HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationRECEIVED
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department JUN 0 2nn3
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 GARFIELD COUNTY
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile°. MNR43!g4ANNING
www.garfield-county.com
Subdivision Application Form
GENERAL INFORMATION
(To be completed by the applicant.)
D Subdivision Name: Mamm Creek Commons
D Type of Subdivision (check one of the following types):
Sketch Plan Y Preliminary Plan Final Plat
D Name of Property Owner (Applicant): Jimmy M. Sills
D Address: 45705 Highway 6 & 24 Telephone: (970) 947-9511
D City: Glenwood Springs State: CO Zip Code: 81601 FAX: 947-9233
D Name of Owner's Representative, if any (Attorney, Planner, etc):
Timothy A. Thulson (Balcomb & Green, P.C.)
D Address: 818 Colorado Avenue
Telephone: (970) 945-6546
D City: Glenwood Springs State: CO Zip Code: 81601 FAX: 945-8902
D Name of Engineer:
D Address: To Be Determined Telephone:
D. City: State: Zip Code: FAX:
• Name of Surveyor: Scarrow & Walker
D Address: 8i8 Co+ofado=Avenue
Telephone: (970) 945-8664
D City: Glenwood Springs State: co Zip Code: 81602 FAX:
D Name of Planner:
D Address: Same as Owner
Telephone:
D. City: State: Zip Code: FAX:
GENERAL
➢ Location of Property: Section
➢ Practical Location / Address
of Garfield County Airport
INFORMATION continued...
23 & 26 Township 6 S. Range 93 W.
of Property: Approximately one (1) mile south
along County Road 319.
➢ Current Size of Property
➢ Number of Tracts / Lots
> Property Current Land Use
1. Property's Current
2. Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Utility Service:
➢ Proposed Water Source:
> Proposed Method of Sewage
➢ Proposed Public Access
> Easements: Utility:
Ditch:
> Total Development Area
to be Subdivided (in
Created within the
Designation:
Zone District:
acres): 47.20
Proposed Subdivision:
A/R/RD
27
Map Designation:
Central New Well
with Storage
Disposal: Individual Septic
VIA: County Road 319 and Grass Mesa Road
N/A
N/A
(fill in the appropriate boxes below):
(1) Residential
Units / Lots
Size (Acres)
Parking Provided
Single -Family
27
1 acre
N/A
Duplex
Multi -Family
Mobile Home
Total
27
27 acres
Floor Area (sq. ft.Z
Size (Acres)
Parking Provided
(2) Commercial
(3) Industrial
(4) Public / Quasi -Public
(5) Open Space / Common Area
Total
20.20 acres
> Base Fee: Sketch Plan - $325.00; Prelim Plan - $675.00;
Final Plat - $200
paid on 6/6/03
D Plat Review Fee of $50 paid on
2
• •
I. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS
In order to subdivide land in Garfield County, an Applicant is required to complete the following land use
processes in the following order: 1) Sketch Plan Review Process, 2) Preliminary Plan Review Process, and
3) Final Plat Review Process. This section will briefly describe the nature of each process and provide
general direction including subdivision regulation citations to a potential applicant requesting subdivision
approval in Garfield County. All of the Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are located for
purchase at the Planning Department and can also be found on the World Wide Web at the following
address: http://www.garfield-countv.com/building and planning/index.htm
A) The Sketch Plan Review (Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Sketch Plan process is to allow an individual an opportunity to
propose a subdivision in a "sketch" format to the Planning Department and the Garfield
County Planning Commission in order to obtain a cursory review for compliance with
the County's land use review documents, regulations, and policies to identify any
issues that would need to be addressed if the proposed subdivision were to be pursued.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Sketch Plan review process as the first step in Garfield County's Subdivision process.
More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision (Section 2:20.48) as the
division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or
separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or
other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Sketch Plan Review an Applicant is responsible for reviewing
Section 3:09 of the Subdivision Regulations and providing enough information to the
Planning Department in the application to conduct a thorough review and provide the
resulting comments to the Planning Commission for their review and comments.
Specifically, Section and 3:_z_1:9 of the Subdivision Regulations contain the
specific information required to be submitted to the Planning Department in order to
satisfy the application requirements in addition to the information requested on this
application form.
4. Process / Public Meeting
The Sketch Plan review process is considered a 1 -step process because the
application is reviewed only by the Planning Commission at a public meeting. In order
to appear before the Planning Commission, an applicant will have submitted all
required application submittal requirements mentioned above to the Planning
Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will have 15 working days to review the
application to determine if all the required submittal information has been submitted as
required.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
3
• •
scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission and will request the
applicant supply additional copies to provide the Commission for their review.
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the
applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the
Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically
complete. If the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time,
the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission will review the application, Staff will
conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory
documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application.
As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will
also be furnished in advance to the applicant.
At the date and time set for the public meeting before the Planning Commission, Staff
will present the findings in the Memorandum and the applicant will be required to
present the proposed subdivision and respond to comments and questions provided by
the Planning Commission. The comments provided to the Applicant by the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission as a result of the Sketch Plan Process will
be kept on file in the Planning Department for 1 -year from the meeting date before the
Planning Commission. If an Applicant does not submit a Preliminary Plan application to
the Planning Department within the 1 -year timeframe, the Sketch Plan file will be
closed and the Applicant will need to reapply for a Sketch Plan review prior to a
Preliminary Plan review.
B) Preliminary Plan Review (Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Preliminary Plan review process is to conduct a thorough review of
the many aspects that are associated with dividing land in Garfield County for the
purposes of residential, commercial, and industrial development. This is the most
intensive review step where the Building and Planning Staff, the Planning Commission,
and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will conduct a thorough review of all
the issues associated with the proposed subdivision against the County's regulatory
requirements. Ultimately, the purpose of this process is to identify all the major issues
in the proposed subdivision by using the County's Zoning Resolution, Subdivision
Regulations, Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as well as other state and local referral
agencies that will provide comments on any issues raised in their review. This is the
process that will either approve or deny the application request.
4
• •
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Preliminary Plan review process as the second and most intensive step in Garfield
County's Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision
as the division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or
separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or
other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Preliminary Plan Review, an Applicant must have already
completed the Sketch Plan review process addressed in Section 3:00 of the
Subdivision Regulations.
An applicant requesting Preliminary Plan review will be required to submit this
application form, all the required submittal information contained in Sections 4:40 to
4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations as well as address all of the applicable Design and
Improvement Standards in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In addition to the substantive submittal information related to the proposed subdivision
project itself, an applicant is required to complete all the public notice requirements so
that legal public hearings can be held before the Planning Commission and the BOCC
which is addressed in Sections 4:20 — 4:31 of the Subdivision Regulations.
4. Process / Public Hearings
The Preliminary Plan review process is considered a 2 -step process because the
application is ultimately reviewed by two County decision-making entities during public
hearings: the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
In order to obtain dates for the public hearings before the Planning Commission and
the BOCC, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal
requirements mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted,
Staff will have 30 working days to review the application to determine if all the required
submittal information has been submitted as required.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission / BOCC. Additionally, Staff
will provide the applicant with the notice forms to be mailed, published, and posted.
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
5
• •
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the
applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the
Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically
complete. If the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time,
the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission / BOCC will review the application,
Staff will conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use
regulatory documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and
the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application.
As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission / BOCC containing the results on the land use analysis. This
Memorandum will also be furnished in advance to the applicant prior to the public
hearings.
As mentioned above, Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
the BOCC regarding the issues raised in the analysis of the proposed subdivision. The
Applicant will first propose the subdivision to the Planning Commission who is
responsible for making a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or
denial to the BOCC. Next, the application will be reviewed by the BOCC during a
regular public hearing. The BOCC will consider the recommendations from the
Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, the information presented by the
applicant, and the public. As a result, the BOCC is the final decision-making entity
regarding the proposed subdivision and will either approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application.
If the BOCC approves the subdivision application at the public hearing, the approval
shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval,
or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted
by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. (See the specific
information provided in Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations.) Following the
hearing, Staff will provide a resolution signed by the BOCC which memorializes the
action taken by the Board with any / all conditions which will be recorded in the Clerk
and Recorder's Office. Once an applicant has Preliminary Plan approval, they are
required to complete the third and final step in the County's Subdivision Process: Final
Plat Review.
C) Final Plat Review (Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Final Plat review process is to provide the applicant with a
mechanism to prove to the County that all the conditions of approval required during
the Preliminary Plan review process have been met / addressed to the satisfaction of
the Planning Staff and the BOCC. This being the case, the chairman of the BOCC will
6
• •
'sign the Final Plat and have it recorded memorializing the subdivision approval granted
by the BOCC. This is the last step in the County's subdivision process.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Final Plat review process as the third and last step in Garfield County's Subdivision
process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division of a lot,
tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or
the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling
units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Final Plat review, an Applicant must have already completed the
Preliminary Plan review process addressed in Section 4:00 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
An applicant requesting Final Plat review will be required to submit this application form,
all the required submittal information contained in Section 5:00 of the Subdivision
Regulations and responses to all the conditions of approval required as part of the
Preliminary Plan review process.
4. Process
The Final Plat review process is considered a 1 -step process because the application
is ultimately reviewed by the Building and Planning Staff and presented to the BOCC
for their signature if the application satisfies all the required submittal information to the
satisfaction of the Building and Planning Department.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
scheduled to be presented to the BOCC for signature. (This is not a public hearing or
meeting and therefore does not require public notice.)
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the BOCC will review the Final Plat, Staff will review the
application / Final Plat in terms of adequacy to determine if all the submittal information
satisfies the Final plat requirements as well as the responses to the conditions of
approval. During this review, Staff will forward the Final Plat the County Surveyor for
review and a signature. In the event there are additional questions or clarification
issues to be addressed, the County Surveyor will generally contact the applicant to
have the plat adjusted as necessary. Once, Staff has completed the review and all
required information has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Department
7
• •
'and the County Surveyor has signed the Final Plat in Mylar form, it will be scheduled at
the next BOCC meeting to be placed on the consent agenda with a request to
authorize the Chairman of the BOCC to sign the plat.
Once the Final Plat is signed, it is then recorded by the County Clerk in the Clerk and
Recorder's Office for a fee of $11 for the first sheet and $10 for each additional sheet
thereafter. This fee shall be paid by the applicant. This act of recording the signed Final
Plat represents the completion of the Garfield County Subdivision Process.
Please refer to the specific language in the Final Plat portion (Section 5:00) of the
Subdivision Regulations for specific timelines and additional responsibilities required of
the applicant to complete the Final Plat process.
Please Note: This information presented above is to be used as a
general guide for an applicant considering a subdivision in Garfield
County. It is highly recommended that an applicant either purchase
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations
or access them on-line at:
http://www.garfield-countv.com/buildinq and planninq/index.htm
in order to ascertain all the necessary requirements for each of the
three steps including Sketch Pian Review, Preliminary Plan Review,
and Final Plat Review.
I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information
which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
(S ature of a • • Iicant/owner)
Last Revised: 11/21/2002
8
Date
•
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT FORM
(Shall be submitted with application)
GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and /1,,,,/ /%% c5 -44-/-c6
(hereinafter APPLICANT) agree as follows:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for r7,04--- /L%4/yJ/2Z
13/2ggk 19.09/yJz9'tS (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended,
establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for
the administration of the fee structure.
3. APPLICANT and COINTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to
thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees to make additional
payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of
consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an
application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial Base Fee, APPLICANT shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY
for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. APPLICANT acknowledges that all billing shall be paid
prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision
plan.
APPLICANT
nature
Date: ry'fr -- - 4-
-Z2y S;44.3
Print Name
Mailing Address:
$4 sots - 1V 1 /V d f'L4,
a 4r S/D.Q✓.cvr* f/AD/
Page 4
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.945.3470
www. garfield-county.com
Subdivision Application Form
GENERAL INFORMATION
(To be completed by the applicant.)
➢ Subdivision Name: /V%4,4//�'! G/�G-'E/t 5 U, 'Z l�'/,BION
➢ Type of Subdivision (check one of the following types):
Sketch Plan X Preliminary Plan Final Plat
➢ Name of Property Owner (Applicant): 1///)M1y i1% t5". rs
➢ Address: 6'57O5 il/iW'/ !v i'zY Telephone:(97) 99? - 951/
➢ City: (i'G,O•✓ZJOD.d sore/MS State: G4 Zip Code: <6'/ FAX: 9417- 923.3
➢ Name of Owner's Representative, if any (Attorney, Planner, etc):
71 me ?Yy 4 . l //G/Lso, /
➢ Address: $'/ 6' Coto/444o //y Telephone(TD1 94/-5-‘5W
➢ City: 6/. Mae 6,0ei,c4.5 State: l'O Zip Code: b''60/ FAX: 9d/5= WV-
➢ Name of Engineer:
➢ Address: YO Telephone:
➢ City: State: Zip Code: FAX:
➢ Name of Surveyor: SG/fe ed v 1 Lao-y,Y�lZ,
➢ Address: 8/? ewe/ o 41/4 TelephonEa 'a/
➢ City: WPM S.o�./.04S'State: ZO Zip Code: $/6D2_ FAX:
➢ Name of Planner:
➢ Address: Telephone:
➢ City: State: Zip Code: FAX:
• .
GENERAL INFORMATION continued...
➢ Location of Property: Sectiona 2 Township 66. Range 92 k/.
➢ Practical Location / Address of Property: 4/ .'WDk // '97 L x414-
S muff' 64eFL L?Z _t_221.[9 J-fr g`.( 6dt.J' GSE
➢ Current Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres): 1747,0T-0
➢ Number of Tracts / Lots Created within the Proposed Subdivision: 2,3
➢ Property Current Land Use Designation:
o Property's Current Zone District:
o Comprehensive Plan Map Designation:
Proposed Utility Service:
➢ Proposed Water Source: L- L=',ti`T/l q,G 141g-i--1--
).
-V's - _➢ Proposed Method of Sewage Disposal: ..44P/v./6 SSi5T/e--
➢ Proposed Public Access VIA: GR .3/9 /2it/' l P1/
➢ Easements:
Utility:
Ditch:
➢ Total Development Area (fill in the appropriate boxes below):
1) Residential
Units / Lots
Size (Acres)
Parking Provided
2) Commercial
Single -Family
23
- t
4.i/,? --
Duplex
Multi -Family
4) Public / Quasi -Public
Mobile Home
5) Open Space / Common Area
Tot.
.23
V7,10
Totz
➢ Base Fee: Sketch Plan - $325.00; Prelim Plan - $675.00; Final Plat - $200 paid on 6/ 6/41.3
D Plat Review Fee of $50 paid on
Floor Area (sq. ft.)
Size (Acres)
Parking Provided
2) Commercial
3) Industrial
4) Public / Quasi -Public
5) Open Space / Common Area
Totz
➢ Base Fee: Sketch Plan - $325.00; Prelim Plan - $675.00; Final Plat - $200 paid on 6/ 6/41.3
D Plat Review Fee of $50 paid on
• •
I. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS
In order to subdivide land in Garfield County, an Applicant is required to complete the following land use
processes in the following order: 1) Sketch Plan Review Process, 2) Preliminary Plan Review Process,
and 3) Final Plat Review Process. This section will briefly describe the nature of each process and
provide general direction including subdivision regulation citations to a potential applicant requesting
subdivision approval in Garfield County. All of the Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
are located for purchase at the Planning Department and can also be found on the World Wide Web at
the following address: http://www.garfield-county.com/building and planning/index.htm
A) The Sketch Plan Review (Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Sketch Plan process is to allow an individual an opportunity to propose a
subdivision in a "sketch" format to the Planning Department and the Garfield County
Planning Commission in order to obtain a cursory review for compliance with the County's
land use review documents, regulations, and policies to identify any issues that would need
to be addressed if the proposed subdivision were to be pursued.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the Sketch
Plan review process as the first step in Garfield County's Subdivision process. More
specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision (Section 2:20.48) as the division of a lot,
tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or the
use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units, as
further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Sketch Plan Review an Applicant is responsible for reviewing Section
3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations and providing enough information to the Planning
Department in the application to conduct a thorough review and provide the resulting
comments to the Planning Commission for their review and comments. Specifically, Section
3:30, 3:32, and 3:40 of the Subdivision Regulations contain the specific information required
to be submitted to the Planning Department in order to satisfy the application requirements
in addition to the information requested on this application form.
4. Process / Public Meeting
The Sketch Plan review process is considered a 1 -step process because the application is
reviewed only by the Planning Commission at a public meeting. In order to appear before
the Planning Commission, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal
requirements mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will
have 15 working days to review the application to determine if all the required submittal
information has been submitted as required.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be sent
to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically complete." It is at
this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been scheduled to be reviewed
before the Planning Commission and will request the applicant supply additional copies to
provide the Commission for their review.
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
• •
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically incomplete."
The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the applicant knows what
additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the applicant has 6 months (180
days) to provide the necessary information to the Planning Department to remedy the
application so that it may be deemed technically complete. If the application has not been
deemed technically complete within this time, the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission will review the application, Staff will
conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory
documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application. As
a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will also be
furnished in advance to the applicant.
At the date and time set for the public meeting before the Planning Commission, Staff will
present the findings in the Memorandum and the applicant will be required to present the
proposed subdivision and respond to comments and questions provided by the Planning
Commission. The comments provided to the Applicant by the Planning Department and the
Planning Commission as a result of the Sketch Plan Process will be kept on file in the
Planning Department for 1 -year from the meeting date before the Planning Commission. If
an Applicant does not submit a Preliminary Plan application to the Planning Department
within the 1 -year timeframe, the Sketch Plan file will be closed and the Applicant will need to
reapply for a Sketch Plan review prior to a Preliminary Plan review.
B) Preliminary Plan Review (Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Preliminary Plan review process is to conduct a thorough review of the
many aspects that are associated with dividing land in Garfield County for the purposes of
residential, commercial, and industrial development. This is the most intensive review step
where the Building and Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) will conduct a thorough review of all the issues associated with the
proposed subdivision against the County's regulatory requirements. Ultimately, the purpose
of this process is to identify all the major issues in the proposed subdivision by using the
County's Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as well
as other state and local referral agencies that will provide comments on any issues raised in
their review. This is the process that will either approve or deny the application request.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Preliminary Plan review process as the second and most intensive step in Garfield County's
Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division
of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests,
or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling
units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
• •
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Preliminary Plan Review, an Applicant must have already completed
the Sketch Plan review process addressed in Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
An applicant requesting Preliminary Plan review will be required to submit this application
form, all the required submittal information contained in Sections 4:40 to 4:94 of the
Subdivision Regulations as well as address all of the applicable Design and Improvement
Standards in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In addition to the substantive submittal information related to the proposed subdivision
project itself, an applicant is required to complete all the public notice requirements so that
legal public hearings can be held before the Planning Commission and the BOCC which is
addressed in Sections 4:20 — 4:31 of the Subdivision Regulations.
4. Process / Public Hearings
The Preliminary Plan review process is considered a 2 -step process because the application
is ultimately reviewed by two County decision-making entities during public hearings: the
Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
In order to obtain dates for the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
BOCC, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal requirements
mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will have 30
working days to review the application to determine if all the required submittal information
has been submitted as required.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be sent
to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically complete." It is at
this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been scheduled to be reviewed
before the Planning Commission / BOCC. Additionally, Staff will provide the applicant with
the notice forms to be mailed, published, and posted.
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically incomplete."
The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the applicant knows what
additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the applicant has 6 months (180
days) to provide the necessary information to the Planning Department to remedy the
application so that it may be deemed technically complete. If the application has not been
deemed technically complete within this time, the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission / BOCC will review the application, Staff
will conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory
documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application. As
a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission / BOCC containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will
also be furnished in advance to the applicant prior to the public hearings.
As mentioned above, Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the
BOCC regarding the issues raised in the analysis of the proposed subdivision. The
• •
Applicant will first propose the subdivision to the Planning Commission who is responsible
for making a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the BOCC.
Next, the application will be reviewed by the BOCC during a regular public hearing. The
BOCC will consider the recommendations from the Planning Staff and the Planning
Commission, the information presented by the applicant, and the public. As a result, the
BOCC is the final decision-making entity regarding the proposed subdivision and will either
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application.
If the BOCC approves the subdivision application at the public hearing, the approval shall be
valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional
approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by the Board prior to
the expiration of the period of approval. (See the specific information provided in Section
4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations.) Following the hearing, Staff will provide a resolution
signed by the BOCC which memorializes the action taken by the Board with any / all
conditions which will be recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's Office. Once an applicant has
Preliminary Plan approval, they are required to complete the third and final step in the
County's Subdivision Process: Final Plat Review.
C) Final Plat Review (Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Final Plat review process is to provide the applicant with a mechanism to
prove to the County that all the conditions of approval required during the Preliminary Plan
review process have been met / addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff and the
BOCC. This being the case, the chairman of the BOCC will sign the Final Plat and have it
recorded memorializing the subdivision approval granted by the BOCC. This is the last step
in the County's subdivision process.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the Final
Plat review process as the third and last step in Garfield County's Subdivision process. More
specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division of a lot, tract or parcel of
land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or the use of any parcel
of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by
Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Final Plat review, an Applicant must have already completed the
Preliminary Plan review process addressed in Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
An applicant requesting Final Plat review will be required to submit this application form, all
the required submittal information contained in Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations
and responses to all the conditions of approval required as part of the Preliminary Plan
review process.
4. Process
The Final Plat review process is considered a 1 -step process because the application is
ultimately reviewed by the Building and Planning Staff and presented to the BOCC for their
signature if the application satisfies all the required submittal information to the satisfaction
of the Building and Planning Department.
• •
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be sent
to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically complete." It is at
this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been scheduled to be presented to
the BOCC for signature. (This is not a public hearing or meeting and therefore does not
require public notice.)
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically incomplete."
The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the applicant knows what
additional information needs to be submitted.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the BOCC will review the Final Plat, Staff will review the application /
Final Plat in terms of adequacy to determine if all the submittal information satisfies the Final
plat requirements as well as the responses to the conditions of approval. During this review,
Staff will forward the Final Plat the County Surveyor for review and a signature. In the event
there are additional questions or clarification issues to be addressed, the County Surveyor
will generally contact the applicant to have the plat adjusted as necessary. Once, Staff has
completed the review and all required information has been submitted to the satisfaction of
the Planning Department and the County Surveyor has signed the Final Plat in Mylar form, it
will be scheduled at the next BOCC meeting to be placed on the consent agenda with a
request to authorize the Chairman of the BOCC to sign the plat.
Once the Final Plat is signed, it is then recorded by the County Clerk in the Clerk and
Recorder's Office for a fee of $11 for the first sheet and $10 for each additional sheet
thereafter. This fee shall be paid by the applicant. This act of recording the signed Final Plat
represents the completion of the Garfield County Subdivision Process.
Please refer to the specific language in the Final Plat portion (Section 5:00) of the
Subdivision Regulations for specific timelines and additional responsibilities required of the
applicant to complete the Final Plat process.
Please Note: This information presented above is to be used as a general guide
for an applicant considering a subdivision in Garfield County. It is highly
recommended that an applicant either purchase the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution and Subdivision Regulations or access them on-line at:
http://www.garfield-countv.com/buildinq and planning/index.htm
in order to ascertain all the necessary requirements for each of the three steps
including Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary Plan Review, and Final Plat Review.
I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is
correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
(
ature of applicant/owner)
Last Revised: 11/21/2002
cs—T a s1, z.aa�3
Date
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT FORM
(Shall be submitted with application)
GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and --//,r9/72
(hereinafter APPLICANT) agree as follows:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for 'W4/24i G;e rr
S'!iR i 4,/,S/ev,e.) (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended,
establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for
the administration of the fee structure.
3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to
thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees to make additional
payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of
consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an
application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial Base Fee, APPLICANT shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY
for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. APPLICANT acknowledges that all billing shall be paid
prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision
plan.
APPLICANT
"7'7'
S' atur
Date: �Sf.oT 2 � 26:24==2_3
—,///r7/2 -20,e 4 2. c�iG4S'
Print Name
Mailing Address:
VS706' sjGd G ,f2
Page 4
• •
Jimmy Sills
45705 Hwy 6&24
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Phone (970) 947-9511
Fax (970) 947-9233
Sept. 24, 2003
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Planning Department
108 8th Street Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
Re: Mamm Creek Subdivision
Sketch Plan
Dear Mr. Jarman,
Enclosed herewith please find the Subdivision Application Form and related
information for Sketch Plan review of The Mamm Creek project located
South of the Garfield County Airport off County Road 319. In preparing this
application I have reviewed and addressed each of the items of concern
expressed in your letter dated June 24, 2003.
The first item relates to requirements of a Cluster Housing Project and as it
is my understanding the submittal process prefers Cluster Housing
information be provided at preliminary plan stage please consider this
application under the normal requirements.
The other items of concern are addressed as follows.
1. Section 3.32(E) is now met and lots are indicated on the contour
plat.
2. Section 3.32(F) has been addressed on the plat as required.
3. Section 3.32(G) requires a description of any natural or man-made
features bordering on or within the development which may require
buffering or screening, particularly the 100 year floodplain of any
major drainages. There are none to be described that are within the
boundaries of this project.
•
4. Each of the 2 Acre lots contain a minimum building area of 1 acre
that has less than 40% slope.
5. Wastewater will be handled through ISDS on each lot and a
registered professional engineer when required by regulations will
design each system.
6. The concern of lot slopes is not justified with this project and a site
visit will remove this issue of concern. Preparation of a 2 foot
contour plat is currently being prepared which will be included as
part of the preliminary plat application.
Pursuant to Sketch Plan requirements 3:32-B attachment #1 is provided.
Pursuant to Sketch Plan requirements 3:32-C attachment #2 is provided.
Pursuant to Sketch Plan requirements 3:32-I attachment #3 is provided.
The remaining items required for section 3:32 are indicated on the plans
provided herewith for your review and consideration.
Supplemental Information required pursuant to section 3:40 is included
herewith as attachment #4.
We look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions regarding this
sketch plan proposal and hope the information provided is adequate for
scheduling review at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Sincerely;
Jimmy Sills
• •
Attachment # 1
Legal Description
• •
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION (47.20 ACRES)
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE S W 1 /4 SE 1 /4 OF SECTION 23, AND THE
NW1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 93 WEST OF THE SIXTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, ALSO BEING THE
NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26, AND BEING A GARFIELD COUNTY
SURVEYOR BRASS CAP; THENCE N.00°05'00"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SW14SE1/4 OF SECTION 23, 1004.88 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE
N.74°19'03"E. 1143.00 FEET; THENCE S.00°01'00"W. 364.95 FEET, TO A POINT IN THE
CENTERLINE OF AN EXISTING 60 FOOT ROAD EASEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK
594 AT PAGE 886 IN THE RECORDS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDERS OFFICE; THENCE S.66°56'40"W. ALONG SAID CEN I'ERLINE 163.92 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S.45°00'00"E. 234.89 FEET; THENCE
S.08°21'52"W. 697.63 FEET; THENCE S.10°03'25"W. 82.79 FEET; THENCE N.90°00'00"E.
152.34 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WES 1'ERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY
ROAD 319, SAID POINT BEING 30.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE
EXISTING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY S.10°03 `25"W.
152.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S.15° 14' 12"W. 155.46
FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY N.90°00'00"W. 46.32 FEET; THENCE
S.45°19'38"W. 851.97 FEET; THENCE N.90°00'00"W. 415.17 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 26; THENCE N.01 °07'22"W. ALONG
SAID WEST LINE 952.29 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL
CONTAINING 47.20 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
• •
Attachment #2
Property Owner and Planner
Jimmy Sills
45705Hwy6&24
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 947-9511
County Review Process
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
Timothy A. Thulson Attorney At Law
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
(970) 945-6546
Design & Survey
Scarrow & Walker, Inc.
Don Bagent Registered Land Surveyor
818 Colorado Avenue #105
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 945-8664
Water Augmentation Plan
Resource Engineering Inc.
Paul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resource Engineer
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 945-1137
Civil Engineers
[To Be Determined]
• •
Water Augmentation Plan
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
David C. Hallford Attorney At Law
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
(970) 945-6546
Physical Domestic Water
Shelton Drilling Corp.
Wayne Shelton
P.O. Box 1059
Basalt, CO.
(970) 927-4182
Consulting Engineer (Geotechnical)
Hepworth-Pawlak
Steve Pawlak
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 945-7988
Wildlife Report
Kirk Beattie
1546 East 12th Street
Rifle, CO. 81650
(970) 379-1451
Vegetation Report
Section 4.70C Vegetation report
Not selected yet
• •
Attachment #3
Land use breakdown
3:32 I. 1 Existing zoning and proposed zoning changes. The existing
zoning is A/R/RD and no changes are being requested.
3:32 I. 2 Total development area. 47.20 Acres
3:32 I. 3 Total number of lots proposed. 23
3:32 I. 4 Total number of dwelling units proposed. 23
3:32 I. 5 Total area of proposed non-residential floor space. N/A
3:32 I. 6 Total number of individual dwelling units proposed for each
structure. One
3:32 I. 7 Total number of proposed off-street parking spaces. N/A
3:32 I. 8 Total proposed density. One single family residence per each of
the 23 lots being created.
• •
Attachment #4
Supplemental Information
3:40 A. Source and amount of water supply. A well or wells will provide
the domestic water supply in the quantity designed by the water engineer.
3:40 B. Proposed type of sewage disposal. Lots will be on individual
septic systems.
3:40 C. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil designations, with
interpretation tables attached. Attachment # 5
3:40 D. Statement assessing the impact of the proposed subdivision on
the lakes, streams and topography of the site. There are no lakes or
streams on the property and the topography of the site will not be altered
except as required for roads, drives, and other improvements. It being the
intent by design to minimize impact of existing topography.
3:40 E. Statement assessing potential radiation hazards to the site.
There will be no potential of inducing radiation hazards to the site as a result
of this residential development and any attempt to do so will be a violation
of the rules and regulations of the Home Owners Association.
3:40 F. Evidence that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision
will have access to a public right-of-way, in conformance with the
Colorado State Highway Access Code and applicable County
Regulations. Evidence is so indicated on plat.
3:40 G. Anticipated source of electricity, natural gas, telephone and
cable T.V. services. Electrical and phone service is anticipated to be by the
entity serving the area. There will be no cable T.V. service and LP gas will
be used as natural gas is not available in the area.
• o
Attachment # 5
U.S.D.A. Soil Designations
39` 30'00-
54
56
67
107 45'00-
25 30
/
67 t! 50 l "/ 55 58
58 4
R. 93 W -IR. 92 W.
ifle. 1 J�srv��l
This soil survey map was compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, and cooperating agencies. Base maps are
orthophotographs prepared by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geolog-
ical Survey from 1980 aerial photography. Coordinate grid ticks and land
division corners, if shown, are approximately positioned.
5 000 4 000
3000
2 000
1000
.5
• •
iiiFLE�....i CVL'VFA./O
3—Arveda loan, 1 to 6 percent slopes. This deep,
well drained, sloping soil is on fans and high terraces
(fig. 4). Elevation ranges from 5,100 to 6,200 feet. This
soil formed in highly saline alluvium derived from sand-
stone and shale. The average annual precipitation is
about 12 inches, the average annual air temperature is
about 48 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is
about 120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is strongly .alkaline or very
strongly alkaline, pale brown loam about 3 inches thick.
The subsoil is brown silty clay loam about 14 inches
thick. The substratum is light brown or brown silty clay
loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Limon, Kim, Heldt, and Wenn soils. Also included are
some soils that are high in silt.
Permeability is very slow, and available water capacity
is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or
more. Organic matter content of the surface layer is low.
Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is
moderate.
This soil is used manly for wildlife habitat, limited
grazing, and some irrigated farming.
Irrigated crops produce very poorly because the soil
takes water in very slowly and is droughty. Leaching is
needed to remove excess salts if this soil is to be irrioat-
ed. Soil amendments containing sulphur are helpful in
:teaching the salt.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly saitgrass,
alkali sacaton, and greasewocd.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. Properly managing grazing maintains and im-
proves range condition. Seeding improves range in poor
condition. Western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, and tall
wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. Preparing a
seedbed and drilling the. seed are good practices. Irrigat-
ing new seedings is necessary for successful establish-
ment. RsdThc ngg brush improves the range •if the grasp
understory ise.dequate.
Cottontal1 r=thlt and pheasant find shelter on this sol
.f they can obtain food in surrounding areas.
Liss of :his ao l for sanitary facilities, for community
dev lcmei., =rid as a source of construction ruction material .s
ii site by the high shrink -swell potential, slow perrnea bii-
ity, clayey textures, and salinity.
This soil is in ca.p .bility subclass Vlls, iiricat2d and
nonirrigated.
• •
51-01ns=y loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. This deep,
we!i drained, moderately sloping to rolling soil is on allu-
vial fans and s!des of valleys. Elevation ranges from
5,000 to 6,500 feet. This soil formed in alluvium derived
from sandstone and shale. The average annual precipita-
tion is about 14 inches, the average annual air tempera-
ture is about 45 degrees F, and the frost free period is
about 125 days.
Typically, the surface layer is grayish brown loam
about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish brown and
light gray sandy clay loam about 21 inches thick. The
substratum is light gray gravelly sandy clay loam and
very gravelly sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
He!dt. Potts. and Kim soils that have slopes of 6 to 12
percent. These areas make up 5 to 15 percent of the
map unit.
Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or
more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard
is moderate.
This soil is used mainly for irrigated hay, fruits, and
grazing. Grass -legume mixtures and apples, peaches:
and apricots are grown.
This soil is irrigated by furrows and flooding. Sprinklers
are also suitable. Drop structures in irrigation ditches
help to control water and prevent excessive ditch ero-
sion. Keeping a grass or legume cover on this soil at
Fast three-fourths of the time controls erosion.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing grazing maintains and improves range condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves the range. Seeding im-
proves range in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for
seeding. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are
good practices.
Cottontail rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, and some mule
deer find habitat on this soil.
Community development and recreation are limited by
steep slopes and low strength.
This soil is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated and
nonirrigated.
• •
67 — T or r iorthents-tock outcrop complex, steep.
This broadly defined unit consists of exposed sandstone
and shale bedrock and stony soils that are shallow to
moderately. deep over sandstone and shale and stony
basaltic alluvium. Areas of this complex occur throughout
the survey area. The soils and outcrops are moderately
steep to very steep. Slope ranges from 15 to 70 percent.
Torriorthents make up about 60 percent of this com-
plex, and Rock outcrop makes up 25 percent. The Tor-
riorthents are on foothills and mountainsides below the
Rock outcrop.
Torriorthents are generally clayey to loamy and con-
tain variable amounts of gravel, cobbles, and stones.
The surface is normally covered with stones weathered
from the higher -lying Rock outcrop. South of the Colora-
do River, stones and cobbles of basalt are on the sur-
face.
The Rock outcrop is mainly Mesa Verde sandstone
and Wasatch shale. Some areas are covered with basal-
tic boulders and stones. Small areas of limestone out-
crops and exposed gypsum are in the eastern part of the
survey area.
Included in mapping are small isolated areas of Ilde-
fonso, Lazear, Ansari, Gaynor, Tridell, and Nihill soils.
These intermittent areas make up 10 to 15 percent of
this map unit.
This complex is used for limited grazing, wildlife habi-
tat, and recreation.
Because of the stones on the surface, the Rock out-
crop, and the steep slope, this complex is unsuited to
crops.
The native vegetation includes wheatgrass, bluegrass,
Indian ricegrass, needlegr ass, bitter brush, sagebrush,
mountainmahogany and an o✓erstory of pinyon and juni-
per.
The vegetation should be managed to maintain wood
production and limited grazing Selectively thinning the
pinyon and juniper improves grazing and provides fire-
wood and posts. Steep slopes, moderate to severe ero-
sion hazard, and slow regrowth of trees affect harvesting
and management.
Most of this complex is a prune wintering area for
deer. Rabbits, coyote, and a few elk also find food and
cover on this complex.
Community development is limited by the Rock out-
crop, steep slopes, and stoniness. These limitations car
be overcome by appropriate design and construction.
This complex is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigat-
ed.
June 24, 2003
Timothy A. Thulson
Balcomb & Green, P.C., Attorneys at Law
P.O. Drawer 790
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
RE: Mamm Creek Commons Sketch Plan
Dear Mr. Thulson:
Garfield Cotinty
BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Thank you for the Cluster Sketch Plan application you submitted to this office on June 6, 2003 on
behalf of Jimmy M. Sills entitled "Mamm Creek Commons." The purpose of this letter is to inform
you that the Garfield County Building and Planning Department needs additional information in order
to begin reviewing your application. Your timeliness in providing this information will expedite our
ability to place your application the regular Garfield County Planning Commission agenda.
As you are aware, yield plans are normally decided at preliminary plan stage, although there is nothing
precluding an applicant from effectively proposing a yield and cluster plan at the sketch plan stage
(pursuant to Section 4:11 of the Subdivision regulations) if the applicant has also provided "detailed
site information for lot configuration analysis at that point." Given this statement, your present
application does not include enough information to constitute a complete sketch plan application if
you desire a "yield analysis" as part of sketch plan.
Therefore, please respond more specifically to the following items.
1. Section 3:32(E) of the subdivision regulations requires that proposed sketch plan(s) shall
contain topography of the proposed subdivision showing, at a minimum, five (5) foot contours
for terrain with an overall average slope of less than twenty percent (20%) and at a minimum
ten foot (10') contours for terrain with an overall average slope of over twenty percent (20%),
contours developed by interpolation of U.S.G.S. quadrangle contours are acceptable.
The sketch plan submitted to this office contains a correctly scaled graphic representation of
the property with topography as it currently exists. However, neither the proposed
conventional sketch plan nor the proposed cluster sketch plan contains any topography. This is
critical information required to determine a practical and realistic "Yield Analysis" which is the
108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470
• •
foundation for the cluster approach to subdivision. Please resubmit both the conventional and
cluster sketch plans that include topography pursuant to language in Section 3:32(E) of the
subdivision regulations.
2. Section 332 (F) requires that general location and dimensions of all existing and proposed lots,
streets, alleys, easements, road rights-of-way, irrigation ditches and water courses within and
immediately adjacent to the proposed development. Neither the Yield Plan nor the cluster plan
contains any dimensions or lot areas for each lot.
3. Section 3:32(G) of the subdivision regulations requires a description of any natural or man-
made features bordering on or within the development which may require buffering or
screening, particularly the one hundred (100) year floodplain of any major drainages. Neither
the proposed conventional sketch plan nor the proposed cluster sketch plan contains any
information regarding this standard. Please resubmit both the conventional and cluster sketch
plans that this information.
4. Your sketch plan shows a conventional "yield" of 27 lots based on the A/R/RD zoning
allowing for a minimum lot size of 2 acres. However, it is not possible to determine a realistic
"yield" of how many lots would be actually allowed based on the limited information related to
the evident slopes that exist on the property and the required acreage required for roads and
infrastructure. More specifically, because the conventional or cluster sketch plans do not
contain any topography, it is impossible to determine if the proposed lot sizes and their
associated building envelopes comply with slope and lot size regulations set forth in Sections
5.04.01 and 5.04.02 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Please review the
following language:
5.04.01 Lot Slope Determinations: In determining lot slopes for use in establishing minimum lot
area requirements and buildable area, existing and proposed lots of less than two (2) acres
shall be calculated on an individual lot basis. Contour intervals of five (5) feet or less
shall be used to make this determination. For lots of two (2) or more acres in size and
tracts of land proposed for other methods of development wherein creation of individual
lots within said tract is not anticipated, the determination of lot slope shall be made
utilizing available topographic maps.
5.04.02 Development Limitations Based on Lot Slope:
(1)
Lot Size Less Than 1 Acre: Land with original and undisturbed slope in excess of
forty percent (40%) shall not be credited toward lot area in determining whether a
lot meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the zone district
regulations; however, a smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board,
as a Special Use permit, after review.
(2) 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 ofthe following which
shall be submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered, professional
engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet.
L
•
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a register, professional engineer.
(D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of five (5) feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and shall
provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within such building
envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (40%) slope area. The following shall
be conditions of any approval:
(A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) All final plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer shall be
approved in their final form and shall bear the seal of such registered, professional
engineer.
For all lots: Driveways, access ways and access easements within the development
and on the property of developer shall have a maximum grade offourteen percent
(14%). (A. 94-046)
(3)
Ultimately, the conventional sketch plan analysis should prove compliance with these
regulations so that a realistic "yield" can be determined. Please review the language above and
provide this office with the required analysis showing that each proposed 2 acre lot contains a
building envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes. In other
words, this exercise truly allows for more accurate determination of how many lots truly could
be created ("yield") under conventional two acre zoning. This is critical to determine the
bonus lots possible.
5. While the application indicates wastewater will be handled through ISDS on each lot, it is
apparent that the significance of steep slopes on the property and the proposed lot
configuration proposes ISDS siting issues. Additionally, the sketch plan proposes lots that are
less than 1 acre which is not allowed. Please review the sewage disposal regulations below so
that your conventional sketch is more appropriately designed so that Staff can more accurately
determine a base yield.
5.04.03 Lot Area Restrictions Based on Sewage Disposal Method to be Employed:
(1)
The following minimum standards shall apply and be used in conjunction with the
Garfield County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations in all zone
districts, and the following table shall be used to determine whether various types of
disposal are allowable on various lot areas:
TYPE OF DISPOSAL LOT AREA
Less than 1-2 acres
1 acre
Cesspool (FN1) no no
Anaerobic no (FN7) yes (FN4)
Disposal On
Lot (FN2)
over
2 acres
no
yes
• •
Aerobic no (FN7) yes (FN4) yes
Treatment on
Lot (FN3)
Treatment Off yes yes yes
Lot - Nondis-
charging (FN5)
Treatment Off yes yes yes
Lot - Discharging(FN6)
When all other means of disposal are deemed unacceptable, vaults, privies and chemical
toilets may be allowable for temporary use or permanent use when approved by the
Environmental Health Officer pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Sewage
Disposal Systems Regulations and applicable provisions of State Law.
In addition, please keep in mind that the Colorado State Board of Health's "Guidelines on
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (Revised 2000) require that no ISDS can be permitted on
slopes of greater that 30% unless designed by a registered professional engineer and approved
by the local board of health.
6. In addition to lot slope discussed above, it is apparent several of the proposed lots on the
conventional yield sketch have lot frontages of less than 25 linear feet. This also jeopardizes
the ability to determine a correct yield based on a lot design that does not conform to
underlying zoning as required in Section 5.01.05 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as
amended.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding these requirements.
Very Truly Yours,
Fred Jarman, e ' anner
970.945.8212
• •
Cluster Breakdown for Martini Creek Commons project
Conventional Proposal under 2 -acre Zoning
Project Acreage: 47.2 acres
Number of lots possible from Conventional Zoning: This number is determined by
examining the lot constraints (steep slopes) and acreage required for infrastructure (20%).
This also means you can't take a lot that has a steep hillside and simply divide by 2. That
is an unrealistic and impractical development scheme.
Less 20% of total acreage for infrastructure: 9.4 acres
Total acreage available for lots without steep slope analysis: 37.8 acres for 18.6 (2 -
acre) lots.
Cluster Sketch Proposal
Project Acreage: 47.2 acres
Less 20% of total acreage for infrastructure: 9.4 acres
Number of lots possible from Conventional Zoning: 18.6 (2 acre lots)
Bonus Lots Available: 1 bonus lot for 40% or greater in "Common Open Space" or 1 lot
for every 12 lots realistically created (This is 12 lots out of the area available for lot
development and not the total acreage in the parent parcel. So, in this case, it would be 1
bonus lot for every 12 lots that come out of the 18.6 acres available for lot development:
1.55 bonus lots
Total Lots Possible (based on a parcel with slopes less than 40 %): 18.6 + 1.55 = 20.15
lots (1 acre or greater of lots that contain slopes less than 40%)
Please note: This estimation is based on a relatively flat lot for the ease of computing
the numbers of lots that might be available. The 47 acre property which is the
subject of this application contains a great deal of significant slope constraints of
40% or steeper slopes. As a result, the number of allowed lots plus a bonus lot will
be much lower than this calculation based on Staff's limited analysis of the slopes
present on the property.
• •
Cluster Breakdown for Mamm Creek Commons project
Conventional Proposal under 2 -acre Zoning
Project Acreage: 47.2 acres
Number of lots possible from Conventional Zoning: This number is determined by
examining the lot constraints (steep slopes) and acreage required for infrastructure (20%).
This also means you can't take a lot that has a steep hillside and simply divide by 2. That
is an unrealistic and impractical development scheme.
Less 20% of total acreage for infrastructure: 9.4 acres
Total acreage available for lots without steep slope analysis: 37.8 acres for 18.6 (2 -
acre) lots.
Cluster Sketch Proposal
Project Acreage: 47.2 acres
Less 20% of total acreage for infrastructure: 9.4 acres
Number of lots possible from Conventional Zoning: 18.6 (2 acre lots)
Bonus Lots Available: 1 bonus lot for 40% or greater in "Common Open Space" or 1 lot
for every 12 lots realistically created (This is 12 lots out of the area available for lot
development and not the total acreage in the parent parcel. So, in this case, it would be 1
bonus lot for every 12 lots that come out of the 18.6 acres available for lot development:
1.55 bonus lots
Total Lots Possible (based on a parcel with slopes less than 40 %): 18.6 + 1.55 = 20.15
lots (1 acre or greater of lots that contain slopes less than 40%)
Please note: This estimation is based on a relatively flat lot for the ease of computing
the numbers of lots that might be available. The 47 acre property which is the
subject of this application contains a great deal of significant slope constraints of
40% or steeper slopes. As a result, the number of allowed lots plus a bonus lot will
be much lower than this calculation based on Staff's limited analysis of the slopes
present on the property.
•
THE MAMM CREEK COMMONS
A CLUSTER HOUSING PROJECT
SKETCH PLAN SUMMITTAL
June 6, 2003
• •
Jimmy Sills
45705 Hwy 6&24
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Phone (970) 947-9511
Fax (970) 947-9233
June 6, 2003
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
108 8th Street Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
Re: Mamm Creek Commons
Sketch Plan
Dear Mr. Bean,
Enclosed herewith please find the Subdivision Application Form and related
information for Sketch Plan review of The Mamm Creek Commons project located
South of the Garfield County Airport off County Road 319.
This project is being proposed based on the Clustering Initiative Amendment
recently adopted by Garfield County. In an attempt to address the concerns of a
Cluster Option analysis this submittal includes additional information that would
not normally be presented at this time. A Sketch Yield Plan is included in order to
allow for a Yield Analysis to be undertaken by staff and although not a great deal
of time was spent in creating this Yield Plan it is sufficient to identify the benefits
of the newly adopted Clustering Initiative.
The project is situated on 47.20 acres and designed for 27 single-family 1 -acre lots.
There will be a central water system and ISDS as allowed with -in the Clustering
Initiative Amendment. Care has been taken in the design of the proposed lots
including the location and size of lot driveways being adequate to incorporate
installation of an Infiltration System. Of course, final determination will be based
on percolation tests. The natural terrain has also been considered and the design of
lots and building envelopes has received great attention in order to protect and
preserve the natural features.
Mamm Creek Commons/Sketch Plan Page 1
• •
As the Subdivision process continues and the Rules and Regulations of the
Homeowners Association are created, this project will not allow the keeping of
"hoofed" animals on any lot or Commons Lands. The H.O.A. will be the entity that
owns and will be responsible for the Commons Lands and also the maintenance of
all utilities, roads, and drives located with -in the Commons Lands.
The rules and regulations for the Common or Greenbelt Lands of this project will
include protection from future development of the natural rock bluffs and
preservation of the cedar tree areas in order to provide buffering of the residential
building envelopes. Allowable structures with -in the Common Lands will be
limited to requirements of the project such as pump houses and other common use
buildings as determined beneficial by the H.O.A. and approved by a majority of
the lot owners. This entity will also be responsible for weed control and erosion
management as may be required from time to time. However, the primary goal in
creating these lands shall always be to retain the natural landscape. Improvements
shall be limited to footpaths or structures that are a benefit to the public and the
homeowner's with -in the development.
In addition with the Common Lands controlled by the H.O.A. each lot will include
Private Natural Lands that will be protected from fencing and other man made
features through the rules and regulations of the project. Building envelopes are
designated which will identify the areas of fencing and development allowed on
each lot in order to minimize the impact on wildlife and future protect the natural
features of the lands.
Pursuant to Sketch Plan requirements 3 :32-B attachment #1 is provided.
Pursuant to Sketch Plan requirements 3:32-C attachment #2 is provided.
Pursuant to Sketch Plan requirements 3:32-I attachment #3 is provided.
The remaining items required for section 3:32 are indicated on the plans provided
herewith for your review and consideration.
Supplemental Information required pursuant to section 3:40 is included herewith as
attachment #4.
The County adoption of the Clustering Initiative Amendment provides the
opportunity to create projects that are land friendly and the efforts required to
achieve this opportunity should be, and are greatly appreciated. Current zoning that
Mamm Creek Commons/Sketch Plan Page 2
• •
allows for 2 -acre parcels often results in abusive land use with little control or
regulations of the 23 lots that could be created. The additional 4 lots being
requested provides funds that can be used to provide a central water system
beneficial to fire issues, improve internal roads, and at the same time preserve the
natural land features. This Sketch Plan is submitted indicating 27 lots with the
knowledge that the actual number of permitted lots is subject to change and
will be determined by Staff and the Planning Commission pursuant to section
4.11 of the Preliminary Plan application. Rather than waiting until the
Preliminary Plan submittal it was decided to identify this project as a Cluster
Housing project now in hopes of receiving comments that will assist in the design
and presentation of the Preliminary Plan.
For your review the following information is provided to indicate the approximate
acreage of the proposed land use:
Total acreage included in proposal 47.20 Acres
Dedicated as Common Natural Lands
(Common Open Space)
Dedicated as Private Natural Lands (Greenbelt)
Allowed for private fencing and use
Allowed for building and improvements
20.20 Acres 42.8%
15.42 Acres 32.7%
8.50 Acres 18.0%
3.08 Acres 6.5%
Total Common Open Space/Greenbelt 35.62 Acres 75.5%
We look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions regarding this
sketch plan proposal and hope the information provided is adequate for scheduling
review at the July Planning Commission meeting.
Sincerely;
Mamm Creek Commons/Sketch Plan
Page 3
• •
Attachment # 1
Legal Description
• •
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION (47.20 ACRES)
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1 /4SE 1 /4 OF SECTION 23, AND THE
NW1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 93 WEST OF THE SIXTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, ALSO BEING THE
NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26, AND BEING A GARFIELD COUNTY
SURVEYOR BRASS CAP; THENCE N.00°05'00"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SW14SE1/4 OF SECTION 23, 1004.88 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE
N.74°19'03"E. 1143.00 FEET; THENCE S.00°01'00"W. 364.95 FEET, TO A POINT 1N THE
CENTERLINE OF AN EXISTING 60 FOOT ROAD EASEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK
594 AT PAGE 886 IN THE RECORDS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDERS OFFICE; THENCE S.66°56'40"W. ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 163.92 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S.45°00'00"E. 234.89 FEET; THENCE
S.08°21'52"W. 697.63 FEET; THENCE 5.10°03'25"W. 82.79 FEET; THENCE N.90°00'00"E.
152.34 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY
ROAD 319, SAID POINT BEING 30.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE
EXISTING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY S.10°03`25"W.
152.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S.15°14'12"W. 155.46
FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY N.90°00'00"W. 46.32 FEET; THENCE
S.45°19'38"W. 851.97 FEET; THENCE N.90°00'00"W. 415.17 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NW 1 /4NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 26; THENCE N.01 °07'22"W. ALONG
SAID WEST LINE 952.29 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL
CONTAINING 47.20 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
• •
Attachment #2
Property Owner and Planner
Jimmy Sills
45705 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 947-9511
County Review Process
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
Timothy A. Thulson Attorney At Law
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
(970) 945-6546
Design & Survey
Scarrow & Walker, Inc.
Don Bagent Registered Land Surveyor
818 Colorado Avenue #105
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 945-8664
Water Augmentation Plan
Resource Engineering Inc.
Paul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resource Engineer
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 945-1137
Civil Engineers
[To Be Determined]
•
Water Augmentation Plan
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
David C. Hallford Attorney At Law
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
(970) 945-6546
Physical Domestic Water
Shelton Drilling Corp.
Wayne Shelton
P.O. Box 1059
Basalt, CO.
(970) 927-4182
Consulting Engineer (Geotechnical)
Hepworth-Pawlak
Steve Pawlak
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
(970) 945-7988
Wildlife Report
Kirk Beattie
1546 East 12th Street
Rifle, CO. 81650
(970) 379-1451
Vegetation Report
Section 4.70C Vegetation report
Not selected yet
• •
Attachment #3
Land use breakdown
3:32 I. 1 Existing zoning and proposed zoning changes. The existing
zoning is A/R/RD and no changes are being requested.
3:32 I. 2 Total development area. 47.20 Acres
3:32 I. 3 Total number of lots proposed. 27
3:32 I. 4 Total number of dwelling units proposed. 27
3:32 I. 5 Total area of proposed non-residential floor space. N/A
3:32 I. 6 Total number of individual dwelling units proposed for each
structure. One
3:32 I. 7 Total number of proposed off-street parking spaces. N/A
3:32 I. 8 Total proposed density. One single family residence per each of
the 27 lots being created.
• •
Attachment #4
Supplemental Information
3:40 A. Source and amount of water supply. A well or wells will provide
the physical domestic water supply in the quantity designed by the water
engineer. The legal supply for this project shall be pursuant to water
allotment contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District.
3:40 B. Proposed type of sewage disposal. Lots will be on individual
septic systems as allowed in the Cluster Initiative.
3:40 C. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil designations, with
interpretation tables attached. Attachment # 5
3:40 D. Statement assessing the impact of the proposed subdivision on
the lakes, streams and topography of the site. There are no lakes or
streams on the property and the topography of the site will not be altered
except as required for roads, drives, and other improvements. It being the
intent by design to minimize impact of existing topography.
3:40 E. Statement assessing potential radiation hazards to the site.
There will be no potential of inducing radiation hazards to the site as a result
of this residential development and any attempt to do so will be a violation
of the rules and regulations of the Home Owners Association.
3:40 F. Evidence that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision
will have access to a public right-of-way, in conformance with the
Colorado State Highway Access Code and applicable County
Regulations. Evidence is so indicated on plat.
3:40 G. Anticipated source of electricity, natural gas, telephone and
cable T.V. services. Electrical and phone service all located along County
Road 319 bordering the project. There will be no cable T.V. service and LP
gas will be used as natural gas is not available in the area.
• •
Attachment # 5
U.S.D.A. Soil Designations
39' 30.00-
107- 45"00"
"eve'
Shee:f
This soil survey map was compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, and cooperating agencies. Base maps are
orthophotographs prepared by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geolog-
ical Survey from 1980 aerial photography. Coordinate grid ticks and land
division corners, if shown, are approximately positioned.
10
5000 4000
3000
2 000
1 000
H 1
•
Ri L E AREA, COLORADO
3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes. This deep,
well drained, sloping soil is on fans and high terraces
(fig. 4). Elevation ranges from 5,100 to 6,200 feet. This
soil formed in highly saline alluvium derived from sand-
stone and shale. The average annual precipitation is
about 12 inches, the average annual air temperature is
about 48 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is
about 120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is strongly .alkaline or very
strongly alkaline, pale brown loam about 3 inches thick.
The subsoil is brown silty clay loam about 14 inches
thick. The substratum is light brown or brown silty clay
loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Limon, Kim, Heldt, and Wann soils. Also included are
some soils that are high in silt.
Permeability is very slow, and available water capacity
is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or
more. Organic matter content of the surface layer is low.
Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is
moderate.
This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat, limited
grazing, and some irrigated farming.
Irrigated crops produce very poorly because the soil
takes water in very slowly and is droughty. Leaching is
needed to remove excess salts if this soil is to be irrigat-
ed. Soil amendments containing sulphur are helpful in
leaching the salt.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly saltgrass,
alkali sacaton, and greasewood.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. Properly managing grazing maintains and im-
proves range condition. Seeding improves range in poor
condition. Western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, and tall
wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. Preparing a
seedbed and drilling the seed are good practices. Irrigat-
ing new seedings is necessary for successful establish-
ment. Reducing brush improves the range •if the grass
understory is adequate.
Cottontail rabbit and pl;b:-. 1 1t find shelter on this soil
if they can obtain food in surrounding areas.
Use of this soil for sanitary facilities, for community
deveiccme; t, and as a source of construction material is
limited by the high shrink -swell potential, slow permeabil-
ity, clayey textures, and salinity.
This soil is in capability subclass Vlls, irrigated and
nonirrigated.
• •
51—Qiney loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. This deep,
well drained, moderately sloping to rolling_ soil is on allu-
vial fans and sides of valleys. Elevation ranges from
5,000 to 6,500 feet. This soil formed in alluvium derived
from sandstone and shale. The average annual precipita-
tion is about 14 inches, the average annual air tempera-
ture is about 48 degrees F, and the frost -free period is
about 125 days.
Typically, the surface layer is grayish brown loam
about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish brown and
light gray sandy clay loam about 21 inches thick. The
substratum is Tight gray gravelly sandy clay loam and
very gravelly sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Heidi. Potts. and Kim soils that have slopes of 6 to 12
percent. These areas make up 5 to 15 percent of the
map unit.
Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is moderate. Effective rooting- depth is 60 inches or
more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard
is moderate.
This soil is used mainly for irrigated hay, fruits, and
grazing. Grass -legume mixtures and apples, peaches,
and apricots are grown.
This soil is irrigated by furrows and flooding. Sprinklers
are also suitable. Drop structures in irrigation ditches
help to control water and prevent excessive ditch ero-
sion. Keeping a grass or legume cover on this soil at
least three-fourths of the time controls erosion.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, need!eandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing grazing maintains and improves range condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves the range. Seeding im-
proves range in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for
seeding. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are
good practices.
Cottontail rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, and some mule
deer find habitat on this soil.
Community development and recreation are limited by
steep slopes and low strength.
This soil is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated and
nonirrigated.
•
67—Torriorthents-Sock outcrop complex, steep.
This broadly defined unit consists of exposed sandstone
and shale bedrock and stony soils that are shallow to
moderately deep over sandstone and shale and stony
basaltic alluvium. Areas of this complex occur throughout
the survey area. The soils and outcrops are moderately
steep to very steep. Slope ranges from 15 to 70 percent.
Torriorthents make up about 60 percent of this com-
plex, and Rock outcrop makes up 25 percent. The Tor-
riorthents are on foothills and mountainsides below the
Rock outcrop.
Torriorthents are generally clayey to loamy and con-
tain variable amounts of gravel, cobbles, and stones.
The surface is normally covered with stones weathered
from the higher -lying Rock outcrop. South of the Colora-
do River, stones and cobbles of basalt are on the sur-
face.
The Rock outcrop is mainly Mesa Verde sandstone
and Wasatch shale. Some areas are covered with basal-
tic boulders and stones. Small areas of limestone out-
crops and exposed gypsum are in the eastern part of the
survey area.
Included in mapping are small isolated areas of Ilde-
fonsc, Lazear, Ansari, Gaynor, Tridell, and Nihill soils.
These intermittent areas make up 10 to 15 percent of
this map unit.
This complex is used for limited grazing, wildlife habi-
tat, and recreation.
Because of the stones on the surface, the Rock out-
crop, and the steep slope, this complex is unsuited to
crops.
The native vegetation includes wheatgrass, bluegrass,
Indian ricegrass, needlegrass, bitterbrush, sagebrush,
mountainmahogany and an overstory of pinyon and juni-
per.
The vegetation should be managed to maintain wood
production and limited grazing. Selectively thinning the
pinyon and juniper improves grazing and provides fire-
wood and posts. Steep slopes, moderate to severe ero-
sion hazard, and slow regrowth of trees affect harvesting
and management.
Most of this complex is a prime wintering area for
deer. Rabbits, coyote, and a few elk also find food and
cover on this complex.
Community development is limited by the Rock out-
crop, steep slopes, and stoniness. These limitations can
be overcome by appropriate design and construction.
This complex is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigat-
ed.
$4d4r. rib d et. I 4c '0', ItIt It , MAR 1 8 1982
t.,r1 No. 43251720 1.41114444..
e• ' •
82.
1. Al.i ...-Y114:-:. H\F i 1: '',I 0, A Colorado
general. :Irlorshir.
40 4:1.1r f i 0 i ti and 401ate 441' $ . E. • 41
01, 4,1,.. eft 40t• 1 t 004t
,3f.iAS• MESA RA.4(.!:11, i Colerndo ',oint venture il
I!. •
tape.), legit ed.),,), , P .0. Box. 1 O1. A irt..:•11 . Colorado
, t
I i' •
k
„Ao 594 rictS86
RECONDEWSSTAMP
0ARnEw
MAR 1 8 1982
suit. Dtj. F..
"n'l
. . WI I !,: 1 ..I.r.r."-;), l0414. 1 It. ..04, '4 pp,' y ••, 0 H. 0°0, •0 t pa. 1. 4'..r.))..01 tr, c•04.,1114,114t1,11 a 4 he 0.111/1 a I
TFN D!..)1,1,ARS .1n6 OthOT C.C.',0d and yolmibt(' .ons.Ideration gYAkAXXXh: ,
114,44 ,, „r; 1., ft 4.00 p0,r! itt, 4,4,4 4. ' ''1 4,1114 y ..1. thc ,,,,••.11,1 part, t he reeeipt Whereof' 11
. i
44 h4...4.4by ,•,,Itret0 4,41 iod t1144.14e110.dgt.d, 1,,,„ r• o'. 4. o' •'4444.'I 4..141, et nveyed rm.! ,4 i'' 11 t•I,A I Nt ED, and by the**
pr4.,,...n1 4 ,fr, es•retri,,,, it 1,401,'. !telt , I I 11 rt! It It tI 1.14 I l' 4 I, A I NI lin:, the real party .,:t he to,11,1 partdtS . beim
twrt,,,,,...rl arn1 a,,,,rn ,, t",,r,,,,t, 8. I 14'o 41,41 4, .0 .: 04.. 41,4.„, t 1, elndt1 und demand, which 11.' +aid party "r the rina Tian
lo 141\ ,1 1, '4,.' 14•11.,,,in4 de,er, lei) 0,04 .001' 10141-t tlt I a 1,1111.1 II ii Int.e., lo4i, and !wing In 4 114
447.01trIt II .,
.. .01° C,0°,3 ri I ' d ,,.!1skAtf, of col,' 0 ,1„.
. . H.•
. .
An easement cOrrespondino 1.:' the existing road located: 'on
.H property owned by. Seller herein, desOribed •11.1q Exhibit:A,, ..i .,6'.:,
attached hereto and ireorpbrated herein by reference; s'aid' :11'.......:.:'.:
1..easerent shall be 60 feet in width, comprised of 30 feet .on .. * 0-, :
'..".r•
• either side of the centerle inef the exirting, road .through.... IL1. .,.
Seller's property, for the purpose of ingress and egress over.
.., and across Seller's propertyde$eribed .in Exhibit A, thereby .1;
• _ r ..„.. ,..,.
!• providing access to property 'owned by Purchaser herein Pls .0. ,.t::,•
!,! described in Exhibit. 13, attached, hereto. and incorporated by.
reference; excepting and reserving unto Seller herein all!right .1/..
to realign said. existing road as Seller,. in its discretion. !.i •
finds useful or necessary. Said realignment shall result in the. I
,I • - • -
.!! . reconstruction of therealigned portion of the road to specifi-
cations substantially as exited at the time of said
.I- realignment. •
. !I••
1 ,
Ot010041AXXMXXXXXXX041001XX
Ti, 11 AI E AND 'I 11 4)1.1 0 , 104. 111.01e. t•400.1 he- • .4 41 .411 tritt snit:011pr the appurtettarce. and prtyllevea t nereuntr,
itelengtng
04 111 boy,. •../' 4114.1411114o Itf 1.1141, 4) Ilt• I .11 I )4r 1,44:411.. light title. 0nterest and claim whatat:ever, of the
sold rt y fI he 104.1 11.4ri,..0 4 ..•1 41.00 44 0 • .,.. l.. tr. t h• 011'4, proper 11c. benttfit 14,111 behoof of the geld part y of
I
port.
IN WITNESS, 1 4 1•:}4.1-°,1 )1.. The t0 ill pt., V 00 Id' 0,4,0 111 '4.. :0) Itet;oupto get 1 C.Sliand
and ”4•40 he dav :.44td .4 4. t. lit, I
I.:7,I..Ell'-7,3ILLS PARTPIER.e4i..?_._,.,,.
...i.:
1 .,:., , E '1,•,;;...'40,..1.e...c....--..- ."....--..” -L•"..-••-.1"7-‘...31sif,AL/ .,'
Stg104•44 Se1414•4° and I 10, , ti••••1 ,r 4,1" PI I ttt I t ttl i ,/ Jimmy M Sills, General Partndr
,..-4. ,..., ...e, , ../ . 'SEA" 11
' P , e, _
rf,--,... r„ 0,-,..-•:-. /..._ •.., ;- ,. • ,-,-,_ •
___..-PEALi II
V4E:ALF II
Ir
41
1 1
)1 '
T444 f,,4 ” 44. , 47 , 14,44 tt 11 Ilt 411 44114 :it 14,4itItt V. ti 114 4'", 4' it Irrg. / 7 1"/- 4141,r of ;:!-,<00,-..--e..../.‘,,,.,,,, -
1962,1.y" ,Limmy M. Sillri. "
,e's Jk4• .•v. e:,......% . r
,: .• •
11' " W I I 1,..1,:1) 114:1441 ard official .4)111 Witl* •
"Or • If I. A .
, • . .0 .•' I.
'• . 'O....4. 1
' ..
1 J !)!'-
v vio A •
fl71
0
. 1,1
t//.' - /..?:.,.. :;"1,4 // s`%.„,,, ..
',.--
4.:,7 r • 4'
054411 Ilvi' ' '.-L,
—lb 6 745-‘u- ,
rA'ATEII4')AIIJIR.A))0.
row)))
ty4,. 933. 4)4.44 4 ,im 44440.. a,.:,a„,d 449, At rr.kte. C 441 1444 04(11 -.11))))2711-06,4 -2 40
ner
X7. ii,V41,0211FOROCKWAlii416111iitoiVANW414&-Matit.:.,.
q'd�t
WINN .llifillIN:1114. Wing riaLimiessisididik 1.64,
tilt I
,444, ININIMMISMI
rl°,• x 594 Ptt E 8S i'
South Half of the 5ootheilst r.Jumrtear'o,f ;Section 23 and the North
Half of the. Northeah1. CPArir fer of `iertian 26, all in '1Oti+l hirp6
South, ltanye 9.5 west. 01. th,.' cath P.M.
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
•
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:20PM P1
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 %, Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: 970.945.5544, Px: 970.945.5558
FAX TRANSMISSION MEMO
DATE: 07/14/04
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) 14
TO: Mr. Jim Hardcastle, Garfield County, #384.3470
FROM: Chris I-Iale 4r
RE: HC Engineering Response to Comments of Mamm Creek Commons
Attached for your information and files, are the responses of I-Iigh Country Engineering. I
plan on responding to this after I receive the supporting information.
See you tomorrow evening.
JUL. r 3 2004
GARFIG&COUNTY PLANNING
CIVIL ENK,INE,ERING
July 8, 2004
Mr. Chris Male
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
826 '/2 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
An Rnq>Inyen.Uwned Cnmpnny
LAND SURVEYING
RE: Comment Responses to the Preliminary Plan for Mamm Creek Commons
Dear Chris:
I am taking this opportunity to respond to the comments you provided regarding the
Preliminary Plan for the Cluster Housing development known as Mamm Creek
Commons. I would like to note that this is the Preliminary Plan and many issues brought
up, though valid, will be addressed at Final Plat, This is allowed according to Section
4:41 of the Garfield County Regulations stating that detailed construction, engineering
and design plans at the time of Final Plat submittal. 1 have separated your comments as
we discussed in out meeting into items that should be addressed as contingent to the
Preliminary Plat approval and comments that will be addressed at time of Final Plat.
This project is proposed as two phases. The first phase consists of Lots 1-12 located off
of Grass Mesa Road. Phase 1 includes the access drives, grading and drainage facilities,
water system, and 1SDS's for these lots. Phase 2 is defined as Lots 13-24 located in the
southern portion of the site. These lots gain access from the new road tying into County
Road 319 (CR 319).
COMMENTS REGARDING PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTINGENCIES
Drainage Report:
There are no real disagreements with the comments provided. The
drainage report will be revised to address the concerns.
1. How were the rainfall depths determined for the 25 -year and 100 -year storms?
2. What percent density of vegetative ground cover was used for the CN calculations?
Assumptions should be consistent with the Vegetation Report prepared for the
project.
3. What type of vegetation was assumed for each sub -basin? Assumptions should be
consistent with the Vegetation Report prepared for the project.
4. The report states that detention will not be required for this site since developed peak
flows are approximately equal to existing peak flows. The review of the flow
calculations show that developed peak flows are anywhere from 5% to 10% greater
1517 Blake Avcnt)c, Shire 101
facnwn4<1 5rr.nt•c, CO 41 (,I) 1
970.945.8676 phone.
970,94.5.2.5.55 fax
www.Ix:on1;.t'om
14 Inverness Drive LiAt, Suite F-120
P.nl;lcwi ntl. CO 80112.
303,925.0544 phone
30 3.925.0547 f,tx
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:20PM P2
than the existing peak flows for both the 25 -year and 100 -year storms. More
information is required concerning mitigation of increased runoff.
5. It is difficult to determine why the basin areas change from the existing delineation to
the proposed delineation. More information is required.
6. There appears to be a large offsite area to the south and upstream of CR #319 that
contributes flow to the culvert at design point #2 that has not been considered. What
is the justification for excluding this area?
7. Is the existing drainage channel adjacent to Grass Mesa Road adequate to convey
flows?
8. Are the runoff curve numbers selected for the site appropriate for estimating sediment
bulking per the recommendations in the "Flash Flooding" section of the HPGeotech
report dated March 10, 2004?
9. Was the potential for flash flood impacts to Lots 14 and 15 evaluated per the
recommendations in the "Alluvial Fan Flooding" section of the HPGeotech report
dated March 10, 2004?
Water System:
• These issues are being addressed,
1. The water use and pumping rates proposed do not meet the conditions of the well
permit. An applicable, valid permit will need to be obtained.
* Addressed by Balcomb & Green.
2. Does West Divide Water Conservancy District own the water rights for the
subdivision or will 319 Water Company? What agreements are in place or will be in
place that binds these water rights or obligations to the homeowners? Will the
homeowners have ownership of 319 Water Company?
• Addressed by Balcomb & Green.
3. Will augmentation be necessary and if so who is responsible for augmentation, West
Divide or 319 Water Company?
• Addressed by Balcomb & Green.
4. What are the assumptions and calculations used to determine storage requirements for
fire flow, fire sprinklers, irrigation demands, and domestic requirements?
• A water model will be provided including this information.
5. What are the parameters to be used for the design of the water system including
peaking factors, pressures, velocities, and flows?
* A water model will be provided including this information.
6. What will be the designed fire flow? Has the local fire district reviewed the proposed
fire storage, system pressures, and attack flows?
• A water model will be provided including this information.
7. What is the proposed schedule for submission to the State for approval of a new water
system?
• Addressed by Balcomb & Green.
Sanitary Sewer System:
▪ General response to Sanitary Sewer System: Each lot will have a separate
ISDS. Each lot with soils identified by the Geotechnical report with
percolation tests between 60 and 120 minutes per inch will require
lvlamm Creek Commons Page 2 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455559 Jul. 13 2004 03:21PM P3
additional geotechnical investigation and an engineered ISDS. This is
allowcd by the Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPH) and
Garfield County regulations. Engineered systems may include, but not
limited to, mound and dosing systems. Location of the combined ISDS
systems has yet to be finalized, however, leach fields will be within Common
Open Space near the residences being served. The individual lots that may
be combined will be addressed at the time of Building permit.
1. Using a leaching type of ISDS will not be an acceptable wastewater disposal
alternative for lots 9 through 24 based on the percolation test results and the depth to
bedrock reported by 14PGeotech in the report dated March 10, 2004. What type of
engineered systems will be used instead?
▪ It is anticipated that a suitable location ffr an ISDS will be located for each
lot. If an adequate location within the individual lots cannot be found
piping effluent from the residence to a location within nearby Common
Open Space suitable for an ISDS leach field may be required.
2. Will the ISDS system be congruent with the diversions and consumptive use
calculations for water use?
• No, the ISDS's will be designed according to CDPH guidelines.
3. Will the Board of Health approve ISDS for the site considering the percolation rates,
land slopes, depth to bedrock, etc?
• The Board of Health will approve engineered systems for the areas of
slower percolation tests and unfavorable terrain assuming the engineered
system meets their requirements. The designs will be completed at the time
of Building Permit.
4. The sewer report estimates 140 gpd as average daily sewage. This is much less than
estimated in the water use calculations. Supporting calculations and assumptions
should be submitted.
• The average daily sewage for each residence is based on the CDPH
guidelines. ISDS design will be completed at the time of Building Permit
and follow CDPH guidelines for sizing.
5. The sewer report proposes that two single family homes will utilize one ISDS system.
Which lots are to be paired up? Where will these systems be located? What
conditions, covenants, or restrictions will be implemented for these communal
systems?
Refer to General response to Sanitary Sewer System above.
6. A proposed management plan for the operation and maintenance of the ISDS needs to
be provided.
• The operation and maintenance of the ISDS systems will be provided with
the design and implementation of each system. The Home Owners
Association is responsible for defining responsibilities of the ISDS's. These
responsibilities will include operation and maintenance of the facilities.
Road and Traffic Report:
1. Off-site road impacts and traffic study is absent. Does this need to be provided?
• A traffic study will be prepared and submitted as a condition of
Preliminary Plan approval.
Mamm Crook Commons
Page 3 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:21PM P4
MU -1
1. How was the 30,000 gallon storage volume determined?
• The 30,000 gallon storage tank is sized to provide service to Lots 1-12 with
the necessary fire protection. All houses will have fire sprinkler systems.
Support information will be provided as part of the contingency of
approval.
2. How were the water line sizes determined?
• The water lines were sized to provide adequate water supply to Lots 1-12.
Support information will be provided as part of the contingency of
approval.
3. Has the fire district reviewed the hydrant spacing? What parameters are proposed for
hydrant locations? Lots 6, 7, and 8 appear to need a fire hydrant.
• We are awaiting comments and suggestions from the fire district. Any
comments will be addressed in a fashion to satisfy the fire district, the
county and the owner.
MU -2
• General response to MU -2 comments: This sheet is part of Phase 2 of the
proposed Preliminary Plan. The issues below will be negotiated between
the Review Engineer, the County, the Fire District, and the Owner to
satisfactorily resolve these issues. These issues will be resolved during the
continuance period for Phase 2.
1. How was the 30,000 gallon storage volume determined?
• The 30,000 gallon storage tank is sized to provide service to Lots 13-24 with
the necessary fire protection. All houses will have fire sprinkler systems.
Support information will be provided.
2. How were the water line sizes determined?
• The were size to provide adequate water supply to Lots 13-24. Support
information willbe provided.
3. The valves as shown would allow water from the booster pump to fill Tank #2
directly, without going through the proposed Pump House. Assuming that Tank #2
will be similar in design to Tank #1 and not a pressure tank, there would be no
pressure regulation. The 6" line from Phase 1 will likely need to go into the pump
house first. Would this cause a revision to the layout and drainage of the #2
Tank/Pump House arrangements?
• The booster pump near the south tank is to provide pressure to the upper
lots.
4. Has the fire district reviewed the hydrant spacing? What parameters are proposed for
hydrant locations? Lots 14, 15, and 24 appear to need a fire hydrant.
• We are awaiting comments and suggestions from the fire district. Any
comments will be addressed in a fashion to satisfy the fire district, the
county and the owner.
Mamm Creek Commons Page 4 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :970945555B Jul. 13 2004 03:22PM P5
MU -3
1. The pumps are proposed for 50 gpm at 180 TDH. What are the fire flow
requirements? A water model should be performed showing that the required fire
flow will operate at required pressures.
■ Support information will be provided.
COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED AT FINAL PLAT
Soils Report:
1. A note should be included on the plat requiring that a site specific geotech study for
each lot be prepared.
■ A note will be added to the Final Plat indicating each site will require a site
specific geotechnical study for foundations and ISDS systems.
2. A note should be included on the plat considering the rock fall runout of Lot 24.
■ A note will -be added.
Dry Utilities:
1. It is unclear whether or not natural gas is planned for the site.
a The Dry Utility Report states that it is not cost effective to serve the site
with natural gas. Therefore, it is currently not planned to serve the site
with natural gas.
Plan Sheet Sets:
Preliminary Plat:
1. No drainage easements arc shown for concentrated flows across lots.
■ Drainage casements will be provided on the Final Plat.
2. No utility easements are shown for utilities within Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4.
■ All necessary utility easements will be provided on the Final Plat.
General Comments:
1. How will lots 11 and 24 get reasonable access?
■ These lots have access to the lot line as required by the Garfield County
Cluster Housing regulations. Access within the lot will be addressed at time
of Building Permit.
2. Where will the building envelopes be located?
▪ All building envelopes will be provided on the Final Plat.
GR -I
1. Erosion control will be necessary for the concentrated flows from the warped cross
section.
• The proposed road will be altered to avoid concentrated flows across the
road. The downstream side of the road will be protected from erosion with
erosion control fabric until vegetation is reclaimed.
2. Silt- bales should be placed in the roadside ditch on the south side of Grass Mesa
Road.
• Silt bales will be placed on a regular interval as necessary in the roadside
ditch on the south side of Grass Mesa Road.
Mamm Creek Commons Page 5 of 13
FROM :Mounta inCrossEng. Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:22PM PE
3. Silt fencing should also be considered on
areas for Lots 3, 4, and 5 and their access.
■ The disturbed areas within Lots
downstream side until vegetation
condition.
the east and south sides of the disturbed
3, 4, and 5 will be bounded on the
has been restored to preconstruction
GR -2
■ General response to GR -2 comments: This sheet is predominately Phase 2
of the proposed Preliminary Plan. The issues below will be negotiated
between the Review Engineer, the County, the Fire District, and the Owner
to satisfactorily resolve these issues. These issues will be resolved during
the continuance period for Phase 2.
1. Runoff velocities along the roadside ditches may be erosive due to the steepness of
thc slopes. What permanent methods of erosion protection are planned?
• Riprap on erosion control liner will be installed in areas of excessively steep
ditch slopes that are subject to significant erosion. This will be designated
at the time of Final Plat for Phase 2.
2. Considering that native vegetation is sparse, that outside irrigation is limited, that
these slopes are south facing, what methods will be implemented to guarantee that
these slopes will be revegetated? Perhaps other permanent erosion control methods
could be investigated besides revegetation.
• These slopes will be seeded during the preferred time of year and erosion
control fabric will be used until adequate vegetation is established. A
permanent erosion control fabric with seed will be used.
3. The flow arrows show concentrated flow directed onto Lots 9, 10, 19, 20, and 24 in
the most feasible location for building envelopes. Drainage easements will be
necessary and they would likely bisect the envelopes. Have alternative routings been
considered?
• These flows follow historic drainage patterns for the site. The drainages
will be considered at the time of determining the building envelopes.
4. A low point is created on thc uphill side of the road through Lot 21 that does not
appear to have drainage considered. What is planned to drain this low point?
• A more defined channel will be added to provide adequate drainage at time
of Final Plat.
5. All the runoff from this site appears to flow down hill to the east and CR 319. There
is insufficient detail and topography to show what is there and where the runoff will
flow. How does the runoff tie to the drainage of CR 319?
• A field investigation revealed that both culverts under County Road 319 are
60" culverts. The first existing culvert under CR 319 is located to the north
of the intersection of Grass Mesa Road and CR 319, An 18" culvert is also
in place across Grass Mesa Road at the intersection to provide drainage to
the larger culvert under CR 319, The second existing 60" culvert is located
under CR 319 south of the proposed intersection of CR319 and the
proposed access in Phase 2. A 16" culvert is installed under the proposed
access road at this intersection to provide drainage to the south 60" culvert.
These culverts will be indicated on the Final Plat submittal.
Ma,nm Creek Commons
Page 6 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:22PM P7
GR -3
1. What vehicle will be used for maintenance of the pump station and water tank? Will
the turning radius of that vehicle be small enough to maneuver around the tank and
pump station as shown?
■ A 10 ft inside radius and a 22 ft outside radius should be sufficient to
provide adequate access to the limited access site.
GR -4
1. Runoff velocities after the cut ditch when on the native slope may be erosive due to
the steepness of the slopes. The note calls to protect the fill slope with riprap but it
may be necessary to protect the native slope also. What permanent methods of
erosion protection arc planned?
■ At the time of Final Plat, the note will be changed to state "Daylight to
existing grade. Divert flow away from fill slope to existing grade. Use rip
rap on erosion control liner to protect fill slope and transition zone to
existing grade".
2. What vehicle will be used for maintenance of the pump station and water tank? Will
the turning radius of that vehicle be small enough to maneuver around the tank and
pump station as shown?
■ A 10 ft inside radius and a 22 ft outside radius should be sufficient to
provide adequate access to the limited access site.
RD -01
1. The culvert at 2+63 is described as both a 36" culvert and a 60" culvert.
■ A field investigation indicated this is a 48" culvert. This will be updated at
time of Final Plat.
2. There may not be adequate cover on the upstream end of the 24" culvert at 5+53 if
there is 12" of cover at centerline.
The culvert will be lowered and grading will be altered to provide drainage.
3. Based on the grading, it will be difficult to adequately cover the 18" culvert at 5+79.
• The cover over this culvert will be improved with the change described
above ander comment RD -01.2.
RD -02
1. The intersection with Grass Mesa does not meet Garfield County intersection design
standards.
• Due to the severe condition of the site a variance is requested for this
intersection.
2. What is the calculated slope at the connected vertical curves, 3+95?
• The grade out of the vertical curve with a PVT at station 3+60.00 is —6.27%.
3. What will be the quantity of water crossing the road in the area of the warped road
cross section, 4+26 to 5+05? Will this create erosive velocities? Calculations will be
necessary otherwise a culvert should be installed.
■
Concentrated flows will be eliminated because of the change described
above under Section GR -1.1.. The flows will be consistent with historic
flows.
4, How will water be conveyed across driveways?
■ Culverts will be added under driveways. Grading will be completed to
accommodate drainage.
Mamm Crook Commons
Page 7 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEnq,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:23PM P8
5. Will there be a cut ditch on the uphill side of the road?
• No. The road section will be warped and a cut ditch is not necessary.
RD -03
1. Thc 60" culvert is shown as proposed but the note calls to add headwalls to each end
of the existing.
• The culvert does exist. However, the culvert may need to be relocated and
lengthened to provide adequate access to the lots.
2. How will water get across the access to lot 4?
• A culvert will be added in front of Lot 4 (flowing toward Lot 3) allowing
drainage to the proposed 24" culvert shown on RD -04.
RD -05
• General response to RD -05 comments: This sheet is part of Phase 2 of the
proposed Preliminary Plan. The issues below will be negotiated between
the Review Engineer, the County, the Fire District, and the Owner to
satisfactorily resolve these issues. These issues will be resolved during the
continuance period for Phase 2.
2. How will thc arca of the intersection be graded, drained, and tied into existing? There
is no existing topography and very little design information given for the intersection
to CR 319.
• This is part of Phase 2 and a resolution can be negotiated between
necessary parties during the continuance period. Currently, topography of
this area is unavailable. The proposed road will tie into the existing grade
of County Road 319. The existing culvert under this access will be sized
and reinstalled to provide adequate drainage from the north to the south
where runoff can enter the existing 60" culvert under CR 319.
3. Thc International Fire Code has maximum grade requirements for roadways. Even
though thc County may give a variance for the steep grade, the fire district may not
provide .fire protection. The local fire district should review and respond in writing
concerning the acceptability of the road grades.
• We are awaiting comments and suggestions from the fire district. Any
comments will be addressed in a fashion to satisfy all necessary parties
during the continuance period.
4. The combination of steep and curved is particularly difficult to navigate during snowy
conditions. Often a flat, straight section of roadway is designed to allow drivers to
recover and/or drive up; however a steep curve makes it difficult to either get up or
down. Driver loss of control and sliding should be expected. What different
alternatives have been considered? What measures are proposed to make this road
safer for travelers?
• This site has many severe conditions that require additional investigation.
Comments from the Fire District will be considered in determining the
options for resolving this issue. As stated earlier, we are awaiting
comments from the Fire District.
5. The cross slope of the minor road at 6+06 will need to match the road grade. It will
make starting and stopping at the intersection extremely difficult for drivers.
Superelcvations of 6% are maximum rules of thumb for sideways sliding during
snowy and/or ice conditions; the cross slope of this road will be nearly 12%. Have
Mamm Creek Commons Page 8 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:23PM P9
other points of intersection been considered? Has flattening the road grades of the
major road been considered?
• See previous comment. The condition at this intersection will change with
any changes to the road.
6. Berms and/or guardrail should be installed for the curve to protect Lot 15 from out of
control vehicles.
• Guardrail will be installed along this stretch.
7. Guardrail should be installed along the downhill side of the roadway.
• Guardrail will be installed along the downhill side of the roadway between
Station 8+00 and 15+00 on Sheet RD -06.
RD -06
• General response to RD -06 comments: This sheet is part of Phase 2 of the
proposed Preliminary Plan. The issues below will be negotiated between
the Review Engineer, the County, the Fire District, and the Owner to
satisfactorily resolve these issues. These issues will be resolved during the
continuance period for Phase 2.
1. The International Fire Code has maximum grade requirements for roadways. Even
though the County may give a variance for the steep grade, the fire district may not
provide fire protection. The local fire district should review and respond in writing
concerning the acceptability of the road grades.
▪ We are awaiting comments and suggestions from the fire district. Any
comments will be addressed in a fashion to satisfy the fire district, the
county and the owner.
2. The combination of steep and curved is particularly difficult to navigate during snowy
conditions. Often a flat, straight section of roadway is designed to allow drivers to
recover and/or drive up; however a steep curve makes it difficult to either get up or
down. Driver loss of control and sliding should be expected. What different
alternatives have been considered? What measures are proposed to make this road
safer for travelers?
• This site has many severe conditions that require additional Investigation.
Comments from the Fire District will be considered in determining the
options for resolving this issue. As stated earlier, we are awaiting
comments from the Fire District.
3. Guardrail should be installed along the downhill side of the roadway.
• Guardrail will be installed along the downhill side of the roadway between
Station 8+00 and 15+00 on Sheet RD -06.
4. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the acceptable length. A variance will be
necessary. Also, the local fire district should review and respond in writing
concerning the acceptability of the cul-de-sac length. It is typical that longer lengths
have a second point of emergency ingress and egress. Where is the second point of
access proposed?
• Due to the severe terrain and location of the cul-de-sac, a second point of
access is not located.
5. As part of the variance process, a graphic illustration needs to be provided showing
the difference between complying with grades and with excessive grades. This is to
be performed to show that cuts and/or fills that exceed 12' in height can be avoided.
Mamm Creck Commons
Page 9 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:24PM P10
In this case, even with the excessive grades, fill heights at centerline exceed 17'; fill
heights from toe of fill to centerline exceed 40' in places. With this large amount of
fill, what specific recommendations has the geotechnical engineer made?
• The fill for this road was kept to a minimum for reasons within the
geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer will need to be involved and
agree to the plans and construction of the excessive fills.
RD -07
1. A low point is created at 2+75(+/-) that does not appear to have drainage considered.
What is planned to drain this low point?
■ A more defined channel will be developed at time of Final Plat.
2. An access easement will need to be provided that bisects Lots 21 and 22. This is
generally discouraged. Have other alternatives been considered to shift the access to
common arca and/or a lot line?
■ An easement is shown on Sheet RD -07. This should be shown on the
preliminary plat. Alternate routes moving the road to the property line
would create significant fill amounts resulting in a less stable and more
d-angerous- access.
RD -09
1. The cross slope of the road at 6+06 will need to match the major road grade. It will
make starting and stopping at the intersection extremely difficult for drivers.
Superelevations of 6% are maximum rules of thumb for sideways sliding during
snowy and/or ice conditions; the cross slope of this road will be nearly 12%. Have
other points of intersection been considered? Has flattening the road grades of the
major road been considered?
■ Sec Comment 3 under Section RD -05. The condition at this intersection
will change with any changes to the road.
2. The culvert is referred to in plan as 36" and in profile as 24". Either one will require
a relatively steep and deep hole to drain the roadside ditch into the invert of the
culvert. This will further complicate the difficulties that cars will potentially have
after sliding off the road and into the deep roadside ditch. Has the ditch and culvert
been considered further from the intersection?
■ To clarify, the proposed culvert is a 36" culvert. The culvert will be moved
to approximately Station 1+60 and located approximately at the low point.
Roadside drainage will be graded to drain to the new location. A "hole"
may still have to be created to provide adequate drainage. This "hole" will
be protected from the road with guardrail.
3. Also, when considering the above comment, consider that there is a low point in the
road at approx. 1+50 that has not been considered for drainage.
✓ See previous response.
4. The access into lot 15 is steep. Have other alternatives been considered? Perhaps the
access into lot 14 could be steepened and shifted to the west and the grades flattened
for the access into 15.
■ The existing grade on the cast side of Lot 15 is approximately the same
grade as the proposed access. While other alternatives may slightly improve
the grade to Lot 15, they would cause additional problems for necess to Lot
14 and the intersection with the road servicing these access roads.
Mamm Creek Commons
Page 10 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:24PM P11
RD -10
1. The intersection proposes to transition immediately to the vertical tangent. This does
not meet the intersection requirements of the County. That aside, what vehicle will
be used for maintenance of the pump station and water tank? Has the wheel base and
ground clearance of the maintenance vehicle been considered for this proposed
access?
• This is a limited access road. A variance is requested for this road. A 10 ft
inside radius and a 22 ft outside radius should be sufficient to provide
adequate access to the limited access site.
2. The culvert inlet appears to be shifted uphill of where the low point would be. Will
the culvert be able to drain the low point?
• The culvert will be shifted up station and local grading will be completed to
insure drainage to the culvert.
MU -1 (Items 1-3 shown above under conditions section)
4. What is the proposed routing for phone and power systems?
t This will be addressed at Final Plat.
5. The 6" watcr line into Phase II is proposed off the property and within the CR 319
right-of-way. What arrangements and or agreements have been made to show this as
planned?
• Agreements- will be in place between the county and the owner prior to the
construction of the waterline.
6. The ISDS for Lot 6 will have considerable setback requirements with the well and
water lines. Has this lot been evaluated to see if buildings, setbacks, and ISDS are all
feasible?
• All .!SDS leach fields will be on the individual lots or in the Common Open
Space. Each ISDS design will be completed at the time of the building
permit, at which time setbacks will be more specifically investigated.
7. What is the proposed cover over the water lines? What is proposed for the water line
vs. culvert crossings?
• All waterlines will be installed with 5 feet of cover. Insulation will be used
at the culvert crossings.
8. What is proposed for the high point in the water line in front of Lot 10?
■ An Air/Vac valve will be added at this location.
9. No shut-off or isolation valves are shown for the new water line construction. Is this
intentional?
• Shut off and isolation valves will be added based on the hydrant locations
and will be situated to best suit the system.
10. The 6" water lines to Tank #2 and to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 are labeled as existing. What
is the status of these lines? When were they constructed? What specifications were
used? Were they pressure tested? Were they chlorinated?
• This will be clarified on the Final Plat.
Mom= Crook Commons
Page 11 of 13
FROM :MountainCrossEng,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:25PM P12
MU -2 (Reins 1-4 shown above under conditions Rection)
• General response to MU -2 comments: This sheet is part of Phase 2 of the
proposed Preliminary Plan. The issues below will be negotiated between
the Review Engineer, the County, the Fire District, and the Owner to
satisfactorily resolve these issues. These issues will be resolved during the
continuance period for Phase 2.
5. What is the proposed routing for phone and power systems?
• This will be addressed at Final Plat.
6, What is the proposed cover over the water lines? What is proposed for the water line
vs. culvert crossings?
• All waterlines will be installed with 5 feet of cover. Insulation will be used
at the culvert crossings.
7. What types of joints are proposed for the water lines constructed in the fill slopes?
Thrust blocks and push -on joints may pull apart as the fill settles over time,
• Restrained joints will be used in any areas of significant fill. Notes will be
added to the drawings indicating specifically which areas will require
restrained joints.
8. The fire hydrant should be shifted to the uphill side of the road so that thrust is into
the hill instead of out of the hill. The 6" line should terminate into the hydrant.
Water services for Lots 22 and 23 should tap into the 6" line.
• The fire hydrant will be moved to the other side of the road.
MU -3 (Item 1 shown above under conditions section)
2. Where will the floor drain actually daylight? The daylight end does not show up on
GR -1, GR -3, MU -1, or RD -01.
• This will be addressed at Final Plat
3. Where will the chlorine solution be injected into the water system?
• This will be addressed at Final Plat.
4. Even though shop drawings are to be submitted for approval, building specifications
and performance criteria will be necessary.
• This will be addressed at Final Plat.
5. Where will the pressure switch be located?
• This will be addressed at Final Plat.
6. Does the foundation wall detail incorporate the site recommendations of the soils
report specific to the pump house?
• The foundation detail will be revised. The geotechnichal engineer will
provide site specific design requirements at the time of building permit.
MU -4
1. Where will the overflow drain actually daylight? The daylight end does not show up
on GR -1, GR -3, MU -1, or RD -01.
• This will be addressed at Final Plat.
2, On this relatively small tank, will a center support be necessary? If not where will the
float and overflow switches be located?
• The tank will be designed by others and provided at Final Plat.
Marnm Creek Commons
Page 12 of' 13
FROM :MountainCrossEn9,Inc
FAX NO. :9709455558 Jul. 13 2004 03:25PM P13
3. Is there concern with vandalism? Does the ladder need to be shortened to prevent
access?
• Suggestion noted and will be addressed and incorporated in the tank design
at Final Plat.
4. The funnel weir/orifice is 24". What flow rate determined this size? The drawing
shows the supports for the overflow assembly to the tank wall but the note calls for it
to thc center support.
• The tank will be designed by others and provided at Final Plat.
5. Since there is elevation available elsewhere within the project, what is the reason for
locating this tank at a lower elevation? The VFD pumps, pressure tanks, backup
generation, as well as the duplication in the second pump house could all be
eliminated with a suitable higher elevation.
• The owner preferred the proposed configuration for the water system.
DET -2
1. Two details exist for thrust blocks that do not correlate.
• One of the details will be removed.
The comments provided by you have been addressed to the completeness of the
information available, and to the Garfield County Regulations regarding Cluster Housing.
The responses are in accordance with the meeting we had at High Country Engineerings
office on July 8, 2004. We are aware that some conditions are still outstanding,
especially with Phase 2 of the proposed development. We are willing to work with you
and other necessary parties to resolve these issues in an efficient and timely manner once
all parties have responded and when time allows a more detailed investigation of some of
thc concerns. A preliminary plan approval is anxiously awaited for Phase l with thc
conditions discussed above and allowing Phase 2 to have a continuance granted.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss any of the above comment
responses further.
Respectfully,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
Jeff Odor, EIT
Project Engineer
Mamm Creek Commons
Page 13 of 13
Jim Hardcastle
From: Tim Thulson [tim@balcombgreen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:21 PM
To: craig.lis@state-co.us
Cc: Jim Hardcastle; dick.wolfe@state-co.us
Subject: Mamm Creek Commons Preliminary Plan SW1/4SE1/4 Sec 23 & NW1/4NE1/4 Sect 26,
T6S, R93W, 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Jim,
This correspondence is intended to follow-up and confirm our telephone conversation relevant to the
above referenced matter which was the subject the the "material injury" letter issued by your office to Jim
Hardcastle, Garfield County Planning Department, of June 23, 2004. I also discussed this matter with Dick
Wolfe this morning who suggested that given the pendancy of the Garfield County Planning Commission's review
of this application (tonight at 7:30 p.m.) that I follow this format.
As previously represented the total estimated water supply for the Mamm Creek Commons is slated for
augmentation under the West Divide Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract (No. 040219W(a))
by and between the District and the 319 Water Company. Any comments to other augmentation sources
contained within the application materials reviewed by your office are either in error or are mistated references to
District contract. All domestic depletions within the Mamm Creek Commons are to be augmented under the
District contract.
It is my understanding that all domestic depletions as such will in fact be augmented under the District's
substitute water supply plan until such time as the District formally includes its contract with 319 Water
Company within it Augmentation Plan pursuant to court decree. As such, these depletions should not cause,
pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(H)(I), material injury to other decreed water rights
If you could confirm the above to Jim Hardcastle at jhardcastle@garfield-county.com, it would greatly
facilitate the review of the application by the Garfield County Planning Commission this evening
Should you have any further questions or concerns regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at
your convenience. My telephone number is (970)945-6546. Very Truly Yours, Timothy A. Thulson
i