Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report 7.19.14Planning Commission (continued from July 9, 2014) Exhibits - TXTP 7936 Vegetation Management Proof of Publication Garfield C Land Use and Development Code Garheld ive Plan 2030" as amended A Staff dated July 9.2014 Staff Presentation dated Jdv 9,2014 lemental Staff dated August 13,2014 Staff Presentation dated A 13,2014 EE A B C D E F G H TYPT OF REVIEW: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE: Text Amendment to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Vegetation Ma nagement Revisions TXTP 7936 Board of County Commissioners August L3,2OL4 (Continued from July 9,2014\ !. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Background On May 6,2014, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) directed Staff to draft a text amendment to the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC)to make the LUDC consistent with the Garfield County Weed Management Plan, and the Revegetation Guidelines and Reclamation Standards section, adopted by the BOCC in 2002. These resolutions impact multiple departments, include Vegetation Management, and Community Development. This application was heard by the Planning Commission (PC) on July 9, 2014. At this hearing, the PC voted to continue the hearing to the regularly scheduled August 13,201,4 meeting date. This continuance was to allow Staff to evaluate a number of issues identified with the proposed amendment language. ln addition, as this text amendment is pertaining to Vegetation Management and Steve Anthony, the Garfield County Vegetation Manager, was not able to attend the July t hearing, the continuance allows the PC the opportunity to discuss the amendment with Mr. Anthony directly. The issues identified by the PC on July 9 are as follows: Professionol Quolifications: Consider adding "or other qualified professional" to the list of individuals able to complete the supplemental information. Seed Mix: Consider a standard seed mix. % Acre Threshold for Plans ond Security: Consider increasing the threshold. Tiered submittal requirementsi Consider creating a tiered submittal requirement scheme. lnitial Reclamotion within 90 Doys after construction: Consider amending the timeframe to eliminate Vegetation Manager discretion to determine alternative timeframe. Atl Stotes / Federolly Listed Species: Consider including the Federal / All States Species List to the Garfield County and State of Colorado Noxious Weed Lists. SUPPTEMENTAT PROJECT INFORMATION ll. Discussion of Planning Commission Concerns P rofessi o n o I Qu a I ificoti ons: The Language as originally proposed by Staff pertaining to Professional Qualifications is as follows: sEcTroN 4-203(A) - PROFESSIONAL QUALI FICATIONS: 6. Vegetation Management Professional. Weed management, revegetation and reclamation plans and weed inventory reports shall be prepared by a botanist, ecologist, range scientist, or agronomist. The PC recommended considering adding "or other qualified professional" to the list of individuals able to complete the supplemental information. Staff feels that this is a reasonable and positive addition to the language. To this end, Staff suggests recommending the following language to the BOCC (New language in Blue): sEcTtoN 4-203(A) - PROFESSIONAT qUALI FICATIONS: 6. Vegetation Management Professional. Weed management, revegetation and reclamation plans and weed inventory reports shall be prepared by a botanist, ecologist, range scientist, e+ agronomist or other qualified professional. Seed Mix: The Language that currently exists in the LUDC and originally proposed by Staff pertaining to Seed Mix is as follows: Revegetation, Reclamation and Soil Plan that includes the following information and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-208: 1. A plant material and seed mix list that includes scientific and common names and the application rate in terms of Pure Live Seed per acre, a planting schedule that includes timing, methods, and mulching, and a map with a calculation of the surface area disturbance in acres of the area impacted (where the soilwill be disturbed). Submitted seed mixes are currently reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. These mixes are reviewed for regional suitability, ensures proposed mix does not include State and County Listed Noxious Weeds as well as project specific appropriateness. As Garfield County has a widely varied ecologyand a high proportion of federallyowned and managed landswith specific required seed mixes, the appropriateness of a seed mix varies from one location to another as well as between projects (such as pipelines that go in and out of federal and private lands). As a result of this high variation, Staff feels it is important to allow the Applicant and the County the flexibility to determine the proper seed mix for a specific project. To this end, Staff supports maintaining flexibility in seed mixes and does not recommend a prescribed Garfield County seed mix. % Acre Threshold for Plons ond Securitv: The Language that currently exists in the LUDC and originally proposed by Staff pertaining to Seed Mix is as follows: sEcfl oNs 9-102(L) AND 4-203(Ex18) Reclamation, Revegetation and Soil Management Plan Submittal Requirements 3. A Weed Management Plan for all Garfield County listed noxious weeds and State of Colorado listed noxious weeds that are targeted for statewide eradication. The Plan shall include a site specific map and weed inventory. A Weed Management Plan is required if an area /, acre or greater is disturbed for the purposes of site construction, development or grading but not including areas serving the long-term function of the site (i.e. building footprint, road surface or permanent parking areas). 4. A revegetation security may be required if, in the determination of the County Vegetation Manager, the proposed project has: a. A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds; b. A potential to impact watershed areas; c. A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors; d. Steep Slopes L5% or greater or unstable areas; and/or e. Disturbs an arealz acre or greater where topsoil is exposed for the purposes of site construction, development or grading but does not comprise the lonS-term functioning of the site (i.e. building footprint, road surface or permanent parking areas). Currently, applicants must comply with the Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines as well as the Reclamation Standards which were adopted by the BOCC in 2001. These regulations require submittal of a Soil Plan and Revegetation Plan for all disturbance regardless of size outside approved building envelopes. ln addition, these regulations require a revegetation security for all disturbances ovetlzacre. These are implemented at the time of Grading Permit through the Building Department and Land use Change Permit through the Planning Department. As agricultural uses are exempt from the building code and LUDC, residents are not required to submit Weed Management Plans or security for agricultural uses. Through this text amendment, Staff has suggested easing these requirements within the LUDC by allowing applicants to subtract out building footprints, road surfaces and permanent parking areas before reaching the % aue disturbance area. At the July 9 PC meeting, Staff was directed to consider increasing lhe % acre threshold for submittal of a Weed Management Plan and related security. While neither the Planning Department nor the Vegetation Manager have an issue with increasing this threshold, a threshold that isnol% acre will lead to a discrepancy between the LUDC and the adopted Revegetation and Reclamation Standards. As a result, before any change is adopted, the new threshold will need to be considered by the Garfield County Weed Advisory Board before it is adopted within the LUDC. The purpose of having the Weed Advisory Board consider the change first is to ensure a certain degree of probability that they would be agreeable to amending the Revegetation and Reclamation Standards to maintain future consistency between these regulatory documents. The BOCC, however, has final authority in both the LUDC and the Revegetation and Reclamation Standards. To this end, Staff suggests increasing the threshold to one (1) acre while maintaining the suggestion of allowing applicants to subtract our building footprints, road surfaces and permanent parking areas. Prior to presenting this change (U2 acre to 1 acre) to the BOCC, however, the Weed Advisory Board should review and be agreeable to such a revision. Tie re d su b m itto I re q u i re me nts:. As originally proposed and consistent with the 2002 Garfield County Weed Management Plan a Revegetation Plan, security, and a Soil Management Plan are required for all disturbance Y, acre or greater. While some flexibility exists regarding specific submittal requirements and a tiered scheme can be created in that regard, unless the 2002 Garfield County Weed Management Plan resolution is amended, all Land Use Change Permits will need to ultimately provide a Revegetation Plan and Soil Plan and, if the disturbance is over lz acre outside a platted building envelope, a financial security. By creating submittaltiers within the LUDC, the requirements in the 2002 resolutions will be complied with in different manners (i.e. conditions of approval or assistance from County Staff) based on their overall disturbance area, With this understanding, Staff has e reated the following pesEible tiered submittal requirement+fer tand Use Change Permit+ 4# lppJ+€sfiens: Cal€u perfina*+er*f.a+ki,a5€fea* p+an+ing-s€hedCe, permanent parlqingareas; preposed seed miri map ef disturbed; planting sehedule; weed inventsry; manag€se{*ftan" Through the review process, applications that are required to submit less information up front will still need to meet the requirements of the 2002 resolution. ln order to achieve full compliance, this workload would subsequently fall back on Staff, notably the Vegetation Manager, andf or would be required as a condition of approval. ln addition, due to the increased regulatory complexity such a tiered system introduces to the LUDC, Staff suggests finding a disturbance area that is satisfactory to the PC, BOCC and Weed Advisory Board to require all items at the time of submittal as well as compliance with any necessary financial security. lnitiol Reclomation within 90 Davs ofter construction: The Language that currently exists in the LUDC and originally proposed by Staff pertaining to initial reclamation is as follows: B. Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography within 90 days of completion of construction unless an alternative timeframe is approved by the Vegetation Manager. When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, prevent fugitive dust as required by State Statute, and reduce visual impacts. Staff understands that the PC is concerned about 1) if the end or a portion of the 90 days falls outside the standard growing season for the subject ecosystem and 2) that putting the authority to approve a timeframe in the hands of the Vegetation Manager concentrates too much power in that position. Staff does not view this deadline as critical to attaining consistency between the LUDC and the 2002 resolution. To this end, Staff suggests striking the timeframe and moving forward with the below language instead. B. Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography within 9O days ef eemphtien ef eenstruetien unless an alternative-timeframe is appreved by{heVetetatien Manager. When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, prevent fugitive dust as required by State Statute, and reduce visual impacts. All Stotes / Federollv Listed Species: The Colorado Noxious Weed Management Act specifies the designation of noxious weeds through the Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture and local governing bodies. The County Weed Advisory Board, in the updated Garfield County Weed Management Plan will propose to the BOCC additional species to the current County List. The BOCC was advised of this proposal in a work session in March 2014. These additions will consist primarily of State List A and B species that are known to be in the County in addition to the current county list. Staff understands that a Federal list of noxious species does exist. However, Staff feels that the State list is dynamic and regularly maintained to be relevant for our area. ln addition, adopting such a list would substantially increase the number of species that would be subject to the Weed Management Plan. Such an increase in the number of species makes the Weed Management Plan that much more burdensome and costly to applicants. ln addition, because many of the weed species on the Federal list do not occur anywhere in the Mountain or Plains states, such a requirement would not be an effective use of Garfield County or applicant resources. For these reasons, Staff does not recommend adopting the All States / Federal list of noxious weeds and instead suggests continuing to refer to the Colorado and Garfield County lists. WPE OF REVIEW: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE: Text Amendment to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Vegetation M a nagement Revisions TXTP 7935 Board of County Commissioners )uly 9,2014 I. PROPOSAT DESCRIPTION Background Since the adoption of the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) in 2013, certain deficiencies and inconsistencies have been identified related to vegetation management, specifically the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan as adopted in 200L. These inconsistencies have resulted in confusion on the part of applicants who are submitting for Land Use Change permits. Making the expectations and requirements clearer in the LUDC will help facilitate the overall Permit review process and make it smoother for both Staff and applicants. The following is a brief discussion of sections that need modification: Section 1-102(8) - Authority and State Enabling Legislation Section 1-L02(8) identifies the powers granted to the County by State Statutes. lt is proposed to add the enabling legislation for the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, C.R.S. 35-5.5-101 et seq. This section details the powers of the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") pertaining to noxious weeds as well as addresses noxious weed management on private lands. Section 1-301(El - Weed Control and Pets Division 3 of Article 1 identifies Garfield County as a Right to Farm jurisdiction. Section E of this Division states that "Landowners are responsible for controlling weeds, keeping pets under control and other aspects of using and maintain property in accordance with County regulations." lt is proposed to separate this section into one for weeds and one for pets and other responsibilities. Doing so would help to highlight the importance of managing weeds in conformance with both State and County regulations. Section 4-203(Al - Professional Qualifications Section 4-203(A) identifies the qualifications necessary for professionals who create the studies required by the LUDC for Land Use Change Permit applications. The list of qualification currently does not identify those necessary forthe creation of revegetation and reclamation plans. lt is proposed to add a line for Vegetation Management Professional which would include a qualified botanist, ecologist, range scientist, or agronomist. Doing so will clarify the expectations on the part of applicants for the creation of vegetation and reclamation related studies and plans. Section 4-203(EX18), 9-102(L) - Submittal Requirements for Revegetation, Reclamation and SoilPlan Section 4-203(EX1-8)addresses Land Use Change Permit submittal requirements. This section requires a Reclamation Plan that is "Consistent with the standards in Section 7-2O8" , bul provides no further guidance for applicants regarding materials which are necessary for Staff, Planning Commission and/or the Board to adequately review the applications against the standards in Section 7-2O8. As a result, there has been some confusion on the part of applicants as to what information should be submitted in their application. The goal of this amendment is to make the submittal requirements in Section 4-203(EX18) and the standards in Section 7-208 consistent with the Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines as adopted in 2001and Reclamations Standards from the Noxious Weed Management Plan also adopted by the Board in 2001. While reviewing the various regulations for consistency, it was found that the Revegetation Plan submittal requirements found in Pipelines Section 9-102(L) was a good model for revising Section 4-203(EX18); the section which governs almost all Land Use Change Permits and Divisions of Land Permits. To this end, the following recommendation draws offthe format and content which already exists in Section 9-l-02(L), with additional amendments to increase conformity of that section with the adopted revegetation and reclamation plan and standards. Section 7-208 - Standards for Revegetation, Reclamation and Soil Plan While SectionT-208 has been the governing guidelines to date for both compliance and submittals, this section remains largely intact relative to form and content. However, some changes are proposed to this section to make the requirements consistent with those found in the Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines and Reclamations Standards from the Noxious Weed Management Plan. ln addition, some changes are proposed to clarify the language and to extend the required timeframe to establish vegetation on a disturbed site from 2 seasons to 4 growing seasons, as it is a more realistic timeframe. Article 15 - Definitions Two definitions for "Garfield County listed Noxious Weeds" and "State Listed Noxious Weeds' are proposed. These definitions are intended to clarify the weeds which are to be controlled and examined in the Weed Management Plan. II. SUMMARY OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES The Vegetation Manager and Community Development Department concur that the LUDC and the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan should be consistent as well as provide for clear expectations on the part of applicants of Land Use Change Permits. The Vegetation Manager and the Community Development Department recommend amending the LUDC as indicated in red text: sEcTroN 1-102(8) - AUTHORTW AND STATE ENABLTNG LEG|S|_ATION: It is the intention of the BOCC in adopting the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code to fully exercise all relevant powers conferred by the laws of the State of Colorado including, but not limited to: A. Colorado Constitution. Rll of the powers reserved to the County by the Colorado Constitution. B. State Enabling Legislation. All ofthe powers granted to the County by: 1. Title 15, Article 13, Part 3, C.R.S., Restraint and Abatement of Nuisances; 2. Title 24, Article 65.1, C.R.S., Areas and Activities of State lnterest; 3. Title 24, Article 57, C.R.S., Planned Unit Development Act; 4. Title 24, Article 68, C.R.S., Vested Property Rights AcU 5. Title 29, Article 20, C"R.S., Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act; 6. Title 30, Article 11, C.R.S., County Powers and Functions; 7. Title 30, Article 15, C.R.S., County Regulations Under Police Powers; 8. Title 30, Article 28, C.R.S., County Planning Act; 9. Title 34, Article 1, Part 3, C.R.S., Preservation of Commercial Mineral Deposits; 10. Title 35, Article 5.5, C.R.S., Colorado Noxious Weed AcU 1{t11. Title 38, Article 30.5, C.R.S., Conservation Easements; and l+12. Title 43, Article 2, C.R.S., State, County and Municipal and Public Roads. sEcfloN 1-301(E) -WEED CONTROLAND pETS: E. Weed M anagement €en++el andfrt+, $infan+maintaining preperty i i€n+ Landowners are responsible for managing all Garfield County listed noxious weeds and State of Colorado listed noxious weeds on their property that are targeted for statewide eradication in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan. F. Control of Pets and Responsibilities of Maintaining Property Landowners are responsible for eentrellingr*eeC+keeping pets under control; and other aspects of using and maintaining property in accordance with County regulations. sEcTroN 4-203(A) - PROFESSTONAT QUAL!F|CATTONS: 6. Vegetation Management Professional. Weed management, revegetation and reclamation plans and weed inventory reports shall be prepared by a botanist, ecologist, range scientist, or agronomist. & 7. Other. Other professionals retained by Applicant to provide studies and analysis required by this Code shall demonstrate qualification in the specific field, to the satisfaction of the reviewing body. sEcfloNs 9-102(L) AND 4-203(EX18) Reclamation, Revegetation and Soil Management Plan Submittal Requirements (Explonation: The below markup is bosed on Pipelines Section 9-102(L), while the existing language found in a-20j(E)(18) is olso proposed to be eliminoted ond replaced with the some text, os indicated below) Revegetation, Reclamation and Soil Plan that includes the following information and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-208: 1. A plant material and seed mix list that includes scientific and common names and the application rate in terms of Pure Live Seed per acre, a planting schedule that includes timing, methods, and mulching, and a map with a calculation of the surface area disturbance in acres of the area impacted (where the soil will be disturbed). 2. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, a timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles and a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 3. A Weed Management Plan for all Garfield County listed noxious weeds and State of Colorado listed noxious weeds that are targeted for statewide eradication. The Plan shall include a site specific map and weed inventory. A Weed Management Plan is required if an area lz aul or greater is disturbed for the purposes of site construction, development or grading but not including areas serving the long-term function of the site (i.e. building footprint, road surface or permanent parking areas). 4. A revegetation security may be required if, in the determination of the County Vegetation Manager, the proposed project has: a. A potentialto facilitate the spread of noxious weeds; b. A potentialto impact watershed areas; c. A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors; d. Steep Slopes 15% orgreateror unstable areas; and/or e. Disturbs an arealz acre or greater where topsoil is exposed for the purposes of site construction, development or grading but does not comprise the long-term functioning of the site (i.e. building footprint, road surface or permanent parking areas). 5. The revegetation security will be in an amount to be determined by the County Vegetation Manager that will be site specific and based on the amount of disturbance. The security shall be held by the County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished, or for a period of time approved by the County Vegetation Manager in any specific land use action, according to the Reclamation and Revegetation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The County Vegetation Manager will evaluate the reclamation and revegetation prior to the release of the security. The security shall be subject to all provision of Article 13. 7-208- RECTAMATION, REVEGETATION AND SOIL MANAGEMENT PIAN STANDARDS A. Applicability. These standards shall apply to any development that requires a Land Use Change Permit, including divisions of land, as well as to the following activities: 1. lnstallation of ISDS. lnstallation of a new or replacement ISDS. 2. Driveway Construction. Any driveway construction that requires a Garfield County Access Permit or a CDOT Access Permit. 3. Preparation Area. All areas disturbed during development that do not comprise the longer-term functional areas of the site but are those areas used for the short-term preparation of the site. B. Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography within 90 days of completion of construction unless an alternative timeframe is approved by the Vegetation Manager. When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, prevent fugitive dust as required by State Statute, and reduce visual impacts. 1. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible Slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by Grading shall be contoured so they can be revegetated, and shall be planted and have vegetation established. a+egr€#ing based en 70% eeverage as eernpared withthe eriginal en site vegetatien within 2 gr€rYing-s€esonsr{asi veBetatien eapable ef supperting the pest disturban€e land use,A uniform vegetative cover shall be established with an individual plant density of at least 70% of pre- disturbance levels within 4 growing seasons.Revegetation cover shall consist of a diversity of native andlor beneficial nonnative vegetation species capable of supporting the post-disturbance land use. State or County listed noxious weeds, as well as alien annual invasive species, do not count as part of the 70orl cover.To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of weed-free species and plant cover typical to that site. 2. Weed Management. A management plan with appropriate strategies shall be employed for all Garfield County listed noxious weeds, State of Colorado listed noxious weeds that are targeted for statewide eradication. 3. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled, placed on disturbed areas and managed for later use in reclamation. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, a timetable for eliminating topsoil andlor aggregate piles and a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. 4. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation, or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut Slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. 5. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases, and wildfire hazards, allvegetative residue, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot-clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prion to final building inspection approval. 6. Removal of Debris. Within 5 months of substantial completion of soil disturbance, all brush, stumps, and other debris shall be removed from the site. 7. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site Article 15 - Definitions Garfield County Listed Noxious Weed. An alien plant that has been designated as being noxious or has been declared a noxious weed by the Board of County Commissioners. State of Colorado Listed Noxious Weed. Any noxious weed identified by the Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture by rule after notifying and consulting with the state noxious weed advisory committee. IV. STAFF ANATYSIS - IUDC CR|TERN FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT Section 4-114 outlines the procedures and criteria for consideration of a Land Use Code Text Amendment request to the LUDC. The criteria for approval of a Land Use Code Text Amendment are as follows: 1. The proposed text amendment is in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental atreements; and There are no intergovernmental agreements impacted by the proposed text amendment. 2. The proposed text amendment does not conflict with State law. The Colorado Revised Statute Title 35, Article 5.5, C.R.S., Colorado Noxious Weed Act, as amended, gives the County authority and responsibility to control noxious weeds on private lands within unincorporated areas of Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed amendments are to maintain consistency between State law, adopted Garfield County resolutions regarding reclamation and revegetation and the Garfield County LUDC. This proposed text amendment is in compliance with this statutory provision. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the text amendments as amended by the Board of County Commissioners and outlined in this memo. Staff believes that the text amendment as outlined brings consistency between the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan as adopted in 2001 and the LUDC and by doing so brings clarity to the Land Use Permit application process. TYPE OF REVIEW: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE: Text Amendment to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Vegetation Management Revisions TXTP 7936 Board of County Commissioners August 13,2074 (Continued from July 9,2014) I. PROPOSAT DESCRIPTION Background On May 6,2074, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) directed Staff to draft a text amendment to the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) to make the LUDC consistent with the Garfield County Weed Management Plan, and the Revegetation Guidelines and Reclamation Standards section, adopted by the BOCC in 2002. These resolutions impact multiple departments, include Vegetation Management, and Community Development. This application was heard by the Planning Commission (PC) on July 9, 2014. At this hearing, the PC voted to continue the hearing to the regularly scheduled August L3,2Ot4 meeting date. This continuance was to allow Staff to evaluate a number of issues identified with the proposed amendment language. ln addition, as this text amendment is pertaining to Vegetation Management and Steve Anthony, the Garfield County Vegetation Manager, was not able to attend the July t hearing, the continuance allows the PC the opportunity to discuss the amendment with Mr. Anthony directly. The issues identified by the PC on July 9 are as follows: Professionol Quolifications: Consider adding "or other qualified professional" to the list of individuals able to complete the supplemental information. Seed Mix:Consider a standard seed mix. r //v,b( @" Threshotd for ptons and security: consider increasing the thresho H. , W il w Tiered submittol requirements: Consider creating a tiered submittal requirement scheme. lnitiol Reclomation within 90 Doys ofter construction: Consider amending the timeframe to eliminate Vegetation Manager discretion to determine alternative timeframe. All States / Federolly Listed Species; Consider including the Federal / All States Species List to the Garfield County and State of Colorado Noxious Weed Lists. ll. Discussion of Planning Commission Concerns P rofessi on a I Qu a I ifi coti o n s: The Language as originally proposed by Staff pertaining to Professional Qualifications is as follows: sEcTroN 4-203(A) - PROFESSTONAL QUAU FICATIONS: 6. Vegetation Management Professional. Weed management, revegetation and reclamation plans and weed inventory reports shall be prepared by a botanist, ecologist, range scientist, or agronomist. The PC recommended considering