HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Supplemental Application Materials - SVR Responses to Referral Comment Packet 05.31.2024
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 1 of 20
May 31, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
Phillip Berry, Senior Planner
Garfield County
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
pberry@garfield-county.com
RE: Spring Valley Ranch: Responses to Referral Comments for PUD Amendment Application
(File No. PUAA-05-23-8967 )
Dear Glenn and Phillip,
We are in receipt of the County’s packet dated April 12, 2024, which provided comments from referral
agencies for the above-referenced application. We have found the referral comments to be extensive
and constructive in addressing many aspects of the PUD Amendment application. Upon thorough review
of the referral comments, we have identified certain comments that necessitate either a response or a
clarification from the Applicant. We have copied such referral comments below, followed by the
Applicant’s responses in blue.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (CRFPD) (letter dated 2/6/24)
1. CRFPD recommends that consideration be made to how EMS with Advanced Life Support (ALS)
response and transport will be conducted and subsidized. Our concern is that with the additions
to the recreational activities that are proposed, call volume will increase in the area, and
currently there is no plan to provide Emergency Medical Services.
Applicant Response: EMS services will be provided on a 24/7 basis as described extensively in
Section 7.11.2 of the Narrative Report.
2. 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.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 2 of 20
Applicant Response: A designated helicopter landing pad (a “helistop”) with proper dimensions
as cited above will be located within the project in the MU, OSG or OSR Zone District as allowed
by Table 6.2 of the PUD Guide (Appendix K).
3. With professional observation and experience, the plan for an all-volunteer fire service is not
recommended.
Applicant Response: The application does not propose an all-volunteer fire service. Section
7.11.2 of the Narrative Report discusses the provision of staffing as follows: “During the
construction phase of the fire station, a hiring process will commence to provide the necessary
personnel to staff the station 24 hours a day/7 days a week.”
4. CRFPD recommends that the project team consider expanding the construction plan for fire
station to include employee housing to incentivize employees needed to manage operations.
Applicant Response: The planned fire station will include staff housing. Additionally, 17 of the
Community Housing Units will be utilized for employees of Spring Valley Ranch and/or the
Landis Creek Metro District, in accordance with Section 8.6 of the PUD Guide (Appendix K).
5. Consideration should be made for residents to shelter in place within their own homes
depending on class of construction as recommended in the 2021 IWUIC. The Wildfire Mitigation
Report talks about Collection point predesignated to facilitate evacuating citizens with the golf
course clubhouse being considered for the point (PP 34). Many times 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.
Applicant Response: All habitable Buildings over 500 SF within the PUD will be sprinkled, per
Section 7.8 of the PUD Guide (Appendix K). All Buildings within the development will be
required to utilize Class 2 Ignition Resistant Construction per Section 505 of the 2021
International Wildland -Urban Interface Code (IWUIC 2021), including the more restrictive Class-
A roof coverings. These construction requirements support the option for sheltering in place
within homes. Additionally, in meetings with Garfield County Emergency Management Staff,
they have indicated that the planned golf course and clubhouse will serve as an appropriate
collection point. Any evacuation plan will be determined by emergency managers at the time of
such events, based on weather and other factors at that time. The Wildfire Mitigation Report is
located in Appendix Q.
6. Emergency access and egress on CR115 needs to be reviewed. The Traffic Impact Study suggests
closing CR115 and restricting it to emergency vehicles only. Without substantial improvements
to CR115, emergency vehicles access is not recommended. What are the proposed
improvements to CR 115 for egress during emergencies?
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 3 of 20
Applicant Response: The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) does not propose closing CR 115. Garfield
County Road & Bridge requested an analysis be done to consider a scenario IF CR 115 were ever
closed by the County. That supplemental analysis is included in Appendix H. The Applicant
supports the continued use of CR 115 for current local residents and emergencies, and has
approached Garfield County Staff with several options for improving safety on CR 115, including:
• Installing guardrails along exposed road sections;
• Improving the road surface with chip and seal;
• Installing signal lights at the narrow section of the road, to allow traffic to pass
in one direction at a time.
As of the date of this writing, the Applicant has not received any feedback from Garfield County
on these potential safety improvements.
