Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.03 Exhibit 91 - 96BOCC 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 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 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 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 Helser, 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 Arrf k*- Homecare, 8Flospice of the Valley Peace, Cowfrt. Support April 3, 2019 Garfield County Board of Commissioners C/O Pat Waller 108 8th Street, Room 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch PUD Dear BOCC members, EXHIBIT YI 3 We are writing in support of the Planned Unit Development zoning and preliminary plan approval for the project known as Flying M Ranch. HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley representatives have spent years searching for land suitable for a residential hospice facility and offices. After much frustration and disappointment with the lack of options, we contacted Robert Macgregor. He worked with us to carve out a site that couldn't be more perfect for our mission. Robert's vision for the Flying M Ranch surpasses what we could have hoped for in a site...multi- generational, community facilities, mixed use, possible Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), school and residential with access to trail systems and beautiful views of our Roaring Fork River. His integrity, follow- through and professionalism as a developer and community member are traits to be counted on. And we especially enjoy knowing that Robert's personal homestead adjoins the PUD. For nearly four years, Robert has generously held to a below market price for a 4+ acre parcel despite inflationary pressure in development and the expenses of a lengthy approvals process because he knows how badly such a facility is needed in the hub of our 6,600 sq mile service area. HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley is growing exponentially. The site would not only be residential housing for patients and their families, but would also serve as our offices and a community gathering location. There is only one facility of this kind between Denver and Salt Lake City, located in Grand Junction. Many of our citizens have to leave their homes and families when they need a residential facility during their end of life journey. This shouldn't be necessary! We appreciate that one of your priorities is to "support the aging population through Garfield County's senior services and community health programs, and through decisions on land use, transportation, housing, economic development and health care". The Flying M Ranch PUD seems a perfect fit with your policy directives for 2019 and beyond. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Peter Guy, Board President Laura Kornasiewicz, Board Secretary and Land Acquisition Chair HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley 1901 Grand Avenue Suite 206, Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Tel: 970-930-6008 Fax: 970-927-6659 www.hchotv.org ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF MAILED NOTICE ROCC MEETING ON APRIL 8, 20119 I. Wes Cole as General Manager of Blue Heron Properties, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, owner of Garfield County Assessor's Parcel No. 2185-354-23-007, hereby acknowledge timely receipt of the Notices attached hereto as Exhibit A of the Garfield County Board of County Commissioner's Public Hearing regarding the PUD and Preliminary Plan Applications for Flying M Ranch submitted by Applicants Eastbank, LLC and Roaring Fork RE - 1 School District, to be held at 1:00 o'clock p.m. on April 8, 2019 at the Garfield County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, 108 8'1' Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. I, as agent of Blue 1-leron Properties, LLC, received Applicant's mailed notice, which was mailed to our maintenance facility located at 1007 Westbank Road. As such, Blue Heron Properties, LLC hereby acknowledges receipt of Applicant's mailed notice, which was mailed at least 30 days prior to the hearing, and actual notice of the hearing itself. Dated this d tt ! day of April, 2019. By: 4 Wes Cole, General Manager of Blue Heron Properties, LLC EXHIBIT A PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Eastbank LLC, and Roaring Fork RE -1 School District, have applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request approval for a Preliminary Plan on properties situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Practical Description: The applicants' property is located approximately 0.65 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs off of County Road 154 and known by Assessor Parcel Number's 218535300060, 218535315003, and 218535415002. One of the properties is located at 3927 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. The other is located at 228 Flying M Ranch Road, Glenwood Springs, 81601. The other parcel has not been issued a County Address. Project Description; The Applicant is requesting approval for a Preliminary Plan on the subject properties. The Applicant is proposing 13 parcels in total. Water and wastewater will be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Access is off of CR 154 and Flying M Ranch Road. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is being applied for concurrently and will be heard at the public hearing. Proposed uses within the PUD include expansion of an existing business park, a diversity of residential housing types including eco -efficiency units, multi -unit dwelling units, attached dwelling units, and patio homes, and opportunities for community service facilities including assisted living, independent senior living, and hospice facilities. The properties are currently zoned Rural. All persons affected by the proposed application are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter or email (pwaller@garfield-county.com), as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Community Development Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Alternatively, the application can be viewed at https://records.garfield- county.com/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=3699422. Any questions may be directed to Garfield County Community Development at 970-945-8212. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled in front of the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:00 P.M. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. Planning Department Garfield County EXHIBIT A Legal Description LOT 2, EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 867716 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; TOGETHER WITH LOT 3, EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED 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, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE N89°54'27"E ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35 A DISTANCE OF 914.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N89°54'27"E A DISTANCE OF 1,013.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,960.08 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°07'31", A DISTANCE OF 688.48 FEET (CHORD BEARS S46°16'40"E A DISTANCE OF 684.94 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY S56°20'25"E A DISTANCE OF 324.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY S40°59'49"E A DISTANCE OF 157.49 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY S49°00'11"W 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 AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'57", A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS S81°42'17"W A DISTANCE OF 81.56 FEET); THENCE N79°15'14"W A DISTANCE OF 29.84 FEET; THENCE N14°58'36"W A DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N57°37'23"W A DISTANCE OF 149.86 FEET; THENCE S73°43'41"W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE N71°45'24"W A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE S63°33'53"W A DISTANCE OF 128.91 FEET; THENCE S25°32'45"E A DISTANCE OF 127.21 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 DISTANCE OF 66.92 FEET (CHORD BEARS S32°23'32"E A DISTANCE OF 66.76 FEET); THENCE S39°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 103.87 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°28'06", A DISTANCE OF 142.84 FEET (CHORD BEARS S61°58'22"E A DISTANCE OF 139.12 FEET); THENCE S84°42'25"E A DISTANCE OF 64.53 FEET; THENCE S58°17'21"W A DISTANCE OF 139.08 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 28°41'44", A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS N60°21'04"W A DISTANCE OF 132.72 FEET ); THENCE S49°42'07"W A DISTANCE OF 175.57 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130°10'09", A DISTANCE OF 1,476.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS N65°12'48"W A DISTANCE OF 1,179.01 FEET); THENCE N00°07'44"W A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNNING. A/K/A PARCEL 1, EASTBANK LOT SPLIT ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AT RECEPTION NO. 770436 AS AMENDED BY THE EASTBANK, LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED JULY 23, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 865787 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Eastbank LLC, and Roaring Fork RE -1 School District, have applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on properties situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Practical Description: The applicants' properties are located approximately 0.65 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs off of County Road 154 and known by Assessor Parcel Number's 218535300060, 218535315003 and 218535415002. One of the properties is located at 3927 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. The other is located at 228 Flying M Ranch Road, Glenwood Springs, 81601. The other parcel has not been issued a County Address. Project Description; The Applicant is requesting approval for a PUD. Proposed uses within the PUD include expansion of an existing business park, a diversity of residential housing types including eco -efficiency units, multi -unit dwelling units, attached dwelling units, and patio homes, and opportunities for community service facilities including assisted living, independent senior living, and hospice facilities. The applicant is also proposing a Preliminary Plan with a total of 13 parcels on the subject property. The Preliminary Plan application will be heard at the same hearing as the PUD application. Water and wastewater will be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Access is off of CR 154 and Flying M Ranch Road. The properties are currently zoned Rural. All persons affected by the proposed application are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter or email (pwaller@garfield-county.com), as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Community Development Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Alternatively, the application can be viewed at https://records.garfield- county.com/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=3699426. Any questions may be directed to Garfield County Community Development at 970-945-8212. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled in front of the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:00 P.M. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County EXHIBIT A Legal Description LOT 2, EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 867716 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; TOGETHER WITH LOT 3, EASTBANK, LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED 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, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE N89°54'27"E ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35 A DISTANCE OF 914.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N89°54'27"E A DISTANCE OF 1,013.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,960.08 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°07'31", A DISTANCE OF 688.48 FEET (CHORD BEARS S46°16'40"E A DISTANCE OF 684.94 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY S56°20'25"E A DISTANCE OF 324.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY S40°59'49"E A DISTANCE OF 157.49 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY S49°00'11"W 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 AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'57", A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS S81°42'17"W A DISTANCE OF 81.56 FEET); THENCE N79°15'14"W A DISTANCE OF 29.84 FEET; THENCE N14°58'36"W A DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N57°37'23"W A DISTANCE OF 149.86 FEET; THENCE S73°43'41"W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE N71°45'24"W A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE S63°33'53"W A DISTANCE OF 128.91 FEET; THENCE S25°32'45"E A DISTANCE OF 127.21 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 DISTANCE OF 66.92 FEET (CHORD BEARS S32°23'32"E A DISTANCE OF 66.76 FEET); THENCE S39°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 103.87 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°28'06", A DISTANCE OF 142.84 FEET (CHORD BEARS S61°58'22"E A DISTANCE OF 139.12 FEET); THENCE S84°42'25"E A DISTANCE OF 64.53 FEET; THENCE S58°1721"W A DISTANCE OF 139.08 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 28°41'44", A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS N60°21'04"W A DISTANCE OF 132.72 FEET ); THENCE S49°42'07"W A DISTANCE OF 175.57 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130°10'09", A DISTANCE OF 1,476.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS N65°12'48"W A DISTANCE OF 1,179.01 FEET); THENCE N00°07'44"W A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNNING. A/K/A PARCEL 1, EASTBANK LOT SPLIT ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AT RECEPTION NO. 770436 AS AMENDED BY THE EASTBANK, LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED JULY 23, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 865787 COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY (C.R.S. §38-30-172) L This Statement of Authority relates to an entity named BLUE HERON PROPERTIES, LI,C'. 2. The type of entity is a Limited Liability Company. 3. The entity is formed under the laws of the STATE OF COLORADO. 4. The mailing address for the entity is 430 Ironbridge Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO 816101. 5. The name and position of the person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of BLUE HERON PROPERTIES, LLC is: 13Iuc Heron Management, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, its Manager, by Wes Cole as Maim -m;7 Gem vitt twvtc3e v- 6. The authority of the foregoing person to bind BLUE HERON PROPERTIES, LLC is limited to the waiver of notice for land use applications tiled in Garfield County. 7. This Statement of Authority is executed on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. §38-30-172. Executed this STATE OF e0101'6-(10 day of April, 2019. ..1/?.(61 • ` COUNTY OF (;i 1/.lt'.t p.(.G1 ) ss. BLUE HERON PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: Blue Heron Management, LLC, a Colorado limited Iiability company, its Manager By: Wes CoIe,.Maimgetr Gteil-evat-(tw„t,,,ytc3ev-' The aboare anc 1z` d f?rc oin instrument was acknowledged before the this day of April, 2019, by Wes Cole as o tie Heron Management, LLC, a Colorado Iintite liability company as Manager of Blue Heron Properties, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: a -11 o« I JULIE J. PftATTE Notary Public Stato of Colorado Notary ID ti 19974001670 My Commission Expires 02.11.2021 teieC �.�) /4(tcd() Notary lic Dear Garfield County Commissioners, EXHIBIT 1 X12 04/05/19 I am writing this letter in support of the Flying "M" Ranch project. While this project consists of multiple parcels and uses, we are most excited about the opportunity to help provide workforce housing. We have been working with Mr. Macgregor for two years to develop housing that will help meet the needs of those who will live there while also managing to create a plan for a community of Eco -Cottages that will be architecturally interesting as well as mindful of energy consumption and impact to the environment. There has been much discussion lately about various land use applications and the word "need" is almost always a common theme. As a citizen and employer in Garfield County my experience has been that one of the top "needs" is always safe, secure, reliable and attainable housing. Thank you for your consideration of this project. Sincerely, Travis Stewart Patrick Waller EXHIBIT From: Bunnell - CDOT, Mark <mark.bunnell@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 10:02 AM To: Roger Neal Cc: Robert Macgregor; Douglas Pratte (Iandstudio2@comcast.net); Chad Lee (clee@balcombgreen.com); Roussin - CDOT, Daniel; Patrick Waller; Philip.Dunham <philip.dunham@fhueng.com> (philip.dunham@fhueng.com) Subject: Re: Flying M Ranch 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 -turn 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 - turn lanes. * It is CDOT's opinion that the operational issues (i.e. 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 P 970.683.6276 1 C 970.640.2677 222 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 mark.bunnelt@state.co.us 1 www.codot.4ov 1 www.cotrip.org 1 April 7, 2019 Garfield County Board of Commissioners C/O Pat Waller 108 8th Street, Room 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch PUD Dear BOCC members, 2 EXHIBIT As the retired Executive Director of HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley, I am writing this letter in support of the Planned Unit Development zoning and preliminary plan approval for the project known as Flying M Ranch. Over five years ago, I met with John Martin, Chair of the BOCC, who was extremely gracious in helping identify potential properties to build an inpatient hospice residential facility. One of the sites suggested, was the Flying M Ranch owned by Robert Macgregor. As a result of this lead, Robert became an ardent supporter of Hospice and furthermore was committed to providing a "very special" site on his property to build a hospice and palliative care home. Robert clearly understands the importance and need for this much needed community-based facility. HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley's, Board of Directors and executive staff have spent the last 3+ years working to solidify this property with Robert Macgregor. HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley retained an architect whose firm specializes in the design and program for an inpatient hospice home, and the agency undertook a capital campaign feasibility study. What the organization has learned is that the proposed site is ideal for the hospice residence. The location affords beautiful and sweeping views of the Roaring Fork River, provides access to trails and walkways, is located in a multi -generational community and close to the school. All of which, are important to a patient who faces the final days of his/her life. Lastly, the results of the capital campaign feasibility study were very favorable in the ability for HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley to fund this project. There is always a question as to "need" for such a program in our community. Please know that there is only one other facility between Salt Lake City and Denver, and that facility is located in Grand Junction. Each and every day, they are always filled. My experience as the former Executive Director of HomeCare & Hospice, there were times when the agency could not provide the level of care needed for our patients residing at home. Thus, our staff chose to either refer patients to the Grand Junction facility or the Denver Hospice. Lastly, I would reference the recently released (April 1, 2019) report prepared for the Greater Roaring Fork Region Municipal and Organizational Partnership, titled "Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study". This report provides detailed population analysis for Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield counties. Regionwide, the age groups of 65 years and older accounted for more than 20% of the total population change between 2000-2017. Quality of life factors influence residents' decisions to remain in place after retirement. A 31% population over 65+ is projected from 2017-27. Of this age cohort, national projections for the use of hospice as a choice for care at the end of life is more than 60%. The communities of Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle need an inpatient hospice residential facility! I ask that the BOCC fully support this PUD. Lastly, I would also like to acknowledge and applaud Robert Macgregor for having the forethought, vision and commitment in providing this very "special 4 -acre parcel" to serve those who are facing the last journey in their lives. Regards, Markey Butler Retired, Executive Director HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley Mayor, Town of Snowmass Village CI 73D IVd 133J Vd City of Glenwood Springs Boundaries 4/6/2019, 4:40:47 PM - -1 City of Glenwood Springs Boundary Zone Districts M1 - Mixed Use Corridor (formerly C/1) CO - Commercial (formerly C/3) RE - Resort (formerly C/4) HP - Hillside Preservation 11 - Light Industrial (formerly I/L) 1:48,215 0 0.3 0.6 1 i i I I 0 0.5 1 1.2 mi � II 2 km Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Person who executes printing City of Glenwood Springs is the owner of the data in the layer list Flying M Proposal - Area Properties Jackson 'ramify Flying M Proposal - Area Properties Densities and Heights WESTBANK RANCH FLYING M Acres Permitted Use Units Units Per Acre Max Height 142 * Single Family Residential 100 0.70 25 Acres Permitted Use Units 33.9 Multiple 228 Units Per AcreT Max Height 6.73 25/35/42 WESTBANK MESA Acres 281 Acres Permitted Use Single Family Residential Permitted Use Units Units Per Acre 63 0.22 Max Height 25 Units Zone 2 12.1 Residential/Community Center, 96 Units Per Acre 7.93 Max Height 25-35 PREHM RANCH Zone 3 Acres Permitted Use Units Units Per Acre Max Height 192 Single Family Residential/ADU 16 0.08 25 ** Acres 11.7 Permitted Use Community Service Facility or Residential Units', 128 Units Per Acre Max Height 10.94 25/35/42 JACKSON FAMILY RANCH Zone 2 and 3 Combined Acres Permitted Use Units 137 Residential /Agricultural 3 Units Per Acre 0.02 COMBINED SURROUNDING AREAS Acres 816 Permitted Use Residential /Agricultural Units 182 Units Per Acre 0.22 Max Height 25 Acres Permitted Use Units 23.8 Residential 224 Units Per Acre Max Height 9.41 25/35/42 * Not including additional open space of Ironbridge Golf Course ** Potential number at full buildout, 8 residences and 8 ADUs *** Not accounting for part of property in River, and required River setback EXCERPTS FROM GARFIELD COUNTY LUDC Rural Zone District 3-101. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE DISTRICTS. The following zone districts are established. A. Rural (R). The Rural Zone District is comprised of the County's rural residential areas, agricultural resource lands, agricultural production areas, and natural resource areas. Uses, densities, and standards established for this zone district are intended to protect the existing character of the area from uncontrolled and unmitigated residential, commercial, and industrial use. The zone district provides for the use of natural resources, recreational development, rural residential, and other uses. Requirement for Land Use Chanzes The following standards apply to all proposed Land Use Changes, including divisions of land, unless elsewhere in this Code a use is explicitly exempt from one or more standards. 7-103. COMPATIBILITY. The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses. April 7, 2019 Garfield County Board of Commissioners C/O Pat Waller 108 8th Street, Room 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch PUD Dear BOCC members, As the retired Executive Director of HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley, I am writing this letter in support of the Planned Unit Development zoning and preliminary plan approval for the project known as Flying M Ranch. Over five years ago, I met with John Martin, Chair of the BOCC, who was extremely gracious in helping identify potential properties to build an inpatient hospice residential facility. One of the sites suggested, was the Flying M Ranch owned by Robert Macgregor. As a result of this lead, Robert became an ardent supporter of Hospice and furthermore was committed to providing a "very special" site on his property to build a hospice and palliative care home. Robert clearly understands the importance and need for this much needed community-based facility. HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley's, Board of Directors and executive staff have spent the last 3+ years working to solidify this property with Robert Macgregor. HomeCare and Hospice of the Valley retained an architect whose firm specializes in the design and program for an inpatient hospice home, and the agency undertook a capital campaign feasibility study. What the organization has learned is that the proposed site is ideal for the hospice residence. The location affords beautiful and sweeping views of the Roaring Fork River, provides access to trails and walkways, is located in a multi -generational community and close to the school. All of which, are important to a patient who faces the final days of his/her life. Lastly, the results of the capital campaign feasibility study were very favorable in the ability for HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley to fund this project. There is always a question as to "need" for such a program in our community. Please know that there is only one other facility between Salt Lake City and Denver, and that facility is located in Grand Junction. Each and every day, they are always filled. My experience as the former Executive Director of HomeCare & Hospice, there were times when the agency could not provide the level of care needed for our patients residing at home. Thus, our staff chose to either refer patients to the Grand Junction facility or the Denver Hospice. Lastly, I would reference the recently released (April 1, 2019) report prepared for the Greater Roaring Fork Region Municipal and Organizational Partnership, titled "Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study". This report provides detailed population analysis for Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield counties. Regionwide, the age groups of 65 years and older accounted for more than 20% of the total population change between 2000-2017. Quality of life factors influence residents' decisions to remain in place after retirement. A 31% population over 65+ is projected from 2017-27. Of this age cohort, national projections for the use of hospice as a choice for care at the end of life is more than 60%. The communities of Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle need an inpatient hospice residential facility! I ask that the BOCC fully support this PUD. Lastly, I would also like to acknowledge and applaud Robert Macgregor for having the forethought, vision and commitment in providing this very "special 4 -acre parcel" to serve those who are facing the last journey in their lives. Regards, Markey Butler Retired, Executive Director HomeCare & Hospice of the Valley Mayor, Town of Snowmass Village Applicant's Proposed Revised Conditions: Of the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of approval for the Flying M Ranch Preliminary 1/44\t, Plan and PUD the Applicant requests the addition of the following PUD conditions: *; 5' Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the PUD Guide to reflect the following comments: d. The Building Height shall be reduced to 30' for Parcels D, E, and F. The PUD Guide shall also reflect that this 30' building height limit must consist of no more than 2 stories of floor area above existing grade. Additional floor area beyond the 2 stories above existing grade will be allowed below the elevation of existing grade. tega e. The Flying M Ranch Design Guidelines shall be updated to /� Y� g g p rage low berms or walls with vegetation to be used for the screening of car headlights from parking areas on Parcels D, E, and F that may be visible from neighboring properties. Of the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of approval for the Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD the Applicant requests refinements to the following PUD conditions: 5. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the PUD Guide to reflect the following comments: h. The maximum Peak Hour Vehicles allowed from the site (139 AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips and 139 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips) shall be included in the PUD guide. Traffic reports shall be provided prior to each Final Plat Building Permit indicating the total Peak Hour Vehicles generated by that phase, the total Peak Hour Vehicles generated from the development to that date, and the remaining non -allocated trips. No development shall be authorized that exceeds the maximum Peak Hour Vehicles or leaves a parcel with less than the allocated traffic minimum. �' lS �2 w a .4-t e(e vjl k01) J• 47 tabbies* m Applicant's Proposed Revised Conditions: Of the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of approval for the Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD the Applicant requests the addition of the following Preliminary Plan conditions: 8) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show a soft trail a minimum of four feet in width where the River Trail is proposed for Parcels B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, and F, and provide a trail maintenance agreement acceptable to Community Development and the County Attorney's Office. 13) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show that there will be no excavation below current existing grade in the River Trail easement on Parcels D, E, and F. Of the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of approval for the Flying M Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD the Applicant requests refinement of the following Preliminary Plan conditions: 5) Prior to approval of the second 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. 11) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall assign traffic generation minimums to all parcels in the proposed development in the form of Peak Hour Vehicles. The traffic generation minimums shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the County Referral Engineer. Documentation of the traffic generation minimums shall be included in the PUD guide.