HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental InformationLAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
NERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
E-mail: rbl:stgquixtnet.net
May 15, 2007
Fred Jarman
Building & Planning Department
108 8t Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Reserve at Elk Meadows Planned Unit Development
Supplemental Information
Dear Fred:
Attached herewith are three copies of the Supplemental Information in response to the Planning
Commission's Conditions of Approval described in your letter of April 30, 200. The following is included
with this transmittal:
1. Revised Reserve at Elk Meadows, PUD Master Plan, Revision Date — 5/14/07. The revised Master Plan
shows ten duplex lot intended specifically for compliance with the affordable housing requirement. The
plan also reflects the modified rear lot setbacks in the lots above Four Mile Creek and the relocation of
Lots 1-4 (as shown on the original master plan) in the East Meadow neighborhood.
2. Reserve at Elk Meadow, Profile Street A
3. Letter from Sopris Engineering Letter dated 5/15/07
4. Revised Section 4.08.05 (2) (1) Phasing. This revision adds an additional construction phase to
accommodate the development of core infrastructure and recreation facilities, the realignment of Four Mile
Road and the creation of the affordable housing lots as the initial phase of the development.
5. Revised Construction Phasing Plan, dated 5/15/07
6. Revised Section 4.08.05 (7) (b). This section provides specific dates for the completion of each phase of
construction.
7. Revised Zone Text. The revised text contains a new zone district titled "Attached Residential" which is
intended for the affordable housing units and a section at the end describing criteria to be used in the
evaluation of any future requested changes to platted building envelopes. We continue to believe that
building envelopes on all lots are the best avenue to protect environmental and visual resources at the site.
In response to Condition of Approval # 8, the Applicant proposes that all roads be dedicated to the public
but maintained by the home owner's association.
Please contact myself or Larry Green, if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Ron Liston
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 2007
GARFIELO COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
May 15, 2007
Ronald B. Liston
Land Design Partnership
918 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Reserve at Elk Meadows Development, Reply to Staff Recommendations of April 11, 2007
SE Job #: 25019.01 GARI"IFLO Cpr JNrY
BUf1.DWG a PLANNING
Dear Ron:
KAY 1 6 2007
This letter addresses the engineering concerns generated by the Planning Commission in their April 11, 2007
meeting to review the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD Sketch Plan Application. Specifically addressed in this letter
are the issues that the Planning Commission wanted resolved prior to the public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners. The Staff comments are shown below in italic text while our responses to those items are shown in
bold text. The remaining engineering concerns will be addresses prior to submitting the Preliminary Plan.
Staff Recommendation VII. 5. on Page 49 states:
"The Applicant shall provide the 10% affordable housing unit requirement on site within the development."
• Affordable housing has been added to the development as duplexes on lots 54-63 of the South
Meadow. This new configuration is shown on the revised "P.U.D. Master Plan"
Staff Recommendation Vil. 9. on Page 49 states:
"Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a letter from
the Glenwood Springs Fire District that specifically approves of the internal road network, design and grade."
• Sopris Engineering provided Ron Biggers at the Glenwood Springs Fire District with the information
needed to review the internal roads and we have met with him regarding this issue. He has said he
will provide a letter addressing the road design but we have not received it yet. Sopris Engineering
will provide this letter to the County prior to the BOCC meeting.
Staff' Recommendation VII. 11. on Page 49 states:
"Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide an analysis
that the road grade of "Street A" can exceed 8% using the standards in Section 9:37 of the Subdivision Regulations
of 1984, as amended. "
• Street A is classified as a minor collector per the Garfield County Standards and therefore should
have a maximum grade of 8%. Sopris Engineering has provided graphic illustration showing the
road profile for Street A and where it exceeds an 8% grade. We are proposing a maximum 10%
grade for the following reasons (based on criteria in section 9:37 of the Subdivision Regulations):
1. The current design has approximately 3200 feet of road at a grade of 10%. The resulting
elevation change for that length of road at 10% is 320 feet. To achieve the same elevation
change with an 8% road, the length of road would have to be increased from 3200 feet to 4000
feet (an 800 foot increase). An increase of 800 feet of road with an average disturbance area
40 feet wide would mean 32,000 Sq. Ft. of increased disturbance to the development.
Increasing the length of Street A by 800 would also result in two more switchbacks to be able
to avoid the property boundary and tie into the existing road design for the Upper Meadow.
The added switchbacks and 32,000 Sq. Ft. of disturbance would be a significant increase to
the disturbed land already proposed. From an emergency access standpoint, 10% is an
502 Main Street • Suite A3 0 Carbondale, CO 81623 0 (970) 704-0311 0 Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERItIC • LLC
civil consultants
SE. JOB 25019.01
May 15, 2007
Page 2
acceptable grade, to redesign the road at 8% with two additional switchbacks is a much less
desirable option.
2. Currently, using 10% maximum grade, the proposed design has centerline cuts of 8-10 feet
and retaining walls approximately 10-20 feet high in spots. To follow the same alignment
with an 8% grade would result in larger cuts and retaining walls than are currently proposed.
3. The excessive grades have been minimized in length to provide a safe design at intersections
while maintaining access to all Lots.
4. The sections of Street A that are currently designed at 10% grade have significant southern
exposure that will minimize snow and ice buildup by maximizing solar exposure.
5. While the proposed grades of 10% on Street A exceed 150 feet in length, they are not on a
dead end and therefore do not require turnarounds for fire equipment requirements.
6. The 10% maximum grade proposed will still permit the transport of fire fighting water by
the Glenwood Springs Fire District.
Staff Recommendation V11. 16. on Page 50 states:
"Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall address the comments
made by Mountain Cross Engineering regarding pressure zones and gallon usage." Exhibit H clarifies those items
as follows:
1) The water demands that were estimated for the augmentation plan (350 gpd) differ from those estimated for the
water system (450 gpd). These should be congruent or explain the rational behind the discrepancy.
• The water augmentation plan (by Zancanella & Associates) included calculations for the irrigation
system and potable system and assumed 1.5 EQR's for each residence at 350 gpd per EQR which is
for legal water at 525 gpd. The water system calculations (by Sopris Engineering) were designed
included an estimated peak flow of 450 gpd for tank and water line sizing. The two values are not
congruent due to the irrigation calculations and one is for legal water while the other is for system
performance design.
2) The project is proposed to have two pressure zones, with pressures ranging from 170 psi to 40 psi. Pressures of
170 psi are very high. Generally speaking 100 psi is a more realistic maximum for residential plumbing fixtures.
More pressure zones or individual residential PRV's should be considered.
• The water system has been designed with a pressure at the residences of approximately 150 psi which
in our experience is standard in industry. If it is determined that the max allowable pressure should
be 100 psi we can modify our design to include additional PRV's without affecting the system design
(tank or mainline location).
If you have any questions or need any additional information please give us a call.
Sincerely,
SOP ,IS G1NEE65
Chris J. uJ, E.I.T.
De ig ngi e -r
Y: cy Nichol, P.E.
Principal
Cc;
4.08.05 (2) (i) PHASING
(i) If more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be included in the application
that delineates the proposed phasing of the development. (A. 97-109)
Initiation Phase: Within one year of approval of the PUD amendment, a preliminary
plan application for subdivision of the entire PUD shall be
submitted to the County.
