HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 10.11.06Exhibits for Public Hearing held on October II,2006
A Mail Receipts
B Proof of Publication
C Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amendedD
E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
F Application
G Staff Memorandum
Letter from Carbondale Fire Protection District dated 8119106H
l,etter from DOW dated 8109106I
Letter from the CGS dated 8130106J
l-,etter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated 8131106K
L lrtter from DWR dated 8130106
M Email from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 8lO1106
N Letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 8128106
Email from the Colorado Department of Transportation dated 8113106o
I-ntter from the Bureau of Land Management dated 8122106P
0 Letter from County Vegetation Manager !4!942/01/09
R Irtter from SGM dated September 27,2006
S Letter from HP Gegtech d.ated September 29,20067;J f rZTrrr -A tL-* ru",'P
i)'l,.na ' 4rot, fw,"/, f L,.i.
Zn*'l tr/
h)(", ?,"J,*4"
0i
( b,'lt i.,'/y')''Dl
d-tt
,[),t
tt,\
5l*'
)m
t|,,,
U
PC 10/11/06
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUES:I
APPLICANT / OWNER
REPRESENTATTVE
ENGINEER
LOCATIO
PROPERTY SZE
WATER
SEWER
ACCESS
EXISTING ZONING
Preliminary Plan review for Pinyon Mesa
Elk Mesa Properties, LLC
John Elmore
Schmueser Gordon Meyer (Debbie Duley)
Spring Valley, approximately Lmile east of the
Highway 82 / CR 114 intersection
60.49 acres
Central Water System
Central Sewer System
CR 114
Los Amigos Ranch PUD
'l!!c!)!o4*€-- - -
! s€- R.. ;:!.t !t!a',, il Irt ( .nnvi e1t: sz lr?t
nf
d
,i!r
r(t
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
A. General Property DescriPtion
The 60.49-acre property is generally located in the Spring Valley area approximately 7 miles south
of Glenwood Springs and approximately 1 mile east of the Highway 82 I CR 114 intersection. The
property is bordered to the north and east by CR 114 and the other phases of Los Amigos Ranch
PUD; bordered to the south by BLM; and bordered to the west by Garfield County property.
Physically, the property sits on an upper bench above the Roaring Fork River valley floor on the
routt riai of Couniy Road 114. There are two significant deep drainage channels that begin in two
separate places wtriih merge at approximately the center of the property and then drain to the west.
eOOltionitly, there is a significant knob in the center of the property with steep slopes on the
eastern edge of the property. The vegetation consists of sage, juniper and pinyon pine. [The photo
below presents a view looking from the proposed main entrance near CR 114 to the south east.]
B. Proposal
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the property according to the uses and densities as approved
by the Board in Resolution 81-358 with the original Los Amigos Ranch PUD which calls for 80
(high density) single-family lots on the 60-acres. As will be discussed, the development is proposed
to be served by existing central water and sewer systems and access is provided directly from CR
114. The lots have a minimum lots size of 10,000 sq. ft. and over 49 percent (30 acres) of the
property will be placed in open space accompanied by community facilities approved in the PUD
iuch as picnic areas, small community center, etc. Generally, the proposal intends to develop three
separate areas of the site in two phases.
2
.: ll
...x.\"
---'1
'..:
C. Background
The original Los Amigos PUD (approved by the BOCC in 1981) zonedthe subject property for
80 single-family lots in the following configuration:
Additionally, this property was approved as Phase 3F to be the last phase to be developed in
Los Amigos with a submission of the Preliminary Plan to the County by December 31, 2008
and a completion of the SIA by December 31, 2010.Interestingly, the proposed subdivision
design of the property almost matches the design proposed in 1981.
II. REFERRAL AGENCIES / DEPARTMENTS
Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and / or County Departments for their
review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are more
comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum.
A. Town of Carbondale
B. City of Glenwood Springs
C. Carbondale Fire Protection District (See Exhibit Il
D. Spring Valley Sanitation District
E. Colorado State Forest Service (See Exhibit l'{)
F. Colorado Department of Transportation (See Exhibit O)
G. Colorado Division of Wildlife (See Exhtbit t)
H. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
I. Colorado Division of Water Resources (See Exhibit L)
J. Colorado Geologic Survey (See Exhibits J)
K. Bureau of Land Management (See Exhibit P)
L. County Road and Bridge Department (See Exhibit il[)
M. County Vegetation Management (See Exhibit Q)
N. County Sheriff
O. Mountain Cross E4gineering (See Exhtbit IO
-1
"t"
m.RELATIONSHIP StVE
The property is located in Study Area 1 which has the designation of PUD since the PUD was
approved 15 years prior to the Comprehensive Plan designations were established in 1997. The
proposal is to develop the property acbording to the original PUD which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
tV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ARRD ZONE DISTRICT
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of
the PUD zone district.
A. Proposed Uses
The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on all of the 80 lots which is
contemplated as a "use by right" in the PUD and is therefore consistent with the underlying
zone district.
B. Common Dimensional Requirements
10,000 sq. ft.
25Vo
o Front yard
o Rear yard:
o Side yard:
25 feet
25 feet
10 feet
1 :0. 10 of total HDSF area (3 ,294 sq. ft. per lot)
Staff finds that since FAR is specifically called out as FAR over the total HDSF area, FAR
is to be calculated by total area devoted to HDSF zone district which results in
approximately 60.64 acres.
C. Open Space
Resolution 96-34 required the following condition regarding open space:
10. Comrnon opcrr space areas shall bc dedicat.d by thd Applicant to tha loc Amigos
Banch Homqowuar's A;sociation in an amount that mairrtains a 50:50 ratio or grcstcf,
dedicatcd opcn spscp to dcvcloped IErd. Thc dcdicatiou of opcn spac,6 sball coincidcwith
the approval of tbc applicable final plat.
,
The total acreage of the property is 60.49 acres with 507o of that acreage being 30.24 acres, yet the
plan proposes 30.21 acres. This appears to generally satisfy this requirement.
4
V. APPLICABLE SUBD REGULATIONS
The following section addresses common subdivision components that are required as part of the
Preliminary Plan.
A. Water / Water / Irrisation Water
The Application proposes to provide water to the development from the Elk Springs Homeowners
Association (formerly Los Amigos HOA) which owns the water system serving the rest of the
PUD. The water system is operated by Red Canyon Water Company. The eight-inch water main to
the subject property has already physically been installed. The proposed water system in the
development is a central water system design to be constructed in two phases.
