Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 PC Staff Report 07.10.2002Exhibits for Blue Creek Ranch PUD Public Hearing held on July 10, 2002 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations F Staff Memorandum G Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Application" H Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan "Appendices" I Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Site Plan Development "Sheets" booklet produced by Sopris Engineering J Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from David Horn, Inc, dated June 25, 2002 K Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated June 24, 2002 L Letter from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering, LLC to Glen Horn dated June 17, 2002 M Email to Kim Schlagel from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department dated May 17, 2002 N Referral Comments from Jim Sears of the Garfield County Sheriff Department dated June 6, 2002 Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated June 13, 2002 P Referral Comments from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. dated June 5, 2002 Q Letter to the Garfield County Planning Commissioner from James M. Mindling representing the St. Finnbar Homeowner's Association dated June 5, 2002 R Letter from Janet Buck of the Town of Carbondale to the Garfield Planning Commission dated May 31, 2002 S Letter from Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District to Kim Schlagel dated May 15, 2002 T, Letter to the Garfield County Planning Dept. from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated May 6, 2002 U Letter to Kim Schlagel from Celia Greenman of the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology dated May 16, 2002 V Letter to Kim Schlagel from Justin Martens of the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated May 13, 2002 X Memorandum to Kim Schlagel from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department Y Letter to Kim Schlagel from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated May 22, 2002 Z Letter to Mr. Beck from Ken Jacobson of the Army Corps of Engineers dated April 10, 2002 AA Letter to Glen Horn from Sopris Engineering dated June 3, 2002 BB Letter to Kim Schlagel from Tom Zancanella of Zancanella & Associates dated June 4, 2002 CC Letter to Glen Horn of Davis Horn, Inc. from Kim Schlagel dated June 6, 2002 DD Letter to Mark Bean from Tim Beck of Zancanella & Associates dated January 8, 2002 EE Letter to Rob Cumming from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering dated September 7, 2000 FF Letter to Fred Jarman of Garfield County Planning Department from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated June 28, 2002. GG Letter from Fred Jarman to Tim Beck of Zancanella & Associates dated June 28, 2002. HH Matrix of Proposed PUD Uses and Dimensional Requirements II Letter from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering to Glenn Horn dated June 17, 2002 JJ Letter from Glenn Horn to Kim Schlagel of the Garfield County Planning Department dated April 12, 2002 KK Letter to Mark Bean of Garfield County Planning Department from Bill Gavette, Deputy Fire Chief of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District dated June 29, 2002 Exhibits submitted at the Public Hearing on July 10, 2002 LL Letter from Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering to Glen Horn dated July 8, 2002 MM Fax from Jim Mindling to Fred Jarman dated July 9, 2002 NN Fax Letter from Dan Missey to Planning Commission and Planning Department dated July 9, 2002 00 Email Letter to Fred Jarman and the Planning Commission from Marilyn Mann dated July 9, 2002 PP Letter to Fred Jarman / Planning Commission from Susan Hunke, executive director of the Mountain Regional Housing Corporation dated July 10, 2002 QQ Position Paper submitted by Lion's Ridge Estates HOA dated July 10, 2002 RR Rendering of second Entrance as viewed from St. Finnbar produced by WindRiver dated July 10, 2002 SS Blue Creek PUD presentation materials as presented by Glenn Horn for WindRiver dated July 10, 2002 le f 4 a4 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: DATE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: SITE / ZONING: EXHIBIT PC 07/10/02 t Preliminary Plan review for the Blue Creek Ranch to include: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) Planned Unit Development 3) Subdivision, and 4) Floodplain Special Use Permit July 10, 2002 (Public Hearing) WindRiver Development, LLC Davis Horn, Inc 3220 County Road 100 ("Catherine Store Road") 81.33 acres / A/R/RD I. PROJECT SUMMARY The Applicant requests land use approvals to develop the Blue Creek Ranch which is located at the intersection of County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road) and Highway 82. Specifically, the proposal includes subdividing the 81 acre site into 49 residential lots ranging from 5,000 sq. ft. to 5 acres, of which, nine (9) units shall be deed -restricted affordable housing units. All lots will tie into the proposed water and central sewer systems. In addition to the residential uses, the development proposes approximately 54 acres of common open space, a bike trail, and a park and ride facility to be adjacent to County Road 100 and Hwy 82, and public river access. • it ofy BLUE CREEK RANCH PUL: ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN • • II. LAND USE REQUESTS In order to accomplish this proposed development, the Applicant requests the following land use approvals: 1) Amendment to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 Applicant requests approval to amend the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 to change the Proposed Land Use District Map for Study Area 1 for the subject site from its current designation of Residential Low Density (10 acres or more per dwelling unit) to Residential High Density (less than 2 acres per dwelling unit). The Applicant is proposing a density of 1.6 acres per dwelling unit. 2) Rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) The Applicant is proposes to rezone the property from its current zoning of A/R/RD to PUD in order to modify the dimensional requirements and uses of the zone district. Staff has provided a matrix (see Exhibit HH) that compares the dimensional requirements under the existing zoning to what the Applicant proposes through this PUD. 3) Subdivision The Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into six (10) tracts that contain a variety of uses. Primarily, the property will be subdivided into 49 residential lots. Other portions of the site and their proposed uses are shown in the matrix below: 4) Floodplain Special Use Permit A significant portion of the property is located in the 100 -year floodplain which includes areas defined as flood fringe and flood way of the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant is proposing to construct approximately 11 single-family dwellings in the flood fringe and two small road sections and an outfall / discharge structure for the wastewater treatment plan within the delineated flood way. As such, the Applicant is required to obtain a Special Use Permit allowing construction of these improvements related to the subdivision within the floodplain. III. PROCESS The Applicant is requesting several land use approvals to be processed concurrently as part of the Blue Creek Ranch; most notably, the Applicant is requests approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning regulations state any application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to the Commission's recommendation on the PUD / subdivision portion of the development proposal. The Commission may consider the remainder of 2 49 Residential Lots (Total area) 26.149 32% Common Open Space ➢ Conservation Easement (19 ac.) ➢ Agricultural Use on Tract 3 (16 ac.) ➢ Tract 4 / Pond Area (12 ac.) 49.091 60% Public Open Space / Park 2.249 3% Utilities & Parking Zone 3.844 5% Total 81.333 100% 4) Floodplain Special Use Permit A significant portion of the property is located in the 100 -year floodplain which includes areas defined as flood fringe and flood way of the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant is proposing to construct approximately 11 single-family dwellings in the flood fringe and two small road sections and an outfall / discharge structure for the wastewater treatment plan within the delineated flood way. As such, the Applicant is required to obtain a Special Use Permit allowing construction of these improvements related to the subdivision within the floodplain. III. PROCESS The Applicant is requesting several land use approvals to be processed concurrently as part of the Blue Creek Ranch; most notably, the Applicant is requests approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning regulations state any application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to the Commission's recommendation on the PUD / subdivision portion of the development proposal. The Commission may consider the remainder of 2 • • the application following a positive decision of the proposed amendment. In the event the Planning Commission denies the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the remainder of the Applicant's requests becomes moot. In addition, the Applicant is requests Special Use Permit approval for development in the floodplain which is normally reviewed as a separate application by the Board of County Commissioners. However, because it is an integral part of this development, Staff has combined the request with the PUD and Subdivision review. As a result, the Board of County Commissioners will conduct the Special Use Permit review along with considering the Planning Commission's recommendation on the PUD and Subdivision request. IV. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject site is located in Study Area 1 of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The Garfield County Zoning Regulations require Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter "Plan"). Staff finds the proposed development generally conforms to most of the applicable policies of the Plan in the following ways: D Protecting visual corridors by preserving existing agricultural uses on the north end of the site (existing pasture lands along HW 82); ➢ Proposing creative cluster -type site design for residential lots in an effort to preserve the site's open space and mature vegetation (sensitive to unique site characteristics); D Provision of deed -restricted affordable housing (9 units or 18% of the total units); ➢ Providing more than adequate open space (approximately 54 acres or 68% of the development); D. Placing a conservation easement on environmentally sensitive areas and donating it to a local land trust; D Providing an improved "park and ride" area for the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA); ➢ Improving and donating a public park for river access to the Roaring Fork River; and ➢ Providing a bike and pedestrian trail from the site to the improved park and ride for improved access to mass transit. The proposed development also generally complies with the Garfield County Maps that delineate potential hazard areas or constraints to the property. Specifically, the property is located on CR 100 which is delineated as a good road in the County Road profile, it contains no slope hazards, and has a low wildfire hazard. The maps do indicate the site constraints include septic constraints due to a high water table and the property is located partially in the 100 -year floodplain and sensitive riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River. However, the Applicant proposes to effectively mitigate these site constraints in the following way: 1) Septic Constraints: The Applicant proposes to construct an on-site wastewater system that has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment negating the need for individual septic systems and associated leach fields which would impact ground water sources due to the high water table. 3 • • 2) Floodplain & Sensitive Riparian Areas: With the exception of two road sections and the wastewater outflow structure, the Applicant designed the residential component in such a way as to avoid development in the floodway. However, the Applicant proposes to construct 11 residential building envelopes in the flood fringe. In addition, the Applicant is placing the southern portion of the site (located in the floodplain as well as the riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River) in a perpetual conservation easement to be donated to a local conservation land trust. Finally, the Plan Proposed Land Use Districts map defines this site as a Low Density Residential Area (10 acres or more per dwelling unit). The Applicant wishes to amend the Plan to re- designate the property to High Density Residential (less than 2 acres per dwelling unit). The Applicant proposes a total of 50 units within 81.33 acres resulting in an overall density of 1.6 acres per dwelling unit which is a significantly higher density (6x) than provided for in the Plan. Given this proposed density, the application does not generally conform to this element of the Plan. However, due to the existing and approved land uses adjacent to the subject site which include two adjacent residential subdivisions to the west and a commercial property to the northwest, the proposal is consistent with the methodology in the Plan that was used to determine proposed zoning classifications in Study Area 1 using a "land suitability analysis." The Applicant asserts, by applying the same methodology to this particular site, the property generally conforms to the high density development constraints and land use characteristics used in the methodology adopted by Garfield County. A brief examination of the methodology is provided below. This matrix compares the Plan's land suitability analysis adopted by Garfield County for a "high density" development with the Applicant's proposal for Blue Creek Ranch. It shows that the development constraints are consistent with the development proposal as well as land use compatibility. (See below) Development Constraints: Land Use Classifications High Density (2 acres or less per dwelling unit) as adopted by Garfield County Blue Creek Ranch Proposal (1.6 acres per dwelling unit) Slope Constraints Minor Minor Minor Minor Soil Constraints ISDS (Septic) Constraints Minor Minor Floodplain Constraints Minor Minor Land Use Considerations: Land Use Compatibility Critical Compatible w/ other Subdivisions Road Conditions Critical CR 100 is in "Good Condition" Infrastructure Needs Critical Can easily be accommodated Distance From Urban Uses Moderate 2 miles from Carbondale and El Jebel / Adjacent to Catherine Store. 4 • • Staff finds the subject property and proposed development generally conforms to the methodology used to determine proposed land uses in this area. In short, the proposed development (a high density proposal) is consistent with the methodology used by Garfield County to determine future land uses in Study Area 1 even though it is currently designated for a low density use. V. REFERRAL AGENCIES A. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comment received B. Town of Carbondale: The assistant town planner responded to this application with concerns regarding the proposed septic system and requested that the system be operated and maintained by a certified wastewater treatment plant operator rather than a HOA. See Exhibit R. C. Carbondale Fire District: Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, responded to this application with comments regarding access, water supply, and impact fees. Please see attached letter, see Exhibit S. D. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Kenneth Knox, Assistant State Engineer responded to this application with comments regarding application efficiency of water use inputs, water depletion rate of the sewer treatment system, and irrigation water rights. Overall, it is of the opinion of the DOWR that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is inadequate. Additionally, the DOWR has pointed out that the use of irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. See attached letter, see Exhibits T and K. E. Colorado Geological Survey: Celia Greenman, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water detention, culverts, and quality assurance that the proposed finished floor elevations will meet FFIP specifications. Overall, CGS recommends approval of the development be contingent upon a revision of the 1999 flood plain study and drainage report. See attached letter, see Exhibit U. F. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Comments indicated that the plans for the driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. The Applicant will have to obtain new access permits for the additional road cuts on CR 100, see Exhibit P. G. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Justin Martens, District Wildlife Manager, responded to the application with recommendations to minimize impact on wildlife in regards to domestic animals, fencing, bears, trash removal, maintaining existing vegetation, and the control of noxious weeds. See attached letter, Exhibit V. H. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Director, responded to the application with noxious weed concerns. Steve is requesting that the applicant provide a map and inventory any Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property. Additionally, it is requested that the applicant provide a weed management plan for any noxious weeds found on the property, and that the applicant should provide a revegetation bond to the County for the amount of land area to be disturbed. See attached memo, Exhibit X. 5 • • I. AT&T Broadband: No comment received. J. Qwest Communications: No comment received. K. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comment received. L. 1-loly Cross Electric: No comment received. M. KN Energy: No comment received. N. Garfield County Housing Authority: No comment received. O. Garfield County Sheriff, Jim Sears: The Sheriff's Office commented that the width, length, and turn-arounds of roads need to be compatible with Emergency response equipment. In addition, addresses should be legible from all roads. (See Exhibit N.) VI. STAFF COMMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan As discussed above, the overall proposed density for this development is one (1) dwelling unit per 1.6 acres which is considerably higher than the proposed density for the area in the Comprehensive Plan of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. However, the applicant has demonstrated that this development proposal is consistent with the methodology that was used to initially set the densities in the County. In addition, Staff finds the proposal in general conformity with all other applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Water Supply The Applicant proposes to access domestic and fire protection water from central supply wells on the adjacent Aspen Equestrian Estates property. This is to be done pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District via a Water Service Agreement with Aspen Equestrian Estates. Regarding supply, Michael Erion of Resource Engineering indicated the existing 200,000 gallon storage tank supplied by direct diversion from wells will be appropriate to handle domestic and fire protection water for Aspen Equestrian Estates and Blue Creek Ranch only if a backup power supply is provided for each well (see Exhibit 0). In response, the Applicant has represented that a pump will be used to move water from the wells to the proposed water tanks. In the event of electric failure, the pump will be powered by a ten horsepower diesel generator which will meet the peak water need of the PUD (see Exhibit J). As a result, Kenneth Knox from the Division of Water Resources (DOWR) has determined that the proposed water supply for the subdivision will not cause material injury to decreed water rights (see Exhibit K). C. Open Space / Conservation Easement / Park & Ride / Public Park / Bike Trail The Applicant proposes to designate approximately 54 acres of the property as common open space which includes a conservation easement and public park providing for public river access. Other amenities proposed for the development include a bike and pedestrian trail, an improved park and ride facility at the intersection of County Road 100 and HW 82. The Applicant plans to donate approximately 19 acres of land located at the south end of the property adjacent to the Roaring Fork River in a perpetual conservation easement to a local land conservation trust. The Applicant intends the use of this property to be limited to trails and passive recreation. The Applicant also proposes to dedicate approximately 2.2 acres of open space to be dedicated to the public as a public park primarily for river access for anglers and boaters. This park, containing a 6 • • gravel parking lot for 6 vehicles, will be donated to the Roaring Fork Land Conservancy which will be maintained by the Blue Creek Ranch HOA. The large tract of land on the north end of the property adjacent to HW82 containing approximately 16.8 acres, currently used as irrigated pasture lands, will remain in agriculture use as proposed by the PUD. The Applicant proposes a bike and pedestrian trail on the