HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.0 PC Staff Report 07.13.1993• •
PC 7-13-93
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Sketch Plan and PUD Amendment - Westbank Ranch
PUD Filing #4
APPLICANT: Westbank Ranch #1 LTD
PLANNERS: Jerome Gamba & Associates
ENGINEERS: Jerome Gamba & Associates
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in portions of Sections 35 T6S,
R89W, Section 1 and 2, T7S, R89W of the 6th P.M.;
more practically described as a parcel of land located
south of Westbank Ranch PUD Filing #1, #2 and #3,
south of County Road 109, approximately 3.5 miles
southeast of Glenwood Springs.
SITE DATA:
A 285.08 acre parcel to be split into tracts of land that
would allow a maximum of sixty three (63) single-
family dwelling units and one residential fourplex (67
total dwelling units).
WATER: Wells - Community System
SEWER: ISDS
ACCESS: County Road 109
EXISTING ZONING: PUD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed PUD is located District 1C -Central Water and Sewer, Severe Environmental
Constraints as indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. $ite Description: The proposed PUD is located on a bench overlooking the Roaring
Fork river valley floor, directly above the existing Westbank development. Topography
on the site consists of three distinct geologic configurations: a moderately sloping
lowland fully vegetated with native grasses, a steeply sloped zone sparsely vegetated
with evergreen species, sagebrush, and native grasses, and an upland benched area well
vegetated with significant sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and isolated stands of pinion and
juniper.
Several intermittent drainages are visible in the steeper portions of the property and
extend into the upland bench. Elevations on the property range from 5,950 at the
northern edge, to almost 6,880 feet at the southern reaches of the property. A vicinity
map is shown on the cover sheet of the enclosed plans.
1
• •
B. Background: Westbank Filing #4 was approved and platted in September of 1982. In
April of 1993, the applicants proposed revisions to the 1982 approval, but withdrew the
application based on comments from the Planning Commission. Table 1 summarizes
the 1982 approval, the April 1993 submittal, and the current proposal.
TABLE 1
COMPARISION BETWEEN APPROVED AND PROPOSED PROJECT
Since that 1982 approval, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) has been
amended in respect to two dates: the deadline for improvements has been changed from
November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1994; and the deadline for security for the
improvements described in the SIA has been extended from July 1, 1983 to July 1, 1993.
These amendments were made in response to a public meeting to consider the
revocation of the approval of Filing #4 in March of 1992, due to the failure to complete
any of the required improvements on the site.
Since the 1993 SIA security date has past, the Board has the authority to revoke the
PUD, which would return the property to its underlying zoning (A/R/RD). No action
has been taken by the Board at this time.
C. Development Proposal: The current proposal includes 63 single-family lots and one
multi -family fourplex for a total of 67 dwelling units. A zone district map and site plan
are included in the staff packet.
The approved plan anticipated an expansion of the existing water system which
currently serves Westbank Filings 1, 2 and 3. The current proposal includes a separate
system, with water to be provided from new well(s) to be augmented with Ruedi
Reservoir water. A total of 40 acre feet of water is to be purchased from Ruedi for the
needs of the development. Fire protection will be provided via hydrants and a storage
system. No hydrant locations or infrastructure details are included with this submittal.
2
1982 APPROVAL
APRIL 1993
SUBMITTAL
. ...................
. ......................... .
CURRENT
PROPOSAL
Dwelling Type
and Number
10 four-plex lots, 10
duplex lots and 38 single-
family lots (98 Total
DUs)
98 single-family
dwelling units
63 single-family dwelling
units and 1 multi -family '
fourplex (67 total DUs)
Lot Size
0.44 acres to 1.94 acres
(36 of 58 less than 1 acre)
1.0 to 15.0 acres (0.344
DUs/acre)
1.0 to 14.26 acres
(0.438 DUs/acre)
Site Plan
81 DUs on upper bench
and 17 on lower bench
91 DUs on upper
bench and 7 on lower
bench
51 DUs on upper bench
and 17 on the lower
bench
Water Supply
Expansion of existing
system serving Westbank
Filings I through IH
Separate central
system augmented
with Ruedi water
Separate central system
augmented with Ruedi
water.
