COUNTY OF ELBERT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 7
215 COMANCHE STREET
KIOWA, COLORADO 80117
303-621-3136 FAX: 303-621-3165
March 2, 2007
for the Planning Commission meeting of
March 8, 2007
To: ELBERT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CURTIS S. CARLSON, PLANNER II
RE: RZ 06-10-20 MILLER RANCH WEST PUD – A REQUEST TO REZONE TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 355.7 ACRES, LOCATED IN A
PORTION OF SECTIONS 15, 21, AND 22, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 64
WEST, IN ELBERT COUNTY.
PP 06-10-03 MILLER RANCH WEST PRELIMINARY PLAT – A REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE 355.7 ACRES TO CREATE A MAXIMUM OF 71 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF SECTIONS 15, 21, AND 22, TOWNSHIP 7
SOUTH, RANGE 64 WEST, IN ELBERT COUNTY.
1041 06-05-06 MILLER RANCH WEST 1041 PERMIT – A REQUEST TO OBTAIN
A 1041 PERMIT AS A NEW COMMUNITY.
APPLICANT: APPLEBEE DEVELOPOMENT COMPANY INC., VERNON
MILLER, PRESIDENT
REPRESENTATIVE: TOM MARONEY
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting the rezoning, subdivision and obtaining a 1041 permit to create a
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD site will encompass 355.7 acres and 71 residential
units and a base density of 1 unit / 5.01 acres.
PERTINENT DATA:
Site Description – The site contains both heavily forested rolling hills and dry-land grazing. Views
of the mountains are available throughout the site.
1
Topography – The topography is hilly including forested and open spaces with several drainage
channels traversing the site.
Flood Plain – No flood plains have been identified.
Existing Zoning – Agriculture (A)
Proposed Zoning – Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning – Miller Ranch West is the first of two project submittals,
provided for an area where the intention is to develop both projects as one, once they are both
approved. Miller Ranch West was designed to meet initial adjacency requirements and provide
adjacency for Miller East. Brittany Ridge provides adjacency along the south. Proceeding
clockwise around the plat, adjoining zoning to the southwest is MH, RA-1, and RA. Proceeding
west again, RA-1 and A-1 zoning is encountered. The west boundary of the parcel boarders on A-1,
AR, and RA-1. A 40 foot wide strip, one half mile long, to the west, obtains adjacency from the
Estates of Hidden Pines. A-1 and A zoning complete the surrounding adjacent parcels.
BACKGROUND:
The original Concept Plan and 1041 permit application were received in February of 2006. The
Planning Commission heard the concept plan on May 11, 2006 and Board of County
Commissioners on May 31. The purpose of these hearings was to receive comment on the
Proposal.
The current application to rezone to PUD and subdivide was received during December of 2006.
A letter from the Planning Department acknowledges that the application was essentially complete
by December 7, 2007. Public hearing dates were established.
EVALUATIONS:
It is a requirement of the Elbert County Zoning Regulations, Part I, Section 6; Subdivision
Regulations, Section VIII – Preliminary Plat, and 1041 Regulations, Chapter 2, Article 1, 2-206 that
referral agencies be utilized to evaluate land use applications. In addition, if the application
involves development of a subdivision it is a requirement of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS
30-28-136), that specific agencies be utilized as referrals on the proposal.
To that end, the Planning Department identified 21 agencies to be utilized for review of this
proposal. In addition to these agencies, the County’s 1041 Regulations (2-206), require that
Mineral Right holders and all surface property owners within 1,320 feet of the proposal be given
referral agency status. The referral status of surface property owners is unique to the 1041
Regulations.
The following is a synopsis of the referral agency responses. Elbert County assumes the referral
agency will respond. If there is no response, Elbert County assumes the referral agency approves
the project. This assumption is enforced in CRS 30-28-136(2) that no response is deemed as
approval of the proposal.
2
Elbert Co Assessor’s Office – This parcel will be re-classified for ad valorem when the use of the
land is no longer for an agricultural endeavor. This re-classification will take effect January 1 the
year following the implementation of the site improvements.
Elbert Co Mapping – All road names need to be approved and put on final plats before recording.
Elbert County Building Department – If individual septic systems are allowed on lots of less then
2.5 acres, a second septic field location is mandatory within the lot design.
Elizabeth Fire District – Please consider these comments as “conditions of approval.”
* Roadways will meet the minimum requirements of the Elbert County road construction
guidelines and the provisions of Section 4, Elizabeth Fire – New Construction and
Development Guide.
* Round-about road design shall be approved by both the Elbert County Road and Bridge
and the Fire Department.
* Approved street signs shall be installed prior to the construction of any building within
the subdivision.
* Developer shall design or provide an approved means for marking each residence. This
marking shall be installed at the entrance to the street and shall meet the following
criteria.
o 4 inch high numbers with a ½” stroke
o Colors that contrast the background
* Developer shall provide an 8 ½” x 11” graphic map of the division that indicates the
Following:
o Lot lines
o Developed and un-developed property addresses
o Fire Hydrant locations
o Directional indicator
o Approved road names
Water Supply (903): Water supply and fire protection provisions shall be provided
prior to and during construction of any structure within the project.
* The Developer shall provide a minimum fire flow of 1000 gallons per minute for a 60-
minute duration using a central water delivery system for residential only. This flow
shall be provided in excess of the normal domestic water demand. The central delivery
system shall be engineered to provide such flow using listed equipment and methods
approved by this office.
* A plan review and final acceptance test of all hydrants and auxiliary appliances shall be
scheduled and performed prior to construction of any building or structure.
* Applicant shall provide an avenue for the fire district to obtain a water usage agreement
with the development. This agreement allows the fire district to access water supplies
for fires within and surrounding the development.
* Water Line Contractor shall provide adequate documentation of testing and inspection
results from the designated Inspector/ Authority overseeing this project. Contact this
office for more information regarding this provision.
3
General Provisions: A plan review fee of $500.00 is due prior to release of Resolution
99-35.
Elizabeth Consolidated School District #C – No objection.
Elizabeth Parks & Recreation – No response.
Kiowa Conservation District – The proposal stated that no horses will be allowed to graze, but did
not mention any other animals. Please use the attached Carrying Capacity Worksheet to figure how
many animals each parcel can carry if any animals will be grazing. Also if animals are allowed, the
water requirements were not mentioned in your water supply plan and the water requirements need
to add to the plan if grazing is allowed.
Intermountain Rural Electric Assn – The Association has existing overhead electric facilities on the
subject property. The Association will maintain these existing utility easements and facilities unless
otherwise requested by the applicant to modify them under the Association’s current extension
policies.
The Association is requesting utility easements to accommodate the installation of front-lot design
for electric facilities in this project, a ten foot (10’) easement on all front-lot will be required.
Further, a five-foot (5’) utility easement is required on one side-lot line of each lot.
Aquila – No objection.
Colorado Division of Wildlife – No response.
Liza Hunholz, Denver
Quest – No response.
Colorado Division of Water – The proposed water supply plan is a central system that will serve
both the Miller Ranch West and the Miller Ranch East subdivisions and the supply plan that was
submitted combines the water requirements and available water for the two subdivisions.
Therefore, this letter will address the water supply plans for both subdivisions.
Water Supply Demand
According to the submittal, the estimated water requirements total 156.2 acre-feet
annually. This amount breaks down to 0.6 acre-feet/year for each lot, consisting of
0.4 acre-feet/year for in house use and 0.20 acre-feet/year for irrigation of 3500
square feet of home gardens and lawns (115.8 acre-feet total); 0.4 acre-feet for in-
building use at a community center; and 40 acre-feet for the irrigation of 20 acres of
open space. Individual septic systems will be used according to the plat map.
The State Engineer’s Office generally assumes for permitting purposes that 0.05
acre-feet is required for each 1000 square-feet of lawn and garden irrigation, unless
the applicant can shown that a different amount is adequate. The amount of water
reserved for open space irrigation does not satisfy this requirement, however, when
both the on-lot irrigation and the open space irrigation is considered together, this
4
requirement is satisfied.
Source of Water Supply
The proposed source of water is a central water supply system, utilizing large
capacity wells in the non-tributary Denver and Arapahoe aquifers that will operate
pursuant to the decree granted in Division 1 Water Court case no. 2005CW171.
According to the February 5, 2007 letter submitted by the applicant’s attorney, 234.3
acre-feet of Denver aquifer water and 234.3 acre-feet of Arapahoe aquifer will be
used to supply water to the proposed subdivisions. The amount of water in the
Denver aquifer and Arapahoe aquifer decreed in case no. 2005CW171 is 505.9 acre-
feet and 408.0 acre-feet respectively.
The proposed source of water for this subdivision is bedrock aquifers in the Denver
Basin. The State Engineer’s Office does not have evidence regarding the length of
time for which this source will be a physically and economically viable source of
water. According to 37-90-137(4)(b)(l), C.R.S., “Permits issued pursuant to this
subsection (4) shall allow withdrawals on the basis of an aquifer life of one hundred
years.” Based on this allocation approach, the annual amounts of water decreed in
2005CW171 are equal to one percent of the total amount, as determined by rules 8.A
and 8.B of the Statewide Non-tributary Ground Water Rules, 2 CCR 402-7.
Therefore, the water m ay be withdrawn in those annual amounts for a maximum of
100 years.
