HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.16.1993PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
PLANNERS:
ENGINEERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
BOCC 8-16-93
PUD Amendment - Westbank Ranch PUD Filing #4
Westbank Ranch #1 LTD
Jerome Gamba & Associates
Jerome Gamba & Associates
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.
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).
Wells - Community System
ISDS
County Road 109
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. Site 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 plans submitted with the staff report.
• •
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
COMPARISON 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.
0
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 III
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.
0
• •
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Colorado Geological Survey: The Colorado Geologic Survey has reviewed the project,
and conducted fieldwork on July 13, 1993 (see letter on pag #1 . Based on their
review, the areas of significant hazards have been avoided, although the "safe build"
areas on lots 1, 2, 35 and 43 are relatively small. The Geologic Survey also "strongly
concur with CTL/Thompson that each lot and building site be investigated by a
qualified engineering geologist and/or soils and foundation engineer...". Costs
regarding maintenance costs for the roads and infrastructure will be higher than typical
subdivisions. The feasibility of ISDS was also questioned, and a central sewer was
mentioned as a preferred alternative. In conclusion, Geologic Survey states that ..."the
project is feasible, but only with careful planning down to the siting of homes on lots."
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, who concluded
that the project was not located within a 201 planning area. No written comments have
been received to date from the Colorado Department of Health. Based on Mr.
Watson's conclusion, there are no statutory constraint to ISDS.
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.
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.
E. U.S. Bureau of Land Management: The BLM has submitted a letter dated July 30,
1993, reiterating their past comments (see letter on page S / . Primary concerns
noted in their letter of April 2, 1993 included the following:
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 / 1 .
F. Public Service Company: No response has been received from Public Service.
G. Colorado Division of Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife has reviewed the proposal, and
had the following comments (see July 27, 1993 and April 1, 1993 letter on pages
1) 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.
2) 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:
A) Reduce the density by cluster development;
B) Require underground utilities to protect raptors;
C) Require fencing restrictions;
D) Restrict or prohibit domestic dogs and horses within the subdivision;
E) 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.
The July 27, 1993 correspondence from DOW, based on a review of the updated
submittal, indicated that the Division stands by their previous comments. They also
suggest that dogs be limited to 1 per dwelling unit, that physical kennels are more
effective than the proposed electric fences, and offered additional fencing suggestions.
• •
In response to DOW concerns, the applicants have prepared dog restrictions, based on
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: The State Engineer's Office
has reviewed the application, and had the following comments (see letter on pages
021
1) Prior to Final Plat, a court approved water plan must be decreed;
2) The protective covenants should include language concerning the management
and responsibility of the wells and water system and define the amount of
allowed irrigation.
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
1. Modification of PUDs. This application is requesting approval for a PUD amendment.
Section 4.12 addresses the enforcement and modification of provisions of an approved PUD.
Specifically, Section 4.12.03 requires the following:
"All those provisions of the Plan authorized to be enforced by the County may be modified,
removed or released by the County, subject to the following:
(1)
No modification, removal orrelease of the provisions ofthe Plan by the County shall
affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and
enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and
(2) No substantial modifications removal orrelease of the provisions ofthePlan shall be
permitted except upon a finding of the County, followinga public bearings called and
held in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104, C.R.S., that the
modification, removal or release is consistent with the efficient development and
preservation ofthe entire PUD, does not affect inasubstantially adverse manner either
the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public
interes4 and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person."
At the Planning Commission hearing, testimony was given by adjacent owners in the existing
Filings in opposition to the proposed PUD amendment. Specific concerns of adjacent property
owners included the following:
1.)
The impact on property values due to the loss of open space associated with the
approved PUD. Testimony was given regarding the assurance that these owners had
placed on the prior approval at the time of purchase;
`Section 4.12 Enforcement and Modification of Provisions of the Plan, Garfield
County Zoning Resolution_ 1984 as amended.
4-
• •
2.) Due to the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the property, adjacent owners
voiced concern regarding the impact of drainage (see the geologic map on sheet 18 -
Flashflood Hazard) on tracts located below the lower bench.
It is expected that these concerns will be presented at the public hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. PUD Objectives: Section 4.02 of the Subdivision Regulations establish the Purposes
and Objectives of PUDs. These standards are taken directly from state statute, and are as
follows:
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, dean, safe and pleasant industrial sites involving a
minimum of strain on transportation facilities (NOT APPLICABLE);
3. To insure that theprovisions ofzoning laws which direct the uniform treatment
of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning district will
not beapplied to the improvement ofland byother 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;
S. To encourage a more efficient use ofland 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 ofland;
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 characteristic or
9. To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the above purposes and
objectives of development.'
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
2Section 4.02 Purposes and Objectives of Development, Garfield County Zoning Resolution, 1984
as amended.
