Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
9.0.3 BOCC Staff Report 08.18.2008
10/13/08 Exhibits for Public Hearin - Hunt Ranch Subdivision Exhibit Letter (A to CCC) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 F Staff Report G Application for Preliminary Plan H Memo from Garfield County Vegetation Management, dated March 3rd, 2008 Letter from Division of Water Resources, dated February 12th, 2008 I J Email from Mark Kadnuck, CDPHE, dated February 29th, 2008 K Memo from RFTA, dated March 3rd, 2008 L Memo from Eagle County Development Depaltnient, dated February 21St, 2008 M Email from Colorado State Forest Service, dated February 11th, 2008 N Memo from Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, dated December 6th, 2007 0 Memo from Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission, dated March 4th, 2008 P Email from GarCo Road and Bridge Department, dated March 5th , 2008 Q Memo from Mountain Cross Engineering, GarCo consulting engineer, dated March 3rd, 2008 R Email from Colorado Department of Transportation, dated February 10th, 2008 S Email from JD Sturgill, dated February 16th, 2008 T Response email from Colorado Department of Transportation to JD Sturgill, dated February 17th, 2008 U Email from JD Sturgill, dated February 17th, 2008 V Email from Sylvia Wendrow, dated February 24th, 2008 W Email from Robert Tobias, dated January 26th, 2008 X Email from Roberta McGowan, dated January 21St, 2008 Y Email from Caroline Duell, dated February 21St, 2008 Z Email from Karen Kean -Hines DVM, dated February 17th, 2008 AA Email from Becky Chase, Dated January 17th, 2008 BB Email from Garfield County Environmental Health Department, dated March 3rd, 2008 CC Memo from the Town of Carbondale, dated March 24th, 2008 DD Email from Mike and Kit Strang, dated March 5th, 2008 EE Email from Susan Cuseo, dated April 2nd, 2008 FF Email from Susan Edmonds, dated March 30th, 2008 GG Email from Tim and Gina Young, dated April 10th, 2008 HH Email from Laura Van Dyne, dated March 17th, 2008 II Hunt Ranch Response Letter, dated April 8th, 2008 JJ Memo from Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc., dated April 1st, 2008 KK Letter from Mark E Hamilton, Attorney for the Applicant, dated April 11th, 2008 LL Letter from Colorado Geologic Survey, dated April 16th, 2008 MM Email from Jo Ashton & David Bell, dated March 9th, 2008 NN Email from Wayne Hall, dated April 19th, 2008 00 Email from Karen Cox, dated April 19th, 2008 PP Email from Linda Keefe, dated April 20th 2008 QQ Email from Richard and Gayle Wells, dated April 21st, 2008 RR Email from James Peterson, dated April 21st, 2008 SS Email from Nina and Jess Pederson, dated April 22nd, 2008 TT Letter from Katha Rossein, MD and Ronald Razzore, MD UU Letter from Doug Dotson, Dated May 28th, 2008 application amendment VV Letter from Sara M. Dunn, Balcomb & Green, P.C. dated June 24th, 2008 WW Email from Roberta McGown, dated July 24th, 2008 XX Memo from HP Geotech, dated May 8th, 2008 YY Email from Nancy Miller, dated May 10th, 2008 ZZ Email from Richard Wells, dated April 28th, 2008 AAA Email from Sara Dunn, dated May 12th, 2008 BBB Letter from Craig Richardson to Doug Dotson dated May 12th, 2008 CCC Letter from Mark Hamilton of Holland and Hart, dated August 4th, 2008 DDD Letter from Gay Lewis, Someday Ranch EEE Email from Caroline W. Duell, dated August 13th, 2008 FFF Letter from Richards Wells, Kings ROW HOA, dated August 12th, 2008 GGG Letter from Loyal Leavenworth, Kings Row Resident HHH Email from John Piccinati, dated August 18th, 2008 Suggested water settlement agreement plat note language, Balcomb and Green PC, dated August 12th, 2008 III JJJ Email from Adrienne Crouch, challenging Hunt Ranch legal description, dated September 25th, 2008 KKK Email from Greg Amsden, response to exhibit JJJ, dated September 30th, 2008 LLL Email from Adrienne Crouch, dated October 2nd, 2008 MMM Letter from Glen Sloop, Someday Ranch, dated September 25th, 2008 NNN Legal Notice, insert dated September 11th, 2008 000 Memo from Eagle Count Board of Commissioners, dated September 29th, 2008 PPP Email from Connie Wood, dated October 7th, 2008 QQQ Letter from Lathrop Strang RRR Email from Susan Cuseo, dated August 13th, 2008 SSS Letter from Land Title Guarantee Co. dated October 10th, 2008 in response to Exhibit JJJ TTT Fender Deed referenced in Exhibit JJJ UUU Press Letter VVV Davis Farrar presentation WWW Missouri Heights Petition XXX Handout from John Olsen YYY Aspen Times, October 13th, 2008 BOCC 08/18/08 CR PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan for the Hunt Ranch Subdivision APPLICANT / OWNER: Hunt Ranch, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: JAM Development, LLC OTAK and DDA Inc. LOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Missouri Heights 561.75 acres Central Water System ISDS CR 102 (Missouri Heights Road) ARRD ARRD / Residential Subdivisions Study Area I (Medium Density Residential of 6 to <10 ac/du) I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION A. General Property Location / Description The Hunt Ranch (the Property) contains 561 acres and is generally located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of Carbondale and 3 miles northwest of El Jebel in the Missouri Heights area in east Garfield County. The Property is adjacent to the Eagle County line. In close proximity, there is the Strang Ranch, Panorama Ranches Subdivision, and King's Row Subdivision. The Property consists of rolling topography with approximately 250 -acres of active pasture land with the remaining acreage consisting primarily of juniper / pinyon and sage vegetation. Presently, uses on the Property are agricultural in nature where 250 acres of the property is devoted to irrigated hay and pasture production during the growing season as well as serving cattle during the winter months. There are three residences and a variety of structures that all serve the ranching operations. B. Proposal The Applicant requests approval from Garfield County to subdivide the subject property into 93 single-family residential lots while devoting the remainder of the Property to active agricultural operations and common open space and trails. II. REFERRAL AGENCIES The Preliminary Plan Application was referred to the following agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. a. Town of Basalt: Exhibit 0 b. Town of Carbondale: Exhibit CC c. Eagle County Planning Department: Exhibit L d. Carbondale Fire Protection District: Exhibit M e. RE -1 School District: No Comments Received f. Colorado State Forest Service: Exhibit M g. Colorado Department of Transportation: Exhibit R h. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received i. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit 1 j. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit LL k. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority: Exhibit K 1. County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit BB m. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: Exhibit H n. Garfield County Sheriff Department: No Comment Received o. Mountain Cross Engineering: Exhibit Q p. Garfield County Environmental Health Department: Exhibit BB q. Bureau of Land Management: No Comments Received r. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Exhibit J 2 III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located within Study Area I which designates the property as "Medium Density Residential" on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map, which suggests properties in this area develop residentially at a density of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. Having a gross density of 6.03 acres per dwelling unit, the proposed development generally conforms to the Plan's identified density requirement. To ensure compliance with Comprehensive Plan density requirements, the Applicant has represented that Accessory Dwelling Units will not be allowed. Staff suggests requiring this representation be included in the Restricted Covenants and as a plat note. Regarding density, adjacent property owners have expressed concern with the density of the proposed development as being too high. The Applicant's proposal (6.03 acres per dwelling unit) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. The data provided demonstrates that the requested gross density of the proposed development is appropriate for the subject property. Consider the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: 2.0 Housing GOALS — To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Housing at cost of no more than 30% of the gross median income. Designate appropriate areas. Encourage mix of housing types within a development. Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home. Address the challenge of lack of public support. Designate and encourage growth favorable zones adjacent to community limits. STAFF RESPONSE In a letter from Doug Dotson, dated April 8th, 2008 (Hunt Ranch Response Letter) (Exhibit 11) it is stated the Applicant feels it is unreasonable to require every subdivision to meet this standard. The Applicant feels that the location of the proposed subdivision is not an appropriate location for affordable housing. Hunt Ranch Preliminary Plan complies with the current land use designation in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. An increase in density from what is contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan is not requested. Therefore, the Applicant is not required to contribute to Garfield County's affordable housing stock. A mix of housing types (two family - dwelling, multi -family dwelling) is not allowed as a use -by -right. However, the Applicant has represented that five (5) lots (Lots 17, 18, 28, 50 and 51) will have Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitations established at 2,500 square feet to ensure a mix of housing within the proposed subdivision. 3 In the strict sense, the proposal does not result in an increase in density beyond the Comprehensive Plan's designation, so regulatory affordable housing is not required. Staff finds that the Applicant's proposal meets some, but not all of the Comprehensive Plan's goals above. 2.1 Housing Objectives To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. STAFF RESPONSE The Applicant states that the subject property's location is not appropriate for integrated affordable housing. It is stated in the Hunt Ranch Response Letter that the Applicant believes affordable housing should be located near municipalities and public transportation facilities. In order to comply with this section of the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant has committed to initially selling the five lots encumbered with FAR limitations for no more than $250,000. Said lots will not be deed restricted as represented by the Applicant. In order to ensure reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County it is represented that Hunt Ranch, LLC will establish a resident occupancy restriction on these five lots. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners require the submittal of a deed restriction for each of the five lots limiting the initial sale price to $250,000, FAR of 2,500 square feet and resident occupancy as represented by the Applicant. A deed restriction is the only way the County can ensure the representations of the Applicant. 7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES OBJECTIVES 7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water and sewer systems. 7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. 7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES POLICIES 7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval. Staff Response The subject property is encumbered with apparent slope constraints. The Applicant's Soils Report demonstrates adequate soils for placement of an ISDS system. The report demonstrates that each lot has an area 1 -acre or greater with less than 40% slope for the construction of a single-family dwelling unit and ISDS as required. The Applicant's proposal conflicts with §7.5 regarding private water and sewer systems. 8.1 (Policies) Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris 4 flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetland and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain. Staff Response The subject property is encumbered with slope constraints that appear to exceed 25% on some of the proposed lots. A substantial portion of lots 42, 45, 46, 47 and 72 as demonstrated in Attachment R of the application are encumbered with slope constraints of 30% or greater. The Applicant has utilized a cluster design without requesting the lot increase incentive in order to remain in compliance with the density requirement identified in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Applicant could utilize the cluster design option to reduce the lot size of the proposed lots to one (1) acre. This would allow the Applicant to place a greater number of lots on areas of the subject property that are not encumbered with slopes greater than 25% and still maintain the proposed agricultural open space. Utilizing the cluster option to reduce lots sizes does not require the Applicant to pursue the lot incentive. IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the ARRD zone district. A. Proposed Uses The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on 93 lots, which is contemplated as a "use by right" in the A/R/RD zone district and is therefore consistent with the underlying zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Section 3.02 of the Zoning Resolution. However, pages 23-29, Vol. I of the application identify uses allowed on each lot. The Applicant will include language in the Covenants precluding certain uses within the development. All future uses shall be consistent with Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended (or applicable code). The Covenants may only limit uses not create new uses not allowed in the ARRD zone district. B. Common Dimensional Requirements Issues and Concerns ➢ Lot Size / Slope: The Applicant proposes the 561.07 -acre property be subdivided into 93 lots and 3 open space parcels. The size of each proposed lots and parcels meets or exceeds the minimum lot size. However, the Applicant has demonstrated that each lot has a building area ("building envelope") of at least 1 contiguous acre with slopes less than 40% pursuant to Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning Resolution. ➢ Building Envelopes: The Applicant proposes building envelopes on all 93 residential lots. The application originally stated that building envelopes would be reduced after construction of the homes on each lot. Staff recommends that the building envelope depicted on the Final Plat be consistent with the minimum required setbacks. V. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following section addresses common subdivision issues. 5 A. Domestic Water The Application states that domestic potable water for the 93 single-family dwellings will be provided by a private central water system. The proposed system design will require approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) prior to the Final Plat approval as it is considered a Community Water System. Documentation of this approval from CDPHE shall be included in the Final Plat Application to the County. Regarding legal water supply, a Water Court Decree (included in the application) granted on October 31St, 2007 has been provided. Staff received a "No Material Injury" letter from Division of Water Resources (Office of the State Engineer) on February 12th, 2008 (Exhibit I). Included in Restrictive Covenants, are conditions of an agreement with Missouri Heights Well Users Association, which are subject to the Court Decree Case No. 05CW301. The application represents potable water will be monitored at each home and at the main distribution line. Meter records will be available for inspection and a monthly report will be provided to the Missouri Heights Well Users Association. Staff finds that the Applicant has demonstrated a legal source of water to serve the proposed development. The Court Decree includes a statutorily required "retained jurisdiction" provision (¶ 17). The retained jurisdiction indicates that the decree is subject to reconsideration of injury to vested rights of other decreed water rights for a period of five (5) years after the following: 1. The augmentation plan is operational; and 2. Hunt Ranch Subdivision is at least at seventy-five percent (75%) of build out. If a verified petition for reconsideration of adequate protection is filed, the Court will reconsider its original decision. The Decree does not identify what relief may be available to Hunt Ranch LLC, in the event that the Court finds injury has occurred. The Applicant's representative Sara M. Dunn