Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Staff Report 06.11.2007Exhibits for BOCC Public Hearing on "The Reserve at Elk Meadows" held on June 11, 2007 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Publication B Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Application (Binders 1 and 2) F Staff Memorandum dated 6/11/07 G Memorandum from the County Vegetation manager dated 3/22/07 H Letter from Mt. Cross Engineering dated 3/21/07 I Email from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 3/21/07 J Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 3/16/07 K Email from CDPHE dated 3/21/07 L Email from Kenneth Wilson dated 3/28/07 M Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District dated 3/21/07 N Letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 3/19/07 O Email from CDOT 2/26/07 P Letter from the Garfield Housing Authority dated 3/20/07 Q Letter from BLM dated 3/22/07 R Letter from DOW dated 3/16/07 S Letter from City of Glenwood Springs (Com Dev) dated 3/27/07 T Letter from City of Glenwood Springs (Com Dev) dated 3/13/07 U Letter to the editor of the GPI from Michael Larime dated 4/9/07 V Email to the BOCC from Jim & Cheryl Hawkins dated 4/6/07 W Letter from the DWR dated 4/2/07 X Power Point Presentation from Staff dated :+2,/ ! y/4/ o Y Email from Mitch Mulhall to BOCC dated 4/11/07 Z Email from David Bowers to BOCC dated 4/11/07 AA Building Envelope depths for Lots 1 — 18 from Applicant date 4/11/07 BB Amended Phasing Plan submitted by Applicant dated 5/16/07 CC Amended PUD Zone Text and map submitted by Applicant dated 5/16/07 DD Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire District dated 5/17/07 EE Letter from Sopris Engineering dated 5/15/07 Email fromCross Engineering dated 6/6/07 r V & 1/Mountain 14FF ✓ ✓ /" 2✓l-a g14 k #-. '6 ., 2 OL' C.J Note: Exhibits BB — EE (revised submittal by Applicant) are located in the front of Tab 1 in Binder 1 of the Application. a(An C,✓ MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT 1 BOCC 06/11/07 FJ PROJECT TITLE Reserve @ Elk Meadows REQUEST Planned Unit Development / Sketch Plan PROPERTY OWNER Reserve at Elk Meadows, LLC & Bershenyi Land & Cattle, LLLP_, Carol A. Bershenyi, John Wilson Bershenyi and Alice P. Bershenyi REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION SITE ACREAGE ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Balcomb & Green, P.C. Four Mile Creek drainage 506 acres ARRD High / Medium Density Residential South Glenwood Springs FourMile Ranch Subdivision Iron Bridge Subdivision Chelyn Acres Sunlight View 4.- Sunlight View II Spring Ridge Place I. PROJECT SUMMARY As originally proposed to the Planning Commission, the Applicant requests land use approvals to develop the Bershenyi & Martino Ranches into a residential development called The Reserve @ Elk Meadows. The two properties are located south of Glenwood Springs along Four Mile Road (CR 117) immediately south of Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. Specifically, the proposal includes developing the two adjacent ranches (when combined comprise a total of 506 acres) into 189 residential lots located in three (3) residential clusters in a 6 phase development plan. One cluster of 72 lots would be located in the lower meadow below CR 117 and the two other residential clusters (55 lots and 69 lots) are to be located on meadows on the upper portions of the ranch on the west side of CR 117. All lots are proposed to be connected the City of Glenwood Springs public wastewater system. Domestic water is proposed to be provided by an on site central water system consisting of a well field, water treatment facilities, distribution lines and storage tanks with capacity for fire protection water. Additionally, a raw irrigation water delivery system will be constructed to deliver irrigation water to each lot. The proposed design provides for over 374 acres to be placed into open space which also includes an internal trail system as well as a continuation of the public trail along CR 117 through the development. Access to the project is anticipated directly from CR 117 with the Applicant proposing a partial realignment and improvement of a portion of CR 117 as it passes through the project. II. LAND USE REQUESTS In order to accomplish this proposed development, the Applicant requests the following land use approvals. 1. Amend the Proposed land Use District Map in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 from Medium and Low Density Residential to Medium and High Density Residential; [The Planning Commission unanimously approved this action on April 11, 2007 and the Comprehensive Map has been changed to reflect this approval.] 2. Rezone the property from ARRD to Planned Unit Development (PUD); and [The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the 2 BOCC to rezone the property to PUD.] 3. Satisfy the Sketch Plan Review requirement as the first step in subdividing the property; [To be reviewed along with the PUD request, the County's subdivision regulations require that a sketch plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission in order to provide comments to the Applicant regarding the subdivision component of a development plan. No formal action is taken, but these comments are applied to the development through the PUD discussion. To this end the Planning Commission made specific comments which are presented throughout the memorandum.] III. REFERRAL AGENCY REVIEW The application was referred to the following agencies for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below and are more comprehensively incorporated into the memo. A. Colorado Geological Survey Celia Greenman, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, ditches, water, culverts, steep terrain, rock fall and debris flow hazards possibly effecting two Tots in the South Meadow 52 and 53. Likewise potential debris flow hazard exist for lots 28 through 31 and lots 3, 4, 5, and & 7 that can be mitigated with proper grading and established building envelopes. Additionally, possible sinkhole conditions were noted in East Meadows with mitigating conditions. Soil characteristic were recommended for further evaluation in terms of bearing capacity and swell conditions as the project progresses. Access roads to lots 1-3 and lot 53 were questioned due to possible excessive disturbance of natural drainage ways. Additional analysis of the grades accommodating the emergency access planned in the upper Meadows was recommended. An erosion control plan was recommended and erosion mitigation installed prior to site grading. Generally, CGS concluded that "there are no geological conditions that would preclude subdivision. B. State of CO Forest Service Kamie Long, noted that significant wild fire hazard on portions of the proposed development exists. However mitigation is possible through adequate water supply, access, fuel loading and building materials. C. Bureau of Land Management Brain Hopkins stressed measures to control trespassing onto BLM property during construction. Further discussion is warranted regarding trails and pedestrian access across BLM property. Right of Way permits are necessary for any roads, cart ways, paths or utilities crossing BLM property. Potential residents 3 should be advised that public land has current permits for live stock grazing as well as hunting and target shooting permits. D. Garfield Co. Bridge & Road, District #1 Bobby Branham discusses in detail the installation of culverts, access drives, road surface requirements per Garfield Co. regulations. The proposed re- alignment of CR117 must be planned, coordinated, reviewed , and permitted with the Road & Bridge Department. Ingress and egress traffic shall be accommodated by both acceleration and deceleration lanes for both north and south bound traffic. Prior to construction of the re -alignment of CR117 all plans must be reviewed and approved by the County engineer and Road & Bridge. E. Mountain Cross Engineering Inc Expressed concern regarding the discrepancy between the water production of the augmentation plan and the water system which is anticipated to be concluded through final engineering. The water pressure zones required for domestic use were analyzed with recommended changes. Mitigation for rock fall and debris flow was recommended to be detailed on the preliminary plat. The accuracy of the over all traffic impact was questioned since a 2% growth factor was utilized compared to the over all growth rate of the county. Finally, coordination of off site roadway projects between the Garfield County and the City is essential to avoid adverse traffic impacts. F. Glenwood Springs Fire Department All residential structures required to have automatic fire suppression system with the NFPA 13 R standards, 2007 edition. Spacing between fire hydrants per Glenwood City Fire Department. The Developer shall provide to the City of Glenwood Springs Fire Department complete plans in order to review the fire flows, water storage needs, fire hydrant spacing/location. Agreement adopted between the developer, Garfield Co/ City of Glenwood Springs and Glenwood Springs Fire Department to comply with the International Urban Wildlife Interface Code 2000 when planning and implementing a fire protection code. Conformance with the IWUC standards to guide the construction of this type of development. G Garfield Co. Weed Management Vegetation Management Director responded to the application with noxious weeds concerns and the preparation of a map and inventory of any Garfield County Noxious weeds existing on the property. Also it was requested that the applicant provide a weed revegetation, soil management, and mosquito management plans for relative to planning and management of the subject property. This information will aid to determine the amount of security held for revegetation. 4 H. Colorado Division of Water Resources: The proposed water supply is physically adequate; however, material injury will occur to decreed water rights due to the lack of a court -approved plan for augmentation. (Exhibit W) I. Colorado Department of Health& Environment Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. responded that the information provided indicated that both wells preliminary meet the state requirements. However, the proposed water system will be required to be reviewed by the State new system capacity development review of plans and specifications. J. Re -1 School District: No Comments Received K. Garfield County Housing Authority: Preferred that the Applicant provide the required affordable housing units be incorporated within the development. L. City of Glenwood Springs Commented on the transportation impacts to the City, their preference for affordable housing to be placed on site, internal roads, and lighting. M. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received N. West Glenwood Sanitation: No Comments Received IV. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN On April 11, 2007, the Planning Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the Proposed Land use Districts Map of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 in order to accommodate the proposed PUD as requested by the Applicant. The property is located in Study Area I and was overlain primarily with the Medium Density Residential (6 to <10 acres / du) designation with three small pockets of Low Density Residential (10 acres or more / du). As you recall, these designations were chosen primarily due to development constraints and land use considerations as more fully described in the methodology section of the Comprehensive Plan. Former County Plan Amended Plan The application proposed to re -designate the majority of the property to Medium Density Residential (which includes 1 residential cluster) and re -designate the remainder two residential clusters as High Density Residential such that it would be consistent with the proposed development. The currently adopted density definitions in the Comprehensive Plan are as follows: ➢ Low Density Residential: ➢ Medium Density Residential: ➢ Medium -High Residential: ➢ High Density Residential: 10 or more acres / du (18.2) 6 < 10 acres / du (53.97) 2 < 6 acres per dwelling unit .-- Less than 2 acres per dwelling unit The reason for the three small pockets of Residential Low Density are due primarily to 1) surficial geology for landslides, 2) major slope hazards, and 3) moderate soils hazards as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, the Comprehensive Plan contains a methodology matrix that provides the general exercise undergone that ultimately resulted in why certain areas in Study Area I were given a certain density. Because this exercise was done at a broad scale and not the result of a site specific analysis, amendments can (and should be) contemplated at a closer "property -specific" scale. In this case, the Applicant suggested, and the Planning Commission agreed, that the property's designations could be varied as certain environmental and development constraints could adequately be mitigated resulting in varying densities. In summary, the Planning Commission agreed with the analysis in the application which resulted in the re -mapping of a portion of the property as High Density Residential and the large remainder as Medium Density Residential shown above. Generally, the analysis suggests that the lower, gently sloping fields and meadows of the Martino and Bershenyi Ranches could easily be re -mapped as Residential High Density District due to the lack of any significant development constraints, availability of central sewer service and proximity to an improved collector road and community services. Similarly, the remainder of the property was mapped as Medium Density Residential due to some areas having development constraints (primarily geologic and slope related) but those areas could also be accommodated by central sewer, proximity to good access and existing urban services in nearby Glenwood Springs. In order to quantify the mapping change and what that will realize in terms of residential density, the following is a summary showing the change. Former Comprehensive Plan Resulting Lots (Density) Approved Resulting Lots Amendment (Density) Low Density 36% (182.16 acres) Medium Density 64% (323.84 18.26 (10 ac/du) 0 53.97 0 79% (399.74 1 66.62 6 acres) (6 ac / du) acres) (6 ac / du) High Density 0 g yacres) 72.23 Tots (7 ac / du) 21% (106.26 133.38 (0.80 ac / du) 200 lots (2.53 ac / du) Total Lot (Average Density) Therefore, a re -mapping of the subject property (as proposed) resulted in a net density increase from 7 acres per dwelling unit to 2.53 acres per dwelling unit or from a total of 72 lots to 200 lots. By comparison, this density is lower than Four Mile Ranch Subdivision which has a density of 2.38 acres per dwelling unit. V. Planning Commission Recommendation to the BOCC: April 11, 2007 On April 11, 2007, the Planning Commission (by a vote of 7 to 0) unanimously approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and also unanimously recommended the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the rezoning from ARRD to PUD with the following significant site plan changes to the proposal: (Note, there are additional recommendations contained within the list of conditions of approval which are listed at the end of this Staff Report.) A. Include the 10% Affordable Housing On -Site As you will see throughout the memorandum, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the 10% affordable housing units be included within the development and not be located off-site. As a result, the Applicant agreed to the following condition: The Applicant shall provide the 10% affordable housing unit requirement on- site within the development. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall amend the PUD site plan to replace lots 10 — 18 now shown in the South Meadow neighborhood with 20 affordable housing units with the understanding that by including these 20 affordable housing units on-site, the total lots proposed in the development increases from 189 to 200. Additionally, the Applicant shall amend any associated PUD zone text in support of the change. Applicant Response The Applicant has revised the PUD Site Plan to include 20 affordable housing units on site. This has been realized by converting Lots 10 — 18 (comprising 9 free-market single-family lots) to Lots 54 — 63 (comprising 10 duplex affordable housing units). By incorporating these units on-site, the net result shows the original free-market unit count of 189 units has decreased to 180 and the additional 20 affordable housing units brings the total to 200 units for the project. The change in the site plan to accommodate the 20 on-site AH units can be seen on the following page: 7 Original Plan showing free-market lots 10 - 18 Revised Plan showing ten duplex lots for 20 AH units on lots 54 - 63 Staff finds the inclusion of the AH on site not only satisfies the housing component of the Comprehensive Plan, but also satisfies the requirements in the PUD. B. Revised Traffic Study The Planning Commission understands the Traffic Impact Study demonstrates that all of the traffic generated from this development is funneled into Glenwood Springs and that an agreement had been made between the developer and the City; nonetheless, the Planning Commission agreed that the study be revised to provide a better idea of the impact of those trips on the intersection of Mt. Sopris Drive / Midland Avenue in the following condition: The Applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with the Preliminary Plan submittal that incorporates impacts to the Mt. Sopris Drive/ Midland Avenue intersection and a roundabout at Midland Avenue / 27th Avenue. C. Private vs. Public Internal Roads Staff asked for a clarification on whether the internal roads within the development were public or private. The Applicant has now stated that the roads are to be dedicated to the public but privately owned and maintained. D. Fire Protection Approval of Internal Road Design The Planning Commission questioned specific elements of the proposed internal road design which included cul-de-sac lengths, road widths and grades, and secondary access and whether the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District 8 approved the road network acceptable in terms of service provision. To that end, the Planning Commission required the following condition: That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a letter from the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District that specifically approves of the internal road network, design width and grade. Applicant Response The Applicant met with the Fire District and provided the following response to their ability to serve the development with the proposed road design. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has reviewed and approved the road layout for the proposed Reserve at Elk Meadows. The main collectorroads meet the minimum width for fire access road required by the 2003 edition of the International Fire Code, section 503. In a few areas ofC and E Roads the grades are greater<then 10% but Section 503.2.7 of the International Fire Cede gives:the fire code offieial the authority to state what % grade is permitted on fire department access roads based on the Fire Department's apparatus. Because all the structures in this subdivision will be protected by an automatic `fire suppression system we can respond to all structure fires with smaller fire engines that will be able to climb the few short • steeper then 10% sections of C and E Roads. The steeper grade.on the secondary emergency roads is not of great concern to us because they would most likely be used by residence in smaller vehicles to evacuate the area from a wildfire in the wanner. months. In responding to a structure fire or wildland fire, the main collector roads would be the roads of choice to access the site by fire apparatus. If the emergency roads were used to access a nearby wildland fire, small type 6 brush trucks would be used in this operation and they would be able to negotiate the width and grades on these roads. Based on our recent conversations on this project`1"'believe the above--eernznents should address the areas of concern regarding this project at this time. If you need me to address the road net work in more detail.please contact nme. E. Road Grade of "Street A" to Exceed 8% There appear to be steep areas that Street A crosses to provide access to the upper meadow lots that may exceed the 8% grade limitation for a "Minor Collector." As a result, the Planning Commission required the following condition: That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide an analysis that demonstrates the road grade of "Street A" can exceed 8% using the standards in Section 9:37 of the Subdivision Regulations or 1984, as amended. 9 Applicant Response The Applicant provided an analysis from Sopris Engineering that ultimately says a lesser grade of 8% 1) will result in much greater cuts and fills to reach the upper meadow, 2) is acceptable from an emergency response perspective, and 3) are oriented to the south allowing solar exposure reducing ice / snow buildup. This letter is included in the front of Binder 1. F. Refinements to the Phasing Plan (Commencement & Completion) The PUD regulations require a more refined phasing plan than what was proposed. As a result, the Planning Commission required the following: That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall assign approximate dates to the phasing plan including month and year for when phases are to commence and be complete. Applicant's Response The Applicant has provided a revised phasing schedule with approximate dates attached which is acceptable. G. Refine Phasing Plan for Specific Improvements The originally submitted phasing plan provided, in more general terms, the improvements that were to be included within each phase. The Planning Commission requested the Applicant revise this plan to specifically include the relocation of CR 117 etc. The requirement was as follows: That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a revised phasing plan that specifically includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the realignment of CR117, the community facilities/amenities and landscaping in the Barn/Heritage area, the relocation and stabilization of the Bershenyi Barn, the public trail along CR 117, and the platting of the affordable housing lots. Applicant's Response The Applicant has provided a revised phasing plan that provides the necessary detail requested by the Planning Commission. H. Engineering Issues Regarding Water System Mountain Cross Engineering, on behalf of Garfield County, questioned water pressures as well as gallon usage that needed to be further addressed. To that end, the Planning Commission required the following: That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall address the comments made by Mountain Cross 10 Engineering regarding pressure zones and gallon usage. See Exhibit H Applicant's Response The Applicant had Sopris Engineering address these issues and Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of the County) provided the following response: 1) As part of the preliminary plan guardrail should be analyzed and proposed along warranted sections of the roads, in particular along Street A. 2) There are areas of significant cut and fill (20 feet to 30 feet). Steep cut and fill slopes, generating large areas of disturbance, or high retaining walls will be required. The 8% would be worse; that is agreed, but the 10% grades that are proposed will also be expensive and difficult to construct. 3) The 10% grades and lengths should be reviewed and approved by the Fire District. 4) The Uniform Plumbing Code calls for water to be delivered to homes for domestic use at between 50 to 70 psi. Some consideration for mitigating the higher pressures will be required. Sopris Engineering proposes to modify the proposed design to mitigation the pressures. This could be addressed at the time of preliminary plan. 5) The explanation of water demands is adequate. I. Proposed Gift of the 960 -acre "Mountain Park" to Garfield County While not physically part of this PUD, the Applicant offered this 960 -acre property to the County as a gift to be used as a park. The Planning Commission decided that while the offer is a valuable gesture, they recommended the County not accept the property (similar to the reasoning of Glenwood Springs) due to the unknown issues attached (mineral estate questions) and cost liability to the County tax payers for the continual upkeep of such a park. To that end, the Planning Commission recommended the following change to the condition of approval offered by the Applicant: That the Applicant dedicate with the first phase final plat approximately 960 acres of the west parcel of the Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park), to some type of public or private entity (county, city, special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association) for the purpose of managing this parcel for use by the public. The Mountain Park is proposed to be available for non -motorized use by the public under the guidance of appropriate rules that will foster a compatible relationship with the native wildlife. In cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, some seasonal limitations may be placed on public use of the "mountain park" to protect the wildlife values of the property. Even with sensitive consideration for wildlife, the Mountain Park will provide an enormous recreational resource that is readily accessible to residents in the Four Mile corridor and Glenwood Springs. 11 J. Sprinkler System for AH Units Once the Applicant had agreed to include the 10% Affordable Housing units on- site, a question was raised as to the appropriateness of requiring the units to have sprinkler systems. The Planning Commission required the following condition as a result: That prior to the public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall discuss the appropriateness of requiring sprinkler systems for the 20 affordable housing units to be provided on site with the Glenwood Fire Protection District. To this end, the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the District indicating their opinion on whether these units should be sprinkled. Applicant's Response The Applicant submitted a letter from the Glenwood Springs Fire Department; however, the letter does not address this issue. It only suggests that all dwelling units are sprinkled. This needs to be addressed. K. Changes to PUD Site Plan During the course of the discussion, the Applicant offered to relocate Lots 1 — 4 in the Lower Meadow in response to neighbors concerns. To that end, the Planning Commission agreed to accept a condition proposed by the Applicant as follows: That the Applicant shall submit a revised PUD site plan prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners that reflects the relocation of Lots 1 — 4 in the lower meadow as described by the Applicant at the Planning Commission meeting. Applicant's Response Land Design Partnership revised the PUD Site Plan and PUD Zone text to reflect this change as well as added a use called "Attached Residential" to cover the duplex affordable housing lots. VI. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT / SKETCH PLAN REVIEW As mentioned above, the application proposes to rezone the property from ARRD to PUD. The following section provides an analysis of the proposed PUD that also includes technical aspects of subdividing the property into 189 residential lots. The County standards are identified in bold italics followed by a Staff Response. 