Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.27.2019Planning Commission Hearing — Exhibits Flying M Ranch — Preliminary Plan Review Applicant is Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork Re -1 School District February 27, 2019 (File SPPA-08-18-8675) 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 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 Helser, 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 Public Comment - Jay Jahani, Received February 5, 2019 55 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: Preliminary Plan Eastbank, LLC 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 (17 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, Orrison Distributing, and the 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 1 PC February 27, 2019 PW distribution facility and the new RFSD PK -8 Riverview School. The Orrison Distribution Center and L & Y Jammaron Family LLLP property reside to the north, the Roaring Fork River, Structural Associates and Westbank Neighborhood reside to the south, Highway 82 and County Road 154 and the Rio Grande Trail reside to the east, and Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split Parcel 2B is located to the west. 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 will need to be completed to reflect the boundaries proposed in this application. 2 PC February 27, 2019 PW Approved Eastbank Minor Subdivision Plat meas. 041.11.11, 11.41.{.111 .00.• NV !WIll• I 1.1 . • • • - __ 'ONI AH1111100 HDII-1 007160103 AJS4AOO 013.1.1.079 ,$ 1410/1W110•1111110NIN TnIM4,111111V3 zw iL Ft ) INV° ....Ina 3 PC February 27, 2019 PW II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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. Water and wastewater will be served by the 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 PUD concurrently 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 Subdivision 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. 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. 4 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 Clarified that even with the changing of the southern access into an emergency access, no improvements were needed to CR 154 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 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 5 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 7111, 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 submittal and indicated that they had no concerns with the application (Exhibit 13). As the subject property is within the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area, the County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 defers to the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 for guidance. Excerpts from the Land Use Description Section Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 - Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination, as well as the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 are provided below. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 Chapter 2 — Growth in Urban Growth Areas 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 6 PC February 27, 2019 PW strongly supports and encourages infill and redevelopment of existing communities. These growth areas are the preferred locations in Garfield County for growth that require urban level services. They are also the preferred locations for commercial and employment uses that can take advantage of supporting infrastructure and a close by client base that reduces travel demands. The most effective way to encourage growth in designated and planned UGAs will be by ensuring the following: i. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. ii. Urban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective municipality. iii. If there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to annexation, the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate such development through such means as: 1. County zoning in the UGAs adjusted to a close approximation of the municipality's plans. 2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with comment (not approval) before submitting for county review. 3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community. 4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure to development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for the UGA (landowners and the respective municipality are strongly encouraged to enter into pre- annexation agreements that provide commitments with respect to extensions of services and infrastructure, densities, etc.). Section 1 - Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Garfield County has worked with municipalities to direct development to UGAs where public services and infrastructure are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Intergovernmental cooperation between municipalities and other public agencies has demonstrated successful collaboration and has resulted in the creation of new partnerships and collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county. Policies: 1. Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. 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 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 xasanaom IN Urban Growth Area Industrial IN Mixed Use • Commercial Res H (1/3 TO <2 Ac/'Du)* Res MH (2 TO <6 Ac/Du)* Res M (6 TO <10 Ac/Du) Res L (10+ Ac/Du) Resource Production/Natural Ta5E3f14 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, 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. 8 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 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 9 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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, 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). 10 PC February 27, 2019 PW The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential. It is Staff's 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 Secondary Came — - Crty Streets CgaRy Roads R,.ers Parcels Conservation Parse Open Space Lu v Oens,v Resident*, Gty lmtas Srnglelenwy Residential — Urban Growl" Boundary is Mu®-W.10y Reedenbe Q 6oro LO. • 000 .5e ,1, __. Future Study Area • Downtown ..( '. 0 Dosolown Development..Jeerly Bounden I. COMM.,. i; new* Preservation • 1ndusrtvtl Riverside Protector, o, Orientation Map The land wit nar the UGB horn the pout south 1- s eased on parcel hoes and not water service'"'. development review s approved area ow density residential uses are desgnaled in this area until annexation to ted City s compete and Planned Unit Development or other Subject Parcels Jfuture Mountain Parkl Tse Ilue tine' reflects the uppermost 10009/1000 Imd of the Gays .btty 10 previa. gravity fed water generally 6 000 feet ,n etevatlon V. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA AND STANDARDS SECTION 5-302 PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA Preliminary Plans are required to meet the Standards as outlined in Section 5-302(C) of the Land Use and Development Code. This requires Compliance with Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4, of the Land Use and Development Code. Compliance with Article 7, Division 1, General Approval Standards. 7-101. Zone District Use Regulations The applicant has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 6-101, this is permitted by the Land Use Code, however, the PUD zoning must be approved prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan. Based on this Code Section, any approval of this Preliminary Plan will be in compliance with applicable zone district use restrictions and regulations. 11 PC February 27, 2019 PW Staff review indicated that there is an existing structure on Lot A4 that may not be in compliance with PUD setback requirements. Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that the applicant either provide a demonstration that the building is in compliance, remove the building to make the lot compliant, or adjust the lot lines to demonstrate compliance with setback requirements. 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). 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 12 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 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. View Across the Roaring Fork from Eco -Efficiency Area 13 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 the new development. Commitment to serve letters have been provided with this application. 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 required 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. 14 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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. 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. 15 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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 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. 16 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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. As is discussed later in this Report, the LUDC encourages the minimization of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. Considering the location of the school, the 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, on both the lower and upper access 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. 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 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: 17 PC February 27, 2019 PW "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 properly 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 the 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. 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. Compliance with Article 7, Division 2, General Resource Protection Standards. 7-201. Agricultural Lands. The application provides the following response to this Standard: There are no agricultural lands within the proposed Flying M Ranch Subdivision and there will be no adverse effects to agricultural operations on adjoining lands. It is understood that the subject parcels are not currently in agricultural production and as proposed Staff does not foresee any negative impacts on adjacent agricultural properties. As is noted in the LUDC, Garfield County is a Right to Farm County and as such, it is up to the property owner to construct and maintain fencing to "separate new development from adjoining 18 PC February 27, 2019 PW agricultural operation." It is understood that the property to the west along the Roaring Fork River is currently in agricultural production, it will be the responsibility of the new development to construct and maintain any fencing required to create desired separation of uses. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has provided guidance regarding fences, which is discussed in the following section. The applicant provided further information regarding ditches: The applicant has noted that there are ditches on the property, however they are owned by Mr. Macgregor, who is the applicant. No issues are anticipated with ditches. And In general terms the Glenwood Ditch that runs off-site along the northeast side of the properties is owned by a formal, incorporated Ditch Company. Eastbank, LLC owns shares in that Ditch Company and has certain surface use water rights for irrigation and related activity. On site "ditches" are historic lateral conveyances and generally subject to relocation. This development and subdivision does not impact any active irrigation conveyances. Based on this response, Staff does not anticipate any issues with irrigation ditches on the subject property. 7.202. Wildlife Habitat Areas. The application includes an Ecological Assessment that was conducted in 2015. The application, including this Assessment, was referred to Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) who provided the following comments (See Exhibit 8). Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the application materials for the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision. The subject area has been degraded by previous use and has limited wildlife habitat value. Seasonally, each winter a group of elk had used the upland area of sagebrush prior to the construction of the Riverview' School, but that use has since diminished. Mule deer use the overall property year-round. Overall, due to the degraded habitat on the property, existing disturbance and development surrounding and adjacent to the property, the proposed development may have some affect on individual animals, but will likely have minimal impacts to wildlife populations. There is potential for general human/wildlife conflicts and some impacts to wildlife; therefore, CPW offers the following recommendations 1. Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards. 2. Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It is recommended that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured. 3. Work with CPW on trail design near the river and work to actively enhance riparian vegetation. 