of Balcomb & Green, P.0 provided the following explanation of this provision. Background Some background into why the Water Court retains jurisdiction after entry of a decree granting a change of water right or approving a plan for augmentation may be helpful. The Water Court is prohibited by statute from en a decree for a change of water right or approving a plan for atjgmentation unless the AppJicarLt has established that the change or plan for augmentation *l] not result in injury icy rattier vested water rights. Danielson v. Castle Meadows, The., 791 P.2d 1106,1112 (Colo. 1990), s ,- also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-304(3). In Case No. 05CW301 the Water Court considered evidence ir-rluding engineering and hydrology reports by Hunt Ranch's expert witnesses and impc ted restric:ive covenants b the decree, paragraphs 18 6 through 21 under "Findings of Pact to reach a determination that the changes of water rights and augmentation plan for the proposed Hunt Ranch development would not cause injury. Retained jurisdiction was intended to address a different aspect of the injury analysis, injury that may occur through operation of the change of water right or plan for augmentation. The Colorado Supreme Court described it as follows: 'Mlle General Assembly intended that the retained jurisdiction provision of the decree would function as a test period for operation of the change or augmentation plan, in order to test the prediction iction and finding of non -injury the water court made upon entry of the judgment and decree_" Fanner's Reservoir & In i g u i nn Co. v. Consolidated Mutual Water Co., 33 P.3d 799, 811 (`.olo. 21001) (discussing the legislative history of C.R.S. § 37-92304(6)) (Attached as Exhibit 2). Thus, the scone of the Water Court's authority' under retained jurisdiction is very limited; it allows the Water Court to reopen its inquiry #cr protective conditions to prevent injury only. The Water Court cannot disturb its original judgment confirming conditional water rights, its determination of historical consumptive use as part of a change of water right, or other issues unrelated to the question of protective covenants to prevent injury. Id. at 812, The Water Court cannot reverse its original decision leaving the subdivision without a legal water supply, as Mr. Richardsons letter indicates. Application of CAS. § 37-92-304(6) to the Decree in Case No. 05C 301 The only paragraphs that can be reconsidered pursuant to the Court's retained jurisdiction are paragraphs 18 through 21 under the 'Findings of Fact" section of the Decree. These paragraphs contain the rre5irictive covenants that were imposed to prevent injury to other water rights. If an Opposer were To reopen the Court's jurisdiction by making a prima facie showing of injury from the change: of w�;tr rights or augmentation plan's operation, the Water Court could require additional protective covenants or modify the existing protective conditions in Paragraphs 18 through. 21 as necessary to prevent i 7 ury. City of Thornton v. City and County of Deaver, 44 P.3d 1019, 1026 (Cola. 2002), attached i er-eto as Exhibit 3 (discussing augmentation plans and the limits c re .dried jurisdiction). The Hunt Ranch augmentations }alar is unquestionably the most protective augmentation plan that has been iiccr•eed in :he Missouri Heights area. 11 is the only augmentation plan that requires carr.' over storage of augmentation supplies to adequately protect the proposed development's water use: during drought years and requires water to be recharged to the aquifer. By way of contrast, the two subdivisions in dose proximity that also rely on groundwater as their source of supply, King's Row and Panorama Ranches, are not required to carry over augmentation supplies or recharge any water into the aquifer. These 7 developments simply replace their groundwater withdrawals by releasing water into Cattle Creek, the Roaring Fork and/or the Colorado River providing rw benefit to the. aquifer. Time Period for Retained jurisdiction Is within the Discretion of the Water Court Section 37-92-304(6), C.R.S, does not specify the appropriate lime period that the Water Court is to retain jurisdiction. Rather, the statute vests the- Water Court with ttie discretion to determine the appropriate period based on the circumstances or ilk- and to .extend the period if necessary. The Division Engineer for Water Division 5 (Colc;rac.:) River Basin) typically requests the Court to retain jurisdiction for 5 years from 75% of build -out for residential developments, This is precisely the period the Division Engineer requested in Case No. 05CW301 and the period the Court adopted in the Decree. By way of comparison, l have attached other decrees for similar developments near the Hunt Ranch property in Garfield County: o Case No. 99CW257, Application of Eugene Chiarelli, LLC (property located adjacent to the Hunt Ranch property to the south), the decree entered May 3L 2000 set the retained jurisdiction at paragraph 18, page 6: "five years after the property is 75% built -out" (Exhibit 4); and n Case No. 04CW115, Application of King's Row (property located adjacent to the Hunt Ranch to the south and southeast). This case is currently pending before the Water Court_ In the proposed Ruling submitted to the Water Court November 2, 2007, paragraph 6 on page 15 retained jurisdiction was requested for "five years after build -out " (Exhibit 5); and o Case No. '0, -3404 and W-3926, Application of Panorama Ranches (adjacent to the Hunt It;, i.iciz 1:3 the north) the decree entered June 6, 1979 set the retained jurisdiction at paragi ap`<i 5, page 10: "two years after the issuance of building permits on 43 of the lots in the Panarar-rta Ranches subdivision" (Exhibit 6); and a Case No. 97CW23E, Application of Roaring Fork Investments, LLC (Ironbridge) the decree entered March 22, 1999 set the retained jurisdiction at paragraph 18, page 18: "five years after 75% of build -out" (Exhibit 7); and Case No. 98CW310, A.ppllcati.on of Coryell Ranch Company, LLC (Coryell Ranch and Midland Point) the decree entered April 3, 2000 set the retained jurisdiction at paragraph 7, page 13 "five years from MT:, of build -out." (Exhibit 8) 8 State Engineer's Opinion The Division of Water Resources, acting by and through the State Engineer's Office, has also provided an unequivocal opinion, based on its review of the engineering information provided, the well tests, and the findings of the Water Court, that the Hunt Ranch water supply is physically and legally adequate. The February 12, 22008 letter to Craig Richardson stated. "tilt is our opinion that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injurer to decreed water rights, and i adequate, so long as the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and LOnditi;ons." The State Engineer's Office did not comment on the retained jurisdiction provir;ion or timeframe, likely because the retained jurisdiction provision in Case No. OSCW301. was 714.St atypical. House Bill 08-1141 Finally, as you are aware, new legislation was signed by the Governor list month addressing a county's discretion to make determinations on adequacy of water . u ply for subdivisions. By its own terms, this }t y>,isl:stion does not apply to thr. Preliminary Plan Application submitted by Hunt Ranch, LLC because the new statutory provisions do not apply to development permits submitted prior to the legislation's effective date. 'iherefine, T do not need to address that legislation herein. 