Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.00 PC Staff Report 9.14.2011Planning Commission - Public Hearing Exhibits River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment / Preliminary Plan September 14, 2011 - continued from July 13, 2011 A B C D E F Mail receipts and proof of posting Proof of publication Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended Garfield County Comprehensive Pian 2030 Three Binder set of application materials Staff report G Intentionally left blank Staff Presentation M N Road & Bridge dated May 18, 2011 Public Works (SGM on behalf of County) dated May 24, 2011 Garfield County Housing Authority dated May 31, 2011 Sheriff Department dated June 15, 2011 County Vegetation dated June 10, 2011 Environmental Health dated June 17, 2011 0 Division of Water Resources dated June 22, 2011 P Colorado Geologic Survey dated June 3, 2011 Q Colorado Department of Transportation dated April 27, 2011 R Colorado Division of Wildlife dated June 14, 2011 5 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District dated June 12, 2011 T Roaring Fork Transportation Authority dated June 15, 2011 u Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of GarCo) dated June 10, 20 V City of Glenwood Springs dated June 9, 20 1 W US Fish and Wildlife Service dated May 25, 2011 x United Stated Army Corps of Engineers dated May 5, 20 Y Email dated 6/23/11 from planner to applicant re: DWR Z .et -ter dated 6/19/11 from Wayne Foreman, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck AA RE -1 School District dated June 30, 20 BB Colorado Department of Transportation dated June 28, 2011 CC City of Glenwood Springs Fire Department dated July 7, 20 DD EE FF Division of Water Resources dated July 1, 2011 GG HH 11 Town of Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission dated June 30, 2011 Town of Carbondale Mayor dated July 5, 2011 City of Glenwood Springs Fire Department dated July 7, 2011 Applicant submittal of'supplemental information dated September, 2011 JJ KK Aspen Glen Board of Directors dated September 6, 2011 Division of Water Resources dated September 8, 2011 Roaring Fork Conservancy dated September 8, 2011 LL Mark VonderHaar comments dated September 12, 20 MM Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck comment re: conditionq dated September 12, 2011 NN Staff revisions to potential conditions of ap roval dated September 13, 2011 00 PP 00 PC September 14, 2011 KE PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: OWNER/APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE: WATER/SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Zone District Amendment / PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Carbondale Investments, LLC Rockwood Shepard Mid -way between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs on the west side of SH 82 at Cattle Creek ±-160-acres Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District AND/OR Private Central Water and Sanitation State Highway 82 Residential Suburban (RS) CL, CG, PUD, Rural Future Land Use Map - Residential High Density 1 PC September 14, 2011 KE I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION A. Property Location The property is generally located in the western 'f2 of Sections 7 and 18 of Township 7 South, Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 89 West. More practically, the property is located 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs east and adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH 82) with a primary access point located opposite Cattle Creek Road (CR 113) as it intersects with SH 82 in the lower Roaring Fork Valley. Glenwood Springs Carbondale Properties to the north include two commercial parks (Eastbank & Evergreen) and a high- density mobile home park (H Lazy F). Properties to the west include a medium -density (Telter Springs) and high-density (Iron Bridge) residential development. Properties to the south include an active gravel extraction operation (LaFarge) and medium -density residential development (Aspen Glen), Properties to the east include a variety of commercial businesses (Van Rand Park), and a high-density mobile home park (Mountain Meadows Court). B. General Property Description The property contains approximately 160 -acres of former 281.62 acres site that has recently subdivided been into several >35 -acre parcels. The subject site is located on the floor of the Roaring Fork Valley and is configured in a linear north -south orientation with the Rio Grande Trail forming its east border and the Roaring Fork River forming its western border. Physically the property can be characterized by several benches that step down in an east to 2 PC September 14, 2011 KE west direction towards the Roaring Fork River. A perpetual conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy is located adjacent to the subject site of this application. C. Property History Beyond what has been protected in the adjacent easement, the entire property has been virtually denuded of any viable vegetation and stripped of much of its topsoil as a result of former development attempts by a previous owner which has left the property in poor condition. The ground cover is primarily characterized by cobles and gravel with three or four large piles of unanchored topsoil. Some rough grading work is also evident where the previous owner had begun to rough in a golf course. The Sanders Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 with a site specific development plan that included a gait course, 62 single-family dwelling units and 168 multi -family dwelling units for a total average density of 1.22 acres / du or conversely, 0.81 du / acre. In February, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners revoked approval for the uncompleted portion of the PUD and rezoned that portion to Residential Suburban (known as RGSD under the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended) leaving the area encompassed by the conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy zoned as Open Space / Conservation District in the Sanders Ranch PUD as shown right. Subsequently, the owner of the property at the time (Sopris Development Group) sold the property to Linksvest / Bair Chase, LLC who submitted a Preliminary Plan Application in 2003 based on the PUD which was approved by the BOCC in 2004 and extended in 2005. The net result was that the Preliminary Plan Application became invalid due to expiration; certain obligations / timeframes contained within the Phasing Plan in the PUD also became invalid thus rendering the entire PUD Plan invalid. Open Space Conservation District in Sanders Ranch PUD 3 PC September 14, 2011 KE In October 2008 the site was owned by River Bend, LLC when Related Westpac, LLC submitted an application for a Zone District Amendment for Planned Unit Development (PUD). This PUD proposed 1,006 dwelling units, 30,000 square feet of commercial, a school site, open space and recreation as shown on the development plan below. Cattle Creek Colorado, 2008 This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant prior to any action taken on the request. II. RIVER EDGE COLORADO (REC) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The current owner of the site, Carbondale Investments, LLC, (CI) proposes to rezone a portion of the original site discussed above, from Residential Suburban to PUD to allow for development of 366 dwelling units (including 55 affordable units), 30,000 square feet of public, quasi - public and commercial floor area, open space and recreation. The owner has also included a Preliminary Plan Application to allow for subdivision of the site. r • Menage wJJtOLJtS$7lfl' 3JM..1 %morn Ju 4 PC September 14, 2011 KE The application materials contain the following project description: C/ contemplates developing the properly 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' j to be established for the Project and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a health club. Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog parks, playfields, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural heritage and rural character, Cl 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. It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of the Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide provided in Tab 3, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. The Applicant proposes that the development proceed in 11 phases with reclamation of the entire 160 -acres being completed in Phase 0. The development is anticipated to be built -out in 2019 based upon an average annual absorption rate of 58 units per year. The Applicant is requesting a vesting period for the development for a period of 20 years. PHASING The PUD Plan and charts, along with language in the PUD Guide and engineer construction plan (CP01.01), constitute the phasing plan for the development. In general the staging and timing of the proposed development is described as: The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6flings and 5 subflings. The Project will be constructed over a period of 5-10 years. The development stage of the Project is preceded by a pre -development reclamation phase described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U of the Impact Analysis, Binder 2 of the P(ID/Preliminary Plan Application). The development staging and construction is detailed on Drawing No. CP01.01 of the PUD (Rezoning) and Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package submitted as part of the PUDIPrelinninary Plan Application. Phase 0 - This first phase is to reclaim the site in preparation for development activities. Included in the 68 page Reclamation Plan, itemized as Appendix U in Binder 2 is the following intent: 5 PC September 14, 2011 KE This Plan proposes and details a pre -development reclamation action ("Phase 0'1, including grading, necessary to repair the damage to the Project Site resulting from actions taken by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD which partially regraded the Project Site (as hereinafter defined) for residential and golf course development and stripped and stockpiled the topsoil. The description of the reclamation is basically a `grading program' but also includes: • Relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the entry to the site. The Applicant states that this relocation will be done in coordination with RFTA and will result in a grade - separated trail that will reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between trail users and access to the site. • Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch to facilitate property development. • Site grading includes movement of 1.2 million cubic yards of material which will re - grade the site for proper drainage and resolve existing and potential geotechnical hazards. In addition this will also repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments, and repair active and stabilize stream bank erosion. • Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds. • Final revegetation and planting of vegetative screens along the Rio Grande Trail and the conservation easement. Phase 1 — 59 lots (39 "Town" lots and 20 "Attached" lots); off-site infrastructure such as access from Highway 82, a private at -grade crossing over the grade separated-RFTA trail, connection to water and wastewater treatment facilities if service is provided by RFWSD. On-site improvements include the round -about and streets to serve the lots, bridge over Cattle Creek, water and sewer lines, parking and mailboxes at the Community Center Phase 1B — 26 lots (13 Garden Homes and 13 Affordable Homes). These first two phases are anticipated to be constructed between 2012 and 2014. Phase 2 — 31 lots (12 Village Lots, 19 Attached) Phase 2A - 56 lots (28 Garden Homes and 28 Affordable Homes). 6 PC September 14, 2011 KE Phase 3 — 36 Lots (35 Town Lots and 1 Village Lot) Phase 4 -- 52 Lots (44 Town Lots and 8 Village Lots) Phase 4A — 19 Garden Home Lots Phase 5 - 27 Town Lots Phase 5A - 28 Lots (14 Garden Home Lots and 14 Affordable Homes) Phase 6 — 61 Lots (9 Estate Lots, 17 Town Lots and 35 Village Lots) III. REFERRAL AGENCIES The PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan applications were referred to the following agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments that were received are briefly noted below and more substantively included in the body of the memorandum. a. Garfield County Road & Bridge: EXHIBIT I Questions regarding water tank and traffic generation. b. Garfield County Public Works: EXHIBIT J SGM reviewed the proposal on behalf of Public Works as SGM is involved in an intersection study which includes the Cattle Creek (CR 113) / Old Dump Road (CR 110) intersection with SH 82. Issues identified include the alignment of the proposed access to the development, deviations from CDOT standards for shoulders, and potential alternatives for traffic control related to a development of 300+ units. SGM recommends that the Applicant coordinate with the County and CDOT on these issues. c. Garfield County Housing Authority: EXHIBIT K The Housing Authority reviewed the proposed affordable housing component of the development including a rental component that is not addressed in the County's guidelines, percentage of AMI that exceeds the maximum County guidelines, proposes flexibility given the long build -out schedule, and questions regarding timing on provision of units. Additional comments are expected regarding the proposed deed restriction language when those documents are submitted and finalized. d. Garfield County Sheriff Department: EXHIBIT L The Emergency Operations Sergeant has concerns regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points and impact on the ingress -egress onto SH 82. e. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: EXHIBIT M Steve Anthony recommends stronger language in the covenants regarding responsibility of noxious weed management of the site. Mr. Anthony would like a provision removed that requires noxious weed treatment once 5% of the site is covered with noxious weeds, this is contrary to requirements that eradication must occur upon detection of List A and List B species. The revegetation plan is acceptable however a quantification of surface area to be disturbed is typically requested — however in this case the $2,500 per acre security may apply to the entire site (Staff calculates that this could result in a requirement for revegetation security in the amount of $400,000 prior to issuance of a grading permit for Phase O). f. Garfield County Environmental Health: EXHIBIT N Jim Rada identified concerns regarding the water supply and wastewater treatment plan in which the application is not definitive in terms of who will provide service to the development. The ability of a Property Owner Association to operate and maintain such a 7 PC September 14, 2011 KE system will likely be expensive and burdensome to the owners. Other concerns relate to social issues such as sustainable, walkable communities, growing fresh food, access to fresh food and other amenities that will require driving to Carbondale or Glenwood Springs. g. Colorado State Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT 0 "Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number of EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28- 136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." Staff is expecting receipt of additional comments from the DWR based on additional information provided by the Applicant. h. Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT P CGS states that the Applicant has generally done a good job of avoiding the most severe geologic hazards (sinkholes and subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, slope instability adjacent to the river, uncontrolled fill, and debris flow and flooding hazards). Critical recommendations should be required to protect public safety, including the necessity of further investigations and site-specific mitigation action. CGS recommends additional mitigation measures as outlined in their response. i. Colorado Department of Transportation: EXHIBIT Q and BB Dan Roussin responded that CDOT had no comment on the zone change application (Exhibit Q) and that the development would need an access permit. Mr. Roussin also states that the traffic study indicates installation of a traffic signal in 2018. Further comment includes consideration of re -alignment of the CR 113 intersection in conjunction with this proposed access. Colorado Division of Wildlife: EXHIBIT R Significant impact should not result if the recommendations outlined in CDOW comments form 2008 and 2009 are followed. These include concern with stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, burying utilities, fencing restrictions, protection of riparian areas, 100' setback from the bluff along the river, and issues related to the Heron Rookery. k. RE -1 School District: EXHIBIT AA The development land dedication requirement is 7.3 acres however this amount is not adequate to address site requirements for an elementary school and required accessory facilities. "The District's only option at this point is to accept fees in -lieu of land dedication..." Carbondale Fire Protection District: EXHIBIT S Developments with more than 200 units have to have two separate and approved fire access roads, details of which have not been submitted to the District for approval. The proposed system appears capable of providing adequate fire flow and fire hydrants appear adequate as well. The District raises the issue of fire sprinkler requirements. Lastly, the development will be required to pay fire district impact fees of $730.00 per lot/unit ($267,180). m. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA): EXHIBIT T Concern expressed with growth outside of the Town of Carbondale and City of Glenwood Springs' Urban Growth Boundaries particularly as it affects transit (including cost and travel time). The crossing of the Rio Grande Trail (ROW) is permissible by current easement that allows 8 PC September 14, 2011 KE at -grade access to the site. This easement poses issues, particularly related to safety conflicts with trail users. (The application materials discuss a separated grade crossing for the trail at the entry to the site, however this is not currently permitted by RFTA.) n. Mountain Cross Engineering: EXHIBIT U Water - Two options for water and sanitation service result in evidence of a legal supply pending outcome of court decrees, however the physical supply of water is still pending negotiations. Regardless, the Applicant must demonstrate via well pump test, water quality test and community water system approvals from CDPHE related to private provision of water and sanitation; or if provided by RFWSD there must be evidence of adequate capacity of the District systems. Proposed EQR values are not consistent with ULUR requirements of 350 gallons per day. Proposed private system did not include specifications for on- and off-site improvements that will be necessary including, but not limited to, pump stations, pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks, etc. Engineer -design of the anticipated pumping system was not provided. Geology — Additional geotechnical testing could result in changes to the proposed layout and density. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer recommends foundation sub -drains be provided however the flatness of the site results in a recommendation that the Applicant consider a provide wide method for suitable gravity outlet for these drains (the Applicant is requesting waiver from provision of foundation sub -drain). Detention - A waiver is requested from providing storm -water detention for peak flow attenuation. This should be of no concern provided that water -quality detention is still provided. Access — One public access for the project residents results in concern. An access permit will need to be obtained. Home occupations are permitted but the traffic report did not appear to include these calculations. See Exhibit U for full list of engineering issues. 0. City of Glenwood Spinps: EXHIBIT V • Creation of an unincorporated community; • Sprawl; • Though the number of units is smaller so is the site, future development could be equal to or exceed previous applications; • A rezoning does not appear to be justified as there is no "demonstrated community need"; • The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis seems unlikely (58 units per year for the remainder of the decade); • Increased burden on services such as sheriff, fire, CDOT, school district and results in a "negative impact on county finances"; • The application alludes to a signalized intersection although is somewhat unclear, impact to the RFTA corridor; • Provision of water and wastewater treatment is unclear; • Questions regarding the site size. p. U.S. Fish & Wildlife: EXHIBIT W The wildlife assessment describes the presence of Ute Ladies' -tresses orchid which is a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. If water is to be provided by the District versus private, potential impacts could result. A 404 permit application will require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 PC September 14, 2011 KE q. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: EXHIBIT X Wetland boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination is confirmed, however it is not clear if impact to jurisdictional waters will be entirely avoided. Alternatives must be evaluation if there are not practicable alternatives mitigation plans should be developed. Town of Carbondale — Planning and Zoning: EXHIBIT EE This property was recommended to not be included within the Unincorporated Communities area which is a justification used by the Applicant for the rezoning. The PC considered this application at their June 16`h meeting noting that the proposed pricepo nt is consistent with nearby developments both in and outside (within municipal boundaries) of the County. Approval of this development would not equate to economic development and represents unnecessary suburban sprawl. Other issues identified include traffic impacts to SH 82, proposed development on a portion of the original property, additional river buffering should be considered, the site plan does not reflect clustering, water and wastewater issues, additional details necessary on the signalized intersection, coordination with RFTA, and impacts to wildlife. Town of Carbondale — Board of Trustees: EXHIBIT FF Stacey Patch Bernot, Mayor, responded to the referral with several concerns including community need, justification questioned on beneficial impact to SH 82, review should occur on the whole site not just a portion divided from the original parcel, and impacts to wildlife. No comments were received from the following agencies: t. Water Conservancy Board u. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment v. Colorado State Forest Service w. Soil Conservation District x. Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District y. Glenwood Ditch Company z. Roaring Fork Conservancy IV. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROJECT SITE One component of the Comprehensive Plan is the Future Land Use Map which designates density ranges and uses that may be considered appropriate for an area. This site has been subdivided from the original 288 -acres as indicated on the map left into a property shown above that consists of 160 -acres of the original parcel. The Roaring Fork 10 PC September 14, 2011 KE Conservancy Conservation Easement is not included in this application and will remain a separate parcel zoned Sanders Ranch PUD, Open Space. The Introduction to the Plan discusses the following general issues which should be considered in the analysis of this proposal: Vacant Lots - Garfield County has approved a number of subdivisions that are undeveloped or only partially developed. Approximately 2,400 vacant subdivided lots exist throughout the county. Cost of Growth - Like most counties, Garfield County government (departments, services, tax structure) is set up to serve rural needs. The county is not currently set up to be in the "urban" business — to provide urban services to residential and commercial areas. And yet, there have been, and could be more, significant subdivisions in the unincorporated county. Even while being served by homeowners' associations (HOA's), property owners' associations (POA's), and special districts, rural subdivisions still place significant additional burdens on county services and finances (maintenance of roads designed for rural traffic, public safety at higher levels, social services, etc.). In addition, residents of rural subdivisions often bring increased expectations of service, which eventually translates into increased costs to all. Uncoordinated Growth - All of the municipalities in Garfield County have established and planned for areas of growth (Urban Growth Areas). Together, these Urban Growth Areas could absorb 2.5 times the projected county growth for the next 20 years. Yet, these areas legally remain in the county jurisdiction until they are annexed. The current process and lack of effective intergovernmental cooperation leads to development patterns in the Urban Growth Areas that can eventually thwart community growth plans and lead to inefficient services. Private Property Rights - Garfield County recognizes that owners have an inherent right to develop property as long as the development is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the county and does not adversely affect adjacent property rights. The development of land should be consistent with the general land use goals and policies of Garfield County. Chapter 2. Future Land Use includes the following direction: Future Land Use Map The Future Land Use Map designates the site as Residential High Density which provides a 'range' of appropriate densities and a method of determining what range is appropriate for a particular site: Determining the density range, High Density range is from 3 du per acre (480 units on the REC parcel) to 1 du per e 2 acres (80 units on the REC the Planning Commission based on parcel), the range for a particular site will be determined by "degree of public benefit" and consideration of such factors 11 PC September 14, 2011 KE as affordable housing, amount of parks/trails/open space, energy conservation, fiscal impacts, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public needs. Growth of New Major Residential Subdivisions There are several major subdivisions (15 units or more) in Garfield County that provide their own internal services (road maintenance, water, sewer) through special districts or HOA. However, these subdivisions are typically far from commercial centers and require travel for even convenience needs which increases traffic and requires higher maintenance of county roads. The Plan recognizes new major subdivisions may occur, but encourages them to be more self-sufficient (having, or being near, convenience services). In order to be more self- sufficient, new major subdivisions will require: 1. Safe, reliable access and transit opportunities il. Construction or upgrade existing offsite connecting county roads and intersections by the developer iii. Review of the fiscal costs vs. fiscal benefits to the public iv. Internal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi -public, not private) vi. Public amenities, such as trails, open areas, parks; etc., that meet the needs of residents are included. Staff Comment: The proposed development has mixed compliance with these requirements. i. REC proposes the ability to have a 'coffee shop' type of activity, or other convenience type use, located in the Neighborhood Center tract. Otherwise the nearest located convenience services would be at CMC Road and SH 82. ii. This development will rely on transportation via the state highway in order to access convenience services such as grocery stores and other necessities as well as employment centers. Transit opportunities will be limited based upon referral comments from RFTA which state "the nearest RFTA boarding locations Spring Creek Road and Aspen Glen." Staff assumes that Spring Creek Road is CR 114, aka CMC Road where there is an existing bus stop. iii. The Applicant is working with Public Works and CDOT regarding the alignment/improvements at the north side of the intersection of CR 113/CR110 and SH 82. iv. A Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), was provided in the submittal documentation; see Appendix N in Binder 2. The analysis was premised upon this development capturing 25% of the projected growth in the mid -valley, resulting in an absorption rate of 58 units annually with anticipated build -out of the project in 2019. Peak annual construction employment is anticipated at 141 jobs. Based upon a review of the revenues generated by the development, including property tax, sales tax, building permit fees, and the expenditures necessitated by the development, the resulting net fiscal impact to the county will be -25,000 annually. This negative will be offset by the construction related sales tax and building permit fees. The latter is anticipated to generate $1,200,000 in building permit fees over the life of developing the property, however the analysis does not appear to consider the cost to the County for employees such as plans examiners or building inspectors. 12 PC September 14, 2011 KE The Analysis states that the cumulative net fiscal impact, including the one-time revenues discussed above, at $566,000. "Holding all revenues and expenditure constant, the cumulative net fiscal impact will cover the annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through the year 2042." (Page 1, EPS) The projected foreclosure rate in Garfield County for 2011 is anticipated to be 700 units, up from 650 units in 2010. This will likely have an impact on the projected absorption rate that is anticipated to commence in 2012. Andy Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems, provided a supplemental analysis based upon staff comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis in Attachment E, EXHIBIT ?. Mr. Knudtsen reiterates that the `development will generate annual on-going revenues of $440,000 and one-time revenues of $1.3 million'. Based upon population projections the absorption rate of 58 units per year is supported as it equates to approximately 5 percent capture of County growth based upon the Colorado Water Conservation Board Growth Forecasts, The timing and duration of economic cycles is significant however long-term forecasts anticipate positive and negative cycles within a given projections. "Thus, an extended development process and variability in market tinning would have a minimal impact on the River Edge fiscal performance." v. Internal roads are proposed to be private and maintained by the Properly Owners Association. Entry to the development may be gated however no detail was provided on how this would function. vi. The Applicant had originally requested the option to provide water and wastewater to the development by private systems or by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The Comp Plan recommends provision of these services through a Special District, not a private system. It appears that a pre -inclusion agreement with the District is imminent therefore this issue may have been resolved. vii. The Applicant proposes t� provide significant open space including both active and passive areas. However the Applicant is not proposing to provide (construct) any recreational amenities and instead has stated an allowance that the POA will have the ability to construct those facilities that are determined necessary by the residents of the development. The proposal is not in general conformance with Sections i., iii, v. (mixed), and potentially vi if agreement is not reached with the District. Growth in Unincorporated Communities New (or expanded existing) unincorporated communities should meet the following guidelines: i. Not located in UGA of existing municipalities; ii. Served with urban services by a special district; hi. Contract for police from county sheriff is established; iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense; v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered: vi. Internal commercial is primarily for area residents; vii. Transit opportunities are provided; viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided; ix. School sites may be required. Staff Comment: Further discussion should occur regarding compliance with Sections v. as fiscal impacts have been considered but long-term costs to the County will result; vii. no on-site transit 13 PC September 14, 2011 KE facilities will be provided, and possibly ix. RE -1 has stated that provision of a school site is preferred, resulting in mixed compliance with this element. Chapter 3 -Plan Elements This chapter analyzes plan elements that include: 1. Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination - The nearest property boundary of REC is located 2.46 miles from the Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area and 2.61 miles from the Carbondale Urban Growth Area, locating this property halfway between two existing population centers. The FLUM designation of Residential High (less than 2 acres per dwelling unit) is somewhat contradictory to this element but more understandable if the density range of Residential High is considered (range is from 1 unit per 2 acres to 3 units per acre). The designation of Rural Employment Center is related to the land uses on the southeast side of Highway 82. 2. Housing - The Applicant proposes to provide 55 affordable units compliant with ULUR requirements. However there are several components of the affordable housing plan that were not contemplated in the Affordable Housing requirements, including the request to rent those units not sold, timing of construction of the units, etc. Same of these requests may be appropriate however they do not meet the letter of the code requirements. This should be considered during the review, however the Applicant has stated that they wilf amend their housing plan to comply with the ULUR if necessary. 3. Transportation — The Applicant has stated that this development will provide an opportunity for upper valley employees to five in the Roaring Fork Valley rather than commuting from the Colorado River Valley. In theory this may decrease traffic on 1-70 and Highway 82 through the City of Glenwood Springs. However the location of the development will require that residents continue to commute as the site is located between two community centers, transit access will be limited and few employment opportunities exist within the development. The improvements required to Highway 82 at the entrance to the site are significant and will impact the Cattle Creek intersection at SH 82. The Director of Public Works, CDOT, and the Applicant will continue to meet to address this issue. 4. Economics, Employment and Tourism — Though the development and construction will create employment opportunities they will be temporary and will not be primary jobs. Employment for the on-site recreation/daycare/coffee shop facilities may generate several on-going service industry positions. Overall POA maintenance of the development may also create several positions, though a specific number of positions has not been provided. 5. Recreation, Open Space and Trails — The development does provide internal trails and areas for recreation including the potential for tot lots and other active uses. The Applicant has stated that funding for these improvements will be either included within the County Improvements Agreement or somehow bonded or provided to the POA. Staff recommends a condition of approval that will require the recreation improvements be included in the Improvements Agreement which will require the provision of collateral to assure construction of the facilities. 6. Agriculture — The application states that the development would like to retain agricultural uses on the site however the current Suburban zoning does not permit Agricultural Uses. Compliance with the underlying zone district is a requirement of a PUD, however the provision of `garden and orchard' sites may function as an accessory use to the residential 14 PC September 14, 2011 KE community. The addition of uses not found in the underlying zone district may occur within a PUD if supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Water and Sewer Services — This issue is somewhat convoluted as the original application suggested that the site may provide their own water and sanitation through a private system or that the development would obtain service from Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). It appears that significant headway has been made between the Applicant and RFWSD as Staff has been notified that a pre -inclusion agreement is forthcoming. This leaves one remaining question as the Applicant has stated that some portions of the development may be provided private water and wastewater systems. The Applicant should provide clarification regarding this issue. 8. Natural Resources — Preservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources is proposed, particularly when the first phase of the development reclaims the site. Protection of the riparian corridor and conservation easement are specifically discussed in the development plan. Other components of this element include air and water quality protections Including stormwater management and flooding, wildlife habitat, native vegetation and light pollution. 9. Mineral Extraction — There are likely significant gravel reserves on the property. The Applicant has determined that this resource will be utilized in the construction of the development of the project to the extent that gravel reserves will be stockpiled, crushed on- site and concrete batch plant will operate to produce construction materials. The proposed PUD zoning document lists Mineral Extraction as a use that is not permitted within the development as `mining' will not be necessary. The material will simply be gathered during the reclamation process proposed as Phase 0. A proposed use that is permitted related to development of the project is material processing. Staff is concerned with this allowance as it relates to mitigation of potential impacts and proposed exportation of material. The PUD Guide does include both definition and standards for this use however further clarification of this activity should be provided by the Applicant. 10. Renewable Energy — Energy and/or water conservation and renewable energy were not included as components of this development. V. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA PUD and Zone District Amendment SECTION 4-201 REZONING. Rezoning may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director, or an applicant for land use change. The rezoning request may be processed concurrently with the land use change application and review process. B. Rezoning Criteria. Unless otherwise provided in these Regulations, an application for rezoning must meet the following criteria. 1. No Spot Zoning. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning. Staff Comments: There are numerous adjacent zone districts including PUD, therefore the proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning. The proposed rezoning may result in a logical and orderly development pattern if suburban forms and sprawl are an acceptable pattern for Garfield County. It is noteworthy that the existing Suburban 15 PC September 14, 2011 KE zoning of the site could result in a maximum of 348 residential lots (this is a gross density calculation that does not consider land necessary for roads and other infrastructure but is simply a calculation of the site acreage divided by the minimum lot size in the suburban zone district.) 2. Change in Area. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Staff Comments: It has been argued through the review process that the change in the area that has occurred (due to the economy resulting in high vacancy rates and high foreclosures) results in a determination that it is not in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area at this time. The Applicant states that the rezoning is not being requested to establish new uses or significantly greater densities than what are currently permitted on the property but instead REC is requesting the rezoning to PUD "in order to provide for a clustered form of residential development, which form, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will enable 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." (Page 5 of the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report) 2. Demonstrated Community Need. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services or housing, Staff Comments: Comments received have stated that there is no demonstrated need for the development, while the Applicant has stated that "The Project will increase the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality." Specifically, if the proposed PUD district is approved, the Project will address this critical housing need and improve the quality of life of County residents by providing, in the Roaring Fork Valley, 366 residential homes made up of a mix of housing types and at a range of prices, including 55 deed -restricted for sale affordable homes." The Applicant does not demonstrate how the quality of life of county residents will be improved, nor is documentation provided regarding this critical housing need. 4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a rezoning request. Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that "the Project will alleviate the County's housing needs and traffic congestion", "the Project will preserve the area's rural character", "the Project will provide recreational opportunities for residents substantially in excess of what is required for the density and type of development", "the Property will balance the County's need for economic development and environmental protection", and "the Project provides dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services". The proposed development is in mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The high-density residential designation on the site is a range — from three dwelling units per acre to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit results in a range of 80 to 480 units. Critical components of determining appropriate density on the site must be reviewed by the 16 PC September 14, 2011 KE Planning Commission based upon elements in the Plan. If 80 units is the appropriate density, or anything less than 366 units, then the proposed rezoning would not be compliant with the Future Land Use Map portion of the comprehensive plan. 5. Original Zone Designation incorrect. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the original zone district map. Staff Comments: The Board of County Commissioners specifically rescinded the previous PUD zoning on the site (except for the conservation easement) and rezoned the parcel as Residential Suburban. This designation was not incorrect and was not in error. 6. Adequate Water Supply. Such an application to rezone a property from one district to another district shall be required to demonstrate the maximum water demand required to serve the most intensive use in the resulting zone district pursuant to Article 7-104 of this Resolution. Staff Comments: The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until such time as an adequate water supply could be demonstrated based upon the maximum demand of the project. The Applicant has provided recent documentation regarding the court decrees necessary to establish an adequate water supply to serve the proposal. SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS. In addition to the standards set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Standards, the following standards shall apply to PUD applications. A. Compliance with Rezoning Standards. The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(B), Rezoning Criteria. Staff Comments: The applicant has not adequately demonstrated a community need for the development and the project has mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Relationship to Surrounding Area. The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property. Staff Comments: Surrounding subdivisions include Aspen Glen to the south with 612 units approved, Ironbridge to the west with a density of 1.39 acres per dwelling unit. Other subdivisions are in the lower density range — for example Teller Spring is 8.3 acres per dwelling unit. REC density of .44 acres per dwelling unit is significantly higher in density. C. 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. Staff Comments: The site is located within a "visual corridor" however the applicant questions the quality of that view given the significant disturbance on the site. Staff interprets this visual quality to mean the open view to Mount Sopris, not necessarily the view of the site itself. In fact development of the parcel will impact that visual corridor as 17 PC September 14, 2011 KE you travel south on SH 82. Mitigation proposed includes the clustering of units, not removing mature trees, planting new trees, providing vegetative buffers and open space in the area of the conservation easement and vegetationfberming along the RFTA ROW. ❑. Street Circulation System. The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that the development is a suburban form however the street standards and circulation is based upon an urban format with excess capacity. REC states that the pedestrian and street circulation will facilitate community interaction. Bike and pedestrian traffic will have one access point at the main entry to join the Rio Grande Trail. Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is proposed in two areas along SH 82. Bill Gavette, Carbondale FPD responded (EXHIBIT CC) that both the proposed location and width of the EVA's is acceptable. F. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to walk safely and conveniently among areas of the PUD. Staff Comments: The internal bike and pedestrian system was designed to facilitate interaction and create a safe and pleasant environment. Access to the Rio Grande Trail is limited to one access point, adjacent to the main entrance at SH 82. F. Open Space. The PUD shall preserve at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space. Staff Comments: Given the site size of 180 -acres the Applicant is required to preserve 40 - acres as open space. The applicant totals the provided open space as follows: Useable Open Space (<25% slope) = 32.43 -acres Limited Use Open Space (>25% slope) = 8.07 -acres Detention Areas (limited use) = 2.00 -acres TOTAL 40.50 -acres or 25.44% Also included in the development is Community Space which totals 36.27 -acres and includes parks, common areas and the neighborhood center for a total of 22.79%. The ULUR defines Open Space as "Any land or water area, which serves specific uses of: providing park and recreation opportunities, or conserving natural areas and environmental resources, or structuring urban development form, or protecting areas of agricultural, archaeological or historical significance. Open space shall not be considered synonymous with vacant or unused land or yards as part of a platted lot." Based on this definition the Applicant has provided sufficient open space within the development, G. Housing Variety. The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms. 18 PC September 14, 2011 KE Staff Comments: A variety of housing types is provided including garden homes, estates homes and executive homes. Particular units may be attached or detached. Pricing will range from approximately $160,000 to $200,000 for the affordable homes to $1,000,000 for other housing types. Alternate ownership forms include rental of the affordable units, otherwise for -sale deed restricted units or for -sale fair market units are proposed. H. Affordable Housing. The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to Section 8402 of Article U!11, Affordable Housing. Staff Comments: Geneva Powell of Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) responded (EXHIBIT K) to the REC affordable housing proposal with the following comments: • The Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) requires presates before building affordable housing unit (AHU) — currently the downturn in the economy has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted. GCHA does not know if that means the developer would released from the obligation if there were no qualified buyers. Some flexibility is necessary from both the Applicant and the guidelines. • AHPA provides 3 categories of pricing all of which differ from the GCHA standards (related to percentage of average medium income). GCHA stipulates maximum 120% AMI which Applicant proposed to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI — this allows a larger pool of potential buyers. • Applicant proposes an option of renting the AHU if not sold within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines. • Questions and comments regarding the proposed agreement includes number of units provided in each phase, amendment of the agreement by phase, etc. The Applicant has responded that they should not be obligated to build affordable housing units if there is no buyer and therefore the request for pre -sales, further that they would request allowance to build -out the market rate units and provide a fee in -lieu of constructing the affordable units. Though REC is committed to provide AHUs they request flexibility that does not currently exist within the regulations. There is no ability to grant a waiver of these requirements. 1. Fire Hazards. Fire hazards will not be created or increased; Staff Comments: Carbondale FPD provides service to the development and has met numerous times with REC to discuss the District requirements. It appears that fire hazards will not be created or increased. J. Recreation Amenities. The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the PUD. Staff Comments: Significant open space and recreational amenities are planned for the development. REC states that funding for recreation will be collateralized until such time as the residents of the community determine the types of recreation improvements they desire. REC will also provide a user -fee based community center/daycare/recreation center on-site for the benefit of the residents. 19 PC September 14, 2011 KE K. Adequacy of Supporting Materials. The Final PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials. Staff Comments: Significant amounts of information have been provided in the submittal and in the response documents. REC's desire to allow for flexibility in the development has made the review of the copious amounts of information more difficult and confusing. L. Taxes. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's Office. Staff Comments: A current and updated certificate of taxes has been paid. M. Adequate Water Supply. An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in Section 7-105. Staff Comments: A water supply plan has been provided as well as documentation regarding the legal ability to provide that supply. The Division of Water Resources had provided comment prior to issuance of the Court Decrees, with the comment being that material injury will occur. Staff is anticipating a revised letter prior to the hearing. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Subdivision Preliminary Pian Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review and submittal requirements include the following sections of the ULtJR. The criteria and standards for review are listed in bold italics below, followed by a Staff Response. A. Section 4-502 (C)5. Landscape Plan Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200 feet for properties exceeding 160 acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties less than 160 acres in size. Staff Comments: Adequate landscape plans have been provided for the development 13. Section 4-502(D) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Comments: The site is not adjacent to a public road but has an existing access point through RFTA right-of-way which is adjacent to SH 82. This access location is just north of Cattle Creek and a RFTA crossing of the Rio Grande Trail is covered by an Easement Grant providing at -grade access to the REC site. Public access to the site does not exist nor is it proposed through this application. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. Staff Comments: REC has been working with CDOT and County Public Works regarding access to the state highway as well as intersection constraints at SH 82 and CR 113/ CR 110. This issue has not been resolved and discussions are ongoing. A condition of 20 PC September 14, 2011 KE approval regarding legal and adequate access, including issuance of a State Highway Access Permit and a Notice to Proceed, is recommended by staff. Further discussion regarding potential improvements to CR 113 intersection needs to occur so that coordination of improvements are assured. Access to the site is proposed to be private as the Applicant states that a public access requires Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) license grant. Past application for special district formation was proposed to create a quasi -governmental entity that would have the ability to apply for PUG crossing approval — those applications failed and therefore the Applicant states that access must remain private. Staff conversations with the PUC included explanation of the proposed project resulting in issuance of a verbal opinion from the PUC that this crossing would be considered "public". This is simply due to the nature of a 366 unit subdivision. The PUC also stated that in this particular case the Property Owner's Association may be considered a quasi-govemmental entity so that application and review could occur. The grant of public crossing requires demonstration of necessity therefore REG could not apply to the PUC until zoning approval is granted. Staff recommends a condition of approval that a public crossing license from the PUC be submitted prior to any activity occurring on the site and prior to submittal of the first final plat application. The application for public crossing needs to be coordinated with both CDOT and RFTA. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Comments: Existing utility easements are clearly identified on the Preliminary Plan, including the existing location and proposed re -location of the Glenwood Ditch, as well as proposed easements that will be required for development of the parcels. Access to the site is shown; however it is critical to understand that the proposed 1E0 - acres does not abut a public road but instead gains access to the state highway system through an agreement with RFTA, Colorado PUC approval is required to assure adequate public access to the site. The Roaring Fork Conservancy holds a Conservation Easement on property located west of and central to the development. The Glenwood Ditch traverses this site and current agreements are in place to relocate and pipe the length of ditch through the site. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comments: Analysis has been provided regarding the slope and topography of the site. The property is mostly located on nearly level river terraces approximately 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. Steep escarpments (60% slope) separate these terraces. The site has been graded through past development proposals so that natural topography has been modified. The site has undergone extensive grading activity related to prior development of a golf course approved on the property. This grading has resulted in several large soil stockpiles. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. 21 PC September 14, 2011 KE Staff Comments: Waterbodies on the site include Cattle Creek, the Roaring Fork River is located off-site of the project. The site includes steep escarpments at the western edge of the project adjacent to the RFC easement and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands are located adjacent to these waterbodies but primarily within the RFC easement with the exception of areas at the southern end of the site and adjacent to Cattle Creek. Few natural features exist on-site due to prior grading and agricultural activities on the site. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided information regarding existing drainages on the site including: • The Roaring Fork River which flows south to north just west of the site boundary. • Cattle Creek crosses through the site from east to west dividing the property almost in half. This is a moderate sized perennial stream which joins the Roaring Fork River. • Small alluvial fans are present at the eastern end of the site and the fans developed at the mouth of small drainage basins that flow only during heavy rainfall or snowmelt. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Comments: Resource Engineering has provided a Water Supply Plan related to the legal water supply for the development. That plan and recent court decrees assure an adequate legal water supply for the development. The physical water supply was originally proposed to be a private system constructed by REC or service from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). REC and RFWSD have been working toward a pre -inclusion agreement to assure provision of a physical supply of potable water by RFWSD. Irrigation water for the development is provided for by decreed right of 50 cfs in the Glenwood Ditch and 5.18 cfs in the Staton Ditch. A water court case determined that historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which 150 acres is located within the REC boundary. The Applicant also has 12.23 cfs of additional irrigation rights in the Glenwood Ditch, represented by 367 shares in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 cfs). The physical source of the irrigation water is from the Roaring Fork River via a diversion into the Staton Ditch. A raw water distribution system is proposed. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comments: A small portion of Cattle Creek floodplain extends into the project area and is generally avoided by development. Encroachments into the floodplain include 22 PC September 14, 2011 KE utilities and bridge structure. The Army Corps of Engineers responded to the referral request (EXHIBIT X) that alternatives should be considered that avoid impact to wetland or other waters of the United States. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comments: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) performed an assessment of the soils and geologic conditions of the site, including identification of geologic hazards and soils conditions. The topsoil was stripped from the site and stockpiled in 2005. Conditions include fill areas that consist of coarse-grained terrace alluvium. The site consists of two post -glacial terraces which are located between five (5) feet and thirteen (13) feet above the Roaring Fork River. The alluvium is described as a deposit of silty sand with occasional boulder, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected in these areas. Most of the REC project is located on Pinedale outwash terraces occurring in several levels that formed at different periods. The 2005 grading removed all of the mid level terraces. Soils profiles indicate that these terrace surfaces have been stable with respect to erosion and deposition for over 5,000 years. Stockpiled soil on the site will have to undergo additional analysis/treatment to determine its viability. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services has noted that nutrient levels and mircrobial populations may result in difficulty reestablishing native vegetation. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comments: HP Geotech has noted the following potential hazards in their assessment: • Evaporite Sinkholes — The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation is located between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. This formation resulted in regional ground subsidence as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the region. If still active the likely rate of deformations would occur at a rate of .5 to 1.6 inches per 100 years. • Nine sinkhole areas have been located in and close to REC. Sinkholes in the western Colorado area are typically 10 to 50 -feet in diameter circular depressions. Avoidance of existing sinkholes and appropriate mitigation will address issues associated with these hazards. • Steep Terrace Escarpments — These 60% slope areas vary from 40 to 80 feet high located along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek areas. These escarpments are potentially unstable and should be avoided by development. Mitigation methods to stabilize these areas are being considered. • Active Stream Bank Erosion — Erosion along the Roaring Fork and Cattle Creek occurs during high water and contributes to steep terrace escarpment destabilization. Correction of these areas could be beneficial in stabilizing or reducing deformation of the escarpment. • Debris Flow and Floods — HP determined that deposits in these areas do not have a high collapse potential and are moderately compressible indicating that these areas should be avoided or provide adequate mitigation to minimize the hazard. 23 PC September 14, 2011 KE HP also reviewed earthquake potential and radiation, neither of which were considered as likely hazards on-site. �`�'f=tol.DIDen riptt,v .ill ht4.naYry r Mini. Chub Tera. •:0 De*M14. 1e.... F.01 w Eon alNn:W3 y ] .nw:xND} Dm uo.e. na.i,na,..o. MI Ea.. mai..{1nu CCDd 1IL14YY411enk Tom.... 1-•-..J c.rl.,/..rr.FnlID Y.ik. [ m..1l. 7 L,.c.'Yl.tr.aJ 1114LIAPLI9 .0.11r.m.sy __ C9mL1 j 4llml PID Y1111iinwo.l1 Low Me...nCama..,. _ - - • DID Duk. 1 1< • em f een.r l. nm xyyrr..:9•i. 91 1 L.I.Y:Nt ai'Mf 17-1 fialf.G1K1ilir1 fnllttdstarl,lLrL 11 n 1 fur.ce d1: r.'v.i.0 dvM1RIP teas=ov I-71 POI lo.PIMPIP,P.D9PPDPPP-.. %MI MOPlrrlfl+.YTLI a 1H. 044+111r1DIMPI Dar pwde..CIO lama.. mpaMrarg+.. 4-6144 nMWxn4arl.. VAPID Erss:C1 .14nhw! Da.141.lal..ry.jIL E.14404.Dry vara* d.1.4 TW Sim 6.1 i9.Y i.u1,l.1010ln ah L�SsiE110�tf 4000 G.aar .l ♦ L MHnrLb 7911, Arm idAQ &km:Lb D,•,;.-4-I,.s[.4yp Dia F ".e.•.. [Dm 1 1199.4 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comments: Vegetative cover is minimal given the agricultural history of the site, as well as the extensive grading activities that took place in 2005. This area is virtually devoid of vegetation except for weeds. Vegetation outside of the graded areas including sage, oak and other brush on the escarpment and cottonwood, grass and willows on the lower terraces. age 1, !It/RIM. FIGURE 04 Veyetu: fon c.a•• C•••••••••••••••••••••, jai .r."atr.,vaa Da, km, rays dae:n Dar:a Chou Nviaavatae , TAWS °i/M/, aa..an,ra,ala r +n� Wildlife habitat areas include both Upland and 24 PC September 14, 2011 KE Riparian Habitat areas with the site consisting largely of Upland Habitat. This area was noted as having limited wildlife use due to vegetation type and cover. It appears that the most common species are ground squirrels, which in turn attract great -horned owls, red- tailed hawk, red and gray fox and coyote. Bird use is limited as well due to conditions and generally includes mourning doves, meadowlarks and mountain bluebirds. The Riparian Habitat occurs along the Roaring Fork and lower Cattle Creek, largely outside of the REC development area. A Great Blue Heron Rookery has historically occurred in this vicinity however one of the original three rookery trees no longer exists due to high springtime flows and bank scour. Analysis of special importance species was contained in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report. Mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and lewis's woodpecker were considered, as well a Ute ladies -tresses orchid which is on the Federally Threatened list. • Elk — The site is located within Elk Winter Range with Severe Winter Range occurring on the east side of SH 82. Elk do use the project area, mainly for 'loafing' as foraging opportunities are marginal. The application states that `reasonably high number of elk persist on the project site' however that winter use of the Rio Grande Trail during winter, and construction of wildlife fencing along SH 82 appears to have 'noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property.' • Mule Deer — The site is located between Mule Deer Winter Range to the west of the Roaring Fork River and Severe Winter Range on the east side of SH 82. Existing use of the site by mule deer is minimal with the conservation easement area seeing more mule deer activity than the project area. • Great Blue Heron — A productive heron rookery is located in the RFC conservation easement and on the west side of river with a total of 25 nests. A pair of Golden Eagles killed a majority of the young in 2010 and could lead to abandonment in the future. This area is considered critical habitat and is adjacent to the REC project. • Bald Eagle -- The closest nest is located in Aspen Glen where nesting has been successful. These birds use the REC site for roosting and hunting. • Lewis's Woodpecker — This migratory bird arrives in May and departs in early to mid-September utilizing the habitat adjacent to the project area. This bird is considered a `sensitive species' by the USFS. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological and historic resource areas. Staff Comments: No recorded sites of archeological or historic importance were found to exist in the project area. C. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comments: Adequate information has been provided. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. 25 Staff Comments: Adjacent land use includes: PC September 14, 2011 KE • North - uses include commercial, semi -industrial and mobile home park • South - Aspen Glen PUD (residential and recreation) and LaFarge Gravel Pit • East -- State Highway, RFTA RaiI Trail, commercial and semi -industrial uses • West - lronbridge PUD and Teller Springs 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands, steep slopes and little vegetative cover. Features adjacent to the project area include the Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands, heron rookery, and the Roaring Fork Conservancy Easement. These features have been used to determine a layout for the development of REC which is clustered to minimize impact- Mitigation measures include avoidance to the extent possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers. 4, Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: The Applicant states that "this analysis has determined that there are no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits provided common construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control.. , and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are provided." Page 66 of impact analysis. This section of the application goes on to state that potential impacts and mitigation measures are indentified as a series of standard considerations with respect to construction on soils of this type and further, that these require engineering assessment and design activities including boring, testing, and onsite review during development. HP Geotech noted that shallow foundations place on the upper natural soils should typically be suitable for structure support. Relatively rigid foundations such as heavily 26 F xV .,.. F6-.1 ORA lil !curs E 03 Ekspii! qy a. -I Sign ! / '` 1 If I~ :1W°f f _.j / f.. ¢:017/dGb % _ `fi Fid yy L... = 18+[iiK m 1 V. •± �J�r4 ... y ,�r■j W y�yg�tke. *'a I ✓ ,r 1� ' Lhk" T I �{ t w. \f- i4, 7'"_ MS is, - �allG PC September 14, 2011 KE • North - uses include commercial, semi -industrial and mobile home park • South - Aspen Glen PUD (residential and recreation) and LaFarge Gravel Pit • East -- State Highway, RFTA RaiI Trail, commercial and semi -industrial uses • West - lronbridge PUD and Teller Springs 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands, steep slopes and little vegetative cover. Features adjacent to the project area include the Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands, heron rookery, and the Roaring Fork Conservancy Easement. These features have been used to determine a layout for the development of REC which is clustered to minimize impact- Mitigation measures include avoidance to the extent possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers. 4, Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: The Applicant states that "this analysis has determined that there are no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits provided common construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control.. , and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are provided." Page 66 of impact analysis. This section of the application goes on to state that potential impacts and mitigation measures are indentified as a series of standard considerations with respect to construction on soils of this type and further, that these require engineering assessment and design activities including boring, testing, and onsite review during development. HP Geotech noted that shallow foundations place on the upper natural soils should typically be suitable for structure support. Relatively rigid foundations such as heavily 26 PC September 14, 2011 KE reinforces slabs could be used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and building stress, where determined necessary. The application goes on to state that slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill, but that there could be some potential for post -construction slab movement at sites with collapsible soils or expansive clays. Removal of the moisture sensitive soils and replacement with compacted structural fill could be provided to reduce the risk of movement. A detailed pavement design is proposed to be provided post -reclamation to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Additional geotechnical analysis will be required to determine if previous fill material placed on the site is suitable for building foundations. This analysis will occur post reclamation therefore a condition of approval that requires the additional analysis be provided at final plat should be sufficient. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: A Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted which addresses potential natural and man-made hazards. Existing and proposed conditions include analysis of: • Geologic Hazards — Evaporite Sink Holes, Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active Stream Bank Erosion, and Debris Flow/Floods. • Other Hazards — Floodplain, Wildfire These hazards could cause potential impacts to site grading, infrastructure (including roads and utilities) as well as foundation design. Proposed mitigation includes identification of specific areas of concern that may require further review: • Three zones of varying degree of impact from sink holes have been assigned to the project area. a Zone 1 represents an 80 -foot buffer area around existing or observed sinkholes where the risk of new or reactivating sinkholes is high. This area is generally avoided however a few roads and utilities are planned within this zone. Potential mitigation measures including grouting or structural bridging; o Zone 2 is a risk area that indicates the presence of sinkholes but no evidence of sinkholes have been identified. Additional geotechnical analysis should be completed prior to final plat so that design of buildings and facilities provide appropriate mitigation; 27 Gwwa As. LI elfardo I. 1.1. r...43r.,171.1.111Aa.r.tl w SYwi ellt/SUMO 4.1.21 D .•1 ,41 nim u.a ...w+.au.• .•w Sova PwlWMtl .41 O WI44101 4:a.• �•1.•IiNn. .a.pA.avt MRI 1,10,914,70111 I "0 ]]TA Mop 6dpvCiwlwda P-FncN Itineis Ze.e, NS,t an PC September 14, 2011 KE — aiJ.d A.a1 "••ham •aa.+..1•IUeS.am ;rdn+9.0 Meirtar.R. 000e1U 4nbq *..tic'mun1a r.ea.rnr; wv 044 FMap V.Pe ! _,-...swavy" anJ M9/1 r114.11 aWbjfl. P fon O 'w 0 Canriti.iWr Pei. IIn .1^PI MM.., 11! Raw Elpe CaA6a S' 9.•Ida Ns.r In Ar•:I .y,•h N.1 o Zone 3 is the remainder of the property which has a low potential for new sinkhole development however HP recommends that assessment and investigation be completed during grading and building site development. • Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active Stream Bank Erosion, Debris Flows and Floods and Earthquakes are avoided or mitigated thus resulting in no adverse impacts. 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comments: This development is subject to Section 7-105 due to the water demand in an amount greater than eight (8) single family equivalents (where an SFE is determined to be 350 gallon of water per day). Additional information has been submitted as of August 30, 2011 indicating that two water court rulings have been completed thus allowing a determination of adequate legal water supply for the potable water system to meet the demand of 350 gallons per day for the proposed 366 units in the development. The original application discusses the 'potential' physical supply as being provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWDS) or by a private water system within the REC development. However, the Applicant has indicated that a pre -inclusion agreement is currently being drafted so that RFVVSD would serve this development. Submittal of evidence of an executed pre -inclusion agreement is recommended as a condition of approval. 28 PC September 14, 2011 KE Irrigation water is planned to be provided via a raw water system utilizing water rights from the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplain, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comments: HP Geotech has provided analysis of the groundwater which is generally deep in the Eagle Valley Evaporite deposits and that free water was not encountered in the relatively shallow borings of depths between 39 and 77 feet. Shallow groundwater may be likely in the river terraces outside of the REC development. Surface run-off will be collected and concentrate to surface drainage systems where the flow will be discharged through lined surface ditches and pipes to lined water quality detention facilities. This system is designed to ensure that water is treated prior to delivery to receiving steams. Chris Hale, reviewing engineer, has stated that this is sufficient and that standard on-site detention to limit flow is not necessary (EXHIBIT U) due to the location of the site. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, palentological, historic resources. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions.. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comments: a. Effect on flora and fauna — Rocky Mountain Ecological Services prepared a Wildlife and Vegetation Report which analyzed the potential impacts of the development proposal on plants and animals. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has responded to the referral (EXHIBIT R) that there should not be significant impact if recommendations are followed. CDOW recommendations include fencing, adequate setbacks from sensitive areas and protection of the heron rookery. b. No significant archaeological or historic resources have been identified that would be adversely effected. 29 PC September 14, 2011 KE c. Effect on environmental resources, including wildlife and domestic animal control — the development plan has included protective measures related to wildlife including timing restrictions for construction activity and inclusion of domestic animal controls in the CCR's. d. Radiation hazard — There is low potential for radiation hazard at this site. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirement that is applicable to facilities that meet criteria such as having above ground storage capacity of greater than 1,320 gallons, and that a project will discharge into or upon navigable waters of the United States. It is assumed that a SPCC plan will be required related to infrastructure construction and gravel crushing/processing. 9. Trac. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comments: A Traffic Assessment has been provided by Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants which considers existing conditions on State Highway 82, a limited access Expressway. SH 82 is a four lane, divided highway with speeds generally from 55 to 65 mph. The nearest controlled intersection is located one (1) mile north at CR 114 (CMC Road). The assessment discusses future conditions on the highway and discusses a warrant for a signalized intersection in 2018. It is staff's understanding from the Applicant that a signal, acceleration/deceleration lanes and pedestrian crossing are proposed to occur at the outset of the development so that these improvements are in place for Phase 0, reclamation of the site. Dan Roussin, CDOT, has stated that this development will need a State Highway Access Permit, as well as to coordinate with the County for necessary improvements at the CR 1131 CR 110 and SH 82. A condition of approval is recommended which requires issuance of a Notice to Proceed and State Highway Access Permit prior to activity commencing on the site or with submittal of the first final plat application. 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comments: Nuisance impacts will likely occur during the reclamation and construction phases of the development. This activity will generate dust, smoke, noise, glare, and potentially vibrations, particularly during reclamation and construction, as well as related to mineral `material processing' activities. The proposed PUD Guide contains Article IV, Development Standards, which includes Section C. Specific Use, Facility and Activity Standards. This includes noise standards based upon statutory requirements and section standards related to utility facilities. This latter section includes requirements for noise levels, vibration, smoke, odor and air quality. These standards should be applicable to the whole development, particularly during construction activities. Staff recommends that standards for dust suppression, smoke, odor and vibration be incorporated into the PUD Guide and applicable to all construction -related activities in the development. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7- 212. Staff Comments: The Applicant has two sets of requirements related to reclamation activities, pre -development reclamation and post -development reclamation. 30 PC September 14, 2011 KE Pre -Development Reclamation — The current site condition exists due to past grading activity on the site related to prior development plans that included construction of a golf course. The pre -development reclamation activity is specific to repairing the damage that past grading created, including restorative and pre -development actions: ■ Relocation and grade separation of the Rio Grande Trail; • Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch; ■ Re -grading of the site for proper drainage, resolve existing and potential geotechnical hazards, prepare developable areas, restore grade -breaks, replace topsoil, repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments and repairing active stream bank erosion; • Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds; • Revegetation of open space area. Post -Development Reclamation — This requirement is included in the PUD Guide development standards and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. D. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comments: PUD zoning allows for variation from standard zone districts however the proposed uses must be consistent with uses in the underlying zone district or compatibleiconforming to Comprehensive Plan goals. The underlying Suburban zoning permits uses -by -right which include single family residential, parks and open space. Other proposed uses permitted in the Suburban zone include two-family dwellings by Limited Impact review and eating or drinking establishment by Major Impact review. Uses that are being requested in REC that are not permitted in the Suburban zone include agricultural uses and materials processing (crushing and concrete batch plant). The Planning Commission should consider these uses and determine if they are both appropriate and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comments: The proposed REC development has mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission review shall include determination of appropriate density related to the High Density Residential designation on the Future Land Use Map. That designation includes a range of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit, to up to 3 units per acre based upon provision of urban level services. The requested density of 366 units falls within the recommended range. 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: This standard requires that the nature, scale and intensity of the proposed use be compatible with adjacent land uses and that the use will not result in adverse impact to adjacent land. Adjacent land uses includes high-density mobile home parks, commercial and semi -industrial uses, a gravel pit, and residential communities. The combination of uses proposed in REC may be more intense than adjacent uses which appear as more single use type project. 31 PC September 14, 2011 KE 4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Comments: This section does not apply to this proposal as water demand exceeds eight (8) single family equivalents (SFE's). See Section 7-105. 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided a sufficient legal and physical source of water to serve the proposed development of 366 SFE's. See EXHIBIT HH which is an addendum of information which includes recent water court action. Staff has spoken with the Division of Water Resources who will issue a revised referral response regarding the sufficiency of the water supply. That letter should be received prior to the Planning Commission hearing. 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comments: A pre -inclusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District to provide water/wastewater services is imminent. Water and wastewater services from the District should be considered a condition of approval which staff has adequately documented. 7. Section 7-707 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comments: It appears that adequate public utilities are available to serve the proposed development. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comments: The subject site does not abut a public right-of-way however existing agreements are in place for the existing driveway to the site. The Applicant also has agreements with RFTA regarding crossing of the Rio Grande Trail. However the development proposal does not currently have legal or physical access to a public right- of-way. Various permits will be required, and a recommended as conditions of approval. These permits include a State Highway Access Permit as well PUC approval for crossing of the rail right-of-way. This license with the PUC may lead to amendment or execution of new or additional agreements with RFTA. Internal roadway standards are requested to be modified, see issue discussion section for detailed information, thus requiring waiver from the Board of County Commissioners. The reviewing engineer has stated that the requested waivers may be appropriate (EXHIBIT U). 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comments: Natural hazards exist on the site which includes steep slopes, slope stability issues, soils, sinkholes and other geotechnical issues. The proposed development generally avoids the hazard areas and/or provides adequate mitigation measures. 32 PC September 14, 2011 KE E. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: Not applicable as agricultural activities have not occurred on this site for several years if not more than a decade. The past rezoning of the site to PUD and Suburban zone districts has rendered agricultural uses not permitted. The Glenwood Ditch traverses this property and there is an agreement exists regarding location and piping of the ditch. On-site irrigation is proposed to use raw -water with rights from both the Glenwood Ditch and the Staton Ditch. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: Wildlife habitat areas include a heron rookery and use of the site by both mule deer and elk. Incorporation of the recommendations from the Division of Wildlife and project wildlife biologist would be adequate to protect habitat areas. 3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: Section 7-203 determines that an `Inner Buffer Zone' requires provision of a thirty-five (35) foot setback frorn the high water mark on each side of a waterbody. Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within this zone is prohibited except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted. The Applicant has requested waiver from this section due to impacts that will occur within the setback of Cattle Creek, including construction of a bridge and utilities. The Applicant should provide additional information regarding the specific areas in which activity will occur within the 35' buffer zone. 4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: Activities that will require storage of material, equipment or fluids should be located to protect waterbodies however specific information has not been provided in the submittal documentation. This standard includes requirement for spill prevention, maintenance of equipment and machines, location of fuel storage areas and collection and temporary storage areas. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan may be required and the stormwater management plan should address this issue. 5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comments: This section applies to land disturbances of greater than one-half (1/2) acre. The Applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that addresses stabilization of slope stability and stream bank erosion. Vegetative cover on the site will provide additional erosion and sedimentation protections. The steep slope areas are avoided by the development. 33 PC September 14, 2011 KE 6. Section 7-206 Drainage Staff Comments: Part of this standard states that "subdrains shall be required for all foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage channels." Reviewing engineer Chris Hales states (EXHIBIT U) in #5 that "The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub -drains be provided. These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage" and further recommends that since the site is flat an onsite drywell for infiltration could be considered or provision of a project -wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation drains. Karen Berry, Colorado Geologic Survey responded (EXHIBIT P) that all recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report should be followed, this would include construction of an underdrain system that will impact the performance of building, roads, and utilities in the development. 7. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Comments: This section applies to new development within 100 feet of a waterbody and to development creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The REC development meets these criteria and therefore has proposed plans to create water quality detention areas prior to discharge of stormwater to the Roaring Fork River. There is no plan for standard on-site detention of stormwater except for storage areas that would be required for assuring water quality prior to discharge. This code section also includes requirements for on-site detention designed to detain flow to historic peak discharge rater and provide water quality benefits. REC plans to provide for water quality filtering and the Applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to detain flows above historic peak discharge rates. Chris Hale (EXHIBIT Li) has responded "there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak -flow detention provided that water -quality detention is still provided." 8. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comments: Air quality shall not be impacted by the land use such that it is reduced below acceptable levels established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. No response was received from CDPHE but staff has concerns related to dust issues, particularly during construction and reclamation. Other air quality impacts may result from the crushing of aggregate and batch plant operations that are proposed as temporary construction -related activities. 9. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comments: This site is located in a low wildfire zone. 70. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comments: Hazards do exist on the site however it appears that the development plan avoids many of the hazard areas and provides mitigation measures where 34 PC September 14, 2011 KE avoidance is not possible. Staff has incorporated these measures as recommended conditions of approval. 11. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comments: No areas exist on the site within these categories. 12. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comments: The REC development proposal contains a substantial pre - development reclamation plan to repair and restore slope and stream bank issues as well as grading and topsoil issues related to prior grading of the site. This reclamation will also allow for additional geologic investigation as well as to prepare the site for eventual development. F. SECTION 7- 300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design Staff Comments: Compatible design encompasses issues regarding site organization as well as operational characteristics, lighting, buffering, materials, and building scale. Certainly the density, site organization and buffering can be evaluated for compatibility with adjacent subdivisions such as Ironbridge and Aspen Glen. The clustering of the dwellings into several pods leaves tracts of open space to buffer the site both physically and visually. Much of the development occurs on an interim bench west of the Rio Grande Trail with proposed landscaping providing additional buffers from adjacent developments. Operational characteristics include locating activities such that emissions, noise, hours of operations, etc. do not impact adjacent properties. These nuisance impacts will require specific plans related to fugitive dust, noise, limitation of construction (days and time), etc. Though the PUD contains some discussion regarding these standards to mitigate these impacts they seem to be limited to utility tracts. The Applicant has discussed noise issues however Staff is concerned that there are not specific plans to mitigate other nuisance issues such as dust and other air quality issues. A condition of approval should be considered which would address mitigation measures regarding these nuisance issues. 2. Section 7-302 Building Design Staff Comments: Not applicable. 3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development Staff Comments: Components of this standard include minimizing site disturbance and efficiency in providing services and access to facilities. 4. Section 7-304 Off-street parking and Loading Standards Staff Comments: The PUD Guide provides sufficient off-street parking as well as on - street parking within the development. 35 PC September 14, 2011 KE 5. Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards Staff Comments: Adequate landscape and lighting standards are provided, in the PUD Guide as well as in the CCR's. 6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards Staff Comments: Landscape areas may be utilized as snow storage areas pursuant to the PUD Guide. The use of these areas for snow storage requires that drainage and potential pollutants which must be adequately managed. 7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards Staff Comments: The Applicant is requesting both modification and waiver of roadway standards contained within this section. Chris Hale's comments (EXHIBIT U) identifies several concerns particularly that alleys need to be designed to a specific vehicle such as an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck; that proposed curb and gutter sections should be verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on proposed narrow travel lanes. Additional comment includes that a single public use entry for the project is a concern even with the provision of two Emergency Vehicle Access points. 8. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards Staff Comments: The standards utilized in the development plan appear to be adequate. 9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards Staff Comments: The REC development is proposing to install underground utilities that will be further reviewed at final plat for sufficiency of design and provision of adequate utilities. G. SECTION 7- 400 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1. Section 7-401General Subdivision Standards Staff Comments: These standards include preservation of natural features, extensions for future development, maintenance of common facilities, domestic animal control and fireplace restrictions. The proposal appears to meet these standards including the potential for future extension/connection to the north and the potential for additional connection to SH 82. 2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots Staff Comments: All lots within the subdivision appear to be configured in a proper manner with adequate lot sizes and access. Further, the Tots may be developable however site specific geotechnical analysis may result in some movement of the particular sites or specific building requirements to minimize impact. 36 PC September 14, 2011 KE 3. Section 7-403 Fire Protection Staff Comments: The site is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and a fire station is located on the north end of the H Lazy F Mobile Home site west of the intersection of CR 1541 SH 82 and CR 114. Bill Gavette has responded to the referral request (EXHIBITS S and HH) with HH being specific to Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to the site. These EVA's would allow for two additional access points to the development which have been found to be acceptable in both location and width. Additional response related to fire lanes, water source, fire hydrants and maintenance is that these components are adequate. The District also discusses the requirement of impact fee payment in the amount of $7301unit resulting in a fee of $267,180.00 which will be due at final plat. 4. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments Staff Comments: This requirement will be met. 5. Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space Staff Comments: The Applicant has proposed payment of fee in -lieu of school land dedication, however historic and recent discussion with the RE -1 School District is that they would prefer a school site on this location but "the District's only option at this point is to accept fees in -lieu of land dedication..." The formula for calculation of school dedication is based upon generation of students per dwelling unit. 366 dwelling units are assumed to generate .49 students per single family unit and .38 students per multi -family unit. REC proposes 232 single-family and 134 multi -family resulting in the generation of 165 students. This would therefore require dedication of 7.3 acres of land. The minimum school site size is 15 acres. The adjacent undeveloped property is anticipated to be developed at some point and may in fact be incorporated into this PUD (see declarations which allows for the addition of the land into the development). The piecemeal approach to the overall development of the 280 -acre site may preclude the provision of a school site at this location. The Applicant has stated that the 'private' nature of the RFTAIRR crossing would preclude access for use of a school. This question of public versus private crossing has been determined by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as a `public' crossing which will require PUC licensing. This may affect the school district comments regarding provision of a school site at this location. 6. Section 7-406 Standards for Traffic Impact Fees Staff Comments: The site is not located within a Traffic Impact Fee zone. Vil. POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Waiver Requests — The following waivers from the provision of minimum standards are requested pursuant to the preamble of Article VII which grants this ability upon 37 PC September 14, 2011 KE demonstration that the standards are either inappropriate or cannot be practically implemented. A. §7-108 Access and Roadways states that ail roads shall be designed to the standards in §7-307. Staff Comment: The Applicant is requesting waiver/modification of §7-307 thus requiring the waiver and/or modification of this standard. B. §7-203 A. Restrictive Inner Buffer — this code section requires provision of a 35' setback 'measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water on each side of the water body'. Certain structures and activities are permitted while others are specifically prohibited from occurring within this buffer. The Applicant is requesting waiver to allow the following: • Reclamation of the Cattle Creek stream corridor planned in Phase 0; • Construction of a bridge over Cattle Creek — the Bridge Plan indicates that the structure would be located within the setback; • Utility crossings and water diversion facilities — these would affect both the Roaring Fork River and the Cattle Creek corridors. Staff Comment: Staff considers the granting of this waiver as appropriate however requests that the Applicant provide a site plan indicating the encroachments that will need to occur on the site. Adequate protective measures have been proposed and reclamation of the corridor is necessary. A Nationwide Permit, Section 404, will be likely be required from the Army Corps of Engineers as well as a County Floodplain Development Permit. C. §7-206 B.2. states that sub -drains shall be required for all foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage channels. The Applicant has stated that given the soils conditions that it likely that basements will not be utilized. They request that the requirement for subdrains be determined by the design engineer rather than placed as a requirement on the whole development, but have agreed to provide sub -drains if basements are constructed. Staff Comments: The Applicant's geotechnical engineer is that sub -drains be provided, Colorado Geologic Survey concurs with this recommendation. Chris Hale reviewed this request and comments that suitable outlet for drainage is necessary, and that "since the site is very flat, the likely option at that time would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would increase the likelihood for potential damage due to settling." The Applicant proposed to provide specific soils and geotechnical analysis at final plat when site constraints will be have been further reviewed. There is substantial concern regarding the protection of foundations given the possibility of sinkholes and other geotechnical and soils issues. Staff does not support the wholesale waiver of this standard but perhaps the additional analysis at final plat may provide additional information for further review at that time. A condition of approval is recommended regarding provision of an underdrain system. 38 PC September 14, 2011 KE D. §7-207 Stormwater Drainage Standards — The Applicant proposes to comply with Urban Drain and Flood Control District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual which are more detailed and appropriate to suburban development. Staff Comments: This request is appropriate. E. §7-207 C.1. Requirement for detention facilities -- The Applicant requests that water quality capture volume, not total stormwater volume, be detained prior to discharge from the project. Staff Comments: Chris Hale has responded (EXHIBIT U) that "since there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak -flow detention provided that water -quality detention is still provided." Based on these comments it appears that this waiver request is appropriate. F. §7-305 A.1. Landscaping must be located outside of adjacent right-of-way Staff Comments: The Director of Building and Planning may approve landscape strips and landscape areas adjacent to internal right-of-way. This granting of this waiver is appropriate. G. §7-305 A.7. Standards for deciduous tree caliper are listed at 2" minimum measured 4" above the ground. The requested standard of 1 Y" caliper is to enhance survival. Staff Comments: Staff consulted with a landscape architect who agreed that survival of trees at 1 W caliper is greater therefore this request for waiver is appropriate. H. §7-307 — Road Standards. The Applicant seeks to modify the following standards "to achieve the desired suburban form and clustered development pattern": a. Add three roadway types not addressed by the ULUR including alleys, garden home access and emergency vehicle access. b. Major Collector -- The entry road, from SH 82 to the internal round -about, is requested to be modified to lower the design speed, required minimum S' shoulders and ditch will not be provided as vertical curbing and 0-4' shoulders should be adequate to control water and access. c. Minor Collector — Defined as 'Local Road' in REC this road is a neo -traditional design for reads providing direct access to homes. The proposed section is 36' wide with two 10' lanes and two 8' parking lanes/shoulders. The design speed is lower than County standards. Staff Comments: The Applicant states that these road standards are consistent with more urban community's requirements based upon a 'suburban' form. The proposed roadway standards comply with AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards. Engineering review resulted in response from Chris Hale that the alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck and that additional information and verification regarding inlet spacing on narrower street widths. Staff has included this requirement as a recommended condition of approval. 39 PC September 14, 2011 KE I. §7-405 C.1.a. Standards for Public Sites and Open Space — Amount of Land Dedicated — Road Dedications. This section requires that "unless specifically approved as private rights-of-way and so dedicated on the final plat, all roads, streets, alleys or other public traffic ways located within the subdivision and benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall be dedicated as public rights-of-way." The Applicant has stated that they were unable to apply for a "public crossing' from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and therefore the roads were required to be private. Staff Comment: Private roads are not uncommon in Garfield County; however they may come in several different forms. Typically the developer would design and construct necessary roadways within a development and transfer the ownership and maintenance responsibilities to an Owner's Association or Special District. These roads would be for the use and benefit of the public while remaining in private ownership. Examples of private roads for the use of the public include Ironbridge, Springridge Reserve and most other subdivisions approved in the past decade in the County. Few subdivisions have truly private roads which include private ownership as well as private restricted use; these roads require gating and further restrictions related to security and access questions related to guests, utility providers or other easement beneficiaries and emergency services. Examples of `private use and ownership' roads include Aspen Glen and Elk Springs. REC may be proposing to provide truly private roads along with subsequent gating of the entry, however the access design has not been provided to demonstrate adequate stacking distance and coordination with the light on SH 82, The Applicant has stated that this request is due to the fact that the roads must remain private due to the inability of the developer to obtain PUC approval for a "public" crossing. This issue continues to evolve as the PUC has stated to Staff that access to serve a 366 unit subdivision would be considered 'public' therefore requiring a license for the crossing from the PUC. Certainly the Applicant can request private roads owned and maintained by the Owner's Association but it would appear that the volume and type of traffic would require a "public crossing" from the PUC. Staff supports this waiver to the extent that the roads will be for the use of the public but will be owned and maintained by the POA. 2. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — Analysis of the various components of the Comprehensive Plan results in a determination of mixed compliance. 3. PHASING The Applicant has provided phasing information consisting of several tables included on Sheet 2 of the Final PUD Plan and construction phasing in the engineer plans. These PUD Plan tables include the following components: Table 2A — Lot and Tract Zoning Categories and Zoning District by Zoning Category Table 2B — Lot and Tract Zoning District by Filing Table 3 — Dedications by Filing Table 4 — Landscape Areas and Standards Table 5 — Lots by Filing, Affordable Housing, and Construction Schedule 40 PC September 14, 2011 KE TABLE 5 - LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FILING LOTS BY FILING l AFFORDABLE LOT SUMMARY SCHEDULE 6F PLATTING T ESTATE TOWNMLLAOE ATTACHED CUMULATIVE AFFORDABLE . GARDEN HO NES • AFFORDABLE i MI 1 0 39 0 20 0 0 ! 0.094 2014 10 0 0 0 0 13 13 401% 2014 2 0 5 12 19 0 0 120% 2018 0 0 0 0 30 396 ---- -. ------ 2018 ----- 2A 28 _ 28----- 1A 0 0 0 0 21 0 E 28 4% 2018 3 0 35 1 0 0 0 •• 21294 2021 4 0 44 6 0 _ 0 0 L 16 714 2071 4A 0 0 0 0 49 0 15 S% 2tra .0. 27 0 0 0 - 0 141% 2026 5A 0 0 0 0 14 14 16.0% 2028 fi 9 17 35 0 0 0 J 150% 2631 9 167 Sd 39 95 56 'SO% X!14.2031 ' NdttU5 8 FXEUiTil7E LOT rAPPR071MATE FR0P05E0 PLATING SEQUENCE AND SCHEDULE SUB.ECT 30 CHANGE BASED ON MARKET CON Di31ONS Table 5 appears to most closely resemble a phasing plan as each filing is listed along with the number and type of lots and schedule of when that the plat is planned. It is significant to indicate a foot note attached to the schedule of phasing that states that "Approximate proposed platting sequence and schedule subject to change based on market conditions". The inclusion of this note may render the phasing plan timing useless although it could still be utilized for sequence of the development. TABLE 2B . LOT AND TRACT ZONING DISTRICT By FILING MINGiii BLOC Ea Fly X15 Ig, LOTORACT ZONING MIR! CT rAyr EL»O4l T9 -. 1-6 Iifil CENTER s) ANE w APEA R1Ci 1 "im.Arryi MID }'€T EAN4Lt 014 • OPEN SW Al PARK 1 - r I�Y+FEKe 3WtgrfaviTU U€UfY OFtli SKia ,C -011110i AREA Alt ftF - E.,141.4 WAY provided is cumbersome and confusing. render the phasing useless. The Table 2B lists the lots and tracts that will be included in each filing, for example filing 1 appears to include lots 1-20 in the Attached Home zone district and 39 lots in the Town zone district. Tracts in Filing 1 include right-of-way, common area, etc. This is consistent with the information provided in Table 5, just provided in a different format. Other tables track the amount of open space and common area dedication by filing. While Staff finds the information in these tables to be useful, the manner in which the information is footnotes contained in these tables may It may be more useful to have a single document that describes the sequence of platting, improvements associated with each plat and potential timing of platting and construction. 41 PC September 14, 2011 KE 4. MUNICIPAL COMMENTS A. City of Glenwood Springs — Andrew McGregor, Director of Community Development responded to the request that the GWS City Council considered the project after receiving a presentation from REC representatives. Council had the following comments: The City is concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community without commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development could be termed "sprawl. Concern regarding the magnitude of the development based upon division of the original site and possibility of development of adjacent parcels. iii. The rezoning does not appear to be justified nor is there a "demonstrated community need". Comments also include the current inventory of vacant lots versus the absorption rate of 58 units per year, iv. The subdivision will not promote rural character but will function as infill between Glenwood and Carbondale. v. Increased burden on County services and school personnel and facilities. vi. Impact to elk herd and migratory patterns. vii. Highway 82 impacts including when signalization will occur. viii. Access to site and impact to RFTA ROW and SH 82 ROW. B. Town of Carbondale Planning Commission comments: i. Suggested an IGA be considered as a mechanism to review future development. ii. Comments on Unincorporated Communities. Questioned community need of the development as price point is consistent with existing approved developments. iv. Absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and Parachute is currently 50 units per month and questions whether REC absorption rate is realistic. v. Inclusion of adjacent property and potential additional development is a concern as cumulative impacts should be considered. vi. Specific project comments include additional buffering should be considered along the river, the site plan does not reflect unit clustering, community gardens does not meet the intent of retaining agricultural heritage, public access and open space, connection to RFWSD facilities should be reviewed, provide details on the signalized intersection at SH 82, coordination with RFTA, wildlife impacts. C. Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees comments: i. Gap in the Three Mile Area of Influence between Town and City, recommendation of an IGA as a tool for cooperation and understanding. ii. Question community need for the development. iii. Creation of jobs would be temporary. iv. Questions the beneficial effects on SH 82 traffic. v. The entire site development should be reviewed not just a portion of the whole. vi. Impacts to wildlife and lack of clustering, 5. WATER / WASTEWATER The original application request was to allow for the provision of private water and wastewater services or to obtain service from the RFWSD. This issue appears to have been resolved as Staff has been notified that a pre -inclusion agreement in the final stages of drafting between the Applicant and the District. The provision of District water and wastewater services is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 42 PC September 14, 2011 KE Preliminary Plan review is typically the process in which substantial engineering review occurs, however the connection of the water and wastewater service to the west side of the Roaring Fork River has not been discussed nor have sufficient preliminary plan level construction drawings been provided on where this connection would occur and how that connection will cross the river. District improvements that may be necessitated by the development include the potential for water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, connection of the development via SH 82 and Aspen Glen, water storage tank on the east side of SH 82. The District is a quasi -governmental entity and therefore would have to provide information to the Planning Commission via a Location and Extent application. 6. ACCESS A. CDOT State Highway Access Permit — the Applicant shall be required to obtain this permit and a Notice to Proceed prior to any activity occurring on the site. Phase 0 is the reclamation phase and this phase may commence upon application and issuance of a grading permit. The traffic associated with this activity could result in safety issues with accessing the state highway. The timing of installation of signalization and other improvements is unknown. B. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority — comments from this agency include confirmation that an existing Easement Grant provides for an at -grade crossing in the general vicinity of the existing access point. The trip generation of the development will result in 3,567 daily vehicle trips which may result in safety conflicts at the crossing. The Applicant proposes to grade separate the Rio Grande Trail at the proposed entry into the site however RFTA is concerned that the rail banking of this corridor could result in future use of rail which would require substantial upgrades, and potential grade separation of the entry. RFTA would like to enter into an agreement with the Applicant that would assure costs of potential future improvements would not be the responsibility of RFTA. C. Colorado Public Utilities Commission — The Applicant has stated that the PUC would consider this crossing of the rail corridor as a "private" crossing and therefore PUC licensing would not be required. Staff conversations with Pam Fishhaber of the PUC resulted in a PUC opinion that a crossing to serve 366 dwelling units would not be considered `private'. The PUC licensing process is recommended as a condition of approval as the PUC requires a demonstration of need for the crossing - the Applicant must obtain zoning entitlements prior to requesting the PUC license. D. Garfield County Public Works — numerous comments have been received regarding the potential impact of intersection improvements to the east side of 8H82 and CR 113/CR 110. The County had undertaken an intersection study which identified this site as a priority for improvement. The design and construction of the intersection, including entry into REC and CR 113/CR 110 SH 82 intersection, should be a coordinated effort. An ongoing discussion regarding these improvements is planned. E. Internal road system — As stated earlier the Applicant has requested waiver from Garfield County minimum road standards. The reviewing engineer concurred that 43 PC September 14, 2011 KE the proposed road standards for the development were sufficient. Other questions that have arisen include the request for "private" roads and potential gating of the development, and the fact that the roundabout just inside the entrance has significant excess capacity. A single entry subdivision, regardless of the Emergency Vehicle Access points, is a concern that should be evaluated. The Applicant has stated that potential future connections exist through adjacent properties. 7. GEOLOGY 1 HAZARDS A. Sinkholes / Soils / Steep Slopes— The Applicant has either avoided these areas or mitigation measures are proposed. Adequate mitigation measures appear to be in place with the exception of the Applicant proposal to locate roads and utilities over a known sinkhole area at the south end of the development. B. The proposed reclamation included as Phase 0 may provide additional information regarding geotechnical information and soils than is currently known. Additional studies should be submitted and reviewed as part of final plat application, a condition of approval is recommended regarding this issue. 8. ZONING A. PUD Administration — Exhibit HH contains a revised PUD Guide based upon staff comments on the original document. Though the amendment attempted to simplify the regulatory language of the documents it remains a complex and confusing regulatory document that will be difficult to administer. Staff is concerned regarding the use of footnotes (let alone the number of footnotes) on uses, dimensions, etc. that creates a confusing and cumbersome document. B. The Applicant proposes a suburban development plan utilizing urban road and drainage standards yet seeks to retain the rural and agricultural character of Garfield County. This property is currently zoned Suburban, a zone district that does not permit agricultural uses but allows for lower density 'in order to maintain a rural character'. Compliance with underlying uses in the Suburban zone district is a requirement of PUD zoning, except for the caveat that uses supported by the comprehensive plan may be considered. Accessory gardens, fruit trees and similar types of activities are appropriate in conjunction with residential uses. Agricultural use however is not permitted in the Suburban zone which is primarily residential in character. The Planning Commission should consider this issue and determine the appropriateness of these uses. C. Temporary construction -related uses are proposed which include `material processing' which will allow REC to gather the site gravel unearthed during reclamation to utilize in the construction of the infrastructure of the development. The use of on-site minerals is supported by Staff however all potential impacts related to this activity must be adequately mitigated. Fugitive dust and other air quality issues are a concern that must be adequately addressed. Questions remain regarding the Applicant's ability to export materials off-site. 44 PC September 14, 2011 KE 9. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) related to affordable housing requirements within the REC plan. Geneva Powell, Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) Executive Director, commented on requirements: A. The Applicant requires pre -sales of the units prior to construction and there is no precedent for this in the County's guidelines. This raises questions regarding obligation to provide the unit if there were no qualified buyer. GCHA recommends flexibility that would benefit potential purchasers of these units. B. Three categories of pricing is included in the AHPA which proposes to allow buyers earning up to 150% AMI instead of the maximum of 120% AMI in the County's guidelines. This will open up the buyer pool to a larger population `while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% to 110% AML C. The Applicant proposes the option of renting the affordable units if they are not sold within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines. D. Additional questions include potential amendment of the AHPA with each phase given the timeframe for the development, timing of construction of units, ability to gain equity through potential improvements. 10. FISCAL IMPACT The Applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Supplemental Update (Attachment E in EXHBIT HH) prepared by Andy Knudtsen of Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. This analysis was prepared to estimate public costs and revenues that would result from the development. Population estimates and forecasts were utilized to determine an absorption rate of 58 units per year, a rate of approximately 5% of County growth. The conclusion of the analysis was that the development of River Edge Colorado would result in a fiscal benefit to the County in the amount of -$26,000 annually. This figure was determined based upon annual ongoing expenditures, including Tong -term capital improvements, in an annual amount to be incurred by the County at $464,000 in 2021. The report goes on to analyze cumulative net fiscal impact of $566,000 if the total of one-time revenues is considered and a cumulative net fiscal impact of $715,000 if affordable housing units were not provided. Vill. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan may be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met 45 PC September 14, 2011 KE the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning Commission consider a recommendation of approval the following conditions are provided for discussion and may or may not include a full list of staff recommended conditions of approval: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Com missioners. 2. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. 3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366 units. 4. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based upon the approval and copies provided to Building & Planning. These documents shall be attached to the resolutions associated with these applications. 5. The Development Agreement shall be finalized based upon Garfield County Attorney Office comments. 6. Grading Activity ! Reclamation a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-site activity related to Phase 0; b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit; c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SNAP) and Notice to proceed has been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); 7. Vegetation a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC property as well as the Conservation Easement parcel; b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5% requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County concurs regarding all noxious weeds. c. County Vegetation shall be consulted regarding the calculation of revegetation security. 46 PC September 14, 2011 Kt= 8. Geology The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the reports of their consulting geotechnical engineers and the Colorado Geologic Survey, including the following: a. Additional geotechnical investigation and design is required prior to approval of the first final plat and prior to any construction commencing on the site. Detailed cost estimates should be included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements. b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit. c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. Verification of soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or develop plans for providing alternate emergency access. d. if an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the County for review. e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. f. Cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to 10' in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap. g. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. i. Roof downspouts and drains shall discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation shall be restricted. Drywells may be utilized. j. A detailed pavement design shall be provided post -reclamation and in conjunction with submittal of the first final plat, to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain Type I/II portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium aluminate). 9. Wildlife The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the reports of their consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following: a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from roads and homes, is not recommended. Lighting of open spaces beyond the 47 PC September 14, 2011 KE building envelope areas is sternly discouraged. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the roadsides in areas where headlights form vehicles elluminat5e open space areas. b. Road — Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82, cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution. c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas should be closed during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or dog parks, should be on a leash year-round. d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors. e. Open space areas are used as winter range and severe winter range therefore reclamation will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range. f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during the winter months; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be prohibited. S. Adequate stormwater runoff measures related to protection of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. h. All utilities shall be buried. 10. Access and Roadways a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall submit an executed State Highway Access Permit and Notice to Proceed to the Building and Planning Department. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall provide documentation from Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the allowance to relocate the Rio Grande Trail. If construction collateral is not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County Improvements Agreement. d. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck 48 PC September 14, 2011 KE 11. Water a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No. 08CW198. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre -inclusion agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to the River Edge Colorado development. 12. Final Plat Requirements a. The Applicant shall comply with the final plat requirements in addition to those requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR); b. The Applicant shall delineate and legally describe all easements on the final plat and convey all easements to the responsible entity. This dedication shall be in a form acceptable to the County Attorney's Office and transfer shall occur at the time of recording of the final plat. These easements shall include, but are not limited to all easements of record, utility easements, drainage easements, water system easements, stormwater drainage easements, open space and any internal roads required as a part of this development; c. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following: i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development. These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no special foundation design is necessary. 13. At the time of submittal for the first final plat, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the pre -inclusion agreement for the development to be served water and sanitation services by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District; 14. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee -in -lieu payment of school land dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee -in lieu will be required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision; 15. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 49 From: Michael Prehm To: Betsy Suerth; cc: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge (Rezone PUD 1 Preliminary Plan) Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:42:15 PM Betsy, EXHIBIT After reviewing the material given, I noticed the water system had changed from a year ago. Instead of storage tanks being installed up County Road 110 and a line down the road and across Hwy 82. It shows the water system being tied into the Iron Bridge, Teller Springs, and Aspen Glen loop. If I understand after talking with Kathy Eastley this loop is an alternate. My question! are the pians for the water tanks up County Road 110 still in the works? In the Summary of Request, the application states a maximum of 30,000 square feet of commercial / public -quasi -public. Is this going to generate any additional traffic that is not mentioned? The application also requests Subdivision Preliminary Plan to create 346 lots, and tracts for commercial/public-quasi-public use. Where would these tracts be and what access would be needed? Mike MEMORANDUM SCHMUESER ; GORDON MEYER TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Senior Planner CC: Betsy Suerth, Garfield County Public Works Director FROM: Lee Barger, SG' DATE: May 24, 2011 SUBJ: Project # 2010-413.007 Preliminary Plan Review of Proposed SH 82 Access at River Edge I have reviewed the drawings for highway access to the proposed River Edge development at the intersection of SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road. This review included plan sheets C01.02 (Overview of Access), CO2.01 (Plan & Profile), 004.01 (Typical Sections), and C06.01 (Site Access Plan). My concerns are detailed below. The first concern is the point of intersection of River Edge Drive with State Highway 82. Since a detailed plan for improvements to the Cattle Creek intersection has not been fully developed by the County, the first priority should be to line River Edge Drive up with the existing intersection where CR 113 (Cattle Creek) intersects SH 82. The current plan shows this intersection offset south slightly (about 12' or one lane width) from the existing centerline of the Cattle Creek access. If the County were to finalize a plan for access improvements to this intersection, coordination between the applicant and the County should occur to be sure the final configuration is a conventional 4 -way intersection with minor street legs aligned directly across from each other. Based on the alignment shown, it appears the applicant has some flexibility in where this approach intersects with SH 82, although the RFTA easement may need to be modified if the design changes drastically (which it shouldn't). CDOT requires 6' shoulders adjacent to turn lanes; where the plans show 4' shoulders. Additionally, the median nose shown on the plans on the westbound SH 82 approach should. be pulled back to allow large vehicles turning from Cattle Creek to eastbound SH 82 more room to maneuver. The proposed lengths of acceleration and deceleration lanes shown on the plans are consistent with the standards for design given in CDOT's State Highway Access Code and based on the expected demand generated by River Edge. However, the plan only shows improvements to the intersection for traffic oriented to and from River Edge; no improvements are shown for the Cattle Creek or east side of the intersection (north by 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Srhmucscr Gordon ,Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 (970)945-5948 FAX 1 CD(Y1's orientation). These improvements should be coordinated with the County -5 plan for Cattle Creek improvements. Finally. 