Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.05 Exhibit 109BOCC Hearing -- Exhibits Flying M Ranch — PUD & Preliminary Plan Review Applicant is Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork Re -1 School District April 8, 2019 (File SPPA-08-18-8675, PUD 08-18-8676) Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Public Notice Information Form & Proof of Notice 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 4 Application 5 Staff Memo — Continuation Request 6 Staff Report 7 Referral Comments — Garfield County Road and Bridge, Received January 10, 2019 8 Referral Comments — Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Received January 4, 2019 9 Referral Comments — Dan Cokley — SGM, Received January 22, 2019 10 Referral Comments — Xcel Energy, Received January 21, 2019 11 Referral Comments — Garfield County Vegetation Management, Received January 21, 2019 12 Referral Comments — Colorado Geological Survey, Received January 23, 2019 13 Referral Comments — City of Glenwood Springs, Received January 25, 2019 14 Referral Comments — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Received January 25, 2019 15 Referral Comments — Chris Hale — Mountain Cross Engineering, Received January 25, 2019 Referral Comments — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 16 17 Additional Referral Comments — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 18 Referral Comments — Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Received January 25, 2019 19 Referral Comments — Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Received January 28, 2019 and February 1, 2019 20 Referral Comments - Garfield County Environmental Health, Received February 1, 2019 21 Referral Comments - Colorado Department of Transportation, Received February 8, 2019 22 Public Comment - Kathy Whiting, Received February 5, 2019 23 Public Comment - Rochelle Smith, Received February 5, 2019 24 Public Comment - Melissa Heiser, Received February 5, 2019 25 Public Comment - Sandra Joyner, Received February 5, 2019 26 Public Comment - David Joyner, Received February 5, 2019 27 Public Comment - Nancy Heiser, Received February 5, 2019 28 Public Comment - Thomas Strazza, Received February 5, 2019 29 Public Comment - Rosella Leety, Received February 5, 2019 30 Public Comment - Trish and Gerry Hittinger, Received February 5, 2019 31 Public Comment - Felicity Smith, Received February 5, 2019 32 Public Comment - John Swanson, Received February 5, 2019 33 Public Comment - David Leety, Received February 5, 2019 34 Public Comment - Craig Duncan, Received February 5, 2019 35 Public Comment - Robert and Dana Brownlee, Received February 5, 2019 36 Public Comment - Jim English, Received February 5, 2019 37 Public Comment - Jennifer Flentge, Received February 5, 2019 38 Public Comment - Linda English, Received February 5, 2019 39 Public Comment - Douglas Flentge, Received February 5, 2019 40 Public Comment - Becky Gremillion, Received February 5, 2019 41 Public Comment - Darrin Smith, Received February 5, 2019 42 Public Comment - John Haines, Received February 5, 2019 43 Public Comment - Scott VanDeursen, Received February 5, 2019 44 Public Comment - Susan Horning, Received February 5, 2019 45 Public Comment - Steven Close, Received February 5, 2019 46 Public Comment - Peter Tibbetts, Received February 5, 2019 47 Public Comment - Anne Northway, Received February 5, 2019 48 Public Comment - Greg Rosenmerkel, Received February 5, 2019 49 Public Comment - Jeff Wisch, Received February 5, 2019 50 Public Comment - Michael Sos, Received February 5, 2019 51 Public Comment - John Rueter, Received February 5, 2019 52 Public Comment - Roger and Penelop Smith, Received February 5, 2019 53 Public Comment - Mary Moscon and Milton Cass, Received February 5, 2019 54 Public Comment - John Hageland, Received February 5, 2019 55 Public Comment - Jay Jahani, Received February 5, 2019 56 Public Comment - Jackie Woods, Received February 5, 2019 57 Public Comment - Martin Dorit Rowe, Received February 5, 2019 58 Public Comment - Gerard Hitinger, Received February 5, 2019 59 Public Comment - Schuyler Van Gordon, Received February 5, 2019 60 Public Comment - Chandra Allred, Received February 5, 2019 61 Public Comment - Terry Hageland, Received February 5, 2019 Public Comment - Jeff Horning, Received February 5, 2019 62 63 Public Comment - Richard and Nancy Bishop, Received February 5, 2019 64 Public Comment - Brook and Marilyn Robison, Received February 5, 2019 65 Public Comment - Mark and Nancy Becker, Received February 5, 2019 66 Public Comment - Mallory Harling, Received February 5, 2019 67 Public Comment - Karen Owens, Received February 5, 2019 68 Public Comment - Ryan Jarvis, Received February 5, 2019 69 Applicant Response to Referral Comments - Received February 15, 2019 70 Road and Bridge Follow-up Comment - February 12, 2019 71 Geotech Review - Response to Referral Comments, Provided by