Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 12.20.1999PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: PLANNER/ENGINEER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: BOCC 12/20/99 Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision (of the Preshana Farms P.U.D.) preliminary plan review (and request for a P.U.D. zone district amendment to be heard 1/3/00). Jay Weinberg of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC 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 with a second backup well Central treatment facility located at Ranch at Roaring Fork County Road 100 Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) 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. Page 1 of 14 II. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Site Description: The subject tract is about 58 acres in size, located approximately three (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 be reached, the water supply was to be developed internally. Wastewater treatment would also be provided by Ra�}ch at�,�oaring Fork, which would need modifications to • 1} provide the needed extra capa6ieRO service agreement was ever reached and the' project became inactive. In 1997 the County received a combined sketch plan / PUD 1�izzoive'vt ` amendment application. On October 8, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of rip 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 t` concerning the approval of modifications to the Planned Unit Development rezoning plan. The conditions of approval are as follows: b , a. That the application shall conform to all current Planned Unit Development—') `d requirements and subdivision requirements concerning limitations on dogs and J "Aspen Glen" wood stove regulations. bb 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 PUD 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 Page 2 of 14 modifications (February 9, 1998). ei:, 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 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. g. 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; delete allowances for athletic facilities and tennis courts. h. That all zoning districts and uses allowed within the individual zone districts of the original Preshana Farms PUD are hereby repealed and replaced with the modifications contained within the present application and modifications noted herein. That the following sign types and specifications shall be allowed within the PUD: 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. IAC 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. Page 3 of 14 Finnbar Farm Subdivision is located to the south. III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS: This application was 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 "Lt . 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 6 i0 . 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. D. RE -1 School District: The District is requesting fees in lieu of land dedication based on the adopted formula. (?e1-) E. Colorado Geological Survey (CGS): See page s . Jeffrey Hines conducted a site 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'i -1/ . 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 0, . 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. 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. Page 4 of 14 K. TCI Cablevision of Colorado: To date no response has been received. L. Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority: See page . Noel Huff, in a memo 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". 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: Has concerns about fire and emergen y vehicle accessibility and the cumulative impact of growth on the Sheriff's Office. 42e. (t(L) R. Garfield County Engineering Consultant: See page 15 20 Wright Water Engineers (WWE), on behalf of the County, in a letter dated 10/27/99, previously commented on water supply, wastewater, drainage/floodplains, soils/geology, wetlands, roads, and miscellaneous other items. A follow up letter, dated 12/8/99, discusses adequate water quality of the well, specific drawing revisions needed, and notes that the applicant should submit documentation in support of the proposed fire protection system which does not use a backup power generator to operate the pump station. IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Subdivision/Zoning: The applicant must comply with Resolution 98-11, which conditionally approves the P.U.D. zoning. In this case the P.U.D. is only being amended technically to reflect the conditions set by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant had difficulty meeting the public notice requirements for the PUD amendment so it will be reviewed at a separate hearing set for 1/3/00. At this time, the Board will only review the preliminary plan aspect of the application. Section 4:00 of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations specifies the preliminary plan requirements. The Planning Commission has reported it's recommendation to the County Commissioners concerning the P.U.D. amendment and 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 Plan 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. 