HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 11.08.2006Exhibits for Public Hearing held on November 8, 2006
Mail ReceiA
Proof of PublicationB
Garfield Count Subdivision ofl as amendedC
Garfield Resolution of 1978, as amendedD
Garfield ,hensive Plan of 2000E
F
Staff MemorandumG
Letter from Jake Mall of GarCo Road and Dated 912112006H
Email from Dan Roussin of CDOT, Dated 1 0t6t2006I
Letter from Jonathan White of Colorado , Dated 101912006J
Letter from Steve of GarCo V Dated 1011612006K
Letter from Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Dated 1011912006L
Letter from Craig Lis of the Colorado of the State Engineer, Dated
10n812006
OfficeM
PC 11-8-2006 DP
PROJECT INFORMATION AI{D STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICATION:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
ENGII{EER:
ST]RYEYOR:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
SIZE:
EXISTING ZOITTING:
Preliminary Ptan for the Creek Side Estates
Subdivision
Mark Sills
Mark Sills
Boundaries Unlimited, Inc.
Tuttle Surveying Services, [nc.
Four Miles Norttr of the City of Rifle on
State Highway 325
Sills Well No. I - Permit No. 266691
ISDS
15.37 acres (6lots proPosed)
A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural
Density)
I. GENERAL PROJECT INT'ORMATION
A. Property DescriPtion
The proposed subdivision is located approximately 4 miles north of Rifle on State
Hign--wai 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 Higlrway 325 and is
zoned ARRD. The tbpogaphy is generally gentle and sloping down from Higlrway
325 to Rifle Creek.
-fheri is one residence currently on the property which is
proposed to become Lot 6. Much of the eastern edge of the property abutting Rifle
Creek is within the 100 year floodplain.
The existing drive from Highway 325 isproposed to be relocated to the north in order
to facilitate the develop*ent of proposed Lot I as well as facilitate site distance
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
I
southwest corner of the property in proposed Lot 1; another is located along the
southernmost boundary oftt. property as a 20' wide water system utility R'O'W'
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: I" : 2000'
2
c RH4K'3i DE "is'I'A'['HS
A RESUBDIYIEIOI-{ OF I.,O1'S I THBOUCH .5 ANt} COMMON "qFEA, ITLOCK E, TTIFI'E CREtrK H'{NCII SUBDIVISION'- "A "pARCEt-" of t,aND iN iof S, SEC?loN 19, TOI'NSHIP 5 SoUTIi, RAN
TrEST 0F T}IItr 6T'1I P'Id. GARFIII.D COI]N,IY, C0LORADO
SHEF]T 2 OF 2
FIRST ITILINC
GE 92
.ffiilq* rfi*
5;;;;l.
Eld 1r
I
i
\
)
ii r]le{b * }. r.&-. r Mi /.' $ftGMAa/ Fe.my'
i/i
f $,
et
/
t
:--..-_
t
OIIAPIIIq FCAIE
lilBt
BME ffiM Mm8Brru{l-*
flx
cg*l{
l,'. ts@B Err&
J ts\f . str
, sE{7Sr gf
tsrr
I !.fl'af a ,n1*
n {!ffiitf ,h.a
I rqs'lfi &.s
I
I
TT]T'II,fl $UITVEYI}iG SERV]ONS" INC.
8UB LII"AKIE A\'EliUfl, STE t0f
GLENY'00n SPnlliGS" Co [i18s1
s7U.S28.C708
.d r.cf i-l' lll9r;. .it
! t4 rri
LOT I
i'-'oT nr:
cri
)
Ca:s
I
B. Proposed Use
The subject property is 15.37 acres. The owner is proposing to divide that land into 6
parcels. Thelargest of the 6 parcels is 3.086 acres. The other lots will be 2.834,2.402,
2.'178,2.248, Z.OZZ 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 applicants
are also ptopoiirg to use an above ground pond to be used for fire protection, which
will be nU"O Uy-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 on March 10,
ZOO4. 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:
4
II.
1. revised adjacent ownership list;
2. updates to the application narative;
3. updated mineral ownerAessee list;
4. revised preliminary Plats;
5. revised information on physical and legal water supply;
6. executed and approved CDOT access permit;
7. revisedcovenants.
REFERRALS
Staff has referred the application to the following State agencies, municipalities
and/or County departmenG 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
Rille Fire Protection District: No Comments
RE-2 Schoot 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 rigfut-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 injury to decreed
;"t* rights, and is aiequate, so long as the applicant obtains and maintains a valid
well perinit and the plan-for augmentation is decreed and is operated according to its
decreed terms and conditions." (See Exhibit M)
Colorado Geologic Suruey: The CGS expressed concem of flooding from the
westem tributary-from where it flows between lots 1 arld 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 geotogicA condition or haz-atd that woutd preclude the development as
planned." (See Exhibit J)
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Garfield Corurty Road and Bridge
expressed no objlction to this development since the access is offColorado Highway
325, and had the following comments:
o State Highway 325 is NOT Porcupine Creek Road. Porcupine Creek Road is a
County Road south and west of Rifl". The appropriate changes should be
5
a
made.
All maintenance and repair of the road to this development will NOT be the
responsibility of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. (See
Exhibit H)
Garfield County Vegetation: Garfield County Vegetation Management indicated
that:
o Noxious Weed Inventory and Mapping has been completed;
o The applicant has submitted a weed management plan;
o 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
arid utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of
security that will be held for revegetation;"
o The applicant has addressed soil management;
o The applicant has addressed mosquito concerns. (See Exhibit K)
Mountain Cross Engineering: Mountain Cross Engineering has submitted 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. ft
is suggested that "the discussion should contain a general discussion of the
process, the amount of waste water generated (if any), maintenance required
fof a treatment 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 reportedly 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.J3;"
4. There is a discrepancy within the documents for allowable irrigated areas
(1,000 square feet per dwelling unit in the water report limits vs. 485 square
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;"
6. "The "Easements" Section 12 in the "Covenants" does not appeal to allow fOr
any storm drainage conveyance. Note #11 on the plat seems to allow storm
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 Note #11 on the Plat;"
6
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
perioAicatty 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 contradiition 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)
County Attorney: No ResPonse.
ilI. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within Study Area 3 which designates the property as
..priviteiy owned lands with site specific use limitations" on the proposed land use
designation map. This designation indicates that "limitations such as flood plain,
slopi 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
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ARRD ZONE DISTRICT
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the ARRD zone
district required zor,ing regulations.
A.Uses
The Applicant proposes single-family residential development 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 zoning Resolution. The applicant has proposed that no
Aicessory Dwelling Units will be allowed within this development; however, the
"Covenants" are noi consistent with this sentiment. In addition, a significant portion
of this property is deed restricted to protect the associated wetlands.
B. Common Dimensional Requirements
Lot Size / Slope: There are no slopes over 4OVo on this property. In addition, all
p-p"*d lrtr *" over the 2 acres minimum lot size. This complies with the 2 acres
minimum lot size in the ARRD zone.
7
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (157o)
Minimum Setback:
Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty
(50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (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 (lt}) the height of the principal
building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Heieht of Buildines: Twenty-five (25) feet
C. Supplementarv Lot Area Regulations
Generally speaking, Section 5.04.02(2) requires that all lots must have at least a 1-
acre building
"nu"tope
that contains slopes less than 4O%o. Smaller envelopes may be
approved Uy ttre 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 as well it appears there will be no maximum
slope issues.
v APPLICABLE REOUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN
A. Preliminary Plan Map as referenced in $4:50 of the Subdivision
Regulations
Staff Findings: The applicants' Preliminary Plan Map appears to meet the
requirements as specified in the regulations.
B. Additional Information as referenced in $4:60 in the Subdivision
Regulations
Staff Findings: As is recommended by Mountain Cross Engineering, staff agrees that
the saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instability if placed near
the escarpment. The applicant should consult a geotechnical engineer prior to a.
hearing *itf, tn" noarA of County Commissioners to verify that an ISDS setback is or
is not necessary in order to ensure security of the creek banks.
8
VL SUPPLIMENTAL INFORMATION: $4:70 thru $4:94
A. Geolosv and Soils
Staff Findings: A report of geotechnical findings for this property was conducted by
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 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
. Coiluvium
o Alluvial Fan
o Creek Terrace
o Wasatch Formation
Following review of the report, staff agrees with H-P Geotech that "the property is
suitable for the proposed development based on geologic and geotechnical
conditions."
B. Veeetation
Staff Findines: A weed inventory and management plan prepared by Beach
EnvironmentaL, LLC which 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 on 2-3
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.
The revegetation plan prescribes local grasses, including:
1. Arrzona Fescue
2. Prairie Junegrass
3. Mountain Muhly
9
4. Indian Ricegrass
5. Timothy
6. Nodding Brome
7. 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 securiiy that will be held for revegetation: A map or information that quantifies
the area, in terms of acres to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and
utility disturbances.
C. Wildlife
Staff Findines: A Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist was
*b.itt"d id"rtifying types of wildlife that will be impacted by the proposed
subdivision. The list of wildlife is a follows:
o Bald Eagle Winter Range
o Canada Goose Winter Range
o EIk Winter Range
o Elk Overall Range
o Elk Summer Range
o Mule Deer Winter Range
10
o Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
o Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
o Mule Deer Overall Range
o Mule Deer Resident Population Area
o Mule Deer Highway Crossing
o Native Fish (Roundtail 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. ln addition, the applicant will need to address the "Covenants" to indicate
that only one dog per Owetting unit is permitted under Garfield County Zoning
Regulations.
D. Drainase Plan
Staff Findings: A Drainage Plan was submitted for the applicants by Boundaries
trntimitea 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
designa:ted wetland areas. The proposed access drive does traverse a portion of the
westernmost wetland area.
This site is located within the Rifle Creek drainage basin. The estimated flows that
could affect the proposed residential lots are minor and will be short lived. Any
possible damage to buildings could be mitigated through a grading plan. Staff
"orr"u.,
with the Colorado Geological Survey that there is a potential for flooding, as
is disclosed in plat note #11, 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 diffusion of minor flows
generated from the proposed lot improvements. The Summary of the plan is as
iollows: "Additionai snrm runoff generated from the development of Creek Side
Estates Subdivision will be insignificant due to proiects low density and few
impervious areas, and the fact that typicat excess flood irrigation flows would be
larger than most storm runoff events. Storm water detention is not necessary as
flois leaving the site will be entering the Rifle Creek floodplain without affectin?
-any
other pioperties. Individual site grading wilt be necessary to mitigate drainage
and flood irri gation impacts. "
E. Utility Plan - Water
Staff Fi ndinss:Domestic Potable water will be provided by a domestic well, permit
# 266691to be augmented per Case No. 04CW99. Water is to
lots for in-house use, and 485 square feet of lawn and garden
be provided to six
for each lot. The
l1
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 modify the augmentation plan from Case No. 81CW56 in
order to provide water for six single-family residences, livestock watering of up to
six animils, the irrigation of up to 485 square feet per lot, fire protection and pond
evaporation for the Sills Pond No. 1. Since Permit Number 26669I was 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 southern boundary of lot 2. The proposed 4" water line that will serve the 6
residential lots will run between Lots I andZ, 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 7,2O05.
The rate of 15 GPM was maintained throughout the 4 hour test. The maximum
drawdown was 0.67 ft and a IOOVo 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 community 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. Chloroform bacteria tests indicate bacteria were absent from
ihe 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 treatment of their potable
water." Per Section 4.gl 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.
F. Utilitv Plan - Sanitarv Sewer
Staff Findings: Wastewater treatment 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 property 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 installation of engineered ISDS's within the propose 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 #I2
t2
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 warrant a setback from the
escarpment. This should be verified with the geotechnical engineer." Staff
recommends that the geotechnical engineer be consulted regarding ISDS setbacks
from the escarpment to maximize slope stability.
G. Fire Protection
Staff Findings: 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:
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. Individual 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 maximum 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 shrubs to the edges of the crown, or the vegetation should be pruned to a
height of lO-feet above the ground orVzthe height of the plant, whichever is
least;
8. Lawns should be kept to a maximum 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 height less than 5-
feet within ZO-feet of any residence.
Staff recommends that the above fire protection and prevention measures be
included in the Covenants.
13
In addition, Staff recommends that language be added to the HOA Bylaws which
requires periodical cleaning of the fire pioteition pond. Without periodic cleaning of
the pond, it is likely to becime engulfed with wetland plants which will limit the fire
protection attributes of the pond'
H. Road/Access Plan
Staff Findings: The access to the subdivision will come from a main entrance off of
St"t.firgh*"y 325. An internal 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
access 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
Si. ;trips at 9.57 trips per dwelling which requires the all internal road be designed
to the ,,Semi primiiive" standard pursuant 1o Section 9:35 of the Subdivision
Regulations. This road type requires a +0-foot right-of-way, two 8-foot driving lanes'
2-foot shoulder widths, 4-foot ditch widths, and a gravel driving surface' The cul-
de-sac is approximateiy 600 linear feet and appears to comply with the required
standards. It appears thl proposed internal road has been designed to this standard'
Dedication to the publii of thit 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.
14
I. Easements
The Applicant will need to delineate, legally describe, and convey all easements
showntn the plat to the Homeowners Asiociation. This dedication needs to be in a
form acceptabie 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 tank), storm-water drainage easements, and all internal roads (which will be
dedicited to the public on the face of the final plat)'
J. Assessment / ImPact Fees:
The property 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 ff $200 per new lot. This fee will be paid at final plat and included as a
component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA).
VII: STAFF RECOMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Planning commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL
to the Board of County Commissioners for 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 Plann-in g & Zoning Commission. and Board of
County Commissioners shall be conditioni of approval, unless specifically altered
by the Board of County Commissioners'
Access and Internal 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 qry note using the
standard dedication certificate language as set for by Garfield County shall be
used.
Fire
4. The Applicant shall meet with the County's Engineer (Mountain^ Cross
Engineeiing) to review / resolve issues raised in his letter dated October 19' 2006
and attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit L) prior to the hearing before the
Board of CountY Commissioners.
15
Wetland on
5 The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the "Wetland
Restoration Plan" prepared by Beach Environmental, LLC contained in the
Application.
Revegetation
6. 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 incorporated into the Subdivision
Improvements 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'
7. 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 final plat documents so that the County
can review prior to final plat approval.
Soils /Issues
8. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the
"Preliminary Geotechnical Study" prepared by HP Geotech contained in the
Application.
Drainage
9. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the "Drainage
Plan for Creek Side Estates" prepared by Boundaries Unlimited, Inc contained in
the Application.
Individual Sewage Disposal System
10. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the "Creek
Side Estates Individual Sewage Disposal System" report. prepared by HP Geotech
contained in the Application.
11.The Applicant shall meet with the County's Engineer (Mountain Cross
Engineering) to review / resolve issues raised in his letter dated October 19,2006
and attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit L) prior to the hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners.
t6
Water Treatment
lZ.Theapplicant states that "Each lot owner will be responsible for individual testing
and in-house treatment of their potable water'" The applicant shall provide
evidence prior to a hearing befoie the Board of County Commissioners that
individual in-house treatment of Selenium is more effective than the use of a
centralized treatment facilitY.
Easements
13. Al1 easements of record shall be shown on the final plat'
lmoact Fees
14. The applicants shall make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land in the amount
and atthe time as set forth in the Garfield county Regulations.
Covenants
15. Update the Protective Covenants to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units'
16. Update the Protective Covenants to restrict the number of dogs per dwelling unit
to one (1) as is required by Garfield County Regulations'
Plat Notes
17. Aplatnote shall be placed on the final plat stating: "To mitigate ftehazards, each
lot owner shall incorporate and maintain a defensible wildfire zone as set forth in
the "Colorado State Forest Service Publication 6'302"
t7
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Departrnent
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: September 27,2006
Comments Due: October 19r 2006
Name of application: Creekside Estates
Sent to:GarFreld Countv Road &Bridse Dent.
Garfield County requests your coflrment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. ffis 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:
Garheld County Building & Planning
Staff contact: David Pesnichak
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield Count), Road & Bridge Department has no objections to
this aoolication as the entrance to Creekside F.stares is off of State Hi shwav J 25.\t
should be noted and chansed that State is not Porcuoine Creek Road which.v 325
is Garfield Countv Road 32-5 south and west of Rifle
All maintenance and repair of the road to Creekside Estates will not be the responsibility
of Garfield County Road & Bridee t.
Name of review Garfield Countv Road and ridse Dent
By:Jake B. Mall Date October 2,2006
Revised 3130100
Creekside Estates
David Pesnichak
Page I of 1
David -_T_ha1k 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 lnairt sils; 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 construltion 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 pM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: Drayton, Devin
Subject: Creekside Estates
Dan Roussin
Colorado Department of Transpoftation
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 Soulh 6th, Suite 100
Grand Junction, Co 81501
970-248-7230
970-248-7294 FAX
10t6/)o,n,6
COLORADO GEOLOGrcAL SURVEY
Deportment of Noturol Resources
1313 Shermon Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorodo 80201
Ptrone (JOJ) 866-261 1
FAX (i03) 866-2461
October 9,2006
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8t Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Sec. 19, T5S, R92W, 6m P.M'
HFleF,$YtIHffi
fiiT I 6 za$fj
' .. ,r. r' ,i ; i
i 6rr,.ltajf-
i:*,-uli'i "l i.! i-r'lT ltli r'"j
GA-07-0004
Legal. NWSW,
DEPARTMENTOF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bill 0wens
Governor
Russell Georqe
Executive 0irector
Vince Motthews
Division 0irector ond
Stote Geoloqist
Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request *q1n accordance to Senate Bill
35 (lg11)this of6ce has reviewed ttre materials submitted by your office. The Colorado Geological
Survey (CGS) had previously commented on an earlier r.ttion of the development plan in a letter dated
February 23,2OO4to Fred Jarman (ccs LUR #GA-04-0009). The cGS has reviewed the revised
de1relopment preliminary plan and offers the following observations for your consideration'
The preliminary plat references only the earlier ?OO]L+ Geotech report so no additional
geotechnical data or investigations have beln conducted. we have reviewed the new site plan and find
that changes are related to tf,e jurisdictional wetlands that were previously tampered with during the
origi"uf a:pplication. The othei change is that the offset of building envelopes for the new lots now
conform to the rlp Geotech 50-foot otrr"t recommendation from the creek bank. Site specific
foundation and septic systems are mandated in plat notes 12 and 13. Our only other concern is the
por.ntiut for flooding from the westgrn tributary from where is crosses the street and flows between lots
I and2. As discussJd 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 I andZ'
provided the site-specific foundations investigation are conducted and ISDS design meet state
and county regutatory requirements, the cGS finds no inherent geologic condition or hazard that would
preclude t'he dlevelopm.ni u, planned. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-
355 1 or e-mail: ionathan.white@state.co.us
RE: Creek side Estates subdivision GeologicftazardReview - Resubmittal
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
Sincerely,
L.
Senior Engineering Geologist
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
MEMORANDT'M
David Pesnichak
Steve Anthony
Comments on the Creek Side Estates Preliminary Plan
October 16,2006
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Plan. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
a Inventory and mapping-The applicant has mapped and inventoried the property.
weed Management-The applicant has provided a weed management plan for the
inventoried noxious weeds.
Revegetetion
a
o The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please
proria" a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of
acres, to be disturbed and subsiquently 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 tire attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County
Commissioners will desigrrate 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 concems on the plat notes.
5
MOUNTAIN EROSS
ENGINEERING, INE.
Crvt nruo ENvtnoNurNrel CoNsulrtNc nruo Drstcl
October 19,2006
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 fii i i: ;r il;ui
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 piopor.r to have lhe individual lot owners test and treat their own potable water.
Some discussion on the parameters forthe treatment of seleniumwouldbe in orderto 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 irrigation.
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 wili 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 concerning the allowable irrigated 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".
hdividual Sewaee Di
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.
526 "l/2 Grand Avenue . Clenwood Springs, CO 81501
PH: 97O.945.5544 . FAX: 970.945.5558' www.mountaincross-en8.com
Creekside Estates Page 2 of 2 10119106
Storm Drainage:
6. The "Easements" Section 12 in the "Covenants" does not appear to allow for any storm drainage
conveyance. Note #1 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
#11 on the plat.
Plan and Profile Sheets:
7 . The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light ofthe 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.
M Cross Inc
r)
Chris Hale, PE
C: Deric Walter; Boundaries Unlimited, Inc.
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 %Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P : 97 0.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
flATE OF COLOTUDO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENCINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 8O203
Phone (303) 856-3581
FAX (303) 856-3s89
wwwwater.state.co.us
October 1g,2006 t";..i it,r it:ti
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Creek Side Estates Preliminary Plan
NW%SW%, Sec. 19, T5S, R92W,6th PM
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
We have reviewed the additional information regarding the above referenced proposalto
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. 266691) 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 December7,2005 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 Engineer finds pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl),
C.R.S., that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury 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
Bill Owens
Covemor
Rusell Ceorge
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, PE.
State Engineer
RE
David Pesnichak
Creek Side Estates Preliminary Plan
October 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
CML/CJL: Creek Side Estates iii.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39