Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 03.28.01tr-rl. L," s/./// L ENGINEER] LOCATION: WATER: ACCESS: STTNG Z PC 03/28101 A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for the Roaring Fork Preserve subdivision Roaring Fork Preserve, LLC Land Design Partnership High Country Engineering Parcel located in portions of Sections 35 and 36, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 66 PM Individual wells Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) CR IOO A/R/RD tt /-/r-rJ PROJECT INFORI\{ATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Planned Development (Ranch at Roaring Fork) to the north A/R/RD to the east, south and west I RELATIONSHIP TO TFIE COMPRE F{ENSIVE PLAN The 2000 Comp Ptan indicates that this site lies in the Low Density Residential District, which calls for 1 dwelling unit per l0 or more acres. The designation of low density residential is based upon constraints found in the area. The plan proposes l3 dwellings on 90.3 acres or an average density ofabout one dwelling unit per 6.93 acres., which is not in compliance with the recommended densities tbr the area. The adjoining property to the northwest is the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision, which removed proposed accessory dwellings to comply with the recommended density of one (l) dwelling per l0 acres. If the proposed accessory dwellings were removed from the application, the plan could be found to be in compliance with the recommended density for the area Section V olthe 2000 Garflreld County Comprehensive Plan contains maps which indicate rhat this site lies in the floodplain and the visual corridor, has septic constraints due to a high water table, is served by a County Road that is in good condition, and that this area is /- D.oo{ ,{ /u b 'g- Erl*" &.cPk * ?:i'::Zrntqa- "r#Z*'fr:,", ' -lrk-nt.fit.ttn pul i ' tt k- c'{tlz fr rc-' -7. 4ru fut?1o" tta7,l-77*,,r^i REOLJEST: APPLICANT: PLANNER: SEWER: ADJACENT ZONING: pnme agricultural land. The comp plan further indicates that this site lies in the Town of Carbondale's statutory sphere ofinfluence (2 miles) and hence, this application was referred to the Town ofCarbondale for comment. Some relevant goals ofthe comp plan follow Section III-2.0 Housing. " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, effrcient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment". Section UI-6.0 Agriculture: "To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review". Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development." Section III-8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield County will encourage a land use pattem that recognizes the environmental sensitivity ofthe land, does not overburden the physical capacity ofthe land, and is in the best interests ofthe health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County." Section lll-l0.0 Urban Area oflnfluence. "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 ofthe appropriate municipality." I1. PRO]ECTINFORMATION ite Description: The property is located about 1.5 miles east ofCarbondale. The Roaring Fork River forms the northern boundary ofthe site. The site is currently used as irrigated pastureland. Lots I and 2 have portions ofthe lot within the I00 year floodplain. The site generally drains to the west with an average slope ofless lhan 29/o. The Slough Ditch and Banning Lateral convey irigation water to the pasture land in the southwestern portion of the property.. B. Develooment Proposal: The plan is to divide the 90.3 acres into nine (9) residential lots and allow four (4) ofthe lots to have accessory dwellings. The lots range in size from 5.050 to 15.876 acres in size. Access is directly offof CR 100, via a 60 ft. right-of-way , with a22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface, that is also to provide access to the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision. Lots 1-5 are accessed via a 1006 ft. long cul-de- sac with a 58' radius and a 16 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface. Lots 8 and 9 are to be served by a 30 ft. wide access and utility easement with a 12 ft. wide chip and seal surface that ends at Lot 8. A,S 2 C. Adiacent Land Uses: The Roari ng Fork River lies along the northern boundary ofthe property and provides gold medal fishing waters. Adjacent lands are currently in agricultural and residential use. An adjacent property owner (to the north) has applied for a 5 lot subdivision on about 40 acres called the "Mayfly Bend". IIi, REVIEW AGENCY AND OTFIER COMMENTS Referrals of the preliminary plan were sent to the following review agencies. Due a delay in getting the referrals out to these agencies, no comments have been received at the time of the writing of the staffreport. The following were the comments of these agencies at the time of the Sketch Plan review. Town of Carbondale. The Town Planner has suggested that a cluster approach may be a better design for the property and that the proposed density exceeds the recommended density of the Comprehensive Plan. Bookcliff Soil Consen'ation District: No response RE-2 School District: No response Hol Cross En No response Public Service Company: No response U.S. West Communications No response Garfield Countv Road & Bridge: No reponse Carbondale Fire Protection District: The Deputy Chief stated that the access road is adequate for emergency vehicles; the water supply should be adequate to provide at least 30,000 gallons ofbackup fire protection water for the house automatic fire sprinklers; the developer will be required to pay the fire district impact fees. Colorado Dept. ollublie Hcalth No response Colorado Div. of Water Resources: Th e water supply is not supported by contracts from the Basalt Water Conservancy District and there is no analysis of the physical water supply. The Division included the "Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Reports". Colorado Div. of Wildlife. The DOW identified a number of issues that need to be addressed in any future subdivision application to minimize wildlife impacts Garfiel d Countv Sheriff: No reponse Garfreld Countv Ve etation Manacement No reponse rovided comments on the roposed A. B, C, D, E, F. G. H. I J K. L. M application. The following comments were made (See pg The Garfield County Engineer's office has p J A B C A copy of each well permit and pump test sha[[ be submitted . The fire district approval shall be submitted. ISTS systems have issues that are of concern and he suggested other alternatives Surface runoffshould be not be allowed to access the Roaring Fork River directly He noted a number of recommendations for amendments to plat notes. Recommended additions and modifications to the plan maps. IV, STAFF COMMENIS A. Comprehensive Plan: With one unit per 6.93 acres, the proposed density is exceeds the comp plan recommendation ofone (1) unit per l0 acres Ifthe development did not have the four accessory dwelling units proposed, it would be in compliance with the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan. As note previously, the adjoining Mayfly Bend subdivision eliminated the accessory dwellings form the application, which resulted in 4 residential lots on the 40 acres. As it is presently proposed , the application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan proposed land use density designations The development proposal appears consistent with most ofthe comp plan goals, with the lollowing exceptions: Section III-7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development." Section III-8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield County will encourage a land use pattem that recognizes the environmental sensitivity ofthe [and, does not overburden the physical capacity ofthe land, and is in the best interests ofthe health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County." Water and Natural Environment deficiencies are discussed in detail in this report. As long as the suggested conditions ofapproval are included, staffbelieves that relevant goals can be met. nl Subdivision an A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district. The lot design appears to generally meet the stan dards set forth in the D E F. B Subdivision Regulations. The minimum setbacks are as follows: (l) Front yard: ...(b) local slreels: fiJty (50).feetfrom slreet cenlerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lol line, whichever is gredler: (2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet /rom reqr ktt line; (j) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (l /2) the height of the principal building, whichever is grealer. The applicants are requesting approval an accessory dwelling for Lots 5-8 as a part of the subdivision approval, which is allowed by 3.02.01, which states that an accessory dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district provided the accessory dwelling unit 4 C is "approved as a part of a public hearing or meeting on a suhdivision or stbdivision exemption or gueslhouse special use approved afler 7,'95 and meeling the slqndards in Section 5.03.021." Section 5.03.021 reads: 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit: (Jse ola structure as dn accessory dwellingwhether approved by Special LJse, u,se by righl in a new subdivision approval, or on an existing lot musl meet lhe Jollowing standards, as well as all other slandurds applicable to residenlial u.\e,' (t) The minimum bl size shall be four (1) acres containing a building sile with slopes less lhan 40%o al leasl lwo (2) acres in size. (2) The gross floor area for residenlial use occupancy shall not exceed I 500 sq. ft. (j) Approval from lhe subdivision homeowners association and'or allowed by covenont if applicable. (4) Proof of a legally adequate source ofwater for an addilional dwelling unit- (5) Compliance with the County individual sewage dispose system regulalions or proof oJ a legat abilily to connecl lo an approved central sewage treatment facility. (6) Only leasehold inleresls in the &velling units is allowed. (7) That atl construclion complies with the appropriate Cr.tunty building code requirements, It should be noted that an accessory dwelting is a detached dwelling unit and that the County would not be approving a dwelling unit that is attached to the principal dwelling unit. A two-family dwelling is a special use and anyone wanting to build an "apartment" or "caretakers" quarters attached to the principal dwelling will be subject to a Special Use Permit for a two family dwelling. No phasing plan is proposed. The application states that final platting and construction will be done as one phase, This is consistent with the subdivision regulations. Water: Each of the lots will have an individual wells will supply domestic water to each ofthe lots. The applicant's engineer has projected an annual consumptive use of 5.62 AF, with a peak diversion of 12..9 gpm during the month ofJune. The applicant plans on augmenting the wells with water from the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD). They have an approved contract (no. 367) for 0.33 dubic feet ofwater per second. The contract also includes the irrigation of7500 sq. ft. of lawn, lS livestock units and 0.5 acres ofpond surface. Well #8 olthe subdivision was drilled, tested, and found to have acceptable water quality and capacity, as documented by the applicant's engineer. The pumping rate during a January 2001 pump test was estimated to be l5 gpm, which exceeds the average peak monthly demand (12.9 gpm) for the proposed subdivision. The well is located in the same 5 aquifer as the proposed wells for the Mayfly Bend subdivision and the engineer has opined that the proposed wells for the new subdivision will have similar water quality. The Mayfly Bend subdivision well had no coliform bacteria and NitrateyNitrites level of O.22 mgl, which is significantly below the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment maximum contaminant level of 10.0 mgl.. No water quality information has been submitted in support of this application. An adequate potable and irrigation waler supply shall be available lo all lots within a slbdivision, laking inlo considerdlion peqk demands lo service lolal developmenl populalion, irrigation uses, and adequqte fire prolection requiremenls in accordance wilh recognized and cuslomary engineering slandards. Each lot will be allowed to have 7500 sq. ft. of lawn and the rest of the lot will be left in a natural state, with the exception of horses. There are no other irrigation demands for the subdivision and the development meets the above standard. Prior to any Preliminary Plan approval, the Division of Water Resources, will need to issue a letter on the water rights, stating that there will be no material injury to existing water rights in the area. The water rights are backed a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District that will be transferred to the HOA with the final plat for the property, but there need to be provisions in the covenants requiring the maintenance ofthose water rights by guarantying the payment of the water rights contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Prior to the approval any Final Plat, each well permit will be approved by the State Division of Water Resources and each well will be drilled and meet the following criteria: l. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 2. A wetl completion report demonstrating the depth ofthe well, the characteristics ofthe aquifer and the static water level; 3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; 4. A written opinion ofthe person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number ofproposed lots; 5. An assumption of an average ofno less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per persorq per day; 6. Ifthe well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance ofthe system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs; 7 . The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. 6 D. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (CRFPD). The CRFPD noted in a letter during the sketch plan process that the proposed access should be adequate for fire protection purposes. Additionally they asked for 30,000 gallons ofbackup water storage for flre protection and that each unit have sprinklers. Zancanella & Associates (ZA) noted in a letter dated 8/23100 that the proposed water system improvements for the Mayfly Bend subdivision will include a joint 30,000 gallon storage tank, to be shared with the proposed Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision (RFP). There is no flre protection plan included in the Roaring Fork Preserve subdivision application. . Water for fire protection will be limited to water carried on fire apparatus and tanker shuttle, since there is no other fire protection water included in either tlus application or the Mayfly Bend subdivision application. The Preliminary Plan application does not have any information or proposals for the placement ofa water storage tank with 10,000 gallons of water or a proposal for residential sprinkler systems. E. Sewer: Individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) are proposed for each lot. High Country Engineering recommends an engineered aerobic system that provides secondary treatment, due to a need to protect the high groundwater and surlace water in the area The engineer notes that there are a number ofaerobic systems available on the market that have options for primary and secondary treatment. All of these systems require oxygen as an essential part oftreatment, which means they have mechanical pumps, compressors, motors and electronics to maintain ideal conditions for bacterial growth. Because of all of these components, these systems are more expensive to purchase, install and maintain. The covenants have been modified to require the lot owners to follow maintenance procedures appropriate to their system, including the hiring of"qualified personnel" to inspect and maintain the ISTS's in the development. The same covenants give the HOA enforcement procedures and remedies to make sure that the systems are properly repaired and marntained. As a pan of his review, JeffNelson, Assistant County Engineer, has expressed some reservations about the use ofthe ISTS as a means ofproviding sewage disposal. He notes that the location has a number of environmental constraints such as groundwater contamination, wetland destruction and downstream water contamination. Gven the high level of maintenance required for these systems, he has suggested that the applicant's explore the possibility of connecting to the Ranch at Roaring Fork sewage treatment facility; building their own small package plant or evenjust engineered mound type systems, instead ofthe ISTS proposed. As a staff, we concur that the proposed IST 7 systems are technologically far advanced to existing systems, but in the process of devetoping a more sophisticated individual seivage treatment system, we have developed a management and maintenance nightmare. The County has approved a similar type of treatment system for the Cerise Ranch subdivision, but we have no real experience in determining whether or not we have gone past the logical level of treatment of sewage on an individual lot basis. In the case of the Cerise Ranch subdivision, the Mid-Valley Metro District did not receive approval to extend services farther into Garfield county. This development has not really explored the possibility of either connecting into the Ranch at Roaring Fork or developing their own small package plant for themselves and possibly the Mayfly Bend subdivision. In a worst case scenerio, staffwould suggest that engineered mound type of systems may be more logical, provided there is a required maintenance and repair program deveioped for the property. lfthe proposed ISTS is agreed upon as the approved method of sewage treatment, there are a number ofissues that need to be modified in the proposed covenants. Section 9.4 (B)(i) requires the HOA to retain the "services ofqualified personnel to inspect the ISTS's. . ..". The qualified person should be defined at a minimum as a Class C Wastewater Treatment Operator, licensed by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. The reason being that a class c operator is required to be knowledgeable about the operation of aerobic systems. Additionally, the applicants need to select a specific technology for the development, to make sure that the "qualified individual" can bi consistent in deating with a specific technology The applicant's engineer needs to select the technology and include the specific technology in the design guidelines F Radiation/Soils/Topograohy: HP Geotech states that the site is not in a geologic setting that would indicate high concentrations of radioactive materials in the natural soils and underlying rock formation. Once buildings are constructed, it is possible to test for radon gas concentrations. According to FIP Geotech, the property is suitable for the proposed development. HP further states that their recommendations are suitable for preliminary design, but site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot development. Hazirds include flooding and potential sinkholes. A hydrologist should evaluate the flooding potential at the site. The risk for subsidence is believed to be low; however, lot purchasers should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development. They also iecommend spread footings, shallow foundations, and slab-on-grade lower floor construction. Mounded septic systems will likely be needed, which will necessitate additionat testing for design on individual lots. The applicant notes that plat notes and covenants have been amended to ensure disclosure ofpotential geologic hazards and/or costs to individual lot owners. Staffhas not received the comments from the Colorado Geologic Survey at the time of wrifing this report. If the CGS concurs with the recommendation of the HP Geotech report, staffwould suggest that all recommendations ofHP Geotech become conditions of approval. 8 G FloodplainAV H etlandsr The Prelimin ary Plan locates the 100 year floodplain along the northern boundary ofthe property. According to the plan, portions of Lots'l and 2 extend into the 100 yr. floodplain. The building envelopes for these lots are outside of the designated floodplain areas. A plat note and covenant should be included in the documentation that alerts the owners ofLots I and 2, that any activity in the floodplain on their lots, will require a Special Use permit. The applicant has submitted a wetland identification report from Beach Environmental dated 9/19/00. The report notes that there are no wetlands on Lots l-4 and 9. Lots 5-8 all have wetlands on them. Beach Environmental made a number of recommendations regarding the movement of building envelopes to avoid wetlands on the lots. Staffwould concur and suggest that the applicant revise the building envelope configuration and submit the revisions to Beach Environmental to confirm the locations and consistency with their recommendations. That a letter from Beach Environmental be submitted as a part ofany Final Plat application, certirying the location of all ofthe building envelopes' Beach Environmental also identified a road crossing that would require a 404 permit. Included in the apptication is a letter from the Corps ofEngineers, acknowledging the proposed crossing as being subject to a nationwide permit and assigning a number to the application. wildlife: The Dow submitted detailed comments at the sketch plan phase. They stated that the main wildlife value of this area is riparian and wetland. This habitat type is extremely valuable to mule deer, coyote, red fox, raccoon, waterfowl, raptors, owls, and many small mammals and songbirds. The hay meadow has less wildlife value. According to the DOW, as long as the following recommendations are followed, wildlife impacts should be minimal: L lfaccessory dwelling units are allowed on lots 5-8, it would be preferable that they be attached units. other wise, they should be clustered as close to the main homes as possible to limit their area of disturbance within the building envelope. 2. The building envelopes for lots I and 2 should be situated as close to lots 3 and 4 as possible to protect the movement corridor along the river. 3. Wetland and riparian habitats are identified, protected and maintained in a natural state as much as possible. 4. The natural vegetation, including the cottonwoods and rvillows, is very valuable and should be left undisturbed as much as possible. If any ofthe trees present a danger to a structure, then they should be topped rather than removed completely. These snags provide roosting and perching sites for raptors and other birds. 5. Home sites should be set back from riparian/wetland areas 50-100 feet to help protect these areas and minimize disturbance. 6. Bury all utilities or make them raptor-proofto prevent electrocution ofowls, raptors, and eagles. 9 7. No dogs allowed on site by construction. 8. Limit the number of dogs which homeowners may have to 2, with additional restrictions that dogs must stay in kennels and not be allowed to roam free. Roaming and uncontrolled dogs will have a major negative impact to wildlife in the area. Waterfowl nesting and use of the riparian area would be disrupted. Additionally, the site's close proximity to critical winter range in the Crown would make it easy for roaming dogs to harass deer and elk in the area. The DOW recommends this restriction be made a condition ofapproval. 9. Wildlife proofor resistant trash/garbage containers should be utilized for the homes to prevent problems with wildtife. 10. The plan mentions that rail fencing may be used along lot lines, He recommended 48 inch. 3 rail or less, split rail fencing for this purpose. I l. Although there has not been a problem in the past, ifhorse hay is to be stored outside existing buildings in a free-standing stack, then it should be fenced at the owners' expense with 8'high game prooffencing. This will prevent game damage to the stack and the luring of animals across the county road. Staffnotes the previous discussion regarding attached versus detached accessory dwelling units. Ifthe applicants were to incorporate the recommendations ofthe DOW for attached units, the individual homeowners will have to get a Special Use Permit for the extra unit. It cannot be approved as a part ofthe subdivision review process. The apptication inctudes a wildlile study done by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc.. The report concludes that there will be impacts to wildlife, but not to any endangered, threatened or special concern species. The impacts to wildlife are possible to mitigate to a degree, provided the recommendations ofthe consultant are incorporated into the covenants and design ofthe subdivision. It should be noted that both the DOW and the consultant recommend a maximum number ofdogs in excess ofthe subdivision regulation limit ofone (l) dog per house. The consultant also notes a need for the HOA of the subdivision to "hold the CDOW harmless from any and all claims for damage to landscaping improvements, fencing , ornamental and native plants, and garden plants resulting from the activities of wildlife." Additionally he suggests a $ 1000 fee be imposed one time on home owners to be spent for conservation projects within the development or the donation ofall or a portion ofthe money to the DOW for mule deer habitat projects. The covenants do not appear to incorporate the all ofthe recommendations listed by the DOW and Beattie Natural Resource Consluting, Inc.. The "hold harmless" clause should also be a plat note on any final plat and the suggested payment ofthe one time HOA payment for wildlife conservation purposes. l. Road/Access: The application proposes a single access directly offof CR 100, via a 60 ft. right-of-way , with a22 ft. wide chip and seal driving surface, that is also to provide access to the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision. Lots l-5 are accessed via a 1006 ft l0 J Road "N' will serve as access to the proposed Mayfly Bend subdivision and is being proposed as a Rural Access standard road as required. Road "A" and Road "B", which is a 1006 ft. long cul-de-sac, do not have any emergency access proposed as a part ofthe design. Dead end streets are discouraged by Section 9:33 B ofthe Subdivision Regulations. According to section 9:33, cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under the following circumstances: Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are nol more than six hundred feet (600') in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty'Jive feet (45 ') from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and frfty foot (50') right-tf-way for residential developmenl ...The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for toprtgraphical reasons and it can be provecl thatfire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer clesign; Road "A" is technicalty an approxtmately 1800 ft. long dead end road, since there is nothing in the application demonstrating that the owners ofthe property in the Roaring Fork Preserve have any right to emergency access through the property proposed for the Mal,fly Bend subdivision. Road "B" is presently shown as a cul-de-sac about 1006 feet in length and does not have any proposed emergency access either. This is not consistent with the Subdivision Regulations. As long as the applicant shortens the lengh of the dead end, provides a cul-de-sac, and proves that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part ofthe longer design, the Board has the auihority to approve the subdivision. Road "C" will have to be a dedicated roadway, which is separately dedicated to the HOA as a public road. It appears that Lots 7-9 will use this roadway as access to the lots. It will have to be built to a "Semi-primitive" road standard, which is a 40' ROW and two 8' wide driving lanes. Section 3.6 ofthe covenant appears to propose that the primary roadway easement for the subdivision will not be dedicated to the public by the Declarant. Section 9.34 requires all streets to be dedicated to the public. Drainage: The application states that the natural drainage will be left intact, which will result in the overland flow foltowing the historic paths. The existing drainage collects in ditches and the Roaring Fork River. This pattern will not be changed, except where drainage will be diverted for roadways. No detention ponds are proposed, since the engineers feel the historic drainage paths will be adequate to convey any flows on the site t1 long cul-de-sac with a 58' radius and a 16 ft. rvide chip and seal dnving surface. Lots 8 and 9 are to be served by a 30 ft. wide access and utility easement with a 12 ft. wide chip and seal surface that ends at Lot 8. K. Assessment / Fees: As determined b y recently amended Section 9:81 olthe Subdivision Regulations, the applicant will be required to dedicate a portion ofthe gross land area for open space, parks, or schools, or pay fees in lieu thereof. The property owner should be aware that the current agricultural valuation status ofthe property will change following subdivision. Currently, there is no road impact fee established in this area. In the event any lees increase before the time offinal plat, the increased fees shall be paid. The applicant should be aware that he has the cost responsibility of all required subdivision improvements as specified in the SIA and by the final plat requirements. L. Other Utilities: Hol y Cross will provide electricity. Public Service will provide natural gas. U.S. West will provide telephone. No cable television is available in the area but satellite dish systems (8"-20") will be available. All utilities shall be buried. M. Plat Notes and/or Covenants. Etc The following items need to be added to modify the covenants : 1) In no case shall a yard area greater than 7,500 square. 2) Only the northern portion ofthe property actually borders the Roaring Fork fuver. The covenants should clearly indicate that private property rights exist and that no trespassing shall occur on the bordering property. Preferably, the applicant would obtain a fishing easement for HOA members. 3) There are no Articles oflncorporation (Aol) proposed by the applicant must be filed at the time of final plat. 4) Page 10, Section 7.3 needs to be modified to restrict building heights to 25 feet, since that is the maximum allowed by zoning and cannot be overridden by covenant. 5) Page 13, Section 8.7 needs to be modified to restrict each lot to a maximum ofone (l) dog per lot. 6) The design guidelines need to modified to require the installation of individual fire protection sprinklers in each residential dwelling. 7,) The applicant needs to conduct a noxious weed survey and identiS recommendations for the removal certain aggressive weeds. The covenants must contain a detailed noxious weed management strategy and contain provisions for the HOA to enforce such a program, RECOMMEND ED FINDINGS That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 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; t2 t 2 That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest ofthe health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare ofthe citizens of Garfield County; That the application is in conformance with the I 978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 provided the density is one (1) unit per l0 acres. That the application is in general conformance with Study Area I ofthe Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of2000, provided the density is one (1) unit per 10 acres. . VI, STAFFRECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Roaring Fork Preserve Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the Board of County Commissioners, with the following conditions, provided the proposed accessory dwellings are eliminated from the application: The applicant must conduct a noxious weed survey and identi$ recommendations for the removal certain aggressive weeds, prior to the Board of County Commissioners approval of a Preliminary Plan. The covenants shall be amended to include the following language, "It is the individual lot owner's responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Garfield County Weed Management Plan, to manage any noxious weeds on their property." The covenants shall be amended to also include a specific written noxious weed management plan which details such things as who will apply chemicals, when they will be applied, how often they will be applied. who will pay for such services, and which designates that all common areas including roadsides, open space, barn area, and utility easements shall be treated for noxious weeds. The weed surl'ey and amended covenants shall be submitted to stafffour (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable stafl including Steve Anthony, to review the information, make comments, and request amendments as needed. A detailed, written, Vegetation Management Plan (in accordance with 4.06 of the Revegetation Guidelines of the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan) shall be submitted to staffat least four (4) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan, to enable staff, including Steve Anthony, to review the information, make comments, and request amendments as needed. The revegatation plan shall include a plant material list (common and scientific names), planting schedule, ) 4 5 6 2 13 L J methods & techniques, and provisions for watering and fertilization lmpact fees shall be paid to the Fire District prior to finalization of the final plat. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations ofthe Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. The applicant shall receive a recommendation from the Colorado Division. of Water Resources stating that there will be no material injury to water rights in the area. Prior to Tlteapproval any Final Plat, each well permit will be approved by the State Division of water Resources and each well will be drilled and meet the following criteria: L That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth ofthe well, the characteristics ofthe aquifer and the static water level; 3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; 4. A wdtten opinion ofthe person conducting the well test that ttus well should be adequate to supply water to the number ofproposed lots; 5. An assumption of an average ofno less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons ofwater per person, per day; 6. Ifthe well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance ofthe system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs; 7. The water quality betested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines conceming bacteria and nitrates. ar o ounty ommlsslo a the selection ofISTS as the preferred method ofsewage disposal. The analysis will review or sewage treatment system, @lity. If the ISTS is deemed to be the preferred method of sewage treatment, Section 9.4 (BXi) needs to define the qualified person as an individuat with,at a minimum, a Class C Wastewater Treatment Operator license from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Additionally, the applicants need to selectaspecificISTStechnologyforthedevelopment.T@ S n or to the Board of County Commissioners hearin Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's recommendations shall be followed. Site specific studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need lor site specific studies shall be disclosed in the covenants and on the plat in the form of a plat note. 4 5 6 t4 m@needed. 7 All building envelopes shall be redesignated to be consistent with the recommendations of Beach Environmental recommendations and the new building envelopes will be certified on the preliminary ptan, to enable stafl including the County Engineer, to review the cor4mr-v- information, make comments, and request amendments as needed 8 9. All utilities shall be buried 4 ,7 il Articles of lncorporation shall be proposed by the applicant prior to the approval of the preliminary plan that must be filed at the time of final plat. l?. The covenants shall be amended as fbllows *#.hbtr 'a>+t-,*rl l5 l) In no case shall a yard area greater than 7,500 square. 2) Only the northern portion ofthe property actually borders the Roaring Fork River. The covenants should clearly indicate that private property rights exist and that no trespassing shall occur on the bordering property. Preferably, the applicant would obtain a fishing easement for HOA members. 3) Page 10, Section 7.3 needs to be modified to restrict building heights to 25 feet, since that is the maxmum allowed by zoning and cannot be overridden by covenant. 4) Page 13, Section 8.7 needs to be modified to restrict each lot to a maximum ofone (1) dog per lot. 5) The design guidelines need to modified to require the installation ofindividual fire protection sprinklers in each residential dwelling.