HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 11.10.1999REQUEST:
t' LIS - 7055 ('cl w1L
PC 11/10/99
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision (of the
Preshana Farms P.U.D.) preliminary plan review
and request for a P.U.D. zone district amendment
APPLICANT: Jay Weinberg of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC
PLANNER/ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
Land Design Partnership / High Country
Engineering
Section 31, Township 7S, Range 87 W. Near the
intersection of County Road 100 and Hwy. 82, 3
miles east of Carbondale near Catherine's store.
57.9 acres to be used for 47 Single Family homes, 3
employee housing units, with 22.4 acres remaining
in open space
Well supplying a central water system
SEWER: Central treatment facility located at Ranch at
Roaring Fork
ACCESS: County Road 100
EXISTING ZONING: Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD to the north, south, & east; P.U.D. to west
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
According to the 1994 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, the site is located in the
Low Density Residential area which calls for 1 dwelling unit per 10+ acres. This
development proposal contemplates one (1) dwelling unit per 1.15 acres, which clearly is
not consistent with the plan. However, since the P.U.D. has already been approved,
discussion of inconsistency with the comp plan is unnecessary.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Site Description: The subject tract is about 58 acres in size, located approximately three
Page 1 of 14
(3) miles east of Carbondale along County Road 100. The northern perimeter is bounded
by State Highway 82 and bordered on the west by Ranch at Roaring Fork. The tract
slopes gently toward the Roaring Fork River and a portion of the tract is identified within
the floodplain of Blue Creek, a tributary to the Roaring Fork. Existing improvements
include indoor and outdoor equestrian facilities, polo grounds, stables, storage barn, and
an old concrete foundation. To the south of the equestrian facilities there are two (2) one
story wood frame houses and a small garage. The pasture/rangeland is in fair condition.
2. Project History: The subject tract was approved for a PUD in 1989. At that time, the
PUD proposed 38 dwelling units, a 10 guest bed and breakfast, a centralized equestrian
facility, and open space buffer from Hwy. 82. Water supply was to be provided by the
Ranch at Roaring Fork's existing supply and capacity. In the event no agreement could' gh
be reached, the water supply was to be developed internally. Wastewater treatment .60;�V1
would also be provided by Ranch at Roaring Fork, which would need modifications to v
provide the needed extra capacity. No service agreement was ever reached. In 1997 the
County received a combined sketch plan / PUD amendment application.
On October 8, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) of the Preshana Farms P.U.D. rezoning application. At
a regular meeting of the BOCC /on March 2, 1998, the board signed resolution 98-11
concerning t1YeprF3amodifications to the Planned Unit Development rezoning
plan. The conditions of approval are as follows:
a. That the application shall conform to all current Planned Unit Development
requirements and subdivision requirements concerning limitations on dogs and
"Aspen Glen" wood stove regulations.
b. There shall be no more than fifty (50) single family dwelling units which shall be
allocated in the following manner:
47 single family residential units within the single family districts;
3 employee housing units within the equestrian district.
c. A fully -executed contract from a wastewater facility district or owner to provide
wastewater treatment serving Preshana Farms PUD, shall be finalized no later
than one (1) year from the date of conditional approval of the PUD modifications
(February 9, 1998). Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents
of the Preshana Farms PTJD will participate in the operation of the wastewater
facility.
d. Although Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires
commencement of development within one (1) year of approval, the Board
acknowledges that the provision for wastewater treatment service will likely
require a waiver of this standard. Therefore, a subdivision preliminary plan must
be submitted no later than 18 months from the date of approval of the PUD
modifications (February 9, 1998).
e. If no such preliminary plan application is submitted, within the 18 month time
period, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing to
determine the status of the PUD modifications and may, at that time, rescind it's
Page 2 of 14
approval of the modifications, as well as the entire Preshana Farm PUD,
consistent with Section 4.09.02 of the PUD regulations. All costs of said hearing
shall be borne by the applicants.
f No specific phasing plan has been developed and contained within the
application. Pursuant to approval conditions (d) and (e) above, securing
wastewater treatment services shall constitute Phase I of the development. The
subdivision lots and installation of infrastructure shall be platted, in a single
phase, as Phase II of the development.
The following changes shall be made to the proposed modified zone districts:
O.S. — Open Space District
Golf course and golf course driving range shall be allowed as special uses.
E.C. — Equestrian Center District
Delete provision for single family dwelling, two-family dwelling, and multi-
family dwellings and replace with employee housing units either attached or
detached; delete provision for day nursery; indoor and outdoor golf driving range
and clubhouse, etc. shall be allowed as special uses; elete allowances for
athletic facilities and tennis courts. e • C •S c-t"
h. That all zoning districts and uses allowed within the individual zone districts of a46
the original Preshana Farms PUD are hereby repealed and replaced with the - -^c
modifications contained within the present application and modifications noted £ ��
herein. �-� E������
i. That the following sign types and specifications shall be allowed within the PUD: Att . @'
O.S. — Open Space District: One (1) subdivision identification not to exceed 100
square feet.
R10 District: One (1) subdivision sign not to exceed 50 square feet; one (1) real
estate sign not to exceed 50 square feet. The Garfield County Zoning Resolution
shall control in all other instances.
j. The provisions of the Zone District Regulations shall prevail and govern the
development of the Preshana Farms PUD provided, however, where the Preshana
PUD Zone District regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the
ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail.
Definitions established herein shall take precedence over definitions established
by the Zoning Resolution of Garfield County, adopted January 2, 1979 and as
amended, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Preshana Farms PUD.
k. That Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts for adequate water rights and
supply must be in place at time of preliminary plan application.
3. Adjacent Land Uses: The subject tract is in an area of varying land uses. Ranch at
Roaring Fork P.U.D. is located west of the tract, Catherine's Store is located to the east,
and agricultural land uses can be found to the east, south, and north (across Hwy. 82). St.
Finnbar Farm Subdivision is located to the south.
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS:
Page 3 of 14
Referrals of this application were sent to the following:
A. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: See page 1-2.. No new response was received.
Previous comments, dated 9/15/97, include concerns for erosion and revegetation using
weed-free seed, animal control, maintenance of irrigation ditches, impacts to wetlands,
utilizing a raw water delivery system for irrigation water, use of pesticides that may
affect water quality, and a request for monitoring wells to be utilized to guage water
quality.
B. Town of Carbondale: See page )7-1- . The Town Planning Commission previously
commented about the inconsistency of the P.U.D. density with the GarCo Comprehensive
Plan density.
C. Carbondale Fire District: See page ) . Bill Gavette, in a letter dated 10/25/99,
discusses imposing a sprinkler requirement and properly sizing water service lines. No
provision to require homes 3,500+ sq. ft. be sprinkled has been included in the
application. A simpler and more reliable system can be created by increasing the size of
the service water lines and thus decreasing the need for supply tanks and reliance on
booster pumps in individual homes. dAfn c,t- t.o
D. RE-1 School District: To date-nerresporise--has been received.� �cte4 ,� �,,,���
E. Colorado Geological Survey (CGS): See page Cc . Jeffrey Hines condud a site-�" "r
visit and reviewed the application materials and notes that HP "does a good job" and
concurs with their findings. If HP's recommendations are followed, he expects no
geology-related problems with the development, with one exception concerning
radiation. See appropriate section of this report for further discussion. Given the
radiation caveat, CGS has no objections to the approval of the application.
F. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: See pages 7 -(j . Kevin Wright has provided 2 letters, dated
10/25/99 & 9/14/97, along with educational brochures. He makes specific
recommendations regarding silt fencing, dog & cat restrictions, buried utilities, protective
covenants, trash containers, 50' rear yard setbacks on lots B2-B11, brochures, hay
enclosure, dead snags, fencing, and horse grazing.
G. Colorado Dept. of Health: To date no response has been received.
H. Colorado Div. of Water Resources: See pages ( C . Ken Knox, Assistant State
Engineer, in a letter dated 10/19/99, states that a well permit has neither been issued or
applied for at this time. He further states, pursuant to section 30-28-136(1)(h)(1), that the
proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to
decreed water rights provided the applicant obtains a valid well permit for the proposed
uses.
I. Holy Cross Energy: Included in the application is a letter, dated 8/10/99, stating that the
existing Holy Cross power facilities located near the project have adequate capacity to
provide electric power to the development subject to tariffs, rules, and regulations.
J. U.S. West Communications: To date no response has been received.
K. TCI Cablevision of Colorado: To date no response has been received.
L. Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority: See page l 1 . Noel Huff, in a merno
dated 10/18/99, states "As there are no proposed access over or encroachments upon the
railroad corridor, I see no potential impacts to the railroad right-of-way from the
application".
Page 4 of 14
M. KN Energy: To date no response has been received.
N. Garfield County Road & Bridge: To date no response has been received.
O. Garfield County Vegetation Management: To date no response has been received. /
P. Garfield County Emergency Management: To date no response has been received.'
Q. Garfield County Sheriff Department:.,.11ate no response has been received -
R. Garfield County Engineering Consultant: See page 12_.-1 ': Wright Water Engineers
(WWE), on behalf of the County, in a letter dated 10/27/99, comments on water supply,
wastewater, drainage/floodplains, soils/geology, wetlands, roads, and miscellaneous other
items. Comments are incorporated into each appropriate section of this report.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
A. Subdivision/Zoning: The applicant must comply with Resolution 98-11, which
conditionally approves the P.U.D. zoning. Furthermore, section 10.00 of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, contains the procedure to initiate a zone
district amendment, which the applicant has complied with. In this case the P.U.D. is
only being amended technically to reflect the conditions set by the Board of County
Commissioners. The Planning Commission shall report it's approval, disapproval, or
recommendation to the County Commissioners concerning the P.U.D. amendment. The
Planning Commission shall also report it's approval, disapproval, or recommendation to
the County Commissioners concerning the Preliminary Plan based on the conformity
with the following (section 4:33):
a. 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
b. Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
c. Garfield County Comprehensive Pian
d. Garfield County road standards and policies
e. Garfield County municipal comprehensive plans and municipal regulations, as
applicable
f. Compatibility to existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
g. Other applicable local, state and federal regulations, resolutions, plans, and policies.
It should be noted that the employee housing units may be rented but may not be sold as
separate interests.
B. Water: The proposed water supply source is a well located south of the equestrian area
along road A. A pressurized distribution system will supply water to each lot. The tank,
pump, and chlorination facilities will be located adjacent to the well in the equestrian
area. A utility easement provides for the installation and maintenance of the water
system. Results of the lab tests of water samples from the well have not been included in
the application however, Zancanella expects very similar results to the St. Finnbar Well
#1, which were favorable. The application includes a Basalt Water Conservancy
Contract, No. 343, for 0.24 c.f.s. from the District's direct flow rights and 38.2 ac.ft. per
year of storage/augmentation water. The method of screening the water tank is not
discussed in the application.
Page 5 of 14
Section 4:91 (A)(5) of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states the
application shall include evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply
for the subdivision. Adequate lab results for the water source must be submitted prior to
final plat.
Wright Water Engineers (WWE) has reviewed the submittal and offered
the following
comments:
1. A second well should be added for redundancy and back up.
2. The SIA should stipulate that a permanent augmentation plan be paid for by the
applicant.
3. The water distribution booster pump station should be specified and include a backup
power generator.
4. Evidence of state approval of the water system design shall be submitted prior to final
plat.
WWE has also requested the water and utility notes on sheet 18 be revised to fit this
particular project (specifically notes 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, & 15). Furthermore, the plat shows
the easement for the potable water system improvements but does not identify or label it.
The easement will need to be identified/labeled on the final plat.
iye
Ken Knox, Assistant State Engineer, in a letter dated 10/19/99, states that a well permit
has neither been issued or applied for at this time. He further states, pursuant to section4e aJ..4o
30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not
cause material injury to decreed water rights provided the applicant obtains a valid well
permit for the proposed uses.
Staff suggests making WWE's and Knox's comments conditions of approval.
C. Wastewater: An onsite gravity sewer collection system will provide sanitary sewer
service. The entire gravity system will flow to a manhole located within the Ranch at
Roaring Fork (RRF), which then connects to the RRF treatment plant. RRF can provide a
ajyytzvek maximum of 120 EQR's of sewer service, talsuffic 1f amhur1t-for the proposed
development in High Country Engineering's opinion. An easement crossing lots 12 & 13
in RRF has been secured for this purpose.
WWE notes that the sewer service is dependent on construction of a new wastewater
treatment plant and that the County has no control over ensuring that the plant , . .
construction is completed. This can be rem died by submitting_aa "can & will serve"
letter from RRF. WWE also notes that the plat c epic s a perpetuae`asement'for whn<ich
,
there is no description of use (e.g., utilities, access, irrigation, etc.). The sewer line must
cross this easement and it is unknown whether the easement permits this to occur.
State ISDS setback standards apply and should be verified by an engineer. No other local
health regulations apply. Staff suggests making receipt of a "can & will serve" letter
Page 6 of 14
prior to final plat, and receipt of clarification on the easement, conditions of approval.
D. Access: Access to the residential lots will be off of CR 100 via Road A. The access to
the equestrian area is a separate entrance off of CR 100. The excessively long dead end
cul-de-sac proposed by this development was an issue at the time of the Sketch/P.U.D.
application. There was some discussion of providing a wider road to prevent it's possible
blockage in an emergency. However, the Board did approve the P.U.D. zoning, which
included the cul-de-sac, without securing any provision for a secondary emergency
access. Section 9:33 states (staff emphasis in bold):
A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred feet (6009
in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45) from the
center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (50) right-of-way for residential
development and not less than seventy-five foot (75) right-of-way for
commercial/industrial development where tractor trailer trucks will enter the property
or by providing a T-shaped turnaround with a minimum turning radius offfty feet (50)
for residential development and seventy-five feet (75) for commercial/industrial
development where tractor trailer trucks will enter the property. The Board may
approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire
protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design;
-11A-0
h.z.0.._ ' ';frr. E .) aZ -Q4(CP.A`y?-! u. Y - di- ._`,
This application proposes one cul-de-sac of 1,300+ feet (road `13) and another cul-de-sac of
1,800+ feet (road A), which is three (3) times the maximum allowed length. Staff urges the
Planning Commission and the Board to revisit this issue and, pursuant to section 4:33 D and
9:33 A, require the developer to provide a secondary emergency access/egress as part of the
longer cul-de-sac design (which may even be done to a passable trail standard). The
applicant states that "... we do not feel the emergency access is necessary" in part because
the Carbondale Fire District confirmed the access was adequate for their needs. However,
emergency access encompasses more than just the Fire District's needs (including providing
a secondary escape for residents should the road become blocked) and the County
regulations require the secondary access be provided as part of the excessively long design.
Staff suggests requiring a secondary access as a condition of approval.
WWE notes the proposed culverts should be shown on the road profiles. Staff suggests they
be provided prior to final plat.
E. Fire Protection: Fire flows will be based upon a minimum of 1,000 g.p.m. @ 20 psi
residual for a duration of 2 hours (which results in 120,000 gallons of required storage).
Fire flow and peak daily demands will be met with a 200,000 gallon water tank with a
pump pressure boosting station. Onsite fire hydrants will be located per the NFPA
requirements.
The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, in a letter dated 10/25/99, discusses
imposing a sprinkler requirement and properly sizing water service lines. No provision
Page 7 of 14
to require homes 3,500+ sq. ft. be sprinkled has been included in the application (but it
was included in the sketch plan). The water service lines from the water mains to the
residences need to be properly sized (a standard 3/4" service line is not adequate). Proper
planning of the service lines can eliminate the need for individual supply tanks and/or
booster pumps in the residences. Sprinklers should be installed in accordance with
NFPA 13 D — "Installation of Sprinkler Systems in one- and two- family dwellings and
manufactured homes", 1999 edition. Staff suggests that the Fire District's comments be
made conditions of approval.
Drainage/Grading: HP recommends the grading plan for the subdivision consider runoff
through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond next to
buildings. Backfill should be well compacted and have positive slope for at least ten (10)
feet. Roof downspouts and drains must discharge well beyond the limits of backfill.
WWE has noted the drainage plan appears adequate from a water quantity standpoint. A
detail of construction of the swales and outfall channels has been requested and BMP's
Y (best management practices) should be included in the drainage plan. Also, the
application lacks a plan showing where and when construction erosion and sediment
control measures will be used. WWE also notes that the floodplain boundary does not
match the floodplain elevations and topography shown on the grading and drainage
sheets. This issue must be resolved since the finished floor elevations have been set and
it is not clear if the topography is on the same datum as the floodplain study.
Staff suggests requiring the applicant to resolve the floodplain boundary issue prior to
final plat. Also, the applicant should submit the requested information to staff and WWE
for review and approval (if consistent with best engineering practices) prior to final plat.
Geology/Soils/Radiation: According to the SCS map the predominant soil type is atencio-
azeltine complex and redrob loam.
HP Geotech states that "the project site is not in a geologic setting that would indicate high
concentrations of radioactive minerals in the natural soils and underlying rock formation".
However, "testing for radon gas levels could be done when the residences and other
occupied structures have been completed". According to HP, the subsurface conditions in
the general proposed development area consists of one (1) foot of topsoil overlying relatively
dense sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. However, near lots E12 and E18 three (3) to
four (4) feet of sandy clay was encountered overlying the gravel. Groundwater was
encountered between three (3) and seven (7) feet deep. Regional geologic mapping shows
that formation rock in the project area is the Pennsylvania -age Eagle Valley Evaporite.
Subsurface voids and related sinkholes are sometimes present in the Eagle Valley Evaporite,
a fact which should be considered in project planning and development. Prospective
homeowners should be aware that the building sites can not be considered totally sinkhole
risk free. Site specific foundation studies should be conducted for individual lot design and
problem areas should be avoided or mitigation should be engineered. The project area
Page 8of14
should expect to experience moderately strong earthquake related ground shaking (modified
Mercalli Intensity VI) during a reasonable service life for the residences. Thus, all occupied
structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or
no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. Bearing conditions vary.
Slab on grade floors are recommended to be placed near to above existing grade and
crawlspaces shall be shallow and at least two (2) feet above ground water level. HP has
found the property suitable for the proposed development based on geologic and
geotechnical considerations. They further recommend foundations be kept shallow (no
basements) and that consultation during design, and field services during construction, be
provided in order to ensure the implementation of their recommendations.
H -P (-}-1-, l".a 8,44:4.e c&, siuct<e
The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) concurs with HP's findings. If HP's
recommendations are followed, no geology -related problems with the development are
expected to occur, with one exception: radiation. CGS was unable to find the radiation
statement contained within the application but notes that the igneous rocks, of which the
terrace is primarily composed, may represent a significant source of radon. With the
proposed slab -on -grade or crawlspace foundations no problems should occur. However, in
the event the proposal changes, CGS notes that below grade living spaces have a potential
for accumulation of radon gas and this issue must be addressed.
WWE notes there are no significant constraints to development. However, WWE. sC
concurgwith HP regarding the need for site specific studies for each lot and plat
notes/covenants should reflect this.
Staff suggests WWE's recommendation be made a condition of approval.
H. Wildlife/Wetlands: According to the application, the site is composed of existing pasture
lands and a wetland/riparian complex associated with Blue Creek. The Blue Creek
complex (which exists south of the "B lots" building envelopes where a sharp
topographic break occurs) provides important habitat for deer, a variety of bird species,
mammals, and the insects they feed on. Andrew Antipas, of Ecological & Environmental
Consulting, LLC, states that the proposed project will not significantly impact wildlife
resources. No wetlands were identified in the development areas but care must be taken
to avoid the wetland habitats south of the "B lots". He further notes that the use of silt
fence at the wetland edge is recommended and stock pile and construction staging areas
should be illustrated on project construction plans to avoid contractor oversights. Some
specific wildlife protection guidelines have been developed which must be incorporated
into the covenants in order to make them meaningful. See Covenants section of this
report for further discussion. All building envelopes indicated on the preliminary plan
(sheet 2 of 2) appear to lie outside the 100 year floodplain.
Kevin Wright of the DOW has provided 2 letters, dated 10/25/99 & 9/14/97, along with
educational brochures. He makes specific recommendations regarding silt fencing, dog
& cat restrictions, buried utilities, protective covenants, trash containers, 50' rear yard
Page 9 of 14
setbacks on lots B2 -B11, brochures, hay enclosure, dead snags, fencing, and horse
grazing. All recommendations should be followed, incorporated into covenants/plat
notes, and made conditions of approval.
WWE notes the wetlands should be delineated on the plat, the plat should include
appropriate plat notes, covenants should restrict impacts to the wetlands, and Andy
Antipas' specific recommendations should be followed. Staff concurs.
Fees: The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the Carbondale &
Rural Fire Protection District for the payment of development impact fees prior to the
recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the
District at the time the agreement is executed. CR 100 is not currently included in the
County's Off -Site Road Impact Fee area. The developer will be required to pay the
adopted school district fee for each new lot created at the time of final plat.
J. Covenants: The following modifications should be made to the covenants: ' "
1. Section 5.5 Animals and Fencing, page 14: States that pets shall not be allowed to
run loose. It should also specifically state that "cats must be kept indoors at all times"
consistent with the recommendations of Andy Antipas and the DOW.
2. Section 5.6 Service Yard and Trash, page 15: Andy Antipas has specifically
recommended that trash containers be wildlife -proof and this language should be
added to this section.
3. Section 6.1 Number and Location of Buildings, page 15: States "one guest or
caretaker house (if permitted and approved under local zoning regulations)" shall be
allowed per residential lot. Since the Planned Unit Development zoning does not
allow accessory dwelling units, no guest/caretaker units would be permitted under
County regulations. This statement should be removed and replaced with "no
accessory/caretaker/guest dwelling units shall be permitted" to avoid
misunderstandings.
4. Section 6.7 Exterior Lighting, page 17: States "Garfield County lighting regulations"
shall be fully complied with. The lighting regulation is section 9:17 of the 1984
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations and the following specific language should
be included: "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all
exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision,
except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the
property boundaries".
5. Section 6.10 Weed Control, page 17: The recommendations made by the Mount
Sopris Soil Conservation District, in a letter dated 9/15/97, concerning water quality
and the use of chemicals, should be reflected in the covenants. Among other things,
the District states: "...chemicals should be closely monitored in the area due to the
possibility that chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the
creeks... groundwater pollution should be monitored through the drilling of wells".
The covenants need to clearly specify how this will be accomplished.
6. A Wildlife section needs to be added to the covenants. Andy Antipas and the DOW
Page l0 of 14
specifically recommends that the covenants include clauses which prevent wildlife
protection measures from being changed without permission of the DOW and
instituting HOA regulations which recognize wildlife issues as part -and -parcel with
living on the western slope. The covenants should reflect the HOA's responsibility to
maintain an environmental education program including brochures and interpretive
signs for the benefit of the residents, in the manner prescribed by Andy Antipas.
Removal of dead wildlife shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association.
Hay piles must be enclosed as prescribed by the DOW in order to discourage feeding
by deer and elk. 4
7. The covenants should specify that each lot shall be limited to the irrigation of not
more than 2,500 sq. ft. of lawn (see Zancanella report page 2). io.,4 cte -4;(0z.Q
K. Phasing: The application proposes to complete the construction in one phase.
Construction access will be at Road A and CR100.
V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the meeting 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.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest
of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
4. That the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended, the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations of 1984, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, the Garfield
County road standards and policies, and all other applicable local, state, and federal
regulations, resolutions, plans, and policies be complied with.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)
amendments. cA!-VAk « - —j'L a c t v tZ.t- C -lo w � L €J W'
o- o trr Paa •t�1s5 a./Leta evYN 41,to E . c—• c tZ ST Y[ C-'!" .e-fi i ✓'
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the preliminary plan, with the following conditions, in 2L' Suakt
order to protect the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the -to
citizens of Garfield County: L,v-i..4- 1(s C�,�e ti, � , I CS .9(J4)
ibrA44:1-
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval;
Page 11 of 14
2. The applicant shall submit adequate lab results for the water source prior to the Board of
County Commissioners meeting on this issue.
3. The recommendations of Wright Water Engineers and the Office of the State Engineer shall
be followed. More specifically:
a) A second well should be added for redundancy and back up.
b) The applicant shall specify the mechanism used to ensure the County that a
permanent augmentation plan will be paid for. r`
.c) The water distribution booster pump station shall be specified and include a
backup power generator. (wc.,( ` erov( (t.c 'f 0,44- ivnsk9`t4
,i d) Evidence of state approval of the water system design shall be submitted prior to
final plat.
.tee) The water and utility notes on sheet 18 shall be revised to fit this particular
project (specifically notes 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, & 15).
vf) The final plat shall show the labeled easement for the potable water system
improvements. "
g) The applicant shall obtain and submit to the County a valid well permit(s) for the
proposed uses prior to final plat.
Pursuant to section 4:92 (C) (1) and 4:91 (A) (4) of the 1984 Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations :
Prior to final plat, the applicant shall submit to the County a "Can & Will Serve" letter
from the Ranch at Roaring Fork and evidence that the "perpetual easement" can
accommodate the sewer line and any other proposed uses. Also, the applicant shall
provide to staff a copy of the sewer agreement between Aspen Equestrian Estates and St.
Finnbarr.
5. Pursuant to section 9:33 (A) of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations:
A secondary access easement shall be identified and provided for emergency access and
egress prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting on this issue.
✓ 6. Pursuant to section 4:80 (D) (2) of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
Culverts shall be shown on the road profiles prior to final plat.
7
The recommendations of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District shall be
followed. More specifically:
a) Any home 3,500 square feet or larger shall be required to have a sprinkler system.
Water service lines from the water mains to the residences shall be properly
sized. Sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 D.
The wetlands shall be delineated on the final plat and in the field and Andy Antipas'
specific recommendations shall be followed. These recommendations include, but are not
limited to the following:
Page 12 of 14
Drainage best management practices shall be used to mitigate potential wetland impacts. A
silt fence shall be used at the wetland edge to reduce erosion and sedimentation from
impacting the Blue Creek wetland/riparian area. Hay bales shall be installed within drainage
ditches to reduce sediment from entering environmentally sensitive areas. Stock pile and
construction staging areas shall be determined well in advance of construction and illustrated
on project plans. No heavy equipment or construction materials shall enter the wetland area.
Disturbed areas shall be revegetated as soon as possible. Workers shall not be permitted to
bring dogs to the site.
9. The boundary of the floodplain must be identified on the final plat. The applicant will
also provide the following information prior to final plat:
✓a) Construction detail of the swales and outfall channels.
b) Best management practices included in the drainage plan.
c) Construction erosion and sediment control measures shall be specified in terms of
where and when they will be used.
This information will be reviewed by staff and Wright Water Engineers for consistency
with best engineering practices.
' 10. Hepworth-Pawlak's recommendations shall be followed. No below grade living spaces ,
shall be permitted. y, , fle6t. . -7',t( r .¢,4
L/11. 1. All recommendations made by the DOW, in letters dated 10/25/99 & 9/14/93, shall be
rtes on the final
mplade conditions of approval, incorporated into the coyenants and/or be s �� U +
�' i s t,u c,� rC,e. /y\ i' k dC4 (tet. i C . 0 . VA/ C� 44, SO
II :.
-`12. No accessory dwelling units ill be permitted within the subdivision.( -�`
13. The developer s' all ter into an agreement with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District for payment of development impact fees prior to the signing of the final plat.
14. The covenants shall be amended as discussed in section J of this report.
15. The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation recommendations shall be followed. More specifically,
the use of chemicals and the ground water shall be closely monitored by the Homeowner's
Association to prevent water pollution.
16. Pursuant to section 9:10 of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations and
Resolution 98-11:
That the following plat notes shall appear on the Final Subdivision Plat:
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owners property boundaries."
"Potential homeowners should be aware that the building sites cannot be considered totally
Page 13 of 14
sinkhole risk free since the Eagle Valley Evaporite is present in the subsurface. Site specific
studies must be conducted for individual lot development in order to detect the presence of
subsurface voids."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One
(1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be
allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances".
"All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will
be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be
made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries".
"Ditch owners hold a right-of-way easement in order to maintain the irrigation system. New
landowners should be aware that ditch cleaning and work may occur in the yards of
homeowners."
"Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of
Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a
County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to
encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads,
livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying
or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one
or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural
operations."
"All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance
with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and
landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as
food neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such
information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the
Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County."
Page 14 of 14
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
P.O. ECX 1302
GLLNWCCD SPRINGS, CO 81602
September 15, 1997
Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sir,
At the regular mcn.....__yth • meeting of the Mount Scpris Scil
Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and
plan for the Preshana Farm Subdivision and have the following
comments and concerns about the project.
Any cuts for r cads.. or construction should be revegetated to
prevent erosion. weed free seed and mulch. should,be•.used for any
reseeding cf the area...Monitoring of all edirgEShcit ;d a lone
to see' if_ the grass is establishing-vor ly Tweeds rare becoming a-,
problem. Reseeding cr weed control practices should be
implemented if a prcblemiS noticed.'
The board is always concerned about animal control in an area
where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or
domestic livestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running
livestock and
in packs cf two cr more can :Haim cr kill domestic lgulaticns be
wildlife. The District recommends animal control re
adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be
enforced.
per maintenance and
Of prime concern to the Board, is the pro
protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site.eW
right of
informed; that ,the, ditch_ owners:
landowr.ers� shculd_�be ,. ,,_,}_ .they willway easement :t:.- maintain the- ir:-i;ati..r.,.,,s_stem,,- ,..,.„
be cleaning and -working on the :ditch,,, and .that this work, ma.v be'
in their yards
The district would like to know what the
impact
e will
be edcn the
Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands heuid
d
remain in as pristine condition as possible.
The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by
the landowners so they are maintained. In order to use these
rights, a raw water delivery system couldbe used
osle, landscthis ape,
fire protection, open space, etc. If at a_, 1 p
em
should be incorporated into the infaistruct
aturethofstthe.he su eirision
plans as it would be more cost effi
centconcern is always for sail and water conservation and
preservation and plans should consider these concerns.
Drainage has the potential to be a problem in the area and
engineering recommendations far control of drainage should be
closely followed by the builder and/or homeowner.
They felt that any disturbance of soil could adversely affect
other landowners, and great care should be taken to mitigate as
many of the problems as possible which arise when building on an
alluvial fan deposit area.
With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is
concerned`about'mcnitoring chemical application for,fertiiizer,
weed ,control, and other pest management reasons - Their- concern is
the -chemicals that, will be used to fertilize grasses and control
weeds -in .the area. :,They~feel that the.,. chemicals =should be
closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the
chemicals.will soak. into the soils and run off into the creeks.-
The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground water
pollution,''and,that'this expense and future expenses should be
bore eby -the developer. ---
Sincerely,
Scot odero, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
September 29, 1997
Town of Carbondale
511 Colorado Avenue (970) 963-273.3
Carbondale, CO 816_3 FAX (9 O1•
.
•
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Garfield Count guiding & Planning
109 East C;hSt..Suite 30'
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601
RE: : Preshanna Farms P L D
Thank you for giving the Town or Carbondale the opportunity to respond to the PUD
Zoning Amendment for Preshanna Farms. The Carbondale Planning Cornmission
reviewed this proposal at their September 25th meeting and they unanimously directed me
to wri:e the following letter. The primary issue is that the PLT Zoning for Preshanna a_
we' -1 as the Saint Finbar project and the related wvastew•ater ueatment facility are not :n
conYorma_nce with the land use densities of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
The Flan designates this area as Low Density Residential and provides for 10 plus acres
per dwelling unit.
It is no secret that the properry owners between the Ranch v, Roaring Fork and the
Dakota Project have had discussions with the Mid `alley Metropolitan District for
provision of water and wastewater services and may propose a conside able up -zoning_ in
terms of densities. The Carbondale Planning & Zoning Cornmission Strongly
recommends that there be a discussion regarding what is the appropriate density Bora the
Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary.' We actually ±ought that this discussion
,.mi analysis had been held earlier during the recent County Comprehensive Plan approval
process. Discussing properties from the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary
on an individual basis takes away from neighboring property owners as well as the public
at large the ability to examine and comment appropriately on what may be a signinca_.t
change for this area'. It would also dilute the ability of the general public to discuss the
positive and negative aspects of any proposed change to the land use classitications to
the Comprehensive Plan in this area. With the skyrocketing cost of housing, higher
densities may be appropriate but this discussion has not yet taken place in a public forum.
Please remember that Garfield County. Glenwood Springs 'and the Town of Carbondale
have ,often together a few times over this past year to discuss land use planning on a
cooperative basis. What came out of these discussions was a proposal to have relatively
dense urban cores with an urban growth boundary for the towns in the area beyond which
development would be rural in nature. Installation of urban services and a significant up
zoning. from the Ranch L Roaring Fork to the county boundary seems inconsistent with
these discussions.
As you can see. Carbondale's discussion was much more centered on the "macro" issues
of this proposal as opposed to the specifics. The only other suggestion the Town of
Carbondale has to offer is to point out that the zoning text for the PLD does not put any
restriction on the number of single family dwellings or the number of multi -family
dwellings in the Equestrian District. This would result in a conflict with the land use
summary chart as provided in the application.
Once again. thank you for letting Carbondale comment on this proposal. Please call me if
you wash to discuss any of the issues in this letter. The Carbondale Planning Commission
would also welcome a muting with the Garfield County Planning Commission to discuss
any of t _se la; ,er issues.
Sincere'•%.
rstieki—kA_ c l�...
�•
r\- Qin-Lc-1.4J
Michael Hassig. Chairman
Carbondale Planning_ & Zoning Commission
Carbcr d ]se & 1:131ra3 Fire FrcleciDon Cistrici
\i; eacwood Drive= amcnd$!4-CO 8163
;,_
497D) a:3-2491
•
j 1 n /997 s eg
•
September 16, 1997
Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Sth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 31601
RE: Preshana Farms PSD Rezoning & Sketch Plan
Eric:
I have reviewed the sketch plan proposal for the Preshana Farms PUD and would offer the following
comments.
Acaess
The proposed road layout and access to the development is adequate for fire apparatus.
Water Supplies
Water supplies for fire protection are proposed to be supplied via a combination gravity and direct
pumping system. The proposed storage is approximately 150,000 gallons with a proposed fire flow
of 1000 gallons per minute It is proposed that residences in excess of 3500 square would be required
to be sprinkiered. This is consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Ccde (UFC) -
Appendix 311-.4_ The spacng and distribution of fire hydrants in the development should meet the
requirements of UFC- Appendix III -B.
L ..c Feer
The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of
development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are
based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sin elv.
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
October 25, 1999
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates, Preliminary Plan
Dear Kit:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan proposal for the Aspen Equestrian Estates. I commented
previously on the sketch plan proposal. The general design of the development with regards to
emergency access and a water supply are unchanged from the early proposal, however I do have
further comments regarding the proposed water supply.
The sketch plan proposal indicated that residences in excess of 3,500 square feet would be
required to have automatic fire sprinklers installed in order to limit the required fire flow for the
subdivision. I commented previously that the proposal was consistent with the Uniform Fire
Code requirement of 1,000 gallon per minute fire flow for residences up to 3,600 square feet.
The current preliminary plan does not mention the 3,500 square foot requirement or propose any
mechanism for imposing the sprinkler requirement. Other subdivisions, Aspen Glen for
example, have addressed sprinkler requirements through their subdivision covenants. In practice
however this requires additional coordination between the county building department and the
fire district, as the fire district normally does not review plans submitted to the county for single
family residences. Another issue that should be addressed is to properly size the water service
lines from the water mains to the residences. Proper planning and sizing of the water service
lines to accommodate the demands of the fire sprinkler system can reduce or eliminate the need
for supply tanks and/or booster pumps in the residences and provide for a simpler and more
reliable system. Installation of sprinklers systems should be in accordance with NFPA 13D —
"Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured
Homes", 1999 edition.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sin
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
RECEIVED OCT 2 7 10
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
NOV-04-99 THU 07:57 AM COLOTRUST
Roaring: FurK`: 'SCtr0o1.: District RE -1
140 Grand Avenue
FRED A, WALL, Suporintendent
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 JUDY HAP'tONSTALL, Asslslant Superintendent
TNlephone (970) 945-6558. . SHANNON•PELLAND;'Ftnanu,Direcror
FAX NO. 18773110220 P. 02
November 2, 1999
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8`h Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms. Lyon:
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Preliminary Plan & Zone
District Amendment for Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision of Preshana Farms.
It is our understanding that the project includes 47 single family residential lots as well as
three employee dwelling units, In applying the District's land dedication formula for
residential development, the number of units in the project would not provide adequate
acreage for a school site_ Accordingly, the District is requesting fees -in -lieu of land
dedication based on the formula prescribed by the District and incorporated in the County
regs,
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, Thank you for the
Opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely,
al. #66kia
o
Shannon Pelland
Finance Director
2
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
Ms. Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, #303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Oct. 22,1999
Dear Ms. Lyon:
Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates
GA -00-0002
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
We have reviewed the materials submitted in support of the above referenced subdivision
application as well as the general and engineering geology of the site. A field visit was
conducted on Oct.11, 1999 to verify the site conditions as presented in the application.
The Hepworth-Pawlak report does a good job of characterizing the site and making
appropriate recommendations. We concur with the findings presented in their report and
if they are followed, there should be no geology -related problems associated with this
development as proposed.
