HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportPROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT
APPLICANT / OWNER
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION / ACCESS
PROPERTY SIZE / ID
EXISTING & ADJACENT ZONING
SITE DATA
WATER
SANITARY FACILITY
RELATIONSHIP TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(S)
Sketch Plan: Old Orchard Subdivision
Roc and Mary Ann Gabossi
John L. Taufer
PC 6/24//09 DD
44523 Hwy 6, Glenwood Spgs (w of Canyon Ck)
20.22. acres 2123-35-00-185
Rural (R)
4 residential lots (average: 5.05 acres)
Two wells to be shared between two lots,
respectively
ISDS
Garfield County: Area 2, `Outlying Residential',
within Town of New Castle's 3 -mile `Sphere of
Influence'
240
Current Zoning:
i1 $
a...4
Canyon
Rural
, 7 '--400.4,...V.
ji:�karmic:Ai I1
'
►` is.► �► '�_•
%'
,��r 1 6e _
I. PROPOSAL
The proposal is a 4 -lot subdivision on a 20+ acre tract between New Castle and Canyon
Creek. This land use change proposal may be permitted if it adequately meets the
subdivision requirements and standards set forth in the Unified Land Use Resolution of
2008, as amended (ULUR).
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
The property is located about 1 mile west of the Canyon Creek interchange, east of New
Castle. The property borders State Highway 6; all lots will take their access from this
State -administrated roadway. The overall property slopes north to south and includes
1
both gently sloping ground and steep canyon walls on the east and north sides. The
property meets the highway slightly below grade.
The proposal is to subdivide a 20.22 -acre property into 4 residential lots that range from
2.13 acres to 12.23 acres in size, averaging 5.05 acres. There is mention of accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) to accompany the single family residences, so the actual total
number of potential dwelling units is 8.
Under the Affordable Housing standards of Article VIII, 8-201 requires that developments
with 5 single family units be required to comply with requirement that 15% meet the
Affordable Housing requirements. This development has 4 units (lots), therefore it is
beneath the threshold for compliance. The ADUs have the potential to serve as
affordable housing opportunities.
TOIH5VNLH
STATO OE
wRlncG BY HETES
El4R' S^10 SECTION
SEEN
`FET•
IAY 6 ANO 24,
,r1 HAVING A
TUB -
ion VHOCH BEARS het•21'3YV. 27050 FEET
V. 36800 FEET,
1 ALONG THE ARC UF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
1 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'06'21. AND SOB_
VHICH BEARS N94.45'I8'V. 109.74 FEET;
110 RIGHT O" VAS N23•009YE. 0 54 FEET.
273.31 FEET, HENCE 14.10.41.01"E 12620 FEEL
1 in r(0FEET TM CES'SB37Si22O 425 141 FEET,
00194 FEET TO NE POINT OF BEGINNING
ND 0047422 25022 ACRES. MORE IR LESS
GAB015SI SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO
FILED FRR RECORD UNDOR RECEPTION tri 620581
5630
AI°n8�
ow7
5645
'P.QIN T
—'7
SEID
/
/
5645
69•,'3 •8 230 '
11/1/1
1111/
11/1/(
11/7///
1111/�/j/
///i'/,tante 200'uVIr1.
I 44,<
S1c .e
/AV /t40enent 0,2XVte4 Sent. 27, 1900.
PSCO Oen/sent N0. 165127
CA
Sd.:4.i i0✓i.74-IGA�ij`_
DT Cn:
Paved
785.19
Sur Pace
Colo. State y
wy, No. 6 R -c) -W
28
2
MJF
III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is on the Study Area 2 map, outside of the `Planning Area Boundary'
identified on the Town of New Castle's Land Use Plan (1982). (This is the document in
place at the time of this report preparation.)
The Town of New Castle (TNC) is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan. It is
anticipated that during the review for Preliminary Plan for the Old Orchard Subdivision,
the relationship between the subject parcel and the planning designation for that
municipality will have changed, and this may change the comments regarding
compatibility with TNC comprehensive plan goals.
At present, the subject parcel is included or straddles the boundary of the 3 -mile
municipal `sphere of influence' for the Town. On that map (below), the zone designation
is that of 'Open Space Agricultural Residential' which recommends 1 dwelling unit per 2-
10 acres, and to have the rural, agricultural character maintained. The proposal is for lots
not smaller than 2 acres in size, and the proposal calls for maintaining the existing
orchards and pastures. The cumulative density including accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) would be within that density recommendation. At
present, the proposal is in keeping with TNC's comprehensive
land use recommendations, but the soon-to-be adopted
Comprehensive Plan may change that.
iii
{
As per ULUR, consideration is required
3
Town of New
Castle, Garfield
County,
Colorado
Legend
TYPE
I 1
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE
F-1 BUREAU OF LAND MGMNT
® CLUSTER LOW DENSITY RES
® CLUSTER MED ENSITY RES
COMMERCIAUNEIGHBRHD COMA
- INDUSTRIAL
MIXED USE
OPEN SPACE
® OPEN SPACE AGRI RES
® OPEN SPACE RURAL RES
n STATE WILDLIFE AREA
▪ 3 -Mile Plan Boundary
▪ Town Boundary
1
0 :1`-: 4.300
nce equal.); 0 8 mass
NEW CASTLE a.NILE AREA PLAN SOURCE:
1'34Mle Area Ran, 1997, New Cagle Land Use
Ran, (1999)
only to within a 2 -mile `Sphere of Influence.)
On the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan map, the subject parcel is in the
`Outlying Residential' zone. The configuration of the proposal is in keeping with that zone
district and the Comprehensive Plan goals:
3
6.0 AGRICULTURE
ISSUES: As the rural areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensure
compatibility between these uses (agricultural land and lands that present the least
development constraints) and active agricultural lands will intensify;
GOAL: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation
and compatibility issues are addressed during project review
OBJECTIVES:
6.1: Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and
ranches.
6.2: Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent
uses.
6.3: Developments adjacent to agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that
allows for flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
POLICIES:
6.1: Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of
higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the
agricultural use and the proposed project.
6.2: Densities greater than the underlying zoning will be discouraged if the proposed
development would adversely affect the adjacent agricultural operations.
In the `PROGRAMS' portion of the Comprehensive Plan, 6.4 proposes buffer zones 'of at
least 300 feet' are proposed unless a lesser amount can be demonstrated as practical.
The proposed new subdivision lots are sited on the west side of the parcel, and east of an
existing drainage easement. While the building envelopes' separation from the lot lines
varies between 20`on Lot 3 and 100' on Lots 4, it is a considerable distance to the
residence and ag structures on the adjacent parcel. The adjacent agricultural use is
pasture with some mature orchard, and one single family residence, as is the Old Orchard
Subdivision proposal. The lot configuration has been driven by the access location
permitted by CDOT; that access location has been placed on the west side of the parcel.
This location also served to limit the impact for access road installation on the existing
orchard tract, preserving the agricultural character of the subdivision.
Because these lots are in compliance with the zoning for Rural lands, compatible with the
density recommendations of the TNC's Three Mile Plan (1999), and Staff feels that the
proposed design buffer is adequate. The proposed use is higher -intensity than the parcel
to the west, but complies with density and zoning requirements.
The `PROGRAMS' portion of the Comprehensive Plan, 6.5 also calls for any potential
adverse impacts be analyzed and mitigation measures developed by the Applicant. While
no comments for the Sketch Plan were received from Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW),
agency recommendations for subdivisions of similar design and scale in the area of New
Castle ask to incorporate `wildlife friendly' fencing and food/refuse storage practices and
door handle selection to dissuade habituation of black bears.
4
The historic orchard may serve as an attractant to black bears, but preserving the orchard
is in place to satisfy GOAL 6: Agriculture. Staff recommends that the plat, agreements and
covenants, if any, include measures to minimize adverse interactions with wildlife in this
agricultural setting.
Garfield County Vegetation Management Department Director Steve Anthony has
included comments (Exhibit I) and provided guidance regarding noxious weed abatement.
Staff recommends incorporating these requirements as conditions of approval, and, where
applicable, included as plat notes, in agreements and covenants, if any, to satisfy 6.6 of
PROGRAMS that requires a mitigation plan for weeds. 6.6 of PROGRAMS also speaks to
ditch maintenance and the lot owner's responsibility for their share of required costs; Staff
recommends these also be included as plat notes, in covenants (if developed) and in road
and lot maintenance agreements.
On the following maps, this parcel is not noted as having affected agricultural resources
that would be diminished:
• Prime Agricultural Land Map- not' Prime' or 'Prime, if irrigated'
• Soil Map- not identified as incompatible for ISDS installation
• Slope Hazards Map — lots have been sited to avoid the most severe slope concerns
The Applicant shall be required to demonstrate how the proposed development
conforms to and is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and land use map of
the Comprehensive Plan in the Preliminary Plan application. These requirements have
or can be met.
IV. GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS
7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions: RURAL
The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on all 4 lots which is a
"use by right" in the RURAL zone district and is therefore consistent with the underlying
zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Articles III and IV of the
Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR).
Common Dimensional Requirements in RURAL Zoning
Minimum Lot Size of 2 acres: The Applicant proposes the 20.22 -acre property be
subdivided into four lots. Each lot is greater than minimum lot size in the zoning, and
its configuration satisfies setbacks, lot coverage, and can satisfy height with proper
building permits. These requirements have been or can be met.
7-102 Compliance with Comp Plan and IGAs
As discussed in Section III, this proposal is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan.
There are no applicable Intergovernmental Agreements aside from the comprehensive
and land use plan recommendations. These requirements have been or can be
met, however, it is anticipated the new TNC Comprehensive Plan will be
completed and some revision may be necessary in the Preliminary Plan
submittal.
5
7-103 Compatibility
As discussed in Section III, this proposal is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
These requirements have been met.
7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water.
7-104 Adequate Water Supply.
Water rights and requirements are addressed in the report from Resource Engineering,
Inc. Irrigation water is included in this right and limited on Lots 2, 3, 4. As part of the
Preliminary Plan, a statement letter shall be required from the State Engineer's Office.
The Applicant proposes to provide domestic water to the 4 lots from two existing wells.
Two well sharing agreements are proposed to be drafted by the Applicant that clearly
define the rights and maintenance for each well, the associated pump(s), facilities and
the waterline easements from that well which shall serve two lots. Lots 1 and 4 shall be
served by Bowles Well #1; Lots 2 and 3 by Bowles Well #2.
Regarding irrigation, the Applicant is required to provide a source of adequate irrigation
water to each lot pursuant to the subdivision regulations. The Applicant stated this will
be provided by a shared well, and administered by a well -sharing agreement that will
be developed and signed by the lot owners. Staff recommends that the lot owners be
provided information that explains the legal right to use, or restriction from use, of the
adjacent ditches; this shall be incorporated into the maintenance agreement related to
roads, wells, etc.
Regarding water for fire flow. a jointly -maintained tank for fire flow is required to satisfy
7-403.C. as this area requires a moderate EMS response time getting to it. Comments
from GWS Fire Department Deputy Fire Marshal Ron Biggers echo this requirement,
and, in addition, require the new homes in the subdivision install automatic sprinkler
systems. (Exhibit L) These requirements can be met.
7-106 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater System.
Private Systems B.7
There is no central on-site treatment of septic matter, so ISDS units shall be required
on each lot. GarCo Environmental Health Department Manager Jim Rada (Exhibit K)
expressed a concern that the numerous easements on the site map and lack of actual
percolation (perc) tests may make siting an ISDS more difficult but also noted that the
building envelopes are almost 2 acres in size. Perc tests will be required prior to
preliminary plan review. These requirements can be met.
7-107 Adequate Public Utilities
The site map reflects an existing utility easement for Excel Energy. This is the service
provider for both electricity and natural gas in this area. There is no documentation
from the utility provider that they are willing to serve the development. The site map
also reflects an existing utility easement for `phone'. Again, there is no documentation
from the utility provider that they are willing to serve the development, but it is
assumed. A commitment to service from the utility company must be demonstrated
with the Preliminary Plan submittal. These requirements can be met.
6
7-108 Access and Roadways
The property is fronted on the south by SH 6 with a non -surfaced access drive to Lot 1,
the lot with the existing residence. The additional lots (2-4) are proposed to be
accessed via a shared access road near the west property boundary.
The estimated trip generation from this new access is 30 trips per day, based on a
nationally accepted ITE standard of 9.55 trips per day per residence. Project Engineer
John Niewoenher's comments (Exhibit J) cite the County standard for `Semi -Primitive
Road' be applied. The road meets the standards for width, surface, grade and cul-de-
sac size.
Glenwood Springs Fire District comments call for 'No parking' signs to prevent vehicles
constricting the 20' wide minimum roadway width required by the IFC. Because the
access road is long and narrow, Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the
Applicant design a bump -out, surfaced as the access road, large enough to
accommodate one vehicle (12' wide and no less than 25' long) be located on the east
side of the access road 200' north of the south property line. This would allow larger
vehicles meet and pass mid -way on the long drive and would to provide temporary
parking for periodic orchard maintenance or stock trailers loading/unloading into the
pasture there.
This shall be a private drive, and a road -sharing and maintenance agreement between
the users shall be required. There is an access and utility easement reflected to serve
Lot 1, therefore all lots should be required included in the agreement.
To prevent dragging mud, gravel and debris onto the State highway, it is recommended
that the apron be surfaced and graded no less than 25' from the edge of the surfaced
roadway. The access should be designed for the largest vehicle to access the drive
(probably a semi -truck moving van.) This access shall have a permit from CDOT, and
be adequately signed. These requirements can be met.
7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards
As discussed in Section III, this proposal is not depicted as being a 'significant risk' for
damage from natural hazards. The back of Lot 1 has steeper slopes, and the building
envelopes are required to be located so as to provide at least 1 acre of suitable
building envelope. The property lies outside of areas mapped for floodplain, soil, and
geo-hazard concerns. The topography and soil types are mapped, however, and there
are generally no concerns expressed for compatibility for ISDS installation and
operation. As the site has a general slope and is contiguous with highland behind it,
historic drainage accommodation should be maintained. Evaluation by the CGS may
reveal more specifics regarding any deposits or concerns on this parcel. As the
recommendations have not been considered for the Sketch Plan, seeking this evaluate
prior to submitting the Preliminary Plan will allow the Applicant to incorporate its
recommendations into the plan. These requirements can be met.
V. GENERAL RESOURCE APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE
PERMITS
7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands
As discussed in Section III, this proposal is designed to be compatible with the
historical agricultural use of the neighborhood, and the layout is conducive for the
orchard operation continuing. There is no discussion, however, of managing domestic
animals, fences, dust, weeds, ditch maintenance or fire fuel management. Staff
recommends the management of these items be set forth in the maintenance
agreement or covenants, and include the maintenance easement in 7-201.E.3. These
requirements can be met.
7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas.
On the Wildlife Habitat Maps for Garfield County GIS, the property is mapped as
'overall range' for Mule Deer, Elk, Black Bear and Wild Turkey. The area is identified
`winter range' for Elk and Mule Deer and is shown to be a `Concentration Area' on
winter range for both. The maps also show the area to be overall and 'winter range' for
Wild Turkey.
As discussed in Section III, this proposal is designed to be compatible with the
historical agricultural use of the neighborhood, and that layout is also compatible for
occupation by wildlife, as well. The existing fences meet `wildlife friendly' standards;
fencing types recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife shall be required in
this area. As required in ULUR, the Applicant shall consult with a certified wildlife
biologist to mitigate adverse effects to wildlife implementing 7 -202.A -E. These
requirements can be met.
7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies.
7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants.
7-205 Erosion and Sedimemtation.
7-206 Drainage.
7-207 Stormwater Run-off.
The Applicant shall query the consulting engineer as to whether or not the location of
the access road compromises the drainage easement along the west side of the
parcel. A stormwater management plan that includes a spill prevention and
containment component, addresses the storage of fuels and wastes, manages
8
stormwater run-off and sedimentation shall be developed prior to the submittal of the
Preliminary Plan, and submitted to the Project Engineer as a condition of approval.
Recommendations from
These requirements can be met.
7-208 Air Quality
As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall develop a statement that speaks to this
proposal's air quality actions. This requirement can be met.
7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards
As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall develop a wildfire fuels management
plan as per the GWS Fire Department comments (Exhibit L). This requirement can be
met.
7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards
As discussed in Section III, this proposal is not depicted as being a `significant risk' for
damage from natural hazards. Evaluation by the CGS may reveal more specifics
regarding any deposits or concerns on this parcel. As the recommendations have not
been considered for the Sketch Plan, seeking this evaluate prior to submitting the
Preliminary Plan will allow the Applicant to incorporate its recommendations into the
plan. These requirements can be met.
7-211 Areas with Archaeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance
There is no confirmation from a professional (described in 4-502.A.6) as to the
presence of these resources on the site. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall
submit a report from a qualified individual that speaks to the existence or non-existence
of these resources. This requirement can be met.
7-212 Reclamation
There is no reclamation plan to address the requirements of this section. Staf
recommends that it could be part of the combined report to be submitted to satisfy 7-
203-207. Staff recommends that comments regarding reclamation and the
management of the disturbed portion of the site from Garfield County Vegetation
Management Department Director Steve Anthony (Exhibit I ) shall be conditions of
approval. This requirement can be met.
DIVISION 4: SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
7-401 General Subdivision Standards
A. Preservation of Natural Features
B. Extensions for Future Development
C. Maintenance of common facilities
D. Domestic animal control
E. Fireplaces
Has been met
Has been met
Not applicable
Can be met
Can be met
7-402 Subdivision Lot Standards
A.- I. Have been met or can be met
9
VI. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Assessment / Fees Can be met
The property is located in Traffic Study Area 4 which requires a $104 per average
daily trip (ADT) fee be paid to the County in a traffic impact fee. This fee will be
figured at the time of final plat, and one-half shall be paid at final plat and included
as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA). The remaining
half shall be divided among the lots to be paid at the time building permits are
submitted to the County for individual lot development. If the parcel is to permit an
ADU, an additional assessment shall be paid
The development is also located in the Roaring Fork RE -1 School District. As such
the developer is required to pay the appropriate School Site Acquisition Fee to be
paid at final plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement (SIA). This fee is generally calculated as $200 per residential unit. If the
parcel is to permit an ADU, an additional assessment shall be paid as part of the
SIA.
Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants
Garfield County requires the Applicant place the following plat notes be included on
the final plat and in protective covenants:
1. Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities,
sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a
normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character
and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor,
lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on
public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides,
any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -
negligent agricultural operations.
2. 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.
3. 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.
10
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly
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).
7. All foundations and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be engineered by
a Professional Registered Engineer within the State of Colorado.
8. Accessory Dwelling Units must meet the requirements set forth in ULUR,
including 3-304.
VII. Referrals
This Sketch Plan was referred tot eh following for comment:
• Garfield County Road and Bridge Department
• Garfield County Vegetation Management Department
• Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer
• Garfield County Environmental Health Department
• Glenwood Springs Fire Department
• Colorado Division of Wildlife- no comments received
• School District RE -1- no comments received
VIII. Recommendations:
While this is not a complete listing (all recommendations detailed in this report and
offered at hearing are directed to the Applicant to the benefit of the project design to
be presented at Preliminary Plan), here are some important tasks to perform in the
development of the Preliminary Plan:
• Review and respond to changes to the Town of New Castle Comprehensive
Plan
• Respond to recommendations for fire protection and wildland fire interface
safety
• Development by an engineering professional of a comprehensive
Stormwater Plan to include components of drainage, erosion control, spill
prevention and containment
• Evaluation of geologic conditions by the Colorado Geological Survey, and
necessary response to any adverse conditions incorporated into the plan
• Development of a plan for the involved homeowners for managing ditches,
wells, road maintenance, weed abatement and wildland fire management
11
IX. Sketch Plan Comments and Preliminary Plan Review
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year
from the date of the Planning Commission review. Under the present Land Use
Code, if a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the
Garfield County Planning Commission by that date, the Applicant will have to
submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review
and comparison with the original application.
12
PC Exhibits (6/24/2009)
(Sketch Plan - Old Orchard Subdivision SKP)
Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A
roof of Mail Receipts
Proof of Publication
C
Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended
(ULUR)
D
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended (The
Comp Plan)
E
Application
F
Staff Report
G
Staff Powerpoint Presentation
H
Email from Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept Administrative
Foreman Jake Mall, dated 5.27.09
1
Email with attached comment letter from Garfield County
Vegetation Management Department Director Steve Anthony,
dated 6.5.09
Email from Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer
John Niewoenher, PE, dated 4.10.09
K
Email from Garfield County Environmental Health Manager Jim Rada,
dated 6.17.09
L
Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire District Deputy Fire Marshal Ron
Biggers, dated 6.10.09
propiA,(zianuir (batii(-to,
---
Wk,cettU, Look.H ask ,
. tca;f5'056-reLe io. he -'4(-,--61
c �, - , tut ► , ti 1i'Ctfi
, 7klia-4-1/Wit Otai\te_ (& 1\7171' /71-
- Gt V, CCK Rad
z
/ b-15 ot-R-e4-0_ ciiiu-A/kAiii-)
.i.of416 volt Kof -PeAtea1 itA
G
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
EXHIBIT
I H
Date Sent: May 27, 2009
Comments Due: June 12, 2009
Name of application: Old Orchard Subdivision Sketch Plan
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge
----------------
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
Staff Contact: Dusty Dunbar
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road and Bridge has no objection to this
application as it does not impact the County road system.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date June 4, 2009
Revised 3/30/00
MEMORANDUM
To: Dusty Dunbar
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Old Orchard Sketch Plan (SKP3509)
Date: June 5, 2009
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Sketch Plan. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
• Inventory and mapping -The applicant shall map and inventory the property for County Listed
Noxious Weeds
• Weed Management -The applicant will need to provide a weed management plan for the
inventoried noxious weeds.
• Common area weed management -The applicant needs to address weed management in
common areas including open space and road rights of way. Issues to address are monitoring,
treatment, and funding.
• Covenants -If the subdivision will have covenants this is an opportunity to encourage weed
management with new property owners, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to
manage county listed noxious weeds.
Revegetation
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted
on May 7, 2001) calls for the following:
• Plant material list.
• Planting schedule.
• A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
• A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
Please provide a map or information, prior to fmal 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:
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.
Dus Dunbar
From: John Niewoehner
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:48 AM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: Old Orchard Subdivision Sketch Pian
Dusty - -
I looked through the sketch plan documents. At the time of preliminary plan I will be looking at the following:
1. Drainage from the property towards SH 6. I don't suspect drainage is a problem but want to make sure that
the runoff has someplace to go when it meets the highway.
2. Length of road/shared driveway: It appears that the proposed road is slightly over 600 feet. They could
correct this by pulling the cul-de-sac back a little towards the west (thus shortening the road) and having a
longer driveway from the cul-de-sac to lot 2. I prefer to grant them a waiver from the road length.
3. Road/Shared Driveway Width: At 30 trips per day, the road would be considered to be a semi -primitive road
by the Code. Semi primitive roads have 21-100 trips per day. The standard for a semi -primitive road is a 16'
wide (gravel surface) with 2' foot shoulders on both side. Thus, a 20' total width. The 20' width agrees with
the requirement of the Intl Fire Code.
- - John
Duty Dunbar
From: Jim Rada
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:41 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: RE: GabossiOld Orchard Sub SKP
Attachments: Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-county.com).vcf
EXHIBIT
I did receive it today. Somehow it ended up in the GWS Public Health office. Be sure to send stuff to
PH Rifle.
No major issues with the sketch plan. With all of the easements on the new lots and no perc info yet,
it's hard to say how easy it will be to site an ISDS but usually 2 acres is enough. I'd like to review the
future submittals.
Jim Kada, RE115
Environmental Health Manager
Garfield County Public Health
195 W 1 t Street
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970-625-5200 x8113
Cell 970-319-1579
Fax 970-625-8304
Email jrada(a)gar field-county.com
Web www.garfield-countv.com
CI\�O��pR'ti
0EPARI
June 10, 2009
To: Dustin Dunbar, Garfield County Planner
From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department
RE: Comments on Subdivision SKP File Number SKP3509, Applicant Roc/Mary Gabossi, Location 44523
Hwy 6
Access:
Access as shown on the submitted plans look good, addressing signage will be addressed in future
comments if the project moves forward.
Fire Flow Water Supply:
The location of this proposed subdivision does not have an established water system to meet fire flow
demands. The applicant will need to submit plans showing how they will meet fire flow demands for the
subdivision. We will require the new homes in the subdivision to have automatic fire suppression systems
installed in them. By installing these systems in the new homes the amount of stored water to meet fire
flow demands can be reduced.
Wildfire Hazard Fuels:
If the project moves forward the application shall submit a wildfire hazard fuels mitigation plan.
Wildland Fire Interface construction standards:
Non-combustible building materials may -be required to be used on the exterior of the homes constructed in
this subdivision including decks and some windows made tempered glass.
Access Road:
On the plans it is 20 feet wide so it shall be posted with No -Parking signs.
General Comment:
Should this application be approved and the project move forward we request that the Garfield County
Planning staff forward Glenwood Springs Fire Department future applications to review. Some of our
above requirements should go into the Plat Notes on the subdivision so if the project proceeds to that step
please let us know in time get those request to you.
101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506
OLD ORCHARD SUBDIVISION
SKETCH PLAN
►4) CTc)PMAT`!ON
Owners:
Representative:
Location/Access:
Property Size:
Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Proposed Lots:
Water:
Sanitation:
Roc & Mary Gabossi
John L. Taufer
44523 State Hwy 6 west of Canyon Creek
20.22 Acres
Rural (R)
Outlying Residential (10 acres/du)
4 - Single Family. Residential units
Bowles Wells #1 and #2
ISDS
7/21/2009
1
Location
Nearest municipality; New Castle
- I III 111111 III II IIDIIII
PARCEL L
•7A8 /h 11111111110E
own of New
Castle, Garfield
County,
Colorado
Legend
TYPE
f AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE
BUREAU OF LAND IMYANT
a CLUSTER LOW DENSITY RES
CLUSTER MED ENSITY RES
COMA ERCIALMEIGHBRHD COMP,
- INDUSTRIAL
Q MUD USE
Q OPEN SPACE
® OPEN SPACE AGRI RES
OPEN SPACE RURAL RES
ED STATE WILDLFE AREA
M1nW PAIN Pan Bourcgry
Tow Boundary
Open Space Agricultural Residential
1 du per 2-10 ac
i.. +J40 l4
IEW CLARE MILE AREA PUR SOURCE:
USAN 4w 4r tSSY. ...Last
Man 0.
7/21/2009
2
Minimum acreage for
ADU =2 acres (Rural)
All eligible, Lot 1 has an
ADU permitted (2007)
Project meets:
Zoning, setbacks, building envelope requirements
Water (culinary, irrigation)
Sanitary system installation / separation
Subdivision standards of design, except as noted
Project issues:
ADU
7/21/2009
3
Project Issues / Concerns
Cooperative agreements need to be created between lot owners
for issues of mutual concern: fire flow tank, irrigation system,
maintenance of road and other mutually -owned facilities, future
development permissions (ADU) or restrictions, as well as:
Land maintenance (weeds, snowplowing, wildland fire
fuel reduction, livestock/pet management, fence standards)
Utility Services not demonstrated
Second CDOT permit needed- 'notice to proceed'
Wildlife Habitat Protection not analyzed
Fire District recommendations: fire flow tank, individual home
sprinkler systems, wildland fire risk reduction plan, road design
standards, requirements stated as plat notes
Fire District Recommendations
Wildland Fire interface plan- fuel reduction
Jointly maintained tank for fire flow
Sprinkler systems mandatory for home - size of tank for fire flow
relates to sprinkler requirement
Addressing required
Requests requirements appear as plat notes
Access drive width / sign requirements
o Staff recommends a surfaced bulb -out midway on access drive to
accommodate parking, field access so as to not limit access by EMS
vehicles
7/21/2009
4
Project Issues / Concerns
Stormwater Management Plan needed: 7-203-207 , 212
Air Quality Pian needed: 7-208
Natural & Geologic Hazards Analysis needed: 7-210
Archaeological, Paleo, Historic Resources Analysis needed: 7-211
Subdivision Standards- all met except
1.a. Appropriate for location
May be affected by results of required analysis by
Colorado Geological Survey
Fees
Fees: Road Impact Fee required (1/2 prior to Final Plat)
Payment is $104 per trip,
rs ADT per SFR is 9.85
{(4x9.85)'.+[(4x9.85).51}=59.10
Fees: School Land Dedication for RE -1 (7-405.C.3)
Dedication of land if deemed desirable location by RE -1 or
payment in lieu, as per 7-405.D
Minimum payment is $500 , or
Market Value determined by formula in 7-405.D.4.a.
Number of dwelling units to include ADUs, if requested to be
part of the approval of this subdivision (ADU is .5 SFR)
4 lots with 4 ADUs = 6 SFR [4 + (4 x .5)1
7/21/2009
5
Summary
All issues can be addressed by the Applicant
All issues will be REQUIRED to be addressed at
Preliminary Plan
Comments included in Staff Report and added by the
PC shall be considered recommendations to be
incorporated into the Preliminary Plan, and are good
for one year from hearing date
7/21/2009
6