HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Staff Report BOCC 04.13.98"X/-
"il
+,
jB,'
REQUEST:
BOCC
PROJECT INT'ORMATION AI\[D STAFF COMMENTS
4n3t98
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
APPLICANT:
ENGIITIEERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
ZOMNG:
I.RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREHENSIVE 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 1981
and 1996.
DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSAL
l
II.
-f-
A.Site Description: The properfy 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 pinion/jturiper 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.
Project Description: The proposed subdivision includes five (5) separate filings of
the approved Los Amigos PLID. Filings 6-10 consist of 168 single family lotspn-q
total of 1703.058 ac. of land, of which975.927 ac. is open Space. There u..@gr\
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 remainng4.6 ac. of land is identified on the PIID 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 114. 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.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division noted that the proposed water supply
appears to be adequate, and uUury to decreed water rights will not occur, as long as
the water company operates pursuant to the decreed water rights and plan for
augrnentatioq which are leased from the Los Amigos Ranch Partnership. (See letterpi'.lst t4 )
B.
III.
-) t-6
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: The department has not
responded within the2l 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 requirements for a school site, as
opposed to paying cash in lieu of land. (See letter pg. 15 )
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. . They recommend predefined building
envelopes for certain lots. (See letter pgs/L-/ 8)
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./?+J0)
Bureau of Land Management: The BLM expressed some concerns 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 development, that need to be considered in any
future subdivision action. (See letter pgs. Jl ;
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 wildfue. A number
of recommendations were made in a prior letter regarding the site improvements,
ridge line setbacks and construction materials for structures. Included with the letter
were the NFPA 299 standards for the Protection of the Life and Propertv from
Wildfire. A subsequent letter stated that the previous comments are still valid. (See
letters and attachments pgs. JaC Y I
Wright Water Engineers.lnc.: 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
needed to be resolved before the County approved the previous Preliminary Plan
proposal for Filings 5A-1 1.. A number of issues were identified related to the water
supply system, wastewater, drainage, roads, geologic hazards and some details in the
8.
-3'
plans that need to be clarified or corrected. (See letter pgs. J5- f / ) WWE has
reviewed the new application for Filings 6-10 and noted 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 were incorporated into the other staff
comments included in this staff report. (See letter pgs. ,r?'3L ) Since the
Planning Commission meeting, WWE and the applicant's engineers have had a
number of discussions and produced some additional documentation to deal with the
drainage and ISDS impact issues. Enclosed is a lettgr summarizing the WWE
response to the applicant's proposals. (See pgs. -*_3_81
ry. MAJOR ISSIIES AI\{D CONCERNS
A. Zontng: The Los Amigos PUD 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 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 "presently 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 PLID Plan. The non-developable
neighborhood commercial needs to be platted 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 final
plat for the further subdivision of the lot is approved by the Board of County
Commissioners."
Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
identifies the Los Amigos PUD as an existing subdivision. and the PI-ID 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 identifu 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 foundation
recommendations." Consistent with this recorlmendation, the Board of County
Commissioners required that the following plat note be placed on all subsequent
plats, as a part of the PUD amendment approved:
B.
C.
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
recorlmendations, 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 arrd 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 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, It has been proposed to deannex
the portion of the in the Glenwood district and annex it to the Carbondale district.
E.
-5-
G.
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
distribution facilities and water.ights 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
source of domestic water. They expressed concem 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 help 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 4.92 requies 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 curently lie within the Spring Valley Sanitation District,
all lots depicted upon the PIID Plan as "High Densit;r" single family lots, and
all lots depicted upon the PLID Plan as "Multi-Family" units shall be serviced
by central sewer provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Qv-eq_tb_e,
economic inefficiencigs and impracticalities associated with exlen_ding and
mafitairiing cintrai iewEr seivicelo the remaining weiterly single A-ity tots
i-r the PIID, Applicant shall be allowed to service said remaining lo.tq wlth
individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS), subject to the following
' (A) Applicant shall provide to the Board all information needed 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(1)(g).
-b'
F.
F.
The first analysis provided for the review of the environmental and health impacts
presented in the application did not provide any calculable basis for determining
potential downstream water quality impact. After discussions with the applicant and
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 actual conditions may vary
significantly from the assumptions and it would be prudent to require the applicant
to implement a long term water quality monitoring program. Qtatr*a the Planning
Commission concurred that a monitoring program would be appropriate, particularly
gi".; the recent presentations about thg pqtential contamination of the Roaring Fork
Ri,_u.__t by ammonia, due to non-point sources, such as individual sewage disposal
sYslenis) p-e applicant proposed to submit further information at the Planning
Commidsion meeting that would either support the need for an improved design of
the ISD systems proposed for the development or..a proposed mitigation plan for
potential contamination of the down gradient wells.r The applicant submitted the
enclosed report to the County, which WWE used as''a basis for the previously noted
letter. WWE agreed with the assumptions and calculations in the report and will be
recommending some additional comments regarding the design standards and
maintenance plan at the hearing.
