HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.14.2018Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits
Flying M Ranch Subdivision and PUD Sketch Plan
(Eastbank)
February 14, 2018
Exhibit
Number
Exhibit
1
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended
2
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030
3
Referral Comments from Michael Prehm of the Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department (dated January 10, 2018)
4
Land Use Change Permit for a Vehicle Repair Facility (dated September 15, 2016)
5
Land Use Change Permit for a Veterinary Clinic (dated September 15, 2016)
6
Plat for Eastbank Minor Subdivision
7
Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (dated January 26, 2018)
8
Referral Comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management (dated January
31, 2018)
9
/
Referral Comments from Garfield County Environmental Health (dated February
6, 2018)
10
Referral Comments from the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District (dated
February 7, 2018)
11
Erwrc:,J f74,M \ r'FF el, GI 6,y tiL c4 (dila ! e6r t3, ze)is)
12
,47p/,'ctr,/. Pf es,jl'f r' , Ni4 pc z - / L/ -/F
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PC February 14, 2018
DP
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
WATER/SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Preliminary Plan and PUD Sketch Plan
Eastbank, LLC
Chad Lee, Esq., Balcomb and Green, P.C.
Approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of
Glenwood Springs off County Road 154 and known
as Parcel Number 218535415002 (Eastbank Minor
Subdivision, Lot 2), and Parcel Number
218535315003 (Eastbank Minor Subdivision Lot 3).
Lot 2 is known as 3927 County Rd 154, Glenwood
Springs 81601, while Lot 3 is unaddressed.
Lot 2 of Eastbank Minor Sub - ±16.983 acres
Lot 3 of Eastbank Minor Sub - ±16.944 acres
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
County Road 154 / Highway 82
Rural
Rural, Residential Suburban
City of Glenwood Springs - Urban Growth Area
(UGA).
I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
A. General Property Description
The property is approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs off County Road
154. The proposed primary access point is to be located off the County Road 154 and the County
Road 154 / Highway 82 intersection.
Properties to the north include the Riverview School, Orison Distributing, FedEx distribution
facility, an auto repair shop, and a veterinary clinic. Properties to the west and south include the
Roaring Fork River, agriculture, residential, and a golf course. Properties to the east include
Highway 82, the Rio Grande Trail, a contractor's yard, and an engineering office. The Application
includes the following description of the property and surrounding area.
This site is a portion of a former gravel quarry that was mined in the mid 1980's
through the mid 1990's. This property is contiguous to an adjoining FedEx
distribution facility and the new RFSD PK -8 Riverview School. The Orrison
Distribution Center and L & Y Jammaron Family LLLP property reside to the north,
the Roaring Fork River, Structural Associates and Westbank Neighborhood reside
to the south, Highway 82 and County Road 154 and the Rio Grande Trail reside to
the east, and Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split Parcel 2B is located to the west.
1
PC February 14, 2018
DP
The property is accessed from Flying M Ranch Road and County Road 154 from
a controlled access intersection at Colorado State Highway 82. The site can also
be accessed by pedestrians and bikers from the Rio Grande Trail via County Road
154 and Flying M Ranch Road. In the future Preliminary Plan/PUD Application the
Applicant will provide a traffic analysis to address County Road 154 and State
Highway 82 access issues.
Vicinity Map
Glenwood Springs
Sp'ngs
Highway 82
163
I cees' 4
Fotoo Subject Parcels
..r-
lea k i re..i
CR 154
solo
Elk Springs
Su fight Mw
Wes[+ank Ranclr
Westhank
lynch
slap \/�1 _ _IverR
gg.
B. Property History
Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision (See Exhibit 6) comprise the parcels to be
included within the proposed subdivision and PUD. Lot 2 and 3 were created in 2015 by the
Eastbank Minor Subdivision. Within Lot 2, two Land Use Change Permits were issued on the
parcel in 2016 — one for a vehicle repair facility and one for a veterinary clinic (See Exhibits 4 and
5).
2
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Approved Eastbank Minor Subdivision Plat
MOW
J 11110,7000..../.4
. •••••••••di rek al.001:•• 3,011w
al'Zi7NZA). "7.11.12 woka......,1
;•-• M11/11103
6:rnorK.Z."11/...re, ertilurVD
.049, it:WM WWI
101VOLirell
• 41, .00
le 1,4N, ro-.14.1
3
PC February 14, 2018
DP
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PUD AMENDMENTS
The owner of the properties, Eastbank, LLC, was approved to create Lots 2 and 3 through the
Minor Subdivision process in 2015. The zoning of the property is currently Rural. As an overview,
the Applicant is proposing to subdivide Lots 2 (16.983 acres) and 3 (16.944 acres) into 10 Lots
via a Major Subdivision process and establish Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning across
the 10 parcels. The 10 parcels and PUD would adjoin the Roaring Fork School District Riverview
School. The proposed uses include a Business Park, Eco -Efficiency Homes, Multi -Family
Residential (Residential Lofts, Assisted Living Facility, Hospice of the Valley, and Independent
Living), Community Service Facility, Open Space, and Access / Parking / Utilities. Access is to be
via County Road 154. Utilities are proposed to potentially be served by Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District.
The Application includes the following description of the request.
The Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Application is proposed for Lots 2 and 3 of
the previously platted Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision. Lot 2 (Garfield County
Parcel 218535415002) is approximately 16.983 acres in size and Lot 3 (Garfield
County Parcel 218535315003) is approximately 16.944 acres in size. This 33.927
area will be subdivided into 10 lots via the Major Subdivision Application and
review process. Subsequently, the Applicant plans to combine a Planned Unit
Development and Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application after review of
this Sketch Plan Application. This Application will allow Garfield County
Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission provide feedback on
both the Subdivision and conceptual parameters of the Planned Unit Development
before preparing detailed engineering and reports...
Proposed uses within the Flying M Rach Subdivision include expansion of an
existing business park, eco -efficiency homes, residential lofts, and opportunities
for a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) with a variety of multi -family
unit types. The attached Sketch Plan Map includes concept illustrations for the 10
proposed parcels and the uses proposed within them. The following is a summary
of these potential land uses for this project:
Parcel A - 4.28 Acres
Business Park
Parcel A is a proposed 4.28 -acre parcel that consists of two existing
businesses with additional proposed business uses. These proposed uses
include an additional 20,000-25,000 SF of business space that may
include, but not be limited to, a veterinary clinic, professional offices,
retail/wholesale businesses, service businesses, vehicle and equipment
businesses, fabrication businesses, storage facilities, park and ride,
recycling facilities, and accessory uses.
Parcel B - 6.93 Acres
Eco -Efficiency Homes
Parcel B is a proposed 6.93 -acre parcel that will consist of small two/three
bedroom homes with parking and small storage sheds at a density of 5-6
residential units/acre. These small detached single-family homes will be
4
PC February 14, 2018
DP
built using eco -friendly building materials and solar panels, and high
efficiency plumbing fixtures, lighting, heating, cooling, appliances,
insulation and glazing. Gardens and recycling will also be a community
focus with a public community path along the Roaring Fork River.
Parcels C1, C2, & C3 - 5.55 Acres
Residential Multi -Family / Residential Lofts
Proposed Parcels C1, C2, and C3 will consist of multi -family residences at
an overall Parcel C density of 10-12 residential units/acre. As a concept,
these residential structures will include underground parking, surface guest
parking, and elevator access. These multi -family units could range from
small studios to larger three-bedroom units. The loft units will offer a
contemporary design of one level living with riverfront views and river
access via a public community path.
Parcel D - 4.19 Acres
Community Service Facility - Hospice of the Valley
HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley is a locally -based, non-profit provider
of services that prevent and relieve suffering, restore dignity and provide
comfort for those living with a life -limiting disease. The proposed Hospice
of the Valley facility will consist of approximately 26,500 SF of patient and
support space, 8,500 SF of administration space, 5,000 SF of mechanical
and storage space, and surface parking for clients and guests.
Parcel E - 2.87 Acres
Multi -Family Residential — Potential Assisted Living Facility
Conceptually, the multi -family residential facility will offer a variety of
residential options for seniors who require various levels of care. Services
provided to residents could range from communal housing and social
activities to medical assistance and intervention. This potential facility will
consist of approximately 25,000 SF of living units, approximately 7,500 SF
of administration and support, and 5,000 SF of mechanical/storage with
potential underground parking and additional resident/guest surface
parking.
Parcel F - 4.8 Acres
Multi -Family Residential - Independent Living Patio Homes
These patio homes will provide easily accessible outdoor spaces with
comfortable floor plans and access to amenities such as transportation and
dining within the Flying M Ranch community at a density of 5-6 residential
units/acre. The concept includes opportunities for two/three bedroom one-
story homes with garage and driveway parking spaces and additional guest
surface parking. The multi -family patio homes will be linked to the
remaining Flying M Ranch PUD via a river path overlooking the Roaring
Fork River and the agricultural lands below.
5
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Parcel G - 2.83 Acres
Hillside Open Space
Parcel G is a hillside open space parcel that provides a natural buffer
between the Flying M Ranch PUD and the Flying M Ranch agricultural
parcel below.
Parcel H- 2.46 Acres
Access/Parking/Utilities
Parcel H is an access/parking/utility parcel that provides a corridor for
access, parking, and utilities for the Flying M Ranch Subdivision parcels.
Portions of this parcel contain an access/utility easement to the new
Riverview Elementary/Middle School and may also contain pedestrian
paths with parking.
Each of the represented uses will be located on their own parcel and a
corresponding zone district for each parcel will be developed within the future
Planned Unit Development. At the time of Preliminary Plan, the uses identified
within each of the PUD zone districts and subdivision will be analyzed based on
their compliance with the review standards identified in Division 7, Sections 1-4.
The Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Sketch Plan Application also illustrates an
amendment to Lot 3 of the Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision and the adjoining 35+
acre Roaring Fork School District Riverview School Parcel. Approximately .55
acres of land will be exchanged between Lot 3 and the RFSD parcel in order to
locate Flying M Ranch Road entirely on Eastbank property. Each parcel will remain
the same size after the lot line between the two parcels is adjusted on either side
of Flying M Ranch Road. The Amended Final Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment
will be completed prior to submittal of the Planned Unit Development and
Preliminary Plan for the Major Subdivision.
Affordable housing requirements as outlined in Article 8 of the LUDC are applicable
to any subdivision proposing 15 or more lots. As this development is creating 10
lots, these standards are not applicable. This project will however focus on a
diversity of housing types to promote residential living opportunities for senior
citizens, eco -efficiency attainable workforce housing opportunities, and service
and living opportunities provided by Hospice of the Valley.
While the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) only identifies the Sketch Plan process for
Major Subdivisions, in order provide the Planning Commission and Staff with the full scope of the
project, the Applicant was encouraged to include information regarding the proposed PUD with
this Sketch Plan application. It is worth noting that the Sketch Plan process is an optional process
that allows the Applicant to obtain feedback from Staff and the Planning Commission prior to
submitting the Preliminary Plan. The comments provided by Staff and the Planning Commission
as a result of this process are non-binding and no vested rights will be established as a result of
this Sketch Plan application.
6
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Proposed Sketch Subdivision and PUD Map
7
PC February 14, 2018
DP
III. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The Subdivision Sketch Plan and PUD 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. As noted
previously, as this application is for a Sketch Plan and preliminary review of the PUD, the
comments from referral agencies as well as Staff and the Planning Commission are non-binding.
a. Garfield County Road and Bridge: (Exhibit 3)
- Noted that "it is not clear if Parcel B (Manufactured Home Park) will be accessing County
Road 154 directly or use the Flying M Ranch Road. It would be our recommendation to
only use the Flying M Ranch Road to access Parcel B. With the additional traffic,
improvements to the County Road 154 and Hwy 82 intersection may need to be
considered."
b. Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit 8)
- CPW provided the following comments regarding the application.
The applicant has provided an Ecological Assessment of Eastbank
that was done for a prior review in 2015.
It is not a comprehensive weed management plan, map and inventory, but
there is an enough information in there to know that there is a Russian -
olive and Scotch thistle problem on the site.
For the next step in the process, staff recommends a treatment plan that
will address Russian -olive removal and thistle management.
For revegetation purposes, staff requests that the applicant quantify the
surface area to be disturbed, in acres, for road shoulders (not the actual
road), utility easements, and common areas, and utility disturbances. This
information will help determine if a revegetation security is necessary.
We'd like to review the proposed seed mixes as well.
c. Garfield County Environmental Health: (Exhibit 9)
- Garfield County Environmental Health provided the following comments regarding the
application.
1. Built Environment: We fully support the concept outlined by the
developer of a path along the Roaring Fork River that allow for an outdoor
experience and connectedness within the community. In addition, the
developer and the Planning Commission should consider a bike path or at
least sidewalk access for this community and the Riverview School to the
Rio Grande Bike path near the intersection of County Road 154 and
Highway 82. This will allow for safe use of "active transportation" to
Glenwood Springs and Carbondale.
2. Water quality impacts: As the application acknowledges, this
development is in very close proximity to the Roaring Fork River.
Neighborhood design should account for this and maintain the regulatory
8
PC February 14, 2018
DP
35 -foot setback from the river. Stormwater management and other designs
to prevent runoff of pollutants into the river, or its alluvium, should be
optimized as well.
3. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Public Health supports the
concept of "Eco -Efficiency Homes" planned for the development and
encourages the use of energy efficiency measures in the other buildings
planned for the subdivision as well.
4. Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC): while not currently required
by Garfield County's building code, it is recommended that the proposed
homes and buildings be constructed using radon resistant new
construction (RRNC) standards. This can represent a significant cost -
savings to the owner over installation of a mitigation system after the home
is built. The homes should be tested for radon after construction is
complete, at which time a fan can be added if elevated radon levels are
present. Free radon test kits are available at Garfield County Public Health
offices.
d. Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District: (Exhibit 10)
Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District provided the following comments.
The main issue at this time will be for the applicant to develop a second
access out of the PUD when the residential units start to be constructed on
Parcels C-1, 2, 3, E and F. This could be a, loop road that connects the
road through Parcel F to the dirt road on the north side of the school
property that ends at the north side of the parking lot by the ball field. The
surface on this road shall be one that is plow -able in winter and mud free
in spring, summer and fall. This road will need to be in place when the
residential units start construction. In the more distant future this road
should connect to new proposed extension of CR 154 to Orrison
Distributing.
In my conversation with Dan Denison from High Country Engineering and
Doug Pratte with Land Studio this morning (2/7/18) the 1st phase of
buildings will be on Parcel B and Parcel D. For these building they can
make a code compliant emergency vehicle turn -around at the end of the
road that will service the Parcel D building.
Some concerns we have about Parcel B(eco-efficiency homes) is the home
density, adequate off street parking so the two main ingress/egress roads
do not get blocked and who will enforce the no on street parking. The roads
in this parcel shall be sign NO PARKING OR STANDING AT ANYTIME.
If this project moves past the sketch plan stage into the development phase
we will comment on fire flow water needs, sprinklering of buildings, fire
hydrant location and number needed etc.
e. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW): (Exhibit 7'
- CPW provided the following comments regarding the application.
9
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the application materials
for the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision. The subject area has been
degraded by previous use and has limited wildlife habitat value.
Seasonally, each winter a group of elk had used the upland area of
sagebrush prior to the construction of the Riverview' School, but that use
has since diminished. Mule deer use the overall property year-round.
Overall, due to the degraded habitat on the property, existing disturbance
and development surrounding and adjacent to the property, the proposed
development may have some affect on individual animals, but will likely
have minimal impacts to wildlife populations. There is potential for general
human/wildlife conflicts and some impacts to wildlife; therefore, CPW offers
the following recommendations:
1. Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary,
while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter
fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards.
2. Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the
river. It is recommended that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage
containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured.
3. Work with CPW on trail design near the river and work to actively
enhance riparian vegetation.
No comments were received from the following agencies:
a. Garfield County Emergency Management
b. Garfield County Sheriff
c. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
d. City of Glenwood Springs
e. RE -1 School District
IV. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Garfield County has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Development Review with
the City of Glenwood Springs as signed on May 7th, 2001 (Reception number 580572).
Consistent with the IGA, County staff referred the initial application to the City to receive
comments. No comments from the City of Glenwood Springs were received, however.
As the subject property is within the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area, the
County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 defers to the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive
Plan of 2011 for guidance. Excerpts from the Land Use Description Section Chapter 2
and Chapter 3 - Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination, as
well as the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 are provided below.
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
Chapter 2 — Growth in Urban Growth Areas
10
PC February 14, 2018
DP
The Plan recognizes the need for existing municipalities to be able to gradually expand
into immediately surrounding areas. The county supports and encourages orderly
expansion of existing communities. This Plan recognizes existing municipal plans and
strongly supports and encourages infill and redevelopment of existing communities.
These growth areas are the preferred locations in Garfield County for growth that require
urban level services. They are also the preferred locations for commercial and
employment uses that can take advantage of supporting infrastructure and a close by
client base that reduces travel demands. The most effective way to encourage growth
in designated and planned UGAs will be by ensuring the following:
i. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan.
ii. Urban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective
municipality.
iii. If there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to annexation,
the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate such development
through such means as:
1. County zoning in the UGAs adjusted to a close approximation of the
municipality's plans.
2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with comment (not
approval) before submitting for county review.
3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community.
4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure to
development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for the UGA
(landowners and the respective municipality are strongly encouraged to enter into pre-
annexation agreements that provide commitments with respect to extensions of services
and infrastructure, densities, etc.).
Section 1 - Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination
Garfield County has worked with municipalities to direct development to UGAs where
public services and infrastructure are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Intergovernmental cooperation between municipalities and other public agencies has
demonstrated successful collaboration and has resulted in the creation of new
partnerships and collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county.
Policies:
1. Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and
individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies.
11
PC February 14, 2018
DP
2. Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities requiring urban services will be
encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction if contiguity exists.
3. Development in an UGA will have land use and street patterns that are compatible with
the affected municipality.
4. Within a locally planned UGA, development Applicants will be required to obtain project
review comments from the local community prior to submitting for county review. The
process should be defined in an executed IGA.
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
■ k Urban Growth Area
NI Industrial
- Mixed Use
MI Commercial
N E Res H (1/3 TO <2 Ac/Du)*
4ti Res MH (2 TO <6 Ac/Du)'
Res M (6 TO <10 Ac/Du)
Res L (10+ Ac/Du)
Resource Production/Natural
Subject Parcel: City of
Glenwood Springs
Urban Growth Area
City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
The Urban Growth Boundary represents an area that can support urban -level
development. Urban development is characterized by densities typical of urbanized areas
12
PC February 14, 2018
DP
and by the types of services required to support that development such as water,
wastewater, roads, police and emergency services, and other similar services. It also
represents an area of future annexation. Although this area lies outside of the city and is
subject to Garfield County land use requirements, according to the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan, development and land use within the Urban Growth Boundary
should be consistent with the future land use objectives of the municipality. Both the
Garfield County and Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plans recommend entering into
Intergovernmental Agreements to assure mutually acceptable land use and development
within the Urban Growth Boundary and to determine a process by which land use
proposals will be evaluated by both jurisdictions.
The Urban Growth Boundary has been determined using the following criteria:
• Ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure, particularly water service, to new
development without placing undue burdens on the City's ability to meet current municipal
demands while maintaining adequate levels of service.
• Areas where there would be a public benefit for the City to manage growth, giving
consideration to visual impacts, economic impacts and benefits, open space and
environmental benefits, and impacts on schools and other public facilities.
• Areas which, if annexed to the City, would simplify the city limits and provide unity of
services.
• Location of existing topographical features which serve as opportunities or constraints
to development.
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential is a designation for land that is outside of the city limits but within
the urban growth area. This designation consists of single-family residential development
that is intended to maintain a rural character. Appropriate development densities will be
determined bv, among other things. current land uses, topographic constraints. existing
and future utility connections, and existing road networks.
Land Uses Outside City Limits but within the Urban Growth Area
Future land use designations have been applied to properties within the Urban Growth
Area. It is intended that these properties within the Urban Growth Boundary be annexed
into the city at some point in the future. Among other things, these future land use
designations take into account current uses, topographic constraints, existing/future utility
connections, existing road networks, and land uses on adjacent properties.
Values and Vision for Economic Development
Despite a decent level of diversification in the Glenwood economy, the region surrounding
the city is greatly influenced by the mining, oil and gas, and construction -related
industries. The influence that these industries have on the region makes Glenwood
Springs susceptible to the associated boom and bust economic cycles that are typical of
western Colorado. Therefore, the City must work to further diversify its economy in order
13
PC February 14, 2018
DP
to minimize the impacts of boom and bust cycles. While taking steps to continue
diversifying the economy, the City should focus efforts on attracting high -paying jobs to
help offset the abundance of low-paying jobs associated with the robust tourism and
service industry.
Community Goals Supported by Economic Development
• Maintain Glenwood's role as a regional center
Policies to Enhance Economic Development
• The City should encourage the development of a well-trained workforce.
• The City should continue to make improvements that enhance the community's quality
of life and that make Glenwood Springs a place that is attractive for new businesses and
their employees.
• The City should actively pursue businesses and industries whose operations and
products are compatible with the Glenwood Springs vision.
Strategies and Actions to Promote Economic Development
Attract Diverse Businesses and Industries - The City should diversify the economy in at
least three major ways: creating a community where employers/employees want to live,
creating opportunity for new and expanding local businesses, and actively seeking
targeted businesses.
Ensure an Attractive Community - Good jobs are provided by good employers. Good
employers will locate in communities where they and their employees will want to and can
afford to live.
Allocate Adequate Land - Adequate land for new industries and businesses is limited
within city limits. However, what is available will need to be zoned to allow a business
easy development. The City should consider revising the zoning code to allow for more
flexibility of uses for a structure or site in order to better respond to the industrial and
commercial real estate market.
An adequate supply of attractive and accessible office space for professionals is also
important. The City should consider adaptive reuse of structures and land availability prior
to contacting targeted businesses. For new office and retail opportunities, the City should
help facilitate redevelopment of existing retail buildings in order to meet evolving retail
markets and community needs. To better understand the types of commercial office
space needed in the community, the City should conduct an analysis on the amount of
space currently existing.
Options immediately adjacent to the city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary
should also be examined for the ability to accommodate business and industry. An
example site is the parcel north of the Glenwood Springs Mall in West Glenwood where
the City could assist in preparing it to become a mixed-use office area or business park.
14
PC February 14, 2018
DP
The City should also consider partnering with governments or organizations to plan and
possibly develop an industrial park in the immediate area.
In accordance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Policies, "Within defined
UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects,
will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies." To this end, the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan defers to the land use goals and policies of the local
municipalities for land within the UGA.
The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low
Density Residential on the subject property. It is Staff's opinion that provided the City's
policies on economic development as well as the language within the Low Density
Residential designation that states that "Appropriate development densities will be
determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing
and future utility connections, and existing road networks," the application is in general
conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030.
City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011
y Secondary Censer
7 c.i Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
G Blue UM FM Nmd-se •
Future Study Ams DoeM.en ' i T•
Downtown Development Authority Boundary - cnmmerdal T
V/ Mares Preservallon IndusMel
Riverside Protection e] ore 0
I4.heay
Cay silvery
--- County Road,
Rivers
_ ! P.rcel.
Conservation
go Parke Open Space
.84 Love Density Residential
8•40Fria). Reek/mai
i MW0.semlly R0.IdeneN
ODerd011on Map
Tgt.nd rrtlwi IM UM from rJka Roel south
n lube da r.o.l Ines end npl. rarer SnnO.
. low density nl:].nPat sus am
doecide.e ntivs area lade annexation to the
Cy ■ aamp4l. ..4 Mahood unit Development
or MOW oan l.pnn*M review 1. apypoW
•
7
Subject Parcel
V. PUD REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA
SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS.
PUDs are required to meet the Standards as outlined in Section 6-202(C) of the Land Use and
Development Code.
15
PC February 14, 2018
DP
1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD meets the purpose and applicability of this Code,
as provided In section 6-101.A. and B.
A. Purpose.
The general purpose of PUD zoning is to permit greater design flexibility than is allowed by
the base zone district or Subdivision regulations, as those objectives are identified in the
Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, C.R.S. § 24-67-101, et seq. PUDs must be in general
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comments: The proposed PUD is intended to allow for greater design flexibility in
regards to uses and subdivision regulations. These uses are outlined in the application,
however a draft PUD Guide has not yet been submitted. At the time of PUD review, the
applicant will need to provide a draft PUD Guide and Map for review.
B. Applicability.
1. Any single parcel of land or contiguous parcels of land comprising a minimum of 2 acres,
sufficient to accommodate an integrally planned environment to be developed through a
unified plan, is eligible for PUD zoning.
2. Applications for PUD zoning may be made for land located in any zone district.
Staff Comments: The Eastbank parcels are each larger than 2 acres and are sufficient to
accommodate an integrated planned environment. The parcels are currently zoned Rural.
2. Development Standards. The PUD meets the Development Standards as provided in
section 6-401.
A. Permitted Uses.
Staff Comments: The uses proposed include a Business Park, Eco -Efficiency Homes, Multi -
Family Residential (Residential Lofts, Assisted Living Facility, Hospice of the Valley, and
Independent Living), Community Service Facility, Open Space, and Access / Parking / Utilities.
All of the uses are allowable with proper permits in the underlying Rural zone district. At the
time of submittal of the PUD, the application will need to include a PUD Guide and PUD Map
for final review. Conceptually, however, it appears that the uses proposed may be considered
as a part of a PUD application.
B. Off -Street Parking.
Staff Comments: The conceptual site plan appears to identify areas that could be used for
parking. The ultimate requirement for parking standards will either need to be identified within
the PUD Guide should deviations from the Code requirements be requested, or the PUD Guide
will need to refer back to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code.
C. Density.
Staff Comments: According to the representations for the uses, densities, and square footage
within the Section 1 of the application, the following new development is proposed at maximum
buildout over the full 33.927 acre total development area:
16
PC February 14, 2018
DP
• Up to 25,000 Square Feet of Business (e.g. veterinary clinic, professional offices, retail
/ wholesale businesses, fabrication businesses, storage facilities, park and ride,
recycling facilities, and accessory uses)
• 40,000 Square Feet to 77,500 Square Feet of Community Service Facility (e.g. end of
life care, and assisted living)
• 153.63 Dwelling Units to 178.63 Dwelling Units (Comprised of multi -family and/or single
family)
Note: The ranges shown in community service facility square footage and dwelling units is
based on the representations for Parcel E. Should the parcel build out to the proposed
assisted living facility it is understood that use would be up to a total of 37,500 square feet.
On the other hand, should the parcel build out to multi -family residential space, assuming
an average unit size of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit divided by the represented total
37,500 square feet of conditioned space that square footage would equate to
approximately 25 dwelling units over the 2.87 acre parcel. The assumption of 1500 square
feet per dwelling unit over the 37,500 square feet is provided by Staff as a means to identify
the potential buildout.
Based on these potential build out numbers, the overall residential density over the total 33.927
acres is approximately 4.52 to 5.26 dwelling units per acre.
Looking at the provided traffic study, however, this study was based on a 35,000 square foot
assisted living facility, 76 townhomes and condos, and 35 single family dwelling units. While
the total occupancy of the assisted living facility is unknown, the maximum density of dwelling
units based on the traffic study is expected to be about 111 over the 33.927 acre total
development area. This equates to an overall residential density of approximately 3 dwelling
units per acre, well below the 4.52 to 5.26 maximum dwelling units extrapolated from the parcel
size and densities represented in the application. In addition, the 35,000 square feet of total
assisted living space appears to be well below the 40,000 Square Feet to 77,500 Square Feet
of Community Service Facility identified in the application. In addition, the 25,000 square feet
of Business space is not contemplated at all within the traffic study. Should the densities in the
PUD proposal exceed those within the traffic study, at the time of PUD and/or Preliminary Plan
submittal, an updated traffic study that includes all of the proposed uses will need to be
submitted.
Presently, the application represents that the development is to be connected to Roaring Fork
Water and Sanitation District for water and wastewater services. Section 6-401(C)(2) limits the
residential density to 2 dwelling units per acre should the development not be connected to
municipal or special district services. Should the development not ultimately connect to Roaring
Fork Water and Sanitation District, the allowable residential density will need to be reduced to
no greater than 2 dwelling units per acre.
D. Housing Types.
Staff Comments: As is discussed previously, the concept plan proposes 8 zone districts within
the PUD with the boundary lines split generally along the proposed property lines. The housing
conceptually proposed is diverse including multi -family, single family manufactured homes,
assisted living, and multi -family (condos and/or townhomes). The anticipated uses of the units
17
PC February 14, 2018
DP
include free market manufactured housing, free market condos / townhomes, end of life
Hospice care, assisted living facilities, and independent living homes.
Affordable Housing: The threshold within the Land Use and Development Code for affordable
housing is a residential subdivision proposing 15 or more lots. While this concept plan proposes
well more than 15 dwelling units, it is only proposing the subdivision of 10 Tots. As a result, as
proposed the conceptual development does not trigger the County Inclusionary Zoning for
Affordable Housing. Should any of the lots be subdivided in the future into a residential
subdivision of 15 or more lots, it is possible that the County Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable
Housing could be triggered at that time.
E. Transportation and Circulation System.
Staff Comments:
Access Road: The concept plan shows access for the entire development off County Road
154, shown as Flying M Ranch Road. This road is a shared access with the RE -1 Riverview
School. This road is currently constructed to a length of approximately 1600 feet with a loop
access road into the Riverview School. The concept plan would extend Flying M Ranch Road
by approximately another 1600 feet into a dead end. In total, Flying M Ranch Road is proposed
to extend approximately 3200 feet to a dead end with a turn around.
Section 6-101(A), Purpose, states that "The general purpose of PUD zoning is to permit greater
design flexibility than is allowed by the base zone district or Subdivision regulations...". As
referenced in the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), the base Rural zone district
parameters are found in Article 3, Zoning, while the Subdivision regulations are found in Article
5, Divisions of Land. The Standards for Divisions of Land are identified within Article 5 which
include Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, the Review Criteria for a PUD states that
an Application for PUD Zoning shall comply with Article 7, Division 1, including Section 7-107
related to road design. In other words, while a PUD application may provide deviations from
the standards in Article 3, Zoning, and the Subdivision Standards in Article 7, Divisions 2, 3,
and 4, a PUD is required to comply with Article 7, Division 1 Standards unless the Board of
County Commissioners grants a Waiver from that Standard. This Division includes Section 7-
107 related to Road Design that states that "Dead-end streets may be permitted provided they
are not more than 600 feet in length and provide for a cul-de-sac or a T-shaped turnaround..."
