No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 PC Staff Report 03.11.1998• • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PC 3/11/98 REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for the Hammes Subdivision application APPLICANT: Michael N. and Lenore L. Hammes PLANNERS: Muse Architects, Inc. ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering, Inc. GEOLOGIST: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. LOCATION: Approximately one (1) mile northwest of the intersection of County Road (CR) 100 with State Route (SR) 82. Approximately three and one half (3) miles northeast of the Town of Carbondale. SITE DATA: Section 24, Township 7 S, Range 88 W. A 44.5 acre tract to be subdivided into four (4) residential lots. WATER: On-site wells. One well currently exists on-site and is servicing the existing home. Two (2) of the newly created lots will share a well through an agreement while the third lot to be created will have its own well drilled. The site is located within the Basalt Water Conservancy District. SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS). An individual sewage disposal system currently exists on-site and is servicing the existing residence. UTILITIES: Electricity service is provided to the site by Holy Cross Electric, and Telephone service is provided to the site by US West Communications. ACCESS: County Road 100 and a private access easement through the property situated between the Hammes' land and the county road. EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural Residential Rural (A/R/R) Density ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/R/D to the north A/R/R/D to the south A/R/R/D to the west A/R/R/D to the east * Includes Exhibits A through L l• • • I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Proposed Land Use Districts map for Study Area 1 shows the subject site as within both a Medium Density Residential (6 to 9 acres per dwelling unit) district and a Low Density Residential (10 acres or greater per dwelling unit) district. The designation of Medium Density is based upon slope, soil, individual sewage disposal system, road condition, and infrastructure needs constraints. The Low Density designations are located within an area of septic system constraints, soil hazards, and slope hazards. II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: The subject site contains steeply sloping terrain. Grades on site range from ten (10%) percent to thirty-five (3 5%) percent. Vegetation on the site consists predominantly of pinion and juniper trees and sage brush. The site contains one (1) residential building associated with the property. B. Adjacent Land Uses: A residential subdivision development is located to the west of the subject property. The land bordering the southern, northern, and eastern perimeters of this property are rural. C. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create four (4) lots from a 44.5 acre land holding consisting of two (2) tracts. Road upgrades and a road extension are proposed for the access leading to the site from CR 100. Development on the lots in the future will consist of residential, single-family homes. The lot sizes will range from approximately seven (7) to seventeen (17) acres (see Exhibits A and B). III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS 1. State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife notes that black bear conflicts have occurred in the area of this property, a resident mule deer population forages in the area of the site, several raptor species use the site, and Canada geese utilize the adjacent wetlands to reproduce (see Exhibit I). 2. Colorado Geological Survey: The State of Colorado Geological Survey reviewed this report and conducted a site visit on 6 December 1997. The Geological Survey recommends that proper foundation design and septic system evaluations be included with the plan (see Exhibit C). 3. Division of Water Resources: The State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resources finds that, as of 5 December 1997, "... no well permit application has been submitted for review... and there is no guarantee that a well permit can be issued." The engineer concludes that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights (see Exhibits D and E). 2. 4. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District noted its standard concerns regarding re -vegetation of road cuts to prevent erosion, control of animals where wildlife is present, maintenance of any irrigation ditch on the site, mitigation of impacts on wetlands, use of raw water for outdoor use which will be incorporated into the infrastructure of the subdivision plans, controls of drainage, mitigation of geologic hazards when building on alluvial fans, monitoring of chemical application on grasses, and drilling of wells to monitor groundwater pollution with all expenses born by the developer (see Exhibit F). 5. Colorado State Forest Service: The Colorado State Forest Service conducted a site visit on 15 December 1997 and reported the application on 19 December 1997. In that first report, the State Forest Service noted that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends a twenty-four (24) foot roadway with four (4) foot shoulders for the protection of life and property from wildfire. In addition, dual access and egress for residents and for emergency service vehicles is not addressed in the submission. The Colorado State Forest Service reminds us that they abide by the NFPA standards as their minimumguidelines for fire safety and for protection within their jurisdiction. The Forest Service analyzed the building sites of each proposed lot and notes that all are located within severe hazard ratings for wildfire. The Forest Service submitted a second review of 12 February 1998 in reference to the second submission of this preliminary plan (see Exhibit G and Exhibit J). The report recommends the following mitigation measures which the applicant has included in the protective covenants of the subdivision: • Maintenance of grass at a maximum of six (6) inches in height, and no woody vegetation and no flammable material, such as firewood, within ten (10) feet surrounding the house; • Separation distance of a minimum of ten (10) feet between conifers within forty- five (45) feet at the sides of homes and sixty (60) feet on both downhill sides located north and south on the subject site. Removal the lower limbs of trees up to half of the height of the remaining trees; • Positioning of the home a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the top edge of the slopes; • Use of only non-combustible roofing materials in the construction process - no wood shake and shingles; • Enclosure of the space below overhanging decks with solid vertical walls; and 3. • • The second report from the Forest Service suggests that these five (5) measures be a condition of preliminary plan approval in order to insure enforcement by the homeowners association, and ultimately enforcement by the county should upon the homeowners association should the association fail to enforce such measures, of these critical safety issues. 6. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District noted in its 22 December 1997 report the same concerns it listed at the sketch plan review, namely that the road width must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code for fire access roads which provide service to more than two residential units, and that shoulders should be a minimum of two (2) feet on each side of the roadway. The applicant is proposing a sixteen foot (16) road width with two (2) foot shoulders (see Exhibit H and Exhibit K). The latest report from the Fire Protection District dated March 1998 puts forth the following requirements: • 7 Emergency Management: Emergency Management reports that existing the access to the property is lacking for service by emergency management vehicles due to the limited width of the access road. This access was measured in the field at approximately sixteen (16) feet at its widest section at the intersection with CR 100 and roughly half that width as the road approaches the boundary with the Hammes property. The report also points out that the current design of the Emergency Turnaround on the preliminary plan is insufficient in design and could put a firefighter in jeopardy during a wildfire. In addition, the clear area of ten (10) feet surrounding all structures, as proposed by the applicant, is insufficient in area (see Exhibit L). The report makes the following recommendations: • provide a twenty (20) foot width for the easement to the proposed development to allow for emergency vehicle access; • redesign the Emergency Turnaround areas located between proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2 to provide more area needed for complete turnaround by emergency vehicles; • require a minimum of thirty (30) feet cleared areas surrounding all structures on the property; and • provide a water source for the property for use in wildfire protection. 8. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: The Roaring Fork School District RE -1 did not respond to this application submission. 9. Colorado Department of Health: The Colorado Department of Health did not respond to this application. 4. • • The latest report from the Fire Protection District dated 5 March 1998 puts forth the following requirements: • • improve the entire length of the (right-of-way) access road to the Garfield County road standards, and install a twenty -thousand (20,000) gallon, underground, water supply at a strategic location to be determined by the office of the Fire District, which will be kept full and which will be maintained to allow for immediate access by fire trucks to fill and to turn around. The Fire district's report states that the private road which serves as a right-of-way easement to the proposed subdivision is a narrow, dead end, dirt roadway which passes through pinyon and juniper forest resulting in a severe wildfire rating. The road services the subject subdivision as well as a count of ten (10) other existing residences which also hold development potential. This right-of-way is the only means of access and of egress for the residents. Although the right-of- way initially only served a few residences, it is being called upon to increase the level of service now and potentially increase the level of service in the future. page 4a • • IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: The subject site is currently zoned A/R/R Density which allows for a two (2) acre minimum lot size and residential uses by right. The proposed preliminary plan calls for an average density of eleven (11) acres per unit. The plan proposes single family units on the proposed lots. B. Subdivision: The proposed preliminary plan calls for lots ranging in size from seven (7) acres to seventeen and one half (17.5) acres. A single family home currently exists on the property and will remain on a lot of reduced size. C. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1994 lists traffic mitigation, street design, recreation, open space, rural landscape, wildlife habitat, water and sewer systems, environmental constraints, natural drainages, soil constraints, ecological resources, and urban area of influence goals which apply to this proposal and must be met by the applicant. D. Soils/Topography: The soil types located on the subject property are listed as having severe slope limitations for home site development including limitations for septic tank absorption fields and threats of erosion, piping, and shrink swell potential. E. Geology: The Observations of Geologic Conditions report for this site states that development on the steep portion of the site should be avoided due to slope instability. Furthermore, "site specific geotechnical and subsoil studies should be conducted for building foundation and septic system design." F. Road/Access: The proposal relies upon access to the proposed lots through a private access easement which runs through the property situated between the Hammes land holding and County Road 100. The applicant is proposing a sixteen (16) foot wide road with two (2) foot shoulders which falls short by twelve (12) to four (4) feet of agency requirements for safe access to residential lots. G. Fire Protection: The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District notes that the proposed access to the four (4) lots does not meet the Uniform Fire Code minimum width requirements. The State Forest Service reports that the access on site is not designed according to the National Fire Protection Association recommendations for minimal fire safety of rural residences. H. Water: The applicant has conducted a four (4) hour pump test on the existing well and found it to be adequate to meet the water demands of three (3) additional residential units [Section 9.51]. The applicant has been granted 0.134 cubic feet of water per second from the Basalt Water Conservancy District and 3.7 acre feet per year of storage water owned and controlled by the District. 5. • • I. The applicant is proposing that proposed Lots 3 and 4 will share a single well through a well sharing agreement. Proposed Lot 1 will have its own well. Reconfigured Lot 2 currently has its own on -lot well. J. Wastewater: Non -engineered ISDS are planned for proposed Lots 1, 3, and 4. Proposed Lot 2 is serviced by an exiting, functioning septic system on the lot. The application does not include a perc and probe analysis for the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 4. A second perc and probe was conducted on proposed Lot 2 where an existing on -lot system is already in place, and a perc and probe was conducted on proposed Lot 3. Both perc and probes revealed acceptable percolation rates. K. Road Impacts: The applicant has not addressed the need for emergency service vehicles to safely access the proposed lots nor the ability of residents to exit from a fire hazard on-site. The access to the proposed subdivision is not adequate at present to service the site with emergency vehicles. V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended The proposed subdivision of a 44.5 acre land holding into four (4) lots is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution's permitted uses and minimum lot sizes within the Agricultural Residential Rural Density district. The following deficiencies are noted in the application for the Hammes Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984 1. Section 4.91 and 9.51 - The applicant has not shown that the proposal has secured a water supply which is adequate for the proposed subdivision. The quality of the potential water source must also be addressed by the applicant. In addition, an adequate water supply for fire protection must be demonstrated. 2. Section 4.92.D.3, E and 9.61- The application does not include an adequate number and location of the required individual sewage disposal systems for the proposed four (4) lots. Two (2) of the four (4) proposed lots do not show a perc and probe or on -lot disposal system location. Nor does the application address a management plan for the operation and the maintenance of the on -lot disposal systems. 3. Section 4.94 - The submission does not contain an analysis of the off-site road impacts as required by the ordinance. Although this is a four (4) lot subdivision, the cumulative impact of a number of similar subdivisions within this area may necessitate road improvements. �. • • 4. Section 9.31 - Access to the proposed lots is from a private access easement. The Subdivision Regulations require that "access to all subdivisions shall be from a public street system." 5. Section 9.33 - The access easement which will be extended to provide street access to the proposed four (4) lots will be in excess of 1,700 feet. This access is designed to end abruptly at the boundary line between proposed Lots 2 and 1. Given this dimension and the design, the proposed access to the lots is classified by the Zoning Resolution as a dead end street. The proposed design exceeds the permissible length by over 1,100 feet and contains a turnaround area at the road terminus which has been found to be insufficient in size to service emergency vehicles. Although the Board may approve a longer cul-de-sac design, adequate fire protection and emergency access or egress must be provided as a part of the longer street design. Such a design and such fire safety analysis have not been addressed in the application. Furthermore, both the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and the Colorado State Forest Service have noted the inadequacy of the street design for protection of the proposed residences from fire hazards. 6. Section 9.71, 73, and 74 - No secondary access point to escape fire entrapment has been provided nor has the primary form of access been found adequate as an escape route by the fire protection district. Additionally, a centrally located fire protection storage tank has not been shown on the plan or discussed in a narrative. Such a storage facility is required in order to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and must be approved by the fire protection district. 7. Section 9.8 - Consideration of county school and park needs have not been addressed in the submission. Although this is a four (4) lot subdivision, the cumulative impact of a number of similar subdivisions within this area may necessitate school and park services. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1994 8. Section 2.5, Objective - The application has not shown that the proposed residential subdivision "... respects the natural characteristics of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features, geology and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view sheds." Residential fire safety and emergency vehicle access have not been discussed by the applicant. These issues have been raised as critical concerns of the Fire Protection District and the Forest Service. 9. Section 2.2, Policy - The submission has not included an analysis of the impact of present and of future subdivisions in the unincorporated portions of the County. Although this is a four (4) lot subdivision, the surrounding northern, eastern, and 7 • • southern area of this site are rural with lot sizes similar to the pre -subdivision land holding of the subject property. The impact of this subdivision and potential future subdivisions on the character of this region should be assessed. 10. Section 3.4, Objective - The proposal has not included a street design that will ". . . reduce adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and minimize driving hazards." The proposed street design does not meet fire safety standards for residential developments. 11. Section M.3.6, Policy - The proposed project has not shown an ability to handle the traffic generated from the proposed development in a safe manner. The proposed street design does not meet the minimal zoning resolution requirements for a safe and an efficient access to a residential site. 12. Section 5.3, Program and 5.2, Policy - The proposal has not shown that the proposed home sites will cluster the development and that open spaces will be contiguous to one another. The building footprints shown on the plan sheet do not propose a cluster of home sites. 13. Section III.5.0(A), Goal - The proposed preliminary plan has not demonstrated how it manages to " ... preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that reflects the balance between private property rights and the needs of the community." Several wildlife issues have not been addressed as noted by the Division of Wildlife. 14. Section I11.7.0, Goal, 7.1 Policy - The proposed plan has not secured the required water and sewer capacities with all permitting agencies. The application must show " ... the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development." 15. Section III.7.1, 7.3, Objective, and 7.3 Policy - "Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project approval." The proposed subdivision has not demonstrated a potable source of water to service the proposed residential subdivision and an ability to treat the wastewater generated from the residences. 16. Section III.8.2, Objective - The proposed project has not incorporated the environmental constraints around the site design. Therefore, the proposed project does not " ... recognize the physical features of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment." The critical issue of fire safety has not been undertaken on this site which is designated by the Forest Service as located within a severe wildfire hazard area. S. • • 17. Section III.8.6, Objective - "Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected." The application has not addressed the rural landscape features and all of the wildlife issues on the site. 18. Section 10.3, Objective, and 10.1 Policy - The proposed subdivision is located within the three (3) mile Statutory Sphere of Influence of the Town of Carbondale. As such, the Town of Carbondale may offer comments concerning this plan. W. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Garfield County Planning Commission put forth a recommendation of denial of the application for the Hammes Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the Board of County. Commissioners based upon the deficiencies listed above. In particular, road access, fire safety, water supply, and sewer service have not been adequately addressed in this _second preliminary plan application. 9. • • 3. (UPDATE- REPLACEMENT) Division of Water Resources: The State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resources' most recent letter dated 6 March 1998, and received 10 March 1998, states that a copy of the Basalt Water Conservancy District contract was provided to the agency, and that the two (2) well permits are currently under review. The Division of Water Resources explains in this most recent letter that the cumulative effect of all wells within a proposed subdivision must be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, approval of an augmentation plan is required to offset the water depletion resulting from the pumping of all wells (existing and proposed). The Division finds "that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights." (see UPDATE - REPLACEMENT Exhibit D). REPLACEMENT Exhibit E = Hammes Subdivision showing Emergency Turnaround Page Update EXHIBIT A ,00c = „L :31VOS > Z O F rri O OF D rri 00 Z m- � N v N m � m my HAMMES SUBDIVISION ISDS EVALUATION STIE PLAN HCE,#: 97046.01 1=1 10/30/97 \ISDSEVAL.DWG Eve COUNT" Y �`.. :'%v !NC. 923 .. Vc'Y »a ;KITE CL} tiWCO D , _OD. 818C1 a can/TRY NeNALGR/n/e, c. F -t I ■ • • ■ 1 ■ i ■ i • • I • ■ 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Eggs Di Ps ea a PROPOSED ROAD CENTERLINE PROFILE • EXHIBIT B • RX WAS!, ILSOMMICOI •IRa1Wa •lAN NO MOIL! ITIOPMED ICAO lol • I<. • MR • EKHIBIT C • STATE OF COLQMDO '711' COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th St., #303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dec. 16,1997 Dear Mr. Bean: Re: Hammes Subdivision GLc 2 2 1997 4Li .:. r:; :i ,,;.;:Jfia i Y GA -98-0007 opill74114i NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director We have reviewed the materials submitted in support of the above referenced application as well as the general and engineering geology of the site. A field visit was conducted on Dec. 6,1997. There appear to be no geology -related problems which would preclude this development as proposed so long as proper foundation design and septic system evaluations are included in the plan. The soils on this site appear to thin to the west and this may complicate the ISDS situation on the westernmost lot (lot 1). The recommendation to avoid the steeper slopes is always good advice for structures and leachfields alike. Given the above comments, we have no objection to the approval of this subdivision application. Yours trul ; Jeffrey; . ne i�� AyD �"// • � STATE OFCOLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 December 5, 1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Hammes Subdivision 77s R 88W SY2SY2 Sec. 24;-T6S, R934 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District -45-3S Roy Romer Govemor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer Dear Mr. Bean: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 44.5 acres into 4 Tots, with one single family dwelling on each lot. The applicant proposed to provide water individual on lot wells, or to share wells between lots, pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). Sewage disposal will be through individual septic systems. Although well permits for this area may be available if the well is included in the District's temporary substitute supply plan, no well permit application has been submitted for review by this office, and there is no guarantee that a well permit can be issued. Furthermore, to be considered a legally reliable source of water the well must be included in a court approved augmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute supply plan will be renewed. The existing well appears to be adequate for the existing residence, but no information was provided on the adequacy of the water supply for the remaining residences. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights. Due to insufficient information we cannot comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPL/CML/hammes.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer "Steve -Pepe, Water Commissioner, District -45 78 JOe 8ergquis7` IT E • ESTATE OF COLOIADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 December 18, 1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 �--,,-lir•-, 5L, r'r OEC 2'.. 1997 Cts`4!f*--ir J Y Lti� v�..r �:f� Re: Hammes Subdivision SY2SY2 Sec. 24, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Roy Romer Governor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer Dear Mr. Bean: Pursuant to discussions with you and Steve Pope of our Division 5 office, I reviewed the Hammes Subdivision file to verify the location. It appears that there is a discrepancy in the submittal in that different locations are given in the Subdivision Application Form and the Introduction to the Preliminary Plan Submittal. Our letter of December 5, 1997, used the location of S'/%S' Sec. 24, T6S, R93W, 6TH PM, from the Preliminary Plan Submittal Introduction. This placed the subdivision in Water District 45. However, the location is stated as Sec. 24, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM, on the Subdivision Application Form, which places the subdivision in Water District 38. Based on your statement that the subdivision is located near the Roaring Fork River Valley, the location has been modified in our files to the SY2SY2 Sec. 24, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM. The comments in our letter of December 5, 1998, (corrected copy enclosed) still apply. Sincerely, Craig M. Lis Water Resource Engineer CMUhammes02.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38 • REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT E • EXHIBIT F (page 1 of 2) MOUNT SOPRIS SOILLNSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 December 16, 1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir, • 56 Df'C 1 7 19 97 At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the Hammes Subdivision and have the following comments and concerns about the project. Any cuts for roads or construc 'on should be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free se and mulch should be used for any reseeding of the area. Monito ng of all seeding should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be implemented if a problem is noticed. The board is always concerned about animal control in an area where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or domestic livestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running in packs of two or more can maim or kill domestic livestock and wildlife. The District recommends animal control regulations be adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be enforced. Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance and protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners should be informed that the ditch owners have right of way easement to maintain the irFigation system, that they will be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district would like to know what the impact will be on the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by the landowners so they are maintained. In order to use these rights, a raw water delivery system could be used for landscape, fire protection, open space, etc. If at all possible, this system should be incorporated into the infa-structure of the subdivision plans as it would be more cost efficient at this time. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. Aft EMIBIT F (page 2 of 2) Drainage has the Intential to be a problem Ake area and engineering recommendations for control of drainage should be closely followed by the builder and/or homeowner. They felt that any disturbance of soil could adversely affect other landowners, and great care should be taken to mitigate as many of the problems as possible which arise when building on an alluvial fan deposit area. With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer, weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern is the chemicals that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the creeks. The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground water pollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be bore by the developer. Sincerely, Scot Dodl'ro, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District • December 19, 1997 EXHIBIT G Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Hammes Wildfire Hazard Review Mark, FOREST SERVICE DEC 2 2 1997; r� State Services Building (,t,}LM 1 Y S. Room 416 Gran222d JunctionS.6th. Colorado 81501 4,; elephone: (970) 248-7325 I read the application and inspected the site with Dan Muse the owner's representative on December 15th. Access to the parcel is via a private road through existing easements from County Road 100. Carbondale FPD Station 5 is four miles from the property line. Most of the road coming in from County Road 100 is two lane with the last portion as it enters the Hammes property being one lane. I read in the application that the road will be upgraded to County Standards (i.e., 16 feet with 2 foot shoulders). This will be an improvement over what presently exists but will fall short of the 24 feet traveled way with 4 foot shoulders road recommended in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299 standard for the Protection of Lif€; and Property from Wildfire. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) uses the NFPA 299 standard as our primary reference document. In addition to the road width there is no provision in any of the road documents for an emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of the road into Lot 1. Dual access/egress for civilians and emergency service vehicles was not addressed, either. I enclosed photocopies from the NFPA 299 standard that address the above road concerns. As you know, each year more and more people move to the wooded portions of Colorado to experience all that is great about this state. As these areas fill up with people the demands for fire protection proportionately increase. The local fire department can have the best equipment and personnel available but if the roads are inadequate for them to do their work all their efforts will be in vain. It is for that reason the CSFS harps on the importance of NFPA 299 standard road systems. The best time to make the roads what they should be for emergency service vehicles is as development goes in and not after the fact! I walked through the probable building sites with Dan. They are all located on the pinyon/juniper ridge south of the existing road. Lot 1 is the westernmost lot. The building site is nearly level on the ridge top. The vegetation is pinyon/juniper with scattered sage. The wildfire hazard rating would be severe for the envelope because of the proximity to steep slopes and dense conifer vegetation on the south end of this lot. On the north end of the lot the vegetation changes to sage and a lower wildfire hazard rating of medium. • EXHIBIT G • HAMMES - PAGE 2 Lot 2 has the Hammes house on it. Lot 3 is just east of Lot 2. The suggested building envelope is nearly level with dense pinyon/ juniper in it. I would rate the wildfire hazard as severe. Lot 4 is the easternmost lot. It is very similar to Lot 3 with severe wildfire hazard to the north and south of the building site. Even though the wildfire hazard is rated as severe it can be mitigated. My wildfire hazard mitigation recommendations are as follows. 1) For a distance of 10 feet around all structures establish and maintain a clear space where vegetation can be maintained at 6 inches or less (i.e. mowed grass). No woody vegetation should be planted within this perimeter. In addition, flammable material (i.e., firewood) should not be stored here. 2) For a minimum distance of 45 feet to the sides and 60 feet on both downhill sides (i.e., to the north and south) thin existing conifers so that crowns are a minimum of 10 feet apart (see page 7 of enclosed book). In the thinning process remove all age classes to create an unevenaged stand. An unevenaged stand is a healthier one in the long run. Since there are pinyon and juniper mixed in these stands I would leave both species and not favor one over the other. In addition, the lower limbs should be removed up to half the total height of the remaining trees to eliminate ladder fuels. 3) Position the houses a minimum of 50 from the top edge of slopes to avoid convective and radiant heat from any fire burning below (see NFPA diagram). 4) Incorporate class A, non-combustible (no wood shake/shingles) roofing material. Metal roofs would be ideal. 5) Any decks or overhangs built on the downhill side of these houses should have the open space between grade and underside of the projection enclosed with solid vertical walls to avoid heat building up under these decks in the event of any fire below the house. My recommendations are designed to make the structure defendable. The goal being to allow for safe evacuation of civilians and safe entry for fire department personnel. I know there will probably be questions on my recommendations for this property, so do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, A. Vince Urbina Assistant District Forester enclosures cc: Bill Gavette - Carbondale FPD Guy Meyer - Garfield County Larry Green 12/22/`( 10:42 CARBONDALE F 1 RE D 15 I K 1 L I ((tin • EXHIBIT H • Carbondale Sc Rural Fire Proteotlon Distriot December 22, 1997 IVV. 4 (C) VCl4 Mark Bean Garfield Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Hammes Subdivision Sketch Plan Mark: I have reviewed the preliminary plan proposal basically unchanged from the sketch plan review. 16 feet. The Uniform Fire Code requirement for units is a minimum of 20 feet. Please call if you have any questions. Bill Gavette Fire Marshal 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 983-2491 Fax: (970) 963-0569 for the Hammes Subdivision. My comments are 1 noted that the proposal indicates a road width of fire access roads serving more than two residential STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • iIBIT I DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 March 2, 1998 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 RE: Hammes Subdivision Dear Victoria: REFER TO O A% OF For Wildlife— For People MAR 0 5 1998 The letter of 2 Feb 98 covers most of the necessary ground, however, I would like to note that the interpretation of the WRIS data may be a little misleading in a couple of areas. 1) Black bear conflicts have occurred near the area. 2) There is a resident mule deer population using that general area. 3) Several raptor species use the area. 4) Canada geese reproduce in the adjacent wetland. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subdivision proposaL If you have any questions, please call me. Jpes R Adams District Wildlife Manager P.O. Box W, Basalt, CO 81621 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member Louis F. Swift, Member • John Stulp, Member • February 12, 1998 EXHIBIT J fig ' 199t$ • Victoria Giannola Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Vis,' CCILISTY Re: Hammes Subdivision Preliminary Plan Victoria, FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone: (970) 248-7325 I read through the Preliminary Plan and saw that my wildfire hazard mitigation recommendations were going to be included in the subdivision's protective covenants. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how much power protective covenants will have on the prospective homeowners or those who will follow them in this subdivision. I lived in a subdivision that had a homeowner's association complete with covenants. To be honest very few people knew we had them and most didn't follow them even though they were for the good of the neighborhood. I am concerned that the wildfire hazard will not be taken as seriously as it needs to be in this subdivision as time progresses. As I mentioned in my letter the wildfire hazard is severe in this subdivision and it can be mitigated. I hope the covenants insure that these prospective owners will live in a safer environment than currently exists on these building sites. Keep me posted on what happens with this subdivision. I am leaving for Georgia ( as part of a prescribed fire team) on February 17th and will be gone for 30 days. Kelly Rogers or John Denison in the same office will be handling wildfire hazard reviews in my absence. Sincerely, A. Vince Urbina Assistant District Forester cc: Bill Gavette - Carbondale FD 03/06/98 08:30 CARBONDALE FIRE DISTRICT -+ 970 945 7785 W • EXHIBIT K • Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Dr. Carbondale Colorado 81623 970-963-2491 March 5, 1998 Victoria Giannola Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 NO.743 D02 Victoria, As we discussed on March 3rd when we visited the proposed Hammes sub -division site, I would like to offer the following comments regarding fire protection and emergency medical services for the sub -division. The private road that services the proposed sub -division is a narrow, dead end, dirt road that travels through a pinyon & juniper forest that has earned a wildfire rating of severe from the Colorado State Forest Service. This road serves the proposed sub -division as well as many other properties, all of which have development potential, as the one and only access/egress road. This private road which used to service only a few houses now serves many and will probably be called upon to service many more houses in the future. 1 would like to see the entire length of the road improved to appropriate Garfield County road standards at this point. Given the nature of the access road, the wildfire danger and the lack of' water in the area for fire protection I would recommend that a 20,000 gallon underground water supply be installed at a strategic location to be determined by Mr. Gavette of this office. This water supply should be kept full and maintained in a condition as to provide immediate access for the fire trucks to easily fill their tanks and turn around. Specifications for such a site are available from Mr, Gavette. I would be glad to attend the planning meeting on March 1 lth to discuss these or any other issues with you and the planning commission. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 963-2491. Sincerely, ) 4 Ron Leach, Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District • EXHIBIT L • Memorandum To: Victoria Giannola CC: From: GUY MEYER Date: March 5, 1998 Subject: Hammes Subdivision I have reviewed the Hammes Subdivision preliminary plan and would offer the following comments. 1. After our site visit it became apparent the access to the property is a issue for emergency vehicles. The easement to the proposed development must meet a twenty foot width to allow for emergency vehicle access. 2. The current design of the Emergency Turnaround located between lots one and two, is insufficient as designed and could put firefighter in jeopardy in a Wildfire situation. I would strongly recommend that more area and a redesign be required. 3. In the Wildfire Mitigation section of the plan it states that the protective covenants will require homeowners to have a 10 footclear area around all structures. I would recommend that 3o feet be required due to the fuels and slopes in the area. 4. The lack of emergency water sources should also be considered before this application is approved.