Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30.01 BOCC Staff Report 04.18.2016 Summary of IssuesBOCC April 18, 2016 DP VIII. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Due to the complexity of this application and number of issues addressed, this section of the Staff Report is intended to summarize those issues raised in the individual Standards discussions, above. Please Note: Unlike many other developments in Garfield County, REC is proposing "Phase 0" improvements to be completed prior to the first final plat. As a result, Staff has requested that certain information be provided prior to grading permit and Phase 0 improvements while other information be provided prior to the first final plat, when legally sellable lots will be created. 1. Waiver Requests — The following waivers from the provision of minimum standards are requested pursuant to the preamble of Article VII which grants this ability upon demonstration that the standards are either inappropriate or cannot be practically implemented. a) §6-202(D) Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. Staff Comment: The new Terrace Parkway, while it is proposed to have standard 5 foot pedestrian sidewalks, is not proposed to have bicycle facilities as required by this Section. The Applicant has requested a waiver from this Standard. Since this is a residential development and Terrace Parkway will carry more traffic than any other internal roadway, Staff recommends requiring that bicycle facilities be provided along Terrace Parkway. Bicycle infrastructure is generally provided for in the form of striped bike lanes, however other alternatives, such as a shared use path, are available as well. 2. Cost Estimation Estimates do not include soft costs — According to Mountain Cross Engineering, "The cost estimates do not appear to include soft costs, such as construction observation, testing, surveying, etc. The Applicant should verify that these should be included. A more detailed itemization of the individual costs would usually be required to justify security amounts for an SIA" (See Exhibit 22). Staff recommends a condition of approval that the cost estimate be updated to include soft costs. 3. Vegetation 35 Foot Setback from high water mark - Section 7-203 determines that an `Inner Buffer Zone' requires provision of a thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody. Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within this zone is prohibited except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted. Staff recommends a condition of approval identifying this setback. 4. Access and Roadways a) Terrace Parkway Access Easement Terrace Parkway, the vehicular access to the property, crosses property owned by another entity. While the draft easement has been reviewed by the County Attorney's 50 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP Office and appears adequate, the easement as not been executed. It is recommended that a condition of approval be added requiring the applicant to execute and record the easement prior to issuance of the grading permit. b) Access to Rio Grande Trail Access to the Rio Grande Trail is currently limited to one access point at the existing Cattle Creek intersection along the Cattle Creek drainage, as Staff understands a license agreement for this connection currently exists. Preliminary engineering plans (Item 21 in application) show the extension of the shared -use -path from the culvert under Highway 82 to the RFTA ROW, but do not show details of the connection to the Rio Grande Trail. The Applicant has represented a second access point at Terrace Parkway, however, neither preliminary engineering plans nor legal rights to access to the Rio Grande Trail at this location were submitted. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit license agreements with RFTA to access the Rio Grande Trail along with preliminary engineer plans for these two locations prior to submittal of the first final plat. c) North EVA easement The easement provided for the north EVA is unclear and confusing. In addition, the referenced Exhibit C, which was to be a map of the easement area, was never recorded. As a result, it is unclear whether the easement provides legal access from H Lazy F to County Road 154 (See Exhibit 26). If the easement connects with the private roads owned by private parties, then additional easements may be required. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant revise this easement to better depict the easement granted and attach and record Exhibit C. This easement document should be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to execution. The executed version of the easement should be submitted prior to grading permit. d) South EVA i. CDOT Access Permit not obtained A CDOT Access Permit has not been approved for the southern EVA. According to Dan Roussin, Permit Unit Manager, 'With the information provided, it very unlikely CDOT would approve an emergency vehicle access for this development on SH 82." (See CDOT Referral Letter, Exhibit 25) An alternative EVA for the southern parcel has not been provided, however. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant obtain a CDOT Access Permit for the south EVA. The Applicant should demonstrate approval of the CDOT Access Permit prior to grading permit or filing of the first final plat, whichever occurs first. ii. Grade exceeds CDOT Standards The south EVA proposes a grade of 8% which exceeds CDOT standards and may require a revised design. (See Exhibit 22). Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant either amend the plans to meet CDOTs grade requirements or demonstrate that CDOT has accepted the proposed grade for the south EVA road prior to grading permit. iii. RFTA crossing license Demonstration that a RFTA crossing license exists or has been obtained for the crossing of the RFTA trail has not been demonstrated. Staff recommends a 51 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP condition of approval that the Applicant submit a copy of the RFTA approved crossing license that will allow emergency vehicles to cross the trail at this location. e) RFTA and PUC The Applicant has not yet obtained RFTA approval for an at -grade crossing of Terrace Parkway, as proposed. In addition, approval has not been obtained from the Colorado Public Utility Commission (PUC) (See RFTA Referral Letter, Exhibit 14). Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to obtain approval from RFTA and, if applicable, from the PUC, for the proposed at -grade crossing. Prior to the grading permit, the Applicant should submit evidence of RFTA and PUC approval for an at -grade crossing of the RFTA right-of-way. RFTA has indicated in their referral comments that the Applicant currently has a license for a grade -separated crossing and that any new license for an at -grade crossing for this property will require approval by the RFTA Board of Directors. f) Bicycle / Pedestrian Underpass According to CDOT and SGM, Inc., the conversion of the current livestock culvert to a bicycle/pedestrian underpass is a critical component for the adequate functioning of the permitted continuous green intersection design which is to provide access from Highway 82 to the proposed development. The total length of the underpass is to be approximately 150 feet while the width is proposed to be 6' and height to be 7'. Ken Brubaker, PE, of CDOT stated that "in my opinion this structure is not acceptable as proposed..." (See Exhibit 12). However, Staff understands that CDOT is relying on the County to impose design standards for this proposed facility. As a result, Staff referred the design of the bicycle and pedestrian underpass to SGM, Inc. due to their experience with bicycle / pedestrian underpasses along the Highway 82 corridor. As a result of the reviews from CDOT, SGM, Inc. and Mountain Cross Engineering, it is clear that the proposed design does not meet State (CDOT) or Nationally (AASHTO) recognized standards for this kind of facility and therefore, cannot be considered safe as proposed (Section 7-108(B)). i. Underpass does not meet CDOT or AASHTO Standards The proposed design does not meet AASHTO or CDOT standards. ■ The current culvert is 6 feet wide by 7 feet high. ■ The recommended minimums for the structure is 12 feet wide and 10 feet high, but ideally wider and taller. (CDOT and AASHTO) ■ The minimum recommended width for the shared -use -path in the facility should be 10 feet. (CDOT and AASHTO) Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the underpass to be designed and built to meet CDOT and AASHTO Standards for this type of facility. The redesign should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. ii. Approach does not meet Shared Use Path Standards The approach to the underpass as proposed does not meet the standards for shared -use facilities. The minimum width requirement for a share use path is 10' (CDOT and AASHTO) (See Exhibit 12). Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit a design with an approach of at least 10' in width. This redesign should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. 52 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP iii. Lighting Plan not proposed No lighting plan is proposed. In addition, the current opening that provides light from the median will be filled in, providing less light then currently enters the culvert. Since the culvert will be approximately 150 feet long, lighting is recommended. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant provide a lighting plan for the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. iv. Ownership and Maintenance not identified CDOT has represented that they will not own or maintain the underpass (See Exhibit 25). The CDOT Access Permit #313037 requires that the Applicant develop an "agreement between CDOT and the party that will be assuming the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the structure (Condition 11)." In addition, Section 7-401(C) requires that "Maintenance of common facilities must be accomplished either through covenants and a homeowners association, a separate maintenance agreement, or some other perpetual agreement." The Applicant has not represented who may own or maintain the underpass. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to prepare a draft agreement for ownership and maintenance of the underpass by the metro district and to be reviewed by the Garfield County Attorney's Office. Prior to submittal of the first final plat, the Applicant shall execute the agreement following County review, and submit the final executed version of the agreement with the first final plat. v. East side trail connection to County road The current plans do not show how or where the trail on the east side will connect to the County road network. Details need to be provided showing how the trail will connect to the County road network on the east side. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the submittal and review by the Garfield County engineer and Road and Bridge Department detailing the trail from the bicycle and pedestrian underpass to the County road network. This detail should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the County engineer and Road and Bridge Department incorporated therein. vi. Drainage Drainage through the culvert needs to be accommodated separate from the shared - use -path through the facility. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide a plan to manage drainage through the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. vii. Other Design Issues Several other design issues or inadequate information was identified on the design of the Underpass, including: • Details need to be provided showing how west extension will be connected to the culvert. • Details regarding waterproofing need to be provided. • Details of the shared -use -path surface through the facility need to be provided. • Snow fencing should be considered behind the guardrails to prevent trail users and the trail from being covered by snow thrown from the Highway. 53 g) BOCC April 18, 2016 DP • More detail is necessary to determine if the proposed design would meet ADA standards as required by CDOT. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide plans to address these design issues. The plans should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. Cattle Creek Bridge may require Floodplain Permit or LOMR The bridge that crosses Cattle Creek and provides primary vehicular access to the south parcel may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR from FEMA (See Exhibit 22). As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that prior to the first final plat, the Applicant verify whether the bridging crossing Cattle Creek needs a floodplain permit and/or LOMR. Should the bridge crossing require a floodplain permit and/or a LOMR, the applicable permits should be obtained prior to the first final plat. h) Access to Moraine Court The island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine Court from Trailside Drive (See Exhibit 22). Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to amend the plans to accommodate turning movements into Moraine Court from Trailside Drive. The revised plans should be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to the first final plat. 5. Phasing / Timing A. Modification to sequence of filings: The prior Development Agreement includes a provision which allows the "Developer to alter the sequence of Filings set forth in the Phasing Plan" and have these amendments be "treated as a non -substantial modification to the REC PUD". It is the position of the County Attorney's Office that a public hearing should be required to alter the sequence of Filings and that such a change should not be determined by the Director as a non -substantial modification. In order to ensure due process for the alteration to the sequence of Filings, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Development Agreement be modified to remove reference to treating changes in the sequence of Filings in the Phasing Plan as non -substantial. As an alternative, Staff recommends language which makes the process for modifications to the sequence of Filings consistent with the Land Use Code in place at the time of amendment or the Code in place at the time the Development Agreement is vested. B. Expiration of Development Agreement and Preliminary Plan — Currently, the Preliminary Plan is set to expire three years from the date of approval, which was on December 19, 2014. Since the Applicant held a Pre -Application Conference with Staff on March 19, 2013, Staff considered this step the beginning of the Preliminary Plan and PUD application although the Application was not first submitted until February 2015. The Applicant is requesting that this timeframe restart should the amendment application be approved which would mean the Preliminary Plan would be vested until approximately 2019. Similarly, the Development Agreement states that the "Developer shall have no obligation to develop all or any portion of the Project; provided, however, that if a building permit for development of the first phase of the Project is not issued on or before five (5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate..." The Effective Date for this Agreement is December 22, 54 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP 2011. The Applicant has also provided that the "Developer intends to submit its application for the first final plat in approximately 2014 or 2015..." As a result of this Amendment application, the Applicant is requesting to restart this timing as well, as proposed in the amended Development Agreement. An outline of the proposed timeframe modifications is as follows: o Preliminary Plan (Submit first final plat within 3 years of Preliminary Plan) Original Timeframe: 2011 — 2014 Amended Timeframe: 2016 — 2019 o Development Agreement (Pull Building Permit within 5 years of Effective Date) Original Timeframe: 2011 — 2016 Amended Timeframe: 2016 — 2021 o Buildout Timeframe (Expected to take 10 years to build out) Original Timeframe: 2011 — 2021 Amended Timeframe: 2016 — 2026 In summary, the Applicant is requesting to restart the deadlines for Preliminary Plan and the Development Agreement as a result of this amendment application. Extending these timelines is at the discretion of the BOCC. In effect, the timeline as written requires the developer to submit for final plat within 3 years and obtain a building permit for the first dwelling unit within 5 years. Should the BOCC agree that the timelines be extended, then Staff recommends the following condition of approval: As an update to Resolution 2011-84, the Preliminary Plan deadline be amended from "Determination of Completeness in accordance with the Section 4-103.0 of the ULUR" to "recording of the final plat". Should the BOCC not find this new timeline appropriate, the BOCC should require the following condition: The amended Development Agreement shall be modified to reflect the approved vesting period. C. Phase 0 Improvement Agreement: i. Attach Construction Phasing Plan: The Phase 0 Improvements Agreement, Recital 6, references the Construction Phasing Plan but the Plan is not attached as to the Agreement as an exhibit. "The Applicant wishes to delay production of these plans until it applies for a grading permit. [The CAO does] not support this request, as the Construction Phasing Plan is clearly tied to the execution of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. The Board needs to understand the full extent of these improvements prior to accepting and executing this Phase 0 Agreement. If the Board approves of the delay, [the CAO] recommend[s] a condition of approval for staff to review the Construction Plans and for Applicant to record same with the filing of the final plat." Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement be modified to attach the Construction Phasing Plan with the Agreement as an exhibit. The Construction Plan should then be recorded with the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. ii. Provide draft of Third Party Agreement with Cattle Creek Metropolitan District: The Phase 0 Improvements Agreement, Recital 7, adds a third party agreement with Cattle Creek Metropolitan District. "A draft of such 55 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP agreement and further explanation of how the landowner and District are incorporated is needed." As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that the Applicant provide a draft of the agreement with explanation as to how the landowner and District are incorporated prior to recording of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. This documentation shall be reviewed and accepted by the County Attorney's Office. iii. Remove indemnity provision: According to the County Attorney's Office (CAO), "Additional language has been added to the Indemnity provision of paragraph 4. [The CAO] recommend[s] deleting this addition since it brings in Third Party Entities. The County is responsible if its employees are negligent, but not if Third Party Entities or their employees are negligent." Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that this language be removed from the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. 6. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Termination of MOU The Applicant has requested that the MOU as recorded at reception number 824971 be terminated with a "Certificate of Completion". Instead of "completed", the MOU appears to be nullified since the proposed access point for the subdivision has moved and REC has paid its share of expenses as agreed to by the Board. However, since the entire MOU was never completed, a mutually agreed upon termination is more appropriate. The Board will need to determine if a new MOU is needed for any potential issues with the new access point for the subdivision. Staff does not believe any outstanding issues exist, and as such, no new MOU is needed. Prior to termination of the MOU, the Board should confirm that there are not any remaining issues, improvements or cost sharing needed. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to submit a draft termination agreement to the MOU. This termination agreement should be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to review and signature by the BOCC. The MOU should be terminated prior to grading permit. 7. Grading and Drainage a) North drainage: The project site grading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage ponding areas. The Applicant should revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary easements. (See Exhibit 22) Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant revise the site plan addressing this issue. b) Storm drainage labels: Storm drainage culvert labels were not shown on the plat. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant address this issue. c) Water quality pond discharge: The Applicant has not designed the release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality pond. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant design the release structures for review by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. d) Storm drainage from GCCI: According to the Garfield County engineer, "the storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI parcel into 56 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP culvert c76 -a." According to Mountain Cross Engineering, "There are a series of three culverts that collect water from the GCCI property and discharges it onto the REC property. There is a proposed culvert that shows an area inlet near but not inline (hydraulically speaking) with these existing culverts. No grading is shown to connect the proposed to the existing. Also, the inlet is shown as a surface, drop type inlet versus an end section inlet; so it may not effectively capture the offsite flows (depending on the magnitude of the event). Downstream from this are proposed lots that could be potentially flooded if this exchange of flows from existing culverts to proposed isn't adequately captured." Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant redesign the offsite flow into culvert c76 -a for review by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. 8. Water / Wastewater a) Connect to RFWSD Staff understands that the Applicant intends to connect to the existing Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) system for water and wastewater. This amendment application and the 2011 application do not make clear whether the Applicant was going to connect to RFWSD or create their own system. As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to be served by the RFWSD system for water and wastewater. b) Location and Extent Review: District improvements that may be necessitated by the development include the potential for water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, connection of the development via SH 82 and Aspen Glen, and a water storage tank on the east side of SH 82. The District is a quasi -governmental entity and therefore would have to provide information to the Planning Commission via a Location and Extent application for these improvements. c) Pre -Inclusion Agreement: The pre -inclusion agreement with the RFWSD includes both the subject parcel owned by Carbondale Investments (CI) as well as the adjacent property owned by Garfield County Commercial Investments (GCCI). According to the County Attorney's Office, "The tethering of these two properties under this agreement is difficult. The ability of the subdivision to supply water is now tied to a second parcel. This is not ideal. [It is] recommend[ed] that the Applicant revise its Agreement with RFWSD to remove the GCCI services." Following further conversations with the RFWSD, it is Staff's opinion that while it is ideal for the two properties to be separate, the agreement appears adequate with the two combined as they are. This condition of approval continues to be recommended by the Planning Commission, however. d) Water Line Conflicts: Mountain Cross Engineering noted that the water line on Riverside Drive conflicts with the 36" storm drain culvert. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit updated plans addressing this issue. e) Fire Hydrant Connections: Mountain Cross Engineering noted that the Applicant has not shown how certain fire hydrants throughout the development are connected to the water line. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit updated plans addressing this issue. f) Utilities under Highway 82: The Garfield County Engineering Department noted that the separate package of plans for utilities to be installed under Highway 82 was not 57 g) BOCC April 18, 2016 DP found. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit the separate package of plans for review by the Garfield County Engineering Department. Water / Wastewater to Executive Lot: The proposed Executive Lot does not appear to be served by the RFWSD water or sewer as the preliminary engineering plans do not show connections to that parcel. In addition, the Division of Water Resources has noted that no water wells are permitted within or nearby the proposed Executive Lot (See Exhibit 27). Further review of the 2011 application does not show demonstration of legal and adequate water for this parcel should the parcel not be connected to RFWSD. As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant provide demonstration of adequate legal and physical water to the Executive Lot should it not be served by RFWSD. In addition, the Applicant should identify how wastewater for the parcel is to be managed. 9. Applicable Land Use Code Future modifications to PUD and Preliminary Plan: It is unclear which Land Use Code applies to applications for future review by the County. According to the County Attorney's Office, "In order to clarify future County involvement with the subdivision, I recommend a condition of approval that the applicable code be stated in the Preliminary Plan Resolution and Development Agreement. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the following language be added to the Preliminary Plan and PUD Resolution: "All future amendments shall be reviewed pursuant to the Land Use Code or Resolution in place at the time of submittal. The Preliminary Plan is vested under LUDC effective July 15, 2013 and last amended December 7, 2015." 10. Floodplain Updated wetlands delineation: The Army Corps of Engineers responded to the referral request (See Exhibit 15) that requires the Applicant to update the wetlands delineation on the property that was las conducted in 2010. The letter from the Army Corps states that "jurisdictional determinations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time, therefore this verification is only valid for five years." As a result, the determination issued in 2010 is currently expired. Staff suggests a condition of approval that the Applicant update the wetland determination for the properties prior to final plat as required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 11. Open Space 5% Threshold for treatment: Consistent with Condition 7(b) of the 2011 Resolution of Approval, the Garfield County Vegetation Manager recommends that item 5 of the Open Space and Management Plan (OSMP) be deleted. This Item 5 states that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State Noxious Weed Act." As 5% cover is not acceptable, this statement should be deleted. Staff recommends maintaining the previous Condition of Approval as required in 2011. 12. Affordable Housing Address 2011 GCHA Comments: The Applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) related to affordable housing requirements within the REC plan. Geneva Powell of the Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) responded to the application in 2011 which is included with the updated comments from KT Gazunis 58