HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationP.O. Box 1908
1005 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs,
CO 81602
July 17, 2002
Z4NC4NELL4 4ND 4S3OCI4TES, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULT4NTS
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning
409 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-5700
(970) 945-1253 Fax
RECEwED
JUL
{ ?W.
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUXDING & PLANNING
RE: Flood Plain Development Permit for Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
Dear Mr. Jarman:
This letter constitutes an updated application for a flood plain development special use
permit to allow the construction of various improvements related to the Blue Creek Ranch
Subdivision. The updates include the insertion of specific portions of the Garfield County
Development Regulations, at your request. The proposed improvements would include
road crossings and fill for building envelope areas. We believe that the proposed
construction would be covered by Garfield County Floodplain Regulations Section 6.09.01
and 6.09.02, as well as Garfield County Regulations Sections 6.08.01 and 9.03 regarding
Special Use Permits.
6.08.01 Special Use Permit Required
Any use to be developed in the floodplain shall be required to obtain a Special Use Permit,
in accordance with the applicable regulations of Section 9 of this Zoning Resolution
concerning the submission and processing of such permits. In addition to the determinations
to be made by the Building Official under the provisions of said Section 9, all applications
for the Special Use Permit under this Regulation shall be reviewed by the Floodplain
Administrator:
(1) To assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental
agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State Law, including Section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1344.
The applicant has obtained permits from the CDPHE for the wastewater treatment plant, and has obtained
a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for work in the wetland areas.
(2) To determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding,
and that the structure will be in compliance with the applicable provisions for uses and
standards for construction set forth in this Resolution.
The applicant has determined minimum finish floor elevations for each building envelope in the
subdivision. The owner/builder on each individual lot will be required to construct to this elevation and
will be required to meet any other applicable floodplain regulations at the time of the construction of the
structure.
(3) To determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the
tloodway, assure that encroachment provisions of Section 6.09.01(1)(A) are met.
No portion of the development is proposed to be located in the floodway, except for the two road crossings
which are discussed later.
(4) To assure that adjacent communities, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and
Federal Emergency Management Agency have been notified of the proposed watercourse
alteration or relocation.
No alteration or relocation of a watercourse is proposed.
(5) To assure that the carrying capacity of the altered/relocated watercourse is maintained.
(A. 85-211)
The cross sectional area of the floodway will be maintained, therefore there will be no decrease in carrying
capacity.
6.09.01 Floodway
(1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the
Floodway:
(A) Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and
other development unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not
result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. If the
technical evaluation satisfies the requirement, all new construction and substantial
improvements shall be required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section
6.09.02(3).
As noted above, there is no construction proposed in the floodway that will decrease the cross sectional
area or carrying capacity of the floodway. The delineator posts proposed alongside the road crossing can
be of the flexible variety to prevent any significant accumulation of debris during a flood event.
(B) The storage or processing of materials that in times of flooding are buoyant,
flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life.
(C) The disposal of garbage or other solid waste materials.
(D) The placement of any structures, either fixed or mobile, for purposes of human
occupation, either permanent or temporary.
(E) Any obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the
flow capacity of a designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others.
None of the activities noted in (B) through (E) are proposed.
(2) Permissible Uses. The following Special Uses are permitted in the Floodway if
present underlying zoning allows such uses:
(A) Agriculture, such as farming, grazing and forestry.
(B) Loading and parking areas for industrial and commercial uses not requiring
paving or grading.
(C) Recreation and open space uses such as parks, golf courses, picnic grounds,
green belts, wildlife preserves and trails systems, provided that no permanent
structures are constructed.
(D) Any fence, pipeline or structure for which the primary use is the diversion or
storage of water or the control of flooding or any similar use. (A. 85-211)
Applicant agrees that the above are permissible uses.
6.09.02 Flood Fringe/Flood Prone Areas
(1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the
Flood Fringe/Flood Prone Areas:
(A) The development, use, fill, construction, substantial improvement or alteration
on or above any portion of the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas which alone, or
cumulatively with other activities, would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid
debris being carried downstream by floodwaters.
The fill proposed in the flood fringe areas will be a controlled earth fill and will not introduce materials
that will result in "substantial solid debris".
(B) The storage or processing of materials that in times of flooding are buoyant,
flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life.
No storage of materials is proposed nor envisioned which would not be consistent with a residential
subdivision.
(C) The disposal of garbage or other solid waste materials.
Not proposed nor allowed.
(D) Any obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the
flow capacity of a designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others.
No material placed in the flood fringe will cause a reduction in efficiency or restriction in flow capacity
other than what was determined in the floodplain study.