?Westbank Ranch Planned Unit Developmen Modification and Westbank Ranch Filing #4
Subdivision, (Gamba and Associates) page 1. • •
• •
Significant discussion at the Planning Commission hearings centered on Objective #4,
which addresses the innovation and variety in the physical design of the PUD. This
point is relative to this decision due to the dramatic differences between the approved
and proposed PUD. The approved project concentrates all development within the
areas of the project with the least identified environmental constraints (maps of the
approved PUD will be presented at the public hearing). In addition, open space
provides a significant buffer between the existing Westbank Filings and Filing #4.
Finally, the variety of housing types approved in 1982 is a much greater scale then
currently being proposed (see Table 1).
Staff notes that the financial feasibility of central sewer, or the project as a whole, is not
a criteria recognized by either the Zoning Resolution, the Subdivision Regulations, or
state statutes in evaluating a land use application.
Staff will defer to the Board of County Commissioners regarding compliance with these
objectives, based on a comparison with the approved project.
3. Consistency with the General Plait: 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 applicable portions of the
Comprehensive Plan 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
of Countyresidents, in allincome ranges, without puttingafinancial burden on existing
public serviaes.4
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 1982 approved project is
consistent with the housing goals described earlier than the current application,
although a single, four unit fourplex is included in the development. In addition, the
applicants are proposing duplex lots as a conditional use. The duplex concept, although
commendable, has some technical flaws, discussed in detail on page 9 of the Staff
Report. Staff concedes that the concept of "affordability" is difficult to define, although
the term "variety" is more applicable for comparative purposes.
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
The CTL/Thompson Report indicated that "Development in areas of potentially
unstable slopes or immediately adjacent to steep slopes should be avoided".7 As shown
4Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 2.
5Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 2.
6Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 7.
'Reconnaissance Geologic Investigation, CTL/Thompson, Inc. June 24, 1993, page 8.
• •
on the Geologic Hazard Map, (Sheet 18), areas of unstable slopes are included within
platted lots, and are not dedicated to the public. It does appear, however, that building
envelopes are available on each lot. Staff is suggesting that building envelopes be
defined at Preliminary Plan.
The 1982 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.' The proposed road alignment crosses numerous
drainages, and the applicant has verbally indicated that nine (9) different alignments
were contemplated, and the current proposal represents the option having the least
visual impact. No mapping, schematics, or cross section analysis has been submitted
to assist the Board in assessing the impacts of the proposed access road.
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). These soil groups represent the areas most likely to have ISDS,
and all had acceptable percolation rates.
The 1982 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.10
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. The development has concentrated the majority of
development in areas outside of known geologic risks. However, large portions of lots
8Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 8.
9Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 10.
10Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 12.
"Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 13.
• •
Lots 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 and 63 are in an identified flash flood hazard
area. No mitigation has been proposed for this identified hazard.
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.
2. ZONING REQUIREMENTS: Section 4.08 addresses the PUD processing
requirements, and the following discussion addresses specific issues with the
application:13
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. The applicant has agreed to provide building envelopes for
each lot as a condition of approval. As noted earlier, percolation tests have been
performed for the site. Results were consistent with Colorado Department of Health
and Garfield County standards.
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
and the Colorado Geologic Survey have 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. On-site percolation tests performed by the applicant have
indicated that ISDS is feasible on the site. Staff notes that soil conditions can vary
significantly from one location to another.
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 on the lower bench 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
12Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, page 2Z
'3Garfield County Zoning Resolution, 1984 as amended, pages 39-41.
justification for the lots proposed for the area. Staff suggests that this be a condition
of approval;
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.14 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. The Fire District has approved the excessive length (See exhibit I of
the application).
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. Dog
restrictions have been submitted, although less stringent than DOW are suggestions that
applicant has included drainage easements to serve as wildlife corridors. Staff discussed
the effectiveness of the corridors with Kevin Wright (DOW), who concluded that the
corridors will have no impact on the reduction of critical habitat in the ares. Staff
suggests that DOW recommendations be a condition of approval.
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), Residential Duplex District (R/M.F.2) and Open Space.
The zone district map (Sheet 3) includes two additional zone districts: Greenbelt,
Drainage and Parks and "Bikepath". The applicant has agreed to include these districts
within an overall Open Space District with language included in the zone district text
permitting such uses.
Staff also suggested that the bikepath be relocated to County Road 109 frontage on the
east end of the property. The applicant has agreed to this suggestion.
The applicants are proposing to include duplexes as a conditional use within a
Residential Duplex District (R/M .F.2). No maps have been submitted in regards to this
proposal. This zone district would allow a duplex as a conditional use if an owner has
title to two adjacent lots. Although the additional multi -family lots are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, staff has identified the following issues surrounding this
proposal:
• Garfield County has no provisions for denying a Conditional Use, only placing
conditions on the application. This is significant in that it gives little or no
control regarding the location of the proposed duplexes. Quite simply,
ownership of two adjacent lots would be the only conceivable requirement to
obtaining approval. This would have significant impact on the land use
assemblage within the PUD;
• The conditional use contemplated, described on page 4 of the updated zone
district submittal (attached on pages- 3 3/ ), has a restriction that reads as
follows: "The construction of a duplex on any two adjoining lots will not be
permitted without the owner showing reasonable proof that such development
will not adversely affect the adjacent lot owner's view." What constitutes a
"view" is not defined, and may be too ambiguous to enforce in an equitable
fashion.
1
4Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 9.33(A), page 9-2.
• ip
• •
• Since no map was submitted indicating the location of the "duplex" zoning, it
is unclear what the intention of the applicant was in contemplating such a
district. Since the only requirement is the ownership of adjacent lots, it appears
that the only possible configuration of such a zone would encompass the entire
PUD. Based on this assumption, it appears that what is contemplated is
traditionally referred to as an "overlay zone".
Staff suggests that if duplexes are intended within the PUD, that they be
included as a Special Use within the previously defined single-family zone
district. This would allow the County to deny such an application if it was
deemed inappropriate by the County Commissioners on a case-by-case basis.
Without such a change, a duplex could occur anywhere in the subdivision
without any concern for basic subdivision design concepts originally
contemplated by the developer, and the County would have no basis for denial
under the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff suggests that very specific
standards for denial or approval be developed in regards to duplexes within the
project. The impact of the duplex zoning on the existing filings is also an issue
with adjacent property owners.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The primary issue in front of the Board centers on the compliance and consistency of the PUD
amendment with the applicable standards, as well as 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 and State Geologic
Survey suggestions. Staff recognizes that the financial commitment for central sewer
is significant, although fmancial feasibility is not a criteria addressed in the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations or Zoning Resolution.
• The approved project is based on a cluster concept, focussing development activities in
areas with the least environmental constraints, retaining open space adjacent to existing
development in Filings #1, #2 and #3, and limiting impact to critical wildlife habitat;
• The scope of the multiple -housing proposed in the original PUD is more consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff concedes that the proposed project is feasible from an engineering perspective, although the spirit
and intent of PUD regulations does not rest completely on engineering criteria.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment with a vote of 5-2, with
John Foulkrod and Calvin Lee dissenting. Conditions placed on the project by the Planning
Commission are as follows:
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.
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
that particular zone district.
4,1
• •
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: Zoo
AN14/
A. Prior the issuance of a building permit, he 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 a condition of the building permit.
Water Supply
4. At the time of Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate evidence of adequate
water quantity from the proposed well field for the project.
Zone Districts
The bikepath and drainage districts shall be included within the Open Space Zone__
District with appropriate language and to the Zone District text.
N- The duplex concept should be integrated as a Special Use within the single-family
residential district.
Wildfire
7.
All building envelopes identified at preliminary plan shall be not be located in or at the
head of drainages.
Flashflood
8. Prior to Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall determine the 100 year floodplain,
consistent with the recommendations of CTL/Thompson Reconnaissance Report.
Existing Infrastructure
9. All easements necessary to ensure access to existing water tanks and irrigation rights for
Filings #1, #2 and #3 shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan.
Central Sewer
10. Due to the potential tie-in with future regional facilities in the Roaring Fork Valley,
appropriate easements for possible central sewer will be identified at the time of
Preliminary Plan.
4o -T rAo -r NA1q T v a C Z� no Li6 1S5'` p5%
ZSo 0 ob G�4t- •
�2
v
•
122--4"
//',� sti/ �1‘1,T
C ?**t
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-261 1
FAX (303) 866-2461
July 21, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
_JUL .2.6_1993
COU PITY
Re: Westbank Ranch PUD Filing No. 4, Preliminary Plan
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
GA -94-0001
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have
reviewed the materials submitted for and made a field inspection on
July 13, 1993, of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
referenced above. The following comments summarize our findings.
(1) Generally, the assessment of potential geology -related problems
in this subdivision presented in the analysis by CTL Thompson is
thorough and adequate. Although there are some parts of the project
area that have moderate to severe geologic hazards, these will be
adequately avoided of the subdivision is developed as shown on the
proposed plat. The lot sites are sufficiently large that a safe
building site can be selected on each one although such "safe
build" areas on some of the lots are relatively small, especially
on lots 1 and 2 and lots 35 to 43, inclusive.
(2) We strongly concur with the recommendation by CTL Thompson that
each lot and building site be investigated by a qualified
engineering geologist and/or soils and foundation engineer who
should collaborate with the architect for proposed structure(s).
Careful siting of structures, proper control of drainage, and
properly designed building foundations (including their concrete
specifications) will be critical to minimizing construction and
maintenance problems for future homeowners in the area.
(3) It is likely that maintenence costs for roads and other
infrastructure in the subdivision will apt to be higher than that
typical of subdivisions in more gently sloping and less hazardous
terrain. The County should evaluate these costs for any facilities
Mr. Dave Michaelson
July 21, 1993
Page 2
that may be dedicated to it for maintenance, e.g. roads.
(4) The feasibility of use of individual sewage -disposal systems on
lots of this size, in terrain which is relatively steep in many
places, and where bedrock is at or near the surface is highly
questionable. The admission in the submitted documentation (p. 2,3)
that a "replacement" leach field site should be planned for on each
lot is an indication that the proponent is considering the
possibility that individual septic systems will eventually fail. It
is our opinion that the subdivision should be placed on a central
sewer system served by its own sewage- treatment plant. Eventually,
when it is economically feasible to join a larger sewer district
(possibly the proposed Aspen Glen facility), this subdivision
should do so. Minimizing duplicity of sewage -treatment facilities
is a policy of the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality
Control Division.
In summary, this project is feasible, but only with careful
planning down to the siting of homes on lots. Some of the project
area that must be used for locations of roads, utility corridors,
and other infrastructure is geologically hazardous and will
necessitate higher than ordinary maintenance and repair costs. The
sizes of lots and geologic conditions make the feasibility of use
of individual sewage -treatment systems questionable.
Sincerely,
mes M. Soule
ngineering Geologist
• •
TAKE■
• PRIDE INI
United States Department of the Interior AMERICA
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Resource Arca
50629 Highway 6 and 24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
April 2, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
■
■
rTT1 17-)
; C1�,.__.i.' . ~(7-880,i
'A)R 0 5 1993
GAHFJGLC COUNTY
In response to the request for comments regarding the proposed Westbank Ranch
P.U.D.-Filing #4 Subdivision, I offer the following statements for your
scheduled April 5, 1993, Planning Commission hearing. Proposed lot 91 is the
only parcel adjacent to public land.
1. The landowners should be aware of the location of property boundaries to
ensure no encroachment occurs on public land. Should fence construction be
considered along the BLM boundary, the fence standards should allow for easy
passage by big game, i.e. less than 42" in height with a 10" kick space
between the top 2 wires.
2. The parcel of BLM administered land adjacent to lot 91 has been designated
as a disposal tract in the BLM's Resource Management Plan. Current or future
owners of this lot 91 should not expect the BLM tract to remain in federal
ownership.
3. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company is proposing to construct a pipeline
near or within the 100 foot Public Service Company utility easement depicted
on the sketch plan. Any utilities proposed for the subdivision that cross
public land would have to obtain a right-of-way from this office.
4. The adjacent public land is not allotted for livestock grazing.
5. Adjacent public land is open to hunting. The proponent should be aware
that such recreation uses are allowed on BLM-administered land.
6. After review of our mineral survey notes, there are no federal minerals
located within the subject private lands.
7. Development of this nature, especially at the density proposed, would
likely render the critical winter mule deer habitat (which is in relatively
poor condition) unsuitable for deer use. The development could increase deer
use on adjoining public and private lands particularly during the winter
months.
• •
Garfield Planning - Page 2
8. The soils within the proposed subdivision are poorly suited for housing
development due to shallow depth to bedrock, steep slopes, and very high
hazard of water erosion.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Jim Byers in this
office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
yNati 1N t
A -c- hm3 �° r
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
M
,it11
TAKE•
PRIDE IN'
United States Department of the Interior AMS
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 Iiighway 6 and 24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
July 30, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
MO
ME ■
IN REPLY REFER TO: .*
1785g
We recently received two public notices regarding the PUD Preliminary Plan and
a PUD zone district amendment for the resubdivision of Westbank Ranch Filing
44. After staff review we have no additional comments regarding either the
zone district amendment or the preliminary plan. Please reference my letter
of April 2, 1993 related to this subdivision for our comments and
recommendations regarding this proposal. A copy of this letter is enclosed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jim
Byers in this office at 945-2341.
Enclosure
•
Sincerely,
Aqi-Ar)"Li7'
-)IXe
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
July 27, 1993
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dave:
For Wildlife-
- For People
I refer you to our 4/1/93 letter to you regarding wildlife impacts to mule
deer and elk by the proposed Westbank Ranch Filing #4 Resubdivision. We stand
by our recommendations in that letter regarding ways to minimize those
impacts.
In addition to those recommendations, we recommend the following:
1. If dogs are allowed, restrict to 1 dog/home. All kennels be
constructed before C.O. is issued. Based upon our experience, electric
fencing does not always work; a physical kennel is preferred.
2 Any rail fencing be 48", 3 -rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of
the rails.
The following issues did not appear to be addressed in the last submission:
1. Density was reduced; however building envelopes were not designated. We
would recommend these be placed in the nearest 1/3 of each lot closest
to roadways and set back from any hillside. If possible clump
homesites.
2 All utilities be buried.
3 No horse/livestock grazing. If allowed, homeowner fence haystacks with
8' fencing to prevent damage to haystacks which is an attractant to big
game.
4. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
5. Winter kill animals and their disposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please
give us a call.
Sincerely,
62
Larry Green/Kevin Wright
Division of Wildlife Managers
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL " SOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COIL/S1SfIpN, 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
no-
STATE OF COLORADO
,,Roy Romer, Governor •
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
50633 Highway 6
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
April 1, 1993
Dave Michaelson
Regulatory Offices and Personnel
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Westbank Ranch Filing H4 Resubdivision
Dear Dave:
REFER TO:
On March 26, 1993, district wildlife manager Kevin Wright and I
visited Westbank Ranch Filing 44 to review the site for wildlife
values. We observed about twenty live deer browsing, three
carcasses of deer 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 114 in elk winter range and in critical deer hahitat
(meaning that loss of this critical winter range would adversely
affect deer).
Development of Westbank Ranch Filing 114 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 fourplex lots, duplex lots, clumping homesites,
and/or eliminating some lots or combining lots into larger
lots.
2. Require underground utilities to protect raptores (birds
of prey) from electrocution. (A pair of golden eagles nest
very close 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 dogs allowed.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL REc'
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenl3erg, Chaim- o/•
itdon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member • D,
, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
O. Jenberger, Vice Chairman • William R. Hegberg, Secretary
", Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member
page 2
Westbank Ranch Filing 49 (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 ar►y 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 contract
myself or Kevin Wright at 945-7228.
Sincerely,
Larry L. Green
District Wildlife Manager
zo-
STATE OF COLORADO
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
August 3, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
'
AUG 0 5 1993.
GA FIELD COUNTY
RE: Westbank Ranch Filing #4 PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan
Section 35, T6S and Section 2, T7S, R89W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
oy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
}1941 D. Simpson
State Engineer
Thank you for the referral concerning the amendment to the Westbank Ranch Filing #4.
The project is located approximately five miles south of Glenwood Springs along Highway 82. The
change includes downsizing the project from 98 dwelling units to 67 dwelling units. In addition,
instead of expanding the existing water supply, the modified plan anticipates a separate water
distribution system from eight proposed wells. Out -of -priority depletions are proposed to be
augmented with releases from Ruedi Reservoir. All lots will have non -evaporative septic systems.
We can recommend approval for the preliminary plan only. Prior to approving a final plan
for this project, the following issues must be addressed:
• A court approved water supply plan must be decreed. The applicant has filed a plan for
augmentation, Case 93CW104, which has not been adjudicated, yet. If the applicant wishes
to be covered under the West Divide Water Conservancy District substitute water supply
plan while proceeding with the Court process, the applicant must conform with the
parameters of the District's plan.
• The Protective Covenants should include specific language concerning the management
and responsibility of the eight wells in the central water supply system; the amount of
irrigated acreage each lot may have; the amount of livestock allowed per lot; and that all
lots must use a non -evaporative septic system. All these conditions will be stipulated in the
final decree. Because the augmentation plan is still pending, additional conditions may be
imposed when the plan is decreed.
Our April 13, 1993 letter to the County for the modification to Westbank Ranch Filing #4
was in response to a change from a multi -family to single family concept. The proposed water
supply was from four decreed wells. Our April letter does not apply to this submittal.
Should you have further questions or comments regarding our concerns for the water supply
for this project, please contact me at the above address.
Mr. Dave Michaelson
August 3, 1993
Sincerely,
d� a in
IY PP gton
ater esources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Page 2
• •
WESTBANK RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION
AND
WESTBANK RANCH FILING #4 RESUBDIVISION
Submitted for review by the Garfield County Planning Commission at the Preliminary
plan hearing on 9 August 1993
In accordance with Section 4.12 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978
and amendments thereto through 14 October 1991, the owners of the WESTBANK
RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT desire to modify several provisions of the
plan. The modifications are being proposed because it is felt that the density of lot
of the original plan in keeping with development that has occurred in the general area.
Additionally, the difficulty in permitting and constructing sewage treatment facilities
which would discharge to the Roaring Fork River has caused the construction of a
central sewage collection system to be impractical. The modified concept provides
lots with sufficient space for a Targe single family home and onsite sewage treatment
facilities to serve it. The Tots are configured to take advantage of the natural views
of the area. The development layout includes common open space which will be
dedicated to the homeowners association.
The proposed Westbank Ranch Filing #4 Resubdivision is illustrated on the following
drawings:
SHEET 1 OF 18 --PRELIMINARY PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
SHEET 2 OF 18 --PRELIMINARY PLAN LOT LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS
SHEET 3 OF 18 --ZONE DISTRICT MAP
SHEET 4 OF 18 --UTILITY PLAN MAP
SHEET 5 OF 18 --DRAINAGE PLAN MAP
SHEET 6 OF 18 --OVERALL ROAD PLAN MAP
SHEETS 7 THROUGH 15 OF 18 --ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS
SHEET 16 OF 18 --SOILS GROUP MAP
SHEET 17 OF 18 --RECONNAISSANCE GEOLOGIC MAP
SHEET 18 OF 18 --RECONNAISSANCE GEOLOGIC HAZARD MAP
PAGE 1
a3
• •
THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PUD PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Dwelling Type and Number
The current plan contains 10 fourplex lots, 10 duplex Tots and 38 single family Tots for
a total of 58 lots with 98 dwelling units.
The modified plan contains 63 single family Tots and one multi -family, fourplex lot for
a total of 67 dwelling units.
2. Lot Size
The current plan contains lots ranging from 0.44 acres to 1.94 acres, with 36 of the
58 Tots being less than one acre.
The modified plan contains lots ranging from a minimum of 1.0 acre to 14.26 acres,
with the majority of lots in the 2.0 to 3.0 acre range.
3. Site Plan
The current plan calls for 81 dwelling units on the upper bench and 17 on the lower
bench.
The modified plan (see map) calls for 51 single family dwelling unit Tots on the upper
bench and 13 lots on the lower bench. Of these 13 lots, 12 are for single family
dwelling units and one (number 64) is a multi -family, fourplex lot. In addition, it is
proposed that duplex units may be permitted on any two adjoining lots, subject to a
conditional use permit being granted by the County, and the conditions listed here
under "B. Uses, conditional".
4. Domestic and Irrigation water Supply
The current plan anticipates expansion of the existing water system which serves
Westbank filings I through III.
The modified plan anticipates a system separate from the existing Westbank system,
with water to be supplied from new well(s) to be drilled and augmented with Ruedi
Reservoir water for which a contact has been obtained. A total of 40 acre feet of
water is to be purchased from Ruedi Reservoir for the needs of the development. As
a part of the water system development, sufficient irrigation water will be provided to
allow for each residence to irrigate up to 2,500 square feet. Fire protection storage
and hydrants will be incorporated in the domestic water system. A letter report and
documents related to the purchase of water from Ruedi Reservoir are attached as
EXHIBIT E.
5. Sewage Disposal
The current plan anticipates the construction of a central sewage collection system
and treatment plant.
PAGE 2
47V -
• •
The modified plan anticipates the use of individual, onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems. Each lot will be designed to accommodate the space necessary for
a leach field disposal system as well as space for a second, "replacement" field.
Percolation rate tests were conducted at four separate sites on the property which
were representative of the soil condition of the development. The locations of the
tests are illustrated on the RECONNAISSANCE GEOLOGIC MAP. The results of these
tests are as follows:
Test # 1
Test # 2
Test # 3
Test # 4
16.90 minutes/inch
10.37 minutes/inch
8.34 minutes/inch
14.46 minutes/inch
All of these test results are acceptable for the construction of leach field systems for
onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. Individual percolation tests must be
accomplished for each specific leach field site prior to construction.
6. P.U.D. Zoning Regulations
The current P.U.D. zoning regulations are attached in EXHIBIT A.
The modified plan anticipates changing the regulations to read as follows:
Section I.
A. To carry out the purposes and provisions of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, Garfield County, Colorado and, particularly, Section 1 .04 of that
title, as amended, the Westbank Ranch Planned Unit Development Zoning
District is further divided into the following Zone District classifications:
R/S.F. - Residential Single Family District
R/M.F.2 - Residential Duplex District
R/M.F.4 - Residential Multi -Family, fourplex District
O.S. - Open Space
B. The boundaries of these Districts are illustrated on Sheet 2 of the maps.
PAGE 3
• •
Section II
A. Uses, by right.
1.) Residential Single Family District - Conditional Use District
One Single -Family dwelling per lot and customary accessary use
including buildings for shelter or enclosure of small animals or property
accessory to the use of the lot for single-family residential purposes and
fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features.
2.) Residential Duplex District
One structure on two adjoining lots, containing up to but not more that
two dwelling units and customary assessory use including buildings for
shelter or enclosure of small animals or property accessory to the use of
the lot for multi -family residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens,
walls and similar landscape features. This district will include all areas
platted as within the residential single family district. The development
of a duplex structure on two adjoining lots will be subject to the
conditional uses listed below in "B. Uses, conditional".
