A. Noxious Weeds:
Inventory and mapping: The Applicant shal1 provide a map that represent specific
locations of County-listed noxious weeds on the property.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5/19/03
Page 30
Weed Management: The Applicant shall provide a weed management plan
should be based on a detailed inventory and provide for follow-up management.
Cornmon area weed management: The Coulter Ranch Homeowners Association
will implement weed management on the Common Open Space within the
property. In addition, arrangements have been made with a local rancher to
perform agricultural operations on the property. If weed management does not
occur on the property, there could be severe weed management issues on the areas
that were previously used for hay production. The Applicant shall address this
issue.
Covenants: Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article
IV, Section 2. The Applicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under
Article IV, Section 6. The language should rernind each lot owner that it is their
responsibility under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County
Weed Management Plan to manage County-listed noxious weeds.
B. Revegetation:
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed
Management Plan calls for the following:
11.
l.l1.
lv.
a).
b)
c)
d)
Plant material list.
Planting schedule.
A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building
envelopes).
A revegetation bond or security shall be determined at*reliminaqrPlan at
Final Plat and paid prior to Final Plat submittal.
ii. Prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide a map or information that
quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded
on road cut and utility disturbances.
C. Soil Plan:
The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil
Managernent Plan that includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
a)
b)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 511,9103
Page 3l
c) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
13. The property is located within the RE-l School District. The Applicant shall pay the
School Land Dedication Impact Fee or pay cash-in-lieu of that land dedication which shall be
due at the time of Final Plat submittal. The total impact fee amount shall be determined prior to
the submittal of the Final Plat.
t4. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic Study Area I l. The
total impact fee payment shall be determined prior to Final Plat. The fee shall be calculated in
accordance to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations. Fifty percent (50%) of the road
impact fees shall be collected at the submission of Final Plat for the Subdivision. All other road
impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
15. The following additional information shall be delineated on the Final Plat:
A. The View Shed Setback Line along the west side of Lots 71, 12, 13,14,15 and 16.
B. The Landslide Boundary and the evaporate deformation faults.
C. Tracts B and C shall eliminated or reconfigured to increase the lot size of these tracts
to a minimum of 2 acres.
@
@
F. The final locations for the pull-outs for ernergency vehicles.
G. The easernent for the Fire District antenna site and access to the site.
16. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
A. Building permit applications for each lot shall include plans and specifications for an
onsite wastewater treatment system. Each systern shall be designed by a State of
Colorado registered engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County
Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) regulations before a building permit will
be issued. The type, size and location of each individual on-site wastewater system
E.
F.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page32
(OWS) will be site-specific based on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design
criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. The soil
absorption/dispersal systems should be located within the building envelope on each
lot as identified on the Final Plat.
B. Historical drainage patterns shall be maintained on the property. No structures or
uses shall be located within the natural drainage way on the property.
C. Development on 40%o slopes or greater is prohibited on the lots.
D. Swelling soils, clay and claystone, are present on the site. Appropriate mitigation
may be necessary to build on a lot.
T.
All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions
may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
One (l) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries.
No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption.
One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the
regulations promulgated there under, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances.
Colorado is a "fught-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights,
sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and
necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy
ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust,
smoke chernicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chernical
fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which
may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent agricultural operations.
All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
conholling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property.
Residents and landowners are encouraged to leam about these rights and
G.
H.
xr.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Board: 5ll9l03
Page 33
responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agriculture, put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield
County.
17. Prior to Final Plat, the water augmentation plan shall be approved by the water court and
the State Engineer Office. In addition, prior to submission of Final Plat, the Applicant shall
provide approved well permits for each well in place with the physical adequacy of the water
source proven up.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended that the Garfield County Planning Commission recommend denial to the
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch
at Coulter Creek Preliminary Plan for the following reasons:
Division of Water Resources cannot determine if there is "material injury to decreed
water rights", therefore the Applicant has not demonstrated a legal and adequate source of
water pursuant to Section a:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations;
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed longer cul-de-sacs can provide
adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access, pursuant to Section 9:33 of the
Subdivision Regulations; and
3) The wildfire hazard mitigation plan has not been approved by the Carbondale and Rural
Fire Protection District and the Garfield County SherifPs Department.
Staff continues to maintain that the Applicant has not demonstrated a legal and adequate source
of water pursuant to Section a:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations, since the Division of Water
Resources cannot determined if there is "material injury to decreed water rights", which will be
determined upon approval of the Augmentation Plan.
lterns 2 and 3 have been addressed and in staff s opinion are no
1)
2)
Garfield County
EXHIBIT
i-H,*,,*
Road and Bridge, District 1
7300 Hwy 82, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
97 0-945-1223 ph, 945-13 18 fax
04-02-03
Tamara Pregl
Building and Planning
From: Bobby Branham
Road and Bridge Dist. I
Re: Ranch at Coulter Creek
As per our conversation on 4-1-03, please note the following concerns of the Road and Bridge Dept.
All culverts beneath access points should be of Comrgated Steel Pipe.
A11 culverts should extend beyond the edge of the access roadway sufficiently to prevent
slough from congesting the inlet or outlet.
All culverts should be 18 inches or larger.
A11 culverts should have a minimum cover equal to half the diameter of the pipe. i.e. an 18
inch culvert would require nine inches of cover to finish grade.
A11 culverts should have a minimum of 1% flow.
A11 ditches entering to and exiting from culverts should be chased to daylight in order to
facilitate flow.
Access' should be constructed with a compacted sub-grade, then filled with a compacted six
inch lift of three inch minus, then topped with at least a three inch layer of compacted t/c road
base (class 6) material. Compaction should test at 95% of modified proctor.
Access' should be flared where they meet the county road and should be of sufficient width to
conform with sub-division standards.
All areas of county road which encroach into or pass through private property should have
right of way deeded to the county at 30 foot from centerline.
10. Ail accesses should be graded to follow 2Yo slope from crown, to a point at or beyond the
location of the culvert. Where super-elevation is used the access grade shall be at2o/o from
edge of road to a point at or beyond the culvert.
l l. Access' should piovide a minimum of 200 feet visibility in either direction, from a point 10
feet back from the edge of the county road.
12. Access' should meet lhe county road at a 90 degree angle for a minimum distance of 30 feet.
13. Access' should be inspected by Road and Bridge for compliance upon completion.
With regards to this particular sub-division the north west entry is in a very undesirable location, due
to poorisibility. Road and Bridge recommends that this particular location not be used and that
another more suitable site be chosen.
RECEI\IED
APR n e 2n03
CI{RFIELD COUNW
TNflNG & PI.ANNING
3
Date:
To:
t.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Bobby Branham
Dist. I Road and Bridge
Date:
To:
Garfield County
Road and Bridge, District L
1015 School St., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-6099 ph. & FA& School St.
970-945-1223 ph,945-1318 fax, Cattle creek
10-30-02
Building & Planning
Attn: Tamara Pregl
970-945-8212ph
970-384-3470 fax
From: Doug Thoe, Diskict I Road Foreman
Re: Access to'oThe Ranch at Coulter Creek"
Tamara,
I made a trip to the two sites where Snowmass Land Company has proposed
access to CRl15 for'The Ranch at Coulter Creek". Of the two locations, the western
access is an existing agricultural driveway, while the eastern access has historically
served a ranch residence. This residence access has been improved and widened without
a permit, and since the improvement constitutes a change of use, Road & Bridge will
require a new permit for this driveway. We will be requesting removal of some of the
soil fill of the driveway, to be replaced with gravel. Currently, mud is being fracked out
onto CRl l5, and any increase in the elevation of the driveway will cause it to drain
towards CRl15 instead of away from it, hence the removal of material. As far as
considerations of approach grade, sight distance and width, this access meets current
Road & Bridge requirements.
The westem access is on a near 90 degree cornetr, and is in a bad location with
regard to sight distance, though the deficiency can be readily corrected. Using the test of
viewing a 6" ball in the road from a height of 48", you can only see about 150 feet to the
east and 350 feet to the north. The minimum sight distance for a 35mph road is 250 ft. If
the access is moved 80 feet to the east, which is at the approximate apex of the corner,
sight distance is increased in both directions, resulting in about 400 feet visibility to the
north and 800 feet to the east. The location I propose is bounded on the south by "The
Ranch" property, and is therefore within the purview of the developer to accomplish,
though it would require minor excavation into the slope rising within the property. Road
& Bridge would, however, entertain the idea of a24" fill on the County road, centered on
the driveway and tapering to zero at about 125 linear feet in each direction. Such a fiIl
would reduce the excavation needed within the property, as well as improving the grade
of the County road.
Regardless of the developer's decision on the idea of a fiIl, Road & Bridge
stongly recoflrmends moving the westem access to a point 80 feet east, and I have
marked two steel fence posts at this spot with white paint, should Building and Planning
Dept. personnel wish to review the proposal on site.
,/
Thanks, Doug Thoe
MEMORANDUM
To: Tamara Pregl
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Ranch at Coulter Creek
Date: March 25,2003
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Ranch at Coulter Creek. I recommend
that the applicant post a revegetation security for disturbances outside the building lots, to
include roadside cuts and utility line placernents.
My comments are as follows:
1. Noxious Weeds
Inventory and mapping-The applicant has inventoried the property for
vegetation and does mention noxious weeds, however the information is
general and does not provide specific locations of the County-listed
noxious weeds on a map. It is requested that the applicant provide a map
that would represent these locations.
Weed Management-The applicant has provided a proposal from a
contractor for weed services. This information, like the inventory is
general, and does not describe a specific weed manageme'nt plan. A
weed management plan should be based on a detailed inventory and
provide for follow-up management.
Common area weed management-The applicant states that the Coulter
Ranch Homeowners Association will implement weed manage'ment on the
Common Open Space within the property. It is also stated that the
applicant has made arrangements with a local rancher to perform
agricultural operations on the property. If this does not happen, there
could be severe weed management issues on the areas that were
previously used for hay production.
Covenants-Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under
Article IV, Section 2. I request that the applicant include sffonger
language, perhaps under Article IV, Section 6. The language should
remind each lot owner that it is their responsibility under the Colorado
A.
B.
C.
D.
Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Managanent Plan to
manage County-listed noxious weeds.
2. Revegetation
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield county weed
Management Plan calls for the following:
Plant material list.
Planting schedule.
A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside ofthe
building envelopes).
A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary plan and prior to
Final Plat.
The applicant has not provided any of the above iterns in the Preliminary Plan
application.
Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the
areq in terms of acres, to be disfurbed and subsequenfly reseeded on road
cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the
amount of security that will be held for revegetation.
The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security
is necessary ifthe project has:
o ,A. potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds.o A potential to impact watershed areas.o { potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors.o Steep slopes (lS% or greater) or unstable areas.o 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 Reclamation Standards in the Cognty
Weed Management Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a
menrber of their staffto evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of thJ
security.
Soil Plan
A. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil
Management Plan that includes:
o Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.o A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
o
o
a
. 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 625-8601.
STATEOFCOLORADO I
Bill Otnens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURGES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNIry EMPI-OYER
Rueedl Georgg Director
ffiOBroaduay
D$rrcr, Colondo fltr216
TC+honc W)2.7-119P,
Tamara Pregt
Garfield Cormff Planning Department
108 8e Street, Suite 201
Gle,nwood Springq CO 31601
RE: Ranch at Coulter CreekSketch Plan
ForWdlife-
For Peoplc
R#c&,Jltuo
mL::,::!:_,*.e pdffifiL
DearMs. Pregl,
I have re;viewed the sketch plan for the Ranch at Couher Creek and would like submit a few oorrments. I
have met with Daum Keating, Wildlife Consullant, prwious to this application to reviewthe wildlife
conoerns I would like to reiterate some ofthe points.
Keep fmoing to a qrinimum and follow the CDOW fencing recourmfldations. If any hay will be
stored on site, I would recorrmend a stack yard be oonstructed to keep wildlife out.
The open spaoe anil adjacent BLM landbe olosed to dog use firing the winter and dogs mr$ ahrays
be on leash owside ofhousing fooprint. Ltmit the number of dogs allowed for each home site to one
ilog. Iftheyhave outside kemels, it shoulil inoluile a olosed in roofto keep mormtain lions fiom
predating on pets. During eonstnrction, contractors Soutd not be allowed to have dogs on site.
Cats Sould be kept indoors at aI[ times. Cats are a major predator to small rodentS and birds.
CDO\ry will not be liable for damage to landscaping from wildlife. Bear-proof durysters or traS bins
shoukl be prwideil by the homeoumers. I would also suggest trash coryactors for eacjh house,hold to
reduce the anormt ofwaste.
Hrmting should not be prohibited. As long as it can be done in a safe menner, 'f is oould be a
reoessory tool for wilitlife management. The adjacent BLM lmd is a popular hrmting area md the
homeonm.ers Sould bo aware that this is a legal hunting area.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 963-6523.
Manager
DEPARIMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. l/lfiilcfier, Bccrihre Dircclor
WLDLIFE CO[t MlSSlOt{, Rck Ensfrom. Chdr o Robcrt Shoernaker, VceChdr o Madanna Raflopodoe Secr€iary
o
O
REC
March 28,2003
Tamara Pregl
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek, preliminary plan
Dear Tamara,
We are currently waiting.for the developer to submit a wildfire hazardmitigation plan before commentingfurther' The board of directors of the district has yet to approve the pltition for annexation as of
this time.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural
300 Meadowood Drive. Carbondale,
Fire Protection District
CO 81623 ,9701963-2491 Fax 963-0569
. RED-s\ffiA
liililll',iit',"i H,',.ni,\ Ki
w
FIRE.EMS.RESCUE
Carbondale & Rural
alOO l\Jtoadarrrnnr{ Drirra . (larhnndale
Fire Protection District
en RlA23 . 97O/Q63-2491 Fax 963-0569
EXHIBIT
:
BECEIVED
FIRE.EMS.RESCUE
No\/ 22 2002
GARFIELD COUNTY
BI.'il..DII{G & PI.ANNING
November 18,2002
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfreld County Planning Department
109 8d'st.
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Re: Ranch at Coulter Creek Sketch Plan
Dear Mark,
,
I have reviewed the subdivision sketch Plan Application for the Ranch at coulter creek
submitted by Snowmass Land Company and would offer the following comments
regarding fiie protection and e*ergLn"y medical sgrvlces for the property'
. ':. . l '" :"
First of all, about 50% of the property is not within Jle,lou.naaries of the carbondale &
Rural Fire protecti;;bil^i.tlrr,'i aJ"Jof.r rgt sutmined an annexation petitionto the
board of directorc oirfr" iirtict seeking incldsion.of,the.qropgrty into the district' The
board of directo^ oitrr. district has noiacted on the petiiion for annexation as of this
time.
Second of all, it is important to note that the property is in a wildfle hazard area and
special measures *uv u" required to adequately mitigate these hazards'
I am requiring the developer to prepare a "Wildfire Hazard'Mitigation Plan" that
addresses a number of iszues of ,on".* to the district. I have included a copy of the
issues to be addressed in the Wildfire ii*aMitigation Plan along with a list of the
codes, standards and guidelines to b" ,efererrced ulhen developing the l1T l}en the
developer delivers the plan to me, I will review tt, analyze it and comment on it'
Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeat963-249|,
SincerelY,
P.^ d-L
Ron Leach, Fire Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
LIST OF GUIDELINES, CODES & STANDARDS
The following is a list of approved indysuy Guidelines,. codes and Standards to be
,"f.r.rr."a *it.riul i" alrif"ping a Wildfrreqazatd Mitigation Plan.
- COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICEI
CSFS DrivewaY Standards
CSFS Defensible Space Thinning Standards
CSFS Firewise Construction Design And Materials
FuelbreakGuidelinesForForestedSubdivisionsbyFrankDennis,
colorado st"t. i';;; service, colorado State university, 1983
'wildfireSafety:ModelRegulationsForProtectingPeopl.A"qloP.'
From Wildfire In Subdivisions And Developments by Ronald J ' Zelerry
CSFS #123-0588, Revised APril' 1988
.NotesofConversationwithRonZ,onllzllgzRegardingl04lbyJohn
Denison, CSFS, Grand Junction Distict Forester i'
- CSFS Wildfue Fuel TYPes
INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE INSTITUTE:
- 1997 Urban-Wildland Interface Code' First Edition
UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1997
INSURANCE SERVICE OFFICE (ISO)
NFPA GUIDELINES:
1201 Developing Fire Protection Services for the Public
13 Automatic Fire Sprinkler System
13R Automatic Fire sprinkler Systems For Single Family And Duplex
Residential Buildings
Standard For Water Tanks For Fire Protection'98
24 Private Fire Service Mains And Appurtenances
25Inspection,TestingAndMaintenanceofWaterSystemsForFire
Protection'98
37 Installation And Use of Stationary combustion Engine '98
72 National Fire Alarm Code'99
g0A Fire Protection of Buildings From Exterior Fire Exposure'96
295 Wild-fireControl'98
2ggProtectionofLifeAndPropertyFromWildfire'97&,91
3g5 Storage of Flammable And combustible Liquids At Isolated Sites
'93
1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus'99
1906 Standard for Wildland Fire Apparatus'95
S20standardforFireProtectioninWastewaterTreatmentandt
Collection Facilities'99
.NATIONAL WILDFIRE COORDINATING GROUP :
-Incident ResPonse Pocket Guide
It
IIL
w.
v.
vI.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 LOCATION
I.2 SIZE/DESCRIPTION
WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
SCOPE
WILDFIR.E HAZARD ANALYS$
WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION
6.I ACCESS
A. DEFINITIONS
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
B. DRIVEWAY GUIDELINES
C. ROADWAY GUIDELINES
D. CUL.DE.SAC GUIDELINES
E. TI]RNAROUND GUIDELINES
F. INTERSECTION GUIDELINES
G. HAMMER}IEAD GUIDELINES
WATER SUPPLY
BUILDING LOCATION/PLACEMENT
BUILDING DESIGN AND MATERIALS
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
A. DEFENSIBLE SPACE
B. FUELBREAKS
C. FIREBREAKS
D. SAFETY ZONES
E. MODIFICATION
F. MAINTENANCE
G. ENFORCEMENT
VII. MISCELLAI\EOUS
7.I UTILITIES
7.2 SPARK ARRESTORS
7.3 LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS
7.4 IGNITION SOURCES
7.5 COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS STORAGE
T.6COMPLIANCEALTERNATIVES/ENFORCEMENT
IIAZARD EVALUATION
RESPONSE PLAN
EVACUATION PLAI\
ATT.ACHMENTS:
- List of Guidelines
- OPen Burning Restrictions
- Wildlire Hazard AnalYsis
-Maps:
-Water
-Roads & DrivewaYs
-Fire Station ProximitY
-colorado State F;;r; service wildfire Areamazard Map (WIIAM)
-Details:
-Hammerhead
-Intersection
-60' & 45' Radius Turnaround
7.7
7.8
7.9
APR-D7-ZAD3 15:5?DIU I'ATER RESDURCES
RE:
363 865 3589
[t h:]'tl [-;] VED
r i r,, iU03
GAR}:ILLD UOUNTY
N,,IDING & PIXNNING
OfFICE Of THE STATE ENGINEER
Oivbion d Water Resources
Depa(m€nt of NerurC Resources
1313 Shetfian srcet, Room 8t8
Derrvcr, Colordo &203
?trorr€ B0ll E66p3581
t x 0o3) t36'3389
x,wur.wiflf'Sf S,co.lr5
Tamara Pregl
ea*"U Cointy BuiHing and Plannirg
108 tth StSt€ 201
G-bnu,ood SPnngs @ 81601-3355
Bil OtxtrB
Gotrctnor
Crti E ttr Lttct
tr:&iworcaot
!dO.SfrFm,m.
S.nrEat rra
STATE OF
Ranctr at coLilbr .,*-#il
Sections 6 & 7, T7S, R87W, 6th PM
Sedon 1. T7S, RBEW,6th PM
Wrt"r Division 5, Wabr Dlstrict 38
Dear Ms. Pregl:
WehavereviewedthcaboverefeencedproposdbslbdjvideaA7l.7-aqeparelinb26lotsalrd
open space. Ttre applicant Proposes to po"'it ti";A[i suPply nrotrgh wells to be augmented per
pbnOing Case No. O2CW1&i. ihe lots wi;; Ue swea by individrnl septic systems'
Tte so.rrce ot the proposed water suPPly wouts E ftT'1ffi'ttty io' tile Roaring F6rk River'
whlcfr is a ributary .f il; &6;;ru,,er. ml'cororuoo Riuer is overappropdarted, thcrefofe an
augmentation pran isie-qiiilf ffi*t d"##;;;"ilUv ittl-*J& water for this devekcsrnent'
our records indicate that several gx,emot wellsmay currently exist wihin the prooosed
deveropment. Note #G;;; ii:sz-6oiii)ibiiiii, cid, req:idi th;itil cumuraiive effecr or alr werts
in a subd*ision be considered wr,en.r.rtu"ii7|-fi"[Jri"rinpw't" i"Je.a vrater rignts' Therefore' the
exisrins exempr r"u"'rlJ':t'u" ncruoe! rnii'iug."$ry pt*';;;;;'ue pugd'ea and abandoned
sine the provisions ;i cRbll:gcooi *t'l"ii ar-liweo for issuance & r* Grr ;*t'''t" will no lonser applv'
Duetothelackofawatermurtapprovedaugrrrentation.plan'theStateErrgineerfindspursuant
to Sec{ion 30-2&130(1XhXl), C.R.S.,.thatin" pttpoi"0 *attlynpty will cause rnaterial iniury to
decreed rrrater rights ;;d i,; inadequate. tf ilAih" applicant tta'G an, q,estions concerning this
mafier, please *nt"i'.f-oin i"dd;g of this ofiirp for assistarrce.
l$Vl(JltrR/Ranch at Cotllter Creek i'doc
cc: Alan lrlartelhro, DMsion Engireer' DMsion 5w'
ixrr'ghleshe, water Commissioner' Distrid 38
Marctr 27, m03
SincerelY,
Kenneth W, Knox
Assistant State Engineer
TDTF{- P.Az
STATE OF CO
Bill Owens
Covernor
OFTICE OF THE STATE ENCINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1 31 3 Sherman Street,, Room B l.8
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
November 19i2002
RECETV'ED.,.
DEC 0 6 2002
*ffiiJ8?8,Xllilt
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. SimPson, PE'
State Engineer
www.water.sLate.co' us
Tamara Pregl
f#Ll &"Jgil,ob',yil"^'y/, 20t
Glenwood SPrings CO 81601
RE:Ranch at Coulter Creek Sketch Plan
Sections 6 & 7, T7S, R87W, 6th PM
Section 1, T7S, R88W,6th PM ^-
Water Division 5, Water DistriPt 38
Dear Ms. Pregl:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivid e a 478.7-acre parcel into 26 lots and
open space. The applican! pro!9sgs.to pi*iA" the water supply through wells to be augmented per
pE"Ji.g C"se No. cidcwrob. The lots will be served by individual septic systems'
The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary, !o Jhe Roaring Fork River'
which is a tributary of the bolorado niver. ind cororado River is overappropriated, therefore an
augmentation plan ir;"quild to otfset'de;i;ti;trt *rt.O OV the use of water for this development'
Although some well test data was submitted,'no analysis 9f l!9.19.99u.3cY oI these wells to supply
the proposed devetopment was proviOeJ. Ai stateO in CAd bO-28-133(3XO)' tnesubdivider is required to
submit,,Adequate evidence that a *rt.iilpprv tlniiis sumcient in terms of quality, quantity, and
dependability will be available to ensure ,"'ro6qrrte supply of water for the'typeof subdivision proposed'"
Adequate evidence is usually provided. in the form of a wateriesource report,-prepared by a professional
engineer or water "*"rftini which addresses the quality, qu,tttity, 1!.leqglOability issues' A report of
this nature was not provided. see the attacneo ouidetinesioi'Suooivision'water Supplv Plan Reports for
the necessary information.
ourrecordsalsoindicatethatseveralexemptwellsmaycurrently.eiilylll,ll"Jfr:,"1
o","roplT,{i"fifi:?'1""i #ffii:;;;b;(3xi;ti1[ cRS' *:-T::g'^tl^:"?:,i*flly"ffli,:Hl":t#:"'L:?:8ffi[iil';J"":ffJ"='""i'";;;;ffiiilIl\"i'"1"11.j'v-!: *i::9I'l?lj].ng';^Ini,l3l?i1,Tr"ffi x5:lffi.rJi:'ft:?Illq"r,q*ru1:yyl"*:y:ij::*TT::i::xl'*".'#ilf i"*l?:Xl:il::iffi?Hiliffi,:,i'3i!?:r;;o?ffiii;iffi;;;;i",l"n'L u the werr bermits wil no ronger apprv'
Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentalion plan, the state Engineer finds pursuant
.i^l inir rnr fn
to s".tilli;:r'Ui;u?;(.;(D, ;:ffi" thliffi ;,p"i"J*jt:f,'yrytl-Ylry:::::19'iJ:i:y'l:
lffi:'flj,'",.1;;il:'J}.?J',ffilqiitJ.-rt 6u'oi'tn" appricant nai inv questions concerning this
*rtt"i, please c6ntactCraig Lis of this office for assistance.
SincerelY,
Assistant State Engineer
TOVKCMU Ranch at Coulter Creek'doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Acting Division Engineer :-ryil' 6f il{ f' #'t( br$
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
enneth,W.,Knox
APR-02-2003 04:4lPI4 FR0IFColorado Su rvsy 303856246 I T-358 P
B*t Oi(C.nr
GovraOt
COTORADO GEOTOGICAT SURVSY
Oirtrt- of Mi..t k and GeologY
Oeoartmcnt of Naturrl Resorrces
iiiS the(men street" Room 71 5
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phons (!O3) 866'16r I
Fr\k BO3) 85&2461
April'1,2003
Crc* E. Wlkhrt
Erc6rtie Dirtnor
rorddw.Cilnt,
Divbidl Dirtco'
vt€ldCovrrr
5a*GroEia
erd OirEctot
1)slopestability.lamingeneralasr-eqn?r.'rYihtresloPas{abilityassasemerrtzdro}ded
oonstrudidl recomr;;'J;6; iid.ded in *r;Hicfiedl rep6A. as noted in fte HP Gec'bd1
repo4 Lots 11, 12. 1;, G;;i'i #i"."t"9adjaoinllf l Er.tdyide-csnelex' ln orderto erurr'e
g.'at rhe proposed O.il"fffiit'*iflnol U. afie;& by trtis landsll{e' lhe orooosed oonsft,cffii
serbacks, fiom the;;6i rd;bp", shortd #;E;iyd;[^;r,Jc;r tmj oevelopnrent plat' The
olans slrowttratme co*gu.ato bti't" pnopo""O "uOaU*n
shdrld p(wide afiple space to
irc@rffngdate an g5Ediva sebacg f-rr*"t *t-ogf"tefig€e6{ogiltor geopctrnicd engineer
"f,orfd
Ut *nsuneO-o provtOe a formsl design recommendati'on'
Lob 18, 19, 20, 21 and22 aretoatdon slopes q9t 3F gt€atf I-T 30% $ade' I stortgly
sr.rg'est 6,,at a sfopE staOUty an"ry*q S conlireteO in thF i.=" to ensrna ma rc proposed buildng
envdopes are adegu-ffi';iEd6 ,r{rlhize{re rtsk or sbpe rnovenrent aftcr consfruc{iorr' ln moet
cerses. hazerd*iti#t''*'fi# ; t€d'* U; rsk or urr0ding on sEeP slopes; horvwer' the
*-Grli* *"os td're considered eErV intte flannirg
2,' s,rdt,i}s Soil. Tho clay a,'9 dry$qne alel poErrthls, meagured by,HP Geotech. illusfrab a lo,, bz'ffi*#S;h"lr,,H#str:ll#il"#:['ry*'s6.i11o6i'g
erding phn and f,i;;#;.fie-- O*igr" lncfuO-. m'nffin-mef,oa"'re outined in HP Georcl't's
pretiminary ,"p.rt. i]li*Gior rril sm tho;I ;;;lv Uilifv th" presence of swdllng davs and
ltate Urat initigatbn maybe neoessary to bu[d on a ld'
Due to the presenoo of swellEng elay €ofl6, pefimeter drains thould be insE[ed around fq'mdations'
perimeter drain= p[r-"iili"ritinEgto,ri i moi=tre tom satrrating the soils and thus erluce the
overatl pot ntiar tor-exiatt-ffi-; qdl"tiO"drn. CeS b h generat agreement wtlh the drain
svsUnl recsmmenda:tion in the HP Geobch report'
BECEilMD
APR n 2 ?003
"ffi'lB''tsS&HN['*
STATE OF CCLO
lrgal Loctbn : S5,T/S,RE?W
GCr$Gase No. GA.G{IO'1O
NE.TamaraPregl
earneU Curlty Ptann'rU DePatnent
rOq Eiqh$ Steet, Suite 303
c#nrooo SennErs, co 61601
Re: Rancfr at Coulter Creek, GadleH Corlnty' Colorado
DerMs. Preg[:
ln rcsporrse lo your reque$ and in accofilance with senae Bilt 35 (1972)' I visited tt'ts proparty to
review r'c pht. The erolii,{o'i"6-"* 6t,oii"*iui*uar*bn'rs rocated on appmximatety 4tl0
acres of aEicutrrd ;"i fr; ii;pd,.erry-"f y,";i[;rie; frun gentle slooes 'n the enter rd
norfiem pats of the property to moderately setp ifone G soutiand easi properry lines' PotaDle
rllrderandwa#mtsr"fr il h;rdbd on s-i,te uywettsana |sDS, respecttuely.
The follsvrtrE c(x1ditbns uere descfDed ln lhe refend and obsewect during tlre site vbit
APR-0e-2003 01:41Pt,l FROM-Colorado 6colr-'-al Survev 30 386 6?46 I T-358 P.003/003 F'Z6Z
APril 1,2003
r Page2
3) Evaporite Deformation' As noted I'ft"-11,9*E h report' the gite in the Carbndale Colapse
s:?rft $,l:il"##i$ft 5ml5ffi ffrgffi1tg*"ffil#$'ffifr ,
:piffi #s:iiffiI#',Xi*!ffi*5rf,;'':[fffi;;yry";ffi[*5*"
wtren sitaspecifr" g".rffi;;i.d lnvestigatiorir'#;;i;l"t"d' r
"so 's'ee ffi.f$B-"*
ffiffi;iffiF;m,ffi m'm.m:siHuffi-g*;o,rpvemenr
h snffnary. the hazaflh present will ffefV 9m11aln the propoeed da/lPt'"il hqffever' engineeed
rffi' *ffi
SircerdY, '
/@M
semP. an v// /
Gedoglst
PATRICK MILLER & KROPE P.C.
AttonrcYs atlaw
t'ebruary 25,2003
I(evin L Patrick
Scoa C. Millcr
R nscy L. I(roPf'
San t'{. Dunn
Paul L Noto
,liaadbAZ@,WY
Sean T. McAllister, Esq'
Attorney General's Office
ilzi iri*t an sfreet, 5'h Floor
Denver, CO 80203
RE: case No. 02cwt08; Water Division No' 5; Application for underground water
Rights, New water Rights *i-A;;;";*'or itan for Augmentation of slc-
Laurence, LLC (our file #88M3)
MonnOftcc:
730 E Dtrau Avenue
Suitc 200
Arpcn, CO 81611
970.920.1028 Tel
970.925.6847 Fax
/ulgorcOficc:
Camelback EsPtanade I
2,t15 E. Caruelbrck Road
Suitc 700
Phoenix, AZ 85016
480.92I.40** Tcl
a80.921.8688 Fax
Dear Sean:
ThankyouforyouxphonecallinJanuaryonbehalfoftheColoradoWater
Conservation Board and your letter of ;;;* ti1-g!"h."tf of the State and Division
Engineer, providing *-or*.rrO.to Caseio. bZCWtOg' This letter responds to your
comments. We also euclose redline # ;i;;;ersions of a revised proposed Ruling of
Referee incorporating many of your comments'
STATEMENToFoPPosITIoNoFSTATEENGINEER,SoFFIcE
We respond to yotu Janu ary 23'n leter following the same order your commen6
were presented, wift r"fo*"" to tie "ppii;;b1;
Paragriphs in the new revised Ruling:
o Reference to "se€page" has been remov ed- see n*v Paragraph 7'c'
Wehavelargelyre.writtentheSecondclaimtoincludephysicaland.oter
information for tne-Lauence Ponds. The ponds 99 t*intercept groundwater
and we have included an affirsratire statemkt to this effect in a new Paragraph
9.
we have removed the claim for new augmentation use for the Laurence Ditch'
First Enlargernort, riit. tn" fa'ralce tfu is simply the ditch structure urcd to
filltheponds*a*iunothaveanindependentuseforaugmentation.
The paragraph numbering has been corrected'
The number of EQR,s to be covered by this Plan is 5.3. The ranch managEr,s
residence is only I EQR while each ofthe 26 homes is two EQR's' We have
included the Blaney CiJaf. *tt-rptiois osea. Seefounh sub'paragraph under
nevv ParagraPh 20.
The October 18, 2002 Engineering Report pttqTtd by. Resource Engineering
details the information requested regariing the histolt Tg"ho* -This Report
wasi previoorf, r*iio you anO A1* Ma;ellero on October 23m, however, we
www.wolrllo;vtc,f/'t
PATRICK, MILLER & KROPE PC.
SeanT. McAllister
February 25,2403
Page2
eoclose herein an additional copy. As you can see on Page 5 of therePott'Y" base our
consumptive use analysis on the *9o1 water yield years on record' 1977 arrd 2002' arrd
assumed a full, cont-inuous "call." Thus we do not see the need to go through a
consumptive use analysis for "each year of record" since it would only show higher water
availabilitY and Yield.
I'm not sure I understand your comment: 'No well permits can be forurd for Laurence
Ranch well Nos. 1-5." Since *v *rir permits would be sent back for lack of an
augmentation plan, we are waiting until ; receive a final decree in this case before
submitting. We have i"tf"a"a u rrJ* p.aragaptr 5 under.$e Judginent and Decree section
which addresses ."*pfi*.t with SEO Poliiy i9-t regarding the well field'
We have included standard accounting (see Judgment and Decree' Paragraphs 9' 10)'
homeowner association (see Judgmentind Decrei Paragraph !!).,.^ds:cti:n 305(8) (see
Judgment ona Orciii, iorogrolnq ;;age in m. nufing. We:do not include "standard
contract" language because Applicant o*o, *a is not conEacting'for any of the sources of
augmentation water.
paragraph 4 of the Judgment and Decree has been rernoved. Paragraph 7 of the Judgment
and Decree has been editEd to tie the J;;ithe retained jurisdiction period to 75o/o build-
out; howevetr, we have used u ttr"" y..t period since it witl'be several years before
reaching this level of build-out (evan thlugh-tfre augmentation plan would be implemented
before thaQ and thus, the retained j,ritai.ti[o poioa-witt be longer than normal' as it is'
STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION OF COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARI)
Per o,r phone conversation, I have drafted a provisioa which I believe addresses the cwcB's
coocenrs as a new zub-paragraph at the end of Paragraph 20'
ThankyouforyorrrreviewofthisApplication.andcomments.
comments you may have and to reaching a stipulated settlement
opposition to this case.
Very tnrlY Yours,
PATRICK MILLER & KROPF, P.C.
SCIvI/slp
.., lotur Sarpa,Ioe Erzer, Paul Bussone' P'E'
!V:\S L C1t8 M3\LatcrswfcAllister 2'25'03'doc
I look forward to any firther
of the State's and CWCB's
EXHIBIT
I(nn Su,r'an
AttorneY General
Doxar,n S. Qutcr-CiiCi-O"puty-,q'ttorneyGeneral
ALANJ. GILBERT
Solicitor General
Mr. Scott Miller
Patrick, Miller & KroPl P'C'
73U E.Durant Ave', Suite 200
AsPen, CO 81611
for irrigation, and the
to the potential
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
OrNCT OF TIIE ATTORNEY GBNNN.IT,
JanuarY 23,2003
srlrn Sunvtcqs BUILDING -Ti),{ -strErman Street - 5th Floor
flfli:'rlEii"feB]iff
-
RE: SEO Comments on SlC-Lawrence 02CW108
Dear Scott:
BelowarethecommentsofthestateEngineer,sofficeonyourproposedrulinginthe
Sl-C-Lawrence case ntrmber 02CW1 08'
Reference to "seepage' should be removed- from paragaph 7c ir.the second claim'
* The physical attributes of Laurence Ponds Nos. 1-4 discussed i" !*.ufl.'ph 7D need to be
identified (acre-feet of live and dead ,,"*;; capacity, st'face area, dam height and length, etc')'
Also, applicant needsio verify if the pond! t"t"6;gr"undwater' If gro,ndwater is intercepted'
applicant must vacate the storage water;A;;J;eiaweil permit and aplan for augmentation'
* The ',Laurence Ditch, First Enlargement" discussed in paragfaph 7D should be listed as a
separate claim ti."., "ppri.".t
shourd sep-arate "storage" and "surface" water rights).
* The numbering of tirc paragraphc is incorect under the Thirc clal'n"' skipping from
paragraph 14 to ParagraPh 24'
,r hr the third sub-paragraph under paragraph 19 in the Fourth claim, it appears that there
should be 54 EQR s (not 53 EQR s). ro trr" o&t paragraph, please list the assumptions that were
used in the Blaney Criddle analysis'
The applicant must submit an engineering rwol t"ftt3t'."9i.9t,1tj::t"1s;-""1ff1
ir a*liil*T,:;trr.*oir, providins tl,"-r;;;r# oihistoricallv irrigated 1*9 t" be dried-up' a
^ - -- --: -r-.- L.l-+^-i^alk, ttoai t
map of the dry-uP and the *ut.. rights historically used to
rlysis must compare the available water
on a monthlY basis, accounting foruse for each Yeara$ffi$on
PATRICK, MILLER & KROPF, PC.
tarlsit losses (i
,r. Paraglaph 4 in the "Judgment and Decree" section of the proposed Ruling should be
removed. paragraphT shouldbi edited so that it states the retainid jurisdiction will begin five
(5) years after TlYoof Uoiruoot (not five years after the augmentation plan becomes
operational).
* Also, we cannot locate the engineering report d{9d October t8'z}Ozreferenced in Paul
Bussong,s Decenrberl 8,2ll2letter, so we t qo.tt ttrat it be submitted for review'
Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments' I look fonrard to
seeing a revised u*i* of the propor.J'*iing addressing these comments in the near future'
Page2
* No well permits can be found for Laurence Ranch wells Nos' 1-5' The applicant must
demonstrate compliance with Policy 99-1 to support any claim for a "well field"'
Includestandardaccounting,HoA,contractand305(8)language.
Sincerely,
SEA}i T. MCALLISTER
Assistant AttorneY General
Natural Resources & Environment
(Phone) 303-866-5053'
(FA)o 303-866-3ss8
(Email) sean.mcallister@state'co'us
AG File:P:\HW\HWMCALST\WATERUNIT\SEO\COMMENTSONSLC'LAWRENCEO2Cwlos'DOC
The above entitled Application was filed on April 3O'IWZand:o Anlndcd ApPlicatiou
was frled oa July 3l,l2rJ[z,and was ryi.tt a to the undersigned as.Water |eferee
for Water
Division No. 5, state'oi coiorado, uv tu" wJ.r Judge or saiatourt, in accordance with futicle
g2 ofTitle 3T, colorado Revised Statutes lgl3,knocm as tn" wtto Right Dacrmination and
Administration Act of 1969'
And the undersigned Referee having made..zucf investigations .* 3t nece$iary to
determine whether or uot the state*ents i" th"-Ap'prigliorare tie and having become fully
advised with respect to the subject,.* oi,nr iipri..tl* does hereby make the following
d.i.r-irrfi* -i n,['g as the Referee in this matter' to wit:
HNDINGS OF FACT
tc couRT USq oNLY
DISTRICT COURT, WATERDMISION 5, COLORADO
ffield CountY Corrthouse
109 8d'SEeet, Suite 104
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
9701945-5075
IN THE APPUCATION FOR WATER zuGIIIS
ron src-LAuRENCE, LLC in GarEeld county
scott c. Miller, #26181
Patrich Miller & KroPf, P'C'
730 E. Durant" Suite 200
Asp€n, CO 81611
97 Ol 920-1028 - TelePhone
g7 01925'6847 - Facsimile
miller@'raterlaw'com
1) The statem€ots in ttre Application are tnre'
A
B.
c.
D.
District Court, Water Division 5
Page2
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling ofReferee
2) Name, address and telephone number of Applicant:
SlC-Latrenc e,LLL
c/o Patrick" Miller & IkoPl P'C'
730 E. Durant St., Suite 200
Aspeu CO 81611
(970) 920-1028
3) Name of well stnrctures:Laurence Ranch Well No' 1
Larrence Ranch Well No' 2
Laurence Ranch Vfell No' 3
Laurence Ranch Well No' 4
Larence Ranch Well No' 5
Additionat wells may be identified and added at a later t"t" {lf* so long as the
total anngal diversions'and depretio; f"; dl weus ao not ottoa the amounts ideotified
h€rein-
4) Description of Conditionat rilfaterRights:
'.
Legal Description of well Field (all in Garfietd counry): The Iaurence Ranch
Well Nos. 1-5 wiu be located ir. *rrin ra-". rut i6o-'"tt laurence Ranch
ffij*-HJ,tt;:*:m:u*l': .Tmr"rr"ea,Y
Lot 5 of Section 1, iu Township 7 Sorl$" Range q9 -ryg:tthe 66 P'M" Iil t/z SE
yn,Eyzw t/4 *oiot O, i"ia e of Sffi? N'2"Xe-1* SW %NE % and*
% I.IIM y.,, Lllin Section ZJownsnip iilth' f'-g" E7 West of the 6d' PJVI'
ii;;h"ft; referred to as "Laurence Raach Property'')
source for all wells: Groundwater tributary to c-ooljTcreek' which is ributary
;C;n; areelq which is tibutarv to the Roaring Fork River'
Appropriation date for each well: Januarv 15'2002
A.mount for eacu well 0'40 c'f's' (186 J.P-m)':?o-*Io*l' The cumulative
annual diversions noto.u wells for aillses-wiu be34.754 acre feet
Uses for each well: Domestic, fire protection, stochratcring and inigation for up
to6.?actes(approximatelylo,oo0o'squarefeetpertot)oflawnsandgarde,ns
contained within the Laurence Ranch Properf'
W:\S L C1S8 M3\Ptcrding\Rulingndcrc'02c1'lG DRAFT 12'342 CLEAN 2a443'dor
Disnict Court, Water Division 5
Page 3
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling ofReferee
6) Name of Structures:
The name and address of the owBer of the land upon which
*"Ut *a the place of use is located is: Applicant'
the poins of diversion of the
s)
B.
Laurence Pond No. 1
Larrence PoudNo. 2
Laurence Pond No. 3
Laurence PondNo. 4
Note: Lanrence Pond Nos. 1 through 4 were previously decreed rl case No' 95CW94
Water Divisiou No. 5, on May ZA"\Sge. epifigant does not seek to change this prior
decree. Appli.*, trerein seeks to adJ a new, ,Aditio""t use of "augmentation" to each of
thesb stnrctues, tls follows:
CI DSaiption of Conditional Water Storage Rights:
A.Legal Description of Points ofDiversion (in Garfield counry):
1.Laurence Pond No. 1 Point of Diversion: The center of Larrence Poad
No. 1 is located " "
p"i", ie6l6 f*t from the south scctio3 tine and 2050
feet from the east t"r:ti* t* of Section 6' Towuship 7 South' Rmge 87
'West of the 66 P.M.
La[ence Pond No. 2 Point of Diversion: The center of Larnencc Poud
No. 2 is located "t ";;t iZOO f..t from the south section line and 1750
feet from &e east r.Jti* line of Section 6, Township 7 Soutb" Range 87
V/est of the 66 P.M.
Laurence Pood No. 3 Point of Diversion: The center of Laurence Poud
No. 3 is located "t "
p"i"t iA00 f..t from the south sectio-n line and 1600
feet from the west r.itio" tine of Section 6, Township 7 South, Rmge 87
West of the 66 P.M.
Laurence Pond No. 4 Point of Diversiou: The center of Laurence Pond
No. 4 is located "t
. poirt i150 feet from tUe south section line and 1450
feet from the west r.IUoo line of Sectiou 5, Township 7 South, Range 87
West of the 6th P.M.
Dirch used to fill Lawence Pond Nos. 14: Laurence Ditch' with point of
diversion located on the West bank of Vtes" Cr.eek in the SE % NE l4 of Sectiou
36, Township 6 Soutlu Range 88 West oitht 66 P'M'' at a point whence the East
SECOT\TD CLAIM
W:\S L C18t MAPtcrdhp\tulhtMcrccO2crtl0t DRAFT 12'3{2 CLEA}'I 2'24'03'doc
District Court, Water Division 5
Page 4
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling ofReferee
F.
H.
c.
D.
E.
quarter comer of said section 36 bears South 52 o 30'East 438 feet' see Map
attached hqeto * *nitt "A." capacrryofDitch: Laurence Ditch' 4'0 c'f's'
sor:rce of water for Laruence Pond Nos. 1-4 New use: Mesa creek via the
La,rence Ditch, *ni.n i, tiU"tary to CoJto Creek' which is tributary to Cattle
Cr*f, which is ributary to the Roaring Fork River'
DateofAppropriationforNewAugmentationUse:January1t5,2002.
How appropriation was initiated: Forrrulation of intent to apply water to
beneficial use, field inspection, survey, rooorn.otation and legal description'
il.ir *"* applied to beneficial 'st for augmentation: N/A'
Amounts Claimed:
Laurence Pond No. 1: 20 a(Ife feet, conditional, with the right to fill and refill
continuotrsly year round in priority'
Larrence Pond No. 2: 20 wrefeet, conditional, witb the right to fill and refill
continuously year round in priority'
Laurence Pond No. 3: 30 a5l1e feeq conditional, with the right to fill asd refill
continuously year rcnnd in priority'
Larrcnce Pood No. 4: 30 acre feet, conditional, with the rigtrt to fiU and refill
contintronsly year rormd in priority'
Ncw,AdditionalUseClaimed:Augmeirtation'.P.lodiogtheriglttostorl
consrmptive ,se credits associated *i[ ory up of historicdly inigated acrEage'
La$rnce Pond Nos. 14 md releases of s':ch storage water will be made for
aggmentation and replacemelrt p,rtpoto, * described io tnt augpcntation Plao'
Surface area of high water line; ma,rimgm height of dam in feet; lcogth of dam in
feet:
Laurence Pond No. 1: surface ilrea = 5.0 aCres; heigbt = 15 feet; length = 5@ fegt'
La,rence pond No. 2: surface irea = ;:0 ;;; heiiht = 15 feet; leogth = 500 feet'
Laurence PondNo. 3: surface irea = ;:0 acres; h"iAt = 15 feet; length = 500 feet'
La,rence pond No. 4: surface area = ;:0 ;;; heiiht = l5 feet; length = 500 feet
Total capacity of resewoirs in acre feet:
Larence pond No. l: active capacity = 20 acre feet; dead storage = 0.
Laurence PonO No. 2; actwecaPaclty = 20 as:re feet; dead storage = !'
Laruence pond No. i: actire .upoity = 30 acre feet; dead storage = 0'
G.
W:\S L Cl88 !,t3\Flcrdinp\RulingRcfcrcc02clwl0t DRAFT 12'3{2 CLEAI{ 2a44,3dorc
District Court, Water Division 5
Page 5
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling of Referee
Larrremce Pond No. 4: active caPaclty = 30 acre feet; dead storage = 0.
A.
8)
e)
Names and addresses of owners upon which any stiuctures are rocated' upon which water is
or will be store4 or upon which water lt "i*iir be placed to beneficial nse: The Lauence
pond Nos. 14 are fo.i,.a on land *tit.f,-"t*J Uy$t[td; the Lar:rence Ditch headgate
is tocated on land owned by Grande nooJ. nir*, ylt, qzo'gast Main Street' suite 206'
Aspen, CO 81612.
Rerrarks: Laurence Pond Nos. 1-4 do not and witl not intergept grormdwater'
THIRD CLAIM
CHAI\GE OF WATER RIGIITS
l0)Name of structure:C onsolidated Reservoir
12) Decrecd Point of diversioo:
13) Source:
A.
The southeast end of the dam of Consolidated ReseFroiris locatd at apoint fiom
which the common'q,*to ,o** or'soti* 19 md 20, Township 6 SoutL
Range 87 West of tn"=Fp.frA, bears North 50o90' Easq a distance of 587'2 feet
ConsolidatedReservoirsourceofsryrplyisfromthcWestbranchofCoultcr
Creek,tributarytoCattleCreek'tributary.toRoaringForkRiver.
la) Appropriation dates and amounts:
A. Consolidated Reservoir - September 8' 1898'
595 acre feet, absolute, of whicn 119 acre feet are owned by the Applicant'
ls)Historic uses: Applicant,s irjar:l in the consolidated Reservoir has been nscd historically
to flood inigate approximat ely 2ll ;; of n"V meado* on the 480 acre La.rence Rauch
Froperty. rc foJition of this f,irtori."tty it ii'.t a hnd is shown on the map attachcd as
Exhibit..B.,,WaterhasbeendivErtedandstoreoregrlarlyintheConsolidatedRescnloir
t t) Infonnation from original decrees:
ulsll92t595 AF, ahsolrre (2WS ot
119 AF)
CA. 2144:' Garfield
County District Court
W:\SLCU8M3\PtadingilRutingRcfcre'o2cwlo8DRArT12'3{2CLEA}'I2'24{3'doc
Distict Court, Water Divisron 5
Page 6
CaseNo.02CWt08
Ruling of Referee
from approximately the time of 9. appropriation date of September 8' 1898 to the present
date. Diversions into the Reservoir are continuous throughout the year'
lQProposed change: Appligant t::F to change 31.4 acre feet of Applicant's ownership interest
in the first priority of consolidated ResJrvoir for use as uogm.ntation of out-of-priority
consurrptive stream depletions associated with development of the Laurence Ranch Property
described in the augmentatiou pran set forth herein. g.1 ..rrt of historically inigated land
will be pennanently removed from historic inigatiou by the crealo: of lots' change in
irrigation patter+ and the development of roadsl infrastnrcn*e, and home sites' The 8'1
acres of dry-op u,." is identifieo orr'tt" *up attached hereto as Exhibit "B'" Applicant seeks
to determine and confirm tfr" .o*rr*pti". *t associated with the historic irrigation of the
8.1 acres to be dried up and the use of the above-described water right on such acreage'
Applicant,s engineer estimate_s_ the consumptive us-e credit available from the historic
irrigation of tnJ8.r acres is 1.76 ;-f";i p"i ".r.. luch dU up will make available 14'25
acre-feet or.oo"*ptire use credits. rtr..J consumptivr ott .oditt trccrue on the following
monthly u^irr o.io af in April;2.75 af in May; g.6a af in June; 3'41 af in July; 2'13 af n
August; 1.83 af in Septemberi and 0.35 af in dctober' Applicant's tsrny has deterrrined
that 31.4 acre feet of consolidated Reservoir storage *"itt is associated with the historic
irrigation of tne g.t acres of land taking into account the application.rate' transit losses and
reil,,tr flows. Applicant claims and reslnres a11 right to, and has no lTtent to abandon such
cons,mptiv, *i'.rraits resurting from the ary*p of iistorically irrigated land identified
here,nder*Ui"i*" not presently dedicated to tlitit* for augmentation' To the extent' any
cons,mptive,lse credits ielnrain ,oJn rr not been otitir.a in this case, they may be nsed for
purposes, and/or at locations, other than decreed herein only ptusuant to subsequent water
court approuU roalo, subsequent State Engineer approval of a substitutt t"PqtV-nt111$i
said credits. e[oru subsequent time, the-iszue oire-quautifying the rc6aining cons,mpuve
usc credis is not res iudicata'
17)The ftutre and address of the owner of the land trpon which ttre points of diversiou are
located: united States Bureau of Land Managernent. The name and addrcss of the owner of
the laod rrpon which the new place of use is located: Applicant.
l8)Name of strucnres to be augmented:
Laurence Ranch well No. l, as described in the Fint claim above.
Laurence Ranch well No. 2, as described in the Fint claim above'
Lanrence Ranch Well No. 3, as described in the First Claim above'
Laurence Ranch well No. 4, as described in the Fint claim above'
A.
B.
c.
D.
W:\SLC1E8M3\Plcading\F.ulingRcfacc02Cwl0EDRAFT12'342CLEAN2'24'03'doc
DisEict Court, Water Division 5
PageT
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling of Referee
Laurence Ranch Well No. 5, as described in the First Claim above'
fuiy additional or replacement y9\.added to this plan for augmentation and
i*ut"a within the weil field identified in the First Claim above'
lg)Desoiptioo of water rights to be used for augmentation:
Laurence Pond Nos. l-4, as described in the second claim .b9"'
Consumptive use credits associated with dry-up of-lands historically inigated
under water rights for the Consolidated Reservoir, as described in the Third Claim
above.
20) Satement of Plan for Augmentatiou:
E.
F.
A
B.
Applicant intends to develop 26 hxury homg sites-on the 480 acre Laurence Ranch
Froperty, wUrcU is existing ralrch l*d i; the Cattle Creek drainage near the confluence
with Coulter Creek. In addition tth. 26 home sites, there will bg-a ranch manager's
residence, ," a;.rEian facility -a ,p to ten (10) horses' The, home sites will be
developed primarily ou the *"-.grituli".l portions of the 480 acres and the ranching
and farming operationwiU remain largely intact'
All domestic and laun/garden inigation water will
-be
supplied by diversions from the
Wells described in the first Claim'rlore which will be connected to a private cc'atral
water supply system. All water tign" applid f9r and involved herein are a part of ao
integrated water zupply plao ef ao-otic in-horse wastewater wi1 be disposed of
tbrough indirfir"l;Ati. i-t md leach fietds and is assumed to be 15% consrmptive'
The estimated year round water demand for the residential dwelling units ad the
launr/garden irrigation' and thl associated consumptive rre is set forth in the Table
attached nndEr Exhibit "C.' The estimated in-hotrse/building 1lalq {emand has bcen
converted "
-iq"itent
Residential units (EQR',s), where an EQR is defined as in-
building demani for 3.5 penioilt using 100 gatltos per Penpn per daY: Two EQRs are
assumed for each of the 26 homes, incfuaing any associated accessory dwelling unitian!
one EQR is ass,med for the t*.n ."ni.go', residence, including any associated
accessory dwelling,nit. This ,rJrr i" 5l EQR's for the in-house water demand at full
build out of the development. ectual details oith. development may vary, so long as the
total EQR water demand covered hereunder is not exceeded'
In addition to the in-horrse llses there will be up to 6.2 acres of lawn' garden and
landscape inigation (approximatefy IOpOO square'feet per lot)' -Th: Ytt* demand for
irrigation is Z]tg acre ieet po "# using the bhney C;aate method' Consnnptive uie
for this inigutlon demand is 1.76 acre ieet per acre. Ass,rrptions rsed for the Blancy
W'.\S L Cltt M3Plcadings\RulingBc&rec02CWl0S DRAfT 12'142 CLEAN 2a44t'tu
District Court, Water Division 5
Page 8
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling of Referee
Criddleanalysisueiuifollows:AveragemonthlyprecipitationTdtemperaturesare
based on Aspen and Glenwood Springs ieather station daL adjusted proportionately by
the elevation of the site specifi. tocutii' with respect to the elevation of the two stations;
crop gowtb rorrn.irns'ro, u"i il; ;.dt *d ioig.tion season and percent dayhght
honrs were based on location'
Therewillalsobewateruseassociatedwithanequestrial.raci.t.ivboardinguptol0
horses. It is assuned the wat;;equirements Q1.l&t i: 11 qlfT,oer daf per horse
and rhat amount is 100% .o*u*pii*. tn*o will be a daiiy waier use in the barn faciliry
of 100 gallons Per day'
AssetforttrintheTableattachedrurderExhibit-..c,''q:-]"9.::Y:r*'.'*:tr :il#H,';tii'";*; ;;a;.*t"" *Jtil :::',-"*::rYlL 1? lH. fi:ffjillft.o,Ilrilffiilt: Ipp.d*eg 14.25 acre-reer or water pEr vear. rhe
1 -,:t ^- .t^-^-ilraz{ i- tha Fircf
ffiH'r"rffil$:ii:Hi.;"#d;;;d.onditionalprioritiesdescribedintheFirstr-. ---.-^..-+ AolantaA .ttrnniflgLauence r(ansll YvsuD wur vPvrqtv se'l - tto account delayed pumpingei"t* Strearn depletions identified hereunder will take ir
..Lr-, ,ri.,.*i^- rlpnletinn end:ffi Jffffif.;ffififfi;al-reflected in the monthlv diversion, depletion and
i"gp*t"tio" schedule attached under Exhibit *C'"
Dgring the irrigation seuion' whbn there is a valid call being a'lministered t{ reeuires
replacement of out "i pti6.ity a.pfttio"s ."useO by the ptrmping from the Wells
described in the First Claim above, "oii*pi* *u tttAo stored aod associated with
dry-.p of land Uiri.rL.ffy ioig.ttl ;tdei appliln- 1's interest in the Coosolidated
Reservoir, ,, aooiUai" ti" I'#A Cfain aUo'e, will be released from the Resenroir in
the monthly amounts depicted in Exhibit "C" for the months April through October'
Druing the non-irrigation se&ton' yh* there is a valid call being administered that
req,ires reptrcemeniof oo, of priority;.il t"* car:sed 9I Ut pumping from the Wells
described in the First claim above, augmcntation water will be released from one or BotE
of the fo,r La,rence ponds iu the ;;,h1, .-runts-depicte$ in Exhibit-.3c'" The
Laureuce pona Nos. ij *iu be filled ir-pr#tra*i"g t\ non-irrigation.season and will
store consumptive use qredits from the dry-up acreage for later augmcntatiotr use'
The Colorado Water Conservation Board C.cwgP.?^has senior insteam flow water
rights on Cattle Cr..l, * A.**a in Case Nis. S5CW626 and g7CW273' At times when
the CWCB,s Cattle Creek instream flow water rights ar!.not being satisfied at or b€low
the confluenc. of C.ttt" Creek *a Co*ft t C"tL Applicant wiU: (t) cgrtail all out of
priority diversions into the on-site fa**"t Ponds foithe new use of augmeutation; aod
(2) replace, in time and amount (t kid;;u..o* {eralea pumping), all out-of-priority
depletions associated with the wells ai iaentified in the Fint claim above' at or upstream
of the confluence of Cattle Creek *a Qoofto Creek by releasing water from on-site
Lanrence Ponds storage and/or r"leasing conslmptiut *t credits stored in Consolidated
Rese,rvoir, in accordarice with the operation of this augmentation plut'
W'.\S L C1t8 M3\Ptcading$RulingRcfcrecO2CWlOE DMFT 12'3{2 CIJAN 7'2443Jcr
District Court, Water Divisron 5
Page 9
CaseNo.02CWl08
Ruling of Referee
2l)rimely Statements of opaositiol ler: fil$i y::11T Y;-:H ffiti::ri:&IHil'.'.HiHI-o;';J'ffi ;A;;;";F'!;t*rlgllif ;"i*'J":::H1r:Hl?;Ji,#:#;ff ili-*;;-"un'*r3tte-?'-L*:**-9:3"1*
E:fifrfff#E*r*"tioo soar4 by ."d-thr"ogh P?h attottrev' the colorado Attornev
.---!- er.^ir ^r+A6.i, thp ColoradO3f#:#'fr."'fr]*i riri.rlr"r"'G* uy;d through their attornev, the colorado
Attoruey General.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Zn)r\eRefereenndsthatacomplbteApPli:11o'311^Tfli*,Y]i:"',gffi#:Xt::
ffi .['i::1:,"Ti,'uT]ln1;J'iff;:!;il;;]*;:;y:l':.:*:,1]fl fg:iJ'ffi
ilff X.ffi:ffi'Ll*rr.durvpublished-andaaequ-ate":1::^YI-'f:*I,:"'5l H1|JI
'"T"iHff
iLtrfi !;f;'r,qi"rh;R:li::*:;gt"*::"T"f :::-;11'*1il:?i;:lll#ffilfr ilIi;l;Jffi tffi .r*-'F;{rr""":rf 9,*":i:i"*o*::',:ilS['f; ilfrffi#ff;ffi##]-rr" Referee n 'tno
finds that the award herein is
, D e a,2?-or-10?(g\ in findinSff#;::H#ffi ii*?I*fr*l*"il;'h*f'-,Y:1':,13.1'"'"1?:g;ff"?nTH.T'::l;n"#-T"il#.ffi ;ffi t*.;:"u{t':ry-::::"'#,*:X*:l
ffiJ:#ffi ffi,h; udenciat *. bv the deveropmeni of a new or dternate means or
points of diversion
23)This court has j,risdictiotr ov€r the nrbject matter of this Application purstrant to c'Rs"
937-92-203.
24)The Referee concludcs the Applicant has initiated a valid ap'p:opriatioa o{the water rights for
which the application has U"* ,.At h*"14 as of th;'d'6 ctaime4 and that there is
t rrpe*p".t d *.to available for appropriation'
2s)With respect to the conditional water rights herein' the Referee concludes the Apptcat has
demonsuated the requisite firrt ,6 -iirp,p-pri"i* or"t* through intent md overt ac'.s
srfficient to place third parties oo oiti.. il t6"t the waters involved herein caa and will be
diverte* store* or otherwis" ..p*r,!os'e'stO *a *ottonta and will be beneficially nscd
and that the project to which tne water is devoted can and will be completed with diligence
and within a reasouable time'
2OThe granting of this Application.lill not cause material injury to any lested water right or
decreed conditionar water dght with; oiuo,rry,o o, h., ,r itrio*e of snpply the colorado
River, as long;169 tgrms ,"a.o"aitions of this Ruliug are complied with'
JT'DGMENT AI\ID DECREE
The Referee does therefore conclude that the above-eotitled Application should be
gBnted as follows:
1. The Applicant shatl be granted a decree for conditiooal water rights as follows:
w:\sLc1t8M3\Ptcading*RrrlingRdlrcco2CwlosDRAFT12.342CLEAI.|2.24{3.doc
Distict Cor:rt, Water Divisron 5
Page 10
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling of Referee
A-For 0.40 cfs (180 g.p.m.) for the Laurence Ranch Well No' 1 for the purposes of
domestic use, fire protection, irrigation.oa ra.t''oatering' with and appropriation
date of January 15, 2002. The cumulative annual diversions from Latuence
nanctr Well No!. 1 through 5 is 34'75 acre feet'
For 0.40 cfs (180 g.p.m.) for the Laurence Ranch well No' 2 for the purposes of
domestic use, fire protection,lrrigation;d stochyatering with and appropriation
date of January L5, 2002. The cumulative annual diversions from Latrence
Ranch Well Nos. f tirough 5 is 34'75 acre fedt' :
For 0.40 cfs (180 g.p.m.) for the Latuence Ranch Well No' 3 for the purposes of
domestic use, fire ;;;tt.iiA inig"tioo;d stoct<''ratering, s'ith and appropriation
date of January 15,2002. The cumulative annual diversions from LaurencF
Ranch Well Nos. 1 through 5 is 34'75 acre feet' ;
For 0.40 cfs (180 g.p.m.) for the Laurence Ranch Well No' 4 for the purposes of
domestic use, fire protection, irrigatioi ma stochvatering, with and appropriation
date of lanuary 15,2W2. The cumutative annual diversions from La:rence
Ranch Well Nos. 1 through 5 is 34'75 acre feet' .
For 0.40 cfs (180 g.p.m.) for the Laurence Ranch Well No' 5 for the purposes of
domestic use, fire;;ffiifi i"igaioo *a tt*t*ttoiog with and appropriation
date of Jangary 15, 2@2. fhe cgmJatire annral diversions from Latrence
RanchlYellNos. i-tG"A 5 is 34'75 acre feet '
For such other replacement or additional Wells to be ide'ntifie( so long as thc
'cumulativ. **t diversions aom aff Wt[s located on the La[ence Ranch
property u, ao*iUJin the First Claim above, do not orceed 34'75 acre feet
For 20 acre feet with the right to fill and refill continuor:sly year rormd in nlgritr
for the Lagrence Pond NoI t for the new additionat PgrPoses of urgmentatioO
including the rigbt to store .o*pt ;;;r.dry-Lsociatcd with dry try of
historically inigated ircreage, with an appropriation date for augmentation
purposes of JanuarY 15, 2002'
For 20 acre feet with the right to fill and refill continuously year round t ryoto
for the Lasence Pond Nol Z for tne new additional purposa of augmentatioU
including the right to store ,o*pair. *t .t aiq associatea with dry up of
historically inigated zrcreage, *,n' ." atpropriation date for augmentation
purposes of JanrrarY 15,2002'
For 30 acre feet with the right to filI and refill continuously year rytrnd in priority
for the taurence Pond Nol I for tne ne* additional PurPoses of augmentation'
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
B.
c.
w:\sLcu8M3\Plcadingr\Rulin$3M2cwl08DRAFT12.3{2CLEAN2.z443.doc
Distict Conrt, Water Division 5
Page 11
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling of Referee
including the right to store consr:mptive use credits associated with dry up of
historically inigated acreage' with an appropriation date for augmentation
PurPoses of January 15, 2002'
J. For 30 acre feet with the right to fill and refill continuously year round in priority
for the Laurence Pond No. 4 for the oew additional purpoges of augmentation"
including the right to store consumptive use credits associated with dry up of
historically inigated acreage, with an appropriation date for augmentation
PtlrDoses of January 15,2002'
,3.
:
4.
The Applicant shall be granted a decree confirming a change of water rights' as described
in the Third Claim, herein'
The Applicant shall be granted a deqge confirming the consumptive use credits of 1'76
acre feet for the dry 6 if g.f ,"ta of niJoi."ffy ifrgated tands, with monthly credits as
described in the Third Claim, herein'
The Applicant shall be granted a decree approving the Plan for Augne'ntation" as
describ;d in the Fourth ClainL herein
Within 60 days of cOmptetion of constnrction of the Lasence Ranch Well Nos' t-5 or
any other Well located in the wett fied Jescribed in the First Clai, punilant to a well
permit, the epp[cani snaff notify tUit Cortt-*a tn Division of Water Resources of the
precise location of such well(s). ln any ap'pugation-to T$: the conditional ground water
rights graoted no.i*Jrof",e G.-eppiililrshall ideutiff the specific points of diversion
and the t€r's and conditions necessary to avoid injtrry to otherwater rights from the well
pumping at that location, to the octent zuch inpact i^ 19, been idcntified in this case'
This may result in changes to the ErDry *a tooations of this Ruling and Decree that are
specific-to tn ultimate location of the Well(s)'
The LaurEnce Ranch Well Nos. 1 through 5 (and/-or other Wells later identified in
accordance with this Ruling) and the Latuice Pond Nos. 1 through 4rlay be operated in
accordance with &is Ruling without ,t t
"o-ioistrative
c,rtailment for the benefit of
senior appropriatio*, ,o ling as tne- tenns and conditions herein set forth are fully
adhered to throughout the operation of this plan {or augmeotation' subject to Section 37-
92-305(8), C.RS., nnder which tle Divisiof grgi** Iod St"tt Engineer shatl curail atl
out of priority air.rsions, the de,pletions tom -*Uicn are not replaced so as to prev€nt
injury to vested wat€r rights'
This Cor[t has jurisdiction over the subject mattgr of this.Application Pt*ryt to C'R'S"
g37-92-304(6), C.R.S., for reconsiao.ilt of irjt.y to locvested righs of others for a
period of three (3iril a*y llVoof Uoiia-oot "f tnt 26 home sites described in Fo,rth
Claim above. afio .onrideration of the water rights involved and the relevant stream
resmerL the Referee finds that such period is necessary to assr:re that no injury shall
).
7.
W:\SLC1t8M3\Plcadinge\RrlingBcffi2cwloSDMFTl2'3O2CLEAN2'24'03'doc
District Cor:rt, WaterDivision 5
?ageL2
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling of Referee
9.
10.
occur to vested rights by the operation of the Decree. such period of retained j,risdiction
shall expire automaticall:e provide4 however, that the period of retained j,risdiction may
U" ,*iria.d upon frnil# decision by the Cor:rt that non-occulre'nce of injury shall not
nurr ur*.on l*irity established pooo-t to section 37'92'304<6), c'R's'
The owner of these conditional water rights shall notiff-the clerk of the water corut of
any changes in mailing address, ana upoi a sale or transfer of this conditional water right
1;;;-.6! ,o...udiog-diligencl p.rio4 the transferee slall file with the water court a
ooti.Jof mnrferpnrsuant to Uniform Water Court Rule 9.
upon request by the Division Engineer, the Applicant shall provide the Division
ilsrrffi,h ,opi", of all records and accounts ani-other such information requested by
["E iri.o fogi"*t as will allow for the administration of this plan'
The Applicant :shall install measr:ring dwices, provide accotrnting, &d sttpply
calculations ,rg*Oing the timing of O{tetiotrs, 6 -to1y b. required by Pe Division
Engineer for operadll of this pf*. fn Snnlicanl shali also file an annual report with
the Division Engineer by November 156 of eactr year summarizing diversious md
replacements madc under this plan'
The Applicat sliall establish a homeowners' association which shall be responsible for
*"rri"a that the terms and conditions of this deoee are EeL
This Ruting shall be filed with the water clerk subject to judicial review'
11.
t2.
13.A copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the
Engineer.
appropriate Division Engneer and Starc
wrs L clts M3\Ptcedingr\RrrlinSRdcr€co2cwlot DRAFT 12'3'02 CIIAIII 2'244,3.M
14.
District Court, Water Divr'ron 5
Page 13
CaseNo.02CW108
Ruling ofReferee
Application for a !{exennil.Fit99, g|l:i"fble Diligence for the conffinl T#HZCo-, and in;fL;;;re [sted water rishts shall be filed in
$ff ff;'.""i:rd;#ffi #r*;;ie-m*.trmgtr
ilffi ":TH;?ETs{i'ffi
il;il#6*h*beenml{eg:^T::":::*}"*
f.l*":*Y"-ilT" l*il; ff; *;;,*'rA; E
^
:r:1 "i"H"H+nff:lr"i 3;ffi,:t;
*a rT--gts of rights in accordance with law'
Datedthis
-daY
of ' 20-'
WATER REFEREE:
$/aterReferee
WaterDivisionNo' 5
State of Colorado
.
No protest was filed in this matt6, accordingln the foregoing Ruling is confirmcd md
ryprove4 md is ,re. Gl"AeB*, ana airc" of ttls Courtt pt'iOtE hovwer' thag given &e
rurxr proposed and ht**dally made of thc srrbject "'{g ti'gi's io*tv:d hTI!' this plm fo'r
a'gmcntation ,hr[ b;;;;;io .oo*ia.otioo'uy ttre {aterJudge oo q. eSstiou of iniury to
the vested rights of others d,ring -v poitioo comm.,n*a a*iog [r rrt"irr6 jruisdiction p.1id
proscribed above-
Dated this
-
daY of
Water Judge
W:\SLC1t8M3\Ptcdinet\RttlingR'H2cwlo8DRAFT!2'3{ECLEA}|2'244,3'@
t!dJ,
i,,\
I
IJJO-7.L
ut sJtl-lo
5
l\a,
EEFsHEHEEERE6<ioctcictc,i-;€iio
6
'ol.:
ot
a
I
o
CI(t
I
EI
ut
E
IaJ*
e€
osa
i
I
aactoo6rooooo€
=EIEEEEEEE6Escicicioctcr€i6ioooo
gEggBEEgTEEE
ct€rciciqrociioooo
EEEEEBES?T3E--66oi--:;cidci
-€?t?88888ci<iCddiSEEoidd
HHHEHEPHHHNH:i ii;i ii ai a'- d d €'o'o'
asa;IIEi
aflt
EEEEqEESqEHj-p-!0O!rilt(\!?
EgEESSSEEEEE
E333EE3EEEEci€ict(jooo€oo€,
gSETEiHEEHE
EE-----.jci€i
Egggacrooo€gBBA
ciooo
333r3tE3tEtEEq-E-iir=l:r.:tt
?-?-??-???-?
e,
4a
o
c,
lrloaa2Ega-
-18 ?
IgE g
<utJFoS3'
e
a!
EffiIBtT C
RAI{CH AT COULTER CREEK
AUG ME}ITATION SCHEDULE
(VALUE lN ACRE#Er)
EXHIBIT
I r'crt 2nd Part
I of Exiribit I'c[
rcIi--TAr661 PgrE/rsEs
",ffi|
EEFEnoNS OELAY
FACTOR
DEIAYED
DEPLENOilSrrcilTI{
(3)
coilSouuAlEt,
RESERVOIR
lilul-r5.lus
PONDTI
(4)...,-800 (E)
(1)1266
0.276 0.0E9 1-fiE
JAN 1.764 0.000 12{o
0250 0.087 12401.a12 0.000 1.197
--0276 0.0E4 1.197
MAR,1.781 1.169 3t 0.000
APR i.126 0.347 0.062 .2-477 0.000
2397 0.079 1.EA
MAY 4.4115 -a14 - 0.000
3.105 0.0n 1.097
JIJN 5,,74 'L414ffi 0.000
-Lgo7
0.077 1.097
JUL 5.073 1.14t 0.000
AUG
--r-alo
1.921 0.079 0.000
SEP s.rg0 1.678 0.0&a 1"1G9 0.ocKl
0.0E6 1.ZF zE?!.o@ccTzfia0.550 1:c6
OJEE 0.069 1,16lrov1.727 . 0.00 1,E8..-.-.-o.zIa 0.069 r.a!EcEc1.7U 17.dN t-241
TOTAL
-335
11251 1.000 -1L,51
(1)
6o
(4)
o
o
rrlrd dfvcrions frcm Tablr e Erdnccrtng Rlgolt
;-.C.d;lur, TaU' a EtEimartg nggTt
ilffit-Ad"f* n6r b.srd * ^9ryj5H_Tr;;il o.A.uo* emi rno$tlv ryryI ry
'ffir]ifi;'ffiGtld.nt
dad€s tron cotEffi R!!6n'oir
i''ffi;; t*' bi-rio'r" ry^,ry-11ry HHI#fiffi;n6.nt uon r"r*.* irr;;;mn" otn" Lau,rct Potds
a4/og/26@3 LLizl 197a9257796 JAMES D PETERSON
., ,\ ill l,:H I t. I Dl,:'l'l':ltt{( }N
(tlro) [2-l,-77lttt (l'holtc & l;'tr)
-
l] l, i.:,,q.;jrj $"vEt
iil,j
r r ii' 1,1,1' :t'.,?il[llc
'l'( l:
I:'lt( tt\ l:
FAI( N(I:
rlA'l'ri:
't'tNll,.:
tlA( i lils:
o
:l:*rcrrorror-
-Q"'.
a-;*.. e ..P"k z.