(2) Permissible Uses. All Special Uses permitted in the Floodway, and all lawful
uses permitted by the underlying zoning, subject to Section 6.09.02(1) of this Regulation and
the regulations concerning the Special Use Permit, are permitted in the Flood Fringe and
Flood Prone Areas.
(3) Performance Standards. The following performance standards must be met for
development in the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas:
(A) The lowest floor, including basement, of any new or substantially improved
building designed for residential occupancy shall not be less than one (1) foot above the
maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood.
The design drawings and plat for the subdivision clearly show this minimum elevation.
(B) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be reasonably safe from
flooding.
All new construction will be built to the minimum elevations required, the purpose of which is to make the
improvements reasonable safe from flooding.
(C) Any new construction or substantial improvement designed for commercial or
industrial uses shall either:
No commercial nor industrial uses are proposed for the floodplain areas.
(i) Elevate the lowest floor level, including basement, to not less than one (1)
foot above the maximum water surface elevation of the 100 Year Flood; or
(ii) Provide flood -proofing improvements so that below an elevation of one (1)
foot above the maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood, the structure,
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, is water tight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Structural components shall be
capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.
Evidence shall be submitted and certified by a registered professional engineer or
architect that the flood proofing meet the standards as set forth herein.
Building areas are proposed to be elevated as noted above, however, if the owners/builders of individual
lots wish to vary from that elevation, they will bear the burden of proof for item (ii).
(D) Any proposed development shall be reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator
to insure that the potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood is minimized, that all
public utilities and facilities are located, designed and constructed so as to minimize damage
by the 100 Year Flood and that adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood
hazards.
This flood plain application provides the floodplain administrator and the BOCC the opportunity to make
their determination.
(E) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed and
adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and be constructed by methods that
minimize flood damage.
Not applicable if minimum finish floor elevations are adhered to.
(F) New or replacement water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems shall
be designed so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters. On-site individual
sewage disposal systems shall be located so as to avoid impairment of them or
contamination from them during a 100 Year Flood.
Measures have been proposed to minimize infiltration to the sanitary sewers. No individual sewage
disposal systems are proposed.
(G) Within any area subject to sheet flow (Zone "AO" on the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps) all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures
shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated above the highest adjacent
grade of the nearest street to or above the depth number specified on the Flood Maps.
Any new construction or substantial improvements of nonresidential structures in
areas identified as subject to sheet flow shall have the lowest floor, including basement,
elevated above the highest adjacent grade to or above the depth number specified on the
Flood Maps, or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be completely
flood -proofed to or above the elevation of the water surface as specified on the Flood
Maps.
There are no "AO" zones on this project.
(H) Require that all manufactured homes or those to be substantially improved
to be placed within Zone A on a community's FEMA or FIRM shall be installed using
methods and practices which minimize flood damage. For the purposes of this
requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation,
collapse or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited
to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in
addition to applicable State and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind
forces. A manufactured home should be elevated a minimum of one (1) foot above
the base flood level and anchored to the elevated foundation. (A. 85-211; 89-057;
91-088)
No manufactured homes are proposed for this subdivision.
In addition to addressing the above stipulations, we have enclosed a drawing which shows
the existing topography of the area as well as the floodway and floodfringe areas on the
"Existing Conditions" portion of the Floodplain Development Permit drawing. The proposed
subdivision lots and minimum finished floor elevations for each lot are shown on the
"Proposed Conditions" portion of the same drawing. This same information (and more) is
shown on Sheets 12 and 13 of the Preliminary Plan submittal drawings.
We have also enclosed the following figures for your reference:
Figure 1 - A copy of the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), for the area
which shows the 100 year flood plain as established by that study.
Figure 2 - A copy of the current Floodway Map, for the area which shows the
regulated floodway area, established by the same study.
If you have any further questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella & Associates, Inc.
L
Timothy P. Beck, P.
Enclosures
cc: Rob Cumming
Scott Miller
Larry Green
Glenn Horn
Mark Butler
Z:120000120729 Blue Creek Ranchlgarco-fldpin.wpd
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 1880 OF 1900
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER
080205 1880 B
MAP REVISED:
JANUARY 3, 1986
Federal Emergency Management Agency
J
KEY TO MAP
500 -Year Flood Boundary
100 -Year Flood Boundary
Zone Designations
100 -Year Flood Boundary
500 -Year Flood Boundary
Base Flood Elevation Line
With Elevation Elevation In Feet**
Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987)
Where Uniform Within Zone**
Elevation Reference Mark RM7x
Zone D Boundary
Riser Mile
•M1.5
**Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE EXPLANATION
4 Areas of 100 -year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined.
AO Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by types of
100 -year shallow flooding where depths are between
1.0 and 3.0 feet; depths are shown, or areas of 100 -
year alluvial fan flooding, depths and velocities shown,
but no flood hazard factors are determined.