The Application contains an "Ability to Serve" letter from Red Canyon Water Company to provide
domestic and irrigation water to all lots within the development. The larger existing central water
supply system has two large water tanks with a storage capacity of 620,000 gallons served by two
wells pumping at 270 gallons per minute and a water treatment facility. This last phase of
development was included in the calculations for the overall system capacity and ability to serve. In
this case, the developer would construct, own, and operate the internal components of the water
system serving Pinyon Mesa which is to be later transferred to the Pinyon Mesa HOA.
The Application contains an opinion regarding the legal proof of water for the development from
Patrick / Miller / Kropf which ultimately points out the legal approval for water was established
with other filings of the Los Amigos PUD which included a court approved Basalt Water
Conservancy District augmentation plan providing for a total of 327 SFRs (which includes 80 SFRs
in Pinyon Mesa). Staff referred the Application to the Division of Water Resources which
responded with a determination that the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not
cause a material injury to decreed water rights. (Exhibit Z) This system appears to satisfy County
requirements as also noted by Mountain Cross Engineering. (Exhibit IQ
B. Waste Disposal
The Application proposes to provide central sewer service to the development from Spring Valley
Sanitation District. The District installed a lift station and 4-inch force main on the lowest portion
of the property when the District constructed recent upgrades to the District's wastewater treatment
plant approved by CDPHE which included the future development of this property. The developer
proposes to install 8 inch gravity lines throughout the development to carry wastewater to the lift
station in a typical central wastewater collection system configuration. Once the mains are
constructed, the system will be dedicated to the District.
The Application contains a "Can and Will Serve" letter from the District's legal representatives,
lravenworth & Karp, P. C. This letter explains the District has the capacity and ability to serve the
project. The Application also contains the approval letter from CDPHE for the lift station on the
property. This system appears to satisfy County requirements. This system appears to satisfy
County requirements as also noted by Mountain Cross Engineering. (Exhibit K)
5
\
v'.,\.,r \
N(fl
E)
,'-I
C. Roads /Access lTraffrc
1. Public Access
The site plan shows the development will have one main access point onto CR 114
which is a public right-of-way. The development also proposes a secondary
emergency access onto CR 114 from the end of the internal road called "Paintbrush
way".
2. Internal Road Svstem
The site plan provides for an internal road system that will be owned and maintained
by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The overall design includes five roads with a
secondary emergency access out to CR 114 from Paintbrush Way.
The total trips generated from the development are 766 (80 units x 9.57). As such, the
subdivision regulations require the internal road system to be in the "minor collector"
category which generally requires the ROW width to be 60 feet with 2 twelve foot
driving lanes and a chip-seal surface. The proposed road design does not satisfy this
requirement because all of the internals roads, except a portion of the main road
(Pinyon Mesa Drive), are 50 foq ROW which is deficient by 10 feet in width.
\tf" ,{".{\
There is no specific provisi.,on'thdt provides relief from this standard as it has always
been interpreted to apply to the entire road system and not reduced on assumed traffic
patterns. The Board has approved reductions in width in the case of a PUD where they
have authority to vary subdivision regulations.
Additionally, the main drive (Pinyon Mesa Drive) results in a cul-de-sac design that is
840 linear feet long which is 24O linear feet longer than the 600-foot maximum. As
you are aware, the Board can approve longer cul-de-sacs if the following two-prong
r test can be met by the design: 1) That it is necessary for topographical reasons and 2)
it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a
part of the longer design. This is discussed in greater detail in the Fire Protection
section of this memorandum.
\;
$v
*'
V{
u!
v
Additionally, Mountain Cross Engineering commented that the Code requires
turnarounds are to be designed with 50' turning movements and room for snow
storage per Section 9:33. The Applicant shall need to verify that turning movements
accommodate emergency response apparatus with snow storage.
3. Traffic Generation
The project including 80 single-family dwellings (at full build-out) will generate
approximatety 766 average daily trips (ADT). The Application contains a Traffic
Impact Study prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer which summarizes the off-site
traffic impacts in the following manner:
A. Of the766 ADT, the development will generate approximately 60 trips in the AM
peak hour and 81 trips in the PM peak hour;
6
.__\:--t-
Nzq/
., n)7
B. The intersection of the site driveway and CR 114 will operate at acceptable LOS
through the long-term time period (over the next 20 years);
C. The intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 is expected to operate at a LOS "E" in the
long term, with or without this development;
D. Capacity improvements may be necessary at this intersection by others if the
forecast traffic grows at the rate CDOT assumes for the SH82 corridor near CMC
road (CR 114);
E. No turn lanes are necessary along CR 114 at the intersection of CR 114 and the
main entrance into the development. The driveway approach will be constructed
to allow two exiting turn lanes (one in each direction) and an entering lane for
inbound traffic. This approach will be controlled by a stop sign;
F. Adequate sight distance is provided for turning and stopping maneuvers at the
primary driveway to the development.
CDOT reviewed the Application and provided the following comments:
This development will generate 8I trips on PM peak hour. Based upon the
Pinyon Mesa trffic impact study dated May 2006, this development will impact
SH 82/GCR 114 by more than 20 percent, therefore, an access permit would be
required. The TIS identffied the need for capacity improvements for this
intersection however does not provide any recommendations. Who will provide
these improvements? Please submit an access applicationfor GCR 114.
The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and provided the
following comments. (See Exhibit M)
All accesses to CR I 14 shall have driveway access permits issued by Garfteld
County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specffic to each permit.
Each entrance to CR 114 shall have a stop sign placed at the entrance to CR 114.
The signs, posts and location shall be as required by the MUTCD (Manual oin
Untfurm Trffic Control Devices). An intersection sign shall be placed on both
sides of the main entrance to the subdivision alerting uphill and downhill trffic
to the entrance. The signs, posts and installation shall be as required in the
MUTCD (Manual on UnifurmTrffic Control Devices).
A turn lane should be installed on the uphill lane to the main entrance to the
subdivision. With the wide shoulder that exists this should not be a problem to
install.
D. Floodplain Issues
There are no known live watercourses on the property. As such there are no floodplain issues
regarding this property.
7
E. Fire Protection
The property ties within the Carbondale Fire Protection District. The Applicant proposes to provide
fire protection through 1) the installation of fire hydrants throughout the subdivision served by the
cential water system and 2) construction of a secondary emergency access in / out of the
development off the end of Paintbrush Way back out onto CR 114. The District reviewed the
proposal and provided the following comments as also contained in Exhibit H attached hereto:
Access
Two separate access roads should be provided for subdivisions more than 30 units & internal
roads should provide signage prohibiting on-street parking based on their width.
Water Supplies fo r Fire Protection
The proposed central water system is adequate; however, the proposed location and spacing of
the hydrants is inadequate. The spacing and location needs to conform to IFC Appendix C.
