Garfield County planning commission backs McClure River Ranch PUD amendment and Zone District 2 preliminary plan

The Garfield County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a minor amendment to the McClure River Ranch planned unit development (PUD) and a separate preliminary plan for Zone District 2, which would split 48.96 acres into 12 single-family lots and two tracts, county planning staff said at the Aug. 13 meeting.

The county’s planning staff presentation noted the preliminary plan reduces the number of potential dwellings in Zone District 2 from the 40 allowed by the existing PUD to 12 lots with the option of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on each lot, which could raise the maximum buildable units in the district to 24. Philip Berry, Garfield County planning staff, told the commission, “The preliminary plan reduces the number of lots to 40 to 12 and adds the ability to have ADUs on those 12 lots.”

The planning commission’s recommendation sends both items — the PUD amendment and the Zone District 2 preliminary plan — to the Board of County Commissioners with staff’s findings and conditions. The commission’s actions included specific conditions tied to water permitting, wetlands and floodplain mapping, affordable-housing commitments and requirements for engineered on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTSs).

Why it matters: The property, known as McClure River Ranch, is about 3.5 miles east of the town of Carbondale and lies north of the Roaring Fork River. The site carries prior approvals and a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMAR) affecting the FEMA 100-year floodplain; those prior approvals and the CLOMAR shape the engineering and permitting requirements for any new subdivision on the site.

Most important facts

- What the commission considered: A minor PUD amendment (allowing ADUs in Zone District 2, clarifications to the PUD guide and removal of an embedded affordable-housing plan) and a preliminary plan for Zone District 2 proposing 12 residential lots, a 1.6-acre community center tract (Tract A) with a greenhouse and a roughly 28.92-acre common open-space tract (Tract B).

- Water supply and wastewater: The subdivision would be served by two shared wells and individual OWTSs for each lot. Planning staff reported 24-hour pump tests at about 60 gallons per minute for the wells and said the permit for the supplemental well must be perfected with the Division of Water Resources before final approval. Staff also advised that engineered, lot-specific geotechnical and OWTS reports will be required at building permit time.

- Floodplain and FEMA process: The development relies on an approved CLOMAR; finalization of the FEMA map revision (a LOMAR) is part of the project timeline. Planning staff and county floodplain staff explained that FEMA’s map-adoption step can take additional time and recommended requiring final FEMA map updates before issuance of building permits or otherwise tying the timing to the building permit process so base flood elevations (BFEs) used for finished floor elevations are confirmed.

- Affordable housing: Staff recommended extracting the affordable-housing plan from the PUD guide and treating it as a separate document to be finalized at the time of final plat. Under Garfield County’s Article 8 (the county code governing affordable-housing mitigation), staff said the development will be responsible for the equivalent of 10% of the dwelling units in the PUD; that code change led to discussion about whether the development should be held to three units, four units, or a percentage-based calculation. John Fredericks, authorized representative for Aspen Polo Partners LLP, said the applicant had “a very detailed affordable housing plan that says they can be on-site, they can be off-site, they could be for sale, or they could be rental.”

- Roads and traffic: Referral comments and the traffic study showed projected trips would not trigger new CDOT permits at the Highway 82 intersections, but commissioners raised concerns about existing poor levels of service at the County Road 100 / Highway 82 intersection and the practical limits of using district-wide impact fees to fund targeted intersection improvements. The applicant confirmed the project would pay road impact fees in the county’s East Benefit District.

Details and supporting discussion

Site and history: The McClure River Ranch PUD covers about 98.19 acres overall. Zone District 2 examined in this proceeding is the southern portion of the PUD and is currently platted as Tract C (48.96 acres). The PUD has a long approval history including a 2007 comprehensive-plan amendment, a 2008 original PUD and subsequent amendments; a final plat for Zone District 1 was recorded in 2022, and staff said the zoning and prior floodplain work (including the 2010 CLOMAR) remain controlling for the new work.

Environmental, wetlands and habitat: The plan shows temporary and permanent wetland disturbances related primarily to road alignments and proposes a wetland mitigation area larger than the disturbed acreage. The county will require Corps of Engineers permitting for wetland impacts and a CDPHE discharge permit as part of the final approvals. Staff also recommended continued implementation of a management and monitoring plan to protect a known population of a locally sensitive orchid on the property.

Utilities and onsite systems: Each lot would be served by a community water system fed by the two shared wells; the primary well is permitted and covered by an augmentation contract. Staff recommended that final pump, filtration and water-quality permitting materials be submitted at final plat and that the county’s consulting engineer review water-treatment proposals. For wastewater, the plan relies on individual OWTSs; referral agencies require site-specific geotechnical and OWTS siting reports at building permit time, and staff retained prior conditions requiring connection to central services if and when they become available.

Conditions and next steps: Staff provided recommended findings and multiple numbered conditions of approval for both the PUD amendment and the preliminary plan. Examples include the requirement that the applicant perfect the supplemental well permit, provide Corps and CDPHE permits, maintain prior CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) conditions in CC&Rs, finalize the LOMAR/FEMA map updates before issuing building permits (or as otherwise agreed with staff), and deliver a final affordable-housing plan that satisfies Article 8 and is acceptable to county staff and the Garfield County Housing Authority.

Commission action and votes: The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the PUD amendment and separately to recommend approval of the Zone District 2 preliminary plan with staff’s proposed findings and conditions. Both recommendations were passed by roll-call vote and will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. The commission also asked staff and the applicant to clarify plat labeling so that the new Zone District 2 plat does not conflict with the existing recorded plat that shows the area as Tract C.

Ending: The applicant said it intends to proceed to final plat once the county’s conditions are addressed and permitting is coordinated; staff flagged that final plat submittal will require the detailed materials described in the conditions of approval (water treatment details, Corps/CDPHE permits, geotechnical and OWTS reports and the finalized affordable-housing plan). The Board of County Commissioners will receive the commission’s recommendations in a future hearing.