HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Report PC 03.11.98REOT]EST:
APPLICANT:
ENGIITIEERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
ZOITTING:
PROJECT INT'ORMATION A}ID STAFF COMMENTS
PC 3fiit98
Preliminary Plan for the Los Amigos
PUD filings 6 thru 10
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
offof C.R. 114.
1703.058 acres
Central water
ISDS
County Road 114
Planned Unit Development
I.RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREIIF'NSIYE PLAN
The PUD is located in the existing subdivision classification for Study Area I of the 1995
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recognized the original PUD approved and modified in l98l
and 1996.
-t-
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 4oh to over 9002. The steeper slopes have vegetation consisting
primarily of pinion/juniper 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 five (5) separate filings of
the approved Los Amigos PUD. Filings 6-10 consist of 168 single family lots on a
total of 1703.058 ac. of land, of which975.927 ac. is Open Space. There are four
Rural Residential lots totaling 223.6 ac. or an average of 55.9 ac. in size. The
remaining 164 single family lots cover an area of 503.6 ac. with an average lot size
of 3.1 ac. each. The remainng 4.6 ac. of land is identified on the PUD plan a
Neighborhood Commercial area. This area is shown on the Preliminary Plan as
"presently non-developable neighborhood commercial", and the application states
that the area is be designated as an area subject to future subdivision review.
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. All of the lots are to utilize individual sewage
disposal systems (ISDS), except the commercial lot located adjacent to CR I14. At
this time the commercial lot will not be subdivided and will not be developed until
central sewage disposal is available to the lot,
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 further
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, offof some of the longer cul-de-sacs and loops.
REYIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division 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
III.
.-' 2OL
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
augmentation-which are leased from the Los Amigos Ranch Parbrership. (See letterpes.+jJ3_)
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: The department has not
responded within the 21 days allowed by statute, therefore the CDPIIE is deemed to
have approved the method of sewage disposal proposed for the subdivision.
Roaring Fork School District RE-l: The District has previously determined that the
proposed school site is adequate to meet the land requirerqpnts for a school site, as
opposed to paying cash in lieu of land. (See letter pg. ,*
)
Division of Wildlife: The DOW previously acknowledged that the development has
tried to design around deer and elk ranges, but there is need to recognize that there
are other types of wildlife impacts. Suggestions were made regarding methods for
dealing with other types of wildlife. It qv recommend predefined building
envelopes for certain lots. (See letter pgs.616
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 recommended that the fire hydrant spacing be
modified, which has been agreed to by the developer's representative. The District
in a previous letter noted that they will be requiring the developers to pay impact fees
directly to the District, at the time of platting lots. (See letter pg./ZaA
Bureau of Land Management: The BLM expressed some concems about the
potential for use conllicts between the public and private land. They have also noted
the needto consider big game movement through the development. There are federal
minerals underlying portions of the developmgnt, that need to be considered in any
future subdivision action. (See letter pgs. /7 )
Colorado State Forest Service: An agency representative previously 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 were made in a prior letter regarding the site improvements,
ridge line setbacks and construction materials for structures. tncluded with the lefter
were the NFPA 299 standards for the Protection of the Life and Property from
Wildfire. A subsequent letter stated thatthe previous comments are still valid. (See
letters and attachments pgs. eO -;l)b-)'
Wright Water Engineers. tnc.: WWE was hired by the County to assist in the review
of the Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plan. They noted a number of issues that
8.
-'3-
needed to be resolved before the County approved the previous Preliminary plan
proposal for Filings 5A-11.. A number of issues were identified related to the water
supply system, wastewater, drainage, roads, geologic hazards and some details in the
plans that needto be clarified or corrected. (See letterpgs. frt' 2q ) WWE has
reviewed the new application for Filings 6-10 and notid a number of issues related
to the lots removed from the previous application, the rural lots, drainage and the use
of ISDS for all of the lots. These comments will be incomorated into the other staff
comments included in this staffreport. (See letter pgs.
-3u3q
)
ry.
A. Zoning: The Los Amigos PUD zone district text and PUD Plan were amended by
ResolutionNo. 96-34. As a condition of approval for the amendments, the applicant
was required to dedicate at least the equival ent of 25Yo of each subdivision tothe Los
Amigos homeowners association. Filings 6-10 is a total of 1703.058 ac. in size, with
970.708 ac. (56%) of Open Space.
Filing 6 includes lots that had been previously designated "presently non-developable
single-family residential" and an area designated "piesently non-developable
neighborhood commercial". . It will be necessary to either merge the non-
developable residential lots into some of the proposed lots or to amend the pUD to
merge the lots with the Open Space. The PUD amendment can be accomplished by
requesting approval of minor amendment to the PUD Plan. The non-developabll
neighborhood commercial needs to be plaffed as separate lot in the fust final plat and
has a plat note stating "the lot will not be developed until a preliminary plan and finalplat for the fi.rther subdivision of the lot is approved ty the Board of County
Commissioners.,'
B. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive plan
identifies the Los Amigos PUD as an existing subdivision. and the plID was found
to be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan when it was amended in
1996.
C. Soils/Topography: The applicant's geologic report for this portion of the
development "did not identifu any geologic conditions or potential geologic hazards
that would prevent development of the site for the intended single familyiesidential
use. We recommend we perform detailed soils and foundation investigations on a
site specific basis to determine subsurface conditions and provide foundation
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 pIlD amendment approved:
--y -
D.
"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 engineering
recorrmendations, which shall be a condition of Los Amigos Ranch Architectural
Control Committee approval and the building permit."
WWE engineers noted in their letter, that RR Lot 3 appears to have a very limited
building lot area, based upon the geologic report. After further discussion with the
applicant, it was agreed that the final plat for RR Lot 3 will include a building
envelope designated by registered professional geotechnical engineer and a plat note
requiring the submittal of foundation design stamped by a professional geotechnical
engineer with the building permit application.
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 and 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 1i ft. driving lanes. All other roads will be built to Rural Access standards
with a 50 ft. ROW and 11 ft. wide driving lanes. All of the roads will have a chip
and seal surface.
