Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 09.26.2007PC Exhibits (9/26/2007) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Code) D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Staff Memorandum F Application G Memo from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department dated 9-7-2007 H Memo from Celia Greenman of the Colorado Geological Survey dated 9-11-2007 I Email Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department dated 8-27- 2007 J Memo from Xcel Energy Company dated 8-16-2007 K Memo from Craig Lis of the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources dated 9-14-2007 L Memo from Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering dated 9-17-2007 M Letter from Nathan Bell of Bell Consulting, LLC to David Pesnichak of the Garfield County Planning Department dated 9-23-2007 N Letter from Nathan Bell of Bell Consulting, LLC to Steve Anthony of Garfield County Vegetation Management dated 9-21-2007 Letter from Nathan Bell of Bell Consulting, LLC to David Pesnichak of the Garfield County Planning Department dated 6-25-2007 P Email from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department dated 9-26-2007 PC 9/26/06 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT / OWNER LOCATION PROPERTY SIZE SI I E DATA WA I'ER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Preliminary Plan: North Bell Ranch Subdivision Nathan & Tammi Bell South l of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 91 West (approximately 1 mile north of the Town of Silt on Silt Mesa) 35.23 acres 3 lots Proposed at Sketch Plan 4 lots Proposed at Preliminary Plan Well ISDS CR 261 (Groff Lane) & CR 233 (Silt Mesa Road) ARRD Outlying Residential (Town of Silt Urban Growth Boundary) 1 ARRD Su iject Parcel os Al Al ELY .%ixtKazAs1iF'_la rvn�.wYaeila.M'.:eh MH ,^':TY-IoNN North Bell Ranch - PreliminaryPlan Location Map 0 25 1.250 2,500 Feet w 2 23 ELM MODE. ATE" Subject Parcel 37 179013374 North Bell Ranch - Preliminary Plan Hazards Map 240 I l I 480 Feet 3 North Bell Ranch - Preliminary Plan Aerial Photo 0 87.5 175 350 Feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 4 North Bell Ranch Subdivision — Proposed Preliminary Plan 5 I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION The Applicant proposes to subdivide the subject 35.23 -acre tract into four lots where Lot 1 has 26.870 acres, Lot 2 has 2.028 acres, Lot 3 has 2.076 acres and Lot 4 has 4.231 acres. The property is presently being farmed / ranched with a significant irrigated hay field located on the western half of the property with an existing residence and associated agricultural structures (barn and personal riding arena) being located on the eastern half of the property. The site plan is designed such that the existing residence will be located on Lot 2, a new residence would be located on Lot 3, a new residence would be located on Lot 4 and a new residence would be located on the much larger Lot 1 which also includes all of the existing ranching / farming activities and structures. [The satellite image on the cover and aerial photo on page 4 of this memo clearly shows the property lying between the County roads, the irrigated hay field, riding arena, and existing single-family residence.] II. Above is the view of the subject parcel looking south down County Road 261. Lot 3 is proposed to access County Road 261, while Lot 4 is proposed to access County Road 233. REFERRALS Town of Silt Burning Mountain Fire Protection District Public Service Company US West Communications Colorado Division of Wildlife No Comments Received No Comments Received (See Exhibit J) No Comments Received No Comments Received 6 Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Geological Survey Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. Garfield County Vegetation Man. Dept. Mountain Cross Engineering (See Exhibit K) (See Exhibit H) (See Exhibit I) (See Exhibit G) (See Exhibit L) III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located in Study Area 2, within the 2 -mile area of urban influence, and Urban Growth Boundary of the Town of Silt. The County Comprehensive Plan map shows this area designated as "outlying residential" which allows for an average density of at least 2 acres per dwelling unit. This proposal in terms of use (residential / agricultural) and average density is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and general character of the area. [This is illustrated in the map below which shows the property hashed inside a circle in the center of the map.] Because the County has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Town of Silt, properties in the County that fall within the boundaries of the 2 -mile area of urban influence, and Urban Growth Boundary are reviewed with the Town's Comprehensive Plan designation rather than Garfield County' s Comprehensive Plan. In this case, Silt's Plan shows the property lying primarily in Rural / Agricultural Transition Residential with a small portion at the south end of the property in the Medium Density Residential designation along CR 233. Ultimately, the County's Subdivision regulations and the IGA require subdivision proposals to conform to and be compatible with the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan. These designations are described below from the 2005 Town of Silt' s Comprehensive Plan: A. Rural /Agricultural Transition Residential This is a transitional area intended to be used between urban development and agricultural areas on the fringe of the urban growth boundary. It allows a maximum average density of two dwellings per acre, and the dwellings should be located in clusters on smaller lots, preserving larger areas of agricultural or open space as a buffer to agricultural lands. It is similar to the agricultural conservation district but with higher densities and allowing a broader range of use of the open space including agricultural or equestrian, community gardens, natural open 7 space, parks, golf course, etc. The residential lot sizes may vary from 7,000 sq. ft. to 1/2 acre lot sizes (22,000 sq. ft.) per home site. B. Medium Density Residential The medium density areas are the primary residential growth areas in the plan. Developments would be allowed a maximum residential density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. A variety of site densities accommodation various housing types within a proposed project will be encouraged in these areas. Densities in a development may range from three to eight dwellings per acre accommodating a mix of single-family dwellings, duplexes, town -homes, patio homes, and low density garden apartments. A variety of housing types and densities will be required in new subdivisions on parcels larger than two acres to ensure a diversity of housing types throughout the community. However, there shall be no more than one multi family dwelling for each four single-family dwellings in any project in the medium density residential area (20%). Mobile homes are and manufactured homes are not allowed in medium density areas except as pre-existing, non -conforming uses. The subdivision proposes an overall average density of 8.8 acres per dwelling unit which is well below the Town' s suggested maximum density. Also, the Applicant has chosen the smallest lot size at 2 acres allowed by the underlying County ARRD zone district. Further the three proposed Lots are clustered together on the western side of the property leaving the remaining 26.87 acres to be devoted to existing and active ranching / agricultural uses. Based on the foregoing, Staff finds the proposed subdivision conforms to and is compatible with the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan. IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the ARRD zone district. A. Proposed Uses in ARRD Zoning The Applicant proposes single-family residential development and agricultural uses on the four lots which are "uses by right" in the A/R/RD zone district and therefore consistent with the underlying zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Section 3.02 of the Zoning Resolution. B. Common Dimensional Requirements in ARRD Zoning a. Minimum Lot Size of 2 acres: The Applicant proposes the property be subdivided into three lots that satisfy the minimum lot size in the zoning. b. Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%) 8 c. Minimum Setback: ➢ Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; ➢ Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; ➢ Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. d. Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet V. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following section addresses common subdivision components that will need to be addressed as part of any Preliminary Plan and Final Plat submittal to the County. A. Domestic & Irrigation Water An existing exempt well (Permit Number 174076-A) already serves the property. This well is legally able to serve up to 3 single family dwelling units, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. The Applicant has proposed the use of three wells to serve the four proposed lots. Lot 1: - Existing Well — Permit Number 174076-A - No (West Divide Water Conservancy District) WDWCD Contract - Tested January 23, 2007 at three (3) gallons per minute Lot 2: - New Well, No Permit Issued (Previous Well Permit Number 174076) - WDWCD Contract Number S070322NTB#2(a) — (2.16 acre feet of water for one dwelling, one acre of irrigation and two domestic animals) - No Test Conducted Lot 3: - New Well, Monitoring Well Permit Number 272033 - WDWCD Contract Number S070322NTB#3(a) — (2.26 acre feet of water for two dwelling units, one acre of irrigation and four domestic animals) - Tested January 24, 2007 at five (5) gallons per minute Lot 4: - New Well, Monitoring Well Permit Number 272033 - WDWCD Contract Number S070322NTB#3(a) — (2.26 acre feet of water for two dwelling units, one acre of irrigation and four domestic animals) - Tested January 24, 3007 at five (5) gallons per minute 9 The Applicant has stated in the Application, Attachment C "Water Supply Information Summary" that Well Permit Number 174076 is to serve proposed Lot 2. It has become evident following further review that Well Permit Number 174076 was moved by the previous owners of the property to become Well Permit Number 174076-A. As can be seen in Appendix F, "Water Supply" in the Application, Condition #3 for Well Permit Number 174076-A requires that Well Permit Number 174076 be plugged within 90 days of completion of the new well (1997) (Well Permit Number 174076-A) and that a Well Abandonment Report be submitted to the Division of Water Resources. A review by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) (See Exhibit K) has indicated that "we have not yet received this report". To this end, although the well on proposed Lot 2 may be an existing well, it does not appear to be a legal well as it should have been plugged in 1997. As Well Permit Number 272033 is to be shared by Lot 3 and Lot 4, a well sharing agreement shall be put in place and submitted with the Final Plat. Further, the Applicant is proposing to utilize Well Permit Number 174076-A for water supply to proposed Lot 1. It is understood that this is an existing exempt well which is legally able to serve up to 3 single family dwelling units, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. The DWR had the following comments regarding this well (See Exhibit K): Permit No. 174076-A was issued pursuant to CRS s7.92 6021;3(b)(I1)(A) as the only well on a parcel of 35 23 acres, and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside three single- family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one acre of =Some gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic anirnals. CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(11I) requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury tc decreed water rights. Accordingly. if the parcel is subdiviaed, the presumption under CRS 37 92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) that there will not be