The Garfield County Planning Commission on Aug. 27 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Mountain View preliminary plan, a proposal to divide a roughly 27.5‑acre parcel about 2 miles north of Silt into five residential lots. The commission’s recommendation included staff’s findings and conditions and added a requirement for further Road & Bridge comments before the item goes to the Board for final action.

County planning staffer Philip Berry said staff recommends approval with a set of findings and 11 standard conditions and noted additional engineering and HOA sign‑offs that must be completed at final plat. The proposal would rely on the existing Peach Valley Orchard (PVO) water system and an on‑site irrigation pond; homes would use individual septic systems (OWTS) and the applicant proposes residential fire‑suppression storage tanks tied into the potable system.

Why it matters: The project seeks to add five residential lots in a rural zone while relying on a shared, existing water system that already serves nearby properties. Neighbors and the HOA told commissioners they want firm assurances that the will‑serve commitments and distribution arrangements will not reduce water availability for existing residents. Commissioners also heard concerns about the narrow, partially unimproved local roads that would receive the new traffic.

Most important facts
- The applicant, Red Dog LLC, represented by an attorney and by a consultant team, proposed a five‑lot preliminary plan for a 27.5‑acre parcel in the Rural Land Zone roughly 2 miles north of Silt.
- Staff said referral agencies generally provided technical comments and that staff’s recommendation includes conditions requiring final engineering, lot‑specific geotechnical analyses and HOA sign‑off on water system operations before final plat.
- The preliminary traffic estimate in the staff presentation put new trips from the subdivision at a little under 100 daily trips total, with about 17 daily trips from the northwestern lot accessing Columbine Road/Lane.
- The application would connect to the existing Peach Valley Orchard water system (the “Simon well” supply), and the HOA has provided a will‑serve letter; staff and the applicant agreed that final engineering and formal HOA sign‑off must be complete at final plat.
- Public commenters, including the local HOA president and residents, urged stronger, enforceable conditions to ensure the water system’s long‑term reliability and to address safety and access concerns on local roads.

Key discussion points and commission direction
Commissioners and referral agencies pressed three main areas: water supply operations, emergency water/fire protection, and local road capacity.
- Water supply and HOA sign‑off: HOA representatives and residents said they have experienced reliability concerns and asked the commission to ensure the will‑serve letter and the operational, maintenance and cost allocation details are binding before approval. Staff’s recommended condition requires final engineering and documentation, including sign‑off by the HOA, at final plat. HOA president Dave Hillbrand asked the commission to “put some teeth into making sure that the will‑serve letter … is satisfactorily obliged by both parties.”
- Fire protection/dry hydrant and on‑site tanks: The applicant and the fire district discussed using the existing irrigation pond and individual on‑site pressurized storage tanks for initial fire response; the applicant said each lot would have its own buried tank sized and designed by a qualified professional and that domestic water could feed house suppression systems. Commissioners noted the operational difference between a buried storage tank and an active sprinkler system and left the detailed engineering to final design and building permit review.
- Road access and off‑site impacts: Multiple residents said the local roads (Groff/Grama/Columbine area and the shared private drive) are narrow and not built for increased traffic. Staff said the project does not trigger the county code threshold for an off‑site road improvement contribution (the 20% traffic increase trigger) but recommended adding a condition requiring additional Road & Bridge comments prior to BOCC review; the commission added that condition.

Public comment and applicant response
Local residents and the HOA described past water distribution conflicts on the existing PVO irrigation/water system, intermittent power outages that affect pump availability, and sections of narrow roadway where two vehicles cannot pass safely. Resident Kevin Chi told the commission that repeated power outages can leave homes without domestic water and therefore without available suppression water, and resident Vance Everett highlighted narrow sections of roadway that have damaged vehicles and fences.

Applicant Terry Kirk, owner of Red Dog LLC, said he has lived in the valley for decades and described the irrigation pond and system history, noting previous studies of water shares and the option to drill a permitted supplemental well if necessary. The applicant team said they will work with the HOA to finalize engineering and operations documents and that final plat will not be recorded without those sign‑offs.

Decision and next steps
Commissioner (mover) made a motion recommending that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Mountain View preliminary plan with staff’s findings and conditions 1–11, to strike condition 11c, and to add a new condition requiring additional Road & Bridge comments prior to BOCC review. The motion was seconded and carried. The commission’s action is a recommendation; the Board of County Commissioners will hold a separate public hearing and make the final decision.

Background
Staff said the site was the subject of an earlier sketch plan review and that the Simon Subdivision exemption (lots created in 1999) and prior water‑supply proceedings affect the current application. The applicant said the property was purchased in 2007 and that prior proposals stalled for economic reasons. Staff’s recommended plat notes include radon‑resistant construction, lot‑specific geotechnical analyses at time of building permit, no on‑street parking for fire access, noxious weed control in CC&Rs, and provisions for HOA inspection and maintenance of shared facilities.

Taper/forward look
Before the Board of County Commissioners reviews the project, staff and the applicant must finalize engineering reports and the HOA will‑serve agreement. The commission additionally requested more detailed Road & Bridge comment on the local access prior to the county board hearing.