Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report'ROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF �NENTS PROJECT NAME: Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision No. Two OWNER: Thomas E. Neil and James A.R. Johnson PLANNER: Resource Management, Inc., Aspen, Colorado ENGINEER: Schmueser and Associates LOCATION: Located along State Highway 82 and County Road 114, the area known as Spring Valley SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: Subdivision No. Two contains 201.6 acres and consists of 53 single family lots. The design and layout of Subdivision No. Two is consistent with the PUD Master Plan which was approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in Resolution No. 81-358 on Tuesday, December 1, 1981. Subdivision No. Two represents a resubdivision of the initial Subdivision No. Two of which Final Plat, Filing One, was recorded on March 3, 1980. Proposed central water through improvements of an existing system. Spring Valley Sanitation District and individual septic. PROPOSED ROADS: To be, dedicated EXISTING ZONING: PUD PROPOSED ZONING: PUD ADJACENT ZONING: North: A/R/RD South: OS, CL, CG East: PUD-A/R/RD West: A/R/RD RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This proposal falls within Rural Service Area B because it is part of an existing PUD which .was approved for a higher density. This request does not conflict with the Compre- hensive Plan. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A) Site Description: This site ranges from gentle to steep slopes with two major gullies and several minor ones. The vegetation ranges from agriculturally related materials to native vegetation consisting of pinion/juniper, sage, and meadow grasses. B) Project Dei+cription: This proposal is to allow 53 single lots on 201 acres within an existing PUD. The roads are to be county dedicated. Water is proposed from a central water system and sewer is proposed by Spring Valley Sanitation District as well as some individual septic systems. REFERRAL SUMMARY: 1. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation Summary: A. Recommend on-site investigations prior to construction to protect landowners. B. Revegetation of exposed areas. 2. Colorado Department of Health (Two letters): A. FIRST LETTER: Plans and specifications for any alteration or expansion to the current water treatment plant must be submitted to the Health Department for review and approval prior to construction. B. Wastewater flows can be handled by the Spring Valley Sanitation District as stated in application. C. SECOND LETTER: Indicates that individual septic or central sewage will both work but each will be fairly expensive. The choice is up to the county as to which system to require. Page 31 3. Colorado Geological Survey: Recommends approval with the following conditions: A. Geotechnical studies of each lot be made and the results of these studies be made available to the purchaser prior to closing. B. Show on the final plat a building envelope and a suitable motor -vehicle access. 4. Roaring Fork School District: Concerned that the original school site dedication proposal be honored. 5. Carbondale Fire Protection District: A. Water system appears adequate. B. Hydrant spacing of 600' is adequate. C. Location and size of cistern is adequate. 6. Division of Water Resources (Three letters): FIRST LETTER: A. Requests a letter regarding water rights referred to in submittal packet. B. Some of the water rights would probably not be sufficient to prevent injury to downstream senior water rights which would result from upstream development. C. Would not endorse anything which would result ii actual building construction or lot sales prior to approval of an augmentation plan. SECOND LETTER: The additional information which they received does not indicate the applicant's pursuit of a plan for augmentation. Consequently, their previous recommendation stands. THIRD LETTER: Approval with the condition that the applicant develop a plan for augmentation and have it approved by the State Division of Water Resources prior to Filing 113 of Subdivision ,12 Final Plat. 7. Basalt Water Conservancy District ( Two Letters): FIRST LETTER: Questions if the legal water supply has sufficient senior priority to prevent purchases of lts facing eventual curtailment of their water supply. SECOND LETTER: Recommendation to have applicant apply for access to augmentation water through either Ruedi Reservoir or Green Mountain Reservoir. 8. Garfield County Environmental Health: Every effort be made to connect the entire subdivision to the Spring Valley Sanitation District. 9. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department indicated verbally that the proposed road improvements on County Road 114 would be adequate, however, he would prefer to have the developer construct the improvements rather than pay the county the sum of $32,700. FINDINGS: 1. The Public Hearing had been properly advertised. 2. The request is appropriate for the existing PUD zoning district. 3. The request does not conflict with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Colorado Division of Water Resources recommends approval with certain conditions. 5. The Basalt Water Conservancy District indicates that it is their opinion that the developer should file for a water augmentation plan. 6. The Colorado Geological Survey has indicated approval with certain conditions. 7. The sketch plan PUD amendment resolution of December 1, 1981 had five conditions attached one of which was that all boundary disputes be settled by preliminary plat. 8. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal on April 26, 1982 with five conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this proposal with the following conditions: 1. That a plan for augmentation be developed by the applicant and approved by the state Division of Water Resources prior to Filing 113 of Subdivision No.2 Final Plat. 2. That the applicant demonstrate the boundary dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 3. That the applicant provide on final plat, a building envelope with a suitable access shown on the plat, and a plat note be included stating that a geotechnical report is to be disclosed by the developer on each lot prior to closing. 4. The entire subdivision (Subdivisions 112, Filing 1, 2, & 3) be served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Page 32 Page 3, Planning Commissioneeting of April 26, 1982 • LOS AMIGOS PUD/PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION #2 FILINGS 1, 2, F 3 (A reptat of the initially approved Subdivision #2) Paul Mannino asked for the proof of publications and certified mailing receipts of the applicants. They were produced later in the meeting. Mr. Mannino reviewed the history of the project for subdivision of 201.6 acres into 53 single family lots, located along State Highway 82 and County Road 114; the area known as Spring .Valley. He read the recommendations and concerns of the planning staff. Terry Howard, Garfield County Sanitarian, addressed the Planning Commission regarding his recommendation to have all lots within the subdivision #2 served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. He stated that very few of the proposed septic systems could be standard in the area for Los Amigos. Most would have to be engineered and even then it would be difficult. Also, part of the proposed subdivision #2 is within the Spring Valley Sanitation system. John Blair, of the Colorado Department of Health, stated that a conventional system will not work in the Los Amigos PUD. Every system must be engineered, if a tie-in with the Spring Valley Sanitation District is not possible. Walter Brown, representing the Los Amigos PUD, addressed the concerns of the planning staff. He stated that the boundary dispute between the Kindalls and the Muhrs was being resolved and illustrated what property was being exchanged between the parties. John Stanford and Dean Gordon gave their presentations. Dean Gordon said that the sewage plan proposed is divided into 2 parts. For the gravity fed portion within the limits of the sanitation district of the property, there will be central sewage to be served by the district. The portion outside the district and also within the district but not able to get in by gravity would be served by individual systems. He gave a presentation on the proposals' for the proposed septic systems. Greg Hoskins, a water attorney, addressed the Planning Commission on why evapotranspir- ation septic systems were needed. Mr. Stranger asked if the situation concerning water on the initial Filing #2 was such that the State Division of Water Resources didn't require a plan of augmentation since they had water rights. Mr. Hoskins replied that Bill Bowden, of Colorado commitment previously granted 48 units would be protected. ment committed to CMC and the Dick Martin stated that CMC should be honored. Mr. Hoskins said that there is a contract that Mr. Bowden should have a copy of stating that Los Amigos has agreed to expand the system should the water for the additional 48 units for CMC be used by Los Amigos. Bob Emerson, an attorney for Foster Petrolium, asked if this subdivision of Los Amigos is in the Springs Valley District boundary or do they have to contract into the system. Dean Gordon thought they were in the boundary of the district. Dale McPherson was concerned as to how the Planning Commission could possibly enforce the Los Amigos PUD to expand the Spring Valley Sanitation District should they use the capacity available and waiting for CMC to build their additional units. Mr. Hoskins reiterated that it was all in the contract. Earl Rhodes stated that contractual obiligation is binding. Barbara Lorah asked John Blair how well evapotranspiration systems work. Mr. Blair said that the systems work as well as the people who design them and went on to explain the system. Allan Bowles was appointed to vote. Bill Bowden requested that the college be in on any negotiations involved between the Los Amigos PUD and the Planning Department. Barbara Loran moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Los -Amigos PUD Filing #2 with the following conditions: 1. That a plan for augmentation be developed by the applicant and approved by the state Division of Water Resources prior to Filing #3 of Subdivision #2 final plat; 2. That the applicant demonstrate the boundary dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners; 3. The applicant provide that, on final plat, a building envelope with a suitable access shown on the plat and a plat note be included stating that a geotechnical report is to be disclosed by the developer on each lot prior to closing. 4. The entire subdivision (Subdivisions #2, Filings 1, 2, £ 3) be .served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District; 5. That the applicant exhibit to the satisfaction of the Board of 'County Commissioners that the district has legal and physical ability to treat the effluent of the additional 48 units to be built in Filing #1. John Tripp seconded the motion. A poll was taken of the voting members: Albertson: yes; McPherson: yes; Tripp: yes; Bowles: yes; Loran: yes. Motion carried. this was true. Mountain College, wanted to make sure that the sewage supply to CMC by Spring Valley Sanitation District for an additional He didn't want the Los Amigos PUD to take the sewage treat - first filing of Los Amigos. he felt that the agreement for the 48 additional units for Page Two 4 • Garfield County Commissioners The developer contends that although the cost may be roughly equivalent for the two approaches, the fact that the developer must come up with the money at the outset makes the project un- feasible. If individual septic systems are approved, the cost is shifted to the home owner and the project can proceed. This department does not mean to contend that individual sewage disposal systems will not work in the area, only that they are at odds with stated policy and that conditions in the area will make such systems difficult to construct and expensive for the buyer. Individual septic systems are a technically feasible alternative in the area. In general, two concerns that arise with respect to lined evapotranspiration systems are that the proper operation of the system is entirely dependent on the integrity of the plastic liner and that maintenance of the system is the responsiblity of the home owner, who