HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 05.27.09Exhibits for TCI Lane Ranch Planning Commission Public Hearing /
Meeting held on February 25, 2009, continuance April 22, 2009 and
renoticed for May 27, 2009
Exhibit
Letter
A to FF
Exhibits
A
Proof of Publication
B
Mailing
C
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
D
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
E
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
F
Application Binder dated December 2008
G
Staff Memorandum dated 2/25/09
H
Attached letter from the Town of Carbondale dated 2/06/09
1
Attached letter from Eagle County email dated 2/04/09
J
Attached letter from Eagle County Engineering dated 1/30/09
K
Email from BLM dated 2/03/09
L
Letter from Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District dated 1/30/09
M
Email from CDOT dated 1/23/09
N
Letter from Division of Wildlife dated 2/02/09
O
Letter from Colorado Division of Water Resources dated 2/03/09
P
Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 2/03/09
Q
Letter from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 1/12/09
R
Letter from RFTA dated 1/26/09
S
Memorandum from Garfield County Vegetation dated 2/05/09
T
Letter from the Garfield Housing Authority dated 1/26/09
U
Memorandum from Garfield County Engineering dated 1/19/09
V
Letter from Holy Cross Energy dated 1/14/09
w
Letter from The Fleisher Company dated 1/30/09
X
Letter from TCI Lane Ranch addressing BLM comments dated 2/03/08
Y
Letter from TCI Lane Ranch addressing Garfield County Engineering
comments dated 2/09/08
Z
Letter from TCI Lane Ranch addressing Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District comments dated 2/09/09
AA
Letter from Rocky Mountain Ecological Services addressing Garfield County
Vegeta ion comments dated 2/11/09
BB
Letter from TCI Lane Ranch addressing CDOT comments dated 2/11/09
CC
Letter from Zancanella and Associates Engineering Consultants addressing
Colorado Division of Water Resources comments dated 2/13/09
DD
Letter from Garfield and Hecht, PC addressing Garfield County Housing
Authority comments dated 2/18/09
New Exhibits for 4/8/09 Continued Hearin
EE
Letter from Leavenworth and Karp dated December 29, 2008, addressingoff
site utility easements and permits
FF
Letter from Leavenworth and Karp dated February 23, 2009, addressing Mid
Valley Metropolitan District compliance with HB 08-1141 (Adequate Water
Supply Bill)
GG
Letter from TCI Lane Ranch dated January 27, 2009, to Blue Creek
Development addressing both emergency access and trial connection
HH
Email from Blue Creek Ranch Owners Association to Dave Marrs dated
Februwy 25, 2009, concerning the proposed trial design
Letter of Intent from Holy Cross Energy to TCI Lane Ranch dated February
13, 2009, addressing the solar array farm as partnering opportunity
NEW Exhibit for May 27, 2009 (New Noticed hearing and
should include all exhibits
JJ
Revised Application Binder from the Applicant dated April, 2009
KK
Letter from Kurt Carruth of Hagman Architects dated 5/20/09
LL
Email from Heide Alexander dated 5/14/09
MM
Revised Staff Memo dated 5/27/09
Planning Commission
n,
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
EXHIBIT
FJ
REQUEST Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) / Preliminary Plan
OWNERS TCI Lane Ranch, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE Noble Design Group (Jon Fredricks)
LOCATION Sections 31 & 32, Township 7 South,
Range 87 west, approximately 3 miles
east of Carbondale on State Highway 82
on the Roaring Fork River
SITE DATA 100.52 acres
WATER Mid Valley Metropolitan District
SEWER Mid Valley Metropolitan District
ACCESS County Road 100 (Catherine's Store) &
State Highway 82 Frontage Road
EXISTING ZONING Agriculture/Residential/Rural Density
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Residential High Density
APPLICABLE CODE Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
and the Subdivision Regulations of
1984, as amended (together known as
the "Old Code"
RECOMMENDATION Approval with conditions
1
I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The overall design scheme for TCI Lane Ranch is based on the concept of compact or
clustering, allowing for the preservation and dedication of over 75% of the site as open
space through sustainable development techniques. Current and historic uses of the
property include ranching irrigated meadows and three log structures which will be
preserved as recreational amenities. TCI Lane Ranch is the Owner of the 100.52 acres
TCI Lane Ranch (the Property) which has submitted the development application to
Garfield County.
The proposal is to develop the site into six (6) distinct neighborhoods, which
incorporates a mixed residential community including 89 residential units of duplexes
and single-family detached units. These units vary from 1,900 square foot attached
duplex homes to 5,500 square foot single family homes. The access to the Property is
by way of County Road 100 and State Highway 82 frontage road, physical water is to be
provided by Mid Valley Metropolitan District, and wastewater is also to be handled by
Mid Valley Metropolitan District.
In order to accomplish the proposed development, TCI Lane Ranch, LLC requests
approval for 1) Rezone from ARRD to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and 2)
Preliminary Plan Approval.
II. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
The Applicant sent the proposal to the following review agencies whose comments are
provided below and are incorporated in the memorandum where appropriate:
A. Town of Carbondale: Assessment targeted the environmental preservation
aspects of the development including wildlife fencing, appropriate planting of
buffer vegetation and minimum disturbance of the Ute Ladies' Tresses, a wetland
orchid within the development. Impacts on the intersection of County Road 100
and State Highway 82 frontage road in terms of level of service during peak
hours, construction in the 100 year floodplain, density zoning regarding site
access and safety and the construction of the footbridge across the Roaring Fork
River are impacts of concern with the Carbondale Planning Commission.
Commendable aspects of the project centered upon the preservation of open
space and the net zero energy plan. (Exhibit G)
B. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No Comments Received
C. Eagle County: Indicated that TCI Lane Ranch has a lot of creative and innovative
sustainable design techniques. These included the open space area allocations,
a buffer zone between Highway 82, an active solar farm array, a community
center for active recreational use, pedestrian connections to the Catherine's
0A
Store intersection and deed restrictive housing. Areas of concerns included;
construction within the 100 year floodplain and its impact on the wetlands, the
allowable amount of square footage of inclusionary affordable housing, reduction
of roadway widths, the potential level of service degradation at the intersection of
County Road 100 and State Highway 82 frontage road in the future, no passive
solar housing design, wildlife fencing, the inclusion of a townhome cluster and
more housing design diversity. (Exhibit H & 1)
D. RE -1 School District: No Comments Received
E. Bureau of Land Management: Commented that TCI Lane Ranch build a secured
fence around the BLM parcel to prevent public access. Reason given: sensitive
wetland plants (Ute Ladies Tresses) are throughout the parcel. (Exhibit J)
F. Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District: Indicated that the proposed accesses
throughout the development appear to be adequate for emergency apparatus.
Residential dwelling units are proposed up to 5,500 square feet and would
require fire flows of up to 2000 gallons per minute (GPM). The proposed system
appears capable of providing adequate flows with 2000 gallons per minute flows
requiring decreased spacing of the fire hydrants. (Exhibit K)
G. Colorado Department of Transportation: Found that the traffic study
recommends intersection improvements at State Highway 82 and County Road
100. The study recommends an additional northbound right turn lane on CR 100
and an additional northbound left turn lane on CR 100 (double left) in the future.
But the study states that the northbound right turn lane is needed without project
traffic. The Access Code states an access permit is needed when the traffic
volume is over 20% while the TCI Lane Ranch development will only increase
the traffic volume by less than 5%. An access permit is not needed at the CR
100 connection for this project. (Exhibit L)
H. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Because the proposed development is adjacent to
important elk and deer winter range on the south side of the Roaring Fork River,
the development will have direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. The suggestive
mitigation measures should be taken such as: plantings of native vegetation are
encouraged for deer and elk so conflicts can be minimized; eliminate any berry,
fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to discourage elk, deer, bears and other
wildlife from feeding on the artificial landscaping. Other concerns included
minimizing vegetative removal in the wetland areas; proposed trails/paths need
to be minimized and public access should be limited into wildlife -sensitive areas;
take aggressive measures to reduce bear and human conflicts such as bear -
proof container for storing all trash/garbage, pet feeding, outside BBQ cleaning
and round door knobs instead of leaver type; build wildlife friendly fencing; place
all utilities underground and remove any dead wildlife from the property if
present. These issues need to be stated in the Covenants, Conditions and
3
Restrictions (Exhibit M)
Colorado Division of Water Resources: Evaluation was based on the existing
water resources. Because Mid Valley Metropolitan District is providing the water
supply and wastewater disposal services to the site, water concerns need to
focus upon irrigated water from decreed surface water rights, which must not
result in the expansion of its usage. Section 37-92-602 (3)(b)(III) C.R.S. requires
that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when
evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. The application indicates that
the existing ditch water rights will be used on historically irrigated lands, for
individual lots, for water features and for the creation of wetlands. With the
Roaring Fork River as an over appropriated stream system, wetlands mitigation
must be at a one-to-one ratio as opposed to a two -to -one ratio because created
wetlands may expose groundwater which necessitates a well permit. Most
importantly, the State Engineer stated that "since insufficient information was
provided, we cannot comment on the potential injury to existing water
rights... Note that the use of irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion
of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court
may be necessary if the place or type of use is changed." (Exhibit N)
J. Mid -Valley Metropolitan District: No Comments Received. A letter of intent to
service the development was included within the application.
K. Colorado Geologic Survey: Stated that the major impacts will be within the 100 -
year floodplain or "fringe" area by way of a flooding event and sinkhole potential.
Mitigation should center upon the designed finished floors being at least 1.5 feet
above base flood elevation with the implementation of hard engineering
techniques such as rip/rap armoring around the pad areas and road systems
within the flood zone. Sinkholes are of less concern but center upon construction
or pad stability, homeowner awareness of potential hazard, early detection of
building distress and remedial measures to offset any preventative damage from
an undetected subsurface void. (Exhibit O)
L. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Garfield County Road & Bridge
Department has no objections with the TCI Lane Ranch application. The
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access leading to CR 100 from Blue Creek
would not present a traffic issue on the total volume of traffic on CR 100. Thus,
no access permits would be needed from Garfield County Road & Bridge
Department. (Exhibit P)
M. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments Received
N. Roaring Fork Transit Authority: Recommends further examination of future transit
upgrades and improvements to Catharine's Store "park and ride" facility. RFTA is
satisfied with the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River to
connect with the Rio Grande Trail and feels the bridge will be an asset to the
11
community, further promoting seasonal usage of the Rio Grande Trail. TCI Lane
Ranch is planning to build the pedestrian bridge in 2010, after major
infrastructure has been complete and the sale of some lots will allow for that
capital improvement to be made. (Exhibit Q)
O. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received
P. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: Assessment focused on the impacts to the
wetlands and weed control. Wetland issues revolve upon a "dry period" wetlands
delineation, the Ute's Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) orchid, which is a
federally listed threatened plant species, constructed trails within the wetlands,
the site design/alignment of Mayfly Bend, Riverstone Drive and Dragonfly Spur to
minimize the impacts on the orchid and to disallow landowners from adding fill
material into designated wetlands within their lots. Staff encourages the
applicant to follow the weed management plan provided and have it is written into
the Subdivision Improvements Agreement to guarantee that weed management
will occur in the future on undeveloped lots and for the open space areas.
Additional comments focused on the soil management plan as being acceptable
and to address the issue of mosquito management in the neighborhood
constructed wetlands area. (Exhibit R)
Q. Garfield County Housing Authority: Provided comments related to nine (9) units
of affordable housing that are required under section 4.07 of the Garfield County
Affordable Housing Guidelines. These units are to be administered in
accordance with section 4.14 of the guidelines but only six (6) of the units meet
County guidelines. Thus, three (3) of these units would not be administered by
an approved housing agency. (Exhibit S)
R. Garfield County Sheriff Department: No Comments Received
S. Garfield County Engineering: Provided comments related to roadway design
citing recommended issues of layout and grades, road and shoulder widths and
on street and public parking. Also, comments were related to preliminary plat
preparation, drainage and erosion control, environmental permits related to water
resources, off site water and sewer, the legal source of water and financial
guarantees for revegetation. (Exhibit T)
T. Holt/ Cross Energy: Indicated they had existing power facilities on and near the
project area and adequate power to supply the development. Any power line
enlargements, adjustments or new extensions necessary will be undertaken by
Holy Cross Energy for the development by way of the completion of necessary
contractual agreements and governmental approvals. (Exhibit U)
5
III. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Section 4.04 requires that "no PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County
Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master / Comprehensive
Plan." The following section will review the proposed PUD against the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
[As you will recall, the Planning Commission previously amended the Comprehensive
Plan's Proposed Land Use District map for the property from "Low Density Residential"
to "High Density Residential". This was done primarily done with an analysis of using
the methodology of Table 30. The development averages out at 1.2 acres per unit
would be congruent with the abutting and surrounding properties; i.e. Aspen Equestrian
Estates at 1.2 acres per dwelling unit and Blue Creek Ranch PUD at 1.6 acres per
dwelling unit. The proposed PUD's density and residential land use are consistent with
this High Density Residential designation.]
There are general concepts of the proposed PUD that do generally conform to the
Comprehensive Plan including the following:
1. Protecting Visual Corridors — The proposed design includes preservation of
cultural resources and open space protecting the identified visual corridor of
Highway 82. Ranching and livestock activities will be continued on a
seasonal basis adjacent to Highway 82.
