The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.01 Exhibit 1 - 74Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the 1 [—D-day of on( v, 20j• • All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. • All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. My application required Published notice. f� Notice was published on the 11' day of l Ci urt f ', 2013. • Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. \Pt y application required Posting of Notice. __ Notice was posted on the C, !t I\ day of 1 a o ,rci,1 , 2019. XNotice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: 1, Signature: Date: ru ..n IT" N N r--1 C� C3 c0 -n sO rR N N c13 Er 0000 1477 a _n ,13 ra 0 N U.S. Postal Service'' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information. visit our website at wwwusps.com'. O F FA L C Y t Certified Mail Fee C $ Extra Services & Fees (check bo[ add res o ❑ Rearm Receipt ewdcoPf) S pp,ap,r�s� ['Return Receipt (alermaac) $ ❑ Certified Man Restricted De ive,y $ ❑ Adult Signature Required S ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery S Postage Tota $ Sen-: sae City; Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street Carbondale, CO 81623 Postmark Here P5 Form 3800, April 2015 P.^,v 75X -C2 co `H47 See Reverse or Instructions U.S. Postal Service"'' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only For delivery information. visit our website at www.usps.com'. Certified Mail Fee $ Extra : rvices & Fees (check boz, edd fee as ❑ Return Receipt hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) S ❑CeNned Mall Restricted Delivery S ❑ Adult Signature Required S ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery f �` Postage W Glenwood Springs L.i_c` \lc? GSCO �ol�arft ►{{ser/ri�� 5 Tota $ Sent sir .0. Box 979 •Iluride, CO 81435 PS Form 3800, April 2015 P5,1753002 334 7 Soo Reverse for Instructions rn -n u'1 IT' N rg 0 U.S. Postal Service'. CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information. visit our website at wwlvusps.com'. FF Certified Mali Fee A Extra Services $ Fees (check box, add res as appropriate) ❑ Regan Receipt 0� a,d,yt ❑ Return Reamed (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Man Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Adult Signature Required S ❑ Adult Signature Restricted DWNery $ t ' Postage 0 of m Roaring Fork RE -1 School Di4trict ' / 1521 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02.000.9047 See Reverse tor Instructions 1169 r' Lh'[ 0000 0990 9TOL h269 LLF'C 0000 0990 9TOL SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: tinfoil Pacific o Property Tax 1400 Douglass, Stop 1640 Omaha. NE 68179-1641) 111111 III II11111111III11111111 IIIl1111111 9590 9402 3988 8079 3711 42 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY c_ ❑ ❑ ft4jentAddressee ltjanc? =- • by (ljied Name) C. Date of Delivery I/.-(altU t • . delivery address difftwentlitem 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter deliverragdress below ❑ No JAN 1 6 2019 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signab. e ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑ certified Made ❑ Canted Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service /abed) gloried !on Delivery Restricted Delivery 7018 0680 -0G13t1 1477 8931 IUReetrictedDeUvery ❑ Priority Mall Express® 0 Registered Mer", 0 =Merchandise aafataed Mall Restricted ❑ DMMwarn Recett rcha for 0 Signature Confirmation", ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mallplece, or on the front if space permits. Domestic Retum Receipt COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELNERY limf C. •Delivery Item 1? • es ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee 1. Article Addressed to: George G. Vaught, Jr. Paul L NIcCullis P.O. E3ox 13557 Denver, CO 80201-3557 111111111I111IIIIII11111111111111111111111111 9590 9402 3988 8079 3711 28 D. Is delivery address If YES, enter delivery addre Date ow: ❑ No I 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Slgradwe ❑ Aduti Signature Rid Dewey ❑ CertHled Mar® ❑ Certified Mar Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Mall 7018 0680 0000 1477 8924 Insured Restricted Da"ery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 0 Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mann" ❑ =red Mall Restricted 0 Defiva� for 0 Signature Confirmation,'" 0 Signature Contimtation Restricted Delivery Domestic Retum Receipt �r or deliver information. visit out LT96 LLh2 0000 0990 9TOL 1— W U W cc -� CL 5J VJ cD c W o w U) W E col0 0 0 N Q 0 c LL L'C69 CLEC 0000 0990 9TOL SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. IN Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: •'21nesL. Rose >. Brox 432 : u , CO 81650-0432 11111111IIIIIII18I1111Hil111111111 IIIIIIIII 9590 9402 3988 8079 3710 74 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee B. Received by (Printed me) C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yds If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type O Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑ Certified MaU® 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mall.. O Registered Mali Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for Merohandlse ❑ Signature ConflrrnationTM 7 018 0680 0000 1477 9 617 Restricted Delivery Delivery 0 Signature y tion Restricted DDelive PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-0053 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Domestic Return Receipt • COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Agent dressee Colorado Department ofTransporta1iotl 202 Centennial,.Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type II I5II9II4I2 3I9I8I I8II I8I07I9 I 1317111 I I1 I I 1II1 III 0 Restricted �°� ore CerAdtified e n 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery o Collect on Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service /abet) ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 7 018 0680 0000 1477 8 917 II Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 O Priority Mall Express® ❑ Registered Mal.. ❑ Registered Mall Restricts owivery ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation^" O Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt 0096 Lt! h'C 0000 0990 9'i0L �o oo SEES 2tr_20 '0000 0h0E L'C0t'_ SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IN Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,. or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 1. ved by (P nted Name) 0 Agent ❑ Addressee ate of Delivery 11 1$ Robert Duncan MacGregor 710 Fast Durant Avenue, Unit W-6 Aspen, CO 81611 IIIIIIII11111IIIIIII11111111111111111 IIIII I ill 9590 9402 3988 8079 3710 67 D. Is delivery address different from item 1 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type o Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑ Certified Mall® ❑ Certified Mali Restricted Delivery o Collect on Delivery 2. Article • - - DeINery Restricted Delivery 7018 0680 0000 147? 9600 �'RedDelivery over $500 O Priority Mail Express® o Registered Mali.' ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery O Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation° ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt ; SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. IN Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Jareliouse investment Partnership 111 Dunn Avenue ,Teyenne, WY 82001 (IIIIIIII III( 111111111111 11/1111111 IIIII 111 9590 9402 3988 8079 3711 04 3. Service Type O Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Certified Mall® 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 0 Collect on Del1fef)' Restricted Delivery 7017 3040 0001 0272 5335 ill Restricted Delivery 0 Priority Marl Express® 0 Registered Mai1TM ❑ Registered Mail Restricted ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature ConfimratlonTM D Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt 1— W 0 W �a >2 cn 0 in' Li o ax (n U 0 -05U 7.0 1.091 NO? 0 A(rr > = Q7o age Yoe .�cdo Wy o 0. 12 r LL 2 g 'MU aDoo 12 9SS6 LLh'C 0000 0990 9'[0L H W W cc :•f- — 0 - W O y W � Q. CC CI?W E o O U INfr h6S6 CLEC 0000 0990 9'C0L SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address, on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY X Cc ts 'astbank LLC /10 E. Durant Avenue, Unit W-6 Aspen, CO 81611 III IIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111 9590 9402 2386 6249 2938 51 Ged by (Printed Name) D. Is delivery add- ress di el from Item 1? 0 es If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No a Agent 0 Addressee C. Date of Delivery 1 L 3. Service Type ❑ ❑ Adutt Signature o 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 ❑ Certified Mali® ❑ Certified Mau Restricted Delivery 0 ❑ Collect on Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 00 eu Restricted Delivery 7018 0680 0000 1477 9556 Priority BcpreeselS Registered Mai1TM ed Mail Restricted DRern Receipt for Merchandise Signature Confirmation*. Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Blue Heron Properties LLC 1007 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1111111959011111111111111111194023988 81079 111111113 I1710 III 1I150 III Domestic Return Receipt COMPLETE THIS SE. TION ON DELIVERY i,. JFL D. Is delivery addtysIs If YES, erttpf 49li''v gent Airessee C. Date of 6 0 00 JAN 152019 2 Artirie Number Manger from Servvice labeq 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Raac�rolpd ❑ Certified Mail® 0 Certified Mall Restricted DN ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery n Inug vd Melt Reg��eu� Malin D^.� �?i .,.l 43 Mall Restricted ery Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature ConllmrationTh" 0 Signature Confirmation 7 018 0680 0000 1477 9594 I Reso-icted Dewar'' Restricted Delius" PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Retum Receipt W U W CC U Q w I,76 o O jLL3 o CLr . CC U) W E MUo j 0 4 LL 2 s llIjJJ HMI X0111 I❑❑❑❑❑ 00 m 0 H O a f .V 2�tY7 C o qi O 0 U 3 X00 4 .0 A e 65E5 2L20 T000 !MOE L'COL I� 1 02.56 LLAT 0000 NI 0990 ETOL N SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the malipiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Ana . ❑ Agent • Add D. Is delivery address different from Item 1 is Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No eceived by (Printed Name) Shane & Bruce's LLC 4185 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1111111 111IIIIIII 111111111111111111111 9590 9402 3988 8079 3710 98 livery 3. Service type a Adult Signature 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Certified Maps o Certllled Map Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Dellvery 2._Article Number (Transfer from service label) ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Insured Mall 7017 3040 0001 0272 5359 I Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. 0 Priority Mali Express® 0 Registered Mall"' 0 Registered Mall Restricted Delivay 0 Rehm Receipt for Merchandise 0 Signature Confirmation"' 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Retum Receipt COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X . Recehred by (Printed 1. Article Addressed to: L & Y lammaron Family LL.LP 4915 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-9622 D. Is delivery eddresy'differefft from 1? 0 If YES, enter dello, r address billow: O mods 111111III 1�111�11111111111111 11 1 I II111111113pe ServiceA 4ei Mali Malin( 0 Certified 9590940223866249293837 ❑ CertifiedMeq Restricted Delivery o Return ery Merchandise Pt for pCOCnI1 9 Delon ivery Restricted Delivery O Signature Conpnnatton"' 2. Article Number (Transfer from service Iahe11 0 Signature Confirmation 7018 0680 0000 1477 9570 ii Reeatcted Deriver/ Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt PS Far 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Ad #: 0000362831-01 Customer: BALCOMB & GREEN, Your account number is: 1001205 PROOF OF PUBLICATION RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Samantha Johnston, do solemnly swear that I am Associate General Manager of the RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State 51"ialRe Vriexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 1/10/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 1/10/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 1/11/2019. Samantha Johnston, Associate General Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this day 1/11/2019. Frkol Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JERI LYNN MEMNA NOTARY PUBL2 197ATF OC'0000RADO NOTARY !020186029566' PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that EasIbank LLC. and Roaring Fork RE, School District, have applied to Garfield Coun- ty. Slate of Colorado, toequest approval fora Preliminary Plan approval on pmpenres situated in ml County of Garfield, State of Colorado. to -wit. Legal Description: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated here. by Iris reference. nDtipn: TM1e appLcants prlWee s locate" app m lely 0.65 r es sous of the C'ny I tie 53 0p 00 d1 05 54150 Road 54 tl known by Assessor 327e Numbers 254, Glenw80, Spnngs. CO 8l 01 The218other R located One of 28the Fly, 8, Ranch located m 3e,l County Road 180 Glenwood Springs. S n a beet. The other o located ne 228 Ftymg M Ranch Road Glenwood Springs, 81801. The mhs parcel M1as nnl been issued a County Acidness. P:oject Description The Applicant 0 requesting approval fpr a Preliminary Plan on the 0204001 properties The Applicant is proposing 13 parcels in total Water and wastewater will be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanaation District Access is off of CR 154 and Flying M Ranch Road. A Planned Unit Deveh opment (PUDE is being applied for concurrently and will ben rd at the public hearing. Propose" uses in- cludingthe PUffinclude cie l 0 hones sronpential lofts aobusiness00ones a dndeopportunities my 10,acommunitit lyses ce taci:itts Including assiste4 hying, mdepe40ent 540401 living, and Horne Cr & Hospice al the Valley service All persons affected by the proposed application are invited id appear and stale their views, protests o p7on II you Cannot appear porsorrally el such M1eanng, 818,1 you ere urged t0 stale your 010000» lefer, as the Planning Commissbn well give 0recommend ecomm4007 ro the Board f of my Commissioners rmlmi prones owners, end therrequest. affected. in application whether l reviewed ewweed ai fie oil Me o8f the Planning County meat located grant or deny , SulppppII r 9 Department the al 108 Bn1 Sveet, 9444 401, 037212 County Plaza Building. Glenwood Springs Colorado between the hours of 8'00 a m and 4.30 p.m. Monday through Fntl y Allemalively, the applicationcan be viewed at httPagiecords. go' Itl my com'W bL ken owsea p n 1 tl 3ti99A2y 2. A questions may be directed o aaiek County Community Development at 910945-8212. A public hearing on the application has bean scheduled In front of the Garfield County Planning Commlaalon on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 6:00 P.M. in the County Commissioners Meelmg Room, Garfield County 00r00151ration Building, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs. Colorado. Planning Department EXHIBIT A Legal Description LOT 2, EASTBANK. LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECOR2EI SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 867/16 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. TOGETHER WITH LOT 3 EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDEI SEPTEMBER 8.2010 AT RECEPTION NO 867116 COUNTY OF GARFIELD. STATE OF COLORADO'. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTEI LINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPOR TATION AUTHORITY RIGHT -OF -WAV AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT -0F -WAV, BEI MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND 11 PLACE, THENCE N89"5427'E ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAII SECTION 35 A DISTANCE OF 914.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING 58905427E A DISTANCE OF 1.013.14 FEET TOA POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT -0P WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH. WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OFA NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.08 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE Of 20"0731'. A DISTANCE OF 668.48 FEET (CHORD BEARS 546'1040'E A DISTANCE OF 68494 FEET), THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 556020125'E A DISTANCE OF 324.26 FEET TOA POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 545059'49'E A DISTANCE OF 15749 FEET, THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT -0F -WAY 049'0011'W A DISTANCE OF 2020 FEET, THENCE 06239'48'31 A DISTANCE OF 3796 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 12500 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38"04'57', A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS 0000217'0 A DISTANCE OF 81.56 FEET); THENCE N79°15'14'W A DISTANCE OF 2990 FEET, THENCE 514058'36'W A DISTANCE OF 14289 FEET; THENCE 5573723.'0 A DISTANCE OF 14986 FEET; THENCE 573"4341'31 A DISTANCE OF 271.87 FEET; THENCE 4371'4524'0 A DISTANCE OF 8495 FEET: THENCE 5633353'W A DISTANCE OF 12891 FEET'. THENCE 725`3245'E A DISTANCE OF 12721 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13'41'34', A DIS- TANCE OF 6692 FEET (CHORD BEARS S32'2332'E A DISTANCE OF 6676 FEET): THENCE S39,419'E A DISTANCE OF 103.87 FEET. THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45'28106', A DISTANCE OF 142.84 FEET (CHORD BEARS 16105822.E A DISTANCE OF 13912 FEETI: THENCE S84`42'25'E A DIS- TANCE OF 64.53 FEET, THENCE S5817'21.'W A DISTANCE OF 139.08 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26773 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28"41'44'. A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS 1460021'04'W A DIS- TANCE OF 13272 FEET ), THENCE 5494207'31 A DISTANCE OF 175.57 FEET. THENCE ALONG THE ARC OFA CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 65000 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130'1009', A DISTANCE OF 1,470.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS 4651249'31 A DISTANCE Of 1,17601 FEET): THENCE N00'Y17'44'W A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET TO THE POINT 0 BEGINNNING A'K+A PARCEL 1, EASTBANK LOT SPLIT ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 30, 200 AT RECEPTION NO. T70436 AS AMENDED BY THE EASTBANK, LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RE CORDED JULY 23, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 865787 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO Published in the Cihzen Telegram Jamlary 10, 2019. 0000362831 Ad #: 0000362822-01 Customer: BALCOMB & GREEN, Your account number is: 1001205 PROOF OF PUBLICATION RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Samantha Johnston, do solemnly swear that I am Associate General Manager of the RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State a[ Tao>!Re annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 1/10/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 1/10/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 1/11/2019. Samantha Johnston, Associate General Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this day 1/11/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Easlbank LLC. and Roaring Foix RE -1 School District, have applied to Garfield Coun- ty. Stale of Colorado, to request approval Mr a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on properties situated it Me County of Garfield State of Colorado, to -wit. Legal Description. See Exhibit A attached hernia and incorporated herein by 15,6 reference. Practical Descupilon, The applicants properties are locath4 approornately 0 55 miles south of the City of Gienwood Springs Mf of County Road 154 and known by Assessor Parcel Numbers 2185353001060, 218535315003 and 218535415002 One of theopertes is located at 3927 County Road 154, Glenwood Spnngs, CO 81601. The other a located at 228 dying M Ranch Road. Glenwood Springs, 81801. The o(he parcel has not been Issued a County Address. Project DeSiTiplroo The Applicant ,s requesting epp,oval for PUO Proposed uses within the PUD elude expansion of g business pa a divordty of residential housing types including eco- efficiency c efficiencyhomes. residential 'Mt. and patio n and opportunities m, community service laciln00 n - eluding assisted living, independent senior living, and Home Care 3 Hospice of the Valley, The applicant Is also prepodim a Preliminary Plan with a 101al of 13 parcels on the subject property. The Preliminary Plan application will be heard at the same hearing as the PUD application Wale, and wastewater will be proved eu Dy the Roa0ng Fork Water and Sanitation District. Access is oil of CR 154 and Flying M Ranch Road. All persons affected by the proposed application are invited to appear and Male (heir views, protests 4 es tee 11901 canoot Commiappearssion p010000lly a1 such hearing. plan you are urged to slate your views by letter ethers effected In decking whethv411er to recomamend TIM the Board of County Comtion the comments of missioners grant or dand eny Ma 10500st. The application may De reviewed Al me 01500 of the Planning 005000en1 located a1108 8111 SlreeL Suite 401, Ga0ield County Plaza Building. Glenwood Springs Colorado between Inc hours of 800 a. m and 4.30 p m., Monday h gh Friday All. ,very, the application can be Vowed at 00p6310001ds. gurtieldcountycomeNebbneRrnwse aspxfistartror 3699426.. Any q anions may be directed to Gad0k County Commun1y Development at 970 94 5-821 2. A Public hearing on the application hoe bean scheduled In front 01 the Garfield County Planning Commission on Wednesday. February 13, 2010 at 8100 0.111 in the County Commissioners Meeting R000,00010 County AdminOtretkn Building, 108 011 Street, Glenwood Springs. Colorado. Planning 02 00 0 0 0 01 0001510 County 0%01015 A Legal DescrIpitl on LOT 2, EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDEI SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 AT RECEPTION N0. 867716 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO: TOGETHER WITH LOT 3, EASTBANK, 11C MINOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF 0E0000E1 SEPTEMBER 8. 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 867716 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO: TOGETHER WITH PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANG! 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTEI LINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK T6050008 TATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEI MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND it PLACE, THENCE N89°5427°E ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAII SECTION 35 A DISTANCE OF 914.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING N89`50'27"E A DISTANCE OF 1,01314 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH- WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OFA NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 96009 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20,07'31'. A DISTANCE OF 68848 FEET (CHORD BEARS 546"16'40"6 A DISTANCE OF 68494 FEET). THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 556'20'05'E A DISTANCE OF 32426 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 040"59'49"6 A DISTANCE OF 15749 FEET, THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 049'0011',0 A DISTANCE OF 20.20 FEET, THENCE S62"39'48'W A DISTANCE OF 37.96 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 125.00 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 380457'. A DISTANCE OF 8308 FEET (CHORD BEARS 581'42'17'W A DISTANCE OF 81.56 FEET): THENCE N79°15'14'2 A DISTANCE OF 29.84 FEET', THENCE 514'58'36'W A DISTANCE OF 14289 FEET, THENCE 557'37'23'49 A DISTANCE OF 14986 FEET; THENCE 073"4341',0 A DISTANCE OF 27787 FEET, THENCE 571'4524',0 A DISTANCE OF 84,95 FEET', THENCE 043°33'53'W A DISTANCE OF 128.91 FEET: THENCE 025°32'45'0 A DISTANCE OF 12721 FEET', THENCE ALONG THE ARC OFA CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13'4134% A DIS- TANCE OF 66,92 FEET (CHORD BEARS S32'2332'E A DISTANCE OF 6676 FEET), THENCE S39°1419'E A DISTANCE OF 10387 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OFA CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°28'06', A DISTANCE OF 142.84 FEET (CHORD BEARS 581°5822"E A DISTANCE OF 13912 FEET), THENCE 084°42'25'0 A DIS- TANCE OF 64,53 FEET', THENCE S56'1 T20W A DISTANCE OF 13908 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 267.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26"41'44". A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS N60`21'04'W A DIS- TANCE OF 132721=671,70=00= S19'42'07'W A DISTANCE OF 17557 FEET'. THENCE ALONG THE ARC OFA CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 65000 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130"1009°, A DISTANCE OF 1476.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS 560 1240'W A DISTANCE OF 1,17901 FEET): THENCE 500'0744'W A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET TO THE POINT 0 BEGINNNING. A14A PARCEL 1, EASTBANK LOT SP0T ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 30, 200 AT RECEPTION NO. 770435 AS AMENDED BY THE 640704NK, LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RE CORDED JULY 23,2015 AT RECEPTION NO 865787 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO Published in the Citizen Telegram January 10, 20190000382822 �I 'LJIy1rl)'Illu rI4VLe 17 Posted January 9, 2019 Legend Sign b EXHIBIT 5 MEMORANDUM Garfield County Community Development Department TO: Garfield County Planning Commission FROM: Patrick Waller, Senior Planner DATE: February 13, 2019 SUBJECT: Flying M PUD and Preliminary Plan - Staff Request for Continuation of the Public Hearing BACKGROUND The applications have been designated as Technically Complete and were scheduled for Planning Commission review on February 13, 2019. CONTINUATION REQUEST A referral request has been sent to the Colorado Department of Transportation, but comments have not been received back at this time. CDOT comments are critical to consideration of the Application and the drafting of Staff recommendations. Additionally, other referral agencies and the public have requested to review CDOT's comments prior to finalizing their own comments. Staff is requesting a continuation to allow for CDOT's comments to be received and reviewed by Staff, other agencies, the public, and the Applicant prior to the continued public hearing. This will also allow further review and coordination with other County Staff and agencies. The complete application is being included in this packet, however, the Staff Report and referral comments will be delayed until CDOT's comments are received. Additionally, Staff understands the applicant will be requesting a continuation to schedule a site visit to the subject parcel with the Planning Commission. If the Commission chooses to conduct a site visit and wishes to continue the public hearing to the next available meeting (February 27th), Staff recommends the Site Visit be scheduled for February 25th26th or 27th. At that time the Planning Commission should have the Staff packet, with referral comments, and public comments. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review public notice and open the public hearing to allow continuation to a date certain for formal presentations by the Applicant, Staff and for public comments. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 Patrick Waller From: Harry Shiles Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:18 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 EXHIBIT Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Patrick If approved we would need a driveway permit for the south entrance and would recommend it be gated and used only for emergency access. All other requirements would be addressed within permit. Thank you (,arfidd Counl;' HARRYSHML£S Copeman had 5Bridge 0299CR3334 Rif/e, C0 8/550 Phone: (970) 825-8801 fax (970) 825-8827 Cell (970) 319-0301 1 1/4/2019 COLORADO Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Glenwood Springs Area Office 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2920 I F 970.947.2936 David Pesnichak Senior Planner Garfield County Development 108 8th St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Sketch Plan Application Dear David, b EXHIBIT (is Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the application materials for the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision. The subject area has been degraded by previous use and has limited wildlife habitat value. Seasonally, each winter a group of elk had used the upland area of sagebrush prior to the construction of the Riverview School, but that use has since diminished. Mule deer use the overall property year-round. Overall, due to the degraded habitat on the property, existing disturbance and development surrounding and adjacent to the property, the proposed development may have some affect on individual animals, but will likely have minimal impacts to wildlife populations. There is potential for general human/wildlife conflicts and some impacts to wildlife; therefore, CPW offers the following recommendations: 1 Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards. 2. Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It is recommended that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured. 3. Work with CPW on trail design near the river and work to actively enhance riparian vegetation. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and submit comments for this project. If there are any questions or needs for additional information, don't hesitate to contact Land Use Specialist, Taylor Elm, at Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray • Marie Haskett • Carrie Besnette Hauser John Howard, Chair • Marvin McDaniel • Dale Pizel • Jim Spehar • James Vigil, Secretary • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman, Vice -Chair • Atex Zipp Of COCO tifrr• PT .� g .,876 (970) 947-2971 or District Wildlife Manager, John Groves, at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, 4,?----- erry Witt, ea Wildlife Manager Cc. John Groves, District Wildlife Manager Matt Yamashita, District Wildlife Manager Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist File Patrick Waller EXHIBIT From: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:34 AM To: Patrick Waller; Chris Hale Subject: RE: Road and Bridge Referral Comments Patrick, There are <5 peak hour left turns into the site, so the gate on the South access would not affect my comments. Thanks, Dan From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:43 PM To: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com>; Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com> Subject: RE: Road and Bridge Referral Comments Thanks for your comments Dan. One quick question, based on Road and Bridge referral comments, does the potential that the southern entrance might be gated and only used for emergency access affect your comments? Have a nice weekend, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Dan Cokley [mailto:DanC@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 2:56 PM To: Patrick Waller; Chris Hale Subject: RE: Road and Bridge Referral Comments Patrick Thanks for the opportunity to review the FHU Traffic Impact Study and proposed improvements for the Flying M Ranch project. • The improvements to CR 154 at the Flying M Ranch are depicted on the School plan completed by Sopris Engineering. The same linework is shown on the HCE plans. I am assuming the CR 154 improvements have been are will be completed as part of the School project. 1 • The Flying M Ranch project traffic volumes will not require additional improvements to CR 154 at either access point. • In my opinion, the impacts associated with the SH 82 and CR 154 intersection are adequately addressed in the FHU report. The report should be reviewed by CDOT and their comments included. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE Principal 6SGM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9009 / 970.379.3378 cell Flu From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:19 AM To: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com>; Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com> Subject: RE: Road and Bridge Referral Comments Thanks for your questions. The School District project did not come through a County Permitting process besides a Location and Extent Review (which is our lowest form of review and only needs Planning Commission approval for general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). However, it looks like FHU did complete a traffic study for the School and plans were provided for an upgrade of the CR 154 intersection. That application is available here. HCE may also be able to help answer any further questions that you have. Let me know if there is anything else I can do, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Dan Cokley [mailto:DanC@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 5:54 PM To: Patrick Waller; Chris Hale Subject: RE: Road and Bridge Referral Comments 2 I did a cursory review of the FHU report and HCE plan set. I have a few questions. I did not see where FHU or HCE addressed potential CR 154 access improvements in either report. But HCE shows improvements as part of their development base map (attached) at the Flying M Drive intersection (Riverview School access). • Were those improvements required as part of the School approval? • Either way, could I get a copy of the TIS for Riverview? • Could I get a copy of CR 154 plans if part of Riverview? The traffic volumes warrant the turn lanes shown at Flying M Ranch intersection. Those volumes are generated by the school in the existing condition counts. The development adds to that existing volume. I'd like to understand the CR 154 design improvements and determine if the additional traffic warrants added lane storage. This is pretty straightforward from an CDOT, SHAC and Access Permit standpoint and have no real comments on that aspect at this point. There would be value in delineation and storage at the existing CR 154 approach to SH 82, but the FHU report addresses that in its queuing analysis and deems those improvements not necessary, I will look closer at that. Thanks, Dan From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:22 AM To: Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com>; Dan Cokley <danc@sgm-inc.com> Subject: Road and Bridge Referral Comments Good Morning, I wanted to give you all a heads -up on a Referral Comment that we have received from Road and Bridge regarding the Flying M application. It is attached. Please incorporate this into your review as you find necessary. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks for your review, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-countv.com http://www.Barfield-county.com/community-development/ 3 Patrick Waller From: Wakefield, Samantha L <Samantha.l.wakefield@xcelenergy.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 8:42 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 EXHIBIT [ D Patrick, After Review Xcel Energy has no objection Completion of this City/County review approval process does not constitute an application with Xcel Energy for utility installation. Applicant will need to contact Xcel Energy's Builder's Call Line/Engineering Department to request a formal design for the project. A full set of plans, contractor, and legal owner information is required prior to starting any part of the construction. Failure to provide required information prior to construction start will result in delays providing utility services to your project. Acceptable meter and/or equipment locations will be determined by Xcel Energy as a part of the design process. Additional easements may be required depending on final utility design and layout. Engineering and Construction lead times will vary depending on workloads and material availability. Installation, relocation, upgrade of existing facilities due to increased load and/or removal of existing facilities will be made at the applicant's expense and are also subject to lead times referred to above. All Current and future Xcel Energy facilities' must be granted easement. Samantha Wakefield Xcel Energy 1 Responsible By Nature Planner 1995 Howard Ave, Rifle CO 81650 P: 970-625-6028 F: 970.625-6030 E: Samantha. I.Wakefield(a�xcelenergy.com Installation Standards Link (Blue Book) https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Admin/Managed%20Docu ments%20&%20PDFs/Xcel-Enerqy- Standard-For-Electric-Installation-and-Use.pdf My normal work hours are 6:30am-4:30pm Tues -Fri From: Patrick Waller [mailto:pwaller@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 12:06 PM To: Kelly Cave; Andy Schwaller; Morgan Hill; Michael Prehm; Dan Goin; Harry Shiles; Scott Aibner; Scott Aibner; Steve Anthony; Roussin - CDOT, Daniel; Jill Carlson; scott.hoyer@state.co.us; Taylor Elm - DNR; w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil; Gretchen E Ricehill; Chris Hale; Dan Cokley; Greg Bak; Shannon Pelland; info@rfwsd.com; David Johnson; Jason White; bmeredith@rfta.com; matt.raper@blackhillscorp.com; rwinder@holycross.com; Wakefield, Samantha L Subject: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 CAUTION EXTERNAL SENDER: Stop and consider before you click links or open attachments. Report suspicious email using the 'Report Phishing/Spam' button in Outlook. 1 January 21, 2019 Garfield County Vegetation Management EXHIBIT Patrick Waller Garfield County Community Development Department RE: Flying M Subdivision SPAA 8-18-8675 and PUDA 8-18-8676 Dear Patrick, My comments are categorized below: Noxious Weeds • Weed management is addressed in the Landscape and Weed Management Notes of C0-01. • Russian -olive management is not specifically mentioned and they are of concern. The Vegetation Management Department is requesting that the applicant provide a management plan that will provide for the removal and stump treatment of Russian -olives located on the property by Dec. 31, 2019. We also request that application records be submitted to Community Development by the aforementioned deadline. • If the applicant is interested in participating in the county's Tamarisk -Russian -olive program, please have them contact Sarah LaRose with Garfield County at 945-1377 ext. 4315. There are other options as well within the private sector for Russian -olive control. Revegetation Staff had asked the applicant during the sketch plan process last year, and recently over the phone, to quantify the surface area of disturbance that would need to be reseeded. These areas would be outside of building envelopes and landscape situations and would be road shoulders (not the actual road), utility easements, and common areas (that aren't landscaped). This information would determine if a revegetation security is necessary. The minimum area threshold of surface area disturbance is 1 acre. If a security is necessary, it shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #16-12). Sincerely, • Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 195 W. 14'h Street, Bldg. D, Suite 310 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Mobile Phone: 970-379-4456 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1801 19th Street Golden, Colorado 80401 January 23, 2019 Patrick Waller Garfield County Community Development Dept. 108 8th St, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Location: S1/2 of Sec. 35, T6S, R89W of the 6th PM 39.4846, -107.3001 Subject: Flying M Subdivision and PUD Garfield County, CO File No. SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676; CGS Unique No. GA -19-0003 Dear Mr. Waller: Karen Berry State Geologist The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has reviewed the Flying M Subdivision and PUD referral. The CGS understands that the applicant proposes to create a Major Subdivision of 10-14 lots from Lots 2 and 3 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision. The CGS provided previous comments regarding the Eastbank Minor Subdivision in letters dated April 7, 2009 and May 19, 2015. For this referral, the CGS reviewed the following documents: • Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Flying M Ranch Development (H-P/Kumar, 4/10/18) • Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plan/P.U.D. drawings (High Country Engineering, 43 sheets, various dates) • Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application (11/1/18) • Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development Application (11/1/18) • Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development and Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Applications (The Land Studio, Inc., 12/14/18) • Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development and Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Applications (The Land Studio, Inc., 12/28/18) H-P/Kumar's report provides a good description of subsurface conditions and soil engineering properties and makes appropriate recommendations regarding foundations, floor slabs, subsurface drainage, pavements, grading and surface drainage. Provided H-P/Kumar's recommendations are strictly adhered to, the CGS has no objection to approval; the CGS has the following specific comments: Subsidence hazard As described in the H-P/Kumar report, the property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite. Numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified in similar geologic materials within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. If conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are encountered during construction, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation should be evaluated. The applicant and tenants should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress GA -19-0003_1 Flying M Subdivision and PUD.docx. 1:15 PM, 01/23/2019 Patrick Waller January 23, 2019 Page 2 of 2 and timely remedial actions are important factors in reducing the cost of building repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction. It would also be prudent to check for voids in the bedrock beneath proposed detention ponds and at proposed dry well locations to reduce the hazard of sinkholes triggered by surface water management activities. Uncontrolled Fill H-P/Kumar identified an area of uncontrolled/non-engineered fill associated with an old gravel pit. As discussed by H-P/Kumar, uncontrolled fill should be removed and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill prior to construction. Plan Notes Grading Note 1 on the PUD Plan Set (High Country Engineering, Rev. 11/1/18) does not reference the most up-to-date H-P/Kumar report (4/10/18). Additionally, the drawings and note sheets have various dates. The notes should be reviewed to ensure they are up-to-date and/or updated as appropriate. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions, please contact me by phone at 303-384-2632 or e-mail kemccoy@mines.edu. Sincerely, *;;%5 Kevin McCoy Engineering Geologist GA -19-0003_1 Flying M Subdivision and PUD.docx 1:15 PM, 01/23/2019 Patrick Waller From: Gretchen E Ricehill <gretchen.ricehill@cogs.us> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 9:47 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 b .0 a EXHIBIT 13 Patrick Thank you for the reminder. I've reviewed the application and have no comments. Gretchen Ricehill Asst. Director Glenwood Springs Community Development Dept. From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:25 AM Subject: FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Good Morning, This email is being sent as a reminder that referral comments on this application are due today. Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your review, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.Rarfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Patrick Waller Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 12:06 PM To: Kelly Cave; Andy Schwaller; Morgan Hill; Michael Prehm; Dan Goin; Harry Shiles; Scott Aibner; 'Scott Aibner'; Steve Anthony; 'Roussin - CDOT, Daniel'; 'Jill Carlson';'scott.hoyer@state.co.us';'Taylor Elm - DNR'; 'w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil'; 'Gretchen E Ricehill'; 'Chris Hale'; 'Dan Cokley'; 'Greg Bak'; 'Shannon Pelland'; 'info@rfwsd.com'; David Johnson; 'Jason White'; 'bmeredith@rfta.com';'matt.raper@blackhillscorp.com'; 'rwinder@holycross.com'; 'Wakefield, Samantha L' Subject: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Good Morning, 1 Patrick Waller EXHIBIT 1l,, From: Morse, W Travis CIV USARMY CESPK (USA) <w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 9:05 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Hi Patrick, The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the project area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. It is unclear from the proposal, but if any project features impact aquatic resources, then a Department of the Army authorization may be required by federal law prior to starting work. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation, in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations" and "Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program" under "Jurisdiction" on our website (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A_www.spk.usace.army.mil_Missions_Regulatory.aspx&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwgOf- v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=si3TIv83JEZRDBcSyQj5gKae2VWX3g6itFMxn7q_btw&m=5eAfZHrmgrbws8M BU Fhbrbz3LgBgyAIG GYAR_9EgaIQ&s=ZOFuikTo-OgBi7gPFw5JkU3eM6vmeE3fPU-4tiW51f8&e=), and submit it to this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare wetland delineations and permit application documents is also available on our website at the same location. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Sincerely, Travis Morse Senior Project Manager Colorado West Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 243-1199 ext. 1014 Please provide us with your feedback by filling out a customer survey at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A_corpsmapu.usace.army.mil_cm-5Fapex_f-3Fp-3Dregulatory- SFsurvey&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwgOf- v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=si3TIv83JEZRDBcSyQj5gKae2VWX3g6itFMxn7q_btw&m=5eAfZHrmgrbws8MBUFhbrbz3LgBgyAIG GYAR_9EgaIQ&s=sQU HXIfsgNmOlehLmEHxKDXSAAFdW I7pf8H4-eT1n20&e= For more information about our program, you can visit our website at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A_www.spk.usace.army.mil_Missions_Regulatory.aspx&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDIlvimEN8b7jXrwgOf- 1 v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=si3TIv83JEZRDBcSyQj5gKae2VWX3g6itFMxn7q_btw&m=5eAfZHrmgrbws8MBUFhbrbz3LgBgyAIG GYAR_9EgaIQ&s=ZOFuikTo-OgBi7gPFw5JkU3e M6vmeE3fPU-4tiW51f8&e= Please note: Our out -of -office notification has been disabled. As I may be out of the office, please allow three -business days for a response before calling the main office for assistance at 970-243-1199. Original Message From: Patrick Waller [mailto:pwaller@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:25 AM Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Good Morning, This email is being sent as a reminder that referral comments on this application are due today. Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your review, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com <mailto:pwaller@garfield-county.com> Blockedhttp://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ <Blockedhttp://www.garfield- county.com/community-development/> From: Patrick Waller Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 12:06 PM To: Kelly Cave; Andy Schwaller; Morgan Hill; Michael Prehm; Dan Goin; Harry Shiles; Scott Aibner; 'Scott Aibner'; Steve Anthony; 'Roussin - CDOT, Daniel'; 'Jill Carlson';'scott.hoyer@state.co.us';'Taylor Elm - DNR'; 'w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil'; 'Gretchen E Ricehill'; 'Chris Hale'; 'Dan Cokley'; 'Greg Bak'; 'Shannon Pelland'; 2 6,_,,_, MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. January 25, 2019 Mr. Patrick Waller Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 / Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design RE: Review of the Applications for Flying M PUD: SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Dear Patrick: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the applications for the Flying M PUD. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The Applicant asks for a waiver for the access road through Lots Al -A4 however Flying M Ranch Road has design parameters that do not meet the Roadway Standards in Table 7-107 for a Minor Collector. The design should be modified or a waiver requested. 2. The sewer and water system is to be incorporated into the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Engineers for the District should review the plans for conformance to RFWSD design standards and any comments incorporated. 3. Garfield County standards have 350 gallons per day as the average minimum for a single family residence. This is a common demand value that the State of Colorado also uses. The Applicant has 140 GPD/EQR. This is less than half of the number typically used. This amount should be verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. The agreement with the RFWSD allows 228 EQRs and the density that is proposed is based on a demand that is less than half of what is typically used. 4. Peak day demand is typically double that of the average day. Peak flow is typically double the peak day demand flowrate or 4 times the average day. These peaking factors should be verified by the engineer and the RFWSD. 5. In review of the water system model it appears that the flow velocity is greater than 14 feet/second (fps) in pipe P-61. Typically the maximum design flow rate is 10 fps to avoid cavitation and wear on the pipe. The pipe size and flowrate should be reviewed and the design verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. 6. The Applicant should further explain the FEMA floodplain boundary. As proposed the development is within the floodplain. Ideally a LOMR would be prepared. The Applicant makes it sound that some means of adjusting the boundary is in process. The Applicant should better explain the processes and anticipated timing. At a minimum it appears that a floodplain permit will be necessary. 7. The Applicant proposes that sidewalks will not be constructed because pedestrians will be able to use the pathway that will be provided. In review of the layout, the pathway is much longer and does not provide direct access to the school which is a large generator of pedestrian traffic. It is unlikely that pedestrians will use the path and instead will be walking on the roadways that provide a more direct and shorter walk to the school. The pathway is a nice feature and is not discouraged but sidewalks should also be provided. 826 Y Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Page 2 of 2 January, 2019 8. The Applicant proposes to use drywells as a means of storm -water mitigation. Since there is a potential for sinkholes due to the underlying soils, drywells ought to be considered carefully. The Applicant should provide more information on the location of the proposed drywells and how they correspond to the underlying soil strata. 9. The Applicant should better explain the overflows and/or outlets for the proposed detention ponds. It seems that they will overtop the proposed pedestrian path and flow down steep slopes. The Applicant should explain mitigation measures proposed. 10. It is unclear if the sewer lift station is existing or proposed. The Applicant should provide more information on the sewer lift station and the status of approval with the CDPHE. 11. In the Design Guidelines the "Drainage Solutions" should be reviewed for conformance to the drainage system and drainage design that is proposed. 12. The Applicant should provide drainage easements for the proposed storm water detention ponds, drainage appurtenances, and piping that is proposed. 13. The Applicant proposes that the Eco -Efficiency homes have 600 square feet minimum lot size. This seems small. Mobile home lots are larger. The Applicant should explain in greater detail how this area was determined. 14. The Applicant has plat notes that engineered septic systems will be necessary. The Applicant should verify the applicability of this note in light of the proposed sewer system connection to RFWSD. 15. There is a note on the Plat that Lots 2 and 3 will need to develop a storm water management plan at the time of development. The Applicant should explain in greater detail the need for this note. 16. It appears that water lines are shown outside of roadways and appear that they would also be outside of the easements that are proposed. It would be typical to have the waterlines contained within the roadway whenever possible. The waterline routing should be reviewed and the design adjusted. 17. The sewer lines, water lines, and storm culvert crossings were not shown together on the road profiles. The Applicant should verify that there are no conflicts with bury depth and separation between utilities. 18. A proposed sewer line goes beneath the edge of a proposed detention pond. The Applicant should revise the design to avoid this conflict. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain ross Engineer ng, Inc. is Hale, PE i Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 '/z Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Flying M Ranch Road P.U.D. Glenwood Springs Fire Department Feedback January 23, 2019 EXHIBIT 6 In December 2017, then -Deputy Fire Marshal Ron Biggers reviewed the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Sketch Plan Application and made the following remarks regarding Parcel B, Eco -efficient homes: "Possible requirement of an automatic fire sprinkler system within the occupancies depending on size, occupancy access and fire water flow." I concur with Bigger's assessment. This is the portion of the development under current consideration. I met with Roger Neal (HCE Engineering) and other representatives of the project on January 16, 2019. I expressed the need for an additional fire hydrant to be placed along the Lower Access Road, roughly in front of Unit 14. We also discussed the lateral setback distance between the housing units. A specific measurement was not given, but estimated to be between 8 and 10 feet. If the aggregate distance between residential units is less than 10 feet, code compliance objectives should include fire resistive construction including consideration for openings. Patrick Waller From: Patrick Waller Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:16 PM To: 'Greg Bak' Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 i lq- EXHIBIT Thanks for your response Greg and you are correct. The PUD approval authorizes the zoning for the parcel, which gives a range of development that can occur on the site. At time of Building Permit, you will be contacted by our Building Department who will get your feedback on site specific development. The big items we look for at this level are access and the development of the site broadly. Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-countv.com http://www.Rarfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Greg Bak [mailto:greg.bak@cogs.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:00 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 The plans presented to me for the remainder of the P.U.D. seemed to be unfocused at this point in time. There were long range plans for various occupancy types, but I was under the impression they hadn't been decided upon just yet. Multi -family dwellings and a hospice care center were in the planning stages. Per the 2015 IFC, approved automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required. I would need to review fire (water) flows, building accesses, and egresses along with the County reviewer for each portion of the project. Please let me know as that information is available. Thanks, Greg Bak Fire Protection Analyst Glenwood Springs Fire Department From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-countv.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:47 AM To: Greg Bak Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 1 Greg, In reviewing your comments, I wanted to make sure that you are aware that the entire PUD and Major Subdivision is the application at issue, not just Parcel B. If approved, the next steps in the process would be a Building Permit, at which point our Building Department would be responsible for processing the proposal so any comments you may have on the whole application are appropriate at this time. Let me know if you have any questions, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Greg Bak [mailto:greg.bak@cogs.us] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:02 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Patrick - It doesn't appear to have another solution: as I drove the site I saw there is a considerable grade uphill which prohibits an access road out that end. SO LONG AS THE HAMMERHEAD (indicating access to the trash dumpster) remains un -obscured, that should prove to be a suitable turn -around. Keeping the hammerhead clear may require advisement signage to keep residents from parking there, as well as advising snow removal to another location. Future development beyond the projected dead end should require an accessible road. Is there a planning/approval meeting set up for this development? Thanks, Greg Bak Fire Protection Analyst Glenwood Springs Fire Department From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:31 AM To: Greg Bak Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 2 Thanks for your comments Greg. One question, do you have any issues with the roadways/emergency access loop and emergency access for you all? Thanks, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Greg Bak [mailto:greg.bak@cogs.us] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 7:36 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Please see attached. Greg Bak Fire Protection Analyst Glenwood Springs Fire Department 44444444,444440,44.44444,44494.4444^444,..,444444,44,444444,P,444..~4444444444,44444,444 44,444,44`.4.24444444 4.4449.41,44444440444444444,4444444044444' From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:24 AM Subject: FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Good Morning, This email is being sent as a reminder that referral comments on this application are due today. Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your review, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ 3 From: Patrick Waller Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 12:06 PM To: Kelly Cave; Andy Schwaller; Morgan Hill; Michael Prehm; Dan Goin; Harry Shiles; Scott Aibner; 'Scott Aibner'; Steve Anthony; 'Roussin - CDOT, Daniel'; 'Jill Carlson'; 'scott.hoyer@state.co.us'; 'Taylor Elm - DNR'; 'w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil'; 'Gretchen E Ricehill'; 'Chris Hale'; 'Dan Cokley'; 'Greg Bak'; 'Shannon Pelland'; 'info@rfwsd.com'; David Johnson; 'Jason White'; 'bmeredith@rfta.com'; 'matt.raper@blackhillscorp.com'; 'rwinder@holycross.com'; 'Wakefield, Samantha L' Subject: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Good Morning, Garfield County Community Development is requesting referral comments for an application for a Preliminary Plan and a PUD on properties known by Garfield County Assessor Records as 218535415002, 218535315003, and 218535300060. Proposed uses within the Subdivision include expansion of an existing business park, a diversity of residential housing types including eco -efficiency homes, residential lofts and patio homes, and opportunities for community service facilities including assisted living, independent senior living, and Home Care & Hospice of the Valley. Ultimately, the applicant is proposing 13 parcels with a variety of densities possible on each parcel. Water and wastewater will be provided by Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Access is off of CR 154. Current zoning is Rural. The application is available for review here (for the Preliminary Plan) and here (for the PUD). Please respond with any comments by Friday, January 25, 2019. Thanks for your review and please contact me with any questions, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ 4 SSGM www.sgm-inc.com January 25, 2019 Patrick Waller, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Flying M Subdivision and PUD Preliminary Plan and PUD Review Comments Dear Patrick: The above -referenced project has been referred to this office for review on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (District). The section numbering referenced below are the titles given by Garfield County Community Development through their referral website. 1. In section 1.1 Supplemental Submittal 12.14.18, regarding the Subdivision Improvements Agreement: a. General comment - District Engineer to review allocated security amounts b. Section 3.e., Partial Release of Security - District Engineer shall review requests for partial release of security. c. Section 3.h., Final Release of Security - District Engineer approval required for release of security. 2. In section 1.2 Supplemental Submittal 12.28.18, regarding the followup comments item #3, "An updated Title Commitment for the Roaring Fork School District parcel. a. It should be noted that the District still hasn't received utility easements for the referenced School District parcel. 3. In section 4.0 PUD -PP Exhibits, regarding the Impact Analysis/Utility Report, more specifically the wastewater system and water distribution. a. Prior to construction, applicant must obtain approval by the District of all required Line Extension Agreements or Line Connection Agreements as required by the District's Rules and Regulations. Applicant will also be required to pay the appropriate Tap Fees and Cost Recovery Agreements. 4. In section 5.0 PUD -PP Plan Set, general comments are as follows a. Sheet C0-01 i. Notes regarding separation of water and sewer mains are not fully consistent with District's Rules and Regulations. Encasements (concrete or carrier pipe) may be required where horizontal OR vertical separations are not met. ii. Additional note needed, stating District testing and acceptance requirements. iii. Additional note needed, stating precedence of District's Rules and Regulations over plans and other project documents. 1.11996\96059\1-135 Flying M Ranch PUD\Corresp\20190125-Itr to Waller.doc GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1970.945.1004 SSGM www.sgm-inc.com iv. General notes do not suggest compliance with CO SB18-167, which requires Quality Level B locates for below grade work. Who is assuming the risk for not complying with CO SB18-167? b. Sheet Amended Plat of Eastbank, LLC Lots 2&3 1. Need additional plat notes defining utility easements and access easements and conveying those to District for perpetual use in constructing, operating, and maintaining all utilities. c. Sheet Flying M Ranch P.U.D. Plan Map 1of 2 i. Need additional plat notes defining utility easements and access easements and conveying those to District for perpetual use in constructing, operating, and maintaining all utilities. d. Sheet Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plat 3 of 3 i. Lift Station easement was previously promised to the District as an "exclusive" easement. e. Sheet 01-01 i. Show prospective utility easement boundaries (in accordance with District dimensional requirements) for all proposed new utilities ii. District Rules and Regulations require water and sewer mains to be extended to property boundaries. It appears that this is not the case for Parcel F. This also shows up on sheet 01-05 iii. Profile drawings for all new water main required. Profile drawings were only provided for sewer. f. Sheet C1-02 1. No details provided for proposed ponds located near existing lift station. Given the close proximity to the existing lift station, the District would like to review g. Sheet C1-03 i. Proposed sewer line crosses pond between Lot C3 and Parcel D, this is not acceptable. h. Sheet C4-01 i. Energy dissipating manhole may be required for proposed manhole SMH- 12. i. Sheet C4-02 i. Energy dissipating manhole may be required for proposed manhole SMH- 11. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information or clarification to the above. Respectfully submitted, SGM Brandyn Bair, PE District Engineer cc. Tonya Uren, RFWSD District Administrator Tim Whitsitt, Esq I'.\1996\96059W-135 Flying M Ranch PUD\Corresp\20190125-Itr to Waller.doc _____,....401 RFT/1 Rooring Fork Transportation Authority Date Received: 1/4/19 Date Due: 1/25/19 Jurisdiction: Garfield County Project Name: Flying M Ranch PUD & Preliminary Plan Applications Project Address: 3927 County Rd. 154, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Owner: Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork RE -1 School District Representative: Land Studio, Doug Pratte Location: https://goo.gl/maps/c29dPuXZMX12 Use: 13 parcels, from Lots 2 and 3 of the previous Eastbank Minor Subdivision Project Summary The Applicant is requesting approval for a PUD and a Preliminary Plan. Proposed uses within the Subdivision include expansion of an existing business park, housing, and opportunities for community service facilities including assisted living, independent senior living, and Home Care & Hospice of the Valley. Ultimately, the applicant is proposing 13 parcels with a variety of densities possible on each parcel. Water and wastewater will be provided by Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Access is from CR 154. Cumulative Traffic Impacts According to FHU's Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment, vehicular access to the site has been identified via two full movement accesses to CR 154, at the southeast end of the site. The first shared with the existing access to Riverview School and a proposed new access further south along CR 154. The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 160 new vehicle -trips during the weekday AM peak hour and about 160 new vehicle -trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The estimated weekday new daily trip generation potential would be about 2,000 trips." These additional projected trips are in addition to cumulative CR 154 traffic impacts from background traffic and adjacent developments that will all share the same entrance: • The Rick Engineering Company Federal Express Ground Distribution Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Garfield County (3/3/2015) estimated 230 ADT. • The same FedEx report also documented an estimated 2,487 trips for background CR 154 traffic to/from SH 82, the frontage road and Ironbridge. • The FHU Eastbank Property New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment (March 2016) estimated new daily trip generation potential of 700 ADT. Therefore, the total combined daily traffic on CR 154 is conservatively estimated at about 5,500 ADT. This proposed development accounts for about half of this total. ..401 Roofing Fork Transportation Authority RFTA Transit Comments RFTA does not currently operate buses on CR 154; however, RFTA operates hundreds of buses each day along SH82. According to the Traffic Impact Assessment, about 80% of the trip generation will be distributed to/from SH82, potentially increasing stop cycles and traffic queues on SH82, which would increase BRT and valley bus travel times. Page 17 of the Traffic Impact Assessment states "in the long range total scenario the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM and LOS B during the PM peak hours, but it should be noted that the northbound approach of CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM Peak hour. This is a result of not making any adjustments to signal timing at the request of CDOT due to the sensitive nature of traffic along SH 82. It is likely that timing adjustment will be made at various times over the next 20 years in response to changing traffic demands, possibly allowing less imbalance in the approach delays and partially mitigating the projected queuing." RFTA's reliability, travel times and operating costs will be impacted under the following potential conditions, to the detriment of regional transit passengers: • Changes to SH82 LOS at the SH82/CR154 intersection are greater than assumed in the Traffic Impact Assessment • SH82 signal timing is changed to alleviate project queueing on the CR154 northbound approach • Additional development is proposed in and around this area RFTA suggests implementing transit signal priority at this intersection, for RFTA and for emergency vehicles, to alleviate these issues. Garfield County levied a fee on building permits for the Rose Ranch subdivision (Ironbridge) that was used for transportation and transit mitigation. Perhaps a mechanism similar to this could be used to fund transit signal priority and other transportation improvements. RFTA has been approached by RE -1 and concerned citizens to consider adding local bus stops at the SH 82/CR 154 intersection. Garfield County is not a RFTA member jurisdiction and does not provide dedicated sales tax or property tax to RFTA; though it does provide annual contributions to capital and operating costs, primarily for Grand Hogback service, subject to annual request. Rooting Fork Transportation Authority According to RFTA service standards, all new bus stops located on or near SH 82 need to incorporate safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings of the highway. Grade separation of SH 82 is strongly preferred, especially considering that the stop would oriented to school access. Stops would need to be well -light and ADA accessible, and located a safe distance away from the SH82 general purpose lanes, with adequate acceleration and deceleration tapers to allow the bus to access and egress SH82 safely. Bicycle and pedestrian trails and sidewalks surrounding the stop would be required for safe and effective bike/ped connectivity to the surrounding area. CDOT will likely have requirements as well. Since this boarding location is located outside of RFTA boundaries, Garfield County or another entity would need to fund the capital and operating requirements. The RFTA Board may be hesitant to invest in new service and infrastructure in a non-member jurisdiction, without a long- term funding commitment. Rio Grande Railroad Corridor/Rio Grande Trail Comments The Flying M project will result in an additional 2,000 ADT and combined total 5,500 ADT, creating more potential for conflicts on the already dangerous CR 154/Rio Grande Trail crossing. RFTA Planning staff have consistently provided similar referral comments (FedEx, Riverview School, equine facility, car care facility) with regard to incremental development and the combined impacts on both motorized vehicles and trail users along CR 154. Please see attached a map showing RFTA's Rio Grande Railroad Corridor survey boundaries at the CR 154 trail crossing. Potential Rio Grande Trail/CR 154 Safety Mitigation Measures Consistent with the need for preservation of the RGT, the following safety solutions have been discussed with regional stakeholders during previous referrals. These include the following: • Relocating trail crossing sign 300' for vehicles • Install additional signage for vehicles and trail users • Solar Flashing Sign: Designated School Zone • Pavement sensor and flashing sign for trail users • CR 154 speed hump to slow vehicle traffic • Sightlines; berm mowing/removal • Ped -bike "chicane" for dismounting bikes • Transit signal priority/queue bypass lanes at SH 82/ CR 154 • Safe Routes to Riverview School project (SRTS grant requested) • SH 82 pedestrian underpass and bus stops • SH 82/CR 154 flyover interchange .411111 'W771 Roofing Fork Transportation Authority Pio SiandeTroi/ RE -1 and RFTA worked together to fund and install a new bike -ped connector trail from the Rio Grande Trail to the northern edge of the Riverview School property. RFTA is also a stakeholder in the Safe Routes to Riverview School Project grant application, focusing on improvements to the south, submitted by Garfield County in cooperation with RE -1 and RFTA. There is no guarantee of funding for the SRTS project. Both projects were initiated by public demand for safer multimodal access for school users. RFTA requests that the applicant be required to assist the other stakeholders in addressing the safety impacts of this project, especially where the Rio Grande Corridor crosses CR 154, by helping to fund and implement trail safety mitigation measures, including but not limited to those outlined herein. RFTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on development projects of regional significance, and we look forward to work cooperatively and collaboratively with our member jurisdictions and our regional stakeholders. Rooting Fork Tronsportolion Authority February 1, 2019 Patrick, Thank you once again for the follow up call on 1/31/19 to discuss our referral comments for the Flying M Ranch project. As requested, we are providing a little more clarity around our concerns and what we might request for mitigation from the developer. As we mentioned previously, RFTA's primary concern is public safety along, and adjacent to, the Rio Grande Railroad Corridor, specifically the CR 154/Rio Grande Trail crossing. With an estimated 50% of the 5,000 AADT on CR 154 attributed by the forthcoming Flying M project, we are concerned that additional traffic will only magnify public safety issues at an already dangerous trail crossing. As we discussed, it is difficult to segment project -specific impacts in this area with incremental growth, traffic increase and mounting public safety concerns. As you are aware, RFTA is a stakeholder in the Riverview Safe Routes to School (SRTS) grant application process (see attached LOS). We are concerned that, as the Flying M Ranch proposal references, even a future "safe route" alignment will still assume that parents and kids commuting to the school from Ironbridge use the impaired CR 154/Rio Grande Trail intersection to access the Rio Grande Trail connector trail to the northside of the Riverview property (see attached alignment map). Without a grant award, there will be no funding to get the Ironbridge and Westbank users to the Rio Grande Trail and the pedestrian safety concerns for this neighborhood will only be exacerbated by the additional increase in traffic. RFTA suggests that the developer begin to implement some of the incremental safety solutions that have been contemplated for a future, integrated "safe route." These may include, but not limited to: • Reducing the height of a berm and vegetation in the RFTA Corridor to improve sight lines near the trail crossing. • A designated "school zone" along Garfield CR 154, from SH 82 to CR 109 at the actual Ironbridge • Pedestrian improvements along CR154 for the Ironbridge and Westbank neighborhoods (in the event the safe route grant is not awarded to this project) • Additional signage and push-button flashing pedestrian signs for trail users on either side of the trail crossing • Additional signage for motorists on each approach to the trail crossing Roaring Fork Transportation Authority • A transit mitigation fund for adjacent developers and regional entities to begin to contribute to for future costly safety improvements Please find attached the following items, for reference: • RFTA Referral Comments for Flying M Ranch (1/25/19) • RFTA Rio Grande Railroad/Rio Grande Trail ROW Survey boundaries for this area • Riverview SRTS preferred alignment map • RFTA letter of support for the Riverview SRTS grant application. Jason has requested the final SRTS application from Doug Pratte. RFTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on development projects of regional significance, and we look forward to work cooperatively and collaboratively with our member jurisdictions and our regional stakeholders. Sincerely, Jason White RFTA Multimodal Planner 970-384-4968 jwhite@rfta.com Roaring Fork Transportation Authority October 11, 2018 Leslie Feuerborn Colorado Safe Routes to School 2829 W. Howard PI. Denver, CO 80204 RE: Support for the Safe Routes to Riverview School Project Dear Ms. Feuerborn: On behalf of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) Board of Directors, comprised of eight local governments in the Roaring Fork Valley and the Colorado River Valley region, I am writing to confirm that RFTA supports the Garfield County's Safe Routes to Riverview School grant application. This project will address the need for a safe pedestrian route for students to walk or bike to and from the Ironbridge and Westbank neighborhoods to the new PreK-8 Riverview School in Glenwood Springs, CO. The Roaring Fork School District, and Garfield County are dedicated to improving pedestrian access from the Ironbridge and Westbank neighborhoods to the new Riverview School and will accomplish this by repurposing a historic bridge for pedestrian only access, creating an ADA connection up to the Rio Grande Trail and installing pedestrian friendly crossing signals to allow students, teachers and other faculty members a safe option for crossing County Road 154 to gain access to the Riverview school property. As the owner of the Rio Grande Trail, RFTA applauds the School District and Garfield County for working together with RFTA and the other stakeholders in this area, to address the need for a safe pedestrian access to Riverview. Finally, providing a safer pedestrian access in this location may allow for more pedestrian and bicycle use and Tess vehicle use, thus reducing congestion on this particular County Road. As an important stakeholder in this process, RFTA commits to providing Construction Management oversight as an "in kind" donation to the project. The value of the Construction Management oversight generally accounts for 5% to 10% of the overall construction cost, an amount which will be determined once the planset is finalized. RFTA anticipates this amount to range somewhere between $80,000.00 and $160,000.00. RFTA also commits to allowing for an ADA connection up to the existing Rio Grande Trail, working with the Roaring Fork School District and Garfield County to secure the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval for upgraded pedestrian crossing signals where the Rio Grande Trail crosses County Road 154, and continuing to pursue other grant opportunities to fund the costs associated with the soft surface trail connection to the Rio Grande Trail. RFTA urges the Colorado Department of Transportation to provide RFSD with a Colorado Safe Routes to School grant to advance this important project and to keep the children of South Glenwood Springs safe on their way to school. Sincerely Dab Blankenship Nat /ti\ (it CV Chief Executive Officer t• , s. AL, jf 4444 -216621111===r- ""'". (40/",".2.=="-. ' - • • e —441114$104 - at 41110 • • 41 Isar.- It ® milepost. 0 Milepost Tenths ▪ RFTA Centerline ▪ RFTA ROW Line MParcel Division Lines Parcel - Type 1 -Grant 2 - Fee 4 -Adverse Possession 5 - Easement 6 - Other • - - 1 = Congressional Grant = Railroad Land Grant (Limited Fee or Fee Slmple-Determinan() 2 = Fee/Deed 4 = Prescriptive RighVAdverse Possession 5 = Easement 6 = Other ( License. Contract. Permi(. Ordinance. Court Decree, Charter. Slate PUC Decision (Administrative Law Decision] etc.) Parcel Number Label: E3 Farnsworth GROUP A Roving Folk Tainspoilslion kilunity Ownership Atlas 100 Feet 12/18/2012 Page 22 of 141 PAGE 22 El) Mileposts O Milepost Tenths RFTA Centerline RFTA ROW Line O Parcel Division Lines Parcel - Type 1 - Grant 2 - Fee 4 -Adverse Possession 5 - Easement 6 - Other 1 = Congressional Grant = Railroad Land Grant (Limited Fee or Foe Simple -Determinant) 2 = Fee/Deed 4 = Prescriptive Right/Adverse Possession 5 - Easement 6 = Other (1 icense, Contract, Permit, Ordinance, Court Decree, Charter, State PUC Decision (Administrative Law Decision) etc.) Parcel Number Label: Farnsworth GROUP ,„7. r Fork Lanparlotion whom) Ownership Atlas 100 Feet 12/18/2012 Page 23 of 141 PAGE 23 _ .1 Wog kak Imniponolion Authority Ownership Atlas too Feet 12/18/2012 Page 24 of 141 G Mileposts C, Milepost Tenths - RFTA Centerline RFTA ROW Line Q Parcel Division Lines Parcel - Type 1 -Grant 2 - Fee 4 -Adverse Possession 5 - Easement 6 - Other 1 = Congressional Grant - Railroad Land Grant (Limited Fee or Fee Simple -Determinant) Parcel Number Label: 2 = fee/Deed 4 = Prescriptive Right/Adverse Possession 5 = Easement 6 = Other ( License, Contract, Permit, Ordinance, Court Decree. Charter. State PUC Decision [Administrative Law Decision] etc.) RATA Rooting f oik irnnspodnlion Amhorlry Ownership Atlas 0 Mileposts 0 Milepost Tenths • • RFTA Centerline • — RFTA ROW Line Q Parcel Division Lines Parcel - Type 1 - Grant 2 - Fee 4 - Adverse Possession 5 - Easement 6 - Other 1 = Congressional Grant = Railroad Land Grant (United Fee or Fee Simple -Determinant) 2 • Fee/Deed 4= Prescriptive Right/Adverse Possession 5 = Easement 6 = Other ( License, Contract, Permit, Ordinance, Court Decree, Charter, State PUC Decision [Administrative Law Decision) etc.) Parcel Number Label: U Farnsworth GROUP Roaring Fork School District Riverview School Safe Route to School Concept 0 300 600 900 1500 • nate Drefl Updated November 7. 2017 by The land 91udb, Iz 1 County Road 109 & County Road 154 lntersection A. Explore pedestrian safety improvements at the County Road 154, Spring Valley Road, and Highway 82 intersection for students living east and south of the intersection to safely access the Rio Grande Trail. B. Explore a safe pedestrian crossing at the Westbank Road, County Road 109, Ironbridge Phase 3 intersection. Confirm path location to County Road 109 through Ironbridge Phase 3. C. Explore a potential bike/pedestrian path along County Road 109 and Ironbridge Phase 3 down to the iron bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River. Confirm what portions of this path may be built by Ironbridge Phase 3, and if the path beyond Ironbridge Phase 3 can be built in County Road 109 ROW. D. Explore the potential to restore the iron bridge as a pedestrian crossing and provide a safe pedestrian/bike crossing at County Road 109 and 154. Coordinate opportunities with CPW at the Sam Caudill SWA. E. Work with Garfield County road and bridge and RFTA engineers to explore the feasibility for potential soft trail to provide bike/pedestrian connections from the County Road 109 and 154 intersection to the Rio Grande Trail intersection at County Road 154. F. Explore safety improvements to the existing Rio Grande Trail intersection at County Road 154. G. Finalize the proposed bike/pedestrian connection to the Rio Grande Trail at the north end of the Riverview School site based on current RFSD plans and RFTA's recent approval of the connection. County Road 109 and 154 '6 .I --County Road 109 at ,, Ironbridge Phase 3 Entry i I Garfield County 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Patrick Waller Public Health Health 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 February 1, 2019 Hello Patrick, I've reviewed the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application and have the following comments: 1. Built Environment: Public Health endorses Roaring Fork Schools' application for the Colorado Safe Routes to School grant funding to "construct a bike and pedestrian route that provides connectivity to the neighborhoods south of Riverview School to the Rio Grande Trail." 2. Water quality impacts: As the application acknowledges, this development is in very close proximity to the Roaring Fork River. Neighborhood design should account for this and maintain the regulatory 35 -foot setback from the river. Storm water management and other designs to prevent runoff of pollutants into the river and its alluvium should be optimized as well. a. Fertilizers and pesticides on both individual and community lawns and gardens should be applied minimally to reduce the risk of contamination; and hazardous materials like paints and used oils should be stored or disposed of properly. 3. Air quality and nuisance impacts: If construction of the subdivision meets the conditions of the Air Pollution Control Division of greater than 25 contiguous acres for more than 6 months in duration, a General Construction Permit may be required. If this is the case, the applicant should provide a copy of this permit to Garfield County. a. Dust mitigation practices should also be in place during construction to reduce air quality impacts to adjacent properties. 4. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Public Health supports the concept of "Eco - Efficiency Homes" planned for the development and encourages the use of energy efficiency measures in the other buildings planned for the subdivision as well. 5. Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC): while not currently required by Garfield County's building code, it is recommended that the proposed homes and buildings be constructed using radon resistant new construction (RRNC) standards. This can represent a significant cost -savings to the owner over installation of a mitigation system after the home is built. Homes should be tested for radon after construction is complete, at which time a fan can be added if elevated radon levels are present. Free radon test kits are available at Garfield County Public Health offices and the Clean Energy Economy for the Region (CLEER) office at the 3rd Street Center in Carbondale. Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease Thank you, / Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist III Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease EXHIBIT Patrick Waller From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 5:28 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Bunnell - CDOT, Mark; Sheryl Bower; Fred Jarman Subject: Re: FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Attachments: SH 82 ACP Plan 2012.pdf Patrick - Thank you for the opportunity to review the Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676. It is also known Flying M Ranch development. CDOT has reviewed the traffic study by FHU dated October 2019 "Flying M Ranch". The study states in the conclusion that no permit is needed. However, CDOT believes an access permit is needed because the traffic study showed the queue results in Table 4 CR 154 should be widen for three northbound lanes for at least 400 -ft. This would provide sufficient storage for the left-turn/thru/ traffic such that right -turns would not be "stuck" in the left-turn/thru queue storage area. It is also recommended that this property provide connectivity for the properties to the north as shown in the 2012 ACP. I have attached the SH 82 ACP plan. It shows there should be connection for the properties to the west to CR 154 (Old SH 82). I believe this connectivity is an important part of the planning roadway network for this area. If you would like to discuss, please let me know. thanks Dan Dan Roussin Permit Unit Manager Traffic and Safety 0 P 970.683.6284 I F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniel.roussin@state.co.us 1 www.codot.gov/ I www.cotrip.org 1X0 Xl On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:17 AM Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> wrote: Thanks for the follow-up Dan. When do you think you all could have comments to us? 1 tn-oo..usw..us\avo\eooziva m 1aaa, w,os 'Kathy Whiting 279 Westbank Road 970-948-9783 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 kathylwhitingagmail.com a EXHIBIT 1 February 1, 2019 GARCO Planning Commission and Mr. Patrick Waller 108 8th Street Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Garfield County Planning Commission and Mr. Waller: SUBJECT: PROPOSED FLYING M RANCH PROJECT This is to voice my concern on a few levels to the proposed Flying M Ranch Project. I live in the Westbank neighborhood; which is adjacent to the proposed project. I'm amazed at how large our county has grown and how expensive housing has become. It's been wonderful to see the Ironbridge neighborhood fill with homeowners who take pride in their homes and who have built a 'community'. Isn't that what we want in Garfield County? Communities of people. People who live next to each other for a few years, take care of each other when the other is in need. A community with the density such as the Flying M proposal suggests many tightly -packed homes, (many of them rentals; which we know turn over quite frequently) even some as small as a `tiny home' with limited parking, no sidewalks for kids to walk or ride their bikes to school and an overcrowded, unsafe access to Highway 82. I urge the Commissioners to rethink the density of this proposal and to consider the benefits of a neighborhood where people can affordably own their own home and build `community'. Build access points to the local trails for biking and hiking. Consider the wildlife, riparian impacts as well as river impacts. Make them better! Study the current septic lines and water lines to see if they can handle even an `Ironbridge' community impact. Do a lighting study and recommendation. Study neighboring land for complementary usage. I realize we can't stop someone from developing their land. That's downright unAmerican! But with thoughtful planning for `communities' of homeowners, our beautiful valley, Garfield County, will continue to be a special place to live. Thank you for your • e • eration, Kathy Whiting Westbank and Garfield County Homeowner Dear Mr. Waller, e1:v/-1(y 11 26'15 I have heard that there is a proposal for a new subdivision, the Flying M Ranch, being reviewed by Planning and Zoning Commission. As a resident of the nearby Westbank Ranch subdivision, I have many concerns regarding the proposal but will limit this letter to my most pressing: 1. This proposal is extremely ambiguous, it is not clear what they really want to do with this land. It seems to be worded in a manner which allows everyone to think things that are important to them are included but does not guarantee that any of these things will be included — could include, could, could, could. What are they really planning to build? What urban planning problem(s) does this proposed subdivision address? • There is no mention of incorporating affordable housing, so it is not intended to address this problem; there are already several approved PUD's that have not been built in Garfeild County that address free market housing concerns. • It indicates that a minimum of 15% of units will be rental but does not state what the other 85% will be. Will they also be rental? VRBO style? Nothing in the proposal prevents this. 2. The road(s) leading down to the proposed subdivision and the intersection of CR 154 and HW 82 are already overly congested and unsafe for the school. Being as there are no grocery stores or current public transportation, the residents would be car dependent adding hundreds of vehicles to the area. It is my understanding that the plan does not meet minimum requirements for emergency vehicles to enter and leave safely, it does not include sidewalks in a neighborhood with a school. This development should not be approved if it does not include a plan to address the additional traffic any development to this area would create. 3. The proposed subdivision would create a classroom space problem at Riverside School. Riverside school was paid for using a mill levy to serve the Iron Bridge, Westbank Mesa, Westbank Ranch and all the subdivisions in Spring Creek. Several of these subdivisions have unbuilt approved PUD's. If 224 housing units are added to the area, a good portion of the classroom space would be taken up by that subdivision. I understand that the area surrounding the Riverview School will be developed in some manner - this development will likely never be welcomed by everyone. In reading the proposal, I cannot determine what urban development problems it aims to fix but I can clearly see many new problems it will create not limited to those cited above Th k you for the opportunity to express my concerns, Rochelle Smi 88 Meadow Lane Glenwood Springs CO 81601 February 2, 2019 Patrick Waller County Planner Planning Commission Hello, a EXHIBIT 214 My name is Melissa Heiser and I am a resident of Westbank Ranch and have lived here for 12 years. We have seen lots of new building and the taking away of open space all around us. I guess in this valley, that is inevitable. The Riverview school is a great example of a project that wasn't well thought out in the design of the safety concerns or traffic issues that come with this type of a project. To point out that these are kids who could walk or bike to this school seems important. However, there are no sidewalks anywhere around the school which means that the parents of the kids attending here, have brought a additional large amount of traffic to the already busy one road which goes to and from the school. There are many near misses everyday when these parents and teachers turn onto Hwy 82 from CR 154 as there is no right turn lane and no signage to point this out either. This example is just one example of how the Flying M Ranch subdivision would further impact an already heavily congested roadway. Everyone coming in or out of the subdivision would also use this one overly busy road. The Flying M Ranch Subdivision is seeking to put an extremely congested 38 acres of urban development in an already congested area which would result in us losing any open space we currently have. We live in this area for the wildlife and beauty all around us. My understanding of this project is that it seeks not only putting many single family and multi family units in this space but businesses, assisted living, hospice, restaurants and more. This directly conflicts with current zoning in the area. This is a rural setting for such urban congestion. The amount of traffic, noise and light pollution would greatly impact all of the surrounding areas. None of which are so tightly congested. There are many flaws in putting so many homes in such a small space. Parking, wildlife space, foot traffic, open space, emergency exits and existing roads are just a few. I hope you will consider all of these concerns and please require the developer to really address all of these concerns before this project goes forward. Thank you for you time and consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Heiser Dear Mr. Waller, I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, Sandra Joyner /4114/1-0_ tiQt/PfLe, 1 2-0 cl 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 Dear Mr. Waller, I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does riot properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, David Joyn-r (1 ri 02-03-2 ct 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 Patrick Waller County Planner Planning Commission February 3, 2019 I am a resident of Westbank Ranch and have been since 2007. There are many concerns that I have with the proposed Flying M Ranch subdivision. I hope that these concerns will be addressed at the upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission on February 13, 2019. Firstly is the problem of so many homes squeezed into such a small area. We moved to this area because the lots were so wonderfully large and spaciously sized with lots of room to enjoy the nature and wildlife of this subdivision. Such will not be the case at the Flying M Ranch. These houses will be one on top of another. The wildlife will have lost yet another area to inhabit. Secondly there will be so many cars, trucks and motorcycles all converging on the signal on Highway 82. There are times already that there is a lot of traffic waiting for the signal to change. I can't imagine what it would be like for the added traffic coming from the Flying M Ranch homes. Thank you for letting me address just a few of my many concerns regarding the Flying M Ranch project. Much more time and discussion should be given to the serious problems which this project would cause. Sincerely, Nancy A. Helser February 3, 2019 Dear Mr. Waller, County Planner and the Planning Commission. 1 ani a home owner and full time resident in Westbank Ranch Subdivision and am writing this letter to voice my concerns regarding the proposed Flying M Ranch development Project that has been brought before you. I hope you will seriously consider, these concerns as you review their proposal. As it stands now we have been seriously impacted by the development so tar, with the FedEx facility, (that we did not have any say in). and the school and other commercial facilities that have been built. We did voice opinions regarding the latter and these have much less impact then the FedEx facility. The 2 main things that we were affected by are the lighting,(not at all dark sky), and the increase in traffic, mainly from the school. When we moved here a short 4 years ago, we could see the stars clearly and it stayed dark at night, now, it is lit up like the fourth of July in our backyard 24/71365. When it snows, it looks like sunnse at midnight. I understand the price of progress, but their should tic considerations and requirements in place so that big money cant just push their weight around and the folks that have invested lite savings in a home aren't getting any considerations. All ttiat aside, here are a few of my main concerns for the new development - 1) First and foremost the density of units per ac,re, whether residential or otherwise, is unthinkable for this area. Sounds more like something you would find in a large city center. This will seriously impact our property values and is far more populated and dense then any of the surrounding subdivisions. They are saying there will be approx. 224 units for 38 acres. I believe that even though this alone is a very dense figure it will be even more so. 'Their property lines go to halfway across the nver, as well as other areas that will not or cannot be used tor dwellings which greatly increases the number ol units per acre. 2) This density and any increase in residential or commercial space will affect the already congested CR154 and intersection at Hwy 82. We have seen a huge spike in traffic on CH154 since the school was built. They arc building more homes ir Iron Bridge and now this development of up to 224 units, which figuring a bare minimum of 2 people per unit would be roughly 450 extra vehicles in a daily commute. not including any workers, visitors, or consumers(if commercial spaces). This congestion has serious consequences to the established and existing residences/property owners, not to mention the environment, the river. pollution(trash), and wildlife movement/migration, and general liwy 82 commuters that will be directly affectedlcongested at the ii2/CR1 54 intersection. 3) Excessive lighting and noise. we don't live in the city for a reason, we have invested in outside city limits on 1 acre. lots because we enjoy our privac.:y. Everything about the proposed development(density AND zoning). screams an end to what we have all invested in. Close quarter rental units, assisted living complexes and commerciaVbusiness park type development is going to have an impact on almost everything. unlike anything that is here thus tar. The noise and light pollution from this kind of development is just a bad thing all around. Property values will plummet, not to mention the impact it will have to the river from the extremely close proximity to gold fishing waters that many folks in this area count on for income arid that brings in so much revenue from tourists as well as avid outdoorsman that love to raft and fish this section of river. Sincerely Thomas Stra77n 'P16 Meiciow Lane. GlenwoodSprings, CO 81601 (970)319-0029 Attention: Patrick Waller, County Planner and the Planning Commission EXHIBIT I am writing to express my great concern with the Flying M Ranch development proposal for a new community at the intersection of Highway 82 and 154 road. It is unbelievable to expect 38 acres to hold as much as is planned in such a small area. Can you imagine children and adults living in such cramped quarters with no backyards for children to play and be safe, no sidewalks for bicycles, no place to walk pets. The way people accumulate possessions , there will be no place for bicycles, tricycles, children swing sets, adult toys. Where will the children go to be safe with all this traffic going in and out? Will it be the river to throw rocks and wade, while boat after boat during the tourist season for fishing and rafting passing by daily. Another concern is the carbon monoxide from all the traffic that is nonstop all day filtering down on children and adults in such a development close to the highway. Is that healthy? When Ironbridge development is completed, Correl Ranch and other proposed developments in Carbondale, Basalt, and Aspen, there will be so much traffic on Highway 82, it will be impossible to get to Glenwood in a reasonable amount of time. I already hear from tourists and new residents how they love this area, but the traffic is "crazy" trying to get in and out of Glenwood Springs, as well as the frustrated residents in surrounding areas of this vicinity. Who knows of other proposed development in the upvalley areas such as Willets in El Jebel growing at a fast pace as well as population. The idea that 38 acres can hold homes, dog kennels (noise pollution), riding stables (flies), bus stops, and the numerous other proposals on and on... is just not feasible for a safe and enjoyable environment. We live in a rural area for a reason. The night sky is an everyday enjoyment with the exception of Fed Ex light pollution which we had no choice in that proposal. Do we have to give up everything that we enjoy for a development like a suburb of Glenwood Springs in our area.? Do we all have to suffer for someone to build such high density housing with mixed uses that does not improve any of the tenants health or safety, or for the existing homeowners, for one person to increase his bank account? There are just too many impacts on traffic, safe environment, light and air pollution, noise, and an elementary school children safety, middle school where drugs are already rampant, to even think about approving such an unthinkable proposal for the small area in question. Something on a much smaller scale should be proposed such as private homes, that are compatible with the surrounding areas of Westbank, and Ironbridge and other private homes. Do we have to have high density neighborhoods from Glenwood to Aspen so that we can't enjoy a little open space in our surroundings, enjoy the wildlife in our area and across the river; elk herds, turkey flocks, bobcats, mountain lions, deer, coyotes, eagles, geese, and other birds, the night sky, quiet neighborhoods, safe schools, clean air and ease of traveling? PLEASE REFUSE THIS PROPOSAL Thank you so much. Rosella Leety Resident of the Westbank neighborhood. 0218 Oak Lane EXHIBIT 5o February 2, 2019 Trish & Gerry Hittinger 676 Westbank Ranch Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 To: Patrick Waller, County Planner Planning Commission This letter is to register our concerns re the proposed Flying M Ranch development. I was shocked when I read more about the proposed development with its clear issues of lighting, water issues, river impacts, high density housing, and mixed use. We take issue with all of the above concerns, especially the increased traffic this development would cause. Egress onto Highway 82 from our area is already increasing and the stoplight onto 82 by FedEx gets backed up several times a day. It is fairly manageable now, but will be hideous with the business park, dwelling units, community service proposed. Flying M is certainly not in keeping with the other developments in the area and is very much a "big city" plan. Having moved here from Los Angeles, we do NOT want anything that smacks of that type area. We are VERY concerned .. . Trish & Gerry Hittinger 676 Westbank Ranch Dear Mr. Waller, February 4, 2019 I am writing to express my concerns for the building of The Flying M Ranch on SR 154. The proposed development seems to ignore the effects of the high density of the housing and businesses on the safety the pedestrians and the traffic. There is no space for the widening of SR 154 accommodate the pedestrians, cars and busses you propose to bring to this area. Felicity Smith 88 Meadow- ,Me Glenwood Springs CO 81601 John Swanson 105 Oak Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-379-0554 February 4, 2019 Garfield County Board of Commissioners Glenwood Springs, CO Re: Flying M Ranch Gentlemen: EXHIBIT 32 I urge you to consider very carefully the proposal for development known as the Flying M Ranch. Among the many concerns that I have are: 1. The density of the proposed development — The developer is asking for rezoning for multi -family housing and relatively dense single family housing. While I believe that this is a case of "ask for everything and maybe we can develop and make a profit with what we are ultimately allowed", I'm suspicious of the next and following iterations of such a dense initial proposal. 2. Traffic impacts — This development should not be considered until and unless a solution is forthcoming and in place for the Hwy 82 and Cty Rd 154 intersection. What that solution will be I do not know, but it has to been in place and built before development can occur. Also, the fact that there is an on grade intersection with the Rio Grande Bike Path and no way for children and cyclists to avoid riding along Cty Rd 154 to access that path is a huge concern — It's a matter of time before an avoidable accident occurs. 3. As a resident of Westbank Ranch, lighting concerns are at the forefront. The impact of the Federal Express compound is a case in point — downlighting was part of the approval — but the 40 foot light poles allow for a wide coverage and the area positively glows in the nighttime hours. 4. I question if this is the proper site for development, given the access issues, traffic issues, variance requests and additional concerns aired by concerned citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, John R. Swanson 105 Oak Lane GWS, CO 81601 Memo to: Patrick Waller, County Planner and the Planning Commission b 3 EXHIBIT 33 How far can you go with a project like the Flying M that crams so much into 38 acres of property at the expense of so many others for the profit of so few. 1. Adding additional traffic to an existing obsolete and dangerous intersection with no solution to handling the traffic now and in the future. 2. Building high density small square feet housing crammed into areas are not compatible with surrounding sub divisions and the character of a rural area. 3. Adding to the existing light pollution of the Fed Ex complex at the exact same location where the so called "dark sky lighting fixtures" didn't work as claimed, exacerbates more light pollution with this project. 4. Cutting off the annual winter elk migration we have watched from Westbank to the east bank for 21 years is exactly where the Flying M property is located. (See the associated photos available.) What does the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Organization and the Wildlife Heritage Foundation have to say about this? 5. The many facets of this project including traffic are not compatible for many reasons that are obvious when situated next to an elementary school and future middle school for the safety of the children. 6. Property values decline for existing home owners across the river in the Westbank sub division, Westbank Mesa and all private homes in the surrounding area. Where there are short term renters and no pride of ownership plus the density of an area in 600 square foot housing, it becomes a real concern in addition to the other proposed structures of various uses. I strongly object to this development for the above reasons and more. Dave Leety 218 Oak Lane 2/4/2019 Dear Mr. Waller, I am writing in regards to the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal that I understand is being reviewed in the near future. My wife and I own a house and reside in the Westbank Ranch subdivision. We hope you will consider the following concerns as you review this proposal and require changes to the development as it is proposed. Our biggest concern is the extremely high density that is being proposed. This extreme density is far removed from all of the many subdivisions in the area. We are very concerned that this will negatively impact our property values and change the quality of life in this area. This type of density seems more suited for areas like the two new developments currently under construction; the apartments above Target and the other across the river just starting construction. Both of those locations are near shopping and more importantly they are near bus services. Our other major concern is in regards to the increasingly dangerous traffic situation right at the entrance to the proposed subdivision and the entrance to highway 82. The existing traffic infrastructure is not capable of handling the increased use from the new development. Thank you for your consideration on these concerns. I hope that these concerns will warrant adjustments to the proposal. Sincerely, Craig Duncan 99 Westbank Rd. Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Robert L and Dana A Brownlee 156 Meadow Ln Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 rbrtbrownlee4@gmail.com dana.brownlee5(a@gmail.com Mr. Patrick Waller, Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re; Flying M Ranch PUDA-08-18-8676 Mr. Waller, My wife and I moved to Glenwood Springs two years ago after residing in Gypsum Colorado for 35 years. I myself sat on the Gypsum Planning Commission for 5 years and have reviewed several PUD applications as well as seen what good and bad planning can mean to a community. In reviewing the current Proposal I see an incredibly high density proposal with insufficient infrastructure to sustain the density proposed on this small of a parcel. It is not in keeping with adjacent properties, has little open area for the wildlife and is also a dead end subdivision with a large school property adjacent to the proposed subdivision which seems problematic in any emergency situation. Based upon the number of vehicle trips per day accessing either Highway 82 or County Road 154 this scale of a development would require much better intersections, with acceleration and deceleration lanes on both roadways to avoid a negative impact on the current infrastructure. The distance from Highway 82 to the entrance of the proposed subdivision will require more frequent traffic light exchanges which will back up traffic on Highway 82; at peak times many vehicle trips will use County Road 154 which as a result will also back up traffic at the intersection adjacent to Thunder River Market. I would hope the traffic counts for the new Bridge proposed near Holy Cross Electric are being considered as more and more traffic will be utilizing that intersection causing further impact on Highway 82 and more and more traffic issues. Please also think about the outdated public access to the Roaring Fork River at the intersection of County Road 154 and 109, during the high use periods this is already an unsafe section of the roadway that more and more traffic will be placed onto. Has anyone considered the possibility of a portion of the proposed subdivision being utilized for River Access and getting people off the side of a roadway? Please look to the future and do the right thing by reducing the density and considering the long term effects of this and other future subdivisions. Sincerely, 7Robert and ana Brownlee February 4, 2019 Dear Mr. Waller, I am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you review this proposal and require changes or amendments to the development as it is proposed. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the full potential impact of the proposed project. A new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a complete analysis of the total proposed development, 228 residential units and Business Park. Only with a complete analysis of the traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. As proposed all the subdivision and business park traffic will access highway 82 via county road 154. This road is already heavily impacted from the building of the Riverview School. If the development is to proceed, the developer should be required to upgrade the road infrastructure where the Flying M Ranch Road connects with County Road 154 and where County Road 154 meets Highway 82. These upgrades need to be required for the safety of the students who attend the Riverview School and those that live in Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen, and Coryell Ranch. The proposal is also not compatible with adjacent land uses. The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The proposed density of the development with 228 units and a business park on 38 acres does not fit within the character of the surrounding land use. Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Jim English 409 Westbank Road February 4, 2019 Garfield County Planning Commission Patrick Waller, County Planner RE: Proposed Flying M Ranch Development Dear Mr. Waller and the Planning Commission, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Flying M Ranch subdivision. As a resident of Westbank Ranch, I see a number of issues that I hope you will consider as you review the proposal. Density and compatibility with adjacent land uses. If you look to Westbank, Ironbridge, Westbank Mesa, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen, and Coryell Ranch as adjacent land use examples, the proposed density of 224 dwelling units is not compatible with the rural, traditional suburban neighborhoods found nearby. Traffic Impact. Assuming close to 900 residents (224 x 4), the impacts to traffic and multimodal transportation are immense. I am concerned that the existing infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. I ask that a new, robust traffic analysis be performed to be able to adequately analyze the substantial impacts a development of this size will have to the local traffic infrastructure. Safety. CR154, CR109, Flying M Ranch Road, and the intersection of CR154 and the Rio Grande Trail are dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists in their current state. I am very concerned that the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation even more perilous. It is imperative that the proposed new development provide safe passage, including proper sidewalks and trails, for pedestrians and bicyclists, whether they be 8 or 88. Light Pollution. The Fedex property resembles a federal penitentiary with its excessive lighting, negatively impacting Westbank and Westbank Mesa residents. And that is only one building! I can only imagine what could potentially occur with a development of this planned size. Please require a clear mitigation plan for light pollution from the developer. Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Jennifer Flentge 411 Meadow Lane February 4, 2019 EXHIBIT 1 Dear Mr. Waller and the Planning Commission, I have concerns about the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal that is due to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the near future. I am a long time resident of Westbank Ranch, and I hope these concerns will be considered during the review process. My number one concern is the density of the development and its impact on traffic safety. And, not just high volumes of traffic on the road, but safety concerns particularly for the children attending the Riverview School. There currently is no safe way for children from neighboring subdivisions to access the school on foot or by bicycle. They must walk or ride along County Rd. 154 with no sidewalks. The traffic study needs to consider the full development proposal at its maximum build out as the intersections of Hwy 82 and County Road 154 and Flying M Ranch Road and County Road 154 are already inadequate. The Riverview School is not yet at full enrollment which will bring additional cars in the future as they reach enrollment capacity. The study that was done does not seem to take this into account nor the full impact of an additional 240+ residences and numerous businesses being added to the mix. The developer should be required to upgrade the road infrastructure at both intersections — Flying M Ranch Rd. with County Rd. 154 and Highway 82 with County Rd. 154. My concern over density is two- fold. First, the proposal is not clear as to whether the residences will be for rent or for sale. The only thing that is clear is that 15% of them will be required to have lease periods of 30 days or more. What about the other 85%? Will they all be short term rentals? And, what about affordability of these units whether for rent or for sale? The developer is approaching this development in a way that allows the avoidance of affordable housing requirements. Before a development of this density is approved there must be clarity about how the housing units will address the current housing needs of the community. A large number of tiny homes or very small units will not address the needs of a young family of four trying to live and work in our community. Second, the current land use in the area is of larger lots and more open space. Current zoning is Rural which requires a minimum 2 acre lot size. The proposed density of this project does not fit within the character of the surrounding land use with neighborhoods such as Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Teller Springs, Aspen Glenn and Coryell Ranch. Additionally, the proposal is lacking in clarity in critical areas such as light pollution, river access impacts, availability of adequate water supply when the development is fully built out, true density of the business park parcel, and safety of students when coming and going from the Riverview School which is located in the center of the development. I urge you to require the developer to address the many unclear issues mentioned above prior to considering the PUD for approval. Respectfully, Linda English 409 Westbank Rd. Community Development Attn: Patrick Waller, Senior Planner 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Waller, EXHIBIT SOt February 4, 2019 I am writing to express my concerns about the proposal being considered for the Flying M Ranch subdivision. I have concerns about a number of impacts that a development of that scope will have on my family. At present the volume of traffic along County Rd 109 and Old Hwy 82 make getting to the Rio Grande Trail a tricky and sometimes very dangerous trip. My kids and I love to ride into Glenwood and Carbondale, and often commute to work or school. Allowing this type of development without clear, defined and required plans for trail access and traffic control will most certainly increase the risk to me and my family anytime we attempt to cycle in or out of our neighborhood. As a resident of Westbank, the amount of light pollution that we have been forced to endure from the FedEx facility is shocking. The new development will only increase the impact of Tight and noise. That increase will also impact wildlife that uses the open spaces of Westbank as a safe haven from traffic, noise, domestic animals and people. Please consider that this area is one of the last oases away from residential density, traffic and the associated commotion. Allowing this development to be built will crowd out all access to the east bank of the Roaring Fork river from Westbank and in my opinion dramatically impact the habitat the wildlife require to remain healthy. When reviewing this project please consider the impact a development of this scope will have on the existing residential neighborhoods. Nothing close to this type of residential or commercial density is part of the surrounding developments. We moved our family out of town to avoid density and development. Is that not a reasonable expectation to have of a small quiet rural neighborhood? We sincerely appreciate and thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Regards, Douglas A Flentge 411 Meadow Ln Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.948.1522 cc: Commissioner - John Martin Commissioner - Tom Jankovsky Commissioner — Mike Samson Uear N1r. Waller, My name is Becky (iremillion and 1 am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision. 1 am writing you today as I have some serious concerns with the plans for the new Flying M Ranch subdivision being proposed. It is very clear to me that what they want to build is in no way even remotely compatible with the adjacent land uses. Changing the zoning for these parcels to allow high density development will further destroy the value of my property which sadly will be in direct view of all of this! I have already taken a hit financially with the negative impact of the heinous lighting of the Fed Ex building over there not to mention the school and all the additional lighting pollution from that. So too have my neighbors who are trying to sell their home with the same view plane as mine. Traditionally homes in Westbank Ranch sell quickly within a month or so of listing. My neighbors who arguably have one the nicest homes and lots in here, have had theirs listed for months now and no takers. Their listing agents say over and over that the impact of the development already there is hurting their marketability. Allowing the Flying M Ranch to move forward as it described with further aggravate this problem and add an even greater one TRAFFIC! The traffic study they are using to substantiate their development claims is certainly a joke! Currently the new school alone has traffic bottling up on county road 154 during the morning and the evening. The parents in our neighborhood complain incessantly about the poor access to the elementary school and rightfully so! Adding all the homes proposed over there will make this already pitiful circumstance even worse. The rest of us fighting to get from our homes to I lwy 82 will now suffer even further. Not Good! I invite those in the Planning Commission to come take an actual look at the development sight both in the daytime and at night to get real look at what they are considering. They should also take some time to interview some residents here to listen to their perspective and gain some real understanding of what we are talking about. I hope that you will consider my points as you review their development proposal and require changes or amendments to have less negative and permanent impact on all the rest of us! Thank you for your time and your due diligence in requiring the developer to make adjustments to his development miter plan. Your thoughtfulness and expertise in this situation is greatly appreciated! Sincerely. 13e.F1illion y691 Westbank Rd Glenwood Springs 81601 February 4, 2019 Dear Mr. Waller. EXHIBIT zi It is my understanding that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is currently being reviewed by Planning and Zoning. As a resident of Westbank Ranch who will heavily impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. 1) The proposed Flying M Ranch development and in particular the "Eco Homes" are completely out of character and incompatible for the exiting developments adjacent. The language in the land use code is very clear on this. I am suggesting that the Planing Commission schedule a field trip to visit the site both once during the day and again at night to fully appreciate the reasons why this is so. 2) Secondly, the Flying M Ranch development proposal submission uses a traffic study which clearly identifies the adjacent county road 154 and the intersection of Hwy 82 as insufficient to support the traffic generated by the development. This situation exists at any level of completed development potential. 3) Lastly, the development plan as proposed is lacking proper sidewalks within to insure safety for those on foot. Clearly there was little concern placed to the natural path of travel for pedestrians even just traveling from residences to the school(s) within that area. Ultimately those on foot will wind up braving the vehicle traffic on what is obviously a ridiculous roadway system servicing the area. That understood, it will be just a matter of time at that point before someone is seriously injured. When that situation occurs. emergency vehicles servicing the casualty will now be blocking traffic flow in or out of the development and the school(s) operations mill be impacted. The congestion within will now spill over onto county road 154 and the result will be grid lock for all. In all. beyond just providing some additional housing units which at this time may be a need already met by the entirety of development currently in process in the Roaring Fork Valley. the impact on all the communities near me by a poorly resigned and even worse performing Fly M Ranch effort will be a lifetime problem for the rest of us. I am counting on you and your office to do what is right for the those already living here and reject the Flying M Ranch Development as currently offered. 1 thank you for the the opportunity to express my concems and have them considered for the good of us all. Darrin Smith 1091 \\ estbank Rd Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 JOHN S. HAINES Lir i 19 FI)z,L.1) Cv itiy P1._ ,0 eN1nlG r'L.A)Jt'J - PAT ALLYk 1 N > s ) J A L Jc 7 T 1'7 y T Nv v ‘1.7)- i s 4 A. 1-9.,) .xy 28 Fairway Lane Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601 Hm: (970) 945-9392 Cell: (970) 404-pc.).70 -.v/\/ A/ Cc: P-1 ri 1 S5 K N d-C.(='v>v17 R suur,vr,› /IFS% AT T VrL��TlRAJ( C 111. ):a) F1 es 1 '1.2 i- 1/' E wrsr,t3) ,\'JT RAr/c),I A l,c), f r)4l` px'apc: ,_ry.,o F ty IN 11 I a Nc:» D.J. vi L. /3 y1 1v, r £: �. 7 J 1� Lay o r T 1+ E L_..o .ice P l�_ti A ,= rt. R y`-`� t.) V Y c /7 J2 #V= 5 c--,,..) T» 0 l= l-- L F_ e./;.,_- c:,c.).)) )) '."I' ?4<;1.y C2c ii J JJt�'Gy %f -I -.'F )9 4 ZJ1,z<' %:AJ�i SFT 11 ,� c c-,,.,../5 fiRV.arn..a / :: av 7 .5l irA, I-1--- <....1 120- I(v.0 %rAAIC Ai , T*/"`/V ,!) L16...01` I+A7)✓1 >_� i � /a N D T>a / "�.0 L t- 1 N 17 c., S j k I,l c ,4 A171.1 Tim 7 l's' c .> r ) v`-/ A:* /3..0"/,% 1oN T LI Z )3) c >r. OF pt 1" LR.-ar f)0LLvr/c..,v 4,'./.0 Aljc-/1 .,,..;1' /./Gid//.= c:i' .J.S /1117 c....,,TN.IV,.2ok;tl- 2)PiAWY C. A/ /,_i/1r deV><`.cpHrNri U F 1 r / -1 J� 1.? Av./. y c:/ j A ,,,,,,c_ ,,- T'... -Ju) c ,� G�>< � g(... w r- 5 r' 1". )-i,) r--) c, w)- /or i /- /3n0,r) 15,0Vg e 77,%F_ Li .../.1.1- ,4 „Ivo . LiC-LZ-NJ.5) 1r pxr;STN%S. /V,-'..x:r- U' ' /po.4✓,;'A -;c- ).1...)<..-_. 7744 ScSnr=Q3F Firs, d•-•,'- •/2 S i,'T.' (.)../AL/2t J=c--))2 r,)-,3 ,Lr-L'C 1-v c. 4 N c r- t... --J >✓ 1--L 13 ,s c a c., s. rt c - 1c' N o 0 i .- r- U 5 F 7-3 C..%r 7'u -*-Frc..,it-r t>Cik-c.L. H�:N;,,,rc,j'/ A'h' ,,r" `;:_ -_s -1r .) c. ;i 14 -% (A--:- it -1 J)rv✓ SC;1vUL> is/)1, / )/c.)..; >.if -i,"% JOHN S. HAINES UI) ) SS U I' 1' A A-1 r% -f pr /pip Ii�S)91'11/rc 4L -t, T/f/s 28 Fairway Lane Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601 Hm: (970) 945-9392 Cell: (970) `r may- oc)'Yc1 /- r I4AV' (3Auvc NT' L E✓,r'�c,�lLi.ti n�' l._)LL ISA✓. rRAFF/ c r,-4,47- 1.3 /41-.4'.e...0.12.7 QJ'i N y 8:,-z. 1/4-0,; ST O,ANY la ,O S l C.) C) 14 c: 1-9 'ES' C' Ai 1 ; c. -I- JJ <: i'>ns Am; ...7-/J,,4 74Cc,vi4 11.43 3 c=.►t 4 pflc,p L. it 1 N 1 T T,0A1-3 3— 4e0 p c/7t,7 Gry 714 .9 r I3 c) A c x'.FS l,vJaE.k'x A.> W;r/-/ 1,,,e-1.,., )7)::-✓.KLvl i.--1 .1?' H, 1.// A( cr. 1e,o •-3e.c, lJe,,iLS rianr >`, nN5 T)4 ruk Cc, vL) 3i" ;':,. v — 1.2 c;cl rfc-p- E Gc.•T 7-IIF1't, A.n/D ,-,.9 ,, ''''3i- 05y ;C.r:. 13C Wc:S_Sf1/N-i4- /'.FLj I 1_,1/4_1l4Ar cs.,,LL T"7-J.hr i' i I i4 c T szA F}, c c-) ✓.i )) w)% e z n ...;7 c, u v ,,, i >; c.)./lo s / S 4, A.:vP )act )))- (......—J,,7,* r )3An/ X J J cc.)." ---JE w iv,e 4. i, FP 1rlA1Os 1 >7i, AV.' 1AJ°Nt — �'Y % h _)S CG1'4rSoN /)ND %») S/F Ariry /) f Xi w G F ria ii 7-1(...) r' k 1.yp c:r:' r A r 5> U 115 17�v/�� cr Gv k I-)`: r.-1) U �,tiif,_' /aA✓k ,1,rc: Vc:t1 rv/ i K ..Jr yvv�, T,I-,iF l"w Cv,JS)D/L.ti/3nc.N;/ AJJ c..,1,07: r/aA r (r= ,i)r)11"/ I F t -D Shy r rOc ,4j) elf L p tl /4 /-' r Cc)u13F_ PA - n"Jo P -Ac TE Tc r=, ) .$) i WE" r--13» /v i' /4c) A 1))L>)1213-"•;- _-.) 'hum)P.', LT" J- 1' A,,n7-,rrrr TPA SAX. a EXHIBIT Dear Mr. Waller, I am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you review this proposal and require changes or amendments to the development as it is proposed: - please demand a clear plan for light pollution from the developer after Westbank was so negatively impacted by the lighting at the FedEx building. -please require the developer to ensure a safe connection from Flying M Ranch Rd to the Rio Grande trail to provide safe passage on foot or bike for all students of the Riverview School. - please require clarity on the number of rental vs for sale units from the developer. The proposal mentions 15% rental of 30 or more days but what happens with the other 85%? -access in and out of the new development as proposed is dangerous with a dead end road. Please require the developer to address the life safety concerns and how they can assure safety of the residents and students in case of fire or other tragic situation. Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Scott VanDeursen 1132 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Dear Mr. Waller, I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. EXHIBIT 1 99 -please explain the impact to the community on the following: Roads / Traffic- The sharp turn off of 82 and the single lane road is already considerably backed up and a dangerous intersection. The angle of the curve near the light makes it difficult for buses, semis, and large vehicles to stay in their assigned lanes. Adding 1000s of more people traveling this 2 lane road is going to create issues with safety, and already has a large amount of congestion, etc. This entry to the school and Fed Ex area is a dead end. What happens in an emergency or when there is gridlock because there is not enough space for traffic to move? School - The school was built without preplanning for the kids to ride their bikes or walk safely to school. How do you plan to rectify this so the kids are safe? They already are trying to ride their bikes and walk on the two lane dangerous road, and with commercial vehicles and buses and multiple cars how will they even see the kids? Crime/Drug increase - What type of businesses will be allowed in this area? If there is a high rental percentage, and the high impact of people dealing marijuana, how will we regulate that impact on the school? With this high density of allowed rentals and so close to the school how will we increase security measures? Potential property value decline - Is there any consideration for the fact that this type of development does not match with the rest of the neighborhoods? Ie. Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen. Why are we not considering neighborhoods that allow the same aesthetic appearance to our valley? How much of this is for the benefit of the owner's earning on investment vs. what is best for our community? Wildlife- The elk cross the river right where the development is going to be. With this high density they will no longer be able to graze there. How do we consider the fact that we are reducing the potential health of the elk population? There is a big difference to the elk when they can safely graze between large lot residential areas vs. not being able to at all due to density. Environmental impact - What studies are being done to evaluate the impact to the water supply? As well as the fact that the river was already damaged by the quarry? Are there plans to clean this up? Light Pollution- The Fed Ex building went in without any knowledge or discussion with the neighborhood. The light pollution is absolutely horrific and Fed Ex has not wanted to compromise. The building lights up bigger than the town of Glenwood. Please take in to consideration how much our community was affected by this and what measures will be taken to look at this component with new businesses etc? Noise Pollution- This is another concern, when proposing density on less acreage than our entire community with 3x the people. Water Resources - What is the environmental impact to our precious river? What are the developers doing to interact with the environmental organizations on the impacts ? Parking - When looking at initial plan, it was stated that people would have to be transported to a different parking lot because there isn't enough room for people to park? Where would this take place? How would RFTA and other buses be routed? Wouldn't this increase foot traffic on the road that has no existing sidewalk? I understand that our valley must continue to support growth, however, please lets be smart about this and not just look at the monetary benefits. We are having a huge mine go in, our town is heavily visited by tourists year round, our resources are depleting, and we need to take all factors in to consideration. Please reasonably respect these concerns. Thank you Susan Horning 1070 Westbank Rd. EXHIBIT 1 95 Dear Mr. Waller and Planning Commission: My name is Steven Close, I live at 1039 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs. This letter is in response to the proposed Flying M Ranch Development just across the river from my home. I have very valid concerns about this development I would like to voice. #1 Lighting My home looks straight across the river at the new Riverview school and the Fed Ex facility. The light pollution from the 2 facilities is really bad from my home. Every night in my living room and bedroom it is like a full moon every evening after dark. The school does turn most of the lights down by 10:00 but the Fed Ex facility is blasting all evening and through the night. From my home this is extremely bad causing me to pull shades to block the bright lights. I do realize this property will be developed at some point, I hope the County Commissioners will use the dark skies ruled into consideration with any kind of development. The school and especially the Fed Ex facility has very negatively affected the peace and serenity at my home. #2 Wildlife Habitat As I said above I live about as close to the Proposed Flying M Development as anyone. I have been to several meetings about this development. I have personally heard the Flying M team claim there would be no negative effects on wildlife with this development. I strongly disagree. I have lived in my home in the Westbank Subdivision for about 15 years. I have been enjoying watching the deer, elk, coyotes, bald eagles, red tailed hawks and blue herons on the river banks and on the proposed development property. There has always been plenty of wildlife on this property. As of late I have noticed since the school and the Fed Ex arrival there has been less sightings than in the past years. This is a fairly remote stretch of river and I fear this development will chase off the wildlife that call this property home. At this point we haven't seen any bald eagles on this stretch of river. Please take the wildlife into consideration in your decision process. #3 Extremely Dense Development Westbank Sub Division is approximately 130 acres including roads servicing the subdivision, there are about 100 homes on this property. As I understand it, the new Proposed Flying M Development (over 200 units) on only 38 acres does not even come close to other developed properties bordering in this area. One thing that really gets me is the developer owns property to the center of the river. He has calculated the number of units allowed by county per acre using the total volume of property including the river property and river bank to boost the number of units crammed on the actual buildable property. Clearly this rule should be calculated on buildable property. The River and river bank should not be considered in this calculation. Also, riparian zone along the riverbank needs to be taken into consideration, maybe a open space trail along the river the entire length of this property and or a boat launch facility so all residence can enjoy the beauty along the river. #4 Added Traffic at County Road 109 and Highway 82 I have been very concerned with all the extra traffic this subdivision will bring to the already challenged intersection. I do not think that the current configuration of the intersection at Hwy 82 will work at all with the volume of traffic this proposed subdivision will bring. The entire intersection will have to be re -designed to accommodate the added volume of traffic brought by this development. I am sure this will fall upon the tax payer to bear the cost of the design and reconfiguration of this intersection. I feel the developer should bear the cost to rebuild the intersection not the tax payers. #5 I have lived in the beautiful Roaring Fork Valley nearly 40 years. I have made this valley my home for the many beautiful things we all find here. The quality of life being at the top of the list. I don't want the over built feeling of Denver or other larger cities. Such a dense development simply does not fit into this valley just to line the pockets of the developer. Please take in consideration the people that have made this valley their home. Please don't let this developer cram this extremely over developed property down our throat. With a little re -design and consideration for others this could be an asset to the community not an eye soar. Steven Close 1039 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs Sclose44@comcast.net 970-618-3405 February 5, 2019 Mr. Patrick Waller County Planner, and the Planning Commission, Dear Mr. Patrick Waller, I am a resident of West Bank Ranch and very concerned about the proposed Flying M Ranch Development. My primary concern is the safety to the students and staff of the Riverview School. I understand there could be up to 224 dwelling units on 34 acres. Assuming 2 vehicles per dwelling, that would be over 400 private vehicles passing the school each day. In addition to the private vehicles, there would be a dramatic increase in commercial (couriers, maintenance, lawn & irrigation etc.) throughout that area. All these vehicles would create a dangerous environment for the students and staff of the school, especially for students walking along CR - 154. 1 hope that the developers reconsider the number of dwellings they propose for the Flying M Development. Thank you for listening to my concerns, 1 Peter Tibbetts 88 Meadow Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Patrick Waller, County Planner, and the Planning Commission, EXHIBIT We have had our home for 15 years in the Westbank Ranch subdivision and am writing in regards to the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal. We live at 1039 Westbank Rd., and our home overlooks the river, the Riverview School, the Equine hospital, Professional Diesel and Automotive and the Fed -Ex facility. The light pollution from the Fed -Ex building alone has been enough to light up the neighborhood. Black -out shades are not enough to block the aura and glare of the lights. The school seems to abide by the down -lighting regulations most of the time. The wildlife population has diminished from the area. The eagles, hawks, blue herons, deer, elk, coyotes and fox are not as prevalent as before. With more homes, come more pesticides, which will have a negative impact on our "Gold Medal Waters" and our honey bee population. If all the bees in the world die, humans will not survive. Bees live, work and play to protect our health, water quality and pollinators. Not everyone uses organic material. The added traffic to County Rd.109 is going to be a danger to all. The congestion from the school and Fed -Ex has already impacted CR 109. I am also concerned as to what this is going to do to our property values. For some living in Westbank Ranch, the sale of their homes is part of what they're counting on to retire with. Regards, Anne Northway 1039 Westbank Rd Glenwood Springs, CO Gregory Rosenmerkel 203 Westbank Rd Glenwood Springs CO 81601 gIrosiepgmail.com Garfield County Planning Commission Board of Commissioners 4 Feb 19 After 30 years and 13 moves with the U5 Air i-orce, my tamiiy and 1 settled in (Ienwood Springs, specifically Westbank Ranch. Among the many reasons we chose this city and neighborhood was the balance between convenience to town and the peaceful setting away from high density and traffic. While not against development, it must be done deliberately and in concert with existing segments of the community and I expect our elected officials and their staffs to ensure that is done properly. My entire Air Force career was in the field of civil engineering including such sub -disciplines as community development and environmental planning, and my current job with the US Forest Service reinforces the need to seek the greatest good for the greatest number while incorporating socio-economic impacts discerned through study and public comments. It is with that experience and my interest as a concerned citizen that I ask for your help and consideration. I have a few significant concerns about the Flying M Ranch development proposal as I understand it. The first concern is that the proposal itself is not very clear. Neither the planning commission nor the board can effectively do their job, nor can the surrounding communities provide ideal input without some more specifics on things like rental percentages, number of units, density calculation, traffic study/planning and environmental impacts which are dependent on the other factors. Second, having experienced the traffic impacts of the new Riverview school with minimal improvements to the infrastructure, I can't envision a safe and successful development in the project area without substantial and multiple improvements to the transportation infrastructure, traffic control, emergency vehicle access and pedestrian/bicyclist routes. Third, the density of residence proposed and associated light, noise and traffic pollution would not only degrade the quality of life of surrounding residents, but also those in the very community proposed. The density I've read about reflects a significant departure from the current standards, and will have long-term negative impacts on this section of Garfield County. I look forward to a revised proposal of lower density which includes a transportation plan for the development as well as Hwys 154 and 82. At that point I also expect to be able to more specifically review the proposal for environmental impact concerns. I appreciate the challenges you face as a commission and a board and I trust you will act with the interests of your supportive current constituents in mind. We can continue to develop Garfield County as the place we've come to love and encourage more to settle here if we make smart long-term decisions at times like this. Thank you, 7 Greg Rosenmer -I 203 Westbank Rd To Garfield Planning and zoning , My name is Jeff Wisch. My wife and I have lived in Westbank Ranch for the last 18 years and the valley for 50 years. We have many concerns with the project being brought forward at the Flying M Ranch, These concerns include the following. 1.additional traffic caused at entrance of subdivision. This intersection is already very dangerous. 2.Density not compatible with surrounding area. 3.No sidewalks for children to use to get to school and new bike and pedestrian trail to be built. 4.Only one outlet causing emergency problems. Poor design Sincerely, Jeff Wisch Garfield County Planner Garfield County Planning Commission Patrick Waller Dear Mr. Waller EXHIBIT I am a home owner in the Westbank Ranch subdivision, and I am writing to you about the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposed next to the new Riverview School. As you may already know there has been a very large increase in traffic coming to and from SI -182 and the intersection at CR154 created by the school alone. The traffic light there is already struggling to move the people coming from Westbank Ranch, Ironbridge and Aspen Glen let alone adding the buses and cars for the school. This intersection is simply not safe for these school kids as it stands today. There is a constant backup of traffic into the Rio Grande Trail as people have to wait two or three light cycles to get threw during the morning hours as kids are arriving for school. This problem is only going to get much worse adding a new development without addressing alternate access to and from this development. It is not safe to have a dead-end road there. The high density of this proposal is not compatible with any of the surrounding neighborhoods. We are also very concerned about the damage of home values because of this proposal. This development needs to be sent back to the drawing board, so it does not conflict with all the surrounding neighborhoods and also provide a safer access to and from this school. would like to thank you for the opportunity for us to express these concerns so that you can require the developer to make adjustments in this proposal. Sincerely, Michael Sos 139 Meadow Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 2/4/2019 EXHIBIT 2/5/2019 Dear Mr. Waller, I understand the Flying M Ranch subdivision is being reviewed by Planning and zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. Is there a clear plan for light pollution mitigation from the developer? The lighting at the new FedEx building has already created a less than desirable effect and I'm sure you can imagine this problem is only going to get worse with the proposed development. Will the developer be held responsible for dealing with light trespass? Who will be responsible for dealing with the intersection at HWY 82 and CR154? The intersection is already dangerous and with the addition of plus or minus 800 more people could easily become deadly. This type of development seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. What impact will this development have on the river? Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, John M. Rueter Jr 396 Meadow Lane Dear Mr. Weller and the Planning Commission, EXHIBIT I understand the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is currently under review by the planning and zoning commission. As a resident of Westbank Ranch, and a parent of 2 young children at Riverview School, the proposal for multiple businesses and a possible 224 units with an approximate of 896 people (assuming each unit contains a family of 4) entering, and exiting the land directly opposite the school is of great concern to myself and many of my friends in the neighborhood. I lived in Ironbridge for 4 years prior to moving to Westbank Ranch and was shocked by the increase in light at night, and the increased traffic due to the construction of both Riverview and the FedEx building. The intersection at CR 154 and HWY 82 is already dangerous. Turning right from CR 154 onto HWY 82 does not provide a merging lane, and traffic turning left from 82 into CR 154 has a very awkward turn where I have personally witnessed accidents with people just sitting at the traffic light waiting to turn onto HWY 82 north. I'm very concerned the proposed development would cause a further increase in traffic in the morning and afternoons in an area that is already at its capacity, creating severe safety issues for all students at Riverview School. Despite the school's recommendations, many students still bike to school and the extra traffic would cause a significant safety risk to those students as they are riding up and down the road as there is no safe option. In the winter, the road is a sheet of ice, just last week a car slid of the side of the road into the ditch while driving to school in the morning. The developments impact on the local wildlife and river is also a great concern to me. Many years ago, I moved away from the city due to developments in quieter surrounding areas, taking over the beautiful and peaceful surroundings, creating pollution and forcing the wildlife to find new homes. I was incredibly fortunate to discover the way of life one can live in the Roaring fork Valley and I feel very lucky to be able to raise my children here. This project would not fit the area that we all love and cherish and it would seriously degrade the quality of life we all enjoy. I greatly appreciate your time considering my concerns. Sincerely, Roger and Penelop Smith 66 Meadow Ln, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 February 3, 2019 Dear Mr. Waller, We understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal will soon be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. As a resident of Westbank Ranch and being impacted by the proposed development, we wish to raise some concerns. • Potential high density housing brings more stresses than low density housing and adding mixed use on the 38 acres puts businesses also under extra stress. If there is a potential to be about 900 more residents, their activities will most likely spill over into the businesses and adjacent areas. • Traffic, bike and pedestrian congestion at and near intersections on SH 82 and on County Road 154. There are already traffic issues on County Road 154 with multimode uses and inadequate separation. Dense housing adjacent to these access points will only increase the activity, occurrences of congestion and potentials deadly hazards. • Separating people from traffic, providing sidewalks and bike paths, playgrounds for kids, extra parking for guests, areas for snow removal, dog walk areas, walking trails. • As part of the planned community there should be enforceable rules for owners and tenants to keep community clean, well -kept and well maintained. • Lighting. Appropriate downward and well positioned lighting for security without upward and over -bright impacts for others in the neighborhood and surrounding areas. • River impacts. People will go to the riverbanks and water, negatively impacting vegetation, putting themselves at risk and destroying habitat for other creatures that call this area home. • Wildlife impacts. More people, more noise, more traffic, more dogs will all put stress on wildlife. • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. • Control of pets and pet numbers in dense living situations. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. We appreciate having them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make plan changes that will address these concerns. Sincerely, Mary Moscon and Milton Cass 0644 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81610 February 4, 2019 Dear Mr. Waller, EXHIBIT 1 5L I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. Light pollution — added stop lights, street lights, etc Water issues — where is the water going to drain to, the river? Wildlife impact — we have large herds of Elk and Deer every year that will be impacted by adding this subdivision River impact — high density on the river The lack of safe trails for children who wish to walk or ride their bike to Riverview on CR 109 and CR 154. This area is already very dangerous and to add this proposed subdivision would only create more traffic to an already dangerous, situation. I appreciate you taking the time to read my letter expressing my concerns. Sincerely, 14/4 John Hageland 794 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Waller, EXHIBIT a 55 I am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you review this proposal and require changes or amendments to the development as it is proposed. Her are my Concerns: 1. Traffic effects on the road around us. 2. The impact on Roaring Fork River A. the Runoff from all parking area, driveways , B. Pet dropping drop off C. Automobile liquid such as oil, antifreeze, etc. 3. Miss leading acreage on Parcel B and C1,the property boundary line goes to the center line of the river which is NOT actual usable property, it shows those Parcels roughly 1/4 larger than what they are . 4. High density. Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mehrdad " Jay" Jahani 194 Fairway Lane Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Feb 5, 2019 Patrick Waller County Planner Dear Mr Waller, 1 EXHIBIT I am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns regarding the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you review this development. An elementary school with more businesses surrounding it Traffic flow Close proximity to the river Rural zoning Why an elementary school should be surrounded by commercial businesses makes no sense. It will only make the security and safety of small children much harder to control. If anything is allowed to be built in that area, it should be housing for families and then children will be able to walk and ride their bikes to school which no one is able to do at this time. Traffic is already a problem with the many subdivisions on County Rd 154 (which are not fully developed at this time). Adding more density to this area will make the county road overused. When the county allowed the school district to build an elementary school out in the middle of a field with no housing or sidewalks nearby, it has made the traffic much worse. To add more to the mix will only exacerbate the problem. The intersection with Highway 82, even though it has a traffic light, is not conducive to high use. Traffic already gets backed up quite a way down CR1S4 when school starts and ends. And to have the taxpayers foot the bill to improve the intersection is not one that will be popular or fair to the general public. There is not any area on Hwy 82 that could support a bus stop near the subdivision and having buses enter CR154 for a bus stop is not a viable solution when time traveled in a bus is the main reason why people will give up their cars to take alternate transportation. Buses need to remain on Hwy 82. The river is a valuable asset to our community as a tourist attraction for fly fishing and rafting. It is also important to have a healthy river as water is a large concern for the West at this time. Having a subdivision with commercial and housing right on the river bank will impact the quality of the river in a negative way for many years to come. The area is zoned rural and should stay as such. To have commercial and high density housing in this area does not fit in with the rest of the area. Please consider these concerns when looking at the request from the developers of the Flying M Ranch. Respectfully, J kie Woods 1111 Westbank Rd Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attention Patrick Waller Garfield County Planner/Planning Commission February 5th 2019 Dear Mr. Wailer, I am writing in regards to the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal. I have a number of concerns that I would like to share and hope you will consider them as you review the proposal. 1. "The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. I hope these comments will be seriously considered. Sincerely, Martin and Dorit Rowe 731 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs CO81601 h February 5, 2019 Gerard Hittinger 676 Westbank Ranch Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 To: Patrick Waller, County Planner Planning Commission I would like to express my objection to the proposed "Flying M Ranch" Development just off the Mile 5 exit on St. Rt. 82. This nature and scale of this development as proposed, simply does not belong in this area which is a "rural" area with a minimum lot size of 2 acres. It is supposed to have as many as 224 dwelling units (homes), which is well over twice as many as Westbank Ranch and it is to be on a much smaller plot of land than WBR occupies. The light pollution and noise will be FAR greater than that created by the Fed Ex warehouse and other commercial development in the area, which is a real problem for the residents living on the north side of Westbank Ranch. Fed Ex was requested to mitigate the light problem but because WBR is more than 200 feet away they evidently can't be forced to do it and haven't done so. Plans are for only one road in and out of this new subdivision, terminating on County Rd. 154 SW of the Fed Ex Warehouse. With all the traffic created by 225 Homes during "rush hour", the traffic up to the junction with 82 and down SE to the Junction with 82 at the road up to Colorado Mtn. College will be a NIGHTMARE! The only way to mitigate this would be to widen CR 154 to 4 lanes and/or put in freeway type interchanges at those junctions—all at taxpayer expense of course! Also, the one access road in and out sounds like a serious safety hazard to me. With all those tightly packed housing units, if a fire got started, a lot of the residents might be trapped with no way out. Nice thought on a winter night at 0 degrees, walking out through the deep snow. Most folks don't know that West Bank Ranch has two ways out. The "back door" out is not normally used but could be opened in an emergency in case of wildfire etc. Please rethink this operation and greatly reduce the size and impact of this development. This belongs in a big city metro area, not in a rural area of Garfield county. Gerard N. Hittinger 676 Westbank Ranch Rd. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 N6HUQGerry@msn.com February 5, 2019 Patrick Waller County Planner and the Planning Commission Dear Mr. Waller, 1 am a resident of the Westbank Ranch Subdivision, and I am writing in regards to some concerns I have with the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal. Please consider the following concerns as you review and amend the current development proposal. The current proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses as required by LUDC 7-102 with requires, "The nature scale and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres; therefore, putting 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses and is much too dense for the character of the surrounding land use. In addition, the traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Arising issues include the need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154, excessive queues at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82, lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109, among others issues, which will ultimately make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. Finally, the Flying M Ranch dead end is proposed to be an approximately 3,200 foot dead end road, which does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. Therefore, the Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be reevaluated and redesigned for safety purposes. Thank you for your consideration of the above described concerns with the current proposal. zSinc ly, r. Schuyler Van Gdrelen, DDS 708 Westbank Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT � X70a Mr. Patrick Waller & Planning Commission County Planner Garfield County Dear Mr. Waller, February 4, 2019 am writing in regards to the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal. I have a number of concerns that I would like to share and hope you will consider them as you review the proposal. I live in Westbank Ranch with my family, husband and two daughters. Our family has been in this valley since the 1880s. Our family came here to create a better life for themselves and we feel very blessed to have worked hard and been able to move to Westbank Ranch. Living in such a wonderful open space area also allows us to improve the lives of our family. We live in Western Colorado for the rural environment and lack of hustle and bustle of living in a large metro area. We enjoy large open lots within our entire neighborhood. Giving us space to relax and enjoy the quiet. We have a large amount of wildlife that takes advantage of our open space in the winter and even now we have some year-round wildlife residents. I have many concerns over the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal. As a resident here, we will be impacted by additional development, increasing the traffic in an area not designed for large amounts of traffic. We have one of the most dangerous traffic lights in the valley, increasing the amount of traffic through this area, only increases my likely hood of being in a very dangerous accident. There are no acceleration lanes for those cars looking to go up -valley. Vehicles in down -valley lanes turning onto County Road 154 are routinely turning short and almost running into cars waiting to turn onto down - valley SH 82. The Rio Grande crosses the County Road not long after turning off of the highway, this is a quite dangerous intersection as well, drivers pay no attention to bikes or people walking on the trail. There are no sidewalks currently for children going to and from Riverview. I see children walking or bike riding along the road to the proposed Flying M Ranch and also along CR 154, no sidewalks! Our children are being put into danger every day and nothing has been even discussed, at least to residents, of this problem. Adding more people in this area will only increase this problem. We would like to see this proposal reviewed again and not approved. We would like to retain our rural feel of living outside of Glenwood Springs. This proposed development is completely out of line with surrounding land uses, the density will be too high for the character of our surrounding area. The current road, and proposed road to the development, will only have one ingress & egress. This is so very dangerous in the event of an emergency, the amount of people who will be accessing this road, will not allow for appropriate flow of traffic, the potential for the road to be closed is too great. The new school, which my children do not attend due to lack of proper education being provided, is not large enough to accommodate the rise in population. This is a PreK — 8th grade school. Each grade only has two classrooms, there was no growth potential built in for the future. I know this is not a direct issue, but the school will be impacted with a development this large. I thank you for taking the time to review our concerns and objections. I look forward to the opportunity to comment again. When additional planning decisions are to be scheduled, please ensure we are all notified. Chandra Allred +ri/I�GV`I x r `` February 4, 2019 Dear Mr. Waller, EXHIBIT I am writing in regards to the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal. I have a number of concerns that I would like to share and hope you will consider them as you review the proposal. When my husband and I bought our home in Westbank Ranch 14 years ago, we got out of our car and there was a huge herd of elk in the back yard. It was the most incredible sight. We now have 3 children who love our elk in the back yard as well as the deer, etc. The wildlife in Westbank would be greatly impacted by the additional lights, cars and most of all residents of the Flying M Ranch subdivision. On CR 154 and CR 109, I have seen several children biking or walking to Riverview School. This is extremely dangerous! By adding more traffic to this area would make this dangerous situation even more dangerous! Light pollution — added stop lights, street lights, etc Water issues River impact Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Terri Hageland 794 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 61 Dear Mr. Waller, I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Garfield County. I believe smart growth includes preserving open space, natural beauty, safety, and critical environmental areas as well as encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. wish to raise some concerns with this project. Roads / Traffic- The sharp turn off of 82 and the single lane road is already considerably backed up and a dangerous intersection. The angle of the curve near the Tight makes it difficult for buses, semis, and large vehicles to stay in their assigned lanes corning off the highway. The Rio Grande bike trail also intersects CR109 and is already a safety concern before additional traffic is introduced. Adding 1000s of more people traveling this 2 lane road which has no sidewalks or bike lanes is going to create issues with safety, and congestion. This entry to the school and Fed Ex area is a dead end. What happens in an emergency? School - The school was built without preplanning for the kids to ride their bikes or walk safely to school. How do you plan to rectify this so the kids are safe? They already are trying to ride their bikes on the two lane dangerous road, and with commercial vehicles and buses and multiple cars how will they even see the kids? Crime increase - What type of businesses will be allowed in this area near the school? If there is a high rental percentage, and the high impact of people dealing marijuana, how will we regulate that impact on the school? With this high density of allowed rentals and so close to the school how will we increase security measures? Garfield County property value decline - Is there any consideration tor the fact that this type of development does not match with the rest of the neighborhoods? le. Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and beyond. Wildlife- The elk cross the river right where the development is going to be. With this high density they will no longer be able to graze there. Where do we consider the fact that we are reducing the potential health of the elk population? Environmental impact - What studies are being done to evaluate the impact to the water supply and other environmental impacts? Light Pollution- The Fed Ex building went in without any knowledge or discussion with the neighborhood. The Tight pollution is absolutely horrific and Fed Ex does not seem to want to help the community to make it better. It lights up bigger than the town of Glenwood. Please take in to consideration how much our community was affected by this and what measures will be taken to look at this component with new businesses etc? Noise Pollution- This is another concern obviously, when proposing density on less acreage than our entire community with 3x the people. Water Resources - What is the environmental impact to our precious river? Health and aesthetics. Parking - When looking at the plan before, it was stated that people would have to be transported to a different parking lot because there isn't enough room for people to park? Where would this take place? How would RFTA and other buses be routed? Wouldn't this increase foot traffic on the road that has no existing sidewalk? Thank you for your consideration. cerely, -14t Jeff Horning 1070 Westbank Rd. EXHIBIT 63 Dear Mr. Waller, We are residents of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have a number of concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you review this proposal and require changes or amendments to the development as it is proposed. My concerns are as follows: Lighting — The number of residences and commercial space will cause a dramatic increase in the lighting in the area that will create an eye sore from the West Bank area. As example of this impact is the school and FedEx property that has gone in over the last couple years. Though the school has tried to mitigate the lighting impact the FedEx property has not and for those facing this area it is now hard to sleep if your rooms face the river. There are many ways this can be addressed, but they need to be put into a proposal and enforced. River impact — The river access in the area will be dramatically changed by the large number of residences as proposed. I fear that this project could cause the overall aesthetics of the Roaring Fork River to change and it will likely result in less access to the river due to the increase population. Wildlife impacts — As you are aware there is a large number of wildlife that frequent this area year around. A large increase in population to the area, especially if it is of the density proposed will have an impact on the wildlife such at elk, deer, etc. Potential high-density housing and mixed use on 38 acres, etc. - Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how can we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? - This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Traffic —Adding the number of unites and people to this area will create a huge traffic issue at an intersection that I don't believe is designed for this. In addition, the additional traffic has the potential to also create safety issues for the students at the school. Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Nichatd gi4wp Richard & Nancy Bishop 29 Oak Lane Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 /7/A Zda//oi-, Fa /o�iiyr�h �" kJit/7 7ay. e Aar8 /i/vPc� 7U Zi -4,,a / % 6) 1 fa>L/e,yn /77 / //+ave:_'a - /�2 dT_ �dYlC�ryl Q/' E'c_R v s e7(‘›efiF in4/7c 1-- '11/; S f? ��f�S� 1 /t7c Lid Lej��r� /Ve //are. 61n n eel a Z,141/---' • de cce SS //4, � / �� . Zcl�ia� /an s /Qc _i4 ace- dyyj"716 c4 ��Q// -71 hccc,) ZOA jGI7`G� 54 777 v s ciit s are_ (/d LAJ ////L l lJ a Ove` - a(/ W aJJ added C. /QC cV vers, 01 Sc.:44 j /2/-e,„Q // /De are rncern� .ore. e i � in % u Aausinel 0'1'4 LsS/CiC'.55 S . Zdos4e1,i k ,0645 4'L c'0 6 , J 4. CiYt rY1C Yn�2.1 Q b ec /Za a ,S a s)1;10 / � eVb - Li% Q /C Ace /7 e w a.4'4- 7a sem g rhQJo�,=� � L) //-� c s 2&o7L UJ /`-a ;) lfc_7 . Ctiliezt em Vl haE,tTQS c Cu Ulm i n 77: a Rh, yettb du1- Dire e�s< a nt 66r val./ fl I-60110 y1c (!b �ci Ga 7 ./Yh inei d/ 16k^S an cf' • lel dZ;.S‘rl•t 3/G()e.s Z•6/4„4 �'�� Rix C+/7C�fS Dear Mr. Waller, We are residents of Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. We hope you will consider our concerns as you review the proposed development and consider the impact it will have on Westbank Ranch 1. Please demand a clear plan for Tight pollution from the developer after Westbank was negatively impacted by lighting at Fed Ex building. 2. Please require the developer to ensure a safe connection from Flying Ranch Road to Rio Grande Trail to provide safe passage on foot or bike for all students of the Riverview School. 3. Require clarity on number of rentals vs for sale units from developer. Proposal mentions 15% rentals of 30 or more days but what happens to the other 85%? 4. Please have developer address the life safety concerns and how they ensure safety of residents and students in case of fire or other tragic situation with the dead end. Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mark and Nancy Becker 0316 Westbank Road February 4, 2019 To Patrick Waller, County Planner and the Planning commission RE: I am commenting in regard to the Flying M Ranch development proposal to be considered by P&Z. This is a remarkable property along the banks of the Roaring Fork - a gold medal fishing stream, very pristine in nature with an abundance of wildlife. To be honest, the whole residual ranch property would be best served by being land banked for the preservation of open space and benefit of all. But if even some development is endorsed, the following items need serious thought: 1.) Development density - is way to high and not in keeping with adjacent areas, ie. West Bank Ranch and Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs and Aspen Glen. West Bank Ranch for example, has 100 lots on 130 acres. This proposal is for potentially 224 dwelling units plus 38,000 SE of commercial space on 38 acres!!?? 2.) Traffic Impact: a. With the industrial park units on County Road 154 (Fed Es, PDA Auto shop and the Equestrian Clinic) and Riverview School traffic, the awkward and dangerous intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 and Rio Grand Trail crossing is already maxed out at times. b. The Flying M Ranch road is a dead end with no alternative access for emergency vehicles. c. The school development made no provisions for students to walk or bike ride to/ from CR 154 or CR 109. 3.) What consideration is being given to the environmental impact to the school, the river and the wildlife in the area? Has the Roaring Fork Conservancy been involved? 4.) Is there really sufficient infrastructure for the size of the proposed development: water, sewage, utilities, sidewalks, surface drainage, lighting? Thank you for taking these comments into consideration! Mallory Harling 131 Fairway Lane Glenwood Springs CO. 81601 February 3, 2019 To Patrick Waller County Planner The Planning Commission Subject: The proposed Flying M Ranch Development, This development project has been reviewed and I have some serious concerns about this project. We have lived in the area near this proposed project for the last 7 years. During that time I have seen the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 154 go from a quiet seldom used intersection to one that has traffic backed up far away from the intersection requiring several lights to get to the approach on SH 82. In addition there is a crossing with the Rio Grande Trail with foot and bike traffic that must cross CR154. This has been caused by the development in the last several years of the Fed Ex Complex, the PDA Auto shop, the Equestrian Clinic and the Riverview School all along a short section of CR 154 just pass the ingress from SH82. In addition, at this intersection, the light malfunctions on a regular basis, at times not changing to allow egress to the highway for several minutes and at times requiring to turn right going towards Aspen, having to make a U turn to then go north. There is no acceleration lane to enter the highway going towards Aspen with cars already going 65 miles a hour prior to the intersection. Now the proposal is for additional 224 units with at least 2 cars per household and also businesses ie a health care facility increasing the traffic density even more. This land and this area does not support or need additional traffic. I am a resident of West Bank Ranch and I will oppose this development project not only on the traffic but also the lack of thought about only one way in and out of the development. The safety of the children who already go to school there and additional children that would be housed if this project goes forward, will be compromised. That is not acceptable. There are other factors that are detrimental to this project as well which include the impact on the wildlife and river as well as high density housing that is not compareble to the surrounding area. High density projects should be kept closer to town. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. Karen Owens, RN 131 Fairway Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 STEVEN M. BEATTIE JEFFERSON V. HOUPT RYAN M. JARVIS BEATTIE, HOUPT & JARVIS, LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 932 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 February 5, 2019 Sent via email to pwaller@garfield-county.com Garfield County Planning Commission 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 945-8659 FACSIMILE (970) 945-8671 WWW.BHJLEGAL.COM ryan@bhjlegal.com Patrick Waller Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Flying MRanch PUD and Major Subdivision Preliminary Application Dear Planning Commission and Mr. Waller: This firm represents the Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association ("HOA"), which consists of homeowners within Westbank Ranch. Westbank Ranch is comprised of 100 homes on over 100 acres and is located immediately south of the proposed development on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River. The HOA has various questions and concerns regarding the proposed development, which are explained in detail below. The HOA reserves the right to provide additional comments as it learns more about the proposed development. 1. The proposed development is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-103 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." Neither the nature, scale, or intensity of the proposed land use are compatible with adjacent land uses. The current zoning is Rural, which has a 2 -acre minimum lot size. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Applicant proposes to squeeze onto a very small property substantial development that is completely out of character with the surrounding area. In addition to the minimum proposed 35,000 sq. ft of business park in Zone District 1, full residential build out would result in 228 residential units on the 33.9 -acre site. While Applicant accurately states that technically equals 6.72 units/acre, review of the unique site characteristics and proposed residential sites shows that the reality is that actual density will for all practical purposes be much higher. Specifically, Applicant proposes 96 dwelling units in Zone District 2, which is 12.1 acres, and up to 128 dwelling units in Zone District 3, which is 11.7 acres. That means density of 7.93 units/acre in Zone District 2 and 10.94 units/acre in Zone District 3. Cumulatively, the proposed density of Zone Districts 2 and 3 would be 9.41 units/acre. While it is true that adjacent land uses include a Fed Ex facility and two other small commercial facilities, most adjacent land uses are traditional suburban neighborhoods like Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Westbank Ranch. The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed development are not compatible with adjacent land uses. 2. There are substantial problems with Applicant's traffic analysis. LUDC 7-107(C) provides that, "Access serving the proposed use shall have the capacity to efficiently and safely service the additional traffic generated by the use. The use shall not cause traffic congestion or unsafe traffic conditions, impacts to County, State and Federal roadway system shall be mitigated through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both." The Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment dated October 2018 produced by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (the "Flying M Traffic Report") does not adequately analyze the impact of the proposed development, and it does not demonstrate that the existing road infrastructure can efficiently and safely serve the proposed development. a. The Flying M Traffic Report does not analyze the true potential traffic impact of the proposed development. In its application materials Applicant states that its traffic analysis will consider the highest trip generation potential in order to determine the maximum potential traffic impact from the proposed development. "Scenario 3," copied below, is represented as the maximum potential traffic impact. Table 3. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 3 Land Use ITE CodeTrips QuantityDaily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building 710 12.5 KSF 141 33 5 38 3 13 16 Mini -Warehouse 151 12.5 KSF 19 1 0 1 1 1 2 MultifamilyHousing (Low-Rise)1 220 4dwelling units 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Single Family Detached Housing 210 36 dwelling units 406 8 22 30 24 14 38 MultifamilyHousing (Low -Rise) 220 188 dwelling units 1,380 20 67 87 66 38 104 TOTAL 1,967 62 94 156 94 66 160 Note: 1 Dwelling units in zone 1 were treated as Multifamily Housing and a reduction of 2 daily trips, 1 exiting trip AM, and 1 entering trip PM were taken per unit to account for the live/work nature of the units. Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 3 of 9 However, Scenario 3 does not represent the maximum potential traffic impact. For example, the PUD does not require 12,500 sq. ft. of mini -storage. Instead, Applicant could dedicate that 12,500 sq. ft. to a general office building, which would have a higher traffic impact than the mini -storage. Adjusting the daily trips estimates to remove the mini -storage and replace it with a general office building results in 2,089 total daily trips instead of the 1,967, 193 AM peak trips instead of 156, and 174 PM peak trips instead of 160. A similar deficiency exists with the analysis of residential units in Zones 2 and 3, which are analyzed as 36 single family detached homes and 188 multifamily homes. While that is a total of 224 dwelling units, which is the maximum permitted in the proposed Zones 2 and 3, the PUD does not require that 188 of those be multifamily homes, which have a lower traffic usage than some of other permitted residential uses. Again, like with the commercial use analyzed in Zone District 1, the full potential traffic caused by residential use in Zone Districts 2 and 3 are not analyzed. Another deficiency with the Flying M Traffic Report is its failure to analyze the true potential traffic impact from the existing 10,000 sq. ft. of existing use in Zone District 1. The impact from that existing 10,000 sq. ft. is not expressly analyzed in the Flying M Traffic Report, except presumably the trips generated by the current use are included in the background traffic numbers. However, there is no requirement that the existing use of the 10,000 sq. ft. remain the same. It could change to a use with a higher traffic impact, which is not considered in the Flying M Traffic Report. Further compounding the deficiency with the Flying M Traffic Report is that it completely fails to address the fact that permitted uses in Zone District 1 would permit uses with substantially higher use than even the general office building use that is partially analyzed. Zone District 1 would permit uses such as retail businesses and an eating or drinking establishment that would have much higher traffic use than analyzed. For the reasons discussed above, the Flying M Traffic Report is inadequate because it fails to analyze the true potential traffic impact of the proposed development. Without a true understanding of the potential traffic impact, the proposed development cannot be analyzed in any serious way. The HOA respectfully requests that the Applicant produce a new traffic assessment that actually analyzes the true potential impact of the proposed development. b. Serious concerns with Flying M Traffic Report arise upon comparison with the traffic assessment for the Riverview School. Applicant's traffic engineers Felsburg Holt & Ullevig produced a traffic assessment entitled Eastbank Property -New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment dated March 2016 to support the Roaring Fork School District's ("RFSD") land use application for the Riverview School (the "School Traffic Report"). The School Traffic Report is attached as Appendix A. Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 4 of 9 The School Traffic Report analyzed the same roads and intersections as the Flying M Traffic Report, which used the data from the School Traffic Report for purposes of determining existing traffic volumes. Both reports include an analysis of "Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions" and "Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions." These studies show the expected traffic impact of the respective developments by adding the expected traffic impact to background traffic conditions. Even though the traffic generated by the Riverview School development is allegedly included in the Flying M Traffic Report as background traffic volume, a comparison of the School Traffic Report and the Flying M Traffic Report uncovers over a dozen instances where expected traffic volumes in the Flying M Traffic Report are lower than the expected traffic volumes in the School Traffic Report. That means that in all those instances, the Flying M Traffic Report is claiming that there will be less traffic as a result of the proposed development than without it. That conclusion defies all logic and common sense. The addition of tens of thousands of square feet of commercial space plus up to 228 dwelling units will, without question, increase traffic. Attached as Appendix B are the relevant graphics from the Flying M Traffic Report and School Traffic Report in which the instances in which traffic is assumed be lower as a result of the proposed development are highlighted for ease of comparison. While I will not describe every instance in which less traffic is assumed to be less as a result of the proposed development, I do want to point out a few particularly perplexing examples. In the short range without the proposed development, at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82, the peak traffic volume for the right-hand lane turning east onto SH 82 (heading up valley) is 64 in the AM and 51 in the PM. After adding the proposed development, those numbers mysteriously fall to 40 in the AM and 24 in the PM. A similar decrease in traffic at the same point is assumed in the long-range analysis. Without the proposed development, the peak traffic volume turning east onto SH 82 is 67 in the AM and 54 in the PM. It falls to 49 in the AM and 33 in the PM after adding the proposed development. The HOA respectfully requests that the Applicant's traffic engineers revisit its traffic assessment for the proposed development to determine if its conclusion that in many instances the proposed development will result in less traffic is in fact correct and supportable. If Applicant's traffic engineers reach the same conclusions, they need to explain how that is possible. And it seems appropriate at this time to address, at least in part, the claim in the Flying M Traffic Report that the traffic from the Riverview School is lower than previously projected. The Riverview School opened on September 5, 2017 with 345 students. See Glenwood Post article attached hereto as Appendix C. According to the RFSD's submissions in its land use application, the capacity of the Riverview School is 500 students. See the River View School Project Description attached hereto as Appendix D. That means in September 2017 the school was operating at 69% capacity. Peak hour traffic counts used in the Flying M Traffic Report were collected on September 27, 2017, just three weeks into school operations at 69% capacity. That means that the Flying M Traffic Report is assuming that the Riverview School will only operate at 69% capacity. Such an assumption results in an underestimate of the true traffic Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 5 of 9 impact of the school, and it is inappropriate for Flying M Traffic Report to rely on such an unrealistic assumption. An accurate assessment of the traffic impact of the proposed development is premised on an accurate assessment of current and expected background traffic volumes. Applicant must revisit its traffic assessment in order to include accurate background traffic volumes. c. A new state highway access permit should be required. Applicant claims that a new state highway access permit for the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82 should not be required because although the Flying M Traffic Report shows that increased traffic volume will exceed 20% (the threshold that triggers the requirement for new access permit), the actual increased traffic volume is just 2.8%. The rational for this claim is twofold: (1) there is lower traffic volume than expected as a result of the Riverview School, and (2) the previous access permit was based on the School Traffic Report that assumed an additional school on the Flying M Ranch property that will be replaced by the proposed development. For the reasons discussed above, even if the actual traffic volumes resulting from the Riverview School were lower than predicted in late September 2017 when the school was operating at 69% capacity, there should be no expectation that the Riverview School will continue to operate at just 69% capacity. But perhaps more importantly, the claim that School Traffic Report assumed a second school that will be replaced by the development is inaccurate. The introduction to the School Traffic Report (see page 1) says, The Roaring Fork School District has indicated that, at some point in the future, if enrollment demands it, the parcel would be large enough to accommodate an additional school with capacity to serve an additional 500 students. At that time, the schools would be reconfigured with a more traditional configuration, with grades kindergarten through fifth grade at one school and grades six through eight at the second school. This assessment does not address the impacts of a second school. If a second school is added to the site, the traffic impacts of that school would need to be evaluated separately. (Emphasis added). The current access permit, attached hereto as Appendix E, indicates that the current access permit is a for a single school serving 500 students. The proffered rational for why the increased traffic volume should not be interpreted to exceed 20%, as the numbers indicate, is not supportable. For these reasons, a new access permit is required. d. The current road infrastructure does not support the proposed development. Even if we set aside all the deficiencies with the Flying M Traffic Report discussed above and assume that the analysis accurately describes the traffic impact of the proposed development, Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 6 of 9 the current infrastructure is not capable of supporting the development. Various existing road and infrastructure issues are addressed below. i. Based on existing background traffic conditions, by 2020 the northbound approach to CR 154 will operate at a level of service ("LOS") D. According to the Applicant's traffic engineers, in urbanized areas, LOS D is typically considered to be acceptable during peak hour operations. The intersection is obviously not an urbanized area, and reports from Westbank Ranch owners are that during peak hours the intersection is overloaded and backs up hundreds of feet. Regardless, without the proposed development, by 2040 during AM peak hours that intersection is projected to devolve to a LOS E. That will be a failed intersection, and it will not be able to support the proposed development ii. The queuing on CR 154 at the intersection with SH 82 is a real and growing problem. Page 17 of the Flying M Traffic Report indicates that, "The predicted maximum queue lengths [for left turns] would exceed the currently available lane storage along CR 154 approaching SH 82, creating blockages on the turn lanes." Furthermore, queuing will block the intersection of CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail. That is already a dangerous trail crossing, and Westbank Ranch owners already report frequent queuing that blocks the trail crossing. The Flying M Traffic Report recognizes that trail crossing will be vulnerable to blockage and even recognizes that CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail will need to be grade separated in the future. Furthermore, the referral comments provided by RFTA identify Rio Grande Trail/CR 154 safety mitigation measures that have already been discussed amongst regional stakeholders based on existing traffic volumes. iii. The lack of the appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes that are already needed at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82 under current conditions further indicate that the intersection cannot support the increased traffic from the proposed development. An acceleration lane is necessary at the northbound CR 154 to eastbound SH 82. Also, the length of the westbound deceleration lane on SH 82 is already too short. In many respects, the road infrastructure that will be impacted by the proposed development are already at or beyond capacity and are not capable of handling the increased traffic from the proposed development. Allowing the proposed development to proceed as planned without substantial road infrastructure improvements will only exacerbate an already overburdened and unsafe road situation Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 7 of 9 3. The proposed Flying M Ranch Road dead end creates an unsafe condition. LUDC 7-107(F)(5) provides that, "Dead-end streets may be permitted provided they are not more than 600 feet in length and provide for a cul-de-sac or a T-shaped turnaround based on the following design standards. The BOCC may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons if adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access can be provided." Applicant proposes that Flying M Ranch Road be an approximately 3,200 -foot dead end that has a locked fire gate at the end. Besides the fact that a 3,200 -foot dead end results in very inefficient road system, the larger issue is that it does not permit for "emergency egress." If an emergency happens on Flying M Ranch Road (e.g., a fire or a law enforcement emergency) everyone located beyond that emergency has no way to safely exit the subdivision. That is the exact result that LUDC 7-107(F)(5) is seeking to avoid. Furthermore, this design is even more concerning given the permitted uses in Zone District 3, which include a hospice facility, assisted living facility, educational facility, adult day care, child care, community gathering and special events. For safety reasons, the proposed development cannot be approved with the current Flying M Ranch Road design. On a related note, the Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plat submitted with the application materials identifies a "General Emergency & Secondary Reciprocal Access Easement Recorded at Rec. No. (Subject to Relocation by Parties)." That proposed easement is not included in the application packet and should be disclosed for review. 4. The proposed development needs to have sidewalks. The proposed development does not contain sidewalks, because Applicant is proposing a pathway that will follow the edge of the development. While the proposed pathway is appreciated, it creates a longer route to the school and other areas to which people are likely to walk. It is unrealistic to expect that people seeking a direct access to the school will not walk on the road. The development should include sidewalks on all roads to give pedestrians, and particularly children, safe access to school and other areas of the proposed development. 5. Applicants should clarify its intention regarding rental vs. sale of the proposed residential units. Page 7 of PUD Guide states that, "A minimum of 15% of Residential Rental Units in Zone Districts 2 and 3 must be rented for a minimum of 30 consecutive days per lease." It is unclear if Applicant is proposing to rent 15% of residential units and sell the remainder, or if it is proposing to rent the remaining 85% on less than 30 -day leases (e.g., VRBO style), or if the proposal is something else. Applicant should clarify its intention with the development. The HOA notes that the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan states that both homeownership and rental opportunities are needed, and HOA would like to better understand the proposed mix of tenancies. Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 8 of 9 6. Applicant should clarify its proposal for 140 GPD/EQR. Applicant's Impact Analysis/Utility Report states that the proposal is for residential use of 140 GPD/EQR. Commonly accepted demand standards (Garfield County and State of Colorado) are 350 gallons per day as an average minimum. See No. 3 from referral comments sent by Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. dated January 25, 2019. The HOA respectfully requests an explanation as to how such a low number is appropriate. 7. Applicant should conduct additional investigation into possible impacts on the Roaring Fork River. The HOA is very concerned about possible environmental impacts of the proposed development on the Roaring Fork River. A substantial portion of Zone District 2 appears to be in the floodplain and some of the residences are proposed to be located very close to the river. Also, the HOA notes that the US Army Corp of Engineers in its referral comments indicates that impacts are unclear at this time and that a wetland delineation should be produced to determine what, if any, impacts the development will have on the Roaring Fork River. The HOA respectfully requests that Applicant prepare such a wetland delineation for consideration by all interested parties. 8. The "accessory uses" permitted in Zone District 1 are vague and should be defined more specifically. The HOA is concerned about the statement in the PUD Guide that says that permitted uses include "accessory uses that are associated with and supportive, secondary, and subordinate to the permitted uses in Zone District 1 — Business Park." Such description is so broad and vague as to render it effectively meaningless. To be able to adequately analyze the proposed development, Applicant should either delete this sentence or amend it to identify the specific "accessory" and "associated" uses. 9. To the extent a kennel is permitted in Zone District 1, it must have noise mitigation. For the reasons discussed above, the proposed development is not compatible with adjacent uses. However, to the extent that the proposed development in some form is permitted, a condition of approval should be that any kennel be required to have adequate noise mitigation. Kennels are very loud facilities, and noise from barking dogs could permeate through Westbank Ranch and neighboring developments if appropriate noise mitigation is not installed. 10. The parking standards in Zone District 1 provide for inadequate parking. The PUD Guide provides that in Zone District 1 there will be a minimum of one parking space per 500 sq. ft. of nonresidential structure excluding mini -storage, which will have one parking space per 2,000 sf. ft. of structure. Some of the permitted uses in Zone District 1 such as retail/wholesale business, professional office, or eating/drinking establishments generally have Planning Commission and Patrick Waller February 5, 2019 Page 9 of 9 higher traffic demands and likely require more parking than one spot per 500 sq. ft. For example, officer administrative areas often require 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Eating and drinking establishments often have wide ranges of requirements depending on the specific type of establishment. For example, some codes require one space per four seats, while others require one space per 150 or 200 sq. ft. of Gross Floor Area. The HOA respectfully requests that the parking standard be reconsidered to address the proposed uses with higher traffic demands. 11. Affordable housing mitigation should be required. The HOA understands that affordable housing provisions of the LUDC provide that affordable housing mitigation applies to subdivisions that have 15 or more lots, and because Applicant is proposing a subdivision of less than 15 lots, its position is that it need not comply with the LUDC's affordable housing provisions. However, the HOA is baffled how a proposed development that could have up to 228 residential units is able to be exempt from the affordable housing requirements. Everyone recognizes that affordable housing is a real problem in our community, and it seems inappropriate for such a large development to be able to avoid having to provide affordable housing. Since Applicant is taking the position that it is not subject to the LUDC's affordable housing requirements, Applicant should explain its plan regarding housing affordability within its development. Specifically, the HOA believes it appropriate for the Applicant to explain its plan regarding the number of expected residential rental units, the expected rental rates for such units, the number of expected residential units that will be sold, and the expected price of such units. The HOA sincerely appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed development and looks forward to gaining a better understanding of the proposed development at the Planning Commission Hearing on February 13. Sincerely, Enclosures: Appendix A — Riverview School Traffic Assessment Appendix B — Excerpts from River View School Traffic and Assessment and Flying M Ranch Traffic Assessment Appendix C — Glenwood Post Article re: River View School dated August 31, 2017 Appendix D — Riverview School Project Description Appendix E — State Highway Access Permit No. 316048 Appendix A EASTBANK PROPERTY — NEW ROARING FORK SCHOOL TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Roaring Fork School District 1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, Colorado 80111 (303) 721-1440 Principal: Lyle E. DeVries. PE, PTOE Project Engineer: Rachel S. Ackermann, El FHU Reference No. 15-133-01 March 2016 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 A. Land Use 4 B. Roadway System 4 C. Traffic Volumes and Operations 4 III. FUTURE CONDITIONS 6 A. Site Trip Generation 6 B. Trip Distribution And Traffic Assignment 6 C. Total Traffic Conditions 12 IV. QUEUING EVALUATION 15 V. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE CRITERIA 16 A. Access Permit 16 B. Speed Change Lanes 16 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX C BACKGROUND TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D TOTAL TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX E QUEUING REPORTS 11111 FF.L5BURu (d ILOLT & ULLE\'1G Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan 3 Figure 3. Existing Conditions 5 Figure 4. Trip Distribution and Site Generated Traffic Assignment 7 Figure 5. Short Range Future Background Traffic Conditions 9 Figure 6. Long Range Future Background Traffic Conditions 11 Figure 7. Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions 13 Figure 8. Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions 14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Site Trip Generation Estimates 6 Table 2. SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue Results — CR 154 15 Table 3. Auxiliary Lane Requirements at SH 82 and CR 154 16 Table 4. Existing SH 82/CR 154 Turn Lane Lengths 17 11 C� FELSI LRG uoLT & ULLEVIG Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment I. INTRODUCTION The Roaring Fork School District is proposing to construct a new school on an undeveloped parcel of land in Garfield County. The proposed site is located southeast of the intersection of State Highway (SH) 82 and Garfield County Road (CR) 154. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the site and the adjacent primary roadway network. The proposed development of the site would consist of a school serving 500 preschool through eighth grade students. Figure 2 shows the current site plan concept for the new school. Full - movement vehicular access to the site would be provided to CR 154 at the southeast end of the site. The Roaring Fork School District has indicated that, at some point in the future, if enrollment demands it, the parcel would be Targe enough to accommodate an additional school with capacity to serve an additional 500 students. At that time, the schools would be reconfigured with a more traditional configuration, with grades kindergarten through fifth grade at one school and grades six through eight at the second school. This assessment does not address the impacts of a second school. If a second school is added to the site, the traffic impacts of that school would need to be evaluated separately. The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the potential traffic impacts related to the new school and to identify any roadway or traffic control improvements required as a result. The analyses consider two future scenarios: ► Short Range Future. This scenario examines the traffic impacts of completion of a 500 -student school in the near-term future (year 2017). ► Long Range Future. This scenario examines the traffic impacts of one 500 -student school within the context of a year 2040 horizon. (4 HOLT ("& LLEV'ICt Page 1 To Glenwood Springs Roar; gFor k,„De Cardiff FELSBURO (4 II LT & tn.] EVIG SITE 00e, 902, fo drf� d'por k/`er To Carbondale Figure Vicinity Map Eastbank Prose -New Roarin Fork School 15-133 03/09/16 Ill 11 L�BliRG (d HOLT & LI_LFV'1(1 Figure 2 Site Plan ro•er- NewRoarin_- ForkSchool 15-133- 0 /25 -- Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Land Use The proposed site is currently undeveloped land. There is a nearby Federal Express (FedEx) sorting and distribution facility planned on CR 154 on a parcel of land adjacent to the site. CR 154 also provides access to a number of businesses and residential neighborhoods. B. Roadway System State Highway 82 (SH 82) — SH 82 is a regional highway that connects to Interstate 70 (1-70) to the north and Highway 24 to the southeast. The speed limit varies along SH 82 between 55 and 65 miles per hour (MPH). The roadway has two lanes in each direction with existing auxiliary left and right turn lanes at the SH 82 / CR 154 signalized intersection. SH 82 has been categorized as an E -X (Expressway, Major Bypass) for the purposes of evaluating access control. There are auxiliary left and right turn lanes at the signalized intersection of SH 82 with CR 154. County Road 154 (CR 154) — CR 154 is a two-lane roadway that provides access to various businesses and residential neighborhoods off SH 82. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. C. Traffic Volumes and Operations AM and PM school peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in April 2015 at the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection, with count data sheets included in Appendix A. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Region 3 staff provided traffic counts for the intersection of SH 82 and the Orrison Access (north of the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154). The Orrison Access traffic counts were conducted on March 7, 2012. Based on coordination with CDOT, the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection, the SH 82 / Orrison Access, the proposed CR 154 / FedEx access, and the proposed site access have been analyzed. Figure 3 illustrates the existing traffic volumes within the study area. Traffic operations within the study area were evaluated according to techniques documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010) using the existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and traffic control. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operational conditions based on roadway capacity and vehicle delay. LOS is described by a letter designation ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing almost free-flow travel, while LOS F represents congested conditions. For signalized intersections, LOS is reported as an average for the entire intersection. For stop -sign controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. In urbanized areas, LOS D is typically considered to be acceptable for peak hour traffic operations. Figure 3 shows the existing traffic control, intersection geometry, and LOS analyses results, with analysis worksheets included in Appendix B. In general, traffic operations within the study area are currently acceptable. The signalized intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of CR 154 and the FedEx access operates at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound approach to the unsignalized intersection of SH 82 and the Orrison Access currently operates at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. r ELsr?L. rc „pi HLT LLLEVIG Page 4 'rfr LEGEND XXX(XXX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Stop Sign = Traffic Signal I; :L BURG i0LT & LI 1.EVIG Figure 3 Existing Traffic Conditions Eascbank Pro•er - New Roarin_ Fork School 15-133 03/09/16 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment III. FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Site Trip Generation As previously discussed, the proposed school would serve approximately 500 students. The Roaring Fork School District estimates that approximately 335 of the students would be elementary school age and 165 students would be middle school age. Approximately half of the students expected to attend the Eastbank school currently attend Sopris Elementary School and Glenwood Springs Middle School. The number of vehicle trips generated by the school was estimated based on the information and procedures documented in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Ninth Edition, 2012. The trip rates contained in the manual are developed primarily through field observations of similar land uses throughout the nation. Due to the proposed blend of students, the single school has been evaluated as two "sub -schools" consisting of elementary and middle school age students. Table 1 shows the short range future trip generation estimates for the proposed school. Table 1. Site Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Code Quantity DailyITE is AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Elementary School 520 335 Students 432 83 68 151 42 52 94 Middle School/ Junior High School 522 165 Students 267 49 40 89 23 28 51 TOTAL 500 Students 699 132 108 240 65 80 145 As indicated in Table 1, the proposed school is expected to generate approximately 240 new vehicle -trips during the weekday AM peak hour and about 145 new vehicle -trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The estimated weekday new daily trip generation potential would be about 700 trips. B. Trip Distribution And Traffic Assignment The estimated site trips were distributed to the adjacent roadways based on prospective attendance areas for student enrollment and current student travel patterns provided by the Roaring Fork School District. Attendance targets for the new school indicate that the majority of projected students are anticipated to reside or currently reside to the south and east of the school. Site generated traffic volumes also include diverted trip volumes that are the result of changes to travel patterns for students currently attending other schools in the Roaring Fork School District and who are anticipated to transfer to the new Eastbank school upon opening. Figure 4 illustrates the estimated distribution of site generated vehicle trips, based on the following distribution assumptions: ► 5% to and from the north via SH 82 ► 45% to and from the south via SH 82 ► 50% to and from the south via CR 154 Figure 4 also illustrates the assignment of net new site generated traffic to the study area intersection. poA FEI SBLRG CEDICT & l'LLEVIG Page 6 Diverted Trips pmFELS1WRO (411II( I-. T U1,I_EVIG S 5% LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xx% = Site Trip Distribution Diverted Trips O 0 SITE Fedex A Access y'Q 6. \jam o sr J Diverted Trips Figure 4 Trip Distribution and Site Generated Traffic Assignment Eascbank Pro•er - New Roann_ Fork School 15-133 03/15/16 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment C. Background Traffic Short Range Future Background traffic is the component of roadway volumes that would use the adjacent roadway system regardless of site development. Future traffic growth estimates from the CDOT Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) indicate an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent to apply to existing traffic volumes along SH 82. It is also important to note that the background traffic includes school trips that students would make to existing schools in the absence of the construction of the new Eastbank school. The school district has indicated that without the new school, students currently or would be anticipated to attend Sopris Elementary School and Glenwood Springs Middle School; both schools are located north of the proposed new school site. In addition to applying an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes, trip generation calculations were conducted to account for development south of the site expected to be complete by the year 2017. A separate parcel of land adjacent to the school property on the southern edge is planned as a FedEx facility. External vehicle -trip estimates associated with the proposed FedEx facility were taken from the FedEx Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by Rick Engineering Company; these forecasted vehicle trips were included in the Short Range Future background traffic volumes. Figure 5 shows the forecasted Short Range Future background volumes. The Short Range Future background traffic volumes were used as the basis for intersection capacity analyses, the results of which are also shown on Figure 5, with LOS worksheets included in Appendix C). The signalized intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hour. The unsignalized movements at the intersection of CR 154 and the FedEx Access are projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. The eastbound movement at the Orrison Access is projected to continue to operate at LOS E; the northbound left turn is projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. . FELSRURG (41HOLT ULLEV IG Page 8 LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Q = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal /i FELSRURO 1(o L T s;. ■ 1:1:1 EVIG Figure 5 Short Range Future Background Traffic Conditions Eascbank Pro•er - New Roarin. Fork School 15-133 03/09/16 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment Long Range Future The Long Range Future (year 2040) background traffic volumes, shown on Figure 8, are also based on the annual growth rate estimates from OTIS. In addition to applying an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes, the following actions were taken to account for anticipated access changes and development projects expected to be complete by the year 2040: ► The Rose Ranch/IronBridge development, south of the site, is projected to be completed by 2040. The Rose Ranch/IronBridge development has been estimated to be approximately 60 percent built out as of 2015. External vehicle -trip estimates associated with the remaining 40 percent of the proposed development were calculated from the land uses listed on the State Highway Access Permit (Permit No. 301027) for the development; these forecasted vehicle trips were included in the Long Range Future background traffic volumes. Because the Rose Ranch/lronBridge development is anticipated to account for a significant portion of the projected growth on CR 154, a one percent growth rate has been applied to existing traffic volumes on CR 154. ► Discussions with CDOT, Region 3 staff indicated that the Orrison Access to SH 82 will likely be closed by 2040. When the access is closed, Orrison traffic will be expected to have access to SH 82 via the SH 82 / CR 154 access; traffic from the access has been reassigned to the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection. The resulting Long Range Future background traffic volumes were used as the basis for intersection capacity analyses, the results of which are also shown on Figure 6, with LOS worksheets included in Appendix C. The signalized intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hour. The unsignalized movements at the intersection of CR 154 and the FedEx Access are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. pm/ FELSRURG li Ol LT & ` ULLEVIG Page 10 SITE \ Fedex Access NOTE: Intersection to be Closed 7j 57,9 ieN / \ B/B LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FPFELSBURG ��IfOLT 6: via,f:VIGMINNiiiiir 00% R0 (1-76, Figure 6 Long Range Future Background Traffic Conditions Eastbank Pro. - New Roarin: Fork School 15-133 03/15/16 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment D. Total Traffic Conditions Short Range Future The site generated traffic volumes (Figure 4) were added to the corresponding background volumes (Figure 5) to produce the Short Range Future total traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. As indicated on Figure 4, site generated traffic volumes account for adjustments in travel patterns for students currently attending other schools in the Roaring Fork School District and are anticipated to transfer to the new Eastbank school upon opening. The Short Range Future total peak hour volumes were used as the basis for intersection capacity analyses, the results of which are also summarized on Figure 7, with analysis worksheets included in Appendix D. For the year 2017, the signalized intersection of SH 82 with CR 154 has been analyzed with a "no right turn on red" restriction for vehicles making the right turn from CR 154 onto SH 82 and is projected to continue to operate at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hour. The unsignalized movements at the intersection of CR 154 with the FedEx Access are projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. The eastbound movement at the Orrison Access is projected to continue to operate at LOS E; the northbound left turn is projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. The site access intersection on CR 154 would also be acceptable under STOP sign control and is projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. Long Range Future The Long Range Future site generated traffic volumes (Figure 4) were added to the Long Range Future background traffic volumes (Figure 6) to produce the year 2040 total traffic volumes shown on Figure 8. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted using the Long Range Future total peak hour volumes, as summarized on Figure 8, with analysis worksheets included in Appendix D. For the year 2040, the signalized intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 continues to be analyzed with the "no right turn on red" restriction. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hour. The unsignalized movements at the intersection of CR 154 and the FedEx Access are projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. The site access intersection on CR 154 would also operate acceptably under STOP sign control, at LOS B or better during both peak hours. The new access approach should consist of a single lane with STOP control. The access should be designed to meet all roadway design and sight distance requirements as specified by Garfield County Access and Roadways Standards (2013). pmFFLSNI.'RG (d HOLT N. ULLEVIG Page 12 727 ��'� /Q J �v6 7; /mho, ��\ B/B SITE LEGEND XXX(XXX) X/X AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Stop Sign = Traffic Signal EELSBURO �i HOLT & L LI F,VIO Fedex A's 4Q Access 0 6' v57 57 Figure 7 Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions Eastbank Pro - New Roarin Fork School 15-133 03/15116 LEGEND NOTE: Intersection to be Closed 76, 8 745 VO9 yon �`) e`96> O ��5 �� 9�A`2' 0J 1 / - C/B C SITE XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Edi Stop Sign = Traffic Signal IIP A FELSBLRG (, IIOLT & L1,1 EVIG Fedex Acces School Access /5 76, 66/O� J� ��Ss Figure 8 Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions Eas[bank Pro• r - New Roarin _ Fork School 15-133 03115116 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment IV. QUEUING EVALUATION The Rio Grande Trail multi -use crosses CR 154 approximately 550 feet south of its intersection with SH 82. Two potential operational issues may arise related to the trail crossing: (1) queue lengths exceeding the available storage lengths, and (2) queues blocking the trail crossing. SimTraffic analyses have been conducted to evaluate the potential for queuing along CR 154 to interfere with the trail crossing. For the purposes of calculating a conservative condition, it has been assumed that the peak hour volumes for the various land uses in the area would occur during the same hour. This is unlikely to be the case because the peak hours that correspond with each land use are unlikely to coincide exactly. To take into account the likelihood of the school related traffic to occur in a more concentrated time period with a fraction of a single hour, the Peak Hour Factor (PHF) for the corresponding movements have been adjusted to 0.80. It has also been assumed that the FedEx facility will generate a higher percentage of truck traffic at the intersection of SH 82 with CR 154. As such, a rough conservative estimate for percent heavy vehicles of 8 percent was applied to the Synchro / SimTraffic models. Multiple runs were conducted using SimTraffic to generate a queuing information reports (queuing reports are included in Appendix E). Table 2. SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue Results — CR 154 Analysis Scenario Left -Turn Lane Queue (ft) Thru-Left Turn Lane Queue (ft) Right -Turn Lane Queue (ft) Short Term Total AM 123 171 96 Short Term Total PM 98 129 55 Long Term Total AM 201 240 139 Long Term Total PM 139 163 93 Max Queue 201 240 139 Issue #1: The existing lane configuration provides approximately 180 feet of dual lane storage along CR 154. The predicted maximum queue length would exceed the currently available dual lane storage along CR 154 approaching SH 82, creating blockages of the turn lanes. As a result, lane utilization imbalances may occur and would reduce the efficiency of the intersection. Issue #2: There is approximately 550 feet of available storage length before a queue would back up and block the trail crossing. Though the results indicate that queues will not block the trail crossing, the trail crossing may be vulnerable to intermittent fluctuations in traffic flows that are not fully reflected in the modeling. Based on these traffic modeling results, site generated traffic volumes related to the school are not anticipated to interfere with the trail crossing. FELSBURG (I HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 15 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment V. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE CRITERIA A. Access Permit The current access permit for SH 82 / CR 154 is Permit No. 301027. The permit was issued for the Rose Ranch/IronBridge development. The access permit is written for 370 design hour vehicles (DHV), along the CR 154 approach to SH 82. SH 82 has been categorized as an E -X (Expressway, Major Bypass) for the purposes of evaluating access control. The SHAC states: Unless there are identified safety problems, existing legal access to the state highway system shall be allowed to remain or be moved or reconstructed under the terms of an access permit...as long as total daily trips to and from the site are less than 100, or as long as only minor modifications are made to the property or as long as the access does not violate specific permit terms and conditions. Minor modifications are defined as anything that does not increase the proposed vehicle volume to the site by 20 percent or more. The intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 will see increased traffic with the proposed construction of the Roaring Fork School District school. The projected short term site generated traffic volumes are estimated to add an additional 120 vehicles during the design to the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154. This translates to an increase of 32 percent over the permitted volume. Because the Rose Ranch/IronBridge development is not fully built out at this time, the existing traffic counts cannot be used to determine if a new access permit is required. CDOT indicated that the FedEx development did not increase the traffic at the access by 20 percent. The combined school and FedEx site generated traffic volumes are estimated to add an additional 165 vehicles during the design hour to the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154. This translates to an increase of nearly 45 percent hour over the permitted volume. Based on these calculations, a new access permit application will need to be submitted to CDOT Region 3 to allow for a change in use. B. Speed Change Lanes The CDOT State Highway Access Code (SHAC) outlines criteria for requiring acceleration and deceleration lanes along state highways. The criteria are based on facility access category, posted speed limit, and turning movement volumes. Table 3 summarizes the need for speed change lanes at the intersection of SH 82 with CR 154 for the time periods analyzed. Table 3. Auxiliary Lane Requirements at SH 82 and CR 154 Analysis Scenario Turn Lane Required? NBLT Decel Lane SBRT Decel Lane EBRT Accel Lane Existing No Yes No 2017 Background Yes Yes Yes 2017 Total Yes Yes Yes 2040 Background Yes Yes Yes 2040 Total Yes Yes Yes NBLT = Northbound Left Turn SBRT = Southbound Right Turn EBRT = Eastbound Right Turn Ill FELSM:1 (41 HOLT a LILLE\HG Page 16 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment As shown in Table 3, each of the three required acceleration and deceleration lanes are needed without the added traffic from the proposed development. Further description of these lanes is provided as follows. Eastbound Right Turn Acceleration Lane One of the required speed change lanes, the eastbound to southbound right turn acceleration lane, does not currently exist. The right turn from the minor approach is currently a permissive movement with a yield condition and no right turn acceleration lane is provided. SHAC criteria indicate that a right turn lane with acceleration and taper length is required for any access with a projected peak hour right turning volume of greater than 10 vehicles per hour. A right turn acceleration lane would be required based on project 2017 Short Range Future background traffic volumes. At 65 MPH, a 1,380 -foot acceleration lane would be required with a 25:1 transition taper ratio equating to a 300 -foot taper. While the SHAC requirements indicate the traffic volume criteria for a right turn acceleration lane would be met without development of the proposed school, the unique orientation and location of the intersection present physical challenges to constructing the lane. Providing the lane would require modification to existing roadside grading, likely creating the need for a new retaining wall system for some length along the southwest edge of SH 82. Given the physical constraints of this location, it is recommended that the right turn movement be converted to a protected only movement (no right -turn on red). By converting the right turn movement to a protected only movement, the right turn movement could be completed without conflict from the through movement, thereby avoiding the need for an exclusive acceleration lane. Operational analyses of total year 2040 conditions indicate that acceptable traffic flow can be provided with a protected only movement. Left and Right Turn Deceleration Lanes Two of the turn lanes identified as needed in Table 3 already exist along SH 82 at the intersection. A review was conducted to ensure that the existing lanes are appropriately dimensioned to accommodate background and total future traffic volume forecasts. The measured and SHAC required lane lengths are described in Table 4, as required by Year 2040 forecast traffic volumes. Table 4. Existing SH 82/CR 154 Turn Lane Lengths AFELSF URG CI HILT 11 ULLEVIG Page 17 Storage Plus Deceleration Length (ft) Taper Length (ft) Turn Lane Required Required Required Required Measured Without Site With Site Measured Without Site With Site (Shortfall) (Shortfall) (Shortfall) (Shortfall) NBLT Decel Lane 715 650(0) 700 (0) 200 225 (25) 225 (25) SBRT Decel Lane 690 600 (0) 600 (0) 275 225 (0) 225 (0) AFELSF URG CI HILT 11 ULLEVIG Page 17 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Roaring Fork School District is proposing to construct a new school on an undeveloped parcel in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The proposed site is located southeast of the intersection of SH 82 and Garfield CR 154. The proposed development of the site would consist of a school serving 500 preschool through eighth grade students. Vehicular access to the site has been identified via a full movement access to CR 154, at the southeast end of the site. The proposed school is expected to generate approximately 240 new vehicle -trips during the weekday AM peak hour and about 145 new vehicle -trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The estimated weekday new daily trip generation potential would be about 700 trips. The potential traffic impacts due to this additional traffic were evaluated under both Short Range Future (year 2017) and Long Range Future (year 2040) scenarios. In general, the adjacent roadway system and intersections would possess capacity to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The Rio Grande Trail crosses CR 154 approximately 550 feet south of the intersection with SH 82. Two potential operational issues may arise related to the trail crossing: (1) queue lengths exceeding the available storage lengths, and (2) queues blocking the trail crossing. SimTraffic queuing analyses have been conducted to evaluate the potential for queuing along CR 154 interfering with the trail crossing. The analyses indicate that site generated traffic related to the school is not anticipated to routinely interfere with the Rio Grande Trail crossing. The access permit for SH 82 / CR 154 is Permit No. 301027. The permit was issued for the Rose Ranch/IronBridge development. The access permit is for 370 design hour vehicles (DHV) along CR 154. Because the Rose Ranch/IronBridge is not fully built out at this time, the existing traffic counts cannot be used to determine if a new access permit is required. CDOT staff has indicated that the FedEx development did not increase the traffic at the access by 20 percent. The school and FedEx developments are estimated to add 250 vehicles during the design hour to the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154. This translates to an increase of nearly 45 percent hour over the permitted volume. Based on these calculations, a new access permit will be required. Based on the SHAC, speed change lanes are needed at the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection both with and without the proposed development. Two of the lanes are currently provided and no changes are recommended to these lanes. A third lane, an eastbound to southbound right turn acceleration lane, would be a newly installed lane. Due to physical constraints adding complexity and cost to providing this lane, it is recommended that the eastbound right turn movement be converted to a protected only movement, thereby avoiding the need for the acceleration lane. No additional turn lanes or extensions of existing turn lanes are recommended with this development. (4FEI SBURG II LT & LLLEVIG Page 18 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS FELSBURG C' HOLT & ULLEVIG AppendixA All Traffic Data Services, Inc 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-216-2439 File Name : #1 SH82&CR154AM Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/9/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 Grand Total Apprch % Total % 139 2156 0 1 6.1 93.9 0 0 3.7 57.8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1218 4 1 0 99.6 0.3 0.1 0 32.7 0.1 0 6 0 202 0 2.9 0 97.1 0 0.2 0 5.4 0 f - O �5 ctU O M CO N N N 0 0 a CL SH 82 Out In Total 1 14201 1 37161 1 1 1 1391 21561 01 11 Right Tr Left Peds 6. I North 4/9/2015 07:00 AM 4/9/2015 08:45 AM Class 1 r Left Thru Right Peds 1 41 12181 01 11 1 1 12231 In CH R2 1 21631 Out 1 33861 Total r v m 0. 0 0 O 0 0 r 3728 SH 82 Southbound CR 154 Westbound SH 82 Northbound CR 154 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int Total 07:00 AM 10 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 1 0 17 0 355 07:15 AM 10 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 0 0 0 0 30 0 523 07:30 AM 21 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 0 0 1 0 37 0 552 07:45 AM 26 294 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 160 0 0 1 0 44 0 527 Total 67 1190 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 567 0 0 3 0 128 0 1957 08:00 AM 29 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 1 0 29 0 498 08:15 AM 16 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 0 1 0 0 15 0 457 08:30 AM 14 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 16 0 421 08:45 AM 13 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 4 0 2 0 14 0 395 Total 72 966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 651 4 1 3 0 74 0 1771 Grand Total Apprch % Total % 139 2156 0 1 6.1 93.9 0 0 3.7 57.8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1218 4 1 0 99.6 0.3 0.1 0 32.7 0.1 0 6 0 202 0 2.9 0 97.1 0 0.2 0 5.4 0 f - O �5 ctU O M CO N N N 0 0 a CL SH 82 Out In Total 1 14201 1 37161 1 1 1 1391 21561 01 11 Right Tr Left Peds 6. I North 4/9/2015 07:00 AM 4/9/2015 08:45 AM Class 1 r Left Thru Right Peds 1 41 12181 01 11 1 1 12231 In CH R2 1 21631 Out 1 33861 Total r v m 0. 0 0 O 0 0 r 3728 All Traffic Data Services, Inc 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-216-2439 File Name : #1 SH82&CR154AM Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/9/2015 Page No : 2 Peak Hour Analysis From 07 00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 AM 07:15 AM 10 SH 82 Southbound 0 0 CR 154 Westbound 0 0 SH 82 Northbound 0 0 CR 154 Eastbound 158 0 Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Tom Right Thru Left Peds App. Tom Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total int Tow Peak Hour Analysis From 07 00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 AM 07:15 AM 10 325 0 0 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 0 0 158 0 0 30 0 30 523 07:30 AM 21 326 0 0 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 0 0 167 1 0 37 0 38 552 07:45 AM 26 294 0 1 321 0 0 1 0 1 0 160 0 0 160 1 0 44 0 45 527 08:00 AM 29 275 0 0 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 164 1 0 29 0 30 498 Total Volume 86 1220 0 1 1307 0 0 1 0 1 0 649 0 0 649 3 0 140 0 143 2100 %App. Total 6.6 93.3 0 0.1 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 2.1 0 97.9 0 PHF .741 .936 .000 .250 .942 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .972 .000 .000 .972 .750 .000 .795 .000 .794 .951 U 0 r 0 0) 0.1 CO CO 0 r 0 0 SH 82 1 Out789]1 113071 1 1 1861 12201 Ol 1 11 Right Thru LeLf4t Peds Total 1 20961 Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Class 1 Left Thru Right Peds 11 01 6491 01 l 01 1 1 6491 In SH R7 1 12241 Out 1 18731 Total 0 0 0 O 0 0 _A 0 All Traffic Data Services, Inc 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-216-2439 File Name : #1 SH82&CR154PM Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/9/2015 Page No : 1 rouos Printed- Class 1 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 27 188 0 0 21 188 0 0 23 208 0 1 31 202 0 0 102 786 0 1 201 1472 0 2 12 87.9 0 0.1 4.6 33.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 0 373 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 378 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 27 0 0 1431 0 0 2527 1 0 0 100 0 0 0 57.4 0 0 0 0 96 0 1 0 202 0 0.5 0 99.5 0 0 0 4.6 0 La 0 0 E 0 o' 0 N N NJ 0 O Out 1 27291 SH 82 In Total 1 1?751 1 2011 14721 01 21 Right Tr Left Peds North 4/9/2015 03:00 PM 4/9/2015 04:45 PM Class 1 eft Thru Ri.ht P -d 1 14731 Out In FH R2 1 40011 Total 4 S 2 N N 4a1 0 O c 0 _A A 552 603 623 638 2416 4406 SH 82 Southbound CR 154 Westbound SH 82 Northbound CR 154 Eastbound Start Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int Total Time 03:00 PM 19 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 1 0 0 0 29 0 443 03:15 PM 21 143 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 246 0 0 1 0 27 0 439 03:30 PM 28 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 30 0 543 03:45 PM 31 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 0 0 0 0 20 0 565 Total 99 686 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1096 1 0 1 0 106 0 1990 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 27 188 0 0 21 188 0 0 23 208 0 1 31 202 0 0 102 786 0 1 201 1472 0 2 12 87.9 0 0.1 4.6 33.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 0 373 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 378 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 27 0 0 1431 0 0 2527 1 0 0 100 0 0 0 57.4 0 0 0 0 96 0 1 0 202 0 0.5 0 99.5 0 0 0 4.6 0 La 0 0 E 0 o' 0 N N NJ 0 O Out 1 27291 SH 82 In Total 1 1?751 1 2011 14721 01 21 Right Tr Left Peds North 4/9/2015 03:00 PM 4/9/2015 04:45 PM Class 1 eft Thru Ri.ht P -d 1 14731 Out In FH R2 1 40011 Total 4 S 2 N N 4a1 0 O c 0 _A A 552 603 623 638 2416 4406 All Traffic Data Services, Inc 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-216-2439 File Name : #1 SH82&CR154PM Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/9/2015 Page No : 2 Peak Hour Analysis From 03 00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 04:00 PM 27 SH 82 Southbound 0 0 CR 154 Westbound 0 0 SH 82 Northbound 0 0 CR 154 Eastbound 318 0 Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Tom Right Thru Left Peds App. rem Right Thru Left Peds App. ram Right Thru Left Peds Pi, Total at. roam Peak Hour Analysis From 03 00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 04:00 PM 27 188 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 318 0 0 19 0 19 552 04:15 PM 21 188 0 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 373 0 0 373 0 0 21 0 21 603 04:30 PM 23 208 0 1 232 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 362 0 0 29 0 29 623 04:45 PM 31 202 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 378 0 0 378 0 0 27 0 27 638 Total Volume 102 786 0 1 889 0 0 0 0 0 0 1431 0 0 1431 0 0 96 0 96 2416 %App. Total 11.5 88.4 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .823 .945 .000 .250 .954 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .946 .000 .000 .946 .000 .000 .828 .000 .828 .947 mss 0 v fO u2 c 0) o 0 O O O SH 82 t In Total 8891 1 1021 7861 01 11 Right Thru Left Peds eu 1 24161 Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Class 1 47 T r Left Thru Right Peds 01 14311 01 01 1 1 1 431 1 Out In Total SH R2 1 7861 22171 4 2 0 0 O s — o _XI — 5 O A 0 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS poFELSBURG (4HOLT ULLEVIG Appendix B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Existing AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r ) 44 ' 4 r 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 1220 86 0 649 0 140 0 3 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1326 0 0 705 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2729 1176 1 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1326 0 0 705 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2729 1176 1 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2729 1176 127 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 57.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 58.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1326 705 175 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 4.4 58.8 0.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 120.0 25.0 120.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 99.0 19.5 114.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 21.2 0.0 9.9 8.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 23.2 0.0 24.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Existing AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 0 138 81 5 5 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 0 150 88 6 6 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 94 0 - 0 241 91 Stage 1 - - 91 - Stage 2 150 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1463 - 734 950 Stage 1 - - 918 - Stage 2 - 863 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1463 734 950 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 734 - Stage 1 - 918 - Stage 2 863 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 0 0 9.9 A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 734 1463 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 4: SH 82 & Orrison Access Existing AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 2 2 0 789 1304 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 300 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 2 0 858 1417 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1847 709 1418 0 0 Stage 1 1418 - - Stage 2 429 Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 66 377 476 Stage 1 189 - - Stage 2 624 - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 66 377 476 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 66 Stage 1 189 Stage 2 624 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 38.4 0 0 HCM LOS E Capacity (veh/h) 476 - 112 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 38.4 HCM Lane LOS A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Existing PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 l vi tt 'I 4 r 4 Volume (veh/h) 0 786 102 0 1431 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 854 0 0 1555 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2729 1176 1 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 854 0 0 1555 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2729 1176 1 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2729 1176 127 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 56.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 57.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 854 1555 120 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.7 6.9 57.2 0.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 120.0 25.0 120.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 99.0 19.5 114.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 12.1 0.0 27.2 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 34.3 0.0 34.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.5 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Existing PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 0 95 98 4 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 0 103 107 5 1 0 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 112 0 - 0 212 109 Stage 1 109 Stage 2 103 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1441 763 929 Stage 1 - 901 Stage 2 - - 906 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1441 - - - 763 929 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 763 - Stage 1 - - - 901 - Stage 2 906 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 763 1441 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 4: SH 82 & Orrison Access Existing PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 4 2 2 1525 886 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 300 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 2 2 1658 963 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1798 484 967 0 0 Stage 1 965 Stage 2 833 - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 71 529 708 - Stage 1 330 Stage 2 387 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 71 529 708 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 71 - Stage 1 330 Stage 2 386 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 43.5 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 708 - 100 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.065 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 43.5 HCM Lane LOS B - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment APPENDIX C BACKGROUND TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS PFELSBURG (11 I-1OLT & ULLEVIG Appendix C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Short Range Future Background AM f Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4'4' r 1 44 '9 4 r' 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 1260 105 10 670 0 160 0 15 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1370 0 12 728 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2597 1119 18 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.01 0.79 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1370 0 12 728 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 23.8 0.0 1.0 8.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 23.8 0.0 1.0 8.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2597 1119 18 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.68 0.27 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2597 1119 127 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.6 0.0 71.5 4.2 0.0 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 36.8 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0f0(50%),veh/In 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.7 3.9 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.4 0.0 108.3 4.4 0.0 59.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1370 740 200 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 6.1 59.6 0.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 114.5 25.0 120.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 99.0 19.5 114.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 25.8 0.0 10.2 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 24.5 0.0 25.9 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.1 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Short Range Future Background AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 5 145 85 30 30 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 158 92 38 38 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 130 0 0 281 111 Stage 1 111 Stage 2 170 Critical Hdwy 4.18 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1419 696 926 Stage 1 - - 899 Stage 2 - 846 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1419 - 693 926 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 693 Stage 1 899 Stage 2 842 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 719 1419 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 3: CR 154 & School Access Short Range Future Background AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 0 0 150 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 98 0 0 163 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 261 98 0 0 98 0 Stage 1 98 - - - - Stage 2 163 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 728 958 1495 Stage 1 926 - - Stage 2 866 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 728 958 1495 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 728 Stage 1 926 - - Stage 2 866 Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1495 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 4: SH 82 & Orrison Access Short Range Future Background AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 5 5 0 830 1360 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 300 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 5 0 902 1478 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1932 742 1484 0 0 Stage 1 1481 Stage 2 451 Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 58 358 449 - Stage 1 175 - Stage 2 609 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 58 358 449 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 58 Stage 1 175 - Stage 2 609 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 45.3 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 449 - 100 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.109 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 45.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.4 3/15/2016 FHU Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Short Term Background PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r '1 44 'I 4 j" 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 815 115 15 1475 0 110 0 10 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 886 0 19 1603 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2582 1112 25 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.79 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 886 0 19 1603 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 12.7 0.0 1.6 26.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 12.7 0.0 1.6 26.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2582 1112 25 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.77 0.59 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2582 1112 127 2729 0 550 0 201 0 251 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 6.4 0.0 71.2 6.2 0.0 56.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 38.2 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.0 12.8 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 6.8 0.0 109.4 7.1 0.0 57.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A E Approach Vol, veh/h 886 1622 138 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.8 8.3 57.7 0.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 113.9 25.0 120.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 99.0 19.5 114.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 14.7 0.0 28.6 7.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 36.5 0.0 36.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Short Term Background PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 5 105 100 30 20 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 114 109 38 25 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 146 0 0 254 127 Stage 1 127 Stage 2 127 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1400 722 907 Stage 1 884 Stage 2 884 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1400 - 718 907 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 718 Stage 1 - 884 Stage 2 880 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 749 1400 - 0.042 0.004 10 7.6 0 B A A 0.1 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 3: CR 154 & School Access Short Term Background PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Vol, veh/h 0 0 105 0 0 110 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 114 0 0 120 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 234 114 0 0 114 0 Stage 1 114 Stage 2 120 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 754 939 1475 Stage 1 911 - - Stage 2 905 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 754 939 - 1475 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 754 Stage 1 911 - - Stage 2 905 - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1475 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 4: SH 82 & Orrison Access Short Term Background PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 1580 925 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 300 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 1717 1005 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1878 505 1011 0 0 Stage 1 1008 Stage 2 870 Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 63 512 681 Stage 1 313 Stage 2 370 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 63 512 681 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 63 Stage 1 313 Stage 2 367 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 40.6 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 681 - 112 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.097 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - 40.6 HCM Lane LOS B - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Long Range Future Background AM C 4- 4.. 4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 ( '1 14 vi 4 r 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 1748 177 10 932 0 280 0 18 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1900 0 12 1013 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2333 1005 18 2466 0 804 0 315 0 392 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.71 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1900 0 12 1013 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 57.5 0.0 1.0 17.3 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s 0.0 57.5 0.0 1.0 17.3 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2333 1005 18 2466 0 804 0 315 0 392 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.68 0.41 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2333 1005 64 2466 0 804 0 315 0 392 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 17.2 0.0 71.5 8.6 0.0 50.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.3 0.0 36.8 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 28.2 0.0 0.7 8.3 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 20.5 0.0 108.3 9.1 0.0 52.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C F A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1900 1025 350 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.5 10.3 52.2 0.0 Approach LOS C B D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 103.5 36.0 109.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 93.5 30.5 103.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 59.5 0.0 19.3 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 26.9 0.0 50.2 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Long Range Future Background AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 3 259 151 36 38 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 4 282 164 45 48 4 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 209 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1327 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1327 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 0 476 187 187 289 6.48 6.28 5.48 5.48 - 3.572 3.372 537 840 831 747 535 840 535 831 744 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 12.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 550 1327 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 0.003 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Long Range Future Background PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 14 r il 14 'I 4 r 4 Volume (veh/h) 0 1125 244 20 2050 0 197 0 18 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1223 0 25 2228 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2450 1056 31 2609 0 666 0 253 0 315 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.02 0.75 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1223 0 25 2228 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 23.2 0.0 2.2 64.5 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 23.2 0.0 2.2 64.5 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2450 1056 31 2609 0 666 0 253 0 315 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.82 0.85 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2450 1056 76 2609 0 666 0 253 0 315 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.7 0.0 70.9 12.5 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 39.1 3.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 11.3 0.0 1.3 31.7 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.4 0.0 110.0 16.3 0.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B F B E Approach Vol, veh/h 1223 2253 246 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 17.3 55.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 108.4 30.0 115.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 98.4 24.5 109.0 24.5 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 25.2 0.0 66.5 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 58.8 0.0 37.2 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Long Range Future Background PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 2 185 226 37 30 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 2 201 246 46 38 1 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 292 0 0 475 269 Stage 1 - 269 Stage 2 206 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1236 - 538 755 Stage 1 762 - Stage 2 - 814 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1236 - 536 755 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 536 Stage 1 - 762 Stage 2 - - 812 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 12.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 541 1236 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment APPENDIX D TOTAL TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS FELSBURG l HOLT 6t ULLEV1G Appendix D HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Short Term Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r ) 44 ¶ 4 r Volume (veh/h) 0 1210 104 69 605 0 159 0 64 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1315 0 86 658 0 199 0 80 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2271 978 106 2585 0 689 0 263 0 328 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1315 0 86 658 0 199 0 80 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 30.6 0.0 7.4 8.7 0.0 7.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyde Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 30.6 0.0 7.4 8.7 0.0 7.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2271 978 106 2585 0 689 0 263 0 328 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.81 0.25 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2271 978 208 2585 0 689 0 263 0 328 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 14.0 0.0 67.1 5.8 0.0 52.4 0.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.1 0.0 13.8 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 0.0 21.3 0.0 6.9 7.6 0.0 6.5 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 15.0 0.0 80.8 6.1 0.0 53.4 0.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B F A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1315 744 279 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 14.7 53.9 0.0 Approach LOS B B D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 100.8 31.0 114.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 86.0 25.5 108.0 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 32.6 0.0 10.7 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 20.2 0.0 22.5 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Short Term Total AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 5 193 143 30 30 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 210 155 38 38 6 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 193 0 - 0 396 174 Stage 1 - 174 - Stage 2 - 222 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1345 598 854 Stage 1 - - - 842 Stage 2 801 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1345 - 595 854 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 595 Stage 1 - - 842 Stage 2 797 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 11.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 622 1345 - 0.07 0.005 11.2 7.7 0 B A A 0.2 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 3: CR 154 & School Access Short Term Total AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Vol, veh/h 54 54 82 66 66 144 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 59 89 72 72 157 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 425 125 0 0 161 0 Stage 1 125 Stage 2 300 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 586 926 - - 1418 Stage 1 901 - - - Stage 2 752 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 553 926 - 1418 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 553 Stage 1 901 - - Stage 2 710 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS EB 11.3 B SE 0 NW 2.4 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1418 - 692 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 - 0.17 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 11.3 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.6 - 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 4: SH 82 & Orrison Access Short Term Total AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 5 5 0 764 1309 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 300 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 5 0 830 1423 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1841 714 1428 0 0 Stage 1 1426 Stage 2 415 Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 67 374 472 - Stage 1 188 Stage 2 635 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 67 374 472 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 67 Stage 1 188 Stage 2 635 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 39.9 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 472 - 114 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.095 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 39.9 HCM Lane LOS A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Short Term Total PM t \* 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r 71 ++ 9 4 r 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 785 114 44 1445 0 109 0 51 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 853 0 55 1571 0 136 0 64 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2417 1041 70 2657 0 619 0 232 0 289 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 853 0 55 1571 0 136 0 64 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.3 0.0 4.7 28.1 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.3 0.0 4.7 28.1 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2417 1041 70 2657 0 619 0 232 0 289 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.79 0.59 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2417 1041 173 2657 0 619 0 232 0 289 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.9 0.0 68.9 7.3 0.0 53.9 0.0 54.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 17.7 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(95%),veh/In 0.0 11.3 0.0 4.5 19.7 0.0 4.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.3 0.0 86.6 8.3 0.0 54.8 0.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 853 1626 200 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.3 10.9 55.5 0.0 Approach LOS A B E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 107.0 28.0 117.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 92.0 22.5 111.0 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 16.3 0.0 30.1 7.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 33.3 0.0 34.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Major/Minor HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Short Term Total PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 5 140 128 30 20 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 152 139 38 25 6 Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 177 0 4.18 2.272 1364 0 323 158 158 - 165 6.48 6.28 5.48 5.48 - 3.572 3.372 659 872 856 850 1364 - - 656 872 656 - - 856 - - 846 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 690 1364 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 3: CR 154 & School Access Short Term Total PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Vol, veh/h 40 40 101 32 33 105 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 43 110 35 36 114 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 313 127 0 0 145 0 Stage 1 127 - - - Stage 2 186 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 680 923 - 1437 Stage 1 899 - Stage 2 846 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 662 923 1437 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 662 Stage 1 899 - Stage 2 823 - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 HCM LOS B 1.8 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1437 - 771 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.113 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 10.3 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 4: SH 82 & Orrison Access Short Term Total PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 1549 894 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 300 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 1684 972 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1827 489 977 0 0 Stage 1 974 Stage 2 853 - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 68 525 702 Stage 1 327 - - Stage 2 378 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 68 525 702 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 68 Stage 1 327 - Stage 2 375 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 38 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 702 - 120 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.091 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - 38 HCM Lane LOS B - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Long Range Future Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r 1 t4 ) 4 r 4 Volume (veh/h) 0 1698 176 69 867 0 279 0 67 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1846 0 86 942 0 349 0 84 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2224 958 105 2538 0 735 0 284 0 353 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.06 0.73 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1846 0 86 942 0 349 0 84 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 59.2 0.0 7.4 14.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 59.2 0.0 7.4 14.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2224 958 105 2538 0 735 0 284 0 353 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.82 0.37 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2224 958 139 2538 0 735 0 284 0 353 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.0 0.0 67.1 7.2 0.0 53.1 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.8 0.0 24.1 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 0.0 38.3 0.0 7.4 11.4 0.0 10.8 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 23.8 0.0 91.2 7.6 0.0 55.3 0.0 53.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C F A E D Approach Vol, veh/h 1846 1028 433 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.8 14.6 54.9 0.0 Approach LOS C B D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 98.9 33.0 112.0 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 90.0 27.5 106.0 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 61.2 0.0 16.5 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 22.7 0.0 47.9 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay HCM 2010 LOS 25.0 C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Long Range Future Total AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 3 307 209 36 38 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 4 334 227 45 48 4 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 272 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1257 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1257 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 0 591 250 - - 250 341 6.48 6.28 5.48 5.48 3.572 3.372 460 774 - - 778 - 707 458 774 458 778 704 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 13.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 472 1257 - 0.109 0.003 13.6 7.9 0 B A A 0.4 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 3: CR 154 & School Access Long Range Future Total AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Vol, veh/h 54 54 146 66 66 256 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 59 159 72 72 278 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 617 195 0 0 230 0 Stage 1 195 Stage 2 422 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 453 846 1338 Stage 1 838 Stage 2 662 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 424 846 1338 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 424 - Stage 1 838 Stage 2 620 Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 13 0 HCM LOS B 1.6 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1338 - 565 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - 0.208 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 13 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.8 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Long Range Future Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r 4'4' '5 4 r 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 1095 243 49 2020 0 196 0 54 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1827 1759 1759 1827 0 1759 1759 1759 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1190 0 61 2196 0 245 0 68 0 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2348 1011 77 2602 0 672 0 256 0 319 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3563 1495 1675 3563 0 3351 0 1495 0 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1190 0 61 2196 0 245 0 68 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1736 1495 1675 1736 0 1675 0 1495 0 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 24.5 0.0 5.2 62.5 0.0 9.5 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 24.5 0.0 5.2 62.5 0.0 9.5 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2348 1011 77 2602 0 672 0 256 0 319 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.80 0.84 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2348 1011 129 2602 0 672 0 256 0 319 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.6 0.0 68.5 12.4 0.0 53.8 0.0 52.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 16.7 3.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(95%),veh/In 0.0 17.5 0.0 5.0 40.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.3 0.0 85.2 15.9 0.0 55.3 0.0 54.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B F B E D Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 2257 313 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 17.8 55.2 0.0 Approach LOS B B E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 104.1 30.3 114.7 30.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.2 93.5 24.8 108.7 24.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 26.5 0.0 64.5 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 53.7 0.0 38.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for tuming movement. 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 Long Range Future Total PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Vol, veh/h 2 220 254 37 30 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 2 239 276 46 38 1 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 322 0 0 543 299 Stage 1 299 Stage 2 244 Critical Hdwy 4.18 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1205 491 727 Stage 1 739 Stage 2 - 783 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1205 - - 490 727 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 490 Stage 1 - 739 - Stage 2 781 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 12.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 495 1205 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Eastbank - New Roaring Fork School 3: CR 154 & School Access Long Range Future Total PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Vol, veh/h 40 40 223 32 33 182 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 43 242 35 36 198 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 530 260 0 0 277 0 Stage 1 260 Stage 2 270 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 510 779 1286 Stage 1 783 Stage 2 775 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 494 779 - 1286 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 494 Stage 1 783 Stage 2 751 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS EB 11.9 B SE 0 NW 1.2 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1286 - 605 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - 0.144 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 11.9 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 3/15/2016 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment APPENDIX E QUEUING REPORTS pi J FELSBURG ■ HOLT & l ULLEVIG Appendix E Queuing and Blocking Report Short Term Total AM 3/14/2016 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 326 292 9 157 133 109 166 229 144 Average Queue (ft) 182 154 1 73 69 36 55 94 19 95th Queue (ft) 287 252 6 138 124 84 123 171 96 Link Distance (ft) 1060 1060 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 28 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 42 1 Eastbank - New RF School TIS SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Short Term Total PM 3/14/2016 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 181 166 7 85 236 223 133 166 88 Average Queue (ft) 94 67 0 33 137 111 40 66 7 95th Queue (ft) 162 142 5 77 219 208 98 129 55 Link Distance (ft) 1060 1060 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 16 0 Eastbank - New RF School TIS SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Long Range Future Total AM 3/14/2016 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 504 473 25 159 195 154 233 276 150 Average Queue (ft) 281 236 1 62 104 69 115 149 36 95th Queue (ft) 425 398 12 130 170 138 201 240 139 Link Distance (ft) 969 969 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 50 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 104 0 Eastbank - New RF School TIS SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Long Range Future Total PM 3/14/2016 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 304 263 29 142 381 390 150 174 148 Average Queue (ft) 163 106 2 54 224 201 71 100 16 95th Queue (ft) 261 220 17 122 340 339 139 163 93 Link Distance (ft) 969 969 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 31 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 48 0 Eastbank - New RF School TIS SimTraffic Report Page 1 Appendix B Excerpt from 2016 Traffic Assesment of Riverview School Development LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal PPFELSBURG Ci HOLT ULLEVIG wC. ktp Figure 7 Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions LEGEND Excerpt from 2018 Traffic Assesment of Flying M Ranch Development ‘S.:2$ B/A io ,urs%/J ' 4 Sj9/r° l\,;1 • Feder Access Riverview School Access J. ,/ , /)/j2J/ Se SoUtn Acces/ a XXX(XXX) X/X = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service yy = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FELSBURG 'HOLT & ULLEVIG 756 ? 79 hCop as NORTH FIGURE 7 Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 6127118 LEGEND Excerpt from 2016 Traffic Assesment of Riverview School Development cDo 90 •oC.. ,b0 cb XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service e = Stop Sign O= Traffic Signal . FELSBURG (4 HOLT & UI 1. EVIG 111111111111111111/ Figure 8 Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions NOTE: Intersection to be Closed LEGEND Excerpt from 2018 Traffic Assesment of Flying M Ranch Development 82 C/B w ro Riverview School River �oY�c ¢o^t�rg XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unslgnalized Intersection Level of Service Stop Sign Traffic Signal 4 FELSBURG !HOLT & ULLEVIG Access c°7 007 cDno 3 NORTH FIGURE 8 Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions Flying PI Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 Appendix C A6 I Thursday, August 31, 2017 I Post Independent https://edition.pagesuite.com/htm 15/reader/producti on/print_clippings.aspx?cl ippingurls=http://media... New Riverview School open house tonight John Stroud jstroud@postindependent.com An open house and ribbon cutting for the Roaring Fork School District's newest school, Riverview: will take place at 5 p.m. today at the new 76,000 -square -foot facility south of Glenwood Springs. Riverview, Which will open for the start ofthe 2017-18 year on Tuesday; is loaned at 228 Flying M Ranch Road, just off Colorado 82 at the West - bank (Garfield County Road 154) atersec t on. The new PreIK-S dual -language, proj- ect -based learning school will open with 345 students and 4.5 staff members. It is one of several new and renovated school fitcilities that were part of the 5122 million bond issue approved by voters in 2015 that will be open- ing next week. "We have an amazing crew at Riverview who have been working incredibly hard to prepare for the students and families who will walk through our doors, Riverview Principal Adapt Volek said in a news release. The team has been collaborating to create an inclusive. positive and welcoming environment for all, and were excited for our Riverview families to feel the care and pride that goes into every- thing that we do for our lids" Work on the new 534.5 million school began in June 2016, and was built in less than 14 months. A typical timeline for construction on a project that size is more like two years. accord- ing to district officials. The shorter timeline was a direct response to concerns about increased competition for construction contractors at the time the bond projects were beginning. The school can eventually serve up to 450 student. Ifs design features include views of the Roaring Fork River: a 7,000 -square -foot gymnasium; a youth baseball/soccer field; a dedicated space fbr art. music and technology: and breakout spaces in every classroom section. The new Riverview School is in addition to a nearly 830 million major addition and renovation at Glenwood Springs Elementary School. The new addition that replaced the former Bolitho wing will open to students to start the new school year, but work contin- ues on a complete renovation of the historic original school building on School Street in downtown Glenwood. Also this evening, the district will have a rib- bon cutting at 6:45 p.m. at Sopris Elementary School, which has abrand new playground and other facility improvements. Other upcoming ceremonies to celebrate the new district school facilities include: • Glenwood Springs Middle School. 6 p.m. Sept 14 - B -salt Middle School, 6 p.m. Sept. 19 • Carbondale Middle School. 6 p.m. Sept. i.9 Open houses and ribbon cuttings for the BridgesCenter in Carbondale and Basalt High School will take place later this fall, and an official open house will lx scheduled at GSES next spring after the building renovation is completed. 1 of 1 1/31/2019.4:03 PM Appendix D Project Description New Eastbank Pre -Kindergarten — 8 School Roaring Fork School District RE -1 i 1:onivING fortl< Roaring Fork School District, RE -1, proposes to construct a 75,780 square foot, partial 2 -story, new Pre - Kindergarten through Eighth Grade school for a maximum capacity of 500 students. The school will have 31 classrooms, which includes an art room, a music room, an innovation studio, and program classrooms. The school will have a kitchen, cafeteria/commons space, gymnasium, and administrative offices. The school will be on a 35.1 -acre parcel located south of the City of Glenwood Springs between the Roaring Fork River and SH 82 at CR 154. This site is legally described as Parcel 1, Eastbank, LLC and was the subject to statutory review for a Location and Extent prior to contracting for the purchase for the land. Statutory obligations require that a School District submit a Location and Extent for site plan review by the County Planning Commission, which is the intent of this pre -application summary. The site plan review is based upon information provided by the Applicant on how the proposed site plan is in general conformity with the County's Comprehensive Plan. This review process is defined within Section 4-111 of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) and requires a public hearing in which the Planning Commission considers the application and issues an approval or disapproval, based upon the criteria of the review. The site is a portion of a former gravel pit that has been reclaimed to open, non -irrigated meadow. A FedEx distribution facility is located adjacent to the site as well as other uses that include a Waste Transfer Facility, the Orrison Distribution Center, and a contractor's storage yard, as shown in Figure 3. State Highway 82 is north of the site and vacant property and the Roaring Fork River is located to the west. Access to the site is from CR 154, Old State Highway 82, from a controlled access intersection at SH 82. The Future Land Use Map of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as Urban Growth Boundary to the City of Glenwood Springs. This designation means that the future land use of the site is subject to the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan includes Chapter 3, Plan Elements which should be utilized as the core principles upon which the project is reviewed. Please respond to each with data and reports to support the analysis. Appendix E COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCES,SpERI III1T 1 aMirri.(1 ./ // _? . � �j o% 6 CDOT Permit No. 316048 State Highway No / / /gide 082A / 5.00 /Right Permit Fee $0.00 Date of Transmittal Region / Section / Patrol / Name 06/24/2016 3 / 02 / 12-2 Alan Hayes Local Jurisdiction Garfield Count The Permittee(s): Applicant(s): Tamra Allen Yancy Nichol Garfield County Sopris Engineering, LLC 108 8th St 502 Main St, Ste A3 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970) 704-0311 is hereby granted permission to have an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with this permit, Including the State Highway Access Code and any attachments, terns, conditions and exhibits, This permit may be revoked by the Issuing Authority if at any time the permitted access and Its use violate any parts of this permit. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or properly damage sustained by reason of the exerclse of the permit. Location: near Mile Marker 5 and 8520 feet southeast from the intersection of Hwy 082A and CR 114 on the west side of SH 82. Access to Provide Service to: (Land Use Code) (Size) (Units) 998 - County Road — CR 154 (Old Highway 82) 600 DHV Additional Information: This permit is for an existing County Road that will serve the proposed development of a school serving 500 students from preschool through 8th grade. This permit shall not require construction. MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. Signature Print Name Date Title Upon the signing of this permit the herein. All construction shall be campleted InitlatiQn. The permitted access s being uiset, The permithki,shall notify Les .tanton (east 48 hours ptigr to comme clng The person signing as the ermittee mu• t .e accept the permit and its term and oon,tt . pfmittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained In art expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from all be complet d in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to 2K2 wl h the Colorado Department of Transportation, at (970) 876-2263 at constru ton within the State Highway right-of-way. the owner legal representative of the properly served by the permitted access and have full authority to ns. I Permittee Signature (x)' .,. — ; - - _ , Date _ /3 1 6Permittee .,,,,,,,.....-__ Printed Name: ..- r �a '� �;-.VCAV,1 V NCf 14 This permit is not valid unti : igned by a duly . COUP -ADO DEPART ,E OF TRANSPO'TATIrN thori ed representative of e Department. By (x) 1.{ z , . �.�... Pri t Name '� 'tr. tl 1 Date (t Issue) /� Ile k.14.1 dithilb.• Copy Distribution: Requf e f 1.Region 2.Appllcant 3.Statl Access Section Make copies es necessary for. Local Authority Inspector MiCE Patrol Traffic Engineer Previous editions are obsolete and m of be used CDOT F m 11101 8180 CIVIL ENGINEERING Date: February 15, 2019 To: Patrick Waller, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 970-945-1377 ext. 1580, pwaller@garfield-county.com From: Roger Neal High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone 970-945-8676, meal@hceng.com EXHIBIT &21 LAND SURVEYING RE: Flying M Ranch PUD Preliminary Submittal Referral Comments Application Number: SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 HCE Project No. 2151007.00 All referral comments highlighted have been addressed by High Country Engineering for Garfield County Community Development Department provided on 1-25-19. ENGINEERING REVIEW REFERRAL COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. — Chris Hale, PE, GarCo Review Engineer 1. The Applicant asks for a waiver for the access road through Lots A 1-A4 however Flying M Ranch Road has design parameters that do not meet the Roadway Standards in Table 7-107 for a Minor Collector. The design should be modified or a waiver requested. A waiver request will be prepared with these comments to reduce the shoulder width to 1.5' with curb and gutter for Flying M Ranch Road and 0.5' on upper access with curb and gutter. 2. The sewer and water system is to be incorporated into the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Engineers for the District should review the plans for conformance to RFWSD design standards and any comments incorporated. Acknowledged. 3. Garfield County standards have 350 gallons per day as the average minimum for a single family residence. This is a common demand value that the State of Colorado also uses. The Applicant has 140 GPD/EQR. This is less than half of the number typically used. This amount should be verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. The agreement with the RFWSD allows 228 EQRs and the density 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone — 970.945.8676 Fax — 970.945.2555 www.hceng.com Page 2 February15, 2019 that is proposed is based on a demand that is less than half of what is typically used. See attached RFSWD/SGM letter. Water CAD model will be revised to match EQR provided by SGM and pipe sizes will be modified accordingly. 4. Peak day demand is typically double that of the average day. Peak flow is typically double the peak day demand flowrate or 4 times the average day. These peaking factors should be verified by the engineer and the RFWSD. See attached RFSWD/SGM letter. Water CAD model will be revised to match EQR provided by SGM and pipe sizes will be modified accordingly. 5. In review of the water system model it appears that the flow velocity is greater than 14 feet/second (fps) in pipe P-61. Typically the maximum design flow rate is 10 fps to avoid cavitation and wear on the pipe. The pipe size and flowrate should be reviewed and the design verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. Pipe P-61 is a calibration of existing pipes, based on known fire flows, from the existing water tank near Ironbridge to our proposed network connection. 6. The Applicant should further explain the FEMA floodplain boundary. As proposed the development is within the floodplain. Ideally a LOMR would be prepared. The Applicant makes it sound that some means of adjusting the boundary is in process. The Applicant should better explain the processes and anticipated timing. At a minimum it appears that a floodplain permit will be necessary. Preliminary Mapping as well as current mapping was shown. The survey of the area shows the line of the actual flood plain based on elevations of the existing terrain. Developer would propose a Floodplain development permit which shows the development to be out of the floodplain by actual surveyed elevations and will be prepared as part of the final preliminary plan submittal. 7. The Applicant proposes that sidewalks will not be constructed because pedestrians will be able to use the pathway that will be provided. In review of the layout, the pathway is much longer and does not provide direct access to the school which is a large generator of pedestrian traffic. It is unlikely that pedestrians will use the path and instead will be walking on the roadways that provide a more direct and shorter walk to the school. The pathway is a nice feature and is not discouraged but sidewalks should also be provided. Actual length along bike path does not vary significantly to a sidewalk along the road. We have estimated from the far end of the eco -efficiency homes that there is approximately 110' of additional length to walk. This is about 33 additional steps. Since the corridor is an unimpeded path along the river, the planners believe this will be the chosen path for access. Applicant's proposed pathway complies with Section 6-401(E), which requires that the PUD provide a "safe, convenient, and adequate circulation system designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and other vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic." 8. The Applicant proposes to use drywells as a means of storm -water mitigation. Since there is a potential for sinkholes due to the underlying soils, drywells ought to be considered carefully. The Applicant should provide more information on the location of the proposed drywells and how they correspond to the underlying soil strata. See grading sheets (C2) for drywell locations and the attached letter (Item #2) from the geotechnical engineer discussing drywell locations and corresponding Page 3 February 15, 2019 underlying soils. 9. The Applicant should better explain the overflows and/or outlets for the proposed detention ponds. It seems that they will overtop the proposed pedestrian path and flow down steep slopes. The Applicant should explain mitigation measures proposed. The pond will filter through a layer of sand and down to a perforated pipe wrapped in filter fabric; then will flow through a solid pipe to the river bank where it will tee into a lateral perforated pipe to spread the drainage along the bank. The perforated pipe will be covered by at least 2' of river rock. See attached pond detail. 10. It is unclear if the sewer lift station is existing or proposed. The Applicant should provide more information on the sewer lift station and the status of approval with the CDPHE. This existing lift station is part of the RFWSD and approved through the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. 11. In the Design Guidelines the "Drainage Solutions" should be reviewed for conformance to the drainage system and drainage design that is proposed. Drainage Solutions will be revised in the Design Guidelines to be in conformance with the proposed design. 12. The Applicant should provide drainage easements for the proposed storm water detention ponds, drainage appurtenances, and piping that is proposed. Where drainage is only occurring within the boundaries of the individual properties, they will not require easements. Where drainage crosses adjacent properties, corresponding easements will be added. 13. The Applicant proposes that the Eco -Efficiency homes have 600 square feet minimum lot size. This seems small. Mobile home lots are larger. The Applicant should explain in greater detail how this area was determined. Based on proposed Eco -Efficiency Homes zero lot line side yard setbacks of 10' and 0', front yard setbacks of 0', and rear yard setbacks of 4', a 16'x26' Eco Home footprint requires a lot size of 780 SF. The Applicant proposes to increase the Eco -Efficiency homes minimum lot size to 700 SF to accommodate this footprint. 14. The Applicant has plat notes that engineered septic systems will be necessary. The Applicant should verify the applicability of this note in light of the proposed sewer system connection to RFWSD. Plat notes will be revised to `proposed sewer system will connect to RFWSD'. 15. There is a note on the Plat that Lots 2 and 3 will need to develop a storm water management plan at the time of development. The Applicant should explain in greater detail the need for this note. This Plat note will be revised to `Parcels C, E and F' as they will be developed in future phases. 16. It appears that water lines are shown outside of roadways and appear that they would also be outside of the easements that are proposed. It would be typical to have the waterlines contained within the roadway whenever possible. The waterline routing should be reviewed and the design adjusted. Parcel F is schematic in nature; however, the waterline will be adjusted to be within the roadway and easements. 17. The sewer lines, water lines, and storm culvert crossings were not shown together on the road profiles. The Applicant should verify that there are no Page 4 February 15, 2019 conflicts with bury depth and separation between utilities. Road profiles will be revised to include all crossings. 18. A proposed sewer line goes beneath the edge of a proposed detention pond. The Applicant should revise the design to avoid this conflict. The proposed sewer line will be revised to avoid the pond. SGM, Inc. — Brandyn Bair, PE, District Engineer In section 1.1 Supplemental Submittal 12.14.18, regarding the Subdivision Improvements Agreement: a. General comment - District Engineer to review allocated security amounts Acknowledged. b. Section 3.e., Partial Release of Security - requests for partial release of security. Acknowledged. c. Section 3.h., Final Release of Security required for release of security. Acknowledged. 2. In section 1.2 Supplemental Submittal 12.28.18, regarding the followup comments item #3, "An updated Title Commitment for the Roaring Fork School District parcel. a. It should be noted that the District still hasn't received utility easements for the referenced School District parcel. Utility Easements have been included with the submittal on amended plat through School District. 3. In section 4.0 PUD -PP Exhibits, regarding the Impact Analysis/Utility Report, more specifically the wastewater system and water distribution. a. Prior to construction, applicant must obtain approval by the District of all required Line Extension Agreements or Line Connection Agreements as required by the District's Rules and Regulations. Applicant will also be required to pay the appropriate Tap Fees and Cost Recovery Agreements. Line Extension Agreement is currently in process through the District's Attorney. 4. In section 5.0 PUD -PP Plan Set, general comments are as follows a. Sheet C0-01 i. Notes regarding separation of water and sewer mains are not fully consistent with District's Rules and Regulations. Encasements (concrete or carrier pipe) may be required where horizontal OR vertical separations are not met. Notes will be revised to be in correspondence with District's Rules and Regulations; see Sheets C7-03 & C7-04 for typical District details. ii. Additional note needed, stating District testing and acceptance requirements. Note will be added. iii. Additional note needed, stating precedence of District's Rules and Regulations over plans and other project documents. Note will be added. District Engineer shall review - District Engineer approval Page 5 February 15, 2019 iv. General notes do not suggest compliance with CO SB18-167, which requires Quality Level B locates for below grade work. Who is assuming the risk for not complying with CO SB 18-167? A note will be added that indicates 'all proposed utilities shall have tracer wire to allow locating of all underground pipe lines'. HCE is utilizing Sopris Engineering As -Built files for all existing utilities; CO SB18-167 does not take effect until January 1, 2020. Also, a note will be added stating that `prior to construction, location of utilities within the construction area acceptable to the engineer will be required'. b. Sheet Amended Plat of Eastbank, LLC Lots 2&3 i. Need additional plat notes defining utility easements and access easements and conveying those to District for perpetual use in constructing, operating, and maintaining all utilities. Conveyance information is noted via reception number for district conveyed easements. Easement for as -built District utilities will be provided at the time the utilities are installed via amended plat. c. Sheet Flying M Ranch P.U.D. Plan Map lof 2 i. Need additional plat notes defining utility easements and access easements and conveying those to District for perpetual use in constructing, operating, and maintaining all utilities. Acknowledged. d. Sheet Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plat 3 of 3 i. Lift Station easement was previously promised to the District as an "exclusive" easement. A new non-exclusive easement will be added behind the lift station to provide pedestrian access for the 10' trail. e. Sheet C1-01 i. Show prospective utility easement boundaries (in accordance with District dimensional requirements) for all proposed new utilities Acknowledged. ii. District Rules and Regulations require water and sewer mains to be extended to property boundaries. It appears that this is not the case for Parcel F. This also shows up on sheet C1-05. This shall be noted as future connection at time of development of Parcel F. Proposed sewer main will be extended to the property boundary. iii. Profile drawings for all new water main required. Profile drawings were only provided for sewer. Acknowledged. f. Sheet C 1-02 i. No details provided for proposed ponds located near existing lift station. Given the close proximity to the existing lift station, the District would like to review Pond details will be provided at final plat. See attached pond detail. g. Sheet C1-03 i. Proposed sewer line crosses pond between Lot C3 and Parcel D, this is not acceptable. Page 6 February 15, 2019 This crossing will be adjusted to be outside of pond. h. Sheet C4-01 i. Energy dissipating manhole may be required for proposed manhole SMH- 12. Acknowledged. i. Sheet C4-02 i. Energy dissipating manhole may be required for proposed manhole SMH- 11. Acknowledged. CDOT — Dan Roussin, Permit Unit Manager 1. The study states in the conclusion that no permit is needed. However, CDOT believes an access permit is needed because the traffic study showed the queue results in Table 4 CR 154 should be widen for three northbound lanes for at least 400 -ft. This would provide sufficient storage for the left-turn/thru/ traffic such that right -turns would not be "stuck" in the left-turn/thru queue storage area. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, PE, FHU) When we received the existing signal timings for SH 82/CR 154 intersection, CDOT staff informed us that signal timings were not to be changed even for long-term conditions or CDOT would not accept the analysis. While we understand the sensitivity towards keeping delay along SH 82 to a minimum, this policy is extremely conservative and all but eliminates the possibility of any development in the area without requiring significant intersection improvements, despite satisfactory operational conditions that can be achieved with existing geometry. A reexamination of signal timings during the AM peak hour, which is the worst case scenario for northbound queuing on CR 154, indicate that queues can be reduced significantly without major impacts to mainline movements. A test analysis moving 10 seconds of split time from eastbound/westbound movements to northbound/southbound movements results in an increase of delay on SH 82 of less than 1.5 seconds, remaining in the LOS B range for those movements, while reducing overall intersection delay by a half second and reducing northbound left turn queues by 100 feet or more. It is our opinion that an adjustment of signal timings using existing geometry should be explored prior to constructing longer turn bays, considering LOS results along SH 82 would remain in the B range, given that preliminary analysis indicates that satisfactory results could likely be met. It should also be noted that the prior Roaring Fork School traffic study also indicated issues relating to queue spillback for the northbound approach, yet no remediation measures have been taken despite more intense peaks in traffic volumes associated with school traffic, as compared to a primarily residential development such as Flying M Ranch. My notes indicate that Dan Roussin confirmed by phone on 10/2/2018 that he would not require an update to the access permit for CR 154 onto SH 82 adjacent to the site, despite our study indicating an increase of traffic at the intersection slightly over the 20 percent threshold listed in the state highway access code of the existing permit. At that time, Mr. Roussin did indicate that he would like for our study to acknowledge that discussions with RFTA have indicated that Page 7 February 15, 2019 sometime in the future, grade separation would be required for the Rio Grande Trail. Our study acknowledges the potential long-term need for grade separation and provides analysis that indicate that 95th percentile queues will not interfere with the current trail location, even with the assumption that signal timings remain unchanged. If CDOT is now requiring the access permit, we can assist in its preparation. The Flying M Ranch property does not border the Orrison property. Our study recognizes the planned closure of the driveway on SH 82 and routing traffic along the school's property line and onto CR 154 via the driveway for the FedEx facility, consistent with the prior Roaring Fork School traffic study. 2. It is also recommended that this property provide connectivity for the properties to the north as shown in the 2012 ACP. I have attached the SH 82 ACP plan. It shows there should be connection for the properties to the west to CR 154 (Old SH 82). I believe this connectivity is an important part of the planning roadway network for this area. This project includes Lots 2 & 3 of Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision. These lots do not have connectivity to the northern properties. It is our understanding that future development with the school district would include provided access to the northern properties, including Orrisson. This future development would likely include a connection to Hwy 82. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Travis Morse, Senior Project Manager 1. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the project area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. It is unclear from the proposal, but if any project features impact aquatic resources, then a Department of the Army authorization may be required by federal law prior to starting work. None of the project features impacts aquatic resources. 2. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation, in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations" and "Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program" under "Jurisdiction" on our website and submit it to this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare wetland delineations and permit application documents is also available on our website at the same location. HCE spoke with Travis Morse over the phone and reviewed the site on Google Earth. Per the discussion, it appeared that the site wetland delineation would not be necessary. A delineation will be conducted in the spring with Mr. Morse for the primitive path that leads down to the river. Page 8 February 15, 2019 3. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Acknowledged. Garfield County Road & Bridge — Harry Shiles, Foreman 1. If approved we would need a driveway permit for the south entrance and would recommend it be gated and used only for emergency access. All other requirements would be addressed within permit. HCE spoke with Mr. Shiles over the phone and reviewed the south entrance access. Per the discussion, the emergency access road connection is required to be gated. Since it will be gated and there will not be any other access, the emergency access alignment will be shifted back towards Flying M Ranch Road to avoid excess fill required. Also, the access will be gravel from the intersection with Lower Access Rd to CR 154 and will meet the standards of the Fire department for grade width and turning radius. Mr. Shiles acknowledged HCE's response via an email to Patrick Waller. Colorado Parks and Wildlife — Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager 1. Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards. Acknowledged. 2. Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It is recommended that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured. Acknowledged. 3. Work with CPW on trail design near the river and work to actively enhance riparian vegetation. Acknowledged. Colorado Geological Survey — Kevin McCoy, Engineering Geologist 1. As described in the H-P/Kumar report, the property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite. Numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified in similar geologic materials within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, Page 9 February 15, 2019 and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. See attached letter from HP -Kumar. 2. If conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are encountered during construction, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation should be evaluated. The applicant and tenants should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important factors in reducing the cost of building repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction. It would also be prudent to check for voids in the bedrock beneath proposed detention ponds and at proposed dry well locations to reduce the hazard of sinkholes triggered by surface water management activities. Acknowledged. 3. H-P/Kumar identified an area of uncontrolled/non-engineered fill associated with an old gravel pit. As discussed by H-P/Kumar, uncontrolled fill should be removed and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill prior to construction. Acknowledged. 4. Grading Note 1 on the PUD Plan Set (High Country Engineering, Rev. 11/1/18) does not reference the most up-to-date H-P/Kumar report (4/10/18). Additionally, the drawings and note sheets have various dates. The notes should be reviewed to ensure they are up-to-date and/or updated as appropriate. Notes will be revised to reference most up-to-date geotechnical report. Garfield County Vegetation Management — Steve Anthony, GarCo Vegetation Manager 1. Russian -olive management is not specifically mentioned and they are of concern. The Vegetation Management Department is requesting that the applicant provide a management plan that will provide for the removal and stump treatment of Russian -olives located on the property by Dec. 31, 2019. We also request that application records be submitted to Community Development by the aforementioned deadline. Attached is a PDF of Colorado Parks and Wildlife best management practices for controlling Russian Olive. This guide will be utilized to control any Russian Olive that might be within the PUD. 2. Staff had asked the applicant during the sketch plan process last year, and recently over the phone, to quantify the surface area of disturbance that would need to be reseeded. These areas would be outside of building envelopes and landscape situations and would be road shoulders (not the actual road), utility easements, and common areas (that aren't landscaped). This information would determine if a revegetation security is necessary. The minimum area threshold of surface area disturbance is 1 acre. The area of disturbance that would need to be reseeded is roughly 1.2 Acres. RFTA 1. Letter including referral comments received from RFTA dated 1-25-19. Page 10 February 15, 2019 The Applicant recognizes that RFTA is a stakeholder in the Safe Routes to Riverview School Project grant application submitted by Garfield County in cooperation with the RFSD and RFTA. The RFSD is also preparing a Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District (FMLD) grant application to advance this important project and to keep the children of South Glenwood Springs safe on their way to school. The Applicant will work with Garfield County, the RFSD, and RFTA to determine the best way to support these Safe Routes to Riverview School efforts. Glenwood Springs Fire Department 1. Possible requirement of an automatic fire sprinkler system within the occupancies depending on size, occupancy access and fire water flow. Acknowledged. 2. I expressed the need for an additional fire hydrant to be placed along the Lower Access Road, roughly in front of Unit 14. Fire hydrant will be added. 3. We also discussed the lateral setback distance between the housing units. A specific measurement was not given, but estimated to be between 8 and 10 feet. If the aggregate distance between residential units is less than 10 feet, code compliance objectives should include fire resistive construction including consideration for openings. Acknowledged. Westbank Ranch HOA — Ryan M. Jarvis, Attorney Letter including referral comments received from Westbank Ranch HOA dated 2-5-19. 