HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff ReportGarfield County
Building & Planning
Memo
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Mark Bean, Director
Date: 8/9/01
Re: Spring Valley Metropolitan Districts No. 1 and No. 2 Service Plan
The Spring Valley Metropolitan Districts No. 1 and No. 2 Service Plan was initially reviewed by the
Planning Commission in April and June of this year. The initial meeting of the Planning Commission
was continued to June to the allow the applicant to respond to issues noted in the attached Project
Information and Staff Comments and memos from Blake Jordan and Alan Matlosz that resulted in a
recommendation by staff to disapprove the proposed service plan based on the following issues:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be
serviced by the proposed special district.
2. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service
to the area within its proposed boundaries.
3. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
4. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area
proposed to be served.
Based on the comments and recommendation made at the initial meeting of the Planning Commission,
the applicants revised the Service Plan and submitted additional supporting documentation, which is
also attached to this memo. At the time of the June Planning Commission meeting, staff had not had
the opportunity to review in detail with Mr. Matlosz and Mr. Jordan, the revised Service Plan and
supporting documentation. At the meeting , the applicant's discussed the changes in the documents
and the Planning Commission made the following recommendation:
The Board of County Commissioners approve the amended Spring Valley Metropolitan Districts No. 1
and No. 2 Service Plan, subject to the applicant making any revisions suggested by Blake Jordan.
Attached is a faxed comment from Mr. Jordan stating that the proposed amendments meet his concerns.
Garfield County
Building & Planning
Memo
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Mark Bean, Director
Data 10/24/01
Re: Spring Valley PUD Preliminary Plan staff report
Since you all had a chance to review the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing and the
attached report is very similar, I thought it might be helpful to explain the changes in the attached report.
As you saw from the last report, the Colorado Geologic Survey has some concerns about the
information provided by the applicants. Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, Celia
Greenman, CGS went on a site review with the applicant's consultants and Michael Erion, Resource
Engineering. The correspondence between the applicant and the CGS is included in the CGS
comments on pages 4-5 of the staff report with all of the correspondence included on pages 33-63 of
the attachments. Michael Erion and staff did not receive all of these comments until 10123 and Celia
Greenman got her copy after 10/15. Neither of them has had the opportunity to respond in writing.
They will both be at the hearing on Monday morning.
There is an additional section of comments from Spring Valley residents on page 8, with the actual
letters on pages 108-112. Don DeFord will be providing a legal opinion under separate cover regarding
the issues in the letter from Jerry Hartert.
The rest of the report is basically the same, other than the applicant's responses to issues noted by our
technical review agencies are included in the same section as the review agencies comments are
located in the attachments. Specifically, these are the DOW comments, Garfield County Weed
Management and the Colorado State Forest Service.
1
BOCC 10/29/01
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LAND OWNERS:
ENGINEERS:
PLANNERS:
LEGAL COUNSEL:
GOLF COURSE DESIGN:
WILDLIFE CONSULTANT:
FIRE SAFETY CONSULTANT:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
1
Preliminary Plan review for the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD.
Spring Valley Development, Inc.
Spring Valley Development, Inc (formerly
Aspen Springs Ranch, Inc.),
Spring Valley Holdings, USA, Ltd.(Co-
Applicant),
Atlantic Gulf Communities, Inc. (Parent
Company of Spring Valley Development, Inc.)
Civil: Jerome Gamba & Associates, Inc.
Water: Wright Water Engineers,
HRS Water Consultants, Inc.
Tr. nsportation: Felsburg, Holt, & Ullevig
Geotechnical: CTL/Thompson, Inc.
Design Workshop, Inc.
Land Use: Austin, Pierce & Smith, P.C.
Water: Holland & Hart, L.L.P.
Greg Norman Golf Course Design.
Sheppard Miller Incorporated.
Crockett and Associates.
A tract of land situated in portions of Sections
14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34,
T6S, R88W of the 6th P.M. Located in the
Roaring Fork Valley, west of Missouri Heights
above the towns of Carbondale and Glenwood
Springs.
5,948.277 +- acres.
WATER: Proposed central supply except for existing
meadow lot which will utilize existing well.
SEWER: Ranch Lots: ISDS (Aerobic)
Existing Meadow Lot: Existing ISDS
Rest of lots: Central sewer (Spring Valley
Sanitation District).
ACCESS:
County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road) via
Highway 82, and County Road 115 via County
Road 114 (CMC Road) via Highway 82.
ZONING: P.U.D.
ADJACENT ZONING:
1. PROJECT HISTORY:
North: Federal open lands.
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD, small portion of another
P.U.D.
Internal Out Parcel: A/R/RD
In the 1980's, a Sketch Plan was submitted and approved as part of the original P.U.D. zoning
and subdivision application. This request is to amend the existing Planned Unit Development
zone which was approved by Resolution 84-126, and 84-127, and then subsequently amended
by Resolution 94-135. The P.U.D. zoning and Sketch Plan allowed for 2,750 dwelling units, a
neighborhood commercial center of 150,000 square feet, 36 holes of golf and 3,270 acres of
common open space. Since the 1980's, a Preliminary Plan was never submitted to the
County, yet, the P.U.D. zoning remained in place.
For several years the previous owners worked towards acquiring a water supply plan which
satisfied a condition of approval. In 1994, the applicant finalized the water supply plan but
needed an extension in order to prevent a lapse of the approval. By way of Resolution 94-
135, such extension was granted by the Board of County Commissioners That the golf course
be designed to minimize the use of chemicals.
An application for a P.U.D. amendment and Sketch Plan was reviewed in 1999, and was
recommended for denial by staff based on critical concerns for water, and
geology/geotechnical issues and major concerns for internal circulation, traffic impacts and
wildlife issues. As such, the applicant chose to withdraw their application to address these
concerns and other relevant issues. A subsequent application was approved by Resolution
2000-95, which resulted in a new project described in a subsequent section of this report.
2
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Most of the development is concentrated at the center of the property, on a plateau. Two
entrances into the project are proposed: One about 1/4 mile east of the intersection of CR
114, and CR 115 (main gate house) and the other located on CR 115 at Landis Creek, which
is a deeply incised perennial stream. The property is composed of montane shrub lands, aspen
woodlands, and cultivated agricultural lands. The terrain faces a southwesterly direction and
ranges from gently sloping to very steep. The project anticipates the creation of the following
districts with the following unit amounts:
Zone District # of units # of acres % of total
acreage
- Open Space/Agricultural 0 1,273 acres 21.4
- Open Space/Golf 0 428 acres 7.2
- Golf Clubhouse 0 22 acres 0.4
- Residential/Ranch Lots 91 units 2981 acres 50.1
- Residential/Meadow Lot 1 unit 30 acres 0.5
- ResidentialEstate Lots 134 units 700 acres 11.8
- Residential/Golf Lots 171 units 331 acres 5.6
- Residential/Cooperative 75 units 88 acres 1.5
Ownership Cabins
- Residential/Duplex - 30 units 15 acres 0.3
Townhomes
- Residential/Commercial/ 75 units 48 acres 0.8
Mixed Use
- Office 0 13 acres 'b'qgt-iV0.2
- Metro 0 6 acres 0.1
- Utilities 2 acres 0.03
- Institutional Facilities 0 11 acres 0.2
Totals: 577 units 5,948 acres 100%
Included in the total of 577 dwelling units is 20,000 square feet of commercial space and 75
affordable dwelling units are included in the R/CIM.U. (Village Center) district. Two (2)
Fire/EMS stations are proposed within the Metro District. The project proposes 6 phases to
be started in April, 2002 and to be completed in April, 2008 (6 years).
3
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comments were received.
B. Town of Carbondale: No comments were received.
C. City of Glenwood Springs: No comments were received.
D. Glenwood Springs & Rural Fire Protection District: The district has submitted a
letter indicating that they have had numerous opportunities to review each segment of
the application as it progressed through the approval process. They feel the design
standards have completely addressed their concerns. (See letter pg. 29)
E. RE -1 School District: No comments were received as result of this referral. Included
in the application is a letter from the School District dated September 8, 1999, which
acknowledges that the applicant will be obligated to pay cash in lieu of land, since no
school site was included in the PUD.
F. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No comments were received.
H. Colorado Division of Water Resources: After reviewing the Preliminary Plan
application, the Division determined that their comments made during the PUD Plan
review process are still applicable. (See letters pgs. 31-32) In a letter dated May 26,
2000, the Division of Water Resources states in part, "Based on the above, it is our
opinion,...that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material
injury to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as: (1) the claimed water rights
are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according
to its decreed terms and conditions." These will be conditions of any approval.
Colorado Geological Survey: The CGS notes in there July 30, 2001 letter that the
CTL Thompson has provided more detailed observations ofthe lots noted in previous
correspondence during the PUD review of the application. Even with the suggested
mitigation, the CGS questions whether or not the mitigation done on one lot may
adversely affect adjacent properties. They question whether or not the development
within the slope -failure complex might result in a global failure of the hillside. The
concern about a global failure of the hillside is due to the potential cumulative impact
of all of the cuts into the slope from roads and foundations. They have a specific
recommendation that a slope stability analysis be preformed at this stage which
incorporates the developed condition ofthe lot with an ISDS. (See letter pgs. 33-34)
In a follow up letter to the July 30, 2001 letter, the CGS provided additional
comments on the wilderness cabin sites, the water tank site and three road cross
sections. The comments received noted that the wilderness cabins area may have the
4
same global stability issues associated some of the other ranch lot area. It was
suggested that the water tank site have a slope stability analysis done at this time.
There are three road cuts in the ranch lot area that cross unstable slopes that may
require mitigation to stabilize the cuts. While the applicants geotech has stated that
the cut areas have not shown any instability in two years, the CGS noted spoiling and
creep during their site visit. (See letter pgs. 35-36)
After the Planning Commission hearing, the CGS representatives, County Engineering
consultant and the applicants engineering consultants met on site and toured the site
to look at the geology of the area. After the on-site review, CGS provided the
following additional comments (See letter pgs. 37-39) :
1. Standing and flowing water was noticed in the vicinity of lots G84-91, which
appeared to be caused by springs above the lots. A solution to mitigate this
issue needs to be addressed by the applicant.
2. Lot R68 is mapped as a fairly recent (in geologic terms) landslide deposit,
evidence of which can be observed in the field. CGS recommends the
reduction in the size of the building envelope below that allowed in the ranch
lots.
3. All lots that lie below rock outcrops, have the outcrops scaled.
4. The proposed debris flow wall to protect Lot G107-109 is acceptable to the
CGS. It is suggested that the building envelope on G130 have the building
envelope removed from the portion of the lot in the geohazard area.
5. The proposed water tank site will require excavation into the hillside. CGS
recommends that a slope stability model be prepared for the site.
6. The applicants geotechnical engineer has red flagged a number of lots for special
attention in design and construction. CGS feels that the lots need to have
more than plat note and covenant restriction to insure that the additional
attention to the design and construction of dwellings is carried through to a
building permits. CGS suggests that the reports be made available at the time
of building permit.
The applicant has responded to these comments through their engineers and they have
included some proposed language for plat notes to be included in any approval given
to the project. (See all responses pgs. 40-63)
J. Colorado Department of Transportation: No comments were received.
K. Holy Cross Energy: Holy Cross Energy is responsible for provided electrical service
to the area. They do not facilities in the area with the capacity to serve the proposed
development. The company will upgrade the facilities, but only after the developer
has entered into a contract to do so and at the developer's expense. The developer
may also be responsible for a all or portion of any off-site upgrades to existing
5
facilities. (See letter pg. 64)
L. Garfield County Housing Authority: No comments were received.
M. U.S. West Communications: No comments were received.
N. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony, Director, County
Vegetation Management, noted that the applicants had a general inventory done on
the property, which indicated infestations of several County -listed noxious weeds. He
requested the applicants initiate a treatment program for yellow toadflax before the
end of the growing season. He also notes that Russian and spotted knapweed are not
listed, yet they have been found in the area. The plan documents include maps for
new road cuts and utility layouts, with a plant material list that is acceptable. A more
specific planting schedule, along with quantification of the acres or square footage of
surface area to be disturbed and revegetated needs to be developed. The applicants
may include their own reclamation cost estimates for seeding, mulching and other
factors that may aid in plant establishment. The Board of County Commissioners
may require revegetation security and hold that security until vegetation has been
successfully reestablished according to the County's reclamation standards.
Additionally, a Soil Management plan needs to be developed for the project. (See
memo and applicant response pgs. 65-73)
O. Eagle County Planning Department: The Eagle County Planning Department does
not see any likely impacts to the residents of the County. (See letter pg. 74)
P. Colorado Division of Wildlife: In response to the Preliminary Plan application
submitted to the DOW, Kelly Wood , District Wildlife Manager, for the Carbondale
area stated that all of their previous comments not addressed in the application, still
apply to this submission. She did note that the statements from the applicants that
there would not be any unreasonable impacts to wildlife or native vegetation is a
matter of interpretation. All ofthe disturbance to the area for construction will affect
wildlife and the increase in traffic will result in additional wildlife mortality.
Additionally, a concern about the enforcement ofthe covenants regarding the running
at large of dogs and cats was included in the letter. She suggested that a "ranger"
type of position be incorporated into the development. (See letters and applicant
responses pgs. 74-95)
Q.
A T & T Cable Services: No comments were received.
R. Colorado State Forest Service: John Dennison, District Forester reviewed the
application and noted that the applicants had been approved for a $250,000 cost-
sharing grant to implement defensible space and fuels mitigation thinning. Yet, he
noted a conflict between a covenant that does not allow for vegetation removal
6
without special approval and the stated intention to mitigate wildfire hazard. He felt
there was a conflict between the two statements and the grant that needs to be
resolved. (See letter and applicant responses pgs. 96-104)
S. Garfield County Road & Bridge: In a memorandum submitted during the PUD
review, Garfield County Road and Bridge stated the following recommendations:
1. Developer needs to rebuild segment of CR 115 (Red Canyon) from state Hwy
82 to CR 114, to meet agreed standards set forth by Garfield County.
2. Garfield County must approve all road improvements before commencement
of construction of development.
3. All road improvement plans must be reviewed by and meet Road and Bridge
and Engineering Department standards.
4. All gravel roads must be treated with approved dust suppressant as needed
determined by Garfield County Road & Bridge before and during construction
of development and roadwork.
Recommendations 2 through 4 were made into a condition of approval for the PUD.
No additional comments have been received from the Road and Bridge department.
T. KN Energy: No comments were received.
U. Pitkin County : In general Pitkin County does not support the proposed development
due to the overall sustainability, excessive use of resources, impacts to roads and
other infrastructure, and employment generation with a lack of corresponding
housing. (See letter pgs. 105-107) The County criticized the ninety —one homes that
could be up to 25,000 sq. ft. in size given the resulting excessive use of resources and
high employment generation without adequate housing for the employees generated.
Environmental concerns tied to a change from rural to suburban, wildlife impacts,
wildfire hazard, non -protection of resource lands, golf course development impacts,
air gwiality impacts due to wood burning stoves, visual impacts and green building
techniques. They also feel that there will be additional impacts to the valley public
transportation system.
V. Sheriff's Department: The Sheriffs Department verbally indicated that their
comments have not changed from the time that the PUD was reviewed. In a letter
dated June 13, 2000, Jim Sears, of the Sheriff's department made several comments
regarding this application including:
1. The need for an additional access to the subject site west of the intersection of
CR 115 and CR 114.
2. The need for an adequately staffed fire station at the start of any construction
on the site.
7
3. The need to connect more of the Ranch Lots roads with emergency access
roads, and a separate emergency access road be constructed on the east -side
of the Ranch Lots designated as emergency vehicles only.
4. Request that a traffic study be done to assess the impact of traffic on CR 115
east of the intersection of CR 115 and CR 114.
5. Increased expectation of services from the Sheriff's Department which taxes
the resources of the Sheriffs Department.
6. The need for all roads to be clearly marked with correct County road signs
and names. All addresses should be clearly marked and visible from the
roadway.
Some of these recommendations were incorporated into the PUD approval.
W. Spring Valley Residents: Jim Austin submitted written comments via email and Jerry
Hartert made some comments to Lois Veltus, which were submitted to the County by
Mrs. Veltus. Mr. Austin addressed concerns about non-compliance with a condition
of approval contained in the original PUD approval in 1984 regarding access to
adjacent property through the PUD; questions about the water supply plan being
complete; and the need of pedestrian paths along the improved County roads and
safety concerns regarding the intersection of CR 114 and 115. Mrs. Veltus had Mr.
Hartert render an opinion regarding the validity of condition 4. i. in Resolution No.
84-127, which required the owners of the PUD to "...develop appropriate access
agreements with adjacent property owners who request such access agreements or
easements in its preliminary plan submittals." (See letters pgs.108-112)
THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS FROM CONSULTANTS RETAINED BY
GARFIELD COUNTY TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION
W. Chris Manera , Colorado River Engineering, Inc.: CRE reviewed was retained by the
County to review the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan application
information related to water rights and physical water supply availability. The
following discussion summarizes the recommendations from CRE (See letter pgs.
109-111)
Water Rights:
CRE has reviewed the proposed legal water that is proposed to serve a total of 695
EQR's that will result from the demands of577 residential units, commercial uses and
parks an green belt irrigation. It is his opinion that the demand estimates are
reasonable and that the existing water court decree is of sufficient magnitude to cover
the diversion and depletion amounts calculated for the potable system. The
augmentation plan is supported water from Reudi Reservoir contracted for from the
8
Basalt Water Conservancy District. He notes that the well permits identified in
Case No. 87CW155 and previously issued by the Division of Water Resources
have expired and will need to be renewed prior to Final Plat approval.
Physical Availability:
The application notes that the physical water supply is dependent upon the
groundwater recharge to the aquifer. Wright Water Engineers estimates the
estimates the annual ground water recharge to be 4300 acre-feet, with an existing and
estimated annual demand of 1100 acre-feet. CRE calculated the recharge rates using
similar methodologies as WWE, but with more conservative inflow (lower) and
outflow(higher) components. This resulted in an annual recharge of 1700 acre-feet,
which meets the applicants projected demands.
Groundwater Monitoring Plan
The applicant's propose to monitor three wells on the valley floor, within the
development, on a weekly basis. CRE believes that there should be an additional
monitoring well at least 2000 feet from the production wells. Either a new well
or an off-site well meeting those criteria could meet the criteria. All of the
monitoring reports will be available to the public.
Covenants:
The amount of irrigated area for a lot is limited by the covenants for the Ranch Lots,
Estate Lots and Golf Lots. CRE recommends that all residential lots have
controlled irrigation and that individual well development be prohibited
completely.
Agricultural Irrigation
The application does not quantify the amount of irrigation water necessary for the
agricultural areas. It is proposed that the irrigation water for these areas will be
supplied from excess surface water supplies from the storage and surface water
rights derived from Landis Creek. CRE recommends that well water usage be
restricted for agricultural lands and that well water only be used as a
supplemental source for golf course irrigation in the event of surface water
supplies.
Wastewater Reuse:
The current water supply plan does not require the reuse of wastewater from the
sewage treatment plant. CRE recommends that wastewater reuse be
encouraged to minimize the quantity of groundwater withdrawals.
X. Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc.: Resource Engineering was hired by the
County to review the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan application related
to water distribution, waste water collection and treatment, drainage, geology/soils,
wetlands, water quality and roads. (See pgs. 112-114) The following comments were
made:
Water Distribution:
Some of the lots will require individual booster pumps or pressure reducing valves for
water service. All lots that will require booster pumps or pressure reducing
valves need to be noted on any Final Plat and in the covenants. It is also
recommended that the applicant's engineer confirm that all nodes with residual
pressure of less than 20 psi will not affect fire hydrants or individual residences.
Wastewater:
The proposed wastewater collection system and treatment at the Spring Valley
Sanitation District Treatment Facility appears to be adequate and appropriate for the
development. The proposed ISDS systems for the Ranch lots include aerobic
treatment . Operation and maintenance requires a higher level of maintenance than
traditional systems. The Homeowners Association needs to hire at least a Class C
operator to operate and maintain these systems.
Drainage:
The design guidelines need to include Best Management Practices which
minimize directly connected impervious areas for storm water runoff within
individual lots. The debris flow/retention structures detailed on Sheet D-15
need to be located on the drainage plan sheets, including the proposed size of
structure. The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir
must be incorporated into the drainage plan in a manner adequate to prevent
damage or potential loss of life or structures within the subdivision.
Geology/Soils
Plat notes and covenants need to indicate that all lots will require a site specific
geological and geotechnical analysis for any construction. A site specific
solution for the land slide issues on Lot R88 needs to be addressed as a part of
the preliminary plan.
10
Wetlands:
There do not appear to be any wetland impacts or need for wetland permitting for the
project. Prior to construction, wetland areas need to be clearly marked and
fenced.
Roads:
The overall road plan appears to be adequate for the project, but some ofthe cul-de-
sacs exceed County standards. Public safety issues related to fire protection need
to be resolved and approved by the fire department and sherriff's department .
The County and CDOT need to resolve the Highway 82 and CR 114 intersection
issues.
IV. Subdivision Regulations
A. Section 4:33 ofthe Subdivision Regulations states that the Board shall make its decision
regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the recommendation ofthe Planning Commission
and on the conformity or compatibility of the proposed subdivision with the following:
A. Garfield County Subdivision Regulations;
B. Garfield County Zoning Resolution;
C. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan;
D. Garfield County road standards and policies;
E. Garfield County municipal comprehensive plans and municipal regulations, as
applicable;
F. Compatibility to existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
G. Other applicable local, state and federal regulations, resolutions plans and policies.
The subdivision regulations and zoning resolution issues will be discussed in
subsequent sections of this report As a general comment, at the time of PUD
approval, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners reviewed
the Comprehensive Plan and determined that the PUD was in general conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan. The following discussion will address some sections of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2.0 HOUSING
GOAL: To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents
equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient
residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural
environment.
The County has adopted affordable housing regulations in an effort to meet this goal.
11
A variety of housing types are proposed by the applicant for this development as
discussed below.
POLICIES:
2.1 The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low
and moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi family and single-
family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County.
The applicant does not have to provide affordable housing as part of this PUD
because there was already an approved PUD for the site and the approved density was
greatly reduced when the present PUD zoning was approved. However, the
applicant has provided a total of 75 affordable housing units as a part of this
submittal. Further, the application proposes a variety of market housing types .
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
2.4 Solar orientation that allows for both passive and active design will be
strongly encouraged in the design review process and will not be restricted by
protective covenants.
The provided draft Design Guidelines and Covenants allow for and encourage solar
orientation for both passive and active design.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
3.0 TRANSPORTATION
GOAL: Ensure that the County transportation system is safe, functional,
appropriately designed to handle existing and future traffic levels and includes
options for the use of modes other than the single -occupant automobile.
The application proposes improvements to County Road 114 (CMC Road) from the
intersection of CR 115 (Red Canyon Road) to Highway 82, and to Cr 115 from the
proposed Landis Creek entrance to the proposed main entrance. No improvements are
proposed to County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road) from the Landis Creek entrance to
Highway 82, since the road is not included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan.
