The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.0 Call Up-RequestMay 15, 2014 Garfield County Commissioners The Honorable John Martin, Mike Samson, and Tom Jankovsky Dear Commissioners, This letter is to present our request for call up for your review of our application for land use for Skylark School at Mountain View Church, 2195 CR 154, County application GAPA7770. In August of 2013 we met with County staff to enter into the process of a use review. At the time we understood is was an Administrative Review as a school is an “approved” use upon review for CL zoning. Our application was denied primarily due to the intersection of CR 154 and Highway 82. The rationale is that development will need to incur the cost of improving what is an already out of compliance intersection. We submit that this is an unfair and inappropriate denial that unjustly hinders any property owners along CR 154 for the following reasons. 1) This intersection has been insufficient for 20+ years. The County and CDOT both have had ample opportunity to conduct improvements. The general atmosphere of waiting for development to do it is not sufficient. During the Buffalo Valley review, Commissioner Jankovsky noted that even that development could not carry the cost of such improvements. If Buffalo Valley cannot do it, how could a church or a mobile home park? 2) Comments on our application from CDOT were not specific to our application but were for Buffalo Valley. Is that standard procedure to utilize comments from an adjacent and distinct application to deny a different application with its own traffic study? I was asked to commit to an access permit with CDOT without knowing what the requirements of CDOT would be specific to our application (email of May 30th). CDOT does have leeway to vary some requirements. Then we are denied because we did not readily agree to the access permit, noted as “inability to acquire a SHAP”, discussion item 4. Perhaps we could do an access permit and thereby alleviate discussion item 4, be we need to know the terms and requirements. We had to submit our commitments by May 8th, and did so. CDOT had not given final Skylark specific comments as of today, May 15th, after the Director’s Decision date. I have attached the initial correspondence which triggered our supplying a more detailed traffic study to CDOT, which was provided. In that email Mr. Roussin notes the several accesses to CR 154, which we are trying to help alleviate by deleting one, but does not mention the intersection improvements. An initial report was submitted, then a revised report, but no final response from CDOT with respect to our studies. I cannot explain why the final comments were not provided in time, but it would seem the window for CDOT comment is now closed. Even so, we still agree to closing the drive, providing a pedestrian crossing and potential ROW, improvements to the safety and welfare of area residents. 3) Intersection improvements have also been delayed due to South Bridge planning and re‐ planning. Such improvements are not in our control. How long must we wait to use what is otherwise an essentially unused property Monday through Friday? 4) If we did improvements, how long would they be valid if South Bridge does go in? It would seem extensive improvements to this intersection may be unwarranted if the major transportation corridor goes in? 5) Recent traffic counts show a decrease in CR 154 usage, yet we do not receive the benefit of such a decrease but simply now have a greater “percentage” impact. 6) It would appear that improvements for this intersection have already been well planned, as noted in the SGM letter. What else do we need to “plan” for other than preparing to give up ROW? 7) In our application we do have conflicting requirements from County reviewers. It is noted in item 4 of Staff discussion that “conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists at the intersection” could be a problem. Yet we are requested to add a trail connection to the intersection. Our recommendation is a straight across pedestrian connection that is 100 feet from the intersection which would alleviate some pedestrian and bike conflicts at that point. This is an aid to the health and safety of Garfield County citizens. 8) Our driveway closure, which would then be utilized for pedestrian access, increases vehicle stacking by 400 feet. This is an aid to the safety of Garfield County residents. This also centralizes vehicular entry/exit into our site well away from the CR 154/H82 intersection, increasing safety and order to area residents. 9) While church use is on Sunday, the building is well suited for a school. It would be an “infill” project, not requiring expansion to another property. With the many pressures to avoid sprawl, we see this as a benefit to the citizens of the County. 10) Parking lot circulation, item 3 of the discussion items, arises because of the request to close our driveway. This additional detail request was not provided during the review process but only brought to our attention in the denial letter. We have provided a site plan, with striping shown. 11) Additional impacts from item 2 of discussion, was intended to relate to notable site changes. Traffic is addressed and acknowledged. Water and sewer is addressed via additional impact fees to Glenwood Springs, which we agree to pay. Noise and nuisance impacts are certainly possible. I would submit children playing is not very disruptive in the middle of the day but hopefully the Highway 82 noise will drown out their commotion and laughter. With this, we do submit our impacts are negligible, being paid for, or otherwise not a worsening of current noise and nuisance. 12) We understood that there was a year to show compliance with conditions, but are also being told all improvements must be complete before we start. We submit we can do the crosswalk before we start in August. 13) We do take some offense to the statement in the Director’s Decision letter that the school in the CL zone district “is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.” We had no idea a school could have such a negative impact. There were two opposition comments from neighbors (one of whom does not live at the property) and dozens of supporting comments from residents of Garfield County. If a school has such a negative impact, why is it a potential approved use for our zoning? In closing, it is growing exceedingly frustrating the level of conformance existing residents must do just to live in this County. It seems the goal of any application is to “seek perfection”. I can attest as an engineer interviewed when the code was revised several years ago, one of the recurring themes from many consultants was to be more accommodating to existing residents who are not full of developer finances. Nothing has changed. When the intersection situation is not of our own doing, and the resolution is out of our hands financially, where are we to go? At what point does this road become public responsibility? If safety is the concern, then fix it. If the various governmental agencies are the only parties who have the wherewithal to remedy the situation, and they haven’t remedied the situation, then are not these entities putting the safety of Garfield County residents at risk? In short, if it is on area property owners, even the “non‐developers” to improve this intersection, it will never happen. The resultant is our property is essentially condemned Monday through Friday. With this we urgently request your review at the earliest possible public hearing date available. We also welcome a site visit, understanding that may too need to be a public meeting with all commissioners and a recorder available, at our expense. Respectfully, Rick L. Barth, Chairman Skylark School on behalf of Mountain View Church 2195 CR 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Cc: Jeff Cheney, Kerst & Strautman