HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.03.2002PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
BOCC 06103102
KKS
REQUEST: Review of a floodplain special use permit
APPLICANT: Bernard Poncelet
LOCATION: Parcel 1, Day Subdivision
ENGINEER: Sopris Engineering, Yancy Nichols
I. Description of the Proposal and Background Information:
The project site is approximately 6.5 acres in size and is located within Parcel l of Day
Subdivision near the Roaring Fork River. This portion of the county is located within a
delineated 100-year floodplain area and requires a floodplain ~ecial use permit. The property is
gently sloped in a southwesterly d irection with a defined spring and creek on the property.
Access to the property is to be provided by a driveway off of Rose Lane.
The existing ground elevation at the proposed home location was surveyed and the finished floor
elevation must be constructed at 6182. l feet in order to be one foot above the floodplain
elevation . The applicant has represented that the finished floor for the primary residence will be
6183.5 feet, which will meet the floodplain regulations.
II. Zoning Regulations and Staff Comments:
Section 6 .08 of the Zoning Resolution describes the administrative procedures to obtain a
floodplain special use permit. Any floodplain special use permit application must fulfill the
following criteria:
(1) To assure that all necessary permits have been received.from those governmental agencies
from which approval is required by Federal or State Law, including Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S. C. 1344.
(2) To determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding, and that
the structure will be in compliance with the applicable provisions for uses and standards for
construction set forth in this Resolution.
(3) To determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the
jloodway, assure that encroachment provisions of Section 6. 09. OJ (J)(A) are met.
(4) To assure that adjacent communities, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Federal
Emergency Management Agency have been notified of the proposed watercourse alteration or
relocation.
1
(5) To assure that the carrying capacity of the altered/relocated watercourse is maintained (A .
85-211)
The application as submitted has not provided a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers
approving such development. Mark Gilfillan of the U.S. Army Engineer District has responded
to this application stating that a discharge to water permit is required for this application, see
Exhibit A. The applicant has represented that a mistake has occurred on the plat in the labeling
of 'spring' and 'creek', thus resulting in a misunderstanding in required permits with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. These issues are listed in a letter from Gary Beach of Beach
Environmental LLC, Exhibit B. The applicant will be required to resolve these issues with the
Army Corps of Engineers. The project is not located within a floodway and does not propose
altering a watercourse, nor will it alter the capacity of the watercourse.
Section 6 .09.02 specifically addresses Flood Fringe/Flood Prone Areas :
(1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the Flood
Fringe/Flood Prone Areas:
(A) The de velopment, use, fill, construction, substa ntial improve me nt or alteration o n or
above any portion of the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas which alone, or cumulatively
with other activities, would cause or res ult in the danger of substantial solid debris being
carried downstream by floodwaters.
This project will not cause substantial debris being carried downstream by floodwaters.
(B) Th e storage or processing of materials that in times of flooding ar e buoy ant,
flammable, explos ive or otherw ise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life.
This project will not result in the storage or processing of materials that would be injurious to
humans in times of flooding.
(C) The disposal of garbage or other solid waste mate rials.
This project will not result in the disposal of garbage or other solid waste material.
(D) Any obstruction which would adversely affe ct the efficiency of or restrict the flow
capacity of a designated flo odplain so as to cause fores eeable damag e t o others.
This project will not cause an obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency or restrict the
flow capacity of a designated floodplain .
(2) Perm issible Uses. All Special Uses permitted in th e Floodway, and all lawful uses p ermitted
by th e underly ing zoning , subject to S ection 6. 09. 02(1) of this Regulation and th e regulations
co nce rning the Special Us e Permit, are permitted in the Flo od Fringe and Flo od Prone
2
Areas.
A single family residence is a permissable use in the AIR/RD zone district.
(3) Performance Standards. The foll owing performance standards must be met for development
in the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas:
(A) The lowest floor, including basement, of any new or substantially improved building
designed for residential occupancy shall not be less than one (1) foot above the maximum
water elevation of the JOO Year Flood
All proposed features have elevations one foot above the 100 year floodplain.
(B) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be reasonably safe from
flooding.
All proposed improvements will be safe from flooding.
(C) Any new construction or substantial improvement designed for commercial or
industrial uses shall either:
(i)Elevate the lowest floor level, including basement, to not less than one (l)foot above
the maximum water surface elevation of the 100 Year Flood; or
(ii) Provide flood-proofing improvements so that below an elevation of one (1) foot above
the maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood, the structure, together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities, is water tight with walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water. Structural components shall be capable of resisting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. Evidence shall be
submitted and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood
proofing meet the standards as set forth herein.
All proposed improvements are one foot above the 100 year Floodplain and are safe from flooding.
(D) Any proposed development shall be reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator to
insure that the potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood is minimized, that all public
utilities and facilities are located, designed and constructed so as to minimize damage by the
100 Year Flood and that adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
The potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood has been minimized by elevating the finished
floor elevation of all structures to one foot above the 100 year floodplain.
(E) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed and adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, be constructed with materials
and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and be constructed by methods that
minimize flood damage.
3
All proposed construction will be adequately anchored.
(F) New or replacement water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems shall be
designed so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters. On-site individual
sewage disposal systems shall be located so as to avoid impairment of them or
contamination from them during a JOO Year Flood.
The applicant will locate the ISDS system within the design area of the building envelope per the
recommendations of HP Geotech, Inc. as described in their report dated November 25, 1997. The
applicant will have to obtain a septic permit as part of the builCling permit process.
III. Recommended Findings:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were not submitted and that all interested
parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of
1978, as amended.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed floodplain special use permit
cannot be determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
IV. Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners continue the floodplain special use
permit application concerning proposed improvements due to the following reasons:
1. Planning Staff shall have time to review the revised plat.
2. The applicant shall provide a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approving the
revised plat and proposed improvements.
4
is:x I
•
··~
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922
May 13, 2002
Regulatory Branch (200275225)
Ms. Kim Schlagel
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Ms. Schlagel:
We are responding to your written request for comment on the
Poncelet Parcel development project. The project site is located
near the Roaring Fork River within Lots 6 and 8, Section 35,
Township 7 South, Range 88 West, Garfield County, Colorado.
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a
Department of the Army permit is required for any discharge
(including mechanized land clearing) of dredged or fill material
in waters of the United States. Within the context of Section
404, "waters of the United States" are defined as the territorial
seas; perennial and ephemeral streams; lakes, ponds,
impoundments; and wetlands. Federal law requires that any
individual or entity proposing to discharge into waters of the
United States obtain a Department of the Army permit prior to
commencing such work. To aid the applicant, we have enclosed a
list of wetland consultants who routinely perform wetland
delineations and are familiar with the Section 404 permit
process.
We have assigned number 200275225 to this project. Please
refer to this number as a Department of the Army permit is
required on this development project. If you have any questions,
please write to me or telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 15.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
M~~i~ologist
Colorado/Gunnison Basin
Regulatory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563
Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 303,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Beach Environmental. LLC
715 W. Main
Suiffo J04
Ao;P"" (.0$1'11 I
Tf!l 1970} ?7.5-3475
""•i5-47S4
Mark Bean, Director
Kim Schlagel, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
l 09 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Sent Via Telefax at 970-384-3470
Dear Mark and Kim:
May28,2002
Re: Bernard Poncelet Property
I have been retained by Bernard Poncelet to address issues raised by Mark Gi lfallin of
the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers regarding possible wetland impacts associated with
proposed development upon the Poncelet property. The issues raised in Mr. Gilfallin's
letter are customary in nature and suggest that a site evaluation fOr wetland impacts be
completed.
l spoke with Mr. Gllfallin on May 24 1h and he verbally acknowledged that his concerns
related to the proximity of wetlands and springs to the expanded building envelope
and he questioned whether the culvert shown on the drawings was installed within a
ditch (sc;imetimes referred to as a creek) orwa~ pl'Opos-edtO be installed.
I have addressed these issues with Mr. Gilfallin and believe the sc~duled hearing on
Jtu1e 3, 2002 can proceed, with your approval, for the following reasons; I) I have
advised Mt. Gilfa!lin that the culvert is installed in an irrigation ditch and not a creek
and l believe thfa adequately addresses that concern; 2) the spring shoWD on the
drawing appears to have been labeled by the surveyors and may not be a spring (a
drain was previously installed to reduce the impact of seepage from the ditch and it is
possible that this is wliat has been referred to as a spring); 3)Mr. Poncclet intends to
comport with all setbacks from wetlands or other jurisdictional areas; 4) Garfield
County can approve the establishment of an expanded building envelope while
preserving all setback requirements within the envelope.
Finally, Beach Environmental can review tho site for potential conflicts with wetlands
prior to the commencement of construction. Any conflicts can be mapped and any
required pennits would be sought.
I
\
l
I
BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
May28, 2002
,.....,._,.,...__. ............. ··~
Page2
I am available to answer any questions you might have (ega.rding Mr. Poncelet' s
proposed building envelope modification,
1::..,, ..•• _
Sincerely,
0261 L gan:o b&p.wpd
cc: Poncelct
Additional Exhibits for Poncelet Floodplain Special Use Permit
(This is a continued public hearing from June 3, 2002)
Exhibit I: Staff Memo from Mark Bean to the Garfield County Board of
County Commissioners dated 6/13/02. (Already in
Commissioner's packet)
Exhibit J: Letter from Gary Beach of Beach Environmental to Mark Bean
dated June 7 , 2002.
Exhibit K: Letter from Yancy Nichol of Sopris Engineering to Kim
Schlagel dated June 3.
FvJ J ~n ~ yvt~[l,
JvJv/ J Jt-I 1-1 'J-t?efZ .
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Board of County Commissioners
Mark Bean
6/13/02
Poncelet Special Use Permit
Garfield County
Building & Planning
The Poncelet Floodplain Special Use permit application was continued to 6/17/02, to
allow the applicants to acquire a letter from the Corps of Engineers stating that there
is no need for a 404 permit. As of Thursday, June 13, 2002, staff had not received a
letter from the Corps of Engineers, but the applicant's representatives had assured
staff that the letter will be received prior to the Board considering the issue.
If the applicanfs do not receive a letter prior to the meeting, any continuance of the
hearing will require the applicant to waive the requirement of a decision within 60
days of the determination of the application being in technical compliance.
1
ll E )lk:L1-+ J
Beach Environmental, LLC
Mark Gilfallin, Biologist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
402 Rood A venue
Grand Junction, CO 81501-2563
Re: . Poncelet Property
Dear Mark:
June 7, 2002
A field investigation of the Poncelet property was completed yesterday afternoon and
confirmed that the mapping previously proviaed to you and Garfield County incorrectly
labeled the Slough and Banning Ditch as a creek, and also incorrectly identified a rock
drain from the on-site septic tank as a spring. A revised map copy is provided as an
attachment to this letter. ·
The Slough and Banning Ditch is a large local ditch diverting from the left bank of the
Roaring Fork River approximately 1.25 miles upstream of the Poncelet Property. This
Ditch runs continuously throughout the year and flows across the Poncelet property
through both an open ditch and two 42" corrugated metal pipe culverts. These culverts
provide access across the ditch to the northern portion of the Poncelet property (see
attached photo).
The spring identified on the Sopris Engineering drawing is not a spring. Rather, it is a
rock and cobble drain installed at the time of constructing the individual sewage
treatment system to keep water seeping from the ditch from infiltrating the septic tank.
This drain daylights at the point previously labeled "spring" on the submittal drawings .
Consequently, we believe the concerns expressed in your May 13, 2002 letter to Garfield
County have been resolved. There is a County hearing scheduled for Monday June 17,
2002 to review Mr. Poncelet's request for a change to his building envelope. A letter
from you to the County prior to that time advising that your concerns have been answered
would be of great help to Mr. Poncelet.
Sincere ly,
By_~-++-~-L_.._Be-+-"h =:____ Pnn~t?h
71 5 W. Main
Suite 304
Aspen , CO 8161 1
Tel (970) 925-3475
f ax 925-4754
0261 uscoe clarify.wpd
cc: Poncelet
K. Schlagel
Sopris Eng.
"
.. . ~
Ii .,
..
. ll .-' ~ ~ ~ ~
= ~ ~ i • •
R Q ~ ~ . ~ . ~a ~ a ~ a • < l • , . _,,, J+81.117 W\t • .. z
...,
I'"• ...
""""' I • 10'
'~ '
PROFILE
DRIVEWAY
___ ./ J
• ~ :
• •
'
""'
! •
~
!
GRAPHIC SCALE
~--;..i i i i
(IH1'D!)
lbloli.•401t.
i
,._
··-..... .. flNIStlEll Ft.OOR (ff) El.tYATION rE 11111.1'
llAllTNNJIO A l.O' A80V£ ntE 100 . "-"" Pl.ML lHE FF. HAS llEDI SEl' AT 118l.S
1H[ 100 'r£AAI Fl.000 PIJ<fi.
""
Z.4' A80YE
" """' 1IOH wsr EE ECIUAI. fQ 1Hli: FF or
""""" .......
OPRJS EMUNEERINC, UC.
'IYIL CONSULT.
NO DAT REVISION sr
CAlfBOND.ALE, COJ/JIWJO
PONCELET RESIDENCE
PARCEL f
DAY SUBDIVISION
SflE PLAN
502 MAii STAttr, stnTE l<J DES. RTJI CK
CARBOHll>U. co 111823
(1170) 71U-OJl1 DR RrJ/ DA'/'E Sfi6 2
im001356.jpg C1600 x1200x24b jpeg)
View of ro c k drain
;. f'."" f
imDD1346.jpg <16DDx12DDx24b jpeg)
Culverts installed in Sough & Banning Ditch
RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2002
Kim Schlagel
Garfield County Building Department
109 8111 Street, Suite 303
Gl e nwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Poncelet Special Use Permit
SE Job No. 22006.01
Dear Kim:
June 3, 2002 j
Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) on behalf of the Poncelt's would like to request that the Garfield Board o f C ounty
Commissioners table the special use permit until June 17 , 2002. We also requ est a w aiver of the Land U s e Code
R equirement that the hearing be held within 60 days of the complete application .
It is our opinion that we will be able to address any issues with the Anny Corps o f E ngineers by the 17 t h and that
\.Vay the special us e permit would not require a conditional approval.
Give me a call if you have any questions.
S incerel y,
SOPRJS ENGINEE RING, LLC
c: B rnard and Sydney Poncelet
Gary Beach
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0 31 3
SOPRIS ENGINEERING • llC ci vil c on sultant s
RE :Poncelet Prop erty Pa ge 1of 1
Kim Schlagel
From: Gilfillan, Mark ASPK[Mark.A.Gilfillan@usace.army.mil}
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:31 AM
To: Kim Schlagel
Subject: RE:Poncelet Property
Fred,
After review of Beach Environmental cover letter and photo submittal dated June 7 , 2002 , regarding the
Poncelet Property and our conversation of June 17, 2002 , the issues previously identified as Corps concerns
seem to have been adequately addressed . Therefore, there would not need to be Department of the Army
permit necessary for this project. However, if the project is modified such that there are impacts to "waters of
the United States", a 404 p e rmit would be required .
Regards,
Mark Gilfillan, Regulatory Biologi st
US Army Corps of Engine e rs
Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office
402 Rood Ave nue, Room 142
Grand Jun ction , Colorado 81501-2563
6/17/2002