HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 PC Staff Report 11.12.1998PC 11/12/98
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan Review
APPLICANT: Carlyle Fowler
LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Section
24, T5S, R93W of the 6th P.M.; north of
Rifle, adjacent to the Rifle Creek Estates
Subdivision.
SITE DATA: 40.70 Acres
WATER: Rifle Creek Homeowners Association
SEWER: ISDS
ACCESS: CR 109
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site is located in District E, as designated by the 1984 Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan's Management Districts, Area Map. The designation identifies the area as rural in nature, with
severe to moderate environmental constraints.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site is located approximately two (2) miles north of Rifle, on
the east side of CR 13, and west of CR 325. The Proposal would be an extension of
the existing Rifle Creek Estates subdivision. (See location map pg. poi► )
•
Project Description: The land to be subdivided consists of 40.70 acres, creating 15
new lots, with an average density of 2.71 units/acre. (See proposed map pg.�f
Ali parcels will rec_` water from the existing Rifle Creek Estates water sy_ stem and
all lots will utilize ISDS for waste water.
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS.
A. The Rifle Fire Protection District : States that, improvements to water storage
capacity will provide adequate service. (see Page 9).
B. The Garfield County GIS: Reports that mule deer and elk use the site as their winter
range, and these species would be the most impacted. (see Exhibit F).
C. Colorado Geological Survey: The CGS has not returned our request for an
investigation to date.
D. Colorado Department of Public Health: Inspection of the existing RO treatment and
storage facility reveled rlefciancies which should be correctedprior to expansion.
(See Attachment #1.)
E. The Rifle Planning Department: Is concerned about the long cul -de -say, and
reco , n - • . . o conditi• f • . . .roval. (See Attachment #5)
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision Regulations. The preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the
regulations.
B. Zoning: The proposal meets the criteria of a two (2) acre minimum lot size as
required by the A/R/RD zone district, and residential use is a use by right in this zone.
C. Legal Access: Legal access will be provided by extension of Mesa Drive, north into
the proposed subdivision. Lots 1-4 and Lots 13-15 will be accessed via 25 foot access
easements.
Section 9:33 (A), Streets and Roadways, as specified in the Garfield County
Subdivision Resolution of 1984 a.a., allows for a maximum cul-de-sac Length of 600
feet, with a turn around radius of not less than 45 feet. The Board may, at their
discretion, for topographical reasons, approve a longer cul-de-sac length, provided
fire protection and emergency egress and access are provided. The application
indicates that an internal circulation loop, or other through access is unfeasible. (See
Exhibit B) The Rifle Fire Marshall approves of the length provided on site water
storage is 30,000 gallons or greater. The applicant is proposing a total of 40,000
gallons of on site storage. Road connections to the north or west are too costly at this
time, however, a unimproved seasonal access road, for wildfire mitigation may be
feasible, and should be a condition of approval.
The proposal should generate 150 vehicle trips per day. (See Exhibit F)
D. Water: The applicant and the Rifle Creek Homeowners Association have entered into
an agreement to expand the existing water system with the ownership and
maintenance being vested with the association. (See Exhibit H).
The Primary Source for the system is the Emmer Well #1. The measured delivery
capacity of the well is 40 gpm, with a maximum permitted draw of 39.5 gpm and
a maximum monthly capacity of 1,706,000 gallons. The system currently serves
24 homes for potable water, with ditch water providing landscaping irrigation. In
1997, the system drew 1,125,567 gallons �y with an average household
consumption of 3,908 gallons.
Water storage is currently provided by a single 20,000 gallon cistern, the applicant
proposes to expand the total storage capacity to 40,000 gallons.
Augmentation is provided from the Grand Tunnel diversionary source as decreed
by Ruling of application W-3879, in 1980. Sufficient augmentation exists for the
Emmer Well nos. 1 &2, and the Emmer reservoir.
Radioactive material has been noted in the raw water from Emmer Well #1. A
water quality test (See Exhibit K) has been performed on treated water and has
been determined to be safe for drinking. The EPA has no record of any violation
for the past ten years regarding the maintenance and operation of the Reverse
Osmosis treatment and water storage facility. A plat note indicating the potential
raw water contamination should be included on the final plat.
E. Sewer: All parcels will utilize Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. Percolation tests
were performed in three locations on site. The soils are suitable for ISDS, but
individual percolation tests should be performed on a lot by lot basis. (See Exhibit L)
F. State and Local Health Standards. The Colorado Department of Health requires
annual inspection for the water treatment facility and State ISDS setback standards
apply and should be verified by an engineer. No local health regulations apply.
