HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report P.C. 11.18.15Planning Commission, November 18, 2015
Exhibits - GCCI Zone Change
Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments
B Garfield County 2OL3 Land Use and Development Code, as amended
C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended
D Application
E Staff Report, including Appendices A and B
F Presentation
G Letter dated October 28, 2015 from Balcomb & Green on behalf of the RFWSD
H Letter dated November 2,2015 from Andrew McGregor, City of Glenwood Springs
I Letter dated October 2J,2015 from Stacy Bernot and Gavin Brook, Carbondale
J Letter dated October 29,2015 from Dan Blankenship, Roaring Fork Transportation
Authoritv RFTA)
K Letter dated October 29,2015 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management
L Letter dated October 24,2015 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering
M Email dated November 3, 2015 from Dan Roussin, CDOT
N
o
P
o
R
S
T
U
Planning Commission
November 1,8,2015
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
TYPE OF REVIEW
APPLTCANT (OWNER)
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
ACRES
EXISTING ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Zone District Amendment
Garfield County Commercial lnvestment, LLC
Mike Cerbo, Galloway & Company, lnc.;
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek
West side of SH 82 north of Cattle Creek Road (CR
113) between the Rio Grande Trail and SH 82
43.25-acres
Residential Suburban
Commercial General
Residential High Density, Unincorporated
Community, Water and Sewer District, Rural
Employment Center
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC (GCCI), a subsidiary of Carbondale lnvestments, LLC (Cl)
requests a zone change on a 43.25-acre parcel on the west side of SH 82 between CR 113 and CR 114.
The OfficialZone District Map of Garfield County designates the parcel as Residential Suburban and the
Applicant seeks to rezone the site to Commercial General (CG).
Historv
This 43.25-acre parcel has been the subject of numerous land use actions
when it was part of larger 159.151- acre property known as Sanders Ranch
PUD/Bair Chase and the Cattle Creek Colorado development proposals. ln
2008 the Board of County Commissioners rezoned that portion of the
Sanders Ranch PUD that was outside of the conservation easement areas
to Residential Suburban in 2008, Resolution No. 2008-112.
ln 201.L the owner, Carbondale lnvestments, LLC, divided the overall
159.161-acre property into four parcels, two of those parcels were
approved as the River Edge PUD for 366 residential units as shown left.
The subject site is adjacent to the River Edge PUD, but not included in the
zoning or entitlements associated with that PUD development. The Rio
Grande Trail physically separates the two projects.
Figure 1- Location Map
llPage
PfrOJ:TCT NFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
t.DISCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAI.
Planning Commission
November 18,2015
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Currently the 43.2s-acre site could develop the Suburban dimensions, uses, and density which would
permit a maximum of 94 residential lots based upon the minimum lot size required in the Suburban zone
(20,000 square feet). Those lots could cover (rooftops and pavement/impervious surface) 21.6-acres of
the site with a maximum of 941,985 square feet of floor area within the 25 foot height restriction (two
sto ries).
Zone District Dimensions
Residential Suburba n (existing)Commercial General (proposed)
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet 7,500 square feet
Maximum Lot coverage 50%Commercial85%
Non-comme rcial T5%
Maximum Floor Area so%50%
Maximum Buildine Heieht 25 Feet 40 Feet
lf rezoned to CG the permitted dimensions would allow up to 251 lots (minimum lot size 7,500 square
feet) tobeusedforcommercial orresidential use. lfcommercial useswereproposedontheoverall site
impervious cover maximum (rooftops and pavement) would be 36.8-acres of the site with a maximum of
941,985 square feet of floor area within the 40 foot height restriction (four stories).
Appendix A includes photographs of the subject property and existing uses within the defined
unincorporated community area. Appendix B contains photographs of various large scale commercial
developments including the Meadows and Willits Town Center. The photos may be used as a comparison
regarding acreage and potential square footage on the subject site.
The complete Use Table - Table 3-403 of the LUDC, is included as Appendix C of this report.
Uses Permitted in Suburban (but not in CG)
Agriculture
Building or Structure Necessary to Agricultural Operations
Forestry
Riding Stable
Manufactured Home Park
Group Home Facilities
lnjection Well, Piped/lnjection Well, Small/lnjection Well, Large
Uses Permitted in both Suburban and CG
Products, Processing, Storage Distribution and Sale at Point of Production
Single Family Dwelling
Home Office/Business
Foster Home
2lP a g e
11.ZONE DISTRICT USE$ AND DNMENSIONS
Planning Commission
November 18,2015
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Small Employee Housing Facility
Family Child Care Home
Park
U ltra-Light Aircraft Operation
Trail, Trailhead, Road
O&G Drilling and Production
Remote Fracking Facility
Utility Distribution Lines
Neighborhood Su bstation
Utility Distribution Facility
Accessory Building or Structure
Fence, hedge, wall
Uses Permitted in CG (but not in Suburban)
Com munity Meeting Facility
Library
Professiona I Office
Nursery/Greenhouse
Retail- General
Retail - Equipment, Machinery, Lumber Yards
Retail - Vehicle and Equipment Sales
Theater - lndoor
Recreation - lndoor
Eating or Drinking Establishment
Cabinet Making, Wood & MetalWorking, Machining,
Welding
General Service Esta blish ment
Laundromat
Vehicle Repair, Body/Paint or Upholstery Shop
Lodging Facilities
Adjacent uses include:
North: Commercial (vacant restaurant, Fyrwald Parcel)
South: Conservation Easement and Residential.
East: Service commercial and lnstitutional uses on the east
side of SH 82 including the Road & Bridge Facility.
West: Vacant - Vacant Residential (River Edge PUD).
Storage/M ini-Storage
Storage - Cold Storage Plants
Recycling Collection Center
Solar Energy System, Small
3lPage
. ADJACENT
Planning Commission
November 78,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Adjacent zoning includes Rural, Planned Unit Development, CL and CG, as shown on the map, right.
Referral Comments were received from the following agencies:
Colorado Department of Transportation, Exhibit K - Dan Roussin responded to the referral that CDOT
had no comment on the rezoning of the property but that the new uses will require a new access permit
in the future.
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Exhibit G - Scott Grosscup of Balcomb & Green, P.C.
responded on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (Rf WSD) and its engineers that the
GCCI property is located within the RFWSD service area boundary; however the property has not yet been
included within the District. A Pre-lnclusion Agreement with Carbondale lnvestments, LLC (Cl), owners of
the properties to the west of the site, has been recorded which sets the terms and conditions of inclusion
of the properties (including GCCI) within the boundaries of the district whereupon RFWSD would agree to
provide water and sanitary sewer service to the properties.
Terms of the Agreement include paying for and constructing certain infrastructure necessary to provide
service to the properties. This includes the following improvements which would be the responsibility of
Cl or GCCI, whichever developed first:
1.. Extension of water lines from RFWSD existing infrastructure and/or construction of a surface
water treatment plant;
2. Developing infrastructure necessary to provide sanitary sewer service;
3. Expansion of the RFWSD sewer treatment plant;
Specific development of the GCCI property was not contemplated at the time of the agreement and
instead 375 EQRs were dedicated for potential development based upon the exiting Suburban zoning.
Further, comments note that commercial and residential uses have differing impacts on infrastructure
necessary to serve the property. Commercial development fire flow requirements exceed those for
residential uses and larger storage tanks may be necessary to meet these requirements. RFWSD is unable
at this time to determine if the infrastructure contemplated by the Pre-lnclusion Agreement would be
sufficient to meet future development on the re-zoned property.
Other Comments include:
o The type of commercial development can impact wastewater treatment operations.
o Permitting, design, construction and acquisition of the property necessary to construct required
facilities can take several years.
4lPage
,. REFERRAI COMMENTS
Planning Commission
November 18,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
o Off-site infrastructure required for service to the property will impact the CR 113, Cattle Creek
Road intersection with SH 82. Coordination must occur between GCCI, Cl, RFWSD and the County
on timing of improvements to coincide with intersection improvements.
Carbondale Fire District - No response received.
Town of Carbondale, Exhibit I - On behalf of the Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees and Planning and
Zoning Commission Stacey Bernot, Mayor and Gavin Brook, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, responded to the referral with concerns related to the vagueness of the application and the
fact that details are not provided regarding the intended commercial use of the property. The Town
commented on the maximum allowancesthatwould be permitted bythe CG zone districtand questions
the proposal's compliance with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria.
Carbondale is extremely concerned with potential loss of sales tax revenue if proposed commercial uses
at this site would compete with commercial uses in the incorporated area, particularly since the sales tax
rate would be significantly less in unincorporated Garfield County. The town cites specifically a
Comprehensive Plan policy that states that "...the county will discourage commercial development in the
unincorporated areas that would significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities."
The Town requests that the County Commissioners deny the rezoning for the above reasons.
Citv of Glenwood Sprines, Exhibit H - The City cites concerns with the proposal satisfying the rezoning
criteria in the county regulations:
1. Logical and orderly development pattern - An inventory of commercial uses currently exists in this
corridor of SH 82, some of which is vacant. The City questions the neglected condition of the property
and states that it is not good land use practice to create large tracts of commercially zoned property when
an inventory currently exists as this may pull existing commercial uses from neighboring cities and towns
resulting in a loss of sales tax revenues to the incorporated communities.
2. The area has changed and it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density -The City states
that circumstances have not changed as this and adjoining property have previously obtained
entitlements over the last 15 to 20 years, yet no development has occurred. The neighborhood and
unincorporated community do not support the demand based upon vacant commercial properties in the
a rea.
3. Rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need - The City responded that the Applicant has not
adequately addressed the community need for this magnitude of commercial rezoning; no statistical
evidence supports this request. The proposal does not comply with the County's adopted Comprehensive
Plan as the project is intended to "...benefit the county as a whole." and that sales tax leakage will have a
negative effect on surrounding communities.
4. General conformity with the Comprehensive Plan - The City believes that the application is inconsistent
with the future land uses designation as this neighborhood cannot support the additional square footage
SlPage
Planning Commission
November 18,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAAS388
permissible by the zone district. The demand for new commercial development in the Roaring Fork Valley
is doubtful; instead this development would draw existing businesses out of incorporated cities and
towns.
The City requests that the application be denied.
RoarinF Fork Conservancy, Exhibit M - Rick Lofaro, Executive Director, commented that the Roaring Fork
Conservancy (RFC) administers the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement as well as the adjacent Heron
Point Conservation Easement. RFC has concerns regarding potential effects of commercial development
on the nearby conservation easements. RFC is currently working on a study of water quality in Cattle
Creek and the increase in impermeable surfaces can increase runoff and erosion which leads to concerns
about potential pollutants reaching the waterways.
Other potential impacts include increased light pollution and traffic as they may impact the easements.
Vegetation Management, Exhibit L - Steve Anthony noted that the subject parcel has one of the largest
Scotch thistle infestations in the County and the plant is prevalent throughout the site.
The 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) contains regulations regarding rezoning
of property within the County in Section 4-L1,3 C., Review Criteria
An application for rezoning shall demonstrate with substantialevidence that an error exists in the
Official Zone District Map, or meet the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern
and would not constitute spot zoning;
The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing
to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density
in the area;
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect
to facilities, services, or housing; and
The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
A. General - A rezoning request, if approved, would allow the site any by-right use permitted within the
CG zone, as well as the maximum dimensional allowances of the zone district. lf the rezoning is
6lPage
. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
VI, STAFF ANAIYSIS
Planning Commission
November 1,8,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
approved there would be no further review of the development by the County Planning Department,
other than application for building permits.
Site planning or a determination of potential uses on the site, has not been discussed as it is not a
requirement of a request to rezone to a standard County zone district, this information would be
required if the Applicant was requesting a PUD or a Land Use Change Permit. The CG zone offers a
wide variety of uses, some of which the Comprehensive Plan may support at this location, however
many other uses by-right are not within the scope of the unincorporated community designation.
Those CG uses by-right not supported by the Comprehensive Plan include any uses that would be
termed regional (the Roaring Fork Valley) or light industrial in nature, as the intent of the
unincorporated community is not to draw outside populations, as quoted from the Comprehensive
Plan - "Self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve
their own populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by one
or more special districts." ln this case the residential community consists of the River Edge PUD
(undeveloped), the residences on Coryell Road, and both the H Lazy F and Mountain Meadows Mobile
Home Parks. Regional retail, such as big-box stores, offices, and many other CG allowed uses would
not be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan designation at this location. The County
does not have the ability to limit, or conditionally approve specific by-right uses within the CG zone.
Size and Scope of Proiect - Once the site is zoned as CG there are no use or dimensional restrictions
nor requirements - other than those permitted within the CG zoning regulations. The result could be
a development approaching the size and scope of Glenwood Meadows or a development that is more
than twice the size of Willits Town Center, without site plan review.
Staff provides photographs of existing commercial developments in Appendix B of this report.
Commercial square footage and acreage of these existing facilities is provided in the charts below to
aid in understanding the scale of the commercial uses at these existing developments. Visualizing the
potential scale of development at the subject site is critical in determining the appropriateness of the
requested zone district.
The Applicant has not provided details of what may be developed at the site, however this information
is not applicable to the current review as, once rezoned, the site is only required to comply with the
use and dimensionalstandards contained in the LUDC.
Since no details of the site were provided staff conducted a comparison of some existing commercial
sites to be used as reference for size and scale of potential new development.
City of Glenwood Springs Square Feet Acreage
City Market 47,337 4.r9
Wal-Mart 116,815 5.77
Rite Aid 26,41.2 2.1.
Source: City of Glenwood Springs
TlPage
Planning Commission
November 18, 2015
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
ln reviewing the Glenwood Meadows project in Glenwood Springs it appears that a significant portion
of that development (from Petco and Wells Fargo on the east end, to Chili's on the south, to the west
end at Lowe's, Target and Sports Authority on the north) is on approximately the same land area as is
proposed for the rezoning. Commercial square footage and parcel size at the development is provided
below:
Source: City of Glenwood Springs
Note: Staff has only included that
parcel for rezoning
Willits Town Center
development that 'fits' within the approximate size site as the
Located within the Town of Basalt, this mixed use development includes allowance for a maximum of
500,000 square feet of commercial space on approximately 1"5 acres. The commercial development
currently consists of Whole Foods, a medical clinic, medical offices, and miscellaneous retail including
restaurants, clothing stores, kitchen store and hair salons. A hotel is currently under construction.
The pro.iect manager stated that constructed commercial space is about 150,000 square feet,
approximately 1/3 of which is currently vacant.