5m*r= - ".Psa.;*t 5"-tL)
.0ttc.!u lalsjlrf ,rspvsr *t t! srl)._r
_B
f '()rrrrrriNt's: Snn11fn[q--"et curAa" F . *---b P.<.of
-.eM .. rTrrrT-st rtv q:r
A* g&.!(err-.6 6t#.
-r'()N!lrrEN.u !!!J_dg l'lcE
rur not tlrc irrterxlcrl rttiricul. ytnr nrc h$rlry lr$lilicrl ilrnl lny rl'rsr'knrre. trrflyhq, ditlrilrtirur or thc t0kht3 of atty ftlOt
irurrrcrllatclv rrr(ily u,r hy lch'flunc tt thf; hlxxc rurtrrl\.r tr 511x11p1' frrt lhc rclrnl rrf tlrc tlorlmenlt.
EXHIBIT
rrr)ri't'.rr,r,'l(t.;ll(rIl'raa..rHt'l:)s.(tlt'ltrt'1 txtLlllt"'(o'o,tt{'''?tm
A4/A9/2A@3 1.1:21. L97O9257796
)-L
JAMES D PETERSON PAGE 02
.rAMrl$ t r. lDltTltlr!{( }N
March 25, 2001
Marthr Ctrchren, Executivc Direclor
A-rpcn Vallcy [,tnd Tnrst
320 Main Street, Suitc 204
Carbondele, C() 81623
Drar Martha,
Coulter Creek Vatley Ranch received noticc that the Gerlield Cotrrty Planoing &
Zoning Conrmissiun ic scheduled to consider the Ranch at Coulter Crcck albdivirion_
ngrlication on April 9, 2003. We rwiewed the applicalion at the planning oflicc end heve
c.rtcernl about tirc riting of ccrtain buildirrg cnvclopcr which, when developed with
E.filg to 1z,fiX, squrre foot homes, corld potentidly hrve rdvalc virurl inpact! rs
viewed rlong Crrunty Road l2l, north of thc old rchoolhouse.
With yorrr perrnission. I *rlked tha propcrty on Mrrch 14,20xl.3 uring e Soprir
fingineering site mep to obscrve vicns of county road l2l liorn merkcr poilr tor loE l, 2,
4, 13, 14, 17, rnd 19. Subsegrently, Hentley and I ma with your plrnncr Tirn Mrlloy ro
discus our c(xperns about these potenlial visual impectr, Tirrr exphin?d tld the
plrurning proccsr for location of building riter conridered protccting wildlifc rtd
agriculturrl viluG$, ridgeliner from rearby county rords and achieving good viewr and
privacy for markelrbility of lotr.
Although ridgeline ptote€ion is nd s requhcmcnt of Grrftdd Comty rt thir timc'.
il is currently an irnportant ptrt ofthe zoning rnd devclopment codcr of numcrox
weficrn Colorado counties end nruniciprlitics. After rcing r sitc plan for l? pmpoccl
lors in a 2001 AVLT fundruising broclurre, t arranged a rite vioit in Qctober 2001 with
Reid Ilaughey ard rt that timc urged AVLT to protec{ ridgdiner er prrt of its
dcvclopment plrnning forthc lowcr Lurrencc Ranch.
For the Rarrch rt Coulter Creek to bc r modcl for combinin8 oorlcnvltiotlr
agricultumt, and limitcd residentirl dcveloprncnt it chould reprclent thc bcil. rnort
responsibly planned project posrible fof AVLT and Smwmesc [^rnd Company.
Protecting views of ridgelines liom public roeds rnd siting building atvelopes to
accomplish thir is cspecially inrportent conridcring thc potentid of 1,000 and 12,000
squsre l'ool homcs rnd acccstory buildings nilhin therc envelopcr.
llle rppreciete all of the thoughtful plenning thet her gone inlo thir devebpncil
opplicrtion nrxl hope thet AVLT will ask Snowmass Land Comprny to add the following
cuggeilions to tlrc developrnent plrn:
t Relocate eny lotl end/or building envelogcr on which ilructutct will brcrk thc
ridgelinas as vicvvd fronr neerby public rordway4 and
tr. r.{'r I rtf lrtt'tt tl(rlt ltl.} e A!{tDrrN. (trr,t }ll^lX I Ll(t18. (O7O) lra:7?J,
JAMES D PETERSON PAGE O3A4/O!/2OO3 11:2I L97A9257796
2. Insert irrevocable language in the Ranch ct Coulter Creek Protective Covenants
requiring owners of l5ts orittt Ut itOing envelopes near ridgelines, when secking
Aritritcctural Committee approval of*ru"turss, to locate structures on the lcast
visible porlion of the cnvelopc, to dcsign size, mast, and scale (including reduction of
UuitAini height or'stepping; of the UuiHinS height) to minimize ridgcline cxposure,
blend with tfo narural i6pograptrvt use sutrounding carth'tone colors on exterior
surfrces of all structuresr fh; use of non-reflcctive malerials. and to sGrGBn 3tructurc
with native landscaping io rsducc any visibility of these structxtcs alon1g the ldgelincs
es viewed ftom countfrods I l5 ,ni l2l. The Architectural Committee would
cnforce therc requirerncnts.
A non-rklgeline issue with respcct to the proposed devchpmcnt plan_irlhe
location of Lot I fie large irrigatcd rytiorlturil opctt spacc which is thc only intact
portion of rhc original r*1tr op"rrfionilso cofltrim [.ot 3, the site of ur cnvclope fu e
iZ,OOO square foot trornc. AViT'r earlier goal for this 4t0 acre parcel wec to prescrw it
", "
,rorking ranch with no more than 20 units clustrcd on t00 acres. Aficr purchring
tp property-in tanuery 2002, AVLT announced a consefvation emement rrould restrtct
Oerctoiment to a mrxirnum of 25 unitc, not 26 rs prcposed To better pfcs9n'e tle
rcmrining ngriculturalopen iprce from public viewq Ld 3 should bc eliminrtcd or
moved, posribly to the rreo lrcer lds 5'9.
It wortd bc construcrive for AVLT and SLC to consider theso conments rtd holp
scek a solution to our oonccrns pnor to the 4tgt1l Garfield Plenning and Zoning meeting'
Thrnk you for your considcration and I bok forward to discrrssing rny of therc
suggestions wiih you. Also, pleasc feel free to scnd I copy of this lett€r to Snoumass
Lcnd Cornpany end Tim MalloY.
D. Peterson
Geneml Pertncr, Corltcr Creck Vrlley Rrrrch I.J.;LP
Sinccrely,
JAMES D PETERSON PAGE 04s4/Zgl2a23 11:21 197b9257796
,lu\ltl Ht.i l r. I'|fl'I.:llt{( }N
MEMO - Vir Fax
TO: Martha Cochran AVLT 970-963-8441
FROM; Jsmes Pcterson, Coultcr Creek Vallcy Ranch LLLP 970-925-77%
Date: April 5,2001
RE; Ranch at Coultcr Creck
Mrrthg thrnks for your call on Friday On furttrcr review of the applicstio[ you arc
correct to porr( qrt thrt lpt 3 is limited to rn t0ff) squarc foot housc. IrVc rtill bclicvc tha
Gongcrm with this sita location mentional in my Mrrch 25, 2003 lcitcr rre still vrlid.
Tlre possibility of 12,000 square foot homes on l,ots I end Lot 2 are of pertictlrr corccrn
due io the porsible ridgclinc impacte which wcre also discussGd in mv- letter. We tharght
earlier represcntetionr wcrc made that the conservrlion ermment would limit bomec not
to exceed tfiX) square fcct in size.
We wish to expngs! our appreciation io A\/LT for its willingness to meet with Snowmrss
Land Company and rcprercnt the irnres outlined in my letter. Hopcfully this prcess will
fostcr conctruclive solutions.
l.(tr.{T{}lrt.'t(.t.': ll.tx l?1,1 r rlHt'llN.(tltI)ttrtlxD lllltl:l . (o7e) t2r'770o
From: Bobby Branham
Sent: Monday, APril 21, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Tamara Pregl
Subject: Re: Ranch at Coulter Creek
I think we agreed on l2inch culverts and agreed that the secondary access would be sufficient.
Bobby
--.. Original Message ---
From: Tamara Pregl
To: Bobby Branham
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Bobby,
I was just following up on a conversation you had with Tim Malloy, representative- for the Ranch at
Coultir Creek uppil"uition. It is my understanding that you meet with Tim and spoke about your letter and
that all issues have been resolved. Can you please giveme a srunmary of your conversation with Tim.
Thanks
Tamara
4t2312003
:,.; Di.i i1
EXHIBIT
EW-T]TJ;LAW OFFICES
ROBERT B. EMERSON. PC
A6 SOUTH THIRD STREET
(ezo) ees-azoo
t' '"'_i
(}l\l"ti-;1,i.., r i-i.ru[\ l"Y
BUILDIilIG i! PLAI{NING
rax (gzo) ecs-o9ssFIOBERT B. EMERSON
April 28,2003
Garfield County Planning Department
Attention: Tamara Pregel
108 Eighth Street, Suite 201
Gienwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection DistricVRanch at Coulter Creek
Dear Tamara:
As I indicated to you in our recent telephone conversation, the Board of Directors
of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District conducted a public hearing on April
23,2003 regarding the Petition for Inclusion of a portion of the Ranch at Coulter Creek
into the Fire District. The poftion of the subdivision that is not currently in the Fire
District will be developed into fourteen (14) single family lots.
At the public hearing, the Petitioner and the Board agreed to the essential issues
and conditions of inclusion. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board directed
me to prepare a Resolution of approval for consideration by the Board at its next
meeting, May 2L,2003. A copy of the draft Resolution is enclosed with this letter.
Certain issues need to be resolved before the Resolution can be finalized. These
include a determination by the Fire Disrid Board and Garfield County regarding
whether the site for the radio repeater antenna is to be granted by way of a perpetual,
exclusive easement or conveyed in fee via dedication or general waranty deed. In
addition, the wildfirehazard mitigation plan needs to be finalized so that the Fire District
is satisfied with the plan including design of roads within the subdivision and other
matters addressed in the plan.
Garfield County Planning
April 28, 2003
Page 2
If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to give me a call atyour convenience.
RBE/mc
Enclosure
cc: Ron Leach (via facsimile)
Tim Molloy (via facsimile)
Sincerely,
Robert B. Emerson
RESOLUTTON NO. 2003_4
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION FOR INCTUSION OFCERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN GARFIELD COU]\IIY,
COLORADO, InmO THE C,ARBONDALE AI\ID Rt RAt FIRE PROTEC-
TION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, SlC-Laurence, LLC, is the owner of certain real property being developed
as the Ranch at Coulter Creek, a proposed residential subdivision *itti" unincorporated
Garfield County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision application is for twenty-seven (27) log, thirteen (13)
ofwhichare currentlywithin the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection 6istrictandfourteen(14) of which are the subject of the Petition requesting inclusion into the District; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carbondale and Rural Fire protection
District received a Petition from SlC-Laurence, LLC, (Petitioner) requesting inclusion into
the District of the real property on which the proposed fourteer, (f+itotr ari to be located,
said properry being described in Exhibit A hereofi and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Special District Act, the Board of Directors heard thePetition at a public hearing held on April 2g,2}Og,and received and considered comments
from interested parties; and
WHEREAS, publication of notice of a public hearing to hear the petition requesting
inclusion was accomplished in accordance with the Special District Act; and
WHEREAS, no municipality, county, or other special district which may have been
able to provide senrice to the real propertyrequested tobe included into the Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection District appeared at ttre public hearing when the petition was heard;
and
WHEREAS, the failure of any person in the existing Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District and the failure of any municipality, county, or other special disrict which
may have been able to provide senrice to the real property iequested to be included, to file
a written or oral objection, has been determined to be an assent to the inclusion of the real
property, and in accordance with the Special District Act; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner has filed with the Board of Directors evidence that 100%o
fee ownership of the property to be included has consented to inclusion; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds that the District is capable of serving theproperty proposed to be included; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds that the subject properry should be includedinto the District upon certain and conditions as set forth *or. zutiy Uelow;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carbondaleand Rural Fire Protection District that:
1. Approval of Petition qditions. The Petition requesting inclusion wasreceived by the Board of Directors on or about June 1.0, 2002. rhi petition requests thatapproval be granted to include into the District all of that real property situate in GarfieldCounty, Colorado,-more particularly described on Exhibit a attacfred irereto and incorpo-rated herein (hereinafter "the Propertt''). The Petition is hereby approved subject to ih.Petitioner entering into an Agreement For Inclusion into the firebirtria, which rgr..*.rrt
shall include the following which shall be deemed conditions of this approval:
a. The Properry shall be developed into no more than fourteen (14)
single-family lots as paft of Ranch at Coulter Creeli.
b. The Petitioner shall dedicate on the subdivision plat and shall conveyto the District by general warranty deed free and clear of all liens and encumbrances th;pargel of real property described in Exhibit B hereof to be used as a radio repearer site. ThePetitioner shall deliver to the District a title insurance commitment in the amount of
$35,000.00 in a form satisfactory to the District's attorney. Said parcel of properry shall beadjacent to a public road so as to provide access from a public road.
c. The Petitioner will construct an access road on the property describedin Exhibit B from the public road and shall install electric power and telephone ro an agreeduPon building site on the parcel. The District shali be responsibie for the cost ofconstruction of a building to house equipment and the radio r.p""tur antenna on saidproPerty. The design and materials to be used for said building shall be subject to thereview and approval of the Petitioner, which approval shall not be-unreasonably withheld.
d- The Petitioner shall cooperate with the District in obtaining a special
use permit for the contemplated uses by the District of said radio repeater site, inJuding theright to place and utilize commercial wireless communication antennas on the to*.r]
e. Except as provided herein, the Petitioner shall in all respects complywith Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Resolution No. 2OO3-2. The petitionei
shall install a water supply system pursuant to plans approved by the Fire Chief, including
an active fire hydrant at the location agreed upon on or near County Road 115 to be served
by a six (6) inch watersupply pipe. The Petitioner shall additionaily install a dry hydrant
at a pond within the subdivision. The final design of the water ruppiy and delivery system
and source of water shall be subject to approval by the Fire Chief. ln aaaition, the pltiioner
shall provide satisfactory proof that the water rights on the Property have been adjudicatedto include uses for fire fighting purposes and shall grant easements to the District asnecessary for access from the public road to the active and dry hydrants described herein.
f - The Petitioner shall have completed a wildfire hazard mitigation plan,including a wildfire hazard analysis, and road system plan, including cul-de-sac andturnaround design and placement, approved by the Distriit prior to the"adoption of thisResolution.
g. The Petitioner shall pay impact fees to the District for all rwenty -seveng. 't'he petidonershall payi
(27) lots within the subdivision pursuant to the provisions of Carbondale and Rural FireProtection District Resolution No. 99-6, and shall enter into a standard agleement with theFire District for this purpose.
h. Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Resolution No. 2003-2
requires payment of an inclusion fee of $5,000.00 perlot ro be paid at the time of inclusion.The fourteen (14) lots to be created on the nroperty would necessitate payment of a
$70,000.00 fee pursuant to said Resolution. The bistrict agrees that the donation of theradio repeater site and improvemenm to be constructed theieon by the petitioner shall bedeemed to be a payment in lieu of one-half of the amount of said fee required by Resolution
No. 2003-2 to the Fire District. The remaining amount, $35,000.00, shall be paid to the FireDistrict within five (5) days of the date of final subdivision plar approval for Ranch atCoulter Creek by Garfield County Commissioners.
i. This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until finalsubdivision plat approval for Ranch at Coulter Creek is granted by the Board of CountyCommissioners of Garfield County approving a twenry-s even (27j unit subdivision. N;Motion and Order For Inclusion of the Property shall be submined to the Garfield CountyDistrict Court until s-aid County approval is granted. The final subdivision plat for Ranchat Coulter Creek shall not be recorded until an Order for Inclusion has been issued by theGarfield county District court in connection with the properry.
2. Finalization of Court order. The Chairman shall cause such actions as arenecessary and proper to comply with the Colorado Special District Act to formalize theinclusion of the Properry described in this Resolution into the Carbondale and Rural FireProtection District.
READ, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on May 2-1.,2OO3.
CARBONDATE AND RURAL FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
Chairman
E}(HIBIT A
Legal Description of Portion of the South Laurence Ranch parcel Located within
the carbondale and Rurar Fire protection District
W1/2SEI/4, AND LOT 8 OF SECTION 6; N1/2NEI/4, SW1/4NE1/4 AND NEI/4NWI t4, ALLIN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE OE P.IVT.
COIJNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
Lou Vallario
Sheriff ofcarfuldCumty
Rffi{l}rlHVED
1'";,1\ i', 2[J[.3
CAARFIELD COUNTY
zuILDING & PLANNIT'IG
[O. Box 249, 107 8dr Sreet
Glenwood Sprin$, CO 8 1602
Tdephcnc(970)%5&53
Fax:(970)%5430
TO: Tamara Presl I
FROM: I,ou Vallarii \.{:l
SUBJ: Ranch at Coulter Creek
DATE: May 4,2003
Thank you for remembering me ard providing a copy of the preliminary plans. I had
akeady spoken with Fire Chief Ron Leach about this project and he brr"aht me up to
speed regardurg the fire issues.
I have knorm Ron for a long time and consider him an orpert in his field. As zuctu I
would yield to, and agree with, his recommendations regarding the fire mitigation isstres.
I understand tlrat this project will be annexed into tlre Carbondale Fire Protection District.
This is the best possible scenario. Since the SherifPs Office has no real fire fighting
capabilities and would cztll upon ttre Carbondale Fire Protection District to asslist us with
a fire in ttntarca(ifthey were available), annexation into the fire dishict will ensure the
best possible fire protection for the residents ofthe Ranch at Coulter Creek.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or would like me to appear before the
BOCC on this issue.
Thank you.
Glacier Page 1 of1
From: Tim Malloy [tgmalloy@sopris.net]
Sent: Monday, May 12,2003 4:07 PM
To: Tamara Pregl
Subject: Revision to Deed of Conservation Easement
Hi Tamara! As promise, I am attaching the revision to the Deed of Conservation Easement,
which addresses the issues associated with the Fire District antennae. Please call if you have
any questions regarding the attached document.
Tim Malloy, Prineipal
TG Malloy Consulting, LLC
4oz Park Drir,'e
Glenwood Springs, CO 816<lr
Phone: g7o.g45.o9gz
Fax:97o.g4S.o8gg
5n2t2003
AMENDMENT TO DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
This Amendment to Deed of Conservation Easement ("Amendment") dated this _ day
of May 2003 is made by and between ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado ,rorp.ofrt
corporation (.'AVLT) and SLC-LAURENCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability "o-p*yl..SLC',;.
A.
B.
RECITALS
SLC is the successor to vERZoNpIC,LTr,a Delaware limited liability company('vERzoNPIC'), and VERIZOMIC is the successor to snowmass Land company
VERZONPIC and AVLT are parties to that certain Deed of Conservation Easement (the
"Conservation Easement') that was executed in connection with the closing of that
certain Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate dated Decemb er 20,2001between A1r1T
and Snowmass Land Company, as amended by that certain Amendment to Contract dated
December 16,2002 by and between AVLT and SLC (the "contract").
At the closing under the Contract, the Conservation Easement was deposited with Land
Title Guaranty Company ("LTGC") to be held in escrow in accordance with the terms of
that certain Document Escrow Agreement dated January rs,2oo2among AVLT,
VERIZONPIC and LTGC, as escrow agent (the "Document Escrow Agriement,).
SLC and AVLT desire by this Amendment to amend the Conservation Easement.
Unless the context otherwise requires, defined terms from the Conservation Easement
shall have the same meaning when used herein. In the event of any conflict or
inconsistency between the provisions of this Amendment and the Conservation
Easement, the provisions of this Amendment shall govern and control.
C.
D.
E.
WITNESSETH
Now therefore, for good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, AVLT and SLC hereby agree to amend the bonservation Easerrent asfollows:
1. There is hereby rs:a to paragraph 3 of the Conservation Easement (permitted Uses) a
new subparagraph (L) as follows:
(L) The Trust acknowledges that Grantor may grant an easement to the
Carbondale and Rural Fire District (the "Fire District") over a portion of the property to
be encumbered by this Easement in order to allow the Fire Disirict to construct, operate
and access a radio transmitting station that will include one or more antennae lthe ..Radio
Station") and for which the Fire District shall obtain a special use permit from Garfield
Cotrnty. If Grantor determines to grant an easement to the Fire District, the Trust hereby
consents to such easement to the Fire District (and, to the extent that this Easement is
recorded prior to any easement to the Fire District, the Trust hereby agrees to subordinate
this Easement to the Fire District easement) provided that:
(i) The Radio station facilities and equipment that are capable of being
enclosed without preventing them from functioning properly stuu t" enclosed in
I
Snowmass Land co-Laurence_Amendment to conservation Easement (2).Doc
a structure that has been approved by Grantor and the Trust and designed to be
compatible with the architectural standards applicable to the property;
(ii) The maximum height of the Radio Station (including any antennae) shall
not exceed twelve feet (12');
(iii) The Radio station shall be used primarily for emergency purposes;
however, other uses consistent with the terms of the special use p"rmit shall be
permitted;and
(iv) Grantor shall provide the electric power and telephone line connections
to the Radio Station and the Fire District shall be solely responsible for all other
costs of the Radio Station, including electric and telephone charges, the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of the Radio Station and shall be
responsible for repairing any damage to the property caused thereby.
This Amendment shall be delivered to LTGC to be held with the Conservation Easement
pursuant to the terms of the Document Escrow Agreement, as the Document Escrow Agreement
may be amended from time-to-time.
3. A facsimile, telecopy or other reproduction of this Amendment may be executed by the
parties and shall be considered valid, binding and effective for all purpores. At the request of
eitherparty, the parties agree to execute an original of this Amendment as well as any'facsimile,
telecopy or other reproduction. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts and,
after execution and as executed, shall constitute a contract binding on all ofthe parties,
notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Amendment effective the day and
year first written above.
ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST
By:
PrintName:
Title:
SLC-LAURENCE, LLC
By:
PrintName:
Title:
2
Snowmass Land co-Laurence-Amendment to conservation Easement (2).Doc
Planning Commission Meeting,
Minutes from April 9, 2003
P&Z Members Present
Cheryl Chandler
Michelle Foster
Mike Deer
Colin Laird
Kit Chapin
Bob Fullerton
Jock Jacober
StaffPresent
Mark Bean, B&P Director
Tamara Pregl, Planner
Don DeFord, Cty. Attorney
Tresi Houpt, BOCC Member is present for tonight's hearing.
At 6:40 p.m. the meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. Absent tonight are
David Stover, Phil Vaughan, and Rolly Fischer.
Mike Deer was appointed as the Chairman for tonight's hearing.
Colin made a motion to seat all menrbers as regular voting members tonight and Cheryl
seconded the motion. A1l approved.
The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the February 12e and the
March 12,2003 Planning Commission meetings. Michelle made a motion to approve the
' minutes from FebruNy 12,2003 as written and Cheryl seconded the motion. All
approved. For the minutes of March 12,2003 there were three corrections noted. Jock
made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 126 meeting with the noted
corrections and Cheryl seconded his motion. All approved.
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request is for review of a Preliminary
Plan Application for Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision. The applicants are proposing
to subdivide approximately 480 acres into 26 lots. The property is located west of the
intersection of CR 115 and Cattle Creek Road in the Missouri Heights area. The
applicant is Aspen Valley Land Trust and the Property owner is Snowmass Land
Company.
Don DeFord reviewed the public notice requirements with Tim Malloy, the applicant's
representative. Tim used the County Assessors records on approximately March 5,2003
to obtain names of property owners within 200 feet of the project and mailed out the
notice on March 6ft. All properfy owners and public land owners were notified. There
were no mineral owners or lessees of record other than the property owner thernselves.
The property was posted with the gold card provided by the Planning Deparhnent on CR
115 on March 6ft and is still in place at this [ime. Donieceived the prooiof publication
,,,,,* }}]C.,tt"r.i'
fi'org,Itsmrflew &bmSy
and the certified return receipts from Tim. Al1 documents appear to be in order so it is
okay to proceed.
Mike Deer explained the procedures for this hearing and swore in all who want to speak.
Tamara Pregl is the County Planner on this project and she entered the following exhibits
into the record:
Exhibit A: Proof of Certified Mailing Receipts.
Exhibit B: Proof of Publication.
Exhibit C: Garfield County ZorungResolution of 1978, as amended.
Exhibit D: Garfield county subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000.
Exhibit F: Staff Report dated April 9, 2003.
Exhibit G: Application Materials.
Exhibit H: Letter from Bobby Branham, Garfield County Road & Bridge Deparfinent,
dated Api12,2003.
Exhibit I: Letter from Doug Thoe, Garfield County Road & Bridge Department, dated
dated October 30,2002.
Exhibit J: Letter from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Director, dated
March 25,2003.
Exhibit K: Letter from Kelly Woods, Colorado Division of Wildlife, received Novernber
18,2002.
Exhibit L: Letter from Bill Gavette, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, dated
March 28,2003.
Exhibit M: Letter from Ron Leach, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection Diskict, dated
November 18,2002.
Exhibit N: Letter from Kenneth Knox, Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated
March 27,2003.
Exhibit O: Letter from Kenneth Knox, Colorado Division of Water resources, dated
November 19,2002.
Exhibit P: Letter from Sean Gaffirey, Colorado Geological Survey, dated April 1, 2003.
Exhibits A - P are accepted into the record as identified.
Tamara presented the staffreport. This is a review of a Preliminary Plan Application for
the Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision. The request is to subdivide approximately 479
acres into 26 single-family residential lots. Water will be provided through a central
water system and ISDS is proposed on each lot for sewage disposal. The property is
currently zoned A/RiRD.
The subject parcel is one of two parcels that have been known as the Laurence Ranch.
The North Parcel, undeveloped, consists of approximately 1300 acres. The South Parcel,
the subject of this application, contains approximat ely 479 acres. The property was put
up for auction in 2000. A deal fell through so the Aspen Valley Land Trust purchased the
,fplffiAgny r
Sore ffi.e'uflerm,r @raty
2
South Parcel.
AVLT entered into an agreement to sell the South Parcel to Snowmass Land Company
provided that they would develop the property under a cluster approach with a small
number of residential lots and place a conservation easement ovei the balance of theproperty. The conservation easement has been executed and a copy in more detailed is
attached within the application.
The Ranch consists of the existing homestead which consists of one farmhouse, abam,
and a historic 1800's log house. The main farmhouse is currently being remodeled. Aportion of the structure will be used for a ranch manager's dwelling *I th" remainder of
the skucture will be used for an on-site sales office.
There are four decreed ponds on the subject property which are used for irrigation. One
of the ponds has been improved to accommodate the necessary augmentation water as
specified in the water augmentation plan.
The current properly owner resumed hayrng operation in the sunmer of 2002,which had
not occurred on site for the last two or three seasons.
The new 26 lots will comprise of approximately 155.6 acres of the approximat ely 479
acres that is the subject of this application. proposed right-of-way *iil o."rpy
approximately 20.6 acres. The reraainder of the Ranch will be common open'space for
the use of the lot owners and will be permanently preserved under the provisions of a
conservation easement to beheld by AVLT. The common open space will continue to be
ranched.
Building envelopes have been established for each site. The Applicant indicated that all
residential structures-and landscaping will be confined within tiri proposed building
envelopes. The building envelopes have been designed to compfy witfr the minimum
setback requirements for the A/R/RD zone district.
The Applicant has volunteered to limit the floor area of the homes for Lot 3 through 26 to
8,000 square feet. The floor area on Lots I and2 will be limited to 12,000 square feet.
This is reflected in the Protective Covenants.
The lots range in size from 4 acres to 11 acres.
The subject property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential.
The recommended density in this category is fO acres or more per dwelling unit. pages
4-6 of the staff report list the goals and objectives of the Compiehensive plan for this
area.
H.P. Geotech did perc tests and states there are no geological constraints. Maybe a few
lots would require advance treatnent incorporated.-Wheie ISDS is not feasibie, Garfield
County will require a sewage disposal system approved by the State of Colorado.
{DH,AH'U'L
Fon B,eview {tnty
This application was referred to several agencies for comments. Comments that werereceived have been integrated throughout the staff memo where applicable.
Holy Cross, KN Energy and Qwest will service this area. No comments were receivedfrom these agencies but staff thinks that everything dealing with utilities will be buried.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife identified the property as winter range for both Elkand Mule Deer and severe wintel range for Elk. iomments from KellyiMooa of tfr"CDow have not been received for this Preliminary Plan. She did however cornment onapplication at the Sketch Plan stage and had r"lr* rr.ommendations that are listed in the
ltaffrenort on pages 19 & 20. The CDow would like a caveatabout bears il;;;;;lions to allow the DOW to remove if necessary.
The Applicant is willing to comply with all of the recorlmendations of the CDow exceptfor item 7;theapplicant thinks that hunting should be prohibited. The protective
covenants shall incorporate all the recommendation *itorr" habitat mitigation measures,except for item 7.
The Applicant provi_ded a Vegetation Report conducted by Dawn Keating of WildlifeManagement consulting.-The Applicanfhas indicated thit aweed contJl expert hasbeen contracted to begin the proGs of treating existing noxious weeds.
Steve Anthony, Garfield County Weed Managernent Director, provided comments withrespect to the proposed subdivision and is listed on pages 2l arrd22 of thestaff report.
Water supply for the proposed lots is intended to be provided via a central water systemwhich will be designed by Sopris Engineering. Central water system will be supplied bythree wells.
A report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc. concluded that from the pump test data, withsufficient storage, the three wells should be able to provide adequate water foitfreproposed development.
A letter from Kenneth Knox, of the Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated March27,2003, was receivg{rgearaing the proposed water supply through the wells that will beaugmented. (Exhibit Iv) Idr. Knox notedthat "due to thelact of iater
"ourt
uppror"daugmentation plan, the State Engineer finds that the proposed water supply wiil causematerial injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." The same determination wasmade at the Sketch plan process.
Tamara handed out a copy of the State Statute 30-28-136 (h) (I) related to referral andreyiew requirements.
The State Engineer can't make a determination without a signed Augmentation plan fromthe courts. That is one of the reasons that staff is r""o*"iding deiial of this project.
4
,JDH,AET.
For Beview OnIy
A Geotechnical Study for the subdivision was conducted for the project by Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., which can be seen in more detail within Attachment 12 in theapplication. H.P. said there are several conditions of geological nature that should be
considered in future project planning and design. Some modifications to the currently
proposed building location would reduce potential risks associated with major landslide
reactivation.
Sean Gaffrrey, of the Colorado Geological Survey indicated that the proposed 150 foot
setbacks from the crest of the slope for lots 11, 12, 13,16, and tZ should be delineated on
the plat. Mr. Gaffney recommended that an engineering geologist or geotechnical
engineer be consulted to provide a formal design r""o**dation.
Mr. Gaffirey noted that Lots 18, 19, 20,2I, and22 are located on slopes that are greater
than3}% grade. It was suggested that slope analysis be completed on these lots to ensurebuilding envelopes are adequately sited to minimize slope movement after consffuction.
If the Board chooses to recommend approval than the recommendations by Hp Geotechs
Study should be followed.
The Comprehensive Plan defines CR 115 as a road in "good" condition. The Applicant
asserted that based on anticipated trip generation and assuming traf6c will be distributed
in both directions on Cattle Creek Road, the estimated traffic *itt U. roughly 161 ADT.
The Applicanl indicated that under these assumptions, the proposed roadi quAifv under
the "Rural Access" category in the County,s RJad standards.
This application was referred to the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department and
Bobby Branham had several comments which are supported by thJCounty Engineer
Department. Thirteen recornmendations are included in the staffreport and wiihinExhibit H.
Bobby did indicate that the proposed western entry is in a very undesirable location, due
to poor visibility. He recommends that this location not be used and that a more suitable
site be chosen.
Most of the proposedroad system length is comprised of the main loop road. There are
several spur roads and cul-de-sacs that provide uccess to residential lois. The proposed
road plan includes two cul-de-sacs longer than 600 feet. It also appears that Coulter Lane
also exceeds 600 feet in length. Section 9:33 of the Subdivision iGgulations outlines the
standards for cul-de-sacs.
A portion of the property is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire protection
Diskict and a portion is located outside of the Fire District. The Applicant submitted apetition to expand the Diskict boundaries and included a copy of that in the application
underAttachment 13.
,fDRAFf ..
tor Bsvlow Only
The Applicant indicated that each of the proposed homes in the subdivision will be
eqrripped with a sprinkler systern for fire suppression. For lots where pressure is not
adequate for firefighting purposes, a minimum 5,000 gallon water storage tank will be
p_rolded. The Applicant noted that the main water storage tank will be available for
firefighting purposes as needed. The tank will contain I j0,000 gallons.
Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District
indicated that the required wildfire hazardmitigation plan for the subdivision has not
been submified to the Fire District. To date, the District has not approved the petition for
annexation
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recorlmend denial to the BOCC for the
Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek for the following reasons:l.) Division of Water Resources cannot determine if there is'?naierial injury to
decreed water rights", therefore the Applicant has not demonstrateA a tega
and adequate source of water pursuant to Section a:91(A) of the Subdiviiion
Regulations;
The Applicant has not dernonstrated that the proposed longer cul-de-sacs can
provide adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access, pursuant to
Section 9:33 of the Subdivision Regulations;
The wildfirehazardmitigation plan has not been approved by the Carbondale
and Rural Fire Protection District and the Garfield County Sheriff s
Departnent.
Two alternate recommendations are also included in the staff report; one to continue and
the other to recommend approval with conditions.
2.)
3.)
No questions were asked of staff at this time.
Tim Malloy spoke on the Applicant's behalf.
for their work.
Moved to Applicant for their presentation.
He thanked the Commissioners and staff
Tim did a review of the proposal. He pinned up a map of the proposal and reviewed.
This project was initiated about two years ago. The properry was originally put on
auction to pay taxes but the sale fell through. The norttr,end of the propertv is really not
developabld. The southern portion is desirable for development. mirrts this will havelittle impact on the surrounding area. This was originally designed under the Rural Land
Development Option. Due to water and lot limitation r"uson th.y *" coming in under
subdivision. Th"y hope this property can be a model for other agricultural lid
development.
Feafures:
* Preserve irrigated meadow* Preserve corridors for grazing and original homestead* Minimi2e visual impact* Preserve Agricultural use ofproperty
,JDAAF'T.
For fovleul Only
Minimize grading and disturbance
Accomplish a plan to retain value and be economically viable
Very rustic/low key project
Of the 478 acres,302 of them will be open space. Building envelopes are the areas that
can be developed. They provided copy ofcovenants.
Kit asked how large are the building envelopes? Tim respond ed 1.7 acres to abottt1
acres.
Tim would like to go through the staff conditions and comment on each. Tim thinks
Applicant deserves recorrmendation of approval because they have addressed the
technical issues. Do think a few issues can be addressed between now and final plat.
Tim reviewed reasons for denial. They have submitted for the Water Augmentation plan
approval back in April of last year. Garfield County Code allows that thi-s issue be finally
addressed by final plat. Don't think that it is unrealistic that water issue can be resolved.
wouldn't have submitted if they didn't think they could get the water.
Tim referred to Statute. Planning Commission can approve with condition of
Augmentation Plan and application for underground water rights is in place before finalplat can be approved.
Scott Miller, Water Attorney for the Applicant said the Plan for Augmentation was filed
in April 2002 and amended in July 2002. Plans for augmentation lile this takes a long
time. Thesenormallytakeanywherefrom 12to 18months. Hehasbeenpushinghardto
complete the approval prbcess. In January of 2003, they received comments from the
State Engineers Office. Applicant commented to the State in their letter dated February
2003- They are supposed to meet in April. The letter from the State is the standard letter
comments. Asking to approve with condition of augmentation plan be completed by
State.
Three letters were handed out. All three were entered into the record as exhibits and
accepted:
Exhibit Q: Letter addressed to Sean McAllister, Attorney Generals Office dated
February 25,2003.
Exhibit R: Letter addressed to Scott Miller from the State of Colorado Attorney General
Office, dated January 23,2003.
Exhibit S: Application for Water Rights, Diskict Court, Water Division 5; Case Number02cw108.
Jock asked if the only Ylo being applied for is owned by the Applicants. Any share in
interest with other neighbors? Consolidated Reservoir Company owns the Rejervoir
where the applicant gets their water. No opposition from rr.ighborr.
,SDH,AS'T.
*
*
*
lor f,;dew Onty
Tim said wells are drilled and the three combined produce well over 100 gallons a
minute.
Scott says they have applied for decreed *ut., rights from the Courts. Jock asked about
any damage to decrease to water use for agriculture. scott responded.