2. Creative Sustainable Design — The development as represented by six (6)
clustered or compact residential development neighborhoods preserving both
active and passive open space and riparian vegetation through wetland
sensitivity.
3. Open Space — The plan includes multiple open space areas throughout the
development, which amounts to over 75%.
4. Public Transportation — The proposed development is located
approximately one-half a mile from a RFTA park and ride facility, which is
indicative of a transit -oriented development.
5. Public Park for River Access — Preserving over thirty two (32) acres of open
space located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River, which will be open to the
public through the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Six (6) public parking spaces
will be provided for fishing only.
6. Bike and Pedestrian Trail - The Applicant is in the process of receiving the
32.30 acre conservation easement from the Roaring Fork Conservancy to
establish bike pathways, connecting trail systems and fishing access.
G
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goals, Objectives & Policies
The following section will review the proposed PUD with the following applicable Goals,
Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
A. SECTION 2.0: HOUSING
GOALS
➢ To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents
equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe,
efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the
natural environment.
➢ Housing at cost of no more than 30% of gross median income.
➢ Designate appropriate areas.
➢ Encourage mix of housing types within a development.
➢ Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home.
OBJECTIVES
2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to
residents throughout Garfield County.
2.2 to ensure construction of quality housing by continued enforcement of the
County's building code.
2.3 Residential development should be designed and located to ensure
compatibility with existing and future adjacent development.
2.4 The County should encourage the development of energy efficient design,
including solar access.
2.5.1 Residential development should respect the natural characteristics of a
particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features, geology
and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view sheds.
2.5.2 The County should coordinate efforts with the Garfield County Housing
Authority and respective municipalities to foster regional housing goals.
7
POLICIES
2.1 The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low
and moderate housing types by allowing for mixed use multi -family and
single-family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County.
2.4 Solar orientation that allows for both passive and active design will be
strongly encouraged in the design review process and will not be restricted
by protective covenants.
Staff Response
The affordable housing units proposed within the development will be dispersed and
incorporated throughout the six (6) individual neighborhoods which meet a mix of
housing types. The Application proposes to convey 10% (or nine units) to the Housing
Authority as resident occupied deed restricted units. These are single-family units on
lots 1, 11, 12, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 39. This meets the County's affordable housing
requirements.
Additionally, (while not required) the Applicant proposes five (5) additional units that are
privately administered for employees. The Garfield County Housing Authority reviewed
the original proposal and provided the following comments related to affordable
housing. (Note, the revised application binder addresses these concerns.)
It is Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) understanding that the nine (9) units
of affordable housing are required under section 4.07 of the Garfield County
Affordable Housing Guidelines. These units are to be administered in accordance
with Section 4.14 of the guidelines. The proposal for Lots 1, 10, 11, 24, 25 and 28,
as stated in the application, clearly meets the County guidelines. However, we have
the following concerns for the proposed Lots 81, 38 and 27:
1. These units would not be administered by GCHA or by an approved
housing agency.
2. There is no guarantee that these units will be occupied by employees
within Garfield County.
3. County forfeits three (3) units to the corporations of Holy Cross Energy,
the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the Roaring Fork Transportation
Authority.
4. Eligibility requirements cannot be guaranteed.
5. There is no guarantee that the units will go through the County lottery or
that any lottery would be conducted in accordance with County guidelines.
6. There is no guarantee that the resale of these units will be conducted
according to the County guidelines.
7. It appears that Lots 81, 38 and 27 will be utilized at the sole discretion of
the corporations that they are to be conveyed too without regard to the
County Guidelines. Therefore, these three (3) units should not be applied
to the required nine (9) affordable units.
8. The developer is to be commended for the plans to provide an additional
five (5) units for employee housing through Lots 17, 36, 37, 66 and 89.
While employee housing does not automatically equate to affordable
housing nor comply with the County Guidelines they are a welcome
benefit.
9. The proposal states that the developer will convey the units to the Garfield
County Housing Authority. Garfield County Housing Authority points out
that GCHA will not take possession of the units. It is the responsibility of
the developer to complete the initial sale of the units.
10. The application includes a sample deed restriction that could be recorded
with these units. Garfield County Housing Authority would like to see a
more thorough and consumer friendly deed restriction recorded.
11. The proper deed restriction recordation is paramount to the future of the
affordable housing units. All deed restrictions must be approved by the
GCHA as well as the County legal department. GCHA is willing to provide
an appropriate template for the deed restriction.
12. The applicant states that the affordable units, which include three (3) units
to corporations, five (5) units of employee housing and six (6) units, not
nine (9) for the County's program, will be eight (8) duplex units and six (6)
single-family units. It is not clear to the GCHA what the mix of duplex and
single family units will be built to satisfy the required nine (9) units of
affordable housing.
Eagle County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to affordable housing:
1. It appears from the land use summary that a total of 31,000 square feet of
affordable housing will be provided within the TCI Lane Ranch project. While
Eagle County commends the inclusionary nature of these affordable housing
units interspersed throughout the project, it would fall short of any of the
options listed in Exhibit X for compliance with the Eagle County housing
guidelines.
2. Housing types could be further differentiated to improve the inclusionary
I
nature of the project. Eagle County recommended the possibility of including
a townhome cluster, as well as accessory dwelling unit allowances, on single-
family homes. This has been shown to be beneficial dispersed rental stock in
their communities.
In summary, Staff finds the revised proposal meets the County's affordable housing
requirements for unit and bedroom count and that the concerns of the Garfield County
Housing Authority can be met. Staff discussed this revision with the GCHA and they
support this new approach. The Code allows for a "security" provision to ensure the
units are built while the free-market units are being built. This could be in the form of a
cash security (letter of credit) or a provision to withhold issuance of building permits on
free-market units until a building permit has been issued for a deed -restricted unit
generally at a ratio of 10 free-market to one (1) deed restricted unit. In this case, the
application proposes these 9 units will be constructed at a rate which will be a minimum
of 10% affordable to 90% market rate at any one time. Staff suggests using the 1 to 10
ratio language for ease of administration as follows:
"In order to ensure the orderly and timely construction of the 9 required deed -
restricted affordable housing units, no more than 10 free market unit building
permits shall be issued by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department
at any one time unless a building permit has been issued for a deed -restricted
affordable housing unit such that a ratio of free-market to affordable housing
units shall be constantly maintained of 10 free-market to one (1) deed restricted
unit."
Staff finds this approach meets the Comprehensive Plan.
Also, because the Final Plat will most likely be tendered to the County under the
provisions of the new land use Code (Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008), the
requirement for 15% affordable housing will not likely be applied to this application as
the Preliminary Plan and PUD were reviewed under the old land use code. [Recall, a
text amendment is being processed presently to alleviate this requirement for
applications that straddle the twp codes.]
B. SECTION 3.0: TRANSPORTATION
GOALS
➢ To ensure that the County transportation system is safe, functional,
appropriately designed to handle existing and future traffic levels and
includes options for the use of modes other than the single -occupant
automobile.
➢ Determine appropriate nodes and collector points for public transportation.
10
Staff Response
The transportation challenge of this project will be the impact of the development on
State Highway 82 and County Road 100 as the majority of traffic from the development
will use this intersection. This intersection is heavily used as the alternate route to the
Town of Carbondale or up valley destinations and concerns have been raised about the
ability of the intersection to absorb additional traffic in the future. The concern pivots
upon the point that there could be potential stacking of vehicles on the frontage road.
Also, with the apparent number of bicyclists that use the frontage road, conflicts
between bicyclists and vehicles on the frontage road should be an issue addressed for
safety and road access. With the proposed construction of a pedestrian bridge across
the Roaring Fork Bridge, this will facilitate easy bicycle travel to the Town of Carbondale
and to destination points throughout the valley. The revised application proposes certain
improvements to the intersection of State Highway and CR 100 that are acceptable to
both Garfield County and CDOT and satisfy this goal. This is better described below.
OBJECTIVES
3.1 To encourage the development of a regional public transit system that
respects the interaction between emerging land use patterns and travel
behavior in the Valley.
3.2 To encourage the use of modes other than the automobile.
3.3 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the ability of County
roads to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal.
3.4 Proposed developments will include street designs that will reduce adverse
impacts on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and minimize
driving hazards.
3.7 Street extensions will be required to occur in a logical manner.
Staff Response
The PUD Plan does propose both pedestrian and bike trails throughout the plan. Staff
finds the Property lends itself well to running and biking trails throughout the
development with access to the Rio Grande Trail. TCI Lane Ranch has both walking
and riding access to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) "park and ride" facility at
Catherine's Store, approximately %2 a mile from the site, which makes it convenient for
residents to commute by bus. RFTA has recommended this local shuttle service area
be enhanced with additional parking and the realignment of State Highway 82 frontage
road into RFTA's regional service.
Regarding internal circulation, the originally proposed site plan included two dead-end
cul-de-sacs longer than the permitted length of 600 feet along Mayfly Bend to Stonefly
11
Loop. The revised application eliminated one cul-de-sac altogether and reduced the
other to meet the County's requirements. The plan has two separated entrances / exits
in and out of the project for normal traffic flow as well as an emergency access route
through Blue Creek Ranch at the far west boundary of the project. These revisions to
the site plan have produced an internal circulation plan that meets the land use code
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding external off-site road impacts, the only road serving TCI Lane Ranch is the
State Highway 82 frontage road. The intersection of State Highway 82 and County
Road 100 is the primary intersection vehicles will use when accessing TCI Lane Ranch.
In its present condition, the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100
cannot sustain the current volume of traffic during peak hour volumes. The increased
level of service which would result from the proposed TCI Lane Ranch residential
development would diminish, even though an increase of only 5% volume in traffic will
occur from this development.
The Access Code states an access permit is needed when the traffic volume is over
20% from a given development. Upon development, TCI Lane Ranch is expected to
generate a total of 784 trips during average weekday. It includes 14 inbound and 47
outbound trips during the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour would add an
estimated 51 inbound and 30 outbound trips. Thus, the development will only increase
the traffic volume by less than 5%. Therefore an access permit is not needed at the
County Road connection for this project.
CDOT does not have any process to make the developer address this need for
intersection improvements. The addition of the project generated traffic should not have
a potentially significant impact on the roadway facilities upon the project completion. If
historical traffic growth rates persist in the vicinity of TCI Ranch, significant
improvements may be required to maintain an acceptable level of service in and around
the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100. But these improvements
are required today, even without the development of TCI Lane Ranch.
The intersection at State Highway 82 and County Road 100 is not within any of the
County's Traffic Impact Fee Zones. It has been recommended to Staff by referrals that
the County, through the land use process, does have an ability to address this impact to
the majority of the road users in the area and that the County should consider it as a
condition of approval for TCI Lane Ranch.
The revised application proposes to make certain specific improvements designed by
Drexel, Barrell & CO that have been reviewed by CDOT which will ultimately result in a
right turn lane from northbound CR 100 to the up valley direction of Stet Highway 82.
Additionally, the applicant will construct a raised median between the northbound and
southbound directions on CR 100 (within the SH82 ROW) adding additional safety to
the turning movements. These improvements are to be paid for exclusively by the
developer within the context of the Improvements Agreement and represents their fair
12
share of needed improvements.
Regarding public transportation, transit within the vicinity is served by the Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority (RFTA), which operates a route running between the towns of
Aspen and Glenwood Springs along State Highway 82. The up valley route parking and
bus stop is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 82 and
County Road 100. The down valley stop is located at the northeast corner of
intersection State Highway 82 and County Road 100. This development is within
walking / biking distance of this park & ride facility.
POLICIES
3.2 Developments are encouraged to integrate bikeways, pedestrian circulation
patterns and transit amenities into project design.
3.3 The project review process will include a preliminary assessment of the
projected traffic impact associated with all commercial projects and
residential projects greater than 50 dwelling units.
3.6 Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic impacts on
County roads proportional to the development's contribution to those
impacts. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to the following:
A. Physical roadway improvements;
B. Intersection improvements.-
C.
mprovements;C. Transit amenities;
D. Signage requirements;
E. Alternative traffic flow designs; and
F. Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation.
Staff Response
The project does include an overall trail system into the design to accommodate bikers
and pedestrians. The PUD proposes a pedestrian bridge from TCI Lane Ranch to the
Rio Grande Trail across the Roaring Fork River. Otherwise, bikers and pedestrians will
be required to use the State Highway 82 frontage road. The interior design of the road
system avoids impacts to the natural features. Roadways have been designed to
minimize driving hazards by way of curvilinear roads which reduce speed and with two
primary access points and one emergency access to provide adequate circulation and
emergency service. The connection to the Blue Creek Ranch PUD to the west has been
as an emergency and pedestrian access only. The emergency access will be blocked
off with collapsible or break away bollards.
In summary, Staff finds the project will generate some impact (5%) to the intersection of
State Highway 82 and County Road 100. As a result, the Applicant intends to make
improvements that have been approved by CDOT to make the intersection safer and
13
more functional. Staff finds the proposal adequately addresses the needed
improvements to the road network to handle such a residential development.
(It should be noted, the Applicant intends to propose a text amendment that allows for
fair -share contributions / cost recovery or reimbursement of improvements fronted by a
developer.)
5.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
GOALS
➢ Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for
County residents ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS
policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important
visual corridors.
➢ Interconnect trail system through the county with community trail systems.
➢ Extend trail system along river corridors.