Colorado State Forest Service (letter dated 2/1/24)
Applicant Response: The Colorado State Forest Service’s letter generally supported and
reiterated many of the recommendations in the Wildfire Mitigation Report (Appendix Q). No
further response is necessary.
Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) (letter dated 2/23/24)
1. 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 completed. 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.
Applicant Response: The Geologic Evaluation in Appendix N has been updated to include the
newer Geologic Maps prepared in 2008 and 2009, as referenced in CGS’ letter.
2. 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. The impact on stability of changes in grading, loading,
groundwater levels, precipitation and infiltration, vegetation, etc. must be evaluated.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 4 of 20
Applicant Response: At the time of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant will provide a revised
geologic hazards evaluation, addressing the items as listed in CGS’ comment above.
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.
Applicant Response: At the time of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant will provide a revised
geologic hazards evaluation, addressing slope stability, rockfall, debris inundation, and
evaporite-related subsidence risks.
3. 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.
Applicant Response: At the time of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant will provide site-specific
geotechnical recommendations for subdivision improvements such as roads and utilities that
include strategies for mitigating local slope instability, including maximum allowable temporary
and permanent cut and fill heights and slope angles. Site-specific geotechnical studies for homes
and buildings will be provided at the time of building permitting.
Garfield County Public Health (GCPH) (letter dated 2/23/24)
1. 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.
Applicant Response: This suggested condition needs to reflect the appropriate time to address
CDPHE water system permit requirements, which is Final Plat. The Applicant will provide new
pump test data for any rehabilitated or reconstructed well at the time of Final Plat for the phase
containing such wells. Since the water system will be regulated by CDPHE as a Community
Water System, the Applicant intends to apply for CDPHE design review and permitting
concurrently with Preliminary Plan. Documentation of CDPHE permitting for the Community
Water System will be provided at the time of the first Final Plat.
2. 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.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 5 of 20
Applicant Response: At the time of Preliminary Plan, the Applicant will request documentation
from the Spring Valley Sanitation District demonstrating that the District is operating in
compliance with CDPHE requirements. The Spring Valley Sanitation District provided a letter
committing to serve the project in Appendix M.
3. 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.
Applicant Response: Such a condition is unnecessary, as food service licensing and inspections
are required by law.
4. 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.
Applicant Response: The Applicant does not agree that a noise study is necessary for a
residential golf community. Snowmaking is specifically excluded from CRS § 25-12-103 Sound
Standards, subsection 10 as follows: “This article is not applicable to the use of property for the
purpose of manufacturing, maintaining, or grooming machine-made snow.”
5. 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.
Applicant Response: We propose to include an appropriate radon condition as follows:
All Final Plats shall include the following Plat Note: All of Garfield County is considered at high
risk for radon. As a result, all buildings with ground floor residential and/or commercial
occupancy that are enclosed and conditioned (excluding storage/maintenance buildings) shall
be designed and built with radon resistant construction.
Garfield County Consulting Engineer (Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc) (letter dated 2/6/24)
1. The Applicant should provide a plan showing the proposed intersection improvements with Hwy
82 and Red Canyon Road/CR 115.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 6 of 20
Applicant Response: Please see comment #2 from CDOT below. CDOT has determined that the
Applicant shall construct a northbound right turn deceleration lane at the intersection of SH 82/
CR 115.
2. The Applicant states that RFTA service does not extended up to the proposed PUD. The
Applicant should address if RFTA services would be extended as the project is built out.
Applicant Response: RFTA services are not planned to be extended to the project.
3. The Impact Analysis mentions the Ute Ladies-Tresses as an endangered species but does not
address if the proposed PUD will have any impacts on habitat or plants.
Applicant Response: Ute Ladies-Tresses only occur in wetland-type areas, which are very
limited on the site and will be further evaluated at the time of Preliminary Plan for subdivision,
per the required Impact Analysis (LUDC Table 5-401). Wetland areas have been mapped and
analyzed in the Impact Analysis for this PUD Amendment (Appendix F). Section 5.4.2 of that
Analysis provides a thorough description and mapping of existing wetland resources. Section
6.4.2 discusses the potential for wetland impacts as follows:
“The Spring Valley Ranch Conceptual Plan exhibits 4 road crossings on Landis Creek, one road
crossing of the unnamed Middle Bench stream, and 2 crossings at each of the spring-fed
tributaries to the Middle Bench stream. Prior to any wetland disturbance, wetlands will be
delineated at the specific impact site and overlaid on the construction drawings to determine
wetland impacts, if any. These plans will be used to prepare a Pre-Construction Notification for
submittal to the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed road crossings are expected to comply
with the terms and conditions of Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 (NWP14) for Linear
Transportation Projects.”