Road Impacts: The applicant was required to make certain improvements to the
intersection of the subdivision's main entrance and County Road 114 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 PIID approval. The
subsequent analysis done by the Coturty used a different basis for establishing and
cannot be used to establish a road impact fee for this PUD. The PIID approval
established a S200/lot road impact fee for this development.
Drainage: WWE noted that the application had noted some minor increase the
amount of surface nurofffrom 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 runoff in certain drainages. llhere is no calculation of
the amount of detention area is required, based upon calculations. The subdivision
regulations require the calculation of the runoffand inclusion of the calculations in
the application. WWE had noted that the proposed locations appear to be correct,
but there is a need for the calculations prior to the submittal of a final plat.
Additional calculations were submitted by the applicant and found to be acceptable
by WWE.
G.
-1-
G. PUD Requfuements : 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 burning 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
(i) 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 of the 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 P[ID, 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
H.
proposed phasing plan states that the "completion of development per subdivision
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 neerds 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 of the Garfield Count
Subdivision Regulations.
As noted previously the further 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.
III. RECOMMENDEDFINDINGS:
C.
That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; and
That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that hearing; and
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 Courty 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.
A.
B.
D.
E.
-?-
ry. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Los Amigos Ranch ,
Filings 6-10, subject to the following conditions:
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.
2. The Homeowner's Association shall be included as a part of the Los Amigos HOA
and incoqporated 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.
3. The applicant shall pay $200 per lot in Road Impact Fees prior to the approval of the
Final Plat.
the app and Rural Fire
Protection District
letter stating that the District ,the deannexation of the property in their
district, subject to it being annexed into the and Rtual Fire Protection
District.
All recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service regarding wildfre
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 PtrD. 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 a minor modification of the PLID Plan be approved
by the Board of County Commissioners as a part of the approval of the Preliminary
Plan.
4.
5.
6.
the approval of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of
documentation from
"rg.,Se
interior road design and fire protection plan or a
7.That RR Lots 1-3 shall include easements for water and access purposes that are the
shortest connection possible consistent with sound environmental conditions and
constraints, 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.
Commissioners, the applicqnl shall develop a mdwater quality monitoring plan,
or in the altemative, develop a new
lon
and recommended for approval
The applicant is required to include the following plat notes on any final plat:
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 tee 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 burning fireplaces are not allowed.
Each dwelling unit is allowed one dog.
- ll-
C
water
by th
l.
2.
3-
4.
5.
6.
That prior to the approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County
8.
11.
12.
13.
That a new phasing plan, consistent with Section 4:34 of the Garfreld County
Subdivision Regulations, be submitted and accepted by the Board of county
Commissioners prior to preliminary plan approval
That the applicant comply with all of the recommendations of the Division of
Wildlife noted in a letter dated 3llll98.
At the time of each Final Plat, a properly formatted computer disks will be provided
to the County that will transfer the plat information to the County Assessor's CAD
system and the County Geographic Information System
1Dolt 0,t.1 L tDgrua
ln-*^"o 4'g@''
l1 .
12.
-fl-
STATE OF COLOTUDO
OITICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 918
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 865-3589
February 18, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE:Los.Amigos Ranch PUD, Filings 6,7,8, 9 &10
Sections 5 & 6, T7S, R88W,6th P.M.'
Sections 31 & 32, T65, R88W, 6th P.M.
Sections 35 & 36, T65, 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 on 727 .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 11 have been
included in Filing 6 as open space and presently nondevelopable 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, dated 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 augmentatjon, which was
approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 87CW155.
The PUD is cunently supplied by fwo wells, known as the Rancho Los Amigos Well f.fo. 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 industnal uses. The water nghts 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 40-year renewal option.
Roy Romer
Govemor
lames S. Lochhead
Executive Oirector
Hal D. Simpson
State Enginee,
' /!t'
Mr. Mark Bean
February 18,1998
A report dated November 17,1997, prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc., indicated
thatWell No.5 had been test pumped at 110 gallons perminute, and Well No.6 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 gallons per minute. \
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), 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 ftom he 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,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCMULoS Amigos Ranch Flag 6-1O.doc
Odyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
-/q-
)ir
Fcbrusry 23, 1998
Mark Bcan
Garficld County Planuing Department
109 8th Strect, Suite 303 .
Glcnwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Lou Amigoa Rrnch - Filings 6 through l0
f)ear Mark:
Los Amigos Ranch has included a l3 acrc school site in its plan. This mccts thc District's
rcquircmcnls for land dcdication for a subdivision of this size. Thank you for thc opportunity to
provide cornrnents on this preliminary plan. Pleaso tlon't hcsitatc to call if you lrave any
questions.
