HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 Pre-Application Conference Summary and Supporting DocumentsGARFIELD COUNTY
Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470
www.garfield-county.com
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY & DIRECTORS DETERMINATION
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 2393-073-00-032, 2393-073-00-033 DATE: March 19, 2013
2395-014-00-161
APPLICANT/OWNER: Carbondale Investments LLC, Rockwood Shepard
ENGINEER: Sam Otero and Katie Warren, Logistics -Planning -Design
PLANNER: Mark Sawyer, CCP, Logistics -Planning -Design
PROJECT: Amended Preliminary Plat and Amended PUD Plan, River Edge
LOCATION: Approximately 4 miles south of Glenwood Springs, west of
Highway 82, in the vicinity of the Cattle Creek Road (County
Road 113 intersection with Highway 82)
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Amended Preliminary Plat and Amended PUD Plan
I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicants are proposing a number of amendments to the Preliminary Plan and PUD
Plan for the River Edge Project approved by Resolution No. 2011-84. Details on the
proposed changes were provided by the Applicant through a narrative summary, mapping
of revised phasing plans, mapping of revised access locations, plans showing changes in
the access/intersection configurations and designs, and comparison tables on open space,
common areas, parks, and housing types/density. The amendments proposed and as
represented in the pre -application conference are summarized below:
A. Shifted Highway 82 access north from River Edge Drive to a new roadway
known as Terrace Parkway.
B. Creation of new Terrace Parkway including new Highway 82 intersection
layout and lane designs.
C. Modification to internal streets and some elimination of lots to create new
access roadway.
D. Creation of new Rio Grande Trail crossing and related improvements for the
new access roadway.
1
E. Elimination of River Edge Drive right-of-way extension to Highway 82 and
related plat adjustments.
F. Creation of new trail connections and/or Highway 82 crossing at the old
access alignment.
G. Elimination of secondary emergency vehicle access onto Highway 82 and
relocation to a new access alignment to the north through adjoining properties
connecting to County Road 167.
H. Reorganization and reconfiguration of the Subdivision Filings as reflected on
the Preliminary Subdivision Plan.
I. Revisions to the PUD Phasing Plan based on the new subdivision Filings.
Revisions include a shifting of the earlier phases of development to the
vicinity of the new access roadway.
While the configurations of some of the areas will change, the comparison tables on open
space, common area, and parks reflect a general consistency between the proposed
amended plan and the current approvals. Overall open space would increase by 0.1 acres
(to 40.60 acres), total common area would remain at 16.89 acres, and total parks would
increase by 0.26 of an acre (to 17.34 acres).
The comparison table on lots indicates that affordable housing ratios are maintained in the
proposed amendment while the build -out timing is adjusted in accordance with the revised
phasing plan. The majority of affordable housing units will still be developed in the first 5
Filings with Filing 1 proposed to now include 28 of the 55 units. The overall density of the
development would be slightly reduced by 4 units to a new total of 362 residential units.
Updated permitting and approvals from CDOT for the relocated/revised Highway 82 access
and from RFTA for the revised Rio Grande trail crossing will be required.
II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS
The proposed amendments require review under the Garfield County Unified Land Use
Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR") for both an amendment to a subdivision
Preliminary Plan and an amendment to a Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). The
applicable code sections are listed below:
A. Preliminary Pian Amendment
1. Sections 5-303 Amended Preliminary Plan.
2. Table 5-102 Common Review Procedures includes Preliminary Plan
and Amended Preliminary Plan.
3. Table 5-401 Submittal Requirements includes Preliminary Plan and
Amended Preliminary Plan.
4. Section 5-402 Description of Submittal Requirements.
B. PUD Amendment
1. Section 6-201(D) PUD Preliminary Plan.
2. Section 6-201(F) Amendments to an Approved PUD.
3. Section 6-202 PUD Approval Standards.
4. Section 6-301 General Submittal Requirements
2
III. DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
The ULUR first calls for the Director to make a determination as to whether the amendment
request is a Minor Modification or a Substantial Modification. The Preliminary Plan
amendment section refers to the use of the criteria contained in Section 4-106(C) and the
PUD amendment section contains procedural details in Section 6-201(F)(2).