In the Elbert County 1041 Regulations, adopted April 19, 1995 and subsequently
amended, Rule 4-307(2)(a) states: iv) “if less than 25% of the water supply is a
renewable source of water, then a 300 year life will be applied.”
For this subdivision, less than 25 percent of the water supply is a renewable source
of water. The State Engineer’s Office does not have evidence regarding the length of
time for which this source will provide a water supply. However, treating Elbert
County’s requirement as an allocation approach based on three hundred years, the
allowed average annual amount of withdrawal dedicated to these subdivisions from
the Denver and Arapahoe aquifers, totaling 468.6 acre-feet, would be reduced to one
third of that amount or 156.2, which is the annual demand for the subdivisions. As a
result, the water may be withdrawn in those annual amounts for a maximum of 300
years.
State Engineer’s Office Opinion
Based upon the above and pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(l), C.R.S., it is our
opinion that the proposed water supply is adequate and can be provided without
causing injury to decreed water rights.
Our opinion that the water supply is adequate is based on our determination that the
amount of water required annually to serve the subdivision is currently physically
available, based on current estimated aquifer conditions.
Our opinion that the water supply can be provided without causing injury is based
5
on our determination that the amount of water that is legally available on an annual
basis, according to the statutory allocation approach, for the proposed uses is greater
than the annual amount of water required to supply existing water commitments and
the demands of the proposed subdivision.
Our opinion is qualified by the following:
The Division 1 Water Court has retained jurisdiction over the final amount of water
available pursuant to the above-referenced decree, pending actual geophysical data
from the aquifer.
The amounts of water in the Denver Basin aquifers, and identified in this letter,
are calculated based on estimated current aquifer conditions. For planning
purposes the county should be aware that the economic life of a water supply
based on wells in a given Denver Basin aquifer may be less than the 100 years
(or 300 years) used for allocation due to anticipated water level declines. We
recommend that the county determine whether it is appropriate to require
development of renewable water resources for this subdivision to provide for a
long-term water supply.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – No response.
Elbert County Road & Bridge – Comments carried forward from the Concept Plan:
Roads adjacent to the site that will be directly impacted by the increased traffic:
CR 154 – Without the development of Brittainie Ridge or Miller Ranch, current
traffic counts do not support paving. With the additional traffic each development
will generate, both developments should be required to pay for the paving of the road
from CR 21 to CR 29. TAZ funds should not be used towards improvements when
the County had no plans anywhere in the future for paving.
CR 29 from the south entrance to CR 166 – Current traffic counts do not necessitate
CR 29 in this area to be paved. With the additional traffic being generated by this
development, CR 29 should be required to be paved at the developers expense, from
the southern entrance to CR 166. Again, TAZ funds should not be used when the
burden being placed on the road is entirely because of a specific development.
CR 29 to SH 86. CR 29 is a gravel surface and additional traffic will necessitate
more maintenance and dust control requirements.
CR 162 – CR 162 is a gravel surface and additional traffic will necessitate the
replacement of a bridge, more maintenance and dust control requirements.
Intersections within close proximity to the site that will be directly impacted by the
increased traffic.
Intersection of CR 154 and CR 21 – Site distance issues will necessitate turn lanes on
6
north bound and south bound CR 21 onto CR 154.
Intersection of CR 29 and CR 154 – Site distance issues that will require a hill to be
cut down and the intersection raised.
Intersection of CR 29 and CR 166 – Site distance issues will necessitate a turn lane
on north bound CR 29 onto CR 166.
Intersection of CR 29 and CR 162 – Site distance issues that will require a hill to be
cut down and the intersection raised.
Additional intersections / roads within the county that will be affected by the increased
traffic.
Intersection of CR 13 and CR 166 – The traffic counts and design of this road will
require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
CR 17 east from CR 21 to Running Brook and on to CR 13 – Current traffic counts
show that Running Brook is used as a cut-across road by individuals coming from
the north and east to get to Elizabeth without going through the Town. Traffic
counts show that Running Brook should be paved, and additional traffic can only
intensify the problems with maintenance and dust control.
CR 166 and Delbert Road – The traffic counts and design of this road will require
turn lanes and signalization in the future.
Access concerns / comments:
Access to this site should be from CR 154 and CR 29. Due to site distance issues on
CR 21, the access onto Timber Ridge Drive should be for emergencies only.
Drainage and erosion control concerns / comments:
Without drainage or erosion control plans for the site, comments will be made at the
time of preliminary plan. On physical inspection of the site, there is an indication
that there is moderate to heavy runoff to the west towards Timber Ridge Drive.
Request that 10’ utility easements be placed on either side of the 60’ road easement.
Request that the preliminary plan and final plat be submitted and reviewed separately. With
a development of this size and nature, time needs to be given to address issues with the
preliminary plan and minimize conditions of approval at final plat.
Elbert County Engineer, Carter / Burgess – This review is for general conformity with the Elbert
County criteria and is not intended to relieve the applicant of complying with any specific
regulation or field modification, as may be required by a representative of Elbert County.
7
Recommendations: Each of the listed documents should be revised and resubmitted prior to
approval of the Miller Ranch West Application for Rezoning, Subdivision & 1041 Land Use Permit
Application.
Water System Report Prepared by Paragon Engineering Consultants, 9/28/06.
1. Provide confirmation that the Water System Report has been reviewed and
approved by the Elizabeth Fire District.
2. Provide confirmation that the Water System Report has been reviewed and
approved by the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
3. Provide referenced letter stating water demand prepared by Wm. Curtis Wells
& Co. Consulting Geologists dated June 16, 2006.
4. Add a table that calculates the Single Family Equivalents (SFE’s) and resulting
demand calculations at each junction for each of the scenarios. Include a
drawing that outlines the area served by each junction.
5. Add a table that calculates the minimum and maximum pressure, flows, and
velocities for each of the scenarios.
6. Will the project include any irrigated open space. If so, account for irrigated
open space in the water mode.
7. Verify that the model and the Improvement Plans contain the same proposed
water system.
Septic System Feasibility Study Prepared by Paragon Consultants, 9/26/06:
1. Provide confirmation that the Septic System Feasibility Study was prepared in
accordance with Regulation No. l-02 as currently amended.
2. Provide confirmation that each residential lot, as delineated on the Improvement
Plans, will contain adequate land area to contain both an ISDS and a alternate
leach field.
3. Provide confirmation that geotechnical analysis certified by an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado and percolation testing performed in
accordance with Regulation No. l-02 will be performed on each residential lot
as delineated on the Improvement Plans prior to the sale of each lot. Language
to this effect should be included as a note on the final plat.
Soils and Geotechnical Engineering Study Prepared by Terracon. 4/20/06:
1. Soils in portions of the site are classified as moderate to very highly expansive.
Please provide information on over excavation requirements for County
8
infrastructure (e.g., roadways and drainage structures), wet utilities, house
foundations, and driveways.
2. Provide an explanation regarding the variation between subsurface information
included as part of the Septic System Feasibility Study and this Soils and
Geotechnical Study.
Phase III Drainage Report Prepared by Paragon Engineering Consultants, 7/06:
1. Provide confirmation that all storm water drainage infrastructure including, but
not limited to: culverts; swales; water quality / detention ponds will be located
in dedicated easements or tracts. These easements and / or tracts shall be
clearly identified on the plant.
2. Design plans referenced in the report are not included with the submittal.
3. Please confirm that all components of the project storm water management
system area capable of conveying, controlling and / or containing the major and
minor design storm. Delineate the 55 year and 100 year water surface
elevations in swales and detention ponds and HGL’s in culverts.
4. The conclusion of the Report states that the storm water drainage system has
been designed in conformance with UDFCD standards. This does not appear to
be the case. Please provide all required UDFCD design information
(hydrologic and hydraulic) required to substantiate this statement.
Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared by LSC, 9/24/06:
1. Please confirm that comments prepared by the Elbert County Road and Bridge
Department dated April 18, 2006 have been addressed in the Traffic Impact
Analysis. These comments were submitted to the Applicant during the Concept
Review phase of the proposed project.
2. Please confirm that existing traffic identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis
includes traffic from all adjacent and nearby developments.
Miller Ranch Subdivision Improvement Plans, 7/06:
1. See redline comments on Improvement Plans
Colorado Department of Health – No objection.
Elbert County Communications – All road names need to be approved and put on the final plat
before recording.
Colorado State Geological Survey – Comments and concerns regarding the proposal are listed as
follows:
Expansive Soil and Bedrock
9
As stated in the preliminary geotechnical report, parts of the the site are underlain by very
highly expansive soil and bedrock. Such conditions can severely damage homes, roads, and
utilities including drainage structures.
The preliminary report contains recommendations for mass grading, foundation, and
pavements. No grading plans were submitted, so it is difficult to determine if the application
follows the engineer’s recommendations.
The engineer provides some design recommendations for building and roads; however, the
report does not address the design of flatwork, utilities, and storm systems. Expansive soil
and bedrock can severely damage these types of improvements. The geotechnical report
should be revised to address this issue.
