Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report 1.26.05TO REQUEST APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION PROJECT INFORMATION 01126105 AND STAFF COMMENTS Garfield County Planning Commission Review of a proposed Transportation Facility for the RE-1 School District pursuant to CRS 30-28-110 and CP.S 22-32-124 Roaring Fork School District RE-1 % mile North Store on CR 100, Carbondale of the intersection at Catherine I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Roaring Fo-rk S.hool District proposes to construct a transportation fasility on a 4 acre parcel that lies just north of the inte;section of State Highway 82 and County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road). The property contains a single-family residence built rn 1972' The proposed site plan shows the location of this house on the east half of the 4-acre site with the propor"a facillty on the west half of the property which has been improved by a large steel @ --Y-'/Ar*LQi^-,4SPfirr _ ^.ornar8/AN(}49 conside'^r A. Zoning il"ffiy is located inthe Agricultural /Residential/RuralDensity(ARRD) zonedisffict -^ *^^+ ^i-ilor ,r"o -ioht he#il#"ffir';;;;,"mplate such a use in the district. The most similar use might be -.i ^l T Toa in r_ 0 fr"* structure with fbncing surrounding the west half of the property' It is adjacent to a three-lot subdivision approved in 2001 as the T. O. Ranch Subdivision. The subject property is not part of the T. O. Ranch Subdivision' The Application states that this proposed mid-valley transportation facility is one component of the District , nu.ititf Master plan which was develtped during 2003 with input from staff and community members from Basalt to Glenwood Spring.. tt it facility will allow for the relocation of transportation maintenance facilities currentiy located on one elementary and one middle school campus. The District proposes to dispatch 14 bus routes from this facility' The facility will include 2 mechanics and 4 maintenance personnel that will be based al the site to perform general maintenance repair on the buses. vehicles to be parked at the facility include 21 buses' 4 mini buses, 4 maintenance vehicles, and the personal vehicle of the drivers, maintenance personnel' and mechanics. Some drivers carpool from Glenwood Springs. Theproposedhours of operation will be from 5:30 AM to 6:00 pM, Mondaythrough Fridaywiththehighestimpact duringroute times which are from 6: 15 - 8:30 AM and'2:30- 6:00 evt. tating of bus engines is limited to 15 minutes, prior to route departure times. Activity trips range ftomZto 6.trips a week at various times. Some buses are parked at schools durin! the day b""ur." the drivers are also teachers' The facility will incltr<1e a specifierl pad for washjng buses and vehicles with a sand trap to absorb the drainage which will include scheduled pick-ups for waste oil and antifieeze' An above ground 6000-gallon convault fuel tank will be instailed according to S' P'c'c' plan, and will be inspected upon installation. The School District also anticipates using this facility as a c.D.L. (Commercial Drivers License) training facility for all new and existing drivers on an as needed basis. Pursuant to the colorado Revised statutes, the proposal requires a review and recommendation from the County Planning Commission' II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS ilil;r"."ii*';," a Mass Transit Facility which is a Special Use in ffii;.-it" r*o use code does not define school buses as mass imarily used for the transport of school children *d i"t ''l:i*1 RRD zone district. )"NtL l,i t+ ' i z5 /"*t- to Jl &[' t 2 The property has been the subject of litigation regarding illegal uses placed on the property by the owner. More specifically, within the last fifteen years, the County cited the current owner for illegally storing heavy machinery, tools, fuel on the subject property. The County pursued legal action in District Court where the judgment resulted in enjoining the owner from operating such uses and rendering the uses on the property back to permitted uses in the ARRD zone district. C. Traffic Generation It appears that this use will generate significant amounts of daily traffic at two points during the day. Specifically 28 trips in the moming and 28 trips in the evening with the bus route traffic for a total of 56 school bus trips. Additional traffic will come from the employees and bus drivers traveling to and from the site. More specifically, 2 mechanics and 4 maintenance employees will generat e 72 total trips and the bus drivers will generate 22 total trips to and from the site. This brings the total trips to 90 trips per day from Monday to Friday. The buses, due to their size, will have an adverse affect on CR 100 where the driveway meets the County Road. This driveway also appears to be located just north of the main road that serves the three residential lots in the T. O. Subdivision which may cause turning conflicts with the residential trips generated from the T. O. Ranch Subdivision and should be reviewed by the County Road and Bridge Department. D. Infrastructure The property is not served by any central water or sewer systems. The Applicant proposes to