HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 01.04.2010Exhibits — Combined Preliminary Plan/Final Plat — Doug Coffman Subdivision — CPPF 6609
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing (1/4/2010)
Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
Proof of Publication, Mailing, and Posting
A
B
Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended
C
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
D
Application
E
Staff Memorandum
F
Staff Powerpoint
G
Letter from Garfield County Road and Bridge dated September 21, 2009
H
Email from Dan Roussin, Colorado Department of Transportation, dated September 22,
2009
I
Email from Janet Buck, Town of Carbondale, dated October 1, 2009
J
Letter from Bill Gavette, the Carbondale & Rural Fire District, dated November 10, 2009.
K
Email from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Director, dated November 19, 2009
L
Proposed Condition Number 8
M
Vegetation Management Plan for Doug Coffman Subdivision
N
Draft Minutes pages 1-7, Planning Commission Public Hearing, November 18, 2009
EXHIBIT
oCC January 4, 2010 TV
Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for /
CPPF 6609 Doug Coffman Subdivision V
J l
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST
APPLICANT / OWNER
REPRESENTATIVE
ENGINEER
LOCATION
PROPERTY SIZE
WATER
SEWER
ACCESS
EXISTING ZONING
ftt b
The Rex Allen Coffman Revocable Trust and the AA 0
JoAnn G. Coffman Revocable Trust
Kelly Cave, Dan Kerst, P.C.
Scarrow & Walker
North of County Road 100, east of Carbondale, and
south of the Roaring Fork River.
149.763 acres
Individual Wells
Individual Sewage Disposal System
County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road)
Rural
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
This Application, a "Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat", is for a two lot subdivision with a
request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit on Lot 2. The site is located east of Carbondale and south
of the Roaring Fork River. The property owner proposes to divide his 149.763 acre parcel into two
lots with Lot 2 at 9.127 acres and the remainder, Lot 1 containing 140.636 acres.
This subdivision is a re -division of Lot 4 of the Rex Coffman Exemption Plat approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on August 11, 2003 in Resolution No. 2003-60. The proposal
creates a new buildable lot and the remainder 140.636 acre lot includes a 38 acre conservation
easement which is controlled by the Aspen Land Trust. The general site vicinity is shown in the
map below.
T
•
Rotasat Ramie Font
70Ratch
AraisraFim+
1
T.4p4
Doug+Cottn an Sub tivision
A
A. General Property Description
The approximately 150 acre property is located 2 miles east of the Town of Carbondale and south
of the Roaring Fork River with direct access to County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road). The site
is has primary river frontage on the Roaring Fork River.
There is minimal topography with a gentle upward slope to the east. The majority of Lot 2 is
within the 100 year flood plain and contains a two (2) acre building site that meets the requirements
of the Floodplain Overlay Zone. The entire parcel contains a mix of woodland and pasture for
grazing. There is an existing home site on the extreme southwest corner of Lot 1. A 30 foot ditch
easement runs east and west along the southern edge of the property. There are three residential
lots located centrally on the east portion of the site that were Lots 1-3 of the Rex Coffman
Exemption Plat. All three of those exemption lots contain single family dwellings with accessory
structures.
2
The aerial photo to the right shows
more detail of Lot 2 and the existing
homes on the three "exemption" lots,
Catherine Store Road, the Rio Grande
Trail, and an existing home on the
adjacent lot to the east. Lot 2 contains
moderate tree cover and the proposed
2 acre building site is centrally located
and beyond all building setback
requirements of the Rural Zoning
District. Lot 2 will be served by an
individual well and ISDS. The 30 foot
access easement for Lots 1-3 of the
Rex Coffman Subdivision is clearly
visible on the left of the image.
The site is part of an old farmstead
located between Catherine Store
Road and the Roaring Fork River.
Lot 1 contains an existing home with
outbuildings with a significant
pasture and some tree cover near the
northeast portion of this lot. The 9+
acre Lot 2 is at the eastern boundary
of the site and contains moderate tree
cover with some underlying brush.
The proposed building site is
approximately 2 acres in area and
outside of the floodway. The
building site is intended for a single
family residence, Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU), and accessory
outbuildings. An irrigation ditch runs
east and west through the site. The
aerial photo above shows the general
area.
B. Preliminary Plan
The proposed preliminary plan, illustrated in the image below, shows the division of Lot 4 of the
Rex Coffman Exemption Plat into two lots. The western lot, (Lot 1) is approximately 140 acres in
area and contains an existing home with outbuildings. There is a conservation easement on the
eastern 38 acres of this lot shown by a conservation easement line. The easement does not
adequately demonstrate the location of the easement and staff offers a recommended condition to
delineate the full easement area using hatch marks. Lots 1-3 of the Rex Coffinan Exemption Plat
3
are shown between Lots 1 and 2 of the current proposal. A driveway and utility easement provide
access to the Exemption Lots 1-3 from CR 100 and through Lot 1 of the this subdivision. The
irrigation ditch is shown near the southern boundary of the plat and runs east -west. Lot 2 of the
Doug Coffman Subdivision is just over 9 acres in area with a two acre building envelope illustrated
within the confines of the lot. Access to Lot 2 is directly to CR 100.