AH Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
A1 -A30 Areas of 100 -year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
1199 Areas of 100 -year flood to be protected by flood
protection system under construction; base flood
elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.
B Areas between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -
year flood; or certain areas subject to 100 -year flood-
ing with average depths less than one (1) foot or where
the contributing drainage area is Tess than one square
mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
(Medium shading)
C Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)
D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.
✓ Areas of 100 -year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
not determined.
V1.V30 Areas of 100 -year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
determined.
NOTES TO USER
Certain areas not in the special flood hazard areas (zones A and V)
may be protected by flood control structures.
This map is for flood insurance purposes only; it does not neces-
sarily show all areas subject to flooding in the community or
all planimetric features outside special flood hazard areas.
For adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index To Map
Panels.
INITIAL IDENTIFICATION:
DECEMBER 15, 1977
FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP REVISIONS;
(ij
IEI
r<c, 731,S
Ci5butiJ
•
GRANDE
LIMIT OF
ZTAILED STUDY
RM24
7
RM35
R M25
DENVER
31
AND
32
-.•
6
FZ.00r )4(& fr/gP
• . . •
. •
A7".. A- •• .-" •
1 2 ' -.1"..;,74.? • • • , -
I '• • V
/
/
,
7./
1
1111
r\t
6254
6270
P12ze4- 7"
Bou Po Fie tdi
Z NE C
ZONE B
6284
ZONE C
6288
Lo /
c•-)
(NI
ZONE B
4:
tE-
6264
6250 \ 6254\
RM24 RM25
ZONE A \
ZONE C
LIMIT OF
DETAILED STUDY
6268
RM35 31
ZONE
A3
03
6284
co
cs)
Ve.
6284 cc,
6296
FORE
6300
• '''' ' ,mw- fTt
P'"?..0i7 /4)5. /MI6—
Davis Horne
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
June 25, 2002
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RECEIVED Jb,
cadv(0),
Re: Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan
Dear Fred:
Davis Horn Incorporated represents WindRiver Development LLC, the
applicants for the Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The letter responds to Kim Schlagel's June 6, 2002 memorandum
regarding the Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development PUD
Preliminary Plan.
1. Water Supply - Attachment 1 is a copy of a June 24, 2002
letter from Kenneth W. Knox, Assistant State Engineer with the
State of Colorado Division of Water Resources. The letter
indicates that the Tom Zancanella has had several
conversations with the Division of Water Resources and
resolved concerns regarding water supply. The letter
concludes that:
"Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS
30-28-136(1)(h)(1) that the proposed water supply will
not cause material injury to decreed water rights."
This letter resolves concerns regarding adequate water supply.
2. Potential Isolation of Lots 23, 24 and 25 - Attachment 2 is a
June 17, 2002 letter from Mark Butler P.E. of Sopris
Engineering which addresses the possibility of Lots 23, 24 and
25 being isolated from emergency services in the event of a
flood. Bristlecone Drive crosses the FEMA mapped floodway for
approximately 75 lineal feet. A wetland drainage is located
1
ALICE DAVIS, AICP S GLENN HORN, AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180
just to the north of this section of road approximately six
feet in elevation below the road. South of the road the
topography slopes away at approximately a 1% grade across an
open area. The applicant has not proposed constructing a
bridge to cross this section of the floodplain because there
is not a defined channel.
Sopris Engineering projects that in the event of a 100 -year
flood there would be one foot of water or less covering
approximatley 75 lineal feet of Bristlecone Drive. According
to Butler the velocity of the water would be low because it
would not be within a channel.
The applicant is proposing to place reflector posts on the
both sides of Bristlecone Drive at 20 foot intervals so in the
event of a flood, the road platform would be discernable.
According to Sopris Engineering, the road surface and platform
would be capable of supporting emergency service vehicles if
covered by up to one foot of water.
We have discussed the capability of the Carbondale and Rural
Fire Protection District to respond to an emergency on Lots
23, 24 and 25 during the 100 year flood. Assistant Fire
Chief, Bill Gavette, has indicated over the phone that the
District should be able to respond. We anticipate receiving
a written response from the District later this week.
3. Generator Power Source - A pump will be used to move water
from the wells to the proposed water tanks. In the event of
electrical failure, the pump will be powered by a ten
horsepower diesel generator. This will meet the peak water
demands of the PUD.
