HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report PC 11.08.06APPLICATION
owNER(S)
REPRESENTATIVE
ENGII\EER
ATTORNEY
LOCATION
WATER
SEWER
STZE
EXISTING ZONING
PC 11/08/06
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Planned Unit Development (PUD) & Preliminary Plan for the
"Rapids on the Colorado PUD"
Rapids Development Corporation,
The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners
Gene R. Hilton and MaryJo Hilton
Gene Hilton
Mountain Cross Engineering
kavenworth and Karp, PC
One Mile West of New Castle on CR 335
Wells to serve a Central Water System
Package Treatment Plant - Central Sewer
121.48 Acres
A/I and A/R/R/D
I. PRO.IECT STJMMARY
The Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject parcel to PUD to allow greater flexibility and
provide a more creative subdivision for greater density. The property is presently zoned ARRD and
AI and has been subdivided into 33 residential lots with four single-family dwellings constructed in
the development served by an existing central water supply system and ISDS.
The proposal is for 104 units on 121.48 total acres, the acreage for the actual residential lots is
28.201. Proposed in the PUD are single family homes, open space, recreation trails, fisherman's
irccess and infrastructure adequate to provide utilities to the development. Open space for the project
will consistof 66Vo of the development. Additional access to the Colorado River will be provided.
The existing zoning is ARRD and AI. Currently, the subject property is a platted subdivision of 33
lots. In order for the developer to propose greater density, the property will have to be zoned PUD.
Attached in the application materials are the proposed zoned, districts, setbacks, and lot size.
II. LAND USE REOUESTS
ln order to accomplish this proposed development, the Applicant requests the following land use
approvals. It should be noted, the Planning Commission should make a determination on the PUD
prior to making a determination on the Preliminary Plan as outlined below.
Rezone the property to Planned Unit Developpent (PUD)
The Applicant proposes to rezone the property from its current zoning of A/R/RD and A/I to
PUD in order to modify the dimensional requirements and uses of the zone district for the
subject site.
Preliminary Plan
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 104 lots for the construction of single-
family dwellings and leave the remainder of the property to be devoted to open space and
infrastructure. The property is broken down into the following land use areas:
1)
2)
104 Residentia! Lots (Total area
Common Open Space
2
III. REFERRAL AGENCIES
Staff has referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for
their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are more
comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this staff report.
Town of New Castle: Exhibit J
Town of Silt: No Comments
Burning Mountain Fire District: No Comments
RE-2 School District: No Comments
Colorado Department of Transportation: No Comments
Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Exhibit K
Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit L
Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Exhibit M
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Exhibits N and Z
Garfield County Vegetation: Exhibits O and BB
Garfield County Health: Exhibit P
M. Resource F.ngineering Inc.: Exhibits Q and Y
N. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit CC
TV. STAFT'COMMENTS FOR TIIE REZONE OROM ARRD AND AN TO PUD
The following section presents the required review standards and criteria used to determine the
proposed development's compliance with Garfield County Planned Unit Development regulations.
The applicable standards are in bold and italicized text followed by Staffls response.
4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTENCOMPREHENSIVE PIA.N
contained in-the MasterlComprehensive Flan. (A. 97-109)
Staff Findine
Section 4.04 of the Garfield County 7-nningRegulations states "no PUD shall be approved unless it
is found to be in general conformity with the County's Master / Comprehensive Plan. The property is
located in Study Area2 as identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In this case, the
property also happens to be located within the Area of Urban Influence for New Castle. As a result,
the County defers (by way of an Inter-Governmental Agreement) to the New Casfle's master plan for
guidance of appropriate future land use in that area. This area is identified in the Town of New
Castle's Comprehensive plan as the following:
I - Cluster Low Densitv Residential: I dwelling unit per acre;
2 - !!gp: Clusters of 5 to 10 dwelling units with open space or irrigated pasture; and
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K
L.
No PUD shall be approved unless it is foand by the County Commissioners to be in general
conformity with the-eounfit's MasterlCo:mprehei,sive plan(s)i When appropriate, an applicatian
Ipf,qo arn-endment to the Garfi.etd County'MasterlCoinpreitensive Plah'ma:y be niade is'part of a
PUD application. Any appli.dationfor MasterlComprefrensive Plan amendment must be approied
by the'Planning Coritmission, pribr to its recomrnendation on the PIJD application, ii.d nay
3 - Purpose: To provide for suburban type development while maintaining open space
for preservation of natural views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like.
Staff finds the proposed development meets the density criteria of one dwelling unit per acre;
however, the site design ignores the cluster design requirement. Keep in mind, the very intention of
"clustering" is to allow for small lot sizes in order to reduce the overall development footprint on a
property to preserve valuable features of the property while possibly reducing infrastructure costs. A
good example of this type of design is that of Blue Creek Ranch shown below. The l-acre per lot
density is a maximum density and not a development right. It would appear that a reduction in
density may allow for more defined "clustering" to occur on the property that would achieve its
intent. Staff finds the proposed design is essentially one large group of lots circled around a pond and
does not meet the "cluster" intent of the master plan. Lastly, the purpose of the Cluster Low Density
Residential designation is to provide for "suburban type development while maintaining open spirce
for preservation of natural views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like."
More specifically, Section Itr (10.0) of the County's Comprehensive Plan provides the following
guidance regarding projects that fall within an Urban Area of Influence:
GOALS
Ensure that devetapment and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a
municipality are compatible with the existins zonins and future land use obiectives of the
ap p r op riat e munic ip ality.
4
4.07 STANDARDS AND REQaTREMENTS
4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrale
that one (1) or more of them is-not applicable or that a practical solution has been
otherwise achieved:
(1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding areq with
unreasonable adverse effects oi the sunounding area being minimized,.
Staff Findine
The original nature of the property consisted of pasture/ agriculture lands and contains the Colorado
River forming the north property line. The surrounding area in which the PUD is proposed consists
of a mix of vacant, residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. This PUD application proposes
residential development which will be highly visible from CR 335 and from I-70. The traffic
generated from this site will have an impact on the County Road 335 and the development of any
vacant ground has the impact of displacing unpressured wildlife that presently uses the property.
However, the property is approved for a subdivision for 33 units. The proposed open space will help
minimize the unreasonable adverse affects on the surrounding area.
(2) The PIID shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designedfor
the type of traffic generated, sa,fety, separationfrom living areas, convenience aryd
access. Privalb iniemal streets-mdy bC permittti{ provideil that adequate access for
police and,fire protection is mainrtinel. nXyct6't affi" shall be prhvidedforwhen
the site is usedfor residentinl purposes.
Staff Findine
The internal street configuration will simply mirror what is currently in place today. It is a looped
system with a series of small cul-de-sacs. The system will provide for two possible ingress / egress
points which is a benefit to the residents from a safety perspective. Note, the design requests a more
narrow road ROW from 60' to 50' which can only be granted by the BOCC. The streets are proposed
to be owned and maintained by the HOA but dedicated to the public and are not to be private.
@) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms oflocalion, area
and type cf the Common Open SpacC, and in turms of the uses permifred in the PUD.
fue-PUb shall strive foi opimum preservation"of the ndtural features of the
terrain.
StaffFindine
The proposal provides for approximately 66Vo or almost 80 acres of the property to be placed into
open spirce. This standard has been met.