Lot 1
J
C. Final Plat
Ark
Lot 2
The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 allows a combined Preliminary Plan/Final Plat review ".
.. if the proposed subdivision has seven (7) parcels or less and development of the lots does not
require extensive engineering." There are no required improvements to public facilities and the
only significant improvement is a culvert for the irrigation ditch, which has been installed. In this
process, the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation on the Preliminary Plan to the
Board of County Commissioners and the Board reviews the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat
simultaneously. The Final Plat mylar is then approved and signed by the Chairman at a later date
on a consent agenda of the Board. A reduced copy of the fmal plat is located in the application,
Tab 2.
4
II. REFERRAL AGENCIES / DEPARTMENTS
Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and / or County Departments for their
review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are more
comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment
letters are attached and labeled as noted.
A. City of Carbondale (See Exhibit I)
B. Carbondale Fire Protection District (See Exhibit J)
C. RE -1 School District
D. Colorado Division of Wildlife
E. Colorado Division of Water Resources
F. Colorado Geologic Survey
G. Colorado Department of Transportation (See Exhibit H)
H. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
1. Colorado State Forest Service
J. County Road and Bridge Department (See Exhibit G)
K. County Vegetation Management (See Exhibit K)
L. Garfield County Engineer/Garfield County Surveyor
III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located in Study Area 1 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the
proposed division of land is consistent with the rural nature of the site and the underlying Rural
Zoning District. The proposal to subdivide the site into two lots of 140 and 9 acres for single-
family residential uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates two acres for
"outlying residential" at a minimum of two acres/dwelling unit.
IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE RURAL ZONE DISTRICT
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of
the Rural Zoning District.
A. Proposed Uses
The Applicant proposes a single-family residence with a future Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) on Lot 2 of the Doug Coffman Subdivision. The single family residence is a "use by
right" in the Rural Zoning District and an ADU is permitted with an administrative review and
approval or with approval as part of a preliminary plan and final plat.
B. Common Dimensional Requirements
Building setbacks within the building envelope on the Preliminary Plan would meet or exceed
the requirements of the ULUR (2008). The Rural Zoning District dimensional standards are
shown below.
➢ Minimum Lot Size: 2 acres.
➢ Maximum Lot Coverage: 15%
➢ Minimum Setback: Front Yard: (Arterial) 50 feet
Front Yard: (Local Street) 25 feet
Rear yard: 25 feet
Side yard: 10 feet or 1/2 building height
➢ Maximum Building Height: 25 feet residential, 40 feet non-residential
5
V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
General approval standards for Land Use Change Permits are discussed in the first four Divisions of
Article 7 Standards; Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits;
Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards; Division 3 Site Planning and Development
Standards; Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications. The following discussion
addresses those standards.
Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits
Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water
Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply
The Application proposes to provide water with a single new well located on Lot 2. The well
permit from the Division of Water Resources (DWR), located on Lot 2, was approved for
"fire protection, household purposes for up to 3 single family dwellings, irrigation of up to 1
acre and the watering of domestic animals" and was originally approved in 2008.
The application includes documentation for the potential for adequate water required by the
ULUR, Sections 7-104, 105, and 106. The ULUR also requires a 24 hour test in addition to
specific well and drilling data listed in 7-104 B2A. Adequate well testing both for quality and
quantity was performed as a required performance standard listed in the ULUR and test
documentation is required prior to recordation of the mylar. A condition has been added to
require submittal of all testing data showing adequate quantity and quality.
Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems
The Application proposes Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for Lot 2. A new ISDS
system will be constructed at a "design level" with site specific design and testing as
recommended by Resource Engineering (See Tab 10). High ground water within this plat will
require an ISDS to be engineered as a mounded system a minimum of four (4) feet above
seasonal high water.
Section 7-108 Access and Roadways
The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and notes that the lot access
is via CR 100 and the proposed access had no roadway constraints (See Exhibit G). Any
oversize/overweight vehicles will still need a permit from Road and Bridge.
The property is located outside any Traffic Study Area and no roadway impact fees are
required.
Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards
Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
The Vegetation Management Plan (Tab 13) and the Wildlife Report (Tab 14) have specific
recommendations that should be implemented with this development. A condition has been
added to require adherence to the recommendations.
Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies
Portions of the site are located within the 100 year floodplain. Proper documentation showing
the 2 acre building envelope is outside of the Floodway and suitable development is located in
Tab 10. An Administrative Permit is required when building within the 100 year floodplain
for compliance with the ULUR.