3.3 The project review process will include a preliminary assessment of the
projected traffic impact associated with all commercial and industrial projects and
residential projects greater than 50 dwelling units.
An assessment of traffic impacts to County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road) between
12
the proposed Landis Creek access and the proposed main access; County Road 114
(CMC Road) and the intersection of County Road 114 and Highway 82 has been
included in Binder 2, Exhibit F of the submittal The traffic study included in the
application concludes that the majority ofthe traffic form the development will utilize
an improved CR 114. As a part of the PUD approval , the applicant is obligated to
utilize the $2.4 million on road improvements identified by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Improvements are proposed for County Road 114 and County Road 115 from
Highway 82 to the main entrance of the development, and from the intersection of
County Road 115 and 114 along County Road 115 to the Landis Creek entrance to
the development.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
5.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
GOAL: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for
County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFSpolicies
and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors.
Extensive recreational opportunities including golf, parks, community buildings,
equestrian facility and hiking/biking trails are provided for the benefit of the P.U.D.
residents, and in some cases, on a limited basis, to the County at large. Access to the
USFS lands to the north has been retained. The Plan does not identify this area as a
visual corridor. Most of the development will not be seen from the immediately
adjacent county roads.
5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) will be
required to propose mitigational measures during the submittal ofproposedprojects.
mitigational measures shall include the following:
1) Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
2) Avoidance of critical portions of property, through the use of
building envelope restrictions or cluster development concepts;
3) conservation easements.
The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve or reject
proposed mitigation.
1) The applicant will maintain restrictions on dogs and fencing generally
13
consistent with the DOW recommendations. The number of dogs will
be restricted to one as per Garfield County regulations.
2) A Wildlife Mitigation Plan has been developed to avoid and mitigate
impacts to wildlife. In addition, building envelopes restricting the
location of development have been incorporated into the development,
and the majority of development has been clustered on the plateau
portion of the property with clustering of building envelopes in the
ranch lot area to preserve wildlife habitat and wildlife movement
corridors.
3) A conservation easement is to be placed across the area of the
Ranch lots outside of the building envelopes.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
6L 0 AGRICULTURE
GOAL: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in
operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review.
6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts
of higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the
agricultural use and the proposed project.
The open space at the south western end of the site, north of CRI 15, will act as a
buffer area to the adjacent agricultural uses.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES
GOAL: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and
environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development.
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water
and/or sewer will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and
environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before
project approval.
A central water system is proposed to supply the entire development with water, with
the exception ofthe existing residence on the Meadow Lot. A letter from the Division
of Water Resources dated May 26, 2000, states in part, "...it is our opinion,...that the
proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed
water rights and is adequate so long as: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to
14
the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed
terms and conditions. -
Sewage disposal for the project except for the ranch lots and the existing meadow lot
will be provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. ISDS's utilizing aerobic units
will be provided for the ranch lots.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an existing
water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent
to or within a reasonable distance, to enter into the appropriate agreements to receive
service. The burden of proof regarding logical, legal and economic constraints will be
on the developer.
The proposed development will utilize the Spring Valley Sanitation District to provide
sewer service to the project except for the proposed ranch lots and existing meadow
lot. The ranch lots will utilize aerobic ISDSs. A report was submitted as a part of the
PUD review which analyzed the appropriateness of ISDSs for the ranch lots and
discussed engineering and economic constraints to systems for the ranch lots other than
ISDSs. It was concluded that the use of ISDS was the most economical means of
treating sewage for the ranch lots.
There is no central water system currently available in the area that can accommodate
any additional development. Thus, the applicants are proposing their own central water
system to supply water to the entire proposed development.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
7.3 The County will require developers proposing I.S.D.S to provide data that
demonstrates to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems
prior to project approval.
Gamba and Associates has provided the following signed and stamped statement," A
comprehensive analysis demonstrating that legal, adequate, dependable, and
environmentally sound sewage disposal facilities (ISDS) can be provided for the Ranch
lots. Percolation Test results across ail soil types proved to be adequate."
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
8.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
GOAL: Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the
environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of
15
the land and is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield
County.
8.1 Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development
in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active
landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive
tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed
within the 100 year floodplain.
Geologic and geotechnical studies have been conducted on the subject property.
These studies indicate that the proposed development can occur as long as the
appropriate identified mitigation measures are under taken.
However, in letters from the Colorado Geological Survey indicate additional study is
recommended regarding a global failure of the hillside due to the potential cumulative
impact of all of the cuts intothe slope from roads and foundations. They have a
specific recommendation that a slope stability analysis be preformed at this stage
which incorporates the developed condition of the lot with an ISDS. This is the one
area that the County's consultants and the applicant's differ in their opinion regarding
the potential impacts.
A subsequent site review and correspondence from the CGS and the applicant's
consultants has resolved some of the issues, but there are still some differences.
8.2 Garfield County shall discourage development proposals that require
excessive vegetation removal, cut and fill areas or other physical modifications that
will result in visual degradation or public safety concerns.
The application has been designed to avoid slopes in excess of 40% as per Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations. In addition, roads have been re-evaluated in profile
and section in order to meet this policy. Environmental impacts have been reduced by
realigning roads, where needed.
8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so the cumulative impact of
public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and flood water
patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainageways, or to subject
other areas to an increased potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or
sedimentation or result in pollution to streams, rivers or other natural bodies of
water.
Overall, the natural drainage patterns seem to be left intact. The County's engineering
consultant has reviewed the application and found the drainage plan to adequate with
the exception of the potential for dam failure of the new Hopkins Reservoir. With
16
mitigation and design, this issue can be resolved.
Therefore, it appears that this policy has been adequately addressed.
8.5 The County will discourage development in areas where severe soil
constraints cannot be adequately mitigated
Geologic and geotechnical studies have been conducted on the subject property.
These studies indicate that the proposed development can occur as long as the
appropriate identified mitigation measures are under taken.
Again, based on the comments received from the Colorado Geological Survey as
discussed above, in Policy 8.1, additional studies need to be conducted to adequately
address this policy. Therefore, it appears that this policy has not been adequately
addressed.
8 7 Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor
environmental constraints to mitigate physical problems such as minor rockfalls, 17
to 24 percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow
percolation, radioactive soils and/or corrosive and expansive soils.
Geologic and geotechnical studies have been conducted on the subject. These studies
indicate that the proposed development can occur as long as the appropriate identified
mitigation measures are under taken.
Based on the additional comments received from the Colorado Geological Survey as
discussed above, in Policy 8.1, there appears to be some differences as to the level and
type of mitigation for geologic hazards. Therefore, it appears that this policy has not
been adequately addressed.
V. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Water Supply:
1. Water Rights : Water is proposed to be supplied to the entire residential and
commercial portions of the P.U.D. via a central water system with the exception of
the Meadow lot which will use the existing well. CRE has reviewed the proposed
legal water that is proposed to serve a total of 695 EQR's that will come from the
demands of 577 residential units, some commercial uses and parks an green belt
irrigation. It is his opinion that the demand estimates are reasonable and that the
existing water court decree, Case No. 87CW155, is of sufficient magnitude to cover
the diversion and depletion amounts calculated for the potable system. The
17
augmentation plan is supported by water from Reudi Reservoir contracted for from
the Basalt Water Conservancy District. He notes that the well permits identified
in Case No. 87CW155 and previously issued by the Division of Water Resources
have expired and will need to be renewed prior to Final Plat approval.
As noted previously, the Division of Water Resources has determined that their
comments made during the PUD Plan review process are still applicable. In a letter
dated May 26, 2000, the Division of Water Resources states in part, "Based on the
above, it is our opinion,...that the proposed water supply can be provided without
causing material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as: (1) the
claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is
operated according to its decreed terms and conditions." These will be conditions
of any approval.
2. Groundwater Resources: The studies presented with the application
address the subdivision requirements and demonstrate the resources are available.
The studies have also included the demands from other groundwater users and
proposed future developments to show that the proposed groundwater
withdrawals in the Spring Valley area do not exceed the available recharge.
The application notes that the physical water supply is dependent upon the
groundwater recharge to the aquifer. Wright Water Engineers estimates the
estimates the annual ground water recharge to be 4300 acre-feet, with an existing and
estimated annual demand of 1100 acre-feet. CRE calculated the recharge rates using
similar methodologies as WWE, but with more conservative inflow (lower) and
outflow(higher) components. This resulted in an annual recharge of 1700 acre-feet,
which meets the applicants projected demands.
The applicant's propose to monitor three wells on the valley floor, within the
development, on a weekly basis. All ofthe monitoring reports will be available to the
public. CRE believes that there should be an additional monitoring well at
least 2000 feet from the production wells. Either a new well or an off-site well
meeting those criteria could meet the criteria.
3. Other Issues :The amount of irrigated area for a lot is limited by the
covenants for the Ranch Lots, Estate Lots and Golf Lots. CRE recommends that
all residential lots have controlled irrigation and that individual well
development be prohibited completely.
The application does not quantify the amount of irrigation water necessary for the
agricultural areas. It is proposed that the irrigation water for these areas will be
supplied from excess surface water supplies from the storage and surface water
rights derived from Landis Creek. CRE recommends that well water usage be
18
restricted for agricultural lands and that well water only be used as a
supplemental source for golf course irrigation in the event of surface water
supplies.
B. Water System
The entire project will be served by a central water supply system, which is supplied
by water from a well field within the development. The water distribution system
will be owned and operated by the soon to be Landis Metropolitan District No 2, with
the financing and construction of the system to be funded by the Landis Metropolitan
District No. 1. Resource Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the proposed water supply
system and determined that the system is capable of supplying both potable and fire
protection, with some minor concerns:
1. Some of the lots will require individual booster pumps or pressure reducing valves
for water service. All lots that will require booster pumps or pressure
reducing valves need to be noted on any Final Plat and in the covenants.
2. After reviewing the water system modeling, Michael Erion noted that there are
some nodes of the system that have a residual pressure of less than 20 psi. The
low pressure areas could represent a problem for the delivery of adequate fire
water in the case of an emergency. It is also recommended that the
applicant's engineer confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less
than 20 psi will not affect fire hydrants or individual residences.
C. Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned PUD with a number of specific zone
districts within the PUD.
The approved P.U.D. Zone Districts are:
O.S./A Open Space/Agricultural District
0.S./G. Open Space/Golf District
G.C.H. Golf Clubhouse District
RIR.L. Residential/Ranch Lot District
R/M.L. Residential/Meadow Lot District
R/E.L. Residential/Estate Lots District
R./G.E. Residential/Golf Lots District
RIC. Residential/Cooperative Ownership Cabins District
R/D-T Residential/Duplex-Townhomes District
R/CIM.U. Residential/Commercial/Mixed Use District
O Office District
M Metro District
U Utilities District
19
LF. Institutional Facilities District
Staff notes that the zoning language included in the application and that was also
attached to Resolution No. 2000-95 is in conflict with condition of approval #4,
which states that "No new open hearth fire places will be allowed within the
development." Within the approved text is a section entitled "Proposed Final Plat
Notes" that includes a proposed final plat note that states " No open-hearth solid -
fuel fireplaces or solid -fuel burning stoves are allowed in the Spring Valley Ranch
Planned Unit Development, except that a total of 4 new open hearth fireplaces
shall be allowed within community use facilities such as the golf club house,
equestrian center, community building and sales office/development office."
All of the language in bold will need to be deleted from any final plat document.
D. Roads:
1. External Roads: Primary access to Spring Valley PUD will be via County
Road 115 (Red Canyon Road) via County Road 114 (CMC Road) via Highway 82
through two (2) proposed entrances. The main entrance is to be on CR 115 just east
of the intersection of CR 114 and 115. The second entrance to the subject property is
proposed to be at Landis Creek on CR 115 northwest of the intersection of CR 114
and 115. Internal roads are designed to meet various standards according to trip
traffic within the PUD. Internal roads north of CR 115 are all proposed to be
private. Originally the Landis Metropolitan District No. 2 was going to build and
maintain the roads, but it was determined during the Service Plan review that the
District could not use public funds for private roads. As a result, the Home Owner's
Association will have to maintain these roads, after the developer constructs them. .
The application has assumed that the majority of the vehicle trips would not occur
from or to the project along CR 115 to the west of Landis Creek. The assumption is
that the majority of the traffic will use the improved CR 115 to CR 114 to Highway
82.
As a part of the PUD approval the applicants were required to provide $2.4 million to
be utilized by the County for any roads impacted by the development. As a part of
the application, they have suggested that the funding be spent entirely on CR 114 to
the intersection of CR 114 and 115 and a portion of CR 115 from the intersection of
CR 114 and 115 to the Landis Creek entrance to the development. They have
suggested that the phasing of these improvements starting with the section that is a
gravel surface presently from the CMC entrance to the main entrance to the
development. The next section being CR 115 from the Landis Creek entrance back
to the main entrance to the development. The last improvements being portions of
CR 114 from the Highway 82 intersection to the entrance to CMC. The developer
has included preliminary engineering plans for all of these improvements.
20
2. Internal Roads: Michael Erion has noted that the overall plan appears
adequate for the project, but that several of the cul-de-sacs exceed the County
subdivision road standards. Staffnotes that the longer cul-de-sacs were approved as
a part of the PUD approval and the developer agreed to provide an emergency access
along Landis Creek that will be gated and only available in emergency. All other
roadways in the development have been designed in compliance with the plans
approved at the time the PUD was approved.
The internal roads will be private roads and as noted previously, results in the need to
have a new entity to pay for the maintenance and repair of the roads. Originally, the
applicant had proposed to have the new Metropolitan District own and maintain the
roadways, but this was determined to be improper during the service plan review. A
maintenance and repair plan needs to be included the covenants for the master
homeowners association.
Condition No. 12 in the resolution of approval, required the applicant to establish an
additional emergency access along the east property line of the development. The
applicant has stated that they do not believe that the Planning Commission or the
Board of County Commissioners intended to require this emergency access to the
development. If this was not the intent of the Board, at the time of the approval
of the PUD, it will be necessary for the applicant to request an amendment to
the PUD.
E. Waste Disposal:
1. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems: Waste disposal for the proposed Ranch
Lots is to be aerobic ISDS systems. The meadow lot will use the existing ISDS
system at this time. The long term successful operation of an aerobic system can be
jeopardized if not properly operated and maintained. Included in the application is a
maintenance plan for the individual sewage disposal systems on the Ranch Lots and
Meadow Lots, which provides for the contracting with the Spring Valley
Metropolitan District for the purpose of operation, maintenance, and monitoring of
the systems.. Michael Erion has recommended that the individual responsible
for the maintenance and repair of the ISDS systems be a Class C operator, at a
minimum.
2. Central Sewage Treatment: The rest of the development will be served by
Spring Valley Sanitation District. An agreement has been entered into between the
applicant and Spring Valley Sanitation District to provide service. Ultimately, the
Landis Metropolitan District No. 2 will be responsible for the contracts to serve the
development.
21
F. SoilslGeologv:
The CGS notes in there July 30, 2001 letter that the CTL Thompson has provided
more detailed observations of the lots noted in previous correspondence during the
PUD review of the application. Even with the suggested mitigation, the CGS
questions whether or not the mitigation done on one lot may adversely affect adjacent
properties. They question whether or not the development within the slope -failure
complex might result in a global failure of the hillside. The concern about a global
failure of the hillside is due to the potential cumulative impact of all of the cuts into
the slope from roads and foundations. They have a specific recommendation that a
slope stability analysis be preformed at this stage which incorporates the developed
condition of the lot with an ISDS
In a follow up letter to the July 30, 2001 letter, the CGS provided additional
comments on the wilderness cabin sites, the water tank site and three road cross
sections. The comments received noted that the wilderness cabins area may have the
same global stability issues associated some of the other ranch lot area. It was
suggested that the water tank site have a slope stability analysis done at this time.
There are three road cuts in the ranch lot area that cross unstable slopes that may
require mitigation to stabilize the cuts. While the applicants geotech has stated that
the cut areas have not shown any instability in two years, the CGS noted spalling and
creep during their site visit.
CTL Thompson has provided a response to the CGS comments, which essentially
says that the concern about a global slope failure is not an issue given their
observations and studies done on the site. CGS has not had the opportunity to
respond to the CTL Thompson comments. This is the most significant issue in which
there is difference of opinion between the applicant's consultants and the County's
technical advisors. If this issue cannot be resolved as a result of the CGS review of
the applicant's response, it is staffs recommendation that the County hire an
additional outside consultant to review the studies and responses to provide an
opinion.
As noted previously, the CGS and the applicant's consultants have gone on a site
review to address a number of the issues noted at the Planning Commission hearing.
The CGS has submitted additional comments and the applicant's engineers have
responded to them and the applicant has proposed some plat notes. At the time of
the star report, the County staff has not had the benefit of a response to the
applicant's proposals from the CGS or Michael Erion, Resource Engineering.
G. Wetlands: The applicant has adopted a policy of complete avoidance of all
wetlands, thus there will be no permits necessary for the development's
improvements..
22
I3. Fire Protection and Emergency Response: The applicant has executed an
agreement with the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire District as the "authority having
jurisdiction" and providing fire an EMS services for the development. As a part of
the service plan for the Landis Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2, funding for the
development of fire and EMS equipment and facilities is included. The Chief of the
Fire District has stated that "the design standards have completely addressed our
concerns for access and road widths, water supply for fire suppression, sprinklered
buildings, both residential and commercial, wildfire hazard mitigation and vegetation
management."
Vegetation: Steve Anthony, Director, County Vegetation Management, noted that
the applicants had a general inventory done on the property, which indicated
infestations of several County -listed noxious weeds. He requested the applicants
initiate a treatment program for yellow toadflax before the end of the growing season.
He also notes that Russian and spotted knapweed are not listed, yet they have been
found in the area. The plan documents include maps for new road cuts and utility
layouts, with a plant material list that is acceptable. A more specific planting
schedule, along with quantification of the acres or square footage ofsurface area to be
disturbed and revegetated needs to be developed. The applicants may include their
own reclamation cost estimates for seeding, mulching and other factors that may aid
in plant establishment. The Board of County Commissioners may require
revegetation security and hold that security until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the County's reclamation standards. Additionally, a Soil
Management plan needs to be developed for the project
The applicant has provided a response to the comments by vegetation management
and agrees to most of the requests. The applicants do not feel that a more detailed
inventory of noxious weeds in needed for the entire property. The response has been
provided to Mr. Anthony, but no response was available due to the short turn around
time and the timing of this staff report. Staff will update the Commission at the
meeting.
J, Drainage Plan: Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc., has reviewed the
drainage plan and determined that it addresses all of the concerns expressed during the
PUD review. He does note three issues that need to be included in any approval
given to the project:
1. The design guidelines need to include Best Management Practices which
minimize directly connected impervious areas for storm water runoffwithin
individual lots.
2. The debris flow/retention structures detailed on Sheet D-15 need to be
located on the drainage plan sheets, including the proposed size of structure.
23
3. The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be
incorporated into the drainage plan in a manner adequate to prevent
damage or potential loss of life or structures within the subdivision.
K. Wildlife: Kelly Wood, CDOW, District Wildlife Manager, has referenced the
comments made during the PUD review as still being applicable. In addition to
those comments, she disputes the use of the term "unreasonable" impacts to wildlife
made in the applicant's application. She also requested that the applicant's hire a
"ranger" type of position to enforce the covenants related to dogs and cats running at
large.
Allen B. Crockett, Ph.D., responded to the CDOW comments in a follow up letter.
(See letter pgs. 91-95) The comments are as follows:
a. He agrees that there will impacts to wildlife as a result ofthe development, but
that the most significant impacts will occur during the construction phases of
the development and will only be temporary. He expects that the displacement
of larger animals such as the deer and elk will be temporary and they will adjust
to the changed conditions. The loss of high quality native habitat and
important movement corridors is minimal due to the developer's efforts to
preserve these areas with low density development and building envelopes on
large lots.
b. He agrees that wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions willprobably increase
off of the site, but there will not be significant increase. It is expected that the
wildlife will adjust to the traffic increase and limit their movements accordingly.
c. Spring Valley Development, Inc., is proposing to hire a full time security force
to be employed by the Home Owner's Association and one of their
responsibilities will be the enforcement of the dog and cat at large restrictions.
d. Included as a part of the Wildlife Use, Impacts and Mitigation report included
in Binder 2, Appendix E, is a wildlife mitigation plan. Included in the
mitigation plan is a proposed real estate transfer fee to create a wildlife
mitigation fund. The fund will be managed by a committee to consist of a
member of the Spring Valley PUD HOA, a CDOW representative and a
Garfield County representative. Prioritization ofthe expenditure of funds will
be first to undeveloped portions of the PUD, second to adjacent public lands
and last to other public and private lands.
e. A number of the previous comments from the CDOW have been included in
the Wildlife Mitigation Plan and in general the applicants feel that they have set
in place a "comprehensive set of project designs and mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize, or offset adverse impacts to wildlife."
24
L. Radiation: As per the Geologic Evaluation contained in the submittal, radiation does not
appear to be a concern on the subject property.
M. School Issues: School fees, as to be determined at the time of Preliminary Plan will have
to be paid as a condition of any approval unless an appropriate school site will be
dedicated. The applicant needs to confer with the school district to determine the required
course of action (school site/fees in lieu). In addition, it needs to be clarified by the
applicants whether or not the school district will service the private roads on the subject
property. This will be a condition of any approval to be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
N. Road . Impact Fees: The applicants are proposing to complete the off-site road
improvements as a substitute to paying road impact fees. The applicant needs to
demonstrate that this will adequately address their Afair share- with respect to road
impacts. This will be a condition of any approval. As discussed previously, it appears that
the applicants have successfully demonstrated, within the newly submitted information
(Exhibit AH_), that they will be paying their Afair share-.
0. Phasing: The application includes a phasing plan that is consistent with the approval given
during the PUD process. As required in the PUD process, the developer has entered into an
agreement with the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District to provide fire and EMS
services to the development.
As a part of the PUD approval it was required that as part of phase two (2) all roads
necessary to connect all phase two (2) lots (Ranch and Estate lots) to the proposed Landis
Creek entrance be completed before commencing phase three (3. In addition, the clubhouse
area should be part of phase one (1) since one golf course is to be completed in phase one (1).
The applicant has noted that he golf course will be started during Phase 1, but will not be
completed until Phase 2. It will only take one year to build the club house, there fore it will
only be necessary to start the clubhouse during phase 2. Staff would suggest that this
condition of approval be modified at the same time the request is made to modify the
condition related to the eastern boundary emergency access issue is addressed. It is a specific
condition of approval that cannot be modified as a part of any Preliminary Plan approval.
P. Affordable Housing: Although affordable housing was not required since the PUD
amendment request did not increase the density ofthe existing approved PUD, the applicants
are proposing to provide affordable housing. The affordable housing is to consist of 75
residential dwelling units in the proposed Village Center including 30 800 sf, 2 bedroom flats;
20 —1200 sf two and possible three bedroom units and 25 other units that may be 1500 sf
three bedroom townhomes or single family with basement or lots for custom homes for
employees of Chenoa. Included in the application are proposed guidelines for individuals to
qualify that follow the County's guidelines closely. The units will be managed by the Landis
Metropolitan District or the Chenoa Homeowners Association.
