Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.16.2003Exhibits for Native Springs Subdivision Public Hearing held on June 16, 2003. Exhibit Letter jA to Z) Exhibit A Mail Return -Receipts Proof of Publication B 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 F Project Information and Staff Comments G Native Springs Subdivision Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan application H Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated May 21, 2003 I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ KK LL D4 NN 00 PP REQUEST: • • BOCC 06/16/03 MB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for an eleven (11) lot subdivision on sixty-six (66) acres. Request for approval of eleven (11) accessory dwelling units for a total of twenty-two (22) units. APPLICANT / OWNER: Jim and Paul Luginbuhl PLANNER: Land Design Partnership LOCATION: Parcel lies less than two (2) miles east of the City of Rifle along County Roads 210 and 221. Sections 11 & 2, Township 6 South, Range 93 West WATER: Individual wells for each lot protected by WDWCD contract / permit in place. SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) CR 221, "Green Lane" A/R/RD A/R/RD to the east, north and west. A/I and C/G to the south. I. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the application on August 8, 2001. Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners approved the application with conditions on February 4, 2002 which is memorialized in Resolution No. 2002-11. As a result of this approval, the Applicant had 1 year to submit an application for Final Plat. Unfortunately, the Applicant missed this deadline and was required to resubmit the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan applications for review by the Planning Commission and the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. Please note, the Applicant has satisfied many of the conditions of approval originally required as part of the original Preliminary plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This memorandum has been adjusted to reflect conditions which have been met. The Applicant intends to seek Final Plat approval shortly after this review. • • II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: The site is bordered by CR 210 to the east and CR 221 to the south. It is separated from east Rifle by the high rock bluffs west of CR210 (Graham Mesa). Below CR 210, the slope drops dramatically to the very gently sloping irrigated hay field that comprise the vast majority of the property. The Lower Cactus Valley ditch runs parallel to CR 210. An irrigation ditch runs diagonally across the site from the northeast to the southwest and runs into a culvert under CR 221. To the west, almost entirely on the adjacent parcel, two high voltage power lines run in a north/south direction. A small wetland area exists along the southwest boundary of the property. B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide the sixty-six (66) acre parcel into eleven (11) lots. Each lot will contain a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit for a total of twenty-two (22) residential dwelling units. All lots are served by a centrally located cul-de-sac which is 1,250 feet in length. All lots are five (5) to six (6) acres in size. The rear of each of the lots is restricted from building with the exception of small livestock shelters. The covenants allow 3 horses/cattle per lot. An extremely steep 2.4 acre area lies west of County Road 210. This area will remain as "open space" so that no development occurs on it, and it will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. C. Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses currently surround the site. Commercial uses exist to the south along Hwy 6 and are possible adjacent to the site. III. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in the "Outlying Residential" area. The suggested density is no more than one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres. IV. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS: The following section includes the referral agencies / groups the application that provided comments on the first submittal as well as the group of referral agencies that received a copy of this most recent submission. Agencies A — F were referred this second time. Agencies G — 0 contain the original coments provided in the first application approval process. A. City of Rifle: No comments received. B. Town of Silt: No comments received. C. CO Division of Water Resources: See letter, page . States that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as valid well permits are maintained for all wells, no expanded use of unspecified irrigation water rights occurs, and the disposition of well permit no. 208670 still needs to be resolved. Page 2 of 15 • • D. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Provided the following comments at sketch plan: States an access permit that addresses drainage will be required. The R&B dept. prefers there not be any accesses from CR210 (none are proposed) and requests the fence be relocated to the r -o -w line. E. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Formerly noted that sulfur cinquefoil is not known to exist in the County, and that the weed management plan is acceptable. GCVM emphasizes the need to control outbreaks of Russian Olive. The Revegetation plan must assign who is responsible for implementation of the plan (either the HOA, or another party). F. Garfield County Engineer: No concerns about the project were expressed, other than they get the appropriate access permits. G. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No reply was received. H. RE -2 School District: No concerns. I. Rifle Fire Protection District: No reply was received. Phone calls were not returned. J. Garfield County Sheriff: Reiterated the following concerns made at sketch plan which include: 1)The cul-de-sac is over twice the allowed length. Oversizing the road radius does not eliminate concerns about the total length. 2) All roads shall be clearly marked with correct road numbers and names. 3) All street addresses shall be clearly marked and visible from the road. K. Garfield County Housing Authority: Provided the following comment at the sketch plan phase: Expects the accessory dwelling units will help with the housing shortage found in Garfield County. Requests to know whether the a.d.u.'s will be deed restricted. L. Division of Wildlife: Concurs with the wildlife report submitted and emphasizes the statements it contains regarding pet control, fencing, garbage, and damage caused by wildlife. The DOW notes that these recommendations are pertinent and will be beneficial to wildlife. M. CO Dept. of Public Health and Environment: No reply was received. N. Colorado Geological Survey: Noted that the geologic hazards are relatively benign. The groundwater level is high and the soils are known to be very soft. High seasonal groundwater may impact the ISDS proposed. The CGS reiterates what was disclosed by the consultant: the soils could experience large settlements if they become further wetted. It is essential that the geotechnical consultant's recommendations are complied with, especially regarding drainage, water management, and site-specific foundation excavation recommendations. O. Garfield County Public Health Nurse: Although the well test for well #2 appears adequate, all the wells should be tested after completion. The covenants are weak in the areas of trash/solid waste storage and removal, which may result in more conflicts with wildlife. Page 3 of 15 • • V. STAFF COMMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal appears to generally conform to the Comp Plan, with the following possible exception:. Goal 7.0: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development. This goal is supported by several objectives and policies which require adequate and safe sewage disposal provisions be made prior to project approval. In cases where ISDS are proposed, the site must be proven capable to accommodate these systems. All rural development is required to show that legal, adequate, dependable, and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided prior to project approval. Proposing 11 to 22 ISDS in an area with shallow groundwater and numerous wells does raise concerns regarding the above stated goals and policies. See Wastewater and Geotechnical sections of this report for further discussion. B. Zoning: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district. Accessory dwelling units (ADU's) may be approved as part of the subdivision process as long as the applicable ADU standards are met, and as long as the units are detached (attached units fall under the definition of "two family dwelling units). The applicant should be aware of the following A/R/RD zone standards and ADU standards: Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres. Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%). Minimum Setback: (1) 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; (2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; (3) Sideyard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal buildng, whichever is greater. Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). ADU standards: (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. Page 4 of 15 • • (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. (6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed. (7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code requirements. (A.95-076) Please note that although some of the proposed building envelopes are less than 2 acres, the flat/ buildable area that exists exceeds 2 acres on each lot. [If the lots were severely constrained by slope, with less than 2 buildable acres this would be an issue. Here, it is not.] Since the proposed protective covenants references Garfield County's "a.d.u." standards, staff does not have a particular concern about compliance with said standards. C. Subdivision: The lot design appears to generally meet the standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations, with exceptions as noted elsewhere in this report. It should be noted that corner lots (Lots 1 and 11) shall be required two front yard setbacks (see section 9:21.3). It may be advisable to increase the width of these lots. D. Geotechnical/Radiation: The application includes a report from Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical which states that the property is suitable for the proposed eleven (11) lot development as long as the following geologic conditions are considered: drainage, wet/soft soils, slope instability northwest of CR 210, and earthquakes. HP states some preliminary design recommendations and notes that site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot development. The preliminary recommendations include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Foundations — Shallow spread footings bearing on the upper natural soils, full basements may not be feasible in some areas, underdrain systems for below grade areas. Floor Slabs — Slab on grade construction, potential for settlement/heave if subsoils become wetted. Underdrain System — Groundwater encountered at a shallow depth, irrigation will keep water level shallow, perched groundwater may develop, underdrain system must be provided for below -grade construction (such as retaining and basement areas). Site Grading — Cut and fill should be limited (cuts to 5'-8', fills to 5'), with proper drying and compaction of soils prior to filling. Surface Drainage — The grading plan should consider potential runoff from uphill slopes, water should not pond, positive drainage away from buildings should be maintained, and landscape irrigation should be limited. Percolation Testing — A conventional ISDS should be feasible, although a mounded type system maybe needed in shallow groundwater areas. ISDS should be designed by a civil engineer at the time of individual lot development. HP has also performed a radiation survey at the site and stated that no mitigation of the Page 5 of 15 • • natural background levels should be required. Staff confirmed with Steve Pawlak on 7/30/01 in a telephone conversation that each of the eleven lots will be occupied by two (2) detached dwelling units, and that HP's recommendations remained the same. Section 9:12 states the following: Land subject to identified natural hazards, such as falling rock, land slides, snow slides, mudflows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted for any use other than open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres, unless mitigation is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer qualified to do such design. The CGS reiterates what was disclosed by the consultant: the soils could experience large settlements if they become further wetted. It is essential that the geotechnical consultant's recommendations are complied with, especially regarding drainage, water management, and site-specific foundation excavation recommendations. Staff finds that as long as HP's and the CGS' recommendations are carefully followed, and each ISDS is designed by a Colorado licensed civil engineer, the proposal may be found to be consistent with the subdivision regulations. E. Road/Access: The proposed access to the subdivision is a road from CR 221 terminating in a cul-de-sac, labeled "Native Springs Drive". Native Springs Drive is 22' wide while and about 1,200' long. The applicant claims the topography of the site prevents a reasonable secondary access or "through road". The proposed cul-de-sac has an 60' radius instead of the required minimum 50' radius in order to provide extra turning room for emergency vehicles. High Country Engineering has determined the project will result in 220 average daily trips (ADT) and that the site lies in Road Impact Study Area 4 (this is incorrect, it actually lies in area 6). The project appears to comply with the applicable road standards (Section 9:35 of the GarCo Sub. Regs.) with the exception of the excessively long dead end road. Section 9:33 states the following: 9:33: Cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under the following circumstances: A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than sir hundred feet (600') in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45) from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (509 right-of-way for residential development ...The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design; and The application explains that each residence will be equipped with fire sprinkler systems. Page 6 of 15 • • 30,000 gallons of water storage will be provided in buried tanks in the center of the cul-de- sac. The covenants reference a wildland urban interface pamphlet (paragraph 41, page 12) and require sprinklers (para. 40, pg. 12). Neither the Fire District nor the Road and Bridge Department responded to a request for comments on the Preliminary Plan (although R&B commented at sketch plan). However, the applicant has stated that the Fire District is satisfied with the extra precautions the applicant has taken. Prior to approval, this statement must be supported in writing. The Sheriff's Dept. has reiterated the following comments: 1)The cul-de-sac is over twice the allowed length. Oversizing the road radius does not eliminate concerns about the total length. 2) All roads shall be clearly marked with correct road numbers and names. 3) All street addresses shall be clearly marked and visible from the road. Prior to approval of the preliminary plan staff emphasizes again that the applicant must provide evidence of satisfaction of any concerns of the Fire District and the Sheriff's Department, as well as an access permit from Road and Bridge. The regulations also contain the following sections: 9:34 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. The covenants do not specifically state that assessments may be made for road maintenance, nor do they describe maintenance of the road at all. This oversight in the covenants must be corrected prior to approval of the project. One other issue regarding access is the historic agricultural access that lies along the eastern boundary of the property. This access should be removed and reclaimed since the agricultural use of the property will not be continued. F. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District (RFPD), who did not respond to a request for comments on the application. The sketch plan proposed about 120,000 gallons of water be stored in a pond in the center of the cul-de-sac for fire protection purposes. Staff and the Planning Commission discouraged storing water in a pond stating that buried storage was a preferred solution due to health and safety issues. The preliminary plan proposes 30,000 gallons of water storage to be buried in the center of the cul-de-sac (in three 10,000 gallon tanks). During the irrigation season, the tanks will be filled with irrigation water. Other times of year water would be purchased from some entity and hauled by truck. The sketch plan stated that water used to fill storage tanks for fire protection is exempt from the water rights priority system. Staff noted at that time that the preliminary plan must include evidence supporting this statement, such as a letter from the Division of Water Page 7of15 • Resources. Although the State Engineer's Office has written a letter of"no material injury",. The applicant obtained adequate legal water rights to fill the storage tanks on a perpetual year-round basis as a result of the issuance of well permit no. 235794. This well permit was issued specifically for fire protection purposes. G. Water: At the sketch plan phase, staff and the Planning Commission both strongly discouraged individual wells on this property, and urged the applicant to install a central water system. The preliminary plan application states three reasons for proposing individual wellls: 1) the cost of construction of a community water system is prohibitive; 2) adequate fire protection can be provided with in house sprinklers; and 3) reverse osmosis (r.o.) systems are dramatically more complex and expensive on central systems than for individual wells (r.o. systems are not proposed, but the application notes that the water is, "of such a quality that many residents may wish to install r.o. systems to enhance the quality of water for personal consumption purposes"). Eleven (11) individual wells are proposed to supply domestic water to each residential lot. Water rights to divert 9.39 acre feet have been purchased from the West Divide Water Conservation District (WDWCD) for this purpose. High Country Engineering has stated that each lot can be expected to demand approximately 720 gallons per day (gpd) based on 3.5 persons per residence and 2.5 persons per ADU. Permits Nos. 57484-F — 57894-F have been issued for the development and each well can serve up to two single family dwellings off ofawell. The application also contains a water supply plan prepared by Zancanella and Associates. This report assumes all 22 residences will be occupied by 3.5 people, and that up to 500 sq. ft. of lawn will be irrigated from the domestic system. Additional irrigation water will be supplied from raw water sources. The subdivision will divert just less than 9 acre feet annually, and will actually consume just under 2 acre feet. The Native Springs well #2 was drilled in November of 2000 at a depth of 73 feet. Water was encountered at 46 feet with the static water level about 26 feet below the top of the well casing. There is about 34 feet of available drawdown. The pump test was conducted at a rate of 15 g.p.m. for a continuous 25 hour period. The maximum drawdown was 13.75 feet and the well displayed normal recovery characteristics. The water was tested for nitrates and nitrites, bacteria, and phase II and V inorganics. All levels were below those established by the Dept. of Health and no coliform bacteria were detected. It should be noted that while the water quality may meet the minimum standards, the water may have a poor taste or odor, and may be quite hard and in need of treatment. The Garfield County Public Health Nurse has requested each and every well be tested to ensure an adequate physical water supply exists for the subdivision. While it appears that a physical supply may be possible in the area, prior to approval of any final plat, all eleven (11) wells shall be drilled, and then tested for the above stated parameters, as well as dissolved solids, to prove an adequate supply of water. Staff further emphasizes the need for a Page 8 of 15 • • radiation test since the water in the area is known to have radiation problems. If the water is in need of treatment, it shall be stated so in the covenants and on the plat. In addition to the domestic water available to water 500 sq. ft. of lawn or garden, the application states that raw irrigation water will be distributed by underground pipes to each lot. Each lot will need to add their own pumping system if they opt to sprinkler their property from this system. The application does not contain any evidence of the necessary legal irrigation water rights to accomplish this. Evidence of the ownership of historic irrigation water rights must be submitted prior to project approval. Furthermore, ownership must be transferred to the Homeowners' Association (HOA), who will be responsible for the maintenance and distribution of the irrigation water. Article V, Paragraph 20 of the covenants states that three (3) horse or cattle will be allowed on each lot. While the well permits allow for the watering of domestic animals, they do not allow for livestock watering. Staff has contacted the SEO for further clarification on this issue, but a response has yet to arrive. H. Wastewater: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot. The systems must be designed by an engineer, and will most likely be mounded systems, unless typical ISDS are recommended by the engineer. The sketch plan staff report noted that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has been concerned about the number of ISDS being approved for the area without review and analysis of the feasibility of wastewater treatment from a centralized facility. The applicant was instructed that the preliminary plan must contain further analysis of wastewater disposal options and costs. The preliminary plan contains a letter from Mr. John Schenk has stated that the Cottonwood Plant is fully committed and that capacity limits will not allow the inclusion of any additional users. Apparently no other wastewater disposal options, such as ISTS (individual sewage treatment systems) were analyzed. Staff does have a concern about the use of ISDS, mounded or otherwise, given the shallow water table in the area. However, neither the CDPHE nor the County Engineer has submitted any comments on the application. Staff is at a disadvantage without the benefit of their expertise, and thus unable to further support this position. Wildlife: The application contains a detailed wildlife report submitted by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. The report states that the development is expected to affect birds, small mammals, prey base for certain species, and mule deer associated with grass/hay lands. Although the quantity and distribution of wildlife may be reduced, existing wildlife species is expected to maintain a presence in the subdivision. Neither critical habitat nor migration corridors will be lost as a result of the development. The report includes a number of specific recommendations about pet control, fences, trash, hay storage, etc. which Beattie recommends be included in the covenants. Page 9 of 15 • • The DOW concurs with the Beattie wildlife report and emphasizes the above listed detailed recommendations it makes. The DOW notes that these recommendations are pertinent and will be beneficial to wildlife. Drainage: HP briefly addresses surface drainage on page 5 of the Geotechnical Report. It notes that flood potential on the alluvial fans should be considered in any drainage plan. It also notes that the potential for irrigation ditch blockage and overflow should be included in hydrologic evaluations. The application also contains a Drainage Report prepared by High Country Engineering on 4/27/00. This report states that two major