Woody Ventures, LLC (applicant) via Jon Fredericks, LANDWEST

Transcription

1 MEMO DATE: October 20, 2015 TO: Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) FROM: Woody Ventures, LLC (applicant) via Jon Fredericks, LANDWEST VIA: to Scot Hunn RFVRPC, In response to our ongoing discussions in the public hearings for The Tree Farm, this memo is intended to document the applicant s responses and revisions to the Preliminary Plan application to date. This memo shall be considered a continuation of the prior memo dated September 15, We hope that the combination of these two documents provides a clear illustration of the applicant s responsiveness to various concerns and discussion items to date. The following list provides an overview of contents: Included Items Updated Variance Table Page 2 Local Study Results Pages 3 to 6 Example Site Plan (Possible Development Scenario) Page 7 Architectural Character Example Page 8 Proposed Commercial Space Limitations Page 9 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Commitment Page 10 Geologic Response Letter from CTL Thompson Attached Day Care Regulations from Playgroup Aspen Attached Page 1 of 10

2 Page 2 of 10

3 Local Multi Family Study NOTE ALL HOUSING COMPLEXES WERE AT 100% OCCUPANCY AT TIME OF STUDY. Valley Wide Summary of Demand Location Average Supply Rate (available spaces per DU) Average Utilization Rate (%) Average Demand Rate (actual spaces occupied per DU) Glenwood Springs % 0.9 Carbondale % 1.2 Mid Valley % 1.3 Aspen % 1.0 RFV AVERAGES % 1.1 The Tables on the following pages provide detailed results of the parking study for each individual housing complex. Page 3 of 10

4 Glenwood Springs: Multi Family Demand Property Name and Address Machebeuf Apartments 111 Soccer Field Rd Glenwood Green Apartments 220 Flat Tops View Dr. 23 rd Street East Apartments 417 E 23rd St # A7 Residential Unit Types Dwelling Units Space Supply Supply Rate (available spaces per DU) Parked Vehicles Observed (8 pm 9pm 10/7/15) Utilization Rate (%) Space Demand Rate per Unit 2 3 BR % BR % BR % 0.5 AVERAGES % 0.9 Page 4 of 10

5 Carbondale: Multi Family Demand Property Name and Address Colorado Place 345 Colorado Ave. Garfield Avenue Apartments 900 Garfield Ave # 41 Villas De Santa Lucia 302 Meadowood Dr # K Residential Unit Types Dwelling Units Space Supply Supply Rate (available spaces per DU) Parked Vehicles Observed (8 pm 9pm 10/12/15) Utilization Rate (%) Demand Rate 1 3 BR % BR % BR % 1.0 AVERAGES % 1.2 Mid Valley: Multi Family Demand Property Name and Address Sopris View Apartments, 0069 Summit Loop (Aspen Ski Co) Triangle Park Lofts Willits Residential Unit Types Dwelling Units Space Supply Supply Rate (available spaces per DU) Parked Vehicles Observed (9 pm 10pm 10/12/15) Utilization Rate (%) Demand Rate 2 BR % 1.7 UNK % 1.0 AVERAGES % 1.3 Page 5 of 10

6 Aspen: Multi Family Demand Property Name and Address Centennial Apartments, 100 Luke Short Court, Aspen Residential Unit Types Studio 3 BR Dwelling Units Space Supply Supply Rate (available spaces per DU) Parked Vehicles Observed (8 pm 9pm 10/14/15) Utilization Rate (%) Demand Rate % 1.0 AVERAGE % 1.0 Page 6 of 10

7 Page 7 of 10

8 Preliminary Conceptual Rendering of Rental Apartments (Lots E 3, F 1 & F 2) Page 8 of 10

9 Proposed Commercial Space Limitations The Tree Farm as currently proposed has no specific limitation on the quantity of non residential or commercial net square feet (NSF). In response to discussions by the Commissioners on this item throughout the public hearing process, we are proposing to provide a revision to Section 2.1 and Table 2.1 PUD Summary in the PUD Guide. These revisions would limit the maximum amount of commercial NSF in the PUD to 134,558. These proposed changes are represented by the strikethroughs and underlined text below: 2.1 PUD Summary The Tree Farm PUD allows a maximum of 585,474 net square feet (NSF), of which a maximum of 450,916 NSF can be residential use. The maximum NSF amount of commercial development allowed is 585,474 minus the total amount of built residential 134,558 NSF. The owner/developer shall document the built amounts of total NSF, residential NSF, commercial NSF, and number of dwelling units at each final plat filing. Table 2.1 PUD Summary OVERALL PUD SUMMARY PUD Acres / Open Space/ Park Acres / Open Space/ Park Percent 58% Maximum Allowable NSF 585,474 Maximum Allowable Residential NSF 450,916 Maximum Allowable Commercial NSF 134,558 Maximum Dwelling Units 400 Overall PUD Density 5.6 DU/AC In addition to the overall maximum allowable commercial NSF, the applicant is also proposing a limitation of the maximum single retail user size at 45,000 NSF. This limitation shall be added to Section 2 (Land Use) of the PUD Guide, and shall state: No single use retail space shall occupy more than 45,000 NSF within the PUD. Page 9 of 10

10 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Commitment As proposed, the pedestrian bridge is currently an optional amenity within the PUD as discussed in several previous Hearings, and as detailed in Section of the PUD Guide. In response to the Planning Commission s concerns on the level of commitment to this improvement, the applicant is proposing a change in language that would identify a trigger for the construction and provision of the bridge. These proposed changes are represented by the strikethroughs and underlined text below: Pedestrian Bridge Two (2) potential easement locations are indicated on the Plat for a potential pedestrian bridge crossing of Kodiak Ski Lake, and/or waterfront pier. The provision and location of the pedestrian bridge and/or provision and location of the waterfront pier and associated infrastructure are solely at the option of the owner/ developer or Tree Farm Master Association If a pedestrian bridge is constructed, At the discretion of the owner/developer or Tree Farm Master Association, a waterfront pier may be located at the alternate easement location from the pedestrian bridge If a waterfront pier is constructed, a pedestrian bridge may be located at the alternate easement location. The owner/developer or Tree Farm Master Association shall cause the pedestrian bridge to be completed as a condition to receiving Certificates of Occupancy (CO) for more than 50% of the total sixtyfour (64) residential units allowed in Planning Area 2 (i.e., the pedestrian bridge must be completed before the 33 rd CO will be issued in Planning Area 2) The pedestrian bridge shall have a minimum vertical clearance of twelve (12) feet above the normal high water elevation of Kodiak Ski Lake for a minimum distance of seventy five (75) feet on both sides of the longitudinal centerline of the lake [one hundred fifty (150) feet total]. Page 10 of 10

11 October 19, 2015 Woody Ventures, LLC 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado Attention: Subject: Jon Fredericks Response to Public Comments Tree Farm PUD Preliminary Plan El Jebel, Eagle County, Colorado Project No. GS This letter presents my response to public comments made in writing to the Eagle County Planning Commission. The following italicized paragraph is the excerpt that you forwarded to me on October 5 th, I will address several points made in the public comments. The developer was obviously not pleased with the recommendation of HP Geotech that for safety reasons the property not be developed. Instead of following the recommendations of HP Geotech and having such test holes ~ the developer hired a new geologic engineer CTL-Thompson who (although acknowledging the accuracy of the analysis of geologic conditions in the July 2, 2008 HP-Geotech report), nevertheless expressed his opinion in his report of January 29, 2010 that the risk of a subsidence was low and that no one could know precisely the risk of future subsidence. The developer had the new engineer conduct a less expensive electromagnetic underground survey, which the Colorado Geologic Survey discounted in its letter of November 25, 2015 (attached as Exhibit C) and stated such electronic survey have been more meaningful if at least one core drill bad been made for calibration purposes. The CGS also strongly recommended the elimination or relocation of two buildings Units G1-G6 because located in a mapped landslide area, and recommended site specific geotechnical investigations and specific design criteria to deal with potential subsidence, significant foundation settlement from soft compressible soils, and that a yearlong testing be conducted to identify whether high groundwater exists and required that basements must be three feet above maximum groundwater. 1. recommendation of HP Geotech that for safety reasons the property not be developed HP Geotech s 2008 report does not contain this language. For example, on Page 9 in the section titled Evaporite Subsidence and Sinkholes the following statement is made: Because of the

12 2. potential for additional evaporite subsidence, sinkholes and other related problems in the evaporite subsidence depression, it is recommended that development not be considered in this area unless additional studies indicated that the potential risks are acceptable. An additional subsurface investigation was conducted in under the direction of CTL Thompson and included the Time-Domain Electromagnetic (TDEM) Survey (Zonge, 2009). I believe the geophysical results confirmed existence of a thick layer of at least feet of wet younger sediments (clay, sand and gravel) with generally low electrical resistance over a resistive layer of bedrock (Eagle Valley Evaporite). Zonge calibrated their results by measuring the resistance of bedrock cores from an outcrop at a nearby roadcut. I believe the additional studies have confirmed the wide depression area is an old, relatively stable feature and there is very low risk that subsidence will affect development on the Tree Farm parcel. 3. no one can know precisely the risk of future subsidence Interpretation of geologic and geophysical data by experienced professionals is commonly used to predict future performance. I used what I believe to be adequate inquiry, including subsurface investigation to come to the conclusion that based on the composition, size and age of the depression feature, the risk of subsidence affecting development is very low. 4. The developer had the new engineer conduct a less expensive electromagnetic underground survey, which the Colorado Geologic (sic) Survey discounted in its letter of November 25, 2015 and stated such survey would have been more meaningful if at least one core drill had been made for calibration purposes. The geophysical survey was conducted at similar expense to one or two very deep borings, and obtained far more useful information than could have been obtained with drilling alone. The geophysical survey was calibrated to materials in the shallow subsurface as well as bedrock materials nearby in outcrop, as documented in Zonge s report. Careful review of Zonge s report reveals the efforts they went to in order to eliminate data that they found to be of lower quality due to electrical noise (metal fences, etc.). In my opinion, an approach where duplicitous efforts are expended to accomplish the same goal is not justified for evaluation of the depression feature on the Tree Farm Parcel. I believe the geophysical study sufficiently defined the scale (width, depth and composition) and therefore the low risk of the depression feature. If the geophysical data resulted in an interpretation with insufficient confidence in its accuracy, we would have recommended a deep drilling investigation. WOODY VENTURES, LLC 2 TREE FARM PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN CTL T PROJECT NO. GS S:\PROJECTS\Glenwood Springs\GS \145\3. Letters\L7\GS L7.docx

13

14 PLAYGROUP ASPEN N. Garmisch St., Suite 2, Aspen, CO Rules Regulating Childcare Buildings and Play Spaces in the State of Colorado Building o All building plans must be submitted to the state Department of Human Services, local fire department, and local building department for approval. o The childcare center must be located on the main level. o Must be at least two egresses from each room leading to a common hallway or outdoors. o There must be adequate storage space for supplies and indoor/outdoor equipment. o Rooms licensed for one age group cannot be used for another without specific approval. Individual Rooms o Infant Room (6 weeks 18 months) Maximum of 10 infants per room and child to staff ratio of 1:5. At least 50 square feet per child. The infant room must be physically separated from all other rooms. Must have 2 sinks; one for hand washing and one for preparation of milk/formula. o Toddler Room (12 months 36 months) Maximum of 10 toddlers per room and child to staff ratio of 1:5 (12-36 months) or 1:7 (24-36 months). At least 45 square feet per child. The toddler room must be physically separated from all other rooms. Toilet facilities must be included or directly adjacent to the room. Must have at least 1 sink for hand washing that is accessible to children/teachers. o Preschool Room (2 ½ years 5 years) Maximum of 20 preschoolers (mixed group) per room and child to staff ratios of 1:8 (2.5-3 years), 1:10 (3-4 years), 1:12 (4-5 years), 1:15 (5+ years). At least 30 square feet per child. Must have at least 1 sink for hand washing that is accessible to children/teachers. Common Indoor Areas o Must have toilet facilities located on the same floor. Minimum of 1 lavatory and 1 flush toilet for each 15 or fewer children. o Must have kitchen facilities available that include a dishwasher. o Must have laundry facilities available that are physically separate from kitchen area. o Must have an office space available for staff, isolation of ill children, and administrative duties. o Must have a custodial area with a sink and space for custodial supplies. Outdoor Spaces o The outdoor space must be adjacent to or easily accessible by each classroom. o All equipment must be surrounded with a resilient surface no less than 6 inches deep. o At least 75 square feet per child. The space must accommodate at least 33% of the licensed capacity or be at least 1500 square feet, whichever is greater. o The space must be surrounded by a fence, hedge, or natural barrier at least 4 feet high. o The area must have at least 2 different surfaces that each cover at least 10% of the area. o At least 150 square feet must be shaded. o Must have at least 2 separate play areas for preschool and infants/toddlers. Preschool (ages 2 ½ - 5 years) maximum height of equipment is 6 feet. Infant/Toddler Aged Play Area (ages 6 weeks 36 months) Maximum height of any equipment is 3 feet. The area must be at least 400 square feet. Infants and toddlers may not use the area simultaneously.