The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners approved a minor amendment to the McClure River Ranch Planned Unit Development and a preliminary plan for Zone District 2 during its Oct. 13 meeting, clearing the way for a 12-lot residential subdivision on the 98.19-acre property east of Carbondale.

The amendments allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right in Zone District 2, lower the PUD’s maximum density in that zone from the 40 units shown in prior approvals to a maximum of 24 dwelling units if every lot includes an ADU, and require the developer to record a separate affordable-housing plan at the time of final plat. Commissioners added a condition allowing flexibility for up to four deed-restricted units in Zone District 1 to satisfy affordable-housing obligations.

Why it matters: the site sits between Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River and includes mapped floodplain and wetland areas and known occurrences of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, a species the applicant’s management plan addresses. County staff and the applicant said the revision reduces development pressure on sensitive areas by shrinking the buildable footprint and increasing shared open space.

What the board approved: the preliminary plan creates 12 buildable residential lots (each roughly 1–2 acres), a community tract, and a large open-space tract wrapping the southern and western edges of the development. The plan also finalizes roadway alignments (including renaming an interior road to Mayfly Bend), shows irrigation and proposed potable-water infrastructure fed by two wells, and identifies locations for on‑site wastewater systems (OWTS) for each lot.

Environmental and infrastructure conditions: the board’s approval includes multiple conditions. County staff required completion of a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMAR) process with FEMA-related permitting before final plat and a plat note that finished-floor and base-flood elevations be provided at the time of building permit for each lot. The applicant committed to a wetlands mitigation area (about 0.5 acre) tied to work in roadway footprints, a Ute ladies’-tresses orchid management and monitoring plan, and mitigation measures recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to minimize attractants for bears.

On utilities, applicant representatives and staff said two permitted wells (including an existing well referred to in the record as Well 7) provide sufficient production in engineering reports supplied with the application; the potable system will be regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The plan relies on individual OWTS for each lot; county staff required lot-specific geotechnical and OWTS feasibility analyses at the time of each building permit and a plat note to that effect.

Board discussion and concerns: commissioners raised questions about OWTS viability in areas with relatively shallow groundwater, long-term costs if centralized sewer were later required, and added traffic on Highway 82. The applicant said those options had been studied over multiple years, including on-site wastewater treatment alternatives and the high cost of running sewer across Highway 82, and emphasized that reducing density from the earlier 40 units to 12 lots with large open space reduced risk to sensitive resources.

Formal actions and outcome: the board adopted findings and conditions drafted by planning staff and approved both the PUD amendment and the Zone District 2 preliminary plan. Commissioners also added a condition to require timelines in the subdivision-improvement agreement.

What’s next: the applicant must satisfy conditions (CLOMAR completion, wetland permits with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, final affordable‑housing documentation acceptable to county staff and the housing authority, lot-specific OWTS/geotechnical reports, and final engineering) before final plat. The county will review final plat materials and recorded documents before any building permits are issued.

Quotations from the record: “The PUD amendment will allow ADUs by right in Zone District 2,” County planning staff Philip said in his presentation. Applicant representative John Fredericks said the project team had reduced density and worked to mitigate environmental constraints: “we've done a lot of work, and we know what the solutions are to get us to, a good project here.”

Ending note: The board’s approvals do not authorize construction; they allow the subdivision to proceed to final‑plat and permitting steps conditioned on several technical and permitting milestones meant to protect floodplain, wetland and listed‑plant resources.