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 had asked previously that the fire hydrant spacing be reduced to 500 ft. to
comply with the Uniform Fire Code standards. The revised application was reviewed
by the Fire District and hydrant spacing was agreed to by the developer. Any final
plat application should include a letter from the District approving the hydrant
spacing.
It was also noted that a portion of the development is located in the Glenwood
Springs Rural Fire Protection district. This section is located on the north end of the
development and is only accessible from CR 114, [t has been proposed to deannex
the portion of the in the Glenwood district and annex it to the Carbondale district.
Water: As a part of the PUD amendment approval, the applicant was required to set
forth the method of transferring the legal ownership and control of the water
E.
F.
G.
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 will have to be included
in the same homeowners association.
WWE has noted that RR Lots 1-4 are proposed to have individual wells for the
sotuce of domestic water. They expressed concern about the use of wells for RR
Lots 1-3, given the history of wells in the area and the proposed use of ISDS by the
lots above the lots. They recommend that the " developer hetp facilitate the shortest
connection possible to the central water system with easements". Staffconcurs with
the recommendation and would add that the issue needs to be resolved prior to the
approval of a Preliminary Plan by the Board of county commissioners.
Wastewater: The residential lots in the application are proposed to use individual
sewage disposal system (ISDS). Section 492 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 ptID
resolution of approval contained the following condition of approval:
5. The (44) lots along "Road A" (.os 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 puD 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
maintaining central sewer service to the remaining westerly single family lots
in the P[ID, Applicant shall be allowed to service said remaining lots with
individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS), subject to the roltowing
conditions:
(A) Applicant shall provide to the Board all information neederd by the
Board to review the environmental and health impacts presented by ISDS
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(l)(g).
The analysis provided for the review of the environmental and health impacts
presented in the application did not provide any calculable basis for determ-ining
potential downstream water quality impact. After discussions with the applicant and
-6
F.
his engineers, additional information was submitted for review by wwE. wwE
noted that the additional analysis is based "upon existing data and reasonable
engineering assumptions". They further state that the u"t*l conditions may vary
significantly from the assumptions and it would be prudent to require the apilicant
to implement a long term water quality monitoringprogram. Staff concurs that a
monitoring progrirm would be appropriate, particularly given the recent presentations
about the potential contamination of the Roaring Fork River by ammonia, due to
non-point sources, such as individual sewage disposal systems. This is an issue that
has been brought to the fore front in recent weeks and needs to be addressed. Staff
recofilmends that the applicant be required to develop a proposed water quality
management plan prior to the public hearing before the Board of County
commissioners, that can be reviewed and found to be acceptable by wwE.
Additionally, the applicant needs to propose the method of mitigatilg *y .rbr"quent
water quality impacts, should the monitoring establish that the Los Amigos
development is contributing to any water quality degradation identified as a result of
the monitoring.
Road Impacts: The applicant was required to make certain improvements to the
intersection of the subdivision's main entrance and County Road 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 PUD for those road
improvements. The only study available dealing with those specific parameters, isthe analysis submitted by the applicant's engineer at the euo afprovat. The
subsequent analysis done by the County used a different basis for establishing and
cannot be used to establish a road impact fee for this pUD. The pUD apfroval
established a $200/lot road impact fee for this development.
Drainage: WWE noted that the application had noted some minor increase the
amount of surface runofffrom the project, but had not proposed any mitigation for
the increases. The applicants have reviewed the issue again and recommended on
site detention of the surface runoffin certain drainages. Th... is no calculation of
the amount of detention :uea is required, based upon calculations. The subdivision
regulations require the calculation of the runoffand inclusion of the calculations in
the application. WWE noted that the proposed locations appear to be correct, but
there is a need for the calculations prior to the submittal of u n"a plat. Stafffeels
that the calculations need to be provided to and accepted as being correct by WWE
prior to the approval of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners.
G.
G.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
engineering recommendations, which shall be a condition of Los Amigos
Ranch Architectural Control Committee approval and the building permit.
2. The owner of each lot utilizing an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS)
shall obtain site specific percolation tests to determine whether a standard
septic system is acceptable or an engineered system is appropriate or
required. Each ISDS shall be designed to minimize tree removal and changes
to the natural contours of the land.
3. The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and the Fire Chief as
set forth in the Supplemental Declarations dated September 28,1992 et. seq.
shall be followed in the construction of all structures.
4. All lots designated to lie within the Spring Valley Sanitation District shall
obtain central sewer service pursuant to agreement with the District.
5. Open hearth solid-fuel buming fireplaces are not allowed.
6. Each dwelling unit is allowed one dog.
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) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless an
extension of not more that one (1) year is granted by the Board prior to the
expiration ofthe period of approval..... Developments of over one hundred (100) lots
may be phased over a period of time not 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 PIID required the submission of a Preliminary Plan
for Phase 2, which is the remainder of the PUD, less the High Density single family
area, by l2l3ll99. The present application meets that part of the phasing plan, but
it represents an acceleration of the plan, which has created some problems with the
subdivision regulation requirements.
The proposed subdivision phasing plan for the submittal of a Final Plat does not
appear to be consistent with the one year validity period for a Preliminary Plan. The
proposed phasing plan states that the "completion of development per subdivision
H.
'-$ -
III.
improvement agreements" will occur by 1213112002. The previously noted
language in Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations requires the submission of
a final plat within one (1) of Preliminary Plan approval. The Phasing Plan needs to
be tied to the submission of a Final Plat within one (1) year of the approval of the
Preliminary Plan. The applicant appears to be relying more on the outside phasing
of the PUD, which may conflict with the Subdivision requirements. There needs to
be new phasing plan submitted that complies with Section 4:34 ofthe Garfield Count
Subdivision Regulations.
As noted previously the fi.lther subdivision of the non-developable neighborhood
commercial in Filing 6, needs to be noted on the plat in terms of the intent to divide
further and only after the submittal and approval of a preliminary plan prior to the
submittal of a new plat.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
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 Zonrng
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.