OBJECTIVES
5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are
accessible to County residents.
5.2 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space,
through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and
PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space uses.
5.3 Access to public lands will be expanded and maintained.
5.4 Rafting and fishing access will be strongly encouraged during the
development review process.
5.5 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the
County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas.
5.6 Noise, parking and accessibility will be major concerns.
5.7 Encourage interaction between county/community.
POLICIES
14
5.1 Developments that propose densities above one (1) dwelling unit per acre
and exceed 50 dwelling units will be required to provide adequate
recreational opportunities to serve the residents of the project.
Alternatives for meeting this requirement will be defined in the Subdivision
Regulations.
5.2 Important visual corridors will be identified and appropriate policies
developed to address the retainment of open space areas that link
communities in the County.
5.3 if physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to design
open space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open
spaces adjacent to the project.
5.4 Consistent with the management objectives of either the Bureau of Land
Management or the U.S. Forest Service, development next to public lands
will be encouraged, but not required, to provide public access easements
without the use of condemnation processes.
5.5 With the cooperation of the Division of Wildlife, developments proposed in
areas next to streams or rivers with rafting or fishing potential should
dedicate easements for public access to these areas.
5.6 In order to encourage public access to rivers, streams and public lands, the
County will be receptive to incentives, consistent with an overall program
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, for developments that
propose public access to these amenities.
5.OA OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
GOAL
➢ Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve
the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses,
wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial
manner that respects the balance between private property rights and the
needs of the community.
OBJECTIVES
5.1A To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by
development approved by Garfield County;
5.2A To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and
reasonable mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively
impact critical habitat,
15
5.3A That the development of passive and active trails in the County should be
developed in a comprehensive fashion, consistent with efforts by adjacent
jurisdictions;
5.4A That all long-range planning for the retention of open space, trails,
agricultural lands and wildlife habitat shall respect property rights and the
concept of just compensation;
5.5A That long-range planning for acquisition or dedication of open space and
trails shall run parallel to efforts to develop funding sources for just
compensation.
POLICIES
5.1A All projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be
required to mitigate any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures
shall include some or all of the following:
1. Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property
boundaries;
2. The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
3. Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring
kenneling, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2A Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat
by the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS)
will be required to propose mitigational measures during the submittal of
proposed projects. Mitigational measures shall include the following:
1. Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
2. Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of
building envelope restrictions or cluster development concepts;
3. Conservation easements.
The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve or
reject proposed mitigation.
Staff Response
The current and historic uses of the property include ranching with irrigated meadows
and residential dwellings. Various outbuildings once associated with typical ranching
operations, include the preservation of three log structures. These include a timber
16
barn, which will become, through adaptive reuse) the Community Center building for
residents to hold meetings and events plus, act as a small recreation center and
Homeowners Association Office. The two other minor log structures will be preserved
as a visual resource and be utilized as storage facilities.
A comprehensive system of trails has been designed as both a recreational amenity
and to promote an alternative to motorized transportation. Trail links have been
provided to both the RFTA transit "park and ride" and to the Rio Grande Trail by way of
a pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River. A proposed system of trails has been
created for a variety of uses including paved asphalt trails, compacted soft surface
pathways and natural surface or primitive trails. A dedicated right-of-way within the low
volume street system serves as a secondary or improved trails system for both bicycles
and pedestrians.
Division of Wildlife reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments related
to recreational amenities:
1. The proposed pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River should be gated to
prohibit access to the RFTA during the winter closure period. Staff feels this
needs to be written into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
2. Due to the critical nature of wetland areas for wildlife, it is recommended that any
proposed trails or paths be minimized and the public access into these areas
should be limited in numbers. Access should be closed completely from
December 1 through March 15 in order to limit the disturbance on big game and
wintering bald eagles utilizing the riparian corridor. Staff feels this needs to be
written into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
Garfield County Vegetation reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments
related to recreational amenities:
• Where trail design indicates that the trail crossing the wetland area will be a 2'
Natural Surface Path, Staff requests further clarification on this type of path.
Garfield County Vegetation discourages the construction of any type of trail that
would bring imported fill material into the wetland area.
Town of Carbondale reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments
related to recreational amenities:
1. The Town appreciates the pedestrian and bicycle connections and suggested
that the County be sure that those concepts remain intact through the process.
The City also appreciates the Open Space concept and asks that the concept
also remain in place. The City commended the development as far as the net
zero energy plan.
17
2. The Town discussed the impacts on the pedestrian bridge to the Roaring Fork
River and asked that those impacts be assessed. The City assumes that the
Army Corp of Engineers will be consulted prior to any construction.
3. The Town asked that the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission be consulted
as part of the land use process for the TCI Lane Planned Unit Development.
Eagle County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to recreational amenities:
• The pedestrian trail connections between neighborhoods within the development
are commendable. However, it appears there is no trail connection from the
Dragonfly Spur, which seems like a logical additional connection.
In summary, Staff believes the recreational and open space issues are minor. Staff
concurs with the reviews where they state a "minimum disturbance/minimum
maintenance" approach to the construction of pathways or trails through the wetlands
areas. Staff recommends that, where possible, keep as much of the trail system in as
natural state as possible by way of "soft engineering" techniques. And, if needed in
areas of sensitivity, use a raised walkway as your surface travel mode through the
areas of known Ute's Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) orchids.
Area acres
Open Space Use
0.98
Community Utility Zone District
33.30
Private Common Open Space
32.40
Conservation Easement
3.09
Community Center
7.0: WATER AND SEWER SERVICES
GOALS
To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost-effective and
environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development.
OBJECTIVES
7.1 Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will
be required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these services
before project approval.
7.2 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with
available capacity in there central water and sewer systems will be strongly
encouraged to tie into these systems.
18
7.3 Projects proposing the use of /SDS will be required to access the site's
capability to accommodate these systems prior to project approval.
7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project
on existing water and sewer systems.
7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water
and sewer systems.
7.6 High-density development, defined as exceeding one (1) dwelling unit per
one (1) acre, will be required to assess the potential of connecting into
existing central water and sewer facilities.
Staff Response
The project area will be served by connecting to the Mid Valley Metropolitan District
sewer and water service. Mid Valley Metropolitan District has indicated verbally and by
way of letter that it has the capacity to accommodate the TCI Lane Ranch development.
Based on the Goal and Objectives above, Staff finds that 1) there is an existing system
in the area for this development to tie into, 2) the proposal provide adequate and safe
provisions for these services, and 3) the private water / wastewater is strongly
discouraged in Garfield County. The proposal does conform to these objectives.
POLICIES
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water
and/or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate,
dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal
facilities can be provided before project approval.
7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines form and
existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require
development adjacent to or within a reasonable distance, to enter into the
appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden of proof regarding
logical, legal and economic constraints will be on the developer.
7.5 High density development is considered urban in nature and requires
appropriate services. Through the Zoning Resolution, Garfield County will
strongly encourage high-density development to locate in areas where
these services are available.
Staff Response
19
As mentioned above, the PUD proposes a density of about 1.2 dwelling units per acre,
which exceeds the one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre and is qualified as "high-
density" discussed in the policy above. The Policy envisions this type of density to occur
in urban areas where there are appropriate services. Staff finds that a development is
located Y2 mile from the Cerise Ranch development connection point for both water and
sewer services. Through a very thorough review, the plan to provide central water and
sewer from Mid -Valley Metropolitan District is consistent with the provisions in the
Comprehensive Plan.
8.0: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
GOALS
➢ Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the
environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical
capacity of the land and is in the best interests of the health, safety and
welfare of Garfield County.
➢ Enhancement of the river corridor.
➢ Protection of watersheds and floodplain.
➢ Control of drainage that impacts the communities.
OBJECTIVES
8.1 The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a project based on severe
environmental constraints that endanger public health, safety or welfare.
8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the
land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical
environment.
8.3 Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from
alteration.
8.4 River -fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the ecosystem
and these areas require careful review in the planning process.
8.5 Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique
to the proposed site.
8.6 Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources
and critical wildlife habitats are protected.
20
8.7 Development will be encouraged in areas with the least environmental
constraints.
POLICIES
8.1 Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny
development in areas identified as having severe environmental
constraints such as active landslides, 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.
8.2 Garfield County shall discourage development proposals that require
excessive vegetation removal, cut and fill areas or other physical
modifications that will result in visual degradation or public safety
concerns.
8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so the cumulative impact of
public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and
floodwater patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed
drainageways, or to subject other areas to an increased potential for
damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to
streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water.
8.5 The County will discourage development in areas where severe soil
constraints cannot be adequately mitigated.
8.7 Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or
minor environmental constraints to mitigate physical problems such as
minor rockfalls, 17 to 24 percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential
subsidence, high water tables, slow percolation, radioactive soils and/or
corrosive and expansive soils.
Staff Response
The wetlands hydrology connects to both the perennially flowing streams of Blue Creek
and the Roaring Fork River. Having reviewed the TCI Lane Ranch proposal; provided
following comments are related to wetlands constraints:
A. Blue Creek Ditch is a permanent stream and conveys water east to west through
the property. This watercourse provides significant surface and potential
subsurface waters to the property.
B. Three main ditches provide water to the property; the northern ditch, Blue Creek
and its laterals and the lower ditch.
21
Jurisdictional Wetlands have been identified and a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation
has been finally determined by the USACE. Activity within the wetland area will be for
1) the construction of ponds for potential wetlands mitigation via stormwater
management and 2) visual aesthetics. A wetlands delineation has been performed on
the site using the technical guidelines set forth by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps of Engineers regulates dredging or filling activities within the waters of the
United States.
Colorado Division of Water Resources reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to the wetlands:
a. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rights will be used on historically
irrigated lands, as well as for individual lots in the subdivided neighborhoods and
for water features and wetlands creation. The use of the irrigation water rights
must not result in the expansion of its use. A change in water rights application
may be necessary to allow for the irrigation of lands that were not historically
irrigated, including the wetlands and as well as for use in water features, such as
the proposed naturalistic stream course for Blue Creek Ditch.
b. The submittal also indicates that up to one acre of wetlands may be created to
compensate for the disturbance of 0.5 acres of existing wetlands. The creation
of wetlands will cause depletions in the stream system through evaporation from
the surface water system and the consumptive use of water by plant life. The
Roaring Fork River is an over appropriated stream system. Therefore, to prevent
injury to the vested water rights, wetlands mitigation must be limited to a one to
one ratio. If mitigation exceeds this ratio, the stream systems must be
compensated for these depletions in time, place and the amount through a court
approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer approved substitute supply
plan. The creation of wetlands may also expose groundwater, which by State of
Colorado Statute is considered a well and must be permitted by the Division of
Water Resources prior to construction.
c. Records also indicate that several exempt wells may exist within the proposed
development. CRS requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision
be considered when evaluating material injury to the decree of water rights.
Therefore, the existing exempt wells must be included in an augmentation plan or
must be plugged and abandoned
Garfield County Vegetation reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments
related to wetlands constraints:
A. The site has been delineated; however it has been done in June 2008, during a
period when the irrigation water was on going. The delineation needs to be finished
when the irrigation waters are turned off. A complete delineation will provide critical
information to determine if an Army Corps of Engineer 404 permit is needed for
22
accuracy. If it is determined that activities (residences, building envelopes, trails,
roads, bridges) will take place in the Waters of the United States, then the Federal
government will become involved and there may be issues related to the
Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106.
B. Ute's Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) orchid is a federally listed threatened
wetland plant species. The Applicant has mapped the distribution of the plant's
habitat and Staff encourages TCI Lane to continue their orchid monitoring program
and to adopt an appropriate plan that will maintain the open wetland areas. Rocky
Mountain Ecological Services has proposed three options to maintain the Spiranthes
habitat; prescribed fire, grazing, and mowing. As the project reaches build out,
mowing may be the only viable option. Staff has concerns about potential conflicts
with Ute's Ladies Tresses habitat:
1. Four lots south of Mayfly Bend (66, 67, 68, 69))-
2.
9);2. Portions of Riverstone Drive and how will Riverstone Drive cross the wetland
without altering the water flow and the hydrology?
3. Two lots on the north end of Dragonfly Spur (lots 56 and 57).
4. What are the future plans to channelize Blue Creek and if channelization occurs,
will the area would become less saturated and spiranthes habitat would become
diminished.
Colorado Division of Wildlife reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to wetlands constraints:
• Building envelopes for lots 60 through 64 should be pulled as far north as
possible to eliminate any removal of riparian vegetation. Maximize building in the
pasture areas that have previously been disturbed.
Town of Carbondale Planning Department reviewed the proposal and provided the
following comments related to wetlands constraints:
• Ute Ladies' -tresses, an orchid which is listed on the Endangered Species list, is
found on the property. The TCI Lane Ranch Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment
Report sets out a number of recommended management practices to control
weeds, as well as suggested management practices to assure that the orchid
population remains stable on the property. The Planning Commission would like
to recommend that these management practices be incorporated in the
Declarations, as well as in the Planned Unit Development Plan.
23
Staff's original review states that based on these comments from both the Applicant's
wetlands reports and the review provided by Colorado Division of Water Resources,
Garfield County Vegetation, Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Town of Carbondale
Planning Department, Staff and the Army Corp of Engineers finds the wetlands are a
major issue and feels these concerns can be addressed through proper redesign or
realignment. There is definitely the need to resolve these issues on building envelope
adjustments and a defined wetlands delineation of the site before an approval can be
granted.
