The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.00 Staff Report BOCC 09.06.2022File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC Public Hearing Sept 6, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP i PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Type of Review Preliminary Plan for Major Subdivision Applicants (Owners) Rising Tides Enterprises LLC Representative Todd Barton Sara Tie – Project Planner, Connect One Design Engineer Danny Stewart – Roaring Fork Engineering Legal Description Section 18, Township 7, Range 95: Monument Creek Village Sec 2 Restricted Reserve C Practical description NW of Intersection of Stone Quarry Rd and Northstar Trl. Lot sizes 9.13 Acres Zoning Battlement Mesa PUD – Medium Density Residential (MDR) Comprehensive Plan Residential High, Town of Parachute Area of Influence. Battlement Mesa Unincorporated Community Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Public Notice Information Form & Proof of Notice 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Battlement Mesa PUD 4 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 5 Application 6 Staff Report 7 CPW Comments 8 CDPHE General Comments 9 CGS Comments 10 Xcel Energy Comments 11 Garfield County Consulting Engineer Comments 12 Town of Parachute Comments 13 Holy Cross Energy Comments 14 CDOT 15 Battlement Mesa Co Comments File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC Public Hearing Sept 6, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP ii 16 GVFPD Comments 17 Garfield County Vegetation Management 18 Garfield County Assessor’s Office 19 Garfield County Public Health 20 Staff Presentation 21 Applicant Presentation 22 Bargain and Sale Deed 449641 23 Garfield County Consulting Engineer Comments - April 22, 2022 24 Garfield County Consulting Engineer Comments - August 3, 20022 25 Public Comments, David Streeter – April 29, 2022 26 Public Comments Samuel Wardell – July 23, 2022 27 Public Comments, Dennis Braspenninx - July 14, 2022 28 Public comments, Beth Bascom – July 24, 2022 29 Half Moon Development Responses to Comments BIT &oDg Gørfield Coulnty PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. lnaddition,pleaseinitial ontheblanklinenexttothestatementsiftheyaccuratelyreflectthe described action. My application required writtenfmailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. x Mailed notice was completed on the 22nd day of July ,2A22 All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 1"5 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] Title Conpany Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice My application required Published notice. x Notice was published on the 2 Bth day of July 2a3.? Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram x x I tr My application required Posting of Notice. x Notice was posted on the 2 5lh day o1 J:ul-Y ,ZO4 X Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name:Sara Tie, Connect One Design '-¿:;=,- Signature Date:JuIy 26, 2A22 Questions? Contact Column at help@column.us.- Page 1 of 1 Receipt help@column.us Receipt number Invoice number A2E345C4-0002 Date paid Jul 21, 2022 Payment method Direct Notice Id r5GkpyljrQ7eWKkG9fq1 Publisher Rie Citizen Telegram Paid by Connect One Design $0.00 paid on Jul 21, 2022 === Notes === Notice Name: 8CD09 Notice SPAA-11-21-8870 Order Number: 228535 Description Qty Unit price Amount 07/28/2022: Other Notice 1 0.00 0.00 Adavit Fee 1 0.00 0.00 Subtotal $0.00 Tax (0%)0.00 Amount paid $0.00 8CD09 Notice SPAA-11-21-8870 - Page 1 of 2 FILER Elyse Hottel eh@connectonedesign.com FILING FOR Rifle Citizen Telegram Columns Wide:1 Ad Class:Legals OFFICIAL AD PROOF This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run in Rifle Citizen Telegram on the dates indicated below. If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at (970) 625-3245. Notice ID: r5GkpyljrQ7eWKkG9fq1 | Proof Updated: Jul. 21, 2022 at 01:06pm MDT Notice Name: 8CD09 Notice SPAA-11-21-8870 | Publisher ID: 228535 This is not an invoice. Below is an estimated price, and it is subject to change. You will receive an invoice with the final price upon invoice creation by the publisher. 07/28/2022: Other Notice 0.00 Affidavit Fee 0.00 Subtotal $0.00 Tax %0.00 Total $0.00 See Proof on Next Page 8CD09 Notice SPAA-11-21-8870 - Page 2 of 2 File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 1 Exhibit 6 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Type of Review Preliminary Plan for Major Subdivision Applicants (Owners) Rising Tides Enterprises LLC (Todd Barton, Tammie VanDeusen) Representative Sara Tie – Project Planner, Connect One Design Engineer Danny Stewart – Roaring Fork Engineering Legal Description Section 18, Township 7, Range 95: Monument Creek Village Sec 2 Restricted Reserve C Practical description NW of Intersection of Stone Quarry Rd and Northstar Trl. Lot sizes 9.13 Acres Zoning Battlement Mesa PUD – Medium Density Residential (MDR) Comprehensive Plan Residential High, Town of Parachute Area of Influence. Battlement Mesa Unincorporated Community Recommendation Approval with Conditions DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Figure 1 Vicinity Map from application The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot into 51 parcels, 48 of which will be for single family residences and 3 are open space parcels. The latest plan set includes a typo where one lot is not number, causing the numbered lots to end at 47. However, “Lot 490” between Lots 43 and 44 should be a numbered lot as well. The application proposes to use detached zero lot line structures with home sizes approximately 1,500 to 2,000 sq ft. The total size of the development is 9.18 acres. In addition to the 48 single family lots, there will be three open space lots for signage, greenspace, and stormwater management. The neighborhood is using zero-lot-lines (where one wall is constructed on a side lot line without having an adjoining wall with the adjacent home). There are 8 lots designed for residential use that are not technically zero-lot-line because of encroaching easement or adjacent ROW. Due to these complications, staff approached regulations (such as setbacks) for these 8 lots as if they were zero-lot-line parcels as well. The proposed final density of the Half Moon neighborhood would be 5.26 dwellings per acre. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 2 Exhibit 6 Figure 2 Proposed Half Moon Subdivision, area The application involves parcel #240718418028 within the Battlement Mesa PUD. The parcel was originally created by the Monument Creek Village, Section 2 final plat at reception#319920. Page 2 of this plat labels the parcel as “Dedicated Elementary School S ite,” though this restriction was not included in the plat notes. Further in this plat, the parcel was labeled as “Restricted Reserve “C” which is still its legal description. The applicant provided a history of the parcel. The parcel was dedicated to the Garfield County School District 16 in 1993 as part of a condition of approval for a preliminary plan. A deed at reception #449641 (Exhibit B) transferred the property to Garfield County School District 16 and included the language “…containing 9.134 acres and restricting the use of such property solely to public use.” The school district held the lot till 2007 when the district sold it to a private entity. The deed selling the parcel is at reception #727520 but did not directly address this restriction. The property was rezoned from PSR (Public, Semipublic, and Recreation) to MDR (Medium Density Residential) in 2008 by Resolution No 2008-33 at Reception #744451. In response to this issue and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Applicant had a Ba rgain and Sale Deed (Correction Deed) recorded at Reception No 974683 to correct the previous deed at Reception #449641 and remove the previous restriction. The applicant’s attorney provided letter to the County Attorney’s Office addressing the removal of the restriction. The parcel is currently undeveloped. It is vegetated by semi-arid grasses common in the Battlement Mesa area. The application states that the site is not a major collector of stormwater due to the local topography. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 3 Exhibit 6 Figure 3 Proposed Lot Layout File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 4 Exhibit 6 Figure 4 Existing Conditions facing Northwest Single family neighborhoods border the proposal to the west and south. A residential development to the northeast contains both single family homes and townhomes. The parcel to the north is largely undeveloped with an oil and gas facility in the northwestern corner approximately 1400 ft from the nearest point on the Half Moon parcel boundary. The undeveloped parcel has an arroyo directly north of Half Moon that runs west by northwest. This parcel will be referred to a s the Arroyo Parcel for convenience. Northstar Trail encircles the southern and western portion of the proposal. This road connects to Stone Quarry Rd and to Monument Trail (which also feeds onto Stone Quarry Rd further to the South). Northstar Trail’s right-of-way contains utilities and a stormwater culvert that directs flow to the arroyo. Northstar Trail is considered a local road for purposes of determining setback per the Battlement Mesa PUD. The subdivision proposes a primary road that will run east/west connecting to Northstar Trail at either end. A second road will loop to the south off this road. All lots will treat these roads as their front. A set of parcels will back onto Northstar Trail from the north. The existing development to the South also does not treat Northstar Trail as the front yard, however individual homes site and treat the double frontage differently. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Battlement Mesa PUD Guide, 6th Amended and Restated January 1, 2014, 3.0 MDR Medium Density Residential as well as supplemental sections 10 and 11. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 5 Exhibit 6 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code , as amended. All sections of the LUDC impact the review of this application. Areas where the PUD provides regulations, its requirements supersede those of the LUDC. 1) Section 5-302. Preliminary Plan Review 2) Table 5-401 Application Submittal Requirements 3) Section 5-4-203 Submittal Requirements 4) Section 4-203 Submittal Requirements 5) Article 7, Divisions 1-4 Section 5-302.C. Preliminary Plan Review states “The Preliminary Plan Review will review the feasibility and design characteristics of the proposed land division as well as evaluate preliminary engineering design” and lays out the following review process. 6) Overview. The Preliminary Plan Review will review the feasibility and design characteristics of the proposed land division as well as evaluate preliminary engineering design. 7) Review Process. Preliminary Plan Review shall be processed according to Table 5-103. 8) Review Criteria. A Preliminary Plan application shall meet the following criteria: 9) Compliance with the Article 7, Division 1, General Approval Standards 10) Compliance with the Article 7, Division 2, General Resource Protection Standards; 11) Compliance with applicable Article 7, Division 3, Site Planning and Development Standards; 12) Compliance with applicable Article 7, Division 4, Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications; and 13) Any other applicable standard. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcel is designated as Residential High, predicting a future housing density of one dwelling unit per 7,500 sq ft to one dwelling unit per two acres . The area is within Parachute’s area of influence, but outside of its urban growth area. Growth in unincorporated communities is explicitly addressed and encouraged within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. Battlement Mesa represents one such unincorporated communities. The following strategies are included within the plan when growth is propose d within unincorporated communities. Strategies: (Page 11 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030) i. The proposed development is not located within the UGA of existing municipalities. ii. The development is served with urban services by a special d istrict. iii. A contract for police from county sheriff may need to be established. iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer’s expense (or the county is compensated through an impact fee or fee-in-lieu). v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered in the review of new unincorporated communities. vi. Any internal commercial is primarily for the convenience of area residents (minimize competition with existing communities). vii. Transit opportunities are provided. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 6 Exhibit 6 viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provid ed. ix. School sites may be required (these locations preferred over schools in rural areas). COMMENTS REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS Holy Cross Energy, Curt Hanson: “Holy Cross Energy does have powerlines in this area to service the planned neighborhood.” Holy Cross Energy would be the electric provider. CPW, Scott Hoyer: Provided a range of recommendations intended to reduce negative wildlife/resident interactions in the future. Complete comments included in Exhibit 7. CDPHE: Provided their general comments, but no specific comments. General comments shown in Exhibit 8. Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) Robert Lovekin: CGS found “The site is not exposed to any geologic hazards or unusual geotechnical constraints that would preclude the proposed residen tial use and density” but recommended site specific Geotech studies related to the construction of individual units to determine suitable foundations, irrigation practices, ect. Full comments in Exhibit 9. CDOT, Kandis Aggen: Stated that “Regarding the Half Moon Subdivision Preliminary Plan - CDOT does not have any comments.” Xcel Energy: Exhibit 10 contains Xcel’s comments. These comments are mostly regarding requirements for applying to Xcel for service, but a utility easement (10ft) would be required. Xcel Energy would provide natural gas. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, PE. The consulting engineer’s comments are shown in Exhibit 11. The consulting engineer provided updated comments based on the revised submittals received after the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Battlement Mesa Co, Keri Jensen. “We have no concerns with this application. “ GVFPD, Chris Jackson, Deputy Chief. “After reviewing these plans, the Fire District does not have any issues with this development.” Garfield County Vegetation Management, Steve Anthony. Had no comments on this application. Garfield County Assessor’s Office, Casey Lawrence. Had no comments on this application. Garfield County Environmental Health, Ted White, PE. “I have reviewed the Preliminary Plan application for the Half Moon Subdivision, and have no comments from Public Health that need to be addressed prior to approval.” Town of Parachute, Travis Elliot, Town Manager. The full comments can be found in Exhibit 12. The Town supports the project and requested that solutions for road improvements along Battlement Parkway connecting Parachute to Battlement Mesa across the Colorado River be considered. Garfield County Attorney’s Office, Kelly Cave, Attorney. Provided NTC, notice, and legal review throughout the review process. Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District had provided letters included in the application, but were also reached out to for referral comments. No additional comments were provided. Garfield County, Road and Bridge. Community Development staff meet with Garfield County Road and Bridge regarding Battlement Mesa traffic and the application’s specific proposals. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 7 Exhibit 6 Additional Referral Requests were sent to: Garfield County Emergency Management, Garfield County Oil and Gas Liaison, Garfield County Road and Bridge, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Garfield County School District 16, West Divide Water Conservancy District, Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens, Battlement Mesa Parks and Recreation District, Battlement Mesa Service Association, Battlement Mesa Oil & Gas Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments at the Planning Commission Hearing addressed several topics. Traffic, specifically the intersections of Stone Quarry with Battlement Mesa and Battlement Mesa with Battlement Mesa (at the northeastern section of the Battlement Mesa). The ability to turn left out of Valley View Apartments being more difficult was also brought up as a concern. Broader concerns regarding the connection from Battlement Mesa to Parachute were also raised. Sidewalk connectivity between neighborhoods was also mentioned as an issue. Concerns related to the visual impacts of the proposal, such as the proposed fence were voiced at the hearing. Public comments received by staff since the Plannin g Commission’s Public Hearing. David Streeter: Requested that more attention be given to traffic and stated that the developer should not be responsible for all public improvements. Samuel Wardell: Raised concerns regarding inadequate infrastructure for traffic and evacuation demands. Specifically the intersection of Battlement Mesa with Battlement Mesa. Daniel Braspenninx: Voiced concerns regarding the previous dedication of the property to the School District. Beth Bascom: Recommended that the board require the proposed entrance of Half Moon at the intersection of Limberpine and Northstar be turned into a four way stop or roundabout. The citizen is concerned about current and increased traffic le vels and stated that the intersection is a blind curve. STAFF ANALYSIS Only those items where the staff had comments on the proposal’s compliance with the LUDC or PUD requirements are included. BATTLEMENT MESA PUD 3.0 MDR Medium Density Residential 3.1. Uses by right: Single-family detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings (either attached or detached), zero-lot-line dwellings (either attached or detached), two-family and multiple-family dwellings, and customary accessory uses, including buildings for shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to the use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walks, and similar landscape features; park. Temporary real estate sales offices and model homes used only for the purpose of initial sales by the developer of property located within the MDR Zone District. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 8 Exhibit 6 Staff Analysis: Zero-lot-line dwellings are explicitly listed as a use by right within this PUD zoning district. Other uses proposed by the application (open space for stormwater detent ion and neighborhood signage) are considered accessory to these uses. 3.2. Uses, conditional: Church, school, community building, day nursery, fire station, and other public uses. Staff Analysis: Not applicable to this application 3.3. Uses, special: Extraction and processing of natural resources. Staff Analysis: Not applicable to this application 3.4. Intensity of Use: A maximum of 12.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Staff Analysis: The proposed density is 5.26 DU/acre. The density is evenly spread across the site. 3.5. Minimum Lot Area: 1. 600 square feet for townhouse dwellings. 2. 2,000 square feet for zero-lot-line dwellings. 3. 7,500 square feet for single-family detached and two-family dwellings. 4. 9,000 square feet for multiple-family dwellings. Staff Analysis: All proposed building lots are for zero-lot-line homes and the smallest proposed parcel is 0.09 acres or 3,920.4 square feet. Of the three open space lots, Open Space Lots 1 and 2 are greater than the any of these minimum sizes. Open Space Lot 3 is approximately 430 sq ft and is smaller than the minimum lot areas, however it will be restricted to open space. 3.6. Maximum Site Coverage: 1. For single-family detached dwellings, zero-lot-line dwellings and two-family dwellings without common open area as part of the plat at the time of subdivision, not more than 70% of each lot shall be covered by buildings, drives and parking areas. For single-family detached dwellings, zero-lot-line dwellings and two-family dwellings with common open area as part of the plat at the time of subdivision, not more than 80% of each lot shall be covered by buildings, drives and parking areas. 2. For multiple-family dwellings, not more than 75% of the platted area at the time of the subdivision shall be covered by buildings, parking areas and streets. 3. A lot shall not be limited to one principal structure provided: a. The uses of each structure shall be allowed within the applicable zone district; b. The total accumulated improvements do not exceed the maximum site coverage nor violate any other requirements of the zone district. c. The entire lot remains under one ownership. Staff Analysis: (1) applies to the proposal. Building envelopes ensure not the entirety of the lot can be used for structures though driveways and parking areas may fall outside of those envelopes. This item will be further enforced during the buildi ng permit process as individual site plans come in. 3.7. Minimum Setbacks: 1. Front Yard a. For single-family detached dwellings and two-family dwellings: File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 9 Exhibit 6 i. Arterial or Collector Streets: no structure shall front on an arterial or collector street. ii. Local Streets: 50 feet from street centerline or 25 feet from lot line, whichever is greater. b. For multiple-family dwellings: i. Arterial Streets: 100 feet from street centerline or 50 feet from front lot line, whichever is greater. ii. Collector Streets: 90 feet from street centerline or 50 feet from front lot line, whichever is greater. iii. Local Streets: 50 feet from street centerline or 25 feet from front lot line, whichever is greater. c. For zero-lot-line and townhouse dwellings: i. No lot shall front on an arterial or collector street. ii. Local Streets: 20 feet Front Setback from the front lot line, if there is a front-facing garage; or no setback if there is a side-facing garage or at least 20 feet of common open space between the curb line and the lot line. d. For all other uses: i. Arterial Streets: 100 feet from street centerline or 50 feet from front lot line, whichever is greater. ii. Collector Streets: 90 feet from street centerline or 50 feet from front lot line, whichever is greater. iii. Local Streets: 65 feet from street centerline or 40 feet from front lot line, whichever is greater. Staff Analysis: Front yard setbacks are enforced at building code, however the proposed lots will be able to accommodate the proposed uses and abide by the setback. The proposed building envelopes are set 20 feet back from the property line. The use of building envelopes will further restrict architectural projections from encroaching on required side, front, and rear yards setbacks. 2. Rear Yard: a. For single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and multiple- family dwellings 15 feet from the rear lot line. b. For zero-lot-line and townhouse dwelling: i. 10 feet from rear lot line if no alleys or rear utility easements are provided. ii. No rear yard is required where alleys or utility easements are provided and no automobile access is allowed. iii. Where automobile access is taken across the rear yard: a. 25 foot rear setback where there is a rear-facing garage. b. No rear setback for a side-facing garage. c. No rear setback if there is at least 25 feet of common open space between the alley pavement and the lot line. c. For all other uses: 25 feet rear setback when adjacent to residential uses or 10 feet when not adjacent to residential uses. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 10 Exhibit 6 Staff Analysis: The proposed building envelopes provide 10 foot rear yard setback s on all lots as measured to the property line. Additional setbacks are determined for through (double frontage) lots and corner lots below. 3. Side Yard: a. For single-family detached, two-family and multiple-family dwellings 6 feet setback from side lot line. On corner lots, the side yard setback shall be 25 feet when automobile access is taken across the side yard; the side yard setback shall be 15 feet when no automobile access is taken across the side yard. b. For zero-lot-line dwellings 10 feet setback on one lot line and no setback on the opposite lot line. No accessory buildings shall be permitted within the required side yard setback. c. For townhouse dwellings, no side yards are required except for corner lot conditions. On corner lots, the side yard setback shall be 25 feet or at least 25 feet of common open space between the curb line and the lot line when automobile access is taken across the side yard; the side yard setback shall be 15 feet or at least 15 feet of common open space between the curb line and the lot line when no automobile access is taken across the side yard. Staff Analysis: Each proposed building envelope is 10 feet from one adjacent property line and no two building envelopes share a common boundary. Those lots that are not set exactly on a property line have their envelopes observing these setbacks. Compliance will be confirmed at the time of building permit. 3.8. Maximum Building Height: 36 feet measured at the vertical to the gr ade at the center of the building. Staff Analysis: Will be determined at the time of building permit 3.9. Minimum Off-Street Parking: 1. For single-family detached dwelling two spaces per unit. 2. For two-family dwellings two spaces per dwelling unit. 3. For townhouses and zero-lot-line dwellings two spaces per dwelling unit provided on the lot or in common community open space or a combination thereof. 4. For multiple-family dwelling (1 ½) spaces per dwelling unit. 5. For all other uses: see Supplementary Regulation (Section 10.6). Staff Analysis: The application proposes 2 car garages and additional space to accommodate 2 off - street parking spaces on each individual building lot. 3.10. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section (Supplementary Regulations) and Section 11.0 (Modification of Subdivision Regulations). 1. For zero-lot-line dwellings, a minimum maintenance easement of 3 feet shall be provided on the side yard for the adjacent lot. 2. No portion of any building shall extend beyond lot line s into public easements or public rights-of-way. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 11 Exhibit 6 3. For zero-lot-line and townhouse dwelling no windows or openings shall be allowed in a wall abutting a property line that faces into an adjoining lot. Staff Analysis: Building envelopes have been positioned t o provide the same amount of side yard on each lot with a neighboring zero-lot-line envelope. Both the consulting engineer and former building official strongly advise that steps be taken to minimize previously seen issues with zero -lot-line structures. These issues range from overhanging eaves, roof stormwater runoff impact neighboring lots, the need to trespass for maintenance purposes, and related issues. The required 3-foot minimum easement must be included in the final plat and staff recommends provide specific language on what encroachments and activities are allowed within the easement to minimize future conflict between neighbors while allowing for appropriate maintenance of individual homes. Draft language related to this easement is included in the applications Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions. Items (2) and (3) will be enforced at time of building code. 3.11. Additional Definitions: (Modification to Sec. 10.8, Garfield County Res. No. 82 -121) 4. A “Detached Zero-Lot-Line Dwelling” shall be a single-family dwelling unit which occupies and individual platted zero-lot-line lot and does not share a common building side wall with an adjacent lot zero-lot-line dwelling Staff Analysis: Definitions used throughout the section and review. 10.0 Battlement Mesa PUD: Supplemental Regulations (SR) 10.0 SR Supplementary Regulations Division of the subject lands into land use areas and their related development standards will be as shown of the PUD map and as outlined by the preceding development standards. To further avoid problems of interpretation, the following listed supplementar y regulations are included as part of the Planned Unit Development. Where the preceding general standards or the following supplemental regulations do not adequately described what is permitted or required, reference shall be made to the officially adopted Garfield County Zoning Resolution of January 2, 1979, including the zoning amendment, adopted October 15, 1979, and to the officially adopted Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of January 2, 1979, and amendments of October 15, 1979. 10.1. Land Use Types: The PUD map shows generally where within the PUD each type of use is located. The precise location of each use and the location of lots, blocks and other parcels within each area devoted to each use shall be shown as that area is hereafter subdivided and platted. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 12 Exhibit 6 Staff Analysis: The application complies with 10.1. 10.2. Uses Permitted: The principal uses for each land use area are listed as a part of the general development standards; however, any other building, structure or use which is similar to those enumerated and not more obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which it is located shall be permitted. Staff Analysis: The proposed uses are listed as either principal or accessory uses within the zoning district. 10.3. Intensity of Use: In any residential area defined on the PUD map, the net density in any given part of the subdivided area may exceed the gross density which would be permitted for the entire subdivided area so long as the entire subdivided area, including open space, is within the range of the applicable gross intensity of use set forth above in the development standards. Staff Analysis: There is no cluster development or similar proposed concentration of uses in this preliminary plan that results in an increase of one parts’ net density exceeding the gross density. 10.4. Setbacks: The following yard requirements shall be observed in all zone districts: Through Lots: On lots extending form one street to another paralleling street, both streets shall be considered as front streets for purposes of calculating front yard setbacks unless a solid screening fence is provided for one yard only and then the yard adjacent to the fence shall be considered as a rear or side yard. Corner Lots: On residential lots bordered on two (2) contiguous sides by streets, the required front yard setback shall be observed along both streets when automobile access is taken from the side street. Two-Family Dwellings: For purposes of setback calculations, a two -family dwelling shall be construed as one building occupying one lot . Attached single-family dwellings: For purposes of setback calculations, only those attached single-family dwellings which do not share a common wall with an adjacent attached dwelling need observe the required side yard setback for the district, providing building code requirements for this type of structure are observed. Projections: Every part of the required yard shall be unobstructed from ground level to the sky except for projections of architectural features as follows: cornices, sills and ornamental features - 12 inches; food eaves - 18 inches; uncovered porches, slabs and patios, walks, steps, fences, hedges, and walls - no restriction; fire escapes and individual balconies not used as passageways may project 18 inches into any required side yard or four (4) feet into any front or rear yard. Figure 5 PUD Map Excerpt Showing Parcel Zoning File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 13 Exhibit 6 Accessory Building in Required Rear Yard: An accessory building may be located in a required rear yard provided not more than forty (40) percent of the rear yard is covered. Such building shall observe a seven and one -half (7 ½) foot setback from the rear lot line when there is not an adjacent alley. When there is an adjacent alley it shall observe a ten (10) foot setback form lot line. Fences and Screening: A fence, hedge, or wall may be located in any required yard provided no such installation shall exceed eight (8) feet in height in a required side yard or rear yard, nor shall nay such structure exceed three (3) feet in height in any required front yard. No side yard or front yard hedge or fence is permitted on a corner lot adjacent to the street. Staff Analysis: Proposed Lots 30 through 48 are through lots between Northstar Trail and the proposed southern street. They must observe a 20-foot setback from Northstar Trail if no solid screening is used. Proposed lot 25 is a through lot between the two proposed streets, and a portion of its building envelope appears to be within 20 feet of the street to the south. At the Planning Commission Public Hearing, the applicant represented that solid screening would be provided, it was just not noticeable on the plan set due to overlapping lines. Sheet C700 includes labels for the “6 ft High Fence.” Setbacks are considered at the time of building permit, however, proposed envelopes should consider all setbacks. The other items of 10.4 will be considered at time of building permit. Staff notes that the projection rules of the Battlement Mesa PUD differ from the current LUDC projection rules and that a the application’s CC&Rs allow some projection at the zero lot line. If this is the intent, it should be included in a plat note and address projections outside of the building envelops on all sides. 10.5. Maximum Building Height: For purposes of measuring the maximum building height, grade shall mean the original natural ground level or newly established elevation resulting from compacted fill so long as any regarded area does not exceed a four -to- one slope between the ground level of any exterior building wall and adjacent lot line or property line. Staff Analysis: This modification will be used at the time of building permit to ensure maximum building height is not exceeded. 10.6. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Each off-street parking space shall be not less than 8 feet wide and 18 feet long; shall be provided with vehicular access to a street or alley/ shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete or equivalent; shall be properly drained; and shall be located within convenient walking distance of the principal building or use for which the parking space is provided. For either detached single-family dwellings or attached single-family dwellings, tandem spaces shall be permitted. Where an off-street parking space serves more than one use and peak times for parking are at different times of the day, such parking space may be included as part of the minimum requirements for each use. Staff Analysis: The preliminary plan’s lots provide adequate space for off -street parking, the exact dimensions of each spot will be determined at the time of each lot’s building permit. The proposal File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 14 Exhibit 6 will allow on-street parking as well, but the application states that it is designed for each residence to have a 2-car garage plus driveway space for 2 off-street spaces. 10.7. The following minimum parking requirements for permitted or similar (see Section 10.2) uses are: Staff Analysis: This item is not applicable to this proposal. 10.8. See Modification of definitions in 3.11 and 4.11. 1. Additional Restrictions: Battlement Mesa, Inc. reserves the right to make the use or occupancy of any particular area more restrictive than this PUD would permit, by provisions on the subdivision plat, restrictive covenants, or provision in the deed. Staff Analysis: The original subdivision plat reserved this parcel for an elementary school. The property was deeded to the school district in 1993 and a deed restriction was included on this deed at reception #449641 reserving the parcel for public use. The school district sold the property to a private entity in 2007 with deed at reception #727520. The previous deed restriction was not included or explicitly removed. The property was rezoned from PSR to MDR in 2008 by Resolution No 2008-33 at Reception #744451. This action supports the use of the property as residential instead of public; however, the previous restrictions had not been explicitly removed at the time of the Planning Commission’s Hearing. A recommended conditional of approval asked the applicant to provide remedies to these restrictions to the satisfaction of the County Attorney’s Office. The applicant has provided a letter from their attorney as well as a Bargain and Sale Deed (Correction Deed) that addresses the previous deed restriction. These are included in the updated application packet, and the deed can be found at Reception #974683 with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder’s Office 2. Guest Suite A multi-family dwelling unit available for daily, weekly or other interim accommodations in return for a rental fee or other form of compensation and approved as such during the subdivision review process and/or special use permit review process. Staff Analysis: The proposed application does not include this use. 11.0 Modifications of Subdivision Regulations The Planned Unit Development will conform to the Subdivision Resolutions of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted January 2, 1979, except as noted below or otherwise provided in this application and except as may be permitted by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of subdividing. The specific modifications set forth below are requested to better allow the developer to fulfill the previously stated purposed and objectives of this PUD. 11.1. Street Pattern (Sub. Reg. 5.02.01): The street patterns will be designed to continue to provide access to adjacent land not included in the PUD which presently have access through a public dedicated right-of-way. Adjacent privately owned land which does not presently have access of a public dedicated right–of-way through the area of the PUD File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 15 Exhibit 6 will be provided appropriate access. Adjacent land in public ownership which presently does not have access off a public dedicated right-of-way through the area of the PUD will be provided appropriate access. Adjacent land in public ownership which presently does not have access off a public dedicated right-of-way through the area of the PUD will be provided access at the time of platting at the request of the pub lic agency controlling the land. Dead-end streets may be designed with cul-de-sac head that meets the functional requirements of vehicular turning radii and snow storage; this design may vary from the 90 foot turnaround. Residential lots bordering arterial streets may be sided against the street as long as access to the lot is not from the arterial street. Staff Analysis: The open space lot to the north could be accessed by the neighboring Northstar Trail. No dead-end streets are proposed in this application. The lots bordering Northstar Trail will be accessed from a new, proposed street to the north. 11.2. Private Street (Sub. Reg. 5.02.02): Private streets may be used in areas within the PUD where through traffic is not desired and where pavement widths can be narrower than those required on public streets. In such cases, roadway widths of 20 to 24 feet may be used where the design considers traffic volumes, satisfactory off -street parking arrangements, planned snow storage areas, adequate site distances, reason able gradients and turnarounds adequate for emergency vehicles. Furthermore in such cases for commercial, retail and office uses, setbacks of 15 to 25 feet may be used for front and side yards where the design considers the factors noted for roadway widths . At time of platting, the design, construction standards, maintenance responsibility nad policing arrangement will be presented. Staff Analysis: The application indicated that all streets will be dedicated to the public though maintenance obligations will fall onto the HOA. 11.3. Street Widths (Sub. Reg. 5.02.03): Public street widths proposed in the PUD will be determined by projected traffic volume, parking arrangements and other factors at the time of platting. The range of requirements is proposed to be as follows: Street Type Range of Dedicated Right- of-Way Width Range of Roadway Width Arterial 80 to 100 feet 40 to 72 feet Collector 60 to 80 feet 36 to 44 feet Neighborhood or local 40 to 60 feet 24 to 36 feet Staff Analysis: The project narrative states that the proposed interior roads will have 2, 11-foot drive lanes. Parallel parking will be on both sides with curb and gutter. Total R ight of way will be 55 feet with 5-foot utility easements on either side of the street. The provided sections show that roadway width will range from approximately 28.5 feet to 35 feet. The application calculated that there would be approximately 1 on-street parking space per lot. 3-foot sidewalks are included in the Right of Way. The proposed streets fall within the PUD’s guidelines. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 16 Exhibit 6 11.4. Grades, Curves, and Site Distances (Sub. Reg. 5.02.04): Grades, curves, and sight distance will adhere to County standards except that variances may be requested at the time of platting for neighborhood, local, or other low volume traffic streets. Staff Analysis: Nothing in the preliminary plan is outside of the LUDC’s standards for grades, curves, and sight distance. The maximum shown grade is 8% which is the maximum allowed in 7 -107 for a Minor Collector. 11.5. Relationship to Adjacent Slopes (Sub. Reg. 5.02.05): Cut-and-fill slopes are proposed to blend with the natural topography and may extend outside public dedicated street, rights-of-way providing revegetation requirements are met. Staff Analysis: The proposed grading will satisfy 11.5. 11.6. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter (Sub. Reg. 5.02.06): Sidewalk locations will be in accordance with the plat at the time of subdividing and will be sited so as to optimize pedestrian routes through open space to residential, educational and community facilities. Curb and gutter will be placed where necessary to direct storm drainage and where it would add to tease of road edge maintenance. Where a rural character is desired and storm drainage can be handled by ditch swales, curb and gutter may be eliminated. Roadways (Sub. Reg. 5.02.07): Roadways will conform in construction specifications, other than width, to County requirements. Design of roadway surface may vary from parabolic crown to inverted center pitch depending upon storm drainage requirements of various areas within the PUD. Staff Analysis: 3-foot sidewalks are proposed in this application. Curb and gutter is proposed throughout. The proposed lane widths of 11 feet are less than the 7 -107 standards of 12 feet for a minor collector, though the overall road width is within the PUD’s requirements. The proposed asphalt surfacing exceeds 7-107 standards. 11.7. Street Names and Signs (Sub Reg. 5.02.08): Street signs will conform to a uniform system of signs and graphics designed for the total PUD area. Staff Analysis: No street name or graphics have been provided. 11.8. Minimum Standards for Zero-Lot-Line and Townhouse Projects: In zero-lot-line and townhouse projects the following minimum standards must be observed for either public or private streets: 1. A minimum of 20 feet of access drive and fire lane must be provided. 2. A minimum of 3 feet for sidewalks on each side of the access drive must be provided adjacent to the drive. 3. A minimum of 20 feet must be provided adjacent to one side of the access drive for utility easements which may incorporate the sidewalk area. Staff Analysis: 3-foot sidewalks are proposed in this application. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 17 Exhibit 6 Section 5-302.C. Preliminary Plan Review Staff Analysis: Preliminary Plan applications for Major Subdivisions require notice to be meet by posting, mailing, and publication. The review criteria was provided above under Applicable Regulations and requires that the application meet Article 7, Divisions 1 -4 and other applicable regulations. The following section contains staff’s analysis for those sections Table 5-401: Application Submittal Requirements – Preliminary Plan 1) Section 4-203.B General Application Materials Staff Analysis: The General Application materials were provided before the application was deemed technically complete. 2) Section 4-203.C Vicinity Map Staff Analysis: Was provided. 3) Section 4-203.E Grading and Drainage – Staff Analysis: The application states that the site in question is not a major collector of stormwater due to the natural local topography. A grading and drainage report was included in the original application. This report proposed two onsite detention ponds designed to accommodate the 25 year, 1 hour storm. Each pond contained overflow conveyance systems to accommodate the 100 year, 1 hour storm. The proposal divided Half Moon neighborhood into two basins with the pond 1 designed to hold the western ROW stormwater and pond 2 the eastern ROW runoff. Stormwater would be conveyed north to Parcel 240718100006. This general arrangement was not altered in response to comments from the Planning Commission Hearing. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has provided the receipt for the CDPHE stormwater permit application. That permit can be finalized as a condition of approval for the final plat. Though the applicant has provided an agreement for the easement on the northern parcel, it should be expanded to encompass all the proposed earth work, revegetation and stormwater discharge. The consulting engineer expressed concerns regarding un-detained stormwater discharging onto Northstar Trail and into the northern parcel, future homes disrupting the stormwater pattern, and . The application represents that the future, individual lot developers and owners will be responsible for maintaining stormwater functionality across their lots in ways to conform to the proposed drainage plan. 4) Section 4.203.F Landscape Plan Staff Analysis: In response to staff and Planning Commission comments, the applicant has provided updated landscape plan since the Commission’s Public Hearing. Originally, the landscape plan was for angular gravel in all shared open space. The new landscape plan shows plantings in these areas among the gravel base. The proposed landscaping is a mixture of trees (including Box Elder, Common Hackberry, and Honey Locust), shrubs (butterfly bush, rabbit brush, and sand cherry), and grasses. These plantings will help maintain some level of ecologic functions as well as visually soften hardscape surfacing. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 18 Exhibit 6 The consulting engineer provided comments about the placing of some landscaping in relation to stormwater features. Exact planting locations should be located to take those comments into consideration. Further discussion in 7-303. Figure 6 Half Moon Aerial 5) Section 4-203.G : Impact Analysis: Staff Analysis: The impact analysis addressed the LUDC’s required topics. The application laid out the adjacent land uses, which can be seen in the image above. The proposed uses would be compatible with those uses. The existing site features according to the application include previously disturbed area vegetated by semi-arid grasses with little slope. No significant man-made or natural hazards were identified in the application’s impact analysis. Colorado Geologic Survey’s (CGS)referral comments corroborated this in regards to geologic hazards. Further discussion of hazards in Article 7 below. The application combined “Soil Characteristics” and “Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas” in a section that mentioned an attached Geotech report that had not been included with the application. CGS recommended lot specific Geotech analysis be performed at building permit to determine appropriate foundation, irrigation, and related mitigation. The impact analysis states that stormwater system will remove contaminates and release at historic rates. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 19 Exhibit 6 The impact analysis focused on flora and fauna impacts. The development of the site will remove “native” in favor of vegetation associated with neighborhood developments. The application states that trees will be required. The application put forward that the site was not important for wildlife. Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) comments indicated that the site is within the winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration range of both mule deer and elk. Their comments also indicated the site is within bear and mountain lion “human conflict zones.” Their recommendations include using wildlife friendly fencing, education on not leaving pets unattended, and taking other steps to reduce possible human/wildlife conflicts. Nuisances common to construction are expected to occur and be mitigated during the construction phase of the project. Hours of operation would be limited to 7 AM to 6 PM during construction to reduce conflict and nuisance impacting the surrounding properties. 6) Section 4-203.K: Improvement Agreements Staff Analysis: A draft SIA was included in a format that has been used here before. Prior to submittal of a Final Plat, an updated SIA acceptable to the County Attorney’s office will need to be presented along with the acceptable (to the BOCC) security. A cost estimate for improvements was not provided will be addressed as a recommended condition of approval . 7) Section 4-203.L: Traffic Study Staff Analysis: The application included a traffic study that included estimates for 47 instead of 48 dwelling units. Based on the provided estimates and common practices, staff estimates the additional dwelling unit would generate 10 trips per day. The consulting engineer noted that the intersection of Stone Quarry Rd and Battlement Mesa Pkwy as well as the intersection West Battlement Mesa Pkwy and North Battlement Mesa Pkwy have been historically problematic but were not included in the study. Staff notes that the intersection of Stone Quarry Rd and Battlement Mesa Pkwy is within 1 mile of the property according to the traffic study map, included here. The traffic study estimated an increase of local traffic by amount 444 vehicles per day. This increase does not trigger detailed traffic studies Figure 7 Existing Vegetation Figure 8 Traffic Study Area File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 20 Exhibit 6 per Section 4-203.L.1.b. The traffic study concl uded that the proposed develop will increase local traffic by 10% and will not warrant additional mitigation at existing intersections and the proposed streets and intersections providing access to the Half Moon Subdivision are sufficient. Figure 9 Traffic Study Existing Counts Staff notes that the proposed increased traffic should be acceptable to the existing and proposed infrastructure included in the study. Staff echoes the consulting engineers request for inclusion of the intersection of Stone Quarry Rd and Battlement Pkwy in the study. The Town of Parachute requested the County consider additional, long-term infrastructure needs of Battlement Pkwy as it crosses the Colorado River and enters the Town. Those roadways were outside of the study area for this project. Road impact fees will be charged at the time of building permit. Citizens provided comments related to concerns about increases in traffic in Battlement Mesa. One requested that traffic control measures be installed along Northstar Trail. Several requested improvements to Battlement Mesa Parkway, specifically where it approaches the Colorado River and narrows into 2-Lanes. 8) Section 4-203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan – Staff Analysis: The application includes a will -serve letter from the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD) indicating adequate water rights and supply to serve the proposal. The Application includes proposed waterline locations to serve each lot. The Consulting Engineer recommended encasing the all water supply lines and mains in accordance with standards or placing them above the sewer lines. The Application’s Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Report includes additional information on the capacity of BMMD and its ability to provide adequate service to Half Moon. 9) Section 4-203.N.1 Wastewater Management – Staff Analysis: The BMMD will serve letter addressed wastewater management as well. As above, the consulting engineer recommends altering the layout of the sewer and water lines or the applicant needs to provide additional design informati on related to protecting water lines and main. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 21 Exhibit 6 The Application’s Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Report includes additional information on the capacity of BMMD and its ability to provide adequate service to Half Moon. 10) Section 5-402.E Preliminary Plan – Staff Analysis: The application’s preliminary plan (shown on the following page and in the application packet) Provides a summary of the application’s proposals. Final Plan (and Plat) will need to show all easements in addition to the material shown. All updates required by the BOCC shall be included on these documents at the time of Final Plat. 11) Section 5-402.H Visual Analysis – Staff Analysis: the visual analysis shows the proposed residential density and possible mass ing of future structures. The proposed neighborhood is similarly scaled as the surrounding developments. 12) Section 5-402.I. Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions – Staff Analysis: The application included a draft version of the Codes, Covenants, and Restricti ons. These contain the following language. A maintenance easement on the zero-lot-line edge of the property will be designated for each property. This easement can be used for access to maintain the house with written notice of (x) days given to neighbor. Roof projections of up to (10") are permissible in the easement, but all roof projections must be guttered, and gutters must outlet onto owner’s own property. No sheds, lean-tos, or general storage facilities may be placed in the easement, nor lean against a neighbor's structure. No vegetation shall touch a neighbor's structure and irrigation for such vegetation will be no closer than 1' from a neighbor’s structure and will not overspray onto a neighbor's structure. This language addresses previous concerns regarding easements along the zero-lot-lines. Article 7 Standards 1) Section 7-101 Zone District Use Regulations – Staff Analysis: The proposal’s conformation to the PUD zoning regulations was discussed in more detail above. The subdivision largely conforms to the PUD’s zoning regulations. 2) Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and IGA’s – Staff Analysis: The proposal complies with the comprehensive plan’s guidelines. The Town of Parachute provided referral comments related to encouraging annexation and providing assistance for improving access from the town to Battlement Mesa. 3) Section 7-103 Compatibility – Staff Analysis: The proposed zero-lot-line neighborhood would be compatibility with the surrounding, existing neighborhoods. 4) Section 7-104 Source of Water – Staff Analysis: The neighborhood would be served by the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 22 Exhibit 6 5) Section 7 -105 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater systems – Staff Analysis: The neighborhood would be served by the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District. 6) Section 7-106 Public Utilities – Staff Analysis: The application proposes 5-foot easements along the roadways for the placement of utility lines, pedestals. The proposal indicates that easements will be buried and installed per the providers specifications. Utility site plans and preliminary engineering plans were provided. Consulting engineer provided some additional comments regarding utility placement, specifically that 18” of separation should be provided between water and sewer lines. 7) Section 7-107 Access and Roadways – Staff Analysis: See discussion above in the PUD sections. 3.12. Section 7-108 Land Subject to Natural Hazards – Staff Analysis: There were no identified natural hazards identified within the property. 3.13. Section 7-109 Fire Protection – Staff Analysis: The application proposed fire hydrates that will be served by water from the BMMD. The application was referred to the Grand Valley River Fire District, who reviewed the material and had no further concerns with the proposal. Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards - 1) Section 7-201 Agricultural Lands – Staff Analysis: There are no further impacts on agricultural lands that would impact this Section from this proposal. 2) Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas – Staff Analysis: CPW’s referral comments included analysis on winter habitats that may be impacted by the proposal as well as some mitigation strategies for lessoning those impacts. 3) Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies – Staff Analysis: There are no wetlands or waterbodies directly impacted by this proposal. 1) Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion – Staff Analysis: The included drainage and erosion report and preliminary engineering plans lay out the stormwater calculations and designs. No CDPHE permit was included with the application. Revised plans were provided in response to the Consulting Engineer’s previous comments and the Planning Commission’s public hearing. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 23 Exhibit 6 File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 24 Exhibit 6 The grading and drainage plan includes two detentions ponds with overflow conveyance designed to carry historic flows into the property to the north. The consulting engineer noted some vegetation within the path of a proposed drainage swell. The application represents that each lot will be responsible for its ind ividual flow. Grading and drainage at the time of the building permits will have to be done in a way to address the consulting engineer’s comments 12 and 13 from the letter dated August 3, 2022. 2) Section 7-205 Environmental Quality – Staff Analysis: The proposal states that any hazardous materials will be stored according to regulations during construction. It also states it will not alter air quality. 3) Section 7-206 – Wildfire Hazards – Staff Analysis: The property is mapped as being within the Wildland-Urban Interface, but it was mapped on the County’s Wildfire Risk map as being in the lowest to no Wildfire Risk and very low to low Burn Probability. This map uses Co Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal Dataset (Co -WRAP). 4) Section 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards – Staff Analysis. CGS noted that no significant geologic hazards impact the proposal other than expansive soils. The application referenced a geotechnical engineering report that recommended surface drainage be directed away from building envelopes and routed to natural drainage paths in such a way as to not impact adjacent properties. 5) Section 7-208 Reclamation – Staff Analysis: The application includes a revegetation plan as part of its erosion control plan. This plan includes a seed mixture and proposes to reseed all areas after finish grading. Some northern portions of the property Division 3 Site Planning and Development Standards – 1) Section 7-301 Compatible Design – Staff Analysis: The proposed layout means new streets will align with existing intersections. The proposed homes will blend with the surrounding neighborhoods, and the provided off and on -street parking will be able to accommodate parking needs. 2) Section 7-302 Off Street Parking – Staff Analysis: The proposal includes 2-car garages for each lot as well as driveways with adequate space to park 2 vehicles, meeting the requirements. The application’s preliminary plans include road sections. However, it is not identified on the maps where each section will be used and which sections are intended to have parking with them. 3) Section 7-303 Landscape Plan – Staff Analysis: The application uses seed mixture from CPW Native Plant Revegetation Guide. Garfield County Vegetation Management reviewed the application and had no additional comments. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 25 Exhibit 6 Updated site plans responded to comments and conditions of approval from the Planning Commission Hearing. The proposed landscape plan is on the following page. It shows plantings along Northstar Trail and the proposed open space lots. As noted by the consulting engineer, some of the planting may need to be rearranged so as to not interfere with stormwater inflow and outflow within the detention areas in open space lots 1 and 2. 4) Section 7-304 Lighting – Staff Analysis: The application states that streetlights will meet this requirement. 5) Section 7-305 Snow Storage – Staff Analysis: The application includes area for snow storage along the sides of streets and in the open space lots. 6) Section 7-306 Trails and Walkways – Staff Analysis: Staff Analysis: The applicant modified their proposal to include 3 foot sidewalks along the proposed interior streets. These s idewalks include mountable curbs. These meet the requirements of the PUD. These connections will allow for pedestrian access outside of Half Moon and to the adjacent trail system. Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications – 1) Section 7-401 General Subdivision Standards – Staff Analysis: The application’s draft CC&R’s include maintenance of the shared spaces. The application states that Battlement Mesa’s HOA already addresses domestic animal control. No FEMA floodplains are located on the property. A Plat Note related to item (C) should be included in the Final Plat. The applicant should provide the section of the additional CC&R’s that fulfill item (B)’s requirements or provide those in the proposed CC&R. 2) Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots Staff Analysis: The proposed lots must meet the PUD’s requirements discussed above for size. The other geometric requirements of this section are meet. 3) Section 7-403 Survey Monuments: Staff Analysis: Survey Monuments will need to be installed according to these standards upon the filing of the Final Plat. 4) Section 7-404: School Land Dedication Staff Analysis: the applicant plans to pay the fee-in-lie instead of dedicating any land to School District 16. These fees are collected at the time of Final Plat. 5) Section 7-405 Road impact fees - Staff Analysis: Road impact fees are collected at the time of building permit. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 26 Exhibit 6 Figure 10 Landscape Plan File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 27 Exhibit 6 ADDITIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS Further residential development within Battlement Mesa is supported by Garfield County’s Comprehensive Plan. Battlement Mesa has adequate central services to meet the requirements of the neighborhood, and it continues to focus development within an area al ready compromised for wildlife habitat or agricultural uses. The applicant responded to items that the Planning Commission recommended they address prior to the Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. The application proposes sidewalks that fulfill the PUD’s requirements for neighborhood’s using zero-lot-lines. These sidewalks are 3-feet wide. The applicant provided additional response related to the previous deed restriction. Updates were made to the preliminary engineering plan set, and the landscape plan was updated accordingly. Grading and drainage plans plan to discharge stormwater largely into the Arroyo Parcel but also onto Northstar Trail. The final plan/plat will need to provide easement language for the proposed work and stormwater discharge. Landscape plans and utility plans should be updated in accordance with the consulting engineer’s comments. In summary, staff finds that the application fulfills the requirements of a preliminary plan application. Staff recommends several conditions of approval for items to be further addressed at the time of final plat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Garfield County Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 27, 2022. They voted 6 -1 to recommend approval based on the following findi ngs and with the following recommended conditions of approval. The applicant responded to the recommended Conditions of Approval by making alterations to the application. The Staff Report represents these updated submittals and addresses specific responses to Planning Commission comments. PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or through submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 3. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, the application shall address the PUD’s sidewalk requirements found in 11.9 and provide preliminary engineering documents as necessary. Sidewalks must also fulfill any applicable Federal or State design requirements, such as ADA. 4. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, the existing deed restriction shall be removed to the satisfaction of Garfield County Staff, including the Garfield County Attorney’s Office. 5. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, materials demonstrating the Half Moon parcel’s right discharge stormwater into the Arroyo Parcel and Northstar Trail shall be provided. This File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 28 Exhibit 6 shall include information demonstrating the proposal’s compliance with existing Battlement Mesa stormwater and drainage plans. 6. Prior to a public hearing before the Boa rd, CDPHE permits or related information shall be provided. 7. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, comments from Staff and/or the County’s Consulting Engineer (dated February 24, 2022) related to updated stormwater, grading and drainage, and utility plans shall be addressed. 8. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, information/agreements showing that proposed grading, stabilization, and stormwater work on the Arroyo Parcel is acceptable to the owner shall be provided. 9. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, the applicant shall provide additional information or an updated landscape plan that demonstrates appropriate ground cover in fulfillment of 7- 303 Landscaping Standards. 10. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, draft language related to the required 3 -foot easements for zero-lot-lines shall be submitted and reviewed by staff. 11. The following shall be included in the Final Plat. A. A plat note regarding the use of Wildlife Safe Fencing in accordance with CPW’s comments dated February 20, 2022 shall be included. B. A plat note related to 7-401.C Fireplaces shall be included on the final plat. C. A plat note explaining the 3-foot easements for drainage, access, maintenance, ect of zero-lot-line homes shall be included. D. A plat note addressing the removal of restrictions placed on the parcel from Monument Creek Village, Section 2 at Reception #449641 shall be included. E. A plat note clarifying whether building envelopes are allowed projections or shall be included. F. The Applicant shall fulfill the requirements of 7-401 B Domestic Animal Control within the proposed covenants or provide the portion of Battlement Mesa’s covenants that fulfill this requirement. 12. Prior to a public hearing before the Board, the applicant shall provide information to show the future development will comply with the Battlement Mesa Through Lot setback requirements (10.4) including either a 20-foot setback or a 10-foot setback with a solid screening fence. STAFF’S ANLAYSIS OF THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) No response necessary. 2) No response necessary. 3) The updated plan set includes 3-foot sidewalks throughout the proposed subdivision. Plan Details show the sidewalks attached to 1.5 foot mountable curb and gutter system. 4) The applicant has provided a correction deed removing the previous deed restriction as well as an opinion letter to the Attorney’s Offi ce representing said removal. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 29 Exhibit 6 5) The applicant has provided a sign ed statement from the Arroyo property owner (one of the applicants) agreeing to the stormwater easement. 6) Receipt for the CDPHE application was provided. Permit can be provided as a COA or at Final Plat. 7) Updated application materials largely addressed the Consulting Engineers comments. Staff referred the updated application back to the consulting engineer who has provided additional comments that will be addressed as necessary. 8) The updated application provided the easement agreement, which may cover these items. 9) Additional information was provided in the updated application. 10) Draft covenants included easement language for the zero -lot-line maintenance. This includes some discussion of projection, guttering, and time period for required notice of encumbered neighbor. 11) Items to be addressed at the time of Final Plat. 12) Fencing is proposed, but cannot be seen due to the lines on the site plans. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners approves with conditions the Half Moon Preliminary Plan with the following findings and conditions. 1) That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2) That the public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3) That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Preliminary Plan approval is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4) That subject to compliance with conditions of approval, the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 5) That subject to compliance with conditions of approval the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended and the Battlement Mesa PUD, as amended. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or through submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2) The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 3) At the time of final plat, the lot numbering shall be corrected prior to Final Plat. 4) At the time of final plat, complete easement information and/or agreements allowing proposed grading, stabilization, and stormwater discharge on the Arroyo Parcel shall be provided and recorded as appropriate. File No. SPPA-11-21-8870 BOCC September, 06, 2022 Staff Planner: Philip Berry, AICP 30 Exhibit 6 5) The following plat notes shall be included in the Final Plat. A. A plat note regarding the use of Wildlife Safe Fencing in accordance with CPW’s comments dated February 20, 2022 shall be included. B. A plat note fulfilling 7-401.C Fireplaces shall be included on the final plat. C. A plat note explaining the zero-lot-line easements for drainage, access, and maintenance shall be included. D. A plat note addressing the removal of restrictions placed on the parcel from Monument Creek Village, Section 2 at Reception #449641 shall be included. 6) Prior to Final Plat, additional documentation regarding projections outside building envelopes, setbacks, and property lines will be provided to Garfield County Community Development. This should address legal and building code topics acceptable to Garfield County Building department. A plat note regarding this may be required. 7) CDPHE stormwater management permits or related information shall be provided with the Application for a Final Plat. 8) Utility contacts on sheet C002 shall be checked and updated with the Final Plat submittal. 9) Comments from Staff and/or the County’s Consulting Engineer (dated August 3, 2022) related to updated stormwater, grading and drainage, landscape plan, and utility plans shall be addressed in the Final Plan application. 10) At the time of final plat, the traffi c study will be updated to include the intersection of Stone Quarry Rd and Battlement Parkway . The applicant will comply with any recommendations approved by Garfield County Community Development and Road and Bridge. 11) A complete Subdivision Improvement Agreement with cost estimates and security will be provided at the time of Final Plan and Plat. 12) At Final Plat, the applicant shall provide street names acceptable to Garfield County Addressing (Building Department) as well as the Fire District. EXHIBIT 7. CPW COMMENTS CPW COMMENTS CONT. EXHIBIT 8. CDPHE GENERAL COMMENTS EXHIBIT 9. EXHIBIT 10. XCEL ENERGY COMMENTS EXHIBIT 11. CONSULTING ENGINEER EXHIBIT 12. TOWN OF PARACHUTE EXHIBIT 13. HOLY CROSS ENERGY EXHIBIT 14. CDOT EXHIBIT 15. BATTLMENT MESA CO EXHIBIT 16. GVFPD EXHIBIT 17. GARFIELD COUNTY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT 18. GARFIELD COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE EXHIBIT 19. GARFIELD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH '". [:IllDED dä#trr,o¡ cLocx P .tq. JtlL 0 B 1993 ¡{ILDRED ALSD0Rf r COUI{TY'CtERK GIRFIELD GOtlHTTr CO¡-0R¡'ù0 B00t( JULOS GARFI St€rte Dos.BnRsåIì¡ ANÞ sÀ$B DEED signed this \o-J daY of \"-".f 9. 1993, by Communit Partner v Witness rny hand and of f icial seal ' My comrnission exPires: blçlm. ." BATrLEIÍENT l{EsA PARTNERS (Grantor) ' "yt Conmunity Holdlngs.West, Inc', a cälorado Corþoration, its General' Partner Battle¡nent Mesa Partners, a-99l9ra$o ge4:r?l part'nerghlp' (Grantor) wnoså äããr"åã-iãtásis [frc Parkr¡ay, suite 360, Englewood; colorado aorrt; ;;;-r;; óãríã"ã -tSro.99) aid other eo$ end-valuable ä;îä;"ãiã"-í"-iã"a-Ë.lal -r,ãt"Ëy.serrä ilg goTvevs t'o Garrierd County School óistrict- lq, a- polillç"t eubdivision of the State of cotorado, whosã-;ãä;;"-rå-p"ãt off lce Box: 68, Farachute' colorado ãiããs:ôoåa, (d;;Ëäi-tnã-råirãrt.s descrlbed real property to vit: Restricted Resènte rrcer t tor,,råäIi:Ëtäãx-vitt^g", s-ect'isn rwo' of thè Battlenent Mesa l'U'D''Garfield CountY, Coloradc' - "o"tãfnint 9.fãå acresr.and restricting the use of such pt"Pãili áorerY to P¡'rb1ic use with all its appurtenances, subject to lj) all -encunbrances and resrrictions ;ã';;;;;á priår to Hay 1, iget and (iÍ) the right's and títle of any condenning ãuthority'llt¡ 1993. By: Tit,le:Vr..e.ße.S.>e-¡\lt-' STATE OF COÍ,ORADO )) ss. COUNTY OF .GÀRFIEI,D ) Sub scribed and sworn to before ne this v of Iforas ngs Wes!,Inc., a Co orado Corpora t ona General of Battlement He sa Partners. v L ffiF,NV LflU EtXT0tt1 c EXHIBIT 7 3 Ph¡li From: Sent: To: Subiect: Chris@m ountai ncross-eng'com FridaY, APril 22, ?022 5:06 PM PhiliP Berry lExternal] Halfmoon Subdivision Philip: ' l reviewed the items rabered âs .,revised,, ín the Dropbox rink. The other items in there seemed to be duplicates from the previous ,ubm¡tt"i. rf this is not tr," ""r" pLrr"',rJuir" an¿ r witt review revised documentation' Arso, no response letter or narrative was provided that descriuei r]ow application r"i".irt. were revised from my previous comments' The forowing comments are thereforu "rruril¿'io-u" "a¿¡tionrl to the previous cornment letter dated 02-24-22' Thedrainagedesignappearstohavechanged.Updatedreportandcalculationsshouldbeprovided. rhe Applicant should il;;;tÀ" t¡" in manhole a"l*:.tl?:5'connection necessarv' No invert elevation ¡nrà*rtion is provided on the in sewer pipe inlets and outlets' Sewer lateral stuU-outs stopes and elevations should be provided' offset dîmensions betweei sewer and water lines needs to be shown on the plans' lntersection with Northstar trail is to steep "nJ Jo., not meet the intersection grade standards' Lower Road intersection wittr upper *""¿ r.rJ"r should be verified with the standards' Water line high point ãn it^zù*zo needs provisions for air release' provisions for erosion control need to n. prouia"¿ at the p¡pe ¡nlets and outlets at the detention pond' pond ourlet structure ;;;;r" storage discharge information needs to be provided' pond outret discharges on the hitside. rrorion ñ-tection of tt"'" "mtankment below the outlet needs to be ents.provided, .- ,.,!!:__ ^^r Lainroc neecìs to have permission g. -... -offsitedisturbanceforgrading,utilities,anddrainageneedstohavepermissiongrantedthrougheasem Feel free to call or email with any questions or comments' $lncerelY, S¿drJrtnt;rirr {r¿r*l Éngineerìng, lnc' Chris þiale, F"E' 8?6 11.Ê'Grand Avenr:e Ctenrnøooct'$çl,rin'gs ÜO 8"1s01 Fir. E7Ð.945..5'544 Fx '$70 945'5558 Froml Philip Berry <pberry@garfield-cou nty'com> Sent: ThursdaY, APril 74,2022 5:06 PM To : Ch ris@ r4ountai ncross-eng' com Subiect: FWr [Externall Updates for PC Hey chris, l have asked thatthe fires be uproaded to our website but Brooke is out of the office today' The email to their ,,dropbox,, site is berow if you want ,o try to ,aaess them directry. l've attached your previous comments for reference' Thanks PhiltP Berry, AICP v, FÉ:n:ã,r,rsrrt P l a n n e r Çtr!@lÉ'gEsIrul:-lc'psfÌqüun lry-Þgli€iÞËiülgıLËÊìÈê{!!!9-!!l t MOU ENGTNEERING, INC. Givil and Environmental Gonsulting and Design August 3,2022 Mr. Philip Beuy Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Halfmoon Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application: SPAA-I1-21-8870 Review of Additional Information Provided Dcar Philip This office has reviewed the additional documentation provided for the land use application of Halfmoon Subdivision, The review generated the following additional comments: 1, It has been over six months since the list of adjacent property owners was prepared. The Applicant should verif, the list is cut'rent. 2. The landscape plan shows extensive vegetation in the proposed detention ponds. The plan should be updated to avoid planting conflicts with proposed piping. Also, the proposed plants shoulcl be verifiecl for tolerance to potentially frequent inundation or revised to accommodate the anticipated flooding levels. 3. The Northstar'l'rail proposed landscaping is directly in the path ofthe proposed drainage swale. Plants and plan should be revised to resolve this conflict. 4, Provide lS" separation between water and sewer. This separation should be provided on the sewel laterals and water lines, too. 5. Security for tire SIA will be necessary. The Applicant should submit an engineer's estimate of plobable construction costs to be usecl for the security amount. 6. Applicant proposes zero-setback lot-line on one side of the lot. These tend to be problematic with trespass fi'om neighboring storm runoff, roof eaves, fencing, etc. The Applicant should provide more information about what will be allowed. Additional information on the size and uses allowed in this easement needs to be addtessed, 7. The Applicant should provide a Plat showing applicable easernents fbr review. 8. The project plans show extensive grading to the propeúy to the north. The Applicant should plovide evidence that this is acceptable to the northern property owner. 9. The utility contacts shown on Sheet C002 should be verified and revised as may be applicable. 10. The rvater line needs to be encased beneath the sewer main on sheet C303 at Sta. i20+10 (+i). 1 1. The intersections of Stone Quarry ancl Battlement Parkway and East Battlement Parkway ancl V/est Battlement Parkway were not included in tlie traffic study. These intersections are historically problematic. The traffic study should be revised to show the impacts that the increase fi'om proposed project traffic would have on these intersections, 826Y"Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 P: 970.945.5544 F; 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Halfmoon ?age2 of2 Algtrst,2022 12. The Grading plan shows runoff from the proposed lots draining uncletained to l.hc proper{.y to the nofth and to Nolth Star Dlive to the south, The Applicant should justif, the undetained hardscape or revise the grading plan to capture and detaining runofffrom these areas. 