Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportExhibits for Public Meeting held on May 28, 2008 for the Cattle Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended B Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 C Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended D Application submitted by Related WestPac E Planning Staff Review Memorandum F Email from CDOT dated 4/01/08 G Email from CDPHE dated 4/11/08 H Letter from the GCHA dated 4/21/08 Letter from Mike Hermes of RFTA dated 4/22/08 J Comments from Kristin Kenyon of RFTA K Letter of Understanding b/t Bair Chase and RFTA dated 4/11/02 L Memorandum form the County Road and Bridge Dept dated 4/7/08 M Memorandum from the County Vegetation manager dated 4/22/08 N Letter from the CDWR dated 4/08/08 0 Letter from CGS dated 4/22/08 P Letter from the CDOW dated 4/15/08 Q Review Letter from Mt. Cross Engineering dated 5/5/08 R Letter from the Town of Carbondale dated 4/21/08 Q EXHIBIT I e PC 05/28/08 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Sketch Plan review for Cattle Creek Crossing OWNER: River Bend Holding, LLC APPLICANT: Related WestPac, LLC LOCATION: Half -way between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs on SH 82 281.62 acres Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District State Highway 82 RGSD (Residential General Suburban Density) ARRD / Residential Subdivisions Study Area I (High Density Residential of 0 to <2 ac/du) PROPERTY SIZE: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION A. General Property Location The property is generally located in the western '/2 of Sections 7 and 18 of Township 7 South, Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 89 West. More practically, the property is located 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs east and adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH82) with a primary access point located opposite Cattle Creek Road as it intersects with SH82 in the lower Roaring Fork Valley. Glenwood Springs Properties to the north include two commercial parks (Eastbank & Evergreen) and a high- density mobile home park (H Lazy F). Properties to the west include a medium -density (Teller Springs) and high-density (Iron Bridge) residential development. Properties to the south include an active gravel extraction operation (LaFarge) and medium -density residential development (Aspen Glen). Properties to the east include a variety of commercial businesses (Van Rand Park), and a high-density mobile home park (Mountain Meadows Court). B. General Property Description The property (containing approximately 281.62 acres) is located in the valley floor of the Roaring Fork Valley and is configured in a linear north -south orientation with SH82 forming its east boarder and the Roaring Fork River forming its western border. Physically the property can be characterized by several benches that step down in an east to west direction towards the Roaring Fork River. The property is partially bisected by a Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) bike / pedestrian trail and is also encumbered by a perpetual conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy that protects 2 Cattle Creek as it passes through the property and along large portions of the river up and downstream from its confluence. The vegetation, land forms, and wildlife have remained intact in the easement and along the river. Beyond what has been protected in the easement, the entire property has been virtually denuded of any viable vegetation and stripped of much of its topsoil as a result of former development attempts by a previous owner which has left the property in an extremely poor condition. The ground cover is primarily characterized by cobles and gravel with three or four large piles of unanchored topsoil. Some rough grading work is also evident where the previous owner had begun to rough in a golf course. Portion of the Conservation Easement C. Brief (recent) Property History General present condition of most of property The Sanders Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 which is memorialized in Resolution 2001-27. This zoning approval (from ARRD to PUD) accommodated a site specific development plan that included a golf course, 62 single-family dwelling units and 168 multi -family dwelling units for a total average density of 1.22 acres / du or conversely, 0.81 du / acre. Subsequently, the owner of the property at the time (Sopris Development Group) sold the property to Linksvest / Bair Chase, LLC who submitted a Preliminary Plan Application in 2003 based on the PUD. Then, under the reconfigured ownership of Bair Chase Property Company, LLC, a Preliminary Plan Application was finally approved by the BOCC in 2004 which is memorialized in Resolution 2004-98. Since then, the BOCC approved a request by the Applicant made on September, 2005 to extend the time frame to submit a Final Plat Application for one year. This extension expired on September 13, 2006 and as a result, the Preliminary Plan has become void. The net result is that not only has the Preliminary Plan Application become invalid, certain obligations / timeframes contained within the Phasing Plan in the PUD have also become invalid which renders the entire PUD Plan invalid. The approved phasing plan is shown on the following page. 3 Phase Start Date Completion Date Phase I (Golf Course) June 2003 October 2005 Phase 11(22 Single family Lots) June 2004 September 2005 Phase Ill (Sopris Multi -Family) September 2004 June 2006 Phase IV (Affordable Housing Units) July 2005 October 2006 Phase V (26 Single -Family Lots & Clubhouse) March 2006 June 2007 This is also shown graphically here: Finally, on February 19, 2008, because the project timeframes in the phasing plan in the Sanders Ranch PUD (the zoning on the property) had been exceeded and completely lapsed, the Board of County Commissioners revoked approval for the uncompleted portion of the PUD and rezoned that portion to Residential General Suburban Density (RGSD) leaving the area encompassed by the conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy zoned as Open Space / Conservation District in the Sanders Ranch PUD as shown on the following page. II. SKETCH PLAN PROPOSAL The Application, in its most general sense proposes a high-density urban -style residential community comprised of a wide variety of residential types totaling 979 units which result in a density of 0.29 acres per dwelling unit or 3.4 units per acre if you include the 54 -acre conservation easement and 0.23 ac/ du or 4.31 du / ac if you exclude the easement. Other primary components include a neighborhood commercial center (25,000 sq. ft.), community facilities (24,000 sq. ft.), a school site including ball fields to be dedicated to the RE -1 School District, a firehouse (10,000 sq. ft.) to be provided to Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, and several community parks / fishing ponds. The proposed community would be constructed by the Applicant and built out in 5 phases over a ten year period. III. REFERRAL AGENCIES The Sketch Plan Application was referred to the following agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments that were received are briefly noted below and more substantively included in the body of the memorandum. a. Town of Carbondale: See Exhibit R b. City of Glenwood Springs: No Comments c. Carbondale Fire Protection District: No Comments d. RE -1 School District: No Comments e. Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District: No Comments f. Holy Cross Electric: No Comments g. Colorado State Forest Service: No Comments h. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: See Exhibit G i. Colorado Department of Transportation: See Exhibit F j. Colorado Division of Wildlife: See Exhibit P k. Colorado Division of Water Resources: See Exhibit N I. Colorado Geologic Survey: See Exhibit 0 m. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority: See Exhibits I, J, and K n. County Road and Bridge Department: See Exhibit L o. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: See Exhibit M p. Garfield County Sheriff Department: No Comments q. Garfield County Housing Authority: See Exhibit H r. Bureau of Land Management: No Comments s. US Corps of Engineers: No Comments IV. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located within Study Area I which designates the property as "High Density Residential" on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map which proposes properties in this area develop residentially at a density of 0 to <2 acres per dwelling unit. The proposed subdivision is required (at Preliminary Plan) to demonstrate that the plan conforms with or is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Note, the Comprehensive Plan includes land use goals, objectives, policies, programs, and methodology in addition to the proposed land use map. All subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments in the County are required 5 to demonstrate that their proposals conform with or are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The following section reviews the proposal against the County's Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 by topic. 1.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION An integral part of County land use planning is the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Staff Response The current proposal is a sketch plan that is reviewed in a public meeting which does not require any formal public notice other than being placed on the Planning Commission agenda that is posted in a public location 24 hours prior to the meeting. Further, as a matter of course, the public meeting commonly run by Garfield County invites public participation during the meeting. Staff also understands the Applicant has conducted several public meetings inviting neighbors to the project to come and discuss this proposal. Staff finds this goal has been adequately addressed. 2.0 HOUSING GOALS To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Housing at cost of no more than 30% of gross median income. Encourage mix of housing types within a development. Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home. 6 Staff Response The Applicant states that their development is not required to provide any deed restricted affordable housing units in the project; however, the Applicant commits to providing 10% of the proposed units to be deed restricted units which would result in 97.9 units which are a combination of "for sale" and "rental" units to address the critical issue of affordability in Garfield County. Technically, the present regulations do not require a percentage of the units be deed - restricted because the trigger for requiring units is based on an increase in density as described in the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan density is a range from 0 to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit. The Applicant proposes 0.29 acres per dwelling unit which falls within the designated range and does not increase density beyond that range. In an alternative perspective on the issue, as you will recall, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), when they approved the Sanders Ranch PUD, made a finding that the resulting density was appropriate at 0.82 acres / dwelling unit and that development also provided affordable housing. The current proposal certainly provides a significant increase in density from that development. Staff is not convinced that the County's Comprehensive Plan was designed to adequately deal with job creation and affordable housing issues that would be created from a development as large as the proposed project which is the second largest development in the County, second only to Battlement Mesa PUD. Seen in this light, Staff is concerned that the injection of 979 dwelling units with only 10% dedicated to affordable housing will have a significant adverse impact of the County's ability to provide services to all of the jobs created and new residents. A more realistic approach would be to provide at least 30% of the total units dedicated to deed restricted affordable housing where 30% of each phase includes the pro -rata share of deed restricted housing over full build -out. The County Housing Authority reviewed the sketch plan and provided the following comments: ➢ The GCHA is unsure if the applicant is required under the existing land use code to build 10% of the units under the County's affordable housing guidelines. In our review of the sketch plan and in earlier discussions with the Applicant we think that the Applicant is claiming not to trigger the County's Inclusionary Zoning regulations. Thus, any affordable housing proposal might not be automatically subject to the County's affordable housing regulations and affordability definitions could be subject to negotiation. ➢ On page 11 the applicant states that they are committed to affordable housing. They propose to deed restrict 10% of the total units orjust under 100 units. It appears that the Applicant is proposing to build a mix of for -sale units and rental units that are affordable to an unclear definition of affordability. It is unclear as to the price point of the affordable housing units, which AMI group(s) will be targeted, and the mix of for - sale and rental. GCHA is not clear if appreciation would be capped through a deed restriction or if another form such as Resident Occupied (RO) only would be use. The Applicant further states that they are evaluating federal, state and local programs that best meet the housing needs. If they will not be following the County's Affordable Housing Guidelines then will they establish their own? ➢ Also the Applicant states that they are exploring opportunities for businesses to buy - down units for their employees. This is a good concept, however it is unclear if these will be Garfield County employers or employers of other counties and how affordability would be defined and guaranteed. We also would like to know the number of units that would be for employees of these businesses versus the number of units offered to the general public and how this would be administered. ➢ The Housing Authority is not sure of the end product(s) that the applicant is proposing for affordable housing. We ask for more information from staff and the BOCC and suggest that further clarification be sought from the Applicant. Based on these comments and the challenges the County has had with other voluntary programs, Staff recommends that any deed restricted units be governed in their entirety under the Housing Authority. OBJECTIVES 2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. 2.2 To ensure construction of quality housing by continued enforcement of the County's building code. 2.3 Residential development should be designed and located to ensure compatibility with existing and future adjacent development. 2.4 The County should encourage the development of energy efficient design, including solar access. 2.5 Residential development should respect the natural characteristics of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features, geology and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view sheds. 2.6 The County should coordinate efforts with the Garfield County Housing Authority and respective municipalities to foster regional housing goals. Staff Finding The proposal does not discuss integration of the affordable units throughout the development. The Application does provide for energy efficient designs and contemplates compatibility with adjacent development with proposed access points through H Lazy F and the Fyrwald Exemption to the north and proposes the main access point opposite the Cattle Creek intersection on SH82. 8 POLICIES 2.1 The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low and moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi -family and single-family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County. 2.2 To include an assessment of the impact of present and future subdivisions in both incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County during the subdivision review process. 2.3 Major access ways, topographic features, open space and other undeveloped land will be used to separate residential uses from industrial and commercial centers. 2.4 Solar orientation that allows for both passive and active design will be strongly encouraged in the design review process and will not be restricted by protective covenants. 2.5 The Garfield County Zoning Resolution will address the issue of potentially conflicting uses within each zoning designation that allows for residential and non- residential land uses. Staff Finding The project provides portions of the development designed as a mixed use development while also accommodating other public uses and various mixes of single / multi -family uses. On the north end, there could be more separation of the residential uses from the Fyrwald Commercial parcels. The property's varied benches allow for a variety of separation across the site as one moves towards the river. The present proposal has not addressed Policy 2.2 which requires an Applicant to include an assessment of the impact of present and future subdivisions in both incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County during the subdivision review process. The Sketch Plan review is the most ideal time to deal with this issue. Staff recommends the Applicant provide a Fiscal Impact Report to the County prior to the submittal of any Planned Unit Development application or Preliminary Plan application (whichever comes first) so that the County can fully understand the fiscal impacts / costs the development will have on the community such as County Sheriff, Human Services, Building and Planning, Fire District, School District, etc. and will the County and Districts be able to handle those costs. This is critically important to this proposal and the County needs to fully understand these costs before approving any rezoning or subdivision since this project would be the second largest development in Garfield County only to Battlement Mesa and will most certainly require the County to provide services at a significant level to serve the estimated future population of 2,400. 9 3.0 TRANSPORTATION GOALS Ensure that the County transportation system is safe, functional, appropriately designed to handle existing and future traffic levels and includes options for the use of modes other than the single -occupant automobile. Determine appropriate nodes and collector points for public transportation. OBJECTIVES 3.1 To encourage the development of a regional public transit system that respects the interaction between emerging land use patterns and travel behavior in the Valley. 3.2 To encourage the use of modes other than the automobile. 3.3 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the ability of County roads to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal. 3.4 Proposed developments will include street designs that will reduce adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and minimize driving hazards. 3.5 Proposed developments will provide a minimum number of access points on through streets and highway corridors. 3.7 Street extensions will be required to occur in a logical manner. Staff Response The development is located between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale and has one direct access point onto SH 82 opposite the Cattle Creek Road (CR 113) intersection. This intersection may be one of the County's most complicated / complex intersections on SH 82 because there is a multitude of turning conflicts all intersecting at one point which include CR 110, CR 113, 2 frontage roads, four lanes of SH 82 and the only proposed access point out of the project all at the same location. Staff suggests no approval be granted for any project of this size unless the project includes a full signalized intersection that orchestrates this severe traffic challenge. The plan shows up to four additional access points on the north end of the project which are not presently under the control of the Applicant. Staff agrees that multiple access points should be required for ease of traffic circulation and flow but also for emergency service access. Presently, should an accident block the main access, all other traffic would be cut off. Staff suggests that a second right turn only access point onto SH 82 out of the southern portion of the project be contemplated so that a majority of traffic going up valley does not need to further exacerbate the one main access point. This will require an agreement from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) as they are the single authority for access to SH82. 10 Lastly, the proposed plan appears to have good circulations and provides a good use of alleyways through the development; however, the volume of traffic that might access the suggested access points (and the County roads themselves) to the north (via H Lazy F and Fyrwald) may not be physically adequate to handle projected trips as well as funneling traffic to the CR 114 intersection which is projected to operate at a failing LOS. As with any rezoning or subdivision application, these routes need further study. The plan does encourage the use of the RFTA trail that runs through the property which connects Glenwood Springs to many of the up valley communities. POLICIES 3.2 Developments are encouraged to integrate bikeways, pedestrian circulation patterns and transit amenities into project design. 3.3 The project review process will include a preliminary assessment of the projected traffic impact associated with all commercial projects and residential projects greater than 50 dwelling units. 3.6 Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic impacts on County roads proportional to the development's contribution to those impacts. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to the following: A. B. C. D. E. F. Physical roadway improvements; Intersection improvements; Transit amenities; Signage requirements; Alternative traffic flow designs; Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation. Staff Response The development does provide a good focused on the bike / pedestrian and neighborhood commercial, recreational, rezoning / preliminary plan application will the following key areas, among others: internal circulation system that appears to be the ability to stay out of the car to access and RFTA trail and mass transit uses. Any require a traffic study that will need to examine 1. Main Access Point onto SH 82 and the intersection with CR 110, CR 113, two frontage Roads; 2. Proposed access points on the north end of the property and their use of the County's road system and connection to SH 82 and the intersection with CR 114. This should include an analysis of the County Road's physical ability to accommodate the trips and any improvements that might be necessary; 3. The concept of a right -turn only access point out of the southern portion of the project onto SH82. 11 4.0 COMMERCIAL USES GOALS Garfield County will encourage the retention and expansion of convenient, viable and compatible commercial development capable of providing a wide variety of goods and services to serve the citizens of the County. Ensure that transportation modes and nodes are directly tied in with existing economic centers. OBJECTIVES 4.1 To ensure that commercial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate impacts identified during the plan review process. 4.3 Encourage the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximizes convenience to County residents. 4.4 Ensure that commercial development is conducive to safe and efficient traffic flow, reduces vehicular movements and encourages alternate transportation modes and the use of mass transit. 4.5 Ensure that the type, size and scope of commercial development are consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the County. POLICIES 4.1 Commercial development will be encouraged in areas where existing infrastructure (water and wastewater facilities) are currently available. 4.2 County zoning regulations regarding commercial development will be compatible with land use policies of adjacent jurisdictions. 4.3 Landscaping and screening will be required to address specific visual impacts of industrial and commercial development. 4.4 The project review process will include the identification and mitigation of transportation impacts related to commercial development. 4.6 Commercial projects fronting onto SH 82 will be required to provide transit amenities (bus turnouts, transit stops, etc.) when permanent transit service becomes available. These amenities will be coordinated with RFTA and CDOT. Staff Response Most of this section is meant to deal with larger, stand-alone commercial developments; however, some of the issues are still germane to this project. The development proposes a 12 neighborhood commercial center near the main entrance to the project that is envisioned to offset vehicle trips onto SH 82 for those services. Uses could include convenience store, personal services, liquor store, dry cleaning, daycare, spa / gym, etc. Staff finds this is a beneficial component to the project and would likely reduce overall vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The challenge with this valley floor location is to provide services while not creating trips as the neighborhood center may become a magnet for outside trips thus resulting in a net wash in VMT. The Applicant will need (via a traffic study) to explain how they can deal with this issue. Staff likes the idea of the internal shuttle to move residents easily throughout the development and to the planned RFTA station at the SH 82 and CR 114 intersection which fits with their Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) programming. Staff is concerned about the funding / staffing / on-going operation of that system. Also, it will need to be coordinated well with RFTA so that times and routes make it conducive to use. Regarding mass transit, Staff believes that this development has a unique opportunity to include more Transit Oriented Development concepts within the development which might include bringing more of the multi -family dwellings nearer to the north end of the project to be within closer walking distance to the BRT station. Additionally, a "regular" RFTA station ought to be located at the main entrance. Mike Hermes with RFTA provided the following comments. We have two areas of concern with regards to the project. One concerns the rail road right of way owned by RFTA and the second is the impact the development will have on the RFTA bus system and how the development and RFTA will interact. Rail Corridor The rail road right of way owned by RFTA and rail banked for a future transit project runs through the property under review for the Cattle Creek project. The current use of the railroad property will be for a valley wide bike trail. This bike trail is currently under construction and several improvements and amenities for the trail haven't been negotiated with the previous owners of the property. This agreement runs with the land and are binding on the current owners, Related Westpac. We are currently reviewing this agreement with representatives of Related Westpac and updating the agreement to reflect the proposed change in the use of the property from a golf course and low density residential to a high density residential project. RFTA and the representatives of related Westpac are meeting in the near future to try and resolve this issue. 1 have attached the agreements between RFTA and the owners of the property to this email for you to review. The future use of the rail road right of way and its interaction with the proposed Cattle Creek development is also a concern for RFTA. It is the organizations goal to bring a fixed guide way, mass transit project back to the rail corridor at some point in the future. With such a densely populated community being split by a train type transportation system, the potential for conflict between RFTA and the future residence of the Cattle Creek project seems probable. As per RFTA's agreement 13 with last owners (Bair Chase) of the property, a plat note outlining the use of the rail corridor is to be included on the final plat. (please see the attached agreement). While this should inform any purchasers of property within the Cattle Creek project of the potential use of the rail corridor it will not mitigate the potential social and financial impact a rail transit project within the rail corridor will have on the community. Transit The proposed density of the Cattle Creek development and its proximity to RFTA bus stops should allow the development to take advantage of the current transit system. Please see Kristen Kenyon's comments attached below this email for more detailed comments. RFTA is currently developing a long range bus system plan and a bus rapid transit plan and so the exact details of how RFTA and the Cattle Creek development will interact is unknown. We would like to encourage the developers to work with RFTA to make the development as transit friendly as possible. The developer has proposed a internal shuttle system to bring the residence to a RFTA bus stop either at the intersection of Cattle Creek and highway 82 or the intersection of highway 82 and County Road 154. It is RFTA's opinion that this shuttle system is critical to creating a transit friendly development of the size and should be instituted as soon in the development of the project as practical and that it become a permanent part of the development. The construction of a park and ride and new, more user friendly bus stops at the intersection of County Road 154 road and highway 82 is also in RFTA's future plans and these transit amenities will be a great benefit to the Cattle Creek development. Assistance with the construction of these facilities could help offset the impact the Cattle Creek development will have on the RFTA bus service. The proposed density of the Cattle Creek project and its focus on creating a middle class residential community could have a significant impact on the RFTA bus system and RFTA would like to encourage Garfield County and Related Westpac to work with RFTA to provide the most efficient bus service possible to this development. Kristin Kenyon (RFTA BRT Expert) provided the following comments regarding the development and what RFTA's future plans are: RFTA is focusing efforts currently on finalizing the definition of our Bus Rapid Transit project. Given what I have seen to date regarding our BRT planning efforts, there are two key projects that will serve the Cattle Creek area in the nearer to mid term horizon (up to 2017). First, we are working on restructuring our services to be timelier so the commute from the Cattle Creek area (CMC stop) to Aspen/S. V. using the BRT trunk service will be very speedy and will have limited stops. It looks like the CMC park and ride will be designated as a BRT stop. There is much work to do at that location to make it a BRT compliant stop, including improvements accel / decel lanes, bus pullouts, and the park and ride itself. 14 The investment by RFTA in improving the CMC park and ride is anticipated to reap big returns in terms of convenience and ridership and is the second major investment that we believe will benefit the residents of your future development. We are focusing on finding the funding for these two BRT-related improvements in the next year and hopefully getting these improvements implemented in the next three to five years or so. We are encouraging local neighbors, such as CMC and the Spring Valley developer to contribute towards the CMC park and ride improvements and would welcome any contribution your development could make as well! Currently the BRT service and facility projects are those for which we are focusing on implementing in the next five to ten years. I would have to say that serving a new bus stop at Cattle Creek and working on planning, funding and operating a new shuttle system for your development appear to be much longer term projects to us than do the BRT improvements stated previously. There is a strong reluctance from our Operations Dept to serve any new additional stops along the highway, especially given our prior experience in serving this area and given that adding new stops adds time to an already long route. Perhaps after your development is further established would be a good time to revisit this issue again with our Operations Department. A new shuttle service is also a much longer term prospect for us to consider and we would not be able to make any commitments at this time. An added wrinkle is that Garfield County is not an official member of RFTA. Therefore making significant investments in service in unincorporated Garfield County, at this time, is very difficult for us to do politically as it takes away staff resources from other projects in the valley that are within the boundaries of our member jurisdictions. For several years, the topic of a shuttle system to serve the CMC Spring Valley campus has been discussed. Even with CMC as a funding partner, the capital and operating costs associated with running an effective shuttle system have resulted in the stagnation of getting this system off the ground. Perhaps Garfield County, CMC, the Spring Valley developer and yourselves would be interested in pulling together the required funding to establish a shuttle system in this area. At that point, RFTA would be open to discussing with you and your other funding partners the costs we would charge to provide this service similar to what we do for the City of Glenwood. The service is likely to be expensive due to purchasing two vehicles and hiring RFTA drivers at a loaded rate due to insurance and maintenance costs. I could ask our CEO, Dan Blankenship, to develop some very rough figures for this, but it would take some time. In summary, 1 would recommend the following as our steps regarding transit services and facilities for your development: In Short Term (2008-2009) - provide a financial contribution to the redesign and construction of CMC park and ride improvements - participate in the design of the park and ride so as to ensure access to development is as convenient as possible 15 - educate new residents on how to use transit - encourage residents to support funding for BRT in future election - encourage Garfield County and new residents to support joining RFTA For mid term (2011-2012) - Meet with RFTA Operations and Planners to revisit transit needs of those living in the development - Reexamine possibility of adding bus stops at former Cattle Creek site to be served by LOCAL buses only (not BRT) - Discuss feasibility and need for circulator; work on pulling together funding partners 5.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE GOALS Interconnect trail system through the county with community trail systems. OBJECTIVES 5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are accessible to County residents. 5.2 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space uses. 5.4 Rafting and fishing access will be strongly encouraged during the development review process. 5.5 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas. Staff Response The property is fortunate to have the recently improved RFTA trail running directly through the property allowing this proposal to meet these objectives. As the RFTA comments point out, this corridor is slated to return, at some point, to a fixed rail system for a train. There may be serious issues as a result. Staff suggests that easement be left along side the RFTA corridor to accommodate a future rail stop. Staff finds that the sketch plan does not address Objective 5.4 regarding the rafting and fishing access. Additionally, the property is within the County's visual corridor and the development plan does not demonstrate how this corridor is addressed. 16 POLICIES 5.1 Developments that propose densities above one (1) dwelling unit per acre and exceed 50 dwelling units will be required to provide adequate recreational opportunities to serve the residents of the project. Alternatives for meeting this requirement will be defined in the Subdivision Regulations. 5.2 Important visual corridors will be identified and appropriate policies developed to address the retainment of open space areas that link communities in the County. 5.5 With the cooperation of the Division of Wildlife, developments proposed in areas next to streams or rivers with rafting or fishing potential should dedicate easements for public access to these areas. Staff Response The Application addresses the provision of recreational amenities, but Staff is concerned that it is too little. The proposal contemplates 979 units that could generate up to 2,448 residents. This Targe volume of residents may overwhelm the minimal community parks and community center. Additionally, the Application does not address how they are going to minimize impacts to the County's visual corridor, and also does not address public access to river frontage for rafting and fishing. PROGRAMS 5.1 All developers are encouraged to provide recreational amenities within proposed developments. The county should impose its requirement of a dedication of park land or fee in -lieu -of as contained in the Subdivision Regulations in order to reserve sufficient park land to accommodate the recreational needs of the residents which the development will house. 5.2 Developers shall develop and adopt sufficient standards for: A. Setbacks from ridges/mesas to ensure that sky -lining or reverse sky -lining do not occur; B. Building envelope designations that preserve visual corridors; C. Environmentally -sensitive or clustered development. Staff Response The proposal does include recreational amenities but Staff questions their ability to physically handle all the residential use at full build -out. The plan does not appear to propose building envelopes and is not a clustered development as it only avoids the area of land in the conservation easement. With any rezoning to PUD, the developer shall submit standards that address Policy 5.2. 17 5.0A OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS ISSUES Based on public workshops and the initial work of the Garfield County Open Space and Trails Committee, specific concerns regarding Open Space and Trails planning in the Roaring Fork Valley are as follows: • That the retention of the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley is a critical issue to residents and visitors; • The level of development in the Valley from 1991 to 1995 has resulted in the disappearance of historical agricultural land at a rate demanding immediate action on the part of the County; • Wildlife habitat is being negatively impacted due to growth pressure; • Any policies regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land owners in the County and must be based on the concepts of just compensation and mutual benefit for landowners, residents and visitors of the Roaring Fork Valley. GOAL Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that respects the balance between private property rights and the needs of the community. OBJECTIVES 5.1A To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development approved by Garfield County; 5.2A To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat; 5.2A Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) will be required to propose mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures shall include the following: 1. Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations; 2. Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building envelope restrictions or cluster development concepts; 3. Conservation easements. 18 The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve or reject proposed mitigation. Staff Response The property's historical use was agriculture which has been totally denuded with the exception of the conservation easement since 2002. Since that time, the property has languished with most topsoil stripped leaving very little groundcover. The new ownership has taken great strides to eradicate noxious weeds, anchor remaining topsoil piles with native seed, and implemented best management practices to mitigate storm water management issues. Regarding wildlife, outside of the easement, the property has been stripped of most vegetation; however, there are large herds of Elk and mule deer that currently use the property during particular times of the year. This represents an Elk / mule deer mortality and vehicular safety issue for motorists on SH 82. The area is not defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as critical habitat by the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) but is near to important winter deer and elk range on the east side of SH 82. However, the Applicant is working with CDOT and CDOW to consider fencing and funneling opportunities to accommodate movement through the property and safely across SH 82. The CDOW reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments. The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition, the property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The existing conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of the Cattle Creek for trout habitat are welcomed by the Division. The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: 1. As noted the property is not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the areas which then seek refuge on the undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82 as an elk underpass, but it is unlikely much use will occur 19 due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures. Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and planting of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 2. The heron rookeries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the toe -crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring near the rookery. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek area extremely important to wildlife. These areas on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be limited into these areas. 4. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the development area reaching these waterways. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. 5. All utilities buried. 6. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. 20 6.0 AGRICULTURE ISSUES Issues identified throughout the Comprehensive Plan process related to agricultural uses include the following: • The rollover of agricultural land into more intense uses is accelerating in the County; • Historical agricultural lands are also those lands which present the least development constraints (geology, topography, water availability); • As the rural areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensure compatibility between these uses and active agricultural lands will intensify; • A growing number of traditional agricultural lands can be expected to intensify into agricultural businesses, which may affect County land use policies designed for traditional ranching, grazing and crop production. GOAL To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review. Consider the use of Transfer of Development Rights. Join farmers and ranchers together to develop a land use plan for agriculture. Consider land trusts and conservation easements. OBJECTIVES 6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches. 6.2 Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent uses. 6.3 Developments adjacent to agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses. POLICIES: 6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use and the proposed project. 21 6.2 Densities greater than the underlying zoning will be discouraged if the proposed development would adversely affect the adjacent agricultural operations. 6.3 Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential incompatible uses. PROGRAMS 6.1 The Zoning Resolution, Subdivision and PUD Regulations will be amended to require a specifically defined buffer zone between agricultural lands and more intense uses. In addition, the updated Regulations will address density bonuses to encourage the retention of open space. 6.2 Adopt an appropriate Right to Farm and Ranch Policy. 6.3 Develop, distribute and use a Rural Living Handbook. 6.4 Designate buffer zones of at least 300 feet between farmed/ranched lands and residential lots unless a lesser amount can be demonstrated as a practical buffer. 6.5 Require developers to perform a specific analysis of potential impacts to agricultural lands and uses, and to propose mitigation measures. 6.6 Require developers/development to draft a specific mitigation plan to consider and to adopt practices which eliminate the spread of noxious weeds, maintain existing irrigation ditches (with specific provisions to assure water is not wasted or impeded) and impose proportionate costs of maintenance that are borne by the developer/development. This plan shall be required no later than at the subdivision stage. This plan shall require input/approval by the affected, agrarian landowner(s). 6.7 Encourage the developer or development to purchase a conservation easement, at fair value, from the adjacent agricultural interest, who can use this buffer zone for agricultural purposes when infeasible to maintain a 300 -foot buffer from agricultural land and uses. 6.8 Require that all Final Plats carry a plat note that notifies prospective lot owners that Garfield County has adopted a Right to Farm and Ranch Policy, and that copies of this policy are available from local, land title companies. 6.9 Require the identification and the mapping of federal land grazing permits (BLM and/or USFS). Staff Response It would appear these goals, objectives and policies are directed to developments that are near or adjacent to existing active larger scale agricultural properties defined here as active ranching / farming ranches. There are no such activities directly adjacent to this property. The only properties that are at all agricultural in nature are the private Targe horse Tots in Teller Springs directly west of the property across the Roaring Fork River. 22 This project will not have a direct impact on the horse operations beyond noise and dust during the construction of the project which can be mitigated. Additionally, the majority of the subject property directly across from Teller Springs is preserved in a large conservation easement that will provide a significant natural buffer from Teller Springs. 7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES ISSUES • The proliferation of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) on individual sites should be carefully reviewed in terms of soil constraints and drainage characteristics of each site; • High-density development, defined as exceeding one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, should be located in areas where central sewage treatment facilities are either currently available, or feasible in the future. GOALS To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development. OBJECTIVES 7.1 Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project approval. 7.2 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity in their central water/sewer systems will be strongly encouraged to tie into these systems. 7.3 Projects proposing the use of ISDS will be required to assess the site's capability to accommodate these systems prior to project approval. 7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water and sewer systems. 7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. 7.6 High-density development, defined as exceeding one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, will be required to assess the potential of connecting into existing central water and sewer facilities. 23 POLICIES 7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval. 7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent to or within a reasonable distance, to enter into the appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden of proof regarding logical, legal and economic constraints will be on the developer. 7.3 The County will require developers proposing ISDS to provide data that demonstrates to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project approval. 7.4 Where ISDS is not feasible, Garfield County will require a sewage disposal system approved by the State of Colorado. 7.5 High density development is considered urban in nature and requires appropriate services. Through the Zoning Resolution, Garfield County will strongly encourage high-density development to locate in areas where these services are available. Staff Response The proposed development intends to tie into the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District which is adjacent to the property already serving Iron Bridge and Aspen Glen. This existing central water and waste water service alleviates any issue regarding environmental challenges of using ISDS. This high-density development is located in an area where these services already presently exist and conforms to the comprehensive plan. 8.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ISSUES Issues related to the natural environment identified during the Comprehensive Plan process are as follows: • Tourism is an integral component of the economy of Garfield County. Therefore, it is essential that the planning process respect the natural environment that brings residents and visitors to the County; • The existing Management District Map, designed to address areas of minor, moderate, and severe environmental constraints, does not allow for specific hazards to be identified and mitigated; 24 • Protection of air and water quality should be an essential component of the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments to the Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations; • Development should respect the natural contours and drainage patterns on each individual project site; • Important visual corridors should be identified and companion design guidelines regarding signage, setbacks, buffer areas and landscaping should be formally adopted and enforced by the County. GOALS 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 and is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County. Enhancement of the river corridor. Protection of watersheds and flood plains. OBJECTIVES 8.1 The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a project based on severe environmental constraints that endanger public health, safety or welfare. 8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment. 8.3 Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration. 8.4 River -fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the ecosystem and these areas require careful review in the planning process. 8.5 Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique to the proposed site. 8.6 Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected. 8.7 Development will be encouraged in areas with the least environmental constraints. POLICIES 8.1 Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, 25 radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain. 8.2 Garfield County shall discourage development proposals that require excessive vegetation removal, cut and fill areas or other physical modifications that will result in visual degradation or public safety concerns. 8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so the cumulative impact of public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainageways, or to subject other areas to an increased potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water. 8.4 The County will require development with river frontage to address the issue through physical design in a way which will protect fragile wetlands and scenic resources and protect floodplains from encroachment. 8.5 The County will discourage development in areas where severe soil constraints cannot be adequately mitigated. 8.6 Garfield County will protect critical wildlife habitat needed by state and federally protected, threatened or endangered species. Development within these designations that cannot be designed, constructed and conducted so as to have a minimum adverse impact upon such habitat or these wildlife species, shall be discouraged; however, it is the intent of this policy, that no private landowner lose the ability to develop his/her land without fair compensation as a result of owning significant wildlife habitat. 8.7 Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor environmental constraints to mitigate physical problems such as minor rockfalls, 17 to 24 percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow percolation, radioactive soils and/or corrosive and expansive soils. Staff Response Cattle Creek, as one of the site's most fragile areas, runs through the property to its confluence with the Roaring Fork River. This important drainage and portions of the Roaring Fork River bank are presently protected within a perpetual conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Additionally, there is an active Heron Rookery in the easement on the southern portion of the property along the river bank. Measures will need to be taken to continue to preserve that rookery and minimize impact. Regarding wildlife, the CDOW provided comments which are as follows: The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along 26 the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastem boundary of the property. In addition, the property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The existing conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of the Cattle Creek for trout habitat are welcomed by the Division. The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: 1. As noted the property is not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the areas which then seek refuge on the undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82 as an elk underpass, but it is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures. Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and planting of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 2. The heron rookeries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the toe -crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring near the rookery. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek area extremely important to wildlife. These areas on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the 27 critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be limited into these areas. 4. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the development area reaching these waterways. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. 5. All utilities buried. 6. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. The property's historical use was agriculture which has been totally denuded with the exception of the conservation easement since 2002. Since that time, the property has languished with most topsoil stripped leaving very little groundcover. The new ownership has taken great strides to eradicate noxious weeds, anchor remaining topsoil piles with native seed, and implemented best management practices to mitigate storm water management issues which will need to continue through the life of any build -out. The property is also partially located in the 100 -year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. It appears that all of the proposed development is located entirely outside this area and most of which is protected within the conservation easement. Regarding soils / geology on the property, there are a number of natural challenges across the property which includes potentially problematic soil, terrace escarpment instability, and subsidence from dissolution of the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock also known as Karst. There are several identified and mapped sinkholes on the property which the proposal has avoided. A substantial examination by a soils geologist will need to be prepared to fully examine this issue. 9.0 NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION ISSUES Primary issues concerning natural resource extraction identified during the Comprehensive Plan process include the following: • The relationship between previously approved mining operations and residential development has resulted in visual, noise and traffic compatibility issues; 28 • The property rights of private property owners must be balanced with the rights of mineral lessees; • The County must be proactive in reacting to market conditions that will impact the level, location and scale of mineral extraction within the County; • Garfield County has significant mineral resources that has, and will continue to have, a considerable impact on the economic health of the County. GOAL Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral interests have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated. PROGRAMS 9.1 The Garfield County Zoning Resolution will be revised to reflect the Goals, Objectives and Policies regarding resource extraction. It is suggested subdivision developers obtain all subsurface rights (mineral rights) associated with the land proposed for subdivision prior to Final Plat approval. All mineral leases and owners of record of the platted property shall be identified on the Final Plat. Staff Response The property is located in an area defined by the Colorado Geologic Survey as having prime sand and gravel resources. The surface owner appears to own most of the minerals with two small reservations. These goals, objectives, and policies are intended to address active extraction which is not proposed on a commercial scale; however, the Applicant has indicated they would like to mine gravel on their site for construction on their site. If approved, Staff finds this to be an ideal arrangement so that the development is not taxing existing commercial gravel providers and generating Targe heavy construction traffic to and from the site. The fact that this site contains prime gravel resources is an issue for Garfield County because as the development of the surface occurs, that valuable resource is sealed away and cannot be mined locking up one of the last major gravel resources in the lower Roaring Fork River valley. A similar situation has occurred with portions of Aspen Glen, Iron Bridge, Teller Springs, Coryell Ranch, etc. 10.0 URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE ISSUES: Primary issues identified during the Comprehensive Plan process can be summarized as follows: 29 • County land use decisions, particularly those immediately adjacent to municipal boundaries have, in some cases, created compatibility problems; • Due to the wide variety of Uses -by -Right within the County's current Zoning Resolution, planning staff has no discretionary review authority to prevent incompatibility situations with an adjacent municipality. GOALS Allow for comments on community impacts including cases which fall outside the community's sphere of influence. Promote development in and around existing communities. OBJECTIVES 10.2 Development that requires urban Services will be encouraged to locate in areas where these services are available. 10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits. Staff Response The property is located outside the areas of influence of both Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. It also represents one of the last significant undeveloped properties in the valley floor that is relatively unencumbered by natural constraints (steep slopes, etc). Regarding urban services, water and sewer do presently exist to serve the property, it is located directly adjacent to a four lane highway, an improved public trail provides direct access, a mass transit park and ride is located les than a 1/4 mile from the property, and a variety of commercial uses are also located within a 1/4 to 1/z mile from the property. The property's density in the Comprehensive Plan of High -Density Residential (0 to less than 2 acres / dwelling unit) was derived on this basis. The land around the nearest urban areas (Carbondale and Glenwood Springs) are either already developed, protected in a conservation easement, or topographically bound. This property (as it presently exists) is difficult to describe as rural in character based on its surrounding land uses and the present physical condition of the property itself. It does serve as the only major open space buffer representing the only undeveloped break between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The Town of Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal and provided comments that are summarized here: 1) Proposal would create a dense bedroom community; 2) Proposal would result in a new town with urban / civil needs that have not been addressed and should this development incorporate; 3) Should the development create jobs for its residents and would this attract a new big box? 4) The 10% affordable housing contribution is too low; 30 5) Traffic will further exacerbate existing commute times on SH 82 and the project should be served directly by RFTA; and 6) Concerned about the impact the Elk. V. Summary of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives Review In summary, Staff finds the proposal meets many of the County's Goals, Objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the following are areas that the proposal has not met which are critical to the approval of any Planned Unit Development or Subdivision. Areas that still need to be addressed include Housing, Transportation, Commercial Uses, Open Space and Trails, and Natural Environment. At present, beyond the density provision of 0 to Tess than 2 acres / dwelling unit that based on the significant challenges listed in these areas, Staff finds the proposal is not in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The very purpose of the Goals, Policies and Objectives is intended to provide the decision framework to determine what the density should be in a range such as 0 to Tess the 2 acres / dwelling unit. That number cannot be realized until these issues have been adequately addressed. VI. SKETCH PLAN COMMENTS The following is an analysis of the proposed development specifically including a review against the County's required zoning regulations of the RGSD zone district and a technical review of issues that would need to be further addressed in a Preliminary Plan (Subdivision) review. A. Zoning Uses The property is zoned Residential General Sub -urban Density (RGSD). The proposed developments uses and dimensional standards depart dramatically from this zoning classification. In order to propose such a development plan, the Applicant intends to submit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is the planning mechanism that allows for certain flexibilities of the underlying zoning to achieve a development that is more creative and results as a benefit to the overall community. USES: Residential General Suburban Density Uses -by -Right Proposed Uses Staff Comments Single -Family, Two -Family, and Multiple -Family Dwellings Single -Family, Two -Family, and Multiple -Family Dwellings Needs to define this use Boarding and Rooming House Needs to define this use Customary Accessory Uses Customary Accessory Uses Needs to define this use Park Park Needs to define this use Wholesale Nursery Conditional Uses Proposed Uses Staff Comments Row House Row House Needs to define this use Arts and Crafts Studio Arts and Crafts Studio Needs to define this use Home Occupations Home Occupations Needs to define this use Church Suggests keeping this use Community Building Community Building Needs to define this use 31 Day Nursery / School Day Nursery / School Needs to define this use Group Home for the Elderly Open Space and Greenbelt Suggests keeping this use Special Uses Proposed Uses Staff Comments Mobile Home Park Parks Parks Water Impoundments Water Impoundments Needs to define this use Utility Lines / Utility Substations Utility Lines / Utility Substations Needs to define this use Communications Facility Roads, Bridges & Underground Utilities subject to terms of conservation Easement Roads, Bridges & Underground Utilities subject to terms of conservation Easement Corrections Facility Portions of Golf Course Mass Transit Factility Restaurant OK — Needs to define this use Retail Establishment OK- Needs to define this use USES: Open Space & Conservation District Uses -by -Right Proposed Uses Staff Comments Open Space and Greenbelt Open Space and Greenbelt Needs to define this use Passive / Active Recreation Passive / Active Recreation Needs to define this use Parks Parks Needs to define this use Natural Resource Preservation Natural Resource Preservation Needs to define this use Water Impoundments & Intake Structures Water Impoundments & Intake Structures Needs to define this use Roads, Bridges & Underground Utilities subject to terms of conservation Easement Roads, Bridges & Underground Utilities subject to terms of conservation Easement Needs to define this use Portions of Golf Course As you can see in the chart above, the Sketch Plan deviates from the uses in the RGSD zone district where certain uses are not included in the development. The only area that proposes to add uses that are not listed in the RGSD include "restaurant" and "retail establishment." If uses are not specifically listed in a zone district, they may not be allowed unless they are contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan designation. In this case, that designation is High -Density Residential. Staff finds that certain commercial components should be considered and allowed in a development of this size and density to foster a mixed-use blend so that a neighborhood commercial component can decrease the need to leave the community in a vehicle. Other developments have also been approved with the similar approach such as Spring Valley Ranch. A key issue that needs to be addressed is the "magnet" affect any commercial component might create bringing outside trips into the development. B. Zoning Dimensional Standards The following chart shows the dimensional standards in the RGSD zone district and what is proposed in the sketch plan followed by a Staff response. The Sketch Plan Application indicates that a PUD Application will be submitted to accommodate the variations shown below. Dimensional Standards: Residential General Suburban Density Minimum Lot Area (RGSD) Proposed Staff Comments 20,000 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. Very "urban" lot size rather than sub -urban 32 Minimum Lot Coverage (RGSD) Proposed Staff Comments 35 Percent 75 percent Urban standard but allows high density Minimum Setback (RGSD) Proposed Staff Comments Front: 25 feet (typical) Rear: 25 feet (typical) Sides: 10 feet (typical) Not determined: Varies dependent on lot coverage Will need to show with PUD Plan Maximum Height (RGSD) Proposed Staff Comments 25 feet 33 feet Needs to define how measured and demonstrate compliance with Section 4.07.04 in Zoning Max. Floor Area Ration (RGSD) 0.25 0.75 Urban standard but allows high density Supplementary Regulations Proposed Staff Comments Section 5.00 of the Zoning Res. To be demonstrated later Needs to be in any PUD Application if varied Due to the wide variation in uses and dimensional standards, Staff suggests the Applicant design a PUD zoning plan that separates multi -family areas from neighborhood commercial from single-family and attributes a specific set of standards to those areas. Density The County's Zoning Resolution does not define what the density for a property should be; the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Designations do that. In this case, based on that plan, the property has a density range of 0 to less than 2 acres / dwelling unit. This is quite a range. The exact number of units is largely determined by the following: 1) The Density Range in the Plan; 2) The ability of the project to meet the Goals, Policies, and Objectives in the Plan; 3) Technical Issues resulting from Site Constraints and project impacts; and 4) Minimum Lot Size in the Underlying Zoning Often, it is assumed that the underlying minimum lot size (20,000 sq. ft.) defines the density where the total property acreage is divided by the minimum square footage to yield a density. This is a misunderstanding as minimum lot size is only relative to the "size" of the lots and not the number of those Tots one could have in a development. However, for simplicity's sake, the Applicant has taken the property's total "buildable" land (not including the conservation easement) and divided it by 20,000 sq. ft. to yield a viable lot count for the RGSD zone district at 494 lots. Staff agrees that this is a rough base -line for Tots allowed under this zoning and certainly fits within Plan's density range at 0.56 acres per dwelling unit. Note, the proposed density of 979 units is a 98 percent increase in density. Note, there is no guarantee to a developer to what a density shall be in a range. Again, it is largely determined by a wide variety of factors stated above. 1 -he proposed density (include the 54 -acre conservation servation easement) is 0.29 acres per dwelling unit or 3.4 units per acre. If you do not include the easement, the resulting density is 0.23 ac/ du or 4.31 du / ac. 33 C. Domestic Water The Applicant proposes to provide a potable domestic water supply to the development by obtaining water from the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District which already provides water to Aspen Glen and Iron Bridge. To demonstrate a legal water supply, the Applicant has filed a water court application to provide for all the legal water needed. This augmentation decree must be approved prior to filing a Preliminary Plan Application. Additionally, the Applicant will need to submit a "can and will serve" letter from the District. Staff referred the project to the Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) which indicated that "due to the lack of a court -approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds that the proposed water supply system will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) reviewed the project and provided the following comments: • Fire flow and fire storage volumes will need to be coordinated with the local fire protection district. Water storage tanks and water distribution system will need to be designed to conform to these fire flow parameters. • The fire flows are based on certain assumptions to building construction, sizes, and/or installation of automatic sprinkler system. These assumptions will need to be provided at preliminary plan so that design parameters can be verified. • An adequate legal and physical supply of water will need to be included at Preliminary Plan. The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) may need to provide evidence to the Office of the State Engineer. Physically, the plan shows the waterline crossing the Roaring Fork River. Staff prefers this line be bored under the river rather than an above grade crossing. Once water service reaches the property it will be a central water service system. Regarding the physical components of the water system, the Applicant should review the following requirements found in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations included here: 9:51 requires an adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total development population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards. 9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has submitted the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the Colorado Division of Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots within the development. 9:53 Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water systems and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. Central water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado Department of Health. All lines in a central water 34 system should be looped, with no dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there will either be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line. 9:54 Water supply systems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or subsequent to flooding. 9:55 All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4'), provided storage facilities adequate for fire protection are available. 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that a water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or written form: A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall not be limited to: 1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing and proposed water rights; 2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights; 3. Amenability of existing right to change in use; 4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision, including the amount of water available for use within the subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending service to the area, proof of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation that all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adjudicated, prior to submission of the final plat; and 5. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for the subdivision. B. If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general description of the system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. In addition: 1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water system; and 2. Proposed method of financing the water system. E. If applicable, a Plan of Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water supplies, as required by law, with the supporting engineering work signed by a Colorado registered engineer, shall be submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant is not the actual supplier of water. 35 D. Irrigation Water The property is crossed by two irrigation ditches, the Glenwood Ditch and the Staton Ditch. The Applicant will need to demonstrate their ownership rights in those ditches and how they intend to convey and access that water through the property. The County commonly requires that the water shares be transferred to the governing body such as the Homeowners Association at Final Plat. These alignments need to be shown on all planning maps (Preliminary Plan and Final Plat). Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) reviewed the project and provided the following comments: • Homeowners will irrigate landscaped areas with raw water. How the irrigation system will be managed and the system design parameters will need to be included with the preliminary plan submittal. • Verification of adequate irrigation water legal and physical supply should also be included. E. Sanitary Sewer System The Applicant proposes to provide wastewater service to the development by obtaining service from the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District which already provides service to Aspen Glen and Iron Bridge. The Applicant will need to submit a "can and will serve" letter from the District for this service. Staff referred the plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) which indicated that the proposed lift station will need to go through CDPHE-WQCD site application and design review process. Physically, the plan shows the service line crossing the Roaring Fork River. Staff prefers this line be bored under the river rather than an above grade crossing. Once service reaches the property it will connect to a central service system with lift stations. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) reviewed the project and provided the following comments: • Lift stations may require approvals from the State of Colorado. Approval letters from the State will be required at Final Plat but some level of design and coordination of this approval process is appropriate and should be included in Preliminary Plan. • Similarly, consideration should be given to protect the lots surrounding any lift station from noise and odors. • Adequate plant capacity of waste water treatment of the RFWSD should also be addressed. Regarding the physical components of the system, the Applicant should review the following requirements found in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations included here: 4:92 A sanitary sewage disposal plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or written form: 36 A. If a public sewage disposal system is proposed evidence that provision has been made for an adequate sewage treatment works for the subdivision and, if other methods of sewage disposal are proposed, evidence that such systems will comply with state and local laws and regulations; B. If a sewage treatment works is proposed, a general description of the collection system and treatment facilities, as designed by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. In addition: 1. Copy of a completed, but unapproved, Colorado Department of Health Waste Water Treatment Plant Site Location Approval Application; 2. Nature of the legal entity which shall own and operate the sewage treatment works; and 3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works; C. If public or private sewage treatment facilities are to be provided by an existing district or through connection to an existing sewer system, evidence that the treatment facility or system can and will provide adequate sewage treatment for the proposed subdivision. In addition: 1. Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system stating that the proposed development can and will be served; 2. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the sewage treatment works; and 3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works; D. If no central sewage treatment works is proposed and individual sewage disposal systems will be utilized, a description of sewage, the disposal means, as well as evidence as the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations to determine maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock shall be provided. In addition: 1. Indicated by location on the plat; 2. Performed and signed by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado; 3. Adequate in number and location to meet requirements of the Garfield County Individual Sewage Disposal Requirements and the Colorado Department of Public Health, Water Quality Control Commission; and E. If individual sewage disposal systems are to be utilized, a proposed management plan for the operation and maintenance of on-site systems shall be provided. F. Access In / Out of Property Presently, the property has one existing access point from the property onto SH82 opposite the Cattle Creek Road (CR 113) intersection. This is a limited controlled access point at present. The Sketch Plan proposes this to be the main access point into / out of the development which they propose a traffic signal facilitate safer access. At full build -out, 37 the project will produce approximately 9,369 average daily trips which does not account for the trips generated from any magnet commercial development. For reference, Staff reviewed the Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Traffic Impact Study prepared for Spring Valley Ranch PUD (SVR) in March 2007 which showed SH 82 carrying a 2007 traffic flow of approximately 24,000 cars a day east and west bound at the CR 114 intersection. The same study forecasted traffic on SH 82 at full build -out in 2027 at 37,900 daily volume. The study concluded that "with the full time community, the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 is anticipated to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour." The graphic on the following page shows the levels of service for this scenario. co co _1L 0 0 0 r- 255(545) -- 50 55) 140(200) 35(100) f'r 40(40)---- 165(75) IIE\ Frontage Road 0 C' L() Lf7 J + 15(20)_J 34©355)-- 195(145) j 5(5) 355(630) _NIP— 5(5) CR 114 C> L Lt) 0 8.900 So, at full build -out, Cattle Creek Crossing will generate at least 9,369 daily trips onto SH 82 which is a 39% increase in current traffic and 25% increase in 2027 traffic. This will result in a need for an intersection that is much more complicated and involved that the CR 114 / SH 82 intersection located 1.5 miles to the north which is presently undersized. CDOT is the sole jurisdiction over this state highway and issues permits for projects with direct access. Based on this information, the CR 113 / SH 82 intersection may be one of the County's most complicated / challenging intersections on SH 82 because there is a multitude of turning conflicts all intersecting at one point which include CR 110, CR 113, 2 frontage 38 roads, four lanes of SH 82 and the only proposed access point out of the project all at the same location. Staff suggests no approval be granted for any project of this size unless the project includes a full signalized intersection that orchestrates this severe traffic challenge. See the graphic below: The proposed plan shows three additional access points on the north end of the project which are not presently under the control of the Applicant shown in the graphic below. Staff agrees that multiple access points should be required for ease of traffic circulation and flow but also for emergency service access. Presently, should an accident block the main project access, all other traffic would be cut off. This is not good planning. Staff suggests that a second right turn only access point onto SH 82 out of the southern portion of the project be contemplated so that a majority of traffic going up valley does not need to further exacerbate the one main access point. This will require an agreement from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) as they are the single authority for access to SH82. CDOT reviewed the proposal and has met with the Applicant and stated that they know they will need a highway access permit for the project. The County Road and Bridge Department also reviewed the proposal and found that future entrances onto CR 154 39 ACCESS QPTI CPT -T r4 E' will need driveway permits and any vehicles using CR 113 and CR 154 for heavy hauling will need to obtain an oversize / overweight permit from the County. All intersections shall need to be approved by Garfield County Engineers. Staff is also concerned that alternative accesses out of the north end of the property will need to be improved. As mentioned above, these trips will certainly exacerbate an already challenged intersection at CR 114 and SH 82. Without significant improvements (possible grade separation) that interchange will likely function at failing levels of service (LOS E). The traffic generated from this development (9369 ADT) will not be required to pay a Traffic Impact Fee as the property does not fall within the County's Road Impact Fee Traffic Study Areas. Staff can only surmise that this is the case because it has direct access only onto a CDOT highway and does not directly impact County roads. This does not preclude a developer from having to pay for off-site road improvements deemed necessary as a direct result of impact from this development. This may be specifically apply to improvements on CR 154, CR 113, and CR 110. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) reviewed the project and provided the following comments: • Cul-de-sac lengths greater than 600' may require variances and alternative access points. The local fire district and Garfield County should review these for acceptability and then include any variances in the Preliminary Plan. • State Highway Access Permits will be required. Conformance to any conditions will be necessary and should be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. • A significant portion of traffic will be traveling to and from the south. A southem connection to the Highway should be considered. • Road grades of greater than 10% should be verified as acceptable by local fire protection districts. Steep grades with curves on north facing slopes are generally not acceptable. G. Internal Vehicular Circulation The proposed plan appears to have good internal circulation and provides a good use of alleyways through the development; however, the volume of traffic that might access the suggested access points and County Roads to the north (via H Lazy F and Fyrwald) may not be physically adequate to handle projected trips as well as funneling traffic to the CR 114 intersection via CR 154. As with any rezoning or subdivision application, these routes need further study. The plan does encourage the use of the RFTA trail that runs through the property which connects Glenwood Springs to many of the up valley communities. The internal road widths do appear to be narrower than what is required in the subdivision design regulations for right-of-ways and driving surfaces especially if there are no alternative access points in / out of the project. The roads should expand as they carry / collect more traffic towards the main entrance. There should be accommodation for adequate on -street parking (also used for traffic calming) and allow for emergency vehicle access if it is not allowed. 40 Staff is concerned as to "queuing accommodation" on Main Street as it passes through the commercial core towards the main access point out of the project. This alignment, on - street parking, and distance from the main access might need to be revisited especially with peak AM / PM trips generated by the school and events utilizing the ball fields. Section 9:32 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that "Streets and roads shall be designed so that alignments will join in a logical manner, such that adjacent road systems can be combined to form a continuous route from one area to another." The proposed road system is contained entirely within the property but does show stubs provided for future connection to adjacent property which is the intent of this provision. Presently, Staff is aware that the Applicant is negotiating with properties on the north end to connect to the road systems to the north. For secondary access points and basic traffic flow, this should be solidified prior to any development application. H. Fire Protection The project falls within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (the Fire District). The Fire District presently maintains a station just north of the subject property adjacent to the Lazy H Mobile Home Park. The plan shows a Community Firehouse proposed in the northeast corner of the project. This is a good amenity to have onsite, but Staff finds that it may be problematic in two ways if used to provide service off-site. 1) Access out of the project will require fire apparatus to negotiate almost 3/4 of a mile through winding residential neighborhood streets to get to the main access point out of the project at a signalized intersection. Perhaps it could be brought closer to the commercial core with direct street frontage onto main street. 2) The plan also shows the station is located adjacent to the parking lot and SH 82 access from the old Sopris Restaurant. This is an un -signalized intersection with an easy right turn up valley, but a challenging left turn down valley. (It is unclear if the access is even an option legally.) Section 9:70 of the Subdivision regulations requires an Applicant to address and satisfy the following provisions in the Preliminary Plan Application: 9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire entrapment. 9:72 Where a central water system has fire hydrants, all fire hydrants shall meet the specifications for the appropriate fire protection agency, particularly with regard to thread size on the fire hydrants. Again, as mentioned earlier, the project presently has one access point for a residential community of 2,500 people. Staff cannot recommend approval of a project of this size unless there are multiple secondary access points into / out of the project for emergency access. 41 The road that serves the Tots next to "Picnic Point" is close to 1,000 feet long which exceeds the 600 feet allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. The only way to achieve a dead-end cul-de-sac is by approval of the BOCC where they may approve longer cul-de- sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design. Lastly, there are three ponds designed in the project. Staff suggests that dry hydrants be installed in each one so that those ponds can serve as fire fighting water sources. I. 100 Year Floodplain A portion of the western boundary of the property is located in the 100 -year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River and in the 100 -year floodplain of Cattle Creek. Most of this land is also protected by a perpetual conservation easement. Much of the property and development appears to be located significantly above and out of the floodplain for the Roaring Fork River as well as Cattle Creek but this will need to be mapped on any future PUD / Preliminary Plan maps to be certain. "-(iU Year t luot1 lluund. ( 1. OODW AY I RIN(;I F i.UUDi-1Y 100.Yem 1 rood Bour,do SW/Yr-Jr 1 loud Boundar, J(pproxrm:ur- 100 Year I Iuoai nrrrim.rtv J. Drainage The proposed development will create a substantial amount of impervious surfaces from roads and structures that will need to be managed across the site so as to not adversely affect Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River as the site naturally drains to both water courses. The cobbles and gravels underlying the property do allow for good percolation. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) reviewed the project and provided the following comments: • The drainage plan should address the historic levels of runoff and compare those to the proposed project flows. Treatment of stormwater should also be addressed. 42 • Floodplain delineation should be determined and any fill required with in the floodplain will require a flood plain permit. • Utility line construction across the river will need to involve the Corp of Engineers. Permitting will be necessary and any conditions should be addressed. Applicant shall be required to address the following regulations in the Preliminary Plan submittal (Section 4:80 and Section 9:41 — 9:44). A drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, shall depict the following information in graphic and/or written form: A. Existing water courses and lakes; B. Limits of tributary areas, where practical; C. Computations of expected tributary flows; and D. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm, showing: 1. Area subject to inundation; and 2. Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels. 9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm. 9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year storm. 9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3') beyond the driving surface on each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H- 20 live load. K. Wildlife The property has a variety of wildlife and habitat on the property. As is most visible, the property provides a refuge area for herds of deer and elk during different times of the year. In addition, the undeveloped conservation easement and banks along the Roaring Fork River contain rich riparian habitat that supports a wide variety of water and upland species. Of particular note are the Blue Heron Rookeries that exist along the Roaring Fork River on the southern portion of the property. As you are aware, Great blue herons are protected 43 by the United States Migratory Bird Treaty Act managed and enforced by the US Fish and Wildlife. Staff referred the project to the Colorado Division of Wildlife who provided the following comments which will need to be addressed in any development. The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition, the property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The existing conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of the Cattle Creek for trout habitat are welcomed by the Division. The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: 1. The heron rookeries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as closed as 50 yards the toe crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring near the rookery. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 2. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek area extremely important to wildlife. These areas on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be limited into these areas. 3. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the development area reaching these waterways. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. 4. All utilities buried. 5. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 6. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead property. 7. As noted the property is not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the areas which then seek refuge on the undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82 as an elk underpass, but it is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures. (The proposed culvert right.) Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and planting of native vegetation are encourage to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage wildlife which may die on their underpass is shown below to the 45 elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. Any development plan proposed on this property will need to address these issues supported by a wildlife impact analysis performed by a qualified professional. L. Soils / Geology Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Geologic Survey for comments which are included here in their entirely: As we stated in our earlier reviews, the geologic hazards of this site relate to potentially problematic soil, terrace escarpment instability, and subsidence from dissolution of the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock. Earlier geotechnical work on the site has been done by CTUThompson and HP Geotech. The current sketch plan submittal indicates that HP Geotech is currently on the project team for the development. Problematic Soils Fortunately, almost the entire development where residential lots are proposed is located on ancient river terraces that are mantled with glaciofluvial outwash. These deposits are densely packed cobbly to bouldery gravel and sand, and generally provide excellent foundation bearing capacities for residential structures. A very thin mantle of topsoil and sandy clay appear to overlie the gravel where residential lots are proposed. This material will likely be removed below the foundation for the minimum depth for frost protection in spread footings and if basements are utilized. A small alluvial fan exists in the northeast comer of the development on top of the highest terrace near Highway 82. While much of the fan has been avoided, multi- family units are planned along the distal portion of the alluvial fan. Variable thicknesses of potentially hydrocompactive soils will likely mantle the terrace gravels in this area. Foundation, landscaping, and grading designs for structures in this area must address potential wetting of these soils and ground settlement that could result. Another area that may contain possible collapsible soil is along the southeast margin of the development where a narrow strip of colluvial sheetwash soil, which eroded from the ridge of Eagle Valley Evaporite across Highway 82, may extend beyond the RFTA Corridor onto the terrace gravel. Terrace Scarp Instability In earlier reports, HP Geotech expressed a precaution about siting residences too close to the terrace escarpment. Their recommendations should be followed. Too close to both intermediate and lower escarpment could pose risk to structures from potential creep, and possible slope instability. We cannot make 46 an assessment of the encroachment to slope edges in the sketch plan due to the limitations of the map scale in the submission. Evaporite dissolution subsidence and sinkholes Evaporite dissolution and subsidence is a risk for the entire development. As stated in the geology summary, the entire site is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite and sinkholes and subsidence -down warped areas exist on the site and in the general vicinity of the Roaring Fork Valley. Subsidence can threaten structures, pavements, and underground utilities. There have been recent nearby opening of subsurface voids, and spontaneous openings of sinkholes at Aspen Glen and Ironbridge (Rose Ranch) developments, and at the Colorado Mountain College soccer fields in Spring Valley. We would characterize the subsidence risk at this area as being elevated for the long term, and the hazard should be disclosed to all prospective property owners in this development. While it appears that the larger mapped sinkhole features have been mostly avoided by this development plan, it needs to be understood that subsurface voids may occur in other parts of the development that have either not manifested themselves at the surface, or the surface has been infilled with later sediments and obscured. HP Geotech also stated in earlier reports that the remainder of the site outside the mapped sinkhole areas cannot be considered totally risk free for future sinkhole subsidence. The terrace gravels are very permeable so additional water features and landscape irrigation will result in additional water to percolate to the underlying contact with the evaporite bedrock, which may accelerate long-term dissolution. (Identified sinkhole on the property.) We reiterate HP Geotech's recommendation that all foundation excavations be inspected and evaluated by a trained individual; one who has training and experience to discern and identify ground conditions that may indicate localized subsidence that is not necessarily visible on the surface. Careful open - excavation inspections should also be mandated for all infrastructure in the development, especially open trenches. In open excavations, subsidence may be noted by downwarping or buried offsets at the top of the gravel layer, and by thickening topsoil. Loose zones, or even voids in the gravel, may also indicate downward movements of material. The 47 geotechnical consultant must be notified if any subsurface voids, downwarping or thickening of soil layers, or loose gravel zones are encountered so that further evaluation of the hazard and risk assessment can be done, and assess whether redesign is needed. In closing the CGS finds the risk of subsidence to be the only significant geologic hazard that could appreciably affect this development as it is intended. The sketch plan submission geologic features narrative indicated that sinkholes are currently being investigated by the geotechnical consultant. When completed, we suggest the county refer those studies to CGS for review prior to plan approval. Site-specific investigations should be required for design of all structure foundations, and this investigation should specifically address subsidence hazard potential. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) reviewed the project and provided the following comments: • Any concerns with the stability of the steep slopes to the river should be incorporated into the preliminary plan. • Concerns with foundation construction and on the project soils should be addressed. • The drainage plan proposes to infiltrate water. The project has a history of sink holes and hydro -collapsing soils. Infiltration should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer before being proposed. The Applicant shall also address the following section in the Subdivision Regulations for Preliminary Plan: 4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: GEOLOGY, SOIL, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Information on the following characteristics of the area proposed for subdivision shall be shown graphically and/or by reports, whatever is appropriate, for a complete description of existing conditions, and shall include a "description and/or illustration by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado of bedrock lithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying unconsolidated materials in sufficient detail to indicate any potential development problems resulting from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations and ills, expansive soils, drainage patterns, structural bearing strength, or the like;" M. Vegetation Management Outside of the 54 -acre conservation easement, the remainder 227 -acres of the property have been virtually denuded of any viable vegetation with the exception of noxious weeds. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the Sketch plan and offers the following comments: 1) Noxious Weeds 48 • Inventory and mapping -The applicant shall map and inventory the property, including the conservation area, for County Listed Noxious Weeds. • Weed Management -The applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. Weeds likely to be in the project area are scotch thistle, plumeless thistle, and oxeye daisy. • Common area weed management -The applicant needs to address weed management in common areas including road rights of way, parks, and open space. Issues to address are monitoring, treatment, and funding. • Covenants -If the subdivision will have covenants this is an opportunity to encourage weed control with new property owners, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to manage county listed noxious weeds. 2) Revegetation The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: • Plant material list. • Planting schedule. • A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). • A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of theft staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 3) Soil Plan The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: • Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. • A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. • A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 4) Conservation Area 49 • There is a historic nesting site for the blue herons, and a new nesting area. How much of a buffer zone does the applicant propose to leave between the edge of the development and the conservation area? • I have been on several site visits on this property, and each time I have been down to the conservation area -the site willabeen ase applicy ant woekted withlth theheRoarnng ty listed noxious weed Scotch thistle,pp Conservancy to manage the weeds in the conservation area? N. Easements / ROW The property has a number of easements including at least the following: 1. RFTA Trail Easement; 2. 20 -foot & 50 -foot Open Space Conservation Easement benefiting AVLT along the RFTA Trail; 3. 25 -foot easement for the Glenwood Ditch; 4. Thompson Glen Ditch Company Easement; 5. RFC Conservation Easement protecting Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork; 6. 40 -foot non-exclusive access easement for the benefit of Nick Galuba; 7. CDOT Easements along SH 82; and Section 4:50(0) of the Subdivision regulations requires all existing easements, along with the name and address of the entity having an easement shall be legally described on the plat. Moreover, the Applicant needs to provide details as to how the proposed plan does not adversely affect these easements and continues to allow for their access and use. Staff also notes previous applications required a Water Tank Access Easement on Wayne Rudd property to hold water to serve the property. This will need to be graphically shown on the plans with a legal description and included as a part of any PUD boundary. As such, noticing for public hearings will require notice from this easement as well. d e As the project develops and majortforahosedry utulities are tiltes willeneedetoto behcreated�legally y such as the water and sewer, easements described and transferred to a legal entity that can hold them (HOA / Metro, etc.) 0. Trails / Paths / Parks The plan represents a very good trails system that provides pedestrian access throughout the site. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the property largely benefits from have a recently improved RFTA bike and prian trail and b kershto the RFTA Park andproperty R de aththe ich provides a direct connection for pedestrians intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 which supports the project as transit oriented. Staff is concerned that the proposed density of 979 units that could result in 2,500 people will overload the small pocket parks and ponds proposed in the plan as well as add pressure on the fragile riparian values To this e areas partulDarOhas ly the mentioned that trails should be kept out of certain wildlife sensiti RFC easement. 50 P. Assessment / Fees The development is located in the RE -1 School District which requires a developer to either convey sites and land areas for schools or pay a School Site Acquisition Fee to be calculated and paid at Final Plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) pursuant to Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations. The property is located in the Carbondale Rural and Fire Protection District which will require that the developer and the development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer shall be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of these fees which is to be executed and paid at final plat. The current fee is $437.00 per dwelling unit. It is unclear if the developer will construct the fire house and at what phase. This will need to be how this works. The fee would generally equate to $427,823.00 to be paid at final plat. The property does not fall within a County Traffic Study Area and therefore is not required to pay a traffic impact fee to Garfield County. This, presumably, is due to its direct access to SH 82 which is CDOT jurisdiction. Q. Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants Please be aware, the County requires, at a minimum, the Applicant place the following plat notes on the final plat and in protective covenants: 1. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." 2. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances." 3. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale 51 Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." 4. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." 5. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." 6. If applicable, the following plat note shall be included regarding a severed mineral estate: "The mineral rights associated with this property known as the Hunt Ranch Subdivision have been partially severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)." R. Staff Review Summary The proposed development doubles the density of what the RGSD allows in terms of basic unit count and requires a variety of zoning (use / dimensional standards) flexibility to accommodate the physical plan. It is assumed a PUD would be proposed. While the Comprehensive Plan shows a density range between 0 and less than 2 acres / du, the surrounding community infrastructure needs to be able to adequately handle impacts from whatever density is finally targeted which could result in as few as 141 dwelling units. While this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, Staff sees the following major challenges that lay ahead for this development that need to be addressed: 1) Significant challenge with access onto SH 82 at the CR 114 intersection, the use of CR 154, and the CR 113 intersection; 2)Access in and out of the project needs to be designed to allow for multiple points instead of one; 3) Impacts to the Elk and Blue Heron Rookery; 4) Financial Impact Analysis needs to be conducted to adequately determine the impacts to the Community (County, School & Fire Districts) and their ability to provide service without financially taxing those entities; 5) Provision of Affordable Housing that would be consumed by latent demand vs. free market job creation generated from the 900 proposed "free market" dwelling units; 6)A need to accommodate more Transit Oriented Development concepts utilizing RFTA and accommodating the "Trails to Rails" issue; 52 7) Demonstrate that a mid-lower valley commercial core won't result in trip creation versus a VMT reduction; and 8) Demonstrate that the soils and geology have been adequately analyzed dealing with sinkholes. S. Sketch Plan Comments and Preliminary Plan Review The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by that date, the Applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and comparison with the original application. 53 River Bend Colorado LLC From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:00 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: River Bend Colorado LLC Fred - Thank you for the opportunity to review Cattle Creek Crossing on SH 82. This was the former Bair Ranch development. This site will need access permits for SH 82. I have talked to their representatives and they do know they need to get an access permit. We are waiting for applications. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th, Suite 100 Grand Junction, Co 81501 970-683-6284 970-683-6290 FAX file://T:\fjarman\Land Use Cases\2008\Subdivision PUD\Sketch\Cattle Creek Crossing Sket... 5/9/2008 From: Mark Kadnuck [MAKADNUC@cdphe.state.co.us] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:53 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Cattle Creek Crossing Comments on the proposed Cattle Creek Crossing development: Water and sewer provided by Roaring Fork WSD. Proposed lift station will need to go through CDPHE-WQCD site application and design review process. 1 EXHIBIT Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. CDPHE-WQCD 222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 ph: 970-248-7144 fax: 970-248-7198 email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us file://T:\fjarman\Land Use Cases\2008\Subdivision PUD\Sketch\Cattle Creek Crossing Sket... 5/9/2008 Garfield County Housing Authority 2128 Railroad Avenue Rifle, CO 81650 Phone (970) 625-3589 Fax (970) 625-0859 April 21, 2008 TO: Fred Jarman, Director Garfield County Building and Planning FROM: Geneva Powell, Executive Director Garfield County Housing Authority REFERENCE: Cattle Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Submission The Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) reviewed the Cattle Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Submission (Applicant) as requested and offers the following comments. The GCHA is unsure if the applicant is required under the existing land use code to build 10% of the units under the County's affordable housing guidelines. In our review of the sketch plan and in earlier discussions with the Applicant we think that the Applicant is claiming not to trigger the County's Inclusionary Zoning regulations. Thus, any affordable housing proposal might not be automatically subject to the County's affordable housing regulations and affordability definitions could be subject to negotiation. On page 11 the applicant states that they are committed to affordable housing. They propose to deed restrict 10% of the total units or just under 100 units. It appears that the Applicant is proposing to build a mix of for -sale units and rental units that are affordable to an unclear definition of affordability. It is unclear as to the price point of the affordable housing units, which AMI group(s) will be targeted, and the mix of for -sale and rental. GCHA is not clear if appreciation would be capped through a deed restriction or if another form such as Resident Occupied (RO) only would be use. The Applicant further states that they are evaluating federal, state and local programs that best meet the housing needs. If they will not be following the County's Affordable Housing Guidelines then will they establish their own? Also the Applicant states that they are exploring opportunities for businesses to buy - down units for their employees. This is a good concept, however it is unclear if these will be Garfield County employers or employers of other counties and how affordability would be defined and guaranteed. We also would like to know the number of units that would be for employees of these businesses versus the number of units offered to the general public and how this would be administered. The Housing Authority is not sure of the end product(s) that the applicant is proposing for affordable housing. We ask for more information from staff and the BOCC and suggest that further clarification be sought from the Applicant. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Thank You Fred Jarman From: Mike Hermes [mhermes@rfta.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:36 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: RFTA Cattle Creek Comments Attachments: 20080422114148165. pdf EXHIBIT Hello Fred, I have been asked to provide you with RFTA comments regarding the Cattle Creek project proposed by Related Westpac. We have two areas of concern with regards to the project. One concerns the rail road right of way owned by RFTA and the second is the impact the development will have an the RFTA bus system and how the development and RFTA will interact. Rail Corridor The rail road right of way owned by RFTA and rail banked for a future transit project runs through the property under review for the Cattle Creek project. The current use of the railroad property will be for a valley wide bike trail. This bike trail is currently under construction and several improvements and amenities for the trail haven been negotiated with the previous owners of the property. This agreement runs with the land and are binding on the current owners, Related Westpac. We are currently reviewing this agreement with representatives of Related Westpac and updating the agreement to reflect the proposed change in the use of the property from a golf course and low density residential to a high density residential project. RFTA and the representatives of related Westpac are meeting in the near future to try and resolve this issue. I have attached the agreements between RFTA and the owners of the property to this email for you to review. The future use of the rail road right of way and its interaction with the proposed Cattle Creek development is also a concern for RFTA. It is the organizations goal to bring a fixed guide way, mass transit project back to the rail corridor at some point in the future. With such a densely populated community being split by a train type transportation system, the potential for conflict between RFTA and the future residence 5/9/2008 Page 2 of 6 of the Cattle Creek project seems probable. As per RFTA's agreement with last owners (Bair Chase) of the property, a plat note outlining the use of the rail corridor is to be included on the final plat. (please see the attached agreement). While this should inform any purchasers of property within the Cattle Creek project of the potential use of the rail corridor it will not mitigate the potential social and financial impact a rail transit project within the rail corridor will have on the community. Transit The proposed density of the Cattle Creek development and its proximity to RFTA bus stops should allow the development to take advantage of the current transit system. Please see Kristen Kenyon's comments attached below this email for more detailed comments. RFTA is currently developing a long range bus system plan and a bus rapid transitP lan and so the exact details of how RFTA and the Cattle Creek development will interact is unknown. We would like to encourage the developers to work with RFTA to make the development as transit friendly as possible. The developer has proposed a internal shuttle system to bring the residence to a RFTA bus stop either at the intersection of Cattle Creek and highway 82 or the intersection of highway 82 and County Road 154. It is RFTA's opinion that this shuttle system is critical to creating a transit friendly development of the size and should be instituted as soon in the development of the project as practical and that it become a permanent part of the development. The construction of a park and ride and new, more user friendly bus stops at the intersection of County Road 154 road and highway 82 is also in RFTA's future plans and these transit amenities will be a great benefit to the Cattle Creek development. Assistance with the construction of these facilities could help offset the impact the Cattle Creek development will have on the RFTA bus service. The proposed density of the Cattle Creek project and its focus on creating a middle class residential community could have a significant impact on the RFTA bus system and RFTA would like to encourage Garfield County and Related Westpac to work with RFTA to provide the most efficient bus service possible to this development. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at my office Regards 5/9/2008 Page 3 of 6 Director of Properties and Trails Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (970) 384-4973 Hi Rocky I will let Mike H. set up a time with you to discuss trail work and agreements for your development when he returns on November 5th. Regarding your bus service questions, my thoughts/suggestions are listed below. (Sorry for the length of the email, but thought it best to write them all out!) RFTA is focusing efforts currently on finalizing the definition of our Bus Rapid Transit project. Given what I have seen to date regarding our BRT planning efforts, there are two key projects that will serve the Cattle Creek area in the nearer to mid term horizon (up to 2017). First, we are working on restructuring our services to be more timely so the commute from the Cattle Creek area (CMC stop) to Aspen/S.V. using the BRT trunk service will be very speedy and will have limited stops. It looks like the CMC park and ride will be designated as a BRT stop. There is much work to do at that location to make it a BRT compliant stop, including improvements accel/decel lanes, bus pullouts, and the park and ride itself. The investment by RFTA in improving the CMC park and ride is anticipated to reap big returns in terms of convenience and ridership and is the second major investment that we believe will benefit the residents of your future development. We are focusing on finding the funding for these two BRT-related improvements in the next year and hopefully getting these improvements implemented in the next three to five years or so. We are encouraging local neighbors, such as CMC and the Spring Valley developer to contribute towards the CMC park and ride improvements and would welcome any contribution your development could make as well! Currently the BRT service and facility projects are those for which we are focusing on implementing in the next five to ten years. I would have to say that serving a new bus stop at Cattle Creek and working on planning, funding and operating a new shuttle system for your development appear to be much longer term projects to us than do the BRT improvements stated previously. There is a strong reluctance from our Operations Dept to serve any new additional stops along the highway, especially given our prior experience in serving this area and given that adding new stops adds time to an already long route. Perhaps after your development is further established would be a good time to revisit this issue again with our Operations Department. A new shuttle service is also a much longer term prospect for us to consider and we would not be able to make any commitments at this time. An added wrinkle is that Garfield County is not an official member of RFTA. Therefore making significant investments in service in unincorporated Garfield County, at this time, is very difficult for us to do politically as it takes away staff resources from other projects in the valley that are within the boundaries of our member jurisdictions. For several years, the topic of a shuttle system to serve the CMC Spring Valley campus has been discussed. Even with CMC as a funding partner, the capital and operating costs associated with running an effective shuttle system have resulted in the stagnation of getting this system off the ground. Perhaps Garfield County, CMC, the Spring Valley developer and yourselves would be interested in pulling together the required funding to establish a shuttle system in this area. At that point, RFTA would be open to discussing with you and your other funding partners the costs we would charge to provide this service similar to what we do for the City of Glenwood. The service is likely to be expensive due to purchasing two vehicles and hiring RFTA drivers at a loaded rate due to insurance and maintenance costs. I could ask our CEO, Dan Blankenship, to develop some very rough figures for this, but it would take some time. In summary, I would recommend the following as our steps regarding transit services and facilities for your development: 5/9/2008 Page 4 of 6 In Short Term (2008-2009): - provide a financial contribution to the redesign and construction of CMC park and ride improvements - participate in the design of the park and ride so as to ensure access to development is as convenient as possible - educate new residents on how to use transit - encourage residents to support funding for BRT in future election - encourage Garfield County and new residents to support joining RFTA For mid term (2011-2012) - Meet with RFTA Operations and Planners to revisit transit needs of those living in the development - Reexamine possibility of adding bus stops at former Cattle Creek site to be served by LOCAL buses only (not BRT) - Discuss feasibility and need for circulator; work on pulling together funding partners Rocky - Hope this helps clarify our position regarding transit operations. Again, I will leave the discussion on trails improvement up to Mike Hermes, Yours truly, Kristin Kenyon, RFTA From: Rocky Shepard[mailto:RShepard@relatedwestpac.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:11 PM To: Kristin Kenyon Cc: Mike Hermes Subject: Cattle Creek project Kristin, I have a couple questions for you.e are fine CMC tuning u road pand ark project e came and d tthe idea of a jitney or small shuttle through our project to the schoole My questions are: What are the thoughts of RFTA on an internal shuttle system taking to the park -n -ride and if there is a bus stop at the traffic light, to the stop? 5/9/2008 Page 5 of 6 2. Are there legal or licensing problems with a shuttle system? 3. Is there an option to partner with RFTA on a shuttle? Those are just a few questions I had. I think there will be a need and it would help get traffic off the road, but I don't want to go against any RFTA plans and would prefer not being in the transportation business. If you have any thoughts or information, I would appreciate you passing it along. I would like to schedule a time that I could meet with you, Mike, and your legal department to get an agreement we can all live with so when it is time to put the bike trail in, we are ready to go. I already got a call from Aspen Earthworks wanting to start this winter! Thanks, Rocky Rockwood Shepard Project Manager RELATED / WESTPAC 132 West Main Street Aspen Colorado 81611 C 970-309-1936 O 970-922-2853 F 970-922-0561 rshepard@relatedwestpac.com 5/9/2008 Page 6 of 6 5/9/2008 Comments from RFTA (Kristin Kenyon) RFTA is focusing efforts currently on finalizing the definition of our Bus Rapid Transit project. Given what I have seen to date regarding our BRT planning efforts, there are two key projects that will serve the Cattle Creek area in the nearer to mid term horizon (up to 2017). First, we are working on restructuring our services to be timelier so the commute from the Cattle Creek area (CMC stop) to Aspen/S.V. using the BRT trunk service will be very speedy and will have limited stops. It looks like the CMC park and ride will be designated as a BRT stop. There is much work to do at that location to make it a BRT compliant stop, including improvements accel / decel lanes, bus pullouts, and the park and ride itself. The investment by RFTA in improving the CMC park and ride is anticipated to reap big returns in terms of convenience and ridership and is the second major investment that we believe will benefit the residents of your future development. We are focusing on finding the funding for these two BRT-related improvements in the next year and hopefully getting these improvements implemented in the next three to five years or so. We are encouraging local neighbors, such as CMC and the Spring Valley developer to contribute towards the CMC park and ride improvements and would welcome any contribution your development could make as well! Currently the BRT service and facility projects are those for which we are focusing on implementing in the next five to ten years. I would have to say that serving a new bus stop at Cattle Creek and working on planning, funding and operating a new shuttle system for your development appear to be much longer term projects to us than do the BRT improvements stated previously. There is a strong reluctance from our Operations Dept to serve any new additional stops along the highway, especially given our prior experience in serving this area and given that adding new stops adds time to an already long route. Perhaps after your development is further established would be a good time to revisit this issue again with our Operations Department. A new shuttle service is also a much longer term prospect for us to consider and we would not be able to make any commitments at this time. An added wrinkle is that Garfield County is not an official member of RFTA. Therefore making significant investments in service in unincorporated Garfield County, at this time, is very difficult for us to do politically as it takes away staff resources from other projects in the valley that are within the boundaries of our member jurisdictions. For several years, the topic of a shuttle system to serve the CMC Spring Valley campus has been discussed. Even with CMC as a funding partner, the capital and operating costs associated with running an effective shuttle system have resulted in the stagnation of getting this system off the ground. Perhaps Garfield County, CMC, the Spring Valley developer and yourselves would be interested in pulling together the required funding to establish a shuttle system in this area. At that point, RFTA would be open to discussing with you and your other funding partners the costs we would charge to provide this service similar to what we do for the City of Glenwood. The service is likely to be expensive due to purchasing two vehicles and hiring RFTA drivers at a loaded rate due to insurance and maintenance costs. I could ask our CEO, Dan Blankenship, to develop some very rough figures for this, but it would take some time. In summary, I would recommend the following as our steps regarding transit services and facilities for your development: In Short Term (2008-2009) - provide a financial contribution to the redesign and construction of CMC park and ride improvements - participate in the design of the park and ride so as to ensure access to development is as convenient as possible - educate new residents on how to use transit - encourage residents to support funding for BRT in future election - encourage Garfield County and new residents to support joining RFTA For mid term (2011-2012) - Meet with RFTA Operations and Planners to revisit transit needs of those living in the development - Reexamine possibility of adding bus stops at former Cattle Creek site to be served by LOCAL buses only (not BRT) - Discuss feasibility and need for circulator; work on pulling together funding partners EXHIBIT K Board of Directors Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 76 Service Center Road Aspen, CO 81611 LinksVest/BairChase, LLC P.O. Box 1825 Carbondale, CO 81623 April 11, 2002 This Letter of Understanding (LOU) is to memorialize the mutual understandings between the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority ("RFTA") and LinksVest/BairChase ("BairChase") ("the parties"), regarding the approval of improvements within the rail corridor owned by RFTA and described in the Bargain and Sale Deed dated July 30, 1999 and recorded in the records of Garfield County, Colorado in Book 1142 at Page 961, Reception No. 549450, between milepost 367.0 and 368.7 (see Attachment 1) (the "Rail Corridor"), as allowed under the unrecorded Agreement between the parties dated July 30, 1999, as amended by the unrecorded Amendment to Agreement dated November 8, 2000 (the "Settlement Agreement"); and the Easement Grant dated July 30, 1999, and recorded in the records of Garfield County, Colorado in Book 1142 at Page 963, Reception No. 549751, as amended by the Amendment to Easement Grant dated November 8, 2000 and recorded in the records of Garfield County, Colorado in Book 1217 at Page 588, Reception No. 572244 (the "Easement Grant"). The Settlement Agreement and the Easement Grant are included as Attachment 2. The parties agree that: 1) Pursuant to Paragraph 5.d. of the Settlement Agreement and Paragraph 6.g. of the Easement Grant, RFTA has determined that freight and transit service within the Rail Corridor is not reasonably foreseeable prior to December 31, 2009, when BairChase's obligation to provide security for and to install the Improved Design will expire, and is therefore infeasible under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Easement Grant. Therefore, RFTA hereby determines that the Improved Design is not required to serve the development at Sanders Ranch and releases BairChase from the obligation under the Settlement Agreement or the Easement Grant to prepare and submit an Improved Design, to install an Improved Design, or to provide any security therefore. Letter of Understanding between RFTA And BairChase 1'age 1 2) The Rail Corridor will be used for recreational and transportation purposes by RFTA. BairChase agrees to place the following note on the Final Plat: "The railroad corridor passing through or adjacent to the development as shown on this Plat is owned by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) and is bound by a Decision And Notice of Interim Trail Use/railbanking issued by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), Docket No. AB -547X. As such, RFTA intends to use the corridor for interim trail purposes. The conditions of the STB decision require that this corridor remain subject to the future restoration of rail service." 3) A portion of the Rail Corridor (milepost 368.5 — 368.63) is encumbered by a Conservation Restriction. All improvements to the corridor anticipated in this area to be made under the various licenses, easements and agreements concerning the Sanders Ranch will not change or will enhance the conservation values of the Rail Corridor. 4) Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Easement Grant, upon submission of plans and specifications for this road and utility crossing satisfactory to the RFTA Director of Properties and Trails (the "Initial Design" as referred to in the Easement Grant), RFTA shall approve the work under the license for the placement of a Class II Corridor Crossing (as per the Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan, November 9, 1999) at milepost 368.08. This corridor crossing shall include a grade -separated crossing for the trail. The improvements will also include foundations and electrical sleeves under the road and to an electrical supply for the traffic control devices described in Paragraph 9. 5) Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the License Grant dated July 30, 1999, and recorded in the records of Garfield County, Colorado in Book 1142 at Page 979, Reception No. 549752, as amended by the Amendment to License Grant dated November 8, 2000 and recorded in the records of Garfield County, Colorado in Book 1217 at Page 596, Reception No. 572246 (the "License Grant"), and upon submission of plans and specifications for this utility crossing satisfactory to the RFTA Director of Properties and Trails, RFTA shall approve the work under the license for the placement of a buried utility crossing at milepost 368.14. 6) Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the License Grant and upon submission of plans and specifications for this road and utility crossing satisfactory to the RFTA Director of Properties and Trails, RFTA shall approve the work under the license for the placement of a Class I Corridor Crossing (as per the Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan, November 9, 1999) together with underground utility crossings, at milepost 367.66. The improvements will also include foundations Letter of Understanding between RI TA And BairChase Page 2 and electrical sleeves under the road and to an electrical supply for the traffic control devices described in Paragraph 9. The parties shall enter into a new License Grant pursuant to which BairChase shall place the following improvements within the Rail Corridor: a) Construction of a soft -surface trail between milepost 367.0 (CMC Park & Ride) and milepost 368.63 (south edge of Sanders Ranch) that conforms to the RFTA soft -surface trail standards as shown in Sections 2 and 3-14 of the Pitkin County Trails Design and Management Handbook. This trail section shall include a bridge across Cattle Creek and the trail alignment will be mutually determined by the parties in the field to provide undulation within or adjacent to the corridor. The trail and landscaping of the rail corridor will be completed regardless of cost by BairChase as a part of the golf course and crossing improvements during the initial phase of the development construction plan. b) A weed eradication/landscaping/irrigation plan between milepost 367.27 and 368.63. The intent of this plan is to utilize portions of the golf course property and the Rail Corridor to provide a coordinated buffer area through placement of a blended landscape interface. The plan will rehabilitate the Rail Corridor through eradication of weeds and reclamation of the land with native vegetation. The plan will be developed mutually between RFTA staff and BairChase, providing specifications and drawings for grading, irrigation systems, weed control for the entire Rail Corridor through the BairChase property. This plan will be appended as an Exhibit to the new License Grant. c) Continued means of access to the Rail Corridor by BairChase to provide for the maintenance of vegetation in the Rail Corridor (excluding the rail and trail) over time. 8) Upon approval of a Final Plat for that portion of the BairChase residential development plan consisting of multi -family dwelling units or apartments adjacent to the existing Sopris Restaurant, BairChase shall make payment to RFTA for $30,000 towards improvement of a Park -&-Ride lot at County Road 154 & Highway 82. 9) Upon approval of the Final Plat for that portion of the BairChase residential development plan that will be served by a road crossing of the Rail Corridor at milepost 368.08, Bair Chase shall make payment to RFTA of $25,000 as contribution to the purchase of future traffic control devices, such as warning lights and bells, cross bucks, and associated pedestals. Letter of Understanding between REI'A And BairChase Page 3 10) This Letter of Understanding is binding on the successors and assigns of the parties. Letter of Understanding between RFTA And 13airehasc Page 4 Total Est. Cost % Benefit RFTA Adjusted Total 1) 1.8 miles of soft -surface trail from CMC Park & Ride to south end of BairChase (includes underpass at crossing) $ 500,000.00 100% $ 500,000.00 2) Trail Bridge over Cattle Creek $ 75,000.00 100% $ 75,000.00 3) Infrastructure for Crossings $ 25,000.00 100% $ 25,000.00 4) Park & Ride contribution $ 30,000.00 100% $ 30,000.00 5) Landscape Plan, including weed eradication, plant new landscaping, maintain the vegetation in corridor $ 150,000.00 50% $ 75,000.00 Sub -Total $ 705,000.00 Trail Commitment $ (182,000.00) Construct at -grade road crossings, & grade -separated trail crossing in -lieu of grade -separated road - road crossing $ (500,000.00) Cost/Benefit (-1+) $ 23,000.00 Letter of Understanding between RFTA And 13airehasc Page 4 By signing this Letter of Understanding below, the parties do hereby agree to the conditions of this letter and agree to abide by them. FOR THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY: T. Michael Manchester, Chair Responsible party for RFTA: Mike Hermes Director of Properties and Trails RFTA P.O. Box 1270 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-9012 FOR LINKVEST/BAIRCHASE, LLC: Responsible Party for BairChase: Name Title Address Letter of Understanding between RFTA And BairChase Page 5 Attachment 1: Map of BairChase Rail Corridor identifying where Activities will take place Letter of Understanding between RFTA And BairChase Page 6 Attachment 2 Settlement Agreement and the Easement Grant Letter of Understanding between RFTA And BairChase Page 7 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form EXHIBIT 11 - Date Sent: March 27, 2008 Comments Due: April 22, 2008 Name of application: Cattle Creek Crossing Sent to: Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staffs contact: Fred Jarman 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this application with the following comments. As the primary entrance to this project is from Colorado State Highway 82 no driveway permit is needed for this entrance. Future entrances to Cr. 154 and Cr.113 if not within_ the CDOT ROW will need to be permitted and all improvements to these intersections shall be approved by Garfield County Engineers. An vehicles usin • Garfield Coun . ortions of Cr. 154 and or Cr. 113 haulin equipment and materials for construction of this project shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight permit system. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date April 7, 2008, Revised 3/30/00 To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Cattle Creek Crossing Date: April 22, 2008 MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT IIV1 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Sketch Plan. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -The applicant shall map and inventory the property, including the conservation area, for County Listed Noxious Weeds. • Weed Management -The applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. Weeds likely to be in the project area are scotch thistle, plumeless thistle, and oxeye daisy. • Common area weed management -The applicant needs to address weed management in common areas including road rights of way, parks, and open space. Issues to address are monitoring, treatment, and funding. • Covenants -If the subdivision will have covenants this is an opportunity to encourage weed control with new property owners, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to manage county listed noxious weeds. 2. Revegetation The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: • Plant material list. • Planting schedule. • A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). • A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 3. Soil Plan The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 4. Conservation Area • There is a historic nesting site for the blue herons, and a new nesting area. How much of a buffer zone does the applicant propose to leave between the edge of the development and the conservation area? • I have been on several site visits on this property, and each time I have been down to the conservation area -the site as been severely infested with the county listed noxious weed Scotch thistle, will the applicant work with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to manage the weeds in the conservation area? DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES April 8, 2008 Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Fred Jarman Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Cattle Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Secs. 7 & 18, T7S, R88W, and Secs. 1 & 12, T7S, R89W, 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Fred: We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 281.62 acres to contain a total of 979 single-family and multi -family residential units and several community amenities, including an elementary school, fitness center and commercial area. The domestic water supply is to be provided by connection to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). The irrigation water supply is to be provided through the use of existing water rights. Details, including decrees, were not provided for the irrigation rights. Sewage disposal is to be provided through connection to RFWSD. No water use estimates were provided. The applicant has several cases pending in water court involving water rights to be dedicated to the District pursuant to the inclusion agreement for this development. Case Nos. 01CW187 and 07CW164 also involve a plan for augmentation that will rely on an allotment contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District to replace out -of -priority depletions. The court has not yet issued decrees for the subject cases. No information was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. As stated in C.R.S. 30-28-133(3)(d), the subdivider is required to submit "Adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the type of subdivision proposed." Adequate evidence is usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. See the Updated Memorandum Regarding Subdivisions (online at www.water.state co.us/pubs/policiesimemo subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. Due to the lack of a water court -approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Sincer Craig M. Lis, P`E. Water Resource Engineer CML/CJL/CattleCreekCrossing.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us STATE OF COL COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY— serving the people of Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 April 22, 2008 E- Al E 1 lit COLORADO orTri CGS LUR No. GA -08-0010 DEPARTMENT OF Centroid: NW'/4, Sec. 7, Sec. 12, T7S, R88W NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8t Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cattle Creek Crossing Geologic Hazards Review Dear Mr. Jarman, Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request, and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972), this office has reviewed the materials submitted by your office and considered the geologic hazards and geologic conditions that may affect the land use development. The Colorado Geological Survey had previously conducted land use reviews and submitted review letters to Garfield County Planning Department for this site. Previous submittal application names and dates of review letters to the county include: Bair Chase at Sanders Ranch (August 30, 2004 and February 2, 2004); Sanders Ranch (January 22, 2001 and November 12, 1999); and the original Cattle Creek Crossing PUD submittal dated March 10, 1998. No new geologic hazard or geotechnical reports were included in this submittal. This submittal was a ledger -sized sketch plan submission that only includes a brief summary of the geology and geologic hazards in the Detailed Existing Conditions section. We have reviewed the earlier CGS correspondence stated above for this review. Please consider the following observations in your land use decisions. As we stated in our earlier reviews, the geologic hazards of this site relate to potentially problematic soil, terrace escarpment instability, and subsidence from dissolution of the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock. Earlier geotechnical work on the site has been done by CTL/Thompson and HP Geotech. The current sketch plan submittal indicates that HP Geotech is currently on the project team for the development. RECEIVED APR 2 9 2008 COUNTY UILDING & PLANNING Problematic Soils Fortunately, almost the entire development where residential lots are proposed is located on ancient river terraces that are mantled with glaciofluvial outwash. These deposits are densely packed cobbly to bouldery gravel and sand, and generally provide excellent foundation bearing capacities for residential structures. A very thin mantle of topsoil and sandy clay appear to overlie the gravel where residential lots are proposed. This material will likely be removed below the foundation for the minimum depth for frost protection in spread footings and if basements are utilized. A small alluvial fan exists in the northeast corner of the development on top of the highest terrace near Highway 82. While much of the fan has been avoided, multi -family units are planned along the distal portion of the alluvial fan. Variable thicknesses of potentially hydrocompactive soils will likely mantle the terrace gravels in this area. Foundation, landscaping, and grading designs for structures in this area must address potential wetting of these soils and ground settlement that could result. Another area that may contain possible collapsible soil is along the southeast margin of the development where a narrow strip of colluvial sheetwash soil, which eroded from the ridge of Eagle Valley Evaporite across Highway 82, may extend beyond the RFTA Corridor onto the terrace gravel. Terrace Scarp Instability In earlier reports, HP Geotech expressed a precaution about siting residences too close to the terrace escarpment. Their recommendations should be followed. Too close to both intermediate and lower escarpment could pose risk to structures from potential creep, and possible slope instability. We cannot make an assessment of the encroachment to slope edges in the sketch plan due to the limitations of the map scale in the submission. Evaporite dissolution subsidence and sinkholes Evaporite dissolution and subsidence is a risk for the entire development. As stated in the geology summary, the entire site is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite and sinkholes and subsidence-downwarped areas exist on the site and in the general vicinity of the Roaring Fork Valley. Subsidence can threaten structures, pavements, and underground utilities. There have been recent nearby opening of subsurface voids, and spontaneous openings of sinkholes at Aspen Glen and Ironbridge (Rose Ranch) developments, and at the Colorado Mountain College soccer fields in Spring Valley. We would characterize the subsidence risk at this area as being elevated for the long term, and the hazard should be disclosed to all prospective property owners in this development. While it appears that the larger mapped sinkhole features have been mostly avoided by this development plan, it needs to be understood that subsurface voids may occur in other parts of the development that have either not manifested themselves at the surface, or the surface has been infilled with later sediments and obscured. HP Geotech also stated in earlier reports that the remainder of the site outside the mapped sinkhole areas cannot be considered totally risk free for future sinkhole subsidence. The terrace gravels are very permeable so additional water features and landscape irrigation will result in additional water to percolate to the underlying contact with the evaporite bedrock, which may accelerate long-term dissolution. We reiterate HP Geotech's recommendation that all foundation excavations be inspected and evaluated by a trained individual; one who has training and experience to discern and identify ground conditions that may indicate localized subsidence that is not necessarily visible on the surface. Careful open -excavation inspections should also be mandated for all infrastructure in the development, especially open trenches. In open excavations, subsidence may be noted by downwarping or buried offsets at the top of the gravel layer, and by thickening topsoil. Loose zones, or even voids in the gravel, may also indicate downward movements of material. The geotechnical consultant must be notified if any subsurface voids, downwarping or thickening of soil layers, or loose gravel zones are encountered so that further evaluation of the hazard and risk assessment can be done, and assess whether redesign is needed. In closing the CGS finds the risk of subsidence to be the only significant geologic hazard that could appreciably affect this development as it is intended. The sketch plan submission geologic features narrative indicated that sinkholes are currently being investigated by the geotechnical consultant. When completed, we suggest the county refer those studies to CGS for review prior to plan approval. Site-specific investigations should be required for design of all structure foundations, and this investigation should specifically address subsidence hazard potential. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-3551 or e-mail: jonathan.white@state.co.us Sincerely, onathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us April 15, 2008 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED APR 3 0 2008 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING RE: Cattle Creek Crossing sketch plan submission Dear Fred: For-117ildlife- For People The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The existing conservation easements held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of Cattle Creek for trout habitat are welcomed by the Division. The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: S 1. As noted the property ir'i not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the area which then seek refuge on the undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82. The development has proposed using the existing Cattle Creek culvert under Hwy82 as an elk underpass, but it is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair • Robert Bray, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler • Brad Coors • Jeffrey Crawford • Tim Glenn • Roy McAnally • Richard Ray Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 2. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring near the heronry. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are extremely important to wildlife. These areas on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be limited into these areas. 4. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff water should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. 5. All utilities buried. 6. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Per r VIII Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file May 5, 2008 GARFIELD Cuull rY Mr. Fred Jarman: BUILDING & PLANNING Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED MAY 0 9 2008 MOUNTIiI ENGINEER EXHIBIT CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Review of Sketch Plan Submittal for Cattle Creek Crossing Dear Fred: A site visit and review of the documents has been conducted for the Sketch Plan application of Cattle Creek Crossing. The package was found to be thorough and well organized. The following are the questions, concerns, and comment that were generated: Irrigation: • Homeowners will irrigate landscaped areas with raw water. How the irrigation system will be managed and the system design parameters will need to be included with the preliminary plan submittal. • Verification of adequate irrigation water legal and physical supply should also be included. Drainage: • The drainage plan should address the historic levels of runoff and compare those to the proposed project flows. Treatment of stormwater should also be addressed. • Floodplain delineation should be determined and any fill required with in the floodplain will require a flood plain permit. • Utility line construction across the river will need to involve the Corp of Engineers. Permitting will be necessary and any conditions should be addressed. Water System: • Fire flow and fire storage volumes will need to be coordinated with the local fire protection district. Water storage tanks and water distribution system will need to be designed to conform to these fire flow parameters. • The fire flows are based on certain assumptions to building construction, sizes, and/or installation of automatic sprinkler system. These assumptions will need to be provided at preliminary plan so that design parameters can be verified. • An adequate legal and physical supply of water will need to be included at Preliminary Plan. The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) may need to provide evidence to the Office of the State Engineer. Sanitary Sewer System: • Lift stations may require approvals from the State of Colorado. Approval letters from the State will be required at Final Plat but some level of design and coordination of this approval process is appropriate and should be included in Preliminary Plan. • Similarly, consideration should be given to protect the lots surrounding any lift station from noise and odors. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Cattle Creek Crossing Page 2 of 2 05/05/2008 • Adequate plant capacity of waste water treatment of the RFWSD should also be addressed. Road and Traffic Report: • Cul-de-sac lengths greater than 600' may require variances and alternative access points. The local fire district and Garfield County should review these for acceptability and then include any variances in the Preliminary Plan. • State Highway Access Permits will be required. Conformance to any conditions will be necessary and should be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. • A significant portion of traffic will be traveling to and from the south. A southern connection to the Highway should be considered. • Road grades of greater than 10% should be verified as acceptable by local fire protection districts. Steep grades with curves on north facing slopes are generally not acceptable. Soils: • Any concerns with the stability of the steep slopes to the river should be incorporated into the preliminary plan. • Concerns with foundation construction and on the project soils should be addressed. • The drainage plan proposes to infiltrate water. The project has a history of sink holes and hydro -collapsing soils. Infiltration should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer before being proposed. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineerrn Chris Hale, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 Y2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com April 21, 2008 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 816 23 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cattle Creek Crossing — Sketch Plan Application Dear Commission Members: RECEIVED APR 3 0 2008 GARFIELD COU NTY BUILDING & PLANNING At its April 10, 2008 meeting, the Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed the referral for the Sketch Plan Application for Cattle Creek Crossing. The Planning Commission requested that their comments be forwarded on to Garfield County. This is an application for a total of 979 single family and multifamily units on a 281 acre parcel. The Planning Commission noted this development could potentially result in population of 2,447 residents. It was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting that the proposed PUD zone text for this development will include a number of variances from the underlying R/G/SD zone district, including minimum lot area, lot coverage, setbacks, building heights, and floor area ratio. The proposal would create a dense bedroom community on open space/ranch land. The Commission felt that the proposed development would result in a new Town in unincorporated Garfield County. Some of the proposed improvements, including the roads, are more urban than the rural character which exists elsewhere in Garfield County. The Commission discussed whether the density creates an unanswered need for the proposed community to be able to support itself, i.e., police, snow removal, road maintenance. The Commission questioned whether the County should consider incorporating the development if the proposal is approved in order to provide adequate services for the new community. The Commission indicated the density is detached from the communities where the future residents would work and play. The Commission suggested that perhaps the development should have commercial services and jobs for the residents. On the flip side, the Commission noted that this type of density may attract a big box type development in unincorporated Garfield County. The application indicates that 10% of the units, or 97 units, would be deed restricted as affordable housing. The Commission felt that the percentage of affordable housing units which (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-91,.10 is proposed is too low, particularly since the development proposal is framed as providing affordable housing. The Commission agreed that the percentage of affordable housing units should be increased. While the access plans have not been refined, the Planning Commission noted that this would potentially increase the commute time and congestion on Hwy. 82. Any new intersection must be carefully planned to ensure safety of the motorists on Hwy. 82 and comport with all existing county regulations. Also, the Planning Commission suggested that this development be served by a main bus route line. The final comment is that the Commission is concerned about the impact this development would have critical elk habitat. The habitat had already been detrimentally impacted due to the extensive grading on the site which occurred several years ago. Even so, a number of elk still migrate and pasture on the site in season. The Planning Commission indicates that wildlife issues will remain an important consideration. Thank you for allowing the Town the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We understand this is in the conceptual planning stage and we look forward to continued discussions with the County as the development proceeds through the process. Sincerely, Janet M. Buck Senior Planner