25
6. The following plat notes will be included on any final plat:
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within a subdivision. One (1) new solid -
fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sec., and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of
natural gas burning stoves and appliances."
"All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed
inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety
lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries"
"Colorado is a Right -to -Farm State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and
visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's
agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural
character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud,
dust, smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of
manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments,
herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as part of a legal and non -
negligent agricultural operations"
"All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County
regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds,
keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other
aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about
these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
introductory source of information is A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture, put out
by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County"
7. School fees, in the amount to be determined for the number of lots depicted on any Final Plat
submittal, as per the formula in Section 9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations,
must be paid.
8. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, with regard to phasing, all lots must be
final platted within fifteen (15) years.
9. Per the comments from the Division of Water Resources: (1) the claimed water rights are
dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed
terms and conditions.
10. The applicant will upgrade the electrical facilities, but only after the developer has entered into
a contract to do so with Holy Cross Electric and at the developer's expense.
11. There will be an additional monitoring well developed or identified that is at least 2000 feet
from the production wells. Either a new well or an off-site well meeting those criteria could
meet the criteria. All of the monitoring reports will be available to the public.
12. All residential lots will have controlled irrigation and that individual well development be
27
VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS :
1. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at the meeting.
2. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations.
3. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of
the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Plan, subject to
meeting the following conditions of approval:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the
Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered
conditions of approval.
2. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a
period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless an
extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of
approval.
3. Valid well permits for all proposed wells must be obtained for all of the wells included in the water
supply plan and copies submitted. to the Planning Department prior to any Final Plat approval.
4. Prior to the approval of any final plat a noxious weed inventory of the area of the property covered by
the plat will be submitted to the Garfield County Vegetation Management office. A more specific
planting schedule, along with quantification of the acres or square footage of surface area to be
disturbed and revegetated needs to be developed. Include reclamation cost estimates for seeding,
mulching and other factors that may aid in plant establishment as part of any final plat application and
include revegetation security to hold until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to
the County's reclamation standards. Additionally, a Soil Management plan needs to be developed for
the project and submitted with any final plat application.
5. The developer include as a part of the obligations of the development's private security to enforce the at
large dog and cat restrictions included in the covenants and that the covenants be amended to include
language recognizing the authority of the security personnel to enforce the regulations.
26
prohibited completely.
13. Well water usage be restricted on agricultural lands and that well water only be used as a
supplemental source for golf course irrigation in the event of a shortage of surface water
supplies.
14. Wastewater reuse be encouraged to minimize the quantity of groundwater withdrawals.
15. All lots that will require booster pumps or pressure reducing valves need to be noted on any
Final Plat and in the covenants.
16. It is also recommended that the applicant's engineer confirm that all nodes with residual
pressure of less than 20 psi will not affect fire hydrants or individual residences.
17. The Homeowners Association must hire at least a Class C operator to operate and maintain the
proposed Ranch Lot ISD systems.
19. The design guidelines need to include Best Management Practices which minimize directly
connected impervious areas for storm water runoff within individual lots.
20. The debris flow/retention structures detailed on Sheet D-15 need to be located on the drainage
plan sheets, including the proposed size of structure.
21. The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be incorporated into
the drainage plan in a manner adequate to prevent damage or potential loss of life or structures
within the subdivision.
22. Plat notes and covenants need to indicate that all lots will require a site specific geological and
geotechnical analysis for any construction.
23. Prior to construction, wetland areas need to be clearly marked and fenced.
24. A maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system must be included the
covenants for the master homeowners association.
28
July 20, 2001
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has completed its review of the preliminary plan
submitted by Spring Valley Holding, USA, Ltd. While the submittal looks overwhelming, we
have had numerous oppotunities to review each segment of the application as it progressed
through the approval process.We feel the design standards have completely addressed our
concerns for access and road widths, water supply for fire suppression, sprinklered buildings,
both residential and commerical, wildfire hazard mitigation and vegetation management We will
make ourselves available to attend the Planning Commision meeting on September 5t to answer
questions you might have concerning our review this plan for Spring Valley Ranch PUD.
Sincerel
Michael E. Piper, Chief
Glenwood Springs Fire Departrnen
806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970/945-4942 FAX 970/945-6040
RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2001.
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
July 17, 2001
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan
Secs. 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 & 34, T6S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Mr. Bean:
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal, which appears to be identical to the
previously submitted sketch plan proposal. Therefore, the comments in our letter of May 26, 2000
still apply.
If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig
Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWKICML/Spring Valley Ranch v.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
Michael Cone, Water Commissioner, District 38
STATEOF COLOPADO
FICE OFTHE-STATE-ENGINEER
vision of Water Resources
apartment of Natural Resources
13 Sherman Street, Room 818
nver, Colorado 80203
one: (303) 866-3581
X: (303) 866-3589
May 26, 2000
p;//water.state.co.us/default.htm
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Secs. 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 & 34, T6S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Mr. Laurien:
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to
subdivide a site of approximately 5948 acres into parcels for 577 dwelling units, 20,000 square
feet of commercial area, two eighteen hole golf courses, -an equestrian center, and parks and
open space. Ninety-one of the dwelling units will be -on ranch lots averaging about 32 acres each.
Water diversions are estimated at a maximum of 1,024 acre-feet, with a consumptive use of 621
acre-feet. The development will have two water systems: 1) a central potable water system which
will use wells to serve in-house and commercial needs, 44 acres of lawn and garden irrigation, 46
acres of park and:landscaping, and supplemental irrigation of up to 150 acres of the golf course,
and 2) a non -potable system using surface diversions as the primary source to irrigate 181 acres
comprised of the two golf courses and up to 119 acres of open space and agricultural land. This
is to be accomplished pursuant to the Hopkins..Reservoir storage right, the, change in water rights
decreed in Case No. &1 CW193, the water rights decreed .in Case No. 84CW212, and the .
augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 87CW155. Sewage disposal for the 91 ranch lots will be
through advanced treatment individual sewage disposal systems. Sewage disposal for the
remaining Tots will be through a central system, with treatment provided by the Spring Valley
Sanitation District.
Based on the March 2, 2000, report by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (VVWE), it can be
determined that the estimated maximum annual well diversions and consumptive use are 592
acre-feet and'283 acre-feet, respectively. These amounts are well within the 1371 acre-feet of
diversions and 453.6 acre-feet of depletions contemplated under the augmentation plan decreed
in Case No. 87CW155. The balance of the diversions and depletions are for irrigation, and will be
supplied by the Landis Creek water rights, which were changed to a consolidated alternate point
of diversion in Case No. 81CW193, and the Hopkins Reservoir.
Table 6: of the WWE report indicates that the maximum pumping from the Spring Valley
aquifer wells is expected to be approximately 600 gpm. Testing conducted from February 29,
2000, to March 13, 2000, indicates that Spring Valley Ranch Well No. 6 produced from 230 to
250 gpm over a sixty-six hour period at the conclusion of the test. This well is in the vicinity of
Spring Valley Ranch Well Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as well as S:V H Well Nos. 5, 6•, 7 and 8. Testing
conducted from February 14, 2000, to February 25, 2000, indicates that Gamba Well No. 1
produced 75 gpm for the duration of the test. This well -is in, the vicinity -of S V H Well Nos. 8, 9
and 10.. If the additional wells have similar production rates the water supply should be
physically adequate.
4
Garfield County Building and Planning May 26, 2000
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights
and is adequate so long as: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2)
the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions. If you or
the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office
for assistance.
Sincerely,
C --Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CML/Spring Valley Ranch iv.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Berquist, Water Commissioner, District 38'
Booz c env 03n13038
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
July 30, 2001
Re: Spring Valley Ranch, Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations
CGS Review No. GA -02-0001
Dear Mr. Bean:
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
The recent -referral -on -Spring -Valley -Ranch included -a -Site -Specific Geologic Hazard
Evaluations report prepared by CTL/Thompson (November 2000). This recent report
addresses geologic conditions for building envelopes that fall within mapped geologic
hazard zones. There are also maps in the recent submittal that indicate where road
alignments may require retainage. CGS previously reviewed this site in November 1999
(GA -00-0004) and May 2000 (GA -00-0013).
In the preliminary site-specific investigations CTL/Thompson has provided more detailed
observations of the lots that were initially mapped in hazard zones, and has found no
evidence of recent slope movement on any of the lots. Possible mitigations were
proposed for the development of individual sites. Because many of the lots will require
detailed engineering, the question is raised as to whether lots may be adversely affected
by mitigation on adjacent properties. If the homes in one segment of the subdivision will
be constructed concurrently, it will be easier to design on a more comprehensive scale
and avoid localized problems.
The development of areas that have been mapped as slope -failure complex also raises the
question of whether a global failure of a hillside may result. The slopes may be stable in
their natural state, but many cuts in the existing roadways are not. The subdivision will
rely on mitigation of individual building sites and road alignments to preserve the overall
stability of the hillsides.
All mitigation plans should be closely reviewed by the county engineering staff to
confirm that the plans are applicable and feasible, and that plans do not interfere with
neighboring development or roadways.
Spring Valley Ranch, p.2
The building envelope for lot R-68 is located within an area mapped as landslide.
CTL/Thompson notes that earth movement was geologically recent, based on
recognizable surface features, although no movement was observed in a scan of historical
aerial photos. CGS recommends that a slope stability analysis be performed at
preliminary plan stage, which incorporates developed conditions of this lot, including
ISDS use, to confirm that construction is feasible.
Other lots that should be considered for lot -specific geologic hazard evaluations are G-
88, G102, ad G-106.
The sites for the wilderness cabin area could not be reviewed, as the map with these
specific locations was not included in the referral.
Please call me if there are any questions. X 2.61/
urs truly,
Celia Gree
Geologist
3�
sal
AUG -24-2001 01:1ZPM FROM -Colorado Geological Survey 3038662461 T-823 P.001/002 F-040
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX;(303) 866-2461
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning
109 St St Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
August 23, 2001
Re: Spring Valley Ranch, Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations
CGS Review No. GA -02-0001
Dear Mr. Bean:
NATUR
DEPARTMENIALT OF
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Cavernor
Greg E. Welcksr
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
Stole Geologist
and Director
I received today the packet of information that includes the map of the wilderness cabin
area for Spring Valley Ranch. The previous maps for the cabin area did not delineate
particular cabin sites. The CTL/Thompson evaluation for this area is similar to the
_evaluations fol the -gaff course, estate, and -ranch -lots that are located in geologic hazard
zones, consisting of a site visit, assessment of existing conditions, and brief discussion on
what mitigation may be necessary. Specific site improvements and their impact on slope
stability have not been investigated.
Because Spring Valley Ranch will not be submitted as flings, determinations of slope
stability should be performed at preliminary plan stage to identify any problems that may
result from development. In areas where a group of lots falls within a geohazard zone,
such as G86 through G96, it would be prudent to perform a global stability analysis on
the slope and suggest a possible comprehensive mitigation scheme, if necessary, rather
than address possible slope problems on an individual lot basis_ The drawback to lot-by-
lot
ot by -
lot investigation is the potential that mitigation on one lot may adversely affect a
neighboring lot.
Water tank. With regard to the location of the Landis Creek water tank, likewise, a slope
stability analysis should be performed to determine the suitability of this site. As you
mentioned, an unacceptable site that requires relocation may compromise the water
distribution service for part of the property. Also, it is worth noting that large tanks can
withstand very little settlement or movement without damage, and once damaged, repair
may not be possible. A complete and detailed understanding of the groundwater and soil
conditions is critical to the design and long-term performance of the tank.
Roads. With respect to the three road cross sections and slope stability analyses that
were performed, the section C -C' indicates a low factor of safety that will require
support, as stated in the CTL/Thompson study. Road improvements also decrease the
factor of safety along cross section B -W. A possible mitigation here would be loading of
the toe of the cut to prevent movement. –• — -- -- —• — —
Post -it' Fax Note 7671
e jl( Irkuinc °o' —
E 1-1-` F"
AUG -24-2001 01:12PM FROM -Colorado Geological Survey 3038662461 T-323 P.002/002 F-048
Spring Valley Ranch, p.2
CTL/Thompson states that there has been no evidence of slope instability along the; roads
in 2 yrs' worth of observation. However, during a CGS site visit, a xaumber of roadcuts
showed evidence of spalling and creep. Some of these cuts will need to be laid back at a
less steep angle, or may require reinforcement, such as what is planed for the areas
where the cross sections are located.
Please call me if there are any questions.
Yours truly,
Celia Greenman
Geologist
REcErrn SEP 2 8 2001
STATE of COLOFADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
Mr. Mark
Garfield County P
109 8th St Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
September 24, 2001
Re: Spring Valley Ranch, Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations
CGS Review No. GA -02-0001
Dear Mr. Bean:
This letter addresses the response to comments from Cam Kicklighter and
CTL/Thompson and the site-specific investigations prepared by CTL/Thompson. I
viewed specific lots with Liv Bowden of CTL/Thompson and Mike Gamba of Jerome
Gamba & Associates, and we discussed site conditions and possible mitigations.
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
1) Golf course lots. While local topography suggests that some ground movement has
occurred in the past, I observed no evidence of recent slides. A problem that was very
distinct was the presence of standing and flowing water in the vicinity of lots G84-91,
which is apparently related to spring(s) above the power lines. CTL/Thompson discusses
this in the site-specific investigations for lots G89-90, and mentions that site-specific
grading and foundation drains can be used for mitigation.
A solution that addresses this situation comprehensively for this row of lots would be
more effective and is recommended. We discussed the possibility of piping water where
it initially surfaces, down along lot lines to the golf course. This idea should be
investigated and could then be incorporated with individual lot drainage mitigation. The
amount of water (from surface flow and seeps) that was observed in September (a dry
month) makes it questionable whether individual drainage systems could handle the flow
without continuous pumping. Drying out the hillside would improve soil characteristics
relating to slope stablity, which should be evaluated before construction begins. Also, a
dry lot would also understandably be a more attractive prospect to a buyer.
Drilling for various investigations will proceed throughout the fall. I suggest that
piezometers be installed along the hillside to monitor groundwater conditions. This
information should be submitted to CGS for review and comment, and ultimately should
be used in the design phase of development for. individual lots.
I have not yet received the drainage report from Gamba & Associates, but I request the
opportunity to comment on this when it arrives.
Spring Valley Ranch, p.2
2) Lot R68. This lot is mapped as a fairly recent (in geologic terms) landslide deposit,
evidence of which can be observed in the field. Future differential movement within the
building footprint of a house can cause substantial damage. In addition to avoiding
slopes steeper than 25 percent, as mentioned in the site-specific investigation by
CTL/Thompson, we recommend that the building footprint size be restricted to a smaller
envelope than ranch lots allow. ISDS design should take site conditions into account and
provide methods for evenly distributing, or even reducing, wastewater to the drain fields.
3) Rockfall. No evidence of recent rockfall within building envelopes was observed.
However, I recommend that all outcrops that lie above lots be scaled for loose rocks.
Also, slopes just below new roadcuts should be examined for boulders that have been
excavated and may roll in the future.
4) Debris flows. Lots G107-109 were mapped within a debris flow fan. In walking this
area I did not observe evidence of recent debris flow activity on the fan or the channel.
Mike Gamba mentioned that there are plans to construct a wall upslope of the building
envelopes to catch and deflect cobbles and boulders, and to channel fluid flow away from
the building envelopes. CGS approves of this concept. This is a conservative mitigation
that would prove very beneficial in the event that wildfire denuded the slope and made
debris flows more likely.
We also discussed reducing the building envelope on lot G130 to remove it from the
geohazard area. This can be accomplished with no detriment to the lot.
5) Water tank site. The Landis Creek site will require excavation into the hillside. This
site will be evaluated during the fall drilling program. A slope stability model should be
prepared for the site, which will require fill placement and retainage.
6) Building restrictions. While much of Spring Valley Ranch can be developed without
problems, the sites and road alignments red -flagged by CTL/Thompson will require
special attention in design and construction. The question arises as to how to ensure that
a qualified geotechnical engineer is involved in the conceptual planning of lots that have
been flagged, and that not only the initial lot owner is made aware of site conditions, but
subsequent owners, as well, if lots are sold again before being developed. In addition to
including plat notes and covenant restrictions for sites that will require special
engineering, CGS recommends that after the lot -specific investigation reports are
amended to reflect the comments listed above, that there be some provision that these
reports be made available when a building permit is requested. Afterwards, there should
be some documentation that a report has been reviewed by a geotechnical engineer, and
plans should be submitted that address the concerns on a specific lot. This is especially
important, as faulty, or inappropriate design may affect performance on adjacent lots.
Comprehensive mitigation that is performed by the developer before the lots are sold
should be documented and included in the site-specific investigation reports.
Spring Valley Ranch, p3
In summary, the poor drainage on the golf course lots G84-91 is the chief concern. CGS
recommends that this be mitigated by the developer as a condition of approval of the
preliminary plan. Please call me if there are any questions.
urs truly,
Celia Gree
Geologist
MEMO
RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2001
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone - 970-920-9103
Facsimile - 970-920-9145
ANDUM
To: Mark Bean
From: Coleman C. "Cam" Kicklighter
Date: October 22, 2001
Subject: Response CGS letters and suggested Plat Note / Design Guidelines
Language
Enclosed herewith are the following documents:
• CTL / Thompson letter response to the Celia Greenman, (CGS) letter of
September 24, 2001
• Mike Gamba letter response (and accompanying drainage drawings) to the Celia
Greenman (CGS) letter of September 24, 2001
• Spring Valley PUD proposed Plat Note language for individual lots and additional
final plat note language and subdivision improvement language
In our opinion, the combination of the above three items will satisfactorily address
Celia's remaining concerns.
It is my suggestion, for your consideration, that Michael Erion review this material and
the remaining issues raised in Celia's letter prior to the hearing.
Finally, I would like to further suggest to you that these issues are not unusual or
abnormal for mountain living in Colorado. They are indeed, very common. In addition,
these issues are not unusual or abnormal with respect to the type of mitigation or the
related cost of that mitigation. The actual mitigation will depend on where the buyer's
home is located within a building envelope and the actual home building design.
As a matter of policy and good customer relations, we will disclose the results of any and
all geology and geo-technical conditions in our Purchase & Sales Contract form.
Therefore, prospective lot buyers will have full knowledge of lot conditions prior to
purchase.
r
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate contacting me.
RECEIVED OCT 2 3 2001
Spring Valley PUD proposes, as a condition of the Preliminary Plan
Approval, the following Plat note language for Individual Lots:
Notice to Purchasers: Certain building envelopes within the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D.
are in mapped geologic hazard areas such as potentially unstable slopes, debris/mud
flows, landslides, rockfall, and ground subsidence/faults that are common to this region
of Colorado. Before a building permit will be issued by Garfield County for a proposed
residence on any lot, the lot owner must obtain and submit to Garfield County a site-
specific and home design specific geotechnical, soils and foundation investigation report
prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer. This investigation and analysis shall
evaluate geologic and soils conditions and provide recommendations regarding the
foundation design for the residence, the site grading design for the lot improvements, and
evaluate the increased water infiltration due to the ISDS as applicable. The foundation
design for the residential structure shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer,
and shall be prepared in accordance with the site-specific geotechnical soils and
foundation investigation report. The site grading and drainage plan and ISDS design as
applicable shall be prepared by a qualified civil engineer. The site-specific grading and
drainage design shall be prepared in accordance with the site-specific geotechnical soils
and foundation investigation. All engineers shall be professional engineers registered in
the State of Colorado.
Spring Valley PUD proposes, as a condition of the Preliminary Plan
Approval, the following Final Plat note and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement language:
The development (Applicant) must contract with a qualified Geotechnical Engineer as
well as a qualified Civil Engineer during the preparation of the final design and
construction process for each phase of the development. Both engineers shall be
professional engineers registered in the State of Colorado. The final design for each phase
of the development shall be prepared by the Civil Engineer in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. The construction of each phase of the
development shall be inspected by both the Civil and Geotechnical Engineers. All
development infrastructure construction shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer.
GAM BA
& ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
& LAND SURVEYORS
W W W.6AMM N 010011155.CO•
PHONE: 970/945-2550
FAX: 970/945-1410
113 NINTH STREET,
SUITE 214
P.Q. Box 1458
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
COLORADO 81802-1458
'RECEIVED OCT 2 v 101
AA
September 26, 2001
Celia Greenman
Colorado Geological Survey
1313 Sherman Street, room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Golf Lot Design Considerations and Flowing Springs for Spring Valley
Ranch P.U.D.
Dear Celia:
This letter is in response to a concern noted in your September 24, 2001 letter to
Mark Bean of the Garfield County Planning Office, in which you provided comments
regarding the standing and flowing water present in the vicinity of Lots G84 to G91.
In order to provide you with a clearer understanding of the physical relationship
between the building envelopes within these Golf Lots, and the areas of flowing
water, we have prepared an enlarged exhibit of this location, titled "Golf Lot Design
Considerations and Flowing Springs". This exhibit depicts the building envelopes for
the Golf Lots as proposed on the Preliminary Plan submittal to Garfield County, also
indicates the actual surveyed locations of the flowing springs, which are depicted as a
blue hatch on the exhibit. As can be seen from the exhibit, the flowing springs are
present only on lots G88 and G89. Furthermore, as is evident on the exhibit, the
flowing springs lie outside of the allowable building envelope for each lot.
As we discussed with you during our site investigations on September 7th and
September 18th, we have configured all building envelopes within this area to avoid
all areas of flowing springs, and more importantly, to also avoid all areas of
concentrated stormwater runoff. It should be understood that the magnitude of the
stormwater runoff from a 100 -year rainfall event would far exceed the flow rates
associated with the flowing springs. On that basis, during our preparation of the
preliminary plan design, we performed a detailed analysis of the flowpaths of the
stormwater runoff from the hillside above these particular lots. These flowpaths are
depicted on the exhibit as light blue lines. We then delineated the tributary areas of
the hillside above the Tots where stormwater runoff was concentrated as the flowpaths
crossed the Golf Lots. These areas of concentrated stormwater runoff are depicted as
green -hatched areas on the exhibit. As is evident from the exhibit, all building
envelopes for these Golf Lots are entirely outside of the areas of concentrated
stormwater runoff. Therefore, we have mitigated your concern with respect to the
flowing springs, as well as the greater concern of concentrated storm water runoff by
avoidance. In other words, we have located all building envelopes outside of areas
affected by either the flowing springs, or the concentrated stormwater runoff.
Golf Lot Design Consideration and Floiving Springs
September 26, 2001
Page 1 of 3 ' 444
This issue is also addressed in Appendix D of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. Preliminary Plan
submittal to Garfield County in letter reports prepared by CTL/Thompson, which are dated June 22,
2000. In these letter reports, CTL/Thompson recommends site-specific surface grading and
foundation drains to direct both surface water and potential sub -surface water away from and around
each residence. In your letter you state that a comprehensive solution to this situation would be more
effective than the CTL recommendations. You further state that we should consider piping the
surface water down the lot lines, presumably as your proposed comprehensive solution.
As could be observed in the field, and as is depicted on the exhibit, the flowing springs eventually
infiltrate below the surface and continue down gradient as sub -surface flows. None of these flowing
springs actually flow along the surface to reach the flat bench at the base of these Golf Lots. On this
basis, it should then be recognized that throughout this geohydrologic system, a significant portion of
the flowing water occurs as subsurface flows. While the piping of the surface waters may result in a
partial reduction of the overall subsurface flows, it will not eliminate them, and therefore, will not
eliminate the need for individual foundation drains for each residence in areas where groundwater is
present. Furthermore, the environmental damage resulting from the installation of the piping system
above these lots would be significant and it would also be largely ineffective. Consequently, we do
not believe that piping of the surface waters is an appropriate solution to this situation.
You further state that the "amount of water (from surface flows and seeps) that was observed in
September (a dry month) makes it questionable whether individual drainage systems could handle the
flow without continuous pumping." Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the basis of your
observation and resulting opinion. We regularly measure the flowrate of surface flows such as those
that were observed on this site during our September site visit. Based on our experience, we would
estimate the flowrate of these springs to be approximately 5 to 8 gallons per minute on the surface.
To place this into perspective, a 4 -inch diameter SDR35 PVC foundation drain pipe with a grade of
2.0% has a hydraulic capacity of 130 gallons per minute, an 8 -inch diameter SDR35 PVC foundation
drain pipe with a grade of 2.0% has a hydraulic capacity of 830 gallons per minute, and a 12 -inch
diameter SDR35 PVC foundation drain pipe with a grade of 2.0% has a hydraulic capacity of 2,450
gallons per minute. (Hydraulic worksheets supporting these calculations for each pipe are attached to
this letter.) Therefore, if the flowrates of the sub -surface water are 10 times the estimated surface
flowrate (80 gallons per minute), then a 4 -inch diameter underdrain will more than adequately
convey the sub -surface flows around and away from a foundation_ Even if the flowrates of the sub-
surface water are as much as 100 times the estimated surface flowrate (800 gallons per minute), then
an 8 -inch diameter underdrain will more than adequately convey the sub -surface flows around and
away from a foundation.
Another mitigation concept that was discussed during our site investigation was the construction of
an interceptor drain along the rear of the lots, which would be designed to intercept any subsurface
flows and to convey them away from and around the lots. As you will recall, we discussed that this
concept is neither practical nor feasible. In order for an interceptor drain to function adequately in
this area, it would have to be placed at a sufficient depth so that it is at a lower elevation than the
bottom of all residential foundations. Also, in order to adequately protect all lots, it would have to be
constructed along the rear lot line of all lots. As you can see from the exhibit, the elevation difference
between the rear lot line of these lots and the lower portion of the building envelope for each lot is
between 100 and 125 feet. Therefore, in order to "comprehensively" protect the building envelopes
for each lot, the interceptor drain would have to be constructed at least 135 -feet deep for an overall
distance of approximately 2000 -feet. The environmental damage done due to the excavation and
Golf Lot Design Consideration and Flowing Springs
September 26, 2001
Page 2 of 3
3-
removal of vegetation necessary to construct such an interceptor drain would be enormous, not to
mention that the cost would be in the millions of dollars. On the contrary, the cost of constructing an
individual foundation drain with 12 -inch SDR35 PVC piping around a 6000 square foot residential
footprint (which is the maximum allowable floor area for these lots) would fall in the range of
$10,000 to $20,000 per residence. This cost for the foundation drain could easily be reduced, by
reducing the footprint of the residence (by constructing either a smaller residence or by constructing
multiple levels), or by decreasing the depth of the foundation. Regardless, to put this cost into
perspective, it should be recognized that these are not affordable housing lots, and the construction
cost for the driveway to most of these lots could exceed $30,000. In any case, it is obviously far less
expensive and much more practical to construct individual foundation drains for these Iots, than to
construct a multi -lot interceptor drain.
Additionally, we do not understand your reference to continuous pumping. In areas with even a
reasonable amount of topographic relief such as most of western Colorado, and particularly these lots
that have approximately 25 to 50 -feet of relief across the building envelopes, a foundation drain is
designed to grade positively away from the residence and daylight back to the surface below the
residence. Therefore, there would never be a need for pumping a foundation drain in this area.
Finally, you state, "Also, a dry lot would also understandably be a more attractive prospect to a
buyer." In our experience, we do not find this to be the case. On the contrary, in the semi -arid
climate of western Colorado, properties with flowing water are in fact much more desirable than lots
without surface water.
In summary, we understand your concerns regarding possible impacts to the residences in this area
resulting from surface or sub -surface flows. We believe that we have effectively mitigated the
potential impact caused by surface waters by configuring the allowable building envelopes away
from any areas of flowing water or concentrated stormwater paths. We believe that the most effective
method of mitigating the potential impacts due to subsurface flows is by constructing individual
foundation drains to convey the subsurface flows away from and around each residence. Based on
the information provided above, we believe that we have demonstrated that the other methods of
mitigation proposed such as piping the surface waters or constructing a multi -lot interceptor drain are
neither effective, feasible nor practical.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Gamba &
socia
sJ
ichae'Ga ba, P.E. & P.L.S. 28036
G:198711-PRELIMINARY-PLANIDrainage19-26-2001 letter to Celia Greenman.doc
Golf Lot Design Consideration and Flowing Springs
September 26, 2001
Page 3 of 3
4 -inch foundation drain
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project. File g:198711-preliminary-planldrainagelproject2.fm2
Worksheet 4 -inch underdrain
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.012
Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
Diameter 4.00 in
Results
Depth 0.33 ft
Discharge 130 gal/min
Flow Area 0.09 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft
Top Width 0.00 ft
Critical Depth 0.30 ft
Percent Full 100.00
Critical Slope 0.017791 ft/ft
Velocity 3.34 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.17 ft
Specific Energy FULL ft
Froude Number FULL
Maximum Discharge 0.31 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 0.29 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
10/18/01
03:06:44 AM
FtowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
8 -inch foundation drain
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File g:198711-preliminary-pianldrainagelproject2.fm2
Worksheet 8 -inch underdrain
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.012
Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
Diameter 8.00 in
Results
Depth 0.67 ft
Discharge 830 gal/min
Flow Area 0.35 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 2.09 ft
Top Width 0.00 ft
Critical Depth 0.61 ft
Percent Full 100.00
Critical Slope 0.017346 ft/ft
Velocity 5.30 ft/s
Velocity I-fead 0.44 ft
Specific Energy FULL ft
Froude Number FULL
Maximum Discharge 1.99 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 1.85 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
10/16/01
03:07:14 AM
FlowMaster v5,15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06706 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
12 -inch foundation drain
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File g:198711-preliminary-planldrainagelproject2.fm2
Worksheet 12 -inch underdrain
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.012
Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
Diameter 12.00 in
Results
Depth 1.00 ft
Discharge 2,450 gal/min
Flow Area 0.79 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 3.14 ft
Top Width 0.00 ft
Critical Depth 0.94 ft
Percent Full 100.00
Critical Slope 0.017284 ft/ft
Velocity 6.95 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.75 ft
Specific Energy FULL ft
Froude Number FULL
Maximum Discharge 5.87 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 5.46 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
10/18/01
03:07:40 AM
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1686 Page 1 of 1
-47-
RECEIVED OCT 2 2001
October 15, 2001
Spring Valley Development, Inc.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: Mr. Cam Kicklighter
Subject: Response to
Colorado Geologic Survey Review of CTL/Thompson, Inc.
Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations
Spring Valley Ranch, PUD
Garfield County, Colorado
Job No. GS -3455
Gentlemen:
You provided us with a copy of a letter prepared by the Colorado Geologic
Survey (CGS) and asked we respond. The CGS letter was titled "Spring Valley
Ranch, Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations CGS Review No. GA -02-0001",
dated September 24, 2001. The following is a list of the CGS concerns and
statements presented in their review letter and our responses.
Concern: CGS ITEM NO. 1 The CGS letter states "A problem that was very
distinct was the presence of standing and flowing water in the vicinity
of Lots G84-91, which is apparently related to spring(s) above the
power line" and "a solution that addresses this situation
comprehensively for this row of lots would be more effective and is
recommended".
Response: Comprehensive ground water mitigation for Lots G84 through G-91
would likely involve a deep interceptor trench. Simple hard piping of
a spring(s) may or may not influence ground water levels. Trench
construction would necessitate significant constraints on lot
development including lower level floor elevations not below the
bottom of the interceptor trench. Comprehensive mitigation would
likely require extensive earthwork and damage to a large area of
existing vegetation would result from trench construction. It is
common practice to provide temporary and permanent dewatering
recommendations as part of design level geotechnical investigations.
We believe it would be more efficient and cost effective to construct
site specific subsurface drainage systems to control ground water.
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
234 CENTER DRIVE ■ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 ■ (970) 945-2809
-48-
Concern: CGS ITEM NO. 2 In regards to Lot R68 the CGS states "In addition
to avoiding slopes steeper than 25 percent we recommend that the
building footprint size be restricted to a smaller envelope than ranch
lots allow."
Response: We agree with CGS that a building footprint equal to the maximum
allowable square footage is likely not practical from a geotechnical
perspective for Lot R68. We have recommended evaluating slope
stability based on specific development plans in our site specific
evaluation of Lot R68. We agree with CGS that the ISDS design for this
lot needs to be carefully designed and must consider effects on
existing stability conditions.
Concern: CGS ITEM NO. 3 Regarding rockfall CGS states "No evidence of
recent rockfall within building envelopes was observed. However, I
recommend that all outcrops that lie above lots be scaled for loose
rocks. Also, slopes just below new roadcuts should be examined for
boulders that have been excavated and may roll in the future."
Response: Our field investigation to prepare our site specific Geologic Hazard
Evaluations included assessment of potential rockfall hazard. We
observed no evidence of rockfall in the building envelopes. We do not
believe any special mitigation is warranted.
Concern: CGS ITEM NO. 4 In regards. to Lots G107 through. G109 the CGS.
states "... I did not observe any evidence of recent debris flow activity
on the fan or the channel" and in regards to a planned debris flow
mitigation structure "This is a conservative mitigation that would
prove very beneficial in the event that a wildfire denuded the slope and
made debris flows more likely."
Response: Our recommendations for debris flow mitigation were preliminary and
made without the benefit of the hydrologic analysis and site drainage
plan prepared by Gamba & Associates. After review of the Gamba &
Associates study results we do not believe that a debris flow
mitigation structure is needed. The moving of the building envelope
on Lot G130 to avoid the mapped debris/mud flow hazard is an owner
decision.
Concern: CGS ITEM NO. 5 In regards to the Landis Creek water tank site the
CGS letter states "A slope stability model should be prepared for the
site, which will require fill placement and retainage."
Response: We agree with the CGS recommendations. Slope stability analysis,
appropriate retainage recommendations and fill placement criteria are
part of our in progress site specific geotechnical investigation for the
Landis Creek Water Tank Site (CTL/Thompson, Inc. Job No. GS -2972).
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
SPRING VALLEY RANCH, PUD
JOB NO. GS -3455
2
Concern: CGS ITEM NO. 6 Regarding building restrictions the CGS raises the
question "as to how to ensure that a qualified geotechnical engineer
is involved in the conceptual planning of lots that have been flagged,
and that not only the initial lot owner is made aware of site conditions,
but subsequent owners, as well." The CGS recommends that after the
lot specific investigation reports are amended to reflect the comments
listed above, that there be some prevision that these reports be made
available when a building permit is requested.
Response: Ensuring that initial and subsequent lot owners are made aware of site
geologic conditions is not the responsibility of the geotechnical
engineer. This issue should be addressed by the owner. We do not
believe the lot specific reports need to be amended. In our opinion,
the geologic and geotechnical studies we have completed, or are
currently performing, constitute a detailed geologic hazard and
geotechnical evaluation appropriate for the current approval process
application.
In conclusion, no geologic or geotechnical constraints were found on the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD that would preclude the development from the intended
residential uses as currently planned. The geologic conditions and potential
geologic hazards at the Spring Valley Ranch PUD are similar to those found at other
sites that have been developed in Garfield County. Any lots or sections of roads
located in geologic hazard areas can be mitigated.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have
questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
CTLITHOMPSON, INC.
Wilson L. "Liv" Bowde
Engineering Geologist
a;.
Review
ON L
nch M
B:JM:cd
(5 copies sent)
•
,r
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC,
SPRING VALLEY RANCH, PUD
JOE NO. GS -3455
3
51-KiNb VHLLLY
RECEIVED AN 2 9 2111
P.01/09
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, ENT, C.
JL5 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone -- 970-920-9103
Facsimile - 970-920-9145
FACS IMILE
TO:
FAX: g -342,
FROM: Cgr/e-LiS-Hrrs-n-.
TATE:
PAGES_ _7 INCLLTDING.CoVERSE-2szr
il7nzrc..--
11 -rpt , 77yr 16044-01-1141:
apifyw a j ity +f 5e4 ciesre-0
e+ W,TN /E%/'-7
7- a 4ppPr CAA 1V7'? 4 ioad(f f Lj , F-0 I411C-441,1 nit C.71,40
�-- t. ,n► - G. syr $if1
4,076 6-7 1 opezebve 44r1Tel
Be,
nuu—gyp--twin i • c' -i SI-'KLNla VALLEY DEV.
RECEIVED AUG 2 S 2111
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone - 970-920-9105
Facsimile - 970-920-9145
MEMORANDUM
To: Mark Bean
From: Coleman C. "Cam" Kicklighter
Date: August 291, 2001
Subject: Response CGS letters and suggested Plat Note / Design Guidelines
Language
Included herewith is a letter/report prepared by CTL / Thompson in response to the 2
Colorado Geologic Survey letters. i am faxing you this report with a hard copy (signed
and stamped) to follow from CTL / Thompson.
In addition, a letter from Art Daily proposing a Plat Note and Design Guidelines
language (i.e. Notice To Buyers) is also attached.
1 am further suggesting language (for the Applicant and his responsibility with respect to
infrastructure design and constnction) as a Condition of Preliminary Plan Approval, a
Plat Note requirement and similar language in the SIA (for each phase) that would be
along the lines of the following language;
"The Applicant (Developer) will retain a certified / qualified Geologist / Geo -
Technical Engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado to review and prepare the
appropriate reports and recommendations for the Applicant and the Applicant's
Civil Engineer relative to the preparation of Final Plat construction documents for
each phase. In addition, the Geologist / Geo -Technical Engineer will also be
retained to review, recommend and report during construction for each phase."
In my experience in Colorado for a project as large as this and with multiple phases (over
a number of years) the Notice To Buyers Ianguage coupled with the language for the
Applicant (as a Plat Note and in the SIA) is the only practical and realistic way to address
CGS concerns.
P.02/09
nuu-4=elui le -4
teKiNb L)HLLEY DB). P.03/09
CTL / Thompson has prepared seven different reports. In summation, it is their
conclusion there no geologic or geotechnical constraints that were found on. the Spring
Valley Ranch PUD that would preclude the development from the intended residential
uses as currently planned. The geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards at the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD are similar to those found at other sites that have been
developed in Garfield County. Any lots or sections of roads located in geologic hazard
areas can be mitigated.
CIEWER • ASPEN
BOULDER - COLORADO SPRINGS
DENVER TEON CENTER
BILLINGS • EOISE • C SP+ER
CHEYENM£• 4AGI SON HOU
SALTLAI[C CITY • SANTA �E
WASI-IINI roN, D.C.
bYh 1NL+ VHLLfY DEV.
HOLLAND & HART tt.?
ATTORNEYS AT Lim
atltl EASrMAIN STREET. BIM los
ASP$N, COLORADO 51Btt.1591
August 28, 2001
Cam Kicklighter
Spring Valley Development, Inc,
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
TeLEPHONE (DM 925.5'7C
FAcsIMILE ls7O) 9254207
Arthur c. Daily
(see, 54449$5 F3lL
adaityf haltaedhgri cam
'Via Fa 924-3I4S
R.e:ethnical Reports Required * for to Buiirlin :Permits
Dear Cam:
It has been suggested by the Colorado Geologic Survey that each lot in
Spring Valley Development KID be subjected to a geotechnical analysis before
final approval of the project i5 obtained. Respectfully, I would submit that such
a requirement is premature, and that a functional geologic, soils and
foundatiortfdrainaage evaluation cannot be effectively performed untila lot
purchaser has prepared a specific site plan and residence design for the building
envelope on the lot. Many Spring Valley building envelopes are large, and
geologic/soils characteristics and the related engineering recommendations will
vary in different areas of an envelope. Foundation. and drainage designs may
also depend in part upon the size and orientation of the proposed residence on
the site.
I believe it is in the best interests of both Garfield County and Spring
Valley to obtain the most up-to„c.ate, site specific geologic and soils
information possible with respect to each proposed building site, and that such
data can best be obtained when a specific site plan and residence design is
available_ In ray experience, most communities require that the geotechfsoils
analysis and the foundation/drainage recommendations be prepared and
submitted by the lot owner before a building permit will be issued on a
particular lot.
I'm enclosing to you proposed language for incorporation in the Plat
Notes and the Design Guidelines for the PUD, which will place all lot
purchasers on clear notite that a site specific and home design specific
geotechnical, soils and foundation report must be obtained and submitted to
P.07/09
•+++N t� ccJ! J 1C • CCi
5t- 1 Nla VHLLLY DEV.
August 2$, 2001
Plat Note and Design Guidelines Language Requiring Geotechnical
Evaluations/Reports Prior to Building Permits:
Notice to Buve : Certain building locations within the Spring Valley Ranch
PUD may be subject to natural geologic hazards such as potentially unstable slopes,
debrishrnudflows, landslides, rock fall, and ground subsidence/faults that are oommon to
this region of Colorado. Before a building permit will be issued by Garfield County for
a proposed residence on a lot, the lot owner must obtain and submit to Garfield County
a site specific and home design specific geotechnical, soils and foundation report
prepared by a registered professional engineer which evaluates geologic and soils
conditions and snakes design recommendations regarding the foundation and drainage
structures for the residence. Structural plans and construction shall be prepared and
performed in accordance with the engineer's report and recommendations.
2241 7_1.DOC
P.09/09
i dwu ,7rrsIIiu VHLLtT LJbV.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
August 28, 2001
Page 2
Garneld County before a building permit will be issued for the Tot, If you or the
County feel that any changes are needed in the draft language, please Iet me
know,
of Holland & Tart LLP
6-6
r". I61O' iJ
•
RECEIVED AUG 2 92001
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone - 970-920-9103
Facsimile - 970-920-9145
MEMO ANDS. M
To: Mark Bean
From: Cam Kicklighter
Date: August 29, 2001
Subject: Colorado Geologic Survey Review
Mark,
Enclosed please find a stamped and signed letter/report from CTL Thompson in
response to the Colorado Geologic Survey letters. If you have any questions please give
me a call.
}REOteimAtS2 9X001
August 28, 2001
Spring Valley Development, Inc.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: Mr. Cam Kicklighter
Subject: Response to
Colorado Geologic Survey Review of CTL/Thompson, Inc.
Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations
Spring Valley Ranch, PUD
Garfield County, Colorado
Job No. GS -3455
Gentlemen:
We were provided copies of two letters prepared by the Colorado Geologic
Survey (CGS) and asked to respond. The CGS letters were both titled "Spring Valley
Ranch, Site Specific Geologic Hazard Evaluations CGS Review No. GA -02-0001",
dated July 30, 2001 and August 23, 2001. The following paragraphs provide a list of
concerns stated in the CGS letters and our responses.
Concern: The CGS letter dated July 30, 2001 states that site development within
areas mapped as slope -failure complex could result in "a global failure
of a hillside" and that "lots may be adversely affected by mitigation on
adjacent properties".
Response: We evaluated global hillside stability of three cross-sections in slope -
failure complex areas as part of our analysis in preparing our Job No.
GS -3070, dated November 9, 2000. The chosen cross-sections were
judged most likely to represent unstable sections. We determined
theoretical factors of safety that ranged from 1.598 to 1.972 for existing
conditions. As discussed in our geologic evaluation report we judge
the slope failure complex and potentially unstable slope areas to be
stable in their present condition. Our analysis of cross-sections we
judge to be "worst case" supports this conclusion. Additional site
specific evaluation and analysis of slope stability will be to check that
site development does not result in adverse slope stability conditions
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
234 CENTER DRIVE ■ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 1 (970) 945-2809
-"SO
on the specific lot being evaluated or adjacent properties. We do not
anticipate that global hillside stability mitigation will be needed.
Concern: In the July 30, 2001 letter the following recommendation is presented
regarding Lot R-68 "CGS recommends that a slope stability analysis
be performed at the preliminary plan stage, which incorporates
developed conditions of this lot, including ISDS use, to confirm that
construction is feasible".
Response: Based on our site specific geologic evaluation for Lot R-68 (our Job
No. GS -3051, dated September 26, 2000) the development of the lot for
the intended single family usage is feasible. We recommend site
specific slope stability analysis for Lot R-68 be performed based on
actual construction plans. Construction plans are not known and will
not be known until the lot is purchased and the buyer and design team
establish development plans. We anticipate the results of the site
specific stability analysis will not result in recommendations for large
scale landslide mitigation.
Concern: A CGS recommendation presented in the July 30, 2001 letter is "Lots
that should be considered for lot specific geologic hazard evaluations
are G-88, G-102 and G-106."
Response: The building envelopes of Lots G-88, G-102 and G-106." are outside of
mapped geologic hazards and in our opinion additional evaluation of
geologic hazards is not required. We recommend site specific soils
and foundation investigations be performed at these lots to determine
the engineering characteristics of the various soils and bedrock and
to develop foundation recommendations and construction criteria.
These investigations should be undertaken after actual construction
development plans are known.
Concern: The August 23, 2001 CGS letters states "With regard to the Landis
Creek Water Tank, likewise, a slope stability analysis should be
performed to determine the suitability of this site."
Response: We have published two letters addressing the Landis Creek Water
Tank site feasibility (our Job No. GS -2972, dated March 14, 2000 and
December 18, 2000). We judge the conceptual grading plans by
Gamba and Associates are feasible. When actual construction plans
are provided to us, we will proceed with our geotechnical investigation
and slope stability analysis to develop design level mitigation
recommendations for building the water tank and retaining the
proposed excavation.
Concern: The CGS letter (dated August 23, 2001) states "CTL/Thompson states
that there has been no evidence of slope instability along the roads in
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC,
SPRING VALLEY RANCH, PUD
JOB NO. GS -3455
-59--
2
two years worth of observation. However, during a CGS site visit, a
number of roadcuts showed evidence of spalling and creep."
Response: The roadways at Spring Valley Ranch, PUD have been "pioneered" or
"roughed in". Final grading constructed in accordance with our
recommendations and construction criteria which is presented in our
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report (our Job No. GS -2956,
dated March 10, 2000) will result in stable cut slopes. We have viewed
these pioneered roadways and have observed no evidence that global
hillside stability has been adversely effected or that any large scale
slope failures have resulted. We agree that some areas of "spalling
and creep" in the temporary slopes have resulted from the pioneering
of the roadways. Areas of "spalling and creep" are limited to
excavations of cut slopes that are steeper than what we recommended
for final slope grades.
In conclusion, no geologic or geotechnical constraints were found on the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD that would preclude the development from the intended
residential uses as currently planned. The geologic conditions and potential
geologic hazards at the Spring Valley Ranch PUD are similar to those found at other
sites that have been developed in Garfield County. Any lots or sections of roads
located in geologic hazard areas can be mitigated.
We would gladly be available for a site visit with concerned county and/or
state personnel to view and discuss specific concerns if requested. We appreciate
the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
CTLITHOMPSON, IN
Wilson L. "Liv" Bowden,
Engineer Geologist
0
Revie
JM:cd
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC,
SPRING VALLEY RANCH, PUD
JOB NO. GS -3455
3
Memorandum
To: Cam Kicklighter
CC: Mark Bean
From: Gamba & Associates, Inc., Michael Gamba P.E. & P.L.S.
Date: 8/29/2001
Re: Resolution of Geotechnical and Geological Inspection Issues
This memo is provided in response to concerns expressed by Garfield County with
respect to the assurance that the geotechnical and geological concerns for both
development infrastructure as well as individual building sites are adequately addressed.
This issue results from the practical inability of a geotechnical engineer to prepare a
site-specific design recommendation for either development infrastructure or a
residential building site at this point in the design and permitting process.
It should be understood, that this development is currently seeking Preliminary Plan
approval from Garfield County. According to the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations, with respect to geological and geotechnical issues related to the
Preliminary Plan application, Section 4:60(E) states, "The following information shall
accompany the Preliminary Plan - Evidence that all areas of the proposed subdivision,
which may involve soil or topographical conditions presenting hazards or requiring
special precautions, have been identified, and the proposed uses of these areas are
compatible with such conditions. " Additionally, Section 4:70(A) states, "Geology —
Description and/or illustration by a registered professional engineer licensed by the
State of Colorado of bedrock lithology and stratigraphy of overlaying unconsolidated
materials in sufficient detail to indicate any potential development problems resulting
from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations and fills, expansive soils,
drainage patterns, structural bearing strength or the like." The Preliminary Plan
application submitted to Garfield County for the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D, includes
the information required for Sections 4:60(E) and 4:70(A) in Binder 2 -Appendix D,
Binder 3 -Appendix L, and Binder 4 - Exhibits 11A and 11B. We believe that the
information contained in the Preliminary Plan application, and listed above, adequately
addresses the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for Preliminary Plan application
with respect to geological and geotechnical issues.
It should be understood that in order to prepare a site-specific design report for either
development infrastructure or individual building sites, the geotechnical engineer must
be provided with the specific design of the infrastructure, residential building and site
-Gr
1
August 29, 2001
improvements, and also must be able to observe, inspect and/or examine the in-situ soil
materials at the subgrade or foundation level of the proposed improvements.
With respect to the development infrastructure, the final construction level design is
prepared at the Final Plat phase of the development permitting process, and the in-situ
subgrade of a roadway cannot be fully inspected until the road is excavated to subgrade.
Obviously, the roads are not excavated to subgrade until the project has received the
appropriate level of county permits and approvals. Therefore, it is impractical at this
point in the permitting and design process to provide the site-specific design
recommendations for the development infrastructure. However, it should be recognized
that the information provided with the Preliminary Plan application demonstrates that
the proposed uses for this site are compatible with the soil and topographic conditions of
the site.
With respect to the individual residential lot improvements, the site-specific
geotechnical, soils and foundation investigation of a lot is not prepared until the lot
owner organizes the required designs, reports and other information necessary to apply
for the county building permit, as well as the development's internal Design Review
Board approval. Therefore, without the knowledge of the fmal design for the
development infrastructure, or the ability to fully inspect the subgrade or foundation
level of the proposed improvements, the geotechnical engineers and geologists can only
prepare preliminary level reports on the anticipated geotechnical and geological issues
affecting any component of construction.
It should also be recognized that the county subdivision regulations provide for a phased
approach to the Final Platting and construction of a development. Section 4:22, of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations provides for the Final Plat of a development to
be divided into separate phases. We have included a proposed phasing plan for the
Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. in Binder 4, Exhibits 21A and 21B of the submitted
Preliminary Plan application. These exhibits demonstrate that the Spring Valley Ranch
P.U.D. is proposed to be Final Platted and constructed in six phases. Therefore, it should
be understood that it is only practical to prepare site-specific geotechnical and
geological design recommendations during the final design of each individual
development and infrastructure construction phase.
In any case, we recognize that Garfield County has requested additional assurance that
the development infrastructure and individual lot improvements are constructed in
accordance with complete site-specific geotechnical and geological investigations. In
this regard we would recommend that the following language be incorporated on all.
final plats for the development. We would also recommend that this language be
included, as applicable in the following documents: the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D.
Design guidelines, the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. Codes, Covenants and Restrictions,
and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Additionally, we recommend that the
Notice to Purchasers be provided to the individual lot purchasers prior to the closing of
a lot.
-62-
2
August 29, 2001
Language Regarding Individual Lot Improvements:
Notice to Purchasers: Certain building locations within the Spring Valley Ranch
P.U.D. may be subject to natural geologic hazards such as potentially unstable slopes,
debris/mud flows, landslides, rockfall, and ground subsidence/faults that are common to
this region of Colorado. Before a building permit will be issued by Garfield County for
a proposed residence on a lot, the lot owner must obtain and submit to Garfield County a
site-specific and home design specific geotechnical, soils and foundation investigation
prepared by a qualified registered professional engineer specializing in geotechnical and
geological services. This investigation and analysis shall evaluate geologic and soils
conditions and provide recommendations regarding the foundation design for the
residence, the site grading design for the lot improvements, and the site-specific design
parameters for the ISDS as applicable. The foundation design for the residential
structure shall be prepared by a qualified registered professional engineer specializing in
structural engineering services, and shall be prepared in accordance with the site-
specific geotechnical soils and foundation investigation. The site grading and drainage
plan shall be prepared by a qualified registered professional engineer specializing in
civil engineering services and specifically grading and drainage design. The site-specific
grading and drainage design shall be prepared in accordance with the site-specific
geotechnical soils and foundation investigation.
The Notice To Purchasers above is to be included in the following documents: all
Final Plats, the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. Design Guidelines, the Spring Valley
Ranch P.U.D. Codes, Covenants and Restrictions, and all Subdivision
Improvement Agreements. This Notice to Purchasers shall also be provided to all
lot owners as a disclosure by the sellers during the due diligence period.
Language Regarding Development Infrastructure:
The development must contract with a qualified registered professional engineer
specializing in geotechnical and geological services during the preparation of the final
design and construction process for each phase of the development. The development
must contract with a qualified registered professional engineer specializing in civil
engineering services during the preparation of the final design and construction process
for each phase of the development. The final design for each phase of the development
shall be prepared by the Civil Engineer in accordance with the recommendations
provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. The construction of each phase of the
development shall be inspected by both the Civil and Geotechnical Engineers. All
development infrastructure construction shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations provided by the Geotechnical and Civil Engineers.
The Development Infrastructure language provided above is to be included in the
following documents: all Final Plats, and all Subdivision Improvement Agreements
for each phase of development.
G:1987I 1-PRELIMINARY-PLANIP&Z Meeting\Geotech Memo ri..doc
3
July 25, 2001
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
109 8`h Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. DRAWER 2150
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
(970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081
RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2001
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Dear Mr. Bean:
The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy.
Holy Cross Energy has existing facilities in the area that do not have enough capacity to provide
service to this development. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions
necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy
Cross Energy on completion of appropriate contractual agreements. The developer may be
responsible for all or a portion of offsite charges to upgrade existing facilities.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
HOLY CROSS ENERGY
ffrey Franke,
Staking ngineer
JAF:vw
Enclosure
Franke\Bean
MEMORANDUM
To: -Mark Bean ._
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan
Date: August 6, 2001
Mark,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan. My comments are as
follows:
1. Weed Inventory and Mapping
The applicant provides a very general inventory statement on noxious weeds that indicates
infestations of several County -listed noxious weeds. Please ask the applicant to provide a
detailed map indicating the specific locations and estimated amounts of the inventoried noxious
weeds. Of particular concern is the presence of yellow toadflax. I would like to see the
applicant initiate a treatment program for yellow toadflax before the end of this growing
season. Please have the applicant contact me for assistance on recommendations for yellow
toadflax. Also the inventory doesn't list Russian or spotted knapweed, both weeds have been
found in this area.
2. Revegetation
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted
on May 7, 2001) calls for the following:
Plant material list.
Planting schedule.
A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
A revegetation bond or security.
The Preliminary Plan does include maps for the disturbances caused by new road cuts and utility
layouts. The plant material list is acceptable. The planting schedule should be more specific.
In order to determine the amount of security the applicant should quantify in terms of acres or
square footage, the amount of surface area to be disturbed and subsequently revegetated
on these road cut and utility disturbances.
The applicant may include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include
costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment.
The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if
the project has:
A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds.
A potential to impact watershed areas.
A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors
Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas.
Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater)
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will
designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security.
3. Soil Plan
The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that
includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a
period of 90 days or more.
Please feel free to contact me at 625-3969.
Reclamation Standards (Adopted May 7, 2001)
I. Site stability
A. The reclaimed area shall be stable and exhibit none of the following
characteristics:
1. Large rills or gullies.
2. Perceptible soil movement or head cutting in drainages.
3. Slope instability on or adjacent to the reclaimed area.
Slopes shall be stabilized using appropriate reshaping and earthwork
measures, including proper placement of soils and other materials.
II. Soil Management
Topsoil management shall be salvaged from areas to be disturbed and managed for later
use in reclamation.
III. Erosion Prevention
The surface area disturbed at any one time during the development of a project shall be
kept to the minimum necessary and the disturbed areas reclaimed within ninety days to
prevent unnecessary or undue degradation resulting from erosion.
A. The soil surface must be stable and have adequate surface roughness to reduce
run-off, capture rainfall and snow melt, and allow for revegetation.
B. Application of certified noxious weed free mulch or erosion netting may be
necessary to reduce soil movement, retain soil moisture, and promote
revegetation.
C. Soil conservation measures, including surface manipulation, reduction in slope
angle, revegetation, and water management techniques, shall be used.
D. Sediment retention structures or devices shall be located as close to the source of
the sediment generating activities as possible to increase their effectiveness and
reduce environmental impacts.
V. Revegetation
When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other
means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, and
reduce visual impacts. Specific criteria for evaluating revegetation success must be site-
specific and included as a part of the reclamation plan.
A. Vegetation production, species diversity, and cover, shall support the post -
disturbance land use. Areas where the post -disturbance land use does not
include lawns, gardens, and flower beds; shall approximate the surrounding
undisturbed area or be revegetated to a desired plant community with a
composition of species and plant cover typical to that site.
B. The vegetation shall stabilize the site and support the planned post -disturbance
land use, provide natural plant community succession and development, and be
capable of renewing itself. This shall be demonstrated by:
1. Using certified noxious weed free seed.
2. Successful onsite establishment of the species included in the planting
mixture and/or other desirable species.
3. Evidence of vegetation reproduction, either spreading by rhizomatous
species or seed reproduction.
4. Evidence of overall site stability and sustainability.
C. The revegetation plan shall provide for the greatest probability of success in
plant establishment and vegetation development by considering environmental.
factors such as seasonal patterns of precipitation, temperature and wind; soil
texture and fertility; slope stability; and direction of slope faces.
D. To insure the establishment of a diverse and long-lasting vegetative cover, the
permittee shall employ appropriate techniques of site preparation and protection.
species diversity should be selected for long-term land uses and to provide for a
reduction in visual contrast.
E. Where revegetation is to be used, a diversity of vegetation species shall be used
to establish a resilient, self-perpetuating ecosystem capable of supporting the
post -disturbance land use. Species planted shall include those that will provide
for quick soil stabilization, provide litter and nutrients for soil building and are
self -renewing.
F. Integrated Weed Management (IWM) methods shall be employed for all noxious
weed species on the Garfield County List. Weed management methods shall be
used whenever the inhabitation of the reclaimed area by noxious weeds threaten
nearby areas.
G. Where revegetation is impractical or inconsistent with the surrounding
undisturbed areas, other forms of surface stabilization shall be used.
Contact Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, at 970-625-3969 for
information on weed management and reclamation.
Contact Dennis Davidson, Natural Resources Conservation Service, at 970-945-5494,
ext. 101, for reclamation and seeding recommendations.
Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines
From the
Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan
4.06 Revegetation and Rehabilitation:
A crucial part of any weed management plan is the reintroduction of site appropriate
vegetation.
Establishing a desirable plant community after noxious weeds have been removed from a
highly infested area requires timely cultivation and reseeding. Since the seeds from
noxious weeds may lay dormant for many years, removing all visible signs of the noxious
weeds does not ensure against their return. Revegetation can help prevent the
germination of weed seeds. It is important to inspect the land regularly to identify and
treat small, new infestations. For proper reclamation, managed irrigation of dry areas,
fertilization, and reseeding are essential to establish desirable plant communities.
Native plants are most appropriate when the goal is restoration (trying to restore native
habitat). Weed -free seeds of native Colorado grasses, wildflowers or plant species
appropriate to the site may be purchased, but the best source for seeds is from native
species that grow in the immediate vicinity of the infestation. They will be best adapted
to local conditions and will help maintain local integrity and genetic viability. Using
native plants or seeds to reclaim disturbed land reduces degradation of native ecosystems,
reduces the need for herbicides and conserves water resources. Native plants will provide
a broad biological diversity and help keep Colorado looking like Colorado with a unique
regional landscape that sets us apart from other areas of the country.
When the goal is reclamation (reseeding for quick ground cover establishment or erosion
control), it may be appropriate to use introduced, non-aggressive grasses and fortis.
Contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service or Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension for seeding recommendations. The Native Plant Revegetation
Guide for Colorado, published by the Colorado State Parks Natural Areas Program, is an
excellent guide for native plant reseeding. Contact the Garfield County Vegetation
Management office for further information on this material.
STRATEGIES:
• Study all vegetation in the area and surrounding areas.
• Preserve plant species native to Colorado.
• Test the soil for pH balance. Try to retain and utilize as much on-site topsoil as
possible.
• Select a predominant species that is appropriate to the site. Then choose a few
complimentary species to provide a balanced plant community.
• Choose plants that are healthy, vigorous and pest free.
• Use weed -free seeds. Use non -hybrid seeds. Avoid commercial seedpackets
containing exotic plant species.
-b9-
• Choose plants that are horticulturally appropriate, i.e. plant species that are adaptable
to climate, soil and topographical conditions of the designated area.
• Consider the use of water, its availability and the vegetative requirements.
• To landscape for wildlife, choose native plants that provide cover, forage, browse,
seeds for birds and rodents, and shade.
• Be site-specific; revegetation strategies may vary for small lots, farms, ranches or
construction sites.
• Establish a vegetative cover that is diverse, effective and long lasting, capable of self-
regeneration.
elfregeneration.
• Stabilize the surface.
Garfield County Requirements (Adopted May 7, 2001)
• At the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, as part of the Planning and
Zoning approval process, for land disturbances outside the building envelope, the
County may require, at preliminary plan and prior to Final Plat, the following items:
A Soil Plan to include:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
A Revegetation Plan to include:
Plant material list (be specific, scientific and common names required)
Planting schedule (to include timing, methods, and provisions for
watering, if applicable)
A map of the area impacted at preliminary plan (where the soil will be
disturbed)
A revegetation bond. (Agricultural practices are exempt from
revegetation requirements unless they are in association with a
subdivision or land use proposal.)
A revegetation security may be required if, in the determination of the
Board of County Commissioners, the proposed project has:
A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds.
A potential to impact watershed areas.
A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors
Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas.
Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater)
The revegetation security will be in an amount to be determined by the
Board of County Commissioners that will be site-specific and based on the
amount of disturbance. The security shall be held by Garfield County
until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the
following Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners
will designate a member of their star to evaluate the reclamation prior to
the release of the security.
HUU-e*-2 1U1 14 : bb SPRING VALLEY DEV
..D eslgalVorkshop. rte, Memorandum
Landscape Architecture
Land Planning To: Cam Kicklighter
Urban Design
1ourism Planning (970-920-9145)
From: Brace Hazzard, Principal
Date: August 29, 2001
Project Name: Chcnoa
Project #: 2272
Subject: County Review- Steve Anthony
Copy To:
Pages: 1
P.02,10,5
d'1,
Cans: l am in receipt of the memorandum from Steve Anthony regarding the natural resources for
Cherioa. The following is , ubmitted in response to his review comments;
1. Weed Inve iVf yix; : The request for a derailed map of the whole property (over
5,000acres) showing 'mations of any and aJ.1 potentially noxious weeds seems extreme, We
have noted that there may be locations of some varieties and have recognized the importance
of identifying these plant communities and taking all measures to eradicate/ control them.
Specifically, the yellow toaciflax, though, is contained to a small area adjacent to one of the
access roads -- west en:ry. This area will be sprayed before the end of the current growing
season. We will contact Steve Anthony with specific recommendations regarding the
appropriate application rates/ types for this noxious weed,
In addition. there may indeed be small patches of Russian or Spotted knapweed somewhere on
the 5,000 acres, but we have not confirmed these or been able to identity these on any
mapping.
2-R egetatioa: The Applicant is aware of the recent approval/ adoption of the Revegetation
Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (May 7, 2001) and we are
prepared to fully implement and abide by it's recommendations and guidelines. We will
quantify the potential disturbed areas in Phase l and provide an estimate of rcvegetation costs
for County review prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Our
understanding is that this estimated costs might be utilized by the County to determine an
mount to be held as security/ revegetatior: bond for rcvegetation efforts by the Applicant.
3. 5011214.11: The County has the discretion to request a. soil management plat[ for any project
proposed for development within Garfield County, Since this is a relatively new requiremcat
for Garfield County there is little to utilize as a basis, or example, of such a plan- especially for
a project of this maguit:.:dc. The applicant agrees, though, that they will prepare a soil
DSIGNWORKSHOP
A.Ibuquetcjue • Aspen • E envcr - iackcn Hain - Phoenix * Sulu Fe • Tahoe • Vail - snta Cruz • Santiago - Sao Paulo
120 East Main Street, Aspen. Colorado 31611 • (tclj 970-925.6354 • (fax) 97O -92O.1387
www.designworkshbp.con
HW -29-2U01 14=57 SPRING VALLEY DEV.
management pian far review and comment by staff prior to the Boazd. of County
Commissioners meeting.
We hope that this clarifies our position on the issues discussed by Steve Anthony. We took
forward to continuing our discussions with the County and in finalizing the Preliminary Plans
prior to the Couray COMIllissioner's meeting.
As always, feel free to call me if you have questions.
�3-
R. U: /LL5
Paget
Community Development Department
(970) 328-8730
FAX (970) 328-7185
TDD (970) 328-8797
Email: eccmdeva@vail.net
http: llwww.eagle-county.com
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
July 25, 2001
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: Mark Bean
109- 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Eagle County Building
P.O. Box 179
500 Broadway
Eagle, Colorado 8163 I -0179
RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2001
Re: Referral for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan for Subdivision
Dear Mr. Bean:
Please be advised that Eagle County is in receipt of and has reviewed the aforementioned referral.
The proposal entails subdividing a 5,948 acre parcel into lots for 577 dwelling units with 20,000
square feet of neighborhood commercial and two 18 hole golf courses.
PUD zoning for Spring Valley Ranch received approval by Garfield County in August of 2000.
Access to the site is via Garfield County Road 114 off of State Highway 82. The subject property
is surrounded by US Forest Service land to the north, Bureau of Land Management on the west and
private ownership within Garfield County on the east and south sides.
As the proposed development does not have adjacency to or access through Eagle County it is
unlikely that Eagle County or its citizens, would be negatively impacted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. before you. If I can be of any
further assistance, please contact me at (970) 328-8750.
Xc: file
Sincerely,
Bob Narracci, AICP
Planning Manager
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Russell George, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
July 27, 2001
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Dear Mr. Bean,
RECD JUL 3
For WiIdlzfe-
For People
I have reviewed the application for Spring Valley Ranch. I am including previous comment letters from
Eric Shaller and myself because I feel that some of the issues still apply. Spring Valley has worked with
the CDOW on many of the issues such as fencing, bear -proof trash, trail closure dates, and mitigation
fund.
I would like to respond to the conclusion that "the proposed residential and golf development in the
SVRPUD is not expected to result in unreasonable impacts to wildlife or native vegetation" dated
3/10/2000 on page 1 of the wildlife report. It is a matter of interpretation of the term "unreasonable".
There will be significant impact to wildlife in this area. The disturbance of the area from building to
everyday human activity will affect the surrounding wildlife. The increase of vehicles and improvements
to the roadways will increase wildlife mortality. This will affect wildlife.
My other concern is the enforcement of dogs and cats running at large. The covenants prohibit dogs and
cats from running at large but it does not designate a person or persons who will be enforcing these
covenants. Since there is no Garfield County Animal Control, I would like to see a "ranger" type of
position identified.
Thank you for your time.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary
STATE OF COLORADO
Bibi Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1182
05/22/2000
TO: JeffLauriein, Garfield County Planning Department
FROM: Kelly Wood, District Wildlife Manager, CDOW
SUBJECT: Wildlife Comments -Spring Valley Ranch
For Wildlife -
For People
After reviewing the application and previous documents submitted by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife (CDOW), I would have to agree with the comments that CDOW Manager Eric Shaker has
presented in regards to this proposal. Those comments were dated 08131199 and 11/24/99. If you need
copies of those documents, please contact me. While the Spring Valley Ranch has worked closely with
the CDOW, there will still be impacts to wildlife that are unavoidable considering the size and scope of
the project. Elk and deer winter range will be significantly impacted by this development. Elk and deer
will be displaced by the increase in human activity in the area. Spring Valley Ranch has respond to the
needs of wildlife by proposing the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. 1 feel this plan will help mitigate impacts
that can not be avoided. The future of the area wildlife is dependent on minimizing human disturbance
as much as possible.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at 947-2931.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Watcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman • Mark LeValley, Vice -Chairman • Bernard L. BlackJr., Secretary
Rick Enstrom, Member •,Philip James Member • Marianna Rafiopouios, Member
Arnold Salazar, Member • Bob Shoemaker, Member
STATE OF COLORADO
NI Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
ANEQUAL LVPORTUNn~
John W. Mumma, Director
aro Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (333) 2971192
TO: Kit Lyon, Senior Planner, Garfield Co.
FROM: Eric Schaller, District Wildlife Manager, CDOW 010
SUB/: Wildlife Comments- Spring Valley Ranch —supplemental
Date: 11/24/99
For Wildlife -
For People
After review of the supplementaa inf-ofmation (ie. responses, letters, draft mitigation plan etc... )
for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD (SVD), the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) offers the
following recommendations regarding wildlife impacts and mitigation measures. These
recommendations are given in response to the above mentioned supplemental information and are
intended to be used in addition to the original comments given on 08/31/99.
The CDOW is in agreement with many of the measures that the SVD has taken to avoid or
minimize wildlife impacts. Many ()four previous recommendations have been incorporated into the
development and mitigation plans such as the use of bear proof containers, restrictions for pets,
restrictions for trail use at certain times of the year and reduction of building envelope sizes to name but
a few. We are most encouraged by the willingness of the SVD to participate in a wildlife mitigation
trust to be used to mitigate wildlife impacts that can not be avoided. The combination of a trust with
the flat transfer fee of the proposed 0.2 % should continue to provide benefits for wildlife for the
duration of the project (eg. in perpetuity).
There are still a number of items that we feel need to be addressed before it can be said that the
SVD has made every effort to avoid or minimize wildlife impacts. The most important of these items is
the placement of the majority of the lots on prime winter range. I understand the desire by all involved
to preserve the "agricultural" meadows for aesthetic reasons and otherwise. From a wildlife
perspective, however, the preservation of the meadows is not the highest priority. As I mentioned in
my earlier comments, mule deer winter range is the habitat that is in the shortest supply in the Roaring
Fork Valley. It also seems tobe the most attractive habitat type for developers for obvious reasons.
Irrigated hay meadows are not a key component of mule deer winter range. While these meadows do
provide habitat for a number of species including but not limited to neo -tropical migratory birds, small
mammals, waterfowl, and large mammals, this is not the most critical component of their habitat needs.
If we want to ensure that the health of our mule deer herds does not deteriorate fiuther, one of the few
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Watcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman • Mark LeVaihey, Vice -Chairman • Bernard L Bleck Jr., Secretary
Rick Enstram, Member •,Philip James Member • Marianna Raitopoutos. Member
Arnold Salazar, Member.- Bob Shoemaker, Member
steps that we can take that is guaranteed to be a benefit to mule deer is the preservation of winter
range. For this reason, I again ask that Garfield Co. and the SVD reconsider the placement of the lots
on the meadows as opposed to the southwest facing slopes. Of particular concern are the Estate lots
west of Landis Ck. These lots adjoin the only public land winter range in this area and would have—
considerable impact on the fragmentation of remaining winter range in the Sprang Ck. Valley.
Development of private lands to the north, west and southeast of this small parcel of BLM (<700 acres)
would effectively isolate it from any other undeveloped winter range. If moving of all these lots is not
desirable to the county or SVD, then I would recommend the removal of lots E88 -E97, E99, and E133
to provide legitimate migration to and from the public land from the higher elevations and from the
Landis Ck. corridor. Assuming that animals will filter between homesites is not a reasonable avoidance
of impacts.
The acreage and percentages of developed land referred to in some ofthe
correspondence can be very misleading when referring to impacts on wildlife. While some species are
very tolerant and actually thrive with development (ie. canada geese) many other species are impacted
by the least amount of human activity, especially during the most ci itical times their life cycle (ie. winter
and reproduction). Some species may continue to use undeveloped land, but may suffer effects that are
not readily observed. For example, mule deer may continue to use undeveloped land within the estate
lots west of Landis Ck. They may appear healthy and calm, however, increased stress from human
activities in the area combined with loss of habitat could contribute to diminished physical condition of
female.deer. cow off of winter range, lower birth weights of fawns which leads to higher mortality
rates on newborn deer. The net effect -is_an unhealthysleer population in spite of their appearance that
may take years to make itself known. The impacts of a development reach farther than the building
envelope for many wildlife species. Ha building envelope is 1 acre, the actual area of impact may be 2
acres or more, depending on the surrounding terrain and other development in the area. Care should be
taken to accurately represent the acreage in iacted in a development such as this.
I would also recommend a widening ofthe proposed migration corridors through the golf
course lots. Minimum distances of 400 yards with no developments are recommended with the
possiliility of smaller distances if the topography permits (ie. min. 150 yards in drainages where building
envelopes are on top of slope and out ofview). At least one migration corridor meeting these criteria
(other than Landis Ck.) should be provided between Landis CL and the main entrance road on the
south.
The placement of some building envelopes (particularly on estate lots overlooking Landis Ck.
and on the cul-de sacs to the south ofthe golf courses) still appear to be located on ridgelmes
overlooking travel/migration corridors or winter range/open space. Placement of these envelopes
closer to the access roads should provide more security for wildlife that are using these "undisturbed'
areas.
The use of the interior trail system during the winter months, .particularly the portion southwest
of the estate lots overlooking the open space could degrade the integrity of the winter range that it is
overlooking. Closures to all users in the winter months or movement of the trail back from the
ridgeline would avoid these impacts. Signing of all trails to explain reasons for closures should
facilitate a better understanding ofthe closures by residents and subsequently a better compliance rate.
In regards to fencing limitations on all lots, a total maximum of 2500 square foot area (to
include dog kennels and garden fencing be allowed immediately adjacent to the home. Other fence
restrictions already incorporated are acceptable
Dog restrictions appear to be adequate, and should apply to cats as well. Domestic cats are
very efficient predators and can contribute greatly to the mortality of birds and small manirmac if
YY _! ....-+�.7�
Riparian and wetland areas seem to be adequately addressed in the mitigation plan. The
importance of these areas to a great number of species besides large mammals can not be emphasized
enough and protection of riparian areas is critical. Miinim m setbacks and avoidance of impactsduring
constructions should be strictly observed.
Also of note are the incorporation of enforcement guidelines for covenants and other
restrictions. I am encouraged and hopeful that this enforcement will provide adequate incentive for
residents to comply with these restrictions thereby effectively minimizing wildlife conflicts/impacts in
the manner in which they were intended.
The CROW will continue to work with SVD toward completion of the mitigation plan and
guidelines for establishment of the wildlife mitigation trust and transfer fee for unavoidable impacts.
While I have not made specific mention of all measures taken by SVD to incorporate CDOW
suggestions into the development and mitigation plan, I am encouraged to see that the health ofvvfidlife
does hold a certain level of importance in this process. We all understand that development is a
necessary part of the growth of Garfield County and that the same development will have some impacts
on wildlife. I am however, confident that the -decision makers -m_ this, process (count_y_and developer)
will continue to makestridesin ensuring that evelgpment is properly planned to ensure that future
generations can continue to enjoy all of the aspects of this county which attract so many people today.
STATE OF -COLORADO-
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Department of Natural Resources
DATE: 08/31/99
TO: Kit Lyon, Senior Planner, Garfield Co.
FRAM; Eric Schaller, District Wildlife Manager, CDOW
SUBJ: Wildlife Comments- Sprina Valley Ranch PUD
After reviewing the application for zone district
amendment to PUD, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)
as a Garfield County -referral agency offers the following
recommendations regarding wildlife impacts and mitigation
measures:.- The -CROW recognizes -that -Garfield -County -will
make the final decision on wildlife mitigation.
The following are comments and wildlife mitigation
measures that the Colorado Division of Wildlife most
commonly recommends. Also included are comments specific
to this application. 1 would also recommend an independent
wildlife review of the application by a qualified wildlife
biologist resulting in a "Mitigation Plan". The CDOW would
be willing to contribute input into this mitigation plan in
addition to the comments enclosed.
PUD SPECIFIC COMMENTS
There are a number of recommendations mentioned in the
wildlife report and application with which 1 am in
agreement. Some examples are building envelopes, 100 foot
development setbacks for riparian areas, storage of
garbage, and restrictions on removal of native vegetation.
I is obvious that the applicant has taken wildlife into
cgnsideration to a certain extent. There are, however, a
number of other wildlife considerations that -still need to
be addressed, as the applicant's current proposal fails to
mitigate for te:significant loss of important wildlife
habitats.
This PUD contains a significant portion of mule deer
and elk winter range. The plat reveals that the majority
of the high density residential units are located on the
most usable of the deer winter -range -resulting in direct
habitat loss. This also applies to the two 18 hole golf
courses which will not provide the type of vegetation
needed by mule deer during critical winter months. The
proposal refers to the dispersal of these animals onto
adjacent, unimpacted areas. Review of land ownership on
adjacent properties reveals little public land (ie. BLM,
USFS, CDOW etc.,.) with suitable habitat to absorb displaced
big game. Adjacent private property cannot be relied on to
replace the lost habitat in the lona run 46 future
development of those properties could very well reduce
usable wildlife habitat as well.
The stated 3916 acres of "open space", while
impressive on paper does not provide adequate mitigation
for habitat loss. Much of the open space is in the form of
golf courses, parks and trails. This is marginally usable
by wildlife species especially large -mammals The
remaini-ng-undeveloped `=meadows" while certainly scenic,
also does not provide adequate habitat to replace lost mule
deer winter range. While it may be currently used to some
extent for grazing by mule deer and elk, it does not
provide the browse vegetation that would be available
during a typical winter which these animals require. The
meadows, with the exception of riparian areas would be a
much more suitable location for the dense residential lots
than the brushy slopes currently used for winter range.
Some examples of lots that 1 would suggest moving to the
meadows and replacing with undeveloped open space would be
lots E54 -E134 as they are currently used as winter range
and are adjacent to BLM lands. Also, any lots that are
located on south or west facing slopes would be better
located in the meadows than in their current location.
The location of the residential lots across the
property at an even elevation presents a barrier for animal
movement to adjacent winter habitat that is currently
available. Travel corridors in which no development is
allowed, generally from high to low elevations, using the
available terrain and "open space" in the form of golf
courses, would help mitigate this impact.
The following measures should also help mitigate the
loss of effective mule deer winter range and migration
corridors.
1) Reduce the den4py of units.
8/-
2) Spacing of lots along the golf courses to provide
minimum 400 yard -travel_ -corridors where native
vegetation has not been altered.
3) Cluster the 35 acre ranch lot building envelopes
more tightly and keep them close to the main roads.
4) No boundary fencing on any residential or ranch
lots.
5) Seasonal use restrictions on trails and open space
for wildlife. (ie. Dec. 1 -April 30 on mule deer
winter range, Feb. 15 -July 15 on riparian areas for
waterfowl and neo -tropical migratory bird nesting)
6) 1-2 acre development envelopes for ranch lots and
15,000 sq. feet for residential lots. There were
two sizes stated in the application (1-2 acres and
5 acres) .
7) No land disturbance outside of the building
envelopes in -order tomaintain,natural vegetation.
The only exception would be for CDOW approved
habitat improvement manipulations.
8) Weed control to maintain native vegetation.
9) Restrict the use of motorized vehicles to
established roads and development envelopes.
The 35 acre ranch lots are located in transitional
range and reproduction area for both mule deer and elk. As
mule deer populations are below objective and doe:fawn
ratios have dropped to all time lows, preservation of mule
deer fawning grounds are of utmost concern to the CDOW at
this time. Mule deer prefer mature aspen stands with heavy
understory vegetation, a nearby water source and a
southeast exposure for fawning although they will use less
ideal sites if needed. Building sites should be located
away from ideal fawning grounds. 1-2 acre development
envelopes, tighter clustering and location of building
envelopes within 150 feet of main roads should help
mitigate most other wildlife impacts.
I would also suggest that the applicant, in order to
mitigate for lost habitat, be requested to participate in a
wildlife mitigation trust, a voluntary real estate transfer
tax or other such program of their choice. This would
provide funding for habitat improvements on the development
site or habitat acquisition adjacent to the development
site. The CDOW would be willing to discuss the available
options with the applicant as well as requirements for the
use of these funds for wildlife habitat.
Residents -should -be -informed -of -potential wildlife
conflicts and wildlife laws pertaining to the use of their
property prior to purchase. For example:
1). Feeding or baiting of wildlife is prohibited (with
the exception of birds)
2) Harassment of wildlife is prohibited.
3) Dogs chasing wildlife is prohibited.
4) The CDOW is not liable for damage to ornamental or
other non agricultural plants by wildlife.
5). Fishing license is required to fish in all lakes
and streams on the property unless a private lake
license is obtained.
6)
Disturbed ground caused by road construction should be
reclaimed using vegetation that is not palatable to large
mammals. This is in order to avoid attracting deer and elk
to roadsides -where collisions with motorist might occur.
-Clearing -_of. vegetation near__the__road. to improve_ visibility
should considered.
GOON RECOMMENDATIONS
1) DOGS -
Each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot
will be permitted to have up to two dogs and offspring up
to three months old. Residents, lessees and/or owners will
be prohibited from harboring dogs on their property unless
they have adequate facilities (i.e., a fenced yard, dog
run, or kennel) to contain the animals. Enclosed runs must
be located immediately adjacent to the home, within the
permitted disturbance zone (building envelope). If
facilities are inadequate to contain the dog(s), the
animal(s) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision
until adequate structures can be built. At no time are
dogs to be allowed to run freely.
Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on
a leash under the direct control of its owner or authorized
representative.
Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the
appropriate governmental entity (Garfield County or the
proper municipality), and must wear the numbered
identification tags provided.
Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited
from bringing dogs onto the property.
Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from
bringing dogs to the-subdivision/PUD site. Workers who
violate this provision shall be barred from the
subdivision/PUD for 10 working days for the first offense
and permanently for any future offense.
These provisions also apply to multi -family units if
located within the subdivision/PUD boundaries.
Stray dogs may also be controlled by the
County/Municipality and CDOW (Colorado Division of
Wildlife). Persons not in compliance with these dog
restrictions will be responsible for any and all costs
incurred by the County and/or CDOW for enforcing these
provisions.
2) FENCING -
Fencing will be restricted throughout the development
to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat
availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. If peripheral
fencing of the subdivision is required to restrict domestic
livestock grazing on adjacent properties, fencing shall
employ a three strand barbed wire fence, with strands
located at 18, 30, and 42 inches above mean ground level.
{Optimum wildlife fence would be 14, 26 and 38 inches}
If wood rail fencing is used it should not exceed 42
inches in height and 12 inches in width (top view), and an
opening in the lower It of at least 16 inches to allow
passage of deer fawns and elk calves.
Homeowners will be permitted a privacy fence, (greater
than 42" in height with no openings), to enclose up to
2,500 square feet, provided it is immediately adjacent to
the residence and is entirely within the permitted building
envelope.
If security fencing is needed the following measures
should be incorporated: Security fencing must not be less
than seven feet in height and must be so constructed that
wildlife movement between and through the subdivision, PUD
& lots is not lost or impaired.
3) HORSES AND OTHER LIVESTOCK-
To minimize fencing and the degradation and loss of
critical wildlife habitat, it will be expressly prohibited
to board or keep any livestock, including, but not limited
to horses, within the Subdivision. (This provision applies
to development in important wildlife habitat only. If
development is to take place in irrigated fields &/or
81-•
pastures, then horses and other livestock would probably be
OK. If -the -area -where horses -will - be -kept is within 4 mile
of critical wildlife habitat then only certified weed free
forage shall be used as feed) .
All storage of hay should be enclosed by an 8 foot
high mesh fence at the expense of the owner.
4) BUILDING ENVELOPES -
To minimize wildlife habitat loss and disturbance,
building envelopes should be restricted to 15,000 square
feet and depicted on the subdivision submittal maps. No
structures or habitat disturbance should occur outside the
building envelope, with the exception of access road,
driveways, utility and infrastructure construction. Any
such disturbance should be revegetated immediately with
native plant species.
In areas where wildfire clearing has to be
conducted, building envelopes may- be enlarged to
_20,000 sq. ft., . Any and all _vegetation
manipulation for wildfire control must be
contained within that 20,000 sq. ft. building
envelope.
Prior to any disturbance the building envelope shall
be delineated by flagging, plastic snow fence, silt fence
or some such marker. This will permit all contractors,
subcontractors, etc. who work on the site to stay within
the allowed disturbance zone.
5) WILDLIFE MITIGATION -
A) One possible approach to assist in mitigating
wildlife impacts include: .An on-site analysis will be
conducted, by a qualified wildlife biologist, to determine
the wildlife impacts. This will enable a determination to
be made as to the cost of mitigating the adverse wildlife
impacts for the life of the impacts. A dollar amount (this
amount is figured through a fairly simple formula) will be
deposited in a Wildlife Mitigation Trust which will then be
used to mitigate those negative impacts. Interest
generated by this account will be used for authorized
wildlife enhancement projects in Garfield County. The
principal will never be used, as the fund needs to generate
interest for the life of the impacts, which is considered
to be perpetuity. On-site mitigation would generally have
the highest priority, followed by mitigation or enhancement
in adjacent areas.
Although, wildlife habitat enhancement is probably the
most often used method -to --offset negative impacts, it
should not be considered the only one. Conservation
easements are another means to mitigate adverse impacts.
How one writes the terms of a conservation easement is
limited only by one's philosophy and creativity. There may
also be some tax advantages in using conservation
easements.
Trusts are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage
Foundation, a non-profit organization sanctioned by the
tate..
B) Another approach to the mitigation of wildlife
impacts is to instigate an internal real estate transfer
fee that will place money into a wildlife enhancement fund.
Developments such as Eagle Ranch, just south of the Town of
Eagle, are using a fee of .2%. This money is collected by
the developer or the Home Owners Assoc. on all property
transactions and placed in a wildlife fund that is then
-used-to mitigate the._. wildlife impacts. This method is
fairly simple and has no up front costs.
The administration of the Wildlife Mitigation Trustor
the internal real estate transfer fee is done through a
committee made up of a representative of the
PUD/subdivision, CDOW, County/Municipality, BIM &/or IISFS.
This committee determines the enhancement projects and the
who, what, when, where, how, etc. If the
proponent/developer is opposed to the idea of a mitigation
trust, a mitigation plan that will offset the impacts for
the life of the project should be prepared by a qualified
wildlife biologist.
6) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL-
➢ There shall be no outside storage of any trash or
garbage, nomatter how briefly (e.g., overnight), at
any residence or anywhere within the property, with
the exception of bear -proof trash containers. Refuse
should not be kept within detached garages or sheds
because these structures are more likely to be broken
into by bears. The use of bear -proof trash containers
is the best method to avoid bear problems. This
includes trash can sin parks, open space, commercial
properties etc...
Residents will be prohibited from using compost
piles unless such piles are contained in an approved
bear proof receptacle.
ec
➢ There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of
refuse within the development:
➢ Pets shall not be fed outside.
> With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding,
baiting, salting, or other means of attracting
wildlife to individual yards will be prohibited.
7) RIPARIAN/WETLANDS--
Riparian & wetland areas shall be avoided. Buffer
areas shall be established adjacent to these areas to
ensure that construction and development impacts do not
degrade them.
A 75 foot setback from the high water mark plus any
additional riparian habitat shall be the setback from any
stream, creek, river, etc.. The total setback will vary
depending on the nature of riparian habitat along the
waterway, but at no time be less than 75 feet. During all
construction activities the setback shall be defined on the
ground by flagging or plastic snow fence to guarantee no
disturbance occurs within the setback.
Drainage and runoff should be contained and filtered
prior to entering riparian/wetland areas. Small berms,
swales, dips etc. may be constructed during construction
and post construction to naturally hold and filter runoff.
In proposals where snow plowing and storage are
issues, areas shall be delineated where the runoff will be
contained and filtered before it can enter any riparian or
wetland area.
In many instances riparian and wetland areas have been
detrimentally impacted by past land management practices.
In these instances, enhancement in addition to development
avoidance, would be beneficial.
A note on the final plat or deed shall be used to
inform all property owners that setbacks from water
features are to be left in a natural state and may not be
altered!
Locations where water crossings (roads, trails, bike
paths, etc.) are necessary, naturally spanning bridges
shall be used and not culverts. This will allow free
movement of aquatic life and help reduce beaver problems.
Designs for development/construction in riparian
and wetland areas shall avoided. Any construction work
that may cause impacts to creeks, streams and rivers shall
be restricted to the time period July 15 to'October 1.
Current best management practices must also be used to
reduce and minimize the discharge of fines, silt and
sediments into the waterway(s).
$ ) ----RAPTOR--SURVEY
A raptor survey should be conducted by a qualified
wildlife biologist if the development proposal is located
in an area where raptor nesting normally occurs.
9) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION
The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future
claims in regards to wildlife damage.
10) GOLF COURSE AND/OR OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT -
The subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from chasing,
scaring, frightening, disturbing or other forms of
harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off golf
courses and open space areas. This provision shall apply
during winter and production periods. Winter periods are
defined as December 1 through April 30 and production
periods as May 1 through June 30.
--The subdivis-ion/PUD shall have the right to locally
restrict wildlife from golf course tees, greens,
landscaping clumps and other sensitive areas by using
temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing
erected shall not restrict free movement of wildlife but
should be used in small, isolated areas to help alleviate
possible problems.
Current Best Management Practices (BMPs), shall be
incorporated into a Management Plan for Golf Course
Maintenance and Operation. The plan shall describe the
proper procedures for the application of fertilizers,
herbicides, pesticides and any other chemicals.-- Drainage
shall be depicted in the plan to ensure that no runoff from
the golf course can reach any waterways, wetlands or
riparian areas.
11) SEASONAL USE RESTRICTIONS -
Use of important wildlife habitats can create
additional negative impacts. Areas that need extra
protection may have seasonal use restrictions placed on
them, i.e. big game migration corridors, elk calving areas,
waterfowl nesting areas, great blue heron rookeries, severe
winter ranges, winter concentration areas, etc.
12) EDUCATING RESIDENTS -
A brochure or pamphlet shall be developed by the
proponent educating homeowners about the local wildlife
community, the planning that went into the design of the
development to accomodate future needs of wildlife,
-BB
explaining what residents must do to ensure this wildlife
use continues. The informational pamphlet should stress
that residents have certain stewardship responsibilities
that will enable them to coexist with wildlife.
In large PUDs this document should go into specifics
on how to deal with the many nuisance animal situations
that will no doubt occur (species such as skunks, racoons,
bats, swallows, woodpeckers, coyotes, etc.).
13) ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS -
If the wildlife mitigation measures are incorporated
into covenants then these covenants shall not be amended
without the written consent of the CDOW, County (or Town),
and Subdivision homeowners. The above wildlife related
covenants, can be enforced by the CDOW and/or County.
Subdivisions have also been including all wildlife
related mitigation measures into a separate "Mitigation
Plan". This can be very helpful to new residents when
properties are sold so they will know justwhat is expected
of them. The "Mitigation Plan" is then added to the
covenants and enforced accordingly.
14) ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR COVENANTS &/or PUD
GUIDELINES -
It has been the CDOW's experience in working with a
large number of subdivisions and PUDs, the effectiveness of
covenants depends on the Homeowner's Association. Too
often the Association becomes lax in the enforcement or
doesn't want to enforce covenants or guidelines because the
recourse is to go through court action. In talking with
some representatives and attorneys of associations, it
appears there may be a easier way of ensuring compliance:
A) An enforcement section should be written for the
Association's guidelines or covenants. Due process 'should
be provided in that violators are officially warned first,
second offense is a fine (has to be enough to be
meaningful --$100.00), third offense is a fine (at least
double the amount of the second offense fine ---$150.00),
fourth offense can either be a doubling of the third
offense fine or in the case of dog/livestock violation a
removal of the animal(s) causing the problem for a period
of not less than six months.
B) If violators refuse to pay fines in a timely
manner (not to exceed 30 days after notice given) then this
constitutes a separate violation and the process starts
anew (warning, 1st fine, 2nd fine, 3rd fine, 4th fine, 5th
line -,---etc.). As you can see the dollar amount can add up
quickly if someone willfully refuses to pay their fines.
The same can be used when you notify a person to remove
offending dog(s) or livestock or comply with fence
guidelines. Instead of going to court and attempting to
get a court decision to collect, liens can be placed on the
offending person's property.
All fine money from violations of the wildlife
covenants should be deposited in the Wildlife Mitigation
Trust Fund.
C) A separate provision should be added to ensure
consistent and stringent enforcement by the Association.
If the Association or authorized agent(s) knowingly fail to
enforce the guidelines or covenants, the Association and/or
the individual will be in violation and be fined according
to the fine structure outlined in the covenants.
SUIiARY
The cumulative effects of a sizable PUD such as the
Spring Valley Ranch and other developments in surrounding
properties could have severe and permanent impacts on
wildlife populations as there is little public land to
absorb the effects of this type of habitat loss in this
part of Garfield County. As private lands, that have --
traditionally been in agriculture, now become developed, it
becomes more and more difficult for the CDOW to manage
wildlife populations. This is due in part to hunting
restrictions providing refuge areas over large blocks of
land. More importantly, it is due to the permanent loss of
the most critical habitats in the life cycle of these
animals, that being winter range and reproduction areas,
which are most often located on private land. Our hope is
that by providing these comments, Garfield County will be
able to use them to mitigate for the impacts that these
developments are having -on the wildlife in our county so
that we will continue to enjoy healthy wildlife populations
for years to come.
cc Pat Tucker
HUU-d7-2001 14:06
SPRING VALLEY DEV.
RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2001
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT,. INC
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Teiephone - 97O -92Q -9l0
Facsimile - 970-920-9145
FACSIMILE
TO: A14,4
FAX:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGES:
5-57_2-L713.
/66/Z1-16.1/76:-,--
LNCLUDtNG.COVER SEIM
4174x/4'
eitc r R 6siPc erm 7CPatil 46 fl r7
G6.
4eAVE - TIt-MPso P L y A R N
. We' C.GA vie 5 s 097
Cn-Av
1 Q j4.
Huu—e r--zuu1 14;OW :YK i NU UHLLEY 1JE11.
•:1161ni
Environmental Scientists and .En _ ineers,
A Subsidiary of ]ecology and Environ.ta]ent,1nc.
August 24, 2001
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, elite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
F.02/Un
RE: Responses to Letter from Colorado Division of Wildlife, Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Dear Mr. Bean:
1 am writing in response to a letter to you (dated July 27, 2001) from Ms. Kelly Wood,
District Wildlife Manager with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) concerning the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD. As the ecological consultant to Spring Valley Development,
Inc., I have conducted multiple surveys of habitat quality and wildlife use and engaged
in multiple discussions with representatives of CDOW (both Ms. Wood and her
predecessor on the project, Mr. Eric Schaller). The purpose of the discussions with
CDOW was to ensure that wildlife issues were identified and adequately addressed. No
threatened or endangered species occur on or near the property. My specific
responses are as follows:
1. Severity
girmitiaricLauserramt
In the second paragraph of her letter, Ms. Wood discusses the question of whether
wildlife impacts will be "unreasonable" (a term use in the Garfield County PUD
regulations) and concludes that impacts will be "significant" Both terms are difficult to
define and subject to interpretation. I agree with Ms. Wood that the project will affect
wildlife; any development causes changed conditions that affect some aspect of wildlife
use. However, l believe that any significant impacts will be temporary and limited to the
period of initial construction of roads, homes, and the golf course.
The likely severity of impacts due to human activity is reduced by the fact that other
residences and human uses already occur within and near the site. Therefore, sensitive
species such as American elk have already had an opportunity to "habituate" to humans
in the area. Nonetheless, the increase in human presence and operation of
construction equipment will inevitably cause some species to avoid areas of greatest
disturbance, However, as elk and other sensitive wildlife adjust to these changed
conditions—and as the intensity of construction eventually declines—most of the
temporarily affected species are expected to return to areas of suitable habitat. The
tendency for wildlife to adjust to human presence is enhanced by the fact that the site
488 Pear] East Circtc . Suite 108 . Boulder, Colorado . 8O301-2475 . Phone (303) 443-3282 . FAX (303) 443.0367
huu-e r- 14. ul bi-1' i NLI VHLLhY BEV.
F. a..5/I
Letter to mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department
RE: Responses to Letter fmrrr CDOW, Spring Valley Ranch PUD August 24, 2001
will be a refuge from hunting; numerous examples exist of elk, deer, and other wildlife
readily coexisting with humans in unhunted areas.
For wildlife to resume the use of portions of the site temporarily abandoned during
construction, it of course is necessary that suitable habitat remains available. The
current low-density design and mitigation plan for the project reflect numerous changes
in response to CDOW concerns about habitat loss or fragmentation and human
disturbance (see response #4, below). Because so much of the high quality native
habitats and important movement corridors are being preserved, and because of
restrictions on pets and seasonal restrictions on human use of some areas, the current
types and, for many species, the current levels of use are expected to continue or
recover over the long-term.
2. Inc s ire Wil o li Collis'r ith Vahi
It is not clear whether this issue, raised in the conclusion of the second paragraph in
Ms, Wood's letter, refers to wildlife -vehicle collisions within the site or along major
access roads offsite. Within the site, the anticipated low speed limits on local roads and
requirement to create fuelbreaks (and thus improve visibility) by thinning trees and tall
shrubs adjacent to the roads will combine to minimize the potential for wildlife -vehicle
collisions.
With regard to access roads, i agree that increased traffic volumes. and speeds may
result in increased wildlife mortality from vehicle collisions. However, 1 do not believe
that the number of killed or injured wildlife will be "significant"' (i.e., the mortality will not
measurably decrease local or regional wildlife populations). Typically, wildlife mortality
associated with new roads or increases in traffic volume and speed gradually decreases
as the animals adjust their behavior. This can be seen, for example, in observing herds
of deer or bighorn sheep that have learned to feed along, but not to cross, busy roads.
Certainly, it is appropriate to monitor vehicle -wildlife collisions and to erect warning
signs or other traffic management devices if specific problem areas are identified.
3..nforcement of Restrictions on Ucigt and Cats RunningAt-L e
As noted by Ms. Wood in the third paragraph of her letter, enforcement of restrictions on
dogs or cats running at -large is key to continued wildlife use of the site. Dogs can be a
major cause of direct or indirect mortality on large species, such as deer and elk, while
cats can exact a heavy toll on small birds and small mammals. Besides the impacts
from predation or chasing, the presence of dogs in an area can cause wildlife to avoid
otherwise suitable habitat and effectively result in a type of habitat loss. Ms. Wood
correctly points out that conditions, covenants, and restridions (CC&Rs) are effective
only if enforced.
Environmental Scientists and Eno neem, LLC
A Subsidiary of Ecology and Environment, Inc.
H:44611 Spring Valloy eanLettetdoc
2
Huu-e r -o! i 14:01 b - R 1 NU VALLEY DEV.
H.04/0
Letter to Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department
RE` Responses to Letter from CDOW, Spring Valley Ranch PUD August 24, 2001
While considerable "self -enforcement" is expected to occur among the residents, Spring
Valley Development, Inc., agrees to include the monitoring and enforcement of CC&Rs
concerning pets as a specific duty of the full-time security force to be employed by the
Homeowners Association. This should satisfy Ms. Wood's suggestion of a "ranger"
position and would have the added benefit of providing 24-hour, 7 -day coverage.
Spring Valley Development, Inc, would like to work with CDOW to provide training
materials for the security force, such as knowing when a violation should be dealt with
by onsite personnel or reported to CDOW for follow-up action (e.g., violation of a state
wildlife -protection law). Section 4,11 of. the wildlife mitigation plan (dated March 10,
2000) specifies fines and other enforcement provisions.
4. S na is of Ma` Com n of iti ti Plan
As mentioned in response #1, the current project design and the wildlife mitigation plan
for the project have incorporated a number of revisions to addreas comments and
concerns by CDOW. Major components relative to wildlife protection and mitigation
include the following:
• The location and configuration of many of the ranch lots and estate lots were
modified to reduce habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and human disturbance.
Some golf Tots were shifted to create wildlife movement corridors between higher
elevation and lower elevations portions of the site.
• Removal or modification of vegetation in ranch lots and estate Tots will be limited to
relatively small building envelopes. Undeveloped portions of lots will be managed to
control weeds, and overall habitat quality is expected to gradually improve in these
areas due to cessation of grazing by cattle.
• Areas temporarily disturbed during construction will be planted with native trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous species (grasses and wildflowers), as will all landscape
common areas.
• A dirt path between County Road 115 and estate lots along the golf course will be
closed during the winter to ensure that this area remains available as winter range.
Locations and sizes of several estate lots bordering the winter range were changed
to minimize habitat loss, fragmentation, and human disturbance. No severe winter
range would be affected by the project.
• The Landis Creek riparian corridor will be preserved, and a trail along the creek will
be closed during the May/June elk calving, deer fawning, and migratory bird nesting
seasons. Motorized vehicles will be prohibited year-round in high-quality middle and
upper reaches of Landis Creek.
▪ '
Environmental Scientists and En nem, LLC
A Subsidiary of Ecology and. Environment, Inc.
I4e17 Span... ��_,+.+__._.
'��,� � � Spring dnay+aeanE.8t1aT.QOG
4,- 91- -
3
HUU-Z r- WJr1 14:02 S1 -'k l NG VALLEY MU.
Leiter to Mark Bean, Garfield county Planning Department
RE: Responses to Letter from CDOW, Spring Valley Ranch PUD August 24, 2001
• Owners/residents of ranch lots and estate Lots will be allowed only one dog and one
cat. Pets are riot allowed off -leash outside the building envelope and may not be
kept outdoors overnight unless within a fenced enclosure.
• Fences will be prohibited around individual lots, except for privacy fences within
building envelopes.
• Horse facilities will be limited to the main equestrian center, plus a limited corral
within the buHding envelope of ranch Tots.
• Prohibitions on keeping pet food outdoor overnight, keeping bird feeders outdoors
overnight (except during bear hibernation), keeping trash outdoors overnight (except
within a bearproof container), and other measures will limit adverse wildlife -people
interactions.
• A raptor nesting survey will be implemented prior to start of construction to ensure
that no active raptor nest is threatened, either directly or indirectly, by human activity
or operation of construction equipment.
• A wildlife mitigation fund will be established as a 0.2 -percent real estate transfer fee
to provide an ongoing source of funding for onsite and offsite habitat enhancement
or other mitigation. Use of the fund will be managed by a committee comprising
representatives of the HOA, Garfield County, and CLOW.
In conclusion, Spring Valley Development, Inc., has established, based on input from
CDOW, a comprehensive set of project designs and mitigation measures to avoid,
minimize, or offset adverse impacts to wildlife. Most of the adverse effects will be
temporary, and the Spring Valley Ranch PUD will continue to support abundant and
diverse wildlife over the long-term. Unavoidable long-term impacts are not expected to
be significant at a local or regional level, and the wildlife mitigation fund will rnake it
possible to finance long-term mitigation measures to offset these impacts.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Allen B. Crockett, Ph.D.
Senior Ecologist, Certified Wildlife Biologist
cc: Mr. Cam Kicklighter, Spring Valley Development, Inc,
AME
Environmental Scientists anc3 En nem, LLC
A Subsidiary of Ecorogy and Environment, inc.
-9s
July 27, 2001
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Dear Mark,
O1
RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222'S. 6th Street, Room 416;
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone: (470) 248-7325
As you know, the Grand Junction District of the Colorado State Forest Service has had
considerable in Nut to -the wildfire hazards of this proposed development over -the past
few years; so it was with considerable interest we reviewed their Preliminary Plan
Application.
Much of this proposal is in what we identified as a severe wildfire hazard due to
continuous fuels and slopes. Our assistance has included a $250,000 fifty percent,
cost-sharing grant through -the Title IV State Fire Assistance Program to implement
defensible space and fuels mitigation thinning.
Spring Valley Holding , USA, Ltd may be committed to mitigating the severe wildfire
hazards in°this area as part of the development process, however we have several
serious concerns as a'result of reading this application:
In Binder #3, Appendix I, Spring Valley Ranch PUD/Chenoa Design Guidelines„
on page 12 under "Planting" it states:
No tree removal is permitted anywhere within a lot without DRB approval.
DRB may approve thinning of trees within a primary view corridor from the
main house, but will not allow clearing where a forest cover is essential
for screening from neighboring home sites or from key points along
roads."
It appears this covenant or restriction specifically prohibits what is said in Binder #1
Preliminary Plan Application, Section 3.0, page 10:
A Vegetation Management Plan will be implemented in order to mitigate
any wildfire hazard. In addition, each home will be required to implement
a "defensible zone" around the proposed home.
If, as is stated in Binder#1, page 11 that "...the Spring Valley Ranch PUD is providing
a level of wildfire protection and mitigation unmatched in Western Colorado:" how can
there be any covenant or restriction that specifically prohibits the implementation,- and
more importantly, the maintenance of wildfire fuels mitigation?
In their application for the State Fire Assistance Grant, Spring Valley Development Inc.
(I assume the same outfit) stated:
Additionally, a number of other wildfire hazard measures will be implemented
including: Continuous Homeowner education, inspection, and maintenance
requirements ; a defensible space program within each building envelope....
was unable to find in this application specifications or requirements for such mitigation
measures though I supplied them to Spring Valley Development Inc. previously. They
are brief, and l have included them as an enclosure to this letter.
In several other places there is reference to a "defensible zone" but nothing specific as
to what that is or who is responsible for maintaining it. I was unable to find specific
information on the fuels hazard mitigation or maintenance process.
I feel the severity of the wildfire hazard in the area of this development is such that
there should be no contradictions or ambiguity as to the mitigation of the hazard prior to
the development, and requirements that the mitigation be inspected and maintained
afterward. Additionally, I feel a review of the conditions of the $250,000 Title IV State
Fire Assistance Grant be conducted so that there can be no confusion as to the intent
and conditions for reimbursement.
This is a lengthy application and I may have missed the specifications, implementation,
and maintenance requirements for wildfire fuels mitigation and defensible space that I
was looking for. I hope so, and I hope Spring Valley fulfills its promise of "providing a
level of wildfire protection and mitigation unmatched in Western Colorado."
Sincerely,
John W. Denison
District Forester
enclosure: FireWise Defensible Space Thinning Standards & Driveway Standards
Driveway Standards
During a wildfire, firefighters will not drive their
engine into your driveway if they feel it is unsafe
for them to do so. What makes a safe driveway?
Basically itis the same as defensible space around
Your home: Clearing and thinning vegetation from
the roadwayboth =horizontally and vertically, as
well as •providing a turnaround big enough for the
engine, and turnouts to provide room for other
vehicles to pass by safely.
Width of driveway: The all weather surface should be at least 12 ft. wide.
Vertical clearance:. Engines and the equipment on them are tall. Prune
tree branches to provide at least 15: ft. of clearance.
Turnaround: A turnaround near your house should be provided with at
least a 50 ft. radius. A "Hammerhead T" with a minimum of
60 ft. across the top, is an alternative.
Turnouts: A turnout is a wide place in yourdriveway that willallow
another vehicle (or fire engine) to pass. It should be at least 10
ft. wide and 30 ft. long. If your driveway is over 400 ft. long, a
turnout should be provided at least every 400 ft.
Other considerations:
Grade: Your driveway should not exceed 15% grade. Avoid a sharp
change in grade.
Intersection: Where your driveway intersects the main road, the
intersection should be as close to a 90° T as possible to
facilitate turns from both directions. Is it signed?
Bridges & Culverts: Water hauling tenders are heavy (some in excess of
80,000 lbs.). Sign the rated capacity of your bridges &
culverts.
Pipe crossings, Septic tanks & leach fields: These can collapse under a
heavy engine, trapping it, Be sure you have signs ready to put up .
designating these hazards if you have to evacuate.
Ask your fire department for a driveway FireWise safety review!
-98
RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2001
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone - 970-920-9103
Facsimile - 970-920-9145
August 24, 2001
John Denison
Colorado State Forest Service
State Services Building
222 South 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Dear John,
The purpose of this Letter is to provide you with response to your July 27, 2001 letter
addressed to Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department.
For purposes of clarification, attached are the relevant documents and excerpted pages
where revisions were made to address your concerns.
In that regard, included herewith are the following:
• The Landis Creek Metropolitan Districts No.1 and No.2 Service Plan (recently
approved by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners).
• Proposed language changes to the Chenoa CC&R's to address your concerns.
• Copies of the referenced documents in the CC&R's prepared by the Colorado
State Forest Service.
The implementation, enforcement and continuing maintenance of "defensible zones"
will be the responsibility of the owner and the Master Association as set forth under
section 6.7 Design Guidelines. Please note the proposed revisions. The CSFS document
it references is attached.
The implementation, enforcement and continuing maintenance of fuelbreak guidelines
and vegetation manipulation are also defined and referenced in the CC&R's under
section2.23 and section 9.9, which are attached. However, in this instance, the
responsibility for fuelbreaks and vegetation manipulation will be by the Landis Creek
Metropolitan Districts No. 1 and No. 2 Service Plan, as set forth on page 21 of that
document.
As to the apparent conflict between a vegetation manipulation plan and preservation of
trees and shrubs, please note the proposed language as shown in section 3.25.
The two documents, Wildfire Protection and Fuel break Guidelines for Forested
Subdivisions are the CSFS documents we propose to follow. Because of your initial
assessment of the wildfire hazard on the property, the $250,000 Title IV State Fire
Assistance Grant award, and CSFS concerns, it is our clear intention to follow the CSFS
guidelines and recommendations.
After your review of this material, I would appreciate your further input and feedback
to make sure we are addressing your concerns.
Sincerely,
Coleman C. Kicklighter
President
Spring Valley Development, Inc.
Cc: Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
Enclosures: Holland & Hart proposed changes
Landis Creek Metropolitan Districts No. 1 and No. 2 Service Plan
Wildfire Protection
Fuelbreak Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions.
AUG -23-81 1025 FROM=HOLLANDHART
DENVER • ASPEN
BOULDER - COLORADO SPRINGS
DENVER TECH CENTER
$ILLINGS • BOISE • CASPER
CHEYENNE - JACKSONHHOLE
SALT LAKE CITY • SANTA f E
WASHINGTON. D,C.
ID;S709259415
HOLLAND & HART L ,r
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET. SUITE 10d
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611.1591
August 23, 2001
Cam Kicklighter
Spring Valley Development, Inc.
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Cam:
TELEPHONE (970) 925.3476
FACSIMILE 0970) 925.9357
Arthur C. Daily
(808) 344-5985 Fax
ad9 i ly{d ho hand ha rl.co m
Via Fax To: 920-9145
Re: Defensible Space and Fuelbreak Guidelines
I'm enclosing to you for further handling the revisions to the Chenoa
CC&IQ's that have been developed to address John Denison's concerns relating
to identification, implementation, inspection and maintenance of the Defensible
Space and Fuelbreak Guidelines of the Colorado State Forest Service.
Very tr
urs,
bur C. Daily
of Holland & Hart LLP
cc: Arthur Ferguson, Esq. (wicopy)
2841123 _1
PAGE 1/4
AUG -23-01 10:27 FROM:HOLLAMDHART
ID:9709259415
August 23, 2001
PAGE 2/4
Modifications to draft IVfaster Declaration of CC&R's for Chenoa to address
Defensible Space Guidelines and Fuelbreak Guidelines:
I . A new second paragraph shall be added to Section 6.7, Design
Guidelines, to read as follows:
as follows:
as follows:
"Defensible Space Guidelines promulgated by the Colorado State
Forest Service are attached as an exhibit to the Design Guidelines and
shall be deemed a part thereof for aII purposes. Each Owner shall be
responsible for implementing and maintaining a defensible zone around
the Owner's residence (including a Mountain Cottage) and along the
driveway to the residence in a manner consistent with the Defensible
Space Guidelines, as they may be amended from time to time. The Master
Association shall perform annual inspections of such defensible zones in
order to determine continuing Owner compliance with the Defensible
Space Guidelines,"
2. A new Section 2.23 shall be added to Article 2, Definitions, to read
"2.23. Fuelbreak Guidelines. `Fuelbreak Guidelines' means the
Fuelbreak Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions promulgated by the
Colorado State Forest Service, as said Fuelbreak Guidelines may be
amended from time to time."
3. A new Section 9,9 shall be added to Article 9, Easements, to read
"9.9 Vegetation Manipulation a_semerrt. There is hereby created,
granted and reserved for the use and benefit of Landis Creek Metropolitan
Districts No. 1 and No. 2 and their respective successors and assigns, a
perpetual, non-exclusive Vegetation Manipulation Easement within and on
either side of the platted rights-of-way of all roads within the Common
Interest Community, having such variable width and for purposes of such
vegetation manipulation as may be consistent with the Fuelbreak
Guidelines, as said Fuelbreak Guidelines are applied to actual Meld
conditions from site to site within the Common Interest Community. The
implementation of the Fuelbreak Guidelines, based upon field conditions,
and on-going annual inspection and maintenance of the vegetation
manipulation, shall be the responsibility of Landis Creek Metropolitan
AUG -23-01 10 r 27 FROM : HOLLANDHART
1D: 9705259415
PAGE 3/4
Districts No. 1 and No. 2 or a successor authority having jurisdiction. The
Vegetation Manipulation Easement shall not extend into or overlap the
Defensible Space around improvements constructed within the Common
Interest Community, as said Defensible Space may be established pursuant
to the Defensible Space Guidelines attached to the Design Guidelines."
4. Section 3.25, Tree and Natural Shrub Preservation, shall be
amended in its entirety to read as follows.
"3.25 Tree and Natural Shrub Preservation, All Improvements
within the Common Interest Community shall be located, designed, and
constructed so as to preserve and protect trees and natural shrubs to the
greatest extent possible under the circumstances. Unless otherwise
required by the Wildfire Mitigation Plan, in order to conserve the natural
beauty of the area, no existing trees or natural shrubs may be removed or
trimmed except with the prior written approval of the Design Review
Committee, This restriction shall not apply to the removal or trimming of
dead or deceased vegetation. The Design Review Committee may approve
the thinning of trees within a primary view corridor from the main house,
but will not in locations where a forest cover is essential for screening
from neighboring home sites or from key points along roads.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it is understood that the Design
Review Committee shall approve such proposed tree trimming, thinning or
removal as may be required to implement the Defensible Space Guidelines
that are attached to the Design Guidelines.