adding "or other qualified professional" to the list of individuals able to complete the supplemental information. Staff feels that this is a reasonable and positive addition to the language. To this end, Staff suggests recommending the following language to the BOCC (New language in Blue): sEcTroN 4-203(A) - PROFESSTONAT QUALT FICATTONS: 6. Vegetation Management Professional. Weed management, revegetation and reclamation plans and weed inventory reports shall be prepared by a botanist, ecologist, range scientist, e+ agronomist or other qualified professional. Seed Mix: The Language that currently exists in the LUDC and originally proposed by Staff pertaining to Seed Mix is as follows: ie+-A Revegetation, Reclamation and Soil Plan that includes the following information and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-208: 1. A plant material and seed mix list that includes scientific and common names and the application rate in terms of Pure Live Seed per acre, a planting schedule that includes timing, methods, and mulching, and a map with a calculation of the surface area disturbance in acres of the area impacted (where the soilwill be disturbed). Submitted seed mixes are currently reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. These mixes are reviewed for regional suitability, ensures proposed mix does not include State and County Listed Noxious Weeds as well as project specific appropriateness. As Garfield County has a widely varied ecology and a high proportion of federally owned and managed lands with specific required seed mixes, the appropriateness of a seed mix varies from one location to another as well as between projects (such as pipelines that go in and out of federal and private lands). As a result of this high variation, Staff feels it is important to allow the Applicant and the County the flexibility to determine the proper seed mix for a specific project. To this end, Staff supports maintaining flexibility in seed mixes and does not recommend a prescribed Garfield County seed mir. % Acre Threshold for Plons ond Securitv: The Language that currently exists in the IUDC and originally proposed by Staff pertaining to Seed Mix is as follows: sEcfloNs e-102(r) AND 4-203(Ex18) Reclamation, Revegetation and Soil Management Plan Submittal Requirements 3. A Weed Management Plan for all Garfield County listed noxious weeds and State of Colorado listed noxious weeds that are targeted for statewide eradication. The Plan shall include a site specific map and weed inventory. A Weed Management Plan is required if an area /, acre or greater is disturbed for the purposes of site construction, development or grading but not including areas serving the long-term function of the site (i.e. building footprint, road surface or permanent parking areas). 4. A revegetation security may be required il in the determination of the County Vegetation Manager, the proposed project has: a. A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds; b. A potentialto impact watershed areas; c. A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors; d. Steep Slopes L5% or greater or unstable areas; and/or e. Disturbs an area/z acre or treater where topsoil is exposed for the purposes of site construction, development or grading but does not comprise the long-term functioning of the site (i.e. building footprint, road surface or permanent parking areas). Currently, applicants must comply with the Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines as well as the Reclamation Standards which were adopted by the BOCC in 2001. These regulations require submittal of a Soil Plan and Revegetation Plan for all disturbance regardless of size outside approved building envelopes. !n addition, these regulations require a revegetation security for all disturbances over /. acre. These are implemented at the time of Grading Permit through the Building Department and Land use Change Permit through the Planning Department. As agricultural uses are exempt from the building code and LUDC, residents are not required to submit Weed Management Plans or security for agricultural uses. Through this text amendment, Staff has suggested easing these requirements within the IUDC by allowing applicants to subtract out building footprints, road surfaees and permanent parking areas before reaching the % acre disturbance area. At the July 9 PC meeting, Staff was directed to consider increasing the % acre threshold for submittal of a Weed Management Plan and related security. While neither the Planning Department nor the Vegetation Manager have an issue with increasing this threshold, a threshold that is not% acre will lead to a discrepancy between the LUDC and the adopted Revegetation and Reclamation Standards. As a result, before any change is adopted, the new threshold will need to be considered by the Garfield County Weed Advisory Board before it is adopted within the LUDC. The purpose of having the Weed Advisory Board consider the change first is to ensure a certain degree of probability that they would be agreeable to amending the Revegetation and Reclamation Standards to maintain future consistency between these regulatory documents. The BOCC, however, has final authority in both the LUDC and the Revegetation and Reclamation Standards. To this end, Staff suggests increasing the threshold to one (1) acre while maintaining the suggestion of allowing applicants to subtract our building footprints, road surfaces and permanent parking areas. Prior to presenting this change (ll2 acre to 1 acre) to the BOCC, however, the Weed Advisory Board should review and be agreeable to such a revision. Tiered submitta I requirements: As originally proposed and consistent with the 2002 Garfield County Weed Management Plan a Revegetation Plan, security, and a Soil Management Plan are required for all disturbance lz acre or greater. While some flexibility exists regarding specific submittal requirements and a tiered scheme can be created in that regard, unless the 2002 Garfield County Weed Management Plan resolution is amended, all Land Use Change Permits will need to ultimately provide a Revegetation Plan and Soil Plan and, if the disturbance is over /, acre outside a platted building envelope, a financial security. By creating submittaltiers within the LUDC, the requirements in the 2002 resolutions will be complied with in different manners (i.e. conditions of approval or assistance from County Staff) based on their overall ,tr:s{r}l{:p.lrl$eri!!. i*rf,.{';ietei.lJ:;3..I i;i116}p1e ..B6].tf i]..{r Fl g {' r tr}i+!}e,t+l { *;}}& il{r,e.j ;}# r:at.l,. i.r{}l!}tiilL:. !ft;t(ly\i,rn.',t}{.t..r{-ui- r+rrl..ru.r*1. rcrtl..., F;r+.Ej..a{r: r. ..r...rrrr+.*l .r'ir;l .....! ,r.-r-r ii;.-.1.,',.c,--.{ iliit!.r ir,{}ff :,t-.tled*-*{+.. .q,t.i+l$Eg iil it t,r I p,l"rt r Through the review process, applications that are required to submit less information up front will still need to meet the requirements of the 2002 resolution. ln order to ae hieve full compliance, this workload would subsequently fall back on Staff, notably the Vegetation Manager, andf or would be required as a condition of approval. ln addition, due to the increased regulatory complexity such a tiered systern introduces to the LUDC, Staff suggests finding a disturbance area that is satisfuctory to the PC, BOCC and Weed Advisory Board to require all items at the time of submittal as well as compliance with any necessary financial security. /nitial Reclamation within 90 Davs after eonstrnction: The Language that currently exists in the LUDC and originally proposed by Staff pertaining to initial reclamation ls as follows: B. Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography within 90 days of completion of construction unless an alternative timeframe is approved by the Vegetation Manager. When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, prevent fugitive dust as required by State Statute, and reduce visual impacts. Staff understands that the PC is concerned about 1) if the end or a portion of the 90 days falls outside the standard growing season for the subject ecosystem and 2) that putting the authority to approve a timeframe in the hands of the Vegetation Manager concentrates too much power in that position. Staff does not view this deadline as critical to attaining consistency between the LUDC and the 2002 resolution. To this end, Staff suggests striking the timeframe and moving forward with the below language instead. B. Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography within 9e days ef eempletien ef eenstruetien unless an alternative ti+neframe is appreved by the Vegetati€n Manager. When the final landform is achieved, the surface shall be stabilized by vegetation or other means to reduce further soil erosion from wind or water, provide forage and cover, prevent fugitive dust as required by State Statute, and reduce visual impacts. All States /Federallv Listed Species: The Colorado Noxious Weed Management Act specifies the designation of noxious weeds through the Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture and local governing bodies. The County Weed Advisory Board, in the updated Garfield County Weed Management Plan will propose to the BOCC additional species to the current County List. The BOCC was advised of this proposal in a work session in March 2014. These additions will consist primarily of State List A and B species that are known to be in the County in addition to the current county list. Staff understands that a Federal list of noxious species does exist. However, Staff feels that the State list is dynamic and regularly maintained to be relevant for our area. ln addition, adopting such a list would substantially increase the number of species that would be subject to the Weed Management Plan. Such an increase in the number of species makes the Weed Management Plan that much more burdensome and costly to applicants. ln addition, because many of the weed species on the Federal list do not occur anywhere in the Mountain or Plains states, such a requirement would not be an effective use of Garfield County or applicant resources. For these reasons, Staff does not recommend adopting the All States / Federal list of noxious weeds and instead suggests continuing to refer to the Colorado and Garfield County lists.