Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 Justification Report FINAL (042211)River Edge Colorado Requests for Approval of River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report January 18, 2011 Carbondale Investments, LLC, a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in Colorado ("CP), proposes to develop approximately 160 acres generally located along State Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale near the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82 (the "Property"). The Property is located almost entirely to the west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way (the "RFTA ROW") and east of the Roaring Fork River and Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC") Conservation Easement. The Property straddles Cattle Creek, which also is located within the RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map showing the Property is provided in Tab 1, Item g. of the Application (defined below). CI is the owner of the Property and Rockwood Shepard is the appointed owner -representative for purposes of the Application, as indicated on the Statement of Authority provided in Tab 1, Item f. of the Application. CI contemplates developing the Property into a walkable clustered -form of residential development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable homes, passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the "Project"). The neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and will offer opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a fitness room, a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and limited community service uses. Community service uses may include not-for-profit or for- profit uses that may be operated for the benefit of residents of the community only within designated spaces of the neighborhood center. Community service uses shall be operated by a tenant or concessionaire of the property owners' association (the "POA") to be established for the Project and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a health club. Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog parks, playfields, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural heritage and rural character, CI anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for "Garden/Orchard" use may be used, at the residents' election, as communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations of the POA, it is anticipated that these Garden/Orchard tracts will consist of individual plots, multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas, other ancillary horticultural related uses, and for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be provided within the neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas ultimately will be decided by the residents of the Project. River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of the Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide provided in Tab 3, Item b. of the Application. Rezoning of the Property from Residential/Suburban to a PUD district and subdivision of the Property are required for CI to move forward with the Project. Accordingly, CI requests that the County approve (i) the rezoning of the Property to a PUD district, (ii) the River Edge Colorado PUD Plan, and (iii) the River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan (collectively, the "Application"). This Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report (this "Report") demonstrates that the Application meets or exceeds the criteria in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (the "ULUR"), for approval of (i) a rezoning, (ii) a PUD plan, and (iii) a preliminary plan. In addition, CI requests relief and modifications from certain standards set forth in Article VII of the ULUR, and provides justification for these requests in this Report. For ease of review, the following is an outline of the issues discussed in this Report: I. The Project Satisfies the Criteria for Approval of a Rezoning 1. No Spot Zoning 2. Change in Area 3. Demonstrated Community Need 4. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements 5. Original Zone Designation Incorrect 6. Adequate Water Supply II. The Project Satisfies the Crtieria for Approval of a Planned Unit Development 1. Compliance with Rezoning Standards 2. Relationship to Surrounding Area 3. Visual Impacts 4. Street Circulation System 5. Pedestrian Circulation System 6. Open Space 7. Housing Variety 8. Affordable Housing 9. Fire Hazards 10. Recreation Amenities 11. Adequacy of Supporting Materials 12. Taxes 13. Adequate Water Supply III. Additional Information Required for the PUD Written Description 1. Method of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 2. Mineral Rights Owners and Water Rights Owners 3. Description of Natural and Manmade Hazards 2 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report 4. Discussion of Impacts on County Services 5. Discussion of Impacts on Flora and Fauna, Air Quality, Wildlife, Historical Lands or Site, Drainage or Mineral Extraction IV. The Project Satisfies the Criteria for Approval of a Preliminary Plan 1. Requests for Relief from Certain Standards of Article VII of the ULUR 2. Requests for Modifications from Certain Standards of Article VII of the ULUR V. Conclusion I. The Project Satisfies the Criteria for Approval of a Rezoning This Section explains how CI's proposed rezoning to a PUD district meets or exceeds the criteria for approval of a rezoning set forth for in Section 4-201.B of the ULUR. Each criterion is addressed in turn. 1. No Spot Zoning. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning. Rezoning the Property to a PUD district in order to accommodate the Project will result in a logical and orderly development pattern, consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 (the "Comprehensive Plan"). Approval of the proposed rezoning will not constitute spot zoning. The Property is currently zoned Residential/Suburban which zoning provides for residential development "comprised of low-density suburban residential uses developed to maintain a rural character." ULUR § 3-101.I. The maximum density within the Residential/Suburban zone district is approximately 2.2 units per acre based on the required minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The Project proposes a slightly higher average density of 2.3 units per acre. However, given the clustered pattern of development proposed, the Project will preserve large undeveloped tracts of land throughout the Property, which will serve as buffers between and within the most sensitive areas of the Project. As described in more detail below, the Project's proposed clustered development pattern will preserve the rural character of the area and conserve habitat and important riparian areas. The Property is bounded on the west by the RFC Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River, on the northeast by the RFTA ROW, a pedestrian and bicycle pathway, and on the southeast by SH 82, a median divided rural highway, with two lanes in each direction. With the exception of these rights-of-way and the RFC Conservation Easement, the Property largely is surrounded by lands that are currently zoned and used for commercial development and a range of residential densities. The RFC Conservation Easement is zoned PUD, which PUD allows only, with limited exceptions as provided in the grant of easement, open space and conservation uses. Further west 3 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report of the RFC Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River, properties are zoned as PUD districts, which PUDs generally allow moderate density residential uses. Located immediately to the north of the Property is fallow agricultural land zoned Residential/Suburban. Further north and northwest of the Property, properties are zoned Residential Urban or Suburban and Rural, respectively, and are in moderate to high density residential use including a mobile home park. Located east and northeast of the Property, across the RFTA ROW, is more fallow agricultural land zoned Residential/Suburban. North of that is property zoned and use for limited commercial use, and further east of the Property, across SH 82, from north to south, properties are zoned Commercial/General, Commercial/Limited, and Rural, which properties are in commercial and residential uses. A Rural zoned and agriculturally used property abuts a very small portion of the Property's southern boundary. However, per the County's Future Land Use Map 2030 (the "Land Use Map"), the County anticipates that in the relative near term this property will be transitioned to residential use. In addition, as discussed in more detail throughout this Report, rezoning of the Property to accommodate the Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Property currently is designated Residential High on the Land Use Map and falls within an "unincorporated community". The average residential density proposed for the Project of 2.3 dwelling units per acre falls well within the residential density range contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for the Residential High designation. Approval of this proposed density is more than warranted given the public benefits that will be provided by the Project, including, for example, affordable housing, a diverse mix of housing types at a range of prices, a significant area devoted to parks, trails and open space for Project residents, and preservation of the County's rural character and views. See Comprehensive Plan at pages 23 & 27. Moreover, the County's inclusion of the Property within an "unincorporated community," which the Comprehensive Plan describes as "[e]ssentially a small town that has not been incorporated," indicates that the Property is an appropriate place for development. See id. at page 72. Lastly, the PUD district is specifically identified by the Comprehensive Plan as "compatible zoning" for the Residential High designation. See id. at page 27. The Comprehensive Plan goals referenced above could not be achieved if the Property were to remain zoned Residential/Suburban. Rather, due to the minimum lot area requirement of 20,000 square feet in the Residential/Suburban district, development pursuant to this zoning would result in a sprawling large -lot development that would result in none of the community -wide and habitat benefits provided by the proposed open space. In this regard, it bears emphasis that the ULUR does not include "vacant or unused land or yards as part of a platted lot" in its definition of "open space." ULUR § 16-101. Also, a residential development within the Residential/Suburban district would not likely result in the construction of the mix of housing types at the range of prices currently contemplated for the Project. Rezoning the Property to a PUD district to allow for the density, uses, and configuration contemplated for the Project is compatible with the existing and planned land uses and zoning scheme for the Property and surrounding areas. 4 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report 2. Change in Area. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. CI is not proposing a rezoning to establish new uses or significantly greater densities than what currently are allowed on the Property. Rather, the Comprehensive Plan, which document "establishes the broad land uses and the density of development" within the County, currently allows the residential density contemplated for the Project. The Property's Residential/Suburban zoning currently allows residential uses, although not quite at the density desired for the Property. See Comprehensive Plan at page 18. This said, CI desires to rezone the Property to a PUD district in order to provide for a clustered form of residential development, which form, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will enable CI to provide a mix of housing types at various prices, provide efficient infrastructure, maximize the preservation of open space and views, conserve wildlife habitat, and retain the character of the surrounding area. Sound land use and community planning generally promotes the concepts of walkable communities, appropriate densification, and absorption of growth in areas that have, or can easily be served by urban services. At the other end of the spectrum is the concept of "sprawl," which describes a development pattern characterized by low density and inefficient infrastructure. CI requests that the County approve a rezoning of the Property to a PUD district so that CI may develop a community that is in keeping with the principles expressed by the former and the concepts and goals identified by the Comprehensive Plan. The newly adopted Comprehensive Plan presumably represents the County's most up to date assessment of the changed conditions within the County. The River Edge Colorado PUD is in keeping with the concepts and goals identified by the Comprehensive Plan and, as such, responds to the changed conditions within the County in a manner that promotes the public interest. In addition, the proposed phasing of the Project responds to the unpredictability of the County's economic and market conditions both today and over the life of the development of the Project. Similarly, the proposed phasing responds to another key concern raised by the Comprehensive Plan—that there are a number of approved subdivisions in the County that are undeveloped or only partially developed. Id. at page 15. In order to avoid wasting resources and developing unnecessary infrastructure, CI proposes for the Project to be constructed in up to eleven (11) phases. A preliminary phase of development of the Project ("Phase 0") likely will commence ahead of approval of the final plat for the first phase of the Project. Phase 0 will entail reclamation and related pre -development activities to prepare the Property for development and will restore the Property to an environmentally sound and productive condition. See River Edge Colorado Reclamation Plan, prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC, dated January 14, 2011 (the "Reclamation Plan"), provided in Appendix U of the Impact Analysis (defined below). The subsequent eleven (11) phases will each be designed as a fully functional standalone development and will be constructed in a logical and timely manner based on its relationship and contiguity with existing development. Specifically, CI anticipates that each of the eleven (11) phases of the Project will be submitted for final plat approval (each, a "Filing"), and construction will commence, in the order set forth on the phasing plan provided on the River Edge Colorado 5 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report PUD and Preliminary Plans (the "Phasing Plan"); provided, however, that the Filing sequence set forth in the Phasing Plan may be altered so long as each Filing submitted to the County meets all of the following requirements: a. The infrastructure required to support such Filing has been constructed in advance of the Filing or will be constructed as part of the Filing; b. The percentage of total area of Community Spaces, as such term is defined in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide, that is finally platted at the time of recordation of such Filing shall equal or exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the Project that is finally platted at the time of recordation of such Filing; c. The total number of deed -restricted affordable residential lots within the Project that are finally platted at the time of recordation of such Filing shall equal or exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of residential lots, including deed -restricted affordable residential lots, that are finally platted at the time of recordation of such Filing; and d. Approval of the Filing is consistent with a logical and orderly manner of development, upon consideration the functional relationship and contiguity of the proposed Filing with approved, preceding Filings and with existing development. 3. Demonstrated Community Need. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services or housing. The Comprehensive Plan identifies as a key issue facing the County that "[a] large job base exists in the Roaring Fork Valley, but the most affordable housing in the County continues to be in the Colorado River Valley which has resulted in significant commuting and traffic impact." Comprehensive Plan at page 14. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that this condition results in "long commutes (and attendant time and costs), traffic congestion (especially through the constricted SH 82 corridor in Glenwood Springs) and road -impacts." Id. at page 38. Moreover, per the Comprehensive Plan, such "[1]ong range commuting affects not only the well- being of the county's workforce, [but] also [] the ability of the county to attract businesses that will increase the diversity of employment and the long-term stability of the county economy." Id. Thus, developing modestly priced and affordable housing within the Roaring Fork Valley benefits the County by offering the potential for residents to be closer to upper valley work without having to drive through the traffic bottleneck in Glenwood Springs. Id. at pages 38-39. The Project will increase the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. Specifically, if the proposed PUD district is approved, the Project will address this critical housing need and improve the quality of life of County residents, by providing, in the Roaring Fork Valley, 366 residential homes made up of a mix of housing types and at a range of prices, including 55 deed -restricted for sale affordable homes. Housing types will range from attached homes to small single family attached and detached garden homes, village homes, larger estate homes, and one executive lot for a custom home. CI anticipates that the garden homes, which will have less square footage than other types, will attract younger, first-time home- buyers, while village homes and estate homes will provide move up opportunities for growing families. Lot sizes within the Project will vary from 1,700 to over 5,000 square feet for garden homes to 5,000 square feet to over 1 acre for other housing types. 6 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goal of providing affordable housing opportunities for residents in safe and efficient structures, the affordable homes within the Project will be constructed using materials and methods of comparable quality as, and with fixtures similar to, surrounding market rate units within the Project. Id. at 39. Further, residents of the affordable homes will have the same rights as residents of the market rate units within the Project to access and use common areas and common amenities within the Project. In addition, by providing housing closer to employment centers located within the Roaring Fork Valley, a regional bicycle trail (i.e., the RFTA ROW), and RFTA local and regional bus lines, the Project will promote energy conservation, improve air quality, shorten trips, and reduce traffic congestion. Lastly, CI will be responsible as part of the Project for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 113 and SH 82. As documented in the Traffic Assessment for River Edge Colorado prepared by Fehr and Peers, dated December 2010 (the "Traffic Assessment"), this intersection is considered dangerous, has significant traffic delays, and will warrant a traffic signal in coming years with or without the Project. See Traffic Assessment provided in Appendix M of the Impact Analysis. Were it not for the Project, funding for this improvement would be unavailable or would become the responsibility of the general public. In addition, CI has agreed to work with the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") and the County to coordinate improvements and provide a long-term plan for enhancing safety and performance on the east side of this intersection. 4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a rezoning request. In November 2010, Garfield County completed its update of the Comprehensive Plan. As part of this process, the County identified several needs of and issues facing the County, including, jobs/housing balance, loss of agricultural lands and rural character, and environmental impacts of development. See Comprehensive Plan at page 14-16. The requested rezoning to a PUD district to accommodate the Project complies with the Comprehensive Plan by addressing each of these needs and issues and by furthering several goals of the Comprehensive Plan as summarized herein and throughout this Report. a. The Project will alleviate the County's housing needs and traffic congestion. First, as explained in criterion 3, above, the Project will provide a range of housing types at various prices, including affordable housing, in the Roaring Fork Valley, thereby addressing the lack of housing in the valley and the bottleneck of traffic occurring daily through Glenwood Springs. In turn, by providing affordable, safe, and efficient housing for workers in the vicinity of Roaring Fork Valley employment centers, a regional bicycle trail, and RFTA bus lines, the Project also will strengthen the County's ability to attract and keep businesses in the County, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals of increasing the diversity of employment and long-term stability of the County economy. Id. at pages 37 & 47. Finally, the Project is located 7 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report south of Glenwood Springs which could have beneficial effects on traffic north of the Project by providing housing which may relieve the morning north to south and evening south to north commutes on Highway 82 through Glenwood Springs. b. The Project will preserve the area's rural character. Second, the Comprehensive Plan identifies as a key issue of concern that the conversion of agricultural property to suburban residential development has resulted in the loss of the County's rural character. As such, it is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan that the County's rural character be retained outside of urban growth areas. See id. at pages 15, 35, & 53. CI recognizes the necessity of protecting important agricultural lands and working farms and ranches within the County but notes that, although the Property was once operated as a ranch, given the poor condition of the land, the removal of topsoil from and other grading activities on the land, the inundation of noxious weeds, and the zoned and planned uses of the Property, the Property is unsuitable for large-scale or commercial agriculture. This said, the Project is designed to preserve the Property's rural character by reflecting the days of 'old Colorado', when compact neighborhoods formed with a strong sense of community based on the land and surrounding landscape. To this end, the Project's landscape aesthetic will be simple and informal, and will emphasize the use of native plant and landscape materials that are adaptable and appropriate to the climate and environment of the area. Moreover, in keeping with the Property's agricultural