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 Page 5ofl4 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 indicate that a potable water supply is available for the project. 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. Wright Water Engineers (WWE) had reviewed the original submittal and offered the following comments: , 1� ln. t !-G_ as - 1. A second well should be added for redundancy and back up (This has been done butt d - minor revisions are needed to Sheet 11 -see WWE letter 12/8/99 item #2). �^ 2. The SIA should stipulate that a permanent augmentation plan be paid for by the £V L4' 1 r applicant. (This has not been received and is needed prior to final plat). 3. The water distribution booster pump station should be specified and include a backup power generator. (The applicant is proposing a system that includes flooded suction hydrants at the storage tank for use by the Fire Department. The applicant indicated that the Fire Dept. has approved the plans. Written documentation must be provided to confirm this statement). 4. Evidence of state approval of the water system design shall be submitted prior to final plat. WWE had 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). These revisions have been made. WWE has subsequently reviewed the revised drawings (see letter dated 12/8/99) and noted a few technical revisions that are still needed. All WWE comments should be made conditions of approval. Ken Knox, Assistant State Engineer, in a letter dated 10/19/99, stated 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. The applicant must obtain, valid well permits for both proposed wells prior to final plat. 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 maximum of 120 EQR's of sewer service, a sufficient amount 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 noted 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 Page 6 of 14 D. E. 1 ltb construction is completed. This can be remedied by submitting a "can & will serve" rLiA c 't "f`t letter from RRF. WWE also noted that the plat depicts a "perpetual easement". The 7 complete "Agreement, Easement Grant, and Mutual Release" was submitted to WWE a'� with a letter dated 11/5/99 from High Country Engineering. The easement is between the Ranch and St. Finnbarr and specifies that no improvements may be placed in it without written permission. AEE has not shown they have a right to place any improvements, such as sewer lines, in the easement. Providing proof of an ability to place improvements in the easement should be made a condition of approval at preliminary plat. It should be understood that sewer service must be provided to the entire project prior to approval of the final plat. Providing surety in an SIA is not acceptablefhe County would be put in the position of having to issue building permits for lots for which there was no sewer service available. State ISDS setback standards apply and should be verified by an engineer. No other local health regulations apply. Staff suggested making receipt of a "can & will serve" letter prior to final plat, proof of an ability to place improvements in the easement, and requiring sewer service be provided prior to final plat conditions of approval. Access / Internal Roads: 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. WWE notes the proposed culverts should be shown on the road profiles. Staff suggests they be provided prior to final plat. 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, discussed 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 (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 suggested that the Fire District's comments be made conditions of approval. See Water section of this report for discussion of need for a back-up power generator or written documentation from the Fire District that it is not needed. 1)1(‘ igq-TO-C 114. et,6 rj VA 1.• , (-0/1(-A-HT Mr -v... ' 11YY1 �. Q. Page 7 of 14 SL - gyp► 1 cte� 461 PLO -J-tele'u p ) to '/ F. 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 had previously noted (letter dated 10/27/99) that the drainage plan appeared adequate from a water quantity standpoint. A detail of construction of the swales and �}Y�': outfall channels and BMP's (best management practices) had been requested. WWE alsoryilM noted that the floodplain boundary did not match the floodplain elevations and r, topography shown on the grading and drainage sheets. Staff suggested requiring the applicant to resolve the floodplain boundary issue and submit the requested information i to staff and WWE for review and approval (if consistent with best engineering practices) prior to final plat. In a letter dated 12/8/99 WWE notes that the proposed location of sediment control fence on Lots B3 -B7 on sheet 7 should follow the wetland boundary rather than the lot line. The wetland boundary should also be shown. G. 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 El 8 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 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 Page 8 of 14 provided in order to ensure the implementation of their recommendations. 