Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Report PC 07.08.2009SPP2409 Highline Ranch Exhibits for Public Hearing: 7/8/2009 Planning Commission Exhibit A Proof of Publication 8 Proof of Mailing C Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Ryan May Preliminary Plan Application F Staff Memorandum G Preliminary Plan Worksheet H Rifle Fire Protection District, undated letter from Kevin Whelan 1 Colorado Division of Water Resources, letter dated June 2, 2009 J Colorado Geologic Survey, letter dated June 11, 2009 K County Road and Bridge Department, letter dated May 19, 2009 L County Vegetation Management, memo dated June 18, 2009 M Garfield County Engineer, email dated June 1, 2009 N Staff Power Point 0 Rifle Fire Protection District, letter dated July 8, 2009 PC August 12, 2009 TV PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Preliminary Plan review for SPP2409 Highline Ranch APPLICANT / OWNER Ryan May REPRESENTATIVE Dan Dennison ENGINEER High Country Engineering (Dan Dennison) LOCATION Lot 6A of Grass Mesa Ranch served by Cedar Breaks Road and Mustang Mesa Trail PROPERTY SIZE 39.683 acres WATER Individual Wells SEWER Individual Sewage Disposal System ACCESS Cedar Breaks Road (private) Mustang Mesa Trail (private) EXISTING ZONING Rural The site is located south of Rifle within the development known as Grass Mesa Ranch. Grass Mesa Ranch is a large lot development located west of CR 319 and accessed via a private road known as Grass Mesa Road. The owner proposes to divide his 39.63 acre lot into three lots; Lot 1 at 10 acres, Lot 2 at 13.386 acres; and Lot 3 at 16.29 acres. The owner's home is located on Lot 1. The general vicinity is shown in the map below. I ! .. Orsxm f as R►r Legend state or Federal HIgItway Stzics, Frftwau CODE. Carly Road -,,F ! Met Highline Ranch Preliminary Plan I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION This Application was previously scheduled for a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on July 8, 2009. At this hearing, the applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled August 12, 2009 meeting date to correct deficiencies in the Application. Most notably, the application was continued due to a letter oMnaterial injury' from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) and inadequate well testing for "quality and quantity' required by the Unified Land Use Resolution (2008), Section 7 -104. Also, the Rifle Fire Protection district submitted comments which specified fire protection requirements that were not met in this application. A. General Property Description The approximately 39.63 acre property is generally located three miles south of the City of Rifle in an area known as Grass Mesa Ranch. Access to the site is off a series of private roads within the Grass Mesa development which connects to the county road system at CR 319 intersecting with Grass Mesa Road. The site is bordered on the east by Cedar Breaks Road and on the north by Mustang Mesa Trail, both private roads owned and maintained by the Grass Mesa Homeowners Association. A portion of the primary access, Grass Mesa Road, intersects with property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. Grass Mesa HOA has a valid Right -of -Way Grant with the BLM to operate their private roadway through the BLM property which is listed in the plat notes (415). The property sits adjacent to two private roads within the Grass Mesa development with lot access from Cedar Breaks Road and a private access drive easement to Mustang Mesa Trail, Topography generally slopes to the north at 4% to %5 with a central, seasonal, drainage channel running just east of the center of Lot 6A and a small `pond' located at the northerly end of the drainage near the parcel's northern lot line. This pond appears to be an old stock pond and did not contain water during a site visit on June 5, 2009. There is limited vegetation on the site with the majority of natural flora contained within the seasonal drainage channel, 3 There are prominent high tension power lines running through the central portion of the site in a southwesterly- northeasterly direction. There is an existing home on Lot 6A located at the southeast corner of the site. Some outbuildings are located at the southwest corner of the site. The remainder appears to be used in the past as grazing land. The photo above presents a view oriented with the lofs northern property line at the top of the image. The photo is from the county Geographic Information System from a 2006 county fly -over. A "Google Earth' aerial view is presented below for some perspective on the layout of the site and surrounding area. Note that the photo is oriented with the top of the photo facing south to demonstrate the natural drainage channel that flows from the south to north through the site. Both photos are public domain and dated from 2005. B. Proposal The owner proposes to divide his 39.63 acre lot into three lots; Lot 1 at 10 acres, Lot 2 at 13.386 acres; and Lot 3 at 16.29 acres. Lot 6A is currently served by a single well previously approved for up to three homes. The two additional lots will each have their own private well. The existing home and any new homes on the proposed lots will be served by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. All lots exceed the minimum two acres required by the Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR) Rural Zone District standards. Proposed building setbacks meet or exceed those of the ULUR and the Grass Mesa development covenants. Private roads within Grass Mesa Ranch provide adequate access to each lot. C. Background Grass Mesa Ranch is a large lot division of land with all original lots greater than 35 acres. Some lots have been divided into smaller parcels. The original Grass Mesa Ranch HOA documents list 68 parcels and 62 parcels are currently shown on the county parcel record. 4 ile Wigage Sayth'""� Grass Mesa Subdivision The current layout of Grass Mesa Ranch is shown on the parcel map to the left. Any further division of land within Grass Mesa requires an approved preliminary plan and final plat for new lots and consistency with the Grass Mesa HOA CC &Rs. The current proposal, illustrated in the image below, shows the division of the single Lot 6A into three lots. The existing home site is labeled as Lot 1 on the Preliminary Plan and shows the existing single family home. Proposed home locations are shown on both Lot 2 and Lot 3. • rm s rz77,41 • J 4 i t Ali 5 II. REFERRAL AGENCIES / DEPARTMENTS Staff referred the .application to the following State agencies and / or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted. A. City of Rifle B. Rifle Fire Protection District (See Exhibit H and Exhibit 0) C. RE -2 School District D. Colorado Division of Wildlife E. Colorado Division of Water Resources (See Exhibit 1) F. Colorado Geologic Survey (See Exhibits J) G. Bureau of Land Management H. County Road and Bridge Department (See Exhibit K) I. County Vegetation Management (See Exhibit L) J. Garfield County Engineer (See Exhibit M) III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located in Study Area 3 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed division of land is consistent with the rural nature of the site and the underlying Rural Zoning District. The proposal to subdivide the site into three lots of 10 to 16 acres for single- family residential uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates two acres for "outlying residential' at a minimum of two acres /dwelling unit. IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE RURAL ZONE DISTRICT The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the Rural Zoning District. A. Proposed Uses The Applicant proposes single - family residential development on the additional two lots of Highline Ranch and the single family residences are a`iase by right'in the Rural Zoning District. B. Common Dimensional Requirements Some setbacks shown on the Preliminary Plan exceed the requirements of the ULUR (2008) and also the setbacks for Grass Mesa Ranch. The front yard setback is labeled as 50 feet where the ULUR requires only 25 feet for a local street. The Grass Mesa Ranch setbacks are stated as 25 feet from all lot boundary line or established easement. The Final Plat may show the increased building setbacks proposed for this Preliminary Plat. ➢ Minimum Lot Size: 2 acres. ➢ Maximum Lot Coverage: 15% ➢ Minimum Setback: Front Yard: (Arterial) 50 feet 6 Front Yard: (Local Street) 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Side yard: 10 feet or % building height ➢ Maximum Building Height: 25 feet residential, 40 feet non - residential V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS General approval standards for Land Use Change Permits are discussed in the first four Divisions of Article 7 Standards; Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits; Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards; Division 3 Site Planning and Development Standards; Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications. The site was evaluated using the Preliminary Plan Worksheet (Exhibit G) for all required standards listed in the ULUR (2008) and the following discussion addresses those standards that have not been met. Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits Section 7 -104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Section 7 -105 Adequate Water Supply The Application proposes to provide water with two new wells located on Lots 2 and 3 and with an existing well located on Lot 1. The original well permit from the Division of Water Resources (DWR), located on Lot 1, was approved for"fire protection, household purposes for up to 3 single family dwellings, irrigation of up to 1 acre and the watering of domestic animalg'and was originally approved in 1998 as an exempt well on a tract of land greater than 35 acres in size (see Exhibit I). The DWR states that the proposed water supply for the three lots in Highline Ranch will cause material injury to decreed water rights and the original exempt well must be re- permitted. Copies of well permits in Section G of the Application provide three approved well permits, the original exempt well on Lot 1 and the two new wells for Lots 2 and 3. The new well permits do not allow for fire protection uses, limit the irrigation use to 12,000 square feet for each residence, and does not allow any sharing arrangement between Lots 2 and 3 to provide adequate water as proposed in the Application. Section H of the Application contains the well construction reports and notes that the well on Lot 2 produced approximately 1 gallon per minute based on a two hour test. The ULUR requires a 24 hour test in addition to specific well and drilling data listed in 7 -104 B2A. Adequate well testing both for quality and quantity was not performed as a required performance standard listed in the ULUR. Copies of Water Allotment Contracts from the West Divide Water Conservation District are in Section 1 of the Application but are duplicates and both apply to the well on Lot 3. The Water Allotment Contract for the Lot 2 well has been omitted. Additionally, based on the comments from DWR, all of the wells require additional testing and new well permits for the wells on Lots 1, 2. and Lot 3 to accommodate the changes to water usage under the individual well permits. The DWR recommends that adequate well testing take place before the Preliminary Plan is approved. A copy of the application for a water lease from the West Divide Water Conservation District to serve Lot 1 was received on July 8, 2009 along with a draft contract. No final approved lease and contract for Lot 1 have been received nor has a valid contract and lease for Lot 2 been submitted. Approval of three well permits by the DWR is still pending. The Rifle Fire Protection District submitted revised comments in a letter dated July 8, 2009. The applicant and Fire District have agreed to conditions that will limit the size of residences to 3 600 square feet, require sprinklers meeting the NFPA 13 D standards, and meet a 30 minute design flow (Exhibit 0). Section 7 -106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems The Application proposes Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for each lot. There is an existing ISDS serving the home on Lot 1. New ISDS systems will be constructed at a "design level' with site specific testing as recommended by the Geologic Report (Section E of the Application) and confirmed by the Colorado Geologic Survey letter (Exhibit J). There do not appear to be any site specific site constraints for placement of an ISDS on Lots 2 or 3. Section 7 -108 Access and Roadways The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and notes that the lot access is via private roads and is exempt from County road access standards (See Exhibit K). Any oversize /overweight vehicles will still need a permit from Road and Bridge. Rifle Fire Protection District initially stated that roads (including the private shared access road) require an all weather surface to accommodate heavy fire vehicles and must meet their width and clearance requirements for adequate access. A turning radius of 30 feet inside and 50 feet outside is required at the end of the private road easement. A follow up letter (Exhibit 0) appears to removes the specific roadway requirement for this Preliminary Plat. The site property is located in Traffic Study Area 1 which requires a payment of $276 per ADT generated from the development. In this case, the development will generate an additional 19.14 ADT (for Lots 2 and 3) which results in a fee of $5,282.64. Only half of this fee ($2,641.32) is required to be paid at final plat with the remaining half to be amortized by way of individual building permits as the project develops over time. Section C of the Application calculates the fee using an ADT amount of $210 which is an incorrect amount for Area 1. In addition, Section C should have the seal of the engineer doing the traffic analysis. Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards Section 7 -203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Section 7 -211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Protection of Water Bodies A small pond is shown on the preliminary plan and appears on aerial photos and is visible on the ground. The proposed plans show a drainage easement of 50 feet and an area allotted to the pond. The ULUR requires a 35 foot buffer around the perimeter ofvater bodies' and the plan documents should be revised to show the 35 foot requirement around the perimeter of the pond. The drainage easement appears adequate for the seasonal drainage that flows through 8 the site and is discussed further below in the discussion of common areas and easement maintenance. Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance There was no documentation submitted with the application to acknowledge if the site or surrounding area contains and know archeological, paleontological site or sites of historical importance. Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications Section 7 -401 General Subdivision Standards C. Maintenance of Common Areas A number of easements exist on the site for powerlines, roadways, pipelines, bridle paths, and pipelines and are shown and labeled on the Preliminary Plat document. A significant new easement is added for drainage from offsite drainage to the south and continuing through the site to the north. The HOA documents and covenants submitted do not adequately address the maintenance of this easement and who is the assigned beneficiary of this easement. Also, there is no discussion of the pond with similar issues of maintenance and use of the pond by the residents of Highline Ranch. An additional 50 foot easement for Lot 3 is shown and labeled as "non exclusive access easement for lot three" but it appears from the other plat documents that the access is intended for Lots 2 and 3. This note should be corrected to assign the access easement to both Lots 2 and 3. Section 7 -403 Fire Protection A. Adequate Access Lanes B. Fire Lanes C. Water Sources for Fire Protection A revised letter from the Rifle Fire District removed the requirement for a 30,000 gallon water storage tank for fire protection (Exhibit 0) however; some type of water storage will be required to meet the 30 minute flow requirement. The applicant must resolve issues with the well permits issued by the Department of Water Resources to allow for fire protection as part of the well permit. Also, any shared water use must also be addressed in the well permit. Rifle Fire Protection District removed any requirement for road improvements or turning radii in their most recent comment letter (Exhibit 0). The current configuration appears to meet the requirements of the Rifle Fire Protection District. Section 7 -405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Spaces The Applicant is responsible for paying a $200 /lot fee to the RE -2 School District at the time of final plat. 9 VI. Additional Discussion Title Report An updated Title Report was submitted by the applicant on July 8, 2009. Protective Covenants and HOA The Protective Covenants in Section 13 of the Application do not fully address maintenance of the drainage easement or adequately address the relationship of the Highline Ranch HOA with the Grass Mesa HOA. Grass Mesa Ranch HOA was not listed in the property owners list and no comments have been received from the Grass Mesa HOA on this Preliminary Plan. An additional concern is the responsibility to maintain the easements and assessment of fees for the shared maintenance of easements. None of the application documents detail the formation of the HOA nor the HOA responsibilities. Noxious Weed Management The application was referred to the County Vegetation Manager who commented by requesting a survey of the parcel for noxious weeds and a weed management plan for any noxious weeds located on the property (Exhibit L). The applicant submitted a weed identification and management plan on July 8, 2009. No comments were received from the County Vegetation Manager on the adequacy of the applicant prepared document. VII. SUMMARY OF MAIN PROJECT CHALLENGES Water Quality and Quantity: Both water quality and quantity have not been addressed in the application documents and the full range of testing and reporting required by the ULUR should be included into the application documents. Also, the well permit inconsistencies need to be addressed with the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Fire Protection: The Rifle Fire Protection District submitted a revised letter (Exhibit 0) modifying their comments from the original, undated, letter (Exhibit H). The Fire District and applicant have come to an agreement to meet all Fire District requirements. CCRs and HOA: The proposed Protective Covenants are inadequate to address the maintenance requirements of the pond and proposed drainage easement and also how the Highline Ranch HOA relates to the Grass Mesa Ranch HOA. Archeological Assessment: An assessment of areas on the site with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance was not performed and should be considered a requirement of the application. Impact Fees: Road impact fees were incorrectly calculated as noted above and an impact fee of $200 /new residence is required with payment to the RE -2 School District. 10 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County. 4. The proposed subdivision of land does not conform to the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, and does not comply with all applicable Development Regulations. 5. The proposed use is not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of DENIAL to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan due to inadequate water, both in quality and quantity. However, while the above staff report highlights the inadequacies of the project at the time of printing the applicant and surrounding property owners may present additional information which may address the noted concerns and allow the Planning Commission to recommend approval. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan request to the Board of County Commissioners then following conditions of approval are recommended: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. Water Quality and Quantity 2. The Applicant shall submit revised/new well permits from the Colorado Division of Water Resources and all well testing shall meet the requirements of the DWR and the standards of the ULUR (2008) prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Traffic Impacts and Road Requirements 3. The traffic count/analysis in Section C of the Application shall be revised and contain the professional seal of the person performing the study and the traffic impact calculations shall be corrected prior to consideration of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. 11 Application Documents 4. The Applicant shall provide a survey of the site for any area of Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance, and a revised Highline Ranch Protective Covenants with corrections as noted prior to consideration of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. Easements 5. The drainage easement shown on the Preliminary Plan shall address the maintenance and beneficiary of the easement prior to consideration of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. Noxious Weeds 6. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the County Vegetation Manager for the Noxious Weed Management Plan submitted on July 8, 2009 prior to consideration of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. 12 Preliminary Plan Wi sheet SPP2409 Hi hline Ranch Preliminary Plan kY =Meets Standard N =Does Not Meet Standard NA =Does Not Apply Meets Standard* Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits Section 7 -101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Y Section 7 -102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Y Section 7 -103 Compatibility Y Section 7 -104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water N Section 7 -105 Adequate Water Supply N Section 7 -106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems N Section 7 -107 Adequate Public Utilities Y Section 7 -108 Access and Roadways Y Section 7 -109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Y Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards Section 7 -201 Protection of Agricultural Lands y Section 7 -202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas y Section 7 -203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies N Section 7 -204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants y Section 7 -205 Erosion and Sedimentation y Section 7 -206 Drainage y Section 7 -207 Stormwater Run -Off Y Section 7 -208 Air Quality y Section 7 -209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards y Section 7 -210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards y ;. Section 7 -211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance N Section 7 -212 Reclamation NA Division 3 Site Planning and Development Standards Section 7 -301 Compatible Design y Section 7 -302 Building Design NA Section 7 -303 Design and Scale of Development Y Section 7 -304 Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards Y Section 7 -305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards Y Section 7 -306 Snow Storage Standards NA Section 7 -307 Roadway Standards Y Section 7 -308 Trail and Walkway Standards NA Section 7 -309 Utility Standards y Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications Section 7 -401 General Subdivision Standards y A. Preservation of Natural Features y B. Extensions for Future Development NA C. Maintenance of Common Areas N D. Domestic Animal Control y E. Fireplaces y Section 7 -402 Subdivision lots y A. Developable Lots Y B. Lots Conform to Code NA C. This subheading is missing Y D. Lots Have Access to Public Roadways Y E. Side Lot Line Alignment Y F. Lots Configuration- Cul -de -Sacs Y G. Lot Division by Boundaries, Roads or Easements Prohibited y H. Nonconforming Lots Prohibited y 1. Multiple -Unit Family Development Prohibited on Single Parcel of Land y Section 7 -403 Fire Protection y A. Adequate Access Lanes Y B. Fire Lanes Y C. Water Sources for Fire Protection N D. Fire Hydrants NA E. Installation by Applicant NA F. Maintenance NA Section 7-404 Survey Monuments Y A. Monuments Located Within Streets y B. Setting by Standard Construction Techniques Y 1 Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Spaces y kY =Meets Standard N =Does Not Meet Standard NA =Does Not Apply GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 1517 Blake Avcnu4 Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.8676 phone 970.945.2555 fax An Employee -Owned Company TO 44..- t i Co.,4-) 17t:� �Gl i►, DATE z/i 9/0 9 U PI4r �ir�y 108 041` 5.h—eq. (-1 en wohd 5) PI6 0 1 JOB NO. 2645/02,1, ° ❑ ENGLEWOOD. CO 14 Inverness Drive East Suite F -120 Englewood, CO 80112 303.925.0544 phone 303325.0547 fax SUBJECT (-4 ig h 1!"n e 54171 1,45 -ce,, ATTN `)tat: N{i: r FAX NO. We are sending the following: SHEET OF 'i dire f - PIA., CI'ec , 1$ 6'75 .3 Pv dif, „ Pi tort ApierCG4 -I�;�, 9s "xrl„ 00„d 3 Peek.— k.— eiGar, �vAr..il+^, S Zq "S "' P y- 3 5-1,,d7 0 ✓ A C A I ✓ n ! n l � e - - ,53.c/(x j i i. o ._ s� V}t,e'',1- M G``' is il l li15es5G .v'S ft^ ar 11'', I`7" 1 Act),. 4,7,4 `'acct..Ay C,„., C.,S4 !! S S"X 11 ., fi , e '$, s "ii. 1 i” If material received is not listedabove, kindly notify us at once. Transmitted by: ❑ First Class Mail ❑ UPS Next Day Air ❑ Federal Express ❑ U.S. Express Mail ❑ UPS Standard Service ❑ Courier ❑ Pickup ❑ FAX j HCE Hand Deliver 0