The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff Report BOCC 05.18.09Exhibits for Public Meeting May 18,2009 St. Finnbar Farm, Lots 5 and 6 Exhibit Letter (Ato Zl Exhibit A Garfield County Zonrng, Resolution of 1978, as amended B Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended C Application D StaffMemorandum E Staff Memorandum from May 1,2006 Board of County Commissioner Public Meetins F Coov of orooosed olat t$a rr,q;td Ar.*uc,L','^t*E L M TW 7^I\ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOCC - 5/18/09 KE Amended Plat, Building Envelope Amendment for Lot 5 and Lot 6 Finnbar, LLC Ben Genshaft, Esq. Thomas Law Firm St. Finnbar Farm Subdivision, west side Gary Beach, Beach Environmental, LLC performed a wetland study on the subject lots in 2007 and found that historically irrigated meadows had dried up due to a ten year period of non-irrigation of the area resulting in a substantial reduction of the wetlands area on the two lots. A letter from the USACOE dated April 23, 2008 concurs with the 2007 delineation thereby approving the revised jurisd ictional wetland area on Lots 5 and 6. APPLICATION APPLTCANT (OWNER) REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION of cR 100 just south ot *,on]il rh1\offt LOT SIZE Lot 5 13.407-Aclss'/*f€-b} \ r '' Lot 6 11.493-acres At'l *.r.f {(^ ,,|irfu,"C',Y,O I,l tU I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The owner of Lots 5 and 6 in St. Finnbar Farm Subdivision is requesting an amendmentfor the subject lots in order to expand the existing building envelopes. St. Finnbar Farms is a subdivision located north of Blue Creek with the final plat approval granted in 2001. The proximity of the Blue Creek floodplain and related wetlands resulted in the buildable area of the lots being limited by building envelopes in order that improvements remain outside of both the floodplain and wetlands. Subsequent studies have resulted in a decrease in area delineated as jurisdictional wetlands subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), therefore the applicant seeks to enlarge the area in which construction of a single-family home could occur on each of the lots. Lot 5 New Envelope Old EnVelope St. Finnbar Farm Subdivision, Lot 5 and Lot 6 BOCC - 05/18/09 II. HISTORY St. Finnbar Farms Subdivision is subject to site constraints including the 100-year floodplain of Blue Creek and jurisdictional wetlands and the original building envelopes were configured to avoid these areas. A prior request for an amended plat (building envelope amendment on Lots 5 and 6) was requested in 2006 and conditionally approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a Public Meeting held on May 1, 2006. One of the conditions of approval included: The applicant shall present a letterfrom the US Army Corps of Engineers that agrees with the changes fo the mapped jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, this verification shall include a new map, submitted to the Planning Department that delineates the newly mapped wetlands as approved by the Corps. This map shallalso delineate a 21-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. Exhibit E contains the staff report from the May 1, 2006 meeting. III. AUTHORITY & FINDINGS 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) result in the major relocation of a road or add new roads. This request will not result in either of the two aforementioned standards and Staff finds these standards are met. ln addition, the regulations require that the following: The Board shall not approve an amended plat unless the applicant has satisfied the following criteria: A. All Garfield County zoning requirements will be met; B. All lots created will have legal access to a public right-of-way and any necessary access easements have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained; C. Provision has been made for an adequate source of water in terms of both the legal and physical quality, quantity and dependability, and a suitable type of sewage disposal to serve each proposed lot; D. All state and local environmental health and safety requirements have been met or are in