Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 PC Staff Report 06.11.2003PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE (S): LOCATION: WATER/SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING / ADJACNET ZONING: PC: 6/11/03 TP Preliminary Plan review for the Village View Village PUD Subdivision A request to subdivide approximately 36 acres into 47 lots; 119 units consisting of single-, two- and multi -family dwelling units. Edward and Ida Lee Hoglund Dartar, LLC.; Deric Walters — High Country Engineering ("HCE"); and Ron Liston — Land Design Partnership The property is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Battlement Mesa Parkway and Stone Quarry Road within the Battlement Mesa PUD. Battlement Mesa Consolidated Metropolitan District Battlement Mesa Parkway and Stone Quarry Road PUD (Planned Unit Development) / Battlement Mesa PUD At the May 14, 2003, regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant requested that the application be continued to June 11, 2003, in order to resolve a number of issues that were presented by staff in the previous memorandum that was compiled for this project. This memorandum has been amended to reflect the items that have been resolved. This is a continued public hearing from the May 14, 2003. I. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 36 acres site into 47 lots, as follows: Strue No. of Units its 1 -22 is 27-4S t23 1€it2& l,ct 25 last 26 1l()t 4(� 1 (Single -Family) 1 (Single -Family) 1 (Two -Family) 1 (Two -Family) 1 (Two -Family) 1 1 2 each Total Units 22 19 2 7 3 (Multi -Family) 2 (Multi -Family) 2 (Multi -Family) 7 (Multi -Family) Vacant 2 each 2 each 6 each 2 2 18 2 each 4 each 6 each 4 8 42 n/a 0 119 units Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 2 II. BACKGROUND The subject tract of land was not included in the original Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). In 1982, the Gun Stock Ranch Partnership requested an amendment to the Battlement Mesa PUD to include the subject property within the boundary of the PUD and to divide the property into four different zone districts each of which are described in the Battlement Mesa PUD. Approval of this amendment was granted by the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") pursuant to Resolution No. 82-330 (Exhibit K). The four zone districts include: 1. Neighborhood Commercial ("NC") 2. Medium Density Residential ("MDR") 3. Low Density Residential ("LDR") 4. Public Space / Residential ("PSR") It appears that the PSR zone district was an error given that in Resolution No. 80-82 (see Exhibit L) there is no PSR zone district within the district regulation for the Battlement Mesa PUD. It appears that it was the intent of Item 4, above, to read "Public, Semipublic, Recreation", which is the proper title for the public space district of the Battlement Mesa PUD. The configuration of the listed zone districts was defined by a plan titled "Conceptual Land use Diagram, Skeme 1". The Public, Semi -Public, and Recreation ("PSR") Zone District is in the northwest corner of the property within an area dedicated to Garfield County in 1982. The owners of Gun Stock Ranch Partnership gave Garfield County this approximately 2 acre tract of land after PUD approval in 1982. Pursuant to Resolution No. 82-327 (Exhibit M), the Board granted an exemption from the definition of subdivision for the division of approximately 38 acres of land into two tracts: 2 acres and 36 acres. Exemption Plat was not recorded in 1982. Conceptual Land Use Diagram, Scheme 1 III. SITE DESCRIPTION / EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is bound by South Battlement Parkway to the north, which is a four lane roadway divided by a center landscaped median. Stone Quarry Road, to the east, is also a four lane roadway without a median. The property slopes in a north and west direction and is bisected by a well-defined drainage that runs midway along the easterly boundary (Stone Quarry Road) of the property in a northwesterly direction across the property. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 3 The property is improved with an old homestead (vacant ranch house and accessory structures). The vegetation on site consists of sparse grassland south of the gully, pinion and juniper on the north side of the gully and dry land pasture around the existing homestead. There is a high voltage power line that crosses the northwest corner of the Garfield County parcel within a 100 -foot wide easement. A high pressure natural gas transmission line enters the property, through the Garfield County parcel, in the northwest corner, and parallels the south side of the gully to Stone Quarry Road where it turns south and parallels Stone Quarry Road. This gas line does not lie within the designated, recorded 50 -foot wide easement. On the Preliminary Plan, there are two 50' Gas Easements delineated. One is the recorded 50' Gas Easement and the other is a proposed 50' Gas Easement which represents the location of the actual gas line. The Applicant noted that appropriate documents are being processed with the gas company to record a new easement based on the actual location of the gas line. These documents shall be submitted prior to Final Plat approval. There also a 20' Utility Easement along the southwestern corner of the subject property abutting Lots 16, 17 and 18. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The northeast comer of the proposed development, Lot 47, is identified as an area for future development. The Applicant indicated that a plat note is proposed that will restrict the issuance of a building permit within Lot 47 until such time as this lot has been re -subdivided in accordance with standard subdivision procedures. The Applicant noted that it is likely that at a future time, an amendment to the PUD will be applied for to rezone all or nearly all of this commercial designated area to residential use. The zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) area is located south and west of the gulley. Multi -family development with a mixture of building sizes and dwelling unit designs are proposed for these areas. Individual structures will contain two, four and six dwelling units. Single-family residential units are proposed in the southerly area of the subdivision within the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning. These lots within the LDR range from 7,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet in size. Open Space corridors along the west and south sides of the subject property are in accordance with the Conceptual Plan approved in 1982. A more detailed discussion with respect to these open space corridors can be seen further in this memorandum. There are four tracts (Tracts B, C, D and E) that have been identified as open space areas within the subdivision. Tract B is an area between the county owned property, in the northwest corner of the property, and the right-of-way to be dedicated to the County (identified as Tract A). Tract C is located immediately north of Lots 25 and 26. Tract D is an open space area that encompasses the gulley from Valley View Drive to Stone Quarry Road. The majority of this tract is located within the floodplain. And, Tract E, the open space area south side of Valley View Drive, will be developed into a park with an asphalt pedestrian path, children's play equipment, benches, landscaping and an automatic underground irrigation system. The pedestrian path connects with the sidewalk system that circulates throughout the Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 4 residential areas of the project. The Applicant has identified along Battlement Parkway, from Valley View Drive to Stone Quarry Road, a 6' asphalt trail which will be constructed with Phase A of the project (see Sheet 25 of the Preliminary Plan for the location of the trail and Sheet 24 for the construction detail of the trail). The 6' asphalt trail from Battlement Parkway, along Stone Quarry Road, to Valley View Drive is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with Phase D of the project. The 8' pedestrian bridge over the gully will also be constructed at Phase D. V. ADJACENT LAND USES: The following land uses surround the subject site: 1. North: Battlement Mesa Parkway & Willow Park Apartments. 2. East: Stone Quarry Road; Vacant land; Cemetery adjacent to County Road 302 3. South: Vacant land 4. West: Vacant land VI. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property is designated on the `Proposed Land Use Districts Map for Study Areas 2 & 3' in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as "Subdivision". The property does lie within the Parachute 2 mile Sphere of Influence. Comments from the Town of Parachute have been integrated throughout this memorandum and can be seen in more detailed in Exhibit S. A number of policies in Comprehensive Plan are aimed at reducing density in future developments and preserving open space and agricultural uses. The following statements from the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies are applicable to this application: 5.0 Recreation and Open Space Policies: 5.3 If physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to design open space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open spaces adjacent to the project. 5.0(a) Open Space and Trails Goal: 5.1(A) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 5 5.3(A) That the development of passive and active trails in the County should be developed in a comprehensive fashion, consistent with efforts by adjacent jurisdictions. 7.0 Water and Sewer Services Objective: 7.2 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity in their central water / sewer systems will be strongly encouraged to tie into these services before project approval. 7.6 High density development, defined as exceeding one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, will be required to assess the potential of connecting into exiting central water and sewer facilities. Policies: 7.5 High density development is considered urban in nature and requires appropriate service. Through the Zoning Resolution, Garfield County will strongly encourage high density development to locate in areas where these services are available. 8.0 Natural Environment Goals: Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes that environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County. Objectives: 8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment. 8.3 Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration. 8.5 Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique to the proposed site. 8.6 Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected. 8.7 Development will be encouraged in areas with the least development constraints. Policies: 8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so that cumulative impact of public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed the capacity of Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 6 natural or constructed drain -ways, or to subject other areas to an increased potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water. 10.0 Urban Area of Influence Goals Promote development in and around existing communities. Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. Objectives: 10.5 Development that requires urban services will be encouraged to locate in areas where these services are available. 10.6 Development in an Urban Area of Influence will have street patterns that are compatible with the affected municipality. Policies 10.2 Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities that require urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction. VII. REFERRAL AGENCIES: The application was referred to the following agency (ies) for comments. Comments that were received have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable. 1. Town of Parachute: Exhibit Y. 2. Grand Valley Fire Protection District: Exhibit HH, II, and LL. 3. School District 16: Exhibit X. 4. Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District: Exhibit N, S, and V. 5. Public Service Company / Xcel Energy: Exhibit DD. 6. Western Slope Gas Company: No comments. 7. US West Communications: No comments. 8. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit FF. 9. Colorado Division of Water Resource: Exhibit 0 and R. 10. Colorado Geological Survey: Exhibit MM. 11. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Exhibit W. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 7 12. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibit GG. 13. Garfield County Engineering Department: Exhibit Z and BB. 14. Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District: No comments. VIII. APPLICABLITY: Pursuant to section 4:20 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Commission shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. The Commission shall complete its review and make its recommendation to the Board at the public hearing on the Preliminary Plan or continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for additional information or public input before making a decision. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the Plan. The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth in the minutes of the meeting or in a written Resolution. If the Final Plat is to be phased, the Planning Commission shall recommend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval. IX. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Zoning As noted previously, as part of the approval granted in 1982, pursuant to Resolution No. 82-330 (see Exhibit K), four specific Zone Districts were designated on the subject property in conjunction with the zoning of the Battlement Mesa PUD. The configuration of the zone districts were delineated on a plan titled "Conceptual Land Use Diagram, Scheme 1" which was included with Resolution No. 82-330 as Exhibit A. These Zone Districts include: 1. Neighborhood/Commercial ("NC") 2. Medium Density Residential ("MDR") 3. Low Density Residential ("LDR") 4. Public Space/Residential [which should actually read Public, Semipublic, and Recreation pursuant to Resolution No. 80-82] ("PSR") Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 8 Pursuant to Resolution 80-82 (Exhibit L), specified development regulations, such as lot area, setbacks, and uses, for each of the above-mentioned Zone Districts are outlined. Excerpts of these district regulations are included with the application. The PUD approval, pursuant to Resolution No. 82-330, was granted subject to the following conditions [Staff responses are in italics]: 1. That the property be tied into the pedestrian and bike plan, which ties into the Open Space, and that some provision be made to facilitate safe crossing of the Battlement Parkway. The Applicant will be providing a pedestrian crossing of Stone Quarry Road where it intersects with Valley View Drive. Appropriate signage will be installed to alert north and south bound Stone Quarry Road traffic of the pedestrian crossing. The Applicant has not provided an exact location of the proposed pedestrian crossing. There is an existing pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road. 2. That the Gun Stock Ranch Development and Architectural Standard is compatible with that of Battlement Mesa and parallel in review structure or agree to submit to review by the Battlement Mesa Design Review Committee. Article VI of the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Valley View Village Subdivision outlines the Architectural Committee for the Valley View Village Subdivision. It is unclear as to whether these architectural guidelines are compatible with those of Battlement Mesa. 3. That because this parcel is part of the whole PUD, there should be some specific agreement for inclusion of this parcel and to the maintenance and improvements of the PUD Open Space and PSR Districts at the sketch plan. According to the Applicant, a Valley View Village `Master' homeowners association will be incorporated to own and maintain the common open space tracts and to maintain public roads within the subdivision. One or more `slave' homeowners associations will be formed to own and maintain common use property and facilities, including drives and parking, within the multi- and two-family areas. At the time of Final Plat, Valley View Village will be annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association, which owns and maintains various Battlement Mesa Community wide common use facilities. Each lot owner within Valley View Village will thereby be a member of the Battlement Mesa Service Association and will pay dues to that Association at a rate that is 50% of the regular dues. 4. The MDR (Medium Density Residential) and NC (Neighborhood/Commercial) Districts should be connected across the gulley on the property by a pedestrian bridge. On Sheet 25 of the Preliminary Plan, a pedestrian bridge has been delineated adjacent to Stone Quarry Road. The Applicant has noted that this pedestrian bridge, along with the easterly 6' asphalt trail will be constructed in conjunction with Phase D of the project. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 9 5. That the Applicant should provide landscaping, berming and buffers along Battlement Parkway and the proposed uses. On Sheet 3 of 4 on the Preliminary Plan, a 15' wide "landscape buffer" easement has been identified on the Lot 47 from Valley View Drive adjacent to Battlement Mesa Parkway to Stone Quarry Road. The Applicant has noted that since the 15 ' wide Landscape Buffer Easement is entirely located on Lot 47, a Landscape Plan for Lot 47 will be submitted to the County at the time of re -subdivision. The Applicant noted that a plat note on the Preliminary Plan will be added to secure this requirement. B. Water Supply / Wastewater The property is located within the Battlement Mesa Community Consolidated Metropolitan District ("CMD"). Staff understands that CMD is obligated to provide wastewater and water service to the subdivision. The Applicant asserted that all water and sewer lines will be constructed per the District's specifications and dedicated to the District. Pursuant to Section 4:91(C) of the Subdivision Regulations: "If connection is to be made to an existing water system, a letter from an authorized representative of said system staging that the proposed development will be served, and evidence from either the Colorado State Engineer's Office or Water Court, Water Division No. 5, that the existing water system presently possesses an adequate legal water supply to serve the proposed development." The Applicant did provide a will -serve letter from R. Bruce Smith of CMD. The Applicant also provided a letter from CMD to Schmueser Gordon Meyer dated December 18, 1997, which pertains to the water rights possessed by the Consolidated Metropolitan District (Exhibit Q). Comments were received from Stephen LaBonde of West Water Engineering ("WWE"), the engineering firm that represents CMD (see Exhibit S). In summary, Mr. LaBonde noted that: "all the District's requirements for water and sewer -line extensions in new developments will need to be met including Plan and Profile Sheets separate from the street design. Because of the level of comments, we would recommend that that water distribution system be re -analyzed with appropriate demands and existing system pressures, and the Utility Composite sheets be revised to address the aforementioned comments and resubmitted to the District for further review, prior to the Preliminary Plan being approved." Staff understands that the Applicant has been working with CMD to resolve the issues outlined by WWE (see Exhibit I). Although CMD is obligated to provide water and wastewater service to the subdivision, according to Bruce Smith of CMD, the Applicant needs to resolve all the issues raised by WWE, instead of merely promising to resolve them (see Exhibit U). To staff's knowledge, no resolution has been made. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 10 The Applicant submitted an updated "Preliminary Water Report", which was also submitted to WWE and CMD. The Report was too extensive to include as an exhibit with, but will be available at the meeting for the Commissioners to review. A copy of the letter from HCE (see Exhibit T) submitted to WWE addressing the issues raised by WWE has been attached to this memorandum. Since CMD and WWE received the Report and revised preliminary plan drawings on June 2nd or 3`d, no comments from either entity have been provided prior to the distribution of this memorandum. Without an affirmative recommendation from the CMD or their consultant, it is difficult for staff to make the finding of an adequate physical water supply for the subdivision required under section 4:91(A) and (C) of the Subdivision Regulations. However, staff understands that CMD is obligated to provide the project with water and wastewater service. Therefore, it is staff's opinion, that prior to Board of County Commissioner review, the Applicant shall be required to provide a letter from CMD to the County indicating that all engineering challenges, in order for the subdivision to connect to CMD, have been resolved. Kenneth Knox of the Division of Water Resources noted in his comments dated May 6, 2003, that "pursuant to CRS 30-26-136(1)(h)(II), it is our opinion that the proposed water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights so long as Consolidated Metropolitan District operates according to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation" (see Exhibit R). In addition, Mr. Knox noted that "the average daily demand for the project is estimated to be 75,250 gallon per day (84.3 AF/yr). A letter dated January 28, 2003, from CMD shows that the District has agreed to provide water and sewer services for Valley View, based upon an estimated peak day water demand of 225,750 gallons per day (three times the average daily demand) for the proposed 215 EQR's. " Comments were received from Jeff Nelson, Assistant County Engineer, which outlined a variety of issues pertaining to the sanitary sewer (see Exhibit Z). The Applicant has worked with Mr. Nelson to resolve these issues. Mr. Nelson provided a letter indicating that all issues with respect to wastewater have been resolved (see Exhibit BB). C. Utilities The Applicant noted that that following shallow utilities will be provided to the subdivision: 1. Telephone — Qwest 2. Electric — Xcel Energy 3. Gas — Xcel Energy 4. Cable TV — Battlement Mesa Communications Will serve letters from Qwest and Battlement Mesa Communication were not provided. Kathryn Bauer of Xcel Energy / Public Service Company ("PSCo") indicated that PSCo determined that a conflict exists (see Exhibit DD). PSCo has a 230Kv Electrical Transmission Line located within the Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 11 proposed development. Ms. Bauer noted that any crossings, designations of open space, proposed landscaping, or similar activities involving the existing transmission line right-of-way would require PSCo approval through a license agreement by the adjacent landowner/developer and PSCo. According to Jim Craig of PSCo, the 230Kv Electrical Transmission Line is the electrical line that traverses the property within the 50' gas line easement and not the electrical line within the 100 -foot easement that traverses the county owned property. David McConaughy of Leavenworth & Karp, legal council for the Applicant, provided a letter explaining that the rights-of-way easements for the gas transmission line reserve rights to the landowner to use and occupy the easement for any purpose that will not interfere with or endanger any of the gas company's facilities (see Exhibit EE). The Applicant has offered to grant Xcel a new easement that will legalize the existing location of the gas line and that clearly states the owner's ability to install roads and other utility services within the new gas line easement. There has been no resolution on this. The Applicant requested that this issue be resolved prior to Final Plat. It is staff's opinion that this issue should be resolved prior to the Board review of Preliminary Plan and that documentation shall be provided. According to Jeff Nelson, Assistant County Engineer, the issues with respect to the Utility Plans addressed in his letter dated April 21, 2003, (see Exhibit Z) have been resolved (see Exhibit BB). D. Floodplain / Wetlands The property is located on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel 1315 of 1900), Community -Panel No. 080205 1315B. The map indicates that the site has two areas that have been designated as containing Zone A. One area mapped for Zone A encompasses the gully that traverses the property. The second area is along the southwest corner of Lots 16, 17 & 18. Zone A on the FEMA maps is explained as `areas of 100 year flood, base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.' The Applicant noted that since these onsite flood areas where not determined, HCE calculated flood elevations in two critical locations. HCE determined that the buildings in Basin PR -D (Exhibit 4 of the Proposed Drainage Map) are adequate. There does not appear to be development within the 100 -year floodplain that would warrant a Floodplain Special Use Permit. There are no lakes or streams located on the subject property. E. Soils/Geology According to the soil survey, from USDA Soil and Conservation Service, the soils on the subject property consist of: 1. Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes: deep, well -drained, moderate permeability, hydrologic Group B. 2. Potts-Ildefonso complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes: deep, well -drained, moderate permeability, hydrologic Group B. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 12 The interpretation tables for these types of soils can be seen in more detail in the application. A Geotechnical Study (Job No. 102 526, dated September 16, 2002) for the subdivision was conducted for the project by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech"), which can be seen in more detail in that application. In summary, HP GeoTech indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed development based on geologic and geotechnical conditions. The Geotechnical Study ("Study") noted that if the development plan changes significantly from what is described in the Study, HP GeoTech shall be notified in order to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in the Study. HP GeoTech provided conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, and their experience in the area. The Study indicates that the recommendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design, but site specific studies should be conducted for the individual development facilities and for building on each lot. The `Preliminary Design Recommendations' outlined in the Study provides provisions for foundations, floor slabs, under - drain system, surface drainage, and pavement subgrade which shall be adhered. HP GeoTech noted that the conclusions and recommendations submitted in the Study are based upon the data obtained from review of previous geologic reports, the exploratory borings, the proposed type of construction, and their experience in the area. The findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variation in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations in the Study. Sean Gaffney of the Colorado Geological Survey ("CGS") indicated that CGS is in general agreement with the under -drain system recommendation in the HP GeoTech report (see Exhibit MM). Mr. Gaffney noted that "due to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations. Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the overall potential for expansion or consolidation." F. Radiation: According to HP GeoTech (see Exhibit CC), the proposed development is not located in an area where geologic deposits are expected to have unusually high concentrations of radioactive minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. HP GeoTech indicated that it is difficult to assess the potential for future radon gas concentrations in buildings before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas can be done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed. HP GeoTech noted that new buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower enclosed spaces should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas concentrations. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 13 G. Drainage The Drainage Plan submitted with the application was prepared by High County Engineering ("HCE"). According to HCE, the purpose of the plan is to outline a storm water management system to accommodate the runoff from the development in accordance with the regulations by Garfield County. Historic stormwater generally flows from southeast to northwest. There are two drainages that flow through the site. The first drainage way is located in the northern half of the site. The second drainage swale is located on the southwest corner of the site. HCE indicated that the overall drainage patterns under developed conditions are proposed to be similar to those of existing (historic) conditions with on- site detention where developed basin flows exceed historic conditions. Jeff Nelson, Assistant County Engineer, indicated in his letter dated April 21, 2002, (see Exhibit Z) that on the Proposed Drainage Map, Sheet 8 of the Preliminary Plan: 1. Portions of the proposed detention facility are located off the Applicant's property and on Garfield County's property. The facility should be adjusted so it is entirely located within the subject property. If this is not feasible, then an agreement between the Applicant, subdivision, and Garfield County shall be drawn up by the Applicant. In this agreement, Garfield County should have use of the facility for storage, etc. for any improvements to the county property. If the agreement is completed then the detention facility shall need to be redesigned to handle any additional storage capacities associated with the agreement. 2. A copy of the approval letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating they have given permission for the detention facility to be located within the 100 -year floodplain at its current proposed location shall be provided. This document should also address the proposed design and the facilities location within an existing drainage channel. The Applicant responded that a formal request for the use of a portion of the County parcel will be made to the Commission at the public hearing. According to HCE's Drainage Report, the proposed pond has already been oversized to accommodate for the future developed runoff from the County parcel. The Applicant noted that if an agreement cannot be reached, revisions will be made to move most of the detention to the east side of Valley View Circle (see Exhibit I). Sean Gaffney of the Colorado Geological Survey ("CGS") noted that "the proposed changes to the slope grade along the drainage that crosses the site appear to be configured at a stable angle. Once the grading plan has been completed, the drainage report should be updated to account for the new cross-sectional profile of the drainage. If the new channel cross-section changes the flow velocities within the drainage, some type of slope reinforcement maybe necessary to prevent erosion along the length of the fill slope." Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 14 H. Road/Access Valley View Drive is the primary roadway through the subdivision, accessing off of both South Battlement Mesa Parkway and Stone Quarry Road. Cliff View Circle and Gregory Lane access off of Valley View Drive to provide access to the units / lots in the south and west portion of the subdivision. Cliff View Circle is a semi -loop roadway off of Valley View Drive which will serve the south and west single family lots. Cliff View Circle connects Cliff View Lane, adjacent to Lots 31 — 38, and Gregory Lane, adjacent to Lots 27, 34, 35 and 26. Gregory Lane intersects with Cliff View Circle and Cliff View Court, which provides access to the two- and multi -family units. There is a looped "40' private access, ingress, egress, emergency access, utility and drainage easement", referred to as Bryan Loop, off of Cliff View Court. This provides access to the proposed 18 units on Lot 26. There are also three (3) "40' private access, ingress, egress, emergency access, utility and drainage easements" accessing off of Valley View Drive providing access to the units on Lot 46. Two of the three 40' easements, referred to as Angelica Circle, connect with the proposed 50' wide gas easement, which has been identified on the preliminary plan as "50' private access, ingress, egress, emergency access, utility and drainage easement". It appears, according to the Xcel Energy / Public Service Company (PSCo) comments (see Exhibit V), that there is a conflict with this 50' easement that has not been resolved. The Applicant shall determine whether access over the proposed 50' easement is acceptable with PSCo. Jessica Lane is an access point that enters Lot 46 in the middle off of Valley View Road. Tract A, approximately 0.648 acres, adjacent to Tract B in the northwest corner of the property, has been identified on the Preliminary Plan as an area to be "dedicated to Garfield County for public right-of-way". A Traffic Analysis, prepared by High Country Engineering ("HCE"), is included with the application. The purpose of the analysis was to determine what improvements would need to be made to allow for a safe intersection. The anticipated improvements are as follows: 1. Valley View and Stone Quarry Road: This intersection will not have any additional turning lanes. According to the CDOT Access Code, this intersection does not have enough turning movements to warrant additional lanes. 2. Valley View and Battlement Mesa Parkway: A right turn deceleration will be provided for vehicles entering the project, because per the CODT Access Code, this turning lane is warranted. No other turning lanes are required. 3. Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road: No improvements are required or needed at this intersection. HCE concluded that the project itself will have very little impact on the surrounding roadway capacities, however, if growth continues at the rate of 4.5% per annum, the intersection of Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road will need to be signalized within 10 years. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 15 The Applicant noted that a pedestrian crossing of Stone Quarry Road is proposed at its intersection with Valley View Drive. The Applicant asserted that there is approximately 350 feet of sight distance from the south and in excess of 400 feet of sight distance from the north. The Applicant indicated that it is anticipated that there will be a strong desire for pedestrians to access the Battlement Mesa Community Trail System located on the east side of Stone Quarry Road. The Applicant asserted that appropriate signage will be installed at alert north and south bound Stone Quarry traffic of the pedestrian crossings. The exact location of the pedestrian crossing has not been identified on the preliminary plan maps and shall be delineated on the Final Plat. The Comprehensive Plan defines County Road 300 (Stone Quarry Road and South Battlement Mesa Parkway) as a road in "fair" condition. Jake Mall, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, provided the following comments (see Exhibit W): 1. The deceleration lane for the entrance to Valley View Drive from South Battlement Parkway shall have proper signage to indicate traffic exiting South Battlement Parkway. A stop sign shall be required at the exit from Valley View Drive onto South Battlement Parkway. 2. On the downhill lane of South Battlement Parkway at the exit of Valley View Drive, a sign designating the intersection shall be installed. 3. It was agreed upon during the site visit on April 10, 2003, that a deceleration lane from Stone Quarry Road was not needed for the entrance to Valley View Drive. 4. A stop sign shall be required at the exit from Valley View Drive onto Stone Quarry Road. There shall be an intersection sign placed on both traffic directions of Stone Quarry Road warning of traffic entering and exiting from Valley View Drive. 5. The cross walk on Stone Quarry Road shall be located as agreed to on the site visit (adjacent to Stone Quarry Road). A portion of the guardrail of Stone Quarry Road may be removed to accommodate cross walk. There shall be flashing lights and proper signage warning traffic traveling in both directions on Stone Quarry Road of the cross walk. 6. Proper work zone signage and traffic control shall be required for all work being performed on South Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road and of construction vehicles entering and exiting project. 7. All signage and flashing lights shall meet standards and installation guidelines as set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 8. Driveway access permits will be issued with provisions specific to the permits upon final approval of the subdivision. The Applicant indicated that access within the multi -family areas will be privately owned and maintained by the multi -family homeowners association, but will be overlain with an emergency access easement to facilitate police and fire services. The Applicant noted that section 11.2 of the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development District Regulations specifically provides for the designation of private roadways at the time of subdivision platting. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 16 Jeff Nelson, Assistant County Engineer, noted that all rights-of-way shall be 60 feet wide per 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations. The roadways fall into the minor collector category according to Mr. Nelson's preliminary trip count estimates. The plans show Angelica Circle and Jessica Lane labeled as private access easements. These should also be public rights-of-way and 60 feet wide (see Exhibit Z). In addition, Mr. Nelson noted in his letter dated May 29, 2003, that since the "Battlement Mesa zoning regulations have jurisdiction in this proposed development. ...I recommend that battlement mesa submit a response letter stating they have review the subdivision and all the proposed rights of way or proposed private access easement widths are acceptable. I reviewed it in reference to the current Garfield County subdivision regulations" (see Exhibit AA). Staff would agree with the Applicant that Resolution No. 80-82 (see Exhibit K), approved by the County in 1982, outlined land use districts within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development with "District Regulations", dimensional standards, which included provisions for street standards. Since these regulations where adopted by the County, these regulations shall be utilized in the County's review of this project. The Applicant shall note that the roads within the subdivision are not considered private. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, "All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the Subdivision." This shall be reflected in the Protective Covenants. John Loschke of the Town of Parachute provided the following comments with respect to the project (see Exhibit Y): 1. The Traffic Study submitted with the application does not identify the access point to Battlement Mesa, i.e. the I-70 Interchange at Parachute, or the Colorado River bridge. The proposed development will generate a considerable amount of daily trips not only across the Colorado River bridge and the I-70 Interchange, but on the Town of Parachute. 2. Ordinance No. 469, adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Parachute, after the completion of an extensive traffic study, established a Master Plan which included street improvements and carefully considered costs related to residential and commercial developers. The traffic study specifically addressed the I-70 Interchange area and the needs that the continued growth would create. The Board of Trustees would like to see some consideration from Garfield County and the developers that will utilize the river crossing, the I-70 Interchange, streets and intersections within the Town. 3. There are additional concerns regarding law enforcement related to traffic on County Road 300 and the backed up traffic at South Frontage Road, Grand Valley Way, and the I-70 east and west bound access lanes. The Parachute Police Department and the Garfield County Sheriff's Department have an "agreement of understanding" that the Parachute Police Department will respond to calls in the Battlement Mesa area when an emergency situation arises and a Garfield Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 17 County Officer's estimated arrival time to the scene will be more than 15 minutes. To date, this cooperative agreement has worked effectively, however, with added growth it could limit coverage to the entire area. 4. The Board of Trustees and staff realize the benefits of growth in the area and the positive effect on businesses in the Town of Parachute. The Town requests that the Garfield County the burden of the development and maintenance of the streets and roads accessing the development and the possibility of additional Parachute Police Department officers should not be the sole responsibility of the Town of Parachute tax payers. The subject property is located within the 2 -mile sphere of influence for the Town of Parachute, however, it is not located within the Town of Parachute's municipal boundary. There is no legal basis for the County to require the developer to pay the street improvement fees in accordance to the Town of Parachute recently adopted Ordinance. This application was not referred to the Sheriff's Department. I. Fire Protection The Applicant has established a Wildfire Mitigation Plan ("Wildfire Plan") for the Subdivision which was submitted with the application. The Applicant indicated that the mitigation measures outlined in the Wildfire Plan include landscaping design and maintenance practices that will reduce the wildfire hazard to the residential units within the Subdivision. The following mitigation measures have been outlined in the Wildfire Plan for the Subdivision, which closely reflect the standard requirements for wildfire mitigation by the Colorado Forest Service: 1. Trees greater than 15 -feet in height at maturity should have a minimum spacing of 5 -feet between the edges of the crown. All dead trees should be removed. 2. Spacing between clumps of brush and/or shrubs should be 2 1/2 times the height of the vegetation. 3. The maximum diameter of the brush and/or shrub clumps should be 2 times the height of the vegetation measured at the crown of vegetation. 4. All ladder fuels should be removed from under brush, shrubs, and the tree canopies. 5. Non-combustible ground cover (gravel) should be placed under trees, brush, and shrubs to the edges of the crown or the vegetation should be pruned to a height of 10 -feet above the ground or 'A the height of the plant, whichever is the least. 6. Native grasses used for grazing and hay production should be kept to a minimum of 30 feet from all structures. 7. Lawns should be kept to a maximum height of 4 -inches. The Wildfire Mitigation Plan, dated January 24, 2003, (HCE Project No. 2021056.00) shall be referenced within the Protective Covenants and as a note on the Final Plat. David Blair of the Grand Valley Fire Protection District ("District") provided in his initially letter dated April 28, 2003, a number of comments / concerns regarding the project (see Exhibit HH). The Applicant has worked with Mr. Blair to resolve some of the comments and concerns. Mr. Blair noted in his letter Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 18 dated May 30, 2003, (see Exhibit LL) that the items outlined in HCE's letter (see Exhibit KK) are acceptable and shall be addressed prior to Final Plat. J. Wildlife The Applicant provided a Wildlife Report prepared by Kirk Beattie of Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. dated August 18, 2002. In summary of this extensive report, Mr. Beattie noted that "for several reasons, development of the Battlement Mesa Subdivision will have very minimal impacts on wildlife" habitat. Mr. Beattie noted that there are no Federal or Colorado threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife, or Colorado species of special concern, which will be measurably impacted by the subdivision. Mr. Beattie did provided the following wildlife mitigation measures, which should be included within the Protective Covenants: 1. Dog and Pet Control (pages 18, 19 and 20) of the report. However, pursuant to section 9:15 of the Subdivision Regulation, only 1 dog is allowed for each a residence. 2. Garbage, Trash, and Compost Containers. Garbage and trash shall be in secured receptacles. 3. Indemnification, disposal of animal carcasses, skunk and raccoon denning areas, and enforcement of provisions by the homeowners association. John Broderick, Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided the following comments (see Exhibit FF): 1. Some of the details contained in the Wildlife Report ("Report") prepared by Beattie Natural Resource Consulting, are different than those proposed in the Protective Covenants for the subdivision. 2. In page 20 of the Report, garbage containers are addressed in a different manner than is proposed in Item 5.23 of the Covenants. The CDOW supports the language and intent in the Covenant. 3. CDOW believes that controlling dogs per Item 5.13 of the Covenants is preferred over those measures proposed in the Report (page 20). 4. Cats shall also be included in the Covenants. 5. CDOW endorses the provisions of Item 6.6(d) of the Covenants to restrict fence height to facilitate wildlife movement in the subdivision. 6. Item 5.23 of the Covenants prohibits hunting. It will not be necessary to indemnify CDOW as proposed in the Report (page 20). 7. CDOW agrees that the homeowners association should own and maintain the common open space. Maintaining wildlife cover and forage in the common open space will help to mitigate most of the negative impacts to wildlife associated with the project. The open space corridors should also be maintained in this manner. Proposing that individual lot owners manage the corridors does not assure that the area will remain productive wildlife habitat. 8. CDOW proposes that aquatic and wetland plants be integrated into the design and function of the drainage detention facility. 9. Clarifying the discrepancies mentioned above and adding the CDOW suggestions into the Valley View Subdivision Preliminary Plan will mitigate most of the negative impacts to wildlife. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 19 K. Vegetation The Applicant provided a Vegetation Inventory and Weed Management Plan ("Plan") conducted by Beach Environmental, LLC. ("BEL") dated January 20, 2003. The Plan has been designated for all common areas including roadside, open space, ditch, and utility easements. Recommended control measures for weedy species include cultural, mechanical, chemical, and biological techniques. BEL recommends that chemical control be limited to the maximum extent possible and only reserved for large outbreaks of noxious weeds. BEL indicated that the property consists primarily of open grazed pastures, an east and west drainage way populated with elm, cottonwood, juniper, currant and sage. Weeds were found primarily in and along the irrigation ditches and in areas where the ditches first enter the irrigated pastures. The noxious weeds identified on the property include: Canada thistle, Plumeless thistle, Musk thistle, Russian knapweed, Diffuse knapweed, Houndstongue, and Volunteer rye. BEL noted that an extensive outbreak of weeds has not occurred, however, the Plan has established guidelines to help control the spread of these species. BEL provided in the Plan a list of plat materials to be used for revegetation planting and weed control service companies. Kirk Beattie of Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. noted that Field Bindweed, one of Colorado's top ten noxious weeds, is widely distributed on the areas proposed for development. This noxious weed was not mentioned in the management plan conducted by Beach Environmental, LLC. Pursuant to section 4.07 of the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on May 1, 2000, "at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, as part of the Planning and Zoning approval process, for land disturbances outside of the building envelope, the County may require, at preliminary plan and prior to Final Plat, the following items" 1. A Soil Plan 2. A Revegetation Plan 3. A Revegetation Security (which shall be in an amount to be determined by the Board) Steve Anthony, Garfield County Weed Management Director, provided the following comments with respect to the proposed Subdivision (See Exhibit GG): 1. Noxious Weeds A. Inventory and mapping: The Applicant has inventoried the property for vegetation which mentions noxious weeds, and does provide specific locations of the County -listed noxious weeds on a map. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 20 B. Weed Management: The weed management plan is acceptable. The inventory lists the presence of Diffuse knapweed and Plumeless thistle. These are weeds that should be treated immediately when found. The Applicant shall provide for noxious weed treatment this spring and thus prevent seed production before any earthmoving work is started. C. Common area weed management: The Applicant states that the Valley View property owners will be responsible for weed management. Is this just on private lots? The Applicant needs to designate weed management responsibilities for common areas, including roadsides, open spaces, and the asphalt bike/ped trail. D. Covenants: It has been common for vacant lots in Battlement Mesa to become infested with Russian knapweed. Due to the number of lots, it creates a staffing problem for the County in attempting to do enforcement. It is suggested that the Applicant incorporate language in the covenants that will strongly encourage vacant lot owners to manage their noxious weeds under Colorado law. In Section 5.13 of the Protective Covenants, there is an assessment and penalty process for dog violations. The Applicant should draft language into the covenants that would give the Homeowners Association the authority and responsibility to assess vacant lots with unattended county -listed noxious weeds for treatment costs. 2. Revegetation A. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan calls for the following: i. Plant material list. ii. Planting schedule. iii. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). iv. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. The Applicant provided a plant material list. The schedule of planting, and maps specific to revegetation, and the security are not mentioned. A landscaping map is provided, but is lacking the aforementioned details. A map and information shall be submitted prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully re-established according to the Reclamation Standards in the County Weed Management Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 21 3. Soil Plan A. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: i. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. ii. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. iii. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. L. Assessment / Fees 1. Off -Site Road Impact The Traffic Analysis report prepared by High Country Engineering ("HCE") noted that the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition was referenced to project traffic volumes for the three (3) directed uses within the project, which include: single-family detached housing, duplex, town -homes, and condos. Once trips were determined, HCE split the project into two (2) traffic sub -basins, Basin 1 and Basin 2. The delineation of the Basins can be seen in my detail in Figure 2 of the Traffic Analysis. Basin 1 is anticipated to primarily use the new intersection of Valley View Road and Battlement Mesa Parkway, therefore all trips from this Basin were applied to this intersection. Basin 2 was primarily anticipated to use the intersection of Valley View Road and Stone Quarry Road during the AM peak, however, during the PM peak, it is anticipated that most vehicles traveling eastbound on Battlement Mesa Parkway will most likely turn right onto Valley View Road rather than turn at Stone Quarry Road, travel sound than turn right onto Valley View Road. Therefore, the traffic was applied accordingly. According to Figure 2 of the Traffic Analysis, the following traffic distribution was calculated: The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition uses the following average vehicle trip rate: Single-family detached housing - 9.57 trips per day; Residential Condominium / Townhouse - 5.86 trips per day; and Apartment - 6.63 trips per day. The project contains 41 single-family dwelling units, 6 duplex units, and 72 condominium / townhouses. ..,/f :. Basin 1 _ _ 8 35 35 17 Basin 2 15 52 55 29 The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition uses the following average vehicle trip rate: Single-family detached housing - 9.57 trips per day; Residential Condominium / Townhouse - 5.86 trips per day; and Apartment - 6.63 trips per day. The project contains 41 single-family dwelling units, 6 duplex units, and 72 condominium / townhouses. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 22 The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic Study Area 1. The final impact fee amount shall be determined prior to finalization of the Final Plat. Pursuant to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations, 50% of the road impact fees shall be collected at the Final Plat for the Subdivision. All other road impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit. 2. Site Acquisition Fee Pursuant to Section 9.80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners may seek land or cash -in -lieu of land for parks and / or schools during the subdivision review process when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future residents. The property is located with the Garfield County School District No. 16. Comments were received by the School District, however, the District did not request any site acquisition fees (see Exhibit X). Pursuant to Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners may require a developer of residential housing to make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land. However, the Board may only request cash payment in -lieu if it is requested by the applicable School District. The exception is the RE -1 School District, which has provided the County a formula for site acquisition fees, which has been codified in the Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, no School Site Acquisition Fee is required for this development. 3. Open Space As noted previously in this memorandum, there are four (4) open space tracts. The Table below is a breakdown of the proposed Common Open Space within the project: Spat! T a B C D E Total Acreage 0.213 1.585 3.053 1.076 5.927 Pursuant to section 4.07.09 of the Zoning Resolution: "Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open space. Of the 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no more than 40% of the 25% total required, shall be limited use open space, with the balance being retained as one or more of the remaining open space categories, listed above. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by the design of and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and that the Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 23 needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD. (A. 97- 109)" Twenty five percent (25%) of 36 acres is 9 acres. It appears that the open space proposed in the development does not meet the required amount of Common Open Space in accordance to section 4.07.09 of the Zoning Resolution summarize above. The County Commissioners may reduce the 25% open space requirement, if the Commissioners find that such decrease is warranted by the design, amenities and features of the Plan. Open Space Buffer areas, along the west and south sides of the property, were established during the PUD process in accordance with the Conceptual Land Use Diagram plan approved in 1982. The Conceptual Diagram identified these areas as 20' Buffer, Pedestrian and Utility Easement. The Applicant asserted that "based on their experience with these types of corridors in surrounding areas, Battlement Mesa representatives have indicated that these buffer areas end up becoming a collection point of wind blown brush, tumble weeds and trash, creating an unnecessary wildfire hazard." The Applicant requests that to alleviate these challenges, these corridors are proposed as easements on the rear of the residential lots, such that they will be owned and maintained by the lot owner. The Applicant noted that building envelopes shown on the Preliminary Plan are measured from the easement line, thus preserving the easement's function as a spatial buffer. Staff had a concern with the integration of the 20' Buffer, Pedestrian and Utility Easement with the adjacent private properties, since this open space "buffer, pedestrian, utility" easement was established during the PUD process, and any changes, to these areas would require an amendment to the PUD. The Applicant noted that the notes on the Preliminary Plan will be revised to identify the easements at the rear of the single family lots along the south and east as a 20 foot Buffer, Utility and Pedestrian Easement as described on the original PUD Concept Plan. The Applicant noted that the buffer will still be an easement on the Low Density Residential lots but maintenance of the easement will be the responsibility of the Valley View Village Home Owners Association and the covenants will restrict cross fencing of the easement. The Applicant noted that Tract D, the open space that contains the gully, will be maintained in its native condition except for a pedestrian bridge crossing at the easterly end of the gulley. Tract C, the open space tract west of Valley View Drive and immediately adjacent to Lots 25 and 26, will also be maintained in native vegetation, except for the introduction of a detention pond with will restrict storm drainage releases from the site at historic volumes. M. Phasing of the Development Pursuant to section 4:20 of the Subdivision Regulations, if the Final Plat is to be phased, the Planning Commission shall recommend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 24 The Applicant indicated that phasing will take place in 5 phases, which is reflected in Sheet 6 of the Preliminary Plan. These phases include: Phas Phase A Phase LPhase C Phase D Floating Lot 46 Lots 1-13, 31-45 54 Lots 23-26 Lots 14-22, 27-30 Lot 48 28 24 13 TBD 119 units (128 max) The Applicant has not provided a timeline as to the length of time each phase will take place. The Floating Phase is the area zoned as Neighborhood Commercial. The Applicant noted that it is likely that the Applicant in the future will apply for an amendment to the PUD to rezone all or nearly all of this commercial area to residential use. Pursuant to section 4.09.01 of the Zoning Resolution, "the applicant must begin development of the PUD within one (1) year from the time of its final zone change approval; provided, however, that the PUD may be developed in stages and the Board may approve the commencement of development activity beyond one (1) year. The applicant must complete the development of each state and of the PUD as a whole in substantial compliance with the development schedule approved by the County Commissioners." Therefore, prior to Board of County Commissioners review of the Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall provide a Phasing Plan with specific timeframes associated with each phase of the project. N. Resubdivison Process The Applicant is anticipating the desire to condominiumize the multi -family structures and to divide attached two-family structures along the common wall of the dwelling units. Pursuant to section 7:30 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Applicant requests that the Board of County Commissioners approve a simplified procedure for the re -subdivision of the multi- and two-family lots. This procedure would apply specifically to Lots 23, 24, 25, 26 and 46. The Preliminary Plan depicts the building envelopes for each multi- and two-family structure. Within these lots the number of dwelling units has been noted. All private access drives, drainage facilities, utility systems and parking are shown on the Preliminary Plan _ \�'\� �;-` . `I r� g+ ,- �,'- / ��./; 1�/ / •.cif—. / .. - FLOATING APD tes. n PHASE, r ; r r os. ay C ' aAy � .\ t .. [{L 2 '_ __ ap, i 'C ✓�`ie 4A \ �. C 919 VP: � \ .: , > as '® PHASE A, s.: i7 , .: \^. ;. O b . 4�n 'F0 ,; I —7,1 i OPE! SPACE ""f u • _. _ >,,, 4 J. 1' Loin.l ICLII I T�}acm E. (} J s -- 1 Lat. Lma .mor�uis aster �wi;,a�E(icw PHASE �%; y ,n,. P AH SE D� C CLE ! _ _ r � ; L , i ,: •� - - 1 _ .. - -_ i . i The Applicant is anticipating the desire to condominiumize the multi -family structures and to divide attached two-family structures along the common wall of the dwelling units. Pursuant to section 7:30 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Applicant requests that the Board of County Commissioners approve a simplified procedure for the re -subdivision of the multi- and two-family lots. This procedure would apply specifically to Lots 23, 24, 25, 26 and 46. The Preliminary Plan depicts the building envelopes for each multi- and two-family structure. Within these lots the number of dwelling units has been noted. All private access drives, drainage facilities, utility systems and parking are shown on the Preliminary Plan Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 25 and associated engineering drawings and are referenced in the appropriate engineering reports. The Applicant noted that surety for public improvements necessary to serve the lots created within the building envelopes will be secured by the Subdivider's Improvement Agreement associated with the final plat. Section 7:30 of the Subdivision Regulation reads as follows: "The redivision, through conversion into condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision Regulations which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan and/or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision, provided the proposed conversion will not substantially increase land use density." The Applicant proposes that an amended final plat for each building envelope, lot or group of building envelopes and/or lot may be submitted to the County for review in accordance with the procedures defined in Section 6:00 [Amended and Corrected Plan] of the Subdivision Regulations, and to also confirm the amended plat's consistency with the approved preliminary plan for the subdivision and the final plat for the applicable phase of the development. The Applicant noted that necessary site improvements will have been previously guaranteed by the Final Plat SIA and the sequence of the filing of the final plats can be at the discretion of the developer. O. Ownership / Maintenance of Common Use Property and Facilities The Applicant noted that the Valley View Village "master" homeowners association will be incorporated to own and maintain the common open space tracts and to maintain the public roads within the subdivision. One or more "slave" homeowners association will be formed to own and maintain common use property and facilities, including drives and parking , within the multi- and two-family areas. At the time of Final Plat, Valley View Village will be annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association which owns and maintains various Battlement Mesa Community wide common use facilities. Each lot owner within Valley View Village will thereby be a member of the Battlement Mesa Service Association and will pay dues to that Association at a rate that is 50% of the regular dues. P. Additional Comments: Homeowner's Association Documents: The Applicant has provided draft copies of the following Homeowner's Association documents: 1. Articles of Incorporation for Valley View Village Homeowners Association, a Colorado Non - Profit Corporation. 2. Master Declaration of Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions for Valley View Village Subdivision. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 26 3. Supplemental Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Valley View Village Subdivision for Valley View Village Condominiums. X. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were [not] submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is [not] in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application is not in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 5. That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Garfield County Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Valley View Village Subdivision, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission. 2. At the same time the Final Plat is submitted, the Applicant shall submit an Exemption Plat for the created two tracts: 2 acres (owned by the County) and 36 acres (the subject of this approval), which was approved by the County pursuant to Resolution No. 82-327. Upon approval by the Board, the Exemption Plat shall be recorded at the same time as the Final Plat. 3. The Applicant shall modify the Protective Covenants to reflect the wildlife habitat mitigation measures recommended in the Wildlife Report dated August 18, 2002, prepared by Kirk Beattie of Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. in the Wildlife Report, and the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife as follows: Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 27 A. Some details contained in the Wildlife Report ("Report") prepared by Beattie Natural Resource Consulting, are different than those proposed in the Protective Covenants for the subdivision and shall be modified unless otherwise noted below. B. On page 20 of the Report, garbage containers are addressed in a different manner than is proposed in Item 5.23 of the Covenants. The CDOW supports the language and intent in the Covenant. C. CDOW believes that controlling dogs per Item 5.13 of the Covenants is preferred over those measures proposed in the Report (page 20). D. Cats shall also be included in the Covenants. A. CDOW endorses the provisions of Item 6.6(d) of the Covenants to restrict fence height to facilitate wildlife movement in the subdivision. B. Item 5.23 of the Covenants prohibits hunting. It will not be necessary to indemnify CDOW as proposed in the Report (page 20). C. CDOW agrees that the homeowners association should own and maintain the common open space. Maintaining wildlife cover and forage in the common open space will help to mitigate most of the negative impacts to wildlife associated with the project. The open space corridors should also be maintained in this manner. Proposing that individual lot owners manage the corridors does not assure that the area will remain productive wildlife habitat. D. CDOW proposes that aquatic and wetland plants be integrated into the design and function of the drainage detention facility. E. Clarifying the discrepancies mentioned above and adding the CDOW suggestions into the Valley View Subdivision Preliminary Plan will mitigate most of the negative impacts to wildlife. 4. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners review of the Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall provided written documentation from the Consolidated Metropolitan District that all engineering issues with regard to water and wastewater service have been resolved. 5. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners review of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall provided written resolution with regard to the Xcel Energy / Public Service Company new and existing gas line easements. 6. Prior to Board of County Commissioners review of the Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall provide a Phasing Plan with specific timeframes associated with each phase of the project. Pursuant to section 4.09.01 of the Zoning Resolution, the Applicant shall begin development within one year from the time of final approval. 7. Prior to the recording of the Final Plat, a copy of the annexation documentations shall be provided to the County. 8. The following geologic hazard mitigation measures shall be adhered, as well as Plat notes and in the Protective Covenants: Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 28 A. The recommendations by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ("HP GeoTech") outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study for the Subdivision dated September 16, 2002, [Job No. 102 526] shall be adhered. These Preliminary Design Recommendations include provisions for foundations, floor slabs, under -drain system, site grading, surface drainage and pavement subgrade. B. In addition to the drain systems for foundations recommended by HP GeoTech, due to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations. Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the over potential for expansion or consolidation. C. Due to the possible presence of radon gas in the area, testing for radon gas shall be done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. D. Once the grading plan has been completed on site, the drainage report shall be updated to account for new cross-sectional profile of the drainage. If a new channel cross-section changes the flow velocities within the drainage, some type of slope reinforcement may be necessary to prevent erosion along the length of the fill slope. 9. Prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, dated April 2, 2003, listed below which are applicable at Final Plat. The remainder of these recommendations shall be incorporated within the Access Permit obtained from the Road and Bridge Department: A. The deceleration lane for the entrance to Valley View Drive from South Battlement Parkway shall have proper signage to indicate traffic exiting South Battlement Parkway. A stop sign shall be required at the exit from Valley View Drive onto South Battlement Parkway. B. On the downhill lane of South Battlement Parkway at the exit of Valley View Drive, a sign designating the intersection shall be installed. C. It was agreed upon during the site visit on April 10, 2003, that a deceleration lane from Stone Quarry Road was not needed for the entrance to Valley View Drive. D. A stop sign shall be required at the exit from Valley View Drive onto Stone Quarry Road. There shall be an intersection sign placed on both traffic directions of Stone Quarry Road warning of traffic entering and exiting from Valley View Drive. E. The cross walk on Stone Quarry Road shall be located as agreed to on the site visit (adjacent to Stone Quarry Road). A portion of the guardrail of Stone Quarry Road may be removed to accommodate cross walk. There shall be flashing lights and proper signage warning traffic traveling in both directions on Stone Quarry Road of the cross walk. This crosswalk shall be delineated on the Final Plat. F. Proper work zone signage and traffic control shall be required for all work being performed Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 29 on South Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road and of construction vehicles entering and exiting project. G. All signage and flashing lights shall meet standards and installation guidelines as set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. H. Driveway access permits will be issued with provisions specific to the permits upon final approval of the subdivision. 10. Pursuant to section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, all streets / roads within the subdivision shall be dedicated to the public. Repair and maintenance of these roads shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the Subdivision. This shall be reflected in the Protective Covenants. 11. The project shall provide for 9 acres of Common Open Space (25% of 36 acres) as required pursuant to 4.07.09 of the Zoning Resolution. Unless, the County Commissioners reduces the 25% open space requirement based on design, amenities and features of the Plan. 12. Prior to Final Plat, as agreed upon by the Grand Valley Fire Protection District, the Applicant shall address and provided written confirmation that the items outlined in High Country Engineering's letter dated May 30, 2003 have been resolved as agreed upon. 13. Prior to the submittal of Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide the following weed management information for review and approval by the Garfield County Weed Management Director: A. Noxious Weeds: i. Weed Management: The Applicant inventory list provided by the Applicant lists the presence of Diffuse knapweed and Plumeless thistle. These are weeds that should be treated immediately when found. Prior the Board of County Commissioner review of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall provide for noxious weed treatment and thus prevent seed production before any earthmoving commences. ii. Common area weed management: The Applicant shall designate weed management responsibilities for common areas, including roadsides, open spaces, and the asphalt bike / pedestrian trail. iii. Covenants: It is common for vacant lot sin Battlement Mesa to become infested with Russian knapweed. Due to the number of lots, it creates a staffing problem for the County in attempting to conduct enforcement. The Applicant shall incorporate language in the covenants that will require vacant lot owners to manage noxious weeds under Colorado law. The Applicant shall provide language into the covenants that will give the Homeowners Association the authority and responsibility to access vacant lots with unattended county -listed noxious weeds for treatment costs. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 30 B. Revegetation: i. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan calls for the following: a). Plant material list. b) Planting schedule. c) A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). d) A revegetation bond or security shall be determined at Final Plat and paid prior to Final Plat submittal. ii. Prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide a plant material list. The Applicant shall provided detailed information with respect to Item 12(B)(i)(a-d) listed above. iii. Prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit a map that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. iv. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully re- established according to the Reclamation Standards in the County Weed Management Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. C. Soil Plan: i. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the Applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: a) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. b) A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. c) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 14. The proposed subdivision is located in the Garfield County Traffic Study Area 1. The total impact fee payment shall be determined prior to Final Plat. The fee shall be calculated in accordance to section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations. Fifty percent (50%) of the road impact fees shall be collected at the submission of Final Plat for the Subdivision. All other road impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit. However, the Board of County Commissioner will waive all the road impact fees, if the Applicant agrees to upgrade and improve 1.7 miles of county road, between Cattle Creek / CR 120 and the western entry of the Subdivision, to county standards approved by the County Engineer and the Road and Bridge Department. Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 31 15. The 20' Buffer, Pedestrian, and Utility Easement, approved as part of the Planned Unit Development, shall be delineated on the Final Plat as such. The maintenance of the easement will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association, which shall be reflected in the Protective Covenants. In addition, the Protective Covenants will restrict any development, i.e. fences, within this easement. 16. Should the Board of County Commissioners not allow the installation of a portion of the detention facility on the parcel owned by the County, prior to Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide revised drawings, to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer, of the detention facility which will be relocated on the east side of Valley View Circle within the PUD. 17. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the Final Plat: A. No building permits shall be issued for Lot 47 until such time this lot has been re -subdivided in accordance with standard subdivision procedures. B. Historical drainage patterns shall be maintained on the property. No structures or uses shall be located within the natural drainage way on the property. C. All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. D. One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. E. No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated there under, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. F. Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. 4 Valley View Village PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plan PC: 6/11/03 Page 32 G. All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County.