provide domestic water from an on-site well and handle domestic waste water by tying into an existing septic system or installing a new system. Regarding the bus wash bay, the Applicant proposes a concrete pad with an oil / sand separator to be cleaned and hauled away.This facility will need to be permitted by CDPHE. The well that serves this proposed use may need to be amended by the Division of Water Resources as it is presently a domestic well. E. Noise / Noxious Fumes Staff would note that during the colder months the buses require certain idling time to properly warn the buses up prior to their route departure. The Applicant states that this idling time will be limited to 15 minutes for each bus. Further, since not all the buses are started at the same time, there will be staggered star up times. The Applicant stated that the maximum time devoted to idling buses will not exceed 30 minutes. Staff is concemed that this 30 minute time frame will generate a noticeable noise and fumes since most ofthebuses will be diesel gas. The Applicant intends to place a 6000-gallon gas tank on the property that contains half diesel and half gas. The State of Colorado regulates this tank and requires mitigation for spill prevention and containment measures. Again, these issues would require discussion and potential mitigation of negative impacts generated from the use if this were being contemplated in a Special Use Permit review process. F. Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive Plan suggests this property be developed in a medium density residential manner *fri.f, *.ni.ts with the propos"d commercial / light industrial project' t: G. Statutory Authority L" r /c ''' I '1" While the aforementioned indicates that the subject property's zoningdoes not contemplate such a use, the State Statutes govem land use urtt oiityln this case as specifically stated in cfls 22-32-124 andcRs 30-28-110. Both statutes are included in this memo below which ultimately indicates that the Planning commission has very little authority to do anything beyond providing comments to the RE-1 School District Board. cRS22-32-124 does allow the Planning commission to request that the School Board hold a public hearing on the issue' cRS 30-28-110 Reqional plaming commission approval" required when - recording (1) (a) Whenever any county planning commission or, if there is none' any regional planning commissio, t u, udopted a riaster plan of the county or any part thereof' no road, park, or other public way, ground, or space, no public building or structure' or no public utility, whether publicly or privaiely owrred, shall be constructed or authorized in the unincorporated territory of the county until and unless the proposed location and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by such county or regional planning commission. (b) ln case of disapproval, the commission shali communioate its reasons to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the public way, ground' space' building' structure, or utility is proposed to be located. Such board has the powef to ovemrle such disapproval ty u ,ot. of not less than a majority of its entire membership' Upon such ovemrling, said board or other official in charge of the proposed construction or authorization may proceed therewith' ,,t (c) If the public way, ground, space, building, structure' or utility is one the ' autho nzationor financing of which does notr[u.rd", the law governing itte t1"$Att \ within the province of the board of county coffimissioners or other county otildats or'\ ffi,a. iir" ili-ission to the commission-shall be by the bodv or official having such \ ) jurisdiction, and the oommission's disapproval may be ovenuled by said body by a vote ' of not less than a majority of its entire^membership or by said official' In the case of a utility owned by an entity other than a political subdivision, the submission to the commission sfrAt be by the utility and shall not be by the public utilities commission; however, the commission's disapproval may be -ovemrled by the public utilities commission by a vote of not lers ihun a majority of its entire membership' t 4 (1) Prior to the acquisition of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of education shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the proposed site shall confonn to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. In addition, the board of education shall submit a site development plan for review and comment to such planning commission or goveming body prior to construction of any structure or building. The planning commission or soverning bodlr malr request a public hearing before the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site development plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or governing body. Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or construction of any buildings thereon, the board of education also shall consult with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suitability of the site for its proposed use. All buildings and structures shall be erected in conformity with the standards of the division of oil and public safety. Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board of education to finally determine the location ofpublic schools within the district and erect necessarybuildings and structures. (1.5) (a) Prior to contracting for a facilitv. a charter school shall advise in r.vriting the planning commission, or goveming body if no planning commission exists, which has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located. The relevant planning commission or governing body may request the charter school to submit a site development plan for the proposed facility, but must issue such request, if any, within ten days after receiving the written advisement. If requested by the relevant planning commission or governing body, the charter school, acting on behalf of its sponsoring school board, shall submit such a site development plan. The relevant planning commission or governing body may review and comment on such plan to the goveming body of the charter school, but must do so, if at all, within thirty days after receiving such plan. The relevant planning commission or govemingbody, ifnot satisfied with the response to such comments, may request a hearing before the board of education regarding such plan. Such hearing shall be held, if at all, within thirty days after the request of the relevant planning commission or governing body. The charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by school board resolution. (b) An institute charter school authorized pursuant to part 5 of article 30.5 of this title shall proceed pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (1.5). Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1.5) to the contrary, the relevant planning commission or governing body may request a hearing before the state board of education. The institute charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by the state board of education. (2) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8-20-101 (4), C.R.S., upon request of the division of oil and public safety after consulting with the affected board of education, the appropriate building department of a county, town, city, or city and county wherein a building or structure has been erected pursuant to subsection (1) or subsection (1.5) of this section may make the necessary inspections to determine that such building or structure has been erected in conformity with the standards of the division of oil and public safety and, if such building or structure is in conformity, shall issue the necessary certificate of occupancy prior to use of the building or structure by the school district or by the institute charter school. A fee may be charged for such inspections upon approval of the board of education, if the amount of the fee is determined on the basis of the direct cost of providing such service. If the division of oil and public safety, after consulting with the affected board of education or the state charter school institute created pursuant to section 22-30.5-503, requests inspections by the building department, such inspections shall be in lieu of any inspections made by the division of oil and public safety; except that this subsection (2) shall not be construed to relieve the division of oil and public safety of the responsibility to conduct such inspections if the appropriate county, town, city, or city and county agency does not conduct the inspections. Any county, town, city, or city and county conducting such inspections shall also be authorized to annually reinspect the building or structure to assure that it is maintained and operated in accordance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division of oil and public safety. The inspecting entity shall cooperate with the affected school district or the state chader school institute in carryin-s out the duties of this section. (b) Ifthe division of oil and public safety conducts the necessary inspection to determine that a building or structure erected pursuant to subsection (1) or subsection (1.5) of this section has been erected in conformity with the standards of the division of oil and public safety, it shall charge a fee of two hundred dollars for such inspection; except that the director of the division of oil and public safety by rule or as otherwise provided by law may reduce the amount of the fee if necessary pursuant to section 24-75-402 (3), C.R.S., to reduce the uncommitted reserves of the fund to which all or any portion ofthe fee is credited. After the uncommitted reserves of the fund are sufficiently reduced, the director of the division of oil and public safety by rule or as otherwise provided by law may increase the amount of the fee as provided in section 24-75-402 (4), C.R.S. Any fees collected by the division of oil and public safety pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the public safety inspection fund created pursuant to section 8-1-i 51, C.R.S. (3) The county, town, city, city and county, or fire protection district providing fire protection service for the buildings and structures of a school district may annually inspect such buildings and structures to assure that they are maintained in accordance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division of oil and public safety unless the board of education of the district has contracted for such inspections to be conducted by a person qualified to conduct such inspections by reason of experience, training, or certification. III. SUMMARY It appears that the proposed transportation facility is not a permitted use in the ARRD zone district and conflicts with the medium density residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears the proposed use will impact the surrounding as a result of significant tratlic generation, impacts to CR 100 and the adjacent T. O. Ranch Subdivision road, and the generation of fumes and noise. The state statutes provide that the Planning Commission may recommend that the School Board hold an advertised public hearing on the proposal. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and recommended (by a vote of 4 to 0 with one member abstaining) the RE-1 School Board hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed Transportation Facility by the RE-1 School District. Staff has attached the minutes from this meeting to accompany this memo in order that the RE-1 School Board may understand what discussion took place during the meeting. Members ofthe Planning Commission indicated they would also attend the public hearing before the RE-l School District to reiterate their concems about the proposal. 7 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from January 12,2005 PC Members Present Phil Vaughan Cheryl Chandler Colin Laird Bob Fullerton Christina Chapin came in around 6:55 p.m. Roll call was taken and the following members are Michelle Foster, Mike Deer and Jock Jacober. Staff Present Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Don DeFord, County Atty. absent tonight: David Stover, Colin made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 8, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting and Bob seconded. Bob noted a question he had related to the review agency comments under the CDOW related to fencing entire use. Cathi will verify and correct as needed. All others approved motion with correction noted. Phil stated that all members present tonight are regular voting members. The first item of discussion on the agenda is a public meeting request to review a proposed Transportation Facility for the RE-1 School District pursuant to CRS 30-28-110 and CRS 22-32-124. The Applicant is the Roaring Fork School District RE-l. Present for the Applicant are Robin Garvik who is the Selling Broker working with the School District and Larry Estrada, Director of Transportation for the Roaring Fork School District. Phil explained the process that would be followed for this item of discussion. First staff will present their comments, followed by questions or cornments frotn the Planning Commission, the Applicant can present next, and then out to the public for comments or questions. Phil asked Don about noticing requirements for this item. Don commented that for the purpose of this meeting you don't. This is an unusual statutory proceeding that you are following tonight. Whenever a school district is proposing a facility or intends to acquire property they are required to give notice of that proposal to the Planning Commission. That applies to not only site acquisition but to site development as well. Your job tonight is to decide whether you want the School Board to hold a public hearing on this issue or not. The public hearing is held by the School Board where the Planning Commission can attend and make comments. If the School Board holds that hearing then they are required to publish notice once. DRAFT Fred presented the project information and staff comments. The Applicants are proporirrg a Transportition Facility on a 4-acre parcel that lies north of the intersection of Uigt *uyund CR 100. Currently, on the eastem portion of the property there is a single- family dwelling which was built rn 7972. There are some structures on the western portion of property with some significant fencing there. This facility will allow for the relocation of transportation maintenance facilities currently located on one elementary and one middle school campus to this location. The Applicaiion states this proposed mid-valley transportation facility is one component of ttre District's Facility Master Plan which was developed in 2003. Fred referred to the 11x11site plan included in the packet which gives you a good visual of what the proposal looks like. Will access the property off of CR 100. The bus fleet will reside here primarily. There are fourteen bus routes proposed to be dispatched from this facility twice a day. Once in the morning and once in the evening. The site will also serve as home for some of the maintenance vehicles and maintenance crews that go to the schools and work at the school facilities and the employees that work on the buses themselves, the mechanics. The hours of operation proposed are 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. M-F. It looks like there will be about ninety trips per day out and back which includes the bus fleet, maintenance crew, and employees coming to work to pick up the buses. The number of trips is fairly significant. There is a 6,000 gallon fuel tank proposed on the site. 3,000 gallons on unleaded fuel and 3,000 gallons of diesel. The School District also anticipates using this facility as a Commercial Drivers License training facility for new and existing drivers on an as needed basis. The facility will include a specified pad for washing buses and vehicles. A wash pan would be required. The property is zoned A/R/RD. The closest thing in this zone district for what's being propor"d is a Mass Transit Facility which is more for the general public to use. This is more of a support facility. The Comprehensive Plan suggests this property be developed in a medium density residential manner which conflicts with the proposed commerciaVlight industrial project. The issues staff sees are: o Trips generated - 90 trips o Noise & fumes - 30 minute window for warm-up Fred mentioned if this proposal went through the normal County review for a Special Use Permit they would have to address road entrance onto County Road. The buses, due to their size, will have an adverse affect on CR i00 where the driveway meets the County Road. 2 DRAFT No questions for staff at this time so we moved out the Applicant for their presentation. Shannon Pelland, the District Finance Manager is also here tonight and she apologized for being late. They had their audit presentation tonight at their Board meeting so she needed to stay for that. Larry spoke about proposal. He mentioned Fred's concem about noxious fumes and routes. Some of the drivers are teachers and some car pool. They will try to limit the traffic as much as possible. Warm up for fifteen minutes only and that is a School Board policy. The window of idling is thirty minutes. More time is needed to warm the buses up in the winter then in the warmer months. Larry mentioned that the 6,000 gallon tank is lined in case of a leak or crack. They monitor the tank for any type of leak. They have a spill prevention containment plan. Also have an alarm system so they aren't overfilled. Robin handed Phil photos of the tank that would be placed at this site. There are also pictures of the site itself. Shannon said this proposal is part of the Master Plan for the School District. Maintenance Facility separated from school is critical. Carbondale and Basalt looked at areas that would be ideal and centrally located. This is right off of Highway 82. Robin aske<l Commission if they wanted to know what this property has been used tbr in the past. There have been a dozen different heavy equipment businesses as well as commerciaVlight industrial uses. It has an industrial character. Two tanks have been removed from the site. Basically it's an abandoned site. This proposal is not out of character. Could be a cleaner project than what's there now. Bob asked about the other three lots in this subdivision and what they were going to be used for. Aren't they residential? Fred said they are zoned residential. Cheryl asked who owns T.O. Ranch Lane. Robin said she doesn't know. Cheryl mentioned that would make a huge difference to the landowners in that subdivision if they are required to maintain a road or widen it and whether they would be impacted by this. Cheryl thinks this proposal is laid out backwards. Cheryl thinks to be neighborhood friendly; this proposal is laid out backwards. The buses could be going out onto CR 100. She would hate to pay $200,000.00-300,000.00 for a lot and have a 6,000 gallon fuel tank placed next to my fence line. Then you wouldn't be impacting the roads for the other people in that subdivision. Robin asked is T.O. Ranch Road on southem boundary? Cheryl said yes. Don said this is not a permitted use in that zone district but the School District because of the statute he mentioned earlier they are subject to our zoning control. Phil said it appears that T.O. Ranch Lane is south of the property and you are proposing a brand new 30' road easement that will sit north of the existing T.O. Ranch Lane. The access is actually on this property and not on T.O. Ranch Lane. J DRAFT Phil had one question. The application stated that the District Facility Master Plan was developed in 2003 by a couple of volunteer groups and community members from Basalt to Glenwood Springs. Was the public noticed (other than the volunteers), were the people in this area notified about this particular use adjacent land owners. Shannon replied they were not. The District decided when the Master Plan was done that they would like to have a mid-valley transportation facility and to remove the existing ones from the schools in Carbondale and Basalt. At that time they had not even located property. Phil asked if they had made any contact with adjoining property owners about the proposal after putting these drawings together. Shannon said they haven't yet and they know it is something they need to do. Don has a question to school district related to access on CR 100. Have you talked to the County Road & Bridge Department about this? Larry said he does have a conference with Bobby tomorrow on a different issue. Don suggested to Larry to speak to Marvin, Randy or Jeffrelated to this proposal and access. Cheryl asked applicants, do you have to change the use on the existing well permit? Shannon said she will check into that. Shannon said there are two wells on the property. Moved out to the public for comments and none were received. Closed that portion of hearing. Phil said the Commission needs to determine whether the School Board shall hold a public hearing per CRS 22-32-124. Colin made a motion to request School Board to hold a public hearing on this matter and that the district needs to talk to the adjoining landowners before this meeting. Cheryl seconded the motion. Bob asked if they don't have a public hearing then what the chain of events is. Don responded they can purchase the land and move forward with the development. Phil asked applicant, if this motion passes will that put you in a scheduling problem on either the purchase of the property or your contract as it stands? Shannon said she thought that after this hearing they could purchase the propcrly arid then,have thc public hearing. They are scheduled to close on this property on February 2"" and they have extended that date one time at this point. Don says the statute doesn't literally set out the timing on it but he thinks it anticipates that the School Board would hold a public hearing before the acquisition and development of the site. Otherwise that hearing would be meaningless. It does say that the School Board holds this hearing promptly. There is no timing on the notice other than it has to occur before that hearing before the School District so that doesn't really present a difficulty. Phil said from what he understands, the reason for the hearing is one for comments from the citizens and the other is for comments from the Planning Commission. Shannon said she thought that this rneeting took care of that. She understands Colin comments about 4 DRAFT speaking to the adjoining property owners. Phil clarified that it is not the County's public hearing. It is the RE-l's public hearing' Fred asked when the School Board meetings are'" shannon said that the school Board's regularly scheduledrneetings are on the 2"dLd 4th Wednesdays of every month' Shannon said they are attempting to contact the adjoining property owners' Mark had !ir.r, her the name of the Lion's Ridge HOA President to contact' Bob asked if there is a public hearing and people rise wholly hell do^e1 il influence what occurs here or are that only at ,t " p"urii hearing for the sake of information' The .".po.t." was that it's up to the School Board' Don said Commission made want to submit a written statement listing your concerns' A vote was taken on motion. christina abstained from vote' A11 0ther members approved motion unanimouslY' Fred told Shannon to let him know when School Board will meet and he will get information together. under other business. concerning conflict of Interest and Pipeline w91k Session' Mark would like to u" f..r.nt for those discussions. There is a conflict with the previously schedured d"r. "i';;;;;^26*;";^;i.-fip"t,". work session. phil clarified which members terms were expiring on the Commission' Phil mentioned that we probably want some of the Planning Commission members to go to the School Board meeting. Don mentioned that anyone is welcome to attend' Christina asked how we will do a letter from the Planning Commission when not all members ur. pr.r.rr,. Phil said we huu" "o.*ents from the four of us that are here this evening. Don suggests that Fred will draw up a statement for the commission to review in draft form and will send out by "-"if io. yot' all to review' Don said Fred can summarize tonight's comments thalwere made from the members present' Phil asked to notiff other members who are not i, utt"rau"ce tonight that they are welcome to attend the schooi Board meeting. christina said the letter should be from the four commission members present tonight. Fred said tr" *ili put in theletter that there were four members present for this discuiion and that ,"V *.*U"t can show up for hearing as a member of the Planning Commission' Fred said there are no Commission Meeting. planningitemsatthistimescheduledfortheFebruaryPlanning Phil said he is not available on the 9th of February' February l6th or the 17th are possible dates for the work session' Phil suggests to poll members to see what date works best' n L-,1 DRAFT Phil asked about code rewrite time line. Fred said we are still waiting for a few chunks urJnop"f"lly we will have something for you allto review soon' No other business to discuss so meeting is adjourned' 6 Garfield County BUILDING & PLAI,INING DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: RE: PAGES: DATE:January 18,2005 FAX Bobby Branham Marvin Stevens Fred Jarman RE-l School District Bus Bam Facility on CR 100 1, i t (including cover) Marvin & Bobby, Here is the information on the RE-l School District Bus Barn Facility proposed on CR 100. The public hearing that you will need to attend if possible is on Wednesday, Jarrtrary 26, at 6:00 PM in the RE-l School District building on Grand Avenue in Glenwood which is a building that shares the parking lot with the High School. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Fred 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (s70) 945-5212 (970) 2Ss-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470