HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 01.15.2007Exhibits for Board of Coturty Commissioners held on January 15,2007
A Mail Receipts
B Proof of Publication
C Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
D Garfield Coun8 Zorune Resolution of 1978, as amended
E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
F Application
G StaffMemorandum
H Letter from Jake Mall of GarCo Road and Bridge, Dated 912712006
I Email from Dan Roussin of CDOT. Dated 10/6/2006
J Letter from Jonathan White of Colorado Geological Survey, Dated 10/912006
K Letter from Steve Anthony of GarCo Vegetation Management, Dated 1011612006
L Letter from Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering, Dated 10119/2006
M Letter from Craig Lis of the Colorado OfFrce of the State Engineer, Dated
rot18t2006
N Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated October 19,2006 and updated
November 25,2006
o Letter from Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting dated December 5, 2006
P Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated January 3,2007
BOCC 1-15-2007 DP
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICATION:
OWNER:
APPLICA]T[T:
ENGINEER:
SURVEYOR:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
SIZEz
EXISTING ZONING:
PC RECOMMENDATION
Preliminary Plan for the Creek Side Estates
Subdivision
Mark Sills
Mark Sills
Boundaries Unlimite4 Inc.
Tuttle Surveying Services, Inc.
Four Miles North of the City of Rifle on
State Highway 325
Sills Well No. 1 - PermitNo. 266691
ISDS
15.37 acres (6lots proposed)
A/R/RE' (Agricultural/Residential/Rural
Density)
Approval with Conditions
L GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Property Description
The proposed subdivision is located approximately 4 miles north of Rifle on State
Highway 325, South of Rifle Gap Reservoir. The Property lies on the east side of
State Highway 325.
This 15.37 acre property is located between Rifle Creek and Highway 325 and is
zoned ARRD. The topography is generally gentle and sloping down from Highway
325 to Rifle Creek. There is one residence currently on the property which is
proposed to become Lot 6. Much of the eastem edge of the property abutting Rifle
Creek is within the 100 year floodplain.
The existing driveway from Highway 325 is proposed to be relocated to the north in
order to facilitate the development of proposed Lot I as well as site distance
Rtru
'tIII,
,l
requirements for CDOT. There are two known existing easements on the property:
one easement is held by the Public Service Company of Colorado located in the
southwest corner of the property in proposed Lot 1; another is located along the
southernmost boundary of the property as a2A' wide water system utility R.O.W.
VICITI]TY h{AP
SCAIE: i" = 2COa'
2
l.nir,Irltl\fltt I t.Li ICltEllll', S I DE ESTTYI'[r]"S
A REst,BDlvlsloN o['t,ol s 1 1'HRoIJGH 5 ANI) cottl{oN {REA. tst,ocK z. RIFI-E cREEK RANCII suBDtvtsloN. t.tR:-T Fu.tNcA f.,ARCF]t- O}'L.lND iN LO'f 3, SEC]IION I9,'I'O\\'NSIITP 5 SOL]'I'H, RANGIi 9z\\'rrsr oF rTrE 6rii p n!,,r[1il,liJrr,D coLrN,f\,, cor,oRAr]o
6.
tl
*9
I I
I
\
/
{
G}INIHIC SCAIE
" ..": .. ,
a.)
@uE qE@E mmd offi r @{-se
A cr'Hft!. hb.d i
I
te
CE'
2s6
N
.lt-
:i
_ -irciarq,. !,^*'(,..1il"rri itri (\fiB*,, ,r.,:I
:,--l-'' '
-f, = lJ:+a'J2"
R_=1f56 J2 '.r; 5t.96cB' N 78r7'?J't
C = 6449
.IL]1"IL,t,j SUTI\IE\1NT; s UR\.ICDS. INUB:3 f]I,,AKE AvEN(IE, STE, IO:(;t.ENt'001r SPRINGS, C0 81ri0l
s./0. s.iil8. 9708
r" 15'/t/ +r3nq
- .-LCt4
t20.gi,-!
71i, A..,
A
P.
-:*Eqtrxa16
to] 0
i
J-i
/!
'\
,2
i,*T _s: _._
tar I
\.
I
r ii
h
{
l,
I
I
B. Proposed Use
The subject property is 15.37 acres. The owner is proposing to divide that land into 6
parcels. The largest of the 6 parcels is 3.086 acres. The other lots will be2.834,2.402,
2.778,2.248,2.022 acres, accounting for 1 unit per 2.56 acres of gross land. There is
one existing home on the 15.37 acres which is proposed to be located in Lot 6. Creek
Side Drive, which is proposed to be about 600 feet in length, is to serve the new lots.
Creek Side Drive is to be held within a utility and access easement through lots 1-4.
There is an existing well that will serve domestic water to the proposed homes.
Sewer will be provided by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS). The applicant
is also proposing to use an above ground pond to be used for fire protection, which
will be frlled by the well. Access will be from State Highway 325. Much of the
proposed 15.37 acres are deed restricted due to existing wetlands which restricts
disturbance in these areas.
C. Background
This item was heard by the Planning Commission as a preliminary plan in 2004. At
the hearing, the Planning Commission moved for continuance of the preliminary plan.
According to the applicant, the following items have been updated since the previous
hearing:
.+
:-,"t,1-,r+- i,:.*;liii, :,... ,',...,,,,t. ,t,,c
'.1ir"ti,r+'/:i
1. revised adjacent ownership list;
2. updates to the application narrative;
3. updated mineral owner/lessee list;
4. revised preliminary plats;
5. revised information on physical and legal water supply;
6. executed and approved CDOT access permit;
7. revised covenants.
This item has since been reheard by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission is recommending approval. Per the conditions, the Applicant has further
examined the items addressed by Mountain Cross Engineering since the Planning
Commission hearing to resolve concerns (See Exhibit N).
I REFERRALS
Staff has referred the application to the following State agencies, municipalities
and/or County departrnents for their review and comment. Comments received are
briefly mentioned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the
appropriate section of this staffreport.
City of Rifle: No Comments
Rifle Fire Protection District: No Comments
RE-2 School District: No Comments
Colorado Department of Transportation: CDOT indicates that an access permit
has been issued for this development. However, a Notice to Proceed to work within
the CDOT right'of-way has not been obtained due to issues with site distance. This
permit is set to expire on July 5,2007. (See Exhibit I)
Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments
Colorado Division of Water Resources: The State Engineer stated that: "the
proposed water supply can be provided without causing material irj*y to decreed
water rights, and is adequate, so long as the applicant obtains and maintains a valid
well permit and the plan for augmentation is decreed and is operated according to its
decreed terms and conditions." (See Exhibit M)
Colorado Geologic Survey: The CGS expressed concern of flooding from the
westem tributary from where it flows between lots 1 and 2. The CGS's final
conclusion is that "provided the site-specific foundations investigation are conducted
and ISDS design meet the state and county regulatory requirements, the CGS finds no
inherent geological condition or harard that would preolude the development as
planned." (See Exhibit I)
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Garfreld County Road and Bridge
5
expressed no objection to this development since the access is off Colorado Highway
325, arrd had the following comments:
State Highway 325 is Nor Porcupine creek Road. porcupine creek Road is a
county Road south and west of Rifle. The appropriate changes should be
made.
All maintenance and repair of the road to this development will NoT be the
responsibility of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Deparfrnent. (See
Exhibit H)
Garfield County Vegetation: Garfield County Vegetation Management indicated
that:
. Noxious Weed lnventory and Mapping has been completed;o The applicant has submitted a weed marurgement plan;. The applicant has NOT provided a plant material list and planting schedule.
"Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the
are4 in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut
and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of
security that will be held for revegetation;"o The applicant has addressed soil management;r The applicant has addressed mosquito concems. (See Exhibit K)
Mountain Cross Engineering: Mountain Cross Engineering has submiffed the
following comments:
1. With high concentrations of Selenium reported in the water and the
applicant's suggestion that it is the property owner's responsibility to treat
their own potable water, some discussion is necessary per Section 4.91 A.5.lt
is suggested that "the discussion should contain a general discussion of the
process, the amount of waste water generated (if any), maintenance required
for a treatrnent system, and a general estimate of the costs of treatment;"2. The water "pumping rates and storage amounts should be verified against the
additional demand anticipated for irrigation;"
3. The 30,000 gallon lined pond proposed for fire protection has "relatively
junior priority in a repor0edly over-appropriated basin...The actual volume of
water that will be available for fire protection will generally be less than the
30,000 gallons and in some cases may be much less. The anticipated
fluctuations in the available volume of water should be reviewed by the
appropriate fire district per Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section
9.73;"
4. There is a discrepancy within the documents for allowable irrigated areas
(1,000 squffe feet per dwelling unit in the water report limits vs. 485 sq1yre
feet per dwelling unit in the "decree" and the "covenants,';
5. "The saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instability if
placed near the escarpment. The ISDS systems may also warrant a setback
from the escarpment. This should be verified with the geotechnical engineer;"
o
o
6
6. "The "Easements" Section 12 in the "Covenants" does not appear to allow for
any storm drainage conveyance. Note #11 on the plat seems to allow storm
drainage in this manner. Verifu that all drainage ways from up-gradient lots
are contained within dedicated drainage easements or include drainage within
the uses for the easements in the covenants and per Note #11 on the Pla!"
7. The depth of the fire protection pond is shallow. To prevent the pond from
growing completely over with wetland plants, it is suggested that the HOA
periodically maintain the pond to protect the proposed 30,000 gallons of fire
protection water;
8. The CDOT permit appears to have expired.
9. There is a contradiction in that the "Covenants" allows ADU's while
statements throughout the documents indicate that no ADU's will be
constructed;
10. The "Covenants" allow two (2) dogs per dwelling unit while Garfield County
regulations limits the number of dogs per dwelling unit to one (1). (See
Exhibit L)
The Applicant has since met with Mountain Cross Engineering to discuss these
concerns (See Exhibit N).
III. GENERAL RELATIONSIIIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proper$ is located within Study Area 3 which designates the property as
"Privately owned lands with site specific use limitations" on the proposed land use
designation map. This designation indicates that "limitations such as flood plain,
slope hazard, septic constraints, or surficial geology (mud flows, debris fan) are to be
evaluated at plan review." As a result, per appropriate review of said limitations, a
residential subdivision may be appropriate as contemplated by the 2000
Compiehensive Plan.
tV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGTILATIONS IN ARRD ZONTE DISTRICT
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the ARRD zone
district required zoning regulations
A. Proposed Uses
The Applicant proposes single-family residential dwelopment on six newly created
lots, one of which already has a single-family residence. The six residential lots are
contemplated as a "use by right" in the ARRD zone district and are therefore
consistent with the underlying zone district. For other uses, the applicant should
consult Section 3.02 of the Zonng Resolution. The applicant has proposed that no
Accessory Dwelling Units will be allowed within this development; however, the
"Covenants" are not consistent with this sentiment. In addition, a significant portion
of this propq+y is deed restricted to protect the associated wetlands.
7
B. Common Dimensional Reguirements
Lot Size / Slope: There are no slopes over 40%o on this property. In addition, all
proposed lots are over the 2 aqes minimurn lot size. This compiies with the 2 acres
minimum lot size in the ARRD zone.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%\
Minimum Setback:
Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from steet centerline or fifty
(50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: frfty (50) feet from
street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater;
Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1 12) the height of the principal
building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Heisht of Buildinss: Twenty-five (25) feet
C. Supplementary Lot Area Regulations
Generally speaking, Section 5.04.A2Q) requires that all lots must have at least a 1-
acre building envelope that contains slopes less than 40o/o. Smaller envelopes may be
approved by the Board so long as slope is adequately addressed. Note, while the
minimum lot size in the ARRD zone district is 2 acres, all of the proposed residential
lots will exceed the minimum lot size. ln addition, it appears there will be no
maximum slope issues.
V. APPLICABLE FOR PRELIN{INARY PLAN
A. Preliminarv PIan l\{ap as referenced in S4:50 of the Subdivision
Reeulations
StaffFindings: The Applicant's Preliminary Plan Map appears to meet the
requiremeuts as specified in the regulations.
B. Additional Information as referenced in S4:60 in the Subdivision
Regulations
StaffFindinqs: As is recommended by Mountain Cross Engineering, staffagrees that
the saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instability if placed near
the escarpment.
8
The Applicant has since met with Mountain Cross Engineering to discuss this issue.
The Applicant has agreed to update the covenants to require that Lots 2-6 install their
septic fields at least 50 feet away from the top of the bank. Staffconcurs that this is
satisfactory.
vt.SUPPLIMENTAL TION: S4:70 thru $4:94
A. Geolow and Soils
StaffFindings: A report of geotechnical findings for this property was conducted by
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, [nc. The report was conducted in July of 2002.
The proposed subdivision is located within mostly fallow irrigated pastures. Due to a
high water table, plat notes 12 and 13 require site specific foundations and ISDS.
The map designations for the various geologic units are:
o Man-Placed Fill
o Colluvium
o Alluvial Fan
o Creek Terrace
o Wasatch Formation
Following review of the repor! staff agrees with H-P Geotech that 'the property is
suitable for the proposed development based on geologic and geotechnical
conditions."
B. Vegetation
Staff Findines: A weed inventory and management plan prepared by Beach
Environmental, LLC has been submitted for this development. The weed inventory
and management plan were created in September of 2003. The report finds that there
are currently small amounts of noxious weeds on the property. However, with the
relocation of the access road and construction of five new homes on2-3 acre lots, the
proliferation of new weed communities is likely. The noxious weeds which currently
inhabit the property are:
1. Canada Thistle
2. Plumeless Thistle
3. Hoary Cress
4. Volunteer Rye
5. Field Bindweed
6. Tamarisk
The Dominant Vegetative Species of the area include: wheatgrass, fescues, timothy,
sweet clover, various peppergrasses, mustards, sedges, rushes, cottonwood, willow,
crested wheatgrass, bluegrass, orchard grass, brome, and juncus.
9
1
2
J
4
5
The revegetation plan prescribes local grasses, including:
Aiznna Fescue
Prairie Junegrass
Mountain Muhly
Indian Ricegrass
Timothy
Nodding Brome
Mountain Brome
Staff feels the noxious weed inventory and revegetation plan are adequate with the
following additional information prior to final plat in order to determine the amount
of security that will be held for revegetation: A map or information that quantifies
the are4 in terms of acres to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and
utility disturbances.
Vegetation Existing on Property
C. Wildlife
Staff Findings: A Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist was
submitted identifying types of wildlife that will be impacted by the proposed
subdivision. The list of wildlife is a follows:
6.
7.
l0
o Bald Eagle Winter Range
o Canada Goose Winter Rangeo Elk Winter Range
o Elk Overall Range
o Elk Summer Range
o Mule Deer Winter Ranger Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area. Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
o Mule Deer Overall Range
. Mule Deer Resident Population Areao Mule Deer Highway Crossing
o Native Fish @oundtail Chub, Speckled Dace, Flannel Mouth Sucker)o Wild Turkey Overall Range
o Wild Turkey Winter Range
The submitted list shows there is a number of wildlife species that could be affected
by humans as well as domesticated animals. The Applicants will need to be aware
of the wildlife and manage any domesticated animals to reduce impacts it may have
on wildlife. In addition, the applicant will need to address the o'Covenants" to
indicate that only one dog per dwelling unit is permitted under Garfield County
Zorung Regulations.
D. Drainage PIan
Staff Findines: A Drainage Plan was submitted for the Applicants by Boundaries
Unlimited dated June 10, 2003. This plan finds that none of the building envelopes
are located within the 100 year flood plain or near the top of the creek bank. The
building envelopes have been rearranged so that none of them are within the
designated wetland areas. The proposed access drive does traverse a portion ofthe
westernmost wetland area. The applicant has represented that a Nationwide Permit
has been applied for through the Army Corps of Engineers pertaining to the access
road which crosses the jwisdictional wetlands on the property. This permit has not
yet been issued.
This site is located within the Rifle Creek drainage basin. The estimated flows that
could af[ect the proposed residential lots are minor and will be short lived. Any
possible damage to buildings could be mitigated through a grading plan. Staff
concurs with the Colorado Geological Survey that there is a potential for flooding, as
is disclosed in plat note #1 1, between lots 1 and 2 as the western tributary crosses the
street and flows between the two lots. For onsite drainage, detention is not proposed
because of the relatively large lots sizes allowing natural diffirsion of minor flows
generated from the proposed lot improvements- The Summary of the plan is as
follows: "Addittonal storm runoff generated from the development of Creek Side
Estates Subdivtsion will be insignificant due to projects low density and few
impervious orees, and the fact that typical excess /lood irrigation flows would be
larger than most storm runoff events. Storm water detention is not necessary os
1l
Jlows leaving the site will be entering the RiJle Creek floodplain without fficting
any other properties. Individual site grading will be necessary to mitigate drainage
and /lood inigation impacts, "
Following discussions with Mountain Cross Engineering, the Applicant has agreed
to update the covenants to allow storm drainage conveyance along all property lines.
E. Utilitv PIan - Water
SAf,LFindings: Domestic Potable water will be provided by a domestic well, permit
# 266691to be augmented per Case No. 04CW99. Water is to be provided to six
lots for in-house use, and 485 square feet of lawn and garden for each lot. The
County typically uses a water usage calculation of 100 gallons per person per day for
a household of 3.5 persons or a total of 350 gallons a day per household.
Case No. 04CW99 will modifu the augmentation plan from Case No. 81CW56 in
order to provide waLer for six single-family residences, livestock watering of, up to
six anirnals, the irrigation of up to 485 square feet per lot, fire protection and pond
evaporation for the Sills Pond No. 1. Since Permit Number 266691was issued as a
monitoring well, a new permit is required prior to this well being used for the
proposed use. The decree provided has not been signed by the water judge and will
not be final until it has been signed by a water judge. According to the Division of
Water Resources, "Court records indicate that the decree was entered on October 14,
2006, and that the case was closed on October 17,2006." The proposed well location
is on the southem boundary of lot 2. The proposed 4" water line that will serve the 6
residential lots will run between Lots 1 and2, then under the access drive and loop at
the end of the cul-de-sac.
A 4 hour pump test was conducted by J&M Pump Company on December 7,2005.
The rate of 15 GPM was maintained throughout the 4 hour test. The maximum
drawdown was 0.67 ft and a l00o/o recovery was obtained within 3 minutes. The
Division of Water Resources states that "With sufficient storage capacity this well
should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use." The applicant is proposing
to use an existing 6,000 gallon domestic water storage tank, located in an easement
near the southerly edge of the property. The water is to be chlorinated at the storage
tank. It is estimated that this tank will maintain the 15 person commtrnity for 2.8
days.
Water quality samples were collected for the test. The lab test included analysis for
various inorganic chemicals, total dissolved solids and some of the physical
properties of the water. Coli form bacteria tests indicate bacteria were absent from
the sample. The water quality tests did detect high levels of Selenium, which is
determined by the EPA to be a health risk. The applicant states that "Each lot owner
will be responsible for individual testing and in-house treafrnent of their potable
water.'o Per Section 4.91 A.5. of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, staff
would like evidence that in house treatment of Selenium is the best approach versus
the use of a centralized treatment facility. A plat note (#20) has been placed on the
t2
plat advising that the water supplied in this development has a high Selenium
content.
Following discussions with Mountain Cross Engineering, the Applicant has agreed
to the following:
1. Use Reverse Osmosis (RO) systems within each home to remove Selenium from
water source;
2. lncrease the pond depth to 8 feet and reshape the pond to 52'by 52' surface area
and 3:1 side slopes. This will increase storage from 30,000 gallons to 57,000 gallons.
The covenants will be updated to reflect this change;
3. The covenants will be updated to reflect a limitation of 485 sqrure feet of irrigated
land per dwelling unit.
F. Utility Plan - Sanitary Sewer
Staff Findines: Wastewater treatrnent is proposed to serve each lot through the use
of an individual sewer disposal system (ISDS). The applicants are proposing the
ISDS be installed by each owner in accordance with all applicable ISDS regulations.
A percolation test was performed on the properfy resulting in a percolation rate
between 62 and 100 minutes per inch. According to the applicant, "Based on the
available information and test results, site conditions are marginally favorable, but
workable, for the instaltation of engineered ISDS's within the proposed
development. Each individual site must be retested at the time of building permit
application to determine the most suitable system design for that particular site." Plat
note#12 indicates that "Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, each lot will be
serviced by an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) to be designed by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Evapotranspiration systems
shall not be allowed."
Staff concurs with the recommendation made by Mountain Cross Engineering that
"the saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instability if placed
near the escarpment. The ISDS systems may also wa:rant a setback from the
escarpment. This should be verified with the geotechnical engineer."
Following discussions between the Applicant and Mountain Cross Engineering, the
covenants are to be updated to require a 50' setback for ISDS from the top of bank
on lots 2-6-
G. Fire Protection
Staff Findines: The Proposed subdivision is within the Rifle Fire Protection
District boundaries. No comments were received from the Rifle Fire Protection
District. The site is comprised primarily of "light" fuels, or grasses. The site also
contains "moderate" fuels, or shrubbery as well as "heavy" fuels, or trees. Most of
the building sites are in the "light" fuels area. The applicant is proposing the
following measures for fire protection and prevention:
13
1. A 30,000 gallon pond filled by the well which will have a dry hydrant
located at the end of Creek Side Drive;
2. lndividual propane tanks are to be placed in a location where they are not
subject to damage, and combustible materials are to be kept a minimum of
10 feet away;'
3. Trees greater than 15 feet in height at maturity shall have a minimum
spacing of 10 feet between the edges of the crown. Dead trees shall be
cleared and removed;
4. Spacing between clumps of brush and/or shrubs shall be 2.5 times the height
of the vegetation;
5. The marimum diameter of the brush and/or shrub clumps should be two
times the height of the vegetation measured at the crown of the vegetation;
6. All ladder fuels should be removed from under brush, shrubs and tree
canopies;
7. Non-combustible ground cover (gravel) should be placed under trees, brush
and shmbs to the edges of the crown, or the vegetation should be pruned to a
height of lO-feet above the ground or Yzthe height of the plant, whichever is
least;
8. Lawns should be kept to a ma,ximum height of 4 inches;
9. Brush should be removed around the perimeter of all residential structures
for a distance of 2.0 times the height of the brush or completely removed
within lO-feet of any residence and trimmed down to a heiglrt less than 5-
feet within Z0-feet of any residence.
Following discussions with the Applicant and Mountain Cross Engineering, the
Applicant has agreed to increase the pond depth to 8 feet and reshape the pond to 52'
by 52' surface area and 3:1 side slopes. This will increase storage from 30,000
gallons to 57,000 gallons. The covenants will be updated to reflect this change.
Following a review of the Ruling of the Referee, Case No. MCW99, it appears that
the applicant is only approved for 0.16 acres (50,000 gallons) of Storage Water
Rights to be used for fire protection. The applicant will need to satisfactorily address
this issue prior to final plat.
In additioru Staff recommends that language be added to the HOA Bylaws which
requires periodical cleaning of the fire protection pond. Without periodic cleaning of
the pond, it is likely to become engulfed with wetland plants which will limit the fne
protection attributes of the pond.
H. Road/Access Plan
Staff Findings: The access to the subdivision will come from a main entrance offof
State Highway 325. An intemal dead end public road is proposed to provide access
to each of the 6 lots. This road is configured to terminate with a cul-de-sac. The
urccess road is to be dedicated as a public road but will be maintained by the HOA.
Using the ITE Trip Generation manual, 6 residential lots will generate approximately
14
57.42 tnps at 9.57 trips per dwelling which requires the all internal road be designed
to the "Semi Primitive" standard pursuant to Section 9:35 of the Subdivision
Regulations. This road type requires a 4O-foot right-of-way, two 8-foot driving lanes,
Z-foot shoulder widths, 4-foot ditch widths, and a gravel driving surface. The cul-
de-sac is approximately 600 linear feet and appears to comply with the required
standards. It appears the proposed internal road has been designed to this standard.
Dedication to the public of this internal road will be required. Maintenance
however, will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association and
memorialized on the final plat as a plat note.
The Applicant is required to obtain a "Notice to Proceed" from CDOT prior to Final
Plat.
I. Easements
The Applicant will need to delineate, legally describe, and convey all easements
shown on the plat to the Homeowners Association. This dedication needs to be in a
form acceptable to the County Attorneys Office and transfer shall occur at the time
of recording the final plat. These easements shall include, but are not limited to all
drainage easements, shared water system easements (domestic wells and water
storage taxk), storm-water drainage easements, and all intemal roads (which will be
dedicated to the public on the face of the final plat).
l5
J. Assessment / Impact Fees:
The properly is located in Traffic Study Area 5 and is not subject to road impact
fees.
The development is located in the RE-2 School District which will require a standard
impact fee of $200 per new lot. This fee will be paid at final plat and included as a
component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA).
VII: STA4F RECOMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the proposed
Preliminary Plan request subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony
in the public hearings before the Planning & Znnlng Commission and Board of
County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered
by the Board of County Commissioners.
Access and lnternal Roads
2. According to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), there are site
distance issues with the access to the proposed Creek Side Development. The
Applicant shall obtain a Notice to Proceed to work within the CDOT right-of-way
prior to final plat.
3. Right of way dedication shall be at the time of final platting. A plat note using the
standard dedication certificate language as set for by Garfield County shall be
used.
Fire Protection
4. The Applicant shall update the application including covenants, plats and profile
to reflect an 8-foot depth, 52' by 52' srxface arc4 3:l slope and overall 57,000
gallon capacity fire protection pond.
5. The Applicant shall verifu that adequate legal water supply is available for the
proposed 57,000 gallon fire protection pond prior to final plat. If adequate tegal
water supply is not available for the 57,000 gallon fire protection pond, the
Appiicant shall obtain legal water rights prior to final plat.
Wetlands
6. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the "Wetland
Restoration Plan" prepared by Beach Environmental, LLC contained in the
Application.
16
7. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary wetland permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers for the access road and any other disturbance areas prior to final plat.
Revegetation
8. The Applicant shall provide a security for revegetation in the amount to be
determined by the County Vegetation Manager (based on disturbed acreage) for
all areas to be disturbed in connection with the final plat and the obligations of
said security which security shall be incoqporated into the Subdivision
Irnprovements Agreement. The security shall be held by Garfield County until
vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation
Standards in the Garfield County Vegetation Management Plan.
9. The Applicant shall provide a Soil Management Plan that includes 1) provisions
for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or
aggregate piles, and 3) a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or
stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. The Applicant shall
prepare this plan to be submitted with the frnal plat documents so that the County
can review prior to final plat approval.
Soils / Geotechnical Issues
10. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the
"Preliminary- Geotechnical Study" prepared by HP Geotech contained in the
Application into the covenants.
Drainaee
11. The covenants shall be updated to allow storm drainage conveyance along all
property lines.
Individual Sewage Disposal System
12. T\e Applicant shall incorporate the recorlmendations contained in the "Creek
Side Estates Individual Sewage Disposal System" report prepared by HP Geotech
contained in the Application.
13. The Applicant shall update the covenants to require a 50-foot setback from the top
of bank for all Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) for Lots2-6.
lrrisation
14. The Covenants shall be updated to limit each dwelling unit to 485 square feet of
irrigated land each.
Easements
'17
15. All easements of record shall be shown on the final plat.
Impact Fees
16. The applicants shall make a cash payment inJieu of school land dedication of
$200 per lot at the time of final plat.
Covenants
lT.Update the Protective Covenants to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units.
18. Update the Protective Covenants to restrict the number of dogs per dwelling unit
to one (1) as is required by Garfreld County Regulations.
Plat Notes
19. A plat note shall be placed on the final plat stating: "To mitigate fire hazards, each
lot owner shall incorporate and maintain a defensible wildfire zone as set forth in
the "Colorado State Forest Service Publication 6.302"
20. A plat note shall be placed on the final plat stating: "Eachdwelling unit is limited
to 485 square feet of irrigated land each."
21. A plat note shall be placed on the frnal plat stating: "I.{o accessory dwelling units
are permitted within the Creek Side Estates subdivision."
l8
GARFIELD COi.INTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: September 27,2006
Comments Due: October 19,2006
Name of application: Creekside Estates
Sent to Garfield Countv Road & Bridse Dent
Garfietd County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff contact: David Pesnichak
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160i
Fax: 970-384-3410
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield Countv Road & Bridse Department has n o obiections to
as
chnrrlrl ben cnrl chonccd that Qtoro IJi -1"II/q \7 Rned rxrhinh325 is not Porcu Creek
is Garfield Countv R 325 south and w esf of Rifle
Name of review agency:Garfield Countv Road and ge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date October 2,2006
Revised 3/30/00
Creekside Estates
David Pesnichak
Page 1 of 1
David - Thank you for the opportunity to review Creekside Estates which access on State Highway 325 for sixunits. CDoT has issued an access permit for the proposed use. However, the permittee lH71i* sittsy has notobtained a Notice to Proceed to work within the CDOT right of way. There is some issues with site distance.Their permit will expire July 5, 2007 unless finish construition of the access.
lf you have any questions, please let me.
From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent; Friday, October 06, 2006 2:19 plr/
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: Drayton, Devin
Subject: Creekside Estates
Dan Roussin
Colorado Department of Transpoftation
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222Souih 6th, Suite 100
Grand Junction, Co 81501
970-248-7230
970-248-7294 FAX
ST ATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Deportment of Noturol Resources
1J13 Shermon Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorodo 8020J
Ptrone (303) 866-26r l
FAX (t0J) 866-2461
October 9,2006
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8t Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Legal:NWSW, Sec. 19, T5S, R92W, 6ft P.M.
il ;. ':-*Y;r"=ifl
,l L. -.;
(iir L &'ll\it
GA-07-0004
;.r i-"r,i.;' ; -t . -r'l jluli'ri)
DEPARTMENTOF
NATT]RAL
RESOURCES
Bill 0wens
Governor
Russell Georqe
Ixecutive Director
Vince Motthews
Division Director ond
Stote Geologist
RE: Creek Side Estates Subdivision Geologic Hazard Review - Resubmittal
Dear Mr. Pesnichak
Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill
35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials submitted by your office. The Colorado Geological
Survey (CGS) had previously commented on an earlier version of the development plan in a letter dated
February 23,2004 to Fred Jarman (CGS LLIR #GA-04-0009). The CGS has reviewed the revised
development preliminary planand offers the following observations for your consideration.
The preliminary plat references only the earlier 2002IJF Geotech report so no additional
geotechnical data or investigations have been conducted. We have reviewed the new site plan and find
that changes are related to the jurisdictional wetlands that were previously tampered with during the
original application. The other change is that the offset of building envelopes for the new lots now
conform to the HP Geotech 50-foot offset recommendation from the creek bank. Site specific
foundation and septic systems are mandated in plat notes 12 and I 3 . Our only other concern is the
potential for flooding from the western tributary from where is crosses the street and flows between lots
I and 2. As discussed earlier, there is a detention structure in the property west of the county road of
unknown capacity and integrity Plat note #11 discloses the flood potential for lots 1 and}.
Provided the site-specific foundations investigation are conducted and ISDS design meet state
and county regulatory requirements, the CGS finds no inherent geologic condition or hazard that would
preclude the development as planned. If you have any questions please contact this offrce at (303) 866-
355 1 or e-mail: jonathan.white@state.co.us
Sincerely,
L.
Senior Engineering Geologist
MEMORANDUM
To: David Pesnichak
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Creek Side Estates Preliminary PIan
Date: October 16,2006
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Plan. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
o lnventory and mapping-The applicant has mapped and inventoried the properfy.
Weed Management-The applicant has provided a weed management plan for the
inventoried noxious weeds. .
Revegetation
a
a
a The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please
provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of
acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility
disturbances. This information wlll help determine the amount of security that will
held for revegetation.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County
Commissioners will designate a member of their staffto evaluate the reclamation prior to
the release ofthe security.
Soil Plan
o The applicant has addressed soil management on the miscellaneous detail sheet.
Pond and Mosquito Management
o The applicant has addressed mosquito concerns on the plat notes.
October 79,2006
MOUNTAIN EROSS
ENGINEERING, INE.
Crvt nuo Eruvtnouuruur Corusulrtnc nruo DtsrcN
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning
108 8th Sffeet, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
I
RE: Review of Preliminary Plan Submittal for Creekside Estates
Dear David:
A review has been performed of the documents for the Preliminary Plan Submittal for Creekside Estates
Subdivision. The package was found to be thorough and well organized. The following comments,
questions, or concerns were generated:
Water Plan
1. There is reported to be a high concentration of selenium in the potable water source. The
applicant proposes to have the individual lot owners test and treat their own potable water.
Some discussion on the parameters for the treatment of selenium would be in order to determine
the quality of the water per the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 4:91.A.5. The
discussion should contain a general discussion of the process, the amount of waste water
generated (if any), maintenance required for a treatment system, and a general estimate of the
costs of treatment.
2. The pumping rate from the well and the storage tank volume only discusses the rates and
volume associated with potable water. The well and storage tank is anticipated to provide
irrigation water as well. The pumping rates and storage amounts should be verified against the
additional demand anticipated for irri gation.
3. The 30,000 gallon lined pond is proposed as a source of fire protection. The pond has a
relativelyjunior priority in a reportedly over-appropriated basin; during dry years, it is probable
that the pond will be filled during the winter and early spring and may not have any diversions
again until the fall. The evaporative losses from the pond are estimated to be 30" (April to
September). The pond is designed for a maximum depth of 48" with the dry hydrant intake
l<rcated 72" front the bottom. The actual volume of water that wiii be avaiiabie for fire
protection will generally be less than the 30,000 gallons and in some cases may be much less.
The anticipated fluctuations in the available volume of water should be reviewed by the
appropriate fire district per Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 9:73.
4. There is a discrepancy within the documents conceming the allowable inigated areas. The
water report limits the area to 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit. It is limited to 485 square
feet per dwelling unit in the "Decree" and the "Covenants".
Individual S Disposal Svstem:
5. The setbacks from the river bank escarpment have only been concemed with buildings. The
saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instability if placed near the
escarpment. The ISDS systems may also warrant a setback from the escarpment. This should
be verified with the geotechnical engineer.
826 1 l2 Crand Avenue . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
,EXfllBlT.,
Creekside Estates Page 2 of 2 t0/19t06
Storm Drainage:
6. The "Easements" Section 12 rnthe "Covenants" does not appear to allow for anystorm drainage
conveyance. Note #1 1 on the plat seems to allow storn drainage in this manner. Verify that all
drainage ways from up-gradient lots are contained within dedicated drainage easements or
include drainage within the uses for the easements in the covenants and per the first part ofNote
#11 on the plat.
Plan and Profile Sheets:
7 . The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the
proposed water depths wetland plants are to be expected and without maintenance engulf the
entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use.
The HOA will need to periodically maintain the pond to protect the volume proposed.
Attachments:
8. The CDOT permit appears to have expired. A valid permit will be necessary at the time ofFinal
Plat.
9. There is a discrepancy between the allowance for ADUs in the "Covenants" section 3.5a and the
statements throughout the documents that no ADUs will be constructed.
10. There is a discrepancy between the allowable number of dogs in the Covenants (two) and
Garfield County Regulations (one).
Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Cross Inc.
tl
Chris Hale, PE
C: Deric Walter; Boundaries Unlimited, [nc.
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 \A Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs. CO 8l 601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970,945.5558 www.ntountaincross-eng.conl
SIATE OF COLORADC
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Naturdl Resources
1 3 1 3 Sherman Stree! Room 81 8
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
www. water.state.co, us
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning
'108 8th St Ste 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE Creek Side Estates Preliminary Plan
NW%SW%, Sec. 19, T5S, R92W,6th PM
Water Drvision 5, Water District 39
Dear Mr. Pesnichak
We have reviewed the additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to
subdivide a 15.37-acre parcel into 6 lots, each of which is to contain one single-family dwelling.
Water is to be provided for in-house domestic uses and the irrigation of 485 square feet of lawn
and garden for each lot. The applicant proposes to provide the water supply through an existing
well (permit no. 26669'1) to be augmented per Case No. 04CW99. The lots will be served by
individual septic systems. The submittal also states that Robinson Ditch irrigation water rights may
be used on the lots.
Case No. 04CW99 modifies the augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 81CW56, and
provides water for domestic use inside six single-family dwellings, livestock watering of up to six
animals, the irrigation of up to 485 sq. ft. per lot, fire protection and pond evaporation for the Sills
Pond No. 1. The submittal included a copy of the proposed decree for 04CW99, which was
signed by the water referee on July 19, 2006, but the decree is not final until it is signed by the
water judge. Court records indicate that the decree was entered on October 14,2006, and that
the case was closed on October 17,2006.
The current permit for the well does not allow for operation pursuant to the plan for
augmentation. Permit No. 266691 was issued for the Sills Well No. 1 as a monitoring well. Thus,
a new permit is required prior to such use. A well permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(2)
and the plan for augmentation decreed in Case No. 04CW99 may be available, and although the
applicant has submitted an application to expand the use of the Sills Well No. 1, there is no
guarantee that the well permit can be issued.
The December 7,2005 report by J & M Pump, lnc. indicates that the Sills Well No. 1
produced an average of 15 gallons per minute over a 4-hour period, that the drawdown was
0.67 feet and that the 100% recovery occurred within 3 minutes. With sufficient storage
capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use.
Note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use,
and a change of water rights application may be necessary to allow irrigation of lands that were
not historically irrigated.
Based on the above, the State Engineerfinds pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(hXl),
C.R.S., thatthe proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injuryto
decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as the applicant obtains and maintains a valid
well permit and the plan for augmentation is decreed and is operated according to its decreed
Bill Ovens
Covernor
Russell Ceorge
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, PE.
State Engineer
David Pesnichak
Creek Side Estates Preliminary plan ctobeo r 18, 2006
Page2
terms and conditions. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please
contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Craig M. Li S,P.E
Water Resources Engineer
CMUCJL: Creek Side Estates iii.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
October 19,2006
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning
108 8th Sffeet, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Review of Preliminary Plan Submittal for Creekside Estates
Bot,mdaries Llnlimite d Inc. Respon,te:; in itolic RED uncl u.s' dil;cus:;ed in our meeting on I I -25'06.
Dear David:
A review has been performed ofthe documents for the Preliminary Plan Submittal for Creekside Estates
Subdivision. The package was found to be thorough and well organized. The following comments,
questions, or concerns were generated:
Water Plan:
1- There is reported to be a high concentration of selenium in the potable water source. The
applicant proposes to have the individual lot owners test and treat their own potable water. Some
discussion on the parameters for the treatment of selenium would be in order to determine the
quality of the water per the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 4:91.A-5' The
discussion should contain a general discussion of the process, the amount of waste water
generated (if any), maintenance required for a treatment system, and a general estimate of the
costs of treatm ent. Sclcniurn i,s a ntclal clus'sified bt' lha EPA as u Pha're II Inorganic v'ltich'vphen
ingestcd in exces',r quantitie,s' mqt leud huir und.fittgernail changes; damage t.o thc peripheral
tlct-r)ott,\,ev,stetl't; ./utiguc and irritahilitl'; u'kidnq., and lit,er damugc. Rentottal of',seleniunt i,t
per/onned lhrough rel)ersc osruosi.r (RO) or y)asler di.stillation. RO i,r lhe more ctt,sl c.ffeclit'c
solulion. RO 4ryicaltt, require,; a vtaste production of 25'% to 5()% tllore v'aler lhan is nead.
Therc.ftire. treatment tt the.fult 2, t 00 gattons of per dq, through a central.facilifiv,ould resull in
525 to 1.050 gallons of concentrated ytaste y)(tter thar \uould havc to be returncd back to the
groundutaler'. Sincc :;eleniunt i,s regtlated.frn'drinkingv)aler, then treatntenl is cnh' necessotv at
clrinking,tources. suc:h as kitchen./uuccts, drinking.fZtucet,r or ice maker,s. A typical re,sidence
reguire,s 1A-25 gallons of utater pet" day 1s meel thcse needs. Through the u,,se o.f individual RO
system,\'the aruount of concentratecl vtasle could be reduced lo 7lo l3 gallons per da1, per
residence (12 to 78 gallon.s.fitr the :;uhdivision) u,hich cctuld he relurned to the groundvtaler
through each individual .seytagc disposal .\;t)slenl. Tlte impad tu lhc envirorunent woul.d he
signi/icantl1, less b.t' using indittiduat RO lreatmenl $tstems in,ulead o.f a central lrcaln'tent
.lacilin,
2. The pumping rate from the well and the storage tank volume only discusses the rates and volume
associated with potable water. The well and storage tank is anticipated to provide irigation
water as well. The pumping rates and storage amounts should be verified against the additional
demand anticipated for irrigation. Ba,seclon Table l-Consurtrptivc U,se, Creekside E,stalas gitan in
thc Water [)it;. 5 Ruling ctf'Referee, the peak irrigation dcmand v,ill occur in .lune and require ,s
10,192 gallon,simctnth (0.0322 Ac-li*13560 c../),'Ac-ft*7..l8gulic.fl or 350 g1td. There./bre, u'hen
adtled to lhc donte'stic dentand o./'2,100 gtd the doih' 5lsn"nd i':2'150 gpd' Tlti's tvould 2'72
Creekside Estates Page 2 of2 r0t19t06
hours q,f pmnp time at l5 gpm and the exisling 6,00[) gallon waler tonk should hat,c 2.1dqts ty'
:;lorugc.
3. The 30,000 gallon lined pond is proposed as a source of fire protection. The pond has a
relatively junior priority in a reportedly over-appropriated basin; during dry years, it is probable
that the pond will be filled during the winter and early spring and may not have any diversions
again until the fall. The evaporative losses from the pond are estimated to be 30" (April to
September). The pond is designed for a maximum depth of 48" with the dry hydrant intake
located 12" from the bottom. The actual volume of water that will be available for fire protection
will generally be less than the 30,000 gallons and in some cases may be much less. The
anticipated fluctuations in the available volume of water should be reviewed by the appropriate
fire district per Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 9:73. The pond depth v,ill be
increased lo 8' and reshoped into a 52'x52' sur"face areu and 3: I sidc .slopes. Thi,s v,ill resul.l in
a.t'ull ,rtorage o/-57.000+ gallons. The pond v,ill need to he re.filled near"lhe enclof .lul1,v,ith the
clitch watcr, i/'utaiktble, or u,ell werter to cf/i;et the cvaporatiste ktsses and ntaintain 30,000
gallon.s o.f avuilahle wuter througltoul the year. Thi,s inforntation v,ill bc ctdded to thc Crnenant,s'.
4. There is a discrepancy within the documents concerning the allowable irrigated areas. The water
report limits the area to 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit. [t is limited to 485 square feet per
dwellingunitinthe"Decree"andthe"Covenants". lrrigcrtionv,illbclimitedotJli5square.fect
per tlu'clling unit.
Individual Sewaee Disnosal Svstem:
5. The setbacks from the river bank escarpment have only been concerned with buildings. The
saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instability if placed near the
escarpment. The ISDS systems may also warrant a setback from the escarpment. This should be
verified with the geotechnical engineer. The Covenants' shall bc updated lo requirc Lctrs 2-6 to
install lheir seplic.fields'at least JQ'oytsy.fi'om the top of the hank.
Storm Drainage:
6. The "Easements" Section 12 in the "Covenants" does not appear to allow for any storm drainage
conveyance. Note #l I on the plat seems to allow storm drainage in this manner. Verifu that all
drainage ways from up-gradient lots are contained within dedicated drainage easements or
include drainage within the uses for the easements in the covenants and per the first part ofNote
#l I on the plat. Thc Oovenant,s shall be updated to allotr sl.onn drainage convq)ancc along all
propcrtl.' linc,s'.
Plan and Profile Sheets:
7. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the
proposed water depths wetland plants are to be expected and without maintenance engulf the
entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use.
The HOA will need to periodically maintain the pond to protect the volume proposed. ls
mentioned, the dcpth ofthc pond shall be increased to 8-feel. Thc Ctnenants shallbe updctted to
requirc the HOA lo lintit the growth of'ocluatic vegetation.
MOTJNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 8 160 I
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
Attachments:
Creekside Estates Page 3 of 2 t0lt9l06
8. The CDOT permit appears to have expired. A valid permit will be necessalT at the time of Final
Plat. A neu' CDOT permit u)ar^ rcceived 5i17/06 and relurncd v,ith pu-vmcnt (t,/20/06.
g. There is a discrepancy between the allowance for ADUs in the "Covenants" section 3.5a and the
statements throughout the documents that no ADUs will be constructed. No ADU's will be
allov,ed. The Covenant,s shall hc updated.
10. There is a discrepancy between the allowable number of dogs in the Covenants (two) and
Garfield County Regulations (one). The Cot,urunt,t v,ill hc ultdated lrt allov' onc dog.
Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments'
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Chris Hale, PE
C: Deric Walter, Boundaries Unlimited,Inc'
Resprmscn'hy:
Deric J. Walter, PE
MOTINTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC'
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826t/zCtrand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID PESNICHAK _ SENIOR PLANNER
FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - WESTERN SLOPE CONSULTING LLC
SI]BIECT: CREEK SIDE ESTATES
DATE: 1215/2006
CC: TOM I{EUE& DERIC WALTER
David, I am following up on our conversation today about the status of a public hearing date
before the Board of County Commissioners on Creek Side Estates Preliminary Plan. I am
attaching a copy of a letter from Deric Walter at Boundaries Unlimited responding to the
"oncorri identified by County Engineer Chris Hale at Mountain Cross Engineering. I believe
these responses address the items/conditions thatthe county planning staffwanted addressed prior
to setting a hearing date before the County Commissioners. I am also including a bullet list of
items thit *"." add."ssed in the staff report for the planning commission meeting. That list
includes the responses that we offered the planning commission at the meeting and the current
status or proposed item resolution timeframe for each condition/issue.
Please let me know as soon as possible if there is anything that was not addressed, so that the
item can be remedied and we can get a hearing date before the Commissioners on Preliminary
Plan. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Staff Condition Response Status
CDOT Issues
Have current CDOT permit & willacquire
Notice to Proceed for Final Plat.
Will Complete with FinalPIat
ROW dedication at Final
Plat
Dedication at Final Plat & will use County
Certificate language
Will Complete with Final Plat
Meet with County Engineer
& resolve concerns Will complete priorto BOCC Mtg Complete - See Letter from
Boundaries Unlimited
Incorpor4te
recommendations of wetland
restoration plan
Recommendations will be incorporated Will Complete with Final Plat
Provide security for
revegetation
Will be included in SIA Will Complete with Final Plat
Provide soil management
plan
Plan will be submitted for approval prior to
Final Plat
Will Complete with FinalPlat
Incorporate
recommendations of HP
Geotech
Will be included with Final Plat Will Complete with Final Plat
Incorporate drainage plan for
Creek Side Estates Will be included with Final Plat Will Complete with Final Plat
Incorporate HP Geotech
ISDS recommendations Will be included with Final Plat Will Complete with Final Plat
Resolve County Engineer's
l0l19106 concerns
Will work to resolve prior to BOCC meeting
Complete - See Letter from
Boundaries Unlimited
Evidence on in-house VS
central Selenium treafrnent
Will discuss wlP&Z & work to resolve prior
to BOCC meeting
Complete - See Letter from
Boundaries Unlimited
Show easements of record on
frnal plat Will be included with Final Plat Will Complete with Final Plat
Payment of school impact
fees
Fees will be paid at Final Plat Will Complete with Final Plat
Revise covenants on ADUs Covenants to be revised prior to BOCq Mtg Will Complete with Final Plat
Revise covenants on number
ofdogs Covenants to be revised prior to BOCC Mtg Will Complete with Final Plat
Plat note regarding fue
hazard mitigation
(Publication 6.302
Plat note will be included and covenants will
include additional language on ftre hazard
mitigation.
Will Complete with Final Plat
2
FRON : l'lountatnCrossEng, Inc FRX N0. r9789455558 Jan. 213
MOU
Jatruary 3,2007
Mr, David Pc.snichak
Garfi eld County Planning
108 8'n Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 8l601
REr Rgview of Prellmlnrry Plan suhmrttrr for creekride Entates
: Dear David:
ENGINEERING,. tNE.
:Crvn nuo EwrnoruurNrer CoNsutnuc mro Drslcu
A review lius been performcd of the reflponse }etter reoeivcd November 2g,.2006 from Boundaries
Unlimited for thc Preliminary Plan Submittal for Creekside Entates. Provided all the modifrcations
are ircorporated as discusscd in their: conespondence, all questions, concerns, ot comments have
bccn addressed sati sfactorily,
Feel frcc to call if any o{'the ubove needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments
Sincerely,
M Cross gineering,Inc;
Chris Hale,
C: M.t. Deric Walter, Boundrrries Unlimited
az61/Z Grand Avenue . Clenwood Springs, CO 81601PHt 97n.q4E (1i44 r EAv, tr.tn ^t.'ts-.^