4. River Bank Stabilization and Reoccupation of Abandoned
Channels - According to the applicant's engineers, the
Roaring Fork River bank is approximately six feet above the
water level in the River for virtually the entire length of
the property. There does not appear to be any need for bank
stabilization along the property. Additionally, it is not
likely that the Roaring Fork River will cross the existing
bank and reoccupy water channels which were abandoned many
years ago. It appears that the primary abandoned channel is
the old Blue Creek channel. At some point in the past, Blue
Creek was diverted from this channel well up stream of the
subject site.
5. Control of Water and Waste Water Facilities - The Blue Creek
Ranch PUD Homeowners Association will be incorporated for the
purposes of managing the water and waste water facilities
which will serve the PUD. By-laws will be established for the
Homeowners Association. The by-laws will address utility
managment.
2
6. Floodway Encroachments - The applicant is not planning any
development encroachments within the floodway other than those
already proposed in the land use application and the special
permit application
7. Sewage Treatment Works - The technical appendices to the land
use application describe the waste water collection and
treatment system. The sewage treatment works will be paid for
and constructed by the developer and dedicated to the
Homeowner Association. The Homeowners Association will pay
for on-going operations by billing homeowners for services.
Provisions shall be made for special assessments to address
needs for capital repairs.
This letter has addressed issues raised in Kim Schlagel's June 6,
2002 Memorandum. Please contact me if you have any additional
concerns or would like to discuss anything.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN HORN AICP
3
Jun -25-02 09:45A
JUN -25-20132 07:00
DIN LATER RESOURCES
P-02
:03 366 3589 P.01/01
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE 01 DIE STATE ENGINEER
0,vision of water Resources
Department of Natural Rrs Dunes
1313 Sherman Street Room 816
Denver, Colorado 80103
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX )303, 866-3589
VNAvsvater.SLIm(„0 us
June 24, 2002
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Dept
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Blue Creek Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan
SW% NE Section 31, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Bill Owens
Governor
Creg E- Waither
Ewooeko n:r.,e,n,
Hsi 0. Sir.,psws, PE
$tare fngvnttr
Dear Mr. Lyon:
As stated in our correspondence of May 6, we have reviewed the above referenced
proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 81.3 acres into 48 Tots and open space tracts.
There were several issues in the third paragraprt of the previous correspondence with which we
had issues; specifically, the application efficiency and me EQRs/unit. Wo believe that Zancanella
ana Associates have since sufficiently addressed our concerns via an updated `Estimated Water
Requirements` table.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(1). that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights. If you or the
applicant has any questions conceming this matter, please contact Craig Lis or John Redding
of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CMLfBIue Creek Ranch iv.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
ATTACHMENT
TO1AL P.01
FEB -03-1900 00:13
Davis Horn Incorporated
215 South Monarch, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Preliminary Plan Review Comments
Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision, Sketch Plan and PUD
SE Job No. 20089.01
Dear Glen:
P. 02
June 17, 2002
This letter comprises our response to the question relating to the Bristlecone Drive crossing of the Floodway.
Bristlecone Drive crosses the FEMA mapped Floodway for approximately 75 lineal feet, between proposed road
stations 10+25 and 11+03 as shown on the plan view. See attached drawings showing plan and profile of this
section of Britslecone Drive.
The road is proposed along and existing berm in the topography so that it would be higher than the surrounding
area. The proposed road is to be constructed at grade through the Floodway as required by the Core of Engineers
for floodway crossings. A wetland drainage located just to the north of the proposed road is at an elevation of 6 feet
below the proposed road elevation. South of the proposed road the topography slopes away at about 1% across flat
open area toward the south and west. In our road design we ruled out the possibility of bridging this section of the
flood plain because there is no defined water channel in this location and we felt that a long bridge with minimal
height could create a dam in the case of a flood.
Our investigation of this location indicates that the anticipated water depth during a 100 -year flood would be 1 foot
or less. We derived this by comparing the flood plain isobar elevations to the existing topography. We feel that the
circumstances leading up to a 100 -year flood event normally allow for time to notify homeowners of the raising
water level and that they would be able to evacuate before the Floodway crossing was flooded. We anticipate the
flow velocity will be moderate to slow in this area.
To facilitate the potential need to cross this area during a 100 -year we would proposed the addition of reflector
pasts every 25' at the shoulders of the road along this section of Bristlecone Drive. The reflector posts would help
define the road if it were covered by water. The subgrade soils at the crossing will remain stable even when
saturated and the asphalt road will be constructed with a class 6 aggregate base course so that the road will remain
structurally sound even in a saturated condition.
Please forward this letter to local emergency services for their comments on navigation of a road section with a 1 -
foot flood depth.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please give us a call.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINES G
Mark A. Butler, P.E.
