HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.0 PC Staff Report 03.12.2008PC 03/12/08
CR
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan Hunt Ranch Subdivision
APPLICANT / OWNER: Hunt Ranch, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: JAM Development, LLC
OTAK and DDA Inc.
LOCATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Missouri Heights
561.75 acres
Central Water System
ISDS
CR 102 (Missouri Heights Road)
ARRD
ARRD / Residential Subdivisions
Study Area I (Medium Density Residential of 6 to <10
ac/du)
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
A. General Property Location / Description
The Hunt Ranch (the Property) contains 561 acres and is generally located approximately 4.5 miles
northeast of Carbondale and 3 miles northwest of El Jebel in the Missouri Heights area in east
Garfield County. The Property is adjacent to the Eagle County line. The subject property is located
in close proximity to the Strang Ranch, Panorama Ranches Subdivision, and King's Row
Subdivision.
The Property consists of rolling topography with approximately 250 -acres of active pasture land
with the remaining acreage consisting primarily of juniper / pinyon, sage vegetation. Presently,
uses on the Property are agricultural in nature where 250 acres of the property is devoted to
irrigated hay and pasture production during the growing season as well as serving cattle during the
winter months. There are three residences and a variety of structures that all serve the ranching
operations.
B. Proposal
The Applicant requests approval from Garfield County to subdivide the subject property into 93
single-family residential lots while devoting the remainder of the Property to active agricultural
operations and common open space and trails.
II. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The Sketch Plan Application was referred to the following agencies and County departments for
their review and comment.
a. Town of Basalt:
b. Town of Carbondale: No Comments Received
c. Eagle County Planning Department:
d. Carbondale Fire Protection District:
e. RE -1 School District: No Comments Received
f. Colorado State Forest Service:
g. Colorado Department of Transportation:
h. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received, Anticipated
i. Colorado Division of Water Resources:
j. Colorado Geologic Survey:
k. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority:
1. County Road and Bridge Department:
m. Garfield County Vegetation Manager:
n. Garfield County Sheriff Department:
o. Mountain Cross Engineering:
p. Garfield County Environmental Health Department:
q. Bureau of Land Management:
r. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:
2
III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within Study Area I which designates the property as "Medium Density
Residential" on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map which suggests properties in this area
develop residentially at a density of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. Having a gross density of 6.03
acres per dwelling unit, the proposed development generally conforms to the Plan's identified
density requirement. To ensure compliance with Comprehensive Plan density requirements, the
Applicant has represented that Accessory Dwelling Units will not be allowed. Staff suggests
requiring this representation be included in the Restricted Covenants and as a plat note. However,
Staff finds that the proposed development does not comply with the following aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan:
2.0 Housing
GOALS — To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable
housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are
compatible with and that protect the natural environment.
Housing at cost of no more than 30% of the gross median income.
Designate appropriate areas.
Encourage mix of housing types within a development.
Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home.
Address the challenge of lake of public support.
Designate and encourage growth favorable zones adjacent to community limits.
STAFF RESPONSE
The application did not address this section of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. Staff
finds that the proposed development does provide "all types of housing that ensures current and
future residents equitable housing opportunities". The subject property's zoning does not allow
two-family or multi -family dwellings as a use by right. However, the Comprehensive Plan
provides other methods of complying with this standard such as deed restrictions. The Applicant
needs to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with §2.0 Housing Goals.
2.1 Housing Objectives
To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield
County.
STAFF RESPONSE
Volume I, page 40 (3), begins with Objective 2.2. §2.1 has not been addressed. The applicant will
need to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with this section of Comprehensive
Plan.
3
7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES OBJECTIVES
7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on
existing water and sewer systems.
7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer
systems.
7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES POLICIES
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and
environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before
project approval.
Staff Response
The subject property is encumbered with apparent slope constraints. The Applicant's Soils
Report demonstrates adequate soils for placement of an ISDS system. However, the Applicant
will need to demonstrate slope constraints will not prevent the placement of and ISDS and a
reserve location for replacement incase of failure. The Applicant will need to provide a slope
representation demonstrating that each lot has an area lacre or greater for the construction of a
single-family dwelling unit and two reserve locations for ISDS. Staff can not make a
determination of compliance with this standard with the data provided.
8.1 (Policies) Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in
areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris
flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25
percent, riparian areas and wetland and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain.
Staff Response
The subject property is encumbered with slope constraints that appear to exceed 25% on some of
the proposed lots. A substantial portion of lots 42, 45, 46, 47 and 72 as demonstrated in
Attachment R of the application are encumbered with slope constraints of 30% or greater. The
Applicant has utilized a cluster design without requesting the lot increase incentive in order to
remain in compliance with the density requirement identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Applicant could utilize the cluster designs option to reduce the lot size of the
proposed lots to one (1) acre. This would allow the Applicant to place a greater number of lots on
areas of the subject property that are not encumbered with slopes greater than 25% and still
maintain the proposed agricultural open space. Utilizing the cluster option to reduce lots sizes does
not require the Applicant to pursue the lot incentive. The Applicant has not demonstrated
compliance with this section of the Comprehensive Plan.
4
IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of
the ARRD zone district.
A. Proposed Uses
The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on 93 lots which is
contemplated as a "use by right" in the A/R/RD zone district and is therefore consistent with
the underlying zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Section 3.02 of the
Zoning Resolution.
However, pages 23-29, Vol. I of the application identify uses allowed on each lot. The
Applicant will need to demonstrate how the proposed lots will be restricted to these
identified uses. If approved, the proposed subdivision will be zoned
Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density and the proposed lots will governed by §3.02 of the
Zoning Resolution which identifies many uses allowed as a "use by right", "special use" and
"conditional use".
B. Common Dimensional Requirements Issues and Concerns
➢ Lot Size / Slope: The Applicant proposes the 561.07 -acre property be subdivided into 93
lots and 3 open space parcels. The size of each proposed lots and parcels meets or exceeds
the minimum lot size. The Applicant has not demonstrated that each lot has a building area
("building envelope") of at least 1 contiguous acre with slopes less than 40% pursuant to
Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning Resolution. Staff cannot make a determination of
compliance at this time.
➢ Building Envelopes: The Applicant proposes building envelopes on all 93 residential lots.
The Application states that the proposed building envelopes will be reduced after
construction is complete on the lots. It is not demonstrated how this will be accomplished.
If building envelopes are depicted on the Final Plat they are part of a recorded document
that must obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners if changed. The
Applicant will need to elaborate on this representation and demonstrate what method will
be used to accomplish this. If a future property owners will need to be notified of a
requirement that forces the submittal of a Amended Final Plat after construction.
V. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The following section addresses common subdivision issues.
A. Domestic Water
The Application states that domestic potable water for the 93 single-family dwellings will
be provided by a private central water system. The proposed system design will require
approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) prior to
the Final Plat approval as it is considered a Community Water System. Documentation of
this approval from CDPHE shall be included in the Final Plat Application to the County.
A Water Court Decree granted on October 31St, 2007 has been provided. Staff received a
"No Material Injury" letter from Division of Water Resources (Office of the State Engineer)
on February 12th, 2008. Included in Restrictive Covenants, are conditions of an agreement
5
with Missouri heights Well Users Association, which are subject to the Court Decree Case
No. 05CW301. The application represents potable water will be monitored at each home
and at the main distribution line. Meter records will be available for inspection and a
monthly report will be provided to the Missouri Heights Well Users Association. Staff finds
that the Applicant has demonstrated a legal source of water to serve the proposed
development. However, water quality analysis tests submitted were reviewed by Jim Rada,
Garfield County Environmental Health Department Manager. In the comments provided it
is stated that the tests results were incomplete for the following reason:
1. Well No. 4 was not tested for radionuclide and only one bacteriological sample
result was included in the report and it is not denoted which well the sample was
taken;
In order to comply with §4:91 (A) (5) of Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984,
the Applicant will need provide Garfield County Environmental Health Department with a
complete analysis for each well to serve the proposed system. Staff cannot make a
determination of compliance with this standard with the data provided in the application.
B. Irrigation Water
Irrigation water will be provided through raw water rights. An irrigation storage pond will be
situated near the domestic water tank and is designed to hold approximately 3.0 acre/feet of
storage. Irrigation water will be delivered via a raw water pump station. As represented
130,000+ gallons of irrigation water will be stored upslope from Lots 80 and 81. Jim Rada,
Garfield County Environmental Health Manager has raised a concern regarding possible
flooding. Staff will need the Applicant to provide more details regarding the proposed storage
and how possible overflow to Lots 80 and 81 is going to be prevented.
C. Waste Disposal
The Application proposes that the wastewater generated from the 93 single-family lots will
be handled by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) on each lot. The soils
characteristics in the area range in suitability for ISDS depending on moderate slopes and
shrink -swell characteristics. As stated earlier in this memorandum the subject property is
encumbered with slope constraints. The Applicant will need to demonstrate that the all lots
have adequate area to install ISDS while reserving a replacement location in case of failure.
Staff cannot make a determination of adequacy with the data provided. The ISDS
Management Plane provided in inadequate.
The Applicant will need to provide a ISDS Management consistent with those approved by
Garfield County in the Past.
D. Public Access / Internal Road System
The proposed internal road system has been designed to meet the standard of a minor
collector except the identified shared driveways which have been designed with the
minimum Right of Way and the existing "Road G". The proposed roads will be dedicated
to the County for public access but owned and maintained by Hunt Ranch Property Owners
Association. The Preliminary Plan identifies three shared driveways (depicted on Lots 34-
35, 40 and 44). Garfield County Subdivision Regulations will require that the proposed
shared driveways be included as part of the internal road system and designed to County
6
standards. It is unclear which lots will be served by shared driveway located on lots 40 and
44. As depicted on the Preliminary Plan the proposed shared driveways begins and ends on
each of said lots. Each of the proposed driveways will be considered part of the internal
road system and will need to connect through to each lot to be served by the internal road
that is identified as a shared driveway.
The applicant will need to demonstrate the status of the existing "Road G" it is not clear if is
a public right of way or a private easement. The Applicant will need to demonstrate the
ability to legally utilize the existing road. This right of way is depicted on Garfield County
road maps as 85 Road. The Applicant will need to provide further data regarding the status
of this road in order for Staff to make a determination of the ability to incorporate the ROW
into the development. It will need to be demonstrated if the this is a public right of way or
private easement.
The application included a Traffic Analysis completed by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The
study finds that the proposed development will generate minimum impacts. Garfield
County traffic impact fees will be calculated at the time of Final Plat. The Applicant can
expect to pay approximately $267,000. Garfield County applies this fee to the study area
which the proposed development is situated. Even though the traffic analysis does not
identify required improvements, the Applicant would like the Board to allocate the fees to
improving County Road 102, contiguous to the proposed development. The application
represents an estimated cost of the desired improvements proposed by the Applicant to be
approximately $718,000 and include the following improvements:
1. Improving the section of County Road 102 adjacent to the property to County
Standard;
2. Reducing the Curve on County Road 102 to improve sight distance and safety;
3. Flattening a hump in County Road 102 to improve sight distance and safety;
4. Improving the intersection of County Road 102 near the Jess Pederson home to
slow traffic and improve safety, and installing stop signs at this location;
5. Installing stop signs on County Road 102 at the intersection with Kings Row, as
requested by local residents, if this is acceptable to Garfield County;
6. Hunt Ranch will convey about 6.4 acres to the County to accommodate the actual
alignment of County Road 102;
Staff recommends that if this request is approved the improvements identified by the
Applicant be included in the SIA and that the Applicant be responsible for completing all
improvements. The Applicant may request that the Board of County Commissioners allow
a traffic impact fee credit at the time of presenting this application to the Board for review.
Staff referred the application to Eagle County for review. Eagle County provided
comments concerning the distribution of 65% (as represented in the traffic analysis) of the
generated traffic entering Eagle County. Eagle County has requested that the Applicant
consider an Inter -Governmental Agreement to mitigate traffic impacts to Eagle County
Roads. Due to the traffic projections, Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to
address Eagle County's concerns prior to the approval of the Preliminary Plan.
7
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reviewed the traffic analysis provided by
the Applicant. It has determined that the proposed development will increase traffic by 22%
at the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82. Therefore, a State Highway
Access Permit will be required. CDOT will require a level 3 traffic study. The Board
routinely requires the Developer to act as the Applicant for CDOT access permits and
complete all improvements required. At the time of Preliminary Plan approval the Board
may authorize the Applicant to pursue a CDOT access permit on behalf of Garfield County.
Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to obtain the access permit and complete
all CDOT requirements.
E. Fire Protection
The property is located in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The property appears
to consist of Low, Moderate and High Wildfire Hazard in the Comprehensive Plan that are
designations generally based on existing slope and fuel type. The Applicant proposes a central
water supply system capable of producing a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. All
homes will be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems. Carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection District Deputy Chief, Bill Gavette has determined that the proposed water supplies
meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. At the time of Final Plat the Applicant
will be responsible for District impact fees in the amount of $437.00 per dwelling unit ($437.00
x 93units = $40,641.00).
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services conducted a site-specific wildfire survey on the subject
property. The findings and recommendations of this survey have been incorporated into the
Preliminary Plan. In the comments provided by Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District it
is represented that the Department is in agreement with the recommendations provided by the
Applicants commissioned consultant. The recommendations include defensible space, building
design and access recommendations for each of the identified High, Medium and Low Hazard
Ratings as identified in 1.2 Figure 2 of the Wildfire Hazard Review.
F. Drainage & Floodplain Issues
There are no FEMA mapped floodplains on the property. The Applicant will need to make a
determination regarding wetlands. The Application does not address this issue.
The drainage study provided by the Applicant concludes that no long-term adverse impacts to
drainage are anticipated. Roadway culverts are designed to accommodate flows for 25- year
storm events.
Chris Hale, consulting engineer for Garfield County provided the following comments
regarding drainage:
1. In the drainage plan the existing Basins 5, 6, & 7 seem to correspond to the proposed
Basins of R, S, T, & U but with significantly different flows. The calculations should be
verified. Detention or other mitigation may be warranted to avoid downstream impacts.
2. Cul-de-sac for Road D appears to drain onto Lot 16 and then through Lot 17, Lot 18,
and Lot 19 before an easement is provided for drainage.
8
Existing Drainage Map
11•7101.11M11•11f R. RI
•
BASIN 6
ASIN4
4.
BASIN a
BAS/N 3
BASIN T
BASIN 1
BASIN 2
Post Development Drainage Map
Staff Response
Staff has not received a response regarding Chris Hale's comments from the Applicant's
representative as requested. Staff would like the Applicant's representative to address these
concerns to the satisfaction of Garfield County's consulting engineer. Staff cannot make a
determination regarding the adequacy of the provided drainage study at this time.
9
G. Wildlife
The Application contains an analysis of the wildlife found on or near the property completed by
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. The analysis considered impacts to Elk, Mule Deer,
Black Bear and Harrington penstemon known to have habitat on or adjacent to the subject
property. The analysis states that the subject property does not contain habitat for Federally
Threatened or Endangered species. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will
impact winter range habitat for deer and elk. By clustering homes and preserving large tracts of
undeveloped land and adopting strict dog policies deer and elk will continue to utilize the
subject property as habitat. Section three of the Ecological Assessment provides a number of
impact mitigation recommendations. It is represented in the application that all applicable
recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed development. Staff recommends
that as condition of approval the Applicant include the applicable recommendations into the
Restrictive Covenants for the proposed development.
Harrington's penstemon, a globally rare plant has been mapped on the subject property. There
are no regulations regarding the protection of this plant. The Ecological Assessment
recommends marking the populations prior to locating building envelopes. It is not clear if the
rare species was considered in respect to building envelopes. Staff would like the Applicant to
outline the measures taken to mitigate impacts to Harrington's penstemon known to exist on the
subject property.
H. Vegetation Management
The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
Noxious Weeds
• Inventory and mapping -The applicant has provided a very general map of county
and state listed noxious weeds. In the report, the applicant states that diffuse
knapweed, oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, and yellow toadflax are priority species
for treatment. However on the map, two of the species -oxeye daisy and yellow
toadflax are not shown. On the map only sulphur cinquefoil and diffuse knapweed
are indicated. Weeds are shown as either "significant noxious weed infestation
areas" or as "multiple weed species ". Staff requests a more detailed inventory that
addresses the specific locations of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy, and absinth
wormwood. In addition, all county -listed noxious weeds should be mapped
according to their general location. To further clarify, instead of listing an area as
having "multiple weed species ", the actual species found within that site should be
listed on the map.
• Weed Management
Staff recommends that oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, yellow toadflax, and diffuse
knapweed be treated prior to any construction activities take place. This would help
reduce some of the seed spread into future disturbed areas. All four of these are
prolific invaders. Sulphur cinquefoil is not a county listed plant, however it is on the
state list and most likely the state will be mandating its eradication later this year.
Staff requests that the applicant verify that weed management is implemented by
providing treatment records prior to June 30, 2008. The county does provide a cost -
10
share program that can assist with weed control expenses. If the applicant is
interested, they can contact this office at 625-8601.
Please send treatment records to:
Garfield County Vegetation Management
POB 426
Rifle CO 81650
Revegetation
• The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management
Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following:
A. Plant material list.
B. Planting schedule.
C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building
envelopes).
D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
• The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please
provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of
acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances.
This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for
revegetation.
• The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of
County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the
reclamation prior to the release of the security.
Soil Plan
• The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil
Management Plan that includes:
1. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
2. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
3. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
Rare plant occurrences
• The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) has been
mapped and inventoried by the applicant. This plant while globally rare has no
federal status as a threatened or endangered species. Any preservation of habitat
where the plant is found will have to voluntary on the part of the applicant and future
lot owners. The applicant's ecological consultant, Eric Petterson, did comment on
ways to mitigate direct and indirect impact to Harrington's penstemon habitat. Mr.
11
Petterson suggested that "flagging or marking of populations prior to locating
building envelopes can preserve populations and suitable habitats." Again, such
action would have to voluntary, but lot owners may consider this information when
determining where to build.
Staff Response
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission require that the Applicant submit a more
detailed inventory that addresses the specific location of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy,
absinth wormwood and all county -listed noxious weed as suggested by Garfield County
Vegetation Management prior to scheduling this item before the Board of County
Commissioners. Staff is also recommending that a condition of approval be included
requiring the treatment of all state and county listed noxious weeds prior to the submittal of
the Final Plat. Treatment records shall be provided to Garfield County Vegetation
Management at the address provided.
Staff also suggests a condition of approval requiring the compliance with the Revegetation
Guidelines from the County Weed Management Plan at the time of Final Plat. The
submittal shall include the following:
A. Plant material list;
B. Planting schedule;
C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building
envelopes) quantifying the area disturbed to determine revegetation security;
D. Soil Management Plan;
I. Trails / Paths / Parks/Open Space
The Applicant proposes a primitive surfaced single-track trail to run along the outside of the
development through the open space parcels for the benefit of the lot owners. The Applicant
also proposes a 10 -foot wide asphalt trail / path along the main loop road (Roads A and D) as
well as along CR 102 between the two entrances to the project. The proposed single-track trail
appears to run through proposed lots. The Applicant will need to be legally described the
proposed single-track trail within an easement granted to the Hunt Ranch Property Owner's
Association in order to insure that the represented trail is made available. This easement shall
be submitted with the Final Plat.
The application represents that the proposed asphalt trail will be made available to the public.
In order to ensure that the proposed trail is available to the public the Applicant will need to
include the trail in the public right of way or establish a new right of way ensuring public
access. The Hunt Ranch Property Owner's Association will be responsible for all trail
maintenance.
At the time of Final Plat, the Applicant will need to provide a detailed cost analysis, sealed by
an Engineer licensed by the State of Colorado outlining all proposed public improvements.
This cost analysis will be used to determine the required security to ensure all represented
public improvements are completed.
12
The application represents the preservation of the historic agricultural aspects of the subject
property. The Preliminary Plan identifies this area as Lot 1 (155.86 acres). It is not clear how
the Applicant intends to accomplish this representation. The application first states that the
Applicant considered utilizing a local or regional land trust to ensure preservation of the
agricultural parcel. It is represented that the Applicant has only attempted to reach an
agreement with Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). It has been determined that the proposed
agricultural lot does not meet the objectives of AVLT. The application then states that if an
agreement with a land trust is not reached other options will be pursued. The Applicant will
need to demonstrate the exact method to be used to accomplish this representation. Staff cannot
make a finding regarding this representation until a final agreement has been reached.
J. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the
Board of County Commissioners due to inadequacies identified in this Staff Report for the
Preliminary Plan for Hunt Ranch Subdivision. Including but not limited to the following:
1. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with §2.0 (Housing Goals) of the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan of 2000;
2. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with §2.1 (Housing Objectives) of the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000;
3. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with §7.0 (Water and Sewer Objectives and
Policies) regarding ISDS slope constraints as outlined on page 4 of this memorandum;
4. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with §8.1 (Slope Policies) as identified on
page 4 of this memorandum;
5. The Applicant has not demonstrated how lots will be restricted to the allowed uses as
represented in the application;
6. The Applicant has not demonstrated that each lot has at least one contiguous acre of less
than 40% slope;
7. The Applicant needs to provide a complete water analysis for review by Garfield County
Environmental Health Department;
8. The ISDS Management Plan Provided is inadequate;
9. The proposed shared driveways need to comply with Garfield County Design Standards and
each lot utilizing the proposed driveway must be identified in the Preliminary Plan
Submittal. The proposed driveways must provide fee simple access to each lot. As depicted
on the Preliminary Plan each driveway begins and ends on a single lot;
10. The status of proposed "Road G" must be demonstrated to Staff in order to make a
determination regarding the ability of the developer to utilize the road within the
development. The Applicant shall provide documentation which demonstrates whether the
existing road is a public right of way or private easement;
11. The Applicant has not addressed the issues raised by Eagle County regarding traffic impacts
to Eagle County;
12. The Applicant will need to address the concerns identified by Garfield County's consulting
engineer and allow time for review of additional data provided;
13. The Applicant will need to provide a determination regarding possible wetlands located on
the subject property;
13
14. The Applicant will need to make a final determination regarding the status of the
represented perpetual Agricultural Easement on Lot 1. Staff cannot move the application
forward with a positive recommendation until this issue is resolved;
15. The Applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed irrigation storage situated upslope
from Lots 80 and 81 will not adversely impact the proposed lots with possible overflow
created a flood event;
14
