Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 04.08.2019BOCC Hearing — Exhibits Flying M Ranch — PUD Review Applicant is Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork Re -1 School District April 8, 2019 (PUD 08-18-8676) Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Public Notice Information Form & Proof of Notice 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 4 Application Staff Memo — Continuation Request 5 6 Staff Report 7 Referral Comments — Garfield County Road and Bridge, Received January 10, 2019 8 Referral Comments — Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Received January 4, 2019 9 Referral Comments — Dan Cokley — SGM, Received January 22, 2019 10 Referral Comments — Xcel Energy, Received January 21, 2019 11 Referral Comments — Garfield County Vegetation Management, Received January 21, 2019 Referral Comments — Colorado Geological Survey, Received January 23, 2019 12 13 Referral Comments — City of Glenwood Springs, Received January 25, 2019 14 Referral Comments — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Received January 25, 2019 15 Referral Comments — Chris Hale — Mountain Cross Engineering, Received January 25, 2019 16 Referral Comments — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 17 Additional Referral Comments — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 18 Referral Comments — Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Received January 25, 2019 19 Referral Comments — Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Received January 28, 2019 and February 1, 2019 20 Referral Comments — Garfield County Environmental Health, Received February 1, 2019 21 Referral Comments - Colorado Department of Transportation, Received February 8, 2019 22 Public Comment - Kathy Whiting, Received February 5, 2019 23 Public Comment - Rochelle Smith, Received February 5, 2019 24 Public Comment - Melissa Heiser, Received February 5, 2019 25 Public Comment - Sandra Joyner, Received February 5, 2019 26 Public Comment - David Joyner, Received February 5, 2019 27 Public Comment - Nancy Heiser, Received February 5, 2019 28 Public Comment - Thomas Strazza, Received February 5, 2019 29 Public Comment - Rosella Leety, Received February 5, 2019 30 Public Comment - Trish and Gerry Hittinger, Received February 5, 2019 31 Public Comment - Felicity Smith, Received February 5, 2019 32 Public Comment - John Swanson, Received February 5, 2019 33 Public Comment - David Leety, Received February 5, 2019 34 Public Comment - Craig Duncan, Received February 5, 2019 35 Public Comment - Robert and Dana Brownlee, Received February 5, 2019 36 Public Comment - Jim English, Received February 5, 2019 37 Public Comment - Jennifer Flentge, Received February 5, 2019 38 Public Comment - Linda English, Received February 5, 2019 39 Public Comment - Douglas Flentge, Received February 5, 2019 40 Public Comment - Becky Gremillion, Received February 5, 2019 41 Public Comment - Darrin Smith, Received February 5, 2019 42 Public Comment - John Haines, Received February 5, 2019 43 Public Comment - Scott VanDeursen, Received February 5, 2019 44 Public Comment - Susan Horning, Received February 5, 2019 45 Public Comment - Steven Close, Received February 5, 2019 46 Public Comment - Peter Tibbetts, Received February 5, 2019 47 Public Comment - Anne Northway, Received February 5, 2019 48 Public Comment - Greg Rosenmerkel, Received February 5, 2019 49 Public Comment - Jeff Wisch, Received February 5, 2019 50 Public Comment - Michael Sos, Received February 5, 2019 51 Public Comment - John Rueter, Received February 5, 2019 52 Public Comment - Roger and Penelop Smith, Received February 5, 2019 53 Public Comment - Mary Moscon and Milton Cass, Received February 5, 2019 54 Public Comment - John Hageland, Received February 5, 2019 55 Public Comment - Jay Jahani, Received February 5, 2019 56 Public Comment - Jackie Woods, Received February 5, 2019 57 Public Comment - Martin Dorit Rowe, Received February 5, 2019 58 Public Comment - Gerard Hitinger, Received February 5, 2019 59 Public Comment - Schuyler Van Gordon, Received February 5, 2019 60 Public Comment - Chandra Allred, Received February 5, 2019 61 Public Comment — Terry Hageland, Received February 5, 2019 Public Comment — Jeff Horning, Received February 5, 2019 62 63 Public Comment — Richard and Nancy Bishop, Received February 5, 2019 64 Public Comment — Brook and Marilyn Robison, Received February 5, 2019 65 Public Comment — Mark and Nancy Becker, Received February 5, 2019 66 Public Comment — Mallory Harling, Received February 5, 2019 67 Public Comment — Karen Owens, Received February 5, 2019 68 Public Comment — Ryan Jarvis, Received February 5, 2019 69 Applicant Response to Referral Comments — Received February 15, 2019 70 Road and Bridge Follow-up Comment — February 12, 2019 71 Geotech Review — Response to Referral Comments, Provided by Applicant — Received February 22, 2019 72 Applicant Response to Conditions of Approval, Received February 27, 2019 73 Applicant Presentation 74 Aspen Times & Post Independent Article, February 11, 2019 75 Public Comment — Gregory Rosenmerkel, Received March 18, 2019 76 Public Comment — Melissa Heiser, Received March 18, 2019 77 Public Comment — Nancy Heiser, Received March 18, 2019 Referral Comment — Roaring Fork Conservancy, Received March 20, 2019 78 79 Public Comments — Jim English, Received March 27, 2019 80 Public Comments — Linda English, Received March 27, 2019 81 Additional Public Comment — John Haines, Received March 27, 2019 82 Public Comment — Linda Carlson Shaw, Received March 27, 2019 83 Updated Traffic Study from Applicant 83 Public Comment — David Joyner, Received March 29, 2019 84 Public Comment — Gary Bryant, Received March 29, 2019 85 Public Comment — Mary Mascon and Milton Cass, Received March 29, 2019 86 Public Comment — Sandra Joyner, Received March 29, 2019 Public Comment — Darrin Smith, Received April 1, 2019 87 88 Updated Public Comment — Kathy Whiting, Received April 1, 2019 89 Public Comment — Becky Gremillion, Received April 1, 2019 90 Applicant Analysis of Road Impact Fees Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flyirn M - Pl ll� PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: OWNER/APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE: WATER/SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Planned Unit Development Eastbank, LLC and Roaring Fork RE -1 SLA V District Chad Lee, Esq., Balcomb and Green, P.C. Doug Pratte — Land Studio Approximately 0.6 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. The Roaring Fork School District Parcel has been included as it will be subject to an Amended Final Plat application EXHIBIT Lot 2 of Eastbank Minor Sub - ±16.983 acres Lot 3 of Eastbank Minor Sub - ±16.944 acres Roaring Fork School District Parcel 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 0.6 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs off County Road 154. The proposed primary access point is to be located off of County Road 154 and the County Road 154 / Highway 82 intersection. Properties to the north include the Riverview School, Orison Distributing, FedEx distribution facility. 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. 1 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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 28 is located to the west. 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. Vicinity Map B. Property History Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision 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. The Roaring Fork School District Parcel 2 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD is included in the application as an Amended Final Plat adjusting lot lines will need to be completed to reflect the boundaries proposed in this application. Approved Eastbank Minor Subdivision Plat 1 .1 Its li•TrOatal '3W1'91.4Itl17NION7 Atl114flO7 NOM 1 NI OaVV010,.AUI110.0WIAwo oeasmsaanf MOM* 2. .VOLY11 O t N �M4 I ipFza z ca 3i ] W W !, ! Ct o '41 z 2 0— o aglz 41.4 Tw.. o ¢ __� 'mow � i• , __,,.� 3 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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 13 Lots via a Major Subdivision process and establish Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning across the 13 parcels. The 13 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 Facilities, Open Space, and Access / Parking / Utilities. Access is to be via County Road 154. Utilities are proposed to be served by Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The Roaring Fork School District is listed as an applicant because an Amended Final Plat is required to be completed to adjust their parcel boundary with the Eastbank properties. The Applicant has submitted a request for approval of a Preliminary Plan concurrent with this application. Pursuant to Section 6-101 of the Land Use and Development Code, a concurrent Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal is permitted, provided that the PUD zoning decision is made prior to the review of the Subdivision Preliminary Plan. Proposed PUD Development Summary Table Planned Unit Development Summary Table 4 Overall PUD Zone District 1 Zone District 2 Zone District 3 Zone District 4 Zone District 5 Total Size (acres) 33.91 4.284 12.183 11.765 3,281 2.397 Open Space (acres) 8.575 0 3.942 1.352 3.281 0 (ROW) Upper Access & Utility Easement (acres) 1.312 0 1.312 0 0 0 Lower Access & Utility Easement (acres) 0.476 0 0.476 0 0 0 Flying M Ranch Road Access & Utility Easement (acres) Minimum Lot Size 4.577 0 Refer to PUD Guide 0 2.18 0 2.397 _.-_.. Maximum Dwelling Units per Zone District 228 4 96 128 0 0 Maximum Community Service Floor Area as an ALTERNATE to Dwelling Units (square feet) 120,000 0 0 120,000 0 0 Maximum Business Park Floor Area (square feet) 35,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 Maximum Community Center or Accessory Use (square feet) 1,800 0 1,800 0 0 0 4 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD PUD Map Excerpt 6.4r LI; 6117 91. 9895 L 29 999S 699S 069s 169 ies 2q e�� Effi ,iii,.a-ii6655i�E...UN..ccc 4011; .1.$40 cYp0B$t. igiSa tt i A i1i 14112182.. 1I. W1V ,n YY f6Y trot sew nY nti SCY Ir YY 151 1 .,3 4I 555555 5E5EiEkEkEEEEikii w t: ¢' Q r� = g R„ Y G' s �C = •: �� P s R Y Y y N Y y t R P N+ 1q Yr y BSB i .. g � � Ii5 tl S l 1 Y I 9 t 33y�g3; �355 533w,1335531: 5 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD III. REFERRAL AGENCIES The Preliminary 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. Public Comment Garfield County Road and Bridge: (Exhibit 7) - Indicated that a driveway permit is needed for the south entrance and that it should be gated and only used for emergency access. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Exhibit 8) - Stated that the subject area has been degraded by previous use, has limited wildlife habitat value, and will have minimal impacts to wildlife populations. Offered technical recommendations to limit human/wildlife conflicts Requested that the applicant work in consultation with CPW for the river trail Dan Cokley — Traffic Engineer — SGM (Exhibit 9) - Responded that Flying M Ranch project traffic volumes will not require additional improvements to CR 154 at either access point - CDOT comments should be included Xcel Energy (Exhibit 10) - Xcel Energy has no objection to the project - The applicant will need to work with Xcel moving forward for construction Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit 11) - Requested that the applicant provide a weed management plan for the removal and stump treatment of Russian -olives located on the property by December 31, 2019 Requested that the applicant quantify the surface area of disturbance that needs to be reseeded to determine if a revegetation security is necessary Colorado Geological Survey (Exhibit 12) - Provided the geotechnical study's recommendations are strictly adhered to, CGS had no objection to approval of the application Indicated that the applicant and future property owners should be aware of Subsidence Hazard, Uncontrolled Fill, and updated Plan Notes City of Glenwood Springs (Exhibit 13) - Reviewed the application and had no comments United States Army Corps of Engineers (Exhibit 14) - Indicated that the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation for the property Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit 15) - Had a variety of technical concerns with the application including comments on: Roadway Standards, Sewer System Designs, Water System Designs, FEMA Floodplain Boundaries, Sidewalks, and Grading and Drainage Designs Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Exhibits 16 and 17) - Provided comments regarding fire sprinkler requirements, fire hydrants, setback distances, and the adequacy of the access plan 6 Roard of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (Exhibit 18): - Identified a number of technical issues including: Improvement Agreements Issues, Easements, Conditions of Approval, and Plan Set Critiques RFTA (Exhibit 19): - Suggested implementing transit signal priority at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. Suggested that a fee could be levied on building permits as was completed for Ironbridge that could be used for transportation and transit mitigation Requested that the applicant be required to fund and implement safety mitigation measures. Identified a number of safety solutions for the Rio Grande Trail Garfield County Environmental Health (Exhibit 20) Supported the Safe Routes to School Funding Provided technical comments on Water Quality and Air Quality Impacts Supported the use of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency - Requested the use of Radon Resistant New Construction Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit 21) - Indicated that the applicant would be required to obtain a CDOT Access Permit - Suggested that the property provide connectivity to the properties to the north Roaring Fork Conservancy (Exhibit 78) - Recommended that the BOCC consider protection and consideration of river resources, riparian habitat, well-planned river access, and required Waterbody Setbacks No comments were received from the following agencies: Town of Carbondale Garfield County Emergency Manager - Garfield County Sheriff Black Hills Energy - RE -1 School District - County Surveyor Public Comments Numerous public comments have been received, with 61 comments at the time of this Staff Report. The comments have all been in opposition to the project. Concerns include: Traffic at the Highway 82 intersection, adequacy of the traffic study, wildlife concerns, light pollution, compatibility issues, the increased density, lack of sidewalks, and other varied concerns. Public comments have been included as Exhibits to this Staff Report in their entirety. 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. 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 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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 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 8 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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. 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 74631114W Urban Growth Area Industrial NI Mixed Use - Commercial A Res H (1/3 TO <2 Ac/Dur Res MH (2 TO <6 Ac./Du)' Res M (6 TO <10 Ac/Du) Res L (10+ Ac/Du) Resource Production/Natural z :11 City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011- EXCERPTS 9 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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. 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 by, 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 10 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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 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. 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 11 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD the City could assist in preparing it to become a mixed-use office area or business park. 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 applicant provided a Comprehensive Plan Analysis as part of the application that indicated their compliance with Comprehensive Plan requirements. The City of Glenwood Springs reviewed the application and indicated that they had no concerns with the proposal (Exhibit 13). The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential. It is Staffs opinion that provided the City's policies on economic development, 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," and most importantly no comment from the City of Glenwood Springs, the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 lAau nuns y� secPndan cenw 4:6 forty emM1i -- Unto- won." Mo.., p e ue luw Hoot,• stuoy Area _ ,10.a, Ca, street. Cnra, porus Pietas Poe a Open Slug ow Denety ne..wnhw S nvt-ramy, Pevvev ' tp RL4i1enly MpdenlU aat M.ed uve. � Ikwnilorvu Q 0ownloe 0ev*PPM* AuthYay Bou*ar, - Cranmwrarrl Fame., Prexnahon -mouse., wax.. Proem,' The "blue line' . relleCts nle uppermost topographic Into of the Gry'. abddyy 0 plpvde grevay led wale, generaly 6.000 leel rn ea/vet10, The lend wither the UGB Lon the Iwml .0 W. w bjt d err sur:a, Wm.. and,ed waly' “1101. NN or. densay •aa 0l,I4l uses ars desgruled in Iters area unel annevalon to the Gey is complete and Planned Lind Development or olhel development,evww a approved Subject Parcel 1Futo,. Moenteln Pa V. PUD REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA 12 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD 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. 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 does permit greater design flexibility than is allowed by the base zone district. This includes changes to dimensional standards (height of buildings, setbacks, etc.). Please see the previously referenced Comprehensive Plan analysis for a discussion of general conformance. 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 total area proposed to be zoned PUD is greater than 33 acres. 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 (with varying commercial uses), Eco -Efficiency Homes, single-family residential, Multi -Family Residential, Residential Lofts, Assisted Living Facility, Hospice of the Valley, Independent Living, Community Service Facilities, Open Space, and Access / Parking / Utilities. All of the uses are allowable with Land Use Change Permits in the underlying Rural zone district or are in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Off -Street Parking. Staff Comments: The applicant has provided parking standards for the proposed uses in the form of parking minimums. Parking for commercial uses is less than is required in the LUDC. For example, in the business park, a minimum of 1 off street parking space is required for each 500 square feet of non-residential structure. This varies from the 1 space per 200 square feet that is required in the LUDC. Staff is supportive of this differentiation. The parking functions as 13 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD a minimum requirement and depending on further development of the commercial parcels, additional parking may be required by the developer at that time. The applicant has indicated that parking for eco -efficiency homes shall be 2 -spaces per unit. This is consistent with the single-family requirement in the Land Use and Development Code, however the eco -efficiency homes are limited to 1,000 square feet. With this requirement, Staff feels that the use functions as a more dense residential use. Because of the density of development that could be caused by this small house size, Staff feels that a higher parking standard should be required as guest parking has not been accounted for. The same analysis is applicable to the Attached Dwelling Units and Multi -Unit Dwelling Units. The applicant has proposed 2 spaces per unit, but staff's opinion is that increased parking should be required. A suggested Condition of Approval has been included with the requirement that in addition to the 2 required parking spaces, 1 guest parking space should be required for every 3 units. Greater parking should be required for residential uses than what has been proposed by the applicant because of the lack of transit options in the area. C. Density. Staff Comments: The applicant has indicated the following with regards to commercial and residential density: • Up to 35,000 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) • Up to 120,000 Square Feet of Community Service Facility as an alternate to Dwelling Units (e.g. end of life care, and assisted living) • Up to 228 Dwelling Units (Comprised of multi -family and/or single family) • Up to 1,800 Square Feet of a Community Center as an Accessory Use Note: The applicant's proposal for the Community Service Facility and up to 128 Dwelling Units in Zone District 3 is combined. The PUD guide provides a formula for Community Service Facility development vs. Dwelling Units, whereby the applicant may develop either up to 120,000 Square Feet of Community Service Facility, 128 Dwelling Units, or a proportional mix of Community Service Facility to Residential use at a ratio of 937.5 Square Feet to (1) Dwelling Unit. Based on these potential build out numbers, the highest possible Residential Density is 6.72 Dwelling Units per acre. The Land Use and Development Code requires that the BOCC may allow up to 15 Dwelling Units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special district are readily available. In this application, the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District will be providing these services. Therefore, the proposed PUD is in compliance with residential density requirements. The LUDC requires that nonresidential density is developed at a level that can be adequately served by public facilities and shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the City of 14 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD Glenwood Springs referral comments and the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation Districts Can and Will Serve Letter, it appears that the PUD application meets this requirement. D. Housing Types. Staff Comments: The proposed housing is diverse including multi -family, single family, eco - efficiency homes, assisted living, town homes, and multi -family. Staff does note, that at this time, based on the Preliminary Plan submittal, none of the units will be available to be sold individually. The applicant will need to either go through a condominium subdivision in the future or another Major Subdivision process to be able to sell the individual residences. The PUD does provide varying lot sizes so that a Major Subdivision would be possible in the future. 