3 did not review the River Edge interior streets plan, profiles, and sections. but 1 did sec the proposed roundabout at the intersection of River Edge Drive and J railside/Riverside Loop Drives. 1 am curious if other alternatives for traffic control were contemplated at this intersection for a development of 300+ units? l am not sure a roundabout (or signal) would be warranted. The traffic study addresses highway access only and does not analyze this intersection or assess the operations of the internal roadway network. Could a four-way stop or mini -roundabout be incorporated here? The money used for a full-size modern roundabout at this location might be better spent on more vital and warranted improvements at the Cattle Creek intersection. 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-)004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 2 GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1430 RAILROAD AVENUE Unit F RIFLE, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 Fax 970-625-0859 May 31, 2011 TO: Kathy Eastley Garfield County Planning Dept. FROM: Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) REF: River Edge Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan, Affordable Housing EXHIBIT Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) has reviewed River Edge PUD and understands that the applicant proposes 55 affordable housing (AH) units to be built over 11 phases or 5 All units per phase. Homes are clustered into 3 tracks in the PUD. GCHA offers the following comments: On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) the applicant requires presales before building AH units. There is no precedent for this in the County's guidelines. Would the applicant be released from his obligation to build the AH units if there were no qualified buyer within the applicants timeframe? GCHA believes that flexibility from both the applicant and the guidelines would be of benefit to potential buyers of these AH units. Currently, the downturn in the economy and the tightening of the lending industry has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted. We cannot foresee this trend during the build out of this development over the next 10 to 20 years. On Page 5, paragraph 5 of the AHPA the applicant provides 3 categories of pricing for the AH units. The applicant proposes to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI instead of the maximum 120% AMI allowed in the County's guidelines. GCHA views this as opening the buyer pool to a larger population while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% AMI to 110% AMI. If the exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate these pricing categories, GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Edge. On Page 6, paragraph 9 of the AHPA applicant proposes option of renting AH homes if not sold within the 120 days. This is not addressed in County's guidelines, However, this is an interesting proposal as it is the intent of the program that each AH unit be occupied by a qualified family. If allowed, the rents would need to be below market rent to maintain the unit as affordable to families within lower AMIs. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; If the units are rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the developer the properly manager for the rental? Additional comments on the AIIPA are: Could the AHPA be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build out schedule? Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase? Are all 5 AH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started? Would applicant consider designing an aspect to the AH homes that would permit owners to improve their equity by finishing or improving the home (basements, carports, decks etc)? GCHA continues to look over the Declaration of Deed Restriction that was provided by the applicant and may offer some comments belbre final recordation. Sincerely, Geneva Powell Executive Director Garfield County Housing Authority 1430 Railroad Avenue. Unit F Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 Rifle (970) 625-0859 Rifle Fax (970) 945-8082 Glenwood www. q arfie Id hou s i nq, com SI-IERIFF OF GA.RFIELD COUNTY LOU VALLAI+ 107 81" Street [jfenwoodSprings, CO8i6o1 Phone: 970.945-0453 ;fax: 970-945-6430 June 15, 2011 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8t Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 1 li RECFJI\TFD JUN 1 5 2011 GMF ELI) COUNTY BU1tDiNG & MANNING to6 County Rnad333-4 Rifle, CO 81650 Y'(ane: 9; 0-665-0200 Fax: 970-665-0253 RE: River Edge Colorado — Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan Dear Kathy: 1 have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado subdivision, and have the following comments on this application. Access The concerns of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, in regards to the Emergency Vehicle Access points, are also concerns of the Sheriff's Office. Additionally, without reviewing comments from CDOT, the Sheriff's Office has concerns on the impact of the ingress/egress onto HWY 82 at the Cattle Creek intersection. Please contact me if you have any questions or if 1 can be of any assistance. ice 1y, zittaJames H. Sears Emergency Operations Sgt. EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM To: Kathy East ley From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the River Edge Rezone PUD 6720 Date: June 10, 2011 Noxious Weeds • Staff requests that the applicant arrange an on-site meeting between the Roaring Fork Conservancy, River Edge, and Garfield County Vegetation Management to discuss and develop a management plan for noxious weeds located on River Edge's property that has a conservation easement. • Staff concurs with the statement from the applicant's consultant, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services that weed control treatments continue to occur before development begins. • Covenants -We recommend that the applicant put in stronger language regarding noxious weed control that will emphasize that each property owner has the responsibility to manage state and county listed noxious weeds • Open Space Management Plan (OSMP)-There is a statement on page 4 of the OSMP, item 5, that states that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover she be treated in accordance with the State Colorado Noxious Act." This implies that a cover of weeds of up to 5% is acceptable, Legally, all State List A species and many List B species must be eradicated when detected. The 5% statement should be deleted or rewritten. That standard of allowing up to a 5% cover is not acceptable. Revegetation • The Revegetation Plan is acceptable. Under normal circumstances, we would request that the applicant provide a quantification of the surface area to be disturbed, and then we would recommend a $2500 per acre revegetation security. In this situation where almost the entire property was scrapped bare about 7 years ago, that approach may not be the most sensible. 1 recommend a meeting between Building & Planning, Vegetation Management, and the applicant to discuss the revegetation security amount. From: Jim Rada To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: PUD6720/5PP6721 River Edge Colorado Date: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:25:04 PM Kathy, offer the following comments at this time: EXHIBIT 1. Neither the Water Supply or Wastewater Treatment plan is definitive in terms of who will provide these services. The option of privately owned and operated water and wastewater treatment plants operated by the Homeowners Association, is not, in my opinion, a sound option for this type of development due to the inherent weaknesses of HOA's to properly manage these systems. I strongly recommend that the applicant be required to nail down provision of water and wastewater services that result in high-quality, sustainable operations. 2. The applicant is on the right track in terms of developing a walkable, sustainable community that creates space for growing fresh foods during the summer growing season. This is an extremely important element of urban development that we need to continually try to include in community planning in order to begin addressing chronic public health issues like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Again, the applicant puts responsibility for upkeep of open spaces, gardens, orchards, sidewalks, trails and streets in the hands of the homeowners association. I am skeptical that without a more solid plan for financing and managing these community amenities, that they will eventually lose priority and fall into a degraded state and residents will fall back to getting in their cars to go to the store or rely on nearby convenience stores to fulfill their dietary needs. 3. Access to fresh foods and other amenities will still involve getting in one's car for a run to the market in Carbondale or Glenwood. This does nothing to reduce air pollution from vehicles. Nor does it encourage people to walk or ride bicycles to take care of daily needs. I believe that land should be made available for commercial purposes specifically to encourage development of a local food store to serve residents of this community and the central valley area. 4. Assuming that the applicant can finance the construction of the infrastructure and all other elements of the project, I see no projected long term budget for operation and maintenance of the POA owned and operated elements of this development. I suspect that these numbers will be substantial, particularly if a POA WTP and WWTP are constructed. Based on the CCRS and the amount of commonly owned elements, managing a development this size could require a rather large budget. Spread amongst 366 owners, this could result in substantial annual assessments. Along with the annual assessments and any special assessments that may be needed as to property ages, this could put a large financial burden on the middle-class families that will likely occupy these homes. Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. .] IIII Radii i Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone - 970-825-5200 x8113 Fax - 970-625-8304 Cell - 970-319-1579 jradaL garfiel d-cuunty.cum www.garfield-county.com 1)i:1'.1i. i \H N i ()1 : i1 1 t_'1: 1[. 1Zl:so1.'it[ DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES June 22, 2011 Kathy l=astly Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W. 6TH PM W. Division 5. W. District 38 Dear Ms. Easily: John %V. rli.ktnloop r (;o ernes Ilike king Iw. alis r I)irrch'r I )ick LVs+ric. 1' #- Dirlctor,Statc Engmon We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to create a PUD on 160 acres for a residential development to include 366 residential units of various sizes and types and 9 non- residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a neighborhood center. In addition. the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots. The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 01CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW 198. Potable water will be provided either through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated by tate River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided. The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. Per the Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report provided in the submitted materials. it appears this requirement is based on the assumption that each EQR is equivalent to a household demand of 189 gallons per day (gpd) per single fancily unit. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no. 01CW187, limits the final development to 349 55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption of 300 gpd per EQR. This decreed augmentation plan does not allow for the flexibility to assume a reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EQRs. To date. no other decrees providing water to the development have been adjudicated, and pursuant to the decree in case no. 01CW187, the applicant is limited to less EQRs than is proposed under this application The applicant indicated that additional water supply will be available in two pending water court cases; however, pending water court cases do not serve as an adequate claim to a legal water supply. In addition, the proposed alternative supply for potable water diverted through a surface water intake along the Roaring Fork River and operated by the POA has not yet been decreed but is included in the pending water court cases. Until these proposed alternate points of diversion are decreed, the applicant is limited to diverting the water through infrastructure owned and operated by the RFWCD as specified in case no. 01CW187 The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sheri/Lin Street, Suite $18 • Deriver, CO 502113 • phone: 303-Sr,n-3;s1 • 1=a1. Inip:/...w.tter..state.co.us WI -SW ,-3;S9 Kathy Eastly June 22, 2011 River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the applicant to have direct control of said water, are decreed. The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application, the applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Stator Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Stator Ditch are subject to the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01 CW 189. Use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with the decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01 CW189 and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 — 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these ditches. Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number of EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(1), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. Since a final water supply has yet to be confirmed, we will refrain from commenting on the physical adequacy of the water supply at this time. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office. Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MS//kaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Roorn 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 June 3, 2011 Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 keastley@garfieldcouny.com Re: River's Edge PUD and Preliminary Plat Application CGS GA -11-0008_1 Dear Ms. Eastley: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Ritter Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Thank for the submittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is to allow a mixed-use development with 366 residential units, open space and commercial. 1 visited the site on May 29th and 31;x. As noted in the application, the site is generally located on terraces above the Roaring Fork River and adjacent to SH 82. Cattle Creek is a large drainage, which enters and bisects the site. An existing house is located near the center of the site. The site has been graded in the past; fill areas and soil stockpiles can be found throughout the site. Other structures, such as irrigation ditches and rail, cross the site. Generally, the site has moderate slopes. Slopes steeper than 30 percent are present along terrace edges adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. A small alluvial fan sits in the northeast corner of the site. Also, as you know, the site contains numerous sinkholes caused by the dissolution of evaporate bedrock. Soil piping, erosion, and slope instability was evident along the steep terrace slopes. Erosion of the base of the terrace was evident where the outer bends of the river cut into the base of the terrace. Generally, the applicant has done a good job avoiding the most severe geologic hazards. The main geologic hazards are outlined in geotechnical reports, by HP Geotech, dated August 12, 2008 and November 15, 2010, include the following: • Subsidence and sinkholes caused by dissolution of evaporite deposits • Expansive and collapsible soil • Slope instability along steep slopes adjacent to the river. • Uncontrolled fill • Debris flow and flooding hazards The recommendations in the most recent geotechnical report are similar to those contained in an earlier version. Recommendations critical to protecting public safety include: • Buildings, roads, and underground utilities should not be placed on or near high -hazard sinkholes; identified as Zone 1.. To the extent feasible, Zone 2 or moderate hazard areas should be avoided. If development occurs in such areas, all sinkholes, and areas with potential sinkhole hazards should be fully investigated prior to approval of development plans. • Ms. Kathy Eastley Page 2 June 3, 20l 1 • • If avoidance is not possible, roads can be constructed over stabilized sinkholes but buildings and critical utilities should not. • Buildings should be setback from the steep escarpment. A minimum setback of 2H: IV should be measured from the edge of the river channel. • Riverbanks at outside channel bends are eroding the base of steep terrace slopes during peak flows. If allowed to continue, slope failure may occur and impact roads and buildings near terrace escarpments. Other recommendations that will impact the performance of buildings, roads, and utilities include: • Mitigation of expansive and/collapsible soil • Construction of an underdrain system • Restrictions regarding cuts and fills and other grading activities; including identification of the extent of uncontrolled fill and removal and recompaction • Mitigation of debris flow hazards • Mitigation of corrosive soil The application also contains a mitigation plan of how hazards will he mitigated. Some of the key mitigation measures arc outlined below: Sinkhole Hazards Roads, homes and utilities generally avoid High Hazard Zone 1 areas. However, road and utility segments cross Hazard Zone 1 areas and homes are proposed in Moderate Hazard Zone 2 areas. In these areas, the applicant proposes: • Further investigations will be performed and a site-specific mitigation action will be developed as part of final design and field construction activities. • At a minimum, road areas will be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below design grades, and select fill placed and compacted to 95 percent Standard Proctor or better. • Utility areas will be over -excavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the design invert, select fill placed (compaction at 95 percent Standard Proctor) and a sleeved utility installed (i.e. allowing bridging of the identified void), • Compaction grouting or structure bridging may be considered. • The placement of gcosynthetics beneath the pavement may also he considered • Whichever mitigation is selected, the primary objective is to lessen the impacts of differential settlement. • If adequate mitigation cannot be achieved, utility areas will be realigned to areas without hazards. • Additional investigation will be done for lots located in Zone 2 before development. Lots may be relocated or special foundation designs required. Slope Instability Along Steep Terrace Slopes • Planned development within the Project Site does not directly encroach into any existing steep escarpments. 1lowevcr, further erosion of terrace escarpments may cause safety hazards. • The applicant proposes stabilization of eroding areas. Discussions regarding stabilization of areas within the RFC Conservation Easement are occurring. If approved by the RFC, these areas will be further investigated and a detailed mitigation program developed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Phase 0). • Additional investigation of "piping failures" will be done and stabilization plans will be developed_ Irrigation within these areas will be managed to reduce further degradation. Debris Flows • Grading for Highway 82 and the development to the east of the highway should reduce the extent of future deposition on the fan limiting the risk to proposed structures on the site.. • Ms. Kathy Eastley Page 3 June 3, 2011 • Flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot should be incorporated into the final designs based on further field investigations. CGS Recommendations • The mitigation measures outlined by the applicant appear to be feasible. However, additional investigation and design will be needed. Other than specific foundation designs for buildings, this should be done prior to approval of the final plan and, in most cases, before construction begins. Detailed cost estimates should be included and mitigation should be done as part of public improvements. • As a result of additional work, final lot, utility, and road layout may change; this includes relocation. • CGS also considers subsidence and sinkholes, related to dissolution of the underlying evaporite bedrock, to be a potential risk across the site. Near -surface underground voids may exist that have not yet breached the surface to become visible sinkholes. One specific concern is that it appears there will only be one access into and out of the site. If sinkhole occurs along sections of the primary access road, emergency access to the site may be greatly impaired. The county may wish to discuss this issue with the county emergency manager. It may be prudent to verify soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or develop plans for providing an alternative emergency access if needed. • If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan should be provided. Making sure that the base of the slope remains protected over the course of time against erosion will be important to the safety of sections of road and several lots. • Where roads and utilities cross high and moderate sinkhole hazards, the applicant proposes a wide range of mitigation options. Each option has associated risks and costs. The county may wish to take an active rote in determining what options are chosen and what risks are taken by the county and future owners; especially if any maintenance responsibility is assumed. • The site does contain industrial minerals. The mineral resource report states that because the site is zoned residential mineral deposits are not of economic value. However, this may be true but the report does not contain any data to support this conclusion. The applicant is correct in concluding state statutes regarding preservation of commercial mineral deposits do not yet apply to Garfield County. However, I am not sure if the county has adopted plans or policies that would apply. • All other recommendations outlined in geotechnical reports are valid and should be followed. In summary, it is important to note that even with the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above and in the geotechnical report, subsidence may occur and building, roads, and utilities may be severely damaged. The following quote from the geotechnical report should be strongly considered during the entitlement process. Even with mitigation it may not be possible to prevent some structural damage to buildings, but it should be feasible to prevent sudden collapse and provide a reasonable level of safety for the building occupants." Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at karen.berry@state.co.us. Sincerely, Karen A. Berry Geological Engineer, PG, AiCP, CPESC-SWQ From: Roussin, Daniel To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge Colorado Rezone Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:33:04 AM EXHIBIT Kathy — I have no comments on the rezone. As you are aware, this project will have a big impact to the highway system. The applicant will need an access permit for SH 82. The challenge will be to tie it other side due to 4 intersection ( 2 frontage roads, 2 county roads). As you are aware, CDOT, Garfield County and the applicant will need to work together to make the long-term access work. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6290 Fax From: Will, Perry To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: FW: River Edge Colorado Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:47:50 PM Attachments: cattlecreek2.doc Cattle Creek.doc From: Groves, John Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:34 AM To: Will, Perry; Yamashita, Matt Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado It should not have significant impacts if they follow the recommendations outlined in letters dated 4/15/2008 and 2/19/2009 regarding Cattle Creek Crossing. The main impacts will be to the heronry if our previous recommendations are not followed. There will be displacement of the elk that winter on the property while construction is ongoing, however they are likely to move in thicker once that has ended and it is not critical winter range. I have attached the letters if you want to send to Kathy or I can put together a short letter for your signature. John From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.comj Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:54 PM To: Will, Perry Subject: River Edge Colorado Perry, A referral was sent to the CDOW in late April seeking comments on a development proposal for River Edge Colorado (formerly known as Cattle Creek). I've not received comments from CDOW and was hoping that you could provide me a timeframe on when we might receive something — or if there is no comment, and email to that effect. Thanks. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastleyegarfield-county.com SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY THING. - WINSTON CHURCHILL STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state. co. us April 15, 2008 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cattle Creek Crossing sketch plan submission Dear Fred: For Wildlife - For People The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition the property is home to a Targe great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The existing conservation easements held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of Cattle Creek for trout habitat are welcomed by the Division. The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: 1. As noted the property in not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the area which then seek refuge on the undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82. The development has proposed using the existing Cattle Creek culvert under Hwy82 as an elk underpass, but it is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair • Robert Bray, Secretary Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs wilt help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 2. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring near the heronry. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are extremely important to wildlife. These areas on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be limited into these areas. 4. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff water should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. 5. All utilities buried. 6. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Perry Will Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file STATE OF COLORADO Bili Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wild l€e. s€a€s. co. us February 19, 2009 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD review Dear Kathy: OF For Wildlife - For People The DOW has reviewed the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD amendment and has previously commented on the development proposal in a letter dated April 15, 2008. Comments and recommendations from that letter are still relevant. The Cattle Creek development property is not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. While it is not mapped critical winter range the property has become a preferred wintering area for elk. The upper benches provide loafing/solitude areas, while the riparian corridors provide cover and food. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. Car/elk accidents have increased significantly along the stretch of SH 82 from mile marker 6.5-12 in the past several years. In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron colony , many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The overall size and density of this project is going to have direct and indirect impacts to wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed. The Division is concerned about several issues related to the current development proposal and makes the following recommendations: 1. The proposed trails into the riparian areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River should be eliminated. Any recreational trails proposed should remain on the bench above the river and out of the conservation easement areas held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. The proposed trails are listed for fisherman access but in reality these will become recreational hiking trails and dog walking areas which will rapidly diminish the values for wildlife that the easements are designed to protect. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary 2. The Division is discouraged with the fact that the current great blue heron nesting locations have not been identified in the current building plan nor have any steps been taken to minimize impacts in the building plan. The mitigation proposals outlined in the CCR's are inadequate and rely on future abandonment of the colony. The current locations are several hundred yards upstream of the old nest sites identified in the building plan and have been active for over 5 years. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 27 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a 200 meter buffer zone around the heronry with extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring within 400 meters of the heronry. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. 100' building envelope set backs need to established from the crest of the bluff overlooking the riparian corridors on the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. 4. Maximum building height should be 25' especially for building locations overlooking the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. 5. The DOW would like to sit down with the developer to further discuss their proposal for funding off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Perry Will Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file FIRE • EMS • RESCUE June 12, 2011 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: River Edge Colorado — Rezone PUD / Preliminary Ilan Dear Kathy: EXHIBIT I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado Subdivision. The application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC), 2009 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments. Access The proposed street layout and access throughout the subdivision is adequate for emergency apparatus. Two Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points are discussed on page 9 of the Project Engineering Design Report but the EVAs are not indicated on the drawings. IFC Section D106.2 "Multiple Family Residential Developments" requires developments with more than 200 residential dwelling units to have two separate and approved fire access roads. Details of the two EVAs must be submitted for approval. Water Supplies for Fire Protection The Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has agreed to service the development. The proposed system is designed to provide for 1,500 gpm residential fire flows and 2,000 gpm non- residential fire flows. The proposed water system appears to be capable of providing the design fire flows throughout the development. The proposed location and spacing of the fire hydrants is adequate as well. The International Residential. Code (IRC) adopted by the County will require automatic fire sprinklers in all residences, effective January 1, 2013. Installation requirements will be in accordance with NEPA 13D or Section P2904 of the IRC. Residential sprinkler systems typically require 26-60 gallons per minute (GPM) flows however IRC Section P2904 would allow flows as low as 13 GPM in certain cases. Required flows are primarily dependent upon roof and ceiling design. Connections of service lines to the water mains should be designed to allow for the required flows. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 River Edge Colorado, Page 2 of 2 Impact Fees The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $730.00 per lotfunit. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 From: David Johnson To: Kathy A. Easley; cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White._ Subject: RE: River Edge Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:24:06 PM EXHIBIT r 7 RFTA has the following concerns about this proposed development: Location Outside the UGB In preparation for RFTA's Strategic Planning Board Retreat on June 9th, I created a table highlighting the common themes of the surrounding Comprehensive Plans. One of the most prevalent themes is concentrating development within the town center or within the UGB, Carbondale is currently updating its 2000 Comp' Plan, and this will undoubtedly be a priority as well. The proposed development is located outside the urban growth boundaries of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, which appears to conflict with this priority. Theme/Element Advocated Reduce vehicle trips AACP X TOSV X Basalt Carbondale Glenwood Springs X Garfield County New Castle Rifle X X Retain or maintain community, small-town, or rural character X X X X X X X Regional Bus X X X X X X X X Regional Rail X Local Transit X X X X X X X X Walking and Bicycling X X X X X X X X Transit Impact Fees or Transit Mitigation X X X X X Concentrated development within town center, UGB X X X X X X X TransitlLand Use Integration X X X X X Transit Oriented Development (TOD) X X X X Balanced, integrated or multimodal mobility X X X X X X X X Mixed -Uses or "balanced" land uses X X X X X Preserve Rural/ Agricultural areas X X "Complete Streets" X X X RFTA is also concerned about growth outside the town boundaries. Currently, RFTA's local route serves over 50 stops in each direction. One way travel time from Glenwood Springs to Aspen is about 100 minutes, which makes it unattractive for current and potential passengers and increases operational cost. RFTA is addressing this issue by implementing BRT, which will serve nine key locations along the SH82 corridor, and by conducting a feasibility study, now underway, of local transit systems in Carbondale and in the Basalt/El Jebel area. One of the goals of the feasibility study is to create transit systems in each area to provide local mobility within the town centers and to "feed" passengers to the BRT stops, where they can enjoy fast, frequent regional transit service. RFTA's Board is comprised of elected officials in cities and counties throughout the region, including Glenwood and Carbondale. Based on the overriding philosophy of maintaining growth and services within town boundaries, and the issue of the cost and travel time impacts of adding additional service, it is unlikely that the Board will endorse adding service to River Edge development, even if the applicant is willing to pay for the capital and operating costs of adding boarding locations at SH82 and CR113. The transit assessment conducted by Fehr and Peers does not estimate potential transit ridership. Consequently, the need for additional rolling stock and the size of shelters and other amenities are unknown. The nearest RFTA boarding locations are at Spring Creek Road and Aspen Glen. Neither location appears to be within walking distance. Rio Grande Trail ROW Crossing As stated in the Land Suitability Analysis, the RFTA right-of-way crossing required by the entry road at CR 113 and SH 82 is covered by an Easement Grant providing at -grade access to the Project Site. The easement for access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFRHA. Although the at -grade crossing is covered by an easement, it poses a number of issues. First, according to the traffic study, trip generation from the residential, commercial and other uses is estimated at 276 a.m. peak hour, 347 p.m. peak hour, and 3,567 daily vehicle trips. This may pose safety conflicts between vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at the crossing. In addition, the principal intention for purchasing the ROW and rail banking was to preserve it for future passenger rail. Should a rail system be established, the at -grade crossing would need to be improved, possibly to a grade separated crossing, to address operational and safety issues. RFTA does not wish to bear these costs and wishes to seek an agreement from the applicant that the crossing be upgraded per PUC guidelines Part 723-7 (Rules Regulating Railroad, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and rail Crossings) should rail service be established. David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.384.4979 office 970.384.4870 fax 970 376.4492 mobile djohnson@rfta.com From: Kathy A. Eastley[mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:11 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White Subject: RE: River Edge David, When could we expect these comments? Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastleygarfield-county.com SUCCESS 15 NEVER FOUNO. FAILURE t5 NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY THING. - WINSTON CHURCHILL From: David Johnson [mailto:djohnson©rfta.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:04 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White Subject: River Edge I apologize: I have not yet sent comments on River Edge. Can I send today? David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.384.4979 office 970.384.4870 fax 970.376.4492 mobile djohnson@rfta.com CONFIDENTIALITY NWT,: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and June 10, 2011 JF(111 V14 Ms. Kathy Eastley JUN 13 2611 Garfield County Planning GARF} LL) L;GUNT'f 108 8th Street, Suite 401 131J1+ i34NG P, ?LANN1Nr. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Preliminary Plan & PUD Rezone Application for River Edge: SPPA6721/ Dear Kathy: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the River Edge Subdivision Preliminary Plan and PUD Rezone Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, and comments: Project Binders: 1. The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to the subdivision: either connection to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or providing their own community system. The application materials seems to provide enough evidence that there is a legal supply of water (pending outcome of Water Court) regardless of the option pursued. However the physical supply is still pending negotiations. There are requirements that the Applicant would need to meet with either option: well pump test, water quality test, community water system approvals with CDPHE, among others if the applicant were to provide their own system; and evidence of adequate capacity of the systems of RFWSD if connecting to them. 2. Depending on if the Applicant provides their own sewer and water connections, the Applicant will need to adjust their potable water analysis to use EQR values congruent with the ULUR of Garfield County namely 350 gpd for interior household use. Typically outside irrigation is above and additional to the 350 gpd but since a separate irrigation water system is proposed, only minimal increases would be expected, if any. 3. The Applicant proposes to do some additional geotechnical testing to determine any modification necessary to the Hazard Plan. The Applicant should address the impacts that the testing could have on the proposed lot layout and the overall site density based on the results. 4. The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR from FEMA depending on its impact to the floodplain. The Applicant will need to address this issue. 5. The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub -drains be provided. These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage. The Applicant proposes that these should be determined at the time of individual lot construction. Since the site is.very flat, the likely option at that time would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would increase the likelihood for potential damage due to settling. The Applicant should consider a project wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation drains. 6. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from providing storm -water detention for peak flow attenuation. Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but since there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak -flow detention provided that water -quality detention is still provided. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com River Edge Page 2 of 4 7. Similarly, the Applicant is requesting a waiver for some of the road standards as described in the application materials. Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but this office has no concerns regarding this provided the following are addressed: o The Applicant proposes that the alleys not be required to design to a specific design vehicle. The design vehicle should at a minimum include the larger of either an emergency response vehicle or garbage truck. o The proposed curb and gutter section uses a small pan width of 12" rather than a more typical pan width of 24" on requested narrower street widths. The Applicant should verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on the proposed narrow travel lanes. 8. The project proposes essentially one access for the project residents although there are two other Locations for emergency vehicles to the site. There are some concerns with only one public access for a project of this size. 9. The Applicant has begun discussions with CDOT but has not obtained an access permit at this time. This access permit will need to be obtained. 10. This access to Highway 82 is proposed to be a signalized intersection. Design discussions are underway but the design has not yet been determined and will require coordination with Garfield County for reconstruction and redesign of the frontage roads and Cattle Creek on the east side. 11. It is understood that offsite improvements for water and sewer services do not need to be included in the application and will be reviewed for Location and Extent if the Applicant connects to RFWSD. The Applicant should coordinate with Garfield County staff if the Applicant determines to provide their own sewer and water services; a separate or amended application may be necessary. The Application materials do not provide any information on the design of the offsite improvements such as pump stations, pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks, etc. 12. The Applicant proposes a raw water irrigation system for residences that would be pressurized by a pumping system provided by the Applicant. The materials provide preliminary performance specifications of the pumping system but not an engineering design of the anticipated system. 13. The CC&Rs should include any regulations necessary for the irrigation systems of the individual Lots, such as sprinkling systems, controllers, and connection to the irrigation system. 14. The CC&Rs and the Landscape Plan should include the 10' irrigation restriction in landscaping around buildings per the recommendations of HP Geotech. 15. The sewer design proposes a wastewater treatment plant and force main ejecting into a manhole near lots on Rookery Street and Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should discuss how any associated odors are to be mitigated. 16. The Applicant proposes to discharge treated effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment into constructed wetlands. It appears that the wetlands intended are within the Common Area tracts. The Applicant should evaluate wetland discharge and determine if the wetlands created in common areas between Lots is the most advantageous or appropriate location when compared to the adjacent Roaring Fork. 17. The project disturbance may require that an individual permit with the Corps of Engineers be obtained instead of a nationwide permit. The Applicant will need to determine the appropriate course of action. 18. It appears that home occupations would be allowed but the traffic report does not appear to include these in the calculation of trip generation. The Applicant should address any impacts. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com River Edge Page 3 of 4 Project Plan. Sheets: 1. Additional parking should be provided for the ball fields and playgrounds in the active recreation areas. 2. The playgrounds should be located closer to the adjacent street and proposed parking areas than the ball fields. 3. The traffic calming island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate this. 4. At present the sidewalks and internal project trails show no connection to the Rio Grande Trail. Sidewalks on River Edge Drive terminate on top of the underpass but do not continue to either the proposed project signalized intersection or connect to the Rio Grande Trail. Given the potential complications of tying into the underpass and the pedestrian crossing necessary at Highway 82, the Applicant should determine how to connect these to provide pedestrian access in the most safe and efficient manner. 5. The proposed plans show some road grades of 0.5%. This is very flat and often proves to be very difficult to maintain constant curb and gutter flow -line grades. The Applicant should consider varying or steeper grades. 6. The round -abouts on the north and south ends of the projects should have radii on the curb and gutter returns with the intersections of the project streets. 7. An engineered pavement design should be provided based on project specific soils. 8. The project site grading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage problem areas. The Applicant should revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary easements. 9. The proposed drainage channel has slopes at grades as flat as 0.5%. The channel also proposes materials of rip -rap, grass, or concrete. All of these materials are not suitable for the flat slopes that are proposed. The Applicant should determine channel materials based on slopes, flow velocities, and maintenance. 10. The drainage plan shows inlets daylighting between lots and Bowing along the side yards before getting to the common areas. These tend to be problematic as the buildings are constructed, graded and the landscaping is placed. They are also difficult to maintain positive flows in natural or grass swales especially at the very flat slopes that are proposed. The Applicant should investigate alternatives. 11. The Applicant should design the release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality ponds. 12. The Applicant should verify the location of inlets at intersections for drainage of low spots or provide valley pans for crossings. 13. Chert Court does not show a connection to the culvert beneath it for drainage. 14. The Applicant should investigate alternative layouts or routings within the narrow corridor between Cattle Creek and Mica Court. At present the Glenwood Ditch, Cattle Creek, a retaining wall, storm drain culvert, pedestrian trail, sewer line, and water line all compete for space. 15. Storm inlets should be designed to connect to storm manholes instead of connecting with a tee directly into the storm main line piping. 16. The contours for Mica, Moraine, Ore, and Heron Courts show a jog at the front of the lots that creates a low spot and should be corrected. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaineross-eng.com River Edge Page 4 of 4 17. The relocation of the glenwood ditch is shown within a constant graded slope that will make access and maintenance difficult. The slope grading should be adjusted to provide a bench and/or access road along the top of the ditch. 18. The plans show that the curb and gutter convey runoff water across the bridge. This is not typically done. The Applicant should verify this with the structural engineer. 19. Grading and drainage from the Rio Grande Trail to the intersection with Highway 82 has not been designed. 20. An access easement is provided into the proposed Estate Lot but no design is provided to verify that the access can be constructed within the easement provided. The Applicant should verify the access grading. 21. The Applicant should perform an energy grade line analysis on Storm Manhole N-7 to verify that the water would not bubble up during high flows. 22. The 48" storm drain line is at a 0.3% slope. This is very difficult to construct and maintain. The Applicant should investigate alternatives. 23. There are multiple adjacent sewer lines that drain the same direction. The Applicant should combine runs of sewer line as practical and/or verify the layout with RFWSD. 24. Rookery Street force main discharges into a manhole on Riverside Loop Drive. Discharges into these manholes are subject to corrosive gases and odors. The Applicant should determine any special considerations that may be necessary for this manhole. 25. The multiple adjacent manholes in Heron Court should be verified with RFWSD and/or alternative arrangements investigated. 26. The plans and specifications will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that option is pursued. 27. Utility connection should be designed and stubbed out for the future connection of the Estate lot to irrigation, sewer, and water utilities. 28. The utilities are shown as being constructed beneath the bridge abutments. This should be changed to either hang the main lines beneath the deck or cross cattle creek out to the side for ease of maintenance and eventual replacement. 29. The offsite water line connection is shown as being constructed in the existing box culvert. The Applicant should design this to mitigate freezing or determine an alternative. 30. The sewer and water lines proposed within Ore Court are at nearly the same elevation and will make service connections very difficult. The Applicant should offset these elevations. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, !! Mountain Cross Engir�eefin Chris Hale, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 %: Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com From: Chris Hale To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:44:46 AM Kathy: Good Questions! On the detention, I am not aware of any law that requires detention but I can do some research and see what I find. I did make a comment about the subdrains on item #5 on the first page, but I left out the part concerning the waiver. So based on comment #5, I would not support this waiver. Thanks. Let me know. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastleycr garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:03 PM To: Chris Hale Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: River Edge Colorado Chris, 1 have some specific questions for you on this project; 1. I thought that state statute required stormwater detention — that post - development peak flow could not exceed pre -development peak discharge. The project does not proposed to detain stormwater so how can they meet this statute? The BOCC cannot waive state law. 2. They are requesting waiver of the subdrains for all foundations required by 7-206 B.2. Your letter states that the geotechnical engineer recommends that these sub -drains be provided — would you support this waiver? If you could respond to these questions 1 would appreciate it! Kathy Eastley, AICP From: Andrew McGregor To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge PUD/Subdivision Date: Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:41:46 PM Attachments: MEMORANDU1.dopc Kathy, Attached are comments on the application. Thanks for your patience. Andrew EXHIBIT 9 V MEMORANDUM June 9, 2011 TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planning and Building FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Department, City of GWS RE: Rivers Edge PUD At their meeting on June 2, 2011, the Glenwood Springs City Council heard a brief presentation on the River's Edge PUD from Sam Otero, PE representing the owner, described the project. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Council discussed the application. The following are comments from the City Council in regards to the application. • Consistent with our comments voiced during the County's Comprehensive Plan update process fast year, the City is very concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community without cornmensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development in this location could be termed "sprawl". • While we recognize that this application contemplates a smaller number of dwelling units, it is also a smaller parcel. If and when adjacent parcels are proposed for development, with the County's current land use designation, the magnitude of the development could equal or exceed previous applications. • Based on the criteria for rezoning contained in the County's land use resolution, a rezoning does not appear justified. There is no requisite "change in circumstances". it could be argued that the only zoning warranted would be to a lesser intensity use. Likewise, there is no "demonstrated community need". There is already a vast inventory of vacant lots and homes available in the Roaring Fork Valley. The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis suggests an absorption rate of 58 units per year for the remainder of this decade. This rate seems unlikely considering market conditions. Adding additional platted properties to the valley's inventory wilt only dilute the values of those already in existence. And finally, the proposed PUD/subdivision will not promote rural character; rather it will be the final defining act of infill between Glenwood and Carbondale. • The proposed development will place an increased burden on sheriffs dept., fire district, CDOT and RE -1 personnel and facilities. As the fiscal impact report states, the project will have a "negative impact on county finances". • Concerns over the impact to the resident elk herd and their migratory patterns. • According to the traffic report, the project will generate approximately 3500 AOT onto Highway 82. The application alludes to a signalized intersection although it is somewhat unclear. The impact of a signal in this location will increase travel times along the Hwy. 82 corridor. And while delivering potential sales tax dollars, a portion of these vehicles will travel to and through Glenwood further exacerbating our congestion and travel times at peak hours. • It is unclear how the applicants will provide water and wastewater treatment. Two options for each utility are outlined in the application. • It is unclear from the application materials how the main roadway will connect from the west side of the RFTA ROW to the SH 82 ROW. What type of crossing is contemplated at this entrance location? This should be addressed in advance of any decision on the application. As a co-owner of RFTA, we are concerned about any adverse impacts to the corridor. • According to County Assessor's records the subject property consists of 283 +/- acres. However, the application consists of only 160+1- acres. is it acceptable to rezone only a portion of a parcel? The City has concerns about the future rezoning of the 123 acres unaccounted for in this PUD application. In closing, the City would encourage the County to follow the direction outlined in its recently adopted Comp Plan update and develop a cooperative IGA for review of areas within the spheres of influence around all municipalities in the county. The existing IGA is inadequate for generating the much needed dialogue between jurisdictions for potentially significant land use changes. From: Eller_Mayo@fws.gov To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge Colorado Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:23:04 PM Kathy, We appreciate your request for comments on the River Edge Colorado project I want to direct your attention to the wildlife assessment in B2 Appendix K section 2.2 Riparian Habitats on page 9. The final paragraph describes the presence along the river's edge of the Ute ladies' -tresses orchid, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. As it says in the report: "If water and wastewater services are provided RFWSD then County review of potential impacts to orchids would occur as part of location and extent review (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners 12/6/2010). Further, a section 404 permit application (under the Clean Water Act) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am available if you have questions. Ellen Mayo Botanist/Plant Ecologist USFWS Ecological Services 764 Horizon Dr., Bldg. B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (970) 243-2778 ext. 14 There is far more to life than getting things done. Jon Kabat-Zinn From: To: Subject: Date: Morse, W. Travis SPK Kathy A, Eastley; River Edge Colorado SPK -2010-01312 (UNCLASSIFIED) Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:59:24 AM 1 EXHIBIT Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Dear Ms. Eastley: I am responding to your April 25, 2011 request for comments on the River Edge Colorado project, located west of Highway 82 along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The Corps of Engineers" jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. On October 13, 2010, I performed a wetland boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination to ascertain the extent of waters on the project site. I confirmed that the wetland delineation prepared by PENDO solutions, Inc. on behalf of the applicant is accurate and that approximately 6.52 acres of jurisdictional waters occur within the property. It is not clear from the information provided in your request for comment if impacts to jurisdictional waters will be entirely avoided. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Please refer to identification number SPK -2010-01312 in any correspondence concerning this project. Sincerely, Travis Morse, Biologist Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado West Regulatory Branch 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 0: (970) 243-1199, ext. 17 C: (970) 216-1184 F: (970) 241-2358 w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil web: http://www.spk.usace.army.miliregulatory.html Let us know how we're doing. ht :liper2. nwp.usace . a rmy. m i 11s u rvey. htm I Information on the Regulatory Program. http: //www. s pk. usa ce . a rmy. m i I jo rqa n izatio ns/cespk-co/reg u l atory/i n dex. htm I Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From: Kathy A. Eastley To: Rockwood Shepard; cc: Carey Gagnon; Fred Jarman; Subject: Division of Water Resources comments Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:03:00 AM Attachments: Water Resources - river edge.pdf Rocky — Attached are comments from the Division of Water Resources —the lack of approved court decrees results in a comment that "...the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate". The ULUR. Section 7-105, states that "An adequate water supply plan shall be required for any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, limited impact or major impact review, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction. This section shall apply to all development permits which require a water demand in an amount of more than 8 (eight) single-family equivalents where 1 (one) single-family equivalent equals 350 gallons of water per day." Two issues arise as a result of this section: 1. The pending court decrees are not sufficient demonstration of adequate water to serve the proposed development; 2. The submittal documents are inconsistent with regard to gallon that comprise an EQR — the ULUR requires 350 gallons —the water supply plan submitted uses 350 gallons, other areas of the application utilize 300 gallons or 189 gallons. As you are aware this is an issue that must be resolved to the extent possible prior to Planning Commission and staff would recommend that the PC not move forward with a recommendation until sufficient water is demonstrated. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county.com SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE 18 THE ONLY THING. - WINSTON CHURCHILL Brownstein 1 Hyatt Farber 1 Schreck June 29, 2011 VIA EMAIL (KEASTLEY@GARFIELD-COUNTY.COM) Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT z Wayne F. Forman Attorney at Law 303.223.1120 tel 303.223.0920 fax wformanlbhfs.com RE' River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Response to your June 23, 2011 email referencing June 22, 2011 Referral Letter from Megan Sullivan on behalf of the Division of Water Resources (the "DWR Letter') Dear Kathy: On behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC, 1 am writing to request that you reconsider your June 23, 2011 email to Rocky Shepard in which you take the position that the Planning Commission should withhold action on the River Edge Project, in light of the DWR Letter finding that, due solely to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan, the proposed water supply for the River Edge Project is inadequate. Let me first address the DWR Letter and then your response. Contrary to the requirements of C.R.S. § 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), the DWR Letter does not address the adequacy of the components of the water supply assembled by Carbondale for the River Edge Project, including whether there is a physical supply available for the Project and whether the water rights held by Carbondale to offset out -of -priority depletions associated with withdrawals of that physical supply are adequate to protect other water rights. For reasons that are not obvious, the DWR Letter completely overlooks these essential issues. In stark contrast, Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource Engineering, Inc., explains in the January 17, 2011 Water Supply Report that: there is an adequate physical water supply from the sources identified by Carbondale to supply the Project; and Carbondale owns significant senior water rights in the Glenwood Ditch and Staton Ditch, together with a contract for 62.6 acre feet of augmentation water through the Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") Contract, that provide more than adequate augmentation rights to offset all out -of -priority depletions associated with providing a potable water supply to the River Edge Project. In fact, nothing in the DWR Letter addresses, criticizes or undermines Mr. Erion's conclusion that Carbondale presently holds adequate water rights and resources to supply the Project. It is clear from the DWR Letter that the sole basis for the negative finding regarding Carbondaie's proposed water supply is that Carbondale does not yet have decrees in hand for its pending water court cases, Case Nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. As such, the DWR review does not represent an assessment of the water supply plan but simply the status of the adjudication of the water rights. But there is nothing in the County's Land Use Code that requires an applicant to have all of its water court decrees in advance of Planning Commission action. Indeed, such a requirement would be illogical. It could require a landowner to expend tens of millions of dollars securing water rights and years in water court to fully adjudicate water rights, for a development that may not ever be approved. That 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 ( 17cnscr, CO 80242.4432 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrock, IJ.P 1 bhr4com 301.223 100 lel 303.223.11 1 1 fax Kathy Eastley, AICP June 29, 201 Page 2 Interpretation of the ULUR is unsupportable and, in fact, contradicts the plain language of the code. Because the DWR failed to assess the water supply pian and instead focused solely on the fact that the adjudication is Incomplete, its comments do nothing to inform the County's review of the pending zoning and subdivision applications, You quote ULUR § 7-105, which provides that an "adequate water supply plan shall be required before any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, [PUD], .., " (emphasis added). Carbondale has submitted such a plan, in the form of Mr. Erton's letter, and therefore, Carbondale has met this requirement Accordingly, there is no basis to delay the Planning Commission's action on the Carbondale application based on the DWR Letter. Furthermore, ULUR § 7-105.A contradicts the need for Carbondale to have Its decrees finalized as a condition of proceeding before the Planning Commission: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the applicant own or have acquired the proposed water supply or constructed the related infrastructure at the time of the application =Resolution 2010-29)." We are fully aware that before approval of any final plats for the Project, Carbondale will have to have its water rights fully decreed. Bear in mind that Carbondale does hold a decreed water court augmentation plan, Case No, 01 CW187, for 349.55 EQRs based on a water supply of 300 gpd/EQR. Pending is an application by Carbondale, Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District and BWCO for a minor amendment to that decree to Increase the supply to 350 gpd!EQR. We anticipate that we will have that case and its companion case pending In Case No. 07CW164 decreed within the next two to four weeks, mooting this issue entirety. But Carbondale strongly objects to your suggestion that the Planning Commission cannot take action on the River Edge Project without Carbondale having fully decreed water rights in hand. Thank you for considering this information and we look forward to discussing this with you further. ely, ayne , F an Cr" ------Th WFF:jc cc: Rockwood Shepard Marto Sawyer Sam Otero Lori Baker, Esq. Carey Gagnon, Esq. 13738%211555924.2 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Shannon L. Pelland Kathy A. Eastley; River Edge Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:00:20 PM River Edge.pdf Hi Kathy - I have attached a letter regarding the River Edge development. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. It seems that the dedication of a school site would be problematic due to the uncertainty about whether access approvals for a public crossing could ever be obtained. That's unfortunate for the District and the developer. Thanks for your patience. Shannon Roaring Fork School District I405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO SI60t Phone: 970.384 6000 Fax: 970.384.6005 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 40] Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms Eastley: Judy Haptonstall - Superintendent Brad Ray - Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum, instruction and Assessment Shannon Pelland - Asst. Superintendent of Business Services Thank you for the providing the School District the opportunity to comment on the River Edge Land Use Plan. Representatives of River Edge have been in contact with the District during their planning process. Tinder the District's land dedication formula, the calculation indicates that River Edge would be required to dedicate about 7.3 acres for a school site. This amount is not adequate to address the site requirements of an elementary school including building envelope, ball fields and parking, and would have required either an additional contribution of acreage by the developer, or the purchase of additional acreage by the District. The developer's initial intent was to provide all or part of a school site. That would have required the formation of a metro district since a private developer cannot apply for a public crossing of the RFTA right -of --way. Because River Edge was unable to obtain approval to form a metro district, they could not submit an application for a public crossing, nor could the School District since it is not the owner of the property. While it is possible that a site could be dedicated for a school, there are no guarantees that the District would be successful in gaining public access across the right -of way. Therefore, we believe the District's only option at this point is to accept fees in -lieu -of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with the County Regulations. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Since. e1y, Shannon Pelland Asst. Superintendent, Business Services From: Roussin, Daniel To: Kathy A. Eastley; cc: Babler, Ailsa; Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:54:22 PM 1 EXHIBIT Kathy — Thank you for the opportunity to review River Edge Colorado development on SH 82 near Cattle Creek (CR113). This development will need an access permit. At this time, CDOT hasn't done a complete reviewed the traffic study dated December 2010. The study indicates a signal in 2018 and conceptually, this would meet the Code if the access is a public road. CDOT recognizes the access to this development is closely related to the operation of the east side of CR 113. Both accesses will need to be coordinated to function as one intersection. Due to the close proximity of the frontage roads and county roads (113 &110), it will take some effort to re -align the intersections. Garfield County has made CR 113 the highest priority in the Garfield County Transportation Intersection Needs Assessment (TINA). These access issues need to be figured out prior to final development approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Traffic From: Kathy A. Eastley[mailto:keastlley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:45 AM To: Roussin, Daniel Subject: River Edge Colorado Dan, Attached are the comments received from SGM — they reviewed the proposal because of the potential impact to the intersection study which they had undertaken on behalf of the County. I'II look forward to getting comments from you next Tuesday! Thanks. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner FIRE • EMS • RESCUE August 4, 2011 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: River Edge Colorado — Emergency Vehicle Access Dear Kathy: EXHIBIT CCI 1 have reviewed the drawings for the two proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) roads for the proposed River Edge Subdivision. The south EVA would connect at the intersection of Alpine Bluff Street and High Creek Road. The north EVA would connect between Lot 1 and Lot 9 on Trailside Drive. Both EVAs would connect the subdivision to Highway 82, Table 1: "Street Design Criteria" of the Project Engineering Design Report indicates that the EVAs would have a width of 20 feet. Both the proposed location and width are acceptable. Any gates installed to control access should be in accordance with Section D103.5 "Fire apparatus road access gates" of the international Fire Code, 2009 edition, Please contact me if you have any questions or if 1 can be of any assistance. Sincerely Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 DEPARTMENT T OF NATURAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES July 1, 2011 Kathy Eastly Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W, 6T1-1 PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Ms. Eastly: john W. 1•fickenitx'per C;overnor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. , Director/State Engineer We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to create a PUD on 160 acres fora residential development to include 366 residential units of various sizes and types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a neighborhood center. In addition, the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots. The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 01CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198. Potable water will be provided either through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided. The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EORs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. Per the Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report provided in the submitted materials, it appears this requirement is based on the assumption that each EQR is equivalent to a household demand of 189 gallons per day (gpd) per single family unit, The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no. 01CW187, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption of 300 gpd per EQR. This decreed augmentation plan does not allow for the flexibility to assume a reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EQRs. To date, no other decrees providing water to the development have been adjudicated and pursuant to the decree in case no. 01CW187, the applicant is limited to less EQRs than is proposed under this application. The applicant indicated that an additional water supply will be available as soon as two pending water court cases are decreed in case nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. The applicant indicated that they expect decrees will be entered soon in these two cases; unfortunately, at this time, these pending water court cases do not serve as an adequate claim to a legal water supply. In addition, the proposed alternative physical supply for potable water diverted through a surface water intake along the Roaring Fork River and operated by the POA has not yet been decreed, but is included in the pending water court cases. Until these proposed alternate points of diversion are decreed, the applicant is limited to diverting the water through infrastructure owned and operated by Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite SlS • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3561 • Fax: 303-866-3589 http://veater.state.ro.us Kathy Eastly July 1, 2011 River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan the RFWC❑ as specified in case no. 01 CW187. The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the applicant to have direct control of said water. are decreed. The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork Fier al the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application, the applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cis from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch, The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton [Ditch are subject to the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01CW189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 — 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these ditches. In summary, there are several aspects of this water supply plan that are not yet in place. First, the source of the physical supply has yet to be confirmed. The applicant indicated that domestic water requirements for the project will either be supplied by the District or through infrastructure operated by the POA. As of the date of this letter, the applicants have neither obtained a final contract with the District acknowledging the District as the confirmed water supply source, nor have in place a water supply infrastructure plan that meets all county water use design requirements and can be supplied through a decreed alternate point of diversion. Second, while the water supply plan currently proposed in the draft decrees submitted to the water court to date indicates that there is the potential for a sufficient water supply for the subdivision as proposed in this referral, this water supply is the subject of pending decrees. The applicant indicated that they are actively pursuing resolution in the cases, however, as of the date of this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either rase no. 07CW164 or 08CW198. Without a final decree for cases no. 07CW164 or 08CW198, the proposed water supply plan for the number of EQRs in this project cannot be provided under a water court approved augmentation plan. Therefore, the State Engineer cannot find. pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office. Sincerely. t. Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MStkaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv ii.docx cc: Alan Martellara, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 3B June 30, 2011 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JUL 0 5 2011 GARFIiLD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: River Edge Dear Commissioners: Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comments. The Planning Commission discussed the application at its June 16, 2011 meeting. First, the Planning Commission discussed the fact that the Commission had submitted a letter to the County during the County Comprehensive Plan review expressing concern about the future development of the Cattle Creek area. The Planning Commission had pointed out that there is a gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between. Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and that future development in this area would likely affect both communities. The Carbondale Planning Commission suggested some type of mechanism, perhaps an Intergovernmental Agreement between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley. Unfortunately, the County did not adopt this suggestion. In the letter, the Planning Commission had also noted that the definition of an "Unincorporated Community" was an existing, large, self-contained subdivision. The Land Use Map showed the "Unincorporated Communities" boundary as an area larger than the existing developed area and it encompassed the Cattle Creek property. The Planning Commission suggested that the boundary of the "Unincorporated. Community" be revised to reflect the definition as the existing developed area and that the vacant area in Cattle Creek not be included within the boundary. This recommendation was developed from concerns that the designation would result in a new town in unincorporated Garfield County. Again, this suggestion was not adopted. If fact, the River Edge application justifies the rezoning based on the fact that the property falls within an "Unincorporated Community" on the County's land use map. At its June 16, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission questioned the community need for the development and noted that the proposed price point of the development is consistent with Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 several existing nearby developments such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition to developments already approved within the area municipalities, The Planning Commission noted that the absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and Parachute is currently about 50 units per month. If this development is approved and based on the developers expectation to build and sell 50 units per year, this single development would account for 8% of the demand for housing between Aspen and Parachute. The Planning Commission questioned if this figure was reasonable and noted that any lot sales in the proposed development would likely come at the expense of lot sales in existing subdivisions. In fact, there is concern that it would negatively affect existing jobs generated by existing developments. The Planning Commission is emphatic in its belief that an approval of the proposed development would not equate to economic development as it does not guarantee new homes starts and only represents unnecessary suburban sprawl. The Planning Commission questioned the justification in the application that the development would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is still plenty of inventory of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities which would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the municipalities. We understand the original Cattle Creek property has been subdivided into 3 parcels. If the other lots were developed, it could result in approximately 500 to 600 units. The impact of the potential development needs to be considered in a cumulative manner rather than taking a piecemeal approach. It would be difficult to endorse anything for this parcel unless there is a master plan for this area. As far as specifics of the development, the Planning Commission would like to offer the following comments: 1. The houses have been pushed as close to the boundary along the river as possible. Some additional buffering should be considered. 2. The application represents that there is clustering of residential units; however, the site plan does not reflect clustering. 3. The provision of community gardens does not meet the intent of retaining our agricultural heritage 4. The request for the waiver of the provision of public open space should be discouraged. It should also be noted there is no public access to any planned open space areas along the Roaring Fork River. 5. The application does not indicate how the connection to a water/wastewater facility would be accomplished. This should be clear prior to review of the application. Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 6. The application references a signalized intersection along Highway 82 but details on that intersection are unclear. This should be determined prior to review of the application. 7. The request to defer the provision of affordable housing units should be discouraged. S. It appears there needs to be some higher level of coordination with RFTA. 9. There is concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The lack of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the suggestions outlined in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009 and April 15, 2008. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, kiqr Jeff bier, ,son Co -Chair Planning an Zoning Commission Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 July 5, 2011 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT I Pi: Re: River Edge Dear Commissioners: Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comments. The Board of Trustee's discussed the application at its June 21, 2011 meeting, The Planning Commission discussed the application and has submitted a letter for your consideration. The Board of Trustee's would like to comment on the application and reinforce some of the points the Planning Commission submitted in its comments. As there is a gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and development in this area would likely affect both communities, the Carbondale Planning Commission suggested an Intergovernmental Agreement between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley, An IGA can be a very useful tool to provide a level of cooperation and understanding in applications that will affect Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County. Unfortunately this has not taken place. The Board strongly encourages and recommends that an IGA be developed to allow for more collaboration among and between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County as to how the Cattle Creek area may be developed in the future. Since it is unlikely that the IGA can be agreed upon quickly, the Board asks that the County make time during the River Edge land use process to allow an opportunity for cooperation between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and the County. The Board and Commission question the community need for the development. The proposed price point of the development is consistent with several existing nearby county developments such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition to developments already approved within the area municipalities. With the absorption rate at 50 units per month valley -wide, and the proposed development to take up 8° o of the demand, the loss of sales in existing Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 developments should be considered. Construction of more homes may provide for an influx of jobs for a very limited amount of time. Once the homes are built, there is no guarantee that they will be sold in a timeframe that is beneficial, thereby negating the benefit of the temporary jobs created during construction. The Board and Cornmission also question the justification in the application that the development would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is adequate inventory of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities which would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the municipalities. A development plan for the entire site will need to be reviewed, not just this one parcel as each of the three parcels will affect the surrounding areas. There is also concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The lack of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the suggestions outlined in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009 and April 15, 2008. This would include a winter closure of proposed trails and prohibiting the use of easements and buffers in the community for recreation and trails. In the not too distant past, this area was identified as "one of the most environmentally sensitive pieces of property in Garfield County." This points out the compelling need we have for an open space fund in Garfield County. Preservation through either open space dedication and/or acquisition would greatly enhance the preservation of wildlife habitat and maintain the rural and uniquely scenic character of this property, preserving it in perpetuity for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments, Sincerely, TOWN OF CARBONDALE Stacey Patch lernot Mayor Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 July 7, 2011 To: Kathy Easterly, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department EXHIBIT Re: Comments on River Edge Colorado, applicant Carbondale Investment LLC, location 113 CR, Cattle Creek and Colorado State Highway 82 The applicants did discuss this planned unit development with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District staff (CRFPD). It appears their comments address the main emergency responds needs required for this review. In reviewing the information given to me by the applicant I have a few additional comments to add to those made to the applicant by the CRFPD staff. They are the following: • I believe the codes referenced for the proposed buildings on this site will be the 2009 International Codes and amendments to them. Garfield County adopted the 2009 Building codes in 2010 and International Fire Code in the spring of 2011. The application mentions the 2003 International Fire Code as a reference. • Garfield County in 2010 adopted the 2009 International Residential Code. The adoption included section P2409 Dwelling Units Fire Sprinkler systems. This requirement is currently scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013. This section requires all one and two family homes to have fire sprinkler systems installed in them after January 1, 2013. This will require the water services to each unit to be sized properly to meet the water flow requirements for the fire sprinkler systems. • The road sizes vary and some will need to be posted with no parking signage so emergency vehicles access is not hindered by parked vehicles on them. Who will enforce the no -parking regulations, private security or the Garfield County Sherriff? • Other: What type or types of development may -be considered for the remainder of the property? Are fire flow water demands for future development being considered in the water demands for this PUD? Is emergency access to future development sites on the property being included in the plans for this PUD? If this PUD gets approval to move forward more comments will be forth coming as it goes through future planning and construction reviews. Homeowners Association in Aspen Glen, Inc. September 6, 2011 Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Kathy, The Aspen Glen Board of Directors (BOD) would like to submit this letter in reference to the River Edge development proposed just north of Aspen Glen. In preparation for this letter the BOD reviewed the submitted application and the referral Ietters submitted by the Town of Carbondale and the City of Glenwood Springs. EXHIBIT LLL The Aspen Glen BOD agrees with many of the concerns identified in all three letters. In particular the BOD supports the concept of an IGA or alternative process that encourages cooperation and dialogue between Glenwood Springs, the County and the Town of Carbondale. If appropriate, Aspen Glen would like to participate in that kind of dialogue given the infrastructure in place to support Aspen Glen such as the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District, In addition, the BOD is equally concerned that the current land use application and development analysis pertains to just about half of the total property (160 acres vs. 283 acres +/-). Although Aspen Glen is only half built out the entire property was planned and platted at once thus providing neighbors and the County a thorough review of the proposed development and complete picture of impacts and benefits. Thank you for the opportunity to provide referral comments for River Edge. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Leslie Lamont, our Design Review Administrator, with any questions or comments. Sine Art ITernm, P>tesident Aspen Glen Board of Directors 0080 Bald Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel:: (970) 963-3362 ' Far: (970) 963-4550 Lance. Luckett, Community Services Director Email.' Iancerale sopris.nei DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES September 8, 2011 Kathy Eastly Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Ms. Eastly: EXHIBIT SIJ John W. E1ickenlaoper Governor Mike king, Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director/State Engineer We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to create a PUD on 160 acres for a residential development to include 366 residential units of various sizes and types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a neighborhood center. In addition, the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for the proposed PUC by subdividing the land into 346 lots. The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 01CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198, Potable water will be provided either through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided. The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 01CW187 and proposed for amendment in pending court case no. 08CW198, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption of 350 gpd per EQR. An additional court case, case no. 07CW164, is currently pending in the Division 5 Water Court that would allow for an additional 850.45 ERQs using a 350 gpd per EQR assumption. The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application, the applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 efs from the Staton Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01 CW168 and 010W189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 — 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicants share of these ditches. Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO $0203 • Phone: 303-866-358] • Fax: 303-866-3589 1� t t p://w ater.sta te.co.us Kathy Eastly September 8, 2011 River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan As of the date of this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either case no. 07CW164 or 08CW198. The Division 5 Water Court Referee has issued a ruling in both cases and so long as no party opposes the rulings, both cases are anticipated to receive a final decree after a 20 day objection period has passed. In addition, the applicant is in the process of completing a preclusion agreement with the District that would provide adequate physical water supply to the proposed development through the utilization of the District's infrastructure. The State Engineer offers the opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1 )(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights so long as a final decree is entered in cases 07CW164 and 08CW198 that is no different from the Water Court Referee's rulings issued on August 22, 2011. In addition, so long as the applicant completes the preclusion agreement with the District that allows for the utilization of the District's infrastructure, this office finds that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office. Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MStkaafRiver Edge PUD and Subdiv iv,docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45 CONSF RVANCY flanging J'ruplr Togithar JD t'roierl Our Rum BOARD (IF t?IRIIC IY116 Diane Schwener President Stephen FElcp ratan l i�r Pre<i,ient I'saur+en 1%1,119 l'aal (%mels 1 .a;uecr C arter Bruukcher Andrew light Jim Light Rick l.otarn FrcYartiieClu rector 1 a.0ui,.11ever Rick tieiley reri (Damn ha /son Icnrtiter iauer Lara- Yaw PR:B R.A11 STAFF Rick l,ofaro Eretartite Director ('claire Britt ()nice Manager Sharott (.larks Land & Water Conservation Spe'uafist Sarah Johnson EEdur.ation Coordinator Tint 11'Keete dua3tion Director (Arad Rudnts W.iler Chtality Coordinator Sarah Lt'ooc3s llirc+cror of -Philanthropy EXHIBIT September 8, 2011 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning 108 81h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: River Edge Colorado Dear Kathy: As you know from our prior communications, we have grave concerns about the impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Easement and the Conservation Values. We will address those concerns in more detail once we have had an opportunity to fully review the River Edge PUD Application. While the Conservancy has no intention of obstructing or delaying the submission of River Edge's application, we cannot at this point in time confirm that the plans and activities described in the PUD Application are consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Easement. While we understand that the PUD Application does not request subdivision approval and thus lacks detail regarding many aspects of the proposal, there are conditions set out in the Grant of Conservation Easement with which River Edge has not yet complied. From our limited review of the application, it does not appear that River Edge has provided us with the plans and specifications for screening, planting, vegetation activities and construction processes as required by Section 5.3 of the Grant of Conservation Easement, If in fact this information is contained within the PUD Application, 1 would appreciate it if you could point out where it is located as the application is voluminous. One matter of particular concern to the Conservancy is the fact that the application does not appear to provide specific proposals for how :the Conservation Values of the Easement will be protected from the massive development proposed. This is an issue that we have raised repeatedly with the applicant. Given the scope of the proposed development, we feel it is incumbent upon River Edge to propose specific measures to protect the Conversation Values, the heron nesting areas and the overall integrity of the Easem nt. Additionally, we are concerned that this application is for some of the lad adjacent to r Easement. If the other adjacent land is developed, there could be cumulative I` P.O. Box 3349 Basalt, Colorado 81621 1970.927.1290 1 www.roaringfork.org effects to the easement that we cannot address without seeing the plan for the entire property. Two sizable out parcels greater than 35 acres were carved out and are not part of this application. We have been told by a River Edge representative that these out parcels will most likely consist of a school, commercial development and high density multi -family land uses. These parcels will most likely be sold to third parties. We will then be faced with working with multiple parties. We believe that River Edge should have been required to provide a PUD plan or Master Plan for the entire 280 Acres. This will only complicate our involvement and review. At the time Roaring Fork Conservancy accepted the conservation easement granted by Sanders Ranch in 2000, the proposed number of units was less than 300 for the entire property. As several applications have been submitted for the same property, the number of units has increased significantly, without addressing issues and concerns we have for protecting the conservation values of the easement. We have not seen detailed drainage and on site wastewater treatment plans, nor have we seen any plans to limit and control human traffic into the conservation easement. We request a detailed explanation of how River Edge proposes to protect the Conservation Values given the proposed increase in density and number of residents or have them point out to us where this information is included in the application, it would he helpful in our review of their proposal. Very truly yours, Rick Lofaro, Executive Director ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY From: barkingmoon@sopris.net To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River's Edge Date: Monday, September 12, 2011 7:55:38 PM To whom it may concern: The River's Edge development affects thousands of commuters a day who travel Highway 82. Under no circumstances should a development be approved with any type of traffic signal on highway 82 at Cattle Creek. I have traveled this section of road for 20 years starting when there were no traffic lights from Walmart to Carbondale. Now there are 3 unsynched signals that change on a whim causing seasoned drivers to react radically. This is not merely an inconvenience or just a waste of increasingly expensive gasoline. The road known as "killer 82" seems only more dangerous as the number of signals increases on a raceway filled with aggressive drivers bent on beating the other to the next stoplight, only to be thwarted by slower trucks hogging the left lane. I reside just a few hundred yards from Cattle Creek Road so I have a vested interest in this project. Please, no matter how large the development proposal is, insist that improvements to the highway must include access ramps and a bridge but absolutely NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CATTLE CREEK ROAD. Future proposals will come and go for this vast acreage and building the access plan to which I am referring is forward thinking especially since there is so much space (privately held) on the river side (SE) of the highway at Cattle Creek. Yes we are in a recession, but CDOT/Washington may help fund a minor portion of this. However, one other way might work. If all traffic to the development is routed to the existing CMC traffic signal (aka "Thunder River Market" or county road 114) and the intersection of 82 and 114 were improved for the increased traffic, this may alleviate funding issues and improve traffic flow. If this plan were to pass, an emergency only access port would need to be installed at Cattle Creek and 82 and acceleration lanes in both directions, but no new stoplight. I would also suggest enough space be left at the intersection by the developer for future access ramps. Please do not let the South of Glenwood become another El Jebel, and insist, "No more stop lights!" Mark VonderHaar Brownstein 1 Hyatt Farber 1 Schreck Memorandum DATE: September 12, 2011 TO: Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner COPY TO: Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney Fred Jarman, Director Building & Planning Department FROM: Lari R. Baker Wayne Forman EXHIBIT '\#I\ RE: Requested Changes to Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval for River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado On behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC (the "'Applicant"), this memorandum is provided to request your consideration of changes to some of the conditions of approval recommended in Section IX of your staff report dated September 14, 2011. Itis our hope that we can reach agreement on most of these conditions ahead of the Planning Commission hearing this Wednesday. To this end, we are available at your convenience to discuss. For your ease of review, a redline showing the Applicant's proposed changes is provided below. Provided under each revised condition is an explanation of the Applicant's reasons for the requested change, As you will see, the proposed changes are in large part non -substantive and generally seek to clarify the applicable standards. In addition to changes identified in the redline, the Applicant requests that Conditions 11.a and 11.b and Condition 13 be deleted if such conditions are satisfied prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the PUD Plan and Preliminary Plan for the River Edge Colorado project. Lastly, we would appreciate your confirmation that you did not intend by proposing these conditions to suggest that the various plans and standards included as part of the PUD and Preliminary Plan Application do not adequately address the matters raised by the conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration. 137381111584260.2 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning Commission consider a recommendation of approval the following conditions are provided for discussion and may or may not include a full list of staff recommended conditions of approval: 1, That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. three (3) years, unless exte_nded in accordance with the ULUR, Reason for change: The ULUR provides that "[u]nless otherwise provided by [the ULUR] or stated in action approving a land use change application, the decision to approve or conditionally approve the land use change shall be valid for a period of one year, to complete all conditions of approval." See ULUR § 4-103.G.8 (emphasis added). For the reasons set forth herein, the Applicant requests that the staff and Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") that the Preliminary Plan remain valid for three (3) years. First, several of the conditions of approval recommended by staff will take longer than one (1) year to complete. In addition, the timing of completion of these conditions are not completely under the control of the Applicant. For example, obtaining an access permit from CDOT and, if required by state law, a license from the PUC likely will take approximately two (2) years. Similarly, reclamation of the project site and completion of the required geotechnical work will take between two (2) and three (3) years. This is particularly true given that proper geotechnical evaluation requires that soils settle for at least one (1) year subsequent to reclamation. In light of the foregoing, the earliest a first final plat can be expected to be filed would be 3 years following approval of the Preliminary Plan. Given the timeframes described herein and the significant financial investment that the Applicant will incur in advance of final plat to satisfy these conditions, it is reasonable and appropriate for the Board to grant approval of a three-year expiration period for the Applicant's Preliminary Plan. 3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366 units. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based upon the approval and copies provided to Building & Planning. These documents shall be attached to the resolutions associated with these applications. 5. The - _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ .. Applicant and County shall enter into a development agreement approved by the 2 1373811 11584260 2 Garfield County Attorney Off Ge-setts—Board of County Conlmissionerts. Reason for change: The Applicant acknowledges that the final terms of the development agreement will be negotiated with the County Attorneys' Office. The proposed language change simply clarifies that final approval of the development agreement rests with the Board. Grading Activity / Reclamation a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on- site activity related to Phase 0; b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit; c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SNAP) and Notice to proceed has been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); Vegetation a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC property as well as the, which pian shall minimize to the greatest extent practicable the spread of noxious weeds to the adjacent Conservation Easement parcel. In addition, only if agreed to by the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the management plan shall also provide for the management of noxious weeds on the Conservation Easement parcel; Reason for change: The Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) is the grantee under the Conservation Easement and, therefore, must consent to any management plan imposed on the Conservation Easement parcel. While the Applicant can use good faith efforts to reach agreement with the RFC on a management plan for the Conservation Easement parcel, failure to reach such agreement should not hinder the Applicant's ability to proceed with final plat. b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5% requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County concurs regarding all noxious weeds. c. County Vegetation shall be consulted regarding the calculation of revegetation security. 8. Geology The Applicant shall comply with ailthe recommendations contained within the rr po sof ho � - • gin e''r-.R.+- " . . -es ee♦G Survey, including the following:Geotechnical Enginkeriacamort submitted 3 137381111584260 2 for the project, as such recommendations m.y be amended through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below. The geotechnical engineer evaluating.he site shall consider the _recommendations provided by the Colorado Geological 'Survey, a. •=t• - - - - approval of the firstDetailed geotechnical investigations shallbe provided as part of the final design submitted for each final plat and prior to affythe commencement of construction commencing on the site. Detailed cost on the site; provided, however, that detailed gegteehnicaj investigations for pre -development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, which activities shall be conducted as part_ of obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates should be included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements. Reason for change: The Applicant agrees that detailed geotechnical evaluations should be used to guide final design in association with all final plats. However, the geotechnical investigations performed to date should be considered preliminary analysis for the purposes of planning and preliminary design. As such, the current report, including the recommendations of the CGS, should be used to inform further analysis rather than dictate final design actions. Detailed geotechnical investigations will be undertaken in association with the final design to support development of each final plat. b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit. c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. Verification-efThe Applicant shall provide necessary m'tigation where further geotechnical investigations reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or - developmay lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for providing alternate temporary access. "Critical road subsidence would eliminate access to Tots within the River Edge 13738\111584266.2 Colorado project. Reason for change: The Applicant agrees that mitigation needs to be undertaken in accordance with the submitted Hazards Mitigation Plan. The proposed language clarifies that (i) mitigation must occur where geotechnical investigations reveal the potential for failure of critical road sections and (ii) providing alternative routes is one mitigation option. d. If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the County-fer review. 4 An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at each level of excavation and at feast one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a 0. .... . -i*Gutlet. Reason for change: Gravity drains may not always be the most appropriate or best way to move water to nearby drainage structures or facilities. The Applicant proposes that the method of draining the underdrain system be determined on a site -by -site basis based on the location of drainage facilities and the design engineer's judgment. The Applicant also proposes eliminating the option for drywells since they could exacerbate the problem. f. Cut Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post averlotlmass grading as applicable, cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not g. exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to 10'' in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap. Reason for change: The previous language could be construed to not allow roads or homes to be placed in areas of the property filled with more than 10 feet of fill. As noted on the ITEC plans, many areas will receive substantial fill either during reclamation or during overlotlmass grading of the site. The fill will be placed in appropriately designed lifts and compacted to support foundations. Appropriate geotechnical evaluations would be completed as part of the fill placement activities. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains shall discharge-we4lbe discharged a m nim.0 of 10 feet beyond the _limits of all backfill -a sl -land ea e irrigation shall be restricted, Drywells may be utilized._ Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accarslance with the provisions of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to ensure water application rates do not generally exceed evApotransporation ra,1e. 13738\111584260.2 Reason for change: The language proposed by staff is vague (e.g., "well beyond") The Applicant proposes to clarify in this condition that the standards for irrigation systems within the project shall be those set forth in the PUD Application. Such standards limit landscape types to 5 low water use types and irrigation activities to match evapotransporation rates. A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of h tnach final plat; to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed-. Where fill placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with any final plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of final plat application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities, a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County for review prior to paving; succi report shall demonstrate that the fill will achieve the pavement design objectives in the pavement design report subrn (.ted with the PUD An icati� k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain Type I/O portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium aluminate). 9. Wildlife The Applicant shall comply with ally recommendations contained within the reports of tilts consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following: a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the lighting plan submittedas part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spacesbeyond-the-building envelope areas is sternly discouragedexcent that required around buildings in accordant with safety re uirements is not permitted. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the roadsides in areas where headlights form from vehicles ellur' illuminate open space areas. Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to clarify in this condition that the lighting standards applicable to the project shall be those set forth in the PUD Application. Such standards incorporate the recommendations of the consulting wildlife biologist and CDOW. If staff feels that specific recommendations need to be more adequately addressed, the Applicant requests that staff identify such matters for the Applicant's consideration. b. Road --Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82, cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local 13738\111584260,2 native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application. Reason for change: The Applicant seeks to clarify the retaining 6 wall exception. c. Trails within REG and continuous open space areas should be closed during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or dog parks, should be on a leash year-round. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors. e. Open spaee-areasSpace Tracts are used as winter range :e winter range therefore, reclamation will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general conformance with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans submitted with jhe_P_MAQ12l cation. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds should be treated bi- annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range. Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to use the term "Open Space Tracts" instead of "open space areas" since the former is defined in the PUD Application. Also, the Applicant proposes to delete reference to "severe" winter range since severe winter range has not been identified within the property. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during the winter months, loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be prohibited. g. Adequate stormwater-runoff measures related -to -protection-of-Cattle Greek andDevelopment of the Rea Fork River need to be implemented to reduce the -River Edge Colorado project shall generailyt comply with the Erosion Control and Sediment Contrfl Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed with each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from developed areaarea_s reaching these waterwa-ysCattle Creek and the Roaring /Park Ricer, Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to clarify in this condition that the stormwater management standards applicable to the project shall be those set forth in the Erosion Control and Sediment Control Plan included with the PUD Application. h. All utilities shall be buried. 10. Access and Roadways a. Prior to-issuaa ce ra4+r}g-permit orUpon submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall submit an executed State Highway 7 13738\1\1584264.2 Access Permit and Notice to Proceed to the Building and Planning Department. Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to delete reference to issuance of a grading permit because construction access for grading already is addressed under Condition 6c. . e.- ...-e - e . b. ing permit or If required by state la , pop submittal of the firs tech Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Reason for change: The Applicant seeks to clarify that it will obtain a crossing license only if required to do so under state law. c. Prior to #c,uance of a grading-permi1 or .undertaking the construction of the grade -separated trail crossing or upon submittal of the first Finat-Platfinal plat} the Applicant shall provide documentation from Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the allowance to relooateRFTA's approvai_of the design for grade separating the Rio Grande Trail. If construction collateral is not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County Improvements Agreement. Reason for change: The Applicant proposes this language to provide with more specificity its obligation to provide for RFTA approval design plans for the grade -separated trail. The- ' - e _ .• . - - - e -sign vehicle minimum of either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to delete this condition because the alley design set forth in Appendix 8 of the PUD Guide satisfies this requirement. 11. Water a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No. 08CW198. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre -inclusion agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to the River Edge Colorado development. 12. Final Plat Requirements 13738\1\15842602 8 a. The Applicant shal those requircmc lot requirements in addition to d use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR); b. The Applicant shalfdeli atte and legaU esoribe all easements -on the final plat and convey all easements to tine rosponsible entity. This cledieattcn-shat ;min ry acceptable to the County Atterney"s Office easements o ►ail ine ude7Put-are-not-limited-to-a-H-easements- seri, utility easements, drainage easements, water system easements, $asements- r�,i tari� s required as a part of this development; c. Reason for change: The Applicant proposes to delete these conditions because they are unnecessary. The Applicant already is subject to the County's final plat requirements as set forth in the ULUR, which requirements include requirements for identifying and dedicating easements. See ULUR § 5-502.C.5. a. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes. shall include the following: i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development. These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no special foundation design is necessary. 13. At the time of submittal for the first final plat, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the pre -inclusion agreement for the development to be served water and sanitation services by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District; 14. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee -in -lieu payment of school land dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee -in lieu will be required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision; 15. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 9 13738\1 \1584260.2 REVISED CONDITIONS SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. Staff Comment: The Applicant requests that the Preliminary Plan be valid for a period of three (3) years. The ULUR does contain a process that allows for extensions of the Preliminary Plan as it has been past practice to approve these plans for a period of one year. 3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366 dwelling units. 4. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based upon the approval granted by the Board of County Commissioners and copies provided to Building & Planning. These documents shall be attached to the resolutions associated with these applications. 5. The Development Agreement shall be finalized based upon Garfield County Attorney Office and Board of County Commissioner comments. Staff Comment: The Applicant has requested that this language be amended to: "The Applicant and County shall enter into a development agreement approved by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners," Staff has no issue with this amended language however a timeframe for completion of this should be stipulated in the condition. Potential language could be the inclusion of "which shall be recorded in conjunction with the resolution(s) associated with these applications." 6. Grading Activity / Reclamation a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-site activity related to Phase 0; b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit; c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SNAP) and Notice to Proceed has been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); Vegetation a, Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat, whichever shall come first, the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC property well as on the Conservation Easement parcel if agreed to by the Roaring Fork Conservancy; Staff Comment: The Applicant has requested addition of language regarding 1 the prevention of spread of noxious weeds to the adjacent property however the intent of the condition is to require a weed management plan for the subject site as well as to prevent noxious weeds from impacting the adjacent property. Staff does not agree to the additional language suggested by the Applicant. b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5% requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County concurs regarding all noxious weeds. c. County Vegetation Management Director shall be consulted regarding the calculation of revegetation security. 8. Geology The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Engineering Report submitted for the project, as such recommendations may be amended through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below. The geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the recommendations provided by the Colorado Geological Survey. a. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be provided as part of the final design submitted for each final plat and prior to the commencement of construction on the site; provided, however, that detailed geotechnical investigations for pre - development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, which activities shall be conducted as part of obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates shall be included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements. b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit. c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. The Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation where further geotechnical investigations reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections may lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for alternate temporary access. "Critical road sections" are those road sections which if damaged by subsidence would eliminate access to lots within the REC project. d. If an agreement is reached with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the County. e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at each levet of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade. f. Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlottmass grading, as applicable, cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to 10" in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap. 2 g• The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. i. Roof downspouts and drains will be discharged a minimum of ten feet beyond the limits of all backfill. Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the. provision of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to ensure water application rated to not generally exceed evapatransporation rates. J. A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of each final plat - to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Where fill placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with nay final plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of the final plat application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities, a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County for review prior to paving; such report shall demonstrate that the fill will achieve the pavement design objectives in the pavement design report submitted with the PUD Application. k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain Type 1/11 portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium aluminate). Staff Comments: Staff has made the requested changes to the conditions based upon comment from the Applicant. 9. Wildlife The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the reports of its consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following: a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the lighting plan submitted as part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces except that required around building in accordance with safety requirements is not permitted. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas. b. Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82, cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application.. c. Trails within RPC and continuous open space areas shall be closed by the Property Owners Association during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or dog parks, should be on a leash year-round. d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors. 3 e. Open Space Tracts are used as winter range; therefore, reclamation will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general conformance with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans submitted with the PUD Application. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range. g. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during the winter months; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be prohibited. Development of the REC project shall generally comply with the Erosion Control and Sediment Control Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed with each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment form developed areas from reaching Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation pu rposes. h. All utilities shall be buried. Staff Comments: Revisions requested by the Applicant have been completed. 10. Access and Roadways a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), if required by state law. Staff Comments: The original condition a. has been deleted as requirement for SNAP occurs in other conditions of approval. The Applicant has requested amendment to the above condition regarding compliance with PUC requirements that Staff is uncomfortable with, however the addition of language regarding compliance with state law occurs at the end of the condition. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shalt provide documentation from Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the acceptance of construction to grade separate the Rio Grande Trail in the vicinity of the project entrance. If construction collateral is not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County Improvements Agreement. Staff Comments: The Applicant requests substantial modification of this condition, particularly the timing for this improvement. Staff has modified the conditions regarding RFTA approval but has not amended the timing for the grade -separation as it has been staff understanding from the Applicant that safety considerations would require grade separation prior to reclamation activities on the site. 4 c. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck This condition is a recommendation of the reviewing engineer and will assure that these large vehicles will be able to access the alleys within the REC project. Staff does not agree with the Applicants' requested deletion of this condition. 11. Water a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No. 08CW198. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre - inclusion agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to the River Edge Colorado development. 12. Final Plat Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the following final plat requirements in addition to those requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR). a. The Applicant shall provide the following information as submittal requirements with the first final plat application: i. An Improvements Agreement; ii. Demonstration of formation of the Property Owner's Association; iii. Draft deeds for conveyance of improvements, facilities or real property from the Applicant to the POA; iv, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (OCR's) applicable to the development. b. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following: i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development. These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no special foundation design is necessary. 13. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee -in -lieu payment of school land dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee -in lieu will be required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision; 14. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 5