HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPC Members Present Phil Vaughan Michelle Foster David Stover Shirley Brewer Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the July 13,2005 Meeting Staff Present Mark Bean, B&P Director Colin
Laird (came in around 7:45) Fred Jarman, Assist. PIn. Director Richard Wheeler, Senior Planner Carolyn Dahlgren, Assist. Cty Ally Michael Erion, Resource Engineering did engineering
review Roll call was taken and the following members are absent tonight: Mike Deer, Jock Jacober, Cheryl Chandler, and Bob Fullerton. Phil Vaughan announced to the public that item #
7 on the agenda which is Peach Valley Vistas Preliminary Plan Application would not be heard tonight after all. This item was removed this afternoon so we will not even open up. Applicant
is hoping to make the August 10th Planning Commission meeting. Question was asked in respect to the noticing done. The applicant did not meet the noticing requirements so item will not
be heard tonight. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the May 11,2005 and the June 8, 2005 Planning Commission meetings. David Stover made a motion to approve
the minutes from the May II th and the June 8, 2005 Planning Commission meetings as written and Shirley Brewer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all members approved unanimously.
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request to review a Preliminary Plan Application for the Overview Subdivision. The property is located at 8575 CR lIS and the applicant
is proposing to subdivide approximately 48.52 acres into four lots total. The Applicant is Wayne Rudd. Richard Wheeler is the County Planner on this project. Present representing the
Applicant is Roland Parker. Also in attendance are Steve Oger and Gary Setnes. Richard Wheeler handed out copies of three new exhibits. Phil reviewed the process that would be followed
for this hearing. First we will review public noticing, then we will enter some exhibits into the record, we will have a presentation by the staff planner, Richard Wheeler, followed
with questions from the Planning Commission, out to you three gentlemen for your presentation, back to Planning Commission for questions, out to the public for comments and then back
to the Planning Commission for summation. 1
Phil swore in all people that wanted to speak on this issue. Carolyn Dahlgren will question the applicant's representatives about the noticing requirement. Steve Oger will respond to
Carolyn's questions. Steve gave Carolyn the return receipts and proof of publication. Carolyn asked Steve if he used the County Assessor's records to determine the property owner names
within 200 feet. Steve said yes. Carolyn asked did you also use the Assessor's records to determine mineral interest or separated interest. Steve said yes. Carolyn asks who owns the
propelty. Steve responded Mr. Rudd. Carolyn asked did you determine that mineral rights were separated. Yes was Steve's response. Carolyn asked Steve if he mailed notice to all mineral
and public land owners within 200' certified return receipt with at least thirty day notice. Steve said yes. Carolyn asked Steve if he posted the property with the notice provided by
the County Planning Department. Steve said yes. Carolyn asked did you do the posting. Steve said Jeremy Russo posted the property. Gary Setnes verified that the posted notice is still
in place and visible from CR liS. Notice in paper was published at least 30 days before the hearing. All notices identified Mr. Rudd as owner of the property with legal and practical
description of property given. All certified return receipts were received back on mail out. Carolyn brought up the fact that the Applicant is one day off on his publication notice.
It is up to the Planning Commission whether they want to proceed tonight or not. Phil said the risk is with the applicants. Phil said the public notice is not right. Carolyn stated that
all neighbors got their notice. David Stover feels it is okay to proceed with this hearing. All other members agreed. Applicant wants to proceed tonight as well. Carolyn told applicants
representative to be sure and get noticing done correctly for the BOCC meeting. Richard Wheeler entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Mail Receipts Exhibit B: Proof
of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended Exhibit D: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan of 2000 Exhibit F: Staff Report dated 7/13/05 Exhibit G: Letter dated June 30, 2005 from Colorado State Forest Service Exhibit H: Letter dated June 30, 2005 from Colorado Division
of Water Resources Exhibit I: Letter dated June 22, 2005 from Colorado Geological Survey Exhibit J: Email dated June 14,2005 from Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. Exhibit K: Application
for Overview Preliminary Plan New Exhibits handed out tonight: Exhibit L: Memo dated July 7, 2005 from Garfield County Vegetation Management Dept. . Exhibit M: Letter dated July 11,2005
from Resource Engineering Exhibit N: Additional Staff Comments dated 7/13/05 2
Exhibit 0: Two resolutions that were brought in by the applicant tonight. Exhibits A -0 are accepted into the record. Richard will present the staff comments and project information.
Overview Subdivision is a 48 acre parcel south of the Spring Valley Ranch on the north side of County Road 115. There is a large power line easement located on the property. Four parcels
are proposed through this division request with the largest one at 37.16 acres will be open space. The other three lots will be approximately 4.15,3.81, and 3.39 acres in size. The Planning
Commission heard the Sketch Plan Application on September 8, 2004. There were four items of specific interest which are: • The creation of an HOA for management of amenities, weeds and
other community issues or assets; • Fire protection • Well permi ts • Sketch plan would be void after September 8, 2005 The underlying zoning of the property is AIR/RD. Applicants are
proposing residential lots so underlying zoning has been met. Conditions of approval will need to address HOA prior to final plat. Supplemental information Section 4:60 thru 4:94: Geology
& Soils. The proposed subdivision is located within an area of Quaternary to Tertiary collapse debris. While there is no direct evidence that building problems may occur, it is believed
that care will need to be taken when constructing buildings. Notes should be added to the subdivision plat notifying future buyers of potential problems. We recommend that each lot have
an onsite soil analysis and a foundation designed by a registered engineer. Concerning Exhibit H,letter from the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources well permit, the staff
has not seen a copy of new well permit number 25263 which is suppose to be valid for this proposal. Staff feels requirements for water are met. ISDS is proposed for each lot. Engineered
systems will be required. Engineered foundations will be required as well. Related to fire protection, the proposed subdivision is outside of the Carbondale Fire District boundaries
so an independent Uniform Fire Code Inspector and Colorado State Forest Service has researched the site and made several suggestions for fire protection. These are included on page 9
of the staff report. The access to the subdivision will come from a main entrance off of CR 115. An internal dead end public road is proposed to provide access to each of the three lots.
Dedication to the public of this internal road will be required. Maintenance will be the responsibility 3
of the HOA and memorialized on the final plat as a plat note. The applicant will need to delineate,legally describe and convey all easements shown on the plat to the HOA. The applicant
will be required to pay the applicable RE-I school impact fees and traffic impact fees at final plat stage. Staff is recommending approval with the II conditions listed on pages 9-12
in the staff report. No questions were asked by the Commission to staff at this time so we moved to the applicant's representatives for their presentation. Roland Parker spoke first.
The acreage for this property is proposed to be broken into 4 lots. One residence is expected per lot. No building will be allowed in the open space. The open space will be owned by
the three lot owners. There will be a gravel driveway off of CR 115. They are proposing a common well to provide water for the three residences. Impact to the existing neighborhood will
be minimal. They have clustered the residential lots on the eastern portion of this property because it is a little flatter and it's farther away from the large power generator station.
Steve Oger spoke next. He has a question for Richard Wheeler. It is their understanding that the internal drive could be a gravel surface. Resource Engineering's report says it has to
be paved. Steve believes that the Subdivision Regulations allow this to be gravel. Richard Wheeler responded that is correct. A gravel drive would meet the county requirements for this.
Michael Erion agreed his original comment was in error. Steve Oger stated that this is housing for some of Rudd' s longtime employees and he asked if Commission would consider waiving
the traffic impact fees or what that figure would be. Phil Vaughan stated that those figures are included in the staff report on page 10. Richard Wheeler commented that is an estimate
of the fees required. Phil Vaughan commented that the possibility of waiving any fee would be an item that the BOCC would have to decide on not the Planning Commission. Carolyn Dahlgren
also wanted to make it clear to the applicants that this is a real subdivision under our subdivision regulations and not an exemption from the definition of subdivision. These are the
same comments we made to you at Sketch Plan. When you use the term well sharing agreement or when you talk about how the open space will be owned in common by the three of you. She wants
you to understand that might be what it feels like but this is a subdivision that will go on forever so really the HOA will own the open space, will own the well permit, wi ll own all
of the water system so when you gentlemen are long gone other folks wi ll be owning it and having a membership in the HOA. Will need to create a set of declarations and covenants to
deal with things such as management of the ISDS, management of water system, what to do about domestic critters, etc. Roland Parker stated that they have started that process and they
will be done before the BOCC hearing. 4
Carolyn Dahlgren stated that the well permit is the major issue now. Don't have the right permit at this time. Roland Parker stated they do have Exhibit H which is a letter from the
State acknowledging that the well is in compliance. Roland said he talked about this issue with Mr. Wheeler. Carolyn stated that condition #4 on the additional staff comments addresses
that and asks that you have the permit and exhibits before the BOCC meeting. Moved back to the Planning Commission for questions and none were asked at this time. Richard Wheeler commented
that condition #6 appears to have been met. (See Exhibit 0) Moved out to the public for comments next. The first speaker is Jeannie Hayes who lives at 8033 CR 115. She read a letter
into the record. The property is zoned NRlRD. Lots in the area are 35 acres or larger with mostly single-family residences on them. Subdividing this parcel into four lots is not compatible
to surrounding properties. Additional impact to CR 115 will be significant. Water impact is also a concern. The area that is proposed to be developed is a very important wildlife habitat
range for deer and elk. It is also a winter forging are for bald eagles and a year round range for black bears. There are also fire concerns. Currently they are not part of any districts
and rely upon the goodness of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs Fire Department should a wildfire occur. Additionally they believe that the notice requirements have not been adhered to.
They would ask the applicant to present the return receipts. The notice which is supposed to be visible from a public right-of-way was posted on an open gate to the property and not
at all visible from the county road. In conclusion, they would ask you to deny the Rudd application for subdivision based on the incompatibility with the existing character of the Spring
Valley area, the negative impacts to the road, the water and fire concerns as well as the impacts to the wildlife habitat. The next speaker is Barbara Herwitz and she owns property directly
across from Mr. Rudd's proposed subdivision on CR lIS. Her primary concern is changing the character of the area. This has been a ranching community and has been cut into 35 acre parcels
in the last few years. She has been speaking to the County Planning Department over the last couple of years and what they have been really pushing is the Rural Land Development Option.
She has lived in the Spring Valley area for over 25 years and has seen the water table dropping. There are two other parcels in the area that Mr. Rudd owns and they are concerned with
further development on those parcels. This is an area for major elk habitat area and is an important wildlife habitat area. Traffic on CR lIS is already getting very bad. Pat Hayes is
the next speaker and she lives at 8033 CR lIS. He wants to re-enforce the fact that the sign for the public notice was posted on an opened fence and couldn't see it from the county road.
Could be why there is a shortcoming to this meeting. No further questions were asked so public p0l1ion of hearing is closed. Moved back to the Planning Commission for comments, questions
and hopefully a summation. 5
David Stover asked is the sign notice an issue. Carolyn Dahlgren said yes indeed it is an issue if in fact what these people are saying is COlTect. There was no challenge of the notice
on the front end. Carolyn thinks it would be appropriate for the Commission to ask the applicant about the notices. Phil Vaughan said the applicant is taking a chance on this issue.
We already know there was a problem with the noticing in the newspaper. Phil asked the applicant's representatives if there was a problem with the posting. Roland Parker said to the
best of his knowledge there was no problem with the notice. Every time he passed by the property the gate was closed. Roland stated that he and Mr. Wheeler visited the property two weeks
ago and as they drove up to the property the sign was clearly visible. Michelle Foster stated that there was a comment made about accessory dwelling units. ' Richard Wheeler responded
that in the nanative of the application it states three singlefamily dwelling units; one of each lot. Richard understands that you have to have at least four acres to apply for an ADU
so that would exclude two of the lots. A person could apply for an ADU under an SUP on the four acre lot. Richard stated we are only looking at a subdivision process now. David Stover
made a motion to recommend approval of this subdivision with the conditions set forth by staff and including Exhibit N. Michelle Foster seconded the motion. Carolyn Dahlgren asked if
David was deleting condition #6 from the motion and he responded yes. Both David and Michelle accepted Carolyn's friendly amendment to the motion. No further discussion was made by members.
A vote was taken and all approved the motion unanimously. The next item on the agenda is review of a Preliminary Plan Application for the Boom's Place Subdivision. The property is located
at 1582 CR 233 and the applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 63.799 acres into four lots. The applicant is Robin Fritzlan. Fred Jarman is the County Planner on this project
and he will present the staff comments and project information. Present for the applicant is the property owner Robin Fritzlan, Shana Hoffmeister which is Robin's daughter and Brian
Steinwinder with Sexton Survey. Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we would take for this hearing. First we will review the noticing requirements, followed by staff comments and staff
report, questions from Commission, out to the applicant for their presentation, questions from Commission, out to the public for comments and then back to the Commission for a summation
and hopefully a motion. Phil swore in all speakers for this item. 6
Carolyn Dahlgren reviewed the noticing with Robin Fritzlan. Did you use the County Assessors records to obtain names of owners within 200 feet? Robin said yes. Did you find any separate
mineral interest? Robin stated they own the mineral rights. Carolyn asked did you send out return receipt requested notices to all of the mineral interest owners as well as property
owners within 200 feet. Robin said yes. Carolyn asked Robin if she had done that between the dates of May 14th and June 13th Shana Hoffmeister stated that they mailed them out on June
10th Did you get all of your return receipts back? Robin and Shana responded all but Jay Gentry. Nothing came back from the Post Office on that. Robin responded that the notice was placed
in the Glenwood Post on June 13th• Carolyn said it was actually June 12th Carolyn asked if both of the notices that were mailed out did it identify the owners both legally and practically?
Robin posted the property herself with the notice that was provided by the County Planning Department and is visible on CR 233 and still in place today. Carolyn asked if there are any
public land owners. Robin said no. Carolyn Dahlgren thinks notice is acceptable and that it is okay to proceed. Fred Jarman entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A:
Mail Receipts Exhibit B: Proof of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978. as amended Exhibit D: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. as amended
Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended Exhibit F: Application Exhibit G: Staff Memorandum Exhibit H: Memorandum from the County Vegetation manager dated 6117/05
Exhibit I: Letter from DOW dated 6113/05 Exhibit J: Letter from the CGS dated 6/9/05 Exhibit K: Letter from Resource Engineering dated 6113/05 . Exhibit L: Letter from DWR dated 6/7/05
Exhibit M: Email from the County Road & Bridge Department dated 6113/05 Exhibit N: Letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 6121105 Exhibit A -N are accepted into the record.
Fred Jarman presented the staff comments and project information. This is a request to subdivide a 63 acre parcel into four lots which will be approximately 3.874. 3.882. 10.315. and
45.728 acres in size. The property is located on Graham Mesa less than 2 miles northeast of the City of Rifle on County Road 233 . The main access to the property will be off of CR 233
at the n0!1hwest corner of the property. There is an existing access easement for the maintenance of a 1.3 million gallon water tank that is on the northeast portion of the propel1y
and owned and maintained by the City of Rifle. The property is presently improved with a single-family dwelling. shed and riding arena on proposed Lot 3. The application was referred
out to a number of folks: 7
• City of Rifle: comments are provided in the application. No additional comments were received from them. • Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: They had no real concerns. (See
Exhibit M) • Rifle Fire Protection District: Comments are provided in the application. No additional comments were received. • RE-2 School District: No comments were received. • Colorado
State Forest Service: See Exhibit N • Colorado Division of Wildlife: See Exhibit I and comments provided in the application. • Colorado Division of Water Resources: No material injury.
(See Exhibit L) • Colorado Geological Survey: See Exhibit J. There are steep slopes that bisect the property. • Garfield County Vegetation Manager: No comments were received. • Resource
Engineering: See Exhibit K. The property is located within Study Area 3 of the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as "Outlying Residential". The property is currently zoned
NRIRD. The density and use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and what is suggested for this area. Building envelopes have been designated on all of these lots. Water for this
proposal will be provided by the City of Rifle up to four domestic water taps as part of an agreement that allowed for the location of the City's water storage tank on the property.
The application contains a "Special Warranty Easement Deed and Agreement" that describes the contractual agreement between the City and the Applicant. These taps also allow for ilTigation
of up to 5,000 sq. ft. per lot. The application also contains a "can & will serve" letter from the City of Rifle. The applicant proposes ISDS for each lot. The application also contains
an ISDS Management Plan that staff suggest be incorporated into the protective covenants. Access to the property is from a public right-of-way from CR 233 at the northwest corner of
the property. The applicant intends to improve the existing driveway to be the main access in and out of the subdivision. Presently the internal road is designed with the Primitive Residential
Standard with a ROW of 30 feet. The proposed road is required to have 40 foot right-of-way standard based on trips generated. The applicant is seeking a variance from this standard which
can only be granted through a PUD by the BOCC. The applicant could also eliminate two lots reducing the ADT so that the existing 30' ROW would accommodate the subdivision. May need to
adjust Lots I & 2. Shana Hoffmeister mentioned that she has a new site plan. Fred told her to hold on to it right now. Fred continued. The applicant requests the ability to further re-subdivide
Lot 4 which contains the 45 acres. If the Board allows this potential, the internal access ROW should be designed at the present time to accommodate a full build out of these lots. The
ROW 8
required would be that of a Secondary Access design requiring a 50' ROW. The applicant will be required to obtain driveway permit appropriately sized to meet the standards of the county
Road & Bridge Department. The Colorado Geological Survey reviewed the proposal and commented that Lots I, 2, & 4 contain small intermittent drainages. Building envelopes should be placed
to avoid these drainages. Erosion control should be considered during construction to minimize soil loss. Resource Engineering commented that there are several poorly defined drainages
located with the subdivision that convey off-site and on-site drainage. A drainage report complied by Mountain Cross Engineering recommends detention ponds be constructed on each lot.
The drainage improvements should be constructed by the Applicant. A single detention pond adequately sized and located near the southerly boundary of the subdivision would be adequate
for the project. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plan for Boom's Place Subdivision with the conditions listed on pages 8-10 of the staff report. No questions were asked
of staff at this time so we moved to the Applicant for their presentation. Shana Hoffmeister spoke first. Robin Fritzlan is her mother and she lives on what is proposed as Lot 3. Robin
will keep the 45 acre parcel. They got 4 water taps from the City of Rifle in exchange for 2 acres of property. Shana wanted to talk in regards to the road entrance because that was
brought up by Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering. CR 233 actually stops then there is their property and then it continues. CR 233 actually goes through their property. Shana handed
out a new site plan that shows they have 41' of ROW. (Accepted as Exhibit 0) They did bring Brian with Sexton Survey with them tonight in case anyone has questions on this. The other
issue Shana wanted to bring up is the building envelope for .Lot 4. The reason this envelope is so large is because they were not sure where Robin was going to put her house and they
were told as long as it is below 37% grade it would be okay to build on. The issue in regards to future subdividing, they just did that to protect it in case down the road the City of
Rifle completely develops over their property there wouldn't be an issue that they couldn't subdivide. They don' t plan on subdividing the 45 acres. It will be for Robin's private use.
Phil Vaughan asked if there are any questions for applicant. Phil asked the applicant to go over the site plan that was accepted as Exhibit O. Brian with Sexton Survey explained their
Exhibit B which is what we accepted as Exhibit O. Basically what he did was go out and do an "as built" on the ROW, fences, the road, the width, and where the chip & seal stopped. The
Tax Map shows the county road actually comes up and goes to the north and goes into the Tybar Ranch. He thinks this access has basically been cut-off because of the Tybar Ranch buying
a lot of the parcels above this. Brian stated that the 9
historical ROW going through there is about 30' and it widens up after the Fritzlan property. It appears this little strip was created with the intent that the ROW was 30'wide to give
access to the Fritzlan property. They are willing to dedicate some of their property to get the ROW cleared up. Basically get the road off of their propelty. Brian created an arc with
a 25 ' ROW going to his ROW passage creating the 41 ' ROW frontage. Phil says it appears to him that the 30' dimension shows the correct boundary of the property and then it jogs to
the east 50' and you are showing the length as 41.8' with a proposed radius of 43.77'. Brian said exactly. Phil asked staff, is CR 233 as it bears due north of that location is that
still public right of way owned by Garfield County. Fred said that is a really good question. Fred talked to Marvin Stephens the other day and we are not 100% clear what the status truly
is of the rest of that road. The County does not maintain it. It's paItially mapped but that does not mean it is a county road. Fred Jarman stated the issue remains the same. The existing
ROW should be on the map. Just need 25' of frontage. The ROW issue is you still need 10'. You are shy on your current road to serve just the 4 lots. If you expand further, the 45 acre
parcel you will need 10' more above that. Applicant has no further presentation at this time. Moved back to the Commission for questions and or comments. CaI'olyn Dahlgren asked about
title commitment and a reference to an agreement between Horizons'West Partnership and some other folks, do you know what exception #12 is? Robin stated that was the water ditch and
has been totally abandoned. Carolyn asked if that was different from the Rifle Creek Cannon Ditch and Raynard Ditch. Robin said that is the same ditch. Carolyn asked Robin if what she
is saying that the Rifle Creek Cannon and The Raynard Ditches don't need to be on here. Robin stated pipes are not on her property. Carolyn told Robin that she probably needed to talk
to the Title Company because these shouldn't be on this document as exceptions. Need to update the title information before going to the BOCC. Colin Laird has a question for Fred. Based
on staff recommendations he doesn't see anything in notes about 40' easement. Fred left that out for the Commission to decide. Carolyn asked for mineral separation interest to be included
as a condition and a plat note. Moved out to the public for questions and comments next. None were received so the public portion of the hearing was closed and we moved back to the Planning
Commission for any further comments or questions and hopefully a motion. Colin Laird made a motion to recommend to the BOCC approval of the Preliminary Plan Application for Boom's Place
Subdivision with the conditions listed in the staff report adding a condition #14, contingent on increasing ROW to 40' in her property. Fred said to remember that only gets you four
lots. He also suggests adding, prior to the BOCC 10
hearing. Colin said to add condition #15 a plat note for separation of mineral rights. Michelle Foster seconded the motion. Shirley Brewer asked at what point they would have to in fact
go ahead with a PUD plan with the exclusion here. Fred responded they may figure out a solution on how to get the 50' without going through a PUD. If they choose to do the PUD it would
probably be because they couldn't get the 50' . A vote was taken and all approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request to review an application for Rural
Land Development Option. The property is located on Graham Mesa, 1.5 miles northwest if the City of Rifle. The applicants are proposing to subdivide 20% of the 723 acre Tybar Ranch into
27 residential lots while placing the remaining 80% of the ranch into a 40-year term agricultural conservation easement to be held by the City of Rifle. The applicant is Davies Mesa
Ranch Estates, LLC, Dancinger Special Power of Appointment Trust (Mark Nieslanik) Fred Jarman is the County Planner on this project. Colin Laird excused himself from this item. Present
for the Applicant are Mark Nieslanik, Doug Pratt of The Land Studio and the Planner working with Applicant, Chris Manera, Engineer with Colorado River Engineering and Anna Dancinger,
owner of the prope11y. Phil explained the process we would follow for this public meeting. First we will start off with the staff presentation, questions from Commission, Applicants
presentation, followed by questions from the Commission, out to the public for comments and then back to the Commission. Fred reiterated that this is a public meeting. This is a Rural
Land Developments Option Application and typically they would only be heard by the BOCC but because there are more than 10 lots that is why you are hearing this proposal. There is no
noticing required. Fred entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A & B listed can be removed from list since no noticing is required Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning
Regulations of 1978, as amended Exhibit D: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended Exhibit E: Application Exhibit F: Staff Memorandum Exhibit G: Memorandum from the
Road & Bridge Department dated 6/9/05 Exhibit H: Letter from Steve Anthony dated 7/5/05 Exhibit I: Letter from the Rifle Fire Protection District dated 6/23/05 11
Exhibit J: Letter from the City of Rifle dated 6/22/05 Exhibit K: Easement Declaration Exhibit L: Supplemental Information provided by Applicant Exhibit M: Letter from Resource Engineering
Exhibit N: 7112/05 response from applicant (Exhibit M & N were handed out tonight) Exhibits C -N are accepted into the record. Fred has a small site visit presentation of the property.
Fred showed Boom's Place (the last application heard) in conjunction with the Tybar Ranch property. Presently the 723 acres are in agricultural production. The development will consist
of creating 27 residential lots that are approximately 4.5 acres each in size and are clustered into two separate areas on the east and west portions of the ranch. The remainder of the
ranch (Lot 28) would remain in full-time agricultural use. ISDS are proposed on each lot. Water will come from the City of Rifle. Off of CR 233 is the main entrance in to the property
on the west side. Private and secondary access easement proposed to the east. Property is currentl y zoned AlRlRD. The idea and concept behind the Rural Land Development Option is to
allow a mechanism for large properties to achieve some kind of lot wealth if you will by also preserving the majority of the property in an agricultural use or a conserve use. The Applicant
is not proposing to create any lots using the traditional exemption process. The Applicant is eligible for 28 new lots as a result of the following calculation: ./1 Lot for each 35 acre
lot that could have been created: 20 lots ./1 Lot for every 100 acres in parent property: 7 lots ./I Lot for going through the process: 1 lot Total Lots: 28 Lots (The west pod will serve
lots 1-8 and the east pod will serve lots 9-27) The proposed road would cross over drainage easement. Access to the ranch comes from two county roads (CR 233 and CR 293). CR 233 provides
direct access to Lots 1 -8 while access to Lots 9 -27 comes from a very long 60-foot non-exclusive access easement from CR 293 through the Turgoose Ranch property then to the ranch.
(way longer than 1000 feet) A secondary emergency access from the ranch out to CR 210 by way of a 60-foot non-exclusive easement is also proposed with emergency pull-outs along the way.
Primary roads within Tybar Ranch project will be no steeper than 12% in grade. A variance may be required for the emergency access as the grade on that road may exceed 12% up to a grade
of 14%. The road serving Lots 10 -27 is approximately 4,000 linear feet long as it enters the ranch from an easement through a property to the south through the Turgoose Ranch. In the
geo-technical analysis done by CTL Thompson, there are a number of potential unstable slopes. Building envelopes need to be moved out pf the unstable slope area. 12
Foundations will be required to be designed by a Colorado Professional Registered Engineer. Depending on the perc rate on each lot will decide whether an engineered ISDS will be required
or not. Michael Erion is here tonight and can speak on the water issue. Doug Pratt spoke of the pre-annexation agreement with the City of Rifle. The applicant does not want to enter
into that agreement without the approval of this proposal from the County. Fred stated we do have suggested conditions of approval that tie all of the agreements together. Fred Jarman
said the water system there are two separate components. There is a water main in CR 233 that would serve a series of lots. There is a water tank on the property that would serve the
other lots through the pre-annexation agreement with the City of Rifle. Water pressure has to be boosted for pressure to those lots for household use and emergency use for fires . The
larger lots require approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for the extension of infrastructure. Michael Erion is here tonight and can answer questions and
Fred knows that the applicants engineer wants to speak on this issue as well. Staff is suggesting that we obtain some approved plans from CDPHE for this before any approval is given
by the BOCC. The same is true for the roads. When does all this happen? This is an interesting project because it is an Exemption, not a Subdivision. When does infrastructure and improvements
get completed? Since this is an exemption we do not have a subdivision improvements agreement or a letter of credit. We have what is called a development agreement which contemplates
how the "conserved partial" is managed. Regulations state you do have to have infrastructure in place when you sell the first lot. Fred said the applicant has suggested there could be
some kind of security that the county could hold. There may be other legal ways to craft documents that would achieve the same thing a subdivision improvements agreement would do for
this. Phil asked if there are any questions for staff. None were asked at this time. Mark Nieslanik who manages Tybar Ranch spoke next for the applicant. The reason primarily why they
got staJted is to keep the agricultural production running as long as possible. They have been working on this proposal for several years now. They never envisioned having to sell any
of these lots right a way and so that goes into Fred's comments about security and putting infrastructure in. David, the owner, passed away in November and before he passed away he wanted
to make sure the ranch would continue so we started this process quite sometime ago. Doug Pratt will speak next. David Dancinger died November 13,2004 and they had a Title Commitment
done before his death and so the current information is under Davies Mesa Estates, LLC and Dancinger Special Power of Appointment Trust. Will update title commitment before they go to
the BOCC. Related to the development of infrastructure; 13
they bought a corner of an adjoining property to preserve the agriculture on this property for the next 40 years. One of the first things they did was start talking to the Town of Rifle
and they are very interested in talking about a time limited conservation easement. The applicant hopes that over the years it will possible to find funding to keep open space. There
is potential to turn this term easement into a perpetual easement. Doug pointed out access to the property. 60" emergency access easement goes out to CR 210. Will have a looped road
for emergency access in and out of the property. Doug reviewed his Exhibit N. Most of the comments basically stated, they agree with the recommendation so he will let those be. Will
move to the ones that we have some discussion points. • Staff recommended condition #2: They would like some additional time because of the estate planning process. Don't have engineering
level road drawings done for all of the infrastructure and water infrastructure that they need. Will have some time before BOCC meeting to do some additional work. • Condition SA: Do
have adequate water for fire flows. Chris Manera has reviewed but may need more time. • Condition #8: Do want to do that. Want to submit security for infrastructure. Want to do a phasing
plan. West portion will be Phase 1 and the eastern pOJ1ion would be Phase 2. Chris Manera reviewed water location of tank and delivery. Will have to design water system like a subdivision
process. Water vault will require application from Colorado Department of Health. City of Rifle will check water quality. Have to go back to City to approve both systems. Carolyn Dahlgren
referred to Exhibit J, paragraph 4, which states "sewer service shall be required pursuant to the policy established by Resolution No.3 Series 1996". She is guessing that says if you
annex into city, then you must also join the sewer system. Is that correct? Chris Manera said that is correct. Carolyn asked so you are going to put in the dry lines for the western
side. Chris said he thinks that was one of the requests from the City of Rifle. Carolyn mentioned that she didn't she anything in the pre-annexation agreement about that now. Doug Pratt
said they have discussed that option for sewer. Will do ISDS at this point. Only water with city right now. Doug Pratt said they have sized lots for 4 acres or greater so future owner
could apply for an ADU under an SUP if they wanted to. No further presentation was given by the applicants. Moved out to the public for comments. None were given so that portion of hearing
was closed. David Stover has a question about the 120 days mentioned under Condition #2 and what are the rules. Fred Jarman responded that applicant can request an extension up to a
year. 14
The BOCC can approve that if requested. (one year from the original approval date) The Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the BOCC. Fred said that raises a second issue
related to the 45 day time frame for hearing before the BOCC. The applicant typically waives the time frame. Doug said they are asking for enough time between this hearing and the BOCC
hearing to work out the details. Applicant will waive the 45 day requirement. Phil Vaughan commented next. This whole development is a great thing. He thinks County is well protected
in all areas that are noted here in the staff recommendations. He will get into the security issue. He thinks the intent of staff is to work through this and come up with something reasonable.
Letter of credit is very costly in comparison to bonds. Carolyn Dahlgren stated the protection is for future lot owners. Not the County. (This is for roads, water, etc.) Doug Pratt totally
agrees that future lot owners need to be protected. Glad to work with staff and Council to work on details. Mark Nieslanik made a few more comments. Phil Vaughan stated this is a good
development in Garfield County. Have to come up with some creative legally created acceptable way of securing this project without forcing these folks to go direct to start selling lots.
Shirley Brewer asked what would be the motivating factor to start the development. Mark Nieslanik spoke. Unfortunately in agriculture if you want to stay in agriculture you have to incur
costs. This has become a lot more expensive then they had ever envisioned. If we have to put a letter of credit up for security, we also have to continue our agriculture operation, feed
our cattle, pay our employees, do everything else that we are normally doing, plus protect the land. Right now we are in pretty good shape. But if we go back into a drought situation
and we have to liquidate some of our livestock then that could force their hand. We are still in the process of settling David's estate so we aren ' t quite sure where we are. They started
this process three years ago and it has been an interesting process and they really hope to continue it. They are trying to go through the process and keep the process going so that
other agricultural operations will say you know they did it and there is a way. There are things in the process that make this very costly and security is one of those issues. Fred Jarman
mentioned that the forty (40) year term on conservation easement is not a Garfield County creation. That is a State Statute creation. Phil Vaughan asked about any other way to secure
property. Carolyn Dahlgren said the Statute helps us. The Danciger's have hired Tom Todd and between all of us we will figure it out. Doug Pratt said they focused on conservation section
of application and operation so they still have some work to do on the development portion of application. 15
Carolyn Dahlgren asked the Applicant if the City of Rifle has approved their form of conservation easement. Doug Pratt said they have met with the Town Council and they have supported
that with staff. Do need final sign off still through a final vote. Carolyn noticed that it refers to some pending water court matters. Has that all been settled. Doug asked the pre-annexation
agreement? Carolyn said no, the Deed of Conservation Easement. Mark Nieslanik thinks they picked that up by the Carbondale Ranch. Doug said he will have to research that. David Stover
said the first thing is the 45 day period between the Planning Commission and BOCC meeting. The applicant is going to waive that so it is a mood point. Under condition #2, David stated
applicant will have one year to present the Final Plat to BOCC for signature from date of conditions of approval. Under the phasing part of this, condition #8, Doug suggested to David
to read the last sentence in their response. That might help you out. David stated that we recommend that the applicants work with staff to find an adequate method of security. Doug
asked if it would work to include a security phasing plan. Fred said you could. Michelle Foster said so basically we are covered by that 14% grade. Fred stated that you are suggesting
that a variance be approved. David said yes. Fred said that could be condition #15. Fred said as long as the applicant can support the required items under condition #14, then staff
supports variance. Fred made one last comment if you care to entertain it and that is related to the separated minerals and a statement needs to be included on the final plat. (add condition
as 3(k)) Phil Vaughan wanted to clarify the motion. Looking at the staff recommendations under item #2, the applicant shall have one year to submit the final plat to the Commissioners
for signature from the date of condition of approval. Add a condition number 3(k) using the standard mineral separation language noting that surface and minerals have been separated
as a plat note. Condition #8 that prior to submittal of final plat, security will be provided to Garfield County to insure that the completion of road, water, electrical and telephone
infrastructure for the project will be completed by the owners prior to the sale of any lot or the construction of a residence on any lot. Phil said it may be best on that if David this
is the way you intended, that the County and the Applicant will come to an agreement in regards to the appropriate security for public improvements. David Stover said most definitely
working with staff. Then lastly adding a condition #15 noting that if the applicant can demonstrate meeting the county standards that would support the variance of a maximum 14% grade
on access or emergency access road. Phil asked if that is an accurate representation of your interpretation. David Stover said it sounds good. Michelle Foster seconded the motion. Phil
asked if there is any further discussion. David asked the applicant if they had any further comments. No real further discussion was made. A vote was taken and all approved the motion
unanimously. 16
Other business. Fred Jarman handed out to the Planning Commission members in attendance the two dics's for the Spring Valley Development project. Phil Vaughan received a paper copy of
the application as he requested. Mark Bean handed out a draft copy of the proposed Land Use Code and a memo. Mark would like to propose a roll out meeting tentatively a couple of weeks
from today's date. No other business so meeting is adjourned. 17