4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive plan(s). When appropriate. an application for an amendment to the Garfield County 12 Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application. and may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon criteria for establishing land use designations contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding The entire PUD / project design is contingent upon a proposed amendment to the Proposed Land Use Districts Map as discussed earlier. Staff has agreed that the proposed amendment to the map (establishing residential densities) appears to be justified. The second major component of the Comprehensive Plan includes the Goals, Policies, and Objectives. The application provides a review of these elements in Tab 4. Staff agrees that, should the Planning Commission agree to amend the map, that the application demonstrates general compliance with the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan. Of particular importance was a discussion on housing. Staff has included that discussion for your review below that demonstrates the importance of including the AH on-site. A. Housing Among others, one of the major housing goals states that PUDs should provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Additionally, PUDs should encourage mix of housing types within a development. Housing objectives include encouraging adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County and Residential development should respect the natural characteristics of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features, geology and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view sheds. Because of the significant increase in residential density beyond what the property is currently allowed (74 to 189 units), the development is required to construct 10% (or 19 units) of the units as affordable housing units to be controlled by the County Housing Authority. To this end, the Applicant has agreed to provide these units on- site integrated in the development rather than off-site. Staff finds that this not only satisfies the main housing goal above but is also aligned with the opinion of the Garfield County Housing Authority. In further support of on-site housing, the application goes to great length to demonstrate that a comprehensive plan amendment is warranted due to Infrastructure Needs and Distance from Urban Uses. For example, the application states the following to support a change to high density residential (pages 3 and 4 in Tab 3): ➢ The Sopris Elementary School is located just off Four Mile Road/Midland Avenue about one and one quarter miles from the Elk Meadows PUD Entry. 13 ➢ In the same vicinity as Sopris Elementary School is the Mountain Market and associated commercial spaces offering convenience products, gasoline and personal service type businesses. ➢ The existing paved pedestrian trail paralleling Four Mile Road through the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision will be extended through the proposed Elk Meadows PUD making the school and Mountain Market convenience services more accessible for pedestrians. ➢ American National Bank, Rivers Restaurant, WalMart and the numerous other commercial services in South Glenwood begin at a point less than three miles from the subject properties. Urban services are readily available to the future residents of these properties either by vehicle or by foot. The location of the proposed High Density districts easily satisfies a Moderate ranking for proximity to urban uses. ➢ Staff would also note the existing RFTA service to Glenwood Park which is at the terminus of the Four Mile Subdivision within walking distance to the development. The County Housing Authority strongly recommended the Ah be located on site with the following reasons, among others: ➢ These units (on-site) will target households earning $50,500 to $58,600 annually. It has been our experience that families in this income bracket do not rely on social services and public transportation to the extent the development would be an undesirable place to live. ➢ We believe that the close proximity to the Fire Station, Elementary School, and the Mountain Market with associated commercial spaces offering convenience products, gasoline, and personal service type businesses with a paved pedestrian / bike trail would create a practical setting for affordable housing. ➢ The Housing Authority feels that Elk Meadows would be a desired place to include affordable housing and build a balanced community. ➢ The Housing Authority acknowledges that the guidelines allow (should the BOCC approve) off-site location under certain circumstances; however we do not feel those circumstances apply for this development. Additionally, this Housing Goal anticipates that PUDs would provide "all types" of housing which Staff suggests includes multi -family units. The PUD, as proposed, provides only for single-family dwellings on a variety of lot sizes. The application suggests that the varying lot sizes accommodate this housing goal. Staff disagrees; 14 however, the Applicant's commitment to provide on-site AH in multi -family units meets the intent of this goal. Staff referred the application to the City of Glenwood Springs (a potential receiver site for Affordable Housing as suggested by the application) which provided the following comments: The requirements for inclusionary housing in Planned Unit Developments in Garfield County require at least 10% of the overall housing mix to be affordable housing units. The development of inclusionary housing by itself does not fulfill PUD requirements for a variety of housing types and densities. (4.07.15.01) Additionally, lands designated for high density residential which allows two or less acres per dwelling unit are considered under the County's regulations to be the most suited for affordable housing. The County regulations indicate that off-site proposals for inclusionary housing will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site option. The application states that EIK Meadows is a "few" miles from the closest commercial and social services and public transportation and is therefore not a desirable location for affordable housing units. The applicant sates this as justification for meeting the inclusionary housing regulations with off-site mitigation at a location within Glenwood Spring or other area communities. Unfortunately, the application materials provided do not provide any details on how off-site mitigation would be achieved. The incorporation of affordable housing within a specific development is, in most cases, the optimum location for housing as it provides a mix of housing and socio-economic groups within a community. The overall design of the Elk Meadows development has lots that range in size from 13,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. The application indicates thatmosthomes will be 4,500 sq. ft. in size or greater. It is likely a number of these homes will be second homes for some families. Second homes in and of themselves generate a need for employees to provide needed services such as overall maintenance, gardening, etc. Employees will also be needed to provide the necessary maintenance of the trails, roads and improvements owned by the Homeowners Association within this development. It would seem appropriate that some form of affordable housing should be provided on site for these employees and also for other employees, such as workers at the Sunlight Ski area. The pre -annexation agreement sets a cap on the number of units within this development to 200. The current application is for 189 detached single family 15 homes. One of the stated goals from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111-2.0 indicates a mix of housing types is to be encouraged within a development. One of the County's objectives as cited in 2.1 is to encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. It does not appear as though the current proposal meets this goal or objective as the only variation in housing product is a variation on lot sizes. It would seem appropriate that the plan could be revised to include a housing product to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and inclusionary requirements. An additional option to the inclusionary component would be the addition of accessory dwelling units as a permitted use, understanding that there is a cap on the number of dwelling units per the annexation agreement. 4.07.02 The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors: (1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD; (2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses; (3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking areas is proposed. Staff Finding Presently, the County Zoning Resolution (Zoning Code) requires one parking space for every six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. The application proposes to amend this to the following due to the likelihood of what larger homes might be required to provide: a. Dwellings of Tess than 3,000 square feet of floor area: 4 parking spaces b. Dwellings of 3,000 square feet of floor area but less than 5,000 square feet of floor area: 5 parking spaces c. Dwellings of 5,000 square feet of floor area or greater: 6 parking spaces Staff agrees with the slight reduction in the parking requirements as these are minimums and if a property owner wishes additional parking, it would be governed by lot coverage, etc. Staff also notes the development has also provided for guest parking accommodation to satisfy overflow for guests with the understanding that these spaces will be posted specifically for short term parking and enforced by the home owners association. 4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: 16 (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area. with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed development generally has an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area as one considers the broader character of the lower Four Mile Valley and the residential developments that presently exist. Because of the site's varying terrain, portions of the development will be hidden with while other portions, such as the East Meadow, will be highly visible. The site plan incorporates open space tracts to buffer the development here from Four Mile Road in an attempt to continue the agricultural nature of the area with a 20 -acre irrigated hayfield. The barns are also proposed to be preserved supporting this heritage. The most adjacent residential area is Four Mile Ranch Subdivision which is a 2 -acre lot subdivision just on the boundary with Glenwood Springs. The proposed development is somewhat buffered from this development with the open space tract. The proposed density is much higher than Four Mile Ranch with sub -urban like lot sizes ranging from 13,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. in the lower east meadow. Staff finds that the project proposes sub -urban lot sizes on central services that while highly visible in the lower meadow from CR 117, measures have been taken to minimize their visual affect as seen from SH82 with height limitations and vegetation requirements without maximizing the development footprint on the property. The main direct adverse affect to the surrounding areas include visual impacts, light pollution of the night sky, and traffic impacts. The City of Glenwood Springs commented that "portions of the development will be highly visible from the lower reaches of the valley. It would seem appropriate that limited lighting be utilized within the development. Full cut-off fixtures for both street lighting and on individual homes should be considered in design requirements for the development." Staff suggests the Applicant prepare a Residential / Community Lighting Plan that addresses Tight trespass issues so that this community will not adversely affect the night sky. Regarding traffic, the proposed 189 units will generate approximately 1,900 ADT at full build -out. As background traffic increases in the Four Mile Valley and Sunlight Ski Area undergoes significant redevelopment, this traffic can only go north directly into Glenwood Springs. Staff agrees that the re -alignment of 1/4 mile section of CR 117 through the project will benefit the CR 117 corridor traffic and make the road a safer road to travel. The project is also required to pay the County's Traffic Impact Fee at the time of final plat. That total fee is estimated to be approximately $500,000. 17 While that deals with County's portion of the traffic impact, the intersections that will be impacted with traffic volume conflicts are all located in Glenwood Springs and not in Garfield County. In order to deal with these issues, the Applicant's traffic consultant prepared an analysis that modeled the impacts which are summarized here and are also contained in Tab 3, Binder 2: The following road system improvements, identified in the Glenwood Springs Lono Range Transportation Plan, were assumed to be constructed by 2025: Grand Avenue/27ln Street: Signalize (also assumed for short term conditions). Midland Avenue/27th Street: Signalize and install a westbound to northbound right turn lane (also assumed for short term conditions). Midland Avenue/Four Mile Road: Construct a southbound left turn lane, a westbound left turn and a northbound right turn lane. South Bridge: Construct a new bridge across the Roaring Fork River south of town to provide a more direct connection to the Sunlight Ski Area. It is anticipated that southbound traffic from Elk Meadows, Red Feather Ridge, and other developments in the area would use this new bridge rather than travel north to the Sunlight Bridge. This is anticipated to reduce future background traffic on Midland Avenue/27"' Street by approximately 6.700 vehicles per day over conditions without the South Bridge. As discussed earlier, the pre -annexation agreement that has been entered into to provide wastewater service from the City to the development also includes an obligation on the developer to make $900,000 worth of improvements to one of these intersections described below: b. Transportation. As part of the subdivision improvements to be made in connection with the first Final Plat for development on the Property, the Developer shall complete intersection improvements to one or more of the following intersections: 27th Street and Midland Avenue; 27th Street and South Grand Avenue; or Midland Avenue 18 and Four Mile Road, including design and construction in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by the City, up to and including a roundabout at the intersection of 27' Street and Midland Avenue. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with any such intersection improvements, including engineering fees, utility relocation, and legal fees and acquisition costs incurred in connection with any necessary acquisition of real property. Provided, however, that under no circumstances shall the developer have to expend more than $900,000,00 to pay for any such intersection improvements. Prior to approval of the first Final Plat for development on the Property, the Developer, at its expense, shall work with the City to design intersection improvements which are acceptable to the City. In connection therewith, the Developer shall provide the City with a certified engineer's estimate for the total cost of any intersection improvements approved by the City, if the engineer's estimate for such cost is more than $900,000.0O,or the City request it, then in lieu of constructing such intersection improvements the Developer shall pay to the City the sum of $900,000.00 at the time of recording the first Final Plat less costs incurred by Developer for engineering and design of the intersection improvements. Upon such payment the Developer shall have fully satisfied all of its obligations under this paragraph. The City agrees that it shall utilize such funds only to make any improvements to the intersections of 2.7' Street and Midland Avenue, 27" Street and South Grand or Midland Avenue and Four Mile Road that it deems appropriate, and for other transportation infrastructure improvements identified and approved by the City in Resolution No. 2006-20 as it may be amended prior to the first Final Plat. In the event that the actual cost to the Developer for intersection improvements made by the Developer is less than $900,000.00, then in addition to making such improvements Developer shall pay to the City the difference between $900,000.00 and such actual costs. Such payment shall be made no later than sixty (60) days after completion of construction of intersection improvements and the amount thereof shall be based upon a certification of such actual costs by the Developer's engineer. The City of Glenwood Springs provided additional comment on the application which acknowledged the pre -annexation agreement obligations; however, the letter from Andrew McGregor states that the agreement is not meant to serve as an "endorsement" of the project. Additionally, he notes that changes have occurred with potential improvements to the Midland / 27th Avenue intersection that suggest a roundabout is better than a signal. As such, the traffic study should be revised to reflect this change. Additionally, the study relies on the tenuous subject of the possible construction of the South Bridge. Lastly, the study fails to address the Midland / Mount Sopris Drive intersection which presently has conflicts as it, at times, under serves a school, 350 home, and parks. (2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. 19 Staff Finding The PUD proposes an internal street system characterized by looped cul-de-sacs. As viewed in two sections with CR 117 splitting the development, there is only one way in and one way out. Internally on the west side, the site plan provides emergency access routes to provide a secondary egress / ingress in the event of an emergency. The application states (and Staff agrees) that the proposed realignment of Four Mile Road will improve safety on this major collector road and allow for the construction of an efficient and safe intersection with the roads internal to the PUD. It is unclear of the application proposes these roads to be "private" or dedicated to the public because the application states that "Some roads will also be platted with a public access easement such that the public may access the parking areas designated for users of the proposed "mountain park"." Roads in a PUD may be private if requested and approved by the BOCC. The application also proposes to reduce the required road"standards listed in the County Subdivision regulations. Specifically, the County requires that the roads be designed to the Minor Collector standard which requires 60 -foot ROW, Two 12 -foot lanes, 6 -foot shoulders and a max grade at 8%. The PUD proposes 22 -feet of asphalt traffic lanes. Additionally, the application provides that "in three locations, emergency access drives are proposed as an alternative to full cross section streets to avoid dramatic scarring of the native terrain. One emergency access, which is of relative steep grade and also serves as a primary pedestrian trail, will have a ten foot wide asphalt surface with one foot shoulders. The remaining two emergency drives will be twelve foot wide gravel platforms and will also serve a pedestrian function. Paved pedestrian trails connect the public pedestrian trail located east of Four Mile Road with access to the proposed "mountain park':" There appears to be good pedestrian / bike access through the site. The City of Glenwood Springs provided thoughts on the trails: There are significant trails around the perimeter of the property. Some consideration should be given to more connections from the periphery to the internal roadways so that pedestrians do not have to walk around an entire area to gain access to the road. Will the trails be used by school aged children to provide access to a central bus location at the entries to the development? Ongoing maintenance of the trails so they are always available for pedestrian access? Is there a need for sidewalks in the development to serve this purpose? Staff questions the grade of Street A and the emergency access which appear to be rather steep and could be further impacted by snow in the winter due to their north, northeast aspects which are more difficult to get sun exposure. Again, there is only 20 one way in and out of the project on either side of CR 117. The Subdivision Regulations require a secondary access if cul-de-sacs are longer than 600 linear feet. While the east meadow appears to have little wildfire issues, the upper meadows have those issues. Staff initially found that this needs to be more fully explored and noted that the Glenwood Springs Fire Department as well as the Colorado State forest Service were silent on the issue. To that end, the Fire District provided an additional letter stating that they approve of the design as mentioned earlier. Staff agrees with the City's comments regarding approximately 700 ft. of the access road at the upper meadows area will encounter slopes with gradients of 40% and that rock -walls may be required. Additionally, a rock wall is proposed at the south end of the development. Design standards should be incorporated to require terracing of retaining walls with vegetation. Roads are to be 22 ft. in width with perpendicular "guest parking" spaces at intervals throughout the development. It is assumed there will be no on -street parking. Developments with similar road widths and guest parking have had enforcement issues when the Homeowners Association is responsible for enforcement. Construction vehicles, abandoned vehicles, etc. can create problems. (3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation, safety, convenience, separation and screening. Staff Finding The PUD proposes "guest parking" throughout the PUD as well as provides a 10 - space public parking lot in the upper meadow for access to the BLM and the "Mountain Park." Staff finds that these areas are appropriately located. (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain. Staff Finding The site plan incorporates almost 75% of the property in some form of open space. Staff finds that much of the open space is practically unbuildable but the site plan does set aside very buildable areas such as the 20 -acre hayfield on CR 117. The site plan does propose that the development footprint occur in areas already disturbed from agricultural practices / uses and that the road system has been designed to minimize cuts and fills on the property to preserve hillsides as much as possible. The residential clusters also provide for unique active and passive recreation as well as preserved much of the hillsides on the property. (5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. Staff Finding This standard requires that the PUD shall provide for a variety in housing types and densities. As mentioned earlier, with the new inclusion of multi -family AH units, the 21 PUD does provide for a variety of housing types other than single-family dwellings. Additionally, the PUD provides ample open space and other amenities that satisfy this standard. (6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units. Staff Finding Generally, the proposed site plan provides for private between units as almost all of the units back up against some form of open space. The density proposed, particularly in the lower meadow is a suburban style lot type that provides minimal privacy simply due to lot size and proximity one another. (7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety, separation, convenience, and access to points of destination and attractiveness. Staff Finding Staff finds the PUD has done a good job at providing pedestrian trails / amenities throughout the development which will benefit not only the residents but the general public as well. This standard has been met. (8) If centralized waterandlor wastewater facilities are proposed within the PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that shall contain its own performance standards. No land within any utility zone district shall apply toward any category of open space calculation or requirement. The PUD shall demonstrate how common water and wastewater facilities will be controlled or governed by the future owners within the PUD. (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The City of Glenwood springs will provide sewer treatment services The PUD site plan shows that a separate utility zone district has been created to accommodate the chlorine treatment facility for the domestic water system, water storage tanks and an irrigation water pumping station. Staff agrees that the individual wells do not need to be contained with the utility district but are noted as an allowed use in the open space district as the space consumed by an individual well head is insignificant to the open space uses of the area. The on site central water system including wells, treatment facilities and distribution lines will be owned and maintained by the Elk Meadows home owners association. The on site sewer collection lines and any potential sewage lift stations will be owned and operated by the home owners association. (9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40%, shall be the minimum necessary to meet the development needs, with a revegetation and geotechnical plan submitted with the PUD application; Staff Finding The site plan with grade contours shows that virtually all of the residential disturbance will occur in areas of 30 percent or less in slope. The application points out that approximately 700 feet of the access road to the Upper Meadow residential area crosses slopes with gradients of 40%. 22 In order to deal with that slope issue, the application suggests that it may be possible to use rock walls on the uphill cut side of the road allowing a full bench cut which will minimize the fill slope disturbance and reduce the visual impact of the road as it crosses this hillside. Moreover, a report prepared by HP Geotech addresses slope stability questions relative to the road construction and the civil engineering statement prepared by Sopris Engineering describes the basic parameters for the revegetation of disturbed slopes in the project and particularly disturbance on the steeper native slopes. (10) If community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entity shall be responsible for the provision of and payment for the proposed facilities. The facilities shall also be included within the overall common infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to include water, wastewater and parking requirements. Staff Finding The PUD does propose several community facilities that include preserving the two barn structures that the applications states are "historic." [Note, while they may appear practically historic, they are not listed on any state or federal historic inventory that Staff is aware of; nonetheless, they are certainly cultural fixtures that serve as reminders of the County's agricultural heritage and should definitely be preserved.] The PUD also proposes to the Bershenyi Frame Barn which requires only basic interior clean-up, exterior painting and roof repair; and the Bershenyi Log Barn which is proposed to be moved to the northeast to accommodate the realignment of Four Mile Road, placed on a new foundation, the interior cleaned up, general repair of the roof and exterior walls as needed for basic preservation. Other community facilities proposed in the PUD include the asphalt and gravel trails, parkland facilities which includes children's play equipment, an observation platform and shelter, a picnic shelter, a parking lot for use by the public near the access trail to the proposed "mountain park" and landscape plantings at the community entry and in the open space parks internal to the South Meadow and the East Meadow. The PUD states that the completed facilities will be dedicated to the Reserve at Elk Meadows Home Owners Association for long term operation and maintenance and that the details of these facilities will be provided with the preliminary plan. 4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following characteristics of the proposed building: (1) It's geographical location; (2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain; (3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity; (4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air circulation or loss of view; (5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open space; and (6) Uses within the proposed building. 23 Staff Finding The PUD proposes to use the same height limitations in the underlying ARRD zone district with no exception requested. The application does request to "grandfather" the height of the existing Bershenyi Frame Barn. Staff finds there is no need to ask because it is a legal non -conforming structure. Note, however that if it is to be used for human occupation rather than strict agricultural purposes, a building permit would be required. 