Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 11.11.97G@PV APPLICANT PLANNERS: GEOLOGIST; SITE DATA: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Proposed Land Use Districts map for Study Area I shows the subject site as within both a High Density Residential (two or fewer acres per dwelling unit) district and Low Density (more than l0 aces per dwelling unit) district. The designation of high density is based upon the availability of central water and central sewer service to the subject site. The low density designations are located along the river corridor and west of County Road 109. PC tU1tl97 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan review for the Rose Ranch application Roaring Fork Investments, L. L. C. Norris Dullea Company High Country Engineering, Inc. - civil and traffic Zancanella and Associates, Inc. - water MTI GEO and Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. - supplemental report submitted past the extended deadline. An operating ranch located west of the Roaring Fork River, approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs. Section 1 and 12, Township 75, Range 89W. A 440 acre tract to be subdivided into 354 units and an associated golf facility with additional recreational and open space amenities. Historic Consumptive Use Credits, Glenwood Ditch, and West Divide Water Conservancy Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District County Road 109 and State Highway 82 Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density PUD subdivision to the north A/R/RD and Open space to the south A/R/RD to the west A/R/RD and Commercial to the east il. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: The subject site contains an active ranch to the east of County Road 109 and steeply sloped bluffs and undeveloped terrain to the west of County Road 109 which is considered range land. The land along the Roaring Fork Valley to the east is gently sloping while the land west of County Road 109 is steeply sloping above 60Yo. Yegetation on the site consists predominantly of sage with juniper trees. The site contains various buildings associated with the household and the ranching operations. An abandoned railroad grade traverses the property to the east. B. Adjacent Land Uses: West Bank Planned Unit Development is located to the north of the property and Teller Springs Subdivision is located to the south. The Roaring Fork River forms the eastern boundary of the site and the western boundary of the site is bordered by land zoned agricultural. C. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create a Planned Unit Development which will consist of 354 units, including both 287 single family dwellings and 67 duplex units, on a 440 acre tract. The site will also contain a golf course with associated facilities including a restaurant and maintenance building Additional recreational amenities are proposed including a floaters' park, fishing park, trails, and an active recreation park. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS l. Division of Wildlife: The State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife reported elk winter range over most of the site and severe winter range west of County Road (CR) 109 and east of 109. The report also notes mule deer winter range and severe winter range west of CR 109. Black bear and mountain lion are also noted as inhabiting the area west of CR 109. Aside from big game, the riparian habitat is also noted has home to owls, raptors, and eagles including a golden eagle nest site. The east side of the river is pointed out as an active great blue heron rookery which is the largest and one of the last viable rookeries on the Roaring Fork River. Bald eagles, an endangered species, also utilize the heron rookery during the winter months. The report states that "Eagle use and presence in this valley [are] determined by the effectiveness of the riparian habitat to provide adequate feeding, roost, and perch sites. These areas become less effective with development pressures and associated disturbance as the areas along the river [are] developed." See Exhibit A. The report points out impacts including the following: ' Use of the great blue heron rookery areas by the rafting companies during the nesting period of March 15 through July l5 will cause abandonment of the rookery. III. ' Herons will most likely abandon the nests in the tree on the west side of the river due to the close proximity of homes and associated disturbance. ' Use of the overlook trail west of CR 109 may disrupt golden eagle nesting and cause abandonment of the nest site. See Exhibit A. The report lists design modifications including the following: ' Maintain and preserve the Floaters Park area in its natural habitat. ' Relocate the fishing park farther north. ' Seasonal closure of the area west of CR 109 to human activity including the Active Recreation Park. ' Relocate the Active Recreation Park adjacent to CR 109. ' Move the overlook location and the trail to the north. ' Provide a 50-foot setback from the wetlands to the home-site. ' ImPose as a condition of any approval the measures to limit dog disturbances including the placement of fencing and an interior kennel on home-sites with dogs. ' No tree removal along the riparian, wetland, and flood plain areas.> Plating of vegetative screening along the east to the west wildlife corridor. ' Distribution of brochures on living with wildlife to all residents as part of the homeowners' information. See Exhibit A. 2. Colorado Geological Survey: The State of Colorado Geological Survey cannot recommend approval of the application due to incomplete data submission on the geology of the site and until such data becomes available for their review. The second geological report arrived on Tuesday, 4 November 1997 which was passed the submission deadline of 26 September 1997 for supplemental data. See Exhibit B The report notes the following potential geologic hazards: ' Severe hydrocompactive soil properties problematic for roadways and slab on grade pavements.> Potential ground subsidence in the majority of the alluvial fans where development is proposed resulting in ground subsidence, sinkholes, and ground fissuring and piping soil dissolution.> Potential ground settlement and subsidence in the residential areas surrounding the proposed ponds within the alluvial fan areas due to severe wetting of these hydrocompactive soils by the ponds. See Exhibit B. The report recommends the following measures. ' The applicant should prepare a Debris Flow Drainage and Mitigation Plan during the sketch plan process. ' The applicant should resubmit the sketch plan for review when the additional geotechnical report is made available to the Colorado Geological Survey. ' The applicant should avoid placing ponds on the site to deter potential collapsing of soils adjacent to the ponds. See Exhibit B. 3. Division of Water Resources: The State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resources finds that "the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." An augmentation plan has not been filed with the water court as of the date of this report. See Exhibit C. 4. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District noted its standard concerns regarding re-vegetation of road cuts to prevent erosion, control of animals where wildlife is present, mitigation of impacts on wetlands, use of raw water for outdoor use which will be incorporated into the infrastructure of the subdivision plans, controls of drainage, mitigation of geologic hazards when building on alluvial fans, monitoring of chemical application on gr&sses, and drilling of wells to monitor groundwater pollution with all expenses born by the developer. See Exhibit D. 5. Bureau of Land Management: The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management reports that a portion of the southern boundary of the proposed site is adjacent to public lands. This land is allotted for livestock grazing and neighboring properties are responsible for constructing fencing to protect their property. BLM has fence standards and reminds residents that fencing may not be located on property boundaries. In addition, hunting is allowed on BLM administered land. The report also reminds the applicant that all raptors, as present on the site, are protected by both Federal and State law from destruction or harassment. See Exhibit E. 6. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District notes that the development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District which are due prior to recording of a final plat. See Exhibit F. 7. Roarin-q Fork School District RE-l: The Roaring Fork School District RE-l is requesting cash in lieu of the calculated 4.5 acres of dedicated land, to be paid at the time of subdivision approval, to compensate for the increase in school children generated from this proposed development. See Exhibit G. 8. Roaring Fork Transit Agency: The Roaring Fork Transit Agency reports that, because of severe automobile congestion, " . . . if the number of potential vehicle trips diverted to transit requires additional transit capacity or an entirely new service, the developer is, in some cases, required to provide funding to mitigate the projected impacts." The report indicates that such funding may include passenger shelters, pull-offs, and lighting. The estimated number of potential transit trips provided in the report that the proposed development could generate per day would be 1,062 with l0o/o peak hour use resulting in 53 passengers traveling into and 53 passengers traveling out of the development. The report indicates that this level of usage would require a vehicle with a capacity to accommodate25 passengers. According to the report, service to the proposed site could be linked with service to West Bank and other neighboring developments resulting in potential cost sharing. The report also recommends looking at how the proposed site design will link up with future transit improvements in order to alleviate congestion in the valley, and how the proposal contributes to sharing the burden of the costs of such improvements. See Exhibit H The report makes the following two recommendations; ' The development should mitigate its impacts on the existing or the future transit system. ' The development should be designed to maximize the opportunities for transit use and to minimize the necessity for automobile use. See Exhibit H. 9. Glenwood Sprin:qs River Commission: The Glenwood Springs River Commission concurs with the recommendations in the Department of Wildlife's letter. The River Commission expressed concerns about the preservation of open space given the proposed golf facilities and trails plans on the steep bedrock areas and the potential for erosion. The River Commission provides the following recommendations: ' Avoid erosion along the river bank that may occur during high water where construction has occurred by establishing a setback for buildings lots at one hundred feet (100'). ' Avoid the loss of natural vegetation along the river banks, which provides protection for wildlife, by establishing a Wildlife/Vegetative easement/buffer along the river corridor. ' Establish a trail along the west side of the Roaring Fork River as a link between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs and along the east side of CR 109 to run the entire length of the property and to be contiguous with Aspen Glen's trail system. This trial would be built to Glenwood Spring's Rivertrails specifications and would be open to the general public. ' Assess the current water quality, develop a program for monitoring surface water quality, and limit the use of pesticides and fertilizers. See Exhibit I. 10. Roaring Fork Valley Biological Inventory: The Roaring Fork Valley Biological Inventory points out that the great blue heron rookery located on the proposed development site is listed in Colorado Natural Heritage Program Report. The program report recommends that a t/z mile radius conservation boundary be implemented to protect the rookery, and that a one thousand foot (1,000') buffer be provided around the nests to protect feeding areas. The report notes that, of the ninety (90) to one hundred (100) nest sites located in the state, only three are lound in the Roaring Fork Valley, and the one located at the Rose Ranch property is the largest. See Exhibit J. I l. Garfield County Housing Authority. The Garfield County Housing Authority reports that its agency could effectively use the contribution offered by the applicant of two hundred dollars ($200) per units for land acquisition, rehabilitation of a residence, local matching funds for affordable housing development, project development costs, or a combination of the above. See Exhibit K. ry.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS Zoning The subject site is currently zoned Agricultural./Residential/Rural Density which allows for a two (2) acre minimum lot size and agricultural uses, parks, single-family homes, and accessory dwellings by right. Community buildings are allowed by conditional use, and two-family dwellings, trails, golf course facilities, and commercial recreation facilities/parks are permitted by special exception. The proposed PUD calls for an average density of 0.8 units per acre. The plan proposes single family units, duplexes, golf facilities (including a restaurant), recreational amenities, and open space. The report will show that this proposed rezoning sets forth a density which exceeds the carry capacity of the subject tract. Subdivision: The proposed PUD calls for 287 single family homes on lots ranging in size from 20,000 to 9,000 square feet. The 67 duplexes proposed will be sited on 8,000 square foot lots. The PIID proposes five new zone districts for the site as follows: 20,000 Square Foot Residential District 15,000 Square Foot Residential District 9,000 Square Foot Residential District Duplex Residential Zone District Open Space Zone District This report will outline how the proposed sketch plan design fails to conform with the physical constraints of the subject property. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1994 lists housing, transportation, traffic mitigation, street design, visual corridor, recreation, open space, fishing/rafting activities, rural landscape, trails, wildlife habitat, water and sewer systems, environmental constraints, nafural drainages, wetland and riparian areas, soil constraints, ecological resources, and excessive cut and fill goals which apply to this proposal and must be met by the applicant. Soils/Topography: The Preliminary Geotechnical Study Rose Ranch Development County Road 109 Garfield County, Colorado of October 29,1997 was submitted after the extended submission deadline. However, this report supplements the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared in May of 1996 In summary, the supplemental report notes that the site is suitable for restricted development which B C. D. E. takes into account the mitigation measures for modified site design and the geological constraints inherent ofthe property. The report notes that "several large ground surFace depressions that may be sinkholes were observed in the field, on the topographic map, and on the aerial photographs. In addition, smaller circular patterns were noted on the aerial photographs that may also be associated with small sinkholes." The sinkholes are noted to range from twenty (20) to two hundred (200) feet in diameter with a depth between one (1) to ten (10) feet. The report recommends a minimum twenty foot (20') setback from all sinkholes on the site. Alluvial fan flooding associated with intense thunderstorms and heavy snowpack melt is also mentioned as a geologicalhazard on-site. Additionally, slope instability is noted as a threat for road grades and building sites steeper than 30Yo. Furthermore, the report suggests residential lot setbacks for steep escarpment s of 2.1 horizontal to vertical as measured from the edge of the river. Road/Access: The proposed PUD shows a Potential Access which traverses property for which the applicant has not obtained ownership or rights of access. Therefore, this access must be removed from the submitted plan as initially requested by staffin a memo dated 26 August 1997 to the applicant and his attorneys. As such, this Potential Access is not considered as a part of the staff review. Fire Protection: The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District notes that, aside from insuring the prohibition of improper parking along cul-de-sac islands, "the general layout is adequate for fire apparatus." The report notes that the plans should be completed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Appendix III-A: Fire Requirements for Buildings; and that fire hydrants must be located in accordance with the UFC Appendix III-B: Fire Hydrant Locations and Spacing. However, the cul-de-sac lengths on two of the 13 proposed exceed the Subdivision Regulation's permissible maximum length of 600 feet when measured from the centerline of the intersecting roadway to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb [Section 9.33]. Waivers from the maximum length would have to be prepared and fully justified in order to show such a street design on a proposed plan. Water. The application did not include evidence of a water court approved augmentation plan nor the submission of such a plan for review. Since the Water Investigation Report lists 50.7 acre feet of oflsite water to complete its total water needs for the proposed project, and since this water source has not been secured, an adequate potable and irrigation water supply available to all units has not been demonstrated per the requirements of the Subdivision Regulation [Section 9.51]. F. G H. Wastewater: The application's Water Investigation report state that the proposed 354 units result in 550 EQRs, yet the agreement with Aspen Glen wastewater treatment plant lists an accommodation of only 438 EQRs, a 122 EQRS deficiency. The Subdivision Regulations do not permit a system to be approved which is "designed for less capacity than the anticipated maximum daily sewage flow or treatment requirements" [Section 9.62]. I. Road Impacts. The applicant has provided staffwith a Highway Access Permit signed 10128197 and submitted after the extended submission deadline of 26 September 1997. Access to the highway has been granted as evidenced by this permit. However, no indication of a request for signalization of the intersection was included with this submission. The Traffic Study contained within the application notes that signalization of the intersection is a recommendation of the report to improve an otherwise failing intersection whose condition will worsen with the proposed increase in development. J. PUD Requirements: The applicant has failed to meet the requirements for approval of a PUD in terms of providing innovations in design, lessening impacts, encouraging preservation, avoiding incompatible elements, according an appropriate relationship to its surroundings, and exhibiting general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. V. RECOMMENDEDFINDINGS: The following deficiencies are noted in the application for the Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan: Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended 1. Section 402(l) - The proposed PUD fails to demonstrate how it provides "for necessary commercial, recreational, and educationalfacilities conveniently located to housing." The only commercial facilities proposed are those associated with the golf facility; recreational facilities proposed are of limited public access, and no educational facilities are proposed. 2. Section 4.02(4) - The proposed PUD does not call for " . . . innovations in residential . . . development so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in type, design, and layout of buildings . . . " The current zoning designation of A/RIR allows for all of the types of housing (single family and duplexes) proposed in this application. Section 4.02(6) - The proposed PUD does not "lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways," but rather increases the traffic entering onto Highway 82by an estimated 3,819 vehicles per day, which is already functioning at a level of service F. As the Rose Ranch PUD Preliminary Traffic Study states, "with the addition of the Rose Ranch traffic the intersection continues to operate well below acceptable standards. " Section 4.02(8) - The proposed PUD does not "encourage the preservation of the site's natural characteristics," but rather proposes extensive cuts along the ridgeways which are apart of Garfield County's identified Visual Corridor slated for protection. Section 4.04 - "No PUD shall be approved unless it is . . . in general conformity with the County's general plan which is the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD does not meet the general intent of the comprehensive plan. Although the rural character of Garfield County has historically defined the visual heritage of the region, recent development pressure, particularly in the valley floor of the Roaring Fork River, has threatened the future of many of these corridors. Although the proposal is generally in conformance with the Proposed Land Use Districts, the following Program is not met by this proposal: Program 3.1 under Transportation Goals & Objectives states that "Existing traffic safety problems and road system deficiencies will be identified and conceptual policies will be developed to address these weaknesses." The Level of Service for Rose Ranch traffic exiting the site at County Road 154 via a left or right-hand turn onto Highway 82 at peak A.M. and P.M. hours will continue to function at a rating of F: the highway is no longer functioning at the speed level it was designed to manage and traffic is experiencing severe congestion and frequent delays. Section 4.06 - " . . no Pud shall be approved which contains incompatible elements." The proposed PIID does not contain compatible elements. The submission proposes golf course facilities in an area which requires 12oZ slopes in grade to attain access to these golf areas. The proposal also calls for trail, Floaters Park, and Fishing Park use unrestricted by conflicts with the nesting of great blue herons and golden eagles, and the winter range of elk and of deer. Section 4.07.01 - "The County Commissioners may approve a proposed PUD rezoning upon a finding that it will implement the purposes of this section and will meet the standards and requirements set forth in this section." However, the proposed PUD fails to meet the requirements of the following subsections: 8. Section 4.07.03(1) - The proposed PtlD does not "have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized." Increased traffic congestion, disruption of protected wildlife habitat, unexplored potential geological hazards, and unanalyzed drainage conditions accompany this proposal. The submitted Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report states that "Eagle Valley Evaporite is believed to underlie the majority of the site." "Dissolution of gypsum in this unit can cause voids which sometime collapse and create sinkholes." 9. Section 4.07 .04 - The proposed PUD has not addressed or fully justified their request to increase the maximum height of buildings above the standards permitted in terms of all of the following subsections: 10. Section 4.07.04(L) - The relationship of the proposed increase in building height to the geographical location is not addressed. 1 I . Section 4 .07 .04(2) - The relationship of the proposed increase in building height to the probable effect on the surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain is not addressed. 12. Section 4.07.04(3) - The relationship of the proposed increase in building height to any unreasonable adverse visual effects on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity is not addressed. I 3 . Section 4.O7 .04(5) - The relationship of the proposed increase in building height to its influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open space is not addressed. 14 Section 4.08.05(E) - The proposed PUD fails to show the acreage which will be dedicated for school sites nor does it offer a fee-in-lieu of. The proposed development at full build-out will generate an estimated 193 new students. 15. Section 4.08.05(G) - The proposed PUD fails to fully address the provision of water. The Rose Ranch Water Investigation report states that "current augmentation requirements exceed the historic use credits at the site in both magnitude and available timing. Additional water right acquisitions will be required at the current demand levels." 16 Section 408.05(7) - The proposed PUD does not adequately provide evidence of the following subsections: 17. Section 408.05(7)(EXi) - The proposed water source adequate to service the PUD is not confirmed. Section 408.0s(TXEXiii) - The general manner in which storm drainage will be handled is not detailed. 19. Section 408.05(7XE)(iv) - The general manner in which provisions will be made for any potential natural hazards in the area such as landslide areas and unstable soils are not provided in the proposal. The submitted Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report states that "the majority of the near surface soils exhibited high collapse potential andlor settlement under conditions of light loading and wetting." Furthermore, the report continues that" . . . soils within the structural setback zone possess poor lateral stability and improvements constructed within this zone may be subject to lateral movement andlor differential settlement." 20 Section 408.05(7XF) - The easements showing vested legal access for ingress egress from a public road to the PUD for the alternative access has not been obtained to date by the applicants. 21. Section 408.05(7XG) - "Evidence that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the natural environment of the site and the surrounding areas and does not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or unique natural or historical features" has not been met by this proposed PUD. The Rose Ranch Wildlife Report lists six wildlife issues associated with the proposed PUD including impact on elk and mule deer winter range, impact on great blue herons, and impact on golden eagle nesting The report continues by recommending closure to public access of the portion of the site llng west of County Road 109 from December I to March 3l; closure of the Floaters' Park from March I to July 15, closure of the Fishing Park from March 1 to July 15, and closure of the southern pedestrian trail north of the overlook from March l5 to July 15. Such closures will severely curtail the recreational activities proposed as site amenities for this PIID. The Rose Ranch Historical Survey and Evaluation state that " . . . the cold cellar may be eligible for the State Register if further research was undertaken . . . I recommend that the owner of the ranch should consider saving and repairing the cold storage cellar and Building #8" neither of which has been proposed with this PUD. 22. Section 6.09.01 - Approximately sixty (60) lots for residential use are proposed within the food plain or wetland areas. Section 6.09.01(lXA) - (D) does not permit residential uses within the flood plain area by right. Subdivision Regulations of Garflreld County, Colorado of 1984 Section 3.32.1.5 - The total area of proposed nonresidential floor space was not provided. Section 3.40.A - The source and amount of water supply were not thoroughly provided. 18. 23. 24 25. 26. Section 3.40.D - The impact of the proposed subdivision on the topography of the site was not fully addressed. Section 9.12 - The proposed PLID does not address the natural hazards including subsidence which the property is subject to. Therefore, those portions of the property subject to such hazards " . . . shall not be platted for any use other than open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres . . . " since no mitigation is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer as required by this section of the ordinance. Section 9.14 - True "public access andlor fishing easements to . . . rivers and streams . . . " has not been provided in the proposed PUD since the Fishing Park is only open to the residents "from within Rose Ranch, as well as contiguous subdivisions." The Floaters' Park "will be leased by the Rose Ranch Homeowners' Association to the private rafting groups." The golf course will be open to the public for fee use only. Additionally, the proposed PUD does not state who may access the River Overlooks and the Active Recreation Areas. Section 9.21.1 - The proposed PUD does not call for increasing individual lot sizes " . . . in areas posing a potential health hazard due to soil conditions or geology." Although, potential geological hazards exist on the site. Section 9.22 - Lot numbers235,234,170,169, 168, 767,166, and 165 have less than the required 25 feet of street frontage. "In no case shall a lot be created with accesses onto a public or private road with less than twenty-five feet (25') of street frontage" as required by the ordinance. Section 9.32 - The thirteen (13) proposed cul-de-sacs within the Pud do not allow the ". . . adjacent road system [to] . be combined to form a continuous route from one area to another." Section 9.32 2 - The proposed streets accessing lot numbers 261 through26T within the PUD do not have a minimum separation of two hundred feet (200') as required by the ordinance. Section 9.51 - The applicant has failed to meet the requirements of this section since a permanent water source adequate to service the entire water usage demands of the proposed PUD has not been secured. "An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a subdivisioq taking into consideration peak demands to service total development population, inigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements" which the present study does not secure. 29. 27 28 30. 31 32. Garlield County Comprehensive Plan of 1994 33. Section lll.2.l, Objective - The proposed PUD has not revealed the price range of the homes and physically segregates the location of the duplex units from the location of the single family units, thereby failing to meet the objective to "encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfi eld County." Section III.2.5, Objective - The proposed development fails to ". . respect the natural characteristics of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features, geology and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view sheds." The proposed PUD has not taken into consideration the more than20 potential minor sinkholes and six major sinkholes on-site. More than 60lots are proposed within either the wetlands or the flood plain located on-site. In addition, the proposed PUD fails to consider the visual impact of the scaring of the steep bluffas a result of providing a road to service the golf facilities which will be enjoyed by a select privileged few at the environmental esthetic expense of the majority of Garfield County's residents, thereby destroying the integrity of the community's scenic view shed. Section III.3.l and 3.3, Objectives - The proposed PUD and Sketch Plan has not included any features to accommodate public transportation despite the fact that ridership of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority is up by 124% in the last five years and is the second largest transit provider in the state. Therefore, the proposal neglects "to encourage the development of a regional public transit system that respects the interaction between emerging land use patterns and travelbehavior in the Valley." Section 111.3.4, Objective - The proposed street system lays out roadways which must traverse the drainage ditch on-site (which may not be adversely impacted as it is a source of water for neighboring properties) as well as numerous terraces at steep grades. No street profile and cross section has been provided to illustrate how such a street system will realistically function. Thus, the proposed street system does not "include a street design that will reduce adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, respect the natural topography and minimize driving hazards." Section II1.3.7, Objective - The proposed PI-JD design does not provide an east to west connection nor does it provide a connection between the proposed development components, thereby failing to design street connections in a logical and efficient manner. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38 Section III.3.3 and3.6, Policies - The proposed project has not shown an ability to handle the traffic generated from the proposed development and has not mitigated the impacts at the intersection of County Road 154 with State Route 82 The Highway Access Permit issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which approved left and right turn acceleration and deceleration lanes, is contingent upon bringing the Level of Service (LOS) to a rating of C. However, the Preliminary Traffic Study states that"at the request of CDOT, the intersection was modeled with left turn decel, right turn decel and left and right accel lanes to see if this would improve the intersection . . . These improvements did not affect the LOC" which is at a rating of F at the intersection of County road 154 with State Route 82. Additionally, the traffic study concludes that" . . . the CR-154 / Hwy 82 intersection will be operating at below acceptable standards as an un- signalized intersection. " Section III 3.8 A.B.C and D, Policies - Traffic impacts associated with the proposed commercial development have not been assessed by the applicant. No analysis is present in the report. Section III.5.0, Goal - The proposed development of the steep bluffhas not taken into account the "preservation of important visual corridors" in an undeveloped state. The access to the upper level golf course facilities and Active Recreation Area requires 15 switch backs and will necessitate retaining walls in excess of thirty feet (30') in some areas. This steep bluffis a directly visible part of the corridor. Section III.5.l, Objective - Since the proposed recreation, including the Floaters' Park and the Fishing Park, is limited to use by the future residents and by neighboring properties, these recreational opportunities are not accessible to County residents. Section 5.2, Policy - The proposal fails to provide a building envelope that preserves the visual corridor and which clusters the development, thereby failing to protect environmentally sensitive land on-site. The proposed development calls for residential units along the entire length of the river corridor. Section III.5.5 and 5.6, Policies - Easements for public accesses to the streams or rivers with rafting or fishing potential have not been established. The Floaters' Park and the Fishing Park will not be open to the general public. Section III.5.3, Policy and 5.3, Program - Contiguity of neighboring open spaces with those proposed in the development and insurance of continuous public access to these open spaces has not been analyzed by the developer. No such analysis is included in the report. 4t. 39. 40. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 52 Section III.5.0(A), Goal - The proposed PUD and Sketch Plan fails to " . preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that reflects the balance between private property rights and the needs of the community." There has been no analysis included in the submission of the needs of the community verses the desires of the developers. Section III.5.1(A), Objective - The proposal does not call for the retention of any of the existing agricultural activities on the site, and therefore, fails "to ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development approved by Garfield County." Section III.5.2(A), Objective - The Rose Ranch Wildlife Report lists six recommendations in response to the study. Only one (1) of these six (6) recommendations has been incorporated into the plan design. Thus, the proposed PUD has not managed to "to ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat." Section III.6.0, Goal - The proposed application neglects "to ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review." No existing agricultural activities are proposed to continue on this ranching site. Section III.6.l, Objective - The proposal does not incorporate the existing farm and ranch with the development. Section 1II.6.2, Policies - "Densities greater than the underlying zorung will be discouraged if the proposed development would adversely affect the adjacent agricultural operations." The proposed density increase to 0.8 units per acre does not allow for the continued operation of agricultural uses. Section III.6.5, Program - The submission does not contain an "analysis of potential impacts to agricultural lands and uses, and . . . mitigation measures." No such analysis is included in the proposal. Section III.7.0, Goal and 7.2,Program - The proposed PUD and Sketch Plan has not secured the required water and sewer capacities which their reports indicate the development will demand, hence " . . . the provision legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development" has not been ensured. A legal supply to the full water source has not been obtained nor has a legal agreement for the full wastewater treatment been procured. The location of the water tank on the steep bluffand its accessibility for construction and maintenance has not been demonstrated. The ability to service sewer lines within the residential areas subject to sinkholes has 53 not been analyzed. Section lll.7.l, Objective - "Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project approval." The proposed PtiD has not demonstrated an adequate supply of water to service the proposed residential, recreational, and commercial facility nor a complete ability to treat the wastewater generated from the development. Section II1.7.4, Program - The applicant should develop a "Water Constraints Map, based on the collection of geologic data, .. . applied to the project review process to ensure that potable water systems are designed in a healthy and safe manner and that an adequate water supply exists." Section IIL8.0, Goal - The proposed development does not respect the natural drainage patterns as evidenced by the street design which traverses such features. The proposal to locate residential homes within a sinkhole prone areas does not "recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land" and "overburdens the physical capacity of the land." Section III.8.l, Objective - "The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a project based on severe environmental constraints that endanger public healttq safety or welfare." Section III.8.2, Objective - The proposed PUD and Sketch Plan does not incorporate the environmental constraints around the site design. Therefore, the proposed project does not " . . . recognize the physical features ofthe land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment." Section III.8.3, Objective and 8.3, Policy - The proposed street system shows roads traversing the common use drainage ditch. "Garfield County will ensure that the natural drainages are protected from alteration." Section III.8.5, Objective and 8.5 Policy - The proposal has not taken into consideration the collapseable soil constraints which the applicant's geotechnical report revealed. The applicant has not addressed the soil constraints unique to the site. Section III.8.6, Objective - "Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected." The site contains leatures which are part of the county's visual corridor and large mammal and critical riparian habitat. 54. 55. 56 57. 58. 59. 60 u. 61. Section III.8.7, Objective - The proposed PUD should be redesigned to take into consideration the environmental constraints which will limit the number and the placement of residential units. Development should avoid environmental hazards and be located on land capable of supporting growth. 62. Section III.8.l and8.7, Policy - "Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active land slides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain." Nine of the ten constraints listed above are potential or known threats on the Rose Ranch property. No mitigation plan has been proposed. 63. Section III.8.2., Policy - "Garfield County shall discourage development proposals that require excessive vegetative removal, cut and fill areas or other physical modifications that will result in visual degradation or public safety concerns." The proposed development on the Rose Ranch property calls for excessive cut and fill in order to construct the road accessing the upper golf course facilities and Active Recreation Area which are located on a steep bluffcontained within the Raring Fork Valley visual corridor. 64. Section III.8.4, Policy - The Sketch Plan proposes the location of 60 lots within the flood plain or wetland areas. Yet, the proposal does not address the mitigation of these encroachments through its physical design. 65. Section III.8.6, policy - "Garfield County will protect critical wildlife habitat needed by state and federally protected, threatened or endangered species." The wildlife report prepared by the applicant notes the presence of an endangered species as well as several protected species of migratory birds and raptors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Garfield County Planning Commission put forth a recommendation of disapproval of the application for the Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the 65 deficiencies as listed above.