HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 06.11.2003Exhibits for Native Springs Subdivision Public Hearing held on June 11, 2003.
Exhibit Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A
Mail Return -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
F
Project Information and Staff Comments
G
Native Springs Subdivision Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan application
II
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
IIII
II
JJ
KK
LL
MM
NN
00
PP
REQUEST:
• •
PC 06/11/03
MB
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
A request for review of a Sketch Plan and 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.
Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
CR 221, "Green Lane"
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
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 are therefore
required to resubmit the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan applications for review by both the
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It is staffs position that the
Sketch Plan originally reviewed by the Planning Commission is still valid and there is no need to
resubmit a formal Sketch Plan for review per Section 3:25 of the Subdivision Regulations.
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, pages - /7 . States that the proposed
water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate,
Page 2 of 15
• •
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.
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) Sideard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal
building, 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.
Page 4 of 15
• •
(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.
(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. 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.
2. Floor Slabs — Slab on grade construction, potential for settlement/heave if subsoils
become wetted.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Percolation Testing — A conventional ISDS should be feasible, although a mounded type
system may be needed in shallow groundwater areas. ISDS should be designed by a civil
engineer at the time of individual lot development.
Page 5 of 15
• •
HP has also performed a radiation survey at the site and stated that no mitigation of the
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,
mud flows, 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 22lterminating 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 six hundred feet
(6009 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
Page 6 of 15
• •
The application explains that each residence will be equipped with fire sprinkler systems.
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
Page 7 of 15
• •
include evidence supporting this statement, such as a letter from the Division of Water
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 11
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 fmal plat, all eleven (11)
wells shall be drilled, and then tested for the above stated parameters, as well as dissolved
Page 8 of 15
• •
solids, to prove an adequate supply of water. Staff further emphasizes the need for a
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
Page 9 of 15
• •
recommends be included in the covenants.
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.
I. 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 10of15
•
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
Sheriff's 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
Page 11 of 15
•
of final plat, the increased fees shall be paid.
VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Planning Commission;
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission 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:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend 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 12of15
• •
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 #'l: "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
state such. The following shall be included on the plat, and in the covenants: "Site
Page 13 of 15
• •
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
the questions raised in the staff report, and shall provide proof of adequate irrigation
Page 14 of 15
•
water rights to support the proposal.
Status: A letter has been provided, but the status of well permit no. 208670 is still unclear.
16. Wells 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 15of15
•
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
www.water.state.co.us
RECEIVED
MAY 2 9 2003
GARFIELD COUNTY
BULDING & PLANNtNG
May 21, 2003
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Pian
Sections 2 & 11, T6S, R93W, 6th P.M.
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Dear Mr. Jarman:
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately
66 acres into eleven residential lots. Each lot will be allowed one single-family dwelling and one
accessory dwelling. Water for the dwellings and 500 square feet of lawn and garden per lot is
to be provided by individual on lot wells constructed under permit nos. 54918-F through 54928-
F, currently permitted under Permit Nos. 57484-F through 57494-F. The latter permits were
issued on May 23, 2002 pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the
District). Zancanella and Associates, Inc. estimate well water use, as 8.94 acre-feet of
diversions and 1.52 acre-feet of consumptive use. The Green Spring decreed in Case. No. W-
3914 is proposed as an additional source of stockwater: Additional irrigationuse to occur via
unspecified ditch water rights was not estimated. Fire protection water is to be provided through
the well with Permit No. 235794. Sewage will be through individual septic systems.
Permit Nos. 57484-F through 57494-F each limit use to ordinary household purposes
inside two single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 500 square feet of home gardens
and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals, which is adequate for the proposed uses.
[Comparison of the Basalt contract amount (9.39 acre-feet) with the total water use estimate (8.94
acre-feet) reveals that there is an excess contract amount of 0.45 acre-feet, which is adequate to
provide for three horses or cows per lot.] However, we have not received a Well Construction and
Test Report for Permit No. 57485-F, or Pump Installation and Test Reports or Statements of
Beneficial Use for any of these wells. If these documents are not received prior to May 23, 2004,
the well permits will expire and be of no effect.
A report detailing the historical use of the Green Spring must be provide for our review and
comment prior to its use as a supply for the proposed development.
Permit No. 235794 was issued on August 29, 2001 for fire protection, and may be used to
fill storage tanks that are, used exclusively for fire protection. The well was constructed on August
27, 2002. The test information provided on the Well Construction and Test Report indicates that
drawdown was 8 feet during a one-hour test at 15 gallons per minute. If drawdown were to.
continue at this rate the'water level would be at the bottom of the well in 5 hours and 22 minutes,
after producing about 4,838 gallons, which is less than 1/6 of the amount needed to fill the storage
tank. No recovery data was provided. We suggest that a well test be conducted to determine the
physical adequacy of this well for the intended purpose.
Garfield County Building and Planning May 21, 2003
Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan
The report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc., indicates that Native Springs Well #2
(formerly permit no. 54919-F, presently 57485-F) was completed on November 1, 200 by Shelton
Drilling Corporation. A pump test conducted November 2 and 3, 2000 by the Samuelson Pump
Company indicates that the well produced at least 15 gallons per minute over a twenty-five hour
period, and that the well recovered to within 0.10 feet of the static water level within eleven
hours after pumping ceased. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an
adequate supply for the proposed use. The additional wells should also provide an adequate
water supply if they exhibit similar production rates and recoveries. Note that information
provided by Syracuse Drilling & Pump Co., Inc. via letters dated December 5, 2002, regarding
additional well tests was incomplete. As such we are unable to determine the physical
adequacy of these wells at this time
Our records also indicate the well with Permit No. 208670 was issued for and
constructed on the existing parcel. Note that Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that
the cumulative effect of all wells in subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to
decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt well must be included in either the
District's substitute supply plan or an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned,
since the provisions of C.R.S. 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of this well permit will no
longer apply.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as valid
well permits are maintained for all of the wells, no expanded use of the unspecified irrigation
water rights occurs, and the disposition of Permit No. 208670 is resolved as stated in the
preceding paragraph. However, due to a lack of information we are unable to comment on the
physical adequacy of the water supply. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Chief of Water Supply
KWK/CML/Native Springs ii.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
James R. Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39