G. Drainage: The existing drainage patterns east and west from a diagonal bisecting the
northeast and southeast corners of the site. A 9% increase in total residential water
accumulation is expected. The roadway is expected to generate an additional 15%,
which will be mitigated using 15" culverts at driveway crossings. Lots 1 and 3 will
require fill and grading which will alter the existing drainage, but the remainder of the
site will not impact the existing pattern. (See Sheet 4 of 6)
H. Geologic Hazards: The subject property is not subject to any known extreme geologic
constraints. (See Exhibit D) Local areas of hazard concentrations will require Lots 13,
14 and 15 to utilize engineered foundations for drainage and hydrocompaction.
Fire Protection: The property is located within the Rifle Fire Protection District. The
applicant has worked with the Fire Marshall to determine the most viable fire
mitigation plan. Expansion of the water storage capacity on-site should alleviate major
fire concerns. In addition, the applicant is attempting to receive permission to utilize
an existing power line maintenance road, on the eastern portion of the property to
provide emergency summer access in the event of wildfire.
Easements. The plat indicates Lots 1-4 and Lots 13-15 will be accessed via 25 foot
access easements. All easements meet the County road requirements for design. The
easements are indicated as private, the easements should be dedicated as County
roads and the applicant should indicate as such on the plat.
J. School Impact Fees The applicant will be required to pay $200 per lot to the School
District at time of Final Plat.
V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
The following issues are noted in the application for the Rifle Creek Estates Filing II
subdivision preliminary plan:.
A. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before
the Board of County Commissioners.
B. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
C. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
VL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL, with the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions
of approval.
2.
That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a Final Plat to the Commissioners
for review from the date of approval of the Preliminary Plan.
3. That the applicant(,provide a seasonal fire access road to the subdivision to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer.
4. That the general note indicated as #10, found on Sheet 6 of 6, Preliminary ISDS Plan,
be removed from the plat.
5. The applicant shall dedicate all roads and easements in the subdivision to the County.
t -
6. The applicant shall re 1ign the building en elopes s own on Lots 13, 14 and 15 so as
to minimize potential site disturbance and subsequent alteration of natural drainage
flows.
The final plat shall reflect an acceptable building envelope for Lots 7 and 10 to
provide a usable building area.
The final plat shall reflect all recommendations of the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment as indicated in Attachment #1, and elsewhere in the
application material.
5. That the following plat notes shall appear on the Final Subdivision Plat:
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision
and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property
boundaries."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an
exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-
401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed
in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted
number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances".
"All exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all
exterior lighting be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision,
except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes
beyond the property boundaries".
"That in the future event the property described by this Final Plat has the
reasonable ability to connect with any municipal or centralized sewer
system, the subject property owners shall be required to connect to said
service and remove any existing individual sewage disposal systems(s)
which may be located on said property, within one year of the effective
date of service availability."
"Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner."
"Garfield County has a Right -to Farm -and -Ranch regulation, which
recognizes the important contribution agriculture makes to this County.
Nuisance complaints made against customary and legal agricultural
operations and practices will not be pursued."
"Water quality tests for the Emmer Well #l, raw water, indicate the evidence
of radioactive particles."
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Patti Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
Grand Junction Regional Office
222 S. 6th Street, Room 232
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2768
Fax (970) 248-7198
September 3, 1998
Rifle Creek Estates HOA
0733 Mesa Drive
Rifle, CO 81650
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
RE: Annual Inspection of Water Treatment Facilities, PWS -ID No. 123675 for Rife Creek Estates
Homeowner's Association, Garfield County.
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed are your copies of the above report forms for the inspection performed on August 13, 1998.
During the inspection, the following items were noted and need to be brought to your attention:
Drinking Water Treatment Facilities:
1. Well head needs a four foot square concrete pad sloped to deflect surface water away from the
well head.
2. An irrigation ditch is uphill and 75 feet away.
3. Well head needs a hole plugged in the sanitary seal.
4. Reverse Osmosis reject water is discharged to a leach field. This discharge will require a
discharge permit to ground water. Please contact Mike Liuzzi, [(303)692-3588] for a permit.
Or we recommend a lined evaporation pond. You should be aware that such a pond may require
a Certificate of Designation from our HMWMD.
5. Paint, thinner, solvents were stored in the drinking water treatment plant. These are not
compatible with drinking water treatment activities.
6. We highly recommend that the system sample the well water prior to RO unit treatment. To
better serve the customers, knowledge of potential contaminates in the raw water would allow
the homeowners to make an informed decision. This would also allow a proper decision of our
HMWMD on whether a CD is required for a lined evaporation pond.
C- ;+ i';u riTY
If you have any questions, please contact me at 248-7150.
Sincerely,
f'u
Dwain on
Environmental Protection Specialist
Water Quality Control Division
CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Sanitarian
Erica Kannely, Drinking Water
Mike Liil77i, Groundwater Permits
File
123675
INSPECTION REPORT
nspection Date: 08/13/98 By: Watson & Havens
'WSID: 123675 Name: Rifle Creek Estates HOA
orm Printed: 09/03/98
WS Type: C Open/Close Dates: z to
ource Code:
ctive: A Change Reason: New system
Address 1: 0733 Mesa Drive
Address 2:
City:
Contact:
Operator:
Resident
55
Rifle
Carolyn Johnnie
Skip Marino(New Cast
Population
Non -Transient
0
lant Class:
Transient
0
D Operator Level: B
C - Garfield - 2
Page 1
Regularly Scheduled
County: Garfield
Area: 3
Date: 08/98
State: CO Zip Code: 81650-0000
Contact
Operator
Service
Connections
24
Phone: (970)625-2556/
Phone: (970)984-2311/
Service
Area
R1
Owner
Type
2
acti Sampling Plan (Y/N): Y 0&M1 Records Adequate (Y/N):
-Conn Program (Y/N): Y Administrator: Barry Hamilton
azard Identification (Y/N): Y Test Records (Y/N): N
Owners Name: Rifle
Owners P.O.Box:
Owners Address: 0733
City: Rifle
Creek Estates HOA
Mesa Drive
State: CO
INSPECTION COMMENTS
Well head needs a four foot square concrete pad sloped to deflect surface
ater away from the well head.
Irrigation ditch uphill 75' away.
Well head needs a hole plugged in the sanitary seal.
Y
23
Owners Phone: (970)625-2556/
Zip Code +4; 81650 -
Reverse Osmossis reject water is discharged to a leach field. This
ischarge will require a discharge permit to ground water. Contact Liuzzi for a
ermit. Or we recommend a lined evaporation pond. You should be aware that
uch a pond may require a Certificate of Designation from our HM VND.
Paint. thinner. solvents were stored in the drinking water treatment punt.
`Iese are not compatible with drinking water treatment activities.
We highly recommend that the system sample the well water prior to RO unit
:eatment. To better serve the customers. knowledge of potential contminates in
he raw water would allow the homeowners to make an informed decision. This
cull also allow a proper decision_ of our HVAND on whether a CD is required for
lined evaporat ion pond.
Page
SOURCES / TREATMENTS
_'3675 Rifle Creek Estates HOA
Source ID: 001
Source Name: Emmer Well No. 1 Source Record Type: S
Source Number: WOl Source Code: G
Availability: P Seller ID:
Source Address: 1046 Colo Hwv 325 Well Depth: 58
Aquifer: Rifle Creek alluvial First Draw: 43
Sample Point (Y/N): Y PA Needed (Y/N): N
Latitude: 39 35.20 Longitude: 107 45.99
ENGINEERING
Chemicals: Hvpersperse, sodium Hvpochlorite.
Average Production (MGD): Plant Capacity (MGD): 0.043
Total Residual Chlorine: 0.2
Pipe Diam(inches) Pipe Length(feet) Pipe Volume Pipe Contact Time
6 100 147 4.9
Tank Vol (gal) Tank A/T Tank Contact Time Total Contact Time
Media Condition
replaced RO membrane 1997
Chem Storage Adequate (Y/N): N Surface Wash (Y/N):N
Turbidimeter Calibration(Y/N):.F. Filter to Waste (Y/N): N
TREATMENT
ID Objective Process Description
Ol C 680 Sequestration
02 D 421 Hypochlorination. Post
03 0 145 Aeration. Packed Tower
04 I 640 Reverse Osmosis
05 P 341 Filtration. Cartre
06 P 341 F_ltration. Cartridge
07 I 640 'Reverse Osmosis
08 D Hvpochlorination, Post
123675
orm Printed: 09/01/98
INSPECTION REPORT
2
Page 1
nspection Date: /_/_ By: Reason:
WSID: 123675 Name: Rifle Creek Estates HOA County:
WS Type: Open/Close Dates: to
•ource Code:
ctive:
Area: 3
Change Reason: Date:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City: State: Zip Code:
Contact:
Operator:
Resident
0
Population
Contact Phone:
Operator Phone:
Service Service Owner
Non -Transient Transient Connections Area Type
0 0 0
lant Class: Operator Level:
acti Sampling Plan (Y/N): 0&M Records Adequate (Y/N):
_Conn Program (Y/N): Administrator:
azard Identification (Y/N): Test Records (Y/N):
Owners Name: Owners Phone:
Owners P.O.Box:
Owners Address:
City: State: Zip Code +4:
INSPECTION COMMENTS
ANDREW MARAIS
P. 0. Box 3687
GRAND JiJNCTION, C0 81502
27 October, 1998
Mr. John Barbee
Building and Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rifle Creek Estates Filing 2
Dear John:
Psl1 rc4"1E-ALT -tt z
(970) 858-3968
FAx (970) 858-3968
E-mail: maraisagj.net
As agreed, I enclose a copy of the water tests that we have
undertaken as suggested by you. The test results came under
cover of a letter from our Engineer.
You will note that there are two small modifications to
Exhibit K (Engineer's letter concerning quality of water) and
Exhibit H (Engineer's letter concerning quantity of water). The
change to Exhibit K was an inadvertent mistake. I would suggest
that the meaning of the original letter was clear in spite of the
incorrect word choice. The correction to Exhibit H was the
result of communication between us and the Homeowners
Association. As you can see, the new figures do not affect the
earlier conclusion concerning the adequacy of the water supply.
Thanks for your time and assistance. Please do not hesitate
to call with any question at all.
Regards,
`�a--
Andrew Marais.
Enclosures: Letter from engineer
Test results: domestic water
OCT 2 1998 t
GAi-*-Krio Googly
ATKINS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
518 28 Road, Suite B-105, P.O. Box 2702
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502
PH. (970) 245-6630 FAX (970) 245-2355
October 27, 1998
Mr. Andrew Marais
242 North Ash
Fruita, CO 81521
Re: Rifle Creek Estates
Filing No. Two
Preliminary
Dear Andrew:
As per our agreement to have the domestic water re -tested, I enclose for your
information a copy of the analytical report received from Grand Junction Laboratories. You
will note that the raw water was tested for radioactivity and that the results indicate low
radioactivity, and in the case of Gross Beta, well within acceptable limits.
The water, after treatment by reverse osmosis, was tested for a number of
elements, bacteria, and radioactivity. The only element that seemed to be somewhat high
is sodium. For the implication of this result, see the note in the lab report. There was no
coliform bacteria in the water. The radioactivity level was once again low and in the case
of Gross Beta, well below the safe limit.
A change should be made in Exhibit K, my letter concerning the quality of the
drinking water. In paragraph 3 of that letter I indicated that the well water was not under
the influence of ground water. That paragraph should read that the well water is not under
the influence of surface water.
It was also indicated to me that during 1997 only 19 homes utilized water from the
Rifle Creek Estates domestic water system. You will remember that we had assumed that
24 households were using water based on public figures. The monthly average household
consumption for 1997 was therefore 4936.7 gallons. If we assume 42 homes, Filings One
and Two together, the total monthly consumption will be 207,341 gallons. When
compared with the total monthly capacity of Emmer Well No.1, which is 1,706,000
gallons, it is clear that the water supply is more than adequate to meet the needs of both
Filing No. One and Filing No. Two.
Resp etfully yours,
GLt
Richard L. At
FILE NAME: 98013-7
ins, PE -PLS
'ami
Received from:
JOHN C KEPHART & CO.