The phasing as defined below is the currently anticipated sequence of development
of the PUD. However, market conditions and construction implications may cause
the Applicant to request modification of the sequence of the development of these
phases. The configuration of the below described phases allows for utilities and
roads in a manner such that if subsequent phases are not developed for some time,
the completed areas of the development will function effectively.
The applicant requests that with the approval of the Elk Meadows PUD, the
sequence of phasing construction may be modified through the subdivision review
process and not require an amendment of the originally approved PUD. See Section
4.08.05 (7) (b) of this Application for a Development Schedule for the below listed
phases.
Phase A
Phase B
Phase C
Phase D
The initial phase of development includes realignment of Four Mile
Road, east and west entries into the property, road and utilities as
needed to serve the lots within the Attached Residential Zone
District; all residential lots within the Attached Residential Zone
District (lots 54-63), relocation and stabilization of log barn,
landscaping of both entries and the landscaping and installation of
children's play equipment and public parking within the
Community Facilities Open Space Zone District. Additional
improvements outside of the portrayed boundaries of Phase A will
include core elements of the domestic water system (wells, storage
tank and transmission lines), core elements of the raw water
irrigation system (pond, pumping facilities and main deliver lines)
andthe commuminty pedestrian trail paralleling Four Mile Road
extending from the north boundary to the south boundary of the
PUD. Affordable Housing units will be constructed on Tots within
the Attached Housing Zone District as required by the platting of
the remaining development phases.
Access road and services to Lots 1 through 21 and 59 through 62 in
the East Meadow neighborhood. Construction of the gravel
pedestrian trail extending east along Four Mile Creek looping
around lot 18 -- 21 following the main access road and tying back
into the "Four Mile Valley Public Trail". If Phase A is built
without Phase B, a temporary looped access road will be provided.
Access road and services to Lots 22 through 58 and 63 through 72
in the East Meadow neighborhood, the East Meadow open space
park and trails and development of the Four Mile Creek Park
andscape improvements.
Access road and services to Lots 1 through 9in the South Meadow
neighborhood. The public pedestrian trail from Four Mile Road to
the west end of Phase D and the trail between Lots 5 & 6. This
phase may also include gross earthwork on the access road to the
Upper Meadow neighborhood.
Phase E
Phase F
Phase G
Access road and services to all remaining lots of the South Meadow
neighborhood and the open space park in this neighborhood.
Phase E assumes Phase D access is complete, but a looped access
road following the emergency access and main road through Phase
F will need to be provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing
Plan."
Access road and services to Lots 1 through 23 and Lots 37 through
41 in the Upper Meadow neighborhood including the emergency
access drive/pedestrian trail connecting the main entry road to
Upper Meadows loop road. A Looped access road following the
emergency access and main road through Phase G will need to be
provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing Plan."
Access and services to Lots 24 through 36 and Lots 42 through 55,
public parking facility and the observation deck and shelter. The
public pedestrian trail from Phase F to the west edge of the PUD.
PHASING PLAN
(b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the
various stages of the NM can be expected begin and be completed:
Initiation Phase: Within one year of approval of the PUD amendment, a preliminary
plan application for subdivision of the entire PUD shall be
submitted to the County.
The phasing schedule as defined below is the currently anticipated sequence of
development of the Elk Meadows PUD. However, market conditions and
construction implications may cause the Applicant to modifythe sequence of the
development of these phases. The configuration of the beow described phases
allows for utilities and roads in a manner such that if subsequent phases are not
developed for some time, the completed areas of the development will function
effectively.
The following scheduled date for each phase are based on the assumption that the
PUD receives approval by the Board of County Commissioners in June of 2007.
Phase A
The initial phase of development includes realignment of Four Mile
Road, east and west entries into the property, road and utilities as
needed to serve the lots within the Attached Residential Zone
District; all residential lots within the Attached Residential Zone
District (lots 54-63), relocation and stabilization of log barn,
landscaping of both entries and the landscaping and installation of
children's play equipment and public parking within the
Community Facilities Open Space Zone District. Additional
improvements outside of the portrayed boundaries of Phase A will
include core elements of the domestic water system (wells, storage
tank and transmission lines), core elements of the raw water
irrigation system (pond, pumping facilities and main deliver lines)
and the community pedestrian trail paralleling Four Mile Road
extending from the north boundary to the south boundary of the
PUD. Affordable Housing units will be constructed on lots within
the Attached Housing Zone District as required by the platting of
the remaining development phases.
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2010.
Phase B Access road and services to Lots 1 through 21 and 59 through 62 in
the East Meadow neighborhood. Construction of the gravel
pedestrian trail extending east along Four Mile Creek looping
around lot 18 — 21 following the main access road and tying back
into the "Four Mile Valley Public Trail". If Phase A is built
without Phase B, a temporary looped access road will be provided.
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2012
Phase C Access road and services to Lots 22 through 58 and 63 through 72
in the East Meadow neighborhood, the East Meadow open space
park and trails and development of the Four Mile Creek .Park
landscape improvements.
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2014
Phase D Access road and services to Lots 1 through 9in the South Meadow
neighborhood. The public pedestrian trail from Four Mile Road to
Phase E
Phase F
Phase G
the west end of Phase D and the trail between Lots 5 & 6. This
phase may also include gross earthwork on the access road to the
Upper Meadow neighborhood.
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2016
Access road and services to all remaining Tots of the South Meadow
neighborhood and the open space park in this neighborhood.
Phase I1 assumes Phase D access is complete, but a looped access
road following the emergency access and main road through Phase
F will paced to be provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing
Plan."
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2018
Access road and services to Lots 1 through 23 and Lots 37 through
41 in the Upper Meadow neighborhood induding the emergency
access drive/pedestrian trail connecting the main entry road to
Upper Meadows loop road. A looped access road following the
emergency access and main road through Phase G will need to be
provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing Plan."
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2020
Access and services to Lots 24 through 36 and Lots 42 through 55,
public parking facility and the observation deck and shelter. The
public pedestnan trail from Phase F to the west edge of the PUD.
Schedule: Completion of infrastructure by the end of June 2022
THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS
P. U. D. ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
and
VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
May 15, 2007
I. ZONE DISTRICTS
The provisions of these regulations shall prevail and govern the development of
Elk Meadows PUD provided; however, where the provisions of Elk Meadows
PUD Zone 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 Regulation of Garfield County, adopted January 2, 1979 and as
amended, wherever these regulations are applicable to EIk Meadows PUD.
II. ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED
To carry out the purposes and provision of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, Garfield County, Colorado, as amended, the EIk Meadows
Planned Unit Development Zone District is further divided into the following zone
district classifications:
- OS Open Space District
- CFOS Community Facilities Open Space District
- CR Country Residential District
- MR Meadow Residential District
- AR Attached Residential District
- U Utilities District
A. O.S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Open Space and Greenbelt
b. Park
c. Agriculture including pasturing of livestock, structures providing
1
shelter for livestock storage of livestock feed and orchard.
d. Raw irrigation water pumping facilities
e. Water impoundments
f. Public parking lot
g. Enclosed storage for use by residents of Elk Meadows PUD
h. Sanitary lift stations
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special
Public gathering
Minimum Lot Area
None
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
a. Buildings: 5 per cent of net developable land within a tract or lot.
b. All impervious materials: 10 per cent of net developable land within
a tract or lot
c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations.
Maximum Floor Area
NONE
Minimum Setbacks
a. Setback from Four Mile Road (CR 117) ROW 50 feet
b. Setback from Road ROW within the Elk Meadows PUD
(Except pre-existing structures) 25 feet
8. Maximum Building Height
16 feet, except for pre-existing structures;
B. CFOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Open Space and Greenbelt
b. Park, including swimming pool and associates facilities.
c. Administrative Offices, equipment storage, maintenance facilities
and accessory uses typically associated thereto for not-for-profit
corporation(s) or special districts obligated to one or more of the
following: ownership, maintenance, administration or operation of
lands and facilities within the Elk Meadows PUD or the Mountain
2
Park, or utility services associated with the Elk Meadows PUD or
the Mountain Park.
d. Community Buildings including large meeting hall, small meeting
rooms, banquet kitchen, restrooms, exercise rooms including
exercise equipment and craft rooms.
e. Indoor and outdoor educational displays.
f. Public parking lot
g. Group recreational programs.
h. Agriculture including pasturing of livestock, structures providing
shelter for livestock, storage of livestock feed and orchard.
Raw irrigation water pumping facilities
j. Water impoundments
k. Enclosed storage for use by Elk Meadows PUD residents
m. Multiple primary uses may occupy a lot within the CFOS District
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
Uses, Special
Public gathering
Minimum Lot Area
None
Maximum Lot Coverage
a. Buildings: 15 per cent of net developable land within a tract or
lot
b. All impervious materials: 25 per cent of net developable land within
a tract or lot
c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations.
Maximum Floor Area
NONE
Minimum Setbacks
a. Setback from Four Mile Road (CR 117) ROW 50 feet
(Except pre-existing structures)
b. Setback from Road ROW within the Elk Meadows PUD
25 feet
c. Setback from Residential property boundaries and exterior Elk
Meadows PUD boundaries 25 feet
8. Maximum Building Height
25 feet; except for pre-existing structures
3
C. CR COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single Family residence, accessory uses customary to the
residential use and fences, hedges, gardens, walls, water
impoundments and similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
Uses, Conditional:
Home occupation
3. Uses, Special:
NONE
4. Minimum Lot Area
19,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
35 percent
Minimum Setback
Note: Setbacks shown on The Reserve at Elk Meadows Final Plats shall
take precedence over the below listed setbacks.
a. Setback from Road Right -of -Ways 25 feet
(Exclusive of emergency access easements)
b. Rear Yard Setback Boundaries 25 feet
c. Side Yard Setback 15 feet
Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area Ratio
0.35:1
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
a. Dwellings of Tess than 3,000 square feet of floor area:
4 parking spaces
b. Dwellings of 3,000 square feet of floor area but less than 5,000
square feet of floor area:
5 parking spaces
c. Dwellings of 5,000 square feet of floor area or greater:
4
6 parking spaces
D. MR MEADOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single Family residence, accessory uses customary to the
residential use and fences, hedges, gardens, walls, water
impoundments and similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
c. Sanitary lift stations
Uses, Conditional:
Home occupation
Uses, Special:
NONE
4. Minimum Lot Area
11,000 square feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setback
Note: Setbacks shown on The Reserve at Elk Meadows Final Plats shall
take precedence over the below listed setbacks.
a. Setback from Road Right -of -Ways 25 feet
(Exclusive of emergency access easements)
b. Rear Yard Setback Boundaries 25 feet
c. Side Yard Setback 10 feet
Maximum Building Height 25 feet
Provided, Tots along the most easterly edge of the Rural Residential Zone
District (Lot 22 through 39 as depicted on the PUD/Sketch Plan) as
specifically noted on the Final Plat for this area of the Elk Meadows PUD
shall have a Maximum Building Height of 20 feet.
8. Maximum Floor Area Ratio
0.40:1
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
a. Dwellings of less than 3,000 square feet of floor area:
4 parking spaces
5
b. Dwellings of 3,000 square feet of floor area but less than 5,000
square feet of floor area:
5 parking spaces
c. Dwellings of 5,000 square feet of floor area or greater:
6 parking spaces
E. AR ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family residence; row houses with up to four residential
dwelling units in a single structure, accessory uses customary to
the residential use and fences, hedges, gardens, walls, water
impoundments and similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
c. Sanitary lift stations
2. Uses, Conditional:
Home occupation
3. Uses, Special:
NONE
4. Minimum Lot Area
Single Family Lot 5,000 square feet
Two Family Lot 8,000 square feet
Three Family Lot 12,000 square feet
Four Family Lot 16,000 square feet
Provided, any multiple dwelling unit lot may be re -subdivided along
common party walls of constructed dwelling units with no minimum
lot area limitation.
Maximum Lot Coverage
50 percent prior to any resubdivision to accommodate the division
of attached dwelling units
Minimum Setback
Note: Setbacks shown on The Reserve at Elk Meadows Final Plats shall
take precedence over the below listed setbacks.
a. Setback from Road Right -of -Ways 25 feet
b. Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
c. Side Yard Setback 10 feet
7. Maximum Building Height 25 feet
6
8. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Two parking spaces per dwelling unit on the lot plus two additional
parking spaces per dwelling unit either on the lot or on common
lands within the Attached Residential Zone District.
F. U. UTILITIES DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Wells, water storage tank, water treatment facility and pumping
facilities
b. Sanitary wastewater treatment plant and wastewater pumping
facilities
c. Agriculture including pasturing of livestock, structures providing
shelter for livestock storage of livestock feed and orchard.
d. Open Space and Greenbelt
e. Park
f. Water impoundments
g. Storage for use by residents of Elk Meadows PUD
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special
NONE
4. Minimum Lot Area
None
Maximum Lot Coverage
a. Buildings: 80 per cent of net developable land within a tract or
lot
b. All impervious materials: 95 per cent of net developable land within
a tract or lot.
c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations.
6. Maximum Floor Area
NONE
7 Minimum Setbacks
a. Setback from Four Mile Road (CR 117) ROW 50 feet
b. Setback from Road ROW within the Elk Meadows PUD
7
(Except pre-existing structures) 25 feet
8. Maximum Building Height
16 feet, except for pre-existing ranch structures;
Provided that a water storage tank or a structure enclosing such
tank may be 30 feet to the highest ridgeline of the structure.
III. DESIGN STANDARDS
A. SIGNS
All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended
except as listed below:
Permanent Subdivision Identification Signs
a. Two Monument style signs shall be allowed, one east of Four Mile
Road and one west of Four Mile Road.
b. Maximum Face Area 40 square feet
c. Maximum Height 12 feet
Business or Joint Identification Sign
a. One Monument style sign may be located within the Community
Facilities Open Space District.
b. Maximum Face Area 40 square feet
c. Maximum Height 12 feet
Temporary Signs Advertising Real Estate Sales within Elk Meadows PUD
a. Two Free Standing or Monument style signs shall be allowed within
the PUD during the period of initial Tots sales. One sign shall be
allowed east of Four Mile Road and one west of Four Mile Road.
b. Maximum Face Area 100 square feet
c. Maximum Height 16 feet
B. FENCES
All fences shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as
amended except as listed below:
1 Fences within the Open Space and Community Facilities Open Space
District shall observe the following criteria except for areas requiring
protection from wildlife:
a) Maximum height:
8
Wire Fence or solid fence or wall - 44 inches
Rail Fence - 54 inches
b) Wire strand fences shall have a minimum of 12 inches between the
top two wire strands.
d) Fences higher than 54" designed to exclude deer and elk from
gardens, landscaped areas, storage and privacy shall meet the
required building setbacks of the district.
2. In the Country Residential and Meadow Residential Districts no fences
shall be allowed outside of a building envelope as shown on a recorded
final plat for the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD Subdivision.
IV. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of Garfield County, as amended (Subdivision Regulations), shall be
applicable to the Elk Meadows PUD_
A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Design Standards:
Standard street design shall be as identified in the chart titled "Elk
Meadows PUD - Road Design Standards" included with these Elk
Meadows PUD Zone Regulations.
Ownership and Maintenance of Streets and Roads:
Street and road right-of-ways and access easements internal to the
Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD may be dedicated to a private not-for-profit
association or special services district which shall be responsible for their
care and maintenance, provided, an emergency access easement
overlaying all streets, roads and driveways is dedicated to public
agencies providing emergency and police services to the PUD.
3. Lot Access by Easement:
All lots within the PUD may be accessed by private or public easements,
which are consistent with the Elk Meadows PUD — Road Design
Standards. Except for the right-of-way or easement providing access to a
lot, no other frontage on a private or public right-of-way or easement shall
be required.
4. Cul-de-sacs and Emergency Access
All emergency access requirements related to dead-end streets or cul-de-
sacs (Section 9.33 of the Subdivision Regulations) shall be satisfied by
the configuration of emergency access drives and boulevard style street
cross sections as presented by the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD Master
Plan and the design criteria shown in the "Elk Meadows PUD — Road
9
Design Standards" chart. By inclusion of these provisions for emergency
access, the 600 foot maximum length of a cul-de-sac or dead end street
shall be waived.
B. Amendment of Platted Building Envelopes
An amendment may be made to change building envelopes shown on an approved
and recorded Reserve at Elk Meadows Final Plat following the standard plat
amendment process as defined in Section 6.00 for the Subdivision Regulations of
Garfield County, Colorado as 1984 as amended. The amended plat shall be
submitted with a narrative explanation of the reason for the requested building
envelope modification and a demonstration of how the modification complies with
the following criteria:
1. The envelope does not include slopes of 40% or greater.
2. The envelope is not impacted by unmitigated geologic hazards.
3. The envelope does not increase the impacts on native woody vegetation (by
example; sagebrush, Gambles Oak brush, Pinion Pine, Rocky Mountain Juniper,
etc.).
4. The envelope does not increase visual impacts on neighboring lots and the
general public particularly as relates to sky -lining along ridgelines.
10
PHASE D
PHASE A
PROVIDE TEMPORARY LOOPED
ACCESS FOR PHASE E.
(SEE NOTE 2)
PROVIDE TEMPORARY LOOPED
ACCESS FOR PHASE F.
(SEE NOTE 2)
NOTES:
1) REALIGNMENT OF FOUR MILE ROAD AND THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATH ALONG
FOUR MILE ROAD SHALL BE COMPLETED DURING PAHSE A OF CONSTRUCTION
2) ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENTS THAT REQUIRE LOOPED ACCESS TO BE
PROVIDED SHALL BE ADEQUATE FOR EMERGENCY VEHCILES AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED.
IF PHASE A IS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PHASE
B PROVIDE TEMPORARY LOOPED ACCESS FOR
PHASE B
(SEE NOTE 2)
RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS
CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN
MAY 15, 2007
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
Ecological Consultants
goy 'West Coach Road, Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-6144
April 11, 2007
Mr. Mary Ray
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept.
108 8th St., Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Reserve at Elk Meadows
Dear Marv:
CEIVED
APR 1 3 2007
k_:,;R.HELDCOUNTY
& 1 ,...flN Nll'4
I am the wildlife biologist working on the Reserve at Elk Meadows project (Project). On behalf of the
Applicant, this letter responds to the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) March 16, 2007 referral
letter.
The Project's draft Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and the Applicant's current development
proposal already incorporates most of the CDOW's recommendations. In general, I believe that
implementation of the CDOW's recommendations that are not currently part of the project's draft
Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and the Applicant's current development proposal would
only incrementally improve the development plan for wildlife. However, planning must consider
multiple resources and community concerns. As recognized by the CDOW in their referral letter and
County in their staff report, the Applicant as gone a long way to preserve large blocks of important
wildlife habitat, cluster development in non-native habitats, preserve multiple movements corridors
facilitating continued wildlife use of the property, and minimize overall development effects. From a
wildlife perspective, this Applicant has gone beyond what others would propose to preserve wildlife
values, while balancing those values with other community concerns.
Below, I address specific CDOW's recommendations of concern to the Applicant.
The CDOW's proposed relocation of lots 18-23 (Staff Report, Condition 4) would better cluster
development along Road A, but may not reduce impacts to native habitat (as illustrated on the
Illustrative Master Plan) if lots are strung out between Lots 17 and 24. The purpose of this part of the
plan is to preserve the upper part of the meadow, which is quite visible from Highway 82. This is a
wildlife vs. visual sensitivity issue that the County will have to balance.
The CDOW has proposed a 100 foot open space corridor along the common boundary with the Four
Mile Ranch Subdivision, which, together with that corridor, would provide a 200 foot corridor between
respective building envelopes/ individual property line. Currently, the Applicant is proposing a
corridor approximately 85 feet wide from the rear of the building envelopes to the property line, except
for behind Lots 35 and 36 where it narrows to 50 feet (R. Liston, pers. comm., Apr. 6, 2007).
However, because of the configuration of those building envelopes there is going to be a greater width
of unobstructed corridor than the 50 foot dimension might suggest (R. Liston, pers. comm., Apr. 6,
2007). Fencing will not be allowed outside of the building envelope so the current plan nearly achieves
the CDOW's request. The 150 foot wide bottleneck would theoretically be less functional for wildlife
movements than a continuous corridor 185-200 feet wide, but it is unlikely that even the 200 foot
corridor would encourage elk movements. Furthermore, while multiple corridors are theoretically more
functional at conducting wildlife movements, my recommendation to the Applicant to facilitate
continued deer and elk access to the strip of winter range above the Roaring Fork River was to provide
a primary, highly functional corridor along the south side of the property by keeping development out
of the areas south of Four Mile Creek and out of the Four Mile Creek drainage. That recommendation
was incorporated into the current development plan. Implementing the CDOW's recommendation
would require considerable reworking of the plan and disrupting other open space and view sheds of
cultural importance to the public traveling along Four Mile Road (R. Liston, pers. comm., Apr. 6, 2007).
On East Meadow Lots 1-22, the CDOW requested a minimum 50 foot development setback from the
edge of the terrace along the north side of Four Mile Creek to provide a wider buffer between winter
range use and wildlife movements through native habitats below. Broader setbacks could facilitate
greater wildlife (primarily elk) use of native habitats at the top of slopes adjacent to homes, although
virtually all other wildlife now using the property will habituate to human presence and enter these
adjacent backyards, increased setback or not. Nevertheless, for wildlife and other reasons, the
Applicant has removed Lots 1-4 and is willing to pull development envelopes further back from the
terrace's edge to the extent practicable within remaining lots.
The CDOW has proposed eliminating the park and trail from the Four Mile Creek corridor. While the
CDOW recognizes that the proposed elimination of catde grazing from that riparian corridor and
subsequent riparian enhancement, they contend that a 6 -foot -wide gravel path and diurnal human use
would negate any wildlife benefits. While recreational trail use of riparian corridors has been shown to
adversely affect some (primarily non -game) wildlife values, I believe there would still be a net gain to
wildlife in this context and the Four Mile Creek corridor and undeveloped lands to the south would
remain functional for wildlife movements. The proposed park and nature trail is one of the highlights
of the property for residents. Apparently, the Planning Director commented on how much he liked
these proposed recreational amenities (R. Liston, pers. comm , Apr. 6, 2007). People are going to be
down in the creek corridor whether a trail is built or not. In my experience, it is better to sensitively site
and install such a trail (e.g., keeping the trail on one side of the creek, maximizing the size of
undisturbed habitat blocks, etc.), directing human use, rather than having more widespread use and
multiple volunteer trails develop with greater adverse effect. This is a wildlife vs. passive recreation
issue.
With the exception of the CDOW's ambiguous statement (Page 2, Para. 5, #2) about eliminating all
internal fencing, the remaining CDOW recommendations and suggestions are already part of the draft
Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan or can be added. The Applicant proposes to restrict all
internal fencing to be within designated building envelopes and will through covenant restrictions and
guidelines minimize the use of fencing except for privacy fencing near the homes and for dog kennels.
Such fencing associated with the development clusters should not adversely affect wildlife movements
or deer and elk use of residential landscaping.
In summary, while implementing those CDOW recommendations that are not already part of the
project's draft Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and the Applicant's current development
2
proposal may make the development slightly more compatible with wildlife, it would do so at the cost
of scenic/ visual, recreation, and other considerations that are important to the broader community.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT/s
Cc: R. Liston
3
gwc oP/y SPS
fA
The Upper Meadow is a southeast oriented open field located north of the Martino and Bersheny
homesteads. All of the Upper Meadow lots back' out on to dedicated open space and typically 5vi;v ;•./
range from 17,000 square feet to well over 30,000 square feet in size. The central open space
areas are currently pasture land and will be refurbished as native meadows where not included in
residential lots. Rear lot areas extending onto steep slopes and into native vegetation are overlain
with open space easements to protect native terrain and vegetation from disturbance. The
ridgelines to east and north of the Upper Meadow, which are highly visible from Glenwood
Spring, the upper Four Mile Creek valley and Hwy 8 2, are protected from homesite
development. Also, the highly visible large meadow located north over the ridge from the Upper
Meadow (Far North Meadow) is preserved as open space.
Lots in all three neighborhoods are proposed to be platted with specific building envelopes
which, in the case of the rear setback, is typically much more restrictive than called for by the
PUD zone regulations. Protective covenants will include limitations and guidelines to control
landscaping and site improvements within and outside of the building envelope. On lot parking
requirements range from four to six parking spaces depending on the size of the residence
constructed.
Interior Roads:
The entry drives both to the east and to the west are proposed as boulevard style channelization
to control and slow traffic, assure access by emergency vehicles and to provide opportunity for
landscape treatments. To the east the boulevard street cross section is continued to the first
intersecting street to assure emergency ingress and egress to the East Meadow lots. The typical
road section throughout the community is two eleven foot asphalt paved lanes with a one foot
wide flush concrete curb to preserve the asphalt edge. A ten foot wide asphalt emergency
access and pedestrian trail are provided from the Upper Meadow to the lower main access road
along the alignment of the existing ranch road. Additional controlled access gravel surfaced
drives are located in the Upper Meadow and South Meadow to assure access by emergency
vehicles. The emergency access drives also serve as important links in the pedestrian trail
system. Supplemental parking is provided throughout the community with bays of three to five
parking spaces positioned perpendicular to the roadway. Covenants will restrict the length of
time autos may be parked in these areas such that they truly serve as guest parking. This
application requests the ability to dedicate the interior roads to the Elk Meadows HOA which
will also maintain all roadways.
Trails:
The Four Mile Valley Community Trail, an eight foot wide asphalt path currently ending at the
south boundary of the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision, will be continued up valley through the Elk
Meadows community, bridging across Four Mile Creek and ending at the south boundary of the
Elk Meadows PUD. The trail will remain east of Four Mile Road and be located in a twenty foot
easement dedicated to the public.
The trail connecting the Bershenyi Barnyard area with the public parking area at the north end of
the Upper Meadows neighborhood will be a six foot asphalt trail typically located at the backside
of the one foot flush curb at the edge of the interior roads. In some areas this trail will be
removed from the road edge and in other areas the trail will coincide with an emergency access
drive. A six foot gravel trail is proposed along the north side of Four Mile Creek, downstream
from the Four Mile Valley Community Trail and continuing up through the East Meadow
connecting again with the pubic trail near the Four Mile Ranch and Elk Meadows common north
boundary.
---1°Y)24t
Elk Meadows Barnyard:
The area east of Four Mile Road around the Bershenyi barns (the Barnyard) is intended to be the
social and visual focal point of community. This area is proposed to include:
- the relocated Bershenyi log barn which will be stabilized and preserved;
- the Bershenyi frame barn which is proposed to be cleaned up and preserved;
- vehicular parking for activities at the Barnyard and Four Mile Creek Park;
- children's play equipment and typical park furnishings;
- attractive landscaping to enhance the appeal and character of the Elk Meadows
community;
- some additional small Bershenyi Ranch structures may also be preserved in this area;
- the Four Mile Valley Public Trail will pass through this area.
Heritage Ranch:
The applicant has offered to cooperate in the creation of a "Heritage Ranch" located at the
Barnyard site, if there is public support for the creation of a non-profit corporation for that
purpose. The earlier described twenty acre hayfield could also be included as an element of the
Heritage Ranch. The proposed Community Facilities Open Space Zone District regulations have
been written to accommodate activities and uses that are anticipated to be associated with a
.:heritage ranch facility.
Four Mile Creek Park
The Four Mile Valley Community Trail will provide access from the Bershenyi Barnyard down
to Four Mile Creek where a modest park facility will be created including the following:
- small turf grass areas that serve as collection nodes along the creek;
- one small picnic shelter at one of the grassy nodes;
- gravel trail described earlier connecting the grassy nodes;
- park furnishings such as benches and picnic tables.
Efforts will also be made assist the riparian vegetation in recover from years of cattle grazing.
East Meadow Mountain Meadow Park: lid
The interior open space area surrounded by East Meadow lots is proposed to be developed in a
character similar to a high country park surrounded by aspen /spruce. The proposal is to create a
couple irregular shaped irrigated areas maintained as turf grass to allow for casual open field
recreation and to surround these lawn areas with native grass areas planted with scattered
groupings of deciduous and evergreen tre s and masses of large shrubs. Gentle earth berms may
be included particularly if large boulders from the on-site construction activities can be
incorporated into the berms to create an exciting, creative and unstructured environment for child
6
play. All landscaping will be supported by irrigation. The earlier described gravel trail will flow
through the fringes of this Mountain Meadow Park connecting it and the East Meadow lots to the
Four Mile Creek Park and the Four Mile Valley Community Trail.
South Meadow Mountain Meadow Park:
The large open space in the interior of the South Meadow will be developed similarly to the
center park in the East Meadow except that there will be a large pond And much less lawn area.