Tree Farm - Ace Lane
Garfield County recently received information related to a development application in Eagle County
which is proposed to be located on the opposite side of SH 82 from Willits Town Center. The Tree
Farm development is proposing 400 dwelling units and 135,000 square feet of commercial space.
It is important to note that both the Meadows and Willits Town Center had gone through a PUD
process that allowed the municipalities to determine the appropriateness of the scale, elevations, and
uses on the site. That process also resulted in open space, housing and other public amenities -
including the Glenwood Springs Community Center. No amenities are associated with this rezoning
application, nor can they be required through this rezoning process.
lf the County would like to retain the ability to determine the appropriate uses and scale of
development on this parcel then the request to rezone the site to CG should be denied.
The Meadows Square Footase Acreage
Lowes 1.28,230 L2.4t7
Target 124,900 10.613
Vitamin Cottage 10,000 1.485
Pier 1/BB&B/Petco 8L,4'1,6 8.401
Market Street 40,515 4.853
chili's 6,31.2 .96
Wells Fargo 5,000 .s63
Subtotal 396,373 40.821acres
8lPage
Planning Commission
November L8,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
B. Review Criteria - Section 4-113 C.
The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would
not constitute spot zoning.
Comment: The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed rezoning would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern. A logical and orderly development pattern is
a coherent, consistent and ordered pattern of development. The existing commercialzoning and
uses that currently exist between CR 114 (Spring Valley Road) and CR 113 (Cattle Creek) contain
a variety of uses ranging from contractor's offices, CNG sales, lumber yard, restaurants, gas
station, the Habitat Restore, and limited retail uses. The Rural Employment Center asterisk
identifies'small areas adjacent to major roadways that allow light industrial, manufacturing,
equipment storage and incidental retail sales.' This asterisk is located
atthe intersection of Cattle Creek and SH 82 in response to the existing
uses and staff does not believe this is intended to represent a
preference for application of this designation along the surrounding
SH 82 corridor. Continuation of this wide variety of uses on the subject
site could occur with the proposed CG zoning and would not result in
a logical or orderly development pattern in the area.
The existence of adjacent commercial zoning is one factor the
Applicant has utilized in determining the appropriateness of additional
commercial uses in the area, but the continuation of commercial uses
is determined by more than just the existence of adjacent commercial
zoning.
The proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning as adjacent
parcels are currently zoned commercial. Spot zoning is defined as
applying zoning to a specific parcel or parcels of land that exist within a larger zoned area. The
parcels immediately north of the subject site are zoned Commercial General-the former location
of the Sopris restaurant, and the Fyrwald Exemption which contains four (4) commercially zoned
lots-twoofwhicharevacantandonewhichisthesiteoftheHabitatRestore. Seemap,right-
orange is CG zoning and brown is CL.
2. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
Comment: The area has not undergone significant change since the subject site was rezoned from
Sanders Ranch PUD to Residential Suburban in 2008. That rezoning occurred at the request of
the Board of County Commissioners due to a prior proposal on the site failing to commence
development.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that a new use or density in the area is in the public interest
as no analysis or data has been provided regarding the need for additionalcommercialactivities,
nor did the Applicant provide any information related to public benefit of this development
proposal. As an example other large scale retail and/or mixed use developments, such as the
Meadows in Glenwood Springs or Willits Town Center in Basalt, provided some public benefit in
9lPage
Planning Commission
November '1,8,2OL5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
the form of cohesive design standards, affordable housing, trails and other public amenities. The
rezoning and future development of this site does not discuss or require the provision of any of
these amenities.
There has been no evidence provided that it is in the public interest to encourage commercialuse
on this property.
3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facitities,
service, or housing.
Comment: The Applicant has not provided analysis or data related to community need for the
proposed commercial use. This documentation would typically come in the form of a market
analysis or needs assessment which would analyze the existing commercial inventory in a region
to determine if there were gaps in services or commercial activities that one would assume to be
available to serve a population.
A windshield survey of existing commercial facilities in the Roaring Fork Valley has shown that
there are empty storefronts and for rent/sale signs in Glenwood Springs, Town of Carbondale,
Town of Basalt and in unincorporated Garfield County.
There has been no demonstration of community need related to the proposed uses on the site
which could lead to migration of existing businesses from surrounding areas ratherthan creating
new businesses or retail operations.
4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in
compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
Comment: Several referral agencies have commented that the proposal does not generally
conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and planning staff agrees with these agencies for the
following reasons (Please see Appendix A for photographs of the subject property and the
Unincorporated Community area):
A. Future Land Use Map
1) Residential High -The existing underlying designation of the subject site is defined as a
density of residential uses from 3 dwelling units per acre to L dwelling unit per less than
2 acres. This range of density isto be specifically determined bythe Planning Commission
and will be based upon a "degree of public benefit", considering factors such as the
amount of affordable housing, parks/trails and open space, energy conservation, fiscal
impacts on the County, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public
needs, etc.
Compatible zoning forthis designation includes Residentialsuburban, Residential Urban,
Residential Mobile Home Park and PUD. The request to rezone the site for commercial
uses is not consistent with this designation.
l0 lPage
Planning Commission
November 18,20'J.5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
2) Rural Emplovment Center (REC)
- The applicability of this designation
to the subject site is questioned by
staff as it appears to have been
located in response to the existing
light industrial uses that occur today
at the SH 82 intersection with Cattle
Creek Road. Compatible zoning for
the REC includes both the CG and CL
zone districts.
The REC designation is described as
"Small areas adjacent to major
roadways that allow light industrial,
manufacturing, equipment storage,
and incidental retail sales. This
designation also includes residential
uses for employees of the business on
the property, such as live/work
housing." The request to rezone the
subject site to CG would allow the
uses described, however it would not
be located on a 'small area' but on a
43.Zi-acre site and would allow more
than incidental retail sales.
3) Unincorporated Communitv - This land use designation is described as "Self-contained
subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve their own
populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by
one or more special districts." Compatible zoning includes Residential Urban,
Commercial Limited, Commercial General and Planned Unit Development.
The Plan Glossary defines Unincorporated Community as "Generally, a small town that
has not been incorporated. They typically contain a mix of retail, office and residential
uses. The commercial uses are intended to serve their own populations and immediately
surrounding residences. Service and infrastructure are provided by a combination of
county (e.g. sheriff) and special districts (fire, water/sewer, school, etc.)."
11 lPage
Planning Commission
November L8,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Future land Use Map Details
Rural Employment Center - Pink
U n incorporated Com munity
Residential High Density Water/Sewer Service Area
12 lPage
Planning Commission
November L8,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
The area included in this designation straddles SH 82 commencing north of Spring Valley
Road (CR 114)continuing south on both sides of the highwayto Cattle Creek. Uses and
properties lncluded in this area include Nelson's Auto, Thunder River Market, Habitat
Restore area, Coryell Road, H Lazy F Mobile Home Park, the Sopris restaurant site, the
subject site, River Edge PUD, Road & Bridge facility, Ferguson Supply, Lumber Yard,
Dodson Engineering, Roto-Rooter, Mind Springs Health and Mountain Meadows Mobile
Home Park. The Comprehensive Plan supports commercial services to serve their own
population. The variety of commercial uses permitted by-right in the CG zone appears to
exceed the intent of commercial uses for this designated area.
Certainly some of the uses permitted within the CG zone would be in general
conformance with this designation; however the broad uses permitted within the zoning
category exceed the recommended land uses for the Unincorporated Community
designation. Neither the size nor scope of the proposed rezoning appears to be in
conformance with this future land use designation.
4l Water and Sewer Service Area - An area where central water and sanitation services are
available through a special district(s). The subject site is part of an executed Pre-inclusion
Agreement with Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD).
5) Area of lnfluence (3 Miles) - This is defined as areas that are located within three miles
of an incorporated jurisdiction. Garfield County has intergovernmental agreements with
incorporated areas whereby the County seeks review and comment from the jurisdiction
regarding potential impacts from a development proposal. Both the Town of Carbondale
and the City of Glenwood Springs recommend that the County deny the request to rezone
this property to Commercial General.
5) General - Five major themes are included in Chapter 2, Future Land Use of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Two of these themes are applicable to the review and
determination of general conformity of the proposed CG zoning with the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicable themes include Growth in Unincorporated Communities and
Growth in Designated Centers.
Growth in Unincorporated Communities - Guidelines are provided for new or expanded
unincorporated communities:
The development is not located within the UGA of existing municipalities;
Staff Comment: This development is not located within the UGA of any municipality,
but the site is located within the Area of lnfluence for the City of Glenwood Springs
and is located just outside of the Area of lnfluence for the Town of Carbondale.
The development is served with urban services by a special district;lt.
13 lPage
Planning Commission
November 1,8,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Staff Comment: The subject site is located within the REC/Cattle Creek Metropolitan
District(s) and within the service area boundary of the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District.
iii. A contract for police from county sheriff is established;
Staff Comment; No information has been provided regarding this contract.
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense;
Staff Comment: The sole access to the site will be from SH 82.
v. Fiscal costs to the public wil! be considered in the review of new unincorporated
communities;
Staff Comment: No information has been provided regarding fiscal costs to the public
that may result from the proposed rezoning of the site to Commercial General. This
would include potential fiscal costs to the public in comparison to sales tax revenues.
vi. Any internal commercial is primarily for the convenience of area residents
(minimize competition with existing communities);
Staff Comment: The wide variety of uses that are permitted by-right in the CG zone
exceed the 'convenience' uses to serve area residents. CG uses include offices,
general retail, retail - vehicle and equipment sales, retail - lumber yards, eating and
drinking establishments, and other uses that may be regional in nature. Some of the
CG uses may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis with county review; however, in
general, the CG uses appear much broader than anticipated in this guideline.
vii. Transit opportunities are provided;
Staff Comment: RFTA provides transit along the SH 82 corridor; however the nearest
bus stop is located at the intersection of SH 82 and CMC Road (CR 114), approximately
2,300 feet north of the northern property line of the GCCI parcel. No information has
been provided regarding discussions with RFTA to secure a bus stop at this site.
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided;
Staff Report: No information was included regarding the provision of recreation or
other public amenities at this site. The Rio Grande Trail exists on the western
boundary of the subject site.
ix. School sites may be required (these locations are preferred over schools in rural
areas).
14 lPage
Planning Commission
November 1,8,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Staff Comment: A school site is not appropriate for consideration in the zone change
application.
Growth in Designated Centers - The Rural Employment Center designation does not
appear to be applicable to this site as it is located at the SH 82 / Cattle Creek Road
intersection.
B. Plan Elements - Economics, Emplovment and Tourism - Locating tax-generating commercial
uses at this site could negatively impact near-by communities including the Town of
Carbondale, the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Basalt. As is common in the State
of Colorado these incorporated areas generate a majority of their revenues from sales tax.
The County budget is primarily supported by property tax and severance tax, with the addition
of a 1% sales tax to the county on sales generated by retail and commercial uses - regardless
of whether the use is located in unincorporated county or within an incorporated community.
This is a critical point as the County receives revenues from sales generated in both
unincorporated and in incorporated areas
The draw of commercial activities to this site could cause sales tax revenues to decline in the
incorporated areas in a concept known as "sales tax leakage". This concept relates to the
sales tax revenues that leave a particular community when new commercial uses are
constructed in near-by incorporated or unincorporated communities (this may be a "new"
commercial use or it may be the relocation of an existing commercial use). This leakage may
be greatest when the commercial activities decline in an incorporated area due to new
commercial developments in unincorporated areas -this may occur because sales tax rates
are lower in unincorporated county (3.9%) versus for the Town of Carbondale (8.4%) and the
City of Glenwood Springs (8.6%1.
The charts below provide sales tax rates and 2015 sales tax revenues.
* City of Glenwood Springs has an additional 2.5% Accommodation Tax on lodging and the Meadows has
a'J..5% Public lmprovement Fee (PlF)
** Town of Carbondale has an additional 2%laxon lodging
The fiscal impact of locating potentially large-scale urban commercial uses in an unincorporated
area is that the required public services, particularly public safety, would be the responsibility of
the County. The application materials did not demonstrate that the potential sales tax generated
by the uses would pay for the additional services that the county would be required to provide to
the site. Any shortfall in the cost/revenue equation for new service (e.g. sheriff) would be borne
by the County taxpayers.
SALES TAX RATES U nincorporated City of Glenwood Springs*Town of Carbondale**
State Tax 2.9%2.9%2.9%
Garfield Countv 1,.0%1..0%L.O%
lncorporated Community 3.7%35%
Other (transportation, etc)1..0%L.O%
TOTAL 3.9%8.6%8.4%
15 lPage
SALES TAX GENERATED 2014 % of County
Sales Tax
Revenue
2015 Jan - April % of County
Sales Tax
Revenue
City of Glenwood
Springs
S:,gs+,asg.sr 46.70%$L,262,s74.17 47.67%
Town of Carbondale $ 8so,249.97 9.94%5 2s4,478.38 9.6L%
Unincorporated
County
s 865,340.06 1.0.12%$ 356,509.28 L3.47%
Source: Garfield County Sales Tax Reports
Planning Commission
November 18,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Due to the concerns itemized above regarding general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and
compliance with the review criteria, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the application to rezone the GCCI property from Residential Suburban to Commercial General, with
the following findings:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the a bove stated a nd oth er reasons the req uest to rezone the property is not in the best
interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and
Development Code, as amended.
That the application is not in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
2030.
The Planning Commission has several options regarding a recommendation on this application:
1. Approve the request;
2. Continue the request in orderto seek additional information from the applicant;
3. Deny the request.
4.
5.
15 lPage
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS
VI. PLANNTNG COMMIS$ION DEIIBERATION & RECOMMENDATION
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
1l
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
2lPage
APPENDIX B _ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
Target 124.900 Square Feet on 10.613-aces
Pier 1/BB&ts/Petco 81,416 Square Feet on 8.401-acres lPage
APPENDIX B _ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
Market Street 40,515 Square Feet on 4.853-acres
Wdmart 116,815 Square Feel on 5.77-acres
City of Glenwood
Springs
3lPage
APPENDIX B _ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
Willits - Town of Basalt
5lPage
EXHIBIT
A
Gaffield Coun
B
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. ln addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
2415.
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means Ilist] ..--
F,
tr
. Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
My application required Published notice.
Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram.
My application required Posting of Notice.
..t' Notice was posted on the l" day of
2015.
2015
Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adiacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate.
Signature:
Date:
,//.-
,i(
bta
at| W;h)rchln
ffipffix#$e$* L#Sffi
Po6tage
Csrtllled Fsa
Fialurn Becolpt Fss
(EndoIsomenl Roqulred)
Restrictsd D€livery Fse
(Endorsoment Foqulrsd)
PostagB
Cortlfiod Fea
Rolurn Receipt Fe€
(Endo166meol Requlted)
Reslricted Oelfu€ry F€o
(Endors€m6nl Requirad)
Total P^cr.aa ,' ca^-
AMERIGAS PROPANE LP
460 NORTH GULPH ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
$ffi$&$-,
PoElago
Cortiri0d F6o
Return Rac?iPt F€s
(Endor6€msnt Flsquired)
Raslrlcted Delivory Fes
(Endor8erent Requirod)
Tot6i P-i--- ' e^--
f$1{To- GARFTELD couNTY
L_.._-"".l::',:;; 108 8rH srREEr, sulrE 2L3
ll*;i GLENWooD sPRINGS, co 81601-3363
{#ww $ffi ftMfi-. EJ..1$ ffi
rrtr
rurl
rurr
r-1rl
tr3
EI
E3
EI
(3
tftrtr{
r{r{Err
CIr{m
r{
rur-.q
rC
tftf
c3
EI
c3rnrlr{
r:l
rC[3
r!,
m
Ef,m.{
ru
n-r{
rC
EEt3
c3
E]
l.rl
r{rt
r1r{
l.
13
rO
rUr:l
rur'
rqri
EI
E]
Ef,cf
Eul
r{r{
r4
rCtf,r-
.lmJI
r-l
rll
r!,r{r{
E]t:
E]
C]
E
r.r)
rq
r{
r{
r:t
13rr
Pootag€
C6rtili€d Fao
Flolum Rscoipt Feo
(Endors€mont Bsquksd)
Reslrlclsd D€liYery Fs€
(Endor6omont BBqullod)
TotRl Paqtt0a & F66n
Postage
Certmsd Fe6
R€tum Recaipt Foo
(Endorsem€nt llequlmd)
Restridod Oolivory Foe
(Endorsomsnt Requlrsd)
Total t
Pwlage
Cortlrisd F66
Hatum Becelpt F€8
(Endolsament Requirod)
Roslrictad Dolivery Fsa
(EndoEomont Roqulr€o)
Toial PO{',,^a I c.6{
MANSFIELD, LINDA L & MICHAEL L
P O BOX 2s08
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
Postrnark
H6ro
- 1 2015
Posttnstk
H6ra
(]cr - ? 2015
r!rum
11
rur-r{
rC
T3trl
EI
[f,
cf
LN
rq
r-A
- f9efrfi-r-1 I
"r L "-,"_""t3 I Slradl. AP
tu lo(POBo)
ASPEN EQUITY GROUP LLC
PO BOX L439
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC
PO BOX 77330
LITTLE ROCK, AR72222
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC
PO BOX 77330
LITTLE ROCK, AR72222
fl}ffiffieffi$&[- ffiffiffi
Si;;,;(,',
orPOE
Po6tmark
Hera
Po$tmark
Hsrg
U.S. Postal Service,,
CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT
Mall Onlv; No lnaurance
U.S. Postal Service,"
CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT
Mail AnU; No lnisurance Coveruge Ptovldedl
ocT , 7 20ffi
ilct - I 2015
- 7 ?t]15
T-?2015
U.S. Postal Service''"
CEHTIFIED MAIL, BECEIPT
U"S. Poelal Servicei"
CERTIFIED MAII*" HECEIPT
U.S. Postal Service'n
CERTIFIED MAtL,,. RECEIPT
(3$rp?$ffin&t ffiffiffi
r0ljt
m
r1
rurrrl
r-1
r:lEE
c3
c3
rj-l
r-1
r{
r-l
r{
t3rr
Poslago
C6rtiti6d Fd6
R6tum B$eipl Fs6
(EndoEament Roquh6d)
Soslricted Dalivory Fo6
(Endorsemaol Rsquired)
Total'
Postag6
Certi,ied f€6
R6tum R€cslpt Fe6
(Endoffiment Baquir€d)
Fsslrictod Oeliwry FE
(EndoIsom€nt Rsquirso
Total Po$lag6 & Fse6
fSA;r 7,
I GREMEL HOLDINGS, LLC
i:iF"J; Po Box ss7
[e,it;5,- EMERY, ur 84s22M
Postago
C€niliod Fe€
Retum Rffilpl Fee
(Endocsment R€qultsd)
Boslrictad O€1tu6ry Feo
(EndoBment Requlrad)
Total r
007
BARNETT.FYRWALD HOLDINGS, INC.,
GLENWOOD REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT, LLC
PO BOX 2607
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502
t
mm
r{
rurrr{r:l
(:l
E}
Ef
c3
rrlr{
r{
r{
rl
E
P
{}l.r#'id(}$&r" ["$sffi
Poslag6
Ceilifiod Fss
Retum Reelpt Fee
(Efl dorsement B8quirsd)
Rostricled Dellvety F6o
E (EndorsemantRequlrod)
Total r
Poslag6
CodliBd Fos
R6lum Bec€lDt F66
(Endorsoment Retiuired)
flsckicred Ooliwry Fee
trlJI
rn
r{
rurrrir{
tfEE'tf
Lr)
r:l
rq
r':l
rq
EIrr
rur-mri
rur*r{
r{
t3Et3E
tf,
Lrl
r{
rjl
r{
r{
E]
f"
Poclmark
Hera
, 7 2015
TT
E0
m
r{
rUr-
rl
r{
t3tf,
EIcl
cf,rl
r{
r{
r{
r:lclr\
Postmart
Hore- 7 2015
JI
TTm
r-1
rur-r{
rq
EE
13
LJ
trlul
r:l
rjl
r-1r{E
r\.
[f (EndoBomentHaquireOl
Total P
B P INVESTMENTS, LLC
855 ROSE LANE
CARBONDALE, CO 8L623
C/O ROBIN FERGUSON;i;,'i', zzz2 coIToNDALE LN STE 200'ciiii,"Ai,
LITTLEROCK,ART22O2_2OL7
MSLHS PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 944
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Enc;;i,-,
arPOE
otPOB
$Jrsffi##tr&t tlsffi
Po6taga
Cortifisd F6s
B6lum Rscslpt Foe
(EndoBemant Raqulroo
Bsstriclod Dolivsry Fso
(EndoRBmsnt Requirsd)
t]CT
PAYNE, JOHANNA 5 & WAYNE S
PO BOX 8198
ASPEN, CO 81612-8198
CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT
Mall Qnly; No lnsurance
Foi.deliverv infoniration vi6it,our websllo at w*vrl,usp$icomdi
r ,qq
Posimark
H€ru
- 7 2015
3,q5
CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT
No lnsurance
ocl ,- 7 2015
U.S. Postal Servlce'd 1' ''
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
Mail Anfu; No lnfiurance
ucl - I 2[;:
U.S. Postal Service'"
CEHTIFIED MAIL^, RECEIPT
llatl Ontv: No lnsuranee
U.S. Postal Service,*
CERTIFTED MAIL,- BECEIPT
ar PA
#ffi.ffimffi$&h eiffiffi
tr
r{
5.
r{
rurr
r-{r{
EEt3cl
t3
LN
rq
rq
r{r{Err
Po$ago
Cortitiod Fas
flelum Bmiol F€e
(Endoraemont Re{uked)
Resklctod D€liv€ry Fee
(Endorsement Requkod)
Tstal'
po6tage
Certifiod FBe
Retum RacaiDt F€e(Endocsm€nt R6quired)
FiBsklctod Deltvory Fss(EndoBemsnt FeqirhBd)
Siniai,-.49t:i
ar PA Bax i
; ii;ir,,':
po$tdge
Cortifiod F€o
R6tum Bac€lot Fes(Endorsomont R6dutred)
Fleslrietcd Dollv€ru Feo(Endors€mont Reqirked)
T6ta, Po,.r6^^ o E^--
^ 3,9?
PERAU, RONALD G
2OO DEER RUN TRAIL
RIFLE, CO 81650
rutrl
5-
r{
ru
rL
rjl
r{
cf,tfEtf,
EI
U1
rl
r:|
I{
r-1Er'
ffie"ffi$#*&g* a$sffi
Posla0o
C€rlltied Foe
Fotum Rec€ipl Feo
{Endorssmont Bsquired)
Bsstrbted Oellvory Fee
(EndoB€ment R6quired)
Total Posiace & Fcan
H LAZY F, LLC
PO BOX 185
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
ffiffififfi$&&-&.fiffiffi
Postags
Cortltled Fss
Helum Becolpl FsB
(EndoB€m€nt Rogullgd)
Boslricted DallvBry Fos
{Endorsomsnt Reqult€d)
Tolal P6.r-^6 a t-^-
BAYMAR HOTELS & PROPERTIES INC
3if8; 1111 KANE coNcoRSE #211
?irir 5r, BAY HARBOR ISLANDS, FL 33154
ffi$ffi8&fr*t$sffi
Postago
C€rlilled Fss
Retum Bseiot Fe€
(Endors€msnt Fedulreo
Rsstrlctod O€liwry Fea
(Endorsment Requlr€d)
Tolal Po6t6^^ . E6&43
PERKINS, MELVIN L & PHYLLIS M
:|l';!!: 448 couNrY RoAD 110
iiiusi;,i;, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9604
II
ut'
-1
U
{-{
3
trl
trt[f
EItfl
rl
r{
r{
r{
Er-
mm
f
r{
rur!
r{
r{
EI
E]E
cf,
cf
LN
rqr{
rir{
E]rr
E]
:r-
:frl
rur-r{
r-1
t=
E]Et:
E]trlr{rl
rqrlt:]rr
.qq
HABITAT FOR HUMANIW ROARING
FORK VALLEY
7025 HWY 82 BOX 2
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
rL
Lrl
:l-.{
rur!dtr{
EItf[3
EI
lf
tf,l
rlrl
r{rtEP
ffiWW'X*W
ffie*ry&ffi
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, C/O
sirtioi,-ip coloRADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFTCE
23OO RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD
stLT, co 81652
CERTIFIED MAIL-, HECEIPT
Mall Only: No lnsurance Pqovided)
v.v. t.
CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT
Mail Onlv; No tnsurance
Postma*
H6re
Poslmark
llora
Postmark
Hare
PoEtmark
Haro
ocT " ? ?015
U.S. Postal Service,*
CERTIFIED MAIL,*, RECEIPT
t](]I , 7 2015
001 - 7 2015 ocT " ? 2015
U.S;, Postal. Service,*
CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT
U,S. Posiat
CEBTIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT
ffiur*-$ffi*&e- e.$*%ffi
f
-.0:f
rq
rur-d
11
E
E]EE
E
r.o
r{
r+
rl
r{
Er-
r{r"!
r-1
rur-
r-1
rq
t3cf
CI
E3
tfrrl
r{r{
r:lr{
trf
rL
EO
ra
:3.rl
rur*r{
r{
rEtEIt3E
C]
Lr)
rjl
rl
r{
r{
Er*
rrltr3
r1
rurrr{
rq
E]EE
EI
c:
r.rl
r{
rq
rjl
.-1tfrr
r{
rqEr-
Eo
r{rn
rurrrcrt
E[3[f,t3
E3
l.r)
r{
r:t
r{rt
13r-
x#x&L ffiffiffi
Postage
Cortltied Feo
R€tum Flsc€lpt Fee
(Endorsomont Rsquirod)
Bgslrictad D6llv6ry Foe
(Ef,domsmsnt Fl€quiBd)
Total P
.A
or PO 8t
?,ri,6iC,
$it{;d(,
or Po
Ciit 6
Postmark
Hom
OCI*?- ,lhar
Postnark
HerE
ocr - 7 2015
PoElaga
Certitied Foo
Rsturn R€c6ipt Fee
(Endorssmmt R6quir€d)
Fl6strlct6d o€livory Fss
(Endoramant Rsquired)
Total PosL^o i Fec
RE DEVELOPMENT CORP
21 COUNTY ROAD 216
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
PostnaIk
Hs16
ocl - ? ^^,.
HERRING FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLLP
31825 HIGHWAY 6
slLT, co 81652
Poslago
C€rtlrled Fs
Retum Recolpt Fo6
(Endors€m6nt Roquir6d)
Hsstriclad Dollvsry Fee
(Endors6m€nt Rsquked)
Total
REINARZ, BERNADETTE F TRUST
1110 COUNTY ROAD 110
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Po3taga
Cartllied Fes
Rotum Recslpt F6o
(Endortomont Flaquirod)
Reslricted Oslivsry F66
(Endotssment Bequlred)
Tolal
Postm&rk
Horo
Ocr -7 20$
JSWLAW REI LLC
PO BOX 1800
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
bEi'Abi
ffiww%ffi{-Mfu t$ffiHffi ffiffiffifrffi&&n- {J$ffi
FoEtags
Certltl€d Fo€
Fl8tum Receipl Foe
(Endoreemsnt Flsqulr€O
Flostrided flslivsry Feo
(Endorsement Raquirod)
TOIA! P6oto* e t6*
Po6ta9€
Carlilied Fee
R6tum Bo@lpt Fos
(Endoffimsnt Floqukeo
Restrictsd Delivory Fse
(Endorsemonl Requkod)
Total
HOWE, JOHN J & HEATHER D
552 COUNTY ROAD 110
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
ffieffiu&t ffisffi
Postmsr*
Hem
r-72015
Pctrnark
Hers
Ocr - 7 206
ot FO
irrir6-,
ot PA
8626 COUNW ROAD 301
PARACHUTE, CO 81635
CEBTIFIED MAIL.-, RECEIPT
Mail Onlv: Nalnsurunce
For dellveiy. intormation visit.our web$ite al *Uw.usp$.corndj
$tj
,J,W
CERTIFIED .MAIL,, RECEI PT
U.S, Postal Service,*
CERTIFIED MAIL* RECEIPT
U.S" Postal $ervice*,
CERTIFIED MAIL- HECEIPT
lJt
ru
LNrl
ru
rLrlrl
E
E]Etf
[3
Lrlrlr{
rl
rjltf,
r\.
ru
rn
LN
rq
ruf-
rl
C]E
E]E
Etrl
r{r{
#lr{E
r\,
PoElag6
Corlifled Fag
R8tum Rocoipt F6s
(EndorEem6nt Rcqulred)
Resld616d Delivery Fse
{Endorsomanl Raquired)
lblalFoBtanat F '"
OCr - 7 Zgti
REINKE, HENRY S
14OO SHELDON DRIVE
ELGIN, IL 60120
re rfl d;i, ffihJ, {r*,e b
r
.3.rt
r{
rur!r{
r{
t3
--ol'rl
Lr,
r{
rur"rtr{
EI
Podaga
Cariilisd Fo€Postaga
ceriillBd Fse
Postmatk
Harc- ? 2015
=
RotumRoc€iptFee
fi {rnoo,semantRsquirad}
Boslrkted Dollvsry Fso
E lEodorsomontRequlrsdl
,E G,dl3Hiln"fi:H:if"i3
Rstrid€d Dsliv6ry-F60
El (EndoEsmentRaqulr8ol
r,]
rC
r4
(]CI
trt
;1r{
Total P.
loial Po
r{
r-:lcfr-t46r-
E
rLrrl
r{
rur!rl
rjl
EE
E:]
EI
t3
Lrt
rjl
r:l
r{
r{
E]rr
poBlsg6
Csditiod FBo
Raturn Flocoiol F€6
{Endors6mont Bniulrsd)
Restrict€d O€livorv Fffi(EndoEEmefi t Heqrlt16d)
mJIul
r:l
rur!r{r{
E]tfE
EI
E
Lrlr{
rq
r{r{
trfr-
Fostmark
Hore
(]cT - ? 2015
3r,slil
ot PO
qLl
M&M ENTERPRISES, LLC
133 MARAND RD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9325
ffi ffi ffi f, #leT
po8iago
Carlllied Feo
Rotum Raceiot Fs
(Endor86mont Rsdutrod)
Rostrictod Delivaw Faa
(Eddor8em€nt Fsquked)
Tota
DAVID DODSON
PO BOX 248
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0248
'Stli:rir
or PO
l!.IEt!'-ry,-.".T ,.," r..." tr ;;"ds ;r fi. tl il fl t.i F*
f.""1 ('' |i ' [ (,.' i s4u iL" t' P ""r n*'
REYNOLDS, WILLIAM W & SHEPHERD,K&LLLC
108 CROWN MOUNTAIN DRIVE
BASALT, CO 81621Slroal, Ar,
ot Po Bo.
JOAN E
1375 WALNUT STREET #10
BOULDER, CO 80302
{.}_ ft p, fr ff; fi ,8, il ffiffiffi$ffifr&&_ eJsffi
Foslage
Corlifiod F€s
Retum Hoceipt F€6
(Endorsem6nt Bequir€d)
Raskbtad Osllvery Fse
(Endorssm€nt Bsqulreo
Tol&l P^-'^-- ' '--'
DODSON LLLP
PO BOX 248
?rru,,; GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0248
CERTIFIED MAIL," RECEIPT
(Domestlc Mall Only; Na
Service'*
CEBTIFIED MAIL,, BECEIPT
Mail Anly; No lnsurance Provlded)
$JSffi
Skits-i;
orPAE
00T "- ? 2015
| -72rl$
U.S,'Postal Service'*
C ;iinFiro mat u," REg gr.Pi
t)cl - I ?015
U,$;'PqstalServic&, . :
CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT
ffiffiffieffi$&$- e-6ffiffi
rL
EO
rnrl
ru
n-rtr{
Etfotrl
Etrl
r{r:l
r{rlt3rr
.i'
TTrrlr{
rUr!' r:lrt
E
C'[3E
cftll
rc
r{
r{
Efr-
C]E
--Er{
rurrr{r{
E]
CItf
EI
E
LNr{r:l
r:lr{t3r"
Prq.lI
rq
rur!
r{
r{
t3t3
c3trl
lft'l
r:lr:l
r{
r-1t3rr
!
ru
J]
r{
rurr
r-1rl
E]cf
E3tf
Etrl
r{r{
r{rtEr!
ffitrffi$&L flfl ffi H;trf lild *Lx*
P06ta0s
Cerlillod F6e
Hetum Rsceipt Fee
(Endorsemenl Bsqulrsd)
Hastdctod D€llv€ry Foo
(EndorsBrent Hoqukod)
Total Pnet,no a E&6
P0Btag6
C€rtilisd Faa
Relum BaffiiDt Fao
(EndorE€ment Rniuk6d)
Rosldcisd Dolivery F66
(EndoemBnt Rsqukad)
Toial prtd^^.- t^^6
Poslmark
Hsra
Poslaga
Carilfied Fos
Rolum Recelpl F6s
{Endorsem€ni Rsqukeo
Rostrlclsd oellvsry Fse
{Endorsomenl Rsquired}
6{;dei,VA
ar PA Bot
city,-i;i6ie
PoBtag6
Cortilled Fea
R€lum RmlDt F66
(Endonsement Be{uked)
Eo6trlclad Doliveil Fea
(EndoEemont Reqliro{
Total Post
Posls9,6
C€illflod Fs€
Rslum RecelPl Fo€
(Endotsemont R€qulred)
RestriclBd Dsllv6ry Fe€
(Endols€mont Reqilirso
TOt&l P^d6^n tr t^^'
Postmart
H616
* 7 2015
Postmarl
Hoto
(}cI - 7 2015
PooUflrtl
Hale
T -720ffi
ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORIW
530 E MAIN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVE DODSON
PO BOX 248
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602.0248
ffi#viffi$ffix&&-
Stiirai
ot PO
WAECHTLER, DONALD G & BONNIE F
7915 HIGHWAY 82
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9307
RUDD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
132 PARK AVE
BASALT, CO 81621
VAN RAND PARK ASSOCIATION, C/O STEELE, W E & V M FAMILY LLLP-Sirda{,'Ait: PO BOX 1507
'::3:::: GLENWooD spRtNGS, co 81802-1s07CiU Stalo,,
SirHia
or PQ 8.
CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT
Mail Only; Na lnsurance
CENTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT
No Ineurance
'-t2015 TotalFo.'--- " -^--
U"S, Po$tal Service,^n ,
CERTTFIED MAIL" RECEIPT
U.S. Postal Service,*
CERTIFIED MAIL", RECEIPT
Thu, Oct 01 ,2015
1 1583496
2582448
(303)770-8884
MTKECERBO@GALLOWA
MIKE CERBO, PE, LEED A
08:46:18
Ad Ticket #5
Namg. Galloway
AddfgSS, 6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
City' Greenwood Village
State: CO Zip: 8011 1
Acct:
Phone:
E-Mail:
Client:
Caller:
_Receipt
Ad Name:
Editions:
Start:
Color:
Copyline:
1 1 583496A
8CT/
10/08/15
CT GCCI Zone Amendment
Original ld: 0
Class: 0990
Stop: 10/08/15
lssue 1
Rep' Pl Legals
Ad shown is not actual print size
Lines: 116
Depth: 9.61
Columns: 1
Discount: 0.00
Commission: 0.00
Net: 0.00
Tax: 0.00
Payment 0.00
Total 84.33
- J". .' '*..
SryEfl"v
I
//
./-)/
E
il
i
I
I
I
, ',Nt /
i-)
wmm
-t.r'
..',,,'!,;.). .,1tl
i;h{
E
M
'jn&\
{:q
'4.:.
thr lr
.,q,i,l. ,\.,i,
" tl
..'
,.&'
I.,1,
..: .
11#
Mffi t
E
w
I
I
ruI
T
W
I
ffi
ru
ffi
ffi
ffir
EI
t
T
ry
L
d.il r,
Planning Commission
November 18,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
TYPE OF REVIEW
APPLTCANT (OWNER)
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
ACRES
EXISTING ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Zone District Amendment
Garfield County Commercial lnvestment, LLC
Mike Cerbo, Galloway & Company, lnc.;
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek
West side of SH 82 north of Cattle Creek Road (CR
113) between the Rio Grande Trail and SH 82
43.25-acres
Residential Suburban
CommercialGeneral
Residential High Density, Unincorporated
Community, Water and Sewer District
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC (GCCI), a subsidiary of Carbondale lnvestments, LLC (Cl)
requests a zone change on a 43.Z!-acre parcel on the west side of SH 82 between CR 113 and CR 1"14.
The Official Zone District Map of Garfield County designates the parcel as Residential Suburban and the
Applicant seeks to rezone the site to Commercial General (CG).
Historv
This 43.25-acre parcel has been the subject of numerous land use actions
when it was part of larger 159.161- acre property known as Sanders Ranch
PUD/Bair Chase and the Cattle Creek Colorado development proposals. ln
2008 the Board of County Commissioners rezoned that portion of the
Sanders Ranch PUD that was outside of the conservation easement areas
to Residential Suburban, Resolution No. 2008-112.
ln 201L the owner, Carbondale lnvestments, LLC, divided the overall
L59.151-acre property into four parcels, two of those parcels were
approved as the River Edge PUD for 366 residential units as shown left.
The subject site is adjacent to the River Edge PUD, but not included in the
zoning or entitlements associated with that PUD development. The Rio
Grande Trail physically separates the two projects.
llPage
INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Planning Commission
November 1.8,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Currently the 43.25-acre site could develop the Suburban dimensions, uses, and density which would
permit a maximum of 94 residential lots based upon the minimum lot size required in the Suburban zone
(20,000 square feet). Those lots could cover (rooftops and pavement/impervious surface) 21.6-acres of
the site with a maximum of 941,985 square feet of floor area within the 25 foot height restriction (two
stories).
Zone District Dimensions
Residential Suburba n (existing)Commercial General (proposed)
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet 7,500 square feet
Maximum Lot coverage 50%Commercial85%
Non-commercialT5%
Maximum FIoor Area so%so%
Maximum Buildine Height 25 Feet 40 Feet
lf rezoned to CG the permitted dimensions would allow up to 25L lots (minimum lot size 7,500 square
feet) to be used for commercial or residential use. lf commercial uses were proposed on the overall site
impervious cover maximum (rooftops and pavement) would be 36.8-acres of the site with a maximum of
941,985 square feet of floor area within the 40 foot height restriction (four stories).
Appendix A includes photographs of the subject property and existing uses within the defined
unincorporated community area. Appendix B contains photographs of various large scale commercial
developments including the Meadows and Willits Town Center. The photos may be used as a comparison
regarding acreage and potential square footage on the subject site.
The complete Use Table -Table 3-403 of the LUDC, is included as Appendix C of this report.
Uses Permitted in Suburban (but not in CG)
Agriculture
Building or Structure Necessary to Agricultural Operations
Forestry
Riding Stable
Manufactured Home Park
Group Home Facilities
lnjection Well, Piped/lnjection Well, Small/lnjection Well, Large
Uses Permitted in both Suburban and CG
Products, Processing, Storage Distribution and Sale at Point of Production
Single Family Dwelling
Home Office/Business
Foster Home
2lPage
II. ZONE DISTRICT USES AND DIMENSIONS
Planning Commission
November L8,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Small Employee Housing Facility
Family Child Care Home
Pa rk
U ltra-Light Aircraft Operation
Trail, Trailhead, Road
O&G Drilling and Production
Uses Permitted in CG (but not in Suburban)
Community Meeting Facility
Library
Professional Office
N ursery/G reenhouse
Retail - General
Retail- Equipment, Machinery, Lumber Yards
Retail - Vehicle and Equipment Sales
Theater - lndoor
Recreation - lndoor
Eating or Drinking Establishment
Cabinet Making, Wood & MetalWorking, Machining, Welding
General Service Establishment
Laundromat
Vehicle Repair, Body/Paint or Upholstery Shop
Lodging Facilities
North: Commercial (vacant restaurant, Fyrwald Parcel)
South: Conservation Easement and Residential.
East:Service commercialand lnstitutional uses on the east
side of SH 82 including the Road & Bridge Facility.
West: Vacant - Vacant Residential (River Edge PUD).
Adjacent zoning includes Rural, Planned Unit
Development, CL and CG, as shown on the map, right.
Referral Comments were received from the following agencies:
Colorado Department of Transportation, Exhibit M - Dan Roussin responded to the request for comments
that they had no comments on the request to rezone the site but that should the property become
Remote Fracking Facility
Utility Distribution Lines
Neighborhood Substation
Utility Distribution Facility
Accessory Building or Structure
Fence, hedge, wall
Storage/M ini-Sto rage
Storage - Cold Storage Plants
Recycling Collection Center
Solar Energy System, Small
3lPage
III. ADJACENT USES
. REFERRAL COMMENTS
Planning Commission
November 18,20'J.5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
residential that CDOT would only allow one access to the site which would be shared with the adjacent
River Edge property. Further that there does not appear to be sufficient highway infrastructure to support
the commercial zoning requested.
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Exhibit G - Scott Grosscup of Balcomb & Green, P.C.
responded on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and its engineers that the
GCCI property is located within the RFWSD service area boundary; however the property has not yet been
included within the District. A Pre-lnclusion Agreement with Carbondale lnvestments, LLC (Cl), owners of
the properties to the west of the site, has been recorded which sets the terms and conditions of inclusion
of the properties (including GCCI) within the boundaries of the district whereupon RFWSD would agree to
provide water and sanitary sewer service to the properties.
Terms of the Agreement include paying for and constructing certain infrastructure necessary to provide
service to the properties. This includes the following improvements which would be the responsibility of
Cl or GCCI, whichever developed first:
t. Extension of water lines from RFWSD existing infrastructure and/or construction of a surface
water treatment plant;
2. Developing infrastructure necessary to provide sanitary sewer service;
3. Expansion of the RFWSD sewer treatment plant;
Specific development of the GCCI property was not contemplated at the time of the agreement and
instead 375 EQRs were dedicated for potential development based upon the exiting Suburban zoning.
RFWSD is unable at this time to determine if the infrastructure contemplated by the Pre-lnclusion
Agreement would be sufficient to meet future development on the re-zoned property.
Other Comments include:
e The type of commercial development can impact wastewater treatment operations.
Permitting, design, construction and acquisition of the property necessary to construct required
facilities can take several years.
Off-site infrastructure required for service to the property will impact the CR 113, Cattle Creek
Road intersection with SH 82. Coordination must occur between GCCI, Cl, RFWSD and the County
on timing of improvements to coincide with intersection improvements.
The provision of water and sanitation to this site could allow adjacent parcels to be served by the District.
Town of Carbondale. Exhibit l-On behalf of the Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees and Planning and
Zoning Commission Stacey Bernot, Mayor and Gavin Brook, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, responded to the referral with concerns related to the vagueness of the application and the
fact that details are not provided regarding the intended commercial use of the property. The Town
4lPage
Planning Commission
November 1.8,201-5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
commented on the maximum allowances that would be permitted by the CG zone district and questions
the proposal's compliance with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria.