*wWq
Financc Dircctor
. ..5-
.'r,i ..,:i.jr. rnil.t tm.f.L Sf*roaarnr-:.rrorl|AFroxsrAlt'irEm Oj*rrrmnr'' i... Sl{ANltOx:rEu^O)algpaafrcrpr
-' /5-
..vtutlalY I v.... ,v..vYs y ay a
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATI]RAL RESOURCES
DIYISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTI,JNITY EMPLOYER
Iohn Mumma, Dircctor
6O6O Broadwav
Dcuvcr. Colorado E0216
Tclephone: (3O3) 297 -l 192
50633Highway6&24
Glcowood Springs, CO El6Ol
30.3-945-7228
e'
tl
UJ
iltlr 0 5 lg?t
OAff€LU rlL,..;J:
ForWfunfe-
Far Peopb
January 5, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Comments on Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 5A-tl
Deu Mark,
While Los Amigos Ranch has gone a long way in Erymg to avoid severe deer and elk winter ranges in
rheir developmed, the Division of Wildlife would like o make some recommendations o ury and improve the
abiliry of homeowners to enjoy wildlife on their property, help avoid human/wildlife conflica and help
migration of wildlife onto severe winter leng€S reserved by L-os Amigos Ranch.
First, the wildlife statemefl iDcluded 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 [.os
Amigos Rarrch or the developer to provide a small brochue or leaflet advising what wildlife species may be
encountered and how to avoid potential wildlife relatd problems. Many owners moving ino the area IDay
not be aware of the possibility of coyotes kiling pets, bears searching out food inside vehicles and building,
mor:main lion sightings in areas where their children may be playrng and damage o ornamentals by deer and
elk. An informed owner has the ability o avoid or reduce these problems.
Secondly, wille ttris rarch is corsidered as less than ided bear habitat and density of bears is considered
low, bear proof garbage conrainers should be required. Carelessly handled 6rsh atrracts wildlife probleur.
Those species of wildlife generally considered least desirable when near horsing (bears, skilnlcs, coyots ard
racoons) are artraoed ro trash. Popularion densities of these species usually increasc when humans do a poor
job of uash management.
Third, the Los Amigo Rarrh Plan sarcs that any ferrces built will be less trar 42 irrches tall and wil Dot
define a properry boundary but only used o fence a building envelope. To facilitarc the flow of all wildlife
ttrough tris properry, we recommerd that several lots have buil.ling erwelopes defurcd before approval. Thesc
building envelopes should avoid crossing draws deer urd elk may usc to reach scvere winter pngc. We
recommend that los on opposia sides of a draw tuve building envelopes that leave as much of the draw open
as possible. Predefined building envelops are recornmended for the fotlowing loa:
- /6-
DEPARTMET{T OF NATIJR L RESOURCES. Jenrcr Lochhcrd. Excantivc Dircoor
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Srlezar, Chrirmu o Rcbccce Pnnt. Vicc Chrinnrn o Mrrt LrVrllcy, Sccrarry
Rcv. Icssc t-. tloyrl. Jr.. Mcmbcr. Jrmo R. L,ong, Mcmbcr r Chrrlcr D. I-errrir. Mcmbcr r John Sollp, Mcnrbcr. Louir Swii. Mcdllcf
January 5, 1998
Page2
Filing 6 - I-ots 5, 6, 7, 9, 33 and,37.
Filttrg 7 - Lots 34,36,38, 40, 42,43, M,47 and 48.
Fihng 8 - I-ots 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17.
Filtng 9 - I.ots 2,4,6,42,44 and 46.
Thank you for the opporumity to comment.
Sincerely,*rys( 4,**
Larry L.breen
District Wildlife Manager
-n-
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORT1NITY EMPLOYER
John Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297 -1192
50633Highway6&24
Glenwood Springs, CO E1601
303-945-'1228
For Wildltfe-
For People
March 11, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield Counry Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Comments on Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 5A-11
Dear Mark,
Since my letter dated January 5, 1998, I have had a chance to discuss my recommendations with Greg
Boecker. After reviewing a beuer map of the area, I have altered some of my recommendations. This leuer
is a follow-up attempt to clariff some misundersumdings.
Greg Boecker was concerned about what was meant by bear proof garbage containers. Certain
companies build garbage containers with heavy duty lids and openings that Iook like a mailbox letter drop,
however, other designs of containers that preclude bear entry are acceptable. Garages or small sheds with
doors and windows closed are usually bear proof. If any trash is to be stored outside of an enclosed building,
other than on the same day it is set out on the curb for pickup, bear proof containers should be required.
