HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.00 PC Staff Report 09.14.2011Planning Commission -Public Hearing Exhibits
River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment I Preliminary Plan
September 14, 2011-continued from July 13, 2011
PC September 14, 2011
KE
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIV.E :
LOCATION :
PROPERTY SIZE:
WATER/SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Zone District Amendment I PUD and Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Carbondale Investments, LLC
Rockwood Shepard
Mid-way between Carbondale and Glenwood
Springs on the west side of SH 82 at Cattle Creek
±160-acres
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District AND/OR
Private Central Water and Sanitation
State Highway 82
Residential Suburban (RS)
CL, CG , PUD , Rural
Future Land Use Map -Residential High Density
1
I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
A. Property Location
PC September 14, 2011
KE
The property is generally located in the western Y2 of Sect ions 7 and 18 of Township 7 South,
Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South , Range 89
West. More practically, the property is located 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs east and
adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH 82) with a primary access point located opposite Cattle Creek
Road (CR 113) as it intersects with SH 82 in the lower Roaring Fork Valley.
Properties to the north include two commercial parks (Eastbank & Evergreen) and a high-
density mobile home park (H Lazy F). Properties to the west include a medium-density (Teller
Springs) and high-density (Iron Bridge) residential development. Properties to the south include
an active gravel extraction operation (LaFarge) and medium-density residential development
(Aspen Glen). Properties to the east include a variety of commercial businesses (Van Rand
Park), and a high-density mobile home park (Mountain Meadows Court).
B. General Property Description
The property contains approximately 160-acres
of former 281.62 acres site that has recently
subdivided been into several >35-acre parcels.
The subject site is located on the floor of the
Roaring Fork Valley and is configured in a linear
north-south orientation with the Rio Grande Trail
forming its east border and the Roaring Fork
River forming its western border.
Physically the property can be characterized by
several benches that step down in an east to
2
PC September 14 , 2011
KE
west direction towards the Roaring Fork River. A perpetual conservation easement held by the
Roaring Fork Conservancy is located adjacent to the subject site of this application.
C . Property History
Beyond what has been protected in the adjacent
easement, the entire property has been virtually
denuded of any viable vegetation and stripped of
much of its topsoil as a result of former
development attempts by a previous owner which
has left the property in poor condition . The ground
cover is primarily characterized by cobles and
gravel with three or four large piles of unanchored
topsoil. Some rough grading work is also evident
where the previous owner had begun to rough in a
golf course .
The Sanders Ranch Planned Unit Developme nt (PUD) was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 with a site specific development plan that included a golf
course , 62 sing le-fami ly dwelling units and 168 multi -family dwelling units for a total average
density of 1.22 acres I du or conversely , 0 .81 du I acre .
In February , 2008 the Board of
County Commissioners revoked
approval for the uncompleted portion
of the PUD and rezoned that portion
to Residential Suburban (known as
RGSD under the Zoning Resolution ,"'
of 1978 , as amended) leaving the
area encompassed by the
conservation easement held by the
Roaring Fork Conservancy zoned as
Open Space I Conservation District in
the Sanders Ranch PUD as shown
right.
Subsequently, the owner of the property at the
time (Sopris Development Group) sold the
property to Linksvest I Bair Chase , LLC who
submitted a Preliminary Plan Application in 2003
based on the PUD which was approved by the
BOCC in 2004 and extended in 2005.
The net result was that the Preliminary Plan
Application became invalid due to expiration ;
certain obligations I timeframes contained within
the Phasing Plan in the PUD also became invalid
thus rendering the ent ire PUD Plan invalid .
3
PC September 14, 2011
KE
In October 2008 the site was owned by River Bend , LLC when Related WestPac, LLC
submitted an application for a Zone District Amendment for Planned Unit Development (PUD).
This PUD proposed 1,006 dwelling units, 30,000 square feet of commercial, a school site, open
space and recreation as shown on the development plan below.
This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant prior to any action taken on the
request.
II. RIVER EDGE COLORADO (REC) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current owner of
the site, Carbondale
Investments , LLC , (CI)
proposes to rezone a
portion of the original
site discussed above ,
from Residential
Suburban to PUD to
allow for development
of 366 dwelling units
(including 55 affordable
units), 30 ,000 square
feet of public, quasi-
publi c and commercial
floor area , open space
and re c reation . The
owner has also
included a Preliminary
Plan Application to
allow for subdivision of
the site .
. -......
~ ~;~t~ ....... ;_~ ~::;; .. -·
4
PC September 14, 2011
KE
The application materials contain the following project description:
Cl contemplates developing the property into a walkable clustered-form of residential
development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable
homes, passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the
"Project'J. The neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and will
offer opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a
fitness room, a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities,
and limited community service uses. Community service uses may include not-for-profit or for
profit uses that may be operated for the benefit of residents of the community only within
designated spaces of the neighborhood center. Community service uses shall be operated by a
tenant or concessionaire of the property owners' association (the "POA 'J to be established for
the Project and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop,
and/or a health club.
Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation
Easement}, will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot Jots, dog
parks, playfie/ds, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural
heritage and rural character, CJ anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado
Planned Unit Development ("PUD'J for "Garden/Orchard" use may be used, at the residents'
election, as communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations
of the POA, it is anticipated that these Garden/Orchard tracts will consist of individual plots,
multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas, other ancillary
horticultural related uses, and for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be
provided within the neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas ultimately
will be decided by the residents of the Project.
It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of
the Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide
provided in Tab 3, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
The Applicant proposes that the development proceed in 11 phases with reclamation of the
entire 160-acres being completed in Phase 0. The development is anticipated to be built-out in
2019 based upon an average annual absorption rate of 58 units per year. The Applicant is
requesting a vesting period for the development for a period of 20 years.
PHASING
The PUD Plan and charts, along with language in the PUD Guide and engineer construction
plan (CP01.01), constitute the phasing plan for the development. In general the staging and
timing of the proposed development is described as:
The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings. The
Project will be constructed over a period of 5-I 0 years. The development stage of the Project is
preceded by a pre-development reclamation phase described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix
U of the Impact Analysis, Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). The development
staging and construction is detailed on Drawing No. CPOI. 0 I of the P UD (Rezoning) and
Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary
Plan Application.
Phase 0 -This first phase is to reclaim the site in preparation for development activities.
Included in the 68 page Reclamation Plan, itemized as Appendix U in Binder 2 is the
following intent:
5
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Th is Plan prop oses a nd deta ils a pre-de velopment recla matio n action ("Phase 0''), including
gradin g, n ecessary to r epair th e damage t o the P roject S ite r es ulting from actions taken by Bair
Chase in association with th e San de rs Ranch PUD which p artially regrad ed the Project S ite (as
her einafter defined) for res id entia l a nd golf co urs e de ve lopment a nd stripp ed a nd s tockpiled the
top soil.
The description of the reclamation is basically a 'grading program ' but also includes :
• Relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the entry to the site . The Applicant states that
this relocation will be done in coordination with RFTA and will result in a grade-
separated trail that will reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between trail users and
access to the site .
• Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch to facilitate property development.
• Site grading includes movement of 1.2 million cubic yards of material which will re -
grade the site for proper drainage and resolve existing and potential geotechnical
hazards . In addition this will also repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace
escarpments, and repair active and stabilize stream bank erosion .
• Construction of drainage fac ilities and water quality detention ponds .
• Final revegetation and planting of vegetative screens along the Rio Grande Tra il and
the conservation easement.
Phase 1 -59 lots (39 "Town " lots and 20 "Attached " lots); off-site infrastructure such as
access from Highway 82 , a private at-grade cross ing over the grade separated -RFTA trail ,
connection to water and wastewater treatment facilities if serv ice is provided by RFWSD .
On-site improvements include the round -about and streets to serve the lots, bridge over
Cattle Creek, water and sewer lines, parking and mailboxes at the Community Center
Phase 1 B -26 lots (1 3 Garden Homes and 13 Affordable Homes). These first two phases
are anti c ipated to be constru cted between 201 2 and 2014 .
Phase 2 -31 lots ( 12 Village Lots , 19 Attached )
Phase 2A --56 lots (28 Garden Homes and 28 Affordable Homes).
6
Phase 3-36 Lots (35 Town Lots and 1 Village Lot)
Phase 4-52 Lots (44 Town Lots and 8 Village Lots)
Phase 4A-19 Garden Home Lots
Phase 5-27 Town Lots
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Phase 5A -28 Lots (14 Garden Home Lots and 14 Affordable Homes)
Phase 6-61 Lots (9 Estate Lots, 17 Town Lots and 35 Village Lots)
Ill. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan applications were referred to the following agencies
and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments that were received are
briefly noted below and more substantively included in the body of the memorandum.
a. Garfield County Road & Bridge: EXHIBIT I
Questions regarding water tank and traffic generation.
b. Garfield County Public Works: EXHIBIT J
SGM reviewed the proposal on behalf of Public Works as SGM is involved in an intersection
study which includes the Cattle Creek (CR 113) I Old Dump Road (CR 11 0) intersection with
SH 82. Issues identified include the alignment of the proposed access to the development,
deviations from CDOT standards for shoulders, and potential alternatives for traffic control
related to a development of 300+ units. SGM recommends that the Applicant coordinate
with the County and CDOT on these issues.
c. Garfield County Housing Authority: EXHIBIT K
The Housing Authority reviewed the proposed affordable housing component of the
development including a rental component that is not addressed in the County's guidelines,
percentage of AMI that exceeds the maximum County guidelines, proposes flexibility given
the long build-out schedule, and questions regarding timing on provision of units. Additional
comments are expected regarding the proposed deed restriction language when those
documents are submitted and finalized.
d. Garfield County Sheriff Department: EXHIBIT L
The Emergency Operations Sergeant has concerns regarding the Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) points and impact on the ingress-egress onto SH 82.
e. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: EXHIBIT M
Steve Anthony recommends stronger language in the covenants regarding responsibility of
noxious weed management of the site. Mr. Anthony would like a provision removed that
requires noxious weed treatment once 5% of the site is covered with noxious weeds, this is
contrary to requirements that eradication must occur upon detection of List A and List B
species. The revegetation plan is acceptable however a quantification of surface area to be
disturbed is typically requested -however in this case the $2,500 per acre security may
apply to the entire site (Staff calculates that this could result in a requirement for
revegetation security in the amount of $400,000 prior to issuance of a grading permit for
Phase 0).
f. Garfield County Environmental Health: EXHIBIT N
Jim Rada identified concerns regarding the water supply and wastewater treatment plan in
which the application is not definitive in terms of who will provide service to the
development. The ability of a Property Owner Association to operate and maintain such a
7
PC September 14, 2011
KE
system will likely be expensive and burdensome to the owners. Other concerns relate to
social issues such as sustainable, walkable communities, growing fresh food, access to
fresh food and other amenities that will require driving to Carbondale or Glenwood Springs.
g. Colorado State Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT 0
"Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number of
EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-
136(1)(h)(l), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights
and is inadequate." Staff is expecting receipt of additional comments from the DWR
based on additional information provided by the Applicant.
h. Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT P
CGS states that the Applicant has generally done a good job of avoiding the most severe
geologic hazards (sinkholes and subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, slope
instability adjacent to the river, uncontrolled fill, and debris flow and flooding hazards).
Critical recommendations should be required to protect public safety, including the necessity
of further investigations and site-specific mitigation action. CGS recommends additional
mitigation measures as outlined in their response.
i. Colorado Department of Transportation: EXHIBIT Q and BB
Dan Roussin responded that COOT had no comment on the zone change application
(Exhibit Q) and that the development would need an access permit. Mr. Roussin also states
that the traffic study indicates installation of a traffic signal in 2018. Further comment
includes consideration of re-alignment of the CR 113 intersection in conjunction with this
proposed access.
j. Colorado Division of Wildlife: EXHIBIT R
Significant impact should not result if the recommendations outlined in CDOW comments
form 2008 and 2009 are followed. These include concern with stormwater runoff into Cattle
Creek and the Roaring Fork River, burying utilities, fencing restrictions, protection of riparian
areas, 1 00' setback from the bluff along the river, and issues related to the Heron Rookery.
k. RE-1 School District: EXHIBIT AA
The development land dedication requirement is 7.3 acres however this amount is not
adequate to address site requirements for an elementary school and required accessory
facilities. "The District's only option at this point is to accept fees in-lieu of land dedication ... "
I. Carbondale Fire Protection District: EXHIBIT S
Developments with more than 200 units have to have two separate and approved fire
access roads, details of which have not been submitted to the District for approval. The
proposed system appears capable of providing adequate fire flow and fire hydrants appear
adequate as well. The District raises the issue of fire sprinkler requirements. Lastly, the
development will be required to pay fire district impact fees of $730.00 per lot/unit
($267, 180).
m. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTAl: EXHIBIT T
Concern expressed with growth outside of the Town of Carbondale and City of Glenwood
Springs' Urban Growth Boundaries particularly as it affects transit (including cost and travel
time).
The crossing of the Rio Grande Trail (ROW) is permissible by current easement that allows
8
PC September 14, 2011
KE
at-grade access to the site. This easement poses issues, particularly related to safety
conflicts with trail users. (The application materials discuss a separated grade crossing for
the trail at the entry to the site, however this is not currently permitted by RFTA.)
n. Mountain Cross Engineering: EXHIBIT U
Water -Two options for water and sanitation service result in evidence of a legal supply
pending outcome of court decrees, however the physical supply of water is still pending
negotiations. Regardless, the Applicant must demonstrate via well pump test, water quality
test and community water system approvals from CDPHE related to private provision of
water and sanitation; or if provided by RFWSD there must be evidence of adequate capacity
of the District systems. Proposed EQR values are not consistent with ULUR requirements
of 350 gallons per day. Proposed private system did not include specifications for on-and
off-site improvements that will be necessary including, but not limited to, pump stations,
pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks, etc. Engineer-design of the anticipated pumping
system was not provided.
Geology -Additional geotechnical testing could result in changes to the proposed layout
and density. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer recommends foundation sub-drains be
provided however the flatness of the site results in a recommendation that the Applicant
consider a provide wide method for suitable gravity outlet for these drains (the Applicant is
requesting waiver from provision of foundation sub-drain).
Detention - A waiver is requested from providing storm-water detention for peak flow
attenuation. This should be of no concern provided that water-quality detention is still
provided.
Access -One public access for the project residents results in concern. An access permit
will need to be obtained. Home occupations are permitted but the traffic report did not
appear to include these calculations.
See Exhibit U for full list of engineering issues.
o. City of Glenwood Springs: EXHIBIT V
• Creation of an unincorporated community;
• Sprawl;
• Though the number of units is smaller so is the site, future development could be equal
to or exceed previous applications;
• A rezoning does not appear to be justified as there is no "demonstrated community
need";
• The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis seems unlikely (58 units per year for the
remainder of the decade);
• Increased burden on services such as sheriff, fire, COOT, school district and results in a
"negative impact on county finances";
• The application alludes to a signalized intersection although is somewhat unclear,
impact to the RFTA corridor;
• Provision of water and wastewater treatment is unclear;
• Questions regarding the site size.
p. U.S. Fish & Wildlife: EXHIBIT W
The wildlife assessment describes the presence of Ute Ladies'-tresses orchid which is a
species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. If water is to be provided
by the District versus private, potential impacts could result. A 404 permit application will
require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
9
q. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers : EXHIBIT X
PC Sept ember 14 , 201 1
KE
Wetland boundary confirmat ion and jurisdictional determ ination is co nfirmed, however it is
not clear if impact to jurisdictional waters will be entirely avoided . Alternatives must be
evaluation if there are not practicable alternatives mitigation plans should be developed .
r. Town of Carbondale-Planning and Zoning : EXHIBIT EE
Th is property was recommended to not be included within the Unincorporated Communities
area which is a justification used by the Applicant for the rezoning. The PC considered t his
application at their June 161h meeting noting that the proposed pricepoint is consistent with
nearby developments both in and outside (within municipal boundaries) of the County .
Approval of this development would not equate to economic development and represents
unnecessary suburban sprawl. Other issues identified include traffic impacts to SH 82 ,
proposed development on a portion of the original property , additional river buffering should
be considered , the site plan does not reflect clustering , water and wastewater issues ,
additiona l details necessary on the signalized intersection , coord inat ion with RFTA, and
impacts to wildlife .
s. Town of Carbondale-Board of Trustees: EXHIBIT FF
Stacey Patch Bernot, Mayor, responded to the referra l w ith several concerns including
community need , justification questioned on beneficial impact to SH 82 , review should occur
on the whole site not just a portion divided from the original parcel , and impacts to w ildlife .
No comments were received from the following agencies :
t. Water Conservancy Board
u. Colorado Department of Public Health & Env ironment
v . Colorado State Forest Service
w . Soil Conservation District
x. Roaring Fo rk Water & Sanita t ion Di strict
y. Glenwood Ditch Company
z . Roaring Fo rk Conservancy
One component of the Comprehensive Plan is
the Future Land Use Map which designates
density ranges and uses that may be
considered appropriate for an area .
This site has been subd ivided from the original
288-acres as ind icated on the map left into a
property shown above that consists of 160-acres
of the original parcel. The Roaring Fork
10
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Conservancy Conservation Easement is not included in this application and will remain a
separate parcel zoned Sanders Ranch PUD, Open Space.
The Introduction to the Plan discusses the following general issues which should be considered
in the analysis of this proposal :
Va ca nt Lots -Garfield County has approved a number of subdivisions that are undeveloped or
only partially developed . Appro ximately 2,400 vacant subdivided lots exist throughout the
county .
Cos t of Growth -Like most counties , Garfield County government (departments , services , ta x
structure) is set up to serve rural needs. The county is not currently set up to be in the "urban "
business -to provide urban services to residential and commercial areas . And yet , there ha ve
been , and could be more , significant subdivisions in the unincorporated county . Even while
being served by homeowners' associations (HOA 's), property owners ' associations (POA's),
and special districts , rural subdivisions still place significant additional burdens on county
services and finances (maintenance of roads designed for rural traffic , public safety at higher
levels , social services , etc.). In addition , residents of rural subdivisions often bring in c reased
expectations of service , which eventually translates into increased costs to all.
Un c oordinated Growth -All of the municipalities in Garfield County have established and
planned for areas of growth (Urban Growth Areas). Together , these Urban Growth Areas could
absorb 2.5 times the projected county growth for the next 20 years. Yet, these areas legally
remain in the county jurisdiction until they are anne xed . The current process and lack of
effective intergovernmental cooperation leads to development patterns in the Urban Growth
Areas that can eventually thwart community growth plans and lead to inefficient services .
Private Prop erty Rights -Garfield County recognizes that owners have an inherent right to
develop property as long as the development is in the best interests of the health , safety and
welfare of the county and does not adversely affect adjacent property rights . The development
of land should be consistent with the neralland use goals and policies of Garfield County .
Chapter 2. Future Land Use
includes the following
direction :
Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map
designates the site as
Residential High Density
which provides a 'range' of
appropriate densities and a
method of determining what
range is appropriate for a
particular site:
Determining the density
range, High Density range is
from 3 du per acre (480 units
on the REC parcel) to 1 du
per < 2 acres (80 units on the REC parcel), the range for a particular site will be determined by
the Planning Commission based on "degree of public benefit " and consideration of such factors
11
PC September 14, 2011
KE
as affordable housing, amount of parks/trails/open space, energy conservation, fiscal impacts,
preservation of views, providing for schools and other public needs.
Growth of New Major Residential Subdivisions
There are several major subdivisions (15 units or more) in Garfield County that provide their
own internal services (road maintenance, water, sewer) through special districts or HOA.
However, these subdivisions are typically far from commercial centers and require travel for
even convenience needs which increases traffic and requires higher maintenance of county
roads. The Plan recognizes new major subdivisions may occur, but encourages them to be
more self-sufficient (having, or being near, convenience services). In order to be more self-
sufficient, new major subdivisions will require:
i. Safe, reliable access and transit opportunities
ii. Construction or upgrade existing offsite connecting county roads and intersections by the
developer
iii. Review of the fiscal costs vs. fiscal benefits to the public
iv. Internal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA
v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi-public, not private)
vi. Public amenities, such as trails, open areas, parks, etc., that meet the needs of residents are
included.
Staff Comment:
The proposed development has mixed compliance with these requirements.
i. REG proposes the ability to have a 'coffee shop' type of activity, or other convenience type
use, located in the Neighborhood Center tract. Otherwise the nearest located convenience
services would be at CMC Road and SH 82.
ii. This development will rely on transportation via the state highway in order to access
convenience services such as grocery stores and other necessities as well as employment
centers. Transit opportunities will be limited based upon referral comments from RFTA
which state "the nearest RFTA boarding locations Spring Creek Road and Aspen Glen."
Staff assumes that Spring Creek Road is CR 114, aka CMC Road where there is an existing
bus stop.
iii. The Applicant is working with Public Works and CDOT regarding the
alignment/improvements atthe north side of the intersection of CR 113/CR11 0 and SH 82.
iv. A Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), was
provided in the submittal documentation; see Appendix N in Binder 2. The analysis was
premised upon this development capturing 25% of the projected growth in the mid-valley,
resulting in an absorption rate of 58 units annually with anticipated build-out of the project in
2019. Peak annual construction employment is anticipated at 141 jobs.
Based upon a review of the revenues generated by the development, including property tax,
sales tax, building permit fees, and the expenditures necessitated by the development, the
resulting net fiscal impact to the county will be -26,000 annually. This negative will be offset
by the construction related sales tax and building permit fees. The latter is anticipated to
generate $1,200,000 in building permit fees over the life of developing the property, however
the analysis does not appear to consider the cost to the County for employees such as
plans examiners or building inspectors.
12
PC September 14, 2011
KE
The Analysis states that the cumulative net fiscal impact, including the one-time revenues
discussed above, at $566,000. "Holding all revenues and expenditure constant, the
cumulative net fiscal impact will cover the annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through
the year 2042." (Page 1, EPS)
The projected foreclosure rate in Garfield County for 2011 is anticipated to be 700 units, up
from 650 units in 2010. This will likely have an impact on the projected absorption rate that
is anticipated to commence in 2012.
Andy Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems, provided a supplemental analysis based
upon staff comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis in Attachment E, EXHIBIT ?. Mr.
Knudtsen reiterates that the 'development will generate annual on-going revenues of
$440,000 and one-time revenues of $1.3 million'. Based upon population projections the
absorption rate of 58 units per year is supported as it equates to approximately 5 percent
capture of County growth based upon the Colorado Water Conservation Board Growth
Forecasts. The timing and duration of economic cycles is significant however long-term
forecasts anticipate positive and negative cycles within a given projections. "Thus, an
extended development process and variability in market timing would have a minimal impact
on the River Edge fiscal performance."
v. Internal roads are proposed to be private and maintained by the Property Owners
Association. Entry to the development may be gated however no detail was provided on
how this would function.
vi. The Applicant had originally requested the option to provide water and wastewater to the
development by private systems or by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The
Comp Plan recommends provision of these services through a Special District, not a private
system. It appears that a pre-inclusion agreement with the District is imminent therefore this
issue may have been resolved.
vii. The Applicant proposes to provide significant open space including both active and passive
areas. However the Applicant is not proposing to provide (construct) any recreational
amenities and instead has stated an allowance that the POA will have the ability to construct
those facilities that are determined necessary by the residents of the development.
The proposal is not in general conformance with Sections i., iii, v. (mixed), and potentially vi
if agreement is not reached with the District.
Growth in Unincorporated Communities
New (or expanded existing) unincorporated communities should meet the following guidelines:
i. Not located in UGA of existing municipalities;
ii. Served with urban services by a special district;
iii. Contract for police from county sheriff is established;
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense;
v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered;
vi. Internal commercial is primarily for area residents;
vii. Transit opportunities are provided;
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided;
ix. School sites may be required.
Staff Comment: Further discussion should occur regarding compliance with Sections v. as fiscal
impacts have been considered but long-term costs to the County will result; vii. no on-site transit
13
PC September 14, 2011
KE
facilities will be provided, and possibly ix. RE-1 has stated that provision of a school site is
preferred, resulting in mixed compliance with this element.
Chapter 3-Pian Elements
This chapter analyzes plan elements that include:
1. Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination -The nearest property boundary
of REC is located 2.46 miles from the Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area and 2.61 miles
from the Carbondale Urban Growth Area, locating this property halfway between two
existing population centers. The FLUM designation of Residential High (less than 2 acres
per dwelling unit) is somewhat contradictory to this element but more understandable if the
density range of Residential High is considered (range is from 1 unit per 2 acres to 3 units
per acre). The designation of Rural Employment Center is related to the land uses on the
southeast side of Highway 82.
2. Housing -The Applicant proposes to provide 55 affordable units compliant with ULUR
requirements. However there are several components of the affordable housing plan that
were not contemplated in the Affordable Housing requirements, including the request to rent
those units not sold, timing of construction of the units, etc. Some of these requests may be
appropriate however they do not meet the letter of the code requirements. This should be
considered during the review, however the Applicant has stated that they will amend their
housing plan to comply with the ULUR if necessary.
3. Transportation -The Applicant has stated that this development will provide an opportunity
for upper valley employees to live in the Roaring Fork Valley rather than commuting from the
Colorado River Valley. In theory this may decrease traffic on 1-70 and Highway 82 through
the City of Glenwood Springs. However the location of the development will require that
residents continue to commute as the site is located between two community centers, transit
access will be limited and few employment opportunities exist within the development. The
improvements required to Highway 82 at the entrance to the site are significant and will
impact the Cattle Creek intersection at SH 82. The Director of Public Works, COOT, and the
Applicant will continue to meet to address this issue.
4. Economics, Employment and Tourism -Though the development and construction will
create employment opportunities they will be temporary and will not be primary jobs.
Employment for the on-site recreation/daycare/coffee shop facilities may generate several
on-going service industry positions. Overall POA maintenance of the development may also
create several positions, though a specific number of positions has not been provided.
5. Recreation, Open Space and Trails -The development does provide internal trails and
areas for recreation including the potential for tot lots and other active uses. The Applicant
has stated that funding for these improvements will be either included within the County
Improvements Agreement or somehow bonded or provided to the POA. Staff recommends
a condition of approval that will require the recreation improvements be included in the
Improvements Agreement which will require the provision of collateral to assure construction
of the facilities.
6. Agriculture -The application states that the development would like to retain agricultural
uses on the site however the current Suburban zoning does not permit Agricultural Uses.
Compliance with the underlying zone district is a requirement of a PUD, however the
provision of 'garden and orchard' sites may function as an accessory use to the residential
14
PC September 14, 2011
KE
community. The addition of uses not found in the underlying zone district may occur within
a PUD if supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Water and Sewer SeNices -This issue is somewhat convoluted as the original application
suggested that the site may provide their own water and sanitation through a private system
or that the development would obtain seNice from Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District (RFWSD). It appears that significant headway has been made between the
Applicant and RFWSD as Staff has been notified that a pre-inclusion agreement is
forthcoming. This leaves one remaining question as the Applicant has stated that some
portions of the development may be provided private water and wastewater systems. The
Applicant should provide clarification regarding this issue.
8. Natural Resources -PreseNation, protection and enhancement of natural resources is
proposed, particularly when the first phase of the development reclaims the site. Protection
of the riparian corridor and conseNation easement are specifically discussed in the
development plan. Other components of this element include air and water quality
protections including stormwater management and flooding, wildlife habitat, native
vegetation and light pollution.
9. Mineral Extraction -There are likely significant gravel reserves on the property. The
Applicant has determined that this resource will be utilized in the construction of the
development of the project to the extent that gravel reseNes will be stockpiled, crushed on-
site and concrete batch plant will operate to produce construction materials. The proposed
PUD zoning document lists Mineral Ex1raction as a use that is not permitted within the
development as 'mining' will not be necessary. The material will simply be gathered during
the reclamation process proposed as Phase 0. A proposed use that is permitted related to
development of the project is material processing. Staff is concerned with this allowance as
it relates to mitigation of potential impacts and proposed exportation of material. The PUD
Guide does include both definition and standards for this use however further clarification of
this activity should be provided by the Applicant.
10. Renewable Energy -Energy and/or water conseNation and renewable energy were not
included as components of this development.
V. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA PUD and Zone District Amendment
SECTION 4-201 REZONING.
Rezoning may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning
Commission, the Director, or an applicant for land use change. The rezoning request may
be processed concurrently with the land use change application and review process.
B. Rezoning Criteria.
Unless otherwise provided in these Regulations, an application for rezoning must meet
the following criteria.
1. No Spot Zoning. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning.
Staff Comments: There are numerous adjacent zone districts including PUD, therefore
the proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning. The proposed rezoning may
result in a logical and orderly development pattern if suburban forms and sprawl are an
acceptable pattern for Garfield County. It is noteworthy that the existing Suburban
15
PC September 14, 2011
KE
zoning of the site could result in a maximum of 348 residential lots (this is a gross
density calculation that does not consider land necessary for roads and other
infrastructure but is simply a calculation of the site acreage divided by the minimum lot
size in the suburban zone district.)
2. Change in Area. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or
is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or
density in the area.
Staff Comments: It has been argued through the review process that the change in the
area that has occurred (due to the economy resulting in high vacancy rates and high
foreclosures) results in a determination that it is not in the public interest to encourage a
new use or density in the area at this time.
The Applicant states that the rezoning is not being requested to establish new uses or
significantly greater densities than what are currently permitted on the property but
instead REC is requesting the rezoning to PUD "in order to provide for a clustered form
of residential development, which form, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will
enable Cl to provide a mix of housing types at various prices, provide efficient
infrastructure, maximize the preservation of open space and views, conserve wildlife
habitat, and retain the character of the surrounding area." (Page 5 of the Rezoning and
Subdivision Justification Report)
2. Demonstrated Community Need. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated
community need with respect to facilities, services or housing.
Staff Comments: Comments received have stated that there is no demonstrated need
for the development, while the Applicant has stated that "The Project will increase the
housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality." Specifically, if the
proposed PUD district is approved, the Project will address this critical housing need and
improve the quality of life of County residents by providing, in the Roaring Fork Valley,
366 residential homes made up of a mix of housing types and at a range of prices,
including 55 deed-restricted for sale affordable homes." The Applicant does not
demonstrate how the quality of life of county residents will be improved, nor is
documentation provided regarding this critical housing need.
4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The
proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable
intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development or an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a rezoning request.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that "the Project will alleviate the County's
housing needs and traffic congestion", "the Project will preserve the area's rural
character'', "the Project will provide recreational opportunities for residents substantially
in excess of what is required for the density and type of development", "the Property will
balance the County's need for economic development and environmental protection",
and "the Project provides dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer
and water services".
The proposed development is in mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
high-density residential designation on the site is a range -from three dwelling units per
acre to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit results in a range of 80 to 480 units. Critical
components of determining appropriate density on the site must be reviewed by the
16
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Planning Commission based upon elements in the Plan. If 80 units is the appropriate
density, or anything less than 366 units, then the proposed rezoning would not be
compliant with the Future Land Use Map portion of the comprehensive plan.
5. Original Zone Designation Incorrect. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the
original zone district map.
Staff Comments: The Board of County Commissioners specifically rescinded the
previous PUD zoning on the site (except for the conservation easement) and rezoned
the parcel as Residential Suburban. This designation was not incorrect and was not in
error.
6. Adequate Water Supply. Such an application to rezone a property from one district to
another district shall be required to demonstrate the maximum water demand required to
serve the most intensive use in the resulting zone district pursuant to Article 7-104 of this
Resolution.
Staff Comments: The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until such time
as an adequate water supply could be demonstrated based upon the maximum demand
of the project. The Applicant has provided recent documentation regarding the court
decrees necessary to establish an adequate water supply to serve the proposal.
SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS.
In addition to the standards set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Standards, the
following standards shall apply to PUD applications.
A. Compliance with Rezoning Standards.
The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(8), Rezoning Criteria.
Staff Comments: The applicant has not adequately demonstrated a community need for
the development and the project has mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Relationship to Surrounding Area.
The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is
compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property.
Staff Comments: Surrounding subdivisions include Aspen Glen to the south with 612
units approved, lronbridge to the west with a density of 1.39 acres per dwelling unit.
Other subdivisions are in the lower density range-for example Teller Spring is 8.3 acres
per dwelling unit. REC density of .44 acres per dwelling unit is significantly higher in
density.
C. Visuallmpacts.
The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on
ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be
prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural
environment.
Staff Comments: The site is located within a "visual corridor'' however the applicant
questions the quality of that view given the significant disturbance on the site. Staff
interprets this visual quality to mean the open view to Mount Sopris, not necessarily the
view of the site itself. In fact development of the parcel will impact that visual corridor as
17
PC September 14, 2011
KE
you travel south on SH 82. Mitigation proposed includes the clustering of units, not
removing mature trees, planting new trees, providing vegetative buffers and open space in
the area of the conservation easement and vegetation/berming along the RFTA ROW.
D. Street Circulation System.
The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for
the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and
access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access
for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for
when the site is used for residential purposes.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that the development is a suburban form
however the street standards and circulation is based upon an urban format with excess
capacity. REC states that the pedestrian and street circulation will facilitate community
interaction. Bike and pedestrian traffic will have one access point at the main entry to join
the Rio Grande Trail.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is proposed in two areas along SH 82. Bill Gavette,
Carbondale FPD responded (EXHIBIT CC) that both the proposed location and width of
the EVA's is acceptable.
E. Pedestrian Circulation.
The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to
walk safety and conveniently among areas of the PUD.
Staff Comments: The internal bike and pedestrian system was designed to facilitate
interaction and create a safe and pleasant environment. Access to the Rio Grande Trail is
limited to one access point, adjacent to the main entrance at SH 82.
F. Open Space.
The PUD shall preserve at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space.
Staff Comments: Given the site size of 160-acres the Applicant is required to preserve 40-
acres as open space. The applicant totals the provided open space as follows:
Useable Open Space (<25% slope)=
Limited Use Open Space (>25% slope) =
Detention Areas (limited use)=
TOTAL
32.43-acres
6.07-acres
2.00-acres
40.50-acres or 25.44%
Also included in the development is Community Space which totals 36.27-acres and
includes parks, common areas and the neighborhood center for a total of 22.79%.
The ULUR defines Open Space as "Any land or water area, which serves specific uses of:
providing park and recreation opportunities, or conserving natural areas and
environmental resources, or structuring urban development form, or protecting areas of
agricultural, archaeological or historical significance. Open space shall not be considered
synonymous with vacant or unused land or yards as part of a platted lot." Based on this
definition the Applicant has provided sufficient open space within the development.
G. Housing Variety.
The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms.
18
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Staff Comments: A variety of housing types is provided including garden homes, estates
homes and executive homes. Particular units may be attached or detached. Pricing will
range from approximately $160,000 to $200,000 for the affordable homes to $1,000,000
for other housing types. Alternate ownership forms include rental of the affordable units,
otherwise for-sale deed restricted units or for-sale fair market units are proposed.
H. Affordable Housing.
The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to
Section 8·102 of Article VIII, Affordable Housing.
Staff Comments: Geneva Powell of Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA)
responded (EXHIBIT K) to the REC affordable housing proposal with the following
comments:
• The Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) requires presales before
building affordable housing unit (AHU) -currently the downturn in the economy
has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted.
GCHA does not know if that means the developer would released from the
obligation if there were no qualified buyers. Some flexibility is necessary from both
the Applicant and the guidelines.
• AHPA provides 3 categories of pricing all of which differ from the GCHA standards
(related to percentage of average medium income). GCHA stipulates maximum
120% AMI which Applicant proposed to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI-
this allows a larger pool of potential buyers.
• Applicant proposes an option of renting the AHU if not sold within 120 days. This
is not addressed in the County's guidelines.
• Questions and comments regarding the proposed agreement includes number of
units provided in each phase, amendment of the agreement by phase, etc.
The Applicant has responded that they should not be obligated to build affordable housing
units if there is no buyer and therefore the request for pre-sales, further that they would
request allowance to build-out the market rate units and provide a fee in-lieu of
constructing the affordable units. Though REC is committed to provide AHUs they
request flexibility that does not currently exist within the regulations. There is no ability to
grant a waiver of these requirements.
I. Fire Hazards.
Fire hazards will not be created or increased;
Staff Comments: Carbondale FPD provides service to the development and has met
numerous times with REC to discuss the District requirements. It appears that fire
hazards will not be created or increased.
J. Recreation Amenities.
The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the
PUD.
Staff Comments: Significant open space and recreational amenities are planned for the
development. REC states that funding for recreation will be collateralized until such time
as the residents of the community determine the types of recreation improvements they
desire. REC will also provide a user-fee based community center/daycare/recreation
center on-site for the benefit of the residents.
19
PC September 14, 2011
KE
K. Adequacy of Supporting Materials.
The Final PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of
these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans,
designs, documents, and other supporting materials.
Staff Comments: Significant amounts of information have been provided in the submittal
and in the response documents. REG's desire to allow for flexibility in the development
has made the review of the copious amounts of information more difficult and confusing.
L. Taxes.
All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County
Treasurer's Office.
Staff Comments: A current and updated certificate of taxes has been paid.
M. Adequate Water Supply.
An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards
in Section 7-105.
Staff Comments: A water supply plan has been provided as well as documentation
regarding the legal ability to provide that supply. The Division of Water Resources had
provided comment prior to issuance of the Court Decrees, with the comment being that
material injury will occur. Staff is anticipating a revised letter prior to the hearing.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review and submittal requirements include the following
sections of the ULUR. The criteria and standards for review are listed in bold italics below,
followed by a Staff Response.
A. Section 4-502 (C)5. Landscape Plan Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200
feet for properties exceeding 160 acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties
less than 160 acres in size.
Staff Comments: Adequate landscape plans have been provided for the development
B. Section 4-5021Dl Land Suitability Analysis
1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site.
Staff Comments: The site is not adjacent to a public road but has an existing access point
through RFTA right-of-way which is adjacent to SH 82. This access location is just north of
Cattle Creek and a RFTA crossing of the Rio Grande Trail is covered by an Easement
Grant providing at-grade access to the REC site. Public access to the site does not exist
nor is it proposed through this application.
2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site
distance and intersection constraints.
Staff Comments: REC has been working with COOT and County Public Works regarding
access to the state highway as well as intersection constraints at SH 82 and CR 113/ CR
110. This issue has not been resolved and discussions are ongoing. A condition of
20
PC September 14, 2011
KE
approval regarding legal and adequate access, including issuance of a State Highway
Access Permit and a Notice to Proceed, is recommended by staff. Further discussion
regarding potential improvements to CR 113 intersection needs to occur so that
coordination of improvements are assured.
Access to the site is proposed to be private as the Applicant states that a public access
requires Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) license grant. Past application for
special district formation was proposed to create a quasi-governmental entity that would
have the ability to apply for PUC crossing approval -those applications failed and
therefore the Applicant states that access must remain private. Staff conversations with
the PUC included explanation of the proposed project resulting in issuance of a verbal
opinion from the PUC that this crossing would be considered "public". This is simply due
to the nature of a 366 unit subdivision. The PUC also stated that in this particular case the
Property Owner's Association may be considered a quasi-governmental entity so that
application and review could occur. The grant of public crossing requires demonstration of
necessity therefore REG could not apply to the PUC until zoning approval is granted.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that a public crossing license from the PUC be
submitted prior to any activity occurring on the site and prior to submittal of the first final
plat application. The application for public crossing needs to be coordinated with both
COOT and RFT A.
3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and
access.
Staff Comments: Existing utility easements are clearly identified on the Preliminary Plan,
including the existing location and proposed re-location of the Glenwood Ditch, as well as
proposed easements that will be required for development of the parcels.
Access to the site is shown; however it is critical to understand that the proposed 160-
acres does not abut a public road but instead gains access to the state highway system
through an agreement with RFTA. Colorado PUC approval is required to assure adequate
public access to the site.
The Roaring Fork Conservancy holds a Conservation Easement on property located west
of and central to the development.
The Glenwood Ditch traverses this site and current agreements are in place to relocate
and pipe the length of ditch through the site.
4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination.
Staff Comments: Analysis has been provided regarding the slope and topography of the
site. The property is mostly located on nearly level river terraces approximately 50 to 80
feet above the Roaring Fork River. Steep escarpments (60% slope) separate these
terraces. The site has been graded through past development proposals so that natural
topography has been modified.
The site has undergone extensive grading activity related to prior development of a golf
course approved on the property. This grading has resulted in several large soil
stockpiles.
5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site.
21
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Staff Comments: Waterbodies on the site include Cattle Creek, the Roaring Fork River is
located off-site of the project. The site includes steep escarpments at the western edge of
the project adjacent to the RFC easement and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands are
located adjacent to these waterbodies but primarily within the RFC easement with the
exception of areas at the southern end of the site and adjacent to Cattle Creek.
Few natural features exist on-site due to prior grading and agricultural activities on the site.
6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided information regarding existing drainages on
the site including:
• The Roaring Fork River which flows south to north just west of the site boundary.
• Cattle Creek crosses through the site from east to west dividing the property
almost in half. This is a moderate sized perennial stream which joins the Roaring
Fork River.
• Small alluvial fans are present at the eastern end of the site and the fans
developed at the mouth of small drainage basins that flow only during heavy
rainfall or snowmelt.
7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply
plan pursuant to Section 7-104.
Staff Comments: Resource Engineering has provided a Water Supply Plan related to the
legal water supply for the development. That plan and recent court decrees assure an
adequate legal water supply for the development.
The physical water supply was originally proposed to be a private system constructed by
REG or service from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). REG and
RFWSD have been working toward a pre-inclusion agreement to assure provision of a
physical supply of potable water by RFWSD.
Irrigation water for the development is provided for by decreed right of 50 cfs in the
Glenwood Ditch and 5.18 cfs in the Staton Ditch. A water court case determined that
historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which 150 acres is
located within the REG boundary. The Applicant also has 12.23 cfs of additional irrigation
rights in the Glenwood Ditch, represented by 367 shares in the Thompson Glen Irrigation
Company and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 cfs).
The physical source of the irrigation water is from the Roaring Fork River via a diversion
into the Staton Ditch. A raw water distribution system is proposed.
8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations.
Staff Comments: A small portion of Cattle Creek floodplain extends into the project area
and is generally avoided by development. Encroachments into the floodplain include
22
PC September 14, 2011
KE
utilities and bridge structure. The Army Corps of Engineers responded to the referral
request (EXHIBIT X) that alternatives should be considered that avoid impact to wetland or
other waters of the United States.
9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable.
Staff Comments: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) performed an
assessment of the soils and geologic conditions of the site, including identification of
geologic hazards and soils conditions.
The topsoil was stripped from the site and stockpiled in 2005. Conditions include fill areas
that consist of coarse-grained terrace alluvium.
The site consists of two post-glacial terraces which are located between five (5) feet and
thirteen (13) feet above the Roaring Fork River. The alluvium is described as a deposit of
silly sand with occasional boulder, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often
overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected in these areas.
Most of the REG project is located on Pinedale outwash terraces occurring in several
levels that formed at different periods. The 2005 grading removed all of the mid level
terraces. Soils profiles indicate that these terrace surfaces have been stable with respect
to erosion and deposition for over 5,000 years.
Stockpiled soil on the site will have to undergo additional analysis/treatment to determine
its viability. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services has noted that nutrient levels and
mircrobial populations may result in difficulty reestablishing native vegetation.
10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site.
Staff Comments: HP Geotech has noted the following potential hazards in their
assessment:
• Evaporite Sinkholes -The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation is located between
Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. This formation resulted in regional ground
subsidence as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the
region. If still active the likely rate of deformations would occur at a rate of .5 to 1.6
inches per 100 years.
• Nine sinkhole areas have been located in and close to REG. Sinkholes in the
western Colorado area are typically 10 to 50-feet in diameter circular depressions.
Avoidance of existing sinkholes and appropriate mitigation will address issues
associated with these hazards.
• Steep Terrace Escarpments-These 60% slope areas vary from 40 to 80 feet high
located along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek areas. These
escarpments are potentially unstable and should be avoided by development.
Mitigation methods to stabilize these areas are being considered.
• Active Stream Bank Erosion -Erosion along the Roaring Fork and Cattle Creek
occurs during high water and contributes to steep terrace escarpment
destabilization. Correction of these areas could be beneficial in stabilizing or
reducing deformation of the escarpment.
• Debris Flow and Floods -HP determined that deposits in these areas do not have
a high collapse potential and are moderately compressible indicating that these
areas should be avoided or provide adequate mitigation to minimize the hazard.
23
PC September 14, 2011
KE
HP also reviewed earthquake potential and radiation , neither of which were considered
as likely hazards on-site .
[!!E) bnul..., C•ul! hn.c:u
[mD Vif'nc~e ... cacmt.bl
~ (afl""'u••Gaoull nn-
" ................ , /1 ~~ ~I
~CCIItJ.Ir'!un rfult Vtfk r h!N!ItH t? ~ Q
11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes.
Staff Comments : Vegetative cover is minimal given the agricultural history of the site , as
.,-<:'?-'·~~ well as the
'ii..~ ~·" · extensive grading nrver!dge . . . h t k "' act1v1t1es t at oo
C) ATCU:u'at(>'JIZ
:::::J ~ry$0:,')1 fo':I:Ci";)JJCf. .)Q:>r. .. &.ll:e:::
...... ~.,dlr¥~5 .s.. ......... , ..... u ....
~~~J;c:tS~~l
~"'~UI'I§l"'"UY~d
...... .t.o',.-;
-~u. .. ,a,
-CitCG'1oUGd
~Moo:!d~-.o~
~lljiii:.J.:.&ore:
•w•~
-O:Cl'l
place in 2005 . This
area is virtually
devoid of
vegetation except
for weeds.
Vegetation outside
of the graded areas
including sage, oak
and other brush on
the escarpment and
cottonwood , grass
and w illows on the
lower terraces .
Wildlife habitat
areas include both
Upland and
24
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Riparian Habitat areas with the site consisting largely of Upland Habitat. This area was
noted as having limited wildlife use due to vegetation type and cover. It appears that the
most common species are ground squirrels, which in turn attract great-horned owls, red-
tailed hawk, red and gray fox and coyote. Bird use is limited as well due to conditions and
generally includes mourning doves, meadowlarks and mountain bluebirds.
The Riparian Habitat occurs along the Roaring Fork and lower Cattle Creek, largely
outside of the REG development area. A Great Blue Heron Rookery has historically
occurred in this vicinity however one of the original three rookery trees no longer exists
due to high springtime flows and bank scour.
Analysis of special importance species was contained in the Wildlife & Vegetation
Assessment Report. Mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and lewis's woodpecker were
considered, as well a Ute ladies-tresses orchid which is on the Federally Threatened list.
• Elk -The site is located within Elk Winter Range with Severe Winter Range
occurring on the east side of SH 82. Elk do use the project area, mainly for
'loafing' as foraging opportunities are marginal. The application states that
'reasonably high number of elk persist on the project site' however that winter use
of the Rio Grande Trail during winter, and construction of wildlife fencing along SH
82 appears to have 'noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on
the REG property.'
• Mule Deer -The site is located between Mule Deer Winter Range to the west of
the Roaring Fork River and Severe Winter Range on the east side of SH 82.
Existing use of the site by mule deer is minimal with the conservation easement
area seeing more mule deer activity than the project area.
• Great Blue Heron -A productive heron rookery is located in the RFC conservation
easement and on the west side of river with a total of 25 nests. A pair of Golden
Eagles killed a majority of the young in 2010 and could lead to abandonment in the
future. This area is considered critical habitat and is adjacent to the REG project.
• Bald Eagle -The closest nest is located in Aspen Glen where nesting has been
successful. These birds use the REG site for roosting and hunting.
• Lewis's Woodpecker -This migratory bird arrives in May and departs in early to
mid-September utilizing the habitat adjacent to the project area. This bird is
considered a 'sensitive species' by the USFS.
12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological
and historic resource areas.
Staff Comments: No recorded sites of archeological or historic importance were found to
exist in the project area.
C. Section 4-502!El Impact Analysis
1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject
property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners.
Staff Comments: Adequate information has been provided.
2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties
within 1500' radius.
25
Staff Comments : Adjacent land use includes :
PC September 14 , 2011
KE
• North -uses
include commercial ,
semi-industrial and
mobile home park
• South -Aspen
Glen PUD (res idential
and recreat ion) and
LaFarge Gravel Pit
• East -State
Highway , RFTA
Railffrail, commercial
and semi-industrial
uses
• West
lronbridge PUD and
Teller Springs
3. Site Features.
/:.._...,.,...,_.,..,,., A description of site
features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water
areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid
in the evaluation of the proposed development.
Staff Comments : Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands, steep
slopes and little vegetative cover . Features adjacent to the project area include the
Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands , heron roo kery , and the Roaring Fork
Conservancy Easement.
These features have been used to determine a layout for the deve lopment of REC which
is clustered to minimize impact. Mit igation measures include avo idance to the extent
possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers .
4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a
significant influence on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: The Applicant states that "this analysis has determined that there are
no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits provided common
construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as detailed in the Hazard
Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control ... and Eros ion and Sed iment
Control Plan are provided ." Page 66 of impact analys is . Th is section of the application
goes on to state that potential impacts and mitigation measures are indentified as a
series of standard considerat ions with respect to construct ion on soils of th is type and
further , that these require engineering assessment and design activ ities including boring ,
testing , and onsite review during development.
HP Geotech noted that shallow foundations place on the upper natural so ils should
typ ically be suitable for structure support. Relatively r ig id foundations such as heavily
26
PC September 14, 2011
KE
reinforces slabs could be used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and building
stress, where determined necessary.
The application goes on to state that slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for
bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill, but that there could be some
potential for post-construction slab movement at sites with collapsible soils or expansive
clays. Removal of the moisture sensitive soils and replacement with compacted
structural fill could be provided to reduce the risk of movement.
A detailed pavement design is proposed to be provided post-reclamation to determine if
fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed.
Additional geotechnical analysis will be required to determine if previous fill material
placed on the site is suitable for building foundations. This analysis will occur post
reclamation therefore a condition of approval that requires the additional analysis be
provided at final plat should be sufficient.
5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the ar~a
including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what
effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: A Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted which addresses
potential natural and man-made hazards. Existing and proposed conditions include
analysis of:
• Geologic Hazards -Evaporite Sink Holes, Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active
Stream Bank Erosion, and Debris Flow/Floods.
• Other Hazards-Floodplain, Wildfire
These hazards could cause potential impacts to site grading, infrastructure (including
roads and utilities) as well as foundation design. Proposed mitigation includes
identification of specific areas of concern that may require further review:
• Three zones of varying degree of impact from sink holes have been assigned to
the project area.
o Zone 1 represents an 80-foot buffer area around existing or observed
sinkholes where the risk of new or reactivating sinkholes is high. This area is
generally avoided however a few roads and utilities are planned within this
zone. Potential mitigation measures including grouting or structural bridging;
o Zone 2 is a risk area that indicates the presence of sinkholes but no evidence
of sinkholes have been identified. Additional geotechnical analysis should be
completed prior to final plat so that design of buildings and facilities provide
appropriate mitigation;
27
PC September 14, 2011
KE
o Zone 3 is the remainder of the property which has a low potential for new
sinkhole development however HP recommends that assessment and
investigation be completed during grading and building site development.
• Steep Terrace Escarpments , Active Stream Bank Erosion , Debris Flows and
Floods and Earthquakes are avoided or mitigated thus resulting in no adverse
impacts.
6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect
of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet
existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the
adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104.
Staff Comments : This development is subject to Section 7-105 due to the water demand
in an amount greater than eight (8) single family equivalents (where an SFE is
determined to be 350 gallon of water per day). Additional information has been
submitted as of August 30 , 2011 indicating that two water court rulings have been
completed thus allowing a determination of adequate legal water supply for the potable
water system to meet the demand of 350 gallons per day for the proposed 366 units in
the development.
The orig inal application discusses the 'potential ' physical supply as being provided by
the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWDS) or by a private water system
within the REC development. However, the Applicant has indicated that a pre-inc lusion
agreement is currently being drafted so that RFWSD would serve this development.
Submittal of evidence of an executed pre-inclusion agreement is recommended as a
condition of approval.
28
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Irrigation water is planned to be provided via a raw water system utilizing water rights
from the Glenwood and Staton Ditches.
7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship
of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their
ability to adequately support waste disposal, the stope of the land, the effect of
sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and
groundwater.
Staff Comments: HP Geotech has provided analysis of the groundwater which is
generally deep in the Eagle Valley Evaporite deposits and that 'free water was not
encountered in the relatively shallow borings of depths between 39 and 77 feet. Shallow
groundwater may be likely in the river terraces outside of the REC development.
Surface run-off will be collected and concentrate to surface drainage systems where the
flow will be discharged through lined surface ditches and pipes to lined water quality
detention facilities. This system is designed to ensure that water is treated prior to
delivery to receiving steams. Chris Hale, reviewing engineer, has stated that this is
sufficient and that standard on-site detention to limit flow is not necessary (EXHIBIT U)
due to the location of the site.
8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on
the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions,
including:
a. Determination of the tong term and short term effect on flora and fauna.
b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural,
patentotogicat, historic resources.
c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including
critical wildlife habitat.
(1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous
attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration
routes, use patterns or other disruptions."
d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by
the State or County Health Departments.
e. Spilt Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable.
Staff Comments:
a. Effect on flora and fauna -Rocky Mountain Ecological Services prepared a
Wildlife and Vegetation Report which analyzed the potential impacts of the
development proposal on plants and animals. The Colorado Division of Wildlife
has responded to the referral (EXHIBIT R) that there should not be significant
impact if recommendations are followed. CDOW recommendations include
fencing, adequate setbacks from sensitive areas and protection of the heron
rookery.
b. No significant archaeological or historic resources have been identified that
would be adversely effected.
29
PC September 14, 2011
KE
c. Effect on environmental resources, including wildlife and domestic animal control
-the development plan has included protective measures related to wildlife
including timing restrictions for construction activity and inclusion of domestic
animal controls in the CCR's.
d. Radiation hazard -There is low potential for radiation hazard at this site.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan is an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requirement that is applicable to facilities that meet
criteria such as having above ground storage capacity of greater than 1,320
gallons, and that a project will discharge into or upon navigable waters of the
United States. It is assumed that a SPCC plan will be required related to
infrastructure construction and gravel crushing/processing.
9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in
compliance with Section 4-502(J).
Staff Comments: A Traffic Assessment has been provided by Fehr & Peers,
Transportation Consultants which considers existing conditions on State Highway 82, a
limited access Expressway. SH 82 is a four lane, divided highway with speeds generally
from 55 to 65 mph. The nearest controlled intersection is located one (1) mile north at
CR 114 (CMC Road). The assessment discusses future conditions on the highway and
discusses a warrant for a signalized intersection in 2018. It is staff's understanding from
the Applicant that a signal, acceleration/deceleration lanes and pedestrian crossing are
proposed to occur at the outset of the development so that these improvements are in
place for Phase 0, reclamation of the site. Dan Roussin, COOT, has stated that this
development will need a State Highway Access Permit, as well as to coordinate with the
County for necessary improvements at the CR 113 I CR 110 and SH 82. A condition of
approval is recommended which requires issuance of a Notice to Proceed and State
Highway Access Permit prior to activity commencing on the site or with submittal of the
first final plat application.
10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise,
glare or vibration, or other emanations.
Staff Comments: Nuisance impacts will likely occur during the reclamation and
construction phases of the development. This activity will generate dust, smoke, noise,
glare, and potentially vibrations, particularly during reclamation and construction, as well
as related to mineral 'material processing' activities. The proposed PUD Guide contains
Article IV, Development Standards, which includes Section C. Specific Use, Facility and
Activity Standards. This includes noise standards based upon statutory requirements
and section standards related to utility facilities. This latter section includes
requirements for noise levels, vibration, smoke, odor and air quality. These standards
should be applicable to the whole development, particularly during construction
activities. Staff recommends that standards for dust suppression, smoke, odor and
vibration be incorporated into the PUD Guide and applicable to all construction-related
activities in the development.
11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-
212.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has two sets of requirements related to reclamation
activities, pre-development reclamation and post-development reclamation.
30
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Pre-Development Reclamation -The current site condition exists due to past grading
activity on the site related to prior development plans that included construction of a golf
course. The pre-development reclamation activity is specific to repairing the damage
that past grading created, including restorative and pre-development actions:
• Relocation and grade separation of the Rio Grande Trail;
• Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch;
• Re-grading of the site for proper drainage, resolve existing and potential
geotechnical hazards, prepare developable areas, restore grade-breaks, replace
topsoil, repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments and repairing
active stream bank erosion;
• Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds;
• Revegetation of open space area.
Post-Development Reclamation -This requirement is included in the PUD Guide
development standards and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-212.
D. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE
PERMITS
1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions
Staff Comments: PUD zoning allows for variation from standard zone districts however
the proposed uses must be consistent with uses in the underlying zone district or
compatible/conforming to Comprehensive Plan goals. The underlying Suburban zoning
permits uses-by-right which include single family residential, parks and open space.
Other proposed uses permitted in the Suburban zone include two-family dwellings by
Limited Impact review and eating or drinking establishment by Major Impact review.
Uses that are being requested in REG that are not permitted in the Suburban zone
include agricultural uses and materials processing (crushing and concrete batch plant).
The Planning Commission should consider these uses and determine if they are both
appropriate and supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental
Agreements
Staff Comments: The proposed REG development has mixed compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission review shall include determination of
appropriate density related to the High Density Residential designation on the Future
Land Use Map. That designation includes a range of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit,
to up to 3 units per acre based upon provision of urban level services. The requested
density of 366 units falls within the recommended range.
3. Section 7-103 Compatibility
Staff Comment: This standard requires that the nature, scale and intensity of the
proposed use be compatible with adjacent land uses and that the use will not result in
adverse impact to adjacent land. Adjacent land uses includes high-density mobile home
parks, commercial and semi-industrial uses, a gravel pit, and residential communities.
The combination of uses proposed in REG may be more intense than adjacent uses
which appear as more single use type project.
31
4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Staff Comments: This section does not apply to this proposal as water demand exceeds
eight (8) single family equivalents (SFE's). See Section 7-105.
5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided a sufficient legal and physical source of
water to serve the proposed development of 366 SFE's. See EXHIBIT HH which is an
addendum of information which includes recent water court action. Staff has spoken with
the Division of Water Resources who will issue a revised referral response regarding the
sufficiency of the water supply. That letter should be received prior to the Planning
Commission hearing.
6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems
Staff Comments: A pre-inclusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District to provide water/wastewater services is imminent. Water and wastewater
services from the District should be considered a condition of approval which staff has
adequately documented.
7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities
Staff Comments: It appears that adequate public utilities are available to serve the
proposed development.
8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways
Staff Comments: The subject site does not abut a public right-of-way however existing
agreements are in place for the existing driveway to the site. The Applicant also has
agreements with RFTA regarding crossing of the Rio Grande Trail. However the
development proposal does not currently have legal or physical access to a public right-
of-way. Various permits will be required, and a recommended as conditions of approval.
These permits include a State Highway Access Permit as well PUC approval for
crossing of the rail right-of-way. This license with the PUC may lead to amendment or
execution of new or additional agreements with RFT A.
Internal roadway standards are requested to be modified, see issue discussion section
for detailed information, thus requiring waiver from the Board of County Commissioners.
The reviewing engineer has stated that the requested waivers may be appropriate
(EXHIBIT U).
9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards
Staff Comments: Natural hazards exist on the site which includes steep slopes, slope
stability issues, soils, sinkholes and other geotechnical issues. The proposed
development generally avoids the hazard areas and/or provides adequate mitigation
measures.
32
PC September 14, 2011
KE
E. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE
CHANGE PERMITS
1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands
Staff Comment: Not applicable as agricultural activities have not occurred on this site for
several years if not more than a decade. The past rezoning of the site to PUD and
Suburban zone districts has rendered agricultural uses not permitted.
The Glenwood Ditch traverses this property and there is an agreement exists regarding
location and piping of the ditch. On-site irrigation is proposed to use raw-water with
rights from both the Glenwood Ditch and the Staton Ditch.
2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
Staff Comment: Wildlife habitat areas include a heron rookery and use of the site by both
mule deer and elk. Incorporation of the recommendations from the Division of Wildlife
and project wildlife biologist would be adequate to protect habitat areas.
3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies
Staff Comment: Section 7-203 determines that an 'Inner Buffer Zone' requires provision
of a thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody.
Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within this zone is prohibited
except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable
and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be
permitted.
The Applicant has requested waiver from this section due to impacts that will occur
within the setback of Cattle Creek, including construction of a bridge and utilities. The
Applicant should provide additional information regarding the specific areas in which
activity will occur within the 35' buffer zone.
4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants
Staff Comment: Activities that will require storage of material, equipment or fluids should
be located to protect waterbodies however specific information has not been provided in
the submittal documentation. This standard includes requirement for spill prevention,
maintenance of equipment and machines, location of fuel storage areas and collection
and temporary storage areas. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan
may be required and the stormwater management plan should address this issue.
5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation
Staff Comments: This section applies to land disturbances of greater than one-half (Y:.)
acre. The Applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that
addresses stabilization of slope stability and stream bank erosion. Vegetative cover on
the site will provide additional erosion and sedimentation protections. The steep slope
areas are avoided by the development.
33
6. Section 7-206 Drainage
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Staff Comments: Part of this standard states that "subdrains shall be required for all
foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight
to proper drainage channels." Reviewing engineer Chris Hales states (EXHIBIT U) in #5
that "The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub-drains be
provided. These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage" and further
recommends that since the site is flat an onsite drywell for infiltration could be
considered or provision of a project-wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation
drains.
Karen Berry, Colorado Geologic SuNey responded (EXHIBIT P) that all
recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report should be followed, this would
include construction of an underdrain system that will impact the performance of
building, roads, and utilities in the development.
7. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run-Off
Staff Comments: This section applies to new development within 100 feet of a
waterbody and to development creating 10,000 square feet or more of impeNious
surface. The REC development meets these criteria and therefore has proposed plans
to create water quality detention areas prior to discharge of stormwater to the Roaring
Fork River. There is no plan for standard on-site detention of stormwater except for
storage areas that would be required for assuring water quality prior to discharge.
This code section also includes requirements for on-site detention designed to detain
flow to historic peak discharge rater and provide water quality benefits. REC plans to
provide for water quality filtering and the Applicant has requested a waiver from the
requirement to detain flows above historic peak discharge rates. Chris Hale (EXHIBIT
U) has responded "there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions
downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak-flow detention provided that
water-quality detention is still provided."
8. Section 7-208 Air Quality
Staff Comments: Air quality shall not be impacted by the land use such that it is reduced
below acceptable levels established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. No
response was received from CDPHE but staff has concerns related to dust issues,
particularly during construction and reclamation. Other air quality impacts may result
from the crushing of aggregate and batch plant operations that are proposed as
temporary construction-related activities.
9. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards
Staff Comments: This site is located in a low wildfire zone.
10. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards
Staff Comments: Hazards do exist on the site however it appears that the development
plan avoids many of the hazard areas and provides mitigation measures where
34
PC September 14, 2011
KE
avoidance is not possible. Staff has incorporated these measures as recommended
conditions of approval.
11. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance
Staff Comments: No areas exist on the site within these categories.
12. Section 7-212 Reclamation
Staff Comments: The REC development proposal contains a substantial pre-
development reclamation plan to repair and restore slope and stream bank issues as
well as grading and topsoil issues related to prior grading of the site. This reclamation
will also allow for additional geologic investigation as well as to prepare the site for
eventual development.
F. SECTION 7-300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design
Staff Comments: Compatible design encompasses issues regarding site organization as
well as operational characteristics, lighting, buffering, materials, and building scale.
Certainly the density, site organization and buffering can be evaluated for compatibility
with adjacent subdivisions such as lronbridge and Aspen Glen. The clustering of the
dwellings into several pods leaves tracts of open space to buffer the site both physically
and visually. Much of the development occurs on an interim bench west of the Rio
Grande Trail with proposed landscaping providing additional buffers from adjacent
developments.
Operational characteristics include locating activities such that emissions, noise, hours
of operations, etc. do not impact adjacent properties. These nuisance impacts will
require specific plans related to fugitive dust, noise, limitation of construction (days and
time), etc. Though the PUD contains some discussion regarding these standards to
mitigate these impacts they seem to be limited to utility tracts. The Applicant has
discussed noise issues however Staff is concerned that there are not specific plans to
mitigate other nuisance issues such as dust and other air quality issues. A condition of
approval should be considered which would address mitigation measures regarding
these nuisance issues.
2. Section 7-302 Building Design
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development
Staff Comments: Components of this standard include minimizing site disturbance and
efficiency in providing services and access to facilities.
4. Section 7-304 Off-street parking and Loading Standards
Staff Comments: The PUD Guide provides sufficient off-street parking as well as on-
street parking within the development.
35
5. Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Staff Comments: Adequate landscape and lighting standards are provided, in the PUD
Guide as well as in the CCR's.
6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards
Staff Comments: Landscape areas may be utilized as snow storage areas pursuant to
the PUD Guide. The use of these areas for snow storage requires that drainage and
potential pollutants which must be adequately managed.
7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards
Staff Comments: The Applicant is requesting both modification and waiver of roadway
standards contained within this section. Chris Hale's comments (EXHIBIT U) identifies
several concerns particularly that alleys need to be designed to a specific vehicle such
as an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck; that proposed curb and gutter
sections should be verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on
proposed narrow travel lanes. Additional comment includes that a single public use
entry for the project is a concern even with the provision of two Emergency Vehicle
Access points.
B. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards
Staff Comments: The standards utilized in the development plan appear to be adequate.
9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards
Staff Comments: The REC development is proposing to install underground utilities that
will be further reviewed at final plat for sufficiency of design and provision of adequate
utilities.
G. SECTION 7-400 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
1. Section 7-401General Subdivision Standards
Staff Comments: These standards include preservation of natural features, extensions
for future development, maintenance of common facilities, domestic animal control and
fireplace restrictions. The proposal appears to meet these standards including the
potential for future extension/connection to the north and the potential for additional
connection to SH 82.
2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots
Staff Comments: All lots within the subdivision appear to be configured in a proper
manner with adequate lot sizes and access. Further, the lots may be developable
however site specific geotechnical analysis may result in some movement of the
particular sites or specific building requirements to minimize impact.
36
3. Section 7-403 Fire Protection
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Staff Comments: The site is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District and a fire station is located on the north end of the H Lazy F Mobile Home site
west of the intersection of CR 154/ SH 82 and CR 114.
Bill Gavette has responded to the referral request (EXHIBITS S and HH) with HH being
specific to Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to the site. These EVA's would allow for
two additional access points to the development which have been found to be
acceptable in both location and width.
Additional response related to fire lanes, water source, fire hydrants and maintenance is
that these components are adequate. The District also discusses the requirement of
impact fee payment in the amount of $730/unit resulting in a fee of $267,180.00 which
will be due at final plat.
4. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments
Staff Comments: This requirement will be met.
5. Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space
Staff Comments: The Applicant has proposed payment of fee in-lieu of school land
dedication, however historic and recent discussion with the RE-1 School District is that
they would prefer a school site on this location but "the District's only option at this point
is to accept fees in-lieu of land dedication ... "
The formula for calculation of school dedication is based upon generation of students
per dwelling unit. 366 dwelling units are assumed to generate .49 students per single
family unit and .38 students per multi-family unit. REC proposes 232 single-family and
134 multi-family resulting in the generation of 165 students. This would therefore require
dedication of 7.3 acres of land. The minimum school site size is 15 acres. The adjacent
undeveloped property is anticipated to be developed at some point and may in fact be
incorporated into this PUD (see declarations which allows for the addition of the land into
the development). The piecemeal approach to the overall development of the 280-acre
site may preclude the provision of a school site at this location.
The Applicant has stated that the 'private' nature of the RFT NRR crossing would
preclude access for use of a school. This question of public versus private crossing has
been determined by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as a 'public'
crossing which will require PUC licensing. This may affect the school district comments
regarding provision of a school site at this location.
6. Section 7-406 Standards for Traffic Impact Fees
Staff Comments: The site is not located within a Traffic Impact Fee zone.
VII. POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Waiver Requests -The following waivers from the provision of minimum standards are
requested pursuant to the preamble of Article VII which grants this ability upon
37
PC September 14,2011
KE
demonstration that the standards are either inappropriate or cannot be practically
implemented.
A §7-108 Access and Roadways states that all roads shall be designed to the
standards in §7-307.
Staff Comment: The Applicant is requesting waiver/modification of §7 -307 thus
requiring the waiver and/or modification of this standard.
B. §7 -203 A. Restrictive Inner Buffer -this code section requires provision of a 35'
setback 'measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water on each side
of the water body'. Certain structures and activities are permitted while others are
specifically prohibited from occurring within this buffer. The Applicant is requesting
waiver to allow the following:
• Reclamation of the Cattle Creek stream corridor planned in Phase 0;
• Construction of a bridge over Cattle Creek -the Bridge Plan indicates that
the structure would be located within the setback;
• Utility crossings and water diversion facilities -these would affect both the
Roaring Fork River and the Cattle Creek corridors.
Staff Comment: Staff considers the granting of this waiver as appropriate however
requests that the Applicant provide a site plan indicating the encroachments that will
need to occur on the site. Adequate protective measures have been proposed and
reclamation of the corridor is necessary. A Nationwide Permit, Section 404, will be
likely be required from the Army Corps of Engineers as well as a County Floodplain
Development Permit.
C. §7 -206 B.2. states that sub-drains shall be required for all foundations where
possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper
drainage channels. The Applicant has stated that given the soils conditions that it
likely that basements will not be utilized. They request that the requirement for
subdrains be determined by the design engineer rather than placed as a requirement
on the whole development, but have agreed to provide sub-drains if basements are
constructed.
Staff Comments: The Applicant's geotechnical engineer is that sub-drains be
provided, Colorado Geologic Survey concurs with this recommendation. Chris Hale
reviewed this request and comments that suitable outlet for drainage is necessary,
and that "since the site is very flat, the likely option at that time would be to drain
these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of
the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would increase the likelihood for potential
damage due to settling." ·
The Applicant proposed to provide specific soils and geotechnical analysis at final
plat when site constraints will be have been further reviewed. There is substantial
concern regarding the protection of foundations given the possibility of sinkholes and
other geotechnical and soils issues. Staff does not support the wholesale waiver of
this standard but perhaps the additional analysis at final plat may provide additional
information for further review at that time. A condition of approval is recommended
regarding provision of an underdrain system.
38
PC September 14, 2011
KE
D. §7-207 Stormwater Drainage Standards -The Applicant proposes to comply with
Urban Drain and Flood Control District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual which
are more detailed and appropriate to suburban development.
Staff Comments: This request is appropriate.
E. §7 -207 C.1. Requirement for detention facilities -The Applicant requests that water
quality capture volume, not total stormwater volume, be detained prior to discharge
from the project.
Staff Comments: Chris Hale has responded (EXHIBIT U) that "since there are no
drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no
concerns regarding peak-flow detention provided that water-quality detention is still
provided." Based on these comments it appears that this waiver request is
appropriate.
F. §7 -305 A.1. Landscaping must be located outside of adjacent right-of-way
Staff Comments: The Director of Building and Planning may approve landscape
strips and landscape areas adjacent to internal right-of-way. This granting of this
waiver is appropriate.
G. §7-305 A.7. Standards for deciduous tree caliper are listed at 2" minimum measured
4" above the ground. The requested standard of 1 Y:." caliper is to enhance survival.
Staff Comments: Staff consulted with a landscape architect who agreed that survival
of trees at 1 Y:!'' caliper is greater therefore this request for waiver is appropriate.
H. §7-307-Road Standards.
The Applicant seeks to modify the following standards "to achieve the desired
suburban form and clustered development pattern":
a. Add three roadway types not addressed by the ULUR including alleys, garden
home access and emergency vehicle access.
b. Major Collector -The entry road, from SH 82 to the internal round-about, is
requested to be modified to lower the design speed, required minimum 6'
shoulders and ditch will not be provided as vertical curbing and 0-4' shoulders
should be adequate to control water and access.
c. Minor Collector -Defined as 'Local Road' in REG this road is a nee-traditional
design for reads providing direct access to homes. The proposed section is 36'
wide with two 1 0' lanes and two 8' parking lanes/shoulders. The design speed is
lower than County standards.
Staff Comments: The Applicant states that these road standards are consistent with
more urban community's requirements based upon a 'suburban' form. The proposed
roadway standards comply with AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials) standards. Engineering review resulted in response
from Chris Hale that the alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of
either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck and that additional
information and verification regarding inlet spacing on narrower street widths. Staff
has included this requirement as a recommended condition of approval.
39
PC September 14, 2011
KE
I. §7 -405 C.1.a. Standards for Public Sites and Open Space -Amount of Land
Dedicated -Road Dedications. This section requires that "unless specifically
approved as private rights-of-way and so dedicated on the final plat, all roads,
streets, alleys or other public traffic ways located within the subdivision and
benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall be dedicated as public
rights-of-way." The Applicant has stated that they were unable to apply for a "public
crossing' from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and therefore the
roads were required to be private.
Staff Comment: Private roads are not uncommon in Garfield County; however they
may come in several different forms. Typically the developer would design and
construct necessary roadways within a development and transfer the ownership and
maintenance responsibilities to an Owner's Association or Special District. These
roads would be for the use and benefit of the public while remaining in private
ownership. Examples of private roads for the use of the public include lronbridge,
Spring ridge Reserve and most other subdivisions approved in the past decade in the
County. Few subdivisions have truly private roads which include private ownership
as well as private restricted use; these roads require gating and further restrictions
related to security and access questions related to guests, utility providers or other
easement beneficiaries and emergency services. Examples of 'private use and
ownership' roads include Aspen Glen and Elk Springs.
REG may be proposing to provide truly private roads along with subsequent gating of
the entry, however the access design has not been provided to demonstrate
adequate stacking distance and coordination with the light on SH 82. The Applicant
has stated that this request is due to the fact that the roads must remain private due
to the inability of the developer to obtain PUC approval for a "public" crossing. This
issue continues to evolve as the PUC has stated to Staff that access to serve a 366
unit subdivision would be considered 'public' therefore requiring a license for the
crossing from the PUC. Certainly the Applicant can request private roads owned and
maintained by the Owner's Association but it would appear that the volume and type
of traffic would require a "public crossing" from the PUC.
Staff supports this waiver to the extent that the roads will be for the use of the public
but will be owned and maintained by the POA.
2. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -
Analysis of the various components of the Comprehensive Plan results in a
determination of mixed compliance.
3. PHASING
The Applicant has provided phasing information consisting of several tables included on
Sheet 2 of the Final PUD Plan and construction phasing in the engineer plans. These
PUD Plan tables include the following components:
Table 2A-Lot and Tract Zoning Categories and Zoning District by Zoning Category
Table 28-Lot and Tract Zoning District by Filing
Table 3-Dedications by Filing
Table 4 -Landscape Areas and Standards
Table 5-Lots by Filing, Affordable Housing, and Construction Schedule
40
PC September 14, 2011
KE
TABLE 5 ·LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
1 LOTS BY FILING 1 AFFORDABLE LOT SUMMARY 1
AFFORDABLE I SC:H£DUL£ 0~ I I
' I CUMULATIVE !
FILING ESTATE' TOWN \o1LLAOE ATTACHED OARDENHOMES. AFFORDABLE I (%) I PLATTING'
• 0 ..
---~---f-----f------~------. ~ ~ ~n~--l -----= ----"' 0 0 -----------; 0 27
5A 0 0
' I 9 " 9 167 56 I 39 95 I 55 I 15004 I 2014·2011
1 INCLUDES EXECUTIVE LOT
1 APPROXIMo\TE PROPOSED PlATTJNG SEQUENCE AND SCHEDUlE SUB.eCT TO CHANe£ BA5fD ON JMRKE'T CONDITlONS
Table 5 appears to most closely resemble a phasing plan as each filing is listed along
with the number and type of lots and schedule of when that the plat is planned. It is
significant to indicate a foot note attached to the schedule of phasing that states that
"Approximate proposed platting sequence and schedule subject to change based on
market conditions". The inclusion of this note may render the phasing plan timing
useless although it could still be utilized for sequence of the development.
TABLE 28 ·LOT AND TRACT ZONING DISTRICT BY FILING Table 28 lists the lots and
tracts that will be included
in each filing, for example
filing 1 appears to include
lots 1-20 in the Attached
Home zone district and 39
lots in the Town zone
district. Tracts in Filing 1
include right-of-way,
common area, etc. This is
AUNGf Bloatt LOT/IRACU lOlliNG DIS1RIC1' -
1 83 1-20 AfT ACtED~<
1 ~ ~~
I M 1b 101\tl
1 ' IIi 1-~
1 • M HJ;~CENloR
~ /.!) Go'Mii(I!!C>l'J10 I
' __ , ___ ... -·---~~~~··· ---~-·----~~
1
' !XliiUOO m:A
I ~ consistent with the
I ' HJ RR(li.IYJII l.'iOWillfAA'K! information provided in
1 l.ll (l'f,H$P.I(ii
~~~-----~-~~r~~-----~~-~---~~~ -. -.. -.. ~~-----PAAt
. ~~-~-~~--~--~~
Table 5, just provided in a
different format.
Other tables track the
amount of open space and
common area dedication by
filing .
1 IIJ 'MIER NIDWAsiEI'OIItR U furY
1 ! II' m!NSP.o.ct 1 IIJ
.. ... ..
I A~ ~AAEA I A't
I Fr.
---·-·-----~>-------~-----_____ llf ____ , RI)Jl""'·'IIAY
While Staff finds the
information in these tables
to be useful, the manner in
which the information is
I
provided is cumbersome and confusing. The footnotes contained in these tables may
render the phasing useless.
It may be more useful to have a single document that describes the sequence of platting,
improvements associated with each plat and potential timing of platting and construction.
41
PC September 14, 2011
KE
4. MUNICIPAL COMMENTS
A. City of Glenwood Springs -Andrew McGregor, Director of Community Development
responded to the request that the GWS City Council considered the project after
receiving a presentation from REC representatives. Council had the following
comments:
i. The City is concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community without
commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development
could be termed "sprawl.
ii. Concern regarding the magnitude of the development based upon division of the
original site and possibility of development of adjacent parcels.
iii. The rezoning does not appear to be justified nor is there a "demonstrated
community need". Comments also include the current inventory of vacant lots
versus the absorption rate of 58 units per year.
iv. The subdivision will not promote rural character but will function as infill between
Glenwood and Carbondale.
v. Increased burden on County services and school personnel and facilities.
vi. Impact to elk herd and migratory patterns.
vii. Highway 82 impacts including when signalization will occur.
viii. Access to site and impact to RFTA ROW and SH 82 ROW.
B. Town of Carbondale Planning Commission comments:
i. Suggested an IGA be considered as a mechanism to review future development.
ii. Comments on Unincorporated Communities.
iii. Questioned community need of the development as price point is consistent with
existing approved developments.
iv. Absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and Parachute is currently 50 units
per month and questions whether REC absorption rate is realistic.
v. Inclusion of adjacent property and potential additional development is a concern
as cumulative impacts should be considered.
vi. Specific project comments include additional buffering should be considered along
the river, the site plan does not reflect unit clustering, community gardens does
not meet the intent of retaining agricultural heritage, public access and open
space, connection to RFWSD facilities should be reviewed, provide details on the
signalized intersection at SH 82, coordination with RFTA, wildlife impacts.
C. Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees comments:
i. Gap in the Three Mile Area of Influence between Town and City, recommendation
of an IGA as a tool for cooperation and understanding.
ii. Question community need for the development.
iii. Creation of jobs would be temporary.
iv. Questions the beneficial effects on SH 82 traffic.
v. The entire site development should be reviewed not just a portion of the whole.
vi. Impacts to wildlife and lack of clustering.
5. WATER/WASTEWATER
The original application request was to allow for the provision of private water and
wastewater services or to obtain service from the RFWSD. This issue appears to have
been resolved as Staff has been notified that a pre-inclusion agreement in the final
stages of drafting between the Applicant and the District. The provision of District water
and wastewater services is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
42
PC September 14, 2011
KE
Preliminary Plan review is typically the process in which substantial engineering review
occurs, however the connection of the water and wastewater service to the west side of
the Roaring Fork River has not been discussed nor have sufficient preliminary plan level
construction drawings been provided on where this connection would occur and how that
connection will cross the river.
District improvements that may be necessitated by the development include the potential
for water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, connection of the development via
SH 82 and Aspen Glen, water storage tank on the east side of SH 82. The District is a
quasi-governmental entity and therefore would have to provide information to the
Planning Commission via a Location and Extent application.
6. ACCESS
A. CDOT State Highway Access Permit -the Applicant shall be required to obtain this
permit and a Notice to Proceed prior to any activity occurring on the site.
Phase 0 is the reclamation phase and this phase may commence upon application
and issuance of a grading permit. The traffic associated with this activity could result
in safety issues with accessing the state highway. The timing of installation of
signalization and other improvements is unknown.
B. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority -comments from this agency include
confirmation that an existing Easement Grant provides for an at-grade crossing in the
general vicinity of the existing access point. The trip generation of the development
will result in 3,567 daily vehicle trips which may result in safety conflicts at the
crossing.
The Applicant proposes to grade separate the Rio Grande Trail at the proposed entry
into the site however RFTA is concerned that the rail banking of this corridor could
result in future use of rail which would require substantial upgrades, and potential
grade separation of the entry. RFTA would like to enter into an agreement with the
Applicant that would assure costs of potential future improvements would not be the
responsibility of RFTA.
C. Colorado Public Utilities Commission -The Applicant has stated that the PUC would
consider this crossing of the rail corridor as a "private" crossing and therefore PUC
licensing would not be required. Staff conversations with Pam Fishhaber of the PUC
resulted in a PUC opinion that a crossing to serve 366 dwelling units would not be
considered 'private'. The PUC licensing process is recommended as a condition of
approval as the PUC requires a demonstration of need for the crossing -the
Applicant must obtain zoning entitlements prior to requesting the PUC license.
D. Garfield County Public Works -numerous comments have been received regarding
the potential impact of intersection improvements to the east side of SH82 and CR
113/CR 110. The County had undertaken an intersection study which identified this
site as a priority for improvement. The design and construction of the intersection,
including entry into REG and CR 113/CR 110 SH 82 intersection, should be a
coordinated effort. An ongoing discussion regarding these improvements is planned.
E. Internal road system -As stated earlier the Applicant has requested waiver from
Garfield County minimum road standards. The reviewing engineer concurred that
43
PC September 14, 2011
KE
the proposed road standards for the development were sufficient. Other questions
that have arisen include the request for "private" roads and potential gating of the
development, and the fact that the roundabout just inside the entrance has significant
excess capacity. A single entry subdivision, regardless of the Emergency Vehicle
Access points, is a concern that should be evaluated. The Applicant has stated that
potential future connections exist through adjacent properties.
7. GEOLOGY I HAZARDS
A Sinkholes I Soils I Steep Slopes-The Applicant has either avoided these areas or
mitigation measures are proposed. Adequate mitigation measures appear to be in
place with the exception of the Applicant proposal to locate roads and utilities over a
known sinkhole area at the south end of the development.
B. The proposed reclamation included as Phase 0 may provide additional information
regarding geotechnical information and soils than is currently known. Additional
studies should be submitted and reviewed as part of final plat application, a condition
of approval is recommended regarding this issue.
8. ZONING
A PUD Administration -Exhibit HH contains a revised PUD Guide based upon staff
comments on the original document. Though the amendment attempted to simplify
the regulatory language of the documents it remains a complex and confusing
regulatory document that will be difficult to administer. Staff is concerned regarding
the use of footnotes (let alone the number of footnotes) on uses, dimensions, etc.
that creates a confusing and cumbersome document.
B. The Applicant proposes a suburban development plan utilizing urban road and
drainage standards yet seeks to retain the rural and agricultural character of Garfield
County. This property is currently zoned Suburban, a zone district that does not
permit agricultural uses but allows for lower density 'in order to maintain a rural
character'.
Compliance with underlying uses in the Suburban zone district is a requirement of
PUD zoning, except for the caveat that uses supported by the comprehensive plan
may be considered. Accessory gardens, fruit trees and similar types of activities are
appropriate in conjunction with residential uses. Agricultural use however is not
permitted in the Suburban zone which is primarily residential in character. The
Planning Commission should consider this issue and determine the appropriateness
of these uses.
C. Temporary construction-related uses are proposed which include 'material
processing' which will allow REC to gather the site gravel unearthed during
reclamation to utilize in the construction of the infrastructure of the development.
The use of on-site minerals is supported by Staff however all potential impacts
related to this activity must be adequately mitigated. Fugitive dust and other air
quality issues are a concern that must be adequately addressed. Questions remain
regarding the Applicant's ability to export materials off-site.
44
PC September 14, 2011
KE
9. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) related
to affordable housing requirements within the REC plan. Geneva Powell, Garfield
County Housing Authority (GCHA) Executive Director, commented on requirements:
A. The Applicant requires pre-sales of the units prior to construction and there is no
precedent for this in the County's guidelines. This raises questions regarding
obligation to provide the unit if there were no qualified buyer. GCHA recommends
flexibility that would benefit potential purchasers of these units.
B. Three categories of pricing is included in the AHPA which proposes to allow buyers
earning up to 150% AMI instead of the maximum of 120% AMI in the County's
guidelines. This will open up the buyer pool to a larger population 'while maintaining
the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to
purchase homes priced at 70% to 110% AMI.'
C. The Applicant proposes the option of renting the affordable units if they are not sold
within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines.
D. Additional questions include potential amendment of the AHPA with each phase
given the timeframe for the development, timing of construction of units, ability to
gain equity through potential improvements.
10. FISCAL IMPACT
The Applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Supplemental Update
(Attachment E in EXHBIT HH) prepared by Andy Knudtsen of Economic and Planning
Systems, Inc. This analysis was prepared to estimate public costs and revenues that
would result from the development. Population estimates and forecasts were utilized to
determine an absorption rate of 58 units per year, a rate of approximately 5% of County
growth.
The conclusion of the analysis was that the development of River Edge Colorado would
result in a fiscal benefit to the County in the amount of -$26,000 annually. This figure
was determined based upon annual ongoing expenditures, including long-term capital
improvements, in an annual amount to be incurred by the County at $464,000 in 2021.
The report goes on to analyze cumulative net fiscal impact of $566,000 if the total of
one-time revenues is considered and a cumulative net fiscal impact of $715,000 if
affordable housing units were not provided.
VIII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan may be in the best interest of the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
4. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met
45
PC September 14, 2011
KE
the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met
the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as
amended.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Should the Planning Commission consider a recommendation of approval the following
conditions are provided for discussion and may or may not include a full list of staff
recommended conditions of approval:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be
conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year.
3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366 units.
4. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based
upon the approval and copies provided to Building & Planning. These documents shall
be attached to the resolutions associated with these applications.
5. The Development Agreement shall be finalized based upon Garfield County Attorney
Office comments.
6. Grading Activity I Reclamation
a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-site activity
related to Phase 0;
b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit;
c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such
time as a State Highway Access Permit (SHAP) and Notice to proceed has been
issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT);
7. Vegetation
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat the Applicant shall
provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REG property as well as the
Conservation Easement parcel;
b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5%
requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state
listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County
concurs regarding all noxious weeds.
c. County Vegetation shall be consulted regarding the calculation of revegetation
security.
46
8. Geology
PC September 14, 2011
KE
The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the reports of
their consulting geotechnical engineers and the Colorado Geologic Survey, including the
following:
a. Additional geotechnical investigation and design is required prior to approval of the
first final plat and prior to any construction commencing on the site. Detailed cost
estimates should be included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements.
b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit.
c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site.
Verification of soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or develop
plans for providing alternate emergency access.
d. If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a
maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the County for review.
e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below-grade construction such as
retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at
each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade
and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet.
f. Cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills
should be limited to 1 0' in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical
or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap.
g. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the
project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could
impact slope stability and foundations.
h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior
backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a
distance of at least 1 0 feet.
i. Roof downspouts and drains shall discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and
landscape irrigation shall be restricted. Drywells may be utilized.
j. A detailed pavement design shall be provided post-reclamation and in conjunction
with submittal of the first final plat, to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to
be removed.
k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain
Type 1111 portland cement (less than 5% tri-calcium aluminate).
9. Wildlife
The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the reports of
their consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the
following:
a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from
roads and homes, is not recommended. Lighting of open spaces beyond the
47
PC September 14, 2011
KE
building envelope areas is sternly discouraged. Tall vegetation should be allowed or
supplementally planted 1 0' off of the roadsides in areas where headlights form
vehicles elluminat5e open space areas.
b. Road -Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along
SH 82, cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife
movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native
vegetation species and distribution.
c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas should be closed during
sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or dog parks, should
be on a leash year-round.
d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork
River corridors.
e. Open space areas are used as winter range and severe winter range therefore
reclamation will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation
profiles. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds should be
treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range.
f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus
young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during
the winter months; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be
prohibited.
g. Adequate stormwater runoff measures related to protection of Cattle Creek and the
Roaring Fork River need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and
sediment from developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff should be filtered
before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes.
h. All utilities shall be buried.
10. Access and Roadways
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant
shall submit an executed State Highway Access Permit and Notice to Proceed to the
Building and Planning Department.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant
shall submit a Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission
(PUC).
c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant
shall provide documentation from Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding
the allowance to relocate the Rio Grande Trail. If construction collateral is not
required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County
Improvements Agreement.
d. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an
emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck
48
11. Water
PC September 14,2011
KE
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant
shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case
No. 07CW164 and Case No. 08CW198.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant
shall provide a copy of the executed pre-inclusion agreement related to the provision
of water and wastewater service to the River Edge Colorado development.
12. Final Plat Requirements
a. The Applicant shall comply with the final plat requirements in addition to those
requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of
2008, as amended (ULUR);
b. The Applicant shall delineate and legally describe all easements on the final plat and
convey all easements to the responsible entity. This dedication shall be in a form
acceptable to the County Attorney's Office and transfer shall occur at the time of
recording of the final plat. These easements shall include, but are not limited to all
easements of record, utility easements, drainage easements, water system
easements, stormwater drainage easements, open space and any internal roads
required as a part of this development;
c. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following:
i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development.
These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no
special foundation design is necessary.
13. At the time of submittal for the first final plat, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the
pre-inclusion agreement for the development to be served water and sanitation services
by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District;
14. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the
subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee-in-lieu payment of school land
dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee-in lieu will be
required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision;
15. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to
comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit
for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur
prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision.
49
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Betsy,
Michael Prehm
Betsy Suerth;
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge (Rezone PUD I Preliminary Plan)
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:42 :1 5 PM
After reviewing the material given , I noticed the water system had changed
from a year ago. Instead of storage tanks being installed up County Road 110
and a line down the road and across Hwy 82. It shows the water system being
tied into the Iron Bridge, Teller Springs, and Aspen Glen loop. If I understand
after talking with Kathy Eastley this loop is an alternate . My question! are the
plans for the water tanks up County Road 11 0 still in the works?
In the Summary of Request , the application states a maximum of 30,000
square feet of commercial/ public-quasi-public. Is this going to generate any
additional traffic that is not mentioned?
The application also requests Subdivision Preliminary Plan to create 346 lots,
and tracts for commercial/public-quasi-public use. Where would these tracts be
and what access would be needed?
Mike
EXHIBIT
r
EXHIBit
j j
6 MEMORANDUM
SCHM UESER , GORDON M EYER
TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Senior Planner
CC: Betsy Suerth, Garfield County Public Works Director
FROM: Lee Barger, SGM @
DATE: May 24,2011
SUBJ: Project# 2010-413.007
Preliminary Plan Review of Proposed SH 82 Access at River Edge
I have reviewed the drawing s for hi g hway access to the proposed Rive r Edge development at
the intersection of SH 82 and Cattle Cree k Road. This review inc luded plan sheets C01.02
(Overview of Access), C02 .01 (Plan & Profile), C 04 .01 (Typical Sections), and C06.01 (S ite
Access Plan). My concerns are detail ed below.
The first concern is the point of intersection of River Edge Drive w ith State H ighway 82.
Since a detailed plan for improvements to the Cattle C reek intersection has not been full y
developed by the County , the first priority should be to line River Edge Drive up with the
existin g intersection where CR 11 3 (Cattle Creek) inte rsects SH 82. The current plan shows
this intersection offset south slightly (about 12 ' or one Jane w idth ) from the existing
centerline of the Cattle Creek access. If the County were to fmalize a plan for access
improvements to this inter section , coordinati on between the applicant and the County should
occur to be sure the final configuration is a conventional 4-way inter section w ith minor street
legs a li g ned directly across from each other. Based on the alignment show n, it appears the
applicant has some flexibility in where this a pproac h intersects w ith SH 82, alth ough the
RFTA easement may need to be modifi e d if the des ign chang es drastically (which it
shouldn 't).
CDOT requires 6' shoulders adjacent t o turn lanes; where the plans sh ow 4' shoulders .
Additionally, the median nose shown o n the plan s on the westbound SH 82 approach should
be pulled back to allow large vehicles turning from Cattle Creek to eastbound SH 82 more
room to maneuver. The proposed lengths o f acceleration and deceleration Jan es shown on
the plans are con s istent w ith the standard s for design g iven in CDOT's State Hig hway Access
Code and based on the expecte d demand generated by Ri ver Edge. However, th e plan only
shows improvements to the intersection for traffic oriented to and fro m River Edge; no
improvements are shown for the Cattle Cre ek or east side of th e in tersection (north by
11 8 W. 6th Street, Suit e 200
Gle nwood Springs, CO 8 1601
Schmuescr Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1 004
(970)945-5948 FAX
CDOT's orientation). These improvements should be coordinated with the County's plan for
Cattle Creek improvements.
Finally, I did not review the River Edge interior streets plan, profiles, and sections, but I did
see the proposed roundabout at the intersection of River Edge Drive and Trailside/Riverside
Loop Drives. I am curious if other alternatives for traffic control were contemplated at this
intersection for a development of 300+ units? I am not sure a roundabout (or signal) would
be warranted. The traffic study addresses highway access only and does not analyze this
intersection or assess the operations of the internal roadway network. Could a four-way stop
or mini-roundabout be incorporated here? The money used for a full-size modem
roundabout at this location might be better spent on more vital and warranted improvements
at the Cattle Creek intersection.
118 W. 6" Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
2
(970)945-1 004
(970)945-5948 FAX
GARFIELD COUN TY HOUSING AUTHORITY
14 30 RAILROAD A VENUE Unit F J
May 31,2011
TO: K athy Eastl ey
Garfield County Plruming D ept.
FROM: Garfield County
Housing Authority (G C HA)
REF: River Edge
Rezon e PUD/Preliminru-y Plan,
Affordable Housing
RIFLE, CO 81650 _.....-......;... __
(970) 625-3589
Fax 970-625-0859
Garfield County Hous ing A uthority (GCHA) has r ev iewed River Edge PUD and
understands that the applicant proposes 55 affordable housing (AH) units to be built over
11 phases or 5 A H units per phase. Homes are clustered into 3 tracks in the PUD.
GCHA offers the follo w ing comments:
On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHP A)
the applicant requires presales before building AH unit s. There i s no precedent
for this in the County's guidelines. Would the applicru1t be r el eased from hi s
obligation to build the AH unit s if there were no qualified buyer w ithin the
applicants tim e fram e? GCHA believes that flexibility from both the applicant and
the guidelines would be of benefit to potential buyers of the se AH units.
Currently, the downturn in the economy and th e tightening of the lending industry
has made it hard er to bu y and se ll homes, both free market and deed re st ricted.
We cannot for esee thi s trend during the build out of this development over the
next 1 0 to 20 years.
On Page 5 , paragraph 5 of the AHPA th e applicant p rov id es 3 cat ego ries of
pricing for the AH units. The applicant proposes to allow buyers earning up to
150% of AMI instead of the maximum 120 % AMI allowed in the County's
guid elines . GCHA views thi s as opening the buye r pool to a larger population
while maintaining the integrity of the progran1 by allowing fan1ilies earning 80%
to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% AMI t o 110% AMI. If the
exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate the se pricing categories,
GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Ed ge .
On Page 6, parag raph 9 ofthe AHPA applicant proposes o ption of renting AH
home s if not so ld within the 120 days. Thi s is not addressed in County's
guidelines . However, thi s i s an interesting proposal as it is the intent of the
program that each AH unit be occupied by a qualified family. If allowed, the
rents would need to be below market rent to maintain the unit as affordable to
families within lower AMis. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed
upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; If the units are
rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the
sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the
developer the property manager for the rental?
Additional comments on the AHPA are:
Could the AHP A be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build
out schedule?
Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase?
Are all 5 AH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started 0
Would applicant consider designing an aspect to the AH homes that would permit
owners to improve their equity by finishing or improving the home (basements,
carports, decks etc)?
GCHA continues to look over the Declaration of Deed Restriction that was provided by
the applicant and may offer some comments before final recordation.
