HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Staff Report 04.11.2007Exhibits for PC Public Hearing / Meeting on The Reserve at Elk Meadows held on April
11, 2007
Exhibit Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A
Proof of Publication
B
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
C
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
D
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
E
Application (Binders 1 and 2)
F
Staff Memorandum dated 4/11/07
G
Memorandum from the County Vegetation manager dated 3/22/07
H
Letter from Mt. Cross Engineering dated 3/21/07
I
Email from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 3/21/07
J
Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 3/16/07
K
Email from CDPHE dated 3/21/07
L
Email from Kenneth Wilson dated 3/28/07
M
Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District dated 3/21/07
N
Letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 3/19/07
0
Email from CDOT 2/26/07
P
Letter from the Garfield Housing Authority dated 3/20/07
Q
Letter from BLM dated 3/22/07
R
Letter from DOW dated 3/16/07
S
Letter from City of Glenwood Springs (Com Dev) dated 3/27/07
T
Letter from City of Glenwood Springs11(Com Dev) dated 3/13/07
U
Wit, 7' iisi,�..1 sf [,,el-' f' ,4i;i/k GG• `,n., if ll)
V
CAI,,.1 Til 1v 1 17e•-, fr"' J. _ Cry./! 1Aa-P-.45 �n/ "�
.f
W
1,4-L, f.,, i, 6w12 la Gpi')) )-4.2.d' y11s10 4-
X
na- v (�, , I- 9f •-!.- L e-.✓�,. t 4- ,
Y
JJ i j i 1 1
��VYi. A.i) �rTDti �l`d/� "f�'��%�,� �' �oCV i -a: �i d� y iJ �t)�
Z„.
, l ,F/0,, _ ur„ i 2„U,, -Ib i1,a>c - ,,1 r,: /a) iii ii l0r
1 A, / /J-) I -a -17b- ,.
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT TITLE Reserve @ Elk Meadows
REQUEST Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planned Unit Development / Sketch Plan
DATE April 11, 2007
APPLICANT Reserve at Elk Meadows, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE Balcomb & Green, P.C. (Larry Green)
LOCATION Four Mile Creek
SITE ACREAGE 506 acres
ZONING ARRD
SURROUNDING ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
North: ARRD
South: ARRD
East: ARRD
West: OS (BLM)
Medium Density Residential (Primarily)
Low Density Residential (partially)
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant requests land use approvals to develop the Bershenyi & Martino
Ranches into a residential development called The Reserve @ Elk Meadows. The
two properties are located south of Glenwood Springs along Four Mile Road (CR
117) immediately south of Four Mile Ranch Subdivision.
Specifically, the proposal includes developing the two adjacent ranches (when
combined comprise a total of 506 acres) into 189 residential Tots located in three (3)
residential clusters in a 6 phase development plan. One cluster of 72 Tots would be
located in the lower meadow below CR 117 and the two other residential clusters
(55 lots and 69 lots) are to be located on meadows on the upper portions of the
ranch on the west side of CR 117.
All lots are proposed to be connected the City of Glenwood Springs public
wastewater system. Domestic water is proposed to be provided by an on site central
water system consisting of a well field, water treatment facilities, distribution lines
and storage tanks with capacity for fire protection water. Additionally, a raw irrigation
water delivery system will be constructed to deliver irrigation water to each lot.
The proposed design provides for over 374 acres to be placed into open space
which also includes an internal trail system as well as a continuation of the public
trail along CR 117 through the development.
Access to the project is anticipated directly from CR 117 with the Applicant
proposing a partial realignment and improvement of a portion of CR 117 as it
passes through the project.
11. LAND USE REQUESTS
In order to accomplish this proposed development, the Applicant requests the
following land use approvals.
1. Amend the Proposed land Use District Map in the Comprehensive Plan
of 2000 from Medium and Low Density Residential to Medium and High
Density Residential;
[To be determined first, the Planning Commission will have a public hearing
on whether the Comprehensive Plan designation should be changed. The
Planning Commission is the final decision maker on this action.]
2. Rezone the property from ARRD to Planned Unit Development (PUD);
and
[To be determined second, the Planning Commission will have a public
meeting on the request to rezone the property. The Planning Commission will
2
make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (the
Board).]
3. Satisfy the Sketch Plan Review requirement as the first step in
subdividing the property;
[To be reviewed along with the PUD request, the County's subdivision
regulations require that a sketch plan be reviewed by the Planning
Commission in order to provide comments to the Applicant regarding the
subdivision component of a development plan. No formal action is taken, but
these comments are applied to the development through the PUD
discussion.]
III. REFERRAL AGENCY REVIEW
The application was referred to the following agencies for their review and
comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below and are more
comprehensively incorporated into the memo.
A. Colorado Geological Survey
Celia Greenman, responded to the application with comments regarding
drainage, ditches, water, culverts, steep terrain, rock fall and debris flow hazards
possibly effecting two lots in the South Meadow 52 and 53. Likewise potential
debris flow hazard exist for lots 28 through 31 and lots 3, 4, 5, and & 7 that can
be mitigated with proper grading and established building envelopes.
Additionally, possible sinkhole conditions were noted in East Meadows with
mitigating conditions. Soil characteristic were recommended for further
evaluation in terms of bearing capacity and swell conditions as the project
progresses. Access roads to lots 1-3 and lot 53 were questioned due to possible
excessive disturbance of natural drainage ways. Additional analysis of the
grades accommodating the emergency access planned in the upper Meadows
was recommended. An erosion control plan was recommended and erosion
mitigation installed prior to site grading. Generally, CGS concluded that "there
are no geological conditions that would preclude subdivision.
B. State of CO Forest Service
Kamie Long, noted that significant wild fire hazard on portions of the proposed
development exists. However mitigation is possible through adequate water
supply, access, fuel loading and building materials.
C. Bureau of Land Management
Brain Hopkins stressed measures to control trespassing onto BLM property
during construction. Further discussion is warranted regarding trails and
pedestrian access across BLM property. Right of Way permits are necessary for
any roads, cart ways, paths or utilities crossing BLM property. Potential residents
3
should be advised that public land has current permits for live stock grazing as
well as hunting and target shooting permits.
D. Garfield Co. Bridge & Road, District #1
Bobby Branham discusses in detail the installation of culverts, access drives,
road surface requirements per Garfield Co. regulations. The proposed re-
alignment of CR117 must be planned, coordinated, reviewed , and permitted
with the Road & Bridge Department. Ingress and egress traffic shall be
accommodated by both acceleration and deceleration lanes for both north and
south bound traffic. Prior to construction of the re -alignment of CR117 all plans
must be reviewed and approved by the County engineer and Road & Bridge.
E. Mountain Cross Engineering Inc
Expressed concern regarding the discrepancy between the water production of
the augmentation plan and the water system which is anticipated to be
concluded through final engineering. The water pressure zones required for
domestic use were analyzed with recommended changes. Mitigation for rock fall
and debris flow was recommended to be detailed on the preliminary plat. The
accuracy of the over all traffic impact was questioned since a 2% growth factor
was utilized compared to the over all growth rate of the county. Finally,
coordination of off site roadway projects between the Garfield County and the
City is essential to avoid adverse traffic impacts.
F. Glenwood Springs Fire Department
All residential structures required to have automatic fire suppression system with
the NFPA 13 R standards, 2007 edition. Spacing between fire hydrants per
Glenwood City Fire Department. The Developer shall provide to the City of
Glenwood Springs Fire Department complete plans in order to review the fire
flows, water storage needs, fire hydrant spacing/location. Agreement adopted
between the developer, Garfield Co/ City of Glenwood Springs and Glenwood
Springs Fire Department to comply with the International Urban Wildlife Interface
Code 2000 when planning and implementing a fire protection code.
Conformance with the IWUC standards to guide the construction of this type of
development.
G. Garfield Co. Weed Management
Vegetation Management Director responded to the application with noxious
weeds concerns and the preparation of a map and inventory of any Garfield
County Noxious weeds existing on the property. Also it was requested that the
applicant provide a weed revegetation, soil management, and mosquito
management plans for relative to planning and management of the subject
property. This information will aid to determine the amount of security held for
revegetation.
H. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No Comments Received
4
I. Colorado Department of Health& Environment
Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. responded that the information provided indicated that
both wells preliminary meet the state requirements. However, the proposed
water system will be required to be reviewed by the State new system capacity
development review of plans and specifications.
J. Re -1 School District: No Comments Received
K. Garfield County Housing Authority: Preferred that the Applicant provide the
required affordable housing units be incorporated within the development.
L. City of Glenwood Springs
Commented on the transportation impacts to the City, their preference for
affordable housing to be placed on site, internal roads, and lighting.
M. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received
N. West Glenwood Sanitation: No Comments Received
IV. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Applicant requests the Planning Commission approve an amendment to the
Proposed Land use Districts Map of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 in order to
accommodate the proposed PUD. Presently, the property is located in Study Area I
and is overlain primarily with the Medium Density Residential (6 to <10 acres / du)
designation with three small pockets of Low Density Residential (10 acres or more /
du). As you recall, these designations were chosen primarily due to development
constraints and land use considerations as more fully described in the methodology
section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Currently Adopted Plan
Proposed Plan
5
The application proposes re -designate the majority of the property to Medium
Density Residential (which includes 1 residential cluster) and re -designate the
remainder two residential clusters as High Density Residential such that it would be
consistent with the proposed development. The currently adopted density definitions
in the Comprehensive Plan are as follows:
➢ Low Density Residential: 10 or more acres / du (18.2)
➢ Medium Density Residential: 6 < 10 acres / du (53.97)
➢ Medium -High Residential: 2 < 6 acres per dwelling unit
➢ High Density Residential: Less than 2 acres per dwelling unit
It appears the reason for the three small pockets of Residential Low Density are due
primarily to 1) surficial geology for landslides, 2) major slope hazards, and 3)
moderate soils hazards as identified in the Comprehensive Plan defined more fully
below:
MAJOR SLOPE HAZARD
Area of moderate hazard such as some debris fans and minor rockfall
areas. Detailed geologic investigation should accompany an engineering
study, including test drilling, simple strength tests, groundwater
evaluation, and stability analysis. Mitigation is usually possible but will
usually be expensive and may involve large-scale construction work.
Special siting may be helpful
LANDSLIDE Includes all types of slope failures
other than mudflows
MODERATE SOILS HAZARD
Area of moderate hazard, such as some subsidence porob/ems. investigation
includes detailed geologic study, test drilling, and laboratory analyses.
Geophysdical or remote sensing methods may be useful. Mitigation usually
involves special siting and design.
The Comprehensive Plan contains a methodology matrix that provides the general
exercise undergone that ultimately resulted in why certain areas in Study Area I
were given a certain density. Because this exercise was done at a broad scale and
not the result of a site specific analysis, amendments can (and should be)
contemplated at a closer property scale. In this case, the Applicant suggests that
the property's designations could be varied as certain environmental and
development constraints can adequately be mitigated resulting in varying densities.
In summary, Staff agrees with the analysis in the application which resulted in the
6
re -mapping of a portion of the property as High Density Residential and the Targe
remainder as Medium Density Residential shown above. Generally, the analysis
suggests that the lower, gently sloping fields and meadows of the Martino and
Bershenyi Ranches could easily be re -mapped as Residential High Density District
due 'to the lack of any significant development constraints, availability of central
sewer service and proximity to an improved collector road and communityservices.
Similarly, the remainder of the property is suggested to be mapped as Medium
Density Residential due to some areas having development constraints (primarily
geologic and slope related) but these areas can also be accommodated by central
sewer, proximity to good access and existing urban services in nearby Glenwood
Springs.
In order to quantify the mapping change and what that will realize in terms of
residential density, the following is a summary showing the change.
Low Density
Existing
Comprehensive
Plan
Resulting Lots
(Density)
Proposed
Amendment
Resulting Lots
(Density)
36% (182.16
acres)
Medium Density
High Density
64% (323.84
acres)
0
18.26
(10 ac /du)
53.97
(6 ac / du)
0
0
79% (399.74
acres)
66.62
(6 ac / du)
21% (106.26
acres)
Total Lot
(Average Density)
72.23 Tots
(7 ac / du)
122.38
(0.86 ac / du)�
189 Tots
(2.67 ac / du)
Therefore, a re -mapping of the subject property (as proposed) would result in a net
density increase from 7 acres per dwelling unit to 2.67 acres per dwelling unit or
from a total of 72 Tots to 189 Tots.
Again, the existing Comprehensive Plan density on the property is a combination of
partial Low Density due to development constraints in the Upper
Meadows neighborhood including 55 single family units while the remainder of the
property is designated as Medium Density covering the South Meadow
neighborhood including 62 single family units and the east Meadow neighborhood
including 72 single family units thereby totaling 189 single family units.
The proposal is to convert the existing low density to medium density in the Upper
Meadows neighborhood and exchange medium density existing on the South and
East Meadows neighborhoods to high density. Staff agrees with the Applicant's
analysis justifying this change due to more technical "on-site" analysis that better
defined and refined the initial broad comprehensive analysis.
7
V. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT / SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
As mentioned above, the application proposes to rezone the property from ARRD to
PUD. The following section provides an analysis of the proposed PUD that also
includes technical aspects of subdividing the property into 189 residential lots. The
County standards are identified in bold italics followed by a Staff Response.
4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in
general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive plan(s). When
appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County
Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any
application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the
Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and may
occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall
include justification for the amendment based upon criteria for establishing land use
designations contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The entire PUD / project design is contingent upon a proposed amendment to the
Proposed Land Use Districts Map as discussed earlier. Staff has agreed that the
proposed amendment to the map (establishing residential densities) appears to be
justified. The second major component of the Comprehensive Plan includes the
Goals, Policies, and Objectives. The application provides a review of these
elements in Tab 4. Staff agrees that, should the Planning Commission agree to
amend the map, that the application demonstrates general compliance with the
remainder of the Comprehensive Plan with the following exception:
A. Housing
Among others, one of the major housing goals states that PUDs should provide all
types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing
opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that
are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Additionally, PUDs
should encourage mix of housing types within a development.
Housing objectives include encouraging adequate, integrated housing at a
reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County and Residential
development should respect the natural characteristics of a particular site, including
topography, vegetation, water features, geology and visual relationships with
surrounding land uses and view sheds.
Because of the significant increase in residential density beyond what the property
is currently allowed (74 to 189 units), the development is required to construct 10%
(or 19 units) of the units as affordable housing units to be controlled by the County
Housing Authority. To this end, the application indicates these units are to be
provided off-site rather than integrated in the development. Staff finds that this not
8
only contradicts the main housing goal above but also contradicts the opinion of the
Garfield County Housing Authority.
More specifically, the application goes to great length to demonstrate that a
comprehensive plan amendment is warranted due to Infrastructure Needs and
Distance from Urban Uses. For example, the application states the following to
support a change to high density residential (pages 3 and 4 in Tab 3):
➢ The Sopris Elementary School is located just off Four Mile Road/Midland
Avenue about one and one quarter miles from the Elk Meadows PUD Entry.
➢ In the same vicinity as Sopris Elementary School is the Mountain Market and
associated commercial spaces offering convenience products, gasoline and
personal service type businesses.
➢ The existing paved pedestrian trail paralleling Four Mile Road through the
Four Mile Ranch Subdivision will be extended through the proposed Elk
Meadows PUD making the school and Mountain Market convenience
services more accessible for pedestrians.
> American National Bank, Rivers Restaurant, WalMart and the numerous
other commercial services in South Glenwood begin at a point less than
three miles from the subject properties. Urban services are readily available
to the future residents of these properties either by vehicle or by foot. The
location of the proposed High Density districts easily satisfies a Moderate
ranking for proximity to urban uses.
➢ Staff would also note the existing RFTA service to Glenwood Park which is at
the terminus of the Four Mile Subdivision within walking distance to the
development.
Despite this effort to demonstrate close proximity to urban services to make the
case for higher density in the Comprehensive Plan, the application also states (page
3, Tab 4) that "given the development site's rural location...the development is not
inherently well qualified to offer housing at the low end of the real-estate market and
is not desirous location. The County Housing Authority disagrees with the proposal
to locate the housing off-site with the following remarks, among others:
> These units (on-site) will target households earning $50,500 to $58,600
annually. It has been our experience that families in this income bracket do
not rely on social services and public transportation to the extent the
development would be an undesirable place to live.
➢ We believe that the close proximity to the Fire Station, Elementary School,
and the Mountain Market with associated commercial spaces offering
convenience products, gasoline, and personal service type businesses with a
9
paved pedestrian / bike trail would create a practical setting for affordable
housing.
➢ The Housing Authority feels that Elk Meadows would be a desired place to
include affordable housing and build a balanced community.
➢ The Housing Authority acknowledges that the guidelines allow (should the
BOCC approve) off-site location under certain circumstances; however we
do not feel those circumstances apply for this development.
Additionally, this Housing Goal anticipates that PUDs would provide "all types" of
housing which Staff suggests includes multi -family units. The PUD, as proposed,
provides only for single-family dwellings on a variety of lot sizes. The application
suggests that the varying lot sizes accommodate this housing goal. Staff disagrees.
Finally, one of the prime objectives states that residential development should
respect the natural characteristics of a particular site, including topography,
vegetation, water features, geology and visual relationships with surrounding land
uses and view sheds. Staff notes that not only does this property fall within the View
Shed Area, but the residential cluster in the upper meadow will be highly visible
from State highway 82.
Staff referred the application to the City of Glenwood Springs (a potential receiver
site for Affordable Housing as suggested by the application) which provided the
following comments:
The requirements for inclusionary housing in Planned Unit Developments in
Garfield County require at least 10% of the overall housing mix to be
affordable housing units. The development of inclusionary housing by itself
does not fulfill PUD requirements for a variety of housing types and densities.
(4.07.15.01)
Additionally, lands designated for high density residential which allows two or
less acres per dwelling unit are considered under the County's regulations to
be the most suited for affordable housing. The County regulations indicate
that off-site proposals for inclusionary housing will only be approved by the
County Commissioners if the applicant can demonstrate circumstances that
would justify an off-site option.
The application states that EIK Meadows is a "few" miles from the closest
commercial and social services and public transportation and is therefore not a
desirable location for affordable housing units. The applicant sates this as
justification for meeting the inclusionary housing regulations with off-site
mitigation at a location within Glenwood Spring or other area communities.
Unfortunately, the application materials provided do not provide any details on
10
how off-site mitigation would be achieved. The incorporation of affordable
housing within a specific development is, in most cases, the optimum location
for housing as it provides a mix of housing and socio-economic groups within a
community.
The overall design of the Elk Meadows development has lots that range in size
from 13,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. The application indicates that most homes will be
4,500 sq. ft. in size or greater. It is likely a number of these homes will be
second homes for some families. Second homes in and of themselves
generate a need for employees to provide needed services such as overall
maintenance, gardening, etc. Employees will also be needed to provide the
necessary maintenance of the trails, roads and improvements owned by the
Homeowners Association within this development. It would seem appropriate
that some form of affordable housing should be provided on site for these
employees and also for other employees, such as workers at the Sunlight Ski
area.
The pre -annexation agreement sets a cap on the number of units within this
development to 200. The current application is for 189 detached single family
homes. One of the stated goals from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
Section 111-2.0 indicates a mix of housing types is to be encouraged within a
development. One of the County's objectives as cited in 2.1 is to encourage
adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout
Garfield County. It does not appear as though the current proposal meets this
goal or objective as the only variation in housing product is a variation on lot
sizes.
It would seem appropriate that the plan could be revised to include a housing
product to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and
inclusionary requirements. An additional option to the inclusionary component
would be the addition of accessory dwelling units as a permitted use,
understanding that there is a cap on the number of dwelling units per the
annexation agreement.
4.07.02 The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not
be less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except
that the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required
number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors:
(1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD;
(2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses;
(3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking
areas is proposed.
Staff Finding
Presently, the County Zoning Resolution (Zoning Code) requires one parking space
for every six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. The application proposes to
11
amend this to the following due to the likelihood of what larger homes might be
required to provide:
a. Dwellings of less than 3,000 square feet of floor area: 4 parking spaces
b. Dwellings of 3,000 square feet of floor area but less than 5,000 square feet
of floor area: 5 parking spaces
c. Dwellings of 5,000 square feet of floor area or greater: 6 parking spaces
Staff agrees with the slight reduction in the parking requirements as these are
minimums and if a property owner wishes additional parking, it would be governed
by lot coverage, etc. Staff also notes the development has also provided for guest
parking accommodation to satisfy overflow for guests with the understanding that
these spaces will be posted specifically for short term parking and enforced by the
home owners association.
4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can
demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical
solution has been otherwise achieved:
(1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area,
with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being
minimized.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the proposed development generally has an appropriate relationship
to the surrounding area as one considers the broader character of the lower Four
Mile Valley and the residential developments that presently exist. Because of the
site's varying terrain, portions of the development will be hidden with while other
portions, such as the East Meadow; will be highly visible. The site plan incorporates
open space tracts to buffer the development here from Four Mile Road in an
attempt to continue the agricultural nature of the area with a 20 -acre irrigated
hayfield. The barns are also proposed to be preserved supporting this heritage.
The most adjacent residential area is Four Mile Ranch Subdivision which is a 2 -acre
lot subdivision just on the boundary with Glenwood Springs. The proposed
development is somewhat buffered from this development with the open space
tract. The proposed density is much higher than Four Mile Ranch with sub -urban
like lot sizes ranging from 13,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. in the lower east meadow.
Staff finds that the project proposes sub -urban lot sizes on central services that
while highly visible in the lower meadow from CR 117, measures have been taken
to minimize their visual affect as seen from SH82 with height limitations and
vegetation requirements without maximizing the development footprint on the
property.
The main direct adverse affect to the surrounding areas include visual impacts, light
pollution of the night sky, and traffic impacts. The City of Glenwood Springs
commented that "portions of the development will be highly visible from the lower
12
reaches of the valley. It would seem appropriate that limited lighting be utilized
within the development. Full cut-off fixtures for both street lighting and on individual
homes should be considered in design requirements for the development." Staff
suggests the Applicant prepare a Residential / Community Lighting Plan that
addresses light trespass issues so that this community will not adversely affect the
night sky.
Regarding traffic, the proposed 189 units will generate approximately 1,900 ADT at
full build -out. As background traffic increases in the Four Mile Valley and Sunlight
Ski Area undergoes significant redevelopment, this traffic can only go north directly
into Glenwood Springs. Staff agrees that the re -alignment of 'A mile section of CR
117 through the project will benefit the CR 117 corridor traffic and make the road a
safer road to travel. The project is also required to pay the County's Traffic Impact
Fee at the time of final plat. That total fee is estimated to be approximately
$500,000.
While that deals with County's portion of the traffic impact, the intersections that will
be impacted with traffic volume conflicts are all located in Glenwood Springs and not
in Garfield 'County. In order to deal with these issues, the Applicant's traffic
consultant prepared an analysis that modeled the impacts which are summarized
here and are also contained in Tab 3. Binder 2:
The following road system improvements, identified in the Glenwood Springs Lorio Ranue
Transportation Flan, were assumed to be constructed by 2025:
Grand Avenue/27th Street: Signalize (also assumed for short term conditions).
Midland Avenue/27th Street: Signalize and install a westbound to northbound right turn lane
(also assumed for short term conditions).
Midiand Avenue/Four Mile Road: Construct a southbound left turn lane, a westbound left turn
and a northbound right turn lane.
South Bridge: Construct a new bridge across the Roaring Fork River south of town to provide
a more direct connection to the Sunlight Ski Area. It is anticipated that southbound traffic from
Elk Meadows, Red Feather Ridge, and other developments in the area would use this new
bridge rather than travel north to the Sunlight Bridge. This is anticipated to reduce future
background traffic on Midland Avenue/27th Street by approximately 6,700 vehicles per day over
conditions without the South Bridge.
As discussed earlier, the pre -annexation agreement that has been entered into to
provide wastewater service from the City to the development also includes an
obligation on the developer to make $900,000 worth of improvements to one of
these intersections described below:
b. Transportation. As part of the subdivision improvements to be made in
connection with the first Final Plat for development on the Property, the Developer shall
complete intersection improvements to one or more of the following intersections: 27th
Street and Midland Avenue; 27th Street and South Grand Avenue; or Midland Avenue
13
and Four Mile Road, including design and construction in accordance with plans and
specifications to he approved by the City, up to and including a roundabout at the
intersection of 2'7t Street and Midland Avenue. The Developer shall be responsible for
all costs associated with any such intersection improvements, including engineering fees,
utility relocation, and legal fees and acquisition costs incurred in connection with any
necessary acquisition of real property. Provided, however, that under no circumstances
shall the developer have to expend more than $900,000,00 to pay for any such
intersection improvements. Prior to approval of the first Final Plat for development on
the Property, the Developer, at its expense, shall work with the City to design
intersection improvements which arc acceptable to the City. In connection therewith, the
Developer shall provide the City with a certified engineer's estirnate for the total cost of
any intersection improvements approved by the City. If the engineer's estimate for such
cost is more than $900,OOO.00,or the City request it, then in lieu of constructing such
intersection improvements the Developer shall pay to the. City the sump of $900,000.00
at the time of recording the first Final Plat less costs incurred by Developer for
engineering and design of the intersection improvements. Upon such payment the
Developer shall have fully satisfied all of its obligations under this paragraph. The City
agrees that it shall utilize such funds only to make any improvements to the intersections
of 27`h Street and Midland Avenue, 27t° Street and South Grand or Midland Avenue and
Four Mile Road that it deems appropriate, and for other transportation infrastructure
improvements identified and approved by the City in Resolution No. 2006-20 as it may
be amended prior to the first Final Plat: In the event that the actual cost to the Developer
for intersection improvements made by the Developer is less than $900,000.00, then in
addition to making such improvements Developer shall pay to the City the difference
between $900,000.00 and such actual costs. Such payment shall be made; no later than
sixty (6.0) days after completion of construction of intersection improvements and the
amount thereof shall be based upon a certification of such actual costs by the Developer's
engineer.
The City of Glenwood Springs provided additional comment on the application
which acknowledged the pre -annexation agreement obligations; however, the letter
from Andrew McGregor states that the agreement is not meant to serve as an
"endorsement" of the project. Additionally, he notes that changes have occurred
with potential improvements to the Midland / 27th Avenue intersection that suggest a
roundabout is better than a signal. As such, the traffic study should be revised to
reflect this change. Additionally, the study relies on the tenuous subject of the
possible construction of the South Bridge. Lastly, the study fails to address the
Midland / Mount Sopris Drive intersection which presently has conflicts as it, at
times, under serves a school, 350 home, and parks.
(2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system
designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living
areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be
permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is
maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for
residential purposes.
14
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes an internal street system characterized by looped cul-de-sacs.
As viewed in two sections with CR 117 splitting the development, there is only one
way in and one way out. Internally on the west side, the site plan provides
emergency access routes to provide a secondary egress / ingress in the event of an
emergency.
The application states (and Staff agrees) that the proposed realignment of Four Mile
Road will improve safety on this major collector road and allow for the construction
of an efficient and safe intersection with the roads internal to the PUD. It is unclear
of the application proposes these roads to be "private" or dedicated to the public
because the application states that "Some roads will also be platted with a public
access easement such that the public may access the parking areas designated for
users of the proposed "mountain park"." Roads in a PUD may be private if
requested and approved by the BOCC.
The application also proposes to reduce the required road standards listed in the
County Subdivision regulations. Specifically, the County requires that the roads be
designed to the Minor Collector standard which requires 60 -foot ROW, Two 12 -foot
lanes, 6 -foot shoulders and a max grade at 8%. The PUD proposes 22 -feet of
asphalt traffic lanes.
Additionally, the application provides that "in three locations, emergency access
drives are proposed as an alternative to full cross section streets to avoid dramatic
scarring of the native terrain. One emergency access, which is of relative steep
grade and also serves as a primary pedestrian trail, will have a ten foot wide asphalt
surface with one foot shoulders. The remaining two emergency drives will be twelve
foot wide gravel platforms and will also serve a pedestrian function. Paved
pedestrian trails connect the public pedestrian trail located east of Four Mile Road
with access to the proposed "mountain park':"
There appears to be good pedestrian / bike access through the site. The City of
Glenwood Springs provided thoughts on the trails:
There are significant trails around the perimeter of the property. Some
consideration should be given to more connections from the periphery to the
internal roadways so that pedestrians do not have to walk around an entire
area to gain access to the road. Will the trails be used by school aged
children to provide access to a central bus location at the entries to the
development? Ongoing maintenance of the trails so they are always
available for pedestrian access? Is there a need for sidewalks in the
development to serve this purpose?
Staff questions the grade of Street A and the emergency access which appear to be
rather steep and could be further impacted by snow in the winter due to their north,
northeast aspects which are more difficult to get sun exposure. Again, there is only
15
one way in and out of the project on either side of CR 117. The Subdivision
Regulations require a secondary access if cul-de-sacs are longer than 600 linear
feet. While the east meadow appears to have little wildfire issues, the upper
meadows certainly have those issues. Staff finds that this needs to be more fully
explored. Staff notes that the Glenwood Springs Fire Department as well as the
Colorado State forest Service were silent on the issue.
Staff agrees with the City's comments regarding approximately 700 ft. of the access
road at the upper meadows area will encounter slopes with gradients of 40% and
that rock -walls may be required. Additionally, a rock wall is proposed at the south
end of the development. Design standards should be incorporated to require
terracing of retaining walls with vegetation.
Roads are to be 22 ft. in width with perpendicular "guest parking" spaces at intervals
throughout the development. It is assumed there will be no on -street parking.
Developments with similar road widths and guest parking have had enforcement
issues when the Homeowners Association is responsible for enforcement.
Construction vehicles, abandoned vehicles, etc. can create problems.
(3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area,
circulation, safety, convenience, separation and screening.
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes "guest parking" throughout the PUD as well as provides a 10 -
space public parking lot in the upper meadow for access to the BLM and the
"Mountain Park." Staff finds that these areas are appropriately located.
(4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of
location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the
uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum
preservation of the natural features of the terrain.
Staff Finding
The site plan incorporates almost 75% of the property in some form of open space.
Staff finds that much of the open space is practically unbuildable but the site plan
does set aside very buildable areas such as the 20 -acre hayfield on CR 117. The
site plan does propose that the development footprint occur in areas already
disturbed from agricultural practices / uses and that the road system has been
designed to minimize cuts and fills on the property to preserve hillsides as much as
possible. The residential clusters also provide for unique active and passive
recreation as well as preserved much of the hillsides on the property.
(5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other
facilities and Common Open Space.
Staff Finding
This standard requires that the PUD shall provide for a variety in housing types and
densities. As mentioned earlier, the PUD does not provide for a variety of housing
types as it only provides for single-family dwellings. Staff interprets this standard to
mean the accommodation of multi -family units as well as inclusionary affordable
16
housing units that could be combined to satisfy this Standard. Additionally, the
density proposed is basically one average density and not a variety of densities
throughout the project. This has not been satisfied.
(6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units.
Staff Finding
Generally, the proposed site plan provides for private between units as almost all of
the units back up against some form of open space. The density proposed,
particularly in the lower meadow is a suburban style lot type that provides minimal
privacy simply due to lot size and proximity one another.
(7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety,
separation, convenience, and access to points of destination and
attractiveness.
Staff Finding
Staff finds the PUD has done a good job at providing pedestrian trails / amenities
throughout the development which will benefit not only the residents but the general
public as well. This standard has been met.
(8) if centralized water and/or wastewater facilities are proposed within the
PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that shall
contain its own performance standards. No land within any utility zone
district shall apply toward any category of open space calculation or
requirement. The PUD shall demonstrate how common water and
wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed by the future owners
within the PUD. (A. 97-109)
Staff Finding
The City of Glenwood springs will provide sewer treatment services The PUD site
plan shows that a separate utility zone district has been created to accommodate
the chlorine treatment facility for the domestic water system, water storage tanks
and an irrigation water pumping station. Staff agrees that the individual wells do not
need to be contained with the utility district but are noted as an allowed use in the
open space district as the space consumed by an individual well head is
insignificant to the open space uses of the area. The on site central water system
including wells, treatment facilities and distribution lines will be owned and
maintained by the Elk Meadows home owners association. The on site sewer
collection lines and any potential sewage lift stations will be owned and operated by
the home owners association.
(9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40%, shall be the minimum
necessary to meet the development needs, with a revegetation and
geotechnical plan submitted with the PUD application;
Staff Finding
The site plan with grade contours shows that virtually all of the residential
disturbance will occur in areas of 30 percent or less in slope. The application points
out that approximately 700 feet of the access road to the Upper Meadow residential
area crosses slopes with gradients of 40%.
17
In order to deal with that slope issue, the application suggests that it may be
possible to use rock walls on the uphill cut side of the road allowing a full bench cut
which will minimize the fill slope disturbance and reduce the visual impact of the
road as it crosses this hillside. Moreover, a report prepared by HP Geotech
addresses slope stability questions relative to the road construction and the civil
engineering statement prepared by Sopris Engineering describes the basic
parameters for the revegetation of disturbed slopes in the project and particularly
disturbance on the steeper native slopes.
(10) If community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the
PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entity shall be
responsible for the provision of and payment for the proposed facilities.
The facilities shall also be included within the overall common
infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water, wastewater and
parking requirements.
Staff Finding
The PUD does propose several community facilities that include preserving the two
barn structures that the applications states are "historic." [Note, while they may
appear practically historic, they are not listed on any state or federal historic
inventory that Staff is aware of; nonetheless, they are certainly cultural fixtures that
remind us of the agricultural heritage and should definitely be preserved.]
The PUD also proposes to the Bershenyi Frame Barn which requires only basic
interior clean-up, exterior painting and roof repair; and the Bershenyi Log Barn
which is proposed to be moved to the northeast to accommodate the realignment of
Four Mile Road, placed on a new foundation, the interior cleaned up, general repair
of the roof and exterior walls as needed for basic preservation. Other community
facilities proposed in the PUD include the asphalt and gravel trails, parkland
facilities which includes children's play equipment, an observation platform and
shelter, a picnic shelter, a parking lot for use by the public near the access trail to
the proposed "mountain park" and landscape plantings at the community entry and
in the open space parks internal to the South Meadow and the East Meadow.
The PUD states that the completed facilities will be dedicated to the Reserve at Elk
Meadows Home Owners Association for long term operation and maintenance and
that the details of these facilities will be provided with the preliminary plan.
4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum
permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the fallowing
characteristics of the proposed building:
(1) It's geographical location;
(2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain;
(3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in
the immediate vicinity;
(4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air
circulation or loss of view;
(5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas
and open space; and
(6) Uses within the proposed building.
18
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes to use the same height limitations in the underlying ARRD zone
district with no exception requested. The application does request to "grandfather"
the height of the existing Bershenyi Frame Barn. Staff finds there is no need to ask
because it is a legal non -conforming structure. Note, however that if it is to be used
for human occupation rather than strict agricultural purposes, a building permit
would be required.
4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be
decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above
those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate
specific building types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship
between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted torovide
flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall
contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with
useable common open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for,
and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility
construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to
accommodate contemporary building types which are not spaced
individually on their own lots but share common side walls, combined
service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not
providing for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of
buildings shall not be a basis for denying approval of a PUD application.
Staff Finding
Using the underlying ARRD as a guide, Staff provides a comparison of what the
PUD proposes against the ARRD:
ARRD
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Setbacks
Proposed PUD
2 acres
Front & Rear: 25 feet
Side: 10 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 15%
13,000 sq. ft.
None Specified ????
None Specified ????
The application states that the proposed lot size and coverage criteria are not
significantly different from that of the "urban and suburban" density residential zone
districts contained in the Garfield County Zone Regulations which would be
consistent with the Comp Plan designation of "Residential High Density". The
application is required to indicate what those limits are so that when zoning review
occurs, it can be determined if the structure meets the provisions of the PUD. This
standard has not been met.
4.07.06
The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units
per gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County
Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling
units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned
and operated bya municipal government or special district (as defined by
Section 32-1-3(20), C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning
classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units
per gross acre, such densities being determined by reference to the
maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio,
maximum building height and parking standards of such prior zoning
classification. The overall average residential density shall be calculated by
summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the
boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres
19
within the boundary of the PUD. Averaging and transferring of densities
within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance to the
purposes of this section through appropriate utilization of the area within the
PUD to achieve high standards of design and livability. The density of
dwelling units in any particular area may be greater than the maximum
permitted for a like use in other zone district. (A. 83-93, A. 96-87, A. 97-109)
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes a gross residential density of 0.37 dwelling units per acre or
2.68 acres per dwelling unit. This standard has been met.
4.07.07 The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres.
Staff Finding
The PUD covers a property totaling 506 acres which satisfied this standard.
4.07.08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent
with the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. The
uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted
by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD.
Staff Finding
The primary use in the PUD is a single family residential use of the property is also
an allowed use in the underlying zone district ARRD. The community and
infrastructure facilities are considered accessory uses serving the residential
community.
4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD
shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent
(25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as
commercial open space. Of the 25% open space requirement within PUDs,
no more than 40% of the 25% total required, shall be limited use open space,
with the balance being retained as one or more of the remaining open space
categories, listed above. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners
may reduce such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by
the design of, and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and
that the needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be
met in the proposed PUD.
Staff Finding
All PUDs in Garfield County require that at least 25% of the property be designated
as open space. In this case, 25% of 506 acres is 126.47 acres. The PUD site plan is
also required to further refine the types of open space which are provided below:
COMMON OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
Usable Common Open Space 118.9 acres
(slopes Tess than 25% less Road ROW)
Limited Use Common Open Space 255.8 acres
(slopes 25% or greater less Road ROW)
Total Common Open Space in PUD 374.7 acres
(74.1% of PUD)
20
The PUD has satisfied the open space requirement. (Note, these acreages are for
areas within the PUD boundary only and DO NOT include land in the proposed
"mountain park".)
The City of Glenwood Springs provided the following comments on open space
within the project:
The use of the open space is prescribed as trails and passive open areas,
which is desirable. The application indicates some of the open space areas
will be available for "open field play." Are any active recreation fields
proposed within the development? It would seem appropriate, given the
density that some active recreation such as a soccer field, ballfield,
basketball court, etc. would be appropriate.
One of the key emphasis of the PUD is the heritage ranch and preservation
of the hayfields. The allowance for community gardens within some of the
designate open space areas, particularly in the area of the barns might be
appropriate. There is some concern that the relocation of one of the log
barns can be accomplished from a structural preservation standpoint.
4.07.10 If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or
fractional ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the
provisions for such ownership shall be those that are approved bythe Board
of County Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PU
Staff Finding
The PUD does not propose any time-share or fractional ownership schemes.
4.07.15 In order to fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan while directing growth
into the areas designated in that plan, requirements will be based on the
Proposed Land Use Districts from the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
This is the section of the Code that applies to the PUD for the requirements for
affordable housing.
4.07.15.01 For Lands Designated High Density Residential:
(1) Planned Unit Developments - All Planned Unit Development proposals,
and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an
increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are
affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by
itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a variety of housing
types and densities (Section 4.07.03(5)].
Staff Finding
The proposed PUD results in an increase in density and therefore is obligated to
provide 10% of the units to be provided as affordable housing units. As shown
21
above, in order to quantify the mapping change and what that will realize in terms of
residential density, the following is a summary showing the change.
Therefore, a re -mapping of the subject property (as proposed) would result in a net
density increase from 7 acres per dwelling unit to 2.67 acres per dwelling unit or
from a total of 72 lots to 189 lots for the entire property. Note, specific increases in
density for the High Density Residential results in 0.86 acres / dwelling unit. This is
important to the next standard.
The PUD agrees with the obligation to provide 10% of the total housing units to be
deemed "affordable housing units" which totals 18.9 units rounded up to 19 units.
The PUD requests the ability to provide these units "off-site" rather than include
them within the units in the PUD. See below regarding "Off-site."
(2) Off-site - Given that these lands have been planned for two or less acres
per dwelling unit, these are the locations most suited for affordable housing.
Off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the
applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site
option. In any event, the applicant must show that affordable housing units
meet the requirements of these regulations and the Garfield County
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and that these housing units will actually be
built in Study Area 1. No cash -in -lieu payment will be accepted.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has made a logical argument in their request to amend portions of the
Proposed Land Use Districts Map in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium and
Low Density to Medium and High Density. In fact, all of the lower and south
meadow residential clusters would be designated High Density at the request of the
Applicant because of a lack of significant development constraints, availability of
central sewer service and proximity to an improved collector road and close
proximity to community / urban services in Glenwood Springs.
This standard above, explicitly agrees with the suitability of providing affordable
housing units "on-site", in that, areas of High Density are planned for two or Tess
acres per dwelling unit, which are the locations most suited for affordable housing.
Further, off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the
22
Existing
Comprehensive
Plan
Resulting Lots
(Density)
Proposed
Amendment
Resulting
Lots
(Density)
Low Density
36% (182.16
acres)
18.26
(10 ac /du)
0
0
Medium Density
64% (323.84
acres)
53.97
(6 ac / du)
79% (399.74
acres)
66.62
(6 ac / du)
High Density
0
21% (106.26
acres)
122.38
(0.86 ac / du)
Total Lot
(Average
Density)
72.23 Tots
(7 ac / du)
189 Tots
(2.67 ac / du)
Therefore, a re -mapping of the subject property (as proposed) would result in a net
density increase from 7 acres per dwelling unit to 2.67 acres per dwelling unit or
from a total of 72 lots to 189 lots for the entire property. Note, specific increases in
density for the High Density Residential results in 0.86 acres / dwelling unit. This is
important to the next standard.
The PUD agrees with the obligation to provide 10% of the total housing units to be
deemed "affordable housing units" which totals 18.9 units rounded up to 19 units.
The PUD requests the ability to provide these units "off-site" rather than include
them within the units in the PUD. See below regarding "Off-site."
(2) Off-site - Given that these lands have been planned for two or less acres
per dwelling unit, these are the locations most suited for affordable housing.
Off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the
applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site
option. In any event, the applicant must show that affordable housing units
meet the requirements of these regulations and the Garfield County
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and that these housing units will actually be
built in Study Area 1. No cash -in -lieu payment will be accepted.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has made a logical argument in their request to amend portions of the
Proposed Land Use Districts Map in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium and
Low Density to Medium and High Density. In fact, all of the lower and south
meadow residential clusters would be designated High Density at the request of the
Applicant because of a lack of significant development constraints, availability of
central sewer service and proximity to an improved collector road and close
proximity to community / urban services in Glenwood Springs.
This standard above, explicitly agrees with the suitability of providing affordable
housing units "on-site", in that, areas of High Density are planned for two or Tess
acres per dwelling unit, which are the locations most suited for affordable housing.
Further, off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the
22
Applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site option. In any
event, the Applicant must show that affordable housing units meet the requirements
of these regulations and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines, and
that these housing units will actually be built in Study Area 1.
Importantly, Staff interprets this language in this section 4.07.15.01(1 and 2) above,
to mean the following:
1) Section 4.07.15.01(1) applies to this PUD because it is assumed the Planning
Commission approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map to High
Density Residential;
2) This PUD standard requires the "policy debate" to occur at the hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners as they review this PUD, where the Board
decides whether affordable housing will be on-site or off-site. If the Board agrees
to the provision off-site, the Applicant shall meet the requirements to do so at
Preliminary Plan.
Staff has discussed this interpretation of the Code with the Applicant who disagrees
believing that the time of the decision or "policy debate" to determine if affordable
housing is on or off site occurs at preliminary plan and not at PUD. They are
prepared to discuss their perspective with you at the meeting.
Finally, as mentioned throughout the memo, Staff believes the 10% should be built
on site rather than somewhere in Study Area I for the following reasons:
1) The following goals and objectives in the Housing section of the
Comprehensive Plan supports on site housing in the following way:
➢ PUDs should provide all types of housing that ensures current and
future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to
provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with
and that protect the natural environment.
➢ PUDs should encourage mix of housing types within a development.
➢ Encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to
residents throughout Garfield County...
2) The Garfield County Housing Authority expressed their preferred policy for
housing to be located on site stating the following:
➢ These units (on-site) will target households earning $50,500 to
$58,600 annually. It has been our experience that families in this
income bracket do not rely on social services and public
23
transportation to the extent the development would be an undesirable
place to live.
➢ We believe that the close proximity to the Fire Station, Elementary
School, and the Mountain Market with associated commercial spaces
offering convenience products, gasoline, and personal service type
businesses with a paved pedestrian / bike trail would create a
practical setting for affordable housing.
➢ The Housing Authority feels that Elk Meadows would be a desired
place to include affordable housing and build a balanced community.
➢ The Housing Authority acknowledges that the guidelines allow (should
the BOCC approve) off-site location under certain circumstances;
however we do not feel those circumstances apply for this
development.
3) The application itself goes to great length to demonstrate that a
comprehensive plan amendment is warranted due to Infrastructure Needs
and Distance from Urban Uses. For example, the application states the
following to support a change to high density residential (pages 3 and 4 in
Tab 3):
➢ The Sopris Elementary School is located just off Four Mile
Road/Midland Avenue about one and one quarter miles from the Elk
Meadows PUD Entry.
➢ In the same vicinity as Sopris Elementary School is the Mountain
Market and associated commercial spaces offering convenience
products, gasoline and personal service type businesses.
➢ The existing paved pedestrian trail paralleling Four Mile Road through
the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision will be extended through the
proposed Elk Meadows PUD making the school and Mountain Market
convenience services more accessible for pedestrians.
➢ American National Bank, Rivers Restaurant, WalMart and the
numerous other commercial services in South Glenwood begin at a
point less than three miles from the subject properties. Urban
services are readily available to the future residents of these
properties either by vehicle or by foot. The location of the proposed
High Density districts easily satisfies a Moderate ranking for proximity
to urban uses.
24
➢ Staff would also note the existing RFTA service to Glenwood Park
which is at the terminus of the Four Mile Subdivision within walking
distance to the development.
4) The City of Glenwood Springs' opinion supports providing housing in -site in
the following statement:
➢ Unfortunately, the application materials provided do not provide any
details on how off-site mitigation would be achieved. The
incorporation of affordable housing within a specific development is, in
most cases, the optimum location for housing as it provides a mix of
housing and socio-economic groups within a community.
➢ The overall design of the Elk Meadows development has lots that
range in size from 13,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. The application indicates
that most homes will be 4,500 sq. ft. in size or greater. It is likely a
number of these homes will be second homes for some families.
Second homes in and of themselves generate a need for employees
to provide needed services such as overall maintenance, gardening,
etc. Employees will also be needed to provide the necessary
maintenance of the trails, roads and improvements owned by the
Homeowners Association within this development. It would seem
appropriate that some form of affordable housing should be provided
on site for these employees and also for other employees, such as
workers at the Sunlight Ski area.
➢ The pre -annexation agreement sets a cap on the number of units
within this development to 200. The current application is for 189
detached single family homes. One of the stated goals from the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111-2.0 indicates a mix of
housing types is to be encouraged within a development. One of the
County's objectives as cited in 2.1 is to encourage adequate,
integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout
Garfield County. It does not appear as though the current proposal
meets this goal or objective as the only variation in housing product is
a variation on lot sizes.
➢ It would seem appropriate that the plan could be revised to include a
housing product to meet the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and inclusionary requirements. An additional
option to the inclusionary component would be the addition of
accessory dwelling units as a permitted use, understanding that there
is a cap on the number of dwelling units per the annexation
agreement.
Therefore, Staff recommends the 10% housing be included on site.
25
4.08.05 Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the
Subdivision Regulation requirements will supersede the following PUD
requirements where the same information or more detailed information is
required as a part of a subdivision application. The applicant shall include
with the written request for PUD zoning which does not include a subdivision
Preliminary Plan application the following information:
(1) A statement of the ownership interest in the property to be included in the PUD
and the written consent of all of the owners;
Staff Finding
The application contains a Title Policy from Land Title Guarantee Company which
indicates that the Applicant owns the Martino Ranch. Additionally, the Policy
demonstrates that the Bershenyi Ranch is owned by Bershenyi Land & Cattle LLLP,
Carol A. Bershenyi and John Wilson Bershenyi and Alice P. Bershenyi. The
application contains a letter from these owners giving the Reserve at Elk Meadows,
LLC permission to submit the PUD application.
(2) A PUD Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development. Such
Plan shall clearly indicate:
(a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposed within the overall area;
Staff Finding
The PUD states (and shows) that the site plan envisions a site specific development
plan containing 189 residential lots.
(b) The minimum acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open Space;
Staff Finding
The PUD site plan shows a dedication of approximately 374.7 acres of total
common open space.
(c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each use;
Staff Finding
Generally, the primary use in the PUD is a single family residential use (comprising
approximately 131 acres which includes roads through the property leaving the
balance of 374 acres in open space that also contain community facilities which can
be considered accessory uses serving the residential com niunity. The PUD zone
districts map provides a land use summary as follows:
PUD Zone District
Acreage Devoted
to Use
% of Total
Property
Utilities District
3.6
0.71 %
Country Residential District (North Meadow)
51.3
10.14%
Meadow Residential District (East & South Meadows)
68.3
13.46%
Open Space District
378.7
74.89%
Community Facilities / Open Space District
1.87
0.37%
Four Mile Road ROW
2.2
0.43%
26
C Total
(d) Major internal circulation systems;
505.8
100%
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes an internal street system characterized by looped cul-de-sacs.
As viewed in two sections with CR 117 splitting the development, there is only one
way in and one way out. Internally on the west side, the site plan provides
emergency access routes to provide a secondary egress / ingress in the event of an
emergency.
The application states (and Staff agrees) that the proposed realignment of Four Mile
Road will improve safety on this major collector road and allow for the construction
of an efficient and safe intersection with the roads internal to the PUD. It is unclear
of the application proposes these roads to be "private" or dedicated to the public
because the application states that "Some roads will also be platted with a public
access easement such that the public may access the parking areas designated for
users of the proposed "mountain park"." Roads in a PUD may be private if
requested and approved by the BOCC.
The application also proposes to reduce the required road standards listed in the
County Subdivision regulations. Specifically, the County requires that the roads be
designed to the Minor Collector standard which requires 60 -foot ROW, Two 12 -foot
lanes, 6 -foot shoulders and a max grade at 8%. The PUD proposes 22 -feet of
asphalt traffic lanes.
Additionally, the application provides that "in three locations, emergency access
drives are proposed as an alternative to full cross section streets to avoid dramatic
scarring of the native terrain. One emergency access, which is of relative steep
grade and also serves as a primary pedestrian trail, will have a ten foot wide asphalt
surface with one foot shoulders. The remaining two emergency drives will be twelve
foot wide gravel platforms and will also serve a pedestrian function. Paved
pedestrian trails connect the public pedestrian trail located east of Four Mile Road
with access to the proposed "mountain park':"
There appears to be good pedestrian / bike access through the site; however, Staff
finds this characterization of the main road widths to be inadequate in design for this
PUD. Specifically, the grades appear to be too steep and could be further impacted
by snow in the winter due to their north, northeast aspects which are more difficult to
get sun exposure. Again, as mentioned earlier, there is only one way in and out of
the project on either side of CR 117. The Subdivision Regulations require a
secondary access if cul-de-sacs are longer than 600 linear feet. While the east
meadow appears to have little wildfire issues, the upper meadows certainly have
those issues. Staff finds that this needs to be more fully explored. Staff notes that
27
the Glenwood Springs Fire Department as well as the Colorado State forest Service
were silent on the issue.
(e) The acreage, which will be dedicated for school, sites;
Staff Finding
The PUD is located in the RE -1 School District. As such the PUD proposes (and is
allowed) to make a payment of cash -in -lieu for School Site Dedication purposes to
the School District. This calculation shall be done according to Section 9:80 of the
County Subdivision Regulations at will be paid at Final Plat.
(f) The general nature and location of commercial and industrial uses, if any, to be
located in the PUD;
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes no commercial or industrial uses.
(g) Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if
applicable; and
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes a central water system for both potable and irrigation water.
Wastewater service is to be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs via the terms
in a pre -annexation agreement. Telephone, electricity, natural gas and cable
television will be installed underground within the amended PUD and in accordance
with plans designed or specified by the utility companies serving this area. The
detailed engineering for these utilities and their associated state approvals are to
occur at preliminary plan and final plat.
(h) Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building setbacks, height
limits, access requirements and grade or slope restrictions to be applied to particular
areas, written in the form of a zone district text the same as. or in similar form to, the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and
Staff Finding
Tab 10 of the application contains the specifics in the proposed PUD regarding
dimensional requirements (lot size, height, etc.) and uses allowed in each of the
districts shown in the PUD master Zoning Map. Generally, the application states
that the residential lots are very typical of urban / sub -urban type lots. Staff agrees
and notes that they are very similar to what would be in the RGUD or RLUD zone
district. Staff notes that where an item is not covered in the proposed PUD, the
County shall refer to the County Zoning Resolution by default.
Staff points out a few issues for discussion:
3) Setbacks versus Building Envelopes: The PUD refers to them interchangeably
28
throughout the application. In this case, Staff prefers to have the PUD set out
specific setbacks rather than building envelopes primarily from an administrative
perspective. Building envelopes are required to be placed on a plat which
requires a plat amendment by the BOCC to amend. Setbacks are more clearly
administered as they can't be amended (except through a variance process).
Staff suggests the Planning Commission recommend the BOCC require
setbacks rather than building envelopes. Note, this will require varying setbacks
for the three different residential neighborhoods;
4) Signs: The PUD requests specific sign standards for this PUD, different from the
Code. Staff suggests the Applicant redesign this section to better reflect the
terms used in the code. For example, the sign code does not allow a
"monument" sign at all which means it cannot be part of any PUD. This section
needs better refinement and Staff cannot support this as proposed.
5) Street Design Standards: As mentioned earlier, the Code requires these internal
roads be designed to a Minor Collector standard based on ADT. The PUD
proposes an internal street system characterized by looped cul-de-sacs. As
viewed in two sections with CR 117 splitting the development, there is only one
way in and one way out. Internally on the west side, the site plan provides
emergency access routes to provide a secondary egress / ingress in the event of
an emergency. The application also proposes to reduce the required road
standards listed in the County Subdivision regulations. Specifically, the County
requires that the roads be designed to the Minor Collector standard which
requires 60 -foot ROW, Two 12 -foot lanes, 6 -foot shoulders and a max grade at
8%. The PUD proposes 22 -feet of asphalt traffic lanes. Staff finds this
characterization of the main road widths to be inadequate in design for this PUD.
Specifically, the grades appear to be too steep and could be further impacted by
snow in the winter due to their north, northeast aspects which are more difficult
to get sun exposure.
6) Maximum Grade: The PUD appears to proposed roads that may be in excess of
8% for a minor collector. A variance can be sought (Section 9:37) from the
BOCC for a grade increase up to 14% provided the following provisions have
been met (which have not been addressed in this PUD):
A) The applicant shall, by way of graphic illustration on a topographic map,
show the difference between a road that would comply with the grade
requirements and the proposed road with excessive grade.
8) The excessive grade is necessary to avoid the creation of a cut or the
fill slope that exceeds twelve (12) feet in height at the top of the cut or
the bottom of the hill.
C) That the excessive grade section is the minimum length and the minimum
increase in grade necessary to provide access to all lots.
29
D) The excessive grade has a slope with exposure to maximize solar
exposure and minimize snow/ice build up.
E) All excessive grades in excess of 150 feet in length on dead end roads
shall have a turnaround approved by the appropriate fire district as to the
adequacy of the turnaround to meet fire equipment requirements.
F) If the applicant has not proposed or obtained Board of County
Commissioner approval for fire fighting water storage of adequate capacity
at the top of the excessive grade, the proposed excessive grade must
permit the transport of such water.
1. If the Board of County Commissioners find that a wild fire hazard is
present in the proposed subdivision, the applicant for a variance to
the maximum permissible grade must meet the following additional
criteria:
2. Excessive grades shall only be approved if, in the judgement of the
local fire fighting authority, the wildfire hazard presents a danger
due to excessive vegetation, inadequate land widths or inability to
transport water.
3. In areas where wildfire hazard presents a danger, excessive
grades shall only be approved if landscaping requirements
consistent with Forest Service recommendations to minimize
wildfire hazards are not incorporated into the covenants of the
subdivision.
4. A variance to the maximum grade shall only be allowed if the use of
roof shingles and siding of the structure are built out of something
other than fire retardant materials and/or sprinklers for internal
structural fire protection are not mandated by covenant.
7) Ownership / Maintenance of Internal Roads: It is unclear of the application proposes
these roads to be "private" or dedicated to the public because the application states
that "Some roads will also be platted with a public access easement such that the
public may access the parking areas designated for users of the proposed "mountain
park"." Roads in a PUD may be private if requested and approved by the BOCC.
8) Cul-de-sac & Emergency Access: The road design provides only one way in and out of
the project on either side of CR 117. The Subdivision Regulations require a secondary
access if cul-de-sacs are longer than 600 linear feet. The design shows 1000 linear feet
of exclusive access to the East Meadow and approximately 1000 linear feet for the
upper and south meadows with only one way out. The PUD requests the ability to waive
the standard. While the East Meadow appears to have little wildfire issues, the upper
30
meadows certainly have those issues. Staff finds that this needs to be more fully
explored.
9) Lot Access by Easement: Staff is uncertain what is being requested here. This needs
better explanation.
(1) If more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be included in the application
that delineates the proposed phasing of the development.
Staff Finding
The PUD proposes the development would achieve full build -out over 6 phases. The
phasing plan is laid out on the following page. Note, there are no timelines attached to the
phasing plan and instead, the application asks that it be built out according to the measure
of how well the market is doing rather than tie phases to timelines.
Phase
To be Accomplished
Timeframe
Phase A
D Access road and services to Lots 1 through 25 in the East Meadow neighborhood
and east side entry landscaping. (26 lots)
D Construction of the first phase of the sanitary sewer system connecting to the Four
Mile interceptor sewer line, first phase of the domestic water system, and first
phase of the raw water irrigation system.
D Construction of the public pedestrian trail from the north PUD boundary to the
south PUD boundary and the gravel pedestrian trail extending east along Four
Mile Creek looping around lots 22 & 23, following the main access road and tying
back into the "Four Mile Valley Public Trail".
D If Phase A is built without Phase B, a temporary looped access road will need to
be provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing Plan."
Phase B
D Access road and services to Lots 26 through 72 in the East Meadow
Neighborhood. (46 lots)
D The East Meadow open space park and trails.
D Preservation of the Bershenyi barns, landscaping of the "barnyard" and
development of the Four Mile Creek Park and related trails.
Phase C
D West entry including landscaping, access road and services to Lots 1 through 18
of the South Meadow neighborhood. (18 Lots)
D The public pedestrian trail from Four Mile Road to the west end of Phase C and
the trail between lots 5 & 6.
• This phase may also include gross earthwork on the access road to the Upper
Meadow neighborhood.
???
???
Phase D
Phase E
D Access road and services to Lots 19 through 62 of the South Meadow
neighborhood and the open space park in this neighborhood. (44 Lots)
D Phase D assumes Phase C access is complete, but a looped access road
following the emergency access and main road through Phase F will need to be
provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing Plan."
D Access road and services to Lots 1 through 23 and Lots 37 through 41 in the
Upper Meadow neighborhood including the emergency access drive/pedestrian
trail connecting the main entry road to Upper Meadows loop road. (28 Lots)
D A looped access road following the emergency access and main road through
Phase G will need to be provided as shown on the "Construction Phasing Plan."
???
2??
31
Phase F
' ➢ Access and services to Lots 24 through 36 and Lots 42 through 55, public parking
facility and the observation deck and shelter. (27 Lots)
> The •ublic pedestrian trail from Phase E to the west edge of the PUD.
As with all PUDs, an Applicant shall be required to submit a preliminary plan application for
subdivision of the entire PUD shall be submitted to the County within 1 -year of approval of
the PUD. Then the separate phases would occur via 6 separate final plats.
The application states that while this is the currently proposed phasing plan, market
conditions and construction implications may cause the Applicant to modify the sequence
of the development of these phases. Additionally, the application states that the
configuration of the proposed phases allows for utilities and roads in a manner such that if
subsequent phases are not developed for some time, the completed areas of the
development will function effectively.
Important to note that the Applicant requests that with the approval of the Elk Meadows
PUD, the sequence of phasing construction may be modified through the subdivision
review process and not require an amendment of the originally approved PUD. Staff does
not interpret the County's regulations to accommodate such a request understanding that
the phasing plan is directly required by the PUD and the Preliminary Plan / Final Plat action
is merely the subdivision action directed and guided by the phasing plan in the PUD. In this
way, to amend the phasing plan, an applicant shall be required to modify the PUD and
cannot achieve that change through the County's Subdivision processes. Staff cannot
recommend this be approved.
Ultimately, the development build -out completes the lower meadow first followed by the
south meadow second, and finally with the upper meadow. With phased developments,
Staff continues to take the position that all of the amenities promised by a developer in a
PUD should be available for all of the future residents in that community which includes the
first and last resident to build. To that end, Staff suggests that all of the community facilities
including trails, community buildings, open space tracts, landscaping, etc. be platted and
constructed during the first phase of development. The Applicant has committed, to
developing the public trail extension from Four Mile Ranch through this development as
part of Phase A.
(3) A regional location map showing the relationship of the site to connecting roadways, public
facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding land uses;
Staff Finding:
This was provided in the application.
(4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing zoning;
Staff Finding:
This was provided in the application.
(5) A site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation elements,
streams. rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding:
32
Staff Finding
This was provided in the application.
(6) A legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PUD;
Staff Finding
This was provided in the application.
(7) A written statement containing the following information:
(a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD;
Staff Finding:
This was provided in the application but is reinserted here.
The Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD is a result of applying objectives established by an
analysis of the community and planning issues associated with the property,
immediately surrounding physical conditions, zoning patterns existing in the Four Mile
Creek corridor and the Garfield County Comprehensive Master Plan for Study Area 1.
Input collected at informal public meetings and interviews with adjacent property
owners and community members were also used in the analysis. Following is a list of
the objectives that have guided the PUD design:
➢ Preserve the unique natural areas of the PUD site, especially the riparian
areas associated with Four Mile Creek.
➢ Maintain a sense of space along Four Mile Road.
➢ Preserve the two large Bershenyi barns to provide a permanent link to the
cultural heritage of the property.
➢ The Four Mile Creek community trail should be continued through the PUD to
the south boundary of the property and link this trail to the access trail to the
upper Bershenyi parcel that will be preserved for the public benefit.
➢ Improve traffic flow and safety on Four Mile Road through the Bershenyi
Barnyard area.
➢ Minimize impacts on uniquely sensitive view sheds associated with the
property.
➢ Minimize the impacts of development by locating home sites in areas
appropriate for development, avoiding sensitive geologic zones, native
vegetation and sensitive wildlife habitat.
33
➢ Create home sites with direct connection to open space, wherever possible,
and provide on site recreational opportunities for the future residents of the
community.
➢ Group home sites in compact neighborhoods to maximize large blocks of
open space, achieve efficient infrastructure systems, create cohesive
landscape patterns and streetscapes and to minimize impacts on the
environmental qualities of the site.
➢ Provide a community which offers efficient and safe internal access,
minimizes demands on county services, is sensitive to off site traffic impacts
and provides centralized sewer and water services to its residents including a
raw water irrigation system.
➢ Create a rural residential community that is compatible with other residential
land use patterns in the Four Mile Creek corridor.
➢ The qualities and character of the proposed community should provide
residential dwellings and neighborhoods compatible with existing and
approved housing in the Four Mile Creek Corridor.
➢ Create site, architectural and landscape design guidelines to be administered
and enforced by the home owners association.
(b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the
various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed;
Staff Finding
The application does not provide approximate dates as required. Rather, they provide a
"market based sliding scale" based on a 2 year construction schedule. Staff points out that
once a final plat is approved, the SIA has a 1 -year time frame for completion with a letter or
credit life to expire six months following that. For example, if a final plat is approved
January 1, 2008, the SIA would expire (hopefully after all the infrastructure was completed)
by January 1, 2009 which his a full year ahead of what is proposed in Phase A below. Staff
suggests the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners require dates
certain for these phases rather than a sliding scale.
Phase A
Phase B
Phase C
Completion of infrastructure within 24 months of approval of the
first final plat.
Completion of infrastructure within 24 months of completion of
infrastructure of the previous phase.
Completion of infrastructure within 24 months of completion of
infrastructure of the previous phase.
34
Phase D
Phase E
Completion of infrastructure within 24 months of completion of
infrastructure of the previous phase.
If the construction of all infrastructure required to serve Phase E
has not been combined with one of the previous phases, it will be
combined with the construction of Phase F.
Phase F Completion of infrastructure within 24 months of completion of
infrastructure of the previous phase.
(c) Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions. which will govern the use or
occupancy of the PUD; provided, however, that the applicant may impose additional
covenants, conditions and restrictions on any particular area in connection with the platting of
such area;
Staff Finding
Draft CCRs have been submitted in Binder 2.
(d) A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200) feet of the boundaries of
the PUD and their addresses;
Staff Finding
This list was submitted in Binder 1.
(e) A statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and documentation,
which shall provide evidence of the following:
(i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to service the PUD;
Staff Finding
The Application contains the following documents that provide a detailed analysis of the
proposed central water supply system.
➢ Water Rights & Water Supply Report — Zancanella & Associates;
➢ Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer System & Dry Utilities Report — Sopris Engineering;
➢ Schematic water plan;
➢ Schematic irrigation plan; and
➢ Schematic sewer plan
The application proposes to provide domestic water supply to the all residential Tots from a
new central water supply system. This system would be served by three wells located near
Four Mile Road and Four Mile Creek. This water is to be treated then pumped to 2
separate storage tanks where the lower tank has a capacity for approximately 130,000
gallons serving 142 lots and the upper tank has an approximate 90,000 gallon capacity
serving 48 Tots. The system will require approval from the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) for a community water system.
The application states the system design is based upon delivering water at a maximum
forty (40) psi and a maximum one hundred seventy (170) psi to each lot. However, the
County engineering consultant speculates that this pressure maybe too high for domestic
35
purposes and suggests adjustments be implemented such as reducer valves. Additionally,
the planned fire flow is 1,500 gal/min. for a thirty (30) minute duration equaling a five
thousand (45,000) gallons of water storage for fire protection.
Legal Supply
The application states that the legal water supply shall either come from the West Divide
Water Conservancy District or an augmentation plan that has been filed with water court. In
either case, a plan shall be required to be in place prior to the approval of a Preliminary
Plan which will require approve from the Division of Water Resources.
Physical Supply
Anticipated water usage, according to the Zancanella Report (Tab 17) indicates that each
house was allocated 1.5 EQRs where each EQR is equivalent to 3.5 people using 100
gallons per person / day. Contrary to the rest of the application, this report states that
domestic water will be diverted to accommodate up to 500 sq. ft. of lawn irrigation even
through the proposal provides for a separate raw water irrigation system.
The Zancanella Report states that two wells have been drilled and pump tested (the Elk
and Bison Wells). The report anticipates that the Bison Well and 2 additional wells forming
a well field will supply water to the development. The pump tests revealed that both wells
recovered normally, but the Bison Well was the better producer at a rate of at least 75
gallons per minute for extended periods of time which is in excess of the maximum
pumping demand for the needs of the development.
Water Quality
The Zancanella Report contains the results of a water quality analysis that indicated no
coliform bacteria and that all other required tests did not exceed the Maximum
Contaminate Levels established by the EPA.
Finally, Sopris Engineering makes the statement that "based on their field investigations,
preliminary design findings and design meetings, we foresee no problems with the utility
services to serve the project."
Staff referred the application to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) which stated that "the proposed water system will need to go through the state
New System Capacity Development review and plans and specification review. The water
quality information provided showed the Bison well to exceed the MCL for gross Alpha and
both wells had relatively high radon levels. There currently is no MCL for radon but it may
be an issue in the future."
Mountain Cross Engineering, on behalf of Garfield County, provided the following
concerns:
1. The water demands that were estimated for the augmentation plan (350 gpd) differ from
those estimated for the water system (450 gpd). These should be congruent or explain
36
the rationale behind the discrepancy; and
2. The project is proposed to have two pressure zones, with pressures ranging from 170
psi to 40 psi. Pressures of 170 psi are very high. Generally speaking 100 psi is a more
realistic maximum for residential plumbing fixtures. More pressure zones or individual
residential PRVs should be considered.
(ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to
service the PUD. If the PUD application proposes to utilize existing, central facilities,
the application shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess
capacity currently exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or
that the capacity will be expanded to adequately accommodate the development; (A.
97-109)
Staff Finding
The application intends to provide wastewater service to the development by connecting to
the 10 -inch sewer main presently installed in CR 117 that runs by the property that served
by Glenwood Springs Waste Water Treatment Facility. (Recall, this line was recently
constructed to provide sewer service to Springridge Reserve.) The lots on the west side of
CR 117 will gravity feed to the line while the lots below (to the east) of CR 117 will need to
be gravity fed to 2 lift stations to be forced to the main in the county road. The lift stations
will require approval from CDPHE prior to any final plat. The 10 -inch main was oversized
when it was recently installed to accommodate this development with two 8 -inch stubs.
Additionally, Glenwood Springs' Draft 201 Plan includes providing service to this
development in its service area.
This service to the development to be provided by Glenwood Springs is memorialized in a
Pre -Annexation Agreement (the Agreement) found at Tab 17. This Agreement basically
agrees to provide sewer service to the development with certain conditions and obligations
of the developer to pay Sewer System Improvement Fees, Transportation Impact Fees,
and Parkland Fees. The Transportation Impact Fees appear to be the most significant fee
that is intended to off -set the traffic impacts that are to occur in the City; this obligation has
a value of $900,000. The City provided a letter indicating that the City "can and will" serve
the development; however, the letter contained certain conditions.
Sopris Engineering was the firm that originally designed the sewer main which has been
installed in CR 117 for the primary benefit of Springridge Reserve. A schematic Sewer Plan
is attached and Sopris Engineering makes the statement that "based on their field
investigations, preliminary design findings and design meetings, we foresee no problems
with the utility services to serve the project."
37
iil) The proposed method in which storm drainage will be handled, demonstrating that
adjoining property owners would not be damaged by the development; and
Staff Finding
The application contains a Drainage Report prepared by Sopris Engineering (Tab 19)
which provide an analysis of the drainage basins affecting the property and proposes
mitigation to handle stormwater at full build-out so that historic levels of drainage off
property are not exceeded. The summary is presented here.
A minimum of nine detention/infiltration ponds are proposed. The detention or infiltration facilities vary in
size. Each basin will have a low-level outlet pipe to release flows at a controlled rate. Spillways should be
constructed when storms in excess of the 25 -year occur. This will minimize any erosion of the detention
basin slopes.
Interior step pond detention is proposed in some areas to interconnect the released drainage from the
detention basins. The developed peak runoff rate will then be equal or less than the historic peak runoff rate
leaving the site.
Summary
It is our opinion the above preliminary drainage concept and drainage facilities will meet Garfield County's
drainage standards.
The results from this preliminary study suggest that no long-term, adverse impacts to drainage are
anticipated with the development of the Reserve at Elk Meadows.
On-site peak discharge will increase slightly with development. The additional increase in stormwater
volumes will be provided in the proposed detention/infiltration ponds within select basins.
Since surface disturbance is proposed only within the lots and the roadways, the historical drainage pattern
will be maintained.
(iv) The proposed method in which provision will be made for anyotential natural
hazards in the area such as avalanche areas, landslide areas floodplainareas, and
unstable soils, and the extent and mitigation of such hazards);
Staff Finding
The application contains a geologic analysis of the property prepared by HP Geotech. The
report states that "geologic conditions in the proposed 2006 conceptual development areas
should not present major constraints or unusually high risks to the proposed development
that cannot be mitigated. Possible mitigation concepts should be considered in the
development plan. The application contains a subsequent HP Geotech analysis regarding
radiation potential and their comments are as follows:
38
RADIATION PO I ENTIAL
The project site is not located on geologic deposits that would be expected to have high
concentration of radioactive minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could
be present in the area. It is difficult to assess future radon gas concentrations in buildings
before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas levels could be done when the
residences and other occupied structures have been completed. New buildings are often
designed with provisions for ventilation ()flower enclosed areas should post construction
testing show unacceptable radon gas concentration.
Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) for comments. CGS
responded to the application with the following comments:
1. HP discusses rockfall and debris flow hazards that could affect the site. Two
lots in the south meadow, 52 and 53, could be affected by rockfall runout below
outcrops of the Maroon Formation, based on the rockfall simulation program that
was performed by HP. The runout zone and the location of a possible mitigation
structure are illustrated in their report. At a future stage of development, the
mitigation design should be presented, or the lots could be removed from the
project. The area of proposed mitigation has been mapped as old landslide
(Pleistocene age). The construction for mitigation should evaluate the stability of
temporary cuts if they would remain unsupported for any length of time.
2. The potential for debris flows exists for the same lots. As stated in the HP
report, the mitigation for rockfall could be designed to protect against debris
flows. The debris flow hazard for lots 28 through 31 and lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 is
minor and could probably be addressed with proper grading and establishment
of building envelopes, which has been done.
3. As in many areas with steep terrain, a challenge may be construction of the
roads. The Maroon Formation erodes to slick clay. As a grading plan is
developed, the cut and fill sections should be evaluated by a geotechnical
engineer to ensure the stability of the hillside and to limit the erosion.
4. Is the access road from lots 1-3 to Lot 53 in the south meadow necessary?
There may be a planning purpose for this link, but it necessitates an additional
crossing of the drainage and more disturbance. Similarly, is the short access
north of Lot 23 in the upper meadow necessary?
5. The county's emergency services department would need to evaluate the grade
on the emergency access to the upper meadow. This road is coincident with a
drainage and will require additional culverts and drainage features to maintain
the access. Would this road be off-limits to the residents for normal travel, and if
so, how would the restriction be implemented so that the road could still be used
for farm traffic?
39
6. As the project progresses, the soil characteristics will need to be assessed for
bearing capacity and swell -consolidation. The sites for the water tanks will need
to be evaluated for soil properties and slope stability. The tanks will have
varying loads, which must be accommodated in the foundation design.
7. As mentioned in the HP report, the area of the East Meadow near Four Mile
Creek is underlain at depth by evaporite bedrock. At a future stage of
development, drilling or excavation within the building envelopes of the affected
lots should provide information on whether sinkholes are developing.
8. An erosion control plan should be prepared and erosion mitigation should be in
place before grading at the site begins. This is especially important due to the
proximity of Four Mile Creek, which could experience sedimentation. Disturbed
areas should be reseeded as soon as possible. Detention ponds could be
designed with water quality capacity.
9. At this time of year the snow cover made it difficult to observe any seeps that
might be present on the hillsides. Locally, it is possible that interceptor drains
might be necessary to divert groundwater flows.
In summary, there are no geological conditions that would preclude the subdivision. The
recommendations in the HP report are valid and should be followed. A geotechnical firm
should assist during all phases of the project.
Mountain Cross Engineering, on behalf of the County, reviewed the geotech reports and
commented that the "Extents and impacts required for the mitigation for rock fall and debris
flow should be detailed for Preliminary Plan."
(F) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to the
D and/or documentation demonstrating access shall be acquired across a public right-of-
way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be vested
prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way; (A. 97-
109) and
Staff Finding
Access to the property is proposed to be directly from CR117. The PUD proposes to re-
align a portion of CR 117 to accommodate better entrances into the PUD. The Applicant
will need to obtain permits under the County Road and ROW Use regulations. As well as
obtain permission to relocate the County Road. Vacation of the old portion is governed by
the Road Vacation Resolution.
The County Road and Bridge Department provided the following comments:
1) During the re -alignment phase of construction, Road and Bridge requests that
regular weekly meetings be held for the purpose of quality control.
40
2) In addition, Road and Bridge will require unlimited access to the site where the
relocation and construction of CR 117 is taking place, in order to observe
construction practices and ensure compliance with county specifications.
3) Compaction testing will be required and test results should be forwarded to this
office as well as to the county engineer. As stated above test results must meet
or exceed 95% of standard proctor.
4) With regard to intersection design; the traffic report by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig,
recommends that a south bound left turn lane would be required to adequately
facilitate safe traffic flow. In addition, Road and Bridge would also request
acceleration and deceleration lanes for both north bound and south bound
traffic, entering and exiting the site.
5) Prior to construction of the re -alignment of CR 117 all plans and drawings must
be reviewed and approved by the county engineer and Road and Bridge. Upon
completion and acceptance of the new roadway, plans of record will be
submitted to the county engineer and Road and Bridge. In addition a warrantee
of the roadway shall be implemented.
(G) Evidence that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the natural environment of
the site and the surrounding area and does not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife,
natural vegetation or unique natural or historical features.
Staff Finding
The application provides a lengthy statement as to how the project meets this standard
which is summarized here:
➢ Housing is concentrated in areas previously disturbed by agriculture and avoids the
more sensitive steep slopes, riparian areas and sensitive geologic zones. A few
homes site are located in areas of native vegetation on the fringe of the agricultural
areas but only where slopes and geologic conditions presented no unique
limitations.
➢ All mapped wetlands are left undisturbed. Proposed roadways do cross natural
drainage channels that may be designated as "waters of the US" channels but these
only carry seasonal water and the crossings will be accommodated by nationwide
permits with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
➢ All lots border open space with a large majority looking out on expansive areas of
open space.
➢ A broad viewshed of hay meadow along the east side of Four Mile Road has been
preserved to maintain the sense of openness along Four Mile Road.
41
➢ The two larger Bershenyi Barns will be preserved to maintain a historic link to the
cultural heritage of the site. The large log barn will be relocated to accommodate
the proposed new Four Mile Road alignment.
➢ Development is areas of unique visual sensitivity have been avoided.
➢ Internal roads are designed to be sensitive to topographic conditions and existing
ranch roads are utilized for emergency access drives, pedestrian ways and for
access to the public lands to the west.
➢ The compact residential neighborhoods preserve the most critical areas of wildlife
habitat and allow for wildlife movement through the community.
➢ The vegetative condition of all areas disturbed by past agricultural practices will be
enhanced through on -lot landscaping, landscape development of recreational areas
and reclamation of general open space acreage with native species. Drought
tolerant native plant species and locally adapted plant species will be utilized in the
open space plantings and encouraged through covenant guidelines in the
residential landscape plantings to achieve a balance between appropriate water
management and use, the restoration of native plant life, and the need for
aesthetically pleasing plantings in proximity to houses.
➢ Passive stormwater features such as grass swales and shallow detention pools are
used to slow water, improve infiltration, enhance water quality and control soil
erosion.
➢ All areas disturbed by the development construction will be reclaimed and
revegetated.
➢ Domestic wastewater will be discharged to the City of Glenwood Springs central
wastewater treatment plant.
➢ A raw water irrigation system is proposed to deliver irrigation water to every lot and
to the meadow areas. A large part of the historically irrigated agricultural lands will
continue to be irrigated as residential lot landscaping, park/recreation area
development or hayfield preservation, although some of the pasture areas will be
refurbished as native meadows requiring little or no irrigation after initial
establishment of the native species.
➢ The storage pond that will be developed in the South Meadow as an element of the
raw water irrigation will facilitate the introduction of additional and riparian habitat.
➢ A wildfire mitigation plan has been prepared and reviewed by the Glenwood Springs
Fire District.
The Division of Wildlife (DOW) commented on the application with the following points:
42
The DOW applauds the elimination of home sites from the upper western parcel, and
movement of many of the home sites to the irrigated fields on the east side of 4 -mile road, in
response to concerns to the original plans. These changes will help to minimize some of the
wildlife impacts. Impacts from the current proposal will include direct and indirect loss of
winter range, displacement of wintering wildlife (from direct habitat loss and recreational
disturbance), habitat fragmentation, and potential increased vehicle/deer collisions, among
others. Conflicts may also arise with deer and elk browsing of ornamentals/ landscaping
plants, human/bear conflicts, mountain lion predation of pets, and other nuisance wildlife
conflicts with raccoons, skunks, etc.
Placement of a 100' open space corridor along the north boundary of the East Meadow along
with the 100' buffer from the adjoining Four Mile Ranch will provide for a 200' wide movement
corridor between the two subdivisions. This will allow movement to the winter range on the
hillside on the east side of the subdivision in the Roaring Fork River corridor. Plant trees along
the buffer corridor to help screen the corridor from the housing units.
Building envelopes for lots 1-22 of the East Meadow should have a minimum 50' setback from
the crest of the hill overlooking Four Mile Creek. This would help buffer the winter range use
of the hillside as well as buffering it for use as a movement corridor, making it more effective
and desirable.
Move lots 18-23 of the Upper Meadow east towards Street "A" and eliminate the Street "D"
loop that accessed those Tots. This will help to pull those lots further out of the severe winter
range area and cluster those sites with the rest of the development further minimizing impacts
to wildlife.
The elimination of cattle grazing from the riparian area along Four Mile Creek and the
proposed effort to assist the riparian vegetation to recover will be an important step in restoring
it to a properly functioning system. The creek is also going to play an important part as a
movement corridor as development in the East Meadow blocks existing movement patterns.
However the building of a 6 foot wide gravel path along the creek will negate any positive
gains for wildlife. Increased recreation and the associated zone of disturbance will have a
negative impact on wildlife. It is the recommendation that this trail and proposed Four Mile
Creek park be eliminated from the development plan.
43
• BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with a
bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and grease
are an overwhelming bear attractant,
• Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -type can limit
bear access into houses as well as installing a cooling system rather than
leaving windows open, as this is the main way bears access homes in the
summer,
6. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will also
discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to
be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by
deer, elk, or bear.
7. During the construction process, large areas of disturbed soil will be inviting to noxious
weeds. Weeds can out -compete native vegetation, thus degrading the quality of the
habitat. Precautions should be taken so that heavy machinery does not spread noxious
weeds within the area. After construction is complete, a weed management plan should
be drafted to further ensure that weeds to not invade the native plant community
habitat.
8. Homeowners need to be made aware that the surrounding lands are hunted during big
game seasons. It would advantageous to continue hunting on the parcels themselves to
help minimize excessive use by deer and elk and so that the property does not become
a refuge during hunting season.
9. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their
property.
construction workers during the development process.
2. All interior fencing should be eliminated. Fencing needed for agricultural purposes
should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick
space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18"
between 2 of the rails.
3. All utilities be buried.
4, Maintain as much of the native shrub communities within the developed open space
areas and building envelopes as possible.
5. Bear/human conflicts have risen along the 4 -mile corridor and have the potential to be a
reoccurring problem in this area. It is important that certain measures be taken to
minimize these conflicts:
• Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof container for storing all
trash/garbage. Trash compactors inside the house can help eliminate bulk
and odors, which will further reduce potential problems.
• Bird feeders can be used but do not mount humming bird feeders on
windows or the sides of the house. Seed feeders should be strung up at
least 10' from the ground with a seed catchment to discourage other wildlife
foraging.
• Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be
left outside.
The Application contains a detailed Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation Plan that contains
great detail on the existing wildlife and habitat values of the property and a variety of
suggestions and commitments for development on the property that range from
landscaping, bears and trash disposal, big game management, open space use
44
restrictions, restoring disturbed winter range, designating open space, dogs and pet
control, fencing restrictions, and establishing building envelopes, wildlife movement
corridors, and clustering the development.
Staff suggests these provisions proposed by the DOW be made conditions of approval.
4.08.05 (7) The applicant may .submit any other information or exhibits, which she/he deems pertinent in
evaluating his proposed PUD. (1. 79-132)
The Applicant requests that the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners include with any recommendations or actions for approval of the
Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD a condition that incorporates the following offer.
The Applicant proposes as a condition of the approval of this PUD application, to
dedicate with the first phase final plat approximately 960 acres of the west parcel of the
Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park), to some type of public or private entity (county, city,
special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association) for the purpose of
managing this parcel for use by the public. In addition to preserving an enormously
important area of wildlife habitat, the Mountain Park is proposed to be available for non -
motorized use by the public under the guidance of appropriate rules that will foster a
compatible relationship with the native wildlife. In cooperation with the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, some seasonal limitations may be placed on public use of the
"mountain park" to protect the wildlife values of the property. Even with sensitive
consideration for wildlife, the Mountain Park will provide an enormous recreational
resource that is readily accessible to residents in the Four Mile corridor and Glenwood
Springs.
The following description by the projects wildlife consultant attests to the diverse
character of the proposed Mountain Park. Removal of cattle grazing from the property
will alone result in a number of habitat enhancements.
On the upper parcel, the oak and mountain shrub communities are innervated by
approximately 2-40 acre meadows (some supporting big sagebrush, but most cleared of
native vegetation and planted with non-native cultivars to increase livestock forage
[formerly sheep and now cattle]) and a powerline corridor, before transitioning into aspen
(Populus tremuloides) stands generally codominated and well interspersed with mixed
conifers. Mountain shrub community composition varies with soil type and depth,
aspect, moisture and light penetration thorough any overstay. On rocky, xeric sites,
Gambel oak dominates, but all other communities generally have chokecherry,
serviceberry, oakbrush, and snowberry. Big sagebrush and rabbitbrush are also present
and locally dominant, particularly in deeper soil areas. Aspen stands generally support a
chokecherry, serviceberry, and snowberry understory with a relatively lush herbaceous
component. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) is the most common conifer
interspersed in most aspen stands, but subalpine fir (Abies bicolor) and Douglas -fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) are also common components. Ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) is even present as individuals and junipers also extend into the aspen/
mixed conifer stands. Conifer density in aspen stands is low (< 40% canopy coverage)
45
allowing sufficient light penetration to the understory to support a relatively lush and
diverse mountain shrub, forb, and graminoid community. On only a few localized, north -
facing slopes conifer stands occur without aspen, but even there Rocky Mountain maple
(Acer glabrum) and other mountain shrub species are common in the understory. An
upper reach of Threemile Creek, as well as a number of intermittent creeks, flow across
the upper parcel. Water quality in the creeks varies with cattle access. Beaver are
occasionally present on the property as a result of their dispersal from larger water
bodies (e.g., Hughes Reservoir) on adjacent properties, however, aquatic habitats on
the parcel are inadequate to support any beaver lodges or bank dens.
Access to the west parcel will be via the existing ranch road across the open space
lands of the Reserve at Elk Meadows and on through BLM parcel the separates the
west and east Bershenyi Ranch parcels. BLM officials have indicated the existing ranch
road may be used for non -motorized access by the public. Access easements over the
appropriate interior Elk Meadow's road right-of-ways will be dedicated with the
applicable final plat to provide public vehicular access to a public parking area located at
the north end of the Upper Meadow (north of Lot 26 on the PUD Plan). This parking
area is very near to the existing ranch road that has provided historic access to the west
Bershenyi Ranch Parcel. The existing ranch road will be overlain with a public
pedestrian easement providing access from the public parking area across the Elk
Meadows open space to the BLM parcel. Public pedestrian access to the existing ranch
road will be available over the interior pedestrian trails from the Four Mile Valley
Community Trail located on the east side of Four Mile Road in the area of the Bershenyi
Barnyard. Pedestrian easements will be in provided for public use of these trails.
Additional public parking will be available in the area of the preserved barns (Barnyard)
east of Four Mile Road from which pedestrian trails leading to the Mountain Park may be
accessed.
At the time of the dedication of this parcel, temporary pedestrian easements will be
dedicated to allow public access across un -platted portions of the PUD to provide
access to the ranch road leading to the west Bershenyi Ranch parcel. These temporary
easements will be vacated as final plats are recorded and permanent public easements
are documented by the subdivision plats. A variety of funding mechanisms are being
researched to support maintenance of the property.
Staff Finding
The proposed offer to donate the 960 -acre Mountain Park is an excellent and generous
offer that has significant public and wildlife / habitat value. To that end, Staff recommends
the Board of County Commissioners accept this parcel of land as the landmark step in
creating a County Parks and Recreation District that would own and manage this parcel for
the benefit of County residents.
Garfield County has the authority (via State Statute 29-7-101) to acquire, sell, own,
exchange, and operate public recreation facilities, open space and parklands,
playgrounds...; acquire, equip, and maintain land, buildings, or other recreational facilities
either within or without the corporate limits of such city, town, village, or county; and
46
expend funds therefor and for all purposes connected therewith.
Staff notes should the LOVA Trail also become a reality, the County would be the agency
that holds the permit to its use and maintenance as well which could also benefit from the
creation of a County Parks & Recreation District. Of course, this would mean County funds
would need to be diverted to maintain these amenities as they won't pay for themselves.
However, Staff believes the public benefit will be realized in the preservation of the
property from development, allowing the public to enjoy the passive and active recreation
opportunities the property affords as well as preserve and enhance wildlife benefits.
4.10 MAINTENANCE OF COMMON OPEN SPACE
The Common Open Space of a PUD may be owned and maintained by the property owners within the
PUD or byan organization chosen therefrom or thereby. In the event that the organization established to
own and maintain Common Open Space, or any successor organization, shall at any time after
establishment of the PUD fail to maintain the Common Open Space in reasonable order and condition in
accordance with the Plan. the County Commissioners may serve written notice upon such organization or
upon the residents of the PUD setting forth the mariner in which the organization has failed to maintain
the Common Open Space in reasonable condition! and said notice shall include a demand that such
deficiencies of maintenance be cured within 30 days thereof and shall state the date and place of a
hearing thereon which .shall be held within 14 days of notice. At such hearing the County Commissioners
may modify the teens of the original notice as to deficiencies and may give an extension of time within
which they shall be cured. If the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or in the modifications
thereof are not cured within said 30 days or any extension granted, the County Commissioners, in order to
preserve the taxable values of the properties within the PUD and to prevent the Common Oen Space
from becoming a public nuisance, may enter upon said Common Open Space and maintain the same for
a period of one year. Said entry and maintenance shall not vest in the public any rights to use the
Common n Open Space except when the same has been Poi/tntarily dedicated to the public by the owners.
Before the expiration of said year, the County Commissioners shall, upon their initiative or upon the
written request of the organization theretofore responsible for the maintenance of the Common Open
Space, calla public ]rearing upon notice to such organization, or to the residents of the PUD, to he field by
the County Comnrissioners, at which hearing such organization or the residents of the PUD shall show
cause why such maintenance by the County Commissioners shall not, at the election of the- County
Commissioners, continue for a succeeding year. If the County Commissioners shall determine that such
organization is ready and able to maintain. said Common Open Space in reasonable condition, the County
Commissioners shall cease to maintain such Common Open Space at the end of said year. If the County
Commissioners shall determine such organization is not ready and able to maintain said Common Open
Space in a reasonable condition, the County Commissioners may, in their discretion, continue to maintain
said Common Open Space duringthe next succeeding year, and subject to a similar hearing and
determination, in each year thereaer. The cost of such maintenance by the County Commissioners shall
be assessed to and paid by the owners ofproperties roperties within the PUD that have a right of enjoyment of the
Common Open Space, and anyunpaidassessmentsshall become a tax lien on said properties. The
County Commissioners shall Jib a notice of such lien in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and
Recorder upon the properties affected by such lien within the PUD and shall cerci such unpaid
assessments for collection, enforcement, and remittance in the manner provided by law, for the collection,
enforcement, and remittance of general property taxes.
The application states that all open space lands within the PUD boundary including
preserved ranch buildings, park facilities and landscaping will be dedicated to the
homeowners association (HOA). The HOA will be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of all opens space lands and facilities. Funds for the maintenance of PUD
open space lands and facilities will be derived from dues collected by the HOA from the
PUD residents.
As stated earlier in this application, the hayfield and preserved barns might be incorporated
into a "heritage ranch" educational facility that would be operated by a non-profit
corporation. The Applicant is committed to cooperate with area residents and future PUD
residents that might be interested in spearheading the creation and operation of a heritage
ranch non-profit corporate entity.
47
VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the
hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners;
2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters
and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that
hearing;
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed amendment to
the Proposed Land Use Districts Map of the Comprehensive is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County;
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned Unit
Development is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County;
5. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County
Zoning Resolution, as amended;
6. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations of 1984.
7. That the proposed PUD application is in general conformance with the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission APPROVE the Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and recommend Approval to the Board of County Commissioners for
the rezone request to PUD for the Reserve at Elk Meadows with the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners,
shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Preliminary Plan:
a. The 100 -year flood way; and
b. The 100 -year flood fringe.
3. The Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan for all the residential clusters, street lights,
and lighting of community facilities with the Preliminary Plan that specifically addresses
48
how the plan intends to minimize light pollution from the development.
4. Prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shalt
redesign the configuration of the upper meadow cluster to relocate Lots 18 — 23 below
Street D as suggested by the DOW to reduce the impact on severe winter range.
5. The Applicant shall provide the 10% affordable housing unit requirement on site within
the development. —9 Ade, pf44. -s1 "rn 5. v,- E1 ,frw ,w,
6. The Applicant shall provide a Weed Management Plan as a submittal with the
Preliminary Plan addressing the comments by the County Vegetation Manager
attached as Exhibit G.
7. The Applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Study with the Preliminary Planl
submittal that incorporates impacts to the Mt. Souris Drive / Midland Avenue
intersection and a roundabout at Midland Avenue / 2r Avenue.
8. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant
shall affirmatively determine if the internal roads in the PUD are to be public or private.
9. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant
shall provide a letter from the Glenwood Springs Fire District that specifically approves
of the internal road network, design width and grade.
10. The Applicant shall affirmatively demonstrate which lots are to be governed by setbacks
and /or where building envelopes are required for environmental hazard / concern
areas. Further, if building envelopes are approved, the Applicant shall provide criteria /
standards by which they can be amended. This shall be submitted with the Preliminary
Plan.
11. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant
shall provide an analysis that the road grade of "Street A" can exceed 8% using the
standards in Section 9:37 of the Subdivision Regulations or 1984, as amended.
12. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant
shall assign approximate dates to the phasing plan including month and year for when
phases are to commence and be complete.
13. No separate phase of the PUD shall be allowed to be constructed that results in a
dead-end cul-de-sac without a letter from the Glenwood Fire Protection District
affirmatively indicating that they will be able to provide serve with adequate ingress /
egress.
14. That any modification of the phasing plan contained within the PUD shall require an
amendment to the PUD.
49
"
ni,,_.
4 9 3 .„ ti h.
(Pt-
el/‘j
all community facilities 1 amenities including trails, landscaping, and refaatlilitaiibn S'
to the Bershenyi barns be completed within the first phase. Additionally, the relocation
of Four Mile Road shall occur in the first phase.
16. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant
shall address the comments made by Mountain Cross Engineering regarding pressure
zones and gallon usage. See Exhibit H
17. That the Preliminary Plan submittal contains a professional geologist's response to
Section 5.11 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
18. That that Preliminary Plan includes the recommendations of the DOW in their letter
attached as Exhibit R.
19. That the Applicant dedicate with the first phase final plat approximately 960 acres of the
west arce1-f the Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park), to some type of public or private
ent(oun y, city, special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association) for
the pie of managing this parcel for use by the public. In addition to preserving an
enormously important area of wildlife habitat, the Mountain Park is proposed to be
available for non -motorized use by the public under the guidance of appropriate rules
that will foster a compatible relationship with the native wildlife. In cooperation with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife, some seasonal limitations may be placed on public use of
the "mountain park" to protect the wildlife values of the property. Even with sensitive
consideration for wildlife, the Mountain Park will provide an enormous recreational
resource that is readily accessible to residents in the Four Mile corridor and Glenwood
Springs.
11