HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 11.14.98\
APPLICANT:
ENGINEERS:
PROJECT II\TFORMATION A}ID STAFF COMMENTS
PC 1n4t98
Preliminary Plan for the Los Amigos
PUD filings 54. thru t l
Los Amigos Ranch partnership
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
A parcel of land located in portions of
Sections 35 and 36, T65, R89W;
portions of Sections 31,32 and 33 of
T65, R88W; portions of sections 5
and 6 T7S, R88W of the 6th p.M.:
more practically described as a tract of
land located approximately two (2)
miles southeast of Glenwood Springs
offofC.R. 114.
1727.745 acres
Central water
Central sewage disposal and ISDS
County Road 1i4
Planned Unit Development
The PIID is located
Comprehensive Plan.
and 1996.
in the existing subdivision classification for Study Area I of the
The Plan recognized the original ptrD approved and modified in
1995
1981
?l-
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
ZONING:
I.
il.DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is located south of Glenwood Springs, in the
southwest portion of Spring Valley. Elevations range from 6400 to 7175 feet. The
site is generally situated on the upland portion of a ridge that slopes from the north
to the south to the Roaring Fork river valley approximately 800 ft, with slopes
ranging from 4o/o to over 90o/o. The steeper slopes have vegetation consisting
primarily of pinior/jtmiper trees and sagebrush/grasses. The upland area consists of
some fairly gentle rolling terrain, with slopes generally less than 10%. Portions of
the upland area is existing agricultural lands. A vicinity map is shown on the
enclosed plan map.
B. Project Description: The proposed subdivision includes seven separate filings of the
approved Los Amigos PUD. Filings 5A, 6-10 consist of 1.74 single family lots on
a total of 1722.581ac. of land, of which 910.708 ac. is Open Space. There are four
Rural Residential lots totaling 225.286 ac. or an average of 56.322 ac. in size. The
remaining i74 single family lots cover an area of 526.587 ac. with an average lot size
of 3 .026 ac. each. The remainng 4.564 ac. of land is a Neighborhood Commercial
area to be developed as the last filing, Filing 1 1.
All of the lots will be served by the existing central water supply system that
presently has 320,000 gallon storage tank and will have a 150,000 gallon storage tank
added at a future date. The applicants state that there will the fire flows will exceed
500 gpm for the entire project. The 10 single family lots in Filing 5A and Filings
10 & 11 will be served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District and the remaining
lots are to utilize individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS).
Primary access to the area will be from the extension of the existing private road,
Los Amigos Drive, and then there are seven shorter cul-de-sacs accessing a number
of the proposed lots. Los Amigos drive will be extended almost three miles fi.rther
back along the ridge. The cul-de-sacs and loop roads range in length just over 500
ft. to over 3,000 ft. in length.. There are proposed emergency access easements to
adjoining fields, off of some of the longer cul-de-sacs and loops.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division had previously noted that the proposed
water supply appears to be adequate, and injury to decreed water rights will not
occur, as long as the water company operates pursuant to the decreed water rights and
plan for augmentation which are leased from the Los Amigos Ranch Parhership. No
letter has been received regarding this application.
III.
D2-
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: The department notes
that the existing sewage treatment facilities are inadequately sized to accommodate
the proposed additional development. They recommend denial of-the application at
this time due to inadequate sewage treatment facilities.(See pg. IAfiO
Roaring Fork School District RE-1: The District has previously determined that the
proposed school site is adequate to meet the land requirements for a school site, as
opposed to paying cash in lieu of land. (See letter p*ll::)
Division of Wildlife: The DOW acknowledges that the development has tried to
design aroturd deer and elk ranges, but there is need to recognize that there are other
types of wildlife impacts. Suggestions are made regarding methods for dealing with
other types of wildlife. Theryecommend predefined building envelopes for certain
Iots. i See lener pgs.Il* l!
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The District states that portions of the
development are in the Glenwood Springs Fire District and other areas are in no
district. They recommend that the overlapping boundaries be resolved to allow the
Carbondale District to protect the entire project and those portions not in any district
be annexed to the District. They also recommend that the fire hydrant spacing be
reduced to 500 ft. to be im compliance with the Uniform Fire Code, APPENDD( m-
B. The District will be requiring the developers to pqy impact fees directly to the
District, at the time of platting lots. (See letter pg. l!L,
Bureau of Land Management: The BLM expressed some concems about the
potential for use conflicts between the public and private land. They have also noted
the need to consider big game movement through the development. There are federal
minerals underlying portions of the developmglrt, that need to be considered in any
future subdivision action. (See letter petillj
Colorado State Forest Service: An agency representative went on site with a local
fire department representative and the applicant's representative and concluded that
the proposed development can be protected from wildfire. A number of
recommendations are made regarding the site improvements, ridgeline setbacks and
construction materials for structures. Included with the letter are NFPA 299
standards for the Prqtection of the Life and Prope4v from Wildfire. (See letter and
attachment, pgr.F
Wright Water Engineers. lnc.: WWE was hired by the Courty to assist in the review
of the Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plan. They note a number of issues that need
to be resolved before the county approves the proposed Preliminary Plan. A
number of issues were identified related to the water supply system, wastewater,
8.
-3,
drainage, roads, geologic hazards and pqne that need to be
clarified or corrected. (See letter pgs. I Z .
ry.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
C.
Zonrng The Los Amigos PIID zone district text and PUD Plan were amended by
Resolution No. 96-34. As a condition of approval for the amendments, the applicant
was required to dedicate at least the equivalent of 25Yo of each subdivision to the Los
Amigos homeowners association. Filings 5A- 1 1 is a total of 1727 .145 ac. in size,
with970.708 ac. (56%) of Open Space.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
identifies the Los Amigos PIID as an existing subdivision. and the PUD was found
to be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan when it was amended in
1996.
