Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
29.00 PC Staff Report 01.13.2016
Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits River Edge Colorado (REC) PUD Amendment / Preliminary Plan Amendment January 13, 2016 Coad, )(-6,74 # J 9 ��c5 Exhibit Number Exhibit 1 Public Hearing Notice Information Form 2 Mail receipts 3 Proof of posting Proof of publication 4 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 for River Edge Colorado PUD and Preliminary Plan (PUD Plan, PUD Development Guide, Preliminary Plan, Phase 0 Improvement Agreement) 11 Resolution 2011-85 — Resolution of Approval for River Edge Colorado Site Specific Development Plan Establishing Vested Property Rights (Development Agreement) 12 Referral comments from Ken Brubaker of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 13 Referral comments from Michael Fowler and Dan Cokley of SGM-Inc. — dated November 11, 2015 14 Referral comments from David Johnson of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) — dated November 18, 2015 15 Referral comments from Carrie Shaeta of the United States Army Corps of Engineers — dated November 3, 2015 16 Referral comments from Kamie Long of the Colorado State Forest Service — dated November 11, 2015 17 Referral comments from Jeff Nelson, Assistant Engineer for Garfield County — dated November 9, 2015 18 Email from Dan Blankenship of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) — dated November 18, 2015 19 Referral comments from Bill Gavette of the Carbondale Fire Protection District — dated November 19, 2015 20 Referral comments from Steve Anthony of Vegetation Management — dated November 20, 2015 21 Referral comments from Katherine T. Gazunis of the Garfield County Housing Authority dated November 23, 2015 22 Referral comments from Chris Hale, PE of Mountain Cross Engineering — dated November 24, 2015 23 Referral comments from Megan Sullivan, PE of the Colorado Division of Water Resources — dated November 25, 2015 24 Referral comments from Mike Prehm of Garfield County Road and Bridge - dated December 2, 2015 25 Referral comments from Dan Roussin of the Colorado Department of Transportation — dated December 2, 2015 26 Referral comments from Kelly Cave of the Garfield County Attorney's Office — dated December 10, 2015 27 Public Hearing Notice Information Form for Planning Commission Hearing — Dated December 28, 2015 28 Proof of Publication for Planning Commission Hearing — Dated December 3, 2015 29 Certified Mail Receipts for Planning Commission Hearing 30 Photo Evidence of Property Postings for Planning Commission Hearing 31 f{P{P/A. I Qi.y.ti fs f'•• , "' e D'i R er yp,06:-, "est-rc.-e/Ci -ib#-/ eo( �P{'pJ/or ! '.-'i ►Pn is -",-.7 fine 2 pt./` .D c.6„ Ne#c,&, 13 20/l.' ? 2(t-Ce4f/ 3Z ppli ple/74,,7 REQUEST: PC January 13, 2015 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 1/2 of Sections 7 and 18 of Township 7 South, Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 89 Glenwood Springs -1-17 Carbondale 1 PC January 13, 2015 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 Pian 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. PC January 13, 2015 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. Neigtaborhg tdN illaje`Core• tiler North Neighborh•ad This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant prior to any action taken on the request. 3 PC January 13, 2015 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 PC January 13, 2015 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. - avows River Edge m:. 11!14 Jti and @3Y319PIOii1 P130 - Summary 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. CP01.01 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 PC January 13, 2015 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 Tots (39 "Town" lots and 20 "Attached" Tots); 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 Tots (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 PC January 13, 2015 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 Revised Phase 0 Improvements 7 PC January 13, 2015 DP Amended Phasing Descriptions pHASF R ONSITE IMPROvEMENTS: PRE -DEVELOPMENT RECLAMATION WILL INCLUDE: RELOCATION OF A 2.900 FOOT SEGMENT OF THE GLENW000 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 (I.E. CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND WATER 0UALRY PONDS); AND REVEGETATION OF THE DISTURBED AREAS PER RECUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE REVEGETATION PLAN. fIUNG 1 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO 8E CONSTRUCTED AS A COMPONENT OF FILING 1 INCLUDE: SITE ACCESS FROM HIGHWAY 82, AN AT -GRADE CROSSING WITH THE RFTA TRAIL, CONNECTIONS TO WATER SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND CONNECTION TO AN EXPANDED RFWSD WWTP LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE. ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT FILING 1 INCLUDE: A ROUNDABOUT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHSORHOOC CENTER. APPROXIMATELY 3,740 LINEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS AND 1,940 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY/COURT; 1,450 LINEAR FEET OF ENTRY STREET; APPROXIMATELY 5,000 UNEAR FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION UNES; APPROXIMATELY 7,815 LINEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION UNES; APPROXIMATELY 2,000 LINEAR FEET CF TRUNK MAIN AND 3,600 LINEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER, AND APPROXIMATELY 2.585 LINEAR FEET OF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION. AN INITIAL PORTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER (INCLUDING PARKING AND MAIL BOXES) WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. APPROXIMATELY 8.69 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. 5.02 ACRES OF ACTIVE PARKS AND 5,49 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS WILL BE 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 BEING THE ACCESS POINT TO THE NEIGHBORH00D CENTER) THE SPLITTER ISLANDS WILL BE RAISED CONCRETE AND THE CENTER ISLAND WILL BE LANDSCAPED WITH A 10 -FOOT TRUCK APRON IMPROVEMENTS FOR FILING IA INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 955 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT 90 AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION. FUJNG2 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FIUNG 1 MUST BE COMPLETED 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 NEIGHBORH00D ROUNDABOUT LOCATED ON THE FAR NORTH END OF SOPRIS VIEW DRIVE AND TRAILSIDE DRIVE THAT IS 64 FEET IN DIAMETER WITH A SINGLE 12 -FOOT CIRCULATING LANE AND FOUR 12 -FOOT ENTRY AND EXIT LANES; A SINGLE CUL-DE-SAC IS LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF ELK TERRACE STREET. APPROXIMATELY 2,800 LINEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS; APPROXIMATELY 3.160 LINEAR FEET CF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES: APPROXIMATELY 3.240 UNEAR 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 FEET OF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 9.58 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 2 59 ACRES OF ACTIVE PARKS AND 1 77 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS WILL BE FINAL LANDSCAPED. IMPROVEMENTS FOR FIUNG 2A INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 840 UNEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT BM AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION fIIJNG OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FILING 1 MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO INITIATING THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FILING 3. IN AUDITION, A FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MAY BE REQUIRED AT THIS FIUNG. INCLUDING THE POOL AND OTHER OUTDOOR AMENITIES. ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT FILING 3 INCLUDE. APPROXIMATELY 3,560 UNEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS. 900 LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY/COURT AND APPROXIMATELY 5,415 UNEAR FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES; APPROXIMATELY 6.775 UNEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION UNES: APPROXIMATELY 1,000 LINEAR FEET OF TRUNK MAIN ANC 3,200 LINEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER; APPROXIMATELY 1,735 UNEAR FEET OF SOFT PATH AND 70 -FOOT LONG BRIDGE OVER CATTLE CREEK. AL50, 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 FILINGS 3A ANO 39 INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 960 UNEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT AD AND 510 UNEAR FEET of ALLEY FOR TRACT AJ AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION. f■1 - 4 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FIUNGS 1 AND 3 MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO IMITATING 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 LINEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION LINES; APPROXIMATELY 900 LINEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER; AND APPROXIMATELY 1.720 UNEAR 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 FIUNG 4A INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 51C LINEAR FEET OF ALLEY FOR TRACT AK AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION FUNG 5 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED UNDER FIUNGS 1 AND 3 MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO INITIATING THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RUNG 5 ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: THE PRIMARY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED To SUPPORT FILING 5 INCLUDE: A NEIGHBORHOOD ROUNDABOUT LOCATED ON THE FAR SGJTH END OF THE PROJECT SITE (INTERSECTION OF HIGH CREEK ROAD AND 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 2,600 UNEAR FEET OF LOCAL STREETS AND 535 UNEAR FEET OF ALLEY/COURT; APPROXIMATELY 3,0'0 LINEAR FEET OF POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION UNES; APPROXIMATELY 6.130 UNEAR FEET OF RAW WATER IRRIGATION LINES; APPROXIMATELY 2,570 LINEAR FEET OF GRAVITY SEWER; AND APPROXIMATELY 1.390 LINEAR FEET OF SOFT PATH. IN ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 16.12 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 4,15 ACRES OF ACTIVE PARKS AND 1.64 ACRES OF COMMON AREAS WILL BE FINAL LANDSCAPED. 8 PC January 13, 2015 DP TABLE 5 - LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (PROPOSED PHASING SEQUENCE) (EXTRACTED FROM THE PUD PLAN) FILING LOTS BY FILING AFFORDABLE LOT SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF s PLATTING ESTATE' TOWN VILLAGE ATTACHED3 GARDEN HOMES CUMULATIVE AFFORDABLE AFFORDABLE (%) 1A 00 L. 0 0 28 28 100.0% 2016 1 i. O 39 15 16 _.._ 0 0 28.6% 2016 2017 2 0 42 8 ' 0 0 0 18 914 2A 0 0 0 0 19 0 16 8% 2017 3A 1 0 0 0 0 13 13 22 8% 2019 3i 0 39 0 I 20 0 0 17 2% 2019 15.8% 2020 38 0 00 0 21 0 4A 0 0 0 0 14 14 20.1% 2020 4 0 270 7 0 0 0 18.3°k 2021 5 9 17 35 0 0 0 15.2% 2022 9 164 58 36 95 55 15.2% 2016-2022 INCLUDES EXECUTIVE LOT 2PROPOSED PLATTING SCHEDULE TOTALS INCLUDE LOTS DESIGNATED AS "A" AND'S' 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 PC January 13, 2015 DP Revised Preliminary Plan 10 PC January 13, 2015 DP IV. REFERRAL AGENCIES The Amended PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Pian 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 PC January 13, 2015 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) 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. PC January 13, 2015 DP that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate." 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." Should expansion of water and/or sewer treatment facilities be necessary, then a Location and Extent review through Garfield County may be necessary. 13 PC January 13, 2015 DP - 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 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 Pian 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. 1• 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." 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 14 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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." - 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." 15 PC January 13, 2015 DP - 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 Riverside 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. No comments were received from the following agencies: n. Garfield County Emergency Management o. Garfield County Public Health p. Soil Conservation District q. Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation 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 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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. 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 PC January 13, 2015 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 less 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 PC January 13, 2015 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 to 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 for the northern EVA, however 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 required to convert the existing livestock underpass connecting the Rio Grande Trail to the east side County roads for bicycles and pedestrians. 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 development of the project to the extent that gravel reserves will be stockpiled, crushed on-site and a temporary 19 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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 49, 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 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. 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 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. 4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable 20 PC January 13, 2015 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate." 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 21 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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. 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 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 visual impacts associated with the development will not deviate significantly from those approved in 2011. 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 22 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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 proposed to have standard 5 foot pedestrian sidewalks, is not proposed to have bicycle facilities as required by this Section. The Applicant has requested a waiver from this Standard. - 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 2 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. - 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 23 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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) - The approach to the underpass as proposed does not meet the 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 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) 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 not submitted. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit license agreements with RFTA to access the Rio Grande Trail along with preliminary engineer plans for these two locations prior to submittal of the first final plat. 24 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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. H. Affordable Housing. The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to Section 8-102 of Article Vlll, 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 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. 25 PC January 13, 2015 DP • 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. L 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. The 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. 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. 26 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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 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 27 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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-separatea6rossing but does not currently have approval from the RFTA board for an at -grade crossing of the r,‘r-ridor trail: - 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. - 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. 28 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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. 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). 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. 29 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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. 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 structure. 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 laskconducted 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. 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 mircrobial 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 30 PC January 13, 2015 DP 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. HP also reviewed earthquake potential and radiation, neither of which were considered as likely hazards on-site. 31 PC January 13, 2015 DP 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. RIVET -Edge FIGURE 04 Vegetation 0 Omar..., - D , 0110 w 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 a,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.' 32 PC January 13, 2015 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. 33 'fir a . �i e „ ��) oaM f.•. u> Edge FIGURE 03 a _ `� _ Project Sire =1 a.aelsafioturroa s I v .. fir let fdge�'Cofo, alit do / , ...�; .... f n ,.. MI .,—rerar4vors © ."aro M l M Y� v � r•V.} , W rt a � I' .i' ' \ ir , , o � I r<u msen,ws PUP -�� +�-.��^by f as 1 VAX lamb 4. 33 PC January 13, 2015 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 Rail/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 place -!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. 34 PC January 13, 2015 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. 35 PC January 13, 2015 DP 1,4,40 wai Sof rort Awon A.. 4 *l ger f.'JCe l:.h✓Yl': e8 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. 36 PC January 13, 2015 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. 37 PC January 13, 2015 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. 38 PC January 13, 2015 DP STANDARD VERSION CONTINUOUS GREEN VERSION 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," however, 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. 39 PC January 13, 2015 DP (Exhibit 13) and Mountain 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 is relying on Garfield County to implement design standards for this facility. o The current culvert is 6 feet wide by 7 feet high. o The recommended minimums for the structure is 12 feet wide and 10 feet high, but ideally wider and taller. o The minimum recommended width for the shared -use -path is 10 feet. 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. 40 PC January 13, 2015 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; 41 PC January 13, 2015 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 project. 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 42 PC January 13, 2015 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. 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 Riverside -Loop 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. 43 PC January 13, 2015 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 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) 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. 44 PC January 13, 2015 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. 45 PC January 13, 2015 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. 46 PC January 13, 2015 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 7-401 General 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 with 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 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. 47 PC January 13, 2015 DP 2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots Staff Comments: This standard was reviewed in 2011 and verified through the amended application. All lots within the subdivision appear to be configured in a proper manner 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. 48 PC January 13, 2015 DP VIII. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Due to the complexity of this application and number of issues addressed, this section of the Staff Report is intended to summarize those issues raised in the individual Standards discussions, above. Please Note: Unlike many other developments in Garfield County, REC is proposing "Phase 0" improvements to be done prior to the first final plat. As a result, Staff has requested that certain information be provided prior to grading permit and Phase 0 improvements while other information be provided prior to the first final plat, when legally sellable lots will be created. 1. Waiver Requests — The following waivers from the provision of minimum standards are requested pursuant to the preamble of Article VII which grants this ability upon demonstration that the standards are either inappropriate or cannot be practically implemented. a) §6-202(D) Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. Staff Comment: The new Terrace Parkway, while it is proposed to have standard 5 foot pedestrian sidewalks, is not proposed to have bicycle facilities as required by this Section. The Applicant has requested a waiver from this Standard. Since this is a residential development and Terrace Parkway will carry more traffic than any other internal roadway, Staff recommends requiring that bicycle facilities be provided along Terrace Parkway. Bicycle infrastructure is generally provided for in the form of striped bike lanes, however other alternatives, such as a shared use path, are available as well. 2. Cost Estimation Estimates do not include soft costs — According to Mountain Cross Engineering, "The cost estimates do not appear to include soft costs, such as construction observation, testing, surveying, etc. The Applicant should verify that these should be included. A more detailed itemization of the individual costs would usually be required to justify security amounts for an SIA" (See Exhibit 22). Staff recommends a condition of approval that the cost estimate be updated to include soft costs. 3. Vegetation 35 Foot Setback from high water mark - Section 7-203 determines that an `Inner Buffer Zone' requires provision of a thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody. Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within this zone is prohibited except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted. Staff recommends a condition of approval identifying this setback. 4. Access and Roadways a) Terrace Parkway Access Easement Terrace Parkway, the vehicular access to the property, crosses property owned by another entity. While the draft easement has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and looks adequate, the easement as not been executed. It is recommended 49 PC January 13, 2015 DP that a condition of approval be added requiring the applicant to execute and record the easement prior to issuance of the grading permit. b) Access to Rio Grande Trail Access to the Rio Grande Trail is currently limited to one access point at the existing Cattle Creek intersection along the Cattle Creek drainage, as Staff understands a license agreement for this connection currently exists. Preliminary engineering plans (Item 21 in application) show the extension of the shared -use -path from the culvert under Highway 82 to the RFTA ROW, but do not show details of the connection to the Rio Grande Trail. The Applicant has represented a second access point at Terrace Parkway, however, neither preliminary engineering plans nor legal rights to access to the Rio Grande Trail at this location were not submitted. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit license agreements with RFTA to access the Rio Grande Trail along with preliminary engineer plans for these two locations prior to submittal of the first final plat. c) North EVA easement The easement provided for the north EVA is unclear and confusing. In addition, the referenced Exhibit C, which was to be a map of the easement area, was never recorded. As a result, it is unclear whether the easement provides legal access from H Lazy F to County Road 154 (See Exhibit 26). If the easement connects with the private roads owned by private parties, then additional easements may be required. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant revise this easement to better depict the easement granted and attach and record Exhibit C. This easement document should be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to execution. The executed version of the easement should be submitted prior to grading permit. d) South EVA i. CDOT Access Permit not obtained A CDOT Access Permit has not been approved for the southern EVA. According to Dan Roussin, Permit Unit Manager, 'With the information provided, it very unlikely CDOT would approve an emergency vehicle access for this development on SH 82." (See CDOT Referral Letter, Exhibit 25) An alternative EVA for the southern parcel has not been provided, however. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant obtain a CDOT Access Permit for the south EVA. The Applicant should demonstrate approval of the CDOT Access Permit prior to grading permit or filing of the first final plat, whichever occurs first. ii. Grade exceeds CDOT Standards The south EVA proposes a grade of 8% which exceeds CDOT standards and may require a revised design. (See Exhibit 22). Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant either amend the plans to meet CDOTs grade requirements or demonstrate that CDOT has accepted the proposed grade for the south EVA road prior to grading permit. iii. RFTA crossing license Demonstration that a RFTA crossing license exists or has been obtained for the crossing of the RFTA trail has not been demonstrated. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant demonstrate that RFTA will allow the 50 PC January 13, 2015 DP applicant to cross the trail at this location for this purposes of emergency vehicle access. e) RFTA and PUC The Applicant has not yet obtained RFTA approval for an at -grade crossing of Terrace Parkway, as proposed. In addition, approval has not been obtained from the Colorado Public Utility Commission (PUC) (See RFTA Referral Letter, Exhibit 14). Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to obtain approval from RFTA and, if applicable, from the PUC, for the proposed at -grade crossing. Prior to the grading permit, the Applicant should submit evidence of RFTA and PUC approval for an at -grade crossing of the RFTA right-of-way. RFTA has indicated in their referral comments that the Applicant currently has a license for a grade -separated crossing and that any new license for an at -grade crossing for this property will require approval by the RFTA Board of Directors. Such a decision is unlikely to occur until February or March at the earliest should the Applicant submit in a timely manner. f) Bicycle / Pedestrian Underpass — According to CDOT and SGM, Inc., the conversion of the current livestock culvert to a bicycle/pedestrian underpass is a critical component for the adequate functioning of the permitted continuous green intersection design which is to provide access from Highway 82 to the proposed development. The total length of the underpass is to be approximately 150 feet while the width is proposed to be 6' and height to be 7'. Ken Brubaker, PE, of CDOT stated that "in my opinion this structure is not acceptable as proposed..." (See Exhibit 12). However, Staff understands that CDOT is relying on the County to impose design standards for this proposed facility. As a result, Staff referred the design of the bicycle and pedestrian underpass to SGM, Inc. due to their experience with bicycle / pedestrian underpasses along the Highway 82 corridor. As a result of the reviews from CDOT, SGM, Inc. and Mountain Cross Engineering, it is clear that the proposed design does not meet State (CDOT) or Nationally (AASHTO) recognized standards for this kind of facility and therefore, cannot be considered safe or adequate as proposed. i. Underpass does not meet CDOT or AASHTO Standards The proposed design does not meet AASHTO or CDOT standards. ■ The current culvert is 6 feet wide by 7 feet high. ■ The recommended minimums for the structure is 12 feet wide and 10 feet high, but ideally wider and taller. ■ The minimum recommended width for the shared -use -path in the facility should be 10 feet. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the underpass to be designed and built to meet CDOT and AASHTO Standards for this type of facility. The redesign should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. ii. Approach does not meet Shared Use Path Standards The approach to the underpass as proposed does not meet the standards for shared -use facilities. The minimum width requirement for a share use path is 10'. (See Exhibit 12). Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit a design with an approach of at least 10' in width. This redesign should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. 51 PC January 13, 2015 DP iii. Lighting Plan not proposed No lighting plan is proposed. In addition, the current opening that provides light from the median will be filled in, providing less light then currently enters the culvert. Since the culvert will be approximately 150 feet long, lighting is recommended. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant provide a lighting plan for the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. iv. Ownership and Maintenance not identified CDOT has represented that they will not own or maintain the underpass (See Exhibit 25). 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. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to prepare a draft agreement for ownership and maintenance of the underpass by the metro district and to be reviewed by the Garfield County Attorney's Office. Prior to submittal of the first final plat, the Applicant shall execute the agreement following County review, and submit the final executed version of the agreement with the first final plat. v. East side trail connection to County road The current plans do not show how or where the trail on the east side will connect to the County road network. Details need to be provided showing how the trail will connect to the County road network on the east side. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the submittal and review by the Garfield County engineer and Road and Bridge Department detailing the trail from the bicycle and pedestrian underpass to the County road network. This detail should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the County engineer and Road and Bridge Department incorporated therein. vi. Drainage Drainage through the culvert needs to be accommodated separate from the shared - use -path through the facility. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide a plan to manage drainage through the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. vii. Other Design Issues Several other design issues or inadequate information was identified on the design of the Underpass, including: • Details need to be provided showing how west extension will be connected to the culvert. • Details regarding waterproofing need to be provided. • Details of the shared -use -path surface through the facility need to be provided. • Snow fencing should be considered behind the guardrails to prevent trail users and the trail from being covered by snow thrown from the Highway. • More detail is necessary to determine if the proposed design would meet ADA standards as required by CDOT. 52 PC January 13, 2015 DP Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide plans to address these design issues. The plans should be submitted and reviewed prior to the first final plat, with comments from the Garfield County engineer incorporated therein. g) Cattle Creek Bridge may require Floodplain Permit or LOMR The bridge that crosses Cattle Creek and provides primary vehicular access to the south parcel may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR from FEMA (See Exhibit 22). As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that prior to the first final plat, the Applicant verify whether the bridging crossing Cattle Creek needs a floodplain permit and/or LOMR. Should the bridge crossing require a floodplain permit and/or a LOMR, the applicable permits should be obtained prior to the first final plat. h) Access to Moraine Court The island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine Court from Riverside -Loop Drive (See Exhibit 22). Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to amend the plans to accommodate turning movements into Moraine Court from -Riverside Loop Drive. The revised plans should be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to the first final plat. 5. Phasing / Timing A. Modification to sequence of filings: The prior Development Agreement includes a provision which allows the "Developer to alter the sequence of Filings set forth in the Phasing Plan" and have these amendments be "treated as a non -substantial modification to the REC PUD". Kelly Cave of the County Attorney's Office states that "I do have some difficulty with the Developer's right to have any request to alter the sequence of Filings viewed as a non -substantial modification that does not require a hearing and is solely determined by the Director." In order to ensure due process for the alteration sequence of Filings, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Development Agreement be modified to remove reference to treating changes in the sequence of Filings in the Phasing Plan as non -substantial. As an alternative, Staff recommends language which makes the process for modifications to the sequence of Filings consistent with the Land Use Code in place at the time of amendment or the Code in place at the time the Development Agreement is vested. B. Expiration of Development Agreement and Preliminary Plan — Currently, the Preliminary Plan is set to expire three years from the date of approval, which was on December 19, 2014. Since the Applicant held a Pre -Application Conference with Staff on March 19, 2013, Staff considered this step the beginning of the Preliminary Plan and PUD application although the Application was not first submitted until February 2015. The Applicant is requesting that this timeframe restart should the amendment application be approved which would mean the Preliminary Plan would be vested until approximately 2019. Similarly, the Development Agreement states that the "Developer shall have no obligation to develop all or any portion of the Project; provided, however, that if a building permit for development of the first phase of the Project is not issued on or before five (5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate..." The Effective Date for this Agreement is December 22, 2011. The Applicant has also provided that the "Developer intends to submit its application for the first final plat in approximately 2014 or 2015..." As a result of this 53 PC January 13, 2015 DP Amendment application, the Applicant is requesting to restart this timing as well, as proposed in the amended Development Agreement. An outline of the proposed timeframe modifications is as follows: o Preliminary Plan (Submit first final plat within 3 years of Preliminary Plan) Original Timeframe: 2011 — 2014 Amended Timeframe: 2016 — 2019 o Development Agreement (Pull Building Permit within 5 years of Effective Date) Original Timeframe: 2011 — 2016 Amended Timeframe: 2016 — 2021 o Buildout Timeframe (Expected to take 10 years to build out) Original Timeframe: 2011 — 2021 Amended Timeframe: 2016 — 2026 In summary, the Applicant is requesting to restart the deadlines for Preliminary Plan and the Development Agreement as a result of this amendment application. Extending these timeline is at the discretion of the BOCC. In effect, the timeline as written requires the developer to submit for final plat within 3 years and obtain a building permit for the first dwelling unit within 5 years. Should the BOCC agree that the timelines be extended, then Staff recommends the following condition of approval: As an update to Resolution 2011-84, the Preliminary Plan deadline be amended from "Determination of Completeness in accordance with the Section 4-103.0 of the ULUR" to "recording of the final plat". Should the BOCC not find this new timeline appropriate, the BOCC should require the following condition: The amended Development Agreement shall be modified to reflect the approved vesting period. C. Phase 0 Improvement Agreement: i. Attach Construction Phasing Plan: The Phase 0 Improvements Agreement, Recital 6, references the Construction Phasing Plan but the Plan is not attached as to the Agreement an exhibit. "The Applicant wishes to delay production of these plans until it applies for a grading permit. [The CAO does] not support this request, as the Construction Phasing Plan is clearly tied to the execution of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. The Board needs to understand the full extent of these improvements prior to accepting and executing this Phase 0 Agreement. If the Board approves of the delay, [the CAO] recommend[s] a condition of approval for staff to review the Construction Plans and for Applicant to record same with the filing of the final plat." Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement be modified to attach the Construction Phasing Plan with the Agreement as an exhibit. The Construction Plan should then be recorded with the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. ii. Provide draft of Third Party Agreement with Cattle Creek Metropolitan District: The Phase 0 Improvements Agreement, Recital 7, adds a third party agreement with Cattle Creek Metropolitan District. "A draft of such agreement and further explanation of how the landowner and District are incorporated is needed." As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that 54 PC January 13, 2015 DP the Applicant provide a draft of the agreement with explanation as to how the landowner and District are incorporated prior to recording of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. This documentation shall be reviewed and accepted by the County Attorney's Office. iii. Remove indemnity provision: According to the County Attorney's Office (CAO), "Additional language has been added to the Indemnity provision of paragraph 4. [The CAO] recommend[s] deleting this addition since it brings in Third Party Entities. The County is responsible if its employees are negligent, but not if Third Party Entities or their employees are negligent." Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that this language be removed from the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. 6. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Termination of MOU The Applicant has requested that the MOU as recorded at reception number 824971 be terminated with a "Certificate of Completion". Instead of "completed", the MOU appears to be nullified since the proposed access point for the subdivision has moved and REC has paid its share of expenses as agreed to by the Board. However, since the entire MOU was never completed, a mutually agreed upon termination is more appropriate. The Board will need to determine if a new MOU is needed for any potential issues with the new access point for the subdivision. Staff does not believe any outstanding issues exist, and as such, no new MOU is needed. Prior to termination of the MOU, the Board should confirm that there are not any remaining issues, improvements or cost sharing needed. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to submit a draft termination agreement to the MOU. This termination agreement should be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to review and signature by the BOCC. The MOU should be terminated prior to grading permit. 7. Grading and Drainage a) North drainage: The project site grading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage ponding areas. The Applicant should revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary easements. (See Exhibit 22) Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant revise the site plan addressing this issue. b) Storm drainage labels: Storm drainage culvert labels were not shown on the plat. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant address this issue. c) Water quality pond discharge: The Applicant has not designed the release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality pond. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant design the release structures for review by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. d) Storm drainage from GCCI: According to the Garfield County engineer, "the storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI parcel into 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 55 PC January 13, 2015 DP property. There is a proposed culvert that shows an area inlet near but not inline (hydraulically speaking) with these existing culverts. No grading is shown to connect the proposed to the existing. Also, the inlet is shown as a surface, drop type inlet versus an end section inlet; so it may not effectively capture the offsite flows (depending on the magnitude of the event). Downstream from this are proposed lots that could be potentially flooded if this exchange of flows from existing culverts to proposed isn't adequately captured." Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant redesign the offsite flow into culvert c76 -a for review by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. 8. Water / Wastewater a) Connect to RFWSD Staff understands that the Applicant intends to connect to the existing Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) system for water and wastewater. In the 2011 application, it was not yet clear whether the Applicant was going to connect to RFWSD or create their own system. As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to be served by the RFWSD system for water and wastewater. b) Location and Extent Review: District improvements that may be necessitated by the development include the potential for water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, connection of the development via SH 82 and Aspen Glen, and a water storage tank on the east side of SH 82. The District is a quasi -governmental entity and therefore would have to provide information to the Planning Commission via a Location and Extent application for these improvements. c) Pre -Inclusion Agreement: The pre -inclusion agreement with the RFWSD includes both the subject parcel owned by Carbondale Investments (CI) as well as the adjacent property owned by Garfield County Commercial Investments (GCCI). According to County Attorney's Office, "The tethering of these two properties under this agreement is difficult. The ability of the subdivision to supply water is now tied to a second parcel. This is not ideal. [It is] recommend[ed] that the Applicant revise its Agreement with RFWSD to remove the GCCI services." d) ‘'''‘r VS" \ 0v r f) g) Water Line Conflicts: Mountain Cross Engineering noted that the water line on Riverside Drive conflicts with the 36" storm drain culvert. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit updated plans addressing this issue. Fire Hydrant Connections: Mountain Cross Engineering noted that the Applicant has not shown how the fire hydrants throughout the development are connected to the water line. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit updated plans addressing this issue. Utilities under Highway 82: The Garfield County Engineering Department noted that the separate package of plans for utilities to be installed under Highway 82 was not found. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit the separate package of plans for review by the Garfield County Engineering Department. Water / Wastewater to Executive Lot: The proposed Executive Lot does not appear to be served by the RFWSD water or sewer as the preliminary engineering plans do not show connections to that parcel. Further review of the 2011 application does not show 56 PC January 13, 2015 DP demonstration of legal and adequate water for this parcel should the parcel not be connected to RFWSD. As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant provide demonstration of adequate legal and physical water to the Executive Lot should it not be served by RFWSD. In addition, the Applicant should identify how wastewater for the parcel is to be managed. 9. Applicable Land Use Code Future modifications to PUD and Preliminary Plan: It is unclear which Land Use Code applies to applications for future review by the County. According to the County Attorney's Office, "In order to clarify future County involvement with the subdivision, I recommend a condition of approval that the applicable code be stated in the Preliminary Plan Resolution and Development Agreement. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the following language be added to the Preliminary Plan and PUD Resolution: "All future amendments shall be reviewed pursuant to the Land Use Code or Resolution in place at the time of submittal. The Preliminary Plan is vested under LUDC effective July 15, 2013 and last amended December 7, 2015." 10. Floodplain Updated wetlands delineation: The Army Corps of Engineers responded to the referral request (See Exhibit 15) that requires the Applicant to update the wetlands delineation on the property that was las conducted in 2010. The letter from the Army Corps states that "jurisdictional determinations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time, therefore this verification is only valid for five years." As a result, the determination issued in 2010 is currently expired. Staff suggests a condition of approval that the Applicant update the wetland determination for the properties prior to final plat as required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 11. Open Space 5% Threshold for treatment: Consistent with Condition 7(b) of the 2011 Resolution of Approval, the Garfield County Vegetation Manager recommends that item 5 of the Open Space and Management Plan (OSMP) be deleted. This Item 5 states that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State Noxious Weed Act." As 5% cover is not acceptable, this statement should be deleted. Staff recommends maintaining the previous Condition of Approval as required in 2011. 12. Affordable Housing Address 2011 GCHA Comments: The Applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) related to affordable housing requirements within the REC plan. Geneva Powell of the Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) responded to the application in 2011 which is included with the updated comments from KT Gazunis (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 Applicant to respond to the GCHA comments on the REC affordable housing proposal: 57 PC January 13, 2015 DP • 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. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to a number of substantial issues with the proposed Amended Preliminary Plan and PUD, Staff recommends Denial of both applications. Should these applications be denied, it is worth noting that since the Preliminary Plan technically expired in 2014, this Plan would become null and void. In addition, the Development Agreement and vested rights will expire December 22, 2016 unless a building permit is pulled before that date. In Staff's review of this amended Preliminary Plan and PUD application for REC, Several items are of notable concern to Staff due to their ability to potentially alter the Preliminary Plan from what is currently proposed or if certain approvals, permits or licenses are unable to be obtained. Such alteration would likely require the Applicant to submit a new amended preliminary plan application for a substantial modification in order to correct these deficiencies. Notably, these issues are: 2009 International Fire Code, Section D107 - Staff understands that it is unlikely that CDOT will issue an Access Permit for the South EVA. Should CDOT not issue an Access Permit for this location, an alternative location will likely need to be evaluated in order to meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. Such a change would require additional County review and could require another amended application for the new alignment. Standard Section 7-108(A) - The Applicant has proposed an at -grade crossing of the RFTA corridor and trail, however, staff understands that the RFTA Board of Directors has not approved this alignment. As a result, the Applicant currently does not have legal vehicular access to the development utilizing the proposed at -grade alignment and as a result, has not met Standards Section 7-108(A), requiring "All lots and parcels shall have access to a public right-of-way". Should the RFTA Board of Directors not approve an at -grade crossing, additional County review would likely be necessary which would result in another application for an amended Preliminary Plan as a substantial modification. In addition, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the following Standards, among others: 58 PC January 13, 2015 DP - Section 7-108(B), Safe Access and Section 7-308(F), Maintenance — These Sections requires that "Access to and from the use shall be safe and in conformance with applicable county, state and federal access regulations" and that "Suitable provisions for maintenance of trail and walkway systems shall be established through a perpetual association, corporation or other means acceptable to the County." The proposed design for the required bicycle and pedestrian underpass under Highway 82 at Cattle Creek has been reviewed by CDOT, SGM, Inc. and Mountain Cross Engineering. As a result of these reviews, it is clear that the proposed design does not meet State (CDOT) or Nationally (AASHTO) recognized standards for this kind of facility and therefore, cannot be considered safe or adequate as proposed. In addition, The Applicant has not represented who may own or maintain the underpass. As a result, demonstration that the underpass will be safe and meets state and national standards or maintained in perpetuity has not been provided. Section 7-104, Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water — The southernmost parcel, labelled as the "Executive Lot", has not been shown to have a legal or physical water source. According to the preliminary engineering plans, this parcel is not provided water or wastewater service through the internal utility lines connected to the RFWSD system. A demonstration of legal and physical water in accordance with this Section via an individual well has also not been shown. As a result, a sufficient legal and physical water source for all parcels has not been demonstrated. X. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan is NOT in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has NOT adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That the application has NOT adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. XI. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS Should the Planning Commission consider a recommendation of approval the following conditions and findings are recommended by Staff. Below is a redline of the conditions of approval from Resolution 2011-84 showing the Staff recommended changes. The below redline is applied for content changes only, not changes to format or numbering. 59 PC January 13, 2015 DP Please Note: Unlike many other developments in Garfield County, REC is proposing "Phase 0" improvements to be done prior to the first final plat. As a result, Staff has requested that certain information be provided prior to grading permit and Phase 0 improvements while other information be provided prior to the first final plat, when legally sellable lots will be created. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan may be in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 6. That the requested waiver from Standard §6-202(D), Bicycle traffic accommodation, of the ULUR of 2008, as amended, is not granted. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The approved PUD Site Plan, PUD Guide and Subdivision Preliminary Plan are attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference. 3. The Subdivision Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of three years, or until the first final plat has been recorded received a Determination of Completenes✓ in , whichever occurs first. 4. The Applicant shall provide a more detailed cost itemization for development improvements, including soft costs. This updated cost itemization shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 5. The maximum residential density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 3662 dwelling units. 60 PC January 13, 2015 DP 6. The Affordable Housing Agreement will be required by the BOCC to be executed and approved prior to submittal of the first final plat. As proposed, the phasing schedule attached to this PUD Guide and total number of units (55) are to be incorporated into the Affordable Housing Agreement. To finalize the Agreement, it will be necessary for the Applicant to collaborate with the GCHA regarding their comments and concerns. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall to be recorded and executed by both the property owner and the BOCC prior to submittal of the first final plat. 7. The Applicant shall update the wetland determination with the Army Corps of Engineers for the subject properties prior to submittal of grading permit. 8. The Subdivision Preliminary Plan is hereby vested under the LUDC effective July 15, 2013 and last amended December 7, 2015. All future amendments to this Subdivision Preliminary Plan or PUD shall be reviewed pursuant to the Land Use Code and Development Code in place at the time of submittal for that amendment. 9. The revised Development Agreement and Phase 0 Improvements Agreement shall be recorded as provided by state law and in conjunction with this Resolution. The following amendments shall be made to the Development Agreement and Phase 0 Improvements Agreement prior to recording. a. Development Agreement: i. The Applicant shall amend the Development Agreement to remove reference to treating changes in the sequence of Filings in the Phasing Plan as non -substantial. The process for modifications to the sequence of Filings shall be consistent with the Land Use Code in place at the time of amendment. ii. The Applicant shall include the Phasing Plan, identified as Appendix C of the PUD Development Guide, as an exhibit with the Development Agreement and modify the relevant references within the Agreement as appropriate. iii. Should the BOCC not find the new timeline for expiration appropriate, the amended Development Agreement shall be modified to reflect the approved vesting period. b. Phase 0 Improvement Agreement: i. The Construction Plan shall be recorded as an attachment to the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. ii. The Applicant shall provide a draft of the agreement with explanation as to how the landowner and District are incorporated prior to recording of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. This documentation shall be reviewed and accepted by the County Attorney's Office prior to recording. iii. Additional language has been added to the Indemnity provision of paragraph 4 of the Phase 0 Improvement Agreement. This language shall be removed from the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. 10. Grading Activity / Reclamation a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of the on-site activities and improvements as set forth in the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. 61 PC January 13, 2015 DP b. Revegetation security shall be provided at time of grading permit in accordance with the terms of Phase 0 Improvement Agreement. c. No activity rclatcd to reclamation or development activity, including Phase 0 Improvements, of the project shall occur until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SHAP) and Notice to Proceed has been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Terrace Parkway and the South EVA. d. The Applicant shall revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary easements for grading along the north property line which shows incomplete contours, trespass on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage ponding areas. The revised grading plan shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. e. The Applicant shall revise the applicable Preliminary Plan / Plat documents tolshow and label storm drainage culverts. The revised plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. f. The Applicant shall revise the necessary Preliminary Plan documents to designed the release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality pond. The revised plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. g. The storm drainage shall be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI parcel into culvert c76 -a to alleviate concerns about potential flooding of downstream Tots. The Applicant shall redesign the offsite flow into culvert c76 -a for review and acceptance by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. 11. Vegetation a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat, whichever shall come first, the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC property and, if agreed to by the Roaring Fork Conservancy, on the Conservation Easement. b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5% requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as state statute requires that state listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected, and the County concurs with state law regarding all noxious weeds. c. County Vegetation Management Director shall be consulted regarding the calculation of revegetation security. d. Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within the thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody is prohibited except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback. 12. Geology The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Engineering Report submitted for the project, as such recommendations may be amended through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below. The geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the recommendations provided 62 PC January 13, 2015 DP by the Colorado Geological Survey. a. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be provided as part of the final design submitted for each final plat and prior to the commencement of construction on the site. provided, however, that detailed In addition, geotechnical investigations for pre - development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, which activitico shall be conducted as part of obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates shall be included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements. b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit. c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. The Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation where further geotechnical investigations reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections may lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for alternate temporary access. "Critical road sections" are those road sections which if damaged by subsidence would eliminate access to lots within the REC project. d. If an agreement is reached with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a copy of such agreement or plan and, if required, a copy of the easement between the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the owner of the River Edge Colorado property, shall be provided to the County Building and planning Community Development Department as part of grading permit application. e. All building permits will be required to provide an underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade. f. Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlot/mass grading, as applicable, cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to 10" in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. g. h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. i. Roof downspouts and drains will be discharged a minimum of ten feet beyond the limits of all backfill. Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the provision of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to ensure water application rated to not generally exceed evapotransporation rates. A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of each final plat to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Where fill 63 PC January 13, 2015 DP placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with any final plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of the final plat application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities, a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County Building and Planning Department for review prior to paving; such report shall demonstrate that the fill will achieve the pavement design objectives in the pavement design report submitted with the subject final plat. k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain Type I/II portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium aluminate). 13. Wildlife The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the reports of its consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following: a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the lighting plan submitted as part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces except that required around building in accordance with safety requirements is not permitted. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas. b. Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82, cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application. c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas shall be closed by the Property Owners Association during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or dog parks, shall be on a leash year-round. d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors. e. Open Space Tracts are used as winter range; therefore, reclamation will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general conformance with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans submitted with the PUD Application. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range. f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs are prohibited. Development of the REC project shall generally comply with the Erosion Control and Sediment Control Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed with each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from developed areas from reaching Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river, or caught and used for irrigation purposes. g. 64 PC January 13, 2015 DP h. All utilities shall be buried. i. Applicant shall adhere to the Roaring Fork Conservancy Grant of Conservation Easement, recorded at Reception No. 559036 (Conservation Easement), and shall work with Roaring Fork Conservancy to mitigate impacts concerning trails, river access, and signage. Applicant shall forward any concerns regarding compliance with the Conservation Easement to the POA. Applicant intends that its obligations under the Conservation Easement will be assigned to the POA. 14. Access and Roadways a. Prior to issuance of the grading permit or submittal of the first final plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall execute and record the proposed easement for Terrace Parkway. The final executed and recorded easement shall be provided to the Community Development Department. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first final plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall submit a Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) corridor Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for Terrace Parkway and the south EVA, if required by state law. If PUC review and approval of the crossing is not required the Applicant shall provide reasonable evidence from the PUC to that effect which is acceptable to the Community Development Building and Planning Department. c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first final plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide documentation from RFTA and preliminary engineering plans regarding the acceptance of construction to grade separate cross the Rio Grande Trail at -grade in the vicinity of the project entrance and the south EVA. If construction collateral is not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County Improvements Agreement. The Preliminary Plans of the crossing shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer. d. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an emergency satisfied this condition. e. The Applicant shall work with the submit a draft County Attorney's Office to develop a Termination of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Reception # 824971) regarding Applicant's offer to funding and construction the of improvements to the east side of the intersection at SH 82 and Cattle Creek, and to facilitate the involvement of . Recognizing the Highway Access Permit. The agreed upon termination document of the MOU shall be brought before the BOCC for review and consideration at a regularly scheduled public meeting. This agreement shall be executed and recorded by the CI, LLC and the BOCC prior to grading permit or the first final plat, whichever occurs first. f. The Applicant shall submit license agreements with RFTA and any necessary PUC approvals for bicycle and pedestrian access to the Rio Grande Trail along with 65 g. PC January 13, 2015 DP preliminary engineering plans for the proposed connections at Terrace Parkway and at the Cattle Creek Intersection. The license agreements and preliminary engineering plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the first final plat. The Applicant shall revise the easement for the north EVA (Reception # 760451) to better depict the easement granted and attach and record Exhibit C. This easement document shall be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to execution. The executed version of the easement shall be submitted prior to grading permit. h. Prior to submittal of the first final plat, the Applicant shall verify whether the bridge crossing Cattle Creek needs a floodplain permit and/or LOMR. Should the bridge crossing require a floodplain permit and/or a LOMR, the applicable permits shall be obtained prior to grading permit. i. The Applicant shall amend the plans to accommodate turning movements into Moraine Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The revised plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the first final plat. The Applicant shall provide preliminary engineering plans for bicycle accommodation along Terrace Parkway. These preliminary engineering plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the first final plat. J• k. South EVA: i. The Applicant shall obtain a CDOT Access Permit for the south EVA, as proposed. The Applicant shall demonstrate approval of the CDOT Access Permit prior to grading permit. ii. The Applicant shall either amend the plans to meet CDOTs grade requirements or demonstrate that CDOT has accepted the proposed grade for the south EVA road prior to grading permit. iii. The Applicant shall provide a RFTA license for a crossing of the Rio Grande Trail at the proposed location for the south EVA that will permit access for emergency vehicles from the project area to Highway 82. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the RFTA license to Garfield County prior to grading permit. I. Bicycle / Pedestrian Underpass i. The Applicant shall redesign the underpass to meet applicable CDOT and AASHTO Standards for this type of facility. The redesign shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the grading permit. ii. The approach to the underpass as proposed does not meet the standards for shared -use facilities. The minimum width of the approach shall meet CDOT and AASHTO Standards. The Applicant shall submit a design with an approach which meets these Standards. This redesign shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to grading permit. 66 PC January 13, 2015 DP iii. The Applicant shall provide a lighting plan for the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to grading permit. iv. The applicant shall prepare a draft agreement for ownership and maintenance of the underpass by the Cattle Creek Metro District to be reviewed by the Garfield County Attorney's Office. Prior to submittal of the first final plat, the Applicant shall execute the agreement following County review, and submit the final executed version of the agreement with the first final plat application. v. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Garfield County engineer and Road and Bridge Department detailing the trail from the bicycle and pedestrian underpass to the County road network on the east side of Highway 82. This detail shall be reviewed and accepted prior to grading permit, with comments from the County engineer and Road and Bridge Department incorporated therein. vi. Drainage through the culvert needs to be accommodated separate from the shared - use -path through the facility. The Applicant shall provide a plan to manage drainage through the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan should be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to grading permit. vii. Several design issues or inadequate information were identified with the proposed design of the Underpass, including: • Details need to be provided showing how the west extension will be connected to the culvert. • Details regarding waterproofing need to be provided. • Details of the shared -use -path surface through the facility need to be provided. • Snow fencing shall be placed behind the guardrails to prevent trail users and the trail from being hit by snow thrown from the Highway. • More detail is necessary to determine if the proposed design would meet ADA standards as required by CDOT. The Applicant shall provide plans to address these design issues. The plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to grading permit. 15. Water / Wastewater be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre inclusion Colorado development. v,,PQ .lOiG�°�� c. The applicant shall connect to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District '1 (RFWSD) for both water and wastewater service. K COZ t 2'e d. The Applicant shall submit updated plans addressing the water line conflicts with the � ����" 136" storm drain culvert on Riverside Drive. The Applicant shall submit updated plans, J U{ a"�� 0.16-4" ��A it (At i /1 ,Y 67 PC January 13, 2015 DP to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer, prior to submittal of the first final plat. e. The Applicant shall submit updated plans addressing how the fire hydrants throughout the development are connected to the water distribution system. The Applicant shall submit updated plans, to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer, prior to submittal of the first final plat. f. The Applicant shall submit the separate package identified on sheet SW02.01 of the preliminary engineering plans for utilities under Highway 82. The Applicant shall submit this separate package of plans, to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Engineering Department, prior to submittal of the first final plat. g. The Applicant shall provide a demonstration of adequate legal and physical water to the Executive Lot. Should the Lot be served by RFWSD, then the preliminary engineering plans shall be amended showing water and sewer connections. Should the Lot be served by an individual well and Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS), then the Applicant shall provide a demonstration of legal and physical water, including pump test and water quality test, as well as a description of how the wastewater is to be managed. The amended preliminary engineering plans or demonstration of legal and adequate water and wastewater management shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit. 16. Final Plat Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the following final plat requirements in addition to those requirements contained within the ULUR Land Use and Development Code in effect at the time of submittal. a. Consistent with the Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant shall provide the following information as submittal requirements with the first final plat application: i. An Improvements Agreement; ii. Demonstration of formation of the POA; iii. Draft deeds for conveyance of improvements, facilities or real property from the Applicant to the POA; iv. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (OCR's) applicable to the development. v. Development Agreement; vi. Affordable Housing Agreement; vii. Other items as identified in the conditions of approval within this Resolution. b. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following: i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development. These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no special foundation design is necessary. ii. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade. 68 PC January 13, 2015 DP 17. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for final plat in the subdivision so that the amount of the fee -in -lieu payment of school land dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee -in lieu will be required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 18. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat the Applicant shall be required to comply with Resolution 2008-05 which sets forth the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 69 COLORADO Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Development 4201 E. Arkansas Ave Shumate Bldg Denver, CO 80222-3400 David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development 108 8th St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 David: EXHIBIT (Z Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed pedestrian crossing as part of the River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan. After reviewing the plans which you sent to me I think that the concerns which you have expressed are valid. As shown this structure does not meet the criteria required by either CDOT or AASHTO for a pedestrian underpass. In my opinion this structure is not acceptable as proposed and would not provide a comfortable experience for users. My concerns are: 1. It appears as though this proposed crossing is an existing drainage structure or wildlife crossing that is being modified to become a pedestrian underpass. The existing structure does not meet the horizontal or vertical clearance requirements for a pedestrian or multi- use 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. 2. 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'. 3. 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. If you have any questions regarding the concerns above please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ken Brubaker, PE Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Engineer Phone: 303-757-9804 4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Shumate Bldg. , Denver, CO 80222-3400 P 303.757.9804 www.coloradodot.Info SGM www.sgm-inc.com November 11, 2015 David Pesnichak, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Mr. Pesnichak: EXHIBIT 13 Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed SH -82 pedestrian underpass as part of the River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan. After reviewing the plans and the comments from Mr. Brubaker at CDOT, we agree with Mr. Brubaker's comments and would add the following: 1. SH -82 has a posted speed limit of 65 mph at this location and the traffic volume is in the range of 20,000 vehicles per day, according to CDOT traffic data (OTIS website). This combination of speed and volume suggests that if a pedestrian crossing of SH -82 near this location is desired, it should be either grade separated or at a signalized intersection with a pedestrian phase. It is our understanding that at this time, only acceleration and deceleration turning lanes are proposed being proposed at the intersection of Cattle Creek Road and SH -82. This type of intersection 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. 2. There is an existing access point from the Rio Grande Trail to SH -82 at the Cattle Creek Road intersection. Therefore, 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. As proposed, the existing livestock underpass will provide access between the Rio Grande Trail and Cattle Creek Road. 3. The Rio Grande Trail is a very popular regional multi -use trail. Cattle Creek Road is a popular ride for road cyclists, providing access to the Spring Valley and Missouri Heights areas. Any proposed improvements in this area should consider these uses and provide a crossing that is safe, usable and inviting as a connection between these multi -use facilities. 4. The proposed box culvert extension and median infill segment consists of 4 -sided precast concrete box sections. These sections are constructed offsite at a precast concrete manufacturing facility, shipped to the site and set in place. The sections are typically 4' to 8' long and have 8" to 12" fillets at the inside corners as shown in the plans. GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com a. Structurally, these sections can easily be designed to withstand the forces of the road on top and the soil pressure from the sides. However, special attention should be made when using precast sections for pedestrian underpasses. i. The joints between the boxes are prone to leaking unless the outside of the joints are adequately waterproofed. No waterproofing is specified in the proposed details. ii. The joints in the floor may result in a less than desirable riding surface for cyclists and can present tripping hazards if the sections are not placed evenly. This is sometimes mitigated by pouring a concrete topping slab on the floor after placement of the precast sections. iii. The fillets at the inside corners effectively reduce the available walkway width inside the box. The existing box culvert is a cast -in-place concrete structure with no corner fillets. iv. Additionally, since the box culvert slopes down to the extension end, the fillets in the bottom of the precast box sections will impede drainage in the event that water enters into the culvert. This can cause ponding and potential icing issues in the winter. 5. The proposed concrete wingwalls do not appear to be founded at or below frost depth. The frost depth in Garfield County is 36 inches. 6. The details are unclear on how the west extension will be attached to the end of the existing culvert. The provided details appear to pertain only to the median infill segment. 7. Removal of the existing concrete walls in the median will likely require temporary excavation support (shoring) of the SH -82 roadway. This is not addressed in the plans. Additionally, SH -82 may have to be reduced to one lane in each direction or traffic may have to be shifted to the shoulders. A construction traffic control plan should be developed to address this. 8. Users may perceive the underpass as being unsafe if it is not adequately lit and well maintained. The plans do not address these concerns and it is recommended that lighting be added inside the tunnel and at the ends of the tunnel. It is also recommended that the inside concrete surfaces be painted with structural concrete coating and an anti -graffiti coating. 9. Snow fencing should be considered behind the guardrails at each end of the underpass to protect trail users from snow being thrown from snow plows. 10. The proposed path width complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). The proposed width is 6 feet and the minimum required per the ADAAG is 4 feet. There is not enough information provided in the Item 21 plans to determine if the proposed path grade complies with the ADAAG maximum permissible grade of 8.33%. In general, it appears that the path rises approximately 8' to 10' from the underpass to the Rio Grande Trail (Elev. 6022.8 at �SGM www.sgm-inc.com the underpass to roughly Elev. 6030 (+/-) at the trail). The length of the proposed path is approximately 280 feet between these endpoints, which equates to overall gradient of 3.0 to 3.5%. Therefore, it is assumed that the actual proposed grade can meet the ADAAG requirements, but this should be verified. Conclusions: • We agree with Mr. Brubaker that the proposed underpass does not meet current CDOT or AASHTO standards for a pedestrian underpass. However, despite the deficiencies of the proposed underpass; a grade separated crossing is safer than crossing a four lane, 65 mph highway at an uncontrolled intersection. • The total length of the underpass will be more than 140 feet long, and it is our opinion that it will be uninviting for pedestrians and cyclists given that it is only 7 feet tall and 6 feet wide. • Users may perceive the underpass as being unsafe if it is not adequately lit and well maintained. If you have any questions regarding our comments please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 945- 1004. Sincerely, Reviewed By: Michael Fowler, PE Dan Cokley, P OE, P I:\2014\2014-367-GarcoCom Dev\001-RiverEdge\A_Corresp\Item21 _SGM_Review.docx David Pesnichak From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David Johnson <djohnson@rfta.com> Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:51 PM David Pesnichak Dan Blankenship; Mike Hermes; Angela Henderson; Jason White River Edge Colorado (REC) - Referral - PUD/Prelim Plan Amendment Service Expansion Policy.pdf EXHIBIT Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged RFTA has the following comments on the application: The referral states that the applicant is requesting amendments to the plan, primarily by relocating the access road to/from SH8 2to the North from River Edge Drive to "Terrace Parkway." The Amendment also proposes to: • Create a new Rio Grande Trail crossing and related improvements for Terrace Parkway; • Eliminate the River Edge Drive Right -of -Way extension to State Highways 82 and related plat adjustments; • Create new trail connections and/or crossings of State Highway 82 at the old access location; • Relocate 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; • Reorganize the Subdivision Filings as reflected on the Preliminary Subdivision Plan; and • Revise the PUD Phasing Plan to shift earlier phases of development to the vicinity of the new access point. The proposed new Rio Grande Trail crossing is a crossing of a railbanked rail right of way preserved for future transit use. Consequently, this crossing and the Emergency Vehicle access at -grade crossing of the rail corridor will require review and approval of the RFTA Board of Directors and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. RFTA is working with the Applicant to relocate their approved main at -grade crossing to the "Terrace Parkway" location to provide greater stacking distance for vehicles between the railroad corridor and Highway 82. 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. The Board has adopted a service provisioning policy (attached) indicating that a long-term financial commitment that fully funds the operating and capital costs of the service required would be needed for RFTA to consider providing service to this development; however, the RFTA Board reserves the right to determine whether it will serve it based upon the merits of the development. Once there is more definitive information on the amount and type of proposed development, 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. Thank you. David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street; Carbondale, CO 81623 1 David Pesnichak From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Pesnichak: Sheata, Carrie A <Carrie.A.Sheata@usace.army.mil> Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:51 PM David Pesnichak RE: River Edge Colorado (REC) - Referral - PUD/Prelim Plan Amendment 1 EXHIBIT tis We are responding to your October 28, 2015, request for comments on the River Edge Colorado project. The PUD and Preliminary Plan Resolution identification number is Resolution #2011-84 and Reception #812357. The approximately 160 -acre project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs on the west side of State Highway 82 between the Roaring Fork River and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Rio Grande Trail within Section s 7 and 16, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, and Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, Garfield County, Colorado. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. On October 13, 2010, Mr. Travis Morse, formerly of this office, confirmed the wetland boundary as prepared by PENDO Solutions, Inc. on behalf of the applicant and that approximately 6.52 acres of waters of the United States occur within the property. Since wetlands and other waters of the United States are affected over time by both natural and man- made activities, local changes in jurisdictional boundaries can be expected to occur. As such, jurisdictional determinations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time, therefore this verification is only valid for five years. The applicant shall prepare a wetland delineation in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations" and "Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program" under "Jurisdiction" on our website at the address below, and submit it to this office for verification. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Please refer to identification number SPK -2015-00972 in any correspondence concerning this project. For more information regarding our program, please visit our website at http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsSd2hJ5xxNYQsIefICXCQXTjsKejjod FTKCVssCM-rjKOMO- yzsQsCQrl8Tjv7f6zASwJZ8iljQG2yeNtBVW1uRmUjbsKr8X5SnDE5XIrxcJOVJVZVwQsIKfZvC7QTAjhOPRXBQQjhODNEVKOU VtzGBFHnjIKUDOEuvkzaTOQSyrpdTV4sMY_ssevd79KVIFRSyLdQSTZIIiTaOfMrBiAGM FwbYySvIWNbs3MYTroN B_rR2vXfgkT jrvSNIbsHBYSUgem3hOrloQAg80n8PYjhOd84vd40Bk-ItgGg83hg2NEid59EwbCy05- XYoWug82VEw2Mj312QvfAGg80IvI3h08a_11nUjd Kf6OtsyvXvyU7G. Carrie Sheata Project Manager Colorado West Regulatory Branch Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 EXHIBIT �(1 November 11, 2015 G1 FOREST SERVICE Grand Junction District 2764 Compass Drive #238 Grand Junction, CO 81506 (970) 248-7325 Garfield County Community Development Department: I am writing in response to a request for the Colorado State Forest Service's comments on the River Edge Colorado PUD and Preliminary Plan Amendment application. After looking at the proposed location of the River Edge Colorado PUD, using aerial photos and looking through the application, the wildfire hazard rating is Low to Moderate. The wildfire hazard rating is based on the location of combustible vegetation on or near the property. Regardless of where the bulk of the vegetation is growing, an ember from a nearby wildfire could potentially land in a pile of dead leaves against a structure or in landscape plants, shrubs and ornamental grass, growing within five feet of a structure. Burning embers created by a wildfire can be carried by winds up to one mile; this is why I make the following suggestions: 1. Make the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards required for every proposed structure on the property. Our standards are found in a quick guide, Protecting Your Home from Wildfire, they can be viewed at: http://static.colostate.edu/client-files/csfs/pdfs/FIRE2012 1 DspaceQuickGuide.pdf. The area called Defensible Space has three zones. Zone One is where the bulk of the vegetation modification takes place. The size of Zone One is at least 30 feet, measured from the edge of the flammable part of the structure (roof line/porch). It can increase in size depending on the percent of the surrounding slope, as slope becomes steeper, the vegetation must be mitigated at a greater distance to compensate for the heat and wind moving up the slope. Within Zone One, several specific treatments are recommended: A) Plant no large shrubs or trees or allow any plants to grow within three to five feet of any structure. If landscaped grass (specifically low growing lawn grass) is allowed to grow in the area around the structure it must not grow taller than six inches. A large percent of structures are lost in a wildfire due embers landing in a bed of dead twigs/leaves/grass created by vegetation located next to the structure. This can be avoided by following Defensible Space standards and keeping the area around the structures maintained. B) There is an exception to the above rule if the structure(s) are built with non-combustible siding, such as rock or stucco. Widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs or other "fire -wise" plants are acceptable within three to five feet of the structure. These shrubs must be kept small, watered and given yearly maintenance to prevent any amount of dead leaves to accumulate. A fact sheet of FireWise plant material, no. 6.305, has been produced and can be found at the Colorado State University's Extension's webpage at www.ext.colostate.edu. There is also a publication on FireWise construction, design and materials that can be directly downloaded from the Colorado State Forest Service's website at http://static.colostate.edu/client- fi les/csfs/pdfs/fi rewise-construction 2012. pdf. C) It is ideal to remove all flammable vegetation, specifically native trees, in Zone One to reduce fire hazards. If a native tree is kept in Zone One it should be considered part of the structure and the zone extended out around it and the tree should be isolated from other surrounding trees by 30 plus feet. Landscaped trees, particularly deciduous species (leaves drop in fall) are allowed in Zone One as long as there are no shrubs growing beneath them which increases the amount of fuel available to the fire and the plants are on a watering system to insure adequate plant moisture. Zone Two is an area of fuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity (wind, heat, smoke) of any wildfire approaching the structure. This zone is an additional 70 feet of mitigation, for a total 100 mitigated feet. Within this zone, the following is recommended: A) Trees and shrubs should be thinned so there is at least a 15 foot space between the edges of tree crowns. Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch on one tree to the nearest tree branch on the neighboring tree. On steeper slopes, allow more space between tree crowns as fire moves faster uphill. B) Trees may be clumped together in twos or threes to create a more natural appearance, but adequate spacing between clumps must be maintained, 15 to 20 feet. C) Ladder fuels, such as small shrubs, young trees and very low growing branches, should be removed from beneath remaining trees. These fuels can feed a wildfire and produce greater heat and intensity. The main goal of defensible space is for a wildfire to encounter Zone Two, slow down its rate of movement and decrease its intensity, then encounter Zone One where combustible vegetation is minimal, therefore the wildfire cannot make direct contact with the structure and the wind will move the wildfire past without too much destruction to the vegetation. The secondary goal of a defensible space is to limit the available fuel for embers, which can be carried in from nearby wildfires. If the embers have do not have anything to catch fire, the homes have a better chance of survival. Defensible space is not a onetime activity; it must be maintained by the homeowner every year as vegetation continues to grow. Additional information from the Colorado State Forest Service can be found at our wildfire mitigation webpage, http://csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire-mitigation/ Please feel free to contact me by email at kamie.lonq(a�colostate.edu or at 970-248-7325 with any questions. `aocce 4649 Kamie Long Acting District Forester Grand Junction District Colorado State Forest Service Enclosures: Protecting Your Home from Wildfire quick guide (FIRE 2012-1), FireWise Plant Material fact sheet (6.305), FireWise Construction booklet David Pesnichak From: Jeff Nelson Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 3:51 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: rivers edge comments Attachments: potable water v2.pdf; potable water.pdf; trail location.pdf EXHIBIT 1 Dave, I only reviewed area related to the CR 113 - SH 82 project. I didnt have many comments. The site needs to be relative to the East side and existing trail locations. If proper permits are requied to be obtained, CDOT and R&B we can review in more detail at that time. See attached. Sincerely, Jeff Nelson Assistant County Engineer Garfield County 0375 County Road 352, Rifle, CO Jnelson@garfield-countv.com 970-625-5910 (Phone) CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. 1 1 1 "a u gg :b. 5i SHd= � is J • • T w Rte' _.✓' :..i az* al" 1 /, /; �. 1 Trail needs to connect to r' =� existing underpass 1) i� 1 r 3N WU� - —I N. 1 1 V I e 1 mommav w awcb x c: c,xn ✓. w�,c Ln. Sn 1lRe:5LTialvnl-dTc�ssi [.c�.rr:�>.IN�.\] 3�3Yi If boring sh 82 need util permit from cdot and garco road and bridge. Need more detail on where this will go and sizing. 1 • / / • 9, F R I..., 3 Y'P.Z orf • ,1 is It' 14,0 'Val , w Ga., s.xln/r 3rWll n iev iV'cS4t (\tea-3muM+.\ 3m. 3u • • 1,8 tI 8 • 8 9 a • Couldn't find separate package. This should be coordinated with future county project • g § ; el no, 1,06 o• stO• St[Oa 0 I I 1i. Qrsq,•1544-01,0 lit 33,15 .1171e Hor•I ,CO:ar, 4 =tato rft .4 c. c.c.tf./.. 3.11/31.• liTla ,..0.1,0,,,P,,,,,—..16,Pow c.c,no,..,••••••••,, 3••• 191 8 8 8 8 8 8 EXHIBIT David Pesnichak From: Dan Blankenship <dblankenship@rfta.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:41 PM To: David Pesnichak; David Johnson Cc: Mike Hermes; Angela Henderson; Jason White Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado (REC) - Referral - PUD/Prelim Plan Amendment David: Angela Henderson is working closely with the developer on this project, but she is on vacation until November 30th. I don't think that this topic will get to the RFTA Board for a decision prior to February or March, but Angela will have a better idea than I do about that. Thanks, Dan FIRE • EMS • RESCUE November 19, 2015 David Pesnichak Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment File Number PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214 Dear David: EXHIBIT 1 1% I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment. The application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC) 2009 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments. Access The proposed access to the development is acceptable. A relocation of the main entrance is proposed off Highway 82 along with two emergency vehicle accesses (EVAs). One EVA would connect from the south end of the development to Highway 82 and the second EVA would connect to the north through the existing H Lazy F mobile home park. Water Supplies for Fire Protections The proposed water system and fire hydrant locations are acceptable. The development will be serviced by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District through an expansion of the District's infrastructure. Improvements will include additional transmission lines along with an additional 400,000 gallon water storage to be located along County Road 110. Impact Fees The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $730.00 per unit. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance. Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 November 20, 2015 EXHIBIT David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department Vegetation Management RE: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPM -02-15-8214 Dear Dave, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Noxious Weeds Weed treatments -The applicant did initiate a weed treatment for county listed noxious weeds in early summer with a follow-up in late summer. Staff requests that the applicant continue this in 2016 with at least 2 treatments again. Please provide 2016 treatment records to the Vegetation Management Department by October 31, 2016. Open Space Manacement Plan (OSMP) - There is a statement on page 4 of the OSMP, item 5, that states that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State Noxious Weed Act." This implies that a cover of weeds of up to 5% is allowable. The 5% statement should be deleted or rewritten as a 5% foliar cover of noxious weeds is not acceptable. Revegetation Maps, landscape/reclamation plans, and plant material lists have been provided and are acceptable Staff requests a quantification of the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed that will require reseeding. These areas are typically road cut and utility disturbances. The surface area of disturbance to be reseeded determines the amount of revegetation security to guarantee that the work will be completed and vegetation reestablished. This situation is different than most because of the removal of topsoil in a large portion of the property about 11 years ago. I recommend a meeting between the applicant and the County to discuss the areas to be reseeded that would require a revegetation security. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the current County Weed IManagement Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone:: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 November 23, 2015 GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1430 RAILROAD AVENUE, UNIT F RIFLE, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 or (888) 627-3589 Fax (970) 625-0859 * TTY (800) 659-2656 TO: David Pesnichak, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department FROM: Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) RE: River Edge Colorado (REC) Preliminary Plan Amendment EXHIBIT Z GCHA has reviewed the REC Preliminary Plan Amendment request that understands that the applicant is proposing a reduction in the number of housing units from 366 to 362. The ratios for Affordable Housing Units are to stay the same and the Affordable Housing Agreement will reflect the reduction. The Affordable Housing Plan is still required to be completed at the first Final Plat in conformance with the Development Agreement. This reduction would trigger a corresponding reduction in the number of Affordable Housing Units from the current PUD requirement of 55 units to a total of 54 units. Incorporated in in these comments is the letter Dated May 31, 2011 from Geneva Powell to the Garfield County Planning Department. GCHA has no record of these issues having been addressed. Thank you. Katherine (Kate) T. Gazunis Executive Director Warning: Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, states that a person who knowingly and willingly makes false or fraudulent statements to any department or agency of the United States is guilty of a felony. This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer. GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1430 RAILROAD AVENUE Unit F RIFLE, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 Fax 970-625-0859 May 31,2011 TO: Kathy Eastley Garfield County Planning Dept. FROM: Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) REF: River Edge Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan, Affordable Housing Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) has reviewed River Edge PUD and understands that the applicant proposes 55 affordable housing (AFI) units to be built over 11 phases or 5 AH units per phase. Homes are clustered into 3 tracks in the PUD. GCHA offers the following comments: On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) the applicant requires presales before building AH units. There is no precedent for this in the County's guidelines. Would the applicant be released from his obligation to build the AH units if there were no qualified buyer within the applicants timeframe? GCHA believes that flexibility from both the applicant and the guidelines would be of benefit to potential buyers of these AH units. Currently, the downturn in the economy and the tightening of the lending industry has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted. We cannot foresee this trend during the build out of this development over the next 10 to 20 years. On Page 5, paragraph 5 of the AHPA the applicant provides 3 categories of pricing for the AH units. The applicant proposes to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI instead of the maximum 120% AMI allowed in the County's guidelines. GCHA views this as opening the buyer pool to a larger population while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% AMI to 110% AMI. If the exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate these pricing categories, GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Edge. On Page 6, paragraph 9 of the AHPA applicant proposes option of renting AH homes if not sold within the 120 days. This is not addressed in County's guidelines. However, this is an interesting proposal as it is the intent of the program that each AH unit be occupied by a qualified family. Hallowed, the rents would need to be below market rent to maintain the unit as affordable to families within lower AMIs. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; If the units are rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the developer the property manager for the rental? Additional comments on the AHPA are: Could the AHPA be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build out schedule? Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase? Are all 5 AH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started? Would applicant consider designing an aspect to the AH homes that would permit owners to improve their equity by finishing or improving the home (basements, carports, decks etc)? GCHA continues to look over the Declaration of Deed Restriction that was provided by the applicant and may offer some comments before final recordation. Sincerely, Geneva Powell Executive Director Garfield County Housing Authority 1430 Railroad Avenue, Unit F Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 Rifle (970) 625-0859 Rifle Fax (970) 945-8082 Glenwood www.garfieldhousinq.com November 24, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT Z RE: Review of River Edge Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment Applications: PDAA- 02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214 Dear David: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment Applications for River Edge. The submittals were found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. No easement exists across the adjacent parcels for the proposed main entrance or for the southern Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). 2. The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to the subdivision: 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. 3. Similarly, 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. Other land use approvals may be necessary with Garfield County and the CDPHE to provide sewer treatment. 4. The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR from FEMA depending on its impact to the floodplain. 5. The Applicant proposes a main entrance that is permitted by CDOT however a Notice to Proceed has not yet been issued. Additionally, the Applicant does not provide sufficient evidence that RFTA has approved the RFTA crossing of Terrace Parkway at the proposed relocated entrance. 8261/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com River Ede Page 2 of 3 November, 2015 6. It is unclear when signalization for the main entrance is proposed to occur. The Applicant should clarify the timing of the signal installation. 7. 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. 8. The Application materials do not have a CDOT access permit or NTP for the southern EVA. The Applicant should coordinate with CDOT to verify the feasibility of this. 9. Additional parking should be provided for the ball fields and playgrounds in the active recreation areas. 10. The traffic calming island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate this. 11. An engineered pavement design should be provided based on project specific soils. 12. 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. 13. The north EVA access proposes to connect to CR154. Garfield County driveway permitting may be required. The Applicant should coordinate with Road and Bridge. 14. The Applicant should coordinate with CDOT and RFTA for incorporation of comments to the proposed trail and roadway connections as well as review of the proposed plans. 15. 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. Amore detailed itemization of the individual costs would usually be required to justify security amounts for an SIA. 16. 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. 17. The Applicant should design the release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality ponds. 18. The plans and specifications concerning sewer and water will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that option is pursued. 19. Storm drain culvert labels are not shown in the plans. 20. The storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI parcel get into culvert c76 -a. 21. Miscellaneous fire hydrants are shown throughout the development without any connection shown to the proposed water lines. The Applicant should clarify the connection, purpose, and need of these hydrants. 22. On Trailside Drive, the water line is shown as conflicting with the Glenwood Ditch piping. 23. On Riverside Drive, the water line conflicts with the 36" storm drain culvert. 24. The construction will require a NPDES permit from the CDPHE. 25. 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. Mountain Cross Engineering. Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 '/z Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com River Ede Page 3 of 3 November, 2015 26. 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. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mount Cross Engin: erin_nc. Chris Hale, PE Mountain Cross Engineering. Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 8261/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: November 25, 2015 EXHIBIT 1 1Z3 Re: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214 Sections 7 & 16, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM Section 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to amend a Planned Unit Development (PUD), previously approved in 2011, for a residential development on 160 acres. The purpose of this amendment is to accommodate the relocation of the access to and from State Highway 82. From the submitted materials, it appears the amended proposal will now include 362 residential units of various sizes and types (previously 366 were proposed), 40.60 acres of open space, 17.34 acres of common area, and 17.34 acres of parks. The proposed source of water for the PUD continues to be through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District). The applicant obtained water rights and an augmentation plan decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in case nos. 01CW187, 07CW164 and 08CW198. A Pre -Inclusion Agreement has been signed by the applicant and the District, where upon inclusion of the property in the District, the Applicant shall convey to the District the water rights and plan for augmentation decreed in the referenced court cases. As the information in the materials submitted for this amendment did not include any details on the water supply other than a copy of the signed Pre -Inclusion Agreement, this office presumes the information provided in the previous referral from 2011 is still pertinent. As proposed in the referenced court cases, if a pre -inclusion agreement is executed, potable water will be provided through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District. Sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment will also be provided by the District. From that previous referral, the applicant anticipated a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 01CW187 and amended in court case no. 08CW198, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation with potable water, using an assumption of 350 gpd per EQR. The annual demand for in-house 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us b Com *8776 David Pesnichak, Garfield County Building and Planning River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment P DAA -02-15-8212 and P PAA -02-15-8214 November 25, 2015 Page 2 purposes and irrigation totals 143.90 acre-feet. Of that, 12.95 acre feet would be consumed, which is based on an in-house consumptive use rate of 5% through a central wastewater treatment plant and an 80% irrigation efficiency. The third court case, case no. 07CW164, allows for an additional 850.45 ERQs using a 350 gpd per EQR assumption, and 4 acres of irrigation using potable water. The total in-house and irrigation demand for these additional EQRs and acreage is 342.57 acre-feet. Of that amount, 25.17 would be consumed, based on the same consumptive use rates as the other decrees. Finally, from the previous referral, the applicant anticipated a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the previous referral, the applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01CW189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 — 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these ditches. The State Engineer offers the opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights so long the Applicant and District operate the water supply in accordance with the decreed terms and conditions in cases 01CW187, 07CW164 and 08CW198. In addition, so long as the applicant continues the preclusion agreement with the District that allows for the utilization of the District's infrastructure, this office finds that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 303-866-3581. Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MAS/ RiverEdge_PUDAmendment.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45 555 Street Address, Room 555, Denver, CO 55555-5555 P 555.555.5555 EXHIBIT 1zy Garfield County Road & Bridge 12/2/2015 River Edge —Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment The North secondary emergency vehicle access would not require any permits from Garfield County Road and Bridge. Access is through multiple private ownership property and permission would have to be granted through them to reach Country Road 154. Attached is a map showing the private property access route. Would like to see details of Highway 82 pedestrian and bicycle underpass as it ties into County Road 113 (Cattle Creek). Who will be responsible for maintenance of this path? The intersection of Cattle Creek and Hwy 82 is a safety concern. With moving the main access North and creating a new access (Terrance Parkway) may add a wider area of concern. Aligning the main entrance with Cattle Creek intersection may keep traffic confined to one area. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this project. Mike Prehm Garfield County R&B Foreman Glenwood District Office (970) 945-1223 Fax. (970) 945-1318 Google earth feet' meters 1000 300 A COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 3 Traffic Section 222 South 6th Street Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 683-6284 Fax: (970) 683-6290 December 2, 2015 «<Email»> David Pesnichak, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: SH 82 and River Edge Colorado Development Dear David Pesnichak: The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan and River edge Colorado Planned United Development Plan. Comments: Access Permit #313037: CDOT has issued an access permit #313037 for River Edge PUD. The traffic volume for this permit is 275 DHV (design hourly volume). The access permit will expire January 16, 2016. The applicant may extend the permit for one additional year. If the project isn't built by January 2017, the access permit would expire. However, CDOT would offer a similar permit if the applicant proposed similar uses. 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. The access permit states all other access to this property would be closed including any field approaches or other vehicular access. This permit is to provide long-term access to Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC property. pF-Cot 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290 www.coloradodot.Info I '1( t\s 9nl, 1876 Pedestrian Underpass: It is vital to the transportation concept of a Continuous Green Intersection to provide a grade separated pedestrian crossing of State Highway 82. The access permit requires a pedestrian underpass with this project. There is a cattle passage approximately 300' south of Cattle Creek. 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. 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. Emergency Access: CDOT has discussed with the River Edge Colorado representative 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. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully, �..•°"�^- '�'`+. ,- kf •" rte. Region 3 Permit Unit Manager Cc: Tamra Allen, Garfield County Community Development Manager (Electronically) Fred Jarman, Garfield County Community Development Director (Electronically) 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290 www.coloradodot.Info of coz ,. O;1 Garfield County MEMO EXHIBIT COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 TO: David Pesnichak and Tamra Allen FROM: Kelly Cave RE: Legal Review of Supplemental Information for River Edge Colorado (REC) File Numbers PDAA-8212 and PPAA-8214 DATE: December 28, 2015 ISSUE: Review Easements associated with REC CONCLUSION: Easements Are Not Completed DISCUSSION You asked me to review three easements: 1) the draft easement for Terrace Parkway main entrance, 2) the emergency access easement with H Lazy F, LLC recorded as Reception Number 760451 ("H Lazy F Easement"), and 3) the proposed access (no draft provided) over Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) property on the southern portion of REC. The Terrace Parkway proposed easement is acceptable. Outstanding issues still need to be finalized with CDOT and RFTA regarding permits and crossings. Since legal access is a requirement for the subdivision, I would prefer a final recorded easement and formal approval from CDOT and RFTA. However, I understand the applicant's request to delay the final easement until approval is received. I recommend conditioning the approvals upon the review and approval of the Terrace Parkway easement, including, without limitation, any permits or approval required by CDOT and RFTA, by the County Attorney's office prior to final approval. The H Lazy F Easement is difficult to understand. Exhibit C was not recorded with the easement. As such, it is unclear where the easement is located. Recital C of the Hazy Lazy F Easement states that County Road 167 is a public road that provides access to HLF Property. However, the easement granted to REC does not connect with County Road 167. Page 1 of 5 Further clarification is needed. If the easement connects with the private roads owned by private parties, additional easements will be required. I recommend asking the applicant to revise this easement to better depict the easement granted, attach an Exhibit C, and record the same. The proposed access to the southernmost portion of the subdivision is only in the initial stages. A permit from CDOT and approval from RFTA have not been completed. I recommend conditioning the approvals upon the review and approval of the southern emergency access easement by the County Attorney's office prior to final approval. ISSUE: Review Revised PUD Guide CONCLUSION: Acceptable DISCUSSION The redline of the PUD Guide did not make substantial changes to the main document previously approved by Resolution No. 2011-84. The attached appendices were revised, but without redline review. I did not review the appendices. ISSUE: Whether to Terminate, Amend, or Restate the Memorandum of Understanding Recorded as Reception No. 824971 (MOU) CONCLUSION: Termination Recommended; Further Discussion with Applicant and Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (Board) Needed DISCUSSION 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. REC proposes a certificate of completion for the MOU. Rather than a certification of completion, staff recommends a termination of the MOU. The entire MOU was not "completed," and therefore, a mutually agreed to termination is more acceptable. 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. Page 2 of 5 ISSUE: Review of Pre -Inclusion Agreement with Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and Development of the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District CONCLUSION: Recommend Removing GCCI from REC's water and sewer service agreements DISCUSSION The Pre -Inclusion Agreement with RFWSD was executed with Carbondale Investments, LLC (CI) and Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC (GCCI). GCCI owns property to the north of the REC subdivision. The Pre -Inclusion Agreement allocates 375 EQRs for CI and 375 EQRs for GCCI. Sewer treatment is also provided for both parcels. 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. This could be a condition of approval. Finally, a location and extent application may be needed from Garfield County to provide the services and should be a condition of approval. ISSUE: Review Revised Development Agreement CONCLUSION: Potential Issue with Prior Approved Section 2(c) DISCUSSION The prior Development Agreement included provision 2(c) which states the following: The Parties acknowledge and agree that any request by Developer to alter the sequence of Filings set forth in the Phasing Plan shall be treated as a non -substantial modification to the REC PUD. C.R.S. Section 24-67-106(2)(b) provides that no substantial modification of the provisions of the plan by the county shall be permitted except upon a finding by the county following a public hearing called and held in accordance with provisions of section C.R.S. Section 24-67-104(1)(e) that the modification is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer benefit upon a person. 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. Page 3 of 5 However, this was previously approved so I do not believe we have a strong argument to request its removal at this stage. Further discussion is needed on this topic with staff. Other than the above discussion, the redline of the Development Agreement is acceptable. ISSUE: Review Revised Phase 0 Improvements Agreement CONCLUSION: Need Construction Plans Attached or Recorded and Referenced DISCUSSION Recital 6 of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement references the Construction Phasing Plan, but does not attach it to the Agreement as an exhibit. I recommend attaching the Construction Phasing Plan as an exhibit. Construction Plans are referenced in paragraph 2. The Construction Plans should be recorded or attached for clarification. 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. A third party agreement with the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District has been added to Recital 7. A draft of such agreement and further explanation of how the landowner and District are incorporated is needed. As stated above, it is not desirable to have the CI parcel tied in with the GCCI development for water and sewer services. 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. The other redlines in the Agreement are acceptable. ISSUE: 2008 Land Use Code Versus 2013 Land Use Code CONCLUSION: Need Clarification that Future Modifications Are Reviewed Under the Current Land Use Code In Effect at that Time DISCUSSION There is some confusion concerning which land use code applies to these applications and to future review by the County. For example, the Development Agreement terminates in 2016. This document grants the applicant vested rights under a particular land use code at the time of Page 4 of 5 approval (i.e. the 2008 land use code). If deadlines are modified on documents previously approved under the 2008 land use code, these documents will need to be amended to utilize the current land use code. Additionally, future amendments of these documents should be reviewed with the then applicable land use code. 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." Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. �✓ My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. v' Mailed notice was completed on the 30 day of November , 2015. V All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. Y All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] Mineral Owner Research executed by BHFS. Memorandum (updated 9/4/2015) included in submittal package ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. nMy application required Published notice. Notice was published on the 3 day of December , 2015. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. (� I My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the 20 day of November , 2015. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. 1 testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: Mike Cerbo, Galloway & Co. Inc. Signature: Date: 12/28/2015 Ad Name: 11730595D Customer: Galloway Your account number is: 2582448 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE RIFLE CITII[Z TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 12/3/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 12/3/2015 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto . y hand this 12/04/2015. Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 12/04/2015. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. SCHULTZ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19594030875 �My COMMiSteorc Expires November 1.2010 1 EXHIBIT rR Ln m ru D D D D 0 m ra m Cr m rU D D 0-' m 4-1 Dime lira .. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pnstaae F. Fees Postmark Here Sent Tc HERRING FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLLP Streetr or PO i 31825 HIGHWAY 6 SILT, CO 81652 City, St For delivery information, visit our. website atfwww.usps.com". Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Prune.,... n. e.... Sent btre® or PC City, HADAR, JOHN B 1108 13TH ST N HUMBOLDT, IA 50548-1130 �ksI CERTIFIED. , 4 Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our (1) N ra t� m R1 D D D D m ea D r - m ru a LP) m ru D D 1= 0' m 1a Ic1 N Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total �,_......... " c,..,., GRIEFENBERG, BERT & PORTIA PO BOX 995 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0995 r-1 tun m ru D D m a D EXHIBIT ZCi Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Po-'--- " `"- Sent To Street & or PO Bo. N c r Postrn Her HOWE, JOHN J & HEATHER D 552 COUNTY ROAD 110 City, Stet, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 J- ost e v �'.' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mal! OnIX rn lions! 01 ist eitinieb Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Tot; Sent Utree or PC City, Ps`E U.S.Postal Servicerm $ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT ASPEN GLEN 0080 BALD EAGLE WAY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only For delivery information,"ylslt our bsite at www.usps:com". Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Feo (Endorsement Required) Tota' Sent Strew or PC City, $ GREMEL HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 557 EMERY, UT 84522 N C3 Lfl rR m ru D D D D ir m CI r-1 14- U) 1-9 111 m r1-1 D D Cr zI- rn D 1-9 L.r1 rR LT) rn ru D N r II tet"' Postage Certified Fes Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Totr — Sent STEELE, W E & V M FAMILY LLLP Stret PO BOX 1507 or PC city GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-1507 ,NefestrI,AN4.4ga., r -R ru r- Lri Lfl rn ru D D D 7014 3490 U.S. Postal ServiceT" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our webs te at ww.uspa,:one, Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Feo (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pegtgre..12. POGNQ Sent It Street or PO City, St CDOT REGION 3 222 SOUTH 6TH STREET #317 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 tvitlie Miry' inforrnatiiinoils totir *et* ' 7' MOIL Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pngbann P Frteg Sent Stree or PC City, s cy He Postrytk YORK, RONALD A & DENISE D 18091 RIVER CHASE COURT ALVA, FL 33920 PS • Postal Servioe'm „CERtEEDM4iLEi® -,Lktittitstic Afaii Offly For delivery Information, visit our wet/site at .usi3s.com°. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pastan. Sent To Street & or PO Ba. -CitY-Sieje PS FOFITI cp o td Postireirk Herr) cr. '7. G 0 WAECHTLER, DONALD G & BONNIE F 7916 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9307 co u-) m Dom mestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website n( www.usps.omo. C) h N 4fr Postage Certified Feo nJ D Return Receipt Fee c3 (Endorsement Required) D 7014 3490 7014 3490 0002 Restricted Delivery Feo (Endorsement Required) Total Posta cie & Feeg Sent To Street 1 or PO f City, St! 16, RUDD, WAYNE 0132 PARK AVE BASALT, CO 81621 U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com,,. = Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Sent Tc or PO 1 City St c•-• Postmark Heroi WESTERN MOBILE NORTHERN, INC. C/0 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP INC -DBA UNITED COMPANIES PO BOX 3609 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502 D ,.n 1.11 t1'I m ru D G7 D m r9 D N co N to to ra Lr) m ru D CI CJ CI m rR D N 7014 3490 0002 3514 Postage Certified Foo Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total F Sent To Street & or POB City, Ste PS For Lis. Posta CERTIFIED Domestic Mail Ort r) Postmark dere r ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT PO BOX 326 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pr - " Sent To Street &, or PO Bc City, Stat "t N , G7 o Postmark Hera CO KENEALY, MICHAEL E & PENNY L 554 COUNTY ROAD 110 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Sent To Street & or POB City, Sra o • ("Postmark vii-tere /: ) MSLHS PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 944 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 N rq r -R m rU D D D D 0 m ra D N ✓ u tr u1 rR L r) m ru D D D m r-1 N rR Ji LI) tri rR u-) m ru D C1 D D tr m ra D N For dedxery information, visit our website at www.usps.coma. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total P^r^^^ z Faso ASPEN GLEN WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT 9929 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-9682 Sent To Street t or PO E City Stz Postmark C Here LOWAILio U.S. Postal, ServieTM CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Dtpmesttc Mrail;Pn�Yf ¢ ... q , Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total F Sent Tc Street i or PO City, St 6 Aestmafk Here PAYNE, JOHANNA S & WAYNE S PO BOX 8198 ASPEN, CO 81612-8198 For cfeilv_� ro?oration, visit our website rtt www.osps.como. R s Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Sent T, IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC 1007 WESTBANK ROAD GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Street or PO City S D Lfl r-4 ts) m ru D rr m rR tic 1144211 on 3/ potties For dolive InformatIONvtit Outurebsite t ,s$,IstAt. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pontne,r. (?. N m r1 Lfl FF1 ru D D C:t D tr rn r -n Li" 1-3 m RI D D 0 m cJr- Sent To treet & or PO (3, City, Sta, CZ1 iNkstmark Pere B P INVESTMENTS, LLC 855 ROSE LANE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 e erse Or Instructions,.. liff00004#04C41111110, e for dettlidrY iditirMatiddllisketdr,Webditdat ; Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total F ent To Street I Or PO E City, St $ 871 3 AMERIGAS PROPANE LP 460 NORTH GULPH ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 PS For tictione U.S. Postal Seirviceim CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT , Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our siebr,itia Pt tvviiv.usp:: -5 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total F Sent To or PO City, Sti t"'") "Post Here ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 530 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 PS For , k uctiorts Lfl Lf1 Ifl .1" r-9 m ru D D D D m rn Ul (-1 LS) m ru D D 0 m r -q N L.f) Lfl rrt ru D (=I D D rr Total Postann FARC m Sent 10 r -q N U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com', 5 44'4, kAJ Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total F Sent To Street E or PO E City, Sh HUNT, DORIS M FAMILY TRUST DATED AUGUST 28, 2000 0329 CORYELL RIDGE ROAD GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 U.S. Postal Service' IPT Fordeftveri infonuatiakvisit out iti)bitteut Otw0000.00, 04, ic< 1,0 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pnonni. P... Sent To Street & or PO B City, St6 .71 CJ O (,) P ASPEN EQUITY GROUP LLC PO BOX 1439 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 PS For U.S. Postal Serviceim CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only oar ere For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps,dom1;„ -44k Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Street 5. or PO Elc City, Stat PS Forni ,r) cpc stmark Here a. RUDD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 132 PARK AVE BASALT, CO 81621 ctions sitter's'. ru ru r3 LI) m C:1 Irrn N 'ti gt • ietret.e. te,gir et.eei...tereeeire. Stratiaaribrit initiettettirtkitti oratiorzommowirt 1.,*(thiMatr: Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) IWO Total Postaon s. Street or PO E C) 111=F *Postmark c Here C•-• TELLER SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 720 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-2071 0"; For delivery intorrnatIon, visit our Website at wwwespa.com`t. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pr ' Sent 15- -Sti‘et & or PO Sc City Stet Postmar t Here ce•-•• SHERICK, GEORGE W & JERI L 2550 COUNTY ROAD 109 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 fekeririe70 YYP'SrliP.4" For delivery information, visit our website at ivww.usps„core. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postorie k Fees 5R 1.0.) eie Postm Her Sent Street or PO GOLUBA, NICHOLAS JR & JUNE E 485 COUNTY ROAD 167 city.' GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9335 Cr. Lfl -n u1 r -R Lr) R.1 Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIP Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.ustos,Ootht. Postage Certified Fee D ri- m rR 1=1 N Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postane s Fee= 5t Sent To Street tS or P05 Coy. SU C'S For U.S. Postal Servicerm CERTIFIED MAtL® RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only 55 Frnark ere L C, I VILLIERE, TIMOTHY P & SUSAN 280 LARIET LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9657 --- • ...... iictions For delivery information, visit our website at www.uses.coino, • 5 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total "--- Sent T Street or PO CO, S u c==. Postm Here eee 1) REINARZ, BERNADETTE F TRUST 1110 COUNTY ROAD 110 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 For delivery information,visit our website at www.usi2s.corno. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total " • Sent li Street or PO City. 5 PERKINS, MELVIN L & PHYLLIS M 448 COUNTY ROAD 110 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9604 .. ru u-3 Lfl m RI D D D D m D r•- tzsi,, -4,-"ttort, ";14 l:kyrnestic Mall Only For delivery information, visit our website at isnomusps.corill'. d" • d Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Sir Or 1 GLEASON, WALTER M ESTATE OF C/0 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP INC -DBA UNITED COMPANIES PO BOX 3609 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502 Foo.lorcii,!:INtsiorrOltr'W;:et‘ CERTIFIED MAIL ° RECEI Domestic Mail Only For delivery Information, visit our website at www.usps.cone. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Po^.— Sent To Street & or PO a City, Ste ark e GARFIELD COUNTY 108 8TH STREET, SUITE 213 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-3363 For delivery information, visit our website at www.treps.com 241 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pn.tae.k ) BURRY RANCH LLLP 9175 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ru L.11 .=" rR Lfl P1 rU D D 1-9 N Domestic Maft Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps,com°. Postage Certilled Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Sent 1 Street or PO $ e, it; 0 Pos- tmark Here BAYMAR HOTELS & PROPERTIES INC 1111 KANE CONCORSE #211 BAY HARBOR ISLANDS, FL 33154 D m I-9 D rR rn Ln 1-4 111 P1 nJ D D crm D N- For delivery Information, visit our Website at wwwusps.como. Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Sent Tc Street , or PO 1 City SI 0 2• i 1 CsJ Postrnar Here C. 0 o.) CLAASSEN, TERRENCE C & LARA 650 LARIAT LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PS Per U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mali Only ructions. For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.como, 64 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postano & Fees !t '•) 6r7 cs- (P,..i?- stmark Here Sent To BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, C/O street& COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE or PO 13 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, CO 81652 Clly, Sic 0 cOf to stione nvestments E 0 4- a) EXHIBIT 1 o c ^0 U N a) 0 0 (13 U 0 J a) a, 4- 0 m c (S co -o (13 ,Ln 0 4- 0 V) a) 4J CU 4- 0 nvestm e nts Lf c—I 1 O CA N 1 . O N m O - cla Q CU _o a. O co z U 0) (1) Li0 0 CO C c 0 CO 0_I- L - • v u -0 N Q.) C o C 0 0 COU 0 0 J 4J cn N CU a) Li0 Ln north of the Cattle Creek Access Road. nvestments o_ V a1 tan(Z L v o v A:I •N E v - N .� tin Q o .� `, a 0 p bw C +' C N C CI •--, 0) • L CU . -+ L + QJ } • L- ICI L +J ° 0 Q O C 'O CO Q 7 O fr O N 0 L W LL CO" E 0 = U co U LOCATION OF ON- z N W c 0 0 U N CU c 0 117, c3 U 0 c bD 4, c.n 0 nvestments CO 0 co U N c 0 cL L� LLJ 1 nvestments LI) CN 1 O OD N C 1 N O " co 0 0 = U co U U c .• O E O .� -6 v Uv) o - co c c on O @ N U U N O CU ILi- C O U S.- @ v a 1 1-1- 0 0 -C 0- +., 0 nvestments m 1 O bA � 1 ._ L1� ; O - CU ra- O -c) eLz co U co 4- t- ao O c• O N 00 'L - c6 U V) v o ao O E co U O v .> nvest m e nts ca O O O N Q 00 N N • 03 _ C_c O rro roo o co� J N v SD L N 0 • N v c -c nvestments W co -oc 0 ID L_ co U m 1 tiOC 4; ^^0 .0 tipcu tit0 aJ O --V (B C7 vi tip C v c c a). L-4 " � u v 0 O Q nvestments n to on U E. 2 CO O N .47 -,OO v — ca -' CU C N 0 tbJD . — C ..... C O C ca L U coL co O 4— -' Q.) v '> o N v �� i.7) L ttO C N 0 0_ COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 December 31, 2015 EXHIBIT David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214 Sections 7 & 16, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM Section 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: We have reviewed the information available regarding the potential water supply for the executive lot located in above -referenced Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a residential development on 160 acres. As indicated in our letter of November 25, 2015, the source of water for the development was indicated by the applicant to be the through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District. However, from the preliminary plans it appears that the water and sewer lines may not extend to the executive lot at the southern end of the development. While it is not clear what the purpose is for the executive lot or if it would require a water supply, the lack of water and sewer lines raises the question what would be the water supply for that lot should one be necessary. From our records there is no permitted production well on or nearby the executive lot. If the applicant intends in the future to provide water to that lot from a well, then Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. The source of a well within this development would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. This area of the Colorado River is over -appropriated; therefore, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of any wells within the subdivision. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 303-866-3581. Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MAS/ RiverEdge_PUDAmendment_executivelot.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us David Pesnichak From: Louis Meyer <LouisM@sgm-inc.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:46 PM To: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak Cc: Scott Grosscup; Tonya Uren; Alan Leslie - EPC Subject: RE: River Edge PUD amendment and Preliminary Plan amendment Hello Tamra and David, I am responding as the District Engineer for the RFWSD. The District has committed to providing water and wastewater service to Rivers Edge through the terms of the Pre Inclusion Agreement and as per the terms of the current Service Plan Amendment approved by Garfield County. The District has not completed the review of this application in detail in part because the current application in front of GARCO states: "Cl seeks to preserve the opportunity to construct, own and operate its own centralized water and sewer systems, or alternatively to develop its owr3 centralized water system but to connect its sewer system to the Roaring Fork Districts existing sewer plant....". Further the application states: "Both water and sewer service will be provided through centralized systems, owned and operated by either the POA or the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (the "Roaring Fork District"). Preliminary engineering suggests that either alternative is technically feasible. However, feasibility involves more than the ability to build collection and distribution systems and treatment plants. Ultimately, feasibility involves consideration of such issues as water conservation, water rights utilization, stream flow, water quality, and economics, including the financial burden on the Project, the imposition of protracted and unduly expensive permitting requirements, and the existence of unwarranted environmental impacts. The decision of which of these entities will own and operate the water and sewer systems is dependent upon the outcome of the ongoing negotiations between Cl and the Roaring Fork District over the terms of a pre -inclusion agreement for the Project and a complete feasibility assessment by Ci based on the information provided by the Roaring Fork District through these negotiations such that the feasibility of the Roaring Fork District system may be assessed against the alternative POA system in accordance with accepted CDPHE standards. The nearest point of connection from the Project to the Roaring Fork District's existing sewage treatment plant is 1,000 feet and the District's nearest water source with capacity to serve to the Project is located over 10,000 feet from the Project, both significantly exceeding the County's standard for adjacency. In addition, the Roaring Fork District's existing wastewater plant does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project and, therefore, CI will be required to finance an additional new phase of the plant." "CI seeks to reserve the opportunity to develop its own wastewater treatment plant on the west side of the Roaring Fork River, to be owned and operated by the POA, with the expectation that the facility, as well as all associated sewer lines and lift stations, will be transferred to a special district approved for the Project". The District is unclear which option the applicant is proposing in this application. Because of the uncertainty for the water and wastewater service provider and the lack of detail in the offsite infrastructure we have not proceeded with a detailed review of the onsite infrastructure enclosed in this application. The RFWSD has maintained a clear policy over the years that it will only provide service if it includes both water and wastewater. It is likely that with the new HWY 82 access and intersection being proposed in this application, that the routing of the offsite infrastructure may change should the applicant choose the RFWSD as the water and wastewater provider. These issues will be discussed with the RFWSD Board on January 19th. Further technical referral comments can be provided to GARCO after the RFWSD Board has provided direction. Louis From: Tamra Allen [mailto:tallen@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:29 PM To: Louis Meyer Cc: David Pesnichak Subject: River Edge Louis — Hello and Happy New Year! I visited with David Pesnichak earlier today regarding your conversation with him about the status of RFWSD's obligations/commitments to serve the proposed River Edge development. Because this is relatively technical area of the application, it would be greatly appreciated if RFWSD had someone available at the meeting that could provide input on any technical shortcomings or any other issue that have been identified (eg.lack of engineering) that may be problematic or otherwise inhibit the ability for RFWSD to provide water and sewer service to this development. As I believe David conveyed, the Application indicates that they will be connecting the RFWSD for these services and thus having these services lined out is a key component of a Preliminary Plan review. Please feel free to contact me directly this afternoon if you would like to discuss. Thank you, Tamra Allen, Planning Manager Garfield County, Colorado tallen@garfield-countv.com (970)945-1377 x1630 2