Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 01.08.2003• • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: Sketch Plan SUMMARY OF REQUEST: PC —1/8/03 TP A request for review of the Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan for the subdivision of approximately 479 acres into 26 lots. APPLICANT: Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) REPRESENTATIVE (S): TG Malloy Consulting, LLC. LOCATION: The property is located west of the intersection of County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road on Missouri Heights. WATER: Central Water System SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) ACCESS: County Road 115 EXISTLNG ZONING: A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density) ADJACENT ZONING: A/R./RD I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 1. Development Proposal: The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 479 acres of land into 26 lots. The 26 new Iots will comprise of approximately 156 acres of the 479 acres of land that is the subject of this application. The remainder of the Ranch will be common open space for the use of the lot owners. The common open space will continue to be ranched. The Sketch Plan includes a "ranch compound amenity area" which consists of 8.2 acres. This area is part of the common open space area but includes the existing ranch structures and the landscaping for the main entry to the subdivision. On Page 2 of the application, the Applicant provided a "Unit and Acreage Breakdown" of the proposed subdivision. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC — 1/8/03 Page 2 2. Site Location: 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. 3. Background: The Applicant provided a detailed history of the subject property beginning on Page 1 of the application. The subject parcel is one of two parcels that have been known as the Laurence Ranch ("Ranch"). The North Parcel, which is undeveloped, consists of approximately 1,300 acres and is located just east of the Consolidated Reservoir. The South Parcel, which is 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 satisfy 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 (22 — 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 3 of the application. 4. Site Description and Existing Conditions: 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 this year. There are four ponds on the subject property which are used for irrigation. The property has rolling terrain that includes a large knoll on the south end of the Ranch. There is a steep cliff along the southwest edge of the property, which forms a natural boundary between the Ranch and BLM land. Vegetation on the Ranch is primarily field grass interspersed with areas of sage and sparse scrub oak and pinion juniper stands. 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 building envelopes range from 4 acres to 11 acres in size. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 3 The building envelopes for Lots 11 through 16 have been located so that a 25 -foot high 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 has been labeled on the site plan as "View Shed Setback Line". The following table is a summary of the information provided by the Applicant within the application regarding the visibility of the proposed 26 lots from public rights-of-way. Lots 1, 2 & 3 These lots contain the most visible building sites. These sites are visible from County Roads 115 and 121 to the north. The building envelope on Lot 3 has been located in a depression behind an existing natural berm. The Applicant asserted that this should screen all but the top 6 to 10 feet of a structure on the lot. Lot 2 building envelope is located on an east -facing slope. The Applicant indicated that the building envelope for Lot 1 is located behind an existing stand of scrub oaks that will provide screening during the summer months. Lots 4 & 5 These lots will be visible from County Road 115 as it turns to the north. There is existing vegetation in this area which will help screen the homes on these lots. The Applicant noted that landscaping could also be added to provide further screening from County Road 115. Lots 6 through 10 These lots are located in the interior of the property and will not be visible from off-site locations. Lots 18 through 22: All these lots are located around the top of the knoll in the southern portion of the property. Lots 18 & 19 are located in a draw and out of view from most locations. Lots 20, 21, & 22 are very visible. To reduce the visibility of Lots 20, 21 & 22, the building envelopes are setback from the edge of the slope, leaving room to install additional landscaping, if necessary, to further screen the houses from the north and/or east. Lots 23 through 26 These lots are located in a draw and are well screened from most off- site locations. 5. Adjacent Land Uses: The vicinity map in Figure 1 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 property on the north and east are currently utilized for agricultural purposes. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 4 6. Applicability: Pursuant to Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Sketch Plan is the initial review of any subdivision proposal to determine the conformance of the subdivision with the County's Subdivision Regulations and with any other applicable regulations, resolutions or plans. II. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS: The application was referred to the following agency (ies) for comments. Comments that were received have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable. 1. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (Exhibit C) 2. RE -1 School District: No comments. 3. US West Communication: No comments. 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife (Exhibit D) 5. Colorado Division of Water Resources (Exhibit A) 6. Bureau of Land Management: No comments. 7. Garfield County Road and Bridge (Exhibit B) III. SKETCH PLAN (SECTION 3:00) All Sketch Plan comments are kept on file in the Planning Department office. The Sketch Plan comments shall identify issues applicable to the subdivision proposal, with the comments subject to change, if there are changes in the circumstances, documents or regulations used as the basis for comments. Completion of the Sketch Plan process shall, in no way, constitute approval of the proposed plan. The Planning Commission shall review the application for consistency with the standards and polices set forth in the following: A. Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. B. Garfield County Zoning Resolution. C. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. D. Garfield County road standards and policies. E. Garfield County municipal comprehensive plans and municipal regulations, as applicable. F. Other applicable local, state, and federal regulations, resolutions, plans and polices, as applicable. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 5 IV. STAFF COMMENTS A. Comprehensive 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. B Zoning: The gross density of the project (not including the existing house which will be used as ranch manager's unit) is approximately 1 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 1 unit per 2 acres or approximately 239 units, giving the density of the property. The A/R/RD zone district limits the height of all buildings to 25 feet. In addition, lot coverage within the A/R/RD zone district is limited to 15 percent. The Applicant indicated compliance with all applicable zoning requirements as conditions of approval, as well as at the time of building permit. C. Subdivision: Pursuant to section 1:21 of the Subdivision Regulations: "The Subdivision Regulations [were] are designed and enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Garfield County by encouraging orderly development, in accordance with established County policies and plans and, in furtherance, of the general policy of balancing the diversified needs of a changing population, including lessening congestion on streets or roads, reducing water in excessive amounts of roads, securing safety from fire, flood waters and other dangers, providing adequate light and air, classifying land uses and the distribution of land development and utilization, protecting the tax base, securing economy in governmental expenditures, fostering agricultural and other industries, and protecting both urban and non -urban development." The Applicant shall be aware of the applicable General Site Standards outlined in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations. D. Water: Domestic water for the proposed lots is intended to be provided via a central water system which will be designed by Sopris Engineering. According to the engineering report prepared by Sopris Engineering: • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC — 1/8/03 Page 6 "On-site water will be supplied by a well field located within the property bounds at approximately the area shown on the sketch plan. The maximum flow from the wells will be adequate to supply the 92,325 gallons/day necessary during the peak consumption month of June. The water will chlorinated at a central chlorination facility and pumped into the on site piping system to deliver it to each lot. Each lot will have a service line and a storage tank installed to store water required for fire protection sprinkler system that will be installed in each residence...." Since the proposed system will utilize an on-site well field as the source of raw water, the Applicant provided documentation (Attachment 6 and 7 in the application) regarding wells located on the subject property and within 1/4 mile of the property as proof of adequate physical supply. An application for underground water rights with an augmentation plan has been filed with Water Division 5 of the District Court. A copy of the application can be seen in more detail in Attachment 8 of the application. A letter from Kenneth W. Knox, of the Colorado Division of Water Resources, was received regarding the proposed water supply through wells that will be augmented (Exhibit A). Mr. Knox noted that "no analysis of the adequacy of these wells to supply the proposed subdivision as provided." In summary, Mr. Knox indicated that "due to the lack of a water court augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds...that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." At Preliminary Plan application, the Applicant shall show compliance with the requirements of the State Engineers Office. It is important to note that pursuant to CRS 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 indicated 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 State Engineer. Staff and the Attorney's Office would strongly recommend, at Preliminary Plan, that the Board not approve this or any subdivision until an opinion of no material injury has been determined by the State Engineer. The Applicant shall be aware that the Preliminary Plan application will require compliance with Sections 4:91 and 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations with respect to central water systems. The central water system will be subject to approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Technical Services Division. Approval of the central water system plans and specifications will be in accordance with the new Water system Capacity Planning Manual as authorized by State statues. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1 /8/03 Page 7 E. Wastewater: 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. 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. 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. 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. The Applicant will need to comply with Section 4:92 of the Subdivision Regulations at Preliminary Plan application. The Applicant should also be aware of the standards for Sanitary Sewage Disposal in Section 9:60 of the Subdivision Regulations. F. Access: The proposed road system within the Subdivision includes a loop road that utilizes two existing ranch road accessing onto County Road 115. The Applicant indicated that the roads have been designed to comply with County road standards identified in Section 9:3 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Applicant asserted that: "based on the anticipated trip generation and assuming traffic will be distributed in both directions on Cattle Creek Ridge Road [main internal loop road], the estimated traffic on this road will be roughly 156 ADT [average daily trips]. Given these assumptions, the proposed roads qualify under the "Rural Access" category in the County's Road Standards. The proposed roads have been designed with 11 foot drive lanes and 2 -foot shoulders either side of the drive lanes." Essentially, the Applicant states that due to the proposed internal traffic pattern, the internal roadway will ultimately carry almost half of the trips generated and thus be classified as such. However, the County regulations do not distinguish between multiple exits for a development onto a public road system (i.e. County Road 115). The proposed development produces 248.82 trips per day (9.57 vehicles per day X 26 lots) as an entire development, which would classify the internal road (Cattle Creek Ridge Road) as "Secondary Access" not "Rural Access". There are a couple differences in design standards between the two road classification which include shoulder width, cross slope and surface. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 8 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 residential lots. The main road, Cattle Creek Ridge, will be chip -seal surface. The roads are designed with no curb or gutter. The Applicant asserted that no segment of the main road exceeds 10 percent grade. The roads will be maintained by an established homeowner's association. The Applicant asserted that due to the physical characteristics of the property and the conservation objectives of the project, cul-de-sacs are utilized in the road design. Section 9:33 of the Subdivision Regulations outline the standards for cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs are limited to 600 feet in length. However, the regulations allow the County to approval longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons provided that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design. 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 site 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. 