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 th' u e -C WWE notes there are no significant constraints to development. However, WWE does concur with HP regarding the need for site specific studies, for each lot and plat notes/covenants should reflect this. Ietitt, 7 Q -g -e-41 Staff suggested WWE's recommendation be made a condition of ap royal..tt4s.w 4._. 9 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 provided 2 letters, dated 10/25/99 & 9/14/97, along with educational brochures. He made specific recommendations regarding silt fencing, dog & cat restrictions, buried utilities, protective covenants, trash containers, rear yard setbacks; I brochures, hay enclosure, dead snags, fencing, and horse grazing. The DOW suggest requiring construction of dog kennels prior to issuance of a C.O. and the need for 50' , setbacks on lots B2 -B 11. Since some homeowners may not own a dog, kennels should not be required at C.O. Also, the specified building envelopes negate the need for a separate 50' rear yard setback. All recommendations (except dog kennels at C.O. and 50' setbacks) 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 Page 9 of 14 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. Gsyst.32. t/titmet41.,fe .-1.7,,trnS /G 'oc_p .J' J. Covenants: The following modifications should be made to the covenants: c... 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. It needs to be clearly stated that while the covenants may allow accessory dwelling units, the P.U.D. zoning, which supercedes the covenants, prohibits accessory dwelling units. 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 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. Page 10 of 14 r (, I Hay piles must be enclosed as prescribed by the DOW in order to discourage feeding by deer and elk. K. Phasing: The application proposes to complete the construction in one phase. Construction access will be at Road A and CR100. L. Other: It should be noted that the employee housing units may be rented but may not be sold as separate interests. 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: Due to a problem with public noticing, the PUD amendment application will be reviewed during a public hearing on 1/3/00. On 11/10/99 the Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the preliminary plan, with the following conditions, in order to protect the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County: [Additional staff comments are in the parentheses], c.�t iG► `J"� 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting i before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval; . 2. The applicant shall submit adequate lab results for the water source prior to the Board ofces;k` County Commissioners meeting on this issue. [This condition has been met.] 3.e7 ..)14.44.• The recommendations of Wright Water Engineers and the Office of the State Engineer shall .kms be followed. More specifically: a) A second well should be added for redundancy and back up. [This condition has ►'‘-d li►" Page 11 of 14ptcu . ; ttiva ei cx.$` ,fit or.r..(24k for aY +C) COIviattifttrY •+ t'�-�� V4xl ,A, i �i 1 .A. +72A-.± c v`. -14 Ie o -(ry, b;) ,,,\A.,-t�.�t..�n, Ito J 4.. 1364 1 C1 z, �.., .w -P4 £/ been met but minor revisions should be made to Sheet 11 as discussed in WWE's 12/8/99 letter]. b) The applicant shall specify the mechanism used to ensure the County that a permanent augmentation plan will be paid for. c) The water distribution booster pump station shall be specified and include a backup power generator. [Or written approval from the Fire District shall be provided]. d) Evidence of state approval of the water system design shall be submitted prior to final plat. e) The water and utility notes on sheet 18 shall be revised to fit this particular project (specifically notes 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, & 15). [This condition has been met.] f) The final plat shall show the labeled easement for the potable water system improvements. g) The applicant shall obtain and submit to the County valid well permits for the proposed uses prior to final plat. \P-1'41 4. Pursuant to section 4:92 (C) (1) and 4:91 (A) (4) of the 1984 Garfield County y P` At Subdivision Regulations : ( k Prior to final plat, the applicant shall submit to the County a "Can & Will Se e" letter IY`J 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. [Prior to final plat, the applicant shall provide a "Can & Will Serve" letter and proof that AEE has the right to place improvements in the perpetual easement]. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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: • 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. Page 12 of 14 • 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. 8. The boundary of the floodplain [and wetland boundary] 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 [with revisions to Sheet 7 as discussed in WWE letter 12/8/99]. 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. 9. Hepworth-Pawlak's recommendations shall be followed. No below grade living spaces shall be permitted. [A plat note shall reflect the need for site specific studies and prohibition of below grade living spaces]. 10. All recommendations made by the DOW (except the 50' setbacks and kennels prior to a certificate of occupancy) in letters dated 10/25/99 & 9/14/99, shall be made conditions of approval, incorporated into the covenants and/or be notes on the final plat. No accessory dwelling units will be permitted within the subdivision. 12. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District for payment of development impact fees prior to the signing of the final plat. 13. The covenants shall be amended as discussed in section J of this staff report. 14. 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. 15. 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 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." Page 13 of 14 • Ir Pt.e etk- Dz-z) 6/;SU6.4.10 -ce-5 6/ v-veit_LinL c_ &ce_a GuJAiit -vc-f4 /Lei-cal/3G pcit,k a,(1 &)-6 2 oco . s 6,61. pe.c), tic,frye,„ so -(d ce,r1,10) pe,f, 1[6 Yr aVal Ci2 of) LA-rbyl ta Co- LLJ A,) Lop (A,41/ Ere- (sclici22. (A^A*1 p{cIAA-J— uo LuK-e2m "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 good 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." 4' i Y v. ) \ '' • v ,.G1 Staff recommends three (3) other conditions of approval be included: '-=° ..0.°°°.d.; ' , rs'%r- a'✓AL1 ,L.i D�Gt,U) o 6:6)6:6)The applicant shall obtain a favorable vote from the Board of County Commissioners 1;''''' concerning the amendment to the PUD, as discussed in the application and as recommended by the Planning Commission, prior to approval of the final plat. vo-tcp (V ,p CAV's k)\ 17. WWE's other recommendations in letter dated 12/8/99 shall be made conditions of 1 approval as follows: • Sheet 11 shall be revised to show the water line layout matches the layout on sheet 18A. • Note 6 on Sheet 6 shall read "Heavy equipment shall not enter the wetland area and construction materials shall not be placed or stockpiled in the wetland area". # No final plat shall be approved until sewerservicehas been provided. Page 14 of 14 u�! -vJ \e jot 13° u)P 00 A o ( (to vo►ra. iiI (3 = ft� t 14 id p Ladv.3- ) n efiyi,c5) 0 L sm J [s1 -6W -e- 12140 `-`1 44- % owld--coyo 0-c3 tip- Q C(1 ` e U - % Zc/tb Y L/ , G 1,a tc„ f & ' J v 'ga2eJ 6cJ- dD /. Pcr Lutiki2S et4ii-u/Gai ,f4,L,Q;1. (r),04t2ii„66 gevvez--, U Vim' tAdL, btYJt VA/V4-,V\YL‘)j- LA1.`- .f5CA -1/tki,<". rw-z-o'N . 1Y'\ i-- — 06-14 -(v -"w c a At. -1-D s-z.z-i / OD G -Ub0a- (p rrrYvs 1 p/It old d L'- (--0 to irr a MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. ECX 1302 GLr;1WCCD SPRINGS, CO 81602 September 13, 1997 Eric McCafferty Garfield Ccunty Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 41) 0. ",L"1 1,::,: }'' f r 'r1.' 11 1 �1 SEP 1.:? i�7; II 1' JL1 C3hizx; zL Com;:! ; y Dear Sir, At the regular monthly meeting cf the M_u_nt Scpris Soil ConserJaticn District, the Board reviewed the application and plan fcr the Preshana 'Tarn Subdivision and have the following comments and ccrce_ns about the prcject. Any cuts fcr rcads$_cr_.-ccrstructien should be revegetated to prevent eres_cn. 'Weed f=ei- seed -„and lnu? C. w hould,uhe,T-used fcr any . reseeding cf the . araa� - .3�cnitcring�f a13 �Zngad�hicuut ,. _ o e �eccnins : a to: see't if- the,. grass is establ.ishir~ng..cr s re_.ds .ar t.._, _ problem: ReseedinScr..we�� c xol--practices shculd be imp l emented-T i a prcb Zp'"as: 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 dcgs from the suhdiv-sicn. Dogs r=ning stcck and �_, kill domestic l ir, packs c: two cr mors can maim cr � � y.. regulations be wildlife. The District recommends anima_ ccn�_ol adopted in the covenants fcr the subdivision and that they be enforced. -' is the emaintenance and Of trine concern to the Bcard, prcperw,, prcteCtlCn of any irrigation ditch which is cn the site landcwlersr shculd:&be~ -r f crhed, ha t4the .ch_ow ers1,, lave Kra gh t o f o��1� wry 'easement ...-.,� r..a�•�a= - t'^ at `�`'iis wcrti may.�;be_ becc1eaning and rcrking- on the:c=tch, and h_eirvar ds :. The district would like to know what the impact will be cn the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board reccmaends that any irrigaticfn terorderrightto sebe used by the landowners so they are maintained e rights, a raw water delivery system cculd be usefor landscape, fire protection, open space, etc. If at all p se should be incorporated into tteefficient at thisftime.the sTheirision plans as it would be more cos concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans -should consider.4these �ccncerns: E Drainage has the potential -_to be- `a 'problem 'int=the -area 7 and 77.. .engineering•recommendatiens far control of•draine'should be --z ag ;: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 an an alluvial fan deposit area. With increased concerns about Water Quality tthe r et s ccncerze a o it cnit�rinc `chemical apclicatien _ for.`fertilrzer, wed icontrar —ifid ether pest management- reason ith41--- aoricern ;,,is • the ''chemicals --that, will. be •used to fertilize• sses-and. control weeds-inzthea is They feel.. tjYat the chemicals 5should be -� clasely ;momitorec fa'Ltiiis' area due to the -possibility that the chemlcals..ya ' ,.k. ill.soa,�c.winta •the sails and run aff into the `creeks The "Diss ict_�suggeitil .drilling -of -wells to monitor ground _water poIluticiz;' ri d=tha.'this•-expense. -and =future -expenses should -be-- bor b? tthe"developer-: ' Sincerely, • Scot cdero, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservaticn District September 29, 1997 • Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO S163 . Mr. Eric McCaf er..