The Comprehensive Plan elements cited as not in general conformance with the proposal include the
Unincorporated Community description which states that neighborhood centers to primarily serve their
own population are appropriate - the rezoning of over 43 acres could allow uses that go beyond serving
the existing and potential residential units surrounding the GCCI property. The applicability of Rural
Employment Center is also questioned as it states that incidental retail sales are appropriate yet the parcel
would allow much more square footage than what is envisioned in this designation.
The town questions whether the proposal meets the rezoning criteria, particularly whether the
development would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, whether the area has changed
to the degree that the new use is necessary and serves the public interest, and the application has not
demonstrated a community need for the proposed commercial use.
Additionally, Carbondale is concerned with potential loss of sales tax revenue if proposed commercial
uses at this site would compete with commercial uses in the incorporated area, particularly since the sales
tax rate would be significantly less in unincorporated Garfield County. The town cites a Comprehensive
Plan policy that states that "...the county will discourage commercial development in the unincorporated
areas that would significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities."
The Town requests that the County Commissioners deny the rezoning for the above reasons.
Citv of Glenwood Sprines, Exhibit H - The City cites concerns with the proposal satisfying the rezoning
criteria in the county regulations:
L. Logical and orderly development pattern - An inventory of commercial uses currently exists in this
corridorof SH 82, some of which is vacant. The City questions the neglected condition of the property
and states that it is not good land use practice to create large tracts of commercially zoned property when
an inventory currently exists as this may pull existing commercial uses from neighboring cities and towns
resulting in a loss of sales tax revenues to the incorporated communities.
2. The area has changed and it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density - The City states
that circumstances have not changed as this and adjoining property have previously obtained
entitlements over the last 15 to 20 years, yet no development has occurred. The neighborhood and
unincorporated community do not support the demand based upon vacant commercial properties in the
a rea.
3. Rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need -The City responded that the Applicant has not
adequately addressed the community need for this magnitude of commercial rezoning; no statistical
evidence supports this request. The proposal does not comply with the County's adopted Comprehensive
Plan as the project is intended to "...benefit the county as a whole." and that sales tax leakage will have a
negative effect on surrounding communities.
5lPage
Planning Commission
November 18, 2015
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
4. General conformity with the Comprehensive Plan - The City believes that the application is inconsistent
with the future land uses designation as this neighborhood cannot support the additional square footage
permissible by the zone district. The demand for new commercial development in the Roaring Fork Valley
is doubtful; instead this development would draw existing businesses out of incorporated cities and
towns.
Transportation issues were also identified due to the distance to a RFTA transit stop and issues related
to SH 82. Further, based upon assertions in the application, the commercial development could result in
a doubling of existing traffic volumes resulting in the potential for 36,450 vehicles trips on a Saturday.
The City's Planning and Zoning Commission endorses these comments. The City recommends that the
application be denied.
Roaring Fork Conservancv, Exhibit N - Rick Lofaro, Executive Director, commented that the Roaring Fork
Conservancy (RFC) administers the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement as well as the adjacent Heron
Point Conservation Easement. RFC has concerns regarding potential effects of commercial development
on the nearby conservation easements as well as Cattle Creek and the Roaring River. RFC is currently
working on a study of water quality in Cattle Creek and the increase in impermeable surfaces can increase
runoff and erosion which leads to concerns about potential pollutants reaching the waterways.
Other potential impacts include increased light pollution and traffic as they may impact the easements
which provide important habitat for blue heron and elk in the riparian corridor.
The Conservancy requests that if the application is approved that it be contingent on the Applicant
working in cooperation with the Conservancy to ensure that the conservation values of the easement and
the ecological integrity of the surrounding area be upheld.
Vegetation Manasement, Exhibit K - Steve Anthony noted that the subject parcel had been heavily
infested with Scotch thistle and that the noxious weeds were treated during the 2015 growing season.
Mountain Cross Engineering, Exhibit L - Chris Hale responded that comments could not be provided as
the zone change does not include information related to site planning, grading, drainage, traffic, access
and/or other improvements for the site.
The 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) contains regulations regarding rezoning
of property within the County in Section 4-1L3 C., Review Criteria
An application for rezoning shall demonstrate with substantialevidence that an error exists in the
OfficialZone District Map, or meet the following criteria:
6lPage
. APPTICABLE REGULATIONS
Planning Commission
November 18,201-5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern
and would not constitute spot zoning;
The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing
to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density
in the area;
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect
to facilities, services, or housing; and
The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
A. General - A rezoning request, if approved, would allow the site any by-right use permitted within the
CG zone, as well as the maximum dimensional allowances of the zone district. lf the rezoning is
approved there would be no further review of the development by the County Planning Department,
other than application for building permits. Conditions of approval are not applicable to a rezoning
to a standard zone district in the County.
Site planning or a determination of potential uses on the site has not been discussed as it is not a
requirement of a request to rezone to a standard County zone district. This information would be
required if the Applicant was requesting a PUD or a Land Use Change Permit. The CG zone offers a
wide variety of uses, some of which the Comprehensive Plan may support at this location, however
many other uses by-right are not within the scope of the unincorporated community designation.
Those CG uses by-right not supported by the Comprehensive Plan include any uses that would be
termed regional (the Roaring Fork Valley) or light industrial in nature, as the intent of the
unincorporated community is not to draw outside populations, as quoted from the Comprehensive
Plan - "Self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve
their own populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by one
or more special districts." ln this case the residential community consists of the River Edge PUD
(undeveloped), the residences on Coryell Road, and both the H Lazy F and Mountain Meadows Mobile
Home Parks. Regional retail, such as big-box stores, offices, and many other CG allowed uses would
not be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan designation at this location. The County
does not have the ability to limit, or conditionally approve specific by-right uses within the CG zone.
Size and Scope of Proiect - Once the site is zoned as CG there are no use or dimensional restrictions
nor requirements - other than those permitted within the CG zoning regulations. The result could be
a development approaching the size and scope of Glenwood Meadows or a development that is more
than twice the size of Willits Town Center, without site plan review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
TlPage
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Meadows Square Footage Acreage
Lowes L28,230 12.417
Target 124,900 10.613
Vitamin Cottase 10,000 1.485
Pier 1/BB&B/Petco 8L,41,6 8.401
Market Street 40,51,5 4.853
Chili's 6,31,2 .96
Wells Fargo 5,000 .563
Su btota I 396,373 40.821 acres
Planning Commission
November 18,20L5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
Staff provides photographs of existing commercial developments in Appendix B of this report.
Commercialsquare footage and acreage of these existing facilities is provided in the charts below to
aid in understanding the scale of the commercial uses at these existing developments. Visualizing the
potential scale of development at the subject site is critical in determining the appropriateness of the
requested zone district.
The Applicant has not provided details of what may be developed at the site, however this information
is not applicable to the current review as, once rezoned, the site is only required to comply with the
use and dimensional standards contained in the LUDC.
Since no details of the site were provided staff conducted a comparison of some existing commercial
sites to be used as reference for size and scale of potential new development.
Citv of Glenwood Sprines Square Feet Acreage
City Market 47,337 4.19
Wal-Mart 116,815 5.77
Rite Aid 26,412 2.1,
Source: City of Glenwood Springs
ln reviewing the Glenwood Meadows project in Glenwood Springs it appears that a significant portion
of that development (from Petco and Wells Fargo on the east end, to Chili's on the south, to the west
end at Lowe's, Target and Sports Authority on the north) is on approximately the same land area as is
proposed for the rezoning. Commercial square footage and parcel size at the development is provided
below:
Source: City of Glenwood Springs
Note: Staff has only included that development that
parcelfor rezoning
'fits' within the approximate size site as the
Willits Town Center
Located within the Town of Basalt, this mixed use development
500,000 square feet of commercial space on approximately 15
includes allowance for a maximum of
acres. The commercial development
8lPage
Planning Commission
November !8,20L5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
currently consists of Whole Foods, a medicalclinic, medical offices, and miscellaneous retail including
restaurants, clothing stores, kitchen store and hair salons. A hotel is currently under construction.
The project manager stated that constructed commercial space is about 150,000 square feet,
approximatelV 1,/3 of which is currently vacant.
Tree Farm - Ace Lane
Eagle County is currently reviewing a development proposed located on the east side of SH 82, across
from Willits Town Center. The Tree Farm development is proposing 400 dwelling units and 135,000
square feet of commercial space.
PUD Zoning Process
It is important to note that both the Meadows and Willits Town Center had gone through a PUD
process that allowed the municipalities to determine the appropriateness of the scale, elevations, and
uses on the site. That process also resulted in open space, housing and other public amenities -
including the Glenwood Springs Community Center. No amenities are associated with this rezoning
application, nor can they be required through this rezoning process.
lf the County would like to retain the ability to determine the appropriate uses and scale of
development on this parcel then the request to rezone the site to CG should be denied.
B. Review Criteria - Section 4-1.1"3 C.
1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would
not constitute spot zoning.
Comment: The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed rezoning would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern. A logical and orderly development pattern is
a coherent, consistent and ordered pattern of development. The existing commercial zoning and
uses that currently exist between CR 1L4 (Spring Valley Road) and CR 113 (Cattle Creek) contain
a variety of uses ranging from contractor's offices, CNG sales, lumber
yard, restaurants, gas station, the Habitat Restore, and limited retail
uses. The Rural Employment Center asterisk, that the Applicant states
is applicable to this land, identifies 'small areas adjacent to major
roadways that allow light industrial, manufacturing, equipment
storage and incidental retail sales.'This asterisk is located at the
intersection of Cattle Creek and SH 82 in response to the existing uses
and staff does not believe this is intended to represent a preference
for application of this designation along the surrounding SH 82
corridor. Continuation of this wide variety of uses on the subject site
could occur with the proposed CG zoning and would not result in a
logical or orderly development pattern in the area.
The existence of adjacent commercial zoning is one factor the
Applicant has utilized in determining the appropriateness of additional
9lPage
Planning Commission
November 1,8,20L5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
commercial uses in the area, but the continuation of commercial uses is determined by more than
just the existence of adjacent commercial zoning.
The proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning as adjacent parcels are currently zoned
commercial. Spot zoning is defined as applying zoning to a specific parcel or parcels of land that
exist within a larger zoned area. The parcels immediately north of the subject site are zoned
Commercial General-the former location of the Sopris restaurant, and the Fyrwald Exemption
which contains four (4) commercially zoned lots - two of which are vacant and one which is the
siteoftheHabitatRestore. Seemap,aboveright-orangeisCGzoningandbrownisCL.
2. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
Comment: The area has not undergone significant change since the subject site was rezoned from
Sanders Ranch PUD to Residential Suburban in 2008. That rezoning occurred at the request of
the Board of County Commissioners due to a prior proposal on the site failing to commence
development.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that a new use or density in the area is in the public interest
as no analysis or data has been provided regarding the need for additional commercial activities,
nor did the Applicant provide any information related to public benefit of this development
proposal. As an example other large scale retail and/or mixed use developments, such as the
Meadows in Glenwood Springs or Willits Town Center in Basalt, provided some public benefit in
the form of cohesive design standards, affordable housing, trails and other public amenities. The
rezoning and future development of this site does not discuss or require the provision of any of
these amenities.
There has been no evidence provided that it is in the public interest to encourage commercial use
on this property.
3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities,
service, or housing.
Comment: The Applicant has not provided analysis or data related to community need for the
proposed commercial use. This documentation would typically come in the form of a market
analysis or needs assessment which would analyze the existing commercial inventory in a region
to determine if there were gaps in services or commercial activities that one would assume to be
available to serve a population.
A windshield survey of existing commercial facilities in the Roaring Fork Valley has shown that
there are empty storefronts and for rent/sale signs in Glenwood Springs, Town of Carbondale,
Town of Basalt and in unincorporated Garfield County.
There has been no demonstration of community need related to the proposed uses on the site.
This could lead to migration of existing businesses from surrounding areas rather than creating
new businesses or retail operations.
l0 lPage
Planning Commission
November 18, 201-5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
+ fne proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in
compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
Comment: Several referral agencies have
conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and
following reasons (Please see Appendix A
Unincorporated Community area):
commented that the proposal does not generally
planning staff agrees with these agencies for the
for photographs of the subject property and the
A. Future Land Use Map
1) Residential Hish - The existing underlying designation of the subject site is defined as a
density of residential uses from 3 dwelling units per acre to 1, dwelling unit per less than
2 acres. This range of density is to be specifically determined by the Planning Commission
and will be based upon a "degree of public benefit", considering factors such as the
amount of affordable housing, parks/trails and open space, energy conservation, fiscal
impacts on the County, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public
needs, etc.
Compatible zoning for this designation includes Residential Suburban, Residential Urban,
Residential Mobile Home Park and PUD. The request to rezone the site for commercial
uses is not consistent with this designation.
2) Rural Emplovment Center (REC) - Staff does not
agree that this designation is applicable to the
subject site as the designation appears to have
been located in response to the existing light
industrial uses that occur today at the sH 82
intersection with Cattle Creek Road. Compatible
zoning for the REC includes both the CG and CL
zone districts.
Aside from the applicability of this designation on
the site, REC is described as "Small areas adjacent
to major roadways that allow light industrial,
manufacturing, equipment storage, and incidental
retail sales. This designation also includes
residential uses for employees of the business on
the property, such as live/work housing." The
request to rezone the subject site to CG would
allow the uses described, however it would not be
located on a 'small area' but on a 43.25-acre site
and would allow more than incidental retail sales.
11 lPage
Planning Commission
November 18,2015
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
3) Unincorporated Communitv - This land use designation is described as "Self-contained
subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve their own
populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by
one or more special districts." Compatible zoning includes Residential Urban,
Commercial Limited, Commercial General and Planned Unit Development.
The Plan Glossary defines Unincorporated Community as "Generally, a small town that
has not been incorporated. They typically contain a mix of retail, office and residential
uses. The commercial uses are intended to serve their own populations and immediately
surrounding residences. Service and infrastructure are provided by a combination of
county (e.g. sheriff) and special districts (fire, water/sewer, school, etc.)."
