HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 06.18.01PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
BOCC 6/18/01
A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for the
Roaring Fork Preserve subdivision
Roaring Fork Preserve, LLC
Land Design PartnershiP
High Country Engineering
Parcel located in portions of Sections 35 and 36'
i;;;'d; i"*t, Range 88 west orthe 66 PM
Individual wells
Individuat sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
CR IOO
A,TR/RD
Planned Development (Ranch at Roaring Fork) to
the north A/R/'B'D to the east, south and west
TO TTM C OMP NSI\E PLAN
AP PLICANT
PL ANNER
ENGINEER:
LO NCATI
1 RE LATIO NSHIP
The2000CompPlanindicatesthatthisSiteliesintheLowDensityResidentialDistrict,
*fr.ft Jf" f* j dwelling unit per l0 or more acres The-designation of low-density
residential is based upon constiaints found in the area. The plan proposes 13 dwellings on
90.3 acres or an average a",,,iiy oi uUotlt one dwelling umtper 6 93 acres ' which is not in
compliance with the r""o*rn"niJ densities for the aria The adjoining property to the
"""[*"" is the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision' which removed proposed accessory
dweltings to compty with the i#mmended density of one (1) dwelting per 10 acres' 'If
tfr" pr.p.t"a u.""r.ory d*.ttiog' *"t" removed fiom the application' the plan could be
i:"ria ti, be in compliance with ihe recommended density for the area
SectionVofthe2000GarfieldCountyComprehensivePlancontainsmapswhichindicate
it uittl.,it" ti", in the floodplain and the visual corridor' has septic constraints dl: to u
.
itGi -""i"uf., is served uy a County Road that is in good condition' and that this area ts
1
REQLIEST,
WATER:
SEWER:
AIEESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
prime agricultural tand. The comp plan further indicates.that this site lies in the Town of
'C-Uoniuf"'t statutory sphere of inliuence (2 miles) and hence' this application was
referred to the Town of Carbondale for comment'
Some relevant goals of the comp plan follow:
Section III-2.0 Housing: " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future
,"rlO.to equitable housing oppo,tuniti"t *t'ich are-designed to provide safe' efficient
.
residential structures that are Jompatible with and that protect the natural environment".
Section III-6.0 Agriculture: "To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to
"ontinu"
in ope i,on and compatibility issues are addressed during project review"
Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision oflegal' adequate'
;;;;;;"L1", "oJ .r""tG*a "*i'*tentally sound sewer and water services for new
development."
Section III-8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield county will encourage a land use pattem.
that recognizes th" "n iron*"=:====.rtul s"nsitivity ofthe land, do". not overburden the physical
;;;*r,r;r,n. land, and is in the best interests ofthe health' safety' and welfare of
Garfreld CountY."
SectionIII-10.0UrbanAreaofInfluence:.,Ensurethatdevelopmentand.overall.landuse
oolicies occurring i., th" CouoG;;ill affect a municipality are compatible with the
;;; ;;;J n,tot" una "t" objectives of the appropriate municipalitv "
II
A
PROJECT INFO RMATI N
B
Site Description: The property is located about l 5 miles east ofCarbondale The Roaring
Fork fuver forms the northern bounJu,y oftn. site. The site is currently used as irrigated
p"rirtJ""a. Lots 1 and 2 have ponion's ofthe lot w^ithrn the 100 year floodplain The site
!-"*"fiv-a.t.t ,o the west witli an average slope of less tha.n Zok' The Slough Ditch and
iu*ing f_u*.uf conuey irrigation'*ut*. tJ tn" pasture land in the southwestern portion of
the property..
Development Proposal: The plan is to divide the 90 3 acres into nine (9) residential lots
"rd;6; f"r(4) "f
the lots io have accessory dwellings The lots range in size from
5.050 to 15.876 acres in size. Access is direcily offof CR 100' via a 60 ft right-of-way '
*nn uZzft. wide chip and seal driving surface, ihat is also to provide access to the
,
;;;;; ruuvnv s.ra subdivision Lots l-5 are accessed via a 1006 ft long cul-de-
sac with a 58' radius and a 16 ft wide chip and seal driving surface Lots 8 and 9 are to
be served by a 30 ft wide u."",' uttd utility easement with a 12 ft wide chip and seal
surface that ends at Lot 8.
2
Adi t Land Uses:
property and Provides
agricultural and reside
a 5 lot subdivision on
REVIEW AGENCY AND O THER CO
The Roaring Fork River lies along the northern boundary ofthe
gold medal-fishing waters. Adjacent lands are currenlly in
,iiul l,rr". An adjacent property owner (to the north) has applied for
about 40 acres called the "Ma1'fly Bend"'
MMENTS
Referrals of the preliminary plan were sent to the following review agencies Due a delay
i"-g.i,rr,g ttt. referrals out io these agencies, no comments have been received at the time
"fiir" r"it g of the staffreport. Tie following were the comments of these agencies at
the time of the Sketch Plan review:
The Town Planner has suggested that a cluster approach
for the property and thar the proposed density-exceeds the
of the Comprehensive Plan. (See letter pg ZU I
Town of CarboA,
B.
C.
D
E,
F,
G
H
I
J
may be a better design
recommended densitY
Boo liffSo ons
RE-2 Schoo I District
Holv Cro SS Enersv
atio
No response
No response
lst No response
Public S ervice C omp any No response
U.S West Commu nlcations: No res
e
ponse
oun Road Brid No reponse
Carbondale Fire Protection District. The Dep uty Chief stated that the access road
is adequate for emergency vehicles; the water supply should be adequate to
provide at least 30,000 gallons ofbackup fire protection water for the house
impact fees. (See letter Pgs
develooer wrll bZt-25 t
e required to PaY the fire districtautomatic fire sPrinklers; the
Colorado DePt. of Public Health No response
Colorado Div. of Water Resources: The water supply is not supported bY the
contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District,which would result in
material injury to decreed water rights, unless a court approved plan for
augmentation is approved or the District is capable of
substitute supply plan. (See letter pg
vrlffietttuoueh
rhetr temporary
K. Colorado Div. of Wildlife The DOW identified a numb er of issues that need to be
addressed in anY future subdivision application to minimize wildlife impacts at
Sketch Plan, which theY saY have been addressed except the request for a cou ple
of concerns related to the tig
and the need to make sure th
hter clustering of the building envelopes for
at hay is properly stored (See letters pgs
lots [-zL
2?-27\
L-
M
pgs
J
the
C
iII,
weed management Plan. ln a subsequ ent review ofthe weed management plan he
exp ressed concerns about the possibility that leafy spurge and spotted knapweed
actually being on site and the need to immediately implement management
measures. He also questions who will b e responsrble for reveg etation of utility
cuts made as a P art of the subdivision improvements. (See memo pgs fut
ado 1o urv The CGS generally concurs with the HP Geotech
report for the site. TheY note that basements should be avoided and that
engineered mounded sePtic sYs tems will need to be designed for the property
Care should be grven to proper 1y investigate the foundation excavations to make
sure that there are no subsidence features in the area ofa foundation. Provided
N
P
srte sp ecific investigations and foundation designs are c ve no
geolog ic concerns about the development. (See letter
O. Neighbor's comments The 100 Road Cattle ComPan y expressed concerns about
allowing a density in excess ofone (1)dwelling unit per 10 acres. They also
requested that all new power lines be b uried and the existing lines also be burie
off-site drainage problems were noted (See letter pgs
ol and the potential forzg'al tAdditional concerns about the use of IS DS, weed contr
made (See pgs 46-
the orooosed4r' i
onducted . thev ha
pg' 4b- 3? t
d
The Garfield County Engineer's oftice has p
application. The following comments were
D
S
directly.
E. He noied a number of recommendations for amendments to plat notes
F. Recommended additions and modifications to the plan maps'
CO MMENT
rovided comments on
A. A copy of each wetl permit and pump test shall be submitted '
B. The fire district approval shalt be submitted'
C ISTS systems have issues that are ofconcern and he suggested other
alternatives.
SurlacerunoffshouldbenotbeallowedtoaccesstheRoaringForkRiver
IV. ST
A comprehensive Plan: with one unit per 6.93 acres, the proposed density is exceeds the
;ffiG;".**dation of one 1i1 uttit p"r 10 acres. ..If the development did not
f,""J,[" for. accessory dwelling uniti proplsed, it would be in compliance with the
."co-me.rded density in the Co'mprehensive Plan. As note previously, the adjoining.
.
ftl"Vny g""a subdivision eliminated the accessory dwellings form the application'-which
resulted in 4 residential lots on the 40 acres. As it is presently proposed , the application
a".. r", comply with the Comprehensive Plan proposed land use density designations'
The development proposal appears consistent with most of the comp plan goals' with the
4
following excePtions
Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision oflegal, adequate,
dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new
development. "
Section III-8.0 Natural Environment. "Garfreld County will encourage a land use pattern
that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical
capacity ofthe land, and is in the best interests ofthe health, safety, and welfare of
Garfield County."
Water and Natural Environment deficiencies are discussed in detail in this report. As long
as the suggested conditions of approval are included, staffbelieves that relevant goals can
be met.
B Zonins. Subdivi and Phasine: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R'R.D
zone district. The lot design appears to generally meet the standards set forth in the
Subdivision Regulations.
The applicants are requesting approval an accessory dwelling for Lots 5-8 as a part of
the subdivision approval, which is allowed by 3.02.01, which states that an accessory
dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district provided the accessory dwelling unit
is "approvetl as a part ofa public hearing or meeting on a subdivision or subdivision
exemption or guesthouse special use approved after 7i95 and meeting the standards in
Section 5.03.021."' Section 5.03.021 reads:
5.03.21 Accessor! Dwelling lJnit: IJse of a strttcture as an accessory dwellingwhether
approved by Special LIse, use by right in a new subdivision approval, or on an existing lot
must meet the following standards, as well as all other standards applicable to residential
use:
( 1) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) ocres containing a building site with slopes
less than 40ok at least two (2) acres in size.
(2) The gross floor area for residentidl use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. fl.
(j) Approvalfrom the subdivision homeowners association ancltor allowed by covenant
if applicable.
(1) Proof of a legally adequate xturce ofwater fttr an additional dwelling unit.
(5) C.ompliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or
proof of a legal ability to cofiPct to an approved central sewage treatment facility.
(6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed.
(7) That all construclion complies with the appropridte County building cctde
requirements.
It should be noted that an accessory dwelling is a detached dwelling unit and that the
County would not be approving a dwelling unit that is attached to the principal dwelling
5
C
unit. A two-family dwetling , an "apartment" or a "caretakers" quarters attached to the
principal dwelling will be subject to a Speciat Use Permit for a two family dwelling'
No phasing plan is proposed. The application states that final platting and construction
will be done as one phase. This is consistent with the subdivision regulations
Water: Each of the lots will have an individual wells will supply domestic water to each
ofthe lots. The applicant's engineer has projected an annual consumptive use of 5.62 AF,
with a peak diversion of 12..9 gpm during the month ofJune.
The applicant has augmented the proposed wells with water from the Basalt Water
conservancy District (BWCD). The have an original contract (no. 367) was for 3.5 acre
feet per year. This contract was subsequently amended to increase the allotment to 5.9
acre feet per year. The contract also includes the irrigation of7500 sq. ft. oflawn, 18
livestock units and 0.5 acres ofpond surface.
well #8 ofthe subdivision was drilled, tested, and found to have acceptable water quality
and capacity, as documented by the applicant's engineer. The pumping rate during a
January 2001 pump test was estimated to be t 5 gpm, which exceeds the average peak
monthly demand (12.9 gpm) for the proposed subdivision. The well is located in the same
aquiferas the proposed wells for the Mayfly Bend subdivision and the engineer has
opined that the proposed wells for the new subdivision will have similar water quality.
Tie Mayfly Bend subdivision well had no coliform bacteria and NitratesA"litrites level of
0.22 mgl, which is significantty below the colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment maximum contaminant level of 10.0 mgl.. No new water quality
information has been submitted in support ofthis application for this property'
An adequate potable and irrigation water sapply shall he available lo all lots within a
sabdivisiott, taking into considerdtion pedk demands lo service total development
population, irrigation uses, ancl adequale fire proteclion requirements in accordance
with recognized and cuslomary engineering slandord.s.
Each lot will be allowed to have 7500 sq. ft. of lawn and the rest of the lot will be left in a
natural state, with the exception of horses. There are no other irrigation demands for the
subdivision and the development meets the above standard.
The water rights are backed by a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District that
will be transierred to the HOA, with the final plat for the property, but there need to be
provisions in the covenants requiring the maintenance ofthose water rights by guarantying the
puy."nt of the water rights contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District
Prior to any Preliminary Plan approval, the Division of Water Resources, will need to issue a
letter on the water rights, stating that there will be no material injury to existing water rights
6
in the area. The existing letter is not a letter of"no material injury" to existing water rights
as required by CRS 30-28- 136 (h) (I). Garfield County does not override the State Engineers
opinion regarding injury to decreed water rights.
Prior to the approval any Final Plat, each well permit will be approved by the State
Division of Water Resources and each well will be drilled and meet the following criteria:
l. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
2. A well completion repo( demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics ofthe
aquifer and the static water level;
3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumphg rate in gallons per
minute and information showing drawdown and recharge;
4. A written opinion of the person conducting the woll test that this well should be adequate
to supply water to the number ofproposed lots;
5. An assumption of an average ofno less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100
gallons ofwater per persoq per daY;
6. Ifthe well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements
and costs associated with the operation and maintenance ofthe system and who will be
responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs;
7 . The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines
concerning bacteria and nitrates.
D Fire Protection: The site is located in the Carbondate and Rural Fire Protection District
(CRFPD). The CRFPD noted in a letter during the sketch plan process that the proposed
access should be adequate for fire protection purposes. Additionally they asked for
30,000 gallons ofbackup water storage for fire protection and that each unit have
sprinklers.
Zancanella & Associates (ZA) noted in a letter dated 8123/00 that the proposed water
system improvements for the Mayfly Bend subdivision wi[[ include a joint 30,000 gallon
storage tank, to be shared with the proposed Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision (RFP).
There was a fire protection plan submitted at the Planning Commission hearing for the
Roaring Fork Preserve subdivision application. . Water for fire protection will be limited
to water carried on fire apparatus and tanker shuttle, since there is no other fire protection
water included in either this application or the Mayfly Bend subdivision application. The
applicanrs propose to place three 10,000 gallon water storage/tanks at a location within
the Roaring Fork Preserve subdivision (See plans pgs' Zt'25 I Additionally' the
covenants have been amended to require MPABD compliant fire sprinklers in the houses.
The carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District has reviewed the plans and stated that the
design and installation should meet the following standards:
Tank/Ci tern Desisn and L ocatlon
l. Tankvcistern drawings should be submitted to the fire district prior to installa
7
tlon
All suction, fill and vent piping to be minimum ASTM Schedule 40 steel or PVC.
All PVC piping to have glued joints.
Any exposed PUC pipe to be primed and painted to protect from ultraviolet light.
Suiction piping and tank venting shall be capable ofdelivering 1000 gallons per
minute for three-quarters ofthe tank/cistem capacity.
Maximum lift from bottom of suction piping to fire apparatus pump connection
shall be a maximum l5 feet vertical distance.
Maximum distance from suction pipe connection (dry hydrant) to fire apparatus
pump connection shalt be l5 feet. (Note: standard fire apparatus to cistem suction
connection. )
Tank/cistern suction connection shall be 24" above finished grade.
Threaded suction connection shall be 6" NST male thread with cap.
Fill pipe connection shall be minimum of 2 %" NST female thread with cap.
Fill pipe connection shall be 36" above finished grade.
Exposed piping shall be protected from vehicular damage.
Pipinq & Connection
I
2
J
4
5
6
'7.
8.
9.
l0
1l
Any approval of the subdivision will need to include the previous requirements as a part
ofthe approval.
E. Sewer: Individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) are proposed for each lot. High
Country Engineering recommends an engineered aerobic system that provides secondary
treatment, due to a need to protect the high groundwater and surface water in the area.
The engineer notes that there are a number of aerobic systems available on the market that
have options for primary and secondary treatment. All of these systems require orygen as
an essential part of treatment, which means they have mechanical pumps, compressors,
motors and electronics to maintain ideal conditions for bacterial growth. Because of all of
these components, these systems are more expensive to purchase, install and maintain
The covenants have been modified to require the lot owners to follow maintenance
procedures appropriate to their system, including the hiring of"qualified personnel" to
inspect and maintain the ISTS's in the development. The same covenants give the HOA
enforcement procedures and remedies to make sure that the systems are properly repaired
and maintained.
I
TankVcistern shall be constructed of concrete, steel, fiberglass or other approved
material.
Tank/cistern and piping shall be backfilled to appropriate depth and/or insulated to
prevent freezing.
Access opening shall be provided for inspection and maintenance of tank/cistern(s)
Tank/cistern shall be self-filling.
Tanks/cisterns in areas with high water table shall be designed to prevent floating
when empty.
2.
J,
4.
5.
6.
As a part of his review, JeffNelson, Assistant County Engineer, has expressed some
reservations about the use of the ISTS as a means ofproviding sewage disposal. He
notes that the location has a number of environmental constraints such as groundwater
contamination, wetland destruction and downstream water contamination. Gven the high
level ofmaintenance required for these systems, he has suggested that the applicant's
explore the possibility of connecting to the Ranch at Roaring Fork sewage treatment
facility; building their own sma[[ package plant or evenjust engineered mound type
systems, instead of the ISTS proposed. As a staff, we concur that the proposed IST
systems are technologically far advanced to existing systems, but in the process of
developing a more sophisticated individual sewage treatment system, we have developed a
management and maintenance nightmare. The County has approved a similar type of
treatment system for the Cerise Ranch subdivision, but we have no real experience in
determining whether or not we have gone past the logical level oftreatment of sewage on
an individual lot basis. In the case of the Cerise Ranch subdivision, the Mid-Valley Metro
District did not receive approval to extend services farther into Garfield County. This
development has not really explored the possibility ofeither connecting into the Ranch at
Roaring Fork or developing their own small package plant for themselves and possibly the
Mayfly Bend subdivision. In a worst case scenerio, staffwould suggest that engineered
mound type of systems may be more logical, provided there is a required maintenance and
repair program developed for the property.
The proposed ISTS was agreed upon by the Planning Commission as the approved
method of sewage treatment, but there were a number ofissues that need to be modified
in the proposed covenants. Section 8.10 (B)(l) requires the HOA to retain the "services
ofqualified personnel to inspect the ISTS's....". The qualified person has been defined
at a minimum as a Class C Wastewater Treatment Operator, licensed by the Colorado
Department of Health and Environment, as required by the Planning Commission. The
reason being that a Class C operator is required to be knowledgeable about the operation
of aerobic systems. Additionally, the applicants were asked to select a specific
technology for the development, to make sure that the "qualified individual" can be
consistent in dealing with a specific technology. The applicant's have decided to select a
"preferred technology" in Section 8.9 ofthe covenants. While this identifies a specific
technology, it does not make it a mandatory technology. The reason staffhad suggested
that a limited number of technologies be identified, was to minimize the need for person or
firm to have to go to a variety of different companies to acquire replacement parts and
allow the individual a better working knowledge ofthe systems to better analyze problems
associated with a system. Staffwould suggest, that if the applicant does not want to
require a specific single technology, that the covenants be modified to require a choice of
the two technologies, with the understanding that if a company goes out ofbusiness the
HOA can select another replacement technology,
F Radiation/S oils/Tooosraohv. FIP Geotech states that the site is not in a geologic setting
that would indicate high concentrations ofradioactive materials in the natural soils and
9
underlying rock formation. Once buildings are constructed, it is possible to test for radon
gas concentrations. According to HP Geotech, the property is suitable for the proposed
development. HP further states that their recommendations are suitable for preliminary
design, but site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot development.
Hazards include flooding and potential sinkholes. A hydrologist should evaluate the
flooding potential at the site. The risk for subsidence is believed to be low; however, lot
purchasers should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development. They also
recommend spread footings, shallow foundations, and slab-on-grade lower floor
construction. Mounded septic systems will likely be needed, which will necessitate
additional testing for design on individual lots. The applicant notes that plat notes and
covenants have been amended to ensure disclosure ofpotential geologic hazards and/or
costs to individual lot owners.
Staff received the comments from the Colorado Geologic Survey after the Planning
Commission meeting. The CGS concurs with the recommendations of the HP Geotech
report and staff suggests that all recommendations of tIP Geotech become conditions of
approval.
G. Floodplain/Wetlands:ThePrelimin ary Plan locates the 100 year floodplain along the
northern boundary ofthe property. According to the plan, portions oflots I and 2
extend into the 100 yr. floodplain. The building envelopes for these lots are outside of
the designated floodplain areas. A plat note and covenant should be included in the
documentation that alerts the owners of Lots I and 2, that any activity in the floodplain on
their lots, will require a Special Use permit.
The applicant has submitted a wetland identification report from Beach Environmental
dated 9/l9iO0. The report notes that there are no wetlands on Lots 1-4 and 9. Lots 5-8
all have wetlands on them. Beach Environmental made a number of recommendations
regarding the movement of building envelopes to avoid wetlands on the lots. Staffwould
concur and suggest that the applicant revise the building envelope conliguration and
submit the revisions to Beach Environmental to confirm the locations and consistency with
their recommendations. That a letter from Beach Environmental be submitted as a part
ofany Final Plat application, certifying the location of all ofthe building envelopes.
Beach Environmental also identified a road crossing that would require a 404 permit.
Included in the application is a letter from the Corps ofEngineers, acknowledging the
proposed crossing as being subject to a nationwide permit and assigning a number to the
application.
Wildlife: The DOW subnutted detailed comments at the sketch plan phase. They stated
that the main wildlife value of this area is riparian and wetland. This habitat type is
extremely valuable to mule deer, coyote, red fox, raccoon, waterfowl, raptors, owls, and
many small mammals and songbirds. The hay meadow has less wildlife value. According
l0
H
to the DOW, as long as the following recommendations are followed, wildlife impacts
should be minimal:
1. Ifaccessory dwelling units are allowed on lots 5-8, it would be preferable that they be
attached units. Other wise, they should be clustered as close to the main homes as
possible to limit their area of disturbance within the building envelope.
2. The building envelopes for lots I and 2 should be situated as close to lots 3 and 4 as
possible to protect the movement corridor along the river.
3. Wetland and riparian habitats are identified, protected and maintained in a natural state
as much as possible.
4. The natural vegetation, including the cottonwoods and willows, is very valuable and
should be left undisturbed as much as possible. If any ofthe trees present a danger to
a structure, then they should be topped rather than removed completely. These snags
provide roosting and perching sites for raptors and other birds.
5. Home sites should be set back from ripariar/wetland areas 50-100 feet to help protect
these areas and minimize disturbance,
6. Bury all utilities or make them raptor-proofto prevent electrocution of owls, raptors,
and eagles.
7. No dogs allowed on site by construction
8. Limit the number of dogs which homeowners may have to 2, with additional
restrictions that dogs must stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam free. Roaming
and uncontrolled dogs will have a major negative impact to wildlife in the area.
Waterfowl nesting and use of the riparian area would be disrupted. Additionally, the
site's close proximity to critical winter range in the Crown would make it easy for
roaming dogs to harass deer and elk in the area. The DOW recommends this
restriction be made a condition ofapproval.
9. Wildlife proof or resistant trashlgubage containers should be utilized for the homes to
prevent problems with wildlife.
10. The plan mentions that rail fencing may be used along lot lines, He recommended 48
inch, 3 rail or less, split rail fencing for this purpose.
11. Although there has not been a problem in the past, ifhorse hay is to be stored outside
existing buildings in a free-standing stack, then it should be fenced at the owners'
expense with 8' high game proof fencing. This will prevent game damage to the stack
and the luring of animals across the county road.
Staffnotes the previous discussion regarding attached versus detached accessory dwelling
units. If the applicants were to incorporate the recommendations of the DOW for
attached units, the individual homeowners will have to get a Special Use Permit for the
extra unit. It cannot be approved as a part ofthe subdivision review process.
In a subsequent letter he re-emphasized the need to store hay behind a fence built at the
owners expense.
The application includes a wildlife study done by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting,
II
Inc.. The report concludes that there will be impacts to wildlife, but not to any
endangered, threatened or special concern species. The impacts to wildlife are possible to
mitigate to a degree, provided the recommendations ofthe consultant are incorporated
into the covenants and design ofthe subdivision. It should be noted that both the DOW
and the consultant recommend a maximum number ofdogs in excess ofthe subdivision
regulation limit ofone (1) dog per house. The consultant also notes a need for the HOA
of the subdivision to "hold the CDOW harmless from any and all claims for damage to
landscaping improvements, fencing , ornamental and native plants, and garden plants
resulting from the activities of wildlife." Additionally he suggests a $1000 fee be imposed
one time on home owners to be spent for conservation projects within the development or
the donation of all or a portion ofthe money to the DOW for mule deer habitat projects.
The covenants do not appear to incorporate all of the recommendations listed by the
DOW and Beattie Natural Resource Consluting, Inc.. The "hold harmless" clause should
also be a plat note on any final plat and the suggested payment ofthe one time HOA
payment for wildlife conservation purposes.
I. Road/Access: The application proposes a single access directly offof CR i00, via a60
ft. right-of-way ,\itha22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface, that is also to provide
access to the proposed Ma1'fly Bend subdivision Lots 1-5 are accessed via a 1006 ft
long cul-de-sac with a 58' radius and a 16 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface. Lots 8
and 9 are to be served by a 30 ft. wide access and utility easement with a 12 ft. wide chip
and seal surface that ends at Lot 8.
Culde-sacs may be permitted provided they are nol more than six hundred /eet (600') in
length and hate a turrwround raditrs oJ not less than forty-five feel (15 ') from the center
of the cul-de-sac to rad edge andfifty foot (50') right-of-way for residential development
...The Board may dpprove longer cul-de-sacs for lopogtaphical reasons and it can be
proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the
longer design;
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting Road "A" was technically an approximately
1800 ft. tong dead end road, since there is nothing in the application demonstrating that
the owners ofthe property in the Roaring Fork Preserve have any right to emergency
access through the property proposed for the Mayfly Bend subdivision. Road "B" was
l2
Road "A" will serve as access to the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision and is being
proposed as a Rural Access standard road as required. Road "A" and Road "B", which
is a 1006 ft, long cul-de-sac, do not have any emergency access proposed as a part ofthe
design. Dead end streets are discouraged by Section 9:33 B ofthe Subdivision
Regulations. According to section 9:33, cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed
under t.lle following circumstances:
J
shown as a cul-de-sac about 1006 feet in length and did not have any proposed emergency
access either. This wss not consistent with the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant
has submitted amended plans showing a 30' emergency access offof the end of Road c
that loops back to cR ioo. A 30' access easement was created between Lots 1 and 4, at
the end ofRoad B that accesses an easement within the proposed Mayfly Bend
subdivision. The plat shows the access easement to the Mayfly Bend subdivision, but
there is no written confirmation that the owners ofthe property have granted an easement
across their property. Prior to any final plat approval the appticant and the Mayfly Bend
property owners need to put together an agreement legally defining an access easement
across each others property.
Road ..c,' will have to be a dedicated roadway, which is separately dedicated to the HoA
as a public road. It appears that Lots 7-9 will use this roadway as access to the lots lt
will have to be built to a "Semi-primitive" road standard, which is a 40' ROW and two 8'
wide driving lanes.
Section 3.6 ofthe covenant appears to propose that the primary roadway easement for the
subdivision will not be dedicated to the public by the Declarant. Section 9:34 ofthe
Subdivision Regulations requires all streets to be dedicated to the public.
Drainage: The application states that the natural drainage will be left intact, which will
r*rlt in th. oueriand flow following the historic paths. The existing drainage collects in
ditches and the Roaring Fork River. This pattem will not be changed, except where
drainage will be diverted for roadways. No detention ponds are proposed, since the
engineers feel the historic drainage paths will be adequate to convey any flows on the site.
The neighbors and the county Engineer's office have expressed concern about the
umestri;ted flow of run offto adjacent property to the west and directly to the river.
Assessment / Fees: As determined by recently amended Section 9:81 ofthe Subdivision
n.g.r"ti"*, the applicant witl be required to dedicate a portion of the gross land area for
opJn rpu"., parks, or schools, or pay fees in lieu thereof The property owner shorrld be
u*ur. ihut the current agricultural valuation status ofthe property will change following
subdivision. Currently, there is no road impact fee estabtished in this area. ln the event
any fees increase before the time offinal plat, the increased fees shall be paid The
uppli"*t should be aware that he has the cost responsibility of all required subdivision
improvements as specified in the SIA and by the final plat requirements'
Other Utitities: Holy Cross will provide electricity. Public Service will provide natural
g* u s west will provide telephone. No cable television is available in the area but
satellite dish systems (8"-20") witt be available, All utilities shall be buried'
K
l3
L,
M. Plat Not es and/or Covenants Etc
The following items need to be added to modify the covenants :
1) tn no case shall a yard area greater than 7,500 square.
2) Only the northern portion ofthe property actually borders the Roaring Fork River. The
covenants should clearty indicate that private property rights exist and that no trespassing
shall occur on the bordering property. Preferably, the applicant would obtain a fishing
easement for HOA members.
3) There are no Articles of Incorporation (AOI) proposed by the applicant, which must be
filed at the time of final plat.
4) Page 10, Section 7.3 needs to be modified to restrict building heights to 25 feet, since
that is the maximum allowed by zoning and cannot be overridden by covenant.
5) Page 13, Section 8.7 needs to be modified to restrict each lot to a maximum ofone (1)
dog per lot.
6) The design guidelines need to modified to require the installation ofindividual fire
protection sprinklers in each residential dwelling.
