HomeMy WebLinkAbout30.00 BOCC Staff Report 04.18.2016Board of County Commissioners – Public Hearing Exhibits
River Edge Colorado (REC) PUD Amendment / Preliminary Plan Amendment
April 18, 2016 7 4Jc,(,,v,s
Exhibit
Number
Exhibit 4,),,-rd,—rx
.. ,,,,;1/63-- ,
1
Public Hearing Notice Information Form for
Hearing – Dated March 18, 2016
Board of County Commissioners
2
Certified Mail Receipts for Board of County
Commissioners Hearing
3
Photo Evidence of Property Postings for Board of County Commissioners Hearing
4
Proof of Publication for Board of County Commissioners
February 24, 2016
Hearing – Dated
5
Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution
of 2008, as amended
6
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030
7
Application
8
Staff report
9
Staff Presentation
10
Resolution 2011-84 – Resolution of Approval
Preliminary Plan (PUD Plan, PUD Development
Improvement Agreement)
for River Edge Colorado PUD and
Guide, Preliminary Plan, Phase 0
11
Resolution 2011-85 – Resolution of Approval
Specific Development Plan Establishing Vested
Agreement)
for River Edge Colorado Site
Property Rights (Development
12
Referral comments from Ken Brubaker of the
Transportation (CDOT)
Colorado Department of
13
Referral comments from Michael Fowler and
November 11, 2015
Dan Cokley of SGM-Inc. – dated
14
Referral comments from David Johnson of the
Authority (RFTA) – dated November 18, 2015
Roaring Fork Transportation
15
Referral comments from Carrie Shaeta of the
Engineers – dated November 3, 2015
United States Army Corps of
16
Referral comments from Kamie Long of the
November 11, 2015 1
Colorado State Forest Service – dated
17
Referral comments from Jeff Nelson, Assistant
dated November 9, 2015
Engineer for Garfield County –
18
Email from Dan Blankenship of the Roaring
(RFTA) – dated November 18, 2015
Fork Transportation Authority
19
Referral comments from Bill Gavette of the
dated November 19, 2015
Carbondale Fire Protection District –
20
Referral comments from Steve Anthony of Vegetation
November 20, 2015
Management – dated
21
Referral comments from Katherine T. Gazunis
Authority dated November 23, 2015
of the Garfield County Housing
22
Referral comments from Chris Hale, PE of Mountain
November 24, 2015
Cross Engineering – dated
23
Referral comments from Megan Sullivan, PE
Resources – dated November 25, 2015
of the Colorado Division of Water
24
Referral comments from Mike Prehm of Garfield
December 2, 2015
County Road and Bridge - dated
25
Referral comments from Dan Roussin of the
Transportation – dated December 2, 2015
Colorado Department of
26
Referral comments from Kelly Cave of the Garfield
dated December 10, 2015
County Attorney's Office —
27
Referral Comments from the Division of Water
"Executive Lot" — Dated December 31, 2015
Resources regarding the
28
Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork
January 13, 2016
Water and Sanitation District — Dated
29
Le' / ( C, r,. , o/! . O ( /(/o/, CZo L
--e-
r',,�4m'�J Co„ re.,,,N-c,'� / -tit sy,n�p7,6-, cc c ,
30
4
,� / f c/co,
REQUEST:
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Amended PUD / Amended Subdivision Preliminary
Plan
Carbondale Investments, LLC
HDR, Inc — Pete Mertes
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
WATER/SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Mid -way between Carbondale and Glenwood
Springs on the west side of SH 82 at Cattle Creek
±160 -acres
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District AND/OR
Private Central Water and Sanitation
State Highway 82
PUD
CL, CG, PUD, Rural
Future Land Use Map - Residential High Density,
Unincorporated Community
I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
A. Property Location
The property is generally located in the western ' of Sections 7 and 18 of Township 7 South,
Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 89
Glenwood
Springs
Carbondale
1
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
West. More practically, the property is located 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs east and
adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH 82) with a proposed primary access point located north of
Cattle Creek Road (CR 113) as it intersects with SH 82 in the lower Roaring Fork Valley.
Properties to the north include two commercial parks (Eastbank & Evergreen) and a high-density
mobile home park (H Lazy F). Properties to the west include a medium -density (Teller Springs)
and medium -density (Iron Bridge) residential development. Properties to the south include an
active gravel extraction operation (LaFarge). Properties to the east include a variety of commercial
businesses (Van Rand Park), and a high-density mobile home park (Mountain Meadows Court).
B. General Property Description
The property contains approximately 160 -acres of former 281.62 acres site that was subdivided
into several >35 -acre parcels. The subject site is located on the floor of the Roaring Fork Valley
and is configured in a linear north -south orientation with the Rio Grande Trail/RFTA corridor
forming its east border and the Roaring Fork River forming its western border.
Physically the property can be characterized by several benches that step down in an east to west
direction towards the Roaring Fork River. A perpetual conservation easement held by the Roaring
Fork Conservancy is located adjacent to the subject site of this application and along Cattle Creek.
Beyond what has been protected in the adjacent easement, the entire property has been virtually
denuded of any viable vegetation and stripped of much of its topsoil as a result of former
development attempts by a previous owner which has left the property in poor condition. The
ground cover is primarily characterized by cobles and gravel with three or four large piles of
unanchored topsoil. Some rough grading work is also evident where the previous owner had
begun to rough in a golf course.
C. Property History
The Sanders Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 with a site specific development plan that included a golf course,
62 single-family dwelling units and 168 multi -family dwelling units for a total average density of
1.22 acres / du or conversely, 0.81 du / acre.
Subsequently, the owner of the property at the time (Sopris Development Group) sold the property
to Linksvest / Bair Chase, LLC who submitted a Preliminary Plan Application in 2003 based on
the PUD which was approved by the BOCC in 2004 and extended in 2005.
The net result was that the Preliminary Plan Application became invalid due to expiration; certain
obligations / timeframes contained within the Phasing Plan in the PUD also became invalid thus
rendering the entire PUD Plan invalid.
2
In February, 2008 the Board
of County Commissioners
revoked approval for the
uncompleted portion of the
PUD and rezoned that portion
to Residential Suburban
(known as RGSD under the
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as
amended) leaving the area
encompassed by the
conservation easement held
by the Roaring Fork
Conservancy zoned as Open
Space / Conservation District
in the Sanders Ranch PUD as
shown right.
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Open Space Conservation
District in Sanders Ranch PUD
In October 2008 the site was owned by River Bend, LLC when Related WestPac, LLC submitted
an application for a Zone District Amendment for Planned Unit Development (PUD). This PUD
proposed 1,006 dwelling units, 30,000 square feet of commercial, a school site, open space and
recreation as shown on the development plan below.
River South
Neighborhood ,
River No .�
Neighborhood'
This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant prior to any action taken on the
request.
3
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
II. RIVER EDGE COLORADO (REC) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current owner of the site, Carbondale Investments, LLC, (CI) was approved to rezone a
portion of the original site discussed above, from Residential Suburban to PUD to allow for
development of 366 dwelling units (including 55 affordable units), 30,000 square feet of public,
quasi -public and commercial floor area, open space and recreation. The owner was also
approved for a Preliminary Plan Application to allow for subdivision of the site.
The 2011 application materials contained the following project description:
CI contemplates developing the property into a walkable clustered -form of residential
development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable homes,
passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the "Project"). The
neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and will offer
opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a fitness room,
a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and limited
community service uses. Community service uses may include not-for-profit or for profit uses that
may be operated for the benefit of residents of the community only within designated spaces of
the neighborhood center. Community service uses shall be operated by a tenant or
concessionaire of the property owners' association (the "POA') to be established for the Project
and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a health
club.
Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation
Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog
parks, playfields, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural heritage
and rural character, CI anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado Planned
Unit Development ("PUD") for "Garden/Orchard" use may be used, at the residents' election, as
communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations of the POA,
it is anticipated that these Garden/Orchard tracts will consist of individual plots, multiple caretaker
areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas, other ancillary horticultural related uses,
and for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be provided within the
neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas ultimately will be decided by the
residents of the Project.
It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of the
Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide provided in
Tab 3, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
4
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
The Applicant originally proposed that the development proceed in 11 phases with reclamation of
the entire 160 -acres being completed in Phase 0. The development was anticipated to be built -
out in 2019 based upon an average annual absorption rate of 58 units per year. The Applicant
was requesting a vesting period for the development for a period of 10 years.
PHASING
In 2011 the staging and timing of the proposed development was described as:
The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings.
The Project will be constructed over a period of 5-10 years. The development stage of the
Project is preceded by a pre -development reclamation phase described in the Reclamation
Plan (Appendix U of the Impact Analysis, Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application). The development staging and construction is detailed on Drawing No.
CPO1.01 of the PUD (Rezoning) and Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package
submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
Phase 0 - This first phase was to reclaim the site in preparation for development activities.
This Plan proposes and details a pre -development reclamation action ("Phase 0"), including
grading, necessary to repair the damage to the Project Site resulting from actions taken by
Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD which partially regraded the Project
Site (as hereinafter defined) for residential and golf course development and stripped and
stockpiled the topsoil.
5
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
2011 Phase 0 Improvements
The description of the reclamation is basically a `grading program' but also included:
• Relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the entry to the site. The Applicant stated that
this relocation will be done in coordination with RFTA and would result in a grade -
separated trail that will reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between trail users and
access to the site.
• Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch to facilitate property development.
• Site grading included movement of 1.2 million cubic yards of material which will re -
grade the site for proper drainage and resolve existing and potential geotechnical
hazards. In addition this would also repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace
escarpments, and repair active and stabilize stream bank erosion.
• Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds.
• Final revegetation and planting of vegetative screens along the Rio Grande Trail and
the conservation easement.
Phase 1 — 59 lots (39 "Town" lots and 20 "Attached" lots); off-site infrastructure such as
access from Highway 82, a private at -grade crossing over the grade separated-RFTA trail,
connection to water and wastewater treatment facilities if service is provided by RFWSD. On-
site improvements include the round -about and streets to serve the lots, bridge over Cattle
Creek, water and sewer lines, parking and mailboxes at the Community Center
Phase 1B — 26 lots (13 Garden Homes and 13 Affordable Homes). These first two phases
are anticipated to be constructed between 2012 and 2014.
Phase 2 — 31 lots (12 Village Lots, 19 Attached)
Phase 2A - 56 lots (28 Garden Homes and 28 Affordable Homes).
Phase 3 — 36 Lots (35 Town Lots and 1 Village Lot)
Phase 4 — 52 Lots (44 Town Lots and 8 Village Lots)
Phase 4A — 19 Garden Home Lots
Phase 5 - 27 Town Lots
Phase 5A - 28 Lots (14 Garden Home Lots and 14 Affordable Homes)
Phase 6 — 61 Lots (9 Estate Lots, 17 Town Lots and 35 Village Lots)
6
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
111. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The Applicant is requesting the following amendments to the PUD and Preliminary Plan as
approved:
Carbondale Investments requests an amendment to the Preliminary Plan and PUD
Plan to accommodate the relocation of the access to and from State Highway 82.
The new access point will move north from River Edge Drive to a new roadway
known as Terrace Parkway and will provide access to both the Project and the
GCCI property through a single access road. The creation of Terrace Parkway
results in a new layout of the Project's intersection with State Highway 82 and a
modification of the Project's internal streets. The Amendment largely maintains
overall density, with a slight reduction from 366 residential units to 362. The
Amendment also: creates a new Rio Grande Trail crossing and related
improvements for Terrace Parkway; eliminates the River Edge Drive Right -of -Way
extension to State Highways 82 and related plat adjustments; creates new trail
connections and/or crossings of State Highway 82 at the old access location;
relocates the secondary emergency vehicle access onto State Highway 82 to run
through adjoining properties to the north of the Project to connect to County Road
167; reorganizes the Subdivision Filings as reflected on the Preliminary
Subdivision Plan; and revises the PUD Phasing Plan to shift earlier phases of
development to the vicinity of the new access point.
The Amendment is otherwise largely consistent with the current approved
Preliminary Plan and PUD Plan. Overall open space will increase by 0.1 acres (to
40.60 acres), total common area will remain at 16.89 acres, and total parks will
increase by 0.26 acres (to 17.34 acres). The Amendment maintains the same
affordable housing ratios as previously approved and the majority of affordable
housing units will now be developed in the first five Subdivision Filings, with
Subdivision Filing 1A now including 28 of the 55 units.
Phasing
River Edge
Revised Phase 0 Improvements
7
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Amended Phasing Descriptions
FHASF O
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: PRE -DEVELOPMENT RECLAMATION WILL INCLUDE: RELOCATION OF A 2.900 FOOT
SEGMENT OF THE GLENWOOD DITCH; COMPLETION OF SITE GRADING ACTIVITIES (BALANCED EARTHWORK
TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION CUBIC YARDS) INCLUDING PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIONS: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIMARY SITE DRAINAGE
FACILITIES (LE. CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND WATER QUALITY PONDS); AND REVEGETATION OF THE
DISTURBED AREAS PER REQUIREMENTS OJTUNED IN THE REVEGETATION PLAN.
FILING 1
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PRIMARY OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A COMPONENT
OF FILING INCLUDE: SITE ACCESS FROM HIGHWAY 82. AN AT -GRADE CROSSING WITH THE RFTA TRAIL,
CONNECTIONS TO WATER SUPPLY. DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND CONNECTION TO AV EXPANDED RFISO
WWTP LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE.
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO 8E CONST-•.,t'TEC TO SUPPORT FIUNC
1 INCLUDE: A ROUNDABOUT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOC 7ENTE' ,='PDXIMATELY 3,740
LINEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS AND '.940 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY/C.:.I-T. '.,�`... LINEAR FEET OF
ENTRY STREET; APPROXIMATELY 5,000 LINEAR FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION ONES;
APPROXIMATELY 7,8'5 UNEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION ONES; APROXIMATELY 2,0X LINEAR
FEET OF TRUNK MAIN AND 3.600 UNEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER. AND APPROXIMATELY 2,585 LINEAR
FEET CF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION, AN INITIAL PORTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER (INCLUDING
PARKING AND MAIL 805E5) WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. APPROXIMATELY 8.69 ACRES GF OPEN SPACE,
5.02 ACRES OF ACTIVE PARKS ANO 5.49 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS WILL 8E FINAL LANDSCAPED. THE
ROUNDABOUT IS 124 FEET IN DIAMETER WITH A SINGLE 14 -FOOT CIRCULATING LANE AND FOUR
12 -FOOT ENTRY AND EXIT LANES (ONE 13190 THE ACCESS POINT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER).
THE SRLIIIh14 ISLANDS WILL BE RAISED CONCRETE AND THE CENTER ISLAND WILL BE LANDSCAPED WITH
A '0 -FOOT TRUCK APRON
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FILING 14 INCLJI`,E APPROXIMATELY 955 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT BC
AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION.
FIUNC 2
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FILING 1 MUST DE COMPLtlLU PRIOR
TO INITIATING THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FILING 2.
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT FILING
2 INCLUDE: A NEIGHBORHOOD ROUNDABOUT LOCATED 09 THE FAR NORTH END OF SOPRIS VIEW DRIVE
AND TRAILSIDE DRIVE THAT I5 64 FEET IN DIAMETER WITH A SINGLE '2 -FOOT CIRCULATING LANE AND
FOUR 12 -FOOT ENTRY AND EXIT LANES; A SINGLE CUL -0E -SAC IS LOCATED AT THE TERMINES OF ELK
TERRACE STREET, APPROXIMATELY 2,800 LINEAR FEET CF LOCAL STREETS; AI'I'ROxIMATELY 3,160 LINEAR
FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES; APPROXIMATELY 3,240 LINEAR FEET OF RAW WATER
IRRIGATION UNES: APPROXIMATELY 1,050 LINEAR FEET OF TRUNK MAIN AND 2.650 UNEAR FEET OF
GRAVITY SEWER; AND APPROXIMATELY 1,600 LINEAR 1-t.1 OF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION. APPROXIMATELY
9 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 2 59 ACRES OF ACTIVE PARKS AN3 1 77 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS
WILL BE FINAL LANDSCAPED.
IMPROVEMENTS FOR F1UNG 2A INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 840 UNEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT BM
INC SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FIUNC I MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR
TO INITIATING THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FILING 3.
IN AUDITION, A FURTHER ExPA:NSION OF T146 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MAY BE REUUIREO AT THIS FlUNG.
INCLUDING THE POOL AND OTHER OUTDOOR AMENITIES.
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT FILING
3 INCLUDE, APPROXIMATELY 3.560 LINEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS. 900 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY/COURT
AND APPROXIMATELY 5,415 LINEAR FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES: APPROXIMATELY 6.775
LINEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION UNES: APPROXIMATELY 1,000 LINEAR FEET OF TRUNK MAIN
AND 3,200 UNEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER; APPROXIMATELY 1,735 LINEAR FEET OF SOFT PATH AND
70 -FOOT LONG BRIDGE OVER CATTLE CREEK. ALSO, 3.07 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 5.59 ACRES OF
ACTIVE PARKS, AND 4.48 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS WILL FE FINAL LANDSCAPED.
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FlUNGS 3A ANO 313 INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 960 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR
TRACT AD AND 510 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT AJ AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER
DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION.
FILING 4
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS CESCRIBED UNDER FILINGS 1 INC 3 MLST 8E COM='LETEJ
PRIOR TO INITIATING THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FILING 4.
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT FILING
4 INCLUDE: APPROXIMATELY 1,445 LINEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS: APPROXIMATELY 1,380 LINEAR FEET
OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES; APPROXIMATELY 3,280 UNEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION
UNES; APPROXIMATELY 900 LINEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER; AND APPROXIMATELY 1,720 LINEAR FEET
OF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 3.15 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, AND 3.51 ACRES OF
COMMON AREAS WILL BE FINAL LANDSCAPED.
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FILING 46 INCLJCE APPROXIMATELY 5'C LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT AK
ANC SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION
OWEr-5.
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FIUNGS 1 AND 3 MUST BE COMPLETED
PRIOR TO INITIATING THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FILING 5
ONSITE IMPROvEMENTS THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT FIUNC
5 INCLUDE: A NEICHBORH000 ROUNDABOUT LOCATED ON THE FAR SOUTH END OF THE PROJECT SITE
(INTERSECTION OF HIGH CREEK ROA0 ANO ALPINE BLUFF STREET) THAT IS 64 FEET IN DIAMETER WITH
A SINGLE 12 -FOOT CIRCULATING LANE AND FOUR 12 -FOOT ENTRY AND EXIT LANES; APPROXIMATELY
2.500 LINEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS AND 535 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY/COURT; APPROXIMATELY 3.010
LINEAR FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION UNES; APPROXIMATELY 6,130 LINEAR FEET OF RAW
WATER IRRIGATION LINES; APPROXIMATELY 2,570 UNEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER; AND APPROXIMATELY
1.390 LINEAR 1-66.1 OF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 16.12 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 4,'5
ACRES OF ACTIVE PARKS AND 1.64 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS WILL BE FINAL LANDSCAPED.
8
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
TABLE 5 - LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (PROPOSED PHASING SEQUENCE)
(EXTRACTED FROM THE PUD PLAN)
FILING
LOTS BY FILING
I AFFORDABLE LOT SUMMARY
SCHEDULE OF
PLATTING Y
ESTATE'
TOWN
VILLAGE
ATTACHED3
GARDEN HOMES
CUMULATIVE
AFFORDABLE
AFFORDABLE (%)
1A0
0
0
0
28
28
100.0%
2016
1
0
39
15
16
0
0
28 6%
2016
2
0
42
8
0
0
0
18 9%
2017
2A
0
0
0
0
19
0
16 8%
2017
3A
0
0
0
0
13
13
22.8%
2019
3
0
39
0
20
0
0
T
17 2%
2019
38
i
0
0
0
0
21
0
15 8%
2020
4A
i
0
0
0
0
14
14
201%
2020
4
0
27
0
0
0
0
18.3%
2021
5
9
17
35
0 t
0
0
15.2%
2022
9
164
58
36
95
55
15.2%
2016-2022
INCLUDES EXECUTIVE LOT
PROPOSED PLATTING SCHEDULE
'TOTALS INCLUDE LOTS DESIGNATED AS "A" AND "B"
As approved, the 2011 Preliminary Plan expired December 19, 2014 since the first final plat was
not submitted and deemed Technically Complete before this date. However, because the
Applicant had a pre -application conference on the aforementioned amendments prior to this
expiration date, Staff considered this step the beginning of the application process.
In addition, the Development Agreement, which became effective on December 22, 2011, was
valid for a period of five years. As approved, the Development Agreement will expire on December
22, 2016, unless the Applicant pulls a building permit by this date.
As a result, and in addition to the requested modifications, the Applicant is requesting to reset the
timeframes for the Preliminary Plan and Development Agreement in this amendment application.
If approved, the amended Preliminary Plan would have a three year timeframe starting,
presumably, in 2016 and extending through to 2019. Meanwhile the Development Agreement
would have a five year timeframe starting, presumably, in 2016 and extending through to 2021.
9
BOCC April 18,2016
DP
Revised Preliminary Plan
,•
11
5
14
N
,1 1
i 1
nt
1
1 i i : 11P ilt!!hilt
I 1
1111111
\I‘
I"
!III
13 • 0 •
ICOC.1.16.1140,1
14.4 S.Mal l^33•1110,
IdallS,rat NOM 11.1
10
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
IV. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The Amended PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan applications were referred to the following
agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments that were received
are briefly noted below and more substantively included in the body of the memorandum.
a. Colorado Department of Transportation: (Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 25)
Ken Brubaker: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Engineer. (Review Limited to Proposed
Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass crossing Highway 82)
"The existing structure does not meet the horizontal or vertical clearance requirements
for a pedestrian or multiuse path underpass. Underpasses should be wide enough and
tall enough to invite use and to provide a sense of security when in use. As proposed
this structure would be dark, intimidating, and feel claustrophobic. The recommended
minimums for a structure such as this in a rural area is 12' of width and 10' of vertical
clearance. A structure of this length would ideally be even wider and taller than those
required minimums."
"If this structure is intended for bicyclist and pedestrian use then it should be designed
to shared -use facilities standards. The approach to the structure does not meet the
minimum width required for a shared -use path. The minimum width requirement for a
shared use path is 10'."
"The proposed plans do not show any lighting being provided through the underpass.
It is unlikely that a structure of this length would be appropriately lit without illumination.
Guidance regarding selection of lighting for tunnels and underpasses can be found in
the AASHTO Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting or CDOT's Lighting Design
Guide."
Dan Roussin: Permit Unit Manager.
- Noted that an access permit has been issued for River Edge PUD with a traffic volume
of 275 design hourly volume.
- Noted that "The thought with this permit is to provide a full movement public
intersection with the potential for signalization in the future. The permit states this
would be designed as a non -signalized continuous green intersection. It is anticipated
once Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC property develops, a signal will
be warranted. This signal is anticipated to work long-term with the future signal at
Cattle Creek/ SH 82 intersection. Therefore, both intersection would be long-term be
Signalized Continuous Green Intersection. The intent of this configuration was to make
the signals at River Edge Colorado intersection and Cattle Creek Intersection operate
as one signal."
- Noted that the grade separated bicycle / pedestrian crossing of Highway 82 is vital to
the concept of the Continuous Green Intersection. In addition, Mr. Roussin notes that
"It is anticipated that this cattle crossing would be upgraded to accommodate
pedestrians. CDOT recognizes the cattle crossing box culvert doesn't meet any
current standards for pedestrian underpasses."
- Regarding maintenance of the underpass, Mr. Roussin notes "The Pedestrian
Underpass shall be maintain by either Garfield County or Cattle Creek Metropolitan
District. CDOT will not maintain this structure. Therefore, CDOT will require an
agreement for the maintenance and operation of the underpass."
Regarding the southern Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) onto Highway 82, Mr.
Roussin notes "CDOT has discussed with the River Edge Colorado representative
11
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
about the possibility of providing emergency vehicle access on SH 82. With the
information provided, it very unlikely CDOT would approve an emergency vehicle
access for this development on SH 82. CDOT would recommend that the Applicant
work with surrounding landowner to provide emergency access."
b. SGM-Inc: (Review Limited to Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass crossing Highway
82) (Exhibit 13)
- "This type of intersection (Highway 82 and Cattle Creek) is not conducive to pedestrian
crossings because the mainline operates with continuous flow. Therefore, a grade
separated crossing, such as an underpass, is more appropriate at this location."
- "...cyclists and pedestrians who want to go from the Rio Grande Trail to Cattle Creek
Road currently have to cross four lanes of SH -82 at grade at this existing access point."
- "Any proposed improvements in this area should consider these uses (cyclists) and
provide a crossing that is safe, usable and inviting as a connection between these multi-
use facilities."
c. Garfield County Housing Authority: (Exhibit 21)
Noted a possible reduction in the number of affordable housing units due to the reduction
in the overall number of units.
Noted that the comments from the original Preliminary Plan approved in 2011 have not
been addressed.
d. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: (Exhibit 20)
Noted that the property owner conducted weed treatment for County listed noxious weeds
in early summer with a follow-up in late summer. It is suggested that the property owner
conduct at least two treatments in 2016 with treatment records sent to the Vegetation
Management Department by October 31, 2016.
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 a 5% cover is not acceptable, this
statement needs to be deleted.
e. Garfield County Engineering Department: (Exhibit 17)
- Noted that the trail through the underpass needs to be adequately connected to the
internal REC trail network. In addition, the trail needs to connect to the County road
network on the east side of Highway 82.
- If boring under Highway 82 is required for the utilities, then the necessary Garfield County
and CDOT permits must be obtained. More information is needed on where this boring
will go and the size of the boring.
The separate package for utilities crossing Highway 82 could not be found. The
installation of these utilities should be coordinated with future County project at the Cattle
Creek intersection.
f. Colorado State Division of Water Resources: (Exhibit 23 and Exhibit 27)
- Noted that the proposed source of water is to be provided through the Roaring Fork Water
and Sanitation District.
The Division maintains that the "proposed water supply will not cause material injury to
decreed water rights so long as the Applicant and District operate the water supply in
accordance with the decreed terms and conditions in cases 01 CW 187, 07CW164 and
08CW198. In addition, so long as the Applicant continues the pre -inclusion agreement
with the District that allows for utilization of the District's infrastructure, this office finds
12
g.
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate."
- Noted that the Division has no record of permitted water wells on or nearby the "Executive
Lot".
Garfield County Road and Bridge: (Exhibit 24)
- Noted that the north emergency vehicle access does not access directly onto a County
road and as a result, does not require County permitting.
- Noted that the north emergency vehicle access crosses several parcels in different
ownership. The Applicant will need to demonstrate legal access across all ownerships
from the end of the access to County Road 154.
- Requested details on how the trail coming from the bicycle / pedestrian underpass will tie
into the County road system.
- Requested details on which agency will take ownership and maintenance responsibility
for the bicycle / pedestrian underpass.
- Noted that the Cattle Creek and Highway 82 intersection is currently a safety concern.
Moving the access to the north could increase the physical scope of the traffic concerns.
h. Garfield County Attorney's Office: (Exhibit 26)
The draft easement for Terrace Parkway is acceptable, but must be executed and
recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Applicant needs to finalize
agreements with RFTA and CDOT to obtain legal access to the site at this location.
Recommends a condition of approval requiring that the CDOT and RFTA
permits/licenses be received and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to final
approval of the amended Preliminary Plan and PUD.
- The easement that was to demonstrate legal access from the H Lazy F mobile home park
to County Road 154 is difficult to understand. In addition, the referenced Exhibit C, which
is understood to be a map of the easement area, was never recorded. Further, Recital C
of the Easement references County Road 167, which appears to be erroneous. If the
easement connects with the private roads owned by private parties, then additional
easements may be required. It is recommended that the Applicant revise this easement
to better depict the easement granted and attach and record Exhibit C.
Significant changes were not made to the PUD Guide from that approved in 2011.
The Applicant has requested that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as recorded
at reception number 824971 be terminated with a "Certificate of Completion". The MOU
appears to be satisfied "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 Memorandum 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 Memorandum is needed. Prior to
termination of the MOU, further discussion with the Applicant and the Board is needed to
determine if there are any remaining issues, improvements or cost sharing needed."
The pre -inclusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
(RFWSD) includes both the subject parcel owned by Carbondale Investments (CI) as
well as the adjacent property owned by Garfield County Commercial Investments (GCCI).
"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. I recommend
that the Applicant revise its Agreement with RFWSD to remove the GCCI services." It is
understood that an amended service plan may be submitted to Garfield County "to
differentiate between residential services for the subdivision and commercial services for
GCCI."
13
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Should expansion of water and/or sewer treatment facilities be necessary, then a
Location and Extent review through Garfield County may be necessary.
- 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". Ms. Cave states that "I
do not approve of the Developer's right to alter the sequence of Filings as a non -
substantial modification that does not require a hearing and is solely determined by the
Director." The current Code states that any change to phasing is a substantial
modification.
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. I do 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, I recommend a condition of approval for staff to review the
Construction Plans and for Applicant to record same with the filing of the final plat."
The Phase 0 Improvements Agreement, Recital 7, adds a third party agreement with
Cattle Creek Metropolitan District. "A draft of such agreement and further explanation of
how the landowner and District are incorporated is needed."
- "Additional language has been added to the Indemnity provision of paragraph 4. I
recommend 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. That is a decision for a court to make."
- It is unclear which Land Use Code applies to applications for future review by the County.
"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. Staff's suggested language is "All future amendments shall be reviewed
pursuant to the Land Use Code or Resolution in place at the time of submittal.""
i. Carbondale Fire Protection District: (Exhibit 19)
Noted the development is to have two Emergency Vehicle Accesses (EVAs), one on the
south end connecting to Highway 82 and another on the north end connecting to H Lazy
F Mobile Home Park.
Noted that the proposed water system with service provided by the Roaring Fork Water
and Sanitation District is acceptable. In addition, the fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
Noted that the developer will be required to pay an impact fee of $730 per unit to the
District.
J•
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA): (Exhibit 14)
Noted that the main access and south EVA are required to obtain approval from the RFTA
Board of Directors and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
- "By virtue of previous agreements, the developer is committed to provide a grade -
separated trail connection at the main vehicle access to the development, but is seeking
relief from that commitment. Ultimately, the RFTA Board will need to determine whether
such relief will be granted. RFTA is working closely with the developer with respect to its
requests for vehicle and utility crossings."
- "Regarding transit, the approximately 360 residential units and the potential commercial
development to the north will likely create demand for transit services in an area that does
not contribute sales tax revenue to support the service. Moreover, the new development
will potentially siphon off sales taxes for transit from other areas."
14
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Noted that RFTA has a Service Expansion Policy in place and that "RFTA is willing to
work with Garfield County and the Applicant to forecast the potential transit demand, and
then estimate the capital and operating costs."
Noted that the RFTA Board will get to a decision on the REC crossing in February or
March of 2016. (Exhibit 18)
k. Mountain Cross Engineering: (Exhibit 22)
Easement not executed for main access to property.
Noted that application proposes two options for water to the property: "either connection
to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or providing their own
community system. The application materials seems to provide enough evidence that
there is a legal supply of water, however the physical supply is still pending negotiations.
There are requirements that the Applicant would need to meet with either option: well
pump test, water quality test, community water system approvals with CDPHE, among
others if the Applicant were to provide their own system; and evidence of adequate
capacity of the systems of RFWSD if connecting to them. Other land use approvals may
be necessary to provide a physical supply."
- "...the sewer treatment system has not been determined; either connection to RFWSD
or providing their own community system are the two options. Connection to RFWSD
may require a crossing of the Colorado River. Permitting and design were not included
in the application materials."
- Noted that the bridge over Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR.
The Notice to Proceed for the main entrance to Terrace Parkway has not been issued.
"...the Applicant does not provide sufficient evidence that RFTA has approved the RFTA
crossing of Terrace Parkway at the proposed relocated entrance."
- Requested that the Applicant clarify when signalization of the main entrance may occur.
"Since the main entrance is proposed to be removed from Cattle Creek, the Applicant
proposes to remove their responsibility for the improvements to this intersection. It is
unclear how the improvements proposed to the Cattle Creek intersection will be permitted
and/or constructed."
Noted that an Access Permit has not been issued by CDOT for the southern Emergency
Vehicle Access onto Highway 82.
- Noted that additional parking should be provided at the ball fields and playgrounds.
- Noted that the traffic calming island of the roundabout eliminates turning movement onto
Moraine Court from Riverside Loop Drive.
Noted that "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."
Noted that driveway permitting may be required for the northern Emergency Vehicle
Access onto County Road 154.
- "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."
- Noted that "The proposed pedestrian underpass seems to be incongruent with typical
pedestrian underpasses. The existing box culvert is 7' tall by 6' wide and would be
approximately 150 feet long. No lighting appears to be proposed. The Applicant should
provide an analysis on the adequacy of the structure as a proposed underpass."
- Requests that the Applicant "design the release structures and routing for discharges
from the water quality ponds."
15
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Requests that the Applicant provide "The plans and specifications concerning sewer and
water [that] will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that option is pursued."
- Noted that the storm drains are not labeled on the plans.
Noted that "The storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from
the GCCI parcel get into culvert c76 -a."
Requests that the Applicant show how the fire hydrants throughout the development are
connected to the water lines.
Noted that the water line on Trailside drive conflicts with the Glenwood Ditch piping.
- Noted that the water line on Trailside Drive conflicts with the 36" storm drain culvert.
- Noted that construction will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from CDPHE.
- Noted that "The southern EVA access proposes an 8% slope to SH 82. This would be
incongruent with CDOT standards and may need to have the design revised."
Noted that "The engineering plans provided are preliminary. Construction drawings are
proposed to be submitted at time of the Final plat. Review of the Construction Drawings
should be required at that time."
I. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: (Exhibit 15)
- The Applicant needs to obtain verification of the wetland delineation.
m. Colorado State Forest Service: (Exhibit 16)
- Noted that the wildfire rating for the property is Low to Moderate
- Recommends that the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space Standards be
required for all structures within the proposed development.
n. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District: (Exhibit 28)
- Noted that it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to connect to the District for both
water and sewer. As a result, the District has not conducted a detailed review of the
proposed Preliminary Plan or PUD.
- Noted that the District has committed to serve the development with water and sewer
service through the terms of the Pre Inclusion Agreement.
No comments were received from the following agencies:
o. Garfield County Emergency Management
p. Garfield County Public Health
q. Soil Conservation District
r. Glenwood Ditch Company
s. City of Glenwood Springs
t. Town of Carbondale
u. Colorado Parks and Wildlife
v. RE -1 School District
w. Garfield County Sheriff Department
x. Roaring Fork Conservancy
16
V. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One component of the Comprehensive Plan is
the Future Land Use Map which designates
density ranges and uses that may be considered
appropriate for an area.
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
This site has been subdivided from the original
288 -acres as indicated on the map at right into a
property shown above that consists of 160 -acres
of the original parcel. The Roaring Fork
Conservancy Conservation Easement is not
included in this application and will remain a
separate parcel zoned Sanders Ranch PUD,
Open Space.
The River Edge Colorado PUD was approved in 2011 under Resolution 2011-84. This approval
stated that the proposed PUD conformed to the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. According to the
Applicant:
Like with the Preliminary Plan, the Board has already determined that the PUD
Plan "meet[s] the requirements, approval criteria, and standards set forth in the
ULUR" and is in "general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan 2030," "subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in
[Resolution 2011-84] and except where waivers have been granted." Resolution
2011-84.
Density in the Amendment falls well within the residential density range
contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for the Residential High designation.
The Project will continue to offer affordable housing, a diverse mix of housing types
at a range of prices, a significant area devoted to parks, trails, and open space for
Project residents, and preservation of the County's rural character and views. See
Comprehensive Plan at pages 23 & 27.
Sections of the Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to the application are excerpted below.
Chapter 2. Future Land Use includes the following direction:
Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map designates the site as Residential High Density which provides a
`range' of appropriate densities and a method of determining what range is appropriate for a
particular site:
17
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Determining the density range, High Density range is from 3 du per acre (480 units on the REC
parcel) to 1 du per < 2 acres (80 units on the REC parcel), the range for a particular site will be
determined by the Planning Commission based on "degree of public benefit" and consideration
of such factors as affordable housing, amount of parks/trails/open space, energy conservation,
fiscal impacts, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public needs.
Growth of New Major Residential Subdivisions
There are several major subdivisions (15 units or more) in Garfield County that provide their own
internal services (road maintenance, water, sewer) through special districts or HOA. However,
these subdivisions are typically far from commercial centers and require travel for even
convenience needs which increases traffic and requires higher maintenance of county roads. The
Plan recognizes new major subdivisions may occur, but encourages them to be more self-
sufficient (having, or being near, convenience services). In order to be more self-sufficient, new
major subdivisions will require:
i. Safe, reliable access and transit opportunities
ii. Construction or upgrade existing offsite connecting county roads and intersections by the
developer
iii. Review of the fiscal costs vs. fiscal benefits to the public
iv. Internal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA
v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi -public, not private)
vi. Public amenities, such as trails, open areas, parks, etc., that meet the needs of residents are
included.
Growth in Unincorporated Communities
New (or expanded existing) unincorporated communities should meet the following guidelines:
i. Not located in UGA of existing municipalities;
ii. Served with urban services by a special district;
iii. Contract for police from county sheriff is established;
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense;
v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered;
vi. Internal commercial is primarily for area residents;
vii. Transit opportunities are provided;
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided;
ix. School sites may be required.
Chapter 3 -Plan Elements
This chapter analyzes plan elements that include:
1. Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination - The nearest property boundary of
REC is located 2.46 miles from the Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area and 2.61 miles
from the Carbondale Urban Growth Area, locating this property halfway between two existing
population centers. The FLUM designates the property Residential High (1/3 acre to Tess than
2 acres per dwelling unit).
2. Housing - The Applicant proposes to provide 55 affordable units. This maintains the same
ratio of 15%.
3. Transportation — The Applicant has stated that this development will provide an opportunity
for upper valley employees to live in the Roaring Fork Valley rather than commuting from the
Colorado River Valley. In theory this may decrease traffic on 1-70 and Highway 82 through
the City of Glenwood Springs. However the location of the development will require that
18
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
residents continue to commute as the site is located between two community centers, transit
access will be unavailable and few employment opportunities exist within the development.
The improvements required to Highway 82 at the entrance to the site are significant. The
Applicant has obtained a new CDOT access permit for the new proposed location. The CDOT
access permit requires the Applicant to convert the existing livestock/drainage underpass
under Highway 82 to a Bicycle and Pedestrian underpass. Staff understands that the
underpass as proposed does not meet CDOT or AASHTO standards. Further, the Applicant
is proposing an at -grade crossing of the RFTA Rio Grande Trail, which is not consistent with
the previous 2011 approval for a grade -separated crossing. An alteration of the RFTA crossing
from grade separated to at -grade will require approval by the RFTA board and the PUC,
neither of which has been processed.
Per the International Fire Code of 2009, the north parcel and the south parcel each need two
vehicle accesses. To accomplish this, the Applicant has proposed on Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) from the north parcel and one EVA from the south parcel. These EVAs are in
addition to the main vehicular access points from Highway 82 on the north parcel and a bridge
over Cattle Creek connecting the south parcel to the north parcel. The Applicant is proposing
one EVA to the north through H Lazy F Mobile Home Park out to County Road 154 as well as
a southern EVA onto Highway 82. An easement is in place through H Lazy F Mobile Home
Park for the northern EVA although legal access has not been demonstrated all the way to
CR 154, while the Applicant has not yet applied for a CDOT access permit for the southern
EVA.
The internal road system remains largely unchanged from the 2011 approval.
4. Economics, Employment and Tourism — Though the development and construction will create
employment opportunities they will be temporary and will not be primary jobs. Employment
for the on-site recreation/daycare/coffee shop facilities may generate several on-going service
industry positions. Overall POA maintenance of the development may also create several
positions, though a specific number of positions has not been provided.
5. Recreation, Open Space and Trails — The development does provide internal trails and areas
for recreation. In addition, as is required by the CDOT access permit for Terrace Parkway, the
Applicant is must convert the existing livestock underpass connecting the Rio Grande Trail to
the east side County roads for use by bicycles and pedestrians. The Land Use Resolution
requires that this facility meet currently accepted design standards. The current livestock
underpass should be designed to be safe, accessible and comfortable for users.
6. Agriculture — Limited agriculture may be conducted within the PUD.
7. Water and Sewer Services — The application includes a pre -inclusion agreement with the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). The 2011 application, including the
Justification Report, state that the Applicant was considering a community system.
8. Natural Resources — Preservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources is
proposed, particularly when the first phase of the development reclaims the site. Protection
of the riparian corridor and conservation easement are specifically discussed in the
development plan.
9. Mineral Extraction — There are likely significant gravel reserves on the property. The Applicant
has determined that this resource will be utilized in the construction of the project to the extent
19
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
that gravel reserves will be stockpiled, crushed on-site and a temporary concrete batch plant
will operate to produce construction materials. This use will only occur during construction of
the site, however, and will require a separate land use permit.
10. Renewable Energy — Energy and/or water conservation and renewable energy were not
included as components of this development.
VI. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA PUD and Zone
District Amendment
Since this review is for a Substantial Amendment
under the 2008 ULUR, this review is focused on the
proposed amendments to the approved Preliminary
Plan, which became effective on December 19, 2011
became effective on December 22, 2011.
Please Note: A summary of the
identified issues is provided on Page
50, Section VIII
and Development Agreement which
SECTION 4-201 REZONING.
Rezoning may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission,
the Director, or an Applicant for land use change. The rezoning request may be processed
concurrently with the land use change application and review process.
B. Rezoning Criteria.
Unless otherwise provided in these Regulations, an application for rezoning must meet the
following criteria.
1. No Spot Zoning. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. The road relocation would result in
changes to the PUD in order to accommodate the relocated access point to Highway
82 and the Rio Grande Trail as well as a new bicycle and pedestrian underpass at the
Cattle Creek intersection.
2. Change in Area. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or
is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or
density in the area.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this
application is an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in a
significant deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time.
3. Demonstrated Community Need. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated
community need with respect to facilities, services or housing.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this
application is an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in a
significant deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time.
4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The
proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable
20
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development or an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a rezoning request.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this
application is an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in a
significant deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time.
5. Original Zone Designation Incorrect. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the
original zone district map.
Staff Comments: The Board of County Commissioners approved the current PUD
zoning on the site in 2011 which rezoned the parcel from Residential Suburban. This
designation was not incorrect and was not in error.
6. Adequate Water Supply. Such an application to rezone a property from one district to
another district shall be required to demonstrate the maximum water demand required
to serve the most intensive use in the resulting zone district pursuant to Article 7-104 of
this Resolution.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this
application is an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in a
significant deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time.
The Applicant is proposing to serve the development with water from the Roaring Fork
Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and has included a pre -inclusion agreement for
future connection. In addition, the amendment application was referred to the Colorado
Division of Water Resources, which concluded that the "proposed water supply will not
cause material injury to decreed water rights so long as the Applicant and District
operate the water supply in accordance with the decreed terms and conditions in cases
01 CW 187, 07CW 164 and 08CW198. In addition, so long as the Applicant continues the
pre -inclusion agreement with the District that allows for utilization of the District's
infrastructure, this office finds that the proposed water supply will be physically
adequate." A follow up letter was received from the Division, however, which states that
the "Executive Lot" at the far southern end of the development which is not shown to be
served by water or sewer lines connected to the RFWSD system, also does not have a
permitted water well located on or near the Lot. As a result, while the rest of the
development is to be served by the RFWSD for water and wastewater, the "Executive
Lot" does not appear to have any source of water or wastewater.
21
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS.
Since this review is for a Substantial Amendment under the 2008 ULUR, this review is focused
on the proposed amendments to the approved Preliminary Plan, which became effective on
December 19, 2011 and Development Agreement which became effective on December 22,
2011.
In addition to the standards set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Standards, the
following standards shall apply to PUD applications.
A. Compliance with Rezoning Standards.
The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(B), Rezoning Criteria.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this
application is only an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in
a significant deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time.
Staff comments to the Rezoning Criteria in Section 4-201(B) are outlined above. It is
Staff's opinion that the Rezoning Criteria are satisfied.
B. Relationship to Surrounding Area.
The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is
compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this application
is only an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in a significant
deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time.
The proposed amendment will impact surrounding properties by relocating the main access
to the development from Highway 82 as well as altering how bicyclists and pedestrians will
cross from the Rio Grande Trail to the east side of Highway 82. The relocation of the main
access to Highway 82 alters the relationship of the development to the County road network
as the previous entrance was across from County Road 113. In addition, because crossing
Highway 82 at -grade will become even more perilous for bicyclists and pedestrians as a
result of the alterations to the Highway to accommodate vehicular traffic to the development,
CDOT has required the Applicant to improve the existing livestock culvert to accommodate
non -motorized traffic crossing but have indicated that they will not impose any specific
design standard for those upgrades. This crossing is to be located just south of the Cattle
Creek intersection.
C. Visual Impacts.
The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on
ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be
prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural
environment.
Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2011. While it was determined that this
standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this application
is an amendment to the previously approved zoning and will not result in a significant
deviation in the uses or residential densities proposed at that time. The visual impacts
associated with the development will not deviate significantly from those approved in 2011.
22
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
D. Street Circulation System.
The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for
the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and
access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for
police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when
the site is used for residential purposes.
Staff Comments: The Applicant states the following regarding the street circulation system:
The Amendment provides adequate internal street circulation, access for
police and fire protection, and for bicycle traffic, as detailed in the Report
and the supporting materials in this application. Report, pp. 13-14. The
Amendment still has two emergency -only accesses, as requested by the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District; one remains in the location
provided for in the PUD Plan on the south end of the Property and the other
has been relocated to connect to the local street system to the north of the
Property. These accesses are designed in compliance with RFTA's
emergency vehicle access ("EVA") standards and will be gated and posted
to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the EVAs.
The only other change in the Amendment is that the relocated access does
not have a roundabout like the old access location. The roundabout was
not required by the ULUR, and the new design continues to accommodate
capacity exceeding 20,000 vehicle trips per day in satisfaction of the
ULUR's requirements.
As noted, the internal street network is to remain largely unchanged from the 2011 approval.
Several items are worth noting, however.
- The new Terrace Parkway, while it is proposed to have standard 5 foot pedestrian
sidewalks, it is not proposed to have bicycle facilities as required by this Section. The
Applicant has requested a waiver from this Standard.
- 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)
- Per the 2009 International Fire Code, "...Developments of one- or two-family dwellings
where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with separate and
approved fire apparatus access roads". The Preliminary Plan approval in 2011 included two
EVAs in addition to the main access to Highway 82. From an emergency access standpoint,
the development is considered to be divided in two — the north parcel and the south parcel
which are separated by Cattle Creek. The two parcels are proposed to be connected by one
bridge. The north parcel is proposed to include 167 dwelling units while the south parcel
includes 195 dwelling units (362 total). As a result, in order to meet the standards of the IFC
for emergency access, the north parcel needs to include a minimum of two access points
and the southern parcel needs to include a minimum of two access points. As proposed, the
north parcel has emergency vehicle access from the north EVA to County Road 154 and
Terrace Parkway to Highway 82, while the southern parcel has proposed emergency access
from the south EVA to Highway 82 and the bridge crossing Cattle Creek to the north parcel.
23
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
- 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)
- 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)
- Per the CDOT Access Permit for Terrace Parkway, the Applicant is required to convert an
existing livestock culvert south of the County Road 113 intersection into a bicycle and
pedestrian underpass. This underpass is required because the alterations to Highway 82
will make bicycle and pedestrian crossing even more perilous.
- The underpass cannot meet CDOT or AASHTO standards for bicycle and
pedestrian underpasses without being enlarged. According to Ken Brubaker, PE
of CDOT, "The recommended minimums for a structure such as this in a rural area
is 12' of width and 10' of vertical clearance. A structure of this length would ideally
be even wider and taller than those required minimums." (See Exhibit 12) In
addition, Staff understands that CDOT is relying on the County to impose design
standards on this facility will not impose any design standards as a part of their
permit on this facility.
- The approach to the underpass as proposed does not meet the AASHTO
standards for shared -use facilities. The minimum width requirement for a shared
use path is 10'. (See Exhibit 12)
- The proposed plans do not show a lighting plan. Due to the length of the
underpass, it is likely to be dangerous, very uninviting, and claustrophobic without
lighting.
- CDOT has represented that they will not own or maintain the underpass (See
Exhibit 25). In addition, 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)." The Applicant has not represented who may own or maintain the
underpass.
- While west side connections have been represented, the Applicant has not
represented how the trail will connect into the County road network on the east
side. (See Exhibit 24)
- 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)
- The island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine Court from
Riverside Loop Drive. (See Exhibit 22)
- The south EVA proposes a grade of 8% which exceeds CDOT standards and may require
a revised design. (See Exhibit 22)
24
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
E. Pedestrian Circulation.
The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to
walk safely and conveniently among areas of the PUD.
Staff Comments: The pedestrian system is adequate for internal pedestrian circulation.
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
a 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.
F. Open Space.
The PUD shall preserve at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space.
Staff Comments: Given the site size of 160 -acres the Applicant is required to preserve
74.82 -acres as open space. The Applicant totals the provided open space as follows:
Useable Open Space (<25% slope) =
Limited Use Open Space (>25% slope) =
Recreation Open Space =
TOTAL
46.65 -acres
10.84 -acres
17.34 -acres
74.82 -acres or 46.8%
The ULUR defines Open Space as "Any land or water area, which serves specific uses of:
providing park and recreation opportunities, or conserving natural areas and environmental
resources, or structuring urban development form, or protecting areas of agricultural,
archaeological or historical significance. Open space shall not be considered synonymous
with vacant or unused land or yards as part of a platted lot." Based on this definition the
Applicant has provided sufficient open space within the development.
G. Housing Variety.
The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms.
Staff Comments: From representations made in 2011, a variety of housing types is provided
including garden homes, estates homes and executive homes. Particular units may be
attached or detached. Pricing will range from approximately $160,000 to $200,000 for the
affordable homes to $1,000,000 for other housing types. Alternate ownership forms include
rental of the affordable units, otherwise for -sale deed restricted units or for -sale fair market
units are proposed. It is anticipated that 40% of the homes will be under $550,000. No rental
housing is proposed within the project. It is likely sales prices will be higher based on current
market conditions and the anticipation that the market will continue to increase before
development of the site begins.
H. Affordable Housing.
The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to
Section 8-102 of Article VIII, Affordable Housing.
Staff Comments: The Applicant is proposing to maintain the same number and ratio of
affordable housing as was approved in 2011. As proposed, the project would include 55
25
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
affordable units which is a ratio of 15% of the total 362 units in the development. 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 (EXHIBIT 21). Ms.
Gazunis notes in her letter that there is no record of response from the 2011 comments. As
a part of Resolution 11-85, the Applicant acknowledges that an Affordable Housing
Agreement will be required by the BOCC. As a result, the details of this agreement are to
be determined prior to the first final plat. At this time, it will be necessary for the application
to respond to the GCHA comments on the REC affordable housing proposal:
• The Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) requires presales before
building affordable housing unit (AHU).
• AHPA provides 3 categories of pricing all of which differ from the GCHA standards
(related to percentage of average medium income). GCHA stipulates maximum
120% AMI which Applicant proposed to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI —
this allows a larger pool of potential buyers.
• Applicant proposes an option of renting the AHU if not sold within 120 days. This is
not addressed in the County's guidelines.
• Questions and comments regarding the proposed agreement includes number of
units provided in each phase, amendment of the agreement by phase, etc.
The Applicant will need to develop an AHPA in collaboration with the GCHA and consistent
with the Land Use Code in place at the time of review or the Code in place at the time of
vesting. The AHPA needs to be recorded and executed by both the property owner and the
BOCC prior to submittal of the first final plat.
1. Fire Hazards.
Fire hazards will not be created or increased;
Staff Comments: Fire hazard was addressed as a part of the 2011 approval. Updated
comments have been received from the Colorado State Forest Service per wildfire hazard.
The Service states that the wildfire hazard in this location is low to moderate. However, the
Service has requested that all structures be built to Colorado State Forest Service
Defensible Space standards. (See Exhibit 16)
J. Recreation Amenities.
The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the
PUD.
Staff Comments: As was reviewed in 2011, significant open space and recreational
amenities are planned for the development. REC states that funding for recreation will be
collateralized until such time as the residents of the community determine the types of
recreation improvements they desire. The Cost Estimate (See Item 18 in application),
identified $700,000 for "Park Improvements" which is to be secured at the time of final plat.
While the specific location of these facilities has not been identified, the proposed facilities
include: multi-purpose lawn areas, multi -use hard surface areas, multi -use soft surface
areas, playgrounds/tot lots, picnic / park areas, sidewalks and secondary soft trail
connections. In order to determine the form and amount of collateralization, the Applicant
needs to provide details on the anticipated location, type and cost of the proposed
improvements. Staff recommends that this be added as a condition of approval.
26
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
K. Adequacy of Supporting Materials.
The Final PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of
these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans,
designs, documents, and other supporting materials.
Staff Comments: The submitted materials generally satisfy planning, engineering and
surveying requirements. Specific deficiencies have been addressed throughout this report
and outlined below.
L. Taxes.
All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's
Office.
Staff Comments: An updated certificate of taxes has been paid was provided at the time of
initial application in 2011.
M. Adequate Water Supply.
An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in
Section 7-105.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided a pre -inclusion agreement with the Roaring
Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) for a legal and physical water supply. The
Division of Water Resources has provided comments that the proposed water supply will
not cause material injury to other water rights. Regarding the water supply system, the
following items are worth noting:
- If the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is eliminated for the "east side
improvements", then the Applicant will be required to obtain applicable permits from
Garfield County Road and Bridge as well as CDOT to bring water utilities under the
applicable roadways.
According to Mountain Cross Engineering, "the application materials seem to provide
enough evidence that there is a legal supply of water, however the physical supply is
still pending negotiations." As a result, evidence of adequate capacity with the RFWSD
system is necessary. (See Exhibit 22)
Per the pre -inclusion agreement, Carbondale Investments is not anticipated to make
improvements to the water plant. Any necessary improvements, as outlined in the
agreement, are required to obtain a Location and Extent review by Garfield County.
As proposed, should the Carbondale Investments property be developed in a timely
manner, then the following upgrades are outlined in the pre -inclusion agreement:
o Ironbridge connection line
o State Highway 82 water transmission line
o County Road 109 water transmission line
o 400,000 gallon buried water storage tank
Legal or physical water has not been demonstrated for the southernmost parcel, the
"Executive Lot" as water and sewer lines are not proposed to be extended to this
parcel. The Division of Water Resources has noted that they have no record of a well
permit in or near this location. (See Exhibit 27)
- The RFWSD has expressed concern that the property owner may not connect to their
system even though RFWSD has committed to serve the development through the
pre -inclusion agreement. (See Exhibit 28) Staff recommends a condition of approval
27
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
requiring the development to be connected to the RFWSD system for water and
wastewater.
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Since this review is for a Substantial Amendment under the 2008 ULUR, this review is focused
on the proposed amendments to the approved Preliminary Plan, which became effective on
December 19, 2011 and Development Agreement which became effective on December 22,
2011
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review and submittal requirements include the following
sections of the ULUR. The criteria and standards for review are listed in bold italics below,
followed by a Staff Response.
A. Section 4-502 (C)5. Landscape Plan Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200
feet for properties exceeding 160 acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties less
than 160 acres in size.
Staff Comments: Adequate landscape plans have been provided for the development.
B. Section 4-502(D) Land Suitability Analysis
1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site.
Staff Comments: Only a very small portion of the property that is not proposed to be
developed borders directly on Highway 82. No other portion of the property borders directly
to a vehicular roadway. Historically, the property has been accessed via a license
agreement with RFTA to access the property by vehicle. Nearly the entire length of the
property is adjacent to the RFTA Rio Grande ROW which provides non -motorized access
to the property.
2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance
and intersection constraints.
Staff Comments: The primary qualifying roadway adjacent to the property is the RFTA Rio
Grande ROW for non -motorized access. REC has very limited access to Highway 82. As a
result, a RFTA license and PUC approval are necessary to cross the RFTA ROW, an
easement to cross the adjacent GCCI property is required and an access permit from CDOT
are necessary to obtain access to Highway 82. The following items have been identified
related to legal and physical access:
REC has yet to reach an agreement with RFTA for the proposed crossing for Terrace
Parkway. This issue has not been resolved and discussions are ongoing. A condition
of approval regarding legal and adequate access, including issuance of a RFTA
license for an at -grade crossing of the RFTA ROW / Rio Grande Trail and CDOT
Notice to Proceed, is recommended by staff (See Exhibit 14). It is worth noting that
per the comments received from RFTA, the Applicant currently has approval for a
grade -separated trail crossing but does not currently have approval from the RFTA
board for an at -grade crossing.
In order to ensure legal access across the adjacent property, the Applicant has
submitted a draft easement which has not been executed. Staff recommends a
condition of approval that the Applicant execute and record the access easement for
the main access to Highway 82, known as Terrace Parkway.
28
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Staff recommends a condition of approval that a public crossing license from the PUC
be submitted prior to any activity occurring on the site and prior to submittal of the first
final plat application. (See Exhibit 14)
3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and
access.
Staff Comments: Existing utility easements are clearly identified on the Preliminary Plan,
including the existing location and proposed re -location of the Glenwood Ditch, as well as
proposed easements that will be required for development of the parcels.
Access to the site is shown. However, the proposed 160 -acres does not abut a public road
serving vehicles but instead gains access to the state highway system through an
agreement with RFTA and an easement across the adjacent property. Colorado PUC
approval is required to assure adequate public access to the site.
The Roaring Fork Conservancy holds a Conservation Easement on property located west
of and central to the development.
The Glenwood Ditch traverses this site and current agreements are in place to relocate and
pipe the length of ditch through the site.
The Applicant also has an easement for the north EVA which crosses property owned by
GCCI, H Lazy F Mobile Home Park and several other properties before reaching County
Road 154.The easement documentation, which is more fully described in the summary
section of this Report, is in need of clarification and correction, however.
4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination.
Staff Comments: Analysis has been provided regarding the slope and topography of the
site. The property is mostly located on nearly level river terraces approximately 50 to 80
feet above the Roaring Fork River. Steep escarpments (60% slope) separate these
terraces. The site has been graded through past development proposals so the natural
topography has been modified.
The site has undergone extensive grading activity related to prior development of a golf
course approved on the property. This grading has resulted in several large soil stockpiles.
Mountain Cross Engineering noted that "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)
5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site.
Staff Comments: Waterbodies on the site include Cattle Creek, the Roaring Fork River is
located off-site of the project. The site includes steep escarpments at the western edge of
the project adjacent to the RFC easement and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands are located
adjacent to these waterbodies but primarily within the RFC easement with the exception of
areas at the southern end of the site and adjacent to Cattle Creek.
Few natural features exist on-site due to prior grading and agricultural activities on the site.
29
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade.
Staff Comments: The development parcels have several features that significantly impact
drainage: the Roaring Fork River which flows south to north just west of the site boundary
and Cattle Creek crosses through the site from east to west dividing the property almost in
half. Several comments were received regarding drainage (See Exhibit 22):
- Storm drainage culvert labels were not shown on the plat.
- The Applicant has not designed the release structures and routing for discharges
from the water quality pond.
- The storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI
parcel into culvert c76 -a.
7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply
plan pursuant to Section 7-104.
Staff Comments: The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has reviewed the submitted pre -
inclusion agreement along with the associated court decrees. As a result, the DWR has
determined that the "water supply will not cause materials injury to decreed water rights..."
(See Exhibit 23)
The physical water supply was originally proposed to be a private system constructed by
REC or service from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). Although
the application is not clear whether the development would connect to RFWSD or create a
private system, REC and RFWSD have since submitted a pre -inclusion agreement that is a
part of the application.
Irrigation water was approved as a part of the 2011 approval and is not proposed to be
amended.
Through the review of this Amended application, it is come to Staff's attention that the
proposed Executive Lot at the south end of the development does not appear to be served
by the RFWSD water or sewer as the preliminary engineering plans do not show
connections to that parcel. Further review of the 2011 application does not show
demonstration of legal and adequate water for this parcel. Comments received by the
Division of Water Resources indicate that they have no record of a water well in or near the
Executive Lot (See Exhibit 27). As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval that
the Applicant provide demonstration of adequate legal and physical water to the Executive
Lot. In addition, the Applicant should identify how wastewater for the parcel is to be
managed.
8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations.
Staff Comments: A small portion of Cattle Creek floodplain extends into the project area
and is generally avoided by development. Encroachments into the floodplain include utilities
and bridge structures. 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 last 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 as required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
30
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable.
Staff Comments: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) performed an
assessment of the soils and geologic conditions of the site, including identification of
geologic hazards and soils conditions for the 2011 application.
The topsoil was stripped from the site and stockpiled in 2005. Conditions include fill areas
that consist of coarse-grained terrace alluvium.
The site consists of two post -glacial terraces which are located between five (5) feet and
thirteen (13) feet above the Roaring Fork River. The alluvium is described as a deposit of
silty sand with occasional boulder, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often overlain
by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected in these areas.
Most of the REC project is located on Pinedale outwash terraces occurring in several levels
that formed at different periods. The 2005 grading removed all of the mid-level terraces.
Soils profiles indicate that these terrace surfaces have been stable with respect to erosion
and deposition for over 5,000 years.
Stockpiled soil on the site will have to undergo additional analysis/treatment to determine its
viability. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services has noted that nutrient levels and microbial
populations may result in difficulty reestablishing native vegetation.
10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site.
Staff Comments: HP Geotech conducted a study for the 2011 application which noted the
following potential hazards in their assessment:
• Evaporite Sinkholes — The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation is located between
Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. This formation resulted in regional ground
subsidence as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the
region. If still active the likely rate of deformations would occur at a rate of .5 to 1.6
inches per 100 years.
• Nine sinkhole areas have been located in and close to REC. Sinkholes in the
western Colorado area are typically 10 to 50 -feet in diameter circular depressions.
Avoidance of existing sinkholes and appropriate mitigation will address issues
associated with these hazards.
• Steep Terrace Escarpments — These 60% slope areas vary from 40 to 80 feet high
located along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek areas. These
escarpments are potentially unstable and should be avoided by development.
Mitigation methods to stabilize these areas are being considered.
• Active Stream Bank Erosion — Erosion along the Roaring Fork and Cattle Creek
occurs during high water and contributes to steep terrace escarpment
destabilization. Correction of these areas could be beneficial in stabilizing or
reducing deformation of the escarpment.
• Debris Flow and Floods — HP determined that deposits in these areas do not have
a high collapse potential and are moderately compressible indicating that these
areas should be avoided or provide adequate mitigation to minimize the hazard.
31
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
HP also reviewed earthquake potential and radiation, neither of which were considered
as likely hazards on-site.
Y.,Y,n„ YM
ttegitaeAtik
!? kasa
atuiilftertiUng..
exp
Y..
YPA
Gggtech
bittreeEttetitt
cap
$4 .<4, anew n nra
ifY) ya•.x :HnY., MY}
N
}YW
nit ry ,V:^
r 06411
ch 1
Rr.e. Caac cdr. rxx,
P,V,A. A ea G.Avy MA: S.,.<<'a�
E
32
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes.
Rivr ge
4:0II101Al
FIGURE 04
Vegetation
p,,, EEpa Ceantle a.apo,
(*nr'apary
Staff Comments: Natural habitat was reviewed as part of the 2011 application and remains
unchanged through this amendment. Vegetative cover is minimal given the agricultural
history of the site, as well as the extensive grading activities that took place in 2005. This
area is virtually devoid of vegetation except for weeds. Vegetation outside of the graded
areas including sage, oak and other brush on the escarpment and cottonwood, grass and
willows on the lower terraces.
Wildlife habitat areas include both Upland and Riparian Habitat areas with the site consisting
largely of Upland Habitat. This area was noted as having limited wildlife use due to
vegetation type and cover. It appears that the most common species are ground squirrels,
which in turn attract great -horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red and gray fox and coyote. Bird
use is limited as well due to conditions and generally includes mourning doves,
meadowlarks and mountain bluebirds.
The Riparian Habitat occurs along the Roaring Fork and lower Cattle Creek, largely outside
of the REC development area. A Great Blue Heron Rookery has historically occurred in this
vicinity however one of the original three rookery trees no longer exists due to high
springtime flows and bank scour.
Analysis of special importance species was contained in the Wildlife & Vegetation
Assessment Report. Mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and lewis's woodpecker were
considered, as well as Ute ladies -tresses orchid which is on the Federally Threatened list.
• Elk —The site is located within Elk Winter Range with Severe Winter Range occurring
on the east side of SH 82. Elk do use the project area, mainly for `loafing' as foraging
opportunities are marginal. The application states that `reasonably high number of
elk persist on the project site' however that winter use of the Rio Grande Trail during
winter, and construction of wildlife fencing along SH 82 appears to have `noticeably
reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property.'
33
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
• Mule Deer — The site is located between Mule Deer Winter Range to the west of the
Roaring Fork River and Severe Winter Range on the east side of SH 82. Existing
use of the site by mule deer is minimal with the conservation easement area seeing
more mule deer activity than the project area.
• Great Blue Heron — A productive heron rookery is located in the RFC conservation
easement and on the west side of river with a total of 25 nests. A pair of Golden
Eagles killed a majority of the young in 2010 and could lead to abandonment in the
future. This area is considered critical habitat and is adjacent to the REC project.
• Bald Eagle — The closest nest is located in Aspen Glen where nesting has been
successful. These birds use the REC site for roosting and hunting.
• Lewis's Woodpecker — This migratory bird arrives in May and departs in early to mid-
September utilizing the habitat adjacent to the project area. This bird is considered
a `sensitive species' by the USFS.
12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological
and historic resource areas.
Staff Comments: No recorded sites of archeological or historic importance were found to
exist in the project area.
C. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis
1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property,
and the mailing address for each of the property owners.
Staff Comments: Adequate information has been provided.
2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties
within 1500' radius.
RiTer-Edge
F JGURE 03
Pco).ctfxe
Far -
34
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Adjacent land uses were reviewed as a part of the 2011 application. No notable changes
have occurred in the area since the previous approval.
Staff Comments: Adjacent land use includes:
• North — uses include commercial, semi -industrial and mobile home park
• South — Aspen Glen PUD (residential and recreation) and LaFarge Gravel Pit
• East — State Highway, RFTA RaiI/Trail, commercial and semi -industrial uses
• West — Ironbridge PUD and Teller Springs
3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to
flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover,
climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed
development.
Staff Comments: Site features were reviewed as part of the 2011 application and have not
changed since that time. Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands,
steep slopes and little vegetative cover. Features adjacent to the project area include the
Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands, heron rookery, and the Roaring Fork
Conservancy Easement.
These features have been used to determine a layout for the development of REC which
is clustered to minimize impact. Mitigation measures include avoidance to the extent
possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers.
4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a
significant influence on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: Soil characteristics were reviewed as part of the 2011 application and
have not changed significantly since that time. The Applicant stated that "this analysis has
determined that there are no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits
provided common construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as
detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control... and
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are provided" (Page 66 of impact analysis). This
section of the 2011 application goes on to state that potential impacts and mitigation
measures are identified as a series of standard considerations with respect to construction
on soils of this type and further, that these require engineering assessment and design
activities including boring, testing, and onsite review during development.
In 2011, HP Geotech noted that shallow foundations placed on the upper natural soils
should typically be suitable for structure support. Relatively rigid foundations such as
heavily reinforced slabs could be used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and
building stress, where determined necessary.
The 2011 application goes on to state that slab -on -grade construction should be feasible
for bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill, but that there could be some
potential for post -construction slab movement at sites with collapsible soils or expansive
clays. Removal of the moisture sensitive soils and replacement with compacted structural
fill could be provided to reduce the risk of movement.
35
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
A detailed pavement design was proposed to be provided post -reclamation to determine
if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed.
In 2011, additional geotechnical analysis was to be required to determine if previous fill
material placed on the site is suitable for building foundations. This analysis is to occur
post reclamation therefore a condition of approval that requires the additional analysis be
provided at final plat should be sufficient.
5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area
including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what
effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: Geology and hazards were reviewed as part of the 2011 application and
have not changed significantly since that time. A Hazard Mitigation Plan was submitted in
2011 which addresses potential natural and man-made hazards. Conditions at that time
and proposed conditions include analysis of:
• Geologic Hazards — Evaporite Sink Holes, Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active
Stream Bank Erosion, and Debris Flow/Floods.
• Other Hazards — Floodplain, Wildfire
These hazards could cause potential impacts to site grading, infrastructure (including
roads and utilities) as well as foundation design. Proposed mitigation includes
identification of specific areas of concern that may require further review:
• Three zones of varying degree of impact from sink holes were assigned to the
project area.
o Zone 1 represents an 80 -foot buffer area around existing or observed sinkholes
where the risk of new or reactivating sinkholes is high. This area is generally
avoided however a few roads and utilities are planned within this zone.
Potential mitigation measures including grouting or structural bridging;
o Zone 2 is a risk area that indicates the presence of sinkholes but no evidence
of sinkholes have been identified. Additional geotechnical analysis should be
completed prior to final plat so that design of buildings and facilities provide
appropriate mitigation;
o Zone 3 is the remainder of the property which has a low potential for new
sinkhole development however HP recommends that assessment and
investigation be completed during grading and building site development.
• Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active Stream Bank Erosion, Debris Flows and
Floods and Earthquakes are avoided or mitigated thus resulting in no adverse
impacts.
36
:ajgec't
race Cncranc
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
nlo‘orl r daunt 1/r,
.10049 Oo fa,
ro, so, 'r i nt .a w.rd Fnre,
•
4.1
farscatEslorsao
(71.. s o,....
GMech
Eloe G-amaf-
6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect
of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet
existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the
adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104.
Staff Comments: This development is subject to Section 7-105 due to the water demand
in an amount greater than eight (8) single family equivalents (where an SFE is determined
to be 350 gallon of water per day).
The 2011 application discussed the `potential' physical supply as being provided by the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or by a private water system within
the REC development. As a part of this amended application, the Applicant has submitted
a pre -inclusion agreement with RFWSD. In addition, the Division of Water Resources
(DWR) has reviewed the submitted pre -inclusion agreement along with the associated
court decrees. As a result, the DWR has determined that the "water supply will not cause
materials injury to decreed water rights..." (See Exhibit 23)
Irrigation water is planned to be provided via a raw water system utilizing water rights from
the Glenwood and Station Ditches.
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. Further
review of the 2011 application does not show demonstration of legal and adequate water
for this parcel. As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant
provide demonstration of adequate legal and physical water to the Executive Lot. In
addition, the Applicant should identify how wastewater for the parcel is to be managed.
37
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship
of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability
to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage
effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater.
Staff Comments: In the 2011 application HP Geotech provided analysis of the
groundwater which is generally deep in the Eagle Valley Evaporite deposits and that 'free
water was not encountered in the relatively shallow borings of depths between 39 and 77
feet. Shallow groundwater may be likely in the river terraces outside of the REC
development."
Surface run-off will be collected and concentrate to surface drainage systems where the
flow will be discharged through lined surface ditches and pipes to lined water quality
detention facilities. This system is designed to ensure that water is treated prior to delivery
to receiving streams. In 2011, Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering, stated that this
is sufficient and that standard on-site detention to limit flow is not necessary due to the
location of the site. In Mr. Hale's review of the amended application, he noted that the
"Applicant should design the release structures and routing for discharges from the water
quality ponds." (See Exhibit 22) Staff recommends a condition of approval that the
Applicant provide a design of the water quality pond discharges to be reviewed by the
County engineer prior to final plat.
8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on
the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions,
including:
a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna.
b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, palentological,
historic resources.
c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including
critical wildlife habitat.
(1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous
attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration
routes, use patterns or other disruptions.
d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the
State or County Health Departments.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable.
Staff Comments: The Applicant provided a response to these standards in 2011 and those
were reviewed at that time.
a. Effect on flora and fauna — Rocky Mountain Ecological Services prepared a Wildlife
and Vegetation Report in 2011 which analyzed the potential impacts of the
development proposal on plants and animals. At that time, the Colorado Division
of Wildlife (CDOW / CPW) had responded to the referral that there should not be
significant impact if recommendations are followed. CDOW / CPW
recommendations included fencing, adequate setbacks from sensitive areas and
protection of the heron rookery.
38
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
b. No significant archaeological or historic resources were identified that would be
adversely effected.
c. Effect on environmental resources, including wildlife and domestic animal control
— the development plan in 2011 included protective measures related to wildlife
including timing restrictions for construction activity and inclusion of domestic
animal controls in the CCR's.
d. Radiation hazard — There is low potential for radiation hazard at this site.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan is an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requirement that is applicable to facilities that meet
criteria such as having above ground storage capacity of greater than 1,320
gallons, and that a project will discharge into or upon navigable waters of the
United States. It was assumed that an SPCC plan is to be required related to
infrastructure construction and gravel crushing/processing.
9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in
compliance with Section 4-502(J).
Staff Comments: A Traffic Assessment has been provided by HDR which was conducted
in December 2013. This Traffic Assessment is for the new access location as proposed in
this amended application and it is understood that the Applicant used this traffic
assessment to obtain the new CDOT access permit (#313037). A Notice to Proceed has
not yet been issued by CDOT, however. The Assessment states the following:
Through continuing "coordinated planning and design discussions" the
Developer and County Public Works and Facilities subsequently identified
and agreed upon a revised preliminary design concept for access to the
Developer's property whereby split Continuous Green T -Intersections,
located approximately 0.5 miles apart, will provide separate West
Intersection and East Intersection access. This agreed upon access
configuration was presented in the revised Traffic Operations/Access
Assessment for the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District (Traffic Report, June
2013) and was used as the basis of future build conditions analysis. This
concept, the consensus preferred alternative by the Developer, the County
and CDOT, also includes closure of the existing west side access at Cattle
Creek Road, closure of three existing accesses that serve the former
Sopris' Restaurant parcel, and improvement of the existing livestock
underpass at Cattle Creek Road to provide a pedestrian/bicycle crossing.
Continuous Green T (CGT) Intersections are configured to isolate one of
the two mainline approaches to continuously bypass the signal,
significantly improving intersection performance. For the offset, paired T -
intersections at Cattle Creek Road and the New Access, one intersection
would isolate, and allow continuous flow of the southbound lanes, and the
other intersection would isolate, and allow continuous flow of the
northbound lanes. This will have the effect of minimizing the impact of the
signalized accesses on SH 82 traffic flow in both directions, and would have
significantly less impact than the pair of signalized full -movement and three
quarter movement intersections that would otherwise be required to serve
the Project Site.
39
STANDARD
VERSION
CONTIN UOU S
GREEN
VERSION
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
An assessment of the existing stock under pass/drainage culvert was
completed. Based on the findings, it was determined that necessary
modifications can be made to utilize the existing under pass as a
pedestrian/bicycle crossing. Bicycle/pedestrian tracks observed on the
bottom of the existing under pass indicate that the structure is currently
being used for the purpose of crossing SH 82. Based on the amount of
pedestrian/bicyclists crossing at this location the structure would be
sufficient and would provide a safe crossing alternative to that of an at -
grade crossing.
The current structure, 6 feet wide by 7 feet tall, would need the following
modifications to improve function as a bicycle/pedestrian crossing:
o Extension of the structure on both ends as required by roadway
widening for intersection improvements
o Addition of a top slab in the existing SH 82 median
o Addressing drainage thru the structure, possibly by the addition of
a culvert to accommodate surface runoff and keep sedimentation
and debris from accumulating in the crossing.
The proposed conversion of the bicycle/pedestrian underpass was reviewed by both the
CDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Engineer, CDOT Permit Unit Manager, SGM, Inc.,
and Mountain Cross Engineering. While the Applicant's engineer, HDR, has indicated that
"an assessment of the existing stock under pass/drainage culvert was completed," a copy
of that assessment was not provided in the application. Based on the recommendations
from the Applicants engineer, Garfield County Road and Bridge and Engineering (Exhibit
24 and Exhibit 17), CDOT (Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 25), SGM, Inc. (Exhibit 13) and Mountain
40
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Cross Engineering (Exhibit 22), the following is a summary of the comments and
suggestions:
The conversion of the current livestock culvert to a bicycle/pedestrian underpass is
critical to the proposed access to the CI property.
The total length of the underpass is to be approximately 150 feet and as a result, if it
is not designed and built properly, it could be perceived as unsafe and uncomfortable
for users.
The proposed design does not meet AASHTO or CDOT standards. Staff understands
that CDOT will not implement design standards for this facility and is relying on Garfield
County to implement design standards to make it functional.
o The current culvert is 6 feet wide by 7 feet high.
o The recommended minimums for the structure is 12 feet wide (CDOT and
AASHTO) and 10 feet high (CDOT and AASHTO), but ideally wider and taller.
o The minimum recommended width for the shared -use -path is 10 feet (CDOT
and AASHTO).
- No lighting plan was proposed. Lighting is recommended due to the length of the
culvert.
- The current opening that provides light from the median will be filled in, providing less
Tight then currently enters the culvert.
Drainage through the culvert needs to be accommodated separate from the shared -
use -path through the facility.
- Details need to be provided showing how west extension will be connected to the
culvert.
Details need to be provided showing how the trail will connect to the County road
network on the east side.
The Applicant needs to represent who will own and maintain the facility.
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.
- More detail is necessary to determine if the proposed design would meet ADA
standards as required by CDOT.
41
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Photos of Existing Culvert to be Converted to Bicycle / Pedestrian Underpass
10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise,
glare or vibration, or other emanations.
Staff Comments: As noted in 2011, nuisance impacts will likely occur during the
reclamation and construction phases of the development. This activity will generate dust,
smoke, noise, glare, and potentially vibrations, particularly during reclamation and
construction, as well as related to mineral `material processing' activities. The proposed
PUD Guide contains Article IV, Development Standards, which includes Section C.
Specific Use, Facility and Activity Standards. This includes noise standards based upon
statutory requirements and section standards related to utility facilities. This latter section
includes requirements for noise levels, vibration, smoke, odor and air quality. These
standards should be applicable to the whole development, particularly during construction
activities.
11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-
212.
Staff Comments: The Reclamation Plan was reviewed in 2011. The Applicant submitted
two sets of requirements related to reclamation activities, pre -development reclamation
and post -development reclamation.
Pre -Development Reclamation — The current site condition exists due to past grading
activity on the site related to prior development plans that included construction of a golf
course. The pre -development reclamation activity is specific to repairing the damage that
past grading created, including restorative and pre -development actions:
• Relocation and grade separation of the Rio Grande Trail;
42
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
• Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch;
• Re -grading of the site for proper drainage, resolve existing and potential
geotechnical hazards, prepare developable areas, restore grade -breaks, replace
topsoil, repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments and repairing active
stream bank erosion;
• Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds;
• Revegetation of open space area.
Post -Development Reclamation — This requirement is included in the PUD Guide
development standards and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-212.
D. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS
1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions
Staff Comments: The uses remain unchanged with this amended application. Generally,
the PUD zoning allows for variation from standard zone districts, however the proposed
uses must be consistent with uses in the underlying zone district or compatible/conforming
to Comprehensive Plan goals.
2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental
Agreements
Staff Comments: Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental
Agreements was generally determined with the original application in 2011.
3. Section 7-103 Compatibility
Staff Comment: Compatibility of the development was determined at the time of original
application in 2011. This standard requires that the nature, scale and intensity of the
proposed use be compatible with adjacent land uses and that the use will not result in
adverse impact to adjacent land. Adjacent land uses includes high-density mobile home
parks, commercial and semi -industrial uses, a gravel pit, and residential communities.
The combination of uses proposed in REC may be more intense than adjacent uses which
appear as more single use type projects.
4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water
Staff Comments: This section does not apply to this proposal as water demand exceeds
eight (8) single family equivalents (SFE's). See Section 7-105.
5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided a sufficient legal and physical source of
water to serve the proposed development of 362 SFE's. The Division of Water Resources
has provided a letter stating that there will be no material injury to other water rights as a
result of the development. In addition, the Applicant has provided a pre -inclusion
agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District for water service.
The Executive Lot is currently not connected to the internal water supply system from
RFWSD. If the Applicant wishes to connect this parcel to the RFWSD system, the
43
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
preliminary engineering plans need to be modified showing this connection. As an
alternative, the Applicant needs to demonstrate adequate and legal water supply for this
parcel.
6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems
Staff Comments: A pre -inclusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District to provide water/wastewater services has been provided. This pre -inclusion
agreement outlines the process for water line extensions and facility upgrades. It is worth
noting that certain facility upgrades will require a Location and Extent review through
Garfield County, through an application to be filed by RFWSD.
The current preliminary engineering plans do not show water or wastewater lines running
to the Executive Lot. Should the Applicant wish to connect this Lot to the RFWSD system,
then the preliminary engineering plans need to be modified to show this connection. As
an alternative, the Applicant needs to demonstrate adequate and legal water and
wastewater service for this Lot.
7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities
Staff Comments: It appears that adequate public utilities are available to serve the
proposed development.
8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways
Staff Comments: Please see previous discussions regarding access to the site.
Regarding safe access, and as a result of the reviews from CDOT, SGM, Inc. and
Mountain Cross Engineering, it is clear that the proposed design for the bicycle and
pedestrian underpass does not meet State (CDOT) or Nationally (AASHTO) recognized
standards for this kind of facility as is required by this Section and therefore, cannot be
considered safe as proposed.
Generally, the internal road network was reviewed and approved in 2011. Some
modifications to the internal road network have generated some comments, however.
- An engineered pavement design should be submitted based on the project specific
soils.
- The traffic calming island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into
Moraine Court from Trailside Drive.
9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards
Staff Comments: Natural Hazards were reviewed as part of the 2011 approval. In 2011,
it was noted that natural hazards exist on the site which includes steep slopes, slope
stability issues, soils, sinkholes and other geotechnical issues. The proposed
development generally avoids the hazard areas and/or provides adequate mitigation
measures.
44
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
E. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE
CHANGE PERMITS
1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands
Staff Comment: The application in 2011 noted that this standard is not applicable as
agricultural activities have not occurred on this site for many years.
The Glenwood Ditch traverses this property and an agreement exists regarding location
and piping of the ditch. On-site irrigation is proposed to use raw -water with rights from
both the Glenwood Ditch and the Station Ditch.
2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
Staff Comment: The application in 2011 noted that wildlife habitat areas include a heron
rookery and use of the site by both mule deer and elk.
3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies
Staff Comment: The application in 2011 noted that 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.
Please see the previous discussion regarding delineation of the wetlands as required by
the Army Corps of Engineers (See Exhibit 15).
4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants
Staff Comment: The application in 2011 noted that activities that will require storage of
material, equipment or fluids should be located to protect waterbodies. This standard
includes a requirement for spill prevention, maintenance of equipment and machines,
location of fuel storage areas and collection and temporary storage areas. A Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan may be required and the stormwater
management plan should address this issue.
5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation
Staff Comments: The application in 2011 noted that this section applies to land
disturbances of greater than one-half (1/2) acre. The Applicant submitted an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan that addresses stabilization of slope stability and stream bank
erosion. Vegetative cover on the site will provide additional erosion and sedimentation
protections. The steep slope areas are avoided by the development.
45
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
6. Section 7-206 Drainage
Staff Comments: Please see previous discussions regarding access to the site. The major
aspects of the drainage plan was reviewed as a part of the 2011 application.
7. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off
Staff Comments: The application in 2011 noted that this section applies to new
development within 100 feet of a waterbody and to development creating 10,000 square
feet or more of impervious surface. The REC development meets these criteria and
therefore has proposed plans to create water quality detention areas prior to discharge of
stormwater to the Roaring Fork River. There is no plan for standard on-site detention of
stormwater except for storage areas that would be required for assuring water quality prior
to discharge.
This code section also includes requirements for on-site detention designed to detain flow
to historic peak discharge rates and provide water quality benefits. This section was
reviewed as a part of the application in 2011. As noted previously, the Garfield County
contract engineer generated several comments from the proposed amendments, including
(See Exhibit 22):
- Storm drainage culvert labels were not shown on the plat.
- The Applicant has not designed the release structures and routing for discharges from
the water quality pond.
- The storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI
parcel into 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."
8. Section 7-208 Air Quality
Staff Comments: Air quality was reviewed as a part of the 2011 application. At that time,
it was noted that air quality shall not be impacted by the land use. No response was
received from CDPHE in 2011. Other air quality impacts may result from the crushing of
aggregate and batch plant operations that are proposed as temporary construction -related
activities.
9. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards
Staff Comments: This site is located in a low to moderate wildfire zone.
46
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
10. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards
Staff Comments: Natural and Geologic Hazards were reviewed as a part of the 2011
application, which noted that such hazards do exist on the site however it appears that the
development plan avoids many of the hazard areas and provides mitigation measures
where avoidance is not possible.
11. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance
Staff Comments: As reviewed in the 2011 application, no areas exist on the site within
these categories.
12. Section 7-212 Reclamation
Staff Comments: Initial reclamation of the site was reviewed as a part of the initial
application in 2011. At that time, it was noted that the REC development proposal contains
a substantial pre -development reclamation plan to repair and restore slope and stream
bank issues as well as grading and topsoil issues related to prior grading of the site. This
reclamation will also allow for additional geologic investigation as well as to prepare the
site for eventual development.
F. SECTION 7- 300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design
Staff Comments: Initial reclamation of the site was reviewed as a part of the original
application in 2011. At that time, it was noted that compatible design encompasses issues
regarding site organization as well as operational characteristics, lighting, buffering,
materials, and building scale. Certainly the density, site organization and buffering can be
evaluated for compatibility with adjacent subdivisions such as Ironbridge and Aspen Glen.
The clustering of the dwellings into several pods leaves tracts of open space to buffer the
site both physically and visually. Much of the development occurs on an interim bench
west of the Rio Grande Trail with proposed landscaping providing additional buffers from
adjacent developments. For comparison, Aspen Glen, Iron Bridge and the amended REC
developments are listed below.
Aspen Glen — 1.13 acres / dwelling unit (938.4 acres with 830 dwelling units)
Iron Bridge — 1.83 acres / dwelling unit (533.5 acres with 292 dwelling units)
REC — 0.44 acres / dwelling unit (160 acres with 362 dwelling units)
2. Section 7-302 Building Design
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development
Staff Comments: This Standard was reviewed as a part of the original approval in 2011.
4. Section 7-304 Off-street parking and Loading Standards
Staff Comments: This Standard was reviewed as a part of the original approval in 2011.
47
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
5. Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards
Staff Comments: This Standard was reviewed as a part of the original approval in 2011.
6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards
Staff Comments: This Standard was reviewed as a part of the original approval in 2011.
7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards
Staff Comments: This Standard was reviewed as a part of the original approval in 2011.
The Applicant has provided road profiles for the new Terrace Parkway and north and south
EVAs. It appears that this roadway meet the applicable standards. Please see previous
discussions for more detail on other aspects of the road network.
8. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards
Staff Comments: Please see previous discussions for regarding trails and walkways.
9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards
Staff Comments: The REC development is proposing to install underground utilities that
will be further reviewed at final plat for sufficiency of design and provision of adequate
utilities.
G. SECTION 7- 400 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
1. Section 7-401General Subdivision Standards
Staff Comments: These standards include preservation of natural features, extensions
for future development, maintenance of common facilities, domestic animal control and
fireplace restrictions.
One issue occurs regarding maintenance of common facilities with this amendment,
notably maintenance responsibility of the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. According to
the CDOT Access Permit, Condition #11, the Applicant is required to "provide a copy of
the signed agreement between CDOT and the party that will be assuming the ownership
and maintenance responsibilities for the structure (bicycle and pedestrian underpass)."
Since Garfield County does not have a department that could assume this responsibility,
the Applicant will need to identify another entity to maintain the facility, which would
presumably be the Cattle Creek Metro District. 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." In order to meet this Standard and the CDOT Access Permit, Staff
recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant identify an entity to assume
maintenance responsibility for the facility and execute an agreement between the entity
and CDOT prior to the first final plat.
48
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots
Staff Comments: This standard was reviewed in 2011 and verified through the amended
application. All Tots within the subdivision appear to be configured in a proper mariner with
adequate lot sizes and access.
3. Section 7-403 Fire Protection
Staff Comments: The site is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
and a fire station is located on the north end of the H Lazy F Mobile Home site west of the
intersection of CR 154 / SH 82 and CR 114. Please see the previous discussions regarding
the proposed EVA accesses.
As was noted in 2011 and required as a part of the approval, the Applicant is required to
pay an impact fee in the amount of $730/unit resulting in a fee of $264,260.00 which will
be due at final plat.
The amended application was reviewed by the Carbondale Fire Protection District who
noted that "the proposed water system and fire hydrant locations are acceptable" (See
Exhibit 19). Mountain Cross Engineering also provided comments regarding the fire
protection system proposed to serve the development. Specifically, that "miscellaneous
fire hydrants are shown throughout the development without any connection shown to the
proposed water lines" (See Exhibit 22). Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring
the Applicant to address this issue.
4. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments
Staff Comments: This requirement will be met.
5. Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space
Staff Comments: As a part of the 2011 application, the Applicant proposed payment of
fee in -lieu of school land dedication. As a condition of approval in 2011, the Applicant is
required to pay a fee in -lieu fee to the school district.
Please see previous discussions regarding open space size and use. The open space
plan was reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager who had the following
comment: The Open Space and Management Plan (OSMP), Item 5 states that "weeds
that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State Noxious
Weed Act." As a 5% cover is not acceptable, Staff recommends a condition of approval
requiring that this section be deleted.
6. Section 7-406 Standards for Traffic Impact Fees
Staff Comments: The site is not located within a Traffic Impact Fee zone.
49