As the proposed dead end access road is to be approximately 3200 feet long, the Preliminary
Plan will either:
1. Provide for a second access that does not create a dead end road 600 feet in length; or,
2. Request a Waiver from Section 7-107(F)(5)(b) that meets the Standards for a Waiver
request found in Section 4-118 (achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same
degree or better, and imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties). Such a Waiver
request would require input and acceptance from the fire protection district and other
emergency response agencies. The Waiver would need to be accepted and approved by
the Board of County Commissioners.
Referral comments were received from Garfield County Road and Bridge regarding the access
points to County Road 154 (See Exhibit 3). Due to the proximity of these access points, Road
and Bridge does not recommend this second access point. In addition, Road and Bridge noted
that "improvements to CR 154 and Highway 82 may need to be considered".
18
PC February 14, 2018
DP
The application was referred to the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District who provided
comments within Exhibit 10. Comments from the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District
include the necessity to develop a second access when residential units are constructed on
parcels C-1, 2, 3, E, and F. As noted in the comments, "This could be a loop road that connects
the road through Parcel F to the dirt road on the north side of the school property that ends at
the north side of the parking lot by the ball field. The surface on this road shall be one that is
plow -able in winter and mud free in spring, summer and fall. This road will need to be in place
when the residential units start construction. In the more distant future this road should connect
to new proposed extension of CR 154 to Orison Distributing."
In addition, Staff understands that Parcel B (manufactured homes) and D (end of life care
facility) are anticipated to be developed first. While comments from the Fire Protection District
indicate that a code compliant turn -around is possible for this development, the length of the
dead end road will still be in excess of the 600 feet permitted by the Garfield County LUDC, as
described above.
Finally, the Fire Protection District noted that appropriate road width and providing adequate
parking will be necessary within Parcel B (manufactured homes) in order to ensure that this
access does not become blocked and inaccessible to emergency vehicles. At the time of
Preliminary Plan and PUD review, adequate parking will need to be demonstrated within this
parcel.
CR 154 / Hwy 82 Interchange: The concept plan for the development shows a "potential CR
154/Hwy 82 Interchange". This concept drawing includes an extension of CR 154 to the
boundary of the Re -1 School District parcel at the Orison Distributing property. This concept
was previously contemplated and discussed during the development of the Riverview School,
as a part of the FedEx Distribution Facility Land Use Change Permit and the Eastbank Minor
Subdivision. It is anticipated that this interchange would benefit access to the area, improve
safety for the users of Highway 82, as well as significantly improve safety for the uses of the
Rio Grande Trail. As the cost of this interchange has been estimated in the millions of dollars,
previous discussions with the BOCC for funding did not gain traction while it is understood that
RFTA has taken some interest in attempting to find outside funding for the interchange.
As is noted previously, the traffic study anticipates that the buildout of the proposed
development would only increase traffic at the Highway 82 / CR 154 interchange by 13%.
However, it appears that this study is not consistent with the buildout potential described within
the application. Should the full build out potential for the development be considered, it is
possible that the 20% threshold for an Access Permit onto Highway 82 could be met. Should
a CDOT Access Permit be required at this intersection, it is feasible that certain improvements
could be required, however it is unlikely that the Permit would require improvements to the
extent of the full interchange. Staff recommends that the applicant match the full buildout of
the PUD Guide and traffic study with the subsequent submittal of the Preliminary Plan. In
consideration of the increased traffic that is proposed at this intersection as a result of this
conceptual plan, Staff also recommends that the property owner be prepared to assist in the
alleviation of the potential traffic congestion and safety for the Rio Grande Trail users at the
time of Preliminary Plan.
Bicycle / Pedestrian / River Access: The concept plan anticipates a trail that runs the length of
the development that is separated behind Flying M Road and would overlook the river. The
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan anticipates a recreational trail in this area that is open to
19
PC February 14, 2018
DP
the public. As a result, Staff recommends that the trail be dedicated to the public and available
for public use.
The extent of this trail, however, does not connect to the Rio Grande Trail or the County Road.
With certain extensions, this trail could be a part of the area tail and recreation network,
particularly with the proposal for manufactured housing and the location of Riverview School.
Staff recommends that the trail be connected to the Rio Grande Trail by an easement through
the Riverview School property at the north end and connect to County Road 154 on the south
end. While Staff has heard the argument that such a connection to the County Road may
"encourage" bicycle and pedestrian users on the County Road, considering the efforts to
connect the school to Iron Bridge and the Rio Grande Trail, such incremental efforts toward
the goal of interconnection should be carried forward with this development. In addition, with
the increased traffic along Flying M Ranch Road, this alternative route will be increasingly
important.
As is discussed later in this Report, the LUDC encourages the minimization of conflict between
vehicles and pedestrians. Considering the location of the school, the number of employees
within the vicinity, and the amount of housing proposed Staff recommends that sidewalks be
installed the entire length of Flying M Ranch Road as well as along the PUD sections of CR
154. The development of these sidewalks will minimize vehicle / pedestrian conflicts and help
encourage circulation within the development.
In addition, as is also discussed later in this Report, the LUDC identifies in Section 7-306(B),
that "Special structures and/or traffic control devices may be required at road crossings to avoid
unsafe road crossings." Considering the location of the manufactured housing and multi -family
development in relation to the Riverview School, Staff recommends that the crossing of the
proposed trail at Flying M Ranch Road to the school have protections for pedestrians.
Recommendations for this crossing include a raised crosswalk and/or a Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB).
Regarding access to the Roaring Fork River, it appears that a bike / pedestrian access may be
provided across from the Riverview School. Staff encourages the public dedication of this
access point to the River.
F. Recreational Amenities.
Staff Comments: The development provides for open space and trails as recreational
amenities. As discussed in Section E, above, the concept plan proposes a recreation and
transportation trail along the southern and western boundary of the PUD. This trail is a
significant recreational amenity for the residents of the development. Consistent with the
LUDC, Staff recommends that this trail be dedicated to the public and connected to the existing
public trail network as well as the County road network.
A limited amount of open space is also proposed, however the use of this is not well defined
at this time. It appears that the open space is not to be used for passive recreation, but is
instead intended to protect the slopes that lead down to the agricultural uses below.
G. Building Height.
Staff Comments: At this time, the building heights within the PUD have not been proposed. It
is recommended that the building heights within the PUD be generally consistent with those of
20
PC February 14, 2018
DP
the underlying zoning. The building heights allowed within the PUD will need to be reviewed
and approved by the BOCC at the time of PUD submittal.
H. Lots.
Staff Comments: Subdivision of the 33.927 acre total development area into 10 lots is
conceptually proposed. These Lots range in size from 1.04 acres to 6.93 acres. As the current
zoning on the parcel is Rural, the minimum Lot size at this time is 2 acres. As a result, the PUD
will need to be approved prior to the subdivision, presuming that the PUD will allow for parcels
less than 2 acres. Compliance of the minimum lot size within the subdivision will need to be
reviewed along with the PUD.
1. Phasing.
Staff Comments: At this point, the Applicant has not submitted a PUD Phasing Plan. At the
time of PUD submittal, the applicant will need to propose a PUD Phasing Plan for final review.
Should the PUD propose phasing in excess of 3 years, then a Development Agreement will
need to be proposed, reviewed, and executed by the Board of County Commissioners.
3. Standards, Article 7. The PUD meets the standards within Article 7, Division 1, excluding
7-101.
7-102. Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements.
Staff Comments: Please see Section IV, above regarding an analysis of conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Garfield County has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for
Development Review with the City of Glenwood Springs as signed on May 7th, 2001 (Reception
number 580572). Consistent with the IGA, County staff referred the initial application to the
City to receive comments, however no comments have been received.
7-103. Compatibility.
Staff Comments: As noted previously in this report, according to the representations for the
uses, densities, and square footage within the Section 1 of the application, the following new
development is proposed at maximum buildout over the full 33.927 acre total development
area:
• Up to 25,000 Square Feet of Business (e.g. veterinary clinic, professional offices, retail /
wholesale businesses, fabrication businesses, storage facilities, park and ride, recycling
facilities, and accessory uses)
• 40,000 Square Feet to 77,500 Square Feet of Community Service Facility (e.g. end of life
care, and assisted living)
• 153.63 Dwelling Units to 178.63 Dwelling Units (Comprised of multi -family and/or single
family)
Note: The ranges shown in community service facility square footage and dwelling units is
based on the representations for Parcel E. Should the parcel build out to the proposed assisted
living facility it is understood that use would be up to a total of 37,500 square feet. On the other
hand, should the parcel build out to multi -family residential space, assuming an average unit
21
PC February 14, 2018
DP
size of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit divided by the represented total 37,500 square feet
of conditioned space that square footage would equate to approximately 25 dwelling units over
the 2.87 acre parcel. The assumption of 1500 square feet per dwelling unit over the 37,500
square feet is provided by Staff as a means to identify the potential buildout.
Based on these potential build out numbers, the overall residential density over the total 33.927
acres is approximately 4.52 to 5.26 dwelling units per acre.
This development is proposed to surround the new Riverview School to the south and west.
The type of development is generally compatible with the school so long as appropriate
transportation infrastructure is constructed that is sensitive to this installation.
The application includes the following regarding compatibility.
The nature, scale, and intensity of the prospective residential, hospice,
assisted living, and business park uses are intended to compliment the
adjacent land uses. The Flying M Ranch Subdivision will provide a variety of
housing types to accommodate a diversity of residents potentially including
senior citizens, students, families, regional employees, and Roaring Fork
School District teachers. A public community path will connect all residents of
the Flying M Ranch subdivision to the Roaring Fork River and the Riverview
School. The path will also connect Riverview School students and teachers to
the Roaring Fork River for river watch projects and science studies. The
20,000-25,000 SF of business space proposed within the existing business
park will provide service opportunities for Flying M Ranch Subdivision residents
and the regional community
Staff has received a call from an HOA representative within the West Bank development
indicating concerns regarding compatibility. While public notice is not a requirement for a
Sketch Plan application, the Applicant has reached out to neighborhoods near the
development. Staff encourages the Planning Commission to listen and consider the concerns
of all surrounding property owners when providing comments to the Applicant on the submitted
Sketch Plan application.
7-104. Source of Water.
Staff Comments: The application indicates that the development would be served by the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The final agreements for line extension and service
have not been completed. Specifically the application includes the following regarding water
supply.
High Country Engineering has provided an Engineering Utility Report that is
included as an Exhibit to this Application. The following information is
summarized from this report:
With the construction of the new Riverview School, the Roaring Fork water and
Sanitation District extended their water service to include the Flying M Ranch
Area. The entire site is now within the service Area for the District. Site specific
line extension agreements would still need to be completed with new
development. Commitment to serve letters will be provided with the PUD
Submittal.
22
PC February 14, 2018
DP
The work that was completed by the district with the School District, as well as
the Owner of these parcels is shown on the map included as an Exhibit. The
waterlines are shown in blue, and the primary extension was a 12" main. Much
of the infrastructure is currently located on Lot 2 including water and sewer
mains and the Sewer Lift station, which was installed to accommodate the new
school and future development.
As discussed previously, in order to achieve the proposed residential densities of 4-5 units per
acre, the development must be connected to a water supply entity such as Roaring Fork Water
and Sanitation District. Otherwise, the density of the development is limited to 2 dwelling units
per acre.
7-105. Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems.
Staff Comments: The application proposes for the development to be served by the Roaring
Fork Water and Sanitation District for wastewater service. The application includes the
following explanation.
High Country Engineering has provided an Engineering Utility Report that is
included as an Exhibit to this Application. The following information is
summarized from this report:
Sanitary Sewer System
With the construction of the new Riverview School, the Roaring Fork water and
Sanitation District extended their sewer service to include the Flying M Ranch
Area. The entire site is now within the service Area for the District. Site specific
line extension agreements would still need to be completed with new
development. Commitment to serve letters will be provided with the PUD
Submittal.
The work that was completed by the district as well as the owner of Lot 2 is
shown on the map in the Exhibit. These extensions were completed in
anticipation of line extensions for development that may occur in this area.
Much of the infrastructure is currently located on Lot 2 including water and
sewer mains and the Sewer Lift station, which was installed to accommodate
the new school and the future development.
Local Sanitary Sewer System
The Roaring Fork Sanitation District extension into the proposed PUD has
been anticipated and would simply be an extension to the now existing gravity
lines that are serving the Riverview School. A map showing the existing lines
and the potential anticipated extensions is attached in the Exhibit. It can be
seen on the map that sewer can extend to the west from the line that serves
the school and easterly from the lift station to serve the Eastern side of the
development. The Commercial/Industrial area has the sewer mains in place for
expansion and inclusion into the District.
23
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Similar to the water source, described above, in order to achieve the proposed residential
densities of 4-5 units per acre, the development must be connected to a municipal or special
district wastewater system such as Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Otherwise, the
density of the development is limited to 2 dwelling units per acre.
As the development is proposed to be comprised of more than 15 dwelling units, it is required
to create a central water distribution system.
7-106. Public Utilities.
Staff Comments: Adequate utilities appear to feasibly be available to serve the development.
The application includes the following description for public utility service.
High Country Engineering has provided an Engineering Utility Report that is
included as an Exhibit to this Application. The following Public Utilities
information is summarized from this report:
Electric
Currently there is an Xcel Energy three-phase power that has been extended
from the overhead electrical feeder on CR 154 and was extended down the
new access to the Riverview School. This line has been looped through the
upper commercial/industrial area and back out to CR 154. We are proposing
all connections within the PUD to extend off of this main line. The developer
will be responsible for costs associated with extending the electric utility to
through the PUD.
Gas
Gas has also been extended to the school and is in the same access corridor.
Black Hills Energy designed a new gas main that was installed from the
intersection of CR 154 and CR 109 to extend to the school and eventually the
surrounding areas. This line is currently installed in the access road and
stubbed out to serve future properties.
Cable
Comcast Cable has also been extended to the school and is in the same
access corridor. New extension lines were designed and installed from the
intersection of CR 154 and the new access into the school and eventually the
surrounding areas. This line is currently installed in the access road and
stubbed out to serve future properties.
Telecommunications
Centurylink telephone has also been extended to the school and is in the same
access corridor. New extension lines were designed and installed from CR 154
and the new access into the school and eventually the surrounding areas. This
line is currently installed in the access road and stubbed out to serve future
properties.
24
PC February 14, 2018
DP
7-107. Access and Roadways.
Staff Comments: See Section E. Transportation and Circulation System, above for a
description of the road network and accesses.
7-108. Use of Land Subject To Natural Hazards.
Staff Comments: At the time of Eastbank Minor Subdivision review, the application was
referred to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) who provided the following comments.
CGS agrees that the site does not appear to contain or be exposed to any
geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed uses and density. HP's
report contains a good description of subsurface conditions and soil
engineering properties based on the results of 14 borings and lab testing, and
makes appropriate recommendations regarding foundations, floor slabs,
subsurface drainage, retaining walls, pavements, grading and surface
drainage.
Subsidence hazard. The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and
numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified within
several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground
deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern
in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active
geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to
the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be
ignored.