7) The applicantneeds to conduct a noxious weed survey and identify recommendations
for the removal certain aggressive weeds. The covenants must contain a detailed
noxious weed management strategy and contain provisions for the HOA to enforce
such a program.
V. REC OMMENDED FINDINGS
That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners;
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;
That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, as amended and the Garfreld County Subdivision Regulations of 1984,
as amended;
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest olthe health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare ofthe
citizens of Garfreld County;
VI RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the Roaring Fork Preserve
Subdivision Preliminary Plan, with the following conditions ofapproval:
2
J
14
4.
2
The applicant must conduct a noxious weed survey and identi! recommendations for the
removal certain aggressive weeds, prior to the Board of County Commissioners approval
of a Preliminary Plan. The covenants shall be amended to include the following language,
"It is the individual lot owner's responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed
Act and Garfield County Weed Management Plan, to manage any noious weeds on their
property." The covenants shall be amended to also include a specific written noxious
weed management plan which details such things as who will apply chemicals, when they
will be applied, how often they will be applied, who will pay for such services, and which
designates that all common areas including roadsides, open space, bam area, and utility
easements shall be treated for noxious weeds. The weed survey and amended covenants
shalt be submitted to staff four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing on the prelim.inary plan, to enable staff, including Steve Anthony, to review the
information, make comments, and request amendments as needed.
A detailed, written, Vegetation Management Plan (in accordance with 4.06 of the
Revegetation Guidelines of the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan) shall
be submitted to staff at least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff, including Steve Anthony, to review the
information, make comments, and request amendments as needed. The revegatation plan
shall include a plant material list (common and scientific names), planting schedule,
methods & techniques, and provisions for watering and fertilization
Impact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization of the final plat The
applicant shalt adhere to the recommendations ofthe Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District.
The applicant shall receive a recommendation from the Colorado Division. of Water
Resources stating that there will be no material injury to water rights in the area. Prior to
the approval any Final Plat, each well permit rvill be approved by the State Division of
Water Resources and each well will be drilled and meet the following criteria:
J
4
l
L That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth ofthe well, the characteristics ofthe
aquifer and the static water level;
3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per
minute and information showing drawdown and recharge;
4. A written opinion ofthe person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate
to supply water to the number ofproposed lots;
5. An assumption of an average ofno less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100
gallons ofwater per person, per daY;
6. Ifthe well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements
and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be
responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs;
l5
The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines
concerning bacteria and nitrates.
Ifthe ISTS is deemed to be the preferred method ofsewage treatment , Section 8.1(BXl)
needs to define the qualified person as an individual with,at a minimum, a Class C
Wastewater Treatment Operator license from the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment. Additionally, the applicants need to select a specific ISTS technology lor
the development.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies
shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies shall
be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form ofa plat note.
All building envelopes shall be redesignated to be consistent with the recommendations of
Beach Environmental recommendations and the new building envelopes will be certified
by Beach Environmental as being consistent with their recommendations, prior to an Final
Plat approval.
All proposed roads shall be built to Garfield County Subdivision standards, without any
exceptions. Emergency access for the development will be provided for all roadways or
the cul-de-sacs will be reduced in length to 600 ft. or less. Provided a suitable emergency
access to County Road 100 offof Road C and a common emergency access between lots
I and 4 to the Mayfly Bend subdivision. Road C shall be a semi-primitive road with a
cul-de-sac. The revised road design s shall be submitted to stafffour (4) weeks prior to
the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable stafl
including the County Engineer, to review the information, make comments, and request
amendments as needed.
9. All utilities shall be buried.
10. Articles oflncorporation shall be proposed by the applicant priorto the approval olthe Final
Plat.
I l. The covenants shall be amended as follows
In no case shall a yard area greater than 7,500 square.
Only the northern portion ofthe property actually borders the Roaring Fork fuver.
The covenants should clearly indicate that private property rights exist and that no
trespassing shall occur on the bordering property, Preferably, the applicant would
obtain a fishing easement for HOA members,
Page 10, Section 7,3 needs to be modified to restrict building heights to 25 feet,
since that is the maximum allowed by zoning and cannot be overridden by
covenant.
7
7
8
l)
2)
3)
l6
5.
6
I
J
4
5
4)Page 13, Section 8.7 needs to be modifled to restrict each lot to a maximum olone
(1) dog per lot.
The design guidelines need to modified to require the installation of individual fire
protection sprinklers in each residential dwelling.
s)
After the Planning Commission recommendation was made, the applicant responded to a number
of the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Staffwould suggest that the recommended
conditions of approval be modified to read as follows:
All representations olthe applicant made in the application and at the hearings before the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions
of approval, unless approved otherwise by the Board.
The applicant provide a map showing the location ofthe noxious weeds by type and
location on the property prior to Final Plat approval. Additionally, the County
Vegetation Management offrce will be provided a copy of the map and a specific plan to
treat the property immediately for leafy spurge and spotted knapweed will be agree upon,
prior to Final Plat approval.
The improvements associated with the Final Plat will include a revegetation provision for
the disturbed areas associated with the improvements for the subdivision, along with
security to guarantee that the revegetation has been successful.
Impact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization ofthe final plat. The
applicant shall adhere to the recommendations ofthe Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District.
The applicant shall receive a recommendation from the Colorado Division of Water
Resources stating that there will be no material injury to water rights in the area or copies
of the approved well permits prior to Preliminary Plan approval. Prior to the approval any
Final Plat, each well permit will be approved by the State Division of Water Resources and
each well will be drilled and meet the following criteria:
1. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth ofthe well, the characteristics ofthe
aquifer and the static water level;
3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per
minute and ffirmation showing drawdown and recharge;
4. A written opinion ofthe person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate
to supply water to the number ofproposed lots;
5. An assumption ofan average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100
t7
2.
gallons ofwater per person, per day;
Ifthe well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements
and costs associated with the operation and maintenance ofthe system and who will be
responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs;
The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines
concermng bacterja and nitrates.
The covenants need to select a specific ISTS technology required for the development or
the covenants may be modified to require a choice ofthe two technologies, with the
understanding that ifa company goes out ofbusiness the HOA can select another
replacement technology.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies
shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies shall
be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form ofa plat note.
A11 building envelopes shall be redesignated to be consistent with the recommendations of
Beach Environmental recommendations and the new building envelopes will be certified
by Beach Environmental as being consistent with their recommendations, prior to an Final
Plat approval.
A11 proposed roads shall be built to Garfield County Subdivision standards, without any
exceptions. Emergency access for the development will be provided for all roadways or
the cul-de-sacs will be reduced in length to 600 ft. or [ess. Provided a suitable emergency
access to County Road 100 offof Road C and a common emergency access between lots
1 and 4 to the Mayfly Bend subdivision. Road C shall be a semi-primitive road with a
cul-de-sac.
Prior to any final plat approval the applicant will obtain a deed for the emergency access
easement between Lots I and 4 from the Mayfly Bend property.
1l All utilities shall be buried
tz Articles of Incorporation shall be proposed by the applicant prior to the approval ofthe
preliminary plan that must be filed at the time of final plat.
13. The covenants shall be amended as follows
Section 3.12 ofthe covenants needs to be modified to indicate that only the northern
portion ofthe property actually borders the Roaring Fork River and that the fishing
easement applies only to lands within the subdivision. The covenants should clearly
indicate that private property rights exst and that no trespassing sha.ll occur on the
bordering property. Preferably, the applicant would obtain a fishing easement for
6
7
l0
18
'7.
6
8.
9
HOA members.
2. A plat note and covenant that will "hold harn ess" the Colorado Division ofWildlife
from any and all claims for damage to landscaping improvements, fencing , ornamental
and native plants, and garden plants resulting from the activities of wildlife and the
same language be included in the covenants.
3. An amendment to the covenants that requires all outside storage of hay to be enclosed
in a game prooffence, at least eight (8) feet in height.
l9
FIRE . EMS. RESCUE
July 5,2000
Mark Bean
Garfield CountY Planno
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision, Sketch Plan
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision. I would offer the
following commenls:
Acccss
TfrE!--por"d "c"ess
to the subdivision including the proposed road widths and the cul-de-sac design
appears to be adequate for emergency vehicles. Driveways should be constructed in accordance with
county road standards.
Wrter Surply
ihe proposal indicates that
residences will be required
the proposed residences, it
the residences. Automatic
REcEtvEo JUL072ggg
Rraf,
either a storage pond for fire protection water will be constructed or the
to have automatic fne sprinklers installed. Considering the distance between
would be impractical for a single water storage source to adequately serve all
fire sprinklers would better serve the residences in this case. It would be
prefoable to have a storage pond or other source as a backup to the automatic fire sprinklers. Ifa pond is
;sed for water storagg it should be designed and constructed to allow for year around access and use by
fire apparatus and have a minimum usable capacity of30,000 gallons.
ImDac{ Fe€s
The development is subj ect to impact fees adopted by the District for the thirteen proposed residential
units. The develoPer wi ll be required to enter into an agreement with the Dist ct for the payment of
development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recordi ng ofthe final plat. Fees are based
upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreem
Please contact me ifyou have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
ent is executed.
S
- zl'
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive. Carbondale, CO 81623 . 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
|::.:ffi
r
RECEIVEDHAR2 iAM
FIRE . EMS. RESCUE
March24,20Ol
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision, Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan submittal for the proposed Roaring Fork Preserve
Subdivision. I have also reviewed drawings for the proposed fue storage tanks, which were
submitted separately by Zancanella and Associates. I would offer the following comments:
Access
Tlre proposed access to tlre subdivision remains unchanged from the sketch plan proposal and is
adequate for emergency vehicles
Water Su pplv fo r Fire Protection
The drawings indicate that three 10,000-gallon underground tanks will be interconnected in order
to supply an adjacent fire hydrant. The tanks will be supplied by a nearby fire protection well.
The proposed location ofthe tanks, hydrant and well are adjacent to Lot 7 aI the intersection of
'A" and '8" roads. The proposal is generally acceptable. The design and installation should
meet the following requirements:
Tanh/Cisleru Desisn and Location
1. Tanksicistern drawings should submitted to the fire district prior to installation.
2 . Tanks/cisterns shall be constructed of concrete, steel, fiberglass or other approved
material.
3. Tark/cistern and piping shall be backfilled to appropriate depth and./or insulated to
prevent freezing.
4. Access opening shall be provided for inspection and maintenance oftank/cistern(s).
5. Tank/cistern shall be self-filling.
6. TankVCisterns in areas with high water table shall be designed to prevent floating when
empty.
-?z-
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive . Carbondale, CO 81 623 . 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
.
Page 2 - Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision, Preliminary Plan
Pipins & Connec'tions
l. All zuctiorU fill and vent piping to be minimum ASTM Schedule 40 steel or PVC.
2. All PVC piping to have glued joints.
3. Any exposed PVC pipe to be primed and painled to protect from ultraviolet light.
4. Suction piping and tark venting shall be capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute
for three-quarters of the tanl/cistern capacity.
5. lvlaximum lift from bottom of suction piping to fue apparatus putrp connection shall be a
maximum 15 feet vertical distance.
6. Maximum distance from suction pipe connection (dry hydrant) to fire apparatus purp
connection shall be 15 feet. (Note: standard fue apparatus carry two 6" by l0-foot long
suction hoses for connecting fire apparatus to cistem zuction comection-)
7. Tank/cistem suction connection shall be 24" above finished grade.
8. Threaded suction connection shall be 6" NST male thread with cap)
9. Fill pipe connection shall be minimum of 272 " NST female tlnead with cap.
10. FiU pipe connection shall be 36" above finished gade.
I l. Exposed piping shall be protected fiom vehicular damage.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
S incerely,
Bill Gavette
fleputy Chief
-?3'
a=\ -/ -J--:S- / ^ZU'{ ---t
UE<rl
CY ,,,
^ t--I-i(, Lrl
a:..-,
Z.o
=OL!l--a)
M.
o_
J
O
(J
O
N
Fo
-LlE
M) L.r-
-(J-..r--r'a
__l
Zal
r
dd
zo
F
O
f-
(J
x-L
00+z
o
(-)
=q-A-
_ca oE
,U) L4(u
(-) \(JA{J\
+0
--''-24
,)
FL!O
L!IJ
t
WELL HtAD DTTAIL
(Not to Scote)
Coslng ot Leost 12 ln. obove grode
Sonltory relt seotr/ gqlv, steet vent
plpe ond 24 nesh
bross bug screen
27 Stope Sl,ope flnol, grode 20' ,rln,
Po.d
4'X4'X4' (nln.)
Electrlcql cqble ln condult Hold-dorn
plpe
Electrlc cobte to punp
E[ectrlcol,
coble topedto drop plpe
every 10'
Connectlon to a' PVC tlneto exlstlnq chtorlnotlon/dlstrlbutlon systen
Presgure
llne Mqqss Plttess AdoptorJ68-15 6', dto
1 1/2' Vqter Euttet &
Drop PlpeTorque stop
Coslng
Check
qfety
cqbte
Subnerslble pu!,rp Connect Grout - 10' ,,|ln.
ROARING FORK PRESER\EFIRE PROTECTION WELL
'JI/ELLHEAD DETAIL
SCAIE
I{OT IO SCA.E
DAIE
rraRclr 22, 200t
S EET:I G1
RGURE NO.
1
DRATING:
8CP va APPO B\trrz
Z,I'IYCAAEI I A AIU' ASSACTa hV,
'II CIE E TE - !T @E AgIErIIE
'IEI
(I.CTE NE K
26'
22 Stope
---
I
OTFICT OF THE STATE TNCINTER
Division of Water Resources
Depanment of Natural Resources
l3l3 Sherman Street, Room 8lg
Denver, Colorado 8O2Ol
Phonei {303) 866-1581
FAX: (303) 866-i589
httpi//warer.state.co.urdefaulr.htm
Dear Mr. Bean:
sTAfE OF COL
RECE,yEDAPR062991
March 29,2001
BIll Oi,rns
CpverrD.
Cr.8 t. Watch.r
[recutiv! Oircdo,
Hal O. Sirrprol|, pt.
gale E,rsih.s
Mark Bean
G^arfield Co-unty Building and planning
109 8'St. Ste. 303
Glenv,cod Springs, CO 81601
KWI(KJWRoaring fork preserve.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
Larry Gepfert, Water Commissioner, District 3g
Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision
E%E%SE% Sec 35 and SW% Sec 36, T7S, RB8W, 6rH pM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Sincerely,
7L.4-D Zq
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
Re
we have reviewed the.additio.nal .information provided for the above referenced proposal to subdivide aparcel of g0'03 acres into nine lots., with nine singte+amii, Jwellings and foui accessorviwelings. water is to 6sprovided through individual wells for each lot p*"rari i6 a contract with the Basalt water conservancy Diskict
l'ffi 3::ffillflt$theDishict's temporary subsiitute watei"upprv phn. sewase-iilo oe tnrougn i"airur"r ,.pii.
The applicant submitted.nine w-ell permit applications to the Division of water Resources, which werereturned on February 9' 2ool for additional oocumentatLn of the replacement waier source. Although theapplicant provided a copy of an approved water allotrnent conlract that _was granted by the District, the annualamount specified in this contract is insufficient to make replacements f"; th; ;r"p";;d uses. Further, to beconsidered a legally reliable source of water, the wells must urtimately be' includeo in a court approvedaugmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute waiei .rpprv pr4 will be renewed.
The pump test completed by samuelson Pump company on January 3 and 4, 2oo.l, indicates that the#gwell produced 10-15 gallons per minute over a z+-nbui feiioa. tt the aooitionrr *.rr, n"u. similar productjonrates and adequate storage capacilies, the water supply should Ue pnysicaffy aJequaL.
Based on the above, it.is our opinion, pursuant to cRS 30-28-136(1xh)(r), that the propossd wa[rsuppiy is physicaiiy adequate, however materlal i+,y 'r.rlii occur to dec!.eecl water rights unless the applicantobtains and maintains valid.well permits for the'piofo."o wells pursuant io " ior.t approved plan [paugmentation or pursuant to.the District's temporary "ub.titrt" srpp]v pr"n. ft.r;; the appricant has ayquestions concerning this matter, please contact Kimbe;lt willson of this office for assistance.
-za-
STATE OF COLORADO
Bf,l olrrens, GovGmor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
RECEIVED A P 0 s 2001
ForWildlife-
For Peopk
A'I EQTJA OPPORTT'IITY EIIJEOTER
Rus$ll Garge, Directorm Broduray
Defi\Er, Colorado 8(216
TelephorE: (ffi) U 7-1 1 92
April 9, 2001
Garfield County Planning
109 86 Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Roaring Fork Preserve Preliminary Plan Application
Dear Mark:
I will refer you to my letter dated July 7, 2000 for my prwious comments. At the planning meeting las
week, it sounded as if most of my comments were going to be irylemented. However, I have two it€ms
that I would like to en4hasize.
The frst deals with some of the building envelopes. It would be beneficial to wildlife to place the
building envelopes for lots I and 2 as close to lots 3 and 4 as possible. This will he! to maximize the
buffer along the river and facilitate the movement of wildlife along this oorridor.
The other item deals with the storage ofhay on the property. For tiose units, which will be allowed to
have livestock, all hay *ored outside should be fenced with 8-foot high game prooffencing. This fencing
should be erected at tle owners' errpernse to prevent loss by deer or elk. Unprotected hay*aoks could
serve as an enticement to deer wintering on the Cro\ n, as well as the resident deer in the area.
Thank you for the opporftmity to corment. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call
Sincerety,
Matt Thorpe
Disffict Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
947-2920
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Wade Buchanan, Acting E)@uti\,E Dir€.tor
WLDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck L€','/is, Ch8ir. Mark Levalley, Vi@Chair. B€rnard Bhck, Ssr€aary
or-r, En-r7 n trehd. oxiti^
-27-
STATE OF GOLORADO
Bl OYUItr., GovctrEr
DEPAFrriErr oF AruRAL RESOIJRCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
^ti
EOUIL OFPATN.IIITY EF-OTER
John W t umrE, Dir€dor
@Btrdt'rly
Dfi\,s, Cobldo &i8
T€lQhql€: (3G) 29711€2 ForWldlift
For Pcoplc
Iuly 7, 2000
Grrfield CountY Planning
109 86 Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springg CO 81601
RE: Roaring Fork Preserve Sketch PIrn
Dear Mark:
I have ret/i€wed the Roaring Folk Preserve skach phn. The main vslue ofthis area to wiltllife is its
riparim md wetland areas and its stands of cottonwood and pine trees. This habitat t1rye is ortremely
,4*bl" to a variety ofwikllife qpecieg including mrle deer, coyotg red fox, rsoooon' and warerforryL
Raptorg owls, and songbhds oten uuilize the trees for perching and nesting siteq with blue herons in
particular being fond ofthese tree corylexes. There is a snall residenr population of mrle deer thrt
inhabt that area. They use the riparian areas rlong the Roaring Fork as a movem@t corriilor' The
portions ofthe ptoperty that have been used as a hay meadow have less value for wildlife and would be
more preferable as home sites from a wildlife perryective.
I applaud the 6welopers for including Division ofWiftllife desip *rndards for fencing as a requirement
in G appfication m8terials. This should enstre that the moveme,nt of wildlife, including ilecr farrmq will
not be hin6ered It was also good to see thrt ft fencing would be hstalled to he$ protect the rivq Aom
seiliment. I think that this $ows that the project's developets are concerned with wilillife vahres.
\{iHlife iryacts can be minirni"rtt by obsendng the following reoornmendations:
1 If accessory dwelling units are rllowed on lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, it would be preferable that thcy
be attaohed rmits. OtheNis€, tley $ould be clustered as close to the mrin homes as possible
to limit their area of disurtance within the building envelope.
2. The building eovelopes for lots I and 2 should be situated as close to lots 3 md 4 as possible
to protecl the movement corridor along the river
3. Wetland md riparirn habitrts are identified, protecte4 and maintaineil in s naturd strte as
muoh as Possible.
4. The natural vegaatiom, including Oe cononwoo( pine, and otler treeg is very vrluable mil
Soulil be left undisffibed as muc,h as possible. If any of the trees present a danger to a
struct111e, tlen they $oulil be topped rather than remwed corylaely. These mrgs provide
roo*ing and perching sites for raptors and other bhds.
5. Home sites are set back from riparianAnetlard areas 5G100 feet to he$ protect these meas
afld minimi"e'listllltonc€'
RECEIYED JUt O 7
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, \ rade Buchln n, Ading EELtiE Dildor
WI-DLIFE COl MlssloN, Chuck Lc{rb, Chslr ' Metk Lsvalby, Mcochoir. Bdnsrd Blsd( S*r€tlry
E i,'& E.Elm ladl-. Dhlli^ LE t'-lt
"b
6. Bury all utilities or make the,m raptor-proofto prevent electrooution ofowlg raptors, and
eagles
7. No dogs allowed on site by con*ruction crews.
8. limit the number of dogs urhich homeoumers may hsve to 2, with additiongl re$rictions that
dogs mrst stay in k€nnels or be leaSed rnd not be allowed to roam frse. R 6nming a[d
rmcontrolled dogs will have a -qjor negative ir'?act to wildfife in the area. Waterfowl nesing
and use ofttre riparim area would be disrupted" Additionally, the site's close proximity to
criticsl wint€r range in the Crown would make it easy for roarlring dogs to harass deer md elk
in the area. I would recommend thlt 'qis restriction be made a condition of approval
9. Wikllife proof or resistant trr$./garbage contriners should be utilized for the homes to prwent
problems with wildlife. Inryroperty stored ga6age oould sttact wildlife lmging from
mccoons and skunks to bears and could create oonficts with u,'ilillife.
10. The plan mentions that rail fencing may be used along lot lines. I recorrmend 48 hch h1gh, 3
rail or less, rylit rail fencing for tlis purpose.
I l. Ahhoug[ there has nol beo a problem in the pas, ifhorse hay is to be stored outside existing
buildings in a free'sranilmg sact then it should be fenced at the oumers' eryense with eight
fee! tigh game proof fencing. This will prwe,nt game dem"ge to the stac.k and the luring of
snimlls 66s55 the cotmty road.
Ttmk you for the opporhmity to cornn€nt. Ifyou have any que*iong please feel free to give me a oall
Sincerely,
Mstt Taorpe
District Wildlife Manager
Carbon&le
947-2920
-7?
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Mark Bean
Steve Anthony
Comments on th€ Roaring tr'ork Preserv€ Subdivirion Vegetation
May 25, 2001
Mark,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Roaring Fork preserve subdivision vegetation plan. \,Iy
commenls are as follows:
2
The weed inventory indicates tl,l eight species of Garfrelcl county listed noious weeds arepresent on the property (Russian olive, Canada thistle, plumeless thistle, common burdock,
houndstongue,-oxeye daisy, leat spurge, ard spotted klapwe€d.) Slaff requesfs *lat ttreapplicant detail the location ofthese noxious weeds on a map ofthe property. Lea$ spurge and
spotted knapweed are not known to be in this vicinity, however if thiy are prasent it isimportantthat the vegetation Managemetu Department verifv that. I would appreciite it irtne appiicant
conlacts me and we can schedule a site visit to confirm that leas spurge and spottea mapweed areon the sile. If, indeed they are, managemetu measures should Le imp-iemented imrnediatety toguard against further spread.
The applicant has made the commitnent, on the behalf of the Homeowner's Association, toimplement a weed manageme plan for all common areas. They have also alluded to weed
nunagement responsibilities in the proposed covenanls. The werall vegetation plan, including
weed runagement and rsvegetation, has address€d earlier concerns andit is hoped that theapplicant will follow through on their Vegetation plan.
Will the applicant be responsible for revegetation on utility disturbances or udll the various utility
com[nnies be responsible for that?
3
-%
1.
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Mark Bean
Steve Anthony
Comments on the Roaring Fork Prqerve Preliminary Ptan
April 9, 2001
Mark.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Roaring Fork Preserve Preliminary Plan. The Plan refers to
a vegetation report listed under supplemental information. This report has been prepared by Beach
Erwironmental, LLC. Jorine la*yer, from Beach, contacled me on April 6e . She indtcated to me that
she would send the Vegetation Report to via email. As oftoday, April 9s, I have not rec€ived a colry of
the report. Sinc€ I am past your deadline, I will review, in bold italics, the applicant's respons€ to my
original comments on tlle Sketch Plan (?/5/00), based on the information that is on hand.
Request tlre applicant to conducl a noxious weed survey for the weeds lised on Garfield Couty,s
Noxious Weed List (enclosed),
There is a general noxious rxed survqt ia the Wetlands Report The rcport states general
vegddive choracteri{tics for each lot. Cana.la and bull thistle are found on some ofthe lots. I
did notftnd any mention of plumeless thistle in the rcport. Plumeless thistle is veqt common h this
areo and my guess is that it is prevalent on this proper$t.
2. Ask them to submit a written Weed Management Plan provide for the management of any listed weeds
located on the property. Particular attention should be given to any irrigation ditches located on thepropert. The Weed Management Plan should designate responsibility for weed control on road
ROW's.
3. Revegetation-Plumeless thistle is fairly prevalent in this general area. Witiout proper revegetation
of any new roadcuts or utility right-of-ways, the thistle will spread quickly along lhe new ROW'S and
infest lhe hay fields and pastures. lt is recommended that the applicanl, US West, KN Energy, and
Holy Cross Electric submit a detailed revegetation plan for all proposed dishubances. The
revegetation plan should include:
Proposed seed mix and rate.
Lis common and scientific name of plant species
Planting schedule and methods to be used.
-3r
Items #2 and #3: Weed managemenl h discussed in the covenants. Again, the coyenarrts ate
speciJic to the lot owners. It does not speciJicully state who is responsible for weed managemenl
on rights-of-way, ditches, and atility eosements. These areas are "vectors" for vced establishment
and spread. The Associdion's Maintenance Responsibility (Article 9.1) alludes to moiltenonce in
general terms, howeeer the sprcad of noxious weeds along the aforementioned "vec:tors" is
becoming so problemotic in GarJield County, that it is critical ths, each nefl lond use proposal
assign responsibiliE for weed management and revegelation along "veclors".
Pleqse rekr to the Gatrteld County Noxious Weed Lisl and the County's Reeegddion Guidelines
fiom the County Weed Management Plan.
37
Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines
From the
Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan
4.06 etation n abilitati n
A crucial part of any weed management plan is the reintroduction of site appropriate
vegetation.
Establishing a desirable plant community after noxious weeds have been removed from a
highly infested area requires timely cultivation and reseeding. Since the seeds from
noxious weeds may lay dormant for many years, removing all visible signs ofthe noxious
weeds does not ensure against their return. Revegetation can help prevent the
germination of weed seeds. It is important to inspect the land regularly io identi$ and
treat small, new infestations. For proper reclamation, managed irrigation of dry areas,
fertilization, and reseeding iue essential to establish desirable plant communities.
Native plants are most appropriate when the goal is restoration (trying to restore native
habitaQ. weed-free seeds of native colorado grasses, wildflowers or plant species
appropriate to the site may be purchased, but the best source for seeds ii from native
species that grow in the immediate vicinity of the infestation. They will be best adapted
to local conditions and will help maintain local integrity and genetic viability. Using
native plants or seeds to reclaim disturbed land reduces degradation of native ecosystems,
reduces the need for herbicides and conserves water resources. Native plants will provide
a broad biological diversity and help keep colorado looking like colorado with aunique
regional landscape that sets us apart from other areas ofthe country.
when the goal is reclamation (reseeding for quick ground cover establishment or erosion
control), it may be appropriate to use introduced, non-aggressive grasses and forbs.
contact the Natural Resources conservation Service or colorado state universitv
cooperative Extension for seeding recommendations. The Native plant Revegentioi
Guide lor Colorado, published by the colorado state parks Natural Areas program, is an
excellent guide for native plant reseeding. contact the Garfield county vegetation
Management office for further information on this material.
STRATEGIES:. Study all vegetation in the area and surrounding areas.o Preserve plant species native to Colorado.o Test the soil for pH balance. Try to retain and utitize as much on-site topsoil as
possible.
. Select a predominant species that is appropriate to the site. Then choose a few
complimentary species to provide a balanced plant community.o Choose plants that are healtly, vigorous and pest free.o Use weed-free seeds. Use non-hybrid seeds. Avoid commercial seedpackets
containing exotic plant species.
,-37
l
' choose plants that are horticulturally appropriate, i.e. plant species that are adaptable
to climate, soil and topographical conditions ofthe designated area.o Consider the use ofwater, its availability and the vegetative requirements.o To landscape for wildlife, choose native plants that provide cover, forage, browse,
seeds for birds and rodents, and shade.o Be site-specific; revegetation strategies may vary for small lots, farms, ranches or
construction siteso Establish a vegetative cover that is diverse, effective and long lasting, capable of self-
regeneration.o Stabilize the surface.
4+-
GARIIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS Wf,,ED LIST
Scientific name
Leaf spurge
Russian knapweed
Yellow starthistle
Plumeless thistle
Houndstongue
Common burdock
Scotch tlistle
Canada thistle
Spolted krapweed
Diffrse knapweed
Dalmation toadflax
Yellow toadfla:i
Hoarv cress
Saltcedar
Saltcedar
Oxeye Dais-v
Jointed Goatgrass
Chicory
Musk thistle
Purple loosestrife
Russian olive
Euphorbia esula
Acroptilon repens
Centaurea solstitdlis
Carduus acanthoides
Cytoglossum oflcinale
Arctium minus
Onopordum acanthium
Cirsium aryense
Centaurea maculosq
Centaurea diffusa
Linaria dalmatica
Linaria vulgaris
Cardario draba
Tamarix parvillora
Tamarix ramosissimq
C hrysant h emum I euc an theum
Aegilops cylindrica
Cichorium intybus
Carduus nutans
Lylhrunt salicaria
E I ae agnus an gu st ifo I i a
-35'
Common name