HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report PC 02.08.95 Deer CrestDA A PIP
?t6 A*
Z*L ,K
B*D l-9o45 t-EIleE-
FPora gt+N^l E Pr^r6Pp5
Hc.fupcly
I
REQUEST:
OWNER:
ENGINEER TNG/PL ANNTNG:
LOCATION:
The subject property is located partially
Environmental Constraints as shown on the
Management Districts Map.
II. DESCRIFrIION OF THE PROPOSAI
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONTNG:
ADJACENT ZONTNG:
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THI] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PCAA95
Deer Crest Orchard Preliminary Plan
James R. and Diane Barry
Schmueser Gordon Meyer
A parcel of land located in a portion of
Section 35, T5S, R92W of the 6th PM;
located approximately two (2') miles
northwest of Silt, north of County Road
233.
l0 acres
Individual Wells
ISDS
Easement lrom CR 233
fuR/RD
A/R/RD
in District C - Rural Areas Mi
PROJECT TNFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
lrnor
PlanGarfield County Comprehensive
A. Site l-rescrifrtion: The property is located in the Silt Mesa area, northwest of the
Town of Silt. The property was originally platted as a portion of as Tract 44,
Antler's Orchard Plat #1, recorded in 1909. The property is currently
undeveloped, and is adjacent to agricultural and residential uses.
Theproperty slopes gently to the southwest, with theeastern half ofthe property
consisl.ing ofan irrigated hayfield used for hay production and livestock grazrr.g.
A natural drainage runs across the property from the north to south along the
ol'
\/
eastern edge of the parcel. The western portion of the parcel includes sagebrush
and native grasses. A vicinity map is included within the application.
Access to the site is via a private easement from CR 233, platted and recorded
as a part of the Antler's Orchard Subdivision.
B. Project Descnntion: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 10.0 acre
paroel into two (2) parcels ol approximately 5.0 acres in size. The lot
configuration is shown on a "blueline" in the application.
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
l. Division of Water Resources: In house domestic water will be provided by
individual wells. Two well applications arepending with theColorado Division
of Water Resources. The applicant will enter into a contract with the West
Divide Water Conservancy District as part of an augmentation plan prior to
final plat. These representatig4s are consistent with the State's December 5th,
1994 comments (see pug.t-!{. ;.
2. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: The District expressed a number of
concerns about revegetation, animal control, irrigation ditch maintenanpe,
drainage, soil disturbance of steep slopes and water quality 1r"" pug"r6'? ).
Colorado Denartment of Health: The Department of Health has not responded
to the application.
Colorado Geologic Survey: The Colorado Geologic Survey has not responded
to the application, however a Geotechnical Report is included within the staff
packet.
ry. STAFF COMMENTS
Comfrrehensive Plan Comnliance: Thecurrent Comprehensive Plan gives little
guidance regarding design criteria for subdivisions in rural areas. The 1984
update has not addressed the Silt Mesa area. The proposed project will remove
land from agricultural production, which is addressed on the 1984
Comprehensive Plan.
Soils/TonoSraphy: A geologic site review (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.)
is included within the preliminary plan application. The review concluded that
the property is not exposed to landslide, rockfall, debris flow or ground
subsidence hazards. The surficial soils could have some collapse potential, and
the report recommended that "site-specihc soils and loundation studies be made
sothat appropriate geotechnical designconsiderations areincluded inthedesign
of the residen@s".
Percolation tests were performed by Hepworth-Pawlak, and concluded that the
120 minutes per inch will require engineered septic systems (see December23rd,
lp94letter from Debbie Duley, with attached percolation tests on pages?.rr l
3.
4.
A.
B.
-7-
be improved to meet the Garfield County Primitive Residential Road Standard,
based on the following standard:
# of Lots
Minimum ROW
Lane Width
Shoulder Width
Ditch Width
Cross Slope
Shoulder Slope
Maximum Grade
Surface
2
30 feet
l2fwt (single lane)
0
3 feet
2% (chip I *al\ 3% (gravel)
5%
t0%
Gravel
F.
