HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 06.13.07Exhibits for the Planning Commission Hearing held on June 13, 2007
Mail ReceiptsA
Proof of PublicationB
C Garfield Subdivision of1 as amended
D Garfield County Znning Resqlqtig! p{ I 918 as amended
E Garfield County Comprehensi ve Plan of 2000
ApplicationF
Staff MemorandumG
Letter from Jake Mall of GarCo Road and Dated 912712006H
Email from Dan Roussin of CDOT Dated 101612006I
Letter from Jonathan White of Colorado S Dated 101912006J
Letter from Steve Anthon of GarCo V Dated 1011612006K
L Letter from Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Dated 1011912006
M Letter from Craig Lis of the Colorado Office of the State Engineer, Dated
10t18t2006
N Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated October 19,2006 and updated
November 25,2006
o Letter from Davis Farrar, Western Slqpq Consulting dated December 5, 2006
Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering datgP
0 of Permit issued 2-8-2001
R Resolution of Approval Number 2OO1-09 for Creek Side Estates dated 2-5-2007
Email and Memorandum from Garfield County Vegetation Management, Steve
Anthony Dated 5-l-2007 and 3-12-2OOlS
Letter from Cynthia Love of the Colorado Office of the State Engineer,
t8-2001
Dated 4-
T
District Court, Water Division 5 Case Number 04CW99U
V Lei{e r {r"n,
n>ne 6, ?oo7W bt*, {r-,
Fr*t .(.fr-(
D"t^J, t\n{s?,3?i. LtC -Gk4
Brb ..tW-x. a {
4/rsfr 7
fl* -.{/o-tc Lo-.'
PC 6-13-2007 DP
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICATION:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
ENGINEER:
SURVEYOR:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
SIZE:
EXISTING ZONING:
Revised Preliminary Plan for the Creek Side
Estates Subdivision
Mark Sills
Mark Sills
Boundaries Unlimited, Inc.
Tuttle Surveying Services, Inc.
Four Miles North of the City of Rifle on
State Highway 325
Sills Well No. 1 - Permit No. 266691
ISDS
15.37 acres (6lots proposed)
A/R/RD (Agricultural/ResidentiallRural
Density)
I.GENERAL PRO.IECT 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 eastern 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 1 as well as 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
southwest corner of the property in proposed Lot 1; another is located along the
southernmost boundary of the property as a20' wide water system utility R.O.W.
\Ic_iNl]):_ I{AP
SCA.LE: 1" = 2000'
2
ltt i;i
1; li '*i'4 ,* lil
ti,,,,
""'"".F "t[s
ffitiiE ii
le!
:ir{r*E ["
d
t-,1
:?-
'.--..
rf n r a
I.
€u-l'i tt
)J=
F];l-
-< L_.'
:.I EL!J) "E
- -(4JL
vL4
, U:C
4-n fi;+ii \ 2l* ztiJ
''t -* 1u.
or v> L*j
L/J 5 --4' -,/\U7
?-'i._-.Yl:.L-lX f .a)ts ^.r \rJ
= if
- ^;b
='.J -i71 -i- '> fa ir-1 \-/t; ar IP *i& ?-, l:i
r!,L! wiJ l"'_
:*/\LJ" +t" (/)
){ +A --lU-<! Lc7fr',?zuj :
iFrl i
' "*irt
r- +ts
* tr1
.'j
=
-,.t i.i{(a?
z,
"t
'flzs
s*3
EB&
"-..d.!i
!E:
9tirlF
r:!
I
il
q
-i
!==F:iir
a:-{.zrltl
{-:':<O rn irl.e -b r'-
&==c
\Lja:] ,-I y,;1 *
(:rnr'
:-,ii
+{wZ
li
I
i
I
tsj
. ;i3i0
4i
,
I
1€
\$8
$d
-i
tgb
'xr l
:
B
\
I
Plan 1: Previously Approved Preliminary Plan
J
E
T
I
E
i
t
II
I
a
I
*
Ei
tI
Iet
il
I;
(
s
I
:x
,t
i!
!si
idl
:f
Up to 20,000 Gallon Aesthetic Pond
(Former Fire Protection Pond)
ilrj
_{1
.tnl.ln
\,
5J
3Lfii:?
?r
iir'iej
zi
[,
-ab;r4
30,000 Gallon Fire Protection
Water Storage Tank
t-
*-.!lir+-
Plan2z Proposed Changes from Previously Approved preliminary plan
4
i
3I
t
:--.-
ra
,l
g
,]
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 be 2.834,2.402,
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 propoJed homes.
Sewer will be provided by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS). The applicant
is also proposing (changed from previously approved Preliminary Plan) to use an in-
ground 30,000 gallon fire protection tank, which will be filled by the well. In
addition, the Applicant is proposing an aesthetic pond with 4 to I slopes and between
12 and 18 inches in depth. Access will be from State Highway 3i5. Muctr 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.
5
According to the applicant, the following items have been updated since the previous
hearing:
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 recofirmended approval to the BOCC at this hearing.
On January 15,2001, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Preliminary Plan
for Creek Side Estates. At this hearing, there was discussion and concern regarding the
proposed above ground 50,000 gallons fire protection pond. Since this approval the
Applicant is requesting to amend the application to substitute the 50,000 gallon above
ground fire protection pond with a 30,000 gallon in-ground fire protection tank. In
addition, the Applicant is proposing to replace the previously approved fire protection
pond with an up to 20,000 gallon aesthetic pond with 4 to I slopes (See Plan 2 above).
U. REFERRALS
Staff has referred the application to the following State agencies, municipalities and/or
County departments for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly
mentioned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate
section of this staff report.
City of Rifle: No Comments Received
Rifle Fire Protection District: No Comments Received
RE-2 School District: No Comments Received
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 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 terms and conditions." (See Exhibit M and Exhibit T)
6
Colorado Geologic Survey: (See Exhibit J)
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: (See Exhibit H)
Garfield County Vegetation: (See Exhibit K and Exhibit S)
Mountain Cross Engineering: (See Exhibit L and Exhibit N)
III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property 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
Comprehensive Plan.
IV APPLICABI,E G REGULATIONS IN ARRD ZONE 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 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 theZoning 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 property is deed restricted to protect the associated wetlands.
B. Common Requirements
Lot Size / Slope: There are no slopes over 4OVo on this property. In addition, all
proposed lots are over the 2 acres minimum lot size. This complies with the 2 acres
minimum lot size in the ARRD zone.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (157o)
1
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 (1/2) the height of the principal
building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Heieht of Buildines: Twenty-five (25) feet
C.
Generally speaking, Section 5.04.02(2) requires that all lots musr have at leasr a 1-
acre building envelope that contains slopes less than 4OVo. 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. In addition, it appears there will be no
maximum slope issues.
APPLICABLE REOUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN
A. Pretirynarv Ptan Vla
Regulations
staff Findings: The Applicant's preliminary plan Map appears to meet the
requirements as specified in the regulations.
B ision
Regulations
v
Staff Findings: As is recommended by Mountain Cross Engineering, staff agrees that
the saturation of soils from an ISDS system may cause slope instabiiity if pliced near
the escarpment.
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. Staff concurs that this is
satisfactory. This update is reflected in the updated plans dated Received March 20,
2007.
A. Geolosv and Soils
8
vI.
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 Fillo Colluvium
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. Vegetation
staff Findinss: 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 cuffently 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, theproliferation 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. ArizonaFescue
2. Prairie Junegrass
3. Mountain Muhly
4. Indian Ricegrass
5. Timothy
6. Nodding Brome
9
7. Mountain Brome
Staff feels the noxious weed inventory and revegetation plan are adequate. Since
review of the previously approved Preliminary Plan, Staff suggests that a
revegetation security of $4250 be held based on the Applicant's estimate of 1.7 acres
of disturbance (1.7 acres X $2500 per acre reveg cost estimate) (See Exhibit S).
Vegetation Existing on Property
C. Wildlife
Staff Findines: A Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Dara Checklist was
submitted identifying 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 Rangeo Elk Winter Range
o Elk Overall Range
o Elk Summer Range
o Mule Deer Winter Range
o Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
o Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
o Mule Deer Overall Range
l0
o Mule Deer Resident Population Areao Mule Deer Highway Crossingo Native Fish (Roundtail chub, speckled Dace, Flannel Mouth Sucker)o Wild Turkey Overall Rangeo 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 "Covenants" to
indicate that only one dog per dwelling unit is permitted under Garfield County
Zoning Regulations.
D. Drainage Plan
Staff Findings: A Drainage Plan was submitted for the Applicants by Boundaries
Unlimited dated June I0,2003. 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 of the
westernmost wetland area. The Applicant received an approved Army Corps permit
on February 8,2007 (See Exhibit e).
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
concurs with the Colorado Geological Survey that there is a potential for flooding, as
is disclosed in plat note #11, between lots I and 2 as the *"ri"* 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
follows: "Additional storm runoff generated from the development of Creek Side
Estates Subdivision will be insignificant due to projects low deniity and fewimpervious areas, and the fact that typical excess ftood iruigation Jlow's would be
larger than most storm runoff events. Storm water detention is not necessary as
flows leaving the site witl be entering the RiJle Creek floodplain without affecting
any other properties. Individual site grading witl be necessary to mitigate diainag-e
and Jlood irri gation impact s. "
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 Plan - Water
Staff Findings: Domestic Potable water will be provided by a domestic well, permit
# 266691 to 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 foi each lot. The
1l
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 animals, the irrigation of up to 485 square feet per lot and fire protection. 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 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 IO07o 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. 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 treatment of their potable
water." 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
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. 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;
3. The covenants will be updated to reflect a limitation of 485 square feet of irrigated
land per dwelling unit.
12
Since the last approval on January 15,2007, the Applicant is now proposing that the
52' X 52' fte protection pond be made smaller and for solely aesthetic pu.por"t
with the addition of a 30,000 gallon fire protection tank. Case Number 04CW99
states:
ItrI. aPPR(}VAL oF CI"AIM FoR C0NDI'rI0NAL srCIRA$E lvATEft. Rrclrrs
I
Rifis Crcek, tritrutary to Colo,rado R_iv*r.
arg tributa"qy taB.
C.SF o;ggr[a&q rr Ift $lm&[use r
1) Ilstq sf Aprrrunriur;o*: Iut-y t, 2t)$3
?l $ow.-4pelqgfliutjofi r+a* {niilatqd: By fir.h:i inrestigatiryr irrid rormation uf,inteflt ts appropriule n**tur i.triu.h*mlfirri*i ouo,
3)
F
&' Total nrrmher of acres Frrrpos*ri rr ire* imigated: 0fi,t16? acres r:f
Iur+.n an,$ gnrd*ns
Thr Sfi{fuc-e eqee oj: trish xaater }ine : S.fi6 acret
I) Meximumheishr o:fdam: 9.9 fbar
g) {-*ngth trf q{qx{: in &fl!; 1flfl
fr fJS.ti$ n-t"
Lsggf-EEgsqEftffi:'Flu center *l'fiills l]nnd Nrr, I wi]l hr: lncared ir sqsti*fi Is,Trwnship.S south, Range $z w:st of ths s'r'j,.&,!., ar a pn:inr ui,: lt=.ino* tir*Ifu*st seetion linE and ?l ?0 fret frtnr the snuth section *llsuid section 1g.
,Sills Fnnd lto. I
tl,eu!FIsirlls*;EilfE,vsstoch nxrrvacering,101+uL}II,pr{}tetrli garden irrigation*a,rd angnlettalir:n pufFose$dessribnd {IllS the 10 GI refiljandFIDfi?saidwir*r!*ve1rpond Instgf *rrailablc #Iprlon su ..i.,ty afi trut-ol'-ilJl],
iirstiepl*rio*s nlYsstpriority i:y tlr*cl'in'rpl*xreniaiiol'r *i.lgrnentulL*t pi
A&qumt Ciaimrd: 0.16 AF, cunditicnol i50.[i$il gatr.i
Actitp f,pnsqi,tx: S0.CIS a,f
E*ad$tprage: fl.O *fl.
H.
l3
Agrplicenl
li
As is demonstrated on the previous page, the Applicant is limited to 50,000 gallons
of water use for fire protection and other outdoor water storage. However, the Ruling
of the Referee does not contemplate fire protection water storage in the form of an
enclosed tank. Rather, the Ruling anticipates water storage in the form of a pond. In
addition, the Ruling states specifically where Sills Pond No. 1 is to be located, but
does not place any water storage in the location where the Applicant would like to
place the 30,000 gallon flre protection water storage tank. 1r is Staffs opinion that
the Ruling does not permit the storage of water for fire protection purposes either at
the proposed location or within an enclosed tank.
Further, the Applicant is requesting that the location of the currently approved and
contemplated Sills Pond No. 1 be used for solely aesthetic purposes. As is
highlighted in the above portion of the Ruling of the Referee, the use of the pond for
aesthetic purposes is not considered. In addition, the Ruling states that there is to be
0.0 a.f. of "Dead Storage". It is Staff's opinion that the Ruling does not permit water
storage for the sole purpose of aesthetics.
To this end, as Garfield County does not have a water lawyer on staff, Staff suggests
that the Applicant either obtain legal rights for aesthetic water storage, enclosed fire
protection water storage and a specified location for this storage or the Applicant
demonstrate through the opinion of a Colorado water lawyer that the existing Ruling
of the Referee does permit the proposed developments.
F. Utilitv Plan -Sanitarv Sewer
Staff Findinss: 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 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 #I2 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."
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. This update is reflected in the plans dated March ZO,2007 .
14
G. Fire Protection
Staff Findinqs: 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 initially proposed and
was approved for 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, shrubi and tree
canopies:
l. 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 or Vz the height of the plant, wiichever 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 2}-feet of any residence.
Since the Approval of this Preliminary Plan on January 15,}OOJ, the Applicant is
proposing to replace the above ground 50,000 gallon fire protection pond wlth an in-ground 30,000 gallon fire protection tank as a superior method to limiting the
drawbacks of the above-ground configuration. case Number 04cw99 states:
15
Iff' APF*ovA[", os cI"i\IM ['oR cot$DITIoN.4,L !$ToR,{cIi WATTBR RIcHTs
Rific Crceiq tributaryro Colorido River.
ore triilulflry,tcrB"
C..tsp,roprieliq* trnfi lqpagqe :
l] Fr$te.qFAn$r{}priattEn: Juty I, ?CISl
]) llow Amnrnpriati*n ruas injtiated: By fr*lcl investigati*n iln{i i{}n:rati{}n uf,intcrlt 10 apptapriate mter f*r furre.fitiai uses,
-11
r
a, Totai *urnber nJ'scrrs proposcri *e be lrrigated: 0fl.s6? acres or-iurrr an,:i 6:rderr_r
Thr su*,fr.* aqe8- of higir riieter $iE"q: S,fi,S ary*s
t j M;rri{num heiflhr pf,damr g.f fe*r
3) Lmgth nf rlgrn-im feerr 10#
G ilfi.fiS a.{:i
H"
ABplicent
tqEiqlnsssgeltgg: Tirm centsr *l$ilis l,and N*, I u,ilt h* lo*ate,iJ ir sertion Ig,
Jyurnlnrr s sorurh, Range F3 wrsr of rhe d'r';F-rH., ar u pr:inr t+t
-tdr-nnm
tnswest seetio* Iine and ?r ?CI feet frnrn the snutrr $ecti*n *dsar"rj $eetian I s,
Sills nland N,r" ]
fl,
depleEi**s
*ulFish IiU.qq;vcstocii[Ert,frrfiwatsfing-sndlgu.npr0tec{i$n,g*nlen galirn,end augr:rentadon h*reindescribedpurFo"ss$theimd tfi r:l andrigirt rcfili saidwh*nsycrpreld TSr+atup rtr,'siiabXc lfl il!'suchpriority El$out-of'-sJlypmonityare nf iise,t by U theflurpiemeutari**;rugmefitalii$11 Flfln.
$.mggslil[ trsilrirdr 0. I $ .4,F, eonditi onsl {5$,0t}tr ga i.)
Sqtir+, r:- se*ji,: fi S.06 ;c. J',
tread Stoqilg: {.0 n"f.
l
16
As is demonstrated on the previous page, the Applicant is limited to 50,000 gallons
of water use for fire protection and other outdoor water storage. However, the Ruling
of the Referee does not contemplate fire protection water storage in the form of an
enclosed tank. Rather, the Ruling anticipates water storage in the form of a pond. In
addition, the Ruling states specifically where Sills Pond No. 1 is to be located, but
does not place any water storage in the location where the Applicant would like to
place the 30,000 gallon fire protection water storage tank. It is Staff's opinion that
the Ruling does not permit the storage of waterforfire protection purposes either at
the proposed location or within an enclosed tank.
Further, the Applicant is requesting that the location of the currently approved and
contemplated Sills Pond No. 1 be used for solely aesthetic purposes. As is
highlighted in the above portion of the Ruling of the Referee, the use of the pond for
aesthetic purposes is not considered. In addition, the Ruling states that there is to be
0.0 a.f. of "Dead Storage". It is Staffs opinion that the Ruling does not permit water
storage for the sole purpose of aesthetics.
To this end, as Garfield County does not have a water lawyer on staff, Staff suggests
that the Applicant either obtain legal rights for aesthetic water storage, enclosed fire
protection water storage and a specified location for this storage or the Applicant
demonstrate through the opinion of a Colorado water lawyer that the existing Ruling
of the Referee does permit the proposed developments.
H. Road/Access Plan
Slaff Findings: The access to the subdivision will come from a main entrance off of
State Highway 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
57 .42 trips 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 righrof-way, two 8-foot driving lanes,
2-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.
17
Subject Parcel Road Frontage
I. Easements
The Applicant will need to delineate, legally describe, and convey all easementsshown on the plat to the Homeowners Association. This dedication needs to be in aform acceptable to the County Attorneys office and transfer shall o".u, ui r#ri,,Jof recording the final plat. These easements shall include, but are not limited to alldrainage easements, shared water system easements (domestic wells and waterstorage tank), storm-water drainage easements, and all internal roads (which will bededicated to the public ori the face of the final plat).
.f. Assessment / Impact Fees:
The property is located in Traffic Study Area 5 and is not subject to road impactfees.
The development is located in the RE-2 School District which will require a standardimpact fee of $200 per new lot. This fee will be paid at final plat ani included as acomponent of the Subdivision Improvement Agreernent (SIA).
VII: STAFF RECOMENDATIONS
Staff recommends t.13l th" Planning commission recorlmend that the Board of Countycommissioners DENY the proposed Preliminary Plan for the following reasons:
18
o The Ruling of the Referee does not contemplate fire protection water storagein the form of an enclosed tank. Rather, the Ruling anticipates water storagein the form of a pond. In addition, the Ruling staies specifically where SillsPond No' 1 is to be located, but does not flace any water storage in thelocation where the Applicant would like to place ihe 30,000 gillon fireprotection water storage tank. It is Staff's opiiion that the Rutini does notpermit the storage of water for fire proiection purposes either at theproposed location or within an enclosed tank.
o The Applicant is requesting that the location of the currently approved andcontemplated Sills pond No. 1 be used for solely aestietic purposes.However, the Ruling of the Referee does not contemplate the storage ofwater for aesthetic purposes. In addition, the Ruling states that there is to be0.0 a.f. of "Dead Storage". It is staff,s opinion-that the Ruling does notpermit water storage for the sole purpose oj aesthetics.
To this end, Staff sugges.ts that the Applicant either obtain legal rights for aestheticwater storage, enclosed fire protection water storage and a rp"iifi"d tocation for thisstorage or the Applicant demonstrate through the olinion of a Colorado water lawyerthat the existing Ruling of the Referee does permit the proposed developments.
19