The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.07 Exhibit 121 & 122BOCC Hearing -- Exhibits Flying M Ranch — PUD & Preliminary Plan Review Applicant is Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork Re -1 School District May 20, 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 Staff Memo - Continuation Request Staff Report 5 6 7 Referral Comments - Garfield County Road and Bridge, Received January 10, 2019 Referral Comments - Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Received January 4, 2019 8 9 Referral Comments - Dan Cokley - SGM, Received January 22, 2019 Referral Comments - Xcel Energy, Received January 21, 2019 10 11 Referral Comments - Garfield County Vegetation Management, Received January 21, 2019 Referral Comments - Colorado Geological Survey, Received January 23, 2019 12 13 Referral Comments - City of Glenwood Springs, Received January 25, 2019 14 Referral Comments - United States Army Corps of Engineers, Received January 25, 2019 Referral Comments - Chris Hale - Mountain Cross Engineering, Received January 25, 2019 15 16 Referral Comments - Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 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 Helser, 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 Helser, 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 62 Public Comment - Jeff Horning, Received February 5, 2019 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 Helser, 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 84 Public Comment - Gary Bryant, Received March 29, 2019 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 110 Updated CDOT Referral Comment, Received May 6, 2019 111 Steve Beattie presentation to the Board on May 6, 2019 112 Applicant's Estimate of Road Impact Fees 113 Community Development Policy 01-15 Grading Permits and Final Plat and Land Use Change Permits 114 Updated Applicant Proposed PUD Conditions 115 Updated Applicant Proposed Preliminary Plan Conditions 116 Updated Recommended Conditions of Approval — PUD 117 Updated Recommended Conditions of Approval — Preliminary Plan 118 Garfield County - Road and Bridge Review of CDOT Letter, Received May 13, 2019 119 Staff Memorandum to the BOCC for May 20th Hearing 120 Referral Response — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received May 13, 2019 121 Updated Exhibits from Steve Beattie for Board Presentation on May 20, 2019 pvz_ RQ�tWoo 4b From: Dan Blankenship To: Diane Williams -Perry Cc: David Johnson; Kurt Ravenschlaq; Jason White; john Filippone; Operations Subject: RE: Bus Stops Date: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 3:14:26 PM Diane: EXHIBIT Currently, RFTA has no definite plans to add any bus stops in the Highway 82 corridor between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. As a result of the passage of Ballot Issue 7A, last November, RFTA will be upgrading several existing bus stops between Aspen Village and Catherine Store, but we are not planning to add any bus stops. In general, although we do receive requests for additional bus stops from time -to -time, we are reluctant to grant them for several reasons as follows: • The costs associated with constructing adequate pull -offs and shelters can be significant. Adequate sight lines and space are needed to enable buses to pull out of and into traffic safely, and some locations do no lend themselves well to this requirement. • Bus stops can become attractors that encourage people to cross Highway 82 at locations that may be unsafe. There can be unintended consequences associated with the placement of the bus stops that can inadvertently make them hazardous for pedestrians, so it could be necessary to have a traffic signal nearby and/or a grade -separated pedestrian underpass. While I am not certain of the location where you would like to have a bus stop, I am guessing that it might be either at Buffalo Valley or somewhere near Holy Cross. Because of the landscape and curve in this area, placement of a safe bus stop would be challenging. In addition, the segment of the Highway 82 between South Glenwood Springs and CMC turnoff is in unincorporated Garfield County, which is not a member of RFTA. As such, with the exception of existing bus stops at CMC turnoff, Aspen Glen, and Ranch of the Roaring Fork, which are grandfathered, I believe RFTA would be reluctant to consider serving additional bus stops in a non-member jurisdiction, unless there was an adequate financial contribution for doing so, and the proposed bus stops could be safely accessed by pedestrians and buses. I am sorry I can't be more helpful, but please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Dan Dan Blankenship Chief Executive Officer Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 2307 Wulfsohn Road — Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 dblankenshipPrfta.com 970-384-4981 (work) 970-319-8560 (cell) From: Diane Williams -Perry <Diane@bhjlegal.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:15 AM To: Dan Blankenship <dblankenship@rfta.com> Subject: Bus Stops Dan, Our office is wondering if there are any plans for any new bus stops between the south end of Glenwood, and the CMC turnoff. What is the procedure for putting a new bus stop in place? Thank you, Diane Diane Williams -Perry, Paralegal BEATTIE, HOUPT & JARVIS, LLP Attorneys And Counselors At Law 932 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-8659 Fax: (970) 945-8671 Email DianePBHJlegal.com PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS AND FIRM NAME This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Article 7: Standards 7-107. ACCESS AND ROADWAYS. All roads shall be designed to provide for adequate and safe access and shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. F. Design Standards. Roadways, surfaces, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks shall be provided as follows: 5. Continuation of Roads and Dead -End Roads. b. 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. C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: (970) 945-8212, Fax: (970) 384-3470 Garfield County Building Height Definition and Calculation Procedure As defined in Garfield County Land Use & Development Code (Article 15, Definitions): Height, Building — The distance, measured vertically, from the average undisturbed or natural ground grade horizontal plane of a structure footprint to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip, shed, or similar pitched roof. In order to measure distances and calculate building height according to the preceding definition, one must first establish the average natural grade plane of the subject project site. Subsequent calculations of building height all reference this benchmark, and this flat plane elevation is determined by averaging out the existing site grades (typically illustrated as topographic contour lines) on the site plan. Using a simplistic rectangular floor plan as an example, existing site grades at all four corners of the building footprint are added together and divided by 4, thereby establishing the average natural grade plane elevation (see illustration below). 