GRAND JUNCTION LAORATOThS
435 NORTH AVENUE • PHONE 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Andrew Marais
242 North Ash
Fruita, CO 81521
8 580 water
Customer No. Laboratory No Sample
9/23/98 10/21/98
Date Received Date Reported
Lab number
Sample ID
8580 Limits for Drinking
RO Water Colo. Dept. Health
Suggested
Sodium(Na) 29.6 mg/1 20 mg/1
Calcium(Ca) 37 mall no official limit
Magnesium(Mg) 22 mg/1 125 mg/1
Potassium(K) 1.8 mg/1 no official limit
Chloride (C1) 16 mg/1 250 mg/1
Sulfate(SO4) 107 mg/1 250 mg/1
Phenol. Alkalinity(CaCO3) 0 mg/1 no official limit
Total Alk:alinity(CaCO3) 118 mg/1 no official limit
Dissolved Solids 328 mg/1 500 mg/1
Hardness (CaCO3) 183 mg/1 200 mg/1
pH 7.9 no official limit
Conductivity@25 deg. C 491 umhos/cm no official limit
Total Coliform Bacteria 0 colonies i> colonies
/10Om1 /100m1
Radioactivity:
Gross Alpha 2.1 pCi/liter
(+/-2.5)
Gross Beta 1.2 pCi/liter 50 pCi/liter
(+/-3.0)
*Limit for "Adjusted Alpha" is 15 pCi/liter; Adjusted Alpha is Gross
Alpha minus Uranium minus Radon (always less than or equal to Gross Alpha).
See notes, next page. Lab Dir.: Brian S. Bauer
"
NOTES on sample # 8580 RO Water:
Your water tests show a level exceeding drinking water limit for:
Sodium: This might be of concern for those on severe sodium -restrictive
diets, and to account in daily intake: 29.6 milligrams of Sodium are
consumed with each liter of water consumed. An adult daily intake of
Sodium is about 3,000 mg per day, for reference.
Other factors were not above limits for drinking and household use.
Not all factors which may be harmful in a drinking water were tested,
but the analysis performed covers the most common problem factors in
naturally occurring waters.
•
Received from:
JOHN C KEPHART & CO.
GRAND JUNCUON LAORATORIES
435 NORTH AVENUE
• PHONE 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Andrew Marais
242 North Ash
Fruita, CO 81521
8581 water
Customer No. Laboratory No Sample
9/23/98 10/21/98
Date Received Date Reported
Lab number 8581 Limits for Drinking
Sample ID RAW Water Colo. Dept. Health
Suggested
Radioactivity:
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Conductivity@25deg C
7.7 pCi/liter *
(+/-6.7)
0.5 pCi/liter 50 pCi/liter
(+/-6.9)
1450 umhos/cm no official limit
*Limit for "Adjusted Alpha" is 15 pCi/liter; Adjusted Alpha is Gross
Alpha minus Uranium minus Radon (always less than or equal to Gross Alpha).
The Conductivity reading indicates a Dissolved Solids level of approximately
1070 mg/1; drinking limit is 500 mg/l. This relatively high Solids
content interferes somewhat with radioactivity testing, giving a higher
error of margin than usual. Results still indicate the water does not
contain a high amount of radioactivity. Lab Dir.: Brian S. Bauer
September 1S. 1998
TO:
Andrew Marais
P O Box 3687
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Barry L. Hamilton
0394 Mesa Drive
Rifle. Colorado
THROUGH: Board of Directors (First Endorsement)
Rifle Creek Estates Homeowners Association
Rifle, CO S1650
Dear Mr. Marais.
C RIFT LD COUNTY
This letter is intended to answer your request for information regarding potable water supply
capabilities of the Rifle Creek Estates subdivision. The information is intended for inclusion in your
subdivision application and is a compilation extracted from public documents available at the
referenced sources. The source of in house domestic water for the present Rifle Creek Estates
subdivision is known as Emmer Well #1.
DECREES [Division of Natural Resources, Glenwood Springs. CO]
District #5 decrees W-3876. W-3877. W-3878 & W-3879 provided a water right of 0.085 cfs (39.5
gpm) to Emmer Well F,1 with appropriation date of April 20. 1978. These documents also decree an
Augmentation Plan and additional impoundment rights for Emmer Reservoir m1 in order to provide a
continuous, reliable water supply when Emmer Well Fl is out of priority.
OWNERSHIP [Division of Natural Resources, Glenwood Springs, CO]
The water rights described above are held in 'tenants in common' by John P. Powers (560•01. Rifle
Creek Estates Homeowners Association (29%) and Brad Moss (15%). Water rights are administered
and water system operated by Rifle Creeks Homeowners Association. At maximum decreed pumping
rate of 39.5 gpm. a 440/0 share of this well (29% + 15%) could produce >1.706.000 gallons per
month.