The revised application contains a new letter from the USACE providing the final JD
(identifying 9.44 acres of wetlands) and an additional wetlands / Ute Ladies tresses
orchid analysis. The Applicant intends to relocate 0.268 acres (11,674 sq. ft.) to another
location on the property. All of the proposed activities are covered in the context of the
USACE nationwide 404 permit application. These activities, while occurring in some
lots, do not occur in building envelopes. The County has previously required a 20 -foot
buffer between any wetlands and site disturbance / building envelopes. Staff
recommends this requirement be placed on the plat as a note and shown graphically.
100 -Year Floodplain Impacts
The Property does have tributaries running through much of the Property with
approximately half of the property lying within the mapped 100 -year floodplain. The
floodplain "fringe" area is a fairly substantial area which tracks along the Roaring Fork
River Corridor leaving approximately a third of the site affected by flood inundation.
Areas within the floodway are proposed for passive recreational uses only. One
structure being proposed to span over the floodway is a foot bridge connecting the TCI
Lane Ranch site with the Rio Grande Trail. This will provide pedestrian and bicycle
access to the Rio Grande Trail as an alternative transportation route for the general
public. (The illustration below shows the areas of the floodplain.)
Flood
Fringe
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS)
reviewed the proposal and provided the
following comments related to
floodplain impacts:
`�',�--'' 1. The final drainage report states
wY that portions of the property are within
:Fringe
F=k)Od the 100 year floodplain. Several homes
Fringe on the southern portion of the site are
loo -Year Floodplain located within the 100 year floodplain.
- These sites will be elevated to a
minimum of one foot above base flood
elevation. Designated finished floor elevations in this area a minimum of 1.5 feet
above the 100 year base flood elevation.
24
2. Flooding is a hazard that must be addressed beyond raising building pads above
the one foot base flood elevation, not only to reduce the risks associated with
rising waters but also to reduce the risk of undermining due to stream channel
erosion and undercutting. Slope armoring such as rip rap should be placed on
the face of all constructed slopes used to raise building pads and roads above
the flood zone. The need for and the feasibility of additional channel and bank
stabilization, scour mitigation and energy dissipation measures should be
evaluated for implementation.
Eagle County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to floodplain impacts:
• The most significant issue facing the project if it were proposed in Eagle County
is the proposed construction within the 100 -year floodplain. While Eagle County
understands this is allowable as long as development is outside the floodway in
Garfield County, the project's impact upon wetlands, impact upon the riparian
system and vegetation would be significantly reduced by reducing and/or
reconfiguring this component of the project in `Neighborhood D.' This density
could be either eliminated from the project or strategically included into other
nodes of development within the project.
Town of Carbondale reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments
related to floodplain impacts:
• The Planning Commission noted the proximity of the development to the Roaring
Fork River. They suggest that there be no construction within the 100 year
floodplain due to potential impacts downstream. Firefly Loop raises particular
concern because of its location near the river and the floodplain. The Planning
Commission asked if it would be possible to cluster the development on Firefly
Loop to lessen the impacts on the river and floodplain.
Staff finds that the River represents a major constraint on that portion of the Property,
but finds that it does not have an impact on the remaining of the Property. Garfield
County allows development within the 100 -year flood "fringe" area as long as the first
finished floor is one foot above base flood elevation. Staff recommends the use of hard
engineering techniques of rip rap armoring to stabilize areas where fill will occur on pad
elevations and roadway systems.
The revised application proposes that the building envelopes that are in the flood fringe
will be raised such that the first finished floor elevation (FFFE) will be shown on each lot
on the Final Plat. The Applicant intends to obtain an Administrative Floodplain Permit
from Garfield County in order to achieve this. The Applicant proposes that the FFFE will
be 18" (1.5 feet) above the base flood elevation which meets the requirements of the
floodplain regulations.
M
Wildlife and Vegetation Concerns
The property is dominated by two types of primary vegetation communities; irrigated
pasture lands of grass in northern one half and cottonwood galleries dominate the
southern half with the Ute Ladies' -tresses, a federally protected wetland orchid which is
found in the wetlands section of the property. The majority of the cottonwood gallery
lies adjacent to the Roaring Fork River with the intermixing of spruce, ponderosa pine
and juniper. There are also mature gambel oak groves throughout the site. The property
contains wild turkey, mule deer, some light elk use, the Lewis woodpecker, raccoon,
skunk, fox and coyote.
Colorado Division of Wildlife reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to wildlife and vegetation:
1. The proposed TCI Lane Ranch property located between State Highway 82 and
the Roaring Fork River, east of Blue Creek Ranch. It does not lie within any
mapped critical wildlife areas but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter
range on the south side of the Roaring Fork River. The property is use by deer
and elk and generally occurs during the winter and spring months. But there is
some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River
and Blue Creek. Elk use and game damage problems have increased in the last
couple of years on the property with elk being drawn to hay having been stored
on the property. In addition, the property is home to many small mammals, neo -
tropical song birds, raptors, wild turkeys and amphibians.
2. Fencing should be held at a minimum and any necessary fencing should be
wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42 inches for a maximum height, 4 wires at
most with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be
48 inches or less with at least 18" between two of the rails. Staff feels this needs
to be written into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
3. The riparian areas along both the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek are
extremely important to wildlife.
i. Elk usage of the property has increased considerably during the
winter months. Deer and elk conflicts are to be expected within the
development and plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to
help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating the plantings of
any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help
discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding upon the
landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of
P70
Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or
bear. Staff feels this needs to be written into the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions.
ii. Bear/human conflicts have increased within the Roaring Fork Valley
and in the vicinity of Blue Creek Ranch and Catherine Store. This
has the potential to be a reoccurring problem. It is important that
certain measures be taken to minimize these possible conflicts.-
a.
onflicts:a. Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof
container for storing all trash/garbage;
b. Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers
should not be left outside,-
C.
utside;c. BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or
cleaned with a bleach solution when not in use due to the
fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear
attractant;
d. Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -
type can limit bear access into houses.
Staff feels these provisions need to be written into the Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions.
Town of Carbondale reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments
related to wildlife and vegetation:
• There are a number of recommendations in the Wildlife and Vegetation
Assessment Report that are intended to protect the wildlife that currently exists
on the property. Some of the impact mitigation recommendations include
discouraging fencing, which is not designed to allow wildlife passage, limiting the
number of domestic animals and the planting of vegetation along roadways to
avoid spotlighting of foraging game at night. The City of Carbondale would
strongly suggest that all of the recommendations in the report be accepted and
incorporated into the subdivision documents. While these recommendations
should be included in the Declaration documents, they should also be
incorporated into the Planned Unit Development so they cannot be changed by a
vote of an association of property owners.
Bureau of Land Management reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to wildlife and vegetation:
• BLM indicated that the builder's of the TCI Lane Ranch development will be
placing a fence, so that the adjacent BLM parcel will not have access. BLM's
concern centers upon there being some sensitive plants within that particular
parcel. They would like the fence to be built without public access with a "no
walk through gate" to the river, or to build a fence that cannot be climbed over.
Staff feels this needs to be a conditional of approval.
27
V. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW
The TCI Lane Sketch Plan was reviewed by the Garfield County Planning Commission
on July 11, 2007. It was received with mostly favorable comments and
recommendations. The design team initially took the concerns of the public and the
recommendations of the Garfield County Planning Commission. One of the major
revisions involved removing the controversial commercial tree nursery from the plan and
adding another ingress/egress roadway with a small neighborhood within this area.
The Owners propose to rezone the Property from A/R/RD to PUD in order to have the
design flexibility required for the project. The zoning code defines the purpose of a PUD
as:
To permit greater design flexibility and consequently, more creative and
imaginative design for development than generally possible under conventional
zoning and the preliminary plan subdivision regulations. It is intended that PUDs
shall be planned to insure general conformity, both in substance and location,
with the goals and objectives of the master/comprehensive plan through
integrated development.
4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be
in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive plan(s). When
appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County
Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any
application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the
Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and
may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan
amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon criteria for
establishing land use designations contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response
As discussed above, TCI Lane Ranch was granted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
on July 11, 2007, by the Garfield County Planning Commission, which provided a
designation of Residential High Density. Based upon further revisions made by the
Applicant, Staff finds the proposed PUD is in general conformity with the Proposed land
Use Districts Map of High -Density Residential as well as with the Goals, Objectives, and
Policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended.
28
4.05.02
It is recognized that the uniqueness of each proposal for a PUD and TPUD
requires that the specifications, standards and requirements for various facilities,
including but not limited to, affordable housing, streets, highways, alleys,
utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, parks, play -grounds, school
grounds, storm drainage, water supply and distribution, and sewage collection
and treatment, may be subject to modification from the specifications, standards,
and requirements established in the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County
for like uses in other zone districts.
The County Commissioners may, at the time of zoning as a PUD and TPUD, waive
or modify the specifications, standards and requirements which would be
otherwise applicable, as requested by the applicant. Any waiver or modification
of specifications, standards and requirements will only be approved if it can be
demonstrated that the proposed waiver(s) is consistent with "best engineering
practices," as recommended by an engineer retained by the County.
Staff Response
The only requested waivers being requested from the underlying zone district (ARRD)
include.-
1)
nclude:1) Reduction in minimum lot size per the site plan,-
2)
lan;2) Allow duplex as a use -by -right instead of a conditional use;
3) List pipelines under conditional use permit subject to pipeline regulations
rather than list under use -by -right;
4) Reduction in the ROW width on the main entrance roads (Haystack Road and
Riverstone Drive) from 60 feet to 50 feet;
5) Allowing "community building" as accessory use to the residential
development;
6) Allowing Dragonfly Spur to exceed the 600 linear feet maximum for cul-de-sac
by 200 feet; and
7) A reduction in the off-street parking for the community building from 1 space
per 200 sq. ft. to 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
4.06 INTERNAL COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
It is recognized that certain individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to
all the design elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly
with one another. Therefore, a proposed PUD or TPUD shall be considered from
the point of view of the relationship and compatibility of the individual elements
of the Plan, and no PUD or TPUD shall be approved which contains incompatible
elements internally or with neighboring property.
Staff Response
Rej
Staff recognizes the nature of the design contains housing, passive recreation, open
space and a photovoltaic solar farm in a compatible layout. The project takes into
account the adjacent land uses with respect to existing development patterns and land
uses and is compatible with the surrounding properties in size and character.
4.07.02
The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be
less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the
County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-
street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors:
(1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the
PUD;
(2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses;
(3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking
areas is proposed.
Staff Response
Staff finds the development meets the parking requirements by providing all residential
spaces within driveways or garages, which will be up to 506 spaces, depending on the
dwelling size and number of bedrooms. No on street parking will be allowed. The
community center will provide fifteen (15) spaces (including one handicapped space)
and eight (8) spaces for public river access parking. Unless modified by the BOCC, the
off-street parking requirement for a "public facility" is 1 space per 200 sq. ft. and the
application proposes 1 space per 500 sq. ft. A reduction could be warranted as many of
the residents could walk or ride bikes to this facility. However, if the facility is used for
other uses beyond the community, it may end up being under -parked.
4.07.03
The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can
demonstrate 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 area,
with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being
minimized.
Staff Response
Staff finds the development of a residential community of 89 new dwellings units is
compatible with the surrounding land areas. The TCI Lane Ranch development
averages 1.2 acres per unit with a layout design that would be congruent with the
abutting properties. Aspen Equestrian Estates has one dwelling unit per 1.2 acres and
the adjacent Blue Creek Ranch PUD has one dwelling unit per 1.6 acres.
The PUD is designed to consider the adjacent land uses through a design that
30
complements existing development patterns and land uses. The development abuts
Blue Creek Ranch PUD in which the home sites have been developed congruent in an
existing pattern of design. Open space areas associated with the two developments
create a similar visual buffer for travelers along State Highway 82. On the east side of
the project site, development patterns are complementary with open space areas
adjacent to the Waldorf School site. On the south side of the project area, the
conservation easement joins public lands and the recreational Rio Grande Trail.
The application indicates that the residential aspect of the development will compliment
the open space uses of the site. Staff finds that due to about 23% of the site designated
as residential development with over 75% being held as open space, it appears that the
passive recreational uses would complement the residential development intent. Staff
also finds the sole purpose of attempting to redesignate the property from Residential
High Density to Planned Unit Development is to create a residential sustainable
development with open areas held in perpetuity. The proposed level of residential
density of 1.2 dwelling units per acre with the dedication of open space over 75% to
passive recreational and visually aesthetic uses is the primary development component
and is compatible with the surrounding density allowed for PUD designation.
2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system
designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living
areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be
permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is
maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for
residential purposes.
Staff Response
The revised application provides an internal street design that meets the County's
requirements with a few exceptions noted below. The streets are to be dedicated to the
public but owned and maintained by the HOA. The site plan shows a variety of walking
trails through the development providing public access to the Roaring Fork River as a
fisherman's Access and associated parking (8 spaces) for that use.
Proposed trails within the site will interconnect with Blue Creek Ranch trail and go to the
RFTA "park and ride' facility. Also, a pedestrian bridge is proposed to connect with the
Rio Grande Trail, which will facilitate bicycle traffic to the Town of Carbondale. The
proposed trail to the RFTA "Park and Ride" appears to cut across the open space of
adjoining Blue Creek Ranch. This would need an easement to exist.
The cul-de-sac that serves Lots 56 — 59 on Dragonfly Spur exceeds the 600 -linear foot
maximum by 200 feet. The BOCC will need to grant this variance. The fire district did
find that the road design is adequate for their needs, the development is served by a
central fire protection water system with hydrants, and is located in a low wildfire danger
area. Staff finds this could be waived.
31
The application proposes to reduce the ROW width on the main entrance roads
(Haystack Road and Riverstone Drive) from 60 feet to 50 feet. These road sections will
most likely carry a split capacity of trips from the development so this reduction in the
ROW is understandable and logical.
3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area,
circulation, safety, convenience, separation and screening.
Staff Finding
A public parking area is provided to facilitate the Fisherman's Access to the Roaring
Fork River. The central open space area will include parking for the Community Center,
the park and the community garden. The application requests a waiver to reduce the
requirement from 1 space per 500 sq. ft. to 1 space per 200 sq. ft. As mentioned above,
a reduction could be warranted as many of the residents could walk or ride bikes to this
facility. However, if the facility is used for other uses beyond the community, it may end
up being under -parked. In all cases, the spaces are adequately buffered from other
uses. This standard has been met.
4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of
location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the
uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum
preservation of the natural features of the terrain.
Staff Finding
This standard has been met holding over 75% of the site as open space. The
breakdown of the open space is as follows: the Community Utility Zone District Zone of
two (2) lift stations and the solar farm tabulates to 0.98 acres; the Community Center
accounts for 3.09 acres; the Private Common Open Space is 33.30 and the
Conservation Easement totals 32.40 acres. This standard has been met.
5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other
facilities and Common Open Space.
Staff Finding
This standard has been met with lots ranging from '/4 to '/2 acres in neighborhoods
designed for both duplexes and single-family units that are both free-market and
affordable housing units. The development is divided into six (6) distinct neighborhoods,
which incorporates a mixed residential community including 89 residential units of
duplexes and single-family detached units. These housing units range from 1,900
square foot attached duplex homes to 5,500 square foot single family homes. This
standard has been met.
6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units.
Staff Finding
32
This standard has been met with all building envelopes setback a minimum of 15' from
the lot lines, which creates a minimum of 30' from adjacent buildings. The clustering
effect breaks up the units for more privacy. This standard has been met.
7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety,
separation, convenience, and access to points of destination and
attractiveness.
Staff Finding
The application proposes a network of trails through the property that extend to the
project's open spaces, the Roaring Fork River, the Rio Grand Trail, the Waldorf School
and RFTA Park and Ride; however, there is no trail / sidewalk along the road network
so the pedestrian will be required to walk in the road to get to those trails. This standard
has been met through an extensive trail network through wetland areas and connecting
the neighborhoods with to the open spaces and river system. This standard has been
met in part but should be revised to have a roadside soft trail to provide access to the
other trails rather than have pedestrians use the roadway.
8) If centralized water and/or wastewater facilities are proposed within the
PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that
shall contain its own performance standards. No land within any utility
zone district shall apply toward any category of open space calculation
or requirement. The PUD shall demonstrate how common water and
wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed by the future owners
within the PUD.
Staff Findinq
The applicant has dedicated Community Utility Zone District Zone of two (2) lift stations
of 0.02 acres and the solar farm of 0.94 acres. There no centralized water or
wastewater facilities are proposed within the PUD. This standard has been met.
9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40%, shall be the minimum
necessary to meet the development needs, with a revegetation and
geotechnical plan submitted with the PUD application.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because the property does not contain any slopes that
exceed 40%.
10)lf community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the
PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entity shall be
responsible for the provision of and payment for the proposed facilities.
The facilities shall also be included within the overall common
33
infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water, wastewater and
parking requirements.
Staff Finding
The PUD has two proposed community facilities. One is a community center with a park
and an active solar farm array. The ownership and management of these facilities will
be conveyed to the homeowners association as proposed in the declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR).
4.07.04
The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum
permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following
characteristics of the proposed building:
1) It's geographical location;
2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain;
3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the
immediate vicinity,
4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air
circulation or loss of view;
5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas
and open space; and
6) Uses within the proposed building.
Staff Response
The PUD is not seeking an increase to the maximum allowable building height of any of
the dwelling units.
4.07.05
The maximum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be decreased
below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to
like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate specific building types with
unusual orientation on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of
lot areas shall be permitted to provide 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 common open areas shall be permitted to
encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and to save street
and utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended
to accommodate contemporary building types which are not spaced individually
on their own lots but share common side walls, combined service facilities or
similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate
ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a
basis for denying approval of a PUD application.
Staff Response
34
The PUD is not seeking an exception to the maximum lot areas or minimum setback
restrictions.
4.07.06
The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per
gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County Commissioners
may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre
in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a
municipal government or special district (as defined by Section 32-1-103(20),
C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning classification allowed residential
densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, such increased
densities shall nevertheless comply with the maximum lot coverage, minimum
setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and parking
standards of such prior zoning classification. The overall average residential
density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units
planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area
expressed in acres within the boundary of the PUD. The density of dwelling units
in any particular area may be greater than the maximum permitted for a like use in
other zone districts.
Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a
showing of conformance with the purposes of this section through appropriate
design features within the PUD that will achieve high standards of design and
livability.
Staff Response
The PUD proposes 89 units on 100.52 acres, which calculates a mean gross density of
1.13 dwelling units per acre. This standard has been met.
4.07.07
The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres.
Staff Response
The Property contains 100.52 acres. This standard has been met.
4.07.08
All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the
land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. The uses, which shall be
permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the resolution zoning
the particular area PUD.
Staff Response
35
All of the uses in the project are uses listed in the ARRD zone district. The proposed
PUD Guide proposes a Two -Family Dwelling (duplex) as a Special Use which would
require further review after this project is approved. Staff suggests this use be included
as a use -by -right to match what is shown on the site plan.
4.07.09
Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall
be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of
the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open
space. Of he 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no more than 40% of the
25% total required, shall be limited use open space, with the balance being
retained as one or more of the remaining open space categories, listed above.
Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such
requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by the design of, and the
amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and that the needs of the
occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD.
Staff Response
The PUD proposes over 75% of the project to be devoted to open space. The County
would require 25 acres of open space. The proposed PUD exceeds and satisfies this
requirement by providing a Community Utility Zone District Zone of two (2) lift stations
and the solar farm of 0.98 acres, a Community Center of 3.09 acres, Private Common
Open Space of 33.30 and the Conservation Easement totals 32.40 acres. This
standard has been met.
4.07.10
If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional
ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such
ownership shall be those that are approved by the Board of County
Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PUD.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because the property is not proposing to contain time
share or fractional ownership units.
4.07.11
Findings of the Planned Unit Development Regulations Section: It is essential and
necessary for the preservation and for the maintenance of the health, welfare,
safety, and quality of life in Garfield County to ensure the provision of affordable
housing, which mitigates the impact of new development. Recognizing that new
development generates additional employment needs, and being consistent with
a desire to have new development mitigate impacts attributable to such
development, the County finds it necessary to require new development to
36
provide affordable housing. Housing must be affordable to the local labor force in
order for the local economy to remain stable and to grow in a healthy manner.
4.07.12 Purpose
The purpose of this Section is to implement through regulation the Housing
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs of the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan for Study Area One including the following statement: "To provide all types
of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing
opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures
that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment".
The Garfield County land use review process will consider the housing needs of
all economic segments of the community, and will assure that the impacts of new
development will be mitigated, to the extent feasible, to assure an adequate
affordable housing supply in the County. While the County recognizes that
affordable housing is most desirable in or adjacent to towns, new developments
throughout the unincorporated county are creating demands for workers in
construction, maintenance, services, and retail sales.
4.07.13 General
This Section applies to all Planned Unit Development applications, which include
residential development in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Study
Area, 1.
4.07.15 Requirements
In order to fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan while directing growth into
the areas designated in that plan, requirements will be based on the Proposed
Land Use Districts from the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response
The PUD is overlain by one Land Use District from the Comprehensive Plan:
"Residential High Density." The requirements for the PUD apply to this designation.
4.07.15.01
For Lands Designated High Density Residential (1) Planned Unit Developments -
All Planned Unit Development proposals, and Planned Unit Development
Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at
least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 10%
affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD
requirement for a mix of housing.
Staff Response
The revised application provides that 10% (9 units) will be deed -restricted affordable
housing units governed by the Garfield County Housing Authority. This proposal meets
the County's affordable housing requirements for unit and bedroom count and that the
37
concerns of the Garfield County Housing Authority can be met. Staff discussed this
revision with the GCHA and they support this new approach. The Code allows for a
"security" provision to ensure the units are built while the free-market units are being
built. This could be in the form of a cash security (letter of credit) or a provision to
withhold issuance of building permits on free-market units until a building permit has
been issued for a deed -restricted unit generally at a ratio of 10 free-market to one (1)
deed restricted unit. In this case, the application proposes these 9 units will be
constructed at a rate which will be a minimum of 10% affordable to 90% market rate at
any one time. Staff suggests using the 1 to 10 ratio language for ease of administration
as follows:
"In order to ensure the orderly and timely construction of the 9 required
deed -restricted affordable housing units, no more than 10 free market unit
building permits shall be issued by the Garfield County Building and
Planning Department at any one time unless a building permit has been
issued for a deed -restricted affordable housing unit such that a ratio of free-
market to affordable housing units shall be constantly maintained of 10 free-
market to one (1) deed restricted unit."
4.08.02
An applicant may process their application for PUD zoning under this Zoning
Resolution separate from and in advance of their application or applications for
subdivision platting under the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
Staff Response
The application is for both PUD and Preliminary Plan. The applicant requests that these
two items be reviewed and processed simultaneously.
4.08.03
The plan shall show where within the PUD each type of use will be located and
shall indicate the total acreage which will be devoted to each use, where no
subdivision of the property is proposed as a part of the PUD. The precise location
of each use and the location of lots, blocks or other parcels within each area
devoted to each use shall be shown as that area is subdivided and platted in
accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
Staff Response
The application does provide the acreage devoted to each open space area and areas
to be developed for residential use. The proposed PUD Preliminary Plat includes the
required information. This standard has been met.
4.08.04
The uses by right, conditional uses, minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage,
minimum setbacks, maximum height of buildings, and all other use and
W.
occupancy restrictions applicable to any area zoned as PUD shall be those which
are approved by the County Commissioners at the time such area is so zoned.
Staff Response
All of the areas within the proposed PUD are designated as zone districts within the
PUD Guide, which details the above requirements and specific land uses.
4.08.05
The applicant shall include with the written request for PUD zoning which does
not include a subdivision Preliminary Plan application the following information:
(1) A statement of the ownership interest in the property to be included in
the PUD and the written consent of all of the owners;
(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;
b. The minimum acreage that will be dedicated to Common Open
Space;
c. The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each use;
d. Major internal circulation systems;
e. The acreage, which will be dedicated for school, sites;
f. The general nature and location of commercial and industrial uses, if
any, to be located in the PUD;
g. Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable
television, if applicable; and
h. Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building
setbacks, height limits, access requirements and grade or slope
restrictions to be applied to particular areas, written in the form of a
zone district text the same as, or in similar form to, the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution; and
Staff Response
Sections 1, 2 (a) - (h) required above, have been submitted in the Binder.
39
i. If more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be included
in the application that delineates the proposed phasing of the
development.
Staff Response
The application does not contain a phasing plan:
(3) A regional location map showing the relationship of the site to
connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities
and surrounding land uses;
Staff Response
This has been met.
(4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and
the existing zoning;
Staff Response
This has been met.
(5) A site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals,
major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to
100 Year flooding;
Staff Response
This has been met.
(6) A legal description of the area that the applicant wishes to include in the
PUD;
Staff Response
This has been met.
(7) A written statement containing the following information:
a. An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD;
b. A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when
construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to
begin and be completed;
Staff Response
As mentioned above, the plan does include completion dates by 2015.
c. Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which
will govern the use or occupancy of the PUD; provided, however,
40
that the applicant may impose additional covenants, conditions and
restrictions on any particular area in connection with the platting of
such area;
Staff Response
The application contains protective covenants. This standard has been met.
d. A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200)
feet of the boundaries of the PUD and their addresses;
Staff Response
This has been met.
e. A statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and
documentation, which shall provide evidence of the following:
i. The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to
service the PUD;
Staff Response
The application proposes to provide drinking, fire suppression, and irrigation water.
Potable water will be conveyed to the development by water services provided by Mid
Valley Metropolitan District. The improvement plans for the project were sealed and
signed by Curtis Charles Stevens, a licensed engineer in the State of Colorado.
The application was referred to the Colorado Division of Water Resources which
ultimately found that "the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not
cause material injury to existing water rights so long as the District operates according
to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation. The use of irrigation
water must not result in an expansion of use and approval of a change of water right by
the water court may be necessary if the place or type of use is changed."
Our current Zoning Resolution, 4.08.05(7)(e)(i) requires that a PUD application include
evidence from a licensed engineer that the proposed water source is legally and
physically adequate to serve the PUD.
Recent revisions to the state Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act via HB
08-1141, specifically C.R.S. 29-20-303(1) now mandates that a local government shall
not approve an application for a development permit unless, "after considering the
application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate." State law also requires
that this determination as to adequacy occur "only once during the development permit
approval process unless the water demands or supply ...are materially changed. Local
governments have the discretion to determine the stage in the development permit
approval process at which such determination is made, "C. R.S. 29-20-302(1).
41
This section also provides, in (2), that "Nothing in this part 3 shall be construed to
require that the applicant own or have acquired the proposed water supply or
constructed the related infrastructure at the time of the application." Staff believes that
this limitation is consistent with the prior County interpretation of the Zoning Resolution
provision above, i.e. that the proposed water supply will be adequate once acquired and
constructed as represented in the application.
"Adequate" is defined in 29-20-302(1) to mean "a water supply that will be sufficient for
build -out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and
availability to provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed...."
"Development permit" is defined in C.R.S. 29-20-103(1) as "any preliminary or final
approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, conditional or special
use permit, subdivision, development or site plan, or similar application for new
construction..."
Although the County has not implemented any regulations under this new law, staff has
recommended that the determination of adequacy for a PUD rezoning occur at the time
of PUD approval. Because the PUD regulations in our zoning code require only one
decision by the County Commissioners for an approval, the "one time" determination of
adequacy must be made by the Commissioners at the time of the PUD hearing. The
Planning Commission can make recommendations about this determination.
State law also requires the information to be considered by the local government in its
determination of adequacy of the water supply, C.R.S. 29-20-305(1), as follows:
(a) The documentation required to be submitted by the applicant, as itemized in
C.R.S. 29-20-304, including the estimated water supply requirements of the
proposed development through buildout; a description of the physical source
of water supply; an estimate of the amount or water yield projected from the
proposed water supply under various hydrologic conditions; water
conservation measures, if any; water demand management measures, if any;
and such other information as may be required by the local government.
(b) If requested by the local government, a letter from the state engineer
commenting on the documentation listed in (a),
(c) Whether the applicant has paid to a water supply entity a fee or charge for the
purpose of acquiring water for or expanding or constructing the infrastructure
to serve the proposed development; and
(d) Any other information deemed relevant by the local government to determine,
in its sole discretion, whether the water supply for the proposed development
is adequate, including, without limitation, any information required to be
42
submitted by the applicant pursuant to applicable local government land use
regulations or state statutes.
The application proposes to connect with MVMD for both water and sewer services. The
application proposes that potable water will be conveyed by way of off site connections
at the Cerise Ranch lift station. As mentioned earlier, the County's Comprehensive Plan
strongly discourages private water / wastewater systems as a way to encourage large /
high density projects and to locate in areas where existing (municipal) systems already
exist that are more suited to administer such systems in the event of organizational
failures exist. Mid Valley Metropolitan District issued a commitment letter to serve the
site on February 14, 2007. In the letter, the District disclosed that they had the capacity
to serve ninety (90) units within the development for both water and sewer. Additionally,
SGM (engineer for the District) provided a letter stating the District has the ability to
physically serve the development. Staff finds the information submitted by the District's
attorney and engineer and the State Division of Water Resources demonstrates that this
development can meet the terms of HB -1141, the County's Zoning Resolution of 1978,
as amended, Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended and is physically and
legally adequate to serve the development.
ii. The proposed method in which storm drainage will be
handled, demonstrating that adjoining property owners would
not be damaged by the development; and
Staff Response
The Property contains a variety of surface water conveyance channels and retention
drainage basins as well as subsurface cross drains under roadways that will need to be
carefully reviewed due to the presence of these proposed stormwater collection
systems in a variety of associated wetlands along the Blue Creek and the Roaring Fork
River. The application contains a final drainage report prepared by Drexel, Barrell and
Company. Garfield County Staff reviewed the report and provided the following
comments:
• Watershed. The Historic Basin has been divided into six (6) existing sub -basins
based on contour mapping, survey information and field investigations. This will
generate runoff in addition to the volume calculated within the development on a pre-
post calculation methodology using the rational method derived from the SWMM
program of intensity, duration and frequency.
• Treatment of Stormwater Runoff. Water quality treatment for storm water is
discussed within the Preliminary Plan. In order to protect the water quality in Blue
Creek and the Roaring Fork River, it the county's expectation that all runoff from
roadways, parking areas, roofs, and similarly developed areas will be treated using
best management practices of retention basins and sedimentation swales as per the
submitted improvement plans.
43
• Flood Plain. Any construction within a floodplain will require a flood plain permit from
Garfield County Building and Planning Department.
• Wetlands. Neighborhood "D" of Firefly Loop (Lots 60 through 64), Dragonfly Spur
(Lots 56 and 57) and Mayfly Bend (Lots 66, 67, 68 and 69) indicates lot areas that
could possibly containing wetlands. Building envelopes should be revised in these
wetland areas after a defined area of wetlands boundaries have been determined.
iii. The proposed method in which provision will be made for any
potential natural hazards in the area such as avalanche areas,
landslide areas, flood plain areas, and unstable soils, and the
extent and mitigation of such hazard(s);
Staff Response
The Property contains natural hazards including floodplain areas associated with the
possibility of sinkholes. The CGS provided significant comments related to the physical
geography / geology of the site which have been addressed above. Ultimately, CGS
resonates what the drainage report indicates as:
Portions of the property are within the 100 year floodplain. Several homes on the
southern portion of the site are located within the 100 existing year floodplain.
These sites will be elevated to a minimum of one foot above the 100 year base flood
elevation. Designated finished floor elevations in this area are a minimum of 1.5 feet
above the 100 year base flood elevation.
Flooding is a hazard that must be addressed beyond raising building pad elevations
one foot above the 100 year base flood elevation, not due to the risks associated
with rising waters but also to reduce the risk of undermining due to stream channel
erosion and undercutting. Slope armoring such as rip rap installation should be
placed on the face of all constructed slopes used to raise building pads and roads
above the flood zone. The need and feasibility of additional channel and bank
stabilization, scour mitigation and energy dissipation measures should be
evaluated".
Sinkholes are a potential concern on the site but are far less critical than flooding
and flood related erosion hazards. Hepworth-Pawlak's recommendations are
appropriate "if conditions are indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered
during site specific soil and foundation studies for the houses and other movement
sensitive facilities, an alternative building site should be proposed or the feasibility of
mitigation evaluated ... Prospective homeowners should be advised of the sinkhole
potential, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are
important in reducing the cost of building repair and should an undetected
subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction.
MI
Regarding the threat of fires on the Property, the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
Access
The proposed access throughout the subdivision appears to be adequate for
emergency apparatus.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has agreed to service the development. The
submittal documents indicate that a 12" water main would be extended from the
Cerise Ranch Subdivision to serve the TCI Lane Ranch. Within the subdivision, an
8" loop system would be installed. The drawings indicate that PVC water mains are
proposed, which are unusual for developments within our area. These may or may
not be acceptable to the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Residential units are
proposed up to 5,500 square feet in size which will require flows of 2000 gallons per
minute (GPM). It appears that the system would be capable of providing adequate
fire flows. Two thousand 2000 GPM fire flows require decreased spacing of the fire
hydrants (Note: applicant has addressed the fire hydrant spacing issue with revised
improvement plans).
Impact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the district. The
developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the
payment of development impact fees. Execution of this agreement and payment of
the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the
impact fees adopted by the District at the time the agreement s executed. The
current fee for residential development is $704.00 per unit.
The following is a list of other items the developer will need to present to Carbondale
& Rural Fire Protection District for review and approval if this application is
approved and they move forward with the project, this list is not all-inclusive and
other items may -be added in the future.-
Utility
uture:
Utility plans showing the revised proposed water system and the new location of
fire hydrants,-
Landscape
ydrants,
Landscape plan in which showing that the plants and grasses uses to re -
vegetate disturbed areas are as fire resistive as possible. If designers needs lists
of fire resistive plants, grass and shrubs they can contact Carbondale & Rural
Fire Protection District, Deputy Fire Marshal;
➢ Present the proposed road and building addressing signage designs for
approval, see Section 505, Premises Identification, 2003 International Fire Code,
besides the requirements in this section the signage shall be reflective.
45
General items that will be addressed in more detail if the project moves forward and
building plans are submitted for review:
➢ All buildings shall have interior automatic fire suppression and fire alarm systems
installed in them. The systems shall be designed and installed to the most
current NFPA standard for these systems;
➢ Knox key boxes will be require on all buildings with fire protection systems
installed in them, some may require Knox key switches to deactivate electrical
power in them;
➢ We shall conduct or witness fire flow tests on the site water system prior to the
finial approvals and sign -off on the system by Garfield County.
Additionally, regarding fire hydrant locations, the County Project Engineer pointed out
that "The Fire Marshall will comment on the adequacy of fire hydrants. However, 1 do
not believe that the development has sufficient hydrants to meet the standard of having
a hydrant within 250 feet of the lot frontage".
f. Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from
a public road to the PUD and/or documentation demonstrating
access shall be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement
within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be
vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement
across the right-of-way; and
Staff Response
The PUD proposes to improve and utilize two access routes through the development
and an emergency access route through Blue Creek Ranch PUD. This is particularly
important from an emergency access perspective by providing a looped road system
and an alternative emergency route for additional access.
A voluntary riparian buffer corridor was utilized in the design process in order to protect
water quality, wildlife habitat plus add a recreational experience for the Roaring Fork
River. All areas of the property near the river will be dedicated Conservation Easement
from the Roaring Fork Conservancy with no lot coverage. Lots that will be adjacent to
this buffer area will have building envelopes that will limit home construction on the front
end of the lot. Major vegetation species in the riparian corridor include cottonwood,
willow, spruce, pinion juniper and ponderosa pine.
g. Evidence that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the
natural environment of the site and the surrounding area and does
not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or
unique natural or historical features. The applicant may submit any
other information or exhibits, which she/he deems pertinent in
evaluating his proposed PUD.
Staff Response
Staff finds the project has been designed, in large part, in consideration of the natural
environment. The revised application materials address wetland, orchid, internal road
circulation, off-site road impacts adequately.
Regarding wildlife, the application contains a wildlife study prepared by Rocky Mountain
Ecological Services, Inc. Staff also referred the application to the Colorado Division of
Wildlife (DOW) which responded with comments attached hereto. The DOW believes
the proposed development (additional human activity and trails reconfiguration) in the
wetland area will increase wildlife encounters through human interaction and the
development could create some negative impacts to wildlife. Staff suggests the PUD
require all of the mitigation measures of DOW recommendations listed here:
Building envelopes for lots 60-64 should be pulled as far north as possible to
eliminate any removal of riparian vegetation. Maximize building in the pasture
areas that have previously been disturbed.
2. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek are extremely
important to wildlife. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is
recommended that any proposed trails/paths be minimized and public access
should be limited into these areas. Access should be closed completely Dec 1 -
March 15 to limit disturbance to big game and wintering bald eagles utilizing the
riparian corridor.
3. As noted the property in not located within any mapped big game critical habitat
areas, however elk usage of the property has increased considerably during the
winter months. Deer and elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and
plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those
conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or
shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on
landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not
liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear.
4. The proposed bridge over the Roaring Fork River should be gated to prohibit
access to the RFTA during the winter closure period.
5. Bear/human conflicts have increased in the Roaring Fork Valley and in the
vicinity of Blue Creek Ranch and Catherine Store, and have the potential to be a
reoccurring problem. It is important that certain measures be taken to minimize
these conflicts:
a. Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof container for storing
all trash/garbage.
47
b. Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be
left outside;
c. BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with a
bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and
grease are an overwhelming bear attractant;
d. Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -type can limit
bear access into houses.
6. All utilities buried.
7. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife
friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space
between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18"
between 2 of the rails.
8. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their
property.
9. Follow recommendations outlined in the wildlife report prepared by Eric Petterson
of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc.
4.09.05
The development and construction of and within all PUDs shall be done in such
manner and fashion that minimizes disturbance to adjacent land uses and
owners. Access for all construction equipment shall be designated within the
PUD proposal and shall bear a logical relationship to any proposed phasing of
the development.
Staff Response
Construction of infrastructure improvements is proposed to begin in 2009. The
proposed plan is to install the project's entire infrastructure (roads, utilities, drainage,
etc.) in one continuous phase throughout 2009, with asphalt paving to be completed
prior to the closing of local asphalt plants in the fall of 2009. Trails, landscaping,
revegetation and the pedestrian bridge (if capitalized) are intended to occur during the
2010 construction season. This is not a phased project so all of the improvements (on-
site and off-site) shall occur in one phase and be secured as such.
Homebuilding is planned to begin in 2010 with the existing gravel access road into the
property to act as the construction entrance off of State Highway 82 frontage road. This
entranceway will be maintained during the preliminary vertical construction phase to
accommodate construction traffic and as a materials staging area.
The Applicant anticipates that approximately 15 to 25 homes will be constructed per
year until complete build -out. Full build -out is expected between 2013 and 2015, which
will be subject to market conditions with adjustments made accordingly.
Staff finds that the frontage road will be capable of handling large slow moving
construction vehicles because of minimal traffic conflict with the public and residents
within the area of State Highway 82 frontage road. This will be the only way to and from
the Property during a 5 year build -out phasing plan.
VI. STAFF COMMENTS FOR THE 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 Supply and Wastewater
Sewer and water service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District
(MVMD), as demonstrated by the commitment to serve letter dated February 14, 2007.
The on-site sewer and water improvement plans have been submitted as part of the
preliminary plan.
In the letter of commitment to serve, Mid Valley Metropolitan District has agreed to
annex TCI Lane Ranch into its service area and provide service to the development.
This annexation does not constitute a material modification of the Districts Service Plan,
as per state statute and the Board of County Commissioner's determination. MVMD
has assured TCI Lane Ranch and Garfield County that it has adequate legal and
physical water in place too serve the community. In compliance with the requirements
of HB 1141, documentation has been provided from MVMD's legal counsel describing
their legal and physical water sources, water yields, Master Plan and drought year
scenario.
As per the letter Leavenworth and Karp to Garfield County Building and Planning dated
December 29, 2008, the easements necessary to extend potable water and wastewater
service to TCI Lane Ranch are already in place. The extension of MVMD service area
would begin from the Cerise Ranch development about Y2 of a mile east from TCI Lane
Ranch, where existing MVMD easements allow for the connections to the north side of
State Highway 82 Right of Way. From this beginning point, the service line will extend
westward along the State Highway 82 Right of Way then under Highway 82 by way of a
boring to reach TCI Lane Ranch. The plans and easement drawings provide details on
the alignment and sizing of these off site improvements. TCI Lane Ranch will have two
on-site wastewater lift -stations in two separate Utility Zone Districts. These wastewater
improvements will be built by the developer and then conveyed to Mid Valley
Metropolitan District for ownership, operation and management with the two Utility Zone
Districts being decentralized by the developer.
Mid Valley Metropolitan District will be obtaining the necessary permits and
authorizations in order to extend their service infrastructure to TCI Lane Ranch. This
involves obtaining a CDOT permit and producing described drawings for their planned
utilization of private easements within Cerise Ranch for their water and sewer
extensions.
Four wells do exist on the property with underground water rights. The existing wells
are located within the common open space area on the site plan. These wells will be
capped with the Homeowners Association maintaining the rights to those wells. The
Mid Valley Metropolitan District will also require the reservation of a new augmentation
well site within TCI Lane Ranch.
TCI Lane Ranch owns significant raw water rights from several ditches and these water
rights will be maintained and conveyed to the_Homeowners Association. The exception
will be a portion of that right will be dedicated to the proposed Conservation Easement
for the use in preserving and maintaining the conservation values attached to the
property. The remainder of the raw water will be utilized to provide irrigation support for
common areas and residential lots within the development, including constructed
wetlands. Irrigation for individual lots will be provided by a separate raw water irrigation
system that is fed by a centralized "wet well" and pressurized pump station from one of
the project ditches. A guideline will prescribe a maximum area for spray irrigation of
each individual lot.
Garfield County Project Engineer made the following comments on water supply and
wastewater issues:
Water Distribution
Sewer
A. Depiction of Internal Water Distribution Pipelines — No issues.
B. Depiction of Offsite Water Pipeline to Development — Not submitted.
These plans will be prepared by the Applicant's engineer and reviewed by
the Mid Valley Metro District's engineer. The main issue to the County is
proof that CDOT will allow the utilities in the Highway 82 ROW and
whether there is adequate room in the ROW for both the water and sewer
line.
C. Depiction of Internal Sewers — No issues. The design of the internal pump
stations needs to be reviewed by Mid Valley Metro District's engineer and
State Engineer since MVMD will operate the pump stations.
D. Depiction of Offsite Sewer.- Same comment as for the offsite water lines.
Physical and Legal Source of Water
E. Required Letter or Report: Per the County Code, the application needs to
include one of the following: (i) a letter from a professional engineer with
the information listed in the County Code, or (ii) A reviewed and updated
50
Water Supply Plan that is on file with the local government. (The
submitted reports do not constitute a Water Supply Plan.)
F. The Applicant shall provide a report demonstrating that the proposed
offsite water and sewer lines are adequate to serve other existing or future
developments.
Staff finds that the off site water and sewer plans must be reviewed and approved by
the Mid Valley Metro District's Engineer. The design of the internal pump stations
needs to be reviewed and approved by Mid Valley Metro District's Engineer.
Finally, as stated above, the application proposes to provide drinking, fire suppression,
and irrigation water. Potable water will be conveyed to the development by water
services provided by Mid Valley Metropolitan District. The improvement plans for the
project were sealed and signed by Curtis Charles Stevens, a licensed engineer in the
State of Colorado.
The revised application was referred to the Colorado Division of Water Resources which
ultimately found that "the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not
cause material injury to existing water rights so long as the District operates according
to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation. The use of irrigation
water must not result in an expansion of use and approval of a change of water right by
the water court may be necessary if the place or type of use is changed."
Mid Valley Metropolitan District issued a commitment letter to serve the site on February
14, 2007. In the letter, the District disclosed that they had the capacity to serve ninety
(90) units within the development for both water and sewer. Additionally, SGM (engineer
for the District) provided a letter stating the District has the ability to physically serve the
development. Staff finds the information submitted by the District's attorney and
engineer and the State Division of Water Resources demonstrates that this
development can meet the terms of HB -1141, the County's Zoning Resolution of 1978,
as amended, Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended and is physically and
legally adequate to serve the development.
B. Internal Road /Access
The development has direct access to a public road (State Highway 82 Frontage Road
also known as Old 82) with two access permits presently in place with CDOT, which are
to be used with the subject proposal. The permits appear to be satisfactory to the
County Road and Bridge Department but only made comment regarding the emergency
access onto County Road 100.
The internal road systems is a looped and fork design providing two points of access
into and out of the development onto State Highway 82 frontage road. All roads within
the TCI Development have been designed per county design standards in Section 9:35
of the Subdivision Regulations and meet the minimum design criteria for emergency
51
vehicles per Garfield County and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection Districts
standards. The exception is a requested waiver for Haystack Drive & Riverstone drive
which are reduced in width from 60 feet to 50 feet and a request for a waiver for 200
feet for a long cul-de-sac on Dragonfly Loop.
The road system within the development will be un -gated and private road dedicated to
the public. Lot lines within each neighborhood will extend to the centerline of the roads.
The road circulation pattern has been designed to quickly disperse traffic into each of
the six (6) neighborhoods, which helps to minimize traffic volumes on the roadway.
Also the curvilinear design or "reverse curves" tend to slow down the speeds of vehicles
on the roadway. Road construction drawings have been submitted as part of the overall
application with utility easements.
Garfield County Project Engineer made the following comments on roadway issues.-
A.
ssues:
A. Layout and Grades - The proposed dead end roads exceed 600 feet in length
and do not comply with the Land Use Code. (The submission is being reviewed
under the old County Land Use Code that limits the length of dead end roads to
600 feet.) Section 9:33 states that cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be
designed under two circumstances: 1) cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided
that they are not more than 600' in length and have a turnaround radius of not
less than 45' from the center of the cul-de-sacs to radius edge and 50' of right of
way for residential development and 2) dead end streets shall be discouraged
except in cases where the dead end is meant to be temporary with the intent to
extend or connect the right of way in the future The Board may approve longer
cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection
and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design yet
this has not been addressed.
B. Road Width: The road driving surface widths, ranging from 16 foot to 24 foot,
complies with the County's standards.
C. Shoulder Widths: The proposed road shoulder widths do not comply with the
County's road standards. When Average Daily Trips (ADT) on the roadway is
more than 201 vehicles per day, four foot shoulders (minimum) are required.
[The ADT is calculated as follows: Number of homes using street x 9.6 trips per
house per day.]
D. On -Street and Public Parking: No on -street parallel parking can be allowed since
the roads have not been designed to accommodate parking. A sign is needed on
the Fire Loop parking area designating that the spaces are for short term use and
reserved for visitors using the trail.
The revised internal road design otherwise meets the County's standards.
52
C. External Road Impacts
The only road serving TCI Lane Ranch is the State Highway 82 frontage road. The
intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100 is the primary intersection
vehicles will use when accessing TCI Lane Ranch. In its present condition, the
intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100 cannot sustain the current
volume of traffic during peak hour volumes. The increased level of service which would
result from the proposed TCI Lane Ranch residential development would diminish, even
though an increase of only 5% volume in traffic will occur from this development.
The Access Code states an access permit is needed when the traffic volume is over
20% from a given development. Upon development, TCI Lane Ranch is expected to
generate a total of 784 trips during average weekday. It includes 14 inbound and 47
outbound trips during the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour would add an
estimated 51 inbound and 30 outbound trips. Thus, the development will only increase
the traffic volume by less than 5%. Therefore an access permit is not needed at the
County Road connection for this project.
CDOT does not have any process to make the developer address this need for
intersection improvements. The addition of the project generated traffic should not have
a potentially significant impact on the roadway facilities upon the project completion. If
historical traffic growth rates persist in the vicinity of TCI Ranch, significant
improvements may be required to maintain an acceptable level of service in and around
the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100. But these improvements
are required today, even without the development of TCI Lane Ranch.
The intersection at State Highway 82 and County Road 100 is not within any of the
County's Traffic Impact Fee Zones. It has been recommended to Staff by referrals that
the County, through the land use process, does have an ability to address this impact to
the majority of the road users in the area and that the County should consider it as a
condition of approval for TCI Lane Ranch.
The revised application proposes to make certain specific improvements designed by
Drexel, Barrell & CO that have been reviewed by CDOT which will ultimately result in a
right turn lane from northbound CR 100 to the up valley direction of Stet Highway 82.
Additionally, the applicant will construct a raised median between the northbound and
southbound directions on CR 100 (within the SH82 ROW) adding additional safety to
the turning movements. These improvements are to be paid for exclusively by the
developer within the context of the Improvements Agreement and represents their fair
share of needed improvements.
D. Soils/Geology
The preliminary geotechnical study was prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions and
the potential impact it would have on the project. A field exploration study was
53
preformed consisting of a reconnaissance and exploratory pits to obtain information on
the site and subsurface conditions.
The site conditions of the property lies to the north of the nearly level Roaring Fork River
Valley about three and a half miles east of Carbondale. The valley floor has an average
slope of about 2% fall down to the west. It is made up of several river terraces that are
separated by low escarpments. These escarpments are about 6 to 20 feet high and
have slopes anywhere form 50% to 70%. The terraces lie anywhere from 4 to 46 feet
above the Roaring Fork River.
Geologic conditions that could pose a high risk were not identified by the study but there
are geologic conditions of flooding and sinkholes that should be considered in the
planning process. The low lying terraces along the Roaring Fork River may be subject
to periodic flooding during high river flows. The Applicant intends to obtain a floodplain
permit for this development through the process of finalization. The study states that
sinkholes were not observed at the project site during the field study but the likelihood
that a sinkhole will develop during a reasonable exposure time at the project area is low.
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments related to floodplain impacts and sinkholes:
A. The final drainage report states that portions of the property are within the 100
year floodplain. Several homes on the southern portion of the site are located
within the 100 year floodplain. These sites will be elevated to a minimum of one
foot above base flood elevation. Designated finished floor elevations in this area
a minimum of 1.5 feet above the 100 year base flood elevation.
B. Flooding is a hazard that must be addressed beyond raising building pads above
the one foot base flood elevation, not only to reduce the risks associated with
rising waters but also to reduce the risk of undermining due to stream channel
erosion and undercutting. Slope armoring such as rip rap should be placed on the
face of all constructed slopes used to raise building pads and roads above the
flood zone. The need for and the feasibility of additional channel and bank
stabilization, scour mitigation and energy dissipation measures should be
evaluated.
C. Sinkholes are a potential concern on the site but are far less critical than flooding
and flood related erosion hazards. Hepworth-Pawlak's recommendations are
appropriate "if conditions are indicative of sinkhole related problems are
encountered during site specific soil and foundation studies for the houses and
other movement sensitive facilities, an alternative building site should be
proposed or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Prospective homeowners
should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building
distress and timely remedial actions are important in reducing the cost of building
repair and should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole
54
after construction.
Staff finds slope armoring such as rip rap should be placed on the face of all
constructed slopes used to raise building pads and roads above the flood fringe area.
Prospective homeowners should be advised of the sinkhole potential and the Applicant
take site engineering measures to inspect and indicate the possibility of sinkholes within
the developed areas.
E. Drainage
The Application contains a Final Drainage Report prepared by Drexel, Barrell and
Company which can be located under tab V of the Application. Additionally, the
Drainage Plan was submitted as an Improvement Plan Sheet in the preliminary plan set
which demonstrates how drainage is managed throughout the property. Ultimately, the
reports states that there is no impact to downstream properties and on site 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.
Garfield County Project Engineer reviewed the Drainage Plan and provided the
following comments:
A. l don't understand the weir design for the detention ponds and how it fits with the
outlet structure and the 46 box culvert. I understand that weir creates permanent
amenity ponds (ponds 2 and 3). How will water remain in these ponds if they still
a 2" outlet orifice below the weir elevation,-
B.
levation;B. A word of caution ... The Windrow Way detention basin emergency overflow for
the 100 year storm is at an elevation of approximately 6296 feet. This will keep
adjacent lots from flooding. However, an inadvertent increase in this overflow
elevation could result in the flooding of Lot 37.
Staff finds that surface drainage design of the site uses the natural drainage
conveyance system to its greatest extent. Because of the topography, area of wetlands
and the southern section of the site being within the 100 year floodplain, the routing of
water through the site is acceptable for stormwater collection and surface conveyance.
