Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Planning Commission Comments & Recommendations 02.15.2018Garfield County February 15, 2018 Balcomb and Green, P.C. Attn: Chad Lee, Esq. 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Reference: Flying M Ranch (Eastbank PUD) — Sketch Plan — Eastbank, LLC - Garfield County File Numbers SSPA-12-17-8599 Dear Mr. Lee; As you are aware, the Garfield County Planning Commission met on Wednesday February 14, 2018 regarding the Sketch Plan application for Flying M Ranch Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD). At this public meeting, the Planning Commission has provided the following comments regarding the Flying M Ranch Subdivision and PUD conceptual proposal. 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 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 Tots, 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. 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. 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). 11. River Access: Public dedication of the access point to the Roaring Fork River is encouraged. 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 1 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. 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 Plan: 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. 21. Trail Maintenance: As is required by Section 7-401 of the LUDC, the application for Preliminary Plan and PUD will need to include a mechanism for ongoing maintenance of the trail and sidewalk network within the development. This mechanism should detail how maintenance will be funded, who will be responsible for maintenance, and triggers for the County to ensure that maintenance occurs in a timely and effective manner. 22. River Protection: Considering the steep slopes, public access, and proximity of the proposed development to the Roaring Fork River, the Preliminary Plan and PUD should include information regarding river protection. Staff recommends that the applicant consult with the Roaring Fork Conservancy regarding potential and appropriate protection measures. Sincerely, David Pesnichak, AICP Attachments CC: File