1 believe you confirmed Luis understanding during our last phone conference, but 1 would appreciate confirmation in w, i tirig that my understanding of your position (FIB 08-1141 does not apply to Hunt Ranch's Application) is accurate. Garfield County consulting engineer found that the Applicants proposed water system appears to be adequate supply regarding water rights, wells and augmentation plan. Staff has not been presented with any evidence demonstrating that the proposed water supply is inadequate. Staff recommends that the Board require that the requirements of the Court's water decree be included in the covenants. It is also recommended that the Board require a plat note identifying the governing decree. The Plat note shall also reference the conditional nature of the water decree. In order to hold the County harmless from any and all claims, causes of action relating to an adequate water supply, Staff is recommending the Board require language in the Covenants, Subdivision Improvements Agreement and as a Plat note holding the County harmless. Water quality analysis tests submitted were reviewed by Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health Department Manager. In the comments provided it is stated that the tests results were incomplete for the following reason: 1. Well No. 4 was not tested for radionuclide and only one bacteriological sample result was included in the report and it is not denoted which well the sample was taken; 9 The Applicant is required to demonstrate Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approval at the time of Final Plat application. Staff finds that a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant provide Staff with documentation regarding an approved Central Water System at the time of Final Plat application is sufficient. B. Irrigation Water Irrigation water will be provided through central irrigation system owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. An irrigation storage pond is proposed near the domestic water tank and is designed to hold approximately 3.0 acre/feet of storage. Irrigation water will be delivered to each lot via a raw water pump station. As represented 130,000+ gallons of irrigation water will be stored upslope from Lots 80 and 81. Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health Manager has raised a concern regarding possible flooding. The Applicant states that the proposed storage pond will be constructed with a liner to prevent leaks that could have a negative impact on area ISDS. Additionally, the pond will be constructed with an overflow pipe system designed to carry more than the proposed ditch capacity. The overflow will be directed to the existing hay field for use as irrigation. (p. 3 memo from Sopris Engineering, LLC attachment to Hunt Ranch Response Letter) The proposed irrigation storage pond a ill be constructed with a liner to prevent seepage into the soil and therefore prevent it from affecting any ISDS systems. There is a proposed overflow pipe system that is designed to carry more than the current ditch capacity and convey it down to the hay field for use as irrigation water. An overflow swale v ill also be constructed to convey any overflow from the irrigation pond through the roadside ditch system. It is also assumed that all homes will be constructed with a 1 -foot drop in 10 -feet away from the building as required. C. Waste Disposal The Application proposes that the wastewater generated from the 93 single-family lots will be handled by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) on each lot. The soils characteristics in the area range in suitability for ISDS depending on moderate slopes and shrink -swell characteristics. The Applicant has provided the following language regarding ISDS management to be included in the Covenants: An ISDS Management Ilan will be submitted and includes in the CCRs [below is a copy of the language for review): Septic Systems (ISDS) — There is no central sewer system within Hunt Ranch. It shall he the responsibility of the Owner of each lot to construct an Individual Sewage Diapusal System (ISDSf in accordance with Garfield County standards. AU I.SDS's need to be designed by u licensed engineer in the State of Colorado per the PLAT note. Percolation tests cud soil profile evaluations must be done in accordance with local regulations prior to individual designs. Such systems need to he located within the building envelope and must be a rninintry t of ten (1©} feet from all Lot limes. All disturbed areas shall he revegetared and approved by the Design Review Board in accordance with the Design Review Guidelines. The cosi of construction, installation. maintenance and approval shall he the sole responsibility of -the Owner. Such ISDS shall not be utrli_ed in a manner as to pollute or threaten to pollute grouted or surface waters or to affect or paflule the water supply system of lots within the Property. Maintenance and repair, including periaxlic pumping of septic tanks no less than every two (2) sears, is required Maintenance shall be performed by u licensed contractor in the State of Colorado engaged in the business of cleaning and maintaining ISDS systems. Lot Owners must provide as -built drawings of the ISDS to the Association far purposes of future maintenance and notify the Association when septic tanks are pumped. Enforcement of these requirement shall be by the Associaii©n, as well as other governmental entities as provided for by !env. If the Association is required to maintain any septic tank owned by any individual Lat Owner. such Owner May he assessed Pr all expenses. The owner of an individual sewage disposal system shall note the local health department an any proposed system modifications prior to malting the changes, and shall have the systema approved once the modifications are complete. D. Public Access / Internal Road System The proposed internal road system has been designed to meet the standard of a minor collector except the identified shared driveways which have been designed with the minimum Right of Way and the existing "Road G". The proposed roads will be dedicated to the County for public access but owned and maintained by Hunt Ranch Property Owners Association. The Preliminary Plan identifies three shared driveways (depicted on Lots 34- 35, 40 and 44). Garfield County Subdivision Regulations will require that the proposed shared driveways be included as part of the internal road system and designed to County standards. The following lots will utilize shared driveways 1.) 34/35 2.) 40/41 and 3.) 44/45. The shared driveways located serve lots 40/41 and 44/45 as depicted do not provide fee simple access to lots 41 and 45. The Applicant is proposing to provide a driveway easement to ensure access to said lots. The Applicant has determined that existing "Road G" is a dedicated public right of way that continues to the Eagle County line (Book 36, P. 218). This right of way is depicted on Garfield County road maps as 83 Road. The Preliminary Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall depict this as a public Right -of -Way County Road 83. The application included a Traffic Analysis completed by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The study finds that the proposed development will generate minimum impacts. Garfield County traffic impact fees will be calculated at the time of Final Plat. The Applicant can expect to pay approximately $267,000. Garfield County applies this fee to the study area which the proposed development is situated. Even though the traffic analysis does not identify required improvements, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department finds that in order to accommodate the proposed development, County Road 102 needs to be engineered and rebuilt to design standards with a minimum of a 22 -foot shoulders and drainage as required, including all culverts as needed and replacement of older culverts to the Eagle County line (Exhibit P). The Applicant is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners enter into a fee reimbursement agreement allocating all impact fees collected from any development along County Road 102 to Hunt Ranch, LLC for a period to be determined In the Hunt Ranch Response Letter, it is requested that the application be amended as follows: 11 COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE 1. Improvement to CR 102- Road and Bridge suggests that this road should be rebuilt to a 22 foot paved driving surface with two (2) foot gravel shoulders and for drainage improvements only, that culverts which are in disrepair should be replaced. This improvement should take place over the length of CR 102 to the Eagle County Zine. To address this concern, Hunt Ranch LLC hereby amends its application as follows: a. Hunt Ranch will improve CR 102 from CR 100 to the Eagle County boundary by rotomilling the existing road; paving the road to County standard to 22 feet of drivable surface in its current configuration; providing two (2) foot gravel shoulders to County standard; and replacing those drainage culverts agreed upon by Road and Bridge and the applicant's engineer prior to construction. See attached letter from Sopris Engineering b. Garfield County will allow Hunt Ranch LLC to apply all related impact fees from this project to this improvement. Collection of a portion of the impact at the time of final subdivision approval will not be necessary provided Hunt Ranch LLC has established a suitable subdivision improvement agreement to secure completion of the work. c. Garfield County and Hunt Ranch LLC will enter into a fee reimbursement agreement. Any impact fees collected from any development along CR 102 will be paid to Hunt Ranch LLC for a period to be agreed upon by the County and Hunt Ranch LLC before final subdivision plat approval occurs. 2. CR 102 Right -of -Way. The applicant already notes that Hunt Ranch LLC will dedicate additional right-of-way to meet County standard. All fences and structures now within Hunt Ranch will be removed from the right-of-way or obtain and encroachment permit from Garfield County. The Board of County Commissioners has required improvements deemed necessary as a direct result of a proposed development to be completed by the Applicant. Staff included a condition of approval recommended by the Planning Commission requiring the Applicant to complete the improvements deemed necessary by Road and Bridge. Staff does not support the proposed reimbursement agreement. At the Board's discretion, the Applicant may be able to receive an impact fee credit for work completed. Staff referred the application to Eagle County for review. Eagle County provided comments concerning the distribution of 65% (as represented in the traffic analysis) of the generated traffic entering Eagle County. The Applicant's consulting engineer met with Eagle County on April 3rd, 2008. Eagle County suggested that an Impact Fee of $500.00 be collected at the time of Building Permit submittal and provided to Eagle County. Should this option be considered by the Board, Staff recommends that the Applicant be responsible for drafting an Intergovernmental Agreement between Garfield and Eagle County to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of Final Plat Application. (p. 8 Hunt Ranch Response Letter) 6. Road impacts and IGA with Eagle County. Hunt Ranch LLC has met with Eagle County to discuss impacts on a nearby road within Eagle County. Eagle County understands that Garfield County is not obligated to require mitigation of impacts on Eagle County roads. In spited of the representation about the level of impact on Fender Lane in the letter from Eagle County, the impact is less. The main impact of this subdivision is generally to that section of the road between the County line and the numerous lots within Eagle County immediately east of the County boundary Elk Range Drive and Sierra Vista). To the east of this point, Eagle County subdivisions contribute a much larger share of the traffic on Fender Land. To help mitigate the impact from Hun Ranch, Hunt Ranch LLC commits to a payment of $500 at the time of each building permit fora new dwelling unit in Hunt Ranch; provided, however, Eagle County and Garfield County enter into an IGA that commits this fee to Eagle County for the purpose of improvements to Fender Lane before the building permit is issued. 12 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reviewed the traffic analysis provided by the Applicant. It has determined that the proposed development will increase traffic by 22% at the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82 (Exhibit R). Therefore, a State Highway Access Permit will be required. CDOT will require a level 3 traffic study. The Board routinely requires the Developer to act as the Applicant for CDOT access permits and complete all improvements required. At the time of Preliminary Plan approval the Board may authorize the Applicant to pursue a CDOT access permit on behalf of Garfield County. Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to obtain the access permit and complete all CDOT requirements. The approved access permit shall be submitted with the Final Plat Application. E. Fire Protection The property is located in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The property appears to consist of Low, Moderate and High Wildfire Hazard in the Comprehensive Plan that are designations generally based on existing slope and fuel type. The Applicant proposes a central water supply system with hydrants capable of producing a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. All homes will be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Deputy Chief, Bill Gavette has determined that the proposed water supplies meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. At the time of Final Plat the Applicant will be responsible for District impact fees in the amount of $437.00 per dwelling unit ($437.00 x 93units = $40,641.00) (Exhibit N). Rocky Mountain Ecological Services conducted a site-specific wildfire survey on the subject property. The findings and recommendations of this survey have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. In the comments provided by Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District it is represented that the Department is in agreement with the recommendations provided by the Applicants commissioned consultant. The recommendations include defensible space, building design and access recommendations for each of the identified High, Medium and Low Hazard Ratings as identified in 1.2 Figure 2 of the Wildfire Hazard Review. Staff recommends that theses recommendations be included in the Covenants and Restrictions. F. Drainage & Floodplain Issues There are no FEMA mapped floodplains on the property. The drainage study provided by the Applicant concludes that no long-term adverse impacts to drainage are anticipated. Roadway culverts are designed to accommodate flows for 25- year storm events. Chris Hale, consulting engineer for Garfield County provided the following comments regarding drainage (Exhibit Q): 15. In the drainage plan the existing Basins 5, 6, & 7 seem to correspond to the proposed Basins of R, S, T, & U but with significantly different flows. The calculations should be verified. Detention or other mitigation may be warranted to avoid downstream impacts. 16. Cul-de-sac for Road D appears to drain onto Lot 16 and then through Lot 17, Lot 18, and Lot 19 before an easement is provided for drainage. 13 Applicants Response to Garfield County Consulting Engineer Comments: 15. In the drainage plan the existing Basins 5, 6 & 7 seem to correspond to the proposed Basins of I. S, T & ti but with significantly different flows. The calculations should be verified. Detention fir other mitigation may be warranted to avoid downstream impacts. We have reviewed the drainage study and verified all calculations for the drainage basins. Runoff rates for the developed conditions are greater than existing conditions due to an increase in the SCS curve number The curvo number is affected by increases in 'impervious area and development. Even though existing and developed basin areas are similar in size, the larger post -development curve number produces a larger peak runoff mte have provided detention areas to temporarily store the excess runolT and reduce downstream impacts. The historical flow off site is not increased from pre -development tel post-develapment. Nu additional mitigation is warranted clovvrtstrearn. 16. (ul-dr-sac fur Road 1) appears to drain onto Lot 16 and then through Lot 17, Lot 18 and Lot 19 before an easement is provided fur drainage. This easement was not shown. We have added an easement and necessary swale to convey this drainage and have shown this information on an updated Preliminary Plan Map. Existing Drainage Map 14 Post Development Drainage Map G. Wildlife The Application contains an analysis of the wildlife found on or near the property completed by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. The analysis considered impacts to Elk, Mule Deer, Black Bear and Harrington penstemon known to have habitat on or adjacent to the subject property. The analysis states that the subject property does not contain habitat for Federally Threatened or Endangered species. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will impact winter range habitat for deer and elk. By clustering homes and preserving large tracts of undeveloped land and adopting strict dog policies, deer and elk will continue to utilize the subject property as habitat. Section three of the Ecological Assessment provides a number of impact mitigation recommendations. It is represented in the application that all applicable recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed development. Staff recommends that as condition of approval the Applicant include the applicable recommendations into the Restrictive Covenants for the proposed development. Harrington's penstemon, a globally rare plant has been mapped on the subject property. There are no regulations regarding the protection of this plant. The Ecological Assessment recommends marking the populations prior to locating building envelopes. The highest concentration of the Harrington's penstemon is found on the southwest portion of the subject property. This area is to remain undeveloped open space. 15 H. Vegetation Management The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments (Exhibit H): Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -The applicant has provided a very general map of county and state listed noxious weeds. In the report, the applicant states that diffuse knapweed, oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, and yellow toadflax are priority species for treatment. However on the map, two of the species -oxeye daisy and yellow toadflax are not shown. On the map only sulphur cinquefoil and diffuse knapweed are indicated. Weeds are shown as either "significant noxious weed infestation areas" or as "multiple weed species ". Staff requests a more detailed inventory that addresses the specific locations of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy, and absinth wormwood. In addition, all county -listed noxious weeds should be mapped according to their general location. To further clarify, instead of listing an area as having "multiple weed species ", the actual species found within that site should be listed on the map. • Weed Management Staff recommends that oxeye daisy, sulphur cinquefoil, yellow toadflax, and diffuse knapweed be treated prior to any construction activities take place. This would help reduce some of the seed spread into future disturbed areas. All four of these are prolific invaders. Sulphur cinquefoil is not a county listed plant, however it is on the state list and most likely the state will be mandating its eradication later this year. Staff requests that the applicant verify that weed management is implemented by providing treatment records prior to June 30, 2008. The county does provide a cost - share program that can assist with weed control expenses. If the applicant is interested, they can contact this office at 625-8601. Please send treatment records to: Garfield County Vegetation Management POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 Revegetation • The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security submitted prior to Final Plat approval. • The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. 16 This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. Soil Plan • The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: 1. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. 2. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. 3. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Rare plant occurrences • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) has been mapped and inventoried by the applicant. This plant while globally rare has no federal status as a threatened or endangered species. Any preservation of habitat where the plant is found will have to voluntary on the part of the applicant and future lot owners. The applicant's ecological consultant, Eric Petterson, did comment on ways to mitigate direct and indirect impact to Harrington's penstemon habitat. Mr. Petterson suggested that `flagging or marking of populations prior to locating building envelopes can preserve populations and suitable habitats." Again, such action would have to voluntary, but lot owners may consider this information when determining where to build. Staff Response The Planning Commission included a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant submit a more detailed inventory that addresses the specific location of yellow toadflax, oxeye daisy, absinth wormwood and all county -listed noxious weed as suggested by Garfield County Vegetation Management with the Final Plat Application. It was also recommended that the treatment of all state and county listed noxious weeds prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. Treatment records shall be provided to Garfield County Vegetation Management at the address provided. Staff also suggests a condition of approval requiring the compliance with the Revegetation Guidelines from the County Weed Management Plan at the time of Final Plat. The submittal shall include the following: A. Plant material list; B. Planting schedule; C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes) quantifying the area disturbed to determine revegetation security; 17 D. Soil Management Plan; (p. 9 Hunt Ranch Response Lette) GGARFIELD WEED MIANAGEMENT 1. Noxious Weed Inventory, Mapping and Treatment. It was suggested that a detailed survey be provided. It also was suggested that treatment occur "before" submittal of a final plat. In response, the applicant suggests that it is not reasonable to conduct a detailed weed survey until at least May. Therefore, it is not possible to perform such a survey at this time. Further, we do not know when final approval will occur. Therefore, to address this concern, Hunt Ranch LLC commits to undertaking a weed management survey on the property prior to final subdivision plat application. The survey will identify WI county and state listed noxious weed locations on the property. Following final approval and recordation of a plat, Hunt Ranch commits to treatment of the identified noxious weed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Treatment records will be provided to Garfield County prior to construction. 2. Revegetation Plan. As requested, Hunt Ranch will provide a renegotiation plan for disturbed areas with the final subdivision plat application to the County. The plan will address the location of disturbances outside of individual lots, a plant material and seed mix list, and schedule. We anticipate that this improvement, in terms of security and compliance, will be addressed in a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the County. 3, Soil Plan. Hunt Ranch has indicated that it will, and it is committed to provide a construction management plan with the Final Subdivision Plat application. The plan will identify provisions for salvaging topsoil, stockpiling such soil, and a schedule and plan for site restoration and removal of excess soil stockpiled on the property. The plan also will address a number of other measures, including dust control and other measures that are appropriate to minimize the impact of the development on surrounding properties and any homesites within Hunt Ranch. 4. Harrington's Penstemon. It is correctly noted that the preservation of this plant is not required since it is not a Federally designated species, In spite of this, Hunt Ranch has included the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in its application. Hunt Ranch is committed to following those recommendations and to the extent possible, preserving this plant on the property. As noted in the Ecological Report provided with the application, the highest concentrations of the plat are located on the southwest side in an area that will not be developed. This area will remain open space and outside of any development area under the current subdivision proposal. On the east side of the project, population densities are low. Under current land management practices, cattle grazing in this area will likely eliminate the plant {see page 21 of the Ecological Report). The report proposes specific mitigation measures that will be followed. Additionally, the POA will require that plants on the specific lots identified in the study will be Identified and flagged prior to siting a dwelling unit within the development activity envelope. Structures and disturbance will be limited to the extent possible to avoid significant plants and cluster within the envelope. Construction fencing will be required to avoid further disturbance. When possible plants will be salvaged before disturbance occurs and relocated to undisturbed areas nearby. I. Trails / Paths / Parks The Applicant proposes a primitive surfaced single-track trail to run along the outside of the development through the open space parcels for the benefit of the lot owners. The Applicant also proposes a 10 -foot wide asphalt trail / path along the main loop road (Roads A and D) as well as along CR 102 between the two entrances to the project. The proposed single-track trail appears to run through proposed lots. The Applicant will need to legally describe the proposed single-track trail within an easement granted to the Hunt Ranch Property Owner's Association in order to insure that the represented trail is made available. This easement shall be submitted with the Final Plat. The application represents that the proposed asphalt trail will be made available to the public. In order to ensure that the proposed trail is available to the public the Applicant will need to include the trail in the public right of way or establish a new right of way ensuring public access. The Hunt Ranch Property Owner's Association will be responsible for all trail maintenance. 