A. Review Criteria for determining a Minor Modification.
Section 4-106.0 provides that Minor Modifications are those that rearrange or
reconfigure elevations, structures, parking areas, landscape areas, drainage
facilities, utilities, or other site improvements in an approved Land Use Change
Permit, including Subdivisions, and that meet all of the following criteria as
applicable:
1 Comply with all requirements of this Code;
2. Do not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan;
3. Do not change the character of the Development;
4. Do not alter the basic relationship of the Development to adjacent
property;
5. Do not change the uses permitted;
6. Do not require amendment or abandonment of any easements or
rights-of-way;
7. Do not increase the density;
8. Do not increase the zone district dimensions to an amount exceeding
the maximum dimension in the applicable zone district in Table 3-201;
and
9. Do not decrease the amount of the following to an amount below the
minimum required in the applicable zone district:
a. Amount of dedicated open space;
b. The size of or change in the locations, lighting, or orientation of
originally approved signs; and
c. Any zone district dimensions in Table 3-201.
B. Director's Determination.
Based on review of the Applicant's Pre -Application information packet,
supplemental tables, maps, and access plans the Director has made the
Determination that the proposed amendments to the River Edge Preliminary
Subdivision Plan and PUD Plan constitute a Substantial Modification based on
the following findings and analysis.
1. In regard to Section 4-106(C) review criteria #4, the amendment
request would alter the basic relationship of the Development to
adjacent properties including but not limited to the follow:
a. The amended plan would change the point of the primary access
onto the adjacent CDOT Highway 82 right-of-way, change the
type of access at two different locations (intersection designs),
and change access and circulation patterns connected to the
new access point.
3
b. The amended plan would change the location of the primary
crossing of the RTFA Rio Grande Right -of -Way and trail. The
change would include different improvements and alignments.
c. While adjoining privately held property along Highway 82 is
owned by a cooperative adjacent land owner the changes will
alter the access between and across said properties.
d. Changes/relocation of the emergency vehicle access will
eliminate an impact along the Highway 82 frontage but will
create new impacts/relationships to different properties along the
new emergency vehicle connection to County Road 167.
2. In regard to Section 4-106(C) review criteria #6, the amendment
request does require the amendment or abandonment of several
proposed easements or rights-of-way as noted below:
a. The proposed changes would result in the elimination of the
original right-of-way connection to Highway 82 associated with
River's Edge Drive.
b. The proposed changes would result in the elimination of an
easement for the original emergency vehicle access and related
changes to the preliminary plan in the vicinity of said easement.
c. The proposed changes would create a new easement
associated with the relocated emergency vehicle access and
related changes to the preliminary plan.
d. The proposed changes would result in revisions/amendments to
the right-of-way and roadway design for the extension of Chert
Court to the new Terrace Parkway including changes in width
and elimination of several adjoining lots.
IV. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
Based on the Director's Determination that the proposal is a Substantial Modification a new
Preliminary Plan and PUD Plan Application will be required. The Director has the ability to
determine the contents of the Application submission requirements for the Preliminary Plan
application pursuant to section 5-303 (B)(1)(b). Similarly, section 6-301(B), PUD Application
Materials, notes that the Director may waive or alter any of the application requirements "if
they are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary to determining if the application
satisfies applicable standards." Based on the original information supplied during the pre -
application conference and the subsequent information provided to Staff, the Director has
modified the submittal requirements to be those listed below. In addition, modification and
amendment of existing legal documents may be required. The Director maintains the ability
to request any other additional information deemed necessary to evaluate this application.
A. Preliminary Plan Amendment
1. General Application Materials (Forms, Fees, Ownership Information).
2. Vicinity Map (4-203.C).
3. Site Plan (4-203.D).
4. Developers Agreement (4-203.J).
5. Traffic Study (4-203.L).
4
a. CDOT Access Permits.
b. RFTA/PUC Access Approvals and related legal documentation.
6. Preliminary Plan Map (5.-402.E).
B. PUD Amendment
1. Application Form and Fees (6-301.C.3.).
2. Vicinity Map (6-301.C.6.).
3. Final PUD Plan (6-301.B.5.).
a. Site Plan (C.8).
b. Written Description (C.9), including, but not limited to, revised
designation of filings and modified phasing plan.
c. Streets/Roads Plans and Profiles (C.8.r(1)).
d. Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions (C.8.r(2)).
e. Estimated Construction Costs (C.8.r.(3)).
f. PUD Development Guide (C.10).
V. REVIEW PROCESS. — NEW PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PUD APPLICATION
The full details on the review process and review criteria are found in section 5-301.C.
(Preliminary Plan) and in section 6-201.D. (Final PUD Plan). These applications may be
processed currently and will follow the process as outlined below:
A. Pre -Application Conference (completed).
B. Application Submittal.
C. Completeness Review (4-101.B).
D. Schedule Public Hearing (6-201.D.3).
E. Referral Agency Review (4-101.C). Referrals agencies may include but are
not limited to:
1. CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation,
2. Town of Carbondale,
3. City of Glenwood Springs,
4. County Road and Bridge,
5. County Consulting Engineers, and
6. County Engineers.
F. Evaluation by Director (4-101.D).
G. Notice for PC Public Hearing (4.101.E).
H. Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission (4.101.F).
1. Notice for BOCC Public Hearing (6-201.D.6).
J. Review and Decision by the Board of County Commissioners (4-101.G).
K. Duration of Approval and Expiration, Extension of Approval, Recordation of
revised zoning map and all PUD documents will be required upon any
approval per section 6-201.D. and section 4-101.H and 4-101.1.
5
IV. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES
Planning Review Fees: $500 PUD
$675 Preliminary Plan
Referral Agency Fees: $ tbd
Total Deposit: $1,175 (additional hours billed at hourly rate of $40.50)
General Application Processing
Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to referral agencies for comments. Case planner
contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets
standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions,
or denial to the appropriate hearing body.
Disclaimer
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary
is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested
right.
Pre -application Summary Prepared By:
413
Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner Date
Director Determination By:
5
Fred Jarman, AICP \ Date
6
Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck
April 18, 2013
VIA EMAIL
Fred Jarman, Director
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Carbondale Investments/River Edge Colorado
Dear Fred:
Wayne F. Forman
Attorney at Law
303.223.1120 tel
303.223.0920 fax
wforman@bhfs.com
I am writing as counsel for Carbondale Investments, LLC (CI). CI has completed its review of the
March 19, 2013 Pre -Application Conference Summary & Directors Determination (Determination) for the
River Edge Colorado (REC) Amended Preliminary Plat and Amended PUD Plan (REC PUD/PP). CI
hereby requests that you reconsider the requirement that CI include with its submittal of these amended
filings CDOT access permits and RFTA/PUC access approvals and related legal documentation.
The County previously did not require that CI obtain access permits and approvals as a pre -condition to
obtaining preliminary plat and PUD Plan approval for the REC PUD/PP. Instead, the Board of County
Commissioners approved Cl's application, requiring only that CI obtain a crossing license from the PUC, if
required, and submit documentation of acceptance by RFTA of the grade -separated construction of the Rio
Grande Trail, "[p]rior to submittal of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat." See paragraphs
10a and 10b of Resolution No. 2011-84. Given the BOCC's treatment of these access matters in the
original Resolution, there is no legitimate basis for requiring that CI have these permits and approvals in
hand as a condition of filing an application for amended approvals.
Indeed, the requirement that CI obtain CDOT and RFTA/PUC approval prior to filing applications for an
amended preliminary plat and amended PUD plan would be highly prejudicial to both CI and the County.
First, CI has previously documented that it has legal right to access the REC property from State Highway
82 across the RFTA Corridor anywhere south of Milepost 367.51, in accordance with the Easement Grant
recorded at Reception No. 549751, and its amendment recorded at Reception No. 572244 (Easement
Grant). The Easement Grant is part of the record and confirms Cl's right to locate the RFTA Corridor
crossing at its amended location.
Pursuant to the Easement Grant, CI has a one-time right to relocate the easement location. The submittal
requirement for RFTA approvals would, in effect, require that CI execute its one-time relocation prior to the
County's approval of the amendment to the REC PUD/PP. This places both the County and CI in an
untenable and non-negotiable position with respect to the requested access and is inconsistent with
previous requirements, the current Unified Land Use Regulations (ULUR), and the intent of land use review
at time of preliminary plan or land use approval. On the other hand, the County would not be prejudiced at
all by considering Cl's application for an amended REC PUD/PP first, and conditioning any approvals on
obtaining access approvals from agencies, as the BOCC did with the initial project approvals.
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202-4432
main 303.223.1100
013738\0001\1821236.1
bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Fred Jarman, Director
April 18, 2013
Page 2
Second, and in more general terms, to undertake construction of REC, CI must obtain more than a dozen
approvals and permits from various agencies, in addition to the County's land use review. These approvals
and permits are subordinate to and dependent upon preliminary land use approval and involve substantial
costs because they require designs to proceed to final plans and specifications. Should the BOCC
subsequently fail to approve the amended REC PUD/PP consistent with the approvals from these other
agencies, Cl's considerable investment in these designs, plans and specifications would be wasted. As
such, the determination to selectively require that certain permits be obtained prior to consideration of the
amendment is contrary to any logical land development process, and is unreasonable, arbitrary and
capricious.
CI agrees with the Determination that the ULUR permits the Director to "waive or alter" submittal
requirements "if they are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary to determining if the application
satisfies applicable standards." ULUR, § 6-301(B). CI does not believe, however, that the Director has the
authority to require CDOT Access Permits or RFTA/PUC Access Approvals as part of the application for
amendment to the REC PUD/PP, requirements that were not placed on CI during its first application cycle.
At § 4-203 of the ULUR, only "[e]vidence of consultation with CDOT for future access permits, as
applicable" is required. As noted above, such permits and approvals require final design and would limit
the review authority of the BOCC. Recognizing that it is premature to require final designs at the time of
submittal, the ULUR contemplates and requires documentation from other entities concerning permits and
other final approvals at the time of final plat, not at submittal.
CI has worked diligently to identify the best performing and safest access alternative for the REC and the
access alternative that provides the greatest flexibility for future rail along the RFTA Corridor. CI has
worked to support our Memorandum of Understanding with the County concerning access to the property
and improvements to the East Intersection at CR 113/SH82. Access has been and continues to be a
collaborative effort. In the spirit of that collaboration, the efforts made to date, and the specific requirements
of the ULUR, CI asks that you eliminate the requirements to secure CDOT access permits and RFTA/PUC
access approvals in advance of filing the amended PUD/PP application, so that CI may file without delay.
CI would appreciate a written response to this request at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Wayne/ . Forman
WFF:jc
cc: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner
Frank Hutfless, Esq., County Attorney
Carey Gagnon, Esq., Asst. County Attorney
Rockwood Shepard
Mark Sawyer, Planning Consultant
Sam Otero, Civil Engineering Consultant
013738\0001 \1821236.1
CGarfield County
April 29, 2013
VIA EMAIL
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
c/o Wayne Forman
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202-4432
Dear Mr. Forman:
I have reviewed your request on behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC ("Cl") in regard to submitting an
approved CDOT access permit and RFTA/PUC access approval for the River Edge Colorado amended PUD
and Preliminary Plan as a part of a technically complete application. As described in the Unified Land
Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR") Section 4-203.L.5, Traffic Impact Study, the County will
accept "evidence of consultation with CDOT [and RFTA] for future access permits," for the proposed
State Highway 82 access and the RFTA crossing to render the application complete. Though the County
would prefer to have evidence of the approved permits at the time of application in order to avoid the
chance that these accesses may again be modified, we do acknowledge that the risk is largely that of the
applicant's and will process the application with "evidence of consultation." In order for the applicant to
demonstrate compliance with Section 7-107 of the ULUR , planning staff will certainly recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners require, as a condition of any approval, the approved access permit
and crossing approval.
Respectfully,
Tamra Allen
Planning Manager
Cc: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner
Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney