The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9.0 PC Staff Report 04.23.2008its for Public Hearing - Hunt Ranch Subdivision Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 F Staff Report G Application for Preliminary Plan H Memo from Garfield County Vegetation Management, dated March 3`a, 2008 I Letter from Division of Water Resources, dated February 12th, 2008 J Email from Mark Kadnuck, CDPHE, dated February 29th, 2008 K Memo from RFTA, dated March 314, 2008 L Memo from Eagle County Development Department, dated February 20, 2008 M Email from Colorado State Forest Service, dated February 11th, 2008 N Memo from Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, dated December 6th, 2007 0 Memo from Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission, dated March 4th, 2008 P Email from GarCo Road and Bridge Department, dated March 5th , 2008 Q Memo from Mountain Cross Engineering, GarCo consulting engineer, dated March 3ha, 2008 R Email from Colorado Department of Transportation, dated February 10th, 2008 S Email from JD Sturgill, dated February 16th, 2008 T Response email from Colorado Department of Transportation to JD Sturgill, dated February 17th, 2008 U Email from JD Sturgill, dated February 17th, 2008 V Email from Sylvia Wendrow, dated February 24th, 2008 W Email from Robert Tobias, dated January 26 , 2008 X Email from Roberta McGowan, dated January 20, 2008 Y Email from Caroline Duell, dated February 20, 2008 Z Email from Karen Kean -Hines DVM, dated February 17th, 2008 AA Email from Becky Chase, Dated January 17th, 2008 BB Email from Garfield County Environmental Health Department, dated March 3rd, 2008 CC Memo from the Town of Carbondale, dated DD Email from Mike and Kit Strang, dated March 5th, 2008 EE Email from Susan Cuseo, dated April 2nd, 2008 FF Email from Susan Edmonds, dated March 30th, 2008 GG Email from Tim and Gina Young, dated April 10th, 2008 HH Email from Laura Van Dyne, dated March 17th, 2008 II Hunt Ranch Response Letter, dated April 8th, 2008 JJ Memo from Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc., dated April 1St, 2008 KK Letter from Mark E. Hamilton, Attorney for the Applicant, dated April 11th, 2008 LL Letter from Colorado Geologic Survey, dated April 16th, 2008 MM Email from Jo Johnston, dated March 9th, 2008 PC 04/23/08 CR PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan for the Hunt Ranch Subdivision APPLICANT / OWNER: Hunt Ranch, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: JAM Development, LLC OTAK and DDA Inc. LOCATION: Missouri Heights PROPERTY SIZE• 561.75 acres WATER: Central Water System SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: ISDS CR 102 (Missouri Heights Road) ARRD ARRD / Residential Subdivisions COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Study Area I (Medium Density Residential of 6 to <10 ac/du) I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION A. General Property Location / Description The Hunt Ranch (the Property) contains 561 acres and is generally located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of Carbondale and 3 miles northwest of El Jebel in the Missouri Heights area in east Garfield County. The Property is adjacent to the Eagle County line. In close proximity, there is the Strang Ranch, Panorama Ranches Subdivision, and King's Row Subdivision. The Property consists of rolling topography with approximately 250 -acres of active pasture land with the remaining acreage consisting primarily of juniper / pinyon and sage vegetation. Presently, uses on the Property are agricultural in nature .where 250 acres of the property is devoted to irrigated hay and pasture production during the growing season as well as serving cattle during the winter months. There are three residences and a variety of structures that all serve the ranching operations. B. Proposal The Applicant requests approval from Garfield County to subdivide the subject property into 93 single-family residential lots while devoting the remainder of the Property to active agricultural operations and common open space and trails. II. REFERRAL AGENCIES The Sketch Plan Application was referred to the following agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. a. Town of Basalt: Exhibit 0 b. Town of Carbondale: Exhibit CC c. Eagle County Planning Department: Exhibit L d. Carbondale Fire Protection District: Exhibit M e. RE -1 School District: No Comments Received f. Colorado State Forest Service: Exhibit M g. Colorado Department of Transportation: Exhibit R h. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received i. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit 1 j. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit LL k. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority: Exhibit K 1. County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit BB m. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: Exhibit H n. Garfield County Sheriff Department: No Comment Received o. Mountain Cross Engineering: Exhibit Q p. Garfield County Environmental Health Department: Exhibit BB q. Bureau of Land Management: No Comments Received r. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Exhibit J 2 III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located within Study Area I which designates the property as "Medium Density Residential" on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map which suggests properties in this area develop residentially at a density of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. Having a gross density of 6.03 acres per dwelling unit, the proposed development generally conforms to the Plan's identified density requirement. To ensure compliance with Comprehensive Plan density requirements, the Applicant has represented that Accessory Dwelling Units will not be allowed. Staff suggests requiring this representation be included in the Restricted Covenants and as a plat note. Regarding density, adjacent property owners have expressed concern with the density of the proposed development. The Applicant's proposal (6.03 acres per dwelling unit) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. The data provided demonstrates that the requested gross density of the proposed development is appropriate for the subject property. Consider the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: 2.0 Housing GOALS — 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. Housing at cost of no more than 30% of the gross median income. Designate appropriate areas. Encourage mix of housing types within a development. Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home. Address the challenge of lake of public support. Designate and encourage growth favorable zones adjacent to community limits. STAFF RESPONSE In a letter from Doug Dotson, dated April 8th, 2008 (Hunt Ranch Response Letter) (Exhibit I1) it is stated the Applicant feels it is unreasonable to require every subdivision to meet this standard. The Applicant feels that the location of the proposed subdivision is not an appropriate location for affordable housing. Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan complies with the current land use designation in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. An increase in density from what is contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan is not requested. Therefore, the Applicant is not required to contribute to Garfield County's affordable housing stock. A mix of housing types (two family - dwelling, multi -family dwelling) is not allowed as a use -by -right. However, the Applicant could offer Floor Area Ratio limitations to ensure a mix of housing. 2.1 Housing Objectives To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. STAFF' RESPONSE The Applicant states that the subject property's location is appropriate for integrated affordable housing. It is stated in the Hunt Ranch Response Letter that the Applicant believes affordable housing should be located near municipalities and public transportation facilities. Staff finds that this objective has not been met. 7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES OBJECTIVES 7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water and sewer systems. 7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. 7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES POLICIES 7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval. Staff Response The subject property is encumbered with apparent slope constraints. The Applicant's Soils Report demonstrates adequate soils for placement of an ISDS system. A memo from Sopris Engineering, LLC attached to the Hunt Ranch Response Letter stated that a more detailed slope analysis will be provided to Staff in time for review prior the public hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission. However, Staff has not received said slope analysis. Staff cannot make a finding regarding this issue until adequate data demonstrating that each lot has an area 1 acre or greater for the construction of a single-family dwelling unit. 8.1 (Policies) 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 wetland and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain. Staff Response The subject property is encumbered with slope constraints that appear to exceed 25% on some of the proposed lots. A substantial portion of lots 42, 45, 46, 47 and 72 as demonstrated in Attachment R of the application are encumbered with slope constraints of 30% or greater. The Applicant has utilized a cluster design without requesting the lot increase incentive in order to remain in compliance with the density requirement identified in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Applicant could utilize the cluster design option to reduce the lot size of the proposed lots to one (1) acre. This would allow the Applicant to place a greater number of lots on areas of the subject property that are not encumbered with slopes greater than 25% and still maintain the 4 proposed agricultural open space. Utilizing the cluster option to reduce lots sizes does not require the Applicant to pursue the lot incentive. Staff finds that the proposed development does not comply with §8.1 (Policies) of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the ARRD zone district. A. Proposed Uses The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on 93 lots, which is contemplated as a "use by right" in the A/R/RD zone district and is therefore consistent with the underlying zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Section 3.02 of the Zoning Resolution. However, pages 23-29, Vol. I of the application identify uses allowed on each lot. The Applicant will include language in the Covenants precluding certain uses within the development. All future uses shall be consistent with Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended (or applicable code). B. Common Dimensional Requirements Issues and Concerns ➢ Lot Size / Slope: The Applicant proposes the 561.07 -acre property be subdivided into 93 lots and 3 open space parcels. The size of each proposed lots and parcels meets or exceeds the minimum lot size. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated that each lot has a building area ("building envelope") of at least 1 contiguous acre with slopes less than 40% pursuant to Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning Resolution. Staff cannot make a determination of compliance at this time. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this dimensional requirement. ➢ Building Envelopes: The Applicant proposes building envelopes on all 93 residential lots. The application originally stated that building envelopes would be reduced after construction of the homes on each lot. Staff recommends that the building envelope depicted on the Final Plat be consistent with the minimum required setbacks. V. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following section addresses common subdivision issues. A. Domestic Water The Application states that domestic potable water for the 93 single-family dwellings will be provided by a private central water system. The proposed system design will require approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) prior to the Final Plat approval as it is considered a Community Water System. Documentation of this approval from CDPHE shall be included in the Final Plat Application to the County. Regarding legal water supply, a Water Court Decree (included in the application) granted on October 3151, 2007 has been provided. Staff received a "No Material Injury" letter from Division of Water Resources (Office of the State Engineer) on February 12th, 2008 (Exhibit 1). Included in Restrictive Covenants, are conditions of an agreement with Missouri Heights 5 Well Users Association, which are subject to the Court Decree Case No. 05CW301. The application represents potable water will be monitored at each home and at the main distribution line. Meter records will be available for inspection and a monthly report will be provided to the Missouri Heights Well Users Association. Staff finds that the Applicant has demonstrated a legal source of water to serve the proposed development. Water quality analysis tests submitted were reviewed by Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health Department Manager. In the comments provided it is stated that the tests results were incomplete for the following reason: 1. Well No. 4 was not tested for radionuclide and only one bacteriological sample result was included in the report and it is not denoted which well the sample was taken; The Applicant is required to demonstrate Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approval at the time of Final Plat application. Staff finds that a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant provide Staff with documentation regarding an approved Central Water System at the time of Final Plat application is sufficient. B. Irrigation Water Irrigation water will be provided through central irrigation system owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. An irrigation storage pond is proposed near the domestic water tank and is designed to hold approximately 3.0 acre/feet of storage. Irrigation water will be delivered to each lot via a raw water pump station. As represented 130,000+ gallons of irrigation water will be stored upslope from Lots 80 and 81. Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health Manager has raised a concern regarding possible flooding. The Applicant states that the proposed storage pond will be constructed with a liner to prevent leaks that could have a negative impact on area ISDS. Additionally, the pond will be constructed with an overflow pipe system designed to carry more than the proposed ditch capacity. The overflow will be directed to the existing hay field for use as irrigation. (p, 3 memo from Sopris Engineering, LLC attachment to Hunt Ranch Response Letter) n storage pond wili be constrnst d with a since to prevent seepage into the soil and therefore g any ISDS systems: here is agroposed owe ew pipe system that is designed to carry, an the current ditch capacity and convey t.t down to the hay field for use as irrigation water. An overflow di also be constructed to COM ey an overflost horn the irrigation pend through the roadside ditch systern. is also assumed that all homes will be constructed with a l -root drop in 10 -feet away r"rotn the building as required. C. Waste Disposal The Application proposes that the wastewater generated from the 93 single-family lots will be handled by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) on each lot. The soils characteristics in the area range in suitability for ISDS depending on moderate slopes and shrink -swell characteristics. As stated earlier in this memorandum the subject property is encumbered with slope constraints. The Applicant will need to demonstrate that the all lots have adequate area to install ISDS by providing Staff a detailed slope analysis. Staff cannot make a determination of adequacy with the data provided. 6 The Applicant has provided the following language regarding ISDS management to be included in the Covenants: An !SDS Management Plan will be submitted and included in the CCRs (below, is review): t Igo fin ve (ISDS) — Mire is no central sewer sysiettr aettlaut Fprnat h'cxnek. It shall be the rcrcprutsilrklit lot to construct an Individual Sewage Lliapasal Systam Th1)5' Jn acu rdmrce wuh Cia standards..) tl IJDS"s +rw+ed to he designed kg licensed ens. Tn ilea Starts of C'alararkr per thie.PLA7 Pet-colatiarr teras ant7,rad pmarfde emanations must be dime in aceordrartcc „atilt iaeal regtdatinns prior to cheat designs. Such wttents need to be local& within the building env efrrpae xazu{nrlrst be ar rniraamvun often (11)i,fs all Lot lines. Alt disturbed areas shall het t tegeterted and appron Review Board in aceorclanre u al the Design Review Guidelines. The cost of construction, itraro11a1ian„ mrurnanance and approval shall be the sole responsibility (lithe Owner. Such ISDS shall not he utilized itt a inanxrer as to pollute or threaten to pollute ground or surface waters or to affect or pollute the water supply sysitnz of lois w in the Property. Maintenance anal repair, including periodic pxtriprnq of septic tanks no less d'an every ism (2) win, is required Maintenance shall he perforened'by a licensed contrtntor in the State aff'alorado engaged in the business Di cleaning and maintaining JSDSsystems, Lot Owners- Mal provide as -built drawings (If the LOS to the Association for purposes of future maintenance and notify the Association when septic tanks are pumped Enforcement of these requirements shall be by the Association, as well ars other governmental entities as provided for by lay. ;jibe Assoesanat is required to nu natain any septic tank owned by any individual Lot Owner, such Owner may be eassesrd/nr all expenses. The owner of an individual sewage disposal system shall nogiy the lacai health department an any proposed system modifications prior to making the changes. and shall have the si stern approve 1 once the modifications ore complete. D. Public Access / Internal Road System The proposed internal road system has been designed to meet the standard of a minor collector except the identified shared driveways which have been designed with the minimum Right of Way and the existing "Road G". The proposed roads will be dedicated to the County for public access but owned and maintained by Hunt Ranch Property Owners Association. The Preliminary Plan identifies three shared driveways (depicted on Lots 34- 35, 40 and 44). Garfield County Subdivision Regulations will require that the proposed shared driveways be included as part of the intemal road system and designed to County standards. The following lots will utilize shared driveways 1.) 34/35 2.) 40/41 and 3.) 44/45. The shared driveways located serve lots 40/41 and 44/45 as depicted do not provide fee simple access to lots 41 and 45. The Applicant is proposing to provide a driveway easement to ensure access to said lots. The Applicant has determined that existing "Road G" is a dedicated public right of way that continues to the Eagle County line (Book 36, P. 218). This right of way is depicted on Garfield County road maps as 83 Road. The Preliminary Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall depict this as a public Right -of -Way. The application included a Traffic Analysis completed by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The study finds that the proposed development will generate minimum impacts. Garfield County traffic impact fees will be calculated at the time of Final Plat. The Applicant can expect to pay approximately $267,000. Garfield County applies this fee to the study area which the proposed development is situated. Even though the traffic analysis does not identify required improvements, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department finds that in order to accommodate the proposed development, County Road 102 needs to be engineered and rebuilt to design standards with a minimum of a 22 -foot shoulders and drainage as 7 required, including all culverts as needed and replacement of older culverts to the Eagle County line (Exhibit P). The Applicant is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners enter into a fee reimbursement agreement allocating all impact fees collected from any development along County Road 102 to Hunt Ranch, LLC for a period to be determined. In the Hunt Ranch Response Letter, it is requested that the application be amended as follows: COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE 1. Improvement to CR 102. Road and Bridge suggests that this road should be rebuilt to a 22 foot paved driving surface with two (2) foot gravel shoulders and for drainage improvements only, that culverts which are in disrepair should be replaced. This improvement should take place over the length of CR 102 to the Eagle County line. To address this concern, Hunt Ranch LLC hereby amends its application as follows: a. Hunt Ranch will improve CR 102 from CR 100 to the Eagle County boundary by rotomilling the existing road; paving the road to County standard to 22 feet of drivable surface in its current configuration; providing two (2) foot gravel shoulders to County standard; and replacing those drainage culverts agreed upon by Road and Bridge and the applicant's engineer prior to construction. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering b. Garfield County will allow Hunt Ranch LLC to apply all related impact fees from this project to this improvement. Collection of a portion of the impact at the time of final subdivision approval will not be necessary provided Hunt Ranch LLC has established a suitable subdivision improvement agreement to secure completion of the work. Garfield County and Hunt Ranch ILC will enter into a fee reimbursement agreement. Any impact fees collected from any development along CR 102 will be paid to Hunt Ranch LLC for a period to be agreed upon by the County and Hunt Ranch LLC before final subdivision plat approval occurs. 2. CR 102 Right -of -Way. The applicant already notes that Hunt Ranch LLC will dedicate additional right-of-way to meet County standard. All fences and structures now within Hunt Ranch will be removed from the right-of-way or obtain and encroachment permit from Garfield County. The Board of County Commissioners has required improvements deemed necessary as a direct result of a proposed development to be completed by the Applicant. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission include a recommended condition of approval requiring the Applicant to complete the improvements deemed necessary by Road and Bridge. Staff does not support the proposed reimbursement agreement. At the Board's discretion, the Applicant may be able to receive an impact fee credit for work completed. Staff referred the application to Eagle County for review. Eagle County provided comments concerning the distribution of 65% (as represented in the traffic analysis) of the generated traffic enterings Eagle County. The Applicant's consulting engineer met with Eagle County on April 3r , 2008. Eagle County suggested that an Impact Fee of $500.00 be collected at the time of Building Permit submittal. Should this option be considered by the 8 Board, Staff recommends that the Applicant be responsible for drafting an Intergovernmental Agreement between Garfield and Eagle County to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. (p. 8 Hunt Ranch Response Letter) 6. Road impacts and IGA with Eagle County. Hunt Ranch LLC has met with Eagle County to discuss impacts an a nearby road within Eagle County. Eagle County understands that Garfield County is not obligated to require mitigation of impacts on Eagle County roads. In spited of the representation about the level of impact on Fender Lane in the letter from Eagle County, the impact is less. The main impact of this subdivision is generally to that section of the road between the County line and the numerous lots within Eagle County immediately east of the County boundary (Elk Range Drive andSierra Vista). To the east of this point, Eagle County subdivisions contribute a much larger share of the traffic on Fender Land. To help mitigate the impact from Hun Ranch, Hunt Ranch LLC commits to a payment of $500 at the time of each building permit for a new dwelling unit in Hunt Ranch; provided, however, Eagle County and Garfield County enter Into an IGA that commits this fee to Eagle County for the purpose of improvements to Fender Lane before the building permit is issued. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reviewed the traffic analysis provided by the Applicant. It has determined that the proposed development will increase traffic by 22% at the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82 (Exhibit R). Therefore, a State Highway Access Permit will be required. CDOT will require a level 3 traffic study. The Board routinely requires the Developer to act as the Applicant for CDOT access permits and complete all improvements required. At the time of Preliminary Plan approval the Board may authorize the Applicant to pursue a CDOT access permit on behalf of Garfield County. Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to obtain the access permit and complete all CDOT requirements. E. Fire Protection The property is located in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The property appears to consist of Low, Moderate and High Wildfire Hazard in the Comprehensive Plan that are designations generally based on existing slope and fuel type. The Applicant proposes a central water supply system with hydrants capable of producing a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. All homes will be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Deputy Chief, Bill Gavette has determined that the proposed water supplies meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. At the time of Final Plat the Applicant will be responsible for District impact fees in the amount of $437.00 per dwelling unit ($437.00 x 93units = $40,641.00) (Exhibit N). Rocky Mountain Ecological Services conducted a site-specific wildfire survey on the subject property. The findings and recommendations of this survey have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. In the comments provided by Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District it is represented that the Department is in agreement with the recommendations provided by the Applicants commissioned consultant. The recommendations include defensible space, building design and access recommendations for each of the identified High, Medium and Low Hazard Ratings as identified in 1.2 Figure 2 of the Wildfire Hazard Review. 9 F. Drainage & Floodplain Issues There are no FEMA mapped floodplains on the property. The drainage study provided by the Applicant concludes that no long-term adverse impacts to drainage are anticipated. Roadway culverts are designed to accommodate flows for 25- year storm events. Chris Hale, consulting engineer for Garfield County provided the following comments regarding drainage (Exhibit Q): 15. In the drainage plan the existing Basins 5, 6, & 7 seem to correspond to the proposed Basins of R, S, T, & U but with significantly different flows. The calculations should be verified. Detention or other mitigation may be warranted to avoid downstream impacts. 16. Cul-de-sac for Road D appears to drain onto Lot 16 and then through Lot 17, Lot 18, and Lot 19 before an easement is provided for drainage. Applicants Response to Garfield County Consulting Engineer Comments: e dri w existing Sastns 5, to & anth dif erent ilottis: The eakulatu arraattcd to avoid downstream atop 7 sectn`ta eorrespou Id ge We have deve[n viewed the x editions pmvidi off sit tic detent riot in udy and wtilied silt ca culations Iran t\isting conda'ticros!duc to a: anpenio is au tend develctpni< past -des elop icnt eun`e nun be he proposed f3ssi Runoii"rates for the aumber The curve fisting and developed basin ak runoff rate. We have npacts. The historical flow iu4 R, o pFast» San+eirapixaut tt NA add d then through Lea 17, Lot 18 and Lot 19 ad access , s-walo u.� convey this drainage and hst°e 10 Existing Drainage Map Post Development Drainage Map 11 G. Wildlife The Application contains an analysis of the wildlife found on or near the property completed by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. The analysis considered impacts to Elk, Mule Deer, Black Bear and Harrington penstemon known to have habitat on or adjacent to the subject property. The analysis states that the subject property does not contain habitat for Federally Threatened or Endangered species. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will impact winter range habitat for deer and elk. By clustering homes and preserving large tracts of undeveloped land and adopting strict dog policies, deer and elk will continue to utilize the subject property as habitat. Section three of the Ecological Assessment provides a number of impact mitigation recommendations. It is represented in the application that all applicable recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed development. Staff recommends that as condition of approval the Applicant include the applicable recommendations into the Restrictive Covenants for the proposed development. Harrington's penstemon, a globally rare plant has been mapped on the subject property. There are no regulations regarding the protection of this plant. The Ecological Assessment recommends marking the populations prior to locating building envelopes. The highest concentration of the Harrington's penstemon is found on the southwest portion of the subject property. This area is to remain undeveloped open space. H. Vegetation Management The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments (Exhibit H): Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -The applicant has provided a very general map of county and state listed noxious weeds. In the report, the applicant states that diffuse knapweed, oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, and yellow toadflax are priority species for treatment. However on the map, two of the species -oxeye daisy and yellow toadflax are not shown. On the map only sulphur cinquefoil and diffuse knapweed are indicated. Weeds are shown as either "significant noxious weed infestation areas" or as "multiple weed species ". Staff requests a more detailed inventory that addresses the specific locations of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy, and absinth wormwood. In addition, all county -listed noxious weeds should be mapped according to their general location. To further clarify, instead of listing an area as having "multiple weed species the actual species found within that site should be listed on the map. • Weed Management Staff recommends that oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, yellow toadflax, and diffuse knapweed be treated prior to any construction activities take place. This would help reduce some of the seed spread into future disturbed areas. All four of these are prolific invaders. Sulphur cinquefoil is not a county listed plant, however it is on the state list and most likely the state will be mandating its eradication later this year. Staff requests that the applicant verify that weed management is implemented by providing treatment records prior to June 30, 2008. The county does provide a cost - 12 share program that can assist with weed control expenses. If the applicant is interested, they can contact this office at 625-8601. Please send treatment records to: Garfield County Vegetation Management POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 Revegetation • The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. • The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • 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. Soil Plan • The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: 1. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. 2. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. 3. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Rare plant occurrences • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) has been mapped and inventoried by the applicant. This plant while globally rare has no federal status as a threatened or endangered species. Any preservation of habitat where the plant is found will have to voluntary on the part of the applicant and future lot owners. The applicant's ecological consultant, Eric Petterson, did comment on ways to mitigate direct and indirect impact to Harrington's penstemon habitat. Mr. 13 Petterson suggested that ';flagging or marking of populations prior to locating building envelopes can preserve populations and suitable habitats." Again, such action would have to voluntary, but lot owners may consider this information when determining where to build. Staff Response Staff recommends that the Planning Commission require that the Applicant submit a more detailed inventory that addresses the specific location of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy, absinth wormwood and all county -listed noxious weed as suggested by Garfield County Vegetation Management with the Final Plat Application. Staff is also recommending that a condition of approval be included requiring the treatment of all state and county listed noxious weeds prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. Treatment records shall be provided to Garfield County Vegetation Management at the address provided. Staff also suggests a condition of approval requiring the compliance with the Revegetation Guidelines from the County Weed Management Plan at the time of Final Plat. The submittal shall include the following: A. Plant material list; B. Planting schedule; C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes) quantifying the area disturbed to determine revegetation security; D. Soil Management Plan; (p. 9 Hunt Ranch Response Letter) GARFIELD WEED MANAGEMENT 1. Noxious Weed Inventory, Mapping and Treatment. It was suggested that a detailed survey be provided. It also was suggested that treatment occur "before" submittal of a final plat. In response, the applicant suggests that it is not reasonable to conduct a detailed weed survey until at least May. Therefore, it is not possible to perform such a survey at this time. Further, we do not know when final approval will occur. Therefore, to address this concern, Hunt Ranch LLC commits to undertaking a weed management survey on the property prior to final subdivision plat application. The survey will identify all county and state listed noxious weed locations on theproperty. Following final approval and recordation ofa plat, Hunt Ranch commits to treatment of the identified noxious weed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Treatment records will be provided to Garfield County prior to construction. 2. Revegetation Plan. As requested, Hunt Ranch will provide a renegotiation plan for disturbed areas with the final subdivision plat application to the County. The plan will address the location of disturbances outside of individual lots, a plant material and seed mix list, and schedule, We anticipate that this improvement, In terms of security and compliance, will be addressed in a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the County, 3. Soil Man. Hunt Ranch has indicated that it will, and It Is committed to provide a construction management plan with the Final Subdivision Plat application. The plan will identify provisions for salvaging topsoil, stockpiling such soil, and a schedule and plan for site restoration and removal of excess soil stockpiled an the property. The plan also will address a number of other measures, includ dust control and other measures that are appropriate to minimize the impact of the development on surrounding properties and any homesites within Hunt Ranch. g 4. Harrington's Penstemon. It is correctly noted that the preservation of this plant is not required since It is not a Federally designated species. In spite of this, Hunt Ranch has included the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in its application, Hunt Ranch Is committed to following those recommendations and to the extent possible, preserving this plant on the property. As noted in the Ecological Report provided with the application, the highest concentrations of the plat are located on the southwest side in an area that will not be developed. This area will remain open space and outside of any development area under the current subdivision proposal. On the east side of the project population densities are low. Under current land management practices, cattle grazing in this area will likely eliminate the plant (see page 21 of the Ecological Report). The report proposes specific mitigation measures that will be followed. Additionally, the POA will require that plants on the specific lots identified in the study will be identified and flagged prior to siting a dwelling unit within the development activity envelope. Structures and disturbance will be limited to the extent possible to avoid significant plants and cluster within the envelope. Construction fencing will be required to avoid further disturbance. When possible plants will be salvaged before disturbance occurs and relocated to undisturbed areas nearby. 14 I. Trails / Paths / Parks The Applicant proposes a primitive surfaced single-track trail to run along the outside of the development through the open space parcels for the benefit of the lot owners. The Applicant also proposes a 10 -foot wide asphalt trail / path along the main loop road (Roads A and D) as well as along CR 102 between the two entrances to the project. The proposed single-track trail appears to run through proposed lots. The Applicant will need to legally describe the proposed single-track trail within an easement granted to the Hunt Ranch Property Owner's Association in order to insure that the represented trail is made available. This easement shall be submitted with the Final Plat. The application represents that the proposed asphalt trail will be made available to the public. In order to ensure that the proposed trail is available to the public the Applicant will need to include the trail in the public right of way or establish a new right of way ensuring public access. The Hunt Ranch Property Owner's Association will be responsible for all trail maintenance. At the time of Final Plat, the Applicant will need to provide a detailed cost analysis, sealed by an Engineer licensed by the State of Colorado outlining all proposed public improvements. This cost analysis will be used to determine the required security to ensure all represented public improvements are completed. J. Open Space The application represents the preservation of the historic agricultural aspects of the subject property. The Preliminary Plan identifies this area as Lot I (155.86 acres). It is not clear how the Applicant intends to accomplish this representation. The application first states that the Applicant considered utilizing a local or regional land trust to ensure preservation of the agricultural parcel. It is represented that the Applicant has only attempted to reach an agreement with Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). It has been determined that the proposed agricultural lot does not meet the objectives of AVLT. The application then states that if an agreement with a land trust is not reached other options will be pursued. The Applicant will need to demonstrate the exact method to be used to accomplish this representation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission include a recommended condition of approval requiring the Applicant to place the Agricultural lot into a perpetual conservation easement. The conservation easement is to be included in the Final Plat application. §6.0 of the Garfield Comprehensive Plan of 2000 Agriculture: ISSUES: Issues identified throughout the Comprehensive Plan process related to agricultural uses include the following: • The rollover of agricultural land into more intense uses is accelerating in the County; • Historical agricultural lands are also those lands which present the least development constraints (geology, topography, water availability); • As the rural areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensure compatibility between these uses and active agricultural lends will intensity; A growing number of traditional agricultural lands can be expected to intensify into agricultural businesses, which may affect County land use policies designed for traditional ranching, grazing and crop production. GOAL: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility Iss ues am addressed during project review. Consider the use of Transfer of Development Rights. Join fanners and ranchers together to develop a land use plan far agriculture. Consider land trusts and conservation easements. POLICIES: 6,1 Agricultural land mall 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. 8.2 Densities greater than the underlying zoning will be discouraged if the proposed development would adversely affect the adjacent agricultural operations. 6.3 Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential incompatible uses. 15 The proposed development is preserving historical agricultural land. Staff is recommending that the Applicant be required to place the proposed agricultural lot into a perpetual land conservation easement in order to ensure that the agricultural land/open space remains undeveloped as represented in the application. The Applicants request is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives regarding agriculture identified the Comprehensive Plan. K. Colorado Geological Survey Staff received comments from Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) on April 16th, 2008. The memo from CGS identified the following issues (Exhibit LL): Sinkholes Geologic mapping indicates that sinkholes have developed in nearby areas, but no evidence of such has been found on the site. Though small, there is some risk of sinkholes forming near or beneath residential structures, roads, and utilities. If a sinkhole were to develop very near or under a home, significant damages may occur. Given the severity of such damages, the potential for sinkholes should be evaluated prior to issuance of building permits and framing permits. • A site-specific soils and foundation investigation, for each lot, should be done prior to issuance of building permits. • Prior to approval of foundation construction and/or the issuance of framing permits, a geologist or geotechnical engineer should inspect each foundation excavation for evidence of subsidence in the soil deposits, subsurface voids, or sinkholes. If such conditions are discovered, foundations should be constructed in alternative locations. Regarding Sinkholes, staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the submittal of a site-specific soils and foundation investigation for each lot to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall also include this requirement in the Covenants. Staff also recommends that this requirement be included as a plat not on the Final Plat. Collapsible Soil The site also contains soils that are prone to relatively high consolidation upon wetting and/or loading. The preliminary geotechnical report contains some preliminary recommendations for home construction. However, the report does not contain recommendations related to underground utilities or how drainage facilities or irrigation ditches might impact the development. • The site-specific soils and foundation investigation, for each lot, should include test borings and consolidation testing to address collapsible -soil hazard potential, This report needs to also include be done prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations for the design and construction of floor slabs and on-site pavements, as well as site grading and water -management practices to prevent the introduction of water to the subgrade soils. It is the introduction of water that causes collapse -prone soils to settle • Prior to approval of final construction plans, the geotechnical report should be amended to included mitigation measures for utilities, roads, and drainage structures. Mitigation measures should be incorporated into final construction plans before approval. 16 Regarding collapsible soils, Staff has included a recommended condition of approval regarding CGS comments on this issue. Surface Drainage As outlined above, the site contains geologic hazards and constraints that are aggravated by moisture and improper drainage. The geotechnical report does not address the potential impacts of irrigation or septic systems near homes, utilities, and pavements. This should be addressed before final plans are approved. Regarding surface drainage, Staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the submittal of a geotechnical report addressing the issues of potential impacts of irrigation or septic systems near homes, utilities, and pavements prior to scheduling this item before the Board of County Commissioners. Alluvial Fan Flooding and Debris Flows The geologic map developed by the developer's consultant shows that the site contains several alluvial fans Homes and other structures located near the mouths of drainages may be damaged by sediment -laden runoff and/or large debris. To a large extent, the original lot layout avoided such areas. However, lots have been reconfigured and it appears that Lot 32 straddles a fan; while, parts of building areas within Lots 39 and 48 may encroach onto alluvial fans. This issue should be addressed prior to the approval of the final lot layout. The alluvial fan deposits are also susceptible to collapsible soil. Regarding CGS Alluvial Fan issues, the Applicant will need to demonstrate how they intend to mitigate the identified hazards that appear to encumber lots 32, 39 and 48. The elimination of Lot 39 should be required unless documentation from a qualified professional demonstrating that the identified hazard will not adversely impact the lot. Staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the submittal of documentation demonstrating that the proposed lots are not impacted by the existing alluvial fan prior to scheduling this item before the Board of County Commissioners. Erosion and Sediment Control The site contains steep slopes and clayey and silty soil that, when disturbed, is highly erodible. Once suspended, small clay and silt particles are not effectively removed from runoff using common Best Management Practices, like silt fence and straw wattles. It will be very important that disturbed areas are kept to a minimum and that the storm water management plan focus on erosion control, which prevents the detachment of soil, rather than sediment control, which focuses on removal of soil particles from runoff. Excessive erosion can lead to slope instability. Since the plans have changed since the original geotechnical report was written, it would be prudent for the county to require that the engineer review plat and construction plan for conformance with engineering recommendations before they are approved. Staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the submittal of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that focuses on erosion control that prevents the detachment of soil at the as requested by the CGS. The SWMP shall be included in the Final Plat application. 17 L. Suggested Finding 1) That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 2) That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting; 3) The Application is in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, of 1984, as amended; 4) The Application generally conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000; 5) That for the above stated and other reason, the proposed Preliminary Plan is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; M. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the following conditions: 1) That all representation made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; 2) The Applicant shall provide a detailed Slope Analysis prior to scheduling this item before the Board of County Commissioners; 3) The Applicant shall include an approved Colorado Department of Transportation Access Permit with the Final Plat application; 4) The Applicant shall complete the improvements to County Road 102 identified in exhibit P, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department referral comments, this requirement shall be included as a component of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement; 5) The Applicant shall provide a 30 -foot road easement from the centerline of County Road 102 the length of the subject property; 6) All fences and structures encumbering the new ROW shall be moved back by the Applicant prior to the submittal of the Final Plat application the completion of this shall be included as a component of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement; 7) The Applicant shall include the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services regarding Wildfire Hazard mitigation in the Restrictive Covenants (including but not limited to defensible space, building design and access recommendations); 8) The Applicant shall include the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services regarding wildlife and vegetation in the Restrictive Covenants; 9) The Applicant shall provide documentation regarding Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approval for the proposed Central Water System at the time of Final Plat Application; 10) The Applicant shall be responsible for RE -1 School Impact Fees as identified in §9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984; 11) The Applicant shall include an ISDS Management Plan in the Covenants; 18 12) All existing and proposed easements shall be depicted on the Final Plat; 13) The Applicant shall map and treat all State and County listed noxious weeds on-site and provide documentation of this to the satisfaction of Garfield County Vegetation Management prior to the submittal of the Final Plat Application; 14) The Applicant shall provide a Revegetation Plan consistent with the revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan, adopted on May 7th, 2001at the time of Final Plat A s .lication; 15) The Applicant shall include language regarding the requirement of site-specific soils and foundation investigations required at the time of building permit submittal in the Covenants; 16) Should the Board deem necessary, The Applicant shall be responsible for creating an Intergovermnental Agreement regarding impact fees to be paid to Eagle at the time of Building Permit Submittal to the satisfaction of Garfield County Board of County Commissioners; 17) The Applicant shall provide a geotechnical report addressing the potential impacts of irrigation and septic systems near homes, utilities, and pavements prior to scheduling this item before the Board of County Commissioners; 18) The Applicant shall include a Storm Water Management Plant that focuses on erosion control that prevents the detachment of soil rather than sediment control, which focuses on removal of soils particles from runoff in the Final Plat Application; 19) The Applicant shall provide documentation from a qualified professional regarding the impacts of alluvial fans on Lots 32, 39 and 48 prior to scheduling this item before the Board of County Commissioners; 20) Should the Applicant not be able to demonstrate that Lot 32 can be developed due to the existing alluvial fan that is straddled by the proposed lot is shall be eliminated and include as part of the adjacent agricultural lot; 21) The Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the final plat: a) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. b) No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. c) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. d) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed. e) 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 19 public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. f) All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. g) Based on the analysis of the sub -soils on the property, Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and foundation designs are required to be conducted by a registered professional engineer licensed to practice within the State of Colorado. These studies and plans shall be submitted with individual building permit application for each lot. The cost of these studies shall be bome by the individual property owner. h) All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with Section 9:35 of the Subdivision regulation of 1984, as amended and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision. i) The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s). j) Development with the flood plain is subject to Garfield County Administrative Permitting. k) Accessory Dwelling Units are prohibited within Hunt Ranch Subdivision; 1) A Site-specific soils and foundation investigation shall be submitted with the Building Permit application for each lot within Hunt Ranch Subdivision, the report shall include test borings and consolidation testing to address collapsible -soil hazard potential; 20 MEMORANDUM To: Craig Richardson From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan Date: March 3, 2008 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Plan. My comments are as follows: Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -The applicant has provided a very general map of county and state listed noxious weeds. In the report, the applicant states that diffuse knapweed, oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, and yellow toadflax are priority species for treatment. However on the map, two of the species -oxeye daisy and yellow toadflax are not shown. On the map only sulphur cinquefoil and diffuse knapweed are indicated. Weeds are shown as either "significant noxious weed infestation areas" or as "multiple weed species". Staff requests a more detailed inventory that addresses the specific locations of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy, and absinth wormwood. In addition, all county -listed noxious weeds should be mapped according to their general location. To further clarify, instead of listing an area as having "multiple weed species ", the actual species found within that site should be listed on the map. • Weed Management Staff recommends that oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, yellow toadflax, and diffuse knapweed be treated prior to any construction activities take place. This would help reducesome of the seed spread into future disturbed areas. All four of these are prolific invaders. Sulphur cinquefoil is not a county listed plant, however it is on the state list and most likely the state will be mandating its eradication later this year. Staff requests that the applicant verify that weed management is implemented by providing treatment records prior to June 30, 2008. The county does provide a cost -share program that can assist with weed control expenses. If the applicant is interested they can contact this office at 625-8601. Please send treatment records to: Garfield County Vegetation Management POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 Revegetation Soil Plan • The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. 13. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. • The applicant has not provided a plant material List and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • 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. • 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. Rare plant occurrences • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) has been mapped and inventoried by the applicant. This plant while globally rare has no federal status as a threatened or endangered species. Any preservation of habitat where the plant is found will have to voluntary on the part of the applicant and future lot owners. The applicant's ecological consultant, Eric Petterson, did comment on ways to mitigate direct and indirect impact to Harrington's penstemon habitat. Mr: Petterson suggested that "flagging or marking of populations prior to locating building envelopes can preserve populations and suitable habitats." Again, such action would have to voluntary, but lot owners may consider this information when determining where to build. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES February 12, 2008 Craig Richardson Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Hunt Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan Sections 20 & 21, T7S, R87W, 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director Dear Craig: We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 561 acres into 93 single-family residential lots, two agricultural parcels, and three common area parcels. The domestic water supply is to be provided pursuant to the augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 05CW301 through a new central system which will be supplied by existing and proposed wells and will include a 185,100 gallon storage tank. The proposed development is estimated to require a total of 76.67.acre-feet annually for domestic purposes (in-house use and 500 square feet of lawn irrigation per lot), and raw water diversions for other irrigation and pond evaporation will total 540,9 acre-feet annually. Irrigation water is to be provided by a.raw water system using irrigation water rights in the Missouri Heights Ditch and the Needham Ditch. Sewage disposal is to be provided through individual systems. The augmentation plan decreed in 05CW301 has two sources of replacement water: Basalt Water Conservancy District Contract No. 479 and an on-site recharge pond or pit. The pond will store water delivered to the property from the Needham Ditch and the Missouri Heights - Mountain Meadows Irrigation Company under historical conditions. The pond will have sufficient active capacity to store carry-over water for one full year of depletion replacement, and shall not be used to store irrigated water. Releases from the pond shall only be used for the replacement of depletions pursuant to the decreed augmentation plan. Replacement water shall be discharged through a subsurface pipe to the gravel -lined recharge structure, which shall be constructed to eliminate evaporation. Permit Nos. 66702-F, 66703-F, 66704-F and 66705-F were issued for the Hunt Ranch Well Nos. 3-6, respectively, and are valid per CRS 37-90-137(3)(a)(I)(A) for the proposed uses and amounts. Hunt Ranch Well Nos. 3 and 4 have been constructed. A well test completed by Samuelson Pump Company (Samuelson) indicates that the Hunt Ranch Well No. 3 produced 50 gpm over a 24-hour period on November 21-22, 2005, that the drawdown was 0.60 feet and that 100% recovery occurred within 15 minutes. A well test completed by Samuelson indicates that the Hunt Ranch Well No. 4 also produced 50 gpm over a 24-hour period on November 9-10, 2005, that the drawdown was 10.3 feet and that 99.6% recovery occurred within 30 minutes. With sufficient storage capacity, these wells should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use. Based on the above, and pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), it is our opinion that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights, FEB 1 ;0 2008 Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us Craig Richardson Hunt Ranch and is adequate, so long as 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 Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Sincerely, Page 2 February 12, 2008 Craig M. Lis, '.E Water Resource Engineer CMUCJ LMuntRanchii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 Craig Richardson From: Mark Kadnuck [MAKADNUC@cdphe.state.co.us] Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:28 PM To: Craig Richardson Subject: Hunt Ranch Subdivision comments The Hunt Ranch Subdivision drinking water system will be a public water system and need to go through the state plans review process. Wastewater is proposed to be handled via ISDSs. Location of drinking water supply wells must be considered in locating leach fields to ensure required setbacks are met. Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. CDPHE-WQCD 222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 ph: 970-248-7144 fax: 970-248-7198 email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us 2/29/2008 Regional Bus Rapid Transit Proje March 3, 2008 Subject: RFTA comments on Hunt Ranch development proposal Size: 561 acres, 93 proposed units Due to its remote location on Missouri Heights, RFTA understands that this development will not be directly served by public transportation any time in the near future. Additionally, it seems unlikely that a medium density development with 93 residences would warrant a specific circulator service, without having financial contributions from adjacent developers or property owners. Therefore, RFTA is asking that Hunt Ranch developers contribute funds to assist in upgrading one or both of the nearest park -n -ride facilities, helping to offset a predicted 890 vehicle trips per day. The two nearest park -n - ride facilities are the Catherine Store PNR at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 100 (Catherine Store Rd.) to the SW of Hunt Ranch; and the El Jebel PNR near the intersection of SH 82 and El Jebel Rd. to the SE of Hunt Ranch. The FHU traffic report predicts that a majority of traffic will access Hunt Ranch via El Jebel Rd. and Fender Lane, putting more stress on area roads and potentially adding more demand to our most popular and heavily used park -n -ride facility. RFTA is currently researching an upgrade or relocation of the El Jebel PNR as part of our Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project development process. The Applicant seems sympathetic to improving the regional road network by offering $451,000 to match the county's assessed traffic impact mitigation fees ($267,000) for the purpose of CR 102 improvements. RFTA is suggesting that any leftover funds from this proposed Subdivision Improvement Agreement could be used to fund park -n -ride improvements. Thank you for allowing RFTA to comment and please contact Jason White jwhite@rfta.com with additional questions. Jason White RFTA Assistant Planner jwhite@rfta.com COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (970) 328-8730 FAX: (970) 328-7185 Email: comdev@eaglecounty.us www.eaglecounty.us February 21, 2008 Craig Richardson Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Hunt Ranch Subdivision Dear Craig, Thank you for allowing the Eagle County Community Development Department the opportunity to review this proposal for Hunt Ranch, preliminary plan for subdivision; 93 units on a 561 acre parcel located in Garfield County, adjacent to Eagle County near Missouri Heights. The following are our comments/concerns regarding this proposal: • We support the concept of creating energy efficient, sustainable homes and local agriculture and hope the applicant will pursue green building concepts into the subdivision. • Eagle County's Development Review Team applauds the applicants' efforts in preserving the open spaces of the parcel. We are still, however, concerned the project may be too sprawled; therefore further clustering of home sites is encouraged. One option on achieving this would be to move the lots from the steep areas of the parcel onto the flat areas. FEB 2 8 2008 Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 • A concern also exists regarding affordable, employee housing options. As you know, affordable housing is a critical issue facing our region and as such we strongly encourage that the applicant consider transferring the accessory dwelling unit housing that could have been an component of this project to another location in the Mid -Valley area. As an example, Eagle County would require the following if this subdivision were proposed in unincorporated Eagle County. (This calculation assumes 93 market -rate homes at an average of 2,200 sq. ft.) • 110,169 sq.ft. of "affordable housing" priced at 100% AMI (local only & price appreciation caps at wages); or • 78,692 sq.ft. of "affordable housing" & 31,476 sq.ft. resident occupied housing set at market rate, but for locals only (not price appreciation caps). • A 5,738 sq.ft. credit from the affordable housing requirement if a 1.5% transfer assessment is voluntarily imposed by the developer. Plans for meeting one of the options above must be met subdivision, and construction must be contemporaneous with construction of the market rate housing. The Eagle County Housing Director, Alex Potente, is available to discuss this further and can be reached at 970-328-8685. • Has consideration been given to what are the public benefits? How does the Hunt Ranch subdivision impact daycare needs, school enrollment and other services? • The Team would like the applicant to consider an Inter -Governmental Agreement (IGA) to mitigate traffic impacts to Eagle County roads that will be affected by the Hunt Ranch subdivision. We suggest that Garfield County and Eagle County work collaboratively to address these issues in an IGA or other binding document that accompanies the PUD, that would include, but are not limited to: scope of road and intersection improvements to Fender Land and El Jebel Road; lane widening, shoulder improvements, and asphalt overlay for Fender Lane from the County line to El Jebel Road. We would be happy to meet to discuss the details at a later date. • Specific traffic issues should be considered: o According to the traffic study, 65% of the generating traffic will head east on Garfield CR102 onto Fender Lane. This amounts to approximately 578 trips per day. Recent Eagle County traffic counts for Fender Lane at the County border are around 820 trips per day. This will be a 70% increase in traffic on Fender Lane, that of nearly 1400 trips per day. This is very significant as Fender Lane consists of a narrow paved road that will need substantial improvements. o The increased traffic on El Jebel road as a direct contribution from the Hunt Ranch will be approximately a 6% increase from existing traffic counts (approximately 9700 TPD in 2006). o The Traffic Impact Analysis only recommends an upgrading of CR102 between the two entrances to Hunt Ranch. This analysis does not consider any direct off-site impacts. We suggest that off-site impact also be considered. o The Traffic Analysis indicates that El Jebel/SH82 intersection operates at a LOS F in the morning peak hours. Since 65% is anticipated to use this intersection, this will further the degradation of this intersection Thanks again for allowing us to comment and look forward to future referrals. Sincerely, Lisa de Graaf, Pla Eagle County 970-328-8749 lisa.degraaf@eaglecounty.us Craig Richardson From: Kamie Long [kllong@Iamar.colostate.eduj Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:57 PM To: Craig Richardson Subject: Hunt Ranch, LLC - preliminary plan application review Craig, I have looked over the Hunt Ranch, LLC - preliminary plan application section on wildfire hazard and mitigation. The wildfire analysis done by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc in appendix H is very thorough and well put together. I completely agree with and support the recommendations made for wildfire defensible space and maintenance around proposed home sites on Hunt Ranch. Please let me know if you need any further comments or have any questions, 9(Runie pig Colorado State Forest Service Forester - Grand Junction 970-248-7325 2/11/2008 FIRE • EMS • RESCUE December 6, 2007 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building & Pla 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 g RE: Hunt Ranch, Preliminary Plan Dear Fred: I have had the opportunity to review the preliminary plan proposal for the Hunt Ranch Subdivision. The proposal was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments. Access The proposed access throughout the subdivision appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. Water Supplies for Fire Protection A central water system is proposed for the subdivision capable of producing a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. All new homes are proposed to have automatic fire sprinklers systems installed. The proposed water supply meets the requirements of the IFC. The proposed fire hydrant layout is acceptable. Individual water services for the new homes should be sized to provide adequate water supplies for the residential sprinkler systems and minimized the need for additional booster pumps in the new residences. Wildfire Hazards A Wildfire Hazards Review was conducted by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services Inc. I have read the review and I agree with the recommendations. I did note one typographical error. Item 3 under "High Hazard Rating Areas" should read "150 feet downhill" rather than "1500 feet downhill". Impact Fees The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $437.00 per unit. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 March 4, 2008 Garfield County Building and Planning Department Attn: Craig Richardson 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan . . Dear Mr. Richardson, Thank you for the opportunity to provide referral comments on the Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan Application. The Hunt Ranch is within our three-mile planning area and the Town appreciates the ability to comment on the. development. Comments and issues associated with. the project are noted below: Planning Issues: 1. Supplemental regulations and/or conditions of approval should address restrictions on fencing, wildlife compatibility provisions, and other Applicant representations. Should the covenants be relied upon for enforcement of said provisions and representations, then the County should be identified as a third party beneficiary to the covenants with no amendments to said provisions allowed without the County's approval. 2. The density of the development is suggested to be 1 unit/6-10 acres according to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Town supports additional clustering of home sites and also supports lowering the density to 1 unit/10 acres in this rural area. Accessory dwelling units are not permitted on the single family lots, however, accessory dwelling units could be considered by the County on the ranch house parcels to further address employee housing needs for the ranch: 3. The Town suggests that the interior Lots adjacent to the large agricultural parcel should be eliminated or moved. Creating a single loaded street would havemore of a rural feeling, create less conflict between single family home sites and active ranching facilities, and allow for appropriate fencing to be placed to protect the ranching facilities. 4. The Applicant represents that the development is not subject to the County's affordable housing requirements. The provision of housing options for ranch employees is supported by the Town and should be formalized with deed restrictions or similar provision applicable to the ranch house parcels. 5. More detail regarding the proposedimprovements and timing of development of the three neighborhood parks should be provided. The Town supports the retaining of historical structures within the developmentincluding options for use in conjunction With the neighborhood parks. 101 MIDLAND Ave. • BnsArr, CO 81621 • 970-927-4701 • FAX 910-927-4703 6. Proposed zoning provisions indicate that home occupations will be permitted subject to conditional use approval. A more complete list of permitted home occupations should be developed to inform neighbors and potential buyers about the uses and traffic impacts associated with a lot (Le. landscaping business, construction business, etc...) and what materials could be potentially stored on each lot. 7. The Town supports providing pedestrian connections within the development. The trails outlined for the development including the rural single track and the paved pathways attached to the local streets are nice additions to the neighborhood. Engineering Issues: 1. The level of service at the Highway 82 and El Jebel Road intersection is expected to deteriorate to unacceptable levels within the analysis period of the study (to the year 2025). Thisproject by itself doesn't have a significant impact on traffic volumes and levels of service, but the cumulative impacts of traffic growth from this and other projects within the trafficshed during the analysis period result in deterioration in levels of service at key intersections. If physical improvements at this intersection by this project aren't practical, the Town suggests that additional traffic impact fees be contributed and that a portion of those fees go to Eagle County and/or the Town of Basalt to be used for future improvements at this intersection. 2. The Application proposes use of individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS). The Town supports use of a central sewage disposal system and encourages the County to obtain additional comments from the State Department of Health on the sewage disposal plans. Protection of the domestic water sources for this development and other surrounding properties should be of the highest priority. Should ISDS be allowed by the County, the Town supports requiring all systems to be designed by a professional engineer including enhanced systems and advanced treatment components. Strengthening requirements on maintenance and inspections should also be considered. The proximity of Lot 91 to Well No. 4 should also be further reviewed by the County. The comments above are referral recommendations made to Garfield County. The Town recognizes that Garfield County is responsible for reviewing all of the input on this matter and the Town does not have the jurisdictional authority to make decisions on these issues. If you have questions about the above comments or need clarification, you can contact the Planning Staff at Basalt Town Hall, 970-927-4701. Sincerely, C. Mar.- 5Cf' William C. Maron, Chairman Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Basalt Town Council Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: February 6, 2008 Comments Due: March 3, 200$ Name of application: Hunt Ranch, LLC Sent to: Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staffs contact: Craig Richardson 109 8`" Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to this application with the following comments. 1. All driveway access/es to the sub -division will be permitted by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specific to the driveway/s location. 2. This would include paved aprons and stop sign/s at each entrance to Cr. 102. The stop sign/s and installation would be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Deivices. 3. Cr. 102 would need to be engineered and rebuilt to design standards with a minimum of a 22 -foot driving paved surface with 2 -foot shoulders and drainage as required. This would include all culverts as needed and old ones replaced to the Eagle County line from the Cr. 100 intersection. 4. If a 60 -foot road easement is not already in place a strip of land 30 -foot from the center line of Cr. 102 would be deeded to Garfield County the length of the property bordering Cr. 102. All fences and or structures encumbering the new ROW would be moved back to the new ROW line by the sub -divider at the starting construction of the project. This new ROW would be used to upgrade the existing Cr. 102. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date March 5, 2008 Revised 3/30/00 March 3, 2008 Mr. Craig Richardson Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ® ENGINEERING, INC. RE: Preliminary Plan Application for Hunt Ranch CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN Dear Craig: A review has been performed of the documents for the Preliminary Plan application of Hunt Ranch. The package was found to be well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: 1. Unique road names will need to be selected for the subdivision roads. 2. The emergency access road will need to have some method implemented to prevent the public from general use that is agreeable to the Fire District. 3. Road E proposes a switch back through an 8.0% grade. Alternative grades should be considered to flatten the grades through the curve. At a minimum guardrail should be considered to keep errant vehicles from leaving the roadway. 4. Driveway standards should be included w the CCRs. 5. The water system appears to have adequate supply concerning water rights, wells and an augmentation plan. 6. The water system will be a Community System and will need approvals from the State of Colorado prior to Final Plat 7. The water system design fire flows and storage is based on the buildings having fire sprinkler systems. This requirement should be included in the CCRs. 8. Design of booster pump stations, water storage, and water treatment facilities were not included in the application submittals. Ultimately, design for these will also need to be approved and permitted by the State but at a minimum should be included in the Final Plat. 9. Since pressures from the booster pumps will be providing fire flows a backup power source will be necessary in case of primary power failure. 10. The Applicant proposes two long dead-end water lines. These are prone to significant down times to users during repairs or breaks that can pose hazards to health and safety. The Applicant should consider connection along Road A creating a looped system. 11. The internal pressures at the low end of the system could be higher than 120 psi depending on booster pump settings. Pressure Reduction Valves may be necessary. 12. The preliminary percolation results for ISDS show varied results. The design engineer recommends that ISDS be engineered. The recommended plat note should be included on the plat and in the CCRs. 13: An ISDS Management Plan was not included within the application. This should be developed and included in the CC&Rs. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Hunt Ranch March 3, 2008 Page 2 of 2 14. Many of the residences are proposed in High and Moderate areas for wildfire. The recommendations for mitigation and structures within these areas should be incorporated into the CCrs 15. In the drainage plan the existing Basins 5, 6, & 7 seem to correspond to the proposed Basins of R, S, T, & U but with significantly different flows. The calculations should be verified. Detention or other mitigation may be warranted to avoid downstream impacts. 16. Cul-de-sac for Road D appears to drain onto Lot 16 and then through Lot 17, Lot 18, and Lot 19 before an easement is provided for drainage. 17: NPDES permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity will be necessary. Feel free to call if you have any questions or if any of the above needs further clarification. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. r1 J1I'1 i Ghfis Hale, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 7f Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Hunt Ranch Craig Richardson From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 3:36 PM To: Craig Richardson Subject: Hunt Ranch Craig - I have done a quick look at the comments from the traffic engineer on the trip distribution of the site. Since this site has two ways to get to the site, CR 100 and El Jebel Road. El Jebel Road more than like would not need an access permit since this has over 650 vehicles per hour and the site will only generate less than 100 vph. Therefore, no access permit would be required if all the traffic went to El Jebel Road. Local government and CDOT need to be comfortable with the trip distribution of the site. Typically, the traffic engineer would get buy off on all methodology of the study which includes, trip generation, trip distribution, growth rates, and ect... However, this has not been done, therefore, the local government and CDOT need to buy off on the assumptions. In regards to the trip distribution assumptions, CDOT will rely on the local government to be comfortable with the assumptions. Please provide CDOT with the documentation that Garfield County is ok with the assumptions. In this case, the traffic engineer made the assumptions that only 35% will use CR 100. If this is correct, then existing counts on CR 100 is 129 vph and they are proposing additional 29 vph. When I do the math, I get 22% change in use, therefore, an access permit would be required for CR 100. The other issue is CDOT would require a level 3 traffic study because it is very close in meeting the threshold for a Level 3 (over 100 vph). As the traffic engineer stated in the comments, it is more likely no highway improvements are needed. However, CDOT will make a more through review the traffic study once CDOT receives the access application for CR 100. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th, Suite 100 Grand Junction, Co 81501 970-683-6284 970-683-6290 FAX 3/5/2008 Craig Richardson From: jd sturgill [jd_sw@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 12:35 PM To: brad.higgens@eaglecounty.us; Craig Richardson Subject: Proposed Development of Hunt Ranch on CR 102 Subject: Proposed Hunt Ranch Development To: Daniel.roussin@dot.state.co.us cc: Brad Higgins, Eagle County Road and Bridges cc: C. Richardson, Garfield County Senior Planner This is to provide comments on the traffic impact generated by the proposed development of Hunt Ranch on CR 102, Missouri Heights Road, in Garfield County near Carbondale. I'm currently retired and live in Kings Row Subdivision adjacent to the proposed development. My background is as a traffic engineer with the Ohio Department of Transportation. We're attempting to have a reasonable estimate of the traffic generated by the proposed development and the associated problems. As you know, the egress to the development would be via CR 102, Missouri Heights Road. The shortest connection to SR 83 is via CR 100, Catherine Heights Road. That route is also the shortest connection to SR 83, Carbondale, Paonia, Glenwood, Junction, and even Denver. Unfortunately, CR 100 is a narrow winding road down the mountain and not suited for a large influx of traffic. The other route from the development is west past Kings Row Subdivision, Table Acres subdivision, and through E1 Jebel. that would be the shortest route to Basalt, Aspen, and Independence Pass. The area of E1 Jebel is currently undergoing a large and rapid expansion with significant traffic generators. My concern is that the initial estimates of traffic impacts presented by the developers appeared to be rather casually developed. I respectfully request you give careful consideration to the impacts of this proposed development. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Craig Richardson From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:20 PM To: jd sturgill Cc: Znamenacek, Zane; Craig Richardson Subject: RE: Proposed Hunt Ranch Deavelopment Dear Sir - Thank you for your concern about the proposed development on CR 102. In the State of Colorado, we are governed by the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1). If the development does impact the State Highway intersection volume by more than 20% then CDOT will ask the local government to apply for an access permit. At this time, CDOT has not seen an access application for this development. CDOT did comment on the development thru the County process. CDOT has not received any response from the County on this development. If the proposed development does impact the state system, CDOT will take a through look at the traffic operations. Thanks again for your comments. Dan Roussin R3 CDOT Traffic Original Message From: jd sturgill [mailto:jd_sw@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:57 AM To: Roussin, Daniel Subject: Proposed Hunt Ranch Deavelopment This is to provide comments on the traffic impact generated by the proposed development of Hunt Ranch on CR 102, Missouri Heights Road, in Garfield County near Carbondale. I'm currently retired and live in Kings Row Subdivision adjacent to the proposed development. My background is as a traffic engineer with the Ohio Department of Transportation. We're attempting to have a reasonable estimate of the traffic generated by the proposed development and the associated problems. As you know, the egress to the development would be via CR 102, Missouri Heights Road. The shortest connection to SR 83 is via CR 100, Catherine Heights Road. That route is also the shortest connection to SR 83, Carbondale, Paonia, Glenwood, Junction, and even Denver. Unfortunately, CR 100 is a narrow winding road down the mountain and not suited for a large influx of traffic. The other route from the development is west past Kings Row Subdivision, Table Acres subdivision, and through El Jebel. that would be the shortest route to Basalt, Aspen, and Independence Pass. The area of El Jebel is currently undergoing a large and rapid expansion with significant traffic generators. My concern is that the initial estimates of traffic impacts presented by the developers appeared to be rather casually developed. I respectfully request you give careful consideration to the impacts of this proposed development. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Proposed development of Hunt Ranch on CR 102 Craig Richardson From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:11 AM To: Craig Richardson Subject: FW: Proposed development of Hunt Ranch on CR 102 FYI From: jd sturgill [mailto:jd_sw@yahoo.com] Sent: Sat 2/16/2008 1:06 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Proposed development of Hunt Ranch on CR 102 It would be nice if developers could build without limits or concerns but that is neither the way things are or the way things should be. Garfield County has become to developed to continue that way of thinking. I'm very concemed about a proposed development that is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and presents serious concems regarding compliance with water usage, the safety of local residents due to traffic increases, adverse impacts of nighttime light pollution, as well as the long term implications of unconstrained growth. The infrastructure simply cannot support continuing uncontrolled growth. This letter is to implore the commissioners to consider the neighborhood, the strain on the infrastructure any very large development will place, and the precedent that will be set if the proposed development is permitted to go forward carte blanche. Respectfully, J D Sturgill Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. httmobile.yahoo.com/ vlt=Ahu06i62sR8I �pao8Wcj9tAcJ 2/25/2008 Craig Richardson From: Sylvia Wendrow [sdwjds@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:07 PM To: Craig Richardson; Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Development To: Craig Richardson, Garfield County Senior Planner John Martin, Garfield County Commissioner Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commissioner Larry McGown, Garfield County Commissioner Re: Preliminary Plan Hearing for Hunt Ranch Development As a resident of Kings Row Subdivision, I am mindful of not only, the urbanization of the Roaring Fork valley and your need to consider sustainable development in Garfield County in general, but I am specifically concerned about the Planning Commission's evaulation of the preliminary plan for the Hunt Ranch Development on Missouri Heights on March 12. Missouri Heights residents needs in regard to the Hunt Ranch Development and the protection of our water have been addressed in the Water Court Settlement Agreement, which we hope will be enforced. However, we continue to be very concerned about road safety and traffic on Garfield County Roads 100 and 102, light pollution, compromising of rural environment, wildlife corridors and habitat, fire protection, and most of all housing density. Please do not not accept past standards for subdivison development in our rural area as "appropriate" . Instead, look to current knowledge of best practices in regard to land use and consider what will be sustainable in our area of Missouri Heights. Whatever final Hunt Ranch plan meets with your approval, I hope you will require the developers to prove they have adequate financial backing to prevent another land use debacle and environmental disaster as has occurred in the area on Highway 82 which goes by the current name of Cattle Creek Crossing. Thank you for your consideration. Sylvia Wendrow PO Box 1500 Carbondale CO Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Craig Richardson From: Robert J. Tobias [swift@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:46 AM To: Craig Richardson Cc: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch development proposal - Traffic Concerns Hello Craig, Please forward this email to all members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. As you can see, 1 have copied the County Commissioners. Many of the residents in the vicinity of the Hunt Ranch are concerned with the multitude of impacts of the proposed development. While this email is the subject of traffic, there are many other concerns as well. All the concerns lead back to the matter of density and while you will be hearing plenty from residents in the vicinity, this email will be limited to my sentiments about the traffic. I have reviewed the March 2006 Traffic Study performed by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and its June 2007 update. While I am a novice at deciphering the accuracies and inaccuracies of such a study, the conclusion on page twenty-four of the update is absurd - "No other improvements appear necessary". While this statement may have been made in the context of County requirements in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development or in the context of the intersections of Highway 82 with County Road 100 and Highway 82 and El Jebel Road, the statement must certainly be overlooking County Road 100 and El Jebel Road themselves. Those two roads were clearly not designed or built to handle existing traffic levels, much less the increases posed by the proposed development. Because I am not a regular user of El Jebel Road, I will only speak to County Road 100. But I suspect my statements would also hold true for portions of El Jebel Road. County Road 100's dangerous sections are obvious. The sharp turns near the old dump and the top of that hill have been the scenes of many accidents. Police reports will surely indicate such but the number of accidents that have gone unreported is immense. In the eighteen years of my personal use of that road 1 have witnessed six or more incidents wherein vehicles have either skidded off the road or been involved in multi -vehicle collisions. The addition of ninety-three homes at Hunt Ranch will exacerbate an already bad situation. The construction process, with its many large trucks moving slowly up the hill will be filled with inherent risks that may or may not need to be addressed as a separate matter but 1 urge the County to address these areas of County Road 100 by upgrading them. Whether this should be paid for by the developer or by the County I leave to minds greater than my own but please consider the safety of all in this matter. As to the requirements at the Highway 82 intersections of County Road 100 and El Jebel Road, I urge you to closely examine the study's assumptions and conclusions. This is a matter of public safety. And we all very much aware of the many, high-speed accidents at the intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82. thank you for your consideration, Robert J. Tobias 1/28/2008 Craig Richardson From: Sent: To: Fred Jarman Monday, January 21, 2008 9:35 AM Craig Richardson Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch Here's one for Hunt Ranch From: Tress Houpt Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:53 AM To: Roberta McGowan Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch Thank you for sharing your concems with me. I am forwarding your email to our planning department so that it can be included in our packets. Tresi From: Roberta McGowan[mailto:doublerainbowranch@yahoo.com] Sent: Fri 1/18/2008 10:32 AM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Good morning Traci, I am a 10 year homeowner in Missouri Heights and now live in Kings Row. I am very concerned about the detrimental impact of a huge housing development on the Hunt Ranch. As the developers are presently asking for 93 homes, I think you need to look at the serious impact on the roads - which were not constructed to handle a huge amount of traffic, and with that the safety issues of pedestrians, wildlife, crossing the roads. The developers have not been willing to even discuss compromise with the organized Missouri Heights groups concerned about this project. If they overpaid for the land and are worried about satisfying their investors., that is irrelevant. This land was not created for a massive influx. There are the Blair Ranch you just approved right on Hwy 82. I and my husband and all of my neighbors intend to be at support of our concems Roberta McGowan 227 Kings Row Carbondale CO 81623 www.Equineimages.net Cowgirl Wisdom: She never shook the stars from their appointed places; but she loved good men and rode great horses 1/21/2008 more appropriate areas for large development, as in all meetings. I appreciate your consideration and Craig Richardson From: Carol W. DueII [cwduell@rof.