the process of being met; E. Provision has been made for any required road or storm drainage improvements; F. Fire protection has been approved by the appropriate fire district; G. Any necessary drainage, irrigation or utility easements have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained; and H. School fees, taxes and special assessments have been paid. IV. STAFF REGOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Section St. Finnbar Farm Subdivision, Lot 5 and Lot 6 BOCC - 05/18/09 6:10 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended, approvethis requestsubjectto the following conditions and authorize the chairman to sign the amended plat. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the Application or stated at the meeting before the Board, shall be considered conditions of approval. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for the site(s) the Applicant shall provide a map of the revised jurisdictionalwetlands on Lots 5 and 6 as approved in the letter dated April 23, 2008 from the USACOE. 1. 2. EXHIBIT t*oa PROJECT INI-ORMATION AND STAI]F COMMENTS o 2'a*7 TYPE OF REVIEW APPLTCANT(S) LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION BOCC 0st01t06 r.J Amcndcd Final Plat (Building Envclopc Amendment) Roaring Fork Farm, Ll-C Finnbar Land Cornpany Lots 5 & 6, St. Finnbar Subdivision East oI Carbondalc, South o1'Catherin Slorc on CR 100 I. DI'SCRIPTIONOF'TIIEPROI'OSAI, Thc owners of Lots 5 and 6 of the St. Finnbar Subdivi.sion 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 cnvelopes. 'fhe Application statcs that the originai nrore restrictive envelopes were configured so that they avoided mapped iurisdictional wetliurds and the 100-year floodplain. Only the 10O-year floodplain shows on the plat. The Application contains a Ietter from Gary Ileach of Beacir Environmental that evaluated the expansion arcas for wetlands and determined there were no wetlands in thcse areas. Amentled Plat BOCC - 05/0t/06 Page 2 il. S]'AFII COMMBNTS / CONCEITNS Upon leview, Staff has outlined several issues with the request to enlarge the building envelopes. As you may recall, approval of the St. Finnbar Subdivision included quite a bit of discLrssion of the site constraints on the property. As a result, the original envelopes were specifically conligured to avoid wetlands and the 10O-year floodplain. The wetlands were verified by the U.S. Army Corps ol Engineers (the Corys) as demonstrated in a lettcr fron'r the Corps to Grant Gumee which was included in the original St. Finnbar Subdivision appiication ancl is attacl-red to this memorandum as Exhibit A. Thc letter essentially states Lhat the Corps reverified of a portictn of a jurisdictional. detertnination of tlrc St. Firutbar Subdivisiort. The nupping wa,s previously app,'orrdby tlu Corps on 'lanuary 8, 1997. Further, based on a subsequent site inspection....thi.r ofice deternined that tlrc revised dal.ineation is accurate. The map below u,as submitted to the County in the original Subdivision application and contains the mapped wetlands described in this letter fi'om the Corps. The plan shown below illustrates the issues with the jurisdictional wetlands delineatcd as of 1997 by the corps and the area where the building envelope expansion is reqr-rested. The Application coutains a lctter from Beach Environmental, LLC which essentially states that Ihe aleas into which the building envelopes are to be expanded do not contain wetlands. Staff referred thc Application ro the Corps which was in the processing of revlewlng the Application as of the drafting of the memorandum. They represented in a phone conversation that becar"rse these were mapped jurisdictional wetlands verified by the Corps in 1997, changes to this mapping of a julisdictional wetland (as suggested by Beach Environmental, LLC) requires Corps approval. As of the drafting of this memorandum, Staff does not havc adetermination form the Corps and cannot recommend the Board approve any reconfiguration until such determination is made. ,,tt:t;i,il;l Puge j Buildins Envelope Buffering Assuming there are no wetland issues as determined by the Corps, the proposed envelopes iue proposed closer to the 1O0-year floodplain than previously platted and also do not provide a buffer area or work area outside of the envelopes to accommodate heavy machinely and areas to work on the outside of the envelope. Building envelopes are intended to contain all the deve)opment on a lot and avoid any sensitive areas on the property. If the envelope boundarics ale positioned ad.iacent to or in close proximity to the scnsitive areas (wetlands / floodplain) additional buffer areas should also be dclincatcd around them to accomrlodate necessitry disturbance or-rtside of the envelope. 'I'ypically, br:ilders will ntaximize the area inside of an euvelope 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 exl.erior of the structure, thc builder is requiled Lo be on thc outsjde of the envelope to do so. As a resnlt, there needs to be a realistic buffer cithcr surrounding the envclope or a buffer surrounding the sensitive area (wetland) to accomrnodate this constluction impact. Staff suggests that a 20-foot buffer be estahlished around thc mapped wetlands and floodplain areas so that a mole practical bLrilding envclope can be establishcd that realistically avoids these areas when working on coltstruction at the edge or,iust inside the building envelope. Lzrstly, thc St. Finnbar Subdivision acknowledged the necessity of a bul'fer fronr jurisdictional wetlands. (Ref'erenced on page 6 of the oliginal Preliminary Plzur and attached as Exhibit B). This was demonstrated by adjusting the envelopes on the plat leaving a buffer fi'om the mapped wetland.s. The present request does not delineate any wetland areas on any map for which a buff'er should be contemplaLed. The Application only states that wctlands were not conciusivcly delineated in the expanded envelopes. The present status of thc existing wetlands on these two lots needs to be reevaluated, mappcd, and approved by the Corys prior to any reconfiguration of building envelopes to be consistent with the BOCC approvals lbrthe original subdivision and the signiticance of thc mapped wetlands in thc area. I O0-vezu' Floodpl ain Issues The existing building enveJopes are setback from thc 10O-year floodplain fron approxirnately 1 1 fcet to 30 f'eet. The proposed reconliguration of both envelopes will bring them as close as 4 feet fiom the 1O0-year floodplain. Again, Staff raises the same buffering issue. Any cut and fill / re-contouling in the 100-year floodplain rcquircs a Spccial Use Pcrmit. [Note, the building envelopes in the St. Finnbar Subdivision were approvet] with a commitment to construct the flrst finished floor elevations to I foot above the base flood elevation. This was proposed by the Applicant even thougli the enve)opcs were not technically located in the 100-yeaL floodplain. (Referenced on page 7 of the original Preliminary Plan and attached as Exhibit C).) III. AUTHORITY Section 6:10 of the Subdivision regulaLions states that. an anrendment may be made to a recorded plat, if such amendment does not I) increase the number of subdivision lots or dwelling units, or 2) Atnended Plal BOCC - 05/01/06 Page 4 result in the major relocation ol a road or add new roads. This request will not result in either of the two aforementioned standards; however, all other applicable staLe and feder:al restrictions shall also be met. Iv. STAFF RECOMMBNDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this arnended plat request with the fol lowing conditions: 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the Application or stated at the rneeting befble the Board. shall be considered conditions of approvzrl. 2. Within 90 days of approval, the Amended 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 Garfleld County. The Arnended Final Plat shall meet the minimum CRS standards for land survey plats. as requircd by Colorado state law, and approved by the County Surveyor and shall include, at a minimum, the information outlined in Section 5.22 of thc 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 buiLd.irtg or grading permit :;hall be issued Ltntil the v,etlan,ds, .floodpluin and nev,ly e'stablished buiLding envel.opes have heen a.ccura.tely sta,ked on the ground ancl veriJied. by a .tlffveyor licen.sed to prar:tice in the Stat oJ'Col.orado. I'roo.[ oJ'thi.s .shall lse presented to tlrc Building rurd. Pl.atuing Deparlment prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. 4. The Applicant shall present a -lettel florn the US Arniy Corps of Engineels that agrees with the changes to the mapped jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, this vcrillcation shallinclurle anew rnap. submitted to the Planning Department that delineates the newly mapped wetlands as approved by the Corps.'Ihis map shall also delineate a 20-foot bulfer either l) around the rvetlands and the 1OO-year floodplain or 2) around the building envelope to be platted as such on thc amended plat. fl fl H EXHIBITr_*_DEPAHTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ABMY ENGINEEF DISTRICT. SACFAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFOBNIA 958I4.2922BEPLY TO ATTEI{TIOH OF AugusE. 19, 1997 Regulatory Branch (t9g275069) Mr. Grant Gurnee Aquatic and Wetland Company 1655 Wal-nut, Suite 205 tsoul-der, Colorado 80302 Dear Mr. Gurnee: We are responding to your written reguest dated August L,1997, for reverif icat,ion of a port.ion of a jurisdictional determj-nation on the St. Finnbar Farm Subdivision. The mappingof this property was previously approved by our letter datedJanuary 8, 799'7. The site is l-ocated along Bl-ue Creek and theRoaring Fork River downstream of CaLherj-ne's bridge within the WL/2 of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Garfi-e1dCount.y, Colorado . Based on a site inspection by Susan Bachini Nall- of thisoffice on July 9, L997, we have determined thaL your revisedwetl-and boundary deLineation is accurafe. The primary differenceis located on the southwest corner of the sit.e in an area markedrrwastewater Treatment PIant Parcel". The plan referenced belowis an accurate depiction of the limj-ts of Federal jurisdiction under section 404 of the Cl-ean l,rlater Act. The plan is labeled: St. Finnbar Farm Su-bdivision,furisdict,ional Delineation Plan Dated 7 /25/97 This verifica.f.ion sgpercedes our previous verificat.ion andis valid for a period of fi.r" years ir="*-tfr. date of this letter.rf the mapping information proves to be false or incorrect, wewilL adjusL our determination accordingly. we have mainLainednumber 199275069 to this determination. Please contact Ms. Nal1and refer to Ehis number if you have any questj-ons and for permitrequi-rements at (gzO) 243-t]-9g or t,he address below. S incerely, Grady L. McNure Chief , NorthwesLern ColoradoRegulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junct,ion, Colorado 81501-2563 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 verifled 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 buitding 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 inferests have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these rnferests. Furthermore, private property owners also have ceftain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral esfafe 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 occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of th _e appropriate municipality. St. Finnbar Farm is not located in the urban area of influence of any municipality. Section lV METHODOLOGY H H H H HI q EI H til f, H fl H t Purpose and Applicability of the comprehensive Plan Land use Map: This describes the comprehensive Plan and Land Use Maps "as the foundation for subsequent zoning or subdivision regulations that implement the goals and policies developed by the Plan". lt further states "that the County Comprehensive Plans are advisory only, neither legislative nor judicial in nature, not the equivalent to zoning , and not binding upon the zoning discretion of any county or municipal legislative body". The St. Finnbar Farm site is included on the map titled Proposed Land Use Districts Carbondale Area following the Methodology Section of the Comprehensive Plan. This map identifles the'site as being in the Low Density Residential District (10+ acres/ dwelling unit). A review of Table 30 "Proposed Land Use Districts and Methodology" identifles the criteria by which this classification was determined. Recognizing the necessarily generalized nature of the comprehensive plan analysis, the following is offered as a more detdiled review of this criteria as it relates to the body of inforrnation currently available for the St. Finnbar Farm site. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAI NTS According to this table, a site should be rated as having "Major" constraints to 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 by the Comprehensive Plan Soils Hazard descriptions. The most signiflcant soils related limitation on the site is a potentially high water table that may require de-watering of foundation excavations during construction. The Lincoln DeVore report does not describe the site as being prone to soils hazard and at most would be rated as "Minor". ISDS Constraints: The high water table and rapidly percolating gravels would be considered as a "Major" constraint upon the use of lndividual Septic Disposal Systems. This constraint is completely mitigated by the collection and treatment of wastewater in the central treatment plant at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Under these conditions this constraint should be listed as "Minor". Floodplain Constraints; Portions of the site are within the 100 Year Floodway and Floodplain according to FEMA studies and mapping. These areas are obviously a hazard and are avoided by the proposed development plans. The only areas of the site proposed for residential construction are outside of the floodplain and floodway. Even if one assumed there to be inaccuracies in the floodplain analysis, the flooding risk would be one of shallow sheet flows that should warrant a "Moderate" constraint rating. Caution would suggest that shallow sheet flows be mitigated by requiring a licensed engineer to establish minimum finished floor elevations for all residential structures. ,tof) f.t PIth W.?r'e \ .r?., JR^ r i,'i ,*..HH;z- ..'i'\{ij,x A *:::'ilj',i,N$ fl1't-'1-'n *i?,\S:\ ':.oi ,-"*.I;;;;i* ^-.''rEi; quun,)R'n$.rr-:I,,*t5:1$.r",.i z' l'-A*'?la i*'",+";;,$..*Ylf'1f,',+9Ti:'!ir:, - , "' nt'=''\ ,/\"0 , 'fl*<t --\ ,rtT{,83[rx"u ^urp'e' *.x+.r:\,'*'&:.")- )N]", \ ( e',r ' -\o.li .^a r- nnr{}rlAY Lli/lTS i \\, .. -il\ 'tt'.\ t *''r't.-\ oE i, ,\ HfiH \ i* !!lrj \ l1.,,U\':.,u(J> \i.:o<tsr:...o, ;^- J \-;i'rrF :t \t b+f t'.4 / t t'' +;i*"\:'\.. j ;, ::'.':r:rz''qrrrlr t:\-r+) rrtlula <)r-1.< elg? :ilri--Tn'+ z.U iit. ?-'i,.> t.i llt F-J: 'c),t ) EXHIBIT7 L.A]!!*5-AND* LQf S.:[- EINNBIE COT]NTY OF GARI.'IELD, STA'II OI.' C'OI,ORADO sttEFIr I 0F 2 6 ^ !^i* o B1;oft nIB il uto*?im f i07 i r ra, N c- qrqar rdrs rr M4 s Bt dn6{ ff F0r r, ^ raaM N cs u&ia tu r H ME d 83 m0& *1ffi3 rfi roR ! d0ffai n#M7m6sd.{urdii sr^s* {r sNN s6ffi rd uD Lcr 1 e |rr a ^! ** 0 H! *@ tr^r*ffi,, fta Riui [!Y eox.6m osB.r (id.rtr! 6 ,J, d sd sftk&r @rito nts[ d r ft@s, xuarB M !to*n@uy *&r*0 tnN No oM ff^rdlE v{ $r ! o $r i {a xu !Y 6 r{Mo Mr. E lsffi tur ^t ^ffi rr c$io4 { mr.r6 .rrF.3 s r+a s,r,^t td,rs \ s s{r ,dmr (ffi .resr '9. iB ^ B$ ,'.. ,r)e{Y ?1 & fl I ra rt P^€ ,& i w roB .* !ilar rc.s r rse, r@eM. 6, 26, r & 16' ^l 'ril lra , ..J.s bED | &rr @.{'k dr,. s ide, st{I ,4dd H em ^ p{r f il. 3r fr{eun xe e Fende/ ror r ^{ tor 6, ri. *Ne^R r^.r I ftia- istro rtu^iy , 16 a g.l'JMu& ffi tu r.sr s (su ff a (rde 6r d ntr rsrv d o)& { ,NE {<n, u 6.i . ,*, *, Z4']d., , ffi.r@r '-s \|@ ,!r.i ! { {osd ?^. @4 q { i^r 6efl 0@. i\!16 ( r^ee d cGiMrs, e8\ * s6. {tueri D a \ eo6 @ iln c&{wr d nP@ ft., !4ssvr! si{r '{ rc * r M^E @M tur u ff ffi )s :, 1 e.rM! n-. u! ffi 3i1v, * -AL'!1L-- ,1M. YIENIILUAP.l"-500' /, , , .J,':-- r t \-,: -- -l '. {1" \d--\ r'i;;!: . M rcr ]!t 4sa.Y q rrF.B fe'unfrre7l Fsr-tt, e r02 r{rvur i smEulffin , [q:c*it -.--.,{rEF*r( t st( d (lu^B 0o c(mr drm lrr rtr urMAlGrturfrD 0k B,t ^'/M rrlr ojq { qa- r \\ Jftr. q ffi Mffi A^t oi 6a 5 N0 { 4 9r e.M.ttu gmv* B ft CrsiNn4iofuac sB M ffi(o 6rn s6ffi datr\m$ il fi{&3lwCffi &ffiEskffi^sraffircffiodxr - $.@$--___t:___ ;ii--ii-dffiii-- --.. - ---- I $ I ....Llfut--. - .- d 1 9rl E ril H !l!I tdl B iii E its 3rlu