4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate specific building types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted torovide flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with useable common open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accommodate contemporary building types which are not spaced individually on their own lots but share common side walls, combined service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a basis for denying approval of a PUD application. Staff Finding Using the underlying ARRD as a guide, Staff provides a comparison of what the PUD proposes against the ARRD: ARRD Proposed PUD Minimum Lot Size 2 acres Minimum Setbacks 13,000 sq. ft. Front & Rear: 25 feet Side: 10 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 15% None Specified ???? None Specified ???? The application states that the proposed lot size and coverage criteria are not significantly different from that of the "urban and suburban" density residential zone districts contained in the Garfield County Zone Regulations which would be consistent with the Comp Plan designation of "Residential High Density". The application is required to indicate what those limits are so that when zoning review occurs, it can be determined if the structure meets the provisions of the PUD. This standard has not been met. 4.07.06 The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special district (as defined by Section 32-1-103(20). C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, such densities being determined by reference to the maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and parking standards of such prior zoning 24 classification. The overall average residential density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the PUD. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance to the purposes of this section through appropriate utilization of the area within the PUD to achieve high standards of design and livability. The density of dwelling units in any particular area may be greater than the maximum permitted fora like use in other zone district. (A. 83-93, A. 96-87, A. 97-109) Staff Finding Including the AH units for a total unit count of 200, the PUD proposes a gross residential density of 0.40 dwelling units per acre or 2.53 acres per dwelling unit. This standard has been met. 4.07.07 The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres. Staff Finding The PUD covers a property totaling 506 acres which satisfied this standard. 4.07.08 All uses. which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD. Staff Finding The primary use in the PUD is a single family residential use of the property is also an allowed use in the underlying zone district ARRD. The community and infrastructure facilities are considered accessory uses serving the residential community. 4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open space. Of the 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no more than 40% of the 25% total required, shall be limited use open space, with the balance being retained as one or more of the remaining open space categories. listed above. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by the design of, and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan. and that the needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD. Staff Finding All PUDs in Garfield County require that at least 25% of the property be designated as open space. In this case, 25% of 506 acres is 126.47 acres. The PUD site plan is also required to further refine the types of open space which are provided below: COMMON OPEN SPACE SUMMARY Usable Common Open Space (slopes less than 25% less Road ROW) Limited Use Common Open Space 118.9 acres 255.8 acres 25 (slopes 25% or greater less Road ROW) Total Common Open Space in PUD 374.7 acres (74.1 %of PUD) The PUD has satisfied the open space requirement. (Note, these acreages are for areas within the PUD boundary only and DO NOT include land in the proposed "mountain park".) The City of Glenwood Springs provided the following comments on open space within the project: The use of the open space is prescribed as trails and passive open areas, which is desirable. The application indicates some of the open space areas will be available for "open field play." Are any active recreation fields proposed within the development? It would seem appropriate, given the density that some active recreation such as a soccer field, ballfield, basketball court, etc. would be appropriate. One of the key emphasis of the PUD is the heritage ranch and preservation of the hayfields. The allowance for community gardens within some of the designate open space areas, particularly in the area of the barns might be appropriate. There is some concern that the relocation of one of the log barns can be accomplished from a structural preservation standpoint. 4.07.10 If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such ownership shall be those that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PUD. Staff Finding The PUD does not propose any time-share or fractional ownership schemes. 4.07.15 In order to fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan while directing growth into the areas designated in that plan, requirements will be based on the Proposed Land Use Districts from the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding This is the section of the Code that applies to the PUD for the requirements for affordable housing. 4.07.15.01 For Lands Designated High Density Residential: (1) Planned Unit Developments - All Planned Unit Development proposals, and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a variety of housing types and densities [Section 4.07.03(5)]. 26 Staff Finding The proposed PUD results in an increase in density and therefore is obligated to provide 10% of the units to be provided as affordable housing units. As shown above, in order to quantify the mapping change and what that will realize in terms of residential density, the following is a summary showing the change. Therefore, a re -mapping of the subject property (as now approved) resulted in a net density increase from 7 acres per dwelling unit to 2.53 acres per dwelling unit or from a total of 72 lots to 200 lots for the entire property. Note, specific increases in density for the High Density Residential results in 0.80 acres / dwelling unit. This is important to the next standard. The PUD agrees with the obligation to provide 10% of the total housing units to be deemed "affordable housing units" which totals 20 units. Initially, the Application requested the ability to provide these units "off-site" rather than include them within the units in the PUD. See below regarding "Off-site." (2) Off-site - Given that these lands have been planned for two or less acres per dwelling unit, these are the locations most suited for affordable housing. Off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site option. In any event, the applicant must show that affordable housing units meet the requirements of these regulations and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines, and that these housing units will actually be built in Study Area 1. No cash -in -lieu payment will be accepted. Staff Finding The Applicant has made a logical argument in their request to amend portions of the Proposed Land Use Districts Map in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium and Low Density to Medium and High Density. In fact, all of the lower and south meadow residential clusters would be designated High Density at the request of the Applicant because of a lack of significant development constraints, availability of central sewer service and proximity to an improved collector road and close proximity to community / urban services in Glenwood Springs. 27 Existing Comprehensive Plan Resulting Lots (Density) Proposed Amendment Resulting Lots (Density_) Low Density 36% (182.16 acres) 18.26 (10 ac /du) 0 0 Medium Density 64% (323.84 acres) 0 53.97 (6 ac / du) 79% (399.74 acres) 21% (106.26 acres) 66.62 (6 ac / du) 133.38 (0.80 ac / du) High Density Total Lot (Average Density) 72.23 Tots (7 ac / du) 200 lots (2.53 ac / du) Therefore, a re -mapping of the subject property (as now approved) resulted in a net density increase from 7 acres per dwelling unit to 2.53 acres per dwelling unit or from a total of 72 lots to 200 lots for the entire property. Note, specific increases in density for the High Density Residential results in 0.80 acres / dwelling unit. This is important to the next standard. The PUD agrees with the obligation to provide 10% of the total housing units to be deemed "affordable housing units" which totals 20 units. Initially, the Application requested the ability to provide these units "off-site" rather than include them within the units in the PUD. See below regarding "Off-site." (2) Off-site - Given that these lands have been planned for two or less acres per dwelling unit, these are the locations most suited for affordable housing. Off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site option. In any event, the applicant must show that affordable housing units meet the requirements of these regulations and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines, and that these housing units will actually be built in Study Area 1. No cash -in -lieu payment will be accepted. Staff Finding The Applicant has made a logical argument in their request to amend portions of the Proposed Land Use Districts Map in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium and Low Density to Medium and High Density. In fact, all of the lower and south meadow residential clusters would be designated High Density at the request of the Applicant because of a lack of significant development constraints, availability of central sewer service and proximity to an improved collector road and close proximity to community / urban services in Glenwood Springs. 27 This standard above, explicitly agrees with the suitability of providing affordable housing units "on-site", in that, areas of High Density are planned for two or Tess acres per dwelling unit, which are the locations most suited for affordable housing. Further, off-site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the Applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site option. In any event, the Applicant must show that affordable housing units meet the requirements of these regulations and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines, and that these housing units will actually be built in Study Area 1. Importantly, Staff interprets this language in this section 4.07.15.01(1 and 2)•above, to mean the following: 1) Section 4.07.15.01(1) applies to this PUD because the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map to High Density Residential; 2) This PUD standard requires the "policy debate" to occur at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners as they review this PUD, where the Board decides whether affordable housing will be on-site or off-site. If the Board agrees to the provision off-site, the Applicant shall meet the requirements to do so at Preliminary Plan. Ultimately, the Applicant agreed to incorporate the 10% (20 units) on-site therefore satisfying this standard. As mentioned throughout the memo, Staff believes the 10% should be built on site rather than somewhere in Study Area I for the following reasons: 1) The following goals and objectives in the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan supports on site housing in the following way: ➢ PUDs should provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. ➢ PUDs should encourage mix of housing types within a development. ➢ Encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County... 2) The Garfield County Housing Authority expressed their preferred policy for housing to be located on site stating the following: ➢ These units (on-site) will target households earning $50,500 to $58,600 annually. It has been our experience that families in this income bracket do not rely on social services and public 28 transportation to the extent the development would be an undesirable place to live. ➢ We believe that the close proximity to the Fire Station, Elementary School, and the Mountain Market with associated commercial spaces offering convenience products, gasoline, and personal service type businesses with a paved pedestrian / bike trail would create a practical setting for affordable housing. ➢ The Housing Authority feels that Elk Meadows would be a desired place to include affordable housing and build a balanced community. ➢ The Housing Authority acknowledges that the guidelines allow (should the BOCC approve) off-site location under certain circumstances; however we do not feel those circumstances apply for this development. 3) The application itself goes to great length to demonstrate that a comprehensive plan amendment is warranted due to Infrastructure Needs and Distance from Urban Uses. For example, the application states the following to support a change to high density residential (pages 3 and 4 in Tab 3): ➢ The Sopris Elementary School is located just off Four Mile Road/Midland Avenue about one and one quarter miles from the Elk Meadows PUD Entry. ➢ In the same vicinity as Sopris Elementary School is the Mountain Market and associated commercial spaces offering convenience products, gasoline and personal service type businesses. ➢ The existing paved pedestrian trail paralleling Four Mile Road through the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision will be extended through the proposed Elk Meadows PUD making the school and Mountain Market convenience services more accessible for pedestrians. ➢ American National Bank, Rivers Restaurant, WalMart and the numerous other commercial services in South Glenwood begin at a point less than three miles from the subject properties. Urban services are readily available to the future residents of these properties either by vehicle or by foot. The location of the proposed High Density districts easily satisfies a Moderate ranking for proximity to urban uses. 29 ➢ Staff would also note the existing RFTA service to Glenwood Park which is at the terminus of the Four Mile Subdivision within walking distance to the development. 4) The City of Glenwood Springs' opinion supports providing housing in -site in the following statement: ➢ Unfortunately, the application materials provided do not provide any details on how off-site mitigation would be achieved. The incorporation of affordable housing within a specific development is, in most cases, the optimum location for housing as it provides a mix of housing and socio-economic groups within a community. ➢ The overall design of the Elk Meadows development has lots that range in size from 13,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. The application indicates that most homes will be 4,500 sq. ft. in size or greater. It is likely a number of these homes will be second homes for some families. Second homes in and of themselves generate a need for employees to provide needed services such as overall maintenance, gardening, etc. Employees will also be needed to provide the necessary maintenance of the trails, roads and improvements owned by the Homeowners Association within this development. It would seem appropriate that some form of affordable housing should be provided on site for these employees and also for other employees, such as workers at the Sunlight Ski area. ➢ The pre -annexation agreement sets a cap on the number of units within this development to 200. The current application is for 189 detached single family homes. One of the stated goals from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111-2.0 indicates a mix of housing types is to be encouraged within a development. One of the County's objectives as cited in 2.1 is to encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. It does not appear as though the current proposal meets this goal or objective as the only variation in housing product is a variation on lot sizes. ➢ It would seem appropriate that the plan could be revised to include a housing product to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and inclusionary requirements. An additional option to the inclusionary component would be the addition of accessory dwelling units as a permitted use, understanding that there is a cap on the number of dwelling units per the annexation agreement. 30 Therefore, Staff recommended and the Applicant agreed the 10% affordable housing units are to be included on site and the site plan has been revised to reflect this commitment. 4.08.05 Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the Subdivision Regulation requirements will supersede the following PUD requirements where the same information or more detailed information is required as a part of a subdivision application. The applicant shall include with the written request for PUD zoning which does not include a subdivision Preliminary Plan application the following information: (1) A statement of the ownership interest in the property to be included in the PUD and the written consent of all of the owners; Staff Finding The application contains a Title Policy from Land Title Guarantee Company which indicates that the Applicant owns the Martino Ranch. Additionally, the Policy demonstrates that the Bershenyi Ranch is owned by Bershenyi Land & Cattle LLLP, Carol A. Bershenyi and John Wilson Bershenyi and Alice P. Bershenyi. The application contains a letter from these owners giving the Reserve at Elk Meadows, LLC permission to submit the PUD application. (2) A PUD Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development. Such Plan shall clearly indicate: (a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposed within the overall area; Staff Finding The PUD states (and shows) that the site plan envisions a site specific development plan containing 189 residential lots. (b) The minimum acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open Space; Staff Finding The PUD site plan shows a dedication of approximately 374.7 acres of total common open space. (c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each use; Staff Finding Generally, the primary use in the PUD is a single family residential use (comprising approximately 131 acres which includes roads through the property leaving the balance of 374 acres in open space that also contain community facilities which can be considered accessory uses serving the residential community. The PUD zone districts map provides a land use summary as follows: PUD Zone District Acreage Devoted to Use 3.6 Utilities District % of Total Property 0.71% Country Residential District (North Meadow) 51.3 1 10.14% 31 Meadow Residential District (East & South Meadows) 68.3 13.46% Open Space District 378.7 74.89% Community Facilities / Open Space District 1.87 0.37% Four Mile Road ROW 2.2 0.43% Total 505.8 100% (d) Major internal circulation systems; Staff Finding The PUD proposes an internal street system characterized by looped cul-de-sacs. As viewed in two sections with CR 117 splitting the development, there is only one way in and one way out. Internally on the west side, the site plan provides emergency access routes to provide a secondary egress / ingress in the event of an emergency. The application states (and Staff agrees) that the proposed realignment of Four Mile Road will improve safety on this major collector road and allow for the construction of an efficient and safe intersection with the roads internal to the PUD. It is unclear of the application proposes these roads to be "private" or dedicated to the public because the application states that "Some roads will also be platted with a public access easement such that the public may access the parking areas designated for users of the proposed "mountain park"." Roads in a PUD may be private if requested and approved by the BOCC. The application also proposes to reduce the required road standards listed in the County Subdivision regulations. Specifically, the County requires that the roads be designed to the Minor Collector standard which requires 60 -foot ROW, Two 12 -foot lanes, 6 -foot shoulders and a max grade at 8%. The PUD proposes 22 -feet of asphalt traffic lanes. Additionally, the application provides that "in three locations, emergency access drives are proposed as an alternative to full cross section streets to avoid dramatic scarring of the native terrain. One emergency access, which is of relative steep grade and also serves as a primary pedestrian trail, will have a ten foot wide asphalt surface with one foot shoulders. The remaining two emergency drives will be twelve foot wide gravel platforms and will also serve a pedestrian function. Paved pedestrian trails connect the public pedestrian trail located east of Four Mile Road with access to the proposed "mountain park"." There appears to be good pedestrian / bike access through the site; however, Staff questioned the main road widths for this PUD. Specifically, the grades appear to be too steep and could be further impacted by snow in the winter due to their north, northeast aspects which are more difficult to get sun exposure. Again, as mentioned earlier, there is only one way in and out of the project on either side of CR 117. The Subdivision Regulations require a secondary access if cul-de-sacs are longer than 600 linear feet. While the east meadow appears to have little wildfire issues, the upper meadows certainly have those issues. Staff finds that this needs 32 to be more fully explored. Staff notes that the Glenwood Springs Fire Department as well as the Colorado State forest Service were silent on the issue. This issue has beenadequately addressed as discussed earlier with an additional letter from the Fire Department, Sopris Engineering and the County's engineering review. e) The acreage, which will be dedicated for school, sites; Staff Finding The PUD is located in the RE -1 School District. As such the PUD proposes (and is allowed) to make a payment of cash -in -lieu for School Site Dedication purposes to the School District. This calculation shall be done according to Section 9:80 of the County Subdivision Regulations at will be paid at Final Plat. (f) The general nature and location of commercial and industrial uses, if any, to be located in the PUD; Staff Finding The PUD proposes no commercial or industrial uses. (g) Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if applicable; and Staff Finding The PUD proposes a central water system for both potable and irrigation water. Wastewater service is to be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs via the terms in a pre -annexation agreement. Telephone, electricity, natural gas and cable television will be installed underground within the amended PUD and in accordance with plans designed or specified by the utility companies serving this area. The detailed engineering for these utilities and their associated state approvals are to occur at preliminary plan and final plat. (h) Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building setbacks. height limits, access requirements and grade or slope restrictions to be applied to particular areas, written in the form of a zone district text the same as, or in similar form to, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and Staff Finding Tab 10 of the application contains the specifics in the proposed PUD regarding dimensional requirements (lot size, height, etc.) and uses allowed in each of the districts shown in the PUD master Zoning Map. Generally, the application states that the residential lots are very typical of urban / sub -urban type lots. Staff agrees and notes that they are very similar to what would be in the RGUD or RLUD zone district. Staff notes that where an item is not covered in the proposed PUD, the County shall refer to the County Zoning Resolution by default. Staff points out a few issues for discussion: 1) Setbacks versus Building Envelopes: The PUD refers to them 33 interchangeably throughout the application. In this case, Staff prefers to have the PUD set out specific setbacks rather than building envelopes primarily from an administrative perspective. Building envelopes are required to be placed on a plat which requires a plat amendment by the BOCC to amend. Setbacks are more clearly administered as they can't be amended (except through a variance process). Staff suggests the Planning Commission recommend the BOCC require setbacks rather than building envelopes. Note, this will require varying setbacks for the three different residential neighborhoods; 2) Signs: The PUD requests specific sign standards for this PUD, different from the Code. Staff suggests the Applicant redesign this section to better reflect the terms used in the code. For example, the sign code does not allow a "monument" sign at all which means it cannot be part of any PUD. This section needs better refinement and Staff cannot support this as proposed. 3) Street Design Standards: As mentioned earlier, the Code requires these internal roads be designed to a Minor Collector standard based on ADT. The PUD proposes an internal street system characterized by looped cul-de-sacs. As viewed in two sections with CR 117 splitting the development, there is only one way in and one way out. Internally on the west side, the site plan provides emergency access routes to provide a secondary egress / ingress in the event of an emergency. The application also proposes to reduce the required road standards listed in the County Subdivision regulations. Specifically, the County requires that the roads be designed to the Minor Collector standard which requires 60 -foot ROW, Two 12 -foot lanes, 6 -foot shoulders and a max grade at 8%. The PUD proposes 22 -feet of asphalt traffic lanes. Staff finds this characterization of the main road widths to be inadequate in design for this PUD. Specifically, the grades appear to be too steep and could be further impacted by snow in the winter due to their north, northeast aspects which are more difficult to get sun exposure. 4) Maximum Grade: The PUD appears to proposed roads that may be in excess of 8% for a minor collector. A variance can be sought (Section 9:37) from the BOCC for a grade increase up to 14% provided the following provisions have been met (which have not been addressed in this PUD): A) The applicant shall, by way of graphic illustration on a topographic map, show the difference between a road that would comply with the grade requirements and the proposed road with excessive grade. 34 B) The excessive grade is necessary to avoid the creation of a cut or the fill slope that exceeds twelve (12) feet in height at the top of the cut or the bottom of the hill. C) That the excessive grade section is the minimum length and the minimum increase in grade necessary to provide access to all lots. D) The excessive grade has a slope with exposure to maximize solar exposure and minimize snow/ice build up. E) All excessive grades in excess of 150 feet in length on dead end roads shall have a turnaround approved by the appropriate fire district as to the adequacy of the turnaround to meet fire equipment requirements. F) If the applicant has not proposed or obtained Board of County Commissioner approval for fire fighting water storage of adequate capacity at the top of the excessive grade, the proposed excessive grade must permit the transport of such water. 1. If the Board of County Commissioners find that a wild fire hazard is present in the proposed subdivision, the applicant for a variance to the maximum permissible grade must meet the following additional criteria: 2. Excessive grades shall only be approved if, in the judgement of the local fire fighting authority, the wildfire hazard presents a danger due to excessive vegetation, inadequate land widths or inability to transport water. 3. In areas where wildfire hazard presents a danger, excessive grades shall only be approved if landscaping requirements consistent with Forest Service recommendations to minimize wildfire hazards are not incorporated into the covenants of the subdivision. 4. A variance to the maximum grade shall only be allowed if the use of roof shingles and siding of the structure are built out of something other than fire retardant materials and/or sprinklers for internal structural fire protection are not mandated by covenant. 5) Ownership / Maintenance of internal Roads: It is unclear of the application proposes these roads to be "private" or dedicated to the public because the application states that "Some roads will also be platted with a public access easement such that the public may access the parking areas designated for users of the proposed "mountain park"." Roads in a PUD may be private if requested and approved by the BOCC. 35 6) Cul-de-sac & Emergency Access: The road design provides only one way in and out of the project on either side of CR 117. The Subdivision Regulations require a secondary access if cul-de-sacs are longer than 600 linear feet. The design shows 1000 linear feet of exclusive access to the East Meadow and approximately 1000 linear feet for the upper and south meadows with only one way out. The PUD requests the ability to waive the standard. While the East Meadow appears to have little wildfire issues, the upper meadows certainly have those issues. Staff finds that this needs to be more fully explored. 7) Lot Access by Easement: Staff is uncertain what is being requested here. This needs better explanation. (1) If more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be included in the application that delineates the proposed phasing of the development. Staff Finding The PUD proposes the development would achieve full build -out over 6 phases. The phasing plan is laid out on the following page. Note, initially there were no timelines attached to the phasing plan and instead, the application asks that it be built out according to the measure of how well the market is doing rather than tie phases to timelines. At the direction of the Planning Commission, this has been revised with dates. That phasing plan has been attached as an Exhibit hereto. As with all PUDs, an Applicant shall be required to submit a preliminary plan application for subdivision of the entire PUD shall be submitted to the County within 1 -year of approval of the PUD. Then the separate phases would occur via 6 separate final plats. The application states that while this is the currently proposed phasing plan, market conditions and construction implications may cause the Applicant to modify the sequence of the development of these phases. Additionally, the application states that the configuration of the proposed phases allows for utilities and roads in a manner such that if subsequent phases are not developed for some time, the completed areas of the development will function effectively. Important to note that the Applicant requests that with the approval of the Elk Meadows PUD, the sequence of phasing construction may be modified through the subdivision review process and not require an amendment of the originally approved PUD. Staff does not interpret the County's regulations to accommodate such a request understanding that the phasing plan is directly required by the PUD and the Preliminary Plan / Final Plat action is merely the subdivision action directed and guided by the phasing plan in the PUD. In this way, to amend the phasing plan, an applicant shall be required to modify the PUD and cannot achieve that change through the County's Subdivision processes. Staff cannot recommend this be approved. 36 Ultimately, the development build -out completes the lower meadow first followed by the south meadow second, and finally with the upper meadow. With phased developments, Staff continues to take the position that all of the amenities promised by a developer in a PUD should be available for all of the future residents in that community which includes the first and last resident to build. To that end, Staff suggests that all of the community facilities including trails, community buildings, open space tracts, landscaping, etc. be platted and constructed during the first phase of development. The Applicant has committed to developing the public trail extension from Four Mile Ranch through this development as part of Phase A. The Planning Commission required a revised phasing plan to include specific tasks to be completed which is attached as an Exhibit hereto. f3) A regional location map showing the relationship of the site to connecting roadways, public acilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding land uses; Staff Finding: This was provided in the application. (4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing zoning; Staff Finding: This was provided in the application. (5) A site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year flooding; Staff Finding This was provided in the application. (6) A legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the PUD; Staff Finding This was provided in the application. (7) A written statement containing the following information: (a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD; Staff Finding: This was provided in the application but is reinserted here. The Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD is a result of applying objectives established by an analysis of the community and planning issues associated with the property, immediately surrounding physical conditions, zoning patterns existing in the Four Mile Creek corridor and the Garfield County Comprehensive Master Plan for Study Area I. Input collected at informal public meetings and interviews with adjacent property 37 owners and community members were also used in the analysis. Following is a list of the objectives that have guided the PUD design: ➢ Preserve the unique natural areas of the PUD site, especially the riparian areas associated with Four Mile Creek. ➢ Maintain a sense of space along Four Mile Road. ➢ Preserve the two large Bershenyi barns to provide a permanent link to the cultural heritage of the property. ➢ The Four Mile Creek community trail should be continued through the PUD to the south boundary of the property and link this trail to the access trail to the upper Bershenyi parcel that will be preserved for the public benefit. ➢ Improve traffic flow and safety on Four Mile Road through the Bershenyi Barnyard area. ➢ Minimize impacts on uniquely sensitive view sheds associated with the property. ➢ Minimize the impacts of development by locating home sites in areas appropriate for development, avoiding sensitive geologic zones, native vegetation and sensitive wildlife habitat. ➢ Create home sites with direct connection to open space, wherever possible, and provide on site recreational opportunities for the future residents of the community. ➢ Group home sites in compact neighborhoods to maximize large blocks of open space, achieve efficient infrastructure systems, create cohesive landscape patterns and streetscapes and to minimize impacts on the environmental qualities of the site. ➢ Provide a community which offers efficient and safe internal access, minimizes demands on county services, is sensitive to off site traffic impacts and provides centralized sewer and water services to its residents including a raw water irrigation system. ➢ Create a rural residential community that is compatible with other residential land use patterns in the Four Mile Creek corridor. ➢ The qualities and character of the proposed community should provide residential dwellings and neighborhoods compatible with existing and approved housing in the Four Mile Creek Corridor. 38 ➢ Create site, architectural and landscape design guidelines to be administered and enforced by the home owners association. (b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed: Staff Finding The Applicant has submitted a revised phasing plan that adequately addresses this timeline. (c) Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions. which will govern the use or occupancy of the PUD, provided, however, that the applicant may impose additional covenants, conditions and restrictions on any particular area in connection with the platting of such area; Staff Finding Draft CCRs have been submitted in Binder 2. (d) A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200) feet of the boundaries of the PUD and their addresses; Staff Finding This list was submitted in Binder 1. (e) A statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and documentation, which shall provide evidence of the following: (i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to service the PUD; Staff Finding The Application contains the following documents that provide a detailed analysis of the proposed central water supply system. ➢ Water Rights & Water Supply Report — Zancanella & Associates; ➢ Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer System & Dry Utilities Report — Sopris Engineering; ➢ Schematic water plan; ➢ Schematic irrigation plan; and ➢ Schematic sewer plan The application proposes to provide domestic water supply to the all residential Tots from a new central water supply system. This system would be served by three wells located near Four Mile Road and Four Mile Creek. This water is to be treated then pumped to 2 separate storage tanks where the lower tank has a capacity for approximately 130,000 gallons serving 142 lots and the upper tank has an approximate 90,000 gallon capacity serving 48 Tots. The system will require approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for a community water system. The application states the system design is based upon delivering water at a maximum forty (40) psi and a maximum one hundred seventy (170) psi to each lot. However, the County engineering consultant speculates that this pressure maybe too high for domestic purposes and suggests adjustments be implemented such as reducer valves. Additionally, the planned fire flow is 1,500 gal/min. for a thirty (30) minute duration equaling a five thousand (45,000) gallons of water storage for fire protection. 39 Legal Supply The application states that the legal water supply shall either come from the West Divide Water Conservancy District or an augmentation plan that has been filed with water court. In either case, a plan shall be required to be in place prior to the approval of a Preliminary Plan which will require approve from the Division of Water Resources. Physical SuppIv Anticipated water usage, according to the Zancanella Report (Tab 17) indicates that each house was allocated 1.5 EQRs where each EQR is equivalent to 3.5 people using 100 gallons per person / day. Contrary to the rest of the application, this report states that domestic water will be diverted to accommodate up to 500 sq. ft. of lawn irrigation even through the proposal provides for a separate raw water irrigation system. The Zancanella Report states that two wells have been drilled and pump tested (the Elk and Bison Wells). The report anticipates that the Bison Well and 2 additional wells forming a well field will supply water to the development. The pump tests revealed that both wells recovered normally, but the Bison Well was the better producer at a rate of at least 75 gallons per minute for extended periods of time which is in excess of the maximum pumping demand for the needs of the development. Water Quality The Zancanella Report contains the results of a water quality analysis that indicated no coliform bacteria and that all other required tests did not exceed the Maximum Contaminate Levels established by the EPA. Finally, Sopris Engineering makes the statement that "based on their field investigations, preliminary design findings and design meetings, we foresee no problems with the utility services to serve the project." Staff referred the application to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) which stated that "the proposed water system will need to go through the state New System Capacity Development review and plans and specification review. The water quality information provided showed the Bison well to exceed the MCL for gross Alpha and both wells had relatively high radon levels. There currently is no MCL for radon but it may be an issue in the future." Mountain Cross Engineering, on behalf of Garfield County, provided the following concerns: 1. The water demands that were estimated for the augmentation plan (350 gpd) differ from those estimated for the water system (450 gpd). These should be congruent or explain the rationale behind the discrepancy; and 2. The project is proposed to have two pressure zones, with pressures ranging from 170 40 psi to 40 psi. Pressures of 170 psi are very high. Generally speaking 100 psi is a more realistic maximum for residential plumbing fixtures. More pressure zones or individual residential PRVs should be considered. (ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application proposes to utilize existing, central facilities. the application shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess capacity currently exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will be expanded to adequately accommodate the development; (A. 97-109) Staff Finding The application intends to provide wastewater service to the development by connecting to the 10 -inch sewer main presently installed in CR 117 that runs by the property that served by Glenwood Springs Waste Water Treatment Facility. (Recall, this line was recently constructed to provide sewer service to Springridge Reserve.) The lots on the west side of CR 117 will gravity feed to the line while the lots below (to the east) of CR 117 will need to be gravity fed to 2 lift stations to be forced to the main in the county road. The lift stations will require approval from CDPHE prior to any final plat. The 10 -inch main was oversized when it was recently installed to accommodate this development with two 8 -inch stubs. Additionally, Glenwood Springs' Draft 201 Plan includes providing service to this development in its service area. This service to the development to be provided by Glenwood Springs is memorialized in a Pre -Annexation Agreement (the Agreement) found at Tab 17. This Agreement basically agrees to provide sewer service to the development with certain conditions and obligations of the developer to pay Sewer System Improvement Fees, Transportation Impact Fees, and Parkland Fees. The Transportation Impact Fees appear to be the most significant fee that is intended to off -set the traffic impacts that are to occur in the City; this obligation has a value of $900,000. The City provided a letter indicating that the City "can and will" serve the development; however, the letter contained certain conditions. Sopris Engineering was the firm that originally designed the sewer main which has been installed in CR 117 for the primary benefit of Springridge Reserve. A schematic Sewer Plan is attached and Sopris Engineering makes the statement that "based on their field investigations, preliminary design findings and design meetings, we foresee no problems with the utility services to serve the project." 41 iii) The proposed method in which storm drainage will be handled, demonstrating that adjoining property owners would not be damaged by the development; and Staff Finding The application contains a Drainage Report prepared by Sopris Engineering (Tab 19) which provide an analysis of the drainage basins affecting the property and proposes mitigation to handle stormwater at full build -out so that historic levels of drainage off property are not exceeded. The summary is presented here. A minimum offline detention/infiltration ponds are proposed. The detention or infiltration facilities vary in size. Each basin will have a low-level outlet pipe to release flows at a controlled rate. Spillways should be constructed when storms in excess of the 25 -year occur. This will minimize any erosion of the detention basin slopes. Interior step pond detention is proposed in some areas to interconnect the released drainage from the detention basins. The developed peak runoff rate will then be equal or less than the historic peak runoff rate leaving the site. Summary It is our opinion the above preliminary drainage concept and drainage facilities will meet Garfield County's drainage standards. The results from this preliminary study suggest that no long-term, adverse impacts to drainage are anticipated with the development of the Reserve at Elk Meadows. On-site peak discharge will increase slightly with development. The additional increase in stornnvater volumes will be provided in the proposed detention/infiltration ponds within select basins, Since surface disturbance is proposed only within the lots and the roadways, the historical drainage paste will be maintained. (iv) The proposed method in which provision will be made for any potential natural hazards in the area such as avalanche areas, landslide areas, flood plain areas, and unstable soils, and the extent and mitigation of such hazard(s); Staff Finding The application contains a geologic analysis of the property prepared by HP Geotech. The report states that "geologic conditions in the proposed 2006 conceptual development areas should not present major constraints or unusually high risks to the proposed development that cannot be mitigated. Possible mitigation concepts should be considered in the development plan. The application contains a subsequent HP Geotech analysis regarding radiation potential and their comments are as follows: RADIATION POTENTIAL. The project site is not .located on geologic deposits that would be expected to have high concentration of radioactive minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. It is difficult to assess future radon gas concentrations in buildings before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas levels could be done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas concentration. �l z Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) for comments. CGS responded to the application with the following comments: 1. HP discusses rockfall and debris flow hazards that could affect the site. Two lots in the south meadow, 52 and 53, could be affected by rockfall runout below outcrops of the Maroon Formation, based on the rockfall simulation program that was performed by HP. The runout zone and the location of a possible mitigation structure are illustrated in their report. At a future stage of development, the mitigation design should be presented, or the lots could be removed from the project. The area of proposed mitigation has been mapped as old landslide (Pleistocene age). The construction for mitigation should evaluate the stability of temporary cuts if they would remain unsupported for any length of time. 2. The potential for debris flows exists for the same lots. As stated in the HP report, the mitigation for rockfall could be designed to protect against debris flows. The debris flow hazard for lots 28 through 31 and lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 is minor and could probably be addressed with proper grading and establishment of building envelopes, which has been done. 3. As in many areas with steep terrain, a challenge may be construction of the roads. The Maroon Formation erodes to slick clay. As a grading plan is developed, the cut and fill sections should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to ensure the stability of the hillside and to limit the erosion. 4. Is the access road from lots 1-3 to Lot 53 in the south meadow necessary? There may be a planning purpose for this link, but it necessitates an additional crossing of the drainage and more disturbance. Similarly, is the short access north of Lot 23 in the upper meadow necessary? 5. The county's emergency services department would need to evaluate the grade on the emergency access to the upper meadow. This road is coincident with a drainage and will require additional culverts and drainage features to maintain the access. Would this road be off-limits to the residents for normal travel, and if so, how would the restriction be implemented so that the road could still be used for farm traffic? 6. As the project progresses, the soil characteristics will need to be assessed for bearing capacity and swell -consolidation. The sites for the water tanks will need to be evaluated for soil properties and slope stability. The tanks will have varying loads, which must be accommodated in the foundation design. 7. As mentioned in the HP report, the area of the East Meadow near Four Mile Creek is underlain at depth by evaporite bedrock. Ata future stage of development, drilling or excavation within the building envelopes of the affected lots should provide information on whether sinkholes are developing. 43 8. An erosion control plan should be prepared and erosion mitigation should be in place before grading at the site begins. This is especially important due to the proximity of Four Mile Creek, which could experience sedimentation. Disturbed areas should be reseeded as soon as possible. Detention ponds could be designed with water quality capacity. 9. At this time of year the snow cover made it difficult to observe any seeps that might be present on the hillsides. Locally, it is possible that interceptor drains might be necessary to divert groundwater flows. In summary, there are no geological conditions that would preclude the subdivision. The recommendations in the HP report are valid and should be followed. A geotechnical firm should assist during all phases of the project. Mountain Cross Engineering, on behalf of the County, reviewed the geotech reports and commented that the "Extents and impacts required for the mitigation for rock fall and debris flow should be detailed for Preliminary Plan." (F) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to the PUD andlor documentation demonstrating access shall be acquired across a public right-of- way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way; (A. 97- 109) and Staff Finding Access to the property is proposed to be directly from CR117. The PUD proposes to re- align a portion of CR 117 to accommodate better entrances into the PUD. The Applicant will need to obtain permits under the County Road and ROW Use regulations. As well as obtain permission to relocate the County Road. Vacation of the old portion is governed by the Road Vacation Resolution. The County Road and Bridge Department provided the following comments: 1) During the re -alignment phase of construction, Road and Bridge requests that regular weekly meetings be held for the purpose of quality control. 2) In addition, Road and Bridge will require unlimited access to the site where the relocation and construction of CR 117 is taking place, in order to observe construction practices and ensure compliance with county specifications. 3) Compaction testing will be required and test results should be forwarded to this office as well as to the county engineer. As stated above test results must meet or exceed 95% of standard proctor. 4) With regard to intersection design; the traffic report by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig, recommends that a south bound left turn lane would be required to adequately facilitate safe traffic flow. In addition, Road and Bridge would also request 44 acceleration and deceleration lanes for both north bound and south bound traffic, entering and exiting the site. 5) Prior to construction of the re -alignment of CR 117 all plans and drawings must be reviewed and approved by the county engineer and Road and Bridge. Upon completion and acceptance of the new roadway, plans of record will be submitted to the county engineer and Road and Bridge. In addition a warrantee of the roadway shall be implemented. (G) Evidence that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the natural environment of the site and the surrounding area and does not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or unique natural or historical features. Staff Finding The application provides a lengthy statement as to how the project meets this standard which is summarized here: ➢ Housing is concentrated in areas previously disturbed by agriculture and avoids the more sensitive steep slopes, riparian areas and sensitive geologic zones. A few homes site are located in areas of native vegetation on the fringe of the agricultural areas but only where slopes and geologic conditions presented no unique limitations. ➢ All mapped wetlands are left undisturbed. Proposed roadways do cross natural drainage channels that may be designated as "waters of the US" channels but these only carry seasonal water and the crossings will be accommodated by nationwide permits with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. ➢ All lots border open space with a large majority looking out on expansive areas of open space. ➢ A broad viewshed of hay meadow along the east side of Four Mile Road has been preserved to maintain the sense of openness along Four Mile Road. ➢ The two larger Bershenyi Barns will be preserved to maintain a historic link to the cultural heritage of the site. The large log barn will be relocated to accommodate the proposed new Four Mile Road alignment. ➢ Development is areas of unique visual sensitivity have been avoided. ➢ Internal roads are designed to be sensitive to topographic conditions and existing ranch roads are utilized for emergency access drives, pedestrian ways and for access to the public lands to the west. ➢ The compact residential neighborhoods preserve the most critical areas of wildlife habitat and allow for wildlife movement through the community. 45 ➢ The vegetative condition of all areas disturbed by past agricultural practices will be enhanced through on -lot landscaping, landscape development of recreational areas and reclamation of general open space acreage with native species. Drought tolerant native plant species and locally adapted plant species will be utilized in the open space plantings and encouraged through covenant guidelines in the residential landscape plantings to achieve a balance between appropriate water management and use, the restoration of native plant life, and the need for aesthetically pleasing plantings in proximity to houses. ➢ Passive stormwater features such as grass swales and shallow detention pools are used to slow water, improve infiltration, enhance water quality and control soil erosion. ➢ All areas disturbed by the development construction will be reclaimed and revegetated. ➢ Domestic wastewater will be discharged to the City of Glenwood Springs central wastewater treatment plant. ➢ A raw water irrigation system is proposed to deliver irrigation water to every lot and to the meadow areas. A large part of the historically irrigated agricultural lands will continue to be irrigated as residential lot landscaping, park/recreation area development or hayfield preservation, although some of the pasture areas will be refurbished as native meadows requiring little or no irrigation after initial establishment of the native species. ➢ The storage pond that will be developed in the South Meadow as an element of the raw water irrigation will facilitate the introduction of additional and riparian habitat. ➢ A wildfire mitigation plan has been prepared and reviewed by the Glenwood Springs Fire District. The Division of Wildlife (DOW) commented on the application with the following points: The DOW applauds the elimination of home sites from the upper western parcel, and movement of many of the home sites to the irrigated fields on the east side of 4 -mile road, in response to concerns to the original plans. These changes will help to minimize some of the wildlife impacts. Impacts from the current proposal will include direct and indirect loss of winter range, displacement of wintering wildlife (from direct habitat Toss and recreational disturbance), habitat fragmentation, and potential increased vehicle/deer collisions, among others. Conflicts may also arise with deer and elk browsing of ornamentals/ landscaping plants, human/bear conflicts, mountain lion predation of pets, and other nuisance wildlife conflicts with raccoons, skunks, etc. 46 Placement of a 100' open space corridor along the north boundary of the East Meadow along with the 100' buffer from the adjoining Four Mile Ranch will provide for a 200' wide movement corridor between the two subdivisions. This will allow movement to the winter range on the hillside on the east side of the subdivision in the Roaring Fork River corridor. Plant trees along the buffer corridor to help screen the corridor from the housing units. Building envelopes for lots 1-22 of the East Meadow should have a minimum 50' setback from the crest of the hill overlooking Four Mile Creek. This would help buffer the winter range use of the hillside as well as buffering it for use as a movement corridor, making it more effective and desirable. Move lots 18-23 of the Upper Meadow east towards Street "A" and eliminate the Street "D" bop that accessed those Tots. This will help to pull those lots further out of the severe winter range area and cluster those sites with the rest of the development further minimizing impacts to wildlife. The elimination of cattle grazing from the riparian area along Four Mile Creek and the proposed effort to assist the riparian vegetation to recover will be an important step in restoring it to a properly functioning system. The creek is also going to play an important part as a movement corridor as development in the East Meadow blocks existing movement patterns. However the building of a 6 foot wide gravel path along the creek will negate any positive gains for wildlife. Increased recreation and the associated zone of disturbance will have a negative impact on wildlife. It is the recommendation that this trail and proposed Four Mile Creek park be eliminated from the development plan. In addition the following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Dogs should not be allowed to roam and homeowners should be advised that dogs chasing wildlife is illegal and can lead to legal action. No dogs allowed on site by construction workers during the development process. 