EMMER WELL #1 [Division of Natural Resources. Glenwood Springs, COJ
In May of 1997 a new well structure was successfully constructed under permit # 47734 -F -R and the
original structure plugged and abandoned. The replacement well is 58' deep and was tested by
Shelton Drilling Corp. at a rate of 40 gpm.
GROUND WATER [Colorado Department of Health, Grand Junction, CO]
A Microscopic Particle Analysis test performed in May of 1998 qualified this well as being 'not
under the influence of surface water'.
September 18, 1998
Page 2
HISTORICAL INFORMATION [Division of Natural Resources, Glenwood Springs, CO]
Rifle Creek Estates Homeowners Association operates two separate water systems — a raw. surface
water. pressurized irrigation system and a domestic. in house system (PWS -ID No. 1236751 using
central Reverse Osmosis treatment. The system was installed in March of 1980 and operates at
approximately 50% recovery rate. i.e.. two gallons of raw water are requires to produce one gallon of
finished water. Because irrigation consumption loads are removed from the domestic system. in
house consumption is substantially less than established norms.
CONSUMPTION DATA
YEAR TOTAL USE HOMES Ave/HOME /Month
1995 935,317 gal 18 51.962 4,330
1996 1,046.663 gal 20 52.333 4.361
1997 1.125.567 gal 24 46.898 3.908
Sincerely.
Barry L. Hamilton
Water System Administrator
FIRST ENDORSEMENT
Rifle Creek Estates Homeowners Association
• Concur and forward
▪ Forward with comments (below)
Robert Shuckman
President
NOV-03-1998 15:57 CITY OF RIFLE
, ,...1
zea. -
i 'PLAMI/j0 /V Phone Fax # Fax ,IFLE, COLORADO 81650 • (970) 625-2121 'FAX (970) 625-3210
9Z/ 5 - 7 7 g5 2-60-5 — VZ,�" 10/30/98
0 rifcrest.gcr
STAFF REPORT
970 625 3210 P.01
ti /7r Ip'sms"
Co.From
•
OE_ RIFLE
This application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plan was made to Garfield County,
and was sent to the Rifle Planning Department for comment by Garfield County StaffPlanner,
John Barbee - 945-8212.
Title: Rifle Creek Estates, Filing 2 - Preliminary Plan
Applicant: Bradley and Winette Moss: 625-5221
Contact Person: Carlyle Fowler: Fowler/Marais/LLC: 858-3968
Request Summary: 36 acres subdivided into 15 single family residential lots
Location: Section 24, Township 5S, Range 93W Rifle Creek Estates
Existing Zoning: Garfield County - A/R/RD; Agricultural/Residential/ Rural Density
1. Use by right: single family dwelling and customary
accessory uses.
2. Minimum lot area: 2 acres
3. Maximum lot coverage: 15 percent
4. Minimum setbacks: front yard: 50' from street center line or
25' from front line; rear yard: 25'; side yard: 10' from side
line or half the height of the principal building whichever is
greater.
5. Maximum height of building: 25'
Area Summary:
Single family lots - 15 each = 36.00 acres
Open Space = 3.02 acres
Dedicated R. O. W. = 1.68 acres
Total = 40.70 acres
I. Description of Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 36 acres into 15 single family lots. One single family
residence, garage, and barn per lot is allowed. Four off-street parking spaces per lot are required.
II. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan:
Since this property is located in Garfield County within a 3 mile radius of the Rifle city limits, it
falls within the planning area of influence of the recently completed Rifle Comprehensive Plan
(1998).
One goal stated in the Comprehensive Plan for District 6: North Rifle Undeveloped Area is to
encourage residential growth with 6000 - 8000 square foot lots. Under Future Land Use Policies
and Actions, no guidance is given for development along County Road 325.
1
NOV-03-1998 15:58
CITY OF RIFLE 970 625 3210 P.02
III. Staff Comments:
The Rifle Creek Estates, Filing 2 application was prepared and submitted by Carlyle Fowler:
Fowler/Marais/LLC and sent to the City of Rifle for comments by Garfield County. D. H.
Surveys prepared the survey and Atkins and Associates prepared the preliminary plan submittal.
EXISTING SITE
The existing site for the proposed 15 lot subdivision for Rifle Creek Estates, Filing 2 is a high
terrace or mesa approximately 2.5 miles north of the City of Rifle. It is bounded on the north by
BLM land, on the east by County Road 325 and Rifle Creek, on the south by Rifle Creek Estates,
Filing No. 1, and by State Highway 13 and Government Creek on the west. Part of this site was
the previous location of an old gravel pit and quarry operation, from which a considerable
amount of on-site sand and gravel was removed. The topography of most of the construction
area slopes to the east and south; the eastern side of the site has moderately steep slopes, and
very steep slopes predominate along the western side. Slopes vary from 5 to over 20 percent in
various areas of the subdivision. Vegetation consists of sagebrush and bunch grasses with some
cedar and pinon along the steeper slopes.
FLOOD PLAIN
All of the building sites will be located above contour elevation 5675, which is 75 feet above the
adjacent flood plain. Encroachment in the existing flood plain is non-cxistent.
PROPERTY ACCESS
Access to the property will be by an extension of Mesa Drive to the north from Rifle Estates
Filing No. 1 which connects to County Road 325. The cross section of Mesa Drive shows a
slope which will vary between 1.68% and 6.00%. From a planning perspective, the loop road
recommended to the applicants is a superior plan to the current layout. It is unfortunate that the
projected costs will prevent its implementation.
DRAINAGE
According to Atkins and Associates, Inc., the site generally drains East and West from a diagonal
bisecting the Northwest and Southwest corner of the development. Because of the extremely low
densities involved, developed runoff will be limited to an increase of 9% or less. The paved road
will generate additional runoff which can be accommodated by using 15" diameter culverts at all
driveway crossings. Present drainage patterns will remain essentially the same, except where
fills are graded on lots 1 and 3.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The water supply is dependable and sufficient. The water has been ajudicated to service the
existing and the proposed subdivision. Filing Number 2 has 15 water shares available. As a
result of discussions with the Fire Marshall, the capacity of the storage facility for potable water
will be significantly expanded. The Utility Plan shows a proposed 20,000 gallon additional
water storage tank. It also shows proposed Public Service Company joint trench for electrical
and gas services.
2
Y
NOV-03-1998 15:58
CITY OF RIFLE 970 625 3210 P.03
ROADS
Although a circular road system had been recommended by the Garfield County Planning
Department, the developer has submitted costs intended to demonstrate that this would be a
much more costly solution. The report states that it would require extensive regrading of the
property with resultant changes in surface hydrology and would have required relocation of the
water lines. Much longer cul-de-sacs and dead end road easement have been shown which
would not be acceptable for access in the City. No road has been indicated on the Preliminary
Plan drawing for Lot 1 although an easement has been shown. As a result of discussions with the
Fire Marshall, turnaround easements have been added to road stubs leading to lots 2, 3, 4, as well
as to lots 13 and 14.
POTENTIAL RADIATION IIAZARDS
The possibility of a slight radiation hazard does exist on the site within the gravels and cobbles in
the terrace deposits. Vanadium -Uranium ore would be the only source of radioactive minerals on
the proposed subdivision and would have had to been eroded out and deposited on the site by
alluvial action. This mixing of the ore -bearing rocks with other rocks in the terrace gravels has
effectively reduced the concentration of radioactive minerals to less than several hundred -
thousandths of a percent. A gamma radiation survey conducted on site materials showed no
significant readings higher than background radiation.
TRANSMISSION LINE
A transmission line crosses the property from northwest to southeast on a 175' easement. The
transmission line easement borders on seven lots. No structures can be built on this transmission
line easement; this includes houses, garages and barns. If, during an emergency, a line should
drop to the ground, it must not fall on a structure. Lot 7 (2.15 acres) and Lot 10 (2.31 acres)
appear to be significantly affected by the location of this easement; the buildable area of each lot
has been reduced by approximately 50%. Also, there may be radio frequency interference caused
by the transmission lines.
IV. Recommendation:
The Rifle Planning Department hi
property boundaries of
loop road solu i
ly recomm . • e a, • licant considers adios in he
t I • • rder e
so, theoar ent agreed with the Garfield Countyrecommendation that a
is su • erior to th_4 1axnut curie shown.
Filing 2 is an acceptable extension of Filing 1. and does not impact Rifle in a negative manner.
Staff recommends that the Garfield County Planning Commission approve the Rifle Creek
Estates, Filing 2 Preliminary Plan request subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant real._ g...t t+ ++ging envelopes shown on Lots 13, 14, and 15 so as to
cross as few contours as possible and also not interfere with natural drainage patterns.
2. That the applicant indicate_a building envelope on Lot 7 and Lot 10.
3
TOTAL P.03