- Car:ie1d Count • Building & Planning. 109 Eu st S'h St.. Suite 303 Glenwood Springs. CO S1601 RE: Preshanna Farms PLD (970) 963-2733 FAX (970) 9 t'•• A V397 Thank you for giving the Town of Carbondale the opportunity to respond to the PUD Zonir._..krterdment for Preshanna Farms. The Carbondale Planning Corriissicri reviewed rhis proposal at their September 25'h meeting and they unanimously directed .Tse to write the following letter. The prirriar.' issue is that the PLD Zoning for Preshar- a well as the Saint Finbar project and the related wastewater n.eaTMrent facility are not in conformanc-e with the land use densities of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential and provides for 10 plus acres per du:ellinv. unit. It is rio secret that the property owners between the Ranch Z. Roaring Fork and the Dakota Project have had discussions with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District for provision of N.vater and wastewater services and may propose a considerable up -zoning in terms of densities. The Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission strongly recommends that there be a discussion regarding what is the appropriate density flora the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary. We actually thought that this discussion and 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 :ray be a si=i iica. 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 classifications for 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 foram. Please remember that Garfield County. Glenwood Springs "and the Town of Carbondale have •Toren together a rew 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 devise 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 sitif cant up rt: +ti 3 zoning from the Ranch (cu 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 resuictior. 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 Iand use summary chart as provided in the application. Once again. thank you for letting. Carbondale comment on this proposal. Please call me it you wish to discuss any of the issues in this letter. The Carbondale Planing Commission would also welcome a meeting. with the Garfield County Planning Commission to discuss any of biose lamer is6ues. Sincerely, r� R-.4_ A. c L�.�... ��'�- rte.' Michael Hassn_. Chairman Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission 4 Carbondale & F3zzral Fire Fc© Cis�r�c� September 16, 1997 Eric McCafferty Gateid County Planning Deparrent 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 31601 RE: Preshana Farms PSD Rezoning & Sketch Plan Eric: l- .� --. ( ,-r. _ ^ v r , C4eaaawood Detre ;,; =,. _••�__1. ,'CO 81623 -- - ib) Sb3-2481 •�9 j �i� •1 a 1% .7 F s®.O I have reviewed the sketch plan proposal for the Preshana. Farms PUD and would offer the following comments. Access The proposed road layout and access to the development is adeq--uate for fire apparatus. Water Supplies Water supplies for fore protection are proposed to be supplied via a combination gravity and direct putting 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 (LTC) - Appeadix III -A. The spacng and distribution of fire hydrants in the development should meet the requirements of UFC- Appendix III -B. L:-pz Fe= The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the Distict 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. mew October 25, 1999 acilai0 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 plarrdoes-notmetiom the:.3,500rsquare<faot requirerrnentorproposee any' i ree Ism forimposing` the sp ink11rr'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. Anothe that-shoulc be addressed -is to-properly-size-the-water-service— lines from the water mains to the residences.'roper 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'.',.1.999 edition_ Please contact me if you have any questions. Sinpr i Bill Gavette Fire Marshal �ECE- VED OCT 2 7 1999 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 6 NOV-04-99 THU 07:57 AM COLOTRUST Roaring • Fork'' School ;District RE -1 1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • Telephone (970) 945-6558 • • November 2, 1999 Kit Lyon Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms. Lyon: FAX NO. 18773110220 P. 02 FRED A, WALL, Superintendent JUDY' HAPtONSTALL, Ass/slant Superintendent •• SHANNON •.PELLAND; Fina..nce Orector This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Preliminary Plan & Zonc 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, Shannon Pclland Finance Director 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 STATE OF COLORAD GA -00-0002 NATURAL T OF 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 y Senior Engi e ring Geologist RECEIVED CCT 2 8 1999 STATE OF COLORADO RECEIVED OCT ( 1999 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 8'h St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates Dear Ms. Lyon: 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_ Sin 1y_ D n -�2 evin Wright/ District Wildla Manager Carbondale" 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 9 The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: l� 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.z 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 1 0 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: OF 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 11 •'R ar 'r.x�..z s �. 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.usklefaulthtm Kit Lyon Garfield County Planning Dept 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 October 19, 1999 Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates NW'/4 Sec. 31, i / S, 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 awell 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 thatawell 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, Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/Aspen Equestrian Estates.doc - RECEIVED OCT '? 5 159 cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38 i 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 13 THOMAS P. DALESSANDRI Sheriff i' '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 Sheriff's 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. 1 4+ 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. .A`j'f (itiu✓i 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 shouldtinclude a backup power generator to run the system in the event of a powef failure: 4. The water=system desgn'should be submitted to and approved, by. the State prior to,, : JinaU 1at_Submittal? DENVER (303) 480-1700 DURANGO (970) 259-741 1 BOULDER - (303) 473-95 5 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 , minimising 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 II -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. Thesdelineafion of wetlands sliould 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/,:t (0 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: MJE/dlf 921-047.060 cc: Don DeFord, Esq., Garfield County Leslie Hope, P.E., High Country Engineering Michael 'ion, Project M . ger 47- Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 8 18 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. (WAVE) 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) 480-1 700 DURANGO (970) 259-741 I BOULDER - (303) 473-9500 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 -• 19 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. f) 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 MJE/dlf 921-047.060 cc: Don DeFord, Esq., Garfield County Leslie Hope, P.E., High Country Engineering • Michael :cion, Project M. nager 20 McaughIin engineers, ltd. �Waterci December 6, 1999 Mr. Ron Liston Land Design Partnership 918 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Ranch at Roaring Fork v'ir T P Expansion Dear Mr. Liston: RONALD C. MCLAUGHLIN WILLIAM R. KENDALL RALPH L. TOREN TERRENCE P. KENYON RICHARD E. MCLAUGHLIN RONALD J. MCLAUGHLIN GENE A. BURRELL MICHAEL E. MERCER JOHN M. PTLAUM MICHAEL R. GALUZZI SCOTT E. LEHMAN G. DEAN DEROSIER BRIAN E. CHEVALIER DANIEL F. BLAHA ROBERT J. ANDERSON GREGORY R. CHOL WAYLAND J. ANDERSON JOHN M. KAUFMAN CARY R. PALMER RONALD E. DVORAK LEANDER L. URMY DANIEL M_ PETRAMALA RONALD D. LUCERO ALAN V. JOHNSON SUSANNE C. NICHOLLS JERROLD J. ANTON Per your request, this is to provide you with status information regarding the Ranch at Roaring Fork Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project. The Ranch has a service agreement with both Aspen Equestrian Estates and St. Finnbar; the plant is being designed to treat projected maximum loads from both these subdivisions. The Site Application has been approved by the State and we are now in the final design phase. The plans are now approximately 50% complete and we should have them ready to submit to the State for final review by January 15, 2000. Construction is scheduled to start in March or April (weather dependent) — with the plan in operation before the end of the year 2000. We will keep you informed of any significant schedule updates. Very truly yours, Ronald C. Mc aughlin cc: Mike Bell, Manager Ranch at Roaring Fork P:\1994194-021\000G0\wp\RCM-M-Liston re-WWTP Exp.wpd 2420 Alcott Street • Denver • Colorado • 80211 • 2 303.458.5550 • fax 303.480.9766 • ®mwe©mwewater.com AT ROARING FORK tuber 17, 1999 Mr. Ron Liston Aspen Equestrian Estates, Inc. Land Design Partnership 918 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Dear Mr. Liston, This will confirm that the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. will provide wastewater treatment services to Aspen Equestrian Estates in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the Ranch and AEE dated September 22, 1999. For your information, we are advised that the plans for our expanded facility will be completed and furnished to the State Department of Health in January. We also expect to submit them to contractors at that time, subject to any changes, which may be required by the Department. Sincerely yours, Charles Holloway President, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association ndale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-3500