Sincerely,
Geneva Powell
Executive Director
Garfield County Housing Authority
1430 Railroad Avenue, Unit F
Rifle, co 81650
(970) 625-3589 Rifle
(970) 625-0859 Rifle Fax
(970) 945-8082 Glenwood
www.garfieldhousinq.com
SHERIFF OF 6:AQFlE LD CC OUNTI
LOU VALL___ARIO
107 8 ''' St ree t
(j(e n woodSyriii[J S, CO 8 160 1
'Pfi o11 e: 970-945-0453
:fax: 9 7 0-945-6430
J un e 15,20 11
Kath y Eastle y
Ga rfi el d Count y Buil d in g and Pl annin g
I 08 8111 Stree t, Suit e 40 I
G lenwood Spri ngs , CO 8 16 0 I
RE: River Edge Colorado-Rezon e PUD /Preliminary Plan
Dea r Kath y:
REC ~J -v~~n
JUN 1 5 2011
GAHt·lLLU COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
EXHIBIT v
106 Co1111t y 'Road333-.Jl.
'Rij(e, CO 8 1650
'Pfio11 e: 9 70-665-0200
:fax: 970-665-0253
I have rev iewed the ap pli ca ti on fo r the proposed Ri ve r Edge Colorado sub di vis ion, and have the fo ll ow in g
co mm ent s on thi s a ppli cati on.
Access
T he co nc ern s of th e Ca rb o nd a le & Rur al Fire Pr otecti on Di stri ct, in rega rd s to th e Emerge ncy V ehicle Access
point s, are also co nce rn s of th e Sheri ffs Offic e. Ad dit io nall y, w ith o ut rev iew in g co mm ents f rom C DOT, th e
Sheri ff s Office has co n ce rn s on th e im pact of th e in gress /egress o nto HW Y 82 at the Cattl e Creek in te rsec ti on.
Pl ease co nt ac t me if yo u have any qu es ti ons or if I can be of any assis tance.
!/;;Yk
J ames H. Sea rs
Emerge ncy Op erati ons Sg t.
EXHIBIT
J f'l\
MEMORANDUM
To: Kathy Eastley
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the River Edge Rezone PUD 6720
Date: June 10, 2011
Noxious Weeds
• Staff requests that the applicant arrange an on-site meeting between the Roaring Fork
Conservancy, River Edge, and Garfield County Vegetation Management to discuss and develop a
management plan for noxious weeds located on River Edge's property that has a conservation
easement.
• Staff concurs with the statement from the applicant's consultant, Rocky Mountain Ecological
Services that weed control tr eatm ents continue to occur before development begins.
• Covenants-We recommend that the applicant put in stronger language regarding noxious weed
control that will emphasize that each property owner has the responsibility to manage state and
county listed noxious weeds
• Open Space Management Plan (OSMP)-There is a statem ent on page 4 of the OSMP, item 5, that
s tates that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the S tate
Colorado Noxious Act." This implies that a cover of weeds of up to 5% is acceptable. Legally,
all State List A species and many List B species must be eradicated when detected . The 5%
statement s hould be deleted or rewritten. That s tandard of allowing up to a 5% cover is not
acceptable.
Revegetation
• The Revegetation Plan is acceptable. Under normal circumstances, we would request that the
applicant provide a quantification of the surface area to be disturbed , and then we would
recommend a $2500 per acre revegetation security. In this situation where almost the entire
property was scrapped bare about 7 years ago, that approach may not be the most sensible.
I recommend a meeting between Building & Planning, Vegetation Management, and the applicant
to di scuss the revegetation security amount.
From: Jim Rada
I EX~\
To: Kathy A. Eastley:
Subject: PUD6720/SPP6721 River Edge Colorado
Friday, June 17, 2011 4:25:04 PM Date:
Kathy,
I offer the following comments at this time:
1. Neither the Water Supply or Wastewater Treatment plan is
definitive in terms of who will provide these services . The option of
privately owned and operated water and wastewater treatment
plants operated by the Homeowners Association, is not, in my
opinion, a sound option for this type of development due to the
inherent weaknesses of HOA's to properly manage these systems.
strongly recommend that the applicant be required to nail down
provision of water and wastewater services that result in high-quality,
sustainable operations.
2. The applicant is on the right track in terms of developing a
walkable, sustainable community that creates space for growing fresh
foods during the summer growing season . This is an extremely
important element of urban development that we need to continually
try to include in community planning in order to begin addressing
chronic public health issues like obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Again, the applicant puts responsibility for upkeep of open spaces,
gardens, orchards, sidewalks, trails and streets in the hands of the
homeowners association. I am skeptical that without a more solid
plan for financing and managing these community amenities, that
they will eventually lose priority and fall into a degraded state and
residents will fall back to getting in their cars to go to the store or rely
on nearby convenience stores to fulfill their dietary needs.
3. Access to fresh foods and other amenities will still involve getting
in one's car for a run to the market in Carbondale or Glenwood. This
does nothing to reduce air pollution from vehicles. Nor does it
encourage people to walk or ride bicycles to take care of daily needs .
I believe that land should be made available for commercial purposes
specifically to encourage development of a local food store to serve
residents of this community and the central valley area .
4. Assuming that the applicant can finance the construction of the
infrastructure and all other elements of the project, I see no projected
long term budget for operation and maintenance of the POA owned
and operated elements of this development. I suspect that these
numbers will be substantial, particularly if a POA WTP and WWTP are
constructed. Based on the CCRS and the amount of commonly owned
elements, managing a development this size could require a rather
large budget. Spread amongst 366 owners, this could result in
substantial annual assessments. Along with the annual assessments
and any special assessments that may be needed as to property ages,
this could put a large financial burden on the middle-class families
that will. likely occupy these homes.
hanks for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Jim Rada
Environmental Health Manager
Garfield County Public Health
185 W. 14th Street
Rifle. CO 81850
r hone -970-825 -5200 x8113
tax -970-825 -8304
Cell -970-319-1578
jra da@l garfi eld -county .com
www .garfield-county.com
EXHIBIT
DE PA RTMENT O F NATU RAL RESOUR C ES ----
j 0
D I VISION OF WATER RESOURCES
j ohn \\'. I h(k~n loo p<'r
C o \en"'lo r
K athy Eastly
Garfi e ld Co un ty B ui ldin g and P lanning
108 8 th St Ste 201
G lenwood Springs CO 8 160 1
J un e 22 , 201 1
R e: R ive r Edge P UD and Sub divisio n P re li min a ry P lan
Section s 7 & 12, T7S , R8 8W. 6TH P M
W. Divi s ion 5 , W. Distric t 38
Dea r Ms . Eas ily:
:--tikc Kin!\
h\c'cuth·c• Dtrc•tto r
D ic k \\'o lfc, I' F
11m:cto r 'Statt• En g 1ncc r
We have reviewe d th e ab ove refe renced prop os al to c re ate a PUD on 160 ac re s fo r a
residentia l d evelopment to inc lude 366 resid ential units of va riou s si z e s a nd types a nd 9 non -
res ide nt ia l units. a ll to be bu il t o n 346 lots , a long with recrea ti onal ope n sp ace and a neig hborhood
ce nte r. In addition, the applic an t is proposing to complete th e subd ivision pro ce ss fo r the proposed
PUD by s ubdividing the land into 346 lots .
The appl ic ant proposes to prov id e wate r to the PU D thro ugh the Roa ring Fork W ater &
Sa n itati on Di stric t (the Distri c t) purs uant to w ater rights and an a ugme ntation plan d ecree d in C ase N o .
01 CW 18 7 and pe nd ing c ourt cases 07 CW1 64 and 08 CW 19 8 . Po table water w ill be provide d eit her
through exis ting alluvial w ell s and /or surface w ate r dive rsio ns o perate d by th e Di stric t, or through a
s urface wa ter in ta ke located along th e Roaring Fork River adjacent to the proj ect s ite , to be o perated
by the Rive r Edge Colorado Prope rty Owners Associ ation (POA). Ir rigation wat er w ill be pro vid ed by
th e POA th rough th e G lenwood and Stato n Ditches. Sewage d isposal w ill be through a central
system. A c onditional le tt er of c o nfir mat io n from the Di str ict w as pro vi de d .
The applica nt a nti cip ates a re qui reme nt o f 375 Eq uivale nt Reside nt ia l Units (EQ R s) o f potab le
w ate r for 366 res id ential un it s and 9 non-res id enti a l unit s. Per the W ate r T rea tment a nd Distribut ion
Design Re po rt provided in th e s ubmitted materi a ls , it a ppea rs thi s re quire ment is based on the
assumption th at each EQR is equivalen t to a household demand of 189 gallons per d ay (gpd) per
sing le family unit. The aug men tation plan dec reed in t he Division 5 Water Court, in case no .
0 1CW187 , limits th e fi na l development to 349 .55 EQRs and 3 acres of irri gation us in g an ass umptio n
of 300 g pd per EQR. T hi s d ec ree d augme ntation plan does no t all ow for th e fl exi bili ty to assume a
re du ce d hou se h old use w ater dem an d pe r si ng le fam ily unit in order to in c rease the numbe r of EQRs.
To da te , no oth er decrees provid ing wa ter to the development hav e bee n adj ud ica ted , and
pursuant to the decree in case no. 01CW1 87, the applica nt is limited to less EQRs th a n is pro p osed
under thi s a pplicati on . T he a pplica nt indica ted tha t additio n al w a ter s up ply wi ll be avai lable in two
pending w ater court cases ; how eve r, pe nding wa te r co urt cases d o n ot se rv e as an adeq uate clai m to
a lega l w ate r supply . In a ddition, the pro p osed alte rn ative s upply for po table water divert ed th ro ug h a
surface water intake alo ng the Roa rin g Fork R ive r and ope rated by t he POA has not ye t been decreed
bu t is included in th e pe nding w a te r co urt cases. Unti l th ese proposed alte rn ate points of d ive rsio n
a re decreed , the a pplicant is limite d to div ertin g the wa ter th ro ug h infras tru cture owned and o pera ted
by th e RFWCD as spec ifi ed in case no . 0 1CW 187 . The applica nt will no t be ab le to utilize a n altern a te
Office of th e S t a te Engi n e e r
13 13 Sher man St reet , Suite 8 11) • De n ver, CO 80203 • P ho n e : 303-S66-3SR I • hl"\: 3 03 -866 -3SH9
h It p://1v atcr.sta te.co.u s
Kathy Eastly Ju ne 22 , 2011
River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan
water infrastructur e sys tem until su c h a tim e as alt ernate points of d iversion , which all ow for th e
applicant to have direct contro l of said water, are decreed.
The appli cant an ti c ipates a raw wate r demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation
a t any one time. Diversions w ill be made from the Roaring Fork Rive r a t t11e Glenwood Di tch and f rom
Ca ttl e Creek at th e Sta ton Ditch . Accordin g to th e Wate r Supply Pla n p rovided with the application , the
appli ca nt can divert approximately 12.23 c fs fr om th e Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton
Di tc h . Th e 12.23 cfs from th e G lenwood D itch and th e 4 .69 cfs from the Staton D itch a re subject to
the change of wate r righ t a nd p lan for augmen ta tion decrees en tered in case nos. 01 CW188 and
01 CW189. Use of these water rights at the proposed subdivi sion must be operated in accordance wi th
the decrees en tered in case nos. 01 CW188 and 01 CW189 and cannot result in an expansion of use.
Note that these two cases also provide for opera tion of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 - 5 . The
operati on of the lakes must also be in accordance w ith the terms of t hese decrees and cannot result in
an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of th ese ditches.
Due to th e lac k of a water court approved a ugmentation plan that meets th e number
of EQRs proposed by th is application , th e State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28 -136(1)(h){l),
th at th e proposed water supply w ill ca u se material injury to decreed w ater rights and i s inadequate .
Si n ce a fina l water s upply has ye t to be confi rm ed , we will refrain from comme nting on the physical
adeq ua cy of the water supply at t11i s tim e. If you o r th e appli cant has any questi ons concern ing th is
m att er. please con t act Karlyn Adams in this office .
MS/kaa /River E dge PUD a nd Subdiv.docx
Sin cerely ,
Megan Sullivan , P.E.
Wa ter Resource Engineer
cc: Alan Ma rtella ro , D ivision Eng in eer, Division 5
Bi ll B lak eslee , Water Commissione r , District 38
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Departm ent of Natura l Resources
131 3 Sherman Stree t, Room 715
Denver, CO 802 03
Phone: (303) 866-2611
Fa x: (303) 866-2461
Jun e 3, 2011
Ms. Kathy Eas tley
Garfield County Building and Planning
I 08 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
kea stley @garfieldcouny.com
Re: River's Edge PUD and Preliminary Plat Application CGS GA-11-0008_1
Dear Ms. Eas tl ey :
EXHIBIT
I P
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Ritter
Gov ern o r
Harri s D. S he rm a n
Executive Director
Vin ce nt M atthews
Divis ion Director and
Stat e Geologis t
Thank for the s ubmittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is to allow a mixed-u se development with
366 residential units , open space and commercial. I visited the site on May 29th and 31st. As noted in the
app li cation, the site is generally located on terrace s above the Roaring Fork River and adjacent to SH 82. Cattle
Creek is a large drainage, which enters and bi sec ts th e site. An existing hou se is located ne ar the center of the site.
The site has been graded in the past ; fill areas and soi l stockpi les can be found throu ghout th e si te. Other structures,
such as irrigation ditches and rail, cross the s ite .
Generally, th e s ite has moderate s lope s. Slopes steeper th an 30 percent are prese nt along terrace edges adj acen t to
the Roaring Fork River. A small alluvial fa n si ts in the northeast comer of the s ite . Al so, as you know, th e site
contains numerous sinkholes cau sed by the di sso lution of evaporate bedrock. Soil piping, erosion, and s lope
in stability was evident along the steep terrace s lopes . Ero sion of the base of th e terrace was evid ent where the outer
bends of the river cut into the ba se of the terrace.
Generally, th e applicant has done a good job avoiding th e most severe geologic hazard s. The main geologic hazards
are outlined in geotechnical reports, by HP Geotech, dated August 12, 2008 and November 15, 20 I 0, include the
following:
• Subsidence and sinkholes caused by dissolution of evaporite deposits
• Expansive and collapsible soil
• Slope instability along steep slopes adjacent to the river.
• Uncontrolled fill
• Debri s flow and flooding hazard s
The recommendations in the mo st rec ent geotechnical report are similar to those contained in an earli er version.
Recommendations critical to protecting public safety include:
• Buildings, roads, and underground utilitie s should not be placed on or near hi gh-h azard s inkhol es;
id entified as Zone I. To the extent feasible, Zone 2 or moderate hazard areas should be avoided. If
development occurs in such areas, a ll s inkhol es, and areas with potential sinkhole haza rds should be fully
invest igated prior to approval of development plan s .
•
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Page2
June 3, 2011
•
• If avoidance is not possible, roads can be constructed over stabilized sinkholes but buildings and critical
utilities should not.
• Buildings should be setback from the steep escarpment. A minimum setback of2H: IV should be measured
from the edge of the river channel.
• Riverbanks at outside channel bends are eroding the base of steep terrace slopes during peak flows. If
allowed to continue, slope failure may occur and impact roads and buildings near terrace escarpments.
Other recommendations that will impact the performance of buildings, roads, and utilities include:
• Mitigation of expansive ami/collapsible soil
• Construction of an underdrain system
• Restrictions regarding cuts and fills and other grading activities; including identification of the extent of
uncontrolled fill and removal and recompaction
• Mitigation of debris flow hazards
• Mitigation of corrosive soil
The application also contains a mitigation plan of how hazards will be mitigated. Some of the key mitigation
measures are outlined below:
Sinkhole Hazards
Roads, homes and utilities generally avoid High Hazard Zone I areas. However, road and utility segments cross
Hazard Zone I areas and homes are proposed in Moderate Hazard Zone 2 areas. In these areas, the applicant
proposes:
• Further investigations will be performed and a site-specific mitigation action will be developed as part of
final design and field construction activities.
• At a minimum, road areas will be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below design grades, and
select fill placed and compacted to 95 percent Standard Proctor or better.
• Utility areas will be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the design invert, select fill placed
(compaction at 95 percent Standard Proctor) and a sleeved utility installed (i.e. allowing bridging of the
identified void).
• Compaction grouting or structure bridging may be considered.
• The placement of geosynthetics beneath the pavement may also be considered
• Whichever mitigation is selected, the primary objective is to lessen the impacts of differential settlement.
• If adequate mitigation cannot be achieved, utility areas will be realigned to areas without hazards.
• Additional investigation will be done for lots located in Zone 2 before development. Lots may be relocated
or special foundation designs required.
Slope Instability Along Steep Terrace Slopes
• Planned development within the Project Site does not directly encroach into any existing steep
escarpments. However, further erosion of terrace escarpments may cause safety hazards.
• The applicant proposes stabilization of eroding areas. Discussions regarding stabilization of areas within
the RFC Conservation Easement are occurring. If approved by the RFC, these areas will be further
investigated and a detailed mitigation program developed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Phase 0).
• Additional investigation of "piping failures" will be done and stabilization plans will be developed.
Irrigation within these areas will be managed to reduce further degradation.
Debris Flows
• Grading for Highway 82 and the development to the east of the highway should reduce the extent of future
deposition on the fan limiting the risk to proposed structures on the site ..
•
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Page 3
June 3, 2011
• Flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot should be incorporated into the final designs
based on further field investigations.
CGS Recommendations
• The mitigation measures outlined by the applicant appear to be feasible. However, additional investigation
and design will be needed. Other than specific foundation designs for buildings, this should be done prior
to approval of the final plan and, in most cases, before construction begins. Detailed cost estimates should
be included and mitigation should be done as part of public improvements.
• As a result of additional work, final lot, utility, and road layout may change; this includes relocation.
• CGS also considers subsidence and sinkholes, related to dissolution of the underlying evaporite bedrock, to
be a potential risk across the site. Near-surface underground voids may exist that have not yet breached the
surface to become visible sinkholes. One specific concern is that it appears there will only be one access
into and out of the site. !fa sinkhole occurs along sections ofthe primary access road, emergency access to
the site may be greatly impaired. The county may wish to discuss this issue with the county emergency
manager. It may be prudent to verify soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or
develop plans for providing an alternative emergency access if needed.
• If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan
should be provided. Making sure that the base of the slope remains protected over the course of time
against erosion will be important to the safety of sections of road and several lots.
• Where roads and utilities cross high and moderate sinkhole hazards, the applicant proposes a wide range of
mitigation options. Each option has associated risks and costs. The county may wish to take an active role
in determining what options are chosen and what risks are taken by the county and future owners;
especially if any maintenance responsibility is assumed.
• The site does contain industrial minerals. The mineral resource report states that because the site is zoned
residential mineral deposits are not of economic value. However, this may be true but the report does not
contain any data to support this conclusion. The applicant is correct in concluding state statutes regarding
preservation of commercial mineral deposits do not yet apply to Garfield County. However, I am not sure
if the county has adopted plans or policies that would apply.
• All other recommendations outlined in geotechnical reports are valid and should be followed.
In summary, it is important to note that even with the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above and in the
geotechnical report, subsidence may occur and building, roads, and utilities may be severely damaged. The
following quote !Tom the geotechnical report should be strongly considered during the entitlement process. Even
with mitigation it may not be possible to prevent some structural damage to buildings, but it should be feasible to
prevent sudden collapse and provide a reasonable level of safety for the building occupants."
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at
karen.berry@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
Jo"'~~
Karen A. Berry
Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Roussin , Daniel
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge Colorado Rezone
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:33:04 AM
EXHIBIT
I Q
Kathy-I have no comments on the rezone . As you are aware, this project will
have a big impact to the highway system. The applicant will need an access
permit for SH 82 . The challenge will be to tie it other side due to 4 intersection
( 2 frontage roads, 2 county roads). As you are aware, COOT, Garfield County
and the applicant will need to work together to make the long-term access work.
If you have any questions, please let me know .
thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Room 1 00
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284 Office
970-683-6290 Fax
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Wi ll , Perry
Kathy A. Eastley;
FW: River Edge Colorado
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:47:50 PM
cattlecreek2 .doc
Catt le Creek.doc
From: Groves, John
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:34AM
To: Will, Perry; Yamashita, Matt
Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado
EXHIBIT
~~
It should not have significant impacts if they follow the recommendations outlined
in letters dated 4/15/2008 and 2/19/2009 regarding Cattle Creek Crossing. The
main impacts will be to the heronry if our previous recommendations are not
followed. There will be displacement of the elk that winter on the property while
construction is ongoing, however they are likely to move in thicker once that has
ended and it is not critical w i nter range . I have attached the l etters if you want t o
send to Kathy or I can put together a short letter for your signature .
John
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:54PM
To: Will, Perry
Subject: River Edge Colorado
Perry,
A referral was sent to the CDOW in late April seeking comments on a development
proposal for River Edge Colorado (formerly known as Cattle Creek). I've not
received comments from CDOW and was hoping that you could provide me a
timeframe on when we might receive something-or if there is no comment, and
email to that effect.
Thanks.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone : 970-945-1377 ext. 1580
Fax: 970-384-3470
keastley@garfie ld-county.com
SUCCESS I S NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY
THING . -WINSTON CHURCHI LL
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife.state.co.us
April15, 2008
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 81h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Crossing sketch plan submission
Dear Fred:
For Wildlife-
For People
The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat
areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82.
Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but
with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and
Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide
mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition the
property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo-tropical song
birds, raptors and amphibians.
The existing conservation easements held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help
protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The
proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of Cattle Creek for trout
habitat are welcomed by the Division.
The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect
impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be
addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help
minimize potential impacts:
1. As noted the property in not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas,
however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential
areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the area which then seek refuge on the
undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to
create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82. The development
has proposed using the existing Cattle Creek culvert under Hwy82 as an elk underpass, but it
is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of
the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Shenman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair • Robert Bray, Secretal)l
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.
2. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly
impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the
crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well
within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of
the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will
have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming
and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks
on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least
1 year prior to any construction occurring near the heronry. More detailed recommendations
can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted.
3. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are extremely important
to wildlife. These areas on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and
had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for
wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be
limited into these areas.
4. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate
measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the
developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff water should be filtered before running into
the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes.
5. All utilities buried.
6. 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.
7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: DOW-R.Velarde, J.Groves, file
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife. state. co. us
February 19, 2009
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 81h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD review
Dear Kathy:
For Wildlife-
For People
The DOW has reviewed the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD amendment and has previously
commented on the development proposal in a letter dated April 15, 2008. Comments and
recommendations from that letter are still relevant.
The Cattle Creek development property is not located within any mapped big game critical
habitat areas, but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of
Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and
spring months with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork
River and Cattle Creek. While it is not mapped critical winter range the property has become a
preferred wintering area for elk. The upper benches provide loafing/solitude areas, while the
riparian corridors provide cover and food. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south
of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the
property. Car/elk accidents have increased significantly along the stretch of SH 82 from mile
marker 6.5-12 in the past several years.
In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron colony , many small mammals,
neo-tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians.
The overall size and density of this project is going to have direct and indirect impacts to
wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed. The
Division is concerned about several issues related to the current development proposal and
makes the following recommendations:
1. The proposed trails into the riparian areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork
River should be eliminated. Any recreational trails proposed should remain on the
bench above the river and out of the conservation easement areas held by the Roaring
Fork Conservancy. The proposed trails are listed for fisherman access but in reality
these will become recreational hiking trails and dog walking areas which will rapidly
diminish the values for wildlife that the easements are designed to protect.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, HarTis D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad CoolS, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary
...... I I , I ..... " ... • .... 0 0 A " ..... I I .... .... I 0 ,..,.,
2. The Division is discouraged with the fact that the current great blue heron nesting locations
have not been identified in the current building plan nor have any steps been taken to
minimize impacts in the building plan. The mitigation proposals outlined in the CCR's are
inadequate and rely on future abandonment of the colony. The current locations are
several hundred yards upstream of the old nest sites identified in the building plan and
have been active for over 5 years. The heronries located on the south west portion of the
property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are
located as close as 27 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building
sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640
ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to
minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a 200
meter buffer zone around the heronry with extensive berming and vegetative screening,
restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the
heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to
any construction occurring within 400 meters of the heronry. More detailed
recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted.
3. 1 00' building envelope set backs need to established from the crest of the bluff overlooking
the riparian corridors on the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
4. Maximum building height should be 25' especially for building locations overlooking the
Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
5. The DOW would like to sit down with the developer to further discuss their proposal for
funding off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: DOW-R.Velarde, J.Groves, file
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
June 12, 2011
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Edge Colorado-Rezone PUD I Preliminary Plan
Dear Kathy:
I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado Subdivision. The
application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC), 2009 edition,
adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
The proposed street layout and access throughout the subdivision is adequate for emergency
apparatus. Two Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points are discussed on page 9 of the Project
Engineering Design Report but the EVAs are not indicated on the drawings. IFC Section 0106.2
"Multiple Family Residential Developmer:tts" requires developments with more than 200
residential dwelling units to have two separate and approved fire access roads. Details of the two
EV As must be submitted for approval.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has agreed to service the development. The
proposed system is designed to provide for 1,500 gpm residential fire flows and 2,000 gpm non-
residential fire flows . The proposed water system appears to be capable of providing the design
fire flows throughout the development. The proposed location and spacing of the fire hydrants is
adequate as well.
The International Residential Code (IRC) adopted by the County will require automatic fire
sprinklers in all residences, effective January 1, 2013. Installation requirements will be in
accordance with NFP A 13D or Section P2904 of the IRC. Residential sprinkler systems
typically require 26-60 gallons per minute (GPM) flows however IRC Section P2904 would
allow flows as low as 13 GPM in certain cases. Required flows are primarily dependent upon
roof and ceiling design. Connections of service lines to the water mains should be designed to
allow for the required flows.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963 -2491 Fax 970-963-0569
River Edge Colorado, Page 2 of 2
Impact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer
will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording
of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $730.00 per lot/unit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
SinJ ere}A' /l /_ tf3dfi1;J~
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale. CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
David Johnson
Kathy A. Eastley;
Tamra Alle n; Fred Jarman;
Jason White;
RE: River Edge
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:24:06 PM
RFTA has the following concerns about this proposed development:
Location Outside the UGB
j
In preparation for RFTA's Strategic Planning Board Retreat on June gth, I created a table highlighting the
common themes of the surrounding Comprehensive Plans. One of the most prevalent themes is
concentrating development within the town center or within the UGB . Carbondale is currently updating its 2000
Comp' Plan, and this will undoubtedly be a priority as well. The proposed development is located outside the
urban growth boundaries of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, which appears to conflict with this priority.
RFTA is also concerned about growth outside the town boundaries. Currently, RFTA's local route serves over
50 stops in each direction. One way travel time from Glenwood Springs to Aspen is about 100 minutes, which
makes it unattractive for current and potential passengers and increases operational cost. RFTA is addressing
this issue by implementing BRT, which will serve nine key locations along the SH82 corridor, and by conducting
a feasibility study, now underway, of local transit systems in Carbondale and in the BasaiUEI Jebel area. One of
the goals of the feasibility study is to create transit systems in each area to provide local mobility within the
town centers and to "feed " passengers to the BRT stops, where they can enjoy fast , frequent regional transit service.
RFTA's Board is comprised of elected officials in cities and counties throughout the region, including Glenwood
and Carbondale. Based on the overriding philosophy of maintaining growth and services within town boundaries,
and the issue of the cost and travel time impacts of adding additional service, it is unlikely that the Board will
endorse adding service to River Edge development, even if the applicant is willing to pay for the capital and
operating costs of adding boarding locations at SH82 and CR113. The transit assessment conducted by Fehr
and Peers does not estimate potential transit ridership. Consequently, the need for additional rolling stock and
the size of shelters and other amenities are unknown. The nearest RFTA boarding locations are at Spring
Creek Road and Aspen Glen. Neither location appears to be within wa lking distance.
Rio Grande Trail ROW Crossing
As stated in the Land Suitability Analysis, the RFTA right-of-way crossing required by the entry road at CR 113
and SH 82 is covered by an Easement Grant providing at-grade access to the Project Site. The ease ment for
access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFRHA.
Although the at-grade crossing is covered by an easement, it poses a number of issues. First, according to the
traffic study, trip generation from the residential, commercial and other uses is estimated at 276 a .m . peak hour, 347
p .m. peak hour, and 3,567 daily vehicle trips. This may pose safety conflicts between veh icles, bicycles
and pedestrians at the crossing. In addition , the principal intention for purchasing the ROW and rail banking was
to preserve it for future passenger rail. Should a rail system be established, the at-grade crossing would need to
be improved, possibly to a grade separated crossing, to address operational and safety issues. RFTA does not
wish to bear these costs and wishes to seek an agreement from the applicant that the crossing be upgraded per
PUC guidelines Part 723 -7 (Rules Regulating Railroad, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and
rail Crossings) should rail service be established.
David Johnson, AICP
Dire ctor of Planning
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1340 Main Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
970.384 .4979 office
970.384.4870 fax
970.376.449 2 mobile
djohnson@rfta .com
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfi eld -county.co m]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 201112:11 PM
To: David John son
Cc: Tamra All en; Fred Jarman; Jason White
Subject: RE: River Edge
David,
Wh en could w e expe ct these comments?
Kathy East ley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfie ld County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs , CO 81601
Phone : 970-945-1377 ex t . 1580
Fax : 970-384 -3470
kea stley@garfield-county .com
SUCCESS I S NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE I S THE ONLY THING. -WINSTON CHURCHILL
From: David John son [mailto:djohnson@rfta .com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9 :04 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: Tamra All en; Fred Jarman; Jason White
Subject: River Edge
I apologize : I have not yet sent comments on River Edge . Can I send today?
David Johnson, AICP
Director of Pla nning
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1340 Main Street
Carb ondale, Colorado 81623
970 .384.4979 office
970 .384.4870 fa x
970 .376.4492 mobile
djohnson@rfta .com
CONFID ENTIALITY NOTE: The informati on contained in this tran smi ssion may be privil eged and
June 10, 2011
Ms. Kathy Eastley JUN 1 3 2011
Garfi~~d County ~Ianning Gl\lh:1t·LJ vOUNlY
108 8 Street, SUite 401 BUll DING P. 01 A.NNING
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 l
MOUNT/\IN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN
EXHIBIT
l lA
RE: Preliminary Plan & PUD Rezone Application for River Edge: SPPA6721/
Dear Kathy:
This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the River Edge Subdivision
Preliminary Plan and PUD Rezone Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well
organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, and comments:
Project Binders:
1. The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to the subdivision: either connection to
the Roaring Fprk Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or providing their own community
system. The application materials seems to provide enough evidence that there is a legal supply
of water (pending outcome of Water Court) regardless of the option pursued. However the
physical supply is still pending negotiations. There are requirements that the Applicant would
need to meet with either option: well pump test, water quality test, community water system
approvals with CDPHE, among others if the applicant were to provide their own system; and
evidence of adequate capacity of the systems of RFWSD if connecting to them.
2. Depending on if the Applicant provides their own sewer and water connections, the Applicant
will need to adjust their potable water analysis to use EQR values congruent with the ULUR of
Garfield County namely 350 gpd for interior household use. Typically outside irrigation is
above and additional to the 350 gpd but since a separate irrigation water system is proposed,
only minimal increases would be expected, if any.
3. The Applicant proposes to do some additiona l geotechnical testing to determine any
modification necessary to the Hazard Plan. The Applicant should address the impacts that the
testing could have on the proposed lot layout and the overall site density based on the results.
4. The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR
from FEMA depending on its impact to the floodplain. The Applicant will need to address this
ISSUe.
5. The recommendation of the geotechnica l engineer is that foundation sub-drains be provided.
These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage. The App li cant proposes that these
should be detetmined at the time of individual lot construction. Since the site is . very flat, the
likely option at that time would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for
infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would
increase the likelihood for potential damage due to settlin g. The Applicant should consider a
project wide method for suitable gravi ty outlet for foundation drains.
6. The Applicant is requesting a . waiver from providing storm-water detention for peak flow
attenuation. Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but since there are no
drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns
regarding peak-flow detention provided that water-quality detention is s tili"provided.
826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH: 970.945 .5 5 44 • FAX: 970.945.55 5 8 • www.mountaincross-eng.com
River Edge
· Page 2 of4
7. Similarly, the Applicant is requesting a waiver for some of the road standards as described in the
application materials . Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but this office
has no concerns regarding this provided the following are addressed:
o The Applican,t proposes that the alleys not be required to design to a specific design
vehicle. The design vehicle should at a minimum include the larger of either an
emergency response vehicle or garbage truck.
o The proposed curb and gutter section uses a small pan width of 12" rather than a more
typical pan width of 24" on requested narrower street widths. The Applicant should
verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on the proposed narrow
travel lanes.
8. The project proposes essentially one access for the project residents although there are two other
locations for emergency vehicles to the site. There are some concerns with only one public
access for a project of this size.
9. The Applicant has begun discussions with COOT but has not obtained an access permit at this
time. This access permit will need to be obtained.
10 . This access to Highway 82 is proposed to be a signalized intersection. Design discussions are
underway but the design has not yet been determined and will require coordination with
Garfield County for reconstruction and redesign of the frontage roads and Cattle Creek on the
east side .
11 . It is understood that offsite improvements for water and sewer services do not need to be
included in the application and will be reviewed for Location and Extent if the Applicant
connects to RFWSD. The Applicant should coordinate with Garfield County staff if the
Applicant determines to provide their own sewer and water services; a separate or amen~ed
a pplication may be necessary. The Application materials do not provide any information on the
design of the offsite improvements such as pump stations, pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks,
etc.
12 . The Applicant proposes a raw water irrigation system for residences that would be pressurized
by a pumping system provided by the Applicant. The materials provide preliminary
performance specifications of the pumping system but not an eng~neering design of the
anticipated system.
13. The CC&Rs should include any regulations necessary for the irrigation systems of the
individual Lots, such as sprinkling systems, controllers, and connection to the inigation system.
14. The CC&Rs and the Landscape Plan should include the l 0' irrigation restriction in landscaping
around buildings per the recommendations ofHP Geotech.
15. The sewer design proposes a wastewater treatment plant and force main ejecting into a manhole
near lots on Rookery Street and Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should discuss how any
associated odors are to be mitigated.
16. The Applicant proposes to discharge trea ted effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment
into constructed wetlands. It appears that the wetlands intended are within the Common Area
tracts. The Applicant should evaluate wetland discharge and determine if the wetlands created
in common areas between Lots is the most advantageous or appropriate location when compared
to the adjacent Roaring Fork.
17. The project disturbance may require that an individual permit with the Corps of Engineers be
obtained instead of a nationwide permit. The Applicant will need to determine the appropriate
course of action.
18. It appears that home occupations would be allowed but the traffic report does not appear to
include these in the calculation of trip generation. The Applicant should address any impacts.
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 Y, Grand Ave nue, Glenwo od Springs, CO 8160 I
P: 970.945 .5544 F: 970.945 .5558 www .mountaincross-eng .com
Project Plan Sheets:
Riv er Edge
Page 3 of4
1. Additional parking should be provided for the ball fields and playgrounds in the active
recreation areas.
2. The playgrounds should be located closer to the adjacent street and proposed parking areas
than the ball fields.
3. The traffic calming island of the round-about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine
Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate this.
4. At present the sidewalks and internal project trails show no connection to the Rio Grande
Trail. Sidewalks on River Edge Drive terminate on top of the underpass but do not continue
to either the proposed project signalized intersection or connect to the Rio Grande Trail.
Given the potential complications of tying into the underpass and the pedestrian crossing
necessary at Highway 82, the Applicant should determine how to connect these to provide
pedestrian access in the most safe and efficient manner.
5. The proposed plans show some road grades of0.5%. This is very flat and often proves to be
very difficult to maintain constant curb and gutter flow-line grades. The Applicant should
cons ider varying or steeper grades.
6. The round-abouts on the north and south ends of the projects should have radii on the curb
and gutter re turns with the intersections of the project streets.
7. An engineered pavement design should be provided based on project specific soils.
8. The project site grading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass
on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage problem areas. The Applicant
should revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or tempora ry
easements.
9. The proposed drainage c hannel has slopes at grades as flat as 0.5 %. The channel also
proposes materials of rip -rap, gra ss, or concrete. All of these m a terial s are not suitable for
the flat slopes that are proposed. The Applicant should determine channel materials based
on· slopes, flow velocities, and maintenance.
10. The drainage plan shows inlets day lighting between lots and flowing along the side yards
before ge tting to the common areas. These tend to be problematic as the buildings are
cons tructed, graded and the lands caping is pl ac ed. They are a lso difficult to maintain
pos itive flows in natural or grass swales especially at the very flat slopes that are proposed.
The Applicant should inve stigate alternatives.
11 . The Applicant should d es ign the release structures and routing for discharges from the water
quality ponds.
12. The Applicant should verify the location of inlet s at intersections for drainage o f low spots
or provide valley pans for crossings.
13. Chert Court does not show a connection to the culvert beneath it for drainage.
14. The Applicant should inve stigate alternative layouts or routings within the narrow corridor
between Cattle Creek and Mica Court. At pres e nt the Gl e nwood Ditch, Cattle Creek, a
retaining wall, storm drain culvert, pedestrian trail, sewer line, and water line all compete for
space.
15. Storm inlets s hould be designed to connect to storm manholes in s tead of connecting with a
tee directly into the storm main line piping.
16. The contours for Mica , Moraine, Ore, and Heron Courts show a jog at the front of the lots
that creates a low spot and should be corrected.
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmenta l Consulting and Design
826 Y, Gra nd Ave nu e, Glenwoo d Sprin gs, CO 8 1601
P: 970.945.55 44 F: 97 0.945 .5558 www.moun ta incross-cng .co m
River Edge
Page 4 of4
17 . The relocation of the glenwood ditch is shown within a constant graded slope that will make
access and maintenance difficult. The slope grading should be adjusted to provide a bench
and/or access road along the top of the ditch .
18. The plans show that the curb and gutter convey runoff water across the bridge. This is not
typically done. The Applicant should verify this with the structural engine er.
19. Grading and drainage from the Rio Grande Trail to the intersection with Highway 82 has not
been designed.
20. An access easement is provided into the proposed Estate Lot but no design is provided to
verify that the access can be constructed within the easement provided . The Applicant
should verify the access grading.
21. The Applicant should perform an energy grade line analysis on Storm Manhole N-7 to
verify that the water would not bubble up during higli flows.
22. The 48" storm drain line is at a 0.3% slope. This is very difficult to construct and maintain.
The Applicant should investigate alternatives.
23. There are multiple adjacent sewer lines that drain the same direction. The Applicant should
combine runs of sewer line as practical and/or verify the layout with RFWSD.
24. Rookery Street force main discharges into a manhole on Riverside Loop Drive. DisGharges
into these manholes are subject to corrosive g~ses and odors. The Applicant should
determine any special considerations that may be necessary for this manhole.
25. The multiple adjacent manholes in Heron Court should be verified with RFWSD and/or
alternative anangements investigated.
26. The plans and specifications will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that
option is pursued.
27. Utility connection should be designed and stubbed out for the future connection of the Estate
lot to inigation, sewer, and water utilities.
28. The utilities are shown as being constructed beneath the bridge abutments. This should be
changed to either hang the main lines beneath the deck or cross cattle creek out to the side
for ease of maintenance and eventual replacement.
29. The offsite water line connection is shown as being constructed in the existing box culvert.
The Applicant should design this to mitigate freezing or determine an alternative.
30. The sewer and water lines proposed within Ore Court are a t nearly the same elevation and
will make service connec tions very difficult. The Applicant should offset these elevations.
Feel free to call if you have any ques tions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mountai Cross Enginee in
Chris Hale, PE
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 y, Grand Ave nu e, G le nwood Springs, CO 8 1601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 97 0.945 .5558 www.mountaincross -eng.co m
From: Chris Hale
To: Kathy A. Eastley ;
Subject: RE : River Edge Colo rado
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:44:46 AM
Kathy:
Good Questions!
On the detention, I am not aware of any law that requires detention but I can do
some research and see what I find . I d id make a comment about the subdrains on
item #5 on the first page , but I left out the part concerning the waiver. So based on
comment #5, I would not support this waiver.
Thanks . Let me know.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, Inc.
Chris Hale, P.E.
826 1/2 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph : 970.945 .5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto :keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4 :03 PM
To: Chris Hale
Cc: Carey Gagnon
Subject: River Edge Colorado
Chris,
I have some specific questions for you on this project;
1. I thought that state statute required stormwater detention -that post-
development peak flow could not exceed pre-development peak discharge.
The project does not proposed to detain stormwater so how can they meet
this statute? The BOCC cannot waive state law.
2. They are requesting waiver of the subdrains for all foundations required
by 7-206 8.2. Your letter states that the geotechnical engineer recommends
that these sub-drains be provided -would you support this waiver?
If you could respond to these questions I would appreciate it!
Kathy East ley , AICP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Kathy,
Andrew McGregor
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge PUD/Subdivision
Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:41:46 PM
MEMORANDU l.docx
Attached are comments on the application. Thanks for your patience.
Andrew
EXHIBIT
j v
MEMORANDUM
June 9, 2011
TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planning and Building
FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Department, City of GWS
RE: Rivers Edge PUD
At their meeting on June 2, 2011, the Glenwood Springs City Council heard a brief presentation on the
River's Edge PUD from Sam Otero, PE representing the owner, described the project. At the conclusion
of the presentation, the Council discussed the application. The following are comments from the City
Council in regards to the application.
• Consistent with our comments voiced during the County's Comprehensive Plan update process
last year, the City is very concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community
without commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development in
this location could be termed "sprawl".
• While we recognize that this application contemplates a smaller number of dwelling units, it is
also a smaller parcel. If and when adjacent parcels are proposed for development, with the
County's current land use designation, the magnitude of the development could equal or exceed
previous applications.
• Based on the criteria for rezoning contained in the County's land use resolution, a rezoning does
not appear justified. There is no requisite "change in circumstances". It could be argued that
the only zoning warranted would be to a lesser intensity use. Likewise, there is no
"demonstrated community need". There is already a vast inventory of vacant lots and homes
available in the Roaring Fork Valley. The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis suggests an
absorption rate of 58 units per year for the remainder of this decade. This rate seems unlikely
considering market conditions. Adding additional platted properties to the valley's inventory
will only dilute the values of those already in existence. And finally, the proposed
PUD/subdivision will not promote rural character; rather it will be the final defining act of infill
between Glenwood and Carbondale.
• The proposed development will place an increased burden on sheriffs dept., fire district, COOT
and RE-1 personnel and facilities. As the fiscal impact report states, the project will have a
"negative impact on county finances".
• Concerns over the impact to the resident elk herd and their migratory patterns.
• According to the traffic report, the project will generate approximately 3500 ADT onto Highway
82. The application alludes to a signalized intersection although it is somewhat unclear. The
impact of a signal in this location will increase travel times along the Hwy. 82 corridor. And
while delivering potential sales tax dollars, a portion of these vehicles will travel to and through
Glenwood further exacerbating our congestion and travel times at peak hours.
• It is unclear how the applicants will provide water and wastewater treatment. Two options for
each utility are outlined in the application.
• It is unclear from the application materials how the main roadway will connect from the west
side of the RFTA ROW to the SH 82 ROW. What type of crossing is contemplated at this
entrance location? This should be addressed in advance of any decision on the application. As a
co-owner of RFTA, we are concerned about any adverse impacts to the corridor.
• According to County Assessor's records the subject property consists of 283 +/-acres. However,
the application consists of only 160+/-acres. Is it acceptable to rezone only a portion of a
parcel? The City has concerns about the future rezoning of the 123 acres unaccounted for in
this PUD application.
In closing, the City would encourage the County to follow the direction outlined in its recently adopted
Comp Plan update and develop a cooperative IGA for review of areas within the spheres of influence
around all municipalities in the county. The existing IGA is inadequate for generating the much needed
dialogue between jurisdictions for potentially significant land use changes.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kathy,
Ell en Mayo@ fws.gov
Kathy A. Eas tley ;
River Edge Colorado
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4 :23:04 PM
EXHlBIT
~~
We appreciate your request for comments on the River Edge Colorado
project
I want to direct your attention to the wildlife assessment in B2 Appendix K
section 2.2 Riparian Habitats on page 9 . The final paragraph describes the
presence along the river's edge of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, a species
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act .
As it says in the report: "If water and wastewater services are provided
RFWSD then County review of potential impacts to orchids would occur as
part of location and extent review (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners 12/6/2010).
Further, a section 404 permit application (under the Clean Water Act) to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require section 7 consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I am available if you have questions .
Ellen Mayo
Botanist/Plant Ecologist
USFWS Ecological Services
764 Horizon Dr., Bldg. B
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(970) 243-2778 ext. 14
There is far more to life than getting things done.
Jon Kabat-Zinn
EXHIBIT
~~
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Mo r se, W. Travis SPK
Kathy A. Ea stle y ;
River Edge Colorado SPK-2010-01312 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:59:24 AM
Classification : UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Dear Ms. Eastley:
I am responding to your April 25, 2011 request for comments on the River Edge
Colorado project, located west of Highway 82 along Cattle Creek and the
Roaring Fork River.
The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the
authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United
States include, but are not limited to, rivers , streams, lakes, ponds,
wetlands, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require
Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work .
On October 13, 2010, I performed a wetland boundary confirmation and
jurisdictional determination to ascertain the extent of waters on the project
site . I confirmed that the wetland delineation prepared by PENDO solutions,
Inc. on behalf of the applicant is accurate and that approximately 6.52 acres
of jurisdictional waters occur within the property. It is not clear from the
information provided in your request for comment if impacts to jurisdictional
waters will be entirely avoided.
The range of alternatives considered for this project should include
alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the Un ited
States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable
alternatives to fill ing waters of the United States, mitigation plans should
be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project
implementation.
Please refer to identification number SPK-2010-01312 in any correspondence
concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Travis Morse, Biologist
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Colorado West Regulatory Branch
400 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
0: (970) 243-1199, ext. 17
C: (970) 216-1184
F: (970) 241-2358
w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil
web: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/regulatorv.html
Let us know how we're doing.
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
Information on the Regulatory Program.
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/index.html
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
EXHIBIT
I Y
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Rocky-
Kathy A. Eastley
Rockwood Shepard:
Carey Gagnon : Fred Jarman:
Division of Water Resources comments
Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:03:00 AM
Water Resources -river edge. pdf
Attached are comments from the Division of Water Resources-the lack of
approved court decrees results in a comment that " ... the proposed water supply
will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate ".
I
The ULUR. Section 7-105, states that "An adequate water supply plan shall be
required for any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning,
planned unit development, limited impact or major impact review, development
or site plan, or similar application for new construction. This section shall apply to
all development permits which require a water demand in an amount of more
than 8 (eight) single-family equivalents where 1 (one) single-family equivalent
equals 350 gallons of water per day."
Two issues arise as a result of this sect ion:
1. The pending court decrees are not sufficient demonstration of
adequate water to serve the proposed development;
2. The submittal documents are inconsistent with regard to gallon that
comprise an EQR-the ULUR requires 350 gallons-the water supply plan
submitted uses 350 gallons, other areas of the application utilize 300 gallons
or 189 gallons.
As you are awa r e this is an issue that must be resolved to the extent possible prior
to Planning Commission and staff would recommend that the PC not move
forward with a recommendation until sufficient water is demonstrated .
Kathy East ley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone : 970-945-1377 ext. 1580
Fax : 970-384-3470
keastley@garfield-county .com
SUCCESS I S NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY
. THING. -WINSTON CHURCHILL '
June 29, 2011
VIA EMAIL (KEASTLEY@GARFIELD.COUNTY.COM)
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Brownstein I Hyatt
Farber I Schreck
EXHIBIT
z
Wayne F. Forman
Attorney at Law
303.223.1120 tel
303.223.0920 fax
wforman@bhfs.com
RE: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan : Response to your June 23, 2011 email
referencing June 22, 2011 Referral letter from Megan Sullivan on behalf of the Division of
Water Resources (the "DWR letter'')
Dear Kathy:
On behalf of Carbondale Investments, llC, I am writing to request that you reconsider your June 23,
2011 email to Rocky Shepard in which you take the position that the Planning Commission should
withhold action on the River Edge Project, in light of the DWR Letter finding that. due solely to the lack
of a water court approved augmentation plan, the proposed water supply for the River Edge Project Is
Inadequate . let me first address the DWR letter and then your response .
Contrary to the requirements of C.R.S. § 30 -28-136(1 )(h)(l), the DWR letter does not address the
adequacy of the components of the water supply assembled by Carbondale for the River Edge Project,
including whether there is a physical supply available for the Project and whether the water rights held
by Carbondale to offset out-of-priority depletions associated with withdrawals of that physical supply are
adequate to protect other water rights. For reasons that are not obvious, the DWR letter completely
overlooks these essential issues. In stark contrast, Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource Engineering, Inc.,
explains in the January 17, 2011 Water Supply Report that there is an adequate physical water supply
from the sources identified by Carbondale to supply the Project; and Carbondale owns significant senior
water rights in the Glenwood Ditch and Staton Ditch, together with a contract for 62 .6 acre feet of
augmentation water through the Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") Contract, that provide
more than adequate augmentation rights to offset an out-of-priority depletions associated with providing
a potable water supply to the River Edge Project In fact, nothing In the DWR Letter addresses,
criticizes or undermines Mr. Erion's conclusion that Carbondale presently holds adequate water rights
and resources to supply the Project.
It is clear from the DWR Letter that the sole basis for the negative finding regarding Carbondale's
proposed water supply is that Carbondale does not yet have decrees in hand for its pending water court
cases, Case Nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. As such, the DWR review does not represent an
assessment of the water supply plan but simply the status of the adjudication of the water rights . But
there is nothing in the County's land Use Code that requires an applicant to have all of its water court
decrees in advance of Planning Commission action . Indeed , such a requirement would be illogical. It
could require a landowner to expend tens of millions of dollars securing water rights and years in water
court to fully adjudicate water rights, for a development that may not ever be approved . That
410 Scvcmccnlh Sttcct, Suire 2200 1 Dcnw, CO 80202-4432 303.223.1100 It!
Browrurein H)'2tt Farber Schreck, UP 1 bhfs.com 303.223.111 1/ax
Kathy Eastley, AICP
June 29, 2011
Page2
Interpretation of the ULUR is unsupportable and, in fact, contradiots the plain language of the code.
Because the DWR failed to assess the water supply plan and Instead focused solely on the fact that the
adjudication Is Incomplete, its comments do nothing to lnfomi the County's review of the pending zoning
and subdivision applications.
You quote ULUR § 7-105, which provides that an "adequate water supply Jllin shall be required before
any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, [PUD), •... • (emphasis added).
Carbondale has submitted such a plan, In the form of Mr. Erion's letter, and therefore, carbondale has
met this requirement Accordingly, there Is no basis to delay the Planning Commission's action on the
Carbondale application based on the DWR Letter. Furthermore, ULUR § 7-105.A contradicts the need
for Carbondale to have Its decrees finalized as a condition of proceeding before the Planning
Commission: "Nothing In this section shaH 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 (Resolution 201 0-29)."
We are fully eware that before approval of any final plats for the Project, Carbondale will have to have
its water rights fully decreed. Bear in mind that Carbondale does hold a decreed water court
augmentation plan, case No. 01CW187, for 349.55 EQRs based on a waler supply of 300 gpd/EQR.
Pending is an application by Carbondale, Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District and BWCD for a
minor amendment to that decree to Increase the supply to 350 gpd/EQR. We anticipate that we will
have that case and its companion case pending In Case No. 07CW164 decreed within the next two to
four weeks, mooting this Issue entirely. But Carbondale strongly objects to your suggestion that the
Planning Commission cannot teke action on the River Edge Project without Carbondale having fully
decreed water rights In hand.
Thank you for considering this information and we look forward to discussing this with you further.
WFF:jc
cc: Rockwood Shepard
Mark Sawyer
Sam otero
Lori Beker, Esq.
Carey Gagnon, Esq.
137381211555924.2
EXHIB11i
I ,AA
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Hi Kathy-
Shannon L. Pelland
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge
Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:00:20 PM
River Edge.pdf
! have attached a letter regarding the River Edge development. Please let
me know if you have any questions or concerns. It seems that the
dedication of a school site wou ld be problematic due to the uncertainty
about whether access approvals for a public crossing could ever be
obtained. That's unfortunate for the District and the developer.
Thanks for your patience.
Shannon
Roaring Fork School District
1405 Grand A venue
Glenwood Springs, CO 8!601
Phone: 970.384.6000
Fax: 970.384.6005
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
I 08 8th Street
Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms Eastley:
Judy Haptonstall-Superintendent
Brad Ray-Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum,
Instruction and Assessment
Shannon Pelland-Asst. Superintendent of
Business Services
Thank you for the providing the School District the opportunity to comment on the River Edge
Land Use Plan. Representatives of River Edge have been in contact with the District during their
planning process.
Under the District's land dedication formula, the calculation indicates that River Edge would be
required to dedicate about 7.3 acres for a school site. This amount is not adequate to address the
site requirements of an elementary school including building envelope, ball fields and parking,
and would have required either an additional contribution of acreage by the developer, or the
purchase of additional acreage by the District. The developer's initial intent was to provide all or
part of a school site. That would have required the formation of a metro district since a private
developer cannot apply for a public crossing of the RFT A right-of-way. Because River Edge
was unable to obtain approval to form a metro district, they could not submit an application for a
public crossing, nor could the School District since it is not the owner of the property. While it
is possible that a site could be dedicated for a school, there are no guarantees that the District
would be successful in gaining public access across the right-of way.
Therefore, we believe the District's only option at this point is to accept fees in-lieu-ofland
dedication to be calculated in accordance with the County Regulations.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions.
sinely,
.s:11~
Shannon Pelland
Asst. Superintendent, Business Services
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Rou ss in, Dani el
Kathy A. Eastle y;
Babler, Ali sa;
RE: River Edge Colorado
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:54:22 PM
EXHIBIT
I Bb
Kathy -Thank you for the opportunity to review River Edge Colorado
development on SH 82 near Cattle Creek (CR113). This development will
need an access permit. At this time, COOT hasn't done a complete
reviewed the traffic study dated December 2010. The study indicates a
signal in 2018 and conceptually, this would meet the Code if the access is a
public road.
COOT recognizes the access to this development is closely related to the
operation of the east side of CR 113. Both accesses will need to be
coordinated to function as one intersection. Due to the close proximity of
the frontage roads and county roads ( 113 & 11 0), it will take some effort to
re -align the intersections. Garfield County has made CR 113 the highest
priority in the Garfield County Transportation Intersection Needs
Assessment (TINA). These access issues need to be figured out prior to
final development approval.
If you have any questions , please let me know.
thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Traffic
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:45 AM
To: Roussin, Daniel
Subject: River Edge Colorado
Dan,
Attached are the comments received from SGM-they reviewed the proposal
because of the potential impact to the intersection study which they had
undertaken on behalf of the County. I'll look forward to getting comments from
you next Tuesday! Thanks .
Kathy East ley, AICP
Senior Planner
FIRE· EMS • RESCUE
August 4, 2011
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Edge Colorado-Emergency Vehicle Access
Dear Kathy :
EXHIBIT
J G(;
I have reviewed the drawings for the two proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) roads for
the proposed River Edge Subdivision . The south EVA would connect at the intersection of
Alpine Bluff Street and High Creek Road. The north EVA would connect between Lot 1 and Lot
9 on Trailside Drive . Both EV As would connect the subdivision to Highway 82 . Table 1:
"Street Design Criteria" of the Project Engineering Design Report indicates that the EV As would
have a width of 20 feet. Both the proposed location and width are acceptable. Any gates
installed to control access should be in accordance with Section D103 .5 "Fire apparatus road
access gates" of the International Fire Code, 2009 edition .
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance .
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963 -2491 Fax 970-963-0569
DEPARTME NT OF NATURAL l{E SO URC ES
D IVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
July 1, 2011
Kathy Eastly
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 8160 1
Dear Ms . Eastly:
Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Pre li mi nary Plan
Sections 7 & 12 . T7S . R88W, 6TH PM
W Division 5, W. District 38
EXHIBIT
I J)Q
Jo h n W. 1-li ck.:n i(>Ofk r
G ove-rnor
Mi ke King
Ex('cu til"(' Dir<>cl or
Dick \Vo l fe. I'. E.
We have reviewed additional information regarding the above reference d proposal to create a
PUD on 160 acres fo r a res idential development to incl ude 366 residentia l uni ts of various sizes and
types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, alo ng with recreationa l open space and a
neig hborhood center. In addition , the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for
the proposed P U D by subd ividing the land into 346 lots_
The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fo rk Water &
San itation Dist rict (the Distr ict) pursuant to water right s an d an aug mentation pla n decreed in Case No.
01CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 a nd 08CW198 . Po table water w ill be provided eith e r
tt1ro ug h existing a ll uvial wells and/or surface water diversions opera ted by the District, or through a
surface water intake loca ted along the Roari ng Fork River adj acent to the project si te , to be operated
by t he River Edge Colorad o Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation wate r will be provided by
the POA thro ug h the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage d isposal will be t hrough a central
sys tem. A conditi onal letter of confirmat ion f rom the D istrict was provid ed.
The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Un its (EQRs) of potable
water for 366 residenti al un'its and 9 non-residenti al un its . Per t he Water Treatment and Dist ri b uti on
Design Report p rovided in th e submitted materials , it appears this req ui rement is based on the
ass umption tha t each EQR is equivalent to a househo ld demand of 189 ga ll ons per day (gpd) per
sing le family unit. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no.
01CW187 , limits the fi nal d evelopme nt to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irr igat ion using an assumpt ion
of 300 gpd pe r EQR. Th is decreed a ugmentation pla n does not allow for t he flexibility to assume a
reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EO Rs.
To da te, no other decrees providing wate r to the d evelopment have been adjudicated and
pursuant to the decree in case no . 01CW187, the applica nt is li mited to less EQRs than is proposed
under thi s app li c ation . The applicant i ndica ted t ha t an add itional water supply will be available as soon
as two pend ing water court cases are decreed in case nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. The applicant
indicated tha t they expect decrees will be en tered soon in these two cases ; unfortunately , at this time ,
these pend ing wate r court cases do no t serve as an adequate claim to a legal water supply. In
addition, the proposed alternative physical su pply fo r potable water di ve rt ed t h rough a su rface water
intake a long t he Roa ring Fork River and operated by the POA h as not yet been decreed, bu t is
incl uded in t he pendi ng water court cases. Un til these proposed alternate points of diversion are
decreed , t he appl ica nt is lim ited to diverting the water t hrough i nfr astructure owned and operated by
Office of th e S ta t e Engineer
1313 Sh erm an Stree t, S uite 818 • D e nv e r, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3 581 • Fax: 303-866-3 589
h t tp:/ /wo ter. s til te .co .u s
Kathy Easily July 1, 2011
River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan
the RFWCD as specified in case no. 01CW187. The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate
water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the
applicant to have direct control of said water are decreed.
The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any
one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle
Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the ·application, the
applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton
Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the
change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01 CW188 and
01CW189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance
with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for
operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 -5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance
with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of
these ditches.
In summary, there are several aspects of this water supply plan that are not yet in place. First,
the source of the physical supply has yet to be confirmed. The applicant indicated that domestic water
requirements for the project will either be supplied by the District or through infrastructure operated by
the POA. As of the date of this letter, the applicants have neither obtained a final contract with the
District acknowledging the District as the confirmed water supply source, nor have in place a water
supply infrastructure plan that meets all county water use design requirements and can be supplied
through a decreed alternate point of diversion. Second, while the water supply plan currently proposed
in the draft decrees submitted to the water court to date indicates that there is the potential for a
sufficient water supply for the subdivision as proposed in this referral, this water supply is the subject of
pending decrees. The applicant indicated that they are actively pursuing resolution in the cases,
however, as of the date of this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either case no. 07CW164
or 08CW198.
Without a final decree for cases no. 07CW164 or 08CW198, the proposed water supply plan
for the number of EQRs in this project cannot be provided under a water court approved augmentation
plan. Therefore, the State Engineer cannot find. pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1 )(h){l), that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate. If you
or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this
office.
MS/kaa/River Edge PUD and Subd1v ii.docx
Sincerely,
! i < 1,\1< l,-':.-v. -C r----r· -~-'...., __ ,~,. ·-·-
\ '/
' '
Megan Sullivan. P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
June 30, 2011
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 COLORADO A VENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: River Edge
Dear Commissioners:
EXHIBIT
I ~t;
JUL 0 5 2011
GAHFit:LU CO UNTY
BUIL DING & PLA NN ING
Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review
and comments. The Planning Commission discussed the application at its June 16, 2011 meeting.
First, the Planning Commission discussed the fact that the Commission had submitted a letter to
the County during the County Comprehensive Plan review expressing concern about the future
development of the Cattle Creek area. The Planning Commission had pointed out that there is a
gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and
that future development in this area would likely affect both communities. The Carbondale
Planning Commission suggested some type of mechanism, perhaps an Intergovernmental
Agreement between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan
. for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley. Unfortunately, the County did not adopt this
K suggestion.
In the letter, the Planning Commission had also noted that the definition of an "Unincorporated
Community" was an existing, large, self-contained subdivision. The Land Use Map showed the
"Unincorporated Communities" boundary as an area larger than the existing developed area and
it encompassed the Cattle Creek property. The Planning Commission suggested that the
boundary of the "Unincorporated Community" be revised to reflect the definition as the existing
developed area and that the vacant area in Cattle Creek not be included within the boundary.
This recommendation was developed from concerns that the designation would result in a new
town in unincorporated Garfield County. Again, this suggestion was not adopted. If fact, the
River Edge application justifies the rezoning based on the fact that the property falls within an
"Unincorporated Community" on the County's land use map .
At its June 16, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission questioned the community need for the
development and noted that the proposed price point of the development is consistent with
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax : (970) 963-9140
several existing nearby developments such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition
to developments already approved within the area municipalities.
The Planning Commission noted that the absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and
Parachute is currently about 50 units per month. If this development is approved and based on
the developers expectation to build and sell 50 units per year, this single development would
account for 8% of the demand for housing between Aspen and Parachute. The Planning
Commission questioned if this figure was reasonable and noted that any lot sales in the proposed
development would likely come at the expense of lot sales in existing subdivisions. In fact, there
is concern that it would negatively affect existing jobs generated by existing developments.
The Planning Commission is emphatic in its belief that an approval of the proposed development
would not equate to economic development as it does not guarantee new homes starts and on! y
represents unnecessary suburban sprawl.
The Planning Commission questioned the justification in the application that the development
would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is still plenty of inventory
of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities which
would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the
municipalities.
We understand the original Cattle Creek property has been subdivided into 3 parcels. If the other
lots were developed, it could result in approximately 500 to 600 units. The impact of the
potential development needs to be considered in a cumulative manner rather than taking a
piecemeal approach. It would be difficult to endorse anything for this parcel unless there is a
master plan for this area.
As far as specifics of the development, the Planning Commission would like to offer the
following comments:
I. The houses have been pushed as close to the boundary along the river as possible. Some
additional buffering should be considered.
2. The application represents that there is clustering of residential units; however, the site
plan does not reflect clustering.
3. The provision of community gardens does not meet the intent of retaining our agricultural
heritage
4. The request for the waiver of the provision of public open space should be discouraged. It
should also be noted there is no public access to any planned open space areas along the
Roaring Fork River.
5. The application does not indicate how the connection to a water/wastewater facility
would be accomplished. This should be clear prior to review of the application.
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
6. The application references a signalized intersection along Highway 82 but details on that
intersection are unclear. This should be determined prior to review of the application.
7. The request to defer the provision of affordable housing units should be discouraged.
8. It appears there needs to be some higher level of coordination with RITA.
9. There is concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The
lack of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the
suggestions outlined in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009
and April 15, 2008.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Phone:(970)963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
July 5, 2011
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 COLORADO A VENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 81h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re : River Edge
Dear Commissioners:
EXHIBIT
~~
Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review
and comments. The Board ofTrustee's discussed the application at its June 21,2011 meeting.
The Planning Commission discussed the application and has submitted a letter for your
consideration. The Board of Trustee's would like to comment on the application and reinforce
some of the points the Planning Commission submitted in its comments.
As there is a gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and
Carbondale, and development in this area would likely affect both communities, the Carbondale
Planning Commission suggested an Intergovernmental Agreement between Glenwood Springs,
Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley.
An IGA can be a very useful tool to provide a level of cooperation and understanding in
applications that will affect Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County. Unfortunately
this has not taken place.
The Board strongly encourages and recommends that an lOA be developed to allow for more
collaboration among and between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County as to how
the Cattle Creek area may be developed in the future. Since it is unlikely that the IGA can be
agreed upon quickly, the Board asks that the County make time during the River Edge land use
process to allow an opportunity for cooperation between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and the
County.
The Board and Commission question the community need for the development. The proposed
price point of the development is consistent with several existing nearby county developments
such as Midland Point and Ironbridge . This is in addition to developments already approved
within the area municipalities. With the absorption rate at 50 units per month valley-wide, and
the proposed development to take up 8% of the demand, the loss of sales in existing
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax : (970) 963-9140
developments should be considered. Construction of more homes may provide for an influx of
jobs for a very limited amount of time. Once the homes are built, there is no guarantee that they
will be sold in a timeframe that is beneficial, thereby negating the benefit of the temporary jobs
created during construction.
The Board and Commission also question the justification in the application that the
development would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is adequate
inventory of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities
which would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the
municipalities .
A development plan for the entire site will need to be reviewed, not just this one parcel as each
of the three parcels will affect the surrounding areas.
There is also concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The lack
of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the suggestions outlined
in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009 and April 15, 2008 . This
would include a winter closure of proposed trails and prohibiting the use of easements and
buffers in the community for recreation and trails.
In the not too distant past, this area was identified as "one of the most environmentally sensitive
pieces of property in Garfield County." This points out the compelling need we have for an open
space fund in Garfield County. Preservation through either open space ded ication and/or
acquisition would greatly enhance the preservation of wildlife habitat and maintain the rural and
uniquely scenic character of this property, preserving it in perpetuity for future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
~~
Stacey Patch Bemot
Mayor
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
EXHIBIT
100
July 7, 2011
To: Kathy Easterly, Garfield County Planner
From: Ron Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Re : Comments on River Edge Colorado, applicant Carbondale Investment LLC, location 113 CR , Cattle
Creek and Colorado State Highway 82
The applicants did discuss this planned unit development with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection
District staff (CRFPD). It appears their comments address the main emergency responds needs required
for thi s review . In reviewing the information given to me by the applicant I have a f ew additiona l
comm ents to add to those made to the applicant by the CRFPD staff.
They are the following:
• I believe the codes referenced for the proposed buildings on this site will be the 2009
International Codes and amendments to th em . Garfield County adopted the 2009 Building
codes in 2010 and International Fire Code in the spring of 2011. The application mentions the
2003 International Fire Code as a refere nce .
• Garfield County in 2010 adopted the 2009 International Residential Code . The adoption
included section P2409 Dwelling Units Fire Sprinkler systems . This requirement is currently
scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013 . Thi s section requires all one and two family
homes to have fire sprinkler systems installed in them after January 1, 2013 . This will require
the water services to each unit to be si zed properly to meet the water flow requirements for
the fire sprinkler systems .
• The road sizes vary and some will need to be posted with no parking signage so emergency
v ehicles access is not hindered by parked vehicles on them . Who will enforce the no-parking
regulations, private secur ity or the Garfield County Sherriff?
• Other: What type or types of development may-be considered for the remainder of the
property? Are fire flow water demands for future development being considered in the water
demands for this PUD? Is em ergency access to future development sites on the property being
included in the plans for this PUD?
If this PUD gets approval to move forward more comments will be forth coming as it goes through
future planning and construction reviews.
EXHIBIT
I II
September 6, 2011
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Homeo wn ers Associa tion at A s pen Glen, I n c.
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #40 l
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
Dear Kathy,
The Aspen Glen Board of Directors (BOD) would like to submit this letter in reference to the
River Edge development proposed just north of A spen Glen. In preparation for thi s letter the
BOD reviewed the submitted application and the referral letters submitted by the Town of
Carbondale and the City of Glenwood Springs.
The Aspen Glen BOD agrees with many of the concerns identified in all three letters. In
particular the BOD supports the concept of an IGA or alternative process that encourages
cooperation and dialogue between Glenwood Springs, the County and the Town of Carbondale.
If appropriate, Aspen Glen would like to participate in that kind of dialogue given the
infrastmcture in place to support Aspen Glen such as the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation
District.
In addition, the BOD is equally concerned that the current land use application and development
analysis pertains to just about half of the total property (160 acres vs. 283 acres+/-). Although
Aspen Glen is only half built out the entire property was planned and platted at once thus
providing neighbors and the County a thorough review of the proposed development and
complete picture of impacts and benefits.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide referral comments for River Edge. Please do not
hesitate to contact me or Lesl ie Lan10nt , our Design Review Administrator, with any qu estions or
comments.
0080 Bold Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (9 70) 963-3362 · Fax: (970) 963-4550
Lan ce Luckell, Community Services Director Email: lance@<;opris.n et
DE PARTM EN T OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
September 8, 2011
Kathy Eastly
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Ms . Eastly:
Re : River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sections 7 & 12 , T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W . District 38
EXHIBIT
I JJ
John W. Hic ke nl oo p er
Governor
Mike King
Exec utive D irecto r
Dick Wo lfe, P.E.
Directo r/S l a te En g in ee r
We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to create a
PUD on 160 acres for a residential development to include 366 residentia l units of various sizes and
types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots , along wi th recreational open space and a
neighborhood center . In addition , the applicant is proposing to complete th e subd ivision proc ess for
the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots.
The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No .
01 CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198 . Potable water will be provided either
through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a
surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the proj ect site, to be operated
by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA ). Irriga ti on water will be provided by
the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches . Sewage disposal will be through a central
system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was prov ided .
The applicant antic ipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residentia l Units (EQRs) of potable
water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units . The augmen tatio n plan decreed in the
Division 5 Water Court in case no . 01 CW187 and proposed for amendment in pending court case no.
08CW198 , limits the final development to 349 .55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation us ing an assumptio n
of 350 gpd per EQR. An additional court case, case no . 07CW164 , is currently pending in the Division
5 Water Court that would allow for an additional 850.45 ERQs using a 350 gpd per EQR assumption .
The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for appro ximatel y 150 acres of irrigation at an y
one time . Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Gl enwood Ditch and from Cattle
Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application , the
appli cant can divert approximately 12 .23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton
Ditch . The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the
change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case no s. 01CW188 and
01CW189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subd ivision must be operated in accordan ce
with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these tw o cases als o provide for
operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos . 1 - 5 . The operation of the lakes must als o be in accordance
with the terms of these decrees and cann ot result in an expans ion of use of the A ppli cant's share of
these ditches.
, Office of the Sta te Engineer
1313 Sh e rma n Street, Suite 818 • De n ve r, CO 80203 • Phone: 303 -866-358 1 • Fax: 303 -8 66 -3 589
http://water.s ta te.co.us
Kathy Easily September 8, 2011
River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan
As of the date of this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either case no. 07CW164
or 08CW198. The Division 5 Water Court Referee has issued a ruling in both cases and so long as no
party opposes the rulings, both cases are anticipated to receive a final decree after a 20 day objection
period has passed. In addition, the applicant is in the process of completing a preclusion agreement
with the District that would provide adequate physical water supply to the proposed development
through the utilization of the District's infrastructure.
The State Engineer offers the opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1 )(h)(l), that the proposed
water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights so long as a final decree is
entered in cases 07CW164 and 08CW198 that is no different from the Water Court Referee's rulings
issued on August 22, 2011. In addition, so long as the applicant completes the preclusion
agreement with the District that allows for the utilization of the District's infrastructure, this office finds
that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions
concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office.
MS/kaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv iv.docx
Sincerely,
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45
CONSERVANCY
lJNugrn,g l'ruplt· 1(,g,·tl•rr
ro }'ror,"ft Our-J<wr,.r
BO.\RD OF OIR[CI ORS
Obne '>ch"·ener
l're.<idmt
\tephen Ell<p,·rnun
Vice President
Ra111'e> Kro p f
Srcri!tdJ}'
(;ail Orr ick
'J n :·asurer
Cart er lhook,her
An drew l.tght
Ji m L tg ht
Rick Lofaro
Fxcolfiw Dirc.:tor
I o u is .\!eYe r
Rick :--Jcilc)
Rivers CouJltil Li.H50ll
Jennifer O,auer
La r n · \'a\\·
I'ROCRA \I'> I AFI
Ri ck Lo f ar o
E wxv tivc Dir ector
C laire Bri tt
Office Jl(;m ,>g cr
Sh .u·o n Clarke
LJnd & Water
Cvnft'JT,> lion Sped .1 list
S,uah J o hnson
Educa tivn Coordin.1 tor
Tim O 'Kee fe
Educa lion Director
Clud Ru d ow
IV:1fer Qp~lity
C oordiu<1tor
S.u-ah Wood'
Diredor ofPI>i/.1 nth rop y
September 8, 20 II
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
I 08 8111 Street, Suite 40 I
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: River Edge Colorado
Dear Kathy:
EXHIBIT
I tLlL-
As you know from our prior communications, we have grave concerns about the
impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Easement and the
Conservation Values. We will address those concerns in more detail once we
have had an opportunity to fully review the River Edge PUD Application.
While the Conservancy has no intention of obstructing or delaying the submission
of River Edge's application, we cannot at this point in time confirm that the plans
and activities described in the PUD Application are consistent with the purpose of
the Conservation Easement.
While we understand that the PUD Application does not request subdivision
approval and thus lacks detail regarding many aspects of the proposal, there are
conditions set out in the Grant of Conservation Easement with which River Edge
has not yet complied. From our limited review of the application , it does not
appear that River Edge has provided us with the plans and specifications for
screening, planting, vegetation activities and construction processes as required
by Section 5.3 of the Grant of Conservation Easement. If in fact this information
is contained within the PUD Application, I would appreciate it if you could poin
out where it is located as the application is voluminous.
One matter of particular concern to the Conservancy is th~ fact that £he
application does not appear to provide specific proposals for h?w ~~he
Conservation Values of the Easement will be protected from the ,massive
development proposed. This is an issue that we have raised repeatedly wit the
applicant. Given the scope of the proposed development, we feel it is incu rrl bent
upon River E~ge to propose specific m~asur~s to protect the ~onvers ~ti.on Y,a ues,
the heron nestmg areas and the overall mtegnty of the Easemee. Adq jtLOnall [}1, we
are concerned that this application is for some of the la \'d adj ~cenl t o l r
Easement. If the other adjacent land is developed , there could ~ c 1 Ia · e
P.O. Box 33 49 Ba sal!, Colo mdo 8 162 1 I 970 .927 .1290 I www.roming fork .o rg
.::---::~ .... ~ .. ~~.-...... · ... :-:. ,;:::-;:· ... ::.~ ... ::::-::: ......... :. ;:-;:.:·-.:-::-::;:-: ... :::· .... :~. ;;:;;-: ... , .. :-;-;.:::-;:::.:: ,,.,;.~
effects to the easement that we cannot address without seeing the plan for the entire property.
Two sizable out parcels greater than 35 acres were carved out and are not part of this application.
We have been told by a River Edge representative that these out parcels will most likely consist
of a school, commercial development and high density multi-family land uses. These parcels will
most likely be sold to third parties. We will then be faced with working with multiple parties.
We believe that River Edge should have been required to provide a PUD plan or Master Plan for
the entire 280 Acres. This will only complicate our involvement and review.
At the time Roaring Fork Conservancy accepted the conservation easement granted by Sanders
Ranch in 2000, the proposed number of units was less than 300 for the entire property. As
several applications have been submitted for the same property, the number of units has
increased significantly, without addressing issues and concerns we have for protecting the
conservation values of the easement. We have not seen detailed drainage and on site wastewater
treatment plans, nor have we seen any plans to limit and control human traffic into the
conservation easement.
We request a detailed explanation of how River Edge proposes to protect the Conservation
Values given the proposed increase in density and number of residents or have them point out to
us where this information is included in the application, it would be helpful in our review of their
proposal.
Very truly yours,
Rick Lofaro, Executive Director
ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
barkinqmoon@sop ris .net
Kathy A. Eastley;
River's Edge
Monday, September 12, 2011 7:55:38 PM
To whom it may concern:
EXHIBIT
I LL
The River's Edge development affects thousands of commuters a day who travel
Highway 82 . Under no circumstances should a development be approved with any
type of traffic signal on highway 82 at Cattle Creek.
I have traveled this section of road for 20 years starting when there were no traffic
lights from Walmart to Carbondale. Now there are 3 unsynched signals that change
on a whim causing seasoned drivers to react radically. This is not merely an
inconvenience or just a waste of increasingly expensive gasoline. The road known
as "killer 82" seems only more dangerous as the number of signals increases on a
raceway filled with aggressive drivers bent on beating the other to the next stoplight,
only to be thwarted by slower trucks hogging the left lane . I reside just a few
hundred yards from Cattle Creek Road so I have a vested interest in this project.
Please , no matter how large the development proposal is, insist that improvements
to the highway must include access ramps and a bridge but absolutely NO
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CATTLE CREEK ROAD. Future proposals will come and go
for this vast acreage and building the access plan to which I am referring is forward
thinking -especially since there is so much space (p rivately held) on the river side
(SE) of the highway at Cattle Creek .
Yes we are in a recession, but COOT/Washington may help fund a minor portion of
this . However, one other way might work.
If all traffic to the development is routed to the existing CMC traffic signal (aka
"Thunder River Market" or county road 114) and the intersection of 82 and 114 were
improved for the increased traffic, this may alleviate funding issues and improve
traffic flow. If this plan were to pass, an emergency only access port would need
to be installed at Cattle Creek and 82 and acceleration lanes in both directions, but
no new stoplight. I would also suggest enough space be left at the intersection by
the developer for future access ramps.
Please do not let the South of Glenwood become another El Jebel, and insist, "No
more stop lights!"
Mark VonderHaar
Brownstein I Hyatt
Farber I Schreck
EXHIBIT
MM
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
COPY TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 12 , 2011
Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner
Carey Gagnon , Assistant County Attorney
Fred Jarman, Director Building & Planning Department
Lori R. Baker
Wayne Forman
Requested Changes to Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval for River Edge
Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
On behalf of Carbondale Investments , LLC (the "Applicant"), this memorandum is provided to request
your consideration of changes to some of the conditions of approval recommended in Section IX of your
staff report dated September 14 , 2011. It is our hope that we can reach agreement on most of these
conditions ahead of the Planning Commission hearing this Wednesday. To this end, we are available
at your convenience to discuss.
For your ease of review, a redline showing the Applicant's proposed changes is provided below .
Provided under each revised condition is an e xplanation of the Applicant's reasons for the requested
change. As you will see , the proposed changes are in large part non-substantive and generally seek to
clarify the applicable standards.
In addition to changes identified in the redline , the Applicant requests that Conditions 11 .a and 11 .b and
Condition 13 be deleted if such conditions are satisfied prior to approval by the Board of County
Commissioners of the PUD Plan and Preliminary Plan for the River Edge Colorado project.
Lastly, we would appreciate your confirmation that you did not intend by proposing these conditions to
suggest that the various plans and standards included as part of the PUD and Preliminary Plan
Application do not adequately address the matters raised by the conditions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
13738\1\1584260.2
IX . STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Should the Planning Commission consider a recommendation of approval the following
conditions are provided for discussion and may or may not include a full l ist of staff
recommended conditions of approval:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application , and at the
public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall be conditions of approval , unless specifically altered by
the Board of County Commissioners.
2 . The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. tb.r:e.e
(3) years. unless extended in accordance with the ULUR.
Reason for change: The ULUR provides that "[u]nless otherwise provided by
[the ULUR] or stated in ac tion approving a land use change application, the
decis ion to approve or conditionally approve the land use change shall be val id
for a period of one year, to complete all conditions of approval." See ULUR §
4-103.G.8 (emphasis added). For the reasons set forth here in , the Applicant
requests that the staff and Planning Commission recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners (the "Board") that the Prelim inary Plan rema i n valid for
three (3) years . First, several of the conditions of approval recommended by
staff will take longer than one (1) year to complete . In addition , the tim ing
of completion of these conditions are not completely under the control of the
Applicant. For example, obtaining an access permit from COOT and , if
required by state law, a license from the PUC likely will take appro ximately two
(2) years . Similarly, reclamation of the project site and completion of the
required geotechnical work will take between two (2) and three (3) years . This
is particularly true given that proper geotechnical evaluat ion req uires that soils
settle for at least one (1) year subsequent to reclamation . In light of the
foregoing , the earliest a first final plat can be expected to be filed would be 3
years following approval of the Preliminary Plan . Given the t imeframes
described herein and the significant financial investment that the Appl icant w ill
incur in advance of final plat to satisfy these condit ions , it is reasonable and
appropriate for the Board to grant approval of a three-year expiration period for
the Applicant's Preliminary Plan.
3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be
366 units.
4 . The PUD Plan , PUD Guide and Prel iminary Plan documents shall be updated
based upon the approval and copies provided to Bu ilding & Plan ni ng . These
documents shall be attached to the resolutions associated w it h these
applications .
5. The Deve lopment Agreement shall be finalized based uponApplicant and
County shall enter into a development agreement approved by the
2
13738\1\1584260.2
Garfield County Attorney Office comments . Board of County
Commissioners.
Reason for change: The Applicant acknowledges that the final terms of the
development agreement will be negotiated with the County Attorneys' Office .
The proposed language change simply clarifies that final approval of the
development agreement rests with the Board .
6. Grading Activity I Reclamation
a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-
site activity related to Phase 0;
b . Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit;
c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall
occur until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SHAP) and
Notice to proceed has been issued by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (COOT);
7. Vegetation
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat the
Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC
property as well as the. which plan shall minimize to the greatest
extent practicable the spread of noxious weeds to the adjacent
Conservation Easement parcel. In addition. only if agreed to by
the Roaring Fork Conservancy. the management plan shall also
provide for the management of noxious weeds on the Conservation
Easement parcel;
Reason for change: The Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) is the
grantee under the Conservation Easement and , therefore, must
consent to any management plan imposed on the Conservation
Easement parcel. While the Appl icant can use good faith efforts to
reach agreement with the RFC on a management plan for the
Conservation Easement parcel , failure to reach such agreement should
not hinder the Applicant's ability to proceed with final plat.
b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the
5% requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute
requires that state listed A and B species must be eradicated when
detected with which the County concurs regarding all noxious weeds .
c. County Vegetation shall be consulted regarding the calculation of
revegetation security.
8. Geology
13738\1\1584260 .2
The Applicant shall comply with au~ recommendations contained within the
reports of the ir consulting geotechnical engineers and the Colorado Geologic
Survey , including the following :Geotechnical Engineering Report submitted
3
13738\1\1584260.2
for the project. as such recommendations may be amended through
further geotechnical investigations. including the items listed below. The
geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the
recommendations provided by the Colorado Geological Survey.
a. Additional geotechnical investigation and design is required prior to
approval of the f irstD etailed geotechnical investigations shall be
provided as part of the final design submitted for each final plat and
prior to aAythe commencement of construction commencing on the
site . Detailed cost on the site; provided. however. that detailed
geotechnical investigations for pre-development reclamation
lPhase 0) activities. which activities shall be conducted as part of
obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates
should be included for mitigation done as part of the public
improvements.
Reason for change: The Applicant agrees that detailed geotechnical
evaluations should be used to guide final design in association with all
final plats. However, the geotechnical investigations performed to date
should be considered preliminary analysis for the purposes of planning
and preliminary design. As such , the current report , including the
recommendations of the CGS, should be used to inform further analysis
rather than dictate final design actions. Deta iled geotechnical
investigations will be undertaken in association with the final design to
support development of each final plat.
b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted
at building permit.
c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the
site. Ver ification ofThe Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation
where further geotechnical investigations reveal that the soil and
bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or develop~
lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for providing
alternate emergency access . temporarv access. "Critical road
sections" are those road sections which if damaged by
subsidence would eliminate access to lots within the River Edge
Colorado project.
Reason for change: The Applicant agrees that mitigation needs to be
undertaken in accordance with the submitted Hazards Mitigation Plan.
The proposed language clarifies that (i) mitigation must occur where
geotechnical investigations reveal the potential for failure of critical road
sections and (ii) providing alternative routes is one mitigation option.
d. If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments ,
a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the County-fu!:
review .
4
13738\1\1584260 .2
e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below-grade
construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement
areas . The drain shall be placed at each level of excavation and at least
one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a
minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet.
Reason for change: Gravity drains may not always be the most
appropriate or best way to move water to nearby drainage structures or
facilities. The Applicant proposes that the method of draining the
underdrain system be determined on a site-by-site basis based on the
location of drainage facilities and the design engineer's judgment. The
Applicant also proposes eliminating the option for drywells since they
could exacerbate the problem .
f. Gt:H-Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlot/mass grading. as
applicable, cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not
exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to 1 o ~: in depth and not placed
on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes
shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected
against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap.
Reason for change: The previous language could be construed to not
allow roads or homes to be placed in areas of the property filled with
more than 10 feet of fill. As noted on the REC plans, many areas will
receive substantial fill either during reclamation or during overlot/mass
grading of the site . The fill will be placed in appropriately designed lifts
and compacted to support foundations . Appropriate geotechnical
evaluations would be completed as part of the fill placement activities .
g. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain
through the project and at individual sites and water shall not be
permitted to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations .
h . Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by
required exterior backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope
away from the building for a distance of at least 1 0 feet.
i. Roof downspouts and drains shall discharge well be discharged a
minimum of 10 feet beyond the =limits of all backfill and landscape
irrigation shall be restricted . 01)'\vells may be utilized . Landscape
irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the provisions of the
irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application
to ensure water application rates do not generally exceed
evapotransporation rates .
Reason for change: The language proposed by staff is vague (e .g .,
"well beyond"). The Applicant proposes to clarify in this condition that
the standards for irrigation systems within the project shall be those set
forth in the PUD Application . Such standards limit landscape types to
5
low water use types and irrigation act ivities to match
evapotransporation rates .
j. A detailed pavement design shall be provided post reclamation and in
conjunction with submittal of the first each final plat, to determine if
fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed .,... . Where fill
placement will occur as part of road construction activities in
association with any final plat as part of the subdivision
improvements rather than in advance of final plat application as
part of reclamation I Phase Ol or overlot or mass grading activities.
a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County for review
prior to paving; such report shall demonstrate that the fill will
achieve the pavement design objectives in the pavement design
report submitted with the PUD Application.
k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site
soils contain Type 1/11 portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium
aluminate).
9. Wildlife
The Applicant shall comply with a#the. recommendations conta ined within the
reports of theH:its consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Divis ion of
Wildlife, including the following :
a . Lighting of open space areas , including ind irect lighting and transient
lighting from roads and homes, is not recommended . Street lighting
shall generally conform to the lighting plan submitted as part of
the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces beyond the building
envelope areas is sternly discouraged except that required around
buildings in accordance with safety requirements is not permitted .
Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of
the roads ides in areas where headlights form fmm__vehicles
elluminat5e illuminate open space areas.
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to clarify iri this condition
that the lighting standards applicable to the project shall be those set
forth in the PUD Application . Such standards incorporate the
recommendations of the consulting wildlife biologist and CDOW. If staff
feels that specific recommendations need to be more adequately
addressed , the Applicant requests that staff identify such matters for the
Applicant 's cons ideration .
b. Road Fences along roads should not be perm itted exclusive of the elk
fence along SH 82 , cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be
des igned to facilitate wildlife movement except where retaining walls
=====:!!a~re~u,!!ti !!!liz~e2!d ; th is includes using native plant materials that mim ic local
native vegetat ion species and distribution in general conformance
with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application .
Reason for change: The Applicant seeks to clarify the retain ing
6
13738\1 \158426 0 .2
wall exception .
c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas should be closed
during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or
dog parks , should be on a leash year-round .
d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and
Roaring Fork River corridors .
e . Open space areas Space Tracts are used as winter range and severe
-------v~\\HI'in'*teeF-r n:ratRn~agee,;, therefo re! reclamation will need to occur using appropriate
native plant species and vegetation profiles in general conformance
with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape
plans submitted with the PUD Application. Revegetat ion should
occur as soon as possible . Noxious weeds should be treated bi-
annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range .
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to use the term "Open
Space Tracts" instead of "open space areas" since the former is defined
in the PUD Application . Also , the Applicant proposes to delete
reference to "severe" winter range since severe winter range has not
been . identified within the property .
f . Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and /or cat
per unit (plus young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when
outside of fenced yards during the winter months ; loose or
uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs shou ld be prohibited .
g. Adequate stormwater runoff measures related to protection of Cattle
Creek and Development of the Roaring fork River need to be
implemented to reduce the River Edge Colorado project shall
generally comply with the Erosion Control and Sediment Control
Plan submitted for the project. and as more specifically detailed
with each final plat. in order to reduce the likel ihood of pollutants and
sediment from developed afeaareH reaching these waterways Cattle
Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff should be filtered before
running into the river or caught and used for irr igation purposes .
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to clarify in this condition
that the stormwater management standards appl icable to the project
shall be those set forth in the Erosion Co ntrol and Sediment Control
Plan included with the PUD Application .
h. All utilities shall be buried .
10. Access and Roadways
13738\1\1584260 .2
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or~ submittal of the first Final
Plat the Applicant shall submit an executed State H ighway
7
Access Permit and Notice to Proceed to the Building and Planning
Department.
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to delete reference to
issuance of a grading permit because construction access for grading
already is addressed under Condition 6c.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading perm it or
b. If required by state law. uoon submittal of the fi.Fst each Final Plat1 the
Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission (PUC)!
Reason for change: The Applicant seeks to clarify that it will obtain a
crossing license only if required to do so under state law.
c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or undertaking the construction
of the grade-separated trail crossing or upon submittal of the first
Final Platfinal plat. the Applicant shall provide documentation from
Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the allowance to
relocate RETA's approval of the design for grade separating the Rio
Grande Trail. If construction collateral is not required by RFTA then
collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County
Improvements Agreement.
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes this language to provide
with more specificity its obligation to provide for RFTA approval design
plans for the grade-separated trail.
d. The REG alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either
an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to delete this condition
because the alley design set forth in Appendix B of the PUD Guide
satisfies this requirement.
11. Water
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat
the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water
Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No . 08CW198.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat
the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre-inclusion
agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to
the River Edge Colorado development.
12 . Final Plat Requirements
8
137 38\1\1584260.2
a. The Applicant shall comply with the final plat requirements in addition to
those requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land
use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR);
b. The Applicant shall delineate and lega lly describe all easements on the
final plat and convey all easements to the responsible entity. Th is
dedication shall be in a form acceptable to the County Attorney"s Office
and transfer shall occur at the time of recording of the final plat. These
easements shall include, but are not limited to all easements of record,
util ity easements, drainage easements, water system easements ,
stormwater drainage easements, open space and any internal roads
required as a part of this development; c.
Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to delete these
conditions because they are unnecessary . The Applicant already is
subject to the County's final plat requirements as set forth in the ULUR,
which requirements include requirements for identifying and dedicating
easements . See ULUR § 5-502 .C.5.
a. Plat notes , in add ition to the standard notes , shall include the following :
i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the
development. These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer
licensed in the State of Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified
geotechnical engineer stating that no special foundation design is
necessary.
13 . At the time of subm ittal for the first final plat , the Appl icant shall provide a c opy
. of the pre-inclusion agreement for the development to be served water and
sanitation services by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District;
14 . The Appl icant shall submit an appra isal with the first application for Final Plat in
the subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee-in -lieu payment of
school land dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the
fee-in lieu will be required prior to approval of the first final plat for the
subdivis ion ;
15. Prior to approva l and recordat ion of the f irst f inal plat The Applicant shall be
required to comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee
of $730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District.
Payment of this fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the
subdivision .
9
13738\1\1584260.2
EXHIBIT
REVISED CONDITIONS
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
INN
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be
conditions of approval , unless specifically altered by the . Board of County
Commissioners.
2. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year.
Staff Comment: The Applicant requests that the Preliminary Plan be valid for a
period of three (3) years. The ULUR does contain a process that allows for
extensions of the Preliminary Plan as it has been past practice to approve these
plans for a period of one year.
3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366
dwelling units.
4. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based
upon the approval granted by the Board of County Commissioners and copies provided
to Building & Planning. These documents shall be attached to the resolutions
associated with these applications.
5. The Development Agreement shall be finalized based upon Garfield County Attorney
Office and Board of County Commissioner comments .
Staff Comment: The Applicant has requested that this language be amended to:
11The Applicant and County shall enter into a development agreement approved by
. the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners." Staff has no issue with
this amended language however a timeframe for completion of this should be
stipulated in the condition. Potentia/language could be the inclusion of 11Which
shall be recorded in conjunction with the reso/ution(s) associated with these
applications."
6. Grading Activity I Reclamation
a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-site activity
related to Phase 0;
b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit;
c . No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such
time as a State Highway Access Permit (SHAP) and Notice to Proceed has been
issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT);
7. Vegetation
a . Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat, whichever shall come
first, the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC
property well as on the Conservation Easement parcel if agreed to by the Roaring
Fork Conservancy ;
Staff Comment: The Applicant has requested addition of language regarding
1
the prevention of spread of noxious weeds to the adjacent property however
the intent of the condition is to require a weed management plan for the
subject site as well as to prevent noxious weeds from impacting the adjacent
property. Staff does not agree to the additional language suggested by the
Applicant.
b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5%
requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state
listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County
concurs regarding all noxious weeds.
c. County Vegetation Management Director shall be consulted regarding the calculation
of revegetation security.
8. Geology
The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical
Engineering Report submitted for the project, as such recommendations may be
amended through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below.
The geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the recommendations
provided by the Colorado Geological Survey.
a. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be provided as part of the final design
submitted for each final plat and prior to the commencement of construction on the
site; provided, however, that detailed geotechnical investigations for pre-
development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, which activities shall be conducted as
part of obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates shall be
included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements.
b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit.
c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. The
Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation where further geotechnical
investigations reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections
may lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for alternate temporary
access. "Critical road sections" are those road sections which if damaged by
subsidence would eliminate access to lots within the REC project.
d. If an agreement is reached with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to stabilize the base
of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the
County.
e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below-grade construction such as
retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at
each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade.
f. Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlot/mass grading, as applicable, cut depths
for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be
limited to 1 0" in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent
unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and
protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap.
2
g. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the
project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could
impact slope stability and foundations.
h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior
backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a
distance of at least 1 0 feet.
i. Roof downspouts and drains will be discharged a minimum of ten feet beyond the
limits of all backfill. Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the
provision of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to
ensure water application rated to not generally exceed evapotransporation rates.
j. A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of each
final plat -to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Where fill
placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with nay
final plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of the final
plat application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities,
a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County for review prior to paving;
such report shall demonstrate that the fill will achieve the pavement design
objectives in the pavement design report submitted with the PUD Application.
k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain
Type 1/11 portland cement (less than 5% tri-calcium aluminate).
Staff Comments: Staff has made the requested changes to the conditions based
upon comment from the Applicant.
9. Wildlife
The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the reports of its
consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following:
a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from
roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the
lighting plan submitted as part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces
except that required around building in accordance with safety requirements is not
permitted. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 1 0' off of the
roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas.
b. Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82,
cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement
except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials
that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance
with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application ..
c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas shall be closed by the Property
Owners Association during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of
yards or dog parks, should be on a leash year-round.
d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork
River corridors.
3
e. Open Space Tracts are used as winter range; therefore, reclamation will need to
occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general
conformance with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans
submitted with the PUD Application. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible.
Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on
winter range.
f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus
young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during
the winter months; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be
prohibited.
g. Development of the REC project shall generally comply with the Erosion Control and
Sediment Control Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed
with each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment form
developed areas from reaching Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff
should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation
purposes.
h. All utilities shall be buried.
Staff Comments: Revisions requested by the Applicant have been completed.
10. Access and Roadways
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), if required by state law.
Staff Comments: The original condition a. has been deleted as requirement for
SHAP occurs in other conditions of approval. The Applicant has requested
amendment to the above condition regarding compliance with PUC
requirements that Staff is uncomfortable with, however the addition of
language regarding compliance with state law occurs at the end of the
condition.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shalt provide documentation from Roaring Fork
Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the acceptance of construction to grade separate
the Rio Grande Trail in the vicinity of the project entrance. If construction collateral is
not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shalt be included in a
County Improvements Agreement.
Staff Comments: The Applicant requests substantial modification of this
condition, particularly the timing for this improvement. Staff has modified the
conditions regarding RFTA approval but has not amended the timing for the
grade-separation as it has been staff understanding from the Applicant that
safety considerations would require grade separation prior to reclamation
activities on the site.
4
c. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an
emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck
This condition is a recommendation of the reviewing engineer and will assure
that these large vehicles will be able to access the alleys within the REC
project. Staff does not agree with the Applicants' requested deletion of this
condition.
11. Water
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District
Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No. OBCW198.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre-
inclusion agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to the
River Edge Colorado development.
12. Final Plat Reguirements
The Applicant shall comply with the following final plat requirements in addition to those
requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008,
as amended (ULUR).
a. The Applicant shall provide the following information as submittal requirements with
the first final plat application:
i. An Improvements Agreement;
ii. Demonstration of formation of the Property Owner's Association;
iii. Draft deeds for conveyance of improvements, facilities or real property from the
Applicant to the POA;
iv. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) applicable to the development.
b. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following:
i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development.
These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no
special foundation design is necessary.
13. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the
subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee-in-lieu payment of school land
dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee-in lieu will be
required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision;
14. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to
comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit
for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur
prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision.
5