HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Supplemental PC Staff Report 04.12.2000POWERLINE SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
04/12/00
Since distribution of the Staff Report for Powerline Professional Park Preliminary Plan, new
information has been submitted by the applicant and new agency comments have been received.
The following is a description of the new information and modifies the Staff Report circulated to
Planning Commission members. For the most part, the Staff Report already circulated will be
used for this application, however, the following will be inserted in the appropriate places and
explained by staff.
Section III REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. Colorado Division of Water Resources:
In a letter dated April 11, 2000, (Exhibit "X"), the Division of Water Resources
comments include, "...it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(1), that the
proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to
decreed water rights, provided the applicant obtains valid well permits for the
proposed uses, and an agreement to use the Lower Cactus Valley as discussed above
is approved by the ditch company." Bold added for emphasis.
B. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:
In a letter dated April 6, 2000, from the Department of Health, submitted by the applicant
on April 10, 2000, and submitted to the Planning Commission as exhibit "W" at the
Planning Commission meeting of 04/12/00, comments include, "We are able to waive
the requirement that engineering and financial planning be commenced at 80% of rated
design capacity." This is in response to an application by Mr. Schenk of the Cottonwood
Springs Mobile Home Park to waive this requirement in order to connect Powerline
Professional Park to the existing central sewer system. Thus, this waiver appears it will
be granted.
Section IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
1. Water Supply: The most recent letter from the Division of Water Resources, dated April
11, 2000, clearly states that it is their opinion that "no material injury to decreed water
rights" will occur. However, this opinion is based upon conditions. The most significant
of which is the need to obtain an agreement with the Lower Cactus Valley to supply
water to the proposed fire suppression pond. In a conversation with Craig Lis, on April
12, 2000, he stated that the applicants have shares in the ditch for irrigation but not for
the purposes of filling the proposed fire suppression pond. Thus, this agreement is
needed to allow the applicant to fill the pond with water from the ditch. At this time, this
agreement has not been entered into and has not been submitted to the Planning
Department. Thus, there is no guarantee that this agreement can and will be entered into,
which is a condition of the "no material injury" finding of the Division of Water
Resources. Further, given that Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations states:
A water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the
following information in graphic and/or written form:
A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of
quality, quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an
adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision. Such evidence may
include, but shall not be limited to:
1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing
and proposed water rights;
2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights;
3. Amenability of existing right to change in use;
4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply
water to the proposed subdivision, including the amount of water
available for use within the subdivision by such providers, the
feasibility of extending service to the area, proof of legal
dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation
that all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be
obtained or adjudicated, prior to submission of the final plat; and
S. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply
for the subdivision.
this section of the regulations has not been complied with.
Thus, Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with in this
application.
4. Waste Disposal: Given the new letter from the Department of Health (See Exhibit "W",
and discussed above), Section 4:92 (C) (1) of the Subdivision Regulations requiring a can
and will serve letter has been satisfied. However, this letter also lists two (2) additional
items required from Mr. Schenk to complete the waiver application. These need to be
submitted to the Department of Health. Thus, as a condition of any Preliminary Plan, an
approved waiver will have to be submitted by the applicant for Final Plat review. In
addition, no agreement as referred to in Mr. Schenk's letter between Cottonwood
Spring's Mobile Home Park and Powerline Professional Park has been submitted to the
Planning Department. This needs to be submitted to the Planning Department for review.
However, Section 4:92 (C) {3) of the Subdivision Regulations requiring a proposed
method of financing the sewage treatment works, has not been satisfied (See original
staff report). No proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works has been
submitted by the applicant. Thus, the applicant has not complied with Section 4:92 C
of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
Section VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed subdivision of land based on the following:
1. Section 4:60 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations which requires "Evidence that all lots
and parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way", has not been complied
with.
Section 4:92 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations which requires, "Proposed method of
financing the sewage treatment works", has not been complied with.
3. Section 4:91 (A) of the Subdivision Regulations which requires, "In all instances,
evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability,
shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision."
4. Section 4:91 (B) of the Subdivision Regulations which requires, "If a central (water)
supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general description of the system, as
designed by a Colorado registered engineer." has not been complied with.
5. Section 1:21 of the Subdivision Regulations which states in part, "The Subdivision
Regulations are designed and enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and
welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Garfield County...", has not been
complied with.
6. Section 9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations which states, "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." has not been complied with.
PC 04/12/00
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review of the Powerline
Professional Park Subdivision.
APPLICANT: Western Slope Development Company.
ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering, Inc.
PLANNERS: SK Collaboration.
LOCATION: A parcel of land situated in Section 11, T. 6S.,
R. 93W., of the 6`h RM.; located on Highway
6/24, approximately 1/4 mile east of Rifle.
SITE DATA: 29.510 acres.
WATER: 3 shared Wells.
SEWER: Central System (Cottonwood Springs Mobile
Home Park System)
ACCESS: Highway 6/24.
ZONING: Commercial General (C/G).
ADJACENT ZONING: East: C/G
West: R/G/SD, C/G
North: A/I
South: A/I
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The parcel of land is located in District B (Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas), of the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, 1984. The parcel is also included within the City of
Rifle Comprehensive Plan area, 1998, which designates the property as County Industrial.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located approximately 1/4 mile east of
Rifle, on the north side of Highway 6/24, directly east of the Cottonwood Springs
mobile home park.
The site is flat, with slopes less than 1 %, with an overall elevation difference of 15
feet from the north to south property lines. The site is undeveloped other than the
power lines as indicated on the submitted Preliminary Plan. The site consists of an
open field with ricegrass, wheatgrass, junegrass, serviceberry and big sagebrush, with
wheat and an infestation of yellow toadflax, Common Burdock, Leafy Spurge and
Musk Thistle.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the tract into a total
of 8 commercial lots on the 29.510 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 2.819
acres to 5.716 acres with an average lot size of 3.69 acres. Water is to be supplied
by three wells through a well sharing agreement. Sewage disposal is to be through
a central system (Cottonwood Springs Mobile Home Park System). Access will be
via a private road/cul-de-sac off of Highway 6/24.
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
These comments are those received after the last Planning Commission meeting of February
9, 2000 or are those which have remained the same throughout this application. Comments
which were previously received from agencies which are not included here have already
been included in previous staff reports for previous Planning Commission meetings for this
application or were previously entered as exhibits for this application. Either way, they have
been entered into the records for this application. This has been done to simplify the
application we are reviewing tonight by only examining comments which are up-to-date for
the application as it currently exists.
A. Colorado Division of Water Resources: The Division of Water Resources was sent
new information as submitted by the applicant proposing the use of a pond for fire
protection within the cul-de-sac as shown on the newly submitted plan (see applicant
package). The use of a pond for fire protection is a new proposal by the applicant
since the last Planning Commission meeting. The Division of Water Resources
commented on this proposal in a letter dated April 3, 2000, (See p. 20). This letter
states in part, "Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-
136(1)(h)(1), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed
water rights, and is inadequate."
B. City of Rifle: The City of Rifle commented on this application in a letter dated
December 3, 1999 (this letter was included in a previous staff report), and stated
2
that, "the City does not oppose this proposal and it would ask the County to consider
the following concerns:"
► The City supports the creation of jobs and tax base in and around
Rifle.
• The City would expect the County to take appropriate measures to
ensure that the effects of this development would create no short or
long term damage to this area (visual, environmental, social, etc.)
One specific concern of the City is that Rifle's primary domestic
water intake is in close downstream proximity to this project, and
this area has relatively shallow subsurface aquifer. All steps must be
taken to ensure that wastewater disposal does not contaminate the
aquifer and eventually the City water intake structure.
• The City would request that as this parcel is developed the
requirements of the Rifle Municipal Code, Title 17 and the Rifle
Public Works Manual be followed. The City would expect at some
date that this area be appropriate for annexation, and that municipal
services would be available. In an effort to make this occurrence
most beneficial for all parties, it would be appropriate for the County
to require the City development standards.
C. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: In a letter dated 02/09/00
(See p.21), the Department of Health states, "We have received a letter from John
Schenk of Cottonwood Springs LLC, dated 02/09/00, which expresses their intent to
provide domestic wastewater treatment service to the Powerline Park. The Water
Quality Control Division finds this to be an acceptable method for sewage
treatment...Mr Schenk has conditioned the offer of treatment service to Powerline
upon our agency being willing to waive that condition (i.e. allow the capacity,
including waste from Powerline, to exceed 80% of total capacity but not be required
to initiate expansion planning). 25-8-501(6) of the Act allows that to occur,
providing that the permittee can show there is a declining or stable service
population. We advise Mr. Schenk to submit a letter to our Permits Unit, Susan
Nachtrieb, Unit Leader, to that effect and we will process the request to modify that
condition of the permit."
In a letter dated 03/17/00 (see p.22), Mr. Schenk states, "Cottonwood Springs LLC
has submitted a request for an amendment of CPDES Permit No. COG -581000 to
the Colorado Department of Health for a waiver of the CWS permit discharge
limitations imposed by applicable regulations allowing the reserve capacity in the
Cottonwood Springs system to be used to serve to the Powerline Professional Park
(PPP)...I have completed a first draft of a written agreement running with the PPP
lands in favor of CWS binding on all future owners of lots in PPP and anticipate a
3
final and signed agreement will be executed by all necessary parties by March 29,
2000." This agreement has not been submitted to the Planning Department for
review at this time. This agreement needs to be submitted to and reviewed by the
Planning Department.
To date, no written response has been received from the Department of Health
regarding the status of the application for a waiver. However, in a recent telephone
conversation with Bill McKee, of the Department of Health, he stated that further
information was still needed from the applicant to process the request for a waiver
and that it would likely take 60 to 90 days to process the application once all the
required information was received. Although Bill Mckee did not state this, there is
no guarantee that a waiver will be granted. The applicant must satisfy the
requirements of the application to receive a waiver. With further information still
required for review by the Department of Health, these requirements have not been
satisfied.
D. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District; In a letter dated November 30, 1999 (this letter
was included in a previous staff report), the Bookcliff Soil Conservation District
responded with concerns about noxious weed control, and suggested that the
subdivision applicant contact Garfield County Vegetation Management for proper
weed control of noxious weeds on site. Further, the district stated: "Any cuts for
roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion." This will be a
condition of any Final Plat approval.
E. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony, of Garfield County
Vegetation Management, responded to the application in a memorandum dated
November 29, 1999 (this letter was included in a previous staff report), in which he
states that it is essential to document exactly where toadflax and spurge are located
on the property, and that the applicant be requested to complete the documentation.
In addition, he states, "If these plants are located in an area of the site that will not
be developed, please have the applicant submit a treatment plan for the yellow
toadflax and leafy spurge. The plan must include the following:
Method of treatment,
If chemical treatment, state name of herbicide and rates,
Schedule of treatment,
Plans of followup,
Name applicator that will do the work."
This will be a condition of approval of any Preliminary Plan and must be addressed
with any Final Plat submittal. This is necessary so that Garfield County Vegetation
Management will have an opportunity to review the applicant's submittal and
provide comments before Final Plat approval.
F. Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology: In a letter dated November 17, 1999
4
(this letter was included in a previous staff report), the Colorado Division of
Minerals and Geology responded, "...each building site should be examined with one
or more boreholes from which samples are collected for geotechnical testing. The
foundations should be designed conservatively in order to mitigate the most severe
conditions." The letter continues with several specific mitigation measures to be
followed under varying conditions. These will be conditions of any Final Plat
approval.
G. Public Service Company of Colorado: In a letter dated November 16, 1999 (this
letter was included in a previous staff report), the Public Service Company of
Colorado stated they have no material objection to the development, however, they
pointed out some issues we may wish to discuss with the developer including:
► Denoting the proposed utility installation within the proposed 60'
access easement.
► ensuring that adequate (10 feet on either side within the proposed 60'
easement) space is provided within the 60' easement for the
placement of above ground facilities.
► The fact that there is no distribution gas in Highway 6 & 24, and that
if this development is to be served with natural gas, access would
have to come from either County Road 210, to the north, or the
Cottonwood Trailer Park to the west, depending on loads.
► Ensuring that proposed berms are far enough removed from existing
overhead lines, and that they do not interfere with the access and
operation of these facilities.
► Finally, any requirements over and above the licensing agreement
with Tri-State which may be required if facilities are placed within
the proposed 60' right-of-way.
These will be conditions of any Final Plat approval.
H. Garfield School District No. Re -2: Garfield School District No. Re -2 stated "At this
time there are no concerns or comments.", in a letter dated November 9, 1999 (this
letter was contained in a previous staff report).
Garfield County Sheriff's Department: The Garfield County Sheriff's Department
has no concerns or comments, as stated in a letter dated November 10, 1999 (this
letter was included in a previous staff report).
J. Rifle Fire Protection District: The Rifle Fire Protection District stated five
recommendations for the proposal in a letter dated November 23, 1999 (This letter
was included in a previous staff report):
1. A minimum of 180,000 gallons of fire protection water is needed on site.
5
2. Hydrants should be spaced a maximum of 500 feet from a structure. Hydrants
are to be capable of providing a minimum of 1500 gallons per minute at 20
PSI residual pressure.
3. The main road as well as individual driveways are to be constructed to
accommodate the heavy weights of fire apparatus during adverse weather
conditions. Roadways should be a minimum of 24 feet in width.
4. Addresses are to be posted in a conspicuous location so they are readily
identifiable.
5. Each individual building will need to be reviewed at the building permit
phase to evaluate any additional fire protection requirements.
No response has been received from the Fire District with regard to the proposed
pond to be used for fire protection. The Fire District will need to "ok" the pond
proposal.
K. Colorado Department of Transportation: CDOT has issued an access permit to the
subject site, Permit No. 399164 with attached conditions (See additional information
packet submitted by applicant). This permit is very similar to the permit reviewed
at the last Planning Commission meeting. This permit (See condition 1 of permit)
grants access to a "Land Development Office with estimated 10 ADTs, a 60,000
square foot warehouse, and necessary traffic for further development. This includes,
but is not limited to, construction equipment for development. The permittee will
submit a development phasing schedule to CDOT within 90 days after signing the
permit. The development phasing schedule will at a minimum detail a build -out and
improvement plan. The development schedule shall be prepared by a professional
engineer certified in the State of Colorado."
L. City of Rifle Attorney (Leavenworth & Tester, P.Q, Attorneys at Law): In a letter
dated December 16, 1999 (this letter was included in a previous staff report), as the
City Attorney for the City of Rifle, the City Attorney states, "It appears likely that
the proposed subdivision would require a Watershed Permit. We ask that such
Permit be required by the County prior to final plat approval."
The need for this permit needs to be examined by the applicant and if necessary be
submitted to the Planning Department before Final Plat approval. If this permit is not
necessary, sufficient documentation to this effect must be submitted to the Planning
Department before any Final Plat approval.
M. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No comments were received.
N. U.S. West Communications: No comments were received.
O. Emergency Management: No comments were received.
6
N. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Water Supply: Since centralized municipal water is not currently available in the
area, the applicant is proposing the use of three (3) wells to supply the eight (8)
proposed commercial lots through a well sharing agreement. Thus, a well sharing
agreement would have to be entered into for any Final Plat approval. The applicant
is also proposing to use well number one (1), located on lot 6 to supply water to the
proposed pond to be used for fire protection. This is a new proposal since the last
Planning Commission meeting.
As outlined above, the Division of Water Resources has reviewed this new proposal
and commented in their letter dated April 3, 2000 (See p.20), in part, "Based on the
above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(1), that the proposed
water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is inadequate."
Section 4:91 (A) of the Subdivision Regulations states:
A water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the
following information in graphic and/or written form:
A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality,
quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply
of water for the proposed subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall
not be limited to:
1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing and
proposed water rights;
2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights;
3. Amenability of existing right to change in use;
4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply
wafer to the proposed subdivision, including the amount of wafer
available for use within the subdivision by such providers, the
feasibility of extending service to the area, proof of legal
dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation
that all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be
obtained or adjudicated, prior to submission of the final plat; and
S. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for
the subdivision.
Given the comments of the Division of Water Resources, Section 4:91 (A) of the
Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
In an analytical report of the water supply for the proposed subdivision, submitted
by the applicant, and completed by John C. Kephart & CO., Grand Junction
Laboratories, there is a note which states, "Exceeds water supply limits for Sodium,
7
Sulphate, Dissolved Solids and Hardness. The overall mineral salt content is too high
for human drinking water; treatment would be needed before drinking. Softening
alone will not correct this problem, Reverse Osmosis is recommended." In addition,
in a letter received from Michael Folse, a Colorado registered engineer, with regard
to water quality, he states that the water sample used contained high levels of
dissolved solids. He further states, "Dissolved solids are routinely removed using
available reverse osmosis systems. The water quality with proper treatment should
pose no risk to human health." Without reverse osmosis systems the water is not
potable, thus, these systems will be required for any approved application. To this
end, any approved covenants for this development must include the need for annual
monitoring of the required reverse osmosis systems of each lot/building to ensure
that the systems are functioning properly to supply potable water to each and every
building/lot. This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval.
The applicant has submitted a contract #990809#2RK (a) from the West Divide
Water Conservancy District as part of their water supply plan. All stipulations of this
contract must be adhered to by the applicant as a condition of any Final Plat
approval.
2. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Commercial General (C/G).
Uses by right: Single-family, two family and multiple family dwelling, and
customary accessory uses including building for shelter or enclosure of animals or
property accessory to use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges,
gardens, walls and similar landscape features; park; boarding and rooming house;
hotel, motel, lodge;
Church, community building, day nursery and school; auditorium, public building
for administration, fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library;
Hospital, clinic, nursing or convalescents home; group home for the elderly.
Office for conduct of business or profession, studio for conduct of arts and crafts,
provided all activity is conducted within a building;
Commercial establishments, as listed below, provided the following requirements
are observed;
(1) All fabrication, service and repair operations are conducted within a building;
(2) All storage of materials shall be within a building or obscured by a fence;
(3) All loading and unloading of vehicles is conducted on private property;
8
(4) No dust, noise, glares or vibration is projected beyond the lot;
Wholesale and retail establishment including sale of food, beverages, dry goods,
furniture, appliances, automobile and vehicular equipment, hardware, clothing,
mobile homes, building materials, feed, garden supply and plant materials;
Personal service establishment, including bank, barber or beauty shop; laundromat
laundry or dry-cleaning plant serving individuals only; miniature golf course and
Accessory facilities, mortuary, photo studio, shoe repair, tailor shop, restaurant,
reading room, private club, theater and indoor recreation;
General service establishment, including repair and service of automotive and
vehicular equipment, vehicular rental, service and repair of appliance, shop for
blacksmith, cabinetry, glazing, machining, mini -storage units, printing, publishing,
plumbing, sheet metal and contractor's yard.
General service establishment including lumberyard, motor freight depot and
storage.
Uses. conditional: Row house, home occupation; parking lot or garage as principal
use of the lot.
Plant for fabrication of goods from processed natural resources.
Uses, special: Automotive service station or washing facility; camper park; mobile
home park; communication facility, correction facility.
Any use, by right, in this zone district used principally as a drive-in establishment
where the customer receives goods or services while occupying a vehicle; water
impoundments, storage, commercial park; utility lines, utility substations;
recreational support facilities.
Plant for processing natural resources and agricultural materials into food and
beverages; communication facility, correction facility.
Salvage yard, water impoundments, automobile racetrack and material handling;
recreation support facilities.
Minimum Lot Area: Seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet and as further
provided under Supplementary Regulations.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Seventy-five percent (75%), except for commercial uses
which shall be eighty-five percent (85°A).
The County Commissioners may require adequate screening of all parking and
roadway areas in commercial uses from adjoining residential uses and public streets.
A maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total parking and roadways areas may be
required to be devoted exclusively to landscaping of trees, shrubs, and ground cover
to reduce visual impacts.
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty
(50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet
from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is
greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line for lots occupied by residential
uses; seven and one-half (7.5) feet for lots with no residential occupancy;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line or one half (1/2) the height of the
principal building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Height of Building: Thirty-five (35) feet.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.50/1.0 and as further provided under Supplementary
Regulations.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section
5 (Supplementary Regulations).
Minimum yard setbacks have not been identified on the submitted Preliminary Plan,
these must be shown on any Final Plat submittal. In addition, no buildings can be
constructed within the electric easements on the subject property, as such this should
be clearly identified on any Final Plat submittal.
The applicant has identified the proposed uses on the proposed eight (8) lots to be
"a mix of business office, storage and shop uses". This is a very general description
of uses and given the property is zoned C/G, any uses by right or by conditional or
special use can potentially be located on the proposed lots. With this in mind, it is
difficult to accurately assess impacts of the proposal specifically in terms of traffic
generation and fire suppression water required (discussed later in report). This must
be taken into consideration with any recommendation(s) made on this application.
Section 5.01.02 (3) of the Garfield County Zoning Regulation deals with Minimum
Off -Street Parking. In the original application received October 28, 1999, from the
applicant, the applicant proposed on -street parking at a rate of 1.25 spaces per 100
square feet of commercial floor area. No off-street parking was proposed. To comply
10
with Section 5.01.02 (3) of the Zoning Regulations, off-street parking must be
supplied for retail and service commercial uses, as proposed by the applicant, at a
rate of one (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of floor area (except storage
area). For on -street parking to be allowed, the proposed access street must be
designed in conformance with Subdivision Regulation 9:35 (7) Roadside Parking.
After discussing this information with the applicant, a letter dated January 20, 2000
(submitted at a previous Planning Commision hearing), was submitted by the
applicant which states that "All off-street parking spaces will conform to the Zoning
Resolution and will be created at a rate of one (1) space per two hundred (200)
square feet of floor area (except storage area), as required by Section 5.01.02 (3)."
Further, no on -street parking is being proposed. This will satisfy the need for off-
street parking.
3. Roads: Access to the subject property is proposed via an existing access point on
Highway 6/24, where a private road approximately 600' in length with a cul-de-sac
at the end will be built accessing each proposed lot. The private road is also
proposed to run through and parallel to two (2) existing power line easements owned
by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
An access permit has been received from CDOT granting access to a Land
Development Office with estimated 10 ADT, a 60,000 square foot warehouse, and
necessary traffic for further development. This is outlined in condition 1 of the
Access Permit which states:
This permit allows the permittee access from US 6 to all lots in the parcel. Access
is based upon a Land Development Office with estimated 10 ADT, a 60,000 square
foot warehouse, and necessary traffic for further development. This includes, but is
not limited to, construction equipment for development. The permittee will submit
a development phasing schedule to CDOT within 90 days after signing the permit.
The development phasing schedule will at a minimum detail a build -out and
improvement plan. The development schedule shall be prepared by a professional
engineer certified in the State of Colorado.
The requirement of a development phasing schedule and a statement that this permit
allows the permittee access from US 6 to all lots in the parcel does not change the
fact that this particular access permit at this time only grants access to a Land
Development Office with estimated 10 ADT, a 60,000 square foot warehouse, and
necessary traffic for further development. Thus, this access permit does not address
the submitted and proposed application before us tonight. It only addresses what
could be found on approximately one (1) lot of this proposal. This proposal is for
eight (8) lots which if approved could by right, contain significantly more square
footage, and uses beyond warehouses which this access permit does not allow.
Section 4:60 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations states, "Evidence that all lots and
parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way, as required by Colorado
11
state law." This permit does not constitute this evidence as required. The only way
this permit could constitute access to all lots as proposed by the applicant is if the
applicant is willing to restrict development on each proposed lot to 7,500 (60,000
divided by 8) square feet of warehouse use and a single Land Development Office
with an estimated 10 ADT, and necessary traffic for further development. At this
time, the applicant has not proposed this restriction. Instead, the application being
reviewed tonight is for an unrestricted (subject to regulations) amount of square
footage and all uses by right in the Commercial/General zoning which includes
numerous uses beyond warehousing. Thus, this application has not complied with
Section 4:60 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations. This was one of the reasons staff
was recommending denial at the previous Planning Commission meeting. This was
also one of the reasons the applicant requested and received a continuance. At this
time, this concern has not been adequately addressed.
A copy of an agreement between the applicant and Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc., to allow the applicant to build the proposed on-site
60 foot right-of-way within the transmission line easements, for access to the
proposed eight (8) commercial lots has been submitted. This agreement will have to
be followed by the applicant as outlined in the agreement as a condition of any Final
Plat approval in order to satisfy Section 4:60 (C) of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations which requires, "Evidence that all lots and parcels created will have
access to a public right-of-way, as required by Colorado state law."
Given the submitted Traffic Study indicates an average daily trip generation of
1,761, the on-site access road will have to be constructed to meet Minor Collector
standards as outlined in Section 9:35 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations. This includes a minimum right-of-way width of 60' and a minimum
lane width in each direction of 12'.
4. Waste Disposal: The applicant is proposing connection to the Cottonwood Springs
central system. A letter of intent to serve has been received from Cottonwood
Springs allowing connection (previously entered into exhibits as Exhibit `P').
However, it is conditional upon receiving a waiver from the Department of Health
as discussed above.
The Planning Department agrees that connection to a central sewer system is
preferable to ISDSs. However, pertinent regulations as stated below, must be
adhered to to ensure that such a system is viable. This has not occurred.
Now that the applicant has decided to proceed with connection to an existing sewer
system, Section 4:92 (C)of the Subdivision Regulations becomes pertinent. This
Section states:
If public or private sewage treatment facilities are to be provided by an existing
12
district or through the connection to an existing sewer system, evidence that the
treatment facility or system can and will provide adequate sewage treatment for the
proposed subdivision. In addition:
1. Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system stating that
the proposed development can and will be served;
2. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the sewage treatment
works; and
3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works.
1. Although this letter may appear to be a can and will serve letter there exists
some serious doubts as to whether the system can actually serve the proposed
development. The first paragraph of this letter is very important and must be
read in detail. It states that the agreement in principle is "Subject to written
approval by the Colorado Department of Health providing a waiver of the
CWS permit discharge limitations imposed by applicable regulations
allowing the reserve capacity in the Cottonwood Springs system to be used
without commencing engineering or financial planning for expansion..."
Given what this says, a significant assumption is being made with regard to
these conditions being approved by the Department of Health. There is no
guarantee that this waiver will be approved. Further, given the verbal
response from the Department of Health that further information is required
to review the application for this waiver, it is clear that the applicant needs
to continue to work on this waiver. Thus, it appears that Cottonwood Springs
cannot say without a doubt that they can serve this development proposal.
Whether they can serve, can only be determined by the Department of
Health. This was one of the reasons staff was recommending denial at the
previous Planning Commission meeting. Thus, it was one of the reasons the
applicant requested and received a continuance from the last Planning
Commission meeting, and it is clear that this issue has still not been resolved.
3. No proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works has been
submitted by the applicant. Given that the applicant expressed concerns over
the increased costs of sewage treatment beyond the use of ISDSs, there is a
concern as to how this proposal will be financed. This was also a reason for
a continuance at the last Planning Commission meeting and has also not been
resolved at this time.
Thus, the applicant has not complied with Section 4:92 C of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations.
5. Soils/Geology: The site is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the south with
a total elevation difference of about 15 feet. The site, as indicated in the USDA Soil
Survey of the Rifle Area, is located entirely within map unit 40, Kim Loam 3-6
13
percent slope. This deep, well drained, gently sloping soil is found on alluvial fans
and benches.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Percolation Testing conducted by HP
Geotechnical on the subject site revealed the need for some design recommendations
which should be adhered to in the construction of any buildings on any of the
proposed eight (8) commercial lots with specific regard to foundations, floor slabs,
and underdrain systems. In addition, a recommendation was made regarding surface
drainage and the drainage plan for the subject site including: "To limit infiltration
into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted
and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of 10 feet. Roof
downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and
landscape irrigation should be restricted." (See Preliminary Geotechnical Study and
percolation Testing report prepared by HP Geotechnical). These recommendations,
as well as those discussed later specifically regarding the drainage plan will be
conditions of approval for any Final Plat.
A letter received from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, dated
November 17, 1999, (previously submitted to Planning Commission) stated, "...each
building envelope should be examined with one or more boreholes from which
samples are collected for geotechnical testing. The foundations should be designed
conservatively in order to mitigate the most severe conditions." The letter continues
with further specific recommendations which should be followed in the construction
of buildings on the subject property.
The recommendations made by HP Geotechnical and the Department of Natural
resources regarding the construction of buildings on the subject property will be
conditions of approval of any Final Plat.
6. Fire Protection: The letter received from the Rifle Fire Protection District dated
November 23, 1999 states five recommendations:
1. A minimum of 180,000 gallons of fire protection water is needed on site.
2. Hydrants should be spaced a maximum of 500 feet from a structure. Hydrants
are to be capable of providing a minimum of 1500 gallons per minute at 20
PSI residual pressure.
3. The main road as well as individual driveways are to be constructed to
accommodate the heavy weights of fire apparatus during adverse weather
conditions. Roadways should be a minimum of 24 feet in width.
4. Addresses are to be posted in a conspicuous location so they are readily
identifiable.
5. Each individual building will need to be reviewed at the building permit
phase to evaluate any additional fire protection requirements.
14
The applicant is proposing the use of an on-site pond within the cul-de-sac of the
access road. This pond is to contain the required 180,000 gallons of water and is to
be supplied by the well located on proposed lot 6. This is a new proposal since the
Last Planning Commission meeting.
This proposal is part of the overall water supply plan and thus must adhere to Section
4:91 (B) of the Subdivision Regulations which states:
A water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the
following information in graphic and/or written form:
B. If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general
description of the system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. In
addition:
1. Nature of legal entity which will own and operate the water system;
and
2. Proposed method of financing the water system.
The additional written and graphic information submitted by the applicant does not
adequately describe the proposed system. No information has been submitted which
addresses: whether or not 180,000 gallons of water as required by the fire district
will be available (this concern has been proven by the letter received from the
Division of Water Resources); evaporation from the pond to ensure an adequate
amount of water is maintained in the pond for fire protection; the possibility of the
water freezing in the pond which would result in no water being available for fire
protection; the need to line the pond to prevent leakage of water; and any other
engineering related concerns which need to be addressed.
The applicant states in their most recent submittal regarding fire protection, "The
District will have final design control for construction drawings and development at
the time of final plat as will be indicated in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement." This is unacceptable given the requirements of Section 4:91 (B) of the
Subdivision Regulations as stated above. This information is the responsibility of the
applicant, not the Fire District. Further it must be designed by a Colorado registered
engineer, not by the Fire District personnel. The information submitted has not been
stamped by a Colorado registered engineer, thus, it is impossible to determine if a
Colorado registered engineer designed this system. Further, this information is
required now and not at Final Plat.
In addition, since this pond is a new proposal, the nature of the legal entity which
will own and operate the water system; and proposed method of financing the water
system is unclear. This needs to be clearly explained by the applicant.
Thus, Section 4:91 (B) of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied
15
with in this application.
Further, fire protection is clearly an issue of health, safety and welfare of the present
and future inhabitants of Garfield County. Section 1:21 of the Subdivision
Regulations states:
The Subdivision Regulations are designed and enacted for the purpose of promoting
the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Garfield
County by encouraging orderly development, in accordance with established County
Policies and plans, and, in furtherance, of the general policy of balancing the
diversified needs of changing population, including...protecting both urban and non-
urban development.
Without an adequate fire protection/water supply plan, the health, safety and welfare
of the present and future inhabitants of Garfield County are not promoted. Thus,
Section 1:21 of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with in this
application.
Finally, Section 9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations states:
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.
Without an acceptable fire protection/water supply plan, adequate fire protection
requirements have not been addressed. Thus, this application does not comply with
Section 9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations.
7. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board of County Commissioners make a
decision regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and on the conformity or compatibility of the proposed
subdivision with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
The Subdivision Regulations require that the Board review an application based on
compatibility with various issues including the Comprehensive Plan. The following
comments will address the project's compatibility and non -compatibility with these
applicable portions of the plan:
Concerns and Needs:
The concerns and needs section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for
industrial growth which supports the application in providing eight (8) new
16
commercial/industrial lots.
Industrial/Commercial:
Goal: To maintain and support the existing economic base of the county as well as
to provide for a diversified economy to broaden employment opportunities
and ensure the stability of the region.
The development of the proposed eight (8) new commercial/industrial lots will
support the above goal by maintaining and supporting the existing economy and
providing further diversification and more employment opportunities to ensure the
stability of the region.
Objective 6: Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already
exists in appropriate areas, i.e., within or adjacent to platted
industrial parks, within designated industrial zones in existing towns,
or adjacent to existing similar development.
The subject property is within District B as designated by the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan which identifies the district as having "good ability to absorb
growth", which supports the property as an appropriate area for development.
In addition, the City of Rifle Comprehensive Plan designates the property as County
Industrial, supporting it as an appropriate area for commercial/industrial uses.
By supporting the above goals and objectives, and addressing the need for more
industrial growth, this application is in general conformity with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan.
8. Rifle Comprehensive Plan: As stated above, the Rifle Comprehensive Plan
designates the subject property as County Industrial which supports the proposed
commercial/industrial use. Further, the letter received from the City of Rifle states,
"...the City does not oppose this proposal...", lending support to the application.
9. Vegetation: In a memorandum received from the Garfield County Vegetation
Management, dated November 29, 1999, Steve Anthony states that it is essential to
document exactly where toadflax and spurge are located on the property, and that the
applicant be requested to complete the documentation. In addition, he states, "If
these plants are located in an area of the site that will not be developed, please have
the applicant submit a treatment plan for the yellow toadflax and leafy spurge. The
plan must include the following:
Method of treatment,
If chemical treatment, state name of herbicide and rates,
Schedule of treatment,
17
Plans of followup,
Name applicator that will do the work."
These recommendations will be a condition of approval to be addressed with any
Final Plat submittal for Board of County Commissioners review.
10. Drainage Plan: As briefly discussed earlier, the Preliminary Geotechnical Study and
Percolation test conducted by HP Geotech contained some recommendations
regarding the drainage plan for the application. The report stated, "The grading plan
for the subdivision should consider runoff from uphill slopes through the project and
at individual sites. Potential overflow from irrigation ditches should also be
considered in the drainage plan."
These recommendations will be conditions of approval to be addressed in any Final
Plat submittal for review by the Board of County Commissioners.
11. Wildlife: No comments were received from the Division of Wildlife, thus, it is
assumed that no concerns are present regarding the subject proposal.
12. Radiation: The gamma radiation readings taken by HP Geotechnical show that no
radiation mitigation should be required. Thus, there is no radiation concern on the
subject property.
13. School Fees School fees in the amount of $200.00 for each lot created for a total of
$1,600.00 will have to be paid as a condition of any Final Plat.
14. Easements The proposed easements along the proposed cul-de-sac should not be
easements. Instead the lots should only extend to the edge of where these easements
are currently depicted and these easements should actually be part of a dedicated
road right-of-way. This needs to be corrected for any Final Plat submittal. All other
existing and proposed easements will have to be included in any Final Plat submittal.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
1. That the proper publication and pubic notice and posting were provided by law for
the hearing before the Planning Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at the hearing.
3. That the proposed subdivision of land does not conform to the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations, specifically Sections 4:91 (A), 4:60 (C), 4:92 (C), 4:91 (B),
1:21, and 9:51.
18
4. That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans, designs as are required by the State
of Colorado and Garfield County have not been submitted and, in addition, have not
been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
5. 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.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed subdivision of land based on the following:
1. Section 4:91 (A) of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
2. Section 4:60 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
3. Section 4:92 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
4. Section 4:91 (B) of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
5. Section 1:21 of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
6. Section 9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with.
19
APR -04-2000 15:14 DIV WATER RESOURCES
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
httpi/water.state,co.usidefault.htm
303 866 3589 P.02/02
STATE OF COLORADO
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
APR 5 `t S0
April 3, 2000
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Re: Powerline Professional Park, Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sec. 11, T6S, R93W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed additional information (Water Supply Plan) regarding the above
referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 29.5 acres into eight commercial parcels. The Water
Supply Plan included a copy of a report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc., a copy of Well Permit
No. 52691-F, copies of well permit applications for two additional wells, and copies of approved
West Divide Water Conservancy District (the District) Water Allotment Contract/Lease Nos.
9908092RK(a) and 9908093RK(a) for one acre-foot of water each. Note that Permit No. 52691-F
was issued pursuant to District) Water Allotment Contract/Lease No. 990612RK(a), which was
also for one acre-foot of water. The plan notes that the three wells will be shared by the lots, with
up to three lots on one well.
The additional submittal is for a pond which is to be used to satisfy the fire suppression
water storage plan as required by the Rifle Fire Protection District. The pond will contain 180,000
gallons (0.55 acre-feet) and annual evaporation is estimated as 0.29 acre-feet, for a total of 0.84
acre-feet per year. As noted in our previous letter of February 8, 2000, Mr. Robert Klein
submitted a revision letter dated February 8, 2000, which limits the annual diversions to 1/3 of an
acre-feet per lot, for a total of 2 and 2/3 of an acre-foot annually. Therefore the total use under the
contracts is estimated as 3.51 acre-feet (0.84 acre-feet + 2.67 acre-feet), while the District
Contracts total only 3 acre-feet.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is inadequate. If
you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this
office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CMUPowerline Professional Park iv.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
TOTAL P.02
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
Jane E. Norton, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
Phone (303) 692-2000
TDD Line (303) 691-7700
Located in Glendale, Colorado
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us
Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
8100 Lowry Blvd.
Denver CO 80230-6928
(303) 692-3090
Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, #303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
February 9, 2000
RE: Wastewater Treatment for Proposed Powerline Professional Park
Dear Mark:
We have received a letter from John Schenk of Cottonwood Springs LLC, dated 2/9/00, which
expresses their intent to provide domestic wastewater treatment service to the Powerline Park.
The Water Quality Control Division finds this to be an acceptable method for sewage treatment.
We are encouraged by and grateful to the parties involved for negotiating this agreement to share
use of the wastewater lagoon system at the Cottonwood Springs Mobile Home Park.
Section 25-8-501(5)(d) of the state Water Quality Control Act provides that a discharge permit
for domestic wastewater facility must contain a condition that upon reaching 80% of the rated
design capacity, the permittee must initiate engineering and financial planning for expansion of
the treatment works. Mr. Schenk has conditioned the offer of treatment service to Powerline
upon our agency being willing to waive that condition (i.e. allow the capacity, including waste
from Powerline, to exceed 80% of total capacity but not be required to initiate expansion
planning). 25-8-501(6) of the Act allows that to occur, providing that the permittee can show
there is a declining or stable service population. We advise Mr. Schenk to submit a letter to our
Permits Unit, Susan Nachtrieb, Unit Leader, to that effect and we will process the request to
modify that condition of the permit. The Division can also acknowledge that Powerline is
connected to the lagoon facility and included in the wastewater service plan, if that is specifically
requested in writing.
We commend Cottonwood Springs LLC and West Slope Development Corp. for resolving this
issue. If you have any questions, please contact me at (303) 692-3583.
Sincerely
ot re -Q_
William A. McKee
Upper Colorado Watershed Coordinator
Water Quality Control Division
RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2000
cc: John Barbee - West Slope Development Corp.
John Schenk - Cottonwood Springs LLC 2
Selby Myers - City Manager, City of Rifle
Dwain Watson - Water/Wastewater Technical Services, WQCD
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LLC
27653 HIGHWAY 6 & 24
RIFLE, COLORADO 81650
TELEPHONE: (970) 625-2069
BUSINESS OFFICE and MAILING ADDRESS:
302 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 310
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-4767
March 17, 2000
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Powerline Professional Park/Cottonwood Springs MHP
Dear Mr. Bean:
Cottonwood Springs LLC has submitted a request for an amendment of CPDES Permit No.
COG -581000 to the Colorado of Department of Health for a waiver of the CWS permit discharge
limitations imposed by applicable regulations allowing the reserve capacity in the Cottonwood
Springs system to be used to serve to the Powerline Professional Park (PPP). Further conversations
with the Colorado Department of Health gives us a high level of confidence that this can be
accomplished in the near future.
I have completed a first draft of a written agreement running with the PPP lands in favor of
CWS binding on all future owners of lots in PPP and anticipate that a final and signed agreement
will be executed by all necessary parties by March 29, 2000.
JRS/clh
cc: Tom Triplat
CWS Members
David Sandoval
MELD COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT N
leg 6TH ST. - SUITE 303
GLENWOOD SP INCL tit4 WPti
c:r W swm WS.iB.o 1...pd
1�
02/09/00 WED 15:14 FAX 903 7820390
CDPEE/WQCD ®002
<-PF c 7
SWE OF COLORADO
Bir owrns, Governor
Jare E. Norton, Eic
Deckated prig and inarvui g the hesith and nnem of the pecpfe ofCdabdo
g30o ccvdk or. a Laboratory and Radiation Saviors Dv'
Denver, Colorado 80246.1530 8100 Lawry 41.d.
?hone (303! 592-2000 Denver CO 8023o -692a
OC line 13031 531-7700 000) 6923090
located In Cknda, Coior 4o
Mark Bean. Director February 9.2000
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8°' Street, ##303
Qenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE; Wastewater Treatment for Proposed Powerline Professional Park
Dear Mark:
cif Pe.bize9=n
and & rimal:near
We have received a letter from Jobn Schenk of Cottonwood Springs LLC, dated 2/9/00, which
expresses their intent to provide domestic wastewater treatment service to the Powerline Pads_
The Water Quality Control Division fn& this to be an acceptable method for sewage treatment:
We are encouraged by and grateful to the parties involved for negotiating this agreement to share
use of the wastewater lagoon system at the Cottonwood Springs Mobile Home Park
Section 25-8-501(5)(d) of the state Water Quality Control Act provides that a discharge permit
far domestic wastewater facility .must metal= a condition that upon reaching 80% of the rated
design amity, the Permittee meat initiates engineering and financial planing for expansion of
the treatment works. Mr. Schenk has conconead the offer of treatment service to Powerline
upon our agency being willing to waive that condition (i.e. allow the capacity, including waste
from Powerline, to exceed 80% of total capacity but not be required to initiate expansion
plazming). 25-8-501(6) oftbe Act allows that to occur, providing that the pecmittee can show
these is a declining or stable service population. We advise Mr- Schenk to submit a letter to our
Pe airs Unit, Suitt Nachtrieb, Unit Leader, to that effect and we will process the request to ,, �)0
modify that condition of the permit The Division can also acknowledge that ?ow/aline is
connected to the lagoon #acuity and included in the wastewater service plan, if that is specifically (f °'��
requested in writing.
We commend Cottonwood Springs LLC and West Signe Development Corp. for resolving this
issue. If you have any questions. please contact me at (303) 692-3583.
A. McKee
`
Upper Colorado Watershed Coordinator
Water Quality Control Division
cc: John Barbee - West Slope Development Corp.
John Schenk - Cottonwood Springs LLC
Selby Myers - City Manager, City of Rifle:
Dwain Watson - Water/Wastewater Technical Services, WQCD
L6/10 30V7d
v
SZ8S9L80L6 0E:90 000Z/60/Z2
TO: Garfield County Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission RE: Policies
FROM: Planning Staff DATE: 18 February 1999
On Wednesday, 17 February 1999, the Planning Commission discussed and set policies for the following items:
A. Acceptance of Supplements:
1. The planning department will not accept supplemental information after staff has
rendered a determination of completion on an application.
2. If the applicant has supplemental information which they desire to submit, the planning
commission may accept such supplemental submission items at the public
meeting/hearing at which time the commission will continue the meeting/hearing to the
next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting. Such a continuance will allow
the staff, applicable review agencies, public, and commission adequate time to review
the supplemental information.
3. The same number of copies as was required for the initial submission will be required
of the supplemental data.
4. The planning department may accept a supplemental item if it is determined that this
new data merely elaborates upon an existing item contained within the completed
submission and does not alter the design of the plan in any way.
B. Recommendation of Continuance:
1. The planning commission may allow one continuance of an application at their
discretion per the existing regulations.
2. If the planning commission agrees to continue an application, such an application shall
be continued to the next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting/hearing.
3. A second request by an applicant for a continuance will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis given that extenuating circumstances prevail.
C. Field Visits by the Planning Commission:
1. The planning commission may conduct field visits for projects when the planning staff
recommends that such a field visit may assist the commission in their review and
understanding of an application.
The planning commission may elect not to conduct a field visit recommended by staff
at their consensus. The Commission may also elect to undertake a field visit for an
application, which was not suggested by the planning staff, through their consensus.
3. Only those planning commission members who attend the scheduled field visit may
vote on the application at the public meeting/hearing.
2
RECEIVED
JUN 1 1 ?0n
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
June 10, 2003
WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
109 WEST FOURTH STREET P. O. BOX 1478
RIFLE, COLORADO 81650-1478
TELEPHONE AND FAX: (970) 625-5461
wdwcd@earthlink.net
Hal Simpson
Colorado Division of Water Resources
Centennial Bldg., Room 818
1313 Sherman Street
Denver, CO 80203
Alan Martellaro
Jim Lemon
Robert Klenda
Bill Blakeslee
Michael Craig
Division of Water Resources #5
P. O. Box 396
Glenwood Springs, CO 80601
Kerry D. Sundeen
Meaghan G. Castor
Grand River Consulting Corporation
710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Mark L. Bean
Building and Planning Department
Garfield County
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Effective April 4, 2003, the following water allotment contracts are cancelled per request of the
contractee.
Stateline Trucking
P. O. Box 11
Mack, CO 81525
Contract #020530SLT(a) 4 acre feet
June 10, 2003
Page 2
Direct Hauling for gas wells in Parachute and DeBeque area
Contractee stated no need for water.
Charles M. Stoddard
P. O. Box 169
DeBeque, CO 81630
Contract #011031 CS(a) 2.32 acre feet
SE1/4NW1/4 Section 26, Township 8S, Range 97W, 6th P.M. Mesa County
Contractee requested cancellation because his well permit application was denied.
Central Aggregates, Inc.
P. O. Box 26
Rifle, CO 81650
Contract #900521 CA1(a) 11.405 acre feet
Permit #
NW1/4SE1/4 Section 17, Township 6S, Range 93W, 6th P.M.
Contractee purchased water from the CRWCD.
Prince Creek Construction
1317 Grand Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Contract #000516PCC(a) 3.53 acre feet
Permit #
SE1/4SW1/4 Section 4, Township 5S, Range 92W, 6th P.M.
Contractee requested cancellation. No reason given.
Umetco Minerals Corporation
P. O. Box 1029
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Contract #960719UMC(a) 27 acre feet
Permit #
SW 1 /4 Section 18, Township 6S, Range 93W, 6th P.M.
Contractee cancelled its permit several years ago and doesn't need the water.
Norm Clasen
P. O. Box 1155
Basalt, CO 81621
Contract #961003NC(a) 1 acre foot
Permit #
NE1/4NE1/4 Section 1, Township 6S, Range 92W, 6th P.M.
This contract covers a monitoring hole that has been abandoned.
Ted L. and Hilda M. Vaughan
0259 County Road 320
Rifle, CO 81650
Contract #020530THV(a)
15 acre feet
June 10, 2003
Page 3
Permit #
Section 30, Township 6S, Range 94W, 6th P.M.
Contractee obtained Ruedi contract.
Kathy Finley
1235 N. State Parkway, #15F
Chicago, IL 60610
Contract #910613BRP1(b) 5.48 acre feet
Permit #045455-F
SW1/4SW1/4 Section 25, Township 5S, Range 90W, 6th P.M.
Contractee stated she no longer need the contract.
Finley Homes, Inc.
1325 N. State Parkway #15F
Chicago, IL 60610
Contract #010322FH(a)
NW 1/4NW 1/4 Section 36, T5S, Range 90W, 6th P.M.
SW1/4SW1/4 Section 25, Township 5S, Range 90W, 6th P.M.
Contractee stated the contract was no longer needed.
Effective April 4, 2003, the following water allotment contracts were cancelled for non-payment.
John W. Croy, II and Vivian L. Croy
0231 County Road 260
Silt, CO 81652
Contract #990517LS(c) 2 acre feet
Permit #51474-F
NE1/4SE1/4 Section 34, Township 5S, Range 92W, 6th P.M.
Kenneth S. Rose
10286 Hwy 13
Rifle, CO 81650
Contract #960510KR(a) 2 acre feet
Well Permit #046729-F
SWI/4SW1/4 Section 5, Township 5S, Range 93 W, 6th P.M.
Richard Stephenson
P. O. Box 1220
Carbondale, CO 81623
Contract #020807RS(a) 2 acre feet
Permit #
Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93W, 6th P.M.
Robert W. and Ann L. Ramsey
P. O. Box 430
New Castle, CO 81647
June 10, 2003
Page 4
Contract #AR010531RAR(a) 1 EQR
Permit #
Section 23 and 24, Township 7 South, Range 91 W, 6th P.M.
Robert O. Klein
P. O. Box 1198
Rifle, CO 81650
Contract #990809#3RK(a) 1 acre foot Permit #053268-F
Contract #990809#2RK(a) 1 acre foot Permit #053267-F
Contract #990612RK(a) 1 acre foot Permit #052691-F
NE1/4SW1/4 Section 11, Townships 6S, Range 93W, 6th P.M.
Sincerely yours,
mokci
Janet Maddock
ctstsvA
ACR.
/WESTER SLOPE DEVELOPMENT
501 M. lqt S1. 6 324, Silt CO 81652
MAIO 52111
V
Garfield County
Attn.: Jeff Lourien
109 8th St. Ste 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1'1
April 10, 2000
(1)7
RE: Powerline Professional Park
Dear Mr. Lourien,
In response to the Division of Water Resources letter dated 4/3/00, I would like to include
the following addition to the Fire Suppression Plan:
The proposed fire pond will be filled as an unadjucated priority via the Grand River Ditch.
The pond will be topped off using either the ditch or the wells, therefore, at this time we
have only provided for evaporation needs.
As indicated in the Water Supply Plan, well number one, located on Lot 6, will service Lots
7 and 8 and will supply the fire storage pond as discussed in this letter. Well number 2,
located on Lot 5, will service Lots 4, 5 and 6. Well number 3, located on Lot 1, will service
Lots 1,2 and 3. As indicated on the revised master utility sheet, all water lines will be
located within the utility easement surrounding the road. Individual taps will provided to
each lot from this easement.
Please forward the enclosed items to the Division of Water Resources for their review, and I
would like to ask that any modifications as requested by the Division be included as
conditions of approval.
If additional information is required fc'r further review of the project, please feel free to
contact me.
Thank you,
John Barbee
ZO 3EJHd
A3Q 3dOlS N831S3M SZ8S9L80L6 ES:TO 0003/01/30
04/10/00 MON 11;33 FAX 303 7820390
RECEIVED PR i 0 2000
CDPHE/19gCD 1 f
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
Jane F. Norton, Executive Director
Dedicated to procvcting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Or. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246.1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80230 6928
TDD Line (303) 697 .7700 (303) 692-3090
Located in Glendale, Colorado
hnp://www.cdphestate, m. us
April 6, 2000
John Schenk
Schenk, Kerst & deWinter, LLP
302 8th Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Colorado Department
of Public Heakb
and Environment
R 001
Post -fir Fax Note 7671
Da
r-rom 1
1(
Pages
I Ce.2
To iO.ikl�„ i)i.,, n'
Co./Deity):s0pi1
Co
Phone #
Ptione N 3T3
,3 .
Fein B C'0 — *c, 58
- #
RE: Cottonwood Springs MHP and Powerline Professional Park
Permit No. COG581002
Dear Mr. Schenk:
We are responding to your letter of Murch 14, 2000. You requested that the terms of the
above -referenced permit be modified i provide for wastewater service to the proposed
Powerline Professional Park. In reviewing your request, we have determined that we
need to amend the certification for your use of the general permit for domestic
wastewater treatment lagoons. We anticipate this process to take approximately 30 days.
Additional items that we need from you are:
1) The transfer of ownership request, using the standard form that we sent to you. Your
March 14 letter states that Cottonwood Springs will no longer be the penrnittee and
that a new, limited liability cornpar,.y would be legally responsible for the permit. The
amended certification must be issued to the legal owner of the wastewater facility.
2) We need a map of the expanded service area to be incorporated in the certification
amendment. Your March 14 letter references Cottonwood Springs MHP, Powerline
Professional Park, and Rifle Service, Park as intended enclaves to be served by the
lagoon facility. A map of that service area needs to be submitted.
We are able to waive the requitement that engineering and financial planning be
commenced at 80% of rated design capacity. However, the requirement to commence
construction of expansion of the facility when it reaches 95% of rated capacity remains in
effect.
30 39hd
A33 3d01S Nd31S3M SZ8S9L80L6 9S:t0 000V0t/ZO
04/10/00 MON 11:33 FAX 303 7620390 CDPHE/WQCD
CO 39Vd
RECEIVED APR 1 0 2000
If you have further questions, please .ontaet Karen Young of the Permits Unit at (303)
692-3614.
Sincerely,
Susan Nachtrieb
Permits Unit
Water Quality Control Division
Cc; Jeff Laurien — Garfield County Planning Department
John Barbee — West Slope Development Company
Karen Young — Permits Unit, WQCD
Dwain Watson — Water/Wastewater Technical Services, WQCD
�► Bill McKee -- Upper Colorado Watershed Coordinator, WQCD
002
A3Q 3d01S N831.S3M SZ8S9L80L6 9S:TO 0002/0I/Z0
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
t 3 i 3 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
httpJ/water.state.co.usidefault.htm
Jeff Laurien
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
April 11, 2000
Bill °wefts
Governor
Crcg E. Walcher
executive Director
Mal D. Simpson, P.E.
State EngirK��r
Re: Powerline Professional Park, Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sec. 11, T6S, R93W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed additional information (Water Supply Plan) regarding the above
referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 29.5 acres into eight commercial parcels. The Water
Supply Plan included a copy of a report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc., a copy of Well Permit
No. 52691-F, copies of well permit applications for two additional wells, and copies of approved
West Divide Water Conservancy District (the District) Water Allotment Contract/Lease Nos.
9908092RK(a) and 9908093RK(a) for one acre-foot of water each. Note that Permit No. 52691-F
was issued pursuant to District) Water Allotment Contract/Lease No. 990612RK(a), which was
also for one acre-foot of water. The plan notes that the three wells will be shared by the lots, with
up to three lots on one well. Permit No. 52691-F was issued on October 21, 1999, and Permit
Nos. 53267-F and 53268-F were issued on February 8, 1999, for the use of one acre-foot of water
annually each for drinking and sanitary purposes inside commercial businesses, conditioned on
inclusion in the Districts substitute supply plan as demonstrated by the approved leases.
The additional submittal is for a pond which is to be used to satisfy the fire suppression
water storage plan as required by the Rifle Fire Protection District. The pond will contain 180,000
gallons (0.55 acre-feet) and annual evaporation is estimated as 0.29 acre-feet, for a total of 0.84
acre-feet per year. The pond is to be filled using the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch (AKA Grand
Valley Ditch) when there are no calls on the Colorado River. Evaporation from the pond will
likewise be replaced through the Ditch or through a well permitted per the District contracts. Note
that none of the wells are currently permitted to supply water to the pond to replace
evaporation.
As discussed in our previous letter of February 8, 2000, Mr. Robert Klein submitted a
revision letter dated February 8, 2000, which limits the annual diversions to 1/3 of an acre-feet per
lot, for a total of 2 and 2/3 of an acre-foot annually. Therefore the total use under the contracts is
estimated as 2.96 acre-feet (0.29 acre-feet + 2.67 acre-feet), which is within the 3 acre-feet
allowed by the District Contracts.
A letter from Collins Well Drilling and Pump Company indicates that a well drilled on the
property produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a four hour period on October 4,
1999. if the proposed wells have similar production rates the water supply should be physically
adequate.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed
water rights, provided the applicant obtains valid well permits for the proposed uses, and an
Jeff Laurien April 11, 2000
Powerline Professional Park
agreement to use the Lower Cactus Valley as discussed above is approved by the ditch
company. We suggest that approval of the final plat be withheld until the necessary well
permits are approved and an agreement with the ditch company is submitted. If you or the
applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for
assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CMLIPowerline Professional Park v.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissiconer, District 39
Cr c•-r-"ZL,
,okt),?g
TOTAL P.03
04/12/2000 11:44 9706252963
RIFLE FIRE PROT DIST PAGE 02
RIFLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
April 11, 2000
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention. Jeff Lourien
Reference: Powerline Professional Park
Jeff,
The Rifle Fire Protection District has continued to review the fire protection requirements
of the proposed Powerline Professional Park East of Rifle. As you are aware, the current
drawings indicate a water storage pond in the cul-de-sac at the end of the shared
driveway and a water main 'running south to the entrance of the subdivision. Provisions
have been included to albW the•i llaon ofpump r peessurltation of the system.
r
The District has discussed tl(eSe matters with Mr. Barbee and is comfortable with the
proposal. It has been further discussed with Mr.: Barbee that it will be 1i)cely that a Rump
will be necessary tuiptessuriza the line to the south at some point; however, this
requirement as well.;as the capacities of the pump cannot be deter4intilimtil the specific
types of occupancies acid construction methods are determined_
•
The District is comfortable with. approval of the preliminary design alptisentecLFinal
approval of the engineering and installation will be at the final plat phase. Final
determination of pressure reQtliremmts and flQw.requ?i'ementa(Lt.. sprinkler system
needs) is determined at the building permit phase. Thank you for your cooperation and
feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Mike Morgan
District Chief
Cc: John Barbee
r/a„,7,1 04-
44 C a,)
Telephone (970) 625-1243 • Fax (970) 625-2963
1850 Railroad Avenue • P.O. Box 1133 • Rifle, Colorado 81650
<7 FP- V
WESTERN SLOPE DEVELOPMENT
501 N. lth SI. B X 324, Silt CO 81652
910.070.5242
SKC@ONEIMAGE.COM
Garfield County
Attn.: Jeff Lourien
109 8th St. Ste 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Powerline Professional Park
Dear Mr. Lourien,
March 24, 2000
Enclosed are the materials you requested for additional clarification for the Preliminary
Plan phase of this project. The following requested items and a brief summary of each is
provided as follows:
Wastewater: The revised master utility sheet indicates the proposed location of the 8" main
line. The line will run east from the Cottonwood Springs Mobile Home Park into the utility
easement located along the road on the west, east and surrounding the cul-de-sac.
Individual taps will be provided at the property lines for each lot.
As required by the Department of Health, a waiver for expanded levels of service without
the requisite engineering and construction has been applied for by Mr. Schenk. In a
conversation today with Bill McKee of the Department of Health, he indicated that the
status of the waiver will be disclosed to you in a formal review letter no later than
Wednesday, March 29. Mr. McKee indicated that the waiver will be provided to the County
as soon as possible.
Water Service: Well number one, located on Lot 6, will service Lots 7 and 8 and will supply
the fire storage pond as discussed in this letter. Well number 2, located on Lot 5, will service
Lots 4, 5 and 6. Well number 3, located on Lot 1, will service Lots 1,2 and 3. As indicated on
the revised master utility sheet, all water lines will be located within the utility easement
surrounding the road. Individual taps will provided to each lot from this easement.
Enclosed is a letter dated March 24 from Dan Mathes of Zancanella and Associates which
indicates there will be a total depletion of 0.29 a.f. annually which will be augmented by an
existing West Divide contract. (See Water Service Plan)
Fire Protection: As requested by the Rifle Fire Protection District, a storage pond
containing 180,000 gallons of available water will be provided on site. The pond is to be
located within the cul-de-sac. The pond will function both as water storage and as a
landscape amenity.
Water will be available for direct removal from the pond by pumper truck and can be
provided to individual buildings as required by the Fire Code within lines to be located in
the utility easement. Individual building protection need will be met at time of building
permit review.
Mike Morgan, Fire Chief, in a meeting held today, indicated that the he approves of our
storage plan and will provide you with a formal review letter no later than Wednesday,
March 29, indicating his approval. The Districtwill have fildesign:control for
construction drawings and. development at time of frnal plat as will -be -indicated in the
Subdivision Imprcive Brits Agreement.
Access: Enclosed is our amended access permit (CDOT No. 399164) which allows for 100%
access for a 30 acre multi -use development. We intend to work closely with CDOT to meet
the requirements of the Access Code which governs access to State Highways.
Given the multiple revision to the plan, any additional or updated documents you may
need will be provided. Please review the existing submission materials to determine any
deficiencies or item clarifications needed for the Planning Commission review.
If additional information is required for further review of the project, please feel free to
contact me.
John Barbee
cc: Balcomb & Green, DS
Rk , WSD