Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.00 Staff Report D.D. 10.21.2022File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Type of Review Administrative Review – Minor Subdivision Application Fogel Minor Subdivision MISA 05-22-8897 Applicants (Owners) Lyman Fogel Representative N/A Surveyor Bookcliff Legal Description Parcel of Land Situate in the NWl/4 of the SWl/4 of Section 30, Township 5 South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. County of Garfield, State of Colorado Practical description 501 Ingersoll Lane, Silt Co Lot sizes Current 22.3 acres, proposed 2.2, 13, and 7 acres. All numbers app Zoning Rural Comprehensive Plan Silt Area of Influence, Residential Medium High (2 – 6 Acres/Dwelling unit) Type of Review Administrative Review – Minor Subdivision Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, 2013 as amended. 2 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 3 Application 4 Staff Report 5 Appendix A – Referral Comments 6 Appendix B – Public comments 7 Zang Property Line Agreement, reception #980202 8 9 10 File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 1 Staff Report I. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE The parcel is located approximately 2 acres north of the Town of Silt. The property was part of the Hammer Exemption (Tract 3) recorded at reception # 297605. The property currently has a single family home, agricultural uses, and a variety of accessory structures and buildings. A large irrigation ditch (Farmers East Lateral) operated by the Silt Water Conservancy runs through the northern section of the parcel. Two bridges cross this ditch currently, one of which was recently constructed and approved by the water conservancy. An access road runs along the southern edge of the ditch, connecting the properties to either side of the subject parcel. This road is within the irrigation ditch easement. Two ponds exist on the property as well. The existing structures, including the resident are located in the northern third of the parcel, mostly in the west. The southern majority of the lot is used as a hay field with small clustering of other vegetation. A large pole barn exists in this field. A shed exists near the northern property line. Figure 1 provides an aerial of the property and Figure 2 is a survey of existing improvements. The parcel is accessed off of a private drive that is accessed from the County Road 261A (also called Ingersoll Lane). This drive exists in a non-exclusive Easement for Right-of Way and Utilities created by the deed at Book 630 Page 324 (Reception #343626) and goes along the northern and then eastern 35 feet of the adjacent lot until the drive intersects with the County Road. II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal will divide the existing parcel into three pa rcels. Lot A will be in the northeast corner and approximately 2.042 acres. Lot A will contain the existing home. Lot B will be on the eastern and southern portions of the parcel, accessed by a new driveway coming off of Ingersoll Lane, and will be approximately 13.862 Acres, Lot C will be in the western section of the parcel and approximately 6.472 acres and will contain the pole barn. Figure 3 shows the proposed final plat. Lot A will continued to be accessed by the existing driveway, which will pass tho ugh it to Lot C on a 20 foot easement.Lot B’s access drive will come off of the existing drive and go immediately south over the irrigation ditch. A 30 foot irrigation and access easement contains this driveway. The easement continues as a 20 foot access and irrigation easement along the eastern boundary of Lot B. The application proposes to use a shared well system. The existing well (physically located on proposed lot three, see Figure 4) is permitted, allowing for 7 dwelling units. A draft shared well agreement is included in the application. The application proposes to have individual OWTS on each lot. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The minor subdivision will bring the density of the 22 acres about into the range envisioned by medium high land use designation. Som e types of agricultural uses could be maintained, especially on Lots B and C. File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 2 Figure 1 Aerial Image File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 3 Figure 2 Existing Conditions File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 4 Figure 3 Proposed Final Plat File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 5 IV. AUTHORITY - APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Land Use and Development Code, as amended provides the primary source of regulatory elements related to the application. Any plat notes or similar rest rictions previously recorded will also be considered, as all as any applicable county, state, or federal statutes. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 provides additional insight into the long-range consideration of land use decisions. While some portions of the Code are quoted below, the entirety of the Code was considered. Additional discussion included further in this report 5-301 Minor Subdivision C. Review Criteria In considering a Minor Subdivision application, the application shall demonstrat e the following: a. It complies with the requirements of the applicable zone district and this Code, including Standards in Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4. b. It is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. Shows satisfactory evidence of a legal, physical, adequate, and dependable water supply for each lot. d. Satisfactory evidence of adequate and legal access has been provided. e. Any necessary easements including, but not limited to, drainage, irrigation, utility, road, and water service have been obtained. f. The proposed Subdivision has the ability to provide an adequate sewage disposal system. g. Hazards identified on the property such as, but not limited to, fire, flood, steep slopes, rockfall and poor soils, shall be mitigated, to the extent practicable. h. Information on the estimated probable construction costs and proposed method of financing for roads, water distribution systems, collection systems, storm drainage facilities and other such utilities have been provided. i. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer’s Office. j. Road impact fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. School Land Dedication fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat in accordance with 7-404. k. The Final Plat shall meets the requirements of Section 5-402.F. Final Plat with staff and referral comments prior to execution and recording. V. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Summaries of shorter comments are provided below. Appendix A contain compete letters for longer referral responses. Appendix B provides copies of public comments that could not be included in the below section. File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 6 Referral comments Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, P.E.- Provided comments (included in full in Appendix A of this report) regarding: 1) Easements for shared well need to be included on final plat. 2) A copy of the new well permit shall be provided. 3) Information related to water treatment shall be provided and the shared well agreement altered to include maintenance of any treatment system. 4) Notes that OWTS systems may need to be designed by licensed engineer. 5) Requested more information on the private drive’s connection to the County Road, whether it was up to standards for the expanded use. 6) Requested that the applicant receive correspondence from the Fire Marshal to verify response to Item 7-109 of the LUDC. Colorado Geologic Survey, Jill Carlson C.E.G.- had no major concerns with the proposal, but provided advisory comments related to hydrocompactive soils . CGS recommends site-specific geotechnical investigation for future structures. Full comments provided in Appendix A. Silt Water Conservancy District, Tina Bergonzini – Had no concerns with the application, including the new bridge crossing the ditch. Indicated that the upper lots will not be alloca ted any water from the Silty project, while the lower lot will be allocated 20 acrefeet.. Colorado River Fire and Rescue, Orrin Moon - Conducted a site vista and no objections or concerns with the proposal. Garfield County Sheriff's Office, Levy Burris – No comments or issues with the proposal Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Brian Gray – Due to the size and surrounding development of the proposal, had no concerns. Garfield County Environmental Health, Ted White, PE – Had no comments on the application with regards to OWTS. Mr. White provided additional comments related to Uranium levels in the drinking water, as follows: “Water quality tests performed on the well indicate that uranium levels above the Maximum Contaminate Levels (MCLs) of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards (Regulation 11) were found in the water supplied by the well on the property, and that secondary treatment of the supply water for uranium should be provided for residences that will be served by the well. We recommend that this secondary treatment be a condition of approval for the final plat of the subdivision.” Garfield County Assessor’s Office, Casey Lawrence – asked that intent statement be included on the plat. Language could be similar to “The intent of this Minor Subdivision Plat is to re- subdivide Tract C per Resolution No. 79-106 reception no. 297605 into Lots A, B & C of the Fogel Minor subdivision as shown herein.” Colorado Division of Water Resources, Megan Sullivan PE – Provided review of the current permit, water contract, and pump test. Recommended requiring that the well permit be updated File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 7 to allow the uses allowed under the new contract, the contract be maintained, and the well be operated in compliance with the conditions of the permit’s approval. Public comments Staff received public comments from three neighbors. A fourth (Andrew Self, 350 Ingersoll Ln) reached out and staff returned their call but never received detailed comments from the individual. Martin and Sharon Morgan, 0193 Ingersoll – “To whom it concerns at the director of community development. This is in regards to the certified letter we recieved for the Fogel minor subdivision at 501 Ingersoll ln silt co G arfield county assessor parcel #212530300085. Our main concern is the control of traffic we already have new ones moved in that go way too fast and now are adding more drivers we were thinking maybe speed bumps” John Cretti, 415 CR 250 – Submitted a letter via email opposing the subdivision on several grounds. Full letter in Appendix B . 7) Environmental concerns related to habitat and vegetation. 8) Disruptive noise and light. 9) Wildlife displacement. 10) Illegal firearm discharge. Susan Armstrong, Ingersoll Lane Resident – Delivered a letter opposing the development. The complete letter is included in Appendix B. Concerns summarized below. 11) Water availability and the impact of the proposed shared well on surrounding wells. 12) Expressed concerns about the access into the proposed subdivision. A single lane for ingress and egress. Also expressed concerns about increases in traffic county and unregulated speed. 13) Concerns about increased population density in general, including noise and garbage VI. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA Code Analysis 1) Section 4-301 Administrative Review - The applicant fulfilled the notice requirements for an Administrative Review. File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 8 2) Section 4-203.D Site Plan - An existing conditions site plan was included in the application. Staff used this to determine th at identified structures appear to be in compliance with current zoning regulations. 3) Section 4-203. M Water Supply/Distribution Plan – The application included an application to DWR for a change to the existing permit. This application included previous permit information and water court findings, as well as signed contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy. The contract indicated an updated well permit should be issued, while the pr evious permit indicated it needed an augmentation in place, stating “All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a plan for augmentation is in effect.”. The consulting engineer noted that some contaminants were assessed ov er CDPHE’s MCL’s and recommended a water purification system be proposed and installed. Staff consulted with Environmental Health regarding the water quality report and standards . While several secondary drinking water standards were exceeded, Environmental Health’s primary concern regarded uranium which was measured at 31.9 ug/l, exceeding the adopted MCL of 30 ug/l. Staff recommends a water treatment system to bring the level of uranium down to beneath the MCL. Environmental Health indicated that previous minor subdivisions have provided adequate treatment systems. In addition, the shared well agreement would need to be augmented to address maintenance for the treatment system. The application included a pump test report which indicated adequate physical w ater. It is possible that future conditions may impede the well’s production. The Declaraction of Water Sharing Convenants included langauge for easements regarding the shared well and the service lines, including language that these would be included on the final plat. While there are access and utility easements for both lots B and C, it is unclear if these are intended to serve as the water line easements. No easement is included in the proximate location of the well, which is not shown on the final plat. The final plat should include all necessary easements. DWR provided comments noting that a new well permit should be acquired such that it matches the allowed uses as the water contract with West Divide Water Conservancy, including number of units and outside uses. They provided some comment on the adequacy of the water supply and the concerns that future supply will not match current production levels. 4) Section 4-203. N Wastewater Management Plan – The application proposes that each lot by served by an individual OWTS. The provided report adequate information that OWTS systems will be acceptable on the lots. The consulting engineer noted that the report indicated shallow bedrock and that OWTS would require professional Figure 4 Well Location File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 9 design services. This is a fairly s tandard practice for OWTS systems, and the report provided preliminary information on the type of system (pressure-dosed infiltration disposal system) that would be required for the proposed lots. 5) Section 5-402.F Final Plat Staff reviewed the draft final plat. It appears that all required certificates are present. The County Assessor’s Office requested an intention statement. The numbering on the plat notes should be updated, and Staff questions whether they intended to include plat note Z. which restricts the lots from having ADU’s. Surveyor Note 3.a references the Simon Subdivision at reception 544219. Staff believes this should be referencing the Hammar Exemption at Reception #297605 and requests that the Surveyor verifies and uses the correct reference. 6) Section 5-402.I Codes Covenants, Restrictions The only covenants to be applied per the application are the Declaraction of Water Sharing Convenants discussed above under 4-203.M Water Supply/Distrubution Plan. Previous covenants were noted in the Title Commitment as being in effect. 7) Preliminary Engineering Reports. No preliminary engineering reports were provided. Roads are in placed. Engineering related to foundations and OWTS will be provided at the time of building permit. Article 7 Standards 1) Section 7-101 Zone District Use Regulations – The application will be in compliance with Rural Zoning designations. The improvement survey showed that the shed located on the northern boundary of proposed Lot A is ou tside of the side yard setback (10 ft). 2) Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and IGA’s – The proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. 3) Section 7-103 Compatibility – Several neighbors voiced concern regarding density and incompatible externalities such as noise and light. Article 7 has lightning and glare requirements (see below) as well as noise. Some concerns, such as crime and speeding would be better addressed with law enforcement, Garfield County Road and Bridge, or with the parties of the shared driveway agreement. Staff looked at the surrounding neighborhood’s lot sizes and found a wide range of parcel acreage. Two, possibly nonconforming lots exist with acreage less than 1 acre. Several lots exist with between 2 and 5 acres of area within 1,000 of the proposed minor subdivision. In general, the subdivision will be compatible with surround uses, as the proposed 2, 6, and 13 acre lots will be similarly sized to s ome existing properties. The Rural zoning permitted uses of residential and agricultural will maintain the existing uses that mirror those of surrounding properties. 4) Section 7-104 Source of Water – See Section 4.203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan above for more discussion. File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 10 5) Section 7 -105 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater systems – See Section 4.203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan above for more discussion. 6) Section 7-106 Public Utilities – Adequate access to public utilities exists or is planned and providers have verified service. 7) Section 7-107 Access and Roadways – Primary access to the subdivision is provided via a private driveway from CR 261A (Ingersoll Lane). County Road and Bridge provided no comments relat ed to the application. The consulting engineer expressed a desire for additional information related to the access driveway’s connection to 261A being adequate and the adequacy of the driveway to provide the level of service necessary for three lots. The current driveway is within a 35 -foot easement and is approximately 12 feet wide. Orrin Moon expressed no concerns regarding emergency ingress and egress. Comments from neighbors did express concerns regarding increased traffic. Generally, a driveway servic ing a 3 lot subdivision is estimated to generate a minimum of 30 trips per day (per ITE standards for residential uses) and would need to meet the Semi-Primitive road standards of 40 foot ROW and 8 foot lanes (full requirements in Table 7 -107 of the code. Staff would recommend that the application provide a Waiver of Standards request showing that the existing drive will provide adequate access to the subdivision. The applicant may wish to provide some response to traffic speed concerns expressed by neighbors. 8) Section 7-108 Land Subject to Natural Hazards – No natural hazards were identified. 9) Section 7-109 Fire Protection – Colorado River Fire and Rescue’s Orrin Moon conducted a site visit and had no additional concerns regarding the subdivision. The application represents that two standpipes exist on proposed Lot C. 10) Section 7-201 Agricultural Lands – While all three lots could theoretically maintain some level of agricultural activity, Lots B and C would most likely continue that use due to their larger size. The application complies with these standards. a. Section 7-201.E Ditches – The application explicitly continues the easement protection of the existing lateral and engaged with the operators during the construction of the bridge across it and the di vision of water allocation. 11) Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas – CPW had no concerns due to the size of the proposal and the surround development. Several neighbors expressed concerns about the continued impact on wildlife. New fencing would be wildlife safe fencing per the plat and similar fencing was represented to ha ve been installed by the applicant. File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 11 12) Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies – No development exists withing 35 feet of the existing ponds. Staff recommends maintaining that buffer in future development or providing information showing that t he ponds are exempt from the requirements of this section. It appears the ponds would be exempt from this standard, however there is no development current proposed within the usual buffer. 13) Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion – Not applicable. 14) Section 7-205 Environmental Quality – Not Applicable 15) Section 7-206 – Wildfire Hazards – See Section 7-109. The applicant also represented that vegetative fuel would be removed as necessary to reduce risk during building permitting. 16) Section 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards – CGS provided comments related to presence of hydrocompactive soils and recommended engineered grading, drainage, and foundation design. Proposed plat note CD requires engineered foundations. 17) Section 7-208 Reclamation – Not applicable. 18) Section 7-301 Compatible Design – The proposal is largely compatible with the existing, surrounding development. Existing covenants provide some additional restrictions related to these questions. 19) Section 7-302 Off Street Parking – Not Applicable 20) Section 7-303 Landscape Plan – Not Applicable 21) Section 7-304 Lighting – A plat note is included addressing lighting. 22) Section 7-305 Snow Storage – Not Applicable 23) Section 7-306 Trails and Walkways – Not Applicable 24) Division 7 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications – School land dedication fees will be paid prior to the execution of the minor subdivision, and road impact fees would be assessed at building permit. Staff Further Analysis and Discussion There is a dispute of ownership for some of the land along the weste rn boundary of the parcel, as such staff cannot recommend approval or proceed with the application at this time. Update: Completion of the review was delayed until the applicant and their neighbor resolved the File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 12 property dispute. The applicant provided a doc ument at reception# 980202. This agreement includes a No Build Zone and protection of planted vegetation. One of the primary concerns staff has regarding the minor subdivision is traffic and access. Several of the public comments as well as the consultin g engineer raised these concerns. Staff recommends the applicant submit a waiver of standards demonstrating that the existing driveway will meet the review requirements of 4-118 Waiver of Standards (quoted below). 1) It achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; and 2) It imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Code. Staff reached out to DWR for additional inpu t on the existing well permit and application for change. The existing permit from 2009 would allow for up to 7 units and would have been sufficient for this application. Staff received updated comments from DWR which were included in the review above. Staff recommends that the well permit be updated to reflect the water contract. VII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Suggested Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Director’s Decision. 2. The Director’s Decision review was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted, and all interested parties were given the opportunity to provide input prior to the decision date. 3. With the submittal waivers and conditions of approval, the Application complies with the items of Section 5-301 Minor Subdivision. 4. That, for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Fogel Minor Subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 5. That, with adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 6. Subject to compliance with all included Conditions of Approval and approval of submitted waiver requests, the application complies with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. That all representations contained in the Application submittals shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically amended or modified by the conditions contained herein. 2. Prior to the submittal of the final plat for execution and recording, a water treatment system plan to bring the water quality into compliance will be presented. 3. Prior to the submittal of the final plat for execution, the applicant should provide a Waiver of Standards request addressing the existing driveway’s dimensions or improve the driveway to meet the requirements of a Semi-Primitive roadway. File No. MISA 05-22-8897 Director’s Determination Staff Planner - Philip Berry 21 October 2022 13 4. Prior to the submittal of the final plat for execution, an updated well permit will be provided. 5. Prior to the submittal of the final plat for execution, all School Land dedication fees shall be paid. 6. Prior to the submittal of the final plat for execution, a draft version of the plat will be provided for review by Garfield County staff and Surveyor. This draft shall demonstrate compliance with all representations and conditions of approval. A digital version of the draft final plat is required for this review. 7. A purpose/intent statement shall be added to the plat notes in accordance with the County Assessor’s Office referral comments. 8. The plat note numbering shall be updated. 9. Surveyor Note 3.a shall be reviewed an updated as necessary. 10. All easements related to water supply shall be included on the final plat. 11. Review Plate Note Z related to accessory dwelling units to determine if that is the intent of the subdivision. 12. The final plat shall include reference to the Agreement recorded at Reception #980202 and show the no build zone and vegetation to be protected per the agreement. Exhibit A 14 Exhibit A 15 Exhibit A 16 Exhibit A 17 Exhibit B 18 Exhibit B 19 Exhibit B 20 Exhibit C 21