HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 12.13.2000REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
ENGINEERS:
LOCATION:
PC 12/13/00
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Sketch Plan review of the South Ranch
Subdivision.
Becky Stirling representing the Estate of John
M. Stirling.
Timberline Engineering.
A parcel of land situated in the
N1/2SE1/4SW1/4, E1/2N1/2SW1/4SW1/4 of
S29, T7S, R87W of the 6th P.M.
Approximately 3.5 miles east of Carbondale,
north of Highway 82, directly south of Sun
Mesa PUD.
SITE DATA: 31.595+- acres.
WA I'ER: Central water (well in Sun Mesa PUD).
SEWER: I. S.D. S.
ACCESS: Easements in Sun Mesa PUD via a publicly
dedicated road in the Sun Mesa PUD.
ZONING: Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density
A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING:
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
North: PUD (Sun Mesa)
South: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject parcel of land is designated as Low Density Residential (10 and greater ac/du)
in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1995, for Study Area 1. With three (3) lots
1
proposed on a total of 31.595 acres, this application is in compliance with this designation
with a density of approximately 10.532 acres per dwelling unit.
It appears that this application is in general conformity with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan of 1995, for Study Area 1.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located approximately 3.5 miles east of
Carbondale, north of Highway 82, directly south of the existing Sun Mesa PUD. The
proposed lots are to be accessed via easements through Sun Mesa PUD via a publicly
dedicated road (Schooner lane), which connects to County Road 162. The site slopes
down to the south with areas in excess of one (1) acre on each proposed lot with
slopes less than forty percent (40%), then drops over a steep ridge in excess of forty
percent (40%) slope. The submitted map does not indicate any water bodies on site.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the tract into a total
of 3 residential lots on the 31.595 acre parcel. Proposed lot acreages are 12.953 acres
(1.784 acres less than 40% slope) for proposed lot 25, 8.832 acres (2.412 acres less
than 40%) for proposed lot 26, and 9.810 acres (2.013 acres less than 40%) for
proposed lot 27. Water is to be supplied through a central system within the existing
Sun Mesa PUD. Sewer is to be supplied via individual sewage disposal systems.
III. STAFF DISCUSSION:
Given the proposal to access the proposed subdivision through the existing Sun Mesa
PUD, and the proposal to supply water to the proposed subdivision via a well within the
Sun Mesa PUD, it will be necessary to Amend the Sun Mesa PUD to allow for this
proposed subdivision, as submitted. In addition, it will likely be necessary to amend
many of the documents/agreements/Associations of the Sun Mesa PUD to allow this
proposal, such as the Home Owners Association, Covenants, Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, and/or the Zone District Text. As such, it may be easier for the applicant
to apply to Amend the PUD to include the proposed three (3) lots within the Sun Mesa
PUD, rather than to subdivide the proposed three (3) lots as a separate subdivision. This
may simplify the application process by changing the process to an Amended PUD
application (which would have to be applied for anyway, given the proposed
subdivision), and a Preliminary Plan application (in conjunction with the Amended
PUD to subdivide the proposed three (3) lots) including the proposed three (3) lots as
part of the Sun Mesa PUD. The other alternative is to continue with the subdivision
currently being reviewed as a separate subdivision to create three (3) lots, but also
apply to Amend the existing Sun Mesa PUD, as would be required. This alternative
would require the Sun Mesa PUD to be amended prior to proceeding with any
Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision, rather than applying for both at the
same time, as would be the case of including the proposed three (3) lots within the Sun
2
Mesa PUD. The result of including the three (3) proposed lots within the Sun Mesa
would likely be a simplified and streamlined application. Of course, the decision as to
how to proceed is entirely up to the applicant. Staff simply suggests the alternative, for
the applicant to be aware of existing options.
The rest of this staff report reviews a number of issues which are apparent within the
submitted Subdivision Sketch Plan. Staff notes, many, if not all of these issues, may also
be issues that would have to be addressed in a PUD Amendment including the three (3)
proposed lots as part of the Sun Mesa PUD. However, many of these issues may be less
complicated in a PUD amendment application which would include the proposed three
(3) lots as part of the Sun Mesa PUD. Further, the comments made by staff, and those
received from agencies below, are based on the submitted Sketch Plan, should the
applicants choose to continue forward with a Preliminary Plan application that does
not include the proposed three (3) lots as part of the Sun Mesa PUD.