Project Engineer
AiTACKIEN
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENCINEERINC• LLC
civil consultants
TOTAL P.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rn
o C
0 a
1-a
6b'C9Z9
o
0o rn
+ CO
N N
II p
Of, '2239
:33A3
I
` N
O
h �I
.1* 1,
N
-..
1'3839
03'C839
o
>
SZ+Z
l 50A3
PVI STA
PVI ELEV
o£'2839
o
in
09'3339
:30A8
V s
N 1
in
02'Z8Z9
SL+LI
:SOA8
I
o o
0° d
017.1839 :30A3
o
0
Z'C8Z9
1C' 1839
PVI STA = 10+
VI ELEV = 628
50.00' VC
50+11 S0A3
06'0839 :30A9
-,
N 100 -YEAR
PLAIN AS
ON FEMA MAP
-17'3839
06'0839
I
I
0
0
0
d
AREA
FLOOD
SHOWN
6'0839
06'09Z9
LOW POINT E_EV = 6280.90
LOW POINT STA = 9+77.77
PVI STA = 9+52.88
PVI ELEV = 6280.90
o
o
06'0939 :30A3
1N31N011V JO 830NIVI1321
S213O1f1OHS ,3/M
1-1101M OV02J
00'1939
2103
133J 91 01
30110321
= A313
0'1939
10'1939
99'LL+6 :S0A3
0
t
9Z'1939 :30A8
0
C5+6 =
SSVd VS0d=ONOd
3NO0311S1d8 3O
VIS
ONV
N0110352131N1
.17'3839
L9'1939
987.3+6 :S0A8
co
*
.EV = 6282.27
STA = 8+42.71
= 8+50
= 6282.40
.03839
:33A3
0
2.1939
93'38Z9
>
SL+9
:50A3
HIGH POINT E
HIGH POINT
PVI STA
PVI ELEV
o
d
in
03'3939
:30A8
til
I
0
I
6'1939
00'3839
g3
+9 :S0A8
9'1239
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rn
o C
0 a
1-a
2-.8 2tvz
1HHRESOURCE vieCIRD
■ ■■■■ �,
■ ■R■■ E N G I N E E R I N G INC.
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
June 28, 2002
(/4
RE: Blue Creek Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan - Response to Schlagel Memorandum
Dear Fred:
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed
the additional information submitted in response to Kim Schlagel's June 6, 2002
memorandum regarding the Blue Creek Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan. The submittal is
summarized in a June 25, 2002 letter from Davis Horn, Inc. Our comments follow the
numbered items in that letter.
1. Water Supply - The State has issued a letter of no material injury. The information
submitted to the State should also be submitted to the County.
2. Isolation of Lots 23, 24, and 25 - We do not believe it is prudent to promote driving
through flood waters, especially through the floodway. If the Applicant does not
believe that the floodplain and flood way is properly delineated, they can re -analyze
the floodplain and floodway and apply for a letter of map revision to the FEMA
maps.
3. Generator Power Source - The use of backup power supply is acceptable.
4. Riverbank Stabilization and Reoccupation of Abandoned Channels - The
problem of channel stability is not the river bank adjacent to the project but rather
upstream of the project which would create a problem for this property. The primary
abandoned channel is a significant channel which is as Targe or larger than the
existing Roaring Fork River channel. It is clearly an old river channel. H.P. Geotech,
CGS, and RESOURCE have not opined that there is a problem, but simply that this
issue needs to be examined from a technical perspective. The supplemental
submittal still does not provide any technical analysis of this issue.
5. Control of Water and Wastewater Facilities - It should be noted that the water
system is merged with the Aspen Equestrian Estates central system. The By -Laws
should address the interaction between the two HOA's and the responsibilities of
each.
6. Flood Way Encroachments - If the County approves the proposed isolated lots as
outlined in Item 2 of the Davis Horn letter, then the applicant must address the
obstruction within the floodway created by the reflector poles.
7. Sewage Treatment Works - No further comments.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 91 601 • (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 945-1137
Mr. Fred Jarman June 28, 2002
Page 2
OTHER ISSUES
The June 6, 2002 memorandum from Kim Schlagel does not include the road design and
traffic issue which she had verbally raised with the Applicant prior to the preliminary plan
submittal and which is included in a June 13, 2002 letter from RESOURCE. At the June
5, 2002 staff meeting, Kim Schlagel indicated that the Applicant's position is that the PUD
process allows for a variance on this issue. The traffic flow analysis was discussed at the
meeting and that the position of RESOURCE and the staff is that all roads within the
subdivision should be designed as a minor collector with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet.