6
Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications
Section 7-403 Fire Protection
A. Adequate Access Lanes
B. Fire Lanes
C. Water Sources for Fire Protection
Comments from the Carbondale Fire District were received after the printing of the staff
memo. The District noted the current impact fee for the additional lot is $704. Condition
Number 5 was revised to reflect the corrected impact fee amount.
Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Spaces
No roadway dedications are required. The Applicant is responsible for a payment in lieu of
dedication to the RE -1 School District for the creation of additional lots. A property appraisal
was submitted by the applicant and is located in Tab 5 of the application. No comments have
been received from the RE -1 School District and the Board's decision for dedication or cash
in lieu of dedication is based on the District's recommendation. A condition has been added
for the Applicant to contact the RE -1 School District for a recommendation.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
During the public hearing on November 18, 2009, Planning Staff presented the proposed
preliminary plan and final plat recommending approval with specific conditions. Following
testimony by the applicant and his representative the Planning Commission discussed the proposed
condition Number 8 (Exhibit L) which detailed the recommendations from the Vegetation
Management and Wildlife Management Plans. In their discussion, the Planning Commission
considered the recommendations from both application documents, noted above, were too specific
and asked staff to contact the Director of Vegetation Management for additional input about weed
management and requested staff to delete the recommendations from the Wildlife Management
Plan. The Planning Commission draft minutes from the November 18, 2009 public hearing are
attached (excerpts, attached as Exhibit N) with the detailed discussion about proposed Condition
Number 8. The revision to condition Number 8 below reflects the recommendations from Steve
Anthony, County Vegetation Management (Exhibit K) and includes the Vegetation Management
Plan as Exhibit M with the Plan recommendations referenced and adopted as required conditions of
approval. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the combined Preliminary Plan and
Final Plat with Accessory Dwelling Unit, as conditioned.
1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the
hearing before the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners was extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were
submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings.
3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County.
4. The proposed subdivision of land does conform to the Garfield County Unified Land Use
Resolution of 2008, as amended, and does comply with all applicable Development
Regulations.
5. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
VII. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall
be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Prior to recording the final plat the conservation easement shall be identified by hatching or
some other marking method to adequately demonstrate the full extent of the easement.
3. The applicant shall contact the Roaring Fork RE -1 School District and request documentation
on the amount of land dedication or payment in lieu of dedication that is required. A copy of
said documentation shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department and is
required prior to recordation of the final plat.
4. The Applicant shall include the following additional text as plat notes on the final plat:
a. "All future lot purchasers / builders that they are required to submit an "elevation
certificate" performed by a registered surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Colorado
that shows the building envelope is outside the 100 year floodplain with the building permit
application. If a building envelope is found to contain portions of the 100 year floodplain,
no building permit shall be issued until an Administrative Floodplain Development Permit
(or equivalent adequate land use permit) has been obtained.
5. The Applicant shall provide documentation from the Carbondale and Rural Fire District that the
$704 impact fee for Lot 2 has been paid at the time of final plat and prior to final recordation of
the final plat.
6. Prior to the signing of the plat, all physical water supplies shall demonstrate the following as
part of the final plat submittal:
a) A minimum 24 hour pump test shall be performed on the well(s) to be used. The
results of the pump test shall be analyzed and summarized in a report including basic
well data (size, depth, static water level, aquifer, etc.) pumping rate, draw down,
recharge and estimated long term yield. The report shall be prepared by a qualified
engineer of ground water hydrologist and include an opinion that the well will be
adequate to supply water for the proposed uses. The report shall also address the
impacts to ground water resources in the area.
b) Water use assumptions shall include an average of no less than 3.5 people per
dwelling, using 100 gallons of water per person per day, plus and irrigation and
livestock watering uses.
c) If the well is shared, a legal well -sharing declaration addressing all easements and
costs associated with operation and maintenance of the system and identifying the
person responsible for paying costs and how assessment will be made for those
costs.
d) At a minimum, the water quality of the well shall be tested by an independent testing
laboratory for the basic Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards for inorganic
chemicals (heavy metals, nitrate, sulfate and asbestos), bacteria and radioactivity.
The results should show that the applicable standards are met or otherwise identify a
8
treatment system to meet the standards. Testing for the Secondary Drinking
Standards (taste, odor, color, staining, scaling, corrosion, etc.) is recommended.
7. The Applicant shall graphically depict the easement associated with the entire length of the
Slough Ditch on the final plat.
8. The Applicant shall comply with the Vegetation Management Plan recommendations noted in
the Tab 13 of the Application and is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit
M.