The report submitted with the application was preliminary in nature and consisted of widely
spaced soil borings. Additional work needs to be done in order to ensure hazards are
adequately mitigated and all structures perform as designed. It would be prudent for the
county to require the following:
Prior to issuance of building permits, a site-specific soils and foundation
investigation, design, and report should be conducted for each lot. This investigation
should include a test boring and soil testing on every lot. Foundations and floor
systems should be designed in accordance with the report.
Prior to approval of construction plans, grading plans should be reviewed by the
geotechnical engineer to ensure conformance with the preliminary report.
Additional testing should be done prior to final design and approval of pavements. If
significant grading will occur in road areas, it may be prudent to require testing and
final design after the completion of grading.
Prior to final plat approval, expansive soil and bedrock mitigation plans should be
developed for all utilities, including storm drainage structures.
Drainage
According the preliminary drainage plan, the NRCS Soil Survey is being used, in part, to
design drainage facilities for the site. However, the soil survey is a preliminary planning
resource, not meant for site-specific design.
For example, using the soil survey, the engineer determined that runoff from the
development will be moderately low (hydrologic group B). However, according to the
geotechnical report, a good part of the site contained shallow bedrock. It is likely; site
grading will expose bedrock or weathered bedrock. Runoff from exposed bedrock would
likely be moderately-high (hydrologic group C) to high (hydrologic group D) or more runoff
will be generated than originally anticipated.
10
Using the soil survey without looking at site-specific conditions, before and after grading,
could result in drainage facilities not being adequately designed and sized to mitigate the
impacts of site development. This could cause localized flooding, damages to homes,
utilities, and roads, and excessive erosion and sedimentation. Additional investigation and
design should be done prior to approval of final drainage plans.
In other areas, off-site runoff that flows onto the property is a concern. For example, runoff
from 50 acres (Basin B7) flows into lots located in the northeast corner of the site.
According the drainage report, these flows range from 12.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a
5-year storm event to 66.4 (cfs) for a 100-year storm. Such flows are significant and can
adversely affect homes, roads, and septic systems.
The plans provided with the application were of a size and quality difficult to read, but it
appeared that the engineer made no provisions to protect homes from off-site flows. Again,
it would be prudent to evaluate this issue before plat approval. It may be necessary to
provide additional drainage easements and/or reconfigure lots adjacent to drainages.
Erosion and Sedimentation.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil descriptions, the site is
underlain by soils that have weathered from the Upper Dawson Formation or from eolian
deposits, colluvium or alluvium. The soils range from silt, sand, to clay and have similar
development characteristics. In general, the soils are described as having low strength, high
shrink-swell potential and slow permeability. Soils with a slow permeability indicate storm-
water runoff may be rapid. Rapid runoff on sandy soils can result in high erosion hazards.
This is especially true where vegetation is removed due to overgrazing and/or grading.
Gullies in the area, confirm that erosion hazards can be severe.
Septic Systems
Expansive soil and shallow bedrock, as described above, can affect the design and
erformance of septic systems. These issues are not addressed in the application.
Summary
From the materials submitted, it appears that Elbert County has policies on development in
geologic hazard areas. For example, a policy states, “The County shall not allow
development within geologic-hazard areas posing a threat of injury, loss of life, or property
damage. In general, geologic hazards at the site can be mitigated; however, additional
information is needed to determine if the development, as currently proposed, adequately
mitigates such hazards. Without such information, CGS cannot assess if the county’s
policies have been met.
Elbert County Environmental Health – Comments carried forward from the Concept Plan
1. If cluster housing scenarios, such as Alternative A and C are implemented, the Elbert
County Health Department will require a drainage study and drainage plan for this
11
development. In existing developments with houses on less than 5 acres per lot, the
number of drainage complaints has become a burden. Alternative C is presented.
2. The Elbert County Health Department DOES NOT ENFORSE the use of individual
septic systems on the Alternative C clustered development. Past experience has
shown that ISDS on less than 5 acres are more susceptible to system failure.
3. More detail needs to be given on the plan for groundwater reuse. Any plans for
wastewater reuse will need to be given full endorsement by the Colorado Water
Engineer for our district. Pathogen reduction methods for this activity need to be
well defined. Please contact this department with full details of water reuse
destinations.
4. Will existing wells on the property be left intact or be properly abandoned?
Abandoned wells need to be done in accordance with the Colorado Division of
Water Resources.
.
Elbert County Sheriff – It does not appear that this project will have any drastic side effect on the
rest of the population.
Elbert County Planning Department – This application is a major undertaking with significant
issues related to the proposed development, that to date, have not been resolved. The Applicant has
met with Elbert County Department Heads. Many technical issues were identified. The Applicant
was asked to respond prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, with sufficient time for the
responses to be reviewed and assessed. Copies of all referrals have been passed on to the Applicant
The comments from referral agencies should be addressed by the Applicant and reviewed by the
referral agencies also. No response from the Applicant regarding the issues mentioned in the
various referral comments, has been received.
Property Owners’ Comments – The following are the bullet points from the property owners which
by the 1041 Regulations referral status:
- They are home owners next to project, along Timber Ridge Rd.
- Would like a gate with emergency access only, between Timber Ridge Rd and Miller West
- Feels neighborhood would change due to traffic and through-street
- Miller West is not “horse” property
- Timber Ridge is “horse” property
- Timber Ridge Rd is not paved and should not be viewed as a major access
- There are “sight” issues along Timber Ridge Rd
- Drainage from MR West could impact drainage into Timber Ridge
- Also concerned about surface drainage
- Provided a letter summarizing major concerns
* Increase in traffic, noise, and congestion
* Increase in taxes for existing homeowners
* Increase in demand for scarce resources such as water
* Elimination of open space and landscapes
* Decrease in the value of existing residences by not respecting neighboring
adjacency
12
- Don’t want Timber Ridge road as a primary access. Its hilly and not paved.
- Prefer a transition to the smaller lot sizes shown to be adjacent to Timber Ridge
development.
- Would like to see some open space and larger lots before smaller lots
- Do not want Timber Ridge Drive to be a main drag strip in our quiet development of
custom homes
- The roads of CR 154 and CR 29 should be the access roads for entry and exits of their
future development
- Do not allow lesser type of homes to be built (ie, track homes) that would depreciate the
value of the existing homes that are here now
Mineral Interest Owners – The applicant owns all the mineral rights.
FINDINGS:
Evaluation of this proposal requires compliance with the major portions of the Elbert County
Zoning, Subdivision and 1041 Regulations. In addition, the proposal must comply with the relevant
portions of the Elbert County Master Plan. The compliance, however, is relevant to the regulation
and/or requirements in place and approved at the date of submittal of the original land use
application (Concept Plan – CP 06-02-01 and 1041 Permit 06-02-01), which was received during
February of 2006.
Zoning Regulation Compliance – The requirements for the rezoning of the site are contained in
Part I, Section 6 and Part II, Section 16 of the Zoning Regulations.
The Planning Department believes the applicant has submitted the necessary documentation to
satisfy the requirements of Part I, Section 6 of the Zoning Regulations, including proper public
notice. However, the following information has not been received.
At least 24 days prior to the date of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, the
applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the following:
- White postal receipts for Certified Mail mailed to the adjacent property owners
and the property owners within five hundred (500) feet, [(1325) feet for 1041], of
the proposed site as required by these Rezoning Procedures and Requirements,
- a copy of the note mailed to said property owners,
- a list, in alphabetical order, of the adjacent property owners and
- a map illustrating the location and proximity of the adjacent property owners and
property owners within five hundred (500) feet, [(1325) feet for 1041], of the
proposed site.
It is a requirement of the Zoning Regulations that all requests for rezoning address the seven
adopted Standards of Approval. The following is the Planning Department’s response to those
Standards:
1. Whether the proposed rezoning complies with the requirements of the Elbert County Master
Plan – A complete response to the Master Plan requirements will occur later in this report.
The Miller Ranch West proposal is to develop 71 units on 355.7 acres. This is a base
density of one unit per 5.01 acres. The Rural Residential-High Density Land Use Area has a
13
developmental density of one unit per 3.0 to 10.0 acres. This proposal is in compliance with
the developmental density.
The current Adjacency requirement in the Master Plan indicates that 1/6 of the site perimeter
be adjacent to similar or smaller size parcels. Miller Ranch West achieves the necessary
adjacency through the use of the 40’foot greenbelt corridor, ½ mile in length, along the
north boundary of the Estates at Hidden Pines.
2. Whether the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses – There are always
concerns when subdivided lots are adjacent to agricultural uses. The Miller Ranch West
project does meet the adjacency requirements of Master Plan. Furthermore, the project
design provides for clustering of the homes resulting in more open space than the required
20%.
3. Whether the proposed rezoning would adversely impact the provision of public service –
No adverse comments were received from any of the public service providers.
4. Whether the proposed rezoning would adversely impact the environment – The requested
rezoning opens the door to a PUD development design such as has been submitted. The
features of the development design provide guidance toward the potential environmental
impacts. As such, several referral agencies provided comments related to possible
environmental impacts. Some of the following comments speak to construction items in
addition to environmental impacts.
* The Kiowa Conservation District recommended a:
- Central sewer system be installed instead of septic systems,
- That while the proposal stated that no horses will be allowed to graze, it did not
mention any other animals, and
- The water plan included no provision for any other animals
- Septic systems and grazing impact the environment
* The Colorado Geological Survey:
- Parts of the site are underlain by very highly expansive soil and bedrock that can
severely damage homes, roads, utilities, and drainage structures. The preliminary
report contains recommendations for mass grading, foundation, and pavements.