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:06 AM To: Craig Richardson; Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Development Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Senior Planner On March 12th, there will be a hearing about the Hunt Ranch development. The Hunt Ranch is in a semi rural area on the Eastern end of Garfield County, on County Road 102. I say 'semi' because there are some scattered houses in the area. The idea of adding nearly 100 more houses to this specific area would be a travesty because: -The increase in traffic would be extremely dangerous on CR 102 which is used not only by cars and ranch trucks, but also by horse back riders, bikers, runners, and lots of walkers...some with baby strollers. The road is small, has a number of curves and hills, and becomes nearly one lane when there is snow. -The water issue has been addressed, but there is still concern that our wells would be affected by such a huge number of houses. -The area is winter range for elk, year round range for deer. These animals are being squeezed out throughout this end of the county. Please leave this area for their migration from Basalt Mountain into their wintering area. -It has been my impression that the developer(s) know nothing about this area, have no sensitivity for the environment and neighboring properties, and have questionable backgrounds. CAN YOU TRUST THEM? WILL THEY DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE GOING TO DO? -Many areas have been over and poorly developed. PLEASE do not let this one be added to that list. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Carol Caroline W. Duel! 64 Nighthawk Wood Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2541 cwduell@rof.net 2/25/2008 Page 1 of 2 Craig Richardson From: mrszgdoc@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:39 AM To: Craig Richardson; Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch I just want to add my voice to the opposition for the development of Hunt Ranch up on Missouri Heights. The numbers of houses that are being proposed to be developed are way too many - please use some thoughtful judgement and consider downsizing this request!! I have lived across from Hunt Ranch for 7 years now and have lived in the valley for over 20 years; to give you a small amount of perspective as to who I am. I also have to work for a living - I am not one of the many trust fund babies this valley sees... I have some big concerns about the numbers of homes this developer (who I understand doesn't even live here) is proposing. The roads on Missouri Heights are awful. It took months and months for some gnarly holes to be fixed by my house just this past summer. I have almost been hit on several occasions trying to come out of my driveway as people zoom around the blind corner where my driveway sits. I can't imagine the roads, in their current kept condition, supporting the amount of traffic this new development will incur unless the counties are going to step up to the plate and spend money keeping these roads in better condition! With added revenue, will come increased county responsibilities. Is the county ready for this? The "study" that the developers presented about who would be using the El Jebel entrance and the Catherine Store entrance was a bit absurd. Being a veterinarian, I also have grave concerns about the impact of the pets that this number of houses will bring and their roaming at large, interacting with livestock and horses and deer and elk. I already know how poorly the Garfield county has been able to respond to pet issues in the past - my voice was one of several that pushed for the shelter at CARE because of the awful response to "dog at loose" responses. Plus I have my own issues with just one person - a neighbor whose dogs run at large frequently and whose voices keep me up most of the night. So there is no such thing as responsible pet ownership up here. Even pet dogs, if in groups of 3 or more, wil develop pack mentalities and rim down and harm deer, elk, horses, cattle - I know because I have seen this way too often. Who is the county going to send to address this and keep this from happening? Where are those county funds going to come from?? Can the developer guarantee that there will be no dogs running at large (especially when they don't want fencing in their new development?) The water issue has been decided and while I know that will be an issue, that is a nontopic in this note. When I first moved to the area, I had a scary incident - men chasing a screaming woman threatening to shoot and kill her from the adjacent road to actually on my porch, around my house and then on down the road in the middle of the night. I sat cowering next to my bed in the dark for over 45 minutes before the police finally showed up (after making a 911 call). The policeman told me that the forces were spread too thin for the size of the county and were on another call many miles away....So will we have better police coverage (again money from the county)??? 93 homes Why???? Half that number, while still a lot of additional cars, etc. is so much more realistic.... Are you wanting to turn Missouri Heights into a small town? Or allow it to stay the rural area that it is? Isn't the county permitting enough overdevelopment in the valley??? (And by the way, the developer that scraped off all the food that the migrating elk live on and then went bankrupt and left behind that awful mess plus now food hungry elk - next to Sopris restaurant - now that was especially poor planning on the developer and county's parts wasn't it???) Doesn't the county have responsibilities to plan for the best interests of the people who live within that county??? Okay - you have my "two cents" for what it is worth. I do plan to be at the March 12 meeting. Please, please - you all have all the facts which I and my neighbors don't I am sure - so please just be 2/25/2008 Page 2 of 2 responsible in your final decision. Thank you. Karen Kean -Hines DVM More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! 2/25/2008. John Martin From: Becky Chase [bchase@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:24 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: The Proposed Hunt Ranch Subdivision in Missouri Heights Dear Commissioners, Page 1 of 2 My name is Becky Chase. I am writing you with concerns and comments about the Subdivision Application for Hunt Ranch. I live adjacent to the Hunt Ranch, on Kings Row North. Since before the Hunt Ranch property sale was final, I have been actively involved in expressing concerns about the proposed 93 -home development. I attended the neighborhood meetings held by the developers as well as smaller meetings with the developer. From the very beginning my greatest concern has been the proposed density, as density drives all other issues: ground water depletion, traffic and road safety, fire danger, wildlife habitat, light/noise pollution, noxious weed control, and loss of rural environment. At every opportunity, I (and many other neighbors) have told the developers clearly that their density was problematic. While it conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Missouri Heights and is consistent with neighboring Panorama and Kings Row, the time has come to reconsider the medium density standards for new development in this part of Missouri Heights. The condition of our roads, county services available, and the largely unknown status of our long term water supplies demands it. At the sketch plan hearing in May 2006, more than 50 neighboring homeowners showed up to express their concern about density and its impacts on our quality of life. The vast majority of members of the Planning and Zoning Committee attending (6 of 7, I believe) recommended the developer re -think the density. However, density was not reduced in the Preliminary Plan. As a homeowner in the Kings Row Subdivision, I was part of the Statement of Opposition fled against the developers' water augmentation plan in Water Court, Division 5. This group is known as the Missouri Heights Well Users Association (MWHUA). After 2 years and more than $100,000 collected from the "worker bee" neighbors, we reached a settlement agreement regarding the Hunt Ranch water plan. We were not allowed to address density of the proposed subdivision in the water court proceedings. Therefore, we sought to obtain an agreement/water decree that we hope will protect our wells should 93 homes be approved by Garfield County. It's the best we could do. It does not in any way mean we accept the proposed density as appropriate for the Hunt Ranch property. With all the above said, I ask that you pay careful attention to issues of compliance with the water decree/settlement agreement, including monitoring activities, as you review the Hunt Ranch application. The MHWUA needs the county's help to make enforcement of the settlement agreement feasible. We need to protect our substantial investment of time and hard-earned money that won this agreement. It benefits all the surrounding homeowners in this part of Garfield County and therefore, benefits the county itself. We cannot rely solely on protective covenants for Hunt Ranch to protect our water. Some of the specific areas where we need help are the following: 1. A plat note regarding the water decree and its restrictions included on the final plat. 2. Ensure that the Memorandum of Agreement is recorded at the time of final plat. 3. Require all raw water sprinkler heads are coded as purple. 4. Send as -built drawings for the raw water irrigation to the MHWUA for review. 5. Require building permits for each lot to include plans for the landscaping and watering systems that honor the restrictions outlined in the water decree/settlement agreement. These restrictions are: a) no more than 500 square feet can be landscaped and watered with domestic water sources. b) the remaining 9500 square feet of land approved for watering must be landscaped with approved drought resistant/xeriscape plant species and watered only with raw water irrigation. If raw water is not available, then that area cannot be watered at all. 1/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 c) there can be no physical connection between the domestic and the raw water sprinkler systems. 6. Metering of all water usage per lot and for the subdivision's augmentation and irrigation systems. By water decree, the Hunt Ranch recorded HOA covenants must require landscape plans and irrigation systems be pre -approved by the HOA and that stiff fines be levied for violations of the water restrictions. These requirements appear to be included in the Attachment D, Declaration of Protective Covenants. However, the restrictions are not detailed in the covenants but merely referred to. For example, see pages 21 and 22 of Attachment D, #3.25 (c). The restrictions are significant and every lot buyer and builder needs to know them in detail from the very beginning of both the buying process and then the building process. As you know, it is easier to "ask for forgiveness than permission". We want to be assured that the lot owner and builder/landscaper cannot claim ignorance. The details of the water restrictions need to be very prominent to all involved. For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the Summary of Settlement Between Missouri Heights Well Users Association and Hunt Ranch, LLC, prepared by the MHWUA's water attorney, Paul Noto. I realize there are several steps that must be completed before you make a ruling on the proposed subdivision. The above concerns have already been expressed to the project's planner, Craig Richardson. It is important to me that you also have this information right from the beginning of the subdivision approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Becky Chase bchase©sopris.net 1/21/2008 Craig Richardson From: Jim Rada Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:35 PM To: Craig Richardson Subject: Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan Application Attachments: Jim Rada.vcf Hi Craig, I offer the following comments on the referenced Project: 1. If I am reading the preliminary plan map properly, the applicant is planning to seasonally store 130,000+ gallons of irrigation water directly upslope of lots 80 and 81. This could create a safety or flooding issue and could potentially change the hydrology in the area and affect downstream ISDS. I recommend that the applicant be required to evaluate the impacts of this impoundment on hydrology in the area and to demonstrate that the impoundment of this water will not create safety or flooding hazards. 2. Water quality tests submitted at this time indicate that the water quality is probably good. However, the test results submitted with the proposal do not appear to be complete: a. Well No. 4 was not tested for radionuclides and there is only one bacteriological sample result included in the report that does not denote which well it is for. b. The gross alpha levels in the well #3 analysis are encroaching upon, but not exceeding the maximum levels. I will raise that issue with CDPHE in the future. I will likely review the total water system design report at some time in the future as part of the CDPHE review process. I assume complete analyses will be submitted for that review. Thanks for the opportunity to review this application. 1'11 look forward to reviewing further applications as the process continues. Jim Rada, K1Th c5 Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5200 x8113 Cell 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email jrada@garfield-county.com Web www.g_arfe d-county.com 3/6/2008. TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 March 24, 2008 Craig Richardson Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 81th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Hunt Ranch Subdivision Dear Craig: Thank you -for allowing the opportunity for the Town of Carbondale to review the Preliminary Plan Application for Hunt Ranch. I reviewed the application in early February and found there would be no significant impacts on Carbondale. I then sent it on to Public Works for their review and comment. The Public. Works Director noted a concern regarding the additional discharges of 90+ septic systems into the Missouri Heights Aquifer but recognized that was under the purview of Garfield County. In late February, I forwarded the application to the Utilities Director. The Utilities Director noted the same concern as the Public Works Director but expressed no other concerns Again, thank you for sending the referral. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Janet Buck Planner (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 Craig Richardson From: strang ranch [mkstrang@earthlink.netj Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:25 AM To: Craig Richardson; Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch development T0: GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: LARRY MCCOWN JOHN MARTIN TRESI HOUPT GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNER: CRAIG RICHARDSON FROM: MIKE AND KIT STRANG RE: HUNT RANCH DEVELOPMENT DATE: MARCH 5, 2008 As you may know, we have placed conservation easements on our 460 acre ranch adjacent to the Hunt Ranch. We did this in an effort to preserve the rural and agricultural nature of this area. We feel that the development of 92 homes is out of character and would be a huge mistake for many reasons. The issue of water and recharging aquifers has been addressed, but it is not going to go away. We live in an arid climate (this winter notwithstanding!). More people use more water and there is a finite amount of it. Concerns of increased traffic, dust, congestion, fire control, safety, noise, crime, quality of rural life, wildlife managemnt have all been voiced and could be answered more efficiently if housing were to be developed within population centers. Urban sprawl is unsightly, ineffecient and unnecessary. We recognize the difficulty of farming in the Roaring Fork Valley in this century. However, by making some changes, we're still at it and would like to continue using our land for agriculture, raising livestock and providing a bit of open space for wildlife. We appreciate the gesture of the developers in leaving the acreage that adjoins our irrigated meadow in open space along with the plan to pasture some cattle, but find the scale of the development very insensitive and counter to the agricultural heritage of this portion of Missouri Heights. We hope that you will defeat this pain and encourage a better solution with much less density and a far softer impact on the environment. We thank you for your service to Garfield County and attention to our concerns with this matter. Craig Richardson From: qzo@sopris.net Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:52 AM To: Craig Richardson Dear Craig Richardson, This letter is to express my opinions regarding the proposed Hunt Ranch subdivision in Missouri Heights. I am a longtime resident of a neighboring subdivision and strongly object to the proposal in its entirety. The elements of increased traffic, noise pollution and light pollution are all loathe to me, my family and neighbors. Those elements represent danger, intrusion, inconvenience and potential loss of our own property values and are in my opinion, unacceptable. I firmly believe the largest threat posed by potential Hunt Ranch development regards our area's water resources. After looking at this situation for over two years, my observation is that the science and resulting `facts' resulting from studies ordered by both the potential developer and the residents are not at all convincing. The most important fact is that water resources are finite and to allow development that will endanger continuing fulfillment of the most basic needs of our immediate area's current residents is unacceptable. It's been made clear that no one can predict accurately how much water can be pumped out of our underlying aquifer without depletion. While serving on our neighborhood's board for several years, I was absolutely dumbstruck to learn how many residents viewed our water resources as infinite, how many people had no idea that a. well could run dry, a spring stop running or an irrigation source cease to exist. Is this the same misconception held by the developers? Or do they hide in the shortsighted view of someone planning in advance to sell and then run, leaving the potential Hunt Ranch residents and all their previously settled neighbors literally, "high and dry"? I firmly believe that it is your responsibility to protect those of us that are already residents of the area and not open the gate to destruction of existing neighborhoods due to loss of our basic resource, water. Somewhere in time and space we will be drawing a line to limit paving over paradise, preventing the loss of the resources that lured long time residents here however long ago. How about drawing that line here and now? I am encouraging you to think out of the box drawn around us by the fallacy of the growth economy and infinite resources. My contention is that property rights are not infinite, not a line we continue to move forward in response to development potential (greed) but a line we draw for those already in place as well. Please do not let the Hunt Ranch subdivision proceed any further. Very Sincerely, Susan Cuseo 226 Kings Row Carbondale CO 4/2/2008 Craig Richardson From: Susan Edmonds [sedmonds@sopris.net] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:29 PM To: Tresi Houpt; Larry McCown; John Martin; Daniel.roussin@dot.state.co.us; Craig Richardson Subject: Hunt Ranch LLC I have been a resident of Missouri Heights for 25 years, and during that time have witnessed a great deal of growth and development, but this is the first time that I have raised my voice in protest. The 93 homes proposed by the Hunt Ranch subdivision is far too large for this area, and will adversely effect the quality of life and safety in this area. While the developers argue that the relative density is similar to the surrounding subdivisions of Panorama Ranches and Kings Row, their argument is spurious in that it is not relative density but absolute number of homes that will impact our quality of life. For any of you who are not familiar with the area, virtually all of the traffic to and from the proposed Hunt Ranch subdivision will have to go up and down the El Jebel road, and the Catherine Store road. Both of these roads are steep and winding with no passing lanes or pullouts. The heavy trucks that will haul excavation vehicles, gravel, piping, concrete etc. will travel up and down these roads at a VERY slow speed. The developer's traffic study should estimate for us the number of such truck trips involved in the build out of the infrastructure and the proposed 93 homes. I would also like to see a study of the approximate time each such trip will take, and how much greater that time is than a vehicle traveling at the speed limit. The impact that this Targe number of slow moving vehicles will have on existing residents of the area is enormous. It is a virtual certainty, that some drivers will attempt to pass these vehicles,creating a safety hazard for themselves and others. How many head-on collisions will it take before it becomes obvious that the existing roads are inadequate for a development of this size? I urge you to listen to the protests of your constituents concerning the proposed Hunt Ranch development. We are not against the kind of responsible development that has occurred at the Stirling Ranch and the Ranch at Coulter Creek. We do however vehemently object to an out-of-town developer attempting to destroy our quality of life for profit. While the developers claim to have solicited community input, they clearly have not listened. At every meeting they have held, local residents have objected to the number of proposed homes. But from the first meeting to the present, Hunt Ranch LLC has not reduced their proposed number of units by even a single house. A development of this size has no place on Missouri Heights. Sincerely, Susan Edmonds 3/31/2008 • Craig Richardson From: Gina Young [gyoungski@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:09 PM To: Craig Richardson We would like to go on record with all board members objecting to the proposed Hunt Ranch Development. We are 15 yr residents of Missouri fights. , in Eagle County. The size, scale and density of this plan is NOT even close to being APPROPRIATE for this RURAL area. Our objections are based on the impact this development will have to the FINITE water supply. The lack of an adequate Fire Protection Services. The impact it will have on all the roads off Hwy 82 up to the area. The lack of Police presence and protection that we have currently could not possibly meet those future needs, and thus greatly impacting the safety and well being of the CURRENT residents. Please make the correct decision to preserve the rural way of life here This is not an appropriate use of the land. Sincerely, Tim and Gina Young 235 Sierra Vista Dr Carbondale, CO 81623 Craig Richardson From: Laura Van Dyne [Lvandyne@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:11 AM To: Craig Richardson Subject: Hunt Ranch PUD Attachments: HUNT RANCH.doc HUNT RANCH.do6 (29 KB) Laura Van Dyne 6283 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-3745 17 March 2008 To: Garfield County Planning Commissioners C/o Craig Richardson Re: Hunt Ranch Concern I am writing to state my opinion of the Hunt Ranch PUD. I live about 2 miles from the property and feel that this is not appropriate land use for this neighborhood. The Missouri Heights area, at least in Garfield County, still is a rural area where livestock and wildlife reside alongside the homes of people who enjoy this lifestyle. feel that this area should maintain its rural residential/agricultural mix. The infrastructure of this area can not support this scale of development. Traffic will be severely affected as these roads are rural, chip and seal, and dangerous in the winter. The idea of hundreds of additional vehicle trips per day on roads that have not been improved is not my idea of good planning. Ranchers still move herds of cattle on these roads. Light pollution is already a problem in the area and the addition of almost 100 home sites will only contribute to that degradation. 1 I understand that the water restrictions have been "beefed up" but this scale of development will have an adverse effect on our sensitive aquifer. This density of home sites belongs in and near towns where the lifestyle and infrastructure are compatible. Please deny this application. Thank you. Laura Van Dyne Laura Van Dyne, CPDT The Canine Consultant LLC Professional Member Association of Pet Dogs Trainers #1319 Secretary APDT Board of Directors Delta Society Licensed Evaluator # 36280 -TE AKC CGC Evaluator # 130 6283 County Road 100 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970) 963-3745 April 8, 2008 Craig Richardson County Planner Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Craig: We have received the agency comments that you forwarded to me. We reviewed those comments carefully and provide the following in response. Our responses intend to address all of the Staff and agency review comments. Please consider this information an addendum to the application material submitted previously for Hunt Ranch. Craig, I hope that you will find these responses acceptable. We look forward to completing the review of our application with you. If you require additional information please let me know and we will provide it to you immediately. Sincerely, Doug Dotson Attachments: Sopris Engineering - April 10, 2008 with maps Rocky Mountain Ecological Services — April 1, 2008 Holland and Hart — April 11, 2008 M. Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Restriction on Accessory Dwelling Units. We propose to prohibit ADUs within Hunt Ranch. The staff recommends that this requirement be set forth as a note on the final subdivision plat and in the restrictive covenants for the project. Hunt Ranch LLC agrees with this provision and it will be included on the final subdivision plat and in the Hunt Ranch Property Owners Association Declaration of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (Declaration). 2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy The County housing goal (2.0 Housing) generally suggests that within Garfield County there should be "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." County policies clarify this general statement as follows: a. Adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost b. Construction of quality housing c. Compatibility with existing and future adjacent development d. Energy efficiency e. Respect the natural environment It is our understanding that this statement does not require "all types of housing in all locations;" but rather that there should be all types of housing provided at appropriate locations within the County. For example, the Comprehensive Plan goal notes that while housing costs at no more than 30% of the gross median income are appropriate and deed restrictions might be appropriate to address increases in prices, it would be unreasonable to expect that every dwelling unit or subdivision in the County should meet this requirement. To support this point, this goal further states that "appropriate areas" should be designated for such housing. Housing Policy 2.1, goes on to state that the County through development regulations should provide for low and moderate -income housing types by allowing for mixed multiple - family and single-family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County. County regulations (Section 5.9) do require the provision of "affordable housing" in instances when a re- zone is proposed that will result in an increase in residential zoning density in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Study Area I. This application does not propose an increase in density. Therefore, this provision of the County's regulations does not apply to this application. Still, County Housing Policy 2.1 suggests that affordable housing should be provided in appropriate areas in the County. The Comprehensive Plan is generally silent on the definition of "appropriate? Hunt Ranch is a rural residential subdivision and is not an "appropriate" location for "affordable housing" under the defined goal of providing housing that costs "no more than 30% of the gross median income". The concept of the Hunt Ranch is based on preserving a large tract of open space and agricultural land. Appropriate areas for lower priced housing might be near existing municipal services, work locations, highway and mass transit facilities and services, where appropriate levels of density and affordability might be achieved. The focus of such development would be to provide safe and equitable housing opportunities that are compatible with existing and future adjacent development. The fact Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 that affordable housing was not a requirement in the nearby Callicotte Ranch subdivision nearby, which received it preliminary plan approval from the County in February 2004, suggests that such a housing requirement in the more rural subdivision setting is may not be appropriate. Callicotte Ranch Tots range from 2 to 9 acres per lot, with prices ranging from $450,000 to $750,000 Accessory Dwelling Units are prohibited. Finally, the inclusion of a variety of housing opportunities was not an issue in the Callicotte Ranch approval. Although the Hunt Ranch, like every other subdivision in the area, will be all single family homes, we believe that there is a greater variety of reasonably prices housing opportunities in Hunt Ranch based on the wide range of projected lot prices that will be available. ADUs, which provide an affordable type of housing, are a special use. However, from the first of the many public meetings which were held to get responses to the development plan from neighbors, we determined that there was substantial resistance to the inclusion of ADUs. Hunt Ranch LLC committed to not propose ADUs for this reason. Our research also indicates that, even though ADUs are possible in other Missouri Heights neighborhoods, very few exist. Finally, in an effort to reduce lot size to the extent possible to preserve open space and the agricultural land, our lot sizes now below the size required for an ADU and, therefore, this housing option is not possible. On Lot 1, Hunt Ranch LLC will limit the maximum dwelling unit size (livable space) to 3,500 square feet. In this case, the Property Owners Association will retain ownership of Lot 1. Occupancy of a dwelling on this lot will be for the use of the Agricultural Operator only so long as the Agricultural Operation continues. In effect, this Local Resident Occupancy restriction will help to ensure the continuation of the Agricultural Operation. Should the Agricultural Operation cease, the Local Resident Occupancy restriction would be released. However, the 3,500 square foot dwelling limitation would remain. This restriction will be set forth as a note on the final subdivision plat and in the Declaration. In addition to this stipulation for Lot 1, Hunt Ranch includes a range of housing opportunities throughout the subdivision. Hunt Ranch LLC is developing a subdivision to create lots for resale to prospective. homebuilders and buyers. The Applicant will be completing the entire infrastructure but will not build homes within the subdivision. A strong factor in creating a variety of home sizes within any given residential subdivision is the price of the lots. A buyer who has a defined limit to his or her expenditure for a home will likely purchase the least expensive lot that allows the purchaser to build an adequately sized home to meet the buyer's needs while staying within a budget. A buyer with a more restrained budget will likely construct a smaller house. Second homeowners tend to have larger budgets and typically construct larger homes. As long as a variety of lot prices exists within a development, there will most likely be a variety of home sizes built on these lots. While Hunt Ranch LLC will not establish its final lot prices until Garfield County approvals are obtained and infrastructure costs are finalized, lot prices will range from a low of $250,000 to a high of $750,000. At least ten lots will be priced between $250,000 and $300,000. No other recently approved subdivision in Missouri Heights has offered such a variety in lot pricing. For example, the Multiple Listing Service currently list lot prices in Callicotte Ranch from $450,000 to $750,000. The lowest price lot in this area is $325,000, of which the MLS indicates that there is only one available. Local buyers will likely seek out lots in the $250-450,000 range in Hunt Ranch. Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 In the past, many of our neighbors voiced their opinion that they do not want less expensive, small houses, as this product type might reduce the value of their properties. We understand and respect their desire. While Hunt Ranch provides a range of lot prices, Hunt Ranch LLC has not established a minimum home size in Hunt Ranch. This also will help to promote a range of housing opportunities. We believe that to the extent that, a lot purchaser builds a smaller home within Hunt Ranch, it will have to comply with all requirements of the Declaration. To the extent that such a home size has any impact on home values in this neighborhood, it will be limited to those constructed within Hunt Ranch. Another way to meet the County Housing goal might be to include a range of lot sizes in the subdivision. Most of the nearby subdivisions include lots greater than two acres. This also is the case in Callicotte Ranch. Based on that approach, a lot price differentiation of $450, 000 to $750,000 resulted in Callicotte Ranch. While Hunt Ranch LLC could provide larger lots, we believe that approach conflicts with another important County objective, which is to cluster development to promote the preservation of agricultural operations, an important aspect of the Hunt Ranch subdivision proposal. We believe that the approach to sizing lots and lot prices in Hunt Ranch, while maximizing open space and retaining the agricultural operation is more consistent with all County's goals and policies. Given what we believe is a development approach that best meets the County's goals, Hunt Ranch will have a lot price differentiation of $250,000 to about $750,000. Beyond this, providing a wider variety of housing types in Hunt Ranch (i.e., duplex and multiple -family dwellings) is not consistent with the requirements and standards of the A/R/RD zone district. Single- family dwellings are the only permitted housing type. in this zone district. The County can only consider duplex units, which are a special use under Section 3.02 of the County zoning regulations, once subdivision approval occurs. Multiple family dwellings are prohibited. Moreover, the minimum lot size in the A/R/RD zone district is two acres. All of the lots in Hunt Ranch will two acres or slightly greater. Hunt Ranch LLC recognizes that there is a development option available that allows for a reduction in the minimum lot size to one (1) acre, provided that the number of allowable lots and consideration of "additional incentive lots" is based on a density configuration derived from the maximum number of lots allowable under two (2) acre zoning. The number of lots allowable under current zoning and lot size requirements after all required amenities, consideration of easements, setbacks, other requirements, and constraints defined by regulation have been met. In past discussions with the Planning Director, we believe that this option would allow Hunt Ranch to exceed the number of lots now proposed given the amount of open space that Hunt Ranch intends to preserve. However, it is the applicant's position that such an approach is generally inconsistent with the adjacent uses and contrary to the desires of the neighborhood. One -acre lots do not exist in this area. Further, no other recent subdivision in this area has been required, or chosen, to reduce the size of lots to less than one acre to demonstrate compliance with the County's Housing policies or to take advantage of increased density opportunities. We have addressed other aspects of the County's Housing goal and policies in the application. All homes in the subdivision must comply with quality construction standards and building codes. Hunt Ranch includes higher standards for site and energy efficiencies than are required by County regulations. The site plan is designed specifically to respect the terrain and natural environment, while protecting Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 significant open space and the existing agricultural operation. We also have demonstrated that the location of development on this property and densities are sensitive to and consistent with adiacent development. Studies that we have commissioned by respected consultants in their field do not identify any impacts that we have not addressed. Our plan is progressive and produces many benefits that do not occur in other subdivisions in the Missouri Heights area, including a variety of housing opportunities. 3. Slope Constraints and ISDS Each lot will have an area of one acre or more for constructing a single-family dwelling and ISDS system, including and area for a backup system. See attached material from Sopris Engineering. 4. Slopes on Lots 42, 45, 46, 47 and 72 See attached material from Sopris Engineering. 5. Proposed Uses The Staff notes that the application identifies uses allowed on the various lots with the proposed subdivision. All uses allowed in Hunt Ranch shall comply with Section 3.02 of the Zoning Resolution, which sets forth "uses by right", "special use", and "conditional use," in Hunt Ranch, with the exception of ADUs, which will be prohibited. The ADU prohibition will be provided as a plat note and in the Declaration. Hunt Ranch, at its discretion, may further limit or even prohibit in the Declaration certain ,' uses identified in Section 3.02. 6. Building Envelopes The Staff is concerned about the method of reducing the size of building envelopes / development activity envelope identified on the final subdivision plat. In response to the Staffs comment, all envelopes will be about one acre and as shown on the preliminary plan. We will record these envelopes with the final subdivision plat. For simplicity, Hunt Ranch LLC will not reduce the size of these' envelopes as originally suggested in the application. Further, this will help to ensure that there is ample room for a back up ISDS location on the lot. 7. Domestic Water System The Applicant will demonstrate approval of the domestic potable water system by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment prior to final plat approval. 8. Water System The test results questioned by Jim Rada were for well 3 and for total coliform and it was absent from the source. With respect to the gross alpha levels in well 3, Tom Zancanella, (the water engineer for the project), notes that, based on Hazen research and acceptable methodology, conservatively accounting for the test's ± 4 accuracy, there is an upper end value of 8.5, which is still well below the maximum acceptable •Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 level. Therefore, there is no apparent risk. Tom Zancanella will contact Jim Rada directly and review this matter with him. According to Tom Zancanella, the extent of the water quality data provided is of a sufficient level to demonstrate that it was reasonable to expect that Hunt Ranch LLC can develop a potable water supply as proposed. The water quality testing is expensive and date sensitive relative to Colorado Department of Public Health and environment submittal requirements. Therefore, the material provided to the County is sufficient for preliminary plan review. Full testing for CDPHE requirements will take place between preliminary and final plat, when a complete system and capacity review submittal to the CDPHE will be required. The applicant will demonstrate approval by CDPHE with the final plat. As Mr. Rada points out, he will see all of the information before final plat approval occurs. 9. Wastewater Disposal See attached material from Sopris Engineering. Additionally, as noted above, Hunt Ranch LLC will not reduce the size of the building / development activity envelopes to less than one acre as originally suggested in the application. This will help to ensure that there is ample room for a backup ISDS location on the lot. 10. ISDS Management Plan See attached material from Sopris Engineering. 11. Road Road G on the proposed preliminary plan map is now a dedicated 30 -foot public right-of-way, which goes to the County boundary. It is identified in Book 36, at Page 218. To be accurate, we will specifically show the location and re -label with the proper County road name (County Road 83) on the preliminary plan map approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 12. Shared Driveways The Staff comment notes that the proposed shared driveways must be considered part of the internal road and will need to connect through to each lot served by the shared driveway. Three shared driveways are proposed. The will serve: 1) Lots 34 and 35; 2) Lots 40 and 41; and 3) Lots 44 and 45. In the case of the latter two shared driveways, the public road stops short of the adjacent lot so that further subdivision of the lot will not occur. As noted in the application, a driveway easement will be provided for the adjacent lot to ensure access. We have discussed this arrangement with the Planning Director and County Attorney and we have been told that this is an acceptable arrangement. 13. Wetlands There are no jurisdictional wetlands on the property. See attached letter from Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. •Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 14. Harrington's Penstemon As noted in the Ecological Report provided with the application, the highest concentrations of the plant' are located on the southwest side of the project in an area that will not be developed. This area will remain open space and outside of any development area under the current subdivision proposal. On the east side of the project, population densities are low. Under current land management practices, cattle grazing in this area will likely eliminate the plant (see page 21 of the Ecological Report). The report proposes specific mitigation measures that will be followed. Additionally, the Design Guidelines included in required under the Declaration will require that plants on the specific lots identified in the study will be identified and flagged prior to siting a dwelling unit within the development activity envelope. Structures and disturbance will be limited to the extent possible to avoid significant plants and cluster within the envelope. Construction fencing will be required to avoid further disturbance. When possible, plants will be salvaged before disturbance occurs and relocated to undisturbed areas nearby. 15. Open Space Preservation To clarify the proposal, the Applicant commits to placing a deed restriction on the Lot 1, Parcel A, and Parcel 8, restricting their use to those land uses specifically set forth in the application (e.g., open space, trails, agriculture, and water treatment facility). Agriculture and related housing and support buildings will be allowed on Lot 1 as stipulated in the application. A specific deed restriction will be provided with the final subdivision plat application. This use restriction also will be noted on the final subdivision plat and in the Declaration. The applicant will strengthen the Declaration to the extent possible to minimum the ability of Hunt Ranch property owners to change the status of this area. With this approach, the has made other commitments regarding continued irrigation of the property, a long-term lease arrangement to continue the agricultural operation, weed management, and other noted in the application. (See Holland and Hart letter dated April 11, 2008 for additional information). Hunt ranch believes that these commitments will result in the preservation of significant open space and agricultural opportunities. Finally, to allow any other residential development on this open space will require further County subdivision approval, which the Applicant believes would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulation. We recognize that in our application we have discussed the possibility of a conservation easement on the property for preserving open space and the agricultural use. The Staff Noted that we need to make a final determination regarding the status of the represented perpetual Agricultural Easement on Lot 1 before the Staff can move the application forward with a positive recommendation. The above clarification should resolve this question. Since the Comprehensive Plan encourages, but does not require, conservation easements, we believe that this proposal is be consistent with all of the related policies of the Comprehensive Plan. We understand that the County, as noted above, wants to encourage conservation easements to preserve agricultural operations. Hunt Ranch LLC is committed to working with local conservation groups to place a suitable conservation easement on the open space following approval of the preliminary subdivision plat. Following preliminary plan approval, we will work to determine the feasibility of providing a conservation easement on the property. If this does not occur, the restrictions Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 and commitments noted above remain to protect the open space and the foster the continuation of the agricultural use. EAGLE COUNTY 1. Energy efficiency— no response required. 2. Relocate homesites from the hillside to the flat portions of the site. It is our contention that this recommendation is contrary to the policies of Garfield County. The portion of the site that the Town refers to is the agricultural portion of the property. One of the primary policies of Garfield County is the preservation of agricultural lands and operations in the county. There is an active agricultural operation on this property today. It uses that portion of the property that Eagle County suggests for development. Moreover, it is important that the irrigated meadows remain. This is not only a requirement of the Water Decree but it also important to the preservation of the water resources. 3. Further clustering. This will require a reduction in lot size. We are currently at the minimum lot size permissible under the A/R/RD zone district. Homesites have been clustered to the extent possible given the physical nature of the land, the desire to retain the agricultural operation, and the necessity to comply with Garfield County zoning. In addition, the clustering of the home sites is a result of comments from many of the interested neighbors. 4. We certainly understand and appreciate Eagle County's affordable housing requirements. However, they do not apply in this instance. The proposal for Hunt Ranch meets Garfield County's development regulations. We have provided a housing opportunity that we believe is crucial for maintaining the agricultural operation on the property. 5. Public Benefits. The Hunt Ranch has complied with the requirements of the Garfield County zoning regulations and, as proposed, is consistent with the policies of the County Comprehensive Plan. There are many public benefits that are already incorporated into the proposed development plan, including but not limited to development clustering, preservation of open space and agricultural operation, public trail, and significant improvements to County Road 102 beyond levels typically required of most developments. Moreover, Eagle County's development regulations do not apply in this instance. 6. Road impacts and IGA with Eagle County. Hunt Ranch LLC has met with Eagle County to discuss impacts on a nearby road within Eagle County. Eagle County understands that Garfield County is not obligated to require mitigation of impacts on Eagle County roads. In spited of the representation about the level of impact on Fender Lane in the letter from Eagle County, the impact is less. The main impact of this subdivision is generally to that section of the road between the County line and the numerous lots within Eagle County immediately east of the County boundary (Elk Range Drive and Sierra Vista). To the east of this point, Eagle County subdivisions contribute a much larger share of the traffic on Fender Land. To help mitigate the impact from Hun Ranch, Hunt Ranch LLC commits to a payment of $500 at the time of each building permit for a new dwelling unit in Hunt Ranch; provided, however, Eagle County and Garfield County enter into an IGA that commits this fee to Eagle County for the purpose of9 improvements to Fender Lane before the building permit is issued. >' Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 GARFIELD WEED MANAGEMENT 1. Noxious Weed Inventory, Mapping and Treatment. It was suggested that a detailed survey be provided. It also was suggested that treatment occur "before" submittal of a final plat. In response, the applicant suggests that it is not reasonable to conduct a detailed weed survey until at least May. Therefore, it is not possible to perform such a survey at this time. Further, we do not know when final approval will occur. Therefore, to address this concern, Hunt Ranch LLC commits to undertaking a weed management survey on the property prior to final subdivision plat application. The survey will identify all county and state listed noxious weed locations on the property. Following final approval and recordation of a plat, Hunt Ranch commits to treatment of the identified noxious weed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Treatment records will be provided to Garfield County prior to construction. 2. Revegetation Plan. As requested, Hunt Ranch will provide a renegotiation plan for disturbed areas with the final subdivision plat application to the County. The plan will address the location of disturbances outside of individual lots, a plant material and seed mix list, and schedule. We anticipate that this improvement, in terms of security and compliance, will be addressed in a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the County. 3. Soil Plan. Hunt Ranch has indicated that it will, and it is committed to provide a construction management plan with the Final Subdivision Plat application. The plan will identify provisions for salvaging topsoil, stockpiling such soil, and a schedule and plan for site restoration and removal of excess soil stockpiled on the property. The plan also will address a number of other measures, including dust control and other measures that are appropriate to minimize the impact of the development on surrounding properties and any homesites within Hunt Ranch. 4. Harrington's Penstemon. It is correctly noted that the preservation of this plant is not required since it is not a Federally designated species. In spite of this, Hunt Ranch has included the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in its application. Hunt Ranch is committed to following those recommendations and to the extent possible, preserving this plant on the property. As noted in the Ecological Report provided with the application, the highest concentrations of the plat are located on the southwest side in an area that will not be developed. This area will remain open space and outside of any development area under the current subdivision proposal. On the east side of the project, population densities are low. Under current land management practices, cattle grazing in this area will likely eliminate the plant (see page 21 of the Ecological Report). The report proposes specific mitigation measures that will be followed. Additionally, the POA will require that plants on the specific lots identified in the study will be identified and flagged prior to siting a dwelling unit within the development activity envelope. Structures and disturbance will be limited to the extent possible to avoid significant plants and cluster within the envelope. Construction fencing will be required to avoid further disturbance. When possible plants will be salvaged before disturbance occurs and relocated to undisturbed areas nearby. Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 Mountain Cross Engineering 1. Road names. Hunt Ranch will submit road name with the final subdivision plat application. 2. Emergency Access. This is addressed in the application. A bollard or other traffic control device to be approved by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District will be provided to restrict access for emergency purposes only. A specific design will be provided with the final subdivision plat application. The District has responded favorably to the access plan and a letter is provided in the application. 3. Road E Grade. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 4. Driveway Standards. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 5. Water System approval. All approvals required will be secured before final subdivision plat approval. (see Water System note above) 6. Residential Sprinkler Systems. This requirement is already noted in the application. It will be included in the Declaration and Subdivision Design Guidelines which will be provided with the Final Subdivision Plat application. 7. Design of Water System Facilities. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 8. Water System Backup Power. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 9. Dead End Water Lines. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 10. Water Pressure. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 11. ISDS Plat Note. This is a requirement noted in the application. It is anticipated that all appropriate plat notes will be provided on the final subdivision plat, which shall note that a site-specific soils report shall be required with any building permit application for a dwelling unit on each lot within the subdivision. The Subdivision Design Guidelines will further address the design of individual systems. 12. ISM Management Plan. The Declaration already notes that property owners will be responsible for maintenance of individual on-site disposal systems. The Declaration now requires at a minimum bi- annual inspections and maintenance as necessary of septic systems. The Homeowner's Association Board has enforcement responsibility to ensure that individual property owners remain in compliance with this requirement. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 13. Wildfire Mitigation. A response to this this requirement was incorporated in the initial application. The applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 Ecological Services. We would like to note that the Colorado State Forest Service stated that ours is "very thorough and well put together." The draft Declaration now require the implementation of a Wildfire Mitigation Design on both common areas and individual lots. With respect to individual lots, wildfire mitigation plans will be reviewed with a homeowner's application to the Architectural Review Committee. Lot owners will be required to maintain the lot according to the approved plan and the Association has the ability to enforce compliance with the approved plan. 14. Drainage Flows. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 15. Cul -De -Sac Drainage. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering 16. NPDES Permit. We will obtain necessary permit before commencement of construction. COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE 1. Improvement to CR 102. Road and Bridge suggests that this road should be rebuilt to a 22 foot paved driving surface with two (2) foot gravel shoulders and for drainage improvements only, that culverts which are in disrepair should be replaced. This improvement should take place over the length of CR 102 to the Eagle County line. To address this concern, Hunt Ranch LLC hereby amends its application as follows: a. Hunt Ranch will improve CR 102 from CR 100 to the Eagle County boundary by rotomilling the existing road; paving the road to County standard to 22 feet of drivable surface in its current configuration; providing two (2) foot gravel shoulders to County standard; and replacing those drainage culverts agreed upon by Road and Bridge and the applicant's engineer prior to construction. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering b. Garfield County will allow Hunt Ranch LLC to apply all related impact fees from this project to this improvement. Collection of a portion of the impact at the time of final subdivision approval will not be necessary provided Hunt Ranch LLC has established a suitable subdivision improvement agreement to secure completion of the work. c. Garfield County and Hunt Ranch LLC will enter into a fee reimbursement agreement. Any impact fees collected from any development along CR 102 will be paid to Hunt Ranch LLC for a period to be agreed upon by the County and Hunt Ranch LLC before final subdivision plat approval occurs. 2. CR 102 Right -of -Way. The applicant already notes that Hunt Ranch LLC will dedicate additional right-of-way to meet County standard. All fences and structures now within Hunt Ranch will be removed from the right-of-way or obtain and encroachment permit from Garfield County. Hunt Ranch Response Letter April 8, 2008 April 8, 200 Doug Dotson Otak, Incorporated 36 North Fourth Sired Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: I lunt Ranch SE Job at: 25274.01 -aeply to Garfield County Staff review -Meeting Summary with Garfield County Road & Bridge -Meeting Summary with Eagle County Engineering Department -Reply Comments to Chris I tale Mountain Cross Engineering Dear Doug: The following is a list of replies from Sopris Engineering to comments from the Garfield County Staff Report and a summary of the discussions with the resiew agencies. I have included their original comments in bold for clarification. Garfield County Staff Comments Staff Recommendation - The following are engineering (only) related items frorn the Garfield County Staff Report 3. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with 7M (Water and Sewer Objectives and Policies) regarding LSDS,slope constraints as outlined on page 4 of this memorandum; Sopris Engineering will provide a more detailed slope analysis for the proposed project The slope analysis will clarify the slope ranges and areas across each lot and provide a summary chart of this information. The summary chart will quantify the area available to each lot for construction of a single-family dwelling, an ISDS system and a reserve ISDS location, This detailed slope analysis will be provided to the staff in time for their review prior to the P&Z hearing.. 6, Tice Applicantlias not demonstrated that each lot has at least one contiguous acre of less than 40% slope; The detailed slope analysis and chan (mentioned above) will include a list of contiguous area less than 40% slope located within each lot, This information has been analyzed in the past and the activity erwelopes were adjusted to make Stine this criteria was met, We will provide quantitative proof with the supplementary slope analysis and chart that will be re -submitted to staff. 8. The 'SOS Management Nan provider] is inadequate; An ISDS Management Plan will be submitted (below is acopy of the language for review): Septic Systems (ISDS) — There is no cerund sewer system within Hunt Ranch. It shall be the responsibilior of the Owner of each lot to construct an Individual Sewage Disposal System (NDS) in accordance with Garfield County standards. All JSDS s need to be designed by a licensed engineer in the State of Colorado per the PLAT nOrt Peradalibt: tests and soil profile evaluations bebel be done in aegarebelnee with local regulations prior to individual designs. Such systenzs need to be located within the building envelope ami must he a minimum of ten Oth fiecthom 502 M in Street Suite A3 Carbondale, CO 81623 El (9'70) 704-0311 ui Fax (970) 704-0313 ':$1).f.B1ST,ae!1440!#0,1,'Lit • civil consulta ts SE. JOB 25274.01 April 8, 2008 Page 2 Lot lines. All disturbed areas shall he reve,getated cmd approved by the Design Review Board in accordance with the Design Review Guidelines. The cost of construction, installation, maintenance and approval shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner. Such !SAS shall not be mi/ad in a manner as pollute or threaten to pollute ground or surface waters or to affect or pollute the water supply ,system of lots within the Property, Maintenance and repair, including periodic pumping of septic tanksno less than every two (2) years, is required, Maintenance shall be performed by a licensed contractor in the State of Colorado engaged in the business of -cleaning and maintaining !SDS system& Lot Owners mast provide os -built drawings of the ISD' to the ,Associarion fiw purposes it/future maintenance and not?/ the Association when style tanks are pumped. Enforcement of these requiremetus shall be by the Association, as well as other governmental entities as provided for by law. If the Association is required to maintain any septic tank owned by any individual Lot Owner, such Owner may be, assos.ed for expenses. The owner of an individual sewage disposal system shall notify the local health department on any proposed system modifications prior to making the changesand shall have the system approved once the • modifications are complete, /O. The status of proposed "Road G" must be demonstrated to Staff in order to make a determination regarding the ability of the developer to utilize the road within the development. The Applicant shall provide documentation which demonstrates whether the existing road is a public right of way or private easement. The proposed Road G is within an exiting Right of Way (Book: 86, Pane: 218) as noted on the Preliminary Plan Map (Sheet 3 of 48), Additional clarification has been added to the Preliminary Plan Map as requested by Garfield County Staff. 11. The Applicant bas not a dresses the issues raised by Eagle ounty regarding traffic impacts to Eagle County; On April 381, 2008 Sopris Engineering met with Eagle County as requested by the Garfield County Staff. In attendance were Greg Schroder, Lisa de Graff, Valley Nichol and Chris Busley, The purpose was to get clarification on their review cotrunents submitted to Garfield County on February 21. 2008 regarding the Hum Ranch submittal. Eagle County staff indicated rn our meeting that they Were aware they were only a referral agency and had no authority to require changes, but they were appreciative their comments were being considered. We did not discuss any of the first 7 bullet points of their 2/21/08 leiter as they related to green building, clustering, affordable housing, and public benefit. Sopris Engineering has not been asked to address these issues. The main focus of the meeting was the impact of Hunt Ranch on Eaale County Roads, Eagle County was concerned about the impact of Hunt Ranch on Cr. 102 from the Eagle County line east to El Jebel Road as the traffic report states that 65% of the traffic from Hunt Ranch is projected to head their way. They would like to see the 1.1 mile stretch of road improved similar to improvements being requested by Garfield County Road Bridge (see below), but did not indicate what specific improvements were desired. To accomplish this, they would like to explore the option of ha v ing an Inter-Oovenunental Agreement between Eagle County and Garfield County. The suggestion that came forth was to have an impact fee associated to each lot and payable to Eagle County at the time of building pe -nit This impact fee would only be paid if an 1G.A is made between the counties. This agreement would involve compensation to Garfield County as well and would involve some negotiation between agencies, •Eagle County will be having a meeting on April 10`h to further discuss this issue internally. SE. 3013 25274,01 April 8, 2008 Page 3 An Inter -Governmental Agreement (IGA) needs to be established between• the two counties that would include a specified arca in Garfield County, and Eagle County. The IGA would basically establish a road impact fee to be paid to the adjacent county by Hunt Ranch lot owners and any future lots within the specified area, It has been suggested that this value be capped at S500 and be paid at the time of building permit. The Hunt Ranch developer has agreed to comply with this proposed JCA assuming it will not be complete and in place until atter approval of Hum Ranch. 12. The Applicant will need to address the contents identified by Garfield County's consulting engineer and allow time for his review of additional data provided. Sopris Engineering has written a reply to Chris Hale al Mountain Cross Engineering (see below MCE-Chris Hale section of this letter). 15. The Applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed irrigation storage situated upslope from Lots 80 and 81 will not adversely impact the propose lots with overflow created by a flood event. The proposed irrigation storage pond will be constructed with a liner to prevent seepage into the soil and therefore prevent it from affecting any ISDS systems, Them is a proposed overflow pipe system that is designed to carry more than the current ditch capacity and convey it down to the hav field for use as irrigation water, An overflow swale will also be constructed to convey any overflow from the irrigation pond through the roadside ditch system. It is also assumed that all homes will be constructed with a 1 -foot drop in 10 -feet away from the building as required. Garfield County Road & Bridge On April 2. 2008 Sopris Engineering met with Garfield County Road & Bridge (GCR&B) as requested by the Garfield County Staff. In attendance \item Jake Mall, Wyatt Keeshery. Yancy Nichol and Chris Bosley. The purpose was to get clarification on their review comments submitted to Garfield County on February 6, 2008 regarding the Hunt Ranch submittal. Here is a list of their comments from their letter and a summary of what was discussed in the meeting: 1. All driveway access/es to the sub -division will be permitted by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specific to the driveway/s locations. We lame with this statement and no comment is necessary at this time. 2. This would include paved aprons and stop signis at each entrance to Cr 102 The stop stunts and installation would be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). We agree with this statement and no conurient is necessary at this time. 3. Cr.102 would need to be engineered and rebuilt to design standards with a minimum of a 22 -foot driving, pa ed surface with a 2 -foot shoulder and drainage as required. This would include all culverts as needed and old ones replaced to the Eagle County line from Cr 100 intersection. The current chip seal surface does not hold up to the traffic load and is in constant need of repair. Garfield County Road & Bridee would like to discontinue use of chip seat on this road have the entire stretch from Cr.100 to the Eagle County line improved to a 22. -foot asphalt surface with anoint= 2 -foot shoulders. They would like the SE. JOB 25274.01 April 8. 2008 Page 4 developer to ntiid and pulverize the existing mad where needed and resurface with :r" asphalt. Where the existing chip seal I in good condition, only an asphalt overlay would be required. They would also like any damaged or old culverts to he replaced as needed. No additional design standards are required for Cr.102. Garfield County Road & Bridge indicated that the road impact fee being credited to these improvements would be supported by their department. Based on the information we b do these improvement to Cr. 102 tl I:n ineerins will:final ize this desig Garfield Cou Cr. 100 to the d submit it wi ad & Bridge, the Hsu County line (approxi e final construction drawin nch developers bane: agreed to 2.5 utiles). Sopriis 4. ff a 60 -foot road easement is not already in. place a strip of land 30 -foot from the center line of ould be deeded to Ctsrfield County the length stfthe property bordering Cr. 120. All fences and or structures encumbering the new ROW w ould hu moved back to the new ROW line by the sub -divider at the starting construction of the project. This new ROW would be used to upgrade the existing Cr.102. The proposal already includes a 60 -foot ROW for Cr. 102 adjacent to the property and will be submitted with the final PLAT application: Due to the configuration of the Hunt Ranch property line and this new ROW. some ofihe fences along this new ROW will he within the ROW. GCR&B indicated that they would give their blessing for an encroachment agreement for these fences so that they do not have to be relocated unnecessarily, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inca- Chris Hale The following are engineering (only) related i 3. Road E proposes a switc flatten the grades through the c vehicles from leaving the roadwat Road E is designed to the Garfield Cour 'plumes, The ntoxirnant grade pe oad E meets these gth would have to be 1 gnan Ata ni grade. ative grades sltrruld be considered old be considered to keep errant nt guards r Collector based 0 line radius or 185', .a reduce the grade urhance area, 4. Driveway standards ghouls standards will be included in the CCR s, Driveway grades have been reviewed at a prelivainary level s et to proposed road grades. 'i7aece should not have to exceed 12% dependittgon owner's design, w'itla as pian for a portion of the shared driveway to Lots 34 & 35. This shared driveway has been designed at 14% de due to the existing topography and minimizing impact on the existing vegetation. A variance up to 14% is per section 9:37 of the Garfield County: code, but if'the county determines that 14% is too steep s eway it could be redesigned to a 12% maximum grade by extending_ its length and impact to existing terrain and rbanee area. Plan & Profiles of the shared driveways will be provided with the final engineering drawings, sed grades are currently shown on the Preliminary Plan Map (Sheet 3 of 48) ith 5. The water system appears augmentation plan. No response is required. pply conce gots; Fverds and an 6. Thew prior to SE, JOB 25274,01 April 8, 2008 Page 5 will be a Community System and will need approvals from the State of Colorado We agree, so no response is required. 7. The water sv, systems. 1 design fire flu i ment shoatid and storage is based on the building s h fire spreader oteluded in the CCR's. We are proposing a PLAT note that requires all Iahmes to have a fire sprinkler syste the CCRs, nd this w II be included itt 8. Design of booster statious,svater storage, and water treatment facilities were not included application submitta1s. l)Itm:ttely, design for these will also need to be approved and permitted by the State but at a minimum should be included in the Final PLAT. V. a agree that the State will have to review and approve the water system Within our Preliminary Plan submittal package we provided performance specifications and standards for the water system. The intent was to provide detailed design information at the time of final construction drawings. Consideration has been given to the design cif the water system and expected flows and pressures of proposed pumps, as well as water storage volumes are shosryr on the Overall Utility Plan (Sheet 6 of 4S) of the Preliminary plan Submittal package. booster pumps will be Providing'fire no at backup pow A back-up pesve on the final constrttcti� Thew The reduc pane ar natural gas) will rte part of the w 10. The Applicant proposes liar long dead-end watt connecting along Road A creating a looped system. voter systern will be looped along Road A as requested, II. The internal pressures at fhe lour end of the ,s tem eoald be hig er pump settings. Pressure reducing valves may be necessary. gn and will be shown ....The applicant should cousider has been; modeled and evaluated for fire flow and pressu zones there will not be enough pressure' m (per comnterrt l l)) we swill reev alu; possible. Otherwise, the high pressures will need to be re 2. The preliminary percolatio ends that be engi T and in the CCRs. A PLAT note wilt be included on the'f engineering report provided by Salvia En hew ed a qu than 120 psi depetiding .on salts for J$DS show va red'= The recommends LAT and svithi ts the CCli eeritig in tlte•Prebminan ll PR.V's: wearen td PRV locations ssure reducing valves, esults. The design engineer tT note should be included on th Application iy stated in the Attaehmeat C:) SE. JOB 25274.01 April 8,2008 Page 6 13. An ISDS Management Plan was not included within the application. This shouCd he developed and included in the CCRs. An ISDS Management Plan will he submitted and included in the CCRs (below is a copy of the language for review): Septic Systems GSM) — 7 here is 170 central sewer system within Hunt Redlich, It shall he she responsibility of the Chewer of each lot to construct an hidividual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) in accordance with Garfield County standards, All 1SDS's need to he designed by a licensed engineer in the State of C'elorado per the PLAT now Percolation tests and .vail profile evaluations IMO( be done in accordance with kcal regulations prior to individual designs. Such systems need to be located within the building envelope and must be a minimum ellen 010 ifeet.from all Lot lines. All disturbed areas shall be revegmared and approved by the Design Review Boar?). in ace -entrance with the Design Review Guidelines. The cost of construction, installation, maintenance and app oval shall he the sole responsibility of the Owner. Such ISDS shall no/be utilized in a manner as to pollute or threaten to pollute ground or surface waters or to affect or pollute the water supply system of lots within the Property. Maintenance and repair, including periodic pumping of septic tanks no less than every ot-o (2),.years, is required, Maintenance shall be performed by a licensed contractor in the Sane of Colorado engaged in the business of cleaning and maintaining ISDS.systems. Lot Owners MILS/ provide as -built drawings of the LSDS to the Association for purposes offuture mabitenanc T and noun" the Association when septic tanks env pumped, Enforcement of the.ve requirements shall be by the Association, as well as other governmental entities as provided for iiy Lim!, If the Association is required to maintain any septic rank owned by any individual Lot Owner, such Owner may be assessedfin. all expenses, The owner of an individual sewage dispo.sal system shall notify the local health departnient an any proposed system modificallatis prior to making the changes, and ,shall Itenv dui system approved once the ntodifications are complete, 15. In the drainage plan the existing Basins 5, 6 & 7 seem to correspond to the proposed Basins of R, S, T & 1 but with significantly different flows. The calculations should be verified. Detention or other mitigation may be W a rranted to avoid downstream impacts. We have reviewed the drainage study and verified sal calculations for the drainage basins. Runoff mtes for the developed conditions are greater than existing conditions due to an increase in the SCS curve number, 'The curve number is affected by increases in impervious area and development Even though existing and developed basin areas an. similar in size, the larger post -development curve number produces a larger peak runoff mte. We lase provided detention areas to temporarily store the excess runoff and reduce downstream impacts, 1 he historical flow off site is not increased from pre -development to post -development. No additional mitigation is warranted downstream. 16. Cul-de-sac for Road 1) appears to drain onto Lot 16 and then through Lot 17, Lot 18 and Lot 19 before an easement is provided for drainage; This easement was not shown, We have added an easement and necessary swale to convey this drainage and have shown this infurrnation on an updated Preliminary Plan Map. u Sinceret SOP RIS any questions Cc: Bunt give us a.call SE. JOB 2527 Apr age 7 OCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICE NEPA••WILDLIFE••VEGETATION••WILDFIRE MITIGATION••WETLANDS••P April 1, 2008 Doug Dotson P.O. Box 3613 Aspen CO, 81612 RE: Wetlands on Hunt Ranch, Garfield County Memorandum A Dear Mr. Dotson After reviewing aerial photography, and on-site inspections of the property in 2007, it is my opinion that Hunt Ranch does not contain any Jurisdictional Wetlands, which would be connected to a wetland or water of the U.S. as per section 404 of the Clean Water Act (and further defined by the Rapanos decision of 2007), and under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). The property does contain numerous sites which exhibit wetland characteristics as a result of irrigation waters. These anthropogenic and non -jurisdictional wetlands are limited to areas adjacent to irrigation ditches, and seasonally flood -irrigated meadows. As these waters do not leave the property and do not have well established connectivity to a Water of the U.S., then are not considered to be a wetland under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. Non -jurisdictional wetlands are well established along the irrigation ditches, and near the diversion points of the ditches. Within the irrigated hay fields, low-lying areas which have water pooling also exhibit wetland characteristics. The stock pond in the north-eastern corner of the irrigated meadows exhibits wetland characteristics as well. Irrigation tailwaters somewhat collect at the gulch along the western edge of the property. These tailwaters drain onto the adjacent Strang Ranch. I have included a map showing areas where irrigation waters have produced wetland characteristics, but again, these wetlands have been developed and are supported by seasonal irrigation activities, and are not considered wetlands under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. Sincerely, Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. 0222 BOBCAT LANE • REDSTONE • COLORADO • 81623 PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 • CELL: (970) 309-4454 EMAIL: ERIC.PETTERSON@STARBAND.NET ING HOLLAND&HART Pi April 11, 2008 VIA E-MAIL Craig Richardson Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 via e-mail to: crichardson@garfield-county.com Deborah Quinn Garfield County Attorney's Office 108 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 via email to: dquinn@garfield-county.com Mark E. Hamilton Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (866) 784-7682 mehamilton@hollandhart.com 57433.0001 Re: Preservation of agricultural lands within the Hunt Ranch Dear Mr. Richardson & Ms. Quinn: This firm was retained by Hunt Ranch, LLC, (the "Applicant") to provide land use counsel concerning its request to subdivide the 561 -acre Hunt Ranch property into 93 clustered residential lots that surround historical agricultural operations on approximately 230 acres of the property. This letter is for the purpose of further addressing the various options available to the Applicant to meet the County Comprehensive Plan's goal of agricultural preservation. Two of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are "to ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review" and to "consider land trusts and conservation easements." See Comp. Plan of 2000, Section III -6.0 (emphasis added). We believe that the development plan for the Hunt Ranch is entirely consistent with these goals. In order to meet these goals, Hunt Ranch is fully committed to implementing a conservation easement or other effective protection of its agricultural or open space land in a form that is legally achievable, meets the goals of preserving and protecting its open space, and is reasonably acceptable to the County. There are no issues of compatibility with the County's Comprehensive Plan, as all aspects of the Hunt Ranch development are being designed with an eye toward not disturbing the existing agricultural operations, and all prospective purchasers will have Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 61611-1991 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. HOLLAND&HART Garfield County Planning Commission April 11, 2008 Page 2 actual notice that the land plan was designed for this purpose. Similar developments exist in the Roaring Fork Valley (e.g. Lazy 0 Ranch) where residential uses quite comfortably co -exist around a continued agricultural operation. It is our intent to assist Hunt Ranch with the further development of clear language for its real estate purchase contracts and its covenants that ensure that all purchasers take title subject to the knowledge that the ongoing agricultural operation will continue. The preliminary restrictive covenants submitted with this application already contain a notice to all potential residents of the existence of the agricultural operations. However, we understand that a parallel goal of the County is not just immediate compatibility during initial lot sales, but also continued operation of the agricultural facilities and the preservation and maintenance of the open space in the unlikely event of the termination of agricultural operations over the longer term. We are assisting Hunt Ranch with several options to ensure this result, including the following. My client is amenable to the inclusion of a plat note or other similar legally binding restriction acceptable to the County's attorneys that would serve to dedicate agricultural areas within the property for continued agricultural and open space use. Such a plat note would contain language which provides that such use may not be changed without the approval of the County, irrespective of the wishes of lot owners. Hunt Ranch, LLC also will impose restrictive covenants for the development that establish all of the agricultural lands and all of the open space as common elements owned jointly by all lot owners, which lands are to be managed and used for agricultural or open space purposes. Hunt Ranch will commit to the strictest voting requirements allowable under Colorado law as to the future homeowners' ability to change the use of these lands. (At this point, the maximum voting requirement under Colorado statute requires 67% owner approval for a change in use. Hunt Ranch, LLC is amenable to this or such other greater percentage as may be approved by the Colorado legislature at any point in the future). We also remain committed to involving third parties who will not be bound by statutory limitations concerning covenant amendments. In this regard, the developer has previously executed a 10 -year lease with the current ranch manager who intends to continue the agricultural operation on this land. We are now further exploring the possible creation of an assignable lease to the current agricultural operator over a much longer lease term of up to 99 years. It is my opinion that such a long term lease, if implemented prior to recordation of the final plat and covenants and initial lot sales, would bind future lot owners and provide additional assurance as to the continuance of the agricultural operation and/or protection of open space irrespective of any contrary desires by any lot owners. HOLLAND&HART Garfield County Planning Commission April 11, 2008 Page 3 Additionally, as indicated in Hunt Ranch's initial subdivision application, Hunt Ranch, LLC is pursuing a third party conservation easement to protect the agricultural lands described as Lot 1, Tract A and Tract E on the proposed plat. During the past two years, Hunt Ranch, LLC has had discussions with several land trusts. In each instance, Hunt Ranch, LLC has been clear that it would not request, expect or receive any tax advantages from the execution of the conservation easement, but rather only seek to add another layer of protection to these agricultural lands As of this date, Hunt Ranch is continuing to actively pursue a relationship with several third party conservation entities or land trusts to hold a conservation easement that would be implemented prior to the first lot sale. However, since these discussions are ongoing, it will not be possible to have an agreement in place before the Planning Commission's meeting on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. In conclusion, Hunt Ranch, LLC has been consistent in its commitment to the preservation of the agricultural use of its property (and the preservation and maintenance of its open space should there be no further agricultural use of the site). Several methods of achieving this goal have been investigated, as described above. In my opinion, any one or a combination of these methods, all of which are acceptable to the Applicant, will fulfill the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan concerning agricultural preservation. It is Hunt Ranch's desire to reach agreement with the County on which of these suggestions presents a reasonable means of achieving what appear to be shared goals at this juncture, and this would appear to be an opportunity to further these goals to a greater degree than any prior project on Missouri Heights. However, since a particular preservation method is not a code prerequisite to approval by the Planning Commission, and since certain of the land trusts that Hunt Ranch has approached may not finally commit to receive a conservation easement until after final project approvals issue, we would respectfully request staff to consider addressing this issue through a condition of the preliminary plan approval, instead of a threshold requirement prior to the first hearing. We are also amenable to the final preservation methods being subject to review and approval of the County Attorney. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to seeing you on April 23. HOLLAND&HART Sincerely, /s/ Mark E. Hamilton Mark E. Hamilton of Holland & Hart LLP MEH cc: Don DeFord, dondeford@garfield-couunty.com Fred Jarman, fjarman@garfield-county.com Hunt Ranch development team, via e-mail Garfield County Planning Commission April 11, 2008 Page 4 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:07 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: 'Deric Walter' Subject: Aspen Equity Group, LLC Fred: I have reviewed the floodplain permit application of the Aspen Equity Group, LLC for fill within the Cattle Creek Floodplain. The calculated flood way, flood plain, and base flood elevations prior to the proposed grading were not included within the application. 1 requested that this information be submitted to this office in a phone conversation with Deric Walter of Boundaries Unlimited. Mr. Walter did submit in an e-mail attachment and after reviewing the additional information, this office has no comments to the application. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970,945.5558 4/14/2008 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 April 16, 2008 Mr. Craig Richardson Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan, CGS GA -08-0005_1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Ritter Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Dear Mr. Richardson: Division Director and State Geologist Thank you for the submittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is to subdivide 561 acres into 93 single- family lots. Lot sizes range from about 2 to 4 acres. Public water will be provided and onsite wastewater systems will be constructed on each lot. The site was previously reviewed, for a similar site plan, and the Colorado Geological Survey outlined concerns and recommendations in a letter submitted to the county on April 25, 2006. Since that time, a geologic hazards and preliminary geotechnical investigation was completed by the developer. According to this report, the site contains several hazards and constraints that will need to be carefully considered in the development process. Sinkholes Geologic mapping indicates that sinkholes have developed in nearby areas, but no evidence of such has been found on the site. Though small, there is some risk of sinkholes forming near or beneath residential structures, roads, and utilities. If a sinkhole were to develop very near or under a home, significant damages may occur. Given the severity of such damages, the potential for sinkholes should be evaluated prior to issuance of building permits and framing permits. • A site-specific soils and foundation investigation, for each lot, should be done prior to issuance of building permits. • Prior to approval of foundation construction and/or the issuance of framing permits, a geologist or geotechnical engineer should inspect each foundation excavation for evidence of subsidence in the soil deposits, subsurface voids, or sinkholes. If such conditions are discovered, foundations should be constructed in alternative locations. Collapsible Soil The site also contains soils that are prone to relatively high consolidation upon wetting and/or loading. The preliminary geotechnical report contains some preliminary recommendations for home construction. However, the report does not contain recommendations related to underground utilities or how drainage facilities or irrigation ditches might impact the development. April 16, 2008 Mr. Craig Richardson Page 2 • The site-specific soils and foundation investigation, for each lot, should include test borings and consolidation testing to address collapsible -soil hazard potential, This report needs to also include be done prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations for the design and construction of floor slabs and on-site pavements, as well as site grading and water -management practices to prevent the introduction of water to the subgrade soils. It is the introduction of water that causes collapse -prone soils to settle • Prior to approval of final construction plans, the geotechnical report should be amended to included mitigation measures for utilities, roads, and drainage structures. Mitigation measures should be incorporated into final construction plans before approval. Surface Drainage As outlined above, the site contains geologic hazards and constraints that are aggravated by moisture and improper drainage. The geotechnical report does not address the potential impacts of irrigation or septic systems near homes, utilities, and pavements. This should be addressed before fmal plans are approved. Alluvial Fan Flooding and Debris Flows The geologic map developed by the developer's consultant shows that the site contains several alluvial fans. Homes and other structures located near the mouths of drainages may be damaged by sediment -laden runoff and/or large debris. To a large extent, the original lot layout avoided such areas. However, lots have been reconfigured and it appears that Lot 32 straddles a fan; while, parts of building areas within Lots 39 and 48 may encroach onto alluvial fans. This issue should be addressed prior to the approval of the final lot layout. The alluvial fan deposits are also susceptible to collapsible soil. Erosion and Sediment Control The site contains steep slopes and clayey and silty soil that, when disturbed, is highly erodible. Once suspended, small clay and silt particles are not effectively removed from runoff using common Best Management Practices, like silt fence and straw wattles. It will be very important that disturbed areas are kept to a minimum and that the storm water management plan focus on erosion control, which prevents the detachment of soil, rather than sediment control, which focuses on removal of soil particles from runoff. Excessive erosion can lead to slope instability. Since the plans have changed since the original geotechnical report was written, it would be prudent for the county to require that the engineer review plat and construction plan for conformance with engineering recommendations before they are approved. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at karen.berry@,state.co.us. Sincerely, Karen A. Berry Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ John Martin From: jashton@sopris.net Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:52 PM To: Larry McCown; jartin@garfield-county.com; Tres i Houpt Subject: Approval for Hunt Ranch Subdivision land use Dear Commissioner: We are writing to you as a concerned residents of Missouri Heights. We have lived on Kings Row for 20 years and have enjoyed the quiet rural lifestyle. The approval of the Hunt Ranch Subdivision with 93 units will destroy that tranquility. Our property is adjacent to Hunt Ranch on the south border of the ranch. We have driven CR 102 and 100 daily for 20 years. Our concerns are the following: Maintenance of the roads — they are in horrid condition most of the time. You must dodge the pot holes and snow drifts. Many a morning the snow is still on the roads when we all skid on down the hills. More traffic will not make this situation better. Density of Traffic on the roads — CR 100 & 102 are well traveled. In the warm months there is additonal bicycle traffic. Who will assure the safety of the residents and cyclists? Isn't it just a bit suspicious that the requirement for road improvement is not required? Two percent is hardly a large margin - a couple of teenagers with cars will exceed that need. Water Use — concerned citizens of the area banded together to obtain a Settlement Agreement in Colorado Water Court. The citizens have very little in common, yet we were able to organize to assure our water rights. Who will safeguard these agreements? As additional wells are drilled on the Heights, they must be dug deeper to hit water. This is alarming. Homes without water aren't worth much, esentially this would effect the property tax revenue and property owners investment. As county commissioners it is your responsibility to protect the citizens of the county. The 'new owners' are trying to make us repeat the mistakes already made. Building a city in the country is not appropriate. Reduce the number of units approved for this subdivision: it will protect us all. Jo Ashton David Bell 435 Kings Row Carbondale CO 3/11/2008