1. The proposed development is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The PUD is compatible with adjacent land uses, which include a Fed Ex facility, a business park, and a residential parcel. All of the uses contemplated by the PUD would be allowed within the Rural zone district by permit. Westbank, in particular, is separated from the development by a significant greenbelt buffer, which includes the Roaring Fork River and a golf course. Unlike Westbank, the Flying M Ranch is located in a transitional area within the City of Glenwood Springs' Urban Growth Boundary, which encourages "urban -level" development via a PUD, including diverse housing stock and economic development. 2. There are substantial problems with Applicant's traffic analysis. a. The Flying M Traffic Report does not analyze the true potential traffic impact of the proposed development. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, PE, FHU) Trip generation numbers are based upon the development plan provided to FHU. It is correct that certain land uses allowed by the PUD have higher trip generating potential. It is our understanding that the developer intends to use a mix of the allowable uses and has agreed to cap total development such that total trip generation would not exceed 1,967 daily trips, consistent with the traffic study. The study was attempting to analyze a realistic land use scenario, not a maximum one. Regarding the 10 KSF existing use in Zone 1, no information is available to suggest an alternate use at this time so it was analyzed under the assumption that no Page 11 February 15, 2019 land use change is planned. If it changes in the future, the applicant would be required to assess the redevelopment's impact. The traffic study reflects a reasonable overall land use scenario. b. Serious concerns with Flying M Traffic Report arise upon comparison with the traffic assessment for the Riverview School. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, Ph, FHU) The Flying M traffic study reflects a refinement/improvement of traffic projections shown in the older study based on more recent data. Existing volumes along SH 82 and CR 154 are less than previous counts, which has manifested through the study's traffic projections. Additionally, the growth rate used to develop long-term projections in the older traffic study was 1.5 percent annually; new data from CDOT indicates that a lesser reduction to 1.36 percent is appropriate, also contributing to the traffic number differences between the reports. Further, the traffic counts collected in support of Flying M Ranch were conducted after the school had opened; there was no longer a need to estimate the school's traffic impact as we were able to directly measure it from the counts. Changes in turning movements should be expected as result. While right turn movements decreased, the left turns have actually increased for the northbound approach at the intersection of SH 82/CR 154 when comparing current conditions with short term projections of the school. Granted, the school was not full at the time the traffic counts were completed. Additional school traffic should probably be added to the projections. It should be noted that some of the school's available student capacity would be consumed by the families living in the Flying M development; as such, not all of the remaining student capacity of the school would directly translate into trips at the SH 82/CR 154 intersection. The potential increase in total projected peak hour traffic along CR 154 would be a maximum of 5 to 6 percent or 0.5 to 1.5 percent at the SH 82/CR 154 intersection by adding in this additional school traffic component; this is not enough to alter recommendations. Also, a comparison of the two studies was provided with the conclusion that there will be less traffic with the Flying M project. The Flying M traffic impacts study reflects an update and refinement of the older school study. Flying M will clearly add traffic compared to existing conditions; the instances where there are now lower numbers as compared to the previous study (and there are also a lot of instances where the numbers have increased) are due to a combination of the lower traffic counts and the older study overestimating school traffic impact for certain movements. Traffic impact studies are generally conservative in their estimates and are representative of national trends which can vary from location to location. c. A new state highway access permit should be required. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, PE, FHU) FHU will prepare a state highway access permit. d. The current road infrastructure does not support the proposed development. i. Based on existing background traffic conditions, by 2020 the northbound approach to CR 154 will operate at a level of service Page 12 February 15, 2019 ("LOS") D. According to the Applicant's traffic engineers, in urbanized areas, LOS D is typically considered to be acceptable during peak hour operations. The intersection is obviously not an urbanized area, and reports from Westbank Ranch owners are that during peak hours the intersection is overloaded and backs up hundreds of feet. Regardless, without the proposed development, by 2040 during AM peak hours that intersection is projected to devolve to a LOS E. That will be a failed intersection, and it will not be able to support the proposed development. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, PE, FHU) LOS concerns do arise for the northbound approach at the intersection of SH 82/CR 154; however, even in rural settings, overall operations of LOS C or better, are viewed as acceptable, as long as there are no LOS F movements, which is the case in this scenario. SH 82 approaches remain at an LOS of A (< 10 seconds) during all time periods and overall intersection operations remain at LOS C or better. These results are based on a conservative assumption in which the signal timing would not ever be adjusted (guidance provided by CDOT in conducting the study). In reality, the timings will be adjusted and optimized over time as traffic conditions naturally change. This adjustment will be favorable to the results shown in the report and LOS's may be better. ii. The queuing on CR 154 at the intersection with SH 82 is a real and growing problem. Page 17 of the Flying M Traffic Report indicates that, "The predicted maximum queue lengths [for left turns] would exceed the currently available lane storage along CR 154 approaching SH 82, creating blockages on the turn lanes." Furthermore, queuing will block the intersection of CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail. That is already a dangerous trail crossing, and Westbank Ranch owners already report frequent queuing that blocks the trail crossing. The Flying M Traffic Report recognizes that trail crossing will be vulnerable to blockage and even recognizes that CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail will need to be grade separated in the future. Furthermore, the referral comments provided by RFTA identify Rio Grande Trail/CR 154 safety mitigation measures that have already been discussed amongst regional stakeholders based on existing traffic volumes. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, PE, FHU) Again, signal timing adjustments, as referenced above, to the intersection of SH 82/CR 154 would reduce the queuing that would occasionally create spill back, compared to static signal timings over the next 20 years. Recognition of the eventual need for grade separation has been made in the study, but even without changing signal timings, the back of a 95th percentile queue is not projected to be any closer than 150 -feet of the trail crossing considering traffic from Flying M Ranch. iii. The lack of the appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes that are already needed at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82 Page 13 February 15, 2019 under current conditions further indicate that the intersection cannot support the increased traffic from the proposed development. An acceleration lane is necessary at the northbound CR 154 to eastbound SH 82. Also, the length of the westbound deceleration lane on SH 82 is already too short. (Response provided by Phillip Dunham, PE, FHU) The acceleration lane from CR 154 right turn movements onto SH 82 cannot reasonably be provided, due to physical constraints of the grade at this location. The exact same recommendation was made in the school study as the Flying M Ranch study to restrict right -turn -on -red for the movement, thereby eliminating the need for an acceleration lane. The westbound left turn lane deceleration lane along SH 82 is not deficient at 750 feet long, but the lead-in taper length is shorter than desired, which is not a function of traffic volume as much as it a function of traffic speed along SH 82. 3. The proposed Flying M Ranch Road dead end creates an unsafe condition. An emergency access connection to the school access has been provided. 4. The proposed development needs to have sidewalks. A trail has been provided. See response for item #7 on Mountain Cross comments. 5. Applicants should clarify its intention regarding rental vs. sale of the proposed residential units. Please see the Application for additional information on this component. Applicant can provide additional clarification upon a request from the Commissioners. 6. Applicant should clarify its proposal for 140 GPD/EQR. See attached RFWSD/SGM letter. 7. Applicant should conduct additional investigation into possible impacts on the Roaring Fork River. HCE has discussed and reviewed river quality issues with Mountain Cross Engineering. 8. The "accessory uses" permitted in Zone District 1 are vague and should be defined more specifically. See attached revised waiver. 9. To the extent a kennel is permitted in Zone District 1, it must have noise mitigation. Applicant will agree to provide noise mitigation to the extent a kennel is permitted within District 1. 10. The parking standards in Zone District 1 provide for inadequate parking. Parking is adequate in District 1. 11. Affordable housing mitigation should be required. Applicant will comply with the Garfield County Code, which does not require mitigation at this stage of the PUD development, though it may be required in future phases. Feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Page 14 February 15, 2019 Sincerely, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. �rf fit- V-.. License No. 29975 Roger D. Neal, P.E. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Colorado SSGM www.sgm-inc.com February 14, 2019 Roger Neal High Country Engineering 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Flying M Subdivision and PUD RFWSD Comment Responses Dear Roger: Please note the following in response to the comments from Mountain Cross Engineering dated 1/25/19 on the Flying M PUD preliminary plan. 3. Garfield County standards have 350 gallons per day as the average minimum for a single-family residence. This is common demand value that the State of Colorado also uses. The Applicant has 140 GPD/EQR. This is less than half of number typically used. This amount should be verified by the Engineer and the RFWSD. The agreement with the RFWSD allows for 228 EQRs and the density that is proposed in based on a demand that is less than half of what is typically used. The 140 gallons/EQR was developed in September of 2016 based on current flow data. In September of 2017 the RFWSD submitted a site application to CDPHE regarding the wastewater treatment facility expansion with a value of 151 gallons/EQR. The likely increase in in flow per EQR was due to the expansion of the service area which included the new RE -1 school, and surrounding properties. Wastewater flows are typically 80% of the domestic day usage, therefore the Flying M PUD should use a value of approximately 181 gallons/EQR. 4. Peak day demand is typically double that of the average day. Peak flow is typically double the peak day demand flowrate or 4 times the average day. These peaking factors should be verified by the engineer and the RFWSD. The max day peaking factor of 2.0 times the average day and the peak flow peaking factor of 2.5 times the average day used in the PUD application are acceptable to the RFWSD. I.\1996\96059\A-135 Flying M Ranch PUD\Corresp \20190214-Itr to HighCountry.doc GLENWOOD SPRINGS 1 1 8 West Sixth St, Suite 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004 SSGM www.sgm-inc.com Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information or clarification to the above. Respectfully submitted, SGML.^ Brandyn Bair, PE District Engineer cc. Tonya Uren, RFWSD District Administrator I:\1996\96059\A-135 Flying M Ranch PUD\Corresp\20190214-Itr to HighCountry.doc Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM . 1 r <.... f,. 5 raw,....,. • Administrative Review - Development in 100 -Year Floodplain • Limited Impact Review • Development in 100 -Year Floodplain Variance • Major Impact Review • Code Text Amendment • Amendments to an Approved LUCP ❑ LIR ❑MIR ❑ SUP • Rezoning ❑ Zone District ❑ PUD ❑ PUD Amendment • Minor Temporary Housing Facility • Administrative Interpretation • Vacation of a County Road/Public ROW • Appeal of Administrative Interpretation • Location and Extent Review • Areas and Activities of State Interest • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Accommodation Pursuant to Fair Housing Act • Pipeline Development • Variance • Time Extension (also check type of original application) INVOLVED PARTIES Owner/Applicant Name: Eastbank, LLC Phone: ( 970 ) 925-9046 Mailing Address: 710 East Durant Avenue, W-6 City: Aspen E-mail: aellis@dunrene.com State: GO Zip Code: 81611 Representative (Authorization Required) Name: Chad J. Lee, Esq. Phone: ( 970 Mailing address: Balcomb & Green, P.C., 818 Colorado Avenue ) 945-6546 City: Glenwood Springs State: CO Zip Code: 81601 E-mail: clee@balcombgreen.com PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: Flying M Ranch PUD Assessor's Parcel Number: 2185 - 353/354 - 15 - 003/002 Physical/Street Address: Approximately 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs Legal Description: Lots 2 & 3, Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision, according to the Plat therof recorded September 8, 2015 at Reception No. 867716 Zone District: Rural Property Size (acres): Lot 2-16.983nciLot3-16.944 Ac PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Commercial & Agricultural. Special Use Permit. Proposed Use (From Use Table 3-403): See Flying M Ranch PUD & Preliminary Plan Applications Description of Project: See Flying M Ranch PUD & Preliminary Plan Applications REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements 0 The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: Waiver of Standards 17 The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: 7-107 Section: 7-404 Section: 7-402 (D) Section: I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Property Owner Date OFFICIAL USE ONLY File Number: _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ Fee Paid: $ EXISTING BANK r -PLACED RIVER ROCK CONCRETE WEIR CREST 36" BELOW GRADE NLET COVERED W/ MIRAFI 140-N FILTER FABRIC SOCK HEAT TAPE INLET AND RISER LENGTH VARIES WATER TIGHT CAP ON CLEAN OUT SOLID 4" CLEAN OUT, 90' SWEEP OR (2) 45" BENDS SOLID 4" PVC OVERFLOW PIPE FROM BIO -RETENTION POND TO PERFORATED LATERAL AT RIVER BANK PERFORATED 4" PVC PIPE COVERED BY 2' WIDE OF RIVER ROCK GRAVEL LAYER AASHTO #3 COARSE AGGREGATE MIRAFI NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT HEAT TAPED CONTECH A-2000 4" PERFORATED PIPE (OR EQUAL) WRAPPED WITH MIRIFI 140-N FILTER FABRIC SOCK. WIDTH VARIES 12" EDGING AROUND PERIMETER GRAVEL LAYER AASHTO #3 COARSE AGGREGATE MIRAFI NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT HEAT TAPED CONTECH A-2000 PERFORATED PIPE (OR EQUAL) WRAPPED WITH MIRIFI 140-N FILTER FABRIC SOCK. BIO -RETENTION BASIN WITHOUT DRYWELL TYPICAL CROSS SECTION N.T.S. HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PHONE (970) 945-8676 FAX (970) 945-2555 WWW.HCENG.COM EASTBANK, LLC. GARFIELD COUNTY, CO FLYING M RANCH PUD BIO -RETENTION POND DETAIL DRAWN BY: LL SCALE: N.T.S CHECKED BY: RDN PROJECT NO: 2151007 00 DATE: 2-11-19 PAGE: 1 FILE. J:\SDSKPROJ\215\ 1007\DWG \ EXHIBIT \POND DETAIL CH REVISED UPPER ACCESS RD EXHIBIT L_ U I r1 PROVIDE G 30' FRO EDGE OF C 54 PER ROAD & :'IDGE BEGIN EIstRGENCY ACCESS GRAVEL ROAD FROM LOWER CR 154 PV1 STA: 7+05.00 PVI ELEV: 5895.55 K: 20.33 PVI STA 10+55.00 PVI ELEV: 5906.12 K: 11.14 PVI STA: 13+63.73 PVI ELEV: 5943.17 K. 10.00 o h m S LOW PT. STA 6+93.60 0 " LOW PT ELEV: 5896.13 UPPER ACcrSS 8 o RD PROFILE �� Lv � �VVVu o ,� n "" lvt;. 1uu.w '1 =" ,_ II 5946 {� V ur Si .., '5944 OM r r I 5940 5936 5932 5928 5924 5920 ` lc.' 1inw-- 1 �- I 5916 5912 5908 5904 5900 -..a11111 ■ I 1 A }^ +ppf i 1 1 1 . 5896 5892 5888 5884 5880 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10-1-50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 Colorado State Parks Date Created: April 25, 2003 Revised: April 1, 2005 Author: Various Paries Affected: Many COLORADO STATE PARKS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WEED PROFILE Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) Family: Elaeagnaceae (Oleaster) USDA code: ELAANG Legal status: Colorado Noxious list A Common names: Oleaster, narrow -leaved oleaster Bark: Bark is thin and peels off in long strips Roots: Russian olives have deep taproots and well-developed lateral root systems Similar species: Buffaloberry (Sheperdia argentea and S. canadensis). Buffaloberry is a native species. Impacts Russian olive can outcompete native vegetation, interfere with Weed Profile: Russian olive Identification Growth form: Deciduous introduced, shrub or small tree that grows up to 30 feet tall. The crown is usually dense and rounded. Branches: Twigs are flexible and coated with a gray, scaly pubescence and often have a short thorn at the end. Leaves: Leaves are about 2-4 inches long and are covered with scalelike stellate pubescence 1 natural plant succession and nutrient cycling, and tax water reserves. It rapidly colonizes lowland field and often dries up irrigation ditches. Russian olive is capable of fixing nitrogen in its roots and can therefore grow on bare mineral substrates and dominate riparian vegetation. Although the trees provide an edible source of edible fruits for birds, ecologists have found that bird species richness is higher in riparian areas dominated by native species. The fruits eaten by birds disseminate seeds of this species to areas not yet invaded by Russian olive. Russian -olive can displace some native woody species. In some areas, it is projected to displace native plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides var. occidentalis) as a climax species. The plant community will no longer provide essential habitat components for cavity -nesting birds. Habitat and distribution Russian -olive is a native of southern Europe and western Asia and was introduced as an ornamental and a specimen for windrow plantings. It was introduced into the United States in the early 1900's. By the mid -1900's it had escaped cultivation and is now extensively naturalized in 17 western states bordered on the east by the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas and extending west to the Pacific Coast. It is tolerant of elevated soil salinity and can thrive in a wide range of soil textures from sand to heavy clay, and can withstand flooding and silting. There are dense, healthy stands in riverbottoms where the water table is seldom more than 2 feet below the surface, but can also survive considerable drought. It is also shade tolerant and can withstand competition from other shrubs and trees. Biologv/Ecology Sexual Reproduction: At three years of age, the trees begin to flower and fruit. Highly aromatic, creamy yellow flowers appear in June and July and are later replaced by clusters of abundant silvery fruits. Seeds are eaten by birds and small mammals and dispersed in their droppings. The seeds can remain viable for up to 3 years and can germinating over a broad range of soil types. Spring moisture and slightly alkaline soil tend to favor seedling growth. Vegetative reproduction: Russian olives are able to sprout from the root crown and send up root suckers. Russian -olive is considered as a pioneer species of disturbed floodplains and streambanks. Since it is relatively shade tolerant, it can persist throughout seral stages and become the climax dominant Control Control of this species is extremely difficult and eradication is close to impossible. However, control has shown to be most effective when Russian olives are young. Chemical: Cutting or mowing hedges with a brush mower, immediately followed by brushing stumps with triclopyr (Garton 4) has been shown to be an effective method for control of this invader. The girdling method has also been shown to be an effective method for Russian olive control. This involves making shallow, overlapping cuts into the bark around the trunk base using a hatchet or chainsaw, and then lightly spraying Weed Profile: Russian olive 2 the entire cut surface with herbicide. A small finger -trigger spray bottle is usually adequate for these applications, as backpack sprayers tend to get caught up in branches and makes mobility in a tight riparian area exceedingly difficult. Some applications have experienced more success in the fall when the trees are translocating reserves to their roots. Mechanical: Fire in combination with herbicide spraying of stumps can prevent Russian - olive from sprouting from the root crown. Selecting a method for control will depend on variety of factors. Budget, size of infestation to be controlled, other desirable species that may be present within the area, and herbicide and prescribed fire rules and regulations can dictate the method of control to be used. Control Strategies As a rule, removing or controlling isolated patches of invasive plants first before attacking the large contiguous areas of weeds is the best long-term strategy for noxious weed control. Once an aggressive program is in operation for these isolated patches, managers' focus can be shifted to the large patches. Efforts for dense thickets of tamarisk and Russian olive in flood prone areas should first focus on the trees that are situated high on stream terraces that are likely to survive future floods and reseed the stream floor. Flood events will hopefully have enough energy and erosive power associated with them to uproot the smaller, younger tamarisk and Russian olive. The scale of flooding necessary to uproot the young trees in the streambed varies from watershed to watershed. Weed Profile: Russian olive 3 CIVIL ENGINEERING February 11, 2019 Patrick Waller, Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 M Employee Owned Company LAND SURVEYING RE: Flying M Ranch — PUD and Preliminary Plan Application — Eastbank, LLC — Garfield County File Numbers SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Engineer's Technical Explanation of the Waiver Requests 4-118 Waiver of Standards A waiver may be approved if the Applicant demonstrates that the following criteria have been met by the proposed alternative: 1. It achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; and 2. It imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Code. Roadway Standards Table 7-107 of the Garfield County Land Use Code establishes roadway standards for roads based on design capacity in Average Daily Traffic (ADT). These waivers are to represent what road standard waivers are required for lots A1-4 to access County Road 154, the proposed Flying M Ranch road extension and Lower Access road. The main subdivision road, Flying M Ranch, intersects directly with County Road 154. It is within a 60' access and utility easement. This road provides an access way for lots A1-4 within Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD). The access way runs through a parking lot aisle 30' in width that loops around the existing Equine Center to an aisle 24' in width back to Flying M Ranch Road. This access way also continues north up to a shared ingress and egress access way easement (Reception No. 867041) located on FedEx and is between 43'-57' in width. The internal road is effectively an intersection with the FedEx road and we have added a stop sign at this location. The shared access way intersects with County Road 154 and is approximately 30' in width. The access way for lots A1-4 would fit the "rural access" classification per the Garfield County Land Use Code, according the 181 ADT provided in the FHU Traffic Impact Assessment. This ADT was based on the assumption of constructing a general office building, mini -warehouse and multifamily housing. The access way through lots A1-4 from Flying M Ranch Road to the shared ingress and egress access way on FedEx requires a design waiver in a number of categories assuming the 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SURE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.9458676 • PHONE 970.945-2555•FAX W W W.HCENG.COM rural access classification with Table 7-107. The existing access way does not have a minimum 50' ROW width or 2' wide shoulders due to the parking lot and existing structures. Ditches are not realistic throughout portions of the access way but lots A1-4 have agreed to detain their own drainage. The horizontal radius at the shared access way with FedEx is approximately 10' radius. The design standard is to allow for a minimum radius of 80'. The proposed Flying M Ranch road extension and Lower Access road also require a design waiver to reduce the shoulder width from 2' to 1.5' and 0.5' respectively. This change is required because we have replaced the shoulders and swale with curb and gutter. With the acceptance of these waivers, HCE believes the access way for lots A1-4 provides adequate access for the lots to access County Road 154 or Flying M Ranch road. Also, Flying M Ranch and Lower Access will provide adequate drainage to the storm water facilities. Sincerely, Roger Neal, P.E. Project Manager HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. Patrick Waller From: Harry Shiles Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:11 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 EXHIBIT FYI I talked with Roger, our discussion is summarized in his email below Thanks Garfield Counts' HARRY MILES foreman Road 68'idge 02981183324 l7if/e. 0081850 Phone: (870) 825-8601 Fax (970) 825-8677 Cell (970) 319-0301 From: Roger Neal [mailto:rneal@hceng.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 1:16 PM To: Harry Shiles Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Harry, It was nice talking with you. Per our discussion, the emergency access road connection is required to be gated. I discussed that since it will be gated and have no other access that we will shift the alignment back towards Flying M Ranch Road to avoid excess fill required for the access and that the access would be gravel and meet the standards of the Fire department for grade width and turning radius. Please let me know if you have any other concerns and Please let Patrick with the County know that we discussed this. 1 Thanks, Roger Neal Roger D. Neal, P.E. Principal High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-8676 Fax: 970-945-2555 From: Harry Shiles [mailto:hshiles(agarfield-county.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:18 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 Patrick If approved we would need a driveway permit for the south entrance and would recommend it be gated and used only for emergency access. All other requirements would be addressed within permit. Thank you Garfield C'uu,itT<• HARRYSHILES Foreman Road ((ridge 0298CR3334 Rifle. CO 81850 Phone.. (970) 825-880/ Fax (970) 825-8677 Cell (970) 319-030/ 2 EXHIBIT I .;rte:tecnr,rcuiane Materials �.�i-;Vers nvironmenta Scayr isis 5020 County Road 154 lenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-7988 fax (970) 945-8454 email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com An Employee Owned Company www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado 0 Associate{ February 11, 2019 Dunrene Management Attn: Robert MacGregor 710 East Durant Avenue, Suite W6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 Project No. 18-7-151 Subject: Geotechnical Review, Garfield County Referral Comments, Proposed Flying M Ranch Development, Flying M Ranch Road, Garfield County, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested by LeeTal Levran with High Country Engineering, we are providing geotechnical review comments to address the items identified by Garfield County concerning the proposed development at the subject site. We previously conducted a geotechnical engineering study for preliminary design of the proposed development at the site and presented our findings in a report dated April 10, 2018, Project No. 18-7-151. The items identified by Garfield County and provided to us in an email on February 7, 2019 for the Flying M Ranch PUD Preliminary Application consist of: 1) Recommended separation needed for proposed pond and existing lift station. 2) Approval of proposed drywell locations (as discussed in the field) with corresponding underlying soils. 3) Where the `sinkholes' were observed, is evaporate the main concern or is it more the fill that was dumped and not properly compacted? 4) Are liners needed for the proposed ponds? We are planning on having finger drains at the bottom of the pond and beneath 18" of sand. The drains will daylight near the top of the river bank and drain the pond within 24 hours. Seven detention ponds each with drywells are proposed, 2 on Parcel B, 1 on Parcel Cl, 1 on Parcel C2, and 3 on Parcel F. Each of these parcels were identified to be underlain by river gravel which can typically be used for drywell water disposal. However, the subsurface profile is variable on Parcels B, Cl and C2 which could limit the effectiveness of drywells to dispose of water such as deep alluvial soils or old fill above gravel on Parcel B (eastern part) and shallow bedrock on Parcel B (western part) and Parcel Cl (eastern part). The following information is provided to address each item listed above: 1) The separation between the existing lift station and the pond (around 20 feet) appears adequate provided the two structures are founded in the natural soils and a pond liner should not be needed. Boring 7 drilled near the proposed pond on Parcel B (western part) indicated only 7 feet of gravel above bedrock. The pond bottom will need to be within a couple feet of existing ground surface to have adequate gravel depth for drywell water percolation. At other pond/drywell locations, separation to buildings should typically be at least 10 feet. We should review the pond and building foundation soils at the time of excavation for other possible mitigation measures dependent on the exposed soil conditions. 2) Each selected drywell location has a certain depth of gravel which should be suitable for drywell percolation. The actual soil profile should be observed at the time of excavation for the drywell to confirm the preferred zone for perforations. 3) The observed sinkholes on the property coincide with poorly placed materials to backfill the old gravel pit. The underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite, due to the nature of the formation, inherently has sinkhole subsidence potential like much of the Roaring Fork River valley in this area but sinkholes related to the Evaporite were not identified on the project site. 4) Impervious pond liners should not be needed provided the finger drains discharge the water into river gravel soils without excessive erosion. We expect that some of the subsidence which has occurred in the old gravel pit backfilled area is due to piping (subsurface erosion) of fine-grained soils which will need to be prevented for the proposed finger drain construction. After leaving the pond bottom area, the finger drains should consist of solid pipe with the pipe trench backfilled with relatively impervious soils. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, Kumar & Associates, Inc. Steven L. Pawlak, P. Rev. by: DEH SLP/kac cc: High Country Engineering — LeeTal Levran (]levran(i hcena.com) High Country Engineering — Roger Neal ( aieal(Ahceng.com) Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 18-7-151 Patrick Waller From: Chad Lee <clee@balcombgreen.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:08 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: landstudio2@comcast.net Subject: Final Proposed Revised Condition re Sidewalks EXHIBIT Hi Pat. I know it's late, but wanted to forward this to you. This is our proposed compromise on the sidewalk request. 7) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update preliminary PUD documents to commit and show a sidewalk of a minimum of four feet in width for Parcels/Lots B, Ci, C2, C3, D, E, and F. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roads for Parcels/Lots B, Cl, C2, C3, D, E, and F when there is PUD development on both sides. Sidewalks shall be built at the time of Final Plat for each parcel. The sidewalks shall not be maintained by the County. No sidewalks are required along Flying M Ranch Road from the School entrance drive to CR154, the Upper Access Road from the Lower Access intersection up to CR 154, or on the PUD side of County Road 154. Regards, Chad J. Lee, Esq. 0: (970) 945-6546 1 D: (970) 928-3469 1 www.balcombgreen.com P.O. Box 790 1 818 Colorado Ave 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 •Cd BALCOMB GREEN rA1lt 1/4 1 REALES1A1E lI111Ai s : ESTI 1953 *Licensed in CO, WY, and the USPTO. This message may contain or attach confidential or privileged information. Any disclosure, use or retention of this message and/or any attachments is unauthorized. If you have received this email in error and are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read this email and inform the sender of the transmittal error. If you are a client, please do not forward this message. No privilege waiver is implied. 1 Patrick Waller From: Chad Lee <clee@balcombgreen.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:54 AM To: Patrick Waller Cc: landstudio2@comcast.net Subject: Flying M Ranch PUD - Proposed Revised Conditions Hi Pat: Below are our suggested revisions to the conditions of approval. We have no comments on the PUD conditions. For the Preliminary Plan conditions, please see below. Also, as discussed yesterday we're working on a revised condition for the sidewalks, one that might be agreeable to the School District as well, and hope to have that available for you later today. Applicant's Proposed Revised Conditions: 4)(a) Applicant's proposed river trail improvements for Phase I, including the path along the Roaring Fork River from Parcel B to halfway across Parcel D, shall be installed as part of the first Final Plat and may be secured by the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Future trail extensions, including through Parcels E and F shall occur as such parcels are final platted. Note: We cannot agree to construct a public trail on future filings for legal liability reasons, including that he HOA will not have authority to operate and maintain a trail on future filings, but also because we need to preserve certain uses of future filings and a public trail may be incompatible with those uses until final platting phase. 5) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall apply for and receive a CDOT access permit, if necessary, be granted a Notice to Proceed for any improvements that are required, if necessary, and provide a demonstration that the improvements have been accepted by CDOT. 6) Applicant Eastbank, LLC shall work in good faith with the Roaring Fork RE -i School District to attempt to obtain an easement through the Roaring Fork School District property along the emergency access road in anticipation of the development of an access road from the properties to the north, but securing such easement shall not be necessary for approval. Regards, Chad J. Lee, Esq. 0: (970) 945-65461D: (970) 928-34691 www.balcombgreen.com P.O. Box 7901 818 Colorado Ave 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 BALCOMB&GREEN CUR L 4 1 REAL ESTATE illif411011 6USINES5 ESI! 1453 *Licensed in CO, WY, and the USPTO. This message may contain or attach confidential or privileged information. Any disclosure, use or retention of this message and/or any attachments is unauthorized. If you have received this email in error and are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read this email and inform the sender of the transmittal error. If you are a client, please do not forward this message. No privilege waiver is implied. 1 2/26/2019 Study forecasts how bad Roaring Fork Valley's affordable housing shortage will be by 2027 1 Postlndependent.com r 74_ Study forecasts how bad Roaring Fork Valley's affordable housing shortage will be by 2027 Scott CondonThe Aspen Times February 11, 2019 The Roaring Fork Valley region is expected to have a deficit of about 5,700 units of housing affordable for households earning less than the median income by 2027, according to a final draft of a housing needs assessment. But the region's blue-collar workers are far from the only ones facing problems finding affordable housing, the study said. There is a "missing middle" in the affordable - housing market that looms as a major problem for the Roaring Fork Valley and Interstate 70 corridor between Eagle and Parachute, the study said. "[The] troubling trend, as seen across the country is the disappearance of housing affordable to middle income households," said the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Housing Study. There was a shortage of about 700 units in 2017 for households making between 100 to 120 percent of Area Median Income and a shortage of 1,200 units for households at 120 to 160 percent of the median income, according to the study. Those gaps are likely to intensify by 2027. EXHIBIT (https://adclick.g.doubleclick. net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjsupw8irxXegD4rxd H HvpH H Fz8ms 1 ZvGKO38E411 Wg8dGmLprT3XhXGEndYCNur08fX 1 Ub- au7HoEEO9aDaTJ IXXFkdyvJCkKV3ITHoa6dMIELKNkGnG Bf4Z9USVZDi3-Ru EBKjcsQ- HiLELGy1 xfT7IUM_2ERQk_IRhYOMQ6SEQNVGk6xcnYwJZcp8V 1 yoTYvgAaFD IKjGu I317VcB6G0_8HK0j5LHPgTgXV8MyKgcp5cFc2m WNh8HAEPXgsQeMap3DFuE4XmIZzhKzCm_egI&sai= YTHoJ3VvEbCMuUeRq rrbo2ReG W pEKq_8c-MzVXxIB UfW NOWXh4ggBryLjH9U4aFc0 W BVs3ZdQ_I6CGxjPu 11 OYP6Q I_M9OfpymC5zps6JXntoTl- cKA2n818cQy&sig=CgOArKJSzAmgzRP4J WOJEAE&urlfix=1 &adurl=http://www.swiftlocalsolutions.com/post-independent-premium-ad-slots/) The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reported the median household income in Pitkin County was $98,000 in 2017 compared to $89,500 in Eagle County and $70,400 in Garfield County. People making between 140 and 160 percent of the Area Median Income will feel the greatest pinch over the next decade, the study said. They are priced out of the free market but make too much for many subsidized -housing programs. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Housing Study was funded by the Aspen -Pitkin County Housing Authority, Garfield County and Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. It was initiated at the urging of David Myler and Bill Lamont, two midvalley residents with a long history of interest in civic issues. Economic and Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates, both with offices in Denver, performed the study. The 139 -page report will be shared with local governments after final revisions are made and a concise summary prepared, Myler said. His hope is that the information is used as part of a regional approach to the affordable -housing problem. "I think the basic thrust is there's a pretty dramatic need in all categories of affordable housing," Myler said. The study provides an abundance of information about population, jobs and housing changes in the valley and along the Interstate 70 corridor west to Parachute and east to Eagle between 2001 and 2017. New housing between New Castle and Parachute, as well as Dotsero to Eagle, made a big dent in the housing deficit between 2001 and 2017, the study said. But surging population and job generation are expected to exacerbate the housing shortage once again, according to the study. https://www.postindependent.com/news/local/study-forecasts-how-bad-roaring-fork-valleys-affordable-housing-shortage-will-be-by-2027/ 1/3 2/26/2019 Study forecasts how bad Roaring Fork Valley's affordable housing shortage will be by 20271 Postlndependent.com The region added 28,000 permanent residents over that time, boosting the population to about 103,000, the study said. More than 10,000 jobs were added over that 16 -year period, though current employment still hasn't bounced back to pre -recession levels. There are about 50,000 jobs in the region now. There were 55,000 in the third quarter of 2008, the study said. The population and job growth were somewhat offset by construction of 11,900 residential units between 2001-17. More than 60 percent of the construction activity occurred in the New Castle -to -Parachute and Eagle -to -Gypsum areas, according to the study. "The region's workers have struggled for decades with the price of housing in the Roaring Fork Valley," the study said. "That's the main reason why the region has become so large — i.e. the down valley commute has extended farther and farther away in search of more affordable prices." The report showed that Aspen and Snowmass Village continue to generate jobs at a greater rate than affordable housing. The upper valley had a demand for 2,500 affordable -housing units that was not met in 2001, the study said. That grew to about 3,000 units by 2017. In 2027, the unmet demand for affordable housing will grow to between 3,000 and 3,400, the study said. Aspen and Snowmass Village import an average of 7,500 workers per day. That requires commuters from other towns. The consultant surveyed households throughout the region to find out commuting patterns, among other things. "Survey results show that in communities between Snowmass and El Jebel, between 62 percent and 97 percent of respondents have one or more household member working in Aspen," the study said. "Among Carbondale residents the figure drops to 49 percent, and it then falls off even more sharply among Glenwood Springs (16 percent) and Rifle (8 percent) residents. Nonetheless, a still significant 18 to 20 percent of New Castle and Silt households report one or more persons working in Aspen." Glenwood Springs imports about 2,400 workers per day. The other locations within the region provide more workers than they require within, according to the study. The challenge for easing the affordable -housing shortage is daunting, as illustrated by the study. The affordability gap — the difference between what an average family can afford and the median price of housing — will continue to widen, the study predicted. The gap currently ranges from $116,000 in the Eagle to Gypsum area to $290,000 in Carbondale to $1.4 million in Aspen and Snowmass Village. That's why middle-class families are finding it increasingly difficult to gain a toehold in the valley. scondon@aspentimes.com (maitto:scondon@aspentimes.com) GROWING GAP I he affordable housing shortage in the Roaring Fork Valley region is expected to get worse in coming years unless something unexpected occurs, according to a new housing needs assessment that looked at conditions in 2001, 2017 and anticipated conditions in 2027. There is expected to be a deficit of 5,700 units by 2027 for households making less than the Area Median Income. The current deficit is 700 units for households making 100 to 120 percent of AMI. That is expected to get worse. The current deficit is 1,200 units for households at 120 to 160 of AMI. That is expected to get worse. https://www.postindependent.com/news/local/study-forecasts-how-bad-roaring-fork-valleys-affordable-housing-shortage-will-be-by-2027/ 2/3