A plat note was subsequently added to the Eastbank Minor Subdivision plat noting the
susceptibility of the site to sinkholes and soil collapse. At the time of Preliminary Plan review,
the subdivision will again be referred to CGS for review. Staff recommends that a soil and other
natural hazard study be conducted on this property to be included with the preliminary plan
application that considers potential natural hazard issues in relation to the new proposed
development.
Based on comments received from Garfield County Environmental Health (See Exhibit 9), it is
recommended that the homes be built using Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC). As
radon is a significant public health hazard throughout the County, Staff recommends that all
new construction within the PUD be built utilizing RRNC.
7-109. Fire Protection.
Staff Comments: The application includes the following description of the proposed fire
protection.
Per the following 2012 Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment, the Flying M Ranch
site has a low to moderate fire intensity rating. Fire demands were determined
in the design and construction of the waterline extension to the adjoining
Riverview School and there was a minimum of 2000 GPM provided to the
school. All structures proposed would be required to work within these
parameters for on-site fire protection. Fire Protection is provided by Glenwood
Springs Fire Protection District.
25
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Flying M Ranch Fire Intensity Scale
Quenelles the potential Nre Intensity by orders of magnitude.
Fire.; -0-1117117r1°-, nsity Scale
Lowest Intensity
trl
Moderate Intensity
Ll
III Highesttn rencny
11111
w
sh
IL l'irkr.. 1
41...r=
�' ,r •1^:
1114% i �� _
144..,r
"�s� rrs r,..,. .li.___ 7 . rii _ r V7 g•
•;,-
Report Created:
12108,2017 9:58 AM
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment 2012
roa sblaradvenioir 91!%k. c9!?t
Tn. UM ammo. M mate War *Awl to tet m. er M. Cohn. Sas Md.. Psi AwwneM rd ass w apw.en.d r dwhwd product@ tam aw..d.LL Th. Garrido 6m.
Fr.r. km. Iv warring these dais b Y' and dttsMia.rry and swtnuaee *wss 0,50....E or MOO, torturing I0.OUW Snarl a/ any Impred warm...of mwcWa0+ky
or from b. particular papier h no.:wt.Y Colons* lima kr. e.Nr.Oa Ishii lo yw.r t, rat NM patty W any &ad Wind. MOwd./ mna.P0ww.t Wwlwar
..s' Wv gMipn or lost omit restating tan any um* smmr.edmew bite
Ati
As is noted in the previous sections, the roughly 3200 foot dead end access road exceeds the
County's limit of 600 feet. While the applicant has the ability to request a Waiver from this
standard subject to BOCC approval, the Waiver request will need to be supported by
comments from the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. While a second access point is
recommended by Staff over a Waiver, this access location will need to be supported by Garfield
County Road and Bridge.
4. Rezoning Criteria. The PUD meets the Rezoning Review Criteria in section 4-113.C.
SECTION 4-113 REZONING.
Rezoning may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission,
the Director, or an Applicant for land use change.
C. Rezoning Criteria. An application for rezoning shall demonstrate that the following criteria
has been met:
1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and
would not constitute spot zoning;
Staff Comments: The area proposed to be developed as a PUD has changed
significantly in the past few years. These changes have included the development of
the Riverview School, development of a FedEx distribution center, and redevelopment
of a commercial / industrial parcel. The properties are also within the City of Glenwood
Springs Urban Growth Boundary. To this end, as it appears that the development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is generally an outgrowth of an already
changing area, the PUD could be considered logical and orderly. Compatibility issues
26
PC February 14, 2018
DP
could still be an issue with surrounding property owners across the Roaring Fork River,
however.
2. 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: As discussed previously, the area has changed significantly in the
past several years. These changes have included the development of the Riverview
School, development of a FedEx distribution center, and redevelopment of a
commercial / industrial parcel. As a result of these changes, it is Staff's opinion that
increasing the surrounding density and diversifying the uses in the area surrounding the
new school and commercial / industrial development could be within the public interest
as long as impacts to surrounding properties across the Roaring Fork River are
appropriately mitigated. In addition, the uses proposed are understood to be in generally
high demand, including workforce housing, assisted living facilities, end of life care, and
multi -family residential development.
3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to
facilities, services, or housing; and
Staff Comments: The proposed uses within the PUD are understood to be in generally
high demand within Garfield County and the surrounding region. These uses include
workforce housing, multi -family residential, assisted living, and end of life care. The
proximity of these facilities, particularly the workforce housing component, is arguably
well located as it is adjacent to the new Riverview School.
4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in
compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
Staff Comments: As previously discussed, the PUD location is within the City of
Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area. As a result, Garfield County defers to the City
of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan for guidance. In accordance with the
Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and City of Glenwood Springs, this
application was referred to the City of comment. No comments were received from the
City, however, it is County Staff's opinion that since the uses are proposed to be within
a Special District for water and wastewater services and has a high degree of access
to Highway 82; that the proposed PUD appears to be in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan (See Section IV, above). Internal road, trail, and secondary access
issues described earlier in this Report will need to be addressed, however.
5. Established Zoning Standards. The PUD Plan adequately establishes uses and
standards governing the development, density, and intensity of land use by means of
dimensional or other standards.
Staff Comments: As this development is still within the Sketch Plan phase, a PUD Plan that
outlines the proposed zoning standards has not yet been submitted. At the time of PUD
review and Preliminary Plan, the applicant will need to submit a complete draft of the PUD
Plan for review and consideration.
27
PC February 14, 2018
DP
At this point, only general densities have been identified. A description of the proposed
densities is previously discussed in this report. Generally, while the proposed densities
appear to be within the acceptable range for a PUD that is served by special district water
and wastewater services (up to 12 dwelling units per acre), a can and will serve letter from
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District has not yet been provided. A Can and Will Serve
Letter will need to be provided at the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD review. In addition,
the traffic study submitted does not appear to account for the full density range as described
within the application (See Section 2.c., above).
VI. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
SECTION 5-302 PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
Preliminary Plans are required to meet the Standards as outlined in Section 5-302(C) of the
Land Use and Development Code.
1. Compliance with Article 7, Division 1, General Approval Standards.
Please see Section 5.3., above, discussing compliance of the proposed PUD and
Preliminary Plan with Article 7, Division 1.
2. Compliance with Article 7, Division 2, General Resource Protection Standards.
7-201. Agricultural Lands.
The application provides the following response to this Standard:
There are no agricultural lands within the proposed Flying M Ranch
Subdivision and there will be no adverse effects to agricultural operations
on adjoining lands.
It is understood that the subject parcels are not currently in agricultural production and as
proposed Staff does not foresee any negative impacts on adjacent agricultural properties.
As is noted in the LUDC, Garfield County is a Right to Farm County and as such, it is up
to the property owner to construct and maintain fencing to "separate new development
from adjoining agricultural operation." As it is understood that the property to the west
along the Roaring Fork River is currently in agricultural production, it will be the
responsibility of the new development to construct and maintain any fencing required to
create desired separation of uses. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has provided guidance
regarding fences, which is discussed in the following section.
No ditches have been noted on the property.
7.202. Wildlife Habitat Areas.
The application includes an Ecological Assessment that was conducted in 2015. The
application, including this Assessment, was referred to Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)
who provided the following comments (See Exhibit 7).
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the application materials
for the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision. The subject area has been
degraded by previous use and has limited wildlife habitat value.
28
PC February 14, 2018
DP
Seasonally, each winter a group of elk had used the upland area of
sagebrush prior to the construction of the Riverview' School, but that use
has since diminished. Mule deer use the overall property year-round.
Overall, due to the degraded habitat on the property, existing disturbance
and development surrounding and adjacent to the property, the proposed
development may have some affect on individual animals, but will likely
have minimal impacts to wildlife populations. There is potential for general
human/wildlife conflicts and some impacts to wildlife; therefore, CPW offers
the following recommendations:
1. Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary,
while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter
fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards.
2. Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the
river. It is recommended that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage
containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured.
3. Work with CPW on trail design near the river and work to actively
enhance riparian vegetation.
Based on this analysis, at this time it does not appear that wildlife habitat will be of
significant concern at the time of PUD and Preliminary Plan. It is anticipated that the
recommendations made by CPW could be conditions of approval. Staff recommends that
the Applicant work with CPW to develop the trail at the time of Preliminary Plan.
7-203. Protection of Waterbodies.
The application includes the following explanation regarding Protection of Waterbodies.
The Roaring Fork River borders the southern edge of the Flying M Ranch
site. Based on the November 23, 2016 Revised Preliminary Floodplain
information provided by FEMA for this area, it appears that the 100 -year
floodplain is contained within the Roaring Fork River channel per the
illustration below. The Applicant is aware that the 100 -year flood plain and
setbacks need to be addressed and will provide additional detail with the
Preliminary Plan/PUD Application.
29
y
7..,
�.I
PC February 14, 2018
DP
PANEL 1000E
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 1000 OF 7070
,IEE IMP IOU FOR RRM PANEL AVOW)
wow s_ YOrpt
P.1.000 Vgavail WW1 ban
XEVISEO IXEUNINAEY
NOVEMEE073. MI6
Nm IP _ Tr NYF NrE4r sheen —
rwb IN ..m men ovine ler- rens, N
Cesentnily Meleet nen, nem On. be
— m Memo —•. for Me ru4.a
I]Yer.1
MAP NUMBER
DEW 501565€
EFFECTIVE DATE
Based on this explanation, it is understood that floodplain and waterbody setbacks may
not present an issue for development of this parcels as proposed. However, as the
applicant states, further delineation will need to be provided at the time of Preliminary Plan
in order to ensure that the applicable setbacks are maintained.
7-204. Drainage and Erosion.
The application includes the following regarding drainage and erosion.
Drainage, stormwater run-off, erosion control, and water quality standards
will all be addressed at the Preliminary Plan/PUD Application stage. Care
will be given to design systems that do not negatively impact the water
quality in the adjoining Roaring Fork River.
As a part of the engineering documents provided at the time of Preliminary Plan, the
Applicant will need to provide a full drainage and erosion analysis consistent with Section
7-204 for review and acceptance.
Plat Note #16 on the Eastbank Minor Subdivision requires that a Stormwater Management
Plan be submitted for review and acceptance at the time of development for Lots 2 and 3.
As a result, a Stormwater Management Plan will need to be submitted as a part of the
Preliminary Plan application.
7-205. Environmental Quality.
At this time, no significant air or water quality concerns have been noted. As a part of the
application submittal at the time of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant will need to provide an
analysis consistent with Section 7-205 for review and acceptance.
7-206. Wildfire Hazards.
See the response to Section 7-109, Fire Protection, above.
No notable wildfire hazards have been identified on the subject parcels. There are no
slopes 30% or greater on the property and there are no known fire chimneys.
30
PC February 14, 2018
DP
7-207. Natural and Geologic Hazards.
See the response to Section 7-108, Use of Land Subject to Natural Hazards, above.
7-208. Reclamation
As a part of the Preliminary Plan engineering documentation, the Applicant will need to
provide an analysis of the total disturbed area and how it will be reclaimed in accordance
with Section 7-208. At this time, the application includes the following explanation of the
reclamation anticipated. All reclamation and landscaping plans will need to be reviewed
and accepted by the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department and the County
designated engineer.
All disturbed areas of the Flying M Ranch project will be revegetated with
a mix of grasses, ground covers, trees and shrubs to prevent erosion and
the invasion of weeds. Where appropriate a xeriscape design of native
plants will be considered to blend in with the native habitat surrounding the
site. Non-native or ornamental plant materials may be used in some areas
of the project as accents. Riparian habitat may be utilized in areas that
adjoin the Roaring Fork River or adjoining drainage ways. Healthy plant
materials will be sized per the sizes established in Garfield County's
Landscaping Standards.
Comments were received from Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit 8), which
state the following.
The applicant has provided an Ecological Assessment of Eastbank that
was done for a prior review in 2015.
It is not a comprehensive weed management plan, map and inventory, but
there is an enough information in there to know that there is a Russian -
olive and Scotch thistle problem on the site.
For the next step in the process, staff recommends a treatment plan that
will address Russian -olive removal and thistle management.
For revegetation purposes, staff requests that the applicant quantify the
surface area to be disturbed, in acres, for road shoulders (not the actual
road), utility easements, and common areas, and utility disturbances. This
information will help determine if a revegetation security is necessary.
We'd like to review the proposed seed mixes as well.
Staff recommends that at the time of Preliminary Plan submittal the Applicant provide a
weed management plan, map, and inventory that includes a proposal to address the
Russian -olive and thistle management and proposed seed mixes. In addition, a
quantification of total disturbed area will be necessary.
31
PC February 14, 2018
DP
3. Compliance with Article 7, Division 3, Site Planning and Development Standards.
7-301. Compatible Design.
The conceptual site plan has been developed to conform to the topography of the site.
Buffering between the development and the adjacent agricultural use has been proposed
through the incorporation of an Open Space zone district. At the time of Preliminary Plan
and PUD submittal, the applicant will need to demonstrate conformance with State noise
standards as well as propose hours of operation for the commercial uses. Should any
dust, odors, gas, fumes, or glare be emitted from the site, then appropriate controls will
need to be put in place to prevent levels that are reasonably objectionable to adjacent
property owners. As has been noted previously, while the development appears to be
generally compatible with immediately adjacent uses, at the time of Preliminary Plan the
Applicant should address mitigation measures for those within the general view shed who
could be impacted.
7-302. Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards.
The application includes the following explanation regarding off-street parking and
loading.
All proposed uses within the Flying M Ranch Subdivision will have
adequate access, off street parking, and loading areas. As a concept, the
Sketch Plan illustrates surface parking for the additional business park floor
area, surface parking for Hospice of the Valley surface and underground
parking for the multi-family/retirement facility, underground parking with
surface guest spaces for the lofts, surface parking for the Eco -Efficiency
homes, and garage/driveway parking with additional gest spaces for the
patio homes.
As a part of the PUD Plan, the applicant will either need to propose parking standards that
are appropriate for the proposed uses within that district or have the Plan defer to the
LUDC for guidance. Compliance with these standards will be determined at the time of
PUD and Preliminary Plan.
7-303. Landscaping Standards.
See Section 7-208, Reclamation, above.
As a part of the PUD Plan, the applicant will either need to propose landscaping standards
that are appropriate for the proposed uses within that district or have the Plan defer to the
LUDC for guidance. Compliance with these standards will be determined at the time of
PUD and Preliminary Plan. As noted previously, the Landscaping Plan will need to be
reviewed and accepted by Garfield County Vegetation Management.
7-304. Lighting Standards.
The application includes the following explanation regarding lighting.
The Flying M Ranch Subdivision project will utilize downcast, shielded
lights with appropriate heights for the neighborhood and surrounding area
32
PC February 14, 2018
DP
that meet the Garfield County Lighting Standards. Lighting details will be
developed at the Subdivision Preliminary Plan/Planned Unit Development
Application stage.
At the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal, the Applicant will need to demonstrate
conformance with Section 7-304, Lighting. In addition, the submitted plans should show
the level of impact the proposed lighting will have on adjacent property owners, including
those across the Roaring Fork River.
7-305. Snow Storage Standards.
At the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD, the Applicant will need to demonstrate
conformance with Section 7-305, Snow Storage Standards
7-306. Trail and Walkway Standards.
The application includes the following explanation regarding Trail and Walkway
Standards.
Garfield County Trail and Walkway Standards will be utilized to develop the
community path that links the Flying M Ranch Subdivision together, to the
Roaring Fork River, and to the new Riverview School. Design, safety and
maintenance considerations will be detailed at the Preliminary Plan/PUD
stage of this project.