19 PC February 27, 2019 PW Based on this analysis, it does not appear that impacts to wildlife habitat is significant. CPW's concerns have been included as Conditions of Approval and include a requirement that bear proof garbage containers are required. View of Business Park Lot 7-203. Protection of Waterbodies. Portions of Parcel B, C1, C2, and C3 border the Roaring Fork River. This water body is subject to the 35' setback that is required in the Land Use and Development Code. The applicant has indicated that they will be developing a trail for access to the River. It is Staff's opinion that this gravel trail to the river falls under reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within the 35 foot setback. The applicant is also proposing a trail along the exterior edge of the development. Small portions of this trail appear to be located within the 35' setback of the Roaring Fork River. Because only small portions of the proposed trail appears to be located within the 35' setback Staff's opinion is that the trail falls under the reasonable and necessary structures required some disturbance within the 35' setback. However, Staff recommends some mitigation measures for the trail where it is located in the 35' setback. These include but are not limited to narrowing the trail, using permeable building materials, and avoiding any riparian vegetation. Additionally, the applicant shall avoid development of the trail within the 35' setback to the maximum extent practicable. This has been included as a suggested Condition of Approval. The application was reviewed by the US Army Corps of Engineers who provided the following comments: To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation, in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations" and "Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program" under "Jurisdiction" on our website Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that the applicant complete a wetland delineation to the satisfaction of the USACE and that if necessary, a plan for wetlands avoidance is provided and approved by the County. The applicant has indicated that they have contact the USACE about the project, but County Staff has not received updated referral comments from the Corps that changes their initial response. 20 PC February 27, 2019 PW The applicant has had discussion with staff indicating their intent to allow boats to anchor and fisherman to access the Roaring Fork River from the property. This was not included in the proposed application. Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that this easement is memorialized and included on Final Plats. 823i2019 View along Flying M Ranch Road Toward CR 154 7-204. Drainage and Erosion. The applicant has provided a fully -engineered, Drainage and Erosion Plan for the proposal. This includes the use of detention ponds, drywells and overflow paths. The Grading and Drainage Plan was reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer who indicated the following (Exhibit 15): The Applicant proposes to use drywells as a means of storm -water mitigation. Since there is a potential for sinkholes due to the underlying soils, drywells ought to be considered carefully. The Applicant should provide more information on the location of the proposed drywells and how they correspond to the underlying soil strata. The Applicant should better explain the overflows and/or outlets for the proposed detention ponds. It seems that they will overtop the proposed pedestrian path and flow down steep slopes. The Applicant should explain mitigation measures proposed. - In the Design Guidelines the "Drainage Solutions" should be reviewed for conformance to the drainage system and drainage design that is proposed. The Applicant should provide drainage easements for the proposed storm water detention ponds, drainage appurtenances, and piping that is proposed. Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the applicant address all of these items to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Designated Engineer. Additionally, to ensure compliance with the overall grading and drainage plan, a Plat Note has been suggested that requires a site specific Grading and Drainage Plan. 21 PC February 27, 2019 PW If the applicant disturbs more than 1 acre or more, they shall be required to obtain a CDPHE permit for the activity. View of West Bank From Approximately Lot C-3 7-205. Environmental Quality. No significant air or water quality concerns have been noted as part of the application submittal. The applicant may be subject to State of Colorado Storm water permitting during the building process. The applicant has submitted a storm water management plan for the subject property. The plan has been reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer, who provided comments detailed in the Grading and Drainage section of this report. Garfield County Environmental Health reviewed the application and indicated that appropriate Storm Water Management techniques should be used to prevent the runoff of pollutants into the river. Additionally, they requested that fertilizers and pesticides on individual and community lawns should be applied minimally. 7-206. Wildfire Hazards. The Wildfire Susceptibility index from Garfield County's Community Wildfire Plan indicates that the subject parcel is rated as N/R, High, and Very High. It appears that there are no significant slopes greater than 30% on the site that will be covered by significant vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is providing water for fire suppression to the site, via RFWSD services. Because the property is located in a wildfire hazard area, a condition of approval will be included that roof materials shall be made of noncombustible materials or other materials as recommended by the local fire agency. 22 PC February 27, 2019 PW The application was reviewed by the Glenwood Fire Department who did not indicate any concerns with regards to wildfire. Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index NR Low Moderate High Very High 7-207. Natural and Geologic Hazards. See the response to Section 7-108, Use of Land Subject to Natural Hazards, above. 7-208. Reclamation The applicant provided a Landscape Plan and Weed Management Plan as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. The plans were reviewed by Garfield County Vegetation Management who indicated that Russian -olive management is a concern on the site. Vegetation Management requested that that the applicant supply a management plan for the removal and stump treatment of Russian -olives specifically. This has been included as a suggested Condition of Approval. Additionally, Vegetation Management requested that the applicant provide a calculation of the surface area of disturbance that will need to be reseeded, to determine if a revegetation security is necessary. Staff has included this as a suggested Condition of Approval. The applicant has supplied a response to this referral comment, however it has not been reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Management. Compliance with Article 7, Division 3, Site Planning and Development Standards. 7-301. Compatible Design. The conceptual site plan has been developed to conform to the topography of the site. Buffering between the development and the adjacent agricultural use has been proposed through the incorporation of an Open Space zone district. Additionally, the majority of residences close to the project are located across the Roaring Fork River. The applicant shall be subject to lighting requirements as indicated in the Land Use and Development Code. Additionally, the applicant has provided Design Guidelines that further restrict lighting on the site. Those guidelines state: 23 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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. The Design Guidelines further restrict the materials that must be used for building materials. This addresses 7-301(D). The applicant has indicated that hours of operation for the business park are 7:00 am — 9:00 pm with the exception of the Veterinary Clinic which shall provide emergency service 24 -hours a day. 7-302. Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards. As stated previously, this application is being reviewed concurrently with a proposal for a Planned Unit Development. In the PUD guide, the applicant has addressed parking standards and requirements. The LUDC requires that the PUD is approved prior to the Preliminary Plan. As such, parking standards will be dictated by the PUD and will be in compliance with the LUDC. 7-303. Landscaping Standards. See Section 7-208, Reclamation, above. The application provided the following with regards to landscaping: All disturbed areas of the Flying M Ranch project will be revegetated with a mix of grasses, ground covers, trees and shrubs to prevent erosion and the invasion of weeds. Where appropriate a xeriscape design of native plants will be considered to blend in with the native habitat surrounding the site. Non-native or ornamental plant materials may be used in some areas of the project as accents. Riparian habitat may be utilized in areas that adjoin the Roaring Fork River or adjoining drainage ways. Healthy plant materials will be sized per the sizes established in Garfield County's Landscaping Standards. Landscape Standards have been addressed in the Flying M Ranch Design Guidelines and Planned Unit Development Guide. As a part of the Design Guidelines, the applicant requires that any development will be required to submit a landscaping plan for approval. This includes a condition that landscape plans should be indigenous to the surrounding areas. Requirements for minimum size of plant materials exceed Land Use and Development Code requirements. The applicant has indicated that all areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated and has indicated the seed mix. This was reviewed by the Vegetation Manager who indicated that the applicant needs to supply the area of disturbance that is needed to be reseeded. This would allow the Vegetation Management Department to determine if a revegetation bond is needed. This has been included as a suggested Condition of Approval. 7-304. Lighting Standards. The applicant included the following in the Flying M Ranch Design Guidelines: 24 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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. The application also indicated that lighting will meet Garfield County requirements. With the incorporation of the Design Guidelines, the application exceeds Garfield County lighting requirements. 7-305. Snow Storage Standards. The applicant indicated that there was adequate room for snow storage as shown on the site plan. However, this was not included in the application. A suggested condition of approval has been included that at the time of Building Permit, the applicant shall be required to show adequate snow storage areas. 7-306. Trail and Walkway Standards. The application includes the following explanation regarding Trail and Walkway Standards. Garfield County Trail and Walkway Standards have been utilized to develop the community path that links the Flying M Ranch Subdivision together, to the Roaring Fork River, and to the new Riverview School. Access to the Roaring Fork River is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. No vehicle boat ramp is proposed as part of this Application. See the Trail and Walkway design on High Country Engineering Plans included as an Exhibit to this Application. Also attached is Safe Route to School Plan developed for the new Riverview School in a joint effort by the Roaring Fork School District, Garfield County, RFTA, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The trails at Flying M Ranch connect to the Safe Route that provides access from Riverview School to the Rio Grande Trail, then north to Glenwood Springs and south to the Ironbridge and Westbank communities. The Safe Route also addresses pedestrian/bike safety at the crossing of County Road 154 and the Rio Grande Trail. As the proposed trails within the development will connect to the Riverview School, the trails should be dedicated to the public. Additionally, to increase trail connections in the area, to benefit the Safe Routes to School, and to help make the provided trail as valuable of an amenity to the public as possible, Staff recommends that the applicant provide an access easement from the Rio Grande Trail to the proposed trail. Sidewalks 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. 25 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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, the applicant is concurrently applying for approval of a Planned Unit Development. One of the review criteria discusses 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." Proposed Access to River 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. Because sidewalks would provide the main pedestrian circulation to the site, Staff would be supportive of a soft surface trail to replace the proposed river trail. 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. RFTA Trail Concerns: The Rio Grande trail is in close proximity to the proposed Subdivision and has the potential to be impacted by the development (Exhibit 19). The application was reviewed by RFTA who provided a number of items that the developer could implement to support incremental safety solutions at the trail crossing. These included: • Reducing the height of a berm and vegetation in the RFTA Corridor to improve sight lines near the trail crossing. • A designated "school zone" along Garfield CR 154, from SH 82 to CR 109 at the actual Ironbridge • Pedestrian improvements along CR154 for the Ironbridge and Westbank neighborhoods (in the event the safe route grant is not awarded to this project) 26 PC February 27, 2019 PW • Additional signage and push-button flashing pedestrian signs for trail users on either side of the trail crossing • Additional signage for motorists on each approach to the trail crossing • A transit mitigation fund for adjacent developers and regional entities to begin to contribute to for future costly safety improvements. At full build -out, the development will create a significant amount of traffic at the Rio Grande Trail crossing of CR 154. While the applicant has indicated that the Safe Routes to School application could address some of these issues, the grants for the application have not been approved. There is a possibility that the Safe Routes to School funding is not obtained. To help mitigate the increase in traffic, Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that the applicant be required to install the push-button lights at the trail crossing, as well as additional signage. The addition of a transit mitigation fund is not included in Staff's recommendations because the transit mitigation fund does not currently available. Instead the direct impact of this application will be substantially mitigated by the installation of the flashing pedestrian beacon and the inclusion of sidewalks along CR 154. Compliance with Article 7, Division 4, Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications. 7-401. General Subdivision Standards. The applicant has provided a copy of the covenants that will be used on the subject property. Section 7-401 requires that domestic animals be confined to the property and are kept under control. The LUDC requires that this item is included in the protective covenants. This has been included as a suggested Condition of Approval The applicant indicated a number of potential flood plain lines in the application. Ultimately, the applicant needs to provide a demonstration that no development on the property will occur within the current FEMA regulated floodplain. Prior to the approval of a Final Plat, the applicant needs to address floodplain issues on the subject parcel through the use of a Letter of Map Revision, a Letter of Map Amendment, or additional floodplain permitting, acceptable to the Garfield County Floodplain Manager. Additionally, pending further information, the applicant may be required to submit a floodplain permit for the river trail. 7-402. Subdivision Lots. The lots as conceptually proposed appear to meet the dimensional requirements of Section 7- 402 A, B, and C. However, it appears that Parcels D, E, and F as proposed will be split by a Public Right of Way ("Road, Public" as defined by Article 15 of the LUDC) and therefore may not be in conformance with 7-402. D. The applicant has requested a waiver from 7-402 (D) indicating that it achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard and imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Code. Staff is supportive of the waiver request based on the unique topography of the site. 7-403. Survey Monuments. The application has been reviewed by the Garfield County Surveyor who did not provide a response. At the time of Final Plat, the application will be reviewed by the County Surveyor for further compliance with surveying requirements. 27 PC February 27, 2019 PW 7-404. School Land Dedication. The applicant has requested a waiver from School Land Dedication requirements that is supported by an extensive history of working with the school district and a pre-existing land credit contract with the district. RE -1 was included as a referral agency, however they did not respond to follow-up comments. It appears from the waiver request that the applicant is requesting to get credit from the school district for land that has already been exchanged. A Development Agreement acceptable to the BOCC is needed to provide the specifics of how the required payments will proceed. Staff has included this as a suggested condition of approval with an alternative to the condition that the applicant be required to pay school impact fees as required by the Land Use and Development Code. 7-405. Road Impact Fees. Road impact fees will be collected at the time of building permit and in accordance with the Road Impact Fee Update study dated July 1, 2015. Any Other Applicable Standards and Additional Submittals As stated previously, the Preliminary Plan is being reviewed concurrently with a PUD application. This item is addressed in a separate Staff Report. The applicant has provided additional documentation responding to Referral Comments. This has been included as Exhibit 69 to this Staff Report and incorporated where applicable. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application with the following suggested conditions of approval and findings. VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Preliminary Plan approval is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That subject to compliance with conditions of approval, the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 5. That subject to compliance with conditions of approval, and waivers from Articles 7-107 and 7-402 the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended. VIII. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or through submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 28 PC February 27, 2019 PW 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. Conditions Prior to Final Plat Approval: Transportation: 3) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that an easement has been granted through the Roaring Fork School District property for the emergency access loop. 4) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that an easement has been granted through the Roaring Fork School District property to connect the Rio Grande trail to the proposed river trail. a) The trail extension as well as the entirety of the river trail shall be installed as part of the first Final Plat process and may be secured in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 5) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall apply for and receive a CDOT access permit, be granted a Notice to Proceed for any improvements that are required, and provide a demonstration that the improvements have been accepted by CDOT. 6) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat and pursuant to CDOT referral comments, an easement #1( shall be provided through the Roaring Fork School District property along the emergency cip,u ik-4,. access road in anticipation of the development of an access road from the properties to the 36 north. The easement shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development. a) The applicant shall also be required to provide an access easement from the boundary of Parcel F to the northern parcel access easement referenced in Condition 6. This easement shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development, the County Attorney's Office and the Garfield County designated engineer. 7) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show a sidewalk of a minimum of four feet in width, on Flying M Ranch Road, the Upper Access Road, the Lower Access Road, and the PUD side of County Road 154. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roads when there is development potential on both sides. Sidewalks shall be built at the time of Final Plat for each parcel. The sidewalks shall not be maintained by the County. a) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a sidewalk maintenance agreement and a trail maintenance agreement acceptable to Community Development and the County Attorney's Office. 8) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat or as secured by the initial Subdivision Improvements Agreement, the applicant shall install additional signage and push-button flashing pedestrian signs for trail users on either side of the Rio Grande trail crossing of County Road 154. This work shall be completed in conjunction with RFTA and Garfield County Road and Bridge. A demonstration of conformance with this condition shall be provided by RFTA and the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 29 PC February 27, 2019 PW 9) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, for the roadways identified by the Garfield County designated engineer, the applicant shall either submit a Waiver Request for article 7-107 Roadway Standards, or update the engineering documents to demonstrate that the roadway meets those standards. This condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County designated engineer. 10) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall assign traffic generation minimums to all parcels in the proposed development in the form of Average Daily Trips. The traffic generation minimums shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the County Referral Engineer. Documentation of the traffic generation minimums shall be included in the PUD guide. Utilities and Engineering: 11) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the notes on engineering documents to reflect the most up-to-date studies. 12) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the engineering documents as required by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Engineer. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. a) All Final Plats will be referred to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and the applicant shall be required to comply with the District's regulations. The applicant shall supply all easements required by the RFWSD on all Final Plats. 13) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents and/or provide other evidence to address the Garfield County designated engineer's comments, dated January 25, 2019 as provided in Exhibit 15 of this Staff Report. Demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County Community Development. 14) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show an additional fire hydrant as requested by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be provided by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. 15) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a statement from a professional engineer, indicating whether or not drainage easements are needed on the subject properties. If needed the easements shall be included on any Final Plat. 16) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the Improvements Agreement shall be updated to include the requirement that the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Engineer shall review and approve the following: a) Security amounts b) Partial releases of security c) Final releases of security A 17) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that the existing structure on proposed Lot Ae2 meets setback requirements, relocate the structure, or alter the lot lines to show the structure is compliant. 30 PC February 27, 2019 PW Amended Final Plat and PUD Guide Requirements: 18) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, 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. 19) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the PUD Guide and Map shall be approved and recorded. Wetlands and Waterbodies: 20) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete wetlands analysis if required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. If wetlands are found, the applicant shall supply a plan to be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure compliance with required regulations. 21) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a public river access easement for the portion of the property that borders the Roaring Fork River. 22) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall address potential floodplain issues on the property through a Letter of Map Revision, a Letter of Map Amendment, and/or a County Floodplain Permit. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County floodplain manager. A floodplain development permit may be required for the river trail pending further information submitted to the Floodplain Manager. 23) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide additional information acceptable to the Community Development Department indicating mitigation measures for the sections of the river trail located within the required 35' waterbody setback. The applicant should avoid development of the trail in the waterbody setback to the maximum extent practicable, shall work with CPW on the trail design, and work to actively enhance riparian vegetation. Possible mitigation options could include, but are not limited to decreased width of sidewalk, lack of disturbance of riparian vegetation, addition of appropriate riparian vegetation, and/or use of a permeable material for the trail. Vegetation Management: 24) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply a management plan for Russian Olives on the site that is acceptable to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department. 25) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply Garfield County Vegetation Management with a calculation of the surface area of disturbance that will need to be reseeded on the property. Vegetation Management will then determine if a revegetation security is necessary. If determined necessary the security will be required prior to the Final Plat. 26) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply Garfield County Community Development with a completed Development Agreement for the project as a whole and an Improvements Agreement for the particular proposed phase. These items shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. School Land Dedication 31 PC February 27, 2019 PW 27) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall either execute an agreement acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney's Office, with support from the RE -1 School District, that outlines the proposed School Impact Fee plan, or the applicant shall pay school impact fees as required in the Land Use and Development Code. Covenants 28) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the Covenants for the property to demonstrate compliance with Article 7-401 of the Land Use and Development Code regarding Domestic Animal Control. 29) Final Plat Requirements: a) A plat note shall be included on all final plats that indicates: "A site specific geotechnical study shall be required prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. Development shall follow the recommendations in that report." b) Plat Notes A, B, C, D, E, F, I, and L as described in the County Resource Guide shall be included on Final Plats c) All final plats shall include required drainage easements. d) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "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 that should not be ignored." e) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if required by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, the applicant shall supply an engineered fire truck turn -around for that parcel acceptable to the Fire Department. f) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: At the time of Development of Parcel F, the emergency access loop shall be completed. g) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "Traffic generation requirements are outlined in the PUD Guide" h) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: An engineered, site specific, grading and drainage plan shall be required for each parcel, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. i) The River trail easement shall be clearly dedicated to the public on any Final Plat. Other Conditions: 30) The applicant shall comply with Colorado Parks and Wildlife Referral Comments as indicated below: a) Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards. b) Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It is required that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured. 32 PC February 27, 2019 PW 31) Development of the site shall be consistent with the requirements detailed in the H -P Kumar Preliminary Geotechnical Study, or as that study is updated. 32) Existing development on lots A2 and A4 shall be connected to Central Services as part of the Final Plat process for those lots. 33) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, compliance with requirements of the Land Use and Development Code, including but not limited to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and snow storage requirements shall be verified. 34) Roof Materials shall be made of noncombustible materials or other materials as recommended by the local fire agency. 35) Any fire truck turn around shall be kept clear as required by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, including but not limited to clear from parking and snow storage. Additional signage may be required by the Fire Department to meet this condition. 36) If the access from the northern parcels is built, the applicant shall be required to connect to that access road by upgrading the emergency access to meet Garfield County Roadway Standards. Once developed the road shall be available for use by the public. 37) The upper access shall be required to be gated for emergency access to the satisfaction of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department and County Road and Bridge. The road shall be constructed to the standards and in the location as indicated in the initial application. A driveway permit shall be required. Once Parcels B, C1, C2, C3, D, and E, are built -out, and/or at the discretion of the Community Development Director, the traffic impact of the development shall be re-evaluated by Garfield County and the access may be opened to use by the public. 38) As part of the Final Plat process for parcels C1, C2, and/or C3, (whichever is platted first) the applicant shall install a flashing pedestrian beacon on either side of the cross walk at Flying M Ranch Road and the school access road as indicated in the provided engineering documents. 39) The applicant shall be required meet the requirements of all utility providers for the project. All easements as required shall be included on all Final Plats. 40) Fertilizers and pesticides on both individual and community lawns and gardens should be applied minimally to reduce the risk of contamination to the Roaring Fork River. 41) The applicant shall supply records to the Community Development Department indicating that weed management work has been completed as required by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. 42) Development of the parcel shall comply with Colorado Geological Survey referral comments including requirements for uncontrolled fill and subsidence hazards. 33