Soils/Topography: The applicant's geologic report for this portion of the
development "did not identiSr any geologic conditions or potential geologic hazards
that would prevent development of the site for the intended single family residential
use. We recommend we perform detailed soils and foundation investigations on a
site specific basis to determine subsurface conditions and provide for.rndation
recommendations." Consistent with this recommendation, the Board of County
Commissioners required that the following plat note be placed on all subsequent
plats, as a part of the P[ID amendment approved:
"Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and
submit a soils and forurdation report, a grading and drainage plan, and a geologically
acceptable building site prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such engineering
recommendations, which shall be a condition of Los Amigos Ranch Architectural
Control Committee approval and the building permit."
Road/Access: The proposed subdivision is accessed by Los Amigos Drive, which
is being built to minor collector standards and will handle up to 250 single family
dwellings. The applicants have proposed to build Los Amigos Drive as a minor
collector with a 60 ft. row artd 12 ft. driving lanes, up to Station 143+15.38. The rest
of Los Amigos Drive will be built to Secondary Access standard with a 60 ft. ROW,
with 11 ft. driving lanes. All other roads will be built to Rural Access standards
with a 50 ft. ROW and 1l ft. wide driving lanes. All of the roads will have a chip
and seal surface. At the end of the loop is an access easement identified as Driveway
G, but there are no proposed standards for this road. There will be a minimum of
two (2) lots using the driveway and possibly four (4) lots. If the lots having
frontages on both Los Amigos Drive and Driveway G, access off of Driveway G,
the plansin
_)
A.
B.
D.
E.
then four lots will use it for access. Any roadway serving 3 to 10 single family
dwellings would be classified as a semi-primitive road and have to meet those
standards. The proposed roadway would have to be a 16 ft. wide driving surface
with a 30 ft. wide ROW.
All roads need to have names assigned to them, that are not used elsewhere in the
County. Staffsuggests that the applicants not use "cedar" or "pinion" for any of the
proposed streets names.
Fire Protection: The Carbondale and Rural Fire Department reviewed the project
and stated that the proposed amount of water appeared to be adequate and that the
roads were adequately sized to accommodate emergency services equipment. The
District has asked that the fre hydrant spacing be reduced to 500 ft. to comply with
the Uniform Fire Code standards. Any final plat should have fue hydrants with 500
ft. spacing.
Water: As a part ofthe PUD amendment approval, the applicant was required to set
forth the method of transferring the legal ownership and control of the water
distribution facilities and water rights to the Los Amigos Homeowners Association.
An agreement was submitted and approved by the Board of County Commissioners
at the time of Final Plat approval of Filing 5 All new lots should be included in the
same homeowners association.
Wastewater: Sewage disposal for all lots in Filing 5,{, 10 and 11 will be provided
by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Based on the applicant's engineer, the
SPVSD is permitted for 52,000 gpd and the last 38 lots approved in Filing 5 put the
treatment facility at a potential of 51,800 gpd of sewage to treat. The site application
approved last February expires in February of 1998. At this time the facility does not
have the ability to serve any additional dwellings.
The remaining lots in Filings 6-9 are proposed to use ISDS. Section 4.92 requires
that "evidence of the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations to
determine maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock shall be
provided". Additionally, the PUD resolution of approval contained the following
condition of approval:
5. The (44) lots along "Road A" (Los Amigos Drive to the water tank) which
could potentially drain into the Spring Valley Aquifer, all lots along Los
Amigos Drive that currently lie within the Spring Valley Sanitation District,
all lots depicted upon the PIID Plan as "High Density" single family lots, and
all lots depicted upon the PUD Plan as "Multi-Family" units shall be serviced
by central sewer provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Given the
economic inefficiencies and impracticalities associated with extending and
F.
G.
(r?-
F.
maintaining central sewer service to the remaining westerly single family lots
in the PIID, Applicant shall be allowed to service said remaining lots with
individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS), subject to the fottowing
conditions:
(A) Applicant shall provide to the Board all information needed by the
Board to review the environmental and health impacts presented Uy 1SOS
service, which shall also be forwarded to the Colorado Department of Health,
Water Quality Control Division for their review and recommendation.
(B) The Board finds that the Colorado Department of Health has made a
favorable recommendation regarding the proposed method of sewage
disposal as required by C.R.S. 30-28-136(1)(g).
There is no analysis provided for the review of the environmental and health impacts
presented in the application. As noted in the wwE letter, the only analysis
presented indicates that there may be areas that will have to have morurd type
systems due to some soils conditions. Staff finds it ironic that the applicant is
willing to pump sewage up nearly 300 ft. up in elevation from the profosed high
density off of CR 1 14, yet there is no economic reason or way to provide central
sewage treatment to all of the lots. Perhaps the modified systems with septic tanks
and the effluent being pumped to a sewage treatment facility by forced -uirr, rather
than a leach field..
Road Impacts: The applicant was required to make certain improvements to the
intersection of the subdivision's main entrance and County RoaJ t 14 and,to pay a
road impact fee at the time of final plat. The impact fee is to be based on the most
current analysis of the cost of improvements to 114 from the Auburn Ridge
apartments road intersection to Highway 82 and an analysis of the proportionate
share of those expenses attributed to the Los Amigos PIID for those road
improvements. The only study available dealing with those specific parameters, is
the analysis submitted by the applicant's engineer at the ptrD approval. The
subsequent analysis done by the County used a different basis for.rtublirhirg and
cannot be used to establish a road impact fee for this pIID.
PUD Requirements : The applicant was required to include the following plat notes
on any final plat:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare
and submit a soils and foundation report, a grading and drainage plan, and a
geologically acceptable building site prepared and certified by a professional
engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such
G.
Pde
engineeringrecommendations,whichshallbeaconditionofLosAmigos
Ranch Architectural-control committee approval and the building permit'
The owner of each lot utilizing an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS)
shallobtainsitespecificpercolationteststodeterminewhetherastandard
septicsystemisacceptableoranengineeredsystemisappropriateor
required. Each ISDi ,tratt ue designed to minimize tee removal and changes
to ihe natural contours of the land'
The recommendations of the colorado State Forester and the Fire chief as
setforthintheSupplementalDeclarationsdatedSeptember2S,|992et'Seq.