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 13 lots. As a result, as proposed the development does not trigger 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, the County Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing would be triggered at that time. E. Transportation and Circulation System. Staff Comments: The Transportation and Circulation System is discussed in the analysis of Article 7-107 of this Staff Report. F. Recreational Amenities. Staff Comments: The development provides for open space and trails as recreational amenities. The 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 and will help internal circulation in the development. Consistent with the LUDC, Staff recommends that this trail be dedicated to the public and connected to the existing public trail network. Additionally the applicant has proposed access to the river via a gravel path. The applicant has indicated that this access will be available to the public, although there is no plan to provide additional parking in the area. Mostly, it appears that the river access will be a benefit to the development, to Riverview School, and river users who put -in above the development. The applicant has also discussed with Staff the potential for river access along the development. As a suggested Condition of Approval for the Preliminary Plan proposal, Staff has included a request that public access be memorialized in an easement. An open space zone district is proposed, however it is being used mostly to facilitate the protection of sloped portions of the property near the river. This area does have passive benefits, but besides the trail, the zone district will not be used for further recreation. G. Building Height. Staff Comments: The applicant has proposed a variety of building heights for various uses within the PUD. Staff has noted that the applicant is proposing a building height of 35' for single- family residences. This proposal is 10' higher than what is currently proposed in the zone 15 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD district. No analysis was provided as to why the 35' height was needed. Consultation with Building Department Staff indicated that the 35' single-family height would be the highest in the County. Because of this, Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the PUD be revised to allow a maximum of 25' in height for a single-family dwelling, which is consistent with underlying zoning. The maximum building height of multi -family and attached dwelling units is 35'. Staff is supportive of these building heights. The Building Height proposed for the eco -efficiency homes, is 25', which is consistent with Land Use and Development Code requirements. The Business Park zone district allows for a maximum Building Height of 35', a decrease in permitted height in the zone district. This is a benefit, as the Commercial Park is located at the highest point of the proposed development and the decrease in height will result in less visual impact than what would have otherwise been provided within underlying zoning. The highest Building Height proposed is 42' in the Community Service Facility zone district. Staff understands that this height is anticipated to allow for the proposed Hospice Facility. As the height is only two feet higher than the current maximum, Staff is not opposed to this proposed increase in Building Height. The Planning Commission suggested Conditions of Approval further restricted the maximum height in the Community Service Facility zone district to 35'. H. Lots. Staff Comments: Subdivision of the 33.91 acre total development area into 13 Tots is proposed. These Lots range in size from 0.57 acres to 7.41 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. Each lot contains an acceptable building site, except for Tract G and Tract H, both of which are specifically reserved for uses that do not allow a structure. 1. Phasing. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted a phasing plan that will begin with the development of Parcels A, B & D in Phase 1. Future phases will follow over a 10 -year proposed build out, although the applicant does not identify what those phases are. The supplied development agreement does not match the Phasing Plan letter and asks for a 15 -year build- out. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval that the Development Agreement match to the 10 -year proposed build -out in the phasing letter. 1. Standards, Article 7. The PUD meets the standards within Article 7, Division 1, excluding 7-101 7-102. Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. 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. The City of Glenwood Springs reviewed the application and indicated that they did not have any comments on the application (Exhibit 13). 16 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD Eastbank School 7-103. Compatibility. As noted previously in this report, according to the representations for the uses, densities, and square footage within the PUD portion of the application, the following new development is proposed at maximum build out over the full 33.91 acre total development area: Up to 35,000 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) Up to 120,000 Square Feet of Community Service Facility (e.g. end of life care, and assisted living) Up to 228 Dwelling Units (Comprised of a variety of residential products) Based on these potential build out numbers, the overall residential density over the total 33.91 acres is approximately 6.72 dwelling units per acre. This build -out number does have the potential to vary. As indicated in the PUD guide, in the Community Service Facility the applicant may build up to 120,000 Square Feet of a Community Service Facility or 128 Dwelling Units, with a ratio of 937.5 Square Feet of a Community Service Facility equal to 1 Dwelling Unit. It should be noted that the LUDC allows for density to be calculated by dividing the units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the PUD. 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 and pedestrian infrastructure is constructed. Additionally, the area has recently been developed with the previously referenced commercial structures and uses including the Veterinary Clinic and the Mechanic Shop. The Fed -Ex facility was also recently approved on an adjoining property. Historically, the area to the southeast of the subject property has been used as a Contractor's Yard and the property itself was used as a 17 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD gravel pit and a Contractor's Yard. The nearest major residential uses are located across the river in Westbank and to the east along CR 154. Past issues have risen in this area regarding lighting of the Fed Ex building. The applicant has indicated that lighting will meet County requirements. Additionally, in the Design Guidelines that will be used to develop the property, the applicant has provided the following: Flying M Ranch exterior lighting should be minimal, and used only to provide a safe, secure and easily identified community. Where outdoor lighting is required, fixtures shall be shielded so that no light source is directly visible from the street or neighboring homes — down lighting is required. Exterior lighting shall be designed to create pools of light rather than continuous lighting. Light standards should be of a low profile design using wood, metal or stone. Lights which produce a warm effect, rather than a cool effect, must be used. All lighting requires Design Review approval prior to construction and must comply with Garfield County Lighting Standards. Lighting has been an issue with other developments in the area. The design guidelines appear to further address lighting issues, more so than is required by the County's Land Use and Development Code. It is Staffs opinion that the application is generally compatible with the surrounding Land Uses. »._ View Across the Roaring Fork from Eco -Efficiency Area 7-104. Source of Water. The application indicates that the development would be served by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). Staff understands, the final agreements for line extension and service have not been completed. 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 still need to be completed for new development. Commitment to serve letters have been provided with this application. 18 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD The application was referred to the RFWSD who provided a response fully described in Exhibit 18. This included requests that the improvements agreement be updated so that the District Engineer reviews security amounts, partial releases of security and requires approval from the District Engineer for full security releases. These requests have been included as suggested Conditions of Approval. 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 in the Engineer's Report in the application. This report indicates that the primary extension is 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. A suggested Condition of Approval has been included that as part of the Final Plat Application, all necessary agreements and conditions with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District have been met. 7-105. Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. The application proposes for the development to be served by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) for wastewater service. The applicant has provided a Can and Will Serve Letter from the District for the Subdivision. The application was reviewed by the designated engineer for the RFWSD (Exhibit 18). His referral comments included a number of issues, some of which have been discussed in the previous section. Referral comments also included a number of issues regarding requirements to update the Engineering Plan Set. Updates to the Plan Set as required and approved by the District Engineer, should be required prior to approval of a Final Plat. Additionally, the application was reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer who indicated the following (Exhibit 15): - Garfield County standards have 350 gallons per day as the average minimum for a single family residence. This is a common demand value that the State of Colorado also uses. The Applicant has 140 GPD/EQR. This is less than half of the number typically used. This amount should be verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. The agreement with the RFWSD allows 228 EQRs and the density that is proposed is based on a demand that is less than half of what is typically used. - Peak day demand is typically double that of the average day. Peak flow is typically double the peak day demand flowrate or 4 times the average day. These peaking factors should be verified by the engineer and the RFWSD. In review of the water system model it appears that the flow velocity is greater than 14 feet/second (fps) in pipe P-61. Typically the maximum design flow rate is 10 fps to avoid cavitation and wear on the pipe. The pipe size and flowrate should be reviewed and the design verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that requires the applicant to address these items prior to a Final Plat approval. 7-106. Public Utilities. Adequate utilities appear to be available to serve the development. The application has supplied Can and Will Serve Letters from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District for water and wastewater, from Comcast for cable, from Xcel for electricity, from Black Hills for natural gas, and from Century Link for internet. 19 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD High Country Engineering has provided an Engineering Utility Report that is included in the Application. This application indicates that adequate public utilities, including electric, water, and wastewater are available to serve the land use. The will serve letter from Xcel Energy indicates that the applicant still needs to ensure that "required easements are granted". The Utility report was reviewed by the Garfield County Consulting Engineer who provided detailed feedback on water and wastewater utilities as mentioned in the previous section of this Staff Report. The referral comment also included the following regarding utilities: The sewer lines, water lines, and storm culvert crossings were not shown together on the road profiles. The Applicant should verify that there are no conflicts with bury depth and separation between utilities. A suggested condition of approval has been included that requires the applicant to update appropriate engineering documents to address the County Referral Engineer's concerns. At time of Final Plat the applicant will either be required to present information that required utilities have been constructed, or an improvements agreement will be required. 7-107. Access and Roadways. Access Road: The Preliminary Plan shows the main access for the development off County Road 154, as Flying M Ranch Road. This road is a shared access with the RE -1 Riverview School. This road is currently constructed with a loop to serve the Riverview School. The Applicant's plan would extend Flying M Ranch Road further to the Roaring Fork School District Boundary (Parcel F), where it would then turn into an Emergency Access Road that would loop through school district property. The applicant's engineer provided the following information regarding the loop road: A lower road demarked as Lower Access Road with a T-shaped turnaround intersects from the Upper Access to provide access to the Eco -Efficiency development. Lower Access Road is less than 600 feet in length, which is in compliance with Section 7-107 to allow a Dead-end street. With the completion of this loop and roads shorter than 600 feet, all roads within the subdivision meet the 600 foot Dead-end street requirement. 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 based on the following design standards. The BOCC may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons if adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access can be provided." The Land Use Code is not clear on whether or not an emergency access is sufficient to meet these requirements or not, but the Code does allow the Board the flexibility to approve a longer dead-end street. The application was referred to the Glenwood Springs Fire Department who did not indicate any issues with access provided that there is an approved fire truck turn -around at the dead-end of the road for each parcel and the turn-arounds are kept clear from snow and parking. Referral comments were received from Garfield County Road and Bridge indicating that the southern access would require a driveway permit and that it is recommend to be gated and used for emergency access only (Exhibit 7). Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that the access be required to operate as indicated by Garfield County Road and Bridge. The applicant has requested to change the orientation of the access, by moving it closer to the existing Flying M access and making it a gravel road. However because the use of this access may be required in the future, Staff recommends that this road be built to the standards and in the location as presented in the application. Additionally, Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval 20 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD that once the property is more built out, traffic generated from the site be re-evaluated. This traffic analysis shall determine whether it is appropriate to open the emergency access to vehicle traffic. Engineering Review: The application was reviewed by Mountain Cross Engineering, and SGM (who specifically reviewed the traffic study and impacts to the County Road and Highway 82). SGM provided comments that did not indicate any issues. These comments indicated that the project traffic volumes would not require additional improvements to CR 154 and that the impacts associated with SH 82 and CR 154 are adequately addressed in the applicants traffic study. Staff specifically asked SGM to review the traffic study with the lower access used only as emergency access. No issues were identified by this review. The review by Mountain Cross indicated that the Flying M Ranch Road has design parameters that do not meet the Roadway Standards in Article 7-107 of the Land Use and Development Code. The applicant shall either be required to submit a waiver request, or the design of the roadway should be modified. Staff has included this as a suggested Condition of Approval. The applicant has submitted an updated response to referral comments that discusses this waiver. However, the newly submitted items have not been reviewed by the Garfield County designated Engineer. The applicant supplied a waiver request from Roadway Standards for the Commercial area (Lots Al, A2, A3, and A4) because the area will function as a business park parking area rather than a traditional road. This waiver request was reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer, who did not identify any issues. These parcels will access the County Road via an easement (Reception No. 867041) over the adjacent property. CDOT Response: The application was reviewed by CDOT who indicated that an Access Permit would be required for the access onto Highway 82 and that the CR 154 should be widened for the three northbound approach lanes for at least 400 -feet. The supplied traffic study indicated that there could be a potential issue with queing at the northbound approach of CR 154. The 400 -foot extension would work to allow for anticipated queuing on the County Road. CDOT staff has indicated that without this improvement there will be significant issues with vehicles accessing the State Highway from County Road 154. Staff has included this requirement as a suggested Condition of Approval. Additionally, CDOT included a recommendation that access be considered for the properties to the north (i.e. the Orrison Distribution Property). While CDOT does have an access plan for this proposal, the plan was never finalized with Garfield County. Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval as requested by CDOT, that the applicant be required to finalize an easement on the school district property, in the location of the emergency access road that could be used for access to the northern properties in the future. Planning Commission amended this condition to ask that the applicant attempt to obtain the easement, but that it would not be required as a Condition of Approval. Bicycle / Pedestrian / River Access: The Preliminary Plan anticipates a trail that runs the length of the development that is separated from 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. As a result, Staff recommends that the trail be dedicated to the public and available for public use. 21 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD The LUDC encourages the minimization of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. Considering the location of the school, the potential number of employees within the vicinity, and with 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. It is Staff's opinion, based on the level of development, with up to 228 Dwelling Units and up to 155,000 square feet of commercial development, the applicant should provide additional interior pedestrian circulation. While the trail is an excellent amenity to the site, it does not provide convenient internal pedestrian circulation. Additionally, there is no pedestrian access to the Commercial Lots A1 -A4 from within the development. The application was reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer who provided the following regarding pedestrian circulation: The Applicant proposes that sidewalks will not be constructed because pedestrians will be able to use the pathway that will be provided. In review of the layout, the pathway is much longer and does not provide direct access to the school which is a large generator of pedestrian traffic. It is unlikely that pedestrians will use the path and instead will be walking on the roadways that provide a more direct and shorter walk to the school. The pathway is a nice feature and is not discouraged but sidewalks should also be provided. The Land Use and Development Code requires the following, "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." Further, one of the review criteria for a Planned Unit Development application covers the Transportation and Circulation System. The Code states: "The PUD shall provide a safe, convenient, and adequate circulation system designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and other vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic." It is Staffs opinion, based on the LUDC language and the County designated engineer's comments that sidewalks should be provided in the development and along the PUD side of CR 154. A suggested condition of approval has been included that the applicant update the engineering documents to show a 4 -foot sidewalk on one side of Flying M Ranch Road, the Upper and Lower Access Roads, and on the PUD side of CR 154. Sidewalks should be built on both sides of streets where development can occur on both sides. Planning Commission revised Staff's suggested Condition to not require sidewalks on the PUD side of the County Road, along Flying M Ranch Road to the school access, or from the upper access intersection with the lower access to the County Road. Staff still feels that sidewalks should be required in those places and has included a further analysis in Section VII of the Preliminary Plan Staff Report. The application indicates (Plan Set C1-03) that a Flashing Beacon & Pedestrian Crossing Sign shall be included at the intersection of the School Access Road and Hying M Ranch Road. Staff is supportive of this inclusion. Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that bike parking be required for the commercial uses within the PUD as Staff anticipates some level of bike traffic based on the proximity to the Rio Grande Trail. Traffic Study: Please note the applicant has submitted a separate traffic study since planning commission. This item has been addressed in Section VII of this Staff Report 22 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD In review of the application, Staff identified that while the traffic study accounted for a substantial amount of traffic, it did not account for maximum build -out based on the Land Use mix that was proposed. This comment was forwarded onto the applicant who supplied the following response (Exhibit 69): Trip generation numbers are based upon the development plan provided to FHU. It is correct that certain land uses allowed by the PUD have higher trip generating potential. It is our understanding that the developer intends to use a mix of the allowable uses and has agreed to cap total development such that total trip generation would not exceed 1,967 daily trips, consistent with the traffic study. The study was attempting to analyze a realistic land use scenario, not a maximum one. Regarding the 10 KSF existing use in Zone 1, no information is available to suggest an alternate use at this time so it was analyzed under the assumption that no land use change is planned. If it changes in the future, the applicant would be required to assess the redevelopment's impact. The traffic study reflects a reasonable land use scenario. The applicant has proposed capping the overall trips created by the development. To address this issue, Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for a subject parcel, the applicant should provide a Traffic Report indicating the amount of traffic that will be generated by that specific project as well as the overall amount of traffic generated from the site. Additionally, Staff has requested that traffic minimums are assigned to each parcel. This will help to ensure that the final parcel to develop will still be able to develop with traffic generating uses. Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that these updates are required in the PUD guide, with a reference to the traffic regulations on the Plat. 7-108. Use of Land Subject To Natural Hazards. Per State Statute requirements, the application was referred to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) who reviewed the application and responded with referral comments (Exhibit 12). These comments indicated that provided the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report are strictly adhered to, CGS has no objection to the application. CGS did indicate that this area of the Roaring Fork Valley does have a risk for sinkhole formation and that, "ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporate bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored." At the time of Minor Subdivision Staff required that the applicant include a Plat Note indicating: "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 evaporate bedrock is an unpredictable risk." Based on similar referral comments received on this application, Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that this plat note be included on future Final Plats. CGS review also indicated that uncontrolled fill should be removed and replaced with property compacted engineered fill prior to construction and that the applicant needs to update Plan Notes for the Grading Plan. Garfield County Hazard Mapping indicates that a small portion of the property is located in a High Water Table area. Another portion of the property is located in a moderate soils related hazard area. Based on the application submittals, CGS review, and the requirement for site specific 23 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD geotechnical studies as indicated in design guidelines, Staff does not anticipate these to be significant issues for the development of the property. 7-109. Fire Protection. 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. The application was reviewed by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department who cited a number of technical issues with regards to fire code requirements. These will be addressed at time of Building Permit. The Fire Department requested that an additional fire hydrant be placed along the Lower Access Road, roughly in front of Unit 14. This has been included as a suggested Condition of Approval as part of the Preliminary Plan. The Fire Department specifically responded to a question from Staff regarding emergency access and indicated that they did not have an issue with emergency access to the site provided that as each parcel develops, an approved fire truck turn -around is in place. 2. 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, including the recently approved mechanic's shop and veterinary clinic. 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 should be considered logical and orderly. 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 24 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD increasing the density and diversifying the uses in the area surrounding the new school and commercial / industrial development is appropriate. In addition, the uses proposed are understood to be in generally high demand, including additional 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 additional housing, multi -family residential, assisted living, and end of life care. The proximity of these facilities, particularly the smaller sized housing component, is well located, 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 for comment. The City of Glenwood Springs responded, indicating that they had no comments on the application. 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). 3. 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: The applicant has submitted a proposed PUD Plan that establishes uses and governs development by dimensional and other standards with the following changes. Staff has reviewed the PUD Map and included a suggested Condition of Approval that the parcel labelled Open Space shall be included in the Hillside Open Space Zone District. Additionally, prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Plan Map, the applicant will need to update the Plan to include required certificates. Eco -Efficiency Side Yard Setbacks The submitted PUD guide provides the following with regards to side yard setbacks for eco -efficiency homes: Minimum Side Setbacks required for the Eco -Efficiency Home development shall include a zero foot interior side lot line setback, while maintaining an eight -foot setback on the other side. A five-foot wide maintenance easement shall be provided on the parcel adjacent to the zero foot property line which, with the exception of fences, shall be kept clear of structures. In a PUD an applicant is able to propose setbacks that are Tess than is required in the Land Use and Development Code. The applicant should note, that additional fire code and 25 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD building code requirements are applicable when there is a setback of less than ten feet between structures. The setbacks proposed by the applicant would require upgrades to the structures to meet those codes. This will make the construction of the units more expensive and may require additional information from the Building and Fire Departments. Kennel Uses In the Business Park zone district, the applicant includes Kennels as a permitted use. In Garfield County's Land Use and Development Code, a Kennel is required to meet the following requirements: A. Enclosed Building and Noise Prevention. All Kennels shall be completely enclosed within a building, however, a Kennel may have dogs outdoors if the noise from the Kennel does not exceed the noise standards pursuant to section 7-603.B. and complies with other Garfield County regulations as provided. B. Noise. No noise shall emanate from the property boundary in excess of the Residential Zone District standards contained in C.R.S. § 25-12-103, except as permitted by C.R.S. § 25- 12-103(2) and (3). 7-34 C. Waste and Sewage Disposal System. 1. Liquid and solid waste, as defined in the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, C.R.S. § 30-20-100.5, shall be disposed of with either an OWTS or shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against nuisance and surface and groundwater contamination. 2. All other waste shall be removed from the site by a commercial hauler to an approved Solid Waste Disposal Site. D. State Licensing Required. All Kennels shall be required to provide the BOCC with a copy of the license issued by the State Department of Agriculture. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval that the PUD guide be updated to require that the Kennel use in the Flying M Ranch is required to meet Land Use and Development Code requirements. Definitions In the PUD guide, the applicant includes the following uses which are not defined in the guide: veterinary clinic, retail/wholesale business, service business and community gardens. Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the applicant be required to update the PUD guide with definitions for the above uses. Residential Rental Unit The PUD Guide allows for a Residential Rental Unit as a permitted use by -right in zone districts 2 and 3. This use is similar to a short-term rental in the Land Use and Development Code. The applicant has placed some restrictions on the use, requiring that a minimum of 15% of residential rental units be rented for a minimum of 30 consecutive days per lease. To make sure Residential Rental Unit uses are enforced, Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the applicant update the Covenants to outline an enforcement mechanism and complaint handling process for the use. 26 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application on February 27, 2019 with a vote of 6-1. One additional condition was recommended by the Planning Commission, and it has been included as condition of approval 5 (k). After further review and submittals, Staff has identified other conditions that should be amended to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation. These items have been included in red under the suggested Conditions of Approval. The Amendment to Condition 4 reflects a condition that was altered in the Preliminary Plan approval recommendation by the Planning Commission and is needed in the PUD approval as well. Condition 5 (L) was included in a response to referral comments by the applicant, but was not explicitly included in the Planning Commission motion for a recommendation of approval. Condition 5 (M) provides clarification on the allowance of more than one unit on a parcel. VII. INFORMATION SUBMITTED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Changes to Conditions After further review of the suggested Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commission's motion, Staff has suggested minor tweaks to the Conditions of Approval for administrative purposes. These changes are included in the Suggested Conditions of Approval section in red. Traffic Study The applicant has submitted an additional Traffic Study as part of the application. This Traffic Study caps the overall traffic at a lower number, both for total trips and for peak hour trips, with the intent being that the overall traffic numbers generated are kept below the 20% CDOT threshold and thus, not requiring the applicant to install improvements at the CR 154, Highway 82 intersection. The traffic study was not received in time for comments to be included in this Staff Report, both by the County Designated Traffic Engineer and the Colorado Department of Transportation. As such, suggested conditions of approval have been maintained as required by the initial fully reviewed traffic study. This includes the requirement that the applicant obtain a CDOT access permit and likely, install any improvements. Additional information may be presented at the public hearing regarding this issue. The applicant has provided an analysis of Road Impact Fees for the development. These fees indicate that at full build -out the development could contribute above $400,000 in Road Impact Fees (Exhibit 90). This is compared to the total cost of improvements, which staff understands could be anywhere from $250,000 and up as provided in a very rough estimate from the Road and Bridge Department. The applicant has argued that they should not be required to pay the up- front costs of the improvement to Highway 82 as they will be paying Road Impact fees throughout the life of the project. if CDOT comments are not available by the date of the hearing or if the Board determines that additional information is required, the BOCC does have the option of continuing the public hearing. Public Comments Staff has received additional public comments on the project all in opposition. The reasons for the opposition vary, but include traffic impacts, wildlife impacts, compatibility concerns, and pedestrian questions. These additional public comments have been included as exhibits to this Staff Report. 27 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD Roaring Fork Conservancy Staff has also received a comment from the Roaring Fork Conservancy. This comment indicated concerns that the applicant be required to meet applicable water body setbacks, that the riparian habitat is protected and that there is well-planned river access. The applicant is proposing a portion of their proposed trail within the 35' water body setback. Planning Commission recommended a suggested condition of approval that requires the submittal of mitigation measures and requires the applicant to work with CPW in design of the trail. This is included in the Suggested Conditions of Approval for the Preliminary Plan. VIII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit Development approval for Flying M Ranch, is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That with the adoption of conditions and a waiver from Section 7-107, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. IX. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 3. No development specifically related to the PUD shall be permitted unless the subject parcel has received Final Plat approval. Conditions Prior to BOCC Signature of the PUD 4. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment with the Roaring Fork School District property to reflect the boundaries of the property as submitted for this application. An Amended Final Plat shall also be completed to locate the easement for the river access trail entirely on the Applicant's property as referenced in the Preliminary Plan approvals. 5. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the PUD Guide to reflect the following comments: a. Parking Standards for Eco Efficiency Home Units, Multi -Unit Dwelling Units, and Attached Dwelling Units shall include, in addition to two spaces per unit, one guest 28 Board of County Commissioners - Apnl 6, 2019 Flying M - PUD space for every three units at a minimum. When any calculation of the number of required off-street parking spaces results in a fractional space being required, such fraction shall be rounded up to the next higher number of spaces. b. The Building Height of Single -Family Dwelling Units shall be decreased to 25 feet. c. Definitions shall be included for service business, retail/wholesale business, veterinary clinic, and community gardens. The new definitions shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development. d. The Eco Efficiency Home definition shall be updated to reflect that it is considered a dwelling unit. e. The Kennel use shall be required to comply with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Standards specifically related to kennels. f. The Maximum Traffic allowed from the site (1,967 Daily Trips) shall be included in the PUD guide. g. Minimum Traffic generation numbers shall be assigned to each parcel in the PUD guide. h. Traffic reports shall be provided prior to each Final Plat Building Permit indicating the total traffic generated by that phase, the total traffic generated from the development to that date, and the remaining non -allocated trips. No development shall be authorized that exceeds the traffic maximum or leaves a parcel with less than the allocated traffic minimum. i. Bike parking acceptable to the Community Development Department shall be required for uses in the Business Park Zone District. j. Units shall be located to anticipate future Subdivision with regards to dimensional requirements for that particular unit type. k. Building height in the Community Service Facility Zone District shall be limited to 35 feet. I. The minimum lot size shall be 700 square feet for the Eco -Efficiency Homes. m. More than one residential unit may be permitted on a parcel, provided that all dimensional requirements allowing for future subdivision are adhered to. 6. The PUD Map shall be updated to change the parcel designated as Open Space to Zone District 4, Hillside Open Space. 7. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the covenants to provide an internal enforcement and complaint handling process exclusive of Garfield County for the Residential Rental Unit use. The updated language will be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department. 8. The applicant shall supply a PUD Map acceptable to the Community Development Department prior to the BOCC signature on the Map. The PUD Map shall be evaluated by the Community Development Department for conformance with Land Use and Development Code requirements. 9. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, a Development Agreement shall be signed by the BOCC and the Applicant that memorializes the phasing of the project. a. The applicant shall update the development agreement to reflect the 10 -year build out that was identified in the phasing letter. 29