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. Doug Thoe of the Garfield County Road Department provided the following comments (which can be seen in more detail in Exhibit B): {J 1 • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 9 1. Eastern Access: The eastern access historically used to serve the Ranch has been improved and widened without permits. These improvements to the driveway constitute a change of use, therefore a new driveway permit is required. Some of the soil fill will need to be replaced with gravel. The approach grade, sight distance and width of this driveway meet current Road and Bridge standards. 2. Western Access: The western access point is on a near 90 degree corner and is in a bad location with regard to sight distance. The minimum sight distance for a 35 mph road is 250 feet. The existing configuration of the road allows for 150 feet of visibility to the east and 350 feet to the north. 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. Mr. Thoe noted that the Road and Bridge Department would entertain the idea of a 24" fill on the County Road, centered on the driveway and tapering to zero at the 125 linear feet in each direction. Such fill would reduce the excavation needed within the property, as well as improve the grade of the County Road. The Applicant shall be aware of the Street and Roadways standards in section 9:30 of the Subdivision Regulations. Pursuant to Section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations, a part of the County's Capital Improvement Plan, the Board has established traffic study areas. The subject property lies within Traffic Study Area 11 of the Capital Improvements Plan. At the time of Final Plat, the Applicant will be required to pay 50% of the road impact fees for the subdivision. At the issuance of a building permit, other road impacts fess will be collected. Appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations provides a Road Impact Fee Calculation Work Sheet. In the event any fees increase before the time of Final Plat, the increased fees shall be paid. G. Soils: In Attachment 9 of the application, the Applicant provided a summary list of the 10 soil designations on the subject property and the soil interpretation tables. Exhibit E of this memorandum provides a brief summary of these 10 soil designations. 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. At Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall address this issue through a geologic report compiled by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC -1/8/03 Page 10 H. Lakes/Streams/Topography: 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 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. Radiation: The Applicant is unaware of any radiation on or near the subject property. The Applicant shall note that pursuant to Section 4:60 of the Subdivision Regulations, a radiation evaluation will be required as part of the Preliminary Plat process. J. Fire Protection: A portion of the property is located within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and a portion is located outside of the District. The Applicant submitted a petition to expand the District boundaries to include the balance of the property within the District. A copy of the petition has been included within the application as Attachment 10. The Applicant indicated that each of the proposed homes in the subdivision will be equipped with a sprinkler system for fire suppression. Each lot will have a minimum 5,000 gallon water storage tank. 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 Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. The Applicant is considering installing a water storage tank on the property for Fire District use when fighting structure or wildfires in the surrounding areas. In addition, a site has been identified on the property for a repeater antenna to be used by the Fire District to improve emergency radio communication in the region. The Applicant is still working with the District on these issues. Ron Leach, Fire Chief for the District, provided the following comments (which may be seen in more detail in Exhibit C): 1. 50% of the property is not within the boundaries of the District. The Developer has submitted an annexation petition to the Board of Directors of the District seeking inclusion of the property into the District. To date, the Directors have not acted on the petition. 2. The property is in a wildfire hazard area and special measures may be required to adequately mitigate these hazards. 3. A Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the District. Mr. Leach • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 11 has provided a list of approved industry guidelines, codes and standards which should be used in developing the Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Fire Protection standards outlined in Section 9:70 of the Subdivision Regulations will apply to the Preliminary Plan application. K. Drainage: Drainage has been addressed in the engineering report provided by Sopris Engineering in Attachment 5 of the application. The Applicant asserted that drainage for the project will be designed in accordance with the criteria and standards included in Section 9.4 of the Subdivision Regulations. According to the engineering report existing drainage on site will remain substantially unchanged. Culverts will be installed in locations where roadways cross the natural water courses. These culverts have been delineated on the Sketch Plan. L. Floodplain Issues: There are no floodplain issues on the subject property. M. 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 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. The Applicant provided an outline of these guidelines as Attachment 11 in the application. 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 allows animals to move to and from Coulter Creek, which is located to the east of the subject property. Kelly Wood of the Colorado Department of Wildlife provided the following comments (which may be seen in more detail in Exhibit D): 1. Fencing shall be kept to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing recommendations. 2. If hay will be stored 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. • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 12 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 be prohibited. The adjacent BLM land is a popular hunting area. The homeowners should be aware that it is a legal hunting area. N. Public Sites and Open Space: 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 process when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future residents. The proposed subdivision will result in the permanent preservation of approximately 305 acres of agricultural land and open space identified as "Common 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. The property is located with the RE -1 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 10 of the application. The School Site Acquisition Fee is due at Final Plat. No comments from the RE -1 School District were received. O. 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. These services will be buried within the roads and driveways to each of the residences. Natural gas and cable television service are not available in the area of the property. P. Ditches: Easements shall be provided for all existing and proposed ditches. Q. Architectural Guidelines: All though 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" architecture. The Applicant provided a copy of the draft guidelines in Attachment 12 of the application. 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 • • Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC —1/8/03 Page 13 the architectural guidelines and in the covenants. R. Weed Management: The Applicant asserted that there are areas on the Ranch with significant infestation of common thistle and other noxious weeds. The Applicant indicated that a weed control expert has been contracted to begin the process of treating existing noxious weeds. Funds for the long range control of noxious weeds will be provided through the homeowner's association. The Applicant is encouraged to work with Steve Anthony, the County's Weed Management Specialist, to develop a weed management plan that complies with the provisions of the adopted County's Weed Management Plan. S. Mineral Rights: The application does not discuss ownership of the mineral rights. Since potential for mineral exploration may exist, a disclosure to all potential lot owners must be included in the covenants, plat notes, and at the time of closing. The Applicant should take special caution to be sure to properly notify the mineral rights owners and lessees of any public hearings concerning this project (pursuant to sections 4:20 and 4:30 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations). T. Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants: Please note that the County requires the following plat notes on the final plat and in protective covenants: 1. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." 2. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances." 3. "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. Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision Sketch Plan PC — 1/8/03 Page 14 Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." 4. "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." 5. "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." V. CONCLUSION: The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission review (valid until January 8, 2004). If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by January 8, 2004, the Applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and comparison with the original application. Exhibits A. Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated November 19, 2002 B. Garfield County Road and Bridge comments dated October 30, 2002 C. Letter from the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District dated November 18, 2002 D. Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife received on November 18, 2002. E. Brief description of the 10 soil designations on the subject property OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.waterstate.co.us STATE OF COL November 19, 2002 Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planninjg 3 /0 Ig 67'S 37e 20/ Glenwood Springs CO 81601 EXHIBIT RECEIVED TFC 6 2002 AFIELD COUNTY 3UILDING & PLANNING 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 of cot ti C O * 1876 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Dear Ms. Pregl: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 478.7 -acre parcel into 26 lots and open space. The applicant proposes to provide the water supply through wells to be augmented per pending Case No. 02CW 108. 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. Although some well test data was submitted, no analysis of the adequacy of these wells to supply the proposed development was provided. As stated in CRS 30-28-133(3)(d), the subdivider is required to submit "Adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the type of subdivision proposed." Adequate evidence is usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. See the attached Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports for the necessary information. Our records also indicate that several exempt wells may currently exist within the proposed development. Note that Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), CRS, requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt wells must be included in an i augmentation pial, o 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(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, -Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/ Ranch at Coulter Creek.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Acting Division Engineer Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 FAX: (303) 866-3589 http://water.state.co.usidefault.htm • STATE OT COLORADO s/02. Guidelines For Subdivision Water Supply Reports A Water Supply Report is required for all subdivision proposals. Colorado Revise (C.R.S.), 30-28-133(3)(d) describes the basic requirements for water supply reports, while d Statutes, pp C.R.S. 30-28-136 describes the review process. The statutes may be viewed at the Colora Statute Manager web site, htt.://www,intellinetusa.com/statm.r.htm. do This office reviews water supply report for subdivisions only upon referral from the County as required by C.R.S. 30-28-136(h). Note that well permits cannot be issued i areas that are over -appropriated until this office has approveden wer supply and the County has approved the subdivision. Additionally, this off ce does not report provid engineering consultation and legal advice. For this information, please e counsel and/or an engineering consultant. seek private le gal PART I applies to proposals to obtain water from individual on -lot wells, central wells, or of water source that is not from a municipality or quasi -municipality. her PART II applies to proposals to obtain water from a municipality or quasi -municipality. County subdivision regulations. from III applies to proposals to obtain water for land divisions that are to be exempted PART For those proposals that will obtain water from individual on -lot wells, central wells, or other water source that is not from a municipality or quasi -municipality, the proposal will be evaluated pursuant to C.R.S. 30-28-136(1)(h)(I). Under C.R.S. 1973, 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), Counties are required to submit to the State Engineer all subdivision preliminary plans. The State Engineer then required to respond to the Board of County Commissioners in writing, with an opinion Is concerning the potential injury to decreed water rights caused by diversions to supply the subdivision and the adequacy of the proposed water supply. following: In addition to the requirements specifically listed in statute, the report should address the a. The expected water requirements (total demand and consumptive use) of the subdivision at full development for all anticipated water use (residential, lawn irrigation, animal watering, commercial and industrial, etc.). Typically, the analysis of water requirements and the associated consumptive use are presented in gallons per day or acre-feet per year. b. The source of water for the proposed subdivision, and the legal and physical availability and dependability of the source. c. Evidence of ownership or right of use of existing water rights. d. An evaluation of the potential for material injury to all existing and proposed effect of on -lot wells. water rights as a result of water use in the subdivision including the cumulative e. A completed Water Su..I Information Summar Form listing the proposed uses. Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer • • f. A 1"= 24,000' (7.5 minute) scaled U.S.G.S. topographic map with the boundaries of the proposed subdivision plotted as described by the metes and bounds description. Water Supply from Tributary Ground Water In over -appropriated stream systems, where the water source for the proposed subdivision is considered tributary, the withdrawal of ground water will cause material injury to other water rights. A court approved plan for augmentation is required to offset the depletions caused by the pumping of the tributary ground water and must be obtained prior to this office granting approval of the proposed water supply. Ground water in most areas outside the Denver Basin would be considered tributary. In areas where water is available for appropriation, a plan for augmentation will generally not be required. However, there are only a few areas on the Western Slope that are not over - appropriated. The Division Engineer should be contacted for this information. Water Supply from Denver Basin Aquifers /images/dba.ipg/images/dba.ipgThe Denver Basin contains the Dawson (upper and lower in some areas), Denver, Arapahoe (upper and lower in some areas), and the Laramie -Fox Hills aquifers. Please review Denver Basin Aquifer map to determine if your parcel is within the Denver Basin. Depending on the location within the basin, the ground water can be nontributary or not-nontributary. The Denver Basin Rules and Regulations and the State Wide Nontributary Ground Water Rules should be consulted to determine whether an aquifer may be considered nontributary or not-nontributary. In either case, the amount of water available beneath the subject property must be determined pursuant to Section 37-90-137(4), C.R.S. Information is available from this office that can be used in making this determination. Note, any existing wells on or in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision must be considered in this analysis since they may reduce the amount of water available by virtue of their prior appropriation. This office would need to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. If the proposed water source is not-nontributary, C.R.S. 37-90-137(9)(c) requires judicial approval for plans for augmentation prior to the use of not-nontributary ground water. The ground water in the Denver Basin aquifers is evaluated under 100 year aquifer life criteria pursuant to the Denver Basin Rules, 2 CCR 402-6, and the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules, 2 CCR 402-7. These Rules may be obtained for a fee from our Records Section at (303) 866-3447. Elbert, Adams, and El Paso Counties generally require new subdivisions to have a 300 year water supply: You should contact your particular county for specific requirements. For subdivision proposals located in a Designated Basin, the Ground Water Management District should be consulted. PART II In the event that a municipality or quasi -municipality (e.g. water district) is to supply water to the subdivision, C.R.S. 30-28-136(h)(II) sets forth special procedures for proof of availability of water. The municipality or water district must file with the Board of County Commissioners (Board) and the State Engineer a report on the amount of water that can be supplied to the subdivision without causing injury to existing water rights. This office, in turn, must provide the • • Board with written comments concerning the water supply report. If the water supply report is inadequate, this office must notify the Board and indicate the deficiencies of the report. In addition the requirements specifically listed in statute, the report should address the following: a. A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the municipality or district. b. The firm yield of these rights. c. The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to commitments for service entered into by the municipality or district. d. The amount of uncommitted firm supplies the municipality or district has available for future development. e. A completed Water Supply Information Summary Form listing the proposed uses. f. A 1"= 24,000' (7.5 minute) scaled U.S.G.S. topographic map with the boundaries of the proposed subdivision plotted as described by the metes and bounds description. g. A letter of commitment from the municipality or district must be submitted with the subdivision proposal. The letter should include evidence that the municipality or district proposed as the water supplier can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision by stating the amount of water available for use by the proposed subdivision and the feasibility of extending service to the new area. This office maintains files on most municipalities and water districts, and when a particular file is incomplete, this office will request additional information before completing a review. The information on an existing municipality or a water district identified as a source of water for a subdivision must include an evaluation of the legal and physical availability of the water supply. PART 111 Counties may exempt certain proposals from their full submittal requirements. Since these "County exemptions" are not considered subdivisions, this office does not generally provide review comments. The fact that a property is exempt from subdivision regulations does not alter the duty of the State Engineer to protect senior vested water rights. A thorough review of the permit application must be conducted in accordance with C.R.S. 37-92-602(3)(b) to determine the effect of the proposed well upon other vested water rights, including existing wells. Subsection 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) says "there shall be a presumption that there will not be material injury to the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well resulting from such well, which presumption may be rebutted by evidence sufficient to show such material injury". Well permits for the resulting lots of a property split by exemption cannot be obtained prior to the County approval. The County Commissioners must grant the exemption before the applications for new well permits are submitted to this office. Furthermore, if the County grants an exemption and there is an existing well permit for the property, this office may not be able to issue additional well permits. For example, if the original permit was issued as the only well on the tract and then the tract is divided and exempted, then that permit needs to be canceled or amended prior to obtaining well permits on the new lots. Many of the referenced rules herein can be obtained from the Records Section of this Office at (303) 866-3447. Please see publications to determine the cost involved. SUPPLY INFORMATION SUMM• Section 30.28-133,(d), C.R.S. requires that the applicant submit to the County,'Adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and dependability will be available to ensure an adeauate suonly of Water 1. NAME OF DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED 2. LAND USE ACTION 3. NAME OF EXISTING PARCEL AS RECORDED SUBDIVISION FILING BLOCK 4. TOTAL ACREAGE 1 5. NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED LOT PLAT MAP ENCLOSED 0 YES 6. PARCEL HISTORY • Please attach copies of deeds, plats or other evidence or documentation. A. Was parcel recorded with county prior to June 1, 1972? 0 YES 0 NO B. Has the parcel ever been part of a division of land action since June 1, 1972? If yes, describe the previous action 0 YES 0 NO 7. LOCATION OF PARCEL . Include a map deliniating the project area and tie to a section corner. 114 OF 114 SECTION TOWNSHIP PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN: 0 6TH 0 11.M. 0 UTE 0 COSTILLA ON OS RANGE ❑ E ❑ W 8. PLAT • Location of all wells on property must be plotted and permit numbers provided. Surveyors plat 0 Yes 0 No If not, scaled hand drawn sketch 0 Yes 0 No 9. ESTIMATED WATER REQUIREMENTS • Gallons per Day or Acre Feet per Year HOUSEHOLD USE /7 of units COMMERCIAL USE 1/ of S.F. IRRIGATION # of acres STOCK WATERING i of head OTHER TOTAL GPD AF GPD GPD GPD GPD AF AF AF AF GPD AF 10. WATER SUPPLY SOURCE ❑ EXISTING 0 DEVELOPED WELLS SPRING WELL PERMIT NUMBERS 0 NEW WELLS - PROPOSED AOUFERS (CHECK ONE) ❑ ALLUVIAL 0 UPPER ARAPAHOE ❑ UPPER DAWSON 0 LOWER ARAPAHOE ❑ LOWER DAWSON 0 LARAMIE FDX HILLS ❑ DENVER 0 DAKOTA ❑ OTHEA ❑ MUNICIPAL ❑ ASSOCIATION ❑ COMPANY ❑ DISTRICT NAME LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR SERVICE 0 YES 0 NO WATER COURT DECREE CASE NO.'S 11. ENGINEER'S WATER SUPPLY REPORT 0 YES 0 NO IF YES, P LEASE FORWARD WITH THIS FORM. (Tho may be required before our review is completed) 12. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM O SEPTIC TANKILEACH FIELD O LAGOON O CENTRAL SYSTEM • DISTRICT NAME O VAULT • LOCATION SEWAGE HAULED TO O ENGINEERED SYSTEM (Attache copy of engineering design) 0 OTHER VV/- , 1 CIA JvrrL r RCrvft 1 Name of Utility • Address Phone ( ) Name of Contact Person Source of Water for this Utility (Indicate the physical source or if under contract with another entity for water) 1. 2. 3. Water Rights Owned or Controlled by this Utility 2. 3. 4. 5. Annual Yield (Acre -Feet) Average Year Dry Year Total Amount of Water Available for Service Present Demand on System Acre-Feet/Year Gallons/Day Acre-Feet/Year Gallons/Day Anticipated Demand Due to Commitments for Future Service Acre-Feet/Year Gallons/Day Uncommitted Firm Supply Available for Future Developments Acre-Feet/Year Gallons/Day Please attach a map of the service area Signature of Person Preparing Report Date Title/Company CRS 30-28-136 Requires a municipality or quasi -municipality to file a statement documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to a proposed subdivision without causing injury to existing water rights. Additional information may be required for the State Engineer to complete the review of this report. COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., RM. 818, DENVER, CO 80203 (303) 866-3587 OR (303) 866-3581 • • Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 1015 School St., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-6099 ph. & FAX, School St. 970-945-1223 ph, 945-1318 fax, Cattle creek Date: 10-30-02 To: Building & Planning Attn: Tamara Pregl 970-945-8212 ph 970-384-3470 fax From; Doug Thoe, District 1 Road Foreman Re: Access to "The Ranch at Coulter Creek" Tamara, RECEIVED OCT 3 u 10UZ GARFIELD COUNTY eutDING & PLANNING I made a trip to the two sites where Snowmass Land Company has proposed access to CR115 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 tracked out onto CRI I5, and any increase in the elevation of the driveway will cause it to drain towards CR115 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 western access is on a near 90 degree corner, 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 a 24" fill on the County road, centered on the driveway and tapering to zero at about 125 linear feet in each direction. Such a fill 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 fill, Road & Bridge strongly recommends moving the western 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 1� • November 18, 2002 • a�9 EXHIBIT RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2002 FIRE • EMS • RESCUE GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th 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 fire protection and emergency medical services for the property. First of all, about 50% of the property is not within the boundaries of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The developer has submitted an annexation petition to the board of directors of the district seeking inclusion of the property into the district. The board of directors of the district has not acted on the petition for annexation as of this time. Second of all, it is important to note that the property is in a wildfire hazard area and special measures may be required to adequately mitigate these hazards. I am requiring the developer to prepare a "Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan" that addresses a number of issues of concern to the district. I have included a copy of the issues to be addressed in the Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan along with a list of the codes, standards and guidelines to be referenced when developing the plan. When the developer delivers the plan to me, I will review it, analyze it and comment on it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 963-2491. Sincerely, Ron Leach, Fire Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 • LIST OF GUIDELINES, CODES & STANDARDS The following is a list of approved industry Guidelines, Codes and Standards to be referenced material in developing a Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan. COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE: CSFS Driveway Standards CSFS Defensible Space Thinning Standards CSFS Firewise Construction Design And Materials Fuelbreak Guidelines For Forested Subdivisions by Frank Dennis, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State University, 1983 Wildfire Safety: Model Regulations For Protecting People And Homes From Wildfire In Subdivisions And Developments by Ronald J. Zeleny CSFS #123-0588, Revised April, 1988 Notes of Conversation with Ron Z. On 1/21/92 Regarding 1041 by John Denison, CSFS, Grand Junction District Forester CSFS Wildfire 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 22 Standard For Water Tanks For Fire Protection '98 • • 24 Private Fire Service Mains And Appurtenances 25 Inspection, Testing And Maintenance Of Water Systems For Fire Protection '98 37 Installation And Use Of Stationary Combustion Engine '98 72 National Fire Alarm Code '99 80A Fire Protection Of Buildings From Exterior Fire Exposure '96 295 Wild -fire Control '98 299 Protection Of Life And Property From Wildfire '97 & '91 395 Storage Of Flammable And Combustible Liquids At Isolated Sites '93 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus '99 1906 Standard for Wildland Fire Apparatus '95 820 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities '99 -NATIONAL WILDFIRE COORDINATING GROUP: -Incident Response Pocket Guide • • WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 LOCATION 1.2 SIZE/DESCRIPTION II. WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN III. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE IV. SCOPE V. WILDFIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS VI. WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION 6.1 ACCESS A. DEFINITIONS B. DRIVEWAY GUIDELINES C. ROADWAY GUIDELINES D. CUL-DE-SAC GUIDELINES E. TURNAROUND GUIDELINES F. INTERSECTION GUIDELINES G. HAMMERHEAD GUIDELINES 6.2 WATER SUPPLY 6.3 BUILDING LOCATION/PLACEMENT 6.4 BUILDING DESIGN AND MATERIALS 6.5 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT A. DEFENSIBLE SPACE B. FUELBREAKS • • C. FIREBREAKS D. SAFETY ZONES E. MODIFICATION F. MAINTENANCE G. ENFORCEMENT VII. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 UTILITIES 7.2 SPARK ARRESTORS 7.3 LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS 7.4 IGNITION SOURCES 7.5 COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS STORAGE 7.6 COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES/ENFORCEMENT 7.7 HAZARD EVALUATION 7.8 RESPONSE PLAN 7.9 EVACUATION PLAN ATTACHMENTS: List of Guidelines Open Burning Restrictions Wildfire Hazard Analysis -Maps: - Water -Roads & Driveways -Fire Station proximity -Colorado State Forest Service Wildfire Area Hazard Map (WHAM) -Details: -Hammerhead -Intersection - 60' & 45' Radius Turnaround • • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Russell George, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 Tamara Pregl Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek: Sketch Plan Dear Ms. Pregl, For Wildlife - For People RE v ,x,141kill) NO 4' 11001 RFIE(v 'MD/NG &PTr I have reviewed the sketch plan for the Ranch at Coulter Creek and would like submit a few comments. I have met with Dawn Keating, Wildlife Consultant, previous to this application to review the wildlife concerns. I would like to reiterate some of the points. • Keep fencing to a minimum and follow the CDOW fencing recommendations. If any hay will be stored on site, I would recommend a stack yard be constructed to keep wildlife out. • The open space and adjacent BLM land be closed to dog use during the winter and dogs must always be on leash outside of housing footprint. Limit the number of dogs allowed for each home site to one dog. If they have outside kennels, it should include a closed in roof to keep mountain lions from predating on pets. During construction, contractors should not be allowed to have dogs on site. • Cats should be kept indoors at all times. Cats are a major predator to small rodents and birds. • CDOW will not be liable for damage to landscaping from wildlife. Bear -proof dumpsters or trash bins should be provided by the homeowners. I would also suggest trash compactors for each household to reduce the amount of waste. • Hunting should not be prohibited. As long as it can be done in a safe manner, this could be a necessary tool for wildlife management. The adjacent BLM land is a popular hunting area and the homeowners should be aware that this is a legal hunting area. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 963-6523. Sinceyely, -Kelly Woo District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary • Brief Description of the Soil Designations on the Subject Property EXHIBIT Acree Loam, 6- 12% slopes (#4) Deep, well drained, sloping soil on alluvial fans and valley side slopes. Permeability is very slow and available water capacity is high. Surface runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The soil is poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are shrink -swell potential, low strength, and the slow permeability. Structures, sanitary facilities, roads and landscaping should be designed a planned to reflect these limitations. Cochetopa-Antrobus Association, 12- 25% slopes (#18) Cochetopa and Antrobus slopes are both deep and well drained on mountainside and fans. Cochetopa soil is in broad, slightly concave areas, and Antrobus soil is on the steeper convex slopes. Permeability of Cochetopa soil is slow with moderate available water capacity, and Antrobus soil is moderate with low available water capacity. For both soils, runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The main limitations for home site development area high shrink -swell potential and the stoniness. Buildings and roads should be designed to offset the effects of shrinking and swelling. Empedrado Loam, 6-12% slopes 035) Deep, well drained soil on fans and upland hills. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is high. Runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Suitable for homesite development. The main limitations are the shrink -swell potential and the slope. The shrink -swell potential can be minimized by prewetting foundation areas. The slope is a management concern if septic tank absorption fields are installed. Absorption lines should be installed on the contour. Fughes Stony Loam, 3-13% slopes (#48) Deep, well drained soil on foot slopes. Permeability is slow, and available water capacity is high. Runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Suitable for homesite development. The main limitation is the shrink -swell potential. The effects of shrinking and swelling can be reduced by maintaining constant moisture content around the foundation. Septic tank absorption fields of conventional size do not function adequately because of the slow permeability. Other kinds of sewage disposal systems may be needed. Lyers Loam, 6-25% slopes (#59) Moderately deep, well drained soil on hills, ridges, and mountainsides. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is low. Runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is slight to severe on the steeper slopes. Poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the shrink -swell potential and the slope in the steeper areas. Morval-Tridell Complex, 12-50% slopes (#87) On alluvial fans and mountainsides. Morval soil is in slightly concave areas and Tridell soil is in convex areas. Morval soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Tridell soil is deep and somewhat excessively drained. Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water capacity is low. Runoff is rapid and the hazard of water erosion is high. Poorly suited for homesite development. The main limitations are large stones and the slope. Showalter-Morval Complex, 5-15% (#94) On alluvial fans, high terraces, and valley sides. Showalter soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is slow an available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. Morval soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is also moderate. Runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is slight. Poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the shrink-swell potential and the stones throughout the profile. Showalter-Morval Complex, 15-20% (#95) On alluvial fans, high terraces and valley sides. Showalter soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Morval soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. Very poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the slope, the shrink-swell potential, and the stones throughout the profile. Torriorthents-Cambrothidis-Rock Outcrop Complex, 6-65% (#104) On moderately sloping to steep, mainly south-facing mountainsides, hills, ridges, and foot slopes. Torriorthents soils are shallow or moderately deep and are well drained. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is low. Runoff is rapid and the hazard of water erosion is severe. Camborthids are shallow to deep and are well drained. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is low to moderate. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is severe. Poorly suited to homesites development. The main limitations are the slope, the depth to bedrock, and large stones. Tridell-Brownsto stony sandy lomas, 12-50% slopes, extremely stony (#106) On terraces and mountainsides. Tridell soils are deep and somewhat excessively drained. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is low. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Brownsto soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is low. Runoff is rapid and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Only the less sloping areas are suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the slope and the stoniness. Erosion is a hazard in the steeper areas. Only the part of the site that is used for construction should be disturbed. Areas adjacent to hillsides are occasionally affected by runoff, which may be accompanied by the movement of rock debris. • • Tamara Pregl Page 1 of 1 From: Tim Malloy [tgmalloy@sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 4:11 PM To: Tamara Pregl Subject: RE: Ranch at Coulter Creek - augmentation plan Thanks Tamara! I will forward this to our attorney...it should help! Tim Original Message From: Tamara Pregl [mailto:tpregl@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:37 PM To: Tim Malloy Cc: Mark Bean Subject: Ranch at Coulter Creek - augmentation plan Tim, We (planning staff and attorneys) have discussed the issue you brought to my attention with respect to a comment I made in my sketch plan memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding compliance with the State Engineer's comments on the augmentation plan verse Section 4:91(A) of the Subdivision Regulation, and the language that states that evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision..., prior to submission of the Final Plat. According to the County Attorney, the State Statue supercedes the subdivision regulations with respect to water supply. Below is an excerpt of State Statues 30-28-136(1)(h)(I) with respect to water supply requirements: "[subsection 1] upon receipt of a complete preliminary plan submission, the board of county commissioners or its authorized representative shall distribute copies of prints of the plans as follows: [subsection (h)(I)] to the state engineer for an opinion regarding material injury likely to occur to decreed water rights by virtue of diversion of water necessary or proposed to be used to supply the proposed subdivision and adequacy of proposed water supply to meet requirements of the proposed subdivision. If the state engineer finds such injury or finds inadequacy, he shall express such finding in an opinion in writing to the board of county commissioners, stating the reason for his finding, including, but not limited to, the amount of additional or exchange water that may be required to prevent such injury. In the event the subdivision is approved notwithstanding the states engineer's opinion, the subdivider shall furnish to all potential purchasers a copy of the state engineer's opinion prior to the sale or a synopsis of the opinion; except that the subdivider need not supply the potential purchaser with a copy of such opinion or synopsis if , in the opinion of the board of county commissioners, the subdivider has corrected the injury or inadequacy set froth in the state engineer's finding." If you can provide us an amended letter at Preliminary Plan from the State Engineer that states something like...provided the courts approve the augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate...staff would support a recommendation that the BOCC consider going forward with the Preliminary Plan subject to the courts approval of the augmentation plan prior to Final Plat submission. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. I have cc'd Mark just in case I am missing anything. Tamara 12/26/2002 • tgmalloy consulting, LLC Site Design • Land Use Planning • Public Process October 14, 2002 Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Carbondale, Colorado 81601 RE: Meets and Bounds Legal Description for Ranch at Coulter Creek Dear Tamara: • RECEIVED OCT 1 5 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BULIMIC, PLANNING As requested in the letter from Fred Jarmin dated October 2, 2002, I am providing a meets and bounds legal descriptio or the Ranch at Coulter Creek. If you ne d any other information related to this application please feel free to contact me. Sincer tgm y, oy consul ing, LLC Tim Malloy, ' ipal enclosure cc: File tgm 181 Orchard Lane • Glenwood Springs • Colorado • 81601 • Phone: 970-945-0832 • E-mail: tgmalloy@sopris.net PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTIONS 6 AND 7, T.7S., R.87W. OF THE 6TH P.M. AND SECTION 1, T.7S., R.88W. OF THE 6TH P.M.. COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, LOT 5 OF SECTION 1, T.75., R.88W., OF THE 6TH P.M., W1/2SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4 AND LOTS 6, 7 AND 8 OF SECTION 6; N1/2NE1/2, SW1/4NE1/4 AND NE1/4NW1/4, ALL IN SECTION 7, 7,7S., R.87W., OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE E1/4 OF SECTION 1, T.7S., R.88W. OF THE 6TH P.M., ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, S89'59'22"W 1328.15 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5, S01'39'15"E 1322.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, S89'19'26"E 1315.55 FEET TO THE S1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1, ALSO BEING THE S1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, T.7S. R.87W. OF THE 6TH P.M.; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 6, SO1'05'33E 1327.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6, N88'30'31"E 1373.09 FEET TO THE W1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, ALSO BEING THE W1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, T.7S., R87W. OF THE 6TH P.M., THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION 6, S00'42'41E 1350.10 FEET TO THE NW1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE N89'13'58E 1363.84 FEET TO THE N1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE S00'20'25"E 1324.10 FEET TO THE C 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE N88'36'05"E 1347.67 FEET TO THE E1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE N00'35'02"W THENCE 1303.44 FEET TO THE NE1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE N89'54'47E 1335.54 FEET TO THE N1/16TH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 7, N00'39'31"W 1293.87 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE CF SAID SECTION 7, N89'39'27"W 1333.97 FEET TO THE E1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 ALSO BEING THE E1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE N00'44'02"W 1315.82 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE 587'28'04"E 1332.58 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE N00'52'56"W 148.02 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD 115 THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S89'45'48"W 416.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8 S00'49'26"E 1208.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8 ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE N89'37'04"W 5011,21 FEET TO THE W1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, ALSO BEING THE EAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 1, THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID PROPERTY CONTAINING 478.70± ACRES AS DESCRIBED COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO THE SEXTON SURVEY CO 128 WEST 3RD STREET RIFLE CO. 81650 970-625-3711 970-945-4700 DATE 10/09/02 JOB NO 02206 -LOWER DESC.