,t utt U" followed in the construction of all structures'
All lots designated to lie within the Spring valley Sanitation District shall
obtaincentralsewerservicepursuanttoagreementwiththeDistrict.
Open hearth solid-fuel burning fireplaces are not allowed'
Each dwelling unit is allowed one dog'
H. Subdivision/Phasing: Section 4:34 of the Garfield county Subdivision Regulations
states that Preliminary Plan "approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one
(1)yearfromthedateofBoardapproval,orconditionalapproval,unlessan
extension of not more that or. irl'ytar is granted by the Board prior to the
expiration of the period of apprwal'.". p"'t'"topments of over one hundred (100) lots
may be prrurJ or.r a peri; of ti*. ,ot to exceed fifteen (15) years' Any phasing
must be approved by the Board at preliminary Plan'" The applicants phasing plan
approved as a part of modified ftb ,"qt'iredihe submission of a Preliminary Plan
forPhase2,whichistheremainderofthePUD,lesstheHighDensitysinglefamily
area, by lyl3llgg. The present uppii.utio" meets that part of the phasing plan'
Theproposedsubdivisionphasingplanfo't:.:"bmittalofaFinalPlatdoesnot
appear to be consistent *iit tt " i". year validity- period for a Preliminary Plan'
Thereneedstobeacommitmentfortt,.'uu*ittloraFinalPlatwithinone(1)year
oftheapprovalofthePreliminarypr*.rr,"remainingphasescanmeetthel5year
limit for Phasing aPProval'
ln terms of the proposed lots to be final platted, there is one section that needs to be
moved up ir,,..-, of the tim.a pi"ri"g, rili"gs 10 and 11 need to moved up to be
apartofphu,"5A.,sincetheyalreadyexistasseparatelotsandneedtobeplatted
formallynowratherthanl0yearsfromnow.Asfarasthefurthersubdivisionof
Filing 1 1, that can be noted "r;; plat in terms of the intent to divide further'
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
-7'
III. RECOMMENDEDFII\DINGS:
That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Planning Commission; and
That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that hearing; and
C. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area
of the County; and
That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution; and
That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State
of Colorado, and Garfield County, have been submitted and, in addition, have been
found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommend denial ofthe Los Amigos PUD Filings 5A thru 11,
due primarily to the unfavorable comment from the Colorado Department of Public Health
and environment, which is inconsistent with CRS 30-28-136 (1)(g)(2) and inadequate
information submitted as a part of the application that is "needed by the Board to review the
environmental an health impacts presented by ISDS service.,,
A.
B.
D.
E.
ry.
?E.
CDPHE/WQCD @oozOL/OA/gg TtrE 09:58 FAX 303 782^190
i STA|EOFCOLOTUDO
Roy Romer, Corrernor
Pacl Shwayder, Erccurive Direor
Color!&DArrmcat
ofhrblicHcdd
elrdEnvionmrt
D"dk,red o pot,'.tng and impaning tr heal6 and enircnmcnz ol rhe pple ol cohnb
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Lrborrcry rnd fudirtlon Seryicer Dlvlsion
Eerw.r, Color:do SoZa&I53O SlOO L6rry Btr/d-
Phooc O03) 592-20OO Denvor CO 0022lJ',fl926
Locacd in Clendtle, Colondo (30J, 692.3090
h ttp I I w*.rv.c d ph e 3t;.l*.co, ut
January 5, 1998
It. Mark BeanGarfield County Planner109 Eighth Street, Suite 303Glenwood Sprlngs, Colorado 81601
nE: Colorado DePartlcnt of PtiblLc Eoalth aaat Ervl,roD!€at coErGats oD Lo3tuigoa Raacb Fitlag 5A - liling 11 preli-nlaary praaGarfiel.d Couaty
Dear Mr. Bean:
This letter re-sPonds-to.your referral, to the water euality Contro).pivision, of the preLlninary plan for Los Amigos nancfr fil-ings 5A-11,Pursuant to 930-28-13e(r) (g) and (2') , c,R.s. (L997t, the Dlvi.sj.on'srevieu ls of the adeguacy af existing or prop6sea iisage treatment.uorksto handle the estinated effluent. This review does noi extend to ttrecapa,city or aPpropriateness of the proposed use of ISDS for the Eajorltyof the residences in this proposal.- fnitlally, please note that theDivision sithdraws its request, dated Decenuei z-4, Lgg?, for additionalinfomation and an exEension of tine to respond. to the referral.
Thg Lo9 Anigos proposal anticipates connecting ten EeRs in filings 5A-10and thirty rQns in fiLing 11 to the spring valley Sanitation Disfrict("svsD') collection and treatment systen. our rivier concludeE that the
SVSD sastewater treatment facility (I{WIF) cannot handle the proposedadditional inf luent loading as it would cause the total load-ing- to tlrefaciLity to exceed lts approved design capacity. I{e t}rerefore reconnenddlsapproval of, the appll.cation to thi extlnt that lt calls for routingeffluent to the SVSD systeu.
The 1979 site appllcatlon approval (13278) for the SvSD r{r{fF 1lnits thecapacity of the treatuent facillty to o.o52 IIGD and 104 1bs. of BOD5/day.The 1997 slte application for erPans5.on of the svsD I{I{TF estiuatas thecuEent fLow into the I{I{TF as O.O5184 MGD and, based on 192 EQns and the
assuned 2.7 persons/EQR, the current organic loading is estinatad to beLO3.7 1bs. of BoDr/day. This puts the hydrauli-c and orgranic loadtngs tothe WWIIF at 99.7* of hydraulic capacity and 968 of orgahic eapacity,respectively.