and ranching history, nearly 50% of the Property will be in areas designated as open space, common area, or park use, and opportunities for community gardens and neighborhood orchards are provided for within the Project. c. The Project will provide recreational opportunities for residents substantially in excess of what is required for the density and type of development. Third, CI's intent to place nearly 50% of the Property to some sort of open space or passive or active recreational uses furthers the Comprehensive Plan's goal of assuring that new residential development provides recreational opportunities for residents. Id. at page 51. Equally important, by providing for maintenance of such areas by the POA, the Project appropriately responds to the issue raised by the Comprehensive Plan that the public strongly supports the preservation of open space, but does not support public funding to maintain such space. See id. at page 50. Further, to avoid saddling the POA with unreasonable costs and burdens, common areas and facilities will be conveyed to the POA in phases in a manner and order that will ensure the POA's capacity to administer and maintain the same. Moreover, the residents of the Project, through the POA, ultimately will decide how best to utilize common areas within the Project, including, without limitation, which amenities will be provided within the neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas. d. The Property will balance the County's need for economic development and environmental protection. Fourth, the Comprehensive Plan identifies that there is a need for future development within the County to balance the need for economic development with policies to ensure minimum impact on sensitive environments. See id. at page 16. In addition to strengthening the County's ability 8 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report to attract and keep businesses in the County by providing housing in the vicinity employment centers, a regional bicycle trail, and RFTA bus lines, CI intends to improve the environmental condition and habitat potential for the Property and ensure minimum impact to adjacent sensitive environments by providing extensive open space areas and buffers adjacent to habitat and riparian areas. For background, the majority of Property is considered upland habitat and the adjacent RFC Conservation Easement, which abuts the western boundary of the Property and runs east to west through the middle of the Property, is considered riparian habitat. See Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report for River Edge Colorado, dated November 2010 (the "Wildlife Assessment") provided in Appendix K of the Impact Analysis. The Property's current condition is largely inhospitable to flora and of limited use to fauna except for occasional loafing and very limited foraging. In contrast, with the exception of the eastern section of Cattle Creek, which was heavily impacted by past grazing practices, the RFC Conservation Easement serves as an important habitat for various flora and fauna. It is therefore CI's intent as part of the Project to improve the condition of the Property, while protecting the RFC Conservation Easement from the potential impacts associated with development. Accordingly, in preparation for and as part of the Project, CI proposes to reclaim future open space areas with an aggressive noxious weed abatement program and by planting local native plants within these areas. CI proposes to conduct many of these activities during Phase 0, including, soil placement, placement of vegetative barriers along the RFC Conservation Easement, and revegetation of the Property in accordance with environmental goals for future open spaces and the adjacent RFC Conservation Easement. CI has already initiated noxious weed treatments and revegetation activities by establishing a growing area within the Property for trees and shrubs in order to begin acclimating native and low-water nursery stock to the local conditions. The reclaimed and enhanced open space areas, which are located in large part adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and therefore will act as buffers from residential uses, will provide a higher quality habitat than what exists today. Non -open space areas of the Property will be planted with agricultural and landscape species in order to hold the soils in the interim condition and provide landscaping materials for future use within the Property. See generally Reclamation Plan. CI also intends to impose a series of mitigation measures recommended by the Wildlife Assessment to reduce any potential negative effects of the Project on flora and fauna, generally, and the RFC Conservation Easement, specifically. One such measure is already noted above— the buffering of residential uses from the RFC Conservation Easement with reclaimed and enhanced open space areas. Similarly, homes will be located more than 100 feet from the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, and more -intensive human activity areas, such as parks, will be located internal to the Project's development areas. Other examples of mitigation measures to be imposed by CI to ensure minimal impact to potentially sensitive adjacent environments are the imposition of: outdoor lighting requirements, dog leashing and fencing requirements, trail closures during sensitive deer, elk, and heron seasons, ongoing noxious weed treatments, buffering requirements around active heron areas, etc. 9 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report e. The Project provides dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services. Last of all, CI is committed to providing dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for the Project, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment's ("CDPHE") regulations governing such actions. Both water and sewer service will be provided through centralized systems, owned and operated by either the POA or the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (the "Roaring Fork District"). Preliminary engineering suggests that either alternative is technically feasible. However, feasibility involves more than the ability to build collection and distribution systems and treatment plants. Ultimately, feasibility involves consideration of such issues as water conservation, water rights utilization, stream flow, water quality, and economics, including the financial burden on the Project, the imposition of protracted and unduly expensive permitting requirements, and the existence of unwarranted environmental impacts. The decision of which of these entities will own and operate the water and sewer systems is dependent upon the outcome of the ongoing negotiations between CI and the Roaring Fork District over the terms of a pre -inclusion agreement for the Project and a complete feasibility assessment by CI based on the information provided by the Roaring Fork District through these negotiations such that the feasibility of the Roaring Fork District system may be assessed against the alternative POA system in accordance with accepted CDPHE standards. The Comprehensive Plan encourages new development to connect to adjacent municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity and discourages the proliferation of private central water and sewer systems. Id. at page 57. Adjacency is defined by the ULUR as being within 400 feet of an existing water or sewer system. See ULUR §§ 7-106.A.2.a and 7-106.D.6.a. The nearest point of connection from the Project to the Roaring Fork District's existing sewage treatment plant is 1,000 feet and the District's nearest water source with capacity to serve to the Project is located over 10,000 feet from the Project, both significantly exceeding the County's standard for adjacency. In addition, the Roaring Fork District's existing wastewater plant does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project and, therefore, CI will be required to finance an additional new phase of the plant. Accordingly, the Roaring Fork District facilities do not require connection under the ULUR. Indeed, due to these distances and these and other limitations of the Roaring Fork District's existing infrastructure, connecting the Project to the Roaring Fork District's sewer and water systems requires the installation of substantial infrastructure at a cost, based on CI's current estimates, that exceeds the costs to develop independent water and sewer systems by millions of dollars, a significant burden especially in light of the modest number of units in the Project. This infrastructure cost difference is in part due to the disparate views by the Roaring Fork District and CI regarding the maximum anticipated development that will be allowed on the Project and adjoining properties. Moreover, the Roaring Fork District recently has indicated that CI will have to construct two pipeline crossings of the Roaring Fork River, the impacts of which will have to be assessed through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USCOE") Clean Water Act ("CWA") 404 Permit Program. CI has discussed only one crossing with the USCOE prior to being apprised of the District's requirement for the second crossing. This proposal by the District has environmental 10 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report consequences that must be considered, along with other information not yet provided by the District, in the feasibility assessment. As such, CI seeks to preserve the opportunity to construct, own and operate its own centralized water and sewer systems, or, alternatively, to develop its own centralized water system but to connect its sewer system to the Roaring Fork District's existing sewer plant, as contemplated under the May 20, 1994 Out -of -District Sewer Service Agreement (recorded on August 19, 1994 in Book 912 at Page 973, Reception No. 467451). In short, CI will pursue the development of centralized water and sewer service for the Project in the most economical and environmentally sound manner, and in conformance with CDPHE standards, whether that involves including within the Roaring Fork District and connecting to its facilities, developing independent systems, or some combination thereof. Under any one of these scenarios, appropriate approvals will have to be obtained from the CDPHE, either by the POA or the Roaring Fork District, demonstrating that the operator of the systems is technically and financially capable of successfully operating them to supply water and sewer service to the Project and that the location, size and configuration of the systems meet state standards and quality criteria. At this stage, there are no apparent obstacles to obtaining the permits and approvals for the development of adequate water and sewer systems for the Project under either scenario. S. Original Zone Designation Incorrect. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the original zone district map. Although the existing Residential/Suburban zoning of the Property would allow residential development of the Property, due to the lot and building requirements imposed in this zone district, CI would be unable to construct a development at the densities required or with the range of housing types necessary to achieve the concepts and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed herein. Only the PUD district allows for the clustered form of residential development proposed by CI, which form of development, as discussed through this Report, addresses numerous issues and furthers several goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the Property to a PUD district in response to the shortcomings and inflexibility of the Residential/Suburban district is therefore warranted. 