HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 07.14.2004PC 07/14/04
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Sketch Plan review for Peach Valley Vistas
APPLICANT / OWNER: Kelly Lyon
REPRESENTATIVE: Gamba & Associates
LOCATION: East of Silt, North of I-70 at Davis Point
PROPERTY SIZE: 54.88 res
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Central Water System
ISDS�
CR -5 and Davis Point Road
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
1
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
A. General Property Description
The subject propert is located just east and adjacent to Davis Point Road, north of I-70 and south
of CR 214. The 5 acre consists primarily of gently sloping open cultivated hay fields on the
northern half of the property and a small vineyard on the southern portion of the property. The
Ware & Hines Ditch and the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch traverse the property. The Ware and Hines
Ditch runs southward along the western lot line which has made a significant cut into the lower
portion of the property and eventually drains into the Colorado River. This cut has been graded and
the ditch run-off has been more formally channeled through the lower portion of the property to a
culvert under the Lower Valley Cactus Ditch and out to the Colorado River. The Lower Valley
Cactus Ditch runs just inside the southern boundary of the property. Two wetland areas have been
delineated on the lower -eastern portion of the property. Established vegetation of the property is
relatively minimal but characterized by a few stands of large mature cottonwood trees on the
southern portion of the nearer to the grape vineyard. (Staff will provide a brief presentation of
property.)
B. Proposal
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 58.88 -acre property into twenty-four (24) lots that are each
approximately 2.29 acres in size. Domestic water is to be provided from a central water supply
system that includes 2 wells and a storage tank with a water treatment system. Waste water will
handled with Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISDS) on each lot. Irrigation water will be
provided to all the lots via shares from the property owners ditch shares in the ware & Hines Ditch.
Access to each of the lots will be provided by in internal road within a 50 -foot right-of-way from
Davis Point Road bisecting the length of the property and out onto CR 214. A small cul-de-sac is
proposed off of this internal road providing access to 4 lots.
Significant site characteristics of the property including the Ware & Hines Ditch "drainage cut",
two wetland areas, and natural storm water drainages have been placed into either "Drainage and
Soil Conservation Easements" or "Wetlands Preservation and Drainage Conveyance Easements
/Areas of No Disturbance." Both ditches (Ware & Hines and Lower Valley Cactus Ditch) are
located within their own easements. Both wells are located within maintenance and access
easements and the water storage tank for the water system has been located in an easement with
access provided to the Applicant on an adjacent property to the west to take advantage of higher
elevation.
[It should be noted, the Applicant intends to consider designing a cluster -type of development using
the county's cluster subdivision regulations. This requires an applicant to first process a sketch
plan under a conventional development scheme which is what is before you presently.]
II. REFERRAL AGENCIES
a. Town of Silt: No comments provided
b. County Road and Bridge Department: (Attachment A)
2
III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within Study Area 2 which designates the property as "Outlying
Residential" on the proposed land use designation map. This designation indicates residential
development is appropriate for this property at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres which is also
consistent with the underlying zoning of ARRD.
IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning
regulations of the ARRD zone district.
A. Proposed Uses
The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on all of the 24 lots which is
contemplated as a "use by right" in the A/R/RD zone district and is therefore consistent with
the underlying zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Section 3.02 of the
Zoning Resolution.
B. Common Dimensional Requirements
➢ Lot Size / Slope: The Applicant proposes the 58.88 -acre property be subdivided into 24
developable lots that are each approximately 2.29 -acres in size. This is complies with the 2 -
acre minimum lot size. However, several of the lots are encumbered by raw water ditches,
wetlands, storm water drainages, and well easements. The Applicant should be aware that
every lot will need to have a building area ("building envelope") of at least 1 contiguous
acre with slopes less than 40% pursuant to Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning Resolution.
➢ Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%)
➢ Minimum Setback:
o Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty
(50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet
from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is
greater;
o Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
o Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the
principal building, whichever is greater.
➢ Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet
➢ Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5
(Supplementary Regulations)
V. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The following section addresses common subdivision components that will need to be
addressed by the Applicant as part of their preliminary plan and final plat submittal to the
county.
3
A. Domestic & Irrigation Water
Regarding potable domestic water, the Applicant proposes to provide water to all the lots in
the development by a central water supply system. This system includes the provision of
water from two wells that will pump up to a 7200 gallon water storage tank on an adjacent
property then will gravity feed water to all the lots. The County typically uses a water usage
calculation of 100 gallons per person per day for a household of 2.5 persons or a total of 250
gallons a day per household. As applied to the 24 lots (or 60 persons), average water usage
would equal 6,000 gallons per day. The Applicant proposes a slight increase to this capacity
to 300 gallons a day per household or a total of 7200 gallons. The Applicant shall be
required to provide proof of a legal and physically adequate water supply with the
preliminary plan submittal. This proof will be reviewed by the Division of Water Resources
to determine if there is any material injury to decreed water rights and the supply is
adequate.
This central water supply system will be required to be approved and monitored by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) as it is defined as a
"Community Water Supply" which serves at least 15 residences or 25 persons. Staff is also
aware that the water quality in this area of the county tends to be of a poorer quality so a
treatment system should be considered once a complete water quality analysis has been
conducted.
For irrigation water, the Applicant indicated that no irrigation water would be provided from
the domestic system. Rather, lot owners would be entitled to shares / portion of shares in the
share rights of the Applicant in the ware & Hines Ditch. The application states that a low-
pressure raw water irrigation system will be constructed and augmented from shares owned
by the developer. The Applicant will need to develop this system as part of the initial
improvements to be secured in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA). In addition,
the Applicant will need to indicate what entity will own and operate the system and how the
shares will be allocated.
Regarding the physical components of the water system, the Applicant should review the
following requirements found in Sections 4:91 and 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations:
Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that a water supply plan, at the same
scale as. the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or
written form:
A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and
dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed
subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall not be limited to:
1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing and proposed
water rights;
2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights;
3. Amenability of existing right to change in use;
4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the
proposed subdivision, including the amount of water available for use within the
subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending service to the area, proof
4
of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation that
all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adjudicated,
prior to submission of the final plat; and
5. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for the
subdivision.
B. If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general description of the
system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. In addition:
1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water system; and
2. Proposed method of financing the water system.
C. If connection is to be made to an existing water system, a letter from an authorized
representative of said system staging that the proposed development will be served, and
evidence from either the Colorado State Engineer's Office or Water Court, Water Division
No. 5, that the existing water system presently possesses adequate legal water supply to
serve the proposed development;
D. If individual water systems shall be provided by lot owners, a report indicating the
availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable depths throughout the subdivision
and the expected quality and long-term yield of such wells, with the written report by a
registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, qualified to perform
such work; and
E. If applicable, a Plan of Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water supplies, as
required by law, with the supporting engineering work signed by a Colorado registered
engineer, shall be submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant is not the actual supplier
of water.
Section 9:51 requires an adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to
all lots within a subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total
development population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in
accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards.
9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has submitted
the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the Colorado Division of
Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots within the development.
9:53 Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water
systems and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado.
Central water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado
Department of Health. All lines in a central water system should be looped, with no dead
ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there will either
be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line.
9:54 Water supply stems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or subsequent to flooding.
5
9:55 All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4"), provided storage
facilities adequate for fire protection are available.
B. Waste Disposal
The applicant proposes that each lot will install ISDS to handle waste water generated. Permits
for ISDS would be obtained during the building permit process with the county as the lots are
improved. The Applicant should be aware of spacing requirements for ISDS as they relate to
wells and live water courses.
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.
C. Roads /Access
Access to each of the lots will be provided by in internal road within a 50 -foot right-of-way
from Davis Point Road bisecting the length of the property and out onto CR 214. A small cul-
de-sac is proposed off of this internal road providing access to 4 lots.
The proposed 24 lots will produce approximately 229.68 trips using the ITT's calculation of
9.57 trips per dwelling which requires that all internal roads be designed to the "secondary
road" standard found in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations. This road type requires a
50 -foot right-of-way, two 11 -foot driving lanes, 6 -foot shoulder widths, 6 -foot ditch widths, and
a chip seal or gravel driving surface. The cul-de-sac is less that 600 linear feet and complies
with the required standard. In general, it appears the proposed internal roads have been designed
to this standard. A closer review by an engineer on behalf of the county will occur during the
preliminary plan review to ensure these standards have been met. This internal road and cul-de-
sac will also be required to be dedicated to the public but maintained by the Homeowners
Association and memorialized on the final plat as a plat note.
Of particular importance is the proposed road crossing over the drainage feature (the "gully")
created by the run-off from the Ware & Hines Ditch. Staff questioned weather the proposed
road crossing was a viable proposal. The Applicant provided additional information on this
issue which ultimately indicates that it is possible from both an engineering perspective and a
cost analysis perspective as indicated by the road cost estimate and a proposed road profile.
(See Attachment B) Basically, while the cut and fill required for the crossing will be much
more expensive, the benefit of reaching an additional lot will generate funds to cover the
additional cost.
Road and Bridge provided comments indicating no major issues with the proposal but to keep
the following items in mind when designing preliminary plan: 1) stop signs and road name signs
will be needed at all intersections, 2) no more than a 2% grade at the intersections of the internal
road as it connect to County Roads, and 3) the entrances to the county roads need to be at least
40 feet wide with a 30' x 10' asphalt apron.
D. Fire Protection
The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. No information was
provided regarding a fire protection plan for the subdivision. The Applicant shall need to
6
provide a fire protection plan that addresses the fire protection standards in Section 9:70 of the
Subdivision regulations that are listed here and others as may be required of the fire protection
district:
9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection
district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire
entrapment.
9:72 Where a central water system has fire hydrants, all fire hydrants shall meet the
specifications for the appropriate fire protection agency, particularly with regard to thread size
on the fire hydrants.
9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a central located fire protection storage
tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by
the appropriate fire district.
9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be
from a source separate from the domestic supply.
E. Drainage/Floodplain Issues
The property does not appear to be located in a regulated floodplain but contains steep slopes
that will, once developed, impact the historic and direction of drainage on and off of the
property. This is specifically related to the gullies located on the southwestern portion of the
property that are a result of the run-off of the ware & Hines Ditch. The Applicant will be
required to address the following:
4:80 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:: DRAINAGE PLAN
A drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado, shall depict the following information in graphic and/or
written form:
A. Existing water courses and lakes;
B. Limits of tributary areas, where practical;
C. Computations of expected tributary flows; and
D. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off from
entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major
damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm, showing:
1. Area subject to inundation; and
2. Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels.
9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm.
9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of
detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year storm.
7
9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in
concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3) beyond the driving surface on each side.
Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load.
F. Wildlife
No information was provided regarding the issue of wildlife. The Applicant shall be required to
address the following at preliminary plan:
4: 70(D) Wildlife - Description of wildlife habitation, including big game ranges based on the
mapping practices of the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
G. Soils / Geology / Radiation
The Applicant submitted soils information which indicates that soils on the property vary with
regard to suitability for home site development. More specifically, soils limitations in the area
include shrink -swell potential, low strength, slow permeability, some slope issues, depth to
bedrock, exposed bedrock, slumping and creeping, and stoney soils. Based on these limitations,
Staff generally requires that the following plat note be required to provide disclosure to the
potential lot purchasers that foundations and septic systems will need to have site specific
analysis and engineering.
"Foundations and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be engineered by a
Professional Registered Engineer within the State of Colorado."
The Applicant shall also address the following section in the Subdivision Regulations for
Preliminary Plan:
4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:: GEOLOGY, SOIL, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Information on the following characteristics of the area proposed for subdivision shall be
shown graphically and/or by reports, whatever is appropriate, for a complete description of
existing conditions, and shall include:
A. Geology - Description and/or illustration by a registered professional engineer licensed
by the State of Colorado of bedrock lithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying
unconsolidated materials in sufficient detail to indicate any potential development
problems resulting from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations and ills,
expansive soils, drainage patterns, structural bearing strength, or the like;
Based on the radiation analysis conducted by HP Geotech, no mitigation of the typical
background radiation levels found in the area are necessary.
H. Vegetation
The Applicant will be required to provide a vegetation management plan as part of preliminary
plan that addresses weed management, topsoil disturbance issues, and revegetation of disturbed
areas in the development of the site. As a suggestion, staff recommends that development of
the property be sensitive to and try to preserve the mature cottonwoods on the property.
8
4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: GEOLOGY, SOIL, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
C. Vegetation - Map and description of plant associations following practices of the Soil
Conservation Service and including a description of adapted materials and the location of
major tree masses.
I. Easements
The Applicant will need to delineate, legally describe, and convey all easements shown on the
plat to the Homeowners Association. This dedication needs to be in a form acceptable to the
County Attorneys Office and transfer shall occur at the time of recording the final plat. These
easements shall include all drainage easements, shared water system easements (domestic wells
and water storage tank and shared irrigation systems), wetland protection areas, storm -water
drainage easements, all internal roads (which will be dedicated to the public on the face of the
final plat) and any access and maintenance easements that need to be provided from the two
ditch companies that have ditches that run through the property including the Ware and Hines
Ditch and the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch.
J. Assessment / Fees
The property is located in Traffic Study Area 6 which requires a $210 per ADT fee be paid to
the county. This will be figured at the time of final plat. The Applicant could expect to pay an
approximate preliminary Traffic Impact Fee of $44,892.00 of which 1/2 shall be paid at final plat
and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA).
The development is also located in the RE -2 School District which requires a $200 per lot
School Site Acquisition Fee for a total of $ 4,800.00 to be paid at final plat and included as a
component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA).
K. Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants
Please be aware, the county requires the Applicant place the following plat notes be
included on the final plat and in protective covenants:
1. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells
of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living
in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be
prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on
public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the
application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments,
herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a
legal and non -negligent agricultural operations."
2. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling
units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and
appliances."
9
3. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents
and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as
good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such
information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the
Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County."
4. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property
boundaries."
5. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owner's property boundaries."
L. Cluster Potential
The Applicant has indicated they wish to propose a clustered development on this property
pursuant to the newly adopted cluster regulations. As you recall, this development process was
designed to allow applicants to demonstrate the number of realistic lots that could be developed
on a property under conventional zoning. Once the number of lots was realistically determined
for a particular piece of property which includes dealing with site constraints, the Applicant
could be eligible for additional lots in return for the preservation of otherwise developable
property. This would be possible because under the cluster regulations, lots can be developed at
1 acre minimums.
Regarding the cluster process, an applicant wishing to propose a cluster option would normally
submit the cluster plan along with a conventional development plan (yield plan) after
completing a traditional sketch plan. That is the case in this proposal before you. This proposal
is not, in any way, an official "yield plan" that has determined that the property can realistically
be developed into 24 lots. That will come later if the Applicant chooses to do so. This is only a
traditional sketch plan that allows the Applicant to return at the Preliminary Plan stage with a
true yield plan and cluster plan.
It is only at that point will Staff be able to determine the realistic number of lots that can be
developed on the property which constitutes a yield plan so that the number of bonus lots can be
determined for a cluster plan. Once that occurs, either the traditional yield plan or the cluster
plan will be presented as the preliminary plan to the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners.
This property appears to lend itself to the ability to design a cluster -type development.
M. Sketch Plan Comments and Preliminary Plan Review
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date
of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not
presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by that date, the Applicant will have to
10
submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and
comparison with the original application.
11
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 2004
GAREIELfl p�,NNING
BUILDING &
Garfield C'ount`y
Fred Jarman
(iARCO Bldg and Planning
Subject: Peach Valley Vistas Subdivision
Solid waste Department
P.D. Box 426
R1lle, Colorado 81650
970-625-2516
Hi Fred,
Here are the recommendations from Kraig Kuberry regarding the above-mentioned subject.
"Everything looks good, the only issues I have will need to be addressed when a driveway permit is requested."
Those issues are:
1. Stop sign.
2. Road Name sign_
3. No more than a 2% grade from road.
4. A 40' wide entrance.
5. A 30'x10" asphalt entrance.
I tried to e-mail you; apparently I have the wrong address. fjarman@garfield-county.com (?)
Janey Dyke
Landfill Technician
G A M B A
& ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
& LAND SURVEYORS
PHONE: 970/945-2550
FAX: 970/945-1410
•
113 NINTH STREET,
SUITE 214
P.O. BOX 1458
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
COLORADO 81602-1458
May 25, 2004
Fred Jarman
Building & Planning Departement
Garfield County
108 Eighth Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Peach Valley Vistas — Road Construction Cost Estimate
Dear Fred:
Based on your request, we have prepared a construction cost estimate for the
primary road depicted on the Sketch Plan (Yield Plan) for Peach Valley Vistas
subdivision. We have also provided a road plan and profile design upon which we
based our cost estimate. The road plan and profile is contained within the "Sketch
Plan with road profile Profile-Color.pdf" file included on the CD, which
accompanies this letter.
As you can see from the road profile, the final grade centerline of the road
corresponds very closely to the existing ground surface along the majority of the
length of the road. However, as can be seen between road centerline stations 0+00
and 4+50 the final grade of the road is significantly different than the existing
ground surface. This portion of the road is the segment that crosses several minor
gullies and the one major gully located on the property.
Based on our conversation the question was raised regarding the economic
feasibility of constructing this specific portion of the road (0+00 to 4+50).
Attached to this letter is a spreadsheet calculating the total road construction cost
for the primary road depicted on the Sketch Plan. To demonstrate the additional
construction costs due to the crossing of the gullies, we divided the road into two
sections for the calculation of the cost estimate.
1. The first section is the portion crossing the gullies between road centerline
stations 0+00 and 4+50. This portion of the road we estimate to cost
approximately $88,994.70, or approximately $197.77 per linear foot of
road.
2. The second section is the portion of the road that more closely follows the
existing ground surface between road centerline stations 4+50 and
27+13.91. This portion of road we estimate to cost approximately
$172,983.40, or approximately $76.41 per linear foot.
The total estimated construction cost for the primary road depicted on the Sketch
Plan is approximately $261,978.10. In order to calculate the construction cost
difference for the additional expense of crossing the gullies, you would calculate
Peach Valley Vistas — Road Construction Cost Estimate
May 25, 2004
Page 1 of 2
the construction costs for the total length of the road (0+00 to 27+13.91) at the linear foot unit
cost of $76.41, then subtract that total cost from the estimated cost of the road as depicted. This
calculation is as follows:
(2,713.91 feet of road) X ($76.41 per linear foot) = $207,367.51
The cost difference is as follows:
$261,978.10 - $207,367.51 = $54,610.59
Therefore, the additional cost of constructing the road over the gullies, as opposed to another
route that would more closely follow the existing ground surface for its entire length is estimated
to be approximately $54,610.59. To determine the economic feasibility of this expense, one
would then determine the financial gain from constructing the road in the location shown on the
Sketch Plan. By constructing the road in this location, the subdivision gains at least one
additional lot, Lot 14, which is directly accessed via this expensive portion of the road.
Furthermore, it could be argued that any other road alignment would have required a cul-de-sac
road longer than 600 -feet in order to access Lots 11 and 12. Therefore, unless the county was to
approve a cul-de-sac longer than that allowed by the subdivision regulations, then this road
design could be shown to result in the gain of an additional two lots for a total of three additional
lots. The developer has estimated that these lots are expected to sell for somewhere in the range
of $90,000. Even if this road only resulted in the gain of one additional lot, the additional road
construction expense of $54,610.59 is significantly less than the $90,000 gain from selling the
additional lot. Obviously, if the construction of this road results in the gain of three additional
lots, then the financial gain is substantial.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Gamba & Associ
jAZ'
icha- Gamba, P.E.& P.L.S. 28036
H:\02372\01\Communications\20040525 letter to Fred Jarman regarding cost estimate.doc
Enclosure
Peach Valley Vistas — Road Construction Cost Estimate
May 25, 2004
Page 2 of 2
From Station 0+00 to 4+50 (Section 1)
Description
Bid
Quantity
Bid
Unit
Bid Unit
Price
Total Price
Clear, grub and stockpile. topsoif
Excavation; and recompa
ton tib arstt materfal
1
ACRE
1n€tport 'ffipe
coon of strrrctra
fl I
n
eterial
ScarEty, Erioasture'treat ai d corftpact siil3grade'to depth and
cot pectior specf catfor s af.all. read and concrete surfaces;
1*un-ush and install ctass 6 A B G shoulders driveway
connections, a td turn outs according to plans a td
...................................
specifications
FO.:001 end place; blot i f
plans and speciflcat�on�
carEfy; regrade, and (evegetete disturbed areas a
plans anis specifications.
t rrti nous pavement accord ng
Y
0,700 .00
$9,00
TONS
ccording to
From Station 4+50 to 27+13.91 (Section 2)
Total
$88,994.70
Cost Per Foot of Road
$197.77
Description
Bid
Quantity
Bid
Unit
Bid Unit
Price
Total Price
Cteair, grt l and stockpte topsv ll
ACRE $ta0:0:
$51
00,00;
.Excavation..and recompaction o€ ori srte material.
1,802
$15;21
8,00
5*;a :00.068.6: t115€iL 4546 0X.004. 0* 4V:Af£>i
1,392
CY
$92,528 )0
Scarify, moisture treat end cor coact subgr•ade'to::depth and `.
compactionapepifi atier)a of all road acid concrete surfaces:
F u�`t1 E5i'# a Eid � nstalE.. C1r
corer ectrcns, and tura
$0.0000000$e......
shrulders, dihi eway
.......................................................
Eutniisl ;<snd;;pl H 4.
plan ariotspe itiC ti fs>
ve
rade artd re d''etate clistE ted ar as a0 erttli tc
...:.....::....................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
pl r`ES and specification
Total
$172,983.40
Cost Per Foot of Road
$76.41
Estimated Cost
(Section 1 +Section 2)
$261,978.10
Cost of Road (2,713.91 feet) @
Section 2's Price
$207,367.51
Difference
$54,610.59
P&Z Members Present
David Stover
Colin Laird
Christina Chapin
Mike Deer
Jock Jacober
Bob Fullerton
Planning Commission Minutes
From June 9, 2004 Meeting
Staff Present
Mark Bean, B&P Director
Fred Jarman, Planner
Don DeFord, County Atty.
Roll call was taken and the following members are absent tonight: Michelle Foster, Phil
Vaughan and Cheryl Chandler.
Christina made a motion to approve the minutes as written from the May 12, 2004
Planning Commission Meeting and Colin seconded the motion. All approved
unanimously.
The first item of discussion is a public meeting request for review of the 16th Street
Extension for the City of Rifle.
Mark Bean is the County Planner on this item and he says this is a statutory review
process. The City of Rifle plans to extend 16th Street from Whiteriver Avenue to Anvil
View Avenue. The property is presently in the unincorporated area of the County, but
will be annexed to the City in the near future. The extended road will be 36 feet wide
with curb, gutter and 5 foot attached sidewalks on each side. The City is acquiring the
property through deeds in lieu of condemnation and hopes to accomplish this by mid-
June.
The City will be annexing this property in the near future and will be responsible for
maintenance and repair. The proposed extension will provide additional access the
adjacent properties and to the east side of Rifle.
Staff has no particular issue with the 16th Street extension. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed acquisition by the City of
Rifle of the necessary right-of-way to extend 16th Street from Whitewater Avenue to
Anvil View Avenue.
Moved out to questions for applicant. Jock asked if this is the only street in Rifle that
falls under the county jurisdiction.
1
Present for the Applicant are John Hier, City Manager for the City of Rifle and•Bill
Sappington, Project Engineer. Bill thinks that there are another couple of streets like this
that are under the county jurisdiction.
Bill spoke first. He said the street will be constructed this year. They are having good
negotiations with land owners and they are not going to do condemnation after all. Bill
said this road extension will be built with bond money. They will be acquiring about 2.4
acres for right-of-way.
Mark said that will make some properties more annexable.
Jock made a motion to recommend approval to extend 16th Street from Whitewater
Avenue to Anvil View Avenue and Colin seconded the motion. All approved
unanimously.
The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request to review a Sketch Plan
Application for the Silt Heights. Subdivision. The property is located off of CR 259 as is
36.44 acres in size. The Applicant is proposing five (5) single-family lots ranging in size
from 6 — 8 acres each. The Applicant is Terri Patrick.
Present for the Applicant is Terri Patrick herself and Dan Dennison with High Country
Engineering.
Fred Jarman is the County Planner on this project. This property lies between Rifle and
Silt, north of I-70, at the end of County Road 259. The existing zoning for the property is
A/R/RD. There are a few steep slopes on the eastern side of the property. The Farmer's
Irrigation Ditch runs through a large portion of the property. The property is served by a
14 foot wide gravel road which extends from the end of CR 259 along the eastern
boundary of the property.
Each lot will have an individual well for water and sewer will be handled through ISDS.
There is also a West Divide Contract for water. The water quality is pretty poor in this
area. Treatment of water will be necessary before human consumption. Treatment could
be via an R.O. system. That also has impacts on well and septic system. Not sure about
what shares are owned on that ditch. Assume irrigation they speak of will come from
well permits. The Applicant will have to drill wells up front to prove adequacy. Proof of
a legal and physical water supply is required to be provided for each lot prior to final plat.
Soils on the site are identified as Kim and Potts Loam which are deep, well drained,
moderately sloping soils. ISDS and foundations need to be engineered because of soils in
the area.
The Sketch Plan proposes to make use of an existing 30 foot wide access easement to CR
259. The subdivision must comply with the applicable road standards. The road serving
the 5 lots must meet the "semi -primitive" standard.
2
1
The design of the roadway includes a long dead-end cul-de-sac of approximately 1500
linear feet which exceeds the 600 foot maximum length in the subdivision regulations.
The BOCC may approve longer cul-de-sacs. Staff suggests looking at alternative
designs. Roads have to be dedicated to the people.
This site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District. The application does not address
how fire will be mitigated. Staff suggests meeting with the Fire District and including a
fire mitigation plan in the preliminary plan application.
ISDS are proposed for each lot. The Applicant should be aware that the covenants must
contain provisions for ISDS maintenance, including a detailed maintenance plan.
The application does not contain any discussions of wildlife impacts. Staff encourages
the Applicant to work with the DOW and follow their recommendations.
The property is located in Traffic Study Area 6 of the Capital Improvements Plan and the
Applicant will be expected to pay a portion of these fees prior to final plat and the other
half will be collected at building permit stage. There will also be a payment required for
School Impact Fees. Those fees will be calculated prior to final plat approval.
The lot sizes proposed fit within the current zoning. Refer to the A/R/RD zone district
regulations for specifics related to building height, setbacks, and uses by right.
David has a question about which lots and proposed for accessory dwelling units
(ADU's). Fred said that lots that are at least 4 acres could qualify for an ADU. He is not
sure if that was represented in the application or not.
Dan Dennison with High Country Engineering spoke next. A lot of issues were looked at
from the "old sketch plan application" in 2001. He will have to go back and look at what
they did last time. The Applicant understands that wells have to be drilled and tested
prior to final plat. Dan said CR 259 peters out just beyond the property. It's a dead end
street but there are a couple of houses there as well. Had looked at connecting to this
private drive a couple of years ago and didn't think it would be possible to enter into an
agreement with the adjoining landowner so that faded out.
David asked if there is access to the farmers ditch for maintenance. Yes was the
response, there is a trail on the west side from where the houses will be. Dan said they
would like the option of possible alternative building envelopes for crossing on parcels 2
& 3.
Christina asked if you would provide access to lots 2 &3 if you did the alternate building
envelopes. Dan said they would have to do it. Fred says you have to have some way to
access even over the ditch.
Terri Patrick spoke about access. Christina mentioned break away gates. She also has a
question about water analysis. She said she is missing a page from her staff report. Dan
3
said they didn't put the water report together. It was subbed out. Christina told Dane to
be sure that information is included as the application moves forward. Also, in the Geo-
technical Report, questions surface drainage section on page 4, it says that the landscape
irrigation should be restrictive. The Geo -technical Engineer says in his comments that
outside irrigation should be limited.
Terri says they have 1 share per lot for irrigating. Christina said you should mention in
your covenants about the engineers comments related to outside irrigation. Christina also
mentioned that lots 2, 3 & 4, the borings are not within the building envelope. She's not
sure how much of a concern that would be. Dan said he would look at that.
Jock asked if Applicant has looked at the possibility of clustering since the original
application from 2001. Dan said there is still a lot of good land outside of the envelopes.
Jock said that people have a tendency to build fences. Terri said she thinks they have
placed the building envelopes in there best locations. Jock said 5 acres is barely enough
for a goat. Terri mentioned that lot 3 was home for 2 horses.
Colin mentioned that the new clustering ordinance might make it easier for roads and she
could put more units on this property. It might make it potentially easier for the water
too.
Terri said she doesn't understand what you are trying to say. Jock responded. Terri said
she doesn't want her neighbors that close. Colin said we are just mentioning this as an
option.
Mike told Terri, your design is whatever you think is right. He won't presume to design
your place because he hasn't seen it. Terri said she can't stand the thought of clustering.
Mike mentioned to Terri that you don't own the mineral rights and that William Energy
does so you will have to make a plat note of that. People are notified, but yet they are
down here everyday complaining about drilling. The County doesn't have much input
and control over drilling. This is a perfect example of a subdivision that is looking for
trouble. The minerals are severed. Mike said he is going to ask these types of questions
up front on future applications. It's an important issue that we need to deal with. Mike
see's this as a problem.
Jock agrees 100% with Mike. Need to look at impacts.
Christina suggests including in covenants as well as a plat note. As long as it's disclosed.
It also makes the property more affordable.
Mark suggested that the Applicant talk to Williams Energy about the possibilities of
drilling out on this property.
No further comments were made. Sketch Plan comments are good for one year from
tonight's hearing date. (6/9/2005)
4
1
Mark asked Planning Commission if we could flip-flop items 6 & 7 on the agenda. They
agreed.
The next item of discussion is a public hearing request for review of an Amendment to
the Sanders Ranch PUD and review of a Preliminary Plan Application for Bair Chase at
Sanders Ranch. The property is located off of State Highway 82 between Glenwood
Springs and Carbondale and the proposal is for 230 multi -family and single-family units
on approximately 281 acres. The Applicant is Links Vest/Bair Chase, LLC.
Present for the Applicant is Jim Lochhead Attorney, Ron Liston of Land Design
Partnership and Jim Wells.
Don questioned Jim and Ron about noticing requirements. They said they used the
County Assessor's records on April 20th to obtain the names of property owners within
200'. Actually it was the Title Company who got the names. Certified mailing of notice
was sent on April 29th. Mailings were sent to all public land owners. There are no
mineral owners of record. The property was posted with the gold card that was provided
by the Garfield County Planning Department in late April at State Highway 82, adjacent
to Cattle Creek and is still in place today. Don said that testimony is adequate for notice.
The original notice was listed with then current owner. Since that time ownership has
changed. That is the only technical problem and it is up to the Board to decide if notice is
adequate. Applicant is aware of risks and they are willing to accept.
David said the Board is okay with this if applicant will go along with it. Mark said the
Courts would require a re -notice to occur if challenged by the public.
Mike made a motion to proceed with hearing and Colin seconded the motion. All agreed
in favor of this unanimously.
David swore in all speakers for this hearing.
Mark is the County Planner on this project and he said there are two major issues that
have not been resolved and they are access and a no material injury letter from the
Division of Water, State Engineers Office. CDOT and the Division of Water are
reviewing the application.
Staff recommends continuing this item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission Meeting on July 14, 2004. Per Ron, the Applicant concurs with that date
and request.
Mark entered in the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit A: Mail Return Receipts
Exhibit B: Proof of Publication
Colin made a motion to continue this item to the July 14th Planning Commission Meeting
and Christina seconded the motion. All approved.
5
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request is for review of an Amendment to
an existing Special Use Permit for the Glenwood Caverns. A number of proposed
changes are being requested and the BOCC forwarded this application for review to the
Planning Commission for their input. The Applicant is POW, Inc. / Steve Beckley.
Fred is the County Planner on this project. Don reviewed the noticing requirements with
Steve Beckley. He did use the County Assessors Office in mid-April to obtain names of
adjacent property owner names. Mailed notice to all owners of record both private and
public; there were no extra mineral owners. The mailing was done on April 25th. The
property was posted with the notice provided by the County Planning Department on
April 25th. One was posted on Transfer Trail and another card was posted at the Tram
Base. Both are still in place today. Don said proof of publication is adequate and it's
okay to proceed.
David swore in all speakers for this hearing.
Fred entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit A: Mail Receipts
Exhibit B: Proof of Publication
Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Regulations
Exhibit D: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
Exhibit E: Application
Exhibit F: Staff Memorandum
Exhibit G: Letter from the Glenwood Springs Fire depai tiuent dated 4/20/04
Exhibit H: Email from the County Vegetation Manager dated 4/27/04
Exhibit I: Letter from the City of Glenwood Springs dated 4/20/04
Exhibit J: Letter from the Bureau of Land Management dated 4/13/04
Exhibit K: Letter from Lyle R. Moss dated 5/9/04
Exhibit L: Parking Study completed by Walker Parking Consultants dated 5/5/04
New Exhibit:
Exhibit M: Letter from the City of Glenwood Springs dated 6/1/2004
All exhibits are accepted into the record.
Fred wants to do a brief presentation showing the proposal and staff recommendations.
He toured the property both externally and internally with Steve Beckley. Fred did a
power point presentation showing the caves and the county assessor map showing the
ownership in the area of this property. BLM, private landowners, the City of Glenwood
Springs, and this property itself.
Water and sewer are provided from the City of Glenwood Springs. Access to property is
via a Pulse Gondola or Transfer Trail. The property is currently zoned Agricultural
Industrial (A/I). The site is approximately 78.83 acres and BLM land is to the North and
West of the property.
6
t
1
The BOCC approved a Special Use Permit application for JMB Properties to allow for a
Commercial Recreational Facility/Park in the A/I zone district. The approval granted the
current use for the Glenwood Caverns and Historic Fairy Caves operation under
Resolution Number 99-065. The BOCC has also approved amendments to the terms of
the permit.
The Applicant proposes to amend the SUP by expanding the types of uses and hours of
operation for patrons of the present operation in a phased development plan over the
course of the next 4 years to 2008. All activities are proposed to be located at or near the
existing Caverns site (the upper site). The BOCC referred this application to the
Planning Commission for your input.
The proposed uses include: snack shop, banquet facility on the top floor of the existing
visitor' center / restaurant, an expansion of the visitor' center, performance amphitheatre,
falconry, alpine coaster, zip line, giant swing, Indian education center (teepee),
photography studio, climbing wall, movies, challenge (ropes) course, paragliding, mini
golf, and snow shoe rentals. The new hours of operation are proposed as between 6:30
AM to 11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:30 AM to 12:30 AM Friday and
Saturday. The proposed expansion is sought to provide more on site activities to occupy
patrons as they wait fir their cave tours to start.
The application was referred out to BLM, the Fire Protection District, the City of
Glenwood Springs and the County Weed and Vegetation Manager. Responses from
these agencies are included under Exhibit Letters.
A site plan was shown of the top of Iron Mountain showing the Alpine Slide route.
Performance Amphitheater will have the most impact on the area.
One leg of the project is in the City of Glenwood Springs (lower site) and the (upper site)
is located within the County.
Site plan of parking lot and proposed restaurant and motel were shown. Primary access
to site is the "tram" (gondola service). A parking analysis was done. This is included in
Exhibit L.
Property tour presentation was next. Plaza area is adequate for fire truck turn around.
Amphitheater is the only structure you can see from the City. A video was shown of the
Alpine Coaster. Fred wanted to find out about impacts. If this is done right, it could be a
neat amenity.
Parking, what's being proposed? Three main standards that have to be addressed. (See
section 5:03)
1.) Preannexation with City for water and sewer; adding 38,000 gallons of additional
water. Proposed leach field will need ISDS permit. This will be used during the
coldest months. Utilities are adequate.
7
2.) Street improvements: Fred met with Planner from City of Glenwood Springs.
Need 181 parking spaces. The Applicant will provide 205 spaces.
• Expanded uses will not significantly increase. traffic. There will be adequate
shared use parking. Fred addressed the Amphitheater if it gets expanded from
100 to 400 seats in his conditions.
• Design on the proposed use: Staff wants to see what Alpine Track will look like.
• Most of the proposed structures are screened behind the main building.
• Performance Amphitheater: visual and audio impacts
• Alpine Coaster Route
• Zip Line / Rope Course / Giant Swing (sky lining of poles)
All structures will be less than 40 feet (A/I zoning, that is what is allowed)
Did send application to the Fire Protection District and we ask the applicant to meet with
them to meet their conditions.
The City of Glenwood Springs is concerned with parking and visual impacts. This is
within the Cities hillside conservation zone district. They are concerned about adequate
utilities. Applicant still has City permits to go through.
BLM suggests getting a Special Use Permit from them if applicant is planning on
outfitting and guiding uses.
Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed on pages 10-12 in the staff report
also carrying forward a few items which are already conditions of approval in the
previous Resolution. Fred wants to bring to your attention conditions number 12 & 13.
Condition 12 is the phasing schedule which is the Applicant's responsibility to track and
to keep on track. Condition number 13, is related to the performance amphitheater and
that prior to any expansion, the Applicant shall submit plans and a new parking analysis
to the County and City Planning Staff. The Applicant shall also provide a general
scheduling plan for large end destination events.
Colin had a question for Fred related to condition number 2 and the ultimate build out
capacity of the gondola. That is a carry over condition. Fred said yes it is.
Christina asked about the surplus parking and is it based on County or City requirements.
Fred said the City says there isn't enough. She also asked about the addition of tram cars
referred to in the Cities letter. Fred said he doesn't know what the parking regulations
are for the City. The Applicant did a parking analysis and it does appear to meet the
needs.
Christina has a question about skyline and has concerns with towers in relation to where
they would be located and how tall. The Cities letter sounds like they are very
concerned. She also commented about fire truck turn around. Fred said it's adequate.
8
Christina asked about ISDS and how can 400 plus people not exceed the limit. Steve
responded. They have a sewer system in place. Winter time, have a week of storage.
This is only for emergency uses. In case of an emergency he wants to have an ISDS for
back up.
Christina mentioned that not all Fire District comments were included in conditions of
approval and she asked Fred if he meant to leave them out. Fred said yes, to some
degree. There is a wildfire mitigation plan in previous resolutions. Steve said they
already have an escape plan. Have worked with District on defensible space. Christina
asked if there was a wildfire and there were 400 plus people up on the mountain could
you handle that and Steve responded that people could go into the caves if need be. Fred
told Steve to go back to the Fire District to work with them to make sure all items are
addressed.
Steve spoke next. The first reason for the amenities requested is that there is
approximately a two hour wait right now for cave tours and this will give people
something to do. A lot of dirt roads already exist and can be used. All proposals are
below tree height except for some of the towers. Related to parking, previous application
approved by the City for Restaurant, Hotel, Tram & Retail. Currently, they are proposing
no retail. They get a lot of walking traffic. There is a bike rack and they are on the bus
route. On a busy summer day there are between 100 and 120 cars in the lot.
David asked how large is banquet facility? Steve thinks the capacity is 125 people.
Banquets to fill in shoulder seasons.
Christina asked where are towers going to be and what about lighting. Steve responded
that there are no lights on the towers. She asked about stage lighting. Steve said that
lighting will fit within the City of Glenwood Springs lighting code. The Amphitheater is
to be used mostly for science shows and falconry and concerts perhaps in off time months
to draw in people to the area.
Colin said you perceive these improvements as giving people more options. Steve said
limitations are based on the tram capacity. Steve said the cost to add 4 cars is $130,000
so they won't be adding them to frequently. (18 cars will probably be the maximum)
Mike asked applicant if they considered under ground parking for the new hotel. Steve
said half of the lot is owned by the hotel owners and half is owned by him. It's a shared
lot. Steve said that the City does not have a parking code for trams.
Christina asked Fred, does application comply with the City Hillside zone district. Fred
said that is not what was presented to us. The City said it will impact that zone district.
Steve said they are not in the Hillside Conservation zone district. It's the cities
comprehensive plan designation.
Fred mentioned potential architectural detail related to side of stage and ways to screen.
It's not mentioned in the conditions.
9
Christina made a motion to approve application based on staff findings and staff
recommended conditions of approval items 1-13, adding condition #14 consistent with
the Applicants representation, the Applicant shall comply with the cities lighting
ordinance. Add a number 15, that amphitheater shall be screened with vegetation and
designed to minimize visual impact.
Steve said they will work with staff concerning screening and vegetation. Mike seconded
the motion and all approved.
Mike asked Steve how long is the zip line? Steve said it will be 1000 feet and you will
travel about 50 mph.
No other business to discuss so meeting is adjourned.
10