RECOMMEI\DATION
The Planning Commission recommend approval ofthe proposed Los Amigos Ranch , Filings
6-10, subject to the following conditions:
A.
B.
D.
E.
IV.
o/-
--/
1.All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of
approval unless otherwise stated by the Planning Commission.
The Homeowner's Association shall be included as a part of the Los Amigos HOA
and incorporated into it in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes. The
protective covenants, articles of incorporation and other Homeowner's Association
documents including by-laws will be submitted for review by the County Attomey
prior to the approval of the Final Plat.
The applicant shall pay $200 per lot in Road Impact Fees prior to the approval of the
Final Plat.
Priorto the approval ofthe Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners,
the applicant shall provide documentation from the Glenwood Springs and Rural Fire
Protection District approving the interior road design and fire protection plan prior
to the submittal of a Final Plat or a letter stating that the District will accept the
deannexation of the properfy in their district, subject to it being annexed into the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District.
All recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service regarding wildfue
protection will be incorporated into the covenants, including the design guidelines
identified in the NFPA 299 standards for the Protection of the Life and Property
from Wildfire.
That the residential lots in Filing No. 6, designated as "presently non-developable
single family" lots will either be merged with adjoining lots in the filing or a request
for minor amendment to the PUD Plan will be made to merge the lots in question
with the open Space designation in the PUD. The lot shown as',presently non-
developable neighborhood commercial" will be included on the Filing 6 final plat
and noted as a lot subject for fi.rther subdivision and that no development will occur
on the lot until a Preliminary Plan for the lot is submitted and approved by the Board
of County Commissioners.
That RR Lots 1-3 shall include easements for water and access purposes that are the
shortest connection possible, on the applicable plat. Further that RR Lot 3 shall have
a building envelope designated on the appropriate plat, that has been identified as
being buildable by a registered geotechnical engineer.
That prior to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners of the Preliminary
Plan for Los Amigos Filings 6-10, the applicant shall develop a ground water quality
monitoring plan and mitigation plan, to be reviewed and recommended for approval
by the County's consulting engineer.
2.
J.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.That prior to the approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant will submit to the County, the calculations for the
projected surface runofffrom the project. The proposed design ofthe detention
ponds shall be based upon the calculations.
The applicant is 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
engineering recommendations, which shall be a condition of Los Amigos
Ranch Architectural control committee approval and the building permit.
The owner of each lot utilizing an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS)
shall obtain site specific percolation tests to determine whether a standard
septic system is acceptable or an engineered system is appropriate or
required. Each ISDS shall be designed to minimize tree removal and changes
to the natural contours of the land.
The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and the Fire Chief as
set forth in the Supplemental Declarations dated September 28,1992 et. seq.
shall be followed in the construction of all structures.
All lots designated to lie within the Spring Valley Sanitation District shall
obtain central sewer service pursuant to agreement with the District.
Open hearth solid-fuel buming fireplaces are not allowed.
Each dwelling unit is allowed one dog.
That a new phasing plan, consistent with Section 4:34 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations, be submitted and accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to preliminary plan approval
-ll
10.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
STAIE Or COLOIUDO
OTFICE OF THE STATE ENCTNEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3s89
February 18, 1998
Roy Romer
Cowmor
lames S. Lochhead
Executive Direclor
Hal D. Simpson
State EngineerMr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE:Los Amigos Ranch PUD, Filings 6, 7, 8, I &10
Sections 5 & 6, T7S, R88W, 6th P.M.
Sections 31 & 32, TOS, R88W, 6th P.M.
Sections 35 & 36, TOS, R89W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed the subject preliminary plan, which proposes to create a total of 168
single-family dwellings on727 .13 acres located in filings 6 through 10. The proposed water supply
is to be provided through a central system operated by the Red Canyon Water Company
(Company). A letter of commitment from the Company, dated February 9, 1996, was included in
the submittal material. We previously commented on a proposal which included the subject
development in our letter of January 26, 1998. The only difference between the submittals
appears to be that Filing 5A has been omitted and that portions of Filings 10 and 1 t have been
included in Filing 6 as open space and presently non-developable parcels. The net effect has
been a reduction of single-family dwellings by ten and elimination of the commercial development.
Therefore, our previous comments still apply, and are repeated below.
A letter from Mr. Loyal E- Leavenworth, Cated November 24, 1997, indicated that to date
final plat approvals within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD totals 47 single family lots and 96 multi-
family units. This proposal results in a total of 321 units. At full buildout, the PUD is projected to
include a total of 327 single-family homes and 96 apartments. Total annual water demand at
buildout will be 194 acre-feet, and consumptive use will be approximately 68 acre-feet. The 68
acre-feet of depletions are to be augmented pursuant to a plan for augmentation, which was
approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 87CW155.
The PUD is cunently supplied by two wells, known as the Rancho Los Amigos Well No. 6
(permit no. 40906-F) and the Los Amigos Ranch Well No. 5 (permit no. 18147). Well No. 6 is
decreed in Division 5 Water Court case nos. W-3873, W-3893, and 94CW36 for 300 gallons per
minute for municipal use. Well No. 5 is decreed in case no. W-2156 for 300 gallons per minute for
municipal, commercial, domestic and industrial uses. The water rights used to supply this PUD are
owned by the Los Amigos Ranch Partnership, are leased to the Company for a period of 50 years
with a 49-year renewal option.
J/T
A report dated November 17, 1997, prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, tnc., indicated
that Well No. 5 had been test pumped at 110 gallons per minute, and Well No. O had been test
pumped at 400 gallons per minute. The combined yield of the two wells exceeds the estimated
required peak day pumping rate at buildout of 335 galtons per minute. \
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(hxl), C.R.S., the proposed water supply appears
adequate, and injury to decreed water rights will not occur, as long as the Company operates
pursuant to the decreed water rights and plan for augmentation, which are leased from the Los
Amigos Ranch Partnership.
Should you have further questions or @mments regarding the water supply for this project,
please contact Craig Lis at this office.
Sincerely,
Mr. Mark Bean
February 18, 1998
SPUCMULos Amigos Ranch Flag 6-1O.doc
Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
page 2
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
- /5-
[vru\ltlu I-vl\t\ gvllvvL ulJl rnA NU. V lUU.{CVaqU
\{;.:
Mark Bearr
Garticld County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glcnwood Springs, CO 81601
llc: Los Amigoe Rrnch - Filings 6 through l0
f)ear Mark:
Los Amigos Ranch ltas included a l3 acre schoot site in its plan. This mccts thc District's
rcquircmcnts for land dedicatiou for a subdivision of this size. Tlrank you for thc opportunity to
provide cotnments on this preliminary plan. Pleasc tlon't ltcsitatc to call if you have any
questions.
Shannon Pclland
Financc Dircctor
W
- /4-
vv. vv tul
. ""+reibphone (e70)
?19:9s.9;'*,
Fcbruary 23. l99t
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Goveraor
DEPARTMENT OF NATT]RAL RESOT]RCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTI.JNITY EMPLOYER
John Mumma, Dircctor
6060 Broadwav
Denvcr. Colorado 8o216
Telephone: (3O3) 297 - | 192
50633 Highway 6 &?4
Glenwood Springs, CO El6Ot
303-945-7228
oAffi€LrJ L,-ji-::ri
ForlVildlfe-
For Peopb
January 5, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Deparrnent
109 8th Streer, 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 trymg to avoid severe deer and elk winter ranges in
their development, the Division of Wildtife would like o make some recommendations to Ery 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 t os Amigos Ranch.
First, the wildlife statement, irrcluded in the development plan by Greg Boecker gives a general list of the
wildlife located on or near the development. It would be helpful to all new owners of this property for Los
Amigos Rarch or the developer o provide a small brochure or leafler advising what wildlife species may be
encountered and how to avoid potential wildlife related problems. Many owners moving into the area may
not be aware of the possibility of coyotes killlng pets, bears searching out food inside vehicles and building,
66rrntain lion sightirgs in areas where their children may be playurg and damage to ornamentals by deer and
elk. An informed owner has the abiliry to avoid or reduce these problems.
Secondly, while this rurch is considered as less than ideal bear habitat and density of bears is considered
low, bear proof garbage containers should be required. Carelessly handled trash auracts wildlife problems.
Those species of wildlife generally considered least desirable when near housing (bears, skunks, coyotes and
racoors) are aEacted to trash. Population densities of these species usually increase r#[sn fuutrrens do a poor
job of trash management.
Third, the Los Amigo Rarch Plan states that any ferrces built will be less than 42 irrches tall and will rcI
define a propeny boundary but onty used o fence a building envelope. To facilitate the flow of alt wildlife
throqh this property, we recorlmend that several los have buildirs ervelopes defined before approvd. These
building envelopes should avoid crossing draws deer and elk may use to reach severe winrcr range. We
recommerd that los on opposhe sides of a draw have building envelopes that leave as much of the draw open
as possible. Predeftned building envelops are recomrnended for the following loa:
. /t-
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Iemcr l.ochhcrd. Exccutivc Ditcsor
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar. Ch:irrnen o Rcbcccr Frrr*, Vicc Chrirnun o Mrrk lrVrllcy, Sccr?rry
Rcv. Icssc t-. Boyd. Jr., Mcmbcr o lemcs R. [.ong, Mcmbcr o Cherlcr D. L-cwis. Mcrnbcr r lolrn S[rlp, Mcmbcr o [,ouir Switl, Mcotbcr
January 5, 1998
Page2
Filing 6 - Lots 5, 6,7 ,9, 33 and 37.
Filing 7 - Lots 34,36,38, 40, 42,43, M,47 and 48.
Filing 8 - lots 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17.
Fillng 9 - Lots 2,4,6,42,44 and 46.
Thank you for the opporunity to comment.
Sincerely,*ryv 4,
Larry L.breen
District Wildlife Manager
-/0 -'''
Garbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
-
300 Meadorcod Ddve
o 81623
9632491
963{569
February 18, 1998 rEB A 0 p9E
GAI+€LO COI.0ITY
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Los Amigos Ranch PreliminarT Plan, Filing 6 Through Filing 10
Mark:
I have reviewed the prelimrnary plan application for Los Amigos Ranch. There is very little change
in the plan from the prwious submittal from a fire protection standpoint. I would offer the following
comments.
Annexation
I met wrth Cneg Boecker to discuss annexation rnto the fire district. We have recommended that the
developer petrtionthe Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District (GSMPD) for exclusion of
ther area that is currently within the development. The area excluded by the GSRFPD along with
the areas outside either district could then be included into the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District. This should take place before the recording of final plats.
Water Svstem
I have met with Greg Boecker to review fire hydrant locations and spacing. We have agreed on a
design that is appropriate for the development based upon the lot locations and density.
Please call if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
cc: Crreg Boecker
.2/'1 r
(Darbondale
(
&
,t\
Rural Fire Proteetion Distrlot
300 Meadorcod Drirn
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 96+2€1
Fax (970) 963{s69
January 5, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suile 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Los Amigos Ranch PreliminarT plan, Filings 5A-ll
I have reviewed the preliminary plan application and have recently visited the site with Vince Urbina
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 filing 7
currently fall outside the boundaries the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and are not
withln any fire protection district. I have discussed this wrth Crreg Boecker and have recommended
that these areas be annexed into the fire district prior through the petition process prior to final plat.
F,ling 8 with the exception of lots 2,3 and4 and all of filing 9 appear to be wrthin 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 providi servicelhrough an
agreement with the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. The other would require the transfer
of legal jursdiction between the two distrias ttrough an exchsior/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 accordancl 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 penodic rwiew by the distria. Fees are based upon the per lot rmpact fee adopted by the Orsirict
at the time of recording of final plat or at the time of execution of an agreement between the
developer and the distria.
Please call if you have any questions.
|ry'"'ilt?(O -,'(nltzikHe,,Ul
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
cc: Greg Boecker -/ g-
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
IN REPLY REFER TO:
January 5, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield Counry Planning Department
109 Sth Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed Los Amigos Ranch, Filing 54-11 project, Ioffer 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 itappears that these filings do not abut public lands, *" *ould still anticipat" -thut
u development of this magnitudewill create detrimental impacts. of specific concern to the BLM is the potential for increases in oHV use onadjacent 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 inhabitat condition until the big game populations are reduced to where they are in balance with the availablehabitat' Again, we would like to point out the necessity of providing migratory corridors for big game animalsallowing movement between open space areas and other public and undeveloped private lands.
under Colorado statutes, it is a landowner's responsibility to consrrucr, and maintain in good condition, a lawfulfence 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 requiredto provide locations on-site for temporary camping facilities for those construction workers having no permanentresidence' We would also encourage the developirs and contractors to consider providing some tempoffyquarters on-site or at commercial facilities as a component of their compensation packag" fo. ,o*" of theirseasonal employees. We feel this is a reasonable mitigauon measure that would reduce crowding, trash,saniution and enfcrcement prcblems in public campgrounds anil orr disperserl camping areas on other publiclands.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Leonard Coleman of thisoffice at 947-2814.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
7/U.q_1 7/t-/4
-rffi'oi7Jl$01
Attachements
,?/?-
Ci.1t^,*-Lurtlsi
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
Bill Gavette - Carbondale FPD
Guy Meyer - Garfield County Sheriff's Office
Greg Boecker
,rp1 5$$9&
SERVTCE
I .---/- State Servic$ Buildin!
tl]l*reuo@LrNTYc*"1'r'":;:*:Hi*T#li
January 29, 1 998
_- Telephone: (970) 24&7325
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re; Los Amigos Ranch, Filing 6-10 Wildfire Hazard Review
Mark,
I received this new preliminary plan from your office on January 28th. Because it
appeared to be very similar to the original application that I reviewed, I called your
office to find out what had changed from the previous application. Stella informed me
that there had been some water problems and that the overall development had been
downsized. After our discussion I could see there was no need to change my
comments addressed in the original letter of December 13, 1997. Therefore, I stand
by my recommendations of that first letter dated December 31, 1997. This
application did reference Exhibit E6 as having more information on wildfire issues. This
exhibit was not included in either of my documents. I would like to have if for my files
if that is possible.
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
CC:
*Z/O-
ffiil 0,a tsYd
GfiiFi€t0 COUNry
state services Building
December 31, 1gg7 GLAFF}€LI)
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Los Amigos Ranch, Filing 5A-1 1 Wildfire Hazard Review
Mark,
222 S. 6th Streel Room 416
Grand Junction. Colorado 815O1
Telephone: (97O) 248-7325
I read through the application and visited the sitc r,vith G:'cg 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 filings 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. In
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 standard for the Protection of Life and Property
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 residents. 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 50 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. I recommend 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. I don'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.
? 7 /-
LOS AMIGOS. PAGE 2A 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 wildfire 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 5O feet from the ridge line
(see enclosed NFPA 299 Figure 3-2.4d. Greg had already intended to require this
stipulation before lmentioned anything about the potential problem, because he
understands the potentially dangerous situation.
The existing vegetation on these lots can be grass, sage and pinyonijuniper 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.
7)For a distance of 10 feet 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 30 feet around all structures thin existing trees so that
the edges of tree crowns are no closer than 1O feet at maturity. As the slope
percentage increases the minimum defensible space distance will increase (see
enclosed chart). For example, homes on 1Oo/o slopes should have a minimum
defensible space distance of 35 feet uphill and to the sides, and 37 feet downhill.
Homes on 2Qa/o slopes need a minimum of 4O feet uphill and to the sides, and 47 feet
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 ofyoung and old trees (i.e., unevenaged stand). An unevenaged forest is healthier than
an evenaged forest.
3/ All dead wood within 100 f eet of structures should be removed.
Greg mentioned that non-combustible roofing material would be required. That's agood idea. Feel free to call me with any questions about my comments.
S-incglely,
[t_1\,^/u\- IJJ\-/w-.*
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
Bill Gavette - Carbondale FD
Guy Meyer - Garfield County Sheriff's Office
Greg Boecker
cc:
27--
Water Engineers, lnc.
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Cotorado g 1602
19701 945-77ss rEL
1970) 945-92t0 FAX
{303) 893-r 608 DENVER D|RECT UNE January 9, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
Regulatory Office & Personnel
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Los Amigos Ranch - Preliminary plat Review
Dear Mark:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed thepreliminary plat submittal for Los Amigos Ranch Filings 54 through 11 dated November 26,
1997 prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer. In addition, we reviewed the preliminary plan
Application notebook dated November 20, 1997 . The following presents are coilrments on water
supply, wastewater, drainage, roads, geological hazards, and miscellaneous design details.
SUMMARY
From a technical standpoint, the preliminary plan submittal is generally in conformance with
County regulations and standard of practice for engineering design. However, there are a few
major concerns such as adequacy of the proposed sewage disposal system and several minor
items that should be resolved, addressed, and/or revised as app.opriaie prior to approval or as
part of an approval of the submittal.
WATER STJPPLY
The quantity calculations for in-house water 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. Acrual water usage could be more than what was estimated.
The preliminary plan application report states rhat the water supply will be
chlorinated and a 30-minute contact time will be achieved through 460 feet of a24-
inch line. This 30-minute contact time will be met as long as the rotal flow from the
chlorination building is less than 370 gallons per minute.
DURA TGO 19701 259-74t tDEI.JVER l J0ll,r80. r i00 /7v EOU|DER . t3A3l 473-9500
Mark Bean
Garfield Counry Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 2
o Well No. 6 should be located and shown on the Master Water plan Sheet.
o We recofirmend the water line minimum depth of cover be at least six feet, andpreferably seven feet, rather than the 5.5 feei proposed.
o The minimum operating pressure on the design analysis for the water system is 20psi. This is low for a single-family residenCe and will require boostei pumps forindividual lots.
The water system analysis includes water service for the four rural lots; however,service line connections to these lots, especially to Lots 2, 3, and 4 would eitherrequire a separate easement through the adjacent single-family lots or a very longservice line. We recommend easements be added to adjaient lots that would
accommodate the shortest route for water service lines to serve these four rural lots.
The storage tank sizing appears to be adequate for the proposed population.
o We understand that the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District will bereviewing the drawings and the hydraulic computations for fue flow requirements,
hydrant spacing, cul-de-sac lengths, and the hydrant detail. In some cases, thehydrant spacing appears to be in excess of the proposed 800-foot spacing that is
discussed in the report.
WASTEWATER
o The typical trench section shows the depth of cover to be 5.5 feet. This will
probably be acceptable for sewer lines with steep slopes. The profiles on Sheets S1
through 54, however, show areas where cover is less than 5.5 feet and should be
adjusted to maintain the minimum cover.
o Twenty-one exploratory test pits were excavated to evaluate the subzurface
conditions. In many of the exploratory pits, practical refusal was encountered at less
than six feet due to a hard, dense rock formation. Percolation tests were performed
adjacent to some of the pits and percolation rates were within acceptable ranges.
However, according to County standards, areas with bedrock less than eight leet
deep require a mound or other engineered system. Based on the rezuls and
locations of the test pits, this appears to be the case for the majoriry of the lots. Site
specific analyses will determine the rype of sysrem for each lot.
-?+-
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 3
Easements should be provided for sewer mains that are outside of the road right-of-way. For example, Lots 40,3, and 5 on Drawing 51, Lots 1 and 52 on Drawing
52, and Lot 1 on Drawing 54.
BOCC Resolution No. 96-34 requires central sewer for certain lots and allows ISDSfor the remaining lots subject to the applicant submitting an analysis of
environmental and health impacts for review by the BOCC and the C-olorado
Deparunent of Health. We did not find such an analysis in the submittal.
Resolution No. 96-34 also conditions use of ISDS on a favorable recommendation
from the state regarding the proposed method of sewage disposal.
The existing Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) wastewater treatrnent plant has
a permitted capacity of 52,000 gpd. Data presented in the submittal show that
existing development sewer demands total 51,840 gpd and there is no existing
capaciry to serve the proposed Filings 5A through 11.
The approved Site Application for the proposed expansion of the SVSD treatrnent
faciliry to serve an additional 110,000 gpd expires February 26, lggg. It is our
understanding that plans and specifications for the expansion have not been submitted
to the State and the approval will likely expire.
The Site Application approval dated February 26, 1997 required the svsD, in
accordance with State policy, to develop a service area to include all existing and
future development adjacent to existing sewer service (Item 6). It is our
understanding that this requirement was appealed due to financial hardship. This
provision of the site Application approval was subsequently removed.
The SVSD stated in a letter dated November 25, lgg7 that the District can and will
serve those portions of the Los Amigos submittal proposed for central sewer.
However, until the District obtains a Discharge to Groundwater Permit (i.e.,
demonstrates that the existing facility is operating in compliance with applicable
standards) and obtains approval for the design plans and specifications and a
Discharge to Groundwater Permit for the proposed expansion (and new site
application if existing approval expires), we do nor believe the District can
demonstrate the ability ro serye the proposed project.
DRAINAGE
o The drainage calculations reference 18 drainage elements. However, they iue not
identified or labeled on any of the drawings.
'75-
Mark Bean
Garfield Counry Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 4
The culvert sizings are all based on inlet control which is acceptable. However, amaximum headwater to depth ratio should be held at 1.5. This may affect culvertsize. Drainage Elements No. 15 and 1g both appear to be undersized.
The impervious coverage used for the drainage calculations assumes a building
footprint, including driveways and garages, of 3,500 square-feet. Based on existing
development, we believe this should be closer to 5,000 to 7,000 square-feet.
Subdivision Regulation Section 9:43 sutes that "new developments, where they
create runoff in excess of historic levels, detention ditches and ponds may be
required to retain up to the 100-year stonn. " Existing conditions foi ttris site were
not calculated so there is no analytical comparison as to whether or not there are
downstream impacts from this development. We recommend that this analysis be
conducted to determine if detention is required.
Due to the concentration of flows in areas that may be highly erodible, we
recommend the use of BMPs to minimize the impacts of erosion due to development.
In areas where culverts are proposed under the new roads, we recommend the
following. First, culvert outlets should be protected with riprap. This is especially
important on the steeper culverts. Secondly, we recorlmend that the discharge be
directed into a drainage easement which will carry flows along the property lines or
into existing swales. In areas where there are no existing swales,-the flow should
be re-disbursed so as to minimize the impacts of concentrated flow which could
cause erosion below the property.
The ditch sizing calculations should be revised to reflect the following items. First,
channels with slopes that are steep enough to create critical depth shoutO be sized for
critical depth and not for super-critical depth. Secondly, velocity should be
considered and appropriate channel linings andior energy dissipation included in the
design.
The Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD and the Drainage Element Worksheer in the
calculations do not correlate at all locations. For example, the culverts for basins
6, 8, and 10 are not shown. The plan is missing several culverts that are noted in
the calculations and also includes several culverts that are not noted in the
calculations. These should be corrected to match each other and flows and culvert
sizes verified.
" 26-
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 5
a
ROADS
There are several culverts located at low points in the roadway, but are not located
in the swale centerline of the topography immediately adjacent to the road. These
should be re-evaluated to ensure that flows will reach the culvert. Two examples
include a culvert located at Station 47 +10 on [os Amigos Drive and a culvert
located on West Road at Station 36+90.
The side slopes used to size the roadside ditches are all atZ L However, this does
not match the typical ditches shown on the road cross sections. This should be
resolved.
There is a worksheet for a circular channel flow in the calculations. However, it is
not clear what this pertains to.
The major swales shown on the drawings should be evaluated for depth of flow
relative to the proposed building sites immediately adjacent to it.
Drainage easements should be added where applicable.
The entire subdivision is served by a single road access off of County Road 114.
We recommend adding a second access road.
Road B is shown with a vehicle trips per day of 230 which would put it in the
category of secondary access versus rural access as proposed in the submittal.
The cross-section used for the rural access shows a 2-foot distance between the
shoulder and the center of the flow line of the adjacent ditch. However, counry
regulations require 6-foot minimum ditch width which would make this dimension
3 feet.
o There are several radii that are less than those noted in the county regulatioru.
o There are several stretches of road that exceed 8 percent grades as noted
report. However, we did not see any that were over 10 percent, which
maximum allowed in the Counry Regulations.
o There are at least five cul-de-sacs that exceed the 600-foot lengXh and several dead-
ends. This exceeds the County's standards for cul{e-sacs and dead-end streets.
in the
is the
z' z7-
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 6
There are several intersections off of Los Amigos Road that occur on tight curves.
Sight distances should be addressed.
Access to rural l-ot 4 is not defined on the drawings. Responsibility and design
standards for constnrction of the access to rural Lots I ,2, atd,3 should be clarified
and defined.
A cost estimate analysis for repair of County Road 114 was prepared by Schmueser
Gordon Meyer in April 1996. The estimate appears to be reasonable for the stated
assumptions. This estimate is for a one-time cost and should, ideally, be done after
construction of improvements are complete. However, with the proposed extended
phasing, intermittent repair work could be needed which is not included in the cost
anaiysis.
The submittal states that a left-turn lane was constructed at County Road 114 and
Los Amigos Road. As constructed drawings should be submiued for review.
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
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 that building sites
not be located near these areas. We recommend the faults and the landslide areas
be shown on the site plan, including any recommended setbacks for proposed
buildings.
The landslide areas (two are noted in the Lincoln-DeVore report) are discussed as
being fairly stable. However, there is a possibility that the proposed culverts will
concentrate surface runoff and affect the drainage in these gullies which could, inturn' affect the stability. We suggest that this scenario be reviewed by the
geotechnical engineers. The stability of these areas are of concern, especially where
they leave the project site and could potentially effect neighboring properti;s.
The Lincoln-DeVore report references the palisades topography and recommeuds that
setbacks be required from any of the palisade formations. This information should
be identified and transferred to a site plan with appropriate setbacks shown.
The soils report, done by Hepworth-Pawlak, identifies a Basalt formation which in
many locations is within 6 feet of the ground surface. This may affect the ability to
install a standard ISDS system.
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 7
DETAILS
Revise water/sewer crossing to include crossings with new sewer.
Service line details should show property lines. The water service should include
a marker post.
Recommend bedding under the base of standard manholes.
Hydrant placement note should be revised since there is no curb and gutter on this
project. Also need to label depth of bury (or cover).
Label side slopes and/or width of drainage outlet swale.
L,abel pavement sections (i.e., depths of materials, etc.) of road sections.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
WRTGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
PMB/MJE/dIf
921-M7.U0
Peggy M. Bailey, P.E.
Senior Water Resources
Mi
-7?-
Water Engineers, lnc.
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. 8ox 219
Glenwood Springs. Cotorado 81602
l97ol 945-7755 TEL
19701 945-9210 FM
(3031 893-r608 DENVER DtRECI',UNE
March 4, L998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Plenning Office
Regulatory Office & Personnel
109 Eighth Srreer, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Los Amigos Ranch - Preliminary Plat Review Drainage Submittal
Dear Mark:
At the request of Garfield Counry, Wright V/ater Engineers, Inc. flMWE) has reviewed the
revised preliminary plat submittal for Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 6 through 10 dated February
9, 1998. The revised zubmittal generally differs from the original zubmittal in that it eliminate5
the proposed lots that would have been served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District and
responds to the issues raised in review of the original zubmittal.
SIIVIMARY
In general, the revised submittal addresses the concerns noted in the our January 9, 1998 letter.
There were, however, several items still unresolved that were discussed at a meeting with
County staff on February 13, 1998. A meeting was scheduled with the applicant on February
24, 1998 with Dean Gordon and David Kou of Schmueser Gordon Meyer; Greg Boecker,
owner's representative; Michael Erion and Peggy Bailey; and Mark Bean. At this 6ggting, w€
discussed several unresolved iszues which are noted below.
The plat still shows lots in the Spring Valley Sanitation District, but includes a note
saying that they are "not developable." We discussed if this would be acceptable to
the Counry. It was suggested at the meeting that these lots be merged with the
adjacent lots rather than noting them as being undevelopable. This seemed to be
acceptable to the applicant.
There appears to be some unresolved iszues regarding fire protection jurisdictional
areas. [n particular, the applicant must annex a portion of the site into the Carbondale
Rural and Fire Protection District and, secondly, there is an area that is within the
Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. We understand that it is the applicant's
intent to have the entire site within the Carbondale Rural and Fire Prorcction District
t.
)
AJRA JCO t9701 259-741t'-fu-DENVE,? rl0ll .l8Gr 700 8our-oER - t3031 473-95co
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 2
J.
4.
prior to final plat. At this 6ggting, a letter was zubmitted from the fire deparhent
stating that the road design and hydrant spacing of the project is acceptabi" to th"
Carbondale Rural and Fire Protection District. If Glenwood Springs Fire Protection
District seryes a portion of the project, they should also commint on the project.
The effects of development otr drainage has still not been completely addressed. The
applicant stated in their resubmittal that post-develop flows will increase but, the
amount is negligible. It was our recorlmendation that the applicant address the
impacts of these increased flows on off-site conveyance facilities such as channels and
culverts. A follow up zubminal was made on February 27, lggS addressing drainage
related iszues and is discussed later in this report.
We discussed rural lot 3 in that most of the lot is covered by either landslide area or
fault lines. Our recommendation was to require a building envelope for this lot
because it appears that not much of the lot is available for development. The
applicant, however, feels that it is possible to construct a home on the landslide area
based on work that has been performed by their geotechnical engineers. Mark Bean
zuggested that they include some language about development of this lot requiring a
geotechnical engineer to review and sign off on the location of any proposed
stmctures.
We discussed access and utilities for rural lots I through 3 and made the point that the
access and utility corridor for lots 2 arfi 3 is very long. Dean stated that this is not
a technical issue and should not be of our concern. However, we believe that wells
are a poor choice for these rural lots given the history of wells in this area and given
the number of ISDS system that will be installed in this area. Therefore, it is our
recommendation that the developer help facilitate the shortest connection possible to
the central water system with easements.
We discussed the requirement of BOCC Resolution No. 96-34 requesting an analysis
of environmental and health impacts which has not been submitted. In particular, we
were interested in seeing a mass balance analysis tracing the migration of nitrates and,
in particular, a discussion should be made regarding the impact these ISDS systems
will have on existing wells adjacent to the project. This has been addressed in a
subsequent subminal dated March 3, 1998 and is addressed later in this report.
5.
6.
o 3r
Mark Bean
Garfield County planning Off,rce
March 4, 1998
Page 3
DRAINAGE
Schmueser Gordon Meyer submitted a letter report dated February ZT,lgggaddressing drainageissues related to the development of Los Amigos Ranch. This letter is in response to ogrrecommendation that an analysis be conducted to evaluate the impacts of development on runoffat and below the project site. of particular concern is the dbwnstream drainage facilities,including open channels and culverts, that may be impacted by increased flows from thisdevelopment.
The Schmueser Gordon Meyer letter report proposes the use of on-site detention ponds for
maintaining historic flow rates under developed conditions. The drawing LAD, Drainage MasterPlan, was modified to include six detention ponds located in four orainige [35ins, all wittrin theproperry boundaries of Los Amigos. The letter report commits to performing drainagecalculations and fiml design of the detention facilities ai the final design.
In summary, we believe that the proposed concept of on-site detention ponds as shown on the
revised Drainage Master Plan will meet County criteria and wiil address the particular concernsof impacts to off-site culverts and channels. County Subdivision Rigulations require
computations of expected flows and design of the proposed facilities at pretiminary zubmittal.
The letter report did not include any computations. Ho*er.r, the concept appears reasonable
and can likely be implemented as shown with relatively few modifications at the final submittal.
The responsibiiities for maintenance of the ponds need to be specified.
In reviewing this zubminal, wwE performed a field inspection of the facilities downstream of
the noted design points and the Los Amigos properry. Our f,reld investigation is summarized asfollows:
1. Drainage Basin 2 is the largest basin and appears to contain much of the Los
Amigos properry. Runoff drains off of Los Amigos properry through an open
channel and into a 60-inch CMP under Highway 82. The op"n channel betnreen
the Los Amigos properry and the culvert is approximately 1,500 feet long. It is a
poorly defined channel with a scattering of large boulders characteristic of a debrisflow fan. There are several homes on this debris fan. The 60-inch culvert
includes a headwall and is clean with no sediment or trash in the pipe. WWE
believes that the most serious concern about drainage Basin 2 is
-the
potential
impacts on this debris flow fan. Schmueser Gordon Meyer is proposing two
detention ponds in this basin ro maintain historic flow rates under developed
conditions. These ponds are located above the steep canyon area and on the flaner
portions of the project site.
?1k
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Off,rce
March 4, 1998
Page 4
Drainage Basin 3 drains to a 24-inch culvert that crosses under County Road 114.This culvert is in very poor condition with the end sections having been severelydamaged. In addition, this culvert discharges down below County Road 114 to anarea that is currently under construction and shows no sign of an existing or trewdminage ditch to convey flows away from this 24-inch culvert. This culveft hasno direct impact to the Los Amigos development. However, it is important thatexisting flows be maintained under developed conditions due to the downsrre2m
conditions.
Drainage Basin 4 is tributary to an lS-inch diameter CMP also draining under
Counry Road 114. We were unable to locate the inlet to this pipe, but tie outletis visible from the road. Flows exit the culvert and drop ri timt 5 to 10 feetbefore hitting the ground and flow tfuough a man-made ditch which traverses
through a hayfield. It is unlikely that development or increased flows from the
development will have any negative impact 6l dlninage in this area. However, dueto the potential erosion from the "drop" outlet at the lg-inch culvert, we
recommend they implement rhe design of the detendon pond as shown.
Basin 1 drains through a24-nchCMP under the frontage road parallel to Highway82. This culvert also drains a poorly defined ctrannet with evidence of debrisflows. We recommend that they proceed with design of the detention pond as
shown.
We recommend that Los Amigos proceed with the final design of their proposed detentionfacilities as shown on the revised Drainage Master Plan. Tne Oralnag" i{r.,., plan showsseveral ponds in the upper reaches of the drainage basins. The final design should include acheck to see that there is sufficient drainage area flowing to these pondi to create enoughdetention volume that is needed for maintaining historic flow rates. There are also severaldetention basins shown within private lots. Therefore, final design should include the
appropriate easements for deenrion, access, and maintenance.
ISDS IIEALTH AI.ID ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS
We received a lener repon to Greg Boecker from Resource Engineering dated March 3, l99g
rysardin8 ISDS impaca. This report is in response to the requiremenr in tt" BOCC ResolutionNo. 96-34 Condirion of Approval No. 5(A).
2.
3.
4.
- 33-
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 5
The Resource Fngineering report indicates that there is no impact to the Spring Valley aquifer
and it is highly unlikely that the Los Amigos ISDS systems will contaminate the groundwater
and wells in the Roaring Fork Valley. This analysis is based on available data and reasonable
engineering assr:mptions. However, if actual conditions vary significantly from the assumptions,
the potential impacts may be more or tgss rhan identified ir, tn. anaiy5i5. In addition, thecumulative imFact of groundwater with a nitrate level of 4 mgll diluted in the Roaring Forkvalley groundwater may be siguificaut if the existing nitrate concentrations are high. Theiefore,
we recommend that the applicant develop a baseline and long-tenn water quality monitoring planprior to final plat. The plan should include a threshold limit or trigger it which mitigatlon ofpotential impacts would be reErired.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this in detail, please feel free to call.
Very tnrly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
PMB/MJE/dIf
v21447.040
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Michael
- 3+-