I recommended that several lots have predefined building envelopes 0o preclude fencing of areas near
draws that deer and elk would use to move to critical winter range. After reviewing a beuer map, I have
dropped several of these lots from this list. However, there is still some confusion. Los Amigos covenants
allow fences of less ttran forty-two inches to fence a building envelope but not a property boundary. p61 this
reason, if no building envelope is required, a landowner may construe his building envelope to include all but
a few feet from the property boundary. Due to the wording of Los Amigos covenants, I would still like tro
recommend predefined building envelopes on the following lots:
Filing6-Loa6and7.
Filing 7 - Lots 34, 36, 38, 40,42,43,47 and 48.
Filing 8 - Lots 9, 10 and 11.
Filing 9 - Lots 2, 4 and 6.
Thank you for the oppornrnity to comment.
Singqrely, ^ ,L4
\X6t4l1 Cll**ts-1-'
Larry L. @reen
District lVitotire Manager -lt'
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James l.ochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman o Rebecca Frank, Vice Chairman o Mark [,eValley, Secretary
Bemard L. Black, Member . James R. Long, Member o Charles D. kwis, Member . louis Swift, Member
l,tAR t a 1e9&,
Garbondale & Rural Fire Protection Distrlct
-
February 18, 1998
G^I+i€LO CO(SITY
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Ptan, Filing 6 Through Filing l0
Mark:
I have reviewed the prelimrnary plan application for Los Amigos Ranch. There is very little change
in the plan from the prorious submittal from a fire protection standpornt. I would offer the following
comments.
Annexation
I met wrth Crreg Boecker to discuss annexation into the fire district. We have recommended that the
developer petition the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District (GSRFPD) for exclusion of
their area that s currently within the development. The area excluded by the GSRFPD along with
the areas outside either distna could then be rncluded into the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District. Ths should take place before the recording of final plats.
Water Svstem
I have met with Crreg 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.
BillGavette
Fire lvfarshal
cc: Creg Boecker
300 Meadoruaod Drivc
-l?-
ffiBe0p98
| ('-
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection Distrlet
-
300 illeariotrood Dlnru
Carbondale, CO &6An
(970) 9632.191
Fax (970) 963{5e
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 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 fiting 7
currently fall outside the boundaries the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and are not
withrn any fire protection district. I have discussed this with Greg Boecker and have recommended
that these areas be anno(ed into the fire district prior through the petition process prior to final plat.
Fiiing 8 with the exception of lots 2,3 and 4 and all of filing 9 appear to be within the boundaries of
the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection Distnct. Two likely scenarios exist for providing sewice to
these areas. One would be for the Carbondale & Rural Fire District to provide service through an
agreement with the Glenwood Springs Fire kotection District. The other would require the transfer
of legal jurisdiaion between the two distrias ttrough an exchsion/inchsion process. Representatives
of the turo districts are scheduled to meet and discuss ths ssue.
Access The road layout is essentially unchange from the sketch plan. Access throughout the
subdivision appears to be adequate.
Water Supplies The proposed water systern generally appean to be adequate for the development.
I would recommend that the fire hydrant spacing be reduced to 500 feet in accordance with
APPEI{DIX III-B of the Uniform Fre Code.
Imoact Fees The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the Distnct. Fees are subject
to penodic rwiewby the distria. Fees are based upon the per lot rmpact 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.
BruM
Biil Gaverte
Fire Vlarshal
cc: Greg Boecker -;la-
a
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Clenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 Highway 6 and 24
P.O. Box l0O9
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
January 5, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County 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 5A-11 project, I
offer the following s[atements 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
appears that these filings do not abut public lands, we would still anticipate that a development of this magnitude
will create detrimental impacts. Of specihc concern to the BLM is the potential for increases in OIfV 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 pubiic lands in the area resulting in a decline in
habitat condition until the big game populauons 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 projecs such as this one, that the developers/contractors be requircd
to provide locations on-site for temporary camping facilitres 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,
saniedon and enfcrcement prcblems in public campgrounds and on dispersed camping areas on other public
lands.
Thank you for the opportuniry to comment. If there are any questions, pleasc contact Leonard Coleman of this
office at 947-2814.
Sincerely,
IN REPLY REFER TO
7rud-l 7//"/4
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
Attachements
-21 -
t\'LL*-Lu,tf,**l
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
cc:Bill Gavette - Carbondale FPD
Guy Meyer - Garfield County Sheriff's Office
Greg Boecker
t -
State Servlces Building
Eilm*.ocoLhrrYc-"'f i"*":*:ffiffi r,,,i
* Telephone (970) 24*7325
SER\[CE
January 29, 1 998
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 28tn. 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,
13tN 5 t 1998
Sf 0,atg,Eg
qA#iELD cou'JTY state services Building
December 31, 1997 qiuTiELt)
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Los Amigos Ranch, Filing 5A-11 Wildfire Hazard Review
222 S.6th Street Room 416
Grand Junction. Colorado 81501
Telephone: (97O) 24&7325
Mark,
! read through the application and visited the sitc w'ith Grcg 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. I was 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 standard for the Protection of Life and Property
from Wildfire. The 299 standard calls tor 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 agpear 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 Bural 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.
