HomeMy WebLinkAboutSVR Referral Comment Packet 04.12.2024
Community Development
Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendments (File PUAA-05-23-8967)
Referral Comments
Thank you for your interest in the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. Attached are the referral
comments we have received as of April 12, 2024. Due to the size and complexity of the application,
we expect supplemental information from the applicant as well as updated information from some
referral agencies. Please check back periodically for updates and please date any comments you submit.
You can contact either Glenn Hartman or Philp Berry with questions on the process or with comments
on the application.
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-1377 x1570
Ghartmann@garfield-county.com
Philip Berry, AICP
Planner III
Office: 970-945-1377 x1580
Pberry@garfield-county.com
Referral Comment
Exhibit # Description
7-1 Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District – February 6, 2024
7-2 Colorado State Forest Service – February 1, 2024
7-3 Colorado Geologic Survey – February 23, 2024
7-4 Garfield County Public Health – February 23, 2024
7-5 Garfield County Consulting Engineer – February 6, 2024, August 15, 2023
7-6 Garfield County Road and Bridge – January 30, 2024
7-7 Garfield County Vegetation Management – February 13, 2024
7-8 Colorado Parks and Wildlife – February 27, 2024, February 20, 2024
7-9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – February 8, 2024
7-10 Glenwood Springs Fire Department – February 8, 2024
7-11 Consulting Traffic Engineer – August 15, 2024
7-12 RFTA – March 25, 2024
7-13 Glenwood Springs – February 26, 2024
7-14 Eagle County – February 20, 2024
7-15 CDPHE – January 19, 2024
7-16 AVLT – April 4, 2024
7-17 CDOT – March 25, 2024
7-18
Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Plan Review
Date: August 16, 2023 – Revised Review 02-06-2024
Project: PUD Amendment
Applicant: Storied Development, LLC.
Rich Wagner – 530-4483157
9875 N. Tuhaye Park Drive
Kamas, UT 84036
Owner: Spring Valley Holdings, LLC
Mar�n Van Ardenne – 415-738-0295
600 Montgomery ST
40th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT
The staff of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District is providing the following comments on the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD Amendment Application as a courtesy based on a referral by Garfield County planning staff for an initial
review and preliminary comments. As the subject property is outside the boundary of the District, the District does not
have administrative jurisdiction. Therefore, the comments that follow are advisory only in nature and the district shall
not be held responsible for its interpretation of the facts stated by the applicant or the district’s interpretation and
understanding of the County’s planning process and County land use code.
EMS Response
• CRFPD recommends that considera�on be made to how EMS with Advanced Life Support (ALS) response and
transport will be conducted and subsidized. Our concern is that with the addi�ons to the recrea�onal ac�vi�es
that are proposed, call volume will increase in the area, and currently there is no plan to provide Emergency
Medical Services.
• Based on the current emergency ambulance response distance and planned development of a ski area, CRFPD
recommend a helicopter landing zone be designated for emergent transport.
Clear width to landing zone = 300 feet.
Safety Circle = 90 feet.
Pad = 20 feet.
7.11.2 Fire Protec�on
• With professional observa�on and experience, the plan for an all-volunteer fire service is not recommended.
Consider a combina�on department with paid full-�me responders that will help to manage the training,
response and administra�on of the two fire houses and their firefigh�ng apparatus.
Considera�ons:
Training Plan.
Recer�fica�on of training and administra�on.
Maintenance and replacement requirements.
7.11.2 (8)(10) Road Access and Fire Protec�on Standards
• Airial and fire apparatus access with no comment needed.
• CRFPD recommends that the project team consider expanding the construc�on plan for fire sta�ons to included
employee housing to incen�vize employees needed to manage opera�ons.
7.11.1 Wildfire Mi�ga�on/Q Wildfire Mi�ga�on Report 2023
• Credit for the strong Wildfire Mi�ga�on Report on the proposed PUD. This report assists with the development
of a CWPP plan that will help in the con�nued wildfire preparedness and emergency response strategies. CRFPD
strongly recommends that the LCMD work toward a “Fire Wise Community” designa�on to help in the educa�on
of residents and to fund large scale wildland fire mi�ga�on projects.
• Considera�on should be made for residents to shelter in place within their own homes depending on class of
construc�on as recommended in the 2021 IWUIC. The Wildfire Mi�ga�on Report talks about Collec�on point
predesignated to facilitate evacua�ng ci�zens with the golf course clubhouse being considered for the point (PP
34). May �mes people are caught in their vehicles trying to leave a fast-moving fire. Consider areas for safety
zones that include their own homes in some circumstances.
The comments pertaining to the establishment of a new PUD plan map and PUD guide governing future development of
the property are based on the unincorporated status and the establishment of the Landis Creek Metropolitan District
(LCMD). It is prudent for the stakeholders to evaluate recommenda�ons from the experts of Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protec�on District to help in the protec�on of life and property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Plan Review with addi�onal comments 02-06-2024
For Glenn Heartmen.
Sec 1.08 Transporta�on Impact Study.
1. Reference comment on Direc�onal Distribu�on of CR 115.
a. We need to be looking at 115 (Red Canyon Rd) as an emergency access and egress element for the en�re
community as the area con�nues growth and not just keep assuming that 114 will manage egress. I
recognize that the McDowell engineering ’s response is to close 115 and open to emergency vehicles only
if this project is approved. Without substan�al improvements to 115, I do not recommend this road for
emergency vehicles either. What are our op�ons for road improvement looking at 115 as an egress
road for wildfire or another emergency’s?
Sec 7.11.1 Wildfire Mi�ga�on
1. I like the Fire Adapted Community standards but also would like this idea taken to the next level and become a
Fire Wise Community that will allow for more direct ownership to the home owners in helping to con�nue the
work for the subdivision. This also will allow for the possibility for grants in the mi�ga�on of the area.
Sec 5.11.7 Fire Protec�on
1. Fire Protec�on Standards (7)
a. Fire-Flow Requirements for One and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 Buildings and townhouse
will meet the requirement of Appendix B of the IFC 2015 as adopted by Garfield County Ordinance No.
2018-02.
February 1st, 2024
Glenn Hartmann and Philip Berry
Garfield County Community Development Department
Dear Glenn and Philip,
Subject: PUAA-05-23-8967 – Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substantial
Modification/Amendment
The wildfire hazard for the proposed developments are Low. However, a low rating does
not mean a development is immune to the effects of wildfire. There are still wildfire
hazards that should be mitigated by following the recommendations listed in this review.
During the review of properties we look at many factors relating to wildfire hazard
including: slope and aspect, lot size, natural fuels, road systems and access, and available
water sources. Most of the recommended action items have been addressed in Document
1.17 Wildfire Mitigation Report.
In areas adjacent to proposed structures and also where clearing for development is not
expected to occur, such as open spaces and natural areas, fuels reduction and
maintenance of past treatments should occur. The goal of fuels reduction is to reduce the
amount of combustible fuel available to a fire and thus reducing fire intensity so that a
structure may survive a wildfire and/or crews can safely suppress a fire. Ladder fuels,
surface fuels and crown fuels should be targeted as referenced in The Home Ignition
Zone: A guide to preparing your home for wildfire and creating defensible space. The
Wildfire Mitigation Report addressed several fuels treatments to help reduce fuels,
promotedefensible space, create roadside fuel breaks, and annual mowing, so following
through on these activities is integral to wildfire safety. In addition, expanding on these
fuels treatments and being proactive in identifying areas of concern in the future is
important to the residents’ safety.
As addressed in the Wildfire Mitigation Report, it is highly recommended that defensible
space be created around any new or existing development in Zones 1 (0-5 ft from
structure), 2 (5-30 ft from structure) and 3 (30-100 ft from structure). Defensible space is
an area around a structure in which the forest fuels have been removed, reduced, or
modified to reduce wildfire intensity. This is critical when taking into account wildfire
suppression efficacy for this development. In addition, the density of homes and their
small average lot size makes defensible space that much more important.
Again as referenced in the Wildfire Mitigation Report, ‘Hardened’ home construction
techniques are an important factor in reducing the probability of home ignitions from
both wildland fuels and from structure to structure ignitions. It is recommended that
noncombustible roof, decking and siding materials be used in all new construction.
Roofing and siding materials are the two biggest factors in structure ignitability during a
wildfire. By taking these steps you will lessen the risk of the structure being consumed
during a wildfire.
For further information on the Home Ignition Zone please refer to the following
publications.
https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2021/04/2021_CSFS_HIZGuide_Web.pdf
If you have additional questions or need clarification on any recommendations feel free
to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Matthew Mastalir
Matthew Mastalir
Forester
Colorado State Forest Service
Rifle Field Office
(970) 625-3969
GA-24-0007_1 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Mod_Amd PUAA-05-23-8967
1:23 PM, 02/23/2024
February 23, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Director, and
Philip Berry, Planner III
Garfield County Community Development
Location:
39.515, -107.227
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substantial Modification/Amendment
File Number PUAA-05-23-8967; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA-24-0007
Dear Glenn and Philip:
The Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Modification /
Amendment referral. I understand the applicant proposes a 577-unit development on approximately 5908 acres
southeast of Glenwood Springs. The available referral documents include a Geologic Evaluation, Spring Valley
Ranch, County Road 115 (CTL|Thompson, Inc. Project No. GS06730.000-115, February 23, 2023), and a
response to Garfield County Comments, Spring Valley Ranch (CTL, December 14, 2023).
CGS recognizes that a PUD has previously been approved for this property, and that the proposed modification
maintains “the same density in a more compact and clustered format.” However, since CTL’s original geological
evaluations were completed in 1998-2003, more detailed geologic mapping has been completed1. Areas of
mapped landslides are more extensive than shown on CTL’s February 2023 Geologic Hazard Maps and in the
3/1/2023 Spring Valley Ranch Impact Analysis by Western Bionomics.
While landslides and areas of potentially unstable slopes, soil creep, and slope failure complex may appear to be
dormant or stable under existing conditions, the proposed development will involve ground disturbances,
including grading, cuts and fills for roads, utilities, driveways and building pads. This will change existing load
and drainage patterns, potentially destabilizing slopes and resulting in local slope failure, or instability and slope
movement on a larger scale.
If the soils on or near any part of the proposed development or surrounding area become saturated through
excessive rainfall, snowmelt, landscape irrigation, a water or sewer pipeline failure, infiltration from onsite
wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), or other source of water, the soils could lose strength and fail slowly or
catastrophically.
Ground movement at any scale is likely to result in damage to homes, yards, driveways, utilities, and roads.
Avoidance is the preferred mitigation for landslides, and CGS discourages grading and development within and
adjacent to identified landslide and potentially unstable slope areas.
CGS strongly recommends that the county require the following prior to approval of any plat or grading:
• a revised geologic hazards evaluation specifically addressing landslide and development-related slope
instability hazards, and demonstrating that existing slopes and proposed constructed slopes will have a
factor of safety of at least 1.5 under developed conditions. The evaluation should include slope stability
analysis of proposed road, driveway and building pad cuts, fills, and retaining walls exceeding four feet.
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1801 Moly Road
Golden, Colorado 80401
Matthew L. Morgan
State Geologist and
Director
Glenn Hartmann and Philip Berry
February 23, 2024
Page 2 of 2
GA-24-0007_1 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Mod_Amd PUAA-05-23-8967
1:23 PM, 02/23/2024
The impact on stability of changes in grading, loading, groundwater levels, precipitation and infiltration,
vegetation, etc. must be evaluated.
• Slope stability, rockfall, debris inundation, and evaporite-related subsidence risks should be evaluated
and reviewed at a phase- or filing-specific scale once a lot layout is proposed, and prior to preliminary
plat approval.
Site-specific geotechnical recommendations should include strategies for mitigating local slope instability,
including maximum allowable temporary and permanent cut and fill heights and slope angles, based on site-
specific, undisturbed and residual shear strength and friction angle values.
CGS is available to review additional geologic/geotechnical information and analysis provided to the county.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need further
review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or email carlson@mines.edu.
Sincerely,
Jill Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
1 Kirkham, R.M., Streufert, R.K., and Cappa, J.A., 2009, Geologic Map of the Shoshone Quadrangle,
Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Map Series MS-35, 1:24,000,
Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, B.L., 2008, Geologic Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield
County, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Map Series MS-36, 1:24,000, and
Kirkham, R.M., Streufert, R.K., Cappa, J.A., Shaw, C.A., Allen, J.L., and Schroeder, T.J. II, 2009,
Geologic Map of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geological
Survey, Map Series MS-38, 1:24,000.
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote health and prevent disease
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Planner III
RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD, Substantial Modification/Amendment
Parcel ID Nos.: 218716100169, 218720100168, 218726200168, & 218733100152
4000 County Road 115
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
File # PUAA‐05‐23‐8967
February 23, 2024
Glenn and Philip,
Garfield County Public Health (GCPH) has reviewed the application for the Spring Valley PUD Substantial
Modification/Amendment, and we have the following comments.
1. Drinking Water: The applicant proposes that the development will be served potable water by
the Landis Creek Metropolitan District (LCMD). The applicant indicates that LCMD will be
responsible for obtaining appropriate Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) permits and will operate a community water system for the PUD. The applicant
provided a Legal Water Supply Report and a Water Supply and Distribution Plan which indicated
adequate water supply and quality. The domestic water supply for Spring Valley Ranch will be
provided by numerous wells and a spring on the property. The Water Supply and Distribution
Plan indicated that all the existing well casings and pipes will be replaced. Some of the wells will
need to be redrilled. Pump testing will be completed at each well after rehabilitation and
redrilling.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that new pump test data be provided to Garfield
County once rehabilitation and redrilling of the wells is complete. Also, as this water system will
be regulated by CDPHE, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide
documentation from CDPHE that the water system meets their requirements for domestic water
distribution.
2. Wastewater: The applicant proposes that wastewater generated by residences and other uses
at the PUD will be collected and treated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) at the
Spring Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The applicant indicated that the existing
Spring Valley WWTF was designed, constructed, and has capacity to treat the wastewater
generated by the full buildout of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. The applicant provided a “will
serve” letter from SVSD for the proposed PUD.
195 W. 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625‐5200
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945‐6614
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote health and prevent disease
Because of the flows treated by the WWTF, the facility will be regulated by CDPHE and not
Garfield County. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide
documentation that the Spring Valley WWTF is operating with a current license from CDPHE.
3. Mixed‐Use District: The applicant indicates that there will be a mixed‐use district in the PUD that
will provide amenities and services to the community including a clubhouse/lodge, dining
facilities, retail stores, and convenience services.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that all food distribution uses shall be properly
reviewed, licensed, and inspected by GCPH Consumer Protection staff and any appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies that have jurisdiction over these facilities.
4. Noise: The applicant has presented multiple uses that are likely to generate noise as part of the
PUD, including the multi‐use district, a golf course, and a ski area with snowmaking. The applicant
did not provide a noise study to analyze the potential noise generated by these uses and their
potential effects on residents.
Staff recommends a condition of approval to include a noise study to examine if the noise
generated by proposed uses other than residential at the PUD will exceed CRS 25‐12‐103 Sound
Standards.
5. Radon: Staff recommends that any new buildings constructed utilize radon‐resistant new
construction (RRNC) practices to prevent radon gas exposure, which is the leading cause of lung
cancer among non‐smokers in Colorado. After construction, a radon test should be conducted,
and a fan installed on the pre‐installed passive system if necessary. Free radon test kits are
available at Garfield County Public Health offices in Rifle and Glenwood Springs and at the Clean
Energy Economy for the Region (CLEER) located at the Third Street Center in Carbondale.
Thank you,
Edward R. “Ted” White, P.E.
Environmental Health Specialist III
Garfield County Public Health
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 665‐6383
twhite@garfield‐county.com
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chris@ mou ntaincross-eng.com
Tuesday, August 15,2023 12:13 PM
Glenn Hartmann
RE: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Glenn
The application materials that were provided were reviewed for completeness. A complete review of the materials was
not performed at this time with the assumption that the final/complete application will be provided for comments in the
future. lf this assumption is incorrect, please let me know and I will conduct a more thorough review. Concerning the
completeness of the information provided:
The Application materials are somewhat vague on the Winter Recreation facilities. A small ski area would
require infrastructure and perhaps ski lifts that would introduce another entity for approvals.
The traffic analysis is thorough however the recommendations for improvements to each of the intersections
was not apparent.
The drainage report doesn't provide an analysis of the post development conditions, i.e. regionaldetention
ponds, preliminary pipe sizes, etc.
The Applicant should provide a preliminary/conceptual drainage plan. This would ideally help set up planned
locations for future stormwater detention treatment/storage areas.
There was not a will serve letter provided from the natural gas company.
The application materials did not mention or include avalanches in the geo-hazard analysis.
The application materials did not evaluate steep slopes or a slope analysis.
The water system layout should have a system analysis/verification of pipe sizes and fire flows. Additionally
verification of tank volumes and locations would be helpful. Upper tank location feasibility for construction and
access should be verified. Additionally the Applicant might consider dual tanks or an alternative location for
redundancy in the upper zone to allow for water service to continue during repairs and maintenance. These
could have impacts on the PUD zoning.
Calloremailanyquestionsorcomments. Letmeknowifthisemailissufficientorifyouwouldpreferthecommentsbe
in a formal letter. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, lnc.
Chris Hale, P.E.
826112 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: 970.945.5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
From: Glenn Ha rtmann <gha rtmann@ga rfield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2O23 8:O2PM
To: Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>; jbarnes@carbondaleco.net; Chris Hale <Chris@mountaincross-
eng.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT <brian.killian@state.co.us>; Robin Pitt <robin.pitt@cogs.us>; koliver@carbondalefire.org;
1
Bill Gavette <gavette @ca rbonda lefire.org>
Subject: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to you
for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and local
municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referral and comment period on the
Application (incl ud ing a ny u pdates/additions) wil I occu r.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
970-945-1377 xL57O
Ghartm untV.com
2
From:Wyatt Keesbery
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Cc:Dale Stephens; Harry Shiles
Subject:RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2024 7:54:27 AM
All,
I will stick with my comments I have expressed in the past. CR 115 is not a viable route, and I would
like to see it used as emergency access only, but that is a BOCC decision. The intersection of CR 114
and Hwy 82 needs fixed, as it currently is a mess. The additional traffic will just create more
congestion issues. There will need to be appropriate stacking and a proper turn lane on CR 114 and
a sufficient acceleration lane installed on HWY 82. CR 114 and CR 115 will also need to have
sufficient turn lanes into the housing areas, and upgrades to the road will need to be addressed as
well.
Thanks
Wyatt
Wyatt KeesberyDirectorGarfield County Road and Bridge0298 CR 333ARifle, CO. 81650wkeesbery@garfield-county.com970-625-8601 office970-309-6073 cell
From: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 10:50 AM
To: Kelly Cave <kcave@garfield-county.com>; Casey Lawrence <clawrence@garfield-county.com>;
Chris Bornholdt <cbornholdt@garcosheriff.com>; Ted White <twhite@garfield-county.com>;
Jannette Whitcomb <jwhitcomb@garfield-county.com>; DJ Ridgeway <djridgeway@garfield-
county.com>; Dan Goin <dagoin@garfield-county.com>; Harry Shiles <hshiles@garfield-
county.com>; Dale Stephens <dstephens@garfield-county.com>; Wyatt Keesbery
<wkeesbery@garfield-county.com>; Levy Burris <lburris@garcosheriff.com>; Scott Aibner
<saibner@garfield-county.com>; Steve Anthony <santhony@garfield-county.com>; Sarah LaRose
<slarose@garfield-county.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT <brian.killian@state.co.us>; Sullivan - DNR,
Megan <megan.sullivan@state.co.us>; kamie.long@colostate.edu; CGS_LUR
<CGS_LUR@mines.edu>; Localreferral - CDPHE, CDPHE <cdphe_localreferral@state.co.us>; Matt
Yamashita <matt.yamashita@state.co.us>; John Groves (John.Groves@State.co.us)
<John.Groves@State.co.us>; Boyatt - DNR, Peter <peter.boyatt@state.co.us>; Canetti - DNR,
Samantha <samantha.canetti@state.co.us>; jake.stanton@state.co.us; SPA-RD-CO <spa-rd-
co@usace.army.mil>; RLSnyder@blm.gov; Larry Sandoval <lsandoval@blm.gov>;
nyla_murphy@fws.gov; jkirschvink@fs.fed.us; joseph.fazzi@usda.gov; jbarnes@carbondaleco.net;
Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>; Bill Gibson <bill.gibson@eaglecounty.us>; Chris
Hale <Chris@mountaincross-eng.com>; Karl Oliver <koliver@carbondalefire.org>; Robin Pitt
<robin.pitt@cogs.us>; acole@rfschools.com; Eric Mangeot <eric.mangeot@lrewater.com>; Rick
Lofaro <rick@roaringfork.org>; gcha@garfieldhousing.com; cheryl@garfieldhousing.com; Cox, Jason
<jason.cox@blackhillscorp.com>; stewart.v.clark@xcelenergy.com; kelli.flenniken@xcelenergy.com;
Samantha Wakefield (samantha.l.wakefield@xcelenergy.com)
<Samantha.l.wakefield@xcelenergy.com>
Cc: Philip Berry <pberry@garfield-county.com>; Jon Fredericks <jon@landwestcolorado.com>
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
Referral Agencies:
Attached is a Referral Request for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. It is a substantial
amendment that will be reviewed through future public hearings with the Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners. It requests amendments including a new PUD Guide, PUD Plan
Map with amended lot/zone district configurations/layout and provides updated technical
information. The project includes 577 dwelling units on approximately 5908 acres. The
development review history for this property dates back to 2008/2010 and earlier. A link to access
the Application electronically is included in the referral request and provided below:
https://records.garfield-county.com/WebLink/browse.aspx?
id=3996323&dbid=0&repo=GarfieldCounty
Please provide your comments directly to both our emails: ghartmann@garfield-county.com and
pberry@garfield-county.com
We’re requesting comments by 2/9/24 if possible but based on the size of the Application we’re
extending the referral time period for two additional weeks to 2/23/24. Based on the size and
complexity of the Application we anticipate staff follow-up with referral agencies and will
accommodate your needs for further extensions of the review period as necessary. Please note that
the application while determined to be complete for review has not been scheduled for public
hearings to allow for a complete and thorough review of referral comments.
Your review and comments are a very important part of our review process. Please contact us if you
have any questions or difficulty in accessing the application files. Thank you very much for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-1377 x1570
Ghartmann@garfield-county.com
Date: February 13, 2024
To: Glenn Hartmann & Philip Berry, Garfield County Community Development
From: Sarah LaRose & Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegeta�on Management
Re: Vegeta�on Management Comments on Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substan�al
Modifica�on/Amendment, PUAA-05-23-8967
Dear Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Berry,
In regards to the applica�on for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substan�al Modifica�on/Amendment,
PUAA-05-23-8967, Garfield County Vegeta�on Management would like to request the following of the
applicant at the �me of preliminary planning:
1) Noxious Weed Inventory: An updated Noxious Weed Survey performed by a qualified plant
ecologist or botanist during the growing season.
While the current Weed Management Plan does contain findings from a January 2022 weed
survey, staff has concerns that species present during the ini�al submission period (2009/2010)
may s�ll be present but were not detected at the �me of this survey. Specific weeds of concern
include: absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa),
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), common burdock
(Arctium minus), Dalma�an toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale),
leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian knapweed (Rhaponticum
repens), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris).
2) Rare Plant Survey: A survey performed by a qualified plant ecologist or botanist for Harrington’s
Penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii).
This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage
Program, meaning it is considered “vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted
range (21 to 100 occurrences, or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals)”.
o This plant is found exclusively in Colorado. There are 74 known occurrences in Eagle,
Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Rout, and Summit coun�es. It is found primarily in dry,
sagebrush-dominated communi�es between 6,400 and 9,400 feet in eleva�on. USDA
Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensi�ve species; it is also
included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensi�ve Species List. It is
not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is
it currently a candidate for lis�ng.
o If found, the loca�ons of P. harringtonii shall be iden�fied in general terms as they
pertain to building envelopes. In addi�on, an acknowledgment and reference to
Harrington’s penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and
alert property owners of its significance.
3) Prior to ini�a�ng any project or phase of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, staff will require the
submission of the following:
- Revegeta�on and Disturbance Reclama�on Plan and Cost Es�mate (by a qualified landscape
architect)
- Financial Security to Guarantee Revegeta�on and Reclama�on
- Weed Management and Reclama�on Plan (see required elements below)
Required Elements of Weed Management and Reclama�on Plan:
The purpose of the Weed Management and Reclama�on plan is to ensure that the development does
not result in: (i) erosion and dust genera�on, (ii) the propaga�on of noxious weeds, (iii) the excessive loss
of wildlife habitat and food sources, and (iv) long-term visual eyesores. The financial security allows the
County to perform reclama�on in the event that the developer abandons the project or does not
perform adequate reclama�on.
The Weed Management and Reclama�on Plan must discuss the following:
Sec�on 1: Soil Handling
Must include: (i) the area of land disturbed and volume of soil moved, (ii) provisions for salvaging on-site
topsoil, (iii) a �metable for elimina�ng topsoil and/or aggregate piles, (iv) plan that provides for soil
cover if any disturbances or stockpiles sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more, and (v) erosion
control and dust suppression measures and management.
Sec�on 2: Weed Management Plan
Must include: (i) An inventory and site map that shows County Listed Noxious Weeds and Colorado
Listed A & B Noxious Weeds; (ii) A Weed Management Plan that addresses inventoried weeds in a �mely
and effec�ve manner (note: Garfield County may require the submital of treatment records); and (iii)
persons or en��es responsible for con�nued monitoring and mi�ga�on of any State of Colorado listed
noxious weeds within the area as well as prescribed treatment method(s) and �ming
Sec�on 3: Site Revegeta�on and Reclama�on
Must include: (i) plant material list (be specific, scien�fic and common names required); (ii) plan�ng
schedule (include �ming, methods, and provisions for watering, if applicable); and (iii) a map of the area
that will be disturbed. (Note: Any straw or hay used as mulch or as an erosion control barrier must be
cer�fied as weed-free by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture).
Sec�on 4: Cost Es�mate
Cost es�mate is used to determine the amount of the financial security and must be provided by a
qualified landscape architect. Line items within the cost es�mate must include: (i) mobiliza�on; (ii)
earthmoving; (iii) seed and plan�ng; (iv) mulch, erosion control, and dust suppression; (iv) irriga�on; and
(v) weed management.
The applicant will need to quantify the surface area of disturbance that would need to be reseeded.
These areas would be outside of building envelopes and landscape situations and would be road
shoulders (not the actual road), utility easements, and common areas (that aren’t landscaped). This
information would determine if a revegetation security is necessary. The minimum area threshold of
surface area disturbance in which a security may be required is 1 acre.
Financial Security:
The security may be in the form of a bond, leter of credit, or cash through a Treasurer’s Deposit
Agreement. If the applicant uses a bond for security, it will be their responsibility to make sure that the
bond is kept current and renewed un�l the vegeta�on has been successfully reestablished according to
the Reclama�on Standards sec�on in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Standards at the
date of permit issuance are cited in Sec�ons 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Plan.
Please provide the County Atorney’s Office with bond con�nua�on cer�ficates when there is a renewal.
County Inspec�on and Release of Financial Security: When the project has been completed and
vegeta�on reestablished, the developer (permit holder) calls the County Vegeta�on Manager (970-945-
1377 x 4315) and requests an inspec�on. If the vegeta�on has been successfully established the
Vegeta�on Management Department will bring the security release request to the Board of County
Commissioners for their considera�on.
Glenwood Springs (Area 8) Service Center
0088 Wildlife Way
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.947.2920
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair · Richard Reading, Vice-Chair · Karen Bailey, Secretary · Jessica Beaulieu
Marie Haskett · Jack Murphy · Gabriel Otero · Duke Phillips, IV · Gary T. Skiba · James Jay Tutchton · Eden Vardy
1
February 27, 2024
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: Glenn Hartmann, Director, and Philip Berry, Planner III
Re: PUAA-05-23-8967 Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial Modification/Amendment
Dear Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Berry,
Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD - Substantial Modification/Amendment. CPW has a statutory responsibility to
manage all wildlife species in Colorado; this responsibility is embraced and fulfilled through
CPW’s mission to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage the wildlife of Colorado for the
use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the State and its visitors.
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD is located about 3 miles east of Glenwood Springs and
encompasses 5,908.43 acres. The current application includes 577 residential units, an 18-
hole golf course and short golf course, and numerous non-residential supporting uses and
structures. The current application maintains the approved density of 577 residential units in
a more clustered format than previous iterations. This allows for more open space with 15-20
miles of new public mountain bike trails, wildlife habitat reserves, golf courses, and ski trails.
CPW amends our previous letter dated February 20, 2024, to clarify meetings held with
Storied Living and Kelly Colfer of Western Bionomics to discuss the Spring Valley Ranch PUD.
CPW staff attended a virtual meeting with Kelly Colfer on November 11, 2022, for a
preliminary discussion. This was followed by a meeting with Kelly Colfer, Storied Living
representatives, and CPW staff on December 13, 2022, at the CPW Glenwood Springs Service
Center. The Spring Valley Ranch PUD team explained their plans were still under
2
development. Broad topics of avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse impacts on
wildlife resources were discussed but no specific advice or recommendations were given to
the development team by CPW. It was communicated to CPW that the development team
would request additional meetings with CPW once the application was closer to the final draft
form. One follow-up phone discussion was had with Kelly Colfer in January of 2023 to recap
action items discussed at the December 13, 2022 meeting. During the December 13, 2022,
meeting (and reiterated in the January 2023 phone discussion) CPW offered to further review
the trail design, further discuss a potential agricultural field restoration project, and
anticipated the opportunity to review a draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan. CPW has not had any
communication with the development team since January of 2023. CPW anticipated attending
future meetings with the Spring Valley Ranch PUD development team to proactively discuss
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies that reduce adverse impacts on wildlife
resources. For the reasons clarified below, CPW has concerns with this proposal and finds the
Wildlife Mitigation Plan incomplete; CPW is not ready to sign the Wildlife Mitigation Plan at
this time.
General Comments
The Spring Valley PUD is located within the following High Priority Habitats1, for which CPW
has sound spatial data and science-backed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
recommendations:
● Elk winter concentration areas: Defined as that part of the winter range where
densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during
the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10.
● Elk production areas: Defined as that part of the overall range of elk occupied by the
females of the species from May 15 to June 15 for calving. Only known areas are
mapped and this does not include all production areas for the elk Data Analysis Unit.
● Mule deer winter concentration area: Defined as that part of the winter range where
densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during
the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10.
Additional big game habitats include general elk and mule deer winter range and summer
concentration areas. CPW understands the desire for additional housing and recreational
1 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Colorado Parks & Wildlife Recommendations to Avoid and Minimize
Impacts to Wildlife from Land Use Development in Colorado. High Priority Habitats.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation-Resources/Energy-Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf
3
opportunities but this development will severely fragment and degrade habitat essential for
wildlife. While many of the species listed in this letter will be impacted, one species of
greater concern is the local elk population. Elk are considered an umbrella species whereby
enhancing and protecting elk habitat will indirectly protect other species associated with
those habitats. The elk herd (Data Analysis Unit E-16) in this portion of Game Management
Unit 444 is generally bounded by I-70 to the North, Glenwood Springs to the West, Hwy 82 to
the South, and multiple subdivisions to the East. Spring Valley Ranch represents a significant
portion of the local elk herd’s available range.
Increased habitat fragmentation from development and recreation will concentrate wildlife
into smaller refuges. This increases exposure to disease, causes overutilization of the land
resulting in poor habitat quality, causes unwanted impacts to agricultural lands through long-
term degradation of forage base, and increases damage to human infrastructure. CPW
analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on wildlife populations when commenting
on land use proposals. Direct impacts result from the habitat conversion due to the proposal's
footprint. Indirect impacts on wildlife result from altered behaviors around the footprint of a
proposal. Cumulative impacts result from multiple alterations of baseline habitat conditions
that impact wildlife populations. It is important to consider the cumulative impacts of
multiple projects across this landscape. A single project of this scale will have direct and
indirect impacts, both major and minor, but the cumulative impacts of multiple projects on
the same landscape can have far greater effects on wildlife. Figure 4. Page 13 of the
applicant’s narrative report shows a good illustration highlighting current land uses and
subdivisions. When factoring in the Lake Springs subdivision and ongoing development at the
Elk Springs subdivision, the cumulative effects start to compound.
Elk Herd E-16 is currently managed under the 2013 Frying Pan River Elk Herd E-16 Data
Analysis Unit Plan2. When this plan was being written, the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners submitted a formal letter during the public comment period. The full version
of this letter is located in Appendix 4. The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
requested that CPW manage elk in E-16 at the current population size (plus or minus 20%). In
2023 CPW began updating elk management plans across the Northwest portion of the state,
including the Frying Pan River herd. On November 13, 2023, CPW presented to the Garfield
County Board of County Commissioners during their scheduled board meeting on the proposed
2 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). E-16 Data Analysis Unit Plan 2013 - Colorado Parks and Wildlife . E-
16 Data Analysis Unit Plan 2013.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Elk/E16_FryingPanRiver.pdf
4
elk management objectives for the upcoming 2024 Frying Pan Elk Herd E-16 Data Analysis Unit
Plan. At this time, the County Commissioners verbally indicated support to maintain the elk
population at current numbers. The loss of over 5,908 acres of critical elk habitat from direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts will make managing to maintain the current elk population
challenging.
The Spring Valley Ranch Impacts Analysis document acknowledges that the “E-16 calf ratio
has been declining since 1996 (CPW 2013), a sign that herd productivity is declining and a
concerning metric for wildlife managers.” This statement refers to calf-to-cow ratios, which
is one metric used by CPW to project elk herd health and resilience. For example, 45 calves
to 100 cows indicate a stable, sustainable herd. In the last decade, E-16 has experienced low
calf-to-cow ratios; averaging calf numbers in the low 30’s per 100 cows. The Spring Valley
Ranch Impacts Analysis correctly identifies this trend as a concerning metric for wildlife
managers. Increasing development and recreation continue to contribute to low population
numbers and herd vitality.
Wildlife Mitigation Strategy
CPW utilizes the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize, and mitigate when analyzing land
use proposals. Avoidance measures leave wildlife habitat functionally intact with no direct,
indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife resources. Minimization efforts reduce
adverse impacts on wildlife resources from anthropogenic disturbance. Still, minimization
efforts will not compensate for the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and the associated
direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources within, and adjacent to, the footprint of a
proposal such as this. CPW has noted that 1,100 acres of Wildlife Habitat Reserves are
planned to be maintained and native vegetation left intact. Simply avoiding developing the
Wildlife Habitat Reserves does not constitute mitigation. The language in this plan assumes
that undeveloped portions of Spring Valley Ranch will remain viable, high-quality habitats
that will be utilized by big game in the same manner as pre-development. Effective
mitigation would result in habitat uplift for the impacted wildlife populations at spatial and
temporal scales equal to, or exceeding the proposed anthropogenic disturbances. The
establishment of a Wildlife and Wildfire Trust in the form of a real estate transfer tax has
been presented as a mitigation option. In the immediate area, a 1:1 ratio protecting 5,908
off-site acres in perpetuity is difficult. Few neighboring landscapes offer the same acreage of
quality habitat.
5
The Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposes a 0.2% transfer tax to fund the Wildlife and Wildfire
Trust. CPW suggests increasing the real estate transfer tax percentage to 1.5% with 50% of the
revenue allocated to wildlife habitat improvement projections, permanent wildlife habitat
protection projects, and code enforcement staff to ensure residential compliance with all
wildlife protection codes. The Wildlife and Wildfire Trust charter, which is not currently
drafted, should ensure proper wildlife values are at the forefront of fund distribution.
Advisory groups, including CPW, should be a part of the Wildlife and Wildfire Trust project
evaluations and decisions. CPW urges Garfield County to require meaningful mitigation
measures as a Condition of Approval if this application moves forward.
Spring Valley Ranch Impacts Analysis Comments
Section 6.4.1.2 Wildlife Impact Mitigation, found in the Spring Valley Ranch Impacts Analysis
document, details avoidance measures. The second and third bullets should state “avoid
direct impacts…” These measures do not avoid indirect or cumulative impacts on elk
production and winter ranges. The minimization measures proposed appropriately meet the
definition of “minimization.’ However, the proposed recreation disturbance does not include
comprehensive minimization efforts, as detailed further below in our letter. The first bullet
point under Mitigation describes the “designation of over 1,100 acres of Wildlife Habitat
Reserves.” This designation constitutes an avoidance measure, not a mitigation measure. The
proposed mitigation plan language reads “...the Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall not be amended
without the written consent of the local CPW District Wildlife Manager and Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners.” CPW requests that the Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall not be
adopted without the written consent of the local CPW District Wildlife Manager and Garfield
County Board of County Commissioners.
Appendix B — Wildlife Baseline Conditions & Mitigation Plan Comments
The county application materials represent the first time CPW has viewed the proposed
Wildlife Baseline Conditions & Mitigation Plan, which solicits a CPW signature. CPW finds
Appendix B to be incomplete at this time. Appendix B omits mention of indirect and
cumulative impacts on wildlife resources and focuses exclusively on direct impacts, in
addition to including measures that do not align with CPW’s standard recommendations. As
previously noted in our letter, the language in this plan assumes that undeveloped portions of
Spring Valley Ranch will remain viable, high-quality habitats that will be utilized by big game
in the same manner as pre-development.
6
Section 6. Wildlife Mitigation Objectives 1-9 detail avoidance and minimization measures as
goals. This section should include mitigation goals to fully meet the intent of a Wildlife
Mitigation Plan. The recreation minimization language in this section has the same challenges
as the recreation minimization language in Section 6.4.1.2 of the Impacts Analysis.
Section 7.1.1 lists Designated Open Space as a wildlife impact avoidance measure. It is
unclear to CPW how this Open Space constitutes avoidance of direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts on wildlife resources. Section 7.1.1 states “The Conceptual Plan avoids direct
impacts to 55% of the property by setting aside 3,249 acres as open space.” This appears to
be misleading, as CPW’s interpretation of these numbers from document 1.05 Conceptual
Plan includes the golf course. The conversion of wildlife habitat to a golf course does not
constitute avoidance of wildlife impacts. CPW would appreciate clarification of these
numbers.
Section 7.2.7 Golf Course and Open Space Management states that “an Open Space
Management Plan shall be developed with wildlife habitat preservation and wildfire
management in mind as a primary goal.” CPW did not find the complete proposed Open Space
Management Plan language within the application materials. Section 7.2.7.a) does prohibit all
persons within the PUD from “chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing
wildlife as a part of efforts to force wildlife off golf courses and open space areas during the
winter feeding and spring/summer production seasons.” CPW reminds the applicant that
harassment of wildlife is already illegal at all times pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute §
33-6-128.
Section 7.7.7.b) states that “The owner/operator of the golf course has the right to locally
restrict wildlife from golf course tees, greens, landscaping clumps and other sensitive areas
by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected will not restrict
free movement of wildlife but will be used only in small, isolated, areas to help direct
wildlife and/or people.” This direction risks wildlife entrapment issues. Please adhere to
CPW’s Fencing With Wildlife in Mind3 document when attempting to exclude or direct wildlife.
Regarding the 7.3.1.1 Northern Habitat Reserve elk production timing limitation: The
applicant’s proposed annual closure for elk calving is May 15th through June 15th. CPW
3 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Fencing with Wildlife in Mind.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/FencingWithWildlifeInMind.pdf
7
recommends an annual seasonal timing limitation in elk production from May 15th to June
30th (found in our High Priority Habitat table).
Regarding the 7.3.1.1 Northern Habitat Reserve and 7.3.1.2 Spring Valley Wildlife Habitat
Reserve winter timing limitations: In both sections, the applicant proposes annual winter
range seasonal timing limitations from December 1st to April 15th. CPW recommends an
annual seasonal timing limitation in elk and mule deer winter concentration areas from
December 1st to April 30th (found in our High Priority Habitat table).
Recreation Impacts
The application proposes 15-20 miles of new public mountain bike trails. CPW recommends
that these trails not be approved without additional consideration and adherence to approved
trail planning documents and with input from surrounding public land management agencies.
CPW staff is available to further consult with the applicant to assist with these
recommendations. The 2020 Colorado’s Guide to Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind4
document recommends that trail developers “avoid, to the maximum extent possible,
locating new trails within CPW-mapped elk production areas, migration corridors, severe
winter range, and winter concentration areas.” For mule deer, Planning Trails with Wildlife in
Mind recommends that trail developers “avoid, to the maximum extent possible, locating new
trails within CPW-mapped mule deer migration corridors, severe winter range, and winter
concentration areas.” When avoidance of trail systems in sensitive elk and mule deer habitats
is not possible, the minimization recommendation states “limit trail densities…to less than
one linear mile of trail per square mile on average within elk production areas, migration
corridors, severe winter range, and winter concentration areas.” The same minimization
recommendation is made for mule deer. Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind contains
excellent information on wildlife disturbance and best practices to avoid and minimize
impacts on wildlife populations from human recreation activities along with literature
reviews. This document was developed by CPW staff and a formal Task Force of 20 state,
local, and federal land managers. CPW requests GIS layers of the proposed trails to analyze
the trail system design and interface with wildlife habitats.
4 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Colorado’s Guide to Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/Planning_Trails_with_Wildlife_in_Mind(without_appendices
).pdf
8
While there is language in the application stating that the applicant intends to implement
seasonal closures on the proposed trails, enforcement of these closures appears problematic
and unenforceable by current law and code enforcement agencies. If these trails are
approved, the HOA should be responsible for hiring code enforcement staff to ensure
compliance with all wildlife protection measures adopted through the application approval
process. Additionally, year-round dog-on-leash restrictions should be enforced. New trail
systems would eventually connect to adjacent United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) properties, expanding the overall range of human activity and
impacts on wildlife. It should be expected that humans will use these trails year round with
the highest volume occurring from late spring through the fall. If human occupancy and elk
movement increase in overlap, it is likely that elk behavior and landscape use will be further
disrupted, causing elk to change their migration patterns spatially and/or temporally. If this is
the case, there is less chance the elk will be able to make spatial distribution changes due to
topography and movement corridors already fragmented by human development. Temporal
changes will likely cause elk to move only at night—further restricting their ability to move
across the landscape and possibly posing an increased risk to humans when crossing roadways.
Residential Conflicts
The Spring Valley PUD is also located within the following habitats, which create human-
wildlife conflict concerns:
● Black bear overall range and fall concentration area.
● Mountain lion overall range.
In addition, many other wildlife species utilize the ranch during various times of the year
including but not limited to wild turkey, coyote, red fox, bobcat, and numerous small
mammals and songbirds. Various raptors and owls utilize the project area as well. Human
food sources associated with residential areas, including garbage, pet food, barbeque grills,
and birdfeeders, can attract black bears, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, skunks, and other
unwanted wildlife. If the Spring Valley PUD is considered for approval, the following
recommendations are made to minimize the potential for human-wildlife conflict:
● All outdoor garbage should be secured in IGBC-certified bear-resistant canisters, if
possible, or stored in a structure that prevents black bear access. No trash should be
placed outside in an unsecured manner, such as in bags or standard canisters.
● No compost piles should be allowed on the property.
9
● Landscaping should not include fruit-bearing trees.
● Prohibit backyard poultry, waterfowl, or beehives and the use of bird feeders.
● Prohibit placement of pet food outside.
● No outdoor, free-roaming cats should be allowed, and dogs should remain on leash at
all times unless a fenced dog park is installed. Roaming domestic animals can engage
with wildlife, leading to potential injuries and mortalities. Both dogs and cats can
chase, harass, and kill wildlife including fawns, calves, small mammals, and songbirds.
● CPW strongly advises that dog runs be strategically placed near homes that allow pets
to encourage use. CPW recommends outlining wildlife-friendly fencing requirements in
any approval documents. Lack of fencing can lead to wildlife harassment by dogs, and
improper fences in residential areas can entangle wildlife. Detailed specifications for
Fencing With Wildlife in Mind can be found on our website.
● Require maintenance of clean grills.
● Lighting should be capped from above to help reduce night-sky light pollution, which
inhibits nocturnal wildlife behavior.
● The HOA should prohibit wildlife feeding via salt blocks or other methods. Except for
bird feeders, any type of feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting
wildlife is illegal. CPW may cite both homeowners and tenants for violations.
● The homeowners and tenants should be individually responsible for abiding by all
wildlife conflict mitigation measures adopted by Garfield County and the HOA.
Economic Importance of Wildlife to Garfield County & Colorado
CPW’s 2019 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan5 (SCORP) is currently in the
process of being updated. SCORP Appendix F6 details the 2017 economic contributions of
outdoor recreation in Colorado, which includes hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching values.
CPW anticipates an increase from the 2017 Appendix F numbers in the update. It should be
noted that wildlife holds intrinsic value in addition to providing the following economic
support to Garfield County. Wildlife recreation supports the following numbers, annually, in
5 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). 2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/2019-SCORP-Report.pdf
6 Colorado Parks & Wildlife . (n.d.). 2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan Appendix F. The 2017 Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation in Colorado.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/SCORP-AppendixF-
EconomicContributions.pdf
10
the Northwest Region of Colorado (Garfield County’s land mass represents approximately 13%
of this region):
• 4,701 jobs.
• $173,000,000 in salaries and wages.
• $287,000,000 in GDP contribution.
• $436,000,000 in total economic input.
The above numbers, sourced from the SCORP, are directly acknowledged in Garfield County’s
Comprehensive Plan 2030. Garfield County should consider how this application interfaces
with Section 8 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 20307. Together, hunting and
fishing contribute $3.5 billion to Colorado’s economy and support more than 25,000 jobs
statewide8. These numbers further emphasize the importance of maintaining viable wildlife
populations for Coloradans.
Thank you for the consideration of CPW’s comments on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD -
Substantial Modification/Amendment application. Please contact the following CPW staff to
discuss the content of this letter.
● Peter Boyatt, District Wildlife Manager, at peter.boyatt@state.co.us
● Matt Yamashita, Area 8 Area Wildlife Manager, at matt.yamashita@state.co.us
● Dani Neumann, NW Region Land Use Specialist, at danielle.neumann@state.co.us
Sincerely,
7 Garfield County. (n.d.). Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. Comprehensive Plan 2030 –
Community Development. https://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/comprehensive-
plan-2030/
8 Colorado Wildlife Council. (2023, November 9). Benefits for All. Benefits for All - Colorado Wildlife
Council.
https://cowildlifecouncil.org/benefits/#:~:text=Together%2C%20hunting%20and%20fishing%20bring,yea
r%2C%20impacting%20all%2064%20counties.
11
Matt Yamashita, Area 8 Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: Peter Boyatt, District Wildlife Manager
Danielle Neumann, Land Use Specialist
Julie Mao, Terrestrial Biologist
From:Emery, Ashley R CIV USARMY CESPA (USA)
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Cc:Crosson, S B (Brad) CIV USARMY CESPA (USA)
Subject:Comment Request Response // City of Glenwood Springs - Spring Valley Ranch PUD // SPA-2024-00048
Date:Thursday, February 8, 2024 1:37:59 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ashley.r.emery@usace.army.mil. Learn why
this is important
Mr. Berry/Mr. Hartmann,
Thank you for providing the opportunity for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
comment on the proposed subject project or activity relative to potential impacts to
aquatic resources. Our initial desktop review of the proposed Spring Valley
Ranch PUD indicates that the footprint of the proposed project intersects with
potential waters of the United States. However, we would need additional
information to provide a definitive determination. If the activity should have the
potential to result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, then the project proponent should work directly with our office to acquire
necessary Department of the Army permits, if applicable, as described in the following
paragraphs.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit from us for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States
may include, but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, wet
meadows, and seeps. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the project
proponent should prepare a delineation of aquatic resources, in accordance with the
applicable standards, including the1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual: Arid West Region
(Version 2.0), and the South Pacific Division’s Map and Drawing Standards and
Guidelines. These standards can be found on our website at:
https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program-and-
Permits/Jurisdiction/.
An aquatic resource delineation should be evaluated prior to developing a range of
alternatives that meet the project purpose. The range of alternatives considered for
this project should include alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands,
streams, or other waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly
demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to discharging dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, compensatory mitigation may be required.
For more information about our program or to locate a list of consultants that prepare
aquatic resource delineations and permit application documents, please visit our
website at https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program-and-
Permits. Please refer to identification number SPA-2024-00048 in any
correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact
me by email at ashley.r.emery@usace.army.mil, or telephone at (970) 243-1199 ext.
1010.
Kind Regards,
Ashley Emery
Northwest Colorado Branch
Albuquerque District
US Army Corps of Engineers
Office: 970-243-1199 ext 1010
February 8,2024
SpringValley Ranch PUD Amendment Comments
The staff of the Gtenwood Springs Fire Department and the Gtenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection district
provides the fottowing comments based on referraI by the Garfietd County ptanning board. These
comments are advisory in nature after onty pretiminary discussions and initiat review of ptanned
amendment to the Spring Vattey PUD.
EMS Response:
With the ptanned increase in poputation, the devetopment of recreationat facitities and increase in
traffic, carefuI consideration needs to be given to how EMS, specificatty Advanced Life Support, is
goingto be provided.
With the distance and time for transport to nearest hospitat, a dedicated heticopter [anding zone
shoutd be designated to industry standards for patients with acute needs.
Fire Protection Ptan
A ptan devetoped to show how the fire station is to be staffed with quatif ied and trained personnel
equipped to deatwith fire and EMS needs of the community.
Agreements formed with Garf ietd County Communications and surrounding f ire departments to
operate within the system that is already in ptace. SeveraI automatic aid agreements and mutuaI
aid agreements are being used to atteviate higher cat[ votumes and share resources for incidents
[ocated further away from centraI areas of current f ire districts.
Homes to be buitt to the 2021 lnlernationat Witdtand Urban lnterface Code standards and have
approved NFPA 13D systems instatted.
Access:
- We are satisfied that roads within the subdivision witt be buittto good standard to attowfire
department access with turnaround areas, be maintained and kept free of snow during winter, and
have adequatety spaced fire hydrants.
- There is concern about the quatity of Red Canyon Road and the abitityto handte extra traffic. We
feet that the subdivision should have both Red Canyon and Spring Vattey roads bought up to
Garfietd County Road standards for a two-tane street. Traffic accidents atong these routes also
create a demand for our resources to be used and there is a history of accidents on Red Canyon
due to its narrow conditions.
- A concern about traffic buitd-up at Red Canyon Rd/Hwy 82 and Spring Vattey Road/Hwy 82. Turn
[anes and timed traffic contro[ devices to be buitt to CDOT standarqs for expected vehicte volume.
No current agreement for fire staffing, use of resources and response between the Landis Creek
Metropotitan District and the Gtenwood Springs Fire Department exists. lt is important for the stakeholders
of the Spring Vattey PUD subdivision to review the comments provided and continue to consult with
Operation Levet Chief Officers in the Roaring ForkVattey.
Robin Pitt
Fire Marshat, Gtenwood Springs Fire Department
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dan Cokley < DanC@sgm-inc.com>
Tuesday, August 15,2023 12:25PM
Glenn Hartmann
Wyatt Keesbery
RE: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Glenn
I have not been able to get into the detail of this report. lt's well done, McDowell does good work. A couple
questions I have are as follows
a InternalTrip Reduction - I do not necessarily agree with the methodology used and the reductions applied
but need to get into more detailto technically express that.
o The SHAC reduction for residential mixed use is acceptable at2o/o and 8% (Section 4.3 & Table 4)
o The GarCo vs On-site employee housing reduction should apply only to "work trips", 4 per day.
Which equates to 14% rather than23Yo (Table 4)
o I do not agree with the Non-Residentialtrip reduction in Table 5 and would need to spend more time,
or have a discussion with McDowell. The standard is to use NCHRP #684 lnternal Trip Reduction
spreadsheet. Which would result in lower trip reductions. lt may not affect the final conclusions.
Directional Distribution - Assuming a 95% (CR 114) and 5% (CR 115) is reasonable if CR 115 is to
remain open to public use. lf it will be closed, except to emergency vehicles, if a project of this size is
approved, the assumption should be used that all traffic uses CR 114. Would like input from the County
here. This also probably does not change the conclusions.
CR 114 and CR 115 improvements - Are generally triggered by existing volumes. Would the County like
any input on share percentage or anything else from SGM here?
a
a
Let me know if you would like to discuss and have me formalize a response
Thanks,
Dan
From: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2023 8:36 PM
To: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com>
Subject: FW: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Hi Dan: I intended to include you on this referral. Traffic issues are a key consideration so thanks very much for your
preliminary input. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-L377 xL57O
G ha rtma nn @garfield-countv.com
From: Glenn Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2023 8:02 PM
To: Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>;'jbarnes@carbondaleco.net'<ibarnes@carbondaleco.net>; Chris
Hale <Chris@mountaincross-eng.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT<brian.killian@state.co.us>; Robin Pitt
<robin.pitt@cogs.us>;'koliver@carbondalefire.org'<koliver@carbondalefire.org>; BillGavette
1
<gavette @ca rbo nda lefire.o rg>
Subject: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to you
for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and local
municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referraland comment period on the
Application (including any updates/additions) will occur.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
970-945-1377 xL57O
Gha rtma nn @garfield-countv.com
2
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dan Cokley < DanC@s9m-inc.com >
Monday, July 31,2023 B:45 AM
Glenn Hartmann
RE: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
r
f; Vou don't often get email from danc@sgm-inc.com. Learn why this is important
Hey Glenn, hope you had a good weekend! I will send comments back by 8/16
Thanks,
Dan
From: G lenn Hartma nn <ghartmann @ga rfield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25,2023 8:36 PM
To: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com>
Subject: FW: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Hi Dan: I intended to include you on this referral. Traffic issues are a key consideration so thanks very much for your
preliminary input. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-L377 xL57O
G ha rtma n n @ga rfield-countv.com
From: Glenn Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2023 8:02 PM
To: Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>;'jbarnes@carbondaleco.net'<ibarnes@carbondaleco.net>; Chris
Hale <Chris@mountaincross-ens.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT<brian.killian@state.co.us>; Robin Pitt
<robin.pitt@cogs.us>;'koliver@carbondalefire.org'<koliver@carbondalefire.org>; BillGavette
<gavette @ca rbo nda lefire.org>
Subject: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to you
for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and local
municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referral and comment period on the
Application (incl ud ing a ny u pdates/add itions) wil I occu r.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
https://www.d ropbox.com/scl/folTzgrcrot4suge5dafgrzo/h?d l=0&rlkev=0ba3pz5is7rgmaep7nmnv7rq5
1
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-L377 xL57O
G hartmann @sarfield-cou ntv.com
2
, .i i,.,r1- |
Rooring Fork Trunspoilotion Aulhority
March 25,2024
Garfield County Community Development
ATTN: Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Referral Comments - PUAA-05-23-8967
Spring Valley Ranch - Substantial PUD Amendment - Storied Development, LLC
Dear Mr. Hartmann
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Substantial PUD Amendment to the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD, as proposed by Storied Development, LLC'
RFTA has reviewed the proposed Substantial PUD Amendment application and has several
comments for your consideration.
Transportation lmpact Studv - While it is noted in the CDOT Transportation lmpact Study
Methodology Form that "Pedestrian, Transit, and Bicycle" impacts were to be analyzed, the
analysis of anticipated transit impacts was not found in the Transportation lmpact Study.
Meanwhile, for pedestrians and bicycles, only existing counts were identified, but an
analysis of impacts was not found.
As this development is to employ 160 employees with only 26 employees living onsite, it is
anticipated that 135 employees will be commuting daily to Spring Valley Ranch. This does
not include non-Spring Valley Ranch employees living in employee housing and commuting
elsewhere or residents living in the remainder of the affordable housing located onsite, none
of whom are anticipated to be Spring Valley Ranch employees and will be commuting to and
from the site daily.
Page I of 5
It is for these reasons that impacts to the transit system and the park and ride at Highway 82
and CR 114 are anticipated. Further, safe bicycle and pedestrian movements at this
intersection are a critical component of the transit and overall transportation system.
RFTA recommends that the Transportation lmpact Study be amended to include an
examination of the anticipated impacts on: 1) the public transit system including both
ridership and infrastructure, 2) the park and ride facility at Highway 82 and CR 114, both
formal and informal, and 3) impacts that the proposed improvements to the Highway 82 and
CR 114 intersection will have on the Rio Grande Corridor, transit stops, and bicycle and
pedestrian safety and accessibility. lt is also recommended that the analysis look at future
and not just existing conditions.
Conflicting Development Aqreement and Phasinq Plan Lanquaqe - The below language is
included in the Phasing section of the Development Agreement, notably that the phases can
be completed in any order. This appears to be in conflict with the New Phasing Plan that
says that certain improvements will be completed at specific Phases (excerpt below the
Phasing section and highlighted). While there may be an assumption that Phase 1 would be
completed first which would include improvements at Hwy 82 and CR 114, the language in
the Phasing section appears to allow the development to potentially start at a different
phase, which would not include Hwy 82 / CR 114 improvements.
Section 2.(b) of the Development Agreement, Page 3:
(tt) Phnsing. Thc prcviously approvcd SVR PUD was anticipatcd to bc
developetl in qr to t\4,enty-one {21) phnses pursuant to the Phasing Plan approved by
Resolution 2017-31 recarded in the l{esartls as Reception No.8!}4961J (tlre "Prior Phasing
Plan")" Phasc I of'thc Prior Pha*ing Plan was prcviously complct*el. Phasc ? of thc Prior
Phasing Plan n,as commencsd in 2022 in accurdance with the Prior Phasing Plan by ihe
constructiott of a neu, 640-fcrot long entrance road inlo the Pruper"ty frorn CR I l5 pursuant to
Carfielcl County Graeling Pernrit No. CRAD-03-22-7397. The Prior Phasing Plan is hereby
supcruedcd, re;:rlacerl arrd restrted with the New lthasing Plan attached to this Agrecnrenl as
Exhibit 2. Phasc 0 on thc Ncw Phasing Plan hirs bccn inscrtcd lo show thal one ( l) clrvcllirrg
unit nlready exists u,ithil the Pasture Zone District dercrihed in the ne$, P1JD Guide. As
sltowtt in the Ncw Plrasing Plan. lhs remaining 576 dwelling units pern:itted pursuant to thc
nerv l'UL! Guicle arc anlicipated to be developeel in up to seven (7) additional Phase* nunrbered
as Phase I tlrrough Phase 7. llorr,rr.,cr, the numbering olthe Phares on the New llhasing l'lan
is {br rcl'crcncc ottly and to intlica{e tlrc numbcr of dwelling units anticipatsd tc bc dcvelopcd
in each such phass. "Ihcre shall he no rcqnircmcnl to clevelup thlr Phases shorvn trn the Nsrv
Phasing Plan in any particular oldcr and thcrc shall be no dcndlines to cither Eorr"nllsnce or
conrplete conslrustiol of any ol'the Phases, lrr :rrldition. rny Phasc ffa1, bc subrlivid*cl :rurlior
rlr'\,,alr\n..rl 1l{.trlrt firrrrl rrl:rt rrr irr urrlr-lllr.rrrrr hrrr'(rrfrrrt r,r rrrrrllirrln l'iryrl nlrrtl'.*''.'....'",|.'..,''.
Page 2 of 5
Exhibit 2 - New Phasing Plan - Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT tr
Nn$ PllA$ING Fl,tN
P.8. I ofl
d.ll hn i*lrdrd:r r.^m.6d.61 n! lh. llnii
It is recommended that the development agreement and phasing plan be clarified to identify
the timeline and sequence of the off-site improvements.
Transit. Rio Grande Corridor. and Park and Ride lmprovements - Should the development
agreement and phasing plan timeline and sequence be clarified to require Phase 1 to occur
first, it is recommended that transit, Rio Grande Corridor, and/or park and ride improvement
be included in Phase 1 - Offsite lmprovement Phasing in the New Phasing Plan.
ln addition, it is recommended that the language be amended in the single asterisk section
(*) of the New Phasing Plan - Off-Site lmprovement Phasing: "* Highway lmprovements
shall be based upon requirements of CDOT Access Permit. Transit, Park and Ride, and/or
Rio Grande Corridor lmprovements shall be determined in collaboration with RFTA and
agreed upon in writing prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan."
A redline of these recommended changes to the New Phasing Plan are below
il|rolrcr.l
IrihaoflnFdmant
irpd
fim0l.ol
CodrfiurNV
ftolrjfl
D{nf,rt
Udlr.!
ttfi$.I
lr|Dloerlr.ntaF.dp0m
'lragti
frilrol
linhrct
ftrtird3|l
Dtrgl|Uolt3
0toO llolpttalfollol
mprNmnB rhJl b! hiluded 6 r ffiPomnt d th6 tlnll
,L! lpplkltlon rtrd drsdltsd SubdMtlff lmpmvomoolr
\B.Gemant tot ,hr& !, ed rhrll bc Qmtlot€d ltlor to tht
!6rdiGg a, llonl ptlt fo, thrs 3 proeidcd lhrt enY .tquirnd
rpprov.lr or 0ctolt! ,E not unt.isrbly wllhhlld bt
:oor.
l! to It 8a to lot lmpiowmnti to lhc,6t€6(tion of Stnle
Itiahwnv 82 tnd Couniy Ro.d tt4.'
'HASS
t 73 ro 89
Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT 2
I{ElV P}IASING PLAN
lhgc I of2
ll
o)(o
(D
5
o
ol
Tlr*rgdlmpourll*nt
n/a
lmprovements shall be included as a component of the Final
Plal appl ication and associated S.rbdivision lmprwements
Agreem€nt for Phase I, and shall be completed prior to the
reording oi Final Plat for Phas€ 3 provided that any required
apprwals or permits are not unreasonably wilhheld by
CDOT-
lmprovements shall be included as a compoflent ot the Final
Pl at appl icati or1 and associated 9rbdivision lmprwemen ts
Agrcement for Phas€ a and shall b€ completed prior to th€
recording of Final Plat for Phase 4 provided that any required
apprwals or permits are not unreasonably withheld by
Garlield county.
lmprov€ments shall be in,cluded as a component of the Final
Plat application and associated fuHivision lmprwements
Agreement for Phase 3, and shall b€ complded prior to the
remrding of Final Plat tor Phase 5 provkled that arv required
appro\rals or permits are not unreasonably wkhheld by
Gartield County.
InFoEmefit Der.riptbn
n/a
HiBhr%,l, Trin sit" Park and Ride aild/or
Rii, Grande Trail lmprwements at the
iilersectioft 0f State HiBhway 8? and
Cc,unty Road 114. I
County Road ll4lmprwements: Fnrm the
int€{seclion ot State Highway32 to the
int€rsection withCounty Road 110 (approx.
1"5 miles). **
County Road lt4 lmprovements: Fmm the
interseciion of County Road 110 to the
eastern access of Colorado Mountain College
{ryprox. 1.4 miles}. *"
' lliBhrya/ Irnproyernents shdl be besad qon Gquirem€nts d CDOT Access tbflnit, Trilsit, Park ad
Ri*:, and/or Rio Grandecorridorlmpre,remente 5hall be d€t€rmined in co'llaboratir.r with RfTA arKJ
ryrred upon in wdtingprior toappovalof the Prdiminary Plen.
I hrprornmentsshCl b based upon the D€litn Stardar& fur rl Off-gE Cqrnty R€d per Sectim 7.2
(Rodnay Oassiffcatiqr & De3iln Stadrdsl r{ the Spd,f, ltalky Remh PUD GuHe.
nal|rolTdrl
Odl:trlnr
byPlnse:
ltol
84 to 102
78 to 96
102 to 124
f,atleof
Iulfnb€rof
Cqffrulty
Houair;
DnIl|
Udtrr:
OtoO
11 to 13
10 to t2
X3 to 15
Rrrte of
ltumberd
Ftct rht
Hltfrritr
Itol
73 !o .19
68 to 84
89 ro 109
nilsEs
pHASE O
PHASf, I
nlASE T
PTIASE 3
' The nrnb,er of Ccrrnrrnity Hous'ru Units shallcompfy wfth the miimun
reqdr€d proportiqlality to Free Mar*et Uoits in *cod'l€e uith the PUD
6uih, The cdrstrrErtfi of Ccrynntnity lbuslrt UriB rnay be aeletiated at
ily po&tt ln the fltcim Plan at the discr€tim of the Detnbp€r, sttlmut
restricdrt rhe allff$ce to sirxrlbtEr.Elyplat r develop the m'&nrn
nrnber d l?€e lrarket lMirg Units as lrdcated for each Phase.
' a DtE means DtellilB Units. The totd fi.lrlber of Dr€nit Ul$ts tff all
Phases shall not exceed 577.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss any of these
recommendations further.
Sincerely,
David Pesnichak, AICP
Mobility Coordinator
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1340 Main Street
Garbondale, CO 81623
97O.914.8177 (cell)
dpesnichak@rfta.com
r,,ll
Page 5 of 5
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>
Monday, February 26,2024 8:17 AM
Glenn Hartmann
FW: Spring Valley Ranch Country ReferralSubject:
Glen,
Here are comments for Spring Valley Ranch Referral. Thank you.
Engineering:
Our traff ic engineer reviewed the traffic report and is in general agreement with the f indings of the anatysis. The
intersection at CR 114 and SH 82 is currentty operating poorty, and this devetoper would be responsibte for the
highway improvements by way of the CDOT access permit requirements. An independent review of the traffic
anatysis was done by Dan Coktey at SGM, and he brought up the probtematic and unsafe Red Canyon (CR 1 15)
route to the vattey ftoor. McDowett Engineering originatty sent 5o/o ol project traff ic up and down CR 1 15 but
adjusted this so that att project traffic used Spring Val,l.ey Road to SH 82. This shift resulted in "No net changes in
infrastructure recommendations" at the highway. Although the study does not mention South Bridge, the point is
moot if att project traffic uses CR 1141o access the site.
Com munity Development:
The Community Development department is in general support of the expanded open space and clustered development
concepts. These are concepts supported by Section 070.040.020 Sensitive Area Protection of the municipal code which
allows clustering when it better attains objectives of providing more open space, preserving existing vegetation, and
preserving sensitive environmental areas, while mitigating any significant adverse impact on adjacent properties with
screening/landscaping and other design features to buffer and protect from the clustered areas.
The City supports the Housing Mitigation Plan with units being constructed onsite by the developer.
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Director, Economic and Community Development
City of Glenwood Springs
101W. Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.384.6407 (ol 97 o.3t9-6259 (c)
City Hall is closed on Fridays. Calls and emails will be returned on the following Monday.
From: Glenn Hartma nn <ghartmann @earfield-countv'com>
Sent: Friday, January 79,202410:50 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
This sender is trusted
1
Referral Agencies:
Attached is a Referral Request for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. lt is a substantial amendment that will be
reviewed through future public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. lt requests
amendments including a new PUD Guide, PUD Plan Map with amended lot/zone district configurations/layout and
provides updated technical information. The project includes 577 dwelling units on approximately 5908 acres. The
development review history for this property dates back to 2OO8/2O10 and earlier. A link to access the Application
electronically is included in the referral request and provided below:
Please provide your comments directly to both our emails: ghartmann@sarfield-countv.com and pberrv@garfield-
countv.com
We're requesting comments bV 2/9/2a if possible but based on the size of the Application we're extending the referral
time period for two additional weeks to 2/23/24. Based on the size and complexity of the Application we anticipate staff
follow-up with referral agencies and will accommodate your needs for further extensions of the review period as
necessary. Please note that the application while determined to be complete for review has not been scheduled for public
hearings to allow for a complete and thorough review of referral comments.
Your review and comments are a very important part of our review process. Please contact us if you have any questions
or difficulty in accessing the application files. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-1377 x7570
2
G ha rtma n n (oga rfield-cou ntv.co m
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Director, Economic and Community Development
City of Glenwood Springs
101W. Eighth Sreet
Glenwood Springs, CO 81501
970.384.5407 (o) 970.319-6269 (c)
City Hall is closed on Fridays. Calls and emails will be returned on the following Monday.
3
Co m munityr Development
Troy Hangen, Senior Planner
970-328-8749
troy. hangen @eagl ecou nty. us
www.eaglecounty.us
EAGLE COUNTY
February 20,2024
Ga rfield Cou nty Com mu nity Development Depa rtment
Attn: Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Planner lll
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via Email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
pbe rry@ga rfi e ld-co u nty.co m
Re: IAR-00941 1-2024 - Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial Modiflcation/Amendment
Dear Community Development Department:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of the planning process of the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD in Garfield County. Please consider the following comments from
Eagle County Departments:
Planning Comments:
After reviewing the Application, the data included draws parallels to many goals and
policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (ECCP). Some of these are:
3.1 .3 Community I nvolvement
-The value of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan should be understood and the plan
should be appropriately adhered to.
3.1.4 Governance
-Cooperative planning solutions should be encouraged across jurisdictional boundaries by
promoting intergovernmenta I commu n ication and coord i nation.
3.2.4 Development
-Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located
within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers.
3.4 Housing
- Housing needs are clearly identified, and housing types are appropriately balanced to
meet all community needs, appropriately located to reduce long distance commutes, and
appropriately managed to assure long term affordability for Eagle County's workforce.
3.4.5 Development Stakes
-Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle Coun!/s workforce housing
needs.
3.6 Water Resources
-Sufficient domestic water is available to all developed areas so long as requirements for
maintaining healthy natural riparian and aquatic ecosystems are being met.
1
500 Broadway, P.O. Box 179,Eagle, Colorado 81631
The overall amount of research and information for the Application was extensive and
thorough. lt will bring much needed housing to the County. Staff supports the updated
design incorporating the same density in a more cluster-like design using less
infrastructure. More open space and including Wildlife Habitat will be beneficial.
Engineering Comments:
Open Space/Natural Resources Comments:
Sincerely,
Troy Hangen
Senior Planner
Cc:Trent Hyatt, Deputy Community Development Director
Ben Gerdes, P.E., County Engineer
File
2
Glenn Hartmann
Thank you for contacting the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). CDPHE's general
comments are available here. CDPHE's oil and gas related comments are available here. We will continue to review this
referral to determine whether additional comments are necessary. lf additional comments are necessary, we will submit
them by the referral deadline.
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
COLORADO
Department of Publtc
Health & Envirorrment
cdphe localreferral@state.co.us I cotorado.eov/cdphe
Localreferral - C D PH E, CDPH E < cdphe-localreferral @state.co.us >
Friday, January 19,202410:52 AM
Glenn Hartmann
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
rewl
320 Main St. Suite 204 | Carbondale, CO 81623 | 970.963.8440 | avlt@avlt.org | Page 1 of 3
April 4, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com, pberry@garfield-county.com
RE: AVLT Referral Comments, 2023 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment, PUAA-05-23-8967
Dear Glenn and Phillip,
Thank you for requesting AVLT’s referral comments for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. As
you are aware, the Spring Valley Ranch PUD is immediately adjacent to AVLT’s Rivendell Farms
Conservation Easement (also known as the Lake Springs Ranch Conservation Easement). Initially platted
for development, Rivendell Farms has been a conservation success story long in the making—starting with
the Berkeley family’s 2004 donation of a 40-acre conservation easement on the property (Garfield County
reception #665794). Between 2004 and 2019, the Berkeley family gradually increased the size of the
conservation easement to 254 acres through phased easements, which are bound together by one final ruling
document, the Fifth Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement in Gross , donated to AVLT on
September 20, 2019 and recorded in Garfield County at reception number 925748 (the “Easement”). Today,
Rivendell Farms is home to a thriving agricultural operation and important wetland and sagebrush shrubland
habitat that will be forever protected for the benefit of all Coloradans.
The Easement is intended to protect specific Conservation Values, including ;
“relatively natural habitat including wetland and wildlife values and open space (including agricultural lands)
(collectively, ‘Conservation Values’) of importance to the Landowner, the Trust, the people of Garfield County,
and the people of the State of Colorado that are worthy or preservation” (pg. 3).
It continues to state;
“in particular, the Property consists of irrigated agricultural land, sagebrush shrublands, ponds and wetlands in
an otherwise semi-arid upland zone. The wetlands provide important wildlife habitat for numerous species of
birds, waterfowl, and small mammal s. The Property contains a community of sagebrush, a threatened habitat
type important to big game as well as small animals and bird species...” “The Property contains wetlands,
riparian areas, and several other important habitat types that provide food, shelter, winter habitat, and migration
routes for several wildlife species including elk, mule deer, black bear, turkey, bat, and bald eagles. The wetland
and riparian areas are especially important to many bird species, including the Canada Geese, Killdeer, Redwing
blackbirds, and Mallard, America Wigeon, Cinnamon Teal, and Ring Neck ducks” (pg. 3).
While AVLT does not hold conservation easements on any of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD parcels and
does not have authority to directly approve or deny any portions of the proposal, we are deeply concerned
about the impact that a development of this scale will have on the wildlife that our ad jacent easement aims
to protect.
320 Main St. Suite 204 | Carbondale, CO 81623 | 970.963.8440 | avlt@avlt.org | Page 2 of 3
Spring Valley Ranch and the surrounding area support a diverse ecosystem, containing a matrix of oak-
mixed montane shrublands, sagebrush shrublands, aspen forests, and riparian forests, shrublands and
wetlands. These natural communities provide the foundation of essential habitat for a diversity of native
flora and fauna—some rare—that provide wonderful intrinsic and economic benefit to our state and region.
Of particular concern is the proposal’s likely impact to critical deer and elk habitat. The entire development
proposal is located in winter range for deer and elk, with a mule deer winter concentration area extending
through the center of the property, and an elk winter concentration area covering the southwestern portion
of the property, immediately adjacent to AVLT’s protected Rivendell Farms. The southeastern corner of the
development is located in severe winter range for elk, and nearly half of the property to the north occupies a
critical elk production and calving area. The entire property is also known as an important wildlife
migration route, connecting higher elevation summer range with critical winter habitat, water sources, and
calving grounds in the lower grounds of the Spring Valley drainage.
The Spring Valley Ranch Impact Analysis states that the Frying Pan River Elk Herd using the property has
been declining since 1996, which is "a concerning metric for wildlife managers" (Impact Analysis, pg 16-
18). The same collection of natural communities that are found on the adjacent protected Rivendell Farms
Conservation Easement cover much of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. According to the Impact Analysis,
gambel oak and sagebrush shrubland communities “provide important winter forage opportunities for elk.
These communities and aspen stands provide forage during the remainder of the year as well” (pg. 18).
AVLT is concerned that, once fully developed, displaced deer and elk herds will not be able to survive the
loss of critical winter and calving habitat and may additionally over-rely on and overgraze adjacent lands,
such as AVLT’s adjacent Rivendell Farms Conservation Easement.
The Impact Analysis and CPW data also show the property to be winter hunting grounds for mountain lion
and a known black bear fall concentration area. According to the Impact Analysis, "annual bear mortality in
B-11 has been increasing over the past 2 decades" (pg. 18). Fall habitat areas such as Spring Valley Ranch
provide critical feed and forage for black bears preparing for winter hibernation. Developing 6,000 acres at
such a massive scale is certain to increase local black bear mortality rates, especially in harsher winters.
One of the stated conservation purposes of the Rivendell Farms Conservation Easement is its alignment
with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. The Easement states ;
“...the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 (adopted November 10, 2010) (the 'Comprehensive Plan')
identifies the loss of agricultural lands and rural character as a significant issue for county residents, along with
environmental impacts to sensitive ecosystems, including wildlife habitat and important visual corridors. Section
6 of the Comprehensive Plan - Agriculture, states 'Garfield County has preserved rural character and agricultural
heritage by encouraging the retention of important agricultural lands, working farms and ranches. . . . The
county has encouraged conservation of lands that protect important wildlife corridors, natural habitats,
important viewsheds and other critical open space.' The goals of Section 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which
are supported by policies, are to: 1) Promote the continuation and expansion of agricultural uses; 2) Preserve a
significant rural character in the county; and 3) Preserve scenic and visual corridors in the county. To that end
the county encourages uses of land trusts and conservation easements for protecting agriculture. The goals and
policies of Section 8 of the Comprehensive Plan— Natural Resources, also state that the County shall ‘ensure
that natural, scenic, ecological, and critical wildlife habitat resources are protected and/or impacts mitigated,’
and that the County ‘will encourage the protection of watersh eds, flood plains, and riparian areas.’ This
Easement grant will further this policy's objective by conserving agricultural lands and preserving some of the
rural character in our community” (pg. 4).
320 Main St. Suite 204 | Carbondale, CO 81623 | 970.963.8440 | avlt@avlt.org | Page 3 of 3
AVLT is not in a position to comment on any of the specifics of the development proposal, but we can
certainly share information about the ecosystems and wildlife values that will be impacted by development
of this scale. Although the clustered development proposal is certainly less impactful than the property’s
existing entitlements, it is important to recognize that the proposed development will further fragment and
disrupt entire intact ecosystems that currently provide quiet, high-quality habitat. This will likely have a
devastating impact on local wildlife and the overall health of Spring Valley. A development proposal of this
nature and scale, including the existing entitlements, is simply not appropriate for an area so delicate, so
critical to wildlife, and so greatly removed from existing developed areas, infrastructure, and services. The
proposal is likely to impact ranching operations and habitat quality on an adjacent AVLT conservation
easement, and on a larger scale is at odds with AVLT’s mission and the goals established by our strategic
conservation plan to permanently protect high quality and rapidly diminishing ranchland and natural habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me
below with any questions.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Bud Tymczyszyn (tim-chiz-in)
Stewardship Director
Aspen Valley Land Trust
bud@avlt.org
970.456.1915 (cell)
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Monday, March 25,2024 5:26 AM
JON FREDERICKS
Greg Schroeder; Glenn Hartmann; Jeff Butteruorth; Kandis Aggen - CDOT; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT; Philip Berry; Edgar Palacios
Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Jon,
CDOT is going to require that the 58 to EB left turn lane be a duat left turn lane due to the 20 year
projections. That means that CR 114 witl need two receiving lanes. CDOT doesn't draw up the concept since
this is development driven, your engineer witl do that.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian Kiltian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
Subject:
x
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th St, Room '100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian. ki ttian@state. co. us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.ore
On Fri, Mar22,2024at10:56AM JON FREDERICKS<ion@landwestcolo >wrote
Hi Brian,
I wanted to follow up with you on the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114. Last week CDOT gave an update to the Garfield
Commissioners, and one of the topics mentioned was a pending design for extending the EB left turn lane. Are you able
to share that preliminary design so that we can compare it against our schematic plans for that intersection?
Thank you-
1
Jon Fredericks
LAND WEgT
LAr{O PLANI{lilO I OEVeLOpMENT SgnvlCeS
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4155
LANDWESTcolorado.com
From: Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Sent: Friday, March L,2024 8:48 AM
To: Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com>
Cc: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>; Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@sarfield-countv.com>; Jeff
Butterworth <ibutterworth@storiedlivins.com>; Kandis Aggen - CDOT <kandis.aggen@state.co.us>; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT <karthik.vishwamitra@state.co.us>; Philip Berry <pberrv@sarfield-countv.com>; Edgar Palacios
<edga r@ mcdowelleng.com>
Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Thanks Greg. We witt be in touch.
Have a good weekend.
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 I C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
'ttt C e+h C+ Daam lnn a--^^A 1,,^^+i^^ at\ a4E/,l,tLLL J. (JLr I JL, l\(/Vr r I M \rl ql tU Jtlt lLLtL,l t, rrlvr u I Jv I
www.cotrip.orq
2
tr
brian. ki ltian@state.co. us www.codot.qov
On Wed, Feb 28, 2O24 at 2:00 PM Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com> wrote:
Brian et al
Please see the following link for the synchro files. We use version 10 and also included are the SimTraffic files. I didn't
include the generated .hst files from SimTraffic (as they are several GBytes in size) but I certainly can if you need us to.
Link: https://drive.eoogle.com/drive/folders/L0kYCLNVbLFptdToxYbsl6XaRtbpkOrvO?usp=sharine
Thanks,
Greg Schroeder, PE
Senior Transportation / Traffic Engineer
x
24L Broadway Street, Suite 202
PO Box 4259
Eagle, CO 81631
970.948.r376
greo@mcdowelleng.com
www.mcdowelleng.com
3
On Fri, Feb 23, 2O24 al ll:37 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote
Hi Brian,
Thank you for getting back to us. Greg Schroeder will send you the Synchro files for your review. Thanks you for your
time with this review - much appreciated.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LAND PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4155
LANDWESTcolorado.com
From: Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Sent: Thursday, February 22,2024 3:43 PM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@ landwestcolorado.com>
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com>; Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com>; Jeff
Butterworth <ibutterworth@storiedliving.com>; Kandis Aggen - CDOT <kandis.aggen@state.co.us>; Karthik
Vishwa mitra - CDOT <karthik.vishwamitra @state.co. us>
Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Jon,
CDOT has the following comment on this submission:
Please provide the Synchro files used in the analysis. CDOT needs to check the signal operations in
o..-^L-^ rG:-T-^14^ayttutilurolltI I Iailtu.
The TIS is generally acceptable depending on our review of the Synchro files.
a
o
When we get the Synchro files we may have additional comments, but that will be very helpfulfor our
review.
4
LAND
Please let me know if you have any questions
Thanks,
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
n,BriaH
P 970-683-6284 I C 970-710-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
222 S. 6th St, Room '100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kitlian@state.co.us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 9:21AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote
I received the below emailfrom Glenn Hartmann at Garfield County, and we wanted to make sure you have the
current project files for your review of Spring Valley Ranch. We provided additional information to the County prior
to the holidays, which is included in the links below.
Transportation lmpact Studv The Study was completed January 2023 and submitted to the County in May 2023. The
Study is preceded by a supplemental letter dated December 20, 2023, which provides responses to specific County
com ments a nd questions.
Schematic lntersection Exhibit For SH 82 and CR 114. This is a schematic layout of potential improvements based on
the recommendations discussed in Section 5.1 of the Transportation lmpact Study. The need for auxiliary turn lanes
was assessed per Highway Access Code standards. Section 5.1 provides an analysis of the intersection, including
whether specific intersection improvements are warranted based on either existing conditions, or by the addition of
5
the project-generated traffic. Figure 10 of The Transportation lmpact Study provides a graphic illustration of the
warranted intersection improvements based on both current conditions and project-generated traffic.
Off-Site lmprovement Phasing Map This map has not yet been submitted to the County with our application
package, as it was just prepared last week. However, it provides a good visual of the Phasing of the off-site road
improvements for the project. The currently-approved phasing plan for Spring Valley Ranch has the SH 82/CR 114
intersection in the last Phase, however, we have flipped that and we now have it in the first Phase of the project
(likely 2026-20271.
As you are reviewing the materials, please feel free to reach out to me or Greg Schroeder with any questions. lf you
think it would be helpful, we can also schedule a meeting with the County to discuss.
Thank you-
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LAt{D PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4755
LANDWESTcolorado.com
From: Glenn Hartma nn <gha rtmann @ga rfield-countv.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29,202411:44 AM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
HiJon: We received a preliminary phone call from CDOT today (Brian Killian) on the SVR referral. Based on that
phone conversation, it may be appropriate for your Traffic Engineer to reach out to Brian to ensure that he has your
FinalTraffic Study/Documents and recommendations regarding the Hwy 82 intersections. We discussed briefly
some of the topics covered in your Completeness Response Letter and in the Traffic Study (i.e. turn lanes, stacking,
114 widening, and 115 traffic/intersection, etc.). Perhaps a meeting with CDOT that we could all attend would be an
efficient option. Please let me know your thoughts and call/email if we need to discuss. Thanks. Glenn.
LAND
6
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-\377 xI57O
Gha rtma nn (ogarfield-countv.com
7
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks Greg. We witt be in touch.
Have a good weekend.
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Friday, March 1,2024 8:48 AM
Greg Schroeder
JON FREDERICKS; Glenn Hartmann;Jeff Butterworth; Kandis A99en - CDOT; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT; Philip Berry; Edgar Palacios
Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
x
p 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th 5t, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kitti co.us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:00 PM Greg Schroeder <gres@mcdowelleng.com> wrote:
Brian et al:
please see the following link for the synchro files. We use version 10 and also included are the SimTraffic files. I didn't
include the generated .hst files from SimTraffic (as they are several GBytes in size) but I certainly can if you need us to.
Link: https://drive.sooele.com/drive/folders/l0kYCLNVbLFptdToxYbsl6XaRtbpkOrvO?usp=sharine
Thanks,
Greg Schroeder, PE
Senior Transportation / Traffic Engineer
241Broadway Street, Suite 202
PO Box 4259
Eagle, CO 81631
970.948.r376
1
H
greq@mcdowellenq.com
www.mcdowellenq.com
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:37 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thank you for getting back to us. Greg Schroeder will send you the Synchro files for your review. Thanks you for your
time with this review - much appreciated.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
IANO PLANNIN6 I DEVELOPMENT SENVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4755
From: Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Sent: Thursday, February 22,2024 3:43 PM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@la ndwestcolorado.com>
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com>; Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com>; Jeff
Butterworth <ibutterworth@storiedliving.com>; Kandis Aggen - CDOT <kandis.aggen@state.co.us>; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT <karthik.vishwamitra@state.co.us>
Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Jon,
CDOT has the following comment on this submission
. Please provide the Synchro files used in the analysis. CDOT needs to check the signal operations in
Synchro/SimTraffic.
. The TIS is generally acceptable depending on our review of the Synchro files.
LANDWESTcolorado.com
2
LAND
When we get the Synchro files we may have additional comments, but that will be very helpfulfor our
review
Please let me know if you have any questions
Thanks,
Brian Kiltian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
x
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683'6790
Z22S.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kiltian@state.co.us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 9:21 AM JON FREDERTCKS <ion@landwestcolo > wrote
I received the below email from Glenn Hartmann at Garfield County, and we wanted to make sure you have the
current project files for your review of Spring Valley Ranch. We provided additional information to the County prior
to the holidays, which is included in the links below.
Transportation lmpact Studv The Study was completed January 2023 and submitted to the County in May 2023. The
Study is preceded by a supplemental letter dated December 20, 2023, which provides responses to specific County
comments and questions.
Brian,Hi
3
you-nkTha
Schematic lntersection Exhibit For SH 82 and CR 114. This is a schematic layout of potential improvements based on
the recommendations discussed in Section 5.1 of the Transportation lmpact Study. The need for auxiliary turn lanes
was assessed per Highway Access Code standards. Section 5.1 provides an analysis of the intersection, including
whether specific intersection improvements are warranted based on either existing conditions, or by the addition of
the project-generated traffic. Figure 10 of The Transportation lmpact Study provides a graphic illustration of the
warranted intersection improvements based on both current conditions and project-generated traffic.
Off-Site lmprovement Phasins Map This map has not yet been submitted to the County with our application
package, as it was just prepared last week. However, it provides a good visual of the Phasing of the off-site road
improvements for the project. The currently-approved phasing plan for Spring Valley Ranch has the SH 82/CR 114
intersection in the last Phase, however, we have flipped that and we now have it in the first Phase of the project
(likely 2026-20271.
As you are reviewing the materials, please feel free to reach out to me or Greg Schroeder with any questions. lf you
think it would be helpful, we can also schedule a meeting with the County to discuss.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LANO PLANNI}iG I DEVELOPMENT SEFVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4155
LAN DWESTcolorado.com
Eram. /?16hh lJar+mann zaharlmann tFtaa"4i^lA ^^,,^+r, ^^M\I IsI rrIroIIII \6!,!!4!!!!!g!! FsI IILIu LvuIIry.LWIII/
Sent: Monday, January 29,20241L:44 AM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Hi Jon: We received a preliminary phone call from CDOT today (Brian Killian) on the SVR referral. Based on that
phone conversation, it may be appropriate for your Traffic Engineer to reach out to Brian to ensure that he has your
4
LAND
Final Traffic Study/Documents and recommendations regarding the Hwy 82 intersections. We discussed briefly some
of the topics covered in your Completeness Response Letter and in the Traffic Study (i.e. turn lanes, stacking, 114
widening, and 115 traffic/intersection, etc.). Perhaps a meeting with CDOT that we could all attend would be an
efficient option. Please let me know your thoughts and call/email if we need to discuss. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-1377 xl57O
G ha rtma n n @sa rfield-co u ntv.com
5
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
From:Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Thursday, February 22,2024 3:43 PM
JON FREDERICKS
Glenn Hartmann;Greg Schroeder; Jeff Buttenryorth; Kandis Aggen - CDOT; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT
Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-upSubject:
Jon,
CDOT has the following comment on this submission:
. Please provide the Synchro files used in the analysis. CDOT needs to check the signal operations in
Synchro/SimTraffic.. The TIS is generally acceptable depending on our review of the Synchro files.
When we get the Synchro files we may have additional comments, but that will be very helpfulfor our review
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 I C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kitti co.us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Tue, Jan 30, 2O24 at 9:21 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote
I received the below email from Glenn Hartmann at Garfield County, and we wanted to make sure you have the current
project files for your review of Spring Valley Ranch. We provided additional information to the County prior to the
holidays, which is included in the links below.
To:
Cc:
Brian,H
1
x
Transportation lmpact Studv The Study was completed January 2023 and submitted to the County in May 2023. The
Study is preceded by a supplemental letter dated December 20, 2023, which provides responses to specific County
comments and questions.
Schematic lntersection Exhibit For SH 82 and CR 114. This is a schematic layout of potential improvements based on
the recommendations discussed in Section 5.1 of the Transportation lmpact Study. The need for auxiliary turn lanes
was assessed per Highway Access Code standards. Section 5.1 provides an analysis of the intersection, including
whether specific intersection improvements are warranted based on either existing conditions, or by the addition of
the project-generated traffic. Figure 10 of The Transportation lmpact Study provides a graphic illustration of the
warranted intersection improvements based on both current conditions and project-Benerated traffic.
Off-Site lmprovement Phasine Map This map has not yet been submitted to the County with our application package,
as it was just prepared last week. However, it provides a good visual of the Phasing of the off-site road improvements
for the project. The currently-approved phasing plan for Spring Valley Ranch has the SH 82/CR 114 intersection in the
last Phase, however, we have flipped that and we now have it in the first Phase of the project (likely 2026-20271.
As you are reviewing the materials, please feel free to reach out to me or Greg Schroeder with any questions. lf you
think it would be helpful, we can also schedule a meeting with the County to discuss.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LAND PLANNING I DEVELOPME'{T SERVICES
345 Colorado Ave, #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.41ss
From: Glenn Hartmann <gha rtmann@garfield-countv.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29,20241L:44 AM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
you-nkTha
LANDWESTcolorado.com
2
LAND
Hi Jon: We received a preliminary phone call from CDOT today (Brian Killian) on the SVR referral. Based on that phone
, conversation, it may be appropriate for your Traffic Engineer to reach out to Brian to ensure that he has your Final
Traffic Study/Documents and recommendations regarding the Hwy 82 intersections. We discussed briefly some of the
topics covered in your Completeness Response Letter and in the Traffic Study (i.e. turn lanes, stacking, 114 widening,
and 115 traffic/intersection, etc.). Perhaps a meeting with CDOT that we could all attend would be an efficient
option. Please let me know your thoughts and call/email if we need to discuss. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
97O-945-L377 x!57O
f
G ha rtma n n @sa rfield-countv.com
irectoD
3
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Friday, February 2,202411:33 AM
JON FREDERICKS
Glenn Hartmann; Greg Schroeder; Jeff Buttenrvorth; Kandis Aggen - CDOT; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT; Mark Bunnell - CDOT
Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Witt do, thanks Jon. The study years witt onty be good for three years, so you witl need to appty within three
years of the study and construct any improvements that may be required, if any. Just a heads up on that.
Thanks,
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian. kittian@state.co. us I www.codot.gov I www.cotrip.orq
On Fri, Feb 2,2024 at tl:24 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolo > wrote
r Hi Brian,
I agree that it makes sense to review the TIS now so that we can get ahead of any potential issues or concerns. l'm sure
the County would appreciate that as well. I don't foresee that the project is going to change to any degree that would
affect the trip generation. Once we get through the zoning review with the County, I expect we will apply for access
permits in 2025, and then apply for NTP sometim e in 2026 for the improvements at SH82/CR114.
We would be happy to have meeting with CDOT and the County to discuss process if you think it would be beneficial
Just let us know.
Subiect:
1
tr
Thanks-
LAND
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LANO PLANNIN6 I OEVELOPiIENI SENVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4155
LANDWESTeolorado.com
From: Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Sent: Friday, February 2,2024 6:1-5 AM
To: JO N FREDE RICKS <ion@ la ndwestcolo rado.com>
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com>; Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com>; Jeff Butterworth
<ibutterworth@storiedliving.com>; Kandis Aggen - CDOT <kandis.agsen@state.co.us>; Karthik Vishwamitra - CDOT
<karthik.vishwamitra@state.co.us>; Mark Bunnell - CDOT <mark.bunnell@state.co.us>
Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Thanks Jon.
We can review the study now, but since you're not yet done with the County processes, do you think that
there witt be any changes to the traffic study if the County requests additional changes to the development
ptan? I just don't want to review this in detail, then have to do it again next year if we can avoid that.
However, there are a lot of parts and pieces to this development and it may be a good idea to get a lot of
this ironed out earty so you and the County can plan accordingly.
CDOT witt do a TIS review and provide comments unless you let me know otherwise.
Have a good weekend
Thanks,
Brian Killian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
2
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
ZZZS.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kittian@state.co.us I www.codot.eov I www.cotrip.orq
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at6:41 PM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote:
Brian,
Thanks for getting back to us. We are not yet at the point where we are ready to apply for an access permit, as it
would expire before we obtained our necessary County approvals for zoning and subdivision. We are at the zoning
review stage now, and the TIS was submitted as a required component of the County's review of the PUD. We likely
won't be ready to apply for access permit(s) for about 18 more months. Given that, we will need to confer as to
whether or not this should constitute our formal TIS submittal to CDOT - but I believe the answer is yes.
As to the referral component of this, Glenn Hartmann (copied) would need to clarify what the County is seeking from
CDOT at this point in the process. I would assume that the County would be looking for any comments regarding the
need for an access permit and improvements at SH82/CRLL4, and also the potential need for a permit at SH82/CR115
and how that might interface with planned improvements for the South Bridge project.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LANO PLANNING I OEVELOp!.lENT SERVICES
Thank uyo
3
LAND
345 Colorado Ave. #106
LANDWESTcolorado.com
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4155
From: Killian - CDOI Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Sent: Thursday, Februa ry 7, 2O24 5:02 PM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com>; Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com>; Jeff
Butterworth <ibutterworth@storiedlivins.com>; Kandis Aggen - CDOT <kandis.agsen@state.co.us>; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT <karthik.vishwamitra@state.co.us>
Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Jon,
CDOT has only received a TIS methodology at this point and the TIS has not been formally submitted to
CDOT for review. CDOT receives referrats from Garfield County, however, since we deal with 16 Counties
and over 38 municipalities, CDOT doesn't have time to review traffic studies via referrals. We only do
cursory reviews of referrats to see if they trigger a traffic study and CDOT access permit.
Shoutd we consider this the formal TIS submission to CDOT? CDOT wi[[ eventually need to access permit
apptications as wet[. I attached a blank permit in case you need it. Please note the checktist of
information we wi[[ need with the application.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
l--CC:- C. c-4^r..I l cil I lL q, JcilgLy
ksnTha
P 970-683-6284 I C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
4
Hi Brian,
2225.6th 5t, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian. killian .co. us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Tue, Jan 30, 2O24 at 9:21 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolo > wrote:
I received the below email from Glenn Hartmann at Garfield County, and we wanted to make sure you have the
current project files for your review of Spring Valley Ranch. We provided additional information to the County prior
to the holidays, which is included in the links below.
Transportation lmpact Studv The Study was completed January 2023 and submitted to the County in May 2023. The
Study is preceded by a supplemental letter dated December 20, 2023, which provides responses to specific County
com ments and questions.
Schematic lntersection Exhibit For SH 82 and CR 114. This is a schematic layout of potential improvements based on
the recommendations discussed in Section 5.1 of the Transportation lmpact Study. The need for auxiliary turn lanes
was assessed per Highway Access Code standards. Section 5.1 provides an analysis of the intersection, including
whether specific intersection improvements are warranted based on either existing conditions, or by the addition of
the project-generated traffic. Figure 10 of The Transportation lmpact Study provides a graphic illustration of the
warranted intersection improvements based on both current conditions and project-generated traffic.
Off-Site lmprovement Phasins Map This map has not yet been submitted to the County with our application
package, as it was just prepared last week. However, it provides a good visual of the Phasing of the off-site road
improvements for the project. The currently-approved phasing plan for Spring Valley Ranch has the SH 82/CR 114
intersection in the last Phase, however, we have flipped that and we now have it in the first Phase of the project
(likely 2026-2027l,.
As you are reviewing the materials, please feel free to reach out to me or Greg Schroeder with any questions. lf you
think it would be helpful, we can also schedule a meeting with the County to discuss.
5
u-yonkTha
LANDWESTcolorado.com
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LANO PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #L06
Carbondale, CO 8L623
970.379.4L55
From: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29,202411:44 AM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolo >
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
HiJon: We received a preliminary phone call from CDOT today (Brian Killian) on the SVR referral. Based on that
phone conversation, it may be appropriate for your Traffic Engineer to reach out to Brian to ensure that he has your
Final Traffic Study/Documents and recommendations regarding the Hwy 82 intersections. We discussed briefly some
of the topics covered in your Completeness Response Letter and in the Traffic Study (i.e. turn lanes, stacking, 114
widening, and 115 traffic/intersection, etc.). Perhaps a meeting with CDOT that we could all attend would be an
efficient option. Please let me know your thoughts and call/email if we need to discuss. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Director
97O-945-L377 xL57O
l? h a rlm a n n rilaa rfialr{-nn t t n}rr rn m
6
LAND
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Friday, February 2,2024 6:15 AM
JON FREDERICKS
Glenn Hartmann; Greg Schroeder; Jeff Buttenvorth; Kandis Aggen - CDOT; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT; Mark Bunnell - CDOT
Re:Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Thanks Jon.
We can review the study now, but since you're not yet done with the County processes, do you think that
there witt be any changes to the traffic study if the County requests additional changes to the devetopment
ptan? I just don't want to review this in detail, then have to do it again next year if we can avoid that.
However, there are a lot of parts and pieces to this devetopment and it may be a good idea to get a tot of
this ironed out early so you and the County can plan accordingly.
CDOT witt do a TIS review and provide comments unless you let me know otherwise.
Have a good weekend.
Thanks,
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2ZZS.6th 5t, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kitlian@state.co.us I www.codot I www.cotrip.orq
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 6:41 PM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote
Brian,
Thanks for getting back to us. We are not yet at the point where we are ready to apply for an access permit, as it would
expire before we obtained our necessary County approvals for zoning and subdivision. We are at the zoning review
stage now, and the TIS was submitted as a required component of the County's review of the PUD. We likely won't be
ready to apply for access permit(s) for about 18 more months. Given that, we will need to confer as to whether or not
this should constitute our formal TIS submittal to CDOT - but I believe the answer is yes.
1
Thank you-
As to the referral component of this, Glenn Hartmann (copied) would need to clarify what the County is seeking from
CDOT at this point in the process. I would assume that the County would be looking for any comments regarding the
need for an access permit and improvements at SH82/CR114, and also the potential need for a permit at SH82/CR1L5
and how that might interface with planned improvements for the South Bridge project.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LANO PLANNIN6 I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4L55
From: Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Sent: Thursday, February t,2O24 5:02 PM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com>; Greg Schroeder <greg@mcdowelleng.com>; Jeff Butterworth
<ibutterworth@storiedlivins.com>; Kandis Aggen - CDOT <kandis.assen@state.co.us>; Karthik Vishwamitra - CDOT
<ka rthik.vishwamitra @state.co. us>
Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Jon,
CDOT has onty received a TIS methodology at this point and the TIS has not been formatly submitted to
CDOT fot'review. CDOT receives refen'als from Garfield County, however, since we deal with 16 eounties
and over 38 municipalities, CDOT doesn't have time to review traffic studies via referrats. We onty do
cursory reviews of referrals to see if they trigger a traffic stud)r and CDOT access permit.
Shoutd we consider this the formal TIS submission to CDOT? CDOT wilt eventualty need to access permit
applications as we[[. I attached a blank permit in case you need it. Ptease note the checktist of information
we witt need with the apptication.
LANDWESTcolorado.com
2
LAND
Thanks
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
Brian,H
P 970-683-6284 I C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.kitti .co. us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 9:21 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote
I received the below email from Glenn Hartmann at Garfield County, and we wanted to make sure you have the
current project files for your review of Spring Valley Ranch. We provided additional information to the County prior to
the holidays, which is included in the links below.
Transportation lmpact Studv The Study was completed January 2023 and submitted to the County in May 2023. The
Study is preceded by a supplemental letter dated December 20, 2023, which provides responses to specific County
comments and questions.
Schematic lntersection Exhibit For SH 82 and CR 114. This is a schematic layout of potential improvements based on
the recommendations discussed in Section 5.1 of the Transportation lmpact Study. The need for auxiliary turn lanes
3
younkTha
was assessed per Highway Access Code standards. Section 5.1 provides an analysis of the intersection, including
whether specific intersection improvements are warranted based on either existing conditions, or by the addition of
the project-generated traffic. Figure 10 of The Transportation lmpact Study provides a graphic illustration of the
warranted intersection improvements based on both current conditions and project-generated traffic.
Off-Site lmprovement Phasins Map This ma p has not yet been submitted to the County with our application package,
as it was just prepared last week. However, it provides a good visual of the Phasing of the off-site road improvements
for the project. The currently-approved phasing plan for Spring Valley Ranch has the SH 82/CR 114 intersection in the
last Phase, however, we have flipped that and we now have it in the first Phase of the project (likely 2026-20271.
As you are reviewing the materials, please feel free to reach out to me or Greg Schroeder with any questions. lf you
think it would be helpful, we can also schedule a meeting with the County to discuss.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
LAND PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT SENVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4r5s
From: G lenn Ha rtma n n <gha rtma n n @ga rfield-co u ntv.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29,202411:44 AM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com>
c,.L!^^.. c--i^^ rr^ll^., D^-^L annT r^ll^.., ,,^JlIITJE!r. JPr il 16 V OilEy nOr rLr r - LLr\,' r F\,ilLTYv-UP
Hi Jon: We received a preliminary phone call from CDOT today (Brian Killian) on the SVR referral. Based on that
phone conversation, it may be appropriate for your Traffic Engineer to reach out to Brian to ensure that he has your
Final Traffic Study/Documents and recommendations regarding the Hwy 82 intersections. We discussed briefly some
of the topics covered in your Completeness Response Letter and in the Traffic Study (i.e. turn lanes, stacking, 114
LANDWESTcolorado.com
4
LAND
widening, and 115 traffic/intersection, etc.). Perhaps a meeting with CDOT that we could all attend would be an
efficient option. Please let me know your thoughts and call/email if we need to discuss. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-L377 xl57o
G ha rtma n n @ga rfield-countv.co m
5
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
lo:
Cc:
From:
Subject:
Attachments:
Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Thursday, February 1,2024 5:02 PM
JON FREDERICKS
Glenn Hartmann; Greg Schroeder; Jeff Buttenryorth; Kandis Aggen - CDOT; Karthik
Vishwamitra - CDOT
Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Access Permit Application Packet.pdf
Jon,
CDOT has onty received a TIS methodotogy at this point and the TIS has not been formally submitted to
CDOT for review. CDOT receives referrals from Garfield County, however, since we deal with 16 Counties
and over 38 municipalities, CDOT doesn't have time to review traffic studies via referrals. We only do
cursory reviews of referrals to see if they trigger a traffic study and CDOT access permit.
Shoutd we consider this the formal TIS submission to CDOT? CDOT will eventualty need to access permit
applications as well. I attached a btank permit in case you need it. Ptease note the checktist of information
we witl need with the apptication.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian Killian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.killian@state.co.us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 9:21 AM JON FREDERICKS <ion@landwestcolorado.com> wrote
I received the below email from Glenn Hartmann at Garfield County, and we wanted to make sure you have the current
project files for your review of Spring Valley Ranch. We provided additional information to the County prior to the
holidays, which is included in the links below.
Hi Brian,
1
Transportation lmpact Studv The Study was completed January 2023 and submitted to the County in May 2023.The
Study is preceded by a supplemental letter dated December 20, 2023, which provides responses to specific County
comments and questions.
Schematic lntersection Exhibit For SH 82 and CR 114. This is a schematic layout of potential improvements based on
the recommendations discussed in Section 5.1 of the Transportation lmpact Study. The need for auxiliary turn lanes
was assessed per Highway Access Code standards. Section 5.1 provides an analysis of the intersection, including
whether specific intersection improvements are warranted based on either existing conditions, or by the addition of
the project-generated traffic. Figure 10 of The Transportation lmpact Study provides a graphic illustration of the
warranted intersection improvements based on both current conditions and project-generated traffic.
Off-Site lmprovement Phasins Map This map has not yet been submitted to the County with our application package,
as it was just prepared last week. However, it provides a good visual of the Phasing of the off-site road improvements
for the project. The currently-approved phasing plan for Spring Valley Ranch has the SH S2/CR 114 intersection in the
last Phase, however, we have flipped that and we now have it in the first Phase of the project (likely 2026-20271.
As you are reviewing the materials, please feel free to reach out to me or Greg Schroeder with any questions. lf you
think it would be helpful, we can also schedule a meeting with the County to discuss.
Jon Fredericks
WEST
345 Colorado Ave. #L06
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.379.4155
From: G len n Ha rtma nn <gha rtma n n @ga rfield-cou ntv.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29,2024 tL:44 AM
To: JON FREDERICKS <ion@la ndwestcolorado.com>
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
younkTha
LANDWESTcolorado.com
2
LAND
Hi Jon: We received a preliminary phone call from CDOT today (Brian Killian) on the SVR referral. Based on that phone
conversation, it may be appropriate for your Traffic Engineer to reach out to Brian to ensure that he has your Final
Traffic Study/Documents and recommendations regarding the Hwy 82 intersections. We discussed briefly some of the
topics covered in your Completeness Response Letter and in the Traffic Study (i.e. turn lanes, stacking, 114 widening,
and 1L5 traffic/intersection, etc.). Perhaps a meeting with CDOT that we could all attend would be an efficient
option. Please let me know your thoughts and call/email if we need to discuss. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
97O-945-L377 xL57O
Directo r
G ha rtma nn @ga rfield-cou ntv.com
3
STATE OFCOICF.ANO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Traffic & Safety Section
222 South 6m Street, Room 1 00
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
(970) 683-6284
Dear Applicant,
Thank you for your inquiry about properly obtaining access to the State Highway System. Through this
process, CDOT is aiming to improve the safety and operational efficiency of our state highways. Access
management is one of the means to achieve this. Please read this letter carefully and follow its instructions to
ensure the most efficient processing of your application for access.
Applications for access shall include a completed access permit application (CDOT Form No. 137) and any
required attachments reasonably necessary to review and assess the application or complete the permit.
Copies of forms, the State Highway Access Code, and other helpful information are also available at our
intemet site, www.dot.state.co.us/AccessPermits/index.htm.
Necessary attachments to the application shall include the following, although additional information may be
required:
'/ Warranty Deed and current Title Insurance,/ Power of Attorney for signature authority (if other than owner),/ Location Map AND Sunounding Ownership Map (may be combined into one),/ Site Plan (If there will be more than 100 trips per day (50 cars per day), plans need
to be stamped by a P.E.)./ Stake at Centerline of Proposed Access with Owners Name
* Do not send any money at this time
If any of the above items are missing, your application will be rejected. The Department will promptly
transmit written notice to the applicant if the application is not complete and sufficient for review. The notice
will include any outstanding items, issues, or concems.
s end completed app li cations to : #' ri"Yr11il#::,",'*om l 0 0
Grand Junction, CO 81501
(970) 683-6284
Once a field review has been conducted by CDOT, your application will be forwarded to the appropriate
local jurisdiction, if applicable. The local authorities of the Town of Crested Butte, Town and County of
Eagle, Town of Oak Creek, Town of Olathe, and Pitkin County have retained access permit issuing
authority; your application will be forwarded to them for review and processing. If the access is in the Town
of Avon, City of Delta, Town of Fraser, or in unincorporated areas of Delta, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale,
Jackson, or Montrose County we will forward your application to them for comment once we determine that
it is complete.
Construction may not begin until a Permit and a Notice to Proceed have been approved. Additional
information may be required before a Notice to Proceed is issued. Two items that are always required are a
certificate of insurance naming CDOT as an insured party and atraffrc control plan. Please allow 45 days for
processing this application.
Ifthere are any further questions, please feel free to contact this office at the above referenced address and
number.
Attachments: Application Form (CDOT Form No. 137)
Examples of Site Plan and Surrounding Ownership Map
7a@
1..
- Contact the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) or your local government to determine your issuing authority.
- Contact the issuing authority to determine what plans and other documents are required to be submitted with your applicalion.
- Complete this form (some questions may not apply to you) and attach all necessary documenls and Submit it to the issuing authority
- Submit an application for each access affected.
- lf you have any questions conlact the issuing authority.
- For additional information see CDOT's Access Management website at http:i/www.dot,state.co.usiAccessPermits/index.htm
lnstructions
Please print
or type
1) Property owner (Permittee)2) Applicant or Agent for permittee (if different from property owner)
Street address Mailing address
City, state & zip Phone# (required)City, state & zip Phone #
E-mail address if availableE-mail address
3) Address of property to be served by permit (equired)
) Legal description of property: lf wilhin jurisdictional limits of Municipality, city and/or County one?
subdivision block lot section lownship rangecounly
5) What Stale Highway are you requesting access from?6) What side of the highway?' !ru ns'fl e [w
7) How many feet is the proposed access from the nearest mile post?
feet EN ns tr E [lw) trom:
How many feet is the proposed access from the nearest cross street?
feetEN EsEeEutrorn,-
8) What is the approximate date you intend to begin construction?
9) Check here if you are requesting a:
I rrew au.;ess ltenrporary access (dulation anticipated:
lchange in access use lremoval of access
l-limprovcment to existing access
[elocation of an existing access (provide detail)
)
10) Provide existing property rrse
'1 1) Do you have knowledge of any State Highway access permits serving this property, or adjacent properties in which you have a property inlerest?
Eno [yes, if Ves - what are lhe permit numbe(s) and provide copies: and/or, permit date:
1 2) Does the property owner own or have any interests in any adjacent property?
Eno fl Ves, it yes - please describe:
13) Are there other existing or dedlcated publlc streets, roads, hlghways or access easements bordering or within the property?
Eno flVes, it yes - list them on your plans and indicate the proposed and existing access points.
'14) lf you are requesting agricultural field access - how many acres will the access serve?
1 5) lf you are requesting commercial or industrial access please indicate the types and number of businesses and provide the floor area sqttare footage of each.
business/land use square foolage business square footage
tb, il you ale requesuilg testuenUat uevetoPenteit auue5sr wr rat 15 Lr rc tylJe (urigrc rariiy, aPar lirEr rr, ruwr i ruLruv,/ dr ru I r(Ir rrrcr (I rI lri !
type number of units type number of units
17) Provide the following vehicle count estimates for vehicles that will use the access. Leaving the property then returning is two counts.
tt ol multi unil trucks at peak hour volumeslndicate if your counts are
[peak hour volumes or llaverage daily volumes,
# of passenger cars and light truch at peak hour volumes
# ol farm vehicles (lield equipment)Total count of all vehicles
0
# ol single unit vehicl€s in sxcsss of 30 ft.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION
lssuing authority application
aoooptance date:
Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used Pagel ol2 CDOTFoTm#137 01/10
18) Check with the issuing authority to determine which of the tollowing documents are required to complete the review of your application
a) Property map indicating other access, bordering roads and streets.
b) Highway and driveway plan profile.
c) Drainage plan showing impact to the highway right-of-way.
d) Map and letters detailing utility locations before and after
development in and along the righlof-way.
e) Subdivision, zoning, or development plan.
f) Proposedaccessdesign.
g) Parcel and ownership maps including easements.
h) Traffic studies,
i) Proofofownership.
1- lt is the applicant's responsibility to contact appropriate agencies and obtain all environmentalclearances that apply
lo their activities. Such clearances may include Corps of Engineers 404 Permits or Colorado Discharge Permit System
permits, or ecological, archeological, historical or cultural resource clearances. The CDOT Environmental Clearances
lnlormation Summary presents contact information for agencies administering certain clearances, information about
prohibited discharges, and may be obtained from Regional CDOT Utility/Special Use Permit offices or accessed via the
CDOT Planning/Construction-Environmental-Guidance webpage http://www.dot.state.co.us/environmental/Forms.asp.
2- All workers within the State Highway right of way shall comply with their employer's safety and health policies/
procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Salety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not
limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - OccupationalSafety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926
- Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.
Personal protective equipment (e.9. head protection, footwear, high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection,
respirators, gloves, etc.) shall be worn as appropriate lor the work being performed, and as specilied in regulation. At a
minimum, all workers in the State Highway right of way, except when in their vehicles, shall wear the following personal
protective equipment: High visibility apparel as specilied in the Traffic Control provisions ol the documentation
accompanying the Notice to Proceed related to this permit (at a minimum, ANSI/ISEA 107-1999, class 2); head protection
that complies with the ANSI 289.1-1997 standard; and at all construction sites or whenever there is danger ol injury to
feet, workers shallcomply with OSHA's PPE requirements lor foot protection per 29 CFR 1910.136, 1926.95, and
1926.96. lf required, such footwear shall meet the requirements ol ANSI 241-1999.
Where any of the above-referenced ANSI standards have been revised, the most recent version of the standard shall
apply.
3- The Permittee is responsible for complying with the Revised Guidelines that have been adopted by the Access Board
under the American Disabilities Act (ADA). These guidelines define traversable slope requirements and prescribe the
use of a delined pattern of truncated domes as detectable warnings at street crossings. The new Standards Plans and
can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support web page at:
<http://www.dot.state.co.us/Desiqnsupport/>, then click on Design Bulletins.
lf an access permit is issued to you, it will state the terms and conditions for its use. Any chang.es in the use of the
permitted aciess not consistent with the terms and conditions listed on the permit may be considered a violation of the
permit.
The applicant declares under penalty of perjury in the second degree, and any other applicable_ statg or federal
laws, ihat all information provided on this form and submitted attachments are to the best of their knowledge
true and complete.
I understand receipt of an access permit does not constitute permission to start access constructaon work.
Applicant or Agent for Permittee signature Print name Date
lf the applicant is not the owner ol the property, we require this application also to be signed by the property owner or
their lelhlly authorized representative (or other acceptable written evig-ence). This signature shall constitute agreement
with this application by ali owners-of-interest unless stated in writing. lf a permit is issued, the property owner, in most
cases, will be listed as the permittee.
Property owner signature Print name Date
Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used Page2or2 CDOTFoTm#137 01/10
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETINGAPPLICATION FOR ACCESS PERMIT
(cDoT FORM NO. 137)
January2010
To consffuct, relocate, close, or modify access(es) to a State Highway or when there are changes in use of
such access point(s), an application for access permit must be submitted to the Colorado Department of
Ttansportation (CDOT) or the local jurisdiction serving as the issuing authority for State Highway Access
Permits. Contact the CDOT Regional Access Unit in which the subject properfy is located to determine
where the application must be submitted. The following link will help you determine which CDOT Region
office to contact:
http://www.dot.state.co.us/AccessPermits/PDF/Region_Address_and_Map.pdf
All applications are processed and access permits are issued in accordance to the requirements and
procedures found in the most current version of the State Highway Access Code (Access Code). Copies
of the Access Code and the application form are available from the CDOT Headquarters, Access Unit
locatedat42Ol EastArkansasAvenue, Denver, CO80222 andin each of the six Regional CDOToffices.
The locations of CDOT Regional Offices, theAccess Code and the application form are also available
fromCDOT'sweb siteat:
http ://www. dot. state.co.us/AccessPermits/index.htm
Please complete all information requested accurately. Access permits granted based on applications found
to contain false information may be revoked. An incomplete application will not be accepted. If additional
information, plans and documents are required, attach them to the application. Keep a copy of your
submittal for your records . Please note that only the original signed copy of the application will be accepted.
Do not send or enclose any permit fee at this time. Apermit fee will be collected if an access permit is
issued. The following is a brief description of the information to be provided on each enumerated space on
the application form (CDOT Form I37,2010).
1. Property Owner (Permittee): Please provide the full name, mailing address and telephone
number and the E-mail address (if available) of the legal property owner (owner of the surface rights).
Please provide a telephone number where the Permittee can be reached during business hours (8:00
a.m.to5:00p.m.). Havingacontractonthepropertyisnotasufficientlegalrighttothatpropertyfor
purposesofthisapplication. Iftheaccessistobeonoracrossanaccesseasement,thenacopyofthe
easementMUST accompanythis application.If federallandis involved, providethenameof the
relevant federal agency AND attach copy of federal authorization for propefty use.
2. Agent for permittee: If the applicant (person completing this application) is different than the
propefly owner (Permittee), provide entity name (if applicable), thefullname of theperson serving as
the Agent, mailing address, telephone number, and the E-mail address (if available). Please provide a
telephone number where theAgent can be reached during business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).
Joint applications such as owner/lessee may be submitted. Corporations must be licensed to do business
in Colorado: All corporations serving as, or providing, an Agent as the applicant must be licensed to do
business in Colorado.
Instructions for completingApplication forAccess Permit (CDOT Form#137), January 2010
Page 1
3. Address of Property to be Served: Provide if property to be served has an official street
address. If the access is a public road, note the name (or future name) of the road.
4. Legal Description of Property: Fill in this item to the extent it applies. This information is
available at your local County Courthouse, or on your ownership deed(s). A copy of the deed may be
required as part of this application in some situations. To determine applicability, check with the
CDOT's Regional Access Manager or issuing authority staff
5. State Highway: Provide the State Highway number from which the access is requested.
6. Highway Side: Mark the appropriate box to indicate what side of the highway the requested
access is located.
7. Access Mile Point: Without complete information, we may not be able to locate the proposed
access. To obtain the distance in feet, drive the length between the mile point and the proposed access,
rounding the distance onthe odometerto the nearesttenth of a mile; multiply the distanceby 5,280 feet
to obtain the number of feet from the mile point. Then enter the direction (i.e. north, south, east, west)
from the mile point to the proposed access. Finally, enter the mile point number. It is helpful in rural or
undeveloped areas if some flagging is tied to the righfof-way fence at the desired location of the access.
Also, if there is a cross street or road close to the proposed access, note the distance in feet (using the
same procedures noted above) from that cross street orroad.
8. Access Construction Date: Fill in the date on which construction of the access is planned to
begtn.
9. Access Request: Mark items that apply. More than one item may be checked.
10. Existing property use: Describe how the property is currently being used. For example,
common uses are Single Family Residential, Commercial orAgricultural.
11. Existing Access: Does the property have any other legal alternatives to reach a public
road other than the access requested in this application? Note the access permit number(s) for any
existing state highway access point(s) along with their issue date(s). If there are no existing access
point(s), mark the "no" box.
12. Adjacent Property: Please mark the appropriate box. lf the "yes" box is marked, provide a
brief description of the property (location of the property in relation to the property for which this
access application is being made).
13. Abutting Streets: If there are any other existing or proposed public roads or easements
abutting the property, they should be shown on a map or plan attached to this application.
14. Agricultural Acres: Provide number of acres to be served.
Instructions for completing Application forAccess Permit (CDOT Form #137),Iantary 2010
Page2
15. Access Use: List the land uses and square footage of the site as it will be when it is fully
developed. The planned land uses as they will be when the site is fully developed are used to project
the amount of traffic that the sile will generate, peak hour faffic levels and the type of vehicles that can
be expected as a result of the planned land uses. There may be exceptional circumstances that would
allowphasedinstallationofaccessrequirements. ThisisatthediscretionoftheCDOTRegionalAccess
Unit or issuing authority staff.
16. Estimated Ttaffic Count: Provide a reasonable estimate of the traffic volume expected to use
the access. Note the type of vehicles that will use the access along with the volume (number of vehicles
in and out at either the peak hour or average daily rates) for each type of vehicle. A vehicle leaving the
property and then returning counts as two trips. If 40 customers are expected to visit the business daily,
there would be 80 trips in addition to the trips made by all employees and other visitors (such as
delivery and trash removal vehicles). If the PDF on-line version of this application is being used, the
fields foreachtype of vehicle will automatically be addedtogethertopopulate the lastfield on thepage.
17. Documents andPlans: The CDOTRegionalAccess Managerorissuing authority staffwill
determine which of these items must be provided to make the application complete. Incomplete
applicationswillnotbeaccepted. IfanincompleteapplicationisreceivedviaU.S.mailorthrough
means other than in the hand of the Access Manager or issuing authority staff, it will not be processed.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify with the CDOT Regional Access Manager or
issuing authority staff whether the application is complete at the time of submission.
Signature: Generally, if the applicant is not the property owner, then the property owner or a legally
authorized representative must sign the application. With nanow exceptions, proof of the property
owner's consent is required to be submitted with the application (proof may be a power of attorney or a
similar consent instrument). The CDOT RegionalAccess Manager or issuing authority staffwill
determine if the exception provided in theAccess Code (2.3 (3) (b) is applicable.
ffCDOTis the issuing authority forthis application, directyourquestions to the CDOTRegional Access
Manager or the issuing authority staff serving the subject property.
http://www.dot.state.co.us/AccessPermits/PDF/Region_Address_and_Map.pdf
If the application is accepted, it will be reviewed by the CDOT RegionalAccess Manager or the issuing
authority staff. If an Access Permit is issued, be sure to read all of the attached Terms and Conditions
before signing and returning the Access Permit. The Terms and Conditions may require that additional
information bc providcd prior to issuancc of thc Noticc to Procccd.
The CDOT Regional Access Manager (or issuing authority staff) MUST be contacted prior to commencing
work on any Access Permit project. A Notice to Proceed that aathorizes the Permittee to begin
access related construction MUST be issued prior to working on the access in the State Highway
right-of-way. The Notice to Proceed may also have Terms and Conditions that must be fulfilled before
work may begin on the permitted access.
Instructions for completingApplication forAccess Permit (CDOTForm#137), January 2010
Page 3
o
o
REGION 3 ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
To ensure the application is complete, please include the following items
O Completed and Siened Apnlication (Form No. 137) -with signature(s) of the legal
property owner and any person applying on behalf of the property owner on the correct lines
on the second page ofthe form. (May be an electronic copy.)
Proof of Ownershin - Copy of the recorded Warranty Deed - not a Quit Claim Deed. Title
insurance may also be required. (Not needed for local government sites or local government
roads that access the State Highway System.)
Sisnature Authoritv - If the property ownership is an incorporated entity, a valid document
demonstrating the persons with signature authority for the corporation. If the "Applicant" is
not the property owner and is acting on behalf of the property owner, a Statement of
Authority or Limited Power of Attorney is required.
! Location Map - such as a Google Earth aerial print marking the location of the access.
O Site Plan - showing location of the access, the driveway, and the buildings on the site with
the use for each building labeled.
O Surroundins Ownership Map - with the property parcel identification number and name of
owner for the subject property and all surrounding parcels (all parcels adjacent to and across
from the access). This may be found on county GIS websites.
o Recorded Plat - copy of plat may be required
! Insress/Esress Easement(s) - copy of the recorded ingress/egress easement is required if
the access requires crossing another property. Also provide an approval letter from the
grantor of the easement.
O Photos - of the proposed access to include: the access location showing the pavement and a
stake at the proposed access location; the roadway in both directions as seen from the access;
the property directly across from the access; and any shots of ditches or culvert with potential
drainage issues within the CDOT right-of-way.
O Traffic Studv - For low volume traffic with average daily trips of less than20 (for access to
single-family residences, agricultural fields, not for profit activities, etc.), a traffic study is
not required. For Commercial uses with average daily trips less than 100, a Traffic Study or
Traffic Assessment may be required; however, at minimum, an accurate Traffic Projection
Summary should be included that identifies the type, size (length) and number of axles for all
vehicles that will be using the access.
CDOT website link for application form:
h ttns ://wwwgodot.gov/business/nerm its/acccsspermits/forms/cdot0 I J7
ti
a
GROGAII SALES
PARTNEffSHIP(.9
6 nno
+r'q
A
"Q4
o.4
A1
eo t"
3qc
cl
oE
rr.
Gl'
.a
N
4a
q{
Ar,
u,rr,
Q.^
tt.Lr
I
J-1
I
I
6"*"+
"B
w.fl, ilEt$or.l
APPLICANT
PARCE!
LJ. & Kt- HERWI9K
OWNERSHIP MAP
STTE PIAN
u.s, HwY. 6 & 60 (l:70 B)
:tr. "-' q.c
FRONTAGE ROAD
P RO PO SED
ACCES S
a.
rf ..
l.
t 5'l
.(
-i.1
d
I
SKETCH PLAN
NdT-ro-bclir-e---"-
trt
.wl
:.::-..:: .t -ri.- l__
t._
,'tiorO.
t
ttF
z
r.---.__-_j-.,.ti(
t.t'-
I
a
- (l(ltr rftr4 _.--El_
.t
ttl
-ll
,
h*L-*-.L \-o
J
lr3
F | ;:,-r-,!- s ..I'.._I Ii
:(
6.
.":"r,r' :: l\,=:.,-rr -t:
-.::F
-<
Jrr
\
\
\
Itc
tJap
\
Ell
" __.!... -
at't'
---i---r'r"'
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
From:Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Tuesday, January 23,2024 1:50 PM
Glenn Hartmann
Kandis Aggen - CDOT
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
Glenn,
This devetopment witt need to submit a traffic study and a CDOT access permit application for CR 114 and
CR 1 15. CDOT has been coordinating with their engineers on a TIS methodology, but we haven't heard
anything since. CDOT has safety and operational concerns at both intersections.
Thanks,
Brian Ki[tian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
x
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1 101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.killian@state.co. us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Fri, Jan 19, 2O24 at 10:50 AM Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com> wrote:
Referral Agencies:
Attached is a Referral Request for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. lt is a substantial amendment that will be
reviewed through future public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. lt
requests amendments including a new PUD Guide, PUD Plan Map with amended lot/zone district configurations/layout
and provides updated technical information. The project includes 577 dwelling units on approximately 5908 acres. The
development review history for this property dates back to 2008/2070 and earlier. A link to access the Application
electronically is included in the referral request and provided below:
https://records.garfield-countv.com/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=3996323&d bid=0&repo=GarfieldCountv
r Please provide your comments directly to both our emails: ghartmann@garfield-countv.com and pberrv@garfield-
countv.com
1
We're requesting comments bV 2/9/24 if possible but based on the size of the Application we're extending the referral
time period for two additional weeks to 2/23/24. Based on the size and complexity of the Application we anticipate staff
follow-up with referral agencies and will accommodate your needs for further extensions of the review period as
necessary. Please note that the application while determined to be complete for review has not been scheduled for
public hearings to allow for a complete and thorough review of referral comments.
Your review and comments are a very important part of our review process. Please contact us if you have any questions
or difficulty in accessing the application files. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Glenn Hartmann
97O-945-L377 x157O
ly,nceresi
rectorDi
G ha rtma n n @ga rfie ld-cou ntv.com
2
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
lo:
Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Friday, January 19,2024 10:52 AM
Glenn Hartmann
Out of Office Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral RequestSubiect:
I will be out of the office starting January 19 and will return on January 22. Please ease leave an email and I will get back
with you as soon as I can. Thanks.
Brian Killian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
p970-583-6284 | C97O-2LO-LL01 | F970-683-5290
2225.6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 8L501 brian.killian@state.co.us <Brian.Killian@state.co.us> |
https://naml2.safelinks.protection.outlook.com /?url=hltp%3A%2F%2Fwww.codot.gov%2F&data=O5%7CO2%TCghartma
nn%40garfield-
county.como/o7C66dao656293c4643beec08dc19 174a82%7C08e36ed6b51748b0bf1cac960e8059eO%7CO%7C0%7C6384L
2835054785O7O%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3dSeyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiLCJXVCl6
MnO%3D%7C3OOO%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6Acb%o2BWdZPtZuD3GTG3wvTkY6m0WuLunJikCuhqlWsH0%3D&reserved=0 I
https://naml2.safelinks.protection.outlook.com /?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cotrip.org%2F&dala=O5%7CO2%TCghartma
nn%40garfield-
county.comYo7C66da}656293c4643beec08dc19 L74a82%7C08e35ed6b51748b0bf1cac960e8059eOo/o7CO%7CO%7C6384L
283505479L425%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTilSlklhaWwiLCJXVCl6
MnO%3D%7C3OOO%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3vOPpWEOgvQ2yE%2BfRgtMKjfnXonMNLMMxVThlleGpR0%3D&reserved=O
1
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us>
Monday, August 7, 2023 1 '1:08 AM
Glenn Hartmann
Kandis Aggen - CDOT
Re: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
r Gtenn,
This development stit[ needs to formalty submit a traffic study to CDOT and access permit applications for
the GCR 115 and 114. Garfietd County is the permittee since they own those facilities, or they can delegate
permitting authority to the devetoper and the developer can be the permittee on behatf of the County.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian Kittian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
p 970-683-6284 | C970-210-1101 | F 970-683-6290
2225.6th 5t, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.killian@state.co.us I www.codot.qov I www.cotrip.orq
On Wed, Ju|26,2023 at 8:01 PM Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-countv.com> wrote
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
, Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to
you for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and
local municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referral and comment period on the
Application (including any updates/additions) will occur.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
1
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-t377 xL57O
G ha rtma nn @garfield-cou ntv.com
2