HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 04.08.1998•
• trt)-c
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PC 4/8/98
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for the Hammes Subdivision application
APPLICANT: Michael N. and Lenore L. Hammes
ARCHITECTS: 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 (3.5) 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 M
Page 1 of 11
• •
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 constraints due to slope, soil, individual sewage disposal system, road condition, and
infrastructure needs. 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 (35%) percent. Vegetation on the site
consists predominantly of pinion and juniper trees and of 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
forty-four and one half (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. The State of Colorado Geological Survey: The Colorado Geological Survey
reviewed this report and conducted a site visit on 6 December 1997. The
Geological Survey's most recent recommendations of 6 March 1998, and received
12 March 1998, reiterate that proper building site selection and foundation design,
and proper septic system evaluations, installations, and construction be undertaken
(see Exhibits C and M). Otherwise, no objections are noted.
Page 2 of 11
• •
3. 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 Exhibits D).
4. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation
District noted its standard concerns regarding the following: 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; control 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 on 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
width 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 minimum
guidelines 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 (see Exhibit G and Exhibit J).
The Forest Service submitted a second review of 12 February 1998 in reference to
the second submission of this preliminary plan. 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;
Page 3 of 11
•
• •
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; and
• Enclosure of the space below overhanging decks with solid vertical walls.
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 the
homeowners association fail to enforce such measures of these critical safety
issues.
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. These concerns are 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:
• 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.
Page 4 of 11
• •
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.
Emergency Management: Emergency Management reports that the existing access
to the property is lacking in structure 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 Exhibits L and E). 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 a 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.
Page 5 of 11
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 calls for
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, soil
constraints, ecological resources, and urban area of influence goals which apply to
this proposal and which 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, as well as 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 planned lots through a
private access easement which runs through the property and which is 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.
Page 6 of 11
• •
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. The applicant is
recommending that proposed Lots 3 and 4 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.
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 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.
J. 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 forty-four and one half (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
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.
Page 7 of 11
• •
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." cd2A9.6 pap Cb`x
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.
Nv -uX'
N v out dcor \ \(\kN c\ .
Page 8 of 11
P(boi &L a kt4-- c C is :Mor\ JeRsva-t .
Cor.-t(Thu-ea Me,L1 \-3 P E tne,e,-h h1 ,
• •
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.
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
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 HI.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. Merely situating the homes along one side of the
roadway does not constitute a cluster development.
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 III.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."
Page 9 of 11
• •
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.
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.
VI. 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.
On 11 March 1998, the Planning Commission granted the applicant a continuance to the 8
April 1998 meeting provided that fire safety concerns associated with the proposal were
adequately addressed through a supplement to this application. In particular, the
following issues were to have been addressed in time for a staff review:
• secondary access and egress to and from the site for an emergency route;
• location and construction of a water storage tank for fire fighting; and ����
• legal, adequate, and environmentally sound sources of water for all lots. i( i. ak
Page 10 of 11
• •
It was agreed by the Planning Commission, as well as the applicant and their consultant,
that the time period between the last regularly scheduled planning commission meeting
and the printing of staff review letters would be used by the applicant to address the above
listed issues. However, no such supplemental information has been submitted to the office
of the building and planning department to date. Hence, the staff recommendations
remains as stated based upon the initial submission.
Page l 1 of 11
EXHIBIT A
>&,
zo
01=
HAMMES SUBOIV1SION
ISM EVALUATION
ST1E PLAN
-40E�: 97046.01
Imo 10/30/97
\iSOSEVALOWC
COUNirrisf iC.NC.
923
:7L:7NWCOr..:. 2 is."' . `• 60:
;37r-: 7:7;
tq�
at
Ry+
•
PROPOSED ROAD CENTERLINE PROFILE
•
EXHIBIT B
•
.11Camal
I
STATE OF COLOJADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 801203
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
c—irTr17-7,N77-A7p
a r —Iv
' DEC 2 2 1997 i l_i
GA -98-0007
par"lir
DEPARTMEIv'T O:
NATURAL
RESOURCE:
Roy Romer
Governor
lames 5. 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.
( — REP) EXHIB*
STATE CfCOLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Deriver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Ms. Giannola:
: r "^� i :. r., „.. .L.. { 1
•
- MAR 1 `7,14,
1
March 6, 1998
Roy Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Re: Hammes Subdivision
S'/2SE'/4SW'/4 & S'/2SVV /4SE'/4 Sec. 24, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 44.5 acres into 4 lots, with one
single family dwelling on each lot. The applicant proposed to provide water through on lot wells. Lots 1 and 2 are
to have their own wells, and lots 3 and 4 will share a well. Lot 1 is currently served by the well with Permit No.
161551. The two additional well permits are to be obtained pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water
Conservancy District (the District). A copy of the contract was provided. The District order granting the contract
requires the applicant to file an application for an augmentation plan or to be included in the District's
augmentation plan. Sewage disposal will be through individual septic systems.
The two well permits to be issued pursuant to contracts with the District are currently under review. We
have been in contact with the applicant for additional information.
Permit No. 161551 was issued pursuant to Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), C.R.S., as the only well on a
parcel of 22.26 acres. Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a
subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Accordingly, if the parcel is
subdivided, the presumption under Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), C.R.S., that there will not be material injury to
the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well from such well, will no longer apply. As such, an
augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of all. Alternatively, the applicant may
obtain apply for a new permit for this well pursuant to a District contract.
Information in a letter from Aqua Tec Systems, Inc., dated October 30, 1997, indicates that the existing
well with Permit No. 161551 produced an average of 14.1 gallons per minute over a four hour period on
October 28,1997. If the additional wells have similar production rates the water supply should be physically
adequate.
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. 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
SPUCML'hammes 03.doc
cc: Ortyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
•
( )E H BIT E
•
oi
as
{ .a1
sea
cas
d i a1 '!!
.!
8 / /
/// til
/ :/ 4
.✓.
/, qb
//
r//�� AjF 't, ,// :6K
•
Ilfr -1
, , tif:
, - 7 4/ , —I
:
1J�4' I' -I,, �/// 11
I�•
'1 .t a.. y
ip e
:11. 1111 - `I/ ,, 1
jf(i ..'• 1
:,ti t 1l1 t /�1 i y�. r
. ill .i1,,° ia.
0I!, �•//
;,11`\e /r
141
1;
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL IIVSERVATION 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
•
DEC 1. 7 1997
GARFIELD
Dear Sir,
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? A11 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.
SIT F (page 2 of 2)
Drainage has the potWial to be a problem in 111 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 Dod'ro, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
December 19, 1997
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 2.1991;
State Services Building
CA" 1r tCu) (.....), Jid 1Y 222 S. 6th Street. Room 416
Grand Junction. Colorado 81501
,�;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 thr:
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299 standard for the Protection of Life;
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.
•DcffLBITG
•
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
•UBTTH
•
Carbondale at Rural Fire Proteotlon Diatriot
11111111111111111.111111111111
December 22, 1997
Mark Bean
Garfield Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Hammes Subdivision Sketch Plan
Mark:
300 Mewdowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81823
(970) 983-2491
Floc (970) 963-0569
I have reviewed the preliminary plan proposal for the Hammes Subdivision. My comments are
basically unchanged from the sketch plan review. 1 noted that the proposal indicates a road width of
16 feet. The Uniform Fire Code requirement for fire access roads serving more than two residential
units is a minimum of 20 fcct.
Please call if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
•
EXHIBIT I
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL YE3i
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:
OF
For 'Wildlife—
For People
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.
es R Adams
District Wildlife Manager
P.O. Box W, Basalt, CO 81621
OEPARTMENT 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
•
EXHIBIT J
-i J
February 12, 1998
air
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Hammes Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Victoria,
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
•UBTTK •
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
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 1 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,
Ron Leach. Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
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 foot dear 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.
• STATE OF
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
Ms. Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th St. Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
March 6,1998
Dear Ms. Giannola:
•, 1
wri 1 2 %99x:
ta1Y
�;ry4s •A -it:
GA -98-0014
RADO
Re: Hammes Subdivision
We have reviewed the materials submitted in support of the above referenced matter as
well as the previous file on this site.
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
lames S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
Based upon our earlier evaluation, last year, we concur with the finding of no significant
geology -related problems associated with this proposed subdivision as stated by David
Young of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech. So long as care is taken in building site selection
and proper design is employed in construction and septic system installation, we have no
objection to the approval of this application.
Yours truly;
Jeffrey L. H