However, no grading plans were submitted with the preliminary report, so it is
difficult to determine if the application follows the engineer’s recommendations
- The engineer provides some design recommendations for building and roads;
however, the report does not address the design of flatwork, utilities, and storm
systems. Expansive soil and bedrock can severely damage these types of
improvements. The geotechnical report should be revised to address this issue.
- The report submitted with the application was preliminary in nature and consisted
of widely spaced soil borings. Additional work needs to be done in order to
ensure hazards are adequately mitigated and all structures perform as
designed.
- According to the preliminary drainage plan, the NRCS Soil Survey is being used,
in part, to design drainage facilities for the site. However, the soil survey is a
preliminary planning resource, not meant for site-specific design.
According to the geotechnical report, a good part of the site contains shallow
bedrock. It is likely; site grading will expose bedrock or weathered bedrock.
14
Runoff from exposed bedrock would likely be moderately-high (hydrologic
group C) to high (hydrologic group D) or more runoff will be generated than
originally anticipated.
- Using the soil survey without looking at site-specific conditions, before and after
grading, could result in drainage facilities not being adequately designed and
sized to mitigate the impacts of site development. This could cause localized
flooding, damages to homes, utilities, and roads, and excessive erosion and
sedimentation. Additional investigation and design should be done prior to
approval of final drainage plans.
- In other areas, off-site runoff that flows onto the property is a concern. For
example, runoff from 50 acres (Basin B7) flows into lots located in the northeast
corner of the site. According the drainage report, these flows range from 12.5
cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 5-year storm event, to 66.4 (cfs) for a 100-year
storm. Such flows are significant and can adversely affect homes, roads, and
septic systems.
- It appeared that the engineer made no provisions to protect homes from off-site
flows. It may be necessary to provide additional drainage easements and/or
reconfigure lots adjacent to drainages.
- According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil descriptions, the
site is underlain by soils that have weathered from the Upper Dawson Formation
or from eolian deposits, colluvium or alluvium. The soils range from silt, sand,
to clay and have similar development characteristics. In general, the soils are
described as having low strength, high shrink-swell potential and slow
permeability. Soils with a slow permeability indicate storm-water runoff
may be rapid. Rapid runoff on sandy soils can result in high erosion
hazards. Gullies in the area, confirm that erosion hazards can be severe.
- Expansive soil and shallow bedrock, as described above, can affect the design
and performance of septic systems. These issues are not addressed in the
application.
- From the materials submitted, it appears that Elbert County has policies on
development in geologic hazard areas. For example, a policy states, “The
County shall not allow development within geologic-hazard areas posing a
threat of injury, loss of life, or property damage. In general, geologic
hazards at the site can be mitigated; however, additional information is
needed to determine if the development, as currently proposed, adequately
mitigates such hazards. Without such information, CGS cannot assess if
the county’s policies have been met.
* Elbert County Engineer Representative, Carter / Burgess:
- Provide confirmation that each residential lot, as delineated on the Improvement
Plans, will contain adequate land area to contain both an ISDS and a alternate
leach field.
- Soils in portions of the site are classified as moderate to very highly expansive.
Please provide information on over excavation requirements for County
infrastructure (e.g., roadways and drainage structures), wet utilities, house
foundations, and driveways.
- Provide an explanation regarding the variation between subsurface information
included as part of the Septic System Feasibility Study and this Soils and
Geotechnical Study.
15
- Provide confirmation that all storm water drainage infrastructure including, but
not limited to: culverts; swales; water quality / detention ponds will be located
in dedicated easements or tracts. These easements and / or tracts shall be
clearly identified on the plat.
- Design plans referenced in the report are not included with the submittal.
- Please confirm that all components of the project storm water management
system area capable of conveying, controlling and / or containing the major
and minor design storm.
- The conclusion of the Report states that the storm water drainage system has
been designed in conformance with UDFCD standards. This does not appear to
be the case. Please provide all required UDFCD design information
(hydrologic and hydraulic) required to substantiate this statement.
5. Whether the proposed rezoning would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road
system – The traffic study was prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants. They
evaluated projected travel patterns generated by the development. It was not clear that the
submitted Traffic Impact Assessment provided analysis of existing and proposed new roads
with and without from all adjacent and nearby developments Miller Ranch West.
The Applicant did not address the Elbert County Road & Bridge concerns
submitted at the Concept Plan.
- Elbert County Road and Bridge recommended that both Miller Ranch West and
Brittanie Ridge be required to pay for paving of the road from CR 21 to CR
29. Road & Bridge clearly stated that TAZ funds should not be used towards
improvement when the County had no plans anywhere in the future for paving.
There are many other roads in the area that are a higher priority and the burden
being placed on this road is from these specific developments.
- CR 29 from the south entrance to CR 166 – With the additional traffic being
generated by this development, CR 29 should be required to be paved at the
developers expense, from the southern entrance to CR 166. Again, TAZ funds
should not be used when the burden being placed on the road is entirely because
of a specific development.
- CR 29 to SH 86. CR 29 is a gravel surface and additional traffic will necessitate
more maintenance and dust control requirements.
- CR 162 – CR 162 is a gravel surface and additional traffic will necessitate the
replacement of a bridge, more maintenance and dust control requirements.
- Intersections within close proximity to the site that will be directly impacted by
the increased traffic. Intersection of CR 154 and CR 21 – Site distance issues
will necessitate turn lanes on north bound and south bound CR 21 onto CR 154.
- Intersection of CR 29 and CR 154 – Site distance issues that will require a hill to
be cut down and the intersection raised.
- Intersection of CR 29 and CR 166 – Site distance issues will necessitate a turn
lane on north bound CR 29 onto CR 166.
- Intersection of CR 29 and CR 162 – Site distance issues that will require a hill to
be cut down and the intersection raised.
Additional intersections / roads within the county that will be affected by the increased
traffic.
- Intersection of CR 13 and CR 166 – The traffic counts and design of this road
16
will require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
- CR 17 east from CR 21 to Running Brook and on to CR 13 – Current traffic
counts show that Running Brook is used as a cut-across road by individuals
coming from the north and east to get to Elizabeth without going through the
Town. Traffic counts show that Running Brook should be paved, and
additional traffic can only intensify the problems with maintenance and dust
control.
- CR 166 and Delbert Road – The traffic counts and design of this road will
require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
Access concerns / comments:
- Access to this site should be from CR 154 and CR 29. Due to site distance
issues on CR 21, the access onto Timber Ridge Drive should be for
emergencies only.
6. Whether there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood since the
land was last rezoned – The most recent rezoning request in this area was Brittanie Ridge.
The approving resolution action occurred during August of 2005. The final plat is noted as
recorded as of 10-31-06. Brittanie Ridge was necessary for Miller Ranch West in achieving
adjacency.
7. Whether the proposed rezoning will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety or
welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Elbert County – Part II, Section 16., C., 1., c.
prescribes a specific lot size variation between the PUD and adjacent subdivided parcels.
By regulation that variation is 25% of the net lot size. The lots in the Estates at Hidden
Pines are a minimum of 5.01 net aces. Therefore, the smallest size for adjacent lots in
Miller Ranch West, would be 3.76 acres. Lots 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are all proposed
as smaller than 3.76 acres. These lots will need to be re-sized in order to meet Zoning
Regulations.
In addition, the issues identified preceding numbers 4 and 5 of the “standards of approval.”
will need to be resolved.
Subdivision Regulation Compliance – The submitted documentation must address, as appropriate,
the Subdivision Regulations Sections II, IV, V, VIII, IX, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII and I.
The submitted documentation has satisfied the applicable requirements of Sections II, IV and V.
Section VIII Preliminary Plat – Much of the requirements have been submitted. There remains the
need for additional information. The following information is requested:
Work with County Engineer for the appropriate design of roads and foundations to
accommodate the existing soil characteristics of the site.
Work with the County Engineer to address referral agency comments regarding erosion
control, drainage, detention ponds, water quality
Prepare a Grading Plan for the entire site.
Indicate on the Preliminary Plats any off-site structures within 100 feet of the site
boundaries.
17
Section IX Final Plat – There has been no submitted Final Plat documentation with this application.
Section XIII Standards and Studies – Subsections H and I deal with Erosion, Sediment Control and
Drainage. Referral comments have indicated concern on drainage, storm water detention, and water
quality issues. The applicant and the County Engineer should coordinate appropriate evaluation and
resolution of these issues.
The applicant had indicated they will utilize best management practices during site development.
Submitted plans do address many of these issues.
Section XIV Improvements – All infrastructure submittals will have to meet requirements of the
County. The water supply system will require approval by the appropriate State and County
agencies. Fire hydrant type and location will require Fire District approvals as well as provisions
for appropriate water storage. Road paving will have to meet County standards.
Section XV Map Requirements – Several lots, adjacent to the Estates at Hidden Pines, will need to
be increased in size and maps modified accordingly. Section XV outlines the specifications for the
required mylars and digital submittals.
Section XVI Vested Property Rights – This section outlines the vesting period and the ability for the
applicant and Elbert County to extend the vesting under certain conditions. A plat note will be
required to comply with the specific language in this section.
Section XVII Subdivision Public Notice – The applicant is in compliance, provided the previously
mentioned public notice items, are provided.
Section I Enacting Clauses – In Subsection C - Acceptance of a Subdivision - There are three
specific criteria which shall be considered by the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners in their respective review of all applications for subdivisions. The following is the
Planning Department’s response to these criteria:
1. Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of these regulations, the
Elbert County Zoning Regulations and the Elbert County Master Plan.
Planning Department Response – There are comments from referral agencies which must be
addressed and mitigated. The Division of Water Resources must approve the Water
Availability Study. All of the design criteria must be reevaluated for appropriateness and
consistency. All infrastructure design must be reviewed and approved by all appropriate
agencies.
2. Whether the application is in compliance with all statutory provisions.
Planning Department Response – The Planning Department believes the application has
satisfied the statutory provisions related to Zoning and Subdivision contained in CRS 30-28.
In accordance with CRS 31-23-215 after appropriately noticed public hearings, action can be
taken on the submitted Preliminary Plat.
18
3. Whether the application is in compliance with the Colorado Health Department and the
Colorado Department of Transportation regulations.
Planning Department Response – The Colorado Department of Health will ultimately
approve the central water system. Until such approvals are obtained, recordation of all
documentation will be held. There is not any known violation of Colorado Department of
Transportation regulations.
1041 Regulations Compliance – The Planning Department believes the applicant has submitted the
necessary documentation to satisfy the intent of Chapter 4, Article 3, 4-305 – Application Submittal
Requirements. In accordance with the requirements specified in Chapter 4, Article 3, 4-306, the
Planning Commission is holding hearings on this application and will forward appropriate
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
The following are the 1041 Regulation approval criteria, the responses by the applicant to those
criteria and as appropriate comments from the Planning Department.
1) The Board of County Commissioners shall approve an application for a permit for site
selection and development of a new community (with reasonable conditions, if any, in the
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners) only if the proposed site selection and
development complies with the following criteria, to the extent applicable:
a. The health, welfare and safety of the citizens of this County will be protected and
served.
Applicant Response – Miller ranch will provide improved tax base and support for
County services. It will provide fire protection systems consistent with code
requirements, including hydrants.
Planning Department Response – The proposal should protect the health and safety
of citizens of the County in that central systems, soils, drainage, and road issues must
be resolved to the satisfaction of appropriate State and County agencies.
b. The natural and socio-economic environment of this County will be protected and
enhanced.
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch’s natural open space will provide habitats and
travel patterns for wildlife. Drainage-ways are protected and support the natural
wildlife travel patterns. The open space, walking trails and equestrian trails will be
available to the public.
Planning Department Response – Referral comments have identified an array of
concerns relating to the natural environment that need to be addressed and resolved
prior to approval.
c. The applicant has presented and committed to a satisfactory program to mitigate,
and minimize adverse impacts.
19
Applicant Response – A team of design and engineering professionals has identified
and mitigated project impacts. Issues addressed include environmental, fiscal, and
community impacts. Environmental issues include the land plan, drainage, wildlife
habitats, and geology. Fiscal issues have been evaluated, including the costs and
benefits of Miller Ranch. The fiscal benefits of the development, including cash-in-
lieu payments and upfront fees, will be positive. Community impacts include visual,
traffic, and services. The developer has worked to refine the design and
development program to address issues of concern.
Planning Department Comment – The Applicant must evaluate and respond in a
satisfactory manner to Elbert County Road and Bridge, the County Engineer
representative, and other referral agency issues related to soils, developing roads, fire
protection, basements, drainage, detention ponds design and location, and water
quality downstream.
d. The nature and location or expansion of the new community complies with the intent
of all applicable provisions of the Master Plan of this County, and other applicable
regional, metropolitan, state, and national plans.
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch has been designed to comply with the Master
Plan recommendations. It will comply with other regulations, as applicable.
Planning Department Response – The discussion of Master Plan compliance will
occur later in this report. In general, the application is in compliance with the
developmental density of the Rural Residential-High Density Land Use Area.
e. The nature and location or expansion of the new community will not create an
expansion of the demand for government services beyond the reasonable capacity of
the community or region to provide such services, as determined by the Board, or the
plan contains adequate mitigation of such demands; in particular, the new
community shall, at a minimum, provide for transportation, waste disposal, schools,
and other governmental services in a manner that will not overload facilities of
existing communities in the impact area.
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch will not overload governmental services. All
roads serving the site will have adequate capacity. Central water will be provided by
a new metropolitan district. Fire protection will include on-site water storage and
fire hydrants, consistent with the requirements of the Fire District.
Elizabeth School District will work with the development to mitigate any impacts;
the applicant accepts the fee schedule required by the District
f. Priority is given to the development of a total community which provides for
commercial and industrial activity, as well as residences and for internal
transportation and circulation patterns.
20
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch will provide single family home-sites, open
space, and recreational amenities. No commercial or industrial facilities will be
included.
g.(i) The nature and location of the new community or expansion will not adversely affect
the water quality or water rights of any upstream, downstream, or agricultural users,
adjacent communities or other water users.
Applicant Response – Sufficient water rights are available for the development. The
development will not adversely impact water rights for other users. Water rights
have been adjudicated through the water court.
Planning Department Response – The State Engineer’s Office responded that in their
opinion, the proposed water supply is adequate and can be provided without causing
injury to decreed water rights. The opinion that the water supply is adequate is based
on their determination that the amount of water required annually to serve the
subdivision is currently physically available, based on current estimated aquifer
conditions.
It is further, their opinion that the water supply can be provided without causing
injury, based on the determination that the amount of water that is legally available
on an annual basis, according to the statutory allocation approach, for the proposed
uses, is greater than the annual amount of water required to supply existing water
commitments and the demands of the proposed subdivision.
The opinion is qualified by the following:
The Division 1 Water Court has retained jurisdiction over the final amount of water
available pursuant to the above-referenced decree, pending actual geophysical data
from the aquifer.
The amounts of water in the Denver Basin aquifers, and identified in this letter,
are calculated based on estimated current aquifer conditions. For planning
purposes the county should be aware that the economic life of a water supply
based on wells in a given Denver Basin aquifer may be less than the 100 years
(or 300 years) used for allocation due to anticipated water level declines. We
recommend that the county determine whether it is appropriate to require
development of renewable water resources for this subdivision to provide for a
long-term water supply.
g.(ii) Adequate water supplies are available for new community needs.
Applicant Response – Adequate adjudicated water rights are available for the
development and are owned by the applicant
Planning Department Response – See g.(i) above
21
g.(iii) The existing water quality of affected state waters will not be degraded below state
and federal standards or established baseline levels.
Applicant Response – Water quality will not be negatively impacted by the
development because of the engineered drainage program.
Planning Department Response – Referral agency comments question the drainage
program. The applicant, Elbert County Road and Bridge, and the County Engineer
must review and determine that all water quality standards are achieved.
g.(iv) The proposed project will not have a significantly adverse net effect on the capacities
or functioning of streams, lakes and reservoirs in the impact area, nor on the
permeability, volume, recharge capability and depth of the aquifers in the impact
area.
Applicant Response – A drainage plan has been prepared. There will be minimal
change in permeability, volume recharge, capability and depth of aquifers as a result
of development.
Planning Department Response – Referral agency comments question the
completeness or detail provided in the report. The applicant, Elbert County Road
and Bridge, and the County Engineer must review and determine that all water
quality standards are achieved.
h. Adequate electric, gas, telephone, water, sewage, and other utilities exist or shall be
developed to service the site.
Applicant Response – Adequate utilities are available or will be provided. A central
water system will be provided.
i. The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits, and approvals
necessary for the proposed project, including surface, mineral, and water rights and
easements for drainage, disposal, utilities, access, etc. If the applicant has not
obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals, the Board may, in its
discretion, grant the permit conditioned upon completion of the acquisition of such
rights prior to issuance of a zoning or building permit by the County.
Applicant Response – Mineral rights have not been severed from the surface rights;
therefore, the Applicant owns the property and the mineral rights.
j. Compliance with the applicable Elbert County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
and all the provisions of the permit application procedure.
Applicant Response – The Applicant is simultaneously applying for rezoning to PUD
and filing applications for preliminary and final subdivision plats. The Applicant
will comply with all County regulations and procedures.
22
Planning Department – The application with appropriate conditions can be brought
into compliance with the County’s Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
k. Compatibility with existing and surrounding land uses, and existing natural
environmental conditions of the site.
Applicant Response – Adjacent land uses in Elbert County are residential and
agricultural usage. Miller Ranch’s proposed land uses are single family residential
and open space. None of the proposed uses are incompatible with adjacent
properties or uses. The open space location and lot sizes minimize the impacts on
neighbors.
Planning Department Response – There is always concern related to the
compatibility of agricultural uses and subdivisions. The State of Colorado has
afforded agricultural uses protection from nuisance complaints. Elbert County is an
advocate of this process and encourages developers to incorporate similar language
in their Covenants. The Covenants contain this language.
l. The applicant has made provisions to preserve such natural features as water bodies
and steep slopes and to establish and maintain an accessible open-space network for
conservation, natural beauty, and recreation, as well as to prevent environmental
pollution, natural hazards, and minimize noise problems.
Applicant Response – There are existing drainage-ways on the site that will
generally be maintained in their natural condition. No building will be permitted on
slopes over 20%. 49.9% of the site is open space. Open space facilities, including
trails, will be open to the public.
m. The proposal will not result in detrimental impact to the existing or planned
transportation system and that it has been demonstrated that adequate access has or
will be constructed including any external roadways, interchanges, and railroad
crossings necessitated by the build out of the development. Rural and urban
classifications are determined by the Colorado Department of Transportation (state
roads), and by the Elbert County Master Plan (all other roadways), and the land use
and transportation circulation plans and population density and distributions are
planned in such a way as to promote adequate internal accessibility.
Applicant Response – A traffic study has been completed by LSC Transportation
Consultants. The site is adjacent to CR 154 on the north, and CR 29 on the east. All
county roads in the vicinity of Miller Ranch have sufficient capacity to accommodate
traffic from the proposed development. The development density is consistent with
the County Master Plan for the area. All internal roads will be constructed and
paved to County standards.
Planning Department Response – Referral comment from Elbert County Road and
Bridge have not been addressed in the proposal. Impact and adequate and safe
access to external roadways and added maintenance costs are a concern. The
following comments are extracted from the Road and Bridge referral response.
23
Elbert County Road and Bridge recommended that both Miller Ranch West and
Brittanie Ridge be required to pay for paving of the road from CR 21 to CR
29. Road & Bridge clearly stated that TAZ funds should not be used towards
improvement when the County had no plans anywhere in the future for paving.
There are many other roads in the area that are a higher priority and the burden
being placed on this road is from these specific developments.
- CR 29 from the south entrance to CR 166 – With the additional traffic being
generated by this development, CR 29 should be required to be paved at the
developers expense, from the southern entrance to CR 166. Again, TAZ
funds should not be used when the burden being placed on the road is entirely
because of a specific development.
- CR 29 to SH 86. CR 29 is a gravel surface and additional traffic will necessitate
more maintenance and dust control requirements.
- CR 162 – CR 162 is a gravel surface and additional traffic will necessitate the
replacement of a bridge, more maintenance and dust control requirements.
- Intersections within close proximity to the site that will be directly impacted by
the increased traffic. Intersection of CR 154 and CR 21 – Site distance issues
will necessitate turn lanes on north bound and south bound CR 21 onto CR 154.
- Intersection of CR 29 and CR 154 – Site distance issues will require a hill to be
cut down and the intersection raised.
- Intersection of CR 29 and CR 166 – Site distance issues will necessitate a turn
lane on north bound CR 29 onto CR 166.
- Intersection of CR 29 and CR 162 – Site distance issues that will require a hill to
be cut down and the intersection raised.
Additional intersections / roads within the county that will be affected by the increased
Traffic, (Additional maintenance costs).
- Intersection of CR 13 and CR 166 – The traffic counts and design of this road
will require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
- CR 17 east from CR 21 to Running Brook and on to CR 13 – Current traffic
counts show that Running Brook is used as a cut-across road by individuals
coming from the north and east to get to Elizabeth without going through the
Town. Traffic counts show that Running Brook should be paved, and
additional traffic can only intensify the problems with maintenance and dust
control.
- CR 166 and Delbert Road – The traffic counts and design of this road will
require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
Access concerns / comments:
- Access to this site should be from CR 154 and CR 29. Due to site distance
issues on CR 21, the access onto Timber Ridge Drive should be for
emergencies only.
n. The proposed development is in compliance with the best management practices of
the applicable basin authority and the corresponding basin water quality master
plan.
24
Applicant Response – An engineered drainage plan, as well as a plan for erosion &
sediment control during construction, have been prepared. The “best management
practices” will be utilized during the construction period and post-construction.
o. The nature and location of the development will not interfere with threatened or
endangered wildlife habitats, or adversely affect any threatened wildlife species,
unique natural resource or historic or archaeological landmarks within the
development area unless it can be demonstrated that adequate mitigation measures
will be taken.
Applicant Response – Based on site visits, and the Preble’s Mouse study prepared by
Dr. Robert Stoecker and approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there do not
appear to be any threatened or endangered wildlife on the site.
Information from the Colorado Historic Society showed that one archaeological site
was reported on the site several decades ago, but it did not merit additional
recognition by the State. The sites were not specifically located and the state does
not have additional maps or locations data. If artifacts are discovered during site
construction, the appropriate state and federal agencies will be contacted.
p. The development plan utilizes current design and technology for energy conservation
with respect to land utilization.
Applicant Response – The site plan includes consideration for solar exposure,
locations of natural foliage. Energy conservation will be a consideration in the siting
of homes, home construction, and landscaping of private and public areas.
q. The applicant has the technical and financial capability to completely plan and
develop the new community within a reasonable time, and the proposed new
community is economically feasible. This is demonstrated by providing evidence of
the following issues:
q.i) The technical and administrative capability of the applicant to plan and develop a
new community, including experience, success and/or failures on other new
community projects, and expertise and experience of personnel.
Applicant Response – The development team has experience in residential land
developments. The land planners and engineers have all been involved with large-
scale land developments in Elbert County.
q.ii) The financial capability of the applicant including:
q.ii) A) all anticipated costs of developing public and publicly financed services and
facilities.
Applicant Response – The Applicant will provide equity funds. Infrastructure costs
will be funded through construction loans. Either a new metropolitan district may
own and manage the water system.
25
q.ii) B) the extent to which the development costs will be met by financial resources of the
developer, borrowing, and/or special districts if any.
Applicant Response – The Applicant has sufficient financial resources for the
development. A new metropolitan district may also be involved with financing
public improvements on site.
q.iii) Before any permit is issued, the BOCC may require the applicant to file a guarantee
of financial security deemed adequate by the BOCC, and in the amount of 115% of
the estimated cost of the anticipated infrastructure for the new community.
q.iii A)The BOCC may require that the financial feasibility of the project be reviewed by an
independent CPA, if there is any reason to doubt the accuracy of the financial
information submitted, or the estimated costs of completing the new community.
(r) The project is in proximity to primary and secondary schools of adequate capacity,
has the ability to provide for adequate educational facilities, or has proposed an
acceptable plan for mitigating the impact on schools with inadequate capacity.
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch is in the Elizabeth School District. The District
has or will have sufficient capacity to serve Miller Ranch. The Applicant will
comply with District requirements for investments in school facilities and fees.
Planning Department Response –The Applicant and the School District must comply
with Resolution 99-14.
s. Applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the permit application
procedure.
Applicant Response – The Applicant is complying with all of the provisions of the
permit application procedure.
Planning Department Response – There are several issues that need to be resolved to
satisfy 1041 criteria.
2. Additional criteria for developments outside the urbanized areas designated on the
Elbert County Growth Management Plan and Master Plan, as amended.
a. In order to assure a long term water supply, and given the concern with dependence
on bedrock ground water, and the difficulty in supplying future surface sources
outside the urbanized areas, the following additional criteria apply:
a.i) Total water supply for full project build out has been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners based on the following factors:
Such supply shall be based on a factor of .4 acre feet for residential and the single
family equivalent for non-residential. The factor of .4 acre feet for residential
applies to the residential portion of use of a residence and does not include domestic
26
or agricultural stock watering and other associated uses of rural residential uses.
An additional appropriate factor would be required for such uses.
Applicant Response – Total water supply for full project buildout is sufficient for
300 years.
Planning Department Response – It is the State Engineer’s Office Opinion, pursuant to
Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(l), C.R.S., that the proposed water supply is
adequate and can be provided without causing injury to decreed water rights.
Our opinion that the water supply is adequate is based on our determination that the
amount of water required annually to serve the subdivision is currently physically
available, based on current estimated aquifer conditions.
Our opinion that the water supply can be provided without causing injury is based
on our determination that the amount of water that is legally available on an annual
basis, according to the statutory allocation approach, for the proposed uses is greater
than the annual amount of water required to supply existing water commitments and
the demands of the proposed subdivision.
Our opinion is qualified by the following:
The Division 1 Water Court has retained jurisdiction over the final amount of water
available pursuant to the above-referenced decree, pending actual geophysical data
from the aquifer.
The amounts of water in the Denver Basin aquifers, and identified in this letter,
are calculated based on estimated current aquifer conditions. For planning
purposes the county should be aware that the economic life of a water supply
based on wells in a given Denver Basin aquifer may be less than the 100 years
(or 300 years) used for allocation due to anticipated water level declines. We
recommend that the county determine whether it is appropriate to require
development of renewable water resources for this subdivision to provide for a
long-term water supply.
a.ii) if greater than 50% of the water supply is a renewable source of water, then a 100
aquifer year life will be applied.
Applicant Response – N/A.
a.iii) if less than 50% of the water supply but greater than 25% of the water supply is a
renewable source of water, then a 200 year life will be applied.
Applicant Response – N/A.
a.iv) if less than 25% of the water supply is a renewable source of water, then a 300 year
life will be applied.
27
Applicant Response – Total water supply for full project buildout is sufficient for
300 years.
Planning Department Response – See response comment from the State Engineer’s
Office in a.i).
b. To efficiently utilize public and private investments in infrastructure and urban
service areas, moderate build out must be demonstrated in the urbanized areas and
within municipal planning areas; moderate shall be defined as 40% build out of
residential and 20% build out of industrial/commercial/business. This particular
requirement will be waived if it can be demonstrated that there is a particular benefit
which accrues to the County and all other criteria are met.
Applicant Response – Not applicable. Miller Ranch is not in an urbanized area.
c. The applicant has demonstrated that the socioeconomic, or land use conditions of
the County either have changed or are in the process of change in such a manner to
warrant approval.
Applicant Response – The location of Miller Ranch has been defined as the “Rural
Residential high Density Land Use Area” in the Master Plan. There are residential
developments near the site.
Planning Department Response – The project is located in the Rural Residential-
High Density Land Use Area as identified in the Master Plan. The developmental
density for this land use area is for lots of 3 to 10 acres in size. The base density of
Miller Ranch is 5.01 acres per lot.
d. If negative fiscal impacts to Elbert County, or other units of government, occur as a
result of the project, either mitigation and monitoring of such negative fiscal impacts
or particular benefits to Elbert County must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Board of County Commissioners to offset such impacts.
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch will have positive fiscal impacts to Elbert
County. The developer will work with the Elizabeth School District to mitigate any
impacts.
Planning Department Response – As required, the applicant contracted with BBC
Research & Consultants to evaluate the proposal against the County Impact Model.
The evaluation indicates a positive fiscal impact to the County. The applicant also
used The Urban Land Institute development impact model for social impacts
analysis. AS a group, the Miller Ranch residents will increase the demand for
services in Elbert County.
Master Plan Compliance – The High Density Land Use area has seven Requirements which
must be evaluated. There are also 14 General Standards which should be addressed.
28
The following is the applicant’s response to each of the seven requirements, and as appropriate the
Planning Department’s response.
Rural Residential-High Density Land Use Area Requirements:
a. All new, legally created, platted subdivisions of land, creating lots of less than 35
acres in size, must be adjacent to existing, similar size or smaller parcels. Similar
shall be defined as: any lot within the same zoning district shall be considered
similar, and therefore, adjacent. To be considered adjacent, not less than 1/6 of the
parcel perimeter must be adjacent. All similar or smaller sized parcels that are
considered adjacent must be legally created and zoned. Creation of parcels between
35.00 and 59.99 acres shall be exempted from the 1/6 adjacency requirement.
Applicant Response – Miller Ranch West adjacent to Brittanie Ridge subdivision
that includes 86 five-acre lots. .
Planning Department Response – Miller Ranch West is adjacent to Brittanie Ridge
and some other appropriate parcels. The project has a 40’ foot wide buffer along the
north boundary of the Estates at Hidden Pines. The buffer is one half mile long.
This buffer was needed to achieve the minimal 16% adjacency needed for the
project.
b. In transition areas between lower and higher density uses, measures could include
requiring same density as contiguous land use, requiring greater setbacks, or
providing appropriate screening or buffering.
Applicant Response – Not applicable.
Planning Department Response – Adjustments will be necessary to the size of lots
11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. In a PUD, only a 25% differential in lot size is
allowed next to lots in an adjacent subdivision.
c. New development shall design residential location(s) in order to conserve land and
preserve the concept of open space.
Applicant Response – A total of 210.69 acres (63.9%) of open space will be
included. The open space includes both active and passive recreation. Pedestrian
paths will be open to the public.
Planning Department Response – Elbert County Subdivision Regulations require
20% open space in subdivisions.
d. A County approved central water system using Denver, Arapahoe, Laramie-Fox
Hills aquifers shall be required which will incorporate a recharge system to allow
water to replenish or augment the aquifers.
Applicant Response – A central water system is proposed for the project.
29
e. A County approved central sanitation system may be required.
Applicant Response – A central sewer system is not required because gross lot areas
measured against the total acreage of the project, are greater than 5 acres in size.
Homes will have individual septic systems, specifically designed to meet lot-specific
issues such as lot area, soil conditions, and residential demands. All systems will be
designed to provide for a replacement leach field location.
Planning Department Response – Applicant must submit responses satisfying
comments made by Elbert County Engineer Representative, Carter / Burgess,
confirming the following:
Provide confirmation that each residential lot, as delineated on the
Improvement Plans, will contain adequate land area to contain both an ISDS
and an alternate leach field.
Provide confirmation that geotechnical analysis certified by an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado and percolation testing performed in
accordance with Regulation No. l-02 will be performed on each residential
lot as delineated on the Improvement Plans prior to the sale of each lot.
Language to this effect should be included as a note on the final plant.
f. All collector roads shall be paved at the developer’s expense, and provide
improvements to any County roads to be impacted by this development. Road right-
of-way should be wide enough to provide for landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and adequate berming for visual relief and noise abatement where
appropriate.
Applicant Response – All roads in the project will be paved to County specifications.
The roads will be dedicated to the County. DR 154 is adjacent on the south and will
be paved by the County.
Planning Department Response – The Applicant did not address the Elbert County
Road & Bridge concerns submitted at the Concept Plan. The Applicant must
negotiate an appropriate resolution to the following road issues: Roads adjacent to
the site that will be directly impacted by the increased traffic:
CR 154 – Without the development of Brittainie Ridge or Miller Ranch,
current traffic counts do not support paving. With the additional traffic each
development will generate, both developments should be required to pay
for the paving of the road from CR 21 to CR 29. TAZ funds should not
be used towards improvements when the County had no plans anywhere
in the future for paving.
CR 29 from the south entrance to CR 166 – Current traffic counts do not
necessitate CR 29 in this area to be paved. With the additional traffic
being generated by this development, CR 29 should be required to be
paved at the developers expense, from the southern entrance to CR 166.
30
Again, TAZ funds should not be used when the burden being placed on
the road is entirely because of a specific development.
Intersections within close proximity to the site that will be directly impacted by the
increased traffic.
Intersection of CR 154 and CR 21 – Site distance issues will necessitate
turn lanes on north bound and south bound CR 21 onto CR 154.
Intersection of CR 29 and CR 154 – Site distance issues that will require a
hill to be cut down and the intersection raised.
Intersection of CR 29 and CR 166 – Site distance issues will necessitate a
turn lane on north bound CR 29 onto CR 166.
Intersection of CR 29 and CR 162 – Site distance issues that will require a
hill to be cut down and the intersection raised.
Additional intersections / roads within the county that will be affected by the
increased traffic.
Intersection of CR 13 and CR 166 – The traffic counts and design of this road
will require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
CR 17 east from CR 21 to Running Brook and on to CR 13 – Current traffic
counts show that Running Brook is used as a cut-across road by individuals
coming from the north and east to get to Elizabeth without going through the
Town. Traffic counts show that Running Brook should be paved, and
additional traffic can only intensify the problems with maintenance and dust
control.
CR 166 and Delbert Road – The traffic counts and design of this road will
require turn lanes and signalization in the future.
Access concerns / comments:
Access to this site should be from CR 154 and CR 29. Due to site distance
issues on CR 21, the access onto Timber Ridge Drive should be for
emergencies only.
g. The developer may be required to design a Trail System that allows for pedestrian
and equestrian use. The Trail System should endeavor to link up or provide access
to the forthcoming County-wide Trail Map.
Applicant Response – Pedestrian trails are included in the proposal and will be open
to the public. These trails may be linked to a future County-wide trail system, if one
is developed.
31
The Master Plan also contains 14 General Standards which must be addressed. The following is the
applicant’s response and as appropriate the Planning Department’s response.
1. 20% dedicated open space with consideration for wildlife and wildlife corridors.
Applicant Response – A total of 210.69 acres (63.9%) of open space will be included.
Planning Department Response – Elbert County Subdivision Regulations require a 20%
dedication for Open Space.
2. Paving of roads, and when approved by the County, dust mitigation where there is more
than 200 vehicle trips per day generated by the proposal.
Applicant Response – All roads shall be paved in the development, to County standards.
3. Undergrounding of all Utilities.
Applicant Response – All utilities will be placed underground.
4. Dedication of Land, Facilities or Cash-in-lieu for Schools, Fire Protection, Sheriff’s
Facilities, Roads, and Other County Services where applicable.
Applicant Response –
School impacts: Elizabeth School District has proposed impact fees related to new
developments for capital facilities and land. The applicant accepts the District’s
current impact fee requirements and cash-in-lieu contribution.
Impact Fees: The developer will pay road and county impact fees consistent with
County requirements.
Planning Department Response – Referral comments by the Elbert County Road and Bridge
have identified specific impacts by this project as described previously in the “Findings”
and in Compliance with Elbert County Master Plan: Rural Residential Areas – High
Density, “f.” A resolution agreement addressing these impact, must be obtained with Elbert
County Road & Bridge,
5. Residential, Commercial or industrial Development shall not occur on 100 year flood
plains, slopes greater than 20% or other hazard areas.
Applicant Response – Development is prohibited on slopes greater than 20% and on
unstable soil areas. There are no designated 100 year flood plain on the site.
Planning Department Response – The Colorado Geological Survey provided the following
referral comments about unstable soils:
- Parts of the site are underlain by very highly expansive soil and bedrock that can
severely damage homes, roads, utilities, and drainage structures. The preliminary
report contains recommendations for mass grading, foundation, and pavements.
However, no grading plans were submitted with the preliminary report, so it is
32
difficult to determine if the application follows the engineer’s recommendations
- The engineer provides some design recommendations for building and roads;
however, the report does not address the design of flatwork, utilities, and storm
systems. Expansive soil and bedrock can severely damage these types of
improvements. The geotechnical report should be revised to address this issue.
- The report submitted with the application was preliminary in nature and consisted
of widely spaced soil borings. Additional work needs to be done in order to
ensure hazards are adequately mitigated and all structures perform as
designed.
- According to the preliminary drainage plan, the NRCS Soil Survey is being used,
in part, to design drainage facilities for the site. However, the soil survey is a
preliminary planning resource, not meant for site-specific design.
According to the geotechnical report, a good part of the site contains shallow
bedrock. It is likely; site grading will expose bedrock or weathered bedrock.
Runoff from exposed bedrock would likely be moderately-high (hydrologic
group C) to high (hydrologic group D) or more runoff will be generated than
originally anticipated.
- Using the soil survey without looking at site-specific conditions, before and after
grading, could result in drainage facilities not being adequately designed and
sized to mitigate the impacts of site development. This could cause localized
flooding, damages to homes, utilities, and roads, and excessive erosion and
sedimentation. Additional investigation and design should be done prior to
approval of final drainage plans.
- In other areas, off-site runoff that flows onto the property is a concern. For
example, runoff from 50 acres (Basin B7) flows into lots located in the northeast
corner of the site. According the drainage report, these flows range from 12.5
cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 5-year storm event, to 66.4 (cfs) for a 100-year
storm. Such flows are significant and can adversely affect homes, roads, and
septic systems.
- It appeared that the engineer made no provisions to protect homes from off-site
flows. It may be necessary to provide additional drainage easements and/or
reconfigure lots adjacent to drainages.
- According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil descriptions, the
site is underlain by soils that have weathered from the Upper Dawson Formation
or from eolian deposits, colluvium or alluvium. The soils range from silt, sand,
to clay and have similar development characteristics. In general, the soils are
described as having low strength, high shrink-swell potential and slow
permeability. Soils with a slow permeability indicate storm-water runoff
may be rapid. Rapid runoff on sandy soils can result in high erosion
hazards. Gullies in the area, confirm that erosion hazards can be severe.
- Expansive soil and shallow bedrock, as described above, can affect the design
and performance of septic systems. These issues are not addressed in the
application.
- From the materials submitted, it appears that Elbert County has policies on
development in geologic hazard areas. For example, a policy states, “The
County shall not allow development within geologic-hazard areas posing a
threat of injury, loss of life, or property damage. In general, geologic
hazards at the site can be mitigated; however, additional information is
33
needed to determine if the development, as currently proposed, adequately
mitigates such hazards. Without such information, CGS cannot assess if
the county’s policies have been met.
Elbert County Engineer Representative, Carter / Burgess, provided the following comments
about soils and drainage, (flood potential), issues:
- Soils in portions of the site are classified as moderate to very highly expansive.
Please provide information on over excavation requirements for County
infrastructure (e.g., roadways and drainage structures), wet utilities, house
foundations, and driveways.
- Provide an explanation regarding the variation between subsurface information
included as part of the Septic System Feasibility Study and this Soils and
Geotechnical Study.
- Provide confirmation that all storm water drainage infrastructure including, but
not limited to: culverts; swales; water quality / detention ponds will be located
in dedicated easements or tracts. These easements and / or tracts shall be
clearly identified on the plant.
- Design plans referenced in the report are not included with the submittal.
- Please confirm that all components of the project storm water management
system area capable of conveying, controlling and / or containing the major
and minor design storm.
- The conclusion of the Report states that the storm water drainage system has
been designed in conformance with UDFCD standards. This does not appear to
be the case. Please provide all required UDFCD design information
(hydrologic and hydraulic) required to substantiate this statement.
6. Premium areas such as treed areas, environmentally sensitive areas, viewsheds, and prime
agricultural land shall require Design Standards.
Applicant Response – Design standards protect premium areas on the site, including the
drainage channels, and the ponderosa pine forest.
Planning Department Response – The design standards need to be addressee in the
Development Guide.
7. Building envelopes shall be required on lots with hazardous and premium areas.
Applicant Response – Residential lots shall include designated “no build areas” which will
include setbacks, unstable soil areas, views, and areas where the slope is greater than 20%
slope.
Planning Department Response – In its referral comments, the Colorado Geological Survey
provided that from the materials submitted, it appears that Elbert County has policies on
development in geologic hazard areas. For example,
a policy states, “The County shall not allow development within geologic-hazard
areas posing a threat of injury, loss of life, or property damage. In general,
geologic hazards at the site can be mitigated; however, additional information is
34
needed to determine if the development, as currently proposed, adequately
mitigates such hazards. Without such information, CGS cannot assess if
the county’s policies have been met
The Elbert County Engineer Representative, Carter / Burgess, provided comments
about soils and drainage, (flood potential), issues that are also critical to establishing
building envelopes.
The comments from both referral agencies should be reflected in establishing building
envelopes.
8. Provisions for noxious weed control.
Applicant Response – A weed plan has been prepared and shall be implemented.
9. Energy Conservation.
Applicant Response – Energy conservation will be encouraged in the design and
construction of the homes by the homebuilders. Native plants and low-water and low
maintenance landscaping will be used in public ROW and encouraged on residential lots.
Planning Department Response – Need to be in Development Guide.
10. Design Standards.
Applicant Response – Design standards are included in the protective covenants; an
architectural control committee shall be established.
Planning Department Response – The development of Design Standards and the placement
of the standards in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions is at the Applicants
discretion. Elbert County reserves the right to review these standard to determine if there
are conflicts between adopted County regulations and the submitted Development Guide
Agreement which serves as the site specific Zoning Regulation for the project.
11. Protective covenants.
Applicant Response – Protective covenants have been prepared.
12. Density requirements for different land use areas may be lower than specified densities for
respective land use areas.
Applicant Response – Not applicable.
13. Also, development must comply with all Elbert County Zoning, Subdivision, 1041
Requirements along with Federal Road Design Standards.
Applicant Response – The development shall comply with county regulations.
35
Planning Department Response – As submitted, there are several issues raising concerns
with specific requirements of the Elbert County Zoning Regulations, Subdivision
Regulations, and 1041 Regulations as well as concerns relating to compliance with Master
Plan guidance.
14. If a land use application proposes a use in an area that has been designated as appropriate
for that type of use, the application for rezoning shall be approved if it meets the standards
developed for that land use designation.
Applicant Response – Acknowledged.
Planning Department Response – In addition to compliance with the Master Plan
Requirements and General Standards, the application must be in compliance with all
appropriate County Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
RZ 06-10-20 Miller Ranch West PUD, There are particular concerns are about satisfying the
referral comments of Elizabeth Fire, Elbert County Road and Bridge, Elbert County Engineer
representative, and PUD lot size for lots 11,12,19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
PP 06-10-03 Miller Ranch West Preliminary Plat – There are particular concerns are about Section
VIII – Preliminary Plat, Section XIII – Standards and Studies, and XVII – Public Notice, (The
Planning Department has received the sign information, but nothing else. At least 24 days prior to
the date of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning Department the following:
- White postal receipts for Certified Mail mailed to the adjacent property owners
and the property owners within five hundred (500) feet, [(1325) feet for 1041], of
the proposed site as required by these Rezoning Procedures and Requirements,
- a copy of the note mailed to said property owners,
- a list, in alphabetical order, of the adjacent property owners and
- a map illustrating the location and proximity of the adjacent property owners and
property owners within five hundred (500) feet, [(1325) feet for 1041], of the
proposed site.
1041 06-02-01 Miller Ranch 1041 Permit – Particular concerns are:
- (1)(a) Issues to be resolved
- (b) Issues to be resolved
- (c) Applicant must respond
- 9. (iii) Drainage
- g (iv) Drainage
- m. Elbert County Road & Bridge
Master Plan: Seven (7) Standards
- e: Septic lot concern
- f: Road & Bridge Concerns
36
Master Plan: Fourteen (14) General Standards
- 4. Elbert County Road & Bridge
- 5. Other Hazard areas
- 7. Lots with Hazardous areas
1041 Permit, Chapter 4 Article 307 (3) states
(3) The Board of County Commissioners shall deny the permit, if the proposed development
does not comply with the applicable criteria in subsections (1) and (2) of this Section.
Section VIII, B, 4. of the Subdivision Regulations, outlines four options for the Planning
Commission to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Approval of the proposal
2. Approval with conditions
3. Denial of the request
4 Table comment until the next available meeting when additional information is
needed and requested
The Planning Department is forwarding a recommendation for number 4: “Table comment until the
next available meeting when additional information is needed and requested.”
RZ 06-10-20 MILLER RANCH WEST PUD
PP 06-10-03 MILLER RANCH WEST PRELIMINARY PLAT
1041 06-05-06 MILLER RANCH WEST 1041 PERMIT
Reason: The project appears viable and one that could be accomplished within the regulatory
framework of Elbert County. There are however, many issues that have been raised by referral
agencies. The Applicant should have opportunity to satisfactorily mitigate these issues.
Adopt the Findings enumerated herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Curtis S. Carlson
Planner II
Attachments: Referral Agency Comments, Referral Citizen comments, Plan documents
37