13. The Grading plan does not account for the interruption that buildings will have on drainage. The grading should be revised to anticipate the runoff patterns with buildings constructed Guidance should be added in the CCRs to require these drainage pattems be maintained as vedical construction begins. Feel fi'ee to call if you have any questions ot comments. Cross ¡\ Hale, PE Mountain Cross Enqineering. lnc. Clvll and Envlronmental Consultlng and Declgn 826 % Grand Av€nue, Glenwood Springs, CO 8160'l P: 970.946.5644 F: 970.945.5568 www.mountainoross-eng.oom Philip Berry From: Sent: To: Sheryl Bower Friday, April 29, 2022 8:54 AM Philip Berry FW: lExternal] Gar-field County website inquirySubject: .sherul L Bower, Alc?<./ Community Development Director 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-94s-1377 (160s) From: Tom J an kovsky <tja n kovsky@ ga dÍel d-cou nty. co m > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 8:26 ÃM To: Sheryl Bower <sbower@ garfield-cou nty.com> Subject: Fwd: [External] Garfield County website inquiry Sentfrom my iPad Begin forwarded message From: noreplv@formstack.conr Date: April 29,2A22 at 8:08:39 AM MDT To : Tom Ja nkovsky <tiankovskv@SAIfield-cQu ntv.com> Subject: lExternall Garfield County website inquiry Repþ-To: dad info@netzero.net br SuÞject: Half Moon Subdivision Battelment Mesa Name: David Streeter Email : dadinfo@netzero. net Phone Number: {72O) 629-4971 Message: I reside at 28 Limberpine Circle Canyon View. I attended the recent Planning commiãsion meeting. Brief discussion was given to traffic impact. I feelthis matter needs more 1 attention. I do not feel traffic control should be the sole responsibility of the developer" Thank you. 2 76 EXHIBIT Ph¡l¡ From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Samuel Wardell <samuelwardell@hotmail.com> Saturday, July 23,2A22 3:34 PM Philip Berry [External] Opininln and Concerns about SPPA-11-21-8870 Flag for follow up Flagged For the County Commissioners: When considering the development of Rising Tides Enterprises proposed development located in Section L8, Township 7 South, Range, 95 (located in Monurnent Creek Village, Battlement Mesa), I think it is necessary to consider the impacts this and future developing subdivisions will have on the traffíc and fire protection. Currently, many in the community ere very concerned wíth the traffic build up at the bottom the Battlement Mesa pkwy (where the two sections of the Pkwy meet). As traffic increases there wíll be a need for a light or traffic circle. Additionally, with the recent fire in the communitç many are wondering if increased development will irnpede evacuation routes and fire suppression. Overall, my biggest concern (along with some of my neighbors) is further development of Battlement Mesa without infrastructure improvement will lead to nuisance traffic situations and fire evacuations. Anyway, I am not against development. ljust want to make sure things are not being approved without considering the impact it may have on an aging infrastructure. Kind regards, SamuelWardell 1 åe EXHI 7 Ph¡t¡ From: Sent: To: Subject; Dennis Braspenninx <braspend@hotmail.com> Ihursday, July 14, 2022 9:22 PM Philip Berry lExternall Half Moon Subdivision Sirs: I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to address my concerns and opinions on Major Subdivision, Preliminary Plan by Rising Tídes Enterprises, LLC, commonly known as the Half Moon Subdivision. in L993 Monument Creek Village was granted a re-subdivision on the condition that the property in question was deeded to the Garfíeld County School District No. 16 restricting the property to public school use only. The deed was executed and recorded. ln 2O07 the school district decided to sell the property. I was living at 46 Cedar Court at this time and I do not recall any public input on the sale of school propefty or on the rezoníng of the property. I am sure that some high-priced lawyers had covered theír bases but the whole deal reeks of impropriety. As the land was gifted to the school and was restricted to school use only, that restriction should remain with the land. I know this project will go through to cornpletion no matter what the current resísents in the neighborhood say, because money talks in political circles and the developer certainly has the rnoney and lawyers to see it happen. But since I was given the opportunity to voice my opinion, I have taken that opportunity. Dennis Braspenninx 48 Cedar Court, Battlement Mesa I EXHIBIT *a Ph¡ti From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Beth Bascom <10421b@gmail.corn> Sunday, )uly 24,2A2210:03 PM Philip Berry lExternal] Rising Tides Enterprises, LLC: application for Major Subdivision, section 18, township 7, range 95, #319924 Flag for follow up Flagged I am one of the parties that will be affected by this new subdivision. I am unable to attend the meeting to approve, deny or approve with condÍtíons. I am requesting the board to consider approving with conditions and to address this issue' The residents of Canyon View Subdivision have an upper and lower entry into the cornplex off of NorthStar. The name of the street is Limberpine Circle. The upper entrence is situated on a "blind curve". lt ís extremely difficult to see vehicles approaching, especÍally if they are driving over the speed limít. They are on top of you before you even see them. This subdivision will basically add 100 more vehicles travelling on Northstar twice a day, potentially adding 2CI0 additional tríps. Should the developers decide to continue Limberpine Circle across the street and ínto their subdívision, we need to make it a 4 way stop at this intersection (upper Limberpine Circle and NorthStar). Even if they do not continue Limberpine into their development, we still need a 3 way stop at the intersection of Limberpine Circle (upper) and Northstar to assist with the additional traffic and to make the íntersection safer. We have had several close calls with vehicles travelling on Northstar and other vehicles trying to exit out of Canyon View, onto Northstar from Limberpine Circle. The additional traffic will only add to a location that is already problematíc. Roundabouts would work, stop signs are a lot cheaper! I appreciate your time and consideration Thank you, Beth Bascom 27 Limberpine Circle å^qEXHIBIT C connect one t) {.51{: *'á BASALT | ;.,'.,;' t.,; t : :): .,, ....:,.1 :.:t:: .,i:l ,t,:.1.: : t t .1.:.,,;,2, : .a.::a.../. t l,:..,:.1,,::'..r::'l: , :,::, :,:'l;.: I l;.:,,¡,',': ,t:,t.r..1': ,. tt./...t..t. . t, ;,'.t,t,.,,:..1.,,":,t"'1.,:a:.: a'aa,..,,:,ti:.:.11.,.,.1 :':.;i.,i:, 1 . .,: ,.. Half Moon Development Responses to Comments 1. lt has been over six months since the list of adjacent properly o\.\,-rlers rvas prepared. The Applicant should verify the list is current. 2. The landscape plan shou's exlensive vegetation in the proposed detention ponds. The plan should be updated to avoid planting conflicts with proposed piping. Also. the proposed plants should be verified for tolerance to potentiallS.' frequent inundation or revised to accommodate the anticipated flooding levels. ()L(ìir\irrrìiìl i ili.lrttlati, tll. 3. The NoÍhstar Trail proposed landscapirg is directly.'inthe path ofthe proposed drainage srvale. Plants and plan should be revised to resolve this conflict. lhc.cnalir. ¿lnd fjlr:1\tttr'ilt)iì1'ori:el Lr¡ llii: ¡¡*;lii: rrrll bç br:n,-'ficial to the: irl¡llls 4. Provide 18" separation between rvater and se\,ver. This separation should be provided on the se\ver laterals and *'ater lines. too. ,'\ 18" g1'se¡raralr*rr is; ¡lor,rcl,-rd i.i,.:lriç:i:ll rr':r1.cr"and scucr-¡llil is silt¡rtll ort lìic pl;itts 5. Securiry.' for the SIA rvill be necessary. The Applicant should subrnit an engineer's estimate. of probable construction costs to be used for the securitv amount. iud for'{hc crcatiol i;f'lhir SIA 6. Applicant proposes zero-setback lot-line on one side of the lot. These tend to be problematic rvith trespass from neighboring storm runoff, roof eaves. fencing, etc. The Applicant should provide more infomration about rvhat r,r'ill be allorl,ed. Additional information on the size and uses allorved in this easement needs to be addressed. ,,\ Addrtional inlil'uration on thc cascnrcnts nrclucling drainagc aud Llscs is ¡rror idccl in thc upclatcd l-lalf l\4oou Covcnants. 7. The Applicant should provide a Plat shorving applicable easements fbr revierv. A A ltlclrrriualr ¡tlat is ploviclccl in lhc ¡rackagc ancl a¡rplicablr. c:¿rscmcrlts arc sltoun ort thc ¡tlat. 8. The project plans shorv extensive grading to the property to the north. Tlre Applicant should provide evidence that this is acceptable to the northem propert-v owner. A l'hcuoflliolnpro[]crt\,o\\rìcr'ruldthcllalfN.'loonpropc$\,o\\nerare thcsanrc. \\/riltcna¡rprovalhas bccrt lrrovidccl as uelI as Tcttr¡;ontr, crltrstnrctirr.r cíìscnrÇr'tts. 9. The utility contacts shor,vn on Sheet C002 should be verified and revised as mav be applicable. Ä. Utilitr contacts u ill lrc uptlatcclto llosl crrrrenf lbr liual plat and conslructiou cjocunrcnts 10. The rvater line needs to be errcased beneath the server main on sheet C303 at Sta. 120+10 (+/) ¡\ 'l-he u'ater liuc is abovc thc sr',u'cr bv l.-i7- at this location. Watcl is irluc. scrvcr is grccn on tlrcsc ¡:larts I I The interscctions of Stonc QrrarrS, and Rattlemenl Pa.rkrva,v and East Battlernent Parkrvay and West Battlement Parkw.a,v \\,ere not included in the traffic shrdy. These intersections are historicall-v problematic. Tlre traffic study,' should be revised to shorv the impacts that the increase from proposed project traffic nould have on these intersections. A. Tlre rraffic Stud1, ¡11çs¡* countv rcquircnrcnts and no thrcsholcls Arc or:Lìr thc allon'rrcl ârì]ount to chan:{c the classificalio¡r of tlic studv or to stuch'thcsc lociúions íìs parl ol'this application ol prqùct, 12. The Grading plan shorvs runoff from the proposed lots draining undetailed to the property to the north and to north Star Drive to the south. The Applicant should justifl' the undetained hardscape or revise the grading plan to capture and detaining runoff from these areas. A. N"o r-uuofTout.side of thc ilirilding crl'elo¡rcs is clircctcd tou'arel thc pro¡rcltr'1rr filc llorth so thc¡r uill [ri-: no hardscapc(builclurg] r'Lrnofï. A ¡:nr¡rosecl ditclr luns thc c¡ltirc u'ar, *lclng Nolthstar Dr. ts"r thc soutll so no n'atclcarl cntcr thc stlcct. -l-his u,¡rtcr is all captLrrccl in llrc bro lctcntion poncl onsitc fbr dctcnticxr and trcatnlcnl. 13. The Grading plan does not account for the interruption that buildings rvill have on drainage. The grading should be revised to anticipate the runoff pattems with buildings constructed Guidance should be added in the CCRs to require these drainage pattems be maintained as vertical constnrction begins. À '1hc grading plan is t¡r'er lol urass gradrug. lrrclividual lronrc qlaclirtgs rvill bc ccllliluctccl a:; cacli ¡rropcrlr i:; eicr,clopccl. Grading is rcquircd 1o drain positiycl-r' arrl¡' fìcnr structulcs pcr IRC and thc gcotcchnical rcport. This x'ill bi: rcr,icrvcd at building ¡:crniit ap¡rlicaTions Proviciirtg grading lbr 0 lof lirc sctbacks u ith clnlr 3 f-t. of s¡racc tlctu'r:c:u structurcs is not lpplrrpriatc gircu dislurbancc: and fbunclati¡11 çr1ç¿11:3[icrns dtrrirrg constluction actir ities. 'i. *.iqt¡fr{:itä:,9. {:"T,:{:;t'iffiå<:"{r,}ï2.*. i i i]\\ ) i-" i:.\:..:}.:ttti.::