? 73-
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 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 3-2.4b). 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 tow 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 1O 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 10 feet at maturity. As the slope
percentage increases the minimum defensible space distance will increase (see
enclosed chart). For example, homes on 1Oolo 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 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 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.
Sincglely,
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
Bill Gavette - Carbondale FD
Guy Meyer - Garfield CountY Sheriff's Office
Greg Boecker
CC:
2.'{ -
Water Engineers, lnc.
SlSColoradoAve.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602
19701e45-7755 reL
1970l, 945-92t0 FPX
{3031 893-t 608 DENVER DIRECT 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 - plgliminary Plat Review
Dear Mark:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the
preliminary plat submittal for Los Amigos Ranch Filings 5A through 11 dated November 26,
i997 prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer. In addition, we reviewed the Preliminary Plan
Application notebook dated November 20,1997. The following presents are comments on water
supply, wastewater, drainage, roads, geological hazards, and miscellaneous design details.
SUMMARY
From a technical standpoint, the preliminary plan zubmittal is generally in conforrrance with
Counry 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 appropriate prior to approval or as
part of an approval of the subminal.
WATER STIPPLY
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 that the water supply will be
chlorinated and a 30-minute contact time will be achieved through 460 feet of aZS
inch line. This 30-minure contact time will be met as long as the total flow from the
chlorination building is less than 370 gallons per minute.
DEtJvER Ii0ll,r80-r ;00 aJRA JGO t9701 259'7qt t/?r 8O{JrrER - 1303l. 471'9500
rri ..
.r'
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 2
r Well No. 6 should be located and shown on the Master Water Plan Sheet.
We recommend the water line minimum depth of cover be at least six feet, and
preferably seven feet, rather than the 5.5 feet proposed.
The minimum operating pressure on the design analysis for the water system is 20
psi. This is low for a single-family residence and will require booster pumps for
individual 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 either
require a separate easement through the adjacent single-family lots or a very long
service line. We recommend easements be added to adjacent lsts that would
accommodate the shonest route for water service lines to serve these four rural lots.
o The storage tank sizing appears to be adequate for the proposed population.
o We undersund that the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District will be
reviewing the drawings and the hydraulic computations for flue flow requirements,
hydrant spacing, cul-de-sac lengths, and the hydrant detail. In some cases, the
hydrant 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 51
through 54, however, show areas where cover is less than 5.5 feet and should be
adjusted to maintain the minimum cover.
o Twenry-one exploratory test pits were excavated to evaluate the zubzurface
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 qrithin acceptable ranges.
However, according to County standards, areas with bedrock less than eight feet
deep require a mound or other engineered system. Based on the rezults and
locations of the test pirs, rhis appears to be the case for the majoriry of the lots. Site
specific analyses will determine the rype of system for each lot.
-7b-
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Offrce
January 9, 1998
Page 3
Easements should be provided for sewel 62ins 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 ISDS
for the remaining lots subject to the applicant submitting an analysis of
environrnental and health impacts for review by the BOCC and the Colorado
Deparment 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 th9 proposed method of sewage disposal.
The existing Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) wastewater treatment 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 existrng
capaciry to serye the proposed Filings 5A through 11.
The approved Site Application for the proposed expansion of the SVSD treament
faciliry to serve an additional 110,000 gpd expires February 26, L998. 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 25,1997 that the District can and will
serye those portions of the Los Amigos zubminal proposed for central sewer.
However, until the District obtains a Discharge to Groundwater Permit (i.e.,
demonstrates that the existing faciliry 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 not believe the District can
demonstrate the abiliry to serve the proposed project.
DRAINAGE
o The drainage calculations reference 18 drainage elements. However, they are oot
identified or labeled on any of the drawings.
t/l ,-
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
Ianuary 9, 1998
Page 4
The culvert sizings are all based on inlet control which is acceptable. However, a
maximum headwater to depth ratio should be held at 1.5. This may affect culvert
size. Drainage Elements No. 15 and 18 both appear to be undersized.
The impervious coverage used for the drainage calcuiations 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 states 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 stoun. " Existing conditions for this 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 1tri5 enelysis 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 recolrmend the
following. First, culvert outlets should be protected with riprap. This is especially
important on the steeper culverts. Secondly, we recorrmend 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 properry.
The ditch sizing calculations should be revised to reflect the following items. First,
channels with slopes that are steep enough to create critical depth should be sized for
critical depth and not for zuper-critical depth. Secondly, velociry should be
considered and appropriate channel linings and"/or energy dissipation included in the
design.
The Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD and the Drainage Element Worksheet in the
calculatiors 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.
- zg-
rt
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 5
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 Los Amigos Drive and a culvert
located on West Road at Station 36+90.
The side slopes used to size the roadside ditches are all at?: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 ciicular 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 benreen the
shoulder and the center of the flow line of the adjacent ditch. However, county
regulations require 6-foot minimum ditch width which would make this dimension
3 feet.
There are several radii that are less than those noted in the county regulations.
There are several stretches of road that exceed 8 percent grades as noted in the
report. However, we did not see any that were over 10 percent, which is the
maximum allowed in the Counry Regulations.
There are ar least five cul-de-sacs that exceed the 600-foot lengh and several dead-
ends. This exceeds the Counry's standards for culde-sacs and dead<rd streets.
'2 zT
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
January 9, 1998
Page 6
There are several intersections off of Los Amigos Road thet occur on tight curves.
Sight distances should be addressed.
Access to rural Lot 4 is not defined on the drawings. Responsibility and design
standards forconstructionof the access to rural Lots 1,2, and 3 shouldbe clarified
and defined.
A cost estimate analysis for repair of County Road 114 was prepared by Schmueser
Gordon Meyer in April L996. 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, interminent repair work could be needed which is not included in the cost
anaiysis.
The submittal states that a left-turn lane was constnrcted at County Road 114 and
Los Amigos Road. As constnrcted drawings should be submined 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 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.
o 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 ttrese gullies which could, in
turn, affect the stability. We suggest that this scenario be reviewed by the
geotechnical engineers. The stability of these areas are of concern, especially wherc
they leave the project site and could potentially effect neighboring properties.
e The Lincoln-DeVore report references the palisades topography and recommends that
serbacks be required from any of the palisade formations. This information should
be idenrified and transferred to a site plan with appropriate setbacks shown.
o The soils report, done by Hepworth-Pawlak, identifies a Basait formation which in
many locations is within 6 feet of the ground surface. This may affect the abiliry to
insull a standard ISDS system.
-30 -
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Offrce
January 9, 1998
Page 7
DETAILS
Revise water/sewer crossing to include gles5ings 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.
Hydraut 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.
I-abel pavement sections (i.e., depths of materials, etc.) of road sections.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very tnrly yours,
WRIGIIT WATER ENGII\EERS, INC.
PMB/MIE/dIf
y2L-M7.W
. -boJ ^rr. sq.rvJ , r
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Mi
-31
. IEEE
Wright Water Engineers, tnc.
818 ColoradoAve
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Spnngs. Cotorado 8 t602
(9701 945-7755 TEL
(9701 945-921O FM
[303] 893-r 608 DENVER DTREo, UNE
March 4, L998
Mark Bean
Garfield Couury Planning Offlrce
Regulatory OfFrce & Personnel
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Los Amigos Ranch - plgliminary plat Review Drainage submittal
Dear Mark:
At the request of Garfield Counry, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the
revised preliminery plat submittai for Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 6 through 10 dated February
9, 1998. The revised zubminal generally dffiers from the originat zubmittal in that it eliminates
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 zubminal.
fl-TMMARY
In general, the revised zubmittal addresses the concerns noted in the our January 9, 199g letter.
There were, however, several items still unresolved that were discussed at a 6ssring with
Counry staff on February 13, 1998. A meeting was scheduled with the applicant on Fe6nrary24, 1998 with Dean Gordon and David Kotz of Schmueser Gordon Miier; Greg Boeckei,
owner's representative; Michael Erion and Peggy Bailey; and Mark Bean. At this 6ssring, we
discussed several unresolved iszues which are noted below.
1. The plat still shows lots in the Spring Valley Sanitation District, but includes a notc
saying that they are 'not developable. " We discussed if this would, be acceptable to
the County. It was zuggesrcd at the meeting that these lots be merged with the
adjacent lots rather thau noting them as being undevelopable. This seemed to bc
acceptable to the applicant.
?- There appears to be some unresolved iszues regarding Fue protection jurisdictional
areas. ln particular, the applicant must annex a portion of the site into the Carbondale
Rural and Fire Protection District and, secondly, therc is an area that is wirhin the
Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. We understad rhar it is the applicant's
intent to have the entire site within the Carbondale Rural and Fire Protection District
DURATGO 19701 259-74t tDENVES /303t .r8Gt 700
-3?-
EourDER - t3031 173,5no
Mark Bean
Garfield County Plenning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 2
J.
4.
prior to final plat. At this meering, a letter was zubmitted from the fue deparment
stating that the road design and hydrant spacing of the project is acceptable to the
Carbondale Rurai and Fire Protection District. If Glenwood Springs Fire Protection
District serves a portion of the project, they should also comment on the project.