Staff understands that the discussion above may not be easy to follow, and as such, will
be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission or applicant may have, or
make any clarifications requested, at the public meeting of December 13, 2000.
IV. REVTFW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Garfield County Road and Bridge: No comments received.
B. Division of Water Resources: In a letter dated October 27, 2000 (See pgs. 14, 15),
the Division of Water Resources makes comments which include:
Based on the above, and pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(l), it is our opinion
that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to
decreed water rights so long as the plan for augmentation is operated according to
its decreed terms and conditions, but due to the inconclusive nature of the well test
we cannot comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. Bolding added
for emphasis.
Staff notes that information addressing the concern of the Division of Water
resources, as bolded above, should be submitted with any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
C. Garfield County Engineer: This application was referred to Burlstone Inc., by the
County Engineer to provide engineering comments. In a letter dated October 27,
2000 (See pgs.16-18), Burlstone, Inc., makes several comments regarding this
application in reference to general issues, transportation, water, sewer, and drainage.
These comments include:
3
General Issues
1. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed by the applicant in any
Preliminary Plan submittal.
2. Staff notes, this is standard practice, and thus, the applicant's statement is
correct.
Transportation
1. Plat Note #8 on the Sketch and Preliminary Plat Map states that roads will
meet `primitive residential" standards. According to ITE Trip Generation,
6th Edition standards, the number of trips generated by the three houses will
fall in the 21-100 trips category, requiring the roads to meet the "rural
primitive" standards in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations,
including:
Staff notes, this statement should say that the roads need to meet "semi -
primitive" standards in Section 9:35, and not "rural -primitive" There are no
"rural -primitive" standards in Section 9:35.
► The plan and profile maps (R1 and R2) show two curves with
50 foot radii. The minimum radius for a rural primitive road
is 80, feet.
Staff notes, this is incorrect. Semi -primitive standards, which
these roads need to meet, require a minimum radius of 50',
which the application submittal proposes.
► The plan and profile maps, and the report state the roadway
right-of-way (ROW) will be 30 feet. The minimum ROW for
a rural primitive road is 50 feet.
Staff notes, it is correct that the submittal application
proposes a 30 foot wide ROW for the internal access road to
extend close to the proposed lots (Schooner Lane), however,
according to Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations,
semi -primitive roads, which this road needs to be constructed
to, only requires a 40' minimum ROW (not a 50' row as stated
above). Staff recommends that the applicant correct this
in their application to be submitted as part of any
Preliminary Plan submittal (provide a forty foot (40')
right-of-way).
• Lane width is to be a minimum of 11 feet; 12 feet is preferred.
Staff notes, the required lane width for semi -primitive roads,
per County Regulations (9:35), is eight feet (8') in each
direction and not eleven feet (11'). Thus, the applicant will
only be required to provide lane widths of eight feet (8') in
each direction, per County Regulations (9:35).
2. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
3. It appears that the Fire Road (Map R3) is also the secondary access road
required by the County. Slopes and horizontal curves as shown on the Fire
Road would be difficult for fire and other emergency access vehicles. The
plan also states that each owner shall meet with Carbondale to assure that
emergency access standards are met. Burl stone recommends that the
developers meet with Carbondale and other emergency service providers
and obtain written agreements prior to plan approval. These agreements
should be incorporated in the covenants or appropriate documents, under
the control of the Homeowners Association.
Staff notes, the recommendations of the Fire District, with regard to
access, should be followed in any Preliminary Plan submittal to ensure
adequate emergency access to the proposed lots. This includes building
the proposed extension of Schooner lane to County Road standards to
loop in with Skipper Drive, rather than just having an emergency access
road from the proposed cul-de-sac to Skipper Drive. The applicants may
wish to meet with the Fire District to discuss any concerns raised by the
District in their comment letter included in this staff report. This obligation
should not be left to the individual owners of the proposed lots. If the District
feels a written agreement is necessary, staff recommends that it be signed
before Final Plat, and be complied with as a condition of any Final Plat.
4. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
Water
1. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
2. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
3. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
4. Staff agrees that the ownership of the well and appurtenant facilities be with
the Homeowners Association. This should be made clear by the applicant in
any Preliminary Plan submittal.
5. The plan should include calculations for fire flows, and agreements with
emergency service providers be signed prior to approval of this plan.
Staff notes, the referenced calculations for fire flows should be submitted
with any Preliminary Plan submittal. As with the access issue, fire flows/
water supply for fire protection should be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Fire District with respect to the water supply comments received from the
Fire District. If the Fire District feels a written agreement is necessary, staff
recommends that it be signed prior to any Final Plat approval.
6. The water quality tests and pump tests should be completed and furnished
prior to approval.
Staff notes, the applicant should comply with any and all regulations
regarding water quality and quantity in County Regulations, as detailed in the
pertinent sections of the regulations, at the relevant stages (Preliminary Plan,
Final Plat) of this application.
7. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
8. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
Sewer
1. Staff notes, this comment should be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
submittal.
2. Septic system permits should be obtained prior to approval of this plan.
Staff notes, septic system permits will need to be applied for with any
building permit application, not as part of this subdivision application.
Drainage
1. Staff notes, this
submittal.
2. Staff notes, this
submittal.
3. Staff notes, this
submittal.
comment should
comment should
comment should
be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
be addressed in any Preliminary Plan
D. Town of Basalt: No comments received.
E. Town of Carbondale; No comments received.
F. Carbondale Fire District: In a letter dated October 25, 2000, (See pgs.19, 20), the
Carbondale Fire District makes several comments regarding access, water supply,
wildfire hazards and impact fees. Comments include:
Access
...Considering the high wildfire potential in the area, a looped road that connects
"Schooner Lane" to "Skipper Drive" would be preferred over the proposed new cul-
de-sac and emergency access arrangement. Staff recommends that this comment
be strongly considered by the applicant in any Preliminary Plan submittal.
Water Supply
I am not entirely clear about the proposed water supply for the subdivision. The
letter from Timberline Engineering indicates a 5,000 gallon tank is proposed to
serve the three lots however the "sketch and preliminary plan" drawing indicates
in the plat notes that water tanks will be installed at each lot with a minimum of
3,000 gallons each. A larger single tank arrangement serving the three lots would
be preferable over the three smaller tanks. Again, considering the wildfire potential
and lack of any other water supplies in the vicinity, the storage tank should have
a minimum capacity of 10,000 gallons. There appears to be insufficient elevation
of the water tank to adequately supply a fire hydrant connected to the proposed 4 -
inch line. An arrangement that would allow a fire engine to connect with "suction"
hose to the tank would have to be provided in this case. Bolding added for
emphasis. Staff recommends that the applicants meet with the Fire District to
discuss these issues, prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal, and attempt to
address them in any Preliminary Plan submittal.
Wildfire Hazards:
Much of the development consists of slopes of grass, sage, pinion and juniper, which
present a high wildfire hazard. Defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building
7
construction features should be implemented in these areas. Building envelope
locations and defensible spaces should follow the recommendations of the
Colorado State Forest Service. Bolding added for emphasis.
Staff will circulate any Preliminary Plan submittal to the Colorado State Forest
Service for their comments. The applicants may wish to contact the Colorado
State Forest Service prior to Preliminary Plan submittal, to discuss any
concerns/issues the Forest Service may have.
Impact Fees
...The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the
payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of
the final plat.
Staff notes that all of the above comments are very important to this application
and should be addressed by the applicant in any Preliminary Plan submittal.
Fire protection is integral to any subdivision, and is included in many sections
of county regulations including, but not limited to Sections 1:21 and 4:91 of the
Subdivision Regulations, upon which this application will be reviewed for
compliance.
V. STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Water Supply: The source of water for the 3 proposed lots is proposed to be an
individual well (Permit number 053721-F) within the Sun Mesa PUD. A single well
for all three lots will constitute a central water system. This system is proposed to
be "owned by a homeowners association which will be responsible to operate it for
the benefit of these three lot owners."
For Preliminary Plan purposes, the applicant should be aware that Section 4.91 of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations will require but not be limited to a water
supply plan and evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity
and dependability is available for the proposed subdivision.
Staff notes, well permit number 053721-F, which is for the well proposed to
supply water to these three lots, states in condition of approval number 6, "The
use of groundwater from this well is limited to a central water supply for the
Sun Mesa PUD as specified in case nos. 84CW741, 87CW244 and 99CW036."
Since the proposed South Ranch Subdivision is a separate subdivision, and not
part of the Sun Mesa PUD, the applicant should be aware that it appears that
this permit, and possibly any augmentation plan, may have to be modified for
Preliminary Plan review to allow the proposed use. The Sun Mesa PUD would
also have to be amended to allow this proposal.
8
Comments received from the County Engineer (Buristone Inc.), the Division of
Water Resources, and the Fire District with respect to water supply should be
addressed as outlined above, in Section IV, Review Agency/Public Comments.
Zoning: The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density
(A/R/RD).
This zoning allows single-family dwellings and customary accessary uses.
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%).
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or
fifty (50) feet fromfront lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet
from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line; or one-half (1/2) the height of the
principal building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Height of Building: Twenty-five (25) feet.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section
5 (Supplementary Regulations).
Provisions shall be made to comply with these regulations and all others
pertinent to the A/R/RD zoning.
3. Access/Parking: Access to all proposed lots is to be through the existing Sun Mesa
PUD, via easements connected to Schooner Lane, which connects with County
Road 162. With this proposal, the applicant should be aware that the Sun Mesa
PUD would have to be amended to allow for this.
For any Preliminary Plan submittal, it must be clear what entity would maintain the
proposed new roads within Sun Mesa PUD and the proposed lots.
Also, it is unclear whether or not the western portion (`elbow") of the extended road,
to access the proposed lots near Skipper Drive is within Sun Mesa PUD. This should
be clarified for any Preliminary Plan submittal. If it is not within Sun Mesa PUD,
how this portion of road is to be maintained, and what agreements are to be in place
9
for it to be built outside the PUD, must also be clarified.
It appears that access to the proposed three (3) lots is somewhat steep. The
applicants should be aware that any access connecting to more than one lot will have
to be built to County Road standards per Section 9:35 of the Subdivision
Regulations, which limit the grade of any road. Also, the applicants may wish to
consider limiting the grade of any driveway to any of the lots for safety reasons.
Section 5.01.02 of the Zoning Resolution requires off-street parking for residential
uses (except group quarters) at one (1) space per six hundred (600) square feet of
floor area or one (1) space per dwelling unit, which ever is greater; each separately
rentable room or group of rooms shall be considered a dwelling unit. Any
Preliminary Plan submittal should state how this regulation is being addressed.
All of the comments pertaining to access/parking as detailed above, in Section IV,
Review Agency/Public Comments should be addressed per that section.
4. Waste Disposal: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDSs) are proposed for each
individual lot. Testing will have to be conducted to ensure that ISDSs can be
installed on the proposed lots. The applicant should be aware of Sections 4:92 (D),
and (E) of the Subdivision Regulations, which pertain to ISDSs for Preliminary Plan
purposes.
5. Soils/Geology: The soils found on the subject property are Tridell-Brownsto stony
sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes, extremely stony (106). This soil is partially
described by U.S. Soil Survey as, "Only the less sloping areas of this unit are suited
to homesite development. The main limitations are the slope and stoniness. Erosion
is a hazard in the steeper areas. Only part of the site that is used for construction
should be disturbed...Areas adjacent to hillsides are occasionally affected by runoff,
which may be accompanied by the movement of rock debris."
The applicant should be aware that at Preliminary Plan, the application will be
reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey for any geologic hazards. Given the
topography of the site, slopes may be a concern.
Further, with the presence of steep slopes, the applicant should be aware that Section
5.04.02 (2) of the Zoning Resolution states:
Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building envelope of 1
acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller
building envelope may be approved by the Board after review of the following which
shall be submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered, professional
10
engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet.
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered, professional
engineer.
(D) A detailed site plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of five (5)
feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
Staff notes, the submitted map indicates that in excess of one (1) acre of each
proposed lot is less than forty percent (40%) slope.
6. Fire Protection: Fire protection will need to be part of any water supply plan as
required for Preliminary Plan per Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Comments received from the Fire District, and others pertaining to fire protection,
and detailed above, in Section IV, Review Agency/Public Comments should be
addressed by the applicant as outlined in that Section.
7. Drainage Plan: A drainage plan will be required as part of any Preliminary Plan
submittal (Section 4:80 of the Subdivision Regulations). With the steep slopes that
are present, runoff may be a concern. The applicant should examine any and all
impacts there may be on the proposed subdivision. Any comments pertaining to
drainage , as outlined above, in Section III, Review Agency/Public Comments should
be addressed as outlined in that section.
8. Wildlife: Staff recommends that the applicants meet with the Division of Wildlife
prior to submitting any Preliminary Plan submittal, and attempt to address any
Division of Wildlife concerns/comments in any Preliminary Plan submittal.
9. Radiation: In a letter dated September 9, 2000, from HP Geotech, and included in
the application submittal, it is stated, "The project site is not located on geologic
deposits that would be expected to have high concentrations of radioactive minerals.
However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area." Any
findings and recommendations made by HP Geotech with regard to these issues will
likely be conditions of any approval.
10. School Fees, as to be determined, will have to be paid as a condition of any Final
Plat. As part of the determination of school fees, an appraisal of the subject property
will have to be completed prior to Final Plat.
11. Road Impact Fees, as to be determined, will need to be paid as a condition of any
11
Final Plat.
12. Easements: All existing/proposed easements, and any other necessary easements will
need to be shown on any submitted Preliminary Plan.
13. Recommended Plat Notes/Covenants:
1) No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within a
subdivision. One (1) new solid fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-
401, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in
any unit. All units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas
burning stoves and appliances.
2) One (1) dog shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision;
and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property
boundaries. The requirement shall be included in the protective covenants for
the subdivision, with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a
dog from the subdivision as a final remedy in worst cases.
3) The subdivision shall have covenants requiring but not limited to all exterior
lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be
directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision.
4) Control of noxious weeds is the lot owner's responsibility.
5) Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution, Section 1.08, which states among other things
that, "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 strong rural character and a
healthy ranching sector."
14. Other Issues:
1. Plat Notes: Plat note 8, on the submitted Sketch/Preliminary Plan, needs to
be revised to state that roads will meet "Semi -Primitive" road standards, and
not "Primitive Residential", as is currently stated. Given the ADTs for the
three (3) proposed lots, the roads will have to be built to "Semi -Primitive"
standards, per Section 9:35, of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff
recommends that Plat note 9, on the submitted Sketch/Preliminary Plan, be
removed, and that these issues, as stated in the plat note, be reviewed with
the Fire District as discussed previously in this staff report. Information
pertaining to Plat note 11, should be included in any covenants submitted.
Plat note 15, should be revised, based on comments from the Fire District,
and any meeting with the Fire District and the applicant, as detailed earlier
in this staff report. Plat note 14 appears to be incomplete. Staff notes, the
above recommended plat notes should replace those which are similar on the
submitted Sketch Plan, on any Final Plat. Note 20 should state whether or not
the well is located in lots 19 and 20 of the Sun Mesa PUD or lots 19 and 20
12
of somewhere else.
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the
date of the Planning Commission review (valid until December 13, 2001). If a Preliminary
Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning
Commission within this period, the applicant must submit an updated Sketch Plan
application to the Planning Department for review and comparison with the original
application.
13
RECEIVED tisUv_ 0 2 raiii
STATE OFCOLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
October 27, 2000
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: South Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan
Sec. 29, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Mr.Laurien:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately
30 acres into three single family residential lots. Each lot will be provided with water for one single
family residence, irrigation of up to 3000 square feet of lawn at each residence, and watering of an
unspecified number of horses. The applicant proposes to provide water through a central supply
well pursuant to an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 84CW741, and modified in Case Nos.