2. All interior fencing should be eliminated. Fencing needed for agricultural purposes should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 3. All utilities be buried. 4. Maintain as much of the native shrub communities within the developed open space areas and building envelopes as possible. 5. Bear/human conflicts have risen along the 4 -mile corridor and have the potential to be a reoccurring problem in this area. It is important that certain measures be taken to minimize these conflicts: • Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof container for storing all trash/garbage. Trash compactors inside the house can help eliminate bulk and odors, which will further reduce potential problems. • Bird feeders can be used but do not mount humming bird feeders on windows or the sides of the house. Seed feeders should be strung up at least 10' from the ground with a seed catchment to discourage other wildlife foraging. • Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. 47 • BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with a bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear attractant. • Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -type can limit bear access into houses as well as installing a cooling system rather than leaving windows open, as this is the main way bears access homes in the summer. 6. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will also discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 7. During the construction process, large areas of disturbed soil will be inviting to noxious weeds. Weeds can out -compete native vegetation, thus degrading the quality of the habitat. Precautions should be taken so that heavy machinery does not spread noxious weeds within the area. After construction is complete, a weed management plan should be drafted to further ensure that weeds to not invade the native plant community habitat. 8. Homeowners need to be made aware that the surrounding lands are hunted during big game seasons. It would advantageous to continue hunting on the parcels themselves to help minimize excessive use by deer and elk and so that the property does not become a refuge during hunting season. 9. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. The Application contains a detailed Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation Plan that contains great detail on the existing wildlife and habitat values of the property and a variety of suggestions and commitments for development on the property that range from landscaping, bears and trash disposal, big game management, open space use restrictions, restoring disturbed winter range, designating open space, dogs and pet control, fencing restrictions, and establishing building envelopes, wildlife movement corridors, and clustering the development. Staff suggests these provisions proposed by the DOW be made conditions of approval. 4.08.05 (7) The applicant may submit any other information or exhibits, which she/he deems pertinent in evaluating his proposed PUD. (A. 79-132) The Applicant requests that the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners include with any recommendations or actions for approval of the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD a condition that incorporates the following offer. The Applicant proposes as a condition of the approval of this PUD application, to dedicate with the first phase final plat approximately 960 acres of the west parcel of the Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park), to some type of public or private entity (county, city, special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association) for the purpose of managing this parcel for use by the public. In addition to preserving an enormously important area of wildlife habitat, the Mountain Park is proposed to be available for non - motorized use by the public under the guidance of appropriate rules that will foster a compatible relationship with the native wildlife. In cooperation with the Colorado 48 Division of Wildlife, some seasonal limitations may be placed on public use of the "mountain park" to protect the wildlife values of the property. Even with sensitive consideration for wildlife, the Mountain Park will provide an enormous recreational resource that is readily accessible to residents in the Four Mile corridor and Glenwood Springs. The following description by the projects wildlife consultant attests to the diverse character of the proposed Mountain Park. Removal of cattle grazing from the property will alone result in a number of habitat enhancements. On the upper parcel, the oak and mountain shrub communities are innervated by approximately 2-40 acre meadows (some supporting big sagebrush, but most cleared of native vegetation and planted with non-native cultivars to increase livestock forage [formerly sheep and now cattle]) and a powerline corridor, before transitioning into aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands generally codominated and well interspersed with mixed conifers. Mountain shrub community composition varies with soil type and depth, aspect, moisture and light penetration thorough any overstory. On rocky, xeric sites, Gambel oak dominates, but all other communities generally have chokecherry, serviceberry, oakbrush, and snowberty. Big sagebrush and rabbitbrush are also present and locally dominant, particularly in deeper soil areas. Aspen stands generally support a chokecherry, serviceberry, and snowberry understory with a relatively lush herbaceous component. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) is the most common conifer interspersed in most aspen stands, but subalpine fir (Abies bicolor) and Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) are also common components. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) is even present as individuals and junipers also extend into the aspen/ mixed conifer stands. Conifer density in aspen stands is low (< 40% canopy coverage) allowing sufficient light penetration to the understory to support a relatively lush and diverse mountain shrub, forb, and graminoid community. On only a few localized, north - facing slopes conifer stands occur without aspen, but even there Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum) and other mountain shrub species are common in the understory. An upper reach of Threemile Creek, as well as a number of intermittent creeks, flow across the upper parcel. Water quality in the creeks varies with cattle access. Beaver are occasionally present on the property as a result of their dispersal from larger water bodies (e.g., Hughes Reservoir) on adjacent properties, however, aquatic habitats on the parcel are inadequate to support any beaver lodges or bank dens. Access to the west parcel will be via the existing ranch road across the open space lands of the Reserve at Elk Meadows and on through BLM parcel the separates the west and east Bershenyi Ranch parcels. BLM officials have indicated the existing ranch road may be used for non -motorized access by the public. Access easements over the appropriate interior Elk Meadow's road right-of-ways will be dedicated with the applicable final plat to provide public vehicular access to a public parking area located at the north end of the Upper Meadow (north of Lot 26 on the PUD Plan). This parking area is very near to the existing ranch road that has provided historic access to the west Bershenyi Ranch Parcel. The existing ranch road will be overlain with a public pedestrian easement providing access from the public parking area- across the Elk 49 Meadows open space to the BLM parcel. Public pedestrian access to the existing ranch road will be available over the interior pedestrian trails from the Four Mile Valley Community Trail located on the east side of Four Mile Road in the area of the Bershenyi Barnyard. Pedestrian easements will be in provided for public use of these trails. Additional public parking will be available in the area of the preserved barns (Barnyard) east of Four Mile Road from which pedestrian trails leading to the Mountain Park may be accessed. At the time of the dedication of this parcel, temporary pedestrian easements will be dedicated to allow public access across un -platted portions of the PUD to provide access to the ranch road leading to the west Bershenyi Ranch parcel. These temporary easements will be vacated as final plats are recorded and permanent public easements are documented by the subdivision plats. A variety of funding mechanisms are being researched to support maintenance of the property. Staff Finding Staff suggested to the Planning Commission that the proposed offer to donate the 960 - acre Mountain Park is an excellent and generous offer that has significant public and wildlife / habitat value and recommended the Board of County Commissioners accept this parcel of land as the landmark step in creating a County Parks and Recreation District that would own and manage this parcel for the benefit of County residents. Garfield County has the authority (via State Statute 29-7-101) to acquire, sell, own, exchange, and operate public recreation facilities, open space and parklands, playgrounds...; acquire, equip, and maintain land, buildings, or other recreational facilities either within or without the corporate limits of such city, town, village, or county; and expend funds therefor and for all purposes connected therewith. Staff notes should the LOVA Trail also become a reality, the County would be the agency that holds the permit to its use and maintenance as well which could also benefit from the creation of a County Parks & Recreation District. Of course, this would mean County funds would need to be diverted to maintain these amenities as they won't pay for themselves. However, Staff believes the public benefit will be realized in the preservation of the property from development, allowing the public to enjoy the passive and active recreation opportunities the property affords as well as preserve and enhance wildlife benefits. As stated earlier, the Planning Commission disagreed and recommended the park be donated; however, the County would be removed from the list of potential receivers finding that while the offer is a valuable gesture, they recommended the County not accept the property (similar to the reasoning of Glenwood Springs) due to the unknown issues attached to the property (mineral estate questions) and cost liability to the County tax payers for the continual upkeep and maintenance of such a park. 50 4.10 MAINTENANCE OF COMMON OPEN SPACE The Common Open Space of a PUD may be owned and maintained by the properq owners within the PUD or by an organization chosen therefrom or thereby. In the event that the organization established to own and maintain Common Open Space, or any successor organization, shall at any time after establishment of the PUD fail to maintain the Common Open Space in reasonable order and condition in accordance with the Plan, the County Commissioners may serve written notice upon such organization or upon the residents of the PUD setting forth the manner in which the organization has failed to maintain the Common Open Space in reasonable condition, and said notice shall include a demand that such deficiencies of maintenance be cured within 30 days thereof and shall state the date and place of a hearing thereon which shall be held within 14 days of notice. At such hearing the County Commissioners may modify the terms of the original notice as to deficiencies and may give an extension of time within which they shall he cured. !f the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or in the modifications thereof are not cured within said 30 days or any extension granted, the County Commissioners, in order to preserve the taxable values of the properties within the PUD and to prevent the Common Open Space front becoming a public nuisance, may enter upon said Common Open Space and maintain the same for a period of one year. Said entry and maintenance shall not vest in the public any rights to use the Common Open Space except when the same has been voluntarily dedicated to the public by the owners. Before the expiration of said year, the County Commissioners shall, upon their initiative or upon the written request of the organization theretofore responsible for the maintenance of the Common Open Space, calla public hearing upon notice to such organization, or to the residents of elle PUD, to be held by the County Commissioners, at which hearing such organization or the residents of the PUD shall show cause why such maintenance by the County Commissioners shall not, at the election of the County Commissioners, continue fora succeeding year. If the County Commissioners shalldeteramine that such organization is ready and able to maintain said Common Open Space in reasonable condition, the County Commissioners shall cease to maintain such Common Open Space al the end of said year. If the County Commissioners shall determine such organization is not ready arid able to maintain said Conunon Open Space in a reasonable condition, the County Commissioners may, in their discretion, continue to maintain said Common Open Space during the next succeeding year, and subject to a similar hearing and determination, in each year thereafter. The cost of such maintenance by the County Commissioners slut!! be assessed to and paid by the owners o, fproperties within the PUD that have a right n f enjoyment of the Common Open Space, and anyunpaid- assessments shall become a fax lien an said properties. The County Commissioners shall fle a notice of such lien in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder upon the properties affected by such lien within the PUD and shall certify such unpaid assessments for collection, enforcement, and remittance in the manner provided by law forthe collection, enforcement, and remittance of general property taxes. The application states that all open space lands within the PUD boundary including preserved ranch buildings, park facilities and landscaping will be dedicated to the homeowners association (HOA). The HOA will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of all opens space lands and facilities. Funds for the maintenance of PUD open space lands and facilities will be derived from dues collected by the HOA from the PUD residents. As stated earlier in this application, the hayfield and preserved barns might be incorporated into a "heritage ranch" educational facility that would be operated by a non-profit corporation. The Applicant is committed to cooperate with area residents and future PUD residents that might be interested in spearheading the creation and operation of a heritage ranch non-profit corporate entity. VII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 51 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned Unit Development is t in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 5. That the proposed PUD application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission (by a vote of 7 to 0) unanimously recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the rezone request to PUD for the Reserve at Elk Meadows with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Preliminary Plan: a. The 100 -year flood way; and b. The 100 -year flood fringe. 3. The Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan for all the residential clusters, street lights, and lighting of community facilities with the Preliminary Plan that specifically addresses how the plan intends to minimize light pollution from the development. redesign the ne Street D as suggested by t 5. The Applicant shall provide the 10% affordable housing unit requirement on-site within the development. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall amend the PUD site plan to replace lots 10 — 18 now shown in the South Meadow neighborhood with 20 affordable housing units with the understanding that by including these 20 affordable housing units on-site, the total lots proposed in the development increases from 189 to 200. Additionally. the Applicant shall amend any associated PUD zone text in support of the change. 6. The Applicant shall provide a Weed Management Plan as a submittal with the Preliminary Plan addressing the comments by the County Vegetation Manager attached as Exhibit G. 52 7. The Applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with the Preliminary Plan submittal that incorporates impacts to the Mt. Sopris Drive / Midland Avenue intersection - - . =-•= _ _ _ _ - _ --t! =•-= Ave. 8. That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall affirmatively determine if the internal roads in the PUD are to be public or private. 9. That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a letter from the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District that specifically approves of the internal road network, design width and grade. 10. The Applicant shall affirmatively demonstrate which lots are to be governed by setbacks and /or where building envelopes are required for environmental hazard / concern areas. Further, if building envelopes are approved, the Applicant shall provide criteria / standards by which they can be amended. This shall be submitted with the Preliminary Plan. 11. That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide an analysis that demonstrates the road grade of "Street A" can exceed 8% using the standards in Section 9:37 of the Subdivision Regulations or 1984, as amended. 12. That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall assign approximate dates to the phasing plan including month and year for when phases are to commence and be complete. 13. No separate phase of the PUD shall be allowed to be constructed that results in a dead-end cul-de-sac without a letter from the Glenwood Fire Protection District affirmatively indicating that they will be able to provide emergency response service with adequate ingress / egress. 14. That any modification of the phasing plan contained within the PUD shall require an amendment to the PUD. 15.That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a revised phasing plan that specifically includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the realignment of CR117, the community facilities/amenities and landscaping in the Barn/Heritage area, the relocation and stabilization of the Bershenyi Barn. the public trail along CR 117, and the platting of the affordable housing lots. 16. That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall address the comments made by Mountain Cross Engineering regarding pressure zones and gallon usage. See Exhibit H 17. That the Preliminary Plan submittal contains a professional geologist's response to 53 Section 5.11 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 18. That that Preliminary Plan includes the recommendations of the DOW in their letter attached as Exhibit R with the following special notations: a. Applicant is not required to provide the 100' foot open space corridor along the north boundary of the east meadow; b. Applicant is not required to remove / relocate lots 18 — 23 in the upper meadow; c. That the Applicant shall present an amended plan for Tots 1 — 22 with setbacks pulled back from the top of the bluff above Four Mile creek as contained in Exhibit AA submitted to the Planning Commission ; and d. The Applicant shall be prohibited from installing the proposed gravel trail along Four Mile Creek. 19. That the Applicant dedicate with the first phase final plat approximately 960 acres of the west parcel of the Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park), to some type of public or private entity (county, city, special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association) for the purpose of managing this parcel for use by the public. The Mountain Park is proposed to be available for non -motorized use by the public under the guidance of appropriate rules that will foster a compatible relationship with the native wildlife. In cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, some seasonal limitations may be placed on public use of the "mountain park" to protect the wildlife values of the property. Even with sensitive consideration for wildlife, the Mountain Park will provide an enormous recreational resource that is readily accessible to residents in the Four Mile corridor and Glenwood Springs. 20. That the Applicant shall address in the Preliminary Plan submittal the geotechnical concerns submitted by the Colorado Geologic Survey in their letter dated 3/16/07 included as Exhibit J in the Staff Memorandum. 21. That prior to the public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall discuss the appropriateness of requiring sprinkler systems for the 20 affordable housing units to be provided on site with the Glenwood Fire Protection District. To this end, the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the District indicating their opinion on whether these units should be sprinkled. 22. That the Applicant shall submit a revised PUD site plan prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners that reflects the relocation of Lots 1 — 4 in the lower meadow as described by the Applicant at the Planning Commission meeting. As a result of the additional information, Staff suggests the following additional conditions: 54 23. As part of the preliminary plan, a guardrail should be analyzed and proposed along warranted sections of the roads, in particular along Street A. 24. The Uniform Plumbing Code calls for water to be delivered to homes for domestic use at between 50 to 70 psi. Some consideration for mitigating the higher pressures will be required. Sopris Engineering proposes to modify the proposed design to mitigation the pressures. This shall be addressed at the time of preliminary plan. x „ ,,, \N's (/\\ \J '''')• i ‘''' Yi\ 55 May 17, 2007 Yancy Nichol, P.E. Sopris Engineering, LLC 502 Main Street, Suite A3 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Yancy, The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has reviewed and,approved the road layout for the proposed Reserve at ElkMeadows. The main collectorroads meet the minimum width for fire access road required:by the 2003 edition.of the International Fire Code, section 503. In a few areas of C and`E;Ronds the grades are greater then 10% but Section 503.2.7 of the International Fire Code gives the fire code official the authority to state what % grade is permitted: on fire -department access roads based on:the Fire Department's apparatus. 'Because all the structures inthis subdivision will be protected by an automatic fire suppression system we can respond to:.all:structure fires with smaller fire engines that will be able to climb the few short steeperthen 1;0%sections of C and E Roads. The steeper grade. on. :the secondary emergency roads is not=of:great concern to us because they would most likelybe used by residence in smaller vehicles to evacuate the area from a wildfire in the warmer months. In responding to a structure fire or wildland fire, the main collector roads would be the roads of choice to access the site by fire apparatus. If the emergency roads were used to access a nearby wildland fire, small type 6 brush trucks would be used in this operation and they would be able to negotiate the width and grades on these roads. Based on our recent conversations on this project 1 believe the above comments should address the areas of concern regarding tliis project at this time. If you need me to address the road net work in more detailplease contact me. Ronald L. Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal 1 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 EXHIBIT -RECEIVE.° 41AR 2 3 2007 MEMORANDUM To: Mary Ray From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on The Reserve at Elk Meadows Sketch Plan Date: March 22, 2007 I would like to meet with a representative of the applicant to go over the property. My main concern is the noxious weeds located in the bottoms near Four -mile Creek. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds A. Inventory and mapping -It is requested that the applicant inventory the property for County listed noxious weeds, and provide specific weed infestations on a map. B. Weed Management -Staff requests that the applicant provide a weed management plan for County listed noxious weeds. These are weeds that we would like to treat immediately when they are found. I request that the applicant provide for noxious weed treatment this spring and thus prevent seed production before any earth moving work is started. C. Covenants -Weeds are mentioned in the covenants, Section 3.35 under landscaping. They are addressed in general terms, staff requests more specific language pertaining to County listed noxious weeds to inform landowners that it is their responsibility to comply with the County Weed Management Plan and the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 2. Revegetation A. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cuts, utility disturbances, and around the water tank. This information will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation. B. The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan calls for the following: • Plant material list. • Planting schedule. • A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). ■ A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the County Weed Management Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 3. Soil Plan A. The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: • Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. ■ A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. • A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 4. Mosquito Management A. Staff requests that the applicant address the issue of mosquito management in the pond to be constructed in South Meadow. March 21, 2007 Mr. Mary Ray Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAI ENGINEER CIVIL AN NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN ECUU' MAR 2 3 2007 GARFI4D COUNTY PLANNING RE: Rezone and Sketch Plan Application for The Reserve at Elk Meadows Dear Marv: A review has been performed of the documents for the Rezoning and Sketch Plan Applications of the Reserve at Elk Meadows. The package was found to be well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were -generated and are expected to be incorporated within the framework of the Preliminary Plan application: 1. The water demands that were estimated for the augmentation plan (350 gpd) differ from those estimated for the water system (450 gpd). These should be congruent or explain the rationale behind the discrepancy. 2. The project is proposed to have two pressure zones, with pressures ranging from 170 psi to 40 psi. Pressures of 170psiare very high. "Generally speaking 100 psi is a more realistic maximum for residential plumbing fixtures. More pressure zones or individual residential PRVs should be considered. 3. Extents and impacts required for the mitigation for rock fall and debris flow should be detailed for Preliminary Plan. 4. The traffic report adds in some, but not all of the anticipated traffic from the proposed projects in the Four -Mile area. The report appears to account for this by adding a growth rate of 2% per year. However the 2% growth rate is low when compared with the overall growth rate for this area of Garfield County. 5. The traffic report assumes that certain offsite roadway projects will be constructed by either Garfield County or Glenwood Springs. These projects may or may not be completed when planned. Some consideration should be given to mitigate the traffic impacts if these projects are not completed in a time frame consistent with the assumptions. Feel free to call if you have any questions or if any of the above needs further clarification. Sincerely, Mount& " Cross Engine ring, Inc. C--hfis Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 a www.mountaincross-eng.com Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 7300 Hwy 82, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-1223 ph, 945-1318 fax Date: 03/21/07 To: Mary Ray Building and Planning From: Bobby Branham Road and Bridge Dist. 1 Re: The Reserve at Elk Meadows project. EXHIBIT I a= The following are a listing of comments and concerns regarding the above stated 1. All culverts beneath access points should be of Corrugated Steel Pipe. 2. All culverts should extend beyond the edge of the access roadway sufficiently to prevent slough from congesting the inlet or outlet. 3. All culverts should be in accordance with the drainage study or not less than 18 inches in diameter. 4. All culverts should have a minimum cover equal to half the diameter of the pipe. i.e. an 18 inch culvert would require nine inches of cover to finish grade. 5. All culverts should have a minimum of 1% flow. 6. All ditches entering to and exiting from culverts should be chased to daylight in order to facilitate flow. 7. Accesses should be constructed with a compacted sub -grade, then filled with a compacted six inch lift of three inch minus, then topped with at least a four inch layer of compacted 3/4 road base (class 6) material. 8. Compaction should test at 95% of standard proctor. Test results should be forwarded to this office. 9. Access' should be flared where they meet the county road and should be of sufficient width to conform with sub -division standards. 10. If the County Road is of asphalt or chip and seal, then the access shall be paved with a min. of 4 inches of asphalt for a minimum distance of 10 feet. 11. All areas of county road which encroach into or pass through private property should have right of way deeded to the county at 30 foot from centerline. 12. All accesses should be graded to follow 2% slope from crown, to a point at or beyond the location of the culvert. Where super -elevation is used the access grade shall be at 2% from edge of road to a point at or beyond the culvert. 13. Accesses should provide a minimum of 200 feet visibility in either direction, from a point 10 feet back from the edge of the county road. 14. Accesses should meet the county road at a 90 degree angle for a minimum distance of 30 feet. 15. Accesses should be inspected by Road and Bridge for compliance upon completion. 16. Stop signs shall be placed in accordance with the MUTCD at all entrances to the county road. With regards to this particular sub -division During the re -alignment phase of construction, Road and Bridge requests that regular weekly meetings be held for the purpose of quality control. In addition, Road and Bridge will require unlimited access to the site where the relocation and construction of CR 117 is taking place, in order to observe construction practices and ensure compliance with county specifications. Compaction testing will be required and test results should be forwarded to this office as well as to the county engineer. As stated above test results must meet or exceed 95% of standard proctor. With regard to intersection design; the traffic report by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig, recommends that a south bound left turn lane would be required to adequately facilitate safe traffic flow. In addition, Road and Bridge would also request acceleration and deceleration lanes for both north bound and south bound traffic, entering and exiting the site. Prior to construction of the re -alignment of CR 117 all plans and drawings must be reviewed and approved by the county engineer and Road and Bridge. Upon completion and acceptance of the new roadway, plans of record will be submitted to the county engineer and Road and Bridge. In addition a warrantee of the roadway shall be implemented. Bobby Branham Dist. 1 Road and Bridge RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2007 GARFIE,LD COUNTY /, r/r BUILDING; & PLANNING EXHIBIT STATE OF COLO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY— serving the people of Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 Mr. Mary Ray Garfield County Planning 108 8th St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Reserve at Elk Meadows CGS Review No. GA -07-0009 Dear Mr. Ray: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 33 T6S R89W RESOURCES Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972) I visited this property to review the development plans. The development application was prepared by Sopris Engineering and it included a Geologic Review report (5/26/07) prepared by HP Geotech. The site consists of 506 acres to be divided into 189 lots. It is proposed that the site be served with a central water distribution system and be connected to the Glenwood Springs municipal sewer system. The site was partly snow covered at the time of my visit. 1. HP discusses rockfall and debris flow hazards that could affect the site. Two lots in the south meadow, 52 and 53, could be affected by rockfall runout below outcrops of the Maroon Formation, based on the rockfall simulation program that was performed by HP. The runout zone and the location of a possible mitigation structure are illustrated in their report. At a future stage of development, the mitigation design should be presented, or the lots could be removed from the project. The area of proposed mitigation has been mapped as old landslide (Pleistocene age). The construction for mitigation should evaluate the stability of temporary cuts if they would remain unsupported for any length of time. 2. The potential for debris flows exists for the same lots. As stated in the HP report, the mitigation for rockfall could be designed to protect against debris flows. The debris flow hazard for lots 28 through 31 and lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 is minor and could probably be addressed with proper grading and establishment of building envelopes, which has been done. 3. As in many areas with steep terrain, a challenge may be construction of the roads. The Maroon Formation erodes to slick clay. As a grading plan is developed, the cut and fill Reserve at Elk Meadow, p. 1 sections should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to ensure the stability of the hillside and to limit the erosion. 4. Is the access road from lots 1-3 to Lot 53 in the south meadow necessary? There may be a planning purpose for this link, but it necessitates an additional crossing of the drainage and more disturbance. Similarly, is the short access north of Lot 23 in the upper meadow necessary? 5. The county's emergency services department would need to evaluate the grade on the emergency access to the upper meadow. This road is coincident with a drainage and will require additional culverts and drainage features to maintain the access. Would this road be off-limits to the residents for normal travel, and if so, how would the restriction be implemented so that the road could still be used for farm traffic? 6. As the project progresses, the soil characteristics will need to be assessed for bearing capacity and swell -consolidation. The sites for the water tanks will need to be evaluated for soil properties and slope stability. The tanks will have varying loads, which must be accommodated in the foundation design. 7. As mentioned in the HP report, the area of the East Meadow near Four Mile Creek is underlain at depth by evaporite bedrock. At a future stage of development, drilling or excavation within the building envelopes of the affected lots should provide information on whether sinkholes are developing. 8. An erosion control plan should be prepared and erosion mitigation should be in place before grading at the site begins. This is especially important due to the proximity of Four Mile Creek, which could experience sedimentation. Disturbed areas should be reseeded as soon as possible. Detention ponds could be designed with water quality capacity. 9. At this time of year the snow cover made it difficult to observe any seeps that might be present on the hillsides. Locally, it is possible that interceptor drains might be necessary to divert groundwater flows. In summary, there are no geological conditions that would preclude the subdivision. The recommendations in the HP report are valid and should be followed. A geotechnical firm should assist during all phases of the project. Please contact me if there are any questions. ar truly i. r Geologist 303-866-2811 celia.greenman@state.co.us Reserve at Elk Meadow, p. 2 EXHIBIT Mary Ray From: Mark Kadnuck[makadnuc@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:52 PM To: Mary Ray Subject: Reserve at Elk Meadows Comments on the above mentioned subdivision review: The proposed water system will need to go through the state New System Capacity Development review and plans and specification review. The water quality information provided showed the Bison well to exceed the MCL for gross Alpha and both wells -had relatively high radon levels. There currently is no MCL for radon but it may be an issue in the future. Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. CDPHE-WQCD 222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 ph: 970-248-7144 fax: 970-248-7198 email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us 1 Mary Ray From: Fred Jarman Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:17 PM To: Marr Ray Subject: FW: Bershenyi Ranch project EXHIBIT Marv, Be sure to include this letter below sent to Tresi Houpt as an Exhibit to Elk Meadows PUD Staff report. Thanks, Fred From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:52 PM To: Kenneth Wilson Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Bershenyi Ranch project Thank you very much for your comments. As a commission, we have not yet reviewed this application. I am forwarding on your comments to our planning department so that we can consider them when this comes before us. You are welcome to attend all public meetings that we have on this application and share your perspective. Tresi From: Kenneth Wilson [mailto:KenW©sgm-inc.com] Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 1:52 PM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: Bershenyi Ranch project I have a few comments on the Bershenyi Ranch project based on recent newspaper reports. The first is a request to change the zoning, if the intent is to provide cluster type housing on potions of the property and to not increase the overall density I have no problem. If the intent is to raise the overall density I would I would say no. A request is being made to move the affordable housing from the project to Glenwood Springs in part because there is not bus stop near the ranch. I was personally offended on several levels by this statement. First, Glenwood Springs is not a dumping ground for what the developers obviously feel are undesirable people, they do not want affordable housing trashing up there development, Secondly, its ludicrous to think that the people that buy the affordable housing will not have cars and will need a bus to get around. Part the reason to include affordable housing within the project is to create community, a mix of people and lifestyles. I would tell these developers to take there project and go back to where they came from. On a larger planning issue I feel that it would be irresponsible of the commissioners to approve any project of this size, in this area. Glenwood Springs and other communities in the valley do not have the infrastructure to support additional growth. The heart of Glenwood Springs is being ripped out by the traffic on Grand Avenue and adjacent side streets by people tying to get around Grand Avenue. This project will increase traffic not only on Grand Avenue but also on Midland Avenue and Four Mile Road, not to mention the bridges across the Roaring Fork River. Glenwood Springs does not have a clue in the world as to how to fix the problem or where to get the money assuming they had a solution. To add more people to this equation does not make sense it will just make the situation worse with no resolution in sight. Thank you for listening to me, I am writing to you since I feel that you are the only commissioner that actually cares about the quality of life of the citizens of Garfield County. 3/28/2007 March 21, 2007 QePAKK Mary Ray, Staff Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Comments on the Reserve at Elk Meadows EXHIBIT I have reviewed the PUD and Sketch Plan application for The Reserve at Elk Meadows. We do not have a problem with the approval of the higher densities requested by the applicant provided they are required to adhere to their submitted wildfire mitigation plan. I spoke with and reviewed the comments made by Kamie Long, Colorado State Forest, District Forester and discussed the subdivisions wildfire risks and plan with the Anchor Point staff in March of 2006. I agree with Kamie's and the Anchor Points staff recommendations and request their recommendation and support materials be made into requirements, with the changes stated below in my comments, for the developers to follow to make this a safer and Firewise Community. In addition to their comments that I endorse mine are below: Changes in Anchor Points recommendations; • All residential structures shall have an automatic fire suppression system installed in them that is designed to meet NFPA 13R standards, 2007 edition • Spacing between fire hydrants to be determined by Glenwood Springs Fire Department after completing a review of the proposed domestic/fire flow water supply system proposed for the subdivision My additional comments: • Developer shall submit to Glenwood Springs Fire Department a complete set of domestic water system plans to review for fire flows, water storage needs and fire hydrant spacing/locations. The water system investigation report provided with this application discussed domestic needs; I did not see any discussion on fire flow needs and size of storage tank. At the completion of the installation of the system the fire department shall witness and or conduct fire flow tests on the system to verify that the flows meet design specifications and required fire flows. • HOA Conveniences to address the enforcement and management and the maintenance of the defensible space around homes and fuel breaks 1 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 -1 • If the International Urban Wildland Interface Code 2000 edition, which Anchor Points wildfire plan sites, is to be used as the code of choice to guide parts of this development some type of agreement to do so may need to be made between the developer, Garfield County/City of Glenwood Springs and Glenwood Springs fire Department, because at this time none of the named municipalities have adopted this code. I do endorse using the IWUC because it was developed to set standards to guide the construction of this type of development. • HOA convinces to contain enforceable language to require homeowners to have code required annual test and inspections done on their residential fire suppression systems and fire alarm systems. Some of my above comments above may be premature for this particular application but can be pasted on to the developer for planning and future submittals should this project be approved to move forward. If the project moves forward further comments will be forthcoming on them. If you or the applicants has questions on my above comments please contact me at 970-384-6433 or email rb iggers( ci. gIenwood- springs. co. us. Si cerely, Ronald L. Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal -1/4., 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 6 5 Tilly 66(4 in 4,43 March 19, 2007 Mary Ray Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Bch Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: The Reserve at Elk Meadows Mr. Ray, 6;40 - EXHIBIT I N FOREST SERVICE Grand Junction District 222 S. 6th. St., Rm.#416 Grand Junction, CO 81501 (970) 248-7325 I have reviewed the PUD and Sketch Plan application for The Reserve at Elk Meadows. After speaking with Ron Biggers, Glenwood Springs Fire Marshall, and Marc McLean of Anchor Point about the proposed subdivision I have the following comments regarding wildfire hazard on this request. There is significant wildfire hazard on portions of the proposed site on Four Mile Road, but it appears it could be mitigated if four aspects are addressed. They are, water supply, access, fuel loading, and building materials. These aspects are all addressed in the Wildfire Mitigation Plan created by Anchor Point in April 2006. On page thirty-one of the plan, the Wildfire Mitigation Recommendations are stated with the end goal of creating a Firewise community. The Colorado State Forest Service agrees with all points and recommendations made. I would like to highlight some recommendations made by Anchor Point that are important for mitigating wildland fire hazards on The Reserve at Elk Meadows. a critical factor in protecting any homes built in the subdivision. Defensible space should be to olorado State Forest Service standards and can be found in the revision of publication 6.302, Creating Wildfire Defensible Zones (enclosed). Ron Biggers or I can help in determining defensible space parameters based on slope and vegetation type for each home site. Fire-resistant construction using Firewise building materials should be utilized on all structures, (Firewise Construction, Design and Materials, 2000, enclosed). Roofing materials should be either rated a Class A or B for non-combustible material due to the high probability of embers from a wildfire landing on the roof. A fuel break should be created to thin the vegetation in close proximity to the homes in each `neighborhood'; the goal is to reduce the intensity of a fire coming towards the homes. Anchor Point has created a ma Fuel Breaks and Easements figure 17), that suggests locations o three fuel breaks. These breaks are in areas of hign pinyon/juniper and gamble oak concentrations and should -be crea ei and maintained. The Colorado State Forest Service has produced a publication on guidelines for determining the size of fuel breaks, Fuel Break Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions & Communities (enclosed). This publication should be used as a tool to create the fuel break standards for the subdivision. Again, Ron Biggers or I can help with the fuel break determination. Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. Please call with any questions at 970-248-7325. Sincerely, Kcutt e, Lavt.g, Kamie Long Forester Cc: Lawrence R. Green, Law Firm of Balcomb & Green Ron Biggers, Glenwood Springs Fire Marshall enclosed 2 The Reserve at Elk Meadows Mary Ray From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:18 PM To: Mary Ray Subject: The Reserve at Elk Meadows EXHIBIT o Mary - Thank you for the opportunity to review the Reserve at Elk Meadows. This site has the potential for 189 single family units. After doing a quick review of the TIS dated January 2006 by FHU, It doesn't appear to increase traffic by more than 20%, therefore, no access permit will be required. Thanks Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th, Suite 100 Grand Junction, Co 81501 970-248-7230 970-248-7294 FAX 3/1/2007 03/20/2007 14:42 FAX 9706250859 GARFIELD COUNTY HA MEMO March 20, 2007 GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 2128 Railroad Avenue Rifle, CO 81650 Phone (970) 62.5-3589 or (888) 627-3589 Fax (970) 625-0859 TO: Mary Ray, Staff Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 FROM: Geneva Powell, Director Garfield County Housing Authority EXHIBIT p The Garfield County Housing Authority has reviewed the PUD for The Reserve at Elk Mountain with regard to Affordable Housing. In section 4.07.15 under Affordable Housing Proposal (Tab 6, page 37), the applicant states reasons 'on site' affordable housing would not be desirable and proposes to build off site. In reviewing the Affordable Housing regulations we would like to state that these units will target households earning between 850,500 and 858,600 annually. It has been our experience that families in this income category do not rely on social services and public transportation to the extent that Elk Meadows would be an undesirable place for them to live. We believe that the close proximity to the Fire Station, Elementary School, and the Mountain Market with associated commercial spaces offering convenience products, gasoline and personal service type businesses with a paved pedestrian trail (Tab 3 page 4) would create a practical setting for affordable housing, We also believe that this setting is enhanced because American National Bank, Rivers Restaurant and numerous other commercial services of South Glenwood Springs begin at a point less that 3 miles from the subject properties and urban services are readily available to the future residents of these properties either by vehicle or by foot, (Tab 3 Page 4). Affordable Housing built on site could house employees of the school, fire department, and the Mountain Market. This would place families close to there employer and cut down on traffic problems associated with workers coanmuting, especially commuters on Four Mile Road , Midland Ave and 27th Street. The Housing Authority feels that Elk Meadows would be a desired place to include affordable housing and build a balanced community. The Housing Authority appreciates the developer's willingness to comply with the affordable housing guidelines. We acknowledge that the guidelines do permit off site units under certain circumstances; however we do not feel that those circumstances apply for Elk Mountain. Please let us know the final decision. We will be available to assist in any way that we can. If off site units are permitted, we request to be included in the loop and to assess the location and type of units proposed. 406 P',t 7 Thank You ��^^,, Mq R .21.? 2007 ��t[e Il_j_ BU�i ❑fNG '1 -iti gI ING IN REPLY REFER TO: 1780 (C0-14000) United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Field Office 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 March 22, 2007 Mary Ray Garfield County Building & Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Marv: EXHIBIT s� TAKE -RIDE" INAMERICA Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the The Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD. The BLM does have some specific private -public land interface comments relating to the proposed PUD. 1. Trespass The applicant should be mindful of the location of BLM property boundaries to ensure no encroachment occurs on public lands. 2. Trails and Access Further discussion is needed on the proposed trail access (historic ranch access road)across BLM lands to the upper parcel of private lands. Preliminary review indicates that the road would be appropriate for public access as long as no improvements would be performed that would make it more visible or noticeable. If the trail system is open to the general public then a public parking area/trailhead should also be provided. However, there is also no delineation of a parking/trailhead facility on any of the maps. The facility needs to be matched to the types of activities permitted on the trail system. For example, if horseback riding is permitted then the parking area needs to be big enough to accommodate horse trailers. Generally the trail system within the development should be maximized to lessen the impacts on public lands and all trails should be open to the general public. Public trailhead and parking facilities should be provided on private lands and constructed by the developer. Loop trail systems should be developed to eliminate trails that dead end at the public land boundary. 3. Fire Hazard Analysis All fuels reduction/breaks should occur within the boundaries of the PUD. In order to protect life and property, homes should not be built in areas where wildland fire protection requires vegetation management on the adjacent public lands. 4. Right-of-ways. Any roads, cart trails, paths, or utilities such as water, electric, phone or otherwise crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office. An environmental assessment of the impacts of those uses would be needed as a part of the ROW permitting process. 5. Traditional Public Land Uses It should also be noted that traditional public land uses sometimes conflict with the expectations of new residents. The applicant should be aware of and respect the following values and existing uses of the adjacent BLM lands. a. Livestock Grazing. The applicant should be advised that the adjacent public land has current permits for livestock grazing. Under Colorado statutes, it is the owners' responsibility to construct, and maintain in good condition a lawful fence protecting their property in order to recover any damages from trespass livestock. If a livestock fence is not presently in place, a fence is recommended to reduce potential future problems. Should any fence construction be considered, the fence standards should allow for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information regarding fence standards upon request. b. Recreation/Travel. The adjacent public lands are managed to offer a variety of dispersed recreational activities (motorized and non -motorized). Motorized and non -motorized travel is managed in accordance with the 1988 Glenwood Springs Field Office - Resource Management Plan. This broad range of activities will likely continue to occur contiguous to the private lands. Our office can provide additional information on recreation, travel and access as necessary. c. Hunting and Target Shooting. The adjacent BLM lands are open to hunting and target shooting. The BLM does not establish safety zones or no -shooting zones to restrict hunting. d. Mineral Rights. The Bureau has not researched the mineral rights to determine if they are reserved to the federal government on the subject lands. We are open to work with the developer and the Garfield County as necessary. If you or the developers have questions, please contact Brian Hopkins of my staff. He can be reached at (970) 947-2840 (FAX: 947-2829). Sincerely, (Jamie E. Connell Field Manager STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us March 16, 2007 Mary Ray Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Reserve at EIk Meadows Dear Marv: For Wildlife - For People RECO ED APR 0 4 2007 GARP : COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Division of Wildlife staff has reviewed the development proposal and has visited the site. The Reserve at EIk Meadows lies within elk winter range and severe winter range, as well as mule deer winter range, winter concentration and severe winter range areas. The heaviest use on the areas to be developed is by mule deer during the fall through spring seasons although deer use will occur year round. EIk commonly use the upper portions of the Bershenyi property and move to the steep brush covered hillsides west of the existing homes during severe winters. During milder winters deer and elk will cross 4 -mile Road and feed in the irrigated fields, and move to the steep sagebrush covered hillside above the Roaring Fork River. The property also inhabits black bear, mountain lion, coyote, red fox, raccoon, striped skunk, turkey as well as several raptor species, various small mammals and neotropical birds. The DOW applauds the elimination of home sites from the upper western parcel, and movement of many of the home sites to the irrigated fields on the east side of 4 -mile road, in response to concerns to the original plans. These changes will help to minimize some of the wildlife impacts. Impacts from the current proposal will include direct and indirect loss of winter range, displacement of wintering wildlife (from direct habitat loss and recreational disturbance), habitat fragmentation, and potential increased vehicle/deer collisions, among others. Conflicts may also arise with deer and elk browsing of ornamentals/ landscaping plants, human/bear conflicts, mountain lion predation of pets, and other nuisance wildlife conflicts with raccoons, skunks, etc. Placement of a 100' open space corridor along the north boundary of the East Meadow along with the 100' buffer from the adjoining Four Mile Ranch will provide for a 200' wide movement corridor between the two subdivisions. This will allow movement to the winter range on the hillside on the east side of the subdivision in the Roaring Fork River corridor. Plant trees along the buffer corridor to help screen the corridor from the housing units. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hanis D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Rick Enstrom • Richard Ray • James McAnally ■ Ken Torres Ex Officio Members, Hanis Sherman and John Stulp Building envelopes for lots 1-22 of the East Meadow should have a minimum 50' setback from v}� the crest of the hill overlooking Four Mile Creek. This would help buffer the winter range use of the hillside as well as buffering it for use as a movement corridor, making it more effective and desirable. Move lots 18-23 of the Upper Meadow east towards Street "A" and eliminate the Street "D" loop that accessed those Tots. This will help to pull those lots further out of the severe winter range area and cluster those sites with the rest of the development further minimizing impacts to wildlife. The elimination of cattle grazing from the riparian area along Four Mile Creek and the proposed effort to assist the riparian vegetation to recover will be an important step in restoring it to a properly functioning system. The creek is also going to play an important part as a movement corridor as development in the East Meadow blocks existing movement patterns. However the building of a 6 foot wide gravel path along the creek will negate any positive gains for wildlife. Increased recreation and the associated zone of disturbance will have a negative impact on wildlife. It is the recommendation that this trail and proposed Four Mile Creek park be eliminated from the development plan. The DOW is very encouraged by the proposed placement of the upper 960 acres of the Bershenyi property into public or private holding to remain as open space. However, recreational activities on these lands at certain times of the year can have a tremendous impact on wildlife and seasonal closures are encouraged when a management plan is created. The DOW would like to be involved in the creation of the management plan in order to address wildlife impacts. In addition the following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Dogs should not be allowed to roam and homeowners should be advised that dogs chasing wildlife is illegal and can lead to legal action. No dogs allowed on site by construction workers during the development process. 2. All interior fencing should be eliminated. Fencing needed for agricultural purposes should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 3. All utilities be buried. 4. Maintain as much of the native shrub communities within the developed open space areas and building envelopes as possible. 5. Bear/human conflicts have risen along the 4 -mile corridor and have the potential to be a reoccurring problem in this area. It is important that certain measures be taken to minimize these conflicts: • Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof container for storing all trash/garbage. Trash compactors inside the house can help eliminate bulk and odors, which will further reduce potential problems. • Bird feeders can be used but do not mount humming bird feeders on windows or the sides of the house. Seed feeders should be strung up at least 10' from the ground with a seed catchment to discourage other wildlife foraging. • Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. • BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with a bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear attractant. • Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -type can limit bear access into houses as well as installing a cooling system rather than leaving windows open, as this is the main way bears access homes in the summer. 6. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will also discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 7. During the construction process, large areas of disturbed soil will be inviting to noxious weeds. Weeds can out -compete native vegetation, thus degrading the quality of the habitat. Precautions should be taken so that heavy machinery does not spread noxious weeds within the area. After construction is complete, a weed management plan should be drafted to further ensure that weeds to not invade the native plant community habitat. 8. Homeowners need to be made aware that the surrounding lands are hunted during big game seasons. It would advantageous to continue hunting on the parcels themselves to help minimize excessive use by deer and elk and so that the property does not become a refuge during hunting season. 9. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Nildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file March 27, 2007 Mary Ray, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: PUD and Comp Plan Amendment — Reserve at Elk Meadows Dear Marv, RECEIVED APR 0 4 2007 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDNG & PLANNING We have reviewed the application for the Reserve at Elk Meadows and offer the following comments regarding the application. Comp Plan/Land Use Plan Designation: The proposed development of the Bershenyi/Martino Ranches is located outside the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Development Boundary. The City's Land Use Plan provides some direction for land use in unincorporated Garfield County. The basic premise of the plan is encouraging density within the urban growth boundary while protecting the existing rural character of the area outside the City. The plan acknowledges the existence of linear development along the Four Mile corridor. It encourages the development to occur around existing densely developed areas such as the intersection of Four Mile and Dry Park Roads with the development of "rural villages", an area which concentrates development around some unifying element such as a transit node, park, a job base or commercial area. "Areas in which the predominant existing land use is agricultural, public lands or the land is unsuitable for development due to wetlands, severe slope, geologic hazards or some other development constraint should be retained as agricultural or open space. To preserve the existing character of the area surrounding the City and to prevent rural sprawl across the landscape, residential and commercial development should be discouraged in these areas unless it is at very low densities, greater than 10 acres per residential unit, and in limited areas. In rural areas where development is determined to be appropriate, the village concept should be pursued, in order to create more creative approaches to development." (City of Glenwood Springs Land Use Plan) The City of Glenwood Springs has entered into a pre -annexation Agreement with the proponents of the Reserve at Elk Meadows in order to address the circumstances for the provision of sanitary sewer service to the proposed development. This agreement presumes that the project obtains the necessary approvals from Garfield County. It is not City of Glenwood Springs Page 1 of 1 101 West 8'^ Street, Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 PH: 970-384-6400 FX: 970-945-2597 the purpose of this agreement to endorse the application but rather acknowledges that by providing sanitary sewer service that the protection of ground water and surface water quality is of paramount importance to the residents of the community. Traffic Impact Study: We have conducted a cursory review of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Felsburg Holt and Ulevig and offer the following comments in response to that document. The study is dated January 2006. Several changes have occurred in the transportation planning arena since the document was prepared. In the document, the authors reference the future signalization of the 27th and Midland Avenue intersection. Current planning anticipates the development of a round about at this location. Construction is budgeted for 2009. While this planned improvement may actually improve the levels of service at several locations, the traffic study has not incorporated this concept. The study should be revised to acknowledge this planned improvement. Much of the analysis is predicated on the development of the South Bridge. While the City and County are presently developing intergovernmental agreements to pursue requisite environmental analyses, the eventual construction of the South Bridge is by no means a sure thing. The analysis also suggests that the modification of the Sunlight Bridge to accommodate an additional lane may alleviate the need for the South Bridge and provide a panacea for improved levels of service, the City is not presently considering this option and no engineering work has been conducted to determine if the bridge can structurally support the additional lane width. The study fails to address the intersection at Mount Sopris Drive and Midland Avenue. No level of service analysis is included for this high volume intersection. Approximately 350 residences, parks and an elementary school are served by this intersection. The analysis should be modified to address this intersection. The Traffic Impact Study utilizes the standard ITE multiplier of 10 average daily trips for residential development. Because of the anticipated size of the proposed homes, 4,500 square feet was mentioned in the application, City staff has concerns that this trip generation multiplier may be unrealistic and in reality may be much higher for large second homes of this type and cost. While we acknowledge the developer's commitment in the pre -annexation agreement to contribute to the cost of roadway improvements within the City, we feel that the traffic impact study should be modified to reflect present conditions and transportation planning. Please find attached additional comments relative to other aspects of the application. Thank you providing us the opportunity to comment on the application. Sincerely, Andrew McGregor Community Development Director MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT f TO: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Director FROM: Jill Peterson, City Planner DATE: March 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Comments — The Reserve at Elk Meadows Per your request, I have reviewed the PUD & Comprehensive Plan Amendemtn and Sketch Plan Applications. Specifically, you asked for my comments relative to the affordable housing component of the plan. My comments below are made relative to this issue. The requirements for inclusionary housing in Planned Unit Developments in Garfield County require at least 10% of the overall housing mix to be affordable housing units. The development of inclusionary housing by itself does not fulfill PUD requirements for a variety of housing types and densities. (4.07.15.01) Additionally, lands designated for high density residential which allows two or less acres per dwelling unit are considered under the County's regulations to be the most suited for affordable housing. The County regulations indicate that off- site proposals for inclusionary housing will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off-site option. The application states that EIK Meadows is a "few" miles from the closest commercial and social services and public transportation and is therefore not a desirable location for affordable housing units. The applicant sates this as justification to meeting the inclusionary housing regulations with off-site mitigation at a location within Glenwood Spring or other area communities. Unfortunately, the application materials provided do not provide any details on how off-site mitigation would be achieved. The incorporation of affordable housing within a specific development is, in most cases, the optimum location for City of Glenwood Springs Page 1 of 1 101 West 8th Street, Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 PFI: 970-384-6400 FX: 970-945-8582 housing as it provides a mix of housing and socio-economic groups within a community. The overall design of the Elk Meadows development has lots that range in size from 13,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. The application indicates that most homes will be 4,500 sq. ft. in size or greater. It is likely a number of these homes will be second homes for some families. Second homes in and of themselves generate a need for employees to provides needed services such as overall maintenace, gardening, etc. Employees will also be needed to provide the necessary maintenance of the trails, roads and improvements owned by the Homeowners Association within this development. It would seem appropriate that some form of affordable housing should be provided on site for these employees and also for other employees, such as workers at the Sunlight Ski area. The pre -annexation agreement sets a cap on the number of within this development to 200. The current application is for 189 detached single family homes. One of the stated goals from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III -2.0 indicates a mix of housing types is to be encouraged within a development. One of the County's objectives as cited in 2.1 is to encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. It does not appear as though the current proposal meets this goal or objective as the only variation in housing product is a variation on lot sizes. It would seem appropriate that the plan could be revised to include a housing product to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and inclusionary requirements. An additional option to the inclusionary component would be the additional of accessory dwelling units as a permitted use, understanding that there is a cap on the number of dwelling units per the annexation agreement. City of Glenwood Springs 101 West 8th Street, Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 PH: 970-384-6400 FX: 970-945-8582 Page 2 of 1 Other concerns relative to Elk Meadows: Open Space The use of the open space is prescribed as trails and passive open areas, which is desirable. The application indicates some of the open space areas will be available for "open field play." Are any active recreation fields proposed within the development? It would seem appropriate, given the density that some active recreation such as a soccer field, ballfield, basketball court, etc. would be appropriate. One of the key emphasis of the PUD is the heritage ranch and preservation of the hayfields. The allowance for community gardens within some of the designate open space areas, particularly in the area of the barns might be appropriate. There is some concern that the relocation of one of the log barns can be accomplished from a structural preservatin standpoint. Trails There are significant trails around the perimeter of the property. Some consideration should be given to more connections from the periphery to the internal roadways so that pedestrians do not have to walk around an entire area to gain access to the road. Will the trails be used by school aged children to provide access to a central bus location at the entries to the development? Ongoing maintenance of the trails so they are always available for pedestrian access? Is there a need for sidewalks in the development to serve this purpose? Roads The plan indicates that 700 ft. of the access road at the upper meadows area will enounter slopes with gradients of 40% and that rockwalls may be required. Additonally, a rock wall is proposed at the south end of the development. Deisgn standards should be incorporated to require terracing of retaining walls with vegetation. Roads are to be 22 ft. in width with perpendicular "guest parking" spaces at intervals throughout the development. It is assumed there will be no on -street parking. Developments with similar road widths and guest parking have had enforcement issues when the Homeowners Association is responsible for enforcement. Construction vehicles, abandoned vehicles, etc. can create problems. City of Glenwood Springs Page 3 of 1 101 West 8th Street, Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 PH: 970-384-6400 FX: 970-945-8582 Lighting Portions of the development will be highly visible from the lower reaches of the valley. It would seem appropriate that limited lighting be utilized within the development. Full cut-off fixtures for both street lighting and on individual homes should be considered in design requirements for the development. City of Glenwood Springs Page 4 of 1 101 West 8" Street, Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 PFI: 970-384-6400 FX: 970-945-8582 t., great mileage out of all these n the hilt. They are usually onion and seriously distorted. g of the year 2000 was not really century as they claimed. It was t year of the current century. ed crises of world proportion usbyproduct of these events is great losses to business and commerce. Huge quanti- ties of products are dumped, farmers lose whole sea- son's crops and people's paranoia grows. One mother even ran down a school bus toget the grapes out of her kid's lunch. Another effect is that some people seize the opportunity to capitalize financially. Y2K was a huge business windfall for everything from canned food to generators. People still have stocks of supplies, books, battery radios and survival manuals. The one positive effect was we became aware of our vulnerability to disaster. That lesson was soon forgotten. The big scare going now is the claim of global warming. It has become virtually a religion, with AI Gore as its self-appointed prophet. Well, hot dog! Opportunists are capitalizing an our fears and selling all sorts of things. There are books, T- shirts, wind generators, solar panels and endless media participation with all the attendant advertising. There is a positive side. Conservation is a positive initiative. In fact, the first recorded command of God to man was "Tend the garden.,' The big drawback to all of these scares, however, is that it increases the speed of our slide into socialism. We expect dictators to use fear to gain power and con- trol. In a democracy, it is more subtle, but each of these scares gives government impetus to increase reg- ulations, agencies, staff and taxes. To name a few, Homeland Security, the EPA, andtii•EMA demand more control and money under the guise of protecting you. Is the crisis real or contrived? Are we just a bunch of sheep needing more shepherds? lust for fun, look up "gore" in the dictionary. Actually, the shepherds already outnumber the sheep. Some year back we passed the 50 percent line, and now more people work for government than in the private sector. If that surprises you, start making a list of all the government -run agencies that control your life, starting with the local school system. Speaking of fear, I am afraid we are being seriously manipulated, and we are paying for it all. Ross L. Talbott lives in New Castle. Speak out to preserve Four Mile corridor Dear Editor, Over a year ago I, along with several other local residents, was contacted by Westminster Swanson Land Partners (WSLP), the group that intends to devel- op the 1,646 -acre Bershenyi and Martino ranch properties on Four Mile Road. The purpose of this contact was to review ini- tial plans for the property with Local residents and to incorpo- rate (to the extent deemed prac- tical) subsequent local feedback into future iterations of the plan. WSLP has proven to be excep- tionally responsive and sensitive to local issues. They have estab- lished a constructive dialog with several local residents resulting in some very far-reaching and constructive changes to their original plan. Among those are a) a reduction in the number of home sites from 277 to 189, b) preservation of about 92 percent of the property (I,514 acres) in open space, c) incorporation of a public trail system with provi- sion for public parking and, d) a willingness to help create a faun heritage site on the property, including land set -asides and preservation of historical build- ings where practical. As part of the open space on this parcel, a contiguous section of approximately 960 acres of high meadow is planned to be preserved. WSLP has indicated a willingness to consider deeding Quotable "When a reporter gets hauled to jail for exercising the liberties we extol to the rest of the world, the globe's despots smile. They've learned they, too, can follow the American way." — Robert Leger, newspaper editorialist 2005 TMST INnF.r,NDF.NT Losirtilire)kaNnFaa: tam Editorial Board Andrea Porter, publisher Dale Shrull, managing editor Sean Kelly, news editor Donna Gray, staff writer Dennis Webb, staff writer LETTERS TO THE EDfTOF this property to either county or city entities for permanent preservati on should they be interested. WSLP will go before Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 1I for their initial plan review. WSLP's plan, and their goal of preserving large tracts of open space, is contin- gent on obtaining zoning changes that will allow for clus- tering of home sites into com- pact units of higher density than current zoning permits. I encour- age you to attend this meeting — public comment is invited — and express support for the core elements of this plan, which pre- serves much of what many of us value about the Four Mile corri- dor and its heritage. Also, please note that I am not affiliated with WSLP in any way other than that indicated above. Michael W. Larime Glenwood Springs Gas commission should respond to health concerns Dear Editor, Gas and oil development in Colorado is booming at a record pace with more than 30,000 active wells. It is predicted that over the next six years this num- ber will reach 60,000. The Colorado Oil and Gas Con- servation Commission (COGCC) currently regulates wells and evap- oration pits that can emit toxic chemicals and impact public health. The COGCC is supposed A NOTE ON LETTERS The Post Independent welcomes signed letters on a wide variety of sub- jects. Letters are limited in length to 350 words. Longer letters will be rejected or sent back for revision. &mailed letters are preferred, and should be sent to letters@postindepen- dent.com, or posted via our Web site, using the Letters link at www.postinde- pendent.com, Mail or bring letters to 2014 Grand Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO 81602. They also may be faxed to (970) 945-4487, Please include your real name, signature, address and daytime phone number in case we have any questions. By submitting a letter for publica- tion, you are also giving permission to post it on the Post Independent Web site. Check out our full letters policy on our Web site. Fred Jarman From: Jim Hawkins [hawk@rof.net] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 8:54 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Tresi Houpt; John Martin; Larry McCown Subject: EIk Meadows development EXHIBIT V Good Morning The following letter is sent as public comment to be included in the packets for the zoning board members and the county commissioners. Thank You To all interested parties: This letter is written concerning the upcoming application of the development known as EIk Meadows. This proposed development is just south of Four Mile Ranch (Red Feather Ridge) on Four Mile Road. As many of you know the Red Feather Ridge development met with strong resistance from many citizens of Glenwood Springs and rural Garfield County. As one of the more vocal opponents of Red Feather, we now find that many neighbors are seeking our opinion on the Elk Meadows project. The developers of EIk Meadows have consistently demonstrated a desire to work with the citizens of the Four Mile corridor. Their efforts to discuss the plans and consider the options at public meetings was appreciated. Whether the county planning and zoning board decides to move forward with this development and grant higher density zoning or not, we believe development will take place on this parcel and this plan is superior to the Red Feather -Four Mile Ranch plan. Through discussions with local residents, the developers have committed to preserve many of the historical buildings on the property and to preserve part of the lower hay fields. This will help preserve the rural character of Four Mile Road. It also presents the very real possibility of creating a Heritage Ranch setting which could include the buildings, fields and a beautiful creek drainage. The developers have also voiced a desire to transfer ownership and responsibility for approximately 1000 acres of mountain ranch land to some entity for 4/6/2007 Page 2 of 2 preservation purposes. As of now, no entity has stepped up and entered into discussions about this possibility. We believe this presents a wonderful opportunity for Garfield County to create a pristine, 1000 acre Mountain Park for the enjoyment of all. Non -motorized access to this area would be facilitated by a parking lot near the top of the development. If creation of a county mountain park has not been discussed by the zoning board or the county commissioners, we would highly encourage the county to investigate this possibility. Jim and Shari!! Hawkins 970-945-4004 4/6/2007 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 http://www.water state co.us STAIE OF COL April 2, 2007 Mary Ray Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: The Reserve at Elk Meadows Sketch Plan Sections 27, 28, 33 & 34, T6S, R89W, 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Ritter, Jr. Govemor Hams D. Sherman Executive Director Hal D Simpson, P E. State Engineer Dear Marv: We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 505.8 acres into 189 single-family residential lots. The domestic water supply is to be provided through a new central system consisting of wells and storage tanks, pursuant to an augmentation plan. The irrigation water supply is to be provided through a raw water system, which is to be developed using existing water rights on Four Mile Creek. No information was provided regarding the irrigation supply. Sewage disposal is to be provided through connection to an existing City of Glenwood Springs wastewater treatment plant. Domestic uses, including 500 square feet of lawn irrigation for each lot, are estimated to require 123.3 acre-feet per year. Permit No. 262418 was issued for the Elk Well on March 23, 2005, and limits the use of the well to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. A well test completed by the Samuelson Pump Company indicates that the well produced 50 gpm over a 24-hour period on April 20-21, 2005, that the drawdown was 61.4 feet and that the 99% recovery occurred within 90 minutes. The December 21, 2006 report by Zancanella and Associations, Inc. expresses concern about the capability of the Elk Well to pump for extended periods at its tested production rate. Permit No. 262874 was issued for the Bison Well on April 18, 2005, and also limits the use of the well to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. Two tests were conducted on this well. The first well test completed by Samuelson on May 2-3, 2005 indicates that the well produced 50 gpm over 22 hours. The pumping rate was increased to 75 gpm, and pumping continued for another 6 hours. The drawdown was 39.5 feet and the 99% recovery occurred within 60 minutes. The second well test completed by Samuelson on May 4, 2005 indicates that the well produced 100 gpm over a 4 -hour period, that the drawdown was 51.6 feet and that the 98% recovery occurred within 60 minutes. The applicant is also proposing a well field, to consist of two additional wells, to supplement the domestic supply. No information was provided regarding the expected production capacity of the proposed well field. According to the Zancanella report, the peak demand in July will require a continuous average diversion of 83.6 gpm. The report concludes that the Bison Well and a well field adjacent to Four Mile Creek will provide adequate water for the domestic water system. Well permits issued pursuant to CRS 37- 90-137(2) and an approved plan for augmentation must be obtained prior to the construction and/or operation of the subject wells pursuant to the plan. Mary Ray Reserve at Elk Meadows April 2, 2007 Page 2 The applicant filed Case No. 05CW144 in Division 5 Water Court on July 29, 2005, requesting an underground water right and a plan for augmentation including exchange. An amended application was filed on February 28, 2007 and added a claim for a surface water right. The plan is intended to replace depletions to Four Mile Creek due to the development via releases from Ruedi Reservoir, pursuant to a contract with either the Colorado River Water Conservation District or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreed water rights due to the lack of a court -approved plan for augmentation. Due to a lack of information, we are unable to comment on the physical or legal adequacy of the irrigation water supply. Note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Sincerely, Craig M. Lis, P.E. Water Resources Engineer CML/CJL/Reserve at Elk Meadows.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 5 TOE RESERVE_ AT ELK IVIEAf?£)\AIS. Garfield County Planning Commission April 11, 2007 6:30 PM Req uest, s Amend the Proposed Land Use Districts of the Comprehensive Plan • From Low and Medium Density Residential (72 lots) ■ To Medium & High Density Residential (198 Lots) Rezone the property from ARRD to PUD with Sketch Plan Review • Request to vary Road Standards, Minimum Lot Sizes, Lot Coverage, Setbacks, Minimum Parking; Process • Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan with Vote • Public Meeting on the Rezone to PUD with Sketch Plan with vote on recommendation to BOCC p ei1(zllSrVC, F'f2,r,.r Arn;.ridr i rit 1 EXHIBIT 4/11/2007 . .t {C Cf 1if Li Project Specifics 1 Reserve @ Elk Meadows II AMU Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planned Unit Development / Sketch Plan APPLICANT Reserve at Elk Meadows, LLC n REPRESENTATIVE Balcomh & Green, P.C, (Larry Green) • LOCATION Four Mile Creek SITE ACREAGE 506 acres r.� ZONING ARRD • SITE PLAN 189 RESIDENTIAL UNITS to Amend the Pro poseci Land LJ!,F:, Districts 61/4Jf�n: in the rrINary of 2000 1 111, 9111 Comprehensive Plan Amendment r. I.. In summary. Staff agrees wall the analysts In the application whkh resulted m the re.mepping of a portion of the property as High Density Resklential and the large remainder Lie Medlin Dens by Resklent#al shown above. Generally, Itre analysis suggests that the lower. gently•slophg fields and meadows of the Martino add 9ershenyi Ranches could easily be re -mapped as Residential High Density Blaine!. due to the tack or any skinel:ont development constraints. avaI1abplty of central sewer servke and proxeuityto en Improved collector road and community servkes. Simrlany, It remainder o} lee property Is suggested to be mapped as Median Obesity Residenllal due to some autos having development constraints (pr mafly geologic and slope retatol) but these areas can also be accommodated by central sewer, proximity to nood access and existing urban Eetvdees In nearby Glenwood Springs. 4/11/2007 s preliensive Plan Amendment 7 Lew Density Residential: 16 of more acres I au (18.21 ).• Medium Density Restdendal: 6. 10 xres I du (53.971 > Medium -High Residential: 2 z sures per drvadktg unit r I11gh Density Residence!' Less then 2 acres per o-A+elling une 11 appears the reason tor the three small pockets of Residential Low Densityale due primarily to 1) surticral geology for landslides, 2) major slope haratde. and 3) moderate sous hazards as ldentdted In the Cemprehensree Plan defined more fully below The Comprehensive Plan contains a methodology matrix that provides the general exercise undergone that belmalely resulted N why certain areas in Study Area I were given a certain density. Because this exercise was done at a bread scale and not the result of a site apxak analysis. amendments can (and should be) contemplated at a closer property scale. In this case, the Applicant suggests that the property's designations could be varied as certain environmental and development constraints can adequately be mitigated resulting in varying densities Request to Rezone Property to Planned Unit D ve&opment from ARRD / Sketch Plan Review 2 Proposed PIJD Phasing Plan Illustrative Master Plan 4/11/2007 Rlm4...ngV xH r • t.+.,•.*.., r�,w.w www Yr... w.•..ww.y,.,,,.. ,...,..,. r.. ..c..• ►�.rt ..+e.r..r.w r�.... r....w.w Mr � ." ,21.1�..r.,r rswle 1.111111., ■• �y7�r1AA1.1111�f n. o .,,y u�yr..r�e..-� {r.,. aro e �G r.— -.-'-- w ..2e0.....,1181 a.. mum,. man mMid .111 ..e.,.,.`o p. mitt== Project Issues with Comprehensive Plan: Housing,. r housing soh States that PUO should provide fy, r7 i°using shot ensures current and future residents unable housing opportunities which are designed ra provide fe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and iii protect the natural enulronmenr. Additionally, PUNS should encourage mix of Housing types within o development. Housing obiectives Include encouraging adequate Integrated houAng or a reasonable cost to residents throughout Golfed -aunty god Residential development should respect rhe natural horacteristics of o particular site, Including topography, eyetatlon, water features, geology and vistraf relationships with rraunding fund uses and view sheds. 3 Project Issues o 4,07.03(14 Minimizing unreasonable adverse affects • T+efit Study (Update Traffic Study) / Pre -Annexation Agreement • Visual Impact mitigation V. 407.03(2) Internal Street Circulation • Public or private roads - • Road width (from 24 feet to 22 feet) • Grade exceeding40% slope (Road A) / exceeding 8% needing variance • One Access Point Out M 4.07.03(5) Variety of Housing Types & Densities • All Single -Family Lots (11 - 30,000 sq. ft.) • AH / multi -family could help satisfy this requirement Projeci. IssUt 4.G8.05(2)(h) Other Restrictions proposed... • Setbacks vs Building envelopes • Sign Code changes ("MonumentSigns") • Street Design Standards: Street widths and grades need to be better analyzed so that they can comply with Section 9:37 of the Sub regs for a variance from 8% to 14% max. • Ownership of Roads • One way out ca 4.08.05(7)(B) Approximate Dates for Phasing Plan • Proposed plan is a 2 -year mai ket based sliding scale • Need to evaluate phasing plan objectives e 4.08.05(7)(e)(ii) Appropriate Natural hazard Mitigation • Rock Fall berm for Lots 52 & 53 (South Meadow Lots) Project to create 1,900 ADT n,114r. Mk portion ofCR117/County Fees (5100K)'Try ��( j'riytiinmKytliih Age ee l era with GWS: 5900K fYi. est sisdyt.hp at round-ahoutat Midland 27'" ItmHk 11049 112:FC>< at Midland and Mt Sopns Drive i 16 4/11/2007 Project lw._41.7 3(0) Disturbance of slopes over 40% tiise r feet of Street A providing access to upper lots • rteedto:demonstrate ability to minimize cut / fill disturbance 4.07.15.01(1) Lands Designated High Density • Obligated to provide 10% of units as AH units (19 units) • Not enough to satisfy the variety of types and densities in a PUD W407.15,01(2) On or Off Site? '.".■ High Density is most suited for on site • Proposal is to locate off-site County Comprehensive Plan (Goals & Objectives) Garfield County Housing Authority Application's determination of High Density near urban services City of Glenwood Springs PUD Regulations for High Density (most suited) ,� . •..+e r•«W .12 4,. mum.. HP s.,.5..s en,,,.I °�; l�0 i# �» g. re41S a •n. gu9. • 1 rAmAr1.W 11. Iwaun.•• .. lrwr•al.oa"..o.:re.. a ..•,north abop •l., kwl Ne •N.114/A�OINlehmo ligl awRMI/SOI.RYAIYtesanifi .:9Am tte,l IariwIYIt.atC Ite lig m7.•K!+••14fAre.••e�rx �u1..Taesraa•ePlty}�InNM�I'.Mt�]QliVl•Y�e --_.._._.ro.vr,iiE�i__`stit:y�r„, nuyt__�et�--y!W�•. Project: Isya;c•'. 0 4.08:05(7)(G) Design does not unreasonably impact wildlife / natural environment .. • DOW suggests 100' buffer between lots in lower meadow from Four mile Ranch; • • Increasing BE on Lots 1— 22 away from 4 Mile Creek (50 feet) • • Move Lots 18-23 & eliminate eine' gency access road Eliminate trail & park along 4 Mile Creek • Variety of commonly require covenants M 4.08.05(8) Other considerations by Applicant • Mountain Park Donation (960 acres) Staff suggests the BOCC accept this park 4 \Aflldlife Issues 84 Road Re alignment Corditrori5 of r-Arlr>roval 7atall lgpWnenlaf (unsmtllfnhy tl+r Apppliont lu [lin npp11 ka Hun, and at ate public heanrig tyr Oreil+r PIann[pg[omrniffiona ndthe Ianrdof Cc ty Cr1;'=lonar>, SOH Be>*Ineusre approval. unleffifpknficalIy alkred bytho Board of County Commissioners, Tbe Applicant shall depict -the following gems on Elle Preliminary Plan: the 100,.. ilnod way and Thr 1W ye 11 Lie. -d tris, ppIirant shell submit a tit:Ming Plan fol all the resldenu5l rlusters, silent lights, lighting of wrpmtr8Ity tacliltks with the Prelnnuinry Plan Unit specipcally acid rases the plan In Wndf t1 minimize light pallw inn frodl the desmlopmoot. NO! 4).14 (holingte Fnra ilii Bairn so County Commissioners, the Applicant shall to dimes the cailltgronr non of ilia upper n lead nww clutter II/14100W iirAl s is - 73 bolow ,_Smret leaurstrpgtetred 8y iln POW to reduce the Impact nn saynra whiter range - The Applicant shall provide ilia 10''/ uftoolable housing unit lequuemeal ori sge within the development. The Applicant shall provide a Weed Management Plan ase su hmitlnl with the _ Preliminary Plan acldressingthe cornments by the County Vegeratlon Manap,er anached as L khlhit G. ('C;I'lCilit.r)Y"t of /-\ppmv711 ip1ShF Puhlir, headngbefore the Board of County CoinmiPSioners, ktsfta3f provide an analysis that the road grade of "Street A %u:tug the standards in Seetion 9:37 of the Subdivision Jo egulations.or.1984, as amended. •lit' oN lar to She public hnarhlg before the Board of Cdunly Commin§loner8, the I Pflaantshall assign npploltimpte data; to the phasing plan including Bili and year for when phases are to commence and be complete. parate phase of the PUD shall be allowed to be constructed that is in a dead-end cul-de-sac without a letter from the Glenwood Fire rotection District affirmatively indicating that they will be able to provide serve•with adequate ingress / egress. That any modification of the phasing plan contained within the PUD shall ,;l require an amendment to the PUD. 1 That all community fealties /amenlries Including trails, landscaping, and rehabilitation to the Bershenyi barns be completed within the first phase. Additionally, the relocation of Foul- Mile Road 4hall occur in the first phase. 4/11/2007 Site $I Mountain Park Prop . (r�p}fj,illCtltS of l•\.I:ii�h:w�_tl ,riir�IInt shrill submit a revised Traffic Impact Study with the PfeUmfp . ' Plan Submittal that Incorporates impacts to the Mt. Sopris D1lve / MdNAnd Avenue intersection and a roundabout at Midland Avenue / 27th Avenue. e Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall affirmatively determine if the internal roads in the PUD are to be public or private. Prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a letter from the Glenwood Springs Fire District that specifically approves of the internal road network, design width and grade. The Applicant shall affirmatively demonstrate which lots are to be governed by setbacks and /or where building envelopes are required for environmental hazard / concern areas. Further, if building envelopes are approved, the Applicant shall provide criteria / standards by which they can be amended. This shall be submitted with the Preliminary Plan. C.oJ1'nd11.iur4S rtf Arjp:'[ivial Prior to the public hearing before [he Board of County Commissioner s, the Applicant shall act Jre.s the comments made by Mountain Cross Engineering regarding pressure zones ane gallon usage 5c rExhibit Id Thatthe Preliminary Plan submittal contains a profess -land geologist's response to Section, 5 11 or the Zoning Resolution or 1978, as amended a. That that Preliminary Plan includes the recommendations of the OUW'in their Exhibit R. -1,(6011 at That that Preliminary Plan specifically address the comments made by the Colorado Geologic 0, .n their letter attache(' as e.hmit 1 oared 0/16/07. 000 T0511he Applicant *dicer, with the Brat phase how 11101 app:olMrateiy 960 acre=_ of the west parcel of rhe Eershenyi Ranch (Mountain Paryl, to some 10)10 of public or private enM1ly (county, city, spet:ia1 .district. non.prnfit corporation, homer s,.,anon) for the purpose of managing tf,is parcel I- se by Inc public. In addluun to preserving an 1,iormously Important area of wildlife habitat, 1r1he Mountain Park Is proposed to he available fol non -Motorized Lisa by the public onder the �rguider..ce of appropriate rules tear will roster 0 conlpalbie rola nonship with the native wildlife. 111 aoperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, sortie seasonal fimhahono may be placed on priblicuse of the 'rhounlain pork" 90 protect the wddiife vatic, of the property Even with Scan sillve consideration for wiidlilrr, the Mountain Park will provide an 01111nons rr-readona Ire.oure that is readily accessible to residents In ane 001011/0/111011101 Mile condor and Glenvrood5prings 5 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:10 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Reserve at Elk Meadows FYI Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfteld-county.com Original Message From: Mitch Mulhall [mailto:mmulhall@aspenres.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:15 PM To: Tresi Houpt; John Martin; Larry McCown Subject: Reserve at Elk Meadows Dear Tresi, John, and Larry, EXHIBIT I cannot attend the commissioner's meetings, so I thought I'd write you to express my views on Westminster Swanson Land Partner's proposed site plan, which you can see at www.reserveatelkmeadows.com. WSLP's site plan shows 196 lots. This is too dense. You have the responsibility to make sure that WSLP does not commit a travesty on this former ranch land. The natural park WSLP calls the "Upper Meadow" is visible up and down the valley. WSLP proposes 55 lots up there. At a minimum, I would expect a density like that of Four Mile Ranch. I live in Park West. The traffic at 8:00 am poses serious concerns at current levels. Parents are traveling south to drop off children at Sopris Elementary, and Four Mile residents are commuting north on their way to work. Were WSLP's proposed density approved, there'd be at least another 300 cars in Elk Meadows. Absent serious traffic mitigation measures along South Midland, no additional development up Four Mile should be approved. Don't be attracted to the offer to widen Sunlight Bridge. That bottle -neck is only part of a much larger traffic problem on Midland. I can't help but think WSLP is using the proposed density as a kind of gimme—something they're willing to give up so they look cooperative. Nevertheless, I urge you to deny any application for density variance and reject this site plan immediately. Kind regards, Mitch Mulhall mmulhall@aspenres.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.2.0/756 - Release Date: 4/10/2007 10:44 PM 4/11/2007 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:10 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: email from new WEB site: Reserve at Elk Meadows FYI Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt ikga rfield-county.com Original Message From: David Bowers [mailto:dbowers@aspenres.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:50 PM To: John Martin; Larry McCown; Tresi Houpt Subject: email from new WEB site: Reserve at Elk Meadows Dear Tresi, John and Larry, EXHIBIT e° I have just read Westminster Swanson Land Partner's proposed site plan on the www.reserveatelkmeadows.com web site. The density is far too high. The cluster homes make this an eyesore for the whole valley. Re -aligning four mile road, and financial help to widen Sunlight Bridge, only mitigates a very small part of the problem. The junction at Airport Road/Four Mile Road is very dangerous to say the least. A roundabout was planned, but never happened. The increased flow of traffic from Cardiff Glen and Four Mile make this a hazardous junction. I urge you to reject this application. Kind Regards David Bowers davebow@sopris.net No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.2.0/756 - Release Date: 4/10/2007 10:44 PM 4/11/2007 Proposed Building Envelopes East Meadows Lots 1 thought 18 PUD Master Plan - Revised EXHIBIT 1 A -A. Lots 1 - 4 Minimum 85 foot Building Envelope Depth Lots 5 - 10 Minimum 90 foot Building Envelope Depth Lots 11 - 17 Minimum 85 foot Building Envelope Depth Lot 18 Minimum 100 foot Lot Depth Fred Jarman From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:03 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Reserve at Elk Meadows Fred: A review of the additionally submitted materials has been performed: EXHIBIT r 1. As part of the preliminary plan guardrail should be analyzed and proposed along warranted sections of the roads, in particular along Street A. 2. There are areas of significant cut and fill (20 feet to 30 feet). Steep cut and fill slopes, generating large areas of disturbance, or high retaining walls will be required. The 8% would be worse; that is agreed, but the 10% grades that are proposed will also be expensive and difficult to construct. 3. The 10% grades and lengths should be reviewed and approved by the Fire District. 4. The Uniform Plumbing Code calls for water to be delivered to homes for domestic use at between 50 to 70 psi. Some consideration for mitigating the higher pressures will be required. Sopris Engineering proposes to modify the proposed design to mitigation the pressures. This could be addressed at the time of preliminary plan. 5. The explanation of water demands is adequate. Feel free to call if these need further explanation or clarification. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 6/7/2007 CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THIS PETITION WAS CIRCULATED & RESULTS CONDITIONS: Petition was circulated from the intersection of Midland & Airport Road, south on County Road 117 to the intersection of Dry Park Road, and included the 1st Filing of Spring Ridge. This neighborhood stretches approximately 2 Vs miles along County Road 117. There are approximately 145 residences in this neighborhood. This represents a reasonable "surrounding area" to the Reserve At Elk Meadows. Please keep in mind that the high density of the proposed Reserve At Elk Meadows has more proposed lots than the surrounding neighborhood described above. This comparison alone should raise concerns that the high density of the proposed Reserve At Elk Meadows does not conform to the rural makeup of the neighborhood. County regulations 4.07.03 {1} state 'The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized." As to that portion of the regulation that states " unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized, how do you minimize the adverse effects of two high density hillside clusters when the majority of the neighborhood is developed on the valley floor with no clustering? These so called clusters will occupy the only legitimate open space now on the mountain visible from County Rd 117. Will a round about or traffic light minimize an extra 1100 traffic trips a day at build out created by allowing the high density? Density language stated in the petition was taken from the Garfield Planning Dept notice. No vacant land ownership was included in this petition. Only property owners of record were allowed to sign the petition. Property ownership was verified through the assessor's office. RESULTS 106 Property owners were contacted out of a possible 145. Each household represents one signature. The total number contacted represents 73% of the entire neighborhood and is a reliable statistical sample Of the total number of households contacted 90 signed the petition to deny approval of the Reserve At Elk Meadows PUD. No one signed the petition to grant the approval of the Reserve At Elk Meadows PUD however 16 property owners verbally expressed their concerns as to why they would not sign the petition. Reasons fall into following categories: Five - Conflict Of Interest Five - Needed More Information Three — In Deference To The Bershenyi Family One - Just No Period In order to make the statistical analysis as conservative as possible we will assume that the 16 property owners who were contacted but did not sign the petition were placed in the grant or approval column. The denial rate for the Reserve At Elk Meadows from the neighborhood would still be very high conservative estimate of 85%. (90 divided by 106} Submitted By: /a`-1- c' I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & Street, City or Town 3 tierlk 1- 5 Alyi 4v(6:70t‘i, J 450A ca— ica1r CAR-oc- �.. oz.es tb fax4-61 tel) 0o28 Ci1V-) i RD idA zuotet4(521;(:-)zriii,/e) C 4 £o (J 9A) kd / 4/9 1711--N"r ! r} c'p.,Air c' ii'm 4,6:44 7n/ � d .1 elm ,i A) /v5fek Akaie tILI,! lee k C: 1 qt )t'e.t k. PLe4sotJ 1 i <3'41944 5q5- V/i parte I c C 1eettu ecic; / ry 5 CD. M ?sl t) t k oriA P,1 GRANT DENY (9.14A4A.Ora.4 CP42'6.4 "() 3491 CG,4 n.i1 6I ik„„ca�rn�{,S C 141 (arkwood (�' �'f '•i s, 'live t I i v7 g 3 c VS, Gd 44 13 14, L . ,. . cC. 14 r d 15 ►;���� h\ 14nr v_+1: bi.%i<il! 404 003DvtA - 1�. Qt's CO 01'1 (0o AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED BY: /cze PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WAS VERIFIED BY E A SESSORS RECORDS ON W\f\�4 2Z 107 BY C,r E i2 13 Wo-<- Mol' 56 C,E616L6. k fC. Co LINE_ fZ i s DPNvc+o Coop P `( L` 1,46_ i 1 3 Su,_ d- °lvefs\e6aLL. OP PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 1 lTH, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8TH ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 72 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS INEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT". THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME Cfmzy GEm,E �. 77 -o - 5 T 5 f(41,1A 8 7g, fe-d,-- 'bw i J vtt-t- raw,t RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & Sheet, City or Town to mokr\AZA C S. - o CD -2-4 ..,4&..i -,1 qv) Ob1d PC PIP Lj ; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 11TH, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8TH ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 72 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS INEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT" THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & Street. City or Town 2� C Ga. 00 s el of ilJ4 f c6 C1ivJSt oL\. GRANT DENY 199 Mci.mov\. S Co '1boL 9 rim Piz- 6645 ) k. L)s C 0 3 Go f 74,94.4z-- cc c dpi kJ5 vI trY, „IS/6_4.444..4, 12i j i t LIC 13 15 41A-1e-eU r/sand G ws Co sI6,0 t � - C%-i'lf vt wit o /0/ UQ N DO Ii N 01. G i?? m v iiiP Lo t"r i - R N t iv1 CA,N ev oe Aa1411 V0 X5160 fa i WO, fE livoeb sus, Cts E160/ b 7 L/an Docin cRc Gten5• f pr;y,v,-:�t.t�s� e\wN{, . 75P-4,1%./04-0364..4, 6 i,st cos /4( GoC�S�pe%,J 'veC R+�1�tE,IN V /L AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED BY: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WAS VERIFIED B TTHE ASSESSORS RECORDS ON .j U +^iE.5 'zni 1 BY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 11, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8TH ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 7iQ,TS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS INEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT". THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE 3 4 J PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & Street City ea Town SA 1,1 oon : 61�7 5UeKc-ALL �144",,&,,i /P6Aa'(41 Sri 5 S. ,m arS6, I 7 wod vo.,./c4.171/,--r‘ �,yF{ 87 16 son A . of z'l� r C 11 3C 1 Pmor,a J Ci3 p y)�G1 3C 1 !t CW5f (r)C.G1 6o TC t ho N -r 72 thr, to v/ T 04.0z GRANT t g Jeer VaI 8y17Y1, Cif ,rtri5r[ , f'3/14:c ' LLA4 weed Sr -55,C0 1 Oilo Cl-t.nuJeloa s.0Ce44 per- '/fir c��r j2 r S F/G C)s4S Qo r l e. ct_tu,t Id ¥t Gal iYL` U 'A L 43,57 Tzt,(I 7 W G444x,F / rf .v� L -9 POI V— l 4.0 O Kev \CM Ir eve Ce3 s-9 63/4177- 2'.<;4;1-49C44 3/417 - DENY x 55--- 6o )117 C.c,t2sa 6o 2/6o 1 h2113 \t ock j34 pr 416110,06A f(1V46k tO Stoet l [-roc4 4 GL SAC, s ev AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED BY: ae.e PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WAS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSORS RECORDS ...kirk �j �{ '�- f BY 2c I *Z A h ISE Co:At-my AS I Li tkc. 1' IOOLA- j4er 6 .Ch..11 e-19 – 11 Arttci2.5- P0e5 6.071 t OF WIT14 /ssessOg-s�leecAzios PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 11, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8T' ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 72 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS 1NEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT". THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTCONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSES E OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & street, City or Town 1 2 uf_p_Aty (2 i 3_� 4 �� � uzf 77 f ctsr S / nt ]� Y1J 0637 Laii-� la K-0..)_ p .r 2u6e K .4 esu K 6-1050 ro 1� /o/ , +�s�1 _4261 Laird a AlIM?,n1446 Zr) '/l'O . 7Si jz,5LJ GRANT DENY 7241 667010r Anif C1 IGY)./IQ ers 11 giA4 Tarins ka r-(� X r ws ao &4-)I 00/0 ((e)(4 Ca-, £mss 'b.M c5 Ili v X el(kn Cj ' 60 l ' r kcuo cL€c/ .Z/0 ;.40)LiZr‘ / , o u -S /6a ' L 0924i ji4ectoL3 Adz, a Q ice, �- �• /� �� {iau/moi StA N`I'vRJ DI) IA)cW Oo07 Me P� C. Doe. LOS eo g/G a/ Oc4 MgM itO IA)pito. _ 4411 1,-Af S1&Vht�� 40641, k x AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED BY:"mac- PROPERTY 7N.R.SHIP WAS VERIFIED By E ASSESSORS RECORDS ON 0 7 BY LNE, 014 i 0 Ave. 136. Ifeparso As orkE „ R\66 oF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 11TH, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8TH ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 72 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS INEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT" THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS J , Number Street, City or Town / d -e 41 .fes,, d � -f,//; A ,_701 CX /17 L! ),Ift L pail 7614,\INZNI C7 d2c4, 3J71 e GRANT 7 1 41911 r.inatMr ti r (DO i \ QLID live, ai)g. 69 1►' -wren z LJENIIV, a i4 A1, , gu:s Com, S(6O/ 8 11/1/2Rk �,9c?TtillC sUrifr c)4)/6 SCJ ctt c)t� 6 S/Gc( DENY tA l OArolifit .(t OM 0 Sv A l (4W b-. 12 T.ar �cvs�,�, ‘GcJS/ „,e6.3"( ` 1�Che�I`n 0011p A -J J Li ei— OrIct-Sl'-�'l A Tp (jitS Com, TIc,e! ccs: Pf6(7IY ju7ord 7 d D �� �( - a kiS , CO Sl 6t0 z -Ain s 3- SwEE+6Ep S2 5IK4104eLta So F41Elf ooS5 oGER_ PL Cf 6+i5 ev 8 113 d'141/ Tc t &i i 00/7 x11 L f AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED BY: Cegze_ X x PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WAS VERIFIED BrY THE ASSESSORS RECORDS ON JJ,�1-._ R ` 0(0 BY l PRGE tf:ioFl PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 11TH, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8TH ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 72 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS INEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT". THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. WHILE THIS PETITION ONLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER -- PRESERVATION OF HIS/HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & Skeet, (Sty or Town GRANT Ji2-41.64,(A. lead [p[nrCd- eticv) 171 Dee,- Zvi( C/, Jerd 5 y. r Q H4 d DENY X X i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED BY: Orie PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WAS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSORS RECORDS ON -U & r o (4, BY ze, V Pr\c=L —7 or1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE "RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. CONSISTING OF THE MARTINO RANCH AND PORTIONS OF THE BERSHENYI RANCH ALONG FOUR MILE ROAD. SCHEDULED HEARING IS JUNE 11TH, 2007, AT 1:15 P.M. IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, 108 8T' ST. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. THE PLANNING DEPT PUBLIC NOTICE STATES THAT 72 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LOWER MEADOW, AND TWO OTHER CLUSTERS OF 55 LOTS AND 69 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ON UPPER PORTIONS OF THE RANCH. WHILE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS INEVITABLE,THE SOLE OBJECTION OF THIS PETITION CONCERNS THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THIS HIGH DENSITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOUR -MILE CORRIDOR. THIS HIGH DENSITY CONFLICTS WITH 4.06 AND 4.07.03 OF THE COUNTY REGULATIONS TO BE MET FOR A PUD. TO SIGN THIS PETITION YOU MUST BE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF "THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT". THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS PETITION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON FOUR MILE ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND FOUR MILE ROAD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTION OF DRY PARK ROAD. ONLY ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PER RESIDENCE. IF YOU CANNOT AI IEND THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT URGES YOU TO STATE YOUR VIEWS BY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE BEFORE SIGNING THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT.