Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Correspondence••- E U R C ..... MINIM ■UU• E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept t 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 March 26, 2010 RE: Strong Subdivision Final Plat Application Amendments Dear Fred: MAR 2 6 2010 At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the Amended Filial Plat submitted for the Strong Subdivision. RESOURCE's review includes compliance with technical criteria set forth in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution, items outlined in the November 4, 2009, GARCO Building and Planning Department letter, conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plan, and standards of engineering practice. The Construction Cost Estimate for the Subdivision Improvements Agreement was also reviewed for completeness and reasonableness of costs. The primary technical issues related to the amended submittal include the potable water system, ISDS locations, erosion and sediment control, fire protection, and the SIA cost estimate. Our comments are presented below. Potable Water System The Transient Non Community Public Water System approved by CDPHE appears appropriate for the subdivision which would have more than 25 people served by the system (Public Water System), less than 25 of the same people regularly using the system (Transient), and a use in a commercial subdivision (Non -Community). Items 4 and 7d of the GARCO letter and Condition 4 of the Approval appear to be satisfied. ISDS All ISDS systems must be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. Although not presented clearly in the submittal, engineered ISDS systems could be developed on Lots 2 and 3 outside of the 100 foot setback without impact to the we!!. This should address Item 8 of the Letter. Erosion and Sediment Control The new submittal addresses Items 9-12 of the Letter, except that a drainage report with calculations does not appear to be included in the submittal. Fire Protection The Grand Valley Fire Protection District requires a minimum of 2,500 gallons of on-site storage and the Strong Subdivision apparently proposes 10,000 gallons. There is no documentation as to where and how much fire protection storage has been or will be constructed. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO B1601 • (970) 945-6777 • Fax (970)945-1137 • • Fred Jarman Page 2 SIA and Cost Estimate March 26, 2010 The SIA should identify improvements that have already been completed and provide a letter from the Applicant's engineer certifying that all improvements constructed to date meet all applicable standards. The Improvements Cost Estimate attached to the draft SIA as Exhibit B appears reasonable. However, the following items must be included in the estimate or otherwise addressed. 1. The estimates for domestic water lines, meters, pits ($16,930), Electric ($7,000), Telephone ($1,600), and Roadway / Drainage ($9,200) require a 10 percent contingency for the SiA. 2. The cost for fire protection storage must be included or otherwise documented as complete. The SIA Letter of Credit total includes $28,516 as the "fair share" estimate for contribution to the Highway 6 & 24/County Road 300 intersection improvements. The rationale for $28,516 does not follow any standard for assessing road improvement fees. Further, the use of a $350,000 cost estimate for Travelers Highlands (TH) road improvements required by CDOT is not applicable as a basis for cost sharing since the TH improvements were specifically required for the TH access point to Highway 6 & 24. The Strong Subdivision traffic is associated with improvements required by CDOT for traffic turning onto Highway 6 & 24 from CR 300 or off of the highway onto CR 300. The most widely accepted method for assessing a pro rata share of road improvement costs is based on traffic generated by the projects and total traffic served by the road improvements. The Strong Subdivision traffic report prepared by Drexel, Barrell & Co, updated June 4, 2008 indicates that the proposed project will generate 64 average daily trips (ADT), of which, 58 ADT will use the Highway 6 & 24/CR 300 intersection. The total 2030 traffic turning onto and off of CR 300 at the intersection with Highway 6 & 24 is projected at 643 in the Drexel, Barrell & Co report. The Strong Subdivision represents 9.0 percent (58/643) of total 2030 traffic according to their submittal. High Country Engineering (HCE) is preparing a design report, design drawings, and an opinion of probable cost for the Highway 6 & 24/CR 300 intersection improvements. As part of the design process, HCE is developing a comprehensive planning analysis of traffic with the assistance of Kimley-Horn and Associates. The total traffic numbers from this study could be used in place of the 643 ADT in the Drexel, Barrell & Co report. The traffic analysis will take into account new growth projections from the Town of Debeque and traffic numbers from Antero Resources for oil and gas activity. The Highway 6 & 24 improvements required by CDOT for TH have not been undertaken, except for the TH entrance driveway and culverts under the driveway, according to HCE. The TH highway improvements are included in the HCE design and opinion of probable cost. The TH portion of the project should be subtracted from the cost estimate to determine the adjusted cost basis to be used for the Strong Subdivision. Based on an interview with HCE, the draft opinion of probable cost is approximately $2,000,000 for RESOURCE NGINEERING I N C. • • Fred Jarman Page 3 March 26, 2010 2010 construction and $2,140,000 for the anticipated 2011 start date (assumes a 7 percent increase in costs). A current cost estimate for the TH improvements component is not available at this time. For purposes of this letter, $350,000 is used for the TH improvements (actual numbers should be used when available) and subtracted from the 2010 total cost. The adjusted 2011 basis of cost is $1,763,500 using a 7 percent increase in costs. The Strong Subdivision "fair share" is proposed to be the pro rata percentage of traffic times the adjusted basis of cost for the Highway 6 & 24/CR 300 intersection improvements. Using the numbers available at this time, the Strong Subdivision "fair share" of the intersection improvements is calculated at $158,895 (0.09 times $1,765,500). After the final traffic estimates and actual construction costs are determined, the actual "fair share" contribution for the Strong Subdivision can be calculated using the methodology set forth above. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURC E INEERING, INC. Michael J. rion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer MJE/mmm 885-59.0 K:\Clients\885 GARC0159.0 Strong Subdivision\Fred Final Plat App.doc RESOURCE ■•••■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. • • MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Strong Subdivision Date: December 2, 2009 These were my comments from November 13 memo to you:: Staff did on-site visit on November 13, 2009 with George Strong. There were some tamarisks in the southeast corner of the property that were treated in the past. There has been some regrowth and resprouting, resulting in about six or so young tamarisk trees. I asked Mr. Strong to treat those as soon as possible. Also there is a pile of topsoil that has been sitting in place since the last time I was on site in February. I asked George to provide us with a soil management plan in the form of a letter detailing how he plans to handle the exposed topsoil pile. The pile is estimated to contain around 40 cubic yards of material. Update: George came by our offices yesterday and dropped off documentation indicating that the concerns expressed above have been addressed. He gave me application records for the tamarisk treatment and receipts indicating that the topsoil pile has been transported off-site. He also updated his vegetation and soil management plans in a letter. Our department is satisfied that George has addressed our concerns listed above. • • Fred Jarman From: Michael Erion [Merion@resource-eng.com] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:52 PM To: Alesha Frederick Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: Questions on Travelers Highlands Dear All: Fred and I are working on a recommended formula to assess a "fair share" of the Proposed Highway 6&24/County Road 300 Intersection Improvements to the Strong Subdivision, the new Gravel Pit, and possibly Antero Resources. The Highway 6&24 improvements required by CDOT for the Travelers Highlands Subdivision on the north side of this intersection have not been done and are included in the overall design for the intersection improvements. Our question: What is the obligation of Travelers Highlands through the Special District and Mill Levy to pay for improvements at the intersection? Is it a pre agreed upon fixed amount or is it the actual amount? Is there an agreed upon specific description of the improvements or is it general and subject to the final design required for the overall intersection improvements? Since the TH required improvements will be part of a larger overall project, we need to determine what amount to subtract out from the project estimate so we can put the adjusted cost into the proposed formula for the other participants. Thank you for your help in this matter. Regards, Michael Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-eng.com The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message from your system. Thank You. 1 • • Fred Jarman From: Michael Erion [Merion@resource-eng.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:56 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Strong Subdivision Review letter Fred: The 20%+ increase is relative to existing traffic, which triggers the access permit. The standard methodology for road improvement assessments is based on a future buildout use of the improvements. In this case, the 2030 planning horizon studied in the traffic analysis seems an appropriate reference point to use for determining the "fair share". The 2030 traffic numbers are also the basis of the design parameters for the HCE intersection design. Therefore, the Strong Subdivision traffic represents 9% of the future 2030 traffic. Regards, Michael Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-eng.com The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message from your system. Thank You. From: Fred Jarman [mailto:fjarman@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:06 PM To: Michael Erion Subject: RE: Strong Subdivision Review letter My only immediate thought is I thought there was a 20% increase rather than a 9% increase. From: Michael Erion [mailto:Merion@resource-eng.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:19 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Strong Subdivision Review letter Fred: I am headed out to Aspen, should be back about 4:30. Available by cell phone, except from 2:00 to 3:30. 366-6602 cell Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-eng.com 1 The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILIP AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for th of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message from your system. Thank You. From: Fred Jarman [mailto:fjarman@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:15 PM To: Michael Erion Subject: RE: Strong Subdivision Review letter Thanks Michael. I'll review and call you later. Fred From: Michael Erion [mailto:Merion@resource-eng.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:41 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Strong Subdivision Review letter Fred: Attached is review letter for Strong Subdivision. I did not get updated numbers from HCE today, so analysis is based on best available data, but formula is set forth in the text so that updated numbers can be inserted and the fair share recalculated. Regards, Michael Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-eng.com The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message from your system. Thank You. 2 • • STRUNG LUMBER & SPECIALTY LOG PRODUCTS, INC. P.O. BOX 808 SILT, CO. 81652 7192 Hwy. 13 Rifle, Co. 81650 PHONE 970-625-0777 FAX 970-625-9152 To whom it may concern 4/14/10 I George Strong and Leslie Strong, owner of Una development LLC. Give authorization for Eric McCaffetry (planner) and Karl Hanlon (attorney) with Karp. Neu. Hanlon permission to work on our Strong subdivision. Located on county road 300 in Parachute Colorado. Thank you eorge Str• ng ,leslie'Strong • • To: Michael Langhorne - Bookcliff Survey, Inc. From: Scott Aibner — Garfield County Surveyor Subject: Plat Review — Strong Subdivision and P.U.D. Date: 09/17/2010 Garfield County SURVEYOR SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S Dear Michael, Upon review of the Strong Subdivision and P.U.D., I have no comments or corrections to be made prior to approval for survey content and form. Once all final comments from Building and planning have been completed, the Mylar may be prepared for recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Building and Planning office with all private party signatures no later than Monday the week prior to the next commissioner meeting day in order to make that meeting. Sincerely, Scott Aibner Garfield County Surveyor cc Fred Jarman — Building and Planning Department 109 8 th Street ,Suite 201 • Glenwood Springs, C081601 • (970)945-1377 • Fax: (970)384-3460 • e-mail.•saibner@garfield-countycom • April 7, 2010 ZAO Engineers, Ltd. 2764 Compass Drive, Suite 230 Grand Junction, CO 81506 (970) 241-5623 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Mr. Fred Jarman, AICP Re: 3/23/10 letter to Mr. Eric McCafferty — Strong Subdivision Final Plat Review Dear Mr. Jarman, I am writing to you today at the request of Mr. McCafferty to clarify a few of the issues raised in your above noted letter to Mr. McCafferty; specifically, issues 7, 8, 9 & 13. Issue 7 concerns plat note 6, special consideration D. The notation is a general statement, applicable to undeveloped (or redeveloped) lots. As you must know, current State & Federal regulations now require a Storm Water Management Plan (erosion control plan synonym) be established when development disturbs one acre or more of existing surface area for purposes of protecting the public's waterways. It is assumed Garfield County Building & Planning would verify State/Federal storm water regulation permitting prior to planning approval for any future project located in the Strong Subdivision. These plans are tailored to each specific project based on location and proposed use per government standards. Issue 8 concerns a generic Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) created for the original Strong property development. All relevant concerns identified in the generic SWMP were included in the submitted Erosion Control Plan. Submitting the noted SWMP would be redundant and possibly confusing. Issue 9 concerns an identified water meter location for lot 1. A meter location for lot 1 was included with the submitted plan. It may not have been legible at the scale you received it but it exists in the water plan. Issue 13 concerns a letter dated 2/13/09 from this engineer to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. My letter addressed specific labeled questions the vegetation manager identified. I believe all vegetation concerns were handled to the manager's satisfaction. Question 8.c.i speaks to soil management concerns. The anticipated future lot uses will most likely include graveled/road base areas based on expected oil/gas related businesses. Mr. Strong is not proposing to cover the entire site with road base/gravel, however, when all sites are developed, this will probably be the result. I trust this letter resolves your concerns with the identified issues. Please don't hesitate to contact this office directly with any further questions. Sinc Kith M- d- a1, ZAO Engineers, Ltd. March 3, 2009 GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1777 S. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY, PO BOX 295 PARACHUTE, CO 81635 PHONE: 285-9119, FAX (970) 285-9748 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Strong Subdivision Ms. Eastley: This letter is in response to the email from 3-3-2009. The Strong Property will have 10,000 gallons of water storage on site. This water storage will exceed the minimum of 2,500 gallons required by the Fire District. This water is used for any Structure fire AND/OR Wildland fire mitigation. This requirement is required by all properties outside the fire district where a water distribution system is not accessible within a reasonable response time to the property. The information submitted by the applicant does put the applicant in compliance with the Fire District. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me a 970-285-9119. Rob Ferguson Deputy Fire Chief — Operations Cc: File Chief Blair Automatic Fire Protection in Buildings: Some of the proposed multi -family buildings will be required to be sprinklered by the 2003 TFC and all buildings 3 stories or more are required to be sprinklered by Garfield County amendment to Section 903.2 of the 2003 IFC. Some, if not all, proposed commercial buildings may be required to be sprinklered by the 2003 IFC depending on there occupancy and size. Note: If Garfield County adopts the 2009 International Codes by the time this PUD is approved and construction starts more stringent fire protection codes my apply. Impact Fees: We question the legality of charging the developer impact fees. According to the County Attorney Don DeFord they are illegal and can not be accessed in non -home rule areas of Garfield County. If you have questions on any of the above comments or need more information please contact me by phone 384-6433 or email.