HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report 4.22.09W+
%,=ffi.f,rtlla,v,LO rflsa v0' co' u'J
Sketch Plan - Public Meeting Apil 22' 2009
Exhibits for Eastbank Subdivision
Erflbtt Lcttcr
!o 2008ofseCodeULandnifiedUA
Garneta
2000ofPlan
B
C
StaffD
StatrE SUPfor-9297F Road &akeJ,from72009IMarchdatedMemoG vStevefrom2009MarchdatedMemoHohnJ,from20099datedMemoI Division ofeoloradofrom2009)datedLetterJ ofDeparhnentDan Roussin,2009 from20,MarchEmaildated
K Fire District
Ronfrom2009datedMemoL US ofMarkfrom20097datedLetterMofT'own
Janetfrom20097datedLetterN GarfreldGenevafrom2009datedMemoo after reportSurveYfrom200916,AprilLetter
P
REQUEST:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
PROJECT INFORMATPN AND STAFF CO]IIUENTS
PCUDAOS
KE
Sketch Plan
Eastbank, LLC/Meritage Development Group LLC
South of Glenwood Springs- on CR 1il at
ilIii*rci Brldse/CR1oe iurnoff on SH 82
110 acres
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District
CR 154 (Old HighwaY 82\
Rural
Rural and Residential Suburban
Study Area | - Medium Density Residential (6 to
WATER/SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PIAN:<10
"*E-
(q
g
q
t;.riiii"'fff iiy o ---
t....9.,.
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4n2n9
KE
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
'#d.inthesouthwestT,ofSection35,Township6South,'Range 89 West. il;il""ti*1y, the'niry.rrv 1s-rggteo south of Glenwood springs wesf
of State Highway 82 (SH8-2) at Counil tig?d iS+ ti'"inottn of the Hardwick Bridge/CR
1Og intersection). The Roaring F;;k nir"r is it-tne site's southern and westem
boundaries. cR 154 provides oireci'""*r, to the-piopertv south of the signalized
intersection at SH82.
Properties to the north include Orrison
bitiiiurti"g and undeveloped- parcels owned by
th"'i;il;ron family. Tlie Roaring Fork River'
ilLtturnr Ranch Lnd Westbank Mesa are
directlY south of the site'
B. General ProPertv DescriPtion
The property contains appr-oxim"t:ly t10 acres
"nJ
il fo'cated on the valliy floor with the Roaring
Fotr-nir"r forming the southem and westem
LounOaries of the iite' Physically the property
En G cfraracterized as a terraced grould
surface with tenaces sloping downward to the
*."i, terminating at the toweJt terrace containing
rioarian area and the Roaring Fork River' The
,5J"t"iim ano rano form has been altered due to
;l-t""6; activities that occurred at the site'
C. Prooertv Historv
The Eastbanucory point property was subiect to graver extraction activities pursuant to a
Cotorado Division of Minerals
"nO
-C"oit gV (now bnn1Sl ll?9. Permit M-1975004
commencing in 1977. The pit *o "ur"q-r'enilv
t".r"it"o and the reclamation bond
released in 1gg7. A Special Use permit was approved that same year by the Board of
county commission"d Goccr. . rrre sup is memoriatized in Rilsorution 97-92 (see
Exhibit F) a[owing for a "commerciai i"*'for the storagE of co1_slluction rerated vehicles'
The use of s.lte arso incruded a "non-conforming yse aireement"ttrata*ows a building to
be used for office and vehict" ."*iJr"p"il iiffr "
iinritation of thifi (30) vehicles' lt
appears that this agreement *", -it" r&u[ or a continuing activity leftover from the
[[i"*""f gravetextriction activities on the site'
II. SKETCH PIAN PROPOSAL
The Application, in its most general sense propoqgg a highderrsity urban-sUle mixed-use
community **piir"O of "'u"ri"ty
of i"tlO"itti"t typeg-toqlllg 24J units on 69 acres
resulting in a gross density 9f .4s J"*, Gr dwering.init or 2.2d units per acre (based on
the 110 acre site). other primary;ffi;;rts incru-oJa neighborhood commercial center
--27
NK
6\_
x
fcwn Wc6tbanL
IIt
2
;,
2
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l2a09
KE
on I acres with a maximum of 90,000 sq. ft. of.alqercial area' 14 acres of open space
and common area, 1g acres to= iE-rtcnoor oistrict site, and a pubric ac@ss point to
the river. The proposed community would be constru"t"o ov the Applicant and built out in
several Phases'
Eastbank' Subdivision Application Submittal
Land Use SummarY
UnitslLots
Size
(Acrqq)-Provided
- Btate 16 32 Per Code
Per Code
Per Code
T7 18.5
1il 18.5
TffiI 247 69
Size
(Acres[-ProfiledFloor Area
(sq. ft.)
000 I
Per CountY Code
4/1000
TBD 18 Per Code
Open
Area
$pace/Common
TBD 14 Per Cou Code
TBD 41
III. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The Sketch Plan Application was refened to the l9llgt'i!-g- agencies and Gounty
Departments for tneir-rEvew and comment. comments that were received are discussed
tarfu-notea) within in the body of this report'
a. Town of Carbondale: Exhibit N
b. Carbondale Fire Protec'tion District No Comment
;. City of Glenwood Splng-s: No Comment
;. oi6n*ooo springsFire-protection District Exhibit L
e. RE-1 School District No Comment
i noaring fo* Water & Sanitation District: No Comment
; Cont"io State Forest Service: No Gomments
h. colorado o"p"'t,"''t ot p,uti. Heatth & Environment: No Comment
i. Colorado Oe-partment of Transportation: Exhibit K
i. cotorado Division of \Mldlife: Exhibit J
'i. c;i;A; oirision of water Resources: No comment
l.ColoradoGeologicsurvey:ExhibitP(notincorporatedintoreport.rec'd4/16),. no"tlng Fork tiinsportation Authority:t'lo -Comment;: Cilh/ Road and Bridge Dep-artment Exhibit G
;. GarReiO Gounty vegetation Manager: Exhibit H
3
Reeidential
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22lo9
KE
p.GarfieldcountyEnvironmentalHealth:NoComment
I Garfield County Housing Authority: e$ilit Qt. Garfield County Planning Engineer: Exhibit I
s. US Army Corpi of Engineers: Exhibit M
t. Grand Thompson Ditch Company: No Comment
u. Mt. Sopris SoilConservation Distric[ No Comment
IV. GENERAL REISTIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PIJ\N
The property is located within study. frea. 1.*hi:!t designates the.property as "Medium
Density Residential" on the proposei Land use Distrial tvtap which proposes properties
in this area develop iesiaentially "i , Gn"lty of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit' The
proposed subdivisi|n is required to demonstrate that the plan conforms with or is
compatible with ttre comprehensivspr""- The Applicant will be required to conform with
the Comprehensive Plan iand use goals, obiectiv6i, policies, programs, and methodology'
in addition to the prop&"d hnd ud;;p Allsubdiviiions and ptanred Unit Developments
in the County "i"-l"qrit"d to demonstrate that their proposals conform with or are
compatible with the Gomprehensive Plan'
Should the APPlicants aPPIY for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
that ipplication is now required to
be a stand-alone review
concurrent review with anY other
application tYPe is no longer
pbimitted. A ComPrehensive
i,tan Amendment would be
required prior to submittal for a
Zone District Amendment for PUD
or Preliminary Plan.
The following section reviews the
proposal against the CountY's
boals, Obiectives, and Policies in
the ComPrehensive Plan of 2000
by topic.
1.0 PUBLICPARTICIPATION
An integral paft of County Una usi planning is the opportun'ty fur citizens to be
invotved in all phases of the planning pft'cess'
Staff Response ! rr_a:4^^^:^_ -^-..i- *aara aamnaan^.public Notice is not required for sketch Plan review. Notification requirements commence
in any subsequent phase of review for this proposal'
4
163
t
--'.. .'-J
\,w \\
\
2.0 HOUSING
GOALS
To provide all typ5a. ol housing that ensures current and future residents equibble
housing opponlnili* whicn-ai Aesigned to provide safe, efiicient rcsidential
structurcs mat iiiinpatible with andltat prct*t frte natural enyirp,nmenl
Housingat cost of no mone than 3f/oof gloss median income.
eiiouflge mix of housing types within a developmeng
Dd rcstrictioi itrr"a'"iine tifle to Jix incrcase in value ol a home'
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22t09
KE
adequate, integnted housing at a reasonabte cost to rcsidentsOBJECTIVES2.1 To encouruge
throughout G arfield Cou ntY -
2.2 To ensurc construction of quality housing by continued enforcement of the County's
building cride.
2.5 Residential development shoutd be designed and located to ensurc compatibility
with existing and futurc adiacent development'
2.4 The county should encourage the development of energy efficient design, including
solar ac6€ss.
2.5 Residential development should rcspct the naturat characteristics of a particular
sitA inclutding tipography, vegeiation, water features, geolqy and visual
retationships ivitn iunounaing land uses and view sheds.
2.6 The County should coodinate efforts with the Garfield County Housing Authoity
and rcspective municipatities to foster rcgional housing goals-
POLtCtES2.1 The county, through the development of rygulations, shall provide for low and
moderate ihi*, iousing Wt iy allowing fol mixed mufti-family and singl*family
housing in appropiate ateas throughout the County'
2.2 To inctude an assessm ent of the impact of present and futurc subdivisions in both
incorpomted and unincorpoitea portions of the County during the subdivision
review Process.
2.3 Maioraccess ways, topognphic f9aturcs, op.n space and.other undeveloped land
witt ber"ra to sdpiraie isiaential uses from industiat and ammercial renterc'
2.4 Solar oientation that atlows for both passive and active design will be styngly
encounged in the design rcview prccess and witt not be rcstricted by protective
covenants.
5
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t2A09
KE
2.5 The Garfietd county zoning Resolution wilt address fhe issue of ptentially
conflicting uies wimin each ionig aesignation that altows for rcsidential and non-
rcsidential land uses.
Staff Rgsponse -^, _E-_)_Lr- r-^..^iaa r.aitra ac ranrrirarl hv the
The Applicant has committed to providin g 1i% affordable housing units as required by the
code, however details at this stage of-the devetopment are not prwided' Meritage is
exploring partnerships similar. to what they have uyd in other proiects that they have
developed in the inter-mountain wesil-rne'onrv detail provided is.that the affordable units
will be located in the mixed residential area that proposes to contain a variety of housing
typ"t, including single-family, duplex and townhomes'
Article vlll of the ULUC, Affordable Housing, im.plements the comprehensive Plan goals
and objectives to mitigate impacts of new Jevelbpment. The ULUC requires a Housing
plan and Agreement t[at bcaies tne units ana provirtes the required number and unit type
based upon the development ptan. The detaits for Affordabie Housing are required at
PUD and Preliminary Plan.
The county Housing Authority reviewed the sketcfr pran and provided the follouring
comments (see Exhibit O):
The Housing A,thority has reviewed the Eastbank sketch plan and note that on Page 4 of the
Planning Narative the applicant states ttrcy wilt commit to providing the required 15% deed
resticted requirement for the project. rne'appucant also states that they would like to explore a
simitar project such as their Siration Flrtt irittypsum. The Housing Authority would be interested
i" U"i"d inlmaea in the initial conversations to explore such a possibility'
Also on page 3 of the plaoning Narrative the applicant strates tbat the mixed residential area will
include a variety of single famity homes, duplei homes, and townhomes with an affordable housing
component.
we see under the su6ivision Application Form tab that the mixed residential includes 7l single
farnily homes and 154 duplex and townhomes'
The Garfield county Housing Authority does not see any specific information conceming
affordable housing within this application. At the very llast we ask that the mix of unit tlpes and
tntprir" points fo:r Ue aforaalie .nits be discussed/decided prior to approval'
3.0 TRA'VSPORTATION
GOATS
Ensurc that ttrc County tansporbtion eystem is safe, functional, apprcprtably
d*igned to handle existing ,ii tut rr. tAtttc levels and inctude options for frte
us.6f modEs otter than he single-occupant aubmobile.
Determine apprcpriate nodes and cotl*tor poin$ for public tansportation'
OBJECTIYES3.1 To encourage the development of a rcgionat public .transif grgfem that rcspects the
interaction 6rt**r rr"igirj tand usipattems and travel behaviorin the Valley'
6
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4nAo9
KE
3.2Toencouragetheuseofmodesotherthantheautomobile.
3.g propo*d devetopment y!il be evaruated in terms of the abitrty of county rcads to
aiequateti nriii" the tmffic generated by the prcposal'
3.4 Proposed developments will includesfreef deslgas na! wln.syce adverce impacts
on adjacent tand uses, respecf natunlApograiny and minimize driving hazards'
3.SProposeddevelopmentswittptoyideaminimumnumberofaccesspointson
through sfieefs and highway conidors'
g.7 sfreef extensions wiil be rcquired to occur in a lqical manner-
POLICIESg.2 Devetopments ale enaurcged to .inteIrute bikeways' pedestrian citculation-
pattems and trunsit amenities into prciect design'
3.3 The prciect rcviewprocess will inctude a prcliminary assessment of the prciected
traffic impact associated *n in commlercial prgiects and rcsidential prciects
greaterthan 50 dv'relling units'
3.6 Devetopment prcposals witt be rcquircd.to mitigate traffic i.mPacts on county roads
proportionit i, ti* devetopmenii contrioutioi to those impacts. Mitigation may
'inciude, but not be limited to the following:
A. PhYsicat rcadwaY imPrcvemenfs;
B. lntersection imProvemenfs;
C. Transrt amenities;
D. Signage tequirements;
E. Attemative traffic flow designs;
F. Funding mihanism to implement necessary mitigation.
ffiroperty has rrontase on q 1q-4. and.a gy1"-t:lT:l1*:i',"P##:
southeastem edge of the property,lr"*UV t,tlli'"O.by th9 gxislin' commercial activities
on the site. The deveropment propooi ri t, provide twb points of access from cR 154, as
well as to re-align the county Road from the southem pioperty bou.ndary to the Highway
g2 intersection. The cunent intersec.fion s signarized, Lo*erer both the intersectircn and
CR 1S4 design *nitr"int" lnctuOginil"q,"rt stacring Oigt"lf du.e. to the grade and
curvature of the road. The Rio Grande Trail crosses cdts+ adjaog$ to the property and
the Grand Thompson Ditch is located along the eastem boundary of the site'
The intemar circuration system for the deveropment incrudes vehicular pattems-a1d.!tte
nanative incrudes discussion r"g"rd'ing oii"'l pedestrian ac@ss. The RFTA trail is
adjacent to tf* site ard is proposed to 5e reconsiructed as a separated grade crossing at
CR 154 due to the realignmenUimpiorement of that roadway' Mass transit may be
7
available at Highway g2. Any rezoning / pretiminary plan application will require a traffic
study that will n-eed to examine the following key areas, among othets:
1. County Road 134 re.alignment and the intersection onto SH 82 will require review
and approval by the Coirnty Engineer, Road & Bridge as well as a State Highway
Access permit (due to a greater than 20% increase at the intersection);
Z. Use of the County's road system (particutarly CR 154 south to the CR 114
intersection "i Hlghway 82) including'an anafilis of the Coy$Y Road's physical
ability to accommodate-the trips and any improvements that might be necessary;
3. proposed connections with adjacent properties to allow for their aooess to CR 154
(Onison Distributing and Jammaron property to the north of the site).
Given the provision of neighborhood commercial activities and the proposed school site /
recreationat facilities, th; adequacy of pedestrian and bicycle trails and public
transportation are crttical components that need further clarification and detail at
PUD/Preliminary Plan.
John Niewoehner, planning proiec{ engineer, commented regarling the need-for
coordinated discussiins with'the bounty Engineer, Road & Bridge, RFTA and CDOT in
order for the devetoper to include all design considerations related to these proposed
improvements, see Exhibit I.
Road & Bridge, Exhibit G, also discussed the required permits that will be necessary to
accornplish the proposed changes to road alignments.
4.0 COMMERC'AL USES
GOATS
Gafield County will encouJage the rctention and expalnsio1 -of convenient, viable
iia ,o^prtible commercial trevelopment capable of providing a wide variety of
goode aid seruics b sele firc citizens of frre County.
Ensure that tanspoThtion modes and nodes are dircctly tied in wiilt existing
economic cenfers.
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t22l09
KE
OBJECTIVES4.1 To ensure that commercial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and
mitigate impacts identified during the plan rcview process.
4.g Encouruge the location of commerciat development in apprcpriate arcas that
maximizes convenience to @unty resldenfs-
4.4 Ensurc that ammercial development is conducive to safe and eficient traffic flow,
reduces vehicular movements and en@uruges altemate tnnspoftation modes and
the use of mass tnnsit.
E
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22l09
KE
4.5 Ensure that the type, size and scope of commerciat development are consistent
withthelong-termlanduseobjectivesoftheCounty.
POLICIES4.1 Commercial devetopment witt be enaurcged in areas wherc existing infnstructurc
(water and wastewiter facilities) ate cuffently available.
4.2 county zoning rcgulations regading c.gllmercial development will be compatible
with tand use policies of adiacent iuisdictions'
4.5 Landscaping and screening wilt be rcquircd fo address specific visual impacts of
industrial and commercial development'
4.4 The prcject rcview process witt include the identification and mitigation of
trunspoiation impacts rclated to ammercial development-
4.6 commerciat proiects fronting onto sH 82 wilt be rcquired to provide trunsit
amenities
- (bis-' tumouts, tinsit stops, etc.) when Peya!9nt transit seruice
becomes avaitable. Ihese amenities wru re ioodinated with RFTA and CDOT'
Staff Resoonse -:-r r^.,ara^man*o.
Most of this section is meant to deal with larger, stand-alone commercial developments;
however, some of the issues are applicable to this proiect. The development proposes.a
n"Unoorhood commercial center ai ine main entran@io the proiec't that is envisioned to
offset vehicle trips onto sH g2 for those services. uses could include convenience store,
personal seryi@s, liquor store, dry cleaning,. g?.yqre, spa / gym'.9tc'.Staff finds this is a
beneficial componeni to the pCIe& and woijH like[ reduce overall vehicle miles travelled
(vMT). The chaltenge with this location is to provide services while not creating trips as the
ireittr|ornod center may becore a maglei for outskle trips thus resulting in a net wash
in VMT. The Applicant wi1 need (via a triffic study) to explain how they can dealwith this
issue.
Regarding mass transit, Staff believes that this developmgn! ha9 an opportunity to include
more Transit oriented bevelopment concepts (below) within the development, including
additional information regarding access to public transportation from this site'
COMPONENTS OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DESICN
Walkable desip with pedestrian :ts the highest priority
-Collector support trdnsit systems including light rail,and buses,etc
to include the use scoot€rs,and rollerblades ati
5.0 RECREAT'ON AND OPEN SPACE
GOATS
lnterconn*t tnil syshm thrcugh the county with community tail systems'
9
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t2AO9
KE
OBJECTIVES5.1 Encounge the tocation of active recteational oppoftunities that arc accessible to
County rcstdenfs.
5.2 The county witt support and encourage the creation of open sp?ce_ through..the
development and'imptementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations
designed to rctain and enhance existing open space uses.
5.4 Rafting and fishing access witt be strcngty encouraged during the development
rcview process.
S.S Visual conidors arc considercd an impoftant physicat attibute of the County and
policies witl rcflect the ned to carcfully plan these arcas.
POLICIES5.1 Developments that propose densifrbs above one (1) dvtelling unit per acre and
exceed SO dvteling inits wilt be requircd to provide a&quale rccre.ational
oppoftunities fo serie the residents of ihe prciect. Attematives for meeting this
iquircmentwill be defrned in the Subdivision Regulations.
S.Z tmportant visual conidors witt be identified and apprcpiate policies developed to
address the rctainment of open space areas that tink communities in the Coun{-
S.S With the coopention of the Division of Wildlife, developmeltg OroOosed in areas
next to streams or ivers with rcfring orfishing potentiat should dedicate easements
for public access to these areas-
PROGRA'T'S5.1 Alt develope.rs are encouruged to provide rccreational amenities within proposed
developments. The countyihould'impos_e itg reWirynten! 9.f a dedication of patu
land oifee in-lieu-of as contained in the Subdiwsion Regulations in orderto rcserue
sufficient park land to accommodate the recrcational needs of the rcsidents which
the develoPment will house-
5.2 Developers shatt devetop and adopt sufftcient standards for:
A. Sef6acks frcm idge.Vmesas to ensure that sky-lining or rever:;e sky-lining do
not occut;
B. Buitding envelope designations that prcserue visual conidors;
c. Environmentally-sensitiveorclustercddevelopment.
Staff Response
The Eastbank site is comprised of 5,300 linear feet of shoreline which prwides a
silnificant amenity to the proiect. The proposed development area sits on a bench above
the river therefore providing iome protedibn from impacts that may result from proximity
l0
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22l09
to the river and riparian area. Public ac@ss to the river is proposed through a Fishing
Access Easement at the northwest portion of the site'
The provision of 14 acres of sport fields/open space, to be shared with the school site, is
inten'oeo to provide recreational amenities ior the residents, however details of what will be
constructed there - and vyho will construct and maintain the improvements, have not been
pr*io"o. This site li in ctose proximity to the Rio G_rande Trai! with connection provided
via bike trails, open space trails and skJewalks within the development-
The provision and adequacy of proposed open space and recreation is a significant
"orjon"nt
of pUD review wrricn iequires a minimum ol 25o/o of the site be dedicated to
op"n space and recreation. This minimum would result in a requirement of 27.5 acres of
open space/recreation for this development.
5.OA OPEN SPACE AND TRA'IS
,SSUES
Cased on pubtic workshops and the initial work of the Garfield County Open Syacg ald
Tmils Commiftee, spcific concems rcgarding Open Space and Trails planning in the
Roaing Fork ValleY are as follows:
. That the rctention of the rurut tandscap of the Roaring Fork Valley is a critical
issue to rcsidents and wsilors;
o The level of development in the Valley from 1991 to 1995 has rcsulted in the
disappearance of h'titoical agricultunt iand at a mte demanding immediate action
on the paft of the CountY;
o Wtdtife habitat is being negatively impacted due to grovvth pressure;
o Any policies rcgading oryn spac€ and tmits must respect the propefi riglts. of
tand owners in the County and must be based on the concepts of iust
compensation and mutual benefit for landowners, residents and visitors of the
Roaing Fork ValleY.
GOAL
Garfield County shatl develop, adopt and implement polici* that prwerue ?-? yul
landscape ol the ioaring Fo* Valiey, existiirg_lgticultunt uses, wildrile habibt and
recroational oppoftuntties in a mufiially benefic6l manner that rasp*ts the balance
between p*ifu Property righ$ and the aeeds of the community.
OBJECTIVES
5.1A To ensute that existing agicuttuml uses are not advercely impacted by
development apprcved by Garfield C,ounty;
5.2A To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the rcview proc€ss and rcasonable
mitigationmeasures are imposed on prcjects that nqatively impact critical habitat;
il
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22l09
KE
S.2A Developerc proposing prciects located in areas defined as critical habikt by the,
Cotorudo Oivision ofWiAtife Resource tnformation Sysfem WRIS) will be rcquircd
to propose mitigational measurcs during the submiftal of proposed prciects.
Mitigational measures shatl include the following:
1. Fencing and dog rcstrictions consr.sfenf with DOW recommendations;
2. Avoidance of criticat portions of the prcperty, thtough the use of building
envelope rcstictions or cluster development concepts;
3. Conseruationeasements.
The Boad of County Commissioners shall have the authority to apprcve or rciect
proposed mitigation.
Staff Response
irre Drirrisio,n;t Wildlife has responded to this application with the following comments
(Exhibit J):
ln order to mininize fie effBcts d flIb propGed devebpnrent on wiHlife t|e Divbion of wiHlib
offers the follming recommendations:
L 1OO' building envelope sebacks need to be establbhed frorn the cfest dfte bhff
overlookirB-the riparian contlors on the Roarirg Fork River'
2; Maximum buiHirq fteigtrt shtruld tE25' especially br,buiHing bcations overloking'the '
Roaring Fod< River and Cat0e Creek'
3.- .No de{€bpment,onlhe b,nor bencfres in the ripariari onklor alorB tre noarlng'Fodt. River'
r- alt oevefoimeritlsh;6,rtg;in on t*, uppcr b;ricftes s@e ttre rEgctatim nne o7t . a utest
a.o-
-
eaitcuLTURE
,SSUES
/ssues identified throughout the Comprchensive Plan process related to agricuftunl uses
include the following:
o The rollover of agiculturul tand into morc intense uses is accelenting in the
County;
o Histoical agicufturat lands ate also fhose lands which prcsent the leasf
developmeni construints (geotogy, topognphy, water availabilifl ;
o As the ruml areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensurc
compatibitity between fhese uses and active agicultunl lands will intensify;
o A growing number of tnditional agricultural tands can be expected to intensify into
agncutuhl busrnesses, which miy affect County land use policies designed for
traditional mnching, gruzing and crop production-
t2
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t2A09
KE
GOAL
To ensure that existing agricultttral uses are allowed to continue in operation and
compatibiffty issues are addrcssed dufing prci*t rcvie*rt'
Considerfhe use o I Transfer ol Development Righb.
Join larmers and ranchers togetherto develop a land use plan for agriculture.
Consider tand frusts and conseruation easemenfs-
OBJECTIyES6.1 Ensure the compatibitity of developmentproposals with existing farms and ranches-
6.2 Ensurc that active agricultunl uses are buffercd from higher-intensity adiacent
uses.
6.A Developments adjacent to agricuftunl uses shoutd be rcviewed in a manner that
allows for flexibitity in rcsotving compatibility conflicts with adiacenf uses.
POUCIES:6.1 Agricufturat tand witl be prctected from infringement qnd -gssociated impacts of
higher-intensity tand usei fhro ugh the establishment of buffer areas between the
agicufturul use and the propsed proiect.
6.2 Densffibs greater than the undeflying zoning witl be discounged if the propsed
devetopment woutd advercely affecthe adjarent agiculturul operutions.
6.3 Clustered development will be strongly encounged in arcas that prcsent potential
inampatible uses.
PROGRA'T'S6.1 The Zoning Resolution, Subdivision and PUD Regulations will be amended to
rcquire a ipecificatly defined bufter zone between agricultunl lands and morc
intense uses. tn aditition, the updated Regulations willaddress density bonuses fo
encourage the rctention of opn space-
6.2 Adopt an apprcpriate Nshtto Farm and Ranch Policv.
6.3 Develop, distribute and use a RunlLivino Handbook-
6.4 Designate buffer zones of at /easf 300 feet between farmedhanched lands and
rcsiiential lofs unless a lesser a mount can be demonstrcted as a pructical buffer.
6.0 Requirc developers to perform a specific analysis of potential impacts to agicultutal
lands and uses, and to ptopose mitigation measures-
6.6 Require developers/development to drafr a specific mitigation Plan to consider and
to idopt pnctices which etiminate the sprcad of noxious weeds, maintain existing
l3
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22t09
inigation ditches (with specific provisions fo assure water is not wasted or impeded)
and impose proportionate cosfs of maintenance that are bome by the
developer/development. This plan shall be rcquircd no later than at the subdivision
stage. This plan shall requirc inpuUapprovalby the affected, agnian landowner(s).
6.7 Encounge the developer or development to purchase a conseruation easement, at
fair value, from the adjacent agiculturcl intercst, who can use fhis buffer zone for
agriculturul purposes when infeasible to maintain a 30hfoot buffer from agicultunl
land and uses.
6.8 Requirc that all Final Plats carry a plat note that notifies prcspective lot owners that
Garfield County has adopted a Risht to Fam and Ranch Policy. and that copies of
this policy are available from local, land title companies.
6.9 Requirc the identification and the mapping of fedenl land gmzing 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 / fanning ranches. Some agricultural activity occurs north of the site and
several conservation easements occur on properties between Ghnwood Springs and this
site.
7.0 WATER AND SHT,IER SERWCES
,SSUESo The prclifemtion of lndividual Sewage Disposal Sysfems (rSDS) on individual sffes
should be carefully rcviewed in terms of soil construints and dninage
characteistics of each site;
High-density development, defined as exceeding one (1) furelling unit per one (1)
acrc, should be located in arcas wherc centrul sewage treatment facilities are either
cunently available, or feasible in the futurc.
GOATS
To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost-etrective and
envitonmenhlly sound sewer and water seruicos for new developmenl
OBJECTIVES7.1 Development in arcas without existing centnl water and sewer seruice will be
rcquircd to provide adequate and safe prcvisions for these services beforc prcject
approval.
7.2 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitatbn districts with available
capacity in their centrulwater/sewer sysfems will be strongly encouftrged to tie into
fhese sysfems.
14
3
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l2A09
KE
7.3 Proiects proposing the use of ,SDS will be requircd fo assess fhe sife's capabitity to
accommodate these sysfems piorto project approval.
7.4 Development will be requircd to mitigate the impact of the propsed prcject on
existing water and sewer sysfems.
7.5 Garfield County will strcngly discourage the prclffention of pivate water and sewer
sysfems.
7.6 High4ensity development, defined as exceeding one (1) dwelling unit per one (1)
acre, will be rcquircd fo assess the potential of connecting into existing centnl
water and sewer facilities.
POLtCtES7.1 Alldevelopment prcposals in rural areas without existing centnlwater and/or sewer
sysfems will be rcquired to show that legal, adequate, dependable and
environmentally sound water and sewage disposalfacilities can be prcvided beforc
project apprcval.
7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of seruice lines frcm an existing water
and/or sewage sysfem can occur, the County will rcquirc development adjacent to
or within a neasonable distance, to enter into the apprcpriate agrcements to rcceive
seruice. The burden of proof regading logical, legal and economic constraints witl
be on the developer.
7.3 The County will rcquire developerc prcposing ,SDS to provide data that
demonstrufes fo the County that the prcpo,sed sife can accommodate fhese
sysfems priorto prcject approval.
7.4 Where /SDS rs nof feasible, Garfield County will reguirc a sewage disposal system
apprcved by the Sfafe of Colondo.
7.5 High density developmenf rs considercd utban in naturc and requires appropriate
serwbes. Through the Zoning Resolution, Garfield County will strcngty encouta ge
high4ensity development to locate in arcas wherc these seryices arc availabte.
Staff Response
The developer proposes to provide public water and sanitation and the submittat materials
contain a Petition for lnclusion in the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District.
Documentation was also provided via a "Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Special Fee and Cost Reimbursement" in which the District included both the Orrison
property ard Eastbank into the District and conditionally permi,ts extension of both the
water and sewer lines to serve those properties.
Easbank's- proposal includes lift station(s) to pump sewage to the existing wastewater
treatment facility located proximate to Aspen Glen. Further analysis of the location of
those lines should be included in the PUD/Preliminary Plan application, particularly the
proposed method for these lines to cross the river.
l5
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4DAO9
KE
8.0 NATURAL ENWRONMENT
,SSUES
lssues rctated to the natuml envircnment identifted during the Comptehensive Plan
process are as follows:
o Touism rs an integrut component of the economy of Gafield Cgunty. Th9rcf9ry, it
r.s essenfia t that tie ptanning process respect the natural envircnment that brings
rcsidents and visitots to the County;
o The existing Management Distict Map, designed fo address arBas of minor,
moderute,
-and seyere environmental constraints, does not allow for specific
hazards to be identified and mitigated;
o prctection of air and water qualtty shoutd be an essenfial component of the
Comprehensive Ptan and subiequ6nt amendments to the Zoning Resolution and
Su bdivision Regulations;
. Development shoutd rcspect the naturul contours and dminage pattems on each
indMdual proiect site;
. lmportant visual conidors shoutd be identifred and companion design Oui_delin99
rcgading signage, sefbackg buffer areas and landscaping should be formally
adopted and enforced bY the CountY.
GOALS
Garfield County will encounge a land use paltem that rccognizs ilre environmenbl
sensitivity of the land, does not overburden he physic_al cap*ity of the land and is
in the Oeit interests of the health, safety and welfarc of Garfield County.
Enhancement of the fiver conidor.
Protxtion of watersheds and flood plains-
OBJECTIyFrS8.1 The County of Garfield ,eseryes the ight to deny a prciect based on severe
envircnmeital constnints that endanger public health, safety or welfarc-
B.Z Proposed prcjects witt be requircd to recognize the physical featurcs of the land
ana aesigi prgjects in a mannerthat is compatible with the physical envircnment.
8.3 Garfietd County willensure that natuntdrainages a/e protected frcm alteration.
A.4 River-frcnfs and riparian areas are frugite comrynents of the ecusysfem and these
ateas require carcful rcview in the planning process.
B.S Development proposats will be rcquircd to addrcss soil constnints unigue to the
proposed site.
l6
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l2U09
KE
8.6 Gafiietd County willensurc that natural, scenic and ecological rcsources and citical
wildlife habitats are protected.
A.7 Development witt be encouraged in areas with the least envircnmental constmints.
POUC/lESA.1 Garfietd County shalt discourage and reserue the ight to deny development.in
areas identified as having severc envircnmental constnints such as active
landslides, debis flows, unstable slopeg bedrock sfides, maior mudflows,
radioactive taitings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and
prcjects proposed within the 100 yearfloodplain.
8.2 Garfietd County shalt discourage devetopment prcpo,sals fhaf require excesst've
vegetation removal, cut and fitl arcas or other physical modifications that will rcsult
in visualdegndation or public safety concems.
A.3 Naturat drainage pattems witt be preserued so fhe cumulative impact of public and
pivate land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodvrater pattems to'exceed
the capacity of naturul or anstructed dninageways, or to subiect other
areas to an increased potentiat for damage due to flooding, ercsion or
sedimentation or resuft in pollution to strcams, rivers or other natural bodies of
water.
8.4 The County will rcquire development with iver frontage to address fhe issue
through physical design in a way which will prctect frcgile wetlands and scenic
resources and protect floodplains frcm encroachment.
8.5 The County will discourage development in areas wherc severe soil constraints
cannot be adequately mitigated.
8.6 Garfield County witl protect critical wildlife habitat needed by state and fedenlly
prctected, threatened or endangercd species. Development within fhese
designations that cannot be designed, constructed and conducted so as to have a
minimum adverce impact uryn such habitat or fhese wildlife species, shall be
discouruged; however, it is the intent of this policy, that no private landowner lose
the ability to develop hisher land without fair comrynsation as a rcsuft of owning
significant wildlife habitat.
g.7Garfietd County will requirc development on lands having modlerate or minor
envircnmental constraints to mitigate physical prcblems such as minor rockfalls, 17 to
24 percenf slopeg minor mudflows, ptential subsrdence, high water tables, slow
percotation, radioactive soils and/or rcnosive and expansive soils.
t7
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t22t09
KE
Staff Resoonse
A review of the geologic hazards maps identifies
this site as having a high water table and therefore
is highly constrained for septic systems. The
provision of public water and sanitation adequately
mitigates this concern.
The site is located adiacent to the Roaring Fork
River resulting in the need for protective measures
regarding floodplain and wetland issues.
SEPNC SYSTET CONSTR,fiilT X/IP
Drainage issues are critical due
to proximity to the river corridor.
Adequate detention/retention
and treatment of stormwater is
necessary prior to discharge to
the river.
Concems regarding the location
of intemal roads on a steeP
bank adjacent to the river along
the southem portion of the
property need further analysis
pursuant to runoff issues.
been identified by several agencies asAdequate setbacks from the crest of the bluff have
criticalto protect the river and riparian corridor.
The Applicant has provided an initial Geologic Hazard Evaluation performed by CTL
Thompson, lnc. in which CTL discusses the location of the site within the Eagle Valley
Evaporite and Carbondale Gollapse Center. The latter is a 'region of subsidence or
collapse resutting from evaporate flowage and dissolution.' This area can be prone to
sinkhotes, voids and underground drainages. 'sinkhole formation and collapsible soils are
potential geologic hazards that exist at the site...' The risk on this site is moderate for
sinkhole formation or subsidence and low for collapsible soils. Recommendation is made
for 'A design level geotechnical investigation including borings, test pits and/or trenches...'
The site ptan clearly shows two areas of concern in the center of the property. Use of that
area has been limited to open space/common area and recreation.
9.0 NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION
,SSUES
Pimary rssues conceming natunl resourcc extraction identifred during the
Comprchensive Plan prccess include the following:
Rilf,IE
l8
t'&ffi)rG,
L.., -o-, -'.48-"'-t - -
.i l
"J .'l
$;.,J."
I
f'
*q.; i.r*'4&
o
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4122t09
KE
The retationship between previousty approved mining operutions and residential
development has rcsufted in visual, notse and tnffic compatibility rcsues;
The property rights of private proryrty ownerc must be balanced with the rights of
minenllessees,'
The County must be prcactive in reacting to market conditions that will impact the
level, location and scale of mineml extnction within the CounU;
a
o Garfteld County has signifrcant mineral rcsources fhaf has, and will continue to
have, a considembte impact on the economic health of the County.
GOAL
Gafield County rccognizes iltat under Colorado law, the surtace and mineral
inferests have iethinlegal righb and pdvileges, including the right to exffiact and
develop fhese interests, Furthermorg private property ownens /so have ceftain
legal ighfs and privileges, including the right to have the minerat estate developed
iia rcasonable manner and to have adtrerse land use impacb mitigated.
PROGRAfi'Sg.1 The Garfietd County Zoning Resolution will be revised to rcflect the Goalg
Objectives and PoliCies rcgarding tesource extruction If is suggested s_ubdivigion,
devetopers obtain all subiufiace ights (mineml nghts) assocaafed with the land
propoied for subdivision piorto Finat Ptat apprcval. All mineral leases and owners
of rccord of the platted property shall be identifred on the Final Plat.
Staff Resoonse
This ste was subject to extraction activities from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's when
Western Mobile mined sand and gravel from the site. A recent analysis of the site
indicates that inadequate resource is cunently available, therefore not viable for
commercial extraction activities.
1O.O URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE
,ssuEs.'
Pimary rssues identified duing the Comprchensive Plan prccess can be summarized as
follows:
County tand use decisions, pafticulady fhose immediately adiacent to municipal
boundaies have, in some cases, crcated compatibility problems;
o
Due to the wide vaiety of tJses-by-Right within the County's cunent Zoning
Resolution, ptanning staff has no discrctionary rcview authority to prevent
incompatibility situations with an adiacent municipality -
GOATS
Allow for comments on community impacts including case{t which fall outside the
community's spfiere of influence.
t9
5
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22l09
KE
Promote development in and around existing communitres.
o&lEcTlvEs
lO.2 Development that rcquires urban Seryrbes will be encoutEged to locate in areas
wherc fhese services arc available.
10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits-
Staff Response
ffris site ls tocated within the 2-mile statutory sphere of influence of Glenwood Springs. A
refenal was sent to the city, however no comments were received.
The area between the community centers of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale has been
developing to the point where there is little perceptual separation between the two, and the
Highwiy d'Z corrid'or continues to experience development pressures (see map below). lt
ap-peard that the County is currently experiencing applications (Cattle Creek Colorado, H
UzV f and Eastbank) ieeking to "fill-in" the gaps of undeveloped areas that exist in that
conidor.
ak srytt gs
20
Vattey
)
)
._-,_. i'
,-'r.{
..-'..:' _ 'i
i'-, .i
''r!',r' , i'-"') . . i.'- : li.
. l:. -&.1ir
-.m
il
t
' lt*'.-. ,l
' 1'
r-
I
.)r i*S ,..lar , .\if,'-r.-:1:..-;Uh I{
r,F
':1
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4t2A09
KE
V. Summarv of Comprehensive Plan Goals. Policies. and Obiectives Review
llnsummaffifindsthepropos@County,sGoals,objectives,and
pofi.i"r in ine Compretrensive Plan; however, tfie following are ar99: that the proposal
has not met which are critical to the approval of any Planned Unit Development or
Subdivision. Areas that still need to b6 addressed include Housing, Transportiation,
Commerclal Uses, Op"n Sp"." and Trails, and Natural Environment. The very purpoq" 9f
the Goals, policies lnd Objectives is intended to provide the decision framework to
determine what density range the site can support. That number cannot be realized until
these issues have been adequately addressed.
VI. SKETCH PI.AN COMMENTS
The following is an analysis of the proposed development specifically. including I review
ajainst the dounty', ,oning regulationi for the Rural zone district and a technical review
of issues that would need to be further addressed in a PUD or Preliminary Plan
(Subdivision) review.
A. Zoning Uses
The property is zoned Rural, however the proposed development contains uses and
dimensional stanJards that depart from this zoning classification. The Applicant intends to
submit a planned Unit Development (PUD) which is the planning mechanism that allows
for certain flexibilities of the uiraenyng zoning in order to achieve a development that is
more creative and results as a benefit to the overall community.
The existing zone district does allow the proposed uses within this development, however
tnis plan d5parts from the standard zoning'by considering all of those as uses by-right
where the Rural zone may require additional ieview. Eastbank prwides limitation to the
uses which could be by-ridnt uses in the underlying zone district by allowing only the.uses
planned for the site. "Foi example the Rural-zoie pelmils Agriculture and Agricultural
Froducts, procesilng, Storage, Distribution and Off-Site Sales however these uses clearly
are not compatible t5'rre deielopment as proposed. The PUD prooess allorrs the zoning
to be tailoreil specifically to those activities which are proposed to occur to the site'
The Applicant will be required to further detail the permitted uses within the "neighborhood
commercial" designation by providing definitions and standards for those uses. lf
commercial uses ir" propoiet uut ar6 not specifically listed in the existing zone district,
tn"y ,"y not be allowed unless Srey a1e contemplated.. in-thq .Compryhe-11wg flan
O"dign"tion. ln this case, that designation is Medium-Density Residential. Staff finds that
certain commercial components shtuH be considered and atlowed in a development of
this size and density td foster a mixed-use blend so that a neighborhood commercial
component can detrease the need to leave the community in a vehicle. Other
developments have also been proposed with a similar approach, such as Spring Valley
Ranch and Catge Creek Grossing. A fey issue that needs to be addressed is the "magnet'
affect any commercial componenl mighicreate bringing outside trips into the development.
2t
B. Zoning Dimensional Standards
The dimensionat standards in the Rurat zone district include a minimum lot size of two (2)
acres, maximum roi *r"ra!e or 15o/o of the lot size, building height limitation to 25' for
residential structures and 40' for non-residential structures, and setback requiremgntg fo1
each lot. The Sketch plan Application indicates that a PUD Application will be submitted
to accommodate proposeO variations to minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage ald
setbacks. Statr siggLsts the Applicant design the PUD zoning plan to attribute specific
standards, dimensi[id and ,r",'uy creatinglubdistricts within the development specific
to tn" cbarly defined areas shown-in the S[etch Plan. These would include single family
residential, multi-family residentiat, educationalfacility, and commercial activity'
Densitv
The Countt's ULUC 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 6 to less than 10 acres / dwelling unit (Medlu.1)'
ln order to proceed with the devel6pment as planned tre Applicant will be required.to
amend the Land Use Designation of this site. The amendment process focuses on site
constraints and project impicts, provision of adequate infrastructure, and the ability of the
project to meei the Goals, Policies, and Obiectives in the Plan. At the stage of
[omprenensive plan Amendment the Applicant will be required to demonstrate how the
n"ighOorhood commercial uses, and squire footage of those uses, 'fit' or comply with a
residential land use designation.
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4122109
KE
C. Domestic Water
The Applicant proposes to provide a potable domestic water supply tqthe developme$.by
ouiainlrig water trbm ne ioaring ro* water & Sanitation District. The Applicant will.be
requiredto demonstrate a legalivater supply to provide for all the legal water needed to
serve this development. r[is must be-frovided prior to filing. a.. Preliminary Plan
Appfication. Additiohat[, the Applicant will nled to submit a "can and will serve" letter from
the District.
Staff referred the proiect to the Cotorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) however
no comment was received on the Sketch Plan. At Preliminary Plan the State Engineer will
be required to find that the proposed water supply system will not cause material injury to
decreed water rights and is aOequate to serve the proposed development'
Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department provided the
following comments (Exhibit L):
Items the applicants will need to provide us in the future if this proposed subdivision
makes it past this sketch plan review:
Fire Flows
Tne appfication information talk about domestic water needs but not a system to
provide' adequate fire flows. Fire flow water supplies can be reduced by
22
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t22t09
KE
sprinklering most if not all the buildings on the site commercial, residential and
school in this complex;
Road layout: Plans showing the road lay out and widths and grade;
Landscapino Plan: The landscaping plan shall be one that uses Firewise fire
@andgrasse.store-vegetatethesite.Thewi!dfirehazardon
this site is currenly low the new landscaping plants/trees shall not turn this area
into a medium or high wildfire risk area;
Buildino lnterior Automatic Fire Suppression Svstems: By installing fire suppression
; bpment the amount of water required in
.[ot"g" to met fire flow demands will be reduced. They may also gain more
flexibiity in designing the roads and fire hydrant placement spacing. Some
buildings by current code may be required to be spinklered;
Road Names: The road names in this devetopment are not to duplicate any road
names cunently in existence in Garfield County.
D. Access ln / Out of ProPertY
presenly, the property has one existing access point from the property onto CR 134 just
southweit of the inteisection of CR lS+ at SH82. CDOT has responded that a State
Highway Access permit will be required due to the 20Yo increase in traffic that this
Oelvenpment will generate. The existing intersection at SH82 has a full movement
signaliied access, however the curvature and grade of CR1A4 at that intersection is
prlposed to be improved by the Applicant (in partnership with CDOT and the County).
nOOitionat improvements to bn tS+, ine Rio Grande Trait and the Grand Thompson Ditch
are proposed abng the Eastbank property boundary, including the potential for relocation
and'upgrades. The Applicant shouio ehter into discussions with all affected entities,
including adjacent properties, at the earliest possible stage of this development.
Subsequent stages of the development review process will require a Traffic lmpact
Analysis to deteinine the trip geneiation of this proposal, including any trips that mry !9
generated by magnet commerciat devetopment. Potential impact to the SH82
i'ntersections iCnt'l+rcans4 and the CR1S4/Hardwick Bridge) should be included in that
analysis.
The County Road & Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and found that any road
changes to Cn 154 shall be approved by the Garfield County Engineer and approval oJ
any int"rsection improvements'by CDOT, prior to any required permits from Road &
Bridge being issued.
The traffic generated fiom this development will not be required to P9y ?ffm: lmpact
Fee as the Froperty does not fallwithin the County's Road lmpact Fee Traffic Study Areas.
This does not preclude a developer from having to pay for off-site road improvements
deemed neoessary as a direct result of impact from this development.
23
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4t2AO9
KE
E. lnternal Vehicular Circulation
The proposed ptan appears to have an adequate internal circutation. As with any rezoning
or subdivision appliJ"tion, both the internal and external circulation patterns will need
further study to provide additional details. The plan does enoourage the use of the RFTA
trailwhich the Applicant proposes to improve if CR 134 grade changes o@ur.
The tack of detail in the Sketch Plan regarding the proposed internal road widths and
design standards for right-of-ways/drivinglurfa&s d.oes not allow for a determination of
aoe{uacy at this reviei stage, however-these details are required_at the next stage of
review. fne Applicant has stiteo that the standards will comply with county requirements.
F. Fire Protection
The project falls within the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District (the Fire-District).
Comments from the Fire District included the requirement for detailed information
regarding water supply for fire suppression, landscaping, hydrant location and spinklering
of the buildings.
G. 100 Year FloodPlain
A portion of the property is located in the 100-year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River
along the southein and western edges of the site. Much of the property and development
"pp""* to be located significantly above and out of the flogdnla[ for the Roaring Fork
iirer but this will need t6 Ue maiped on any future PUD / Preliminary Plan maps to be
certain.
H. Drainage
The proposed development wilt create a substiantial amount of impervious surfaoes from
roadi and structures that will need to be managed across the site so as to not adversely
affect the Roaring Fork River as the site naturally drains to this water course. The cobbles
and gravels und-erlying the property do allow lor g_ood percolation, however the site is
located in an "r"a *itn a high witer table. Oetaits retated to drainage, erosion and
sediment control are required at PUD/Preliminary Plan-
l. Wildlife
The application was referred to the Division of Wildlife who stated that buildings sho.uld.be
setbaik a minimum of 100 feet from the crest of the bluff above the river corridor setbacks,
building heights should be limited in this same area, and that no development should
occur in tre riparian corrftlor.
J. Soils / Geology
The Sketch plan application contains a Geologic Hazard Evaluation performed by CTL
Thompson, lnc. flirilngs include collapsible sbils and sinkhole formation at the site and
24
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t22t09
recommends avoidance or mitigation of these areas. A referral was sent to the Colorado
Geologic Survey, however no @mments were received at this time. Additional detailed
informition will be required at Preliminary Plan and comments from the Colorado Geologic
Survey will be critical at that stage of the review process.
K. Vegetation Management
The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the Sketch plan and offers the following
comments:
Noxious Weeds
o lnvento,ry and mapping-The applicmt shall map and inve,ntory the property for County Listed Noxious ]Veeds
o Weed Management-The applicant will need to provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious
weeds.
a Common area weed management-The applicant needs to address weed management in oommon areas
including open spaoe, rports fi"lds, road rights of way, and trails. Issues to address are nonitoring treatment,
mdfimding.
Covenants-lf the subdivision will have covenants this is an oppornrnity to encourage weed management with
new property owneni, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to manage county listed noxious
weeds.
a
Revegetation
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield Cormty Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7,20o1)
calls for the following:
o Plant material list.
o Planting schedule.
. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
o A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Find Plat
Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the are4 in terms of acres, to be disturbed
and subsequently reieeded on road aut 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 Stand-ards. The Board of County Commissioners will desipate a member of their staff to
evaluate tte reclamation prior to the release of the secrrity.
Soil Plan
The Revegetation Guidelines also request that fte applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable gff sliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soit cover if my disturbanoes or stockpiles will sit eryosed for a period of 90
days or more.
a
25
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l22l09
KE
Proposed community trails
o The applicant should provide details describing how the trail,system within the pryject area will be maintained
in future years. Often in developments trails ire created and then abandoned as far as upkeep goes, then they
fall into a state of disrePair.
Typically a Homeowne/s Association is responsible for managing common areas,
recreation improvements and trails within a development and in fact should be the owners
as the developers will typically transfer these areas to the HOA. Protective Covenants
may define th; limitations for use of the areas, as well as the responsibilities of the HOA
for maintenance of the areas. Subsequent stages of review will require submittal of
protective Covenants which should include details regarding these items.
Soil management plan and revegetation information is required at PUD/Preliminary Plan
when further review will occur to assure adequate soil and weed management of the site,
both during construction activities as well as through the life of the development.
L. Wetlands The Applicant provided a
wetlands analysis comPleted bY
Wright Water Engineers, lnc. in
order to identiff any existing
wetlands on the site. Their
findings included an area of
wetland that exists on the steeP
bank at the southern end of
propefi adjacent to the Roaring
Fork River
This application was refened to
the Army Corps of Engineers and
Mark Gilfillan responded with the
following comments:
The corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of
section 404 of the ctean w"* [J]"irte discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States. walers oi,fr" U"irJ States inclilde, but are mt limited to, rivers, perennial or
intermittent streams, f*"r, p"Jr, *"if*a., vernal poots, mamhes, wet meadows, spnngs-a1d
,*p^. p*:* f"r,*o,tut'rorft in the disctrarge oiOr"ag"d or frll materiat into warcrs of the
Unite.d Sares will require p"pJ-*i of the Ariny authorizaion prior to starting work.
To ascerlain rhe extent ofwaters on the project site, orc ap'plicant should Prepare a
wetland delinearion, io
"."oiOurr.r
rrittt the 'Minimum Standardi for Acceplance of Preliminary
Waland Delineaions', undeilGtaiaior" on our website at the address below, and submil it to
this olfice for verificarion. A list of consultans that prepare wetlald delineations and permit
rpptilii;;;;."nl it also available on our website at the same location'
Therarrgeofaltemativesconsideredforthisprojectshouldinctude|.tgrnativestharavoid
impu"ts to *"ttlnds or other waters of the united States. Every effort should be made to avoid
project features *t ich ,equire the aiscr,*g. of dredged or fill rnaterial into waters of the United
Stares. In the event ir .*;;Li, d"mJnsmtea fi"t" * no practicable altematives to filling
waters of the united States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the
unavoidable losses resulting ftom project implementation'
mlryt w^tgEI(IEER T|c l*"r *.
ls,.r6os
ffi3stlE
j
NB
26
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4l2A09
KE
As stated, the applicant will be required to prepare a wetlands delineation and submit it to
the Corps for verification prior to Preliminary Plan.
M. Easements / ROW
The ULUC will require all existing easements, along with the name and address of the
entity having an easement, be legally described on the plat. Moreover, the Applicant
needs to provide details as to how the proposed plan does not adversely affect existing
easements (ditches, overhead power lines, underground electric, and waterlines) and
continues to allow for their ac@ss and use. Staff also notes that a water storage tank may
be required for this development and that the Applicant is in discussion regarding provision
of this item via a potential for sharing of existing or proposed water storage facilities. This
facility 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.
As the project develops and major utilities are extended to the property, such as the water
and sewei, easements for those utilities will need to be created, legally described and
transfened to a legal entity that can hold them (HOA / Metro, etc-).
N. Trails / Paths / Parks
The application discusses the provision of trails within the development:
Al! areas within the Eastbank community will be
lirrked by a series of trails. A variety of bike trails,
open space trails, and sidewalks will connect each
of the land use areas with community amenities,
the river corridor, and the RFTA regional trailthat
is located adjacent to Eastbank. The trails will
consist of either crusher fines or asphalt
pavement, will vary in width from 3 feet to 8 feet,
and will meet ADA regulations so they can be
enjoyed by all members of the community.
The Applicant proposes to provide 14 acres of open space/common area - an area which
may be shared with the etementary and middle schools that are planned on the site. Staff
is concerned that the proposed density and school use will overload the recreational and
open space areas proposed for the site. There is no discussion regarding provision of
pocket parks or other active recreation areas on the site nor is there discussion regarding
who wili own, construct and maintain the open space and recreation areas. The standard
for provision of open space for a PUD is a minimum of 25o/o of the land area which would
result in a requirement of 27.5 acres on this site. As cunently proposed the open
space/common area does not meet this requirement.
27
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC4t2A09
KE
O. Affordable Housing
Meritage Development Group, LLC, the proposed developer of the site, has been involved
in developing and constructing affordable housing in the Town of Gypsum (Stratton Flats)
and in the City of Rifle. The application states that:
'For
now, Meritage will commit to providing the required 15olo deed restricted requirement for
the project. With the school site being part of the proposed PUD, Meritage hopes that a more
substantial affordable housing project will, someday, be part of the Eastbank PUD.
The application was referred to the Garfield County Housing Authority and response was
received from Geneva Powell, Executive Director who requested specific information
regarding the mix of unit type and price points for the affordable housing units.
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 Ptat and included as a component of the Subdivision
lmprovement Agreement (SlA).
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.
Q. Recommended PIat Notes/ Covenants
Please be aware, the Gounty 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 smelts of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and
neoessary aspect of living in a Gounty 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 othenrise of chemicalfertilizers,
soii 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 buming stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-740'1, et. seq., and the
regutations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any durelling unit. All dwelling
units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and
appliances."
3. "Al! owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and inigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
28
Eastbank Sketch Plan
PC 4nA09
KE
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property:
Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights
"nqresponsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A ^good
introductory source for such-informati6n is 'A Guide to Rural Living & STr[ Sg'!q
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."
S. lf applicable, the following plat note shall be included regarding a severed mineral
estate: "The mineral righ-ts'associated with this property known as the Eastbank
Subdivision have been fiartially severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the
surfiace estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resour@ extraction on the
property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)."
R. Staff Review Summary
Staff has identified the following major challenges that lay ahead for this development that
need to be addressed at PUD/Preliminary Plan:
1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Study Area 1 Proposed Land
Use District Map to allow for the proposed residential and commercial density;
Z) Access issues including the relocation/upgrade o! CR_ 154, intersection
improvements at SH82, analysis of impact to the SH82/CR114lCR1il
intersection;
3) Public transit access;
4) Relocation and/or improvements to the Rio Grande Trail and the Grand
Thompson Ditch;
S) The project needs to provide for future ac@ss for properties to the north which
are currently not develoPed;
6) The Applicant shatl demonstrate whether their development meets the definition
of a "Major Project" as defined by 54-401 (a project which will employ at any one
(1) tima a totil work force of two hundred (200) or more employees in the
b6unty). lf this development is determined to be a "Majo1 Proiecf then the
Appliclnt shall be required to comply with the Fiscal lmpact Mitigation Program.
Sidff is concerned that the combination of proposed uses on the site - an
elementary school, a middle school, 9O,OOO square feet of commercial area, and
the 247 units of residential development, may employ 200 or more employees at
one time - either during construction of the project or during the life of the
29
Eastbank t#:lrilss
KE
development. lf so, the fiscal impact to the County should be fully analyzed and
mitigated;
l) Provision of Affordable Housing including number of units, cost, unit size and
type, and location within the development;
8) Provision of adequate open space and recreation pursuant to code requirements;
g) Demonstrate that proposed commercial activity won't result in trip creation
versus a VMT reduction; and
1O) Demonstrate that the soils and geology have been adequately analped;
11) Provision of a water tank to satisfy water storage requirements;
12) Extension of water and sanitation services from existing waterArvastewater
treatment facilities.
30
3,1-,i
I llllll lllll llllll llllll lllll lrr, rlllll lll il|il llil lfil
514786 lO/O7/7997 O?t28? 81037 P381 447
1 of 3 R O.OO D O.OO N O.OO GRRFIELD CLERK
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
)County of Garfield
At a reqular hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Commissioners'Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs
on Monday , the nth of October A.D. 19 97 , there were present:
Marian I. Smith , Commissioner Chairman
John Mr . Commissioner
T.arrv lVfcCown Commissioner
County Attorney
Clerk of the Board
County Administrator
Dnn DeFnrd
l\'Iildred Alsdnrf
Chuc.k T)esnhenes
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to-wit
RESOLUTION NO 97 -92
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR JOE
& GERALDINE RAE JAMMARON AND MARK GOI.ILD
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received
application from Joe and Geraldine Rae Jammaron and Mark Gould to allow for the storage of construction
related vehicles on the following described tract of land.
See Attached: Exhibit A
(in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 2nd day of June, 1997, upon the question of
whether the above-described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public
and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said
Special Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the
aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact.
That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners.
2i
I
l ,i i 1,,
2
I []!ll[l illtftr,i lllLuHrll[Llllt ilil lllr
Z'2,, , R o.oo o s.os N o.oo GRRFTELD .LERK
That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard
at that hearing.
3 That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County ZoningResolution of 1978,
as amended.
4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health,
safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above
described tract of land for the storage of construction related vehicles, upon the following specific
conditions:
That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated
otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners.
That the applicant be required to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the
improvement of the State Highway 82/CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes an
improvement program during the term of any lease on the associated property that is not tied
to a nonconforming use.
That all vehicles accessing Highway 82 from the site will only use the CR 154/Hwy. 82
intersection north of the site, except for vehicular safety purposes. Generally, vehicles will
use the CR 154/CR ll4[Jwy 82 intersection for access to the site, except for safety purposes
due to the length of the vehicles.
That any ofiice structures meet the 1994 Uniform Building Code requirements for the type
ofoccupancy proposed.
That the Commercial Part Special Use Permit is approved only for the storage of heavy
equipment and nonconforming uses agreed to in letters to Joe Jammaron dated November 2,
1994 and December l, 7994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any
modification to the CommercialPark designation, will require the modification of the Special
Use Permit, through the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed
modification.
I
2
3
4
5
Lrul|l|Illl!ilIlll [;lllllilt ilt ilffiilil ms147BB to/o1 / ts97 os,2Ep-e1057-Fsiis +cz3 of 3 R O.Oo O O.OO N O.OO GRRFIELD CLERK
ATTEST
Datedthis 7th dayof October A.D. 19 q 7
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMIS SIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
.,%*n*,/ A;r,t
of the Board Chairman
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
COMM]SS]ONER CHAI RMAN MARIAN I . SM]TH
COMMISSIONER JCHN F M ARTTN
AYE
AYE
AYECOMMISSIOER LARRY L. MCCOWN
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
)County of Garfield
I,County Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing
Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for
said Garfield County, now in my ofifice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at
Glenwood Springs, this
-
day of
-,
A.D. 19-
County Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
t\
I
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning DePartment
Review AgencY Form
Date Sent: March 17,200D
Comments Due: APril 7, 2009
Name of application: Eastbank
Sent to Road Bridse
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project Please-notiLft"
Planning Deparfinent in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline' This form
may beLed fo, yo* response, or you may attach yo-ur-own additional sheets as
,r"".rr*y. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or fared to:
Garfield County Buitding & Planning
Staff Contact: KathY EastleY
109 8u'Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
Name of review agency:County Road and Dept
By:JakeB.MallDateMarchl8.2Oo9
Revised 3l30l00
IVIEMORANDTJM
To: Kathy EastleY
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Eastbank Sketch Plan
Date: March 2O,2AA9
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Sketch Plan. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Wecds
a
Revegetation
a
a
a
Inventory and mapping-The applicant shall map and inventory the property for county Listed
Noxious Weeds
Weed Management-The applicant will need to provide a weed management plan for the
inventoried noxious weeds.
Common area weed management-The applicant needs to address weed management in
cornmon areas includini Jp"o ,pu.", tpoit" fields, road rights of way, and trails' Issues to address
are monitoring, teatment,
and funding.
Covenants-If the subdivision will have covenants this is an opportunity to encourage weed
management with new property olyners, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to
manage county listed noxious weeds.
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted
on May 7,2001) calls for the following:
o Plant material list.
o 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 infonnation, prior to final plat that quantifiet t" *C in terms of acres'
to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road iut and utility disturbances' This information
will help determine the amount of secrnity that \Mill held for revegetation.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation hrry_been successfully reestablished
according to tne affached nechmation Stand;ds. fne noarA of County Commissioners will
a6iputi" member of their staffto evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security'
Soil Plan
a
a
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 ifany disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a
period of 90 days or more.
4. Proposed community trails
The applicant should provide details describing how the trail system within the project area will be
maintained in future years. Often in developments trails are created and then abandoned as far as
upkeep goes, then they frll into a state of disrepair.
Garfield Coun
To: Kathy Eastley
From: John Niewoehner
Project Engineer
Date: April9. 2009
RE: Eastbank PUD Sketch Plan Comments
Based on a review of the sketch plan, the following is a list of engineering issues that will
need to be addressed as part of the preliminary plan. The applicant should deferto the
County's Land Use for County design standards.
Aspects of the preliminary plan will need to reviewed by County Road and Bridge
Department, County Engineering Department, RFTA, CDOT, and the Grand Thompson
Ditch Company.
. Applicant needs to begin discussions with the County Road and Bridge
Department and the County Engineering Department regarding the road
relocation.o The proposed road curve might be too sharp (too small of curve radius).
o New ROW will need to be dedicated to County. ROW and road widths will be
based, in part, on the traffic volume predicted by the traffic study.
o tf the road is moved, we'll have to decide the fate of the existing ROW.
Sometimes the ROW is divided between the adjacent property owners. lf this is
the case, the old ROW will be divided between CDOT, RFTA, adjacent property
owner James Rose and the Eastbank development.
o Discussions need to occur with RFTA, the owner of the old railroad ROW.
RFTA may have concems regarding the dimensions of the tunnelunderpass.
o Wllthe entrance onto Highway 82 be reconfigured? Discussion are needed
with CDOT, the County Road and Bridge Department, and the Coqnty
Engineering Department. ljk. As proposed, East bank will have three access points onto CR trQp. The
applicant witl need to obtain an access permit from County Road and Bridge for
each access.. As proposed, the RFTA trail will go under the road. Presumably the Grand
Thompson Dilch will be piped under the road. (We want to make sure that the
ditch water doesn't seep onto the depressed RFTA trail.)
I
Itltrrtrrlrarralrrlarartrrttatrtttrrrrltrlrrlttrrrtrrrrrlrtlttrrrrrrralrr
lnterior Roads:o Roads dimensions and geometry are addressed in the standards section of the
County Code.o CDOT has told the County that the Onison property will be required to abandon
their existing acoess onto highway 82 and ac@ss their property through
Eastbank.o I'm concerned that the outer road may be too close to the Roaring Fork River.
Runoff from the road can not discharge directly down a steep bank into the river
(lt is also my preference that a vegetation banier be established between the
road and the river.)
Gradino. Drainaqe. Floodplains and Wetlands:
o Building envelops must be outside the floodplain and wetlands.
o No drainage from a paved surface can enter a water body without passing
through vegetated areas prior to leaving the property.
o Easements for any detention basins and drainage channels may be needed
Utilities:
. rer:. The technical review of all ofhite water improvements will be the
responsibility of the RFWSD. The County will want to confirm that the RFWSD
has performed a review and that all County concerns have been orwill be
addressed. (For example, easements will be obtained and County construction
permits will be obtained.) Both RFWSD and the County will review onsite
water improvements.o Water: How and where willwater lines cross the Roaring Fork River?
o Wastewaten Similarto the water system, the wastewater system will be
reviewed by RFWSD and the CountY.o Wastewater: How and where will sewer lines cross the Roaring Fork River?
o Utilit! boxes and pedestals can not be placed in the ROW.
2
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6(b0 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
wildlife.state.a.us
March 25,2009
RECEIVED
APR 0 3 "jnq
GARFIELD gs"ru Iv
BUILDING & PLANNING
ForWldlife-
For People
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 8"' Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Eastbank
Dear Kathy:
The Eastbank property located between Hwy 82 and the Roaring Fork River south of
Glenwood Springs is not within any mapped critical habitat areas for deer or elk. Severe
winter and winter concentration areas for deer and elk lie directly east of the property across
Hwy 82 and directly west of the Roaring Fork River. The property does see moderate elk
usage during the winter months browsing on the sage and grasses that have reclaimed th€. , ,.,
area sance its use as a-gravel pit. ln addition the property is home to many small mammals, ,..
neo-tropicalsong birls, raptors and amphibians along the riparian conidor.
This'proiect in itself should have little impact on wildlife; however the increasing development
throughout the Roaring Fork Valley is rapidly diminishing the amount and the quallty of the
winter range available to deer and elk. The accumulated development of Aspen Glen, lron
Bridge, Westbank, Prehm Ranch and the proposed devetopments of Cattb Creek and
Eastbank, willvirtually eliminate open space along the vattey floor between Glernvood ard
Carbondale.
ln order to minim2e the effects of this proposed devetopment on wildlife the Division of Wifilife
offers the following recommendations :
1. 100' building envelope setbacks need to be established from the crest of the bluff
overlooking the riparian conidors on the Roaring Fork River.
2. Maximum building height should be25'especially for buiHing locations overlooking the
Roaring Fork River and Catfle Creek.
3. No development'onthe Iower benches in the riparian conidor along the Roaring Fork River.
All developmerit should remain on the upper benctres above tfre vegetation lire on the west
and south sides of the property.
DEPARTMENT oF MruRAL RESOURCES, t-tarb D. sfrennan, Exeo.ilirre EEecbr
WLDLIFE COMMISSION. Brad C@rs. Chairo Tsm Glerm. \nce Chairo pennb Brccfiler. Seqefi*v
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. lf you have any questions, please feel free to
contact DWM John Groves at (970) 5il7-2933.
Sincerely,
l.ffi
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: DOW - R.Velarde, J.Groves, file
'..'.'..: :
[athy - As ! stated earlier, this development will need an access permit for this development
for CR 154. Once CDOT receives this application with the traffic study, CDOT will do i more
complete review the trafiic study.
Thanks
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Rou*sin@DOT.STATE.CO. US]
Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 9:S2 AM
To: tGthy A. Eastley
Sublect Eastbank LLC
Dan Roussin
R3 Permit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Rm 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683€284
970€83€290 Fax
3120t2009
D
April6, 2009
To: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planner
From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department
RE: Sketch plan comments on file #SKP1409, applicant Eastbank LLC, contact persons
M Lamb or J Patrick, location between Hwy 82 & Roaring Fork River north of Hardwick
Bridge
The submitted application materials are inadequate to make a comprehensive fire review
at this time
Iterns the applicants will need to provide us in the future ifthis proposed subdivision
makes it past this sketch plan review:
Fire Flows: The application information talk about domestic water needs but not a system
to provide adequate fire flows. Fire flow water supplies can be reduced by sprinklering
most if not all the buildings on the site commercial, residential and school in this complex
Road layout: Plans showing the road lay out and widths and grade
Landscaping Plan: The landscaping plan shall be one that uses Firewise fire resistive
plants, trees and grasses to re-vegetate the site. The wildfire hazard on this site is
currently low the new landscaping plants/tress shall not tum this area into a medium or
high wildfire risk area.
Building Interior Automatic Fire Suppression systerns: By installing fire suppression
systems in all ofthe buildings in the development the amount of water required in storage
to meet fire flow demands will be reduced. They may also gain more flexibility in
designing the roads and fire hydrant placement spacing. Some buildings by currort code
may-be required to be sprinklered.
Road Names: The road names in this development are not to duplicate any road names
currently in existence in Garfield County.
We recommend the developers meet with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department Deputy
Fire Marshal if this project is approved to move forward and prior to drawing more
detailed plans on this project.
IOl WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I60I 970-384-6480 FAX970-945-8506
I
I
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SAGRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922
April7,2009
APR 0 9200s
'o,fffl,'o.8,??,Y^IJI
Regulatory Division (SPK-2009-003 64)
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County
Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Ms. Eastley:
We are responding to your March 17,2009, request for comments on the Eastbank
project. This project is located at Latitude 39.484, Longitude -107.299, within Section 34,
Township 6 South, Range 89 West, near Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, Colorado.
The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial or
intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, springs and
seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States will require Department of the Army authorrzation prior to starting work.
To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the applicant should prepare a
wetland delineation, in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary
Wetland Delineations", under "Jurisdiction" on our website at the address below, and submit it to
this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare wetland delineations and permit
application documents is also available on our website at the same location.
The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid
impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid
project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling
waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the
unavoidable I osses resulting from proj ect implementation.
.|
Please refer to identification number SPK-2009-364 inany coffespondence concerning
this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at our Colorado West Regulatory
Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, email
M ark. A. Giffil I an@us ac e.army.mil, or telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 15 or you may use our
website at usace
Sincerely,
illrL
Mark Gilfillan
Project Manager/Tri al Liaison
TOwN On CanBoNDALE
5l I Cor.r)uAD() Avrixr rr,:
CzttttltlNtlrt.u, CO 81623
REC.EIYEI)
APR 0 7 20r/g
-o,fffi?Pf;?,'^I#
April7,2009
Garfield County Planning and ZorungCommission
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 8m Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Eastbank Sketch Plan Submittal
Dear Commission Members:
Thank you for referring the Eastbank Sketch Plan application to the Town of Carbondale for theTown's review and comment. The application is to allow 247 dwelhngunits and 90,000 sq. ft.of commercial square footage, a school site and an open space area on l l0.l5 acres. As part ofthe application, the Applicant notes that the approvai of this application would require anamendment to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of theproperty.
When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed, the citizens of Carbondale andTown Staff were involved with the process. This plannirrg do.o*"nt was intended to guidegrowth and development in the rural areas around carbondale.
In similar applications which include amendments to the Comprehensive plan, the Town hassupported the current land use policies already set forth in the adopted Comprehensive plan andhas recommended that the land use at this location not be altered io *y way that l) isinconsistent with the designated uses and 2) will require a change to the uaopt"a phns to allow apiecemeal change in a use without broader consideration of the entire area. The Town isgenerally concerned wilh changing the zoning density in a manner without major attention toissues ofaccess and safety.
(970) 963-2733 Fzrx: (970) 96ll-9140
Thank you for allowing theTown the opportunity to comment on this proposal. please let meknow ifyou have any questions.
Sincerely,
M. Buck
Senior Planner
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
2128 RAILROAD AVENUE
RIFLE, CO 81650
(970) 62s-3589 or 888-627-3589
Fax970-625-0859
April3,2009
TO: Kathy Eastley, Planner
Garfield County Building and planning Department
108 8tl'Street, Suite 401 -
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
FROM: Geneva Powell, Executive Director
Garfield County Housing Authority
2128 Railroad Ave
Rifle, CO 81650
RE:Eastbank Sketch Plan
January 30,2009
The Housing Authority has reviewed the Eastbank Sketch Plan and note that on page 4 of the
Planning Narrative the applicant states they will commit to providing the required isyo a"ea
restricted requirement for the project. The applicant also states that they would like to explore a
similar project such as their Strauon Flats in Glpswn. The Housing auAority would be
interested in being included in the initial conversations to explo." ri"tr u po.riUitity.
Also on Page 3 of the Planning Narrative the applicant states that the mixed residential area will
include a variety of single family homes, duplex homes, and townhomes with an affordable
housing component.
We see under the SuMivision Application Form tab that the mixed residential includes 77 singlefamily homes and 154 duplex and townhomes.
Thc Garfield County l9*iog Authority does not see any specific inforrration concerring
affordable housing within this application. At the very lLast we ask that the mix of ,nit types
and the price points for the affordable units be discussed/decided prior to approval
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments conceming our review.
Sincerely,
Geneva Powell
Executive Director
Garfield County Housing Authority
STATE
coLoRADo GEoLoGTcAL suRvEy- seruing the peopre of cororado
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)86&2611
Fax: (303) 86&2461
No. GA-09-0008
OF COL
: SW, Sec. 35, T65, RggW
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OFNAIURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Rifter, Jr
Govemor
Haris D. Sherman
Executive Director
Vincent Matthews
Division Director and
State Geologist
l
()
4pri17,2009
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and planning Department
109 8t Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO g1601
RE: Eastbank Sp Geologic Hazards Review
Dear Ms. Eastley,
RECEIVFN
APR I 62009
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
Thank yo"-T.t t1T hnq use application referral. At your request, and in accordance toSqnate Bill 35 (1972), this office hai ieviewed the land-use application submitted by your officearld considered the geologic hazards and geologic conJitions that may affect the land usedevelopment' Includeg i"l!" development application was a geologic hazardevaluation bycrllThompson, Ins-. daJgd January it,zoos'(yroject wo. GS0s:26--105). ccs
"orraucted a siteinspection on April 2,2oog- Pleasl consider tire iotto*ing observations in your land usedecisions.
The land is mostly being used for pasture, irrigated hay fields, and commerciauwastemanagement activities' Portions of the site have beerireclairned from an earlier gravel miningoperation' The panhandle of the property is where the firm, Rocky Mountain Disposal, has anoffice building, garage, and an.*ttntiu.yard with equipment, trucks, trailers, trash bins, andassorted fill piles.
The site is located on the east side of the Roaring Fork River, which meanders around thesite' This river bend encircles. the property on three sides. Geologically, the site lies within theaxis of the cattle creek anticline, which follo*s the Roaring Fork River valley from carbondaleto Glenwood springs.- The rurderllng bedrock of the valley floor is the Eagle valley Evaporite(rock salt and glpsum). The bedrockls covered 9l *"Gor river terraceJ. Near Highw ay g2,the older and higher gravel terrace is, in_turn, variauty coveied by a thin veneer of red, mixedalluvial fan and colluvial sediments (soils) that were washed down from the steep valley sideacross the highway' Evaporite flow and diapiric upwelling of the underlyinjevaporite rocks
j-"f -",
.t+t
....,.1 j
l*..{'. n.r
iE:j r , i'r- .'-'ii--f . . '
f l*:
rJ.j
"-I I
towards the axis of the cattle creek anticline has slightly tilted the terrace surfaces away fromthe river' Recent sinkholes have opened in the tronu?oge development to the southeast and, lastyear, in a pasture on the same gruuil terrace just 1,500 6et to the northwest. The Roaring Forkvalley corridor from Glenw-ood Springs to Basalt has been mapped as an evaporite karst area.Existing and new sinkhole formation indicates that dissolution of evaporite uiarock continues tobe an active and ongoing hazardous process in this area.
We have review the geologic report by CTL and generally concur with its content. wealso consider subsidence and sirikholes, related to dissohition oritre uni..r>i"g evaporitebedrock, to be a potential risk. Near-surface underground voids may exist on the property thathas not yet breached the surface to become visible iirkhol... As mintioned above, ground atthis site has perceptibly tilted away from the river, reflecting diapiric upwelling of evaporite in
'l:I":"1'geologic
past.. It is preslntly unknown whether the raL of salt-flow movement, whichcGS believes is continuing, affects tlpical structures within their design lifetime. The red soilsderived from the steep valley side may also be collapsiute uut the majJrity oiirr" site lies onpacked river gravel which generally piovides an excellent bearing "ipo"iiyfor residentialfoundations' The mining reclaimed ilreas are disturbed areas and likely contain areas of artificialfill and loosened soils.
An environmental assessment should be made of the property that is currently used byRocky Mountain Disposal. This part of the property, which is pioposea for mixed-useresidential land use in the sketch plan, ha, uiiriory orcommercial trucking, truck repair andservicing, waste disposal equipment storage, and other activities related toirucking and wastemanagement business. Ground spills, leaking tanks, and suspect fills may exist.
In closing, the- CGS finds no geologic hazard,or condition that would preclude thedevelopment as it is shown in the skelch pl-an. Additionaileotechnical and environmentalinvestigations are warranted to better characteize the subsiuface conditions. All earthwork,including utility trenches and overlot grading, should be inspected by a knowledgeableengineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who have thl training and experience torccognize potential subsidence' The risk of subsidence and potentially dangerous spontaneousground openings must be disclosed to prospective home or lot buyersin thelevelopment. If youhave any questions about the content *r-ntt geologic hiardreview letter, please contact thisoffice at (303) 866-2611 x833r or e-mail: joiuttu'.*tii"o.trt"."o.u,
SincerelS
/.
onathan L. White
Senior Engineering Geologist
\. 1r.. t.-.1r, xi$ rt