To date, the Applicant has not addressed this issue.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEING, INC.
Michael J. Ery►.' , P.E.
Water Res• rces Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-10.0 fj blue creek ranch.885.wpd
RESOURCE
NGINEERING I N C.
awl iON"
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
June 29, 2002
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Blue Creek Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark:
RECEIVED J111. 0 2 20i
Glen Horn has contacted both EMS Director Carl Smith and myself regarding the potential flooding of
Bristlecone Drive during a 100 -year flood. We have both discussed the issue with Glen and made
recommendations. Our concerns and recommendation have been addressed in the June 17, 2002 letter
from Mark Butler.
Please contact ine if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
cc: Glen Horn, Davis Horn Inc.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
UU
L
July 12, 2002
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8`h St, Suite 303 RECEIVED
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preliminary Plan Review Comments
Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision, Sketch Plan and PUD GARFIELD COUNTY
SE Job No. 20089.01 BUILDING & PLANNING
JUL 1 6 2002
Dear Fred:
You have requested additional supporting information to back up the letter dated July 8, 2002 to Glen Horn stating
that the reflector posts would not be an obstruction to the floodway.
In analysis of the placement of reflector posts at 25' intervals along the edge of the road to delineate its location in
the case that it is submerged during a 100 -year flood we have made the following assumptions.
1. The existing topography is approximately a 1% slope.
2. The existing vegetation is grassy ground cover with some small shrubs and trees.
3. The width of the flood way road crossing is 75'
4. We will assume 3 posts will be placed within the flood way crossing.
5. The width of each reflector post is 3 inches.
6. The proposed surface will be asphalt road.
7. Each side of the road will be treated separate with respect to flood way obstruction.
8. The depth of flow during a 100 -year flood would be 1 foot deep.
If an item such as a tree longer than 25' were to catch on two of the reflector posts the force of the water against the
tree would be significant enough to bend over the reflector post.
In a hydraulic analysis the reflector posts will reduce the 75 feet cross sectional area by 1%, 75 sq.ft. to 74.25 sq.ft.
However the change in surface from brush and grass to asphalt will significantly reduce the restriction to flow. The
overall result per our design will not increase the depth of flow in the flood way at the road crossing and should in
theory decrease the flow depth. Also note that the hydraulic condition at the 75' floodway crossing are much less
restrictive than other factors in the floodway that include culverts, trees and brush that limit the overall velocity of
water within the floodway.
Please call if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING
Mark A. Butler, P.E.
Project Engineer
Cc; Davis Horn Inc. 925-5180
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC
civil consultants
Mar -28-02 O9:52A Yusem / Horn 970 925++
Jun -25-02 O9:45A
.7U++--25-20(32 (37:
Pial 1AiSTEP RESOURCES
•
P.O2
U .I-7
866 3589 P. ei '01
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OE THE S1ATE ENGINEER
gw,sron of Water +resources
Department of Natvral Rexa,rces
1313 She,rnan $(,tet RG4m 8' G
Denver. Colorado 602(.1i
PfOne 1303) 8 66-3 511 1
FAX ilr73, 866-35((4
June 24, 2002
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Dept
109 Etth St Ste :103
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Blue Creek Ranch PUD PreliminaryPlan
SWY% NE Y4 Section 31, 17S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5. W. District 38
Bill Owens
Gwvn°,
C E- waane,
t 4C o n;r,.sCrn,
11.51 ( SiMpu,,., af.
$lair Erlr.et,
Dear Mr. Lyon:
As stated in our correspondence of May 6, we have reviewed the above referenced
proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 81.3 acres into 48 lots and open space tracts.
There were several issues in the third paragraph of the previous correspondence with which we
had issues, specifically, the application efficiency and the EQRs/unit. Wo believe that Zancanella
ana Associates have since sufficiently addressed our concerns via an updated `Estimated Water
Requirements` table.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply will not Cause material injury t0 decreed water nghts. If you or the
applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis or John Redding
or this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
/.11
PA -Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineor
KWK/CMLiBiue Creek atanct, Iv_doc
cc' Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
Ba! Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
141
RE•co
ATTACHMENT
'f01AL P.O1
0
0
x
I_bT 36 ••
••
Gxr�9c65 moi- 7Z -V. G.