They should also be located at intersections if possible. It appears four additional hydrants may
be necessary.
Wildfire Hazards
The slopes and sage / pinyon vegetation on the property present a potential wildfire hazard. The
Applicant shall need to use fuel breaks, defensible spaces, and /or fire resistant materials to
mitigate hazards. The development should follow the recommendations of the State Forest
Service.
Impact Fees
The development is required to pay the fire impact fee of $4j7 per dwelling unit to be paid to
the District at the time of final plat.
The Colorado State Forest Service reviewed the Application and provided the following comments
regarding wildland fte (Exhibit I,l):
The primary vegetation is juniper and pinyon trees, and sagebrush. The combination of
vegetative species poses a signffication wildfire hazard to parts of the proposed subdivision.
The lots at the highest fire risk are: lots 17-20 and lots 36-48. These are located in the
northeast section of the proposed subdivision and include pinyon and juniper tees on a slope
that is greater than l0 percent. Any homes built on these lots need to have defensible space
which is an area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are treated, cleared or reduced
to slow the spread of wildfire towards the structure. Also, homes should be built using firewise
materials that are fire-resistive (Class C or better rating).
The next area of increased wildfire risk is located on either side of the ravine, the lots
surrounding this area are lots 66-72 and lots 59-65. The vegetation in the ravine is comprised
of dense, mature pinyon and juniper trees. Trees and understory shrubs should be thinned and
the removal of ladder fuels and dead material should be completed before any homesites are
built on. The final area of higher wildfire risk is the lots surrounding a small knoll where
8
pinyon and juniper trees are growing. The lots are 49-54 and l-5. The size of the trees and the
-increased
slope make this portion of the property prone to higher wildfire hazards and should
be treated as lots 17-20 and 36-48.
I believe the best methods to rteduce wildfire haz.ard on this propertv would be to thin the Pinlon
and.iuniper trees to Colorado State Forest Service standards along the edqes o.f the proPerN
and in the ravine. Also enforcinq defensible space standards around all permanent structures,
and encourage or require the use qf fi.rewise buildinq materials (Firewise Construction, Design
and Materials, 2000) would decrease the ootential for a severe wild.fire event.(added emphasis)
Written standards for defensible space management zones published by the Colorado State
Forest Senice can be found in the recent revision of publication 6.302, Creating Wildfire
Defensible Zones. Obviously, removing any type of vegetation considered as ladder fuels,
,nd"rgro*th that could bring a fire into tree crowns, any dead or dying trees or shrubs should
be removed.
I found no current signs of the ips bark beetle (Ips confusus) colonizing pinyon pine trees on the
property. But they are active on the hillside, evident across CR 114. It is recommended to plan
any coniftr/evergreen tree cutting or pruning activities in late September or October which is
when the ips bark beetles over winters and would not attack any new trees. Any construction or
thinning work done in the summer that creates sap flow on pinyon trees will attract the ips to
the area and could result in the death of a large number of the pinyon trees on the property.
Please refer to publication 5.55& Ips Beetles for further information.
F. Wildlife
The Application contained a "Wildlife Analysis / Impact and Mitigation Report" prepared by
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Habitat on the property can be generally characterized as
sagebrush flats, crested wheatgrass and limited areas of pinyon and Juniper tree growth. No state or
federal threatened or endangered species were identified on the property. A site visit was conducted
with the Division of Wildlife to discuss potential impacts to wintering big game which consist of
Elk, Mule Deer. and Black Bear.
Of noted importance is the Elk and Mule Deer use of this property particularly during the winter
months. The conversion of a portion of this property to development will eliminate areas of
wintering habitat as well as further impact remaining deer and elk by domestic dogs in the
subdivision. The report suggests a fairly lengthy set of recommendations to minimize impacts to elk
and deer specifically related to fencing, lighting, roads, domestic dogs, landscaping and
revegetation.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) reviewed the proposal and conducted a site visit to the
property and provided comments found in Exhibit I. Ultimately, the DOW agrees with the
"Wildlife Analysis / Impact and Mitigation Report" prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological
Services, Inc. Additionally, the DOW strongly recommends 1) the Applicant prepare an Elk
Management Plan due to the amount of critical wintering habitat being eliminated with
development, 2) cites the occurrence of bears and mountain lions in the area which should be made
aware to residents, and 3) disclose to future residents that hunting could occur on the adjacent BLM
property.
9
Because the area will likely receive use by muie deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of
the property and excessive lighting of drtveways (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions)
is not recsrnrnended in srder to allow big game use of the area. Further, lighting of existing winter
range beyond the building envelope areas is strorrgly discorrraged (fr*r instanee; frorn bright bacil(-
yarU Hghts illurninati*g adjaoent BLM lands). V,egatation should be plaxted 10' off of roadsides in
*reas where heedlights from* vehicles illtrmi*ate winter range areas in grder to minimize unintended
"spotlighting" of foraging galne at night.
o Fenues along the mads should not be ellorrved.
s Cut andlor fill slopes along the noads shoutd be designed to facilitate wildlife mov€{nent; this
includes r.lsing native plant materials that mirnic local native vegetation species and
distributinn.
o Large or extenslve retaining walls should not be utitized"
Fenses may consist of hruo rails, wfth the upper rail M inohes above the gruund, and the top
of the bottem rail ?4 inches ebove the ground. This will al,low adult anin"mls to easily jumo
over fenoes, even in deep snow, and wilf allotr calves and farruns to crawl under or pass
through the ralls, or
Buck and rait fences are pra*tically impossibte for wildlife to cross, therefere buck and rail
fenceo arc $trcngly discor"rraged.
trf caHle or domestin sheep grazlng resLlrr$es in the area, and fencing livestock out becornes
a nanessity, the property ourrnerc should consult with COOW & BLlb{ peraonnelto develop an
acoeptable fence design. There are yarious types of fences hat are compatible with fencing
out hryrses, domestic sheep, and cattle and still allow for wildlife movemenb across fence
lines.
Frisr to csnstruction in sr adja*ent ts winter range habitats, sno$r fencing or silt fencing shall
be erec*ad at the edge of the bui*ding envelopes to conta*n disturbance to native vogetation
hy indirect conetructisn activities (i"e, trnrrrplifig of vegetetiom b,y equiprnenl etc.)"
Dog* should be not be allowed oubide of fenced yards during the winter months
{Novernber'15 through March 15}"
Thia includes dogs *wned by contractnrs, suhcontractfirs, delivery personnel, home trwners
and their guests. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to big garne
through direct a*d indirect ruro*ality, increased stres$, and displasement frorn preferred
ranges. Control of dogs is vital when living wisrin an elk migration conidor, and adiacent to
elk winter ran$e. ln the past, fiDOW has had nunnerous reports of doga brought to
constructien sitss by workers wnrich chase and harass wildlife" Due ts the location and
proxirnlty of thls parcel h sens*tive wildlife habltat areasn constructisn workers should not
be allorued to bring dogs oft site.
G. Drainage
Generally, the property appears to be traversed by two separate westbound drainages originating in
the center of the property that converge to create one large steep drainage cut which exits the west
boundary of the property. It appears there are four contributing drainage basins to the subject
property. The Application contains a drainage plan prepared by SGM which ultimately indicates
post-development flow will not exceed historic flows off the property due to a previously
constructed detention pond further up-basin from the property that controls flow onto this property.
Even so, the plan intends to construct water quality inlets to minimize impact from the
10
*
O
development. Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the drainage plan finding that the topography
appears to concentrate flows onto Paintbrush Way in a few locations. Inlets may be waruanted at
the force main crossing and at the first turnaround. (Exhibit IO.
Staff finds the "up stream detention pond" to be interesting and a condition that is seldom reviewed.
Staff asked the Applicant to clarify how this works so that we are sure that that stormwater is
adequately managed upstream as Los Amigos has developed and also adequately mitigate flows to
the subject property. Their response is as follows:
The "upstream detention pond" is part of the stormwater management system of the original
Los Amigos Ranch PUD as approved by the county in 1999. This detention basin was
designed to reduce runoff for full build out of Los Amigos Ranch in the contributing
watershed to design point 4, located directly above Pinyon Mesa. The calculations in the
original drainage report show an historic 100 year flood peak of 127 cfs, and H0 cfs fully
developed. While the pond only detains runoff from a portion of the total drainage, it
reduced the developedflood peak to I 12 cfs.
When we look at runoff on a watershed basis, flow from Pinyon Mesa exits ahead of this
reduced upstream peak. The flood peak at the ultimate outlet of the watershed is reduced as
a result of the mitigated upstream runoff.
Mountain Cross Engineering has not reviewed this as of the drafting of this report but will have
reviewed by the time of the hearing.
H. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The property adjoins a small parcel of BLM land to the south. As such the parcel could serve as a
valuable addition of open space for recreation and wildlife value to the residents of the project. The
BLM reviewed the proposal and provided several comments regarding impact to wildlife, potential
of disposal of property through exchange, wildfire, trespass, recreation / travel, hunting I target
shooting, and mineral rights. Important to note, the BLM indicated they may exchange / remove
this parcel from its public lands inventory which means private ownership could follow. Staff
suggests the six points made in their letter (Exhibit P) be included in the CCRs to place residents in
the PUD of these issues.
L Soils / Geol / Radiation
The soils encountered on the property include Almy Loam (l - 12 percent slopes) which indicates
it is well suited for home site development and Gypsum land - Gypiorthids complex (12 - 65
percent slopes) which indicates the soils are poorly suited for home site development due to slope,
erosion hazards, piping, and low soil strength during wet periods.
The Application contains two geotechnical reports prepared by HP Geotech that provide an analysis
of the soils, their suitability for development, potential challenges to development,
recommendations to mitigate the issues. A total of 17 borings were taken throughout the property to
support the findings in the report. The geotechnical challenges identified on the property include
collapsible soils, slope instability, stormwater runoff and flooding, sinkholes, regional evaporate
deformation and earthquake considerations.
11
The report ultimately indicates that development of the project as proposed should be feasible based
on geotechnical conditions and so long as certain recommendations are followed which are
identified in the reports. Specific site design engineering will be required on all individual lots
within the development.
Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) for their review and
comments which are included here as well as can be found in Exhibit J.
We have reviewed the HP Geotech reports and generally concur with their content. It
appears that the development plan has been well thought out and planned, and avoids the
higher risk areas. The geologic hazards we consider this site exposed to are
hydrocollapsible soils, dissolution of soluble bedrock and sinkhole formation, and localized
slope instability in those ravine areas. One observation we noted that was not in the HP
Geotech report is the evidence of shallow failures on the colluvial slope alonElhe
below lot 73. We either
setbacks or the peotechnical consultant in writins, that the back boundaries of the
buildins footprints for
lot 73 and 74 are
suitably offset from
the escarpment to
avoid potential slope
instability for the
desien lifetime o.f the
residence.(Lots in
question shown on the
right.)
The HP Geotech recommendatiorus for surface drainage are extremely important.
Prevention of wetting of the subgrade soils or near-surface soluble bedrock will best insure
the long term perforrnance of wet utility lines, foundation elements, slab-on-grades, and
pavements. Irriqation should be restricted so that a general rise in perched ground water
doesn't occur into water-sensitive soils that are drv in their native state.Such a potentially
wider-spread wetting into thicker columns of potentially hydrocompactive soils could result
in downwarping and settlement of wider areas and impact not only foundation but
potentially strain and cause the breakage of wet utilities, which could then leak and cause
additional distress.
In closing, we concur that the geologic hazards will not preclude the development has it is
intended, but there are geologic constraints and potential hazards that need to be properly
addressed during construction. The county should be sure that all open excavations and
utilitv trenches q1e inspected by the geoteclmical consultant and that residential.foundation
site
recommendations.
12
dra and i
Mountain Cross Engineering also commented that generally, foundation drains are run to
daylight or drain to an infiltration drywell. In light of the evaporite, drywells may be
unacceptable and some lots may not be able to drain to daylight. Means of conveying
foundation drains to a suitable daylight location may be warranted. (Exhibit K)
J. Noxious Weed management / Revegetation
Staff referred the Application to the County Vegetation Manager who provided the following
comments (Exhibit Q).
Regarding noxious weeds, the Application provided a weed inventory and weed
management plan and noxious weeds are addressed in the covenants and that the
Homeowners Association will manage common area noxious weed concerns.
Regarding revegetation, the Application provided a revegetation plan that includes a plant
materials list for review which is acceptable. The Applicant shall be required to quantify the
area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility
disturbances. This would be areas outside of the building envelopes. This information will
help determine the amount of security that will heldfor revegetation by the CounQ.
Regarding the Soil Plan, the County requests the Applicant provide a Soil Management
Plan that includes 1) provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for eliminating
topsoil and/or aggregate piles, and j) a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances
or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
K. Easements
The property has a number of existing easement and the development proposes a number of
easements which includes modifying some of the existing easements. As a general requirement, all
easements of record shall be shown on the final plat. Presently, the property is encumbered by the
following easements:
25' Powerline easement on the far western portion of the property;
30' Sewer line easement serving the lift station easement;
30' Access easement serving the lift station easement; and
Existing powerline to be eliminated and relocated (not located in an easement depicted
on the property).
1)
2)
3)
4)
Proposed additional easements include:
Emergency access easement from the end of Paintbrush Way to CR 114; and
25' drainage easement between lots 20 - 36.
1)
2)
L. Minerals
It is not clear if the Applicant owns all the minerals estate. This shall need to be clarified at the
hearing. If not, Staff suggests a plat note providing notice of a severed estate.
13
M. Required Development Fees
The Applicant is responsible for paying the following fees at the time of final plat:
1) School / Land Dedication
In this case, Resolution 96-34 memorialized that the obligations for all of Los Amigos Ranch PUD
were satisfied by the dedication of a certain parcel shown below. The condition satisfying this
requirement is set out here:
20.Applicantshalt,inlieuofttrcpayment-ofanimBactfee,dcdicatetotheRE-lSctrool
Districr ar thE ti-hg olih* n*o mrr pr" , t!1 larcei of raud identiEed upoo tba PI'JD Plstr
as thc'school She !arcct'. lhe Oefication of thr,s ProPerty expressly satisfies all obligationr
of Applic,ut at tirils of firturo srru6ivirion fior tbc aeaicitipn "li.td
propcrty, paymcnl of ftcs
t iilri"rpr"p.rty e.o*rion andor psymflrt of school fces. '
It is presently reflected as "school Site" on the Assessor's County parcel maps but has been deeded
to the RE-1 School District. As a result, this obligation has been satisfied.
2)Traffic Impact Fee:
Resolution 96-34 requires the following condition of approval for this development:
Z. At thc rime of each Final Plat approval, a fee shall be paid to thc County in such an
amount as'sh8ll be established by the Board purnrant to a roa{ impact anrlysis to bc accoitod
by the Couty a! lhe time of cach PreliminaryPlan approval. Such fec shnll bc assc,sscd as
a perunit road impact fia bas# upon the esdmaied cost ofnuo laneimprovements'to Counfy
Road II4 frorn its irrtcre€ctionwith the hig}way frontage road.adjacenr ro lsgbway 82.to its
iutcrsection with the entry road to Auburn Ridge housing project. The road i*p.st annlysio
accepted by the CpUnty abovc, as the samc *ay be fiom time to time *oeif'ud io;diJ
s:rrent €osts, shall be incorporated into all future analyses used by the County in guantffig
road.irnpact fees in tbc County Road 114 corridor, Payulent of said road impact-fees, shall
be expqessly conditioned upoa the Essessrncnt by thc Cpunty, at rhe time of Einal Plu, of
propoltionuely eryal road irnpact fees upon all zubsequentty developed properties apccssed
ia wtrols or prrt by County Road 114.
A
C'o
+
an laF
0s.
OPE{a,c
AC.+-
OPEN SPACE
52.1 AC.+-
As such, the property is located in Traffic Study Area 10 which requires a payment of $195 per
ADT generated from the development. In this case, the development will generate 766 ADT which
results in a fee of $149,292.00. Only half of this fee ($74,646.00) is required to be paid at final plat
with the remaining half to be amortized by way of individual building permits as the project
develops over time.
3) Fire Protection Impact Fee
The property is located in the Carbondale Fire Protection District which requires a fee of $437 per
lot to be paid to the District at the time of final plat. In this case the fee is $34,960.
VI. SUMMARY OF MAIN PROJECT CHALLENGES
A. Soils / Site Geolosy: Both HP Geotech and the Colorado Geologic Survey found that
development is possible; however, serious consideration should be taken regarding the
shrink / swell characteristics of the soils on the property and site specific engineering
and careful water use need to occur to prevent subsoil challenges to the life of the
project.
CGS notes the evidence of shallow slope failures on the colluvipl slope along the south
bank of the ravine below lot13. CGS recommends that the County require either further
setbacks or the geotechnical consultant verify, in writing, that the back boundaries of the
building footprints for lot 73 and 74 are suitably offset from the escarpment to avoid
potential slope instability for the design lifetime of the residence.
HP agrees with CGD (Exhibit S) and recommends the building envelope for Lot 13 be
set back a minimum of 30 feet fro the top of the steep slope and the footing depth be at
least 3 feet below existing ground surface but fills be no deeper than 2 feet within the
setback distance. The building envelope on Lot 74 appearc to be adequately setback.
B. Traffic Generation: CDOT has determined that the additional peak (60 AM and 81
PM) loading of the Highway 82 / CR 114 intersection from thel66 trips will exceed
the 2OVo increase to traffic threshold at that intersection requiring a State Highway
Access Permit from CDOT.
C. Internal Road S)zstem
i. Road Width is inadequately designed. Entire road should be designed to the
"Minor Collector" standard which is approximately 10 feet wider than what
is currently proposed; and
ii. Length of proposed cul-de-sac of "Pinyon Mesa Drive" is 240 feet longer
than the 600 foot standard and the Application has not demonstrated that it 1)
is necessary for topographical reasons and 2) can be proved that fire
protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the
longer design.
D. Fire Protection: The total number, location, and spacing of proposed fire hydrants in
the project are inadequate and need to be addressed.
15
E. Wildlife: The DOW agrees with the "Wildlife Analysis I lmpact and Mitigation
Report" prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Additionally, the
DOW strongly recommends 1) the Applicant prepare an Elk Management Plan due
to the amount of critical wintering habitat being eliminated with development, 2)
cites the occurence of bears and mountain lions in the area which should be made
aware to residents, and 3) disclose to future residents that hunting could occur on the
adjacent BLM property.
VIL AFF RECOMMENDED FIND
1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the
hearing before the Planning Commission.
2. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete; all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard
at those hearings.
3. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
4. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County.
5. The proposed subdivision of land conforns to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of
1978, as amended.
6. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
VM. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the
Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan request subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1. That all rppresentations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the
public hearings before the Planning &. Zoning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Internal Road System
2. The Application shall be resubmitted to include a new site design where all internal roads
shall be designed to the "minor collector" prior to final plat.
3. The length of the cul-de-sac represented as Pinyon Mesa Drive shall be shortened to 600
linear feet unless otherwise authorized by the Board of County Commissioners.
16
5h,r\ - 1-'/w*'''t'd
4. The Applicant shall furnish a design and specifications for the secondary emergency point at
the end of Paintbrush Way that indicates the ability to handle large I heavy emergency
vehicles and methods of break-away gates or other appropriate mechanism to deter use
unless for emergency. This shall be prepared and provided prior to final plat.
5. Applicant shall obtain a driveway access permit for both the main entrance into the projects
and for the secondary emergency access point onto CR 114 these shall be obtained prior to
final plat.
6. The Applicant shall install a stop sign at each entrance to CR 114. The signs, posts and
location shall be as required by the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
An intersection sign shall be placed on both sides of the main entrance to the subdivision
alerting uphill and downhill traffic to the entrance. The signs, posts and installation shall be
as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
1. A right-hand turn lane should be installed on the uphill lane to the main entrance to the
subdivision.
Traffic Impact to CR lI4 and State Hishwav 82
8. The property is located in Traffic Study Area 10 which requires a payment of $195 per ADT
generated from the development. In this case, the development will generate 766 ADT
which results in a fee of $149,292'00' only half of this fee ($74,646'00) is required to be
paid at final plat with the remaining half to be amortized by way of individual building
permits as the project develops over time.
According to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), this development will
impact SH S2IGCR 114 by more than 20 percent; therefore, an access permit would be
required. The Applicant shall obtain a State Highway Access Permit from CDOT and
provide a copy of the permit to the County as part of the final plat application.
9
!,u
F
v
oYt
(ru
Fire Protection
10. The Applicant shall provide, prior to the hearing before the Board of County
t
-
Commissioners, a revised fire hydrant plan that has been approved by the Carbondale Fire
{- ProtectionDistrict.
g)'
11.All development of this property shall follow the recommendations of the Colorado State
Forest Service as stated in their letter dated August 28,2006, (attached as Exhibit N to the
Staff report) which shall be incorporated into the CCRs as a requirement of the BOCC
particularly as they relate to lots 17-20,36-48,66-72 and lots 59-65.
lZ.The Applicant shall pay the fire impact fee of $437 per dwelling unit to Carbondale Fire
Protection District at the time of final plat.
17
*
t\
Wildlife Protection
13. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the "Wildlife Analysis /
Impact and Mitigation Report" prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc.
contained in the Application and shall be included as a component in the CCRs.
14. Prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall meet
with the DOW in order to prepare an Elk Management Plan due to the amount of critical
wintering habitat being eliminated with development.
Open Space
15. The Applicant shall cause the open space tracts to be deeded to the Homeowners
Association as part of the final plat.
Revegetation
16. The Applicant shall provide a security for revegetation in the amount to be determined by
the County Vegetation Manager (based on disturbed acreage) for all areas to be disturbed in
connection with the final plat and the obligations of said security which security shall be
incorporated into the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. The security shall be held by
Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the
Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Vegetation Management Plan.
17. The Applicant shall provide a Soil Management Plan that includes 1) provisions for
salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) atimetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles, and 3)
a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a
period of 90 days or more. The Applicant shall prepare this plan to be submitted with the
final plat documents so that the County can review prior to final plat approval.
Soils / Geotechnical Issues
18. The Applicant shall follow all of the recommendations provided in the geotechnical analysis
prepared by HP Geotech (reports in the Application and Exhibit S to the Staff Report) as
well as the follow the recommendations provided by the Colorado Geologic Survey in their
letter dated August 30,2006 also attached as Exhibit J to the staff report).
Easements
19. All easements of record shall be shown on the final plat.
20. The Applicant shall include the six points provided in the letter from the Bureau of land
Management dated August 22,2006 (and attached to the Staff report as Exhibit P) in the
CCRs to place residents in the PUD on notice
,r,11,- L- ) ^*b^
I r"-t '"'J)L"'^l /D Prr* +c t",t4
l8
4\o*'
hg r*),,L'l' c-tb + c,,v,)/*'a 5 *ft-
lri'^,-F,\l-")
,
(:* t{'
BALCoMe & Gnrcnx, p.c. CC_
ATTORNEYS AT LAw /'
P. O. DRA!^/ER ?9()
8I8 CoLoRADo AVENUE
Gr,pNwoop SpRrNGs, CoLoRA-Do aI 602
JoHN A. THULsioN
EowaRo MULHALL, JR.Scorr BaLcoMB
l-a,wRENcE R. GREEN
TIMoTHY A THULSoN
LoRr J. M. SaTTERF|ELD
EowaRo B. OLszEwsKt
Davto SaNoovaL
DENDY M. HEISEL
JEFFERSoN J. CHENEY
OF CouNsEL:
KENNETH BALCoMB
Telephone: 970.94S.6546
Facsimite: 970.945.9769
February 24,2OOO
I
Don Deford, Esq.
Garfi eld County Attorney
Garfield County Court House
I09 8'h Street
Glenwood Springs, CO g160l
d,,,
{)(r,
Re:
Dear Don:
Iamin
transfer of the
LRG/bc
xc: Greg Boecker
Barbara p. Kozelka, Esq.
receipt of a copy of the letter from Barbara p.
Los Amigos Ranch school site to Roaring nork
the
I believe Ms' Kozelka is conect and the transfer of the school site has never been finalized.Los Amigos Ranch Partnership stands ,"aay at anytime io .*".ut. an appropriate deed conveyingthe school site to either carneta cor.rty,^oi direcily,o nr-r, at your direction. I would add theadditional note that regardless of the transferee, i believe in. a..a of conveyance should contain theright of first refusat provided for in C.R.S. :o_is_itjf+i"ifrO.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
R.
..{
Calom & Hourr, p.C.
ATTORNEYSAT LAW
I2O4 GRANDAVENI.JE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I60I
SHERRYA. CALOIA
JEFFERSON V HOUPT
BARBARA P KOZELKA
MARK E. HAMILTON
Don DeFord, Esq.
99. fl.t O County A trorney
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO g160l
Dear Don
BPK:ja; enclosure
cc: Fred Wall, Superintendent
TELEPHONE: (97 o) g 45 _6067
FACS IMILE: (97 o) 94 S -6292
E-mail : caloia&houpt@sopris.net
Re
February 22,2OO0
Roartng Fork School Distrtct RE-t; Los Amigos Ranch Schoot Site
Sincerely,
CALOIA & HOUPT
Barbara P
. we represent the Roaring Fork School District RE-l. The purpose of this letterts to request transfer of title to itre District of the io, e.igos Ranch dedicated school'o site' My review.of county r."oro, indicates thir;;;i.ution was approved in BoccResolution #96-34 on June tl,.iiia,_and the;;;.il; currentry listed in the countyAssessor's record as #239305q0i6ia, schedure Rr20049.
As far as I have been able to determine, this schoor site remains titled with thedeveloper and there is no written-dedication 'ugi..r.n
t, per se. As a matter ofefficiency, "o'u.I:r:e of the parcer can be ,rira" oii."try to the schoor District.c'R's' $30-28-1t3(+)(a)Gl) ptil;; dedicarion Ji...,rv to rhe school disrrict, butpresumablv the county commissioners *iri *rri;;;#* rhe dedication before ritre istransferred' Perhaps you would advise us as ,o rro* that can u. *ori efficientlyaccomplished' Attached is a copy of the District's pr.iliti., Master pran for the southGlenwood Attendance Center, providing.elloeltiarr IIoo"" for transfer of the site, as;:ff ffi1"ted
under c'R's' $:o-zs-t:: (4-3). I root rJ.i*ard ro discussing this matter
Shannon Pelland, Finance Director
Mark Bean, Director of planning, Garfield CountyLawrence Green, Esq.
Greg Hall, Esq.
RE I-DeFord lrr-3
Tnn Myr,nR L.lw FIRM, P.C.
DavnJ Mvmn'
RosYNJ. MYLERT23
ADrdrrED rN cor, NY', crl
A Colorado Professional Corporation
EMAILS
dmyler@mylerlawpc.com
rmyler@mylerlawpc. com
cvincent@mylerlawpc. com
cwood@mylerlawpc.com
October 5,2006
t +* i1
:,
t-,,,.f i'r s t''!,rtili
Garfield County Building and Planning
Fred Jarman
108 8'h Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Pinyon Mesa Development, LLC; Property located on County Road I l4
Dear Fred
I performed a due diligence review of the title commitment for the above referenced Property (Title
Commitment No. GW2491 lT,Land Title Guarantee Company) in or about June and July 2006. I
did not find any documents in the list of exceptions to this Title Commitment which would evidence
a severance of the mineral rights from the surface rights for this Property. I attach a copy of the
Wananty Deed dated July 19, 2006 and the exhibits attached thereto, which includes a list of
exceptions. None of these exceptions refer to a severance of the mineral rights from the surface
rights for the Property.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance
Very truly yours,
THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C
cc John Elmore
David McConaughy (VIA EMAIL)
Debbie Duley (VIA EMAIL)
Tst-gpsoxe
(910)921-04s6
Fncsurr,p
(910\ 927 -037 42l I MromNoAvruus
Surrs 201
Besalr, Cor-oneoo 8 162 I
CHER R VINCENT, PARALEGAL
CONME A, WOOD, LEGAL ASSISTANT
ler
I
ock t',|. RECORDERorc tFited for record the-day of .0. _,BvJEPUTY.Recept i on
WARRANTY DEED
TIIISDEED, Made on this day of .fulv 19, 2006 , between
EI.K TIESA PROPERTIES, LLC, A COLOR.ADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPAI\rIT
of the county of GARFIEI,D and state of COIORADO , of the crantor(s), and
PIMTON MESA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
uhose tegal address is
of the State
WITNESS, That the Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of ($3,000,000.00 )
*{'{' Three Mitlion and 00/100 +**DOLLARS
s):
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
presents does grant, bargain, sett, convey and
real property, together with improvements, if r
GARFIELD and State of Cot
acknowtedged, has granted, bargained, sotd and conveyed, and by these
confirm unto-th" Giantee(a), his heirs and assigns forever, atI the
any, situate, lying and being ln the
-
County of
orado, described as fottows:
SEE EXIIIBIT TIAII ATTACIIED HERETO AND !{ADE A PART HEREOF
atso knoun as street number
TOGETHER r,lith al,t and singutar and hereditaments and appurtenances thereto betonging, or i.n anywise appertaining
and the reversion "na r"r.i"ions, remainder and remaindersr'rents, issues and profits thereof,' and att the estate, right
-
titte interest, ctaim and demand Hhatsoever oi the crantoris), either in taw or equity, of, in and to the above bargained
oremises, Hith the hereditaments and appurtenances;''-'to-IiAvllar.rijtorfor,u the said iremises above bargained and described rith appurtenances, unto the Grantee(s),
his heirs anfl assigns forever. The Grahtor(s), for hinseif, his heirs and personaI rePresentatives, does covenant, grant,
bargain, and,agree to and Hith the Crantee(si, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the enseating and detivery
of these presents, tre i"-w"tt seized of the iiemises above conveyed, has good, s.ure, -perfect, absotute and indefeasibte
estate of inheritance, in taw, in fee simpte, and has good right, full, power ind-tawfuL.authority to grant, bargain,
sett and convey the same in manner and foim l" rior"""ia, and that the iame are free and ctear from att former and other
sau.ti,-U"agains, sates, tiens, taxes, assessments, encunbrances and restrictions of uhatever kind or nature soever,
BXCBD|. OEI'ERI.E 7JAXEI AITD .r.9.98g9I'E!!:TS EOR' Ar/E YBAE, 2006 TND 9I'B1EQOBNT YANNS IIID 9I'DiIBCIE TO rlg:OT,.E TTEI'S AT' gET EON!E ON
EIdrgfT B JI?ITI]CEBD.EBRaTO ,,ND INooP.DoF.LISD sEnBIl''
The Grantor(s) shatt and wiu. i|ARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet.and peaceabte
possession of the crentee(s), his heirs "nq "".isn", -against.att.and every peison or Persons taufuLl,y ctaiming the whote
or any part thereof._fne singufar number =t"ii-ii"iirae-the pturat, and the'pturat the'singutar, and the use of any gender
shatI be Bppticabte to atI genders.-"--iX-VffiiVfSSWHEREOF the crantor(s) has executed this deed on the date set forth above-
E}GIIBIT A
A TRACT OF I.AND SITUATE IN SECTIONS 7 A}TD 8,
THE 6TH PRINCIPAI, MERIDIAII, GARFIEIJD COI,NTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTII, RANGE 88 WEST OB
COT,ORB.DO BEING MORE PARTICUT,ARLY
BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF I.OT 1.1 OF SAID SECTION 7 THENCE N OO DEGREES 32I
O1'I E 676.97 FEET ALONG TIIE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 11. TO THE SE CORNER OF VAN
RAIiID PARK, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 265L77 OF THE RECORDS OF TIIE CIJERK A}ID RECORDER OF
GARFIELD COIINTY, COLORN)O; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 35t 37r E 302'75 FEET ALONG THE
EAST r,INE OF SAID VAI{ R.AI'ID PARK, A}ID A NORTHERLY PRO'JECTION THEREOF, rO A POINT
BEING 30 EEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERITINE OF TIIE PAVED SURFACE OF COI'NTY ROAD
114; THENCE ALONG A LrNE 30 FEET SOUTITERLY OF TIIE CENTERLINE OF THE PAVED
SURFACE OF COUNTY ROAD 114 THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
TIIENCE S 40 DEGREES 18r 31n E 165.87 FEET; TIIENCE 515.89 FEET AT,ONG THE ARC OF
A 334.71- FEET RADIUS CURVE TO TIIE LEFI IIAVING A CENTRAL AI'IG[,E OF 88 DEGREES L8r
40tr AND SUBTEIIDING A CHORD BEARING S 84 DEGREES 27t 51l' E 455.32 FEET; TIIENCE N
51 DEGREES 221 49I' E L37 . 77 FEET; THENCE 297 .88 FEET ALONG THE AR,C OF A
2805.91 FEET R:ADIUS CURVE TO TIIE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAT Ar'IGLE OF 5 DEGREES 04r
58N AND SUBTENDING A CITORD BEARING N 54 DEGREES 25: 18tr E 297.74 FEET; THENCE N
57 DEGREES 27t 47t E L28.75 FEET; THENCE 287.77 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 299'84
FEET RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, IIAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 54 DEGREES 59r 28rr
AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING N 84 DEGREES 57I 31tr E 276.85 FEET; THENCE S 57
DEGREES 32r 45tr E 61.03 FEET; TIIENCE L62.40 FEET AT,ONG THE ARC OF A 445'95 FEET
RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20 DEGREES 51r 53tr AIID
SUBTENDTNG A CHORD BEARING S 57 DEGREES O5r 49" E 161.50 FEET; THENCE S 46
DEGREES 40' 52tr E 195.40 FEET; TIIENCE 265.46 FEET ALONG TIIE ARC oF A 388'35
FEET RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, EAVXNG A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39 DEGREES 09' 55rr AI'ID
SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING S 65 DEGREES 15r 5Or E 250.33 FEET; THTNCE S 85
DEGREES 50' 48tr E 156.83 FEET, THENCE 239.96 FEET ALONG TIIE ARC oF A 1082'20
FEET RjADIUS CURVE TO THE IJEFT, IIAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 DEGREES 42r 15rr Al{D
SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING N 87 DEGREES 48T 04tr E 239.47 FEET; THENCE N 81
DEGREES 261 56tr E 227.05 FEET, THENCE 42L.75 FEET ALONG THE ARC oF A 304'73
FEET RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGIIT, IIAVING A CENTRAT' AI{GLE OF 79 DEGREES 17 ' 5OII
]uiID SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING S 58 DEGREES 54t 09tr E 388'88 FEET; THENCE S 19
DEGREES 15' 14tr E 85.23 FEET; THENCE 155.71 FEEI ALONG THE ARC oF A 341'45 FEET
RTDIUS EURVE TO THE RIGHT IIAVING A EENTRAL ANGLE OE 26 DEGREES 17I 49N AND
SI'BTENDING A CHORD,BEARING S 06 DEGREES O5I ]-9N E 155'34 FEET; THENCE S ()7
1191'T-91 l.T.i 11':1,1 ::'-:'-TIT::'^'13:33"1'l:i:'X :i'"}::":l ?"?n3;9'"""
RIGHToFwAYFoRDITCIIESoRCANALSCoNSTRUCTED]]YTI{EAUTHoRITYoFTHE
iINTtiO StEtSS AS RESERVED IN UMTED S*TATES PATBNT RECORDED DECEMBBR
iO. TgrT, IN BOOK 71 AT PAGE 523, RECORDED JULY 3,I923IN BOOK 112
,q.i PE.CE 568, RECORDED NOVEMBER 11, 1916IN BOOK 92 AT PAGE297'
EXHIBTI B Our Order No. @IZ49ll7-4
TERMS, CONDITIONSAND PROVISIONS OF GARFIELD COUNTY RESOLUTION NO
79-15 RiCORDED JULY 10, 1979 IN BOOK 531 AT PAGE 250'
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO' 83-274 RECORDED
AUGUST 23,Iq13IN BOOK 633 AT PAGB 85I.
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CO}TSENT TO VACATE PLAT RECORDBD
JUNE 06, 1984 IN BOOK 651 AT PAGE 70.
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 14'
1992IN BOOK 841 AT PAGE 512.
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RBSOLUTION NO' 96-34 RECORDED JUNE
18, 1996 IN BOOK 982 AT PAGE 103.
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DBTELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED
ruLY 16, 1996 IN BOOK 985 AT PAGE 479.
EASEMENTS AND RTGHTS OF WAY FOR DITCI{ES, PIPELINES AND UTILITY IINBS
AS CONSTRUCTED AND IN PLACE.
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT RECORDED
April 25, 2OO2 IN BOOK 1349 AT PAGE 542'
February 23,2007
Hale, PE
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
MOUNTAIN EROSS
ENGINEERING, INE.
Crvt exo ENvrnoNrurrrer CousutrtNc nro DrstcN
RECEIYED
FEB 2 7 zool
GflPp.:.:, .. -.suirorvc.e"pHffi
RE: Pinyon Mesa Subdivision, Drainage PIan
Dear Fred:
As requested, a review of the drainage system and plan has been performed for the Pinyon Mesa
construction drawings dated February 09,2007 from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer. It is understood that
the balance of the plan sheets may still undergo some design revisions and were not to be reviewed until
submission for Final Plat approval. Therefore, the following comments, questions, or concerns were
generated specific to the site drainage:
1. Since the drainage system is proposed to be constructed as part of the grading permit, the deeper
utilities (sewer and water lines) will be constructed afterward. This is reversed from typical
construction progression where the deepest utilities are constructed first, next deeper, and so on.
With the storm drain pipe already constructed, the sewer and water construction will frequently be
in conflict. This will complicate construction; compaction will be an issue; conflict with services
will be an issue. Some consideration will need to be given to overcome these difficulties.
2. The road fill slope next to lots 1-5 does not allow water to flow into the curb and gutter; at least for
the short term, until homes are constructed. Finished grades for Lots 1-5 should provide for positive
drainage into the curb and gutter. tn the short term this road fill will create a drainage thalweg that
should have some protection against erosion.
3. Construction details are not provided for either the CDOT Type C Inlet or the Storm Manhole.
4. The curb and gutter went from a pan width of two feet to a pan width of one foot. This should not
pose a problem conceming vehicle access since the overall pavement width remains the same.
llowever the engineer should verify that the capacity for stormwater conveyance remains adequate.
Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Inc.
C: Nick Kilboum, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
826 112 Crand Avenue . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH: 97O.945.5544 . FAX: 970.945.5558 . www.mountaincross-eng,.com