Please see Section 2.E., Transportation, and Section 2.F., Recreational Amenities, above.
Provisions for trail dedication, easements, safety, and maintenance will need to be
demonstrated as a part of the Preliminary Plan and PUD. As the proposed trails within the
development will connect to the Riverview School, the trails should be dedicated to the
public. In addition, sidewalks along Flying M Road as well as connections to the Rio
Grande trail are encouraged.
Section 7-306 requires the following:
A. Recreational and Community Facility Access.
A multi -modal connection, such as a trail or sidewalk, shall be provided in a development
where links to schools, shopping areas, parks, trails, greenbelts, and other public facilities
are feasible.
1. Trail Dedication Standards. Trail rights-of-way for dedicated park lands and Open
Space shall conform to the following criteria:
a. The land required for trails or walkways shall be set aside as an easement or
separate fee interest.
b. All easements for trails and walkways will be dedicated to the public.
c. The width of the easement shall be adequate to handle the proposed use based
on the particular reasonable needs of the trail, its location, the surrounding terrain,
33
PC February 14, 2018
DP
and the anticipated usage. The minimum width for the trail easement shall be 8
feet.
d. Public access to the trail shall be provided within the subject property.
e. Any easement may overlap and include property previously included in other
easements, such as ditch, canal, utility and Conservation Easements, and public
or private open space. However, the trail easement shall not compromise the
functional use of any other easement.
B. Safety.
Special structures and/or traffic control devices may be required at road crossings to avoid
unsafe road crossings.
C. Maintenance.
Suitable provisions for maintenance of trail and walkway systems shall be established
through a perpetual association, corporation, or other means acceptable to the County.
4. Compliance with Article 7, Division 4, Subdivision Standards and Design
Specifications.
7-401. General Subdivision Standards.
At the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD, the Applicant will need to propose a mechanism
for the maintenance of common facilities. While this is typically done through covenants
of a homeowners association, other means are possible and will need to be reviewed and
accepted at the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD application.
Section 7-401 also requires that domestic animals be confined to the property and are
kept under control. Conformance with this requirement will be reviewed at the time of
Preliminary Plan and PUD. Similarly, solid fuel fireplaces are required to be limited to 1
per lot within a Subdivision. As this subdivision is 10 lots, each lot will be permitted one
solid fuel fireplace.
As is discussed previously, a more detailed delineation of the floodplain will be necessary
at the time of Preliminary Plan submittal in order to ensure compliance with the County
floodplain regulations and waterbody setbacks.
7-402. Subdivision Lots.
The lots as conceptually proposed appear to meet the dimensional requirements of
Section 7-402 A, B, and C. However, it appears that Parcels D, E, and F could be split by
a Public Right of Way ("Road, Public" as defined by Article 15 of the LUDC) and therefore
may not be in conformance with 7-402. D. As the access road will be required to be
dedicated to the public and would therefore be considered a Public Right of Way, the
Preliminary Plan application will need to demonstrate conformance with this standard.
7-403. Survey Monuments.
The subdivision will need to conform to Section 7-403 regarding survey monuments.
34
PC February 14, 2018
DP
7-404. School Land Dedication.
The Preliminary Plan application will need to include an analysis of the amount of school
and dedication or fee -in -lieu to be collected at the time of Final Plat.
7-405. Road Impact Fees.
Road impact fees will be collected at the time of building permit and in accordance with
the Road Impact Fee Update study dated July 1, 2015.
5. Any Other Applicable Standards.
As noted previously, it is anticipated that the Preliminary Plan is to be reviewed
concurrently with a PUD. As a result, the development is subject to the standards for
subdivision and PUD.
VII. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION POINTS AND ISSUES
1. Traffic Study and Proposed Density: The provided traffic study is based on a 35,000
square foot assisted living facility, 76 townhomes and condos, and 35 single family
dwelling units. While the total occupancy of the assisted living facility is unknown, the
maximum density of dwelling units is based on the traffic study expected to be about 111
over the 33.927 acre total development area. This equates to an overall residential density
of approximately 3 dwelling units per acre, well below the 4.52 to 5.26 maximum dwelling
units per acre (153.63 —178.63 total dwelling units) extrapolated from the parcel size and
densities represented in the application. The 35,000 square feet of total assisted living
space also appears to be well below the 40,000 Square Feet to 77,500 Square Feet of
Community Service Facility identified in the application. In addition, the 25,000 square feet
of Business space is not contemplated at all within the traffic study. Should the densities
in the PUD proposal exceed those within the traffic study at the time of PUD and/or
Preliminary Plan submittal, an updated traffic study that includes all of the proposed uses
at maximum buildout will need to be submitted. Alternatively, the proposed PUD Plan will
need to limit the amount of development to conform to the traffic study.
2. Congestion and Safety Mitigation: In consideration of the increased traffic that is proposed
at the intersection of Highway 82 and CR 154 as a result of this development, it is
recommended that potential traffic congestion and safety mitigation measures be
proposed for the Rio Grande Trail users at the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal.
Such mitigation measures should be consistent with the level of impact generated by the
development.
3. Water and Wastewater Service: As proposed, the development is to be connected to
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District for water and wastewater services. Section 6-
401(C)(2) limits the residential density to 2 dwelling units per acre should the development
not be connected to municipal or special district services. Should the development not
ultimately connect to Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, the allowable residential
density will need to be reduced to no greater than 2 dwelling units per acre.
4. Affordable Housing: The threshold within the Land Use and Development Code for
affordable housing is a residential subdivision proposing 15 or more lots. While this
concept plan proposes well more than 15 dwelling units, it is only proposing the
35
PC February 14, 2018
DP
subdivision of 10 lots. As a result, as proposed the conceptual development does not
trigger the County Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing. Should any of the lots be
subdivided in the future into a residential subdivision of 15 or more lots or should the
Preliminary Plan submittal include 15 or more lots, then the County Inclusionary Zoning
for Affordable Housing could be triggered at that time.
5. Access Road Length: The Review Criteria for a PUD states that an Application for PUD
Zoning shall comply with Article 7, Division 1, including Section 7-107, Road Design,
related to road design unless the Board of County Commissioners grants a Waiver from
that Standard. Section 7-107 states that "Dead-end streets may be permitted provided
they are not more than 600 feet in length and provide for a cul-de-sac or a T-shaped
turnaround..." As the dead end access road is proposed to be approximately 3200 feet
long, the Preliminary Plan will need to either:
a. Provide for a second access that does not create a dead end road 600 feet in
length and is approved by Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and the
Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District; or,
b. Request a Waiver from Section 7-107(F)(5)(b) that meets the Standards for a
Waiver request found in Section 4-118 (achieves the intent of the subject standard
to the same degree or better, and imposes no greater impacts on adjacent
properties). Such a Waiver request would require input and acceptance from the
fire protection district and other emergency response agencies. The Waiver would
need to be accepted and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
6. Secondary Access: Due to the location of the secondary access point, removal of this
access point is recommended by Garfield County Road and Bridge. It is recommended
that this secondary access be eliminated and another access point be established that is
satisfactory to both the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, and the Glenwood
Springs Fire Protection District. It is recommended that this secondary access also prevent
Flying M Road from exceeding 600 feet in length.
7. Trail Dedication: The concept plan anticipates a trail that runs the length of the
development that is separated behind Flying M Road and would overlook the river. The
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan anticipates a recreational trail in this area that is
open to the public. In addition, the LUDC requires dedication to the public for trails that
are connected to schools and other public facilities. As a result, it is recommended that
the trail be dedicated to the public and available for public use.
L> odd f'.SS /..."6.y ,gt+°nt1 - J/
8. Trail Connections: The trail as conceptually proposed does not connect to the Rio Grande
Trail or the County Road. With certain extensions, this trail could be a part of the area tail
and recreation network, particularly with the proposal for manufactured housing and the
location of Riverview School. It is recommended that the trail be connected to the Rio
Grande Trail by an easement through the Riverview School property at the north end and
connect to County Road 154 on the south end. Such connections would greatly assist in
the efforts to connect the Riverview School to Iron Bridge and the Rio Grande Trail, such
incremental efforts toward the goal of interconnection should be carried forward with this
development. In addition, with the increased traffic along Flying M Ranch Road, this
alternative route will be increasingly important.
36
PC February 14, 2018
DP
9. Sidewalk Connections: The LUDC encourages the minimization of conflict between
vehicles and pedestrians. Considering the location of the school, the number of employees
within the vicinity, and the amount of housing proposed it is recommended that sidewalks
be installed along both sides and the entire length of Flying M Ranch Road as well as
along the PUD sections of CR 154. The development of these sidewalks will minimize
vehicle / pedestrian conflicts and help encourage circulation within the development.
10. Pedestrian Road Crossing Protection: The LUDC identifies in Section 7-306(B), that
"Special structures and/or traffic control devices may be required at road crossings to
avoid unsafe road crossings." Considering the location of the manufactured housing and
multi -family development in relation to the Riverview School, it is recommended that the
crossing of the proposed trail at Flying M Ranch Road to the school have protections for
pedestrians. Recommendations for this crossing include a raised crosswalk and/or a
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB).
rIrc'irfIV')
11. River Access: Public dedication of the access point to the Roaring Fork River is
encouraged. 61a/c/; r'si �tcry ,' r cr1'' 4,11 /,e 0,ave�s/
12. Soils and Natural Hazard Study: A plat note on the Eastbank Minor Subdivision plat notes
the susceptibility of the site to sinkholes and soil collapse. It is recommended that a soil
and other natural hazard study be conducted on this property and included with the
preliminary plan application that considers potential natural hazard issues in relation to the
new proposed development.
13. Trail Design Collaboration with CPW: It is recommended that the Applicant work with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in the design and implementation of the trail network
within the development.
14. Waterbody and Floodplain Delineation: Delineation of all waterbodies as defined in the
LUDC will need to be provided at the time of Preliminary Plan in order to ensure that the
applicable setbacks are maintained.
15. Lighting: At the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal, the Applicant will need to
demonstrate conformance with Section 7-304, Lighting. In addition, the submitted plans
should show the level of impact the proposed lighting will have on adjacent property
owners, including those across the Roaring Fork River.
16. Compatible Design / Compatibility: At the time of Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal, the
Applicant should address the anticipated impacts to neighboring properties within the view
shed area and propose mitigation as appropriate.
17. Lot Design: The lots as conceptually proposed appear to meet the dimensional
requirements of Section 7-402 A, B, and C. However, it appears that Parcels D, E, and F
could be split by a Public Right of Way ("Road, Public" as defined by Article 15 of the
LUDC) and therefore may not be in conformance with 7-402. D. As the access road will
be required to be dedicated to the public and would therefore be considered a Public Right
of Way, the Preliminary Plan application will need to demonstrate conformance with
Section 7-402.D.
37
PC February 14, 2018
DP
18. Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC): As all of Garfield County is considered high
risk for radon, Staff recommends that a requirement be added to the PUD requiring all
new residential structures be built utilizing RRNC standards.
19. Stormwater Management Plari: Plat Note #16 on the Eastbank Minor Subdivision requires
that a Stormwater Management Plan be submitted for review and acceptance at the time
of development for Lots 2 and 3. As a result, a Stormwater Management Plan will need to
be submitted as a part of the Preliminary Plan application.
20. Vegetation Management and Reclamation: At the time of Preliminary Plan submittal the
Applicant should provide a weed management plan, map, and inventory that includes a
proposal to address the Russian -olive and thistle management and proposed seed mixes.
In addition, a quantification of total disturbed area will be necessary.
38
J
David Pesnichak
From: Michael Prehm
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 11:06 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: Wyatt Keesbery; Dale Stephens; Dan Goin
Subject: Flying M Ranch Sketch Plan Referral
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
David,
EXHIBIT
In the Sketch Plan Concept it is not clear if Parcel B (Manufactured Home Park) will be accessing County Road 154
directly or use the Flying M Ranch Road. It would be our recommendation to only use the Flying M Ranch Road to access
Parcel B. With the additional traffic, improvements to the County Road 154 and Hwy 82 intersection may need to be
considered.
Mike Prehm
Foreman
Garfield County R & B
(970) 625-8601 Office
(970) 625-8627 Fax
1
111 hil.r10111~A1Nli Ul',141INItIleili T 1< id 11111
Reccption1L: 982428
O911612016 40:31:15 AM Jean A16erie0
i of 4 Re, Fen:SC.OD Doo Foo:O.Ad GARFIELD COUNTY CO
LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT
for
A 16.983 Acre Parcel of Land Owned by Eastbank, LLC Located approximately
1.5 Miles South of the City Of Glenwood Springs with Access Off County Road
154, Known as 3927 County Road 154 and as Lot 2 of the Eastbank Minor
Subdivision, Garfield County
(Assessor's Parcel No. 2185-354-15-002)
In accordance with and pursuant to provisions of the Garfield County Land Use and
Development Code, as amended, the following activity is hereby authorized by Land Use
Change Permit:
A Vehicle Repair Facility as shown on the Site Plan Attached as Exhibit "A'
(GAPA-05-16-8454)
This Land Use Change Permit is Issued subject to the conditions contained in the
Resolution of Approval (Exhibit B) and shall be valid only during compliance with such
conditions and other applicable provisions of the Garfield County Land Use and
Development Code, as amended, Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of
County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado.
ATTEST: DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
She''wer, AICP
Dat
Page 1 of 4
M lir F:17)1M111L1 hirintalrihrilltiiii14 _1111
Receptiont: 882420
0a/t6l207fi Oa:si:16 An Jean Alberico
2 of 4 Rea Fee:SL_OD Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit A
(Project Site Plan)
voiromrammummumnammx
is
/
Vehicle Repair
Facility
/
Driveway
Access -
Shared with
FedEx
Facility
Veterinary
Clinic
1
Page 2 of 4
Illf�:i�1R'1�I �fK�It144LNO, rIthi:M31W Ilk 11111
Reeep.ianft: 882420
09/18/2016 08:31:16 RM Jean Alberioo
3 of 4 Rec Fee•$0.00 Doo Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit B
Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to Issuance of the Land Use Change Permit
1. The Applicant shall provide a Stormwater Management Plan which includes
drainage calculations. This Pian shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield
County Designated Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
2. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the new well permit and Basalt Water
Conservancy District augmentation contract that allows the use for a Vehicle
Repair Facility, to be reviewed by the County Designated Engineer and Community
Development Department prior to Issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
3. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed well sharing agreement
between the veterinary clinic and vehicle repair facility, to be reviewed by the
County Attorney's Office and Community Development Department prior to
issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
4. The Applicant shall provide a water quality test that meets the standards In Section
4-203(M)(1)(b)(5)(c) of the LUDO, reviewed and accepted by the County
Designated Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
5. The Applicant shall provide documentation as to whether the combined veterinary
clinic and vehicle repair facility will need to meet the requirements of the Colorado
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (water) and/or the Colorado Water Quality
Control Act (wastewater). The submittal shall be reviewed and accepted by the
County Designated Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
6. The Applicant shall provide soils characteristics and slope information for the
wastewater absorption area to ensure compliance with County OWTS rules and
regulations for the proposed permanent OWTS system. This Information shall be
reviewed and accepted by the County Designated Engineer prior to issuance of
the Land Use Change Permit.
7. The Applicant shall provide a draft wastewater system sharing agreement between
the veterinary clinic and vehicle repair facility prior to execution to be reviewed and
accepted by the County Attorney's Office prior to issuance of the Land Use Change
Permit.
8. Tha Applicant shall meet with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department to come to
an agreement on (1) necessary fire flow water and pressure to support firefighting
operations, and (2) the number and location of hydrants on site. The Applicant
shall provide evidence of the consultation with the Fire Department and written
documentation of the agreement regarding the aforementioned items to the
Community Development Department and County Designated Engineer for review
and acceptance prior to Issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
Page 3 of 4
01 fird1111411111.1% fillrluiirkikarVROIritilid 1101
Reeepkion#: 882420
09!1612016 09:31.16 RM Jean Rlberioo
4 of 4 Rep Feo:$0.00 Doc Fee•0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO
Other Conditions
9. All representation of the Applicant contained in the application shall be considered
conditions of approval.
10.The Vehicle Repair Facility shall be subject to all Garfield County Building Code
Requirements.
11.AII exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded and comply with Section 7-304,
Lighting Standards, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended.
12.The Applicant shall obtain a County OWTS permit for both the vault and haul
wastewater disposal system and the permanent OWTS, as applicable.
13. Within one year from the date of Issuance of the County OWTS permit for the vault
and haul system, the system shall be removed and replaced with either: (1)
connection to and service provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District (RFWSD), or (2) installation of a permanent OWTS consistent with the site
plans and representations made within the application.
14.At the time the roadway to the school site across Lot 3 is constructed, the
southerly access for Lot 2 onto County Road 154 shall be closed and relocated
to connect to the school site access road.
15.This property is located within the City of Glenwood Springs' Source Water
Protection Area. The operator should be mindful of this in their operations, and
contact the Glenwood Springs water treatment plant operator in the event of a spill.
16.Waste oil and other automobile fluids should be stored so that they do not leak
and are not allowed contact with bare soil.
17.The operator shall control fugitive dust through appropriate dust control measures
such as water application, revegetation when possible, and covering bare surfaces
with gravel.
18. Dust, odors, gas, fumes, and glare shall not be emitted at levels that are
reasonably objectionable to adjacent property.
19. Noise shall not exceed State noise standards pursuant to C.R.S., Article 12 of Title
25.
Page 4 of 4
111101,417111 111115l4h#lir4K14:1'XlNr 11111
Reception#: 882418
09/16/2016 08:31:16 A11 Jean glberico
1 of 4 Ree Fee:SO.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT
for
EXHIBIT
A 16.983 Acre Parcel of Land Owned by Eastbank, LLC Located approximately
1.5 Miles South of the City Of Glenwood Springs with Access Off County Road
154, Known as 3927 County Road 154 and as Lot 2 of the Eastbank Minor
Subdivision, Garfield County
(Assessor's Parcel No. 2185-354-15-002)
In accordance with and pursuant to provisions of the Garfield County Land Use and
Development Code, as amended, the following activity is hereby authorized by Land Use
Change Permit:
A Veterinary Clinic as shown on the Site Plan Attached as Exhibit "A' (GAPA-
05-16-8453)
This Land Use Change Permit is issued subject to the conditions contained in the
Resolution of Approval (Exhibit B) and shall be valid only during compliance with such
conditions and other applicable provisions of the Garfield County Land Use and
Development Code, as amended, Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of
County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado.
ATTEST: DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Sheryl B wer, AICP
Date
Page 1 of 4
RI 1 f rljMM 1MVi 141M+1AMILrfrill.1 MAK11111
Recept i onti : 882419
49116,1261€ 06:31:16 fYl Joan Alberiee
2 of 4 Reo Foa:30.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 G0RFIEL0 COUNTY CO
tXflIDIt A
(Project Site Plan)
venvitemnmwasmammnumm
wamlrllMAtawMa
ce'.aPcwv-ra
1
1
Vehicle Repair
Facility
Veterinary
Clinic
Driveway
Access -
Shared with•
FedEx
Facility
Page 2 of 4
■III1P11<:l%II rti IleiV'Vbiifi114> PJ111:16 J14.11111
Recsptianll : 982419
09116!201G e8:31:14 RR Jean Rlbarlco
3 of 4 Rea Fae:$O.OB Doo Fae:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit B
Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to Issuance of the Land Use Change Permit
1. The Applicant shall provide a Stormwater Management Pian which Includes
drainage calculations. This Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield
County Designated Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
2. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the new well permit and Basalt Water
Conservancy District augmentation contract that allows the use for a veterinary
clinic, to be reviewed by the County Designated Engineer and Community
Development Department prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
3. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed well sharing agreement
between the veterinary clinic and vehicle repair facility, to be reviewed by the
County Attorney's Office and Community Development Department prior to
issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
4. The Applicant shall provide a water quality test that meets the standards in Section
4203(M)(1)(b)(5)(c) of the LUDC, reviewed and accepted by the County
Designated Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
5. The Applicant shall provide documentation as to whether the combined veterinary
clinic and vehicle repair facility will need to meet the requirements of the Colorado
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (water) and/or the Colorado Water Quality
Control Act (wastewater). The submittal shall be reviewed and accepted by the
County Designated Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
6. The Applicant shall provide soils characteristics and slope information for the
wastewater absorption area to ensure compliance with County OWTS rules and
regulations for the proposed permanent OWTS system. This information shall be
reviewed and accepted by the County Designated Engineer prior to issuance of
the Land Use Change Permit.
7. The Applicant shall provide a draft wastewater system sharing agreement between
the veterinary clinic and vehicle repair facility prior to execution to be reviewed and
accepted by the County Attorney's Office prior to issuance of the Land Use Change
Permit
8. The Applicant shall meet with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department to come to
an agreement on (1) necessary fire flow water and pressure to support firefighting
operations, and (2) the number and location of hydrants on site. The Applicant
shall provide evidence of the consultation with the Fire Department and written
documentation of the agreement regarding the aforementioned items to the
Page 3 of 4
1111 NILYN Nib Lt4:ffilPriAl 1KINAiiii 11111
Reception#: 882419
69116F2016 08:31:16 F717 Jean Merlon
4 of 4 Rite FanV0_00 Doo Fee:O.OD GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Community Development Department and County Designated Engineer for review
and acceptance prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
Other Conditions
9. All representation of the Applicant contained in the application shall be considered
conditions of approval.
10.The Veterinary Clinic shall be subject to all Garfield County Building Code
Requirements.
11.All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded and comply with Section 7-304,
Lighting Standards, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended.
12.The Applicant shall obtain a County OWTS permit for both the vault and haul
wastewater disposal system and the permanent OWTS, as applicable.
13. Within one year from the date of issuance of the County OWTS permit for the vault
and haul system, the system shall be removed and replaced with either (1)
connection to and service provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District (RFWSD), or (2) installation of a permanent OWTS consistent with the site
plans and representations made within the application.
14.At the time the roadway to the school site across Lot 3 is constructed, the
southerly access for Lot 2 onto County Road 154 shall be closed and relocated
to connect to the school site access road.
15.This property Is located within the City of Glenwood Springs' Source Water
Protection Area. The operator should be mindful of this In their operations, and
contact the Glenwood Springs water treatment plant operator in the event of a spill.
16. Horse and other livestock manure shall be cleaned frequently and stored so that
nutrients and bacteria are not allowed to leave the property.
1 7.The operator shall control fugitive dust through appropriate dust control measures
such as water application, revegetation when possible, and covering bare surfaces
with gravel.
18. Dust, odors, gas, fumes, and glare shall not be emitted at levels that are
reasonably objectionable to adjacent property.
19. Noise shall not exceed State noise standards pursuant to C.R.S., Article 12 of Title
25.
Page 4 of 4
.QQE1
EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION
A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2A OF EASTBANK. LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
PUTNOIts A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SI /2 SECTION 35,
. �.• • r,w.�.. Y..,�.r..
TOWNSHIP 6SOUTH, RANGE 69WEST OFTHE 6THP.M.
COUNTY OFGARFIELD,STATE OFCOLORADO
Y.��� • M�•�y�•
-• • r ••▪ ••• ww•. -.�R�R • •`a.w rr r. sr.. rni.
µ
.ms r .
• • __` iwra.1.• MB . WY, • rra Mia Y...
••••• atiwyi .rr�•wyr.•+.��•ii� �w•.F•rer�. • 1.•
4 w .wvr
ago df.Y�, aC• . ==ragZ.i ~ .% T.� 1.1"2.4b 1•TY �Tr�
P ••� Y wfw .r rtrad�l�a•r+ �sa�r.
Y y �a ••.r ~yam W•Y..r •qw,� i_
y••••.4Y1w+• M #••. V•
a.1•.ra Y r • Ie••••a•�W•.•N...5..... lNY w.n_ �••••••PM•
Lan. Buy
.AVT TmRS�[[ .14E NO NIEM
rIT�DAtT�ryi��mis ibuOuc[ MARK „writ
:417.1;17! ..Yi w.m'+"wu :`.••`.•Y•Y:`e9 .. oT•'aw .:s<.f'rc.' w,..rc.a. o ..
flUIVUO1PU COMPICATE
.••w.,• •.,• •••••••ya �rlww.r+YBY. rl w 4r
VIOPITFIAP
TTTLECCI PICATE
• ▪ •t•••• •• --r •r `•. 1_. 7.•.�,• ay•• .m.M.. ti•.� 1•••••
IY•+I• YOU.. • ti•'. •w-+ ram., a.an Y.Y.w, v..m r.•- x ...am. r
ria •Y'Y,•
•
TVIJIIVCf IC WICA
RIM
M•fa mr.. ..1••••••••• ••• 1.•••• PAY a<r.a rr-.a r•Y 0..
COTIYICATEOPTAXIS PMD
r. Ra13flo ` 77. -Nr
" ahae•.r.Y.. I^
•
Y. . .. w r.. ..• REY Yoe 3 BGL,•
CLEIO[ ANO RDCOIOOII CINIPICATE
�..AZ�w ,�. . YY 0.•Y % .[ Nl... ec..a v can (.W rt a11'.]' ,SOI F2'•
.1 .{yf1a .`-( as Ai .6. 0.a• rtmu� �•'�`,+�.
- EY X91 p0
CLITIFICATC OFOL91CAnQNaI arrPM1111T final••••.,... r.- •
•••▪ •IY•••YE bimi••kw •Yw .wail• •
Fwwn•.w i•••••w+
gamy •w.Yd. •��• ra•YK• r r.r.r•a w r w.,a•
1• %.•a • • •••iii ra
• • . YE n..•••r. MY w..r r.". a,. Y• . .••r• e.••. .•u Yw,I...
>w•• - • .... y a•. YIN•
- iM �••••••.n.••�r• •B•1 R � narlr.• rrnrwy.n+r YY�l. •
.r• ri r.ir•YE ••••l •�.tn.• Y••••...•ta w•••••%ye rs w••
,.•IN ••YIY aN•
.a�•1•wR•Y•f.It w••wYrt. rF'w•• �Mni
L.
PNEHM N /NGN
EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION
A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2A OF EASTBANK, LLC LOTUNE ADJUSTMENT
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE S1/2 SECTION 35,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO
00. gnu
PARCEL+
FAA4:ASNK ld; 5A di
CTMX..
44 n'%D
Mani Of la•Llt
.Y.Jy i1
L" ' ID......-
..r4 ,ea,..Gun
Y
In E..4 .
RANCH
G
GRAPHIC SCALE
MT .rte '•
LLT g TS7C.{yi
,f
RONBRIOGE GOLF COURSE
WESTBANX FR.:NG
OT
•
s A»
r owTAR
fi ur �bAs
.-• a•-• err..
"`-ate. r,.
RFI -k
x
i
8
9
8
taro
.If,CCMC.
2 OF
January 26, 2018
COLORADO
Parks and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Glenwood Springs Area Office
0088 Wildlife Way
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P 970.947.2920 1 F 970.947.2936
David Pesnichak
Senior Planner
Garfield County Development
108 8th St. Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Sketch Plan Application
Dear David,
EXHIBIT
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the application materials for the
Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision. The subject area has been degraded by previous use
and has limited wildlife habitat value. Seasonally, each winter a group of elk had
used the upland area of sagebrush prior to the construction of the Riverview School,
but that use has since diminished. Mule deer use the overall property year-round.
Overall, due to the degraded habitat on the property, existing disturbance and
development surrounding and adjacent to the property, the proposed development
may have some affect on individual animals, but will likely have minimal impacts to
wildlife populations. There is potential for general human/wildlife conflicts and some
impacts to wildlife; therefore, CPW offers the following recommendations:
1. Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, white
leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing
should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards.
2. Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It
is recommended that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use
a centralized trash collection area that is secured.
3. Work with CPW on trail design near the river and work to actively enhance
riparian vegetation.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and submit
comments for this project. If there are any questions or needs for additional
information, don't hesitate to contact Land Use Specialist, Taylor Elm, at
Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray • Marie Haskett • Carrie Besnette Hauser
John Howard. Chair • Marvin McDaniel • Dale Pizel • Jim Spehar • James Vigil, Secretary • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman, Vice -Chair • Alex Zipp
•
ur r.s,Y r
(970) 947-2971 or District Wildlife Manager, John Groves, at (970) 947-2933.
Sincerely,
err
1
ef
ill, Area Wildlife Manager
Cc. John Groves, District Wildlife Manager
Matt Yamashita, District Wildlife Manager
Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist
File
January 31, 2018
EXHIBIT
Garfield County
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Community Development Department
RE: Flying M Sketch Plan SSPA 12-17-8599
Vegetation Management
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the sketch plan.
The applicant has provided an Ecological Assessment of Eastbank that was done for a prior review in 2015.
It is not a comprehensive weed management plan, map and inventory, but there is an enough information in there to know
that there is a Russian -olive and Scotch thistle problem on the site.
For the next step in the process, staff recommends a treatment plan that will address Russian -olive removal and thistle
management.
For revegetation purposes, staff requests that the applicant quantify the surface area to be disturbed, in acres, for road
shoulders (not the actual road), utility easements, and common areas, and utility disturbances. This information will help
determine if a revegetation security is necessary.
We'd like to review the proposed seed mixes as well.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
195 W. 14th Street, Bldg. D, Suite 310
Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Mobile Phone: 970-379-4456
195 W. 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-5200
Garfield County
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Dave Pesnichak
February 6, 2018
Hello Dave,
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6614
I've reviewed the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Sketch Plan Application. There are a few
topics to note as the applicant moves forward with their Preliminary Plan/PUD Application.
1. Built Environment: We fully support the concept outlined by the developer of a path
along the Roaring Fork River that allow for an outdoor experience and connectedness
within the community. In addition, the developer and the Planning Commission should
consider a bike path or at least sidewalk access for this community and the Riverview
School to the Rio Grande Bike path near the intersection of County Road 154 and
Highway 82. This will allow for safe use of "active transportation" to Glenwood Springs
and Carbondale.
2. Water quality impacts: As the application acknowledges, this development is in very
close proximity to the Roaring Fork River. Neighborhood design should account for this
and maintain the regulatory 35 -foot setback from the river. Stormwater management and
other designs to prevent runoff of pollutants into the river, or its alluvium, should be
optimized as well.
3. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Public Health supports the concept of "Eco -
Efficiency Homes" planned for the development and encourages the use of energy
efficiency measures in the other buildings planned for the subdivision as well.
4. Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC): while not currently required by Garfield
County's building code, it is recommended that the proposed homes and buildings be
constructed using radon resistant new construction (RRNC) standards. This can
represent a significant cost -savings to the owner over installation of a mitigation system
after the home is built. The homes should be tested for radon after construction is
complete, at which time a fan can be added if elevated radon levels are present. Free
radon test kits are available at Garfield County Public Health offices.
Thank you,
Vevik
Morgan Hill
Environmental Health Specialist III
Garfield County Public Health
195 W. 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 665-6383
Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease
David Pesnichak
From: Ron Biggers <ron.biggers@cogs.us>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:13 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: Gary Tillotson
Subject: RE: Flying M Ranch (Eastbank) - Sketch Plan - Referral Request
Dave,
Comments on Flying M Ranch sketch plan:
EXHIBIT
/0
The main issue at this time will be for the applicant to develop a second access out of the PUD when the residential units
start to be constructed on Parcels C-1, 2, 3, E and F. This could be a, loop road that connects the road through Parcel F to
the dirt road on the north side of the school property that ends at the north side of the parking lot by the ball field. The
surface on this road shall be one that is plow -able in winter and mud free in spring, summer and fall. This road will need
to be in place when the residential units start construction. In the more distant future this road should connect to new
proposed extension of CR 154 to Orrison Distributing.
In my conversation with Dan Denison from High Country Engineering and Doug Pratte with Land Studio this morning
(2/7/18) the 1st phase of buildings will be on Parcel B and Parcel D. For these building they can make a code
compliant emergency vehicle turn -around at the end of the road that will service the Parcel D building.
Some concerns we have about Parcel B(eco-efficiency homes) is the home density, adequate off street parking so the
two main ingress/egress roads do not get blocked and who will enforce the no on street parking. The roads in this parcel
shall be sign NO PARKING OR STANDING AT ANYTIME.
If this project moves past the sketch plan stage into the development phase we will comment on fire flow water needs,
sprinklering of buildings, fire hydrant location and number needed etc.
If you have questions on the above comments please contact me.
Ron Biggers
Deputy Fire Marshal
Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Fire Sprinklers Save Lives!!!
970-384-6433
Disclaimer: This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could
be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy version.
From: David Pesnichak [mailto:dpesnichak@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 5:39 PM
To: Kelly Cave <kcave@garfield-county.com>; Michael Prehm <mprehm@garfield-county.com>; Dan Goin
<dgoin@garfield-county.com>; Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us>; Gretchen E Ricehill
<gretchen.ricehill@cogs.us>; Ron Biggers <ron.biggers@cogs.us>; pelland@rfschools.com; Hoyer - DNR, Scott
1
David Pesnichak
From: Jeff Wisch <jgwisch@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:23 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Flying M ranch subdivision
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Dave,
EXHIBIT
s
//
My name is Jeff Wisch. My wife and I have lived in Westbank Ranch for the last 18 years. We have some
concerns with project being brought forward at the Flying M Ranch. These concerns are many including traffic,
density and type of buildings on property. Including hospice facility.
We would like to be at meeting however, it is Valentine's night and many of us have plans. Also it is Ash
Wednesday which effects many other people. I believe this will reduce your turn out of people opposing this
development. Hopefully there will be other meetings where everyone can voice their concerns. One of my
concerns is the owner of property is not willing to put his contiguous ranch property in a conservation easement
and that could add the possibility for more development in future. we need to know what will be done on all of
his property now.
Sincerely,
Jeff And Gay Wisch
1
Orrison Distributing
salggey
Roaring Fork School District
Potential CR 15411-lwy 82
Interchange
Parcell F'
Multi -Family Residential
Incepenaen;
•Dano Homes
4.8 Acres
-3...
FedX
Existing Business
arcel � -
%dtI~Famiiy Residential::
,lAssisiezi Urea Facile
.87
Parcel A.,
Business Park
4 28 Acres- -
1.
Parcel Dom. --
Community Service Facility
. Hospice of ;he Valley' .s--
1.19 Acres
_Parcel C3'u.
Multi -Family Residen
ResdendalLolls,
1.34 Acres
w
c;4Parcel C2- _
u1t$- array Residential
4;:rf esdentiaf
"moi -O4• -w
Parcel C#
Multi -Family Residentia
Residential Logs
3 17 Acres1;j
Parcel
tide Oven
Flyin• M Ranch
Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development and Major Subdivision
Sketch Subdivision Plan Garfield County, Colorado
The Flying M Ranch PUD/Major Subdivision is proposed for Lots 2
and 3 of the previously platted Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision.
This 33.927 area will be subdivided into 10 Tots via the Major
Subdivision Application and review process in Garfield County.
Google Earth
The Orrison Distribution Center and L & Y Jammaron Family LLLP property reside to the
north, the Roaring Fork River, Structural Associates and Westbank Neighborhood reside to
the south, Highway 82 and County Road 154 and the Rio Grande Trail reside to the east,
and Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split Parcel 2B is located to the west.
The property is accessed from County Road 154 from a controlled access intersection at
Colorado State Highway 82.
L & YJammaron
Family•LLLP
Roaring Fork
School District
Drawn DstriTbutIn
. .- e....-,....-0-.3,-::-. ..,_..- - - ,_-,.......
Flying M Ranch Sketch Subdivision Plan Summa
je: ieiii
sx• --.E:•...40- : ., •'-,%.2,-”.
- -'. ' .- - ,•- *Parcel A . Business Park - 428
--...
.000-25.DOOAdmioml
; , ..,...,
/I
. • . 'P.arcB -Eco-P".,..i .c)4a -5 - 6 93 -
E.5
41111.r . '' I 1 ...'''' ''' ' sc.••• c r -••.F..5 ..-_:,-_:•r :•• .3' !....1 nI.F.--...' .%,c,..
4ki-i., id:7: V ll'e' P. ; l'A-P. .1`,..r- -- -J., - • -
... I. 64 •-• %I ....°167 1701' , P r_C-5,1; Q.1: C2.:a.. e3_Isitlul:it-!-F-asi-rilylifiliResliSd.er,t.i.a
.. . ay. r...,, sta.., 7:ffi 4..di _.4,. .....,.a ..... i:D.sd.1:2rIti 3.....,_11...L1.fts ! -2.:51.:51sAci..re.,,•!...
.._ . 16 „ie. IPA. a . -7 ' f 1.• f -: 4.-• -2 • 4.------
, 04,i 4,,,trrtri. vii 1-4-r
...Parcel D - Corrrnum:y Service Facy
r :,,•Hospk.e of the Vatiey - 4.14 Acre
1•11." • =0CliC4X 2,5. 54X.3 SF - 3:-.7..--.T :37::'
4 i
apoi-cLx_ ,:::...=_-,.-] s.7 - 2,2— r ES.'_'21:•.0‘4. _
'Pt
...
_..7,1.....c.. -,...._._s_. .-...:-.;,-;.-:„,?!.-..ta.:-....,:7e1
:- •
,
It \ ,.Parcel E - Mut-Family Residentialt.,
.. _
x7.5.11.'0 S- - ','-'"--• '',,1.2..n ' --.o •--'',_ ',":"•,•r. el
,;_;.,,, 25. C.,:i.") 57- - 7.-77,..••,..t. 7 '.--F,; '• V 7 ., 1.. 7 '.77.'7 '••
5.0CC SF: -::-.0rce. 7.1:...c.-.3..:•...3
iiiCEIC-1,.-AJ:id awei s.1_,4-f.i;,._..,a .;•:..".--s..i.:,..j.,
. Parcel F • Multi-Farnily Residential,
ndependent Living Patio Homes - 4.8 Acres
5-6 Renta: Jnitsi
Roaring Fork School Distrit-t
Parcel F
Renter
Al,.11ePlAssLsted Living • 2.87 Acresi
\ _ .
:••;--..AcT Each
Pa'tel
Parcel G - Hillside Ow Space -243
.`71011.ille.-11111.111.: _ -
Parcel ?-1 - AccessiLltilibes - 2.46 Acres'
.i.gu.iParce4 C211:.•
f&r,e93e,:12e
Parce G-
=
Flying 11. Pa rich
Strunl.ra' A.ssoc,ztf.
Proposed uses within the Flying M Ranch Subdivision include
expansion of an existing business park, eco -efficiency homes,
residential lofts, HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley, and
opportunities for a continuing care retirement community with a
diversity of multi -family unit types.
Parcel F
Multi -Family Residential
1114 Independent Living
-cs Patio Homes
4.8 AcresIII
'
Proposed Parcel D will provide a home for HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley, a
locally -based, non-profit provider of services that prevent and relieve suffering,
restore dignity and provide comfort for those living with a life -limiting disease.
The proposed Hospice of the Valley facility will consist of approximately 26,500
SF of patient and support space, 8,500 SF of administration space, 5,000 SF of
mechanical and storage space, and surface parking for clients and guests.
Riverview
School
:NAL'
s 'Parcel E -
\Multi -Family Residential
\Assisted Living Facility
2.87 Acres
=ti
-40
Parcel D,
Community Service Facili r
-' Hospice of the Valley I.
.."4.19 Acres
_Parcel C3
Multi -Family Residentia
\Residential Lofts
1.34 Acres
Parcel C2
,.Multi -Family Residential
Residential Lofts
1.04 Acres-
Parcel Gtr
Hillside Open Space -
Acres
18 beds combined (8 bed Hospice, 10 bed Palliative Care)
CM -+,
CCD rt. rp
�C ❑
❑
O CD ry
3 cro
�N
0Cr • m o
li
eL r
• C
o
as _..�
ll
CCQ
ra CU
S. sz.
cr CU
ra ET;
cu
n �
CL
v -
3
= -
•c -
ry
1:5 eL
n �
ra C
Parcel F A
Multi -Family Residentia
Independent Living --
Patio Homes
4,8 Acres.
Conceptually, the Parcel E multi -family residential facility will offer a variety of
residential options for seniors who require various levels of care.
Services provided to residents could range from communal housing and social
activities to medical assistance and intervention.
This potential facility will consist of approximately 25,000 SF of living units,
approximately 7,500 SF of administration and support, and 5,000 SF of
44 mechanical/storage with potential underground parking and additional
r
' Parcel Ek
Multi -Family Residential
\\As_ sisted Living Facility
't 2.87 Acres
Parcel D;
Community Service Facile
`4.
Hos ice of the Valley)
4.19 Acres J t4
_,Parcel C3 ,µa
Multi -Family Residential
'Residential Lofts
1.34 Acres
Parcel C2
;:Multi -Family Residential
,Residential Lofts
1.04 Acres
Parcel G
Hillside Open Space
.83 Acres
?*7
roe
Roaring Fork School District
The Parcel F patio homes will provide easily
accessible outdoor spaces with comfortable
floor plans and access to amenities such as
transportation and dining within the Flying M
Ranch community at a density of 5-6
residential units/acre.
The concept includes opportunities for
two/three bedroom one-story homes with
I garage and driveway parking spaces and
additional guest surface parking.
Parcel F
Multi -Family Residential
Independent Living
1uPatio Homes
1.jF
'L _4.8 Ames
The multi -family patio homes will be linked to
the remaining Flying M Ranch PUD via a river
path overlooking the Roaring Fork River and
the agricultural lands below.
Parcel E
Multi -Family Residential
\Assisted Living Facility
2.87 AcrespJ
1
Proposed Parcels C1, C2, and C3 will consist of multi -family
residences at an overall Parcel C density of 10-12 residential
units/acre.
As a concept, these residential structures will include
underground parking, surface guest parking, and elevator
access. These multi -family units could range from small
studios to larger three-bedroom units. The loft units will offer
a contemporary design of one level living with riverfront
views and river access via a public community path.
Parcel
Business Park -_-
4.28 Acres,
.Parcel H_
ccessJUtilities_,
;, 2.46 Acres
Parcel C3 —
Multi -Family Residential
\ Residential Lofts --'
1.34 Acres ---
,;.:Parcel C2
Multi -Family Residential
Residential Lofts
1.04 Acres--
Parcel C1_
Multi -Family Residential
Residential Lofts___
-3;43.17 Acres
-�,
-
-.‘Sb' Parcel A is a proposed 4.28 -acre parcel that consists of two existing
businesses with additional proposed business uses.
These proposed uses include an additional 20,000-25,000 SF of business
space that may include, but not be limited to, a veterinary clinic,
.'i professional offices, retail/wholesale businesses, service businesses,
vehicle and equipment businesses, fabrication businesses, storage
facilities, park and ride, recycling facilities, and accessory uses.
FedX
Existing Business
Parcel
Business Park/ ,
4.28 Acres
ti - /4/
__Parcel H = �_
Acres in. ,1 Ranch Rasa
-rte - F�
_.Parcel C1_
.Multi -Family Residential
)1, Residential Lofts — =
- - 3.17 Acres '.
'1-
- • ,eidt•
Eco Village
Who is this Project for?
"Communities thrive when people have safe and stable housing"
What is Attainable Housing?
- 30% Gross Income
- Range of options, Range of incomes
Who needs Attainable Housing?
• Clerical workers, restaurant staff, retail industry workforce, bank tellers.
• Seniors, disabled individuals, young working professionals entering the workforce.
• School teachers, nurses, nonprofit employees, service industry workers.
• Businesses looking to replace retiring employees or to add new positions
• Family members returning to the Valley
• The list goes on
Non -Market
Temporary
Non -Market
Permanent
Market
Rental
x ..... s-....4°
i
Moderate
Market
Owner
High -End
Ownership
Why Can't they Live Somewhere Else?
What is available today for rent?
The following figures and observations are provided via Craigslist, Zillow and The Post
Independent.
• Inventory of rental units from Glenwood to Carbondale is low. (15-25 units) [16,774 total
population, 2016]
• Nearly half represent homes, townhomes, condos. Most were priced above $2,000/mo.
• Many rental units are single bedrooms in an existing house or small studios above a
garage.
• Most of the rental units are multi-level and require stairs for access
• Most are of older construction and do not exhibit energy efficient construction or
featu res
• Many of the rentals are now more geared toward seasonal or vacation rentals (Airbnb,
Vrbo)
• Nearly all put the tenant at risk of losing a home if the owner decides to sell the house,
townhome, condo
- r - ANTir- %. • 7 ar• -
Flying M Ranch
• Proximity to transportation network (Highway, Bike Trails)
• Availability of Utilities (Water, Sewer, Power)
• Current uses for proposed development are not agricultural or
historic
• Current areas are not critical wildlife areas.
If this is not a reasonable choice for responsible development Where Is?
1
4
11111111
Eco Village
A community of 30 to 36 thoughtfully designed,
energy efficient and environmentally conscious
houses. They will range between 600 and 800
Square feet.
•
These residences are intended to be free
market and for rent.
•
This is a free market approach to attainable housing. With
respect to affordability, No grants, County, State or
Federal Funding will be used for this project.
Critical Density is achieved through smaller residences.
(vs. higher density apartment buildings) �;Vit
._.alt• iir.� napalm: -iiipt"..tntaaimamaiiisasehmsaiiiirats
What is an Eco Efficiency Home?
Smaller than a typical residence, larger than a "tiny home"
Exposed Concrete Floor
( Permanent Foundation
+Thermal Massing)
R-41 SIP Panel Roof
Solar Awnings
(where applicable)
610 SF Two
Bedroom
Design
Durable Modern Exterior
Materials
Energy Smart Glazing
Options
Xeriscape/Water Smart
Landscaping
R-24 SIP Panel Walls
+ Tight Thermal
Envelope
Water
Smart
Plumbing
Fixtures
Energy
Optimized
Mechanical
and
Plumbing
Systems
Energy Star
Appliances
LED Lighting
Throughout
Eco Village at Flying "M" Ranch
Concept Site Plan
Off Street
Parking
Community
Solar
F\y\ng „M„ Ranch Road
Waste &
Recycling Center
Solar
Pavilion
•r
Community
Gardens
Existing
Structure
Primary
Access Road
0
Secondary
Access Road
Riverside
Trail
Pocket Green
Spaces
River Access
Trail
L
ng Fork River
Eco Efficiency House +/- 600
SF Footprint (typical)
Each site includes parking
for two cars.
Dark Sky
Lighting
Xeriscaping
Throughout
Truck Turn Around
Flying M Ranch PUD
Sketch Plan Review
Legal
Flying M Ranch PUD
Sketch Plan Review Criteria
GCLUR Section 5-302
• (B). Sketch Plan Review
• (1) Overview. The Sketch Plan Review is an optional process intended to review
at a conceptual level the feasibility and design characteristics of the proposed
division of land.
• (2) Review Process.
• (a) The Planning Commission shall conduct a conceptual review of the proposal. ...
• (3) Review Criteria. In considering a Sketch Plan proposal, the following shall
be considered:
• (a) Feasibility and design characteristics based upon compliance with the applicable
standards
• (b) General conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
Flying M Ranch PUD
Sketch Plan Review Criteria
GCLUR Section 5-302
• (B). Sketch Plan Review
• (1) Overview. The Sketch Plan Review is an optional process intended to review
at a conceptual level the feasibility and design characteristics of the proposed
division of land.
• (2) Review Process.
• (a) The Planning Commission shall conduct a conceptual review of the proposal. ...
• (3) Review Criteria. In considering a Sketch Plan proposal, the following shall
be considered:
• (a) Feasibility and design characteristics based upon compliance with the applicable
standards
(b) General conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
Flying M Ranch PUD
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
• GarCo Comp Plan Chapter 2 — Future Land Use
• Growth in Urban Areas (22)
• "The Plan recognizes the need for existing municipalities to be able to gradually expand
into immediately surrounding areas.
• "These growth areas are the preferred locations in Garfield County for growth that
require urban level services."
• GarCo Comp Plan Chapter 3, Section 1— UGA Boundaries and
Intergovernmental Coordination (37-39)
• Encourages collaboration with municipalities on development within UGB
• Within UBGs, individual project will be consistent with local land use plans
• "Retain rural character outside of UGA limits."
• Strategies / Actions — Reserve land within UGAs to accommodate growth for the next
twenty years, using tools such as Urban Residential Reserve
• "Work cooperatively within the region on issues that transcend political
boundaries such as housing, transit, and economic development"
Flying M Ranch PUD
General Conformance with Comprehensive
Plan
• GarCo Comp Plan Section 2 — Housing (41)
• "Garfield County has encouraged a diverse stock of housing available to a
variety of incomes ...."
• Vision: "Housing is located near existing infrastructure and amenities so that
families can live, work and play in their communities"
• Goals
• "To bring about a range of housing types. costs, and tenancy options,
that ensure for our current and future residents affordable housing
opportunities in safe, efficient residential structure."
• "Affordable housing anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley does offer the
potential of being closer to upper valley work without having to pass
through the traffic bottleneck of Glenwood Springs.
Significance of Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in
Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan
• "Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
• The Urban Growth Boundary represents an area that can support urban -level
development. Urban development is characterized by densities typical of
urbanized areas and by the types of services required to support that
development such as water, wastewater, roads, police and emergency
services, and other similar services..... Although this area lies outside of the
city and is subject to Garfield County land use requirements, according to the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, development and land use within the
Urban Growth Boundary should be consistent with the future land use
objectives of the municipality. (Page 20, emphasis added)
Glenwood Springs UGB
O
Downtown
Hghway
— City Streets
County Roads
IR Rivers
Parcels
Conservation
# Parks Open Space
Secondary Center Low Density Res den;ral
Cay Limits Srngle,famrly Resdentral
Urban Growth Boundary 64urn-famay Resrdentwl
Q Blue Line Maed-usel
Future Study Area ▪ Downtown
-(1T>
CI Downtown Development AuUm
wnty Boundary s Comeroai Y
✓/ Hillside Preservation pp Ir iustnal
.A` Riverside Protection , a 25 o 0: w..
The 'blue line -
reflects the
uppermost
topographic
laud of the Cdys
ability to provide
gravity fed water
generally 6.000
feet in elevation
The land within the UGB from this point south
is based on parcel Ines and not water service
area Low density residential uses are
designated m this area until annexation to the
`City rs complete and Planned Und Development
IL or other development review is approved
Future Mountain Park
C!,,Ary r 2 r ur rz ia+w Uss
Map 2 3: Future Lard Use - South Portion of City
• Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plcn
25
Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 6 — Housing
• "It is important to create a community in which people can live, work, play
and raise a family. Since 2000, jobs have increased at nearly twice the rate of
housing units. This has led to a greater imbalance between jobs and housing
and to increased commuting and traffic congestion. To create a sustainable
community with the characteristics desired by current residents, it is
necessary to increase the supply of housing relative to employment."
Strategic Housing Plan, 2010
• Policies. "The City encourages a variety of housing types sizes and costs
throughout the community and in each neighborhood. A variety of housing
types will create the opportunity for households with diverse characteristics."
(72)
Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 6 — Housing
• Ensure Rental and Ownership Opportunities.
• "Both homeownership and rental opportunities are needed because not every member of the
workforce wants to purchase a housing unit. To maintain the existing ratio between rental and
ownership units into the future, a percentage of homes built for occupancy by residents should be
for rent. Different types of dwelling units — apartments, duplexes, and single-family houses —
should be available for rent at affordable rates. ..."
• Encourage Greater Variety in Housing Types and Prices.
• To meet the diverse housing needs of Glenwood's current and future population, an increase in
range of housing types and price levels is needed. A greater range of housing types will enable the
City to better meet the needs of young adults that wish to stay in the community, a greater number
of our workforce, and those who no longer wish to maintain large properties (seniors, empty -
nesters, weekend warriors).
• Encourage a Mix of Densities and Unit Types within New and Redevelopment Projects
• "... [T]he City should encourage a mix of densities and unit types. A benefit of mixing densities and
unit types is that it allows families and individuals in different life stages ... to co -exist in
neighborhoods. It permits families that have established long-term ties to a neighborhood or
location to find larger and/or smaller homes as they change life stages without having to move to
another part of town."
Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 6 — Housing
South of Town.
• South of Glenwood Springs, there are several vacant and/or under-utilized
parcels that have potential to include at least some portion of higher density
residential uses and/or a mix of uses." (Page 78, emphasis added).
• "Over the past 2 decades, a number of large lot residential subdivisions have
been approved by Garfield County in the areas south of town. The Urban
Growth Boundary has been expanded to include the most proximate parcel
of land in this area, to better help shape the form and impact of future
development." (Page 123, emphasis added).
Glenwood's Housing Shortage
"Latent" Demand for Housing
• "Latent" Demand for housing
• A 2005 housing study found
the City needed to add 2,885
additional dwelling units
between 2005 and 2015 to
keep up with demand
• As of 2014 only 269 residential
units were created in the City
Lower Roaring Fork Valley Percentage Jobs
by Location
60%
��-
30%
20%
10% [sigl3% 296
Carbondale Glenwood New Castle Silt
Rifle
In -commuting is an indicator of latent demand for
housing in Glenwood Springs.
A
Other
consulting
2013 RESET Housing Study
• 2013 RESET Studied InterMountain West Post -Recession Housing
Market (Sonoran Institute)
• Findings
• Most homebuyers still prefer single family detached
• Much more willing to accept smaller house/lot size and greater density to walk and bike
to recreational amenities
• Preference for walkable neighborhoods
• Preference for access to recreation
• Seek neighborhoods that allow for frequent interaction
• Gen Y and Baby Boomers will be downsizing
Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 4 — Economic Development
• Values and Vision for Economic Development (49-51)
• Influence of mining, oil and gas, and construction related industries has made City susceptible
to boom and bust economic cycles. "Therefore, City must work to further diversity its
economy in order to minimize the impacts of the boom and bust cycle."
• "City should continue to make improvements that enhance the community's quality of life and
that make Glenwood Springs a place that is attractive for new businesses and their
employees"
• "Good jobs are provided by good employers. Good employers will locate in
communities where they and their employees will want to and can afford to live."
• "Options immediately adjacent to the City limits and within the Urban Growth
Boundary should also be examined for the ability to accommodate business and
industry.
• Encourage Housing
• "In recent years, the high cost of housing has likely deterred businesses from locating in the
city. The City should continue to encourage the development of affordable and attainable
housing, especially multi -family and rental units, as recommended in the Strategic Housing
Plan."
Flying M Ranch PUD
Sketch Plan Review Criteria
GCLUR Section 5-302
• (B). Sketch Plan Review
• (1) Overview. The Sketch Plan Review is an optional process intended to review
at a conceptual level the feasibility and design characteristics of the proposed
division of land.
• (2) Review Process.
• (a) The Planning Commission shall conduct a conceptual review of the proposal. ...
• (3) Review Criteria. In considering a Sketch Plan proposal, the following shall
be considered:
• (a) Feasibility and design characteristics based upon compliance with the applicable
standards
• (b) General conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
General Compliance with Standards
Density
• GCLUR — Section 6-401(C)(2) (PUD Standards)
• "C. Density
• Nonresidential Density. The density of nonresidential development within a PUD shall
comply with the Comprehensive Plan and shall not exceed the level that can be adequately
served by public facilities.
• Residential Density.
• Residential density shall be no greater than 2 dwelling units per gross acre within the
PUD; provide that the BOCC may allow and increase to a maximum of 15 dwelling units
per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a
municipal government or special district, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-103(20) are readily
available."
• Key — Access to central utilities.
• Staff Report: 4.52 — 5.26 DU/acre
• Traffic Report: 3 DU/Acre
General Compliance with Standards
Adequate Infrastructure
• In 2016, the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District sought extension of
service area and capacity
• Extension needed to serve new Riverview school.
• Utilities were oversized to accommodate development on 170 acres (RE -1 Parcel is 35 ac).
• RFSWD reserved capacity for 350 EQRs on Eastbank service extension.
• July 13, 2016 - Resolution PC -2016-04, Garfield County P&Z approves L&E Review
for Proposed extension.
• Finds proposed extension is in general conformance with Comprehensive Plan.
• September 12, 2016 - Resolution 2016-58 — BOCC approves service plan
amendment.
• Finding — existing infrastructure is inadequate for existing and projected needs in area.
• Applicant is in process of drafting pre -inclusion agreement with RFWSD
• Additional density needed for system efficiency / cost recovery by RE -1
General Compliance with Standards
Lighting
• GCLUR — Section 7-304 (Lighting Standards)
• Any exterior lighting shall meet the following conditions:
• (A) Downcast Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be designed so that Tight is directed inward, towards the interior of the
Subdivision or site.
• (B) Shielded Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded or arranged in a manner that concentrated rays of light will not
shine directly onto other properties.
• (E) Height Limitations. Light sources which exceed 40 feet in height shall not be permitted...
• We will meet and exceed these standards.
General Compliance with Standards
Traffic —Level of Service
• The following section pertains to only North American highway LOS standards as in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and AASHTO Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets ("Green Book"), using letters A through F, with A being the best and F being the worst, similar to academic
grading.
• A: free flow. Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and motorists have complete mobility between lanes. The average spacing between
vehicles is about 550 ft(167 m) or 27 car lengths. Motorists have a high level of physical and psychological comfort. The effects of incidents or
point breakdowns are easily absorbed. LOS A generally occurs late at night in urban areas and frequently in rural areas.
• B: reasonably free flow. LOS A speeds are maintained, maneuverability within the traffic stream is slightly restricted. The lowest average vehicle
spacing is about 33Oft(100 m) or 16 car lengths. Motorists still have a high level of physical and psychological comfort.
C: stable flow, at or near free flow.....
• D: approaching unstable flow.....
• E: unstable flow, operating at capacity. Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly because there are virtually no usable gaps to maneuver in
the traffic stream and speeds rarely reach the posted limit. Vehicle spacing is about 6 car lengths, but speeds are still at or above
50 mi/h(80 km/h). Any disruption to traffic flow such as merging ramp traffic or lane changes, will create a shock wave affecting traffic upstream.
Any incident will create serious delays. Drivers' level of comfort become poor-. This is a common standard in larger urban areas, where some
roadway congestion is inevitable.
• F: forced or breakdown flow. Every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent slowing required. Travel time cannot be
predicted, with generally more demand than capacity. A road in a constant traffic 'am is at this LOS, because LOS is an average or typical service
rather than a constant state. For example, a highway might be at LOS D for t eh AM peak hour, but have traffic consistent witLOS C some days,
LOS E or F others, and come to a halt once every few weeks.
General Compliance with Standards
Traffic
• Traffic Study - FHU Study
• Document Level of Service (LOS) to measure traffic operational conditions based on
roadway capacity and vehicle delay.
• SH82 and CR154 currently operates at LOS B during AM, and LOS A during PM peak
hours.
• Short Range 2020 with background growth and school — SH 82 / CR 154, still LOS B
during AM and LOS A during PM
• Long Range 2040 with background traffic — SH 82 and CR 154 operates at LOS B during
both peak hours. CR 154 and Flying M Ranch Road also LOS B during both peak hours.
• Includes closure of Orrison access (and all traffic)
• Annual growth rate, discussions with CDOT
• No intersection is degraded below a B as a result of Flying M Ranch PUD
Unsignalized Intersection
1
F
B
C
D
E
General Compliance with Standards
Traffic
LOS for At -Grade Intersections
LOS
Signalized Intersection
A
<_10 sec
10-20 sec
20-35 sec
35-55 sec
55-80 sec
>80 sec
<_10 sec
10-15 sec
15-25 sec
25-35 sec
35-50 sec
>50 sec
General Compliance with Standards
PUD Criteria
• Section 4-113 Rezoning. (C)(2). 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: "As discussed previously, the area has changed significantly in the past several years. These
changes have included the development of the Riverview School, development of a Fed Ex distribution center,
a redevelopment of a commercial / industrial parcel. As a result of these changes, it is Staff's opinion that
increasing the surrounding density and diversifying the uses in the area surrounding the new school and
commercial / industrial development could be within the public interest as long as impacts to surrounding
properties across the Roaring Fork River are appropriately mitigated. In addition, the uses proposed are
understood to be in generally high demand, including workforce housing, assisted living facilities, end of life
care, and multi -family residential development.
General Compliance with Standards
PUD Criteria
• Section 7-306 Trail and Walkway Standards.
• Public Dedication of the River Trail.
Flying M Ranch PUD
• The project is feasible and compliant with the applicable standards
• Generally meets PUD Standards
• PUD intended for a common development design, to ensure control over design review, etc.
• Area has drastically changed in past few years with school, central utilities, commercial development
• The project generally conforms to Comprehensive Plan.
• Creates Diversity of Housing to Meet Community Needs
• End of Life Care, Age in Place
• Compact, walkable housing in vicinity of school, jobs, and recreation
• Creates Economic Opportunities
• Responds to Glenwood Springs UGB
• Public Dedication of River Trail
I, . A-:
Thank You