The pond will serve as the pumping basin for a proposed raw water irrigation system that will
deliver pressurized irrigation water to all lots. The nature of the raw water supply should allow
for minimal fluctuation of the water level in the pond during most of the irrigation season.
There is also a small interior open space area in the northerly section of the South Meadow
which will be developed as a small scale park.
North Ridge Observation Shelter:
The ridge line at the north edge of the Upper Meadow commands spectacular views of the
Roaring Fork Valley, the Four Mile Valley and the Flat Tops to the North. A small observation
platform and low profile shelter are proposed on the ridgeline up slope from the public parking
lot to take advantage of these views and to create a destination point on the pedestrian trail
system. The small size and architectural lines of the shelter will minimize its visual presence on
the ridge line, if it is seen at all above the oak brush.
Affordable Housing:
The Elk Meadows community is nearly two miles from the closest commercial and social
services with no public transportation located any where hear the property. Therefore, the PUD
site is not a desirable location for affordable community housing units. The applicant proposes
to comply with Garfield County affordable housing regulations at a location within Glenwood
Springs or other area community. Details of how the applicant will satisfy the affordable
housing regulations will be presented at the time of preliminary plan.
UTILITY SERVICES
Water Rights
Domestic water rights protection is proposed to be provided by contracts on the Roaring Fork
River and senior rights historically attached to these properties. The water rights program will
require the completion of a court approved augmentation plan prior to approval of the
preliminary plan. Limited area of landscape irrigation is included in the calculations for the
domestic water supply but additional irrigation will be provided from a proposed raw water
delivery system.
Water Supply
The domestic water physical supply will be provided by wells located along Four Mile Creek
just east of Four Mile Road with a building for chlorination facilities located near the wells. In
the early phases of the community development, water will be pumped to a storage tank located
on the east edge of the Upper Meadow to provide gravity feed back to all lots and to fire
hydrants located in the East and South Meadow neighborhoods. Development of the Upper
Meadow will include an additional water storage tank located up slope from and northwest of
7
Paved pedestrian trails connect the public pedestrian trail located east of Four Mile Road with
access to the proposed "mountain park".
(3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation, safety, convenience,
separation and screening.
On lot parking requirements are discussed in Section 4.07.02 above. Guest parking is
proposed at additional locations throughout the residential neighborhoods and parking is
provided for users of the proposed "mountain park" at the north end of the Upper Meadow.
This location offers convenient access to the old ranch road which provides pedestrian access
to the "mountain park". Additional parking will be provided in the Community Facilities
Open Space District as required for the uses which may be located in that Open Space District.
(4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the
Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum
preservation of the natural features of the terrain.
The PUD proposes nearly seventy five percent of the total PUD acreage as some type of open
space (zone district or open space easements) with all lots abutting open space areas. The
majority of the residential building sites occupy the gentle slopes of the historic agricultural
fields and pastures with a few building sites integrated into the native vegetation around the
fringe of these fields where slope gradients allow. The road accessing the Upper Meadow
neighborhood has been aligned to fit comfortably into the native topography and in some areas
it may be possible to use boulder walls on the cut side of this road platform to reduce hillside
disturbance. Clustering of the residential use in the historically cultivated areas of the site,
results in the preservation of a vast majority of the natural terrain features of the property.
The PUD open space uses include recreational playfields, children's play areas, picnic areas
near Four Mile Creek, opportunities for neighborhood recreational uses in the area of the
preserved historical ranch structures including the potential for a heritage ranch display, a
preserved hayfield, asphalt and gravel pedestrian trails and extensive opportunities for casual
nature trail type hiking. On the ridge at the north end of the Upper Meadow neighborhood, a
small picnic shelter and observation deck are proposed to serve as destination point for hikers .
The observation deck site offers views to Mount Sopris, the Roaring Fork Valley and the
Flattops to the north.
Although no specific proposals have been presented, there has been some casual discussion by
a few area residents about the possibility of creating a "heritage ranch" educational facility
utilizing the preserved ranch buildings and the retained hayfield east of Four Mile Road. The
Applicant is committed to cooperate on making the "heritage ranch" a possibility subsequent
to approval of the PUD if such is initiated by area residents. To accommodate the potential
for a "heritage ranch" facility, the Elk Meadows PUD Zone Regulations include a Community
Facilities Open Space Zone District in the area of the preserved ranch barns. This zone
district attempts to anticipate the potential administrative, educational and recreational
activities that might be associated with such a facility. This zone district also accommodates
potential administrative, operational and recreational activities that may instrumental to the
Elk Meadows homeowners association's responsibilities to the residents of the PUD.
(5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open
Space.
The Elk Meadows PUD Zone District Regulations describe two single family residential zone
districts which vary in minimum lot size, required setbacks, coverage and floor areas ratio
criteria. Although the minimum allowed lot size of the two single family residential zone
districts only range from 11,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet, the typical building
envelopes within these lots range from 6,300 square feet to in excess of 25,000 square feet
30
4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1) or more
of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved:
(1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse
effects on the surrounding area being minimized.
Surrounding uses are all residential in nature with lot sizes being as small as two acres but
increasing up to greater than 35 acres in size. Residential development at Elk Meadows is
proposed in three neighborhoods which are positioned internal to the PUD property such that
they are buffered from any adjacent use by large expanses of open space, with one exception.
The exception being the two acre single family residential lots located in the Four Mile Ranch
Subdivision adjacent to and north of the East Meadow neighborhood. The uses are of course
compatible and although the Four Mile Ranch single family lots are considerably larger than
those proposed in the East Meadow neighborhood, the building envelopes of these two projects
will be separated by 250 feet to 285 feet with over 200 feet of this distance being dedicated open
space or open space easement.
Portions of the development will be visible to the public from Four Mile Road and Hwy 82 and
by residential properties in proximity to the PUD property. Efforts have been made to
minimize and mitigate the visibility of the future resiE act inclu1ding avoidance of
development of areas of greatest visual sensitivity. jSO�,
A twenty acre hayfield will be preserved along Four Mile Road buffering the future East
Meadow homes by distances of 400 to 800 feet and maintaining the continuity of open space
currently found along Four Mile Road through the PUD property and on to the north through
the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. The hayfield will be maintained in irrigated agricultural
production. This open space effect is continued south by the preservation of the two largest
Bershenyi barns in the area being referred to as the "Barnyard" which will be landscaped and
maintained as parkland. In the area of the existing Bershenyi homestead on the west side of
Four Mile Road, proposed lots are set back from the Four Mile Road right-of-way by at least
50 feet and when combined with the rear yard areas the closest home will be at least 90 feet
from Four Mile Road with most homes being well in excess of 100 feet from the roadway.
Landscape plans for the Barnyard and the open space areas at the project entry and the open
space buffer along the west side of Four Mile Road will be presented with the preliminary plan'
application. C tx..67-ipeca.
Other areas of development avoidance include the ridgelines to east and north of the Upper
Meadow, which are highly visible from Glenwood Spring, the upper Four Mile Creek valley
and Hwy 82. Also, the large meadow located north over the ridge from the Upper Meadow
(Far North Meadow) is preserved as open space. The Far North Meadow is quite visible from
south Glenwood Springs.