One exception to the above comment must be noted, however. The Preliminary Plan
Submittal references Hepworth-Pawlak that " radiation hazards are not present for this
proposed development ". No statement either way could be found in the H -P Report. In
actuality the igneous rocks of which the terrace is primarily composed may represent a
significant source of radon. This should present no problems under the current proposal
which anticipates slab -on -grade or crawlspace foundations, but should the plan change or
an individual structure is built with occupied below -grade living space, the potential for
accumulation of radon gas must be addressed.
Given this one additional comment, we have no objection to the approval of this
application.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey IHy
Senior Engi e -ring Geologist
2 8 1999
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
10-25-99
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates
Dear Ms. Lyon:
RECEIVED OCT 1999
For Wildlife —
For People
The application has changed little since originally submitted 8-29-97 as Preshana farms PUD. I will refer
you to my original letter to the county dated 9-14-97 and emphasize recommendations #1-7 on page 2 of
my letter. The letter also describes wildlife use of the parceL I have included a copy of the letter for your
convenience. In addition to those recommendations, the following recommendations will help minimize
impacts to wildlife:
1. Silt fencing be installed along lots B-2 — B-11
2. No dogs allowed on site by construction crews
3. Bury all utilities
4. Protective covenants — items relating to pets and wildlife: it would be helpful if these items
could not be changed without approval from the county and DOW, instead of majority vote of
the members. All cats should be kept inside, especially lots B-2 — B-11, to prevent impacts to
small mammals, waterfowl nesting, and birds along the riparian/wetland areas. Free roaming
cats have a tremendous negative impact on these species and they need to be controlled.
5. Wildlife proof or resistant trash/garbage containers should be used for those homes along the
riparian/wetland area in order to prevent problems with wildlife.
6. Maximize rear yard setbacks for those homes in the R-10/S.F.R district (lots B-2 — B-11), 50'
rear yard setback would be helpful to minimize impacts to the wetlands and riparian area
7. All homeowners be provided brochures "Living With Wildlife". I have included copies for
your convenience.
8. Horse hay has not been a problem in the past, but if horse hay is kept outside the existing
buildings in a free standing stack, it should be fenced at the owners' expense with 8' high
game proof fencing to prevent game damage to the stack and to prevent luring animals across
the highway and county roads.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
evin Wri_ st
District Wildl. a Manager
Carbondal
qui
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman . Mark LeValley, Vice Chairman . Bernard L. Black, Jr.,Secretary
Members, Rick Enstrom • Marianna Raftopoulos . Arnold Salazar . Robert Shoemaker . Philip James
The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to
wildlife:
1.. Maintain homesite locations outside of south open space
area along Blue Creek. Homesites be located on bench above
the creek as currently planned but with a minimum setback of
25' - 50' from back lot line. There should be no home or
deck overhang to riparian/wetland area.
2. Maintain cottonwoods and dead snags along this riparain
corridor. If some of the trees become a safety hazard they
should be trimmed or topped and not fully cut down. A
minimum 2-5 snags/acre should be maintained.
3. 1 dog/home with a kennel restriction. Kennel be
constructed before C.O. is issued.
4. Fencing - There should be no fencing in the southerly
riparian/wetland open space area or within the western open
space easement between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and
Preshana. All other fencing outside of the equestrian
facilities be 42", 4 strand or less barb or smooth wire with
a'12" kickspace between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing
be the round or split rail type, 48", 3 rail or less with at
least 18" between 2 of the rails. This is especially
important to R-20 lots 1-11 and R-10 lots 1-10.
5. Bring the south boundary fence along Blue Creek into
compliance with fencing recommendations from its current
mesh wire state.
6. All utilities be buried or made raptor proof to prevent
electrocution of raptors, owls, and eagles.
7. No horse grazing within the southern open space area
along Blue Creek (riparain/wetland area)
All homeowners should be made aware that deer and perhaps an
occassional elk may cause damage to their ornamental and
landscaping plants. The DOW is not liable for this damage. In
addition, deer or elk may die on their property and the homeowner
will need to properly dispose of the carcass.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Kevin Wright
District Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
8
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
9-14-97
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Eric:
REFER TO
For Wildlife -
For People
I have reviewed the Preshana Farm PUD rezoning and sketch plan.
Preshana's main value to wildlife is the riparian and wetlands
along the southern boundary and Blue Creek. This habitat type is
extremely valuable to many species of wildlife from mule deer,
red fox, coyote, raccoon, mink, waterfowl, raptors, owls, and a
variety of small mammals and neotropical birds (songbirds).
Waterfowl will nest along the riparian area and wetlands as well
as cavity nesters, raptors, and owls utilizing the cottonwoods
for nest and perching sites.
The area does contain a small resident population of mule deer
which utilize the riparian corridor from the Roaring Fork River
to Blue Creek and the southern end of Preshana. In addition,
there is a mule deer crossing area just to the west of Preshana
and deer will utilize the easement area between the Ranch at
Roaring Fork and Preshana.
Impacts to wildlife should be minimal as long as a movement
corridor is provided, there is protection of the riparian/wetland
area, and dogs are controlled. The proposal stated that pets
will be restricted by protective covenants but it does not state
what are those restrictions. Protective covenants generally do
not work for pet control as there is little enforcement,
neighbors do not like to turn in neighbors, and they can be
changed by a majoity vote. Roaming and uncontrolled dogs will
have a major negative impact to wildlife in this area. Waterfowl
nesting and use of the riparian areas will be disrupted. The
Crown which is south of the property is critical winter range for
mule deer and elk and roaming dogs would have easy and close
access to this area resulting in chasing and harassment of
wintering animals, displacement to less suitable habitat, direct
and indirect mortality, etc. It is important that there be dog
control; but as a condition of approval and not through
protective covenants.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member
Louis F. Swift, Member • John Stulp, Member
q
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Dept
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
October 19, 1999
Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates
NW1i4 Sec. 31, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Mr. Lyon:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 57.9 acres into
47 single family residential lots, open space and an equestrian center (including three employee dwelling units).
Water will be diverted to irrigate up to 2500 square feet of lawn at each residence, and a total of 30 livestock units
are included in the water service plan. Total water use for the development is estimated at 39.64 acre-feet, with a
consumptive use of 9.30 acre-feet. The applicant proposes to provide water through a central supply well
pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). A copy of the contract was
provided. Sewage disposal is proposed to be provided through a central system via an agreement with the Ranch
at Roaring Fork.
A review of our records indicates that a well permit has not been issued or applied for at this time.
Although new well permits for this area may be available if the wells are included in the District's temporary
substitute supply plan, no subsequent well permit applications have been submitted for review by this office,
and there is no guarantee that permits can be issued.