The common driveway will be maintained as a "common" facility, with
maintenance costs shared by Lots I and 2, presumably through a joint road
maintenance agreement recorded at the time of hnal plat.
Fire Protection: The Silt- New Castle Fire Protection District has not responded
to the application, which should be received prior to the hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners.
Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
Drainage/Irrigation l-titches: An existing drainage channel entersthe property
on the north via natural channels and man-made irrigation laterals, before
entering the Farmer's Irrigation Ditch (see Utility Plan blueline in the
preliminary plan packet).
Three culverts are proposed to carry the flow across the proposed driveway,
sized to handle projected 5O-year flow.
Staff would suggest that easements be shown on the plat to ensure access for
periodic maintenance, and appropriate language be included within covenants
to ensure ac,cess and alert potential buyers.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffwould recommend APPROVAL based on the following conditions:
All representations ofthe applicant, either within the application orstated atthe
public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered conditions of
approval.
The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes.
The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the water infrastructure,
road maintenance and snow removal. The articles of incorporation and
restrictive covenants shall be reviewed by County Staff prior to the approval of
a Final Plat. _ OpllC, xrtryhvtE _ro Cou^lrrl," [ , x-tv,{€_v(fr"W:w \
*,4*r o 3-".r_(o.rl
G.
H.
rv.
l.
2.
(
4.
5.
3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision fmprovements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a hnal plat.
All cut slopes created during construction shall be promptly revegetated with
native and other appropriate grasses using certified weed-free seed.
The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to approval of
the final plat.
6. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conforrnan@ with design
standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at the time of
final plat.
7. The following plat notes shall be shown on the Final PIat:
"Percolation tests indicate that engineered septic systems may be
necessary on each lot."
"Geotechnical site review of the site has indicated that additional soil and
engineered floundation design may be necessary."
"No open hearth solid-fuel burning fireplaces will be allowed within the
Deer Crest Subdivision. All dwelling units will be allowed an
unrestricted number of natural gas-burning fireplaces or appliances. AII
dwelling units will be allowed no more than one new woodburning stove
as dehned by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et see., and the regulations promulgated
thereunder."
The applicant shall indicate a 20' downslope easement and a l0' upslope
easement from the centerline ofthe ditch formaintenance purposes. A plat note
to the effect shall be included on the Final Plat.
8.
9. Dogs shall be limited to one (l) per lot.
l(eJ*l=r.1,
tr-,il
7l Be Keq*a-tue
b
,a^?o€e"\,
Co $o
9n "7)v
pJ, art\-
o1.
il
i. r I
STA|E, OF COLOTUDO
OTTICE OT THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Rexrurces
Department of Natural Resources
l ll I Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 8O2Ol
Phone (loll 866-3581
fAx (3031 866-3589
December 5, 1994
Roy Romer
Covernor
lames 5. lahhead
Executirrc Direaor
Hal D. Slmpson
Srate Engineer
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Ctetrwo.rtl Sprirrgs, CO 8i601
RE: Deer Crest Orchard Subdivision
Section 35, T5S, R92W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Dave:
Thank you for the referral for the Deer Crest Orchard Subdivision located approximately two
miles northwest of Silt. The applicant is requesting to split the ten acre parcel known as Tract 44,
Antlers Orchard Development Company's Plat No. I into two five acre lots. The proposed water
service will be from exempt wells. Two permit applications have been submitted to our office for
this project - one application to rerluce the number of acres for an existing permit and one application
for the new lot should the subdivision be approved by the County.
htrsuant to $30-28-136(l)(hXI), C.R. S., the State Engineer's Office offers the following
opinion for your consideration regarding the material injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy
of the proposed water supply:
The Colorado River system and its tributaries at this location are over-appropriated. As
sttclt, v.'cl! pernllts sPPliCations in neu, strhrli.rlsinns inr.rst he evaluated to determine if other
water rights would be injured considering the cumulative effect of all proposed wells. It is
likely that in many circumstances well permits could not be issued by our office without a
cotlrt approved plan for augmentation. To date, we have no evidence that a plan for
attgmentation is pending or has heen approved hy the water court in Glenwood Springs. The
pending permit applications (receipt numbers 377952 A and B) will be denied until such time
that the applicant obtains a court approved plan for augmentation.
Shotrld you have any questions regarding the water supply for this project, ptease contact this
office.
I
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer J
James [rmon, Water Commissioneq
BOOKCLTFF SOrL CONSERVATION DISTRTCTP.O. BOX t-302
GLENWOOD SPRTNGS, CO 8t_601
October 25, 1,994
Dave MichaelsonGarfield CountyPlanning Department109 8th ST, STE 303Glenwood Springs, CO Bl-6Ol
Dear Sir:
a! tn9 regular monthry meeting of the Bookcriff soir conservationDistrict, the Board reviewed [he apprication i"a-pi"" for theDeer crest orchard subdivision and irave the rolloiring commentsand concerns about the project. :
Any cuts for roads or construction shourd be revegetated toprevent erosion. weed free seed and mulch should be used for anyreseeding of the area. Monitoring or arr seeding should be doneto see if the grass is estabrishiig or if weeds irE--n""oming i --
problem. Reseeding or weed controi practices shourd beimplemented if a pioblem is noticed.
The board is always concerned about animal control in an areawhere there is the potential for conflict between wildlife ordomestic rivestock ind dogs from the subdivision. o"g= runningin packs of two or more can maim or xiii domestic livestock andwirdrife' The District recommends animar control iegurations beadopted in the covenants for the subdivision ana-th;i they beenforced.
of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance andprotection of any irrigation ditch r.rnictr is on the site. Newrandovrners shourd be informed that the ditcrr owneis-h.r" right ofway easement to maintain the irrigation system, that they wirrbe cleaning and working on the difch, and-that this work may bein their yards.
The district wourd rike to know what the impact wirr be on thewetrands in this area? Arr wetrands shourd be protected andremain in as pristine condition ., p"==iUf".
The Board recommends that any.irrigation water rights be used bythe randowners so they ar" miintaiiea. Their "or,6"rn is arwaysfor soir and water conservation and freservation ana--pran= shouldconsider these concerns.
Drainage has the potentiar to be a probrem in the area andengineering recommendations for conlrol of drainage should becrosery followed by the buirder and/or homeovrner.
,.. tfliJ
r994oti
-:
0
I'i.
N
6'nF;lr
I!'.i,..: ,'
IL *.
-bo
With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is
concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer,
weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern
is the chemicals that wiII be used to fertilize grasses and
control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should
be closely monitored in this area due to the possibitity that the
chemicals wiII soak into the soils and run off into the river.
The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground water
pollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be
bore by the developer.
Sincerely,
Uar,/0.
Charles RydenBookcliff soii
[4p/-,
{esidenl
conservation District
1, ?'
(303) 94s-1004
FAX (303) 94s.5948
ENCINEERS
-
suavEvoqs
5nt'M--
SCHMUESER ::
COROON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
December 23, 1994
Mr. David MichaelsonGarfield County planning
109 8t.h Street.
Glenwood Springs, CO 8t_GO1
RE: Deer Creet. Orchard Subdlvislon
Dear David:
Att.ached for your use are 20 copies of t.he percolaE.ion EesE, resurE,sand a discussion- 9! possible melhods of sewige disposar for Deercrest orchard subdivision. please aEEach EhIs infbrmation t,o E,hepackages previousry submitE,ed for Ehe preliminary eran oi o...Crest Orchard Subdivision.
If you have any quest,ions, please don,t hesitare Lo caII
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER, GORDON, MEYER
Debbie Duley
cc:James Barry
DDldd94114
8.
DEER CREST ORCHARD
SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Percolat.ion tests were done on Ehis property on December 21 and 22.T!. Eypical f inar percolat ion rate iir tire areas t,esEed was L2ominutes per inch, a rate noE. suit.abre for a sEandard reach fierdEype of system.
Aft,er the residences have been designed sufficient.ry Eo deE,erminet.he size of the system needed, addiEionar sites ""-Ltr.-prop"rt.ywill be investigaLed Eo deE,ermine if a suiEable site is availablefor a st,andard reach f ield design. ri ""-"""r, siEe exist,s, on Eheproperty, then an alternaE,ive syscem wiII be designed.
rt is anEicipated chat either an evapo-EranspiraEion sysE,em or an9Y"po-transpiracion/absorption- system wirr ba uEilized. The rarge,five acre rots on Ehis sile wirl'have;;;r. room to construct, asystem of this Eype.
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Each individual lot in Deer crest, orchard subdivision wiII have anindividuar sewage disposal syst.em. The initial construction andmaintenance of -the syit"*" .ie rhe resp"""iuiliEy ;i-ih; individualIot, owners. lf , at. iome E,ime in rhe flture, E,he syst.ems must, berepraced, the individuar rot owner wirr be resporrribr" forconstruc!irg a syst,em which meeEs arr regurations for saniEarysewage disposal in place at thaE t.ime.
?-
ER GORDOII MEYER. INC.--
ilepuorthPau I ak Geotech TEL : JOJ-945-9454 Dec 23 94 9:45 No.00L P .02
HnrrwoRrn-Pewrax G eorscFrr{ tcA L, IN c.
Decemlrer 22, 1994
James and Diane Brirry
Dale and Klm Neffendorf
P. O. Box 671
Silt, Colorado 81552 Joh No. 194 558
SubJect:Pcrcolation Test Results, L.ots I and 2, Tract 44 of the Antlers Orchard
Subdivision, Near Silt, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Barry:
As requcstcd, wc conducted percolatiorr testing at the subject site to evaluate the
feaslbility of lndividual infiltration septic disposal. We previously conductcd a gcologic
revicw of the sitc and prcscntcd our findlngs ln a report dated Decernber 20, lgg4,
The percotation holes and profilc pit had heen dug and the tcst hotes soaked on
December 2l by Mr. Barry. The test hotes were covered to protect them against
freezing. The holes had been dug with a backhoe aud thc final onc foot dcpth had bccn
hand dug and was soakcd. Sorne of the test holes had water rematnlng in them at the
time we arrlved to perform the tests. The soils exposed in the profile pit and
percolation ltoles appeared relatlvcly unlform rnd conslsted of stlff dry clay to the
maxlrnum depth dug of l0 feet. A plastic pipe errcounrered in the profile pit was
flowing a very small amount of water aud caussd solne ponding at the botiom of the. pit.
The approxirnatc locatiolts of tlre pits are shown on Flg. l.
Thc percolatiou tcst rcsults arc presented ln Tabte I. The tests were conducted between
about 10:00 a.tn. to l:00 p.rn. The weather was sunny and there was no frcezing of
water during the test. The typical final rate of the test was 120 minutes per inch. Baserl
on tlre firrdirrgs, an engineered septic disposal system will be neecled.
If you ltave any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Pawlal<, P.E.
SLP/rr
cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Debbie Duley
5020 Road 15{
Clenwood Springrt, CO 8t601
Fax 303 945.845{
Phonc.'10.1 9{.5-7988
lo-
Hepuor thParrr lak TEL:303-945-8454
HEF1,l/ORTH-PAWLAKnHnTtrrit.llrtrl A I
Dec 23 94 9:46 No.001 P.03
Property BoundarY
o 50 100 200
Scaie ln Fsot
- /l-
Locatione of Porcolatlon Pit:r
L
-rr"*rrr r.*'|*'l-!ll
\ - - -f(SO\._-.__\*_
I I----j,
Lorl
l'
rlriveway ana UtltttV Easeme\
ir
\r
h_
t\t\
I
\_
rr-Iff
I Il,,i;,I] ,)'1,"
l,,J' /l llg D
I'";lIll L 2
L.i"1sn] li
HeprrrorthPaurlak Geotech TEL:JOS-945-8454 Dec 23 gA 9246 No.001 p.04
HEPWORTI{.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
LOT I
lrs JOB NO. 1e4 558
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTH
flNCHESI.
LENOTH OF
!NTERVAL
(MINI
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(tNcHE6t
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTEBVAL
ttNcHESt
DROP IN
WATEB
LEVEL
llNcHEsl
AVERAGE
PERCOLATTON
RATE
(MIN'INCHI
P-1 50 1/2 30 13 3/4 12 u+112
60
12114 11 tl4 I
11 114 1t 114
tl t01lz 112
P-2 48 30 10 I I
120
I I 1/4 314
81t4 7 gla 1t2
7 314 7 1t2 1t4
P,3 49 30 10112 10114 114
120
10 1t4 91t2 3t4
s 1t2 I 114 114
I 1/4 I 114
-n'
Hepurz-l thPaulak Geotech TEL:305-945-8454 Dec 23 94 9246 No.001 P.05
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
LOT 2
Decembet 22, 1994 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 194 558
HOLE NO.HOIE DEPTH
lrNcHEsl.
LENOTH OF
INTERVAL
(M!NI
WATER DEPTI-I
AT STANT OF
INTERVAL
flNCHESI
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
flNCHESI
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
flNCHE6l
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
IMIN/INCHI
P4 48 1t2 30 101t2 10 112
120
t0 g 112 112
g 112 0 u?_
I I314 r14
P.5 60 1/2 30 12112 1t 3/4 314
120
1t 3/4 11 1t2 114
11 1t2 1t 114 1t4
11 1/4 11 114
P-6 48 30 g 3t4 g 114 112
s 1t4 I St4 112
s 314 8112 114
g 112 8114 114
/3-
lrn
GARFIELD COT]NTY PLANNING COMMIS SION
MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT
John Foulkrod
Jim Snyder
Carl Schiesser
PatErtzgerald
Dick Stephe,nson
Herbert Nelson
STAFF PRESENT
Mark Bean, Direotor
Dave Michaelson, Planner
Don DeFord, CountY AttomeY
Meeting called to order. Roll call taken with Calvin Lee and Philip Vaughan absent.
On the minutes of August lO, 1994, bottom of page 2,20'centerline upslope and 10' dor)mslope
needs to be corrected to read 20' centerline doumslope and page 3 Nation Forest needs to be
corrected to read National Forest. Herb Nelson moved to approve the August 10, 1994 and
September 14, lgg4 minutes. Dick Stephenson seconded. Motion passed by voice vote.
public Hearing for a heliminary Plan for Deer Crest Orchard, located in the Silt Mesa area,
northwest ofthe Town of Silt. Applicants: James R & Diane Barry. Don DeFord questioned the
applicants regarding mailing, posdng and publication. Mr. DeFord determined that mailing, posting
an-rl publication was sumJient and tle hearing could proceed. PatEitzgerald swore in all persons
wi*hirg to qpeak at this public hearing. Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the
record:
a. ProofofPublication
b. Retum Reoeipts
c. StaffReport
d. Letter from Shawn &BnbaruMcElroY
Mr. DeFord told the Cornmission that the record shoukl show that both associate members are voting
members.
Mr. Michaelson summarized the proposal. The property was originally platted as a portion of Tract
44, Antlet's Orchard pht#L,recorded in 1909. Access to the site is via a private easeme'lrt from CR
ZZa,plattedand recorded as a part ofthe Antlet's Orchard Subdivision. The applicants are proposing
to qplit the 10 acre parcel into two parcels.
Review agencies that have commented on the proposal include Division of Water Resources, and
Bookcliff Soil Conservation District. In house domestic water will be provided by individual well.
Two well applications are pe,nding with the Colorado DMsion of Water Resources. The applicants
will enter into a conffact with the West Divide Water Conservancy pistrict as part of an augmentation
plan. The Soil District expressed conoeflts regarding revegetation, animal controf irrigation ditch
maintenance, drainage, soil disnrrbances of steep slopes and water quality.
Major issues and concems included soils/topography, fire protection, zonitg, and drainage/irrigation
ditches.
Staff recommended approval with 9 conditions.
euestions and comments from the Pla:ming Commission inoluded the original Antler's Orchard
Subdivision, well maintenance, dog limits, drainage, water, approval of an augmentation plan, ditch
maintenance and kennels.
Debbie Duley, Schmeuser Gordon Meyer, addressed the issues of utilities, dog controf and the
applicants have no objections to the conditions of approval Ms. Duley also discussed the percolation
tests, and GPMs for the wells.
Shawn McElroy, Abel Munez and Rick Bertolini addressed the Qsmmission and voiced their
objections r"g.diog the qplitting ofthe property. Mr. McElroy told the commission whe,n he bought
hisproperty it *u. rqrrese,lrted as a 10 acre parcel. Mr. Bertolini also had concems about the water,
individual septic systems, dry wells and the roads.
James Barry addressed ttre concems regarding the contribution to utilities and road maintenance.
Dick Stephenson moved to approve the Deer Crest Orchard Preliminary Plan with conditions #9
changedio read with kennels and #2 to read witl other associations. Motion died for a lack of a
second.
John Foulkrod moved to deny the proposal for the Deer Crest Orchard Preliminary Plan. Carl
seconded. Motion passed 5-2.
public Meeting for aZoteDistrict Change fromA/R/RD to R/GAID, located between the old and
** Strt. ffighway 82 alignment, at the Eagle/Garfield County line. Applicants: Bob Amold and
Ed Podolak. Dave Michaelson entered ttre following exhibits into the record:
a. StaffReport
b. Letter from Jerri Zamora
c. Letter from S. Harris
d. Letter from Cindy Horst
e. Letter fromMrs. Blanch
f Letter from Kristen Lester
g. Letter fromBernita Hammond
Mr. Michaelson summaized ttLe proposal. The current alignment of SH 82 has created two
geographically separate parcels, an ll.79l acre parcel on the south side of the new four lane and a
zg.itparcel io the north of the new four lane. The north parcel was approved for 48 multi-family
and rO singte fami$ homes in 1994. The southern parcel (this request) is located between the old and
new SH 82, andincludes nrlmerous outbuildings and three mobile homes. Rqlresentations by the
applicant indicate that the two acre parcel occupied by the old homestead will remain under A/R/RD.
:ff,e applicants have requested L zoue district amendment for the eastern most nine acres from
A/R/RD to R/GAID. The R/GAJD zone district has a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, which
represents tle densest residential zone district allowed in the County, independent of the PUD
pfocess.
Major issues and concerns included applicable state regulations, ohange for the public good, change
of circumstance, compliance with adjacent land uses, public health, safety and welfare, and court
precedence.
Staffhas recommended approval of the proposed zone district amendment. State statute does not
allow conditions of approval to be placed on zone district amendments, and staffrecommended that
the proposed puD rddr... the issues of open space provisions within the PUD be used to buffer the
proposed units from the lower densrty uses south of old SH 82; that the applicant pursue a
,o-r""ity outreach approach prior to final design to address issues raised by adjacent residents; that
the appttant consider berming and landsoaping the frontage with old 82, and that the PUD
applicatio" include a landscaping plan to assist the County and adjacent land oramers in reviewing the
PUD and that the proposed access plan is designed to be compatible with existing driveways and
accessways to reside,lrtial uses south of the proposed PLID.
Questions and comments from the Planning Commission included density, traffic impacts, and the
PUD process.
Ed Podolak addressed the Commission and discussed the issues of road cuts, toum home site
engineering, affordable housing, sewer, access, water, open qpace, neighborhood meetings, density,
and affordable housing.
Members of the audience addressed the Commission and included JerrZamota, Eloise Elgen, Kim
Johnson, Shep llaris, Michael Horst, Jeannie Ranchard, Cindy Horst, Lori Wells, Bruce Baldridge,
Kristen Lester, Benita Hammond, and Fred Gannett, attomey for the homeowners, among others,
commented on the issues of density, character of neighborhood, access, meeting with adjacent
property ovurers, utilitieg trafrc sipal, consistencywith adjacelrt area, additional traffic impaots, and
change in circumstance.
John Foulkrod moved to continue the meeting until March 8, 1995. Herb Nelson seconded. Motion
faied,2-4.
Dick Stephenson moved to approve the zone district change from A/R/RD to R/G/UD with
conditions 1-4 as recommended by staff Carl Schiesser seconded. Discussion was held regarding
zontngto R/G/SD instead and the applicant agreed. Motion passed 7-0.
Dick Stephenson stepped down for this meeting. Public Meeting for an amendment to Resolution
No. 81-384, for a SpeoialUse Permit to allow for the permane,lrt aocess to State Highway 82 for the
Blue GravelPit. Applicant: Westem slope Aggregates. Jim Snyder addressed the commission and
noted for the record that he does lease some property from the Blue's in the Rifle area. Mr. Snyder
has leased the ranch for 15 years. Mr. Snyder commented that if anyone thought that he would
benefit fromthis meeting, he would step dorvn. Don DeFord, County Attorney told the commission
that Mr. Snyder had qpoken to him before the meeting, and his opinion is that if in some way Mr.
Snyder wonld benefit fnancially from this meeting, there will be a conflict of interest. PatEitzgenld
asked the Commission or members of the audience if they had ary problems with Mr. Snyder sitting
in on the meeting' There were no comments from either the Planning commission or ttre audie'nce'
Mark Bean summarized the proposal. The Blue Gravel Pit has been operating under a Special Use
Permit since 1981. Resolution No. 81-384 included condition #6 which restricted access to the pit
via CR 103 antl 104. The applicant has requested the addition of a permanent access directly to State
Highway 82, m addition to the existing access onto CRs 103 and 104. Access would be via two
existing roadways, the upper access being on the Blue property, and ttre lower route being within SH
82 ROW. The State has approved the access request. In 1993, by Resolution No. 93-051, the
County approved the temporary use of tlis access by the applicant to fuIfiIl a contract with the
Departmelrt of Tranqportation. Access to the SH 82 site using the proposed route was from June 1,
1994 to November l, lgg4. This access is also used by the Blues for their ranch.
Major iszues and concerrs included inrpact statement, impacts on adjacent lands, and traffic impacts.
Staffrecommended approval with 4 conditions.
Shaum Mellow, employee of Bill Roberts, owler of Westem slope Aggregates, addressed the
commission and commented that the road has been used for two separate projects. Discussion
included the trafBc iryacts, State highway access approvaf noise studies, and traffic increases on CR
103.
Mr. Mellow gave Mr. Bean a letter fromWooden Deer residents approving ofthe proposal.
Audience members commented on the issues and included Fred Hollowelt John French, AlBarry,
Jim Jenkins, Glen Harris, David Powell, Lori Fields, Jay Densmore, Shawn Vondette and Martha
Densnore. Discussion was held on the issues ofhours oftruck hauling, access, excel and decel lanes,
use of jake brakes, a petition was given to Mark Bean from the Ranch at Roaring Fork property
owners opposing the proposat Casey Conorete using the access also, noise, pollution fromtrucks,
heavytrucktraffic on CR 103 and 104, safety, maintenance and improvements to CR 103 and 104.
Mr. Mellow said that there are eryloyeeg ranch use, and people just looking tlat use the access now.
Mr. Mellow stated that Casey Concrete is attached to their Speoial Use Permit and would follow ttre
access that Westerr Slope Aggregates would take. Mr. Bean commexrted that there is not to be any
use ofthe road for any reason and also that the Commission had the option of setting conditions that
would preclude Casey Concrete fromusing the access.
Carl Schiesser moved to deny tle proposal. John Foulkrod seconded. Motion passed 3-2.
Mark Bean noted for the record that there are two altematives the applicant can take: either go to
the Board of County Commissioners to consider the recommendation of denial or resubmit the
application.
MarkBeantoldthe Commissionthat the Open Space/Trails Committee meeting has been scheduled
for Wednesday, February 15, at 7:00 p.m
Re qp ectfully submitted,
Stella Archuleta
SA/sa