Lots on the east side of the East Meadow neighborhood are pulled back away from the east
ridgeline and proposed building envelopes push future residences even further away from the
ridgeline. Specific tree planting requirements are included in the protective covenants, which
will reduce the visibility of residential structures is this area as viewed from Hwy 82. The
following cross sections provide an accurate graphic portrayal of the potential visibility of the
future homes along the east edge of the East Meadow and how the proposed landscape
28
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1780
(CO -14000)
Use � G Vz47
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Field Office
50629 Highway 6 and 24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
March 19, 2007
Mary Ray
Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Marv:•
TAKE PRIDE"
!NAM ERICA
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the The Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD. The
BLM does have some specific private -public land interface comments relating to the
proposed PUD.
1. Trespass
The applicant should be mindful of the location of BLM property boundaries to
ensure no encroachment occurs on public lands. The developer should clearly
delineate, by fencing, the public - private land boundary to reduce trespass during
construction and after the homes are occupied.
2. Trails and Access.
Further discussion is needed on the proposed trail access (historic ranch access
road)across BLM lands to the upper parcel of private lands. Preliminary review
indicates that the road would be appropriate for public access as long as no
improvements would be performed that would make it more visible or noticeable.
Generally the trail system within the development should be maximized to lessen the
impacts on public lands and all trails should be open to the general public.
Public trailhead and parking facilities should be provided on private lands and
constructed by the developer. Loop trail systems should be developed to eliminate
trails that dead end at the public land boundary.
3. Fire Hazard Analysis
All fuels reduction/breaks should occur within the boundaries of the PUD. In order
to protect life and property, homes should not be built in areas where wildland
fire protection requires vegetation management on the adjacent public lands.
4. Right-of-ways.
Any roads, cart trails, paths, or utilities such as water, electric, phone or
otherwise crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office.
An environmental assessment of tl-ie impacts of those uses would be needed as a part
of the ROW permiLLitig process.
5. Traditional Public Land Uses
It should also be noted that traditional public land uses sometimes conflict with
the expectations of new residents. The applicant should be aware of and respect
the following values and existing uses of the adjacent BLM lands.
a. Livestock Grazing. The applicant should be advised that the adjacent
public land has current permits for livestock grazing. Under Colorado
statutes, it is the owners' responsibility to construct, and maintain in good
condition a lawful fence protecting their property in order to recover any
damages from trespass livestock. If a livestock fence is not presently in
place, a fence built along the private - public land boundary is recommended
to reduce potential future problems.
Should any fence construction be considered along the private/BLM boundary,
the fence standards should allow for easy passage by big game. This office.
can provide additional information regarding fence standards upon request.
b. Recreation/Travel. The adjacent public lands are managed to offer a
variety of dispersed recreational activities (motorized and non -motorized).
Motorized and non -motorized travel is managed in accordance with the Glenwood
Springs Field Office - Resource Management Plan. This broad range of
activities will likely continue to occur contiguous to the private lands.
Our office can provide additional information on recreation, travel and
access as necessary.
c. Hunting and Target Shooting. The adjacent BLM lands are open to hunting
and target shooting. The BLM does not establish safety zones or no -shooting
zones to restrict hunting.
d. Mineral Rights. The Bureau has not researched the mineral rights to
determine if they are reserved to the federal government on the subject
lands.
We are open to work with the developer and the Garfield County as necessary. If you
or the developers have questions, please contact Brian Hopkins of my staff. He can
he reached at (970) 947-2840 (FAX: 947-2829).
Sincerely,
Jamie E. Connell
Field Manager
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the findings of a geologic review of the 2006 conceptual
development plan for the Reserve at Elk Meadows, County Road 117, Garfield County,
Colorado. The project site is located about four miles south of Glenwood Springs, see
Figure 1. The study was conducted to evaluate the geologic conditions in the project area
and to assess if the geology could present potential constraints and risks to the 2096
conceptual development plan. The study was done according to our November 14, 2005
proposal to Reserve at Elk Meadows, LLC.
This review is based on a field observation made in April, 2005 for our preliminary
geologic site assessment (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 2005a) and during follow-up
field observations in November, 2005. In addition, we have reviewed published regional
geology studies and looked at aerial photographs of the area and our previous work in the
area. This report summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and
recommendations.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The 2006 conceptual development plan indicates that three residential areas, the East
Meadow, the South Meadow and the Upper Meadow will be developed on the 500 acre
Bershenyi and Martino Ranches, see Figure 2e en o single family residential lots
are proposed in the East Meadow areagagalo. residential lots are proposed in the
South Meadow area arid. fifty-five residential lots are proposed in the Upper Meadow
area. The lots typically cover about 0.3 acres. Other development facilities will include a
street system, public parking areas, recreational trails and a pond in the South Meadow
area. The development will have a central water distribution system. The sewer system
is proposed to be connected to the City of Glenwood Springs municipal system.
Job No. 105 325
Gtech
4.08.05 (7) (e) (i) & (ii) WATER & SEWER
(e) A statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and documentation, which shall
provide evidence of the following: (A. 97-109)
(i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to service the PUD;
(ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to service the
PUD. If the PUJ] application proposes to utilize existing, central facilities. the application
shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess capacity currently
exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will be
expanded to adequatelyaccommodate the development: A. 97.109)
WATER RIGHTS & WATER SUPPLY REPORT — Zancanella and Associates
PRE -ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
POTABLE WATER, SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM & DRY UTILITIES REPORT — Sopris
Engineering
SCHEMATIC WATER PLAN
SCHEMATIC IRRIGATION PLAN
SCHEMATIC SEWER PLAN
53
AMENDMENT OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 2000
The purpose of this amendment request is to modify the Comprehensive Plan's
Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area I map covering properties historically
known as the Bershenyi and Martino Ranches. These properties are being
proposed, in a separate application, to be rezoned as the Elk Meadows Planned
Unit Development and are currently mapped largely as Residential Medium
Density with scattered areas of Residential Low Density and on the
Comprehensive Plan's Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area I map. Much
more complete Development Constraints information is now available and there
have been changes regarding other Development Constraints and Land Use
Considerations since the original mapping of the land use districts. The following
evaluates the subject properties based on the currently available information
using the criteria established by Table 30 of the Methodology Section of the
Comp Plan
This evaluation resulted in the mapping of the subject properties as High Density
Residential and Medium Density Residential as shown on the plan included with
this application. In general, the proposed map identifies the lower, gently sloping
fields and meadows of the Martino and Bershenyi Ranches as being in the
Residential High Density District due to the total lack of development constraints,
the availability of central sewer service and proximity to an improved collector
road and community services. The balance of these ranch properties are
influenced by scattered areas of development constraints but they also benefit
frOin central sewer service, proximity to good access and the Glenwood Springs
community. These areas have therefore been mapped as Residential Medium
Density.
A summary of the Table 30 evaluation follows below.
1I. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (one dwelling unit per 2 or Tess acres)
A. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
1. SLOPE CONSTRAINTS: Minor
The areas mapped as High Density are almost completely
dominated by very gentle slopes (less than 10%) with only a few
narrow transition fringes exceeding 15% gradients. Slopes
constraints in these areas are very minor or non existent.
2. SOILS CONSTRAINTS: Minor
The vast majority of the High Density areas are comprised of old
1
stream alluvium with minor soils constraints. Depending on the
character of the shallow subsurface soils some soils may have
expansion potential and other areas may be hydrocompressive
both of which can be mitigated with appropriate foundation designs
based on building site specific soils investigation at the time of
construction.
3. ISDS CONSTRAINTS: Minor
While ISDS constraints in the High Density area are very minor,
these areas have access to an exiting sewer transmission line
located in Four Mile Road. This sewer line delivers effluent to the
City of Glenwood Springs for treatment in their regional waste water
treatment facility. The accompanying Elk Meadows PUD
Application includes a Can and Will Serve Letter issued by the City
of Glenwood Springs which provides for the treatment waste water
from the Elk Meadows PUD upon satisfaction of certain conditions
related to the City's adoption of a 201 Plan, the approval of a South
Glenwood Springs Transportation Plan and payment for completion
of certain traffic improvements. The property is included in the
"area of service" in the City's current draft of the 201 Plan. The
Can and Will Serve Letter also provides an outside date by which
the City must define the required traffic improvements. The
satisfaction of the various conditions of the Can and Will Serve
Letter will ultimately be documented by the signing of a pre-
annexation agreement with the City. The presence of the sewer
interceptor line extending up the Four Mile Valley to points beyond
the Elk Meadows PUD and the capability of the City of Glenwood
Springs to provide sewer service to this area qualifies the described
properties to be classified as having Minor or, in fact, no ISDS
constraints.
4. FLOODPLAIN CONSTRAINTS: Minor
Mapping of the High Density areas avoids all areas influenced
flooding or debris flow and therefore there are no constraints
related to this category.
B. LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
1. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY: Critical
2
The High Density areas are buffered by the areas mapped as
Medium Density from all adjacent properties except for the Four
Mile Ranch Subdivision located on the north boundary of the
easterly hayfields of the Bershenyi Ranch. However, the lots at the
south end of the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision are quite linear with
the rear one hundred or more feet of these lots being overlain with
an open space easement that buffers homes from the Bershenyi
property. Giving current conditions, the gently sloping areas of the
Four Mile Ranch would logically be designated as Residential High
Density use if it were not already subdivided.
2. ROAD CONDITIONS: Critical
These properties are served by Four Mile Road which is a collector
road for the Four Mile valley. Redevelopment of this road in
association with the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision improved the
capacity and safety of the northerly end of Four Mile Road.
Construction of the above described sewer interceptor in the Four
Mile Road right-of-way has resulted in new asphalt surface and a
realignment of Four Mile Road proposed by the accompanying Elk
Meadows PUD Application will further improve the safety and
carrying capacity of the road. This improved Four Mile Road from
the subject properties north to the City of Glenwood Springs is
more than capable to serve the High Density areas as proposed.
The traffic study included with the Elk Meadows PUD Application
addresses traffic conditions in the South Glenwood Springs area
and identifies improvements in that area that would accommodate
traffic at an acceptable level of service until approximately 2025.
The recommended improvements are addressed in a proposed
pre -annexation agreement which is one of the conditions of the
City's Can and Will Serve Letter regarding sewer service.
3. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS: Critical
This is a somewhat generalized category but as described above
the area can now served by central sewer and has direct access to
an enhanced collector road. Additionally, the Glenwood Springs
Fire District has recently completed a new Fire Station at the north
end of the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision about three quarters of a
mile from the entrance to the proposed EIk Meadows PUD. The
Sopris Elementary School is located just off Four Mile
Road/Midland Avenue about one and one quarter miles form the
EIk Meadows PUD Entry. A public pedestrian trail is currently in
3
place for about one third of the distance to the school and the
proposed Elk Meadows PUD will complete an additional third that
that distance. Critical infrastructure is in place to serve the
identified High Density areas.
4. DISTANCE FROM URBAN USES: Moderate
The close proximity of the Fire Station and elementary school are
described above. In the same vicinity as Sopris Elementary School
is the Mountain Market and associated commercial spaces offering
convenience products, gasoline and personal service type
businesses. The existing paved pedestrian trail paralleling Four
Mile Road through the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision will be
extended through the proposed Elk Meadows PUD making the
school and Mountain Market convenience services more
accessible for pedestrians. American National Bank, Rivers
Restaurant, WalMart and the numerous other commercial services
of South Glenwood begin at a point Tess than three miles from the
subject properties. Urban services are readily available to the
future residents of these properties either by vehicle or by foot. The
location of the proposed High Density districts easily satisfies a
Moderate ranking for proximity to urban uses.
SUMMARY: The above clearly describes how the proposed High Density
areas comply with the designated rankings for Development Constraints
and Land Use Considerations.
III. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 6 - 9 ACRES)
A. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
1. SLOPE CONSTRAINTS: Moderate
In their report dated August of 2005, HP Geotech classified the
slopes (Slope Stability Class Areas) in over thirty percent of the
area that is proposed for Medium Density as being suitable for most
types of development. The remainder of the acreage was
described as not recommended for high density development but
as being suitable for low density residential development at some
locations with careful site selection. Consideration of rock fall
hazard seems appropriate to this section and a small zone of rock
fall hazard has been mapped on the west central edge of the
4
property totally four percent of the area proposed as Medium
Density. Given its small size and location, this rock fall zone has
relatively little impact on the overall development capacity of this
Medium Density district. The diversity of the slopes in the
proposed Medium Density area, ranging from moderately steep to
gentle, is consistent with an average ranking of Moderate for Slope
Constraints.
2. SOILS CONSTRAINTS: Moderate
Actual foundation soil conditions found in the proposed Medium
Density areas is not much different from the potentially expansive
soils and hydrocompactive soils found throughout the entire site.
These conditions may require some level of mitigation through
engineered foundation designs based on site specific investigations
conducted at the time of residential construction. These types of
soil conditions are very common in this region and are consistent
with a Moderate ranking for Soil Constraints.
3. ISDS CONSTRAINTS: Moderate
Although the soil conditions throughout much of the Medium
Density area offer little constraint to the use of individual sewage
disposal systems, the availability of central sewer service to the
entire site makes consideration of ISDS Constraints a mute
analysis.
4. FLOODPLAIN CONSTRAINTS: Moderate
There are some flooding constraints in the Medium Density area
that are primarily confined to the immediate Four Mile Creek area, a
side channel and an area that coincides with the rock fall hazard
zone discussed above. The total area of impact is relatively quite
small as compared to the total area of the proposed Medium
Density district and is largely isolated by the steep valley walls
adjacent to Four Mile Creek_ Given the flood free characteristics of
the vast majority of the proposed Medium Density area, flooding
and debris flows represent a very minor constraint to this area.
B. LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
All testimony offered regarding Land Use Considerations in the High
Density section above are equally as applicable to the area proposed as
5
Medium Density and therefore are not repeated below. The justification
offered for the High Density category above was proposed as appropriate
to satisfy a "Critical" level of consideration and therefore is more than
adequate to satisfy the "Moderate" and "Minor" considerations for a
Medium Density classification.
1. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY: Moderate
Refer to the previous High Density discussion.
ROAD CONDITIONS: Moderate
Refer to the previous High Density discussion.
3. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS: Moderate
Refer to the previous High Density discussion.
4. DISTANCE FROM URBAN USES: Minor
Refer to the previous High Density discussion.
SUMMARY
Although the proposed Medium Density district is comprised of a diversity of
physical characteristics, when considered in the average or median condition, the
Development Constraints are consistent with the Medium Density category. The
availability of urban services, infrastructure and access easily exceed the
expectations of the Land Use Considerations for the Medium Density category.
6