3 V., WAR_ i .
l7JCr
T SLK)
FT-5Y.T-Y4 tL.vrAtCE,5 r
fTZ--Oi C 7
(coNs
EA -SEM
Yew
0 A R.,E t•I 4
F o
Iry AA,
Iry ►.wNa
P%U. PARK
N 'w PI. A N,
v r b.. ✓ 1•0"10, N1/ WO"'
9, 2d. 02
lu^60'
V. K. D.
OCT -01-02 13=45 FROM = HOLLANDHART ID=9709259415 PAGE 2/4
ROARING FORK'�{�, CONSERVANCY
yCi-_.it5�t
October 1, 2002
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
109 8t Street, Suite 300
Glenwood, CO 81601,
RE: Blue Creek.Ranch - Dedication Of Gift of Property ,
Dear Commissioners:
As you are aware,Blue Creek Ranch has agreed to gift approximately two
acres of xivexfxont property located .upon Blue Creek Ranch in Garfield
County to the Roaring Fork Conservancy (Conservancy) as part of Blue
Creek's development application. As discussed; this land will be dedicated
and maintained in a mostly natural state. We feel that an excellent. site plan
has been developed that will benefit the public, while simultaneously •
protecting the quiet neighborhood values of the surrounding area, and .the
ecological integrity of this beautiful property.
The following uses will be allowed on this property:
• Fishing acce to the Roaring Fork River along.a riverside corridor
running the entire length of the Blue Creek Ranch conservation
easement and dedicated area;
• Use of a e,dravel parking lot 'th six parking spaces available
to the public at all times ort a first-come, first -serve basis;
➢ Use of a six-foot wide, improved access trail from the parking lot to
the Roaring Fork River, • or • ering Catherine Store Road; and
➢ Use of the property by the Conservancy as a teaching sitefor all
Roaring Fork Valley school children, with an emphasis on Garfield
County Schools.
As some neighboring homeow.ers haveexpressed concern that a fully
developed public park at Blue Creek Ranch may be inappropriate for the
area - creating problems with trash, human waste, noise, and overuse - Blue
Creek developers have designed a plan that will protect the quiet rural
character of the area and the ecological values of the land, while still
providing public access to the Roaring Fork River riparian corridor.
PoSr OFFICE Box 323 • BASALT, COLORADO 81621
97o/927-1290 • 47o/927-1264 FAX • E-MAIL: rfconsverof.net
OCT -01-02 13:45 FROM:HOLLANDHART ID. 9709259415 PAGE 3/4
Currently, there is no off-street parking available to the public near
Catherine Store Bridge, which has created a hazardous and inadequate
parking situation along Catherine Store Road. By providing Limited off-
street parking, we hope to alleviate some of this pressure, while not inviting
excessive use. Boaters will be able to access the river from this parking lot by
portaging boats
parking lot b
to prevent the prolifera
-ver along a six-foot wide, improved path. The
'nimize impacts to the surrounding area, and
of "bandit" parking spaces in the meadow
ence
adjacent to the Iot. The parking lot and trails to and along the river will be
maintained by the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association, and
monitored by the Conservancy.
The parcel and surrounding area are ecologically significant, as evidenced
by our acceptance of a conservation easement on 20 acres adjacent to this
parcel. The southwest corner of Blue Creek Ranch where the parcel is
located was designated in the 1999 Roaring Crystal Alliance Open Space
Plan as having a high aggregate value of biodiversity, open space potential,
and management/protection urgency, based on information from the 1997
Roaring Fork Watershed Biological Inventory, and the Colorado Division of
Wildlife. This area is a "between town buffer" and abuts an area of very
high biodiversity significance - elk and mule deer winter range south of Blue
Creek Ranch in the East Mesa/Crown area. Blue Creek Ranch also acts as a
connector between this area and mule deer winter range on Missouri
Heights (1999 Roaring Crystal Alliance Open Space Plan). In addition, the
property is excellent potential habitat for wintering bald eagles, and is near
a great blue heron nesting area with a similar habitat type. Many other non -
game bird species and waterfowl use the property as well.
Perhaps most importantly, the value of this parcel to 'he Valley's students is
immeasurable_ As the Conservancy is a watershed -wide organization, we
work with over 2,500 students per year from. Aspen to Glenwood Springs.
More recently we have placed an emphasis on meeting the science
curriculum needs of Carbondale schools. It has been our goal to secure a
down valley teaching location that is an example of a healthy, functioning
riparian ecosystem, and that offers students a safe learning environment,
easily accessible to area schools. The parcel at Blue Creek Ranch fits all of
these criteria, and stands to be of tremendous benefit to the Valley's youth if
developed in the manner proposed.
We may create an additional, minimum impact parking area beyond the
fenced parking lot so as to keep school and Conservancy vehicles from
taking up the public parking spots during educational programs. We may
also erect a small, temporary structure or tent to use as a teaching
OCT -01-02 13:46 FROM :HOLLAMDHART
ID :9709259415 PAGE 4/4
"platform" within the boundaries of the parcel. In order to maintain this
platform for teaching purposes, it is important that it be in a protected area
not open for general use.