87CW244 and 99CW036. These decrees provide augmentation water for the Stirling Subdivision,
which is described as being located in Sections 29 and 30 of Township 7 South, Range 89 West
of the 6th P.M. The central supply well is identified as Stirling Well C, which was issued Permit
No. 53721-F on May 11, 2000. Sewage disposal is proposed to be provided through a individual
septic tank/leachfield systems.
Case No. 99CW036 amends Case Nos. 84CW741, 85CW139 and 87CW244, to provide
augmentation for the following uses in the Stirling Subdivision: 32 units with 3,000 square feet of
lawn and garden irrigation per unit, 6 units with 5,000 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation per
unit, one acre of greenhouse uses, a total of 96 animals, and a health spa with a maximum of 11
rooms (see Case No. 87CW244 for a complete description of the health spa). Alternatively, 5
additional units with no irrigation and one unit with 3,000 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation
may be exchanged for the health spa. A combination of the two alternatives, based on the
assumptions in the decree, is also permissible.
In a Memorandum dated September 8, 2000, Sherry Caloia indicates the well proposed to
be used for this development produced 12 gallons per minute. Further review of the Well
Construction and Test Report indicates that the well was tested for only two hours and that the
final pumping level at the end of the test was the bottom of the well. Thus, this test is inconclusive
as to the sustainable well yield.
Based on the above, and pursuant to Section 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 so long as the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and
conditions, but due to the inconclusive nature of the well test we cannot comment on the
physical adequacy of the water supply. We suggest that the number of livestock units allocated
to this proposal be specified in the covenants to assure that the total number of livestock units
for this and other developments located in the "Stirling Subdivision" does that exceed that
allowed under the decrees, and that a more conclusive well test be performed and submitted for
our review. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Garfield County Building and Planning October 27, 2000
South Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
tiork.. Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CML/South Ranch.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Acting Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
OCT -27-2000 21:22 FROM:
BURLSTONE, INC.
306 S. LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN RD.
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401
www.bvrrlstone.00m
303-526-772o
303-526-5875 Fax
MEMORAINIDUM
TO:9703845004 P.002/004
To: Janice Loucks, Garfield County Engineer
CC: Judy Foy, Project File
From: Becky Davidson, P.E.
Date: October 27, 2000
Re: South Ranch Subdivision, Sketch Plan Review
Buristone has reviewed the Sketch Plan for the proposed South Ranch Subdivision,
with the following comments:
General Issues
1. The report should include a comprehensive map incorporating roads, slopes,
easements, vegetation and wetlands, drainage, culverts, potential well and
septic locations, etc. There is very little correlation among the maps and the
report, and it is difficult to determine how each element affects the others.
2. Section 4:60, H, page 3 states that because a section will not be subdivided
no final work sheet is included for review by the County Surveyor. Is this
standard practice?
Transportation
1. Plat Note # 8 on the Sketch and Preliminary Plat Map states that roads will
meet "primitive residential" standards. According to ITE Trip Generation, 6th
Edition standards, the number of trips generated by the three houses will fall
in the 21-100 trips category, requiring the roads to meet the "rural primitive"
standards in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations, including:
1
OCT -27-2000 21:22 FROM:
TO:9703845004 P.003/004
October 27, 2000
• The plan and profile maps (R1 and R2) show two curves with 50 foot
radii. The minimum radius for a rural primitive road is 80 feet.
• The plan and profile maps, and the report, state that the roadway right-
of-way (ROW) will be 30 feet. The minimum ROW for a rural primitive
road is 50 feet.
• Lane width is to be a minimum of 11 feet; 12 feet is preferred.
• Roadway surfaces should be gravel, with cross slopes of 2 percent
chip/seal and 3 percent gravel.
2. There is no discussion of existing or projected external traffic versus capacity
on the identified access roads, including Skipper Lane, Schooner Lane, and
County Roads (CR) 102, 162, and 102A.
3. It appears that the Fere Road (Map R3) is also the secondary access road
required by the County. Slopes and horizontal curves as shown on the Fire
Road would be difficult for fire and other emergency access vehicles, The
plan also states that each owner shall meet with Carbondale to assure that
emergency access standards are met. Burlstone recommends that the
developers meet with Carbondale and other emergency services providers
and obtain written agreements prior to plan approval. These agreements
should be incorporated in the covenants or appropriate documents, under the
control of the Homeowners Association.
4. The access roads need to be designed with vertical curves, and shown on the
maps.
Water
1. The plan should clarify exactly which Sun Mesa well(s) will be used to serve
these three residences. The letter addressing water supply is unclear about
whether Well "C," the 12 gpm well, is the actual well for the three South
Ranch sites, or is mentioned only as an example. (Timberline Engineering,
Appendix B)
2. The plan should be consistent regarding the number of wells. Page 1 of the
Geological Site Assessment and other places in the plan state that the homes
will have individual on-site wells and septic systems.
3. The plan should also be clear about the number of proposed water holding
tanks and the capacity of each. The same letter refers to one (preliminarily
2
1�
DCT -27-2000 21:22 FROM:
TO:9703845004 P.004/004
October 27, 2000
sized) 5,000 gallon holding tank to serve all three sites. Other areas in the
plan refer to three separate 3,000 gallon tanks, one for each residence,
4. Buristone agrees with Covenant 2, Ownership of Well and Appurtenant
Facilities, which gives the Homeowners Association ownership of the well,
common facilities, water rights and augmentation plan.
5. The plan should include calculations for fire flows, and agreements with
emergency service providers should be signed prior to approval of this plan.
6. The water quality tests and pump tests should be completed and furnished
prior to approval.
7. The plan needs to have calculations showing what pressure(s) will be created
at the residences from the 4 -inch gravity -fed PVC pipe.
8. The plan should show the location of the water easement(s), and state who
owns the water Zine easements, and the adjacent property.
Sewer
1. Section 4:92, E, page 4 states that the proposed management plan for the
individual systems will be pumping the septic tanks every two years. The
plan needs to specify who will pay for pumping the tanks, and what actions
will be taken if more frequent pumping for each or all tanks becomes
necessary.
2. Septic system permits should be obtained prior to approval of this plan.
Drainage
1. The plan states in several places, including the Geological report, that no
major drainages cross the property. There needs to be more information
about historic drainage patterns, and how they might be altered by this
development. This property contains steep slopes which may or may not be
altered by these home sites.
2. Off-site drainage locations which affect or might be affected by this property
should be identified in the plan and on a map. The same map should include
wetlands, slopes, wildlife migration patterns, and other site characteristics.
3. On Sheet D-1, the culverts need to have a minimum diameter of 18 inches.
3
�p ape
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
October 20, 2000
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
F RECEIVED OCT 2
RE: South Ranch Subdivision, Sketch Plan
Dear Jeff:
I have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed South Ranch Subdivision. I would offer the
following comments:
Access
The proposed access for the three new lots is an extension of "Schooner Lane" with a new cul-
de-sac having a 50 -foot radius. The drawings indicate that an emergency access is proposed,
connecting the proposed new cul-de-sac to "Skipper Drive". Considering the high wildfire
potential for the area, a looped road that connects "Schooner Lane" to "Skipper Drive" would be
preferred over the proposed new cul-de-sac and emergency access arrangement.
Water Supply
1 am not entirely clear about the proposed water supply for the subdivision. The letter from
Timberline Engineering indicates that a 5,000 gallon tank is proposed to serve the three lots
however the "sketch and preliminary plan" drawing indicates in the plat notes that water tanks
will be installed at each lot with a minimum of 3,000 gallons each. A larger single tank
arrangement serving the three lots would be preferable over three smaller tanks. Again,
considering the wildfire potential and the lack of any other water supplies in the vicinity, the
storage tank should have a minimum capacity of 10,000 gallons. There appears to be insufficient
elevation of the water tank to adequately supply a fire hydrant connected to the proposed 4 -inch
line. An arrangement that would allow a fire engine to connect with "suction" hose to the tank
would have to be provided in this case.
Wildfire Hazards
Much of the development consists of slopes of grass, sage, pinion and juniper, which present a
high wildfire hazard. Defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building construction features
should be implemented in these areas. Building envelope locations and defensible spaces should
follow the recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service.
l9
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
21711
South Ranch Subdivision, Sketch Plan, Page 2
Impact Fees
The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the three proposed
residential lots. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for
the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the fmal
plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement
is executed.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief