Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.18.2014Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing Exhibits Land Use Change Permit for Multi Family Dwelling Units Limited Impact Review Applicant is Partners III LLC — Norm Bacheldor Representative February 18, 2014 Continued to April 14, 2014 (File LIPA-7631) New Exhibits 35 — 37 Shown in Bold Exhibit (Numerical) Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Form and Proof of Publication 2 Return Receipts from Mailing Notice 3 Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting 4 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 5 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 6 Application 7 Staff Report 8 Staff Presentation 9 Referral Comments from City of Glenwood Springs 10 Referral Comments from Garfield County Consulting Engineer 11 Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge Department 12 Referral Comments from Glenwood Springs Fire Department 13 Referral Comments from Colorado Department of Transportation 14 Referral Comments from RFTA 15 Referral Comments from Source Gas 16 Referral Comments from Xcel Energy 17 Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife 18 Z -Group Architects Building Height Study 19 Excerpts from Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 20 Supplemental Staff Report dated April 14, 2014 21 Supplemental Application Submittals — Site Plan 22 Supplemental Application Submittals — Parking Waiver 23 Public Comments from John Tauffer 24 Public Comments from Karen Welden 25 Supplement Comments from Century Link 26 Supplement Road and Bridge Referral Comments (dated 3/11/14) 27 Applicant Response to Road and Bridge Referral Comments (3/24/114) 28 County Road 154 Traffic Counts (beginning on February 24th) 29 County Road 154 Traffic Counts (beginning on March 26th) 30 Supplemental Comments from the County Consulting Engineer 31 Supplemental Comments from the City of Glenwood Springs 32 Parking Information/Response from the City of Glenwood Springs 33 Excerpts from the South Bridge Studies including Safety Assessment and Alignment Options/Mapping 34 Supplemental Public Comment from John Tauffer 35 Supplemental Referral Comments from CDOT 36 Applicant Email Response to CDOT Referral Comments 37 Public Comments from Katherine Piffer 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 a EXHIBIT 7 BOCC 2/18/14 File No. LIPA-7631 GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Limited Impact Review for Multi Family Dwelling Units APPLICANT — PROPERTY OWNER Partners III LLC REPRENTATIVE Norm Bacheldor ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 2185-271-00-029 PROPERTY SIZE The site is 2.2 acres in size. LOCATION The site is located at 3637 Highway 82, approximately 1 mile south of the City of Glenwood Springs on the west side of Highway 82. ACCESS The facility is accessed off of County Road 154 by an existing private driveway. EXISTING ZONING The property is zoned Commercial Limited I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes construction of a multi -family dwelling development on the 2.2 acre property. 56 units are described in the narrative and 57 units are indicated on the building floor area and parking calculations. This report will assume 57 units are proposed. The dwelling units are proposed in two buildings with 3 full stories and a walk out lower level. The site is zoned Commercial Limited with Zone District Dimensional limitations found in Table 3-201 of the Land Use and Development Code. Building height calculations have been reviewed with the Building Department and based on the current plans are code compliant at 40 ft. The Applicant has also provided a detailed floor area calculation which also indicates the buildings are just within the floor area ratio limit of 0.5 to 1.0. Lot coverage will also be restricted to the code requirement of a maximum of 75% for building/structure footprints (current plan is at 18.5%). The site plan provided by the applicant demonstrates compliance with building setbacks which include a 20 ft. side yard setback based on building height. 1 With a density of 25 units/acre the project reflects a high density of residential units. The proposal includes a mix of 2 bedroom and 1 bedroom units. Overall 43 two bedroom units and 14 one bedroom units are proposed. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the off-street parking standards in Section 7-302.A. to allow a reduction in off-street parking from the code requirement of 142.5 spaces to 100 spaces. The Application includes detailed planning for storm water management and a drainage plan including a variety of improvements including a detention area. Landscaping plans, information on lighting, trash storage areas, fire hydrants, and access road design/grades are all provided in the Application submittals. The site plan includes a turning radius/access model for fire truck access to the property. A traffic report has been completed for the project addressing a number of key access issues. The Application also represents that the project may be phased and has requested vesting for 5 years to accommodate construction time tables. Glenwood VICINITY MAP SITE LOCATION 2 BACKGROUND The site is currently improved with a restaurant building (approximately 9,700 sq.ft.) and a variety of motel type units (14 units). The uses reflect the historic commercial activity on the site, permitted uses within the Commercial Limited Zone District and past coordination with the City of Glenwood Springs to extend water and sewer mains along County Road 154 to serve the property. Agreements with the city regarding the water and sewer service were executed in 1993 & 1994 and the line improvements made thereafter. The property is currently served by a lift station and pressure main for sanitation. The current proposal represents a significant change in use and will result in the removal of all existing structures prior to initiating the new development proposal. Zoning Map, Garfield County, CO DOMINI A to Resolution 80CC 1000 Legcnd Putty Lam!" Reams,* Lando 16.4 Itralderialik18b lbmol 4wM �akebd Itradrdr+hb.n - Commurddt:arwul ItraYMr»jd'Slbubtn OXfe111Yu./llOtilM1l - Puha: MANI MIIlona&I►rnr;mail 1~ f Can 7 'i7 ' - - Rena& VW Ocrokyrnont Ilu/a d Wby CanmadaNks+imn nOr /aM nal Mg Ahead LNE c» GHOUNOWA1 EH d HOIuW 1LI) (Hb MINA SW) lord n/ refer. aev4& two IMI nay Applicant's Site 26 3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Zoning on the site and adjacent to the property is Commercial Limited with a variety of other zoning including Commercial General and Residential in the near vicinity. The Applicant has also provided mapping and descriptions of surrounding land uses which are summarized below: North: Church and single family residential uses South and West: Mobile Home Park Further South: Holy Cross Electric Offices and Service Yards Further West: Roaring Fork River and City limits for Glenwood Springs East: Hwy 82, Rio Grande Trail right-of-way East Across Hwy 82: Commercial Service Uses, offices, and some residential uses (northeasterly) 4 FLOOR PLAN amp Ns 2 -TYPICAL UPPER LEVE.. PLAN j 1 1 1 1 1 a 0' r r 47 r WILDING 2 -LONER LEVEL PLAN H—r 1 s o 30 w .a a COLONS --YPICAL UPPER LEVr. L Pi -AN 0 r r .o .0 /77 BUILOIN6 I -LONER L_V!L PLAN 0 0 70 00 .O 70 LIVABLE SGUARE FOOTAGE UTILITY EGUARE FGOTAE n—I HALL, BALCONY AIS STORAGE Sq )ARE =COTA6E 5EE C-1ART FOR 5OUARE FOOTAGE CALOLLATIONI5 II. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is fully developed with structures, parking, access driveways, and infrastructure. It slopes moderately down to the west from County Road 154 toward the Roaring Fork River. It does not have frontage on the river and is separated from the river front properties by a stand of native vegetation (shrubs and trees) at the rear of the former restaurant and motel building. Slopes in the area of native vegetation are steep. The site has paved parking areas and driveways and some disturbed compacted dirt areas. An irrigation ditch and drainage swale run along the northerly property line adjacent to the neighboring church property. Fences are located along the southerly property boundary adjacent to the neighboring mobile home park. The existing driveway has moderate grades approaching the access point onto the County Road. Intersections and driveways are found both east and west of the access 5 point. The Church access is approximately 72 ft. (centerline to centerline) west and the Mobile Home Park and Holy Cross Access is approximately 82 ft. to the east (centerline to centerline) toward Hwy. 82. The RFTA Rio Grande Trail crossing is located immediately adjacent to the Hwy 82 right-of-way between the Mobile Home Park/Holy Cross driveway and the highway. A7 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH � WeanQvd Sprang•� ... 4 `', .� . 9 ♦�i1 4, III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the Board's public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code as amended. The Applicant is required to provide proof of notice (publication, mailing, and posting) prior to the public hearing. No public comments have been received at this time. Comments from referral agencies and County Departments are summarized below and attached as Exhibits. 6 1. City of Glenwood Springs: Several Departments from the City provided input including: • Temporary status of the Hwy 82 signal and potential for changes based on the City's future projects. • Need to update pre -annexation, water and sewer service agreements. • Payment of tap fees. • Utility issues including metering and water/waste water projections. • Operational/maintenance considerations. backflow prevention. • New hydrants ownership by the City and provision of easements. 2. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Michael Erion, Resource Engineering: • Reviewed a number of key topics and how they are addressed by the Applicant including access, geo-tech issues, drainage, water quality, natural hazards, and utility infrastructure. • Noted that the development of the site will need site specific geotechnical evaluation prior to construction for final design of foundations, roads, and retaining walls. • Reviewed the traffic study noting that the study identifies existing needs for the County Road 154 and Highway 82 intersection. 3. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: • County Driveway permit is required. • Noted safety issues with the number of driveways, RFTA Trail crossing, and pedestrian activity in the vicinity. • Need for speed limit reduction on this portion of the County Road (25 mph recommended). • Need for no parking signage/restrictions on this portion of the County Road. • Low number of parking spaces and potential for overflow parking impacts on the County Road and neighboring properties. 4. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: • Need for 1 — 2 additional hydrants. • Fire Suppression Sprinkling and the need to test water pressure to ensure it is adequate to operate the systems. • Fire Alarm requirements • Knox Box requirement. • Additional review of building construction plans will occur with building permit. 5. CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) • If access permits are required it would involve Garfield County as County Road 154 is the access onto Hwy 82 • Based on less than a 20% increase in traffic an access permit is not required unless there are identified safety problems. • The need for a safety analysis and potential modification to the alignment (see sketch included with referral comments) • Technical corrections to some of the figures/tables. • Indicated that "The Conclusion and Recommendations section needs to include recommendations regarding the auxiliary lanes on SH82. If a CDOT access permit is not required auxiliary lane modification may be recommended as safety improvements." 6. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) • Noted the rail banked status of the corridor. • Discussed various considerations regarding transit service in the vicinity of the site including RFTA's Service Provisioning Policy. • Noted that RFTA had a bus stop at the County Road 154 intersection with Hwy 82 some years ago and it was removed for safety reasons. 7. Utilities: Source Gas and Xcel Energy provided comments consistent with their will serve letters contained in the Application submittal noting their ability to serve the project and construction related timing for private service extensions. 8. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) • Need for fully enclosed bear resistant trash structure and signage. • Recommendation for a different tree type than crabapples which are an attractant for bears. 9. RE -1 School District: Received the referrals but did not submit comments. IV. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article VII, Divisions 1, 2, and 3. The Application materials include technical information, consultant reports, a Traffic Analysis, and detailed site plans. 7-101 — 103: Zone District Regulations, Comprehensive Plan & Compatibility 1. The proposed use demonstrates compliance with the Zone District Dimensional requirements (Table 3-201) contained in the Land Use and Development Code for the Commercial Limited Zone District. Compliance includes applicable setbacks, building height, floor area ratio and lot coverage. At the time of building permit review the final construction plans will be reviewed and compliance with be confirmed based on the construction drawings. 2. The Applicant's property has historically maintained a free standing bill board type sign advertising the restaurant use on the property. The sign will need to be 8 removed as part of the proposed land use change. The sign also appears to encroach on a portion of the County Road right-of-way. A conforming sign identifying the proposed residential project can be permitted in accordance with the Land Use and Development Code. 3. The Comprehensive Plan 2030 designates the site as an Urban Growth Area for the City of Glenwood Springs along with designation as a Rural Employment Center. Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and applicable goals and policies are provided below. Chapter 2 Future Land Use Rural Employment Center: Small areas adjacent to major roadways that allow light industrial, manufacturing, equipment storage, and incidental retail sales. This designation also includes residential uses for employees of the business on the property, such as live/work housing. Chapter 3 — Section 1: Urban growth and Intergovernmental Coordination Goal #2: Ensure that county land use policies and development approvals are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality Policy #1: Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. Chapter 3 — Section 2: Housing Strategy #2: Encourage development within Urban Growth Areas that can best provide affordable living. 4. The City of Glenwood Springs Future Land Use Mapping shows the site as primarily mixed use with a low density residential and hillside preservation designation at the rear of the site. Additional excerpts from the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan are attached as exhibits and provide additional information on the mixed use designation, annexation policies, and regional topics. An excerpt from the City's Comprehensive Plan map is attached below. 5. The Zoning, surrounding land uses and Comprehensive Plan Designations from both the County and the City of Glenwood Springs are considerations relevant to the general compatibility of the proposed use. Referral comments from the City were received and are addressed in Section III of the Staff Report. 0 COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE MAP Glenwood Springs Area Plan Applicant's Site Grey = Urban Growth Area Orange = Commercial Pink Asterisk = Rural Employment Ctr. Blue Band = Greenway Trail Yellow Border = City Limits 7-104 & 105: Source of Water & Waste Water Systems 1. The site is currently served with central water and sanitation service from the City of Glenwood Springs. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Permit the Applicant will to demonstrate compliance with and/or commitments to comply with all city utility requirements including but not limited to metering, backflow prevention and maintenance of lift stations/pressure mains. 2. The Applicant will need to pay all required tap fees. 3. The Applicant will need to provide water and waste water projections for the project as requested by the City. 7-106: Public Utilities The Applicant has provided will serve letters for all utilities that will be needed to serve the proposed development. Changes to or new construction of private service lines serving the development will be part of the building permit process. 10 EXCERPT FROM CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Highway City Streets County Roads Rivers Parcels Conservation Parks Open Space Low Density Residential Single-family Residential MuItI.ternlly Residannel Mixed-use Downtown Commercial Industrial Glenwood'Spnnps ComprohonsIvo Pion �wm c `ef Futur. and Ulm Map South - 19� 1 0.5 Mile* Orient a.. Applicant's Site The land within the UGB from this point south is based on parcel Tinea and not water service area. Low density residential uses are designated In this area until annexation to the City is complete and Planned Unit Development or other development review Is approved. 4,, / 7-107: Access & Roadways 1. A new access permit for County Road 154 will be required by the Road and Bridge Department. Access grade, surfacing, drainage and alignment of the driveway are typical conditions the County's permitting process deals with. Compliance with the Road and Bridge requirement for a maximum grade of 3% for the first 30 ft. will need to be confirmed. 2. Road and Bridge referral comments also recommend speed limit reductions on the adjacent section of County Road 154 along with no parking designations to avoid overflow parking issues. 3. Driveway separation is a concern based on the proximity to driveways both east and west of the developments current driveway location. 4. The Applicant's Traffic Report recommends installation of a stop sign at the access driveway. The Traffic Report utilized the best available traffic counts from 2002. Updating the traffic counts for County Road 154 is recommended as necessary to validate the findings of the Traffic Report. 11 5. Pedestrian access improvements are supported within the adjacent County Road right-of-way to address safety including a school bus stop currently located adjacent to the site 7-108: Natural Hazards The Application included reports on potential natural hazards. Mapping of geologic hazards are also available for this portion of the County. The reports and mapping do not indicate hazard concerns for the re -development of the property. 7-109: Fire Protection 1. The buildings will be fully protected with Fire Suppression Sprinklers. Testing to confirm adequate water pressure will be required. 2. Installation of additional hydrants in accordance with the Fire District's referral comments and Fire Code Standards will be required. 3. The Application includes modeling for fire truck access within the development. Verbal follow-up with the Fire Department indicates that they would access the site with a ladder truck based on the number of stories and building height. The access modeling needs to be updated to confirm acceptable access/turning radius for the larger aerial/ladder truck. 7-201: Agricultural Lands & 7-202: Wildlife Habitat Areas Based on the developed condition of the site no impacts on agricultural lands or wildlife habitat were noted in the Application or anticipated by Staffs review. Use of bear proof trash enclosures and alternate landscaping/trees as recommended by the CPW shall be required. 7-203: Protection of Water Bodies The Applicant has provided a detailed storm water management plan designed to protect off-site water quality including the nearby Roaring Fork River. The plans also include best management practices during construction. Based on the amount of site disturbance compliance with State permitting will be required. 7-204: Drainage and Erosion The Applicant has also provided detailed drainage studies including infrastructure (detention basin) to address drainage and avoid impacts on adjoining properties. Installation and maintenance of all drainage improvements pursuant to the plan shall be required. 12 7-205: Environmental Quality Water quality protection was addressed through the Storm Water Management Plan. The Applicant has also proposed to preserve the area of natural vegetation at the rear of the site. No additional environmental quality issues were noted. 7-206: Wildfire Hazards Wildfire hazard mapping has also been reviewed with the site located primarily in a low hazard rating area. A small area of moderate hazard noted on the mapping may be associated with areas of mature or native vegetation. The construction plans for the building adjacent to the native vegetation at the rear of the property include a 15 ft. — 20 ft. setback from the top of slope and the native vegetation. Compliance with this separation shall be required. 7-207: Natural and Geologic Hazards The geotechnical studies and mapping for the site do not identify any significant geologic hazards for the site. The reports address recommendations for site specific soils analysis and review of slope stability issues. Compliance with the geotechnical report's recommendations including engineered foundations shall be required. 7-208: Reclamation 1. Demolition permits for the existing buildings are required by code. 2. Disturbed portions of the site will be re -vegetated in accordance with the landscaping plan. 7-301: Compatible Design The Application is not clear as to whether fencing adjacent to the mobile home park will be maintained for privacy and mitigation of impacts. The Application submittals also include design sketches of the anticipated appearance of the buildings. 7-302: Off -Street Parking and Loading 1. The Applicant's site plan includes parking space sizes, parking aisles, and driveway circulation that meets the dimensional requirements of the Land Use and Development Code. 2. The Applicant's proposal for a waiver from the off-street parking requirements to reduce the number of parking spaces included justification that referenced other jurisdictions requirements and property management plans for proactive parking enforcement. 3. County Staff consulted with the City of Glenwood Springs and found that the City's off-street parking requirements for this project would be similar to the total spaces required by the County. 13 4. Concerns with the waiver request include the lack of overflow parking, potential impacts on the County Road (see Road and Bridge referral comments) and potential impacts on neighboring properties. In addition comprehensive plan policies support consistency with the local municipality's zoning when located within an urban growth area. 5. County Code would require 142.5 parking spaces. The Applicant's proposal to provide 100 spaces is reduction of 42.5 spaces or a 30% reduction from the requirement. 6. Multimodal transportation options include the proximity to the Rio Grande bike path but the site does not have transit service. 7-303: Landscaping The Landscaping Plan provided reflects general compliance with code requirements including landscaping within off-street parking lot areas. 7-304: Lighting The Applicant has provided lighting location information for the property. The plans need to be updated to reflect that the Applicant will remove/replace non -conforming lighting with down directed shielded lighting in compliance with Section 7-304. 14 7-305: Snow Storage 1. The Applicant's snow storage area designated on the Site Plan Sheet 4, Storm Water Management Plan, complies with and exceeds the code requirements for size. However the location will require the Applicant to haul snow to the storage area from the majority of the site. 2. The Applicant shall update the site plan to show additional snow storage locations that will be more practically utilized for snow storage. 3. The drainage plans/storm water management plans need to address drainage from snow storage areas. 7-306: Trails Section 7-306 of the Land use and Development Code indicates that "A multi -modal connection, such as a trail or sidewalk shall be provided in a development where links to schools, shopping areas, parks, trails, greenbelts, and other public facilities are feasible. The location of this site in close proximity to the Rio Grande Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail (approximately 150 ft.) supports construction of a short connection sidewalk/trail between the site and this regional trail link. Private maintenance of the short trail segment is appropriate and can be implemented by a license agreement with the County. V. ADDITIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS 1. Internal pedestrian circulation is provided by 6 ft. wide sidewalks adjacent to parking areas. Additional safety considerations support inclusion of a sidewalk link from both buildings to County Road 154 and the potential trail connection noted above. The internal connection should be 6 ft. in width and run along the south side of the access drive adjacent to landscaped areas. It will provide a safe connection for children to the school bus stop on the County Road and ultimately to the regional trail system. 2. Discussion with the Applicant has touched on the opportunity to recycle and harvest portions of the existing restaurant building including building timbers. This environmentally and historically sensitive opportunity is supported. 3. As part of the safety discussions regarding the Hwy 82 intersection the timing of the signal was noted as a concern related to ensuring adequate time for large vehicles, including trucks and snowplows to safely access the highway from the County Road. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS The following findings are suggested as appropriate for conditional approval of the request. 15 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for multi -unit dwellings is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That with the adoptions of conditions and granting of a waiver from Table 7- 302.A Minimum Off -Street Parking Standards by Use, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. VII. CONDITIONS The following draft conditions are provided for consideration by the Board for inclusion in a motion for approval of the Limited Impact Land Use Change Permit Application. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the operation of the multi -family dwelling development shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing this type of facility including storm water management permitting and provision of handicapped accessible dwelling units. The following Conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit 3. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall update the Traffic Study with the following: a. Updated traffic counts for County Road 154 which counts shall support the Traffic Report's conclusions or be utilized to refine the conditions of the County's access permit. b. The Conclusion and Recommendation section shall be updated to address auxiliary lanes on SH 82 consistent with the CDOT referral comments. c. The study shall provide recommendations for updated signal timing to ensure safe operation for larger vehicles including school buses and snow plows. 16 4. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall update the site plan to include additional snow storage areas to serve all portions of the parking area including the lower parking, access driveway and upper parking area. The revised plans shall continue to meet the requirements of Section 7-305 for snow storage areas and the Applicant's drainage plans shall be updated to address drainage from snow storage areas. 5. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall update the site plan to provide for an additional 6 ft. wide sidewalk along the access driveway connecting with the existing sidewalks and the County Road. The Applicant shall also provide a 6 ft. wide paved pedestrian pathway connecting the internal sidewalk to the Rio Grande Trail and school district bus stop. This trail segment shall be privately maintained by the Applicant consistent with the internal sidewalks. The side walk shall be subject to a license agreement to be approved by the County. 6. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall complete additional access and turn radius modelling for the Fire Department's Ladder truck confirming adequate emergency vehicle access or make appropriate adjustments to the site plan. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall update as needed all existing water line and sewer line extension and service agreements with the City of Glenwood Springs as noted in the City's referral comments. 8. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant's draft vested property rights agreement shall be reviewed, edited and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Said agreement shall set forth a five year vesting period for the Development. The following general Conditions shall be satisfied prior to Issuance of a Building Permit as noted or as part of the general site development. 9. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Glenwood Springs water and sewer utility and public works requirements including but not limited to proper metering, back flow prevention, provision of easements for fire hydrant access and allowance for city maintenance of the hydrants, private maintenance of the sewer lift station, and provision of water and waste water projections demonstrating adequate line capacity for the development. 10. The Applicant shall pay all tap fees as required by the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the each of the proposed buildings. 11. The Applicant shall comply with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department referral comments and regulations including installation of 1 - 2 additional fire hydrants, 17 installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems and knox key boxes for building access. 12. At the time of building permit submittal additional fire department review shall be required including compliance with all Fire Code requirements. Compliance with all building code requirements and confirmation of compliance with all dimensional requirements of the Land Use and Development Code including building height, setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio shall be confirmed. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the development, the Applicant shall provide site specific subsurface, soils and geotechnical studies for the site as recommended by their preliminary geotechnical studies. The studies shall address foundation, pavement, roadway. and retaining wall designs and shall address slope stability. Engineered foundations shall be required. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall obtain a driveway access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department and construction of the driveway shall meet the County's standards including maximum grade. The Applicant shall provide updated street signage to implement speed limit reductions to 25 mph and no -parking signs for the County Road in the vicinity of the site. Said signs shall be installed by the County Road and Bridge Department. 15. The Applicant's lighting installations shall comply with Section 7-304 and the Applicant shall remove and replace preexisting nonconforming light fixtures with code compliant fixtures. 16. The Applicant's installation and maintenance of landscaping for the development shall maintain compliance with Section 7-303 of the Land Use and Development Code. 17. The Applicant shall provide raw water irrigation for the site and shall include in property management guidelines provisions to avoid potential subsurface and foundation impacts from improper maintenance including irrigation line breaks. 18. The Applicant shall provide fully enclosed bear proof trash structures at the two proposed locations or one central location. The Applicant shall replace crabapple trees in the landscaping plan with alternative species that do not bear fruit and become an attractant for bears. 19. The Applicant shall maintain the proposed 15 ft. — 20 ft. building setback/separation from the steep slope at the rear of the lot and preserve the native vegetation unless removal is warranted for wildfire protection purposes. 20. As part of the site development and to demonstrate consistency with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant shall remove the non -conforming 18 billboard sign from the County Road 154 frontage. A properly permitted code compliant project identification sign may be approved for the site. 21. The project shall be constructed generally consistent with the architectural illustrations provided with the submittal. The applicant shall also maintain the privacy fencing adjacent to the mobile home park along the southeasterly property line. Off -Street Parking Waiver Request - Options for Consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Option A 22. The Applicant's off-street parking waiver is approved based on compliance with review criteria contained in Section 4-118. Parking management provisions consistent with the Application representations shall be submitted for review by the County as part of the Building Permit review process. Option B 22. The Applicant's off-street parking waiver is approved for the reduction of off-street parking spaces to a level consistent with the City of Glenwood Springs Parking standards as calculated for the site. Use of tandem spaces to meet the off-street parking requirements shall be permitted along with site plan adjustments to add said spaces. Option C 22. The Applicant's off-street parking waiver is not approved based on non- compliance with the approval criteria contained in Section 4-118. The Applicant's site plan and unit count shall be adjusted to demonstrate compliance with Section 7-302 Off -Street Parking requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. VIII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION Pursuant to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code the Board has the option to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Application. The Board may also choose to continue the request to allow the Applicant to address issues noted in the draft conditions and staff report prior to final action by the Board including but not limited to: • CDOT comments regarding safety and auxiliary lane review for the Hwy 82 and County Road 154 intersection. • Updated traffic counts for County Road 154. • The off-street parking waiver request and additional justification. • Various site plan updates. 19 VIEWS OF THE SITE ' ft. .4.10 e OF" Nor - 4 ::(020Filll2Mai - 20 BUI,TaLlt VALL-I •. • '• , • • ••••• 11' _440" 21 „t. • "••,:cin „, 004014. .44 • • ' , ' • ' ' . 4 '''44;;:' .. • t..., , ii 22 GARFIELD COUNTY GIS SLOPE HAZARDS MAPPING Orange = moderate hazard Red = higher hazard JAME r 1 41r i oyawwy£B,tSk7x56 ,, 23 GARFIELD COUNTY GIS SOILS HAZARDS MAPPING Orange = moderate hazard Red = higher hazard 24 GARFIELD COUNTY GIS WILD FIRE HAZARDS MAPPING M1, DI. • SIM 4 J� r :0w 62E a44 :j .g cv Green = lower hazard Yellow = moderate hazard Orange = higher hazard a:e 1.1 •%isE� E:n.:r2ts.e••:+ttE"4uoec.UlCAI.i58.AyE7c•c`3f�: •erg; S,�' RJ..!: o2. fnl rit MS JarOVIrir 7� cII en 't 45d /Do Lae 4 w: 25 BUFFALO VALLEY APARTMENTS v 0 714 0 N CA 4-J 7tz r-4 ° -) U 'r -I N71 b10 CG Q� V : -(:) '-° .5_, :::: '(,-4 �— CD U r, ° a' U t U EXHIBIT `'S'Y 0 0 4— E E c u ct 4-4 _ r a) r4_, cCi 4+ G cn O '� O- O G 4-'c N 21-i 0 " - i� _� 0 fl N . U '4(74., +-� O cn v> cit cn ' a) a) . , O 'er., N fi r-, .-• -5 v - ii '" �," C7 C7.,' -4-+C) (• 1 o -' CI) In o°' r.,>-'�4a) to U a);_., .4 r O,j O• • - N }-' c�a' C)SN • Fd co •v•4 CZ tts • ° r - '3 ° ) -4-)Cf) :4-5( Ch ' v �cf) a) . a) cs N Q cV cn .,' ct . c `n V ,--. cry 3-+ ,- (i) ,-C c� (j)0 __' aJ —, , v cr., .4..,rcz•,, 0 0 0 0 0 1 CU bJ3 .� 5 4 '"Ti ;--I 4n N % i r r 0 NJ CC$ •; (CS � V tiO U ° (U o u O o ", N u � o o cn 1 -4- o' tco O . N] 0 z 0 0 N 0 0 V1 0 co ra)rrr�� u V � O c u U 0 CI) •? o w bjD U � 0 0 0 Further West: co 0 ct H a) 0 c!� •v 0 cn u cn v E E 0 U 00) r- 1 0 u 0 CI) v O E (i) 0 . J yy O 1-1 cc5 O X CZ W v r- 0 O r:r (n ce 0 0.0 4J i-1 • W U ce 4-+ r .-r ai ° fal ..y o J 1V 7 J C "IJ ce -"' biD G Omt ct (J' r '� N (` 0 C' U r r 0.). . U e'''o VI •F N Q1 v r. Qi `` J 'QTS • O • c�C ^ 4t N' ......- i ..- ,J C 11 O C. LL) 0 � l w 0 u \ }y a�-, cu v,. i-, ._, • ,—' QJ c4 U N i,') OvtO ccir o • i-ce: ;-' i-1 O cn 7'3 tc0 C.) S~ :C 4,44 cn ca cnX CU CU ccnn a.) ,-I-, O cn 0 > 0 b10 O (.>..-'..r,,., CU cn bD CU cO J r o, C cu C;0 CV .r. ).-1 ,CI � .N W CZ � CZ .. �0y ez UU4 z c''CJ " O O 0X O c� > QJ w JZ, v C U") U C U t>-, z^� Es~:I. O °E� O'�, >0( z7-, �", �'.,., kr) a Q) 4 a�' U7.....)aJ ct vi C Z O •. (rn �v�vO • �y.co v as es Z.— cri bre . (4424 - " Q~ Z cZ --', CZ >v ;Z:' -0 O . 54.4.,., O r (A U 4-) O "�,, Z4 O QUj c� �', v �• U E-4 to H .- t- `n -, to:!::: �Zr*`' -r� .2 O ct �, .� _>,•±-!, +.�' O En C. r 0.�CZ CZ '���� 4bA 'GcA r 3 �, O g O aJ cf, 'cid bo �� ,.7 Uxr' r_.0 r f -,O y 4J v � O �,X�O Lu R'y . ,' >, ., • O �, N ) $ cC �, •-�o G QO f.-., .-4--' ra; asctu,, .'o0'X , ozv a) j 0 .tom'+ (� CU v • WI 4- x CO ct 54-4 X r r � � • ,, C.7 1) - ( O L) c- � g QJ � + �T OCI) c-4 r v E cts O • V ,-, �o �u. c�na)-o ff •' OuJ (n V E --, CA ' iLII ce. ,., .�. .� 0 W wb!J°ch WO E--4-c:o w Ts ted _s2 w Com m e n ts a; 0 U •�'� Cl.) �� O > U O 8 cj cG • '+..4 �a)vi73 •� o-�' i .4Cd 1 00Z W4>Q9 V:i 0 v u' -+� 0000v> 0 N�c`nn U a, 0 �, a, ``n (� U U E 1:".44 0 � �04 v UCL)v Lu �4e a) a) .-,Ect bv °• OO CC) „Li -- 0+ O oN _-4 C.I)) l_ E_q - J u O .•�y v0 74-4 - ;-4 7:i T-4 o ��� oca••--O cn ✓ �7-4z° � C7o �U00 � v n-4Uu L.7t a, "• o"oCG1o -H -,.,04 u v� ill co k 0 (75v tilCI) cn Clih: Ti (411110 .c4r)o (-4-i 5 Ls c-1-{ 1MM (t O H 0-4 cn 0 0 CD bb U74) O 0 kms► 17, CDOT Region 3: Intersection Study (2011) a Garfield County Transportation Needs Assessment (2011.) o • X Q � (1) �a '2J) �W 474 c\I v �NCC/ o •' t)40 U ;6.44r oa) a- V State Highway Access Control Plan documents (2013) Connectio tir.s 613 O � 't5 cn c� y y . a) 74:1- V .(f) .}CIO V CZ C1) 0 � u cn o ca 0LI) • -; O cz Eu 00 Ovvcl � CO • 00QCY)y, � aa) �' • Li) ,c) , cn y OU '` y y y 75 #1,,)t)JD y cn �,,4 O cn ,- �o En ,�y7::, ;`-q r•r-.i Ct ,, a) a) � cn 0E ��-'oO<0 - O_'�� USO -N �v�� nom¢, `n,.���•�' �.+-'��uy�;� ,Z �'v0^��.;Ou C.) cz E--, Ou ' U .} ; O ■ moo rts O bC c U ' .4� n � p 0 v C.n CIU � ts E', u O pa bG O J N U V � c,v � O cf)O `+_+ -44 r >4' O t C) CO N U Cr) 4.r 4-C-1 p'5p �'(,-5 cuU (u •--r CV n Q"~'.r, •�'.r p X00 )Qo <,-4 r v O r' .S2, X G >, 4-"Z' 0 'G .fl + ACU cn �aJ.� N y0 a' 6 � y cn TS (75 • U' . - (Ci T-4, -4 �-, u '-' tomc� • O >- aba - 4 G z 0 - ~ .., `n c ,L,— a 6 b) CD N C RS 0 C, Ci• V i .e cu > ,r; � �, `) ci, HbtJ�(n Hcy'. cn. 47'4o 5-4 CD 0 O N O E •-4•- CI) "r• i 0_4 ^oma 4-1 U ccs (to O a) btu oN cZ U1N �~ C O pH o '0 Ccji-' -4- -Dvo x., v (n7.1 4-4 N cY sl' LE) MOM .0 CA 0 U) '--4 4-0 :� F i CU J o -J a) cls Tj (r)u cu cu O 4�) r 44 • '� W �ocG.T_fp0.� 4-0 cZvu ( 07-1 -(f c. (1 ,-i• p..t c: 7:5 cif.j CZ CU ',�0cz��v 4-+ 0 v u- v-vV 4-4-L ( o U ct CZ C75 0 �.� cf.c.O ) �-' � U (1) � � 74-••a) v � rr I].L UCV0 c4-0 v O tD 7,-a O ., 0 . EU — cn CCS O (t) O N ti 174:: 0 .r w 0C 4-4 cZ 0 4(5 Ln cJ CZ754 0 o :4•J.J • (C$ Uo v O v -+--, N o ci) 77j O L.) e: v C J *"s 0-1 ,: y C .,._, 'y • -4 0 • C') N • C‘:$ v O 0 cLi • • .� O • cd • 0 cti -- c.) v J 0 0 .4 , H O V U cn cG a5 (J uo CZ .y.J 4 w (15 cj (3O � � -0 C) cn4ci) Oomoo' `,j, U h ›, r (ti czr Exr cn ' �Vv' vr4 00 RI '77'..) � ° ''O � •• .••4 0 O C14'- U CI) iia h c—+ N c to l� bi O p•H cr,CJ CO P— CD 4v 0 .,1 p cn vi O s , • O ct U U .00 r. Q: U U ,�., p btJ EItZ 0C44 -D-0.4 O ., - o00 o U U(c (1.)V TJ'•'n .4..+ ter"" O fi r, ":64-° iCO 05 ce-, "-' + + Cf) CC:5 C)7 O p cu U O CG C-1 4-4 o ' ✓ ^J UJ vv r� .� �3 E OO.� vr ccn •�+�n by $-E U r 0 150 N cu v .+ (-0 r..4 04-0 - c.4-4 u, p X1 v . 5 ;, U+ O, -o vcn •—, - r, > 2 pr" 4--'4 O in +) 6.0 O.+ %-, IC4, p Cd �, 04-0 U U ^: 1...' v'r CZ O • OCL) O Com\ CO r ;,,\Ot-,.O 9.�4 •� O '� r, ;-, O O bD Cr0 (j) r' . '• C.O an v r. a .. �� J`� �O < r . ,: H. rs E -a c4 $0-, �-. Q , ccs El 1] Preliminary Analysis from 2014 County Road 154 Traffic Counts Q N oc U a) ZcZ w 4— d j V (.0 Z o E -a CC) o Q a r.,himma Cr `.) 0 v + 0 5J 3 NEinn S O.y v a. 0 o �v .—� + V Q) a as cts N '� ,v bA V 5 v up 0 O c ) 004 cp G, 5� Uv cts0 u)o OAU .. li 4 V w a, O t X +., 'L$ y Q1 c_l CD o a) cn ,•,� U 4 r- = C� •" � cn co 7:$ u '8 w (I cn 0 O cn O cz cG U U �Q. GN � ���'er cc; �uP a .r' -+ O a) N . aJ ' '� •� err � 0'� �• �v �-'C5 r , 0C) ¢ G (f) 0 ,D V 'J as 4.4G r �u)U by V �-+ • • v '� CJ 0 'CS . 0 O ' n?. —4 O+ -'cc >�_S O O ;+, 44 a.) ,4-, aJ ccs 4 ( r 0 bt L. ..0 i chi v al y l�/i�j4 U} tn CU IDS) at G , "rte' a J 1".' ',, .4 ›-.�i . � r' Q.) • S s.� vi 4a' �U � ' o HU H E-E�, HN H2 cwt er tri 0 1 Recommendations Ci O -r0 v 4-4 J -� • . CZ J �J 'r i •-r. CI) 4.1 u G O� OV Ti CZ •O Cr) 5 1 Cr)n _ • T %.,, L1. ' �,'Cr s c, 3 U v 'O 0 O }, S n t'' +� r U .r'. r �• v v v v `� v++ v C s... 78 Ib.0 el) vCn v .: ) , ry CI .- rv� .,.r ^. 0 �tr� O * 0 O . }JA t.0,_,S' "� .75 r0. V O > r r., O 0 V O u' J ✓ v > v t1. O Ov O v •C _. s.. O '� `�' Q- 0 y r o 3 -o P O :N _ ° a, ) SI 0 r� r r v) 7.4 O v cG Q O O �, 7 CV C �] tv O U n a xy r €_, r > N J O 0. • ✓• �, 0. � � v rr�• 0. r r o ¢ s n v d v J .,O e.)" Q. .� C.) .0 O U 0.. x '' r CS -•, • ..ei Vi cn CI, ^J 7 r ++ 0 C r. O CZ u 0 �. v :v ,^ v v v v 5 tip 14 v U • '-4 G ^J cG , cG v v 0 " tG v �' ' r v sem. r, CI) O ''-' .0 r V aro u -� O bD •U, O. b.0 bra �� +�11 0 J cG 0 3 v v C 0, r cn ,. > cJ O U CV V .4U., 4. • s �r r (t v 0 cyn 0 cc; CC ._l v v v +� r-1 r > 0_, ..J r V O `:: cG r a. a. 0 u O O C v r• J r ++ v r r CC v x r u 0 r v '" 4, a. Cl.. r c,r 11 o�cnMv°3 oda. ox 0 r ^J O CA CZ, 1J •n v J cG O v 'V s r� i fi r. J +' GJ (G �' V cG V V+ i. •— (75 J. _,_, U: Cr In J VS .� �"". •� (/) Inv G ._. G r CZ v ^C +� F y '.� cn ^0 '� V ' y 0 '_ s s c3, -� Cr v G ` r i O ` Or '> s. O . _ r i (� 0 < .- cn C v 0 cG ., SW* c- 0 0 RecQrmmendatcQ ^i u CnCZC r =- • v vii r c"i� '� -Z�, U 4--'cr' CJ Z X)v�.''� 'tai' vcCcy v �,y�� upas 0 Cc,LiOOcs 7=, ( y -•7.4 0.(n'O O.- E-- 'fin '� • ¢ 0, -x �Cdvo Jv •-•-• •—• c°n LI • C11 �, > y;� CI) °� y r v >, yy Z >; °° 5cL u-'.� yu sem, p, c) ,••• Q+ CC) O Iri O O w 77-, a) (C 5 CJ O .-' >, be V ^ i � � s; Cn •-' > - tip v 7y., W>7)Cr)"•r ': CZ ..,, . n H. ya O cn G 7- G r „..0ate.+ .%, 0. "i (;1 R `" 3xr i 0 c' ccs Qr.� rmb7Q•.N�(�n V• . Cil 0 n V rr 0 F. .S y u7 « S y .,_, >; (n 7. .'.� �] 7�' rV .rJ T1 �j nys. • ti " ice' � 4-, „C 7-. > CyJ .? ~ u Qtj. 0. +� O y O .., r J C.) � cls . ° ° CJ n r� � r iy�, o eJ -O cr, ti , I 0. v .1_, 0 v J CJ r (n Cn 4C0J �' ++ r (Ci C1 r C s~ 3 c � 0 ''• 7 v y 0E, 3 +�' G V; r. r G mss" > Wiz... c%) rC7-,� OEX;c,, Vp OQO U _y ^J r O O cG CJ Ov 'C'Z' _ r Jv z, 0.• b.0 U .. ° 0. J J U LA y> y� -• r, y O • r y C J� i3 • 44-, Ocv i �O cnx,a.'(C 2O.O Q,rOwJ ( CO > !� C j �SZ ✓ Rj �+ �' J > rte+ to a~, •�' ... y c/; Q • '� Q ✓ ? cz s , CV >, M ' =J V (G C S~ S- J ° "Fr y_. -•�� ~ C~ te'�O " ^tT. ,..- i >.. c:O G =,, V . C'�V�[�, sl.y ru'J CS OrC r Cnz,.. u r�~ (~+..l V V �n �iOQcsrO��cCbA - r 45 � (;z" uf .. V v .> ., ~ cn — rs r V . co ^ QJ y CL) :j aro'v 7, �i- > s V C ;n -r, �a, ', rycJ " vb4 r ' cs 44, f '^ Lizy , s '471 j C y el, cS y . „en`'>u Li C r vy • v•�OC9D ctYW r_,zrv'),-. p v Ne .rr re rf b.D5 �te2 0.`' r-' •� . 0 `' r' ^' - c". „ • 0 cn .✓-,0r-'-C � > Ei L r�,r-z, � G'�.rr*°O1 <, >C,0 '-Q rQ .- ry^ -G�_ "-.; J O O� .n "4J7.4_ CJX s G $ s�I�:w 4 ;� J :0.• .r J r+ ,./-, >•, v:i--• s-.4-, J:J H 0 H • fG Q G V• D__, (n n i—,hN.Ni+ C 0 F__F11 tz �-e 0 y..it 1 — 144) 0 5 L) ••••1 05 PS �] Q'ui z,g „'� 0,... O�cC OO pLi.O < y 0 Qcvi, �� DO.Q ccii3O 4 y 0 �„� 44.+ '--' 4. !n > J .moi.-' 4) n n \ (.--: cp U � �as > r ° ..W r 0) f 0 4) tO i-, cit � daS� 'G'0112 ms s, a, �� teVcG O 4) rte. �-, O cr1 0 b0 Gal OC) r`'�b� vu~a c - C) O -G Ti;C V C 0 i Ow �� I" y5 S.'4 �c .Lu "n -G>, 3G � ;' (,P_, as 0v0 " > O• -O .4e=N �"X 0 ca O 0 CO �U.) w i, u) c.4-4 �.— 0'+J v n 'a'� CO �� cri 0 0 -- C O fi r' as -0 c) �� i� r' u C c>,, ;n u,.4., 0 -r- O > •G bA �' Q-, u e) k �+ > V b Ce >, T; c4pcG 0 et e•-• > 'C < O r -rte O + a.' ++ �' Cr 'M, -V0� -�yG �� L,(1) �1. : G0 .. O 0 L. r V - .s~ 0 - .N .b V 'd ••C^ >�.� >r' -Q .G0 0 ( u-, __•—, Gcf) Off' ,c eaea(I) ctsO?A 4)C 'OCI) CS X . ~ - • "' a) .S'. U .-tQ .a.+ V O ;r. tr. cr, Q 4-, cr) 'v cn Q '� O �— r a--+ r ' • •-• {y'� — Qr �.' a ` r I•-, � ^" c. ..U-' J •'� (U..J' V-, J 4! ,� �-4 d V -�' O <-,1,..(7%.! - - r' E i. Q) > �' � O Q 4^ 4) r -L- Q. to ..r. --, Q_ a oci :� u bOA "4r. Crcu 4O # X00 ci Q0 .4 '0 H c;,, Q . ~ O cs t— n Q, < U'- 'cn �— cC N. x C N 1 e" 0 0 0 u w • y • t) JD ° O O O N O V U ,S +� �G , _ �� v - — ' b7Os., V ,. p x ,, 0 E p.V� ; vrvi P-4 p C p - ti O bA co .74 O c� O 1 7g' U cn ;. ° r-+ O $., ++ • O O"' w tTh , t -i o sO ij o0 to c, � . ca ,- '- - • os. .,-.--i(1)O 2, C12, �.� .J- vol 0,0 "-'� � >� O zi 73 0 s, � biJ o v(f,,O-' p V �� 3 yti) a). "nv - O iV .-4• • • •^I r -'w '� �• •~ bny •� O •" ¢'5' r^. O ,J cn .-r-a eu 5 4-•• S CO cn . y v cf)H O M �� r... rXO $-, ef+U to $-' r y ;-+ V CIJ 0 ��+ "� Orr+ •may ` 751 V 0 NO O '' �,cni•iO 0.-'wv r, C, V) bA.� � cn J `-) _,e- ., y aJc:Li N (1)xv ...41, O.O>�$te�wctS-w' O ;t -s. 4-' - 0 v7"..., EL .. �O a; ��O OOV O 4-1 O a LI O�,.V - CZ � �drey cn z-+, 0 O a5 5 Ci U 51. x, ' cn O � y � " , fes.. bo ( +� Ti -41 •-� —+ a) c' r ��„ r1 �.. ,• r� . rte, S� '� W .1-4_, o <� °H� 0 ��J� Qc�� (Li cZ 74 Hu • ��.�� •- H ;n'. 44 r--+ cv r-•{ cs r-+ �'-. N N � ; N tom' a 0 Recommendations CJ b0 cn frO vU of o ozs <15 a 7.10 40 u CcIA O cr .� ..fl -0 s 0 o 0 0 s.. 0 0 0 0 u 0 L1.4 m tZ) c cl 731 co 0 in v .? >, >, y o'4474 0 d' y NO o COO 7-') f V 06. �cci 0 ��•:.0 o 0 � >,0�> rQ.t. J r CJ 0 C) 01. ^' O 4-. 44-4 0. c'4 CO O L1... y 540 4.0 J" ¢Or 5 n 0 Ti, vim, cc ."...2.>,:t2 C7; r r bC 0 cC r .4 U W ` .� .4..+ .t' 0 5Z.4-., C.) J r3 .- � �.. J. •i a 0 ru f:C0 .r r _, - i— ---.L. Ll cv �, ,, i'mV ' U Cr) ^VJJ B' J r• z O �- r ''.0 C) _� .4- 0 4-44-4r - ,5 v, J 0 4) 4- = �> v)0. V , > cr., • "� ✓ w L 0. • -- ) n'''''' VJ, .••' J 0 VC'' -, r J e u; .., .40 •.) O O Gt, Cur 4_, C.) C) " cZ °�yvo~ as tt • (ri 465030 Ov•- t) o 0• " �'•-_>, 0 o¢" row°o �a .O� 03 0N. .�`oO •- 0 C &C.) 0. C) C) 0 V y 0 ~ C r cCi 7y • ,) n 00 }' 0 o.� 0ay o C F4 r --' J)re 78 V y J 0 y 0^_)u5r ct. 0 0 O U•-+ O .—. < rJ � a"'..i•�i v0 y > 0 C ^7JIGDc! V c.. E E _n r.`• 0 ca 0_a ( < H 0 0 0 Uwe., �0 cu 00°J •4-4 v o ::F- 00u 'r..'4- yV0 't3 cG92, v 0�>, (Z t4' J 0 ;- .4— 5-� 0... U•� VZ; 0.2 w O 0 fTh '6Q - O U 03 • Q.. � Jo t 3 ;:.1j) 4- ( r r a, • •=)— �c,v4 ^� j 2 O Cr fz's, 75v U Vim• u "•• .J > 4 O Q�-r a r W J V c'1 Traffic/ Access Option C (-i EXHIBIT CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Hartmann, Garfield County Community Development Department FROM: Andrew McGregor, City of Glenwood Springs Community Development Director SUBJECT: Your File No. LIPA-7631, Buffalo Valley Apartments — Limited Impact Review DATE: January 30, 2014 We asked various City departments to comment on the proposed project and the following is a summary of the comments received. Assistant Public Works Director Dave Betley (970/384-6368) contributed the following: This comment is just based on speculation, but may hold some credence in the matter of this development. Should the engineer perform a traffic analysis based on the traffic light at County Road 154 and Highway 82 not existing? This is a temporary light by construction and if the City proceeds with the South Bridge project, this type of analysis may hold merit at a future date. Community Development Department Senior Planner Gretchen Ricehill (970/384-6428) provided this information: On May 6, 1993, Mr. Kurt Wigger, then owner of Buffalo Valley, and the City of Glenwood Springs entered into a Pre -annexation Agreement (Reception #447787, Book 863, Page 375) which allowed the City to provide Buffalo Valley with municipal water and sewer services. It appears that this agreement, and two subsequent agreements, dated June 9, 1994 and June 17, 1993, may need to be updated to reflect the change of land use from restaurant and hotel to 57 dwelling units. Owner/developer shall contact the City's Legal Department to discuss if this is, in fact, the case. Owner/developer also shall contact City Public Works Department to discuss whether or not additional tap fees are due the City as a result of this development. Buddy Burns of the City's Water/Wastewater Department (970/384-6388) thought very little information was provided about the water and wastewater utilities. He had the following questions or comments: 1. How were they going to meter everything? Through master meters or through individual meters? They currently have three meters at this location. They can return these meters for a credit towards the new ones or if possible, they can try to utilize the existing meters if that will work for them. The automated Badger Orion system is the meter the City accepts. 101 W. 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 384-6411 email: Andrew.McGregor@cogs.us 2. Any existing or proposed sewage lift stations will be considered private and will not be maintained by the City. 3. Adequate backflow devices will need to be installed on the fire suppression systems and on the domestic water systems. It is understood that raw water, not treated water, will be used for landscape irrigation needs. The owner may want to test water quality on the raw water that will be used for irrigation needs. 4. Any new fire hydrants will be owned and maintained by the City. Easements will be required. 5. Will the water and wastewater volumes increase with this proposal or will they be about the same as the existing use? We will need water and wastewater projections for this development. Doug Hazzard of the City's Electric System (970/384-6353) had no comments on this project as it is outside the service territory of the Glenwood Springs Electric System. This memo contains a contact number for each individual whose comments were included in case you need to contact him or her for further information. AMcD:ktm 101 W. 8'h Street, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 384-6411 email: Andrew.McGregor@cogs.us ""'RESOURCE ..... ..... ■...■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Partners III, LLC — Limited Impact Review File No. LIPA — 7631 Dear Glenn: EXHIBIT 1 10 February 10. 2014 At the request of Garfield County (GARCO), Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) reviewed the land use application of Partners III, LLC for the proposed Buffalo Valley Apartments project. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the Buffalo Valley Restaurant and motel property to construct 56 apartments. The submittal includes a three ring binder titled "Buffalo Valley Apartments Limited Impact Review Application" with an application dated July 15, 2013. RESOURCE's review includes applicable technical criteria and standards in Article 4-104, 4-201, 4-203, and Article 7 of the GARCO Land use and Development Code (LUDC). RESOURCE's comments are presented below. Section 7-104 and 105 Water & Wastewater Potable water for the project will come from the City of Glenwood Springs municipal water system. The submittal includes a "Will Serve" letter from the City. Wastewater will be treated at the City of Glenwood Springs municipal sewage treatment facility. There is an existing force mail lift station that serves the site. The submittal includes a "Will Serve" letter from the City. There does not appear to be any concerns with water and wastewater service for the project. Section 7-107 Access and Roadways The project is accessed from County Road 154 (South Grand Avenue) via an improved driveway entrance. The proposed site access and internal roads generally meet the GARCO criteria. It is noted that the access is located in close proximity to the County Road 154/Highway 82 intersection with an entrance to a church and mobile home park located on either side. Ingress/egress may be impacted during peak a.m. and p.m. traffic during the week and before/after church services on the weekend. However, this is an issue that already exists at this location. Section 7-108 Natural Hazards The April 30, 2013 letter report prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. indicates that the site has a low potential for hazards from rock fall, debris flow, seismic activity and slope movement. Development of the site requires site specific geotechnical evaluation prior to construction to ensure that that cuts and fills don't create slope movement issues and for final design of foundations, road, and retaining walls. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue 0 Glenwood Springs, CO 91 601 r 7 (970) 945-6777 0 Fax (970)945-1137 Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Department Page 2 7-203 Protection of Water Bodies February 10, 2014 The proposed project is more than 200 feet from the Roaring Fork River. There are no wetlands in the project area and a storm water management plan (SWMP) has been developed to protect water quality during construction activities and post construction. 7-204 Drainage Erosion Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. has developed an appropriate drainage plan in conjunction with the SWMP to address drainage and erosion control on the property. Temporary measures will be implemented during construction activities and a permanent detention basin will function after the project is complete. The detention basin will address both storm water quantity and quality for the project. 7-205 Environmental Quality The SWMP and associated permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) also includes a spill prevention control and counter measure (SPCC) plan to address handling and storage of any hazardous materials such as oil and gasoline during construction and herbicides, pesticides and paint products used for operation of the project. 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards As discussed above, the site does not have any identified natural or geologic hazards that impact the project. However, site specific geotechnical analysis and investigation is required for final design of the project. 7-208 Reclamation According to the landscape plan prepared by Twisted Tree, all disturbed areas will be reseeded and/or landscaped. This is also consistent with the drainage and erosion control plan. Traffic Study A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) dated December 2013. The trip generation analysis indicates that the historical use as a restaurant and motel generates more traffic than the proposed 56 apartments. The morning and afternoon peak hour traffic is similar, although the historical a.m. peak did not exist and the apartments will increase the current a.m. peak. The maximum peak hour traffic volume is not projected to increase at the project access or the County Road 154/Highway 82 as a result of the proposed project. KMA points out that an eastbound acceleration lane on Highway 82 for right turns from County Road 154 is currently warranted, but not constructed by CDOT. The proposed project will not affect this existing need for Highway 82. UWRESOURCE 11OiC3 ■ N O I .. •• 1g I N 0 ,140 Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Department Page 3 February 10, 2014 In summary, there does not appear to be any improvements to County Road 154, Highway 82, or the County Road 54/Highway 82 intersection required as a result of the proposed redevelopment of the Buffalo Valley property. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGI EERING, INC. Michael J. Eri•', P.E. Water Resources Engineer MJE/mmm 885-82.0 oeeaeRESOU RCE •:::: ■ N O. N• • I. i N O I N O Glenn Hartmann From: Michael Prehm Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:16 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Kurt Conrad: Deb Fiscus Subject: Buffalo Valley Apartments Glenn, In reviewing the application, a driveway permit is required by Road and Bridge. Currently there are 3 driveways (1 is the Buffalo Valley driveway), RFTA trail crossing, school bus stop, fire hydrant all within 150 feet of the Hwy 82, County Road 154 intersection. If approved there will be additional foot & bicycle traffic on CR 154 between the apartments and the RFTA trail. Increased vehicle traffic at peak AM & PM times. Kurt (Sheriff) and I did a site visit to observed traffic and the surrounding area. The speed limit is posted at 35 MPH in this area. Kurt and I both agree that the speed limit be dropped to 25 MPH and No Parking signs be posted on both sides of County Road 154 for the first 600 feet starting at the Hwy 82 intersection on CR 154. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Michael Prehm Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:39 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Kurt Conrad Subject: Buffalo Valley Apartments Glenn, I have a couple of questions. 1) Has the applicant explored any other alternative driveway locations to access CR 154, such as 2 driveways, moving it closer to the Church, etc..? 2) Seems to be low on parking spaces for the number of apartments proposed. I have concerns there will be overflow parking on CR 154 or church. I understand how the applicant did there parking figures, but what is the code for ratio of apartments to parking spaces? Mike 1 • • • `►�olioo D rriA. 0 To: Glenn Hartman, Garfield County Planner F 0EPARt From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department EXHIBIT 112 RE: File number LIPA-7631, project name Buffalo Valley Apartments, applicant ,Partners III LLC, ,contact person Norman Bacheldor, location 3637 Hwy. 82, accessed off of CR154 Comments • The site will require 1 to 2 additional fire hydrants in addition to the one at the entrance to the site. Contact the Glenwood Springs Fire Department for locations for the additional hydrants. • Each apartment building is requires to have an automatic fire suppression system in it. The systems are to be designed to NFPA 13R standards and Glenwood Springs Fire Departments requirements. Note: The pressure in the water supply system will need to be tested and verified that it can met the required P.S.I to operate the fire suppression systems. If the PSI is not adequate a fire pump or pumps will need to be added to the system or systems. • Each building is required to have a fire alarm system installed in them. These systems shall be designed to NFPA 72 standards for this occupancy and the Glenwood Springs Fire Department requirements. The exterior horn strobe for the system shall be installed 10-12 feet above finished grade above the fire sprinkler system Fire Department Connection (FDC). • Each building is required to have a Knox key box installed on it. The box shall be installed 5-6 feet above finished grade above the FDC. If this project is approved to move forward additional fire department comments may -be forth coming after building construction plans are reviewed. Glenn Hartmann From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel [daniel.roussin@state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:52 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tamra Allen; Terri Partch; Kent Harbert Subject: Buffalo Valley Traffic Study EXHIBIT 1 / 3 Glen - CDOT has review the Buffalo Valley Apartment complex development near SI -I 82 and CR 154. This project doesn't have any direct access to SH 82, however, the project has an indirect impact to SH 82 because the closeness of the access to SH 82. If the County decides to physically change the alignment of the highway and the county road because of safety concerns, an access permit would be required if work is being proposed on CDOT right of way. If there is an access permit for this project then these comments would apply. This would be the County decision. Please review our comments and if you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Review Comments • 1. This traffic report addresses the apartment complex's access onto CR 154 and CR 154's access onto SH 82. Only the access of CR 154 onto the highway is under CDOT's jurisdiction. If a CDOT permit is issued, it will go to Garfield County. • 2. As shown in the report the change in use on this property from a restaurant and a motel to an apartment complex will not cause a 20% increase in the peak -hour traffic volume on CR 154 at its access point onto SH 82. Therefore, a CDOT Access Permit will not be required unless there are identified safety problems; cf.: SHAG §2.6(3). The report will need to include a safety analysis and recommendation. Include consideration of the trail that crosses CR 154 at the intersection. It appears that modifications could be made to CR 154 southwest of its intersection with SH 82 that would improve its safety and operations (a possible realignment of the intersection). However, any such modifications would be under the jurisdiction of the local agency and as such cannot be required by CDOT. 1 • 3. If a CDOT access permit is required the trip generation information will need to include explanations of the applicability of the land use codes and review of each using ITE's Recommended Procedure for Estimating Trip Generation. • 4. The consultant needs to consult with Garfield County, as owners of CR 154, and report any planned or anticipated modifications to CR 154 in proximity to this intersection. • 5. If a CDOT access permit is required the source or derivation of the trip distribution percentages will need to be provided. • 6. The volumes in Figure 8 should equal Figure 4 volumes plus Figure 7 volumes. The volumes in Figure 9 should equal Figure 5 volumes plus Figure 7 volumes. • 7. Access volumes need to be reported in passenger car equivalents (PCEs). If they are already in PCEs that needs to be noted. • 8. The Conclusions and Recommendations section needs to include recommendations regarding the auxiliary lanes on SH 82. If a CDOT access permit is not required auxiliary lane modifications may be recommended as safety improvements. • 9. If highway modifications are recommended the design vehicle needs to be recommended. Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Transportation 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 office: 970.683.6284 ifax: 970.683.6290 email: daniel.roussin@state.co.us 2 Glenn Hartmann From: David Johnson [djohnson@rfta.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:01 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Dan Blankenship; Mike Hermes; Angela Kincade; Jason White Subject: Buffalo Valley Apartments (LIPA-7631) Mr. Glenn Hartmann: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this referral. RFTA has the following comments. According to Kimley Horn, the Transportation Consultants that conducted the Traffic Study, citing standard ITE Trip Generation Rates, the Buffalo Valley Apartments project is anticipated to generate approximately 468 daily weekday trips (ADT). Kimley Horn asserts that this will be a net reduction in ADT, due to the elimination of the restaurant (932 ADT, per ITE trip generation) and motel (320 ADT). The report acknowledges that "The Rio Grande Trail, a multi -use trail facility, crosses CR -154 between the project access drive and its intersection with SH -82," but make no mention of proposed impacts or mitigation, presumably because the development will reduce trips. The location is approximately 1.5 miles from the Wal-Mart bus stop and 3 miles from CR154/CMC stops. Please consider the following issues related to transit and bicycle and pedestrian provisions. 1. Rio Grande Trail Crossing: The Rio Grande right of way is a rail banked corridor, and the bike/ped trail is an interim use. Passenger or freight rail could be implemented in the future along the ROW. 2. Transit Provisions: According to RFTA's Service Provisioning Policy, the CEO shall not "Add or expand regional transit service unless it meets the criteria set forth in RFTA Service standards relevant to service provisioning, including, but not limited to: A commitment to long-term capital and operational financial sustainability; sufficient transit demand; a commitment to funding and construction of safe and appropriate transit infrastructure; performance, and compliance with local and regional plans." Adding stops to this development would meet bus stop spacing guidelines and might meet route deviation guidelines, but the addition of stops must include provisions for funding infrastructure (such as safe bike/ped crossing of SH82, bus stops, bus bays, acceleration and deceleration lanes, bike/ped connections), and for the maintenance and operation of such facilities and services. RFTA had a bus stop at this location some years ago, and it was removed for safety reasons; primarily because the roadway geometry significantly impaired sight distance. Unless these issues are addressed, RFTA's Service Provisioning policy, established by the RFTA Board, precludes service to the development; and RFTA anticipates that the significant costs involved in addressing these issues could outweigh the scope of this development. If you have questions or require additional information, please let me know. David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street; Carbondale, CO 81623 970.384.4979 (phone), 970.376.4492 (mobile) The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Westerman, Carla [Carla.Westerman@sourcegas.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:49 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Ellsworth, Todd; Echer, Ryan Subject: Buffalo Valley Apartments-LIPA-7631-SourceGas EXHIBIT 1 �s Glenn, I have received and reviewed the plans for the Buffalo Valley Apartments. SourceGas has existing facilities located on the property. These facilities will need to be abandoned/rerouted, and/or new facilities installed to provide service to the new structures. SourceGas has no other issue with the plans in their current state. Thank you, Carla Westerman Source Gas Field Coordinator Glenwood Springs, CO 970 -928 -0407 -Office 303 -243 -3794 -FAX 1 Glenn Hartmann From: McSchooler, Tillmon B [tillmon.mcschooler©xcelenergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:54 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: LIPA-7631 Buffalo Valley Apartments Glenn Here is the response from Xcel Energy. Let me know if you need anything else. EXHIBIT No Objections. Applicant will need to contact Xcel Energy's Engineering Department to request a formal design for the project. All existing overhead and underground facilities must be covered with a utility easement if not already. Additional utility easements may be required dependent on the final utility design layout. Engineering lead times for design estimates typically run approximately 6-8 weeks or more. Material and or Construction lead times may exceed an additional 10 weeks. Completion of this City/County approval process does not constitute an application with Xcel Energy for utility installation. The relocation or conversion of existing facilities (if necessary) will be at the owner's expense. Thank you, Tillmon McSchooler Xcel Energy I Responsible By Nature Designer -Engineering 2538 Blichmann Ave. Grand Junction. CO 81505 P: 970.244.2695 C: 970.270.1953 F: 970.244.2661 E: tillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.com XCELENERGY.COM Please consider the environment before printing this email. COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE 0088 Wildlife Way • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970)947-2920 • FAX (970)947-2936 cpw.state.co.us January 21, 2014 TO: Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 FROM: Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager, Glenwood Springs RE: Buffalo Valley Apartments Mr. Hartmann, EXHIBIT 117 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to review the application for the development of this apartment complex. While this site is impacted by previously constructed commercial and residential development, and new construction should not be of significant impact to wildlife, CPW would like to recommend the following for this project: • A fully enclosed, bear resistant structure be constructed and maintained for residential waste containment prior to pickup. It is recommended that the design be large enough to centralize all trash / trash receptacles in one area, and the enclosure be designed, constructed, and signed to ensure that residents operate the structure properly and keep it closed. Bears have been known to be in the area in the past, and the increased number of residents in the area may cause more attractants to bears if trash is not managed properly. • Crabapple trees are proposed in one of the landscaping maps for the development. Crabapple trees are an attractant for bears and it is recommended that a different type of tree be used in their place. CPW acknowledges the importance of projects like this to Garfield County and the Roaring Fork Valley community. The suggested recommendations will help keep the project in harmony with surrounding wildlife. If there are any questions or comments regarding these comments, feel free to contact District Wildlife Manager Dan Cacho ((970)456-7003, dan.cacho@state.co.us) STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenk>oper, Governor • Mike King, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources Bob D. Broscheld, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray • Chris Castilian, Secretary • Jeanne Horne Bil Kane, Chair • Gaspar Penicone • James Pribyl • John Singletary Mark Smith, Vice -Chair • James Vigil • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman Ex Officio Members: Mke King and John Salazar Thank You, Area Wildlife Manager, Glenwood Springs Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT From: seth hmielowski [seth@zgrouparchitects.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:43 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: 'Norman Bacheldor Subject: Buffalo Valley - Height Study Attachments: building section_BLDG2.pdf; site plan.pdf; building section_BLDG1.pdf; Buffalo Valley Building Hgt Study.pdf Glenn — attached are the height study documents I brought to our meeting a few weeks ago. Please contact me if you need any further information. Thanks again for your help, Seth Seth Hmielowski, LEED AP Z -Group Architects, P.C. 411 East Main Street, Suite 205 Aspen CO 81611 970.925.1832 p 970-925-1371 f http://www.zgrouparchitects.com/ 1 c61 z .L/1 s-.96 .L/1 L- I I .L/1 OI-.Ofr .96 1 I 1 1 .b J. ,b Jr I I I 1 1 I .Ls .C/1 OI -.re Buffalo Valley Building Height Study Building #1 Existing corner points: 78', 82', 75.5', 78' = average of 78.38' New corner points: 86', 89', 77.5', 78' = average of 82.63' Difference of 4.25' higher in grade and busts us by only 7'/z". We will need to rework the grading at the two higher corners slightly. Building #2 Existing corner points: 73', 72', 69', 69' = average of 70.75' New corner points: 76.5', 76', 67', 70' = average of 72.38' Difference of 1.63' higher in grade. — No issue. C■ Z -Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 8161 1 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371 EXHIBIT 1 15 Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan Adopted March 2011 Multi -family Residential The Multi -family Residential land use accommodates multi- family structures of 3 units or greater Home occupations, assisted living facilities, institutional uses such as churches, schools, public building, parks and trails are allowed uses. Mixed-use The Mixed-use land use designation allows for a variety of uses including commercial, retail, office,restaurant entertainment and multi -family housing co -existing through design either in a horizontal or vertical fashion. Downtown i-{gure 2-4. walkable. to/katfe neighborhoods are essential to Glenwoods character and lifestyle. This designat on is intended 10 reflect the charai;tei of the historic Downtown and yet allrrw additional uses that will strengthen arid expand the core of the community including retail, offices, restaurants, residences, lodging, and civicuses. Pedestrian - friendly design and a rnix of uses are expected. Commercial This land use designation provides a wide range of general retail goods and services for both regional and local markets, in attached and freestanding structures. Retail that would compete directly with Downtown retail is discouraged Industrial This designation accommodates heavy commercial, light industrial, and industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage Recommended Land Use / Zoning Changes The Confluence Area The Confluence Area is currently coned for industrial use as 11 is currently the location of the City's wastewater treatment plant. However, once the new wastewater plant is completed (scheduled for opening in 2012), it is intended that the Confluence Area be redeveloped into a mixed-use area according to the 2003 Confluence Area plan A Redevelopment Strategy for the Confluence Area. Chapter 2: Future Land Use Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 29 existing boundary south of town to encompass the Bershenyi Ranch (Elk Meadows) and the Four Mile Ranch subdivision (Figure 3-17) Here, along Four Mile Road the City has extended sewer treatment services to these parcels through a long- standing pre -annexation agreement and it is felt that the City will be able to bring about a land use configuration for these properties that will better meet the aspirations of the city than would be possible under county jurisdiction. Overall Annexation Position Within the Urban Growth Boundary annexation is preferred over development through county jurisdiction, unless there are extenuating circumstances and significant public benefit to do otherwise. 2 Annexation will occur through petition of the land owner(). While it is not the intent of the City to compel annexation, the City reserves the prerogative to initiate annexation if found to be in the best interest of the community. 3. The City will consider annexation only within the Urban Growth Boundary unless there is a compelling public benefit to consider annexation of a parcel outside the boundary 4. The City is required to provide annexed parcels with infrastructure (electricity, water, wastewater) and services (police, emergency and other urban services) in a manner that is cost-effective and that does not unduly burden Glenwood Springs residents. 5. The Cry encourages and supports the annexation of the property immediately north of the Glenwood Mall to facilitate a compatible/coordinated mixed-use development. 6. The City should work with Garfield County to jointly adopt a major street plan for the Bershenyi Ranch / Elk Meadows property that will assure mutual commitment to a unified vision for development and open space. O City Limits 2011 Urban Growth Boundary 1998 Urban Growth Boundary Rivers / Streams _ Highways Streets / Roads J West Glenwood mur figure 3. 16. I he Urban Growth Boundary wa:> include or, The west end of town Properties here have a low density residential land use designation rJ City Limits _. 2011 Urban Growth Boundary ~.1998 Urban Growth Boundary Rivers / Streams Highways Streets / Roads South Glenwood i-igure 3- 17• the Urban Growth Boundary was extended to include the Elk Meadows Properves south of town and additional properly on the west end of the city Chapter 3: Community Character and Form 46 Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 'v Regional Vision for the Roaring Fork Valley Though the area south of town along SH 82 to Cattle Creek and most areas along Four Mile Road are outside the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and in some cases, outside of the three-mile Area of Influence, the City has the following visions for the future of these areas • Cattle Creek, located in the vicinity of SH 82 and Spring Valley Road (County Road 110), is outside of both the City's Urban Growth Boundary and the three-rnite Area of Influence This area is significant because it Includes the largest tract of undeveloped land in the Roaring Fork River valley between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale Currently the land is in private ownership and is expected to be developed The City is concerned that any future planned development of this area will directly and Irreparably impact Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and will affect the overall character of the Roaring Fork valley. therefore, the City of Glenwood Springs, Garfield County and the Town of Carbondale should enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to cooperatively create a sub -area plan for Cattle Creek that at minimum analyzes the impacts to, among other things, environment/habitat, existing road networks, area schools, police, fire and utilities. This sub -area plan should 1.)e completed pnc)r to any land use apt)Iicatrnn anal/rn zoning changes that would increase the intensity and character of the existing development at Cattle Creek • Ski Sunlight is an Important local recreational amenity and a regional economic driver 1 he City understands that in order to stay financially viable. Sunlight may need to develop additional residential and commercial development to support the ski area. However, the City is concerned with the impacts that this additional development may have upon Glenwood Springs Therefore. the City should enter into an Intergovernmental .Agreement with Garfield County to cooperatively create a sub -area plan for Sunlight that at minimum analyzes the impacts to, among other things, environment/habitat, existing road networks, area schools, police, fire, and utilities. This sub -area plan should be completed prior to any land use application and/or zoning changes that would increase the intensity and character of the existing development at Sunlight. • Through pre -annexation agreements the City has extender sanitary sewer services to some subdivisions that are along Four Mile Road but outside of the existing Urban Growth Boundary. Because of the developed nature of these properties, their distance from, and non -contiguity with the existing city limits, the City of Glenwood Springs does not intend to annex these properties in the foreseeable future. • The UGB includes the area around SH 82 and Red Canyon Road (County Road 115). Recognizing that In the future this area likely will be annexed Into the city, Glenwood Springs supports development primarily as an employment center, with incidental residential and commercial uses • Development that occurs outside of the UGB, but within the three-mile Area of Influence Is encouraged to be rural n nature, or clustered in areas where there are existing roads and central water/sewer services in order to leave the majority of the land undeveloped or dedicated as open space • If the City wishes to further limit development In the Area of Influence, it will o Partner with a land trust and / or other entity to acquire and preserve open space o Work with land owners, the Town of Carbondale and Garfield County. as appropriate. to prepare a sub -area plan or major street plan for to guide future development and non -development. Chapter 3: Community Character and Form Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 47 EXHIBIT 7 BOCC 2/18/14 Continued to 4/14/14 File No. LIPA-7631 GH MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Updated Project Information and Staff Comments PROJECT: Buffalo Valley Apartments REVIEW: Limited Impact Review for Multi -Family Dwelling Units FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner DATE: April 14, 2014 I. BACKGROUND AND STATUS OF REVIEW In accordance with the Board of County Commissioner's motion for continuation of this public hearing on February 18th, additional information has been requested from the Applicant, additional referral input requested from key agencies including CDOT, and additional research on key topics undertaken by staff. The Applicant has provided the following which are attached as Exhibits to this report. • Updated Site Plan with additional parking and pedestrian improvements. • Updated Site Plan showing potential combined access configuration. • Updated Site Plan with revised snow storage. • Email from the Traffic Consultant, Curtis Rowe providing an additional safety recommendation. • An updated Turning/Access radius analysis for larger Fire Truck apparatus • Parking Demand Estimate from Curtis Rowe, Traffic consultant. • Parking Examples from City of Glenwood Residential Multi -Family Projects. • Links to a Parking Estimator Program for King County (Seattle) Washington. With the assistance of the County Road and Bridge Department three additional traffic counts were taken on County Road 154. One between the Buffalo Valley Apartments and the Mountain View Church, one between the Mobile Home Park/Holy Cross Access Drive and Highway 82 and one further north near the Glenwood Springs Cemetery. The results are attached as Exhibits and discussed under the Staff Analysis section of this Report. 1 Additional analysis and research by Staff is addressed in the Staff Analysis Section of this Report and included review of the following past studies. • Garfield County Transportation Master Plan (2006) • CDOT Region 3: Intersection Study (2011) • Garfield County Transportation Needs Assessment (2011) • Glenwood Springs South Bridge Alternative Development and Screening Report (2012) including Appendix A: Safety Assessment which is attached as an Exhibit. • State Highway Access Control Plan documents (2013) Supplemental information from the Applicant was provided to CDOT, the County Consulting Engineer for the project, Michael Erion with Resource Engineering, and the City of Glenwood Springs for additional review and comments. In addition copies of public comments received are attached to the Staff Report and identify a number of safety and practical concerns with the proposed project. II. ADDITIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS A. Sidewalk Connection An internal pedestrian circulation sidewalk is shown on the updated site plan consistent with the previously drafted condition. Cross walk striping is recommended between the two buildings and where path users are likely to cross the parking lot. The previous Staff recommendation for the sidewalk/path to connect to the Rio Grande Trail and school bus stop location along the County Road is still recommended. This recommendation is supported by Section 7-306 of the Land Use and Developrnent Code which indicates that "A multi -modal connection, such as a trail or sidewalk shall be provided in a development where links to schools, shopping areas, parks, trails, greenbelts, and other public facilities are feasible." B. Fire Access The Applicant's updated analysis shows adequate turning radius for a 49 ft. long Ladder Fire Truck. Confirmation from the Fire District will be requested verifying that the truck modeled is consistent with their equipment. The County Consulting engineer has also recommended that because of the tightness demonstrated by the turning model that size limitations be implemented for parking spaces adjacent to the turnaround. C. Snow Storage The updated snow storage analysis demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the Land Use and Development Code along with distribution of storage throughout the site. The County's Consulting Engineer in supplemental referral comments noted issues with accessibility and functionality of some of the storage areas shown ori the revised plan based on size and location. Site management provisions will still likely 2 need to address operational concerns including the potential need for some hauling or loading snow. Confirmation that drainage and storm water management plans address drainage from snow storage areas still needs to be provided. D. Parking Waiver 1. The updated parking layout has increased the parking to 117 spaces. While not specifically allocated by the Applicant the increased parking is equivalent to 2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit with 10 remaining spaces for guest parking. That rate of off-street parking allotment is generally consistent with parking standards found in some other local jurisdictions such as the Town of Carbondale and City of Rifle. The current request is a 19% reduction or 26 spaces from the County's requirements. 2. The project examples provided by the Applicant from the City of Glenwood Springs generally have different attributes, including more defined on-site management, easy availability of transit, and proximity to other resident needs such as convenience shopping, restaurants and in one case schools. 3. The parking model provided by the Applicant from the Seattle area - King County appears to be a very effective tool for more urban environments. The scale of some of the communities reviewed under the model are larger than the City of Glenwood Springs/Garfield County. 4. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) parking information provided from the Applicant's Traffic Consultant did not appear to include background information or address site specific considerations. The one size fits all standard appears better suited for a rnore urban site. 5. Consistency with the City of Glenwood Springs parking standards is supported by the County's Comprehensive Plan. Those standards also include a requirement for parking in excess of 60 spaces to be included within the building footprint (i.e. first floor, covered parking). Should a waiver approval be considered, maintaining consistency with the City's requirements for 1 guest space for every 5 units is recommended (11 guest spaces). Conclusion 6. Staff review of the additional information provided does not support a finding that the Applicant's waiver request, as submitted, meets the waiver criteria contained in Section 4-118 of the Land Use and Development Code. Additional information on site management details, assignment of spaces, enforcement, and prohibition on certain types of parking (i.e. Recreational Vehicles and trailers) are appropriate to better rneet the waiver criteria and are addressed in Recommendation/Options Section of the Staff Report. The criteria from Section 4-118 are noted below: 3 Review Criteria A waiver may be approved if the Applicant demonstrates that the following criteria have been met by the proposed alternative: 1. It achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; and 2. It imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Code. E. Traffic - Access Issues 1. The Applicant's Traffic Consultant provided an additional safety recommendation for prohibiting right turn on red movements from County Road 154 onto Highway 82. Detailed responses to the balance of the original CDOT referral comments or updated traffic counts were not provided. The Traffic Consultant has provided verbal input on several access issues noted in the Staff Report including realignment potential and related improvements. 2. The lack of spacing between accesses was noted by the County Road and Bridge Department in their supplemental Referral Comments (see attached). Their comments clarify that the Applicant's proposal as originally submitted does not rneet the County's Access Code based on the lack of intersection/driveway spacing. They also note the proximity to the School Bus Stop and RFTA Rio Grande Trail as safety concerns and the potential for triggering CDOT Access Permitting based on the current traffic counts. 3. A summary analysis of the updated traffic counts from the Road and Bridge Department on County Road 154 and the peak hour weekday averages is provided in the Table below. The counts are still under review by CDOT but appear to exceed the 20% threshold of current traffic counts to trigger CDOT Access Permitting. 4. The Applicant's site plan showing a combined access with the southerly Church driveway would be a significant improvement and needs more detail on feasibility and the Church's willingness to cooperate with a combined access. 5. Verbal comments from CDOT as part of several follow-up contacts and discussion of the new Traffic Counts on County Road 154 have expressed the likelihood that CDOT access permits will be required. CDOT comments continue to support the need for the Applicant's Traffic Consultant to provide additional recommendations on access management. Supplemental comments from CDOT have been requested and are anticipated. 6. The long range assessments and studies by Garfield County and CDOT did not identify the County Road 154/Highway 82 intersection as a top priority. Follow-up with the consultant working on the County needs assessment indicated that this was in part 4 based on the fact that no development projects were proposed affecting the intersection at that time of the studies. 7. The South Bridge Study identifies a number of concerns and an accident history is provided in the Safety Assessment Appendix (see attached). The study also contains an alignment plan for the intersection which includes creation of additional stacking areas and reconfiguration of several of the access points generally consistent with the sketch attached to the original CDOT referral comments (see excerpt attached). PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FROM 2014 ROAD AND BRIDGE TRAFFIC COUNTS LOCATION ON COUNTY ROAD 154 OF COUNT CR 154 am Peak Hour (wkday avg) CR 154 pm Peak Hour (wkday avg) Buffalo Valley Peak Hour Generation am/pm Buffalo Valley % of CR 154 am Peak Hr. Buffalo Valley % of CR 154 pm Peak Hr. North End Near the Cemetery 81.3 104.6 32/49 NA (distant from site) NA (distant from site) Between Mtn. View and Buffalo Valley 84.3 103.6 32/49 37.9% 47.2°%0 Between MH Park — Holy Cross Access & Hwy 82 69.6 80.3 32/49 45.9% 61.0% 8. A summary of potential access improvements for a realignment of the 154 intersection are noted below in the summary diagram. • Shifting the Buffalo Valley access north to maintain a 100 ft. separation from the Mobile Home Park/Holy Cross access and increasing the distance from the Highway 82 intersection. • The shifted access would need to be combined with the Church's existing southerly access to eliminate the separation conflict between those two accesses. • The need for a southbound acceleration lane as part of potential CDOT Access Permit Review and/or a State Highway Access Control waiver to allow the proposed prohibition on right turn on red at the intersection in lieu of the acceleration lane. • Reconfiguration of the County Road 154 alignment as noted in the original CDOT referral comments and the South Bridge studies. 5 • Preservation of future options to improve the access as noted above including the potential for acquisition of additional roadway easements, engineering design, funding and timing discussions. POTENTIAL REALIGNED COUNTY ROAD 154 (SHOWN AS SHADED YELLOW) Reconfigured and Narrowed Access and Trail crossing Potential shared Access with Stop Control No Right Turn on Red unless accel. Lane is provided Potential Need for Additional Roadway Easement Width Stop Control on MH/Holy Cross Access 6 Conclusion 9. While some progress on the Traffic and Access issues has been noted, the Staff review of the Application, referral comments, public comments, and past studies do not support a finding that the Application, as submitted, meets the requirements of Section 7-107 of the Land Use Code that the access is safe and adequate. Additional Staff recommendations regarding access are noted in the Recommendation/Options Section of this report. F. Other Updated Referral Contacts • RFTA was contacted and additional input on trail safety and right-of-way questions associated with reconfiguration of the access are being sought. • The RE -1 School District transportation center was contacted and they provided verification that several bus routes use County Road 154 and the Highway 82 intersection. A bus stop is currently located adjacent to the Applicant's Site. • City of Glenwood Springs provided additional comments addressing the access issues including the potential for incremental solutions such as dedication of additional roadway easements to provide long term benefits associated with reconfiguration of the intersection. III. SUGGESTED FINDINGS The following findings are suggested as appropriate should the Board wish to implement a conditional approval of the request and they remain unchanged from the previous staff report. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for multi -unit dwellings is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That with the adoptions of conditions and granting of a waiver from Table 7- 302.A Minimum Off -Street Parking Standards by Use, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. IV. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS & BOARD OPTIONS Board Option for Approval: Draft conditions were included in the original Staff Report and have been edited and updated with significant changes shown in bold. The following draft conditions are provided for consideration by the Board for inclusion in a motion for approval. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the operation of the multi -family dwelling development shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing this type of facility including storm water management permitting and provision of handicapped accessible dwelling units. The following Conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit 3. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide additional details on snow removal plans and operations for the site to address access to the snow storage areas by plows and the potential for loading and hauling snow. The revised plans shall continue to meet the requirements of Section 7-305 for snow storage areas and the Applicant's drainage plans shall be updated to address drainage from snow storage areas. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall confirm the width of the proposed internal sidewalk is 6ft. The Applicant's site plans shall be updated to provide cross walk striping at appropriate locations where the pathway crosses parking driveways. The Applicant shall also provide a 6 ft. wide paved pedestrian pathway connecting the internal sidewalk to the Rio Grande Trail and school district bus stop. This trail segment shall be privately maintained by the Applicant consistent with the internal sidewalks. The side walk shall be subject to a license agreement to be approved by the County. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall confirm with the Fire District that the emergency vehicle access modeling is consistent with their equipment and shall include in site management provisions restrictions on oversize vehicle parking adjacent to the emergency vehicle turnaround area. Said area shall be signed appropriately. 6. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall update as needed all existing water line and sewer line extension and service agreements with the City of Glenwood Springs as noted in the City's referral comments. 8 7. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant's draft vested property rights agreement shall be reviewed, edited and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Said agreement shall set forth a five year vesting period for the Development. The following general Conditions shall be satisfied prior to Issuance of a Building Permit as noted or as part of the general site development. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Glenwood Springs water and sewer utility and public works requirements including but not limited to proper metering, back flow prevention, provision of easements for fire hydrant access and allowance for city maintenance of the hydrants, private maintenance of the sewer lift station, and provision of water and waste water projections demonstrating adequate line capacity for the development. 9. The Applicant shall pay all tap fees as required by the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the each of the proposed buildings. 10. The Applicant shall comply with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department referral comments and regulations including installation of 1 - 2 additional fire hydrants, installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems and knox key boxes for building access. 11. At the time of building permit submittal additional fire department review shall be required including compliance with all Fire Code requirements. Compliance with all building code requirements and confirmation of compliance with all dimensional requirements of the Land Use and Development Code including building height, setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio shall be confirmed. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the development, the Applicant shall provide site specific subsurface, soils and geotechnical studies for the site as recommended by their preliminary geotechnical studies. The studies shall address foundation, pavement, roadway, and retaining wall designs and shall address slope stability. Engineered foundations shall be required. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall obtain a driveway access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department and construction of the driveway shall meet the County's standards including maximum grade. The Applicant shall provide updated street signage to implement speed limit reductions to 25 mph and no -parking signs for the County Road in the vicinity of the site. Said signs shall be installed by the County Road and Bridge Department. The Access permit shall reflect a shift of the driveway a minimum of 100 ft. from the Mobile Home Park — Holy Cross Access and shall be combined with the south Church access unless the church access is eliminated. 9 14. The Applicant's lighting installations shall comply with Section 7-304 and the Applicant shall remove and replace preexisting nonconforming light fixtures with code compliant fixtures. 15. The Applicant's installation and maintenance of landscaping for the development shall maintain compliance with Section 7-303 of the Land Use and Development Code. 16. The Applicant shall provide raw water irrigation for the site and shall include in property management guidelines provisions to avoid potential subsurface and foundation impacts from improper maintenance including irrigation line breaks. 17. The Applicant shall provide fully enclosed bear proof trash structures at the two proposed locations or one central location. The Applicant shall replace crabapple trees in the landscaping plan with alternative species that do not bear fruit and become an attractant for bears. 18. The Applicant shall maintain the proposed 15 ft. — 20 ft. building setback/separation from the steep slope at the rear of the lot and preserve the native vegetation unless removal is warranted for wildfire protection purposes. 19. As part of the site development and to demonstrate consistency with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant shall remove the non -conforming billboard sign from the County Road 154 frontage. A properly permitted code compliant project identification sign may be approved for the site. 20. The project shall be constructed generally consistent with the architectural illustrations provided with the submittal. The applicant shall also maintain the privacy fencing adjacent to the mobile home park along the southeasterly property line. Off -Street Parking Waiver Request - Options for Consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Parking Option A 21. The Applicant's off-street parking waiver is approved based on compliance with review criteria contained in Section 4-118 and subject to the following conditions: a. Review and approval by the County prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit of Parking Management provisions consistent with the Application representations and further including on-site property management or daily inspections of the property by property managers, enforcement provisions, limitations on vehicles per unit, guest parking operation and restrictions on RV and trailer parking. 10 b. The Applicant shall maintain 2 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit along with 11 guest parking spaces. The spaces shall be assigned to individual units with tandem spaces only allocated to the same unit. Parking Option B 21. The Applicant's off-street parking waiver is approved for the reduction of off-street parking spaces to a level consistent with the City of Glenwood Springs Parking standards as calculated for the site. Use of tandem spaces to meet the off-street parking requirements shall be permitted. This option may require reduction in the overall number of units. Parking Option C 21. The Applicant's off-street parking waiver is not approved based on non- compliance with the approval criteria contained in Section 4-118. The Applicant's site plan and unit count shall be adjusted to demonstrate compliance with Section 7-302 Off -Street Parking requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. Traffic and Access Issues - Options for Consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Traffic/Access Option A 22. The Applicant needs to provide a more comprehensive assessment and recommendations on access management for County Road 154 for review by the County prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The assessment needs to address the following: • Referral comments from CDOT contained in the email dated January 28, 2014. • Concepts included in the Staff Report dated 4/14/14 including potential County Road 154 Realignments • Recommendations regarding signal timing to ensure safe operation for larger vehicles including school buses and snow plows. • Preliminary assessment by a qualified Traffic Engineer as to the need for additional right-of-way or roadway easements for potential realignments. • Draft Development Agreements containing funding and timing provisions. Based on review of the additional submittals the County may make a finding of adequacy for the proposed access. An additional continuation of the public hearing may be appropriate for implementing this option. 11 Traffic/Access Option B 22. Should an Access Permit be required by CDOT, the Applicant needs to obtain all CDOT approvals prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Authorization and/or delegation from the County to the Applicant would be required to allow the Applicant to move forward with a CDOT Access Permit Application. Said provisions would be coordinated through the County Attorney's Office. Implementation of improvements required by the CDOT Permit would be a condition of approval. Traffic/Access Option C 22. Based on the Application as submitted and amended the Board may choose to direct Staff to prepare Findings and a Resolution for denial based on a failure of the Application to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use and Development Code, including but not limited to Section 7-107 and the provision of a safe and adequate access for the development. Preparation of said documents would be coordinated with the County Attorney's Office and could also include, at the direction of the Board, failure to comply with off-street parking standards. 12 VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION (looking north) VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION (looking south) 0300502O1a 13 VIEW OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK - HOLY CROSS ACCESS VIEW OF THE RFTA TRAIL CROSSING 14 Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT 21 From: Chris Hale [chris©mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 5:05 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Norman Bacheldor; 'Seth Hmielowski' Subject: Buffalo Valley Attachments: C1-04-03-14.pdf; RevDesign-C1.pdf; C3-FireTruck-4-01-14.pdf; C6-snow-4-01-14.pdf; FW: Buffalo Valley CDOT Glenn: Attached are additional exhibits to address some of the comments concerning Buffalo Valley: Sheet C1 has been revised to: - Show a sidewalk that connects to CR 154 - Provides additional parking: o 76 regular stalls o 13 compact stalls o 4 ADA car stalls o 2 ADA van stalls o 11 tandem stalls (*2) o = 117 parking stalls (compared to 100 previous) Sheet C3 has been revised to show that a ladder/platform fire truck can make the turn around the parking island per the Fire Marshal comments. Sheet C6 has been added to show snow storage locations available around the project site to avoid the hauling of snow. Attached is an email from Kimley-Horn addressing comment #2 from CDOT. The proposed Skylark school performed a safety analysis and the recommendations have been summarized in the email. Sheet C1 (RevDesign-C1) is a concept of how the entrance might be combined with the south access for the church. Initial conversations seem to have the church agreeable to the idea. This exhibit will be used to further discussions. We appreciate your continued efforts on this matter. Feel free to call or email with any questions. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 4:59 PM To: 'Chris Hale' Subject: FW: Buffalo Valley CDOT From: Curtis.Rowe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:Curtis.Rowe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:56 AM To: chris@mountaincross-eng.com; normbacheldor@Rmail.com Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley CDOT The results of the safety analysis determined that due to the absence of a right turn acceleration lane along south - eastbound SH -82, we've recommended that a R10-11 "NO TURN ON RED" sign be posted at the signalized intersection for the CR -54 approach to SH -82. This is included in the Skylark School Traffic Study. Feel free to include this as a response for Buffalo Valley Apartments. Thanks, Curtis Curtis Rowe, P.E., PTOE (P.E. in CO, NE, WY, NM, MT, and NV) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 990 South Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 228-2304 Cell: (720) 480-9036 curtis. rowe(c�kimley-horn.com www.kimley-horn.com 31 ft F77. $$=8s_ R3 �yc�y31 k.'y�Y wkF^y< ..E yip '_�riEieBEE %Lg = a8eJano3 eno4.uedui .P00&S a C 0ER tR n.T :t 03. 3'41,1 Ti tp • g 141'4 a.^v :40 N0n . 1 g A m � 3 .777- 0 :V\ —L a 0 CAR CONGOS Buffalo Valley Apartments Site Plan Partners III, LLC MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC. Civil and Envllorne0al Consu6.ng and Design 8361804an0 Avenue 04.,,8300 Sponge. CO 61601 z49 = aleiano3 eno!etadwi i /• ,, • /• f 0 J ED / 4 e- _/ C+R Buffalo Valley Apartments Site Plan Partners III, LLC lir=, MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC. C1411 •nd Emnro *nate Coro IIIO9 uW O.Won IMMOrw Aw.u•ow...00esc.no..w e�w� Buffalo Valley Apartments Grading and Drainage Partners III, LLC MOl1NTAIN CROSS 110 ENGINEERING. INC. Civil and Environmenlal COMMON and De4gn Me tR Orrq Avenue Glenwood W.V. CO 111[01 M POW atm rt enl Were merimwneswq 1 f. OAR RV COARNTS Buffalo Valley Apartments Snow Storage Partners III, LLC 1``-, MOUNTAIN CROSS 111110 ENGINEERING. INC. Cn and Environmental Consulting and Oe0gn WI O.•.d Ar..... a«w.00d 7o ng.. Co BM, Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT 2— From: Norman Bacheldor [normbacheldor@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:30 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Chris Hale; Seth Hmielowski; Ken Janckila Subject: Parking Studies Attachments: Parking Case Study 1.pdf; Parking Case Study 2.pdf; Glenwood Greenl2-0195-12-0198_ 08.pdf; Institute of Transportation Engineers.pdf; King County.doc Glenn, I offer the following studies on Parking stall requirements. 1. Case Study One: Machebeuf Apartments in Glenwood Springs 2. Case Study Two: Glenwood Green Apartments at Glenwood Meadows 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers recommendations 4. King County Washington State, Apartment parking per unit calculator. Case Study One: Machebeuf Apartments in Glenwood Springs The web page for Google maps is: https://www.google.com/maps/place/111+Soccer+Field+Rd/(a�39.563142,- 107.360088, 354m/data=!3m2! 1 e3!4b 1 !4m2!3m 1 ! 1 s0x87410bdfcbfba6ad:0x7eb7ba96b348a6b4 Case Study Two: Glenwood Green Apartments at Glenwood Meadows Three: Institute of Transportation Engineers Four: King County Washington State, Apartment parking per unit calculator. Thanks, Norm Bacheldor normbacheldor@gmail.com 970-379-7874 Parking Case Study 1 Machebeuf Apartments 111 Soccerfield Rd Glenwood Springs, CO Site Manager: Rodney Long. 970-945-9792 This is a 55 unit Archdiocese project Built in 1996 17 each 2 -bedroom units 37 each 3 -bedroom units 1 each 3 -bedroom Manager unit 55 Units, 148 Bedrooms Total Parking Stalls: 116 Includes 8 Handicap stalls Includes 18 guest stalls Parking management system is maximum of 2 assigned stalls per apartment. However, some units only have one car or none. Parking Stall Ratio: Per Bedroom: .78 parking stalls per bedroom Per Unit: 2.1 parking stalls per unit Parking Case Study 2 Glenwood Green At Glenwood Meadows Managed by Munroe Group Ltd. 303-322-8888 Site Manager: Kim Krelovich 970-230-9075 60 Units Approximately 28 each 1 -bedroom 20 each 2 -bedroom 12 each 3 -bedroom No parking management plan currently in place, however, the manager states that one is being developed. Parking stalls: 91. No on -street parking. No assigned guest parking. Parking Ratios: Per Unit: 1.52 parking stalls per unit Per Bedroom: .88 parking stalls per bedroom Parking received a variance of 1.5 stalls per unit according to a Glenwood Post news article. CM10.111.11.41. IMMIJAIS .4.. • 0.1. •10i410.40 rirg ruse..2 Institute of Transportation Engineers Provided by Curtis Rowe Curtis Rowe, P.E., PTOE (P.E. in CO, NE, WY, NM, MT, and NV) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 990 South Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 228- 2304 Cell: (720) 480-9036 curtis.rowe©kimley-horn.com www.kimley-horn.com "I ran some calculations for you to provide some information at the next hearing. The ULI parking calculation procedure (as attached) identifies that the demand would be projected at 95 parking spaces. ITE Parking Generation shows the parking demand of apartments as 1.23 spaces per apartment unit. So, that would equate to 70 parking spaces for 57 units. So, you would be fine at 100 parking spaces. " The ULI parking calculation is in a separate attachment. King County, Washington State Apartment Parking Calculator http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2013/02/how-many- parking-stalls-does-an.html?page=all The referenced article describes a robust parking calculator for apartment projects. This tool came out of a comprehensive study funded by the Federal Highway Administration, and conducted by The Center for Neighborhood and Technology, The Urban Land Institute and Washington Department of Transportation. The calculator uses about 100 factors to determine the correct ratio of parking stalls per unit. I used the city of Kent, Washington because it is a somewhat rural small town with limited public transit. I zeroed in on two different parcels of land in the town of Kent. The calculator allows you to adjust rentals and numbers of units of various types (studio through 3 -bedroom) I used Buffalo Valley product mix, and kept the rents the same as the calculator example. The results I got were 1.4 stalls per unit and 1.48 stalls per unit. Next, I used Bellevue because it has the reputation of better public transit. I chose some land a few blocks off a major interstate clover -leaf. That location showed 1.2 stalls per unit. JOHN L. TAUFER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Architecture / Land Planning March 8, 2014 Fred Jarman, Director Garfield County Community Development Department 108 W. 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Fred, EXHIBIT 1 23 I wish to offer the following comments regarding the proposed Skylark School relocation to Mountain View Church of Glenwood Springs at County Road 154. As an adjacent property owner, I have resided at 2165 County Road i 54 for the past 28 years. Our property is located 2 properties north of the church, My main comment is in regards to vehicular/pedestrian/bicycle traffic safety at the intersection of State Highway 82, (SH 82) and County Road 154 (CR 154) and the impacts of additional traffic may have on this intersection. Having experienced the intersection issues for the past 28 years (on a daily basis), I can tell you this intersection is one of the most dangerous intersections in the County. First, the current alignment of roadways and driveways entering the intersection, on the west side of the intersection, is a problem. County Road 154 runs parallel to Highway 82 then turns almost 90 degrees toward the intersection leaving little staking space for vehicles waiting at the signal. Another roadway intersects CR 154 that carries traffic from El- Rocko mobile home park as well as Holy Cross Electric. The driveway serving the Buffalo Valley property enters CR 154 at a point that is off -set from the CR 154 and Hwy. 82 intersection point and doesn't provide enough separation between the intersection and the driveway. The Mountain View church driveway is located just north of the Buffalo Valley driveway with a short separation of only 45 feet. In addition, the Buffalo Valley and Mountain View Church driveways are both on a steep incline. Secondly, the SH 82 intersection is extremely dangerous. There is no acceleration lane for southbound (up valley) traffic at the intersection. This leads to backup traffic at peak hours. Another issue is the difficulty in seeing oncoming traffic from the north because of a curve and the jersey barriers located in the center of the highway. Turning right into the right hand driving lane is somewhat precarious because of the difficulty so see oncoming traffic and trying to determine the speed of the oncoming traffic. Turning left from the intersection toward Glenwood Springs is somewhat precarious because of the short duration of the green light. Because of the experience I have had with this intersection, I never proceed into the intersection from a left had turn without pausing to make sure the SH 82 down/up valley traffic stops at the red light. There is a turning lane from northbound traffic onto CR 154 but the staking space in this turn lane is short and can only accommodate a few vehicles. Coupled with a short Left hand turn signal, this could cause potential problems with traffic baking up into the right hand travel lane. Another dangerous issue at the intersection is one with pedestrians and bicyclists entering the 909 Colorado Avenue • Box 2271 • Glenwood Springs. C0 81802 (970) 945-1337 • FAX (970) 945-7914 intersection from the Rio Grande Trail. While there are stop signs for path users, these signs are mostly ignored by the users thus creating a conflict and safety issue for both vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. I am concerned that this land use change would add additional traffic to this dangerous intersection thus compounding the safety issue. I believe this land use change, as well as the proposed 57 unit Buffalo Valley Apartment project, should both be analyzed concurrently to determine the cumulative impacts these two projects have on the SH 82/CR 154 intersection. I previously voiced these traffic safety concerns to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the Buffalo Valley Apartments during their public hearing on February 18, 2014. I also believe the Mountain View Church/Skylark School application should be called up to the Board of County Commissioners for review and consideration since the BOCC is also considering the proposed 57 unit Buffalo Valley Apartment land use change. While I am not philosophically opposed to schools, I believe that the increased traffic generated at the school will potentially be dangerous to parents and children associated with the school as well as the general public. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John L. Taufer 2 March 11, 2014 Fred Jarman, Director Garfield County Community Development 108 W. 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr Jarman, EXHIBIT I z4 k!AR 1 1 7014 I am the homeowner at 2177 County Road 154, the house adjacent to Mountain View Church. My neighbors to the north are John and Maurine Taufer. I agree with John's assessment that the two projects—the relocation of the school to the church and the proposed apartment complex—be concurrently evaluated to determine safety and impact. After having read his March 8, 2014 letter, I am in complete agreement with his position. Given the dangerous intersection of CR154 and SH 82, I urge you to fully explore the fe sibility of these projects. Karen elden 303-349-7292 Glenn Hartmann From: Sharpe, Jason [Jason.Sharpe@CenturyLink.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 2:02 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: File #LIPA-7631 Attachments: KMBT20020140113132343.pdf Glenn, Comments for File #LIPA-7631: I would like the General Contractor to contact me before conduit is completed to review the design and coordinate a time to place facilities to these proposed dwellings at Buffalo Valley Apartments. Thanks, Jason Sharpe Design Engineer (Field Operations) 970-384-0238 Jason. Sharpe(CenturyLink.com Original Message From: scanOjds.gintra.com [mailto:scanOids.gintra.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:24 PM To: Sharpe, Jason Subject: [Image File] ,KMBT200, #469 FROM:Qwest Eng/Glenwood Image data has been attached to the E -Mail. 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Michael Prehm Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:28 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: County Road 154 & Hwy 82 intersection Glenn, EXHIBIT ?4 With the results of the current traffic counts taken last week on County Road 154 and input from Dan Russen with CDOT it is apparent that the added traffic from the Buffalo Valley Apartments & Skylark School will trigger a Hwy access permit from CDOT. The driveway that services Buffalo Valley doesn't meet our current driveway access code in that it is too close to the neighboring driveways on the South and to the North. The Skylark School doesn't meet code due to 2 driveways. A look at some kind of access management evaluation and recommendations by both of the Applicant's Traffic consultants should be required. With a public school bus stop and RAFTA trail system close by, this also would be worth a second look. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell 1 From: Norman Bacheldor[mailto:normbacheldor@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 4:45 PM To: Chris Hale; Rowe, Curtis Cc: Ken Janckila Subject: Fwd: County Road 154 & Hwy 82 intersection Chris and Curtis, EXHIBIT 1 Z7 I talked to Mike Prehm about this email and the representation that the Church's school application, plus Buffalo Valley created a situation of greater than 20% increase in traffic at Hwy 82/CR154 intersection. Mike recommended that we send a written reply to his email. My objection to his email is based upon several points of logic. First, Buff Valley has a net negative TPD of about 400. The church school proposal has a net positive TPD of about 200 (I have heard this is the number, but have not read the report) Therefore, we certainly do not cross the 20% increase threshold. Second, Buffalo Valley application is in the pipeline prior to the church school. If there is an increase in traffic, Buffalo Valley is not the cause since our project does not trip the 20% trigger. Third. No one has measured the trips in and out of Holy Cross and the trailer court. Those TPD would be counted toward the baseline at the Hwy 82/CR 154 intersection. Fourth. The baseline of CR154 is more accurate at the 2002 count. The temporary dormancy of Buffalo Valley would have decreased the CR 154 baseline. Chris Hale checked a Google Earth history and the intersection connecting 27th street to Hwy 82 was completed by 2002. It was originally thought that the completion of that intersection would have caused significant traffic counts to divert to Hwy 82 rather than travel south on CR 154 ( old Grand Ave), however, given that the connection of 27th Street to the Hwy 82 occurred, then is it probable that dormancy of Buffalo Valley contributed significantly to the decrease in traffic counts? Thanks, Norm Bacheldor normbacheldor@gmail.com 970-379-7874 2 EXHIBIT 1 28 MetroCount Traffic Executive Vehicle Counts Site: [CR 154] CR 154 Old Hwy 82 Cemetery (North End) Survey Duration: 9:00 Monday, February 24, 2014 => 12:25 Monday, March 03, 2014 • Monday, February 24, 2014 - Total --691,15 minute drops 000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 50 55 49 59 76 88 102 69 33 28 13 10 16 3 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 13 13 13 20 14 17 11 11 12 5 3 3 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 19 16 13 26 23 29 21 11 5 3 2 2 1 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 7 8 9 15 15 27 39 19 5 6 2 2 6 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21 15 11 18 15 24 17 18 6 5 3 3 5 1 0 AM Peak 1045 -1145 (61), AM PHF=0.73 PM Peak 1545 -1645 (109), PM PHF0.70 • Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - Total=828, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2 0 0 1 4 6 40 52 84 53 41 57 52 46 49 67 104 61 43 27 8 16 12 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 10 27 8 10 15 9 5 12 17 14 18 17 6 2 5 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 8 13 24 21 11 6 18 15 9 13 27 15 9 5 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 13 13 16 14 11 16 15 15 9 21 39 14 5 3 1 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 10 16 17 10 9 20 10 11 19 16 24 14 12 13 3 1 2 1 2 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (84), AM PHF=0.78 PM Peak 1615 -1715 (108), PM PHF=169 • Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - Total=909,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 3 1 2 0 2 7 39 58 77 46 47 47 59 57 59 74 97 94 41 33 37 17 9 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 9 15 20 11 9 7 10 21 12 16 18 27 9 13 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 13 22 9 11 9 12 12 12 18 21 28 10 8 6 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 14 14 17 6 10 15 20 15 15 19 39 23 6 5 15 5 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 10 16 18 20 17 16 17 9 20 21 19 16 16 7 9 4 1 1 1 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (77), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1630.1730 (113), PM PHF0.72 • Thursday, February 27, 2014 - TotaI=875,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 1 1 2 1 5 5 39 60 84 44 33 50 67 58 58 62 109 73 47 23 20 17 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 10 25 17 12 10 12 11 12 16 18 20 18 5 7 6 6 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 6 9 19 8 12 6 24 17 12 19 29 17 15 9 2 7 1 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 4 14 15 22 10 4 13 17 17 21 16 36 20 4 6 5 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 11 26 18 9 5 21 14 13 13 11 26 16 10 3 6 2 0 2 3 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (92), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1615.1715 (111), PM PHF=0.77 • Friday, February 28, 2014 - Total=942,15 minute drops 0000 0100 020 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 3 1 2 2 5 34 69 70 60 53 60 58 76 57 87 84 74 43 27 24 28 15 10 6 O 0 1 0 2 3 12 14 13 17 15 16 18 12 20 16 14 8 9 4 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 21 11 12 14 10 15 18 15 22 22 18 8 5 8 5 4 1 O 0 0 0 3 9 13 17 21 11 18 13 16 14 29 22 22 9 5 6 8 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 14 23 18 15 13 13 19 27 13 23 24 16 8 5 9 6 4 4 3 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (76), AM PHF=0.82 PM Peak 1530 -1630 (90), PM PHF).78 • Saturday, March 01, 2014 - Tota1=571,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 6 3 3 3 3 2 9 13 31 32 28 48 48 58 40 36 38 51 38 18 20 14 21 8 12 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 3 7 5 11 14 11 7 13 9 14 12 9 3 0 8 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 9 9 12 13 12 13 12 8 6 15 10 3 7 3 6 4 5 1 0 1 0 0 2 5 6 11 7 7 11 11 20 6 7 8 9 9 4 7 7 3 4 4 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 4 8 9 4 13 11 14 15 8 15 13 7 2 3 4 4 0 0 AM Peak 1115 -1215 (51), AM PHF 0.91 PM Peak 1300 -1400 (68), PM PHFO.72 • Sunday, March 02, 2014 - Totak568,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 12 10 11 3 1 4 8 13 23 43 46 75 49 30 36 45 41 47 31 14 6 9 7 4 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 16 3 16 10 12 9 8 10 11 1 1 2 1 1 0 5 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 5 8 11 13 12 3 6 8 12 6 8 3 2 2 4 0 0 4 6 3 0 0 2 3 4 4 9 12 26 15 6 8 16 13 12 4 3 2 3 2 0 0 O 1 4 0 0 2 5 7 11 21 7 33 6 11 10 12 8 19 8 7 1 2 0 3 0 AM Peak 1115 -1215 (88), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1730 -1830 (50), PM PHF 9.66 ' Monday, March 03, 2014 - Total=124 (Incomplete) ,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 1 1 4 3 6 38 54 17 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - _ _ 0 1 0 1 2 1 8 13 17 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 0 9 11 0 0 0 0 _ O 0 0 1 0 4 10 12 0 0 0 0 O 0 1 1 1 1 11 18 0 0 0 0 - Total Volume Monday 9:00 a.m. February 24, 2014 - Monday 8:30 a.m. March 3, 2014 = 5508 MetroCount Traffic Executive Vehicle Counts Site: [CR 1541 CR 154 Old Highway 82 Buffalo Valley (South End) Survey Duration: 9:00 Monday, February 24, 2014 => 12:17 Monday, March 03, 2014 • Monday, February 24, 2014 - Totai=647,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 070 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 46 49 52 48 52 68 86 104 63 23 17 13 6 8 4 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11 12 13 11 15 15 17 13 8 8 3 2 3 1 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 15 15 12 23 21 26 19 6 4 4 1 1 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 7 9 17 17 25 47 13 2 2 2 3 4 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 19 18 11 12 13 25 14 18 7 3' 4 0 0 1 0 AM Peak 1145.1245 (55), AM PHF=0.76 PM Peak 545-1645 (115), PM PHFO.61 • Tuesday, Febru ry 25, 2014 - Totat=803,15 minute drops 0000 0100 020 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 1 0 0 4 8 39 46 84 54 43 52 52 49 51 67 108 51 42 20 11 11 8 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 8 7 24 9 11 12 9 8 13 19 14 14 19 6 2 1 4 2 0 O 0 0 2 1 10 13 25 18 15 4 17 11 11 13 23 16 9 2 1 7 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 1 9 11 14 15 10 20 16 19 11 19 47 12 8 0 5 3 2 0 0 O 0 0 1 6 12 15 21 12 7 16 10 11 16 16 24 9 6 12 3 0 2 0 2 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (84), AM PHF 0.84 PM Peak 1600 -1700 (108), PM PHF 0.57 • Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - Totak 37,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2 1 2 0 2 6 37 51 79 46 48 43 55 54 55 68 97 79 32 35 26 14 3 2 1 O 1 1 0 0 1 6 11 19 12 9 6 10 18 12 19 19 20 7 14 4 2 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 2 0 8 14 25 9 11 11 11 18 8 16 24 24 6 10 2 3 0 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 3 12 11 18 6 12 11 18 11 15 17 36 19 8 4 9 6 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 11 15 17 19 16 15 16 7 20 16 18 16 11 7 11 3 0 1 1 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (79), AM PHFO.79 PM Peak 1615 -1715 (98), PM PHF"0.68 • Thursday, February 27, 2014 - Totat=807,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 1 1 2 1 5 4 40 52 81 56 36 41 52 62 48 63 101 70 27 22 17 12 6 7 3 O 1 0 0 1 0 7 9 26 24 11 12 11 16 9 23 18 22 13 5 6 5 5 1 0 O 0 1 1 1 0 7 8 19 9 13 5 17 13 12 16 26 17 9 10 1 3 1 2 0 O 0 1 0 0 4 12 13 23 11 6 10 14 17 17 14 36 20 3 4 6 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 14 22 13 12 6 14 10 16 10 10 21 11 2 3 4 1 0 3 3 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (90), AM PHF=0.87 PM Peak 1615 -1715 (105), PM PHF0.73 • Frtday, February 28, 2014 - Total=880,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 3 1 0 2 1 7 25 62 69 55 48 58 52 77 62 87 84 71 33 26 20 24 9 4 6 O 0 0 1 0 2 2 11 13 11 16 10 15 15 19 22 18 12 6 9 3 7 2 1 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 22 11 11 21 9 20 17 12 23 26 17 9 5 7 3 1 2 O 0 0 0 0 4 5 11 17 19 8 17 14 14 15 29 21 20 5 5 5 8 3 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 11 20 17 14 13 10 14 28 11 24 22 13 5 3 7 2 1 1 3 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (72), AM PHF=0.82 PM Peak 1530 -1630 (94), PM PHF=6.81 ' Saturday, March 01, 2014 - Total=509, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 6 2 4 3 3 4 9 12 21 29 27 48 45 49 32 32 34 44 30 18 18 14 19 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 5 6 6 10 15 9 9 10 7 14 10 5 4 3 8 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 7 9 14 11 15 10 7 8 13 9 4 6 2 5 3 5 O 0 2 0 0 1 4 6 8 9 8 12 9 15 3 6 7 8 6 5 6 6 2 2 5 3 0 0 1 2 2 2 3 4 7 4 12 10 10 10 9 12 9 5 4 2 3 4 0 1 AM Peak 1115 -1215 (53), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1245 -1345 (49), PM PHF 3.82 • Sunday, March 02, 2014 - Total=467, 15 minute drops 000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 1 6 8 1 1 4 5 7 15 29 45 62 44 29 34 37 30 43 25 15 4 6 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 13 3 10 9 6 8 9 8 6 4 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 4 16 11 13 5 10 7 7 8 6 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 4 5 7 24 15 6 11 13 6 14 4 5 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 3 4 1 13 9 24 6 9 7 9 8 13 9 6 1 0 0 3 0 AM P ak 1130 -1230 (71), AM PHF 0.74 PM Peak 1200 -1300 (44), PM PHF40.73 • Mo 000 day, March 0100 020 2 2 0 0 0 3, 2014 - Total=127 (incomplete) ,15 minut 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 090 4 3 5 37 51 25 1 1 0 5 14 15 1 1 0 13 9 10 1 0 4 10 11 0 1 1 1 9 17 0 drop 100 110 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 Total Volume Monday 9:00 a.m. February 24, 2014 - Monday 8:30 a.m. March 3, 2014 = 5077 MetroCount Traffic Executive Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-85 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site: Direction: Survey Duration: Zone: File: Identifier: Algorithm: Data type: Profile: Filter time: Included classes: Speed range: Direction: Separation: Name: Scheme: Units: In profile: EXHIBIT 2t [CR 154] CR 154 Old Highway 82 & Highway 82 Intersection 5 - South bound A>B, North bound B>A. Lane: 2 14:01 Wednesday, March 26, 2014 => 14:36 Thursday, April 03, 2014 CR 15403Apr2014.EC2 (Plus) R615BCQT MC56-L5 [MC55] (c)Microcom 19Oct04 Factory default (v3.21 - 15275) Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) 14:02 Wednesday, March 26, 2014 => 14:36 Thursday, April 03, 2014 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 5 - 100 mph. North, East, South, West (bound) All - (Headway) Default Profile Vehicle classification (ARX) Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, Ib, ton) Vehicles = 4874 / 6890 (70.74%) • Thursday, March 27, 2014 - Total=511,15 Minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 47 55 60 50 48 54 58 42 30 13 21 9 6 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 13 19 19 8 16 20 14 5 1 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 10 11 12 10 10 11 5 2 5 10 1 4 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 16 15 9 13 14 21 13 11 5 5 3 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 16 15 10 17 14 6 10 12 2 2 2 0 0 AM Peak 1145 -1245 (50), AM PHFO.78 PM Peak 1645 -1745 (88), PM PHF=0.79 • Friday, March 28, 2014 - Total=708,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 4 1 0 5 2 37 43 41 39 30 52 54 41 53 50 61 74 41 30 18 13 10 6 2 2 0 0 0 1 4 8 10 4 11 6 14 9 9 12 19 20 11 7 7 0 5 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 8 5 16 7 18 4 8 9 12 14 18 6 8 4 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 10 14 7 11 20 12 11 16 10 24 13 12 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 14 17 16 5 5 17 16 12 24 10 18 12 11 3 5 10 0 0 0 AM Peak 1115 -1215 (60), AM PHF=0.83 PM Peak 1645 -1745 (80), PM PHF=0.83 • Saturday, March 29,2014 - Total=510, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 5 5 0 0 3 9 13 18 21 22 51 44 52 26 44 55 36 21 31 20 22 6 4 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 5 6 4 11 11 13 8 13 9 12 5 7 5 10 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 2 2 4 4 2 5 17 8 9 3 8 11 14 11 10 5 1 2 2 4 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 3 8 13 12 14 8 15 14 3 0 6 5 7 1 2 1 O 2 0 0 0 1 5 1 4 10 5 10 13 16 7 8 21 7 5 8 5 4 0 0 2 AM Peak 1100 -1200 (51), AM PHF=0.75 PM Peak 1630 -1730 (61), PM PHF=0.73 • Sunday, March 30,2014 - Total=605, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 4 2 1 0 1 4 10 28 46 50 71 54 41 49 40 46 58 19 11 25 18 15 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 7 6 29 6 19 14 14 10 3 22 9 4 3 7 3 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 11 7 16 9 9 12 12 22 5 0 5 6 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 13 3 4 39 8 4 8 15 17 6 2 5 11 2 9 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 8 26 6 19 11 14 18 3 14 8 3 2 6 3 3 2 0 AM Peak 1130 -1230 (93), AM PHF 0.60 PM Peak 1630.1730 (75), PM PHF=0.85 • Monday, March 31,2014 -Total=740, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 0 2 2 1 4 51 43 51 55 34 31 59 47 48 52 77 78 29 33 11 18 8 3 O 0 0 0 0 0 5 17 14 16 11 4 15 7 21 8 19 17 5 13 4 6 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13 14 10 8 10 10 11 17 8 11 19 12 5 9 2 5 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 19 8 12 14 8 8 11 14 5 17 16 25 12 3 3 3 0 0 0 O 0 2 1 0 3 14 4 15 17 5 9 22 9 14 16 23 24 7 8 2 4 5 0 0 AM Peak 0630 - 0730 (64), AM PHFO.84 PM Peak 1700 -1800 (78), PM PHF=0.78 • Tuesday, April 01,2014 - Total801,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 O 0 0 0 5 5 45 67 66 48 39 55 44 39 37 52 86 73 54 33 23 12 13 5 O 0 0 0 2 0 3 14 16 6 12 14 11 12 13 9 21 27 12 11 1 5 7 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 7 19 22 14 4 16 10 4 16 8 15 19 24 6 4 4 2 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 2 14 14 11 19 7 8 10 8 1 15 29 17 8 10 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 21 20 17 9 16 17 13 15 7 20 21 10 10 6 12 0 4 1 0 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (72), AM PHF=.82 PM Peak 1630 -1730 (96), PM PHF=0.83 • Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - Total=724, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 O 4 1 0 2 8 49 54 44 43 44 48 45 52 51 63 66 56 34 19 18 14 4 5 O 2 0 0 0 4 4 15 20 9 5 14 9 26 13 15 19 7 12 6 2 5 2 1 1 O 0 0 0 0 1 13 7 11 8 13 12 14 10 6 17 7 19 8 6 4 2 2 1 0 O 2 1 0 2 1 11 15 4 16 12 12 15 9 18 17 23 16 8 2 7 6 0 2 1 O 0 0 0 0 2 21 17 9 10 14 10 7 7 14 14 17 14 6 5 5 1 0 1 0 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (63), AM PHF 0.79 PM Peak 1515 -1615 (67), PM PHF=0.88 • Thursday, April 03, 2014 - Total=275 (incomplete) ,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 1 1 0 4 5 59 49 70 52 24 8 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 15 17 21 7 8 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 2 1 10 13 19 9 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 27 7 16 9 7 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 2 4 18 14 18 13 5 0 0 0 AM Peak 0815 - 0915 (74), AM PHF=0.88 Glenn Hartmann From: Michael Erion [Merion@resource-eng.com) Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 5:28 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Buffalo Valley LIPA 7631 Supplemental Information Glen: EXHIBIT 30 I reviewed the supplemental information from Mountain Cross Engineering regarding Fire Truck access and snow storage. The Fire truck access requires al usable space between the island and the parking areas. Given that some SUV's and trucks are 18 to 22 feet long, the parking spots in the critical turning path around the island should be limited to small cars only (or the parking areas and drive could be reconfigured). The snow storage plan appears to meet the technical calculation for area, but is not fully functional. There are several small triangles and odd shapes that cannot be fully utilized. The storage area north of the stacked parking area would likely not be accessible due to parked cars. Also, the curb and gutter creates an issue for snowplow drivers who have to lift the blade to get over the curb and then lower the blade to move snow once in the storage area. The detention pond area is difficult to fully access. It also has parking spaces that block access. Regards, Michael Michael Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-ene.com The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message from your system. Thank You. 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Andrew C McGregor [andrew.mcgregor@cogs.us] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 4:03 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Buffalo Valley Apartments EXHIBIT 3 31 Glenn, Thanks for providing the City with some updated information on the Buffalo Valley Apartments. Because the site accesses a very complicated intersection, the proposed use generates safety and capacity questions in that area. Coupled with the proposed school in the Mountain View Church facility, the peak hour traffic generation will increase, particularly in the am, unlike the historic restaurant use. Ideally the development could assist in some incremental solution to the challenges that the CR 154 and Highway 82 intersection now face and will to continue to experience in the future. Some right of way contribution by adjoining property owners might provide a long term benefit towards the ultimate reconfiguration of this intersection. The common driveway with Buffalo Valley and the church depicted in one of the plans also offers a positive option as well. Please consider these comments in addition to those submitted on January 30`h Andrew McGregor Community Development Director City of Glenwood Springs 101 W. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-384-6429 andrew.mcgregor@cogs.us Jill N Peterson From: Jill N Peterson Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:11 AM To: 'normbacheldor@gmail.com' Subject: Glenwood Green Apartments Norm — I was able to access the information on Glenwood Green more readily than I thought. The project is 60 units, 28 - 1 Bedroom, 20 — 2 bedroom, 12 — 3 bedroom. The site plan is attached. Also, for your information, it appears that a parking variance was requested and approved. I pulled the section below from the planner's staff report on the project. It appears the City supported the parking variance because the units were restricted to maximum rents that could be charged, i.e. the project is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit project which was approved by CHAFA. Hopefully, this information provides you some additional background. 1. Parking variance — number of spaces - The municipal code requires 2.4 parking spaces per unit, which may be reduced to 2.2 spaces per unit if no recreational vehicle parking is allowed on site. The applicant has requested a variance to provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit on site, for a total of 90 parking spaces. Why is this acceptable? -The Comprehensive Plan states the following: "The City will use both regulations and incentives (such as density or zoning bonuses, additional height, parking waiver, etc.) to encourage the development of housing at lower, more attainable price points. " (Emphasis added) - The community has experienced ongoing issues from overflow parking from residential developments elsewhere in the community. Planning staff contacted the manager of the Machebeuf Apartments, another low income apartment development, and they indicated that they have had issues with their parking overflowing onto other properties. They see this as a management issue as the previous property manager did not enforce the lease restriction of two cars per unit. The applicant points out in their materials that their development serves lower income residents than Machebeuf and that their unit mix is weighted more towards one bedrooms, both factors which should result in fewer vehicles. -Monroe Group will be the property manager and they specialize in affordable property management. Their signed lease agreement restricts residents to one parking space per unit. Residents are assigned parking permits and visitors may park only in visitor designated parking spaces. Their management system involves citations for unauthorized vehicles, and if the vehicle owner does not respond, the vehicle is towed. -Planning staff contacted the parking enforcement officer in Montrose regarding two affordable apartment developments owned by the same developer which provide parking at a rate of 1.8 spaces per unit. He said that they have had no complaints to speak of, that they have ample parking, but that there are sometimes issues with handicapped parking in the area. -Planning staff thinks that the adequacy of parking on this property will depend on careful management of parking by the property manager. It provides confidence that the applicant has an existing policy which is enforced and successful on other properties. Other City staff have pointed out that even if the property owner manages cars on site, residents could park extra vehicles along Wulfsohn, which creates a parking enforcement burden and extra cost for the City. This is a possibility which the Commission will need to weigh in its assessment. Jill Peterson City Planner 1 City of Glenwood Springs 101 W. 8th Street 970 384-6407 970 945-8582 fax jill.peterson@cogs.us 2 EXHIBIT 1 33 rTh SOUTH BRIDGE Appendix A: Safety Assessment Safety Assessment 1 Appendix A r ro i :Sir^fjr E ,'Mtr rjri gr, Ar,,-,lyrfr t r rq; rrrnr,! rrf nr Ifr-rnr': r f.74rr7rmri A Statement of Philosophy The efficient and responsible investment of resources in addressing safety problems is a difficult task. Since crashes occur on all highways in use, it is inappropriate to say of any highway that it is safe. However, it is correct to say that highways can be built to be safer or Tess safe. Road safety is a matter of degree. When making decisions effecting road safety it is critical to understand that expenditure of limited available funds on improvements in places where it prevents few injuries and saves few lives can mean that injuries will occur and lives will be lost by not spending them in places where more accidents could have been prevented. It is CDOT's objective to maximize accident reduction within the limitations of available budgets by making road safety improvements at locations where it does the most good or prevents the most accidents. INTRODUCTION The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) of 1998 requires explicit consideration of safety in the transportation planning process. While this government mandate is well intentioned, little is known about how to accomplish it. In order to meet this requirement, we have employed a recently -developed concept of the Level of Service of Safety2 (LOSS). The LOSS concept makes it possible to accomplish the following: • Qualitatively describe the degree of safety or un -safety of a roadway segment. • Effectively communicate the magnitude of the safety problem to other professionals or elected officials. Bring perception of roadway safety in line with reality of safety performance reflecting a specific facility. • Provide a frame of reference from a safety perspective for planning major corridor improvements. The scope of the safety chapter of the Environmental Assessment (EA) is as follows: • Assess the magnitude and nature of the safety problem within the project limits. • Relate accident causality to roadway geometrics, roadside features, traffic control devices, traffic operations, driver behavior, and vehicle type. • Suggest counter measures to address identified problems. • Provide guidance on how to identify the preferred alternative from a safety standpoint. The safety chapter of the EA will prepare a framework for the evaluation of alternatives from a safety standpoint. 1 Hauer, E., (1999) Safety Review of Highway 407: Confronting Two Myths. TRB 2 Kononov, J. & Allery, B. (2003) Level of Service of Safety -Conceptual Blueprint and Analytical Framework. Presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. (January 2003) GARFIELD COUNTY 1 SITE LOCATION AND CONDITIONS This study addresses SH 82 in Garfield County in the southern portion of the City of Glenwood Springs, beginning at MP 3.45 and continuing southeasterly to MP 4.00 (see Figure 1). The included distance is 0.55 miles. There is currently an existing County Road 154 intersection at approximately MP 3.55, one (1) existing private access intersections at approximately MP 3.67, MP 3.90 and 3.96; and the Red Canyon Road/private access to Holy Cross Electric at approximately MP 3.70. This study will also analyze the preferred alternate South Bridge Alignment/County Road 154 signalized intersection at approximately MP 3.88. Figure 1 GLENWObb PRINGS SH 82. MP 3.45 c r BEGIN STUDY SECTION y SH 82. MP 4.00 END STUDY SECTION SH 82 is classified as an Urban Other Principal Arterial highway in mountainous terrain throughout the study section. The highway is a four -lane divided facility with a painted median from approximately MP 3.45 to 3.78, where the median changes to a raised curb median up to approximately MP 3.93, where the median is open, depressed and landscaped . According to the 2008 CORIS listing file, the 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is 24,800 Vehicles per Day (VPD) throughout the entire study section, and the 2008 truck traffic rate is 4.1% of the total traffic. Keep in mind that these figures are historical and will be different from the current figures listed in other sections of this EA. The posted speed limit varies from 55 mph to 65 mph inside the City of Glenwood Springs. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 2 South Bridge SH 82 ACCIDENT HISTORY The accident history for the five-year study period, from January 1St, 2004 to December 31st, 2008 was examined for the aforementioned study section to help locate accident clusters and identify accident causes. During the five-year study period, 55 accidents were reported on SH 82 between MP 3.45 and 4.00. Of these 55 accidents, 21 were located at intersections or were intersection -related, one (1) was located at a driveway access, and 33 were located in urban non -intersections. Of the 21 intersection and intersection -related accidents, 13 were located at the SH 82 / County Road (CR) 154 intersection, and eight (8) were located at the SH 82 / Red Canyon Road - Holy Cross Electric private access. Further analysis of these intersections are shown later in this report. In addition, eight (8) of the 55 total accidents resulted in `Injuries', and none resulted in a `Fatality'. Table 1 summarizes the total accidents, annually, over the five-year study period, along with the Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts (AADT). Table 1 Year AADT Accidents PDO Injury Fatal Total 2004 22,600 10 2 0 12 2005 23,300 7 3 0 10 2006 23,700 14 0 0 14 2007 24,900 5 2 0 7 2008 24,800 11 1 0 12 TOTAL 47 8 0 55 Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 3 South Bridge Figure 2 shows the accident severity distribution for the entire study section for the five-year study period. Figure 2 Accident Distribution by Severity SH 82, MP 3.45 to MP 4.00 Fatal 0 Accidents (0%) Injury 8 Accidents (15%) Property Damage Only 47 Accidents (85%) 55 Accidents Total As Figure 2 indicates, 15% (eight accidents) of the accidents during the study period resulted in `Injuries', 85% (47 accidents) resulted in `Property -Damage Only, and none resulted in a `Fatality'. The `Injury' and `Fatal' rates are below statewide average when compared to similar facilities, so overall, the SH 82 study area has performed well, safety -wise. Figure 3 shows the accident distribution, by accident type, for the SH 82 study section during the five-year study period. Figure 3 Accident Distribution by Accident Type SH 82, MP 3.45 to MP 4.00 Wild Animal 9 Accidents (16%) Rear End 8 Accidents (1510) Broadside 7 Accidents (13%) sideswipe (Same) 4 Accidents (7%) Fixed Objects 16 Accidents (29%) Head On 1 Accident (20/0 _Other Non Sideswipe Collision Opposite) 3 Accidents 2 Ac = nts (4%) (5%) Involv(ng �LargeRocks Overturning Other Object or Boulder 1 Accident (2%) 2 Accidents 2 Accidents (4%) 4% Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 4 June 2011 South Bridge As Figure 3 indicates, 29% (16 accidents) of the accident types struck were 'Fixed Objects', 16% (nine accidents) were 'Wild Animal', 15% (eight accidents) were 'Rear -End' accidents, and 13% (seven accidents) were 'Broadside' accidents. The accidents rates for 'Wild Animal', 'Rear -End' and 'Broadside' are higher than the statewide average for similar facilities. Most of the 'Wild Animal' accidents (seven of nine) were located between MP 3.80 to the end of the study section. The animals being hit at this segment are deer and elk. While the problem of vehicles hitting wild animals, especially larger ones such as these, is a serious problem, it is also one of the most difficult to effectively address without incurring high costs and complex environmental considerations. The statewide increase in this accident type is possibly tied to what we hope are temporary drought conditions that have affected the state in recent years. The Region may want to consider adding wild animal advance warning signs (W11-3) at both ends of the study section. None of the 'Rear -End' accidents resulted in 'Injuries' or a 'Fatality'. Poor driver behavior or careless driving, not poor existing site conditions, were factors in five (5) of the 'Rear -End' accidents. If these rear -end accidents were removed from the analysis, the rate of rear -end accidents would be slightly below the statewide average rate for similar facilities, and the number of these accidents would be very low for this study section over the five-year study period. Since the number of these accidents is low, no effective counter measure is warranted. Five (5) of the 'Broadside' accidents were located at the CR 154 intersection at MP 3.55, and the remaining two (2) accidents were located at the Red Canyon Road / Holy Cross Electric private access unsignalized intersection at MP 3.70. More detailed analysis of these accidents is described later in this report. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 5 South Bridge Figure 4 shows a breakdown of the fixed object accidents for the SH 82 study section during the five-year study period. `Guard Rail' was the most common object struck (five accidents), followed by `Concrete Barrier' (4 accidents), and `Embankment' (four accidents). There were very few secondary accident events that would cause additional safety concerns on this study section of SH 82. Therefore, no countermeasures are warranted. Figure 4 Accident Distribution by Object Type SH 82, MP 3.45 to MP 4.00 Guard Rail 5 Accidents (32%) Other Fixed Object 1 Accident(6%) Wall or Building 1 Accident(6%) Delineator Post 1 Accident (6%) Concrete Barrier 4 Accidents (25%) Embankment Sign \.3 Accidents (19° 1 Accident (6%) 16 Accidents Total 47 PDO 85% INJ 15'7'0 0 FAT 0% Figure 5 shows the accident distribution, by road conditions, for the SH 82 study section during the five-year study period. As the figure shows, road conditions did not appear to be a factor as most of the accidents occurred during 'Dry Road' conditions. Figure 5 Accident Distribution by Road Conditions SH 82, MP 3.45 to MP 4.00 Unknown 1 Accident (2%) -- Wet Road 5 Accidents (9% Dry Road 36 Accidents (67%) All Wintry Conditions 12 Accidents (22%) 55 Accidents Total 47 PDO 054E 8 KJ 15% 0 FAT 0% Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 6 June 2011 South Bridge Figure 6 shows the accident distribution, by lighting conditions, for the SH 82 study section. As the figure shows, lighting conditions were not a factor as most of the accidents occurred under `Daylight' conditions. It should be noted that the accident rate of Dark -Lighted' conditions is higher than the statewide average (0%) for similar facilities. However, the number of accidents that occurred under these `Dark -Lighted' conditions was 15; therefore, these small samples of accidents appear to skew the accident rate of this study section for the five-year study period, and no countermeasure is warranted. Figure 6 Accident Distribution by Lighting Conditions SH 82, MP 3.45 to MP 4.00 Unknown Lighting 1 Accident (2%) Daylight 29 Accidents (53%) Dark- Unlighted 3 Accidents (5%) Dawn or Dusk_% 7 Accidents (13%) Dark- Lighted 15 Accidents (27%) 55 Accidents Total 47 PDO 85% 8 INJ 15% 0 FAT 0% Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 7 South Bridge SSI 82 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR 2008 SH 82 / CR 154 (Four -Leg Signalized Intersection) SH082A, MP 3.55 SH 82 and County Road (CR) 154 is currently a four -leg signalized intersection. SH 82 is a four - lane, divided highway, with turn -lanes, while CR 154 is a two-lane undivided highway, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. The north leg is a minor street that parallels SH 82, giving the minor street the appearance of a frontage road in Figure 7. Figure 7 Figure 8 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 8 June 2011 South Bridge During most of the five-year study period (2004-2008), this intersection was unsignalized with a one-way stop -control sign at CR 154. Traffic signals were installed at this intersection in May 2008. Since then, only one (1) accident was reported during the remaining period of 2008. During the five-year study period, there were 13 accidents located at or related to this intersection. Figure 9 shows the accident distribution, by accident type, for the 13 accidents that occurred at this intersection. Figure 9 Accident Distribution by Accident Type SH 82/CR 154 Intersection MP 3.54 to MP 3.55 Broadside 5 Accidents (38%) Fixed Objects •`� .a'1 3 Accidents (23%) Sideswipe (Same) 1 Accident (8%) Rear End 4 Accidents (31 %) 13 Accidents Total 10 PDO 77% 3 INJ 23% 0 FAT 0% There were 13 intersection -related accidents, of which most of the accident types were `Broadside' (five accidents), followed by 'Rear End' (four accidents), and `Fixed Objects' (three accidents). The precipitating factors in the 'Rear End' accidents vary and appeared to be due to random driver error that was not exacerbated by any design -related features of the intersection. Distracted driving, driver unfamiliar with the area, or alcohol were factors in two (2) of the five (5) `Broadside' accidents at the intersection. The remaining three (3) accidents were caused when a vehicle on CR 154 failed to yield before making left or right turns onto SH 82. In addition, two (2) of the accidents resulted in `Injuries'. The remaining three accidents involved striking `Other Fixed Objects' at this intersection, resulting from eastbound SH 82 vehicles making a sharp (greater than 90°) right turn onto northbound CR 154, and striking a concrete structure at the southwest corner of the intersection. These instances would indicate that this intersection is tightly confined geometrically, making a clean right -turn movement by a larger vehicle a difficult maneuver. No injuries or fatalities resulted from these accidents. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 9 South Bridge The assessment of the magnitude of safety problems on intersections has been refined through the use of Safety Performance Functions (SPF). The SPF reflects the complex relationship between traffic exposure measured in Average Daily Traffic (ADT), and accident count for an intersection measured in accidents per year. The SPF models provide an estimate of the normal or expected accident frequency and severity for a range of ADT among similar facilities. Two kinds of Safety Performance Functions were calibrated. The first one addresses the total number of accidents, and the second one looks only at accidents involving an injury or fatality. It allows us to assess the magnitude of the safety problem from both the frequency and severity standpoint. All of the dataset preparation was performed using the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) accident databases. Accident history for each facility was prepared using the most recent five years of available accident data. ADT for each intersection approach (major and minor) over the five years was entered into the same dataset. Development of the SPF lends itself well to the conceptual formulation of the Level of Service of Safety (LOSS). The concept of level of service uses qualitative measures that characterize safety of a roadway segment in reference to its expected performance and severity. If the level of safety predicted by the SPF will represent a normal or expected number of accidents at a specific level of ADT, then the degree of deviation from the norm can be stratified to represent specific levels of safety as follows: LOSS I - Indicates a Low Potential for Accident Reduction LOSS II - Indicates a Better than Expected Safety Performance LOSS 111 - Indicates a Less than Expected Safety Performance LOSS IV - Indicates a High Potential for Accident Reduction Gradual change in the degree of deviation of the LOSS boundary line from the fitted model mean reflects the observed increase of variability in accidents as ADT increases. LOSS reflects how the intersection is performing in regard to its expected accident frequency and severity at a specific level of ADT (major and minor). It only provides an accident frequency and severity comparison with the expected norm. It does not, however, provide any information related to the nature of the safety problem itself. If a safety problem is present, LOSS will only describes its magnitude from the frequency and severity standpoint. The nature of the problem is determined through diagnostic analysis using direct diagnostics and pattern recognition. The accident history for the five-year study period within the SH 82/County Road 154 intersection has been plotted for evaluation. Figure 10 addresses the total number of accidents, while Figure 11 addresses injury and fatal accidents -only. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 10 South Bridge Figure 10 12.0 Total Accidents per Year 10.0 - + 1.5 + 1.5 6 6.0 - LOSS IV LOSS IV 6.0 - 2.0 - LOSS III 1.5 • LOSS III 4.0 - 1.0 2.0 - Expected Crash t istory , ed Crash tistory 2.1 Ac Expected Crash tistory Obs tory 0.0 =:J 2.0Acc/Yr LOSS �7 OSS i II 0.5 0.6 0.6 Acc/Yr -1.5 (20, 10,0CC 20.000 30.000 40.000 50,000 60,000 70,000 - 1.5 Figure 11 3.5 INJ+FAT Accidents per Year 3.0 + 1.5 6 2.5 - LOSS IV 2.0 - 1.5 • LOSS III 1.0 Expected Crash tistory Obs tory 0.5 0.6 0.6 Acc/Yr 0.0 �, __ -� LOSS II _ - 1.5 6 6 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 11 June 2011 South Bridge The SPF analysis for total and injury and fatal accidents -only accidents shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively, indicates that the accident frequencies for the intersection are between LOSS II and LOSS III, which means the safety performance of the intersection is at the expected level when compared to other urban four -leg signalized intersections. Private Accesses: SH082A, MP 3.67, 3.90 and 3.96 There were no intersection -related accidents reported at the existing private accesses during the five year study period. SH 82/CR Red Canyon Road — Holy Cross Electric Private Access Unsignalized Intersection: SH082A, MP 3.70 SH 82 and Red Canyon Road — Holy Cross Electric Private Access is currently a four -leg signalized intersection. SH 82 is a four -lane, undivided highway, with left -turn -lanes on both legs, while Red Canyon Road and Holy Cross Electric Private Access are two-lane undivided roads, as shown in Figures 12 and 13. Figure 12 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 12 June 2011 South Bridge Figure 13 During the five-year study period, there were eight (8) accidents located at or related to this intersection. Figure 14 shows the accident distribution, by accident type, for the eight (8) accidents that occurred at this intersection. Figure 14 Accident Distribution by Accident Type SH 82/Red Canyon Road Intersection MP 3.70 Broadside 2 Accidents (25%) Other Non Collision 1 Accident(12%) Fixed Objects 2 Accidents (25%) • Head On ' 1 Accident (12%) Sideswipe (Same) Sideswipe 1 Accident(13%) (Opposite) 1 Accident(13%) 8 Accidents Total 6 PDO 75% 2INJ 25% 0 FAT 0% There were eight (8) intersection -related accidents, of which most of the accident types were `Broadside' and `Fixed Objects' (two accidents). The precipitating factors in the `Rear End' accidents vary and appeared to be due to random driver error that was not exacerbated by any design -related features of the intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 13 South Bridge 12.0 - Distracted driving, driver unfamiliar with the area, or alcohol were factors in two (2) of the five (5) `Broadside' accidents at the intersection. The remaining three (3) accidents were caused when a vehicle on CR 154 failed to yield before making left or right turns onto SH 82. In addition, two (2) of the accidents resulted in `Injuries'. The remaining three accidents involved striking `Other Fixed Objects' at this intersection, resulting from eastbound SH 82 vehicles making a sharp (greater than 90°) right turn onto northbound CR 154, and striking a concrete structure at the southwest corner of the intersection. These instances would indicate that this intersection is tightly confined geometrically, making a clean right -turn movement by a larger vehicle a difficult maneuver. No injuries or fatalities resulted from these accidents. Once again, assessing the magnitude of safety problems on this intersection has been refined through the use of SPF. Two kinds of SPF were calibrated. The first one addresses the total number of accidents, and the second one looks only at accidents involving an injury or fatality. It allows us to assess the magnitude of the safety problem from both the frequency and severity standpoint. The accident history for the five-year study period within the SH 82/County Road 154 intersection has been plotted for evaluation. Figure 15 addresses the total number of accidents, while Figure 16 addresses injury and fatal accidents -only. Figure 15 16.0 Total Accidents per Year 14.0 - 10.0 - 8.0 - 6.0 - 4.0 - 20 - 0.0 LOSS IV Ex led Crash History perc 4:2 Acc/Yt LOSS 111 Observed Crash History 1.6 LOSS 11 10,300 20,000 30.000 40,003 50,000 60.000 70,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 14 i June 2011 South Bridge Figure 16 4.5 4.0 - 3.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 2.0 1.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 0.0 1 INJ+FAT Accidents per Year Expected Crash History 1.3 Acc LOSS 111 LOSS 11 0 Observed Crash History �J 0.4 Acc/Yr 10,000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70,000 The SPF analysis for total and injury and fatal accidents -only accidents shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively, indicates that the accident frequency for the intersection is LOSS III, which means the safety performance of the intersection is better-than-expected. This is evident where the eight (8) accidents in this intersection are small for a five-year time period; therefore, the intersection has performed well, safety -wise. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 15 South Bridge INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR 2035 The next set of accident projections will estimate accident reductions over the 29 years leading up to 2035 for the SH 82/CR 154 intersection. According to this environmental assessment report, there is a 1.7% annual growth in the SH 82 corridor area; therefore, there would be a 1.7% annual increase in the number of accidents due to increasing traffic. SH 82/CR 154 Unsignalized Intersection: SH082A, MP 3.55 This intersection is currently a four -leg, signalized intersection. If there are no improvements in the intersection, the projected annual accidents up to 2035 are shown in Table 2 below: Table 2 — No. of Projected Accidents — SH 82/CR 154 Intersection (No Action): Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents 2008 2 2013 2 2018 2 2023 2 2028 2 2033 3 2009 2 2014 2 2019 2 2024 2 2029 2 2034 3 2010 2 2015 2 2020 2 2025 2 2030 2 2035 3 2011 2 2016 2 2021 2 2026 2 2031 2 2012 2 2017 2 2022 2 2027 2 2032 2 As you can see, the annual number of accidents is projected to be low without intersection improvements. The preferred alternative described in this report would convert this intersection to an unsignalized, `Florida -T' intersection, described in Chapter 2 of this report. The proposed intersection design would limit SH 82 access to right-in/right-out movements from the east leg, and right-in/right-out and left-in/left-out movements from the west leg of the intersection; which would be an effective countermeasure in eliminating future `Broadside' accidents, and it would effectively reduce the number of accidents by an estimated 35% - 40% since 38% of the total accidents at this intersection consisted of `Broadside' accident types in 2008. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 16 South Bridge SH 82 / Red Canyon Road — Holy Cross Electric Private Access: SH082A, MP 3.70 This intersection is currently a four -leg, unsignalized intersection. If no improvements are done at this intersection, the projected annual accidents up to 2035 is shown in Table 3 below: Table 3 — No. of Projected Accidents — SH 82/Red Canyon Road — Holy Cross Electric Private Access Intersection (No Action): Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents Year Accidents 2008 2 2013 2 2018 2 2023 2 2028 2 2033 3 2009 2 2014 2 2019 2 2024 2 2029 2 2034 3 2010 2 2015 2 2020 2 2025 2 2030 2 2035 3 2011 2 2016 2 2021 2 2026 2 2031 2 2012 2 2017 2 2022 2 2027 2 2032 2 Once again, the annual number of accidents is projected to be low without intersection improvements, and the intersection should continue to perform well through the year 2035. The preferred alternative described in this report would eliminate this intersection, and traffic would be re-routed to a proposed SH 82 / Red Canyon Road — South Bridge Access signalized intersection, located at approximately MP 3.88. More details of this proposed intersection is described in the next subsection. SH 82 / Red Canyon Road — Proposed South Bridge Access Intersection: SH082A, MP 3.88 If the preferred alternative is chosen, this proposed intersection would be a four -leg, signalized intersection. SH 82 would remain a four -lane divided highway; and both legs would include left - turn lanes, and right -turn deceleration lanes, and acceleration lanes. The proposed South Bridge access road would represent the south leg of the intersection, and it would be a two-lane undivided road, with a right -turn deceleration lane. A re-routed Red Canyon Road would represent the north leg of the intersection, and it would be a two-lane undivided road. There are two private accesses along SH 82, located just east of this intersection location, at MP 3.90 and 3.96, that would be relocated to the proposed South Bridge access road; therefore, maintaining smooth traffic flow and potentially reducing accidents along SH 82. Traffic in this intersection is assumed to be coming from the existing SH 82 / Red Canyon Road — Holy Cross Electric private access intersection because of the close proximity of the two intersections. The number of accidents (three accidents) at the existing intersection (in 2035) will be the same at this proposed intersection. Even though the volume of traffic at this proposed intersection will be higher than at the existing SH 82 / Red Canyon Road intersection, the presence of the above-mentioned geometric improvements and safety features will mitigate the anticipated increase in traffic volume. Colorado Department of Transportation June 2011 Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 17 South Bridge 1 SOUTH BRIDGE ENVI RONM E N TAI ASSESSMENT Figure 23. New Alignment on East Side of the Roaring Fork River IMPROVE CONNECTION BETWEEN RED PROVIDE ACCESS TO EXISTING PARCE 0''14-• ;'. ' EXISTING ACCESS :. • CLOSED (10B) 't• .1 ; � . � i i.1 • N:%; �. t4• • I•. RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT RED CANON RD HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC RETAINING WALL NEW ACCESS WATER QUALITY POND CR 116 - • • February 2012 South Bridge, Alternatives Development and Screening Report 71 JOHN L. TAUFER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Architecture / Land Planning April 8, 2014 Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 W. 8`I' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Comments Regarding the Proposed Buffalo Valley Apartments Dear Glenn, 1 EXHIBIT 3LL As a long term resident of the surrounding neighborhood, I wish to offer the following comments regarding the proposed Buffalo Valley Apartments Limited Impact Review application that is scheduled as a continued hearing by the BOCC on Monday April 14, 2014. As you are aware, I testified during the initial public hearing on this proposal and objected to a number of issues with the project. Having reviewed the new and revised plans and information submitted by the applicant, my objections to this project have not changed. Safety - Intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 154 Our family has resided at 2165 County Road 154 for the past 28 years. Our property is located 3 properties north of the project site. My main comment is in regards to vehicular/pedestrian/bicycle traffic safety at the intersection of State Highway 82, (SH 82) and County Road 154 (CR 154) and the impacts of additional traffic may have on this intersection. Having experienced the intersection issues for the past 28 years (on a daily basis), I can tell you this intersection is one of the most dangerous intersections in the County. First, the current alignment of roadways and driveways entering the intersection, on the west side of the intersection, is a problem. County Road 154 runs parallel to Highway 82 then turns almost 90 degrees toward the intersection leaving little staking space for vehicles waiting at the signal. Another roadway intersects CR 154 that carries traffic from El- Rocko mobile home park as well as Holy Cross Electric. The driveway serving the Buffalo Valley property enters CR 154 at a point that is off -set from the CR 154 and Hwy. 82 intersection point and doesn't provide enough separation between the intersection and the driveway. The Mountain View church driveway is located just north of the Buffalo Valley driveway with a short separation of only 45 feet. In addition, the Buffalo Valley and Mountain View Church driveways are both on a steep incline. Secondly, the SH 82 intersection is extremely dangerous. There is no acceleration lane for southbound ( up valley) traffic at the intersection. This leads to backup traffic at peak hours. Another issue is the difficulty in seeing oncoming traffic from the north because of 909 Colorado Avenue • Box 22711 • Glenwood Springs. CO 81802 (970) 945-1337 • FAX (970) 945-7914 a curve and the jersey barriers located in the center of the highway. Turning right into the right hand driving lane is somewhat precarious because of the difficulty so see oncoming traffic and trying to determine the speed of the oncoming traffic. Turning left from the intersection toward Glenwood Springs is somewhat precarious because of the short duration of the green light. Today, I timed the sequence of the green light from CR 154 and found that the light stays green for only 10 seconds. I observed that, at best, 2-3 vehicles can safely enter SH 82 from CR 154. Because of the experience I have had with this intersection, I never proceed into the intersection from a left had turn without pausing to make sure the SH 82 down/up valley traffic stops at the red light. There is a turning lane from northbound traffic onto CR 154 but the staking space in this turn lane is short and can only accommodate a few vehicles. Coupled with a short left hand turn signal, this could cause potential problems with traffic baking up into the right hand travel lane. Another dangerous issue at the intersection is one with pedestrians and bicyclists entering the intersection from the Rio Grande Trail. While there are stop signs for path users, these signs are mostly ignored by the users thus creating a conflict and safety issue for both vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. I am concerned that this land use change would add additional traffic to this dangerous intersection thus compounding the safety issue. In addition, the proposed Skylark School relocation to the Mountain View Church would add additional traffic to CR 154 and and intersection with SH 82 further compounding the safety issue. Off- Street Parking While there was an increase of 17 off-street parking spaces from the original site plan, the project is still deficient in the required number of spaces per Garfield County Land Use Regulations which is 130 spaces. The required minimum number of spaces for multi- family use is 2.5 spaces per unit and not the 2.0 spaces that are proposed. The applicant has increased the total count by adding tandem spaces and compact vehicle spaces. While tandem spaces are allowed per the regulations, the practicality of tandem spaces is questionable. It has been my experience that tandem spaces are taken up by trailers, boats, RV's , construction equipment, etc. If tandem spaces are allowed, there needs to be some sort of parking management to insure the proper use of these types of spaces. It has been my experience with multi -family residential projects that you never have enough parking even providing the required minimum of spaces. Residents usually have more vehicles than anticipated and you need to allow for guest parking as well. Lack of Playground Space The site plan does not include any area for outside play or recreation for children or adults. Where are children going to play? In the parking lot, by the river or next door at the church. 2 Snow Storage It appears that the snow storage requirement is satisfied, by Garfield County standards, but some of the areas identified for snow storage are small and somewhat impracticable in terms of pushing snow into some of those areas. In addition, some of the snow storage areas have proposed landscape material thus resulting in potential damage to the newly planted trees and shrubs. Landscaping The applicant is proposing to install a total of 22 deciduous trees and 29 shrubs on a 2.2 acre site. I believe the landscaping is deficient in terms of total number of trees and shrubs for this type of use and the proximity to residential and commercial uses. There is a lack of adequate screening from adjacent land uses and there also needs to be some coniferous trees installed for year round screening effect. Recent Traffic Counts While there have been recent traffic counts taken, I did not see an analysis of the traffic projections and potential impacts by the applicants traffic engineer. As an adjacent property owner and professional landscape architect/land planner, I believe the proposed multi -family project, as proposed, creates traffic/safety issues, does not provide enough off-street parking, provides too much impervious surface, does not provide outdoor recreation opportunities, lacks in landscape opportunities and adequate snow storage areas and is too overwhelming for the site. Give the number of deficiencies of this project, I have to ask if this is the highest and best use for this property? I believe that the safety issues with traffic and the intersection need additional study to insure the safety of both vehicular and bike/pedestrian users Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, —JAG John L. Taufer 7,Q 3 Glenn Hartmann From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel [daniel.roussin©state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 5:21 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tamra Allen Subject: Re: FW: Buffalo Valley Glenn - Thank you for the opportunity to review the updated traffic number that Garfield County has for CR 154. With these updated traffic data, it is appears that the numbers are lower than the original study (December 2013) that was done by Kimley-Horn Associates. Based upon the new traffic data, the Access Code Section 2.3(c) states if you increase the traffic volume by more than 20%; a new access permit would be required. In the a.m. peak, it appears the development increases by more than 20%. Therefore, a new permit is required for CR 154. It is my understanding, the applicant states that previous use does not exceed the 20% threshold; however, I have no documentation showing actual traffic counts from the previous use to support this claim. The State Highway Access Code doesn't provide any clarification on historical use of the existing property. In this case, the current property has been vacant for over 4 years. Therefore, Region 3 uses existing traffic count data or an existing access permit to determine if the site increases by 20%. CDOT doesn't have any historical data on the traffic counts at this property or an existing access permit; therefore, R3 uses the existing counts and the proposed new use to determine change in use of 20%. I hope this clarifies the change in use issue in accordance with the Code. It is my opinion that the use has changed by 20% and a new access permit is required. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Dan Roussin Permit Unit Manager Traffic and Safety P 970.683.6284 I F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniellroussin®state.co.us 1 www.coloradodot.info 1 www.cotrip.org A lXtl On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann(a,garfield-county.com> wrote: 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Norman Bacheldor [normbacheldor@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:54 AM To: daniel.roussin@state.co.us; Glenn Hartmann Cc: Chris Hale; Curtis Rowe; Ken Janckila Subject: Re: Buffalo Valley Dear Glenn Hartmann and Dan Roussin, EXHIBIT 1 3( Dan, I appreciate your stance on the 20% threshold and realize that the overall objective is to continue to improve traffic flows on the highway 82 corridor. However, there are a few clarifications that should be made. The Buffalo Valley was out of operation for 2 years, not 4. The restaurant is fully equipped and capable of restarting with minimal cleanup and licensing. The motel property is fully operational. The TPD were calculated by Curtis Rowe using the same manuals and programs that you utilize. The apartments will generate about 40% fewer TPD than the restaurant and hotel operation. The three recent traffic counts are interesting, but our project generates fewer trips per day. One can make any kind of calculation, place any weighting factor and our proposed apartment project will generate fewer TPD than the existing (and fully operational ready) use of the Buffalo Valley property. Our apartment project impact to CR 154 and Highway 82 will be less than existing use. The attempt to the create the logic that Buffalo Valley Apartments will generate in excess of 20% threshold is semantical. There will be fewer car trips per day, not more. Our impact to County Rd 154 will be Less that historical impacts. Our impact to Highway 82 will be less than historical impact. Sincerely, Norm Bacheldor Managing Partner Partners III, LLC normbacheldor@gmail.com 970-379-7874 On Apr 9, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Glenn Hartmann wrote: Hi Norm and Chris: We were anticipating an updated email from CDOT and we just received this yesterday evening. Our supplemental packet is being processed by our administrative staff and I should be able to get a copy to you this afternoon. I am available this week to meet with you to answer any questions and clarify the staff report. Thank you both for the additional materials you provided. The Parking and Traffic issues still remain the biggest challenges. Sincerely, Glenn Hartmann 1 Katherine Piffer 2017 County Rd. 154 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 (970) 947-9096 Glen Hartman iECEIVED APR 1 1 7014 GARFIELD COUNTY rtJN!ITY DR/FLOP/11ENT EXHIBIT 1 37 April 10, 2014 Mr. Hartman, I Katherine Piffer am opposed to the proposed High Density House Development in my neighborhood. My biggest concerns are: Safety Issues with the proposed increased traffic at the development. This will add to the existing problems we already have at this intersection with the local traffic present form the trailer park, Holy Cross Electric, Mountain View Church and the current traffic. Decreased Quality of Life in our neighborhood and increased noise and pollution. There is not adequate access to bicycle path nor a sidewalk. I am concerned that there will not be adequate green space for proposed development. The proposed changes to parking spaces being decreased will cause further traffic issues and hazards. Just the increase in number of potential residential cars will more add to the traffic issues more than 2 -fold. In conclusion this is too much of a project for this neighborhood and will cause more change in our lives in this valley. I feel it will decrease the quality of my Life and that of my Daughter's. Thank you for your time. LecutazA)-1,?1 ItA,J Katherine Piffer Chris Hale From: Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 12:59 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: 'Ken Janckila'; Norman Bacheldor (normbacheldor@gmail.com) Subject: Response to CDOT Attachments: Exhibit.pdf EXHIBIT 38' Glenn: Concerning the intersection with CR 154 and Highway 82. It is our understanding that CDOT is representing that an Access Permit will be required based on greater than 20% increase in traffic. We strongly disagree with CDOT's determination. Buffalo Valley Apartments will generate about 400 fewer trips per day than the currently allowed use, or approximately a 40% reduction. Be that as it may, Partners III acknowledges that it is a difficult intersection and we are one party in a solution that would require multiple entities including CDOT, Garfield County, Buffalo Valley, and also perhaps the proposed Skylark School, Holy Cross Energy, and Mobile Home Park. Partners 111 is willing to be a party to the discussions for a more permanent solution. In the short term, Partners III is proposing to implement some immediate solutions based on recommendations by consultants and Garfield County Road and Bridge to help improve safety: Adding no parking signs in front of our property. Adding a no right turn on red sign at the intersection with Highway 82. Adding a stop sign at the driveway entrance onto CR 154. A more permanent solution to the intersection appears to involve realignment, combining accesses, signage, sidewalks, and perhaps relocation of the intersection. For the long term, Partners III is willing to undergo the following in an effort to help others realize a more permanent solution: Participating in discussions and negotiations for an Access Permit between CDOT and Garfield County. Donating Right -of -Way or an easement for realignment and/or improvements to the intersection so long as the improvements do not adversely impact parking, access, or utilities. Begin discussions with Mountain View Church for possibly combining the two accesses into one combined access. Partners 111 believes that it is a party to the intersection but not the single party that should lead the negotiations. A concept design that was provided as part of the review process show a realignment that would eliminate parking spaces and make access to the currently proposed project impossible. Although we are not opposed to possible realignments at this time we can't commit either, since there stands to be significant detriment to parking and access. We do believe that there is some improvements to the design that could be accomplished. Attached is an exhibit showing the area that we feel could be used for realignment, at this time. Sincerely, MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 1 .... .... ___ - -. • -.., •• • \ • \ \ ',.. \ \ ........ ...... \ \ •,,, ,- — 1 i \ H1 I 1 \ I ‘,.. X 5892.5 5893.4 \\\ \ \ s." \ \ \ mprovement Area \940' ebows 141-th PA&S. -tic DATE 4/14/14 NO Sods MOUS Qv Me FLE Buffa JOB 554-001 Exhibit Buffalo Valley MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com