F. Fire Protection
The property is located in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The
development proposes to have water service provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan
District in a centralized water supply system of hydrants. A plan view set of drawings
shows the location of all fire hydrants throughout the site. The District submitted a letter
dated January 30, 2009, which reflects a review of hydrant spacing within the site as
being inadequate because of the 2000 GPM need for the lots on Dragonfly Loop where
residential units are proposed up to 5,500 square feet in size which will require flows of
2000 gallons per minute (GPM). It appears that the system would be capable of
providing adequate fire flows. Two thousand (2000) GPM fire flows require decreased
55
spacing of the fire hydrants. It appears that TCI Lane Ranch has agreed with the fire
protection measures and revised all of hydrant locations and additions.
G. Wildlife
Regarding impacts to wildlife and the natural environment, the Applicant did submit a
Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment Report prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological
Services. The Application refers to tab V. This PUD application proposes residential
development which will be slightly visible from State Highway 82. The development will
hold over 75% of the site as open space and should have minimal impact of displacing
unpressured wildlife that presently uses the property. The Application states that deer
and elk presently graze on the property which also provides a route to get to the
Roaring Fork River. This has also been testified to by the Division of Wildlife.
The development of TCI Ranch is designed to leave large blocks of habitat relatively in
tact for deer usage. However, the indirect use of dogs and increased activity by
humans would compound unavoidable losses of wildlife habitat. Deer use around home
sites will likely continue but at a lower level. Staff finds that social and planned trails
through the cottonwood areas should be minimized as much as possible. Staff has
suggested several conditions to help mitigate impacts to wildlife.
H. Vegetation Management
Staff referred the revised Application to the County Vegetation Manager who provided
the following comments:
Ute's Ladies Tresses
Assessment focused on the impacts to the wetlands and weed control. Wetland
issues revolve upon a "dry period" wetlands delineation, the Ute's Ladies Tresses
(Spiranthes diluvialis) orchid, which is a federally listed threatened plant species,
constructed trails within the wetlands, the site design/alignment of Mayfly Bend,
Riverstone Drive and Dragonfly Spur to minimize the impacts on the orchid and to
disallow landowners from adding fill material into designated wetlands within their
lots
Noxious Weeds
1. Inventory, mapping, and management -The applicant has provided a noxious
weed inventory and management plan. Staff encourages the applicant to follow
the weed management plan as outlined by RMES, in particular the section,
Prioritization of Weed Control on page 30 of the Wildlife and Vegetation
Assessment Report.
2. In addition staff requests that weed management is written into the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement to guarantee that weed management will occur in the
future on undeveloped lots and for the open space areas. We recommend an
amount of $6000 per year for four (4) years ($24, 000).
56
Revegetation
1. Revegetation security: The applicant has quantified the surface area to be
disturbed as twenty four (24) acres. We suggest a revegetation amount of
$2500 per acre for the upland areas, which would total $60, 000.
2. Constructed Wetland Security: This area is almost three (3) acres in total, we
request that the applicant provide Garfield County with a cost estimate for this
work. When this information is provided, staff will recommended a security
amount for the wetlands work.
3. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been
successfully reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed Management
Plan Reclamation Standards.
4. All mulch or erosion control bales used in the project should be specified to be
either weed free straw bales or weed free hay bales.
Mosquito Management
• Staff requests that the applicant address the issue of mosquito management in
the neighborhood constructed wetlands area.
Covenants
• Wetlands are mentioned in the covenants (3.36.4). 1 suggest that additional
language be added that would disallow landowners from adding fill material into
designated wetlands within their lots.
Staff has suggested several conditions to minimize impacts to the sites vegetative
assets.
I. Assessment / Fees
The property is located in the RE -1 School District which requires either a land
dedication or payment of cash -in -lieu of School / Land Dedication Fee. The Applicant is
responsible for paying the fee at the time of final plat. This obligation shall be
memorialized in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
The property is also located in the Carbondlae Fire Protection District which requires an
impact fee to be paid at the time of Final Plat.
I. Development in the 100 -Year Floodplain Review
A portion of the property, primarily along the Roaring Fork River, is located in the 100 -
year floodplain. Since this proposed application represents a PUD and preliminary plan,
the Applicant is required to address the floodplain issues on the property which is
57
generally reviewed by the County in an administrative review for development in the
flood -fringe, which is done as a part of this review but still requires a separate
Administrative Floodplain Permit.
As per the federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map, Garfield County, Colorado, Unincorporated Areas, Map # 080205 1880 B, portions
of the property lie within the "flood fringe" of the 100 year floodplain. Several home sites
on the southern portion of the property are located in the existing 100 year floodplain.
These sites will be elevated to a minimum of one foot above the 100 year base flood
elevation. Designated finished floor elevations in this area are at a minimum of 1.5 feet
above the 100 year base flood elevation. No proposed building will be built within the
100 year floodway.
1. A plat note should be included on the final plat of the TCI Lane Ranch
PUD that states the specific lot number building areas or envelopes which
have been filled, references the floodplain development permit number,
and indicates that construction on these lots must conform to the CARCO
Floodplain Regulations and the approved permits.
2. A plat note should be included that indicates the minimum finished floor
elevation for each lot within the flood fringe area.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & PROPOSED FINDINGS REGARDING THE
PROPOSED REZONING TO PUD
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of
County Commissioners to rezone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the
following findings of fact:
1) That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete;
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested
parties were heard at those hearings;
2) That the proposed PUD does generally conform to the County's Comprehensive
Plan of 2000, as amended;
3) The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4) The applicable sections of the County's Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
have been met.
5) That the Applicant shall comply with the following conditions listed below:
58
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & PROPOSED FINDINGS REGARDING THE
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAN
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of
County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan Application with the following findings of
fact:
1) That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Planning Commission;
2) That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete;
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested
parties were heard at those hearings;
3) That the application is in compliance with the specific standards set forth in the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulation of 1984, as amended;
4) The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
5) That the Applicant shall comply with the conditions listed below:
IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. WILDLIFE: The Covenants shall contains the following provisions:
a. Fencing should be held at a minimum and any necessary fencing should
be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42 inches for a maximum height, 4
wires at most with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail
fencing should be 48 inches or less with at least 18" between two of the
rails.
b. The riparian areas along both the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek are
extremely important to wildlife.
f Elk usage of the property has increased considerably during the
winter months. Deer and elk conflicts are to be expected within the
development and plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to
help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating the plantings of
any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help
discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding upon the
landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of
59
Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or
bear.
iv. Bear/human conflicts have increased within the Roaring Fork Valley
and in the vicinity of Blue Creek Ranch and Catherine Store. This
has the potential to be a reoccurring problem. It is important that
certain measures be taken to minimize these possible conflicts.-
a,
onflicts:
a. Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof
container for storing all trash/garbage;
b. Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers
should not be left outside,-
C.
utside;c. BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or
cleaned with a bleach solution when not in use due to the
fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear
attractant;
d. Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -
type can limit bear access into houses.
v. The proposed pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River should
be gated to prohibit access to the RFTA during the winter closure
period.
vi. Due to the critical nature of wetland areas for wildlife, it is
recommended that any proposed trails or paths be minimized and
the public access into these areas should be limited in numbers.
Access should be closed completely from December 1 through
March 15 in order to limit the disturbance on big game and
wintering bald eagles utilizing the riparian corridor.
2. VEGETATION /WETLANDS
a. As part of the public improvements to be constructed by the Applicant and
secured in the Improvements Agreement as part of the Final Plat
application, the Applicant shall construct a fence to a design specification
consistent with the BLM's needs regarding preventing access to the BLM
parcel in the southeast portion of the development.
b. Where trail design indicates that the trail crossing the wetland area will be
a 2' Natural Surface Path, Staff requests further clarification on this type of
path. Garfield County Vegetation discourages the construction of any type
of trail that would bring imported fill material into the wetland area.
c. The Applicant shall provide an "orchid monitoring program" and a plan that
that will maintain the open wetland areas.
.E
d. Staff has concerns about potential conflicts with Ute's Ladies Tresses
habitat that need to be better analyzed by the Applicant prior to the
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners:
2. Portions of Riverstone Drive and how will Riverstone Drive cross the
wetland without altering the water flow and the hydrology?
3. T_wD_lots on the north end of Dragonfly Spur (lots 56 and 57).
4. What are the future plans to channelize Blue Creek and if
channelization occurs, will the area would become less saturated and
spiranthes habitat would become diminished.
3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
a. The Applicant shall be required to provide 9 deed -restricted single-family
affordable housing units on Lots 1, 11, 12, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 39.
These units shall be governed / administered by the Garfield County
Housing Authority. The Final Plat shall note these lots as AH Units on the
plat.
The Applicant shall meet with the Garfield County Housing Authority prior
to Final Plat to ensure that the required deed restriction meets the
requirements of the Garfield County Housing Authority.
b. The Final Plat and protective covenants shall contain 'roIlowing note
`7n order to ensure the orderly and timej-y-66nstruction of the 9 required
deed -restricted affordable housing uarts, no more than 10 free market unit
building permits shall be issyj9d'by the Garfield County Building and
Planning Department at qpy-one time unless a building permit has been
issued for a deed-restridted affordable housing unit such that a ratio of
free-market to affraidable housing units shall be constantly maintained of
10 free-market do one (1) deed restricted unit. "
"o -
4.
o — ,
4. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO CR 100 / STATE HIGHWAY 82
INTERSECTION
a. The Applicant shall construct the improvements to the intersection of CR
100 and State Highway 82 as approved by CDOT which includes a new
61
\�r
l
'N
N,
right turn lane from northbound CR 100 to the up valley direction of State
Highway 82. Additionally, the applicant will construct a raised median
between the northbound and southbound directions on CR 100 (within the
SH82 ROW) adding additional safety to the turning movements. These
improvements are to be paid for exclusively by the developer within the
context of the Improvements Agreement. (This final design approved by
CDOT shall be included in the Final Plat application.)
5. 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN
The Applicant shall obtain an Administrative Floodplain Permit from the Building and
Planning Department prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. The Final Plat shall show
the first finished floor elevation (FFFE) on each building envelope on the Final Plat that
lie within the 100 -year flood fringe.
6. ZONING DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
This approval of the PUD shall allow the following variances from the dimensional
standards in the ARRD Zone District and provisions in the Subdivision Regulations of
1984:
A. Reduction in minimum lot size per the site plan;
B. Allow duplex as a use -by -right instead of a conditional use;
C. List pipelines under conditional use permit subject to pipeline regulations
rather than list under use -by -right;
D. Reduction in the ROW width on the main entrance roads (Haystack Road and
Riverstone Drive) from 60 feet to 50 feet;
E. Allowing "community building" as accessory use to the residential
development;
F. Allowing Dragonfly Spur to exceed the 600 linear feet maximum for cul-de-sac
by 200 feet; and
-A-redtrct1an tn' the off-street parking for the community buil ing 1 space
er
J
7. DRAINAGE
The Final Plat shall address the following drainage questions raised by the County
Project Engineer:
62
A. Watershed. The Historic Basin has been divided into six (6) existing sub -
basins based on contour mapping, survey information and field investigations.
This will generate runoff in addition to the volume calculated within the
development on a pre -post calculation methodology using the rational method
derived from the SWMM program of intensity, duration and frequency.
B. Treatment of Stormwater Runoff. Water quality treatment for storm water is
discussed within the Preliminary Plan. In order to protect the water quality in
Blue Creek and the Roaring Fork River, it the county's expectation that all
runoff from roadways, parking areas, roofs, and similarly developed areas will
be treated using best management practices of retention basins and
sedimentation swales as per the submitted improvement plans.
Wetlands. Neighborhood "D" of Firefly Loop (Lots 60 through 64), Dragonfly
Spur (tots, 56 and, -&7) and Ma�yf Bend -(Lots 66; -67, 68 and, 69) indicates lot
areas that could'possi6ly cor(taining wetlands. Building -envelopes should be
revised in these wetland areas after a defined area of wetlands boundaries
have been determined.
D. Depiction of Offsite Water Pipeline to Development — These plans will be
prepared by the Applicant's engineer and reviewed by the Mid Valley Metro
District's engineer. The main issue to the County is proof that CDOT will allow
the utilities in the Highway 82 ROW and whether there is adequate room in the
ROW for both the water and sewer line.
E. Depiction of Offsite Sewer: Same comment as for the offsite water lines.
8. GEOLOGY
The Final Plat and covenants shall contain the following plat note to address
potential sinkholes.-
"if
inkholes.
"if conditions are indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered during site
specific soil and foundation studies for the houses and other movement sensitive
facilities, an alternative building site should be proposed or the feasibility of
mitigation evaluated ... Prospective homeowners should be advised of the sinkhole
potential, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are
important in reducing the cost of building repair and should an undetected
subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction."
9. IMPACT FEES
A. The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the
district. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the
63
\r
�N
C ti District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of this
agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the Final
Plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time
the agreement s executed. The current fee for residential development is
$704.00 per unit.
B. The Applicant shall be required to provide a school land dedication or fee in
lieu of dedication to the RE -1 School District at the time of Final Plat pursuant
to the requirements in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of
2008, as amended. This fee is collected at the time of Final Plat.
W� �—
Jj