Tim referred to denial issue #2. Applicant sat down with Ron Leach and will comment.
widen from 12 to 15 feet. Sheriff needs to review and give okay.
Reason #3, wildlifemitigation plan, they are still working on. per Tim, that is not part of
Garfield County code. They do think it is important and ttrink they canresolve ty -nnat
plat.
Ron Leach, Fire Chief in Carbondale spoke next. Their biggest concern is the property is
not in their distict. Applicant has petitioned to be apartoitheir distict. Won't be
approved without a mitigation plan. Would ask as a condition of approval that this
property be included in their district. (Attachment 12 in applicationis map)
Ap.p.li"j"t has-been meeting with the district about ayearnow. Have to see plan and go
to his Board for approval.
Cheryl asked how long it would take to be brought into district if all information is good.
Ron said not long. Next meeting is April 23d and hope to have aplan in hand.
John with the Aspen Valley land Trust says they are Ssking for approval with conditions.
Michelle asked about the length of the cul-de-sac. Ron Leach responded that he expects
certain turnarounds and they will review under Uniform Fire Code and Garfield County
Road & Bridge standards.
Mike Deer thanked Ron for his comments.
Tim Malloy said they support most of the conditions listed by staff under the
recoil]mendation of approval but feel a number if them can be deleted or modified.
Condition # 3 A,B, C & F are all okay.
condition #3 D: Tim rwiewed map showing fault lines, etc. He spoke about thebuil{ing envelopes and shifting the envelopes.
Conform to Conditions B & D.
Condition C, slope analysis: showed map with slope are less than 3O%. O-l5oZ slopes on
a lot_of the property. Condition #C is not necessary. Make condition for building permit.
Condition E: Be eliminated
Conditions 5, 8 & 9: all related to Fire District. Be allowed to do prior to final plat.
Condition #6: design to secondary standard. Want to minimize impact. Did traffic
analysis ofproject legs than 200 trips aday. shouldn,t have to comply. R&B did not
express concerns with width of shoulder. Ask to rernove that condiiion.
Condition #13: strike
. DAAT'T ID
For. fovlery Onty
Project is good for County and meets all requirernents of code. County code says not
required to address staff issues until final plat.
Tim said they would be happy to allow the DOW on the property.
Will switch to dry hydrants.
Jock asked about no hunting on the property and could DOW help manage? Tim said the
reason for not wanting hunting is the terrain on the property.
Jock asked about one dog and if it applies only to mature dogs? He also asked about the
management of agricultural portion of property. Applicant can enforce and HOA will
manage. (Martha Cockrell-AVLT)
why did you choose these boundaries? Fencing only in building envelope.
Is north section tied into critical issue? Applicant said no. Critical timing is preliminary
portion only.
Colin, condition #4 culvert issue, what are your feelings on access point. New R&B
person made comments and no problem and has no problem if it's resolved. Applicant
will agree with R&B people.
Moved to the public for comments:
James Peterson with Coulter Creek ranch Limited Partnership spoke first. Coulter Creek
Valley is one of the last pristine areas in the valley. A couple oiconcerns have expressed
comments to Aspen valley Land Trust on3125102. Sent copy to Tamara. CR 113,
nothing said about visual impacts (CR 121)
#1 Visual lmpacts lots 1, 2 & 4, mitigate impacts ofbuilding envelopes. Fault line is now
shifting lots. Maybe some condition that these would be taken into account.
#2 Related to protective covenants: Arch. Review Committee look at placement on site;
size of house; should be required to do; use of materials have uoy.u.th tone colors; non-
reflective material for roofs; landscape to further reduce impacts. Would like p&Z to
consider these items.
Ma:r MacDonnell who manages the Gould property to the north for the last 22years
spoke next. Appreciate open space and conservation easernent and attempts to keep
agricultural aspect. Would reiterate impacts that James spoke about. Thanked p&2.
Paul Dill who manages High Aspen Ranch, north of this project spoke next. Issues on
CR 115 and the impacts. Want to encourage enough impact fees io take care of culverts
and lessen sharp curves.
No further public comments were made so closed that portion of hearing. Moved back to
P&Z for comments.
"JDN,AE'T -
lFor Bovlenl Onty s
Kit has a question about #2 Altemate Recommendation on conditions of approval.
Tamara did not add a condition of water. Applicant's address would say prior to final
plat. Applicant would be required to submit a letter of approval for augmintation plan.
Kit also asked about page 9 of the staff report, Section 4:91(A) (a) and Mark r.rporded.
He said staffhas relied on this statute. State is technical expert. Mark read a portion of
Statute into the record. This is the last public hearing.
Don DeFord said augmentation plan has to be approved by Courts and State Engineers
ofEce. Have paid well permits and quantity.
Michelle has concern about R&B request for 18" culvert and road and applicant doesn't
want to dedicate. Mark said all roads are required to be dedicated to thepublic and
county doesn't maintain the roads. This is primarily for emergency vehi-les. Tamara
hasn't talked to R&B forernan about 18" culvert request. Mark said there are different
standards for roads versus driveway access. Have to go back to R&8.
Tim said there is one area entering a county road, (12,, culvert). R&B asked for all
gulverts in the project to be 18". Mark thinks only ones that access county road need to
be 18". Can get issued resolved.
Colin asked about Condition 3C, slope stability analysis a condition at building permit
stage. Mark said, required at final plat for one other subdivision, Oak Meadows.
Colin asked about traffic impact fee amount. Mark said traffic impact fee willbe
calculated based on the subdivision regulations formula.
Colin mentioned another application they had reviewed related to water condition. Don
DeFord said BOCC makes final determination.
Jock asked about Condition #6 concerning "secondary access". Mark said based on ADT
and calculation, it is required.
Tim said staff assumes haffic will be going both ways, not splitting based on 2 entrances.(ll2 vfl.ll go west and% will go east) That is applicant's argument. trrtart said he doesn,t
have a problem with "rural access".
colin said, isn't all traffic going on the county road? Mark responded.
Bob asked about Arch. Review guidelines following up on Mr. Peterson's comments.
Tim said as written they are more subjective.
Cheryl asked where CR 115 is on the capital plan. Mark doesn,t know. Mark said
related to the road impact fee, half is paid up front and half is paid at the time ofbuilding
permit issuance.
- DnaFr -for f,,cvlew Only
10
Mike Deer is very excited about this project. This parcel was saved in this process rather
than going through 35 acre splits. Happy we have an opportunity to review but are
disappointed that there are 9 pages of conditions that should have been worked out before
now. Plaruring Commission is put in a position to deny, to continue, or to approve with
all of these conditions. He likes the project.
Kit Chapin made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan Application
for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision with the conditions starting on page 26 iteurs
1-15. With a few changes.
Condition lt4: add sentence to add culverts.
Condition #6: rural access is acceptable
Condition #9: cross out "determination" and add "approval of'
Condition #10: shike "pursue" and add "obtain"
Condition #13: Strike the 2od sentence
Add Condition #16: "Water Augmentation Plan is approved by Water Court & State
Engineers Office prior to submission of final plat". In addition, "applicant provides well
permits in place with water adequacy in place".
Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion.
Kit said this subdivision has some difficulties for public hearing. Thinks these things
need to be taken care of before Bocc meeting for preliminary plan review.
A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously.
. DRAE'T D
forp ilcvlptr OnIy
tgmalloy consultin g, LLc
Site Design r Land Use Planning r public process
April25,2003
Tamara Pregl
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 20I
Glenwood Springs, Colorado SIGOI
RE: Supplemental Information for Board Hearing for Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Application
Dear Tamara:
Pursuant to the conditions included in the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Preliminary Plan Application, I am providing you with the following supplemental
information:
Supplemental Exhibit A: Revised subdivision layout plan (1 l'by l7')reflecting changes made
pursuant to the recommendations of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. related to geologic
hazards;
Supplemental Exhibit B: Letter from Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc; containing their
opinion with respect to the revised subdivision layout and addressing the issue of "slopi instability,,
in response to the comments of State Geologist;
Supplemental Exhibit C: Slope analysis maps (11'by l7') showing slope conditions forthe
entire site including Lots l8 through 22whichwere the subject of thJcomments of State Geologist;
Supplemental Exhibit D: Preliminary Wildfire HazardAnalysis and Wildfire Hazard,Mitigation
Plan, prepared by Crockett and Associates;
We also want to inform you that the Ranch at Coulter Creek subdivision was reviewed by the Carbondale
and Rural Fire Protection District's Board of Directors on April 24,2003. At this meeting, the Board
resolved all issues related to the Ranch at Coulter Creek project and directed the District'i attorney to
prepare a resolution approving the annexation of the portion of the Coulter Creek Ranch property not
already contained within the District's boundaries subject to conditions. The conditions inciude-the
provision of the final Wildfire HazardAnalysis and Mitigation Plan and payment of an "annexation impactfee." Payment of this fee will be required at the time the resolution of annixation for this project is
executed by the Fire District Board.
In addition, representatives of the Snowmass Land Company have been working with the Fire Chief on the
appropriate location and number of emergency service vehicle pull-outs for the Ranch at Coulter Creek
project' We have established preliminary locations for the pull-outs at this time and will work with the Fire
Chief to refine tlese locations over the coming weeks. The Snowmass Land Company has also 4greed to
4O?ParkDrive rGlenwoodSprings rColorado r816OI !phone:945-O8gZ re-mail:tgmalloy@sopris.net
Ranch at Coulter Creek Preliminary Ptan Application Supplemental Information
04/25/2003
widen the private driveways serving lots 3, 8 and 19 to a minimum width of 16 feet as requested by the FireDistrict.
The Preliminary WildfiteH1zudAnalysis and Wildfire Mitigation Plan, prepared by Crockett andAssociates and included with this letter as Supplemental Exhlbit D, has bien'review.O Uy tf,. Fire Chief onbehalf of the Fire District was discussed with-tire Fire District's Board of Directors and approved on April24th of this year. I would point out that the maps contained in the draft plan did not refleti changes madeto-the-subdivision layout in response to geologic hazards. Therefore, beiore the Fire District will deem theWildfire HazatdPlan completg these maps will need to be revised. ihe errant maps do not effect thesubstantive information contained it the plan or the proposed wildfire hazardmitijation measures.
We have been informed by Ron Leach, Fire Chief for the Carbondale and Rural Fire protection District,that the Fire District will provide a letter confirming the representations contained in this letter regardingfirefighting and emergency service issues to your offi.r onMonday, epriizsd. - --
The letter from the Fire District together with this letter and the attached exhibits satisfies the conditions ofj[I*':f.9^"yj:r:, an{,ttre Staf with respect to thoseissues that were required to be addressed priorto review ofthe Preliminary plan apprication bythe Board of county commissiu,raty rrarr apprrcauon Dy me Eoard ot Llounty commissioners. I would be happy toanswer anY qxestionsyou may have regarding any of the information contained in these exhibits. We
I your help in processing this application and we look forward to discussing this project withCounty Commissioners at the public hearing on May 19ff. e ----- r--J--
Tim Malloy, Principal
Attachements
cc: John Sarpa
Martha Cochran
Joe Enzer
File
tgm
the Board
402 ParkDrive r Glenwood Springs r Colorado r gI6Ol r phone 945-0832 r e-mail: tgmalloy@sopris.net
Revised Subdivision Layout (ll" by ll")
Ranch at Coulter Creek
April 2M3S ub divi si on Preli rii rr.ary Plan Appli c ati on - S upplernental rnforrnation
MATCH UNE SEE SHEET 6
o -o
IISET
HffiJaPf
BLM PROPERTY
EE
-muDa.norcGlg ESCARPMENT*,At EEann-0BmDlnEml-tru@EEE'
- lrDor!! rila f, il l,Io rtl oJrE G uEl
IC6I*.'RRE. TI3EGEINt S'YEil CJ!Et[.
- F@lOCffiEmEa^ruqE'EE[
-[ImEEEail'
a - mP iqD EEll it tOt O ltl! 6dlC mE
A-rc.Eoail,tcr
o - mrE ar E/n a irrt cr * tJt tLa
-ffiotI|cE
ANIEI{NA
EASEMEI{T ASPEN BLUE
SKY HOLDINGS, LLC.
PROPER
- IGT:I E C JT'3CGO'T'
-mt3mDrerE
- Erltultfrlc.C nl 0atcpll
-fCrEnCtIOEl
O
B
-ri- DUtrDnl,
aNan*,E
oYn
HARRIE.TT MCKNIGHT oPERTYso.oo,
Y REVOCABLE TBUST srr \u ELiT
'{t.:,i+f,#'
GR.APHrc SCAIT
-5trtIrorll
-->m!-D@J'ryt-m6
ffrr.rEx-ffia-ffi6 Eaisr(E{t
Tlptelt_ ROAD SECImII _ 28. Uf
ag
(rrE,
lH.6G
I,\ru(+i=sffi\l**
i7i$$$s;,, 7b65fr5,ilcr-\\
=ri7)1,
ffi$
ffi{--\-::]iro== -=
(irrsra
-
J(tf .9t - ti(ruu.*i Judtt tvutct^l
rdEam5-rerlDaE
&El-qffiarwaEaED
rram-@
tasu- o
Ig;il- -
rerSutotm
tal df,ElO U ,!a m gtu - {P-$
lnaorolEram- -F
milamDa,Erm-
ail.5s-rDtctm-
,.ls rraS alrItIt uEL- gEoa - o
tDauto terod -Y
Cilrylro3mcAnIEICdEg'm- a
r3.rdEaaErtlr-'&nDrmYInlHSlffix6uq -tllltDEalralctatll VlEOf nSS -c{6&uErem E Im rlr om 0 t r0. arEryt -ErxilxrclrdDma-MBBru.EE-vfl I arima roorlmt rortnEao0S0ll BnlH -
llil
rNfllddv3sS
AlUfdOUd m-18
30IU
llETTCEDHV
']lrETAI'E]lffi .33
?d
crrrriSli
gtt ovou
AlNnoc 3Nt'lultN3c
s---l;.;;i,iXi{-$WlN
',w*ffifrFr l ','(
--:-- -- ,..- ,.' 4'/u s*<\s
;il!i:'ii:|1,;
,ffti,,Y'//f,rl,1i,
Srl.l:)uWilt:lA
u(iiim
NII.,.ffi
$ffisrffi
rl.r\W
N\\S
Wr"ZN"\t\S}},Br;itl
'!!='1,,/)
$UlS-$5\N\\\)il'i
MKKS
N'r-
---:
Q--)- rr\ --\iN?l{(i(n
'lll
arff(
i2rz ///t/--/-zr'1'z'-Z*o i
.}€.
I - -ar6P7 1'5t---6lq.-- )1-rfi:2r:)
NRiIi
i^.$$
.x:\-\j
'd'1'11 'l Azvl uv8
Alu3doud n'18
Supplemental Exhibit B
Hepwo rth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. Letter
Ranch at Cotrlter Creek
Subdivision Prelirnii ty Plan Application - Supplernental fnforrnation Apdl 2003
Hepwo- - awlak Georcchnical, [nc.
5020 Counry Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phonq 9V0.945-7988
Fax:9?O-945-U54
email hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
April 24,2003
Snowmass Land Company
Attention: Joe Enzer
P. O. Box 6LL9
Snowmass Village. Colorado 81615
Job No. L03 115
Subject: Review of Revised Preliminary Development Plan f6r the Ranch at
Coulter Creek Project, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Eru.er:
As requested, we have reviewed the revised preliminary development plan and the April
L,2OO3 subdivision review comments by the Colorado Geologic Survey (2003). Our
review included a field reconnaissance of the project area on April 77,?003 and April
24,2003. The latter reconnaissance v/as made after the corners of the building
envelopes on Lots L1 through 17 had been staked in the field. This letter summarizes
our observations and presents our comments on the development plan revisions.
Revised Development Plan: Ttre revisions to the preliminary development plan consist
mostly of modifications to the building envelopes on Lots 11. through 2'1. to compl-y with
the setback recommendations for the landslide and faults presented in our previous
preliminarv geotechnical report (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,2003). Another plan
modification was a slight shift in the alignment of Cattle Creek Ridge Road along the
north side of Lots 1.5,1.6 and 1.7.
Comment on Proposed Revisions:
The proposed revisions to the development plan are consistent with the setback
recommendations presented in our preliminary geotechnical report (Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical, 2003). In our opinion, the setback of 150 feet from the
mapped landslide boundary to the building envelopes on Lots 11 rhrough 17 is
adequate for slope stabiliry considerations.
As pointed out in the Colorado Geological Survey review, steep slopes are
locally present on parts of Lots 1.8, 19, 20,21 and ?2 but the building envelopes
are.in terrain less than 3OVo gade. In our opinion. we do not anticipate problems
with construction related slope instability for grading typically associated with
1.
)
HEPWORTH. PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Parker 303-841-7119 . Colorado Springs 7L9-633-5562 o Silverthome 970-468.1989
Snowmass Land Company
Aprrl24,2A03
Page2
residential constnrction on these five revised building envelopes, if the grading
recorlmendations as presented in our preliminary geotechnical en_eineering
report are followed (Hepworth -Pawlak Geotechnical, 20f,3).
If there are questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Respecfully submirted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHMCAL, Inc.
,(",qrl & ru.'*L
Ralph 6. Mock
Engineering Geologist
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.
RGM/ksw
cc:
TG Malloy Consulting, LLC
ERENCES
Colorado Geological Survey, 2003, Ranch at Coulter Creelc, GarfieW County, Colorado:
Prepared for the Garfield County Planning Department, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado (CGS Case No. GA-03-0010, April 1.,2003).
Hepworth-Pawlak GeotechnicaT,z003, Preliminary Geotechnical Sndy, Ranch at
Coulter Creelc, County Road 115, Garfield Cor,utty, Colorado: Prepared for
Snowmass Land Companyr Snowmass Village, Colorado (Job No. 103 115,
February 28,2OO3).
$3;:&-)
'Whil
1i1l$rpp11
Supplemental Exhibit C
Stope Analysis Maps (ll" by 17")
Ranch at Coulter Creek
Subdivision Prelirninary Plan Applicatiotl - Supplernental Inforrnation April 2ffi3
@.aE
@\o 'Ler Hnir dN 4).
t-l
uo
92st
a7O
ut=
m
ooCzI
q,
n
N
F
E
q,
n
t-
N
J
t-t-r!
m
C)oCz
-J
BLM PROPERTY
LsL6e.Ios,eteeel
@t-
=!vo!mvI
3
G. BENNETT & JUDITH G.
sHorwELL (JT)
&
CHRISTINE S. & KENNETH
S. SOULE
o,,f l, .>
,91Leel
(,()
Nit
{o-rzm
o-mh+
I
I
T
pPtd
888m nFr
a?i
HTX
ill
+
i
I
III
I
I
I
t
t
t
I!H!
UATC}I UNE SHEET 2
BLM PR@ERTY oJJ
a
l,l(9
-z-JOtrlJoz-l,(L>AY,<a
-EaLl
-nI:rIIlec--l-{---rrr:3rl-raE-!i-:-raIr-In:-i-trrr
a-tD-ia-tl---
l'--E-'r
ASPEN BLUE
SKY HOLDINGS, LLC.
BLM PR@ERTY
--l--lIt-an
+-IITf,C
.L-.--iltifI-c
--DflII
- ---g-nr
f-ro
7
I
8$---Drtrre-
HARRIETT MCKNIGIIT
CROSBY REVOCABLE TRUST
rGtITieEo-15:
-
sllrP[ 15 - to t r
ST.OPE OYB S3 I
EDUI
Suoplemental Exhibit D
wildfir eHazard Analysis and Mitigation Plan
Ranch at Cotrlter Creek
Subdivision prerimi ,^aryplan Apprication - Supplernental rnforrnation april 2M3
PRELIMINARY
RANCHAT COULTERCREEK
WIDFIRE HAZARI)
ANALYSIS
4t23103
PREPARED FOR:
Snowmass Land ComPanY
21 Burnt Mountain Circle
P.O. Box 6119
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
PREPARED BY:
Crockett & Associates
460 Barnard Park Court
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-2890
Fax: (970)-925'2831
5
6
6
6
10
t2
13
13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I
IL
III.
PAGE #
4
4
PURPOSE
INTRoDUCTIoNToWILDFIREHAZARDANALYSIS
WILDFIRE HAZARD AIYALYSIS
A. TOPOGRAPITY
1. SLOPE
2. ASPECT
3. TERRAIN FEATURES
4. ELEVATIONS
VEGETATION
1. FI.JEL TYPES
2. DISTRIBUTION
3. NFFL MODEL FUEL GROUPS
4. N.FFL FT'EL MODELS
5. CSFS WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS
6. VEGETATION SI'MMARY
7. FUELBREAK SUMMARY
C.WEATHER
1. FIRE FAMILY PLUS WORIilNG SET
2. FIRE FAMILY PLUS STATION SETTINGS
-3. DATA ACQUISITION
4. INDICES
11
t2
12
5. CRITICAL WEATHER SUMMARIES
-
15
D. WILDFIRE BEHAVIOR CALCULATIONS
1. BEHAVE INPUTS
BEHAVE CALCULATIONS
3. BEHAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: MODERATE
4. BEHAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: EXTREME
-5 BEHAVE OUTPUTS: CONCLUSIONS
F'I]EL LOAD REDUCTION
RESIDENCY TIME
t6
16
t7
t7
18
20
20
2t
E.
F.
1.
,t
BEHAYE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: MODERATE -
BEHAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY:.EXTREME
-
2l
2t
22WILDFIRE HISTORY
CONCLUSIONS
Attachments:
Wind Adjustment Table
Behave outPuts:
Fuel Models1121416
- Moderate
- Extreme
- . Size
- SPotting Distance
Fuel Modelsl,2,4,6 Probability of Ignition
Fire Family Plus:
Percentile Weather Report for RERAP:
- Crown RAWS Station
- Event Locator Report:
Winds
I Hour Timelag Fuel Moisture
3
F.
H.
I.PURPOSE OF RANCH AT COULTER CREEK PUD WILDFIRE HAZARD
A]TIALYSIS:
The purpose of performing a wildfirehazard analysis of the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD
*"ri, ti"o"gh analyzingthe wildfire hazard we may determine and quantiff the hazard
and determinl the appropriate wildfire hazardmitigation measures in order to minimize
the loss of life, property and natural resources.
INTRODUCTION TO HAZARD ANALYSIS:
Mitigation measures are developed in relationship to the hazud, in this case the historic
and predicted wildfire behavior within the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD area. Like most
forecasting, wildfire behavior prediction is based upon inductive reasoning of combining
past experiences and historical data to reach a general conclusion of future probability
and wildfire behavior. Contemporary inductive logic incorporates the use of computer
models which integrate accumulated, archived data and objectivelypredict future wildfire
"performance" or behavior based on past "performance" or behavior. In other words, in
the past under a given set of environmental circumstances, this is what occurred;
therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that under the same set of environmental
circumstance in the future the expected behavior would be similar.
The environmental circumstances or data used to predict the fire behavior for the Ranch
at Coulter Creek PUD area is gathered by a Remote Area Weather Stations (RAWS), the
Crown RAWS Station,located in similar elevations, aspects and fuel types to those found
in the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD area. The RAWS station gathers and documents the
weather and the affect that the weather has on the surrounding fuels. It is important to
note that the accumulated data or indices used for the predictions were assimilated in
relationship to each other and not acquired independently ie. the environmental
circumstanies have a dynamic and interactive relationship to each other. An example
would be that when the I hour fuel moisture content was at a certain level, at that same
time the temperature, relative humidity and winds were at certain corresponding levels.
By compiling and analyzing the archived data in this way, a historical mean, average or
"moderate" as well as an "extreme" set of environmental circumstances was established
for the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD area. These indices were then applied as inputs to
generate the predicted wildfire behavior in the two scenarios of "moderate" and
ttextreme.tt
Like any other computer model, especially those that attempt to predict with any degree
of accuracy a weather related event, the programs are encumbered by some basic
assumptions that t1'pically do not remain static when applied to something as interactive
and dynamic as wildfire behavior. It is important to note that assumptions such as
continuous and similar fuels, consistent weather and topography are all limitations to fire
behavior computer modeling.
II.
However, to date, short of arbitrary and subjective conc-lusions' this alternative remains
an accepted industry siandard as aiool in the process of quantiffing the hazard and
determining the appropriateness of mitigation measures
This is not to say that there does not exist the exception to the principle.ie' that there
exists a set of environmental circumstance that could overwhelm the mitigation measures'
The alternative to "dG;; an inductive reasoning process is the arbitrary selection of
random data applied in a subjective manner. In this way a set of environmental
circumstance may be created that will most certainly ovenrhelm the mitigation measures'
However, given the arbitrary and subjective nature of tfris process coupled with the lack
of quantiffable supporting iata, ittecomes infeasible to determine it's likelihood or
probability and as aresult-serves little purpose in the determination of the appropriateness
of the mitigation *"ut*.t. iistoricatty, this type of "worst case" scenario tlpically
occurs in the level oiprobability or frequency that exists outside the range of
reasonableness.
WILDFIRE TIAZARD AITIALYSIS :
Heat, Fuel and oxygen combine and interact to support F . gv removing any one of
these three components, the fire goes out. Given 'olgnitio"
source' fuel' weather and
topogrupty then interact to determine the behavior of a wildfire' When a wildfire occurs
within a developed area, mitigation measures are necessary to prevent,or minimize the
loss of life and/or property. Liorder to determine the appropriate wildfire mitigation
measures, the ingredi.rrt, of n "t,
weather and topography along with the resulting fire
behavior must lirst be analYzed'
The site specific analysis of the fuel, weather and topography of the Ranch at Coulter
creek PUD is contained in this HazardAnalysis. rhis anatysis forms the foundation for
the development of appropriate wildfire mitigation measures.
of the three ingredients of wildfire behavior, fuel, weather and topography, the emphasis
in wildfire mitigation is focused on the ingredient over which we may exercise some
measure of control: the fuel component. BIy modiffiag the.fuel component' we may then
inlluence the fire behavior. wildfre supprlssion is uasea for the most part on removing
and/or separating ,h. fir;l fr'"m the ott ti.o*ponents of oxygen and heal, thus allowing
for suppresriorr.by fnrt analyzingthe separate ingredients of fuel, weather and
topography, *e maybe able io ptiaitt the fire behavior and then determine the tlpe'
location and umorsit of fuel that needs to be managed in order to bring the fire trnder
control.It is through the implementation of the appropriate, vegetation (fu:l) management
in advance of a wiidfire occurring in a develop"d *tu, that we may provide an enhanced'
safer opportunity to control or suppress a fire in order to protect lives and property'
The following is a detailed analysis of the site specific ingredients of Topography, Fuel
and weather within the Ranch at coulter creek PUD area.
A. TOPOGRAPHY:
1. SLOPE: ref: CSFS WHAM maPs
CSFS SloPe Classifications:
1: 0- 20%A. 0 - r0%B. tt -20%
2: 20.1 - 40 %
3: Greater than 40 %
Acreages for SloPe Classes:
Slope Ctass Acres %
I 468.8 99
A.
B.
23.8 1
3 0.0
Total 472.6
2. ASPECT:
All
3. TERRAIN FEATURES:
Rolling meadbws and two distinct knolls with gently.topirrg benches'
4. ELEVATION:
Elevation ranges from approximately 7000'to 7400''
VEGETATION:ref: CSFS WHAM maPs
1. FUEL TYPES:
The following primary fuel qpes are found within the Ranch at Coulter
Creek PUD area:
: H,"tff#[33]*t*
' I1{#,*?$:H:li:
a
Acreage for each vegetation tYPe:
Type
Lrigated meadow (M)
Sagebrush (SG)
Sagebrush/Oakbrush mix (SO)
Oakbrush (OB)
Pinyon-juniper woodland (PJ)
Total
Acres
r76.2
215.5
49.5
t4.5
r6.7
472.4
%
37.3
45.6
10.4
3.0
3.7
DISTRIBUTION:
a. Aerial: (A)
Tyoe
PJ
OB
Tvpe
IM
SG
SO
ref: CSFS WHAM maPs
All green and dead materials located in the upper forest canopy
inctuding tree branches and crowns, snags, moss and high brush'
b.Surface: (S)
All materials lying on or immediately above the ground including
needles or leaves, duff, small dead wood, downed logs, stumps,
large limbs, low brush, and reproduction.
Acres %
16.7 3.5
14.5 3.0
Acres %
t76.2 37.3
215.5 45.6
49.5 10.4
7
c.Shaded: (S)
Fine dead fuels are UNSHADED (<50%) to solar radiation, or
SHADED(>50%)fromsolarradiation.Thiscanbeduetocloud
cover or canopy cover.
Acres
14.5
16.7
Acres
176.2
215.5
49.5
%
37.3
45.6
10.4
Unshaded: (U)
Fine dead fuels are UNSHADED (<5070)-t9 solar-radiation, or
Sir6;np0%ifi;;otar raaiition. fhis can be due to cloud
cover or canopy cover.
%
3.0
3.5
Tvpe
OB
PJ
IM
SG
SO
Type
NFFL MODEL FTJEL GROUPS:
a. Grass and Grass Dominated @uel Models 1-3)
b. Shrub (Fuel Models 4-7)
c. Timber Litter (Fuel Models 8-10)
d. Slash (Fuel Models 10-13)
NFFL FLIEL MODELS: (FIO
The following NFFL Fuel Models are presqnt within the Ranch at Coulter
Creek PUD area.
Fuel Models (FM): 1,2,4,6
Veg Type
IM
SG
SO
OB
PJ
NFFL Fuel Model Acres
I
2
2t416
4t6
6
8
176.2
215.5
49.5
14.5
t6.7
%
37.2
45.6
10.4
3.0
3.7
o-
A-
CSFS WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS:
CSFS fuel tlpes are classified as O, A, B, C, or X, in order of increasing hazard
potential. Hazard,rating is determined by site specific conditions of fuels, slope
and aspect. The following is a brief description of these $pes:
NO IIAZARD:
No fuels present; eg. water, bare rock, ploughed fields etc'
LOW HAZARD:
Grass, shrubs and brush less than l'; dead wood in contact with gpund 9g
oprrr-rput.d conifers; also includes Aspen, Cottonwood, Willow and
rip*i* habitats, grasslands, meadows and all low brush except Oak, Sage
and Ceanothus.
FIRE BEHAVIOR:
Flames generally under 5" flareups rare and brief; spread generally
slow bui faster with increasing slope and wind (l-40 acres/hl.).
Spotting is rare and short range. Humans can run through front
with relative safety; Burnt area can be occupied in less than l/2 hr.
MEDIUM HAZARD:
Medium density conifers (pine, spruce, fir etc.) with crowns mostly
separated with surface fuels as litter and herbaceous plants, some
reproduction and deadwood on ground.
NOTE: if slash has needles attached (green or red) this category moves to
Class C.
FIRE BEHAVIOR:
Flareups intermittent but often higher than treetops but usually of
short duration; short and medium range spotting conrmon;
behavior between flareups similar to Class A. Front maybe
passable but risky. Burnt area useable after 1/2 hour.
B.
C-HIGd HAZARD. TREES:
Dense conifer (crowns touching).y.{h Toderate-to. heavy surface fuels
,',:.i.it. il;;Ai"r" a;rtiitwitfi "X" - Tlpe tuels in understory, or with
heavy'ired" slash.
FIRE BEHAVIOR:
Flareuos hipher than treetops, frequent; spr_ead up to severali,ff Jd ;;ilili"iF.niimiaisabl^e; spoti tom several hundred
ffiltr 6 6il;*t miies. Eumt arei dntenable for more than I hr.
HIGH HAZARD. BRUSH:
Dense brushy vegetation (not trees), less than l9'' -t"I,.t?ge,9*,
C ;il;thrr,-doniferou Jripio duiti oii or other " o ily'', hi ghly fl ammable
vegetation.
FIRE BEHAYIOR:
*ffi ii:,';;#"'i:t[l:f;1,(igi"::ff Sd:'"1ff:'i'3ffi;iJ*
witt meet or Uiut iii" rites of spiead for California Chaparral. Burnt
at"a utuUt" after 15-30 min.
x-
6.VEGETATION SUMMARY:
Acreage for each Wildfire Hazatd area:
Hazard Area
A
B
C
x
0
Acres
t76.4
263.8
16.6
t5.7
0.0
%
37.3
55.8
3.5
3.3
Closest comparable NFFL fuel model for each Hazard,Area Class within
the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD area:
Hazard Class
A
B
c
x
NFFL FueI Model Acres
t76.4
263.8
t6.6
t5.7
I
21416
6
416
%
37.3
55.8
3.5
3.3
10
veg.
Type
Slope
Class
Hazard
Class
Acres Fuel Model Surface/
Aerial
Shaded/
Unshaded
Sheltered/
Partially Sheltered/
Unsheltered
Wind
Adjustment
Factor
IM I A t76.2 I Surface Unshaded Unsheltered .4
SG I B 214.2 )Surface Shaded Partially sheltered .3
so I B 49.5 21416 Surface Shaded Partially Sheltered .3
OB 1 x 13.5 4t6 Aerial Unshaded Unsheltered .61.4
OB ,x 1.0 4t6 Aerial Unshaded Unsheltered .61.4
PJ I c 14.9 6 Aerial Unshaded Unsheltered .4
PJ ,,c 1.7 6 Aerial Unshaded Unsheltered .4
FT.jELBREAK SUMMARY:
11
C.WEATHER ANALYSIS:
Y"?,H'.f?nE?ffi ?j:*',*}Sffi JH#ii"':Hl',IlT,,l#tr*-1,1?tr{'?$i*ff .li'
following parameters:
1. WORKING SET: Crown RAW Station
t99t -2003
Junel-October3l
WX samples taken between 1:00 & 2:00 P.M. daily
28 day periods averaged
Crown RAWS Station # 051506
. State: Colorado
' CountY: Garfield
. NFDRS Fuel Model: F - Intermediate Brush
. Cover: DwarfMountain Shrub
. ClimateZone: ColoradoRockyMountains
. Elevation: 8303'
' AsPect: 140
. Recorded data since 1991
2.STATION SETTINGS: Crown RAW Station
a
a
a
a
a
Position on slope:
Elevation:
Climate class:
Aspect:
Slope Class:
Green up date:
Earliest freeze date:
Start 1000 hr. F.M.:
Start KBDI:
Cover:
Climate Zone:
Average precipitation:
Midslope
8303'
2 - subhumid
5 - southwesUl4O degrees
2 -26%to 40Yo
511
r0/r5
20%
100
DwarfMountain Shrub
Colorado Rocky Mountain
20"
t2
3.DATA ACQUISITION:
The Fire Family Plus weather/Seasonal Reports/ p:l:g1il: weather/Burning
*#3i:ffi #?:if1mt{"*"gw;m'*:ny8?,'"10";,t?1,?$*'
used:
4.
a
a
a
a
a
Winds: 360 degrees
Percentile: Iow: 0-15, Moderate: 16-89, High: 90-97,Extreme: 98-100
Percent in Class: Low: 15, Moderate: 75, High: 7, Extreme: 3
Median class: Iow: 0-12, Moderate: 13-47,High: 48-E0, Exteme: 81'224
Observations: Low: 359, Moder ate: 1437,High: 319, Extreme: 168
a.20'WIND:
1) Speed:
Moderate: 8.6
Extreme: 11.8
2)Direction:
South (179 degrees)
{V'iJff3,EHll,ii:hi*;1"&Iill?tf 'Y:xllf i,?,Ts3fi lsB"::H'T:llli"?*,
td;a;d; ira[E;;;;Jd;f,.4 ilielitionshipio each oth-er rather tnan ryqgps
*i*x'ffi1Hi3l1:tlll#*sl*:*H:*1t*l1i€ltT,?l"J?fl tlisffi.li'ni
;d;. ffi;;.*i,'i; il"id btthat wheri the I hour tuel moisture content was at a
;;;d G"Cf, "iit "t
r*i" ii*Jlhe temperature and relative humidity were at
certain corresponding levels.
"PJJ:#ril'lg3t3,f$rffi litTqix*"*'3.T"ltill?*3.Hiiili?"#f, ff;,*.",
ii"1'lEotiirffi-ffii," n*iii ai Courteicieek PUD area. The Climatological
pr"Uifiiilt, #;;;d;;;tAri-J7SX *A 3o/o fot "extreme." These indices were then
applied as inputs to ifrIru:tr i[;Fi,ti;64 *ildfue behavior in the two scenarios
of'"moderate-" and "exteme. "
II\DICES:
a
a
l3
.t
b. RELATIVE HUMIDITY:
. Moderate: 45.8
' Extreme (low): 11'08
c. TEMPERATURE (drY bulb):
' Moderate: 66'6
' Extreme (high): 81'4
d. FT'EL CLASSES/TIMELAG:
1) I hour Yo fiel moisture content:
. Moderate: 5.7 %
. Exteme: 2.7 o/o
2) l0 hour Yo fuelmoisture content:
o Moderate: 6.8%
. Exteme: 3.3 %
3) 100 hour %fuelmoisture content:
' Moderate: l0-7 %
. Extreme: 5.5 %
4) 1000 hour %o fuel moisture content:
. Moderate: 13.0 o/o
. ExEeme: 8.3 %
5) Herbaceous fuel moisture content:
. Moderate: 49.4o/o
. Extreme: 33.3%
O Woody fuel moisture content:
. Moderate: 98.4%
. Extreme: 60.00/o
l4
CRITICAL WEATHER SUMMARIES :
^. FIRE WEATHER WATCH DAYS:
#,,{';"ilft#*ffififl;u
pressure zorie prediited for the area for 12 hours or more.