may not be knowledgable in such matters. Discussions with the developers have indicated that construction of a leak detection system consisting of a perforated pipe installed in the bedding for the liner, draining to a stand pipe which can be inspected, may be a reasonable approach to the problem of liner leakage, and arrangements with the home owner's association or sanitation district for a qualified technician to monitor system maintenance may address the maintenance issue. A building envelope and geologic study is already being required for each lot, determination by the developer of a site for the individual sewage system and the type or types that can be installed to be disclosed prior to purchase may be a reasonable way to insure that the lot buyer is aware of the limitations of the lot and the expense of the system if individual systems are to be permitted. °1► May 10, 1982 • • PAGE TWO DRAFT OF MINUTES have not owned the property for 5 or more years to qualify for a Senate Bill 35 Exemption, they are submitting this sketch plan with a request for exemption from further subdivision review. The Planning Dept. recommends approval with two conditions: 1) an acess easement will be included in the legal description of the parcel and 2) applicant shall submit a $200 school assessment fee to the Planning Dept. prior to issuance of exemption resolution. Ms. Bowman indicated that Mr. Mayo has already complied with these two requirements. The Board was in consensus of approval. Coumdssioner Velasquez moved that the request for exemption from full subdivision for Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mayo be approved. Coumdssioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Velasquez made a motion that the 180 -day extension be approved allowing Jack and Irene Wigington and Jaedro, Inc. (A Bell Family corporation) time for annexation to the city of Rifle. Conuiiissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. Appearing before the Board for a decision on Los Amigos Pre- liminary Plat, located along Highway 82 and 114 was Asst. Planner Paul Mannino and Mr. Bill Kane. Paul explained this is a decision on a proposal to allow 53 single lots on 201 acres within an existing PUD which is Subdivision No. 2. The water is proposed from a central water system and the sewer is proposed by Spring Valley Sanitation District as well as individual septic systems. Paul explained further there were letters submitted from the Health Dept. and the Colorado Geological Survey regarding some plans and specifications for any alteration or expansion of the current water treatment plant. These must be submitted to the Health Dept. for review and approval and also the waste water flows could be handled by the Spring Valley Sanitation District asstated in the application. A second letter indicated that individual septic or central sewage will both work, but each will be very expensive; the choice it up to the County as to what is required. Paul then stated the Planning Dept. recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) that a plan for augmentation be developed by the applicant and approved by the state Division of Water Resources prior to Filing ;#3 of Sub- division No. 2 Final Plat, 2) that the applicant demonstrate the boundary dispute is resolved to the saitsfaction of the Board of County Conuiiissioners. 3) that the applicant provide on final plat, a building envelope with a suitable motor vehicle access shown on the plat and that the Colo. Geographical survey review and sign off prior to final plat approval, 4) the entire subdiviion be served bythe Spring Valley Sanitation District and 5) that the applicant exhibit to the satisfaction of the Board that the district has legal and physical ability to treat the effluent of the additional 48 units to be building in Filing #1. Paul further explained that there has been some dicussion between Mrs. Murr and Los Amigos. Walt Brown, attorney representing Los Amigos Project, indicated to the Board that they have be in discussion with Mrs. Murr and had decided they would gladly give the part of the land Mrs. Murr feels that is hers, but they do not feel they should have to pay the costs incurred for that land as it has been surveyed already. However, if she feels she has current title, then they will gladly let her have it. Mrs. Murr then came before the Board and indicated that when the surveying was done no one had contacted her and she feels the company should make good on their word and let them have their land as she feels it is their land by adverse possession. After some discussion, Chairman Cerise indicated that they would agree to approve the Preliminary plat if they could bring in a signed agreement between the two parties that these two parties are in agreement with the boundary lines and then the Board could sign the plat. • • May 10, 1982 PAGE TWO (a) Attorney Rhodes stated this question arises that the applicant be the owner of the property they are applying for and that the applicant does have a certificate from the title insurance company. The Board should, however, consider that this matter be resolved to their satisfaction rather than to a third party satisfaction, be- cause otherwise this could never be satisfied between them. The must make the final decision. Chairman Cerise indicated that the action they have discussed today regarding the land dispute would be settled(as a condition). Attorney Rhodes stated that even though this is not a public hearing, the map showing the land dispute between the Murr's and Los Amigos should be labelled as Exhibit A for reference. Included with those exhibits should be as Exhibit B, a letter from Colorado State Dept. of Health, Exhibit C, memo from Terry Howard to the Commissioners regarding the sewage system for Los Amigos Subdivision, Exhibit D, letter to Earl Rhodes from Walt Brown regarding Planning Commission meeting for Los Amigos subdivision; Exhibit E, agreement between Spring Valley SanitationDistrict and Los Amigos Ranch providing sewage services; and Exhibit F, Sewage Treatment Services Agreement dated July 2, 1979 between CMC and the owners of Log Amigos Ranch. Bill Kane then stated that he and John Stanford are responsible for site -planning and the overall coordination of the project to date. Mr. Kane then made a brief presentation regarding the Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision and introduced the people who are here representing Los Amigos today. Mr. Malcomb Wahl is present on behalf of the project owners, Mr. Walt Brown is the project attorney, Mr. Greg Hoskins is present regarding the legal matters of the water and sanitation, Mr. Dean Gordon from Schmeuser & Assoc. regarding the sanitation design, and Mike Weaver from Lincoln- DeVore regarding geotechnical reports. Mr. Kane stated that approval was given to them by the Board for 568 units on February 6, 1979. However, there have been a few changes made. These are: 1) they have reduced the 568 units by 145 units, 2) they have improved the County Rd. 114 to the entrance of the project; 3) they have agreed to reduce the acreage of the zoned commercial spacing, 4) they have agreed to dedicate a space of land for a fire station, and 5) they have reduced their public roads by almost three miles and these roads do conform to the County specifications. John Stanford then described the revising of lots and the roads within the PUD on the map. Commissioner Velasquez asked where the main water source is. John replied it was behind the apartments, but it could be flexible as to permanent structure at this time. The water tank is located in the same original section. Two tanks serve all the water system. Mr. Bill Kane then explained the conditions that were set before them for approval of preliminary plat and these were: 1) plan of water augmentation before final plat and this is totally acceptable; 2) boundary dispute seems to be resolved; 3) geotechnical report on the lot by lot basis which Mr. Weaver will explain. Mr. Mike Weaver responded to this question regarding the reports. They are proposing to do a geographical hazard study on each filing in the subdivision and identify each lots which have problems and which lots do not. Therefore, there can be appropriate changes where needed. Mr. Kane indicated the fourth condition is the one at issue here which is which method of santitation and treatment should be used and they have decided on a split proposal, the first being a portion of the preliminary plat to be covered by central sewer and Spring Valley Sanitation District, and the second, a number of lots for on-site engineered systems. Mr. Kane indicated that the Planning and Zoning Dept. recommends that their PUD come under one central sewer system and they basically can supply this, however, they feel it is rather late in the project to amend this and very expensive. Dean Gordon from Schmeuser & Associates gave a technical explana- tion of the sewer and sanitation systems indicating that 30 of the lots are in the District and 23 remaining lots are outside of the District. Chairman Cerise indicated that he thought their regulations for septic systems are as low as one acre, so that would be within the requirements. Mr. Gordon stated they could DRAFT OF MINUTES May 10, 1982 • • PAGE TWO c6) DRAFT OF MINUTES be included in the District, howver, it would be very expensive. Mr. Velasquez indicated that he had some great concerns. At the beginning of this project he believed the Commissioner required that the sewer be on a central system, and we do not want to contaminate the excellent aquifer they have up there in that area. Chairman Cerise asked which way the drainage would drain, toward the aquifer or Roaring Fork River. Dean Gordon indicated nothing sits in the potential drainage area to the acquifer. Rod Anderson from CMC asked for a line of operation between the College and the PUD. Dean replied basically they have extended the geographic drainage line downward, it would be 50 feet away from CMC wells. There was further discussion regarding the 48 apartment units that were built and how the district was affected by that and the costs. Mr. Kane wished that the Commissioners could defer their decision on the sanitation district outside the service plan, for the first phase. Commissioner Velsquez asked if the partnership problem had been solved. Walt Brown, attorney, NEXT stated that is has been resolved and Earl replied the problem is behind them, however, he does not think it has been resolved, but it is not the Commissioner's problem now. The Board felt that the original agreement between CMC and Los Amigos should still be in effect with regard to a 96 apartment unit. Bill Kane wished to recap the response to the conditions that were stated earlier by Paul Mannino; 1) the augmentation plan is okay and it will be filed; 2) boundary dispute will be resolved in accordance with Exhibit A, 3) santitation plan be approved for Subdivision No. 2 as submitted that a lot by lot investigation be conducted to substantiate the suitability of each lot for on-site treatment facilities, those lots which are unsuitable will not be built upon, and 4) that the EQR allocation will be resolved based on the engineering analysis conducted by Schmeuser & Associates and be submitted to the Board prior to final plat and to CMC as well. Mrs. Murr asked if the water tower would be underground or above ground? The reply from the representatives would be above ground. She felt this would greatly effect the value of their property and what were they going to do about it. Walt Brown indicated there was no one who made such a statement. The tower will be approximately 30 feet high and it should be noted it is not a tower, but a tank. Bill Kane also indicated that the tank was visible from the property line, but not from the residence. Mrs. Murr felt that her property is 40 acres of prime salable land. Commissioner Drinkhouse stated he felt they were a long way from any kind of decision on this matter and made a motion that this decision be tabled to a time after addressing CMC concerns in reference to the capacity of the santitation system. Walt Brown indicated that he wished that it be approved subject to that being made satisfactory and it be a condition of final plat so that they can proceed with their project. There was some further discussion regarding the water tank and Mrs. Murr's property. Commissioner Velasquez stated that he felt there were just too many problems here and he seconded the motion made and tabled this item to a time after receipt of the engineering data so they can draw better conclusions. The motion was carried unanimously. ±A,14—ructz(i)) • • PROJECT NAME: Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision No. Two REQUEST: Preliminary Plat continued hearing ENCLOSED: Previous Staff Comments from May 10, 1982 (see page 7 & 8) PREVIOUS ACTION: This request was tabled by the Board on May 10, 1982 until such time as the applicant produced the following: (see draft minutes page 2 -4) 1. An engineering report concerning the sewage monitoring of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The purpose was to ascertain if the district could provide adequate sewage capacity as previously agreed between CMC and the District. (see report pages 5 & 6) 2. A signed agreement between the Murr's and the applicant indicating the boundary dispute is resolved. This document has not been submitted to the planning office for review, however, the applicant's attorney, Walt Brown, has indicated that he will address this at the hearing on Tuesday. At the hearing on May 10, Bill Kane requested the Board to revise condition number three as recommended by the Planning Staff. Below is a suggested change in the wording. CONDITION # 3: The applicant provide on final plat, a building envelope with a suitable motor vehicle access shown, and a copy of this plat along with a copy of a geographical hazard study be sent to the Colorado Geological Survey for their review and comment. PROJECT NAME: REQUEST: ENCLOSED: • • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Los Amigos Subdivision No. Two Preliminary Plat continued hearing Previous Staff comments from May 10, 1982 (see pages 31 & 32 )• PREVIOUS ACTION: This request was tabled by the Board on May 10, 1982 and again on June 1, 1982. At the June 1, 1982 meeting the applicant submitted an unrecorded deed complete with legal descriptions between Los Amigos Ranch Partnership and members of the Murr and the Kindall family. Mrs. Murr indicated that this would satisfyher concerns if the survey she was having performed on her property concurred with the descriptions in the deed. Also at this meeting, the applicant submitted an engineering report concerning the sewage monitoring of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Rod Anderson disputed the validity of these figures. Applicant was advised to have their attorney sit down with CMC's attorney to try to resolve the sewage contract. Each was asked to prepare position papers to be reviewed by the assistant county attorney. The following staff recommendations remain: 1. That a plan for augmentation be developed by the applicant and approved by the State Division of Water Resources prior to filing #3 Subdivision No. 2 Final Plat. 2. The applicant and the Murr's exchange deeds for property of disputed property area prior to filing of any plat in Subdivision #2. 3. The entire subdivision (subdivision #2, Filings 1, 2, & 3) be served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. 4. The applicant provide on final plat, a building envelope with a suitable motor vehicle access shown, and a copy of this plat along with a copy of a geographical hazard study be sent to the Colorado Geological Survey for their review and comment. Page 14 41IROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF C rlIENTS PROJECT NAME: Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision No. Two OWNER: Thomas E. Neil and James A.R. Johnson PLANNER: Resource Management, Inc., Aspen Colorado ENGINEER: Schmueser and Associates LOCATION: Located along State Highway 82 and County Road 114, the area known as Spring Valley. SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: Subdivision Number Two contains 201.6 acres and consists of 53 single-family lots. The design and layout of Subdivision No. Two is consistent with the PUD Master Plan which was approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in Resolution No. 81-358 on Tuesday, December 1, 1981. Subdivision No. Two represents a resubdivision of the initial Subdivision No. Two of which Final Plat, Filing One, was recorded on March 3, 1980. Proposed central water through improvements of an existing system. Spring Valley Sanitation District and individual septic PROPOSED ROADS: To be dedicated EXISTING ZONING: PUD PROPOSED ZONING: PUD ADJACENT ZONING: North: A/R/RD South: OS, CL, CG East: PUD-A/R/RD West: A/R/RD RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This proposal falls within Rural Service Area B because it is part of an existing PUD which was approved for a higher density. This request does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A) Site Description: This site ranges from gentle to steep slopes with two major gullies and several minor ones. The vegetation ranges from agriculturally related materials to native vegetation consisting of pinion/juniper, sage, and meadow grasses. B) Project Description: This proposal is to allow 53 single lots on 201 acres within an existing PUD. The roads are to be county dedicated. Water is proposed from a central water system and sewer is proposed by Spring Valley Sanitation District as well as some individual septic systems. REFERRAL SUMMARY: 1. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation Summary: A. Recommend on-site investigations prior to construction to protect landowners. B. Revegetation of exposed areas. 2. Colorado Dept. of Health: A. Plans & specifications for any alteration or expansion to the current water treatment plant must be submitted to the Health Department for review and approval prior to construction. B. Wastewater flows can be handled by the Spring Valley Sanitation District as stated in application. 3. Colorado Geological Survey: See attached letter. (NOTE: James Soule, the developer and their engineer and • • member of the planning staff met on the site to discuss and review this recommendation) James Soule has indicated verbally that they will recommend a building envelope be shown on the final plat for each lot with a suitable access and that a geological report be disclosed for each lot prior to closing. 4. Roaring Fork School District: Concerned that the original school site dedication proposal be honored. 5. Carbondale Fire Protection District: A. Water system appears adequate B. Hydrant spacing of 600' in adequate C. Location and size of cistern is adequate 6. Division of Water Resources (Two letters): FIRST LETTER: A. Requests a letter regarding water rights referred to in submittal packet. B. Some of the water rights would probably not be sufficient to prevent injury to downstream senior water rights which would result from upstream development. C. Would not endorse anything which would result in actual building construction or lot sales prior to approval of an augmentation plan. SECOND LETTER: The additional information which they received does not indicate the applicant's pursuit of a plan for augmentation. Consequently, their previous recommendation stands. 7. Basalt Water Conservancy District (Two letters): FIRST LETTER: Questions if the legal water supply has sufficient senior priority to prevent purchases of lots facing eventual curtailment of their water supply. SECOND LETTER: Recommendation to have applicant apply for access to augmentation water through either Ruedi Reservoir or Green Mountain Reservoir. 8. Garfield County Environmental Health: Every effort be made to connect the entire subdivision to the Spring Valley Sanitation District. 9. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department indicated verbally that the proposed road improvements on County Road 114 would be adequate, however, he would prefer to have the developer construct the improvements rather than pay the county the sum of $32,700. FINDINGS: 1. The Public Hearing has been properly advertised 2. The request is appropriate for the existing PUD zoning district 3. The request does not conflict with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 4. The Colorado Division of Water Resources indicates that the applicant should file for a water augmentation plan. They have left the timing up to the county as to what stage of development should be applied for. 5. The Basalt Water Conservancy District indicates that it is their opinion that the developer file for a water augmentation plan. 6. The Colorado Geological Survey has indicated (verbally until this department receives a letter) that they will recommend a building envelope be shown on the final plat for each lot with a suitable access and that a geotechnical report be disclosed for each lot prior to closing. 7. The sketch plan PUD amendment resolution of December 1, 1981 had five conditions attached one of which was that all boundary disputes be settled by preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no objections to the proposed land uses in that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the approved zoning and in fact, is a decrease in density as to the original approved PUD. However, this department recommends tabling of the proposal for a thirty day period to allow the application time to demonstrate a water supply acceptable to the State Division of Water Resources. In addition staff makes the following recommendations: 1. Applicant demonstrate that the boundary dispute is resolved as conditioned by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Applicant provide that, on final plat, a building envelope with a suitable access be shown on the plat and that a geotechnical report be disclosed for each lot prior to closing. 3. The entire subdivision (subdivisions #2 Filings 1, 2, & 3) be served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR March 9, 1982 is.rxr.fi --1-114-(--;(11r4 f of co `-k,t O fr COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 Mr. Paul Mannino Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JOHN W. ROLD DIRECTOR f8; '� MAR 1 1 1982 1! GRRii#iU -=J CU: i R Dear Mr. Mannino: RE: LOS AMIGOS RANCH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 We have received and reviewed this subdivision application. Generally we find that from a geologic standpoint this is an almost incredibly poor and unsuitable site for any subdivision, for the following reasons: 1. Most of the platted area is far too steep for reasonable (access, construction costs, etc.) building sites. 2. The surficial and bedrock materials underlying the site are subject to slow to catastrophically fast slope failures including landslides, debris slides, and debris avalanches. 3. Alluvium, colluvium, Eagle Valley Evaporite (formation) and Maroon Formation are subject to rapid erosion during the heavy rainstorms that occur principally in the summer months and construction, especially road construction, will aggravate this process greatly. 4. All channelways in this area, including relatively small ones, are subject to flash flooding during heavy rainstorms. Therefore we recommend that you not approve this subdivision as platted. If the proponent of this project will replat this subdivision area into a few large lots (5 acres or greater) with designated building sites on slopes of 20 percent or less and have prepared a detailed engineering geologic study and engineering -geologic map for this area then we think that it might be possible to subdivide this area safely. Sincerely, / 'James M. Soule Engineering Geologist It GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE rr! I IIC: r� �r 4c J Q �l� ! l °j (c At (6,t/ ' n �� �� illC e f(ow � eO �r �..,, ' ,l �� RICH l r tei S 4 ARD D. LAMM f GOVERNOR 187 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 A6 r 4tr��� March 9, 1982 Mr. Paul Mannino Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JOHN W. ROLD DIRECTOR fe`r r 1!et rJ/< c' 'I I pR1 1 1982 i! - rl f /17 Dear Mr. Mannino: RE: LOS AMIGOS RANCH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 We have received and reviewed this subdivision application. Generally we find that from a geologic standpoint this is an almost incredibly poor and unsuitable site for any subdivision, for the following reasons: 1. Most of the platted area is far too steep for reasonable (access, construction costs, etc.) building sites. 2. The surficial and bedrock materials underlying the site are subject to slow to catastrophically fast slope failures including landslides, debris slides, and debris avalanches. 3. Alluvium, colluvium, Eagle Valley Evaporite (formation) and Maroon Formation are subject to rapid erosion during the heavy rainstorms that occur principally in the summer months and construction, especially road construction, will aggravate this process greatly. 4. All channelways in this area, including relatively small ones, are subject to flash flooding during heavy rainstorms. Therefore we recommend that you not approve this subdivision as platted. If the proponent of this project will replat this subdivision area into a few large lots (5 acres or greater) with designated building sites on slopes of 20 percent or less and have prepared a detailed engineering geologic study and engineering -geologic map for this area then we think that it might be possible to subdivide this area safely. Sincerely, /1 •.., `James M. Soule Engineering Geologist It GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE SCHII•SER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 CENTENNIAL STREET SUITE 306 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 (303) 945.5468 May 25, 1982 Spring Valley Sanitation District P. 0. Box 1506 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: Flow Measurements. Treatment Facility Gentlemen: At your request, I have been monitoring the flow at the treatment facility to determine what the present flows are and to re- evaluate the system capacity in terms of EQR's as opposed to pre- vious estimates. This report deals specifically with the exist- ing and unbuilt apartment units as well as the proposed Los Ami- gos Preliminary Plat. Based on three weeks worth of weekday readings and two weekend sets of readings the following results were caculated: Average 7 -day flow: Average weekday flow: Average weekend day flow: 30,500 gpd 37,000 gpd 14,000 gpd Because of the 20 day detention time of the system, the 7 -day and 30 -day average is applicable for further treatment analysis. The distribution of flow rates indicates rather dramatically the ef- fect of the day CMC use on wastewater flows. It also shows that there remains some wastewater contribution from CMC on weekends both to day use and dormatory and apartment use. The Service Plan estimated a 1979 CMC contribution of 32,000 gpd and an average apartment contribution of 20,000 gpd for a total flow of 52,000 gpd. The facility has an actual design capacity of about 52,000 gpd, which means that only an enlargement of the facility will provide more treatment capacity. Based on the above assumption and assuming that CMC has had no increase in student population since then (if in fact there—Pias been an in- crease then this analysis is biased towards the conservative), the theoretical flow for CMC plus 48 apartments should be 42,000 gpd. As stated above, the actual flow is about 30,500 pgd. It is obviously better to use actual flow data then to use esti- mated flows. The actual flow data shows that for CMC personnel and apartment dwellers, the EQR rate is about 25% lower than pre- viously assumed; another way of saying this is that there are 25% fewer EQR represented by a given unit than previously estimated. This conclusion however cannot be extended to unbuilt single fam- ily residences until there is actual flow data available. The following tablewas constructed using the above factual data: • • Unit Flow CMC plus 48 apartments 30,500 gpd. 48, additional apartments 7,800 gpd. 39 single family units @ 350gpd/EQR 13,650 gpd. Total 51,950 gpd. It should be pointed out that as the non -CMC use of the facility increase, the difference between weekday and weekend flows will decrease. This will have to be verified by fl -ow recordings in the future. This does not however alter the fact that the actual flows are less than previously estimated flows. It is therefore concluded and recommended that: 1. The acutal average 7 -day flow is 25% less than estimated. 2. Based on actual flows to date, an estimated 39 single family units would be placed on the system, in addition to CMC and 96 apartment units, without exceeding the 52,000 gpd facility capacity. The District has the capacity in its existing treatment facility to provide service to the present needs of CMC, 96 apartment units, and Subdivision 2 of the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. please feel free to call me if you have any questions about the content of the report. Sincerely, SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Dea . Gordon, P.E. Prin, pal Engineer DWG/ead #B1502A • GARFIELD COUNTY • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-2339 MEMO TO: Garfield County Commissioners FROM: Terry L. Howard Garfield County Environmental Health Department DATE: May 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Sewage System for Los Amigos Subdivision Discussions with the developers for Los Amigos Subdivision have indicated a need to clarify the issues surrounding the recommendation of this department for central sewage collection for the development. The recommendation was made on the following considerations: 1. Garfield County has a stated policy in its Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations to "require the use of public sewer systems where and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers." 2. The Los Amigos Subdivision is contiguous to the Spring Valley Sanitation district. 3. Soil conditions,shallow bedrock, and slopes in the area make the installation of individual sewage disposal systems difficult. Most of the systems installed would have to be engineered and would probably be evapotrans- piration systems. Construction in the area would be expensive. 4. A central collection system is technically feasible although construction would be difficult and pumping would be required. Cost of the central system may be roughly equivalent to the sum of all the costs for individual septic systems. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945-8241 March 24, 1983 Malcom Wall P.O. Box 1506 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. Wall, After further review of our records, I can not find any documentation verifying that Section 6.1, Subdivision, has been deleted from the covenants for Los Amigos Ranch PUD. During the PUD amendment process, it appears that the previously approved covenants were left intact. If you will provide me with a copy of the recorded covenants that does not include the condominium restriction, then my concerns will be moot. Until the issue of whether or not you can subdivide the Auburn Ridge Apartments via any other method then condominiumi- zation, all other discussions would seem to be academic. If I can be of any further assistance, please call me. MLB:lw 2014 BLAKE AVENUE Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Senior Planner GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • 0 WALTER E. BROWN 111 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1131 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-2361 June 28, 1983 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 201 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: LOS AMIGOS RANCH PARTNERSHIP (LARP) SUBDIVISION #2 Dear Gentlemen: Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1512 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 On July 26, 1982, you approved a preliminary plan for Subdivision #2 on certain terms and conditions that are set forth in Resolution No. 82-182, a copy of which is attached. Section 3.08 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations pro- vides that preliminary plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of your approval unless an extension of time is granted. Due to the poor nature of the national and local economy the partnership needs additional time of one year to determine the financial possibility of the preliminary plan and to work out the details of the preliminary plan conditions. The partnership also expects to receive a federal court ruling within said one year defining the financial position of the partnership. Accordingly, on behalf of the Los Amigos Ranch Partnership, we hereby request an extension of one year from this date of the validity of said prior approval and to file a final plat for Sub- division #2. We would also respectfully ask that this request be acted upon prior to July 26, 1982. Kindest regards, • Walter E. Brown III Attorney for Los Amigos Ranch Partnership cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department Dennis Stranger, Garfield County Planning Department Earl Rhodes, Garfield County Attorney r WALTER E. BROWN 111 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1131 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-2361 July 28, 1982 Mr. Earl Rhodes Garfield County Attorney 8th and Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: LOS AMIGOS RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAN RESOLUTION Dear Earl: Melling Address: P.O. Box 1512 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 This will confirm that I met with you and Dennis Stranger on July 22, 1982, regarding the approval resolution of the preliminary plan for sub -division number 2 of the Los Amigos Ranch. You and Dennis advised me at that time that the County Commissioners would not accept the submission we have made as one sub -division filing with the phasing identified in three stages and that three separate plats would have to be filed. You also advised me that the draft resolution which you had prepared regarding the approval of the preliminary plan had been sent to Jim Larson, attorney for Colorado Mountain College, for comment and that Mr. Larson had in fact responded with comments. This will also confirm that during our discussion on July 22, 1982, that I requested that Paragraph 7 of the conditions of approval be modified so that it would be clear that the 1979 level of sewage flow from the CMC campus would be identified as CMC's legitimate level of use pursuant to the agreement of July 2, 1979, between the Spring Valley Sanitation District and Colorado Mountain College. You advised me that the Commissioners would not sign the resolution with any reference to that matter and that they did not want to get into the middle of that matter again. I pointed out that as written, the resolution would probably not satisfy us or CMC or the Spring Valley Sanitation District. • • Mr. Earl Rhodes Page Two My client interprets the Paragraph 7 as currently written and amended by the County as being somewhat vague. My client believes that the Spring Valley Sanitation District's statutory functions and duties are being effected in a development approval resolution. We believe that the district will determine the use of its present and future capacities to service additional units, whether the additions are done by Los Amigos Ranch, CMC or anyone else. Los Amigos Ranch simply is unable to compromise pre-existing agreements with the Spring Valley Sanitation District and Los Amigos intends to honor its agreement with CMC as well. We have attempted to make this clear at all the public hearings and at the non-public hearings in which CMC was allowed to object to our development application in such a fashion that Paragraph 7 be- came a conditional result. We wanted to clarify in the resolution the fact that the Fall 1982 study may show demands on the system by CMC are not the same as their 1979 demands. We know that student enrollment has increased since July 2, 1979, that a high use cafeteria has been added to the campus, that a gymnasium has been built - all without notice to the district of the increased demand on the system. These added uses may constitute additional EQR's. In any event, after the study is conducted the known capacity of the system will be identified as well as the existing level of flows from the CMC campus and the Auburn Ridge Apartments. We will identify the level of use of CMC in 1979 and account for the increase that has occurred. We expect the study to be done shortly after CMC opens for the Fall quarter and it will run for thirty days. I hope that matter can be resolved promptly thereafter. Finally, I would appreciate it if you would make this letter a part of the reocrd in this case. Copies of the letter are being sent to Mr. Neal, Dennis Stranger at the Planning Department, and the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Kinde rega Walter Brown III cc: Mr. Thomas E. Neal Mr. Dennis Stranger✓ Mr. Malcolm Wall