HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Referral ResponsesSTATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife.state.co.us
March 2, 2009
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD review
Dear Kathy:
MAR eACI909
GARF I BI(IGS#MTY
BUILDING'&ANG
1�v
OF
For Wildlife -
For People
RECTTV-
G` 4TY
BuLU NC & PLANNING
The DOW has reviewed the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD amendment and has previously
commented on the development proposal in a letter dated April 15, 2008. Comments and
recommendations from that letter are still relevant.
The Cattle Creek development property is not located within any mapped big game critical
habitat areas, but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of
Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and
spring months with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork
River and Cattle Creek. While it is not mapped critical winter range the property has become a
preferred wintering area for elk. The upper benches provide loafing/solitude areas, while the
riparian corridors provide cover and food. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south
of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the
property. Car/elk accidents have increased significantly along the stretch of SH 82 from mile
marker 6.5-12 in the past several years.
In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron colony , many small mammals,
neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians.
The overall size and density of this project is going to have direct and indirect impacts to
wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed. The
Division is concerned about several issues related to the current development proposal and
makes the following recommendations:
1. The proposed trails into the riparian areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork
River should be eliminated. Any recreational trails proposed should remain on the
bench above the river and out of the conservation easement areas held by the Roaring
Fork Conservancy. The proposed trails are listed for fisherman access but in reality
these will become recreational hiking trails and dog walking areas which will rapidly
diminish the values for wildlife that the easements are designed to protect.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION. Robert Bray. Chair • Brad Coors. /ice Chair • Tim Glenn. Secretary
2. The Division is discouraged with the fact that the current great blue heron nesting locations
have not been identified in the current building plan nor have any steps been taken to
minimize impacts in the building plan. The mitigation proposals outlined in the CCR's are
inadequate and rely on future abandonment of the colony. The current locations are
several hundred yards upstream of the old nest sites identified in the building plan and
have been active for over 5 years. The heronries located on the south west portion of the
property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are
located as close as 27 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building
sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640
ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to
minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a 200
meter buffer zone around the heronry with extensive berming and vegetative screening,
restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the
heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to
any construction occurring within 400 meters of the heronry. More detailed
recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted.
3. 100' building envelope set backs need to established from the crest of the bluff overlooking
the riparian corridors on the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
4. Maximum building height should be 25' especially for building locations overlooking the
Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
5. The DOW would like to sit down with the developer to further discuss their proposal for
funding off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933.
Sincerely,
Perry ill
Are ildlife Manager
Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Mark Kadnuck[makadnuc@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:43 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: Cattle Creek PUD
Water and wastewater services to be provided by Roaring Fork WSD, no comments.
Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E.
CDPHE-WQCD
222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232
Grand Junction, CO 81501
ph: 970-248-7144
fax: 970-248-7198
email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us
Page 1 of 1
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: Babler, Alisa; Yeates, Sean
Subject: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD
Attachments: TIA Coord Process 090126.doc; TIS Outlines.pdf
Kathy- Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD on SH 82. This
development is a big development and has a considerable impact to CR 113. I have done a
curtsey review the of the Traffic Impact Study dated October 17, 2008 by 8140 Partners LLC.
This project will need to have an access permit for CR 113 and for the proposed right-in/right
out access near Marland Road. However, at this point, CDOT does not support the right-
in/right-out access. The applicant will need to provide proof that access cannot be obtain from
CR 113.
The original proposal did have a full movement that would be shared access with the property
to the north with an additional access closure. This will need to be reviewed by the
Department.
The traffic study doesn't meet CDOT standards. The engineer did not get with CDOT to go
over the methodology of the traffic study. CDOT did not have any input in the traffic study and
at this point, we don't agree with the methodology of the report. Here is a copy of our
standards for Traffic Studies.
The study didn't look at 20 year horizon; it look until 2020 (12 years). The study didn't
recommend any auxiliary lanes on the highway even when warranted by the State Highway
Access Code. The study didn't take in consideration of the north side of CR 113. How will the
signal operate with a 5 legged intersection (CR 109, CR 113, 2 Frontage Roads and SH 82)?
I believe this needs to be discussed if the intersection will be signalized.
I would recommend the applicant and his traffic engineer schedule a pre -application meeting
with CDOT to go over these concerns.
If you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Dan Roussin
R3 Permit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Rm 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284
970-683-6290 Fax
1/26/2009
CDOT R3 Traffic Section
CDOT Region 3 Traffic Section
Traffic Impact Analysis Coordination Process
1-2009
Prior to Preparation of the TIA
The applicant and CDOT should discuss Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) methodology and assumptions
before actual TIA preparation. The State Highway Access Code (SHAC) does not require CDOT
methodology approval but it is clearly in the best interest of the applicant to avoid having to pay for a
second TIA if the first TIA methodology is unacceptable to CDOT. One of CDOT's objectives is to
minimize the time and cost associated with the access permitting process. However, CDOT is
responsible for safe and efficient highway operations and needs to have a clear understanding of the
traffic impacts associated with land development projects.
The CDOT website includes the following CDOT documents, which will be the basis for TIA preparation,
review, and acceptance:
• State of Colorado, State Highway Access Code, August 1998, as amended
• CDOT Access Mgmt Unit, Recommended Outline for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), April 2003
In addition, the following documents serve as acceptable and recommended references:
• ITE, Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development — A Recommended Practice, 1991
• ITE, Trip Generation Handbook - A Recommended Practice, October 1998
• ITE, Traffic Engineering Handbook, 1999
• TRB, Access Management Manual, 2003
• ITE, Transportation and Land Development — 2nd Edition, 2002
The study methodology must be determined in conjunction with review agencies, preferably at a pre -
study conference or phone call. The applicant can schedule a meeting with the CDOT Region 3 Access
Engineer, Alisa Babler, and 970-683-6287 or alisa.babler@dot.state.co.us. The applicant is responsible
to document methodology agreements and include the summary in the TIA appendix. A proper
methodology should include, but is not limited to, agreement on the following information.
1. Study Area — highway segments and key intersections
2. Planned and programmed highway improvements that are separate from development
3. Analysis years and peak periods, as a function of development phasing
4. Highway access classification
5. Data sources and collection needs, peak to daily conversion factor
6. Traffic growth rates, sources, and method of application
7. Trip generation
i) Rates
ii) Reduction factors for internal capture and pass -by, etc
iii) Seasonal adjustment factors
iv) Special site studies
8. Trip distribution and assignment
9. Multi -modal considerations
10. Design vehicle and truck factor
11. Software used for initial and final operational analysis
12. Need for and methodology for traffic crash analysis
CDOT R3 Traffic Section
1-2009
During Preparation of the TIA
There may be questions that occur during preparation of the TIA and CDOT is available to discuss the
proper course of action. The applicant can contact the CDOT Region 3 Access Engineer, Alisa Babler,
and 970-683-6287.
During Review of the TIA
Please provide a name and phone number of the Colorado Professional Engineer that prepared the TIA.
While most information should be included in the TIA, it may be necessary for CDOT to get TIA
clarifications.
After CDOT Review of the TIA.
CDOT will prepare written TIA review comments and will send them to the permit applicant. The
applicant has the following options in response to the review comments.
• If in agreement with the review comments, address them by revising the TIA accordingly.
• If not in agreement with the review comments, call to discus the issues or arrange a meeting to
determine acceptable resolution.
• If no agreement can be reached on CDOT R3 traffic requirements, the permit will be denied and
the applicant can appeal the denial, per the SHAC.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDED OUTLINE FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Access Management Unit, CDOT
February, 2008
GENERAL
1. Prior to submitting a formal application, the interested parties may request a pre -application
conference with the issuing authority or Department to establish and agree upon base assumptions,
including proposed traffic counts/volumes, and to determine if a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) must be
submitted as a requirement of the State Highway Access Permit Application. CDOT considers this
step beneficial to both the Applicant and CDOT because circumstances specific to the access can be
identified and addressed early in the permitting process.
2. When a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is required, it shall be completed and sealed by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Colorado, preferably with specific training in traffic and
transportation engineering.
3. In general, A TIS will be required when the proposed land use will generate a design hourly volume
(DHV) of 100 trips or more, or when considered necessary or desirable by the issuing authority or
the Department. The DHV is the 30th highest hour vehicular volume experienced in a one year
period and is used in determining geometric design of highways. If this data is not available, then
Peak Hour Volumes shall be used after being adjusted to the peak seasonal month.
4. In determining the extents of the area to include in the study, a general guide is to carry the analysis
out at least as far as those areas where newly generated site traffic represents 5 percent or more of
the roadway's peak hour capacity.
5. The TIS may only identify any anticipated waivers from the design standards of the Code as
described in Section 4.12 of the State Highway Access Code. Waivers cannot be issued for
procedural requirements.
6. The need for auxiliary lanes for any access is based on the highest peak hour volume generated
within the entire day, for each turning movement. The TIS must look at both the peak hour of the
generator and the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Traffic generated by the development will
be used to evaluate the highest peak hour volume. Additionally, weekend generation rates must be
evaluated depending on certain types of land uses, such as churches, shopping centers, and
recreation facilities.
7. The TIS shall include evaluation of the current daily peak hour traffic data, any interim phases and
20th year projections. This includes turning movements at all intersections assuming a build- out of'
the study area based upon zoning, comprehensive plans and growth estimates. This includes any
newly approved development that has not been constructed.
8. Revisions to the TIS will be required if the study does not include the necessary information required
by the Code, or if the data is not accurate, sufficiently thorough or representative of the proposed
access and development plan. If a previous study for a project is more than 1 -year old, an updated
study may be required.
Page 1 of 3
RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FORMAT
Specific requirements and contents for a traffic impact study can be found in Section 2.3(5) of the State
Highway Access Code. The following is a recommended outline of how those contents can be presented
in the report. Figures, maps, and tables shall be labeled and presented in a legible scale. The report
should include at minimum, the following:
1. TITLE PAGE - Include project name and number, date, name, address and phone number of
company. Name, address, phone number e-mail address (if any) of licensed engineer, stamp and
expiration date
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. LIST OF FIGURES
4. LIST OF TABLES
5. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a. Describe existing land use, site and study area boundaries
b. Describe proposed site uses
c. Describe existing and proposed uses in vicinity of the site (provide legible map).
d. Describe existing and proposed roadways, highway category, speed limit, mile post location,
intersections and proposed future access locations, including signal locations for at least one-half
mile in each direction along the highway, as well as all potential roadway and signal
improvements (provide legible map).
6. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES - Provide table and
include information on internal and/or pass -by trip reductions, if any
7. TRIP DISTRIBUTION - Provide figure
8. TRIP ASSIGNMENT - Provide figure
9. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (provide figures for all)
a. Existing total average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and existing AM and PM peak hour turning
movement volumes for the street system in the study area. Include all turning movements.
b. Projected total daily traffic volumes and projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes,
including existing (background) plus generator traffic, for the street system in the study area.
Include all turning movements.
Page 2 of 3
c. Future projected "background" traffic volumes (volumes already using the roadway system
without the proposed development) for daily, and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes.
Include all turning movements.
d. Total projected daily traffic volumes and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, including
existing traffic, generator traffic and cumulative traffic from build -out of approved projects. If
the proposed development is being proposed in phases it may be appropriate to evaluate each
major phase. Include all turning movements.
e. Total and peak hour daily and turning movement volumes for "horizon" study year which is
generally the 20th year projection. The peak hour traffic volume estimates for any access shall be
based upon the anticipated total build -out of the development to be served, and shall include the
highest peak hour volume within the entire day for each turning movement, which is typically
the peak hour of the generator. See Section 2.3(4)(e) of the State Highway Access Code for
information on calculating passenger car equivalents.
f. Include an analysis of all reasonable alternatives, including no direct highway access or restricted
access such as right in/right out (RI/RO) or 3/4 movements.
10. DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE - Clearly
tabulate all locations and volumes with required improvements as outlined in the Code.
11. CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS - Provide complete analysis sheets
in the Appendix. Additionally, electronic copies of this analysis may be requested.
12. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS - Provide analysis sheets in the Appendix. If the access is
proposed to have a traffic signal or will necessitate modifications to an existing signal, refer to
Section 2.3(5)(c) of the State Highway Access Code, items 21 through 29.
13. CDOT ACCESS PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS - Clearly describe all locations requiring
a permit as well as the traffic and turning volumes, highway improvements, anticipated design
waivers and any other special requirements.
14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
a. All statements must be supported by the data provided in the report.
b. Engineering judgment must have a basis in the data and analysis. Include explanation.
c. Discuss how the proposed access qualifies under the State Highway Access Code.
d. Describe any anticipated design waiver request.
15. APPENDICES - Data collection sheets, calculation sheets, software outputs, etc.
Depending on the location and size of the proposed development and the conditions prevailing on the
surrounding roadway system, additional items may be required in the TIS. Please refer to Section 2.3(5)
of the State Highway Access Code.
Page 3 of 3
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Name of application: Cattle Creek Crossing
Sent to:
Date Sent: January 22, 2009
Comments Due: February 12, 2009
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staffs contact: Kathy Eastley
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this
application with the following comments.
The entrance from Marand Road to Colorado State Highway 82 is not a County road so
no driveway permit is needed for this entrance. Future entrances to Cr. 154, 114 and
Cr.113 if not within the CDOT ROW will need to be permitted and all improvements to
these intersections shall be approved by Garfield County Engineers.
Any vehicles using Garfield County portions of Cr. 154, 114 and Cr. 113 hauling
equipment and materials for construction of this project shall abide by Garfield County's
oversize/overweight permit system. Any vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits
shall apply for them at Garfield County Road & Bridge Department.
Any utilities placed in County Row or work performed within County Row shall be
omitted by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. Anv work within County
ROW shall have a traffic control submitted to Garfield County Road & Bridge
Department and approved prior to any work being performed.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake 13. Mall Date January 28. 2009
Revised 3/30/00
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Name of application: Cattle Creek Crossing
Sent to:
Date Sent: January 22, 2009
Comments Due: February 12, 2009
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staffs contact: Kathy Eastley
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this
application with the following comments.
The entrance from Marand Road to Colorado State Highway 82 is not a County road so
no driveway permit is needed for this entrance. Future entrances to Cr. 154, 114 and
Cr.113 if not within the CDOT ROW will need to be permitted and all improvements to
these intersections shall be approved by Garfield County Engineers.
Any vehicles using Garfield County portions of Cr. 154, 114 and Cr. 113 hauling
equipment and materials for construction of this project shall abide by Garfield County's
oversize/overweight permit system. Any vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits
shall apply for them at Garfield County Road & Bridge Department.
Any utilities placed in County Row or work performed within County Row shall be
permitted by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. Any work within County
ROW shall have a traffic control submitted to Garfield County Road & Bridge
Department and approved prior to any work being performed.
After further review of the intersection of NO NAME ROAD at the intersection to Cr.
154 any added traffic load would require improvements to the intersection. An
engineered design of the intersection shall be submitted to the Garfield County Engineer
for approval prior to any work being performed. Without the improvements to the
intersection no added traffic load should be allowed.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date January 29, 2009
Revised 3/30/00
Page 1 of 1
Kathy A. Eastley
From:
Sent:
Jim Rada
Friday, February 06, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: Cattle Creek PUD
Attachments: Jim Rada Qrada@garfield-county.com).vcf
Kathy,
have no comments at this stage on this application. Thanks for including me in the review process.
Jim Rada, RE.11 c5
Environmental Health Manager
Garfield County Public Health
195 W 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970-625-5200 x8113
Cell 970-319-1579
Fax 970-625-8304
Email jrada@garfield-county.com
Web www.garfield-county.com
2/9/2009
Kathy Eastle 876
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Cattle Creek Crossing Sketch Plan
Secs. 7 & 18, T7S, R88W, and Secs. 1 & 12, T7S, R89W, 6th PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
RECEIVED
MAR 022009
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GARFIELD COUNTY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCEINC &PLANNING
February 26, 2009
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Executive Director
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Director
Dear Kathy:
We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 280 acres to
contain a total of 1006 single-family and multi -family residential units, 71,000 square feet of commercial floor
space and several community amenities, including an elementary school, pool and tennis club. The domestic
water supply, including up to 7 acres of lawn and landscape irrigation (500 square feet per dwelling unit), and
sewage disposal are to be provided by connection to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD).
The irrigation water supply is to be provided through the use of existing water rights in the Glenwood and Staton
Ditches.
The applicant is pursuing water rights through plans for augmentation decreed in Case No. 01CW187
and pending in Case No. 07CW164. These water rights will provide for water service to the development for up
to 1200 EQR from either the RFWSD wells, from additional wells or from a surface water diversion, and will be
augmented by the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) contract water from Ruedi and Green Mountain
Reservoirs. These water rights will be transferred to the RFWSD once final decrees are obtained and upon
inclusion of the property into the RFWSD.
No information was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. As stated in
C.R.S. 30-28-133(3)(d), the subdivider is required to submit "Adequate evidence that a water supply that is
sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of
water for the type of subdivision proposed." Adequate evidence is usually provided in the form of a water
resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality,
quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. See the Updated Memorandum
Regarding Subdivisions (online at www.water.state.co.us/pubs/policies/memo subdivisions.pdf) for the
necessary information.
Due to the lack of a water court -approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS
30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is
inadequate. Also note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and
approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is
changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance.
Sincerely,
Cynthia J. Love, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
CJL/CattleCreekPUDii.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589
www.water.state.co.us
OEPAa
February 27, 2009
To: Kathy Easterly, County Planner
From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Re: Comments on Cattle Creek Colorado PUD, Zone District Amendments
This proposed PUD is not in our Fire District but Carbondale Fire Department may
request our Department for mutual aid to assist them in mitigating an emergency event in
this PUD should if be built. My comments are based on the 2003 International Fire Code
(IFC) and the Garfield County amendments to it.
Access roads: For the planned density of this PUD, the road system needs to meet the
requirements stated in Section 503, Fire Department Access Roads in the 2003 IFC. If all
the roads on the site are to be dedicated "Fire Department Access Roads" then some in
the submitted plans do not meet the minimum road width stated in Section 503. The roads
that do not meet Section 503 standards shall be improved so they do meet them.
Minimum street width clearance at a fire hydrant is 26 feet for 20 feet on each side of the
fire hydrant.
By installing automatic fire suppression systems in most or all of the buildings in the
PUD, narrower then code required road widths and steeper grades may -be allowed for
some of the roads in the PUD if they are approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
Section 503.2.3 Dead ends: Dead-end fire apparatus roads in access of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with an approved area to turn around fire apparatus. The plans state
some of the dead -end roads are to be 200 feet in length.
Water Supply for Fire Flow: The plan states a 1 million gallon water tank will be
installed. I recommend that the applicant be required to provide a water modeling study
to show that this amount of water in storage is adequate to meet the PUD water demand
for fire flows and domestic use at total build out. If this tank is also to supply the H Lazy
J Mobile Home Park, what impact will its demand have on the PUD's water supply? The
amount of water for fire flow can be significantly reduces by requiring all the building in
the PUD to have an automatic fire suppression system installed in them.
Automatic Fire Protection in Buildings: Some of the proposed multi -family buildings
will be required to be sprinldered by the 2003 IFC and all buildings 3 stories or more are
required to be sprinklered by Garfield County amendment to Section 903.2 of the 2003
IFC. Some, if not all, proposed commercial buildings may be required to be sprinklered
by the 2003 IFC depending on there occupancy and size.
Note: If Garfield County adopts the 2009 International Codes by the time this PUD is
approved and construction starts more stringent fire protection codes my apply.
Impact Fees: We question the legality of charging the developer impact fees. According
to the County Attorney Don DeFord they are illegal and can not be accessed in non -home
rule areas of Garfield County.
If you have questions on any of the above comments or need more information please
contact me by phone 384-6433 or email.
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
Fax: (303) 866-2461
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO
RECEIVED
MAR 022009
February 23, 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
keastley(cgarfieldcouny. com
Re: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD, Zone District Amendment, CGS GA -09-0005_1
Dear Ms. Eastley:
DNATUREPARTMENTAL OF
RESOURCES
Bill Ritter
Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Executive Director
Vincent Matthews
Division Director and
State Geologist
Thank for the submittal of the above referenced proposal, which was received on January 29, 2009. The proposal is
to allow development of 1006 units, a school, open space and recreation. Due to adverse site conditions, a full
inspection of the site was not possible. However, the site has been inspected in the past and previous descriptions of
site conditions were used in this evaluation.
Generally, the site has moderate slopes. Slopes steeper than 30 percent are present along terrace edges adjacent to
the Roaring Fork River. A small alluvial fan sits in the northeast corner of the site. Also, as you know, the site
contains numerous sinkholes caused by the dissolution of evaporate bedrock.
The main geologic hazards outlined in the geotechnical report, by HP Geotech, dated August 12,2008 include the
following:
• Subsidence and sinkholes caused by dissolution of evaporite deposits
• Expansive and collapsible soil
• Slope instability along steep slopes adjacent to the river.
The recommendations in the most recent geotechnical report are similar to those contained in an earlier version.
Recommendations critical to protecting public safety include:
• Buildings, roads, and underground utilities should not be placed on or near sinkholes. Recommended
setbacks have been established for four sinkholes (called A, B, C and D in the HP Geotech report).
• All other sinkholes should be fully investigated prior to approval of development plans.
• If avoidance is not possible, roads can be constructed over stabilized sinkholes but buildings and critical
utilities should not.
• Buildings should be setback from the steep escarpment. A minimum setback of 2H:1 V should be measured
from the edge of the river channel.
Other recommendations that will impact the performance of buildings, roads, and utilities include:
• Mitigation of expansive and/collapsible soil
• Construction of an underdrain system
• Restrictions regarding cuts and fills and other grading activities
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Page 2
February 23, 2009
• Mitigation of corrosive soil
As outlined in the PUD Guide flexible, form -based codes will guide site development. As such, the PUD Guide
focuses more on the physical form of the development and less on specific land use restrictions. The development
will have an integrated system of trails, open space, public spaces, and storm -water management facilities.
Generally, the guide has prescriptive (what is desired) rather than proscriptive (what is prohibited) standards.
This will likely result in a more integrated vision for the development but it also raises some questions about how
geologic hazards will be mitigated. Due to the scale of the geologic hazard map contained in the geotechnical report
and other maps provided in the PUD Guide and supporting materials, I cannot accurately locate "non -buildable"
areas. Given this, concerns considered critical to the protection of public safety are outlined below:
• An area labeled as T41 is located adjacent to a potentially unstable escarpment. Page SC33 of the technical
guide indicates that a slope setback is not required. This appears to be an error which should be corrected.
• In the same technical guide, Area T32 contains a note that states slope setbacks will be "as required in the
geotechnical report". In addition to slope setbacks, the geotechnical engineer recommends that sinkholes
located near the escarpment must also be considered when developing slope setbacks. If the recommended
2H:1 V setback includes sinkholes, some building areas shown on the plans may not be feasible. This
should be clarified before development plans are approved.
• Several parts of Area T31 and T32 appear to encroach into required setbacks. Because buildings, roads,
utilities should not be placed in these areas, it would be prudent to identify and fully dimension such areas
on zoning and plat documents. To the extent possible, such areas should be designated as a natural zone.
• Across the development, Use Areas appear to overlie or encroach onto sinkholes (investigated and
uninvestigated) and areas of soil piping. Again, it would be prudent to identify and fully dimension such
areas on zoning and plat documents. To the extent possible, these areas should be designated as a natural
zone.
• Before final development plans are approved, additional investigation should be done in areas labeled by
HP Geotech as "approximate uninvestigated sinkhole". Until such investigations are completed, the full
extent of, and required mitigation for, subsidence hazards cannot be determined. Currently plans show that
various structures will be placed in such areas.
• The PUD Guide contains environmental resource standards controlling storm water drainage and
infiltration. It appears the goal is to mimic predevelopment hydrology by infiltration of runoff. The site
contains soil with a high percentage of clay and silt. Fine-grained soil, once suspended in runoff, cannot
effectively be removed using most sediment control measures.
Infiltration and filtration of such runoff will help reduce potential water quality impairment. However, as
outlined in the geotechnical report, any ponding or concentration of water can increase the dissolution of
evaporite deposits and increase risks of subsidence. It is critical that all Best Management Practices be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. It may not be wise to place rain gardens and wet ponds near
sinkholes or buildings. It is not clear if the current storm water management plan has been reviewed by the
geotechnical engineer.
Other concerns and questions:
• The geotechnical report recommends that underdrains are needed to protect below grade construction and
that drains should be sloped to a gravity outlet. It is not clear in the geotechnical report, but given the site's
geologic and soil constraints, as well as density, a main underdrain collection line may need to be
constructed below sanitary sewer lines. Drains around individual buildings would then be connected to a
main collection line and water daylighted at a main discharge point. This should be clarified before
construction plans for roads are completed. Collection lines, and stubouts to each lot, would need to be
installed as part of the public improvements.
• All other recommendations provided by the geotechnical engineer should be followed.
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Page 2
February 23, 2009
In summary, it is important to note that even with the mitigation measures outlined above and in the geotechnical
report, subsidence may occur and building, roads, and utilities may be severely damaged. The following quote from
the geotechnical report should be strongly considered during the entitlement process. Even with mitigation it may
not be possible to prevent some structural damage to buildings, but it should be feasible to prevent sudden collapse
and provide a reasonable level of safety for the building occupants."
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at
karen.berry@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
jci„,N6,i)
Karen A. Berry
Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
February 12, 2009
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD, Zone District Amendment
Dear Kathy:
I have reviewed the Zone District Amendment for the proposed Cattle Creek Colorado
Subdivision. The application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code
(IFC) 2003 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
The proposed access throughout the subdivision generally appears to be adequate for emergency
apparatus.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has agreed to service the development. The
applicant has proposed to install a one -million gallon water tank and install the appropriate size
water mains necessary to connect to the existing Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District's
water system. The proposed system appears to be capable of providing adequate fire flows
throughout the development. Location and spacing of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with
IFC Appendix C.
H Lazy F Mobile Home Park
The applicant has been granted a road and utility easement through the H Lazy F Mobile Home
Park. The easement will allow access from the Fire District's station located on County Road
154 directly to the development through H Lazy F. The easement will also allow the applicants
proposed water system to be extended through H Lazy F. H Lazy F currently has a PUD
application submitted to the County and is need of water for fire protection as are the other
adjacent properties. Both proposed developments would benefit from the easement.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
Creek Colorado PUD, Zone District Amendment, Page 2 of 2
Impact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer
will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording
of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $704.00 per lot/unit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
To: Fred Jarman, Director
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
From: John Niewoehner, Project Engineer
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
Date: November 21, 2008
RE: DRAFT - Cattle Creek Colorado PUD - Engineering Review Comments on the
PUD Zone District Amendment Submission
This memo provides engineering review comments for the plans and reports provided to
the County as part of the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD Zone District Amendment
Submission dated October 2008.
Summary of Submittal Components Reviewed:
1. Traffic Impact Analysis
2. Geotechnical Study
3. Drainage
4. Utility Report
5. Internal Street Configuration and Roadway Design Standards
Traffic Impact Analysis
Summary of Traffic Analysis Provided By Developer
• Scope: The submitted analysis examines how the development will access State
Highway 82. The analysis did not include a traffic analysis of proposed roads
within the development.
• Location of Highway Access Points: The report concludes that the development
will be served by two access points: (1) a main access point at the existing
intersection of SH 82 & CR113, and (2) a second access point onto the
southbound lane of SH 82. This second access is referred to as a right -in right -
out (RIRO) intersection. [The development has chosen not to connect to a third
access point at SH 82 & CR114 (north of development) because this access will
harm the performance of the RIRO intersection. The analysis does not explain
how this third access adversely affects the RIRO intersection.]
• New Signal at SH 82 and CR113: The analysis concludes that a traffic light is
currently warranted at SH82 and CR113 regardless of the proposed development.
Engineer's Questions and Comments Regarding Traffic Analysis
1. Lack of Analysis for Interior Roads: The analysis was performed only for the
access points onto SH 82. Considering the unconventional elements within the
street layout, a traffic analysis must be performed for the streets within the
development. Items of concern are the number of vehicles that need to queue at
the main entrance, multiple functions that some streets are expected to fulfill, the
1
traffic volume on the narrow streets, and the number of turns and stops that
vehicles needs to make to reach the entrance.
2. Connection with Lazy H Ranch (comment added 2/2/09): What is the status of
the access through the Lazy F and the improvements shown for this intersection
on Highway 82?
3. Traffic Counts: Where and when were the traffic counts performed?
4. Split between Traffic Heading North and South: What is the basis for assuming
that during A.M. weekday peak hour 60% of the exiting traffic heads south
towards Carbondale and Aspen? Similarly, what is the basis for assuming that
during the P.M. weekday peak hour that 35% of the entering traffic returns from
the south? If, in the morning, 60% of the vehicles go up valley (to south),
shouldn't a similar percentage of vehicles return from up valley (from south) in
the evening? Even if the percentages aren't identical, the number of vehicles
leaving towards the south in the morning should be the roughly the same number
returning from the south in the evening.
4. Division Between Dwellings Using Each Entrance: The study does not provide
information on which dwellings will use the north RIRO access point and which
will use the main south access point onto SH 82. It is not clear if this was
considered in the traffic impact analysis. For example, all vehicles returning
from up valley (from the south) will need to use the main entrance at SH 82 & CR
113 since the RIRO entrance only serves vehicles coming from down valley (from
the north).
5. SH 82 & CR 114 Intersection and the Connection of Development to North: Why
does a connection from the north end of the development adversely affect the
RIRO access?
6. CDOT Access Permit: The SH 82 access configuration is something that the
developer needs to negotiate with CDOT. What is the status of communications
with CDOT? At the time of preliminary plan, the County expects that all
negotiations between the developer and CDOT will be finalized.
7. Intersection of CR 110, CR 113, frontage road and SH 82: The development will
trigger the installation of a traffic light on SH 82. The traffic light will
necessitate improvements to the intersection on the east side of SH 82. It is
reasonable to require that the developer share in cost of these improvements.
8. Predicted Traffic Volume per Roadway Capacity (V/C Ratio): How was this ratio
calculated? Several V/C ratios greater than 1 were reported. Doesn't a V/C>1
indicate that the volume is greater than the capacity and that the level of service
(LOS) is 'F'?
9. Table 8: Footnotes are missing from table.
HP Geotech's Geotechnical Study — Conclusions and County's Comments
1. Investigated Sinkholes: As the underlying evaporite rock strata dissolves, the
ground subsides causing sinkholes. Borings performed around the sinkholes
encountered the evaporate strata at depths between 48 feet and 113 feet. Borings
that were drilled outside the sinkhole areas were shallower than 20 feet and
2
therefore were not deep enough to reach the evaporite strata. Presumably the
evaporate strata underlies the entire site.
2. Sinkholes not Investigated: A large uninvestigated sinkhole area exists across the
south end of the property. Houses and utilities are proposed in this area. Prior to
preliminary plan, additional borings are needed in this area.
3. Pertinent Recommendations of HP Geotech's Study: (1) Identified sinkhole
areas should be avoided as building sites, road alignments and underground wet
utilities. (2) Additional evaluation is needed of uninvestigated sinkhole areas. (3)
Prospective homeowners/property owners should be made aware of subsidence
potential. (4) Buildings need to be designed to prevent sudden collapse in the
event of subsidence. (5) Buildings must be setback 10-15 feet from top of the
river terrace escarpments. (6) Underdrains are recommended for all foundations.
These underdrain pipes will need to discharge to the surface or to drywells. (See
comments regarding underdrains in drainage study review.
4. Summary of County's Comments: (1) Further geotechnical evaluation is needed
prior to submitting the preliminary plan. (2) Roadways, utilities and building
sites can not be placed in sinkhole areas that are delineated on the HP Geotech
map dated 8/12/08. (3) Purchasers of properties must be made be aware of the
subsidence (i.e. sinkhole) risk. (4) All foundations and structures must be
designed to avoid sudden collapse.
Drainage Report
1. Highlights of Proposed Drainage System:
• This pre -design report provides only design criteria; no calculations
regarding pipe sizes, retention areas, etc.
• Proposed design will use swales and other landscaping features to
optimize infiltration and to detain and treat the runoff from impervious
surfaces.
• The developer proposes to increase the peak runoff flows leaving the site.
They rationalize that peak flows from the site will enter Cattle Creek and
the Roaring Fork River before the peak flows in these two rivers will
occur.
2. Impact on Evaporative Strata and Sinkholes: The developers propose to
maximize infiltration of the stormwater into the soil. In areas where the site is
underlain by an evaporative strata (also referred to as a hydro-compactive strata),
they propose to limit infiltration or using linings to limit infiltration. County's
comment: Evidence suggests that the entire site may be underlain by the
evaporative strata. Thus, there may be no areas within the site that infiltration of
runoff should be promoted. HP Geotech needs to review the areas proposed for
stormwater infiltration and certify that the infiltration will not increase
subsidence.
3. Increases in Post Development Runoff Flows: As mentioned above, the
developer proposes to forgo sufficient stormwater detention that would prevent
post -development flows from exceed pre -development flows. Developer believes
3
this acceptable as long as the peak flows from the development enter Cattle Creek
and the Roaring Fork River before peak flows occur in these streams.
In the opinion of the County's engineer, the developer should be required to
detain runoff so that peak runoff flows do not exceed pre -development flows. It
is easy to imagine localized storm events that would cause peak flows in the
Cattle Creek or Roaring Fork River to coincide with non -detained peak runoff
flows from the Cattle Creek development.
The County's engineer supports the efforts of the developer to treat runoff from
impervious areas using landscaped areas throughout the development. Because
the level of treatment is directly proportional to the length of detention, it is
difficult to envision how treatment can occur without stormwater detention.
4. Foundation Underdrains: The geotechnical report recommends that each building
foundation needs piped underdrains. At the time of preliminary design, the
developer should explain how flows from underdrains will be handled.
5. Drainage Section of County's New Land Use Code (comment added 2/2/09):
Development should comply with all requirements of Section 706 of the County's
new code.
Utility Report
1. Legal and Physical Water Supply: The Cattle Creek development seeks to obtain
drinking water from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD).
Cattle Creek has entered into a pre -inclusion agreement with RFWSD that
outlines Cattle Creek's financial responsibilities including the need to fund a new
water source for RFWSD (either surface water or a well). RFWSD is currently in
the process of obtaining water rights to be able to supply the Cattle Creek
development. The Cattle Creek development will physically connect to Aspen
Glen and to RFWSD on the other side of the Roaring Fork. Engineer's question:
How and where will the water and sewer pipes cross the river?
2. Sewer: Sewer service is also included in the pre -inclusion agreement with
RFWSD. The sewers within the development will gravity flow to a lift station
from which sewage will be pumped across the Roaring Fork River to RFWSD
sewage treatment plant. RFWSD plans to increase the capacity of its treatment
plant in 2010. Engineer's comment: The report indicates that the planned 2010
treatment plant expansion will not provide adequate treatment capacity of Cattle
Creek at build -out. Another expansion of the treatment facility will be needed
before the Cattle Creek development can be completed.
3. Raw Water for Irrigation: RFWSD will provide enough water to irrigate seven
acres. Through water rights on the Glenwood and Staton Ditches and a piped raw
water distribution system, the remaining of the development will be irrigated.
Engineer's Question: What area of land can be irrigated with the ditch water?
4. Dry Utilities — Gas, Electric, and Telecommunications: The preliminary plans
need to show allow all utility boxes and pedestals. Alleys and lanes must be kept
free of pedestals (and dumpters) to preserve the ROW for emergency vehicle
access.
4
5. Utility River Crossings (comment added 2/2/09): What type of permission does
the developer need to allow pipelines to cross the Roaring Fork Conservancy
easement? (Such construction will need to take place during non -nesting
months.)
Internal Street Configuration and Roadway Design Standards (comments revised
2/2/09)
The submitted conceptual design does not provide quantitative details for an engineering
review of roadway geometry, site distances, emergency access, parking configuration,
etc. Reviewing the proposed `Smart' Code, the following comments address the
proposed departures from conventional design standards.
1. Connections to North: The application's Transportation Master Plan shows two
street connections to existing streets on the north end of the development. These
connections do not concur with the traffic impact analysis. It is the County's
expectation that one of these north access points will exist for emergency access.
2. Highway 82 Access Points: The Transportation Master Plan does not show the
additional turn lanes that will be needed at the SH 82 intersections.
3. Widths of Roadways Serving Multiple Functions: (a) Stores and parking spaces
abut streets that provide a thoroughfare through the development. Such multiple
uses will cause traffic stoppages. (b) Bicycle use is hindered by the prevalence of
narrow streets and the lack of bicycle lanes. (c) Some streets will require turn
lanes. (d) The County's engineer recommends that the minimum width of travel
lanes on major streets be no less than 12 foot.
4. ROW Width: One hundred years ago city planners had the foresight to create
wide right-of-ways that have been able to accommodate unimagined innovations
such as motorized traffic, parking, sanitary and storm sewers, underground dry
utilities, and bicycle lanes. Because of these wide ROWs, towns have had the
flexibility to implement improvements. In order to maximize lot areas, the
proposed development is asking for variances from the County's ROW
requirements. This is short sighted.
5. Alleys and Lanes: (a) Alleys and lanes serve multiple functions including
garbage collection, utilities, and emergency access. Dead-end alleys and lanes
may not provide these functions and should be discouraged. (b) If garages are
placed on alleys, a 20 foot distance is needed in front of the garage door to allow
cars to access the garage. (c) Parking should not be allowed in alleys or lanes
unless adequate width is reserved for emergency vehicles.
6. Snow Removal and Street Cleaning: Street and curb design must accommodate
snowplows and street sweepers. Areas must be reserved to receiving snow from a
plow and areas for receiving snow trucked away from streets.
7. Public Transportation: Streets must be designed to accommodate buses and bus
stops.
8. Stabilized Landscaping: Stabilized landscaping is proposed along roadsides to
accommodate the turning of large vehicles such as fire trucks. Stabilized
landscaping is also proposed for emergency access easements. The emergency
access easement will need to be plowed in the winter. It is unlikely that the
5
stabilized landscaping on the inside of intersections and around cul-de-sacs will
be plowed and, as such, is an acceptable solution for the County.
9. Roadway Curves: Compound, Short Arc, and Reverse: Complex roadway
alignments may serve to slow traffic but will also create unsafe conditions when
mixed with bad weather and elderly or distracted drivers.
10. Permeable Pavement: Applicant needs to demonstrate that the proposed
permeable pavement works in this climate.
11. Road Shoulders: When there is no curb, a stabilized roadway shoulders (3 -foot
wide minimum on both sides) is necessary to keep the pavement from
prematurely deteriorating.
12. Parallel Parking on Turns: Parallel parking should never be placed on turns since
there is inadequate sight distance.
13. Garbage Collection: Show where garbage collection will occur. (Where will the
recycling center be located?)_.
Internal Road Comments on the Smart Code Summary, Technical Binder, Tab 2
(comments added 2/2/09)
Street Type A:
• Summary: This is a short street that goes through a retail commercial area. It is
the only street with diagonal parking.
• Diagonal Parking: An 18 -foot wide land is reserved for diagonal parking. This is
inadequate considering that a typical pick-up truck (single cab F-250) requires a
19.8 -foot lane measured perpendicular to the curb (calculated using 60 degree
parking angle). Furthermore, a crew cab F-250 pick-up requires a 22.3 -foot
parking lane measured diagonally from the curb.
• Snow Storage: To open the road immediately after a snow storm, the snow must
be plowed to the center of the road or onto the shoulders. With the narrow travel
lanes and diagonal parking, there is no room for snow storage.
Street Types B, C, D, F, G (main thoroughfares):
• Summary: These are the streets with the highest traffic that will be used to access
Highway 82. (Some of the F and G street types are not main thoroughfares.)
• Parallel Parking: Parallel parking will stop traffic. This is unacceptable on these
high volume streets.
• Snow Storage: Inadequate. See comment for Street Type A.
• Bicycle Lanes: No bicycle lanes have been provided. Streets are too narrow for
safe bicycling. Bicycling on the sidewalks should be discouraged
• Turning Lanes: Turning lanes at some intersections will be needed. Current
street widths and right-of-way widths will not accommodate turning lanes.
Street Types F & G (not main thoroughfares):
• Summary: For discussion purposes, these are the Type F & G streets that will be
used than less than 40 dwellings (approximately 400 average daily trips (ADTs).
6
• Snow Storage for Street Type F: See comment for Street Type A. (Street Type
G do not having parking on one side allowing snow to be plowed out of the
road.)
Street Type E — (one-way 'slip lane'):
• Summary: Only one short street Type F is proposed. The street has a one-way
10 -foot wide travel lane and one lane of parallel parking.
• Inadequate for Emergency Vehicles. Per the International Fire code, even one-
way alleys have to be 20 -foot wide travel surface if they are to serve as a fire
access road.
Street Type H: - I couldn't find such a street in the development.
Street Type J (residential `yield' street):
• Summary: Low traffic residential streets wit a single 12 -foot lane to
accommodate 2 -way traffic.
• International Fire Code: The International Fire Code states that: (1) A fire access
roads must extend within 150 feet of all portions of buildings. (2) Fire access
roads shall be 20 -feet wide and designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. (3) Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with an
approved area for turning around a fire apparatus.
• Limit on Daily Trips: Such roads are clearly inadequate to serve the 400 average
daily trips proposed in the application.
• Parking: Where will visitors park? Will the road's shoulders accommodate
parking?
Street Type L (lane):
• Summary: These are 12 -foot wide roads have two-way traffic. Most are dead-
end without provisions for emergency vehicle turn around. In different places
these lanes serve different functions ranging from (i) shared driveways, (ii) alleys
providing secondary access to the property, or (iii) dead-end roads serving
multiple homes.
• Applicability as Shared Driveways: It is my recommendation that these shared
driveways be limited to 3 homes. As stated by the fire code, these driveways
need to be 20 feet wide and be no longer than 150 feet.
• International Fire Code: See comments for Type J Streets. Roads must have a 20
foot wide unobstructed surface that can support a fire truck.
• Applicability as Dead-end Roads: Absolutely no dead-end roads should be 12 -
foot wide. Per County code, no dead-end roads can be over 600 -foot long or lack
a paved cul-de-sac turnaround.
• Split Roadway: I assume that these `islands' have been placed along the roadway
to allow vehicles to pass (especially emergency vehicles). What was the criterion
used for spacing these islands?
Street Type M (one-way allies):
7
• Summary: Alleys should provide secondary access to dwellings for utilities,
garbage collection, and garage access. As proposed, some of the allies provide
the only access to dwellings.
• Dead-end Allies: Obviously, no dead-end one-way allies should have been
proposed. Ideally allies should be straight and connect to main streets. If a bend
in the ally is proposed, the bend must allow large vehicles to turn.
• Sole Access: Allies cannot be the only access for primary or accessory dwellings.
• Alley Width: Per the International Fire Code an unobstructed 20 foot width is
required To allow for fire truck use, allies must have a minimum 12 -foot wide
pavement with have 4 -foot stabilized shoulders on each side (20 -foot total).
Nothing, including parking, utility pedestals and parked cars, can ever obstruct
this 20 -foot ROW width. (See International Fire Code in Type K Street
comments)
Additional Roadway Design Standards (Technical Binder, Tab 2, Table 5 and 6)
The following are requested modifications from County regulations or roadway design
standards. (Frankly, there are no reasons why a new development cannot comply with
these time -tested standards that have been established for safety reasons.)
1. Bridge Width: The County's engineer cannot approve the reduction of bridge
widths without seeing more details. Roadway width over bridges must be
wide must have a minimum travel surface of 22 -foot wide for cars and a
sidewalk. A bicycle lane(s) may also be necessary. The International Fire
Code, states that bridges must be constructed and maintained in accordance to
AASHTO specifications.
2. Signage: Signage (i.e. stops signs) can not be modified from MUTCD
standards.
3. Curb Radii: The proposed curb radii that are as small as 5 foot can be used as
long as it can be geometrically demonstrated that that trucks and emergency
vehicles (i.e. fire trucks) can make the turn without crossing into ongoing
traffic lanes or crossing over the curb. (The County can be more flexible
when it comes to entrances into allies.) The County will not allow stabilized
landscaping on the inside of intersections to be used to accommodate the
turning of large vehicles since these areas is unlikely to be plowed in the
winter.
4. Parking Surface: The County is open to considering the use of porous
pavement if the applicant can demonstrate its functionality in cold climates
and longevity with supporting the expected vehicle loads.
5. Intersection Offset Separation and Driveway Separation from Intersection:
Intersections must be directly across from each other or be separated by a
distance of 200 feet.
6. Horizontal and Vertical Curves vs. Sight Distance: To prevent accidents, the
design must comply with AASHTO and other generally accepted standards
for sight distance and curves. (Note: Curves should be placed at the vertical
crests or low points in roads.)
8
7. Dead-end Streets: Dead-end streets cannot be over 600 -foot long. All dead-
end streets required a paved turnaround area. Stabilized pavement will not be
plowed in the winter and cannot constitute part of the area required for the
turnaround.
8. Furnishing in the R.O.W.: No structures, utility pedestals, utility boxes,
dumpsters, private trash containers, and private (reserved) parking can be
placed in the R.O.W. (The applicant should submit a list of items which they
wish to allow in the R.O.W.)
9. Intersection Angle less than 60 Degrees: County will approve only on a case-
by-case basis in which applicant demonstrates that topography does not allow
the street to be designed to comply with >60 degree angle.
10. Snow Removal. Where there is parking on both sides of the road, the road
must be wide enough that snow can be plowed to the middle of the road prior
to the snow being hauled away.
11. Shoulders. If there is no curb stabilized road shoulders (3 -foot wide minimum
on each side) are essential for the durability of the paved driving surface.
12. Table 6: Emergency Vehicle Access: (1) County will not allow the
development to use stabilized landscaping to meet requirements for
turnarounds since there is no guarantee that these areas will be kept open and
plowed in the winter. (2) Per the Fire Code, a shard driveway cannot be
longer than 150 feet unless an adequate turnaround is provided. (3) Per the
Fire code, a 20 foot wide lane is needed if the road is needs to serve as a fire
access road. This means that all roads must be 20 feet wide.
9
Section
Section 4.00
Planned Unit Developments
SEE ALSO CATTLE CREEK APPLICATION, TECHNICAL BINDER, TAB 4
`RESPONSE TO STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS'
4.01 Definitions
4.01.01 Common Open Space
4.01.02 Plan 4.01.06 Density
4.01.03 Planned Unit Development 4.01.07 Fractional Ownership Interest
4.01.04 Commencement of Development 4.01.08 Ownership
4.01.05 Contiguous
4.02 Purposes and Objectives of Development
4.03 Scope
4.04 Consistency With the Master/Comprehensive Plan
4.05 Relationship to Zoning and Subdivision
4.05.01 Applicability to PUDs
4.05.02 Waiver or modification of specification
4.06 Internal Compatibility of Planned Unit Developments
4.07 Standards and Requirements
4.07.01 Approval of PUD rezoning
4.07.02 Off-street parking spaces
4.07.03 Site plan criteria
4.07.04 Maximum height of buildings
4.07.05 Lot areas and setback restrictions
4.07.06 Residential density
4.07.07 Minimum acreage
4.07.08 Uses permitted
4.07.09 Common open space
4.07.10 Time-share/fractional
4.07.11 Findings of the PUD Development Regulations Section (4.07.11 — 4.07.15 NOT
INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.07.12 Purpose
4.07.13 General
4.07.14 Definistions
4.07.15 Requirements
407.15.01 For Lands Designated High Density Residential
4.07.15.02 For Lands With Any Land Use Designation Other Than High Density
Residential
4.07.15.03 Computation of Required Affordable Housing Units and Mix of Housing
Units
4.07.15.04 PUD Amendment Requests Subject To These Regulations
4.08 PUD Processing (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.08.01 Review of applications
4.08.02 Application process
4.08.03 PUD plan
4.08.04 Use and occupancy restrictions
4.08.05 Application requirements
4.08.06 Use prior to approval
4.09 Development in Stages (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.09.01 Time limits
4.09.02 Late application
4.09.03 Failure to proceed to a subsequent stage
4.09.04 Nonresidential uses
4.09.05 Development & Construction
4.10 Maintenance of Common Open Space (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.11 Fee (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.12 Enforcement and Modification of Provisions of the Plan
(NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.12.01 Common Open Space
4.12.02 Enforcement of provisions
4.12.03 Modifications of provisions
4.12.04 Removal of rights to enforce
4.12.05 Independent or Outside Legal and/or Technical Expertise
4.14 Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT)
4.14.01 Renting, Purchasing, or Selling Affordable Housing Units -Qualifications to Rent or to
Purchase Affordable Housing Units
4.14.02 Qualifications to Reside in an Affordable Housing Unit
4.14.03 How to Qualify for Affordable Housing Unit (Rental or Purchase)
4.14.04 Procedures for Initial Purchase and for Resale of an Affordable Housing Unit
4.14.05 Execution of Deed Restrictions by Applicants
4.14.06 Priorities for Persons Desiring to Purchase an Affordable Housing Unit
4.14.07 Maximum Vacancy of an Affordable Housing Unit for Rent
4.14.08 Leave of Absence for Owners of an Affordable Housing Unit
4.14.09 Roommates
4.14.10 Special Review for 4 to 6 Bedroom Units
4.14.11 Grievance Procedures
4.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
4.01 DEFINITION
As . used in this Planned Unit Development Section (hereafter "section") the following
defmitions shall apply, unless the context otherwise requires:
4.01.01 Common Open Space: A parcel or parcels of land, or a combination of land and water within
the site designated for a Planned Unit Development, designed and intended primarily for the
use or enjoyment of residents, occupants and owners of the Planned Unit Development.
Categories of open space are defined as follows:
(1) Useable open space: Any land retained in an open manner having average slope of
25%or less across the entire parcel, or is an existing or proposed agricultural area;
(2) Recreational open space: Any open space land to be developed into an area or areas
for organized or unorganized recreational activities, examples would include, but are not
limited to: soccer/football playing fields, parks, baseball/softball diamonds, or similar uses;
(3) Commercial open space: Any open space land that would be developed into an area or
areas of land, for which a fee would be charged for use. Examples would include, but not
limited to: golf courses, water ski lakes, horse riding facilities, or similar uses;
(4) Limited use open space: Any land to be retained as open space that has an average slope
greater than 25%. (A. 97-109)
4.01.02 Plan: The provisions for development of a Planned Unit Development which may include,
and need not be limited to easements, covenants and restrictions relating to use, location and
bulk of buildings and other structures, intensity of use or densityof development, utilities,
private and public streets, ways, roads, pedestrian areas and parking facilities, Open Space
and other public facilities. "Provisions of the plan" means the written and graphic materials
referred to in this defmition. (A. 97-109)
4.01.03 Planned Unit Development: (hereinafter a PUD): Shall mean a single parcel of land or
contiguous parcels of land of a size sufficient to accommodate an integrally planned
environment, controlled by a single landowner, or by a group of landowners, to be developed
as a unified plan for the number of dwelling units, commercial, educational, recreational or
industrial uses, or any combination of the foregoing. The Plan for which does not correspond
in lot size, bulk or type of use, density, lot coverage, open space or other restriction to the
existing land use regulations and zone district. (A. 97-109)
Any reference to a PUD shall be assumed to include reference to a TPUD as well, where
applicable, whether or not "TPUD" is written.
Transit Area Planned Unit Development: (hereinafter a TPUD) Shall mean a single parcel
of land or contiguous parcels of land meeting the above definition of a "Planned Unit
Development" and which also is located within 2000 feet of a planned or developed mass
transit terminal or station which has been approved pursuant to § 5.11 of these regulations.
If any portion of a property or parcel contained within a PUD is within 2000 feet of a
planned or developed mass transit station or terminal the entire property, parcel or PUD
shall be deemed to be included within a TPUD.
A "planned" mass transit terminal or station, is herein defined as a facility identified in a
bonafide and endorsed conceptual planning process by an agency or authority with legal
standing to undertake alternatives analysis and conceptual design, and where that facility
has progressed to the preferred or selected alternative for preliminary design, and where it
can be reasonably assumed that such facility will be built within 20 years. The 2000 foot
radius, where the facility is not yet in place or designed, shall be deemed to be from the
center point of a probable location. Where there may be several probable locations in a
given area, the Applicant may show such alternatives and accommodate those in the
conceptual design and Sketch Plan of a TPUD in consultation with the board and to assist
in review by a Mass Transit Agency. (added 2002-12)
4.01.04 Commencement of Development: Approval of a Final Plat and commencement of
construction as secured by a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. (A. 97-109)
4.01.05 Contiguous: When applied to parcels of land, shall mean the lands have a common border
and adjoin each other on at least one common property boundary, for a minimum of thirty
(30) feet. For the purposes of this definition, a pubhc right-of-way or easement shall be
considered a common property boundary for properties separated only by right-of-way or
easement. (A. 97-109) Contiguity, for purposes of creating a TPUD cannot be gained by a
common boundary with a fixed guide way alone. A planned or developed mass transit
terminal or station must be within 2000 feet. (added 2002-12)
4.01.06 Density: The overall average residential density shall be calculated by summing the number
of residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total
gross area, expressed in acres, within the boundary of the PUD. (A. 97-109)
4.01.07 Fractional Ownership Interest: Any type of shared ownership or leaseback of a structure
intended primarily for residential occupancy that results in occupancy shares being allotted for
a designated period of time. (A. 97-109)
4.01.08 Ownership: Demonstration of ownership shall be constituted by current written proof of
who or what entity holds title to all of the land(s) depicted on any plat or plan filed with
the County, with the minimum proof of ownership consisting of a title report issued by a
title company authorized to conduct business in the State of Colorado. The title report
shall be issued not more than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of submittal of the PUD
application. If the land is owned by a corporation or similar legal entity, that designates an
individual or entity to act in the Corporation's or similar legal entity behalf, a proof of
agency shall be required and consist of a Corporate Resolution, or similar legal document,
designating the individual or entity to act as agent. The application must be signed by an
officer of the Corporation or legal entity and certified by the Secretary of the Corporation,
or officer of a similar legal entity. (A. 97-109)
4.02 PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of a PUD is to permit greater design flexibility and, consequently, more
creative and imaginative design for development than generally possible under
conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that PUDs shall be
planned to insure general conformity, both in substance and location, with the goals and
objectives of the master/comprehensive plan through integrated development. (A. 97-109)
The purpose of a TPUD is more fully set out in §5.11. (added 2002-12)
4.03 SCOPE
Applications for Planned Unit Development zoning may be made for land located in any
zoning district.
4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
No PUD or TPUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to
be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive plan(s). When
appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County
Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any application
for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning
Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and may occur at the
same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include
justification for the amendment based upon criteria for establishing land use designations
contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. (A. 97-109) (added 2002-12; TPUD)
4.05 RELATIONSHIP TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION
4.05.01 The Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as the same may be from time to time
amended, and the provisions of this Zoning Resolution, as the same may be from time to
time amended, shall be applicable to PUDs insofar as said Regulations and Resolution are
consistent with this section and with any specific zoning or subdivision requirements
approved by the County Commissioners at the time of zoning or platting the PUD in
question. To the extent that said Regulations and Resolution are inconsistent herewith,
they shall not be applicable and the provisions of this section and, with respect to TPUDs,
supplementary regulations in §5-12 shall control. (amended 2002-12)
4.05.02 It is recognized that the uniqueness of each proposal for a PUD and TPUD requires that
the specifications, standards and requirements for various facilities, including but not
limited to, affordable housing, streets, highways, alleys, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
street lights, parks, play -grounds, school grounds, storm drainage, water supply and
distribution, and sewage collection and treatment, may be subject to modification from the
specifications, standards, and requirements established in the Subdivision Regulations of
Garfield County for like uses in other zone districts. The County Commissioners may, at
the time of zoning as a PUD and TPUD, waive or modify the specifications, standards and
requirements which would be otherwise applicable, as requested by the applicant. Any
waiver or modification of specifications, standards and requirements will only be approved
if it can be demonstrated that the proposed waiver(s) is consistent with "best engineering
practices," as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. (A. 97-109) (amended
2002-12)
4.06 INTERNAL COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
It is recognized that certain individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to all the
design elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly with one another.
Therefore, a proposed PUD or TPUD shall be considered from the point of view of the
relationship and compatibility of the individual elements of the Plan, and no PUD or
TPUD shall be approved which contains incompatible elements internally or with
neighboring property. (amended 2002-12)
4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
4.07.01 The County Commissioners may approve a proposed PUD rezoning upon a finding that it
will implement the purposes of this section and will meet the standards and requirements
set forth in this section. A TPUD must also meet the additional standards and
requirements set forth in the supplementary regulations found in §5.11 of this resolution.
(amended 2002-12)
4.07.02 The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than
the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the County
Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces
in consideration of the following factors:
(1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD;
APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVDE JUSTIFACTION FOR THE REDUCTIONS
IN PARKING PROVIDED FOR RESIDENCES AND OTHER USES.
A PARKING PLAN SHOULD BE SUBMITTED THAT TABULARIZES THE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH MULI-FAMILY AND NON-
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND A MAP THAT SHOWS THE PARKING
SPACES RESERVED FOR EACH BUILDING.
(2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses;
(3) Varying time periods of use wheneveroint use of common parking areas is proposed.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SHARED (JOINT) PARKING TO REDUCE
PARKING SPACES BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE
VARYING TIME PERIODS OF EACH USER.
4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate
that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been
otherwise achieved:
(1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with
unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized.
(A) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. COUNTY WILL REVIEW THE OPINIONS OF
EXPERTS TO DETERMINE IF THE UNDISTRUBED PARTS OF THE SITE ARE
ADEQUATE FOR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT.
(B) TRAFFIC. THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND STOPLIGHT ON HIGHWAY
82 WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE AFFECT. IN ADDITION, USE OF THE RFTA
REGIONAL TRAIL AS A RECREATIONAL AMENITY COULD HINDER THE
USE OF THE TRAIL BY BICYCLE COMMUTERS.
(2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the
type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access.
Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire
protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for
residential purposes.
(A) PRIMARY TRAFFIC ROUTE THROUGH DEVELOPMENT IS NOT
SEPARATED FROM LIVING AREAS. THESE PRIMARY ACCESS ROUTES
ARE NARROW AND HAVE JOGS AND THEREFORE CONVENIENCE AND
ACCESS ARE SACRIFICED.
(B) IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY
VEHICLES. THIS JUDGEMENT NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE
POLICE AND FIRE DEPRTMENT AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAN.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDUCE CURVE RADII AT
INTERSECTIONS. TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGE TRUNING RADII OF
LARGE VEHICLES (LIKE FIRE TRUCKS), STABILZED LANDSCAPING IS
PROPOSED ON THE INSDE OF INTERSECTIONS SUCH THAT TRUCKS
CAN DRIVE OVER THE CURB AND ACROSS THE LANDSCAPING.
STABILIZED LANDSCAPING IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR EMERGENCY
ACCESS EASEMENTS. THE AREAS OF STABILIZED LANDSCAPING
WILL NEED TO BE PLOWED IN THE WINTER.
(C) THE PRIMARY TRAFFIC ROUTES ARE NARROW AND NOT DESIGNED
FOR BICYCLE TRAFFIC.
(3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation,
safety, convenience, separation and screening. APPLICATION SHOWS THAT
PARKING AREAS ARE SURROUNDED BY TREES. THE APPLICANT NEEDS
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SIZE OF THESE PARKING AREAS IS
ADEQUATE TO FULFILL THEIR FUNCTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, IS THERE
ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE SCHOOL AND PLAYING FIELDS?
(4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and
type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The
PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain.
APPLICATION SHOWS LARGE AND SMALL PARKS THROUGHOUT
DEVELOPMENT.
(5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and
Common Open Space.
BA)) HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITIES: SEE APPLICATION TECHNICAL
INDER, TAB 1, PAGE SC15 `TABLE 1: SMART CODE SUMMARY'
(B) OTHER FACILTIES: OK
(C) COMMON OPEN SPACE: OK
(6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units. OK
(7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety, separation,
convenience, and access to points of destination and attractiveness. OK
(8) If centralized water and/or wastewater facilities are proposed within the PUD, they
shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that shall contain its own
performance standards. No land within any utility zone district shall apply toward any
category of open space calculation or requirement. The PUD shall demonstrate how
common water and wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed by the future
owners within the PUD. (A. 97-109) NOT APPLICABLE
(9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40%, shall be the minimum necessary to meet
the development needs, with a revegetation and geotechnical plan submitted with the PUD
application. (A. 97-109) NOT APPLICABLE
10) If community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the PUD, the
application shall discuss who or what entity shall be responsible for the provision of and
payment for the proposed facilities. The facilities shall also be included within the overall
common infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water, wastewater and parking
requirements. (A. 97-109)
A. SITE FOR SCHOOL: PER DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPLICANT
AND SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE LAND, UTILITIES TO
SITE, AND PLAYING FIELDS.
B. PLAYING FIELDS. COUNTY COULD REQUIRE THAT PLAYING FIELDS
BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOMES, NOT WHEN THE
THE SCHOOL IS CONSTRUCTED (AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT).
C. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS.
D. FISHING POND.
E. RFTA ROW.
4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum permitted for
like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following characteristics of the
proposed building: SEE APPLICATION TECHNICAL BINDER, TAB 1, PAGES
SC25, SC31-SC35
(1) It's geographical location;
(2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain;
(3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate
vicinity;
(4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air circulation or loss
of view;
(5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open
space; and
(6) Uses within the proposed building.
(7) Development supportive of mass transit operations in a TPUD. (added 2002-12)
4.07.05 The maximum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be decreased below and
the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings in
other zone districts to accommodate specific building types with unusual orientation on the
lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted to
provide flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall contain
an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with useable common open
areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and
to save street and utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also
intended to accommodate contemporary building types which are not spaced individually
on their own lots but share common side walls, combined service facilities or similar
architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and
buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a basis for denying approval of a
PUD application. SEE APPLICATION TECHNICAL BINDER, TAB 1, PAGES
SC25, SC31-SC35
COUNTY COULD REQUIRE THAT A PRE -DETERMINED PERCENTAGE OF
BUILDINGS BE CONSTRUCTED TO BE `SOLAR PANEL READY' AND THAT
BUILDINGS BE ORIENTED FOR PASSIVE SOLAR (LIGHTING AND HEATING)
AND SOLAR PANELS.
4.07.06 The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross
acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County Commissioners may allow an
increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public
water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special
district (as defined by Section 32-1-103(20), C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior
zoning classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per
gross acre, such increased densities shall nevertheless comply with the maximum lot
coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and
parking standards of such prior zoning classification. The overall average residential
density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units planned
within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed m acres
within the boundary of the PUD. The density of dwelling units in any particular area may
be greater than the maximum permitted for a like use in other zone districts. Averaging
and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of
conformance with the purposes of this section through appropriate design features within
the PUD that will achieve high standards of design and livability. (A. 83-93, A. 96-87, A.
97-109) (amended 2002-12)
NUMBER OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS: 1006
GROSS ACRES: 288.9 ACRES
UNITS/ACRE: 3.5
SEE GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING CODE, SECTION 3.05 FOR: MINIMUM LOT
AREA (20,000 SF), MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE35%), SETBACKS, MAXIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHTS (25 FT), AND FLOOR AREA RATIO (0.25).
Where the application is a TPUD, and showing of conformance with the purposes of this
section is deemed appropriate by the board, limitations set on previously zoned density of
under two dwelling units per gross acre may be removed and the applicant may propose
higher overall densities and exceed standard building height limitations otherwise
specified herein, provided only that standards specified in 4.07.04 are considered. Special
attention shall be given to fire protection and equipment needs triggered by such a
proposal. Any proposal requesting a density above 5 dwelling units per gross acre within
2000 feet of a proposed or developed mass transit station or terminal shall provide 10%
additional affordable housing units (In Study Area One, a total of 20%) with those units
being within 2000 feet of the proposed station or terminal, even though previous zoning
did not allow that level of density for those developments within 2000 feet. The intent of
this section of the Resolution is to permit both the PUD allowance of increased density
provided that 10% of the proposed units are affordable units, and an additional increased
density, where increased density is proximate to and supports a transit station or terminal,
and that higher density within 2000 feet of the transit station or terminal. The applicant
must show a concentration of affordable units equaling 20% of the proposed housing stock
where density exceeds five units per acre in Study Area One. (A. 83-93, A. 96-97, A. 97-
109) (amended 2002-12)
TO BE DETERMINED BY COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
4.07.07 The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres. OK
4.07.08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the land use
designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. (A. 95-043, A. 97-109) NEED
AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the
resolution zoning the particular area PUD.
4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be
devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the
Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open space. Of
the 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no more than 40% of the 25% total
required, shall be limited use open space, with the balance being retained as one or more
of the remaining open space categories, listed above. Provided, however, that the County
Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they fmd that such decrease is warranted
by the design of, and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and that the
needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed
PUD. (A. 97-109)
LIMITED USE OPEN SPACE:
COMMON OPEN SPACE:
REQ'D: <55.1 AC (40% OF 137.9 AC)
CC: 17.2 AC (12.5%)
REQ'D: 72.2 AC (25% OF 288.9 TOTAL PUD)
CC: 137.9 AC (47.7%)
4.07.10 If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional
ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such ownership
shall be those that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the
property is zoned PUD. NO TIME SHARE OR FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP IS
PROPOSED.
9:00 DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS
9:10 GENERAL SITE STANDARDS
9:11 In designing and planning individual lots and street layout for a subdivision, the
constructed improvements and engineering design shall conform to the provision of
this Section 9:00, as well as to other applicable Garfield County land use regulations
and standards.
9:12 Land subject to identified natural hazards, such as falling rock, land slides, snow
slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted for any
use other than open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres,
unless mitigation is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer
qualified to do such design. CATTLE CREEK AND ROARING FORK
FLOODPLAINS: THEY WILL NEED A FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR BRIDGES AND ANY OTHER IMPACTS TO THE CATTLE CREEK
FLOODPLAIN. THE ROARING FORK FLOODPLAIN WILL NOT BE IMPACTED.
POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE: THE ENTIRE SITE NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY
INVESTIGATED FOR EXISTING AND POTENTIAL SINKHOLES. AT MINIMUM,
THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS MUST BE
FOLLOWED.
OTHER: NO OTHER NATURAL HAZARDS LISTED ABOVE APPEAR TO OCCUR.
Land subject to flooding, or in a natural drainage channel, shall not be platted for
occupancy unless adequate provision has been made to eliminate or control any
potential flooding. In no case shall a project conflict with the standards and
requirements established in the Garfield County Floodplain Regulations.
9:13 Development plans shall preserve, to the maximum extent possible, natural features
such as unusual rock formations, lakes, rivers, streams and trees. Where appropriate,
the subdivider may be required to dedicate lands to lot owners to preserve these
features. In no case shall lots be designed such that a dwelling unit will be located
closer than thirty feet (30') to a live stream, lake or pond, regardless of the fact that
floodplain regulations may allow dwelling units located closer in some instances.
NO BUILDINGS PROPOSED WITHIN 30 FEET OF STREAMS.
HERON ROOKERIES: QUOTING THE LITERATURE, THE WILDLIFE
ASSESSMENT REPORT STATES THAT RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES
(FREE OF HUMAN ACTIVITIY) AROUND HERON NESTS IS 200 METERS TO
500 METERS. THE REPORT STATES THAT 200 METER BUFFER IS ADEQUATE
IF BERMING AND DENSE VEGETATIVE SCREENING IS USED. THE PLAT
RECORDED BY THE ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY AND THE APPLICANT
SHOWS A 200 METER RADIUS WITH ITS CENTER NEAR THE CONFLUENCE
OF CATTLE CREEK AND THE ROARING FORK RIVER. THERE APPEARS TO
BE AT LEAST ONE BUILDING AND TWO YARDS WITHIN THIS RADIUS.
THE WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT REPORT IDENTIFIES THREE HERON NEST
TREES FURTHER UPSTREAM FROM THE CONFLUENCE AND GRAPHICALLY
SHOWS A 200 METER BUFFER AROUND THE NESTS. THERE ARE
DEFINITELY A NUMBER OF HOMES WITHIN 200 METERS OF THESE NEST
SITES.
THE DEVELOPER PLANS NOT CONSTRUCT HOUSES WITHIN 200 METERS OF
THE NESTS UNTIL THE HERON'S ABANDON THE NESTS. AUTHOR OF THE
REPORTS BELIEVES THAT HERONS WILL ABANDON THIS NESTING AREA AS
DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE 200 METER RADIUS OCCURS.
9:14 Public access and/or fishing easements to lakes, rivers and streams shall be provided
as a part of any development proposal where it is determined to be appropriate by the
Board of County Commissioners. TWO FISHING ACCESS POINTS ARE
PROPOSED ON THE SOUTH (UPSTREAM) END OF THE PARCEL ALONG THE
ROARING FORK. THESE FISHING ACCESS POINTS ARE WITHIN 200 METERS
OF THE HERON NEST TREES. PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
WILDLIFE ASSESSEMENT REPORT, THESE ACCESS POINTS SHOULD BE
CLOSED DURING BREEDING SEASON MID -MARCH TO JULY 31ST
9:15 One (1) dog shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision; and the
dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. The
requirement shall be included in the protective covenants for the subdivision, with
enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog from the subdivision as a
final remedy in worst cases. (99-096) DOG OWNERSHIP: NEEDS TO BE
INCLUDED IN COVENANTS. THIS CAN BE WRITTEN INTO THE APPROVAL
RESOLUTION AND POSSIBLY ADDED AS A PLAT NOTE.
9:16 No open hearth, solid -fuel fireplaces are allowed anywhere within a subdivision.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401,et.seq., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling units shall be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances. (99-096) FIREPLACES: SAME AS ABOVE
9:17 Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting shall be
directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision. (99-096)
EXTERIOR LIGHTING: SAME AS ABOVE
9:18 No further subdivision of a recorded subdivision shall be allowed, except where it is
provided for in an approved Preliminary Plan or when the zoning of the property
allows for multi -family dwellings as a use by right and the application is for a multi-
family dwelling. (99-096; modified 2002-30) FURTHER SUBDIVISON: NO
COMMENT
9:20 LOT AND BLOCK DESIGN
9:21 Lot size, width, depth and shape shall be appropriate for the type of development
proposed and shall meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution or PUD regulations, where applicable. FOR SUMMARY
OF LOT DIMENSIONS, SEE TECHNICAL BINDER, TAB 1: SMART CODE,
TABLES 1 & 6.
9:21.1 Individual lot sizes may be increased by the County above the minimum lot size
allowed in the applicable zone district in areas posing a potential health hazard due to
soil conditions or geology. NO COMMENT
9:21.2 Depth and width of lots shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and
parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated.
PARKING:
• SHARED PARKING: CATTLE CREEK PRPOOSES TO ALLOW VAROUS USES TO
SHARE PARKING SPOTS. FOR EXAMPLE, SCHOOLS AND ATHLETIC FACILITY (OR
SCHOOLS AND STORES) WOULD SHARE PARKING SPACES SINCE PRESUMABLY
BOTH ACTIVITIES WILL NOT OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME. PER CODE SECTION
4.07.02, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE DETAILED JUSTIFICATION FOR JOINT
SHARED PARKING.
• OFFSITE/ON-STREET PARKING TO FULLFILL REQUIREMENTS: CODE REQUIRES
THAT RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER PARKING REQUIREMENTS BE FULFILLED BY
PROVIDING PARKING SPACES ONSITE. CATTLE CREEK PROPOSES TO UTILIZE
ON -STREET PARKING TO FULFILL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. WHERE WILL
VISITORS PARK? TYPICALLY R.O.W. PARKING BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC AND
CAN NOT BE DESIGNATED AS BEING RESERVED.
• CATTLE CREEK VS. COUNTY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Notes to table: (1) Land Use Code requires all spaces be located onsite whereas
Cattle Creek proposes that street parking may fulfill requirement. (2) sf = square feet
of floor area
Cattle Creek
Proposal
Old Land Use
Code
New Land Use
Code
Institute of
Transportation
Engineers (ITE)
Single Family
Dwelling
2 spaces/unit
Greater of either:
1 space/unit or 1
space/600sf floor
area
2 spaces/unit
2 spaces/unit
Two-family
Dwelling
1 space/unit
Greater of either:
1 space/unit or 1
space/600sf floor
area
2 spaces/unit
Multi -Family
Dwelling
0.98 — 1.4
space/unit
Greater of either:
1 space/unit or 1
space/600sf floor
area
2-4 spaces/unit
depending no. of
bedrooms
Row House
1 space/unit
Greater of either:
1 space/unit or 1
Not in code
9:21.3 Corner lots for residential use shall have extra width to permit the required building
space/600sf floor
area
Group Home
for Elderly
0.5 space/unit
Boarding house
of similar use: 1
sp/bed
group home: 1
space/unit
Accessory
Uses
No additional
parking
Not in code
Not in code
Office
1 space/333 sf
1 space/200 sf
1 space/250 sf
1 space /358 sf
Home
Occupations
No additional
parking
Not in code
Not in code
Retail /
Personal
Service
Establishme
nt
1 space/250 sf
1 space/200 sf
1 space/250 sf
1 space/250 sf
Restaurant
1 space/4 seats
Not in code
1 space/4 seats
1 space/ 3 seats
Community
Hall, Rec.
Hall,
Auditorium
1 space/ 333 sf
1 space/100 sf
1 space/300 sf
Place of
Worship
10.6 spaces
/1000 sf
Not in code
Not in code
Park
No additional
parking
Not in code
Not in code
Mass Transit
Facility
No additional
parking
Not in code
Not in code
Fire Station
1
space/employee
Not in code
Not in code
School
0.28
space/student
Not in code
Not in code
Day Nursery
No additional
spaces
Not in code
Not in code
Day Care
Nursery
3.5 spaces /1000
sf
Not in code
Not in code
9:21.3 Corner lots for residential use shall have extra width to permit the required building
setback from both roads, as required in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of
1978, as amended. UNKNOWN DUE TO LACK OF DETAIL OF SUBMITTED
PLANS. THIS NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY
DESIGN.
9:22 In no case shall a lot be created with accesses onto a public or private road with less
than twenty-five feet (25') of street frontage. LOT WIDTHS OF 24 FEET ARE
PROPOSED. (SEE TECHNICAL BINDER, TAB 1: SMART CODE, TABLES 1)
9:22.1 Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to road right-of-way lines
or centerlines. UNKNOWN DUE TO LACK OF DETAIL OF SUBMITTED PLANS.
THIS NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY DESIGN.
9:30 STREETS AND ROADWAYS
9:31 Access to all subdivisions shall be from a public street system. YES. TWO ACCESS
POINTS ONTO HIGHWAY 82. (POTENTIAL SECONDARY ACCESS POINTS
INTO FRYWALD CONSTRUCTIION AND LAZY F MOBILE HOME PARK ARE
NOT PUBLIC.)
9:32 Streets and roads shall be designed so that alignments will join in a logical manner,
such that adjacent road systems can be combined to form a continuous route from
one area to another.
• LOGICAL STREET LAYOUT: A SHORTCOMING IS THAT THE MAIN
ROADS HAVE JOGS AND SHORT OFFSETS BETWEEN
INTERSECTIONS. IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THESE INTERSECTIONS WILL
BE SIGNALED/SIGNED TO ALLOW SAFE AND EFFICENT VEHICLE AND
PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT.
• INTERNAL TRAFFIC STUDY: TO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING
LOGICAL STREET LAYOUT, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE A
REPORT PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER WITH EXPERTISE IN THE
SUBJECT.
• ANGLES AT INTERSECTIONS: SEVERAL STREETS JOIN AT ANGLES
LESS THAN THE 60 DEGREES RECOMMENDED BY WIDELY
ACCEPTED STANDARDS (AASHTO 2004, CHAPTER 5)
• MINIMUM ROAD RADIUS OF 100 FEET IS NOT OBSERVED. (AASHTO
2004, CHAPTER 5)
9:32.1 Street shall have the named of existing streets in the same alignment; otherwise there
shall be no duplication of street names in the County. STREETS ARE NOT NAMED
YET.
9:32.2 No more than two (2) streets shall intersect at one point, with a minimum of two
hundred feet (200') between off -set intersections, unless otherwise approved by the
County Road Supervisor. THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLACES IN WHICH PROPOSED
BLOCK LENGTHS AND OFFSET DISTANCES BETWEEN INTECTIONS ARE
LESS THAN 200 FEET.
9:32.3 Streets shall be designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography. OK
9:33 Cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under the following circumstances:
THREE DEAD END STREETS EXCEED 600 FOOT LENGTH.
(1) SOUTH STREET ENDS IN A 1400 -FOOT LONG DEAD END STREET .
(2) THE SOUTH END OF EAST STREET ISA 1600 -FOOT LONG DEAD END BUT
ASSUMABLY THE DEVELOPER WILL CORRECT THIS DEFICENCY BY
CREATING AND MAINTAINING AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE FROM THE
END OF EAST STREET, ACROSS THE RFTA TRAIL, TO THE FITNESS CENTER
PARKING LOT.
(3) THE NORTH END OF EAST STREET IS SHOWN AS CONNECTING WITH
THE FRYWALD CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THE ACCESS ACROSS
FRYWALD CONSTRUCTION IS TEMPORARY AND DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A
PERMANENT SECONDARY ACCESS. AS SUCH, THIS AREA ONLY HAS ONE
ACCESS POINT.
A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred
feet (600') in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five
feet (45') from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (50')
right-of-way for residential development and not less than seventy-five foot
(75') right-of-way for commercial/industrial development where tractor trailer
trucks will enter the property or by providing a T-shaped turnaround with a
minimum turning radius of fifty feet (50') for residential development and
seventy-five feet (75') for commercial/industrial development where tractor
trailer trucks will enter the property. The Board may approve longer cul-de-
sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and
emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design; and
B. Dead end streets shall be discouraged, except in cases where the dead end is
meant to be temporary with the intent to extend or connect the right-of-way in
the future. If a dead end street is approved, room for plowed snow storage
shall be included by providing a T-shaped turnaround with a minimum
turning radius of fifty feet (50') for residential development and seventy-five
feet (75') for commercial/industrial development where tractor trailer trucks
will enter the property. A dead end street being different from a cul-de-sac in
that a dead end street has no permanent turnaround at the end of the street.
PROPOSED TURNING RADII ARE LESS THAN REQUIREMENT.
TURNING RADII ARE A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE AND ARE NOT
NEGOTIABLE.
9:34 All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards
consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be the
responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision.
MAINTENANCE OF ALL STREETS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
HOMEOWNERS'S ASSOCIATION.
9:35 Street and roadway design shall be in conformance with the following standards:
THE STREET STANDARDS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICATION VARY
SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE COUNTY'S STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT
DESCRIBES THE DEVIATIONS IN THE `PERFORMANCE STANDARDS'
SECTION WHICH IS PART OF THE TECHNICAL APPLICATION BINDER.
INTERNAL TRAFFIC STUDY. APPLICANT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE AN
INTERNAL TRAFFIC STUDY, THAT INLCUDES DAILY AND PEAK HOURLY
TRIPS, IN ORDER TO DISCERN THE ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED ROAD
DIMENSIONS.
MULTI -USE STREETS. IN GENERAL, IT IS THE OPINION OF THE COUNTY'S
PLANNING ENGINEER IS THAT THE PROPOSED PRIMARY TRAFFIC ROUTES
ARE TOO NARROW TO ACCOMMODATE: (i) PARALLEL PARKING FROM
ADJACENT SHOPPING AREAS, (ii) BICYCLISTS, (iii) A CONVENIENT
THOROUGHFARE TRAFFIC FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO HIGHWAY 82, (iv)
QUEUING AT INTERSECTIONS, AND (v)TEMPORARY SNOW STORAGE IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) WIDTH: ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO CITY
PLANNERS HAD THE FORESIGHT TO CREATE WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAYS
THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE UNIMAGINED INNOVATIONS
SUCH AS MOTORIZED TRAFFIC, PARKING, SANITARY AND STORM
SEWERS, UNDERGROUND DRY UTILITIES, AND BICYCLE LANES.
BECAUSE OF THESE WIDE ROWS, TOWNS HAVE HAD THE FLEXIBILITY
TO IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE LOT AREAS,
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ASKING FOR VARIANCES FROM THE
COUNTY'S ROW REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS SHORT SIGHTED.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY'S PLANNING ENGINEER ARE
FOUND IN A MEMO FROM THE ENGINEER DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2008.
MAJOR MINOR SECONDARY RURAL SEMI PRIMITIVE PUBLIC
TEMPLATE DESIGN COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ACCESS ACCESS PRIMITIVE RESIDENTIAL LANDS ACCESS
DESIGN CAPACITY 2501 -+ 401-2500 201-400 101-200 21-100 11-20 NO ACCESS TO
D.U.
MINIMUM R.O.W.
80' 60' 50' 50' 40' 30' 30'
SINGLE SINGLE
LANE LANE
LANE WIDTH 12' 12' 11' 11' 8' 12' 12'
SHOULDER WIDTH
8' 6' 6' 6' 2' 0' 0'
6'INMIN 4'INMIN 4'INMIN 2'INMIN
(PAVED)
DITCH WIDTH
10' 10' 6' 6' 4' 3' 0
CROSS SLOPE 2% 2% 2% 2% CHIP/SEAL 2% CHIP/SEAL 2%
3% GRAVEL 3% GRAVEL
SHOULDER SLOPE 3% 3% 5% 5% 5%
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
DESIGN SPEED &
MINIMUM RADIUS
35 MPH 35 MPH NA NA NA NA
425' 185' 80' 80' 50' 40'
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
MAX % GRADE
8% 8% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
ROADWAY STRUCTURE
SURFACE ASPHALT ASPHALT OR CHIP & SEAL CHIP & SEAL GRAVEL GRAVEL NATIVE MATERIAL
CHIP & SEAL OR GRAVEL
STABILIZATION
ENG ENG ENG ENG ENG 4" MIN 0
DRAINAGE
ENG ENG ENG ENG ENG N/A N/A
*NOTES
1. DESIGN CAPACITY MAJOR MINOR SECONDARY RURAL SEMI
COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ACCESS ACCESS PRIMITIVE
(RELATIVE TO TANDEM 125+ 21-125 11-20 6-10 1-5
AXLE* TRUCKS OR LARGER) ---------------------DAILY AVERAGE BASED ON 5% OF ACTUAL-
ALL PROJECTIONS OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED BY A DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASED ON CALCULATIONS DEVELOPED FOR
THE INSTITUTE 0 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION MODEL. *TANDEM TRUCKS ARE DEFINED AS A TRUCK
WITH ONE (1) STEERING AXLE AND TWO (2) AXLES ON THE REAR OF THE TRUCK.
2. INTERSECTION DESIGN DRAINAGE DESIGN -
3. LAND WIDTHS
A 5 FOOT ZONE BEING AN EXTENSION OF THE
EXISTING SHOULDER WIDTH A NEGATIVE 2%-4%
GRADE. TRAFFIC STOPPING AREA FROM THE 5
FOOT ZONE TO A 25 FOOT ZONE, A MAXIMUM 4%
GRADE, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, WILL BE
ALLOWED BEFORE STARTING THE TYPICAL OR
MAXIMUM GRADE AS ENGINEERED FOR THE
ROADWAY. WHERE A SINGLE ROAD SERVES 40
LOTS OR LESS, .THE MINIMUM R.O.W., LAND
WIDTH, SHOULDER WIDTH AND DITCH WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS MAY BE REDUCES BASED ON
DESIGN CAPACITY V.P.D. REQUIREMENTS
DECREASING INCREMENTALLY.
12' - 14' SINGLE LANE, TURNOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE THEY ARE
INTERVISIBLE OR AT 1,000 FOOT INTERVALS. TURNOUTS WILL BE
CONSTRUCTED TO OUTSIDE CORNER 10' WIDE -50' LONG, WITH 50' TAPERS ON
4. MAXIMUM % GRADE
5. ROADWAY STRUCTURE
6. BRIDGE STANDARDS
7. ROADSIDE PARKING
EACH END.
VARIANCE - THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY APPROVE A
VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM GRADE SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE AND
CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 9:37 OF THIS REGULATION.
ENGINEERED TO SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED WHEEL
LOADINGS.
DESIGN CAPACITY WILL BE 11-20 AND 100 YEAR FLOW MINIMUM, BRIDGE
WIDTHS FOR 0-6-- V.P.D. - ROADWAY PLUS 4 FT., 600+ V.P.D. ROADWAY PLUS 6
FT.
ADD 8 FT. PER SIDE, WITH PARKING, FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE
SHOULDER IF PARKING IS ALLOWED PER SIDE.
8. ALL SIGNING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUAL OR UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES.
9. GRAVEL SURFACES IS ALLOWED FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 10 ACRES OR MORE.
9:37 A variance to the maximum grade of 12% for minor collector and
secondary access categories and up to 14% for rural access categories and
up to 14% for rural access, semi -primitive and primitive residential, may
be approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of the
Preliminary Plan Public Hearing or if the Preliminary Plan has been
approved at the time of adoption of these regulations. General
consideration shall be given to the interrelationship between the length of
grade; its relation to curves and intersections and the transition between
those elements of a road. At a minimum, in order to approve the
requested variance, the following standards shall be met: EXCESSIVE
ROAD GRADES ARE NOT EXPECTED.
1. The applicant shall, by way of graphic illustration on a topographic
map, show the difference between a road that would comply with the
grade requirements and the proposed road with excessive grade.
2. The excessive grade is necessary to avoid the creation of a cut or the fill
slope that exceeds twelve(12) feet in height at the top of the cut or the
bottom of the hill.
3. That the excessive grade section is the minimum length and the
minimum increase in grade necessary to provide access to all lots.
4. The excessive grade has a slope with exposure to maximize solar
exposure and minimize snow/ice build up.
5. All excessive grades in excess of 150 feet in length on dead end roads
shall have a turnaround approved by the appropriate fire district as to the
adequacy of the turnaround to meet fire equipment requirements.
6. If the applicant has not proposed or obtained Board of County
Commissioner approval for fire fighting water storage of adequate
capacity at the top of the excessive grade, the proposed excessive grade
must permit the transport of such water.
If the Board of County Commissioners find that a wild fire hazard is present in the
proposed subdivision, the applicant for a variance to the maximum permissible grade
must meet the following additional criteria: BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT IS
LOCATED BETWEEN HIGHWAY 82 AND THE RIVER, WILD FIRE HAZARD IS
NOT EXCESSIVE.
1. Excessive grades shall only be approved if, in the judgement of the local fire
fighting authority, the wildfire hazard presents a danger due to excessive
vegetation, inadequate land widths or inability to transport water.
2. In areas where wildfire hazard presents a danger, excessive grades shall only
be approved if landscaping requirements consistent with Forest Service
recommendations to minimize wildfire hazards are not incorporated into the
covenants of the subdivision.
3. A variance to the maximum grade shall only be allowed if the use of roof
shingles and siding of the structure are built out of something other than fire
retardant materials and/or sprinklers for internal structural fire protection are
not mandated by covenant.
9:40 DRAINAGE: APPLICANT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE PLAN THAT COMPLIES
WITH THIS PROVISONS.
9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency
storm.
9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of
detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year
storm.
9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement
in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3') beyond the driving surface on
each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load.
9:50 WATER SUPPLY. APPLICANT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE PLAN THAT
COMPLIES WITH THIS PROVISONS.
9:51 An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a
subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total development
population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance
with recognized and customary engineering standards.
9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has
submitted the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the
Colorado Division of Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots
within the development.
9:53 Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water
systems and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado.
Central water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado
Department of Health. All lines in a central water system should be looped, with no
dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs,
there will either be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line.
9:54 Water supply systems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be designed
to minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or subsequent to
flooding.
9:55 All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4"), provided storage
facilities adequate for fire protection are available.
9:60 SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL APPLICANT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE PLAN
THAT COMPLIES WITH THIS PROVISONS.
9:61 Disposal by individual sewage disposal systems may be permitted, provided lot sizes
are consistent with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Individual systems must
have representative soil absorption tests performed by a qualified engineer registered
to perform such tests in the State of Colorado.
9:62 Central sewage treatment works shall be designed by a registered professional
engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. The system shall be designed, in
accordance with the standards established by the Colorado Department of Health.
Site location approval shall be obtained from the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission for systems over two thousand (2,000) gallons per day. In no event
may a system be designed for less capacity than the anticipated maximum daily
sewage flow or treatment requirements.
9:70 FIRE PROTECTION APPLICANT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE PLAN THAT
COMPLIES WITH THIS PROVISONS.
9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection
district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire
entrapment.
9:72 Where a central water system has fire hydrants, all fire hydrants shall meet the
specifications for the appropriate fire protection agency, particularly with regard to
thread size on the fire hydrants.
9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a central located fire protection
storage tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and
be approved by the appropriate fire district.
9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be
from a source separate from the domestic supply.
9:80 PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACES
The Board shall require the reservation and dedication of sites and land areas for
schools and parks when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed
subdivision and future residents. The applicant shall make Dedication of the sites
and land areas to the County, to a School District, or to the public or, in lieu thereof,
payment of a sum of money not exceeding the fair market value of the sites and land
areas. School site or park acquisition cash in lieu shall be based upon a study of the
fiscal impact on the district by new subdivision development, approved by the Board
of County Commissioners and Planning Commission. The use of any such fees shall
be limited by the provisions of CRS §30-28-133, as amended. (99-096)
SCHOOLS: LAND IS BEING RESERVED FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
PARKS: PARKS THOROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SPACES/FACILITIES:
DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CREATE A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND A
RECYCLING CENTER.
9:81 For property located in the RE -1 School District, the subdivider of land in each
residential subdivision or portion of a subdivision which is intended for residential
use, shall allocate and convey sites and land areas for schools when such are
reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future residents thereof,
by the application of formulas set forth below:
Land area provided per student x students generated per dwelling unit = Land
Dedication Standard.
According to current school site size recommendations and reasonable building
capacities, the District has determined that 1,776 square feet of land per student shall
be provided for future school sites as stated below:
Reasonable Capacity Recommended Acreage*
Elementary School 550 15.5
Middle School 600 26.0
High School 800 38.0
Totals 1950 79.5
Total acres per student 0.04077
Total square feet per student 1,776
*Recommended acreage for school sites is based on the recommendations contained
in the Guide For Planning Educational Facilities, published in 1991 by the Council of
Educational Facility Planners International.
The number of students generated per type of dwelling unit shall be based on the
following:
Single Family 0.49
Multi -Family 0.38
Mobile Home 0.71
Application of the formula results in the following Land Dedication Standards:
Single Family 870 sq. ft. per unit or .020 acres
Multi -Family 675 sq. ft. per unit or .015 acres
Mobile Home 1,261 sq. ft. per unit or .029 acres
Based upon the RE -1 School District's recommendation, the Board of County
Commissioners can require a developer of residential housing to make a cash
payment in -lieu of dedicating land, or may make a cash payment in combination with
a land dedication to comply with the standards of this regulation. The formula to
determine the cash -in -lieu payments as follows:
Unimproved per acre market value of land x Land Dedication Standard x # of units =
Cash -in -lieu.
Unimproved market value of the property shall be determined by an appraisal
performed within the last 24 months for the applicant, by an individual qualified in
the State of Colorado to establish the unimproved market value of the property just
prior to the approval of a Final Plat. Any dispute of the market value would be based
upon a separate appraisal by an individual qualified in the State of Colorado to
establish the value, paid for by the School District. (99-096)
MEMORANDUM
To: Kathy Eastley
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Cattle Creek Crossing Zone District Amendment
Date: February 10, 2009
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Zone District Amendment. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services (RMES) has mapped and inventoried the area for State and County
listed noxious weeds. In Section 6.2.1 of the Wildlife Assessment Report, RMES details priorities of
weed control for the site. Staff encourages Cattle Creek Colorado (CCC) and the Roaring Fork
Conservancy (RFC) to follow these priorities, specifically the St. Johnswort and oxeye daisy located on the
lower bench in the conservation easement area.
Staff will contact RFC and CCC and set up an on-site meeting in the spring of 2009 to discuss noxious
weed priorities for the conservation easement.
Covenants
When the covenants are submitted at final plat, the applicant is encouraged to provide more detailed
information on the following:
• Common area weed management -The applicant needs to address weed management in
common areas including road rights of way, parks, and open space. Issues to address are
monitoring, treatment, and funding.
• Covenants -If the subdivision will have covenants this is an opportunity to encourage weed control
with new property owners, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to manage county
listed noxious weeds.
Revegetation and Soils
This has been deferred until the preliminary plan application. At that time the items listed below need to
be addressed.
Revegetation
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted
on May 7, 2001) calls for the following:
• Plant material list.
• Planting schedule.
• A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
• A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres,
to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information
will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will
designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security.
Soil Plan
The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that
includes:
• Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
• A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
• A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of
90 days or more.
To: Garfield County Commissioners
Re: Cattle Creek Colorado proposed development
Date: February 4, 2009
Please, please, please do not let Related Westpac ruin the Cattle Creek area
The area in question will, m time, return to its natural state and will always
be a refreshing oasis between housing developments and ugly strip malls.
Just take a trip to Base Village at Snowmass to get an idea of what that
company considers "good taste." The community laughed/cried at Gerald
Hines' redevelopment of the base of Aspen Highlands, and Westpac
proceeded to do the same thing at Snowmass. So much for original thinking.
Are we really obligated to provide housing for every California refugee?
Can the highway handle thousands of additional cars? And just where are
the job opportunities?
Please don't throw our beautiful valley even more out of balance. Be proud
of the legacy you leave.
frO&AL k C&
Katherine Reppa
Missouri Heights
•
sill Spence
678 North Bridge Drive
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
970.963.2163 Phone; 909.548.8464 Fax
bilspence@gmail.com
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2008
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
September 15, 2008
Subject: Cattle Creek Crossing
Dear Members of Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission, and
Garfield County Commissioners,
This letter is in regard to the proposed 979 -unit development at Cattle Creek. I
am one of many county residents who believe that the proposed development is
out of scale for the mid valley, would cater to the needs of up -valley employers
who are not taking care of their own, and have very large economic and
sociological impacts on infrastructure in the mid -valley. I have not had the
opportunity to review the sketch plan for this development and my position is
based on newspaper accounts and conversations with many individuals.
Area residents will be watching very closely what Garfield County approves for
the development at Cattle Creek. Several years ago, residents were appalled by
the destruction of the beautiful Red Barn. Then, they were appalled further by
the pre -construction earthmoving on that property which caused great destruction
of elk habitat. The wintering elk herd is a significant and much honored part of
our valley's culture. The County Commissioners denied a 500 -unit development
of the predecessor Sander's Ranch and not very long ago authorized a
development up to just 600 units. Why should the present development proposal
be viewed more favorably?
Using the standard assumption of 2.3 residents/unit implies that 979 units would
house about 2250 residents — in essence an entirely new community in the mid -
valley. This community would not particularly self-sustaining, in that it is mostly
residential without proportionate commercial/retail development. Such a
community would lead to a great deal of driving and a quality of life that is not in
keeping with the "tone" of our valley. It is not clear to me what the impacts,
including operating and construction costs, would be on regional schools,
libraries, water treatment facilities, law enforcement, fire/emergency response,
and other infrastructure elements. Similarly, are there plans for an on-site public
library, a recreation center, a reasonably -sized grocery store, gas station, wide
pedestrian trails connecting to the Rio Grande Trail, pedestrian nature trails
within the Open Space along the Roaring Fork easement, necessary
infrastructure elements, etc.? What provision exists for governance within Cattle
Creek Crossing? The plan appears to be reminiscent of sub -urban type sprawl.
It would be most helpful to see an analysis of the proposed distribution of
housing stock, including the affordable and attainable components, in terms of
the real needs within this section of our valley. For example, this proposal
doesn't consider the contributions to affordable housing from major projects in
Carbondale: the Overlook, Thompson Park, the Village at Crystal River (formerly
the Marketplace project), and the property surrounding the former Carbondale
Elementary School. Each of these has a considerable affordable housing
component. These major projects that have been years in the planning stage but
now detailed proposals are in the hands of Carbondale officals. Carbondale's
Keator Grove is nearly completed, which is claimed to provide
affordable/attainable housing, as does the Archdiocese development there.
think that for a dynamic, vital, healthy community at Cattle Creek, we need to
provide for and encourage a real diversity in housing stock and lifestyles. Other
regional entities recently have moved projects away from concentrations of high
density -- most recently with the Eagle River Station project. I think that housing
diversity at Cattle Creek would enhance marketability of those units in our
regionally competitive environment. As with the present design of Cattle Creek,
Carbondale's Overlook project utilizes a variation of the transect approach (as in
Smart Code). The transect approach could help the transition from the present
proposal to one that embodies a greater diversity in housing stock.
The developer is planning some "green" elements in this project. That will lessen
the overall environmental impact of the project. However, buildout of the present
proposal will have a huge traffic impact on CO 82, requiring major intersection
modifications, and lead to a correspondingly large carbon footprint on our valley.
In some regards, the present proposal appears better than predecessor
proposals — it has plans for an elementary school at inception and a middle
school later, it includes plans for a RFTA Transit Station, it ties into the
completed Rio Grande Trail, and it has elements of "green" architecture.
However, it appears that the developer's concepts are leading the process,
rather than this project being guided by comprehensive GarCo planning.
believe that Garfield County Planners, the GarCo P&Z, and the GarCo
Commissioners should determine what would be an optimum development for
the Cattle Creek site, in the context of what is healthiest for the whole mid -valley,
and lead the developers in that direction.
The vast majority of persons whom I have talked with concerning the Cattle
Creek proposal feel that it has far too many dwelling units, has the feel of a
community of commuters (with a host of impacts on regional infrastructure), and
has the fundamental weakness of lacking initiatives that will contribute to a self-
sustaining and healthy community. I urge Garfield Counter leaders to take steps
to make Cattle Creek Crossing a presence in the valley of which we all can be
proud. With your help, the development at Cattle Creek Crossing can be a
strong mid -valley amenity rather than a marginal asset or even a liability.
Sincerely,
Bill Spence
Copies to:
Fred Jarman
Garfield County P&Z and Commissioners (via Fred Jarman's office)
Ed Green
Bruce Christiansen
Jeff Haeckel
Michael Hassig
Tom Baker
Doug Dotson
Dan Blankenship
Jacque Whitsett
Dorothea Farris
Ed Cortez
—�oOD spR,
February 27, 2009
To: Kathy Easterly, County Planner
From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Re: Comments on Cattle Creek Colorado PUD, Zone District Amendments
This proposed PUD is not in our Fire District but Carbondale Fire Department may
request our Department for mutual aid to assist them in mitigating an emergency event in
this PUD should if be built. My comments are based on the 2003 International Fire Code
(IFC) and the Garfield County amendments to it.
Access roads: For the planned density of this PUD, the road system needs to meet the
requirements stated in Section 503, Fire Department Access Roads in the 2003 IFC. If all
the roads on the site are to be dedicated "Fire Department Access Roads" then some in
the submitted plans do not meet the minimum road width stated in Section 503. The roads
that do not meet Section 503 standards shall be improved so they do meet them.
Minimum street width clearance at a fire hydrant is 26 feet for 20 feet on each side of the
fire hydrant.
By installing automatic fire suppression systems in most or all of the buildings in the
PUD, narrower then code required road widths and steeper grades may -be allowed for
some of the roads in the PUD if they are approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
Section 503.2.3 Dead ends: Dead-end fire apparatus roads in access of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with an approved area to turn around fire apparatus. The plans state
some of the dead —end roads are to be 200 feet in length.
Water Supply for Fire Flow: The plan states a 1 million gallon water tank will be
installed. I recommend that the applicant be required to provide a water modeling study
to show that this amount of water in storage is adequate to meet the PUD water demand
for fire flows and domestic use at total build out. If this tank is also to supply the H Lazy
J Mobile Home Park, what impact will its demand have on the PUD's water supply? The
amount of water for fire flow can be significantly reduces by requiring all the building in
the PUD to have an automatic fire suppression system installed in them.
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: January 22, 2009
Comments Due: February 12, 2009
Name of application: Cattle Creek Crossing
Sent to:
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staffs contact: Kathy Eastley
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this
application with the following comments.
The entrance from Marand Road to Colorado State Highway 82 is not a County road so
no driveway permit is needed for this entrance. Future entrances to Cr. 154, 114 and
Cr.113 if not within the CDOT ROW will need to be permitted and all improvements to
these intersections shall be approved by Garfield County Engineers.
Any vehicles using Garfield County portions of Cr. 154, 114 and Cr. 113 hauling
equipment and materials for construction of this project shall abide by Garfield County's
oversize/overweight permit system. Any vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits
shall apply for them at Garfield County Road & Bridge Department.
Any utilities placed in County Row or work performed within County Row shall be
permitted by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. Any work within County
ROW shall have a traffic control submitted to Garfield County Road & Bridge
Department and approved prior to any work being performed.
After further review of the intersection of NO NAME ROAD at the intersection to Cr.
154 any added traffic load would require improvements to the intersection. An
engineered design of the intersection shall be submitted to the Garfield County Engineer
for approval prior to any work being performed. Without the improvements to the
intersection no added traffic load should be allowed.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date January 29, 2009
Revised 3/30/00
Memo
To: FILE
From: Kathy Eastley, Planner
Date: February 25, 2009
RE: Summary of Meeting - February 24, 2009 - CDOT/Hwy 82 Access Issues
The purpose of the meeting was to examine the pending development in a three mile
stretch of Highway 82 between the County Road 154/Hardwick Bridge Intersection through the
Cattle Creek Intersection. Kathy Eastley reported that pending development in that area could
total 1800 new homes, with a possible trip generation of 18,000 vehicle trips per day. The
Highway 82 Intersections that will be impacted are the Cattle Creek Intersection, the
CMC/County Road 114 Intersection, and the County Road 154/Hardwick Bridge Intersection.
Dan Roussin from CDOT indicated that State Highway 82 is classified as an expressway
and has very limited access. The access is protected through the State Highway Access Code
and those rules in that Access Code are followed with respect to request for access permits. He
indicated that the discussions about the Cattle Creek development have gone through two or
three different owners and the most recent meeting was approximately two weeks ago. Two
Highway Access Permits were granted with respect to a previous development proposal,
including a signalized full movement intersection at the Cattle Creek crossing as well as a full
movement access at the Wiggers/Sopris Restaurant property, but only if other accesses were
eliminated. The latter intersection had no access across the RFTA corridor. Both of these access
permits have lapsed.
With respect to the most recent discussion between CDOT and Cattle Creek
representatives, CDOT made it clear that the entire Cattle Creek intersection needed to be
examined, including how to include the county roads on the east side of the highway. The
current proposal for a second access, with a right -in right -out, was also discussed, and did not
work for CDOT as currently proposed.
Dan Roussin explained that the access permit process is really a two step process, with
the permit being the first step, a conceptual approval only, followed by the second step with a
notice to proceed. The latter is based upon actual engineer drawings showing exactly how the
access will be built. The access permit phase reviews the traffic study and is based upon the
traffic generated at full development. Any permit issued travels with the land.
Dan Roussin made it clear that CDOT has no money available but is willing to work with
all concerned to solve the challenges presented by the proposed development and these existing
intersections.
[1]
Alisa Babler, the Permit Unit Engineer for the State of Colorado, explained that signals
are based on spacing and distances. For the three mile stretch under discussion, she opined that
the signalized intersections needed to be spaced one mile apart.
Dan Roussin indicated that with respect to the County Road 154/Hardwick Bridge
Intersection with Highway 82, the East Bank proposal as represented in the sketch plan will
increase traffic at that intersection by more than 20%. Because the purposed subdivision does
not directly access the state highway, CDOT will be asking the County to obtain an Access
Permit for the increased traffic at the County Road 154/Hardwick Bridge/Highway 82
Intersection. Fred Jarman clarified that in those situations, the County historically has delegated
that responsibility to the developer. There was further discussion about East Bank's efforts to try
to re-route Orrison's traffic off of Highway 82. Dan Roussin explained that the access code
discourages private access onto Highway 82 and that once private accesses have other access to
public streets, the accesses to Highway 82 can be closed by CDOT. There was further discussion
about possible improvements to that particular intersection as part of the East Bank development
proposal.
Dan Roussin indicated that CDOT distinguishes between minor developments and major
developments, with a major development being any development that increases traffic at an
intersection with a state highway by 20% or more. Incremental increases are not addressed in
the access code and CDOT does not have answers on how to deal with incremental increases.
He did indicate that state law makers are looking at that issue.
With respect to the CMC intersection, County Road 114 and Highway 82, he indicated
that this is one of the two major problem intersections in the County, with this particular
intersection being perhaps the most difficult. He indicated that with the potential for growth on
the east side of the highway, the bus stop, and the RFTA trail, personnel within CDOT have
discussed in the past that the best solution would be a grade separated intersection. He indicated
that this particular intersection will be such a significant cost to improve that it is probably best
handled as a regional project. He strongly encouraged that the County address this through the
TPR, either as part of the 2035 Plan or the 2040 Plan.
In connection with potential solutions to address the issues for all these intersections, the
following were mentioned:
1. Special improvement districts or other special districts.
2. Impact fees for transportation, but with caution that the amount of fees need to be
realistic.
3. Pay back agreements such as are being used in Routt County.
4. Access control plan. Dan Roussin cautioned that this may not be the best solution
for Highway 82 in this area because of the restriction on access already.
Representatives from RFTA indicated that they were very willing to participate in further
discussions because of their interest in addressing impacts created by the need for development.
[2]
An example was given that one development could generate the need for two additional buses at
peak hours. Dan Roussin indicated that the funding opportunities for alternative transportation
such as that offered by RFTA are much greater than opportunities for additional pavement.
The County staff agreed to initiate regular meetings with CDOT and RFTA representatives.
Once these meetings are organized and established, developers and other interested parties will
be invited to attend, in order to address County staff, CDOT and RFTA representatives at the
same time with respect to issues involving County Road and Highway Intersections.
[3[