4. The Existing Drainage & Flood Hazard Report does not estimate the impacts that the proposed
PUD would have on the post-project runoff flow-rates. The Applicant should address how and
where the anticipated increase in runoff flow rates will be mitigated to provide locations for
storm water appurtenances.
Applicant Response: The Garfield County Land Use & Development Code (the “LUDC”)
identifies the submittal requirements for a Substantial Modification to a PUD in Table 6-301.
Among the required submittal items is a Floodplain Analysis. The Spring Valley Ranch property
does not have any FEMA-mapped floodplains, therefore, based on discussions with Planning
Staff, we alternatively provided an Existing Drainage & Flood Hazard Report in Appendix I of the
application. This report provides a thorough analysis of existing drainage basins, 100-year runoff
volumes, and potential flood events along Landis Creek. Post-development drainage plans and
reports are not required for a PUD Amendment, but rather are more appropriately required
during Preliminary Plan when engineering design occurs. In accordance with Table 5-401 of the
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 7 of 20
LUDC, the Applicant will provide the required Grading and Drainage Plans at the time of
Preliminary Plan review for subdivision.
5. The PUD Guide should discuss hunting and whether or not it will be allowed.
Applicant Response: Section 3.12 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Appendix S)
states as follows:
“3.12 No Firearms or Hunting. The use or discharge of firearms, including but not Limited to BB
guns and pellet guns, on any part of the Common Interest Community (including without
limitation the Lots) is expressly prohibited. Hunting on any part of the Common Interest
Community (including without limitation the Lots) is expressly prohibited.”
6. Time frames for what would be considered as "temporary" for industrial uses should be
included in the PUD Guide.
Applicant Response: The definition of “Temporary” is already included in Section 9 of the PUD
Guide (Appendix K) on page 32.
7. Shared driveways are proposed as two 8' lanes, with a 16' total width. This would be considered
too narrow for emergency vehicles to pass other vehicles. Consideration should be given to
increase to 10' lanes with a 20' width and/or provisions added for longer lengths of shared
driveways to require pull-outs.
Applicant Response: For all driveways, fire truck pullouts will be required as determined by the
length of the driveway by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Typically, most fire jurisdictions also
require a fire truck turnaround for driveways longer than 150’ in accordance with Appendix D of
the International Fire Code (IFC). The use of 16’ wide driveways with fire truck pullouts will
reduce overall impacts (grading, vegetation removal, visual ) compared to 20’ wide driveways.
8. Maximum grades of 12% is proposed for driveways. This is generally considered too steep for
fire and emergency vehicles. The maximum grade should be changed to 10% or limitations
placed on when 12% grades would be allowed.
Applicant Response: Most driveways in the project will be less than 10% gradient. Driveways
constructed at 12% gradients will be very limited in number and are most likely to occur at cul-
de-sac locations. All habitable Buildings over 500 SF within the PUD will be sprinkled, per Section
7.8 of the PUD Guide (Appendix K). All Buildings within the development will also be required to
utilize Class 2 Ignition Resistant Construction per Section 505 of the 2021 International
Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC 2021), including the more restrictive Class-A roof
coverings. These construction requirements provide a significant margin of safety for residents
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 8 of 20
and emergency personnel, which we believe justifies the allowance of 12% maximum driveway
gradients.
9. Site specific geo-hazard analysis should be included with site specific geotechnical reports for
building permitting. Mitigation should be required as might be necessary.
Applicant Response: Please see response numbers 2 and 3 in the Colorado Geologic Survey’s
comments above.
Garfield County Road & Bridge (letter dated 1/30/24)
1. 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.
Applicant Response: The application does not propose or support the use of CR 115 for project-
generated traffic. Contractors for the project will be required to use CR 114. Any construction
contracts for Spring Valley Ranch will include provisions that contractors are forbidden to use CR
115, and any violation of those terms will be subject to fines and/or contract termination.
However, we recognize the importance that route has for current local residents and emergency
responders. As discussed in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District comments above,
the Applicant supports the continued use of CR 115 for local residents and emergencies, and has
approached Garfield County Staff with several options for improving safety on CR 115, including:
• Installing guardrails along exposed road sections;
• Improving the road surface with chip and seal;
• Installing signal lights at the narrow section of the road, to allow traffic to pass
in one direction at a time.
As of the date of this writing, the Applicant has not received any feedback from Garfield County
on these potential safety improvements.
2. 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.
Applicant Response: The PUD Amendment application includes significant improvements to the
intersection of SH 82 and CR 114, with a Proposed Intersection Exhibit included as Sheet 8 of
Appendix L. The proposed improvements include increased stacking, additional turn and
receiving lanes, and accel/decel lanes. CDOT has confirmed these required intersection
improvements as shown in CDOT’s #1 comment below.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 9 of 20
3. 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.
Applicant Response: The application proposes to reconstruct CR 114 to County Standards from
the intersection of SH 82 to the intersection of CR 115 (approx. 4.5 miles). The application also
proposes to reconstruct CR 115 to County Standards from the intersection of County Roads
114/115 north to the Landis Creek access road for Spring Valley Ranch (approx. 2.1 miles). The
County Road Standards are included in Table 7.2 of the PUD Guide in Appendix K. The Phasing
of the County Road improvements is included as Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement in
Appendix G.
Garfield County Vegetation Management (letter dated 2/13/24)
1. In regards to the application for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substantial
Modification/Amendment, PUAA-05-23-8967, Garfield County Vegeta�on Management would
like to request the following of the applicant at the time of preliminary planning:
Noxious Weed Inventory: An updated Noxious Weed Survey performed by a qualified plant
ecologist or botanist during the growing season.
Rare Plant Survey: A survey performed by a qualified plant ecologist or botanist for Harrington’s
Penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii).
Applicant Response: Per the LUDC, a required component of any Preliminary Plan is an Impact
Analysis, per Table 5-401. The Impact Analysis requires the study of environmental impacts
including flora and fauna per Article 4-203.G. The items listed above are already an inherent
requirement of any Preliminary Plan and will be provided at that time.
2. Prior to initiating any project or phase of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, staff will require the
submission of the following:
- Revegetation and Disturbance Reclamation Plan and Cost Estimate
- Financial Security to Guarantee Revegetation and Reclamation
- Weed Management and Reclamation Plan
Applicant Response: Per Table 5-401 of the LUDC, required components of any Final Plat are an
Improvements Agreement and Engineering Plans including revegetation. The Improvements
Agreement requires that applicants provide cost estimates, financial security, and complete all
revegetation per County-approved plans. These items will be sufficiently addressed at the time
of Final Plat in accordance with the LUDC.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 10 of 20
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) (letter dated 2/27/24)
Applicant Response: Colorado Parks & Wildlife provided extensive comments on the project
and the proposed Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Appendix F). It has been the Applicant’s goal to work
cooperatively with CPW to help minimize and mitigate the project’s impacts to wildlife. Since
the time of CPW’s second referral letter dated 2/27/24, the Applicant has been working with
CPW to modify the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. As part of this effort, we conducted an in-person
meeting with CPW on April 22, 2024. Since that meeting, the Applicant’s wildlife biologist has
been coordinating with CPW in revising the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Major changes that have
been made to the Plan include:
• Increase the Wildlife Habitat Reserve acreage from 1100 to 1320 acres. The additional 220
acres are located in the northwestern Wildlife Habitat Reserve and will serve to preserve
additional Elk Production Range. The updated PUD Plan Map in Appendix J shows this
expanded Wildlife Habitat Reserve. This update is also reflected in Section 5.1 of the PUD
Guide in Appendix K.
• Reduce the amount of public trails and Public Access Areas. Trail mileage has been reduced
from a minimum of 15 miles to a minimum of 10 miles, and Public Access Areas have been
reduced from 700 acres to 450 acres. All trails in the lower valley of Planning Area B have
been removed, per the Conceptual Plan in Appendix E. The public “powerline trail” and the
two offsite public trail connections to the Forest Hollow Trail on BLM land have also been
removed. These updates are also reflected in Section 5.2 of the PUD Guide in Appendix K.
• Increase of Real Estate Transfer Fee percentage for the benefit of wildlife to 0.4% of each
real estate net purchase price. The current CCR’s require 0.2% of each real estate net
purchase price to be split between wildlife and wildfire purposes (0.1% each). The proposed
Transfer Fee represents a quadrupling of the current wildlife Transfer Fee and is estimated
to generate about $15.2 million during the initial 15 years of the project and $1.6 million
annually upon full buildout – solely for wildlife purposes. Please reference Appendix B of the
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report in Appendix R.
• Expand the geographic area where Transfer Fee funds may be utilized for wildlife projects.
The current CCRs (Appendix S) generally require that such funds be utilized on or adjacent
to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. CPW has requested that those funds be made available for
wildlife projects within the Data Analysis Unit (DAU E-16) including Game Management Unit
(GMU 444).
The Applicant has finalized the revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan, as included in Appendix F, and
has provided that to CPW for review. The Applicant requests that the County seek updated
referral comments from CPW on the revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 11 of 20
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (letter dated 2/8/2024)
1. 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.
Applicant Response: Wetland areas have been mapped and analyzed in the Impact Analysis in
Appendix F. Section 5.4.2 of that Analysis provides a thorough description and mapping of
existing wetland resources. Section 6.4.2 discusses the potential for wetland impacts as follows:
“The Spring Valley Ranch Conceptual Plan exhibits 4 road crossings on Landis Creek, one road
crossing of the unnamed Middle Bench stream, and 2 crossings at each of the spring-fed
tributaries to the Middle Bench stream. Prior to any wetland disturbance, wetlands will be
delineated at the specific impact site and overlaid on the construction drawings to determine
wetland impacts, if any. These plans will be used to prepare a Pre-Construction Notification for
submittal to the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed road crossings are expected to comply
with the terms and conditions of Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 (NWP14) for Linear
Transportation Projects.
NWP14 permits activities required for crossings of waters of the United States associated with
the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g.,
roads, highways, railways, trails, driveways, airport runways, and taxiways) in waters of the
United States. The discharge of dredged or fill material cannot cause the loss of greater than
1/2-acre of waters of the United States.”
Any required permitting with USACE will be processed at the time of the associated Final Plat for
any phase where wetlands may be encountered.
Glenwood Springs Fire Department (GSFD) (letter dated 2/8/24)
1. EMS Response:
With the planned increase in population, the development of recreational facilities and increase
in traffic, careful consideration needs to be given to how EMS, specifically Advanced Life
Support, is going to be provided.
Applicant Response: EMS services will be provided on a 24/7 basis as described extensively in
Section 7.11.2 of the Narrative Report.
With the distance and time for transport to nearest hospital, a dedicated helicopter landing
zone should be designated to industry standards for patients with acute needs.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 12 of 20
Applicant Response: A designated helicopter landing pad (a “helistop”) will be located within
the project in the MU, OSG or OSR Zone District as allowed by Table 6.2 of the PUD Guide
(Appendix K).
2. Fire Protection Plan:
A plan developed to show how the fire station is to be staffed with qualified and trained
personnel equipped to deal with fire and EMS needs of the community.
Applicant Response: Section 7.11.2 of the Narrative Report discusses the provision of staffing
as follows:
“During the construction phase of the fire station, a hiring process will commence to provide the
necessary personnel to staff the station 24 hours a day/7 days a week.”
This Section of the Narrative further states:
“The Applicant intends to re-engage and contract with one of the local fire Districts (the
“District”) for the provision of fire, EMS, rescue, haz-mat and wildland fire protection services to
the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. Such a contract would be between the LCMD and one of the local
fire Districts. In November of 2023, the Applicant met with representatives from both the
Glenwood Springs Fire Department and the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District to discuss
the potential for re-engaging one or both Districts on a contractual basis. Both Districts indicated
that such an agreement would be possible, subject to the approval of their respective Boards.”
Following the above description, the Narrative report goes on to describe the general premises
of such an agreement, including the provision of service, facilities and equipment, phasing of
improvements and service, and the potential for District inclusion.
Agreements formed with Garfield County Communications and surrounding fire departments to
operate within the system that is already in place. Several automatic aid agreements and mutual
aid agreements are being used to alleviate higher call volumes and share resources for incidents
located further away from central areas of current fire districts.
Applicant Response: The Applicant agrees that utilizing the existing communications
infrastructure will allow for the most effective and efficient emergency communications.
Homes to be built to the 2021 International Wild land Urban Interface Code standards and have
approved NFPA 13D systems installed.
Applicant Response: The project requires sprinkler systems, including residential NFPA 13D, for
all habitable Buildings over 500 SF per Section 7.8 of the PUD Guide (Appendix K). All Buildings
within the development will be required to utilize Class 2 Ignition Resistant Construction per
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 13 of 20
Section 505 of the 2021 International Wildland -Urban Interface Code (IWUIC 2021), including
the more restrictive Class-A roof coverings, per the Wildfire Mitigation Report in Appendix Q.
3. Access:
We are satisfied that roads within the subdivision will be built to good standard to allow fire
department access with turnaround areas, be maintained and kept free of snow during winter,
and have adequately spaced fire hydrants.
Applicant Response: Table 7.2 of the PUD Guide in Appendix K specifies the road and driveway
standards, which are generally consistent with County standards. Section 7.3 of the PUD Guide
specifies Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) standards for EVAs longer than 500’. Any fire
department access within the project will be further regulated by Appendix D of the
International Fire Code (IFC), unless varied by the fire District.
There is concern about the quality of Red Canyon Road and the ability to handle extra traffic. We
feel that the subdivision should have both Red Canyon and Spring Valley roads bought up to
Garfield County Road standards for a two-lane street. Traffic accidents along 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.
Applicant Response: The application does not propose or support the use of CR 115 for project-
generated traffic. However, we recognize the importance that route has for current local
residents and emergency responders. The Applicant supports the continued use of CR 115 for
local residents and emergencies, and has approached Garfield County Staff with several options
for improving safety on CR 115, including:
• Installing guardrails along exposed road sections;
• Improving the road surface with chip and seal;
• Installing signal lights at the narrow section of the road, to allow traffic to pass
in one direction at a time.
As of the date of this writing, the Applicant has not received any feedback from Garfield County
on these potential safety improvements.
The Applicant has proposed to upgrade the entirety of CR 114 to County Standards, as
evidenced by the Phasing Plan, which is Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement in Appendix G.
A concern about traffic build-up at Red Canyon Rd/Hwy 82 and Spring Valley Road/Hwy 82. Turn
lanes and timed traffic control devices to be built to CDOT standards for expected vehicle
volume.
Applicant Response: CDOT has determined that the Applicant shall construct a northbound
right turn deceleration lane at the intersection of SH 82/ CR 115, which the Applicant agrees to
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 14 of 20
construct. The details of this improvement will be further defined by CDOT at the time of Access
Permitting. CDOT has also outlined the improvements that will be necessary at the intersection
of SH 82/ CR 114. The Applicant has anticipated providing the SH 82/ CR 114 improvements as
demonstrated on the Proposed Intersection Exhibit, which is Sheet 8 of Appendix L. These
improvements are planned to be constructed at the time of the first Final Plat as shown in the
Phasing Plan, which is Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement in Appendix G.
County Consulting Traffic Engineer (SGM)
Applicant Response: No comments were received during the referral period. The Applicant
responded to prior Completeness Review comments in their letter dated 12/22/23.
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) (letter dated 3/25/24)
1. RFTA recommends that the Transportation Impact 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. It is also recommended that the analysis look at future and not just existing
conditions.
Applicant Response: The project is located 4.5 miles away from the nearest RFTA bus station,
therefore is not directly served by RFTA transit or park and rides. Any physical impacts to RFTA
facilities resulting from improvements to intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 will be addressed at
the time of the first Final Plat, as specified in the Phasing Plan which is Exhibit 2 of the
Development Agreement in Appendix G. The specified language in the Phasing Plan states as
follows:
“Transit, park and ride, and/or Rio Grande Trail improvements at the intersection of SH 82 and
CR 114 shall be determined in collaboration between RFTA and the Developer and agreed upon
in writing prior to approval of Preliminary Plan.”
2. Conflicting Development Agreement and Phasing Plan Language - 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
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 15 of 20
appears to allow the development to potentially start at a different phase, which would not
include Hwy 82 / CR 114 improvements.
Applicant Response: This item has been corrected, and the revisions are included in Section 2.b
and Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement in Appendix G. The improvements to the
intersection of SH 82/ CR 114 will occur at the time of the first Final Plat
3. Transit, Rio Grande Corridor, and Park and Ride Improvements - 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 Improvement Phasing in the New Phasing Plan.
Applicant Response: The Phasing Plan has been updated so that intersection improvements at
SH 82/ CR 114 occur at the time of the first Final Plat, and are to include any transit, Rio Grande
Trail, or park & ride improvements. This revision is included in Exhibit 2 of the Development
Agreement in Appendix G.
4. In addition, it is recommended that the language be amended in the single asterisk section (*) of
the New Phasing Plan – Off-Site Improvement Phasing: “* Highway Improvements shall be based
upon requirements of CDOT Access Permit. Transit, Park and Ride, and/or Rio Grande Corridor
Improvements shall be determined in collaboration with RFTA and agreed upon in writing prior
to approval of the Preliminary Plan.”
Applicant Response: The Phasing Plan has been updated accordingly, as shown on Exhibit 2 of
the Development Agreement in Appendix G.
City of Glenwood Springs (COGS) (letter dated 2/26/24)
1. Our traffic engineer reviewed the traffic report and is in general agreement with the findings of
the analysis. The intersection at CR 114 and SH 82 is currently operating poorly, and this
developer would be responsible for the highway improvements by way of the CDOT access
permit requirements.
Applicant Response: CDOT has outlined the improvements that will be necessary at the
intersection of SH 82/ CR 114. The Applicant has anticipated providing the SH 82/ CR 114
improvements as demonstrated on the Proposed Intersection Exhibit, which is Sheet 8 of
Appendix L. These improvements are planned to be constructed at the time of the first Final Plat
as shown in the Phasing Plan, which is Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement in Appendix G.
2. An independent review of the traffic analysis was done by Dan Cokley at SGM, and he brought
up the problematic and unsafe Red Canyon (CR 115) route to the valley floor. McDowell
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 16 of 20
Engineering originally sent 5% of project traffic up and down CR 115 but adjusted this so that all
project traffic used Spring Valley 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 all project traffic uses CR 114 to access the site.
Applicant Response: The application does not propose or support the use of CR 115 for project-
generated traffic. However, we recognize the importance that route has for current local
residents and emergency responders. The Applicant supports the continued use of CR 115 for
local residents and emergencies, and has approached Garfield County Staff with several options
for improving safety on CR 115, including:
• Installing guardrails along exposed road sections;
• Improving the road surface with chip and seal;
• Installing signal lights at the narrow section of the road, to allow traffic to pass
in one direction at a time.
As of the date of this writing, the Applicant has not received any feedback from Garfield County
on these potential safety improvements.
CDOT has determined that the Applicant shall construct a northbound right turn deceleration
lane at the intersection of SH 82/ CR 115, which the Applicant agrees to construct.
3. 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.
Applicant Response: The Applicant agrees that the proposed clustering concept is supported by
the COGS municipal code, offering expanded Open Space, preservation of existing vegetation,
and protection of sensitive environmental areas.
4. The City supports the Housing Mitigation Plan with units being constructed onsite by the
developer.
Applicant Response: The proposed Community Housing is an important aspect of this project,
which includes the provision of 75 price-capped on-site housing units that will be available to
eligible Garfield County households.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 17 of 20
Eagle County (letter dated 2/20/24)
1. After reviewing the Application, the data included draws parallels to many goals and policies of
the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (ECCP).
Applicant Response: The Applicant agrees with this statement.
2. The overall amount of research and information for the Application was extensive and thorough.
It 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.
Applicant Response: The Applicant agrees with these statements regarding these purposeful
amendments to the PUD.
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) (letter dated 1/19/24)
Applicant Response: CDPHE did not provide any project-specific comments on the application
and submitted only standardized comments citing their current regulations and resources. Since
the project’s water system will be regulated by CDPHE as a Community Water System, the
Applicant intends to apply for CDPHE design review and permitting concurrently with
Preliminary Plan. Documentation of CDPHE permitting for the Community Water System will be
provided at the time of the first Final Plat.
Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) (letter dated 4/4/24)
Applicant Response: AVLT holds a conservation easement on the Rivendell Farms property
adjacent to a portion of the southern boundary of Spring Valley Ranch. The majority of lands
adjacent to AVLT’s easement are proposed to remain as Open Space and Wildlife Habitat
Reserves. AVLT provided comments regarding the overall project and its potential impacts to
wildlife habitat, but they failed to offer any suggestions or recommendations to improve upon
the PUD plan.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) (letter dated 5/9/24)
1. Permit requirements for County Road 114:
Permit 1: CR 114
Location: 082A MP 6.649L
Land Use: County road (CR 114, aka Spring Valley Rd)
DHV: 1361 vph
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 18 of 20
Access Configuration: Full movement
The applicant shall construct the following improvements per the standards of the State
Highway Access Code:
- Construct dual southbound left turn deceleration lanes. This shall also involve the construction
of two receiving lanes for eastbound CR 114.
- Upgrade the existing signal to allow for the dual left turn lanes.
- Extend the existing northbound right turn deceleration lane.
- Extend the existing westbound-to-northbound right turn acceleration lane.
Applicant Response: The Applicant has anticipated providing all these improvements as
demonstrated on the Proposed Intersection Exhibit, which is Sheet 8 of Appendix L. These
improvements are planned to be constructed at the time of the first Final Plat as shown in the
Phasing Plan, which is Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement in Appendix G.
2. Permit requirements for County Road 115:
Permit 2: CR 115
Location: 082A MP 3.688L
Land Use: County road (CR 115, aka Red Canyon Rd)
DHV: 155 vph
Access Configuration: Full movement
The applicant shall construct the following improvements per the standards of the State
Highway Access Code:
- Construct a northbound right turn deceleration lane.
Applicant Response: The Applicant agrees to construct a northbound right turn deceleration
lane at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 115. The details of this improvement will be further
defined at the time of Access Permitting with CDOT.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 19 of 20
All original application materials have been updated as necessary in response to the referral comments.
The following is a summary tabulation of revisions to the application package.
Appendix Document Title Revision Summary
NARRATIVE REPORT
Comprehensive update. Added detail on Real
Estate Transfer Fee, Community Foundation, and
Fiscal & Economic Impacts.
A Application Forms & Consent Letters No change.
B Title Commitment No change.
C Adjacent Property Owners & Mineral
Owners No change.
D Vicinity Map No change.
E Conceptual Plan Reduced trails & increased Wildlife Habitat
Reserves per CPW.
F Impact Analysis Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan per CPW, and
Geologic Mapping per CGS.
G Development Agreement Revised Phasing Plan per RFTA and CDOT.
H Transportation Impact Study Added response letter re. CR 110.
I Existing Drainage & Flood Hazard Report No change.
J PUD Plan Map Increased Wildlife Habitat Reserves and reduced
public Open Space per CPW.
K PUD Guide (including Community Housing
Plan)
Increased Wildlife Habitat Reserves and reduced
public Open Space & trails per CPW.
L Schematic Engineering Plans No change.
M District & Utility Service Letters No change.
N Geologic Evaluation Added response letter per CGS comments.
O Legal Water Supply Report No change.
P Water Supply and Distribution Plan No change.
Q Wildfire Mitigation Report No change.
R Fiscal & Economic Impact Report NEW.
S Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions No change.
T Aquifer Sustainability Study NEW (requested by public).
U Public Outreach Summary NEW.
345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155
Page 20 of 20
We appreciate the opportunity to respond and provide this information to the County, and we look
forward to advancing the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment to Planning Commission review. Thank
you for your valued time and commitment to this application review process.
Sincerely,
LANDWEST
Jon Fredericks
Principal
cc: Jeff Butterworth, Storied Development
Mark Enderle, Storied Development
Lisa Reynolds, Storied Development
Mark Yarborough, Storied Development
Martin Van Ardenne, Spring Valley Holdings
Bart Johnson, Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLP
Jody Edwards, Klein Coté Edwards Citron LLC
Michaela Craig, LANDWEST