Ithe Divtsion grranted approval of site application #+tOo to SVSD onFebruary 26, L997. Thls approval would allow e:rpanslon of ttre facilltyto peaJ< monthly average hydraulic and organic capacities of 0.1628 t{GD
and 326 Ibs. of BoDr/d"y, respectivery. Hovever, the approva] of EiteaPPlication #4300 e:<pires on February 26, 1999, unless -construction
commences by that date.Dq-
Ol/08/g8 TtlE 09:59 FAX 3OJ 782^'l9O CDPHE/WQCD
Ur. llark BeanGarfield County planner
January 5, 1998
Page 2
, HanagerIfater Quality Protection Seetlon
WATER QUALTTY COIITROL DTVTSIoN
xc: Tony "ruubly, Attorney Generalrs officeLouis Meyer, p.8., Schmueaer, Gordon.lqeyet, fnc.Duain Watson, D.E., Field Support Section, WeCo!lS-3 File
@ ooa
state lav defines constructlon as entering into a contract for theerection.or physi-cal placeuent of nateriais, "q,ripr";t, ;ipil;, -eartrrrorr
or_build1n9? Yhich arl to.be part of the treatienl sorks- Sz5-B-zo1(1),c.R. s . (1997) . llhe oivtsion^ nuEt approve- the desiErn (constirctlon p[;;and speciflcations) for the treatmeirl gorkE prior €o "orrnencenent of,construction; To 9"t:, svsD has not suburittid pfans and slectficationsto tlre Division. lle dotrbt that plan .preparatioi-ina approlal can occuEto allow construction to comnencl fee6re the orpiratio-n'aate of siteapproval f+loo. Accordingly, the Division trasei tti= review on theexistj.ng capacity of the SvBp facility.
llt:_applicant proposes connection of an additional forty unlts to thesvsD sy8ten. Based on the_gngineers estimate of 2.7 peisons per EeR,these unlts vould add an addiilonal o.o1og tdcD and zt-.6 lbs. of aoorTaayto the I{I{TF- Total hydraullc and organic J.oadlng to the rrt4Tp sould thenbe 0.06264 MGD and L2s.3 rbs. of noDrjday, resp"dtivety. aCtrreleloadings, the.facility wourd be at tio*br rrya:rauric clpacity ana 116t oforganlc capacity,
For all lntents and purposes, the svSD wtYTF has no available capacity foradditionar influent. pursuant to s3o-2s-r-36(1) (tL c.R.s. (Lssil, theDivielon concludes that there is not adequati iilsirng or propos6d eewag.treatnent works capacity to handle the effluent froa fhose- IoLs for whi6hconnection to svsD ie pioposed. fn the event tlrat SVSD corrr!'enceslconstruction of approved facilities prior to e:qliration of its sLteapplication approval, the DivisLon wiff reconsiier itris reconnendation.
PLease contact rre at 303-692-3591 if you have question6 or wish todiscuss this response ln nore detail.'
'b 12 /0-
JAN-07-98 HED 12:05 Pr{ROf' 'C FORI( SCHOOL DIST FA}{ NO. 9?
,' tt'+*
RE.1
Iirrc.
5s240 P, 01
1
\
FRED A. WALL, Suryrinrenclont
JUDY H^PTONSfelq 455;"1unt Surr,tinlendent
sHAti0tON FELLAND,. Finance Oi:',ctot
Jartuary 7, 1998
Mark Bcan
Garfield County Plarrning Dcpartnrent
I09 8th Strcct, Suite 303
Glcnwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Lo.q Amigos Rlnch, Filing SA-II
Dsar Mark:
This lettel is stlblnittetl in rcsponse to your request for conrnrents lcg.rr..!.,;6 Lus ,'.,,,ig,,rs ii.artctrfiling 5A-l l. Los Arnigos Ranch has <lesigrratcd l3 acrcs withiu thc-ir proj-cct for s sJhool sitc.This site is odctluate tttttler current land dedication standarcls being propo.sccl to the County fly thcSclrool Districr.
Plcase do not hesitatc to call if you have any qucstion.s.
) ll-
Sharrnon Pclland
Firrcnce Dircctor
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATI]RAL RESOT]RCES
qAFf€Lu
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTI'NITY EMPLOYER
John Mumma, Director
6060 Broadwav
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (3O3) 297 - | 192
5O633 Highway 6 &24
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160l
303-945-7228
January 5, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Deparrnent
109 8ilr Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Comments on Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 5A-11
Dear Mark,
While Los Amigos Ranch has gone a long way in trylng to avoid severe deer and elk winter ranges in
their development, ttle Division of Wildlife would like to make some recommendations to try and improve the
ability of homeowners to enjoy wildlife on their property, help avoid human/wildlife conflicts and help
migration of wildlife onto severe winter ranges reserved by Los Amigos Ranch.
First, the wildlife statemenr included in the development plan by Greg Boecker gives a general list of the
wildlife located on or near the development. It would be helpfi.rl to all new owners of this properry for Los
Amigos Ranch or the developer to provide a small brochure or leaflet advising what wildlife species may be
encountered and how to avoid potential wildlife related problems. Many owners moving into the area may
nor be aware of the possibiliry of coyotes killing pets, bears searching out food inside vehicles and building,
mountain lion sightings in areas where their children may be playing and damage to ornamentals by deer and
elk. An informed owner has the abiliry to avoid or reduce these problems.
Secondly, while this ranch is considered as less than ideal bear habitat and densiry of bears is considered
low, bear proof garbage conrainers should be required. Carelessly handled trash attracts wildlife problems.
Those species of wildlife generatly considered least desirable when near housing (bears, skunks, coyotes and
racoons) are attracted to trash. Population densities of these species usually increase when humans do a poor
job of trash management.
Third, the Los Amigo Ranch Plan states that any fences built will be less than 42 inches tall and will nql
defrre a properry boundary but only used to fence a building envelope. To facilitate the flow of all wildlife
through this properry, we recommend that several los have building envelopes defined before approval. These
building envelopes should avoid crossing draws deer and elk may use to reach severe winter range' We
recommend ttrat lots on opposite sides of a draw have building envelopes that leave as much of the draw open
as possible. Predefined building envelops are recommended for the following los:
-lA "
DEPARTMENT OF NATIJRAL RESOI,]RCES, James Lochhead, ExecuIiVe DireCtOT
WILDLIFE COIUMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman . Rcbecca Frank, Vice Chairman ' Mark LeValley, Secretary
Rev. Jesse L. Boyd. Jr., Member . James R. Long, Member o Charles D. Lewit, Mcmber . John Stulp, Member' Louis Swift, Member
ForWildlife-
For People
January 5, 1998
Page2
Filing 6 - Lots 5, 6,7, 9,33 and37.
Filing 7 - Lots 34,36,38, 40, 42,43,4,47 and 48.
Filing 8 - Lots 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17.
Filing 9 - Lots 2, 4, 6, 42, 44 and 46.
Thank you for the oppornrnity to comment.
Sincerely,*ryt( 4@-
Larry L.Ereen
Disuict Wildlife Manager
o ljo
Garlrondale & Hural Fire Protection EDistnict
3OO Meador,rood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 9632,t91
Fax (970) 96+05@
January 5, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plan, Filings 5A-11
I have reviewed the preliminary plan application and have recently visited the site with Vince Urbrna
of the Colorado State Forest Service and Greg Boecker. I would offer the following comments.
Fire Protection Jurisdiction The northern portion of filing 6 and the northern half of filng 7
currently fall outside the boundaries the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and are not
within any fire protection district. I have discussed this with Greg Boecker and have recommended
that these areas be annexed rnto the fire district prior through the petition process prior to final plat.
F,ling 8 with the exception of lots 2,3 and 4 and all of filing 9 appear to be withrn the boundaries of
the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. Two likely scenarios exist for providing service to
these areas. One would be for the Carbondale & Rural Fire District to provide service through an
agreement with the Glenwood Sp.irp Fire Protection District. The other would require the transfer
of legal jurisdiction between the two distrids through an exclusior/inclusion process. Representatives
of the two districts are scheduled to meet and discuss this issue.
Access The road layout is essentially unchange from the sketch plan. Access throughout the
subdivision appears to be adequate.
Water Supplies The proposed water system generally appears to be adequate for the development.
I would recommend that the fire hydrant spacing be reduced to 500 feet in accordance with
APPENDIX III-B of the Uniform Fire Code.
Impact Fees The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. Fees are subject
to periodic review by the district. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District
at the time of recording of final plat or at the time of execution of an agreement between the
developer and the district.
Please call if you have any questions.
BillGavette
Fire Marshal
cc. Greq Boecker
q[tr$IrP ie96
GAFFi€LD COUNTY
t4-
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 Highway 6 and24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
January 5, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed Los Amigos Ranch, Filing 5A-ll project, I
offer the following statements for your scheduled January 14, 1998 planning commission review.
I am attaching copies of previous correspondence pertaining to the Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Although it
appearc that these filings do not abut public lands, we would still anticipate that a development of this magnitude
will create detrimental impacts. Of specific concern to the BLM is the potential for increases in OHV use on
adjacent public lands and the loss of big game winter range on private lands.
The loss of habitat will force more animals onto the remaining public lands in the area, resulting in a decline in
habitat condition until the big game populations are reduced to where they are in balance with the available
habitat. Again, we would like to point out the necessity of providing migratory corridors for big game animals
allowing movement between open space areas and other public and undeveloped private lands.
Under Colorado statutes, it is a landowner's responsibility to construct, and maintain in good condition, a lawful
fence protecting their property in order to recover any damages from trespass livestock.
We would also recommend for larger scale projects such as this one, that the developers/contractors be required
to provide locations on-site for temporary camping facilities for those construction workers having no permanent
residence. We would also encourage the developers and contractors to consider providing some temporary
quarters on-site or at commercial facilities as a component of their compensation package for some of their
seasonal employees. We feel this is a reasonable mitigation measure that would reduce crowding, trash,
sanitation and enfcrcement prcblems in public campgrounds anC orr disperser.l camping areas on other public
lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Leonard Coleman of this
office at 947-2814.
Sincerely,
r.qr'0i7:ffimj
Clr.i:frie*] C$d*?IN REPLY REFER TO;
7/o.414'Ur-{;
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
Attachements
'E-
December 31, 1997
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(lA#iELD ffJUNTvt State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street. Room 416
Grand Junction. Colorado 81501
Telephone: (97 O) 2 48-7 32 5
Re: Los Amigos Ranch, Filing 5A-11 Wildfire Hazard Review
Mark,
! read through the application anC visited the sitc rruith Greg Boecker and Bill Gavette of
the Carbondale Fire Department. As you know, it is a large development so I will limit
my comments to generalities rather than specific lot recommendations. Access to the
property is from County Road 1 14. The road into the older f ilings is a two-lane paved
surface with drainage ditches on either side of the road that are mostly devoid of
woody vegetation. lwas told that these roads meet the existing county standard. ln
the plan there are drawings of the proposed typical roads for the development. Los
Amigos Drive, which services the majority of all filings, currently meets the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299 standardfor the Protection of Life and Prooerty
from Wildfire. The 299 standard calls for 12 foot lanes with 4 foot shoulders for a
total traveled way of 32 foot. The fact that the drainage ditches are cleared of woody
vegetation adds to the overall effectiveness of Los Amigos Drive as a fuel break and
an escape route for local resldents. lt would be a good idea to keep the woody
vegetation out of these drainage swales.
The cul-de-sacs are shown as coming on to Los Amigos Drive at a right angle. This is
desirable for visibility and access. The 299 standard recommends a 5O foot radius for
cul-de-sacs. The plans show a 45 foot cul-de-sac radius but it looks like there will also
be a shoulder which doesn't appear to be counted in the overall measurement. The
Carbondale Fire Department should have the final word on the proposed cul-de-sac
diameters. The road drawing for the Rural Residential lots (r.e., Filing 8) does not show
much detail. lrecommend incorporating a turn around at the end of this access road
for emergency service vehicles.
We drove through the development on an existing farm road and several historical
ranch roads. The main road and cul-de-sacs were staked and mowed to see where
they will be put situated. ldon't foresee any problems with steep grades. Greg did
show us several existing and proposed "fire lanes". These all help with egress in the
event of a catastrophic fire. All in all, the road system looks good.
., /b-
il$| o,elev$
LOS AMIGOS - PAGE 2
A high percentage of the lots are situated along the southwest edge of a bench above
Highway 82. This bench is not visible from the highway. The slopes leading up to this
bench are steep and support primarily pinyon/juniper trees with little to no vegetation
(i.e., grass, forbes and shrubs) in the under story. These pinyon/juniper stands would
be rated as a severe wildf ire hazard by Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) standards
because of the slope steepness and density of the conifers. For this reason, I
recommend that all structures be situated a minimum of 50 feet from the ridge line
(see enclosed NFPA 299 Figure 3-2.4b1. Greg had already intended to require this
stipulation before I mentioned anything about the potential problem, because he
understands the potentially dangerous situation.
The existing vegetation on these lots can be grass, sage and pinyon/juniper in various
combinations. Most grassy lots would be rated as a low wildfire hazard. Sage/grass
lots can be a low to medium hazard. Lots that are better than half conifer would be a
severe wildfire hazard. Even though there are some lots rated as severe, the fact that
these lots are not on steep slopes and we are dealing with pinyon/juniper vegetation
leads me to believe that the wildfire hazard can be readily mitigated by incorporating
defensible space principles. My wildfire mitigation recommendations are as follows.
1) For a distance of 1 0 f eet around all structures establish and maintain vegetation at
6 inches or less (i.e., mowed lawn). No woody vegetation should be allowed to remain
within this perimeter, either from existing stands or proposed landscaping. ln addition,
flammable materials should not be stored in this zone.
2) For a minimum distance of 3O feet around all structures thin existing trees so that
the edges of tree crowns are no closer than 10 f eet at maturity. As the slope
percentage increases the minimum defensible space distance will increase (see
enclosed chart). For example, homes on lOo/o slopes should have a minimum
defensible space distance of 35 feet uphill and to the sides, and 37 feet downhill.
Homes on 2Oo/o slopes need a minimum of 40 feet uphill and to the sides, and 47 teet
downhill. ln addition, the lower branches should be pruned off to eliminate ladder fuels
which can allow a fire to burn from ground level to lower tree branches. These
branches should be removed up to half the total height or 10 f eet whichever is least.
When removing trees as part of the defensible space process, try to leave a mix of
young and old trees (i.e., unevenaged stand). An unevenaged forest is healthier than
an evenaged forest.
3/ All dead wood within 100 feet of structures should be removed.
Greg mentioned that non-combustible roofing material would be required. That's a
good idea. Feel free to call me with any questions about my comments.
Sincgqely,
Ct 1 j*r-'- t-2.-.Ltx.-*-
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
cc: Bill Gavette - Carbondale FD
Guy Meyer - Garfield County Sheriff's Office
Greg Boecker
'/7 -
H-
-06' 98 (TUE) I 6:38 lYR I GHT lTAi ,.. CLNI{OOD TEL:97094592r0
Water Engineers, lnc,
SlSColoradonve.
P.O. tnx 219
Glmwood Sorulgs. U)tot$o 9t602
leTol 943-/755 lEL
(9701 94.L9210 FAx
lJ03l 89.r-r 6oH DENVER DtRerjT' UNE DaAF7
fanuary 6, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield Counry Planning Office
Regulatory Office & Personnel
109 Eighth Sueeq Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: I-os Amigos Ranch - Preliminary PIar Review
Dear Mark:
At the request of Garfield counry, wrighr water Engineers, Inc. (wwE) ha.s sgyiglrygd the
prelimfurary plat submittal for [,os Amigos Ranch Filings 5A through lt darrd Novembcr 26,
1997 preparcd by Schmucscr Gordon Mcyer. In addirion, we rcviewed the Preliminary Plan
Application nosebook dated November 20, L997 - The following presents are comuretrts on water
suPPly, wastewater, drainage, roads, geological hazards, and miscellaneous design dcails.
WATER SUPPLY
. Thc quantity calculations for warer supply is based on 80 gallons per day per person
and 3.5 people per single-family residence- For planning purposes, 100 gallons per
person per day is typically used. In addition, larger homes which include guest
residences or "in-law" residences will often house up to 5 or 5.5 people per day.
r The water supply demands presened in Table I use a single-family daily use of 270
gallons per day. Based on 80 gallons per day, rhis equares to 3.375 people per
household. [5 4 6inimum, rhi5 number should be 280 gallons per day reflecting 3.5
people per houschold at 80 gallons per day. Again, we reconrm"od lsyising the
usage rc 10O gallons p€r person per day.
o The irrigation requiremenb are based od 2.523 acre-feer per acre of irrigatcd area
with peaking factors assigned to accounr for high demand days. Typically, irrigation
water is calculated by the monrh and based on evapomrion rares and rype of
vegeration. However, we believe rhe calculations as submined are conservative and
acceptable as presented.
P.001
*;(,9,,,r,.,0,,oENvtR B03l 180.1 /OO BOLfl.DER - 11011 473-e5oo
JAN, -06' 98(TUE) I6:i3 lYRIGHT lIAr.,. GLNIY0oD TEL:9709459.r0
ldark Bean
Garfield Couaty Planrring Office
January 5, 1998
Pagc 2
The preliminary plan application report su[es that rhe water supply will be
chlorinared and a 3Gminute contact time will be achicved through 460 iccr of a 24-
inch line. This 3Gminurc conract dme will be met as loug as the otal flow from the
chlorinarion building is less than 370 gallons per minute.
well No. 6 should be located and shown on the Master warer ptan Shect.
We recommend the waer line depth of cover be at least six feer, and preferably
seven feet.
The minimum operating pressure on thc design a-oalysis for the watcr system is 20psi. This is Iow for a single-family rcsidence and will require booster pumps for
individual lots.
The warcr system analysis includes water service for the four nual lots; however,
service line connections to oese lon, especialty to Loa 2,3, and,4 would either
regrire a separate easement through the adjacenr single-family lots or a very, very
Iong service line. Thus, it is likely thar these individual lors wiII iostall rheir ownwells. This, in tura, will require on-site storage for fue protcction. The report
recommends installation of cisterns to be designed and locarcd ar the time of
development of the individual mral lors. We recommend easemenrs be added rc
adjacent lots that would accommodate the shortest route possible for water service
ro these four rural los.
The storage tank sizing app€ars to be adequare for rhe proposed popularion.
The hydrant locations and spacing should be reviewed by rhe Carbondalc Firc
Department. ln some cases, they appear to be in excess of rhe proposed 800-foot
spacing that is discussed in rhe report.
We undersand that dre fire departmant will bc rcviewing the drawings and the
hydraulic compurarions for fue flow requiremens, tnydrant spacing, cut{e-sac
lengths, and rhe hydranr detail.
WASTEWATER
o The rypical trench section shows the depth of cover to be 5.5 feet. This will
probably be acceptable for sewer lines with stccp slo;rs. The profile, however,
shows areas where cover is Iess than 5.5 feet.
P.002
,qD
JAN, -06' 98 (TUE) I 6: i9 lYRIGHT lTA._-. GLN1IOOD TEL:970945.-,0 P. OOJ
Mark Bean
Garfield County Plenning Office
January 6, 1998
Page 3
Tweuty-one exploratory tesr pis were excavarcd ro evaluate the subzurface
conditions. In many of the explorarory pin, practical rcfusal was encounlered at less
than six fcct due to a hard, dense rock formarion. Percolation tesrs were performed
adjacent to some of the pits and rates were to be within accepuble riuges.
However, areas with bedrock less ttran eighr feet deep reguire a mound or other
engineered system. Based on the results and locarions of the rcst pis, thi.s xpp6615
to bc the case for the majority of the los.
Easements should be provided for sewer mairs that are ourside of the road right-of-
way.
BOCC Resolution No. 96-34 requires ceun-al sewer for cenain lots and allows ISDSfor the remaining lots subject to the applicant zubmining ar analysis of
environmental and health impacts for review by the BOCC and thc Colorado
Deparrnent of Health. We did not fisd such ss anelysis in the subminal.
Resolurion No. 9G34 also conditious use of ISDS on a favorable recommendatioa
from the Srate regarding the proposed merhod of sewage disposd-
The existing Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) wastewatEr rreaftneDr planr has
a capacity of 52,000 gpd. Data presented in rhe subminal show'thar rhere is uo
exj5ting capacity ro serve the proposed Filings 5,A, rhrough 11.
The approved Site Application for rhe proposed expansiss of the SVSD treameDt
facility expires Febntary 26, 199t. ft is our underst^nrling that plans and
specifications for the exparuion have not been submimcd to the State aad the approval
will likely expire.
Thc sitc Applicarion approval dated February ?5, L997 required rhe svsD, in
accordance with State policy, to develop a service area to include all existing and
funrre development adjacenr to existing sewer serrrice 0rem 6). Ir is our
understanding that this requirement was appealcd duc to financial hardship. This
provision of rhe Site Application approval was zubseguently removed-
The SVSD has indicated in a lener dated November 25, L997 rhat rhc Distict can
and will serve those ponions of thc l-os Amigos submiral proposed for cenral
sewer. Ilowever, unril ttre Disuict obtains a Discharge to Groundwater Permit (i.e.,
demonstrates rhat the existing faciliry is operating in compliarrce with applicable
sundards) and obtains approval for the design plans and qpecifrcation^s and a
Discharge to Groundwater Permit for the expa-asion (and ncw sire applicarion if
existing approval expires), we do not believe the Districr can be definirive in its
ability to serve rhe project.
..?0-
JAN, -05' 98 (TUE) I 6 : J9 lIRIGHT lYA,... GLNIYOOD
Mark Bean
Garfield Counry Planning Office
January 6, 1998
Page 4
DRAINAGE
TEL:970945y.r0 P. 004
The drainage calculations reference 18 drainage elements. However, rhey are not
Iabeled on any of the drawings.
The culven sizings are aII based on inlet control which is acceptable- However, a
maximt'm headwater to depr.h ratio should bc held ar 1.5. This may affect culvert
size. Drainage Elemenrs No. 15 and 18 both appear ro be uudersized.
The impervious coverage used for the drainage calculations assuEres a building
footpriru, including driveways and garagcs, of 3,500 square-feer. Based on existitrg
development, we believe rhis should be approximately 5,000 to 7,000 squars-feet.
Subdivision Regutation Section 9:43 stares that "new developmenrc, where they
create runoff in excess of historic levels, detcntion ditches and ponds may be
required to retain up to the 100-year storm. " Existing conditioru for this site were
not calculated so there is no aralydcal comparisou as to wherher or not rhere are
downsrream impacts from this development. We rccommend that this analysis be
conducted to dercrrnine if dctenrion is required. Of particular coucern are culvens
under Highway 82. These culvens should be identified and analyzed for "beforen
and "after" development impacts. Iu addition, due to rhe conceDtation of flows in
areas that may be highly erodible, we recosrmend the use of BMPs to minimize the
impacs of erosiou due to dcvelopmenr.
In areas where culverts arc proposed under the new roads, we recornmend the
following. First, culven oudes should be protected with riprap. This is especially
important on rhe steeper culverts. Sccondly, wc recommend that the discharge be
direcred into a drainage easement which will carry flows along the properry lines or
into existing swales. In areas whcre there are no existing swales, rhe flow should
be re{isbursed so as to minimize the impacts of conceDtrated flow which could
cause erosion below the property.
The ditch sizing calcularions should be revised ro reflect the following items. Firsr,
charmels with slopes thar are steep enough ro create cridcal depth should be sized for
critical depth and not for super-critical depth. Second.ly, velociry should be
considered and appropriare channel linings included in the design-
The Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD and the Drainage Element Worksheet in the
caJculations do not correlate at all locations. The plan is missing scveral culverts
that 4's noted in the calcularions and also include several culverts tbat are not noted
in the calculations. These should be corrected to march each other ald flows and
culvert sizes verified.
-2 l-
":
JAN, -06', 98 (TUE) I 6: {g l{R IGHT lYA,,rt GLN1YOOD TEL:970945v210 P, 005
Mark Bean
Garfield County PIaDdng Office
January 6,1998
Pagc 5
o
ROAI)S
There are several culverts locaed at low points il the madway, but are not located
in the swale cenrcrline of the topography immedia:ely adjaccnt to the road. These
should be rc-cvaluated to ensure that flows will rcach the culvert. Two exarnples
include a culven located ar Statioo 47 +LO on Ios Amigos Drive and a culvert
Iocated on West Road ar Satiou 36+90.
There are several notes oD drawing LAD that Iabel swales as "swale exits properry. "
Ttris reguires a clarificarion.
The side slopes used to size the roadside ditches are all at2:L. Howevcr, this does
not march the rypical ditches shown on the road cross sections. This should be
revised.
There is a worksheet for a circular channel flow in the calcularions. Howevcr, it is
not clear what this pertains to.
The major swales shown on the drawings should be evaluated for deprh of flow
relative to the proposed building sites immediately adjacent to ir.
Drainage eas€Eents should be ad.ded where applicable.
The endre subdivision is served by a single road access off of County Road 114.
We recommend a second acoess road be added.
Road B is shown with a vehicle trips per day of 230 which would put it in the
category of secondary access versus nual access as proposed in the submittal.
The cross-section used for the rural access shows a 2-foor distance between the
shoulder and rhe center of the flow line of rhe adjacent ditch. However, coun[y
regulations require 6-foot minimum ditch width which would make rhis dimension
3 feer.
There are several radii that are less than those noted in the coutrry regularions.
There are several suetches of road thar exceed 8 percent grades as noted in the
report. However, we did not see aay that wcrc over 10 percent, which is the
maximum allowed in the Counry Regulations.
..?1L
I
JAN, -05' 98 (TUE) I 5:40 P,006lYR IGIIT lYn . -rt GLNITOOD TEL:970945),10
Mark Bean
Garfield County Plsnning Office
January 5, 1998
Page 6
There ,ue at least five cul-de-sacs that exceed rhe 60Gfoot lengrh and several dead-ends. This exceeds the County's srandards for cul{e-sacs aad dead-end streets.
Therc arc several intersections off of l-os Amigos Road that occur on dght curves-
Sight disrances should be addressed.
Access to nrral Lot 4 is not defined on the drawings. Rcsponsibility and design
standards for consmrction of the access ro nrral Loa I ,2, autd 3.should be clarified
and defined.
A cost estimate analysis was prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer in April 1996.
The estimate appears to be reasonable for the stared assumptioru- Thij includes
Iengrhs, widttts, and overlay thickness. Some uoloowns may affect costs including
repair of strucural failure. This estimate is for a one-time cosr ald should, ideally,
be done after coussuction of irnprovements are complete. However, with thc
proposed extended phasing, inrermitteut repair work could be needed which is not
included in rhe cost andysis.
The submittal states that a lefr-arrn lane was constructed at County Road ll4 aad
Los Amigos Road. As constructed drawings should be zubmined for review.
GEOLOGICAL IIAZARDS
o There are several hazard areas noted in the submitted reports. One is a landsLide
area and the others are a series of faults. The report recommends th33 luilding sites
not be located near these arEils. We recommend rhe faults and rhe landslide areasbc shown on the sirc plan, including any recommended setbacks for proposed
buitdings.
o The landslide areas (nvo are noted in the LincoLu-DcVorc rcpon) are discussed as
being fairly stable. However, there is a possibiliry tbat rhe proposed culverts will
concenrate surface nrnoff and affect the drainage in rhese gullies which could, intllm, affect the stability. We suggest that this scenario be reviewed by rhe
geotechnical engineers. The sabiliry of these areas are of concern, especially whcre
they leave the projecr site and could poreDtially effecr neighboring propeniis-
o The Lincoln-DeVore repott references rhe palisades topography and recommends that
serbacks be required from any of the palisade formations. This information should
be identified and rarrcferred to a site plan with appropriare sctbacks shown-
.43 -
JAN. -05' 98 (TUE) l6:41 lYRIGHT 1Y,. ,{ GLN}Y00D
PMB/lvfJE/dIf
92t-U7.M0
TEL:97094r--r0
IVark Bean
Gadield County Planning Office
January 6, 1998
Page 7
r The soils report, doue by Hepwonh-Pawlak, idenrifies a Basak formation which in
many locations is within 5 feet of the ground zurface. This may affcct rhe ability to
insrall a sandard.ISDS system.
DETAILS
r Revise warer/sewer crossing to include crossings witti new sewer.
o Servicc linc dcrails should show property lioes. The water service should include
a marker post.
o Recomnend bedding under the base of standard manholes.
o Hydrant placemenr note should be revised since there is no curb and gutter es rhi.s
project. AIso need ro label depth of bury (or cover).
o l-abel side slopes and./or width qf drainage outler swale.
r I-abel pavement sections (i.e., depths of materials, etc.) of road secrions-
Please call if you have any quesrions or need additional inforuration.
Very Euly yours,
WRIGIIT WATER, EIYGINEERS, INC.
DRAFT
Peggy M. Bailey, P.E.
P.007
By:
Senior-DHAFf*"*'
Michael J- Erion, P.E.
Project Manager
_e{ -
By: