The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Correspondencer • • November 27, 2002 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attn: Fred Jarman Dear Mr. Jarman, RECEIVED NOV 262002 GARFIEL.D COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING This letter is in response to your October 21, 2002, letter requiring more information for the Final Plat application for the LJJ Subdivision. Staff Response (paragraph 2) Regarding 2(a) above, you have not indicated any building envelope on Lot 1 in order to determine if it has been moved to the south. Please indicate where the former and preferred building envelopes are located on the Final Plat. Applicants' Response As stated at the meeting with you, there never was a designated building site. This was the latest staff intrepretation of the language used by the Divison Of Wildlife in their original response. I trust that the most recent letter dated 11/14/2002 from the Division Of Wildlife will clarify this matter (Attachment #1) Staff Response (paragraph 3) You have not provided a check calculated in the appropriate amount for the Traffic Study Area fee as required in this condition. Applicants' Response 1 believe it would only have been reasonable that this calculation should have been made by staff and presented to me prior to my filing of the final plat. If this is not deemed reasonable, then certainly this amount should have been provided to me when staff included this as one of the reasons for deeming my final plat application as incomplete. Staff quote, "You have not provided a check calculated in the appropriate amount for the Traffic Study Area fee as required in this condition." You did meet with me after I received your letter that deemed the LJJ Final Plat application incomplete. At that time you presented a traffic impact fee formula that requires a payment of $2,527.65. I disagree with a payment of this amount for two reasons: 1. This fee is equal to the same traffic impact fee paid by the Sunlight II Subdivision. This payment would not provide an equity of scale when considering payments of like amounts for one development of 30 lots vs the other development of creating one additional lot. 2. The most important reason for objecting to the payment based upon your calculation is that in September 2002 staff has recommended a traffic impact fee in the same traffic study area as the UJ Lot 1 of $583.77. This impact fee provides the best comparable as both parcels are just over four acres and are being subdivided into two Tots. The calculation is: 9.57 average daily trips X $61 = $583.77. A check is enclosed for the amount of $583.77 Staff Response (paragraph 4) You have not provided a check calculated in the appropriate amount for the School Impact Fee as required in this condition. Applicants' Response Staff should have informed me of the amount of this impact fee during this process. Staff has not offered an amount for the School Impact Fee as of this date. I have developed my calculation for the School Impact Fee based upon the best market information available which is using Sunlight II as a comparable. The Sunlight II Subdivision is as good a comparable as you can find for arriving at the per acre value used in the calculation for the following reasons: 1. The parcels are in a dose proximity to each other. (Within A Mile) 2. The appraisal for Sunlight II is current. 3. The appraisal value for Sunlight II was accepted by the Planning Dept & School District as the appropriate value in determing the impact fee. 4. Equity in scale between the impact fees for the UJ lot and the Sunlight II 30 lot subdivision is provided by using the Sunlight II formula. The UJ Subdivision single lot pays the same impact fee as each of the 30 residences in the comparable Sunlight II Subdivision. • • Calculation of the School Impact Fee: (Same calculation as for Sunlight II) a.The unimproved per acre market value of land is $12,000. b. Land dedication standard (from Section 9:81) 1 single family DU's X .020 = .020 c. Total amount of cash in lieu of payment: * $12,000 X .020 = $240.00 *Note that the UJ parcel has approximately 1 1/2 acres of useable ground due to the easements for an overhead power line and underground gas line. The fee was calculated on 2 acres. Enclosed is my check for $240.00 for the school impact fee. Staff Response (paragraph 5b) Regarding 5 (b) you have mentioned complying with the Weed Management Plan approved by the Weed Management Director in the protective covenants but have not provided the document for reference. Please provide a copy of the approved "plan" as part of this Final Plat application. Applicants' Response: A Weed Management Plan was previously submitted and noted by staff that the plan had been approved by the Garfield County Vegetation Director. (Attachment #2) Another copy of the Weed Management Plan is being submitted. (Attachment #5) Compliance with this plan as outlined by the Garfield County Vegetation Director has been noted in the covenants drafted by Mr. Tom Stuver. I think it would be prudent to review the plat map and realize that we are only talking about 1/4 to 1/2 of an acre that could be subject to weed infestation. Staff Response ( paragraph 5(d) Regarding 5(d), you have not provided an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) plan as required as part of the covenants. Please submit this document as part of this Final Plat submission. Applicants'Response: Again, this issue was addressed and approved at a previous hearing. Documents from this previous hearing that address this subject are enclosed. (Attachment #2 & #6) Compliance with "The Plan" has been properly addressed in the covenants drafted by Mr. Tom Stuver. Here again I think it is prudent to consider that "The Plan" only consists of pumping the system every two years which is considered general maintence by most property owners with ISDS systems. Staff Response (paragraph 5) Regarding 5(e), you have not provided the approved Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan . Please submit this plan as required in this condition as part of this final plat submission. Applicants'Response: This condition was also noted as being approved by the Fire Department at a previous hearing. (Attachment #2) Enclosed is a letter to the Fire Department outlining conditions on the property, and a memo submitted by Mr. Ron Biggers stating "As long as he follows the plan and puts in the lawn and sprinkler system he mentioned in his letter, this will meet the fuels mitigation and vegetation management requirements I requested in my comments on this project on 4/5/02". (Attachment #4) Compliance with this " Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan" has been addressed in the covenants drafted by Mr. Tom Stuver. • • Staff Response(paragraph 6) You have not indicated on the proposed Final Plat where the proposed driveway location is preferred by the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. Please indicate where this driveway will be on the Final Plat. Applicants' Response The driveway location has been identified on the current plat map submitted with this correspondence. The Road & Bridge Dept has visited the site. Oak brush along the right of way has been cut back to improve visibility, and the location of the driveway has been approved by the Road & Bridge Dept. (Attachment #8) I would hope that considering the two years already spent on this project that the matter would soon come to closure. Most of the delay has been in complying with subdivision regulations for a simple lot split. It has been mentioned by Staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and most of the technical support people that helped during this process, that there is a need for a Minor Subdivision Regulation to handle such cases. This effort by the applicant, and the the Planning Dept would not be in vain if some constructive change came out of it. I ask that you give consideration to the enactment of a Minor Subdivision Regulation and make this a recommendation in your final report to the commissioners. Submitted by, Ken Call /a. �C Carol P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81602 Phone 945-7318 • • ATTACHMENTS #1 Division Of Wildlife Letter Dated 11/14/2002 From Justin Martens Approval Of Building Envelope That Is Indicated On Revised Final Plat Map. #2 Page 2 From Preliminary Plan Hearing States Approval Of The Weed Mgmt Pian & The Wildiand Fire Ha,ard Mitigation. #3 Exhibit H From Staff ForThe Preliminary Plan Hearing Fire Dept Approval Of The Fuels Mitigation & Vegetation Mgmt Requirements. #4 Exhibit F From Staff For The Preliminary Plan Hearing Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan #5 Weed Management Plan #6 ISDS Management Plan Presented At The Preliminary Plan Hearing #7 Staff Comments From Page 4 From The Preliminary Plan Hearing - ISDS #8 Memo Garfield County Road & Bridge - Driveway Location • • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Russell George, Director 6060 Broauway Denv--.r, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 November 14, 2002 Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: LJ Subdivision Preliminary Plan Dear Fred: �p1��Ajly1.9��0 sroNOF�ti4 For 11'ildlifr'- l•'or• People I recently spoke with Ken Call about some misunderstandings with my earlier comments that I submitted to Garfield County Planning in a later dated March 15, 2002. One of the suggestions I made from that letter was: 1. Moving the building envelope as far south as possible on the parcel would maintain the native mountain shrub communities on the northern part of the lot providing the highest value to existing wildlife. I realize now that I was mistaken in reviewing the plan that in fact there was no charted building envelope for the split lot at that time. My wording should have been "Placing" rather than "Moving". I visited with Ken earlier today to examine the now staked building envelope and it seems that the placement is adequate to help reduce impacts to wildlife moving through the area. Ken has also enhanced some of the shrub habitat on the parcel to allow for easier movement of wildlife. Please let this letter serve as my approval for the staked building envelope on lot 1 of the LJ Subdivision. I apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding this may have caused. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Justin Martens District Wildlife Manager Carbondale 970-947-2933 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary Members, Bernard Black • Tom Burke • Philip James • Mark LeValley • Olive Valdez Ex -Officio Members, Greg E. Walcher and Don Ament Attachment #1 • • C. Adjacent Land Uses: Residential land uses surround the site. III. REFERRAL AGENCIES: A. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comment received B. Holy Cross Energy: No comment received. C. Kinder Morgan Energy: No comment received. D. Colorado Geological Survey: Celia Greenman, Geologist, responded to the application with comments regarding slope, drainage, soils, and ISDS. Overall, there were no objections to the proposed development. See attached letter, Exhibit A. E. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Doug Thoe, District Foreman, responded to this application and stated that driveway option #1 is preferable to the Road and Bridge Department. See attached letter, Exhibit B. F. Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District: Ron Biggers, Fire Protection Analyst, responded to this application requesting that the applicant submit a wildland fire hazard fuels mitigation plan and vegetation management plan due to the fact that this area has wildland/ urban interface fire potential. See attached letter, Exhibit C. G. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Justin Martens, District Wildlife Manager, responded to the application with recommendations to minimize impact on wildlife. See attached letter, Exhibit D. H. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Director, responded to the application with noxious weed concerns. Steve is requesting that the applicant provide a map and inventory any Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property. Additionally, it is requested that the applicant provide a weed management plan for any noxious weeds found on the property. See attached memo, Exhibit E. The applicant has responded to the referral comments of the Colorado Geological Survey, the Glenwood Rural Fire Protection District, and Garfield County Weed Management. Please see attached letters Exhibit F and G. The responses to Weed Management and Fire Protection have been forwarded to the review agencies for continued feedback. Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Director, has approved the weed management plan submitted by the applicant and has verbalized this to Staff. Staff has also received approval of the resubmitted Midland Fire Hazard Mitigation Plan directed ta,Ron Biggers of the Glenwood Rural Fire Protection District -See Exhibit H. IV. STAFF COMMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed density is one dwelling unit per 2.2 acres, which exceeds the Comp Plan's suggested density of one (1) dwelling unit per 6 to 10 acres. Attachment #2 • Kim Schlagel From: Ron Biggers[rbiggersCcci.glenwood-springs.co.us] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:56 PM To: Kim Schlagel Cc: Mike Piper Subject: UJ Subdivision Wildiand Fire Mitigation Plan Kim, I have a copy of the letter Ken Call drafted on April 22,2002 and sent to you. In i he outlined his wildland fuels mitigation plan_ As long as he follows the plan and cuts _., the lawn and sprinkler system he mentioned in his letter, this will meet the fuels mitigation and vegetation management requirements, I requested in my comments on this project on 4/5/02. Sincerely, Ron Biggers, Eire Protection Analyst Glenwood Springs Fire Department 1 Attachment #3 Kim Schlagel Senior Planner Garfield County Planning Department Re: Response To Glenwood Springs Fire Dept - Letter April 5, 2002 Comments On: UJ Subdivision Preliminary Plan - Ron Biggers • zz April t-4, 20C2 The fire department requests compliance of Section 15. 16, & 17 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Section 15 -- Clearance Of Brush And Vegetative Growth From Electrical Transmission Lines. Response: Not applicable. There is an electrical transmission line over the northern portion of the site, however there are no supporting towers on the property. Electrical power to the site will be provided by Glenwood Electric and likely be transmitted underground. Section 16 -- Clearance Of Brush Or Vegetative Growth From Structures Response: This is addressed below in the Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan. Section 17 --Clearance Of Brush And Vegetative Growth From Roadways Response: The property is bordered on three sides by a county road. This is maintained by Garfield County. The driveway to the residence will be approximately 100' in length and vegetation will be maintained. Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan The Wildland Fire Hazard Plan will be modeled from the Colorado State Forest Pamphlet titled Firewise Construction. Using information from the Colorado State Forest Service Pamphlet to evaluate the vacant parcel as a fire hazard, the hazard rating would likely be somewhere between the low and medium risk rating. (See enclosure) The site is surrounded on three sides by a county road. This provides a fire barrier helpful in containing a wildfire that either originates on the site or the threat of a wildfire spreading from adjoining properties. The location of this parcel on the lower level of the Chelyn Acres Subdivision provides a faster response time from the fire department than the majority of homes located in the sub -division. Attachment #4 The new construction will clear all vegetation rom within 30' of the residence. New landscaping will include 2000 sq ft of lawn with a sprinkler system. The driveway will also provide a partial fire barrier. The design of the new residence has yet to be determined. Every consideration will be given to using fire retardant building materials. One example will be the use of concrete synthetic stone trim. When comparing the Wildland Fire Hazard risk between the vacant parcel vs when a residence is built on the vacant parcel, the Wildland Fire Hazard risk for the improved parcel would be in the low hazard rating. (Rated from the Colo State Forest Service Pamphlet) Mr. Ron Biggers letter requests "Applicant n.eeds to include an approved wildland fire hazard fuels mitigation plan and vegetation management plan". I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Biggers requesting consideration for approval of the UJ Subdivision request as it relates to Wildland Fire Hazard prior to the hearing date of May 8, 2002. Sincerely,/ /4- c Ken CaII P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81602 cc: Ron Biggers • • WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN Name: Carol & Kenneth Call Physical Address of Property: 0288 Van Dorn Road, Glenwood Springs, Co. 1. Targeted weed Unknown at this time. 2. Current amount of infested land (acres) If there are any noxious weeds on the property they are in the county road right of way that exists on three sides of the property. 3. Amount of infested land to be managed There may be some noxious weeds but not to the extent that you would classify the plant life as infested. After the residence is built I would estimate that the total land area of natural vegetation would be approximately 1/2 to 3/4 acres. 