9. The Applicant shall treat the Russian Olive Trees using a cut -stump method and contact the
Garfield County Vegetation Management staff to verify treatment. The Applicant shall contact
the Vegetation Management staff if assistance is needed to identify the Russian Olive Tree and
not confuse it with the native Silver Buffaloberry shrub.
VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to approve the proposed combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat of the Doug
Coffman Subdivision with Accessory Dwelling Unit, with the recommended findings and
conditions."
9
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
gn
EXHIBIT
G
Date Sent: September 18, 2009
Comments Due: October 21, 2009
Name of application: Doug Coffman Subdivision
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff Contact: Thomas Veljic
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department has no objections to
this application with the following comments.
The addition of a residence on this property will not be a major impact to the total traffic
load on Cr. 100.
All equipment used in the hauling of equipment and materials for this application shall
abide b Garfield Coun 's oversize/overwei l ht • ermit s stem. All vehicles re . uirin
oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall
Date September 21, 2009
Revised 3/30/00
Tom Veliic
From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:23 PM
To: Tom Veljic
Subject: Doug Coffman Subdivision
EXHIBIT
i
Tom — I have no comments in regards to access onto the State Highway system. I would recommend the County to look
at the ROW needs for the stretch of roadway. I realize the County may additional traffic needs then what is within the
current ROW. This is a County issue.
Thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Room 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284 Office
970-683-6291 Fax
1
Tom Veliic
From: Janet Buck [jbuck@carbondaleco.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:37 AM
To: Tom Veljic
Subject: Doug Coffman Subdivision
Thank you for referring the Doug Coffman Subdivision to the Town of Carbondale for review and comment. The Town's
only suggestion is that the recommendations in the Vegetation (Weed) Management Plan and the Wildlife Report be
required as part of any approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Janet Buck
Town of Carbondale
1
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
November 10, 2009
Tom Veljic
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Coffman Subdivision, Sketch Plan
Dear Tom:
EXHIBIT
I have reviewed the application for the proposed Coffman Subdivision. The application was
reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 edition, adopted by the
County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
The proposed access appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
Water supply to the proposed subdivision would be provided by tanker shuttle. The Slough
Ditch which runs through the property is available as a water source for much of the year.
Impact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer
will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording
of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $704.00 per unit/lot.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Veljic
From: Steve Anthony
EXHIBIT
Re: Comments on the Doug Coffman Subdivision
Date: November 19, 2009
The vegetation management plan and map presented in Tab 13 of the application packet is acceptable.
Staff has one request of the applicant. The inventory lists a few Russian olive trees. Russian -olive is
becoming more prevalent along the Roaring Fork River. To help reduce the rate of spread of this noxious
weed along the River, staff requests that the applicant treat the Russian -olive as soon as possible using a
cut -stump method. Staff should be contacted after this is done so that we may verify. We are available
to provide details to Mr. Coffman on how to do the cut -stump treatment.
Russian -olive is often confused with the native shrub silver buffaloberry. Russian -olive has alternate
leaves and buffaloberry has opposite leaves. Care should be taken to differentiate between the two
species as buffaloberry is a native plant and provides wildlife cover and habitat.
Proposed Condition Number 8 — Doug Coffman Subdivision
EXHIBIT
8. The Applicant shall comply with the Vegetation Management Plan and Wildlife
Management Plan recommendations noted in the Application.
a. Weed Management Plan
i. Weed control shall be a combination of spraying, , cutting, mowing, and
pulling and accomplished from June through September by;
1. Spot spraying of weeds using Low Vol 6, Tordon and a wetting agent
or Gly Star
2. No new noxious weed varieties shall be introduced within the areas of
the conservation easement
3. Any increase in the noxious weed populations shall require increased
control measures including additional spraying, cutting, mowing, and
pulling
b. Wildlife Management Plan
i. The homeowner shall prevent removal of native cottonwoods, when feasible,
in order to preserve roosting sites and buffer zones from eagles and herons
ii. Free -roaming dogs are prohibited in winter when use by deer is heightened
iii. Free -roaming cats are prohibited year round to preserve birds
iv. The owner shall;
1. Use bear -proof trash containers
2. Manage and control outdoor birdfeeders, pet food, and grills to reduce
the attraction of bears
v. Remove barbwire fences along County Road 100, where feasible, to enhance
deer highway crossing areas
1. All property fences should meet Colorado Department of Wildlife
(CDOW)specifications to protect deer and small animals
vi. The homeowner shall use landscape material that does not attract wildlife and
to fence or remove hay bales to reduce attractions to deer and elk.
vii. The homeowner shall monitor eagle roost sites and report any activity to the
CDOW.
EXHIBIT
'vegetation (weed) Management plan for Doug Coffman Subdivision
Scattered over the two proposed lots are a very diffuse pattern of several
noxious weeds. Most weeds are not located on the irrigated fields but are
rather in the treed areas surrounding the fields_ There is some tansy on the
ditch banks within the irrigated fields. In the areas surrounding the irrigated
fields on one of the proposed lots containing 149363 acres there is a very
diffuse pattern of Plumeless thistle, Musk thistle, Canadian thistle, Scotch
thistle, hounds tongue, Burdock, Mullein, the rare but present Russian Olive
tree and in pastures near the Roaring Fork River there are some patches of
Oxeye Daisy. On the smaller 9.127 acre lot there is a smaller population of
noxious weeds in a very diffuse random pattern. In this smaller lot the
prevalent weed is hounds tongue and it is very diffuse with no real clustered
areas. There is the very occasional thistle, burdock and mullein.
Control of noxious weeds on both lots has been going on for years
but mainly on theiarger 149 acre lot. The noxious weed population on the
smaller 9 acre lot is very low despite lack of control measures there.
Control on the 149 acre lot has been done mainly through spot
spraying starting in June and continuing through September using a
combination Low vol 6, Tordon and a wetting agent. Some use of Gly Star
has also been used. The oxeye daisies have been controlled by spraying,
cutting and mostly mowing since they tend to be clustered. Many of the
weeds also get "pulled".
The proposal for weed control on the two lots will be a continuation
of spot spraying using Low Vol 6, Tordon and a wetting agent or Gly Star,
cutting, mowing and pulling. v "S w-- 1-0 -5e/7144.4-Lel
There are two other considerations. One is that the 9 acre lot and the
eastern part of the 149 acre lot are in conservation easement. Under the
easement we are not to introduce any noxious weeds although they do not
dictate how to control the weeds that are present but strongly recommend
controlling them. The other consideration is that in the spring of 2007 a fire
went through a good portion of the treed area of the 149 acre lot. It is
understood that this may increase the populations of noxious weeds and
require the management program be stepped up to control them.
00mvom
izrzwz4770),
s
" ' •
R_O
on, -C
\
\
1 \
1 \
1
1
\ \
\ \
\
N., N.
of‘ Po
rr
pA-c-
a
C
p1
\
19
T-61 h 5 0,1
d. ba,c-5"
North Parcel
(141.88 Acres)
„Y„, ><v „
X /
/ 7 A
"
, >
X :‘,./ .
///•/),/ >< X 7/')/ .•
•-•"'‘ si'"X. •
>." • ' )<",><viisy
> .;<
/.•
• '
•
P t e5..$
I'V\Y. 4hk5k 'This 4-1 -e
S T — 5c4 -I- Th.L
D —Oxeye_ /5 y.
IT kc
C:j13
= Ci eL ,A SILL
/43 1—ct C
i'V\Lkite.;r\
A uei,y (t
AllWillip&
\ 1‘111116
14"r NI,
N.
M \
Lr
/\>
14
L0T 2
021
coun
7 " 7/ 7 ../•
/ V V /V\r" V- 7/ •VM `,/ /\,/ \
Y /YYX / *),-",e• >,:' /YYY' /YYV
liYX/YXXIYX.X/YXX./..`/XX./Y
/` A -laZ8)9• : / , 7 A 7\ /, / A A /, 7- A 7\ /, .7 7., A /, 1' A
..,................ r- Al V L— 0
7 . ,./ \I / s,../N/ y:' 7`,/s-/ •./ /-`,/\,/ '...• ,-"\vcss/ ' ''',./N.,/ V /N./ \s/ ,../ ./".../\,/ ,../ /NZ's/
sni / '',/ •k• V / V \A" 'V ../ V V '
x x, ../. 7 X X./.
,1 0 •
PC Members Present
Phil Vaughan
Bob Fullerton
Sean Martin
Adolfo Gorra
Greg McKennis
John Kuersten
Michael Sullivan
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2009
Staff Present
EXHIBIT
Kathy Eastley, Planner
Tom Veljic, Planner
Deborah Quinn, Assist. Cty. Atty.
Cassie Coleman, Assist. Cty. Atty.
Roll call was taken and the following members are absent tonight: Cheryl Chandler, Jock
Jacober, and Lauren Martindale.
Sean Martin made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 23, 2009 and the
November 6, 2009 Planning Commission meetings and Greg McKennis seconded that motion.
Phil Vaughan made a friendly amendment to motion for minutes dated November 6, 2009 he
made a correction that he will not be in attendance at the December 9, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting. A vote was taken and all approved motion unanimously with friendly
amendment change as noted.
Phil Vaughan noted that a request was made to change the order of the agenda for tonight.
Request is to move item #6 on the agenda up to the front basically to set forth a date for
continuance. Item #6, is a public hearing request to review an application to Amend the Text of
the Los Amigos Ranch (Elk Springs) PUD by adding "Sober House" as a use -by -right in the Single-
family Zoning District listed in the PUD Zoning Districts Table and define the term "Sober
House" as part of the PUD Zone Districts. No objection was made to move this item up to the
front of tonight's agenda.
Present representing the applicant Donald Edrington is Stephanie Sommers, Attorney with
Kamlet Reichert, LLP. The public hearing was opened and Cassie Coleman reviewed public
notice requirements. Stephanie Sommers said she did provide public notice and Cassie
Coleman said she had previously reviewed the affidavit of publication and everything seems to
be correctly noticed. This item is not required to be noticed by posting or mailing.
Phil Vaughan said it is okay to proceed and it is his understanding that the applicant is asking for.
a continuance. Stephanie Sommers said it was her understanding due to the full agenda
1
tonight that it might be best to continue this for another night. Phil Vaughan asked staff if we
have meeting time available on our next meeting agenda which is December 9th. Staff said
there is time available on December 9th's agenda. PC Members are okay with December 9th
Ms. Sommers said there was possible discussion about a December 2nd date and she was
wondering if the Commission would be agreeable to that date. Phil Vaughan asked for
discussion with Planning Commission members related to a special meeting. A single meeting
date for Planning Commission meeting was set months ago for the month of December due to
a number of Comprehensive Plan meeting dates with the Commission and the Community. If
the Commission would like to have special meetings then let's talk about it. That suggestion
died due to a lack of a motion so we are looking at December 9th to continue this item to.
Stephanie Sommers spoke to the applicant and they are fine with the December 9th date.
Bob Fullerton made a motion to continue this item to the December 9, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting and Adolfo Gorra seconded the motion. A Vote was taken and motion
passed unanimously.
The next item of discussion on the agenda tonight is a public hearing request to review an
application for a combination Preliminary Plan/Final Plat for the Coffman Subdivision. The
property is located north of CR 100, east of Carbondale, and south of the Roaring Fork River.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 149.763 acre parcel into two residential lots. The
Applicant is the Rex Allen Coffman Revocable Trust and the JoAnn G. Coffman Revocable Trust.
Present tonight representing the Applicant is Kelly Cave, Attorney with Dan Kerst, PC and Mr.
Doug Coffman who has Power of Attorney to represent his parents.
Phil Vaughan explained the process we will follow for this item tonight.
Deborah Quinn reviewed the noticing requirements with Kelly Cave. Prior to tonight's hearing
notice was provided by publication of the hearing tonight. Ms. Cave said yes. The notice
included the properties legal description, a narrative that included the current zoning and
proposed use, the date, time and location of tonight's hearing, as well as the property owner
names and their representatives. Proof of publication was provided to Ms. Quinn. Deborah
Quinn asked so publication was done on October 1, 2009. Kelly Cave said the newspaper one
was done on October 1st in the Rifle Citizens Telegram and the certified mailings were done on
September 22, 2009. Notice of hearing was also posted at the property on September 22, 2009
and is visible from CR 100. Mineral owners were also sent the certified mailing notice of
hearing on September 22, 2009. Mailing notice included the same information that was posted
in the news paper. Ms. Cave said they used the records in the Clerk & Recorder's Office and the
Assessor's Office to obtain necessary names that would receive notice. Deborah Quinn
2
reviewed the documentation and stated notice appears to be adequate and it is okay to
proceed with this item tonight.
Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this item.
Tom Veljic is the County Planner on this item. Tom Veljic entered the following exhibits into the
record:
Exhibit A: Proof of Publication, Mailing and Posting
Exhibit B: Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended
Exhibit C: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
Exhibit D: Application
Exhibit E: Staff Memorandum
Exhibit F: Staff Power Point
Exhibit G: Letter from Garfield County Road & Bridge dated September 21, 2009
Exhibit H: Email from Dan Roussin, Colorado Department of Transportation, dated September
22, 2009
Exhibit I: Email from janet Buck, Town of Carbondale, dated October 1, 2009
Exhibit J: Letter from Bill Gavette, the Carbondale & Rural Fire District, dated November 10,
2009.
Exhibit A —J are accepted into the record.
Tom Veljic will present the project information and staff comments next. This is a combined
Preliminary Pian/Final Plat application review for a two lot subdivision with a request for an
accessory dwelling unit on Lot 2. The site is located east of Carbondale and south of the
Roaring Fork River. The property owner proposes to subdivided an approximately 149.763 acre
parcel into two Tots with lot 2 containing 9.127 acres and lot 1 containing 140.636 acres. This
subdivision is'a re -division of what is known as lot 4 of the Rex Coffman Exemption. The
remainder 140.636 acre lot includes a 38 acre conservation easement which is controlled by the
Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT).
A vicinity map and aerial photos were shown. Slides of the site and surrounding area were also
shown along with the proposed Preliminary Plan site plan. The majority of lot 2 is within the
100 -year floodplain. There is an existing home on lot 1. A 30 -foot ditch easement runs east
and west along the southern edge of the property.
Staff referred this application to a number of referral agencies and departments for comments.
Comments that were received are incorporated into the staff report. The Garfield County Road
and Bridge Department has no issues with this proposed subdivision.
3
Water for the subdivision will be provided by individual wells and permit is in place. We
received a letter from the Division of Water Resources and there are no issues with their well.
We are still waiting for the water quality and quantity test which will be required before Final
Plat approval.
Sewer will be handled by individual sewage disposal systems. No specific site constraints that
we know of. There may be a flood plain permit required based on elevations.
We did receive a letter from the Carbondale Fire District late today. Their comments are
included as Exhibit J. Tom Veljic had included a condition of approval #5 that he would like to
modify to read, "The applicant shall provide documentation from the Carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection District that the $704.00 impact fee for Lot 2 has been paid by the time of Final Plat
and prior to recordation of the Final Plat".
Staff would like to add a condition #8. He has sent this to the applicant and as far as he knows
they have no issues with this condition as written. The first part is directly out of the Weed
Management Plan. Wildlife Management Plan recommendations are included and he has
adopted them directly with a slight rewording from recommendation to a condition.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the
BOCC for the proposed Preliminary Plan and accessory dwelling unit on Lot 2 with the
conditions listed in the staff report. Very standard proposed findings and nothing out of the
ordinary.
Greg McKennis asked about condition #8. Bob Fullerton asked about condition #5 as well. Tom
Veljic out those both up on the screen. All are good with condition #5. Greg McKennis asked if
we have been doing what's proposed in condition #8 before. This specific as far as what kind of
chemicals to use. Tom Veljic said it was a measure called out in the plan that was adopted
directly from the recommendation that was made for controlling weeds. Steve Anthony, the
County Vegetation Manager didn't respond to this application. Tom Veljic said the Weed
Management Plan was included in the application he believes under Tab 13. He took the
condition directly out of the Weed Management Plan and the same went for the Wildlife
Management Plan (Tab 14). Tom Veljic said these conditions are part of the original Subdivision
Exemption lots and he carried it over from that. Greg McKennis said even though this was part
of the prior Exemption process this is could not be in affect if we don't approve that tonight.
Tom Veljic said that is correct but Article 7 does talk about standards and one of the things you
are suppose to mitigate is wildlife. This is recommended by the experts that the applicant has
hired to provide this documentation. Staff is making a recommendation based on that. Sean
Martin agrees some of that stuff needs to be removed.
4
Moved out to the applicant for their presentation next. Kelly Cave will speak first. One point
she would like to bring up is the barbed wire fences. The remainder of the parcel is still part of
a working ranch. Would like to see that removed or lessened. They started this process with
Sketch Plan review under the old Land Use Code. Kelly Cave said they had met with the Fire
District previously and they had given her a figure of $417.00 for impact fees required to be
paid to the District. She asked so is it just the luck of the draw that it went up to $704.00 now?
Tom Veljic said that is based on the information that was written in the Fire District letter
included as Exhibit J which has a current fee for residential development as $704.00 per
unit/lot. Kelly Cave said they have already drilled the well and it tested for quality so they will
have that as well.
Greg McKennis asked Mr. Coffman are you comfortable with this Wildlife Management Plan?
Rex Coffman replied he would prefer some of that wasn't in writing somewhere but he thinks
some of that was in this particular lot and part of the remaining parcel because it sits in a
conservation easement and he thinks some of that was hashed out through that. The whole
nine acres are in a conservation easement with a provision that we can have a building site.
Greg McKennis asked if part of the property is already in a conservation easement then why we
need for the County to get involved.
Kelly Cave said they would prefer Tess of course but they will abide with what the County wants.
The conservation easement has Tots of restrictions and management issue that they already
have to cover.
Tom Veljic said he did write these to be as flexible as possible. He understands it is farm land
and it does need some flexibility. Tom Veljic sited Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat
Areas which he read into the record.
Bob Fullerton asked the applicant, how was your experience before and after the two different
Land Use Codes? Kelly Cave said they had a rough road to say the least. This is the first
combined Preliminary Plan/Final Plat and if they did it again she doesn't think they would go
that route because it is sort of an unknown area and it has been rough to kind of being the
guinea pig to go through this. It's been rough but the County has helped us out.
Moved out to the public for comments next. None were received so we came back to the
Planning Commission for further discussion. Public portion is still open for discussion.
Greg McKennis asked so if we approve this without the Wildlife Management Plan is that a
problem at all as far as conforming to our regulations? Deborah Quinn replied yes we have
standards as Mr. Veljic pointed out that need to be met. This was the proposal from the
applicant that he has incorporated into these conditions and this establishes that they have met
those standards. Greg McKennis asked is there language that can be not so specific just simply
5
that this will conform to what's in the Code which he thinks is way broader. Deborah Quinn
said it's a recommendation from you to the BOCC. Her recommendation would be to go along
with Staff's recommendations.
Phil Vaughan said on Section 7-202, he has a different opinion from staff on this. We require in
the Code that a Wildlife Management Plan be prepared by a private consultant or by the DOW.
We do not always agree with their recommendations. Phil Vaughan thinks we do have some
latitude even if the applicant did have this as part of their application whether to accept or not
accept certain aspects of the Plan. Phil Vaughan asked does this subdivision have an HOA. Tom
Veljic said no. Tom Veljic wanted to make one more point. As you know there is a conservation
easement across this property and he would think that the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) is
much more intimate with this property then the County will ever be and they will be out there
reviewing what is going on there. As you know, the County doesn't have professional staff to
review ever different type of specialty so that is why we require people who have qualifications
to provide these documents. These are recommendations that came from the person that the
applicant hired to prepare this document. Phil Vaughan said he appreciates the fact that the
AVLT is involved. That is a private agreement between two private parties. When it gets into
our purview however then we are setting public policy here.
Sean Martin asked, what sets precedence? He even has a problem with listing the exact
chemicals that you are suppose to use to spray the weeds. Tom Veljic said this is a unique piece
of property. Not everywhere do you have such a habitat that sits along the main river frontage.
This is based on the property itself with how much wildlife they have at this site.
Greg McKennis said the State already has standards that you can be held accountable to
regarding weeds. Why do we need to get involved in this? We don't want to go there.
John Kuersten mentioned that you said (Tom Veljic) that this was the applicant's proposal so
this does still meet the County requirements but this seems to go well beyond that. Tom Veljic
these are recommendations from the professional that prepared these documents for the
applicant and all Tom has done is added them as a condition for the wildlife and the weed.
Rex Coffman said those chemicals were taken from a weed management plan that he proposed
to Steve Anthony and all they were are the chemicals that his dad uses to spray the place. John
Kuersten said it seems to him that these are recommendations and not requirements. Tom
Veljic said he added the condition because he thinks that met the intent of the Land Use Code.
Greg McKennis said, ultimately if the BOCC chooses to keep they can. The Planning
Commission doesn't have to. Greg McKennis said he likes the idea of protecting things. Thinks
it creates a mind set when we go to extreme.
6
Michael Sullivan said we are talking about this specific piece of property. We're not talking
about precedence that follows further down the line correct. Phil Vaughan replied that ever
application that comes before us is a separate application. We treat it under the Code and we
deal with it there but we also do understand that once things get started sometimes it's a bit
hard to get things stopped so there is probably a different opinion with staff as far as what sets
precedence or not. Michael Sullivan asked so a dry land application wouldn't necessarily hold
this particular verbiage or hold these restrictions like this. Tom Veljic said correct. These were
identified in the application and not something he just made up.
Kelly Cave said they are required to get a Wildlife Management Plan and have a third party
comment and look at it. It doesn't necessarily mean they agree with some out what is said.
This is a ranch so some of this is hard to swallow for operating a ranch. For a lawyer all of this is
precedence. Kelly Cave also mentioned that there is an HOA on this property.
No further comments from Planning Commission or public were made so that portion of
hearing is closed.
Bob Fullerton would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of approval of the proposed Preliminary Plan/Accessory Dwelling Application
for the Coffman Subdivision to the BOCC with conditions 1-7 listed in the staff report with
modification to condition #5 incorporating the recommendations by Staff and the Fire
Department as presented; change condition #8 striking it to basically say "a Weed Management
Program approved by Steve Anthony". Sean Martin seconded the motion. Bob Fullerton thinks
#8 is incorporated in the other organizations within the State that are going to monitor this
including the HOA and the easement that they have agreed to. Bob Fullerton would like the
specifics ones that Steve Anthony approves whether those chemicals are the ones he
recommended or not is up to him to decide. Phil Vaughan pointed out that we remain silence
on the wildlife issue. He is just pointing that out because that is part of 7-202. Bob Fullerton
said he is. No further discussion on the motion. A vote was taken on motion and all approved
unanimously.
Phil Vaughan said we will combine items 5 & 6 on the agenda into one presentation but two
separate motions will be required.
Item 5 is a public hearing request to review a Special Use Permit application for Extraction and
Processing of Natural Resources on property located within the Battlement Mesa PUD on Well
Pad identified as GV 82-5. Small Temporary Employee Housing is also being requested on GV
82-5. The applicant is Battlement Mesa Land Investment Partners and the Operator is Williams
Production RMT Company.
7