Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 12.14.2005Exhibits for Public Hearing held on December 14, 2005 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended F Application G Staff Memorandum H Memorandum from the Road and Bridge Department dated December 6, 2005 I Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated November 30, 2005 J Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated December 6, 2005 K Email from the City of Rifle dated November 21, 2005 New Exhibits L Letter from The Division of Water Resources dated 12/2/05 M Letter from Vegetation Director date 12/9/05 N Letter from Dan and Dawn Bailey dated 12/9/05 0 Memorandum from the County Environmental Health Manager dated 12/5/05 I /z-4- 1/k • • PC 12/14/05 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for a 4 lot subdivision on thirty-six (36) acres. OWNER (APPLICANT) Terri Patrick ENGINEER High Country Engineering LOCATION Parcel lies between Rifle and Silt, north of I-70, at the end of CR 259. WA 1ER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING Individual wells for each lot. Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) Private Access Easement from CR 259 (Jewell Lane) ARRD ARRD • • I. PROJECT INFORMATION The Applicant proposes to divide the 36 -acre parcel into 4 residential lots. The development proposes that each lot will contain a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit for a total of 8 dwelling units. All lots are between five (5) and seventeen (17) acres in size. The property lies at the toe of a hogback and generally consisting of rolling pasture land. The property is presently improved with a single-family dwelling on the north portion of the property. The property has been used for agricultural purposes. Existing vegetation includes limited mature cottonwood trees, sagebrush, and grasses. A stock pond also exists on the site. The site possesses a 180 degree view of the Bookcliffs and Colorado River valley. The property is served by a 14' wide gravel road which extends from the end of County Road 259 along the eastern boundary of the property. The most significant feature on the property is the Farmer' s Irrigation Ditch (situated within a 110' easement, approximately) which meanders through a large portion of the property. Large lot agricultural and residential uses surround the property. II. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in Study Area Il and is designated as outlying residential which assumes the 2 acres per dwelling unit density. The property is not located in the urban area of influence for Silt or Rifle. As a result, the residential use, density, and subdivision design are all consistent with and conform to the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan. III. REFERRALS Staff referred the application to the following review agencies and departments for general and/or specific commentary. The comments received have been generally incorporated into this memo where appropriate. a. City of Rifle: Stated they had no issue with the proposed development (Exhibit K) b. Town of Silt: No comments received. c. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to this subdivision request with the following conditions. The applicant shall apply for a driveway access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. and comply with the conditions of the permit. This would include a paved apron at the driveway approach to Cr. 259 and a stop sign. The stop sign and the installation shall be as required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (Exhibit H) d. Rifle Fire Protection District: No comments received. e. RE -2 School District: No comments received. f. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No comments received. g. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No comments received. h. Colorado Geologic Survey: Careful management of the subsoils and the groundwater is essential on this property to avoid foundation problems due to swelling and collapsing soils 2 1 and drilled pier foundations may be necessary in areas with high clay content. As a result, site-specific soil investigations should be conducted at the proposed building sites per the recommendations of HP Geotech. Regarding erosion, there are steep banks adjacent to the irrigation ditch, which runs through the property. Piping, or underground erosion, is possible next to the ditch. Building envelopes should have a setback from these steep slopes. Standard erosion control practices should be utilized during construction to mitigate for erosion. The property has stiff clays at relatively shallow depths below the surface, which may lead to perched groundwater. HP Geotech recommends that an underdrain system should be provided to protect below -grade construction from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup. There are numerous areas with man-made fill on the property that must be removed and replaced with structural fill prior to construction. The accessory building sites for parcels 2 and 3, shown on the preliminary plan, are on the opposite (west) side of the irrigation ditch from the access driveway. If the accessory building sites are to be utilized, then an engineered bridge must be constructed over the irrigation ditch. These accessory sites may be more problematic for shallow groundwater, because they lie at a lower elevation than the rest of the building envelopes. (Exhibit I) i. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: No comments received. j. Mountain Cross Engineering: Main issues include 1) soils with expansive potential were encountered. Specific building foundation designs will be necessary, 2) concerns about the proposed irrigation and wells systems for each lot, 3) fire protection pond, and 4) drainage concerns. (Exhibit J) IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ARRD ZONE DISTRICT The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required regulations of the ARRD zone district. A. Proposed Uses The Applicant proposes single-family dwelling units on all of the 4 lots which are contemplated as "uses by right" in the ARRD zone district and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on each lot. Normally, ADUs require a Special Use Permit if an ADU is sought on a property by itself. The Subdivision Regulations do contemplate the ability for an Applicant to obtain approval for an ADU on each lot as part of the Preliminary Plan review process so long as the standards for an ADU have been met. These standards are presented here for review purposes and shall also be included as plat notes and in the protective covenants so that future lot owners are placed "on notice" about how ADUs are allowed to occur on those lots. The overall density results in 4.5 acres per dwelling unit or 0.22 dwelling units per acre. This density is well within the allowed density proposed by the Comprehensive Plan of 2 acres per dwelling unit or 0.5 dwelling unit per acre. The following regulations are required of any residential development in the ARRD zone district: 3 1 • B. Common Dimensional Requirements 1) Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%) 2) Minimum Setback: • Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; • Rearyard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; • Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. 3) Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet 4) Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations As mentioned above, the Subdivision Regulations do contemplate the ability for an Applicant to obtain approval for an ADU on each lot as part of the Preliminary Plan review process so long as the standards for an ADU have been met. These standards are presented here for review purposes and shall also be included as plat notes and in the protective covenants so that future lot owners are placed "on notice" about how ADUs are to occur on those lots. More specifically, Section 5.03.021 of the County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended required that the use of a structure as an accessory dwelling whether approved by Special Use, use by right in a new subdivision approval, or on an existing lot must meet the following standards, as well as all other standards applicable to residential use: 1) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size. 2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. 3) Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by covenant if applicable. 4) Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit. 5) Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility. 4 6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units are allowed. 7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code Requirements. V. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following is an analysis of the proposed development against the County' s Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. A. Water The development proposes that individual wells will supply domestic and irrigation water to each residential lot. The application included an analysis of both the physical and legal nature of the water proposed for the subdivision conducted by Zancanella & Associates dated September 1, 2005. At present, two wells have been permitted and drilled which are discussed below. The Applicant intends to drill two more so that each lot has its own well. Regarding legal domestic supply, according to the analysis, it appears the subdivision will divert an average of 4.75 AF annually and consumptively use 1.55 AF with transit losses included. A well, the "Silt Heights Well", was drilled under a domestic well permit approved by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. The Applicant obtained a substitute supply plan from West Divide Water Conservancy District Contract for the 1.55 AF needed to supply legal water to the subdivision. This is an activated contract. Regarding physical domestic water supply, two wells have been drilled and pump tested at varying rates over 4 -hour periods. As a result, the analysis concluded that "based on the pumping tests from both wells, with water storage to handle peak demands, the two wells should be adequate to serve two of the single-family lots with an ADU on each lot. It may be necessary to limit irrigation withdrawals during extended drought periods. We suggest an alternate outside irrigation source be developed, if possible. It is reasonable to assume that two additional wells will be obtained." Regarding domestic water quality, the analysis reported that the water from the well was tested and found to have a poor quality, in that, it exceeded the maximum contaminant level for selenium turbidity, sodium, chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, iron, and fluoride. The analysis states that "treatment of the water will be necessary prior to human consumption." Treatment could be achieved by a Reverse Osmosis (RO) type system. This system will also further impact well and septic system due to excess demand. Regarding irrigation water, the report only indicates that water will be diverted (from the wells) to irrigate up to 2,500 square feet of lawn and other equivalent outside uses. This is an issue because the report states "it may be necessary to limit irrigation withdrawals during extended 5 • • drought periods. We suggest an alternate outside irrigation source be developed, if possible." As you are aware, all lots, pursuant to Section 9:51, shall be provided an adequate irrigation water supply. While two wells have been drilled and tested, the Applicant shall drill and test two additional wells as part of the final plat approval process. As is always required by Garfield County, the Applicant / developer shall demonstrate the following for all physical water supplies proposed in a subdivision: (1) That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; (2) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; (3) The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; (4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; (5) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; (6) If the well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs; and (7) The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. Mountain Cross Engineering conducted a review on behalf of the County and provided the following comments. Water Supply Plan 1. The water supply plan provides results and permits for two wells. Based on these results it is probable that two other wells can be permitted, but not certain. Prior to Final Plat the other two wells need to be permitted or a water distribution system meeting the requirements of Section 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County needs to be proposed. 2. There are no specifics concerning the irrigation water. Article VII and VIII of the Protective Covenants requires irrigation water come from the irrigation ditch per allotted share but no volume or flow rate is specified. The August 29, 2000 letter from the Silt Water Conservancy District requires the future irrigation be only on 6 • • ground that is historically irrigated. No delineation of historically irrigated area is shown. Perhaps the allotment of one share per Lot does not coincide with the historically irrigated area. This should be investigated. 3. How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? 4. Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocated for the fire protection pond? Are storage and evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? Plan Sheets 5. What is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be Less than 12". The profile of the road may need to be modified if the culvert flowline and size is constrained. 6. How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection with CR 259? Is a culvert(s) required? 7. It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of 5692'. If this is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? 8. How is this pond to be filled and maintained? 9. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulf the entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use proposed. 10. The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and sediment that would be pumped. The Division of Water Resources reviewed the proposal. Those comments were not available at the time of the drafting of this memorandum but will be presented at the hearing. B. Soils /Topography /Radiation Soils on the site are identified as Kim and Potts Loam which are deep, well -drained, moderately sloping soils. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high. On the Kim Loam surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderate. On the Potts Loam surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is severe. On the Kim Loam, low strength and steep slopes are the main limitation to community development. On the Potts Loam the limitations are low strength, shrink -swell potential, and slope. HP Geotech performed a subsoil study on the property and concluded that "The natural clay subsoils appear to have expansion potential when wetted. Expansive clay soils require special designs to limit the risk of foundation and floor slab heave. Concentrated load on spread footings, structural floor slabs, drilled or driven piles and sub -excavation of expansive clays are possible 7 • methods to mitigate the expansion potential." Dwellings and roads can be designed to overcome these limitations with engineered foundations and septic systems. Based on these subsoil limitations, Staff strongly suggests a plat note be required that states the following: "Based on the analysis of the subsoils on the property, Individual Sewage Treatment System and foundation designs are required to be conducted by a registered professional engineer licensed to practice within the State of Colorado. These studies and or/ 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." The gamma radiation survey conducted by HP Geotech resulted in the conclusion that no mitigation of radiation should be required. C. Roads /Access The development proposes access to the four lots from CR 259 by way of a 600 linear foot dead- end cul-de-sac with a turnaround that the end. The access road will utilize a portion of an existing thirty (30) foot wide access easement to CR 259. The road servicing the 4 lots appears to meet the required "semi -primitive" standard. This standard calls for a minimum 40 foot right of way with each lane at least 8 feet in width with a gravel surface, a maximum grade of 10% percent, a shoulder width of 2 feet, and a ditch width of 4 feet. It appears the access easement also serves other properties and therefore the Applicant does not have sole ownership of the access easement serving the subject property. It also appears that the easement may partially lie on adjacent parcels. Since the current access easement is held by neighboring properties it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain permission from the easement holders to change the use of the easement and to make it a publicly dedicated right of way. The sketch plan review commented that evidence of the ability to use the easement must be included in the preliminary plan application. No evidence has been submitted with this application. As a result, it is not clear that the lots have legal access to a County Road. This will need to be addressed prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Because this is a subdivision where the access road will serve more than 1 lot, Section 9:34 is required such that "All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision." This shall also be included as a plat note on the final plat. The Garfield County Road & Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections to this subdivision request with the following conditions. The Applicant shall apply for a driveway access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. and comply with the conditions of the permit. This would include a paved apron at the driveway approach to Cr. 259 and a stop sign. The stop sign and the installation shall be as required by the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 8 • • D. Fire Protection The site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District (RFPD). The Applicant proposes to construct a 30,000 gallon pond to store fire protection water for the subdivision. The application contains a letter from RFPD indicating that the proposed subdivision lies within the District and that the District can provide fire and medical services to the development. The District provided the following recommendations: 1) Vegetation should be removed from near any structures in order to provide a safe zone in the event of a wild land fire; 2) When constructing access roadways into the parcels, consideration should be given to the weights of fire apparatus and accessibility during adverse weather conditions; 3) The address of the properties are to be posted where the driveway access the County Road and on the residence itself if a shared driveway if used. Letters are to be a minimum of 4 inches in height, l/ inches in width and contrast with background colors, 4) The District recommends the development of a fire protection water supply in the area. Water supply should be a minimum of 30,000 gallons and within two road miles of the subdivision with an approved method of fire department access and connection. The proposal does meet the District's minimum for having an approved water supply within two road miles; and 5) The district would like to continue to work with the applicant to ensure that the access road is suitable for emergency vehicle access. Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments that need to be addressed by the Applicant: 1. How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? 2. Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocated for the fire protection pond? Are storage and evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? 3. It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of 5692'. If this is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? 4. How is this pond to be filled and maintained? 5. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulf the entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use 9 • • proposed. 6. The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and sediment that would be pumped. E. Drainage / Wetlands The application includes a drainage study performed by High Country Engineering (HCE) that states that the development will have minimal impact on drainages running through the property. No detention ponds are necessary to contain any increase in historic flows of the property. Where possible, driveways will follow existing topography. Where drainage crossings are required, adequately sized culverts will be installed to convey the historical flows through the property. The drainage report concludes that the subdivision has been designed to mitigate the expected impacts of storm water runoff as outlined in the County' s drainage regulations. Mountain Cross Engineering provided the following review comment which needs to be addressed by the Applicant: Access to Lots 3, 2, and perhaps 1 will need to cross the proposed roadside ditch. How will the ditch flow be maintained with the anticipated driveways? If a culvert is proposed what size is necessary? Is the proposed ditch section sufficient to convey the anticipated flows? On the Plan Sheets, what is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be less than 12". The profile of the road may need to be modified if the culvertflowline and size is constrained. How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection with CR 259? Is a culvert(s) required? F. Wastewater The Applicant proposes that individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot. The applicant should be aware that the covenants must contain provisions for ISDS maintenance, including a detailed maintenance plan. Close attention should be paid to the soils in the area regarding the appropriateness of ISDS which will need to be engineered systems. Staff provided the Applicant with a good maintenance guide to reference at the National Environmental Service Center at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc septicnews.htm./ . The application materials do not include any information regarding a detailed maintenance plan. This information shall be provided to the Planning Staff prior to any hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. G. Wildlife The application contains a wildlife study prepared by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc (Beattie Report). This report concludes that the subdivision will affect birds and small mammals associated with shrubland and grassland (western meadowlark, western kingbird, cottontail rabbit, deer mouse, meadow vole) and will affect mule deer. Additionally, due to the widespread 10 • • availability of shrubland and grassland in Grass Mesa area, the subdivision will not cause significant population declines of theses birds and mammals. Foraging areas for mule deer will be reduced; however, mule deer will still have access to nearby undeveloped grasslands / haylands and shrublands on Silt Mesa. The prey base for coyotes, foxes, skunks, raccoons, crows, red-tailed hawks, ad owls will be diminished. There are no federal or Colorado threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife or Colorado species of special concern which will be significantly impacted by the subdivision. In conclusion, although there will be a reduction in the quantity and distribution of wildlife, existing wildlife species should still maintain a presence on the development. Many affected species will relocate to undeveloped areas in the development. This subdivision will not result in the loss of critical wildlife habitat, nor will it affect wildlife migration corridors. Retaining native vegetation in those areas outside of building envelopes, laws, and entrance roads will benefit wildlife. Staff held a conversation with the Division of Wildlife District Manager, Brian Gray about the proposal. Written comments are forthcoming which reflect an agreement with the comments provided in the Beattie Report as well as indicating the common threats by subdivisions which include dogs at large, fencing, and weed management. H. Ditches and Easements Easements shall be provided for all existing and proposed ditches. If no described easement of record currently exists for any of the existing ditches, easements shall be created and described on the preliminary plan. The Garfield County Vegetation Manager has noted that irrigation ditches are common sources of weed infestations. The weed management plan should address weed management along ditches. I. Assessments / Fees The property is located in Traffic Study Area 6 of the Capital Improvements Plan which requires development to pay a Traffic Impact Fee. The Applicant can expect to pay approximately $210 per average daily trip for 8 units (which equates to a total of 76.56 trips), minus the appropriate County discounts. A general figure equates to $16,469.50 of which $8,234.75 is due at final plat and the remainder half is paid as building permits are pulled for each lot by the individual lot owners which would be approximately $1,029.34. These fees will be more accurately determined at the time of final plat. The development is also located in the RE -2 School District which requires a cash -in -lieu payment of a School / Land Dedication Fee of $200 per unit to be paid in full at the time of final plat. This fee totals $1,600 for the proposed 8 units. 11 • • VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan for the Booms Place Subdivision with the following findings: 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at the hearings. 3. That the application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. That the application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4.00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. 5. That the application conforms to and is compatible with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 6. That the proposed preliminary plan is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan of the Silt Heights Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. The Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the final plat: One Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) shall be allowed on each lot provided that all ADUs shall not exceed a gross floor area of 1500 sq. ft., only leasehold interests are allowed, and that all construction for all dwelling units shall comply with the appropriate County building code Requirements. b) 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. 12 • • c) 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. d) 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. e) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed. f) 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. g) 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. h) Based on the analysis of the sub -soils on the property, Individual Sewage Treatment System 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. i) 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. 13 • • j) The mineral rights associated with this property (also known as Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Silt Heights Subdivision) 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). 3 k) All domestic water supplies shall include treatment by a Reverse Osmosis (RO) type system. All ISDS shall be designed to accommodate this treatment system. 3. The Applicant shall prepare an "Individual Sewage Disposal System Operation and Maintenance Plan" to be submitted to the Planning Department Staff for review prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. This plan shall be incorporated into the covenants as part of the final plat application review. 4. The protective covenants shall assign responsibility for weed management along roadsides and in common areas to the Homeowners Association. The covenants shall describe how weed management shall occur on individual lots and be managed by each individual lot owner. 5. The Applicant shall 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. This information will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation. 6. The Applicant shall provide the revegetation security in the form of a separate letter of credit (amount determined by the County Vegetation Director) to Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the County's adopted Reclamation Standards. The release of the security shall not occur until a formal opinion has been rendered by the County Vegetation Director as to the level of successful revegetation. This requirement shall be incorporated within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA). 7. The Applicant shall provide a "Soil Management Plan" to the County Vegetation Director for approval as part of the final plat submittal. This plan shall include 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. 8. The Applicant shall provide approved well permits for the wells that are to be drilled to provide water to the subdivision as contemplated in the West Divide Water Conservancy District contract as part of the final plat documents. In addition, and prior to the signing of the final plat, all physical water supplies shall demonstrate the following: a) That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 14 • • b) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; c) The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; d) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; e) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; f) If the well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs; g) The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. 9. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) as well as the protective covenants shall provide that the irrigation water rights / ditch shares currently assigned to the property are conveyed to and owned by the Homeowners' Association (HOA). All related easements shall be shown on the final plat and dedicated to the HOA. 0. The Applicant shall pay the Traffic Irppact Fee to Garfield County to be calculated and paid prior to recordation of the final pla 11. The Applicant shall pay the cash -in -lieu for the School Site Acquisition Fee for the RE -2 School District of $200 per dwelling unit prior to recordation of the final plat. 12. The Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the protective covenants regarding fire protection for the subdivision: a) Vegetation should be removed from near any structures in order to provide a safe zone in the event of a wild land fire; b) When constructing access roadways into the parcels, consideration should be given to the weights of fire apparatus and accessibility during adverse weather conditions; c) The address of the properties are to be posted where the driveway access the County Road and on the residence itself if a shared driveway if used. Letters are to be a minimum of 4 inches in height, lh inches in width and contrast with background colors, (3 i-\ The accessory building sites for parcels 2 and 3, shown on the preliminary plan, are on the opposite (west) side of the irrigation ditch _ fre �- t . e access driveway. If the accessory building sites are to be utilized, then a e = r: dTbridge must be constructed over the 4.\,.1 'rrigation ditch. , S615,e,--- 15 1 \/ 7 • 14. The applicant shall apply for a driveway access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. and comply with the conditions of the permit. This shall include a paved apron at the driveway approach to CR 259 and a stop sign. The stop sign and the installation shall be as required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 15. The Applicant shall address the following comments from Mountain Cross Engineering prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners: Protective Covenants \'\ a) Definition for Lot/Lots refers to Lots 1-5. Only four lots are proposed. b) Individual Wells refers to Lots 1-5. Only four lots are proposed. Water Supply Plan c) The water supply plan provides results and permits for two wells. Based on these results it is probable that two other wells can be permitted, but not certain. Prior to Final Plat the other two wells need to be permitted or a water distribution system meeting the requirements of Section 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County needs to be proposed. d) There are no specifics concerning the irrigation water. Article VII and VIII of the Protective Covenants requires irrigation water come from the irrigation ditch per allotted share but no volume or flow rate is specified. The August 29, 2000 letter from the Silt Water Conservancy District requires the future irrigation be only on ground that is historically irrigated. No delineation of historically irrigated area is shown. Perhaps the allotment of one share per Lot does not coincide with the historically irrigated area. This should be investigated. e) How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? f) Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocated for the fire protection pond? Are storage and evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? Drainage Report g) Access to Lots 3, 2, and perhaps 1 will need to cross the proposed roadside ditch. How will the ditch flow be maintained with the anticipated driveways? If a culvert is proposed what size is necessary? Is the proposed ditch section sufficient to convey the anticipated flows? Plan Sheets h) What is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be less than 12". The profile of the road may need to be modified if the culvert flowline and size is constrained. i) How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection with CR 259? Is a culvert(s) required? 16 • • j) It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of 5692'. If this is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? k) How is this pond to be filled and maintained? 1) The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulf the entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use proposed. m) The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and sediment that would be pumped. 16. It is not clear that the lots have legal access to County Road 259. Th' will need to be (\ addressed prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. r , etc I— Q Yv %= / , cA) 04 --- —9 (01 ''\\IU/i-1 f(u'' b\sl /6.1 ` v ?(4.c1 . C �%✓mow �j (7/ J 17 1