Due to the natural and educational values of this area, and the parcel's
proximity to a conservation easement and other rural developments, we feel
it is not in Garfield County's best interest to allow unlimited public access at
this location. However, by limiting access to six vehicles at any one time,
and restricting human access to the river corridor, we feel we can protect the
area from the impacts of excessive foot and vehicle traffic, trash
accumulation, and noise pollution, while still protecting public access to the
Roaring Fork River corridor.
We urge you to carefully consider all of the benefits of the dedication of this
parcel to the Conservancy, and to contact us should you have any questions_
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY
Hary
President, Bo
f Directors
CC: eanne Beaudry, RFC Executive Director
`Suzanne Fus,$FC Director of Land Conservation
Gavin Brooke
Robert Cumming, Jr_
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission
Roaring Fork Conservancy Conservation Easements Subcommittee
September 30, 2002
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Blue Creek Ranch PUD, RFTA Parking
SE Job No. 20089.01
Dear Fred:
We have represented the existing parking area at the corner of HWY 82 and County Road 100 in our drawings
according to a drawing provided to Blue Creek Land Holdings by CDOT during a meeting between CDOT
personnel and Rob Cumming. Please refer to the attached drawings titled Catherine Road Park and Ride, drawn by
MK Centennial with a drawing revision date of 6/27/96.
We scanned the Signing and Striping drawing and used it to represent the existing area of the parking lot. This area
was out side of our existing conditions survey. The drawings were the best available source to indicate the existing
parking layout and intended number of parking spaces available.
It was not intended to represent to include any improvements of the parking as part of the Blue Creek PUD
application. The drawing are marked "As Constructed". However it is evident in the field that not all of the
indicated improvements were completed.
Please call if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING
Mark A. Butler, P.E.
Project Engineer
Cc; Davis Horn Inc. 925-5180
Blue Creek Land Holdings
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC
civil consultants
OAYS
EXISTING 4" WHITE
LANE LINE (TYP.)
PREFORMED PLASTIC PAVEMENT
MARKING 24" WHITE
k(4TCH X1nG
srRI
iii., .•.:�
RESET
REMOVE
EXISTINSG
PAW
AND
MX
o►
3004-2(R)
f STR jp�� ISTJNG
48W1 -6(L)
4" WHITE
EDGE LINE
4" DOUBLE YELLOW
CENTERLINE
4" WHITE
PARKING
LIN _ (TYP)
1
1
L
r
OM -3R
TYPE 3
OBJECT MARKER
ON UTILITY POLE
REMOVE AND
RESET IN
EXISTING LOCATION
REMOVE AND
RESET IN
EXISTING LOCATI
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1"•20'
PRE : T
MARKING
STIC PAVEMENT
FRONTAGE
LEGEND:
EXISTING SIGN
Lartw, eATh /MK CENTENN I AL
Pict
30D4 -▪ 2(L)
EXISTII
EDGE L
EXISTING 4" DC
YELLOW CENTERL
PT.46
P
F.45
P .44
J L
1r
1
20 0 20 40
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1" .20'
CONSTRUC CURB AND GUTTER
TYPE 2 (SECTION IIB)
N 577.800
PT. 1
2
0PtLp9` µY1
YD -`e"'
B
c
/if
N 577.700
S
6' 20
E
boo
E 534.000
NOTE:
WHERE CURB OR CUR
TO BE CONSTRUCTED
INFORMATION ARE S
ALL OTHER COORDIN
SHOWN-TO-TBL EDGE
OR CONCRETE.
$8 Ng, sBz
PT.4
P7.4 :1"111gmAill —
34"
T.35 "44t
PT.42
AND GUTTER ARE
CURVE ANO COORDINATE
OWN TO THE FLOWL)NE.
TE INFORMATION IS
OF P7CVEMEN). SIDE.WAC
PT.28
PT.29
PT.23�p�r
P.O.T. STA. 0}00.00
N 577.718.79
E 533.837.17
E 533.800
STATION LINE FOR
CROS SECTIONS ONLY
P.I. STA. 1+65.00
N 577.688.07
T.3 E 533.999.33
PT.4
PT.5
CONS
T
itT
0r4 f'11?
T T. 10
P7.7 ilike!
PT.6. �):���'4110*r080100111
-3.9-- ,
$f ri-4•
CIAL
S 8. 09' 00" E
TER
NOTE:
CURB AND GUTTER FOR THE PARKING
IS NOT IN THIS CONTRACT.
DU UMW, LATHIER /MK CENTENN I AL
