HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.27.2019Planning Commission Hearing — Exhibits
Flying M Ranch — PUD Review
Applicant is Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork Re -1 School District
February 27, 2019
(File 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
5
Staff Memo — Continuation Request
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
12
Referral Comments — Colorado Geological Survey, Received January
23, 2019
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
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 Helser, 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
62
Public Comment — Jeff Horning, Received February 5, 2019
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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
Chad Lee, Esq., Balcomb and Green, P.C.
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
3
a
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.
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
1
PC February 27, 2019
PW
Distribution Center and L & Y Jammaron Family LLLP property reside to the north,
the Roaring Fork River, Structural Associates and Westbank Neighborhood reside
to the south, Highway 82 and County Road 154 and the Rio Grande Trail reside to
the east, and Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split Parcel 2B is located to the west.
The property is accessed from 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
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.
2
PC February 27, 2019
PW
Approved Eastbank Minor Subdivision Plat
"JNI'9NIN33NI N3 ANINflOJ NOM
OC/V100103 ' IIIM 09 0.13413/V0
NOIiUWYM VONIN
TI MNVlI/YJ
�E
<Za
Z50t
o W0
jt
<Z <
0a)
V
u.< 29
So<
JZ 0
u52Io
a
O0=V
ya0
C
0
1.
gi
N JNYN NNINJ
3
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 Facility, 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)
4.577
0
0
2.18
0
2.397
Minimum Lot Size
-
Refer to PUD Guide
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
w
PUD Map Excerpt
042
20
1117
PC February 27, 2019
PW
14 s u
a I
fly7
s
S85
9885
38S
88
$
rf
S
L S
E E
rt 2
S G
2;
5 5
5 5
5 2
5 y
G 6
cc!
$"
$4
8ee $
'g
v Y$$#
B s:$
8
St
z
48,2
ffi 5
u a-
4 Y.i
S
,�
Y
i x
Y 8
j� 4s
§ V
55
3
ddi
E 6
ySt
5 5
M
5 5
8 1(
5 5
y$•
Y
5 E
5. 5
5 2
S b
5 2
i E
b' k
2 5
,1 ;
5 5 i
$$
S$
s
o z:$
R N
L
828
m �t
A 5
5 5
5::i,
5
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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 47 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
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.
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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.
8
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 1GA.
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
Urban Growth Area
Industrial
IN Mixed Use
• Commercial
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
2185Eit:%�r
2
41,,a7441
"` 15d,�,
City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011- EXCERPTS
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,
9
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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
10
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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,
11
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
— cry Straus
County Roan,
a M Rivers
O ! Couservaseo
its Parks Open Spa,
yfi4r, Secondary Camey -- Low Doosy Res....0
TM Gly Lamas 5410e -tamely Re5Went.l
— Urban Gra..* Boundary Me 54N.10Mily Retl0Mlia
o Rue Ora t® AS.eo-use
_..... Swum SODy Aea al Dnvreovm •-4:::>.
l r'
O [)ownlown DevelopmentAulhOMY Bo.ndoY a ora
Camea, T
1411510. P.eservaam in 1011001
The "blue Ina"
mamas the
uppermost
topograph.c
IoM o1 the city s
abaMy to p.ovae
gramty led water
generally 6.000
teal 1n eleeat 0.
a..(,...e =on... C4 *sh..h. Nan
Onentation Map
The land well tete UGB `lura, Hos puue south
. bawd on p rual Ines and not wale, service
area ow density reselenI.al uses are
designated an this area well anne.atnn to 4.
City a comp.!. end Planned Und Development
or other development molest is approved
Subject Parcel
I —77
V. PUD REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA
SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS.
PUDs are required to meet the Standards as outlined in Section 6-202(C) of the Land Use and
Development Code.
1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD meets the purpose and applicability of this Code,
as provided in section 6-101.A. and B.
12
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 Facility,
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 Tess 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
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
13
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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
14
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 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, 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
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
15
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 Tess 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.
H. Lots.
Staff Comments: Subdivision of the 33.91 acre total development area into 13 lots is
conceptually 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
Tess 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
The application is being reviewed in conjunction with a Preliminary Plan application for the
Subdivision of the parcel.
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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 Staff's opinion that the application is generally compatible with the surrounding Land Uses.
7-104. Source of Water.
View Across the Roaring Fork
from Eco -Efficiency Area
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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 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
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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.
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.
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
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
21
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 Staff's 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.
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 Flying 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:
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
22
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 Final Plat for a subject
parcel's, 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
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
23
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
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
24
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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 less than is required in the
Land Use and Development Code. The applicant should note, that additional fire code and
building code requirements are applicable when there is a setback of Tess 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:
25
PC February 27, 2019
PW
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
OVVTS 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.
VI. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development application with the following
suggested findings and Conditions of Approval.
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
26
PC February 27, 2019
PW
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit
Development 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.
VIII. 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.
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.
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
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.
27
PC February 27, 2019
PW
h. Traffic reports shall be provided prior to each Final Plat 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 Tess 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.
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.
28
