Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 05.01.2006PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOCC 05/01/06 FJ Amended Final Plat (Building Envelope Amendment) Roaring Fork Farm,LLC Finnbar Land Company Lots 5 & 6, St. Finnbar Subdivision East of Carbondale, South of Catherin Store on CR 100 TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT(S) LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The owners of Lots 5 and 6 of the St. Finnbar Subdivision request approval to reconfigure the platted building envelopes on each lot. The illustration above depicts the originally approved building envelopes in dashed lines and the proposed reconfigured envelopes in a gray-hashed form. The reconfiguration generally enlarges both envelopes. The Application states that the original more restrictive envelopes were configured so that they avoided mapped jurisdictional wetlands and the 100-year floodplain. Only the 100-year floodplain shows on the plat. The Application contains a letter from Gary Beach of Beach Environmental that evaluated the expansion areas for wetlands and determined there were no wetlands in these areas. Amended Plat BOCC - 05/01/06 Page 2 il. STAFF COMMENTS / CONCERNS Upon review, Staff has outlined several issues with the request to enlarge thebuilding envelopes. As you may recall, approval of the St. Finnbar Subdivision included quite abit of discussion of the site constraints on the property. As a result, the original envelopes were specifically configured to avoid wetlands and the 100-year floodplain. The wetlands were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) as demonstrated in a letter from the Colps to Grant Gurnee which was included in the original St. Finnbar Subdivision application and is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A. The letter essentially states that the Corps reverified of a portion of a iurisdictional determination of the St. Finnbar Subdivision. The mapping was previously approved by the Corps on January 8, 1997. Further, based on a subsequent site inspection...this ffice determined that the revised delineation is accurate. The map below was submitted to the County in the original Subdivision application and contains the mapped wetlands described in this letter from the Corps. The plan shown below illustrates the issues with the jurisdictional wetlands delineated as of 1997 by the Corps and the area where the building envelope expansion is requested' The Application contains a letter from Beach Environmental, LLC which essentially states that the areas into which the building envelopes are to be expanded do not contain wetlands. Staff referred the Application to the Corps which was in the processing of reviewing the Application as of the drafting of the memorandum. They represented in a phone conversation that because these were mapped jurisdictional wetlands verified by the Corps in 1997 , changes to this mapping of a jurisdictional wetland (as suggested by Beach Environmental, LLC) requires Corps approval. As of the drafting of this memorandum, Staff does not have adetermination form the Corps and cannot recommend the Board approve any reconfiguration until such determination is made. Amended Plat BOCC - 05/01/06 Page 3 Buildin g Envelope Bufferine Assuming there are no wetland issues as determined by the Corps, the proposed envelopes are proposed closer to the 100-year floodplain than previously platted and also do not provide a buffer area or work area outside of the envelopes to accommodate heavy machinery and areas to work on the outside of the envelope. Building envelopes are intended to contain all the development on a lot and avoid any sensitive areas on the property. If the envelope boundaries are positioned adjacent to or in close proximity to the sensitive areas (wetlands / floodplain) additional buffer areas should also be delineated around them to accommodate necessary disturbance outside of the envelope. Typically, builders will maximi ze the area inside of an envelope to the very edge of the boundary so that the footprint of a structure will coincide with the boundary. In order to dig and backfill foundations and construct the exterior of the structure, the builder is required to be on the outside of the envelope to do so. As a result, there needs to be a realistic buffer either surrounding the envelope or a buffer surrounding the sensitive area (wetland) to accommodate this construction impact. Staff suggests that a 2O-foot buffer be established around the mapped wetlands and floodplain areas so that a more practical building envelope can be established that realistically avoids these areas when working on construction at the edge or just inside the building envelope. Lastly, the St. Finnbar Subdivision acknowledged the necessity of a buffer from jurisdictional wetlands. (Referenced on page 6 of the original Preliminary Plan and attached as Exhibit B). This was demonstrated by adjusting the envelopes on the plat leaving a buffer from the mapped wetlands. The present request does not delineate any wetland areas on any map for which a buffer should be contemplated. The Application only states that wetlands were not conclusively delineated in the expanded envelopes. The present status of the existing wetlands on these two lots needs to be reevaluated, mapped, and approved by the Corps prior to any reconfiguration of building envelopes to be consistent with the BOCC approvals for the original subdivision and the significance of the mapped wetlands in the area. 1 00-),ear Floodplain Issues The existing building envelopes are setback from the 100-year floodplain from approximately 1 1 feet to 30 feet. The proposed reconfiguration of both envelopes will bring them as close as 4 feet from the 100-year floodplain. Again, Staff raises the same buffering issue. Any cut and fill / re-contouring in the 100-year floodplain requires a Special Use Permit. [Note, the building envelopes in the St. Finnbar Subdivision were approved with a commitment to construct the first finished floor elevations to 1 foot above the base flood elevation. This was proposed by the Applicant even though the envelopes were not technically located in the 1O0-year floodplain. (Referenced on page 7 of the original Preliminary Plan and attached as Exhibit C).1 III. AUTHORITY Section 6:10 of the Subdivision regulations states that an amendment may be made to a recorded plat, if such amendment does not 1) increase the number of subdivision lots or dwelling units, or 2) Amended Plat BOCC - 05/01/06 Page 4 result in the major relocation of a road or add new roads. This request will not result in either of the two aforementioned standards; however, all other applicable state and federal restrictions shall also be met. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this amended plat request with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the Application or stated at the meeting before the Board, shall be considered gonditions of approval. f=T\ Go t-,t1, - @r\)2. With\n{Sleys;f approval, tt "h*"ilded Final Plat shall be reviewed (paper copy), then signed and dated (mylar copy) by the County Surveyor, than signed and dated by the Chairman of the Board and recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Garfield County. The Amended Final Plat shall meet the minimum CRS standards for land survey plats, as required by Colorado state law, and approved by the County Surveyor and shall include, at a minimum, the information outlined in Section 5:22 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 3. A plat note shall be placed on the plat that states the reason for the amended building envelopes and a separate note shall be placed on the plat that states: No building or grading permit shall be issued until the wetlands, floodplain and newly established building envelopes have been accurately staked on the ground and verified by a surveyor licensed to practice in the Stat of Colorado. Proof of this shall be presented to the Building and Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. 4. The Applicant shall present a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers that agrees with the changes to the mapped jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, this verification shall include anew map, submitted to the Planning Department that delineates the newly mapped wetlands as approved by the Corps. This map shall also delineate a 20-foot buffer either 1) around the wetlands and the 100-year floodplain or 2) around the building envelope to be platted as such on the amended plat. IUou/ 1 -Lot)l - -t'-- I I I DEPABTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER OISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACBAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958I4.2922 August L9, :.997 (L9927s05e) EXHIBIT bot6 REPLY TO ATTEXIION OF I Regulatory Branch t I I I I I I I Mr. Grant GurneeAquatic and Wetland Company 1555 Walnut, Sui-t.e 205 Bou1der, Colorado 80302 Dear Mr. Gurnee: We are responiiing t,o your written request dated August 1,7997, for reveri-fication of a portion of a jurisdictional determination on the St. Finnbar Farm Subdivision. The mappingof this property was previously approved by our letter daEedJanuary 8, L997. The site is located along Blue Creek and theRoaring Fork River downstream of CaEherine's bridge within t.he W1/2 of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range B7 West, Garfi-e1dCounty, Colorado. Based on a site inspection by Susan Bachini NaIl of thisoffice on July 9, 1-997, we have deEermined that your revisedwetland boundary delineation is accurate. The primary differenceis locaEed on the southwest corner of the site in an area markedrrWastewaLer Treatment P1ant Parcel r' . The plan ref erenced belowis an accurate depiction of the limits of Federal jurisdlcLion under section 404 of the clean water Act,. The plan is labeled: St. Finnbar Far:m Subdivisionilurisdictional Delineation PIan Dated 7/25/97 Thj-s verrfica.t'ion srrpercedes our previous verification andis valid for a period of five years from the daEe of this letter.rf t,he mapping information proves to be false or incorrect, wewill adjust our determination accordingly. We have maintainednumber 199275069 to this determination. Please contact. Ms. Na11and refer to this number if you have any questions and for permitrequirements at (970) 243-1199 or the address beIow. Sincerely, Grady L. McNure Chief , NorthwesLern Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand .Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 ( I EXHIBIT B domestic wells from the Roaring Fork alluvium as is described by the project engineer. Water rights protection of the domestic water supply will be through contracts with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Section lll-8.0 Natural Environment Goal: Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land, is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County. The design of St. finnbar has been carefully tailored around the environmentally sensitive areas of the site. Wetland areas were again identified in the summer of 1997 and then verified by the Corps of Engineers. Building envelopes will be setback from the wetland edge and guidelines established by protective covenants will further assure protection of the wetlands during the development of the individual home sites. Two driveway crossings are the only proposed permanent disruption of the wetlands. Utility crossings will temporarily disturb some wetland areas. These crossings will require an approval by the Corps of Engineers. The building sites as proposed in concert with the recommendations of the Division of Wildlife should create minimal disruption of wildlife at the site and could result in the enhancement of habitat for some species. The site has historically been grazed by horses and cattle. The subdivision will eliminate grazing from most of the wetland areas. Section lll-9.0 Natural Resource Extraction Goal: Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral rnferesfs have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop fhese rnferesfs. Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights and pivileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated. Most of the St. Finnbar Farm site is underlain with gravel deposits but the extraction of these deposits would have significant environmental impacts. Section lll-10.0 Urban Areas of lnfluence Goal: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occuning in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. St. Finnbar Farm is not located in the urban area of influence of any municipality. Section lV METHODOLOGY EXHIBITc purpose and Applicability of the comprehensiyg Ptgn Land Use Map: This sec describes tn" Co,rpffi.iu" ptrn .iA-Irna U.JMaps "as.tl,e by:!:!?1f!1, TheSt.FinnbarFarmsiteisincludedonthemaptitledProposedLandUseDistricts Carbondale Area ioito*ing the Methodology Section of the Comprehensive Plan' This map identifies tne;site as6eing in tnl Gw-bensity Residentiar District (10+ acres/ dwering unit). A review of rabre go;proposed Lind Use Districts and Methodology" identifies the criteria by which this crassification was determined. Recognizing the necessarily generalizei nature of tne comprehensive plan analysis' the following is offered as a more detaired review of this criteria as it rerates to the body of information currently available for the St' Finnbar Farm site' DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAI NTS Accordingtothistable,asiteshouldberatedashaving..Major,'constraintsto warrant classification as Low Density Residential' Slope Constraints: There are no excessive gradient slopes on this site and thereby should be rated as a "Minor" constraint' soil constraints: The St. Finnbar site is described by the Lincoln DeVore report as being alluvial gravels with a shallow mantle of silty clays' These soils are not characteristic of the soils conditions identified uy ine iomprehensivg Plan soils Hazard descriptions. The most significant soirs rerated iimitation on the site is a potentially high water table tf,"t try iequire de-watering of foundation excavations during construction. The Lincorn DeVorei"port d;es not describe the site as being prone to ioils hazard and at most would be rated as "Minor". lsDS Constraints: The high water table and rapidly percolating gravels would be considered as a .Major,, constraint'rpon tn" ,r".oi rndividuar septic Disposal systems' This constraint is compretery mitigai;d by the coflection and treatment of wastewater in the central treatment plant at the R;;;h at Roaring Fork' Under these conditions this constraint should be listed as "Minor"' i"*;Th".it" rre within the 100 Year Floodway and Floodplain according to FEMA studies and mappitg' ^Tl,:"-"^ "f::::?:::::*-i subseque nt zoning or subdivision regiuiaions th.at imp'lement the goals and policies developed by the'Plrr". lt further stltes "that the County Comprehensive Plans are advisory only, neither legislative nor iudicial in natu'e, not the equivatent to zoning ' and not binding upon the zoning discretion of any county or municipallegislative body"' ;:"r'"18':XlT,"J:il,'o;;;;'il"-ploio."d deveiopment plans. rhe onlv areas orthe site proposed for residential construction aie outside of the'floodplain and floodway' Even if one assumed there to be inaccuraci"t in the floodplain analysis' the flooding risk would be one of shallow sheet flows that should warrant a "Moderate" constraint rating' C a uti o n wo u ld s u g g est th at s h a l l o* t n ""i n ows be. miti g,l9!,,bl 3q::t',1? :l::,1,":' ffi ;:#::dil:;;', il;;nisnea fl oor etevations ror all residential structures' EXHIBIT t 1 ( e =J t E g t I : .r8'Elz 1 I I 1 c$,i/)rA n.96,z0'006 64/27/2808 1"5: L7 97A24L23r USACE 400 Rood Avenue, Room {42 Grand Junctlon, Colorado 81 501'2563 Phone: 970'243'1199 Fax: 970-241'2358 PAGE A1/03 Fax Header Sheet U.S. Army Gorps of Engineers, Sacramentolistrict Colorido/Gunnison Basln Regulatory OfficefP-- ,P4ti,-,,i:,;;;9%4 r',6';;i,u,,, " /006 L-7 frT's I zac 6 Tor Mg ^ Ff*l T at't'Ytct'"t From: /W o,lc 6 i I fi l/o" ColondolG unnison Basirt Reg ulatory Office Re/easar's Signature: tYlrf t Number of pages including @ve: 3 Comments: Jt" F in hf,"^ La"t Co Iloa*i(J Fa"L furutt ct7)- 3gq- 3y7o ThisisaDepdrtmentofDefense system suDlecltomonitoringof communicrlrorrs. Useof this resouFoe conslitufes consent to seid monitorinE. 04/27/zOgG L5: l-7 978241231 HEPLY TO ATTENTION OF RegulaEory Branch USACE DEPAFTMENT OF THE AHMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEEH DISTRTCT' SACRAMENTO COFPS OF ENGINEERS COLOFAOOIGUNNISON BASIN REGULATOHY OFFICE 400 RooD AVENUE, BOoM 142 GBAND JUNCTION, COLORAPQ 8150t.2563APriI 27, 2006 (20067sr65) Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building a,nd Plarrning Deparfment l0B 8'Eh Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springe, Colorado 8160L Dear Mr. 'Jarman: We are responding to your March 28, 2005. req'uest for Comm,ents on the Roaring f'oik Farm, T-.,I-.,C & Finnbaf Lan,d Cpmpany, amended p1a.t appl.icatiorr. This project is located aL L'atitude 39" 24' 12.g",-Longitud.e 10?" gt 20-6tt, Section w 1/2 3L, Towrrship 7 sout,h, Rang" B? west., n,ear the Roaring E'ork River, withirr Carf ietd CounEy, Colorado. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study alea is under the" authoriEy of Section 404 of th,e Clearr Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fil"l rnaterial into waLers of the United States. Watere of the UniE.ed States inclu,de, but are noE Iimited to: rivex's, perennial , ephemeral , or intermj'ttent streams, lakesl ponds, wetlarrds, vernal poo1s, marshes, weE meadowg, afld spr5.ngs. Project features that result in the d.ischarge of dredged or fill material into waEere of the United States wiff requiie Depa,rtmenE of the Army auEhorization prior to starting work. We have previousJ.y verified wetlands at the St " Finnbar Farm Subdiwision by letter dat.ed Augu,sE 19, l-997. Thie vefification was valid for a period of 5 years from the date of this fetter. However, we hawe not had the opporturrity lo revj.ew any recent data u,sed to modify (expand or eliminate) the limits of federaljurisdict.ion under Sectj.on. 404 of the Clean Water Act at thisproject site. EXHIBIT €f A4/27/29A6 15: L7 97O24L23r USACE PAGE 03/03 please refer to ident,ificaEion number 200675166 in correspondence concerlling this proiect. If you have any queati-orrs, please Contact me at the addreee above, email tiark.A.Gitfillarr@usace " a,rmy.mi1, or telephone 97O-243-1199, extension 1.5. You may also use our website. www,spk.usace. arfiy.mi J, /regulatorY. html Sincerely, ffl^,L Mark GilfillaBiologist, Colorado/eunnison Basin Regulatory Office