Any violation of this Section 3.25 shall subject the offending
Owner to such penalties, fines and/or other conditions as the Design
Review Committee considers appropriate, including without Iimitation the
withdrawal or modification of previously granted development approvals,
or the requirement that replacement trees or shrubs of equivalent or
different size and type be planted and maintained by the Owner. On Ranch
and Estate Lots, the existing native vegetation shall be preserved in all
areas lying outside the platted Building Envelopes, except for such
minimum disturbance as may be required in connection with underground
utilities, irrigation and drainage systems, and access driveways and
approved driveway features.
The restrictions set forth in this Section 3.25 shall not apply to
Fuelbreak Guidelines vegetation manipulation that may be performed
from time to time by Landis Creek Metropolitan Districts No, 1 and No. 2
or their respective successors or assigns within the Vegetation
Manipulation Easement established under Section 9.9 below, which
AUG -23-01 10:29 FROM:HDLLANDHART
ID:070025E415
vegetation manipulation shall not require the review or approval of the
Design Review Committee."
5. The tree removal and tree thinning language in the "Planting
provision of the Chenoa Design Guidelines shall be amended to read as follows:
"Tree removal and tree thinning within the Common Interest
Community shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3.25 of the
Master Declaration."
2839823_1.1)0C
PAGE 4/4
Pitkin County
530 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 8 16 1 1
July 27, 2001
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Director
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood,Springs, CO 81601
RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Dear Mark:
RECEIVED AUG 5 2001
— Pi-tkin- -County-appreciates theopportunity•review the Spring Valley Ranch PUD application,
and offers the following comments on the regional implications of the proposed development.
General
Based on several considerations including overall sustainability, consumptive use of resources,
impacts to roads and other infrastructure, and employment generation with a lack of-
corresponding
fcorresponding housing, Pitkin County does not support_the development of a maximum of
roughly 5,000,000 square feet Of Golf -Course oriented luxury development. The land
development pattern is one of classic sprawl. The following paragraphs .offer specific comments.
Housing
Pitkin County does not support the construction of up to ninety-one homes containing up to
25,000 square feet of floor area. This maximum house size is out of scale given the rural
• character of the area, allows for an excessive use of resources and will.potentially lead to
significant, unmitigated employment generation. Based on a recent post -construction workforce
analysis prepared for Pitkin County, roughly 830 employees could be generated by post -
construction services required for the proposed homes at build -out. The 75.,affordable units
proposed will only house a third to a half of the employees that may be generated by the homes.
These totals don't even consider the number of jobs generated by the construction phase,of the.
homes, or the employees associated with 20,000 square feet of proposed commercialoffice
space, or the equestrian center, or the 40,000 square foot Club House or, the Golf Courses. While
it is commendable -that the applicant is providing permanently deed -restricted, appreciation -
capped affordable housing, the scale of the proposed development is such that there will be
significant unrnitigated generation of employees and a resulting shortfall of housing to
accommodate these employees, with resulting upward pressure on the existing housing stoc
traffic generation: -
Administration County Commissioners County Attorney Finance and Use Tax
Suite 301 Suite 301 Suite 302 - Suite 201
(970) 920-5200 (970) 920-5150 (970) 920-5190 (970) 920-5220
fax 920-5198 fax 920-5230 0
Environment
• Pitkin County advocates preservation of the rural areas that separate the communities in the
valley. This development will result in a fundamental change in the character of the area
from rural to suburban.
• The County defers to the Division of Wildlife to determine the most appropriate location for
development relative to critical wildlife habitat.
It is recommended that lots be sited to avoid wildfire hazard. To the extent that development
is allowed to occur in such hazard areas, the developer and future homeowners should be
required to mitigate the hazard and to maintain the mitigation.
• The applicant refers to their use of clustering in layout of the lots. However, there is little
indication that the so-called clustering has resulted in the preservation of significant resource
lands, other than the historically irrigated lower bench, which is restricted by Garfield's most
recent approval.
The following comments relate to the golf course aspect of the development:
> The Community's needs may be better served by undeveloped open space. The golf
course is a commercial endeavor rather than a community,open space asset. It is a
monoculture dependent upon non-native grass species, and it requires an enormous,
consumptive amount of water in the range of 350 acre feet per year per course for _
maintenance. Furthermore, golf courses are off -limit areas for non -golfers and achieve
no open space values for general recreation or enjoyment.
> Water quality is an issue of regional concern. Pitkin County was not referred a copy of
the "Updated Best Management Practices" proposed for golf course installation and
maintenance. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the developer be required to use the.
most up-to-date, environmentally sound sustainable practices generally, and specifically
with respect to the application of chemicals and fertilizers. It is recommended that the
impacts of runoff be adequately addressed; that the requirement to monitor the water
quality and quantity of groundwater be strictly enforced; and that the applicant, their
assigns or heirs mitigate any quality impacts and/or mining of the aquifer immediately.
• It is recommended that the developer be required to limit the impacts of development on"air
quality to the greatest extent possible through limitationson wood—burning stoves/fireplaces
and through dust control, particularly during construction.
• While lots have been sited to limit the visual impact of the homes from public viewplanes, it
is recommended that further analysis be done if necessary to ensure that there will be
minimal visual impact during the daylight hours and that the nighttime sky will not be
impacted by light pollution.
• Given the number and size of residences proposed, it is recommended that the developer be
encouraged to utilize "green -building" techniques in the interest of conserving resources.
Mass Transit:
• The development will create additional demand 'for RTA services and will create a further
drain on RTA's resources. The County supports RTA in its efforts to ensure that new
development pays its fair share for the increased use of mass transit generated. Specifically,
Mike Davis with the RTA indicates that there is already a need for a Shuttle bus to take
students and residents from the two existing apartment buildings served by County Road 114
to the closest bus stop on Highway 82. The addition of the affordable housing units, free
market units and retail/office use associated with Spring Valley Ranch will only exacerbate
this need. Pitkin County recommends that the developer be required to pay mitigation fees
to RTA to address impacts generated by this development.
Due to Pitkin County's concerns regarding density, type of housing, environmental impacts, lack
of transportation solutions (i.e. transit and mitigation program) and fiscal impacts to local
goverment, it can be reasonably stated that this proposal adds little to the Valley's
sustainability; In fact it facilitates the type of development that is detrimental to the goal of
responsible growth.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Ireland, Chair
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
October 23, 2001
Dear Commissioners John Martin, Larry McCown, and Walt Stowe,
I would like to address three items concerning the Spring Valley Development
preliminary plan:
#1- Access:
17 years ago this PUD was approved expressly contingent on the condition that
adjacent property owners who request access be granted access. This applied only to
1984 adjacent property owners who requested such access prior to adoption of this
P.U.D. preliminary plan. I personally took part in those 1984 meetings. We were
promised access. This condition was reaffirmed in 1994 and is still valid for those few
who are still adjacent owners and who do request access. The applicant chose not to
apply for a new PUD but rather to amend the zoning of the existing PUD. It is important
to understand that only the zoning was amended. This is still the 1984 PUD. Only those
conditions specifically addressed by that Nov. 2000 zoning amendment are changed.
Please reaffirm this access condition at preliminary plan.
#2- Water:
In BOCC resolution #2000-95, all modifications to the water supply plan were
required to be completed by preliminary plan. There are additional water court
applications filed by the applicant and in litigation at this time. Clearly, this water supply
plan is not complete. If this water court application is not a modification to the water
supply plan, what is it? Given BOCC resolution #2000-95 and this ongoing litigation, is
this preliminary plan hearing appropriate at this time?
#3- Road:
A- There are no allowances for pedestrian paths on the redesigned county roads.
There are, however, useable shoulders and pedestrian paths on the private internal
roads. Given the proximity of Colorado Mountain College, the new village center,
and the role of 115 Road as the major connection between development entrances,
why are no pedestrian paths planned on county roads? Pedestrian paths would
seem to be a win-win addition for both County and Chenoa.
B- The intersection of 114 Road and 115 Road and the main entrance to Chenoa and
the two entrances to the village center and the Lake Springs Ranch road easement
seem much too close together. The geometry of the road does not seem safe. I
believe that this area needs a redesign.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Jim Austin
3726 Co. Road 115
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
210 TENTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665
FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680
Lois Veltus
P.O. Box 2055
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
HARTERT & WILSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
October 16, 2001
RECEIVED OCT 1 9 2001
GERALD D. HARTERT
RONALD M. WILSON.
RE: Planned Unit Development Amendment Spring Valley Ranch (a/k/a Chenoa)
Dear Lois:
You have requested my opinion with regard to the effect of Resolution No. 2000-95 adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado (BOCC) on November 27,
2000, with respect to the effects of such Resolution on certain conditions of a previous Resolution
No. 84-127 adopted by the BOCC on July 2, 1984, which latter Resolution was amended by
Resolution No. 94-135, adopted on December 5, 1994.
Specifically, you have requested my opinion with regard to the effect of Resolution No.
2000-95 on the provisions of Subsection 4. i. of Resolution No. 84-127 which subsection provides
as follows:
"4. i. The applicant shall develop appropriate access agreements
with adjacent property owners who request such access agreements
or easements in its preliminary plan submittals. The applicant's
preliminary plan submittal shall also provide for the mitigation of any
impacts of its road construction or improvement proposals on Mr.
B.G. Klink's property, which shall also be submitted with the
preliminary plan for the project."
The issue presented with respect to the aforementioned resolutions is that of whether paragraph 9.
of the recitals set forth in Resolution No. 2000-95 has the effect of superseding and thereby negating
the above cited and quoted conditions set forth in Resolution No 84-127. In my opinion this
question can logically and legally be answered only in the negative, i.e. the above cited provision
(Subsection 4. i.) of the 1984 resolution continues in existence and effect.
In arriving at this conclusion, I have reviewed each of the aforementioned Resolutions, the
Colorado enabling statute for Planned Unit Developments (24-67-101 et seq. C.R.S.) and the Zoning
Resolution of Garfield County dealing with planned unit developments ( Section 4.00) as well as
correspondence between you, county officials and the Applicant's attorney.
The factual and legal basis for my opinion is as follows:
1. The above cited and quoted Subsection 4. i., Resolution No. 84-127 was
clearly not affected by the adoption of Resolution No. 94-135 and the latter
is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Resolution No. 2000-95 was adopted pursuant to a proceeding entitled "A
Resolution Concerned with the Approval of a Planned Unit Development
Amendment for Spring Valley Ranch (alk/a Chenoa)". The Resolution
contains a number of recitals primarily having to do with procedural matters
and throughout these nine recitals it is clear the proceeding is for purposes of
effecting a "substantial modification of a PUD previously approved"
(Emphasis added), but nowhere do these recitals nor any other provision of
the resolution itself identify the resolution being modified and it can only be
assumed to be intended as a modification of Resolution No. 85-127 or
Resolution No.94-135 referred to above.
3. The recital which apparently creates the issue is contained in Resolution No.
2000-95 is at paragraph 9. which provides as follows:
"9. Through adoption of requested PUD Amendment,
the previous Planned Unit Development (PUD)
zoning is superseded and supplanted by the provisions
of this Resolution". (Emphasis added).
4. Immediately following recital paragraph 9. quoted above is the preamble to
the actual resolution which refers to "the Planned Unit Development
Amendment, see attached Exhibit "E" of Spring Valley Ranch ..." and "the
sone Text attached as Exhibit "H" to be approved with the following
conditions:". (Emphasis added).
5. A Planned Unit Development "Plan" as defined in the above cited enabling
legislation and in Garfield County Zoning Resolution is comprised of several
components only one of which is the zoning or "Zone Text" which deals
generally with the particular zoning parameters of the Planned Unit
Development, such as density. uses, physical and other restrictions upon
building and uses permitted within the Planned Unit Development. "Zoning"
is not therefore synonymous with "Planned Unit Development Plan" and this
7
is clear on a reading of the enabling statute and the County's own zoning
resolution. A review of the 1984 Resolution setting all conditions of
approval for the original PUD makes it clear that zoning is only a single
aspect of the PUD Plan (see paragraph 1, Resolution No. 84-127).
Therefore, even if credence could be given to a mere recital contained in
Resolution No 2000-95 at paragraph 9. thereof, this recital clearly only states
that "the previous Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning is superseded
and supplanted by the provisions of this ResoIution." (Emphasis added).
6. Resolution No. 2000-95 clearly does not operate to supersede and supplant
the previous Planned Unit Development Plan but only the zoning component
thereof. If the intent of the Resolution were otherwise it could not be styled
nor could it have been adopted under a proceeding to only modify the
previous Planned Unit Development Plan, since such superseding and
supplanting would, in effect, entirely repeal the previous Planned Unit
Development Plan rather than merely modify it. Further, if such were the
intent in the proceeding before the BOCC upon the application of the Spring
Valley Development, Inc., resulting in Resolution 2000-95, the procedure is
entirely lacking in legal validity under the provisions of the enabling
legislation and County Zoning Resolution dealing with modifications of an
existing Planned Unit Development Plan. — i analogize the distinction to an
amendment to a statute as opposed to a repeal and re-enactment of that
statute. If the BOCC intended that the entire 1984 Resolution establishing
the Spring Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development Plan be superseded and
supplanted in its entirety by the Resolution No. 2000-95, the BOCC used
entirely the wrong procedure in doing so. The appropriate procedure would
have been governed by Section 4.08 of the Zoning Resolution for processing
an application for a new Planned Unit Development.
7. Since Resolution No. 2000-95 cannot have been effective to supersede and
supplant Resolution No. 84-127 in its entirety, but only the zoning
component of the latter, the balance of the Planned Unit Development Plan
approved by Resolution 84-127 remains in effect in all respects with the
exception of provisions which are expressly modified by the later resolution
such as Zoning Text or any provisions of the later resolution which clearly
contradict the provisions of the earlier resolution. In an amendment or a
modification, that which is not expressly altered. modified or amended
remains in full force and effect. In my opinion that clearly includes the
provision 4. i. as set forth above which requires the applicant/developer to
provide certain roadway access to owners of properties adjacent to the PUD,
who request the same.
8. There is nothing at all in the Resolution proper which purports to revoke or
which conflicts either expressly or by implication with the provisions of
section 4. i of Resolution No. 84-127.
1 offer the further observation that the provisions of section 4. i. of Resolution 84-127 were
to be implemented and performed upon the preliminary plan process which is presently under
consideration by the BOCC and that you have previously and repeatedly requested access as required
by Section 4. i. of the earlier resolution prior to the preliminary plan stage of the proceedings.
Simply stated, I do not believe the County can have it both ways. If Resolution 2000-95
is a modification of the previous Resolutions, that means that it did not supersede and supplant the
entire Planned Unit Development Plan but merely modified it in the zoning particulars as specifically
set forth in the Resolution, and if .the County did intend to supersede and supplant the earlier
Resolution of Approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan in its entirety, the entire procedure is
fatally flawed.
Please Iet me know if you have any questions or if 1 can provide you with any .further
information regarding the basis for my proffered opinion.
GDH/pc
Yours very truly,
.-W2/
Gerald D. Hartert
~� COLORADO
��� RIVER
ENGINEERING, INC.
RECEIVED SEP 0 / 2001
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
Tel 970-625-4933
Fax 970-625-4564
August 30, 2001
Mr. Mark Bean, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 Stn Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan —Water Supply Review
Dear Mark:
As requested, Colorado River Engineering, Inc. (CRE) has reviewed the water supply plan for the. Spring
Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan application. CRE's scope of services included review of water rights
and physical water availability. Appendix C of the application includes numerous water right and water
supply reports summarizing legal and physical water supply available to the development. CRE reviewed
these documents and researched the water supply plan as part of the PUD Amendment/Sketch Plan review
process as summarized in our letter dated June 2, 2000 (Appendix C, Exhibit 1). Our current review has
reached the same conclusions determined previously in that sufficient water rights and physical water supply
availability has been demonstrated for the project. We have prepared a brief summary of the water rights,
physical availability, and comments on the application submittal.
Water Rights
Decreed wells and springs are proposed to supply the potable water system that will supply the in-house and
irrigation demands for the 577 residential units, commercial uses, and parks and green belt irrigation. The
water demand estimates for the development take into account the residential Iots and mixed commercial
uses to derive a project demand of 695 equivalent residential units (EQR's). The irrigated area for the
residences are limited to between 1,500 to 4,000 square feet per lot totaling 43.9 acres for the project. In
addition to .residential irrigation, the potable system will also irrigate about 46 acres of park and open space.
These demand estimates are reasonable. The potable water supply is supported by an augmentation plan
decreed by the water courts in Case No. 87CW155. This existing water court decree is of sufficient
magnitude to cover the diversion and depletion amounts calculated for the potable system. The source of
augmentation water is from Ruedi Reservoir pursuant to a water contract from the Basalt Water Conservancy
District.
Existing irrigation ditch rights and water stored in the Hopkins Reservoir will be utilized in a raw water
irrigation system to irrigate the golf course and agricultural areas. The existing water rights, combined with
supplemental supplies provided from the wells and springs can support the municipal and golf course water
demands. The supplemental water use from the wells and springs is also covered under a water contract with
the Basalt Water.Conservancy District.
Well permits for the wells identified in Case No. 87CW155 have been previously issued by the Colorado
Division of Water Resources. These permits identified in Appendix C of the application expired in February
of 2001. The well permits will be required as part of the Final Plat submittal.
-/09-
Physical Availability
Well tests at the project have demonstrated that sufficient instantaneous groundwater yields are available to
meet the project demands. The long-term reliance on groundwater requires that the water withdrawn from
the Spring Valley Aquifer does not exceed the groundwater recharge. A water balance prepared by Wright
Water Engineer's calculates that approximately 4,300 acre-feet of water per year is available to groundwater
recharge. The future water demands of existing and proposed developments in the Spring Valley area were
estimated to be about 1,100 acre-feet per year. The estimated recharge rates in the application exceeds the
demands by the approximate ratio of 4 to 1 indicating sufficient renewable groundwater resources are
available. CRE has calculated recharge rates using similar methodologies as the applicant's consultants. For
purposes of conservative planning. we have reduced water inflow estimates (basin area and precipitation) and
increased outflow components (surface runoff and evapotranspiration). Our reconnaissance type water
balance analysis indicates that the aquifer recharge rate of 1 700 acre-feet per year is available using the
conservative input parameters.
Groundwater Monitoring Plan
The development of a groundwater monitoring program was a condition of approval as part of the PUD
amendment. The groundwater monitoring program was originally recommended by CRE as a future tool to
assess impacts from well pumping for the development and other groundwater users. The applicant proposes
to monitor three wells in the valley floor on a weekly basis. These monitoring wells are existing structures
that will be utilized in the PUD's water system. CRE believes these wells will experience localized
drawdown effects due to the cone of depression formed from pumping. For monitoring purposes, an
additional monitoring well should be constructed in the aquifer at least 2000 feet away from the production
wells. A well farther from the production wells will provide an indicator of overall drawdown levels in the
Spring Valley Aquifer. Monitoring of offsite wells could accomplish the same goal. The proposed
frequency of the monitoring is sufficient. The applicant also proposes to make the results available to the
public.
Covenants
The PUD covenants limit the amount of irrigated area for each lot as cited by the "Design Guidelines." The
Design Guidelines identify limits for the Ranch Lots, Estate Lots, and Golf Lots. The guidelines should
include the limitations for all the development as identified in each of the Zone District descriptions.
Section 3.33 of the covenants prohibits the development of individual water wells without the approval of the
Design Review Committee. We recommend that individual well development be prohibited.
Agricultural Irrigation and Periods of Surface Water Shortages
The application indicates irrigation of agricultural areas will occur at the development in addition to park,
open space, and residential irrigation. The agricultural areas (also referred to as hayfields) have not been
quantified in the analysis. It has been reported that these areas will be supplied with excess surface water
supplies from the storage and surface water rights derived from Landis Creek. We recommend that any
approval of the preliminary plan restrict the use of well water on the agricultural fields. The well water
should also only be used as a supplemental source for golf course irrigation in the event of surface water
shortage supplies. The application proposes a priority system for removing irrigated areas out of production
in the following order in period of extreme drought:
1) Golf Course Rough Areas
2) Fairways and Hayfields
3) Tees & Greens
A detailed summary of the priority system is proposed with the irrigation construction plan at the time of
Final Plat submittal. These items should be included as conditions for preliminary plan approval.
Wastewater Reuse
Under the cun'ent water supply plan the reuse of wastewater from plant discharges at the Spring Valley
Sanitation District Treatment Plant are not required. Reuse of wastewater is encouraged in the future to
minimize the quantity -of -groundwater withdrawals.
If you have any questions, we can be reached at 970-625-4933.
CM:cm
Encl
WatRights4.doc
Sincerely,--=
Christcfpher Manera, P.E.
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 2
August 28, 2001
3. The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be
incorporated into the drainage plan. The drainage system through the Spring
Valley Ranch property shall be adequate to prevent damage or potential Toss of
life to structures or people within the subdivision.
4. The need for a debris flow structure at Location 1 E20 should be evaluated. It
appears that a debris flow structure should be located at this detention pond
above the roadway.
5. Due to the importance of proper drainage integrated with geotechnical design
for potential geological hazards, individual lot drainage plan should be designed
by_ -a -registered profession -al engineer.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
1. The plat notes and covenants should indicate that all lots will require a site
specific geological and geotechnical analysis for proper design for geologic
hazards and site soil conditions.
2. A site specific solution for the land slide issues on Lot R68 is not addressed in
the preliminary plan. Based on the field review with CTL Thompson, there is a
high probability that the lot is buildable. However, it is our understanding that
this lot can not receive preliminary plan approval until the specific investigations
are completed to demonstrate a buildable lot. If buildable, the building envelope
should be modified as discussed in the field to move away from the slope. In
addition, positive drainage should be developed for the low lying ponded area
below the road and behind the land slide deposition.
3. The construction of "pioneer" roads through the Ranch lot area has resulted in
manmade rock fall hazard from boulders piled along the side of the road cut.
The boulders need to be removed or stabilized as part of the Phase 1
construction.
4. The pioneer road -through Lot R68 cut the toe of a slope exhibiting hillside creep.
The developer should consider constructing the proposed bench fill road
platform to buttress the slope as part of Phase 1.
WETLANDS
1. There does not appear to be any wetland impacts or wetland permitting for the
project. However, we recommend that wetland areas be clearly marked and
fenced in areas adjacent to construction such as the water tank site, golf
course, bridge crossings, etc.
®'RESOURCE
1513191111
■®a•U U®E N G I IV E E R I N G I N C
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 3
ROADS
August 28, 2001
1. The overall road plan appears adequate for the project. However, there are
several cul-de-sacs in the ranch lot area which exceed the County regulations.
The Applicant has proposed mitigation related to fire protection. The public
safety issues should be resolved and approved by the fire department and
-sheriffLs department:
2. The proposed road improvements on the county roads appear to be.a reasonable
approach for use of the impact fee money. However, the County and the State
must still resolve the issues related to the CMC intersection.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. -
Michael J. Eion, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-1.0
spring valley prelim.885.wpd
Y #.##RESOURCE
I N C.