The effects of developmetrt on dpinage has still not been completely addressed. The
applicant stated in their resubmittal that postdevelop flows will increase but, the
amount is negligible. It was our recommendatiou that the applicant address the
impacts of these increased flows on off-site cooveyance facilities zuch as channels and
culverts. A follow up zubminal was mede on February 27, 1998 addressing drainage
related iszues aud 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 developmeil. The
applicant, however, feels that it is possible to constmct a home on the landslide area
based on work that has been performed by their geotechnisal engineers. Mark Bean
suggested 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
strlrctures.
We discussed access and utilities for rural lots I through 3 and made the point that the
access and utiliry corridor for lots 2 and 3 is very long. Dean stated that this is not
a technical issue and should not be of our concem. However, we believe that wells
are a poor choice for ttrese 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 4a analySis
of environmental and heaith impacts which hes se1 been submined. [n particular, we
were inrerested in seeing a mass balance analysis racing the migration of nitrates and,
in panicular, a discussion should be made regarding the impact these ISDS systeuui
will have on exisring wells adjacent to the project. This has [ggn addressed in a
subsequent zubminal dated March 3, 1998 and is addressed larer in this report.
5.
6.
o3y
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 3
DRAINAGE
Schmueser Gordon Meyer submitted a lener report dated February 27, L998 addressing drainage
issues related to the development of Los Amigos Ranch. This letter is in response to our
recommendation that xa aneiy5i5 be conducted to evaluate the impacu of development oo runoff
at and below the project site. Of particular concern is the downstreem 6lainage facilities,
including open channels and culverts, that may be impacted by increased flows from this
development.
The Schmueser Gordon Meyer lefter report proposes the use of on-site detention ponds for
maintaining historic flow rates under developed conditions. The drawing LA,D, Drainage Master
PIan, was modified to include six detention ponds located in four drainage [x5ins, all wirhin the
properfy boundaries of Los Amigos. The letter report commits to performing drainage
calculations and fiaal design of the detention facilities ar rhe fiml desigl.
ln summary, we believe that the proposed concept of on-site derention ponds as shown on the
revised Drainage Master Plan will meet County criteria and will address the particular concernsof impacts to off-site culverts and channels. Counry Subdivision Regulations require
computations of expected flows and design of the proposed facilities at preliminary zubminal.
The letter report did not include any computations. However, the concept appears reasonable
and can likely be implemented as shown with relatively few modificarioDs at rhe finat submirtal.
The responsibilities 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 field investigation is summarized as
follows:
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 atr open
channel and into a 60-inch CMP under Highway 82. The open channel between
the Los Amigos properry and the culvert is approximarely 1,500 feet long. It is a
poorly defined channel with a scattering of large boulders characteristic of a debris
flow 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 locared above the steep canyon area and on the flatrcr
portions of the project site.
12 1f
Mark Bean
Garfield County Ptanning Off,ice
March 4, 1998
Page 4
Drainage Basin 3 drains to a 24-inch culvert that crosses under Counry Road 114.
This culvert is in very poor condition with the end sections having been severely
damaged. In addition, this culvert discharges down below Counry Road 114 to an
area that is currently under constnrction and shows no sign of an sxi5ting or new
drainage ditch to cotrvey flows away from this 24-inch culvert. This culvert has
no direct impact to the Los Amigos development. However, it is important that
existing flows be maintained under developed condirions due to the downstream
conditions.
Drainage Basin 4 is tributary to an 18-inch diameter CMP also draining under
Counry Road 114. We were rrnable to locate the inlet to this pipe, but the outlet
is visible from the road. Flows exit the culvert and drop at least 5 to 10 feet
before hining the ground and flow through 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 on drainage in this area. However, dueto the potential erosion from the "drop" outlet at the l8-inch culveft, we
recommend they implemenr the design of rhe detention pond as shown.
Basin 1 drains through a 24-iuch CMP under the frontage road parallel to Highway
82. This culvert also drains a poorly defined channel with evidence of debris
flows. We recommend that they proceed with design of the derention pond as
shown.
Vle recommend that Los Amigos proceed with the frnal design of their proposed detention
facilities as shown on the revised Drainage Master Plan. The Drainage Master Plan shows
several ponds in the upper reaches of the drainage basins. The final design should include a
check to see that there is suff,rcient drainage area flowing to rhese ponds to create enough
detention volume thar is needed for maintaining Nstoric flow rates. There are also several
dercntion basins shown within private lots. Therefore, final design should include the
appropriate easements for detention, access, and maintenance.
ISDS MALTH fu\D ENYTRONMENT AT.{ALYSIS
V/e received a lener repon to Greg Boecker from Resource Engineering dared March 3, 1998
rcgarding ISDS impacts. This report is in rcsponse to the requirement in the BOCC Resolution
No. 96-34 Condition of Approval No. 5(A).
2.
3.
4.