4. Describe the areas you propose to treat None at present. 5. What methods of treatment will you use? a. Herbicides. List product name and rate of timing of application. See 6 below. b. Grazing. Describe grazing plan and timing. Not Applicable c. Mechanical. Describe method. (Mowing, cutting, pulling) The only area that would be mowed would be 2000 sq ft of new lawn. I have on occasion removed noxious weeds from the right of way by digging out and removing as much of the roots as possible with a spade. d. Alternative methods. What, when, and where. Not applicable e. Revegetation. What you plan to seed and when. Will sod 2000 sq ft of lawn. Eventually some trees will be planted. 6. I plan to use the services of a professional weed control company. I would use the services of the CSU Cooperative Extension Service if needed. 7. Additional information I have resided on this property for over thirty years. During this period there has never been a noxious weed problem serious enough to treat. To simpilify the hearing process I am requesting that Mr. Anthony consider the information provided above, or physically inspect the property, to see if his request "The applicant needs to provide a map and inventory of any Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property", is still applicable. Submitted by, Ken Call , P.O. Box 1011, Glenwood Springs, Colo 81602 Attachment #5 • • L/J/ Subdivision Preliminary Plan INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN The suitability of the soils in the L/J Subdivision to accommodate individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) is addressed in the geotechnical report dated June 29, 2001 prepared by Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The H -P Geotech report notes that "Based on subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system."(H-P Geotech report page 10, June 29,2001) The existing single family dwelling on the site has a functioning ISDS as do the other houses in Chelyn Acres. The ISDS has not yet been designed since the design is dependent on the size of the new house to be constructed and the various sewage/septic system loading factors. The ISDS will be designed in accordance with all applicable Garfield County and Colorado Department of Health regulations. 11.14.1111tritical management practice associated with the new ISDS is the periodic pumping 1111.1=0.111.1111. The tank will be pumped at a minimum of every two year./ This provision will be included either as a covenant to be recorded with the subdivision or as a deed restriction for the sale of Lot 1. Legal counsel will help prepare the eventual binding requirement which will accompany the Final Plat submittal. Please also refer to Page 9 of the letter from Ken Call to the Garfield County Planning Department of February 4, 2002. Attachment #6 • • G. Domestic Water / Irrigation Water: The household water supply for the two lots is to be provided by a shared well. The well is an existing structure serving the existing residence on the original parcel. Well permit #56096-F was issued as the only well on the original tract of land and is limited to a pumping rate of 15 gpm. The use of the well water is limited to ordinary household purposes inside 2 single-family dwellings and the irrigation of not more than .14 acres of home gardens and lawns. The applicant had a pump test done on the well on April 17, 2001 showing a pump rate of 12 GPM. Staff feels this rate should be more than adequate to accommodate the additional unit. The applicant also had the water tested for bacteria and suspended solids by Grand Junction Laboratories on April 18, 2001. The test results show that the water is suitable for domestic use. The applicant has provided a well sharing agreement that will be included as a deed restriction upon the sale of Lot 1. The applicant should be aware that Section 4:91(B) of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations applies to this application. 4:91 A water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic or written form: 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. As the applicant is proposing to share the well between the two lots, this is technically considered a central water supply for the subdivision. As such, the applicant must create a Home Owners Association (HOA) to be the legal entity to distribute the water. The terms of the HOA shall also be included in the covenants. H. Wastewater: An individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) is proposed for the new lot to be created. Based on the preliminary tests done by HP Geotech in June 2001, the lot has been deemed suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. The applicant will need to obtain an appropriate septic permit as part of the building permit process. Section 4:92 E (of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations) requires that a proposed management plan for the operation and maintenance of on-site systems be provided. applicant has provided a management plan for the proposed ISDS and shall include the management provisions within the subdivision covenants Drainage: A drainage study was done on this property on January 21, 2002, by Bruce Lewis of Boundaries Unlimited, Inc. The findings of this study determined that additional storm run-off generated from the development will be insignificant due to the large lot areas and small impervious areas in relation to the lot size. It has been 4 Attachment #7 4-24-02 • RECEIVEQ' 4, 7M2 Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 1015 School St., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-6099 ph. & FAX GARCO building and Planning Attn: Kim Schlagel 970-384-3470 £ax I have reviewed the plat and the site for the LJ Subdivision. Neither driveway access is ideal, but the lower driveway, option #1, has slightly better sight distance and may prove easier to construct. Option #2 is located at a point where the property drops off steeply from the county road, and will require up 1.3 1000 cubic yards of imported fill to provide the required 30 feet of driveway perpendicular to the county road. The owner's original concept at this location was to use a "Y" intersection with the county road, requiring little fill, but such designs are no longer allowed by Road & Bridge. While either location would be acceptable to MB, I recommend the lower location, Option #1, as I anticipate a much higher likelihood of it being built to correct specs. Attachment #8 October 21, 2002 Ken and Carol Call P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: L/J Subdivision Final Plat Dear Ken and Carol, I Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ni , ,\, ) ?Y �,� N i I am writing this letter regarding the application you have submitted to our department, regarding the L/J Subdivision Final Plat. At this time the Final Plat application does not include all required information per Garfield County Regulations (such as items specifically requested in the Preliminary Plan approval). The application is therefore deemed incomplete and our department will not be able to process the submission any further information has been provided. Namely, the following specific conditions of approval listed in Resolution 2002 — 66 approving your Preliminary Plan have not been submitted to the satisfaction of this department. I have provided the actual condition of approval (in italics) followed by a Staff response indicating further action by you if needed. 1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board. Staff Response There are no issues with this condition. 2. The Division of Wildlife recommendations shall be followed including: a. Moving the building envelope on Lot 1 as far south as possible to maintain the native mountain shrub communities existing on the site b. Fencing should be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" for wire fencing with no more than 4 strands and a 12" kickspace between the top two strands c. Rail fencing shall have a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between the two rails d. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged e. The applicant shall use bear proof trash cans f All pets shall be fed indoors g Birdseed feeders should be strung at least 10 feet from the ground with a seed catchment to discourage other wildlife foraging. 1 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 • • Staff Response Regarding 2(a) above, you have not indicated any building envelope on Lot 1 in order to determine if it has been moved to the south. Please indicate where the former and preferred building envelopes are located on the Final Plat. 3. The appropriate Traffic Study area fees in the amount of $264.00 per determined ADT minus the appropriate discounts shall be paid at the time of Final Plat pursuant to Section 4:94 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. Staff Response You have not provided a check calculated in the appropriate amount for the Traffic Study Area fee as required in this condition. Please submit this to the Building and Planning Department. 4. The Applicant shall pay the appropriate School impact fees, as to be determined, at the time of Final Plat pursuant to Section 9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. Staff Response You have not provided a check calculated in the appropriate amount for the School Impact fee as required in this condition. Please submit this to the Building and Planning Department. S. The applicant shall submit covenants for the subdivision which shall include: a. Enforcement provisions regarding dogs and exterior lighting pursuant to Section 9.15 and 9.17 of the Subdivision Regulations b. Weed Management Plan approved by the Weed Management Director c. The Division of Wildlife recommendations as listed in Condition No. 2 above d. ISDS Management Plan e. Approved Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan f Provisions of the Home Owners Association which will own and operate the water system along with the proposed method of financing the system Staff Response Regarding 5(b), you have mentioned complying with the Weed Management Plan approved by the Weed Management Director in the protective covenants but have not provided the document for reference. Please provide a copy of the approved "plan" as part of this Final Plat application. Regarding 5(d), you have not provided an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) plan as required as part of the covenants. Please submit this document as part of this Final Plat submission. 2 • • Regarding 5(e), you have not provided the approved Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan. Please submit this plan as required in this condition as part of this final plat submission. 6. The newly created lot, Lot 1, will have access from Van Dorn Road on Driveway Option #1 listed on the submitted Preliminary Plan Plat per Road and Bridge recommendations. Staff Response You have not indicated on the proposed Final Plat where the proposed driveway location is preferred by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. Please indicate where this driveway will be on the Final Plat. 7. The following Plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat: a. "No further subdivision of these lots shall be allowed. " b. "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." c. "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." d. "All structures shall have engineered foundations per HP Geotech recommendations." If you have any questions regarding meeting the conditions for the Final Plat document, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Fred Ja Senior Planner 3 • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Russell George, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 November 14, 2002 Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: LJ Subdivision Preliminary Plan Dear Fred: RECEIVED NOV _i 8 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING For W l�llife- For People I recently spoke with Ken Call about some misunderstandings with my earlier comments that I submitted to Garfield County Planning in a later dated March 15, 2002. One of the suggestions I made from that letter was: 1. Moving the building envelope as far south as possible on the parcel would maintain the native mountain shrub communities on the northern part of the lot providing the highest value to existing wildlife. I realize now that I was mistaken in reviewing the plan that in fact there was no charted building envelope for the split lot at that time. My wording should have been "Placing" rather than "Moving". I visited with Ken earlier today to examine the now staked building envelope and it seems that the placement is adequate to help reduce impacts to wildlife moving through the area. Ken has also enhanced some of the shrub habitat on the parcel to allow for easier movement of wildlife. Please let this letter serve as my approval for the staked building envelope on lot 1 of the LJ Subdivision. I apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding this may have caused. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, G✓I Justin rtens District Wildlife Manager Carbondale 970-947-2933 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary Members, Bernard Black • Tom Burke • Philip James • Mark LeValley • Olive Valdez Ex -Officio Members, Greg E. Walcher and Don Ament • • Kim Schlagel Senior Planner Garfield County Planning Department April 22, 2002 Re: Response To Glenwood Springs Fire Dept - Letter April 5, 2002 Comments On: UJ Subdivision Preliminary Plan - Ron Biggers The fire department requests compliance of Section 15. 16, & 17 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Section 15 -- Clearance Of Brush And Vegetative Growth From Electrical Transmission Lines. Response: Not applicable. There is an electrical transmission line over the northern portion of the site, however there are no supporting towers on the property. Electrical power to the site will be provided by Glenwood Electric and likely be transmitted underground. Section 16 -- Clearance Of Brush Or Vegetative Growth From Structures Response: Section 17 - Response: This is addressed below in the Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan. -Clearance Of Brush And Vegetative Growth From Roadways The property is bordered on three sides by a county road. This is maintained by Garfield County. The driveway to the residence will be approximately 100' in length and vegetation will be maintained. Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels Mitigation Plan The Wildland Fire Hazard Plan will be modeled from the Colorado State Forest Pamphlet titled Firewise Construction. Using information from the Colorado State Forest Service Pamphlet to evaluate the vacant parcel as a fire hazard, the hazard rating would likely be somewhere between the low and medium risk rating. (See enclosure) The site is surrounded on three sides by a county road. This provides a fire barrier helpful in containing a wildfire that either originates on the site or the threat of a wildfire spreading from adjoining properties. The location of this parcel on the lower level of the Chelyn Acres Subdivision provides a faster response time from the fire department than the majority of homes located in the sub -division. • • The new construction will clear all vegetation from within 30' of the residence. New landscaping will include 2000 sq ft of lawn with a sprinkler system. The driveway will also provide a partial fire barrier. The design of the new residence has yet to be determined. Every consideration will be given to using fire retardant building materials. One example will be the use of concrete synthetic stone trim. When comparing the Wildland Fire Hazard risk between the vacant parcel vs when a residence is built on the vacant parcel, the Wildland Fire Hazard risk for the improved parcel would be in the low hazard rating. (Rated from the Colo State Forest Service Pamphlet) Mr. Ron Biggers letter requests "Applicant needs to include an approved wildland fire hazard fuels mitigation plan and vegetation management plan". I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Biggers requesting consideration for approval of the UJ Subdivision request as it relates to Wildland Fire Hazard prior to the hearing date of May 8, 2002. Sincerely, Ken Call P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81602 cc: Ron Biggers • • WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN Name: Carol & Kenneth Call Physical Address of Property: 0288 Van Dorn Road, Glenwood Springs, Co. 1. Targeted weed Unknown at this time. 2. Current amount of infested land (acres) If there are any noxious weeds on the property they are in the county road right of way that exists on three sides of the property. 3. Amount of infested land to be managed There may be some noxious weeds but not to the extent that you would classify the plant life as infested. After the residence is built I would estimate that the total land area of natural vegetation would be approximately 1/2 to 3/4 acres. 4. Describe the areas you propose to treat None at present. 5. What methods of treatment will you use? a. Herbicides. List product name and rate of timing of application. See 6 below. b. Grazing. Describe grazing plan and timing. Not Applicable c. Mechanical. Describe method. (Mowing, cutting, pulling) The only area that would be mowed would be 2000 sq ft of new lawn. I have on occasion removed noxious weeds from the right of way by digging out and removing as much of the roots as possible with a spade. d. Alternative methods. What, when, and where. Not applicable e. Revegetation. What you plan to seed and when. Will sod 2000 sq ft of lawn. Eventually some trees will be planted. 6. I plan to use the services of a professional weed control company. I would use the services of the CSU Cooperative Extension Service if needed. 7. Additional information I have resided on this property for over thirty years. During this period there has never been a noxious weed problem serious enough to treat. To simpilify the hearing process I am requesting that Mr. Anthony consider the information provided above, or physically inspect the property, to see if his request "The applicant needs to provide a map and inventory of any Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property", is still applicable. Submitted by, Ken Call , P.O. Box 1011, Glenwood Springs, Colo 81602 December 3, 2002 Ken and Carol Call P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: L/J Subdivision Final Plat Dear Ken and Carol, BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter regarding the additional information you submitted to this office on November 26, 2002. I have reviewed the additional information and consulted extensively with the County Attorney on the points you raise. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your Final Plat application for the L/J subdivision remains technically incomplete due to a lack of appropriate information required by Section 5:00 of the Subdivision regulations as well as the conditions of approval required by the Board of County Commissioners via Resolution No. 2002-66. I have outlined your application's deficiencies below. 1) Traffic Impact Fee: This office presented you with the calculation of the required Traffic Impact Fee to be paid to Garfield County in the sum of $2,527.65. Half of the amount is to be paid at the time of Final Plat and the other half is to be paid at the time of building permit. You submitted an amount that is inadequate and based on an incorrect calculation. More specifically, your calculation only takes into account you specific Area of 8d which by itself has a fee of $61; however, all Area 8 road impact fees are cumulative so that because you live in Area 8d, the cost / ADT is the sum of 8a + 8b + 8c + 8d which is $264 / ADT. Please pay the remaining $680.05 as part of the first half of the impact fee. (Again, I have attached the calculation sheet for your review with this letter that I provided to you in our meeting with Denis Stranger who is the original author of the calculation.) 2) School Land Acquisition Fee: This office directed you to Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations which specifically contains the required calculations to be preformed by you so that the required school land acquisition fee can be paid. You have submitted an amount based on an appraisal done for Sunlight II. This does not comply with the specific language required in Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations which states..."unimproved market value for the property shall be determined by an appraisal preformed within the last 24 months for the applicant, by an individual in the State of Colorado qualified to establish the unimproved market value of the property just prior to final plat." 1 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 • • Therefore, in order to satisfy this condition of approval and the Final Plat regulations of Garfield County, please submit the corrected fee to this office based on an appraisal conducted for your property as mentioned above. 3) Resolution No. 2002 — 66 contains a condition of approval listed as 5(1) which states "The applicant shall submit covenants for the subdivision which shall include (f) Provisions of the Home Owners Association which will own and operate the water system along with the proposed method of financing." Your submittal materials do not include any documentation indicating the provisions of a Home Owners Association (HOA) or any information indicating how the HOA will own and operate the water system along with the proposed method of financing. In addition, this HOA shall be the entity which administers the protective covenants, ISDS management plan, and the well sharing agreement, Please submit proper documentation on the proof of an established HOA and how it will administer the protective covenants, ISDS management plan, and the well sharing agreement. If you have any questions regarding meeting the conditions for the Final Plat document, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Fred Jarman, Senior Planner CC: Mark Bean, Building and Planning Director Don DeFord, County Attorney 2 QUATTRO FILENAME: FEES-1.WB2 ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION WORK SHEET Project/Applicant LTJ Subdivision Road District 8a -8d Land Use Single Family Dwelling Date Prepared 9/12/2001 Base Road Cost $3,790,000 Road Capacity in ADT 14,356 Road Cost per ADT $264.00 ADT per Land Use 9.55 Base Road Impact Fees per Land Use $2,521.21 TAX CREDITS 80% of Annual R & B Property Tax per Land Use $28.16 County Discount Rate 5.00% Road Design Life (Years) 20 Present Worth Factor 12.46 Property Tax Credit $350.94 UNADJUSTED ROAD IMPACT FEE S2,170.27 [Base Road Impact Fee - Property Tax Credit] INFLATION ADJUSTMENT Denver -Boulder CPI Year of Cost Estimate 158.5 Denver -Boulder CPI Year of Impact Fee Calc. 184.6 Inflation Factor 1.1647 [CPI for Collection Year/CPI of Year of Cost Estimate] PRE -CONSTRUCTION INFLATION $2,527.65 ADJUSTED ROAD IMPACT FEE POST -CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT County Discount Rate 5.00% Term (Years since Construction 0 Compound Interest Multiplier 1.0000 POST -CONSTRUCTION ADJUSTED ROAD IMPACT FEE #N/A Prepared by the Garfield County Planning Department • J..4 /7/ S / re 441-r/ 4/- Pk/ 717,-- SG��_7 J !� ; S pGc+ �v. `s3 /fes- 72-- 2b4a 1i,L. • • 7 IVED JAN 1 6 260 January 16, 2003 GARFIELD GUUNTY T! LDING & PLANNING Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601 Attn: Fred Jarman Dear Mr. Jarman, This letter includes the following attachments pertaining to the UJ Subdivision. Water Well Community Sharing & Maintenance & ISDS Agreement (3 copies) Declaration Of Protective Covenants (3 copies) Revised Plat Map (3 copies) Personal Check For Road Impact Fees In The Amount Of $2,527.27 Personal Check For School Impact Fees In The Amount Of $553.28 The Water Well and ISDS agreements were prepared by attorney Tom Stuver. It is my understanding that Mr. Stuver has reviewed these documents with Garfield County officials and they will meet the requirements of Resolution No. 2002-66. The revised plat map is being submitted per the instructions of the county surveyor, Mr. Sam Phelps. The amount of the check for the road impact fees is per your calculation. The amount of the check for the school impact fees is based upon the land value of $122,000 that you agreed to in your letter of December 18, 2002. That calculation is as follows: $122,000 divided by 4.41 acres = a per acre value of $27,664.39 X.02 = $553.28 I trust that we have now met all of the regulations of Garfield County and that the final plat will be executed at the earliest possible date. If you have any questions regarding our meeting the conditions for the Final Plat document, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �d aze Carol C. Call en Call P.O. Box 1011, Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601 Phone 945-7318 • • Garfield County December 18, 2002 Ken and Carol Call P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: L/J Subdivision Final Plat Dear Ken and Carol, BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT As you are aware, on December 16, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners did not provide you with any alternative decision regarding your conditions of approval memorialized in Resolution No. 2002 — 66. Specifically, the issues discussed included the payment of school land acquisition fees, traffic impact fees, and the establishment of an HOA. Further, County Attorney Don DeFord provided a letter to me this afternoon which you sent to him (dated December 18, 2002) requesting an opinion whether or not an attached appraisal conducted by Garfield County Assessor's Office would be sufficient to meet the terms of the subdivision regulations for the calculation of the school land acquisition fee. I have reviewed the appraisal you provided and found it to be sufficient to satisfying the county's subdivision regulations regarding the calculation of the school land acquisition fee. As a result, you may use the actual value of $122,000.00 for your calculation. Lastly, this office will process your Final Plat Application as soon as the correct fees have been paid and the Homeowners Association has been established pursuant to Resolution No. 2002 — 66 required by the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions regarding meeting the conditions for the Final Plat document, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Fre Jarman, Senior Planner CC: Tom Stuver 1 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 DEC 15 2002 Mr. Don Deford Garfield County Attorney Dear Mr. Deford, I am seeking your opinion to see if the information I am submitting complies with Garfield County Subdivision Regulations 9:81 relating to an appraisal to determine the value per acre for computing the School Impact Fee. The enclosure I am submitting is a property profile from the county assessors office. Regulations state that the appraisal be performed within the last 24 months. The values in this property profile are as of January 1, 2001. Regulations state that the appraisal be for the applicant. The property profile is for my specific parcel. Regulations state that the appraisal be determined by an individual in the State Of Colorado quallfied to establish the unimproved market value of the property just prior to final plat. The Garfield County Assessor, and her entire staff are all certified by the State Of Colorado. This regulation is a little confusing as to the time of the appraisal. As stated above the regulation requires that the appraisal is to be performed within the the last 24 months, however there is conflicting wording that states the value the of the property is to be established just prior to final plat. As you are aware a value per acre has to be established for calculation of the School Impact Fee. If this document qualifies as an appraisal I would use the actual land value of $122,000 for 4.41 acres for the computation. Submitted by, .ef Ken Call P.O. Box 1011 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81602 cc: Garfield County Commissioners Tom Stuver �. Li:S 2JYJR.. ATAIMik, '.i11t\idyl.4\IRATEif1. W.Y..TASf'Y1:'i.['f da P&441. trr�r�avuw. • • Account: R080033 Tax Year: 2002 Parcel: 218534300004 Mill Levy: 62.534000 Estimatd Tax: 1,722.19 * This Mill Levy is from the most recent tax roll ame and duress Information CALL, KENNETH E. & CAROL C. PO BOX 1l0�11 11 GLENWOOD Y� OOD Sr G , CO 31602-1011 000288 VAN DORN RD GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Assessments oration 'Tax Year: 2002 Actual Account Type: Version: Area ID: APR District: Status: 20020418000 008 A SECT,TWN,RNG:34-6-89 SUB:CHELYN ACRES LOT:0 DESC: TR 11 BK:0389 PG:0450 Assessed SQUARE FEET Acres Taxable Land Improvement: 122,000 178,970 11,160 16,380 300,970 27,540 La Improvement Exei 0 4.410 0 122,000 11,160 0 4.410 178,970 16,380 0 27,540 Garfield County