18 At the time of Final Plat, the Applicant will need to provide a detailed cost analysis, sealed by an Engineer licensed by the State of Colorado outlining all proposed public improvements. This cost analysis will be used to determine the required security to ensure all represented public improvements are completed. It is not clear if the proposed trail along CR 102 is to be constructed within or outside of the County ROW. If the Applicant is proposing the construction of a trail within County ROW the Applicant will be required to consult Road and Bridge. The proposed trail is to be maintained by the HOA. A legal description of the proposed trail shall be included in the Final Plat application. J. Open Space The application represents the preservation of the historic agricultural aspects of the subject property. The Preliminary Plan identifies this area as Lot 1 (155.86 acres). It is not clear how the Applicant intends to accomplish this representation. The application first states that the Applicant considered utilizing a local or regional land trust to ensure preservation of the agricultural parcel. It is represented that the Applicant has only attempted to reach an agreement with Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). It has been determined that the proposed agricultural lot does not meet the objectives of AVLT. The application then states that if an agreement with a land trust is not reached other options will be pursued. The Applicant will need to demonstrate the exact method to be used to accomplish this representation. The Planning Commission included a recommended condition of approval requiring the Applicant to place the Agricultural lot into a perpetual conservation easement. The conservation easement is to be included in the Final Plat application. §6.0 of the Garfield Comprehensive Plan of 2000 Agriculture: ISSUES: Issues identified throughout the Comprehensive Plan process related to agricultural uses include the following: • The rollover of agricultural land into more intense uses is accelerating in the County; • Histoncal agricultural lands are also those lands which present the least development constraints (geology, topography, water availability); • As the rural areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensure compatibility between these uses and active agricultural lands will intensify; • A growing number of traditional agricultural lands can be expected to intensify into agricultural businesses, which may affect County land use policies designed for traditional ranching, grazing and crop production. GOAL: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review. Consider the use of Transfer of Development Rights. Join farmers and ranchers together to develop a land use plan for agriculture. Consider land trusts and conservation easements. POLICIES: 6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use and the proposed project. 6.2 Densities greater than the underlyin zoning will be discouraged `f the proposed development would adversely affect the adjacent agricultural operations 6.3 Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential incompatible uses. The proposed development is preserving historical agricultural land. Staff is recommending that the Applicant be required to place the proposed agricultural lot into a perpetual land conservation easement in order to ensure that the agricultural land/open space remains undeveloped as represented in the application. The Applicants request is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives regarding agriculture identified the Comprehensive Plan. 19 K. Colorado Geological Survey Staff received comments from Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) on April 16t'', 2008. The memo from CGS identified the following issues (Exhibit LL): Sinkholes Geologic mapping indicates that sinkholes have developed in nearby areas, but no evidence of such has been found on the site. Though small, there is some risk of sinkholes forming near or beneath residential structures, roads, and utilities. If a sinkhole were to develop very near or under a home, significant damages may occur. Given the severity of such damages, the potential for sinkholes should be evaluated prior to issuance of building permits and framing permits. • A site-specific soils and foundation investigation, for each lot, should be done prior to issuance of building permits. • Prior to approval of foundation construction and/or the issuance of framing permits, a geologist or geotechnical engineer should inspect each foundation excavation for evidence of subsidence in the soil deposits, subsurface voids, or sinkholes. If such conditions are discovered, foundations should be constructed in alternative locations. Regarding Sinkholes, staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the submittal of a site-specific soils and foundation investigation for each lot to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall also include this requirement in the Covenants. Staff also recommends that this requirement be included as a plat not on the Final Plat. Collapsible Soil The site also contains soils that are prone to relatively high consolidation upon wetting and/or loading. The preliminary geotechnical report contains some preliminary recommendations for home construction. However, the report does not contain recommendations related to underground utilities or how drainage facilities or irrigation ditches might impact the development. • The site-specific soils and foundation investigation, for each lot, should include test borings and consolidation testing to address collapsible -soil hazard potential, this report needs to be done prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations for the design and construction of floor slabs and on-site pavements, as well as site grading and water - management practices to prevent the introduction of water to the subgrade soils shall be included in this report. It is the introduction of water that causes collapse -prone soils to settle • Prior to approval of final construction plans, the geotechnical report should be amended to included mitigation measures for utilities, roads, and drainage structures. Mitigation measures should be incorporated into final construction plans before approval. Regarding collapsible soils, Staff has included a recommended condition of approval regarding CGS comments on this issue. 20 Surface Drainage As outlined above, the site contains geologic hazards and constraints that are aggravated by moisture and improper drainage. The geotechnical report does not address the potential impacts of irrigation or septic systems near homes, utilities, and pavements. This should be addressed before final plans are approved. Alluvial Fan Flooding and Debris Flows The geologic map developed by the developer's consultant shows that the site contains several alluvial fans. Homes and other structures located near the mouths of drainages may be damaged by sediment -laden runoff and/or large debris. To a large extent, the original lot layout avoided such areas. However, lots have been reconfigured and it appears that Lot 32 straddles a fan; while, parts of building areas within Lots 39 and 48 may encroach onto alluvial fans. This issue should be addressed prior to the approval of the final lot layout. The alluvial fan deposits are also susceptible to collapsible soil. Erosion and Sediment Control The site contains steep slopes and clayey and silty soil that, when disturbed, is highly erodible. Once suspended, small clay and silt particles are not effectively removed from runoff using common Best Management Practices, like silt fence and straw wattles. It will be very important that disturbed areas are kept to a minimum and that the storm water management plan focus on erosion control, which prevents the detachment of soil, rather than sediment control, which focuses on removal of soil particles from runoff. Excessive erosion can lead to slope instability. Since the plans have changed since the original geotechnical report was written, it would be prudent for the county to require that the engineer review plat and construction plan for conformance with engineering recommendations before they are approved. Staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the submittal of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that focuses on erosion control that prevents the detachment of soil as requested by the CGS. The SWMP shall be included in the Final Plat application. L. Planning Commission Recommendation On August 28th, 2007 Garfield County Planning Commission by a vote of 6-1 forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the following conditions: 1) That all representation made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; 2) The Applicant shall include an approved Colorado Department of Transportation Access Permit with the Final Plat application; 3) The Applicant shall complete the improvements to County Road 102 identified in exhibit P, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department referral comments, this requirement shall be included as a component of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement; 4) The Applicant shall provide a 30 -foot road easement from the centerline of County Road 21 102 the length of the subject property; 5) All fences and structures owned by the Applicant encumbering the new ROW shall be moved back by the Applicant for that portion adjacent to Hunt Ranch prior to the submittal of the Final Plat application the completion of this shall be included as a component of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement; 6) The Applicant shall include the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services regarding Wildfire Hazard mitigation in the Restrictive Covenants (including but not limited to defensible space, building design and access recommendations); 7) The Applicant shall include the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services regarding wildlife and vegetation in the Restrictive Covenants; 8) The Applicant shall provide documentation regarding Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approval for the proposed Central Water System at the time of Final Plat Application; 9) The Applicant shall be responsible for RE -1 School Impact Fees as identified in §9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984; 10) The Applicant shall include an ISDS Management Plan in the Covenants; 11) All existing and proposed easements shall be depicted on the Final Plat; 12) The Applicant shall map and treat all State and County listed noxious weeds on-site and provide documentation of this to the satisfaction of Garfield County Vegetation Management prior to the submittal of the Final Plat Application; 13) The Applicant shall provide a Revegetation Plan consistent with the revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan, adopted on May 7th, 2001at the time of Final Plat Application; 14) The Applicant shall include language regarding the requirement of site-specific soils and foundation investigations required at the time of building permit submittal in the Covenants; 15) Should the Board deem necessary, The Applicant shall be responsible for creating an Intergovernmental Agreement regarding impact fees to be paid to Eagle at the time of Building Permit Submittal to the satisfaction of Garfield County Board of County Commissioners; 16) The Applicant shall include a Storm Water Management Plan that focuses on erosion control that prevents the detachment of soil rather than sediment control, which focuses on removal of soils particles from runoff in the Final Plat Application; 17) The Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the final plat: 22 a) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. b) No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. c) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. d) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed. e) Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. f) All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. g) Based on the analysis of the sub -soils on the property, Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and foundation designs are required to be conducted by a registered professional engineer licensed to practice within the State of Colorado. These studies and plans shall be submitted with individual building permit application for each lot. The cost of these studies shall be borne by the individual property owner. h) All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with Section 9:35 of the Subdivision regulation of 1984, as amended and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision. 23 i) The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s). j) Development with the flood plain is subject to Garfield County Administrative Permitting. k) Accessory Dwelling Units are prohibited within Hunt Ranch Subdivision; 1) A Site-specific soils and foundation investigation shall be submitted with the Building Permit application for each lot within Hunt Ranch Subdivision, the report shall include test borings and consolidation testing to address collapsible -soil hazard potential; Should the Board approve the proposed subdivision Staff recommends that the Board include the following plat notes and recommended conditions of approval in addition to those recommended by the Planning Commission: m) Water use within Hunt Ranch Subdivision shall be limited and subject to the terms of Decree in Case No. 05CW301, recorded at Reception No. and the Memorandum of Agreement between Hunt Ranch, LLC and the Missouri Heights Well Users Association, recorded at Reception No. in the records of the Garfield County Clerk & Recorder. Specifically, each lot shall be limited to not more than 500 square feet of landscaping irrigated from the potable water distribution system and 9,500 square feet of drought -resistant landscaping irrigated via the raw -water system. A landscaping and irrigation design approved by the Homeowners' Association consistent with these restrictions is a condition of activation of each lot's water supply tap.; n) The Decree in Case No. 05Cw301 contains the following provisions: "To assure that adequate protection is provided to other vested water rights or other conditional water rights, and in consideration of the specific findings and conclusions made herein, and in conformance with C.R.S. § 37-92-304(6), as amended, the changes of water rights and/or plan for augmentation decreed herein shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water Judge on the question of injury to the vested water rights of others for a period of five years after the augmentation plan becomes operations and at least 75% of the built - out of the Hunt Ranch Subdivision development."; o) Hunt Ranch Subdivision Homeowners Association indemnifies and holds Garfield County harmless from any and all claims and causes of action arising from or in any way relating to the adequacy of the water supply; p) Lots 17, 18, 28, 50 and 51 shall be limited to a Floor Area Ratio 2,500 square feet; q) Resident occupancy for Lots 17, 18, 28, 50 and 51 require that the occupant reside in Garfield County nine -months a year; 18) The Applicant shall include the terms and conditions of water decree case no. 05CW3Olin the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Restrictive Covenants; 24 19) The Applicant shall submit a deed restriction for Lots 17, 18, 28, 50 and 51 outlining the representations of the Applicant regarding FAR, Resident Occupancy and the $250,000 initial sale price; 20) The Applicant shall include the recommendations of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services' wildfire survey in the Covenants and Restrictions; 21) The indemnifications required of Hunt Ranch Subdivision Home Owner's Association regarding water supply and the proposed public trail system shall be included in the Covenants and Restrictions. 25