6aSnrg. fizc-caasTRocriot ui0J7ouR 9 Q! StIt WI -a1N6 roving -10r Calculating Average Natural Grade: Corner A = 94.75 Corner B = 96.0 Corner C = 93.0 Corner D = 92.0 Total = 375.75 Average Natural Grade Elevation: 375.75 / 4 = 93.9375 "Average Natural Grade" is used in calculating Building Height With more complex building footprint configurations, a greater number of building corners will be employed, but the intent remains the same: to define the average natural grade elevation within the confines of the building footprint. Flatter lots will see very little difference between existing site grades at the building corners, whereas steeply sloping lots will have greater variation between building corners. However, the result in both situations will be establishment of a flat horizontal plane which represents average pre -construction grades at the project site prior to any proposed development. Measuring Building Height above Average Natural Grade Plane To the extent that the designer provides clear delineation of the existing natural grade plane and measurements to roofs above, it will help facilitate speedy review and confirmation of building height during the plan review of the project. Design drawings that illustrate building height most clearly will typically include exterior elevations and building sections. A couple of basic illustrations for measurement of building height are provided below: EH"'. 60 o 9 gIdq t+4 L 01_0 l--�s q,;w✓Rge ukekqu4fect/NA-luen� 9rn.✓e. AI •ANclure /no/. ELEVATION VIEW *Note: Refer back to the definition of "Building Height" on page one to verify specific measuring points for the various types of roofs including flat or mansard vs. shed, hip or gable pitched roofs. .A i IA,G+F / �r(3 ��firK .e e- • �hl�-IL 3-D VIEW F11577 CSR-A"'�x icpe 4 - It is recommended that all buildings be designed a minimum of several inches lower than absolute maximum building height, as there are design and construction tolerances which must be accounted for in any project. If design drawings indicate that roofs are within 12" of the maximum building height, the Building Department will require a Building Height Survey (aka Improvement Location Certificate) at framing inspection, sealed and stamped by a Colorado licensed professional Surveyor to insure that the building has, in fact, been built in compliance with building height requirements. Patrick Waller From: landstudio2@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:51 PM To: Sheryl Bower Cc: Patrick Waller; Robert Macgregor; Roger Neal; Chad J. Lee Subject: Road Impact Fees Estimate EXHIBIT qo Sheryl, Below is an analysis of potential Road Impact Fees for the Flying M Ranch PUD. There is some variation based on the land use flexibility that we are trying to provide within the PUD. Based on the calculation below for two different scenarios, the Road Impact Fees are upwards of $400K. Hope this helps! Doug Scenario 1 Business Park Industrial (12.5K SF) $7,050 Business Park Office (12.5K SF) $20, 375 Business Park Residential (4 1,000 SF Units) $5,896 Eco Homes (36 800 SF Units) $26,136 Loft Condos (60 1,800 SF Units) $119,280 Community Service Facility (120K SF Institutional)$180,600 Patio Homes (28 1,800 SF units) $55,664 Total $415,001 Scenario 2 Business Park Industrial (12.5K SF) $7,050 Business Park Office (12.5K SF) $20, 375 Business Park Residential (4 1,000 SF Units) $5,896 Eco Homes (36 800 SF Units) $26,136 Loft Condos (60 1,800 SF Units) $119,280 Multi Family Residential (100 1,800 SF Units) $198,800 Patio Homes (28 1,800 SF units) $55,664 Total $433,201 Douglas Pratte, ASLA The Land Studio, Inc. 365 River Bend Way Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 927-3690 Office (970) 948-6033 Mobile (970) 230-9087 Fax landstudio2('}u.comcast.net 1 Road impact tees Development type square feet Fee East benefit area South and North benefit area Residential (Per dwelling by square feet of finished floor areas) Residential 900 or less 901 to 1,400 1.401 to 1,900 1,901 to 2,400 2,401 and greater $726 $1.474 $1,988 $2,385 $2.703 $486 $986 $1,332 $1,598 $1.811 Non-residential (per 1,000 square feet of floor area) Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & other services per 1,000 sq ft per 1.000 sq ft per 1.000 sq ft. per 1.000 sq ft $564 $3.766 S1.505 $379 $2.523 $1,008 $1.630 $1,092 Patrick Waller From: Iandstudio2@comcast.net Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:11 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Chad J. Lee; Robert Macgregor; Roger Neal Subject: [External Email] Re: Flying M Packet Attachments: Attachment_Flying_M_Ranch_Preliminary_Plan_Staff_Memo.pdf Patrick, requested is a slight amendment to Preliminary Plan condition 40 per below. We hope that you will support this at the BOCC hearing on Monday and please call or email with discussion. Thank you, Doug 40) The upper access shall be required to be gated for emergency access to the satisfaction of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department and County Road and Bridge. The road shall be constructed to the standards and in the location as indicated in the initial application excepting the requirement for an asphalt road with curb and gutter. A gravel class 6 roadbed will be constructed in lieu of the asphalt road with curb and gutter. A driveway permit shall be required. Once Parcels B, Cl , C2, C3, D, and E, are built -out, and/or at the discretion of the Community Development Director, the traffic impact of the development shall be re-evaluated by Garfield County and the access may be opened to use by the public. if the BOCC determines that opening of the access to the public is necessary to address traffic congestion, the applicant shall be required to upgrade the road to . •. • - •- the standards and in the location as indicated in the initial application. Prior to the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply an emergency access maintenance agreement acceptable to Garfield County Community Development. Douglas Pratte, ASLA The Land Studio, Inc. 365 River Bend Way Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 927-3690 Office (970) 948-6033 Mobile (970) 230-9087 Fax landstudio2Rcomcast.net On May 16, 2019, at 2:44 PM, Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> wrote: Hi Doug and Chad, Attached is the packet for the hearing on Monday. Let me know if you have any questions, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department t