material injury to the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well from such well will no longer apply. As such, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of all wells in the proposed subdivision. A condition of approval on this permit required the owner to submit a completed Well Abandonment Report to our office; we have not yet received this report. Permit No. 272033 was issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3i(b)(1), and limits the use of the well to monitoring water levels and;or water quality sampling. The submittal included West Divide Water Conservancy District Contract Nos. S070322NTB#2(a) (for 2 18 AF for one dwelling, one acre of irrigation and two domestic animals on Lot 2) and S07O322NTB#3(a) (for 2,26 AF tor two dwellings. one acre of irrigation and four domestic animals on Lots 3 and 4) The proposed subdivision will require new perrnits issued pursuant to CRS 37- 90-137(2) and to a water court -approved augmentation plan for both of the existing wells. To this end, although the Applicant has obtained WDWCD contracts for the wells proposed for Lots 2, 3, and 4, it is necessary to obtain a "water court -approved augmentation plan" for Well Permit Number 174076-A as well. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the DWR has come to the following conclusion (See Exhibit K): Due to the lack of a water court -approved augmentation pian; the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-13611)(h)(1) that the proposed domestic water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights, but is physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. 10 A review of the submitted water quality tests for the proposed and existing wells has indicated that the water is of adequate quality. B. Waste Disposal The application states that wastewater generated from the three new residential uses on Lots 1, 3 and 4 are to be accommodated by ISDS. Lot 2 presently has an ISDS in place serving the existing dwelling. It appears the soils prevalent on the property are deep and well drained and suitable for ISDS. The Applicant has indicated that the predominant soil types in the development areas are Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes, Potts- Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes and Potts-Ildefonso complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes. The Applicant, as a registered engineer in the State of Colorado, has performed percolation tests on Lots 1, 3, and 4 (Lot 2 is currently served by ISDS). The Applicant has indicated the following percolation rates: Lot 1 = 20 minutes / inch Lot 3 = 25 minutes / inch Lot 4 = 25 minutes / inch The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has reviewed this application and had the following comments regarding the lot configuration (See Exhibit H): Lot configuration. The Yeh report was written when the site consisted of three lots rather than four. Lot 4 has been crafted with a spit of "buildable" area between the drainage channels. The area of the building envelope contains loosely consolidated material that is sloughing into the drainage. Siting a home and primary and secondary leach fields in this area could be problematic. CGS recommends that Lot 4 be extended into the Lot 1 area to increase the buildable space. Otherwise. the lot should be eliminated. The memo from CGS goes on to explain that (See Exhibit H): ISDS. The percolation test results suggest that standard septic systems could be used at the site. Setback from the drainage channel should be established to prevent wastewater from daylighting on the slopes. Because of the irrigation easement on Lot 3, it would be worthwhile to identify preliminary leach field envelopes that would not interfere with easements... In summary, the property can be developed for further residential use, but as configured, Lot 4 does not appear viable. Buildable area should be added to this lot, or it should be eliminated. Based on the topography of the proposed subdivision and that the proposed development areas are within the slop hazard area (see Page 3 of this Staff Report) as identified within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, Staff recommends that all new ISDS's within the proposed subdivision be designed by a Colorado Registered Engineer. In addition, Staff concurs with the recommendations made in the memo from CGS that the viable building and ISDS area within Lot 4 is limited and that either area should be added to it or the Lot should be eliminated completely. 11 C. Roads / Access The property has frontage on four public county roads which include CR 233, CR 214, CR 261, and CR 228. The property presently uses a driveway of CR 233 to access the ranching / agricultural portions of the property and a driveway off of CR 261 for the existing residence. The Application proposes one new driveway off of CR 261 for Lot 3 and one new driveway off CR 233 for Lot 4. Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department had the following comments regarding this application (See Exhibit I): Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to this application with the following comments. A 30 -foot strip of land shall be deeded to the County for future use along all County roads that border the property for the entire length of the property along the County roads. All fences. trees and buildings that encumber the new ROW shall be moved back to the new ROW at the sub -dividers expense upon final plat approval by the BOCC. Irrigation ditches within the ROW shall be relocated on the property owned by the sub- divider. This does not include ditches used for drainage of the County road system. Driveway access permits issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specific to each driveway shall be applied for. Existing driveway/s that do comply with the current driveway access permit standard shall be brought up to the current driveway access standard. If no driveway access permit has been issued for driveway/s being used a new driveway access permit will be applied for. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials used in the construction of the subdivision will comply with Garfield County's oversize/overweight permit system. To this end, Staff recommends adding a condition of approval requiring the deeding of a 30 -foot strip of land to the County along all County roadways as well as the removal of all encumbrances within that 30 -foot strip of land. D. Fire Protection The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. This Application was referred to the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District, however no comments were received. The Applicant has not addressed fire protection within the Application or offered evidence that the plans have been reviewed by the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. The Applicant will need to review the fire protection plan for this subdivision with the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District to ensure compliance with the below mentioned sections of the Subdivision Regulation of 1984. 9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire entrapment. 12 9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a centrally located fire protection water tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire protection district. 9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply. E. Drainage The property topography undulates in a moderate manner and contains a distinct drainage channel on the western portion of the property. The CGS reviewed this Application and had the following comments regarding drainage: Drainage. The drainage report states that the 100 -yr floodplain has not been mapped in the area of the development, but that the channels will contain flood events up to the 100 - yr event. Has the capacity of the culverts and other drainage improvements been checked? The access to lots 1 and 4 would be a roadway with an elevated portion that crosses the drainage and which contains a culvert. All of the irrigation pipes should be shown as easements. Construction should not occur in these easements. The presence of moisture -sensitive soils makes it even more important to maintain good surface and subsurface drainage at the site. A positive slope should be graded around structures to prevent water from ponding in the backfill and possibly seeping into below - grade space. Downspouts should discharge away from structures for the same reason. For basement construction, the basement floor should be a minimum of 3 ft above seasonal high groundwater. A subsurface drainage system, which preferably discharges by gravity, should be included in the foundation design. The Applicant, as a registered engineer in the State of Colorado, has conducted and submitted a drainage study for the North Bell Ranch Subdivision. The study concludes that "no onsite detention or improvements to existing structures is warranted due to the development of the property." However, the study does not address issues regarding the development by the CGS (See Exhibit H). Specifically, the study does not address the capacity of the culverts or alterations to historic drainage channels to provide access to Lot 4. It is evident however, that runoff should not exceed historic flows. It appears that it will be necessary to create a culvert to access proposed Lot 4. If it is necessary to create any culverts to access Lot 4 or any other lots within the development, the structures shall adhere to Section 9:41 through 9.44 of the Subdivision Regulations: 9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm. 13 9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year storm. 9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3') beyond the driving surface on each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load. F. Floodplain The floodplain on the property has not been mapped. Appendix E of the Application states that: The 100 -year floodplain has not been mapped in the area of the development. However, no structures are proposed within the significant channels crossing the property. These channels will contain flood events up the 100 -year event so no significant negative impact will result in the structure. The Applicant has indicated in the Application that "no development is proposed within the drainage channels where flooding due to large scale storms may occur." However, the Applicant is proposing to cross the drainage channel to access Lot 4. Construction, culverts and fill within the drainage channel shall adhere to the requirements of Section 9.41 through 9.44 of the Subdivision Regulations. G. Wildlife The Applicant has indicated that the subdivision is within the elk winter range, mule deer winter range with a resident population and the Canada goose wintering area. This area is also within the overall range of black bear. This submitted list shows there is a number of wildlife species that could be affected by humans as well as domesticated animals. The Applicants will need to be aware of the wildlife and manage any domesticated animals to reduce impacts it may have on wildlife. This Application was referred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, however no comments were received. H. Soils / Geology The property's soils / geology in the area of the proposed home sites can be characterized by having the following types: 1) 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes which indicates that community development is limited by large stones and steep slopes. Structures to divert runoff are needed for roads; and 2) 58 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes which indicate steep slopes limit community development. Structures are needed to minimize gullying and erosion; and 14 3) 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes which indicate that low strength, shrink -swell potential, and slope limit community development. The property does contain some moderate to steep slopes as identified within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan (See Page 3 of this Staff Report). The Applicant has provided geotechnical studies for Lots 1 and 3 only. No geotechnical study has been conducted for Lots 2 or 4. Lot 2 is already developed with a single family home and ISDS. As Lot 4 is arguably the most encumbered lot within the proposed development, it is also the most in need of a geotechnical study. The CGS has reviewed the Application and has made the following comments regarding the soils on this property (See Exhibit H): Soil. The area was mapped by USGS in 1994 as loess, and fan and debris flow deposits. Soils in such deposits could be low density. Borings on lots 1 and 3 show the subsurface soil to be composed of alternating layers of silt, clay, and sand. Swell -consolidation tests indicate the clay to be slightly expansive, and the silty sand to be collapsible. The sandy silt and silty sand were analyzed as having fairly low densities. As the soil tests for lots 1 and 3 were performed on samples collected from the identified building envelopes, this information could be used for foundation design criteria. For lot 1 where slightly expansive clays were found, Yeh recommends overexcavation and replacement with a structural fill, which could be the native soils that have been properly moisture -conditioned and compacted to specification. This mitigation should also be considered for garage floor slabs and driveways (if they are paved), if clay soils are present in those areas at shallow depths. On Lot 3 where silty sands predominate, Yeh recommends spread footings laid on the native soils or properly compacted fill. Swell -consolidation tests were not performed on the samples collected from this lot, but the density of the silty sand at depth is low, suggesting the possibility of collapse. A thick section of collapsible soil below footing elevations could be problematic even for soils with low collapse potential because the collapse from wetting could be manifested as a cumulative effect through the section. Such wetting could occur from a leak in a water pipe, irrigation system, or air conditioner. It would be prudent to evaluate the soils deeper than the footing elevations at each lot. Mitigation should be proposed, where necessary. Additional soil tests should be performed for Lot 4 if it is reconfigured. Based on the information submitted and the analysis conducted by the CGS, Staff recommends that all foundations be designed by the professional engineer registered within the State of Colorado. In addition, Staff recommends that a geotechnical study be conducted for Lot 4. I. Vegetation / Noxious Weed Management The Application was reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Management department (See Exhibit G) who made the following comments: 15 Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -Staff requests the applicant map and inventory the project area for Garfield County listed noxious weeds. • Weed Management -Please provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. • Staff requests that the applicant verify that the weed management plan is implemented by providing weed management and/or treatment records by October 31, 2007 to: Garfield County Vegetation Management POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 Revegetation • The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. • The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, - to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. Soil Plan • The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Prior to scheduling of a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide all materials requested in Exhibit G and have their completeness and adequacy verified by the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department. Once it is found that the submitted documents are of adequate quality, the documents shall be forwarded to the Garfield County Planning Department. 16 J. Mineral Estate It is Staffs understanding that the property's mineral estate has been severed and is owned or leased to another party (See Application Appendix A). As such, the Applicant shall include a plat note on the final plat stating the following: "The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)." K. Easements The Applicant has identified all known easements on the subject property. All dedications to Garfield County need to be in a form acceptable to the County Attorneys Office and transfer shall occur at the time of recording the final plat. These easements shall include, but are not limited to all drainage easements, any shared water system easements (domestic wells and water storage tank), any storm -water drainage easements, and all internal roads (which will be dedicated to the public on the face of the final plat). The Applicant has identified that no public dedications are anticipated with this project. However, the Applicant will be required to deed 30' along each Garfield County roadway to Garfield County. L. Assessments / Development Impact Fees The property is located in Traffic Study Area 6 which requires a $210 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) fee be paid to the County in a traffic impact fee. This fee will be figured at the time of final plat. The Applicant shall pay l of the total impact fee at final plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA). The remaining half shall be divided among the lots to be paid at the time building permits are submitted to the County for individual lot development. The development is also located in the RE -2 School District. As such the developer is required to pay the appropriate School Site Acquisition Fee to be paid at final plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA). This fee is generally calculated as $200 per residential unit. M. Recommended Plat Notes / Covenants Please be aware, the County requires the Applicant place the following plat notes be included on the final plat and in protective covenants: 1. Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke 17 chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. 