A report from Zancanella and Associates, Inc., included with the submittal indicates that a well was
completed under MH -36529 at the proposed site for the central supply well. The well was test pumped on
September 13 and 14, 1999, at 100 gallons per minute for 24 hours. The initial water level was 6.9 feet, and
the stable drawdown was 4.5 feet below this level. With adequate storage capacity this well should be able to
produce a sufficient supply for the proposed use.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water
supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed water rights provided the applicant
obtains a valid well permit for the proposed uses. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
7L -t -c(.>
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CML/Aspen Equestrian Estates.doc -
RECEIVED OCT ? 5 1999
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
10
Memorandum
To: Kit Lyon, Garfield County Planning
From: Noel Huff, Roaring Fork railroad Holding Authority
Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates of Preshana Farms PUD
Date: October 18,1999
I have reviewed the information submitted for the PUD, which consists of a 50 -unit
housing development on the opposite side of County Road 100 from the railroad
right-of-way. The right-of-way measures 200 -feet (100 -feet either side of the tracks)
in most of this portion of the corridor. As there are no proposed access over or
encroachments upon the railroad corridor, I see no potential impacts to the railroad
right-of-way from the application.
For the applicant's information, the railroad right-of-way was purchased for public
transportation and recreational uses. The current valley -wide trail plan for the right-
of-way shows a public trail alignment along side the railroad tracks, and in some
areas between the railroad tracks and County Road 100 in this portion of the
corridor. The applicant may want to consider a future connection to this trail during
the development of the PUD. The railroad corridor is also being studied for potential
passenger and freight train use in this section of the corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this land use proposal. Please contact
me at 704-9282 if you have any questions.
cc: Tom Newland
RECEIVED OCT 1 9 1999
THOMAS P. DALESSANDRI
Sheriff
III 'RECEIVED NOV 51999
Date: November 5, 1999
To: Building and Planning Depart
From: Jim Sears, Undersheriff
l
Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates Application
GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.
P.O. Box 249 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 945-0453
Fax (970) 945-7651
After review of the attached application, the Garfield County Sheriffs Department has the
following concerns:
1. Fire and emergency vehicle accessibility of the proposed subdivision.
2. Impact upon the Sheriff's Office to provide for increased services.
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
(970) 945-7755 TEL
(970) 945-9210 FAX
(303) 893-1608 DENVER DIRECT LINE
October 27, 1999
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates — Preliminary Plan Review
Dear Kit:
RECEIVED OCT 2 7 1999
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the
Aspen Equestrian Estates Preliminary Plan Submittal dated October 1, 1999. This letter presents
our technical review of water supply, wastewater disposal, water quality, drainage/floodplain,
soils/geology, wetlands, utilities, and traffic/road issues.
In our review, we contacted some of the Applicant's technical consultants to clarify questions
and identify WWE's concerns.
WATER SUPPLY
1. We believe an adequate physical water supply can be developed from the existing test
well. However, we recommend a second well be added for redundancy and back up.
2. From an engineering point -of -view, the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD)
Water Allotment Contract' is adequate for the project. A permanent augmentation will
be decreed for the project by the BWCD and paid for by the Applicant. The County
may want this cost to be included in an appropriate document such as the SIA for the
project.
3. The water distribution booster pump station on Sheet 18A has not been specified yet.
The system should include a backup power generator to run the system in the event of
a power failure.
4. The water system design should be submitted to and approved by the State prior to
Final Plat Submittal'
DENVER (303) 480-1700
DURANGO (970) 259-741 1 BOULDER- (303) 473-95
2
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning
October 27, 1999
Page 2
WASTEWATER
5. The wastewater service agreement between Aspen Equestrian Estates and Ranch at
Roaring Fork and the Sewer Connecting Main Agreement between the Ranch at Roaring
Fork, Aspen Equestrian Estates, and St. Finnbar outline the conditions for sewer
service. The sewer service is dependent on construction of a new wastewater treatment
plant. The County has no control over ensuring that these improvements will be
completed. The County may want to request a "Can and Will Serve" letter from the
Ranch at Roaring Fork.
DRAINAGE/FLOODPLAINS
6. The drainage plan appears adequate from a water quantity standpoint. However, a
detail for construction of the swales and outfall channels should be provided.
7. The drainage plan does not list any Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater.
Consistent with other County approved subdivisions, BMPs should be included in the
drainage plan (e.g., minimizing directly connected impervious area, grass -lined swales
with check structures, permanent erosion and sediment control measures, etc.).
8. Construction erosion and sediment control measures are presented on Drawing 18;
however, there did not appear to be a plan showing where and when to use these
structural measures.
9. The floodplain boundary does not match the floodplain elevations and topography
shown on the grading and drainage sheets. It is important to resolve this issue since
minimum finished floor elevations have been set and it is not clear if the project
topography is on the same datum as the floodplain study.
SOILS/GEOLOGY
10. There are no significant soils or geologic constraints to development on the project site.
However, we concur with H -P Geotech regarding the need for site specific studies for
each lot. This requirement should be reflected in the appropriate locations such as plat
notes and covenants.
WETLANDS
11. The: delineation of wetlands should be shown on the plat and appropriate plat notes and
restrictions in the covenants should be added to avoid impacts to the wetland areas.
Specific protection measures as outlined in the Andrew Antipas Ecological and
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning
October 27, 1999
Page 3
Environmental Consulting, L.L.C. should be presented in plat notes and shown on the
drawings.
TRAFFIC/ROADS
12. Access to the project is via a single, long cul-de-sac. There does not appear to be any
provisions for secondary emergency access/egress on the project.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON THE DRAWINGS
13. The plat provides a legal description for and depicts a "Perpetual Easement." There
is no description of the use of this easement (e.g., utilities, access, irrigation, etc.).
The sewer line must cross this easement and it is unclear whether this is permitted
within the easement.
14. On Sheet 6, the grading for the outflow channel between Lot El and Lot B11 is
incomplete.
15. The proposed culverts should be shown on the road profiles.
16. The Water and Utility Notes on Sheet 18 should be revised to fit this project,
specifically Notes 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 15.
17. The plat shows, but does not identify or label, the easement for the potable water
system improvements.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
By:
Michael : ion, .E.
Project M. nager
MJE/dlf
921-047.060
cc: Don DeFord, Esq., Garfield County
Leslie Hope, P.E., High Country Engineering