The area included in this designation straddles SH 82 commencing north of Spring Valley
Road (CR L14) continuing south on both sides of the highway to Cattle Creek. Uses and
properties lncluded in this area include Nelson's Auto, Thunder River Market, Habitat
Restore area, Coryell Road, H Lazy F Mobile Home Park, the Sopris restaurant site, the
subject site, River Edge PUD, Road & Bridge facility, Ferguson Supply, Lumber Yard,
Dodson Engineering, Roto-Rooter, Mind Springs Health and Mountain Meadows Mobile
Home Park. The Comprehensive Plan supports commercial services to serve their own
population. The variety of commercial uses permitted by-right in the CG zone appears to
exceed the intent of commercial uses for this designated area.
Certainly some of the uses permitted within the CG zone would be in general
conformance with this designation; however the broad uses permitted within the zoning
category exceed the recommended land uses for the Unincorporated Community
designation. Neither the size nor scope of the proposed rezoning appears to be in
conformance with this future land use designation.
Water and Sewer Service Area - An area where central water and sanitation services are
available through a special district(s). The subject site is part of an executed Pre-inclusion
Agreement with Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD).
Area of lnfluence (3 Miles) -This is defined as areas that are located within three miles
of an incorporated jurisdiction. Garfield County has intergovernmental agreements with
incorporated areas whereby the County seeks review and comment from the jurisdiction
regarding potential impacts from a development proposal. Both the Town of Carbondale
and the City of Glenwood Springs recommend that the County deny the request to rezone
this property to Commercial General.
6)General - Five major themes are included in Chapter 2, Future Land Use of the 2030
applicable to the review and
4)
s)
Comprehensive Plan. Two of these themes are
12 lPage
Planning Commission
November L8,201.5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
determination of general conformity of the proposed CG zoning with the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicable themes include Growth in Unincorporated Communities and
Growth in Designated Centers.
Growth in Unincorporated Communities - Guidelines are provided for new or expanded
unincorporated communities:
i. The development is not located within the UGA of existing municipalities;
Staff Comment: This development is not located within the UGA of any municipality,
but the site is located within the Area of lnfluence for the City of Glenwood Springs
and is located just outside of the Area of lnfluence for the Town of Carbondale.
ii. The development is served with urban services by a special district;
Staff Comment: The subject site is located within the REC/Cattle Creek Metropolitan
District(s) and within the service area boundary of the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District.
iii. A contract for police from county sheriff is established;
Staff Comment: No information has been provided regarding this contract.
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense;
Staff Comment: The sole access to the site is proposed to be from SH 82.
v. Fiscal costs to the public wil! be considered in the review of new unincorporated
communities;
Staff Comment: No information has been provided regarding fiscal costs to the public
that may result from the proposed rezoning of the site to Commercial General. This
would include potential fiscal costs to the public in comparison to sales tax revenues
generated by the development.
vi. Any internal commercial is primarily for the convenience of area residents
(minimize competition with existing communities);
Staff Comment: The wide variety of uses that are permitted by-right in the CG zone
exceed the 'convenience' uses to serve area residents. CG uses include offlces,
general retail, retail - vehicle and equipment sales, retail - lumber yards, eating and
drinking establishments, and other uses that may be regional in nature. Some of the
CG uses may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis with county review; however, in
general, the CG uses appear much broader than anticipated in this guideline.
13 lPage
Planning Commission
November 18,20L5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
l_
l
Unincorporated Comm unity
Future Land Use Map Details
Rural Employment Center - Pink
Water/Sewer Service AreaResidential High Density
14 lPage
Planning Commission
November 18, 201.5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
vii. Transit opportunities are provided;
Staff Comment: RFTA provides transit along the SH 82 corridor; however the nearest
bus stop is located at the intersection of SH 82 and CMC Road (CR 114), approximately
2,300 feet north of the northern property line of the GCCI parcel. No information has
been provided regarding discussions with RFTA to secure a bus stop at this site.
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided;
Staff Report: No information was included regarding the provision of recreation or
other public amenities at this site. The Rio Grande Trail exists on the western
boundary of the subject site.
ix. School sites may be required (these locations are preferred over schools in rural
areas).
Staff Comment: A school site is not appropriate for consideration in the zone change
application.
Growth in Designated Centers - The Rural Employment Center designation is not
applicable to this site as it is located at the SH 82 / Cattle Creek Road intersection in
response to existing uses in that area.
B. Plan Elements - Economics, Emplovment and Tourism - Locating tax-generating commercial
uses at this site could negatively impact incorporated communities including the Town of
Carbondale, the City of Glenwood Springs, and the Town of Basalt. As is common in the State
of Colorado these incorporated areas generate a majority of their revenues from sales tax.
The County budget is primarily supported by property tax and severance tax, with the addition
of a !% sales tax to the county on sales generated by retail and commercial uses - regardless
of whether the use is located in unincorporated county or within an incorporated community.
This is a critical point as the County receives the same amount of revenue from sales
generated in unlncorporated or in incorporated areas - however in the unincorporated areas
the County is required to provide services, public safety in particular, that cost the taxpayers
money.
The draw of commercial activities to this site could cause sales tax revenues to decline in the
incorporated areas in a concept known as "sales tax leakage". This concept relates to the
sales tax revenues that leave a particular community when new commercial uses are
constructed in near-by incorporated or unincorporated communities (this may be a "new"
commercial use or it may be the relocation of an existing commercial use). This leakage may
be greatest when the commercial activities decline in an incorporated area due to new
commercial developments in unincorporated areas - this may occur because sales tax rates
are lower in unincorporated county (3.9%l versus for the Town of Carbondale (8.4%) and the
City of Glenwood Springs (8.6%).
15 lPage
Planning Commission
November 18,201,5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
The charts below provide sales tax rates and 201-5 sales tax revenues.
* City of Glenwood Springs has an additional 25% Accommodation Tax on lodging and the Meadows has
a 1,.5% Public lmprovement Fee (PlF)
** Town of Carbondale has an additional 2%lax on lodging
The fiscal impact of locating potentially large-scale urban commercial uses in an unincorporated
area is that the required public services, particularly public safety, would be the responsibility of
the County. The application materials did not demonstrate that the potential sales tax generated
by the uses would pay for the additional services that the county would be required to provide to
the site. Any shortfall in the cost/revenue equation for new service (e.g. sheriff)would be borne
by the County taxpayers.
SALES TAX GENERATED 2014 % of County
Sales Tax
Revenue
2015 Jan - April % of County
Sales Tax
Revenue
City of Glenwood
Sprines
s3,994,899.81 46.70%51.,262,574.\7 47.67%
Town of Carbondale 5 9s0,249.97 9.94%$ 254,479.38 9.61%
Unincorporated
County
S 865,340.06 1"0.12%s 3s6,609.28 13.47%
Source: Garfield County Sales Tax Reports
C. REFERRAT AGENCY RESPONSES - The incorporated comm unities within 3 m iles of the su bject site a re
concerned with a potentially large-scale commercial development located midway between the two
existing commercial centers in the Roaring Fork valley of Garfield County. Neither jurisdiction
supports the proposed rezoning of this site to Commercial General and provides numerous reasons
why this is not supported by the County's own Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits H and l.
CDOT responded, Exhibit M, that the highway may not have adequate infrastructure to support
commercial use at this location.
The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Exhibit G, states that a Pre-lnclusion Agreement
provides that the district will provide service to up to 375 EQRs on surrounding properties, including
the subject site of this application.
The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Exhibit J, responded that specific comments cannot be
made due to the unknown mix of the proposed commercial development nor can potential impacts
SALES TAX RATES Unincorporated City of Glenwood Springs*Town of Carbondale**
State Tax 2.9%2.9%2.9%
Garfield County 1,.0 %1,.0 %1,.0%
lncorporated Community 3.7%3.s%
Other (transportation, etc.)1,.O%1,.O%
TOTAL 3.9%8.6%8.4%
16 lPage
D.
Planning Commission
November L8,2Ot5
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
to the Rio Grande Trail and RFTA transit services be determined. However, in general, large-scale
commercial developments created outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries can pose challenges that
may not be offset by tax revenues - this could include traffic impacts in already congested highway
corridors. The development could increase demand for transit services however there would not be
any sales tax revenue generated for RFTA to offset the increased demand. The development could
potentially siphon off sales tax revenue from RFTA member jurisdictions (staff note: Garfield County
is not a member jurisdiction to RFTA). Commercial activity in this location could intensify existing
transportation challenges in SH 82 corridor.
The Roaring Fork Conservancy, Exhibit N, holds the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement and the
Heron Point Conservation Easement which are located adjacent to the subject site. The Conservancy
is concerned with potential impacts that may result from a commercial development at this location,
including impacts to Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River from traffic and runoff.
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES - Staff has reviewed Table 3-403, Use Table, and determined that the
existing Suburban zoning would permit, with additional County review the following commercial uses:
Public and lnstitutional uses such as public buildings, libraries and museums - Administrative Review
General Retail - Administrative Review
Convenience Store - Major lmpact Review
Eating and Drinking Establishment or Laundromat - Limited lmpact Review
Lodging Facilities - Limited lmpact
The existing zoning would provide the county with the opportunity to review that development plan
against the Comprehensive Plan goals as well as the criteria contained in Article 7, Standards. lf these
potential uses are not sufficient for the Applicant, then Rural Zoning does broaden the ability to apply
for land use permits for commercial uses, including Limited lmpact review on Professional Offices and
General Service Establishments.
The final alternative proposed would be for the Applicant to apply for a Planned Unit Development
which would specify the layout, size, scale and uses proposed in the development, all of which would
then be reviewed by the County staff, referral agencies and general public during the process. The
PUD process would also require provision of open space and could result in additional benefits to the
general public.
Due to the concerns itemized above regarding general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and
compliance with the review criteria, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the application to rezone the GCCI property from Residential Suburban to Commercial General, with
the following findings:
lTlPage
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS
Planning Commission
November 18,201.5
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
1'. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that meeting.
That for the above stated and other reasons the request to rezone the property is not in the best
interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
4. That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and
Development Code, as amended.
5. That the application is not in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
2030.
The Planning Commission has several options regarding a recommendation on this application:
1,. Approve the request;
2. Continue the request in order to seek additional information from the applicant;
3. Denythe request.
The last option of denying the request could be supported by proposed findings that the rezoning to
Commercial General is inappropriate due to:
1. The proposal is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the
Unincorporated Community designation and the FLUM as well as the creation of potential
competition of the proposed site with existing municipal commercialfacilities .
2. The lack of demonstrated community need;
3. The area has not changed to the degree that it is in the public interest to encourage this new use
and density;
4. The proposed CG zoning would not result in an orderly development pattern.
2.
3.
18 lPage
PLAN NING COM M ISSION DELI BERATION & RECOM M EN DATIOTU
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
GCCI Application - LLILBIL5
1l
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
GCCI Application - ttlLSlLS
2lPage
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
GCCI Application - LLlLglLs
Fyrwald Parcel
Habitat Restore
5lPage
@ &Hfi"
APPENDIX B - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
GCCI Appl ic ation LL I L8 / t5
The Meadows - City of Glenwood Springs
The Meadows - outlined area approximately 40.8-acres and 396,000 square feet of commercial space
"q{dffi8mqhfth*
Lowe's 128,230 Square Feet on 12.417 acres
1l
I
APPEN DIX B _ COM M ERCIAL DEVELOPM ENT PHOTOS
GCCI Application 1U18l15
Target 124,900 Square Feet on 10.613-aces
PielllBB&B/Petco 81.416 Square Feel on 8.401-acres Ir
APPENDIX B _ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
GCCI Appl ica tion tI/ 1,8/ 1,5
Market Street 40.515 Square Feet on 4.853-acres
Walmart 116,815 Square Feet on 5.77acres
City of Glenwood
Springs
3lPage
APPENDIX B - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
GCCI Appl ic ation 1.tl 181 15
Willits - Town of Basalt
Willits
ltA{i.\l L ((rl ()kqlx,
willits commercial area is
approximately l5 acres with
15O,0OO square feet
existing. The site ls
approved for a maximurn of
5m,O0O square feet of
commercial space.
5lPage
APPEN DIX B _ COM M ERCIAL DEVELOPM ENT PHOTOS
GCCI Ap p I ic ation 1.1 I Lg I L5
6lPage
EXHIBIT
!
fiMGF*SSW.gffiSSn*
Scott Grosscup
Direct Dial (970)928-3468
Receptionis t (97 O) 945 -6546
sgrosscup@balcombgreen.com
October 28,2075
Via Internet
Ms. Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 810601
keastley@garf ield-county.com
RE: GCCI Rezone - File Number ZDAA-09-15-8388
Dear Kathy:
On behalf of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District ("RFWSD"), thank you for
providing us with a copy of the Land Use Change Permit Application submitted by Garfield
County Commercial Investments, LLC ("GCCI') to rezone a 43 acre parcel of land from
Residential-Suburban to Commercial General. This letter incorporates the comments from the
District and its engineers at SGM, Inc.
The GCCI property lies within the MWSD's service area boundary. The RFWSD, GCCI
and Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI", which owns the adjacent parcels to the south and
known as the River Edge Colorado PUD) entered into a Pre-Inclusion Agreement, recorded at
reception number 825458, setting forth terms and conditions whereby the GCCI property and
CI property would be included within the boundaries of the RFWSD and the RFWSD would
agree to provide water and sanitary sewer service to these properties (the "Agreement").
Under the terms of the Agreemen! CI and/or GCCI agreed to pay for and construct
certain infrastrucfure necessary to provide water and sanitary sewer service to the respective
properties. These included the extension of water lines from the RFWSD's existing
infrastrucfure and/or the construction of a surface water treatment plant as well as developing
the infrastrucfure necessary to provide sanitary sewer services to the properties and expansion
Mailing Adilress:
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 87602
www.balcombgreen.com
Gl enzu o o cl Sp ings O ffi c e :
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO
(970) 945-6546
Aspen Office:
0133 Prospector Road, Ste. 4102E
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-s467
IEtrffGkmm*Fs,,ru,r,:Ms. Kathy Eastley
Re: File No. ZDAA-09-15-8388
October 28,2015
Page2 of2
of the RFWSD's sewer treatment plant. These responsibilities applied to either CI or GCCI
depending upon which property developed first.
The Agreement provides that the District will provide service to up to 375 EQRs as
defined in the RFWSD's Rules and Regulations. Depending upon the development that occurs
GCCI may need to construct additional facilities that were not originally contemplated by the
Agreement. This may include larger water storage tanks necessary to meet fire flow
requirements. That decision will be made when additional information about the type and level
of development is available.
Pursuant to the Agreement CI and or GCCI will need to construct on and off-site
infrastructure. Consultants for the two property owners have been in discussion with the
District regarding the timing, location, and construction of those facilities. Those discussions
and plan review will continue as required by the Agreement.
While the District has not taken a position on the land use change request, development
of this property can bring the infrastructure necessary to allow adjacent parcels to connect to the
RFWSD. This could allow parcels within the District's expanded service area to ultimately
receive potable water and sanitary sewer from the District rather than rely upon their
individual systems.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Land Use Change
Application. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Balcotr,lr & GnsEN, P.C.
cc: Louis Meyer, P.E.
Scott Grosscup
IH
November 2,2015
To: Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner, Garfield County community Developmelt
FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Director, City of Glenrvood
Springs
RE: Referral Cornments * ZDAABZI0 - GCCI Rezone
Please accept our cofilments into the record in reference to the above-noted application.
The City of Gienwood Springs' staffhas substantial concerns about the proposed
rezoning as requested. The rezoning is a speculative ait based not on a specific
development proposal but rather a "build it and they will come" approach. Furthermore,
the rezoning action would be the public's only opportunity to comrnent as the vast
majority of uses allowed in the CG zone district are by- right uses. Any site specific
development application would proceed directly to a building permit process. It is
noteworthy that lot coverage and FAR maximums in the CG zone district would allow an
extraorditrarily large amount of commercial square footage to be constructed. Under the
FAR alone, almost a million square feet of retail could be constructed on a parcel of this
acreage. Obviously other needs like parking,landscaping, drainage, etc. may reduce this
numbeq however the potential square footage of buildings in this requested 45 acre
rezoning remain enorrnous.
The Garfield County Land Use Resolution stipulates that in order to rezonea property it
must be demonstrated that a property was rezoned erroneously or that the four criteria
discussed below be satisfied.
I' The proposed rezoning would renrlt in a logical and orclerly development pattern
andwottld not constitute spot zoning. The CMC/Cattle Creek area along
Highway 82 abeady has substantial amounts of commercially zoned, land. Some
of that acrea$e is vacant and is owned by the applicant. The neglected condition
of that property is indicative of a lack of community responsibility and
2
stewardship. It is not good land use practice to create large of tlacts of
commercially zoned properties when an inventory akeady exists unless the
agendais to pull pre-existing corimercial uses from the neighboring cities of
Glenwood Springs and Cartrondale or attract competing large fonnat retail which
will pirate retail dollars from the cities to these exurban greenfields where
development costs are lower and infiastructure is limited. A logical development
pattetn places this magnifude of development within an incorporated community.
The area to which the proposed zoning woild apply has changed or is changing
to sttch a degree that it is in the public interest to encotrage a nety use or density
in the area. Circumstances have in fact not changed appreciably in this locale.
This property and the adjoining parcel to the east have been a part of a series of
failed commercial and residential PUDs for the last 15 to 20 years. Regardless of
the entitlements on these properties, no development has occurred. Now the
public is being asked to extend 45 acres of commercial zoning. Not only does the
neighborhood or "unincorporated community" not stipport this demand, as there
is plenty of vacant commercially zoned property in both the immediate area and
in the neighboring cities. While we acknowledge that there has been slow growth
in recent years in nearby subdivisions such as Elk Springs, Iron Bridge and Aspen
Glen, these new units have not suddenly created the demand for many thousands
of square feet of nelv commercial or retail square footage.
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstroted community need with respect to
facilities, services and housing. The GCCI application does not adequately
address a o'demonstrated community need" for this magnitude of commercial
rezoning. They supply no statistical evidence supporling ttris request. Within the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's definition, it states that an unincorporated
community is intended to be "self-contained subdivisions that contain town or
neighborhood centers prtmarily to serve their own populations." The applicant
even goes so far as to state in the application narative that "development of the
subject property will benefit the county as a whole." The application fi.nther
states that "The proposed commercial and offrce uses will sele the immediate
residents of the local unincorporated community, as well as surrounding
communities. . . " sales tax leakage is already an issue for cities and towns.
Adding large acreage of commercial land in this location will have anegative
effect on surounding communities by pirating existing and future development
from these communities. On page 50 of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy #2 states
that "The County will discourage commercial development in the unincorporated
areas that would significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated
municipalities. Pelhaps the applicant should be requesting an emendment to the
3.
Comprehensive Plan in advance of arezoning application of this magnitude as the
scale ofthis request clearly doesn't comply with the curent "Unincorporated
Communities" designation that exists today in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and in compliance with any intergovernmental agreement. This rezoning
Application is inconsistent with the current future land use designation which is
intended to have commercial zorungonly to "selve their own populations". This
neighborhood center camrot support an additional million squarc feet (or even
some fraction thereof). It is doubtful that the entire Roaring Fork Valley will
have this kind of demand for that quantity of new commercial square footage over
the next decade or two.
In summary, the application does not demonstrate compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan nor does it demonshate that circumstances have changed to the
extent necessary to wartant such a large speculative rezoning. The City's Community
Development Depadment staff recommends that the application be denied.
This memorandum was presented to the City's Planning andZorungCommission at their
October 27,2015 meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed
to endorse the comments contained above.
Attachments:
1. Additional review comments from various City staff.
PLANNING ITEM: 42-ls
SUBJECT: GarCo Referral - Rezoning
CITY ATTORNEY (Karl Hanlon)
CITY MANAGER (Jeff Hecksel)
POLICE DEPARTMENT (Terry Wilson) - No comments.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Robin Millyard)
ASSISTANT PI]BLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Dave Bettey)
BUILDING DEPARTMENT (Patrick Seydel)
CITY ENGINEER (Teri Partch)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Gretchen Ricehill, Senior Planner) - See attached
memorandum.
MT LTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT (Geoff Guttute) - See attached memorandum.
WATER/WASTEWATER (Jerry Wade)
trIRE DEPARTMENT (Ronald Biggers) -We do not have any comments to make on this
request for rezoning" When the owners/developers submit development plans for the site we
request to be contacted to review and comment on those plans.
CITY ELECTRIC (Dous Hazzard\
STREETS & ALLEYS (Rick Turner)
PARKS AND RECREATION (Tom Barnes)
FINANCE DIRECTOR (Charles Kelty) - No comments.
SOURCE GAS (Westerman & Green)
CENTURYLINK (Jason Sharpe)
WEST GLENWOOD SANITATION DIST. (Jordan Voskvil)-
MEMO
TO: Andrew McGregor
Community Development Director
FROM: Gretchen Ricehill
Senior Planner
DATE: October 79,2015
RE: Planning ltem 42-L5- Garfield County Referral- Rezoning -Galloway and Co-GCCl, lnc.
This application appears to be the same as, or very similar to a rezoning application that was
submitted in earlier this year.
As I understand it, the applicant requests to rezone this property from Residential Suburban to
General Commercial. The argument is based upon lhe fact that the County's comprehensive
plan identifies the property as lying within an area designated as "Unincorporated Community''
which is defined as "Self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers
primarily to serve their own populations". Garfield County lists "General Commercial" as one of
four zone district supporting the Unincorporated Community designation.
Earlier this year you provided comments on the application which I feel are as valid today as
they were then. I do not believe that the applicant meets the necessary criteria to rezone this
property (Section 4-113 Garfield County Land Use Development Code). I also do not believe
that in this instance, rezoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
That being said, when reviewing this application, it is important to acknowledge that the City of
Glenwood Springs is placed at a distinct disadvantage in that it is not privy to the type of retail
development that is proposed or contemplated for this site and which is the reason for the
applicant's rezoning request. Therefore, the City has to assume that the applicant intends to
develop the property to the fullest extent that the General Commercial zoning would allow.
That is, 85% lot coverage of a 43.25 acre site and 40 foot tall buildings.
Now, the applicant made several statements in the application that lead me to believe that the
property rezoning is needed to allow for commercial uses that would serve a regional clientele.
ln fact one statement (page 4) touted the benefits of having a Highway 82 frontage and divulged
that the owner "...has received expressions of interest from national and regional retailers
seeking to locate stores on the Property."
National and regional stores do not meet the definition of "Unincorporated Community'' which
calls for town and neighborhood centers to "serve their own com ". The concept of
national and regional stores in unincorporated Garfield County is also in direct conflict with
Policy statement #2 (p. 50) of the Comprehensive plan which states that "The county will
discourage commercial development in the unincorporated areas that would significantly
reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities." However, the applicant (page 7)
dismisses this Policy by stating that "no evidence exists that this development woutd do so"
(italics added for emphasis). Again, the City of Glenwood Springs is not aware of the exact
nature of development contemplated for this property but it has to assume from the statements
made in this application that the intent is to court national and regional retailers.
Regardless, the County's own Comprehensive Plan recognized that "Commercial devetopment in
unincorporated areas can reduce the sales tax receipts of incorporated communities, and
constrain their ability to provide services and amenities on which the majority of county
residents depend" (page 50). There is ample evidence to support this drain on revenue. When
retailers have opened in other areas, such Super Walmart in Rifle and Costco in Gypsum,
Glenwood springs has experienced a noticeable reduction in overall revenue.
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Please accept my comments into the record in reference to the above application.
This proposed rezoning as requested by the applicant raises significant
transportation-related concerns regarding traffic generation and State Highway 82 vehicular
access. Ofnote:
PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS
o The closest-in-proximity existing RFTA bus stop is approximately 0.49 miles north of the
northern parcel boundary line, at the SH-82 & CR 154 intersection. At an average
walking pace of 3mph, this equals about a L0-minute walk for bus passengers to access
the northern parcel boundary.
. The next-closest existing RFTA bus stop is located approximately 1.90 miles south of the
southern parcel boundary, at the entrance to Aspen Glen and SH-82. At 3mph walking
speed, this equals an approximately 3B-minute walk to the southern parcel boundary.
VEHICULAR ACCESS: CATTLE CREEK ROAD & SH.82 intersection
o Due to existing private property uses bordering the northern end of this parcel, and the
railbanked RFTA railroad corridor bordering the west side of this parcel, existing
vehicular access to the parcel appears limited to its southern boundary from the Cattle
Creek Road & SH-82 intersection.
An d rew M cG regor, Co m m u nity Developme nt Di rector
Geoff Guth rie, Transportation Manager
October2Q 2015
Planning ltem # 42-!5 Garfield County Referralof Proposed Rezoning
Request
o The existing Cattle Creek Road & SH-82
challenging intersection in CDOT Region
Prioritv Studv.
intersection was identified as the #8 most
3 in the 2011 CDOT Reeion 3 lntersection
Additionally, the 2010 Traffic lmpact and Needs Assessment undertaken in 2010 by
Garfield County analyzed traffic levels of service (LOS) along the SH-82 mainline at
selected intersections. This 2010 capacity analysis showed that the Cattle Creek Road &
SH-82 intersection operates at LOS D and LOS F in the morning and evening peak hours,
respectively.
The same Garfield County 2010 Traffic lmpact and Needs Assessment indicated that
the grades increase by a consistent five percent from the highway and the turn lanes
are insufficient." The study also states that "the intersection is 'confusingl and causes
issues due to the lack of pavement markings, wide pavement section of Cattle Creek
Road, close proximity to adjacent intersections, minor street skews impacting sight
distance from SH-82 turn lanes, and left-turning vehicles from Cattle Creek Road sit in
the median."
VEHICULAR ACCESS: CR !54/CMC ROAD & SH-82 intersection
Analysis in the 2011 CDOT Resion 3 lntersection Prioritv Studv identifies the existing SH-
82 & CR L14/CMC Road intersection 0.49 miles north of this property as the #1 most
challenging intersection in all of CDOT Region 3.
Analysis of this intersection for the 2011 CDOT study showed that "the RFTA park-n-ride
on the south side is about 30 feet from the intersection and is easily blocked by the
queues on CR 154... There are many other driveways on CR 114 and on the frontage
road near the intersection with the highway. The driveways are blocked at times if the
queues on the minor streets are extensive."
o Fufther analysis of the CR 154/CMC Rd & 5H-82 intersection notes 'the eastbound
direction enters the intersection from a sweeping horizontal curve which limits the
signal visibility, which is also hindered by the trees and vegetation along the roadway."
. The Garfield County 2010 Traffic lmpact and Needs Assessment also indicated that at
this intersection, "in the PM peak hour the minor approaches are failing due to the long
queues and potential signal delay. lf the mainline does not max-out on its green time,
then these approaches can operate at LOS D."
TRIP GENERATION
o lnstitute of Transportation Engineers trip generation study data notes averageZ$-hour
trip generation rates per 1,000 ft2 of gross floor area of a major discount supermarket
company located in the western U.S. Data is presented over three distinct time periods:
Tuesdayto Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. Average trip generation rates per 1,000ft2
of gross floor area are as follows:
Tuesday to Thursday 95.2 trips / L,OOOft'gross floor area
Saturday L21.5 trips / L,OAOft'gross floor area
Sunday L10.L trips / L,OOOfttgross floor area
ln the applicant's letter to the Garfield County Planning Manager, dated September L6,
20L5, the final sentence before the conclusion paragraph indicates that there is the
likelihood this property "would accommodate a maximum of 300,000 square feet of
commercial development." Based on this proposed 300,000 ftz maximum development
size, using the trip generation numbers in the above table the amount of vehicular trips
generated over the average 24-hour period could potentially be as follows:
The conceptual land use map included with this application indicates "roadway gradingl'
and a new vehicular access point to this property, located roughly at the center right of
the parcel and SH-82. This proposed access point would be new and would have to
meet all requirements of the State Highway Access Code, including conducting a signal
warrant analysis and traffic counts.
coNcrustoN
Existing CDOT SH-82 traffic count data at the two nearest stations to this parcel (SH-82 &
South Blake Avenue, and 5H-82 & SH-133) indicate ADT numbers of 23,000 and
19,000 vehicles per day, respectively. The potential vehicle trips generated by a
commercial development of this proposed size, located about four miles south of
Glenwood Springs city limits, have the possibility of doubling existing traffic volumes
alongthe SH-82 mainline between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale.
It is recommended not only that the developer be required to include ADA-compliant public
transit access to this property from both travel directions of SH-82, but also as soon
as possible contact RFTA Operations Staff to discuss the feasibility of whether existing
RFTA bus routes and schedule timing can accommodate this proposed commercial
center and the potential trips it will generate, or if additional bus service and
equipment may be necessary.
Pursuant to the recommended intersection improvements as outlined in the 2011 CDOT
Reeion 3 lntersection Prioritv Studv. it is strongly suggested that the developer,
Garfield County, and CDOT Region 3 staff work together to implement the following
improvements to the SH-82 & CR 154 intersection:
o Remove vegetation on the eastbound curve between the highway and the Rio Grande
Trail
Tuesday to Thursday 28,560 trips / 300,000 ft'gross floor area
Saturday 36,450trips / 300,000 fttgross floor area
Sunday 33,030 trips / 300,000 ft'gross floor area
a
a
a
a
Lengthen the eastbound SH-82 left-turn lane storage
Construct ADA-compliant 8' sidewalks to the RFTA bus stops
Lengthen the other auxiliary lanes to conform to CDOT State Highway Access Code
Consider providing alternate location for the RFTA park-n-ride on the southeast corner
of this intersection to remove the close-proximity driveway to SH-82
Consider reconstructing the SH-82 & CR 154 intersection into a grade-separated
interchange to reduce existing delays and intersection-related accidents.
Pursuant to the recommended intersection improvements as outlined in the 2011 CDOT
Region 3 lntersection Priority Studv, it is strongly suggested that the developer,
Garfield County, and CDOT Region 3 staff work together to implement the following
improvements to the SH-82 & Cattle Creek Road intersection:
o Lenglhen the acceleration and deceleration lanes to conform to the CDOT State
Highway Access Code
I Conduct traffic counts (turning movement and hourly directional) to verify signal
warrants per the MUTCD; if warrants are met, it is recommended that the developer
install a new traffic signal at this intersection
lmplement access management techniques to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflict
Redesign the frontage road and local streets to improve spacing
a
a
T
Towrv Or CInnoNDALE
511 CouoRADoAvnmup
CnRroNmln, CO 81623
October 27,2A15
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 Bth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Garfield County Referral- Garfield County Commercial
lnvestments, LLC - Flezoning
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for referring the Garfield Counly Comrnercial lnvestments, LLC rezoning
application to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comments. The
application is to rezone the Garfield County Commercial lnvestrnents, LLC propefty
(GCCI) which is a 43.25 acre property from Residential Suburban to Commercial
General (CG).
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its October 15, 2015 meeting. The
Board of Trustees discussed the application at its October 27,2015 meeting. This letter
is intended to convey our comments.
According to the Garfield County pre-application conference surnmary, the area with the
CGGI property has several designations on the County's Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map:
1. Residential High Density
2. Unincorporated Community
3. There is an asterisk for Rural Employment center that appears to be located
around the SH 82 - Cattle Creek area
4. A Water and Sewer Seruice Area
The application does not indicate what type and size of development is planned for the
property. The applicant's letter states that the uses allowed in the CG zone district will
fill the need for commercial uses that focus on serving the population of the
unincorporated community, such as restaurants, convenience stores, recreation centers
and general retail. The letter is vague and does not outline the intended use of the
property.
Phone: 970i- 9$-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
The GCCI, lnc. property is 43.25 acres. The General Retail Use is a permitted use with
no site plan review process and a generous lot coverage allowance at 85%. This could
result in a significant amount of commercial square footage with very little oversight and
input from surrounding communities.
Rural Employment Centers are defined as small areas adjacent to major roadways that
allow light industrial, manufacturing, equipment storage and incidg.ntal retail sales. The
size of the GCCI parcel would allow much more square footage than what appears to
be envisioned in a Rural Employment Center as defined in the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan,
Unincorporated Communities in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan are intended
to be "self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily
to serve their own populations." A large retail store or stores would go beyond serving
the existing and potential residentialunits surrounding the GCCI property.
Finally, the Town questions whether the rezoning criteria in the Garfield County Land
Use Code could be met with the proposal. Large commercialsquare footage would not
result in a logical and orderly development pattem; the Cattle Creek area has not
changed to such a degree that it serues the public interest to rezone the property. The
proposal has not demonstrated a community need. ln fact, the resulting development
could compete with existing municipalities. Finally, the rezoning does not appear to be
in compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as it does not meet the
definition of Unincorporated Community and Rural Employrnent Center.
Garfield County has a 17o sales tax rate. lncorporated areas have an additional
percentage on top of that. ln the case of Carbondale, the Town has a 3.5% sales tax
rate and 1% BFTA sales tax rate. Cornmercial uses competing with existing and future
commercial uses in Carbondale could result in the loss of sales tax and services to the
community and RFTA
One of the policies in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is that the county will
discourage commercialdevelopment in the unincorporated areas that would
significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities." The potential
retail development which could be constructed as a result of this rezoning would conflict
with this adopted policy.
With the lack of detail in the application, it is difficult to determine how the GCCI
property could be built out. However, for comparison's sake, Glenwood Meadows in
Glenwood Springs is approximately 40 acres. lt appears that 405,000 sq. ft. of gross
leasable square footage is allowed on the property. Glenwood Meadows is intended to
function as a regional shopping center. The GCCI property is approximately 43 acres.
Assuming that the building floor area will be 30% of the lot area, the potential square
footage could be around 550,000 sq. ft. This estimate is conseruative since this is
based on a single story building and the allowed height in the CG zone district is 40 ft. in
height. We question whether there is a community need for this type and scale of
commercialproperty in this area.
Phone: (970)963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
The Gadield County Comprehensive Plan includes a policy that "Garfield County will
encourage the development of a diversified industrial base recognizing physical
location-to-market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental
impacts of industrial uses.' lf the property is to be rezoned, some type of light industrial
zone district may be more appropriate to serve to meet the community needs in the
valley.
Garfield County has expended a significant amount of time and resources in developing
and adopting the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code. The Town asks
that the County Commissioners abide by the slandards and guidelines included in those
documents. The Town respectfully requests that the County Commissioners deny the
rezoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.
Sincerely,
StaEy Patch Bernot
Board of Trustees
Brooke
Planning and Zoning Commission
Phone: (970)963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
Mayor
| ,,J
loottng [orl Tronrpodollon lulhority
October 29,20L5
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 40l Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: GCCI Request to Rezone 43.25 acres from Residentialto Commercial
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for soliciting RFTA's comments for a second time on the proposed Request for a
Zone District Amendment on the 43.25-acre parcel adjacent to the River Edge property. As you
may recall, RFTA submitted comments on 4/LO/2O75 for the first rezone request. The
development team retracted the application before the P&Z could vote on the proposal. lt
appears as though the previous and current project applications are very similar. Therefore, we
are re-submitting our comments below with a few minor revisions.
Without knowing the mix of commercial development that might be proposed by the developer
on this site in the future, RFTA cannot offer any specific comments about the potential impacts
that such development might have on RFTA transit services or the Rio Grande Railroad Corridor,
RFTA owns the 34-mile "railbanked" Corridor and therefore is charged with keeping it intact
consistent with freight rail reactivation, possible future commuter rail use, interim trail use,
open space uses, and other lawful public purposes. This responsibility creates minimum
conditions to which all proposed uses (including crossings) of the Corridor should adhere.
ln general, large-scale commercial developments that are created outside of Urban Growth
Boundaries can pose challenges for the public sector. These challenges can take the form of
increased demand and costs for a variety of public services, which are not always offset by the
tax revenue created by the commercial activities, ln addition, large scale commercial
developments can potentially create undesirable traffic impacts, especiatly in highway corridors
that are already congested.
lf the County subsequently approves a large-scale commercial development on this site, RFTA
foresees that demand for its regional transit services could increase because of people wanting
to access the businesses for employment and shopping purposes. However, because the
development would not be located within one of RFTA's member jurisdictions, there woutd not
be any sales tax revenue generated for RFTA to help offset any increased demand. ln addition,
the development might have the potentialto siphon off sales tax revenue from RFTA member
jurisdictions; further reducing resources RFTA relies upon to maintain and increase its transit
services.
When considering this request for a Zone District Amendment, RFTA is hopeful that Garfield
County will carefully evaluate the extent to which a significant increase in commercial activity at
this location might exacerbate existing transportation challenges in the Highway 82 corridor
and adversely impact the economies of nearby municipalities.
Thank you once again for soliciting RFTA's comments on this Request for Tone District
Amendment submitted by GCCI, LLC. lf you have additional questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Dan Blankenship
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBlTlL<
Guffield CounA
Vegetation Management
October 29,2015
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Community Development Department
RE: ZDM-09-1 5-8388 Garfield Gounty Commercial lnvestrnents
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezone application.
The property is heavily infested with the county listed noxious weed, Scotch thistle.
The property owner treated the noxious weeds during the 2015 growing season.
Stiaff requests that the applicant continue these efforts, it may take at least two treatments per year for several years to
get lhe thisUe under conlrol.
Please let me knotv if you have any questions.
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060
Riflc, CO 816{i0 Phone;970-945-1377 x 4i105 Fax 970425€939
Sincerely,
{/
/.Lt-L
Steve Anthony
MOUNT6I
ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
October 24,2015
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfi eld County Pl anning
108 8tl'Steet, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Revierv of the Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC: ZDAA'A9-15-8388
Dear Kathy:
This of|rce has performed a review of the documents provided fol the Rezoning application for
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC. The submittal was found to be thorough and
well organized. The following comment was generated:
o No site plan was included within the application so no review of site grading, drainage,
utilities,lraffic, access, and/or other improvements could be performed. Any proposed,
future development should be reviewed for conformance to the Garfield County LUDC.
Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
EXHIBITIL
Sincerely,
826'/zGrand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Pl 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Roussin - CDoT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us>
Tuesday, November A3, 2015 10:10 AM
Kathy A. Eastley
Re: Referral Request - Garfield County Commercial investments LLC
Kathy - Thank you for the opportunity to review the re-zoning request. CDOT has no comments on
zoning. However, if the property became commercial, the CDOT would only allow one access to the site which
would be shared by River Edge group. I don't believe there is enough highway infrastructure (access) for
commercial zoning based upon Expressway category of the Highway 82.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
thanks
Dan Roussin
Permit Unit Manager
Traffic and Safety
P 970.683.6284 | F 970.683.6290
222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501
daniet.roussin@state.co.us I www.codot.qov/ | www.cotrip.orqW
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Kathy A. Eastley <keastley@garfield- wrote:
Good afternoon,
Attached is a referral request to review an application to rezone a 43.25-acre parcel on the west side of SH 82
between CR I l4 (CMC Road) and CR 113 (Cattle Creek Road) from Residential Suburban to Commercial
General. This parcel is adjacent to the River Edge PUD, south of the old Sopris Restaurant.
This application as originally submitted earlier this year and you may have previously provided
comments. The Applicant had withdrawn that application prior to hearing and are now resubmitting for
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner review. The new application does not differ in any
significant way from what was previously submitted.
RQARINC FORK
CONSE RVANCY
EXHIBIT
N
BOARD OF
DIRI]CTORS
Diane Schrvener
Presiclent
Rick Neilel
I-ice President
.lennit'cr Saucr
Secre Ior1t, 'h'eastre r'l-etl []orchelt
Stephr'n [Jllsperman
Jirn t.ight
Rick Lof'aro
Ltecutive Direclor
Pal NIcMahon
I)on Schuster
Larrl' Yarv
Valeric' Alerandc'r Yaw
PROCRAIlI S1'A.FF-
Rick I-ofaro
Execut iye l)ireclor
Fleather Leuin
Iliatershed lc'tion
Director
Clhristina IVtedvcd
Etlucolion Diretttsr
t.iza Nlitchell
Educution & Afireuclt
(.- oordinator
Chad Rudorv
Ll'ater Onality
C'octrtlinator
Sheryl Sabandal
Det e I opme nt .,1 ss oc ial e
Sarah Woods
[)it"ector of'
Philunthropy'
November 4,2015
Ms. Kathy Eastley, Staff Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 Sth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
keastl ey(@ garfie I d -c o urty. co nr
RE: File Number ZDLA-09-15-8388, GCCI Rezone
Dear Ms. Eastley,
Please accept these comments on the proposed rezoning of parcel 2393-072-00-
03 1, a 43.25 acre property located on the west side of Highway 82 between CMC
Road and Cattle Creek Road. This parcel, owned by Garfield County Commercial
Investments (GCCI), is associated with the 53-acre Cattle Creek Conservation
Easement held by Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC).
The Cattle Creek Conservation Easement and adjacent Heron Point Conservation
Easement, acquired in 1998 and 1999 respectively, preserve valuable riparian
habitat at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Riparian
habitat (vegetation along river and stream banks), is among Colorado's most
important plant communities for wildlife and healthy waterways, but comprises
less than lYo of the entire land area of the state. Essential riparian habitat, a
thriving great blue heron nesting colony, critical elk winter range, and high
quality water are among the many conservation values RFC is obligated to
protect, preserve and enhance in perpetuity within the conservation easement.
RFC has concerns with the potential effects of commercial development on the
nearby Conservation Easements as well as the Roaring Fork River and Cattle
Creek. RFC is currently engaged in a comprehensive scientific study of Cattle
creek with the goal of improving water quality in the creek. The increase in
impermeable surfaces associated with commercial development and parking lots
can increase runoffand erosion, raising concerns about potential pollutants
reaching the waterways. Although some conceptual site data accompanies the
justification report submitted to Garfield County, RFC would like to see more
details regarding the design and function of the areas labeled open space/storm
water.
The impacts of possible increased light pollution and traffic associated with
commercial development are of particular concern because the Cattle Creek and
Heron Point Conservation Easements are home to a wide variety of wildlife,
P.0. Bcrr 3349 Basalt. Colorado 81621 970.927.1?90 rvw,w..roaringfork.org
AR,ING
CONSE RVANCY
notably a great blue heron nesting colony. Light pollution can inadvertently
interfere with the circadian rhythm and migration patterns of wildlife, including
birds, potentially interrupting their growth and reproductive cycles.l In addition,
lighting and traffic increases have been shown to negatively affect great blue
heron colonies potentially leading to site abandonment.2
RFC has engaged in preliminary conversations with the applicant and expressed
our desire to work closely with them on all matters concerning Cattle Creek and
the associated conservation easements. Should the proposed zoning change be
granted, RFC respectfully requests approval be contingent on working in close
cooperation with us to ensure the conservation values of the easement and the
ecological integrity of the surrounding areabe upheld in the future planning of
this property.
Please contact me with any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,.?*.gd4.f^
Rick Lofaro
Executive Director
t http://sierraclubmass.orslwpl?incsub wiki=dark-skies-outdoor-lishtine
2 http://www.pugetsou ndnearshore.orsltech nica I papers/herons. pdf
['.O. Box 3349 Basalt, Coloraclo 81621 r 970,927.12W wrvw.roaringtork.org