western property boundary along CR 100 from the Roaring Fork River to the park and ride and along the north side of the property adjacent to HW82. It should be noted, this trail alignment is also the future rail corridor as proposed by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The proposed trail will be designed to accommodate rail needs in the event rail infrastructure is developed. The Applicant will also reserve a railroad easement which will be dedicated if a railroad is developed. D. Road Access located in 100 -year floodplain As mentioned above, the Applicant proposes to construct some of the residential dwellings in the flood fringe as well as some road improvements in the floodway. Both of these actions require compliance with the Garfield County floodplain regulations. Regarding the floodway, Staff proposes three (3) lots within the subdivision, Lots 23, 24, 25, will be isolated by water should a 100 -year flood event occur on the property. The Applicant is concurrently applying for a Special Use Permit to construct this road in these locations indicated by circles in the photo below. The specific road segment in question is Bristlecone Drive. Ponderosa Pass Road will also be covered as it is also in the floodplain. Both sections in question are indicated by circles on the map provided to the right. The dark grey area delineates the 100 -year flood way and the light grey area delineated the 100 year flood fringe. The Applicant provided an analysis from Sopris Engineering projecting that there would be 1 foot or less of water covering a road constructed at grade in the 100 year flood way. In addition, the velocity of water would be low because it would not be within a channel (see Exhibit Il). The analysis also proposes placing reflector posts every twenty-five (25) feet along each side of the section of road within the 100 -year floodplain to delineate the road section in the event is covered by water. The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District stated they concur with the Sopris Engineering analysis of a 100 -year event to those two sections of road and have indicated to the Applicant, they would be able respond to an emergency on Lots 23, 24, and 25 during a 100 -year flood event (see Exhibits KK and J). However, Michael Erion of Resources Engineering, asserts, that if the County approves the proposed isolated lots mentioned above, the Applicant shall address the obstruction within the floodway created by the reflector poles (see Exhibit FF). 7 • • [It should be noted that Section 6.09.01(1)(A) of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations regarding development within the floodway requires that encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development are prohibited within the floodway unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. lithe technical evaluation satisfies the requirement, all new construction and substantial improvements shall be required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section 6.09.02(3). The Applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed road and associated reflector posts every twenty-five (25) feet along each side of the section of road within the 100 -year floodplain to delineate the road section in the event is covered by water will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. If this cannot be accomplished to the satisfaction of Staff, the Applicant shall be required to apply for a "Letter of Map Revision" which ultimately comes from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Michael Erion concurred with Staff' s assessment of this issue. E. Roaring Fork River Channel Fluxuation The application and the referral responses provided by Mark Butler of Sopris Engineering and Tom Zancanella of Zancanella & Associates have not addressed the potential channel instability of the Roaring Fork River throughout the site. This issue was brought up in the HP Geotech report provided in the application which stated, "The flood evaluations should also consider the possibility of river reoccupation of the abandoned channels and the possible need for river bank stabilization." In addition, this point was also raised by Celia Greenman of the Colorado Geological Survey, where she commented "the drainage report and the Federal Flood Insurance Plan do not take into account the possibility of channel migration and erosion of river banks." This issue was also noted by Michael Erion in his letter dated May 22, 2002. Celia Greenman noted that there is a 1999 study prepared by BRW for the Colorado Water Conservation Board that illustrates channel instability in the Roaring Fork River. The section of river that borders the subject property is shown as "stable." Ms. Greenman recommends the Applicant use this study as a starting point to prepare a review of more detailed geomorphology of the river in that particular area over the last 30 years. This analysis should be prepared by a person qualified to conduct such studies. Staff has made this consideration a condition of approval. The Applicant is aware of these comments are responded to this point by stating that the bank of the Roaring Fork River on the property frontage is approximately six feet above the water level for the entire length of the property and therefore, rechannelization is unlikely at the property itself (see Exhibit J). If any re -channeling occurs, it will occur up stream from the Blue Creek property which is also an issue raised by Michael Erion. Staff is unconvinced that potential river braiding would not occur on the Blue Creek Ranch property as a result of upriver channel dynamics and has not received any information indicating that it will not occur. Again, the Applicant has not directly addressed the issue that has been raised by three referral agencies. 8 • • F. Waste Water Treatment Plant The Applicant proposes a wastewaster treatment facility to serve the entire development. The Applicant submitted the "Onsite Wastewater System Design Report with technical Specifications" compiled by Church & Associates, Inc. to Staff on April 24, 2002. Specifically, the report defines the proposed treatment plant that will receive septic tank affluent (STE) from the proposed septic tanks at the individual residential units,(tree farm and horse boarding facility. Screened STE from the collection system will flow to a recirculation'tank. An effluent pumping system will dose the surface of a recirculating sand filter. The treated effluent is directed to a dosing tank where it is pumped to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection before discharge to the Roaring Fork River. This report includes facility specifications related to design criteria, septic tank and collection system, recirculation tank, total capacity, estimated average daily flow, UV dosing tank, sand filter, disinfection system, flow monitoring, construction, operation and maintenance. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which delineates this area as having severe septic constraints due to a high water table and therefore unsuitable for individual septic systems and leach fields. A site application for a central recirculating sand filtration system has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on November 21, 2001. This approval expires exactly one year from the date of approval. As recommended by Michael Erion of Resource Engineering (see Exhibit Y), an "inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan" for the proposed septic tanks should be developed and included in the covenants. In addition, design guidelines for the septic tanks to include a solids screen on the effluent outlet should be included. This is important since the sewer pipelines are designed at grades below minimum standards for typical wastewater, but acceptable for effluent without solids. Additionally, solids will foul the recirculating sand filtration media. The Applicant represented the water and wastewater facilities will be managed by the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) which will be an incorporated entity to serve the PUD. In addition, By -Laws will be established for the HOA which will address the utility management. The sewage treatment works will be paid for and constructed by the developer and dedicated to the HOA. The HOA will pay for on going operations by billing homeowners for services. Provisions shall be made for special assessments to address needs for capital repairs. The Town of Carbondale provided comments requesting the system be operated and maintained by a certified wastewater treatment plant operator rather than a HOA (see Exhibit R). G. Soils/Geology HP Geotech provided a preliminary geotechnical evaluation on this property on September 11, 2000 and did not find any soils or geologic hazards within the proposed development area. However, the potential exists for sink holes on the property and individual site specific soils and geotechnical investigations are necessary for the proposed development. The requirement for site specific engineering reports concerning soils and geologic conditions are addressed in the covenants. Celia Greenman, Geologist, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water detention, culverts, and quality assurance that the proposed finished floor elevations will meet FFIP specifications. Overall, CGS is recommending that approval of the development be contingent upon a revision of the flood plain study and drainage report (see Exhibit II). 9 (( 1J-1-) \ H. Road/Access The proposed residential development will have two (2) access points off of County Road 100 with an additional access point off of CR 100 for the public park. Internal access within the subdivision is to be serviced by a looping internal road system. The road system, as proposed, provides for a 50 - foot wide access easement to service the parcels. Based on the anticipated design capacity of the development, Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the applicant provide a 60 - foot wide minimum right-of-way. As discussed earlier in this report, pursuant to Section 4.05.02, the Board of County Commissioners may waive this requirement if it is determined that the modification is consistent with 'best engineering practices' as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. z ah.L In this case, the County has retained Michael Erion of Resources Engineering, who stated in a letter to Garfield County Planning Department dated June 13, 2002, "Based on our meeting with Garfield County Staff, the prediction of future traffic patterns within the subdivision is an unacceptable approach for the determination of road classification. Michael Erion recommends all roads within the subdivision should be designed as a minor collector with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet (see Exhibit FF). This standard is a basic requirement. As adjacent lands develop and future internal connections are made between projects, the internal roads will be constructed in a consistent manner to accommodate future traffic flow demands. The Garfield County Road and Bridge Department commented the proposed driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. L Fire Protection Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, responded to this application stating the proposed fire storage system for the subdivision will meet the needs of the Fire Department, (see Exhibit S). Additionally, the proposed spacing and location of the fire hydrants is acceptable for the subdivision. The development, however, will be subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the new residential lots. These fees, as to be determined, will be due prior to the recording of the Final Plat. J. Drainage A drainage study dated October 10, 2001 has been provided by Sopris Engineering, LLC. Michael Erion of Resource Engineering has reviewed the drainage plan and has provided the following comments within his review (see Exhibit Y): 1. A floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) will be required for the proposed fill and construction within the 100 -year flood plain. An application was submitted by Zancanella and Associates under cover of a January 8, 2002 letter to Mark Bean. The submittal indicates that the minimum finished floor elevation of all lots will be elevated at least one foot above the 100 - year base elevation. The floodplain SUP submittal does not address construction in the floodway as required in Section 6.09.O1.A of the Garfield County Floodplain Regulations. 0.2. se of the existing pond for detention appears feasible. However, it does not provide detention storage for storm water in the southern half of the property which discharges onto the St. Finnbar property via the lower ditch culvert crossing. The application needs to 10 • • address the potential impact to the St. Finnbar property from increased run off from the Blue Creek Ranch southern drainage area. 3. There is no detail or analysis regarding the outlet from the existing pond for purposes of detention storage releases. This detail and analysis should be provided at Final Plat. 4. The Roaring Fork River is a very dynamic stream system that is constantly undergoing changes due to significant sediment transport. The field visit revealed several old abandoned river channels through the property. These are also identified in the HP Geotech September 11, 2000 report. Since development is proposed on an island between a major old channel and the river, the potential and risk for reoccupation of these channels due to a large flood event should be addressed. K. Wildlife The Division of Wildlife has responded to this application with suggestions to mitigate impacts to wildlife in the area, (see Exhibit V). Some of these suggestions include: 1. Dogs and cats shall be prevented from running at large. 2. Wire fencing should be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" with no more than 4 strands and a 12 " kickspace between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be held to a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. 3. The Applicant should use bear -proof trash cans. 4. Bird feeders should be strung up from the ground with a seed catchment and humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the houses. 5. Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. 6. BBQs should be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when not in use. 7. Eliminate the planting of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding. 8. Maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. L. Assessment / Fees This development is not located in Traffic Study Area and thus is not subject to any traffic impact fees. School impact fees and Carbondale Rural Fire Protection impact fees, as to be determined, shall be paid at the time of Final Plat. VII. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA The following section presents the required review standards and criteria used to determine the proposed development's compliance with Garfield County Subdivision and Planned Unit Development regulations. The applicable standards are in bold and italicized text followed by Staff's response. Planned Unit Development Review Standards The Applicant is requesting that the underlying zoning be changed from A/R/RD to PUD. As such, the following standards apply: 11 • • 4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive plan(s). When appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon criteria for establishing land use designations contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding As stated above, the Applicant has applied for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based upon the current Comprehensive Plan criteria for establishing land use designations. The Applicant should be aware that if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not approved, the application will not be able to move forward as proposed. (The Commission, as a matter of process, should make a decision on the amendment request prior to discussion on the subsequent PUD / Subdivision requests.) 4.05.02 It is recognized that the uniqueness of each proposal for a PUD requires that the specifications, standards and requirements for various facilities, including but not limited to, streets, highways, alleys, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, parks, play -grounds, school grounds, storm drainage, water supply and distribution, and sewage collection and treatment, may be subject to modification from the specifications, standards, and requirements established in the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County for like uses in other zone districts. The County Commissioners may, at the time of zoning as a PUD, waive or modify the specifications, standards and requirements which would be otherwise applicable, as requested by the applicant. Any waiver or modification of specifications, standards and requirements will only be approved if it can be demonstrated that the proposed waiver(s) is consistent with "best engineering practices," as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The development proposes two (2) access points off of County Road 100 with an additional access point off of CR 100 for the public park. Internal access within the subdivision is to be serviced by a looping internal road system. The road system, as proposed, provides for a 50 -foot wide access easement to service the parcels. Based on the anticipated design capacity of the development, Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the applicant provide a 60 -foot wide minimum right-of-way. As discussed earlier in this report, pursuant to Section 4.05.02, the Board of County Commissioners may waive this requirement if it is determined that the modification is consistent with 'best engineering practices' as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. In this case, the County has retained Michael Erion of Resources Engineering, who stated in a letter to Garfield County Planning Department dated June 13, 2002, "Based on our meeting with Garfield County Staff, the prediction of future traffic patterns within the subdivision is an unacceptable approach for the determination of road classification. All roads within the subdivision should be designed as a minor collector with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet. This standard is a basic requirement. As adjacent lands develop and future internal connections are made between projects, the internal roads will be constructed in a consistent manner to accommodate future traffic flow demands. 12 • • 4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 4.07.02 The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors: (1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD; (2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses; (3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking areas is proposed. Staff Finding For residential uses, the minimum off street parking standard (LUC Section 5.01.02) requires either 1 space for every 600 sq. ft. of floor area or one space per dwelling unit which ever is greater. This development proposes four (4) off street parking spaces for each of the thirty-nine (39) free market single-family dwelling units and three (3) off street parking spaces for each of the nine (9) deed restricted affordable housing dwelling units. The development does not propose joint use of these parking spaces. Non -dwelling uses in include the public park adjacent to the Roaring Fork River which will include six (6) off street parking spaces to accommodate day use of the park. Staff finds the number of proposed off street parking spaces for both residential and park uses satisfy the off street parking requirements in the Land Use Code. 4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. Staff Finding The existing nature of the property consists of pasture/ agriculture lands, mature Aspen and Cottonwood vegetation and contains the Roaring Fork River forming the south property line. The surrounding area in which the PUD is proposed consists of a mix of residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. More specifically, the surrounding area includes three residential subdivisions, the Catherine Store, and agricultural pasture lands. This PUD application primarily proposes clustered residential development in and among existing mature vegetation. As such, the visual impacts of the development will be minimized as seen from the two roads adjacent to the property: SH82 and CR 100. In addition, the site design proposes to preserve an existing large tract of land (16.8 acres) on the north of the property, adjacent to SH82, historically used for agricultural purposes. This buffer, in addition to the existing mature vegetation, will also serve to minimize visual impacts from SH82. Regarding density, the property currently maintains the Agricultural/ Residential / Rural Density (A/R/RD) zone district which allows a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. The development proposes a slightly higher density of 1.65 acres per dwelling unit. (2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may beermitted, 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. 13 • • Staff Finding The development proposes an internal private circulation plan that is essentially one large loop through the middle of the property serving the four clusters of single family dwellings accessed to and from CR100. These private streets are to be classified as "rural access roads" which shall be required to meet the Garfield County Street and Roadway design standards. The Carbondale Fire Department has responded to this application stating that the access for the proposed development appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. The Garfield County Road and Bridge Department commented the proposed driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. Comments indicated that the plans for the driveways on to CR 100 are satisfactory. The Applicant will have to obtain new access permits for the additional road cuts on CR 100, see Exhibit P. The Sheriff's Office commented that the width, length, and turn-arounds of roads need to be compatible with Emergency response equipment. In addition, addresses should be legible from all roads. (See Exhibit N.) The development proposes a bike path along both the north and west property line, adjacent to HW82 and CR 100 respectively, which provides easy bike and pedestrian access to the RFTA park and ride at the intersection of HW82 and CR 100. In addition, the development proposes internal bike and pedestrian paths providing good access for residents through the site to the common areas, the pond, and the Roaring Fork River. Lastly, the Applicant contends that due to the limited traffic within the PUD, riders and pedestrians will also be able to use the proposed road system. Staff finds the proposed circulation plan of private roads and bike and pedestrian paths through the PUD satisfy this standard. (3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation, safety, convenience, separation and screening. Staff Finding As discussed above, Staff finds the development proposes adequate off street parking to serve the residential development. The development also proposes six (6) off street parking spaces serving the public park adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Staff finds the location of the residential parking spaces on each of the lots appear to be primarily located in garages and therefore screened from the streets within the PUD. Further, the six (6) spaces provided to serve the proposed public park adjacent to the Roaring Fork River appear to be completely screened from CR100 with mature vegetation. This configuration will remedy an existing problem of anglers and boaters who currently park their vehicles along CR100 just west of Catherine Bridge. These six spaces will provide a safer alternative to parking along side CR 100. Staff finds this standard to be met. (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain. Staff Finding The subject property contains 81.33 acres. The PUD is designed such that 54.9 acres will be common open space. This equates to approximately 66 percent of the PUD dedicated to open space. This is illustrated by Figure 3 of the application. 14 • • As mentioned earlier, the development proposes to preserve 16.8 acres (Tract 3) which is located on the northern portion of the property adjacent to SH82 as an agricultural use as it currently exists. Further, the developer has committed to dedicating Tract 5 (comprised of 19 acres located at the south end of the property along the Roaring Fork River) as a perpetual conservation easement to be given to a local land trust and limited to trail and passive recreational use. Tract 6, which contains 2.2 acres, will be dedicated as a public park located at the southwest corner of the property intended to provide river access for fishermen and boaters. Staff finds the provision of 54 acres of the site as open space effectively preserves the natural features of the site that primarily include the sensitive riparian areas in the 100 year floodplain adjacent to the Roaring Fork River on the southern property line and the agricultural pasture lands on the northern portion of the site. Staff finds the proposed uses within the PUD are more than adequately served by the provision of open space throughout the PUD. Staff finds this standard is met. (5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes a mix of approximately 18% single-family affordable housing units and 82% free market single-family units. However, it appears from the Illustrative Site Plan (included as Figure 1 of the application) that the 9 affordable housing units are designed in a duplex configuration with one unit being a detached single-family dwelling. As mentioned above, the PUD provides sufficient open space. Staff finds this standard to be met. (6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units. Staff Finding The residential dwelling units are proposed in clusters that are located in such a manner as to provide adequate privacy between clusters. As a matter of reference, the underlying zoning of A/R/RD, permits the minimum side yard setbacks to be 10 feet from the property line. In this case, it appears the development proposes building envelopes for each lot that indicate a 5 foot setback from the side yard property line. In effect, the distance between actual building envelopes is 10 feet which is half of what the underlying zone district would allow. However, the County Commissioners may vary this standard through this PUD. (7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety, separation, convenience, and access to points of destination and attractiveness. Staff Finding The development proposes a bike and pedestrian path along the north and west property line along the CR100 and HW82 frontages that serves as safe and easy access to the RFTA park and ride mass transit access point. In addition, the development proposes internal pedestrian trails (as shown on Figures 3 and 4 of the application) to points of interest associated with the property: the pond and the Roaring Fork River. Lastly, the Applicant also proposes to dedicate approximately 2.2 acres of open space to be dedicated to the public as a public park primarily for river access to anglers and boaters. This park, containing a gravel parking lot for 6 vehicles, will be donated to the Roaring Fork Land Conservancy which will be maintained by the Blue Creek Ranch HOA. This action will alleviate an 15 • • existing problem along CR 100 on either side of the Catharine Store Bridge where anglers and boaters park and load and unload boats to access the river. This park provides a safe access to the river from traffic traveling CR 100. (8) If centralized water and/or wastewater facilities are proposed within the PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that shall contain its own performance standards. No land within any utility zone district shall apply toward any category of open space calculation or requirement. The PUD shall demonstrate how common water and wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed by the future owners within the PUD. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The developer proposes centralized water and wastewater facilities within the PUD. Specifically, the developer has entered into a Water Service Agreement with the neighboring property to the west (across CR100) known as Aspen Equestrian Estates (AEE) to share their water facilities that consist of two wells: the Arabian and Appaloosa Wells that are adequate to serve both properties as well as the treatment plant which are all located on the AEE property. (This agreement is included as Appendix 6 in the Application materials provided by the Developer.) It should be mentioned that the methodology used to determine adequate supply includes not only assumed residential use of 3.5 people using 100 gallons per person / per day, but also 20 livestock units in the water service plan. In addition, the developers have applied for well permits (known as the Snipe and Goose Wells) in case future supply is jeopardized from AEE or additional capacity is required. Regarding wastewater, the developer proposes an on-site wastewater treatment facility to serve the PUD. The developer has obtained a site application approval from the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment which is included as Appendix 8 of the application materials. The state found the site application to be in conformance with the Water Quality Control Commission's "Regulations for the Site Application process." As a result the application was approved with five (5) conditions as stated in Appendix 8 of the application and included in this memo. In addition, the approval requires that "prior to the operation of the facility, a discharge permit will be required which will specify the final conditions and limitations of the operations of the facility." Staff has also included this as a condition of approval. (9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40%, shall be the minimum necessary to meet the development needs, with a revegetation and geotechnical plan submitted with the PUD application; (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The subject site is primarily flat and does not contain slopes in excess of 40%. As a result, the proposed development will not disturb any slopes in excess of 40%. Further, the subject site is not identified as having any slope hazards on the Garfield County Slope Hazard map. Staff finds this standard is met. (10) If community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entity shall be responsible for the provision of and payment for the proposed facilities. The facilities shall also be included within the overall common infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water, wastewater and parking requirements. (A. 97-109) 16 • • Staff Finding Community facilities included in the PUD include open space, common barns, roads and utilities systems that are all maintained by the HOA. Roads and utility systems are to be paid for and initially developed by the Applicant. Since the 9 affordable housing units are "for -sale" units, Staff strongly suggests the Applicant create a separate HOA for the 9 affordable housing units so that they are not required to be responsible for a disproportionate share of fiscal burdens required for the overall maintenance of the common facilities and roads throughout the PUD. 4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following characteristics of the proposed building: (1) It's geographical location; (2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain; (3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity; (4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air circulation or loss of view; (5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open space; and (6) Uses within the proposed building. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes the maximum height of all buildings throughout the PUD to be 25 feet tall which is consistent with the underlying zone district of A/A/RD. Staff finds this standard is met. 4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate specific building types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted to provide flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with useable common open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accommodate contemporary building types which are not spaced individually on their own lots but share common side walls, combined service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a basis for denying approval of a PUD application. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes building envelopes for all residential lots within the PUD. The residential dwelling units are proposed in clusters or nodules that preserve greater open space. As a matter of reference, the underlying zoning of A/R/RD, permits the minimum side yard setbacks to be 10 feet from the property line. In this case, it appears the development proposes building envelopes for each lot that indicate a 5 foot setback from the side yard property line. The Applicant also proposes that front porches shall be allowed to extend outside the building envelopes and be as close as ten feet from internal roads. The Applicant has not addressed maximum site coverage for each individual lot. As a practical matter, the underlying zone district allows for maximum site coverage of 15 percent. Ultimately, the distance between actual building envelopes is 10 feet which is half of what the underlying zone district would allow. However, the County Commissioners may vary this standard through this PUD. 4.07.06 The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special district (as defined by Section 17 • • 32-1-103(20), C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, such densities being determined by reference to the maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and parking standards of such prior zoning classification. The overall average residential density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the PUD. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance to the purposes of this section through appropriate utilization of the area within the PUD to achieve high standards of design and livability. The density of dwelling units in any particular area may be greater than the maximum permitted for a like use in other zone district. (A. 83-93, A. 96-87, A. 97-109) Staff Finding Residential density, as defined by the land use code, is the total number of residential dwelling units divided by the gross area expressed in acres. In this case, the PUD proposes 50 total dwelling units which is divided by the gross area of 81.33 acres. The result is a density of 0.6 units per acre, which is much less than the standard of 2 units per acre. Another method of looking at density shows the number of acres per unit. In this case, the overall density can be seen as 1.6 acres per unit which is less dense than the level of density in this standard of 2 units per one acre. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.07 The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres. Staff Finding The subject property contains 81.33 acres which far exceeds the minimum acreage requirement for PUDs. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. (A. 95-043, A. 97-109) The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD. Staff Finding The development proposes single-family dwellings which are uses permitted by right in the underlying A/R/RD zone district. Staff finds this standard is met. 4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open space. Of 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 needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The PUD proposes 54 acres or 66 percent of the subject site to be dedicated open space which far exceeds the minimum 25 percent requirement. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.07.10 If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such ownership shall be those that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PUD. 18 • • Staff Finding The PUD does not propose and timeshare or fractional fee ownership for any of the residential dwellings. The residential dwelling units are to be single ownership in fee. Staff finds this standard to be met. 4.08.05 Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the Subdivision Regulation requirements will supersede the following PUD requirements where the same information or more detailed information is required as a part of a subdivision application. The applicant shall include with the written request for PUD zoning which does not include a subdivision Preliminary Plan application the following information: (1) A statement of the ownership interest in the property to be included in the PUD and the written consent of all of the owners; Staff Finding The Applicant has represented the sole owner of the subject property is Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC A Colorado Limited Liability Company. (See Appendix 1 and 2 of the application). Staff finds this requirement is met. (2) A PUD Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development. Such Plan shall clearly indicate: (a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposed within the overall area; Staff Finding The plan proposes a total of 50 residential units on the 81.33 acre property. Specifically, the 50 units are comprised of the following: 1 existing single-family unit and 1 existing ADU, 39 free market units, 9 affordable housing units. As discussed above, this produces an overall density of 1.6 areas per unit. Staff finds this requirement is met. (b) The minimum acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open Space; Staff Finding The Applicant proposes a total of 54 acres (66%) of the property is devoted to common open space. Please refer to Sheet 3 of the application for a rendering of the proposed open space. Staff finds this requirement is met. (c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each use; Staff Finding Please refer to Sheet 3 of the application which details the uses and their associated acreage as proposed in this development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (d) Major internal circulation systems; Staff Finding Please refer to Sheet 3 of the application for a plan of the internal road system. In addition, the subsequent Sheets include finer details of the street system and their adjacent lots. Staff finds this requirement is met. 19 • • (e) The acreage, which will be dedicated for school, sites; Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to dedicate land for a school site at the Blue Creek Ranch. The Applicant shall provide the appropriate cash -in -lieu of a land dedication. Staff finds this requirement to be met. (f) The general nature and location of commercial and industrial uses, if any, to be located in the PUD; Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any commercial or industrial uses as part of this PUD. Staff finds this requirement is met. (g) Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if applicable; and Staff Finding The Applicant has provided a letter from Sopris Engineering, dated January 17, 2002, which outlines the utilities proposed for this development. In addition, the Applicant has provided a Utility Plan on Sheets 18-26 of the plans prepared by Sopris Engineering which includes details for proposed utility lines throughout the development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (h) Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building setbacks, height limits, access requirements and grade or slope restrictions to be applied to particular areas, written in the form of a zone district text the same as, or in similar form to, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed the following uses and dimensional requirements or development restrictions as part of this PUD. In addition, Staff has provided a detailed matrix showing what the underlying zoning (A/R/RD) allows compared to what the Applicant proposed thorough this PUD. (See Exhibit HH.) Uses by Right: Greenhouse, orchard, customary accessory uses and buildings including building for enclosure or shelter of persons, single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses park and ride lots. Lots Minimum Setback: 1) Front Yard (facing courtyard commons): 2) Rear Yard (facing parking open space): 3) Side Yard: 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet Maximum Height: 25 feet Maximum Site Coverage: 40% - 45% (i) If more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be included in the application that delineates the proposed phasing of the development. (A. 97-109) 20 • • Staff Finding: The Applicant plans to complete the construction of the Blue Creek PUD / Subdivision in one phase. Specifically, the Applicant plans to begin road and utility installation in the late summer of 2002 and 2003 to be completed by the fall of 2003. The lots will be developed following the completion of the aforementioned site development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (3) A regional location map showing the relationship of the site to connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding land uses; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a vicinity map showing the relationship of the site to connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding land uses. This can be viewed on Sheet 1 provided by the Applicant. Staff finds this requirement is met. (4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing zoning; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing zoning. This can be viewed on Sheets 2-6 of the submitted application. Staff finds this requirement is met. (5) A site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding. This can be viewed on Sheet 7 of the submitted application. Staff finds this requirement is met. (6) A legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PUD; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PUD. This can be viewed in Appendix 1, Title Policy, in the Application. Staff finds this requirement is met. (7) A written statement containing the following information: (a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided an explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD which are as follows: 1. Identify and preserve environmentally sensitive lands unsuitable for development such as wetlands and areas prone to flooding; 21 • • 2. Enhance State Highway 82 (SI -182) visual corridor by preserving the existing irrigated pasture located adjacent to SH82; 3. Develop clustered housing surrounding common courtyards separated from vehicle traffic; 4. Limit single-family detached housing to building envelopes which are carefully selected to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and existing trees; 5. Preserve land along the Roaring Fork River as common open space; 6. Work with RFTA and CDOT to develop a well landscaped park and ride lot on the site; 7. Develop and dedicate a bicycle / pedestrian trail along CR100 from Catherine Store to the Roaring Fork River; 8. Improve public access to the Roaring Fork River for fishermen and boaters; and 9. Create a street system with low volumes of traffic which provides safety for pedestrians and bike riders. Staff finds this requirement is met. (b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed; Staff Finding: The Applicant plans to complete the construction of the Blue Creek PUD / Subdivision in one phase. Specifically, the Applicant plans to begin road and utility installation in the late summer of 2002 and 2003 to be completed by the fall of 2003. The lots will be developed following the completion of the aforementioned site development. Staff finds this requirement is met. (c) Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which will govern the use or occupancy of the PUD; provided, however, that the applicant may impose additional covenants, conditions and restrictions on any particular area in connection with the platting of such area; Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided a copy of draft Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Blue Creek Ranch PUD. This is found by viewing Appendix 9 of the Applicant's submission. Staff finds this requirement has been met. (d) A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200) feet of the boundaries of the PUD and their addresses; Staff Finding: Appendix 10 is a copy of the owners within 200 feet of the subject property as listed in the Garfield 22 • • County Assessor's Office. Staff finds this requirement to be met. (e) A statement bya licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and documentation, which shall provide evidence of the llowing: (A. 97-109) (i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to service the PUD; Staff Finding Regarding a legal and adequate water supply, the Applicant has provided documentation in the form of a letter, dated January 24, 2002 from Zancanella & Associates concerning documentation of a legal and physical water supply which can be found in Appendix 6 of the application. Further, and as mentioned in the body of this memorandum and represented by the Applicant, the PUD proposed to access water from Aspen Equestrian Estates. The Applicant also provided a letter to Staff, dated June 24, 2002 from the Division of Water Resources stating the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights (see Exhibit K). (ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application proposes to utilize existing, central facilities, the application shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess capacity currently exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will be expanded to adequately accommodate the development; (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The Applicant proposes a wastewaster treatment facility to serve the entire development. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which delineates this area as having severe septic constraints due to the high water table and therefore unsuitable for individual septic systems and leach fields. A site application for a central recirculating sand filtration system has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on November 21, 2001. This approval expires exactly one year from the date of approval. As recommended by Michael Erion of Resource Engineering (see Exhibit Y), an inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan for the proposed septic tanks should be developed and included in the covenants. In addition, design guidelines for the septic tanks to include a solids screen on the effluent outlet should be included. This is important since the sewer pipelines are designed at grades below minimum standards for typical wastewater, but acceptable for effluent without solids. Additionally, solids will foul the recirculating sand filtration media. (iii) The proposed method in which storm drainage will be handled, demonstrating that adjoining property owners would not be damaged by the development; and (A97-109) Staff Finding The Applicant provided a Drainage Study for Blue Creek Ranch prepared by Sopris Engineering which can be found in Appendix 11, completed on October 10, 2001. A separate analysis of the drainage issues based on this Sopris Engineering Study was conducted by Celia Greenman of the Colorado Geologic Survey (see Exhibit U). Ms. Greenman, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water detention, culverts, and quality assurance that the proposed finished floor elevations will meet FFIP specifications. Overall, CGS recommends approval of the development be contingent upon a revision of the 1999 flood plain study and drainage report. 23 • • (iv) The proposed method in which provision will be made for any potential natural hazards in the area such as avalanche areas, landslide areas, flood plain areas, and unstable soils, and the extent and mitigation of such hazard(s); (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The site is relatively flat and contains stable soils. It appears that floodplain hazards are the only natural hazard affecting the subject property. The Applicant has developed the site plan in such a way as to minimize any encroachment in the floodplain and wetland areas. The Applicant does propose to construct two road sections in the floodway that are mentioned and discussed in detail in this memorandum. The Applicant has applied for a Floodplain Special Use Permit to construct these improvements in the flood plain concurrently with this PUD / Subdivision application. Please refer to the aforementioned discussion regarding soils and floodplain issues in this memo. Staff finds this requirement is met. (F) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to the PUD and/or documentation demonstrating access shall be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way; (A. 97-109) and Staff Finding Please refer to Appendix 14 which is a letter from Patrick & Stowell, dated September 7, 2000, which demonstrates legal access to the Blue Creek Ranch from CR 100. Staff finds this requirement is met. (G) Evidence that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the natural environment of the site and the surrounding area and does not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or unique natural or historical features. Staff Finding The Applicant has designed the PUD in consideration of the natural environment of the site including consideration for wildlife, natural vegetation as represented by the following: 1) Appendix 4 is a wetlands investigation prepared by Andy Antipas; 2) Appendix 5 is a wildlife assessment prepared by Steve D. Dahmer ofNatureTech Consultant Services Corp.; 3) Appendix 15 is a Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist which provides an inventory of on-site wild life; 4) Appendix 16 is a wetlands encroachment request to the Army Corps of Engineers ion the form of a letter to Grady McNare date January 8, 2002. The Applicant has represented that they will follow the recommendations provided in Appendix 4 and 15. Staff has also made these recommendations conditions of approval. VIII. 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 24 • all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is 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 in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. I.X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and recommend APPROVAL of the Blue Creek Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the Board of County Commissioners, with the following conditions: 1. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is amended at this location to allow for High Density Residential use. 2. The Applicant shall address the following drainage concerns listed by Michael Erion of Resource Engineering: a) The State has issued a letter of no material injury for the water supply for this project. The Applicant shall provide the same information to the County as was submitted to the State regarding their analysis of the water supply. This material shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department prior to Final Plat. b) Due to the fact that the water system for Blue Creek Ranch PUD shall be a merged system with the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision, the Applicant shall incorporate language addressing the interaction between the two Homeowners Associations in the B -Laws which indicated the responsibilities of both Associations for the shared water system. c) Additional straw bales shall be located in the drainage ditch along County Road 100 between Ponderosa Pass Road and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage, and along County Road 100 between Bristlecone Drive and the Blue Creek drainage as recommended by Michael Erion in his review letter dated May 22, 2002. Construction documents shall reflect these changes by the time of Final Plat. t The Applicant shall be required to meet the Garfield County Street and Roadway design standards in designing the internal private road network as well as the access points into the PUD from CR 100. As such, all roads within the subdivision should 25 • • be designed as a minor collector with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet. 3. The Applicant shall indicate within the covenants which lots within the development have existing wetlands and areas within flood fringes and / or flood ways of the Roaring Fork River. The covenants shall state that disturbance of these wetlands and floodplain areas are prohibited. 4. The Applicansha I use a 1999 study prepared by BRW for the Colorado Water Conservation Board illustra channel instability in the Roaring Fork River as a starting point to prepare a review of more detailed geomorphology of the river in that particular area over the last 30 years as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey. This analysis should be prepared by a person qualified to conduct such studies. This report shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department at the time of Final Plat. 5. The Applicant shell adhere to the following recommendations of the Division of Wildlife included within their letter dated May 13, 2002: a) Dogs and cats shall be prevented from running at large. b) Wire fencing should be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" with no more than 4 strands and a 12" kickspace between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be held to a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. ) The Ap.licant shall use bear- s roof gid.) Bird feeders should be strung up from the ground with a seed catchment and humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the houses. e) Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. f) BBQs should be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when not in use. g) Eliminate the planting of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding. h) Maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. 6. The Applicant shall adhere to the following requirements listed in within the memo from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management Director, dated May 16, 2002: a) The Applicant should conduct a weed inventory and provide the locations on a map. Weeds that may be in the area include: plumeless thistle, Scotch thistle, Canada thistle, and possibly oxeye daisy close to the Roaring Fork. In addition, the Applicant should provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. This information shall be sent to and reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Department prior to Final Plat. b) Common area weed management -The Open Space Plan lists various areas of the site as conservation easements, private open space, general open space, public parks, public trail, or CDOT dedication. Please detail the entity that will be responsible for 26 • • weed management in each of these areas and also any roadways in the project. (This information shall be sent to and reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Department prior to Final Plat.) c) Weed management for the Homeowners Association and each individual lot owner shall be addressed in the covenants. d) The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) 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. v. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil vi. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. vii. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. e) The Applicant shall provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. f) The Applicant shall include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment. 7. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis regarding the outlet flow from the existing pond regarding detention storage releases by the time of Final Plat. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all six (6) special conditions stipulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their letter dated April 10, 2002 relating to the nationwide permit to discharge dredged or fill material in waters of the United States for outfall structures and maintenance, minor discharges, and linear transportation crossings. These include: a) The Applicant must submit pre -construction photographs of your outfall conditions to the Roaring Fork River along with post construction photographs to establish recontour and grade matching activities effecting above and below the ordinary high water mark. b) Plant species identified and delineated by the Andy Anitpas report dated August 8, 2000, must be restored in the compensatory mitigation area using a combination of the following trees and shrubs; Pupulus angustifolia, Alnus incana, Cornus stonifera, Picea pungens, and Salix exigua. 27 c) Topsoil from the delineated 1,505 square feet of impacted wetlands adjacent to building lot 21 must be moved to the area of compensatory mitigation and placed below the existing grade. The area of compensatory mitigation is directly east of building lots 18 and 19, within tract 5 of the final plat map submitted to this office and dated January 4, 2002. d) The Applicant must submit prints of photographs depicting the degree to which performance criteria has been met for the 2300 square feet of compensatory mitigation wetland in a wetland mitigation report. e) The Applicant must send a signed letter of certification to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days after completion of the work (see general condition number 14). A copy of the certification statement is included for your use. f) The Applicant must comply with any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved state or local management requirements for building activities within the 100 year floodplain identified by your Existing Conditions / Topography Map dated September 21, 2000. 9. The Applicant shall provide a signed copy of an agreement with St. Finnbar Ranch regarding the relocation of the `lower ditch' within the property by the time of Final Plat. 10. The Applicant shall provide an inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan for the proposed septic tanks of the sewer system to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. J•This plan shall be included within the subdivision covenants and provided the Staff prior to Final Plat. 11. Prior to the operation of the facility, and consistent with the requirement imposed by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Applicant shall obtain a discharge permit which shall specify the "final conditions and limitations of the operations of the facility."This permit sh11 be submitted to the Garfield County Building and Planning —�- Department prior to Final Plata 12. The Applicant shall comply with the five conditions of approval as stated in the letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC dated November 21, 2001 and included as Appendix 8 in the applications materials. These conditions include: b) Based on application information, the wastewater treatment facility design will be for: ➢ Average Daily Flow Capacity — 0.020 mgd ➢ Organic Loading Capacity — 50 lbs. BOD/ day ➢ Treatment Processes to be used — Individual Septic Tanks, Lift Station, recirculating sand filter, and UV disinfection Preliminary Effluent Parameter Values: 28 • • > BODs — 30/45 mg.1 (30 -day / 7 -day average) ➢ Suspendid Solids — (30 -day / 7 -day average) > Fecal Coliform — 6,000 / 12,000 #/100 ml ((30 -day / 7 -day geometric) c) This site approval will expire one year from November 21, 2001 if the construction of the project has not commenced by that date. If expiration occurs, you must apply for a new site approval. Construction is defined as entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of materials, equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings that are to be part of a domestic wastewater treatment works. d) The design (construction plans and specifications) of the treatment works must be approved by the Division prior to the commencement of construction and all construction change orders initiating variances from the approved plans and specifications must be approved by the Division. e) 13 - Since the nine (9) affordable housing units are "for -sale" units, the applicant shall establish a separate Homeowner's Association for those housing units so that they are not unduly kburdened by a disproportionate share of fiscal responsibility required for the overall maintenance of the common facilities and roads throughout the PUD. The Applicant's registered engineer must furnish a statement prior to the commencement of operation stating that the facilities were constructed in conformance with the approved plans, specifications, and change orders. 14. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the Final Plat: a) "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." b) "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." 29 • • 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) "Each lot shall have 2,500 square feet of irrigation water." 15. 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. 114, 4 ,irt.41c-11,1 K� (. \ t'Qj1 -)%0 b,r' ole 11- AAA-- -9 30 11,56/4/1-/,4 51L7/ flue Creek Ranch Garfield County Planning Commission July 10, 2002 Land Use Requests 1) Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) 3) Subdivision 4) Floodplain Special Use Permit Vicinity / Comprehensive Plan Map Ranch at the ?^ Roaring Fork A Aspen Equestrian Estates Lion's Ridge L� �IYN Cerise Property Te Ke Ki Adjacent Land Uses >Current Zoning: A/R/RD Catherine Store (Commercial) >Aspen Equestrian Estates (1.2 ac. / DU) ➢St. Finnbar Subdivision (6.7 ac. / DU) >Te Ke Ki Subdivision (<3 ac. / DU) >Cerise Ranch ( >Lion's Ridge (<3 ac. / DU) >Ranch @ Roaring Fork (<3 ac./ DU) 2 Development Proposal ➢ Total of 49 Residential Lots (5,000 sq. ft. to 5 ac.) ➢39 Free Market Lots ➢9 Affordable Housing Lots ➢1 Existing Single Family Dwelling with ADU ➢ 54 acres of Open Space (66%): ➢Conservation Easement Public Park >Trail >Common Open Space ➢ RFTA "Park & Ride"/ CDOT Dedication / Rail Alignment ➢ Water System shared with Aspen Equestrian Estates ➢ On-site Wastewater System Development Proposal: Site Plan Affordable Housing crania 6uueoa Aspen Equestrian Estates BLUECLFEKRhVCii PIJD: ,ILL TBITIVE SITE PLAN St. Finnbar Subdivision 3 • Floodplain Issues 100 -Year Floodplain V / 4 Comprehensive Development Constraints: Plan Methodology Land Use Classifications High Density (2 acres or less per dwelling unit) as adopted by Garfield County Minor Blue Creek Ranch Proposal (1.6 acres per dwelling unit) Minor Slope Constraints Soil Constraints Minor Minor ISDS (Septic) Constraints Minor Minor Floodplain Constraints Minor Critical Minor Compatible w/ other Subdivisions Land Use Considerations: Land Use Compatibility Road Conditions Critical CR 100 is in "Good Condition" Infrastructure Needs Critical Can easily be accommodated Distance From Urban Uses Moderate 2 miles from Carbondale and El Jebel / Adjacent to Catherine Store. Basic Project Overview Project Benefits Preservation of Visual Corridor on 82 Creative "Cluster" Design Approach ➢Conservation Easement / Open Space and Fisherman's Easement ➢Public Park / Trail / Future Rail ➢Improving RFTA "Park & Ride" ➢19% Affordable Housing (2x...) Building 4 now Project Issues ➢6 times the density called for in Comprehensive Plan (10 acres to 1.6 acres per dwelling unit) ➢Internal Road System (60' vs. 50') ➢Development in floodplain Road Sections >Outfall structure Roaring Fork River Channel Issue 5 r Land Use Review Process Planning Commission 1) Final Decision Maker regarding on Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2) Forward recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding: • Planned Unit Development • Subdivision • Board of County Commissioners 1) Final Decision Makers regarding: • Floodplain Special Use Permit • Planned Unit Development • Subdivision The End 6