6. Adequate Water Supply. Such an application to rezone a property from one district to another district shall be required to demonstrate the maximum water demand required to serve the most intensive use in the resulting zone district pursuant to Article 7-104 of this Resolution. CI has adequate water resources available to supply the maximum water demand required by the PUD for both potable and irrigation water supplies which meet the requirements of Section 7- 105 of the ULUR. As determined by CI's Water Resource Consultant, Michael Erion of Resource Engineering, Inc., the maximum potable water demand for the Project would be 163 acre feet per year to satisfy the demand of 375 EQRs and up to 42 acres of irrigation based on 350 gallons per day per EQR. This water will be obtained through surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River and/or through groundwater withdrawals from the well fields of the Roaring 11 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report Fork District. These surface and ground water supplies are dependable physical sources of supply for the Project, which can and will be treated to meet drinking water quality standards adopted by CDPHE. The water rights decree entered in Case No. 01 C W 187, as amended by the pending application in Case No. 08CW198, authorizes the diversion of a potable water supply to serve 349.55 EQRs, together with three acres of irrigation, within the Project. Another water rights application pending in Case No. 07CW164 authorizes the provision of a water supply to serve up to 1,200 EQRs, and a total of seven acres of irrigation. These water rights cases are close to being resolved and decrees entered. To offset out -of -priority depletions resulting from the exercise of these water rights, CI holds rights in Allotment Contract No. 381b with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for 74.9 acre feet per year, more than enough to offset anticipated out of priority depletions for up to 1,200 EQRs and seven acres of irrigation. CI also holds reliable irrigation water rights in the Glenwood Ditch (12.23 c.f.s.), represented by 367 shares of capital stock in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company, and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 c.f.s.). As decreed in Case No. W-2206, these rights have historically be used to irrigate 260 acres on the Project (formerly the Sanders Ranch). These rights will be used for the open space and lawn and garden irrigation within the PUD, less the maximum of seven acres that are irrigated with the potable water system. Because the Project is located within historically irrigated areas under these ditches, these irrigation rights are currently available and adequate to meet the outdoor irrigation needs of the Project. Finally, the overall design philosophy and specific requirements of the Project are designed to promote conservation of the available water resources. In the first instance, the Project design relies upon clustered housing with smaller units and lots, which promotes more limited indoor and outside water use. Water conservation will be further enhanced by adopting landscape standards that encourage native plants and other low water use ground cover, imposing irrigation rate structures to promote efficient and limited water use, and requiring low flow toilets and showers. Water conservation on open space areas and parks will be achieved through the planting of low water use species and the installation of high efficiency irrigation systems. II. The Project Satisfies the Criteria for Approval of a Planned Unit Development This Section explains how CI's proposed rezoning to a PUD district meets or exceeds the criteria for approval of a PUD set forth for in Section 6-202 of the ULUR. Each criterion is addressed in turn. Section I.4 (Items 1-6) of this Justification Report address compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by Section 6-101.B of the ULUR. 1. Compliance with Rezoning Standards. The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(C), Rezoning Criteria. Please refer to criteria 1 through 6 in Section I, above. 12 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report 2. Relationship to Surrounding Area. The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property. Please refer to criterion 1 in Section I, above. 3. Visual Impacts. The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment. The Property falls within the "Visual Corridor" depicted on Atlas Map 38, Appendix C of the Comprehensive Plan, likely because of its location adjacent to SH 82. However, no explanation of the visual qualities attributable to this corridor, or more particularly the Property, is provided in the Comprehensive Plan. In the vicinity of the Property, those travelling along SH 82 currently would observe an open space, rural area, with a residential backdrop to the south and west, and a commercial backdrop to the north and east. The landscape of the Property itself, as described above, is highly disturbed and sparsely covered with grasses and forbs. Trees and denser vegetation are located along the Roaring Fork River along the western boundary of the Property but, given the lower elevation of the Roaring Fork River compared to the Property, such trees and vegetation are not a prominent feature of the landscape. The Property may also be viewed from a further distance west of the Property by those travelling along County Road 109 and by residents of the Ironbridge community. The backdrop of the Property from this vantage point includes SH 82, hillside road cuts, and commercial and residential developments, with some taller peaks further in the distance. When you consider the character of the area, the sequence of land uses as seen in both directions from SH 82, and from CR 109 and the Ironbridge community, and the character of the landscape and vegetation of the Property, development of the Project will not disturb any views or vistas, nor will it disrupt any notable visual characteristics of the corridor. Conversely, construction of the Project will enhance the visual qualities of the Property by, among other things: ➢ Clustering residential development and active recreational areas to maximize preservation of passive recreational areas and naturally landscaped open space; ➢ Not removing any mature trees; ➢ Planting new trees within residential lots and common open space areas; ➢ Providing large vegetative buffers and open space areas in the vicinity of the RFC Conservation Easement, and vegetation and berms along the RFTA ROW; and ➢ Re -grading and revegetating the Property in a manner designed to blend in with the natural landscape of the surrounding area. Lastly, no construction will occur on ridgelines. 4. Street Circulation System. The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that access for 13 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. The Project will provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation. The street and pedestrian circulation systems are designed to facilitate community interaction. Streets will have detached sidewalks and major intersections will have cross walks. The Property will be landscaped to create a pleasant environment for driving, walking, and biking. On -street parking will be provided in a large portion of the Project which will further buffer vehicular and pedestrian uses. The use of dead-end streets is limited. Alleys will be used in appropriate areas to enhance the streetscape and achieve a mix of housing types. All roads within the Project will be private and the entryway into the Project will be access - restricted. However, access to the Project by police and fire departments and other emergency services will not be limited. Moreover, two (2) additional emergency -only accesses, crossing the RFTA ROW, will be available to emergency service vehicles as requested by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (the "Fire District"). These accesses will be designed in accordance with RFTA's emergency vehicle access ("EVA") standards and will be gated and posted to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the EVAs. Unless and until such time as the ownership of the roads and/or maintenance responsibility for the roads are transferred to a quasi -governmental or governmental entity, including any special district or metropolitan district formed in accordance with Colorado law, the POA will be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the Project's roads. As documented in the Project Engineering Design Report, dated January 14, 2011 prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC (the "Engineering Report"), the proposed internal roadway network is designed in accordance with generally -accepted local and municipal standards and exceeds the capacities required to serve the Project. Further, the roadway sections reasonably accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. All intersections in the Project function at high levels -of -service. The proposed roundabout along the main entry road has a capacity exceeding 20,000 vehicle trips per day. See Engineering Report provided in Tab 6, Item a. of the Application. 5. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to walk safely and conveniently among areas of the PUD. As described under criterion 4 of this Section II, above, the street and pedestrian circulation systems are designed to facilitate community interaction and to create a safe and pleasant environment for drivers, walkers, and bikers. An interconnected sidewalk and soft trail system located throughout the Project will provide residents with convenient access to neighborhood amenities, parks, open space areas, and their homes. The neighborhood center also is located at a walkable distance from any point within the Project as shown on the Open Space Plan (Series OS.01 of the Drawing Package). Sidewalks are detached from the street to enhance safety and comfort for pedestrians. 14 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report Homes will be constructed with relatively small front setbacks in order to enhance the streetscape and provide visual interest to pedestrians and bikers. Street trees and other landscaping will be planted to further enhance the pedestrian and biker experience. 6. Open Space. The PUD shall preserve at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space. The Project significantly exceeds this requirement by preserving nearly 50% of the Property as open space, more than half of which is naturalized open space. See criterion 10 in this Section II, below, regarding the range of open space uses to be provided within the Project. In addition to the open space to be provided within the Project area, in 2000, the 54 -acre RFC Conservation Easement was granted by CI's predecessor in favor of RFC specifically in contemplation of an overall PUD/clustered development plan for the Property. The RFC Conservation Easement prohibits virtually all subdivision and development within the easement area. In addition, the agreement establishing the RFC Conservation Easement requires that an annual stewardship fee be paid by CI, its successors and assigns, to the RFC for overseeing and protecting the easement area. To date, the RFC has received roughly $350,000 for this purpose. Monthly fees paid to the RFC are about $2,850. 7. Housing Variety. The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms. Please refer to criterion 3 in Section I, above. Anticipated housing prices range from approximately $160,000 to $200,000 for affordable homes to roughly $1,000,000 for other housing types. Currently, approximately 40% of the housing is expected to be priced under $550,000, while upwards of 97% of the housing will be below $750,000. CI is making every effort to find Project savings to allow pricing levels to be reduced further while building a high quality, desirable and comfortable neighborhood that is compatible with its environmental context. In addition, although for -rent multi -family housing is not included within the Project, subject to the ULUR, the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (the "Affordable Housing Agreement") to be entered into by CI, the County, and the Garfield County Housing Authority ("GCHA"), the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions to be recorded against the Property, and any other applicable laws and regulations, homeowners will be permitted to lease their home or bedrooms within their home. 8. Affordable Housing. The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to Section 8-102 Article VIII, Affordable Housing. Section 8-102 of the ULUR requires that fifteen percent (15%) of the lots to be located within the Project satisfy the affordable housing requirements of Article VIII of the LUR. Consistent with this requirement, CI will construct and make available for sale fifty-five (55) deed -restricted 15 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report affordable homes. These homes will be constructed in accordance with the Affordable Housing Agreement, an initial draft of which is provided in Tab 8 of the Application. Notably, due to existing and anticipated future real estate market conditions, including changes and uncertainty in the ability of low and moderate income households to obtain financing for purchasing residential properties, affordable housing developments like the one proposed as part of the Project, often have been unable to attract a sufficient pool of potential buyers and face an increased risk of unsustainable vacancies. As such, in order to increase the pool of potential purchasers of the affordable homes within the Project and reduce the potential for such homes to sit vacant, CI proposes to deviate from certain requirements of Article VIII of the ULUR. First, Section 8-201.A.6.b of the ULUR requires that at least one building permit for an affordable home must be issued for every ten (10) building permits issued for market -rate homes. Notwithstanding this requirement, CI proposes that it be allowed to defer construction of affordable home(s) until a buyer has been qualified by GCHA and a lending institution in accordance with the Affordable Housing Agreement. Under this scenario, if CI defers construction of affordable home(s), upon CI's receipt of notice from GCHA that a buyer has been qualified to purchase an affordable home (the "Purchase Notice"), CI will be required to promptly commence construction of an affordable home and deliver a completed affordable home to the qualified buyer on or before one -hundred and twenty (120) days from CI's receipt of the Purchase Notice; provided, however, that if CI receives a Purchase Notice on or between October 15th and April 1st of any year, CI will be required to deliver a completed affordable home to the purchaser on or before the next -occurring August 1st. In addition, under this scenario, if CI defers construction of an affordable home, CI will be required to offer qualified buyer(s) a reasonable selection of semi -custom finishes to be included in the affordable home. This scenario meets or exceeds the intent of Article VIII of the ULUR while ensuring that the rate of affordable housing development corresponds with market demands. Second, Section 8-302.A of the ULUR requires that the average price for all affordable housing units to be provided in a project shall be dispersed over the following range of the Area Median Income ("AMI") levels for low and moderate income families in Garfield County as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"): ➢ 20% of the affordable homes may be priced up to 70% AMI, and shall be sold to eligible households earning 80% of AMI or less; ➢ 40% of the affordable homes may be priced to 90% AMI, and shall be sold to eligible households earning 100% of AMI or less; and ➢ 40% of the affordable homes may be priced to 110% AMI, and shall be sold to eligible households earning 120% AMI or less. Changing conditions in the lending markets indicate that lenders likely will require in the near to long-term higher down payments and higher qualifying incomes as a percent of the loan. Given these conditions, there likely will not be an adequate number of individuals who can qualify to purchase an affordable home in the lower income classes identified in the ULUR. Experience in other jurisdictions including Denver, Gunnison County, Boulder, and elsewhere have shown this to be the case in recent years. As such, CI proposes increasing the AMI for qualified household earnings as follows: 16 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report ➢ 20% of the AH Units may be priced up to 70% AMI, and shall be sold to eligible households earning 100% of AMI or less; ➢ 40% of the AH Units may be priced to 90% AMI, and shall be sold to eligible households earning 120% of AMI or less; and ➢ 40% of the AH Units may be priced to 110% AMI, and shall be sold to eligible households earning 150% AMI or less. For similar reasons, CI proposes to record a deed restriction against the affordable homes that allows for FHA financing, consistent with CI's goal of broadening the pool of potential purchasers of such homes. CI is not proposing any changes to the pricing proposed by the ULUR. Lastly, CI proposes to modify the leasing requirements set forth in Section 8-404.0 of the ULUR in the event an affordable home is completed by CI but GCHA is unable to find a qualified buyer for the initial sale within four (4) months of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In order to make the affordable home more attractive to potential lessees, and particularly families, CI proposes an initial rental period of up to twelve (12) months, with an option to extend on a month to month basis. Consistent with the ULUR, any lessee would be qualified by the GCHA and the rental rate would be established based on the established sales price of the home in accordance with Section 8-404.E of the ULUR. Without these modifications to Article VIII of the ULUR, CI believes that occupancy of the affordable homes will significantly lag behind occupancy of the market rate homes, and will fail to meet the affordable housing needs of Roaring Fork Valley. In exchange for these modifications, CI is willing to offer semi -custom finishes and build larger -than -required minimum floor areas per affordable home. Additionally, CI proposes for the POA to provide yard maintenance for affordable homes and to assess affordable homes at significantly lower rates than the market rates homes within the Project. CI's proposed affordable housing program will provide higher -quality housing for young working families and others requiring assistance while reducing vacancy rates for affordable homes within the County. 9. Fire Hazards. Fire hazards will not be created or increased. The Property is not located within a wildfire hazard area. CI has met with the Fire District to review the Project. The Fire District supports that there is only one main entrance into the Project. As noted in criterion 4 of Section I, above, CI is providing two (2) EVAs in response to the Fire District's request. All turning radii within the Project meet the Fire District's requirements and all fire hydrants within the Project will meet or exceed the Fire District's requirements. 17 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report 10. Recreation Amenities. The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the PUD. The Project will provide significant open space and recreational opportunities and superb pedestrian and bicycle linkages. A wealth of amenities will be provided to residents of the Project including the neighborhood center, parks and open space, and an interconnected trail and sidewalk system. The neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and will offer opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a fitness room, a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and limited community service uses to meet the needs of residents of the community, such as, a day care facility, coffee/sandwich shop, or health club. Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog parks, playfields, and a trail system. The Project will meet or exceed community park standards for small communities established by DOLA. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural heritage and rural character, CI anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado PUD for Garden/Orchard use will be used, at the residents' election, as communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations of the POA, it is anticipated that these tracts will consist of individual plots, multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas or other ancillary horticultural related uses, and will be used for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be provided within the neighborhood center, garden/orchard areas, and park areas ultimately will be decided by the residents of the Project. The west portion of the Property will generally be set aside as a naturalized area. In addition to preserving the Property's rural character, this area will buffer the RFC Conservation Easement from development areas. The soft trails along the western portion of the Property will allow residents to enjoy the Roaring Fork River and wetland area without disrupting these sensitive environments. 11. Adequacy of Supporting Materials. The PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials. The River Edge Colorado PUD Plan meets all requirements of the ULUR for supporting materials as demonstrated by the documents enclosed with the Application. 12. Taxes. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's Office. A certificate of taxes paid is enclosed with the Application. 18 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report 13. Adequate Water Supply. An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in Section 7-105. Please refer to criterion 6 in Section I, above. III. Additional Information Required for the PUD Written Description (See also Binder 1, Tab 1, Item B of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application Package for a complete description as required by Article VI of the ULUR).) This section provides additional information required by Section 6-301.C.9 of the ULUR. Where the required information is already provided in this Report, such information is not repeated below. 1. Method of wastewater treatment and disposal. Wastewater treatment and disposal for the PUD will be provided through a centralized sewer system owned either by the POA or the Roaring Fork District. The Roaring Fork District's current wastewater treatment plant on the Roaring Fork River is located approximately 1000 feet from the Project, is not presently sized to provide wastewater service to the PUD and an entirely new phase of the treatment plant would have to be financed and constructed for that purpose. Nonetheless, CI is currently negotiating with the Roaring Fork District over a pre -inclusion agreement that would, upon final platting of the first phase of the Project, provide for the inclusion of the Project into the Roaring Fork District and the connection to the Roaring Fork District's sewer plant. Given that those negotiations have not been completed, that the parties have not fully defined the cost of connecting to the Roaring Fork District's wastewater treatment plant, and that such a connection presents environmental permitting challenges, CI seeks to reserve the opportunity to develop its own wastewater treatment plant on the west side of the Roaring Fork River, to be owned and operated by the POA, with the expectation that the facility, as well as all associated sewer lines and lift stations, will be transferred to a special district approved for the Project. 2. The names and addresses of mineral rights owners on the affected property and mineral rights lessees; names and addresses of water rights owners. C.R.S. §§ 24-65.5-101 et seq. and ULUR § 4-103.F.2 require that notice of hearings be given to the owners of mineral estates within the boundaries of the Property. The title commitment prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Order No. 941686-C4 and Effective Date February 9, 2011, references two interests in oil and gas in the property. 1. A 6.25% royalty interest, conveyed by quitclaim deed dated December 18, 1964, to T.M. Sanders, recorded in Book 362 at Page 445; and 2. A reservation of an undivided 1/50 interest of all oil and gas lying under the property, by Ella J. Chase in the deed dated June 12, 1948 and recorded in Book 258 at Page 594. 19 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report The title commitment does not indicate that a mineral estate owner has filed a request for notification as provided in C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3). 8140 Partners, LLC searched the telephone directory of general use in Garfield County, and conducted a search of the tax records at the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Neither the name nor the address of the above persons could be located in either record. Moreover, a search of the Garfield County Assessor's records did not reveal any mineral estate owner under the Property. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(2)(b), since the Garfield County records do not identify any mineral estate owners, including their addresses of record, CI is deemed to have acted in good faith and shall not be subject to further notice obligations under the statutory or County notice requirements. Therefore, there are no mineral interests that require notice under the ULUR or statute with respect to the Application. Please refer to criterion 6 in Section I, above, regarding water rights owners. 3. Description of natural and manmade hazards. Based on the independent Geotechnical Engineering Report, enclosed with the Application (the "Geotech Report"), and the hazard mitigation plan enclosed with the Application (the "Hazard Mitigation Plan"), no significant risks from natural hazards are posed to the Project, and the Project will not exacerbate existing natural hazards within and adjacent to the Property. Notably, the Hazard Mitigation Plan incorporates the recommendations made in the Geotech Report and proposes additional mitigation measures or options to ensure a safe and successful Project and to comply with requirements of the ULUR. See Geotechnical Report provided in Appendix J of the Impact Analysis; and Hazard Mitigation Plan provided in Tab 6, Item b. of the Application. The Geotech Report identifies the following five conditions of a geologic nature that were considered in Project planning and are addressed by the Hazard Mitigation Plan: a. a potential sinkhole hazard, b. potential terrace escarpment instability, c. active stream bank erosion, d. potential debris flows and floods, and e. earthquake considerations. First, the Geotech Report identifies nine (9) general sinkhole areas and (3) three sinkhole hazard zones within or in the near vicinity of the Property (Hazard Zone 1, Hazard Zone 2, and Hazard Zone 3). Hazard Zone 1 is described as having a high risk of new sinkholes or existing sinkhole reactivation occurring during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. Consistent with the Geotech Report recommendation, no buildings or movement sensitive facilities, including utilities, are proposed for Hazard Zone 1. A few roads are planned for Hazard Zone 1 but the sinkhole risk will be mitigated, in accordance with the Geotech Report, as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Zone 2 is described as an area having an uncertain risk of new sinkholes based on currently available information. The Geotech Report recommends that additional subsurface 20 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report exploration occur to assess whether the sinkhole risk is acceptable to locate buildings in this zone. Consistent with this recommendation will conduct additional testing prior to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is acceptable. If it is determined that risks demanding mitigation are present, CI will take necessary action to mitigate potential building damage, protect utilities and roads, and/or relocate facilities as necessary in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Zone 3 is described as an area having a low risk of new sinkholes developing during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. Because such area is not risk-free, consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI will conduct additional testing prior to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is acceptable. If risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. . Second, the Geotech Report notes that steep terrace escarpments are present along the Roaring Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are not suitable for building sites and buildings should be setback from the top of such escarpments. Consistent with the foregoing, the proposed areas for development within the Property do not encroach into these escarpments. Third, the Geotech Report notes that active stream bank erosion during high flood flow is occurring along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek in several areas where these streams flow along the base of the steep terrace escarpments. These areas fall within the RFC Conservation Easement, and do not place the Project at risk. As such, no mitigation is required. However, CI has proposed to RFC that some mitigation be done to these areas to preserve the conservation values within the RFC Conservation Easement. CI will seek RFC's approval of certain mitigation actions within these areas as part of Phase 0, such as, armoring these areas to prevent further erosion. If approved by RFC, these areas will be further investigated and a detailed mitigation program will be developed as part of the reclamation plan for Phase 0. Fourth, the Geotech Report notes that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the numerous, small drainage basins on the east side of the Roaring Fork Valley where the ephemeral streams discharge on terrace surfaces. With the exception of the Executive Lot at the southern end of the Project, development is not being proposed on the alluvial fans. Mitigation measures, such as flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot will be incorporated into the final design based on further field investigations and the construction activities planned for this lot. Lastly, the Geotech Report found that moderately strong ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the Project, but that the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Moderately strong ground shaking generally is felt by most people and may cause alarm, but it results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. Therefore, consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI intends to design buildings and facilities within the Project to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and to not collapse under stronger ground shaking consistent with Garfield County Building Code. 21 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report In addition to the foregoing, per the Geotech Report, prior grading activities on the Property may pose a risk because it is unclear whether the fill in all areas were adequately placed and compacted. To eliminate any potential risk, CI will conduct additional geotechnical testing prior to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0 described above, in order to determine if soils should be removed, replaced, and/or compacted. CI will take necessary action based on the results of such testing in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. CI's proposed mitigation strategies are detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The actions proposed ensure the protection of structures and facilities from damage. To the maximum extent practicable, CI has avoided development of areas that pose more significant risk. 4. Discussion of impacts on County services, schools, town services and any other unique operation that may be pertinent to a review of the proposed zone change The Property will have minimal, if any, impact on infrastructure in the area, County services, schools, or Glenwood Springs or Carbondale services. The Project will not be accessed by nor impact any County roads. The main entrance of the Property and the two (2) EVAs will access SH 82, which falls within the jurisdiction of the CDOT. In addition, as noted above, all internal roads will be privately owned, operated, and maintained by the POA, and will provide no demand on County services. The density of the Project, and increase in school age children in the area anticipated from the Project, does not warrant the construction of a new school. CI will make a cash deposit to the Roaring Fork School District RE -1 (the "School District") in lieu of dedicating land. This said, CI has preserved its ability to work with the adjacent property owner to secure land for the School District if public access issues associated with the Property are resolved. See discussion of public road issues in Subsection IV.2.c, below. The Project's impacts on water and wastewater services are discussion in criterion 6 of Section I and criterion 1 of Section II, above. The existing fire and law enforcement services are available and adequate to serve the needs of the Project. The Project is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. CI has met with the Fire District about the Project and the Fire District has expressed no concerns with serving the Project. Law enforcement services are provided by the Garfield County Sheriff's Department. The potential fiscal impacts of the Project, including, without limitation, impacts to the Sheriffs Department, were assessed in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic Planning Systems ("EPS"), dated November 16, 2010 (the "Fiscal Impact Analysis"). Based on EPS's analysis of the Project's fiscal impacts to the County in absolute and relative terms, EPS determined that the Project may result in a marginal fiscal loss to the County when the Project's affordable housing component is included in the analysis. However, when the Project's affordable housing component is excluded from the analysis, the Project provides an ongoing 22 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report fiscal benefit to the County. Per the Fiscal Impact Analysis, this discrepancy is attributable to the fact that affordable homes generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of lower market values and household incomes. This said, given that the Project's affordable housing program will alleviate a key issue of concern and several goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as detailed above, the Project will provide significant public benefits to the County. 5. Discussion of impacts on existing flora and fauna, air quality, wildlife, historical lands or sites, drainage or mineral extraction Please refer to criterion 4 in Section I, above, with regard to the Project's impacts on flora and fauna/wildlife. The Project will have no negative impact on air quality. Rather, as noted above, by providing housing closer to employment centers located within the Roaring Fork Valley, the Project will promote energy conservation, improve air quality, shorten trips, and reduce traffic congestion. Based on CI's review of maps and records on file at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office, there are no historic or prehistoric sites in or in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The Project will not disrupt any drainage or have any negative consequences to water quality or flooding. The Project is designed to provide adequate site drainage and meet all applicable discharge standards. The Project will utilize the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's ("UDFCD") Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual ("USDCM"), as amended, as the criteria for analysis and design of channels and hydraulic structures and as the primary guidance document for the selection and design of stormwater quality BMPs. The USDCM is the authoritative criteria manual in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region for drainage facility design. The Project will not impact mineral extraction within the Property. No mineral extraction activities currently take place on the Property. However, CI proposes to conduct materials processing within the Property over the course of development of the Project. Specifically, CI intends to process onsite sand and gravel deposits, claimed as a result of site development, for use in the construction of the Project. This use will include screening, crushing, washing, and the creation of concrete from processed sand and gravel resources. All activities will be conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds applicable noise, air quality and water quality standards and minimizes visual impacts through appropriate or necessary screening. In addition, in response to the County's request during the Pre -Application Conference for this Project that CI address the requirements of C.R.S. §§ 34-1-301 et seq. (the "Mineral Resource Statute"), CI contracted RMG Engineers to prepare a Mineral Resource Study of the Property. See Mineral Resource Study enclosed with the Application at Appendix P of the River Edge Colorado Impact Analysis, prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC, dated January 14, 2011 (the "Impact Analysis"). The purpose of the Mineral Resource Statute is to ensure that the state's "commercial mineral deposits" are "extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the populous counties of the state." C.R.S. § 34-1-301(1). Although CI has caused this study 23 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report to be prepared as a courtesy to the County, CI maintains that this Mineral Resource Statute does not apply to the Project. The statute specifically provides that "[i]t is the intention of the general assembly that the provisions of this [Mineral Resource Statute] have full force and effect throughout such populous counties, ... , but shall have no application outside such populous counties." Id. § 34-1-301(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines "populous county" as "any county or city and county having a population of sixty-five thousand inhabitants or more according to the latest federal decennial census." Id. § 34-1-302(3). The most recent federal decennial census (i.e., Census 2000 because Census 2010 is not yet released) provides that the population of Garfield County is 43,791. Because the population threshold of 65,000 is not met, the Mineral Resources Statute does not apply to the Project. Even if Garfield County's population exceeded the 65,000 threshold and the Mineral Resources Statute did apply, based on the Mineral Resources Study, the mineral deposits located within the Property are not "commercial mineral deposits" as such term is defined by the statute. Per the study, the deposits within the Property have limited economic significance and strategic value in the context of Garfield County's overall resources and development, and do not constitute a significant economic or strategic value to the state or nation. Moreover, extraction of any such deposits on a commercial scale from the Property is infeasible for various reasons, including, zoning and planning designations, surrounding development, conservation values adjacent to the Property, groundwater, and the location and preservation of the RFTA ROW for a rail corridor. IV. The Project Satisfies the Criteria for Approval of a Preliminary Plan (See also Binder 1, Tab 1, Item B of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application Package for a requested waivers as required by Article VI of the ULUR).) The River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan, this Report, and the supporting studies and plans enclosed with the Application demonstrate the feasibility of the Project and that design characteristics and preliminary engineering for the Project comply with the applicable standards set forth in Article VII of the ULUR. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CI requests that the County approve: (1) relief from certain standards set forth in Article VII in the manner contemplated by the ULUR; and (2) modifications from certain standards set forth in Article VII necessary to construct the Project. Each request is addressed in turn. 1. Requests for relief from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR Article VII of the ULUR contemplates that the standards discussed in this Subsection 1 from which CI requests relief might not be applicable or appropriate for all projects and therefore may be waived. The standards discussed herein are inapplicable or inappropriate for the Project. Therefore, CI requests that the County waive the application of these standards to the Project. a. Restrictive Inner Buffer Section 7-203.A of the ULUR establishes a setback of thirty-five (35) feet measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water line on each side of a waterbody (the "Inner Buffer Setback"). This said, Section 7-203.A.2 provides that "[i]rrigation and water diversion facilities, 24 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report flood control structures, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted." Id. CI requests that the County permit CI to construct the bridge, utility crossings, and diversion facilities proposed as part of the Project within the Inner Buffer Setback located along the Roaring Fork River. See Bridge Plan and Section SO1.01 of the Drawing Package for a description of the proposed structures. Alternative bridge structures that would avoid the Inner Buffer Setback have been reviewed, but no substantial advantage to avoiding the Inner Buffer Setback has been identified. Rather, due to slopes and constraints associated with intersection alignments, the proposed shorter bridge structure with limited encroachments into the Inner Buffer Setback, provides a safer condition in the professional judgment of the Project Engineer, William S. Otero. In addition, the bridge crossing will be subject to Section 404 of the CWA and a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County. The utility crossings and water diversion facilities are required in order to access irrigation water, connect to the Roaring Fork District water and wastewater facilities (if the Roaring Fork District is selected as the water and/or sanitary sewer provider), and access CI's potable water rights in the Roaring Fork River to support the Project. These activities will comply with Section 404 of the CWA and likely will be subject to a Nationwide Section 404 Permit issued by the USCOE. These activities might also require a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County. The activities proposed within the Inner Buffer Setback also will be performed in accordance with applicable erosion and sediment control measures required by the storm water pollution prevention plan. Areas affected by these activities will be reclaimed in accordance with applicable PUD standards. Lastly, as discussed in the Impact Report, the proposed activities will result in no adverse impact to Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. See Section III.B.2.a of the Impact Analysis. In addition to the foregoing, CI requests relief from the application of Section 7-203.A.3 of the ULUR. This Section prohibits within the Inner Buffer Setback "unless permitted or approved," the "[d]isturbance of existing natural surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or flood retention characteristics[,]" and provides further that "[m]easures taken to restore existing topography to improve drainage, flow patterns and flood control must be approved." Id. CI requests the County's approval of its plan to repair and restore as part of Phase 0 riparian areas within the Inner Buffer Setback previously damaged by agricultural operations and site grading activities. The proposed activities are in keeping with the intent of Section 7-203 to protect wetlands and waterbodies, and will be performed in compliance with the RFC Conservation Easement and erosion and water quality control provisions of the ULUR. Details of the proposed activities are provided in Reclamation Plan included in Appendix U of the Impact Analysis and on the Reclamation Plan (RP01 Series) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ES02) of the Drawing Package. 25 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report b. Subdrains for all foundations Section 7-206.B.2 of the ULUR provides that "[s]ubdrains shall be required for all foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage channels." Subdrains will be used as appropriate as determined by the engineer designing the foundation and applicable hazard mitigation measures. It is inappropriate or unnecessary to provide a subdrain under circumstances where soils are generally well drained like those at the Project. In addition, due to soil conditions, in most cases, basements will not be utilized. As detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, the need for a subdrain should be left to the design engineer based on the specific site circumstances. c. Public road dedications Section 7-405.C.1.a of the ULUR provides that "[u]nless specifically approved as private rights- of-way and so designated on the final plat, all roads, streets, alleys or other public traffic ways located within the subdivision and benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall be dedicated as public rights-of-way." Id. As discussed previously in this Report, all roads internal to the Project are proposed to be private roads. Access to the Property requires a crossing of the RFTA ROW. The RFTA ROW is maintained as a rail -banked corridor and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of RFTA and the Public Utilities Commission (the "PUC"). Based on discussions with the PUC, a crossing that is open to the public for access to a subdivision likely would be treated by the PUC as a "public" crossing subject to the PUC's review and approval. However, there appear to be no avenues under the PUC regulations for a private entity to apply to the PUC for authority to construct a highway -rail crossing where tracks or other facilities currently exist. See Section 7203, 4 C.C.R. 723-7. Partially in response to this situation, CI requested that the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (the "BOCC") approve the creation of a special district for the Project. The BOCC denied this request in September 2010. This denial leaves CI with no option but to pursue the approval of private roads for the Project. CI has, however, retained the option to convert the private roads to public roads if a quasi -governmental or governmental entity, including any special district or metropolitan district formed in accordance with Colorado law, is willing to accept and assume ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for such roads. At the present time, the Project's roads are not designed to connect to any external roadways, except for SH 82, and will only serve residents of the Project. Based on the foregoing, dedicating the roads internal to the Project as public rights-of-way is inappropriate and unnecessary. Accordingly, CI requests that the County approve all roads internal to the Project as private rights-of-way. 26 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report 2. Requests for modifications from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR In addition, to the relief requested in Subsection IV.1 above, CI requests modifications from the following County standards: a. Section 7-108 standard that "[aJll roads shall be designed to road design standards set forth in Section 7-307... " Roads within the Project are being proposed as suburban/urban sections to better support adjacent lot designs, including, proposed lot sizes, setbacks, and pedestrian/street-focused orientation. Without approval of the proposed design standard for roads, CI would be unable to cluster lots in the manner proposed, preserve the proposed amount of open space, or provide for pedestrian and street -oriented suburban densities. The road design standards provided in Section 7-307 would generally require that lots within the Project be double to triple their currently proposed size. Under such a program, while densities might remain the same, at least 75% of the land within the Project would be held in private spaces. The proposed road standards are relatively conservative suburban sections with on -street parking in both directions, which configuration provides more than three times the road design capacity than that demanded by this Project. This configuration could reasonably provide for connections to the north and east of the Project if desired and if Project's internal roads were to become public. b. Section 7-207 Stormwater Drainage Standards. In lieu of the standards set forth in Section 7-207, CI proposes to comply with the standards and criteria provided by the UDFCD USDCM Volumes I and II, as amended, in its design of channels and hydraulic structures, and to use these standards and criteria as the primary guidance document for the selection and design of stormwater quality BMPs. This modification is being requested in an effort to provide comprehensive and appropriate standards and specifications that will be applied to the Project since the ULUR does not provide appropriate or detailed enough criteria to address the infrastructure, conditions, and "suburban" form of development proposed for the Project. The USDCM is recognized as being one of the most comprehensive drainage criteria manuals available in the State of Colorado and has been used as the basis for the development of local drainage criteria manuals and in drainage design and review processes by a wide variety of municipalities in the State from Grand Junction to Denver to Fort Collins The USDCM is approved and accepted by the Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division as a reasonable basis for design. Application of the USDCM assures that storm water will meet applicable water quality standards and that drainage structures and facilities will be designed to adequately convey storm drainage. In all cases, as promoted by the ULUR, where more naturalized channels and swales may be used to reasonably collect, treat and convey stormwater, these methods will be utilized as opposed to piping or concrete ditches. Details are provided in the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and the Bridges, Structures, and Drainage Structures Plans (Series DR01-03 and SO1) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ES01-ES06) or the Drawing Package. 27 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report c. Section 7-207. C.1 requirement that "[dJetention facilities shall ensure the post - development peak discharge rate does not exceed the pre -development peak discharge rate for the 2 -year and 25 year return frequency, 24-hour duration storm. In determining runoff rates, the entire area contributing runoff shall be considered, including any existing off-site contribution." CI requests that only the water quality capture volume, and not the total stormwater volume (i.e., quantity storage) required by the ULUR, be detained prior to discharge off the Project Site to either Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. The primary reason for this request is that the Property is located at the confluences of the two major perennial waterways and detention of surface runoff at historic rates provides little value or could even be detrimental to these waterways since it delays the releases from the Project in a manner that could coincide with the peak flows from larger contributing basins upstream (i.e., adding to the magnitude of the peak flow). If stormwater quantities are not detained, the peak flows generated from the Property will be released prior to these other peaks entering the areas. Furthermore, stormwater runoff from the Property does not discharge to or impact adjacent properties or downstream drainage structures. Should the County believe that quantity storage in addition to quality storage is required, the storage volumes for both quantity and quality are provided in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the area necessary to store this increased volume is available within the locations identified on the engineering plans to accommodate the volumes without any impact to lots within the Project. It is the opinion of William S. Otero, Project Engineer that detaining excess quantity volume is unproductive at best and potentially damaging to downstream areas at worst. d. Section 7-305.A.1.f standard that "[aJll required landscaping must be located outside of any adjacent right-of-way unless a written waiver is received from the Director." CI requests the Director's approval to provide landscape strips and landscaped areas within the rights-of-way and adjacent to the roads internal to the Project. As noted above, roads internal to the Project will at least initially be maintained by the POA. The proposed landscaping is a critical feature of the Project and provides for detached sidewalks. The landscaping will not interfere with the clear vision triangle and therefore presents no hazard to motorists. Further, the proposed landscaping will have no impact to County operations or facilities. e. Section 7-305.A.7.a standard that "[dJeciduous trees shall be a minimum of two inches (2'9 in caliper measured four inches (4'9 above the ground." CI proposes a standard of 1'/2" caliper to enhance survival. CI's landscape architect, Pedro Campos, has determined that survival rates would be substantially enhanced at the site by reducing tree sizes. Survival rate is one of the most critical factors in ensuring the success of a landscape plan. Winter desiccation has the potential to kill a large number of trees in this environment particularly in consideration of the limited soil matrix and water retaining properties of the surficial deposits. To this end, winter watering is proposed to help establish trees. The cost savings involved has been translated into the higher planting ratios proposed on the site than other comparable developments in the County. The overall intent of the landscape program as 28 River Edge Colorado Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report detailed in the Landscape Plan and LA01-05 Series of the Drawing Package meets or exceeds the intent of the ULUR in all other respects. f. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards. This section details a series of roadway standards for rural roads. The Project incorporates a series of road, trail and sidewalk sections more in keeping with the goals of the Project. The road sections follow commonly accepted design standards for suburban roadways, incorporate curb and gutter to control drainage, and provide a detached sidewalk for pedestrian safety and comfort. The proposed road sections and standards are detailed in the Project Engineering Design Report, PUD Guide and on the PUD Plan (PUD01-04) and Streets, Trails and Walkway Plan (CO01-04) of the Drawing Package. The roads, as planned, will have significant excess capacity (i.e., 2-6 times that required for this Project) and will provide for safe and efficient intersections, vision, and speeds. The rural sections and standards required as part of the ULUR cannot be utilized for the Project without changing the clustered program, enlarging lots and eliminating open space. g. Section 7-405.A requirement that "[tJhe Board of County Commissioners shall require reservation or dedication of public sites and open space for schools and parks that are reasonably necessary to serve the residents of the proposed subdivision and future residents. In lieu of a dedication of sites and land areas, the Board may require payment of a sum of money not exceeding the full market value of such sites and land areas, or a combination of land dedication and payment in lieu of dedication." Due to the small number of residential units proposed for the Project, the Project would owe less than the land required for dedication of a school site. In addition, the Property is not accessible by a public road as a result of the RFTA ROW and lack of a public entity willing to take responsibility for the crossing under the PUC. Therefore, CI proposes to pay fees -in -lieu of dedication for schools. CI further proposes no public dedications of land for roads, parks or open space. CI proposes that all roads, parks and open space within the Project will be held by the POA for the private enjoyment of the residents and for right of ingress and egress to their properties via the roads within the Property. The Board denied CI's request in September 2010 to form a Metropolitan District which would have provided a mechanism for providing public access to the Property and parks and open spaces provided therein. At the present time, CI has no ability to provide for public access over the RFTA ROW to the site. CI has provided allowances for future dedications if conditions change. V. Conclusion All application materials required for review of CI's requested rezoning, PUD plan approval, and preliminary plan approval are enclosed in the manner and order set forth on the Submittal Index for the Application. As detailed above and documented within the Application, the Project meets or exceeds the criteria for rezoning, PUD and preliminary plan approval in all respects. For all of the reasons set forth herein, CI respectfully requests that the County approve the Application. 29