- 23"Red Flaq" Watch clays betrve-en-l989 & lggg for Colorado Fire
rlr.rtii."rZJi. zoo isoJi"L: NWS/Grand Junction office)
b. The Fire Family Plus/TVeather/3vent Locator program was used to gather
the following critical weather summanes:
4)
1)WIND SPEEDS:
= or ( 10 mph:
> l0 mph:
> 15 mph:
2)1 HOUR TIMELAG FT]ELS:
=or<SYo: 44%
> SYo: 44%
3)RELATTVE HUMIDITY:
=or<l1Yo: 19%
> l5o/o:79%
59%
29%
7o/o
CUMULATIVE:
- Fire Farnily Plus weather/Seasonal RepoJtg/ Percentile- w#ffiiii'rffi;tnaiiiModerate"cohditionsoccured;d;;ffi;ttty i6o tim.t a\d "Extreme" conditions
occulreo uppioiirn"iliy 7 times between May I and
October 3I;1991 to 2003.
l5
D.WILDFIRE BEHAVIOR PREDICTIONS :
predicted fire behavior was calculated using the BEHAVE fire rnodeling program with
the following fixed Parameters:
1. BEHAVE INPUTS:
Fuel Models:1,2,4,6
Both "Moderate" and "Extreme" data from Section I., C.r 4.
Slope classes:
CSFSI: 0- 20%
A. 0 - l0%
B. 1l- 20%
CSFS 2: 2O.l - 40%
CSFS 3: Over 40%
Direction of wind vector degrees clocl:rrise from uphill: Sw (0)
Direction of spread calculations degrees cloclorvise from uphill:
Maximum dir'?:ction of sPread (0)
Elapsed time: .5 hrs
Wind driven surface fire
Ridge/valley elevation difference: 400'
Ridge/valley horizontal distance: 2 miles
Spotting location: Midslope, windward side
Total of 66 BEHAVE model "runs"
Slope Class increments:
CSFSI: 0- 20%o:
CSFS 2: 20.1 - 40Yo:
0,5, 10, 15,20
25,30,35,40
16
2.BEHAVE OUTPUTS: (see attachments)
Rate of spread (ROS) (cUh)
Heat per unit area (IIUA) (Btdft2)
Fireline intensity (FD (Btu/ff/s)
Flame length (fL) (ft)
Spotting distance (SPOT) (mi)
Probability of ignition (POD (o/o)
Size (ACRES)
Backing spread distance
Maximum width
Forward spread distance
Length to width ratio
Perimeter
3. BEHAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: MODERATE
HUA FI FL SPOT POI oh ACRES
YEG rM SLOPE ROS
9t 76 3.3 .l 56 26.6
IM I 0 45.3
76 3.3 .1 56 27
IM t 5 45.7 91
3.3 .l 56 28.3
IM I t0 47 91 79
82 3.4 .l 56 30.5
IM I l5 49.2 9l
3.5 .t 56 33.6
IM I 20 s2.3 91 87
494 t27 4.2 I 55 3.2
SG 2 0 14.1
14.2 494 r29 4.2 .1 55 3.3
SG 2 5
134 4.3 .1 55 3.5
SG 2 l0 t4.7 494
141 4.4 .l 55 3.8
SG 2 15 15.5 494
16.8 494 t52 4.5 .2 55 4.2
SG 2 20
SO 21416
17
F'I FL SPOT POt%ACRES
VEG FM SLOPE ROS HUA
3847 20.1 .4 56 61.8
OB 4 0 79.4 2644
3862 20.1 .4 56 62.1
OB 4 5 79.7 2644
80.6 2644 3905 20.2 .4 56 63.2
OB 4 10
20.4 .4 56 64.9
OB 4 l5 82.0 2644 3976
84.1 2644 4076 20.6 .4 56 67.3
OB 4 20
2644 4205 20.9 .4 s6 70.4
OB 4 25 86.8
4363 21.3 .4 s6 74.3
OB 4 30 90.0 2644
93.9 2644 4549 21.7 .4 56 79.0
OB 4 35
2644 4763 22.1 .4 56 84.5
OB 4 40 98.3
475 186 5.0 .2 56 s.8
PJ 6 0 21.3
187 5.0 .2 56 5.9
PJ 6 5 2t.5 475
21.8 475 190 5.0 .2 56 6.0
PJ 6 l0
475 196 5.1 .2 56 6.3
PJ 6 l5 22.5
PJ 6 20 23.4 475 204 5.2 .2 56 6.7
475 214 5.3 .2 56 7.1
PJ 6 25 24.5
PJ 6 30 2s.9 475 226 5.4 .2 56 7.7
PJ 6 35 27.6 475 240 5.6 .2 56 t.5
PJ 6 40 29.5 475 257 5.8 )56 9.3
4.BEIIAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: EXTREME
FI FL SPOT POlo/o ACRES
VEG FM SLOPE ROS HUA
5.3 .2 92 r24.7IMI0l10.2 106 2t5
216 5.3 .2 92 125.8IMI5110.8 r06
219 5.4 .2 92 r29.0IMIt0r12.5 r06
225 5.4 .2 92 134.4IMIl5115.3 r06
IM I 20 r 19.3 106 232 5.5 .2 92 t42.2
l8
FL SPOT POlo/o ACRES
VEG FM SLOPE ROS HUA FI
SG 2 0 31.9 576 337 6.5 .2 90 12.9
SG 2 5 32.2 576 340 6.6 .2 90 13.1
576 347 6.6 .2 90 13.5
SG 2 l0 32.8
SG 2 l5 34.0 576 359 6.7 .2 90 14.2
SG 2 20 35.6 576 376 6.9 .2 90 r5.3
SO 21416
OB 4 0 203.9 3239 r2109 34.0 .8 92 325.6
OB 4 5 204.4 3239 12138 43.0 .8 92 326.8
OB 4 l0 205.9 3239 12226 34.t .8 92 330.2
OB 4 l5 208.3 3239 12372 34.3 .8 92 335.9
OB 4 20 211.8 3239 t2577 34.6 .8 92 344.0
OB 4 25 216.2 3239 t2841 34.9 .8 92 354.4
OB 4 30 221.7 3239 13163 35.3 .8 92 367.3
OB 4 35 228.1 3239 t35M 35.8 .8 92 382.7
OB 4 40 235.5 3239 13984 36.3 .8 92 400.8
PJ 6 0 43.9 s82 469 7.6 -.3 92 19.7
PJ 6 5 44.0 582 470 7.6 .3 92 19.8
PJ 6 10 44.6 s82 476 7.7 .3 92 20.r
PJ 6 15 45.4 582 M85 7.7 .3 92 20.7
PJ 6 20 46.7 582 498 7.8 .3 92 2r.5
PJ 6 25 48.2 582 515 8.0 .3 92 22.6
PJ 6 30 50.2 s82 s36 8.1 .3 92 2.9
PJ 6 35 s2.5 582 560 8.3 .3 92 25.5
PJ 6 40 55.1 582 588 8.5 .3 92 27.3
r9
E.
BEHAVE OUTPUTS, CONCLUSIONS:
Of the five basic fuel types present within the Ranch at Coulter Creek
pUD, oak Brush (OgiiueiN,Iodel4 and Pinion/Juniper (PJ) Fuel Model6
generate the highest values and most severe fire behavior. Based upon
these fire behavior predictions, reductions in fuel loading through
vegetation modification is required to ensure that the proposed mitigation
alternatives will be adequate.
FI.]EL LOAD REDUCTION:
NFFL Fuel Models are determined in part not only by the tlpe of fuel but by the amotrnt
of fuel as defined as Fuel Load and measures in tons per acre.
By implementing vegetation modification techniques identified in the Ranch at Coulter
Cieek Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan, the overall fuel loading of the affected area can
be reduced, the structure of the fuel altered and the vertic.al & horizontal continuity of the
fuel broken thus affecting the predicted wildfire behavior.
kr this way the NFFL fuel models used to predict wildfire behavior change in the
following manner:
Fuel Models
Prior to vegetation
modification
l(tr\d)
2 (SG)
4 (oB)
6 (PI)
remarns a
remains a
becomes a
becomes a
After vegetation
modification
l(M)
2 (SG)
2 (sG)
2 (SG)
After implementing vegetation modification measures, the highest values and most severe
predicted fire behavior are generated from the Sagebrush (SG) Fuel Model2 vegetation
qPe.
20
RESIDENCY TIME (RT):
,,Residency time" sometimes called "exposure time" is the time that the passing flame
front of a ire',resides" at a given locatitn. In this case a structure. Using the highest
values and most severe predlcted fire behavior generated after fuel load reduction has
been implemente.d througtr vegetation modificaiion, the residency time maybe-estimated
using the Sagebrush (SG) FuelModel 2. With a maximum square footage of 12000 sq' ft'
allowed in the Ranctr.at 6oulter Creek PUD, estimating a single story structre's footprint
of 110' x 110' and incorporating the required 15' defensible space around the structure,
the following residencyL, r*poirte times maybe estimated for the flame front of a
wildfire passing bY a structure
The heat generated by the passing flame front is measured as Heat per Unit Area ([IUA)
in BTUs. Combining the amouniof time a structure is exposed (RT) with the amount of
heat generated by th-e passing flame front (HUA) the ignition resistant conshtction
required to withstand ihe heat generated UV ttre passing flame front may be estimated'
1. BEHAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: MODERATE
BEHAVE OUTPUTS SUMMARY: EXTREME
RT/min @140'FL HUAVEGFMSLOPEROS(ch/hr)RoS(fUhr)ROS(fUmin)
9.0 4.2 494
SG 2 0 t4.l 930.6 1s.5
15.6 8.9 4.2 494
SG 2 5 14.2 937.2
SG 2 10 t4.7 970.2 16.1 8.7 4.3 494
SG 2 15 15.5 1023.0 17.0 8.2 4.4 494
SG 2 20 16.8 1108.8 18.4 7.6 4.5 494
VEG FM SLOPE ROS(ch/hr)ROS(fUhr)ROS(fUmin)RT/min @140'FI,HUA
SG 2 0 31.9 2105.4 35.1 4.0 6.5 576
SG 2 5 32.2 2t25.2 35.4 3.9 6.6 576
SG 2 l0 32.8 2164.8 36.r 3.8 6.6 576
SG 2 15 34.0 2244.0 37.4 3.7 6.7 576
SG 2 20 35.6 2349.6 39.1 3.5 6.9 576
2t
G. FIRE HISTORY:
. Fire history was compiled using the data from the Fire Family fl-ulnrgfam using both
the USFS R.gion 2, lVtrite Ri; National Forest, Aspen, Sopris,-Eagle' and Rifle Ranger
Districts and the colorado BllvfGrand Junction District data collected between 1985 and
2003.
b.
Fire months:
- Peak month(s): June 1 - October 3l (90%)
Fires:
- 2030 (198s-2003)
Fire Size:
67% 0 -ll{acres
2l% ll4 - l0 acres
07% l0 - 50 acres
05o/o > 50 acres
Fire Cause:
79% lightdng
6% CamPfires
15% Other
Slope Class:
- Moderate:
22
f. Fires:
A. Battlement Mesa # I (lives lost)
B. Battlement Mesa # 2, 1982, 4098 acres, (struitures lost)
C. South Canyon, 1994,2115 acres, (lives lost)
D. Battlement Mesa # 3, 1998, 25 acres, (stuctures lost)
E. West SoPris Creek, 1991, 86 acres
F. Coal Seam ,2002, 12,209 acres (stnrctures lost)
G. Spring Creek, 2002,13,493 acres
H. ThomPson Creek, 2002,171 acres
I. Spring ValleY
J. McNultY Ranch x 2
K. Elk SPrings Ranch x 2
L. Hawk Ridge x 2
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the analysis of the wildfire hazards associated with the Ranch at Coulter Creek
pUD, through the combination, aggregation and implementation of the wildfire hazatd
mitigation *r"r*es outlined in the Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire HazardMitigation
phn]the wildfire hazards associated with the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD maybe
appropriately mitigated. These mitigation measures are based upon the historical case
s.enarios *utpra i, the Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire HazardAnalpis as well as
codes standards outlined in the List of Standards provided by Carbondale & Rural Fire
protection District. It is acknowledged that there exists a set of environmental
circumstance that could overwhelm these mitigation measures and that these measures
may not be adequate to prevent or minimize the loss of life and/or properly. Analpis of
the fire history of *rr surroundin g areademonstrates these occasions have arisen in the
past.
Any deviation from or failure to comply with the mitigation alternatives outlined in the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire HazardMitigation Plan could result in the loss of life
and property. It is also acknowledged that compliance with the terms outlined in the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan does not in anyway guarantee
preventing or minimizing the loss of life and/or property.
23
RANCHAT COULTERCREEK
PRELIMINARY
WILDFIRE IflAZARD MITIGATIOI{ PLAN
4t23t03
PREPARED FOR:
Snowmass Land Company
21 Burnt Mountain Circle
P.O. Box 6119
Snowmass Villagg CO 81615
PREPARED BY:
Crockett & Associates
460 Barnard Park Court
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-2890
Fax: (970)-925-2831
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE #
u.
IIL
rv.
v.
vI.
GENERAL INFORMATION
A. LOCATION
B. SIZE/DESCRIPTION
WILDFIRE IIAZARD MITIGATION PLA,I\
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
SCOPE
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
t
9
10
10
11
WILDFIRE HAZARD AI.IALYSIS
WILDFIRE HAZARD ]VIITIGATION
6.1 ACCESS
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
A- DEFINITIONS
B. DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
C. ROADWAY STAI\DARDS
D. CI'L.DE-SAC STAI'.DARDS
E. TURNAROUND STAI\DARDS
F. INTERSECTION STANDARDS
G. HAMMERIIEAD STAI{DARDS
WATER SUPPLY
BUILDING LOCATION/PLACEMENT
BUILDING DESIGN AND MATERIALS
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
A. DEFENSIBLE SPACE
B. FI.IELBREAIG
C. FIREBREAKS
D. SAFETY ZONES
E. MODIFICATION
F. MAINTENAI\CE
G. ENFORCEMENT
6.6 UTILITIES
6.7 SPARK ARRESTORS
6.8 LIQLTTFIED PETROLEUM GAS
6.9 IGMTION SOURCES
6.10 COMBUSTIBLEMATERIALS STORAGE
6.IICoMPLIANCEALTERNATIVES/ENFoRCEMENT-
6.12 MISCELLAI\EOUS
VIL DISCLAIMER
11
11
t2
t2
t2
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
l4
ATTACHMENTS:
. List of Standards. ffi* ,i Cruiter Creek Open Burning Restrictions
. Wildfire HazatilAnalYsis' ' I""' y;:ffiirt",TForest service wildrire Area Hazard Maps:
' SIoPe Class
' Vegetation. WHAM. Fuelbreaks
:"""[i]1 ,*r*,
I.
II.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
A. LOCATION:
The Ranch at coulter creek Planned Unit Developrye!! quD) is a 480(+/-) acre
oarcel locatei in C.rfifa County in the Roaring Fork Valley, Missouri {gigtlf"#;;ril;;6it[St":t niettr,iuv 82. The pro-perty lieg approximatelv five (5)
*it"r "ortt
eaJofthea;*" oicar'5ondale, ioloiado. f;mary aglesi tqr the
i;;;p;rty il ri;-Si;tr Higtrlvay.az to Garfield 9oryty Road 100 (Catherine's Store
'n"iajtt C";ryR;;d irs. Att"*ate access is via CountyRoad ll3 (Cattle
Creek) to CountYRoad 115.
The property 1ies south of County Roug I l5_and is bordered to the Nort! by .
i"rrityh"rialiS, to the west an-d south by-BLM administered lands and to the
."riUVprir"t;ili.rty. The property sits-above and to the northeast of the Cattle
Crl"titft"inagiana to the we-st oithe Panorama subdivision.
Approximately one half ofthe propos.e{ lots arq ryithin the Carbondale and Rural
FiiE protecti;; Diffi;t *itt t# rerhaining lots lying outside of any fire protection
district.
B. SIZE/DESCRIPTION:
The project consists of approximat4y 480 (+/-) acres of private pJoPgrly gi$ng on
"-f-*E"
6"".fr-"Uori C;tti; Creek. The terrain consists o-f mostlyflatlo rolling
*"ufio*r oflor than2}% slopes with orie distinct knoll on the southeast corner
oittt
"
prop"t V. fnr vegetatiori is p-redominantly irrigated meadows of,cheat grass
*a trig.tr.iio""of salebrush with moderate to aense stands and pockets of
Oakbru-sh and Pinion/Juniper scattered throughout the property.
The development proposes 26 6 acre (+/-) lots of single farnily !om3s clustered
*A rprrua'utong the iouthwest to soudheast border of the_p1_operty above the
Cattl6 Crr"t ar"I""ge covering a total of approximately ISS acres. The reurainder
of the property is proposed as open space.
The lots are accessed via a primary loopedroad from County Road I 15 with cul-
de-sacs branching offto aciess clusters of individual lots'
WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAIY:
The Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire HazudMitigation Plan and companion Vfildfire
H;;tA"Jyrli, proridr information and directioir for review agencies andjnterested
purti6 * tofir nitor., type and amount of wildfire hazud associated with the Ranch at
^Coulter Creek PIJO as'wdll as the means by which the hazard may be mitigated.
The WildfireEazardMitigation Plan is part of and an essential component to the Ranch
at Coulter Creek PUD development.
The Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a level of detail sufficient to demonstate
tt r *i"iiorrt ip *aiontin"uity t"nurdn the severity of the wildfire hazud and the specific
measures necessary to appropriately mitigate the hazwd.
III.
IV.
v.
vI.
In this way, the review agencies and intere-sted parties are provided with the necessary
ura r"quii"a informaiionTnte-eral to identifying ana implementing the essen'.ial :neasures
il;,ili;6i;;p;;t"it *iiieit. the wildfiie iazardasiociated with the Ranch at Coulter
Creek PUD.
The Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) assign the statutory responsibillry.for wildfire to
the county Sheriff. Although county Sheriffs have the statutory/lunsdtcttonal
responsibility for *ildd;They qlplcatly have limited functional capability. Local Fire
irtiection Districts bpically tiave ttre functional capability and coordinate thetr response
;ir;Ei;;a;ifl, th;'6ffiti Strerifrtmough coopeiative igrge4ents..As aresult the
actualburden of witairri-suiprriiio, on pilvate iroperty typically falls upon local fire
protection districts.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
The pumose of the Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire HazardMitigation Plan is.to set forth
itl rl*ir Uv;hi;h th;;ianrr hazards will be mitigated..The standards ofmitigation
;; ;i fbrtt 'in tt e r*iort codes and guidelines contained in the List of Guidelines,
Codes & Standards prouiaea tV tt r C'arbondale & Rural Fire Protection Distict which
are attachments to this document.
SCOPE:
The scope of this plan shall encompass wildfire hazxdmitigation including b.yt not
iir"it.a to water supply, access and vegetation managellent measures within the
geographic boundariei of the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD.
WILDFIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS:
The analysis of the wildfire hazards associated with the Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD is
r"nt"ipt in the attached Ranch at Coulter Creek Wildfire HazudAnalysis which is an
"rr""iirf "o*porr"rrt
of tte Wildfire HazardYtjdguliqlPlan. The wildfiie hazatd analysis
iirfiio q-"*iittil scope and magnitude of the wildfire hazard associated with the
development and lay a fdundation iom whence appropriate mitigation measures ane
developed.
WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION:
Based on the analysis of the wildfire hazard associated with the Ranoh at Coulter Creek
FUD;;{ tt";rg[ the iombination, aggregg!1on and implementation of the following
*ifanirnLrra rf,itigation measures, tEE witafre hazardi associated with the Ranch at
Corii.r Creek puD"mav be appropriately mitigated. These measures are based u-pop tle
historical case scenario'anatyiii ai outliried in the HazardAnalysis.Itis acknowledged
that there exists a set of environmental circumstance that could overwhelm these
*iiig"ii* measures and that these measurgs- mqy not be adequate to prevent or minimize
itir t6.r of life and/or property. Analysis of the fire history of the surrounding area
demonstrates these oc-casions have arisen in the past.
In the event where due to a variety of physical constraints associated with the plqPe{y
and not all of the standards can b6 mei iri all circumstances, an appropriate combination
of *itig"iion atiernatires for these specific areas will be determin-e{.oq. site specific
basis b! the appropriate review agencies and approved by the fire chief.
The following is a list of wildfire mitigation standards for development of the Ranch at
Coulter Creek PUD.
6.1 ACCESS: (ref. attached Water & Access Map)
Roads and Driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the following
standards as depicted on the attached Water & Access Map and the following
standards:
A. ROAD & DRTVEWAY DEFINITIONS:
APPROVED:
Approve by the Fire Chief.
DRIYEWAY:
A means of vehicular access from a roadway serving not greater
than one lot.
SHARED DRTVEWAY:
A means of vehicular access from a roadway serving not greater
than three lots.
ROADWAY:
A means of vehicular access senring more than three lots.
DEAD EITID:
Roadway greater than 150'in length without an approved
turnaround @ the end.
CUL-DE-SAC:
Roadway with an approved turnaround @ the end.
B. DRIYEWAY STANDA,RDS:
All residences shall be served by a driveway.
Driveways shall serve no more than 3 lots.
Driveways serving single lots shall have not less than 16'wide all
weather driving surface.
Shared driveways serving 2 to 3lots shall have not less than 24'
wide all weather driving surface.
Driveways shall have not less than 15'vertical clearance.
Driveways shall have not greater than 10% grade.
Driveway curye radius shall not be less than 50'at centerline.
Driveways gredter than 150'in length shall have an approved
tumaround orhammerhead at the end.
Turnarounds/hammerheads at the end of driveways shall be within
50'of the structure.10. Turnarounds shall meet "Turnaround Standards."11. Hammerheads shall meet "Hammerhead Standards."12. Driveway/roadwayintersections shall meet "Intersection Standards."13. Fuelbreak vegetation management shall be incorporated into
driveways in accordance with Section 6.5 of this plan.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
C.ROADWAY STANDARDS:
D.
E.
F.
1.
2.
3.
4.
!.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Roadway specifications shall apply if roadway serves greater than
3 lots.
itoua*rr. shall have not less than12'wide all weather driving
iurface (does not include shoulders)'
i;;il"y, ,t Af t u* noi t*. thani'wide all weather drivable
surface ihoulders on each side'
il;a;;t shall have not less than 15'vertical clearance'
ii;;e;;i,; ihall have not greater than l0% grade'
Roadway curue radius shall not be less than 65'at center me.
Dead end roaOwayslir;fftd 150'in length shall have an approved
turnaround at the end.
il;d-ild ;o"a*"ys gr"ater than 600' shall meet "Cul-de-Sac
Standards.'ilfi;intersections shall meet "Intersection Standards."
i-r,mar;ilds shall meet "Turnaround Standards"'
ffiirq;.k r.i"tution managemen! shall be incomorated into
roadwavs A to*rro*ir in?.ora*ce with Seciion 6.5 of this plan'
i;;;A-.h;ll ;A "Safetv Zone Standar{s'l for vegetation
;;E;il in accordance wilh Section 6'5 of this plan'
CI]L-DE.SAC STAI\DAXIDS :
1. Dead end roadways greater than 600'shall conform to Cul-de-Sac
Standards.2. ffi "rlorafl cul-de-sacs shall be provide.*itq turnaround at the
"",i!i;ri"g.u *iti*rr* outside tumle radius of 45' and a
mCI(lmum rnside trlming radius of 30"
3. Dead end r"ra*"Vr S"":ter than 600'shall have tumarounds spaced
not greater than every q00'' .4. Final Tum.ro*a fo6"tion shall be app_roved bylhe Fire Chief.
S: Cot-ar-S""tioua*"loshallmeetali'B.oadwayStandards."
TURNAROI.]ND STAITIDARDS :
A circle with an all weather driving surface of not less than 45'outside
iuaiu. and not greater than 30' insiEe radius per the attached detail'
INTERSECTION STANDARDS:
Driveway/Roadway intersections shal! be within-7 degrees of
try"*fJi:]Trllnt,
."tt shall the inside tum radius be less than 30'per
HA]VIMERHEAD STAIYDARDS :
A Hammerhead shall not be less wide than the road it serves and not less
it*?b- ut.ss the top of the T per the attached detail'
6.2 WATER SUPPLY: (ref. attached Water & Access Map)
water suoplv. as depicted on the attached water & Access Map, shall be designed
;A';ffiil[JtLa in J."ordance with the following standards:
A. The following construction standards shall be adhered to in order to
determine and meet ttre tnsurance Sirvices Offices (IqO) N99$ea fire
fi."i;irq:ri*.ents necessary to qualiff for an ISO rating of Class 5:
l.sjngleandtwofamilydrvellingsnotgeaterthan12000squarefeetin
Z. ilSSiarnti4 structures shall not be greater than 2 stories in height (25)'
3. Occupancy Class 7, Construction Class l'
4i. stnrc'nres shall be separated by no less than 100'.
5. All;;;;r.dlotr srrait ue wittrln.five (5) drivine miles from the
c*#;fi i;&"il;iFirr-pi"t".ii""bliirirtMiisouriHeights
Substation ^ ^ --.c^r'6. nooiloi"rings shall be construcle$ qer.section 6.4, Av3, aof this
pi"r" tno woo?-or--treated shake/shingles) . .7. 611 il;iu"ei iltuu ur p."iala with-a sfrir*ter systems acgording
to NFPA 13D.
B. The following standards shall apply to water supply and distibution:
1. Structures located on Lots 1, l1 - |7,23 - ?9 &Ranch House shall
ue w-iiilii-OO0;;1; hrdfi tirat flows a minimum of 500 gpm'120
psi.residualpressure'- .^ 16 Ar -r-2. Structures located on Lots 2 - 10,1!-- 21 shall be within 600'of a
hydrant that flows a minimum of 500 9PP:.3. fir"tvar*ts shall have a maximum o-ft2gpsi 91"ti:Pt-.Hy:.q. Final hre hydrant location shall.be a.9n1ov9d bV tnei1ry 9-T!l:*5. Looped water systems tt uf G inttailld where ptrylital & feasible'
G:. Yeai around Fiie Departnent access shall be provided Wdry
f,var."ti p;; i\rFPl i23 f ioi .ti t*face waterThelcopter dip sitc
sources.
BUILDING LOCATION/PLACEMENT:
A Buildings and structures shall be located in the following manner:
6.3
1.
2.
3.
Avoiding draws, canyons, gullies, ridge tops, chimneys' saddles or
slooes preater than 30%
S;ff;.fl!-*irir** of 130'from the top o{-4" slope orridge. ..
G b;;k hom the "ieit of the proposed'buiLdlng envelopes and/or
iot lines to ensure adEquate rooin for defensible space requirements
per Section 6.4, A,2 of this Plan."dililtiiltft T;tdura fF.gg,ent shall be reviewed bv the
CSFS and ap[roved by the Fire Chief'
6.4 BUILDING DESIGN AND MATERIALS:
A. Building design and materials shall be conform with the CSFS Firewise
Constructil;T;G; a.oa U"t.rials guidellnes'p well as IFCI 2000
ah[i.; i sffii;i};iaing gonstruition Regulations with the
iotlolving amlendments/modifi cations :
1. IFCI2OOO SECTION 502 - FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ShAII
be amended to read as follows:
a. The initial Fire Hazard Severity sh{-l.be determined from
tti-C-SfS nanch at Coulter Cr6ek Wildfire HazatdAreas
Mu* ptior to building permit applicatiolU afnal -il5#;;ii"n orurto.T Site specifrc wildfire hazards shall
;;;a;bt the CSFS and apfroved bv the Fire Chief'
9
B.
IFCI 2OOO SECTION 503 .IGNITION-RESISTAIYT
CoNSinuCuoN shall be amended to read as follows:
a. IFCI Table 503.1 equivalent conversions shall be IFCI
niardClassificati6n to CSFS Wildfire Hazard
Classification as follows:
IFCI Moderate : CSFS A: Low Hazud
Fai High = CSFS B: Medium Hazlrd
IFCI ExLeme = CSFS C or X: Severe Hazard
b ;:""#!"#yfi,i,ffffir3F'ea?::;i'ffilL3ffB*.l:#,"
7,ones no. 6.302 Standards'
c.,,Nonconforming"Defensiblespacerequirementsshallnot
be less than 75'fer the CSFS Creating Wildfire-
Defensible Zon-es no. 6.302 Standards'
3. IFCI2000 SECTIONS 504.2,505.2 & 506.2Roof covering
a. In no case shall the roof covering (exposgd roof st[face) be
constructed of wood or treated wobalna*es or shingles
material. Flat roofs shall not be allowed'
Final determination of Building Design and Materials shall be rariewed by
the CSFS and approved by the Fire Chief.
6.5 VEGETATION MANAGE]\{ENT:
Based on the analysis of the wildfire hazard associated with the Ranch at coulter
Creek pUD area, tnr foifo*i"g ""i.t"tion r*ugtment will be necessary in order
to appropriately mitigate the hazatd.
A. DEFENSIBLE SPACE:
1. In order to alter the structure of the fuels, !tt* up th9 vertical and
horizontal continuity, and reduce the fuel loading,-defenstble space
vegetation management essential to achieve "stand alone stnrctures"
rniff Url".orpot;t.a aroun{q! buildings and structures in areas
iaentiirea on iG attached CSFS Ranch it Coulter Creek Wildfire
n-nd ati. (wUeM) Maps as A - !4wlazard-,-B - Medium
ffazara,-C --SL*r. tlkarai Trees or X - Severe Hazatd: Brush.
2. Defensible space vegetation management shall be in accordance
witfrihe ierris outlii'ed in this plan and the CSFS Firewise
Cooriru"iion oesign And Miterials guidelines as well as IFCI
2000 Sectioo OOf -befensible Space *ittr ttre following
amendmentVmodi fi cations :
- IFCI Table 603.2 shall be substituted with the csFs creating
Witanre-Oefensible Zones no. 6.302 Standards'
3. Brush, debris and non'ornamental, flammable vegetation shall pe
removed within a l5'perimeter around the stnrcture measured trom
the outside edge of thi structures'eaves and any attached
structures, decks, overhangs etc'
4. Ornamental "frre wise" vegetation within the 15'perimeter of a.
structure dnon-combustible exterior siding shall not be planted
beneath windows or next to vents'
S. Weeds and grasses within the 15'perimeter shall be maintained to
a height not more than 6".
6. All branches which extend over the roof eaves'shall be tknrned
;a;ii-b6;hei within 15'of the chimneys shall be removed.
7. All stressed, diseased, dead or dying fiees, brush & shnrbs within
the defensible space area shall be removed'
8. Vegetation management within the building envelopes shall be
pe#ormed prior to the start of construction'
g. Final defensible space vegetation managgmgnt alternatives shall be
teriJ*ed by the CSFS anE approved by the Fire Chief'
l0
B.FUELBREAKS:
D. SAFETY ZONES:
1.In order to alter the structure of the fuels, break up lhe.vertical and
iliri'r"ii "i "ontirritv,-and
reduce the fuel loa-drng' fuelbreak
vesetation.*"g.ri.ni tf,"U t" incorporated adiacent to and
;;ilfiffi'*itii?ouar and driveways within areis identified on the
ffi;1il;bsi3]ialr.h at Coulter Creek wildfire Hazard Ar-ea --. -
ifiiriAiliB - M;i;-#;4,-c - nier, Hazard: rrees or X - Hieh
Hazard: Brush.
Approximat ely 13624' of road may require some degree of
fu eibreak vegetation management'
Fuelbreak vegetation management shall be in accordance with the
L?*r'Jrtiir."a i, itiii ptan ilra the guidelines listed in the
iil;i-b;;[boio.rio.-rForForest[aSuUaivisiolsbyFrankb;;ir, C;loi"ao St"te Forest service, co!91{o slatg
Universitv, 1983 ,ra in. CSFS Creating Wildlire-Defensible
Zones no. 6.loz Standards.
Fuelbreak vegetation manlge.ment shall be performed in
ililffi;" 6itt, road and ilriveway constnrction
Final fuelbreak vegetation management alternatives shall be
ilffi;ily tlr; CSFS and appro-ved bv the Fire Chief'
1.
3.
5.
c.FIREBREAI(S:
l. Approximately 4 miles of 26, wide mineral srrrface roadways 3s
well as tfre iidi"iauaiiO;*ia" mineral surface driveways shall
serye as firebreaks'
al;'#,l?;:H,*:,;Hffi.:,:leye,:lili;ffi"flffia$-'
vegetation management shall be- incorpc
Roadwav T.o*rro*Ir i" *.ota*"e *itt, the terms outlined in
i#;i#;d ifi; s;ftry Zone Guidelines 3s specified in the
itw'CC focident Resfonse Pocket Guide'
safety zonevegetation management shall be incomorated adjace'nt
to and contiguous *itfr ioaa*iytutnarounds withiir areas identified
;; th; ;t6;E;d Csr$ii*tt, aicoutter Creek wildfire Eazard
ei*iwiiart'rl Maps * a - r,* H11ud,P:M{i* HazarE C''S;;; H;rra1 rt.Lt or X - Severe Hazard: Brush'
Approximately l4 turnarounds may require some degree ofsafety
zorie vegetation management.
Safetv Zonevegetation management shall be performed in
;;ilffti", wiih road and drivewayconstruction'
Final Safety Zonevegetation management alternatives shall be
ili?w;;-b'y tr,t-csrS and approvd uv the Fire Chief'
1l
VEGETATION MODIFICATION:
1. Defensible Space, Fuelbreak and Safety Zonevegetation shall be
modified i" i"l"ih*"" *iit the standards listed in this plan.
2. Vegetation modification ryetho-d;,*1y-'l:ly^*-b-*1"* be limited to
a single or combination of the following alternauves:
a. Removal
b. Reductionc. RePlacement
3.Methodswithwhichtheve.getationmodificalionwillbe
"."o-*piitt;;"y ilrii,de.Sut not be limited to a single or
"ot Uiirution of the following alternatives:
a. Biologicalb. Chemicalc. Mechanicald. iilliil G;placement Mless hazardous vegetation)
4- H:ff,Tf$.lt'#J*I fJ,]:$#gii'#?t3ffi:tsha,
be
5. Actual vegetation modification to meet the standards set forth in
thisplanmaynotbenecessarywherethenaturalvegetation
ii"ttJri" t
"16 "fii"ay
rufilled the specified conditions.
MAINTENAITICE:
1. Defensible SPace:
hitialaswellascontinuedmaintenanceofthe-de@9iblg.spry9
vesetation ;;";rd;d;pli*.i *itt, the standards listed in this
pfii;h"li bJ tht ,ttponsiuitity of the landowner'
2. Fuelbreaks:
Initial as well as continued maintenance of the'fuelbreak vegetation
to ensure ;;plfi;; *itt tt. ii*affar fisted i"_!rir plan shall be
the responsiLi[ity of the Ranch at coulter creek Homeowners
Association.
3. SafetY Zones:
Maintenance of the safety zone vegetation to ensure compliance-
with the ,ti,ra*iilirtlai, ttii plfi: shall be the.responsibility of
, the Ranch ;C;l6dtttt Ho'i'towners Association'
ENFORCEMENT:
l.Enforcementofcompliancewiththeterms,conditionsand
standards fi #iffi;a tontinu"a maintenance of the ve-getation
.*rgrro.ii i. ",itji""a
in t[iiptan shall be the responsibility of
the Fire Chief.
F.
G.
t2
6.6 UTILITIES:
All utilities will be underground'
6.7 SPARK ARRESTORS:
ChimneysshallbeinconformancewithlFClsection605.
6.8 LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS:
BulkLiquifiedPetroleumGascontainersshallbeburiedbelowgroundinan
approvedl container.
6.9 IGNITION SOURCES:
*,Htii"f ,xH"p,tf:iY#gr6i"xg*1;iT,?x3:tflJ[Hl#:il#ffi
adopted bY the Fire Chief'
6.10 COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS STORAGE:
All firewood, combustible and flammable materials shall not be stored in
unenclosed;;;; #;;;th uuitaingt or structures' or on decks or under eaves'
;;il;;;;1,"t(!prJjJl!idri"-i";;'r,angs. Firewood shall be stored on a contour
a muumum of 30' away from -;;ilift *a * flammable vegetation removed
within a l0'horizontal and 15'vertical penmeter'
6.IICoMPLIANCEALTERNATIVES/ENFoRCEMENT:
Compliance, enforcement and a.ltematives to this plan shall be administered bythe
Fire Chief.
6.12 MISCELLAI'{EOUS:
1. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris'
2, Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris'
3. Pools/ponds shall be accessible to fire departrnent vehicles'
4. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris'
5.Woodfencesshallnotconnecttothestnrctures.
6. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same
standards as stnrctures.
7. Fuel storage tanks shall be installed underground and in an approved
container.
t3
9.
10.
propane tanks shall be installed according t-".N^FP{18 standards and on a
contour away rrom th.;;;G. w/standid defensible sp.ace vegetation.
m'*#::r,mltl"Ji*H*m,rux*;'#:iH:#,?Hj,*'*nit oiiion on the exterior side of the walls'
Each structure shall have a minimum of one l0 lb' ABC fire extingUisher'
Address shall be clearly marked and visible according to NFPA 299
standards installed;;;ffi-;o*UritiUtt post and sign as reviewed and
approved by the Fire Chief.
VII. DISCLAIMER:
Based on the analysis of the wildfire hazards associated with the Ranch at Coulter Creek
l*HHiHrTJ,'ffi :ffi Hffi ffi :T1,t1;il3Ju1;lt:i6liryit'utffi ,
plan, the *ilJn . rrL*,ir "rroCi"Gd*itt
1t. Ranch at Coulter Creek PUD maybe
'"ppilp:i.t"rvi"iii-d?trq.
T;re mitisation measures are based upon the historical case
scenanos analyzedin the n*.rr'"i Eoritrr G*k *ilafirt LlazudAnalysig T *eJl-?s
codes ,t*a"?'i, "itii"iiinI#ffi-"f st;J-*d; pr*ided by carbondaie & R,ral Fire
protection Distict. It is acknowGaliiit "t
there ixists a seiof environmental
circumstanr;th;i;;ia o"rr*t .tfrthese.mitigation measures and that these measures
may not be adequate to prevent "i-i"i*ir" th"e loss of nft and/o.r prgpertv. Analysis of
the fire r,i"i.vli?ii:"#;;ei# ur"" ai*onstrates these occasiois have arisen in the
Past.
Any deviation from or failure to complywith the mitieation altematives outlined in the
Ranch at coulter creek wildfire-IiiliaMitig.iion Pian could result in the loss of life
ffif, fr #i*S};:ilf;fi*[',1*mU;ru'#ffi E#t'};,[lgfiT'##fr fi**
pr"l"."ting or minimizing the loss of life and/or property.
It is also acknowledged that it is not the responsibility of Crockett and Associates to
inform p*d;;;tir;;it* tr,t S;;;;;;ffid.C"r.rpinv of the wildfire hazards or
mitigation alternatives proposed-hei"io- "soiirteahittr
the Ranch at-Coulter Creck PUD'
In addition, it is acknowledged that it is not the r-espolqibility of Crockett & Associates to
ensure i*prt*tntutio";f a;d c;;;iLtt: *iit' tt^*tlq1l'l-Ttggtt outlined in the
Wildfire HazardMitigation Plan for the Ranch at Coulter UreeK rull'
t4
ATTACHMENTS:
. List of Standards. n*"tr;icilt", creek open Burning Restrictions
. Wildfire HazafiAnalYsis' I""' y;:T*lJ,T&"rest Service wildfire Area Hazard Maps:
' SloPe Class
' Vegetation
. Detailsi Fuelbreaks
' Tumaround. Hammerhead. Intersection
15
LIST OF STANDARDS
The following is a list of applor"q Industry Standards referenced as standards in
developing the nanc-h "iC'.,irit.t
Creek Ptiltrildf,i. ff-*a Mitigation and Vegetation
Management Plan.
- Colorado State Forest Senrice:
- CSFS DrivewaY Standards
.CSFSCreatingWildfire-DefensibleZonesno.6.302
- CSFS Defensible Space Thinning Standards
.CsFsFirewiseConstructionDesignAndMaterials
- Fuelbreak Guidelines For Forested Subdivisions bv Frank Dennis'
Colorado State Forest SiliA a;loruao Siutt University' 1983
- wildfire safety: Model Regulations For Protectine People And Homes
From Wildfire rn Suuai"ili#; A"e Di;Ll'opmenti bv Ronald t' Zetenv
CSfS *tZf-OSgg, Revised APril' 1988
- Notes of conversation with Ron z. on ll2llg2 Regarding 1041 by John
Deniort CSfS, Grand Junction Disfiict Forester
- CSFS Wildfire Fuel TYPes
- International Fire Code Institute
- LggT &z}O}Urban-Wildland Interface Code
- Uniform Fire Code 1997
- Insurance Service Office (ISO)
- Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow
- Mirigation Online
- NFPA Standards:
-|2olDevelopingFireProtectionServicesforthePublic
- 13 Automatic Fire Sprinkler System
- l3R Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems For single Family fuid Duplex
Residential Buildings
.22StandardForWaterTanksForFireProtection.9S
16
.24PrivateFireserviceMainsAndAppurtenances
.25Inspection,TestingAndMaintenanceofWaterSystemsForFire
Prolection'98
- 80A Fire Protection of Buildings From Exterior Fire Exposure'96
- 295 Wild-Iire Control'98
.2ggProtectionoflifeArrdPropertyFromWildfrre.9T,&,9|
- 395 Storage Of Flammable And Combustible Liquids At Isolated Sites'93
-|l44ProtectionoflifeArrdPropertyFromWildfue,2002.
- 1231 water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting,1993
- 1141 Fire Protection in Planned Building Groups, 1998
.|l42WaterSuppliesforSuburbanandRuralFireFighting,|999
American Water Works Association, Manual of Water Supply Practices
-DistributionSystemRequirementsforFireProtection
- Distibution Network Analysis fo Water Utilities
Planning for Water Supply and Distibution in the Wildland/Urban Interface
- OPeration Water
National Wildfire Coordinating Group
- krcident ResPonse Pocket Guide
t7
RAI\CH AT COULTER CREEK PUD
OPEN BURNING RESTRICTIONS
In order to appropriately mitigate potential sour-ce-l of ignition within the Ranch at coulter creek
pUD, the following ;pE,'bffiing restrictlo;;li"ll -UL {agpt"a by the Ranch at Coulter Creek
ifornlo*".* ers&ialtion and eriforced by the Fire Chief.
I. DEFINITIONS:
AGRICI.'LTURAL OPEN BURNING:
The open burning of cover vegetationfor-the pqpo.ge of preparing the soil
ilrdff"d*ifi", weed coritrol, and other agriculngal purpose'
BONFIRB:
The ope,lr buming of cut trees, vegetation or lumber'
INCINERATOR:
A structure, or portion thereo! container' device ot o*"tr11flfffiiir,
a;;is';4 G;a;;il.;rala to be used foithe disposal of
rubbish byburning
OPEN BURNING:
The burning of a bonfire, *!bt-.lt $e,.agncu]F"t.ry:9i other fire in an
outao- f"r-atio" *t "t.-till fuel beingU[*gi is-not contained in an
#il;;i;;t.i# dteiace, barbecue grill or barbecre pit'
RECRBATIONAL FIRE:
The buming of materials other than rubbish where fuel being bY*:d is not
."rt"ir"a ii * io.ioii"ioi, outaoor fireplace-, barbecue prill or barbecue
oit and with a total fuel area of 3 ftti oi"fiit ih diameter-and 2 feet or less
fi h.Ghi l;; ;i;;;il, ;.iigiou., ceremonial cooking or similar purposes'
RI,]BBISH:
waste material including, but not limited to garbage, waste paper and
debris from construction or demolition'
l8
* rl J
IIL
RESTRICTIONS:
AnopenBumingPermitasadministeredbytheFireChiefshallberequiredtoconduct
all open burmng wrthin the Ranch at Coifi& C;";,k iUD with the following exceptions:
-Firescontainedwithinliquidfuelorgasfuelstoves,outdoorfireswithina
permanent #;#;fii;;p#;;Jp,t;il; ring, gr"rc or charcoal sttt @
pn vate rr" i# r] a-i;;16;d ;;t*tioi di tt, picnlc llrea or desi gnated
-camPground.
- Federal, state or local official or member of an organized rescue or firefiglrting- A;;ti" G f.tfot**te of an official dutv
- Recreational fires
VIOLATIONS:
violations for conducting open burning without a valid permit shall administered by the
Fire Chief.
19
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
EXHIBITS
RANCII AT COULTER CREEK PRELIMINARY PLA1
-
Planning commission - April 9' 2003
Proof of Certified Mailing Receipts
Proof of Publication
Garfield County ZoritgRegulations of 1978' as amended
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984' as amended
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
Staff RePort dated APril 9, 2003
Application Materials
Letter from Bobby Branham, Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department, dated APril 2, 2003
Exhibit I: Letter from Doug Thoe, Garfield county Road and Bridge Departnent'
dated October 30,2002
Exhibit J: Letter from steve Anthony, Garfreld county vegetation Director' dated
March 25,2003
Exhibit K: Letter from Kelly Woods, colorado Division of wildlife' received
November 18,2002
Exhibit L: Letter from Bill Gavette, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District'
dated Mardr 28,2003
Exhibit M: Letter from Ron Leach, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection Disffict'
November 18,2002'
ExhibitN: Letter from Kenneth Knox, Colorado Division of Water Resources' dated
March 27,2003
Exhibit O: Letter from Kenneth Knox, Colorado Division of Water Resources' dated
November 19,2002
Exhibit P: Letter from Sean Gaffrrey, colorado Geological survey' dated April 1'
2003.
PC:419103
TP
PROJECT INFORMATION AIID STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICAI\T:
REPRESENTATIVE (S):
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Preliminary Plan review for the Ranch at Coulter
Creek Subdivision
A request to subdivide approximately 479 acres into
26 single family residential lots.
Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT)
TG Malloy Consulting, LLC.
The property is located west of the intersection of
County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road on
Missouri Heights.
Central Water System
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
CountyRoad 115
A/R/RD (AgriculturallResidential/Rural Density)
A/RIRD
I. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 479 acres of land into 26lots.
II. BACKGROT'NI)
The Applicant provided a detailed history of the subject property beginning on Page I of the
application. The subject parcel is one of two parcels that have been known as the Laurence
*Represents the existing house to remain as ranch manger's unit.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419/03
Page2
Ranch ("Ranch"). The North Parcel, undeveloped, consists of approximately 1,300 acres and is
located just east of the Consolidated Reservoir. The South Parcel, the subject of this application,
contains approximately 479 acres. Until recently, the Ranch had been operated by Roger
Laurence, who put the property up for auction in 2000, in part to satisff estate taxes due as a
result of the death of his father. After a deal with the highest bidder from the auction fell
through, the Aspen valley Land Trust ("AVLT') purchased the South parcel.
AVLT solicited proposals from land development companies and entered into an agreement to
sell the South Parcel to the Snowmass Land Company proyided that they would l) develop the
property under a cluster approach with a small number (26) of residential lots, and 2) place a
conservation easement over the balance of the property. The conservation easement has been
executed and a copy can be seen in more detailed in Attachment 6 of the application.
III. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located in the Missouri Heights area approximately 5 miles northeast of
Carbondale. The property is located to the north and west of County Road 113. County Road
115 runs along the north side of the site. The property is approximately 3 % milesnorth of
Highway 82 along Catherine Store Road (County Road 100) just past the intersection with Cattle
Creek Road.
The vicinity map, in Figure I of the application, delineates the surrounding land uses. The
subject property abuts BLM land to the west and south. The privately owned lands that abut the
subject property on the north and east are currently utilized for agricultural purposes. Uses in the
surrounding area are primarily agricultural, howevetr, there are other nearby residential
subdivisions which include the Panorama Ranch and High Aspen Ranch subdivisions.
The Ranch contains the existing homestead which consists of one farmhouse, a barn, and a
historic 1800's log house. There was an additional ranch house, which was in poor condition and
potentially dangerous, that was removed in July of 2002. The main farmhouse is currently being
remodeled. A portion of the structure will be used for a ranch manager's dwelling and the
remainder of the structure will be used for an on-site sales office
There are four decreed ponds on the subject property which are used for irrigation. One of the
ponds has been improved to accommodate the necessary augmentation water as specified in the
"water augmentation plan" (see Attachment 4).
The property has rolling terrain that includes a large knoll on the south end of the Ranch. There
is a steep cliffalong the southwest edge of the property, which forms a natural boundary between
the Ranch and BLM land. The current property owner resumed hayrng operation in the surtmer
of 2002, which had not occurred on site for the last two or three seasons.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 4/9/03
Page 3
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The26 new lots will comprise of approximately 155.6 acres of the approximately 479 acres of
land that is the subject of this application. Proposed rights-of-way will occupy approximately
20.6 acres. The remainder of the Ranch will be cornmon open space for the use of the lot owners
and will be permanently persevered under the provisions of a conservation easement to be held
by AVLT. The common open space will continue to be ranched.
Building envelopes have been established for each site. The building envelopes constitute
approximately 50.6 acres or less than 11 percent of the total acreage on the site. The Applicant
indicated that all residential structures and landscaping will be confined within the proposed
building envelopes. The building envelopes have been designed to comply with the minimum
setback requirements for the A/R/RD zone disfict.
The Applicant has volunteered to limit the floor area of the homes on Lots 3 through 26 to 8,000
square feet. The floor area on Lots I and} will be limited to 12,000 square feet. This
commitment is reflected in Article III of the protective covenants.
The Applicant asserted that the lots have been located to minimize visibility from the
surrounding area while also minimizing encroachment into historically irrigated areas. The lots
are arranged in several clusters. The lots are located around the perimeter of the agriculttral
areas of the property. The lots range in size from 4 acres to l l areas.
V. RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREHENSTYE PLA]T[:
The sudect property is designated on the oProposed Land Use Dishicts, Study Area l' map in
the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential. The recommended density
in this land use category is 10 acres or more per dwelling unit. Using this standard, the property
could accommodate approximately 48 dwelling units, twice the proposed number of units.
A number of policies in Comprehensive Plan are aimed at reducing density in future
developments and preserving opens space and agricultural uses. The following statements from
the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies are applicable to this application:
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 4
5.0 Recreation and Open Space
Objective:
5.3 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the
development and implernentation of zoning, subdivision, and PUD regulations designed
to retain and enhance existing open space uses.
5.0(a) Open Space and Trails
Goal:
5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development
approved by Garfield County.
5.1(B) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable
mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat.
Policies:
5.1(A) All projects approved adjacent to existing agriculttral uses shall be required to mitigate
any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include some or all of the
following:
a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property boundaries;
b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
c) Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife Resources Information System (WRIS) will be required to propose
mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures
shall include the following:
a) Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
b) Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use ofbuilding envelope
restrictions or cluster development concepts;
c) Conservation easernents.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 5
Agriculture
Goal:
To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility
issues are addressed during project review.
Objectives:
6.1
6.2
6.3
Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches.
Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity adjacent uses.
Developments adjacent agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for
flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
6.1
6.3
Policies:
Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of high-
intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use
and the proposed project.
Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential
incompatible uses.
7.0 Water and Sewer Services
Objective:
7.1 Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to
provide adequate and safe provisions for these senrices before project approval.
7.3 Projects proposing the use of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I.S.D.S) will be
required to assess the site's capability to accommodate these systerns prior to project
approval.
Policies:
7.1 A11 development proposals in rural areas without existing ce,ntral water and/or sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval.
7.3 The County will require developers proposing I.S.D.S to provide data that demonsfrates
to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 6
7.4 Where I.S.D.S. is not feasible, Garfield County will require a sewage disposal systern
approved by the State of Colorado.
8.0 Natural Environment
Goals:
Garfield County will encourage a land use pattem that recognizes that 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.
Objectives:
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.6
Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and
design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment.
Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration.
Development proposals will be required to address soil constaints unique to the proposed
site.
Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical
wildlife habitats are protected.
8.3
8.7
vI.
Policies:
Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so that cumulative impact of public and
private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed
the capacity of natural or constructed drainways, or to subject other areas to an increased
potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to
streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water.
Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor
e,nvironmental constraints to mitigate physical problems such as minor rockfalls, 17 to 24
percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow
percolation, radioactive soils and/or corrosive and expansive soils.
REFERRAL AGENCIES:
The application was referred to the following agencies for comments. Comments that were
received have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable.
Garfield County Road and Bridge Departrnent: Exhibit H & I.
Garfield County Engineering Department: No written comments.
Colorado Geological Survey: No comments.
1.
2.
3.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
PageT
4. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit K.
5. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit N & O.
6. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibit J.
7. Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District: Exhibit L & M.
8. RE-l School District: No comments.
9. Holy Cross Eleckic: No comments.
10. Klrl Energy: No comments.
11. US West Communications: No comments.
12. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comments.
13. Bureau of Land Management: No comments.
\[I. APPLICABLITY:
Pursuant to section 4:20 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Commission shall hold an
advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Commission.
The Commission shall complete its review and make its recommendation to the Board at the
public hearing on the Preliminary Plan or continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting for additional information or public input before making a
decision.
The Planning Commission may recommend approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the
Plan. The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth in the minutes
of the meeting or in a written Resolution. If the Final Plat is to be phased, the Planning
Commission shall recommend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval.
VI[. STAFF COMMENTS:
A.lsning
A single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses, only where it is accessory to the uses
listed in section 3.02.01, are uses by right in the A/R/RD zone district. The gross density of the
project (not including the existing house which will be used as ranch manager's unit) is
approximately I unit per 18.4 acres, which is below that allowed in the A/R/RD zone district.
The A/R/RD zone district allows for I unit per 2 acres or approximately 239 units, grving the
density of the property.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 8
The Applicant indicated compliance with all applicable zoning requirements. Building
envelopes, within which all residential structures and landscaping will be confined, have been
established to comply with minimum setback requirements. The building envelopes for Lots 1l
through 16 have also been located so that a25-foothigh building located within the envelope
should not be seen from Cattle Creek Road. The Applicant asserted that this setback from the
ridge was field verified and it has been labeled only on the Illustrative Site Plan as "View Shed
Setback Line". This View Shed Setback Line should be delineated on the Final Plat and
referenced in the Protective Covenants.
B. Water Supply
Domestic water for the proposed lots is intended to be provided via a central water systan which
will be designed by Sopris Engineering. According to the engineering report prepared by Sopris
Engineering, potable water will be supplied by three wells delineated on the plans. The raw
water will be pumped from each well via supply lines to the central water treatnent facility. The
water will be chlorinated at a cenkal treatment facility and distributed through the distribution
mains to all the lots. The disfibution system serves as a supply line to the 150,000 gallon
storage tank that will provide volume for 2 days of in-house use plus required fire flow storage.
The Ranch compound will also have a service line to supply water required by the barn and
livestock facilities. Domestic consumption usage per lot is based on 2 EQR's per lot and
expected to be an average of700 gallons per day.
The report from Zancanella and Associates, Inc. (see Attachment 5) provides information on the
reliability and potablity of the water from the three wells (RCC Well #5, RCC Well #7, andLot
#24Well). Wells RCC #5 and RCC #7 were pumped continuously at 40 gallons per minute
(gpm) for the length of the test. Lot #24Well test began at 30 gpm, but was reduced to 25 gpm
when it appeared that the well would probably not be able to sustain the higher rate for the entire
24hotr test. According to the report, all three wells appear to recover normally. The rates,
when added together, yield a total flow rate of 105 gpm, which is well above the peak month's
continuous average diversion of 39.3 gpm. The report concludes that from the pump test data,
with sufficient storage, the three wells should be able to provide adequate water for the proposed
developme'nt.
Water samples were collected during the pumping test and sent to Evergreen Analytical, Inc. for
independent analysis. The results received show that all potential containments for which tests
were conducted were below the Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the Colorado
Deparhnent of Public Health and Environment.
The water system will be installed as part of the infrastructure and the cost of installation will be
incorporated in the price of lots. Once installed, the system will be owned, operated and
,\s
,i\\\\-l
rR.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 9
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This is all reflected in Article V, subsection 6 of
the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment 7).
A letter from Kenneth W. Knox, of the Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated March27,
2003, was received regarding the proposed water supply through the wells that will be
augmented (Exhibit N). Mr. Knox noted that "due to the lack of water court approved
augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds...that the proposed water supply will cause material
injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." At Sketch Plan, the same determination was
made regarding the proposed water supply (Exhibit O). The Applicant was made aware at
Sketch Plan that at Preliminary Plan application, the Applicant would need to show compliance
with the requirements of the State Engineers Office.
Mr. Knox also indicated that according to their records several exempt wells may currently exist
within the proposed development. Pursuant to CRS section3T-92-602(3XbXIID, "the
cumulative effect of all wells in the subdivision shall be considered when evaluating material
injury to decreed waterrights. Therefore, the existing exempt wells must be included in an
augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned since the provisions for CP.S 37-92-602
which allowed for issuance of the well permits will not longer apply."
With respect to the legal status of water rights and their adequacy for the proposed development,
the Applicant noted that an application for underground water rights with an augmentation plan
has been filed with Distict Court of Water Division #5. A copy of the application and
augmentation plan is included in the application as Attachment 4. The Applicant acknowledges
that approval of the water rights application and a final decree of water rights will be required
prior to Final Plat approval as permitted in Section a.91(A)(a) of the Subdivision Regulations.
Section 4.91(AX4) reads as follows:
o'Euid,ence that public or priuate u)ater oauners can and, uill supply uater to the
proposed. subdiaision, includ,ing the amount of uater auailabl,efor use usithin the
subd,iaision by such proaid,ers, the feasibility of extend.ing seraite to the area, proof
of the bgal depend,ability of the proposed, u)ater supply and the representa,tian that
all necessary uater rights haue been obtained, or utillbe obtained, or adjud,icated,
prior to submission of the fi,nal plat."
Pursuant to CRS Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), the State Engineer of the Division of Water
Resources is required to render an opinion to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether
or not the proposed subdivision will cause material injury to decreed water rights. If the State
Engineers renders an opinion indicating they could not determine if there is an injury or not, the
Board of County Commissioners may still approve the subdivision. However, this action by the
Board of County Commissioners ultimately means they know more about water law than the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 10
State Engineer. Staffand the Attorney's Office would strongly recorlmend that the Board
not approve this or any subdivision until an opinion of no material injury has been
determined by the State Engineer.
Without an affirmative recofllmendation from the state engineer, it is difficult ifnot impossible for
staff to make the finding of an adequate legal and physical water supply required by section 4:91(4)
of our regulations. As a result, the Planning Deparhnent cannot recommend approval at this time
because the Applicant has not demonstrated legal and adequate source of water.
C. Waste Water
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems are proposed for each lot. According to the Septic System
Constraints Map contained in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, no constraints
relative to septic system functions are identified for the subject property on this map. Percolation
tests were performed by HP GeoTech and the results are contained in the Geotechnical Study
(Attachment l2). Tlre study shows that there are no geologic conditions on the property that
would render the project infeasible.
According to the engineering report prepared by Sopris Engineering, the type, dimension and
design of the on-site wastewater systems (OWS) will vary based on specific conditions at each
building site. Required setbacks from on-site wells, irrigation ditches, dwellings and property
lines must be maintained. Most lots will be suitable for conventional systems and/or modified
engineered systems, though a few lots may require advanced treatment components be
incorporated in the design of the OWS if certain constraints are encountered. The Applicant
noted that a more detailed analysis of the soils and the design for the individual system for each
lot will be provided with the building/IsDs permit applications. Sopris Engineering
recommends that the following note be include on the Final Plat:
"Building permit applicationsfor each lot shall include plans and specificationsfor an
onsite wastanater treatment system. Each system shall be designed by a State of Colorado
registered engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Septic
Disposal System (ISDS) regulations before a building permit will be issued. The type, size
and location of each individual on-site wastewater system (OWS) will be site-specific based
on existing Garfield County and State ISD^S design criteria and required site-specific geo-
technical evaluations. The soil absorption/dispersal systems should be located within the
building envelope on each lot as identifi.ed on the Final Plat."
The engineering report from Sopris Engineering also includes a basic outline for a management
plan for on-site wastewater treatnent systems, which appears to be reflected in Article V,
subsection 7, of the Declaration of Protective Covenants. The recommendations for management
include:
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 1l
Bi-annual inspection of the septic tank, absorption field and dosing tank (if applicable)
For a properly designed systern, septic tanks should be pumped every 2 - 4 years.
Absorption fields shall be maintained with suitable cover and kept free of plants with
invasive roots.
Positive surface drainage away from the absorption field should be maintained.
Utilities
Holy Cross Energy and Qwest have indicated that electric and telephone services will be
provided to the project from County Road 115. Letters of will-serve are attached to the Sopris
Engineering report (Attachment 10). These services will be buried within the roads and
driveways to each of the residences, as reflected in Article V, subsection 3 of the Protective
Covenants. Natural gas and cable television service are not available in the area of the property.
Floodplain / Wetlands
There are no floodplain or wetland issues on the subject property. There are no lakes or sffeams
located on the subject property. Coulter Creek is located to the east of the subject property. The
Applicant asserted that a lot of care had been taken in locating the proposed lots, roads and
building envelopes to accomplish a variety of objectives for the project. One objective of the
development was to preserve as much of the irrigated land as possible for agricultural use. Care
was taken to minimize the visibility of building sites from nearby roads and developed areas.
F.Soils/Geolory
According to the soil survey, from USDA Soil and Conservation Service, the soils on the subject
property consist of:
1. Acree Loam (6 to lZ %) - #4
2. Cochetopa-Antrobus Association (12 to 25%) - #18
3. Empedrado Loam (6 -12%) - #35
4. Fughes Stony Loam (3 - l2%) - #48
5. Lyers Loam (6 to 25%) - #59
6. Morval-Tridell Complex (12 - 50%) - #87
7. Showalter-Morval Complex (5 -15%) - #94
8. Showalter-Morval Complex (15 -25%) -#95
9. Torriorthents-Cambrothids-Rock Outcrop Complex (6 - 65%) - #104
10. Tridell-Brownsto Stony Sandy Loams, extronely stony (12 - 50%) - #106
The interpretation tables for these types of soils can be seen in more detail in the application in
1.
2.
J.
4.
D.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 12
Attachment 8. It appears that some of the soils present on the subject property are poorly suited
for homesite development, as well as the installation of conventional septic systerns.
A Geotechnical Study for the subdivision was conducted for the project by Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech"), which can be seen in more detail in Attachmerrt 12.
According to HP GeoTech, there are several conditions of geologic nature that should be
considered in future project planning and design. According to the study, these conditions
should not have a major impact on general project feasibility, but some modifications to the
currently proposed building location would reduce potential risks associated with major landslide
reactivation. According to the study:
'the landslide complex along the northern Cattle Creek Canyon side appears to have been
dormant with respect to large scale movement for some time, but the landslide may be
undergoing seasonal creep movements....Although active creep may be occurring, it is
the opinion of HP GeoTech that the likelihood of a major landslide reactivation during a
reasonable exposure time for the project is low. In the unlikely event of a major landslide
reactivation the large scale movements would probably be restricted to the mapped
landslide boundary shown on Figs 1A, 1B, and 1C [attached to the study], but they could
potentially extend further to the northeast of the present landslide boundary. If a low risk
of major landslide reactivation is not acceptable, then buildings or other movernent
sensitive facilities should not be located within about 150 feet from the landslide
boundary shown on Figs 1A, 1B, and 1C. As presently planned, parts of the proposed
building envelopes on Lots ll, 12, 13, 1 6 and 17 are within I 50 feet of the present
landslide boundary. The 150 foot setback is approximate and when specific building and
other facility locations have been determined, their location should be field review to
determine that an appropriate setback has been considered."
Sean Gaffrrey of the Colorado Geological Survey indicated that to ensure that development on
Lots 11,12,13, 16 andlT willnotbeaffectedbythelandslidecomplex,theproposed
construction 150 foot setbacks from the crest of the slope should be delineated on the
development plat (see Exhibit P). Mr. Gaftrey noted that plans show that the configuration of
the proposed subdivision should provide ample space to accommodate an effective setback,
however, an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide a
formal design recommendation.
Pursuant to section 5:l l, GeologscHazardAreas, of the ZoningResolution, the purpose of this
section is to insure that all developments affected by one or more geologic hazards are
engineered, developed and utilized in a manner that will minimize significant hazards to public
health and safety and to property. Pursuant to section 5.16.02, Guidelines for Development in
Landslide Areas",
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC 419103
Page 13
ooCotection of adaerse conditions through engineered design and, construction may
be an acceptabl,e mitigation technique if the method,s d,re supported,by careful
inuestigation and eaaluation by a qualified, professional engineer or geolagist. Such
inuestigation and eoaluation must consider the physi,cal extent, the seriousness, and,
the causes of the geologi,c probl,ems. Correction methods rnay inaol,ae annong others
refraining fro* remoaing natural support material in the area immed,ia,tely
beneath or adjacent to the slide area; addition of artificial support to the area in
the form of rock or earth fi,ll buttressing, retaining usalls or cribbing, concrete
slurryo roclt bohing and reinforced, pilings; perrnanent improuernent and control of
surface and subsurfoce d.rainage; stabilization of the slide areaby chemi'cal
treattnent, brid,ging useak zones, remooal of unstabl,e material, and aaoidance of
loading on unsta.bl,e areas."
Mr. Gaffney noted that Lots 18, 19, 20,21 and22 are located on slopes that are greater fhan30%
grade. Mr. Gaf&rey suggests that a slope stability analysis is completed in this area to ensure that
the proposed building envelops are adequately sited to minimize the risk of slope movement after
construction. Pursuant to section 5.04.02 of the ZoningResolution, development on 40% slopes
is prohibited.
Mr. Gaffrrey indicated that the clay and claystone swell potentials, measured by HP GeoTech,
illustrate a low to high risk across the site. A plat note should clearly identiff the presence of
swelling clays and state that mitigation maybe necessary to build on a lot. Due to the presence of
swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations. Perimeter drains
prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the overall potential
for expansion or consolidation.
Mr. Gafifrrey noted that the property is in the Carbondale Collapse Center. This area has the
potential to contain sinl<holes, voids in the bedrock that may or may not be filled with
unconsolidated soil and rubble. Although the site's topography does not display any obvious
signs of sinkholes activity, HP GeoTech's recommendation to further evaluate the presence of
sinlholes and the potential for solution deformation to affect site development should be
followed when site-specific geotechnical investigations are completed. In addition, the building
envelopes for Lots 18, 19, 20 and21, shall be relocated way from the evaporate deformation
faults to minimize the potential for damage associated with ground movement.
HP GeoTech provided conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development,
subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, and their experience in the area.
The Study indicates that the recommendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design,
but site specific studies should be conducted for the individual development facilities and for
building on each lot. The 'Preliminary Design Recommendations' outlined by HP GeoTech in
the study include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, underdrain system, site grading, surface
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC 419103
Page 14
drainage, and pavernent subgrade shall be adhered.
G. Radiation:
According to HP GeoTech (Attachment l2),the proposed development is not located in an area
where geologic deposits are expected to have unusually high concentrations of radioactive
minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. HP GeoTech
indicated that it is difEcult to assess the potential for future radon gas concenhations in buildings
before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas can be done when the residences and
other occupied structures have been completed.
H. Drainage
Drainage on the subject property is address in a Drainage Study compiled by Sopris Engineering
(see Attachment 11 and Sheets 5 and 6 of the drawing set).
According to the study, the overall land slopes to the north. There are several concentration
points where runoffleaves the property. However, of the total number of small watershed
basins, only one basin is large in area. Runoff from the largest drainage exits the site near the
northeast corner of the site and then drains into Coulter Creek, approximately 1000 feet to the
east. Due to the position of this site on the landscape, the site is not subject to offsite drainage.
The existing drainage basin areas and discharge point locations will not change as a result of the
development. No residential structures shall be located in natural drainage ways. Based upon
insignificant increase in runoffwith the development of this project, no detention is proposed. In
surrmary, the report indicates that 1) the results from the drainage study suggest that no long-
term, adverse impact to stormwater drainage are anticipated with the development of the Ranch
at Coulter Creek, 2) onsite peak discharge will not increase measurably with development, 3)
historical drainage pattems will be maintained, and 4) compliance with the Garfield County
Drainage Standards will be adhered.
L Road/Access
The Comprehensive Plan defines County Road 115 as a road in "good" condition. The proposed
road systern within the Subdivision includes a loop road that utilizes two existing ranch roads
accessing onto County Road 115. The Applicant asserted that based on the anticipated frip
generation and assuming traffic will be distributed in both directions on Cattle Creek Road, the
estimated traffic will be roughly 16l average daily trips (ADT). The rationale for this estimate is
included in the engineering report provided by Sopris Engineering (see Attachment 10). Gven
these assumptions, the Applicant indicated that the proposed roads qualiff under the "Rural
Access" category in the County's Road standards [section 9:30 of the Subdivision Regulations].
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
PreliminarY Plan
PC: 419103
Page 15
Essentially, the Applicant states that due to the proposed intemal traffic pattern, the intemal
roadway will ultimately carry almost half of the trips generated and thus be classified as such'
However, the County r.grtuiiont do not distinguish bitrveen multiple exits for a development
onto a public road system (i.e. county Road 1Is1. t "
proposed development produces 248'82
ADTs (9.57 vehic6. po da, X 26 lois) u. *.ntir. development, which would classiff the
intemal road (cattle creek Ridge Road) as..Secondary Access" not "Rural Access". There are a
couple of differen.., i, a"rign-rt*o*i, between the two road crassifications which include
shoulder width, cross slope and s,rfaoe. The standards for "secondary Access" shall be adhered'
The main road, Cattle Creek Ridge, will be chip-seal surface' The roads are designed without
curb or gutter. The Applicant asJerted that no segment of the main road exceeds 10 percent
grade. Though tfre rouAs are intendea to rc priva:te an! w-illbe maintained by the homeowner's
association, a 50 fb;i;ght-"f-way has been providedin the event the subdivision roads are ever
turned over to trre co"rTv. The Applicant shall note that the roads within the subdivision are not
considered private. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, "All streets are
dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these
Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be the responstbility of the incorporated
Homeowners Arsoiiotion of the Subd.ivision:' This shall be reflected in the Protective
Covenants.
According to Article VII, subsection 1, of the Protective Covenants' "Primary access to the
subdivision is from Gadield county Road 115. The costs of maintaining le( lauton are shared
by all uses of the road pursuant to a Road Maintenance Agreement recorded in the records of
Garfi,eld Coun$t...".
Bobby Branham of the Garfield county Road ano nldsloepartment provided the following
comments with respect to the access to tfr" Subdivisionlf*t iUit H), which are supported by the
County Engineer DePartrnent:
1. All culverts beneath access points should be of Comrgated Steel Pipe'-
2. All culverts should extend beyond the edge of the access roadway sufficiently to prevent
slough from congesting the inlet or outlet'
A1l culverts should be 18 inches or larger'
A11 culverts should have a minimum cover equal to half the diameter of the pipe i'e' an 18
inch culvert would require nine inches of cover to finish grade.
A11 culverts should have a minimum of 1% flow'
A11 ditches entering to and exiting from culverts should be chased to daylight in order to
facilitate flow.
Accesses should be constructed with a compacted sub-grade, then filled *ithl compacted
six inch lift of three inch minus, then toppei with at least a three inch layer of compacted
!/a roadbase (class 6) material. compaction should test at 95% of modified proctor'
Ranch at coulter T.."j,}}lffiifi
PC 419103
Page 16
8. Accesses should be flared where theymeet the county road and should be of sufficient
width to conform with sub-division standards.
g. All areas of county road which encroach into or pass through private property should
have right of way deeded to the county at 30 foot from centerline.
10. All accesses should be graded to follow 2Yo slopefrom crown, to a point at or beyond the
location of the culvert. Wh"re super-elevation is used the access grade shall be at2o/o
from edge of road to a point at or beyond the culvert.
l l. Accesses should provide a minimum of 20d feet visibility in either direction, from a point
10 feet back from the edge of the counfy foad.
12. Accesses should meet the county road at a 90 degree angle for a minimum distance of 30
feet.
13. Accesses should be inspected by Road and Bridge for compliance upon completion.
Mr. Branham indicated that the proposed western entry is in a very undesirable location, due to
poor visibility. Mr. Branham recommends that this particular access point should be not used
and that a more suitable site be chosen.
Comments from Doug Thoe, former Foreman for the Glenwood Springs Garfield County Road
and Bridge Office, provided comments at Sketch Plan (Exhibit I) which outlined concerns with
respect to both u"""., points. Staffunderstands that the Applicant met with Mr. Thoe on site in
January to address his concerns. However, no written communication from Mr. Thoe was
received summarizing the agreed upon solutions to the western access point.
prior to Board of County Commissioners review of this request, the Applicant shall work with
the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and the County Engineer Departrnent to
determine an appropriate solution to the western access point.
Cul-de-sacs
Most of the proposed road system length is comprised of the main loop road. However, there are
several spur roads with cul-de-sacs that provide access to the residential lots.
The Applicant noted that the proposed road plan for the Subdivision includes two cul-de-sacs
longertiran 600 feet. One of these cul-de-sacs is referred to as Fisher Creek Lane which is
located in the west end of the property and the other is called Saddle Drive and provides access
to the knoll at the south end oithe property. However, it appears on the plan that Coulter Lane,
which provides access to Lots 23 through 26,isa cul-de-sac which also exceeds 600 feet in
length.
Fisher Creek Lane is roughly 925 feetin length and provides access for three lots (Lots 5,6 &7).
Access for Lot 8 utilizesi private driveway that extends roughly 980 feet beyond the end of the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 17
cul-de-sac. The Applicant asserted that Fisher Creek Lane and the private drive extension were
designed to minimize the amount of irrigated land lost to load construction and to minimize
disturbance to steep slopes in the ur"u oi the west side of Lots 8 & 9. The proposed road and
private drive follow the alignment of an existing irrigation ditch and loop around an inigated
headow. In the event that multiple emergency vehicles were dispatched for an emergency
situation on Lots 6 & 7,the terrain alonglhe jroposed access road and driveway extension would
allow emergency vehicles to maneuver during times when there was no snow'
Saddle Drive includes two cul-de-sacs that serve Lots I 8, 20, 21, & 22 arrda private drive to Lot
19. The Applicant indicated that the area served by these cul-de-sacs is a large knoll with few
options in ierms of access road alignments. The Applicant asserted that the road has been
located in a draw that offers the least impactive rortL to the proposed lots. Due to the orie'ntation
of this draw, only portions of the road shall be visible from few locations. The road has been
designed with the shallowest grade possible given the terrain.
Coulter Lane,the third cul-de-sac, appears to be longer than 600' in length' This cul-de-sac will
serve Lots 23,24,25 &26.
Section 9:33 of the Subdivision Regulation, ouUin.r afrr r,*O-as for cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs
are limited to 600 feet in length, *ith u turnaround radius of no less than (45') from the center of
the cul-de-sac to road edge, ioa SO'right-of-way. "The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs
for topographic reasons *a it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access
is prwidedas part of the longer design." The Applicant asserted that due to the physical
characteristics of the propoty and the conservation objectives of the project, cul-de-sacs are
utilized in the road design. fro*"ro, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the longer cut-de-
sac designs can provide adequate fire protection and emergency egfess and access'
The Carbondale and Rqral Fire protection District has not commented on the proposed .ol-d:-
sacs design. This application was not referred to the Sheriff s Department. Pnor to Board of
County Commissioner review, the Applicant shall work with the Carbondale Fire District and the
Sherifps Department to establish the appropriate locations for pull-outs for emergency vehicles
and other reasonable improvements to the subdivision roads deerned necessary by the Fire
District and the Sherifp; Department to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access. These pull-
outs shall be delineated on the Final Plat.
The Applicant shall note that the Deed of Conservation Easement (Attachment 6) for this
subdiviiion does not include language regarding the right to use the land for emergency access'
In Section 3(I), permitted Uses, of the Easernent agreement, "construction, maintenance, re'pair
and development of amenities, roads, utilities and infrastructure" is allowed,'tut only to the
extent perrnitted by and consistent with the Development Approvals."
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 18
J. Fire Protection
A portion of the property is located within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection Distict
1,,iire Disticf,) *a u portion is located outside of the Fire District. The Applicant submitted a
petition to expand the bistrict boundaries to include the balance of the property within the
birt i"t. A copy of the petition has been included within the application as Attachment 13'
The Applicant indicated that each of the proposed homes in the subdivision will be equipped
witrr a sprinkler system for fire suppressi-on. In addition, the project's water system will include
fire hydrants that will provide adequate flow for firefighting purposes for Lots -11 througtr 17 and
23 through 26. Details of the proposed hydrants ure rho*n on Sheet 13 of the Preliminary Plan.
For lots *ho" pressgre is not adequate for firefighting puq)oses, a minimum 5,000 gallon water
storage tank wiil beprovided. Thi; tank will pr*ia"itorage for domestic water and will also be
fitted with a dry hydrant for fire fighting. Thi tanks and dry hydrants will be designed to comply
with the specifications required by the Fire District'
l6u 'aDu
The Applicant noted that the mainarg!;gstorage tank willbe available for firefighting purposes
u, ,r""did. This tank will contai{ rziOOo-}allons and will be located on the west end of the
An easernent for an antennae site is being established near the top of the knoll on the property,
adjacent to Lot tg. This antenna will improve emergency radio communication for fire fighters
and other emergency personnel in the surroundingarea. The proposed antenna for the Fire
District falls under the definition of "Communication Facility" which requires a Special Use
Permit in the A/R/RD zone district.
The Applicant noted that the Board of the Fire District directed the Applicant to work with the
Fire Distict staffand a recommended wildfire expert on the'\rildfire hazatdmitigation plan".
The Applicant indicated that the Plan should be available by April. To-date, staffhas not seen
the plan. prior to the Board of County Commissioners review, the Applicant shall submit a copy
of the wildfire hazudmitigation plan signed offby both the Fire District and the Sheriffs
Departnent.
Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection Distict, indicated that
the required-wilafir; hazardmitigation plan for the subdivision has notbeen submitted to the Fire
pistrict (Exhibit L). To-date, ttre Fire pirtri.t Board has not approved the petition for
annexation. Comments that were received from Ron Leach at Sketch Plan are also attached to
this memorandum (Exhibit M).
Staffspoke with Mr. Leach who indicated that the Board of the Fire District has met several
times on the annexation, however, no determination has been made. There are a number of
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 19
issues that need to be resolved by the Applicant prior to the Fire District Board making a
determination. The Fire District-noard *ilt U. rneeting again on the annexation request the
middle of April. Mr. Leach indicated to staff that if the Fire District Board does not approve the
annexation, the Fire District will likely recommend denial of the project. The reason for the
denial will be based on the fact that the property is not within one jurisdiction, as well as the
potential confusion as to whichiurisdiciion wili be responsible if there is ever a wildfire on the
subject property. prior to the Board of County Commissioners review, a determined from the
firi nmrict with respect to annexation shall be submitted.
Incorporated in the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment 7d), are Requiretnents
for protecting Structures from Wildfi.re. Construction specifications and defensible space are
required to be met for construction within the Subdivision.
K. Wildlife
The colorado Division of wildlife ("cDow") identified the property as winter range for both
Elk and Mule Deer and severe winter range for Elk. Figures 5 and 6 delineated the mapped
*itaur"habitat.TheApp1icantassertedthattheproposedsubdivisionhasbeendesignedto
retain corridors in several locations throughout the pioperty for animal movement' The bulk of
the property has been preserved u, "o--in open space. The landowners intend to establish a set
of consirvation guidelines, which will be communicated to all property owners within the
development and will be administered by the homeowner's association. These guidelines have
been piepared and incorporated into the Declaration of Protective Covenants (see Attachment
7d).
The Applicant indicated that in order to allow animal movement through the property several
movement corridors have been established as part of the site design. One of these corridors is
located between the building envelopes on Lois 7 and8 along the west side_of the property. The
second corridor is located between the building envelopes on Lots 17 and 18. The third corridor
is located to the south of Lots 23 through 26, Mdlast corridor which allows animals to move to
and from coulter creek is located to the east of the subject property.
comments from Kelly wood of the Colorado Department of wildlife, have not been received by
the planning Department for this Preliminary Plan. Attached to this memorandun is Ms'
Wood,s letter she provided to staff during Sletch Plan (see Exhibit J). Below is as summary of
her recommendations:
l. Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing recommendations.
2. If hay *itt U" storei on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife out.
3. The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use during the winter
-
months. Dogs shall always be on a leash outside of the house footprint. The nt[nber of
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page20
dogs per residences should be limited to one. During construction of the residences,
contractors should not be allowed to have dogs on site'
4. Since cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept indoors at
all times.
5. CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping from wildlife.
6. The homeowner's should install bear-proof dumpsters or trash bins'
7. Hunting should not be prohibited. Thi adjacent bfU land is a popular hunting area. The
homeowners should be aware that it is a legal hunting area.
The Applicant is willing to comply with allof the recommendations except for Item 7. The
Applicant feels that thJe would bL significant safety concern if hunting were to be allowed on
thl property. The corlmon open space on the property is intended to be used by residents of the
Subdivision for walking, equestrian and other activities. Hunting on the property would not be
compatible to these activities.
It does not appear that all of these recommendations from the DOW, except lterr.7, have been
incorporatea in tfr" Protective Covenants. The Protective Covenants shall incorporate all the
recommendation wildlife habitat mitigation measures, exeept f,or Item 7'
L. Vegetation
The Applicant provided a Vegetation Report conducted by Dawn Keating of Wildlife
Management Consulting (see-Attachm*t ql. According to Ms. Keating, the four main plant
communities found o" In" property include: Big Sagebrush, Gambel Oak, Two-Needle Pinyon-
Rocky Mountain Juniper /
-Garnbei
Oak / Big Sagebrush and irrigated hay pastures. Big
Sagebrush covers nearly 50% of the property. Garnbel Oak comprises more than2'Yo of the
totil vegetative cover and is the dominant shrub. Irrigated hay pastures, a man-made
"orn111ooity,
is comprised of mixed inhoduced grass and forb species that cover approximately
50% of the property.
Ms. Keating noted that there is potential that Herrington's Penstemon may occur on the property'
This plant ii identified as.'globally vulnerable" by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Ms.
Keating recommends additional field study to determine whether this plant is present on the
property.
pursuant to section 4.07 of the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners on May 1,2000, "at the discretion of the Board of County
commissioners, as part of the Planning and Zoning approval process, for land disturbances
outside of the build:ing eivelope, the County may require, at preliminary plan and prior to Final
Plat, the following items "
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page2l
1. A Soil Plan
2. A Revegetation Plan
3. A Revegetation Security (which shall be in an amount to be determined by the Board)
The Applicant indicated that a weed control expert has been contracted to begin the process of
treating existing noxious weeds. Matt Johnson, Roaring Fork Vegetation Management
Compiry, has been retained to implernent a noxious weed control program. The Applicant noted
that weei control will be an ongoing project at the Ranch and the services of a weed confrol
specialist will be paid for out of the Homeowner's Association dues.
Steve Anthony, Garfield County Weed Management Director, provided the following comments
with respect to the proposed Subdivision (See Exhibit J):
1. Noxious Weeds:
A. Inventory and mapping: The Applicant has inventoried the property for vegetation and
does mentiorr ro*io,r, weeds, however the information is general and does not provide
specific loeations of the CountyJisted.noxious weeds on a map. The Applicant shall
provide a map that would rePresent these locations.
B. Weed Management: The Applicant has provided a proposal from a contractor for weed
services. This information,like the inventory is general, and does not describe a specific
weed management plan. A weed management plan should be based on a detailed
inventory and provide for follow-up managernent.
C. Common af,ea weed management: The Applicant states that the Coulter Ranch
Homeowners Association will implement weed management on the Common Open
Space within the property. It is also stated that the Applicant has made alrangements
*itl, u local rancher io perform agricultural operations on the property. If this does not
happen, there could be severe *"id **ugernent issues on the areas that were previously
used for hay production.
D. Covenants: Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article IV,
Section 2. The Applicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under Article IV,
Section 6. The language should remind each lot owner that it is their responsibility under
the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan to
manage CountyJisted noxious weeds.
2. Revegetation:
A. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page22
calls for the following:
a) Plant material list.
b) Planting schedule.
c) A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of thebuilding envelopes)'
d) A revegetationbond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
The Applicant has not provided any of the above items in the Preliminary Plan application' A
*up oi information stratt be providld, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres,
to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road qut and utility disturbances. This information
will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation.
The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if
the project has:
1) A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds'
2) A potential to impact watershed areas.
3) ,A. potential for.visual irnpacts ompublic viewing corridors.
4) Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas'
5) 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 Reclamation Stardatds in the County Weed Management Plan'
The Board of County dommissioners will designate a member of their staffto evaluate the
reclamation prior to the release of the security.
3. Soil Plan:
A. The Revegetation Guidetines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil Management
Plan that includes:
1) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil'
2) Atimetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
:i .t plan that provides for soll .ouo if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed
for a period of 90 daYs or more.
M. Assessment / Fees
Off-Site Road Impact
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC 419103
Page23
Regarding traffic generation, the Applicant provided an estimated traffic generation analysis
based on a total of 26 new single-family residences. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 66
Edition uses g.57 trips per auv-po resiience. At that rate,26 proposed new residences produce a
total of 248.82 trips pei day. Tire proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield Countv Traffic
Study Area 11. This area calls foianlmpact fee payment-to Garfield County of $384.00 per 6)
u.'roug" daily trip (ADT) generated bv thi subdivision. The Applicant has calculated a total
paymlnt orir,ot+.29 to ttre county. The final impact fee amount shall be determined prior to
finalization of the Final plat. Pursuant to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations, 50olo of
the road impact fees shall be collected at the Final Plat for the Subdivision. All other road
impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
Site Acquisition Fee
pursuant to Section 9.80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners
may seek land or cash-in-lieu of land for parks and / or schools during the subdivision review
p.*"r, when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future
residents.
The property is located with the RE-l School District. Pursuant to Section 9:81 of the
SutdivisionRegulations, the Board of County Commissioners may require a developer of
residential housing to make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land. The Applicant has
-
provided a fee caliulation for the pioposed project on page 16 of the application. The Applicant
has calculated the fee for the project io Ue $s,ts9.81. The final School Site Acquisition Fee shall
be determined prior to the finalization of the Final Plat. No comments from the RE-l School
District were received.
Ooen Soace
The proposed subdivision will result in the permanent presenration of approximately 303 actes of
agric"rt*a land and open space identified as "common open Space".. The common open space
w-ill be owned and maintain"O Uy the Homeowner's Association. In addition, all development
and landscaping on the propor"i lots will be limited to the building envelopes shown on the
preliminaryplans. Since the building envelopes contain approximately 5l acres' the other 104
acres contained in the proposed lots will remain in essentially its current state. Nearly 84 percent
of total acreage(approximately 400 acres) will be preserved as open space'
The subject property is also located immediately adjacent to a large area of public lands owned
by BLIri. rt "
rirtto Creek Special Management Area, which is part of the BLM lands, abuts the
property on the west and includes trails open for public use'
A trail system has been planned for the coulmon open space. The preliminary alignment of the
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page24
trail systern is depicted on the Illustrative Site Plan and the Preliminary Plan. For the most part,
the nail system will be located within the easements for the private roads or within the Common
Open Space.
The Applicant has delineated eight (8) Open Space Tracts throughout the Subdivision (Tracts A
- rf). bix of these tracts *" gr"ut"r rhan2 acres in size and can remain "Open Space Tracts"-
However, Tracts B and C are less than2 acres. The creation of lots / tracts less than 2 acres in
size violates the County's minimum lot size requirement in the A / R / RD zone district.
Therefore, these 2 lots will need to be reconfigured to increase the lot size to a minimum of 2
acre or eliminated.
N. Phasing of the DeveloPment
The Applicant indicated that all infrastructure improvements will be constructed in a single
phase.
O. Additional Comments:
,......_ ,....:i;.-:._t, - ,..:-
Homeowner,s Association Documents: The Applicant has provided draft copies of the following
Homeowner's Association documents:
l. Articles of Incorporation of Ranch at Coulter Creek Homeowner's Association
(Attachment 7a)
Z. iylaws of the Ranch at Coulter Creek Homeowner's Association (Attachment 7b)
3. Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Ranch at Coulter's Creek Subdivision
(Attachment 7c)
4. ieclaration of Protective Covenants for Ranch at Coulters Creek Subdivision
(Attachment 7d)
Architectural Guidelines: Although the County does not have regulations for architectural type
g"rd"Ir*r, th" Appticant indicated that architectural guidelines are being developed to address
ih. upp.**.. *i function of structures on the property. The Applicant noted that the
guiditines will include recommendations for o'green" architecture. No plan to install sfreet
Ilghting of any kind is proposed on the Ranch. The Applicant noted that landscape lighting for
inaiviJuA r.rid.r""r will be addressed in the architectural guidelines and in the covenants.
IX. RECOMMENDEDFINDINGS:
l. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before
the Planning Commission;
)
J.
4.
5.
x.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC 419103
Page25
That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at that hearing;
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;
That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County ZorungResolution,
as amended;
That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984, as amended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the Garfield County Planning Commission recoflrmend DENIAL to the
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch
at CoulterCreek Preliminary Plan forthe following reasons:
Division of Water Resources cannot determine if there is "material injury to decreed
water rights", therefore the Applicant has not demonsffated a legal and adequate source of
water pursuant to Section a:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulations;
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed longer cul-de-sacs can provide
adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access, pursuant to Section 9:33 of the
Subdivision Regulations; and
The wildfirehazudmitigation plan has not been approved by the Carbondale and Rural
Fire Protection District and the Garfield County SherifPs Deparfrnent.
ALTERNATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Pursuant to section 4:22,thePlanning Commission may CONTINUE the hearing to the
next regularly scheduled meeting, or to a date certain, in order to obtain additional information,
such a signed Augmentation Plan, and a favorable determination by the Division of Water
Resources.
2. Should the Planning Commission move to recommend APPROVAL to Board of Connty
Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Preliminary
Plan, the following recoillmended conditions of approval shall be considered:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1)
2)
3)
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page26
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically
altered by the Planning Commission.
2. The Applicant shall include in the Protective Covenants for the Subdivision the
following:
(a$ Th" View Shed Setback Line for Lots ll, 12,13, 14,15, & 16 shall be addressed.
B. The following wildlife habitat mitigation measures shall be incorporated:
i. Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing
recommendations.
ii. If hay will be stored on site, a stack yard shall be constructed to keep wildlife out.
iii. The open space and adjacent to BLM land shall be closed to dog use during the
winter months. Dogs shall always be on a leash outside of the house footprint.
The number of dogs per residences should be limited to one. During construction
of the residences, contraotors should not.be allowed to have dogs on site.
iv. Since cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds, cats should be kept
indoors at all times
v. CDOW is not liable for damages to landscaping from wildlife.
vi. The homeowner's should install bear-proof dumpsters or trash bins.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page27
3. The following geologichazudmitigation measures shall be adhered:
A. The recommendations by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech")
outlined in the Preliminary Giotechnical Study for the Subdivision dated February
28, ZOO3,[Job No. 103 1 15] shall be adhered. These Preliminary Design
Recommendations include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, under-drain
systern, site gfading, surface drainage and pavernent subgrade.
B. On Lots I 1,12,13,16 and 17, buildings and other movement sensitive facilities shall
,t ,l\u\" -- Y be located approximately 150 feet from the landslide boundary delineated on Figtres
w\t*$\F 't lA, lB, *a iC of the Pieliminary Geotechincal Study conducted by HP GeoTech
(FebruarY 28,2003; Job No. 103 115)'
C. prior to the Board of County Commissioners review, a slope stability analysis shall be
conducted in the area of Lois 18, 19, 20,21 &22,to ensure that the proposed building
envelopes are adequately sited to minimize the risk of slope movement after
construction. : *.-;r;jq W-*; d wnb 4cco0tu(ti*t'c'/
Evaporate deformation faults are present in parts of the building envelopes on.Lots
18, i9, 20, and2l. Thelocation of buildings or other movernent sensitive facilities
shall not be located within 50 feet of the faults shown on Figures 1B and lC of the
Preliminary Geotechnical Study co4t'if.cted by HP GeoTech (February 28, 2003; Job
No. 103 r is;.ffiese faultqrEflr-]f&lineated on Figures 1B and 1C shall be
delineated on tire Final Pl4|1tradLt1 P W '
E. In addition to the drain systerns for foundations recommended by HP GeoTech, due
to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around
foundations. Perimeter drains prevenlexcessive ground moisture from saturating the
soils and thus reduce the over potential for expansion or consolidation.
F. Due to the possible presence of radon gas in the area, testing for radon gas shall be
done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy.
*vruvs
*?o?l?ffrt1ld'
4. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Garfield County l"# fd
Bridge Department, dated /lpilZlZO03. Prior to Board of County Commissioners revierd, the
npp[cant shall work with thi Road and Bridge De,partnent and County Engineer to determine
an appropriate solution to the western access point for the subdivision.
5. prior to the Board of County Commissioners review, the Applicant shall work with the
D.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page28
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and the Garfield County Sheriff s Departrnent to
establish the appropriate locations for pull-outs for emergency vehicles and other reasonable
improvementr to tfr" subdivision roads deemed necessary by the Fire District and the Sheriffs
Department to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access. These pull-outs shall be delineated on
the Final Plat.
O. The roads / streets shall comply with the "Secondary Access" standards outlined in section
e:30 of the Subdivision n eri"ti"iri ' ii ifiryt 1 '/ z f h' r 't+a {4 ,- /d^ n( crt NA
7. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, all streets / roads within the
subdivision shall be dedicated to the public. Repair and maintenance of these roads shall be the
responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the Subdivision.
-4-€. ^ Prioito the Board of County Commissioners review, the Applicant shall submit a copy of
. fuU the'kildfirehazardmitigation plan" that has been reviewed and signed offby both the
nf \10$ Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection Diskict and the Garfield County SherifPs Department.
" J. g. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners review, the Applicant shall provide a
"r(q;Nt written determination the finaldete,nnination by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection
[ \\- District regarding the annexation of the property in to the Fire District.
10. Prior to installation of the antenna for the purpose of improving emergency radio
communication for fire fighters and other emergency personnel, the Applicant, Fire District or
designated entity shall pursue a Special use Permit with the county.
l l. The Applicant shall provide the following weed management information for review and
approval by the Garfield County Weed Management Director prior to Final Plat:
A. Noxious Weeds:
i. Inventory and mapping: The Applicant shall provide a map that represent specific
locations of County-listed noxious weeds on the property.
ii. Weed Management: The Applicant shall provide a weed management plan
should be based on a detailed inventory and provide for follow-up management.
iii. Common area weed management: The Coulter Ranch Homeowners Association
will implement weed management on the Common Open Space within the
prope"ty. In addition, arrangements have been made with a local rancher to
pofor* agricultural operations on the property. If weed management does not
occur o, th. property, there could be severe weed managerne,nt issues on the areas
that were prwiously used for hay production. The Applicant shall address this
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
PreliminarY Plan
PC 419103
Page29
issue.
iv. Covenants: Weed management is addressed in the covenants briefly under Article
IV, Section 2. T"heAppiicant shall include stronger language, perhaps under
Article IV, Section 6.- The language should remind each lot owner that it is their
responsibiiity under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County
weed Managernent Plan to manage county-listed noxious weeds'
B. Revegetation:
i. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield county weed
Management Plan 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) " .L-r*Li.tation bond or security at Preliminary Flan and prior to Final Plat'
ii. prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide a map or information that
quantifies the area, in te#s of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded
on road cut and utihty disturbances'
C. Soil Plan:
i. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil
Management Plan that includes:
a) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil'
:ltXiil'e'f #J"""i*'ffii'1"1ffiS'nff :m;*:*t?',..,.pileswi,rsit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more'
12. The property is located within the RE-1 School District. The Applicant shall pay the School
Land Dedication Impact Fee or pay cash-in-lieu of that land dedication whictr shall be due at the time
of Final plat. The total impact fee amount shall be determined prior to the finalization of the Final
Plat'
"
g\fi^t""
(D The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfielfl-Qq(nty Traffic SqaV Area 1l' 1hit
Yu "uffr
iolurr'impact fee payment to Garfield County o1g$+per ayerage. daily trip (ADT).
generated by the ,rtairirion. The total impact fee payment indl Ue determined prior to Final
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 30
Plat. Pursuant to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations, 500/o of the road impact fees shall
be collected at the Final Plat for the Subdivision. All other road impact fees will be collected at
the issuance of a building permit.
14. The following additional information shall be delineated on the Final Plat:
(f AJ The View Shed Setback Line along the west side of Lots 11, 12,'1.3,14,15 and 16.
\\ ' \-/
d\il "- i -(.B,) Tracts B and C shall eliminated or reconfigured to increase the lot size of these tracts
N ^N* I to a minimum of 2 acres.
't C. For Lots I 1,1.2,13, 16 & 17,the 150-foot construction setback, recommended by HP
GeoTech, shall be delineated.
D. The building envelopes for Lots 18, 19, 20 and21 shall be relocated away from the
evaporate deformation faults.
15. In addition to otherrequired conditions of approval, the.dpplicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
A. Building permit applications for each lot shall include plans and specifications for an
onsite wastewater treatment system. Each systern shall be designed by a State of
Colorado registered engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County
Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) regulations before a building permit will
be issued. The t1pe, size and location of each individual on-site wastewater system
(OWS) will be site-specific based on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design
criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. The soil
absorption/dispersal systems should be located within the building envelope on each
lot as identified on the Final Plat.
Historical drainage patterns shall be maintained on the property. No structures or
uses shall be located within the natural drainage way on the property.
Development on 40%o slopes or greater is prohibited on the lots.
Swelling soils, clay and claystone, are present on the site. Appropriate mitigation
may be necessary to build on a lot.
All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, excqtt that provisions
may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
PC: 419103
Page 3l
One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries.
No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption.
One (t; new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the
regulations promulgated there under, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. A11
dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances.
colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" state pursuant to c.R.s. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights,
sounds and smells of Garfield County's agriculttral operations as a normal and
necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy
ranching t""to.. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust,
smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical
fertilizers, soil,amendments,herbicides, and pesticides, anJ one or more of which
may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent agricultural operations.
A11 owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property.
Residents and landowners are encouraged to leam about these rights and
responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield
County.
H.
I.
r
Please,,Send Annlication to the Followins Referril Aeencieg
i., r. - . lrr*'rn , * in )+(,/L 1prru?+thtn I
-: Grand Valley Fire Protection Districtt -]F dffi;;;; iire Protection Dilycti(,'' '/
Appllcation Name:
IIate Application Sent:
Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation Distriot
Bookehff Soil Conser'vatioa Distri€t
TownofDeBeque
City ofRifle
Town ofBasalt
Townof Carbondale
CityofGle*rvood SPriaSs
TovmofNew Castle
Towtt of Silt
Town ofParachute
Eagle CountY Planning DePartment
Rl+ Blsf,oo Cou*y Pla#fag Departme*
Pitkin County Planning Department
Mese County Planning DePanmefit
Burning Mtn. Fire District
Town of Silt Fire DePartment
Rift€ Fire Protoo*b* Elil*rfux
RE-t SchootDistrict /
RE-2 S€hoolDiletri€t
School District 16
Carsondale Suritation Di strict
Battlement Mesa Water & Sanitation
Spring ValleY Saniation District
We* Gieaq/ood Sanitetio+ Dtstrk*
f"fiJ-V"ff"t frfattpofit* Sanitation District o, ,'akfi |
Rouing Fork Watu3ind Sanitrtion D'Id{,- c ^-f , ^ ff '
J-X Hog Cross Elwlcrrc{llq,&t"nq W$-? ,t -
a{ ?e -1-.\
Pubiic service comban{l/ otcb QililU.6U.D hf.f /y-K KNEsersyCS:o$ foleqil ,?@"&.*r21 Exu f3
Western SloPe Gas ComPanY l
t --V- US West Communications (G.S' & C'dale area)v +
uS west communications (N.c., silt, Rifle)
US West Communications (Rifle" B'M', Parachute)-"--'-'7- AT&T cabl€ s€rvic€'
Colorado Stde For€s Service
Colorado Department of Transportation
,/--T Colorado Dvision ofWildlife (GWS Office)--T Cobrado Division of lVildlife (GJ office)
,T corordoBetr. ofPt$lic rl€elth& Enviroqm€nt
:2-T Colorado DMsion of Water ResourcesilV ;ffird; Geological surveY - s"^+[4-
Colorado Water ConservancY Board
Colorado Mned Land Reclamation Board,re Brrcsu sf Land LAsags,m€ot
Oepartment of Energy-- Western fuea Power Admin'
gdeau of Reclamation - Western Colorado Area Office
US Corps ofEngineers
Northwest OPions of Long Term Care
Bouiag Fork Traasporution Autbority
Garfield CountY Road & Bridge
Garfi eld Courry Vegotation./X/_jx,_
Ixv
Garfield County Housing Authority .6,aAktdryW t4Yt'atro.)
ilffi'it'i"fJr .,1* |II Carfretd County Planning Deparfinentll
| [ nanctr at courter creet i i I I
llrl H
I f,;;";ofR"qo"st, sobdinirion"pp'od*ut"ry480a"t"tofltndioto26lott' ' t
I
I rhe Garfietd county planning Deparhcnt has received a lrnd use request es referenced abovc Your commenb lrc an
]
I important part of the evaluation process. rn order to "."i"o "u "ppropri"t "g*", comments and incorporatc them into
]
I l.llil-13-*--*ffi,1"o=*=*Lffi*..u,==*u.=,l,.,,,
'.
,fi..,mi,,i,.... ,,,,..F*,,..
I
II
tr'ile Namds)
PreliminarY Plan
Ranch at Coulter Creek
Phone! 970'945-EZIZ
Staff Planner: Tamara Pregl
Appticant: AsPen ValleY Land Trust
Phone: 945'0832
Cont*ct Pergon: TimMalloY
ffiof the intersection or 99*ry noua I r s *9 cutlt cd kt'
SummaryofRcqueot:Subdivisionapproximately4S0acresoflandinto26lots.
t.l
d^L^^l Ne;^i
rliiil!:rijfrr;i:
tir:ir:ji:i
cmlmical Surverv (Fee)
Fcest Service (Fee)-
ffi lijriir:,:j:rrji r r'r:nr j
Drrhlic Smice
I{olv Cross Electrio
silr/New castl4ifle-@--
soit@
Plarming Commisrion
BOCC
't; ri ; ,'
i,t,,. 'l
I
:
: . .._.i.ir.f!r:Nr.:.ir..:..ji..,.:,,
"":,1a1 , , J"il:r ;l;.1,r :..:rijj6$.
i 'i:a;::: 1r. -:),r:i l
-- ': ;t*: . '
.. ..il -
i
ri
H
,. l:ir -...r.:;'",
CountY
Proiect Name
i
GULORADO GEOLOGICAL SUKV EY
SUBMITTAL iORM FOR LAND-USE REVIEWS
"li; t,i ccfr, acl,,ox" -Lf L4 l{7
APPLICANT
(or Applicant,s Authorized Representative-iesponsible for paying GGS'review fee)
l
CGS LAND USE REVIEWS
Geological studies are required" by colorado counties for all subdivisions of unincorpo-
rated land i.,to pur."i, oiL* than 35 u.i*, under State statute C'R'S' 30-28-101 et seq'
(Senate Bill 35, 19?i;';;;; !t1t'"99.*""Ltn1*"; require geological studies for sub-
division of in"orpor'ra"Ji*a.In addition,lolalgovernments are emPowered to regu-
late develop*".ra u.iJiti", i" t ururdo"' lt minJral-resource ureus t'i'tder C'R'S' 24-65'l-
101 et seq. (Hous" giii -1041,
r 974) and,c'n's' 34-l-3o1et seq' (House Billt529'1973)'
respectivelY. . ,
Local-government agencies submit proposed subdivision applications and supporting
technical reports ," rh"ai;;; il;l.fi;isil; " -f* evaluation of those geologic
factors which would have significant irn:pact-o" th: PI.?P?""d use of the land"' in accor-
dance with state ,tut rt"r- Th-e CGS ,"ri-"'*r att" rlbTllTl documents and serves as a
technical advisor to local-government-planning agencies $urinS
the planning'Process'
Since 1984, the CGS has b6en requir"atflu* io [to""t the fuil direct cost of perform-
ing such reviews'
r - -:L^,^-^^l^mz io o..pntial fc project. It
Theadequateknowledgeofasite,s.geologyisessentialforanydevelopment
is needed at the start of the proiect t";;# io ptutt' design' and construct a safe devel-
opment. proper pf",'^1 ! f"i g"ofogi.li.oiaitio"t tan hilp developers and future
owners/usersreduceunnecessarymaintenanceand/orrepaircosts.
?:l?1f"fl?$lf:,:uJl3m z r s, Denver, co Bo2og
pt, iog-aoo-zot t, Fax: 303-866-2461
http://geosurvey'state.co'us
White coPY to CGS
Yellow coPY to Plannlng Agency
Plnk coPY to APplicant
G:LURD/aPPlication lorm'qxd
croated u16/98, rovised 919/02
. l.il,,. .'
_ Frequenfly Asked euestions and AnswersRegarding the CGS Land Use Review process
1 Wy am I rcquired to have a CGS reoiew when I alreaily hireilanil paiil for my own consultant?
[n1972, Senate Bill 35 was passed stating that any person orentity subdividing a property into parcJs of g5 acres or less onunincorporated land must submit geologic or geotechnical
reports to the County as part of theprefrninar| plat applicationprocess. Municipalities or public agencies may request that CGSreview a site, although these reviews are not goveined by thestatute.
2 lMy is a CGS reoietp necessary when I alreaily hired my ozongeologist?
The CGS review is an independent third_party review that isdone for the County, similir to the service a building i"t;;o.provides for conskuction review. The purpose of thi CG,S reviewis to ensure that all geologic concems t rrr" U*., adequatelyidentified and addressedh the geologic reports and that theproposed development is feasible.
3 Wy iloes CGS charge for land use reoiews? Doesn,t taxpayer
money pay for this sentice?
CGS land use reviews are not subsidized through the generalfund, although some other review agencies are supported bytaxpayer money. In 19g4 the state legislature decided that C,GSreviews should be paid for with fees paid by the applicant oitheprop:.:e{ development so that taxpayers are not viewed assubsidizing development.
4 Di4the CGS geologist make a fielit oisit to the site?A CGS geologist visits each site being reviewed. If the review is are-submittal for a site that has been v-isited previously, a secondsite visit-may not be ne.essary. If significani changes"have
occurred since the initial review, th6 site may be v"isiteJ again.
5 tNhy is the CGS reoiezo letter so short and simple? What is my
fee paying for?
The CGS letter is a review of the geologic material submitted andreflects the level of detail containld inihose documents. CGSdoes not offer designs, but rather ensures that the work that hasbeen done is meaningful and adequate for the site conditions andproposed development. A site review that adequately addressesall the geologic conditions present at the site miy be a shortconfirmation letter. If more work needs to be done or if difficultsite conditions are present the letter may be longer.
6 What ty.pe of infoxmation do I need to submit to CGS for a landuse rcoiew?
Thg mgre gcologic information that is submitted to CCS, theeasier it is for CGS to evalu; te the property. The required
documents may vary based on countyreqlir"rr,u.rt, and thepotential problems that may impact the p.oposed development.A topographic map is essential. Also, irrft.m"tio., regarding
slope, surficial materials, subsurface materials and bedrock,
presence of groundwater and depth, and specific geologic
hazards should be included, where app[c#le. Grlding"plans,
llgp: O1l"s, and geotechnical testing results are atsi verynerprul for the review. Thepresence ofgeologic hazards shouldbe evaluated with respect to the develoimenlpUrr. Also, theeffect of development on geologic conditions sirould bediscussed. The evaluation should include alternatives such asavoidance and mitigation techniques.
7 The subdiztision down.the rcail was approoed, why wasn,t mine?There could be several:u?:o_":, geologic conditioni .urr.nu.rg"-'over short distances; subdivisions maie prior to 1,972were notrequired to undergo a CGS review and may have not beenevaluated for geologic suitability at alf the'area down the road
Try b: incorporated as part of i municipality, which exempts itfrom the CGS review process. Another consideration is thatgeologic reviews are continually evolving and site conditionsthat have been judged acceptabie i" tf_," p"rrt *iy;;;;;;;;
considered as such, based on the cur.ent unae.rL"ai"g-; t["geologic processes and adverse impacts associated with them.
8 Wy arc CGS reoiews requireil eoen ofl low_dettsity properties?
lenite Bil] 35 pertains to subdivisions of less than 35 acres.Geologic hazards can occur on large-scales or small_scales;relying on low-density subdivisioi can not mitigate all geologichazards. For instance, entire hillsides mignrUe i.o"" to"rl"*Ziior landslide hazards. Large tracts of hnjmay be subject togroundwater problems.
9 Why can't I just use the soil conseroation maps for a geologicrepott?
The USDA soil conservation maps are a good start for geologicinvestigations, but do not contain sufficielt detail on tfi" p.iiUf"
10 Aren't some of your reoiew amments beyond the scope ofgeologic hazarils on my site?
Technically other agencies have regulatory authority regardingissues such as flood plains, groundivater availability ani o
wildfire, but these issues are also important factors in the overallg_eologic context of the site and may affect geologic f,azaras onthe site. The mention of a condition in tf,e ECS review letter isnot intended to influence the statutory authority of any otheragency, but rather to ensure that all parties are aware of apotentially problematic geologic .orltido.,. For instancg mentionof a situation involving i ma;Jr drainage is a flag that the U.S-
1r*{ 9..p-r_o_f Engineers or the ColorJdo Water ConservationBoard should be reviewing development plans.
L7 When I bought this property, no one told tne about any geologichazails on the site; can I gi back to the pteoious ozot erssomehou?
CGS,can not give legal advice. If the seller was aware of adverseconditions with respect to the proposed use, this should havebeen disclosed. A Iegal opinion should be sought.
72 Can I get a waioet from haoing the CGS do a rcoiew?
The discretion to grant waiveri is vested by law with thecounties. Once an application for review is submitted to CGS, weare under a stafutory responsibility to respond.
73 I am-willing to accept the rlsk associated ioith my property
-why is it anyone,s business what I ilo with my ozpn land?The presumption associated with a subdivision is that portionsof the property will be sold to others. This then assigns any riskto future buyers, and the county is required to protect theirinterests. Senate Bill 35 addresses u *ide ,ru.i"ty of land useissues as.well as, geologic suitability in an attempt to provideinformation so that the overalt appropriateness of thesubdivision proposal can be
"rraiuut"d.
-
/
March 5, 2003
TimIv1alloy
TG Malloy Consulting
181 Orchard Lane
Gle,nwood Sprinp, CO 81601
BAILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: Rrnch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plan
DearTim:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Preliminary Plan applicatiorq submitted on behalf of Aspen
Valley Land TrusL has been deemed technically compliant. Please understand that a determinatim oftedmical
compliance by this office shall not be deemod a recommendation of approval, finding of adequacy of the
applicatior5 or a finding of genoal compliance with any goal or objective of the Garfield Cormty Subdivision
Regulations.
The application will be heard before the Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 9, 2003,
in the Garfield Cormty Plaza Building Commissioners Hearing Roonq Suite 100, 108 8m Sfreet, Gle,nwood
Sprin5. Should this date be inconvenient for yor:, please contact me for a different meeting date. The Friday
prior to the meeting date, a staffreport and agenda, which will indicate the approximate order of items to be
heard at themeeting will be available foryouto pick-up intheBuilding andPlamingDeparment, or a oopy
can be mailed to you upon request.
As a matter of process, the Planning Commission ("Commission") shall hold an advertised public hearing on
the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. The Applicant shall be solely
responsible for the publication, posting and mailing of all notices and shall present proof of publication and
mailing at or before the meeting. If proper notice has not occured, the public heoring will not oocur.
Notice forthe meeting shall be given as follows:
I . Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, desoiption of the subject lo! a decription of
the proposed subdivision and nature of the meeting 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 such hearing
and proofofpublication shall be presented at hearing by the applicant.
2. Notice by mail, containing information as described undo paragraph (1) above, shall be mailed to all
ownerc ofrecord as shown inthe County Assessor's Office of lots withintwo hundred feet (200') ofthe
subject lot, all owners of mineral interest in the subject property, and all tenants of any strucfire
proposed for conversion to condominftrms, at least thirly (30) but not more than sixty (60) days priorto
such hearing time by certified retum receipt mail, and rweipts shall be presented at the hearing by the
applicant.
Guffield Coanty
108 8th Street. Suile 201. Glenwood Snrinq.s. Colorado 8t50t
\
ldalloy
Page 2
3. 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 Departmort. The posting must take place at least thirly
(30) brrt not more than sixty (60) days prior to the hearing date and is the sole responsibility of the
applicant to post the notice, and ensrne that it mains posted until and furing the date of the hearing.
The Commission shall complete its review and make iB recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners ('Board") at the public hearing on the Preliminary Plan or continue the hearing to the next
regularly scheduled Commission meeting for additional infonnation or public input before making a decision.
The Commission may approvaf conditional approval or disapproval of the Plan to the Board
The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth il the minrses of the meeting or
in a written Resolution Within 60 days after completion of the Commission hearing; the Board shall hold an
advertised public hearing otr the proposed subdivision Upon completion of the Commission hearing staff
will schedule the application before Board and provide you a public notice for mailing.
Since the application has been deemed technically compliant the Planning Department will send copies of the
application to review agencie for comments.
I look forward to working with you in the processing of this application Do not hesitate to contact me in the
event you have any questions.
Enclosure
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAI(E NOTICE that Aspen Valley Land Trust has applied to the Planning CornmissioU Garfield
County, State of Colorado, to request a prcliminary Plan review for Subdivision approva[ puruaut to
Section 4:00 of the Garfield County SuMivision Regulations, as amended in connectionwiththe
fo[owing described property situated inthe County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Leeal Description: See Attaohed.
Practical Descrbtion: Located west ofthe intasection of County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road
on Missouri Heights approximately 5 miles northeast of Carbondale.
Request.Description: The Subdivision Preliminary Ptan application proposes to dovelop
approximately 480 acres of tand into 26 lots. The new lots will cover approximately 156 ocnes
and the remaining acneage, excluding rights-of-ways, will be common open splse.
All persons affected by the proposed SuMivision Preliminary Plan application are invited to
appeax and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such
hearing, thenyou are urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Cornmissionwill give
consideration to the cornrnents of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in decitting
whether to grant or deny the request for the proposed subdivision The application may be
reviewed at tle office ofthe Planrdng Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Garfield
Connty PlazlBuilding, Glenwood Springs, Colorado betweenthe hours of 8:30 am" and 5:00
p.m-, Monday through Friday.
A pubHc hearing on the application has been scheduled fot' the 9ft day of Aprilr 2003, at
6:30 p.m, inthe County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County PlaaBuilding, Suite 100,
108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
Gerlield Ccan$
BUILDING & PI,/INNING DEPARTMENT
Februry 28,2003
Tim Malloy
TG Malloy Consulting
lSl OrchrdLme
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Rs Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plrn
DearTim:
Thank you for the valid dwelopment application made on behalf of Aspen Valley Land Tnrst submitted
on Februry 24,2003. As we has discrrsse{ the purpose of this letter is to notify pu that the applioation
has been deemed technically non-compliant for fte following reasons:
,/t. Swtion 4:50@) of the Subdivision Regulations: "Date of prepararion ctf thc map, graphic scale,
basis of bearing and symbol designating North, certified by a Colorado registered professional
surrery. " Pef, our corversation, you will be providing one Colorado registered profession surv€yor
certified copy of &e Preliminary Plan for the office file.
2. Sectio,n 4:50(F): "Departing prupergt lines, names and atklresses of otmers ofreconl of all
. - parcels aQioining andwithin two hundred (200) feet ofthe Tnoposed subdivision, including thosev separated by a public right-of-woy. " You indicated that tre incorrect departing prop€{f lines will be
aocurately represented on the Preliminry Plan.
3. Section 4:50@: "Standard lot setbaclo, which rnty be irulicated by map note. " You indicated
that this is included on Page 5 of the written applioation tort. This is required to be represeirted on the
Preliminary Plans.
4. Soction (I[l-8): Landuse breakdown showing:
7 t. Existingzoningandproposedzoningchonge, ifapplicabte; th"W'oitil?4 * *{'
2. Total development area;
3, Total number of lor,s proposed;
4. Total number of dwelling units proposed;
4 Toal area ofnon-residentialfloor space;4 Total number ofindivi&tal dwetlingunits proposedfor each stntcture;
-trTotal number of proposed off-street parHng spaces;
8. Total gross density proposed, number of fuelling units as a ratio to the total
devetopment alea. (*f )
As we have discusse{ a couple of the lmd use breakdowns list above 6 6b #7) arenot applicable to the
proposed Subdivision. However, the remaindo of the breakdown listed above shall be included on the
Preliminary Plms, wen if they are addressed within the written application tort.
108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenyvood Sprinss. Colorado 81601
ldalloy
Prye2
./ S. Sectio,n 4:50(0): "Any existing eqsements, alongwirh the name(s) and address(es) of the entity
having on easement and legal dcseription of those easements."
Per our conversation, there is an oristing 60' access easem€nt along the upper northeast property boundry
offof County Road I15. The nm{s) and address(es) of the benefactor of the easemcffi shall be
provided. Also, you noted that there is a power line that runs within the property that is currently not witt
a recorded easement. It was my understanding tha as part of the Subdivision approvat the Applicant will
record m ea$ment for this power line.
6. Section 4:70(A): 'Geologt - Description and;lor itlustration by a registeredprofessionol'
,/ engineer licewed by the State of Colarodo ofbedrock lithologt and the strstigraphy of overlaying
unconsolidated materials in sfficient detail to indicate ony potential development problems resulting
from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations arul ills, expansive soils, draittage Wttem$,
sffiictural bearing strenglh, or the like"
Per our discussio,ng a geotechnical waluation of the property, addressing the above noted requiremeu!
has bem conductpd by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnica[ Inc. and will be provided to our deparheirt when
it is available' .-'- fitl,td'wufut
,/ t. Section4:91(E): ffiiiiit/^PtanofAusnentationandaplanforsubdnx#wa,rri"-- 5e+b I
!!npl#"*".# required by iaw, witi the sipporting engiieeringwork sign;ct 6;ie;nom7;Wtrfrd lD
' :::' x::;';::::::#:: ^;:::":::' :x: :: ::;::::: *'ff .
supporting engiueering work signed by a Colorado registered engineer. It appers that Exhibit A of&e
Augme,ntation Plan, the'\rder rights location oQp", was compiled by Resources Engineering, however,
this "supporting engineering work" has oot been signed by a Colorado registued engineer.
,/ 8. Section 4:92(D[l-3): "If no central sewage treabttent worla is proposed and indivtdual sewage
disposal systems will be utilized, a description of sewage, tlrc disposal means, as well as evidence as the
result of soil percolation tests andproduce exc(uatiorus to determine mca,itnum seasonol groundwater
level and depth to bedrock shall be provided In addition:
il<rt, I. Indieatedbylocationontheplat;
n/ 2. Performed and signed by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of- Colorado:
-*> 3. Adcquate in rumber and location to meet requirements of the GaSeld County Indiviilml
Sev,age Disposal Requirements andthe Colomdo Department of Public llealth Water
Suali ty C ontrol C ommis s io n "
Per out discussiors, it is my understmding tlrat the geotechnical evaluation of &e property, addressing the
above noted requirernents, conducted by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. will be provided to our
deparkrentwhe,n it is available.
Malloy
Page 3
,./ 9. Puruant to scction 4:93 of the Subdivision Regulations:, "All utility arul road plaru shall be
marked "NotJbr Constntction"." This uotation has not boen delineated on the utility and road plans. It
is my understanding that the 11" X 17' copios of the Preliminary Plan will have this notation" however,
&e24- X 36' copies will not Two (2) 24" X 36" copies of &e Preliminry Plan with &e ap,propriarc
notation on them shall be provide to our office. One copy will be forwardod to the County Eqgine€r.
Please note that in the future, all the utility and road plms shall be mrked *Not for Consbuction" to in
order tote deemed t€cfcally complimt.
Section3:22 of the Crarfield County SuMivision Regulations states rhad if the application is deemed
technically non-complimt you shall be notified in writine of the additional information ueeded md the
application shall be suspended in the review process rmtil strch information is provided. Thus, this
application has beeir zuspe,nded in the review process. You may request a confer€mce with me not latcr
tbm te,n (10) working days after receipt of this letter ifyou re in need of firrtha information. The
applicmt shall have six (6) months after the date of this lelter to remody the deficiencies noted h€rein,
ofrerwise the applicatioo wil be considered terminated.
Sincerely,U;O
ramraPregr %
Senior Planner
lary3ya Prg_s_L
From: Tamara Pregl
Sent: Thursday, February 27,20031 :06 PM
To: 'Tim Malloy'
Subject: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Tim,
I have had a chance to review the Preliminary Plan for Ranch at Coulter Creek for technical compliance. I
will put the following in letter form, however, I thought we could discuss these items before I pui a lettet
together.
1. Section 4:50@): Date of preparation of the map, graphic scale, basis of bearing and symbol
designating North, certified by a Colorado registered professional surveyor. I do not see that the plan have
been certified by a Colorado registered professional surveyor.
2. Section 4:50(F): Departing property lines, names and addresses of owners of record of all parcels
adjoining and within ... I do not see the department property lines of the adjoining properties. You do have
the names of the owners on the sheet 2.
3. Section 4:50(I): Standard lot setbacks,which may be indicated by rnap note. I don't see this on the
Preliminary Plans.
4. Sectiona:50@(1-8):
should discuss.
I don't think these have been addressed properly. Defrnitely something we
5. Section 4:50(0): Any existing easements, along with the names(s) and address(es) of the entity having
an easement and legal description of those easements. This has not been discusses or addressed to my
knowledge.
6. Section 4:70(A): Geologt...ldon't think the HP Geotech report addresses any of this section.
7. Section a:9L(A)Q-a): Have these been addressed?
8. Section a:91@)(2): This has not bee addressed.
9. Section 4:91(E): I don't see that this has been addressed. I could have missed it.
10._ Section a:92@)(1-3): Not addressed. On page 11 of the application, it references HP Geotech report
and percolation tests conducted by them. No percolation tests attached to the report.
11. Section 4:93: This was not done.
12. Itnve some additional questions on the maps regarding the storage tank with dry hydrant.
13. Tract B and C are less than2 acres. This is not allowed.
14. No discussion regarding the walking trail, i.e. how it will be installed, constructed, materials, and who
will maintain it.
2t28t2003
I think that is it for know.
by 1:00.
Tamara
I will be around all aftemoon. Heading out for a quick lunch and should be back
2/2812003
4:40
4:41
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The Preliminary Plan submittal shall contain an application form, map(s),
and required additional and supplenrental information. A11 documentation shall be of
sufficient detail and clarity to answer basic engineering questions and to permit
evaluation of the application. Detailed construction, engineering and design plans will be
developed at the time of Final Plat submittal.
4 +,+z Unless otherwise specified, maps and plans shall be to scale as follows:
Subdivision Lot Area
Less than 10,000 sq. ft.
10,001 sq. ft. - 2 aqes
2.01 acres or more
4:50 PRELIMINARY PLAN MAP
Scale
1":50'or less
1 ":100' or less
1":200'or less
)<
\
X
x-
i
x
The Preliminary Plan map shall show the entire area proposed for subdivision on
one (1) sheet, if practical , at a size of 24" x 36". The map shall include the
following information :
A. Name of the proposed subdivision, which shall be different from
that of any subdivision previously recorded in Garfield County.
B. Date of preparation of the map, graphic scale, basis ofbearing and
symbol designating North, certified by.p, Colorado. r.egsfered plofrygiorqlsurveyor; CrU U,(44 - WLW) A,lr4ttl,r4 fru"'t<tl '
C. Boundary lines with b'earings and distances, survej ties and legal
description of the proposed subdivision;
D. Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owner(s), applicant(s),
planner(s) and engineer(s) for the proposed subdivision; names and
addresses ofrnineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of record of the
proposed subdivision, and of the tenants of any structure proposed for
conversion;
E. Vicinity map from U.S.G.S. quadrangle at a scale of l":2000'
depicting the location of streets, highways and adjacent utility systems
within a minimirm one-half (l 12) mile of the proposed subdivision and
showing the natural drainage courses for sfreams flowing through the
proposed subdivision with the limits of tributary areas shown where
ieasonable; attMS *O Wt,-panfurrt rF. Departing prop,Jrty lines, faniei and addiesses ofbwners of record
of all parcels adjoining and within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed
subdivision, including those separated by a public right-of-way
G. Street, block and lot layout within the proposed subdivision,
including tlie approximate area of each lot;
-1-
X H.
I.
J.
0A_-
-p'b
( Proposed easements for drainage, irrigation, access and
L Standard lot setbacks, which may be indicated by map note;
i.*0"T.l[,H:Hif ffi "posed,,,,G{n,,{*,irappricabre;2. Total development a1r.a dbtdzl ?-t1N ? )"{MI
3. Total number of lots proposed; ,2 fit{t$ -4. Total number of dwelling units proposed; v'
ratio to the total Oe"efop-.rt uea. ? n.b,6(1vLfi t
Existing contours with the following minimum cdntour intervals:
Total area of non-residential floor space; " {10ft(.
Total number of individpalpwellipg units proposed for ' , ,gl
iTl,'ffiffi;rf#'f Warking spaces; r*+W
Total gross density proposed, number of dwelling,qnits 4s a
ratio to the total Oevefopm# uea. ? n.b,6(1vLfi t
L.
M.
N.
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
1. Two foot (2) contour interval for subdivision with any lot
less than two (2) acres in size;
Five foot (5) contour interval for subdivisions with all lots
being at least two (2) acres in size;
(A note shall be included noting the origin and datum of
topography).
Common open space not reserved or dedicated to the public;
Sites to be preserved or dedicated for public parks, schools and
other public buildings, facilities or use;
Approximate street grades and road centerline radii of curvature
Proposed terms of reservations or dedication of sites for public and/or
coulmon facilities or use, if any;
Description of any proposed phasing plan, if any;
Evidence that all lots and parcels created will have access to a public right-
of-way, as required by Colorado state law;
Total nunrber of proposed off-sfieet parking spaces, excluding those
provided for single-family residentialwe; ? .(?
Evidence that all areas of the proposed subdivision, which may involve
soil or topographical conditions presenting hazards or requiring special
precautions, have been identified, and the proposed uses of these areas are
*'*'ifi;toi; ' 'Pi,wa+n,^nt^)^WPY'*60 ADDrrroNALrNFoRMArroN
' [*i;'h;w44^1M,
The following information shall accompany the Preliminary Plan:
B.
C.
D.
-2-
_L
x
compatible with such conditions;
F. Radiation evaluation for areas of potential radiation hazudto future land
use;
G. A title commitment for property to be developed; and
H. If there is a subdivision of a section required, a copy of the final work
sheet shall be provided for approval by the County Surveyor. p,+ . ?
4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: GEOLOGY, SOIL,
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Information on the following characteristics of the area proposed for subdivision
shall be shown graphically and/or by reports, whatever is appropriate, for a
complete description of existing conditions, and shall include:
B. Soils - Map and description of soil types and their boundaries based on the
National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,
and including a table of interpretations;
C. Vegetation - Map and description of plant associations following practices
of the Soil Conservation Service and including a description of adapted
materials and the location of major tree masses; and
D. Wildlife - Description of wildlife habitation, including big game ranges
based on the mapping practices of the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
4:80 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
A drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an t/
engineer registered in the State of Colorado, shall depict the following
information in graphic and/or written form:
-k Existing water courses and lakes; r Na.,
-'ff Limits of tributary arebs, where practica\ r{/a-
C. Computations of expected tributary flows; and
D. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic
7 nn-off from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage
facilities, and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one
x
x
K
x
-3-
A.
hundred (100) year storm, showing:
1. Area subject to inundation; and
2. Location and;ye of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and
channels. t
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: UTILITY PLAN
A water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall
Igvlde the following information in graphic and/or written form:
vidence that a water supply, qufficient in terms of quality, y'
quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply
@ subdivision. Such evidence may include, but
shall not be limited to:
6 l. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing and
proposed water rights;
rzHistoric use and estimated yield of claimed water rights;
,z^Amenability of existing right to change in use;y'Eidence that public or privato water owners can and will supply
water to the proposed subdivision, including the amount ofwalg- ,/ A 22
available for use within the subdivision by such providerslthe
feasibility of extending service to the area, proof of the legal
dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation
that all necessary water
obtained or adjudicated,
5. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply
for the subdivision.
If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general
description of the systern, q_{S!ryg$ a Colorado registered engineer.
In addition:
1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water
^- -, svstem: and q,W f'roposed method of financing the water systenr.
If connection is to be made to an existing water systern, a letter from an
authorized representative of said system stagrng that the proposed
development will be served, and evidence from either the Colorado State
Engineer's Office or Water Court, Water Division No. 5, that the existing
water system presently possesses an adequate legal water supply to serve
the proposed development;
If individual water systems shall be provided by lot owners, a report
indicating the availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable
depths throughout the subdivision and the expected quality and long-term
yield of such wells, with the written report by a registered professional
engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, qualified to perform such
#
Nw"
work; and
If applicable, a Plan of Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water -.
supplies, as required by law, with the supporting engineering work6ignec!-/
by a Colorado registered engineer, shall be submitted by the applican-[l {
even if the applicant is not the actual supplier of water.
4:92 A sanitary sewage disposal plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall
provid-e the following information in graphic and/or written form:
-.k' If a public sewage disposal systern is proposed evidence that provision has
been made for an adequate sewage treatment works for the subdivision
and, if other methods of sewage disposal are proposed, evidence that such
systerns will comply with state and local laws and regulations;
-d If a sewage treatment works is proposed, a general description of the/ collection system and treatfirent facilities, as designed by a registered
professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. In addition:
1. Copy of a completed, but unapproved, Colorado Deparfrnent of
Health Waste Water Treatrnent Plant Site Location Approval
Application;
2. Nature of the legal entity which shall own and operate the sewage
treatment works; and
3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works;
If public or private sewage treatment facilities are to be provided by an
existing district or through connection to an existing sewer system,
evidence that the treahnent facility or system can and will provide
adequate sewage treatment for the proposed subdivision. In addition:
l. Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system
stating that the proposed development can and will be served;
Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the sewage
treatnent works; and
3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works;
If no cenfral sewage treatment works is proposed and i@dgalSSwgge
disposal systems will be utilized, a description of sewage, the disposal
e result of soil'percolation tests and
produce excavations to determine maximum seasonal ground water level
and depth to bedrock shall be provided. In addition; '
1. Indicatedby location on the plat; r ?
2. Performed and signed by a registered professional engineer
licensed by the State of Colorado;
3. Adequate in number and location to meet requirements of the
Garfield County Individual Sewage Disposal Requirements and the
Colorado Departrnent of Public Health, Water Quality Conhol
Commission; and
D.
$W
E. If individual sewage disposal systems are to be utilized, a proposed
management plan for the operation and maintenance of on-site systerns
x
4:93
4:94
shall be provided.
All utility and road plans shall be marked "Not for Construction".
Off-site road impacts shall be evaluated for subdivisions through
completion of a traffic study identiffing the volume of traffic generated
from the development, based on Trip Generation Rate calculations
utilizing the most current Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation
Manual, to establish an Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The road impact
fee shall be established as a result of entering the applicable data identified
in the Road Impact Fee calculation Work Sheet located in Appendix A.
oI'2
Tamara Pregl
From: Tamara Pregl
Sent: Thursday, February 27,2003 1:06 PM
To: 'Tim Malloy'
Subject: Ranch at Coulter Creek
Tim,
I have had a chance to review the Preliminary Plan for Ranch at Coulter Creek for technical compliance. I
will put the following in letter forrn, however, I thought we could discuss these items before I put a letter
together.
l. Section 4:50@): Date of preparation of the map, graphic scale, basis of bearing and symbol
designating North, certified by a Colorado registered professional surveyor. I do not see that the plan have
bee,n certified by a Colorado registered professional surveyor.
2. Section 4:50(F): Departing property lines, names and addresses of owners of record of all parcels
adjoining and within... I do not see the department property lines of the adjoining properties. You do have
the names of the owners on the sheet 2.
3. Section 4:50O: Standard lot setbaclcs, which may be indicated by map note. I don't see this on the
Preliminary Plans.
4. Section a:50(f(1-8): I don't think these have been addressed properly. Definitely something we
should discuss.
5. Section 4:50(0): Any existing easements, along with the names(s) and address(es) of the entity having
an easement and legal description of those easernents. This has not been discusses or addressed to my
knowledge.
6. Section 4:70(4): Geologt...l don't think the HP Geotech report addresses any of this section.
7. Section 4:9I(A)(2-4): Have these been addressed?
8. Section 4:91@)(2): This has not bee addressed.
9. Section 4:91(E): I don't see that this has been addressed. I could have missed it.
10. Section a:92(D)(1-3): Not addressed. On page 11 of the application, it references HP Geotech report
and percolation tests conducted by them. No percolation tests attached to the report.
11. Section4:93: This was not done.
12. I have some additional questions on the maps regarding the storage tank with dry hydrant.
13. Tract B and C are less than2 acres. This is not allowed.
14. No discussion regarding the walking ffail, i.e. how it will be installed, constructed, materials, and who
will maintain it.
212812003
rage z or z
I will be around all aftemoon. Heading out for a quick lunch and should be backI think that is it for know.
by 1:00.
Tamara
212812003
t
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
ftEcefyDD
FEB Z 4 ltttq
,rffilE;Tgy,tp
Subdivision Application Form
GENEML INFORMATION
D Subdivision Name:
) Type of Subdivision (check one of the following types):
Final PlatSketch Plan
-
Preliminary Plrn t /
) Name of Prooertv Owner:
) Address:Telephone:
D City:State: b Zip Code:
rerephone : ?7 0 .1A3g4Zh
state: co zip code8 /6% Fpxrui
Telephone, 47O,
Zip code: 8/6zS rpx,fl7fl*'c
Name of Survevor:
Address:Telephone:
City:Zip Code: _ FAX:
Name of Planner:
Address:Telephone:
Name of Enqineer:
c.ty: Gl,State: Cd Zip code: Ol@( rpx:17o.q45'
GENERAL I NFORMATION continued...
> Location of Property: Sectio " C i 1 Township 1 a.nge ft'\VJ-
) Practical Location / Address of Property, CF / 15
F Cunent Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres'): 41 O . 1
) Number of Tracts / Lots Created within the Proposed Subdivision:
) Property Cunent Land Use Designation:
il,
1. Property's Current Zone E
2. Comprehensive Plan Map
Proposed Utility Service:
) Proposed Water Source:a/
) Proposed Method of Sewage
D Proposed Public Access VIA:
Disposal: an-7C K"l, tE
) Easements:Utility:
Ditch:
Base fee offfiaid on 'e
) Total Development Area (fill in the appropriate boxes below):
Plat Review Pss 6f$6trFidon
o3
e,,pi^r
I. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS
ln order to subdivide land in Garfield County, an Applicant is required to complete the following land use
processes in the following order: 1) Sketch Plan Review Process, 2) Preliminary Plan Review Process, and
3) Final Plat Review Process. This section will briefly describe the nature of each process and provide
general direction including subdivision regulation citations to a potential applicant requesting subdivision
approval in Garfield County. All of the Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are located for
purchase at the Planning Department and can also be found on the World Wide Web at the following
address: htto://www.oarfield-countv.com/buildino and olannino/index.htm
A) The Sketch Plan Review (Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Sketch Plan process is to allow an individual an opportunity to
propose a subdivision in a "sketch" format to the Planning Department and the Garfield
County Planning Commission in order to obtain a cursory review for compliance with
the Gounty's land use review documents, regulations, and policies to identify any
issues that would need to be addressed if the proposed subdivision were to be pursued.
2. Aoolicabilitv
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Sketch Plan review process as the first step in Garfield County's Subdivision process.
More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision (Section 2:20.48) as the
division of a lot, tract or parcel of Iand into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or
separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or
other multiple-dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submiftal Requirements
ln order to apply for a Sketch Plan Review an Applicant is responsible for reviewing
Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations and providing enough information to the
Planning Department in the application to conduct a thorough review and provide the
resulting comments to the Planning Commission for their review and comments.
Specifically, Section 3:30, 3:32, and 3:40 of the Subdivision Regulations contain the
specific infonnation required to be submitted to the Planning Department in order to
satisfy the application requirements in addition to the information requested on this
application form.
4. Process / Public Meetino
The Sketch Plan review process is considered a 1-step process because the
application is reviewed only by the Planning Commission at a public meeting. ln oder
to appear before the Planning Commission, an applicant will have submifted all
required application submittal requirements mentioned above to the Planning
Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will have 15 working days to review the
application to determine if all the required submittal information has been submitted as
required.
lf Staff determines that all the required information has been submifted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." lt is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
3
scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission and will request the
applicant supply additional copies to provide the Commission for their review.
lf Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomolete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
applicant knows what additional informatlon needs to be submitted. At this point, the
applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the
Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically
complete. lf the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time,
the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission will review the application, Staff will
conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory
documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000. ln addition, Staff will also consider refenal comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application.
As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will
also be fumished in advance to the applicant.
At the date and time set for the public meeting before the Planning Commission, Staff
will present the findings in the Memorandum and the applicant wil! be required to
present the proposed subdivision and respond to comments and questions provided by
the Planning Commission. The comments provided to the Applicant by the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission as a result of the Sketch Plan Process will
be kept on file in the Planning Department for 1-year from the meeting date before the
Planning Commission. lf an Applicant does not submit a Preliminary Plan application to
the Planning Department within the 1-year timeframe, the Sketch Plan file will be
closed and the Applicant will need to reapply for a Sketch Plan review prior to a
Preliminary Plan review.
B) Preliminarv Plan Review (Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Preliminary Plan review process is to conduct a thorough review of
the many aspects that are associated with dividing land in Garfield County for the
purposes of residential, commercial, and industrial development. This is the most
intensive review step where the Building and Planning Staff, the Planning Commission,
and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will conduct a thorough review of all
the issues associated with the proposed subdivision against the County's regulatory
requirements. Ultimately, the purpose of this process is to identify a!! the major issues
in the proposed subdivision by using the County's Zoning Resolution, Subdivision
Regulations, Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as well as other state and local refenal
agencies that wil! provide comments on any issues raised in their review. This is the
process that will either approve or deny the application request.
4
2. Apolicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Preliminary Plan review process as the second and most intensive step in Garfield
County's Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision
as the division of a !ot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more !ots, tracts, parcels or
separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or
other multipledwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submitta! Requirements
ln order to apply for a Preliminary Plan Review, an Applicant must
completed the Sketch Plan review process addressed in Section
Subdivision Regulations.
have
3:00
already
of the
An applicant requesting Preliminary Plan review will be required to submit this
application form, all the required submittal information contained in Sections 4:40 to
4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations as well as address all of the applicable Desion and
lmprovement Standards in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
ln addition to the substantive submittal information related to the proposed subdivision
project itself, an applicant is required to complete all the oublic notice requirements so
that legal public hearings can be held before the Planning Commission and the BOCC
which is addressed in Sections 4:20 - 4:31 of the Subdivision Regulations.
4. Process / Public Hearings
The Preliminary Plan review process is considered a 2-step process because the
application is ultimately reviewed by two County decision-making entities during public
hearings: the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
ln order to obtain dates for the public hearings before the Planning Commission and
the BOCC, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal
requirements mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted,
Staff will have 30 working days to review the application to determine if all the required
submittal information has been submitted as required.
lf Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." lt is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission / BOCC. Additionally, Staff
will provide the applicant with the notice forms to be mailed, published, and posted.
lf Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
5
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the
applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the
Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically
complete. lf the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time,
the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission / BOCC will review the application,
Staff will conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use
regulatory documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and
the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. ln addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application.
As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission / BOCC containing the results on the land use analysis. This
Memorandum will also be furnished in advance to the applicant prior to the public
hearings.
As mentioned above, Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
the BOCC regarding the issues raised in the analysis of the proposed subdivision. The
Applicant will first propose the subdivision to the Planning Commission who is
responsible for making a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or
denial to the BOCC. Next, the application will be reviewed by the BOCC during a
regular public hearing. The BOCC wil! consider the recommendations from the
Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, the information presented by the
applicant, and the public. As a result, the BOCC is the final decision-making entity
regarding the proposed subdivision and will either approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application.
lf the BOCC approves the subdivision application at the public hearing, the apprcval
shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval,
or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted
by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. (See the specific
information provided in Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations.) Following the
hearing, Staff will provide a resolution signed by the BOCC which memorializes the
action taken by the Board with any / all conditions which will be recorded in the Clerk
and Recorde/s Office. Once an applicant has Preliminary Plan approval, they are
required to complete the third and fina! step in the County's Subdivision Process: Final
Plat Review.
C) Fina! Plat Review (Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Final Plat review process is to provide the applicant with a
mechanism to prove to the County that a!! the conditions of approva! required during
the Preliminary Plan review process have been met / addressed to the satisfaction of
the Planning Staff and the BOCC. This being the case, the chairman of the BOCC will
sign the Final Plat and have it recorded memorializing the subdivision approval granted
by the BOCC. This is the last step in the County's subdivision process.
2. Applicability
Any individua! proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Final Plat review process as the third and last step in Garfield County's Subdivision
process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division of a lot,
tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or
the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multipledwelling
units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Aoolication / Submittal Requirements
ln order to apply for a Final Plat review, an Applicant must have already completed the
Preliminary Plan review process addressed in Section 4:00 of the SuMivision
Regulations.
An applicant requesting Final Plat review will be required to submit this application form,
all the required submittal information contained in Section 5:00 of the Subdivision
Regulations and responses to all the conditions of approval required as part of the
Preliminary Plan review process.
4. Process
The Final Plat review process is considered a 1-step process because the application
is ultimately reviewed by the Building and Planning Staff and presented to the BOCC
for their signature if the application satisfies all the required submittal information to the
satisfaction of the Building and Planning Department.
lf Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed 'technically
complete." lt is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
scheduled to be presented to the BOCC for signature. (This is not a public hearing or
meeting and therefore does not require public notice.)
lf Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be 'technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the BOCC will review the Final Plat, Staff will review the
application / Final Plat in terms of adequacy to determine if all the submittal information
satisfies the Final plat requirements as well as the responses to the conditions of
approval. During this review, Staff will forward the Final Plat the County Surveyor for
review and a signature. ln the event there are additional questions or clarification
issues to be addressed, the County Surveyor will generally contact the applicant to
have the plat adjusted as necessary. Once, Staff has completed the review and all
required information has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Department
7
and the County Surveyor has signed the Final Plat in Mylar form, it will be scheduled at
the next BOCC meeting to be placed on the consent agenda with a request to
authorize the Chairman of the BOCC to sign the plat.
Once the Final Plat is signed, it is then recorded by the County Clerk in the Clerk and
Recorder's Office for a fee of $11 for the first sheet and $10 for each additional sheet
thereafter. This fee shall be paid by the applicant. This act of recording the signed Final
Plat represents the completion of the Garfield County Subdivision Process.
Please refer to the specific language in the Final Plat portion (Section 5:00) of the
Subdivision Regulations for specific timelines and additiona! responsibilities required of
the applicant to complete the Final Plat process.
statements above and have provided the required attached information
and to the best of my knowledge.
/, u^ls
Last Revised: 1 1 121 12002
Please Note: This information presented above is to be used as a
general guide for an applicant considering a subdivision in Garfield
Gounty. lt is highly recommended that an applicant either purchase
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations
or access them on-line at:
http://www.qarfield-countv.com/buildinq and planninq/index.htm
in order to ascertain all the necessary requirements for each of the
three steps including Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary Plan Review,
and Final Plat Review.
GART'IELD COT]NTY BTIILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEE SCHEDULE
Garfield County, pursuant to Board of County Commissioners ("Board") Resolution No. 98-09, has established
a fee structure ("Base Fee") for the processing of each type of subdivision and land use applications.
The Base Fee is an estimate of the average number of hours of staff time devoted to an application, multiplied
by an hourly rate for the personnel involved. The Board recognized that the subdivision and land use
application processing time will vary and that an applicant should pay for the total cost of the review which may
require additional billing. Hourly rates based on the hourly salary, and fringe benefits costs of the respective
positions combined with an hourly overhead cost for the office will be used to establish the actual cost of
County stafftime devoted to the review of a particular project.
Actual staff time spent will be charged against the Base Fee. After the Base Fee has been expended, the
applicant will be billed based on actual staff hours accrued. Any billing shall be paid in full prior to final
consideration of any land use permit, zoning amendment or subdivision plan. If an applicant has prdviously
failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until
the outstanding fees are paid.
Checks, including the appropriate Base Fee set forth below, must be submitted with each land use application,
and made payable to the Garfield Countv Treasurer. Applications will not be accepted without the required
application fee. Base Fees are non-refundable in full, unless a written request for withdraw from the applicant is
submitted prior the initial review of the application materials.
Applications must include an Asreement for Payment Form ("Agreement") set forth below. The Agreement
establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the
application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the
application in order for it to be accepted.
The complete fee schedule for subdivision and land use applications is attached.
GARFIED COT''Y BUILDING AND PLANNI
BASE FEES
DEPARTMENT
The following Base Fees shall be received by the County at the time of submittal of any procedural application
to which such fees relate. Such Base Fees shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or
cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board for the consideration of any application or
additional County staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee, which have not otherwise been paid by the
applicant to the County prior to final action upon the application tendered to the County.
TYPE OF PROCEDURE
Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Final Plat
Amended Plat
Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision (SB-35)
Land Use Permits (Special Use/Conditional Use Permits). Administrative/nopublichearing. Board Public Hearing only. Planning Commission and Board review & hearing
Zonrng Amendments. Zone District map amendment. Zone District text amendmentt Zone District map & text amendment. PUD Zone District & Text Amendmentr PUD Zone District Text Amendment
Board of Adjusfinent. Variance. Interpretation
Planning Staff Hourly Rate. Planning Director. Senior Planner. Planning Technicianr Secretary
County Snrveyor Review Fee (includes review of Amended
Plats, Final Plats, Exemption Plats)
Mylar Recording Fee
BASE FEE
$32s
$675 + application agency review fees
and outside consultant review fees, as
authorized pursuant to the Regulations,
such as the Colorado Geologic Survey
$200
$100
$300
$2s0
$400
$52s
$4s0
$300
$s00
$500
$s00
$2s0
$2s0
$s0.s0
$40.s0
$33.7s
$30
$s0
$11 - l"page
$10 each additional page
Page2
The following guidelines shall be used for the administration of the fee sEucture set forth above:
1. All applications shall be submitted with a signed Agreernent for Payment form set forth below.
2. County staff shall keep accurate record of actual time required for the processing of each land use
application,zoringamendment, or subdivision application. Any additional billing will occur commensurate
with the additional costs incurred by the County as a result of having to take more time that that covered by
the base fee.
3. Any billings shall be paid prior to final consideration of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or
subdivision plan. All additional costs shall be paid to the execution of the written resolution confirming
action on the application.
4. Final Plats, Amended or Corrected Plats, Exemption Plats or Permits will not be recorded or issued until all
fees have been paid.
5. In the event that the Board determines that special expertise is needed to assist them in the review of a land
use permit, zoningamendment, or subdivision application, such costs will be borne by the applicant and
paid prior to the final consideration of the application. All additional costs shall be paid prior to the
execution of the written resolution confirming action on the application.
6. If an application involves multiple reviews, the Applicant shall be charged the highest Base Fee listed
above.
7. Types of "Procedures" not listed in the above chart will be charged at an hourly rate based on the pertinent
planning staffrate listed above.
8. The Planning Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of Additional Billings as
required.
9. This fee structure shall be revised annually as part of the County budget hearing process.
Page 3
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT FORM
(Shall be submitted with application)
GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY)
(hereinafter APPLICANT) agree as follows:
,l
,;
APPLICANT
Date:
submitted to couNTY an application for A,Jfr/lU lS bm
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended,
establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for the
administration of the fee structure.
3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to
thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees to make additional
payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of
consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an
application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial Base Fee, APPLICANT shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY
for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. APPLICANT acknowledges that all billing shall be paid
prior to the
plan.
consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision
Signature
w,,J* rz"r)
Print Name
2
Page 4