HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 05.21.97PC sl2tl97
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REOUEST: Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan review for the Rose
Ranch application
APPLICANT: Roaring Fork Investments, L. L. C.
PLANNERS: Norris Dullea Company
ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering, Inc. - civil and traffic
EVO Consulting Services - civil
Zancanella and Associates, Inc. - water
GEOLOGIST: MTI GEO
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
BIOLOGIST: Kirk H. Beattie
CULTURAL Merill Ann Wilson
RESOURCES:
ATTORNEY: Delaney & Balcomb, P.C.
LOCATION: An operating ranch located west of the Roaring Fork River,
approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs,
and directly south of the West Bank subdivision.
SITE DATA:Section I and 12, Township 75, Range 89W. A 440 acre tract to
be combined with the West Bank subdivision golf facilities for a
total of 533.5 acres. To develop a292lot residential subdivision
and an associated golf facility, with additional recreational and open
space amenities.
Historic consumptive use credits, sur ce diversions from the
Roaring Fork River, junior rights for on-site ponds and surface
diversions, senior irrigation rights with the Glenwood Ditch, senior
irrigations rights ln the Robertson Ditch, and West Divide Water
Conservancy District
Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District
WATER:
SEWER:
Page I of 17
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
County Road (CR) 109, State Route (SR) 154, and State Highway
(srl) 82
Agricultural/ResidentiaL/Rural Density
PUD subdivision to the north
A/RIRD and Open space to the south
A/R/RD to the west
A/R/RD and Commercial to the east
L RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREFM,NSIVE PLAN
The Proposed Land Use Districts map for Study Area 1 shows the subject site as within both a
High Density Residential (two or fewer acres per dwelling unit) district and Low Density (more
than 10 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 and are based
primarily upon wildlife and environmental constrains.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Site Descriotion: The subject site contains an active ranch to the east of County
Road 109 which is being phased out of active production, 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 sixty percent
(60%). Vegetation on the site consists predominantly of sage with juniper trees.
Four (4) habitat types are present on the subject property and include riparian
transition, irrigated pastures, sagebrush-rabbitbrush, and pinyon juniper. The site
contains various buildings associated with the household and the ranching
operations including three (3) historically significant structures. An abandoned
railroad grade traverses the property to the east. An historic irrigation ditch
traverses the property in a north-south direction.
B. Adjacent Land Uses. West Bank Planned Unit Development is located to the north
of the property and is connected to the subject site through a thirty (30') easement,
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.
Page2 of 17
m.
C. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create a Planned Unit
Development which will consist of 292 units, including both 171 single family
dwellings, 74 duplex units, and 47 club homes on a 440 acre tract. The site will
also contain a golf course which will link with the West Bank golf facilities to
create an eighteen (18) hole golf course with associated facilities including a
restaurant and maintenance building. Additional recreational amenities are
proposed including a fishing park, overlooks, trails, greenhouse, garden plots, and
recreational facilities such as tennis courts, a swimming pool, playground and
picnic area.
REVIEW AGENCY AND OTI{ER COMMENTS
1. Division of Wildlife: The State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Wildlife (DOW) sites their former letter as still valid in having 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 noted 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 as 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 also utilize the heron rookery during the winter months. The report
stated 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."
The Division of Wildlife's most recent letter of 4 May 1998 points out impacts including
the following:
' 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.
The 4 May 1998 Division of Wildlife letter of puts forth the following recommendations:> Placement in the protective covenants (under Art. IV, Sec. 12.c), as a condition of
approval, the placement of educational signs at the primary overlook regarding
golden eagle nesting, and the closure of the ridge south of the eagle's nest from
15 March through 1 July.
' Closure of the upper golf course and ridge to human activity, excluding
maintenance, from 1 December through 3l March with a gate and a sign.> Installation of habitat improvement measures on the upper bench west of CR 109,
the development of a site plan with the DOW, and the maintenance and protection
from disturbance of the native vegetation outside of the golf course.
Page 3 of 17
' No construction of the water tank and line west of CR 109 from l5 March through
1 July due to golden eagle nesting.
' Creation of a vegetative screen plan approved by the DOW, and planting of
vegetation along the east boundary ofproposed Lots 108 through 1 18, 70 through
80, and 76tfuough77.
' No tree removal along the river and the wetland areas except for exotic and
invading species.
' Creation of an educational brochure for homeowners on how to live with wildlife.
' Provide a 5O-foot setback from the wetlands to the home-site.
' Maintenance of the I l0 foot buffer between Rose Ranch and Teller springs in
native vegetation, and installation of vegetative screening along the lot boundaries.
' Provision of a public fishing easement along the West Bank property downstream
from the bridge.
' No construction of the primary overlook from 15 March through I July.
Regarding the Great Blue Heron rookery, the Division of Wildlife report of 4 May 1998
recommends the following:
' Planting of vegetative screening along the east boundary of proposed Lots 108
through 118 to screen homesites and backyard activity.
' Placement of vegetative screening before any construction activity.> No construction of homes from 15 February through 31 May on proposed Lots 94
through 96 and 108 through 1 18.
' No human activity in the riparian and wetlands areas below proposed Lots 94
through 118 and across from the rookery from l5 February through 15 July by the
use of fencing and signage.> Installation of an artificial nesting platform on the east side of the river by the
rookery.
' No second story decks andlor balconies facing the rookery for proposed Lots 108
through 118. See Figure l.
2. Colorado Geological Survey: The State of Colorado Geological Survey cannot
recommend approval of the application due to the geologic constraints of the site
for the typw of development proposed. The Geologic Survey's form letter is still
valid.
The report noted the following potential geologic hazards.t 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, ground fissuring, and piping
soil dissolution.
Page 4 of 17
> Potential ground settlement and subsidence in the residential areas sulrounding the
proposed ponds within the alluvial fan areas due to severe wetting of these
hydrocompactive soils by the ponds.
The Colorado Geologic Survey's most recent report of 15 May 1998 states that "Our
largest concern with the development with Rose Ranch is the lack of water management
and the apparent lack of the understanding, shown in plat design, of the problems that the
introduction and saturation of a thick column of collapsible soils can pose. It is easily seen
in the plat design that the potential soil hazards were given little consideration in
residential lots, streets, ponds, and gold course lay-outs. Much of the infrastructure and
residences, as proposed, will be surrounded by water sources." The report points out the
following flaws in the plan design:
' The applicant should avoid placing ponds on the site to deter potential collapsing
of soils adjacent to the ponds.
' The development plan indicates irrigated golf course holes 1l and 12 immediately
above County Road 109 where we can, therefore, expect a continuation of road
damage.> Matrix supported gravelly alluvial fan soils can be highly collapsible but cannot be
determined by swell-consolidation testing since undislurbed samples are impossible
to collect. Gravelly soils can also be highly permeable where water can move
laterally at depth. Foundation perimeter drainage systems will not intercept deeper
water through gravelly layers within the alluvial fans. As a result, homes will be
subject to breaks in their foundations.
' Liners may break when the pond is at it's full water capacity if differential
settlement of several inches occurs beneath them. Even if a geo-grid reinforcement
is used, it is unlikely that a liner could withstand the strains. There will still be the
problem of adverse wetting of the soils by the irrigated golf course holes
upgradient of the proposed residential units.
In conclusion, the Colorado Geologic Survey report states that *. . . our
recommendation to the County is that additional work is required prior to approval
of the Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan in its current form, and level of
investigations and mitigation design." See Figre 2.
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 fiJ{with the water court. See Figure 3.
fi,-at,-etd4. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation
District has not responded to this application to date.
vus3lr n
5. Bureau of Land Management: The United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management has not responded to this application to date.
6. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The Carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection District notes that the developer should submit an addressing plan for
review by the County and by Emergency Management. The Fire Protection
District recommends that the water supplies from the Rose Ranch development be
made available for future extension to these areas. In addition, the code requires a
minimum flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), whereas the applicant has
indicated an undersized flow of 1,000 gpm. Furthernore? the development is
subject to impact fees adopted by the District which are due prior to recording of a
final plat. See Figure 4.
7. Roaring Fork School District RE-l: The Roaring Fork School District RE-l is
requesting cash in lieu of the calculated 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 Figure 5.
8. Roaring Fork Transit Agency. The Roaring Fork Transit Agency's (RFTA) initial
report indicated that, because of severe automobile congestion, the number of
potential vehicle trips diverted to transit requires additional transit capacity or an
entirely new service, which the developer is, in some cases, required to provide
funding to mitigate the projected impacts. The report stated that such findings
may include passenger shelters, pull-offs, and lighting. 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.
The report made 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.
The report lists the following requirements:
' Rolling stock capacity equivalent to sixty+hree percent (63%) of an additional
transit bus resulting in a cost of $167,000 and a life span of twelve (12) years.
' Additional operating subsidy in 1998 dollars of $18,300.
' Park and Ride facility adjacent to SH 82, including a transit shelter and thirty-nine
(39) parking spaces, with an estimated cost of $201,500.
' Parking lot maintenance and snow removal of a cost of $9,500 per year.
Page 6 of 17
9.
RFTA's subsequent report, prepared by LSC, Inc. consultants, estimated number
of potential transit trips that the proposed development could generate per day
would be 129. This latest report states that "the substantial increase in service
required for Rose Ranch, if not accompanied by funding for fixed costs, would
only exacerbate the imbalance in regional funding. . If the proposed project were
located in Pitkin or Eagle Counties, a substantial portion of this annual funding
requirement would be generated through increased sales tax revenues, as both
counties have dedicated public transportation sales tax. Garfield County, however,
does not currently have a dedicated source of funding for transit services." See
Figure 6.
Glenwood Springs River Commission: The Glenwood Springs River Commission
concurs met with the applicant on 6 May 1998 to review the proposed
modifications to the plan design.
The River Commission provided the following recommendations in accordance
with their prior letter.
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 construct the trail along CR 109 to
Glenwood Spring' s Rivertrail s specifi cations.
Develop a progr:rm for monitoring surface water quality, and limit the use of
pesticides and fertilizers.
Roarins Fork Vallev Biolosical lnventorv: The Roarins Fork Vallev Biolosical
Inventory pointed out in their prior letter 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 1/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 found in the Roaring Fork Valley, and the one located at the Rose
Ranch property is the largest.
Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors and Carbondale Affordable Housing
Corporation: The two agencies have not had an oppoftunity to respond to the
applicant's letter date 20May 1998 regarding the donation of $1,000 per unit sold
to the Board of Realtors and $1,000 per unit. sold to the Housing Corporation.
10.
ll.
Page 7 of 17
t2.Garfield County Housing Authority. The Garfield County Housing Authority
reported 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
Figure 7.
Eagle County: Eagle County reminds the Garfield County Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed Rose Ranch PIID and
Sketch Plan should be evaluated in accordance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan goals. See Figure 8.
Pitkin County: Pitkin County also reminds the Garfield County Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant should
adequately address the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan goals particularly
with regard to mass transit, by payrng an appropriate share of construction costs
for a Park and Ride facility, and with regard to affordable housing, by providing
units on-site that are affordable housing for the service workers which the project
will require for home and golf course maintenance. See Figure 9.
Roaring Crystal Alliance Members: The Roaring Crystal Alliance Members site
scientific evidence for a greater buffer of one-thousand feet (1,000') from home
sites at the southern end of the proposed project as well as management of the
rookery area. The Alliance also recommends that a continuous conservation
easement be placed along the riverfront greenbelt for the length of the project.
The Alliance further notes the potential for river contamination through runoff
from the golf course and supports water quality monitoring efforts and monitoring
of the riparian health. See Figure 10.
Letters from Concerned Citizens: See Figures ll, 12, 13, and 14.
MAIOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zontng. 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 0.54 units per acre. The plan
proposes single family units, duplexes, club houses, golf facilities (including a
restaurant), recreational amenities, and open space.
13.
14.
15.
16.
IV.
Page 8 of 17
B. Subdivision: The proposed PUD calls for 292 homes on lots ranging in size t'om aflk*+e"al€lf
,j\Jcf lacre fo io,Ooo to 8,000 square feet. The club houses will have a density oisix (6) units to | |
the acre.
The PUD proposes five new zone districts for the site as follows:
' River Residential I Zone District
' River Residential2 Zone District
, 20,000 Square Foot Residential District
' 15,000 Square Foot Residential District
' 9,000 Square Foot Residential District
' Duplex Residential Zone District
' Club Homes Residential Zone District
' Common Open Space Zone District
C. 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, natural drainages,
wetland and riparian areas, soil constraints, ecological resources, and excessive cut
and fill goals which apply to this proposal and which must be met by the applicant.
D. Soils/Topography. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study Rose Ranch Development
County Road 109 Garfield County, Colorado reports that alluvial fans form an
alluvial apron along he base of the bluffin the eastern part of the project area.
River alluvium is present along the river channel and the five (5) terraces adjacent
to the channel. Sinkholes of twenty (20') to two-hundred (200') feet are present on
the site and have a depth of between one (1') foot to twenty (20') feet.
Additionally, smaller sinkholes are present on the property. These sinkholes result
from the collapse of subsurface voids in the formation rock and in terrace deposits.
The report states that the more severe constraints are associated with the alluvial
fan flooding and the potential for sinkholes which may require some modification
of the project design. The report also notes that the ephemeral channels and the
alluvial fans are susceptible to debris floods and viscous debris flow landslides
associated with intense rain and snowmelt. Additionally, the entire fan surface is
considered a potential flood area, therefore, channel and bank stability may be
critical.
The report recommends a minimum setback from sinkholes of twenty (20') feet. In
addition, subsurface voids should be considered when planning building site
foundations. The report also recommends a minimum building setback of 2:1,
horizontal to vertical, as measured from the edge of the river channel, and
protection against erosion through revegetation and rock rip-rap. Furthermore,
grading should not be considered on slopes greater than thirty (30%) percent.
r#ilr rz
E.
F.
G.
Road/Access: The proposed PUD will utilize an easement though the West Bank
subdivision to access the golf holes located atop the steep bluff
Fire Protection: The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 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.
Water: The application did not include evidence of a water court approved
augmentation plan nor the submission of such a plan for review. 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].
Wastewater: The applicant will need to secure adequate sewage treatment
capacity from the Aspen Glen wastewater treatment plant for the project [Section
e.621.
Road Impacts: The applicant has provided staffwith a Highway Access Permit.
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 recommended to improve an otherwise failing
intersection whose condition will worsen with the proposed increase in
development.
PUD Reouirements: The aonlicant has not met the reouirements for aooroval 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.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
The Rose Ranch applicant team has made substantial progress toward addressing the
concerns of County residents and agencies, as well as meeting County regulation issues.
Much of the changes have been an improvement over the former site design and several
have fully mitigated initial conflicts. In particular, wildlife issues have been nearly fully
addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewing agencies; and concerns of neighboring
residents regarding sufficient water sources and visual environmental impacts have been
mitigated to the satisfaction of numerous residents. Additionally, the County has been
presented with some of its first financial offers to help offset traffic and housing impacts.
I.
J.
V.
Page l0 of 17
However, the plan as presently proposed still leaves numerous questions unanswered and
many critical issues without adequate solutions. Most particulary, the severe geologic
constraints of this site pose many critical problems for which no assurances are provided in
the studies presented with this proposal. In addition, the most pressing issues facing the
County today regarding the severe shortage of attainable housing, the alarming rise in
traffic congestion, and the rampant loss of agricultural land in this Valley have not been
thoroughly addressed by a means which meets the level of demand which this proposal
will place upon the County, and in most cases the proposal before us further exacerbates
an already stressed situation.
The following deficiencies are noted in the application for the Rose Ranch PUD and
Sketch Plan:
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended
X
Section 402tq- The proposed PUD does not demonstrate how it provides "for
necessary comrirercial, recreational, and educational facilities 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 preposed.^ The plan alludes to qommunity facilities,$ut
these are not listed ' fl',t..,3 L'{.:,rt)"i)+,-. ,X\!:i.)'.f 6
ti.
"t J zrt, t,trR Lr-vtf- r '/-\t..v-r1.i ' -l," r c,i-r'yIy:i!-,.r_1 ,, *\, (, L.ltrahsr)Section 4.02(4).- The proposed PUD does not call for " . . . innovations in - -
r
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/R/R allows for all of the types of housing (single flmily
and duplexes) proposed in this application -/\'-; l:" 1 l.'\, ,^,1
..,'1,, , 1*K^ ,o,,,,r -"' \\'' '',itEi'#;#"i*",J\ q ttSection 4.a2$)-- The proposed PUD does not "6"aidfhLeBi
streets and highways," but rather increases the traffic entering onto Highway 82
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." There are no
assurances from the State Highway Department that q light will nleet,warrants.
\HTH#8ffi5s111,,-FlSeilJ the,l.Slx
5.
Section 4.02(E - The proposed PUD does not "encoffrlge itr6'piedervdtion of the" 'df-{[pfi.
.
site's natural characteristics," but rather proposes extensive cuts along the
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.
Page 1l of 17
l.Sech-^ L-rez x.##J,R iL"a:h.?HB"n,
C_o.-tlfe hs/-.aS idC l'lan & S eu idlneod, ,9 V,t fr^.t
sV"y
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.
Even though the proposal is generally in conformance with the Proposed Land Use
Districts, the following Program is not met by this proposal: Program 3.I under
Transportation Goals & Objectives states that "Existing trafEc 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.
6l section 4.06 - " no Pud shall be approved which contains incompatible
elements." The proposed PUD does not contain compatible elements. The
submission proposes golf course facilities in an area which requires 10 to I l%
slopes in grade to attain access to these golf areas. Furthermore, the addition of
ponds on the proposed golf course will subject the site to a high probability of
subsidence and subsequent failure of building foundations.
7.. 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 subsection:
8: Section 4.07.03(1) - The proposed PUD does not "have an appropriate
relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the
surrounding area being minimized." Increased traffic congestion and unexplored
potential geological hazards 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.
I l. 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.
Page 12 of l7
t2:Section 4.07.04(3) - The relationship of the proposed increase in building height to
any unreasonable adverse visual efEects on adjacent sites, or other areas in the
immediate vicinity.
Section 4.07.04(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
/. ,\
Section 4 08\05(E) - The proposed PUD does not show the acreage which will be
dedicated for school sites nor does it of;Fer a fee-inJieu of.
Section 408.05(7) - The proposed PUD does not adequately provide evidence of
the following subsections:
Section 408.05(TXEXrv) - 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 and/or 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 and/or differential settlement."
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. . . unique natural or historical features"
has not been met by this proposed PUD. 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"
which has not been proposed with this PUD.
,13,
17.
Subdivision Regulations of Gar{ield County, Colorado of 1984
18. Section 3.32.I.5 - The total area of proposed nonresidential floor space was not
provided.
19. Section 3.40.D - The impact of the proposed subdivision on the topography of the
site was not fully addressed.
Page 13 of 17
14.
15.
16.
20.Section 9.12 - The proposed PUD 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 anyuse otherthan
open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres
Garfield County Comprehensive PIan of 1994
21. Section 111.2.1, Objective - The proposed PUD has not revealed the price range of
the homes, and physically segregates the location of the duplex units and the club
house 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. "
22. Section 11I.2.5, Objective - The proposed development does not ". . . respect the
natural characteristics of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water
features, geology and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view
sheds."
23. Section IIL3.1 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 emerying land use patterns and travel behavior in
the Valley."
24. Section IIL3.3 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 ifthis 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."
Page 14 of 17
27.
25.
26.
31.
32.
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 vizual corridors" in an undeveloped
state. The access to the upper level golf course facilities will necessitate retaining
walls. This steep bluffis a visible part of the corridor.
Section III.5.3, Policy and 5.3, Program - Insurance of continuous public access to
these open spaces has not been analyzed by the developer. The application only
references the neighboring subdivisions as permitted to access the open lands.
Section III.5.0(A), Goal - The proposed PUD and Sketch Plan does not " .
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 ofthe
community." There has been no analysis included in the submission of the societal
needs of the community verses the business plan of the developers.
Section IU.5.l(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." The location of the community gardens has not been shown on
the plans.
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. No offer of a purchase of a conservation
easement elsewhere within the County on an agriculturally productive tract of land
has been offered by the applicant to replace the loss in acreage of active ranch
land.
Section III.6.l, Objective - The proposal does not incorporate the existing farm
and ranch with the development.
Section 111.6.2, Policies - "Densities greater than the underlying zoning willbe
discouraged if the proposed development would adversely affect the adjacent
agricultural operations." The proposed density increase to 0.54 units per acre does
not allow for the continued operation of agricultural uses.
28
29.
30.
Page 15 of 17
JJ.
34.
35.
36.
Section fII.6.5, Program - The submission does not contain an "analysis of
potential impacts to agricultural lands and uses, and . . . mitigation measures."
Section III.8.l, Objective - "The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a
project based on severe environmental constraints that endanger public health,
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.8.5, 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
features which are part of the county's visual corridor. The site is also the local of
a blue heron rookery where an active nest site is projected to be abandoned as a
result of the development of homesites and with no assurance that a newly
constructed nest site will be viable.
Section III.8.7, Objective - The proposed PIID should be redesigned to take into
consideration the environmental constraints which will limit the number and the
placement of residential units and the design of the golf features. Development
should avoid environmental hazards and be located on land capable of supporting
growth.
Section III.8.1 and 8.7, Policies - "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. A thorough mitigation plan has not been proposed.
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 calls for cut and fill in order to construct the road accessing
the upper golf course facilities located on a steep bluff
37.
38.
39.
40.
Page 16 of 17
VT.
41. 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 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 deficiencies as listed above.
The primary reason for this disapproval is the severe geologic constraints which this site
presents for the type of development design proposed. A secondary reason is the inability
of the present proposal to meet the major issues facing the County regarding a lack of
affordable housing, a loss of agricultural land, and an increase in traffic congestion.
Page 17 of 17
ROARIIVG T-ORK I NVESTMEIVTS, L. L. C.
a Colorado limited liability company
May 2O,7998
Victoria Giannola, Senior Planner
Don Deford, County Attorney
Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
Supplement to Section 4V and Section BG
In the two previously referenced sections of our PUD and Sketch Plan submittal we had
offered to contribute $200.00 per residential unit sold to a Garfield County Housing Authority Fund
or to the Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housing Fund.
We herebywant to supplement and clarify those sections by offering the following additional
amounts to the groups specified:
TO:
RE:
(1)
(2)
(3)
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
400 Seventh Street South, Suite 1000
Rifle, Colorado 81650
GLENWOOD SPRINGS BOARD OF REALTORS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
1316 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
CARBONDALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION
511 Colorado Avenue
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
$200.00 per
unit sold
$1,000.00 per
unit sold
$1,000.00 per
unit sold
We propose that the foregoing amounts would be collected by Garfield County at the time each
residential building permit is issued and then paid over to the foregoing groups within a reasonable
time thereafter.
Sincerely,
ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.
% HEGGEMEIER & STONL, P.C.
19563 E. MAINSTREET. SUITE 2OO. PARKER. COLORADO 80134
PHONE: (303) 8.11-8072 FAX: (303) 811-8073
By:
Heggemeier,
Dnr-,exrcrr & Bar-,coMB, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT ITAW
P. O. DR-{wmn ?9O
818 COLORA.DO AVENIfX)
Gr,EN wooD SPRTNGS, Oor,oR-A.Do 81(i02
Til-.., ;JIITF
Iq,-gryl* ill
Gltt*rietD (nXrN I y
oF CoUNSEL:
RoBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
JoHN A. THULSoN
E-p1v4ppyrJLHA11,.Jp.Scorr BALCoMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TrMorHY A. THULSoN
LoRI J. M. SATTERF,ELD
E-oG6-ElEGze*.o,
DAVID SANDOVAL
DENDY M. HEISEL
Teleohone: 970.945.6546
Facdimile: 970.945.8902
April3, 1998
Don DeFord
Garfi eld County Attorney
109 8ft Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Victoria Gianolla
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8m Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re Rose Ranch PUD/Sketch Plan Application
Dear Don and Victoria:
This is to confirm that the Easement Agreement executed between Roaring Fork
Investments and the Westbank Mesa Homeowners Association provided to you yesterday was
recorded in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County at Book 167, Page 34,
Reception No. 522915. As soon as the Clerk and Recorder's Office provides me with a recorded
copy of the Easement Agreement I will forward the same to you for your records.
Very truly yours,
TAT:kjk