Applicant - Received February 22, 2019 72 Applicant Response to Conditions of Approval, Received February 27, 2019 73 Applicant Presentation 74 Aspen Times & Post Independent Article, February 11, 2019 75 Public Comment - Gregory Rosenmerkel, Received March 18, 2019 76 Public Comment - Melissa Heiser, Received March 18, 2019 77 Public Comment - Nancy Heiser, Received March 18, 2019 78 Referral Comment - Roaring Fork Conservancy, Received March 20, 2019 79 Public Comments - Jim English, Received March 27, 2019 80 Public Comments - Linda English, Received March 27, 2019 81 Additional Public Comment - John Haines, Received March 27, 2019 82 Public Comment - Linda Carlson Shaw, Received March 27, 2019 83 Updated Traffic Study from Applicant 83 Public Comment - David Joyner, Received March 29, 2019 Public Comment - Gary Bryant, Received March 29, 2019 84 85 Public Comment - Mary Mascon and Milton Cass, Received March 29, 2019 86 Public Comment - Sandra Joyner, Received March 29, 2019 87 Public Comment - Darrin Smith, Received April 1, 2019 88 Updated Public Comment - Kathy Whiting, Received April 1, 2019 89 Public Comment- Becky Gremillion, Received April 1, 2019 90 Public Comment - Peter Guy, Laura Kornasiewicz representing Home Care and Hospice of the Valley, Received April 5, 2019 91 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Mailed Notice provided by the Applicant 92 Public Comment - Travis Stewart, Received April 5, 2019 93 Updated Referral Comment — Colorado Department of Transportation, Received April 5, 2019 94 Public Comment — Markey Butler, Received April 8, 2019 95 Public Comment — Exhibits from Beattie, Houpt, and Jarvis, representing Westbank HOA, Received April 8, 2019 96 Applicant Proposed Revised Conditions at April 8, 2019 Hearing 97 Letter from Applicant Regarding Phased Access Permit 98 Garfield County Designated Engineer Review of Second Traffic Study 99 Summary of Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Provided by Applicant 100 Updated Traffic Impact Analysis — Discussing Phased Access Permit 101 Public Comment — Frances Pearce, Received April 26, 2019 102 Public Comment — John Loomis, Received April 26, 2019 103 Record of BOCC Site Visit 104 Staff Memorandum 105 Applicant Proposed Updated PUD Conditions 106 Applicant Proposed Updated Preliminary Plan Conditions 107 Staff Updated PUD Conditions 108 Staff Updated Preliminary Plan Conditions 109 Updated Referral Comment Garfield County Designated Traffic Engineer Review of Updated Traffic Study — Received May 3, 2019 D Co[ 2e--Fex- a. L?, ' i eve Zec!rkrit-?(cseA.:Lkio►, Patrick Waller From: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com> EXHIBIT 109 Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 5:14 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Sheryl Bower Subject: [External] RE: Flying M Updated Traffic Impact Assessment & Conditions w/ Balcomb Green Letter Pat I have reviewed the updated TIS prepared by FHU dated April 2019 as compared to the March 2019 TIS. The potential phase 1 traffic as identified in the April 22, 2019 FHU letter is not specifically analyzed or broken out in the updated TIS. Generally, the April 2019 TIS revisions are summarized below: • Discussion on p4 regarding field observations and the need to refresh pavement marking to "improve existing safety and operational levels" • The addition of "Background" queue results in Table 4 for the CR 154 NB approach to SH 82. In the discussion below Table 4, it is noted that "Short range conditions, both with and without site development, show potential to exceed available storage lengths, and the predicted long range background and total queue lengths would exceed the currently available lane storage along CR 154 approaching SH 82, creating blockages of the turn lanes." The "Background" analysis is appropriate and consistent from a methodology and comparison perspective with the "Total" analysis previously completed and presented. It shows "background" (existing traffic+growth) short term queuing issues will occur, and will worsen with increased long term traffic regardless of the development. The Table provides a comparison of those increased queue lengths. In reviewing the queuing reports provided in the Appendix, the "Storage Blockage Time", a measurement of the percent of the peak hour that the NB left queue blocks the NB right turning movement increases 10-15% when the development traffic is added. The "blockage" percentage is worse in the AM when more driver are leaving from CR 154. Those blockage rates range from 41-73% in the AM peak hour, and 15-41% in the PM peak hour. Please let me know if I can provide any further input on the project. Thank you, Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE Principal GSGM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9009 / 970.379.3378 cell May 6, 2019 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 3 Traffic Section 222 South 6th Street Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 683-6284 Fax: (970) 683-6290 «<:Email»> Garfield County Sheryl Bower Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch Development on State Highway 82/County Road 154 Dear Mrs. Bower: I am responding to Flying M Traffic Analysis dated March 2019 by FHU for the intersection at CR 154 and Hwy 82. This isn't the first time CDOT has commented on this project. CDOT has provided comments on SPAR -08-18-8675, PUDA-08- 18-8676 on February 8, 2019. The applicant updated their traffic analysis and sent it to CDOT on March 26, 2019. CDOT responded by email on April 5, 2019 on updated traffic study. These correspondences have been included in the attachments in the letter. I want to clarify CDOT position on the Flying M Ranch development. The updated study states that the development will only increase the traffic by 18.5% based upon the current access permit (#316048). CDOT does agree that development traffic is only increased by 18.5% of the total CR 154 traffic. The State Highway Access Code states that an access permit is required when there is a major change in use. The Code defines this major change as a 20% change in use. Therefore, CDOT can't require a new access permit due to a major change in use. It is CDOT opinion, that Garfield County does have the right to ask the applicant to apply for an access permit through the Garfield County land -use process. CDOT recommends that the County should require Flying M Ranch to mitigate the additional left -turn storage needed at SH -82 & CR 154 for the traffic from their development. 222 South 6' Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290 www.coloradodot.Info County needs to recognize that SH -82 is an expressway, so the thru traffic on SH - 82 will always get priority. This means that all side streets (including CR 154) should operate as efficiently as possible. The current configuration (-180-ft of dual left -turn lane storage) will not maximize the amount of green -time that can be dedicated to the CR 154. About 400 -ft of dual left -turn storage is needed to maximize the green -time. Having the extra dual left -turn storage will help the road users of CR 154 entering onto SH 82. If you have any additional questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Daniel Roussin CDOT Region 3 Access Manager Cc: Mark Bunnell, PE, R3 Traffic Resident Engineer (electronically) Rebecca Atkins, PE, R3 Access Engineer (electronically) Patrick Waller, Garfield County (electronically) Roger Neal, PE, High Country Engineering (electronically) Attachments Email dated February 8, 2019 — Dan Roussin to Patrick Waller Email dated March 26, 2019 — Roger Neal to Mark Bunnell Email dated April 5, 2019 — Mark Bunnell to Roger Neal 222 South 6'h Street, Room 100, Grand Juuctiui, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290 www.cotoradodot.Info 5/6/2019 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Re: FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 STATE OF COLORADO Attachments Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Re: FW: Garfield County Referral Request SPAA-08-18-8675, PUDA-08-18-8676 1 message Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:23 PM To: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Cc: "Bunnell - CDOT, Mark" <mark.bunnell@state.co.us>, Sheryl Bower <sbower@garfield-county.com>, Fred Jarman <fjarman@ga rfield-county.com> 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-tum/thrul 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). 1 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 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 La:,t! i.fotis.asr3@s ate co .IS 1 v_`L<< ;pv," 1 www.cotrip.org On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:17 AM Patrick Waller <pwalier@garfieid-county.com> wrote: j Thanks for the follow-up Dan. When do you think you all could have comments to us? Patrick Waller Senior Planner httpsl/mai l.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=e2f523b6c8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1621757831725502864%7Cmsg-a%3Ar-534448073639... 1/4 5/6/2019 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Flying M Ranch STATE OF COLORADO Flying M Ranch 1 message Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Roger Neal <rneal@hceng.com> Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:13 AM To: "Bunnell - CDOT, Mark (mark_bunnell@state.co.us)" <mark.bunnell@state.co.us> Cc: Robert Macgregor <rmac@dunrene.com>, "Douglas Pratte (Iandstudio2@comcast.net)" <landstudio2@comcast.net>, "Chad Lee (clee@balcombgreen.com)" <clee@balcombgreen.com>, "Roussin - CDOT, Daniel" <daniel.roussin@state.co.us>, Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com>, "Philip.Dunham <philip.dunham@fhueng.com> (philip.dunham@fhueng.com)" <philip.dunham@fhueng.com> Mark, Thanks for meeting with us today and discussing the intersection at CR 154 and Hwy 82. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss CDOT's concerns and hope that with the proposed reductions we have an acceptable path forward that will work with CDOT, Garfield County and the proposed development. I have attached the pdf copy of the report we gave to you onsite and discussed with you. We have made some significant reductions to the traffic volumes for the development. At the high end of daily trips we have reduced the daily trips from 1967 daily trips to 1657 daily trips. We have also committed to reduce the am and pm peak hour trips to no more than 139. We will be requiring a traffic evaluation at each Final Plat submitted to the County that will verify the traffic stays within these limits. We are locked into the County road impact fees and will be paying those fees as each phase develops. Currently the first phase includes 36 eco -efficiency homes and a Hospice facility. The other phases are currently unknown and will develop as the market dictates within the bounds of the PUD guide. Currently we have committed to the addition of a pedestrian signal located at the Rio Grande trail crossing, and would propose to add appropriate signage for no right turns onto Hwy 82 from CR154. We would also consider re -striping the lanes to maximize the left tum movements. We are currently preparing for the County Commissioners hearing and if possible we would like to have any response comments back to us prior to our April 8th County Commissioner hearing to be able to provide feedback at this hearing. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to give us a call. Roger Neal Roger D. Neal, P.E. https://mai l.goog le.com/mail/u/0?ik=e2f523b6c8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1629073979526507728%7Cmsg-f%3A16290739795265... 1/4 5/6/2019 STATE OF COLORADO Re: Flying M Ranch 1 message State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Re: Flying M Ranch Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Bunnell - CDOT, Mark <mark.bunnell@state.co.us> Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:01 AM To: Roger Neal <rneal@hceng.com> Cc: Robert Macgregor <rmac@dunrene.com>, "Douglas Pratte (Iandstudio2@comcast.net) <Iandstudio2@comcast.net>, "Chad Lee (clee@balcombgreen.com)" <clee@balcombgreen.com>, "Roussin - CDOT, Daniel" <daniel.roussin@state.co.us>, Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com>, "Philip.Dunham <philip.dunham©fhueng.com> (philip.dunham@fhueng.com)" <philip.dunham@fhueng.com> Roger, I reviewed the revised Traffic Impact Assessment dated March 2019; below are some Initial comments. I may have more comments later when the Study is resubmitted to address these comments. * The background traffic needs to include the full build -out of the existing school; as I understand, the school is only operating at —70% capacity right now. * The project needs to mitigate the impact of the traffic that it will add to the SH -82 and CR 154 intersection. At a minimum, the project will need to increase the dual left -tum storage capacity at the intersection to accommodate the project traffic. The TIS does not include the queuing results for the Long -Term Background condition, so I can't determine the queuing difference between the Background condition and the Total condition. * The current traffic analysis shows the queue extending back almost to the Rio Grande Trail crossing. Once the build -out of the existing school is accounted for, the forecasted queue will most likely extend beyond the Trail crossing. As we discussed in the field, if the County is committed to realigning CR 154 and grade -separating the Rio Grande Trail, then it may not make sense for the developer to spend money increasing the queue storage on CR 154. CDOT, the County, and the Developer should discuss this in more detail to determine how likely the County is to realign CR 154, and how the developer could contribute to that in lieu of extending the dual left -tum lanes. * It is CDOT's opinion that the operational issues (Le. long delays and queuing) will cause safety issues; therefore, a new access permit will be required for this project. * I want reiterate that CDOT supports providing a roadway thru this property to connect the property to the north to CR 154. Thanks, Mark Bunnell, PE, PTOE Resident Engineer Region 3 Traffic and Safety COLORADO Department of Transportation Division of Engineering, Design and Construction P 970.683.6276 1 C 970.640.2677 222 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 mark.bunnell@state.co.us 1 www.codof.gov 1 www.cotrip.org On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:13 AM Roger Neal <rneal@hceng.com> wrote: Mark, Thanks for meeting with us today and discussing the intersection at CR 154 and Hwy 82. https://mail.goggle.00m/mail/u/0?ik=e2f523b6c8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1629073979526507728%7Cmsg-f%3A16299905436050... 1/4