Glenwood Springs Can Do So Much Better Than This, With Your Help

Views of this ridge-line, as well as the last best passage of wildlife to the river, will be blocked by two long rows of three story housing if the proposed “Fox Hollow” development is approved.

Our small town is set in an area of great natural beauty. We have the mountains, the rivers, the hot springs, the caverns, the spectacular sky, the wildlife and the ever-changing seasons. The first humans to settle here were very fortunate, as, for the most part, are those of us who reside here now.

We have the power to change our surroundings. Given their rare beauty, hopefully we have the will to do so only in the best possible style.

Our planning board is presently considering a proposed housing development to be called “Fox Hollow”. The developer has requested many variances from our code. Moreover, he has also requested our town to maintain Fox Hollow’s infrastructure (streets, storm water retention facility, sewage lift station, etc). It may be that some sort of new housing should eventually be built on this acreage. But the question needs to be asked whether the multiple variance-requesting development currently under consideration is the best new housing fit for this acreage. In my opinion, the answer to that question is a resounding “No.”

Last month, I attended the planning board meeting. It was five hours long. Most of it had to do with the proposed Fox Hollow development, and everyone who participated deserves praise for approaching this topic very seriously. The staff, the developer, and the council members have all put in lots of hard work on this, and their comments and questions took up nearly all of those five hours. But for about 25 minutes or so, brief public comments were permitted. One of those who spoke in favor of the project was a representative of the church that wants to sell the property. The only other comment in favor of the project was from one neighbor who feared that the city would approve a 200 unit apartment building there if this 34 unit proposal gets rejected. However, that is not a reasonable fear, because even the very loose zoning there would not allow anything in excess of 42 units on that acreage (a worst-case scenario, which looks a lot like the current proposal).

The remainder of the comments were all from residents who live on the river-front acres on the east side of Midland Avenue, downhill and immediately across from the proposed Fox Hollow development. All of our comments were in opposition to the project. We raised many concerns, more than I will deal with here. But all of us mentioned our concerns for increased traffic as well as the danger to our homes caused by increased water run-off from the proposed development.

On May 3, Sopris Engineering supplied the developer with a superficial traffic analysis regarding this project. Unfortunately, it contains some questionable assumptions, as well as some significant errors. More about those errors soon, but first, in my opinion, the most questionable assumption is that the occupants of the 22 townhomes/duplexes planned for Fox Hollow will generate an average of less than 3 round-trips per day. That would be two adults traveling to and from work, and just one more round-trip. So few trips might be reasonable for an urban condo complex situated within walking distance to services, bustops, etc.; so I imagine the source document used by SE is based on such a desirable urban condo situation. But “Walk Score” gives Fox Hollow a score of 19, saying it’s “ Car-Dependent”, and “Almost all errands require a car.” Hence, this is certainly not an urban situation.

The outright errors in SE’s traffic impact analysis appear in their Table 3. The total expected one way trips are not 220.9 as indicated. They are 242.06 as shown in Table 2 (assuming far too hopefully that the vast majority of Fox Hollow residents will behave as if they live in a readily walkable area, which they do not). Also, the denominators used to calculate the percentage impact to the north and south really ought to be 3503 and 3558 respectively, not 7361 in both cases as Table 3 shows. We all make mistakes. I just hope the planning board doesn’t make the mistake of approving this project! In part that is because it will definitely increase traffic on Midland Ave., north and south, (probably by more than SE has estimated) and hence, it will also increase traffic in the usual Glenwood Springs choke points.

During the June 26th public hearing, one member of the planning board did a quick calculation that the project would add about two acres of hard surface to the five acre development. The development is only required to provide a storm-water detention facility that will accommodate a (so-called) 25 year storm. Specifically, that expectation is for a storm that would rain down 2.11 inches of water in 24 hours. But recent storms in our state have far exceeded 25 year expectations. For example, Boulder received 9.08 inches of rain on September 12, 2013 (as well as many more inches just before and after those 24 hours). Perhaps more such bad storms are on the way? If so, why should the planning board be comfortable with the developer’s supposed 25 year detention facility? Shouldn’t the planning board instead demand that any development placed on Fox Hollow provide a far better solution to the inevitable so-called 50 year and 100 year storms that are now cropping up in Colorado? Some combination of reduced hard surface acreage, a bigger retention facility, and/or the purchase of a new storm water drainage easement and construction direct to the Roaring Fork river? Furthermore, shouldn’t the planning board also be concerned that two acres of hard asphalt surface which includes 78 outdoor parking spaces will increase the run-off of oil-based pollutants into the gold medal trout fishing waters and riparian habitat of the Roaring Fork? Yes, I know the engineers have said they are providing against that; but then, we do all make mistakes, don’t we?

On the plus side for the proposed development, “Fox Hollow” is an apt name. I occasionally see foxes in my yard, just across from that acreage. My wife, my grandchildren and I often see many deer as well as evidence of bears in my yard. My neighbors tell me they see them often too. Once in a while, we see deer crossing the two lanes of Midland Avenue between our river-front homes and the Fox Hollow acreage. Judging by the terrain and current housing all along Midland Avenue, I suspect that our particular lightly developed stretch of road is probably the most frequently used pathway for wildlife between Red Mountain and the Roaring Fork river.

Deer Run, Bear Bypass, Fox Freeway to the river? It will be effectively closed by the proposed development.

Maybe it’s just me, but I wonder what would become of our wild friends if the proposed Fox Hollow wall of housing units is approved and built right in their front yard? It sure looks to me like all this new housing and human activity will virtually block their descent from Red Mountain to get to the Roaring Fork for berries, acorns, water, fish, etc. Fortunately for them, up until now, we humans have spaced our homes far enough apart on this stretch to provide them with safe and clear passage to and from the mountain and the river. Up until now….

When the weather is good (which it is way more often than not), I sometimes talk to people who are walking on the sidewalk on my side of Midland Avenue across from Fox Hollow. None of them are ever on their way to work or shopping. Instead, they’re out for the exercise, and the beauty. I guess that makes sense, because for many adults the neighborhood is a fairly taxing walk away from any shops, places of work, or city bus stops. “Walk Score” gives Fox Hollow a score of 19, saying it’s “ Car-Dependent”, and “Almost all errands require a car.”

Proposed development will block street-level views of the mountain ridges.

This raises a couple of questions. First, even if no variances from code were needed, why should the planning board approve any large number of housing units in a location where “almost all errands require a car”? The nearest city bus stop is about a 20 minute walk away. Then you can wait for the bus! Aren’t we trying to reduce trips by auto into and around our town? And hence, wouldn’t it be better to encourage large numbers of housing units in locations closer to shops, bus stops, and safe bike paths in town? Second, since most of the people already traversing this area on foot are doing so in part to enjoy the natural beauty, why should the planning board approve two long rows of three story structures on the hillside (one row above the other) that would virtually eliminate the natural views from the sidewalk, including parts of the mountain ridge-line?

In other words, even if no variances and no city funding for infrastructure maintenance were being requested, it seems to me that the planning board ought to seriously consider rejecting the proposed development. This is because: a) it will increase automobile traffic in Glenwood Springs, and it will do so needlessly, since other more walkable locations for a development of such density are available in our town, and b) it will negatively impact existing users of the area, including men and women out for a beautiful daytime walk with their children, as well as our wild friends who come down from Red Mountain to hunt, fish and graze by the Roaring Fork river at night.

And speaking of our wild friends on Red Mountain, Fox Hollow really is their last readily passable front yard into the Roaring Fork river. Their ancestors have been traversing it for millennia. So for what compelling reason does the developer propose to cut off their access? Why does he say the planning board should approve 34 housing units rather than (say) 5, which would be far less disruptive to wildlife passage between Red Mountain and the Roaring Fork river? Sure, I understand that we place more value on human life than we do on wildlife. But passage through Fox Hollow is more essential to them than densely packed housing there is to us - because we certainly have other more walkable options in our town. Moreover, the development of (say) 5 units there (one per acre) would be far more in keeping with the existing housing in this last, best western wildlife passage into and out of Glenwood Springs.

Bears, deer, and foxes pass through Fox Hollow, cross Midland Avenue, and drop down to the Roaring fork river via this path. If the proposed development is approved, where would they find such good access? Nowhere is the answer.

The Fox Hollow acreage has wonderful views of Mt. Sopris up-valley which the proposed high density development does not exploit. Those views are potentially worth quite a lot. The church listed that acreage for sale at $795,000. Hence, I suspect a developer could make a reasonable profit by building 5 or fewer units on that acreage. Such a smaller development would not completely cut off wildlife passage from Red Mountain to the river. It would also mean substantially less traffic, light pollution, riparian habitat impact, and noise than would the proposed 34 unit development.

The Planning and Zoning Commission is surely aware of the many other objections to the proposed Fox Hollow development. These include:

• “ The proposed access roads do not meet the minimum standards for a “local neighborhood, residential” road as outlined in the Street Standards, Traffic Committee Report of July 7, 2005"
• “Public Works and Engineering do not recommend the City take on the costs associated with the new roads since they only serve properties and uses associated with this specific development proposal.”
• With regard to the proposed “storm water infrastructure”….“Public Works and Engineering do not recommend the City take on the costs associated with the infrastructure since it will only serve properties and uses associated with this specific development proposal.”
• None of the proposed new lots will “have frontage on a public street” as required by code unless the City decides to adopt and take on the costs of maintaining the proposed new double dead-ended “Fox Hollow Lane” and its excessively steep sole access road to Midland Avenue called “Fox Hollow Way”.
• City code requires that city streets have sidewalks and planting strips on both sides of the street. Nonetheless, the applicant wants the city to adopt “Fox Hollow Lane” with a sidewalk on only one side of the street, and no planting strips whatsoever in between the two long rows of housing. It further wants the city to adopt the overly steep “Fox Hollow Way” access road with only one sidewalk and one planting strip.
• With regard to the “water infrastructure” proposed to supply city water to Fox Hollow, “Public Works and Engineering do not recommend the City take on the costs associated with the infrastructure since it will only serve properties and uses associated with this specific development proposal.” Furthermore, “The applicant is also requesting a 50 percent reduction of water system improvement fees…” but “…staff does not recommend grating (sic) the request”.
• Existing homes in the vicinity have septic tanks. The nearest sanitary sewer is more than a quarter mile south of Fox Hollow and the applicant wants the City to maintain infrastructure required to transport Fox Hollow sewage up and down over that distance. But, “Public Works and Engineering do not recommend the City take on the costs associated with the infrastructure since it will only serve properties and uses associated with this specific development proposal.” Moreover, staff does not recommend granting the applicant’s request for the “ 50 percent reduction of water system improvement fees.”
• “The applicant is also requesting a 50 percent reduction of emergency services fees” but staff does not recommend granting the request. Please also note that the applicant proposes to pay what appear to be very minimal fees in lieu of dedicating space to parkland and schools.
• The applicant proposes nearly twice as many parking spaces per unit as city code requires. This raises the question as to why? Is the additional parking intended to accommodate more residents per unit, or what? The fire department and police department have expressed concerns about emergency access/egress via the overly steep single access/egress “Fox Hollow Way”. What happens to that emergency egress /access if there are far more vehicles than normal parked at each unit?
• “…the property is located in an active debris fan identified as a high hazard area.” So, why should the planning board approve large numbers of housing units in this “high hazard area”.
• The applicant proposes to start construction next summer. By that time, (August 31, 2017, to be specific), “The City’s inclusionary housing regulations requiring the provision of 15 percent of the total units and/or lots as community housing” will be back in effect. Hence, the question is why shouldn’t this developer be required to comply with those inclusionary housing regulations for any units not completed prior to August 31, 2017? Also, the applicant should be asked to address how he intends to efficiently proceed with construction during the 90 to 120 days next summer when the Grand Avenue Bridge project will redirect all of it’s traffic to Midland Avenue, 8th Street and exit 114 from I-70. The resulting traffic delays will surely impact his workers, as well as the movement of supplies and construction equipment to and from the site.
• With regard to the multiple design variance requests (e.g. to exceed height limitations, and thereby further impair view of the mountain ridge behind, to provide for only one line of emergency egress/access, to allow a steeper than code access/egress road, etc.), the applicant’s “…repeating theme is the exceptionally steep topography of the site and hydrocompactive soils which limit the layout of the development”. That theme highlights the fundamental impracticality of the proposed high density development at the proposed site. It further raises the question as to why the planning board should approve any of those variances without a convincing showing by the applicant that approval of this astonishingly variance seeking and non-compliant project would not “be detrimental to the public good” and thereby out of compliance with good city management as well as City rules.
• The 2011 Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan states on Page 32 that, “…Whenever possible, it is important to direct development to areas where infrastructure and services already exist or can be provided efficiently. The goal is an urban form that keeps development costs as low as possible, and allows efficient service delivery….” Clearly, with its extremely low walk score and all of the difficulties impeding efficient access to its living units, the proposed Fox Hollow development does not meet any of these criteria.

In conclusion, for all of the reasons set forth above, it’s my opinion that the City would be very poorly advised to approve anything like a 34 unit development on the “Fox Hollow” acreage. Clearly, I am not alone in thinking it is not in the public interest to grant all of the developer’s requests. Furthermore, I know I am not the only one who thinks it would be wise for the City to take into account the potential impact any development on Fox Hollow would have on our wildlife as well as our public services, our traffic, etc. etc..

Let’s be good citizens and demand that our planning board and our elected city officials act to keep our town great. Let’s insist that they refuse to grant variances from our code unless the benefits to our town clearly and substantially outweigh all of the costs. You can let them know if you agree or disagree with me. Just send your comments to andrew.mcgregor@cogs.us Andrew is the Director for Community Development for Glenwood Springs.

Thanks for standing up for what’s best for our town.