HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report PC 09.11.02REOUEST:
DATE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
SITE / ZONING:
SEWER:
WATER:
PC 09lll/02
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Preliminary Plan review for the Monument Ridee Sub4ivision
Septernber I l, 2002 (Continued Public Hearing fr om 8 I I 4 I 02)
Footfills Land and Development Inc.
Roger Neal, High Country Engineering
County Roads 300 and 303 along the southeast limit of Battlernent
Mesa, southeast of Town of Parachute, Colorado
181.9 acres / A/R/RD
ISDS
Shared Wells with West Divide Water Contract
PLEASE NOTE: Please bring the Staff Memorandum including exhibits provided to you for the
August 14,2002 meeting for convenient reference during this meeting.
":t+
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant requests Preliminary Plan review for the Monument Ridge Subdivision. The subject
site contains 181.9 acres to be subdivided into 17 lots ranging from 6 to 13 acres each. Theproperty
is located at the intersection of County Roads 300 and 303 along the southeast limit of Battlement
Mesa, approximately 2 miles southeast of the Town of Parachute, Colorado. Water for the
subdivision would be provided by individual and shared wells and Individual Septic Disposal
Systems (ISDS) would provide sewage treatment for each lot. Access to the majority of lots is
provided directly from CR 300 and CR 300. Lots 9, 10 and 14-17 are accessed from aprivate cul-de-
sac. The Applicant proposes the lots to be residential lots containing single-family dwellings that
provides for a low density of approximatelyl0 acres per dwelling unit.
a) SITE DESCRIPTION
The I 8 1 .9-acre tract is comprised of gently sloping terrain or undulating topography located in the
Monument Gulch drainage. The site is characterized as montane grassland that includes fescues,
oatgrass, Junegrass, and Mountain muhly. The soils are mostly comprised of Potts loam, which has
moderate permeability, and available water capacity is high. The only major drainage basin within
the property with an established 100-year floodplain is Monument Gulch and its tributaries. The
basin flows through the site, from east to northwest and eventually drains into the Colorado River.
More specifically, three smaller drainage channels occur on the northern and central portions of the
property. CR 300 runs in a north-south direction through the center of the property. At present, the
property has been used for cattle and horse grazing and an irrigation ditch to the west of CR 300
provides water to fields on Lots 1,3, 5,7,9, and 10.
b) suMMARy oF ACTTON TAKEN By PLANNTNG COMMISSION ON 8/14102
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Preliminary Plan to September 116
due to the lack of information provided by the Applicant and the lengthy list of conditions of
approval as a result of an inadequate application and questions raised by Staff.
Staff sent a letter (See Exhibit U) to the Applicant requesting additional information and clarification
of information be submitted to Staff and the Commission. Specifically, the issues that the
Commission and Staff believed need to be further addressed included the following:
A) Domestic Water Supply (Provide either a central system that complies with the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations or provide individual wells for all lots);
B) Irrieation Water (Further describe how irrigation water was to be supplied and disclosed
protective covenants);
C) No Building Zones / Building Envelopes (Building Envelopes / No build Areas were to be
funher delineated based on the CTL lThompson report regarding the 100 year floodplain and
debris flow hazard areas); and
D) Access / Garfield Countv Road and Bridge Issues (Provide clarification from the Road and
Bridge Department regarding 1) fence relocation along county roads, 2) county participation in
the placernent of the culvert during the construction of lowering the high spot in County Road
300 beyond the fence lines onto the developer's property, 3) providing the 60 foot wide easement
to Garfield County for CR 300 and CR 303 for future road upgrading, 4) common driveway
entrance for Lots 3 and 4 located at the intersection of CR300 and CR 303, and 5) the proposed
shared access from CR 300 to Lots 11-13 will be required to be designed as a public road
pursuant to the design specifications in the Garfield County Subdivision regulations Section
9:35.
E) Fire Protection (Provide additional information regarding the proposed fire protection plan for
the subdivision.)
This Staff Memorandum will serve as a supplement to the original Staff Memorandum provided to
you for the August 14,2002 public hearing. Staff has provided additional comment to the points
outlined above in order to frame the discussion around the areas of concern that were the basis for
the Commission's decision to continue the hearing to September 11*, 2002.
ADDITIONAL REFFERAL COMMENTS / EXHIBITS / APPLICATION MATERIALS
A) New Plan Set & Supplemental Application Materials (See Exhibit ll)
B) Letter from Resources Engineering (See Exhibit X)
C) Letter from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District (See Exhibit ll)
D) Letter from County Road & Bridge Department (See Exhibit l)
E) Letter from Planning Staff to High Country Engineering (See Exhibit ()
c) STAFF COMMENTS
Staff has reviewed additional material submitted by the Applicant in order to resolve and lor clariff
issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting on August 14,2002. Staff has incorporated
comments provided by referral agencies on these supplemental materials. The following section
provides an analysis of these issues.
A) Domestic Water Supply
Since the Applicant proposes 7 wells to serve the 17 lots, the wells that are proposed to serve
more than one lot are required to meet the county's requirernents for shared water supplies. To
this end, the Applicant resubmitted a proposed "shared well system" that meets the intent of the
requirements; however, Staff finds the Applicant shall be required to install individual storage
tanks on each property. This has been made a condition of approval. In addition, Resource
Engineerin g(See Exhibil n concurs with the method of water delivery to each lot and finds the
proposed system adequate to satisff the county's regulations. Please refer to the new plan set that
provides diagrams showing how the systems will operate as well as the letter submitted by
Zancanella & Associates (See Exhibit l/)
However, Resource Engineering, Staff and the Grand Valley Fire Protection District all agree
the proposed 2.500 storaee tank cannot be used for the dual purpose of domestic water supply
and fire protection supply. As outlined in the September 19, 200I letter from the Grand Valley
Fire Protection District, the water system will need to provide separate storage tanks for
domestic supply and fire protection supply.
The most recent plan set does not show how Lot 8 will be served by water. In the original
proposal, the Applicant proposed a well on the property line between Lots 9 and 10 with a line
extended across CR300 to Lot 8. This new plan set shows a different lot line splitting lots 9 and
10 so that a driveway access for lot 9 can come off of the cul-de-sac rather than CR300. As such
the Applicant neglected to address the well serving Lot 8. The Applicant shall provide this
B)
information to the Planning Commission and Staff in a new Plan Set prior to the hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners.
Resource Engineering commented that "the subdivision homeowners would be constructing
approximately 42,500 gallons of [individual] fire protection storage. This water could be more
effectively utilized through construction of one or two central storage tanks. Likewise, central
potable water storage could be more effectively utilized for each of the central water systems.
Staff finds that the Applicant shall outline all of the water system requirements which must be
installed by the homeowner in a plat note. The detailed requirernents shall be incorporated in the
covenants."
As mentioned in the previous Staff Memorandum, the Colorado Division of Water Resources
finds the water supply should be physically adequate to supply the proposed uses and will not
cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the Applicant maintains valid well
permits per the District's Substitute Supply Plan, and is physically adequate.
Irrieation Water Issues
Regarding irrigation water, Resource Engineering suggested that while the covenants attempt to
define how the irrigation water will be used within the subdivision; the language is too general
and there is no clear understanding of how water is to be divided among the lots that are to be
irrigated.
The Applicant provided additional language to be placed in their protective covenants that
indicate the lots that will receive irrigation water will be lots 1-8 (which are all those lots to be
developed in Phase II). Those lots will receive a certain percentage of the main irrigation supply
currently available to those lots. Lot I will receive llo/o,Lot2 will receive l8o/o and so forth. All
of the Lots would have the ability to provide irrigation water from their respective wells for
2,500 square feet. (See.Exft ibil ,n The Applicant states that the Homeowner's Association will
own the water right and manage its distribution but has not set up any specific structure on how
this will be achieved. The Applicant shall craft language defining a specific structure for the
management of the irrigation water in the protective covenants as a condition of approval to be
addressed at final plat. Staff finds this satisfies the request to clariff how irrigation water is to be
delegated through the subdivision.
No Building Zones / Building Envelopes
Due to large drainages and areas within the 100-year floodplain throughout the property, Staff
requested the Applicant delineate "no build zones" based on the CTl/Thompson report
submitted in the application materials in order that future development shall avoid those hazards.
The Applicant submitted a new site plan that delineates areas of debris flow risk as well as the
10O-year floodplain. Further, the Applicant provided a plat note that requires all development be
located at least 20 feet back from theses delineated areas. While the Applicant delineates some of
thehazard areas, they do not address steep slopes nor designate any of these zones as "no build
zones." Staff finds this site plan should be modified to include this information at the time of
final plat.
Resource Engineering stated "the plat shows floodplain and debris flow areas but does not
c)
include unstable slopes. potentially unstable slopes and does not desienate no-build areas. There
is no supporting documentation to demonstrate that the culvert sizing is adequate for the
proposed project. The Monument Ridge Road Circle is located in the middle of a debris flow
area. The submittal does not indicate that appropriate mitigation measures have been designed
into the grading and drainage plan. The Applicant shall provide this information at the time of
final plat."
D) Access / Garfield County Road and Bridge Issues
Access to the majority of lots is provided directly from CR 300 and CR 300 with several others
being access by a 600 foot cul-de-sac. Since the August 146 meeting, the Garfield County Road
and Bridge Department reviewed additional materials submitted by the Applicant in order to
clariff the issues raised during the Staff review and the Planning Commission meeting on
August 14th. Ultimately, after discussing the items with both the Road and Bridge Department
and the Applicant, Staff recommends the following as conditions of approval:
1) The Applicant shall relocate any fence located within the 60 foot right-of-way (30 feet from
the center line of CR 300 and 303 which abuts the Monument Ridge Subdivision as proposed
as part of this approval process.)
2) Garfield County shall commit to participating in lowering a specific portion (known as the
high spot) of CR 300 by only providing the culvert that will carry ditch water across CR 300.
The culvert will stretch beyond the fence lines onto the developer's property on either side of
cR 300.
3) The Applicant committed to providing a 60-foot easement (30 from the centerline of CR 300
and CR 303 to Garfield County for providing the 60-foot wide easement to Garfield County
for CR 300 and CR 303 for future road upgrading. The Applicant has met this obligation by
providing the easement to the County. (See Exhibit lV)
4) The Applicant shall be allowed to place a corlmon driveway entrance for Lots 3 and 4
located at the intersection of CR300 and CR 303 as long as it, and any other driveway
entrances to a county road, has a stop sign at the intersection.
5) The Applicant shall provide a shared access road from CR 300 to Lots 11-13. This access
shall be designed according to the Garfield County Subdivision regulations Section 9:35 to
accommodate ADT generated from three residences as a public road pursuant to the design
specifications in the Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
E) Fire Protection
The Grand Valley Fire Protection District recommended each lot shouldhavea2500 gallontank
(cistern) specifically for the use of fire protection for homes under 3500 square feet in addition to
the domestic water storage. Residences larger than 3500 square feet will need to have both the
calculated size storage tank and sprinkler system to provide initial knockdown capabilities. As
far as access and defensible space is concemed, the developers of these lots shall adhere to the
NFPA 299 standard for Protection of Life and property from Wildfire.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the
Planning Commission;
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at
that hearing;
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of
the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County;
4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County ZoningResolution,
as amended;
5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
of 1984.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to recommend APPROVAL to the Board of the preliminary plan review for the Monument
Ridge Subdivision with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to the Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners for the preliminary plan request for the Monument Ridge
Subdivision with the following conditions:
l. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing
before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by
the Planning Commission.
2. The Applicant shall include language in the protective covenants for the subdivision that require
the developers / purchasers of each individual lot to perform additional percolation testing when
actual percolation field locations are known to determine the most appropriate location for ISDS.
This information shall be provided to the Planning Department at the time of Final Plat.
3. The Applicant shall require individual lot owners to be responsible for the installation of the
ISDS designed by a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. Maintenance of
each system will be the responsibility of the individual lot owner and as outlined in the
protective covenants of the subdivision. In addition, each ISDS must be accompanied by a
detailed maintenance plan contained in the covenants. This information shall be provided to the
Planning Department at the time of Final Plat.
4. Due to the expansive and compressible soils, the owner / developer of each lot shall conduct
additional design level geotechnical studies once building locations are finalized, to characteize
soil and engineering properties beneath each planned structure. This information is needed to
develop a site-specific design recommendations and construction criteria. Soil conditions at
planned foundation depths will dictate whether footings with a minimum load will be needed to
counteract expansive clays. As a result, the developer shall make this CTL /Thompson report
available as a reference for potential lot owners for a reference. This information shall also be
submitted as incorporated into the protective covenants and provided to the Planning Departnent
as part of Final Plat.
5. The Applicant shall provide Staff with a site plan that delineates any wetlands and waters ofthe
U.S. within the property as well as the siting ofbuilding envelopes so that it remains clear there
will be no infringement in those sensitive areas. This shall be submitted to the Planning
Department at the time of Final Plat.
6. Pursuant to the recommendation by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, the
Applicant shall:
a) The Applicant shall relocate any fence occurring within the 60 foot right-of-way (30 feet
from the center line of CR 300 and 303) which abuts the Monument Ridge Subdivision as
proposed as part ofthis approval process.
b) Garfield County shall commit to participating in lowering a specific portion (known as the
high spot) of CR 300 by only providing the culvert that will carry ditch water across CR 300.
The culvert will stretch beyond the fence lines onto the developer's property on either side of
cR 300.
c) The Applicant shall provide a shared access road from CR 300 to Lots 11-13. This access
shall be designed according to the Garfield County Subdivision regulations Section 9:35 to
accommodate ADT generated from three residences as a public road pursuant to the design
specifications in the Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
The site plan shows a number of proposed shared access driveways. All proposed driveways
that serve more than one lot are to be designed according to the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations for roads in Section 9:35. This section requires that those shared access
driveways are to be designed at widths of not less than 30 feet and are to be maintained by
the Homeowners Association. The Applicant shall refer to Section 9:35 for the specific
design standards required by the county.
The Applicant shall present a final grading and drainage plan which includes all of the
proposed culverts and the calculations that determine their sizing to the Planning Departrnent
as part of the final plat submission. This plan shall include any existing or proposed ditches
on the property. This plan shall be provided to the Planning Staff as part of the Final Plat
review.
7. The Applicant shall provide a vegetation bond to be held by Garfield County for the new
Monument Ridge Road at the request of the Garfield County Department of Vegetation
Management. The bond amount and a timeline of its release shall be determined by the Garfield
d)
e)
,\.r
\T t{
County Weed Management Director after the Applicant provides information requested in
Exhibit J. The security shall be held by Garfield County Vegetation Director until vegetation has
been successfully reestablished. Once determined by the Director that successful reclamation has
occurred, the security shall be released. Evidence that this bond has been submitted shall be
submitted to the Planning Department at the time of Final Plat and fully described in the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
8. Pursuant to the revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management
Plan, the Applicant shall provide a Soil Management Plan, related to outside-the-building
envelope activities, such as new road construction, that includes 1) provisions for salvaging on-
site topsoil , 2) a timetable for eliminating topsoil andlor aggregate piles, 3) and a plan that
provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days
or more. The Applicant shall provide this plan, approved by the Garfield County Weed
Managernent Department, with the Final Plat submittal documents at the time of Final Plat.
Evidence that this bond has been submitted shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the
time of final plat and fully described in the Subdivision Improvements Agreernent (SIA).
9. The Applicant shall include a plat note on the Final Plat that requires each lot owner / developer
to provide a2500 gallon tank (cistern) specifically for the use of fire protection for homes under
3500 square feet. Residences larger than 3500 square feet will need to have both the calculated
size storage tank and sprinkler system to provide initial knockdown capabilities. The developers
of these lots shall adhere to the NFPA 299 standard for Protection of Life and property from
Wildfire. In addition, the protective covenants shall include the recommendations stated by the
Grand Valley Fire Protection District as stated in full in their letter dated September 19,2001
submitted by the Applicant during the Preliminary Plan approval process. The Applicant shall
incorporate this condition of approval in the protective covenants for the subdivision to be
reviewed at the time of Final Plat.
10. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic Study Area l. This area
requires an impact fee payment to Garfield County of $280 per Average Daily Trip (ADT)
generated by the subdivision. The Applicant shall make a payment to Garfield County of
$45,553.00. The Applicant shall make this payment to Garfield County or as adjusted by county
regulations and policies in effect at the time of Final Plat.
1 1. The Applicant shall pay the School Land Dedication Impact Fee or pay cash-in-lieu of that land
dedication which shall be due at the time of final plat. An estimated fee based on current fee
regulations requiring $200 per each newly created parcel (Section 9:80 of the Subdivision
Regulations) would be equal to $3,400. The Applicant shall be required to pay the appropriate
assessments and / or impact fees based on the regulations in effect at the time of Final Plat
review.
12. The Applicant shall drill and test wells fbr each individual lot rather than share wells which
requires considerable piping and pumping in order to reach lots. The Applicant shall subrnit
approved well permits to the Garfield Courrty Planning Department and approval from the State
Division of Water resources indicating that the proposed new wells fbr each individual lot will
not cause matsrial injury based on the appropriate state statutes. A1l evidence of these requests
\
\
N'/*
u\
V
Na
shall be provided to the Planning Department at the time of finalplat.
13. As part of providing a legal and adequate source of domestic water to each property within the
subdivision, the Applicant shall construct and make operational individual 2,500 gallon storage
tanks as described in their plans for the shared water supply systems on eaih property prior to
Final Plat. This requirement shall be fully described as a requirement of the developer of the
subdivision and outlined in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) as well as the
protective covenants. This information shall be provided to the Planning Departrnort the time of
Final Plat.
14. The Applicant shall present a plan representing the locations of well maintenance easements
designated for each lot which contain wells and any extemal connections to them. This shall be
shown on the Final Plat. In addition, the Applicant shall present appropriate language in the
protective covenants and the SIA describing the existence ofthese easements and their associated
use by the Homeowner's Association. This information shall be provided to the Planning
Department the time of Final Plat.
15. The most recent plan set does not show how Lot 8 will be served by water. In the original
proposal, the Applicant proposed a well on the property line between Lots 9 and 10 with a line
directed across CR300 to Lot 8. This new plan set shows a different lot line splitting lots 9 and
10 so that a driveway access for lot 9 can come off of the cul-de-sac rather than CR300. As such
the Applicant has neglected to address the well serving Lot 8. The Applicant shall provide this
information to the Planning Commission and Staff in a new Plan Set prior to the hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners.
16. The Applicant states that the Homeowner's Association will own the waterright and manage its
distribution but has not set up any specific structure on how this will be achieved. The Applicant
shall craft language defining a specific structure for the management of the irrigation water in the
protective covenants as a condition ofapproval to be addressed at Final Plat.
a
17 . Theproposed grading and drainage at the intersection of County Road 300 and the propo."a ( #
Monument Ridge Road should be reworked. The proposed grading provides an adverse slope for ) ,V
northbound vehicles on County Road 300. The culvert should be lengthened and moved furth% ^,y'\. ., .
away from the intersection of County Road 300 and Monument Ridge Road. A ditch will need \" +2
to be constructed on the downstream side of the culvert to convey flows to the existing nafiral )
drainage. This shall be submitted at the time of final plat.
lhr lu V lo,, fr l''/'n f1,*/ 4 ,.'L bl C
)e
^oN\ 'ur
J (I
*\,
i4N
)-*
(:,
\
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES, AUGUST 14, 2002
P&Z Members Present
Phil Vaughan
Cteryl Chandler
David Stover
Mike Deer
Michelle Foster
Roll call was taken and the
Laird.
Staff Present
Mark Bean, B&P Director
Fred Jarman, Planner
Tamara Pregl, Planner
Don DeFord, County Atty.
Carolyn Dahlgren, Deputy Cty.Atty
Catalina Cruz, Assist. Cty. Atty.
following members are absent: Rolly Fischer and Colin
All mernbers here tonight are regular voting mernbers.
David Stover made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes from the June
12,2002 meeting as written and Michelle Foster seconded. All approved unanimously.
The next itern on the agenda is a public meeting request is for review of a Site for the
Glenwood Springs Fire Department within the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. The
applicant is the Glenwood Springs Fire District.
Present for the Glenwood Springs Fire District is Chief Piper. Mark Bean is the County
Planner on this project.
Mark reviewed the site proposal. The applicant is proposing to place a new fire station
on CRl l7 to replace the present facility located at the intersection of CRl l7 and CRl25.
The proposed facility is 42'by 35', an apparatus bay area for the equipment, four
bedrooms, a dayroom, a community room, an office and a kitchen.
State Statute number CRS 30-28-110 (1) requires all public entities to submit plans for
the construction of any new building for review and approval from the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission will make some corlments and recorlmendations. If
recommending denial this would have to go to a review board.
Staff understands that the District does not have the ability to upgrade the existing
facility, therefore the need to find a location for an upgraded fire station to meet the needs
of the residents in the area. This is a better location and public utilities are available.
Staff is recofltmending approval of the proposed new fire station facility and site for the
Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District, located within the Four Mile Ranch
Subdivision
No questions or corlments at this time.
Chief Piper spoke next. They have an intergovernmental agreement that runs the district
and the City so when they do things it is collaborate. They isolated this project into the
Rural Fire Protection District. This fire district will serve both County and City
properties. This station will have two bays, 60' deep by 45'wide. This station will have
an engine, an ambulance, water tender and another utility vehicle.
David Stover asked if this would be a manned station. The Chief replied that it can
handle two people on24-7. Looking for stations to be long term.
Moved out to the public for comments and questions and none were received. Closed
public portion of hearing.
Cheryl Chandler thinks this is a great idea.
Mike Deer made a motion to approve the new proposed fire station for the Glenwood
Springs Rural Fire Protection District within Four Mile Ranch and Cheryl Chandler
seconded the motion. All approved unanimously.
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request for review of a preliminary plan
application for the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. The property is located in the southern
portion of Spring Valley along CR 114 and CR 119. The applicants are proposinglg4
single family lots and four cluster housing lots on 441.620 acres. The applicant is the
Berkeley Family Partnership, Miriam B erkeley.
John Schenk of 620 Hyland Park spoke on behalf of the applicant. Carolyn Dahlgren
questioned John about noticing requirernents. Certified return receipts were given to
Carolyn. Property was posted on CR I 14 on July 12th with the form proviaea by the
Garfield County Planning Department and is still in place. Notice was published in the
Glenwood Post Independent and proof of publication was presented.
John Schenk is requesting a continuance to the next scheduled Planning Commission
meeting to address comments that were received from staff appropriately.
Mark Bean entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit A: Proof of publication
Exhibit B: Certified return receipts
Both exhibits are accepted into the record.
Cheryl Chandler made a motion to continue this hearing at the September 11,2002
Planning Commission meeting and David Stover seconded the motion. All approved
unanimously.
John asked for hearing to be reopened and asked that hearing be continued on September
25,z}O2because he would not be available on September 1lft.
Mike Deer made a new motionto continue this hearing onSeptemb er 25,20O2 at 6:3O
p.m. and Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion. A11 approved.
The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request for review of a Sketch Plan
Application for the Hogue Subdivision. The property is located at 400 Quicksilver Wuy,
Rifle CO. The applicants are proposing to subdivide 40.12 acres into 3 single family lots.
The applicants are Grover and Yvonne Hogue.
Fred Jarman is the County Planner on this project. Present for the applicant is Grover
Hogue.
Fred posted the sketch plan map and reviewed the proposal. The subject property is a 40
acre lot, described as Lot 21 of the Grass Mesa Subdivision which is located
approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Rifle. There is currently a single-family
dwelling on this lot.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 40 acres into 3 lots (a 20 acre lot, and two 10
acre lots). Water is to be supplied to all three lots via one well. ISDS are also proposed
for each lot. Access is proposed to be provided by Quicksilver Way. The subdivision is
located directly off of CR 319.
This proposal complies with the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan of
2000. The underlying zoning is AIR/RD.
Applicant should be aware of the draw towards the southwest for placement ofbuilding
sites. Related to fire protection, there is no water available in this area for supplernental
fire protection. Question whether one well can serve all three lots.
Cheryl Chandler asked what the well GPM is. Grover replied 15 gallons a minute.
Grover Hogue spoke next. The 20 acre parcels will be the lot where the house is
currently. The design of the subdivision is fairly simple. Will continue through the
subdivision process and provide what information is necessary.
David Stover mentioned that an HOA will have to be drawn up for a "shared well".
Cheryl thinks a couple of West Divide Contracts would be cheaper. Cheryl asked about
the possibility of drilling on these lots. Grover said the drilling companies are trying to
drill on properties that don't have homes on them.
Michelle Foster asked about any plans for fire protection. Grover has a 15,000 gallon
swimming pool in his backyard. Each property owner would take care of their own.
They have a fire protection plan in Grass Mesa. There is a fire station about fifteen
minutes away now.
Moved out to public for comments and none were received.
Phil Vaughan thinks Fred covered the issues pretty well in the staff report. The Fire
Chief said there is no water in the area. Phil asked about traffic study area? and when
was adopted. Mark said it was either 1997 or 1998.
Fred said that the County looks at a shared water system as a central water supply and
there are technical details that go along with that. HOA has to state how easements will
work; water lines have to be a certain diameter, etc.
Grover said we are very aware of the shortage of water and they have a fire plan in Grass
Mesa. They have a call list and everyone pulls together as needed. They are working
together on these issues.
Mark suggested describing that at the preliminary plan application stage. Sketch Plan
comments are good for one year from tonight's hearing date. (8/14/2003)
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request is for review of a Preliminary
Plan application for the Monument Ridge Subdivision. The property is located on CR
300 & CR 303. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 181.9 acres into 17lots. The
applicant is Foothills Land & Development,Inc.
Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for tonight's hearings.
Present for the applicant is the owner Peter Heineman and Roger Neal, of High Country
Engineering. Fred Jarman is the County Planner.
Don DeFord asked applicant questions related to the noticing requirernents. Roger Neal,
of High Country Engineering responded to the questions. He used the County Assessor
records on approximately 711012002 to obtain names; mailed to all property owners
within 200'; there were no public landowners on record;mailed to mineral owners and
lessees; property posted on7ll0l2002 with card provided by the Planning Department
and is still in place on Gardner Lane. Don said proof of publication and certified mailing
appears to be timely and it is okay to proceed.
Fred entered the following exhibits into
Exhibit A: Certified mail receipts
Exhibit B: Proof of publication
Exhibit C: Garfield County ZoningResolution of 1978, as amended
Exhibit D: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
Exhibit E: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
Exhibit F: Staff Memorandum
Exhibit G: Application Materials
Exhibit H: No exhibit
Exhibit I: No exhibit
Exhibit J: Memo from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management dated
7124t02
Exhibit K: Letter from the Division of Wildlife dated 7/29102
Exhibit L: Letter from the Colorado Geological Survey dated 7124/02
Exhibit M: Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated 7ll2l02
ExhibitN:
Exhibit O:
3/08/01
Exhibit P:
Exhibit Q:
Letter from Garfield County Road & Bridge Department dated 7ll7l02
Letter to Peter Heineman from Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District dated
Letter from the Garfield County Sheriff Department dated 6/25102
Letter from Garfield County School Disfict Number 16 dated 7116102
Exhibit R: Comments from Garfield County Public Nurse dated 7/2102
Exhibit S: Letter from Resource Engineering dated 815/02
Exhibit T: Letter fromZancanella & Associates to High Country Engineering dated
6n2/02
Exhibits A - T are accepted into the record.
Fred presented the staff comments. This property is approximately 182 acres bisected by
CR 303 and CR 303. The applicant is applying for lT lots ranging in size from 5.9 to
13.7 acres each. The underlying zoringof this property is A/R/RD. Water for the
subdivision would be provided by individual and shared wells and sewage treatment
would be provided by ISDS for each lot. Access to the majority of the lots is directly off
of CR 300 and CR 303. Lots 10 ar.d 14-17 are accessed from a private cul-de-sac.
Monument Gulch drainage runs through the site. There are a number of irrigation ditches
also.
Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District indicated to the applicant the District has a long-
standing policy that no inclusions for water or waste water will be authorized regarding
the request from the developer to tie into the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District
water and sewer plant.
The subject site is located in Study Area 3 of the Comprehensive Plan 2000 which allows
two acre subdivision. This proposal is consistent with the density measure.
The Applicant was previously approved under an Exemption for three other lots and
these 182 acres is the remainder from that.
Staff is recommending a continuance to address some of the issues. There are 17
conditions of approval listed in the staff report.
Issues:
o Site visibility issues: applicant has been working with Jake in R&B Dept.
o Resource Engineering has two main issues: request applicant to provide no build
zones (made as a condition of approval) and shared wells is other issue (7 wells
for 17 lots)
o How will road system be looped; no easement information and how it will work
o Access: Keep fewer cuts on CR 300; number of issues working through
o Suggest applicant come back with more detail on water
No questions for staffat this time so we moved out to the applicant's presentation.
Peter touched on water system and staff comments. He believes application is complete
and he doesn't want a continuance. He said staff had told him it was okay to have shared
wells if they had a maintenance plan. They have addressed that in the covenants. HOA
will own wells and it will be administered on how they will be used. Not a community
system.
The applicant accepts most of the staffcomments and is willing to comply. Peter went
through the conditions of approval:
Condition numbers l-4 are all OK.
Condition #5: At Sketch Plan proposed a common driveway and staff said they weren't
allowed to do that. Jake approved driveways as proposed.
Condition numbers 6-8 are all OK.
Condition #9A: Minor language change; moving fences would be quite costly to him.
Change to read as considered in Exemption.
Condition #9B: Item was approved by Jake. Applicant will coordinate with R&B before
construction takes place.
Condition #9C: Incorporate into 9,A..
Condition #10: will have building envelopes outside of 100 year floodplain. Ask for this
item to be rernoved; no wetlands.
Condition #12: Not sure if Resource Engineering understands the complexity of
addressing water in covenants. These are the same covenants that were drawn up for the
Exemption. No additional restrictions related to irrigation water.
Condition #13: Jake Mall with R&B determined where the driveways would be. Will
provide stop sign.
Condition #14: Part of planning with Jake Mall. Met with him at sketch plan and he
decided where to put and the applicant would install.
Condition #16: Is requesting some additional language regarding road construction and
weed management. Had a consultant do a weed managernent plan and a site study on the
weeds and he coordinated with the County Weed Management and this item was never
mentioned by Steve Anthony or they would have addressed and incorporated into the
covenants. Can amend covenants to take care of this if County deerns absolutely
necessary.
Condition #17: Tom Zancanellawill address wells and what is a central system and what
is a community system. Peter thought that the County had approved their use of shared
wells at the time of Sketch Plan review. Peter has spent a greatdeal of money to obtain
well permits and amending his water supply plan to incorporate shared wells.
TomZancanella said that Don DeFord, the County Attorney defines a well that serves
more than one house as a central water system. The State views a central or community
systern as a system that serves 15 taps or 25 people.
The Fire Deparbnent has requested water storage at each house.
Don DeFord spoke next. The County doesn't have provisions for a "community system".
Central systern can only be controlled by an entity i.e. HOA. Can approve more than
one system. What are they going to develop and secure.
Peter responded. He feels that he has got happed in a policy change to drill wells and
new standards are being imposed. Also not mentioned before were the impact fees.
Intend to provide water whether it is individual or shared. Giving each purchaser a well
permit if they want to drill their own.
Roger Neal with High Country Engineering said they would secure seven wells to
provide water to all properties. Have well permits available to drill their own well if an
owner wants.
Tom Zancanella said that HOA will manage wells. Peter will provide copy of well
maintenance agreernent.
Moved back to Planning Commission.
Don DeFord thinks this may be a functional systern. If individual wants to drill their
own, can HOA still take care of them. Tom said most people would rernain with well
sharing agreernent. Water will be provided to each property line.
Cheryl asked if well is for inside use only. Tom responded. Augmentation plan allows
you to divert from either well. Each lot entitled to ll20 for individual and ll20 for
irrigation.
Mike Deer says he counts eight wells and he heard someone say there are seven. He
recalls this issue came up and a number of comments on an either or system.
Combination project makes it confusing. Tom said there are six shared wells and one
individual well.
Phil asked if the central water systern in place meets County code. Don said in theory
this can work. Fred and Mark are not satisfied with the design yet and Michael Erion still
has some questions.
Michelle has a question about CR 300 where it intersects with CR 303. Gas plants access
at that point what will this do to visibility. Roger responded, adjacent to fence at gas
plant, will install a stop sign. Michelle said there is a considerable rise. Roger said they
would be willing to look at that. Michelle said you are looking at about 250 daily trips
and are there any plans to upgrade that part of CR 300. Does the County have to improve
the road with that many trips? Roger said they are committing $45,000.00 to traffic
impact. Peter says County report says 170 trips per day, half each way.
Mark said road impact fees collected will be spent in that area. Road & Bridge & BOCC
decides where the money is spent. Mark suggested to Michelle to write letter to BOCC
with her concerns.
Moved out to the public for comments and none were received so that portion of hearing
was closed. Moved back to P&2.
David said he is not comfortable with condition and water questions. He personally
would rather see a continuance.
David Stover made a motion to continue application to address questions and comments
by staff until the September 11, 2002meeting and Michelle Foster seconded the motion.
It was asked what kind of time it will take to address questions and comments. Peter said
he would offer a shared well systern and he feels he has addressed other concerns. Need
specific questions that you want him to address. The next P&Zmeeting would be okay
to continue.
Michelle asked will that clariff irrigation.
Phil said "hope" won't get you too far at irrigating. Peter said if irrigation is an
impediment will pull irrigation water and market as dry property only. Amend
covenants; irrigation would be by well.
Mike Deer said continuance gives you another chance and that if he votes tonight it
would be no.
Phil questioned road issue itern #5. There has been a lot of conversation with Jake Mall.
How will this all come together and how do these intersections need to occur. Roger
Neal said letter from Jake Mall agree non-issue.
Fred will need response to questions two weeks before P&Z meeting to analysis
information.
Motion carried for continuance to the September 11, 2OO2P&Zmeeting.
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request for review of a preliminary plan
for the Gage Hills Subdivision. The property is located on Gage Road, which intersects
with CR 3 19. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 106.76 acres into nine single-
family lots with ADU's proposed on four of the lots. The applicant is Linda Craig.
Linda Craig is requesting a continuance of this hearing until November 11, 2002.
Applicant agrees to extend time lines. Mark Bean said there is no action necessary from
P&Z atthis time.
The next itern on the agenda is a public hearing request for review of a Preliminary Plan
application for the Bond Subdivision. The property is located on the east side of CR 245
immediately south of its intersection with East Elk Creek Road. The applicant is
proposing to subdivide 4.00 acres into two single family lots. The applicanB are Darrel,
Damon & Paige Bond.
Mark Bean is the County Planner on this project. Michael Erion, representing the
applicant as well as Damon & Paige Bond are here tonight.
Carolyn Datrlgren asked questions related to noticing requirements. Michael Erion with
Resource Engineering used the County records to obtain owners name of record for
noticing. Lessees and mineral owners were noticed. Mrs. Bond did the certified mail out
on July 15tr. The property was posted with the sign provided by the County Plarrning
Departrnent and is visible from CR 245 andUte Avenue and is still posted. Proof of
publication from the Glenwood Post lndependent was provided. Carolyn said that
publication appears to be in order and that it is okay to proceed.
Phil swore in all speakers.
Mark Bean entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit A: Proof of publication
Exhibit B: Return receipts
Exhibit C: Application
Exhibit D: Garfield County Zorung Resolution of 1978, as amended
Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2000
Exhibit F: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
Exhibit G: Letter from the Division of Water, dated 7126102
Exhibit H: Letter from the Division of Wildlife dated 816102
Exhibits A - H are accepted into the record.
Mark presented the staff comments. This is a 4.009 acre parcel which the applicants are
proposing to subdivide into two lots. Water will be provided from the Town ofNew
Castle. The Town provided a letter stating that water is available and there are two
existing taps in place. Each of the existing dwellings has an ISDS. There are some
limitations of geological concerns.
Staff is recorrmending approval with six conditions.
No questions for staff at this time so we moved to applicant's presentation. Michael
Erion spoke. Two separate taps issued by the Town for water. One of the taps was
issued in 1983 and the other on ADU in 1988. No concems and concur with conditions
of approval in staff report. No questions for applicant fuomP&Z.
Moved out to public for comments. Eric Williams said ditch runs adjacent to County
Road. Eric asked about what is shown as easernent. Michael said he will have to check
easement. Eric said it needs to be at 20' on downhill side. Mark suggested plat note
unless called out otherwise.
No further public comments.
David saidthis brings up the need for a minor subdivision procedure. Mark said even a
minor doesn't allow a lot of alleviation.
David Stover made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plan Application for the Bond
Subdivision with the six conditions listed in the staff report. Cheryl Chandler seconded
the motion. All approved unanimously.
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request for review of a Preliminary Plan
application for the Waterstone Subdivision. The properfy is located approximately seven
miles northeast of the Town of New Castle, directly offof CR 137. The applicant is
proposing to subdivide24.856 acres into five residential lots, all of which are to have
ADU's. The applicant is Waterstone Canyon Ltd.
Carolyn Dahlgren reviewed the noticing requirements with the applicant. The County
Assessor's records were used to obtain all adjoining properly owner rurmes; there were no
mineral owners. Notice was mailed by certified return receipt between June 15 and July
15; posting was done in the same time period; used form that was provided by the
Planning staffand is still in place at this time. Proof of publication was provided to
Carolyn. Notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on July 12ft.
Carolyn entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit A: Certified return receipts
Exhibit B: Proof of publication & actual newspaper article
Both exhibits are accepted into the record.
Fred Jarman entered exhibits C-Z into the record.
Mail Recei
Proof of Publication
Garfield ine Rezulations
Garfield ve Plan of2000
Garfield Co Subdivision ons
Staff Memorandum
ication Materials
Letter to Garfield County Planning Staff from Resources Engineering, dated
Letter to Garfield Coun8 Planning Staff from the Garfield county Sheriff dated
i'
10
Julv 9. 2002
J Water Report submitted to Garfield County Planning Stafffrom Zarrtcanella &
Associated sated Februarv 11.2002
K West Divide Water Conse,rvancy Contract for Waterstone Canyon Ltd., dated
st30t02
L Letter to Garfield County Plannine Staff from Roarine Fork School District RE-l
M Letter to Garfield County Planning Staff from the Division of Wildlife dated July
23,2002
N Williams Canal Company "Orgarizational Structure and Settlement Agreements"
exceots
o Letter to Garfield County Planning Staff from the Glenwood Springs Fire
Deparhnent dated July 24.2002
P Letter to Garfield County Planning Stafffrom the Colorado Geologic Survey
dated Julv 12.2002
a Referral Form from City of Glenwood Springs Garfield County Planning Staff
dated Julv 24.2002
R Letter from Sherry Caloia to Garfield County Attorney Don DeFord dated March
24.1998
s Referral Form from the Garfield County Public Nurse to Garfield County
Plannine Staff dated Jlu/iv 24.2002
T Letter to Garfield County Planning Staff from the Division of Water Resources
dated Julv 24.2002
U Leffer to V from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Departrnent dated May l,
2002
V Merno to Garfield County Planning Staff from the Garfield County Emergency
Manaqement Departrnent dated Auzust 8.2002
w Email from Resource Engineering to Garfield County Planning Staffdated
8112t2002
x Letter to Garfield County Planning Staff from the Garfield County Vegetation
Manasement Director dated Julv 25.2002
Y Letter to the Garfield County Plaruring Commission from Pam Szedelyi dated
Auzust 12.2002
Z Letter from Galuba & Galuba P.C. to the Plannins Commission dated 8/14/02
AA Letter from Jutta Worwag and Roy Brandt to the Planning Commission dated
8lt4/02
BB Letter to Brad Peek of Zancanella & Associates from the Garfield County Planing
Staff dated 8ll5l02
CC Supplemental Application Information from Zancanella & Associates dated
Auzust 29,2002
DD Copy of Plat Showins Sliver of Property in Litieation
EE Letter from Sherry Caloia to Fred Jarman dated Auzust 29,2002
FF Drainage Plan for Waterstone Subdivision dated Auzust 7,2002
GG Letter from Resource Ensineerins to Garfield County Plannine Departrnent dated
September 5,2002
HH Letter from HP Geotech showing building envelopes on the Waterstone property
dated9l5l02
II Letter from Resource Engineering to Garfield Plaruring Staff regarding water
issues dated,9l5l02
JJ Letter from Colorado Geoloeic Survey to the Plannine Department dated 919102
Exlribits C-Z are aceeptecl into the recolil. Exhibits V-Z werehanded out to'night.
Fred reviewed the staff comments. This is a24.8 acre site that applicant is proposing to
subdivide into five lots; one as a single family only and the other four they are requesting
accessory dwelling units. Water will be supplied through individual wells. Sewer will be
handled through ISDS.
Fred addressed the main issues next. Many geological hazards, steep slopes, drainage
issues, rock slide. The applicant will need to determine good separation from water
sources. Due to the small lot sizes and their proximity to Canyon Creek and the Williams
Ditch, the applicant shall be required to be aware of siting the ISDS with respect to the
location of domestic potable water sources and setbacks from Canyon Creek and the
Williams Ditch.
The Colorado Geological Survey does not recommend plat approval until adequate
geologic and drainage investigations have been conducted. Resource Engineering also
indicated that there are several geologic hazards on the property and suggests that the
applicant provide a detailed map identifuing all of the hazards and potential hazards.
Garfield County Emergency Management, Guy Meyer reviewed the application and
made the following comments. The proposed subdivision lies in a high hazardwildfire
area and wildfire mitigation measures must be addressed in a more detailed fashion. He
also suggests a water storage device be required to ensure adequate water supply. There
is no information in the application that the road leading to the project will meet NFPA
standards. In the drainage plan report there are issues related to potential debris flow
events. Berms should be required around the building sites to mitigate any potential
damage.
The applicant commits to requiring all residential structures to be sprinkled regardless of
their size. The Fire District stated that the fire protection plan needs to be developed
further before the District could recommend approval. There is no adequate water supply
for fire fighting in this area and the nearest station is about seven miles away. Exhibit
"O" lists items that need to be expanded on.
Related to drainage, the current analysis is inadequate and must be redeveloped to include
analysis of debris/mud flow. The application does not suggest or propose any drainage
improvements on this project. Building envelopes should be redefined.
t2
It is the Division of Water Resources opinion that the proposed water supply will not
cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid
well permits.
Resource Engineering states there are significant issues surrounding the availability of
water to be served by West Divide Water Conservancy District Area A. Based on
conversations with the Division Engineer, the water contracts may change and as a result
nonmaterial injury to decreed water rights may also change.
The Williams Ditch crosses the property via a canal easement. There is also a ditch
access/maintenance easement that runs along the ditch. The applicant intends to use the
easernent as a residential driveway from CR 137 to the building site on Lot4. Exhibit
"R" suggests that the easement is not exclusive and can be used by the Applicant as well
as the grantee.
Applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac offof CR 137 which should have a minimum 40 foot
right-of-way. This has to be designed to meet County standards. Easement looks like it
crosses some one else's lot. Need clarification.
No questions for staff at this time so moved to applicant for their presentation.
TomZancanella will speak first for applicant and he will address the issues. Easernent is
along the Oddo property. Tom reviewed the site plan map. Lot 3 has an existing
driveway that will be abandoned. One driveway would serve lots I &2. There will be
individual wells for each lot. The2.36 acres Mr. Goluba talks about would be
incorporated into lot 5 if granted approval by the Courts.
Reviewed proposed conditions with a few clarifications:
Condition #1: Okay
Condition #2: HP Geotech will do additional debris flow studies
Condition #3 & 4: Okay
Condition #5: Should be parcels number | &2
Condition #6; 40'right-of-way can be provided
Condition #7 : Canprovide
Condition #8: Lot 3 driveway will be abandoned
Condition #9: Have provided letter from Surveyor
Condition #10 & 11: are fine
Condition #12: asked about fencing 38"
Condition #l2G: Certified weed fee forage
Condition #13: More specific
Condition #17: Met with Fire District and originally agreed on sprinkler systerns on all
houses and adoption of forest service defensible space code. Need to revisit and fix what
they can.
No further presentation by applicant and no questions for them at this time. Moved to
public for comments.
13
The first speaker is Nicholas Goluba, Suite 301, 801 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs,
CO. He is an Attomey for Eric Williams Trust and Bair Wallow Ranch. Property
belongs to Bair Wallow Ranch. Petition pending with the Supreme Court. Application
does not state that this will be included in Lot 5 if approved by the Court. Water rights,
for Area "A" are under revision right now. West Divide supplements water to Colorado
River. Water is not an automatic thing. Use of Williams Canal access road, owner of
property'has right to use easernent. Williams eanal eompany doesn't agree with
applicant to use part of easement for a driveway.
Condition of road from I-70 to 6 & 24, site distance problem; site obstruction; number of
driveways intersect road; drainage problerns; lack of signage; lack of turnouts;
improvernents need to be done on road to meet County standards. No studies on how
these ISDS will affect wells in the area. For all the reasons mentioned they are asking for
denial.
The next speaker is Roy Brandt and his wife Jutta Worwag who live at1944 Canyon
Creek Road. Own parcels2 & 3 of the Simms Subdivision. Handed out letter (exhibit
AA which is accepted into the record). Roy read his letter into the record with his
comments and concerns.
Eric Williams spoke next and he lives North of New Castle on CR 245. Heis the
secretary for the Williams Canal. Access is in litigation. Do not use ditch as access for
lots.
Pam Szdedli,l5l2 CR 137 said she kies hard not to be a "nimby". Original intention of
Williams Canal intended for larger parcels. Ask Commission to use all regulations
possible to turn down this project.
Bruce Robertson, 1548 CR 137, said this density is inconsistent to the property in this
area. Concerns with water, haffic, and debris flow are very significant. Maintan24
acres as is.
Zane Farris, CR 137 said road is a major critical problem and there have been some very
close dangerous calls. Two people have already been killed on that road.
No further comments so closed public portion of hearing. Moved back to P&2.
David Stover said nine dwellings are too much. He has concerns with septic, water
issues, geological hazards, and with using the ditch easement as a driveway. He would
lean towards denial.
Cheryl Chandler agrees with David's comments. She deals with irrigation easernents on
a regular basis. Water and ditch easernent for access are problems.
Michelle Foster is concerned with fire danger and fire protection. Need it spelled out in
the preliminary plan for Planning Commission review.
Mike Deer recognizes driveway issues on this road. Without road improvements by the
County does create a safety issue. He is okay with lot sizes. Twenty conditions listed by
staff and if all can be met and use of Williams's easement access is cleared up then he is
okay with this proposal.
Cheryl agrees with Michelle that twenty conditions at preliminary plan are a lot of issues.
Phil Vaughan referred to the Supreme Court issue which was referred to by Guy Meyer
and Nick Goluba. Concerns fit within our Comprehensive Plan. Conceming the water
supply issues, thinks they can be dealt with under conditions; same as ISDS; soils and
geology. Agree with language for Williams Canal. Need to address fire issues.
Tom Zancanella said Canyon Creek Estates water is supplied by wells. Agree with
comments for fire code.
John Schenk spoke about the Supreme Court issue. If they won they would merge that
piece of land into lot 5. State Engineer has issued a letter stating no material injury. He
thinks that with West Divide contract water is not an issue. Ditch access easement can
work. Language can be crafted to take care of cleaning, etc. Don't disagree with road
issues. Can rernove ADU's if it's a deal breaker. Have five lots only and could move
building envelopes if they get rid of the ADU's.
Cheryl asked about possibly another access so you don't have to use the ditch. Tom
Zarcanella responded.
Mike Deer made a motion to approve with trvo additional conditions:
1.) eliminate the ADU's
2.) Provide another access instead of ditch easement.
All other conditions as they exist. (Page 9-13 of staff report) Cheryl Chandler seconded
the motion.
David asked about fire issues and Phil agreed that a certain level of detail is needed.
A vote was taken and motion failed. (4-N to 1-Y)
Cheryl Chandler made a motion to continue this hearing until Septanber 1 1, 2OO2 to gSve
applicant time to clear up a lot of loose ends and Michelle Foster seconded that motion.
A vote was taken and all approved.
Other business: Cluster paper rerninder.
Meeting adjourned.
t5I