Mark Beau
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 5
The Resource Engineering report indicates that there is no impact to the Spring Valley aErifer
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 asnrmptions. However, if acural conditions vary significantly from the assumptions,
the potential impacts may be more or lsss then identified in the enalysis. In addition, the
cumulative impact of groundwater with a nitrate level of 4 mgll diluted in the Roaring Fork
valley groundwater rny be significant if the existing nirate concentrations are high. Therefore,
we recommend that the applicant develop a baseline and long-teun water quatity monitoring plan
prior to final plat. The plan should include a threshold limit or trigger at which mitigation of
potential impacts would be rcquircd.
If you bave any Erestions or wish to discuss this in detail, please feel free to call.
Very tnrly yours,
WRIGIIT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
PMB/MIEidIf
92t{47.W
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Michael
-36'
-'09' 9,S (THU) l3 : 2l l{R IGHT 1YATER GLN1Y00D TEL:9709459210 P,00t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORAhIDIJM
Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Office
Wright Water Engineers, Inc-
Pe9gy M. Bailey and Michael Erion
April 9, 1998
l,os Amigos P1s[iminery PIan Review
DR4 F7
We are in receipt of additional drainage analysis and ISDS analysis for rhe proposed I-os Amigos
project. We reviewed the following documenc.
o I-os Amigos Ranch prcliminery Plan, Filings 6 tkough 10, Stormwater Dercnti-o!
Analysis, April 1998, prepared by SGM.
o Memorandum o W'WE dated April 8, l99E from Dave KoE, P.E. with SGM.
r [.os Amigos Ranch P.U.D. Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems Groundwarer
Impact dated April 6, 1998, prepared by Resource Engineering.
. April 8, 1998 letter to WWE from Rcsourcc Engineering.
o April 9, l99t Ietter to WWE from Resource Engineering.
The following are our courmcnts.
Drainage Andysis
Iu general, wc found the updated drainage analysis including detailed calculations for detention
pond sizing and operation to be accepable for preliminary plan submittal. The applicanr is
proposing the use of four detention ponds locatcd in the upper reaches of thc four suFareas
within the site. Volumcs havc bccn calculated fes maintaining historic runoff, under dcveloped
conditions, for storms up to and including the lOGyear flood event. Calculadons indicare that
all post-development flows will be at or less than existing condirions.
The detention ponds tbat were submicted were a gcnedc computer gencratcd pond configrrrarion
developed to fit in all four basins. Although thc calculatioru indicate that this pond will work
in each basin, the final plans shall include a detailed grading plan with srags-storage volume
-3?-
*rL l:'L8(THU)
l3:21 lIRIGHT IYATER GLNlvooD TEL:9709459210 P.002
MEMO TO: Mark Bean
April 9, 1998
Page 2
relationships developed based on the acnral topography.
SGM and he is in agreement with our comment-
We reviewed this with Dave Korz wirh
We believe the data zubmitted fulfills Condition No.
Recommendation.
the Planning Commission
ISDS Impact Andysis
The Resource Engineering report concludes that their analysis, together with the commitmenr
to construct and maintain qualiry ISDS systems wirh desigu st ndards and management plan,
indicates that there will be no adverse impacr to groundwater Eraliry. Based on our review, we
generally concur with rhe Resource Engineering conclusioru. The analysis includes a numbcr
of engineering assr'-ptions and judgment. We reviewed the analysis making mote conservative
assumptions h aII cases and found that the Resource Eugineering analysis would result iu a
custulative total nitrate concentration of less than 7 mgll. This is less rhan rhe Sa:e and EPA
standard of 1O mg/I.
Given the applicabilicy of watcr quality sandards and pollurana rlpicatly associared with sepric
tanlc/leachfield effluent, the primary polluant of regulatory concern expecred ro be associated
with septic rank/leachfield effluent is nitrate, Niuate is rypically selected as the limiring
pollutant from the regulatory perspective for several reasons including: (1) pollutants associated
with septic tank/leachfield conamination are cornmonly loown to be niraE and viral/bacterial
contaminants; (2) nitrate is hown to be highly mobile in subsurface environments, while
viral/bacterial consminants are more easily absorbed onto soils; (3) the regulatory limir for
nitate is low relative to typical nitrate loadings in septic sysrem effluent; and (4) niuate
concentrations are quite low in rurdeveloped and uncontarninarcd strcam sysems.
We believe this recent dctailed analysis fulfills the submittal rcquirements of BOCC Resolution
No. 96-34, Paragraph 5.
WWE previously rccornmended a monitoring and mitigation plan in the absence of a detailed
quantitatiye analysis. With this additional analysis, rhe stringent design standfids, and the
maintenance plan, we believlthe applicant has developed an acceptable alrernative approach as
outlined in Condition No- A of the Planning Commi.csion Recommendation-
WWE will have additional deuiled courments on the design standards and rnainrenance plan.
PMBMJETdIf
92L-M7.W
g*
'38 '