3.) Residential Multi -Family, fourplex District
One structure per lot, containing up to but not more than four dwelling
units and customary accessary use including buildings for shelter or
enclosure of small animals or property accessory to the use of the lot for
multi -family residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
B. Uses, conditional
Any person or legal entity who owns two adjoining lots within the single family
district, may at the time of application for building, elect to construct one
duplex unit, subject to the following restrictions:
1) The building setback on the lot line separating the two adjoining
Tots will be set to zero feet.
2) The duplex will be required to occupy some portion of both lots,
and straddle the adjoining lot line.
3) The construction of a duplex on any two adjoining lots will be
required to maintain all building setbacks, other than the above
mentioned zero setback on the adjoining lot line. No variance
from county standards will be permitted on other setbacks.
4) The construction of a duplex on any two adjoining lots will not be
permitted without the owner showing reasonable proof that such
development will not adversely affect the adjacent lot owners
view.
5) A conditional use permit shall be required of anyone wishing to
build a duplex within the development.
PAGE 4
- Ztjto
OP
• •
C. uses, special
None
D. Minimum Lot Area
One acre
E. Maximum Lot Coverage
15 percent
F. Minimum Setback
Front yard 25 feet
Side yard 10 feet
Rear yard 30 feet
G. Maximum Building Height
25 feet
H. Off -Street Parking
Four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit or one (1) space per 600
square feet of living space floor area, which ever is greater.
Section III
Except as hereinabove provided, and except for the following sections of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution, all provisions of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution shall be applicable to the Westbank Ranch P.U.D. Zoning Districts.
The Sections of said Zoning Resolution which shall have no applicability are as
follows:
Section 3.00 through 3.1 1.09.
7. Roads
The primary road through the development, HUEBINGER DRIVE, will be designed and
constructed in accordance with the standards for a MINOR COLLECTOR road from the
entrance on County Road #109 to the intersection with OLD NATIVE LANE. The
remainder of HUEBINGER DRIVE, all of OLD NATIVE LANE, DOLORES CIRCLE and
NATIVE LANE will be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for
SECONDARY ACCESS roads as defined in Section 9.35 of the Subdivision Regulations
of Garfield County, Colorado. The roads are illustrated on SHEETS 6 THROUGH 14 of
the drawings.
PAGE 5
• •
8. School/Parks Dedication
In accordance with Section 9.80 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County,
Colorado, as amended, the Westbank Ranch P.U.D. owners will cooperate with the
Board of County Commissioners to appropriately compensate the county for the
reasonably necessary public facilities, in the nature of schools and parks required by
the future residents of the P.U.D.
9. Phasing
The current plan anticipated the development of the project in two phases.
The modified plan proposes to develop the property in a single phase.
10. Adjacent Property Owners
The property owners of adjacent land, of record in the office of the County Assessor,
as of 15 June 1993, are listed in EXHIBIT B.
11. Acreage and Dwelling Unit Summary
ACRES DWELLING UNITS
Residential/Single Family District 145.86 63
Residential/Multi-Family fourplex District 6.95 4
Road Right -of -Way 14.74 0
Open Space 117.53 0
TOTAL 285.08 67
GROSS DENSITY
NET DENSITY
OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGE = 41.23
0.235 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
0.438 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
12. Homeowners Association
A homeowners association shall be formed at the time of final platting of the P.U.D.
modification and Resubdivision. The purposes and powers of the association shall
include:
1. To promote the health, safety and welfare of the owners of real property
within the P.U.D.
2. To enforce all covenants including provisions for architectural control.
PAGE 6
a8-
• •
Covenants
To further assure the development and continuation of the Westbank Ranch P.U.D.
as a high quality, rural residential area, protective covenants shall be recorded along
with the final platting of the P.U.D. These covenants will be the same covenants on
file for the Westbank Ranch Subdivision Filing No. 1 except for references to "Filing
No.1 " and also excepting paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 in Article V and also except for
the possible additions noted elsewhere in this submittal. A copy of these covenants
are included in EXHIBIT C.
13. Legal Description
The legal description of the boundary of the Westbank Ranch P.U.D. Modification and
Filing #4 Resubdivision is included as EXHIBIT D.
14. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Information
Soils information from the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service about the subject area
was copied from the document "SOIL SURVEY OF ASPEN -GYPSUM AREA,
COLORADO, PARTS OF EAGLE, GARFIELD AND PITKIN COUNTIES". This information
is included in EXHIBIT F, and the map areas of the soils groups discussed therein are
. illustrated on Sheet 15, SOIL GROUPS, of the drawings.
15. Anticipated Sources for Electric, Natural Gas, Telephone and Cable T.V. Services
It is anticipated that electrical service will be provided by Holy Cross Electric
Association, that natural gas service will be provided by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas,
that Telephone service will be provided by U.S. WEST Communications and cable T.V.
service will be provided by TCI Cablevision of Colorado, Inc.
16. Engineering Geology
A reconnaissance geologic investigation of the property has been conducted by
CTL/Thompson, Inc., and is included as a part of this submittal as EXHIBIT G.
17. Drainage
The road system serving the development will cross a number of minor drainages.
Drainage structures for these crossings have been designed on the basis of analysis
of the drainage basins which they serve for a 100 year frequency storm event. The
hydraulic calculations determining the 100 year frequency storm events in the
drainage basins effecting this property are illustrated in EXHIBIT H, DRAINAGE
ANALYSIS.
18. Wildlife
The Division of Wildlife mapping places this development in elk winter range and
critical deer habitat. It is understood that some impact on the big game herds will
result from this development. The following conditions are proposed as additions to
the protective covenants of the development to mitigate some of the impact.
PAGE 7
-P9-
• •
A. Dogs shall be kept under the control of the Owner at all times and shall not
be permitted to run free or to cause a nuisance in the subdivision. No dogs
shall be allowed beyond the boundaries of the lot owned by the persons where
the dog is housed unless accompanied by a person in full control of such dog.
B. Dogs shall not be allowed to bark continuously, which shall be defined as
barking for a continuous 15 minute period.
C. Dogs shall be leashed, chained, fenced, "electric fenced", kenneled, or under
the control of the Owner, which shall mean that the dog does not leave the
boundaries of the lot or house unless on a leash and under the control of a
person at all times. Metal fencing will be allowed for the purposes of kenneling
a dog. Location of kennels shall be subject to review of the Architectural
Control Committee.
D. All lot owners shall keep all pets reasonably clean and all lots shall be free
of refuse, insects, animal waste and insects which breed thereon, at all times.
E. The Homeowners association shall assess and enforce penalties against
Owners violating the restrictions applying to dogs as follows: One hundred
Dollars ($100.00) for the first violation committed by an Owner's dog; Two
Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for the second violation; Three Hundred Dollars
($300.00) for the third violation and for each succeeding violation the fine
increases in One Hundred Dollar ($100.00) increments. Should any dog chase
or molest deer, elk, other pet animals or persons, or destroy or disturb property
of another, the Association shall be authorized to prohibit the property owner
or resident from continuing to maintaining the offending animal on his property
and may dispose of that animal, in necessary, to protect wildlife or other
Owner's pet animals, persons or property. The offending dog owner shall be
provided written notice of such action at least two (2) days before disposal
occurs. Within such two-day period, the offending dog shall be kenneled at a
licensed kennel. All charges associated with action taken by the Association
may be assessed against either the lot Owner and/or the dog owner, or both at
the Association's sole option.
F. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no animal may be kept within a lot or
residence which, in the good -faith judgement of the Association Board of
Directors, results in any annoyance or are obnoxious to residents in the vicinity
of to lot Owners within the subdivision. Except as expressly limited herein,
domestic animals may be further restricted pursuant to any rules and
regulations which may be promulgated by the Association Board of Directors.
G. Metal fencing shall not be allowed except for kennels as noted above. No
kennel shall cover an area greater than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet.
PAGE 8
! •
Wood and wood rail fence shall have a maximum height of 48 inches with a
maximum three rails to allow for a fawn to pass between rails. Solid privacy
fences, where permitted by the Architectural Control Committee, shall be a
minimum of 72 inches high.
19. Wildfire Hazard
The area of this development, which is in excess of 30% slope and in the densely
vegetated drainages, has been identified as medium to high hazard for wildfire, in a
letter from Mr. Kelly Rogers of the Colorado State Forest Service. The site was also
visited by representatives of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. As a
result of this visit, a letter was written by Mr. Ron Leach, Chief of that district and a
Memorandum was written by Mr. James Mason, Director of Glenwood Emergency
Services. Recommendations were made regarding the development in all three of these
communications. As a result of these recommendations, the following conditions are
proposed as additions to the protective covenants of the development to mitigate this
potential hazard:
A. Structures shall not be constructed in or at the head of topographic drainage
features.
B. All vegetation except low ground cover such as mowed grass shall be
removed for an area 10 feet on all sides of all structures.
C. Brush and trees within 30 feet of all structures shall be thinned, if necessary,
so that the remaining clumps are no more than 10 feet wide.
D. Structure roof coverings shall be of non-combustible materials.
Additionally, the design criteria proposed by Mr. Leach and Mr. Mason is incorporated
in the road and utility design.
Copies of the letters from Mr. Rogers, Mr. Leach and Mr. Mason are included as
EXHIBIT I.
Jerome F. Gamba P.E. & L.S. 5933
PAGE 9
-31-