ditches currently occupy and will continue to occupy the site: The Lower Cactus Valley Ditch and the Grand Valley River Ditch. Some of the lateral ditches will be re-routed. The report states that peak on site flows will be derived primarily from rainfall. The unconcentrated sheet flow and road runoff will be captured by roadside swales and irrigation ditches. All buildings should have positive drainage. Detention will not be necessary since an increase in runoff is not anticipated. Staff does not have any particular concerns about the drainage plan as long as all engineering recommendations are followed and as long as any approval includes the condition that each lot owner shall obtain a site specific grading and drainage plan prior to placement of any building improvements. The drainage plan may need revision to include provisions for ditch blockage, and to specifically address flood potential on the alluvial plans, prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. K. Vegetation / Noxious Weeds / Wetlands: The application contains a report prepared by Beach Environmental, LLC, which states that wetlands were encountered on Lots 9 and 11, but not within any proposed building areas. The location of the wetlands was not shown in the report, nor was it surveyed and placed on the plat. The report states that since the wetlands will not be encroached upon, no further assessment of the property is necessary. Paragraph 38 on page 11 of the covenants addresses weed and vegetation control. The Garfield County Vegetation Management office has stated that the weed management plan is acceptable. GCVM office emphasizes the need to control outbreaks of Russian Olive. While the covenants state that disturbed areas should be quickly revegetated with weed free grass seed, they do not assign who is responsible for implementation of the plan (either the HOA, or another party). The covenants will have to be amended accordingly to ensure implementation of the revegetation plan. Staff notes that the location of the wetlands must be shown on the plat to ensure these areas are not disturbed, with a plat note stating such. As shown, a 15' wide utility and irrigation easement appears to possibly lie in the wetland area on lot 11. The lot, or easement, or both, may need to be reconfigured. As long as the GCVM office's and staff's recommendations are followed, staff does not have any particular concern regarding these issues. Page 10 of 15 L Homeowners' Association / Covenants / Plat Notes: The sketch plan comments included a number of issues (including lighting, dogs, open -hearths, ditches, right to farm, road maintenance, no further division allowed, etc.) to be placed on the plat in the form of a note, and to be addressed by the covenants. Both the covenants and plat notes address these necessary issues. In addition to the other suggested changes throughout this report, staff concerns are as follows (suggested changes stricken out and in italics): 1. Plat note #4: "That all expense for street maintenance and associated expenses shall be furnished by the Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., not by the County of Garfield." 2. Plat note #7: "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds on their property. The Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds on all common areas. 3. Plat note #13 states ownership of the mineral rights lies with the Greens. This note, and the covenants, should be expanded to disclose the future possibility of mineral exploration and recovery on the property. This disclosure must also be provided at the time of closing. 4. Land Use Summary on the plat: This summary includes suggested address numbers. The Garfield County Building Department will assign address numbers which may or may not differ from these sugggestions. 5. Article V, Paragraph 20 of the covenants states that initially the only livestock allowed shall be horses or cattle, and they shall be limited to 3 animals per lot. Staff is unclear if the plan is to allow more types of animals in the future and/or a higher number per lot. If more types and numbers are proposed, this should be clearly stated and approved as such. Otherwise, the approval will be limited to a total of three (3) cattle and/or horses, and the word "initially" should be removed. 6. The covenants should clearly state that no more than 500 square feet of lawn or garden shall be watered with the domestic well water. All additional landscape irrigation must be achieved from legal sources. 7. A new paragraph should be added to the covenants that is consistent with the Sheriffs Department recommendations concerning the clear posting of road names and addresses. 8. The covenants and the plat should disclose that site specific engineer studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. M. Assessment / Fees: As determined by Section 9:80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of the gross land area for open space, parks, or schools, or pay fees in lieu thereof ($200 per each newly created parcel, or approximately $2000.00). This area appears to lie in traffic study area 6 of the capital improvements plan. The applicant can expect to pay about $2,100 per single family dwelling (approximately $23,100.00), minus the appropriate discounts. In the event any fees increase before the time of final plat, the increased fees shall be paid. Page 11 of 15 • • VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. VII. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan application to the Board of County Commissioners, with the following conditions. (Please note, Staff has left the original conditions of approval in place but with a notation as to their current status for your review). 1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. Status: Complete 2. The recommendations of the Road & Bridge Department (including moving the fence and obtaining an access permit), shall be followed. A copy of an approved access permit shall be submitted prior to approval of any final plat. The historic agricultural access along the eastern boundary of the property shall be abandoned, removed, and restored. Status: Complete 3. All roads and addresses shall be clearly marked so that they are visible from the road. The covenants shall also state this. Page 12 of 15 • • Status: Unclear as to status. It appears the protective covenants do not contain this language in a final plat submission. 4. The covenants shall be amended to clearly state that the HOA may assess monies for road maintenance, and the HOA shall conduct said maintenance. The following correction shall be made to plat note #4: "That all expense for street maintenance and associated expenses shall be furnished by the Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., not by the County of Garfield." Status: Complete. 5. Prior to approval of the final plat by the Board of County Commissioners, the section of covenants that addresses revegetation shall be amended so that a particular party, such as the Homeowners' Association shall be made responsible for implementation of the revegetation plan. Plat note #7 shall be amended to state: "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds on their property. The Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds on all common areas. Status: Complete. 6. The location of all wetlands shall be surveyed and shown on the plat and construction plans as necessary. A note shall be included which prohibits disturbance of the wetlands, and protections shall be put in place to prevent disturbance during construction. Status: Complete. 7. Prior to approval of the final plat by the Board of County Commissioners, the drainage plan shall be amended to address all concerns of Resource Engineering. Status: At this time, the final plat has not been referred to Resource Engineering to determine if engineering concerns have been addressed. 8. Prior to building, each lot owner shall obtain a professionally prepared (by a licensed engineer in the State of Colorado) grading and drainage plan which ensures positive drainage away from built structures, and ensures protection of the ditch to prevent erosion and sedimentation on lots 1, 3, and 11. The covenants and plat shall include an appropriate disclosure. Status: Complete. 9. All recommendations made by Hepworth-Pawlak shall be followed. Site specific studies shall be conducted for individual lot development, and a plat note and the covenants shall Page 13 of 15 • state such. The following shall be included on the plat, and in the covenants: "Site specific studies for individual lot development shall be conducted by a registered professional engineer within the State of Colorado. These studies shall include drainage and grading plans, Individual Sewage Treatment System design, foundation design, and underdrain system design. The cost of these studies shall be borne by the individual property owner." Status: On-going / Complete. 10. Prior to approval of the final plat by the Board of County Commissioners, written approval and acceptance of the 30,000 gallon central water supply from the Rifle Fire Protection District shall be submitted; The plats and covenants shall include a note requiring final approval of all individual fire sprinkler systems by the Rifle Fire Protection District. Status: Complete. 11. All recommendations made by the Division of Wildlife shall be followed. Status: On going. 12. No more than a total of 3 cattle and/or horses shall be kept on each lot. The covenants shall clearly state this. Status: Complete. 13. All applicable fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. Status: The Applicant has provided the RE -2 fee of $2,200 and has requested assistance with computing the road impact fee. 14. The covenants/plat notes shall be amended as follows: a.) Plat note #13 states ownership of the mineral rights lies with the Greens. This note, and the covenants, should be expanded to disclose the future possibility of mineral exploration and recovery on the property. This disclosure must also be provided at the time of closing. b.) The covenants should clearly state that no more than 500 square feet of lawn or garden shall be watered with the domestic well water. All additional landscape irrigation must be achieved from legal sources. Status: Plat note #13 has not been amended. 15. Prior to approval of the final plat by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall provide a letter from the State Engineer's Office of "no material injury" in light of Page 14 of 15 • • the questions raised in the staff report, and shall provide proof of adequate irrigation water rights to support the proposal. Status: A letter has been provided, but the status of well permit no. 208670 is still unclear. 16. Welts shall be properly designed and constructed so as not to draw from shallow groundwater, and no well shall be shallower than seventy (70') feet. Each and every well shall be drilled, pump tested, and water quality tested (for nitrates, nitrites, bacteria, phase II and V inorganics, radiation, and dissolved solids). No final plat shall be approved until the results meet the subdivision requirements and satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. Status: The wells have been drilled and constructed and all exceed a dept of 70 feet They have been tested and for nitrates, nitrites, and coliform bacteria. This analysis showed relatively high levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). No tests for radiological properties has occurred 17. The covenants shall be amended to clearly state that property adjacent to the subdivision is zoned commercially. The adjacent commercial zoning shall be disclosed to potential lot purchasers at the time of closing, who should be fully prepared to accept any impacts the commercial zoning may present. Status: Language to this effect has been included in the covenants on page 20. 18. Conventional ISDS shall be prohibited. ISTS (individual sewage treatment systems) shall be used. The Covenants shall be amended accordingly. Similar provisions shall be made regarding maintenance of the ISTS as in other approvals of ISTS in the County. Status: Completed. Page 15 of 15