(5) The PUD shall provid.e for variety in housing types and densitics, otherfacilities and
Com.mon Open Space.
StaffFindine
The proposed plan does not provide for a variety of housing types or densities. It simply proposes
one generic lot size and one overall density. The Application states "the design of the single-family
units will include a variation of sizes and price ranges." Does this mean the Applicant will do this?
Does this mean there will be covenants that require certain lots to have a minimum FAR? The
Applicant's response to this standard is meaningless. As the Applicant is aware, varying house tlpes
include multi-family units that have the effect of providing a more affordable unit type. Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) is a technique that could partially address this issue. Staff acknowledges that no
regulatory affordable housing is required because the property is located in Study AreaZ. However,
it does not mean that this standard does not apply. FAR, deed restrictions, etc., are just a few
techniques to allow for reduced house sizes that create different sizes of houses. At present, this
standard has not been met.
(6) The PUD shall provide a.d.equate privacy between dwelling units.
Staff Finding
The Applicant states that the lots have been designed "so that privacy is provided betrveen the units."
Staff would like to know how that was accomplished. Staff understands the benefit of having most of
the lots back up to some open space but what about the other sides? This standard has been
inadequately addressed.
(7) The PILD shall provide pedestrian yvqys adequate in terms.of safety, separation,
convenience, aid access-to points of destination and attractiveness.
Staff Findine
The Application proposes sidewalks and trails throughout the development as well as a public
parking lot with access to the Colorado River and a public fisherman's easement. Staff suggests, as is
consistent with all other development, that these improvements be completed as part of the
obligations of the SIA and not passed on to whenever a "CO" is issued. The sidewalks are an
amenity to be valuated and enjoyed by the very first resident in the development similar to all other
public i.p.ou"-"nts such as the roads, trails, and open space. This standard has been met.
$) If centralized water andlor wastewater.facilities a.re proposed within the PIID, they' ' shall be orovided for in a seDarate utilitv zone disilcf that shall contain its own
perfonnince stanilards. No lqnd_wlthin itny utility zone district shgll-g.ppll toryard
any category o.f open space calculation or rCquirernent. The PUD slwll demonstrate
hiw cofr.rnin"wdter ahd wastewaterfacilitiils will be controlled or governed. by the
future owners wilhin the PUD. (A.97-109)
Staff Findins
The developer proposes centralized water and wastewater facilities within the PUD. Regarding the
central water supply, the development proposes to serve the 104lots with a centralizedwater supply
from two wells and a 150,000 gallon storage tank which is already in place. The development has
been reviewed by the Division of Water Resources which has issued a letter stating the system is
physically adequate but will result in Material Injury to decreed water rights unless the Applicant
obtains an augmentation plan and valid well permits.
The Applicant is presently in the process of obtaining a water contract from West Divide Water
Conservancy District for the augmentation water which will need to be reviewed by the State to
determine if that will ensure that a material injury will not occur. At this point as usually determined
in such a case, Staff cannot recommend approval of the Application because the Applicant has not
determined there is adequate legal water to serve the development. The Planning Commission has, at
their discretion, forwarded an application to the BOCC so long as the Applicant has the water
question resolved prior to that hearing before the BOCC.
Regarding waste water, the Applicant proposes to construct a wastewaters treatment facility
(W'WTF) on the property. The BOCC has already reviewed the proposed system and recommended
approve the Site Application. However, CDPHE will not approve the system until local government
(Garfield County) approved the zoning for the property. Should the PUD be approved, Staff suggests
that condition of approval for the Preliminary Plan be that no Final Plat shall be approved until the
system has been approved by CDPHE. Staff also points out, the MOU between the Applicant and the
Town of New Castle specifically requires that the location of the WWTF have adequate space to
upgrade the facility so that it may be able to also serve Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and nearby
development.
(9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40c/o, shall be the minimum necessary to meet
thC development ieedi, with a revegCtation and geotechnical plan sabmitted with the
PUD application; (A. 97- I 09)
StaffFindine
The subject site to be developed is primarily flat and does not contain slopes in excess of.4OVo. As a
result, the proposed development will not disturb any slopes in excess of 4O7o. Staff finds this
standard is met.
(10) If community .facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the PIID, the' 'appttcadon shLfi discuss who'or iyhat entity shall be responsible for the provisihn of
ahd payment for the proposed facilities. The facilities shall also he included within
the bvbrall cbmmoi infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water,
wastewater and parking requirements. (A. 97-109)
Staff Findine
The Application proposes a public trail, public fisherman's easement, basketball courts, tot lot, and a
play field on the property to serve the residents as well as the public. All of these amenities shall be
constructed by the Applicant and secured as par of the SIA and owned and maintained by the HOA.
4.07.A4 The maximum height of buildings rnay be increased above the maximum permittedfor
like buiWings in other zone districts in relntion to the following charactiristics of the
proposed building:
(l) Ifs geographical location;
(2) The probable effect on surT ounding slopes and mountainous terrainl(j) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate
vicintil;
@) Poteitial problems for ad.jacent sites caused by shadowsr loss of air circulation or
lass of view;
(5) InJluence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open
spacel and
(6) Uses within the proposed build.ing.
Staff Findine
The Applicant proposes the maximum height of all buildings throughout the PUD to be32 feet tall
which is inconsistent with the underlying zone district of A/A/RD and AI. Additionally, the
Applicant does not justify the increased height as required in the above requirement. Staff finds the
height should be reduced to 25 feet to be more consistent with al the residential heights in the
surrounding area the zone districts.
4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions tnay be decreased below
and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings
in other zone districts to accornmodate speciftc building types iith unusual orientation
on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall beon tne rct or reruuonsrup Detween Dulwlngs. t ne averagtng q nl areas snau. oe
permitted to provi.de Jlexibi@ in design and io relate lot size to topography, but each lotpermttted to provtde flextbiltty tn destgn and to relate lot sue to topograpny, Dut eacn rct
ihall contain an acieptable building-pite, The clustering of deublopm.ent with useable
cornrnon open areas'shall be perfiined tu encourage piovision for, and access to,
cotunon open areas and to save street and utility construction and rnaintenanc,e cgsts.
Such clustering is also intended to accommodati contemporary building types which are
not spaced ind.ividually on their own lots but sh.are common side walls, combined servicenot spaced indivi.dually on their own lots but share cornmon side
facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not
side w alls, i ombined s ervic e
not providing for separatefacifities or similar ai'chitectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate
ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be abasisfor
denying apfroval of a PUD application
StaffFindine
As noted the PUD proposes to significantly increase maximum lot coverage fuom l1%o to 50Vo and
significantly reduce minimum lot area from two acres to 7,500 sq. ft. However, again, there is no
justification as required by the standard set forth above. Also note, the proposed design is not a true
"cluster" design. This standard has not been met.
4.07.06 The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross
acrewithinthe PIID; providid,however,tfratthe County Cimmissionirs maf alw':w an
increase to a maximim of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where
public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal gouernment or
spe.cial district (as dgfined by Section 32:l-10!(29, C:f.S.) are readily availab.k an4.(he
prior zoning classiftcation allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling
units per gross acie, such densities being determined by reference to the rnaximum lot
coverage, minimum setback, maximarnfloor area ratio, rnaximumbuiWingheightand
parking standards of such prior zoning classification. The overall average residential
density shall be calculated by sumrning the number of residential dwelling units planned
within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressedin acres
within the boundary of the PAD. Averaging and transfening of densities within the
PUD shall be alloied-upon a showing of conformance-to the pwposes of this section
through appropriate utilization of the areawithin the PUD to achieve high standards of
design and livability. The density of dwelling units in any particular area may be greater
than the maxirnurn perrnittedfor a like use in other zone district. (A. 83-93, A. 96-87, A.
97-109)
Staff Findine
The property is approximately l2l acres in size. The current zoningof A/R/RD allows for a density
of I dwelling unit per 2 acres. The Applicant proposes 104 residential lots which results in a density
of approximately 0.86 dwelling units per acre which does not exceed the PUD requirements.
4.07.07 The minimurn nurnber of acres that may comprise a PIID is two (2) acres.
Staff Findins
The subject property contains l2l aqes which far exceeds the minimum acreage requirement for
PUDs. Staff finds this standard to be met.
4.07.08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district otr consistent with the lnnd
use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved os an atnendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, m.ay be pennitted in PUDs. (A. 95-043, A. 97-109)
The uses,which shallbe permittedin any partfuular PUD shallbe thosepennittedby the
resolution zoning the particular area PUD.
Staff Findine
The development primarily proposes single-family dwellings which are uses permitted by right in the
10
underlying A/R/RD and AI zone district for the residential areas. The utilities and parking zone will
contain wastewater disposal plant and water facilities. The Open Space zone will include trail, tot lot,
basketball and play field uses. The uses proposed are those in the underlying zone districts. Staff
finds this standard is met.
4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25Eo) of the total area within the boundary of any PllD shall be
devotdd"to Aommon'Opin \pace. Not more than twenty-fivi pirceit esqd of the
Comrnon Open Space shall bi an area of water classifi.ed as commercial gp_en qp_rye. Of_
the 25Vo oien siace requirement within PUDs, no tnore than 40Vo of the 25Vo total
required, ihall Se limiteil use open space, with the balance being retained as one or more
oftne r'emaining open space'categoriis, listed above. Proiided, howeuer, that the
iounty Commis1ioi.erc niay reducisuch'requirement if they find ihat such d.ecrease is
wanahted by the design ofiand the amenitibs andfeatitresiicorporated into the Plan,
andthatthe needs ofihe occupants of the PUDfoiCotnmon OpCn Space canbe metin
the proposed PUD. (A. 97 - I 0-9)
Staff Findine
The PUD proposes 66 percent of the subject site to be dedicated open space which far exceeds the
minimum 25 percent requirement. Further, it appears the proposal meets the category requirements
as well. Staff finds this standard to be met.
4.07.10 If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fraotioryaliwnirship units, or other similarinteresiinbrope@, the provisionsforsuch-ownerchip
shall he those tliat are approved by the Boaid of Cdinty eornmissiotners at the time.tlie
property is zoned PaD.
Staff Findins
The PUD does not propose any timeshare or fractional fee ownership for any of the residential
dwellings. The residential dwelling units are to be single ownership in fee. Staff finds this standard
to be met.
4.08.05 Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the
Subdivision Regulation requiriments will supersede the following PUD requirernents
where the same inforrnation or tnore detailed information is required as a part of a
subdivision application. The applicant shall inctude with the written requestfor PUD
zoning whicrt iloes not include h'subdivision Preliminary Plan applicatioir thetollawing
information:
(1) A statement oJ tbe _ownerchip interest in the property to be included in the PUD and the
written consent of all of the owners;
Staff Findine
The Applicant has represented the sole owner of the subject property Rapids Developmant
Corporation, The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association, Gene R. Hilton and Mary Jo
Hilton Staff finds this requirement is met.
(2) A PUD Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development. Such Plan shall
clearly indicate:
(a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposed within the overall area;
StaffFindine
The plan proposes a total of 104 residential units on the l2l acre property. Staff finds this
11
requirement is met.
(b) The minimurn acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open Space;
Staff Findine
The Applicant proposes a total of 79 acres (66Vo) of the property is devoted to common open space.
Staff finds this requirement is met.
(c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each usel
Staff Findine
Please refer to the application which details the uses and their associated acreage as proposed in this
development. The matrix below shows the general zone districts and their associated acreages and
percentage of the overall project. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(d) Major internal circulation systems;
StaffFindine
Please refer to the application for a plan of the internal road system. In addition, the subsequent
Sheets include finer details of the street system and their adjacent lots. Staff finds this requirement is
met.
(e) The acreage, which will be dedicatedfor school, sitesl
StaffFinding
The Applicant is not proposing to dedicate land for a school site at the property. The Applicant shall
provide the appropriate cash-in-lieu of a land dedication. Staff finds this requirement to be met.
(fl Thg Srryerql nature and location of comrnercial and ind.ustrial uses, if any, to be
located in the PUD;
104 Residential Lots ffotal area
Common Open Space
t2
(h) Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building setbacks, height limits,
access reouirements and erade or slooe restrictions to be aonlied to oarticular areas.
written iitheform of a zotre district teit the sanne as, or in sfiittarforin to, the Garfi,eti
County Zoning Resolution; and
Staff Findine
As noted earlier, the PUD proposes to amend the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone
district as follows:
StaffFindine
The Applicant is not proposing any commercial or industrial uses as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
requirement is met.
(g) _Prqyision Jor water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if
applicable; and
Staff Findine
Again, the Applicant proposes a centralized wastewater treatment facility to handle wastewater. The
site is presently served by a centralized potable water system, electricity, natural gas. This standard
has not been met regarding water as there continues to be a letter of material injury.
AIso as noted earlier, the average lot size proposed is a I 60' x 75 ' lot ( 12,000 sq. ft. or a bit less than
aVq acre lot) but the Applicant does not show lot sizes or dimensions on the proposed plat as well as
requests a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. which is typical of an urban city lot in the County's
Residential Limited Urban Density zone district found only adjacent to municipalities. Staff has
included the specifics in the matrix above for your review. Ultimately, Staff finds the significant
differences to be building height and maximum lot coverage. Staff suggests the Planning
Commission approve the dimensions as indicted in the RLUD zone district which requires a
maximum height of 25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 357o.
(i) If m-ore than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be included in the application
thaf delineates the pioposed phasing of the develbpment. (A. 97-109)
StaffFindine:
The Applicant plans to complete the construction of subdivision in one phase. Note that all
improvements including roads, curbs, sidewalks, water system, and sewer system, public trails, tot
Internal Road ROW Width
Side Yard Setback
t3
lots, etc shall all be required to be constructed by the developer and secured in the SIA. Staff finds
this requirement is met.
(3) A regional location map showing the relationship of t\e site to _connecting roadways, public
fcicilines, commercial and Zultural facilities and, surroinding land uses ;
Staff Findine:
The Applicant has provided a vicinity map showing the relationship of the site to connecting
roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding land uses. Staff finds
this requirement is met.
(4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing zoning;
StaffFinding:
The Applicant has provided a site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and
the existing zoning, Staff finds this requirement is met.
(5) A site topogaphic map showing at least five-toot c-gntorq interttals, maior vegetation
blbments, strdams, -rivers, dftches and areas subjbct to 100 Yearflooding;
StaffFindine:
The Applicant has provided a site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals,
major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding. Stafffinds
this requirement is met.
(6) A legal d.escription of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PIID;
StaffFindine:
The Applicant has provided a legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in
the PUD. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(7) A written stalement containing the following inform.ation:
(a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD;
StaffFindins:
The Application specifies the objectives of the PUD in binder (Volume 1). This standard has been
met.
(b) A development s;chedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the
idriaus stag:es of the PUD can be expicted tobegin and be cornpleted;
StaffFindine:
The Applicant proposes to complete construction of the development within 30 months (2.5 years) of
(presumably) the approval of the PUD / Preliminary Plan. This needs to be clarified because the
Applicant will only have about 6 months to construct all improvements as required in the SIA
following final plat approval.
t4
(c) Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which will goveru lhe use_
or ociupancy of the PUD; provi.ded, however, that the applicant rnay impose additional
covenants, conditions and restrictions on any pafiicular area in connection with the
platting of such area;
Staff Finding:
The Applicant has provided a copy of draft Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
for the project. Staff finds this requirement has been met.
(d) A tist of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200) Ieet of the
boundaries of the PUD and theii addresses;
StaffFindine:
Exhibit 9 in the Application contains a copy of the owners within 200 feet of the subject property as
listed in the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Staff finds this requirement to be met.
(e) A statement by a lfuensed engineer, with supporting calculations and docamentation,
which shall provide evidence of the tollowing! (A. 97-109)
(i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to semice the PUD;
Staff Findine
The proposed water source is physically adequate but is not legally adequate as stated by the State
Engineer from the Colorado Division of water Resources primarily due to a deficiency in an
Augmentation Plan for the water system. The Applicant is attempting to obtain an Augmentation
Contract from West Divide Conservancy District which will still need to be reviewed by the State to
determine if there is a material injury or not. This is a significant challenee to this development. In
this case as you are well aware. Staff cannot recommend approval of any Application that cannot
justiff an adequate legal water supply. The Planning Commission has forwarded a project to the
BOCC provided the Applicant / County receives a letter from the State Engineer that there is no
material injury to decreed water riehts prior to scheduling a hearing before the BOCC.
(ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to
service the PUD. If the PUD appli.cation proposes to utilize existing, central
facilities, the applic'ation shall connin a lefter from the district or prolider that
adequate excess capacity currently exists andwillbe devotedto accommodatingthe
development, orthatthe capacity willbe expandedto adequately accommodatethe
development; (A. 97-109) -
StaffFindine
Regarding waste water, the Applicant proposes to construct a wastewaters treatment facility
(WWTF) on the property. The BOCC has already reviewed the proposed system and recommended
CDPHE approve the Site Application. However, CDPHE will not approve the system until local
government (Garfield County) approved the zoning for the property. Should the PUD be approved,
Staff suggests that a possible condition of approval for the Preliminary Plan be that no Final Plat
shall be approved until the system has been approved by CDPHE. Staff also points out, the MOU
15
Applicant and the Town of New Castle specifically requires that the location of the WWTF have
adequate space to upgrade the facility so that it may be able to also serve Apple Tree Mobile Home
Park and nearby development.
6iil The proposed method in which stonn drainage will be handled, demonstrating
thai adio?niig property owners would. not be dimaged by the development; and
(ae7-10e)
StaffFindine
The Application contains a Drainage Analysis prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering which can
be located under tab 16 in Volume 2 of the Application. Additionally, the Drainage Plan was
submitted as Sheet DRN in the plan set which demonstrates how drainage is managed throughout the
property. Ultimately, the reports state that there is no impact to downstream properties and no
detention is required on site. This analysis has been signed and stamped by an engineer licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado. This standard has been met.
(iv) The proposed method in which provision will be ry@g for any potgnliql
ndtural liaruirds in-the area such as avtalanche areas-,landslide areas,fu.od.plql
areas, and unstable soils, and the extent and mitigation of such harurd(s); (4. 97-
10e)
StaffFindine
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the project twice and the content of that review is
included here in its entirety
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic hazard conditions.
The Site lies on an old river terrace and packed river gravet shallowly und.erlie the property,
which is overlainbyfine-grained soils that likely thickentowards CR 335 andthe upper slope
bank. These thin mantles of fine-grained soils that overlie the gravel may be hydro-
compactive so site-specificfoundation investigations are recommended. There are two other
hazard potential areas. One is the minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing of the slope
above the site, which is not a significant hazard because such a small slope failure would
needto cross CR 3 j5 before entering the development. The secondis the possibility of minor
debris flow flooding from the small drainage basin (drainage basin C in the drainage report)
that exits onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel Lane. There is a possibility that
concentrated Jlows could cross the roadway into the development. The existing l8-inch
culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged off.
The revised plan shows additional lots in this vicinity, which extendfartherwest than shown
inthe earlier plan. This will result inmore exposure of potential debrisJlows to those lots at
the end of the cul-de-sac (of the newly proposed Canoe Way 100) frorn the next larger and
steeper ephemeral drainageway above the highway, which is drainage basin E in the
drainage report.
The drainage plan shows a short berm in the landscaping west of Paddlewheel lane that
parallels the county road. Tl1is berm re-directs possible overflows to the west, toward.s the
adjacent open space. That was the only grading plan we could find in the submittal.
1,6
We believe that it would be prudent to extend that berm to wrap around the back corner of
the cul-de-sac lots so that it provides additional protectionfrom potential hyperconcentrated. orbulkedstormJlowsthatmayoutletfromthechannelofdrainagebasinE. Sinceitdoesn't
appear that any debris bulking was used in the drainage study, the drainage engineer should
verify that the height of the diversion berm is adequate.
In closing, our recommendations in the earlier CGS reviews remainvalid - site specific
foundation investigations should be completedfor each lot. Provided the observations
and recommendations stated above concerning drainage flows are noted and
satisfactorily a.ddressed, we have nofurther concernwith the revised development plan.
(F) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to
the PUD andlor documentation demonstratins access shall be acauired across a ouhlic
right-of-way or easetnent within two (21yean"of any PIJD approval and said accesit shollt;;r::if flffiff tH ortting of any propefi subibct to the easernent across the right-of-
StaffFindins
The property has direct access to CR 335 and has two formally established driveways into the
project. The County Road and Bridge reviewed the second proposal and commented that "all
accesses to the site have been installed for several years and meet all criteria for driveway accesses
with the proper signage and have been approved previously." This standard is met.
(G).Evidence thal the PUD has been_lesigned with consideration of-the- natural
environment of the site and the surrounding area and does not unreasonably destroy or
displace wildfffu, natural vegetation or unifue natural or historicalfeatures:
Staff Findine
Again, the Application refers the reader to Section tr (pages 7 - 9) which do not exist and all of
Section Itr. This PUD application proposes residential development which will be highly visible
from CR 335 and from I-70. The traffic generated from this site will have an impact on the County
Road 335 and the development of any vacant ground has the impact of displacing unpressured
wildlife that presently uses the property. However, the property is approved for a subdivision for 33
units. The proposed open space will help minimize the unreasonable adverse affects on the
surrounding area.
V. STAFF COMMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN
The following section provides an analysis of the proposal with respect to requirements in Section
4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
A. Water Supplv
The pro lp to modify an existing centralized water system which was put in place to serve the
existi esidential subdivision. Basically, the system consists of two wells that provide water
toa lallon water tank which then provides water through water mains in the internal road
syste hile that system was approved by the State (DWR) as being legally and physically
adequate for 33 lots, the Applicant is proposing that the same system serve the proposed 104 units.
t7
As mentioned in the PUD Section of this Memorandum, the proposed water source is physically
adequate but is not legally adequate as stated by the State Engineer from the Colorado Division of
Water Resources primarily due to a deficiency in an ,A,ugmentation Plan for the water system. The
Applicant is attempting to obtain an Augmentation Contract fromWest Divide ConservancyDistrict
which will still need to be reviewed by the State to determine if there is a material injury or not. This
is a significant challenge to this development. In this case as you are well aware. Staff cannot
recommend approval of any Application that cannot justify an adequate legal water supply. The
Planning Commission has forwarded a project to the BOCC provided the Applicant / Coun[v
receives a letter from the State Engineer that there is no material injury to decreed water rishts prior
to schedulins a hearing before the BOCC.
Resource Engineering reviewed the revised proposal and submitted the following comments:
The 104 lot subdivision is proposed to be served by a central water system utilizing two
wells, an existing treatment, system, an existing 150,000 gallon storage tank, and a
distribution system (sorne of which is existing) designed to provide fire flow. The existing
water system design was approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE).
The potable water system will provide water for in-house andfire protection uses only. All
irrigationwill befrom a non potable iruigation system using waterfrom the Moore Ditch.
The potable water diversions are includ.ed in a planfor augmentation decreed in Case No.
W-3262. Such decree augments out-of-priority depletions during the irrigation season.
The Applicant has obtained one acre foot of contlact waterfrom the West Divide Water
Conservancy District, but such amount does not appear to be adequate. The Apolicant
should obtain an amended water allotment contract .for additional water prior to the BOCC
hearins.
The existing water system is owned by The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners
Association. A letter indicating that the HOAwill provi.de service to the proposed 104 lots
is included in the submittal.
B. Waste Water
The Applicant proposes to construct a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) on the property to
serve the 104 units. The BOCC has already reviewed the proposed system and recommended
CDPHE, approve the Site Application. However, CDPHE will not approve the system until local
government (Garfield County) approved the zoning for the property. Should the PUD be approved,
Staff suggests that a possible condition of approval for the Preliminary Plan be that no Final Plat
shall be approved until the system has been approved by CDPHE. Staff also points out, the MOU
between the Applicant and the Town of New Castle specifically requires that the location of the
WWTF have adequate space to upgrade the facility so that it may be able to also serve Apple Tree
Mobile Home Park and nearby development.
18
As you will recall, several of the neighbors are very concerned as to the location of the proposed
package plant as the proposed location is in the far northwest corner of the property away from the
development. Please refer to the minutes attached to this report.
Resource Engineering reviewed the proposed system and commented that the wastewater collection
and disposalfor the project is proposed to be through a central system. The Applicant has submitted
a site application to the CDPHE for approval of a 45 ,000 gallon per day treatment facility. The site
application must be approved prior to any Final Plat approval.
C. Internal Road /Access
The development has direct access to a public road with two formally established enfrances presently
in place which are to be used with the subject proposal which appear to be satisfactory to the County
Road and Bridge Department.
The internal road system is a looped design providing two points of access into I out of the
development onto CR 335. The trips generated from 104 single-family dwellings is assumed to be
995.28 ADT using the 6th Edition of the ITE manual. This number of trips, pursuant to Section 9:35
of the Subdivision Regulations require a 'Minor Collector" design category which generally requires
the ROW width to be 60 feet with 2 twelve foot driving lanes and a chip-seal surface. The proposed
road design does not satisfy this requirement because all of the internals roads are 50 foot ROW
which is deficient by 10 feet in width which reduced the actual driving lanes from 12 to 11 feet.
There is no specific provision that provides relief from this standard as it has always been interpreted
to apply to the entire road system and not reduced on assumed traffic patterns. The Board has
approved reductions in width in the case of a PUD where they have authority to vary subdivision
regulations.
Basically, the Applicant has revised the site plan to show that half of the length of Paddlewheel and
Whitewater Lanes meet the 60 feet because it is assumed that only those portions of the internal road
network will handle the full traffic volume. Ultimately, this is PUD and a variation of the road
widths can be warranted if the Planning Commission agrees with the proposed site plan. Staff finds
that if the Fire Protection District agrees with the 50 foot ROW (narrower driving surface) then Staff
is fine with the more niurow width as it can have a traffic calming affect as well as reduce the
impervious space thereby reducing drainage flows. This assumes the surface is at least a chip / seal
surface.
Resource Engineering, on behalf of the County, provided the following comments:
The proposed subdivision will generate 1,078 average daily trips (ADD. This require:s the
main loop road to be designed as a minor collector. (We disagree with Kimley-Horn's
prorata lot count analysis for downsizing the design.) A minor collector road has a 60 foot
right-of-way, 12 foot lanes, and minimum 4 foot shoulder. The existing loop road has I I foot
lanes, a 2 foot curb and gutter, a 4 foot sidewalk, and a proposed 50 foot right-of-way except
for 450 feet at the county road entrance which has a 60 foot right-of-way. The PUD text
should indicate that the request is for the above noted road section such that a varinnce to the
County Standard can be approvedfor the Preliminary Plan design.
The trffic study does not address the fact that County Road 335 is in poor condition in
several areas and in need of improvement for existing trffic. However this project is in a
designated road impact fee area and the presumption is that the fee was based on the need to
improve the road.
The recommendedformulafor the road impactfee is based on the theoretical calculationfor
the project taking into account the existing project. This translates to one-half of the road
impact fee for 7l lots at final plat and one half of the road impact fee at building permit for
g! remaining un-built lots.
D. External Road Impacts
The trips generated from 104 single-family dwellings is assumed to be 995.28 ADT using the 6th
Edition of the IIE manual. The Kimley-Horn analysis states the total trips generated will be 10.25
ADT. Staffwill agree with the consultant and use their ADT as their entire off-site analysis is driven
by this number. As the Planning Commission will recall, the main concern regarding off-site traffic
impacts includes 1) the general increase in traffic on CR 335,2) weather or not a Highway Access
Permit is required from CDOT for these trips as they impactl-7D, and 3) the ability of the resent
condition of CR 335 to handle this increased traffic. (Please refer to the minutes for this discussion.)
As a result of that discussion, the Applicant commissioned a revised traffic analysis prepared by
Kimley-Horn and Associates which is included in Binder Volume 3. Ultimately, the analysis points
out that the 104 units will not exceed the2OTo threshold at the I-70 intersection with CR 335 either
with or without the background traffic generated by the apartments currently being built east and
south of the interchange. CDOT was forwarded the Application but did not provide any comments.
The Kimley-Horn analysis did recommend changes to the I-70 westbound off ramp as well as the
intersection at CR335 and the road that crosses the interstate. Those improvements are included in
their analysis.
The Applicant shall be required to pay a road impact fee for 7l ofthe l04lots because fees have
already been paid for the existing 33 lots. These fees are required to be spent in that District 3. Those
fees would approximatelybe$226per ADT. In this case, that is roughly $164,471.50. Those monies
are then required to be spent in accordance with the terms of the County's Capital Improvements
Plan.
E. Soils/Geoloev
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the project twice and the content of that review is
included here in its entirety:
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic hazard conditions.
The site lies on an old river terrace and p.acked river gravel shallowly underlie the property,
which is overlain by fine-grained soils that tikely thicken towards CR 335 and the upper slope
bank. These thin mantles of fine-grained soils that overlie the gravel may be hydro-
compactive so site-specificfoundation investigations are recommended. There are two other
20
hazard potential areas. One is the minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing of the slope
above the site, which is not a signfficant hazard because such a small slope failure would
need to cross CR 3 j5 before entering the development. The second is the possibility of minor
debris flow floodingfrom the small drainage basin (drainage basin C in the drainage report)
that exits onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel l-ane. There is a possibility that
concentrated flows could cross the roadway into the development. The existing l8-inch
culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged off.
The revised plan shows additional lots in this vicinity, which extendfarther west than shown
in the earlier plan. This will result in more exposure of potential debris flows to those lots at
the end of the cul-de-sac (of the newly proposed Canoe Way 100)from the next larger and
steeper ep,hemeral drainageway above the highway, which is drainage basin E in the
drainage reqort.
The drainage plan shows a short berm in the landscaping west of Paddlewheel lane that
parallels the county road. This berm re-directs possible overflows to the west, towards the
adjacent open space. That was the only grading plan we couldfind in the submittal.
We believe that it would be prudent to extend that berm to wrap around the backcorncr of the
cul-de-sac lots so that it provides additional protectionfrom potential hyperconcentrated or
bulked storm flows that may outlet from the channel of drainage basin E. Since it doesn't
appear that any debris bulking was used in the drainage study, the drainage engineer should
verify that the height of the diversion berm is adequate.
In closing, our recommendations in the earlier CGS reviews remain valid - site specific
foundation investigations should be completedfor each lot. Provided the observations and
recommendations stated above concerning drainage flows are noted and satisfactorily
addressed, we have no further concern with the revised development plan.
Resource Engineering, on behalf of the County, provided the following comments:
Site constraints identified in the 1980 Lincoln-Devore Study inclu.de debris flow potential,
debris fans, high ground water, and soils which are subject to differential movement when
loaded or wetted. The old 1980 report does not map the hazard areas. The grading and
drainage plan has been modified to provide for mitigation of debris flow hazards. Based on
the hnzaids present, we recommend that a plat note be added requiring that individual site
specific geotechnical investieations andfoundation desien be submixed with the buildine
permit application.
F. Drainage
The Application contains a Drainage Analysis prepared byMountain Cross Engineering which can
be located under tab 16 in Volume 2 of the Application. Additionally, the Drainage Plan was
submitted as Sheet DRN in the plan set which demonstrates how drainage is managed throughout the
property. Ultimately, the reports state that there is no impact to downstream properties and no
2t
detention is required on site. This analysis has been signed and stamped by an engineer licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado. This standard has been met.
Resource Engineering reviewed the Drainage Plan on behalf of the County and provided the
following comments:
The drainage study an"d analysis is consistent with standard practices and meets GARCO
criteria. The drainage plan provides for conveyance of storm water through the property
andmanagement of water to address water qu.ality impactsfromdevelopment activities. Thc
plan generally routes off site drainage around the lots with surface drainage structures or
into the control pond and out to the river open space in a pipe. The discharge of all drainage
systems is to grass lined swales prior to discharge to the river.
G. Development proposed within the lfi)-vear lloodplain
It appears that a portion of the property falls within the regulated 100-year floodplain as is delineated
on the site plan. It appears that portions of the public trail are located within the 100-year floodplain.
The Applicant shall submit an application for a Floodplain Permit to be reviewed by the BOCC in
conjunction with the PUD and Preliminary Plan. Staff suggests that no hearing be scheduled until
this application has been submitted. Resource Engineering reviewed the Site Plan on behalf of the
County and provided the following comments:
"1
The riverfrontage lots are within thefloodfringe area of thefloodplainboundary. This lot f
areawas the subject of a Floodplain Special Use Permitfor the original subdivision. Thr l
area was filled to raise the lot area above the 100 year base flood elevation. As a result, the I
proposed lots are shown to be outside of the Jloodplain. Portions of proposed l,ots I through \ -X
7, 10 through 18 and the wastewater treatment plant site are within the floodplain boundary, f \'
but elevated above the 100 year base ftood elevation. It is recommend.ed that a new \
qdministrative Floodplain Permit be obtainedfor this project due to the above and due to \
permit conditions which conflict with the new project and our review recommendations of I
the proposed project. Clean up of the floodplain permit issues is a relatively simple ,/
administrative procedure and shouldbe completed prior to the BOCC hearing.
H. Fire Protection
The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. While the Application does
not contain a specific fire protection plan, the property itself is improved with a central water supply
system, 150,000 gallon storage tank, and a plan set that shows those hydrants. The District submitted
a letter dated August \2M6 which reflects a review of the original site design and does not reflect a
review of the redesign. In the original review, the District stated that street widths (which are the
same in the new plan) were adequate so long as no on street parking was allowed and posted as such;
water storage was adequate particularly if the pond can be used with a dry hydrant system; hydrant
spacing is adequate barring any unusual building envelopes; and fire hydrant densities could be
reduced ifall new residences are required to be sprinkled. Staffbelieves a new review should occur
with this new plan so that the new street system / cul-de-sac iurangement does not conflict with
hydrant spacing. This should be required prior to any hearing before the BOCC.
iI
,/
22
I. Open Space / Public Trails / Amenities
The proposed revision to the site plan shows two open space tracks separated by CR 335 totaling
approximately 79 acres or 667o of the property. The Application proposes to place the open space
south of CR335 in aperpetual easement. The open space tract on the north side of CR335 surrounds
all of the lots and contains a sports field, tot lot, pond, basketball court, 16 space public parking lot,
public trail, and l5-foot fisherman's easement. It is assumed that all of the open space is to be owned
and maintained by the HOA. The trail, 16-space parking lot, and fisherman's easement shall be
dedicated to the public. The Applicant has also committed to allow public access to the other
amenities on the property within certain limitation (sunrise to sunset). This standard has been met.
J. Wildlife
The Application was sent to the Division of Wildlife but no cofllments were received back from that
agency. The Application (page 23, Summary..., of Section II, Volume 1) states that the proposed
development..."protects wildlife habitat." It appears the Applicant intends to accomplish this bynot
disturbing the steep hillsides south of CR335 and by placing that into a perpetual easement as well as
removing lots that are now individual river frontage into open space that will protect the integrity and
wildlife value of the nparian habitat such as mature cottonwoods and ensure a more progressive
noxious weed management to occur. Staff suggests that no perimeter fencing be allowed around the
entire development so that large game can access the river for water. Due to the limited amount of
mature / dead vegetation in the Colorado riparian corridor, Staff suggests that it be left untouched so
that it can continue to serve as important raptor perch habitat for hunting in the river.
K. Vegetation Management
Staff referred the revised Application to the CountyVegetation Managerwho providedthe following
comments:
l) Resardine Noxious Weeds
a. The applicant needs to map and inventory the property for Gafield County listed
noxious weeds.
In Mr. l*avenworth's letter to you dated October g, 2006, he states in Item #12,
regarding the County's prior request for a weed map and inventory, that "it is
impractical in that the weeds move from place to place and specific mapping while
possible would be rendered obsolete as soon as it was produced".
Weed maopins and inventory has been proven over time to be one o.f the most use.ful
components of a weed management program. A landowner must lcnow what is out there
if they want to manage their land successfully. Man:t of the Countv's listed noxious
weeds are perennials and do show up in the same place year a.fter year.
b. Implement a weed management plan based on the weed inventory. The weed
management plan shall be in effect prior to the development of the project. County
listedweeds present in the area include whitetop, burdock, Russianlcnapweed, Russian
olive, tamarisk, and common burdock. The propefi has at least nine Russian olive trees
23
within the proposed open space area along the Colorado River, these need to be mapped,
inventoried, cut, and treated. There are also some young tamarisk trees around the pond
and they need to be mapped, inventoried, cut, and treated.
Mr. I*avenworth also states that " several plat notes have been added to the preliminary
plan indicating weed managernent and soil storage during construction". I have been
unable to locate these comments in the subminal.
2) Covennnts
In the amendment to the covenants, the Applicant addresses mosquitos and noxious weeds.
Mosquitos are addressed in Section 14.6. It states that "the owner of each lot shall use their
best efforts to control the mosquito populationwith(in) the Subdivision, which shall include,
without limitation, the prevention of standing pools of stagnant water on the Lot".
Staff recommends that the applicant provide more detail beyond "best efforts". Also the
applicant needs to specifically address the issue of mosquito managernent on the pond located
in the subdivision. Please identify the pafi responsible for taking care of mosquito issucs on
the pond.
Weeds are addressed in Section 14.7 and again detail is lacking in the covenants regarding
responsibility of noxious weed management on common areas such as roadsides, open
spaces, and park areas.
3) Revegetation
The applicant has not provided a revegetation plan or a plant materials list for review.
Please quantify the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on
road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help detennine the amount of
security thaf will held for revegetation. These will be areas outside of the building
envelopes. As ls always required, Staff recommends a revegetation security once this
info rmation is p rovide d.
4) Soil Plan
It is requested that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that inchtdes: I ) provisions
for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles, 3)
and a plan that providesfor soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposedfor a
period of 90 days or more.
5) Proliferation of tumbleweeds
Complaints from adjacent landowners to new subdivisons have increased in the last two years
regarding the issue of nuisance weeds such as kochia and Russiqn thistle. These plants are
opportunistic to bare soil and later become tumbleweeds. Typically we have seen them in
areas in new subdivisions where the soil has been brt disturbed and revegetation has not
occurred. Kochia an"d Russian thistle are not County listed noxious weeds so are not subject
to noxious weed enforcement regulations per the Gafield County Weed Management Plan
/
and the State Noxious Weed Act. Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners consider making a request of the Applicant to
address management of Kochia and Russian thistle along disturbed areas and roadsides
within the subdivision.
6) Summar,y of Requests
The Application is significantly deficient in addressing existing noxious weed management as
well as providing for its management over tome as the subdivision matures. Staff suggests the
Planning Commission require the following items to be submitted and reviewed prior to
scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners:
I. Provide a noxious weed inventory and map;
tr. Implement a weed management plan based on the inventory;
m. Inventory and treat the Russian olive and tamarisk as soon as possible;
IV. Provide more details in the covenants regarding responsibility of weeds and
mosquitos;
V. Complete a revegetation plan as stated above, with a plant materials list and with an
estimate of disturbed areas, a security for revegetation will be established once this
information is supplied;
VL Provide a soil management plan as stated above; and
Vtr. Address a plan of action should Kochia and Russian thistle becomes a problem.
L. Assessment / Fees
The property is located in the RE-2 School District which requires $200 per unit be paid as a cash-in-
lieu of School / Land Dedication Fee. In this case, it appears that if the existing 33 lots already paid
this fee, the Applicant is only responsible for paying the fee for 7l units or $14,200 at the time of
final plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA.
As mentioned earlier, the property is located in Road Impact Study Area 3 which requires $226per
ADT generated out of the development to be spent on road improvements in that District. The
Applicant shall be required to pay a road impact fee for 7 I of the 104 lots because fees have already
been paid for the existing 33 lots. Those fees would approximately be $226 per ADT. In this case,
that is roughly $164,47 1.50. Those monies are then required to be spent in accordance with the terms
of the County's Capital Improvements Plan. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA.
YI. POINTS TO BE DISCUSSED
Based on this review, and prior to any total decision by the Planning Commission, Staffhas provided
the following points that need to be individually addressed in the hearing:
1) Proposed Dimensional Requirements: The basic modifications from the ARRD and AI
zoning and subdivision regulations requested as part of the proposed PUD include the
following matrix:
25
$*aridffd / ffiria :.::::: ,:: l
Minimum Lot Area 2 acres 7,500 sq. ft.7.500 sq. ft.
lnternal Road ROW Width 60 feet nJa 50 feet
Buildins Heieht 25 feet 25 feet 32feet
Maximum Lot Coverase l5Vo 35clo 50Vo
Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet 10 feet
Side Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Staff suggests the Planning Commission approve the dimensions as indicted in the RLUD zone
district which requires a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 357o.
2)Section4.o7.o3(2)requiresthatthePUDshallprovidean@
circqlatian svstem designedfor the type of traffic generated, safety, separalianfiom 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
provid.edfor when the site is usedfor residential purposes.
The design requests a more n.urow road ROW from 60' to 50' which can only be granted by
the BoCC.
3) Section 4.07.03(5) requires that the PIID shall provide for variety in housing types and
densities, otherfacilities and Common Open Space.
The proposed plan does not provide for a variety of housing types or densities. It simply
proposes one generic lot size and one overall density. The Application states "the design of
the single-family units will include a variation of sizes and price ranges." Does this mean the
Applicant will do this? Does this mean there will be covenants that require certain lots to
have a minimum FAR? The Applicant's response to this standard is meaningless. As the
Applicant is aware, varying house types include multi-family units that have the effect of
providing a more affordable unit type. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a technique that could
partially address this issue. Staff acknowledges that no regulatory affordable housing is
required because the property is located in Study Area 2. However, it does not mean that this
standard does not apply. FAR, deed restrictions, etc., are just a few techniques to allow for
reduced house sizes that create different sizes of houses.
4) Section 4.07.03(6) requires thatthe PUD shallprovide adequate privacy between dwelling
units.
' The Applicant states that the lots have been designed "so that privacy is provided between
the units." Staff would like to know how that was accomplished. Staff understands the
benefit of having most of the lots back up to some open space but what aboutthe other sides?
This standard has been inadequately addressed.
26
5) Section 4.07.03(8) requires that if centralized water and/or wastewater facilities are
proposed within the PUD, they shall be providedfor in a separate util@ zone district that
shall containits ownperformance standards. No landwithin any utility zone district shall
apply toward any category of open space calculation or requirement. The PUD shall
dernonstrate how corn non water and. wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed
by thefuture owners within the PUD. (A.97-109)
The development has been reviewed by the Division of Water Resources which has issued a
letter stating the system is physically adequate but will result in Material Injury to decreed
water rights unless the Applicant obtains an augmentation plan and valid well permits. The
Applicant is presently in the process of obtaining a water contract from West Divide Water
ConservancyDistrict forthe augmentation water which will needtobe reviewedbythe State
to determine if that will ensure that a material injury will not occur. At this point as usually
determined in such a case, Staff cannot recommend approval of the Application because the
Applicant has not determined there is adequate legal water to serve the development. The
Planning Commission has, at their discretion, forwarded an application to the BOCC so long
as the Applicant has the water question resolved prior to that hearing before the BOCC.
6) Section 4.07 .O4requires thatthe maximurn height of buildings may be increased above the
maximum permittedfor like bail.dings in other zone districts in relation to the following
characteristics of the proposed building:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
It's g e o graphic al loc ation I
The probable effect on satrounding slopes and mountainous terrainl
UnrCasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent siles or other areas inthe immediate
vicinity;
Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shdows, Ioss of air circulation or
loss of view;
Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open
spacel and
(6) Uses within the proposed building.
The Applicant proposes the maximum height of all buildings throughout the PUD to be32
feet tall which is inconsistent with the underlying zone district of A/R/RD and AI.
Additionally, the Applicant does not justify the increased height as required in the above
requirement. Staff finds the height should be reduced to25 feetto be more consistent with al
the residential heights in the surrounding arcathe zone districts.
7) Section 4.07 .Osrequires thatthe minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions
may be decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above tho,se
applicable to like baildings in other zone districts to accorn;rnodate speciftc building types
with unusual orientation on the lot or relatianship between buildings. The averaging of
lot areas shall be permitted to provi.de flexibility in design and to relate lot size to
topography, but each lot shall contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of
development with useable cotntnon open areos shall be permitted to encourage provision
for, and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility constructian and
maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accommodate contemporary
buil.ding types which are not spacedindividually on their own ln* but share comnton side
walls, combined service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not
providingfor separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buiWings
shall not be a basis for denying approval of a PUD application.
As noted the PUD proposes to significantly increase maximum lot coverage from l1%o to
50Vo and significantly reduce minimum lot area from two acres to 7,500 sq. ft. However,
again, there is no justification as required by the standard set forth above. Also note, the
proposed design is not a true "cluster" design. This standard has not been met.
8) Section a.08.05(g) requires that the Application demonstr atethe provisionforwater, sewer,
telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if applicable.
Again, the Applicant proposes a centralized wastewater treatment facility to handle
wastewater. The site is presently served by a centralized potable water system, electricity,
natural gas. This standard has not been met regarding water as there continues to be a letter
of material injury.
9) Section 4.08.05(7Xb) requires a development schedule indicating the approximale dales
when construction of the various stages of the PIID can be expected to begin and be
completed;
The Applicant proposes to complete construction of the development within 30 months (2.5
years) of (presumably) the approval of the PUD / Preliminary Plan. This needs to be clarified
because the Applicant will only have about 6 months to construct all improvements as
required in the SIA following final plat approval. Additionally, Section 4.09.01 requires that
development must begin within I year of approval of the PUD.
10) Staff believes a new review should occur by the Buming Mountain Fire Protection District
with this new plan so that the new street system / cul-de-sac arrangement does not conflict
with hydrant spacing. This should be required prior to any hearing before the BOCC.
11)The proposed revision to the site plan shows two open space tracks separated by CR 335
totaling approximately 79 acres or 66Vo of the property. The Application proposes to place
the open space south of CR335 in a perpetual easement. The open space tract on the north
side of CR335 surrounds all of the lots and contains a sports field, tot lot, pond, basketball
court, 16 space public parking lot, public trail, and l5-foot fisherman's easement. It is
assumed that all of the open space is to be owned and maintained by the HOA. The trail, 16-
space parking lot, and fisherman's easement shall be dedicated to the public. The Applicant
has also committed to allow public access to the other amenities on the property within
certain limitation (sunrise to sunset). The question here is how these public amenities are
dedicated to the public.
12) The Application is significantly deficient in addressing existing noxious weed management
as well as providing for its management over tome as the subdivision matures. Staffsuggests
the Planning Commission require the following items to be submitted and reviewed priorto
scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners:
28
Provide a noxious weed inventory and map;
Implement a weed management plan based on the inventory;
lnventory and treat the Russian olive and tamarisk as soon as possible;
Provide more details in the covenants regarding responsibility of weeds and
mosquitos;
Complete a revegetation plan as stated above, with a plant materials list and
with an estimate of disturbed areas, a security for revegetation will be
established once this information is supplied;
Provide a soil management plan as stated above; and
Address a plan of action should Kochia and Russian thistle becomes a problem.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed PUD and Preliminary Plan until the Planning
Commission reviews and provides direction on the points outlined above. Additionally, should the
Planning Commission make a recornmendation of approval, Staff suggests the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing
before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by
the Planning Commission.
The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfield County Street and Roadway design
srfidards in designing the internal road network to the Secondary Access design requirements
found in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations and as shown on the PUD map and
Preliminary Plan.
In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the following
plat notes on the Final Plat:
Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells
of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in
a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be
prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on
public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the
application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides,
and pesticides, ffiy one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-
negligent agricultural operations.
All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance
with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and
landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as
good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such
a.
b.
c.
d.
f.
(,E'
J.
a)
b)
29
information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the
Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County.
All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will
be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions maybe
made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owner's property boundaries
4. The Applicant shall follow the County's process for vacating the existing Final Plat for the
existing Rapids Subdivision.
5. The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Final Plat:
a. The 100-year flood way;
b. The 100-year flood fringe;
6. The Applicant shall provide a graphic representation (map) of the three zone districts proposed
which include the Utility, Open Space and Cluster-Single Family Residential Zone District prior
to the hearing before the BOCC.
7. The Applicant shall construct all the public improvements which include sidewalks, etc. and
which shall be included in the SlA.
8. No Final Plat shall be approved until the wastewater treatment facility has been approved by
CDPHE and a letter of that approval -[as been submitted to the County as part of the Final Plat
submittal. ,9 b a,y( r,t)"
g. The Final Plat and CCRs shall have the following note included:
Ind.ividual site speci.fi.c eeotechnical investisations an"d.foun^dation design prepared by an
engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado shall be submitted with the building
permit application for all development on the Rapids on the Colorado Planned Unit
Development
10. The Applicant shall submit an application for a Floodplain Permit prior to the BOCC hearing.
I 1. No perimeter fencing be allowed around the entire development so that large game can access the
river for water. Due to the limited amount of mature I deadvegetation in the Colorado riparian
corridor, it shall be left untouched so that it can continue to serve as important raptor perch
habitat for hunting in the river.
l2.The property is located in the RE-2 School District which requires $200 per unit be paid as a
cash-in-lieu of School lLand Dedication Fee. In this case, it appears that if the existing 33 lots
already paid this fee, the Applicant is only responsible for paying the fee for 7l units or $ 14,200
c)
d)
30
at the time of final plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA.
I 3. The Applicant shall be required to pay a road impact fee for 7 I of the 104 lots because fees have
already been paid for the existing 33 lots. Those fees would approximately be $226 per ADT. In
this case, that is roughly $164,471.50. Those monies are then required to be spent in accordance
with the terms of the County's Capital Improvements Plan. This obligation shall be
memorialized in the SIA.
3l