HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 07.09.01t
(I
BOCC 7l9l0l
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REOUEST: A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for a six
(6) lot subdivision, with five (5) dwelling units, on
about forty (40) acres.
APPLICANT: Ceorge R. and Farley S. Kilby
ENGINEER: Sopris Engineering;Zancanella & Associates
ATTORNEYS: Caloia & Houpt, P.C., John Dresser, and James M.
Larson, P.C.
GEOTECHMCAL: Hepworth / Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
LOCATION: Parcel lies about 1.5 miles east of Carbondale, off
CR 100. Section 35136, Township 7 South, Range
88 West
WATER: Individual wells
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
ACCESS: Non-exclusive easement (or public road once
adjacent subdivision is platted) to County Road 100
EXISTING ZONING: A/RIRD
ADJACENT ZONING: Planned Develpment (Ranch at Roaring Fork) to the
north, A/R/RD to the east, south and west
STAFF UPDATE: This application was originally made about one year ago, on 7113100. It was
deemed technically compliant on 9/5100, at which time a number of adequacy issues were
brought to the applicants' attention as a courtesy (see page -J ). ). The application was
scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commiision dn 11/8/00. At that time, the
staffrecommendation was denial due to a number of critical issues. As a result, the applicant
requested a continuance to the lll0l0l meeting, which was granted by the Planning
Commission.
During the interim, new information was submitted in response to the staff s concerns. Staff
reviewed the new information without the benefit of a professional engineer's opinion
Page 1 of21
(Burlstone, the County's contracted engineeer, failed to respond to repeated requests to review
the application). Staff raised a host of serious issues with the proposal in the second staff report
(dated 1l10l0l), and recommended approval with a number of very detailed conditions. During
the public hearing in January, the applicant responded to some of the Staff s concerns by making
changes to the proposal such as switching from central water to individual wells, for instance.
On 1/10/01, due to the number and severity of issues identified with the application (as detailed
in this staff report, see also minutes pagQkAL), the Planning Commission moved to
recommend denial of the application to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning
Commission found that the proposal was inconsistent with the best interests of the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. They also
found the application to be inconsistent with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of
1984, as amended. (See staff s follow up letter to the applicant, page 32 ).
At this point in time, the applicant has chosen to move forward to the Board of County
Commissioners hearing with the Planning Commission's negative recommendation.
Supplemental information has been submitted in an attempt to either amend the application or
meet staff s original recommended conditions. Staff would like to emphasizethat it has become
very difficult and cumbersome to evaluate the application as a whole due to the numerous
amendments made, inconsistencies, length of time involved, amount of developer's team
member turnover, and due to staff tumover (the Asst. County Engineer has since replaced
. r Burlstone).+In this report, staff has attempted to update the Board of County Commissioners as
p{vr{'J\Y::F--where6ings stand since the recommendation of denial occurred on 1/10/01. Therefore, from
Y,ry;3'fi #.:li":*,3lit$:ffi"ffJ'1,q'iff ryrf:{i{fi1;ffi:ht*tffijf*i;,;erW-#{t rhfrffif,r ro r*,.o*r*rrr*r,* oro*yj T,ffi;,:*fW,\4 { .1, r. YrL' r^ ^ I t) r -f r n $ . 1., I") \^4^15+ bc.i^p*",t }f, .e,r: €*).t1fl fi. saua4! qDWj i,u{ 4*fuL.,6,,g r,..afra L^+ ,fThe 1995 Comp Plan indiChtes that thidsite liei in the Low Densit-v Residentihl Districtza.4-rr --
which calls for I dwelling unit per 10 or more acres. The designation of low density f"d dx"ubr^,*s
residential is based upon constraints found in the area. The plan proposes five (, 't'L"*f* C*t{)
dwelling units on 40 acres, for an average density of about one dwelling unit per 8 acreslffur,Y,*
Section V of the 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan contains maps which 4"1"f€ )
indicate that this site lies in the floodplain and the visual corridor, has seitic constraints # U'^"*
due to a high water table, is served by a County Road that is in good.onditior, and that %.-u
this area is prime agricultural land. The comp plan further indicates that this ;il U* i; y*.8
the Town of Carbondale's statutory sphere of influence (2 miles) and hence,,ritr .'"'#ff |YAt
application was referred to the Townof Carbondale for comment. .1r'n (?*rI il ^*L
some relevant goals of the comp plan follow, ** 'in[..*] 'r'C
Section tII-2.0 Housing. " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future
Page2 of21
T.
A.
residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient
residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment".
Section III-6.0 Agriculture: "To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to
continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review".
Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate,
dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new
development."
Section III-8.0 Natural Environment: "Carfield County will encourage a land use pattern
that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the
physical capacity of the land, and is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare
of Garfield County."
Section III-10.0 Urban Area of Influence: "Ensure that development and overall land use
policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the
existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality."
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Description: The property is located about 1.5 miles east of Carbondale. The
Roaring Fork River forms the northern boundary of the site. The site is currently used as
irrigated pastureland with leased grazingrights. Lot I and Lot 3 are adjacent to the 100
year floodplain, with an elevation2 feet above the floodplain. Lot 2 and 4 are separated
by an open hay field and located in wooded areas. Lots 1-4 are about 4 acres in size. The
fifth parcel is identified on the plan as the "barn area" and is about 3 acres in size. The
sixth parcel consists of 2l acres of open space. The site generally drains to the west with
an average slope of less than 2o/o. An irrigation ditch conveys water from the southeast
corner to the northwest.
Development Proposal: The plan is to divide the forty (40) acres into five (5) residential
lots and one (l) open space lot. The residential lots range in size from 3 to 4 acres. A
new access road, constructed at existing grade, is proposed.
Adjacent Land Uses: The Roaring Fork River lies northerly of the property and provides
gold medal fishing waters. Adjacent lands are currently in agricultural and residential
use. An adjacent property owner (to the south) has applied for a 9 lot, 13 unit
subdivision on about 90 acres called the "Roaring Fork Preserve (RFP)". The access to
Mayfly Bend (called Mayfly Drive) is from CR 100, through RFP, to the subject property.
REMEW AGENCY AND OTF{ER COMMENTS:
B.
C.
m.
Page 3 of2l
Referrals of the site plan were sent to the following:
A. Tovm of Carbondale: To date, no response received.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: See letter, page 37---, The County should
insure control of all noxious weeds and erosion. Areas of exposed soil should be
kept to a minimum and seeded with desirable vegetative species. Fertilizers and
pesticides should be applied professionally, safely, and properly. It is possible
that chemicals will soak into soils, enter ground water, and run offinto surface
waters. MSSCD recommends that a raw water distribution system be installed for
irrigation of lawns and open spaces.
RE-1 School District: To date, no response received.
Holy Cross Energ.v: To date, no response received.
Public Service Companl'r: To date, no response received.
U.S. West Communications: To date, no response received.
Curniia C*nqu n*O g B;iae": See memo, pug. 3'+ . The applicant must
apply for an access permit, at which point in time certain provisions must be met.
Carbondale Fire District: See letter, page '9 Commented on water supplies
and impact fees at sketch plan and has no further comments at this time. See
letter dated 3127l00,pageZI'.Q The CRFPD notes that the proposed access should
be constructed in accordance with County Road standards. Water supplies for
fire protection will be limited to water carried on fire apparatus and by tanker
shuttle. Impact fees will be due prior to the finalization of the final plat.
Colorado Dept. of Public Health: To date, no response received.
Colorado Div. of Water Resources: I letter dated lll7l00, t-Dnds
that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water
rights, and is adequate, so long as well permits are obtained for the ponds, valid
well permits are maintained for all the wells, no expanded use of the applicant's
interest in the Slough Ditch and Banning Lateral water rights occurs, and the
disposition of Permit No. 99585 is resolved. Update: Well no. 99585 does not
iie on the tllayfiy Bend property, and serves a separare 6 acre property. The
applicant has obtained seven (7) well permits. !'our (4) of the permits allow
for resitlential use anrl the irrigation of 7,500 sq. ft. of iawn or gartlen. One
permit allows for residential use and the watterirng of I0 horses. Two (2) of
llie perrttits are for the portds. Baseti ort [iris inibrnraiion, tire legai waier
rights appear adequate.
Colorado Div. of Wildlife: To date, no response received. However, comments
were made at sketch plan See pageJT-jb
Garfield County Sheriff: To date, no response received. However, comments
were made at sketch plan. See p g" C
Garfield County Veeetation Manaeement: See letter, pagefr:y/ Has requested
the applicant conduct a noxious weed survey, submit a written weed management
plan, include specific language in the covenants, and submit a detailed
revegetation plan. In response, the applicant submitted Beach Environmental's
noxious weed survey. While the survey identifies noxious weeds on the property,
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
Page 4 of21
av, ,'.". {. ,'
the covenants have not been amended to include specific weed management and
revegetation plans.
U.S. Geological Survey: See letter, pageg:3. Provided site specific -
investigations and foundation designs are conducted and some other specific
concerns are addressed, this office has no objection to the development as
planned.
Garfield Countv Enqineer: See memo, pagell -V Burlstone, Inc. makes a
. ^ .Lr^. number of comments regarding transportation, drainage, water, and sewer and
.^V M Tn recommends certain changes be made, or actions be taken, prior to approval of
l)gl-d't " ,6'; u-yS, lfe plan. The applicant has responded with a report from Sopris Englneerils:-,
',rJ&tt t11-_t^lY n_{ ,The Asst. Countv Engineer has stated that all documentation shall be in ?"Ly|
r^ ,mn 5lJ -'".^i,y,*r,''Jrsufficient detail and clarity to answer basic r:ngineering questions and to 'U;
,U.-,p q;t,^ 7i permit evaluation of the application (pursuant to section 4:41). As submitted2
y.5" c Y;fr{: * "- )the application book does not allow for accurate and efficient reference, rrq
)?;;X+qt Ltnf. ,' certain appendices are missing. Several titles mis-state "sketch plan" instea(
( '- r;6i r, ) of "preliminary plan". Additional comments are listed in each relevant S
Y}r*ry ' lsection of this report, and are redlined on the attached drawing.qfltJ,,fvn P See referral, page 4q rus no objections.
a Garfield Countv Public Health Nurse: See form, page Sei . Has concerns about
individual sewage disposal systems given the high groundwater. Recommends
either excellently designed engineered systems or a centralized sewage system.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan: With one unit per 8 acres, the proposed density is slightly exceeds
the comp plan recommendation of one (1) unit per 10 acres. As long as the "barn
residential unit" is occupied by a person employed in the agricultural activities on the
property, staff believes that the extra unit meets the agricultural goal, and thus may be
considered in general compliance with the comp plan. However, the covenants and deed
must contain adequate restrictions to ensure the proper agricultural employee use of the
unit. Tiifrupiiqiion-nru+lropusrcs"fivefree-m*rf,ietials-. Stafi fintls that the
proposal exceeds the Comp Plan's recommended densitl,.
The development proposal appears consistent with most of the comp plan goals, with the
following exceptions:
Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate,
dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new
development."
Section III-8.0 N?tural Environment: "Carfield County will encourage a land use pattern
that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the
physical capacity of the land, and is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare
Page 5 of2l
N.
o.
rl
of Garfield County."
Water and Natural Environment deficiencies are discussed in detail in this report. As
long as the suggested conditions of approval are included, staff believes that relevant
goals can be met.
B. Zonine" Subdivision. and Phasing: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the AIRRD
zone district. The lot design appears to generally meet the standards set forth in the
Subdivision Regulations. The minimum setbacks are as follows:
(l) Front yard: . . (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25)
feet from fronl lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (l i2) the height of the
principal building, whichever is greater.
No phasing plan is proposed. The application states that all required improvements wrll
be completed within one year from the date of final plat approval. This is consistent with
the regulations.
C. Water: While the sketch plan contemplated 5 individual wells, the preliminary plan
proposes two shared wells: Mayfly Bend Ranch Well Nos. I and2. However, the
covenants do enable the individual lot owrer to drill a well on their own property, at their
own expense, if they so desire.
The applicant has obtained approved well permits nos. 054382-F and 054383-F. The
conditions on the well permits include a restriction that all use of the wells will be
curtailed unless an allotment contract or aug. plan is in effect. The applicant plans on
augmenting the wells with water from the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD).
He has an approved contract (no. 368) for water sufficient to irrigate 30,000 sq. ft. which
will allow lots l-4 to irrigate 7,500 sq.ft. The contract also includes the watering of 10
horses and takes into account enough water to augment for evaporation and stock water
uses that may occur from the pond. The pond 8-10' deep pond will be filled with a new
water right to be adjudicated to the Slough Ditch.
Well #1 has been drilled, tested, and found to have excellent quality and abundant
capacity, as documented by Zancanella's report dated 916100. The pumping rate was
more than 2 times the average peak monthly demand (7.7 gpm) for the proposed
subdivision. The second well has been drilled, but not yet tested. Well#2 is intended to
provide additional mechanical reliability to the pumping system.
Staff notes that the water system does not appear to comply with section 9:53 of the
subdivision regulations. This section requires:
Page 6 of21
Central waler systems shall be designed by an engineer qualfied lo design waler syslems
and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. Central
water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado
Department of Healtlu All lines in a central water rystem should be looped, with no
dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposedfor cul-de-sacs, there
will either be aJire hydrant or blow-off valve at the end of the line.
Sopris Engineering has responded that they consider this to be a "shared water system"
and not a "community water system". Staff agrees that it is not a community water
system, as defined by the Co. Dept. of Public Health. However, it is a central water
system under Garfield County regulations. Therefore, it must meet the subdivision
regulations and standards, including those found in sections 9:50 to 9:55, pertaining to
water supply.
The Planning Commission specifically commented at the sketch plan phase that flood
irrigation does not work very well in developments such as this. The applicant has
retained Zancanella & Assoc. to investigate the possibility of sprinkler inigation and
notes that the pond on the barn lot could be used as a reservoir for that purpose.
However, the applicant states that no conclusions have been reached, and thus intends to
continue using flood irrigation with 2.89 CFS from the Slough Ditch. Section 9:51 of the
subdivision regulations requires :
An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a
subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to sentice total development
population, iruigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance
with recognized and customary engineering standards.
The State Engineer's Office (SEO), in a letter dated lll7l00, finds that the proposed
water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so
long as well permits are obtained for the ponds, valid well permits are maintained for all
the wells, no expanded use of the applicant's interest in the Slough Ditch and Banning
Lateral water rights occurs, and the disposition of Permit No. 99585 is resolved.
The application contains two sets of covenants: the "COVENANT RE WATER RIGHTS,
WELLS, ROADS, AND OTIIER APPURTENANCES" ("water covenants") and the..DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR MAYFLY BEND RANCH
SUBDIVISION" ("general covenants"). Staff is unfamiliar with any previous
subdivision ever having two different sets of covenants. Staff finds two sets of covenants
cumbersome and unnecessary. The water covenants describe an unincorporated HOA,
while the general covenants describe an incorporated HOA. Creating two completely
separate HOAs for a 5 unit subdivision is not advisable. Prior to approval of the
preliminary plan, the two sets of covenants must be combined into one comprehensive
PageT of21
document which describes ownership and maintenance of one central water system
The water covenants state that while the HOA will own the wells, pumps, and tneters,
Lots 1 and 3 will be entitled to aYz interest in Well No. 1, and Lots 2,4, and the barn lot
shall have a 1/3 interest in Well No. 2. Zancanella & Assoc. has stated that Well No. I
would be the primary water source while Well#2 is intended to provide additional
mechanical reliability to the pumping system. Staff maintains that this is not a "shared
water system" but is a central water system. The covenants should specify that the HOA
shall own and maintain the central water system. Furthermore, the inconsistencies in the
description of the water system must be clarified prior to any approvals.
The water covenants also state (subparagraph #4) that "should the Declarant choose not
to install a pump, meter, or any other common facilities necessary for the use and
operation of a commonly used well, a lot owner may request that a pump, meter, and
other workings be installed by the HOA. The HOA shall thereupon cause the immediate
installation of such and the costs shall be billed only to the potential users of that well
under this declaration". However, the "commonly used well" (a.k.a. central water
system) is the cost responsibility of the subdivider.
I ".cJ,,, kL,.f i;i The water covenants also state (subparagraph #8) that "All lot owners herein waive their
'i)-l_-,'|[ ,^ilu "'.r right to have the well drilled at least 600 feet from the existing wells. Each lot owner
, n{'' *^rl", tr^t shall execute a waiver of 600-foot spacing for the Division of Water Resources to allow
f "uu'.nnt$ u r ^,^r-for the issuance of a well oermit for the new well."tr;^ffi,r-Ogt* the issuance of a well permit for the new well."
*-155r'1y n Update: The amendment to the application states that individual wells are now' -: . rI' a 5 . rJUuale: rlrc aIIIEIIUIIIGIII t(l [II€ applrGAllull SlAlgS llral tIlUlYl(IUAl WCIIS Ar1#;I; lt*N&p;oposed, and well permits have been obtained for the domestic wells and the two
VIil.WY drn" ponds (#s 54865-54869. 055351, and 055352). The Basalt Water Conservation
i#',is,ff,u{'n"U" ,;n^ ., District Contract (#368) has been granted and appears sufficient to meet the*t).. o'(': {'1-r subdivisions needs. (The Asst. County Engineer was unable to locate copies of the
OMU,rb q. " Hp well permits, yield analysis, and water qualitv test. Staff tloes not have a particular
$tlr".y-osvl g+{ concern about the physical supply since this information has been provitled antl does
fiJ1''Hi*' arnear sufficient)'
oc{l *r;tdr D. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District
. -$ {" I" r,,.th (CRFPD). The CRFPD notes that the proposed access should be constructed in
l*d 4*+',1' u accordance with County Road standards. Water supplies for fire protection will beti.l',it-r ' limited to water canied on fire apparatus and by tanker shuttle. Impact fees will be due
_rlNY'" prior to the finalization of the final plat.
Zancanella & Associates (ZA) note in their letter dated 8123100 that the proposed water
system improvements includes a joint 30,000 gallon storage tank, to be shared with the
proposed Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision (RFP) The applicant has clarified that
while he may pursue a shared tank with RFP, it is not part of the subdivision proposal or
Page 8 of21
fire protection plan. Water for fire protection will be limited to water carried on fire
apparatus and tanker shuttle.
E. Sewer: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot. Sopris
. ...^n /r*9, Engineering recommends an engineered mounded sand filter type system, or other
t5P5 to arrofl*& engineered system, due to the combination of high groundwater and floodplain issues.
_-J^r;f ..0-.6They note that required setbacks from on-site wells, inigation ditch, dwellings, and
[orr]te Yl"L.Sfrt"perty lines must be maintained. Sopris Engineering prepared a general "Operation
Wry1^4ff and Maintenance Guide for ISDS" and attached it to the report. However, the specific
{\^rf :' ^ ^\or-,*- type of engineered system must be selected concurrent with building plans for each lot.
ffi{: ffir, .
Thur, specific maintenance instructions must be tailored to the type of system used.
^;y6uel- U. yV/P The covenants have been modified to require the lot owners to follow maintenance
Y'^nAu.-V\, procedures appropriate to their system, and give the HOA enforcement procedures and
{[,v''sL[*u*r remedies.
%;%?
V'
.&fppri, Engineering prepared a Sewer Line Extension Report dated 8l2ll00in which two
g/5 '-,1kq' ',ycyossible options are discussed. The first option is to connect to the Carbondale
l",tge '{ Treatment plant which is 2.3 miles away. The second option is to connect to the Ranch;ry{* 3:il:H?tr#,il}:l#,;::Ifr1elifi:ffiil,fi?t;:i,T,:',HiT#ffi$350'000
subdivision". They have also considered the feasibility of central sand recirculating filter
systems and found them to be infeasible as well.
F. Radiation/Soils/Topography: FIP Geotech states that the site is not in a geologic setting
thrt *"rld it d*.1" ftigt .onrentrations of radioactive materials in the natural soils and
underlying rock formation. Once buildings are constructed, it is possible to test for radon
gas concentrations. According to FIP Geotech, the property is suitable for the proposed
development. HP further states that their recommendations are suitable for preliminary
design, but site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot development.
Hazards include flooding and potential sinkholes. A hydrologist should evaluate the
flooding potential at the site (tIP has since clarified that a hydrologist or civil
engineer experienced with surface water hydrology can accomplish this). The risk
for subsidence is believed to be low; however, lot purchasers should be made aware of
the potential for sinkhole development. They also recommend spread footings, shallow
foundations, and slab-on-grade lower floor construction. Mounded septic systems will
likely be needed, which will necessitate additional testing for design on individual lots.
The applicant notes that plat notes and covenants have been amended to ensure
disclosure of potential geologic hazards and/or costs to individual lot owners.
The U.S. Geological Survey generally concurs with the risk assessment made. They are
not aware of any sinkholes in the area of this development. The potential impacts they
see to this development will be very shallow ground water, very rapid percolation rates in
Page9 of2l
the gravel alluvium, and potential flood stage scour. None of these conditions would
preclude the development as intended. Engineered mounded septic systems will need to
be designed for the residences at this developrnent because of the fast percolation rates,
the high ground water, and proximity to the river. The proposed building envelope for lot
3 extends onto a point of high ground that defines the 100-year flood plain. Its banks
may be susceptible to scour during flood stage peak flows. They would recommend that
a hydraulics or hydrological engineer be consulted for the final building footprint
location of lot 3 and design of riprap or other scour mitigation if it is warranted.
Provided site specific investigations and foundation designs are conducted and the
concerns above are addressed, the U.S. Geological Survey has no other concems with the
development as planned.
Staff finds that if F{P's and the Geological Survey's specific recommendations are
followed, there does not appear to be any geology related issue which would prevent
approval of the subdivision request. As far as the need for further hydrological
studies on lot 3, there appears to be an issue about timing. The applicant has
proposed to provide these studies as a condition of final plat. However, the final plat
process does not include toconditional" approvals, as the preliminary plan process
.,*^ti M"'y ffii,rlli,lrTll,?#J;xilil?.1;j.;x-,,1',"j'ff1il1,:lan
must incrude the condition
:,Silffi5ft'^ Floodplain/wetlands: The Preliminary Plan locates the 100 year floodplain along the
ff;,. ',fl
t-rnl northern boundary of th. property. Atcording to the plan, ashort segment of the
_L] .ine{,o^l- proposed Royal Coachman Road appears to extend into the 100 yr. floodplain. A special
*i*e\ 6J\ ' ',\B\ use permit is required for any improvements located within a floodplain, including roads.
;irui h}^;A However, the applicant notes that in preparing an application for a special use permit, it
;; \plt' ,*^r{ was determined that the floodplain actually lies west of the proposed road, and therefore
.*. ",5{,1*) ' LL,-r*' the road does not enter the floodplain. The applicant must submit a signed and stamped
tt)"\ "
^ k $d'l, u* statement from a registered professional engineer that the proposed road lies outside of
,ftJiL--;.h Yt" ",1,i"1the FEMA designated floodplain map dated 1986 to support this statement. If the
.,r\n tT; o.$" - location of the floodplain on the preliminary plan is in error, it must be corrected on the
*-*?'nrt ',T. Plan'
"\t^ft*; F The applicant has noted that he has already constructed a road (in 1998) on his adjacent
t};D ^{-*ft property under a 404 permit (to serve as a secondary access to this proposed subdivision),
t)P-, *(* lo.^,..tp but without a Garfield County special use permit. While he notes the infraction, he seeks
f .t' , ,+-C"6I*f advice as to how to handle the situation, ai he believes a special use permit may be moot
r 1,, K !"4'. * h' '
at this point. The applicant is advised that constructing a road in a FEMA designated
i-0, *'.yfF" floodplain without a special use permit is indeed in violation of Garfield County code,
**^"[q". ,n]d and that he must obtain a special use permit to rectify the situation.
Y:.*T \$rti*Sthe applicant has submitted a wetland identification report from Beach Environmental
., ' n^'r.1{ .,^op "i, dated 1116100. The result of the wetland investigation was a slight alteration to the
,irl;;'-':**f,iil'l'*,,, 'r,,:::;::
*,::i,,ffi;::;;' ^ Y#t-;;i , ,, .,,<rti
- rr\tl" &-lv0fv
\'lr [\'"' tl 6,tf,{.)t ,prr1"l>o, " " -t.r_
,,.,n*( d ,)r_ o-1, '',1h+{ ,o ,Jur4 a*u ,n,.b -r\/.J- *r,-g4-s-6h{n*lY ry*,T.r-*_ co:.A- oo-{ d w r"l }r'f6 . t
'tvr;. )o,i,*;$ffitr*;i;; '"'vidr
r''n*Ao'y;,,ot'n'u' >'/.) tt''r
''itr't:>'t'"-ai11
pt'+"
western boundary of the building envelope on Lot 4, which had encroached into a
jurisdictional wetland. One other large wetland area was identified on the property,
located north of Lots 1 and 3. All construction should be kept to the south of the ditch
along the northern edge of the lots to avoid impacts. Limiting construction activities to
mowed or grazed areas of the pastures on both lots will accomplish this. Mr. Beach has
advised the applicant that a letter of determination from the Army Corps of Engineers is
not necessary since no dredging, filling, or impact is proposed to any wetland area.
Staff notes that identification of wetland areas are necessary on the preliminary plan prior
to approval of this application by the Board of County Commissioners (location is
shown, but symbol is identified as "proposed water feature" instead of "wetland").
Wetland locations and plat notes regarding construction activities should be included on
the construction documents, and included in the final plat submiual.
H. Wildlife: The DOW submiued detailed comments at the sketch plan phase. They stated
that the main wildlife value of this area is riparian and wetland. This habitat type is
extremely valuable to mule deer, coyote, red fox, raccoon, waterfowl, raptors, owls, and
,^r",.rL ,,;6- man] small mammals and songbirds. The hay meadow has less wildlife value.4"?: \\ 4ffftr{SAccording to the DOW, as long as the following recommendations are followed, wildlifes, *pi-Pacts should be minimal:t^.^'of.I|*.. a {V@ 1 ul^+r^-r ^-r -:-^-:^- L^L;+^+^ ^-^--n4aaa^.l ^-,{ *^:-+^.;-^,1 i- ^ -^+,,+al c+a+a 'rL^(2-r5*1,1. Wetland and riparian habitats are protected and maintained in a natural state. The
natural vegetation, including the cottonwoods and willows, is very valuable and
should be left undisturbed as much as possible. If any of the trees present a danger to
a structure, then they should be topped rather than removed completely. These snags
ide roosting and perching sites for raptors and other birds.\ provrcle roostmg and perctung sltes Ior raptors ano other blros.
/ Z. Home sites should be set back from riparian/wetland areas 50-100 feet to helpHome sites should be set back from riparian/wetland areas 50-100 f-eet to help profect
these areas and minimize disturbance. -11"1l, *r"p$r"^.* is prapcerlS ,*. Cntgr+'lo-a-ck-rhs+e;.d ,3. Silt fencing be installed to prevent deposition of eroded materials along the norther*. on:i'-*g'-'"'.-'T\{ Pc fu d*
edge of lots 1 and 3.edge of lots I and 3. hd,1 orii ^j ^'*14. Bury all utilities or make them raptor-proof to prevent electrocution of owls, raptors, T.r*{"i:,, .
and eagles.
5. No dogs allowed on site by construction.
6. Limit the number of dogs which homeowners may have to 2, with additional
restrictions that dogs must stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam free. Roaming
and uncontrolled dogs will have a major negative impact to wildlife in the area.
Waterfowl nesting and use of the riparian area would be disrupted. Additionally, the
site's close proximity to critical winter range in the Crown would make it easy for
roaming dogs to harass deer and elk in the area. The DOW recommends this
restriction be made a condition of approval.
Wildlife proof or resistant trash/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes
to prevent problems with wildlife.
The plan mentions that homeowners will use fencing to exclude livestock from their
yards. These yards should be as small as possible to allow movement through the
tondllsiow o n*lltts
t5U€
7.
8.
Page 11 of2I
property and not include areas within 50 feet of the riparian areas. Any fencing
should be 42 inch high, 4 strand or less barb or smooth wire with a 12" kick space
between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing should be the round or split rail type, 48"
high, 3 rails or less, with at least lS"between two of the rails. These restrictions will
allow the movement of wildlife, including deer fawns.
9. Prevent grazing of horses and other livestock in and along riparian and wetland areas.
10. Although there has not been a problem in the past, if horse hay is to be stored outside
existing buildings in a free-standing stack, then it should be fenced at the owners'
expense with 8' high game proof fencing. This will prevent game damage to the
stack and the luring of animals across the county road.
11. All homeowners should be provided with "Living with Wildlife" brochures.
The covenants have been amended to include the 11 specific recommendations listed by
the DOW. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the plat needs to identi$ exact
wetland locations and areas of riparian habitat. The building envelopes may need to
shrink in order to accommodate the 50-100 setback from riparian/wetland areas.
Road/Access: An adjacent property owner (to the south) has applied for a 9 lot, 13 unit
subdivision on about 90 acres called the "Roaring Fork Prsserve" (RFP). The proposed
access road is Mayfly Drive, which extends from CR 100, through RFP, to the subject
property. The RFP sketch plan contemplates this road to be built to the "Rural Access"
standard which has a capacity to serve I I to 20 units.
Sopris Engineering has proposed a "shared driveway" for lots I and 3, which is identified
as Green Drake Road on the preliminary plan. They do not recommend a cul-de-sac, but
suggest adequate fire truck turn-around be provided at the time of building permit.
Garfield County regulations do not recognize a "shared driveway" standard, nor do we
have a mechanism to review fire truck turn-arounds as part of the building permit
issuance process. This is the type of item which will likely "fall through the cracks" if
required at the building permit stage.
Staff notes that with 5 Mayfly units and 13 RFP units, Mayfly Drive and Royal
Coachman Road (which are "through" roads) must be built to a "Rural Access" standard
which calls for a 50' right-of-way, two l1' wide lanes, and a chip and seal or gravel
surface, among other details. Green Drake Road, which appears able to serve lots 1,2,3,
and the bam lot, must meet the "Semi-Primitive" standard, which calls for a 40' right-of-
way,2lanes 8 feet in width, with a gravel surfuace. If access from Green Drake is
limited to only Lots 1 and 3 via covenants, it must meet the "Primitive Residential"
standard which calls for a 30' right of way and a single lane 12' in width, of native
surface.
Dead end streets are discouraged by Section 9:33 B of the Subdivision Regulations.
According to section 9:33, cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under the
Page 12 of2l
following circumstances:
A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundredfeet
(600 ) in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (4 5 )
from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (50') right-of-way for
residential development ...The Board may approve longer cul'de-sacsfor
topographical reasons and it can be proved tlrut fire protection and emergency
egress and access is provided as a part ofthe longer design;
Green Drake Road is presently shown as a dead end road about 850 feet in length. This
is not consistent with the Subdivision Regulations. As long as the applicant shortens the
length ofthe dead end, provides a cul-de-sac, and proves that fire protection and
emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design, the Board has the
authority to approve the subdivision.
The Sheriff s Office commented on the sketch plan and specifically stated that the
County needs to ensure all access roads are of sufficient width, and that any dead-end
type roads should have an ending radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS
equipment turn around ratio.
The applicant currently has a "straight line" easement from CR 100, through RFP, to his
property. However, the application contemplates a curvilinear alignment for which there
is no legal easement at this point in time. The applicant states that he plans to obtain a
legal access easement for the curvilinear alignment prior to final plat. The applicant
should supply written evidence that he has an ability to obtain right-of-way in the newly
proposed location (such as a letter or contract from the other property owner) before
approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County Commissioners. To date, the
applicant has submitted an un-executed copy of a "Road Easement Relocation
Agreement". So long as this agreement is executed, and a copy is provided to staffprior
to the Board of County Commissioners preliminary plan hearing, this issue will be
resolved.
The amendment to the application contains a copy of an access permit issued by the
Road and Bridge Dept. on lll7l0l. The amendment states that the property will be
served by one 1800' foot long dead end with a loop at the end for turnaround.
Driveways from this loop wilt access the five residential lots. The applicant is in the
process of lbrmalizing an agreement to gain secondary emergency access to the RFP
subdivision. The preliminary plan shows the proposed location for such an
easement.
Without the proof of the formalized agreement in hand, staff can not consider the
proposal for secondary access. As a result, at this point in time, the proposal still
appears to be inconsistent with the County's regulations for two reasons: the dead
13 of2lPage
J.
end is more than three times longer than permitted by section 9:33A and the "shared
driveways" must actually be dedicated public roads. ,' q,t*6r-r- d, i,,"oc *{*-
Drainage: The application states that the existing drainage path is generally from the
southeast to the northwest at a l%o slope toward the Roaring Fork River. The existing
drainage collects in ditches. This pattern will not be changed, except where drainage will
be diverted for roadways. Three ponds are proposed and drainage will run through these
ponds with little disruption to flow. Two (2) 46 acre off-site drainage basins lie to the
southeast of the subject property. One basin drains into an irrigation ditch that crosses
the site and the other drains into a ditch that crosses Mayfly Drive on the adjacent RFP
property. Sopris Engineering anticipates that post development drainage will have a
small effect on the overall parcel due to the limited area being developed.
Due to the pro.iect location, the Asst. County Engineer recommends that all storm
drainage runoff appurtenances be sized to handle the 1tl0-year storm intensity (see a^d
4:80 (D) (2) ). The application contains the following statement: "The grading plan
for the subdivision should consider runoff through the project and at individual
sites". This statement should be strictly adhered to, yet the drainage plan does not
appear consistent with this statement. The Asst. County Engineer has requested the
drainage plan be revised accordingly.
Open Soace: All common areas and open space are restricted to agricultural,
recreational, irrigation, and utility uses. The residential lots will be required to fence out
livestock since the common areas will serye as open range.
The remaining 2 acres of each lot, outside the landscape and building envelopes, shall be
subject to the "non-development easement" (NDE). The covenants state that the NDE,
consists of all areas outside of the landscape envelope (approximately 8 additional acres
of open space). The stated uses in the NDE include ranch operations (including haying,
irrigation, fencing, trail management, fishing habitat management, and pasturing of
livestock).
It is still unclear as to how the Barn Lot will be owned and maintained. The covenants
do not state whether the Barn Lot is considered a common element or not. The
preliminary plan depicts the open space lot as a separate lot than the Barn Lot. Staffis
not clear on the intent behind creating two separate lots, rather than having the Barn Lot
simply occupy the open space lot. The barn lot, as shown, is a separate single family lot
for all intents and purposes. If the applicant intends for it to be under common
ownership, this can be achieved via a separate deed to the HOA. The deed can have
certain restrictions placed on it in order to achieve the required needs. The restricted
deeds for the open space lot and the barn lot must be included as part of any final plat
submiual and be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (StA).
K.
Page 14 of2l
M.
N.
L.
.g'* dnu-l.Y b>o wo0-*'fr | L'aT
Update: Since thE oroposal has been amended to five (5') free market lots and one (l )
open space lot, the restricted deeds for only the open space lot must be included as
part of any final plat submittal and be included in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement (SIA).
Assessment / Fees: As determined by recently amended Section 9:81 of the Subdivision
Regulations, the applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of the gross land area for
open space, parks, or schools, or pay fees in lieu thereof. The property owner should be
aware that the current agricultural valuation status of the property will change following
subdivision. Currently, there is no road irnpact fee established in this area. In the event
any fees increase before the time of final plat, the increased fees shall be paid. The
applicant should be aware that he has the cost responsibility of all required subdivision
improvements as specified in the SIA and by the final plat requirements.
Other Utilities: Holy Cross will provide electricity. Public Service will provide natural
gas. U.S. West will provide telephone. No cable television is available in the area but
satellite dish systems (8"-20") will be available. All utilities shall be buried. (The Asst.
Countv Engineer has requested the applicant state the locations of on site and off site
shallow utilities if they are available to this development).
Plat Notes and/or Covenants. Etc
The following items need to be added to the covenants:
1) The application discussed an 8,000 sq. ft. landscape area while the water rights exist for
7,500 square feet. The covenants do not specifically address this issue. The following
statement should be added to item E on page 10: "In no case shall a yard area greater
than 7,500 square feet be inigated without adequate legal water rights."
2) Only the extreme northeast corner of the property actually borders the Roaring Fork
River. The covenants should clearly indicate that private property rights exist and that
no trespassing shall occur on the bordering property. Preferably, the applicant would
obtain a tishing easement for HOA members.
3) Page 3 states that the Articles of lncorporation (AoI) shall be filed no later than the date
of conveyance of the first lot. However, the AoI must be filed at the time of final plat.
4) Page 6, item #3 Outbuildings: This section allows for Acessory Dwelling Units to be
located in outbuildings provided they comply with the Subdivision Regulations (the
ADU standards are contained in the ZoningResolution, not Subdivision Regulations).
This section is misleading and must be removed since no ADU's shall be allowed.
5) The covenants should indicate who has the maintenance responsibilities of the barn
lot. Also, section 14, page 15, states that commercial activities shall notbe
prohibited on the Barn Lot. This may be misleading since the underlying zoning has
certain restrictions on commercial activities. Clarification is needed.
6) Beach Environmental has conducted a noxious weed survey and recommended
certain aggressive weeds be removed. The covenants must contain a detailed noxious
weed management strategy and contain provisions for the HOA to enforce such a
Page l5 of21
program.
V.RECOMMENDEDFINDINGS €ta+{ fzcamw*'uda O $t,.llu'q, a-wo.l-'U *G
1.That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissionersl
That the meetings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners vt'&s were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, maffers
and issues were submifted and that all interested parties were heard at that those
hearings;
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is not in the
best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare
of the citizens of Garfield County;
That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, as amended;
That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984.
That the application ,frW^l conformance with Study Area 1 of the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan of 1995.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
On January 10,2{X}1. the Planning Commission recommended DENIAL of the
Mayfly Bend Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the Board of County
Commissioners. The Planning Commission stated that pertinent issues were not
addressed properlv, and that the applicant had not effectively supported the
npplication. The Planning Commission found that the application was not in
conformancewiththeSubdivisionreguIations.tne
eemmissien reeemmenC r\PPReVl& ef the Mayfly Raneh Subdivis:en Preliminary
Ptan te tne Peare ef C
The covenants shall be amended to include the following language, "The Homeowners'
Association shall be responsible for maintenance of common areas, open space areas,
and the Bam lot, and shall require individual lot owners to maintain their lot in a manner
consistent with the nature and character of the subdivision. It is the individual lot
owner's responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Garfield
County Weed Management Plan, to manage any noxious weeds on their property." The
covenants shall be amended to also include a specific written noxious weed management
16 of2l
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
VI.
^nq$yrsn
NN"
"q\ Page
2.
A
1\l &r'\'3|d * (rtne IrLutnit, **tY,'"kt ,
,1,5 oi*Il "ot ---, ,t 1,t, r.n-o* Lx ,!.fut or^r-^r^ul, Q h*,-(LLw Jen"'T ) -/ Pu,*+ t---*b.,y,,t_ 4 erL-ia,<-
plan which defails such'things as who willbpply chemicals] when they will be upff4"""""""'4"wn'
how often they will be applied, who will pay for such services, and which designates that
all common areas including roadsides, open space, barn area, and utility easements shall
be treated for noxious weeds. These amended covenants shall be submitted to stafffour
(4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan,
to enable staff, including Steve Anthony, to review the information, make comments, and
request amendments as needed. (The specific wording above could not be located
within the covenants. The applicant has included a detailed vegetation management
plan in the covenants as exhibit F, which was forwarded to Steve Anthony. To date,
no comments have been received from Steve Anthony.)
A detailed, written, Vegetation Management Plan (in accordance with 4.06 of the
Revegetation Guidelines of the Garheld County Noxious Weed Management Plan) shall
be submitted to staffat least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff, including Steve Anthony, to review the
information, make comments, and request amendments as needed. The revegatation plan
shall include a plant material list (common and scientific names), planting schedule,
methods & techniques, and provisions for watering and fertilization. (To date, no
revegetation plan has been submitted).
In accordance with the recommendations of the Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District,
and staff comments in the staff report , a raw water distribution system shall be installed
for irrigation of lawns, open spaces, and common areas. Flood irrigation shall not be
permifted. (The applicant proposes to flood irrigate the open space lot with ditch
water rights. Four of the lots will receive irrigation water from individual wells.
This was not met with any resistance from the Planning Commission. Staff is
unclear how the fifth residential lot will be irrisated. )
The applicant shall obtain an approved access permit from the Garfield County Road &
Bridge Department, and shall follow their recommendations. A copy of said permit shall
be submitted to staff at least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff to review the information as needed. (A
copv of saird permit has been submitted.)
Impact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization of the final plat. The
applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District. (Final Plat issue).
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Co. Div. of Water
Resources. Well permits shall be obtained for the ponds, valid well permits shall be
obtained for the wells, the use of the interest in the Slough Ditch and BanningLateral
shall not be expanded without adequate water rights to do so, and the disposition of Well
Permit No. 99585 shall be resolved. Evidence of said compliance shall be submitted to
5.
6.
Page t7 of 2t uX^4f I "yNeA Lud-4 +lle-.d {ho opp tr" cd1a^ d;6;16nt-
!^lul*Z-b, r%s Ou,,,u.h.} .4\1 {4qcA"lx{en; e^"{>p,tYxl
M-t_ yr4$eAy
NoSrulu^fl/*f-1'kn-,2ru^e6{4Aq *,b hM,M ,\WL'A'-
7.
staffat least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the
preliminary plan, to enable staff to review the information as needed. (The applicant
has submitted adequate evidence).
The covenants and plat shall be amended to contain adequate restrictions on the Barn Lot
to ensure proper agricultural employee use of the unit, as described in the application
materials. Furthermore, the Barn Lot must be deeded to the Homeowners' Association.
The deed must contain adequate restrictions to ensure the intended use. A copy of the
amended covenants & proposed deed shall be submitted to staff at least four (4) weeks
prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable
staff to review the information, make comments, and request amendments, as needed.
(The application no longer proposes restricting the barn lot but proposes five (5) free
market units instead. Allowing five (5) units is inconsistent with the Comp Plan, but
is not inconsistent with other approvals in the area.)
As discussed in the staff report, proposing two (2) separate sets of covenants, and the
formation of two (2) Homeowners' Associations, is not acceptable, nor is the description
of the "shared water system". The water system shall be a central system rneeting the
Garfield County Subdivision standards. Only one set of covenants shall govern the
subdivision. Said covenants shall include language to the effect that the entire water
system shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Said
improvements shall be secured in the SIA at the time of final plat. A copy of the
amended covenants shall be submitted to staff at least four (4) weeks prior to the Board
of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff to review the
information, make comments, and request amendments, as needed. (A central water
system is no longer proposed. Onlv one set of covenants is proposed.)
The applicant shall clarify the inconsistent statements concerning the water system and
whether Well No. 2 shall be a primary water source or merely intended to provide
additional mechanical reliability to the pumping system. Said clarification shall be
provided to staff at least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff to review the information, make
comments, and request amendments as needed. (A central water system is no longer
proposed.)
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be engineered by a registered professional
engineer within the State of Colorado and maintained adequately. (tJnderstood).
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies
shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies
shall be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form of a plat note. A
hydrologist shall evaluate the potential flooding at the site. Evidence of such
investigation shall be provided to staff at least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of
8.
9.
10.
11.
@dlucA u/uq-*ait.-..
%W'-kft
Page 18 of 21 &^uho"n ,,0 k Zo( =e*{AA& 6L$",^' ,u*X{","A-dq
-@ fl"ln cV7.
xk\ac*ta""*M
aAfu\;"aN,), r,UIq *LdX c:e\7hr,w @,.v,-<.e-
12.
County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staffto review the
information, make comments, and request amendments to the plan as needed. (The issue
here is not whether it is a civil engineer or hydrologist who makes the statement, but
when the information is submitted. Applicant prefers it be made a condition of final
plat. Staff has requested it be furnished prior to any preliminary plan approval of
the subdivision" or as a condition of approval of the preliminary plan).
In accordance with the recommendations of the U.S. Geological Survey, a hydraulics or
hydrological engineer shall be consulted for the final building footprint location on Lot 3
and design of riprap or other scour mitigation if it is warranted. Appropriate disclosure
shall be included on the plat and in the covenants. Evidence of said disclosure shall be
provided to staffat least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff to review the information, make
comments, and request amendments, as needed. (See #11 above).
If the location of the floodplain on the preliminary plan is in error, it must be corrected
on the preliminary plan (at least 4 wks. Prior to bocc hearing), and the applicant must
submit a signed and stamped statement from a registered professional engineer that the
proposed road lies outside of the FEMA designated floodplain map dated 1986. If the
road occupies the floodplain, the applicant shall obtain an approved Garfield County
floodplain special use permit (in accordance with Section 4:10 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations which requires all govemmental or agency permits be obtained
prior to approval). Furthermore, an approved special use permit must be obtained for the
adjacent existing road, which has been built in the floodplain without a permit, which
serves as an emergency access to this subdivision. Said special use permit(s) shall be
obtained prior to approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Staff still has a concern about the origin of the floodplain
information. 'l'he application did not seem to address where the information came
from. An floodplain s.u.p. application has been made for the work that has already
occurred in the floodplain. Said application has been deemed technically non-
compliant at this point in time. )
All building envelopes shall respect a minimum 50' setback from riparian/wetland areas,
as recommended by the DOW. (The applicant has requested a 30' setback instead.
The Planning Commission did not formally make a decision on this item).
All proposed roads shall be built to Garfield County Subdivision standards, without any
exceptions. (The application proposes "shared driveways" but the regulations state
that any road serving more than one unit must be public, and must meet the
applicable standards. The application does not contain evidence of a secondary
emergency access having been obtained.)
The applicant shall supply written evidence that he has an ability to obtain right-of-way
14.
15.
t6.
Page 19 of 2l
in the newly proposed location (such as a letter or contract from the other property
owner) before approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County Commissioners.
If the "Road Easement Relocation Agreement" is executed, and a copy is provided to
staffat least 4 weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners preliminary plan
hearing, this shall satisfli this condition. (The amended application states that this item
is "still under discussion".)
Access from County Road 100 to the subdivision must be deeded to the public prior to
approval of the final plat. Also, the entire emergency access easement (from the
subdivision to the public right of way to the west) must be deeded to the Homeowners'
Association from whomever owns it, prior to final plat approval. (The applicant
understands this to be a condition of final plat. Staff is concerned that this
emergency access may not be obtainable. See #15 above.)
The restricted deed for the Open Space shall be included in the final plat submittal and in
the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
All utilities shall be buried.
Accessory dwelling units shall be forbidden within the subdivision.
The covenants shall be amended as follows:
a) The application discussed an 8,000 sq. ft. landscape area while the water rights exist for
^ ffrr.Z,rO0'square feet. The covenants do not specifically address this issue. The following
)".d' shtement shall be added to item E on page 10: "In no case shall a yard area greater than
.m" No 7,500 square feet be irrigated without adequate legal water rights." (This has been
0 l) ^f . g, added to section 10 on page 8).
,.1dV Ui Only the extreme northeast corner of the property actually borders the Roaring Fork
. \ DU-, ^ d River. The covenants shall clearly indicate that private property rights exist and that no
,. N. r .,.V .
"
y' trespassing shall occur on the bordering property. Preferably, the applicant would obtainw
"ilJ' Jy- "\P a fishing easement for HOA members. (The amended application states that the
Aty ,. flo - SiX covenants have been amended, but staffwas unable to locate where the amendment
] -. nt- . N" was made in the covenants).
d UP Y' c) Page 3 states that the Articles of Incorporation (AI) shall be filed no later than the date"\,*J..f of conveyance of the first lot. However, the AI must be filed at the time of final plat.
"X'{* (This reference has been removed. The covenants have been amended to state that
the Al shall be filed with the Secretary of State and recorded in the County's real
estate records).
d) Page 6, item #3 Outbuildines: This section allows for Acessory Dwelling Units to be
located in outbuildings provided they comply with the Subdivision Regulations (the
ADU standards are contained in the ZoningResolution, not Subdivision Regulations).
This section is misleading and shall be removed since no ADU's shall be allowed.
Page2} of2l
17.
18.
19.
20,
21.
(This has been removed from section 3 on page 5).
e) The covenants shall indicate who has the maintenance responsibilities of the barn
lot. Also, section 14,page 15, states that commercial activities shall not be
prohibited on the Bam Lot. The underlying zoning has certain restrictions on
commercial activities. The covenants shall be amended so that this section does not
conflict with the allowed uses in the underlying zone district. (The maintenance
responsibilities of the barn lot are no longer a concern since it is just another
single family lot. The covenants have been amendgd to clarify that all uses must
comply with the underlying zoning.)
Said amended covenants shall be provided to staff at
County Commissioners preliminary plan hearing.
4 weeks prior to the Board of
It should be noted that the copy of the revised
contain exhibits A-F. These exhibits must be
covenants.
nts delivered to staff did
in any final copy of
not
the
Page2l of21
4.
tu/ln l,Lffi,n +a Cfu-t-
I would also like to bring to your attention, as a courtesy, several
immediate attention during the completion review. These are not
issues but deal more with the adequacy of the application.
avoid possible future delays in the processing of the application.
1. The application has changed quite substantially since the
sketch plan contemplated four single family lots with a caretal'
it now shows five single family lots and one open space lot wi
"barn unit'' is not an "accesssory" but is in fact an additional
application and engineering reports discuss four lots, causing
application.
2. The plan shows a road for which there is no existing
there is no proposed road.
3. The proposed road appears to enter the I 00 year floodplain.
necessary from the County and the Army Corps of Engineers
well.
Given the very shallow depth to groundwater one can assume
to be treated yet no discussion was located in the application.
5.
6.
7.
The application appears to be attempting to supply a
does not elaborate about how emergency access issues are
of any easements, or indicate to what standard the secondary
None of the plat notes in the sketch plan staff report have
of the sketch plan comments have not been addressed by the
agency comments... access permit... covenants which contain
weed information. .. garbage containers... riparian vegetation I
The application states that two parking spaces will be provi
shows four for each lot.
8. The preliminary plan is very difficult to read. In addition to
an enlarged version with just the subject (not adjacent)
readable scale.
9. The open space plan does not reflect the same lot confi
10. Connection to a sewer system (such as the Ranch at Roaring
appropriate way to deal with sewage disposal. The applicant
Colorado Deparfinent of Public Health and Environment (
the number of ISDS being approved for the area without revi
feasibility of wastewater treatment from a centralized facility
disposal options and costs is appropriate.
This is in no way intended to be an exhaustive list of review
apparent inadequacies. Please do not hesitate to contact me
Sincerely,
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
Ph:945-8212 / Fax:384-5004 109 8rH Street, Suite 303
ZZ
'a@ a/zo/oo
items that came to my
ily "completion"
ing these issues now may
he issues are as follows:
plan application. Where the
unit (for a total of 5 units),
atotal of nine units (the
e family unit). The
within the
and an easement for which
special use permit is
ry need to issue a permit as
the potable water will need
access to the property but
, does not show evidence
would be built.
included on the plan. Many
ication (such as the review
ressing standards. . . noxious
k... etc.).
for each lot yet the plan
scale provided, please show
depicted at a more easily
as the preliminary plan.
ork) may be a more
hould be aware that the
has been concerned about
and analysis of the
Further analysis of wastewater
but are only the immediately
event you have any questions.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
.t
Garfield County Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes, January 10, 2001
P&Z Members Present Staff Present
Herb Nelson Mark Bean, Director B&P
Michelle Foster JeffLaurien, Planner
Ray Schmahl Jim Leuthauser, County Atty.
Cheryl Chandler
David Stover
Mike Sylvia
Roll call was taken and the following members were absent: Phil Vaughan, Mike Deer
and Rolly Fischer.
Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2000P&Z
meeting and David Stover seconded the motion. All approved unanimously.
Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2000 with the
corrections she noted and Mike Sylvia seconded the motion. All approved unanimously.
The next item on the agenda is a continued public hearing for the Mamm's View
Subdivision. This was continued from the November 8, 2000P&Z meeting. Jeff
reminded P&Zthatthree (3) exhibits were entered on initial application. Notice was also
sufficient.
New exhibits:
Exhibit D: January 3'd memo and letter of January 3,2001. The applicant is requesting
an additional continuance. Both the staff and applicant are recorrmending March14,
2001 to allow the staffand applicant to continue work on the issues. Since this is the
second request for continuance, staffrecommends that the applicant re-notice hearing for
new date.
Herb Nelson accepted the exhibit into the record. Cheryl Chandler made a motion to
continue this public hearing at the March 14,2001 P&Z meeting. Mike Sylvia asked Tim
Thulson why the continuance is needed. Tim said there are access issues and numerous
water issues. Want to address the State Engineers concerns. Tim is willing to renotice
for the next hearing and he apologized for the delay. Ray Schmahl seconded the motion
to continue hearing at the March 14, 2000 P&2. All approved.
The next item on the agenda is a continued public hearing on the Mayfly Bend
Subdivision. Mark Bean handed out a letter to the P&Zmembers from Burlstone
Engineering.
a>
+
I
Mark presented the staffinformation. This hearing was originally opened on November
8,2000. Exhibits A-G were accepted into the record then. The following new exhibits
are being entered tonight:
Exhibit H: Application with all supplements included in the staff report
Exhibit I: Project Information & StaffComments
Exhibit J: Letter from Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District
Exhibit K: Letter from Garfield County Road & Bridge
Exhibit L: Letter from Carbondale Fire District
Exhibit M: Letter from the Division of Water Resources
Exhibit N: Letter from Colorado Division of Wildlife
Exhibit O: Letter from the Garfield County SheriffDepartment
Exhibit P: Letter from Garfield County Vegetation Management
Exhibit Q: Letter from the Colorado Geological Survey
Exhibit R: First memo from Burlstone, Inc. (representing County engineering comments)
Exhibit S: Letter from Garfield County Housing Authority
Exhibit T: Letter from Garfield County Public Health Nurse
Exhibit U: Second memo from Burlstone, lnc. dated Jan. 5, 2001 (ust handed out
tonieht)
All exhibits are accepted into the record.
The staff report was done without Burlstone's comments. A lot of the issues have been
addressed in the staffreport. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan indicates that this parcel of
land lies in the Low Density Residential District, which calls for 1 dwelling unit per l0 or
more acres. The plan proposes five (5) dwelling units on 40 acres, for an average density
of about one dwelling unit per 8 acres.
Section V of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan contains maps, which indicate that
this site lies in the floodplain and the visual corridor, has septic constraints due to high
water table. The Comp. Plan further indicates that this site lies in the Town of
Carbondale's statutory sphere of influence and hence this application was referred to the
Town of Carbondale for comment.
A number of goals from the Comprehensive Plan were included in the staffreport which
need to be looked related to housing, agriculture, water & sewer services, natural
environment and urban area of influence.
The property is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Carbondale. Lot 1 and Lot 3 are
adjacent to the 1O0-year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River, with an elevation 2 feet
above the floodplain. Lot 2 ard 4 are separated by an open hay field and located in
wooded areas. Lots l-4 are about 4 acres in size. The fifth parcel is identified on the
plan as the "barn area" and is about 3 acres in size. The sixth parcel consists of 21 acres
of open space. The plan is to divide the forty (40) acres into five (5) residential lots and
one (1) open space lot. A new access road constructed at existing grade is proposed.
Mark reviewed some of the comments received from review agencies:z.l
The Town of Carbondale to date has not responded.
ln a letter from the Mt. Sopris Soil District, the County should insure control of all
noxious weeds and erosion, reseeding exposed soils, safety of applying pesticides and
fertilizers. They also recommend that a raw water distribution system be installed for
irrigation of lawns and open space.
The Garfield County Road & Bridge Department stated that the applicant must apply for
an access permit, at which point certain provisions must be met.
The Carbondale Fire District commented on water supply and impact fees at sketch plan.
Water supplies for fire protection will be limited to water carried on fire apparatus and by
tanker shuttle. Impact fees will be due prior to the finalization of the final plat.
The Colorado Division of Water Resources finds that the proposed water supply will not
cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as well permits are
obtained for ponds, valid well permits are maintained for all the wells, no expanded use
of the applicant's interest in the Slough Ditch and Banning Lateral water rights occurs,
and the disposition of permit no. 99585 is resolved.
Garfield County Vegetation Management has requested that the applicant conduct a
noxious weed survey, submit a written weed management plan, include language in the
covenants and submit a detailed revegetation plan. The applicant submitted Beach
Environmental noxious weed survey identifuing the noxious weeds on the property. The
covenants have not been amended to include specific weed management and revegetation
plans.
The Colorado Geological Survey recoillmends that applicant follow geologist
recommendations.
The Garfield County Engineer, Burlstone, Inc., made a number of comments regarding
transportation, drainage, water, and sewer and recommends certain changes be made, or
actions be taken, prior to approval of the plan.
The development proposal appears consistent with most of the comprehensive plan goals,
with the exception of Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services, "to ensure the provision of
legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water
services for new development" and Section III-8.0 Natural Environment, "Garfield
County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of
the land, does not over burden the physical capacity of the land, and is in the best
interests of the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County."
o Zoning and Phasing: No phasing plan is proposed. The application states that all
required improvements would be completed within one year from the date of final
approval. Should develop as one final plat.ARC;.r
. Water: 2 shared wells. The covenants allow for an individual to drill a well on
their own lot if they choose. The applicant has obtained approved well permits.
The first well has been drilled and tested and found to have excellent quality and
abundant capacity. The second well has been drilled, but not yet tested. Well #2
is intended to provide additional mechanical reliability to the pumping system.
Staff notes that the water system does not appear to comply with section 9:53 of
the subdivision regulations. This section requires that central water systems shall
be designed by an engineer qualified to design water systems and be a registered
professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. All lines in a central
water system should be looped, with no dead ends included in the system. Where
dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there will either be a fire hydrant or blow-
off valve at the end of the line.
The applicants engineer considers this to be a "shared water system" and not a
o.community water system". Staff agrees that this is not a community water system as
defined by the Co. Dept. of Health. However, it is a central water system under Garfield
County Regulations and therefore must meet the subdivision regulation standards
pertaining to water suPPlY.
An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a
subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total development
population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance with
recognized and customary engineering standards.
The appliCatiOn Contains tWO Sets of COvenants, "general covenants" and "water
covenants". The water covenants describe an unincorporated HOA, while the general
covenants describe an incorporated HOA. These two sets must be combined into one
comprehensive document, which describes ownership and maintenance of one central
system. The covenants should specifu that the HOA should own and maintain the central
water system. Also, the inconsistencies in the description of the water system must be
clarified prior to any approvals. Costs involved are the responsibility of the developer.
o Fire protection: The site is located in the Carbondale Fire Protection District.
They note that the proposed access should be constructed in accordance with
the County road standards. Water supplies for fire protection will be limited to
water carried on fire apparatus and by tanker shuttle. Impact fees will be due
prior to the finalization of the final plat.
o Sewer: ISDS are proposed for each lot. Sopris Engineering recommends an
engineered mound sand filter type system, or other engineered system, due to
the combination of high water groundwater and floodplain issues.
The covenants have been modified to require the lot owners to follow maintenance
procedures appropriate to their system, and give the HOA enforcement procedures and
remedies.
2b
o Radiation/Soils/Topography: HP Geotech recommends spread footings, shallow
foundations, and a slab-on-grade lower floor construction. The applicant notes
that plat notes and covenants have been amended to ensure disclosure of potential
geological hazards and/or costs to individual lot owners. It is recommended that
a hydraulics or hydrological engineer be consulted for the final building footprint
location on lot 3. Both HP Geotech and the Colorado Geological Survey have
made specific recommendations and if they are followed, there does not appear to
be any geology related issues, which would prevent approval of the subdivision
request.
o Floodplain/wetlands: The applicant must submit a signed and stamped statement
from a registered professional engineer that the proposed road lies outside of the
FEMA designated floodplain map dated 1986 to support this statement. A road
was already constructed in 1998 on his adjacent property under a 404 permit but
without a Garfield County special use permit. Lot 4 encroached into
jurisdictional wetland. Identification of wetland areas is necessary on the
preliminary plan.
o Wildlife: 11 recommendations were made by the CDOW. Covenants have been
amended to include these.
. Road/Access: The Sheriff's Office commented that the County needs to enswe
all access roads are of sufficient width, and that any dead-end type roads should
have an ending radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS equipment tum
around ratio. To date, the applicant has submitted an un-executed copy of a
"road easement relocation agreement".
o Drainage: Sorpis Engineering anticipates that post development drainage will
have a small effect on the overall parcel due to the limited area being developed.
o Open Space: All common areas and open space are restricted to agricultural,
recreational, irrigation, and utility uses. It is unclear as to how the Barn Lot will
be owned and maintained. The covenants do not state whether the Barn Lot is
considered a corlmon element or not. The restricted deeds for the open space lot
and the barn lot must be included as part of any final plat submittal.
o Assessment/Fees: Currently, there is no road impact fee established in this area.
o Plat Notes and./or Covenants: A number of plat notes are included in the staff
report. (page 13)
Staffis recommending approval of the Mayfly Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan with
21 conditions.
euestions or comments from P&Z were taken next. Cheryl Chandler said that on page
l0 from the staff report related to living with wildlife, she would like to see the
recommendation from NRCS is added.
Moved to the applicant next for their presentation. Present tonight are the owner George
Kilby and his son Tom Kilby, John Dresser, writer of the covenants, Dave Michaelson of
OTEK Planner on the project, Yancy Nichols for engineering questions and Sherry
Caloia for questions related to wells.n
Herb Nelson swore in all speakers for tonight's hearing.
Dave Michaelson wants to go over the recommendations and the design. Wanted to keep
property agricultural in style. This is a relatively flat parcel. Issue of agricultural land
and now residential and who will take care of? Have building and landscape envelopes.
(near 30 acres of the 40 will look like it looks) Management was the next issue.
Go through conditions of approval:
Page 14: items I &2 are okay. Item #3, Yancy wants to know what you are talking
about? Is stafflooking at yard landscaping? Mark Bean referredtoP&Z comments;
understood no flood irrigation used.
Ray Schamhl asked if they were going to continue to grow hay? Yes was the response.
Dave Michaelson says it works and will have someone maintain. Cheryl Chandler asked
where does runoff go? Yancy says it goes on down. Sherry Caloia and George Kilby
spoke about ditch and water. Yancy suggests a plat note for no basements. Mark said
perhaps we could address item #3 before going to BOCC.
Items #4&5 are okay.
#6, Sherry addressed three ponds (1 irrigation pond) doesn't intercept ground water. The
other two ponds need well permits and have applied.
Item#7, barn parcel is a separate parcel. George will hold the deed. George would like
to have an equestrian type neighborhood but they are unsure who will purchase these lots.
George said he would deed restrict the barn parcel so there would never be a home on it.
Wanted to have control of design, etc. of this bam.
The employee unit is another wrinkle. Management could take care of property and
horses. George and Tom would like to build a barn for themselves and possibly lease out
space to others.
David Stover asked how would hayfields be maintained if no employee? Issue only the
lot and not the land. Tom Kilby said someone needs to be there on the property to take
care of the property maintenance. This provides an amenity. (potential not automatic)
Mark suggested dealing with this as a fifth lot. (barn lot) Will deed restrict for ag.
structure. Mark said to possibly limit the size.
George said people would have to pay a fee to use the stalls in the stables. Both Mark
and Jim Leuthauser said you might have to do a special use for any commercial uses.
Bam lot will have to become a member of the HOA.
Mark asked if stall usage is for landowners of these lots? George said the homeowners
have first dibbs would rent out stalls if vacant.z8
6
Tom Kilby said that if landowners don't participate in ag. use, will have to agree to live
with the ug. b"ing done on the property. Stall fees would be paid to the HOA.
#8, both Yancy and Sherry addressed. Yancy suggests drilling 5 wells and get rid of
central water system. George agrees. Sherry disagrees with the staff s interpretation.
Mark said this is a consistent staffposition. Sherry referred to the State policy. Mark
said we refer to the County Subdivision Regulations. Sherry said we could get additional
well permits.
Cheryl asked if wells would be for household use only? Sherry said no they would have
irrigation probably too. Prior to approval by the BOCC 5 wells will be in place. Sherry
said covenants would be joined too.
Cheryl asked about number of animals and what type would be allowed per lot? 2 horses
and one dog was reply and any other animals would have to be approved by HOA'
Sherry said we should change this statement about horses because one person may not
want any and the next might want four. Sherry suggests 10 horses for the whole HOA.
This clarifies item #9 as well.
Item #10 is okay. Item #11, Dave wanted a clarification about hydrologist having to
evaluate the potential flooding at the site. Mark said its more of a matter as to how you
are you going to address building in flood locations? Mark said the 1986 map for that
*ru ir pioUaUty not accurate but that is what we have to use until a more updated one is
adopted by FEM4. Mark said it has to be a licensed hydrologist to perform inspections'
yancy said drainage and septic plans should be engineered and part of building permits
pro""r.. Mark said some analysis needs to be done now and confirmation can be
presented at final plat. Mike Sylvia brought up that Lot 3 was close to the river and that
was included in the rePort.
Items 12 & 13 are okaY.
Item #14, related to building envelops and minimum setbacks from ripariadwetland
areas, Yancy said that County Engineer says 30' and the DOW says 50'' Applicant is
asking for the 20'. Applicant said 30' would work for them and asks for that
recofilmendation to change.
Item #15, related to roads, needs some clarification. Do all roads in the subdivision fall
into the Garfield County Subdivision standards? Mark asked if your intent of the road
you are talking about is for emergency access as well as an access easement for George's
property. George said he has a 12' access road to his lot, which can serve as an
emergency acpess. There was a natural surface road built under a 404 permit. Mark said
that riad could probably be categorized as a driveway and use as an easement. Will build
a cul-de-sac of some tYPe.
Item#16-21 are all okay. Item 2l(e) no commercial is being proposed.n
Dave Michaelson they will apply for a SUP for the floodplain crossing. Mark said you
might want to clariff the covenants to state nothing commercial but agricultural activity.
Mark said that should be a plat note and in the covenants.
Cheryl asked Mark if he is comfortable with all the explanations given. Mark said yes
but he thinks we need to work on the language before a final decision is made by the
BOCC.
Moved out to the public for comments and questions next.
The first speaker is Larry Gerbaz who is an adjoining property owner. He has one
objection and several concems. One item is they thought the density should stay as
recommended so that there would be only four units and not five. He does support
George's right to develop his property. Other items of concern are the drainage.
Currently this is under 3 ownerships and he thinks it will be hard to coordinate efforts to
develop. Who is going to take care of the ditches beyond down the line? Who will be
responsible for weeds? Need to be assured that this is taken care of. Sewage is another
concern. Why should we be the filtration system for all of these other people. The water
table is extremely high in this area. Are the existing utilities going to be buried? That
was not addressed. Boundary fences are mutual maintenance and who will be
responsible.
Mark Bean said the sewage system would be required to be an engineered design. tn
terms of whom you would go after in terms of weeds or fence maintenance, the County
requires that the HOA be an incorporated entity. You would be able to go after the
corporation. Larry asked what if they were to declare bankruptcy? Mark said the
homeowners are members of the corporation and they are the board. Larry Gerbaz thinks
engineered septic systems don't work that well in his opinion. Dave Michaelson said
they removed the ADU's to address some of the water and sewer issues.
Dave Michaelson said they would incorporate a weed management plan and a plat note
that says HOA to take care of this. HOA is to be incorporated.
The existing power lines will not be buried but all new lines will. No other public
comments so that section of hearing is closed. Move back to P&Zfor further comments
or questions.
Ray Schmahl said he was impressed at sketch plan but feels applicants did a lousy job
getting all the details done before preliminary plan. 21 recommendations are
inexcusable. He cannot recommend sending this to the BOCC.
Michelle Foster likes the concept proposed. There are a lot of conditions that need to be
addressed. Not sure if we can incorporate all of these items into a motion.
Cheryl Chandler likes the look of this proposal. She has a problem with not seeing the
povenants before going to the BOCC. Hard to make a recommendation tonight.
30
Mike Sylvia thinks this is a good project and he likes the rural nature and agricultural
look. Seems like a lot of clarifying is being done tonight and should have been ironed out
before tonight. He still has concerns with floodwater irrigation and questioned has it
been looked at thoroughly.
David Stover said this is difficult to sort out. It is a good plan and it is almost there.
Herb Nelson said the applicants have a couple of options and that is to ask for a decision
tonight fromP&Z or you can come back at a later time.
Dave Michaelson said he understands the reality of 21 conditions. Eleven of them are
boiler points, which are included in every application; there are 10 real issues. Some of
the issues he thinks have already been cleared up. They are not changing issues,
clarifuing only. Dave would like to move forward and take this to the BOCC.
John Dresser spoke about the covenants and that they had talked to staff. Brought to you
as a board to get input on them. We hear from you that they are good but you want more
clarification of how things will be. Covenants state that George will retain ownership of
lot 5 and that is what they are asking for.
Tom Kilby said we seem to be in basic agreement with each other and don't see why
another meeting is necessary. We feel we have met requirements and we hear what you
are saying but we, the applicants, would like to move forward.
Michelle Foster made a motion to approve the preliminary plan with all conditions listed
in the staffreport and the burden to get this done in time period allotted so that staff can
get to the BOCC within their time frame. No second was given on that motion.
Ray Schmahl made a motion to deny this preliminary plan application because there are
too many outstanding issues to be presented to BOCC in a reasonably organized fashion.
David Stover seconded the motion. No further discussion was made on this issue.
Motion passed ( Y to 2 N)
The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request is for review of a sketch plan for
the Heuer Subdivision. The property is located off of State Highway 82 and Cattle Creek
Road. The applicant is proposing 5 commercial lots on approximately 193,750 sqwre
feet of land. (95,360 sq. ft. of commercial already exists) The applicant is High Country
Associates.
JeffLaurien presented the staffcomments. In relationship to the Comprehensive Plan it
this land is designated general commercial for study area 1. Several issues in the comp.
Plan related to goals and objectives will be used when reviewing this application for
preliminary plan. Jeffidentified the areas to the applicant to be aware of.
The property is approximately 3.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs. Access is via
CR113. A significant portion of this property is within the floodway/floodplain of Cattle3l
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning Department
January 26,2001
Mr. George Kilby
505 SandyLane
Anniston, lJ'36207
Re: Mayfly Bend Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Dear George:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001, the request for approval of the Mayfly Bend Subdivision
Preliminary Plan was heard at a continued public hearing. The Planning Commission found the
plan to be inconsistent with the best interests of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. They also found the application to be
inconsistent with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. As a result,
the Garfield County Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners disapproval of the request due to the number and severity of issues identified
with the application, and based on the above stated findings'
It is your perogative, of course, whether or not to proceed with a public hearing on the
application before the Board of County Commissioners. The Garfield County staff, myself in
particular, has spent a lengthy amount of time reviewing this application and bringing the
ihortcomings of the application to light for two meetings before the Planning Commission. The
origtnal application, several addendums, and lengthy additions and changes to the application,
have been reviewed by staff in detail. It has become very difficult to discern what is being
requested by the application due to the amount of additional changes and information. Due to
the workload currently experienced by this office, I must emphasize that staff time and resources
are extremely limited. Since you plan to proceed in spite of the negative recommendation of the
Planning Commission, please understand that staff s ability to continue to spend a gteat amount
of time and resources on this application will be extremely limited. Please also be prepared for
possibly lengthier delays in processing the application than you might prefer. I appreciate your
understanding of this situation. I would also like to emphasize the importance of making all
proposals in writing, in an effort to avoid mis-communication.
Sincerely,
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Mark Bean, Planning Director
phz 945-8212 Fax:384-3470 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 3L
RECEIVEDOcT1oZOtrU
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PO BOX 1302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
97-94s-s494 EXT. 101
October 12,2000
Garfi eld County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Sir:
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed
the application and plan for the Mayfly Bend subdivision.
Control of noxious weeds on all disturbed sites in the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District is a
high priority in our annual and long-range plans. The best way to control weeds and reduce soil
erosion is to keep the areas of exposed soil to a minimum at all times and to seed the area to
desirable vegetative species. Vegetation establishment should be required by the County to insure
control of all noxious weeds and control erosion. Seeding recommendations are available from
Natural Resources Conservation Service or the County Extension staff for specific sites.
With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concemed about improper application
of fertilizers and pesticides. Chemicals should be applied by properly licensed and bonded
applicators to insure safe and proper use of pesticides. All chemical label directions should be
followed. The landowners should be aware of the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the
soils and enter ground water as well as run off into surface waters.
Mount Sopris SCD recommends that Mayfly Bend subdivision installs a raw water distribution for
lawns and open spaces at the time of development. Raw water distribution will provide untreated
irrigation water to reduce future costs of treated water to consumers.
Sincerely,
0r^ \*,*g-
Don Smith, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
33
Memo pCeOr,O,re
2 6 zoooTo: Kit Lyons - Planning department
From:Tom Russell
Date: 9l22lo0
Re: May Fly Subdivision ReviewCR 100
I have revievrred the May Fly Bend Ranch and have the following
recommendation:
1. Applicant must apply for driveway permit at the time we will require.
. lS" culvert - minimum
. Paved entrance to R.O.W line.
n Traffic control signage (Stop sign).
. Grade to driveway Wll be reviewed.
. Any newfences must be installed on R.O.W line.
lf you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.
. Page I 3+
Garfield Gounty Road
& Bridge
REDg\
MO,\
I,r.,i,Xii:'. .,',fl i:ltii\ kil
ru
FIRE.EMS.RESCUE
October 14,2000 KtreElVEil u0i ; ,; Z[i[x6
Kit Lyon
Garfield CountY Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Maytly Bend Ranch, Preliminary Plan
Dear Kit:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan application for the proposed Mayfll B9nd subdivision'
The proposed access to the suMivision has been modified from the sketch plan but is not
significant. I have commented previously during sketch plan review on water supplies and
impact fees. I have no further comments at this time'
Please contact me if you have any questions.WW
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive. Carbondale, CO 81623 . 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
REDS\
@h34
ru
FIRE.EMS.RESCUE
March 27,2000
Kit Lyon
Garfield CormtY Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
RE: Maylly Bend Ranch, Sketch Plan
Dear Kit:
I have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed Mayfly Bend SuMivision. I would offer the
following comments:
Access
fr-.opored access to the lots offCounty Road 100 appears to be adequate for emergency
vehictes. The access road and driveways should be constructed in accordance with county road
standards.
Yarter SupPlv
W"t* ,.,]ptt* for fire protection would initially be limited to water carried on responding fire
apparatus. Additional water would have to be supptied by tanker shuttle'
Impact Fees
Tf,iir--rlop*.nt is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be
,"q"ir"a to enter into an ugr""*"rrt with the District for the payment of development impact fees--fti,
puy*ent is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot
impact iee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed'
Please contact me if you have any questions.
;ffi)effi
Bill Gavette
DeputY Chief
R,ECEIVED}'IAB2Sffi
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
3o0 Meadowood Drive . Carbondale. CO 81623 . 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
STATE OF COLORATX)
EIll Orens, Govcrnor
DEPARTMEilT OF NAruRAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
A}{ EAUA OFPORII.I{ITY ETTLO!'ER
John W. Mumrna, Dirdor
@Broadray
DEnvs, Colorado 8@16
Tdephone: @)A7-119.
ForWtdlife-
For Peoph
Maroh 27,20OO
Garfield Cormty Planning
109 8e Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160I
RE: Mayfty Bend Ranch Sketoh plsn
Doar I(t:
I have rwiewed the Mayfly Bend sketch plan. The main value ofthis area to \r/ildlife is its rfuarian andwetland area. This habitat t5pe is extremely valuable to a variety gf*rldlif" speoies, inoludmg mrle deer,coyote, red fox, raccoon, w^aterfow[ raporq owls, and rrany $naII msmmnlsand songbirds.-Thl isasmell resident population ofmule deerthat inhabit that area. Theyuse the riparian oi, Jog,t"Roaring Fork as a movement corridor. The portions ofthe properry that have U* ","6 ,, ,-O*meadow have less value for wildlife and would be more pt"f"r"Lb as home sites from a wildlifeperspective
Wildlife irrpaots should be minimql as long as oertain reoornmendations are followod-l' Waland and riparian habilats are proteoted and maintained in a natural stste. The naturalvegetation -including the cottonwoods and willows, is very valuable and should be Ieftundisturbed as much as possible. If *y ofthe trees lreserrt s dangerto a structgre, then theyshoutd be topped rather than reinwed coryletety. 'it"* snags plovi<te roosing aad perchingsites for raptors and other birds.2' Home sites are set back fiom riparianAvetland areas 5GI0o feet to he$ protect these areasand minimize distgrbmce.
3' Sih fencing be installed to preve,nt de,position oferoded materrials along the northern edge oflots I and 3.
4' Bury all utilities or malre the,mraptor-proofto prwent elestrocution ofowls, raptorg andeagles.
5. No dogs allowed or site lry construction.6' Limit the number of dogs ufuioh homeormers may have to 2, with additional restrictions thatdogs rnrs stay in kennels and not be allowed to ioam fiee. iloaming and uncontrolled dogsunlll have a major negative iryact to wr'ldlife in the area. Waterfowl ne*ing and use ofthe
' riparian areawould be disnrpted-- Additionab, the site's close pro*i.ity t; qffical u/ilerrange in the Croum would makeit eaqyfor ro"-iog dogs to narass deer and elk in ttre area. rwould recorrmend fts1 rhis restriction be made , *oafro, of approval
DEPARTMENT oF NATUML RESouRcES, wbde Buchanan, Acting Executhp Dir€ctorWLDLIFE coMMssroN, chrrck L6ris, chair. ttr"rk L"varry, \ncairrarr.-g".rr"rd anc( serearyClLl,E:*6 lt-t_-*il:, r--- lt_b
ffi
7 - wildlife proof or resistant trasb/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes to preventproblemswith wildlife
8. The plan mentions that homeoumers will use fencing to exclude livestock from their yards.
These yards should be as small as possible to allow moveme,nt through the property *a ootinclude areas within 50 feet ofthe riparian areas. Any fencing should Ue +z inct high, 4 strandor less baft- or smooth wire with a l2-inch kiok qpace tetween the top two srandJ. a"V onfencing should be the rormd or qplit rail tlpe, 4g inches high, I rails oiless, with at leas lginches betwee,n two ofthe rails. These c,onditions will atlJw for the movement ofwildlife,including deer faums.
9. Prwent grazing ofhorses and other livestock in and along rbarian and wetland areas.
10. Although there has not bee,n a proble,rn in the past, ifhor." hry is to be stored outside existingbuildings in a freosanding stack, then it should be fenced at ihe oumetrs, erpense with eightfoot high game prooffencing. This will prwe,nt game damage to the stack and the luring ofanimalsi across the cormty road.
1l- AII homeoumers should be pr-ovided brochures 'T-iving with Wilaltfe., I have included copiesfor your convetrie,nce.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to give me a call
Sincerely,ru^ffiMatt Thorpe
r )istrict Wilallife Manager
Carbondale
Houes P. Dernss.anPm
Shciff ofGorficldC,onty
GARFIELD COT'NTT SHERIFF'S DEPT.
P.O. Box 249 . Glenrvood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 945-04s3
Far (970) 945-7651
frECgrvEsttAft0g2$m-
Date:March 7,2000
The Sheriffs Office has reviewed the attached sketch plan for the Mayfly Bend Ranch and would
like to address the following concerns. I ) The need to ensure all access roads are of sufficient
width to accomrnodate fire and EMS equipment. 2) Any roads that are a dead end or cul-de-sac
type should have a ending radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS equipment's turn
u-"na ratio. 3) AII roads and roadways shall be clearly marked w'ith correct County road
numbers and names. 4) All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County road
or access roads.
To: Building and Planning n /
From: Jim Sears, Undersheri i/tr
STEVE ANTHONY
VEGETAT'ON MANAEEMENT
October 23,2000
Garfi eld County Planning
109 8n Steet, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Mayfly Bend Preliminary Plan
Dear Kit
Thanks for the opportunity to review the Mayfly Bend Preliminary Plan. My comments are similar to my
memo of March 15,2000 on the Sketch Plan.
1. Ask the applicant to conduct a noxious weed survey for the weeds listed on Garfield County's Noxious
Weed List (enclosed). The Vegetation Map (Exhibit 9) does not provide this information. Plants to
be on the lookout for in this area axe Canada thistle and plumeless thistle.
Z. Request that the applicant submit a written Weed Management Plan providing for the management of
any listed weeds located on the property'
3. The covenants state that the'Tlomeov,rners Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of
Common areas and shall require Lot Ovyners to maintain their lot in a manner consistent with the
nature and character of the SuMivision". I would like to se.e specific language in the covenants that
emphasizes to landowners that it is their responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act
und Ore Garfield County Weed Managernant Plan, to manage any noxious weeds that are on their
prop€rty. I would also like to see language that specifically desigrrates weed management
iesponsibilities or all common areas, including roadsides, open space areas, and utility easemeirts.
4. ln Article V of the Covenants, section 58, the Architectural Committee encourages landscaping in
harmony with thenatural setting, utilizing native tees and vegetation, and xeriscaping. Will this
policy be in effect for common area disturbances? The applicant should submit a detailed, written
ilevegetation Plan that addresses the successful establishment of vegetation in all distrnbed sites on the
common areas. The Revegetation Plan should include:
Plant material list (corrmon and scientific name)
Planting schedule
Methods and techniques
Provisions for watering and fertilization
P. O. Box1112 . Rifle, Colorado 81650 Telephone (970) 625-3969ry
Gaffield Coan$
Cell: (970) 618{587 . Fax (970) 625-3917
I
For addifional information on revegetation stategies, please refer to Section 4.06 (attached) of the Garfield
County Noxious Weed Management Plan .
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, nffi
Steve Anthony
Garfield Corurty Vegetation Managernent Director
+l
'CE;VEDOCT3
02001.
STATE OF COLOTUDO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAT SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Ceology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-261 I
FAX: (303) 866-2461
GA-01-0002
October 23,2000
Ms. Kit Lyon
Garfield County Department Building and Planning
109 8t Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Mayfly Bend Ranch Subdivision Geologic Hazard Review
Dear Ms. Lyon,
Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request and in accordance to
Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials submitted and conducted a site
inspection on October 9, 2000. The materials submitted include a Preliminary Plan and
Preliminary Plan Application. The appiication includes a preliminary geotechnical report
and engineering report on engineered ISDS. Please consider our observations and
recorlmendations in your review of this land use application.
The site is on the floor of the Roaring Fork River Valley, immediately adjacent to the
river. The site is flat with several irrigation channels and ponds. The site is underlain by
river terrace deposits of gravel and cobble that has been deposited over bedrock of the Eagle
Valley Evaporite. This formation contains evaporitic minerals that, in the presence of fresh
water, dissolve. As mentioned in the geotech report, betirock dissoiution can result in the
formation of sinkholes. We generally concur with the risk assessment made. We are not
aware of any sinkholes in the area of this development.
We have read the geotechnical and engineering reports in the application and
generally concur with their content. The potential impacts we see to this development will be
very shallow ground water, very rapid percolation rates in the gravel alluvium, and potential
flood stage scour. None of these conditions would preclude the development as intended.
Engineered mounded septic systems will need to be designed for the residences at this
development because of the fast percolation rates, the high ground water, and proximity to
the river. The proposed building envelope for lot 3 extends onto a point of high ground that
defines the 100-year flood plain. Its banks may be susceptible to scour during flood stage
peak flows. We would recommend that a hydraulics or hydrological engineer be consulted
DEPARTMENT OF
NAIIJRAL
RESOIJRCES
Bill Owens
Covernor
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Ceolotist
and Director
+Z
for thc final building footprint location of lot 3 and design of riprap or other scour mitigation
if it is warranted.
provided site specilic investigations and foundation designs are conducted and our
coRoerng above arc addressed, this office has no other concerns with the development as
planned. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-3551.
Sincerely,
4/rul^r5^2 / t' 7t
Jonathan L. White
+3
BURLSTONE, rNC.
306 S. LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN RD.
GOLDEI{, COLORADO 8O4O1
www.burlstone.com
303-525-7720
303-526-5875 Fax
MEI\4ORANIDIJM
To: Kit Lyon, Garfield County Planner
Janice Loucks, Garfield County Engineer
CC: Judy Foy, Project File
From: Becky Davidson, P.E.
Re: Mayfly Bend Ranch, Revised Preliminary Plan Review
F6llowing, a meeting with the Garfield County Planning and Legal departments on
October. .25, Burlstone recommends that the County require the following
changes/actions to be made prior to approval of this Plan.
,:t.t.t,i l:'
Transportation
1. The developer should verify with the County that County Road (CR) 100 has
adequate existing and future capacity. [According to County staff, any County
roads in need of repair or additional capacity are included in the current Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). This road is not in the CIP and is therefore in good repair,
with adequate capacity. However, this should be documented, particularly in light of
additionaldevelopment planned for the areal.
2. The map should show existing ROW on CR 100. However, if the ROW on CR
100 is less than 60 feet, acquisition of ROW will be the responsibility of the
Roaring Fork Preserye, the proposed development directly adjacent to CR
100 and south of Mayfly Bend.
3. The maps should include a profile of CR 100 to verify adequate vertical site
distance. The Garfield County Road and Bridge Department completed an
on-site review of this road and did not report any problem with site distance.
4+
4.
October 30, 2oo0
The Garfield County Road and Bridge Depaftment specified a minimum 18-
inch width for culverts in order to apply for a driveway permit. The
developer should also define the type of structure or riprap that will be used
to prevent erosion at the culvert outlets. This information is required to be
furnished to the Planning Board at least two weels prior to the hearing.
All access and internal roads should be designed in order to minimize
environmental damage. The plan needs to include maps and information on
wetlands, slopes, and other existing site features, and how the road design
will address these features. Specific mitigation plans for wildlife, treating
runoff prior to entering the Roaring Fork River, and other environmental
issues should be furnished.
For safety purposes and as required by the County, Green Drake Road needs
to terminate in a cul-de-sac with a turning radius large enough to
accommodate emergency response vehicles. This road also exceeds the
600-foot requirement for roads with cul-de-sacs by approximately 250 feet
which may also affect emergency response.
The access road for this 9-unit development, Mayfly Drive, is intended as the
access road for an additional 13-14 units in the Roaring Fork Preserve
development. The number of trips generated from the two developments
define this as a "minor access" road, which requires a chip and seal road
surface, rather than the gravel surface for a "rural primitive" road as
described in the plan.
The existing "straight-line" access easement should be changed to match the
proposed alignment for the Mayfly Drive roadway. This new access
easement agreement should be signed and recorded prior to acceptance of
the plan.
A Special Use Permit will be required for the alternative access road. The
plan and maps need to identify the location, ROW and the radius of curyes
on the road, pafticularly because the property is directly adjacent to the
delineated 100-year floodplain. This road should meet all applicable Garfield
County regulations, and be approved by emergency service providers.
6.
7.
8.
+s
:-
October 30, 2OO0
Drainage
1. The plan should include a map and description of existing site features
including ground cover, wetlands, major drainage ways, and existing slopes.
2. A full drainage report should be included with the plan, due to the site's
proximity to the Roaring Fork River. The plan currently has one paragraph in
an Enginee/s letter regarding drainage. Major floodway basins and historic
drainage patterns should be described, and approved flood hazard or Flood
Insurance Rate Maps should be attached.
3. Any off-site drainage patterns that may impact this development should be
described and identified on a map. At least two off-site features drain into
irrigation ditches on the property.
4. The drainage repoft should describe and name existing irrigation facilities,
and identify which ones are still in use.
5. The drainage repoft should identify potential drainage problems, and discuss
potential soluUons.
6. Detention storage and outlet design should be identified on the map.
7. Page 2 of the Geotechnical Study states that a hydrologist should evaluate
the flooding potential at the site. Burlstone agrees. A full hydrology study
should be included with the plan.
\lllater
The ownership of all surface and groundwater righb should be identified.
County Staff recommends that a letter be obtained from the State Engineer
regarding the well system and its adequacy for the development.
The repoft states that a letter from a Registered Engineer regarding physical
supply (including augmentation), and water quality has been submitted to
Garfield County. Burlstone does not have a copy of the letter, and we are
therefore unable to evaluate water quality.
Burlstone recommends that the Homeowners Association retain ownership of
the wells and easements for the water lines. There should also be further
clarification in the Covenants about ownership of the well sites and creation
of water line easemenb for the individual lots. The covenant currently in the
repoft, regarding the two wells and division of water among the owners,
appears to be too complicated to be effective on a long-term basis.
1.
2.
3.
4,
ry
October 30, 2OOO
5. The preliminary plan describes how water for one of the three lakes/ponds
will be obtained. The report also need to provide details about the water
right and augmentation arrangements that have been made for the other
two, as well as ownership of all three lakes, and who is responsible for
, augmentation and maintenance.
6. All agreemenb and/or deeds concerning water righb, augmentation,
irrigation, and water provision should be signed and recorded prior to
approval of this plan.
Serrrer
This issue must be resolved prior to approval of this plan.
1. As noted in the report, this property is adjacent to the 100-year flood plain
and the Roaring Fork River, with a very shallow water table. We recommend
one central sewer or septic system for the 9 units in Mayfly Bend Ranch and
the 13 to 14 units proposed for the Roaring Fork Preserve. Separate
mounded septic systems for 22 to 23 units are not appropriate for this
location. Applicants should identify acceptable solutions, and any
contracts/agreements should be signed prior to approval.
4?-
I ,) t
Garfield Gounty
Engineering llepartment
To: Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
Attn. Kit Lyon
Date: WednesdaY, June 13,2001
Project: Mayfly Bend Ranch Preliminary Plan Application
Re: Engineering Department Review of the Preliminary PIan application dated?
Kit,
I have reviewed the above mentioned application submittal in accordance with section 4:00 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations. ln particular my comments are in relevant to section 4:41 slaling "all
documentation shatl be of sufficient detail and clarity to answer basic engineeing questions and
to permit evaluation of the application".
1. General review comments:
t..t . Please see the attached 24'x36" red lined plan set for additional engineering comments.
1.2. The application book should have a date on the title sheet so that all reviews can be referenced accurately and efficienty throughout
the entire Process.
1.3. Technically all tifles and sub titles should be in reference to "preliminary plan application" at this stage. I noticed the first few sheets of
the application have sub titles relating to the "sketch plan " application.
2. Page iv (List of Appendices)
2.1. There should be an appendix added for the letter of approval from the applicable fire district.
2.2. There shoutd be an appendix added for the letter of approval from the army @rps of engineers.
3. Appendix E (Geo-technical report)
3.1. Due to the location of this project near the floodplain the statement ot'THE GMDING PLAN FOR THE SUBDIVISION SHOULD
coNs/DER RUNOFF THROU9H THE qROJECT AND AT INDIVIDUAL S/IES"should be strictly adhered to. The drainage plan at
this time is not in accordance with this statement. Please revise the drainage plan accordingly.
4. Appendix F (Water Supply lnformation)
4.1. The well permits have not been submitted for review. Please submit a copy of all applicable well permits as stated in your application.
4.2, Please submit a copy of the yield analysis. This analysis should be at a minimum of fifteen gallons per minute.
4.3. Please submit a copy of the water quality test report by a licensed laboratory.
5. Appendix H (Engineering Report)
5.1. Provide a statement conceming on site and off site shallow utilities, and if they are available for this development.
S.Z. AccordingtotheletterdatedJune 21,2OOO bySoprisengineering,thewatersupplysystemwill consistof twowells. lf thisisaccurate
then the subdivision will in essence be supplied by water from a central water supply system. Please revise the plan set relevant to
this statement, and provide details necessary to review and construct this system.
6. Appendix K (Drainage Report)
6.1 . Due to project location, I recommend that all storm drainage runoff appurtenances be sized to handle the 1OO-year storm intensity.
Please see seclion 4:80, D, 2 of the preliminary plan guidelines of the Subdivision Regulations.
lf you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,24,6Jt*--
Jeff T Nelson
Assistant County Engineer
C Randy Withee, County Engineer
Page 1 of 1
1Og 8h Street, suite 100-c, Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601-3360,945-1377 ext.4013
Jrl Www.garfield-county.com, inelson@garfield-county.com
C:!,roiecbvnayny bendvEvilff{1.doc
I ,a I
GARFIELD COI]NTY
Building & Planning DePartment
,fhEgl'EB sEP 1 g 200g ReviewAgcttcvForm
Date Sent Wll5lfi
Commeots Due rro later than: Oetober Zlr 2(m
Name of applicatioa }vIay{y Bend Ranch Subdivrsion Prelimioary PIan
Sent to: an- -,{) ^ {L-....1
Garfietd Cognry regpests youH.-ent in review of ttrislioject. Please notify the $8tr
cotrtast in the ei€Dt you are unable to respoud by the date listed above. This form may be
gsed for yog1 r€spsts€! or you may anach yout own additional shccts 8s neccssaty.
Written aornmenls Dsybe -rile4 g'maild or faxed to:
Kit LyoB
Cnrfield C-ounty Building & Pl8miry
lO9 t6 Steet, SuiE30l
Gtenurcod SptinP, CO tl60l
Fax 970-3&4'5004
Phone: 9?O-945-tf)l2
E-oail: "garcopln@rof,oet"
crerreral commems:
i.l
This revicw ag€ocy rccoraoends (circle one): Approval / Denid
The followiqg are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for deniel:
!
.l
f
I
,1,
^t.
I
i\
).-
yt.
narisl ?fanm
+?
n
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: 09/15/00
Comments Due no later than: October 23r2W
Name of application:
Sent to:
Mayfly Bend Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan
C2
Garfield County requests !6ur comment in review of this project. Please noti& the staff
contact in the event you are unable to respond by the date listed above. This form may be
used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8ft Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-5004
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail : " garcopln@rof. net"
Ge-neral comm€nts:
This review agency recommends (circle one): Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for denial:
A- Reviscrri/?o/oo 5O
lw ut -w rJ'ts ytv wn r!\ tLJUg!\vgJ '....,,|w l!,ry JJOf f.A1.W
STATE OF COLOTUDO
f,FFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
'\ivision of Water Regources
Jeptrtrnent of Natural Resources
l3I3 Sherman Sreet, Room 818
Denwr, Coloredo 80203
Phone: (303) E6&3561
FAX: 6O3) 86t3589
hnp /Arater.sute.co.uVdefau lt. htm
Kit Lyon, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
l0g 8th St Ste 303
Glenirrood Springs CO 81601
Eill Ourent
Govsnor
November 7,2OOO C,rrg E. Welchcr
Execrnive Di.cctor
H.l D. Simp.on. P.E.
$otc Engincer
Re. Mayfly Bend Ranch SuMivision Preliminary Plan
NE%SEy. Sec. 35 & NW%SW% Sec. 36, T7S, REBW, 6n P.M.
W. Division 5, W. Distict 38
Dear Ms. Lyon:
We have reviewed the addltional information regarding the above refuren@d proposal to
subdivide a 40.61-acie paroel into four residential lots of about four aoes each, a 3.03 acre
parcelfor a bam, storage area and employee living quarters, and about 21 acres of hay fietOs
and pasture. Although conflicting information was provided in the submittal, we have assumed
that each of the four residential lots will be include a single family residence, an acoessory
dwelling, and 3,750 sguare feet of lawns and gardens. Wells to be construded under Permit
. Nos. 54382-F and 5438$F, issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservanry
l Oistrict (the District), are proposed to supply waterfor the development The wells are to
provide water for a total of eight single-family dwellings. the employee living quarters, 15,000
square feet of lawns and gardens, and up to ten livestocl< units. The District contrac't also
includes provisions to provide replacement water for evaporation from a pond or ponds with a
total surface area of 0.5 acres. lnformation has been supplied indicating that the applicant
owns 2 cfs of the Slough Ditch and Banning Lateral water rights, which will be used to oontinue
irrigation of the hayfields and pasture. Sewage will be through individual septic systems.
Well pennit nos. 54382-F and 54383-F were issued by this office on August 22, 2000,
pursuant to contracts with the District. The combined uses of the well permits allorv for a total of
nine single-family dwellings, 15,000 square feet of lawn and garden, and 20 horses, which is
adequate for the proposed uses. However, \rue have not received a Pump lnstallation Report or
Statement of Beneficial Use for these wells. lf these documents are not reeive prior to August
22,2001, the well permib willexpire and be of no effect.
A well test completed by the Samuelson Pump Cornpany indicates that the well with
Permit No. 54382-F produced 28 gallons per minute over a four hour period on August 29,
2000. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the
proposed use,
Per review of the well oonstrustion information, the ground water table in this area
appears to be within 4 to 8 feet of the surface. Based on the proposed depth of 10 feet
provided in the First Amended Application for Surface Water Rights and Water Stor:age Rights,. the pond(s) will intercept ground water. Pursuant to Colorado State Statute the exposure of
ground water is considered a well, and must be permitted by this office prior to construction, An
application for a pond, in the name of George R. Kilby, was received by this ofilce on November
It..# pr 1w aJ'-J vav 5ru\ rgry\wJ
Garfield County Building and Planning
MaW Bend Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan
# ry J€f r.uw
November 7,20,00
1, 2000. Also note that the water rights application should be amended to daim a ground water
right for the pond in place of the storage right
Our reoords also indicate that the well with Permit No. 99585 may be located within the
proposed development. lf located as such, this well must be re'permitted and included in either
the Disbicl's substitute supply plan or an augmentation plan, or it must be plugged and
abandoned upon approvalof the subdivision-
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 3G2&136(1XhXl), that the
proposed water supply will not €use material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate,
so long as well permits are obtained for the pond(s), valid well permits are rnaintained for alt of
the wells, no expanded use of the applicants interest in the Slough Ditch and Banning Lateral
water rights ooc-tlrt, and the disposition of Permit No. 99585 is resolved as stated in the
preceding paragraph. lf you or the applicant lras any questions coneming this matter, please
contact Craig Lis of this office for assistancc.
Sinoerely,
Kenneth W. thox
Assistant State Engineer
.] KWKCMUMayfly Bend Ranch iii.cloc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Acting Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, Distrist 38
,, .t
REDs\
ffi%\
ru
ffi
L(
FIRE.EMS'RESCUE
Kit LYon
Garfield CountY Planner
iog gigt,h StreeL Suite 303
bl"n*6oa SPrings, CO 81601
RE: MaYItY Bend Ranch' Sketch Plan
Dear Kit:
I have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed Mayfly Bend subdMsion' I would offer the
foltowing comments:
4cesg rL- r^+^ ^$Fr-^rrnrv pnnrl 100 aooears to be adequate for emergency
T*iln::m;:::::*"Ji';fl "T#x,}lili3iixffi;"ai"u"'oia*""-o'ituco'untvroad
standads.
ffi for fire protection y:."Id initia[y be limited to water carried on responding fire
apparatus. Additional-water would have to be supplied by tanker shuttle'
RECEIVED
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
enoMeadowoodDrive.Carbondale.CoEl62S.9T0/963.2491FaxY63.0569
ffi,or,r"nt is subject to imnact.Le": "*p:1.bl9:,^?*;3i.t""1,11i.*
wilI be
required to enter into an agreement *ftfi; nirt i"t
-for
the payment of development iryact fees'
This palment is due prigr 1rttre.r"*$"g;f tii" t""f pht' iels are based upon the per lot
impacr fee adoptedTt;; Oi*i", at the ii*" tU" agreement is executed'
Please contact me if you have any questions'
;jW+ffi
Bill Gavette
DeputY Chief
HAR 2 g 29tr
f
OF COLORADO
Govcrnor
OF NAruRAL RESOURCES @9
qH#JIVISION OF WILDLIFE
A{ EAUA. OPPORTI'{TTY EEOT'ER
Jolrn W. Mumma, Drector
@Boodti,ay
Derns, Colorado 8(E16
Tdephone: (&)A7-119.ForWldlife-
For People
Maroh 27,2000
Garfield CormtY Plennin g
109 8e Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPringq CO 81601
RE: Mayfty Bend Ranch Sketch Plan
Dear lfit:
I have reviewed the Maytry Bend sketch plan. The main value ofthis area to witdlife is its riparim and
waland area. This habitat q7pe is extremelyvaluable to a variety ofwrldlife speoies, including mtrle deer,
coyote, red fox, raccoon, waterfow! raptors, owls, and many smrll rna?yrmnls and songbirds- There is a
small resident population of mule deer that inhabit that area. They use the riparian areas along tle
Roaring Fork as a moveme,rm corridor. The portions of ttre property that harrc been used as a hry
meadow have less value for wrltdlife and would be more preferable as home sites from a wildlife
perryective.
Wildlife iryaots shoutd $s minimel as long as oertain recofimendations are followed.
1. Wetland and riparian habitats are proteoted and maintained in a nafirral stste. The natursl
vegetation ..including the cottonwoods and wrllowq isveryvaluable and Sould be left
*ai"n rt"a as much as possible. If ary ofthe trees pres€nt a danger to a stnrcture, then they
shoutd be topped rather than removed coryletely. These snags prwide roosing and perching
sites for raptors and other birds.
Home sites are set back from riparianAnretlmd areas 5G100 fea to he$ protect these areas
and minimi'e disturbmce.
Sih fencing be instalted to prevent deposition of eroded materials along the northern edge of
lots I and 3.
Blry all utilities or malre them raptor-proofto prwent electrocution of owlsr raptorg md
eagles.
No dogs allowed on site by consruction-
Iimit the number of dogs nihich homeowners may hane to 2, with additional resrictions that
dogs mrst stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam fiee. Roaming and rmcolrtrolled dogs
will have s major negative iryact to wildlife in the area. Waterfowl nesting and use ofthe
riparian area would be disnrpted- Additionalty, the site's close proximity to critical winter
range in the Cro'nm would make il easy for roaming dogs to harass deer and elk in the area. I
would recortmend that this re$riction be made a condition of approval
DEPARTMENT OF NATUML RESOURCES. \Ahdo Brrchenan, Acfrng EB.IfiA DTECIoT
WLDLIFE COMMlSSlOtl, Chuck Lswb, Clrair. [/lark LeValley, Vtca-Chair. Elqnard gbclq S@rdary
J.
4.
).
6.
t,
Htffi*trhfi,H* trash/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes to prevent
The plan mentions that homeoumers wiII use f*"iog to exclude livestock from their yards.These 5rards shourd b_e-as smelr ., por*fur" to ,no*iorn J*t through the property and notinclude areas within 59 fto ortr'e["ri- .19"r.
^"r-t#g should te qi minhig[, 4 srraador less baft- or smooth wire with r ii-lo"t ki;k qp;;;.* the top *. *roas. Aay rulfencing should be the round or qplit ,rl typl:48 inches higL 3 rails or less, with at least lgil:il"##f#**the rails' ^m"t
"orditions wilt affi for the -oril*iof wirdrire,
9' Prevent grazing ofhorses and other livestock in and along &arian and wetland areas.l0' Although there has not been a problemin a"prr,, ifirrse hay is to be o"r"a outside exisingbuildingsin a free'standing rtr.t, then it shouid b; f."; rt tL".. ^J;;ense with eightlii,H"lil3.llilf-,Ti;r[i' ",inp.**i;;;.."ge to the s"ck'md the ruring or
" # il#:'#ff*;]' be prtivided broch,res 'r.iving with wldlire.,, r have inchrded copies
Thank you for the opporttmity to comment.
Sincerely,
%zvt4,Matt Thorpe
District Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
Ifyou have any questiong please feel free to give me a call
7.
8.