Sewage Disposal
Central System
ISDS
ISDS
Zone Districts
Residential/Single
Family,
Residential/Cluster
Housing,
Residential/Multi Family,
Open Space
Residential/Single
Family
Residential/Single
Family,
Residential/Multi-
Family, Open Space
Open Space
150 acres
78 acres
117 acres
Since that 1982 approval, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) has been
amended in respect to two dates: the deadline for improvements has been changed from
November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1994; and the deadline for security for the
improvements described in the SIA has been extended from July 1, 1983 to July 1, 1993.
These amendments were made in response to a public meeting to consider the
revocation of the approval of Filing #4 in March of 1992, due to the failure to complete
any of the required improvements on the site.
Since the 1993 SIA security date has past, the Board has the authority to revoke the
PUD, which would return the property to its underlying zoning (A/R/RD). No action
has been taken by the Board at this time.
C. Development Proposal: The current proposal includes 63 single-family lots and one
multi -family fourplex for a total of 67 dwelling units. A zone district map and site plan
are included in the staff packet.
The approved plan anticipated an expansion of the existing water system which
currently serves Westbank Filings 1, 2 and 3. The current proposal includes a separate
system, with water to be provided from new well(s) to be augmented with Ruedi
Reservoir water. A total of 40 acre feet of water is to be purchased from Ruedi for the
needs of the development. Fire protection will be provided via hydrants and a storage
system. No hydrant locations or infrastructure details are included with this submittal.
2
i •
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Colorado Geological Survey: No comments have been received from the Geologic
Survey. Staff has submitted the entire application, and comments are expected prior
to preliminary plan. A Reconnaissance Geologic Investigation (CTL/Thompson, Inc.
June 24, 1993) is included as Exhibit G of the application.
The primary conclusions from the CTL/Thompson report are as follows:
• "Preliminary foundation recommendations and construction criteria can only
be determined from more detailed, site specific surface and subsurface
investigations and analysis" (p.1);
• "Areas mapped as Qsl (Slide Deposits) on the site include medium to large
slump features and failures of colluvial slopes. These areas appear fairly stable
but will become unstable if disturbed" (p.6);
• "None of the geologic conditions found are considered to be sufficiently
hazardous to prevent development of the project as proposed, however,
potentially hazardous geologic conditions must be properly planned for during
site development" (p.7);
• "We recommend that detailed, site specific soils and foundation investigations
be performed for each residence built in this development" (p.7);
• "Development in areas of potentially unstable slopes or immediately adjacent
to steeper slopes along the lower edge of the upper terrace should be avoided"
(p.8);
• Drainage and ravines on the site present moderate potential hazard from flash
flooding and low potential from debris flow. We recommend determining the
100 year flood plain (which will be a part of the site drainage plan) and avoid
development in those areas" (p.9).
B. Colorado Department of Health: Staff contacted Mr. Dwayne Watson concerning the
project on July 8, 1993. Written comments are not required until Preliminary Plan
(scheduled for August 10, 1993), however, Mr. Watson still has serious concerns with
the proposed ISDS systems, including slope and soil constraints. Mr. Watson indicated
that his Preliminary Plan comments will require a central sewage system for the
development. Mr. Watson suggested that the preferred alternative would be a tie-in to
Glenwood Springs.
The Colorado Department of Health has significant influence on the application. State
Statute requires that "No (preliminary) plan shall receive the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners unless the Department of Health to which the plan is referred
has made a favorable recommendation regarding the proposed method of sewage
disposal."`
C. Colorado State Forest Service: The Colorado State Forest Service reviewed the
previous submittal, and conducted fieldwork on April 1, 1993. The proposed
subdivision is in an area that has been mapped as medium to high hazard for wildfire.
The Forest Service was particularly concerned with areas in the subdivision where
grades exceed 30 percent and the densely vegetated drainages.
30-28-136 Referral Agencies and Review Requirements (Preliminary Plan Submissions)- Colorado
Revised Statutes.
3
• •
Forest Service standards require dual ingress/egress points, which are not included in
the proposal. The proposed cul-de-sac far exceed the 750 foot maximum length as
recommended by Forest Service standards. Turnouts are recommended at 750 intervals
to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Mr. Roger's suggested that structures
not be located in or at the head of drainages. A copy of Kelly Roger's April 7, 1993
letter included in the application as Exhibit I.
D. Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Ron Leach visited the site on April 29,
1993, and his comments are included in the application as Exhibit I. Mr. Leach
concluded that the wildfire danger was "low", conflicting with the conclusions of the
Forest Service. It appears Mr. Leach did not address grade or drainages in his
assessment.
E. U.S. Bureau of Land Management: The BLM has not submitted comments on this
submittal, however had the following comments on the April submittal:
1. The BLM recommended fence standards that allow for easy passage by big
game;
2. The parcel immediately adjacent to the site has been identified as a disposal
parcel, and is not expected to remain in public ownership;
3. The density proposed by the applicant will render the critical mule deer habitat
unsuitable for deer habitat, and will increase deer impacts on adjacent property,
particularly during the winter months;
4. The soils on the site are poorly suited for housing development due to shallow
depth to bedrock, steep slopes, and very high hazard of water erosion.
A copy of Michael Mottice's April 2, 1993 letter is attached on page 13 .
F. Public Service Company: No response has been received from Public Service.
G. Colorado Division of Wildlife: The Division has not commented on the current
submittal, but noted earlier that the area is considered to be elk winter range and critical
deer habitat, meaning that the loss of critical winter habitat would adversely affect deer
in the area. DOW further states that big game populations in the area will be
threatened by domestic dogs, loss of native vegetation, increased erosion, increased
vehicular traffic, increased human/wildlife interaction, and migration obstacles. The
DOW suggests the following mitigation:
1. Reduce the density by cluster development;
2. Require underground utilities to protect raptors;
3. Require fencing restrictions;
4. Restrict or prohibit domestic dogs and horses within the subdivision;
5. Restrict building envelopes to preserve native vegetation.
In addition, the DOW suggests that all homeowners are aware of the critical habitat
designation, and realize that deer and elk will die on the property, and are responsible
for disposing of carcasses.
A copy of Larry Green's April 2, 1993 letter is attached on page
yrs
In response to DOW concerns, the applicants have prepared dog restrictions, based on
4
• •
previously approved subdivisions in Garfield County. A copy of these proposed
restrictions are included in the application, beginning on page 7.
H. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: No Response.
I. Office of the State Engineer. Division of Water Resources: No response.
J. Public Service Company: No response.
K. Holy Cross Electric Association: No Response.
L. U.S. West Communications: No Response.
M. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas: No Response.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
This application is requesting approval for a PUD amendment and sketch plan review. These
two processes require compliance with different standards, and each is addressed below
separately.
1. PUD REZONING REQUEST: Westbank Filing #4 was processed as a PUD, with the
existing portions of the project processed as a subdivision request. The standards for
the current proposal (Zone District Amendment) are addressed in Section 4.0 of the
Zoning Resolution.
PUD Objectives: A PUD may be approved by the County Commissioners for the
following purposes and to achieve the following objectives:
1. To provide necessary commercial, recreational, and educational facilities
conveniently located to housing;
2. To provide well -located, clean, safe and pleasant industrial sites involving a
minimum of strain on transportation facilities (NOT APPLICABLE);
3. To insure that the provisions of zoning laws which direct the uniform treatment
of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning district will
not be applied to the improvement of land by other than lot -by -lot development
in a manner which would distort the objectives of the zoning laws;
4. To encourage innovations in residential, commercial and industrial
development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may
be met by greater variety in type, design, and layout of buildings and by the
conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said buildings;
5. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private
services in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes in technology of land
development so that resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those
needing homes;
6. To lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways;
7. To conserve the value of land;
8. To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design, and layout of
residential, commercial, and industrial development to the particular site,
thereby encouraging preservation of the site's natural characteristics; or
9. To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the above purposes and
5
• •
objectives of development.2
In the application, the applicant desire to modify several provisions of the approved
PUD because the "it is felt that the density of lot of the original plan in keeping with
development that has occurred in the general area (sic)".. and "the difficulty of
permitting and constructing sewage treatment facilities which would discharge to the
Roaring Fork River has caused the construction of central sewage collection system to
be impractical."3
Staff notes that the purpose of a PUD is not to perpuate adjacent development, but
rather gives the developer to be innovative in design beyond the traditional subdivision
process.
Consistency with the General Plan: Section 4.04 requires that "No PUD shall be
approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity
with the County's General Plan". Comments regarding potential conflicts are as
follows:
Housing: The overall goal of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan is as
follows:
Provide for affordable and diverse housing types capable of accommodating the needs
ofCountyresidents, in allincome ranges, without putting a financial burden on existing
public servicers'
Objective #3 calls for the promotion of a variety of housing types and mix through the
use of a flexible development review process. Policy #3 states that the PUD process is
encouraged, so that the development community has greater flexibility in project
design.'
In staff's opinion, the cluster concept proposed in the approved project is more in line
with the housing goals described earlier than the current application, although a single,
four unit fourplex is included in the development.
Recreation and Open Space: Policy 5 requires that areas such as floodplains and
geological unstable soils which are restricted for the building of habitable structures will
be used as common open space accessible to the public in new developments.6
Additional geologic data has been provided by the applicant and lot configurations
have changed based on these constraints. The CTL/Thompson Report indicated that
"Development in areas of potentially unstable slopes or immediately adjacent to steep
slopes should be avoided".' As shown on the Geologic Hazard Map, (Sheet 18), areas
of unstable slopes are included within platted lots, and are not dedicated to the public.
2Section 4.02 Purposes and Objectives of Development, Garfield County Zoning Resolution, 1984
as amended.
3Westbank Ranch Planned Unit Development Modification and Westbank Ranch Filing #4
,Subdivision, (Gamba and Associates) page 1.
4Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 2.
5Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 2.
6Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page Z
'Reconnaissance Geologic Investigation, CTL/Thompson, Inc. June 24, 1993, page 8.
6
• •
The approved project is clustered, and areas having considerable environmental
constraints are zoned open space.
Transportation: Policy 5B requires that excessive road cuts that will create negative
visual impacts will be discouraged.8 The proposed road alignment crosses numerous
drainages, and no cut/fill estimates or visual analysis information has been submitted.
The Plans and Profiles for the proposed roads (Sheets 7 through 15) indicate several
significant areas of cut and fill, particularly along reaches of Huebinger Drive (see sheet
8). No alternative road alignments have been presented to reduce cut and full areas.
Water and Sewer Services: Objective 3 encourages developers to carefully analyze the
site's capability to accommodate individual sewage disposal when it is being considered
as a part of a development proposal. Policy 3A states that the County will require
developers proposing ISDS to provide information that demonstrates to the County
that the land involved can physically accommodate the individual systems.9
The original proposal, and the Geologic Report prepared in 1976, did not address the
feasibility of ISDS on the site due the proposed central sewage system. Percolation test
have been performed at four locations on the site, as indicated on the Drain Plan Map
(Sheet 5). Soil Conservation Service mapping indicate that 8 soil groups are located on
the property. The four percolation tests were located within the Gypsum-Gypsiothid
Complex (#55), Urraca Moist-Mergel Complex (#109), Empedrado Loam (#35) and
Almy Loam group (#6). Both the Empredado and Amly soil groups are considered to
have only moderate constraints for septic systems.
All other soil groups (Cushool-Rentsac #25, Dahlquist-Southace #28, Earsman #33
and Southace Cobbly Sandy Loam (#98) are considered to have severe constraints to
ISDS. These areas were not included in the percolation samples, and are found in areas
proposed for residential development.
The approved project includes a central sewer option.
Environment: Objective 1 discourages the development of land in areas of identified
severe environmental constraints. Policy 1, designed to implement this objective,
requires that the County shall discourage and reserve the right to disapprove (sic)
development in areas with identified severe environmental constraints such as active
landslides, debris slides, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflow, radioactive
tailings, slopes over 25 percent and 100 year floodplain. Objective 5 requires projects
ensure that development on land having moderate or minor environmental constraints
consider the limitations of the land. `° Objective 6 requires that development proposals
consider soil constraints as a part of the physical design, and policy 6 requires that the
County discourage development in areas with severe soil constraints. Objective 9
encourages development in areas with the least environmental constraints prior to land
with the greatest physical limitations."
The CTL/Thompson Geologic Report included with this submittal includes identified
constraints on the property (sheet 18). Identified hazards include unstable slopes,
potentially unstable slopes, flash flood hazard, accelerated erosion areas and
debris/mudflow hazards. Staff recognizes that the development has concentrated the
majority of development in areas outside of known geologic risks. However, large
portions of lots 1, 2, 35, 37, 39 and 64 are in areas of potentially unstable slopes. Lots
BGarfeld County Comprehensive Plan, page 8.
9Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 10.
1 °Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 12.
"Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 13.
7
• •
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 and 63 are in an identified flash flood hazard area.
No evidence has been submitted regarding possible alternatives to the geometry of the
proposed roadway system, or evidence suggesting that the proposed alignment was
designed to limit these impacts.
Performance Standards: The Comprehensive Plan includes a series of performance
standards addressing specific environmental constraints, including areas having slopes
greater than 25 percent. The Plan states that slopes exceeding 25 percent may be:
1. Maintained as open space;
2. Platted as a portion of an approved building envelope, with an open space
easement;
3. Platted as a portion of a building lot which as adequate usable building space
available other than steep slopes;
4. Platted as a portion of a subdivision and dedicated as permanent open space;
5. Developed with special design considerations and engineering.12
Slope analysis for each lot is shown on sheet 2 (Preliminary Plan Lot Layout and
Dimensions). All lots have at least one (1) acre of buildable space less than 40 percent.
Slopes between 25 and 39 percent are not indicated.
Performance standards also address the impact of development on the natural terrain.
Specifically, the Plan requires that the proposed development should be designed in a
manner which demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land.13
Staff has no evidence of cut/fill estimates to assess compliance with this requirement,
although the current road alignment appears to have significant topographical
constraints due to the crossing of several major drainages on the site. As discussed
earlier, no alternatives for the current alignment that would minimize the cut/fill have
been proposed.
Sewage disposal facilities are also addressed by performance standards. Specifically, the
Plan requires that central sewage disposal systems be included in proposals that have
severe or moderate septic limitations. The State Department of Health and hazard
maps reviewed by Staff indicate that the site may pose significant constraints to
traditional ISDS systems. Rather than proposing a system in compliance with the
standard, the applicant has removed the central sewer from the proposal.
2. ZONING REQUIREMENTS: Section 4.08 addresses the PUD processing
requirements, and the following discussion addresses specific requirements that do not
appear to have been met by the application:14
1. Under provisions of Section 4.08.05(2)(h), the applicant is required to identify
sites suitable for construction, as well as sites suitable for sewage disposal based
upon the limitations described in the soils report. As described earlier, this area
has significant slope and soil constraints. Building envelopes may not be
`2Garfreld County Comprehensive Plan, page 27.
1
3Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 28.
1
4Garfield County Zoning Resolution, 1984 as amended, pages 39-41.
8
• •
possible on every lot proposed in the sketch plan, and only four percolation
tests have been performed on the site;
2. Under provisions of Section 4.08.05(7)(E)(i), the applicant is required to
identify the proposed water source adequate to serve the PUD. The proposed
water source are wells augmented by Round II sales from Ruedi Reservoir. It
is not clear that such water contracts are currently available, or whether the
amount identified by the applicant is adequate to support a well servicing the
PUD;
3. Under provisions of Section 4.08.05(7)(E)(ii), the applicant must describe the
proposed method of sewage treatment. In regards to sewage treatment, the
Department of Health has previously noted the difficulties of the system
proposed in any area with soils that may not be appropriate for ISDS, and
slopes that may not accept ISDS The provision of the Code inherently requires
that the system proposed is functional and responsive to unique conditions of
the site. The evidence in this regard is inconclusive;
4. Under provisions of Section 4.08.05(7)(E)(iii), the applicant must describe the
general manner in which storm drainage will be handled. Exhibit H of the
application includes drainage basin calculations for culvert sizing. As shown
on Sheet 18, a significant portion of the northern lots within the PUD are
within an area defined as a "flash flood hazard", assumed to originate from the
drainage basin during a 100 -year storm event. No mitigation for this hazard
has been presented by the applicant, or a justification for the lots proposed for
the area;
5. Under provisions of Section 4.08.05(7)(F)(iv), the applicant must address legal
access to the site. Garfield County Road Standards allow cul-de-sacs that do
not exceed six hundred feet (600') in length. The Board of County
Commissioners may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographic reasons and it
can be proved that fire protection and emergency access is provided.15 The
longest cul-de-sac within the PUD extends from Native Lane to its terminus, a
distance of approximately 3,695 feet in length, with no alternative access. No
topographic explanation is included in the application. The fire department has
made comments regarding the cul-de-sac, and concluded that with a 90 foot
turnaround and emergency turnarounds at 90 ° driveways. The cul-de-sac
radius proposed on the plans for Huebinger Drive is 70'.
6. Under provisions of Section 4.08.05(7)(G), the applicant must provide evidence
that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the natural environment
of the site and the surrounding area and does not unreasonably destroy or
displace wildlife, natural vegetation, or unique natural or historic features. The
current plan, based on documentation from the Division of Wildlife cited
earlier, will displace wildlife. There does not appear to be a statement regarding
the manner in which consideration has been given to the affects this impact,
although dog restrictions have been included with the . Furthermore, staff
contends that the overall design of the road geometry and lot configuration
failed to consider the unique physical constraints on the site, when compared
to the approved project.
3. PROPOSED ZONE DISTRICTS. The application includes the following zone districts
within the PUD: Residential Single Family District (R/S.F.), Residential Multi -Family
Fourplex District (R/M.F.4) and Open Space. The zone district map (Sheet 3) includes
two additional zone districts: Greenbelt, Drainage and Parks and "Bikepath". Staff
suggests that the greenbelt drainage easements are not appropriate as a separate zone
1
5Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 9.33(A), page 9-2.
9
• •
district, and should be included within an overall Open Space District with language
included in the zone district text permitting such uses.
The bikepath zone district should also be handled in the same fashion, i.e. as a
permitted use and easement within the Open Space designation. Staff questions the
logic of the location of the bike path as shown on Sheet 3. As proposed, the bikepath
begins at the cul-de-sac of "Old Native Lane", extends west approximately 1,350 feet,
and terminates at a drainage easement. Staff commends the applicant for bike path
development, but suggests that the easement would be more useful on the County Road
109 frontage on the west end of the property.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recognizes that the applicant has adjusted the density of the overall project since the last
submittal. In addition, this proposal includes multi -family housing (one fourplex), 200 foot
drainage easements, provisions for dog control to protect wildlife, and additional geologic
information. All of these issues were discussed during the applicant's last meeting before the
Planning Commission.
The additional geologic data highlight the physical constraints inherent with the property,
including large portions of lots within areas identified as flashflood hazards, potentially
unstable slopes, and accelerated erosion areas. In addition, access to the site is severally
constrained due to topography, and cut/fill areas may be significant. In addition, there still are
issues regarding central sewer vs. ISDS on the site, although the Department of Health will not
officially comment until Preliminary Plan. To staff's knowledge, there have been no
discussions between the applicant and the Health Department to date.
The primary issue in front of the Planning Commission centers on the differences between the
approved PUD zoning and the current proposal. In staff's opinion, the approved project is
superior to the current proposal in the following respects:
• The central sewer is consistent with Colorado Department of Health objectives;
• The approved project is based on a cluster concept, focussing development activities in
areas with the least environmental constraints;
• The multiple -housing proposed in the original PUD is more consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The approved plan will be displayed at the Public Meeting for comparative purposes.
If the Planning Commission feels the applicant has addressed the issues raised at the last public hearing,
and additional issues can addressed at Preliminary Plan, the following conditions of approval are
offered as a starting point:
General
1. All representations, either within the application or at stated at the public hearings
before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be
considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners. the public hearing, are considered conditions
of approval.
Geology
2. The Preliminary Plan shall have a building envelope designated for every lot within the
PUD. All building envelopes will avoid active and older landslides, manmade fill, and
unsuitable slopes. No lot will be created that does not contain an acceptable building
envelope. No lot shall be created that is smaller than the minimum lot size allowed in
10
• •
that particular zone district.
3. An engineered foundation shall be required for all structures within the PUD and
submitted with building permit applications. Furthermore, all final plats shall have the
following plat notes:
A. Prior the issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and
submit a soils and foundation report, and ISDS design, and a grading and
drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such measures which
shall be constructed in accordance with such measures which shall be a
condition of the building permit.
ISDS
4. At the time of Preliminary Plan submittal, the applicant shall submit an ISDS feasibility
study, prepared by a professional engineer, addressing the feasibility of ISDS systems
on each lot, unless central sewer is required by the Colorado Department of Health.
Water Supply
5. At the time of Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate evidence of adequate
water quantity from the proposed well field for the project.
Road Alignment
6. At the time of Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall submit cut/fill estimates for the
proposed road alignment, including an assessment of the relationship between the
proposed road alignment and the visual impacts of the resulting cut slopes.
Zone Districts
7. The bikepath and drainage districts shall be included within the Open Space Zone
District with appropriate language and to the Zone District text.
Wildfire
8. All building envelopes identified at preliminary plan shall be located in or at the head
of drainages.
Flashflood
9. Prior to Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall determine the 100 year floodplain,
consistent with the recommendations of CTL/Thompson Reconnaissance Report.
SKETCH PLAN REQUEST: Section 3.23 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states
that "the Planning Commission shall review the application for consistency with the standards and
policies 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; and
F. Other applicable local, state and federal regulations, resolutions, plans and policies, as
applicable."
11
• •
The ma jority of these issues have been addressed in the previous discussion regarding
the PU 3 rezoning approval. All of these issues are appropriate for discussion with the
applica it.
The ske tch plan process is purely informational. Completion of the Sketch Plan process
does nc t constitute approval of the proposed plan.
The Sk tch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from
the dat, of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed
subdivi ;ion is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this
period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning
Depart nent for review and comparison with the original application.
4 1
!...,I,Ici
STATE OF COLORADO 0 \i,i ft 2 1993
Roy Romer, Governor �[�n 0DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESDIVISION OF WILDLI�+F `r��~�`��
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER J0 3 Highway 6 GARF<<'LD CaUN-
Perry D. Olson, Director Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
6060 Broadway April 1, 1993
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
Dave Michaelson
Regulatory Offices and Personnel
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Westbank Ranch Filing #4 Resubdivision
1
EIR TO
For Wildl(fe—
For People
Dear Dave:
On March 26, 1993, district wildlife manager Kevin Wright and I
visited Westbank Ranch Filing #4 to review the site for wildlife
values. We ob:;erved about twenty live deer browsing, three
carcasses of dq:?er lost during this winter, heavy utilization of
sagebrush and :rabbitbrush plants by big game, heavy use of trails
into and out of the area and concentrations of pellet groups
along ridge tops. Division of Wildlife mapping places Westbank
Ranch Filing #4 in elk winter range and in critical deer habitat
(meaning that :Loss of this critical winter range would adversely
affect deer).
Development of Westbank Ranch Filing #4 will stress big game
populations because of increased domestic dogs running at large,
loss of native vegetation, increased erosion, increased vehicular
traffic, increased human/wildlife interaction and increased
obstacles to negotiate such as fencing.
We would like to recommend the following methods of minimizing
impacts to current wildlife occupants:
1. Reduce the density of 98 single family homesites by the
use of fcurplex lots, duplex lots, clumping homesites,
and/or eliminating some lots or combining .Lots into larger
lots.
2. Requ:re underground utilities to protect raptores (birds
of prey) from electrocution. (A pair of golden eagles nest
very clo:;e to this development.)
3. Require fencing restrictions. No wire fences. Wood and
wood rail fences a maximum height of 48 inches with a
maximum of three rails (allows for fawns to pass between
rails) except for solid privacy fences which should be a
minimum :of 72 inches.
4. No d:)gs allowed.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R Hegberg, Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member
Louis F. Swift, Secretary George VanDenBerg, Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Member • Thomas M. Eve, Vice Chairman
page 2
Westbank Ranch Filing #4 (continued)
April 1, 1993
5. No livestock allowed on any lot. (Livestock, especially
horses on small dryland lots denude native vegetation,
increase erosion and increase wildlife damage to neighboring
property owners from wildlifes attraction to hay fed to
livestock.)
6. Restrict building of any structure to the third of each
lot nearest the roadway. (This would help reduce loss of
native vegetation.)
7. Require the developer to include the following
information to buyers of each lot:
A. These homesites are located in .critical deer and
elk winter range. Taller browse plants such as
sagebrush, oakbrush, mountain mahogany, serviceberry
and bitterbrush usually protrude through the winter
snows and are important to the survival of big game.
Homeowners are encouraged to maintain native
vegetation.
B. Deer and elk can damage or destroy ornamental
plantings. For suggestions to prevent wildlife damage
and types of ornamentals less susceptible to damage,
contact the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
C. Death is natures way of keeping wildlife in balance
with the amount of remaining habitat. Wildlife
mortality rates are increased by human and pet
interaction with wildlife. DEER AND ELK WILL DIE ON
YOUR PROPERTY. It is the landowners responsibility to
dispose of the carcass. Burial on your own property or
disposal at a landfill is acceptable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We are available to
discuss any of these issues presented above. You can contact
myself or Kevin Wright at 945-7228.
Sincerely, ")w -12-e-,
Larry L. Green
District Wildlife Manager