2. No open hearth solid fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. 3. All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. 4. All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. 5. One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. 6. The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s). VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners DENY the proposed Preliminary Plan for the following reasons: Inadequate Legal Water Supply — An existing exempt well (Permit Number 174076-A) already serves the property. This well is legally able to serve up to 3 single family dwelling units, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. The Applicant has proposed the use of three wells to serve the four lots. 18 Lot 1: - Existing Well — Permit Number 174076-A - No (West Divide Water Conservancy District) WDWCD Contract - Tested January 23, 2007 at three (3) gallons per minute Lot 2: - New Well, No Permit Issued (Previous Well Permit Number 174076) - WDWCD Contract Number S070322NTB#2(a) — (2.16 acre feet of water for one dwelling, one acre of irrigation and two domestic animals) - No Test Conducted Lot 3: - New Well, Monitoring Well Permit Number 272033 - WDWCD Contract Number S070322NTB#3(a) — (2.26 acre feet of water for two dwelling units, one acre of irrigation and four domestic animals) - Tested January 24, 2007 at five (5) gallons per minute Lot 4: - New Well, Monitoring Well Permit Number 272033 - WDWCD Contract Number S070322NTB#3(a) — (2.26 acre feet of water for two dwelling units, one acre of irrigation and four domestic animals) - Tested January 24, 3007 at five (5) gallons per minute The Applicant has stated in the Application, Attachment C "Water Supply Information Summary" that Well Permit Number 174076 is to serve proposed Lot 2. It has become evident following further review that Well Permit Number 174076 was moved by the previous owners of the property to become Well Permit Number 174076-A. As can be seen in Appendix F, "Water Supply" in the Application, Condition #3 for Well Permit Number 174076-A requires that Well Permit Number 174076 be plugged within 90 days of completion of the new well (1997) (Well Permit Number 174076-A) and that a Well Abandonment Report be submitted to the Division of Water Resources. A review by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) (See Exhibit K) has indicated that "we have not yet received this report". To this end, although the well on proposed Lot 2 may be an existing well, it does not appear to be a legal well as it should have been plugged in 1997. Further, the Applicant is proposing to utilize Well Permit Number 174076-A for water supply to proposed Lot 1. It is understood that this is an existing exempt well which is legally able to serve up to 3 single family dwelling units, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. The DWR had the following comments regarding this well (See Exhibit K): 19 Permit No, 174076-A was issued pursuant to CRS 37.92-602(3)(b)(II)(A). as the only veli on a parcel of 35.23 acres, and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside three singie- family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one acre of name gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(I11) requires that the cumulative effect of all weals in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Accordingly, if the parcel is subdivided, the presumption under CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(1I)(A) that there will not be material injury to the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well from such well will no longer apply. As such, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of all wells in the proposed subdivision. A condition of approval on this permit required the owner to submit a completed Well Abandonment Report to our office: we have not yet received this report. Permit No. 272033 was issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(1), and limits the use of the well to monitoring water levels andtor water quality sampling. The submittal included West Divide Water Conservancy District Contract Nos. S070322NTB#2(a) (for 2.18 AF for one dwelling, one acre of irrigation and two domestic animals on Lot 2) and S07O322NTB#3(a;, (for 2,26 AF for two dwellings. one acre of irrigation and four domestic animals on Lots 3 and 4). The proposed subdivision wili require new permits issued pursuant to CRS 37- 90-137(2) and to a water court -approved augmentation plan for both of the existing wells. To this end, although the Applicant has obtained WDWCD contracts for the wells proposed for Lots 2, 3, and 4, it is necessary to obtain a "water court -approved augmentation plan" for Well Permit Number 174076-A as well. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the DWR has come to the following conclusion (See Exhibit K): Due to the lack of a water court -approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-26-1135(1)0h)(I) that the proposed domestic water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights, but is physically adequate, tf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Based on the above, it appears that the well anticipated to serve proposed Lot 2 is not legal and that material injury to existing water rights will occur if a "water court - approved augmentation plan" is not implemented for the well serving proposed Lot 1. Lot Configuration — Based on a site visit and comments from the Colorado Geological Survey, Staff concurs with the following (See Exhibit H): Lot configuration. The Yeh report was written when the site consisted of three lots rather than four. Lot 4 has been crafted with a spit of "buildable" area between the drainage channels. The area of the building envelope contains loosely consolidated material that is sloughing into the drainage. Siting a home and primary and secondary leach fields in this area could be problematic. CGS recommends that Lot 4 he extended into the Lot 1 area to increase the buildable space. Otherwise. the lot should he eliminated. The memo from CGS goes on to explain that (See Exhibit H): 20 ISDS. The percolation test results suggest that standard septic systems could be used at the site. Setback from the drainage channel should be established to prevent wastewater from daylighting on the slopes. Because of the irrigation easement on Lot 3, it would be worthwhile to identify preliminary leach field envelopes that would not interfere with easements... In summary, the property can be developed for further residential use, but as configured, Lot 4 does not appear viable. Buildable area should be added to this lot, or it should be eliminated. Based on the topography of the proposed subdivision and that the proposed development areas are within the slop hazard area (see Page 3 of this Staff Report) as identified within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, Staff concurs with the recommendations made in the memo from CGS (above) that the viable building and ISDS area within Lot 4 is limited and that either buildable area of the lot should be increased or the Lot should be eliminated completely. Fire Protection - The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. This Application was referred to the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District, however no comments were received. The Applicant has not addressed fire protection within the Application or offered evidence that the plans have been reviewed by the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. The Applicant will need to review the fire protection plan for this subdivision with the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District to ensure compliance with the below mentioned sections of the Subdivision Regulation of 1984. 9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire entrapment. 9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a centrally located fire protection water tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire protection district. 9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply. Soils / Geology - The property does contain some moderate to steep slopes as identified within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan (See Page 3 of this Staff Report). The Applicant has provided geotechnical studies for Lots 1 and 3 only. No geotechnical study has been conducted for Lots 2 or 4. Lot 2 is already developed with a single family home and ISDS. As Lot 4 is arguably the most encumbered lot within the proposed development, it is also the most in need of a geotechnical study. The CGS has reviewed the Application and has made the following comments regarding the soils on this property (See Exhibit H): 21 Soil. The area was mapped by USGS in 1994 as loess, and fan and debris flow deposits. Soils in such deposits could be low density. Borings on lots 1 and 3 show the subsurface soil to be composed of alternating layers of silt, clay, and sand. Swell -consolidation tests indicate the clay to be slightly expansive, and the silty sand to be collapsible. The sandy silt and silty sand were analyzed as having fairly low densities. As the soil tests for lots 1 and 3 were performed on samples collected from the identified building envelopes, this information could be used for foundation design criteria. For lot 1 where slightly expansive clays were found, Yeh recommends overexcavation and replacement with a structural fill, which could be the native soils that have been properly moisture -conditioned and compacted to specification. This mitigation should also be considered for garage floor slabs and driveways (if they are paved), if clay soils are present in those areas at shallow depths. On Lot 3 where silty sands predominate, Yeh recommends spread footings laid on the native soils or properly compacted fill. Swell -consolidation tests were not performed on the samples collected from this lot, but the density of the silty sand at depth is low, suggesting the possibility of collapse. A thick section of collapsible soil below footing elevations could be problematic even for soils with low collapse potential because the collapse from wetting could be manifested as a cumulative effect through the section. Such wetting could occur from a leak in a water pipe, irrigation system, or air conditioner. It would be prudent to evaluate the soils deeper than the footing elevations at each lot. Mitigation should be proposed, where necessary. Additional soil tests should be performed for Lot 4 if it is reconfigured. If it is maintained as a viable lot, Staff recommends that a geotechnical study be conducted for proposed Lot 4. Vegetation / Noxious Weeds — The Application was reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Management department (See Exhibit G) who made the following comments: Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -Staff requests the applicant map and inventory the project area for Garfield County listed noxious weeds. • Weed Management -Please provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. • Staff requests that the applicant verify that the weed management plan is implemented by providing weed management and/or treatment records by October 31, 2007 to: Garfield County Vegetation Management POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 Revegetation 22 • The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preli minary Plan and prior to Final Plat. • The applicant has not provided a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • The security shall be held by Garfie d County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. Soil Plan • The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if a ty disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Prior to scheduling of a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide all materials requested in Exhibit G and have their completeness and adequacy verified by the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department. Once it is found that the submitted documents are of adequate quality, the documents shall be forwarded to the Garfield County Plann ng Department. 23