Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Supplemental Info. & ExhibitsJAN 20 '97 1O:0SAM OATES HUGHES KNEZEVICH P.1 OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH &. GARDENSWARTZ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BU1,D1NG 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO $1611 (970) 920-1700 Telephone (970) 920-1121 Telefax facsimile TRANS MITTAL to: from: fax #: re: date: pages: Mr. Mark Bean David B. Kelly 945-7785 Land Use Application - Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. January 20, 1997 5, including this cover sheet. note: If you have trouble receiving this fax, please call Colleen as soon as possible. mune: Dear Mark: I appreciate your willingness to include the complaint filed by Mr. Henke as an exhibit in today's Board of County Commissioner's meeting. Sincerely, David B. Kelly THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENT, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE t 3E OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE MENDED RECIPIENT, E VEPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS TRANSMISSION TO THE ADDRESSEE, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS SI ICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMKIEDIAT LY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. PC .TAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. JAN 20 '97 10:08AM OATES HUGHES KNE7EVICH P.2 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. _ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PHILLIP P. HENKE, Plaintiff, v. STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Part rship, Defendant. Plaintiff Phillip P. Henke ("Henke") for his Com ...AAA'. for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 against the Defendant Stagecoach Assn. Les, Ltd., alleges as follows: I. PlaintifHenke is a resident of Garfield Court ' and owna property in Garfield County which is the subject of this litigation. 2. Defendant Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. ("Sta:,ecoach") is a Colorado Limited Partnership which owns property in Garfield County which is the . abject of this litigation.. 3. Venue is proper pursuant to C.R.C.P. 9, Because this action affects real property located in C-arfield County. 4. Jurisdiction is proper because this action volves real property located in Colorado and a contract formed and to be performed in Colorado C.R.S. § 13-1-124. 5. Henke owns Parcel A and Stagecoach owns Parcel B of what is known as the commercial parcel near the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Carbondale, Colorado. The Relay Station Bar and Restaurant is located on Parcel A. Parcel B is largely undeveloped. 6. Henke and Stagecoach entered into a Parki; g Agreement, Right -of -Way and Non -Competitive Provision (the "Parking Agreement") dated Sep. ;nber 22, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Under the Parking Agreement, Stagecoach grante Henke up to fifty (50) parking JAN 20 '97 10:09AM OATES HUGHES KNE2EVICH P.3 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 2 spaces on Parcel B for use by the customers of "the Relay Station Restaurant and Bar, or any successor restaurant and bar." (Ex. A, I A.) The license to use the shared parking facilities exists "only so long as Henke or his successors or assigns continue to operate a restaurant and bar on Parcel A." 7, The Parking Agreement provides that all streets and driveways established by either party shall be available for the common usage of both parties and their customers. The Parking Agreement also contains a non -competition provision in which Stagecoach agrees not to operate a restaurant and lounge so long as a restaurant and lounge is maintained on Parcel A. 8. Stagecoach sent a Notice dated March 15, 1996, purporting to terminate the Parking Agreement. (Voice [sic] of Termination of License, attached as Exhibit B.) The stated grounds for attempting to terminate the Parking Agreement were that: during some portion of 1995 and 1996 the premises were allegedly being run as a bar only, not a restaurant; the restaurant operation closed on March 11, 1996 because of building code violations; and, Stagecoach had not received proof of liability insurance. 9. Stagecoach has contracted to sell Parcel B to David P. Brown, A preliminary P.U.D. application for a subdivision called Ranch Creek has been submitted by Stagecoach and Mr. Brown and is scheduled for hearing before the Garfield County Commissioners on January 20, 1997. The SitePlan for the P.U.D. and Subdivision shows the entirety of Parcel B being developed with no reservation for the parldng spaces granted by Stagecoach to Henke. The Site Plan also does not show an existing street/driveway used to access parking spaces on Parcel A, which street/driveway is for the common usage of Stagecoach and Henke under the Parking Agreement. 10. A declaration of the parties' rights is necessary before the P.U.D. application is approved since the current P.U.D. proposal does not preserve Henke's contractual property rights. Henke thus seeks a declaration that the grounds by which Stagecoach attempted to terminate the Parking Agreement are invalid and unsubstantiated and that the Parking Agreement is still in full force and effect. JAN 20 '97 10:09AM OATES HUGHES KNEZEVICH r.. F • fdb*‘ • DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 3 WHEREFORE, Henke respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor declaring the Parking Agreement to be in full force and effect and awarding him his costs and expenses incurred in pursuing this action DATED this / day of January, 1997. By: Plaintif1&A dress: 0275 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Respectfully submitted, OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. David B. Kelly, No, 9829 Attorneys for Plaintiff 533 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-1700 (970) 920-1121 (fax) JAN 20 '97 10=09AM OATES HUGHES KNEZEVICH DISTRICT COURT, O'RFIELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLOR^O Case No. 97 CV P. SUMMONS TO ANSWER PHILLIP P. HENKE, Plaintiff, vs STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Partnership, Defendant. The People of the State of Colorado To the Defendant named above: STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD„ a Colorado Limited Partnership, You are summoned and required to file with the clerk of this court an answer or other response to the attached complaint within twenty (20) days after this summons is served on you in the State of Colorado, or within thirty (30) after this Summons is served on you outside the State of Colorado. If you sail to file your answer or other response to the complaint in writing within the applicable time period, judgment by default may be entered against you by the court for the relief demanded in the complaint, without any further notice to you, The following documents are also served with this Summons: COMPLA]NT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. Date: January 14 1997 avid B. Kelly, o. 1 OATES, HUGHES & ICNEzEVICH, P.C. 333 E. Hopkins Ave., Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-1700 This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, CRCP, as amended. A copy of the complaint must be served with this Summons. WAIVER AND ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Charles M. Stoddard, attorney for the Defendant, STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD„ a Colorado Limited Partnetship, hereby accept service and waive personal service on behalf of STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Partnership. Charles M. Stoddard Attorney for Defendant PO Box 169 Debeque, CO 81630 (970) 283-5212 PH/LLIP P. HENKE 0275 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 July 3, 1997 LETTER OF AGREEMENT David Philip Brown Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. 300 South Spring Street, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Resolution of Parking Agreement as Between Parcel A ("Relay Station Parcel") and Parcel B ("Ranch Creek PUD") RECITALS: A. Phillip Henke ("Henke") is the owner of Parcel A, the Relay Station Parcel, occupied by the Relay Station Bar and Restaurant. B. David Brown ("Brown") is the contract purchaser of the Ranch Creek PUD, proposed to be subdivided into 22 single family residential units. C. The Ranch Creek PUD is encumbered by a Parking Agreement for the benefit of Parcel A, recorded in Book 695 at Page 888 of the records of Garfield County, Colorado. ("Parking Agreement"). D. Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. is the fee simple owner of the Ranch Creek PUD and has disputed the validity of the Parking Agreement. E. Henke has sued Stagecoach, requesting an order of the Garfield County District Court finding that the Parking Agreement is in full force and effect. That matter is pending as Civil Action No. 97CV4-C, (the "Litigation"). David Philip Brown Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. July 3, 1997 Page 2 F. In the event that Brown shall close the purchase of Ranch Creek PUD, Henke and Brown wish to agree on a resolution on the Litigation, terminate the Parking Agreement, and provide Henke with adequate parking for the Relay Station Parcel. G. Brown desires, if he shall purchase the Ranch Creek PUD, certain assurances that the residents of the Ranch Creek Parcel shall quietly enjoy their property and the Parking Agreement shall no longer encumber the Ranch Creek PUD. Based upon the foregoing statement of facts, the parties hereto, Henke and Brown, agree as follows: 1. Upon approval of the Ranch Creek PUD by Garfield County, and conditioned thereon, and further conditioned on Brown purchasing the Ranch Creek PUD, Brown agrees to convey in fee simple to Henke what is shown as Lot 13 on Exhibit C attached hereto, which said Exhibit A consists of a parcel of land 11,884 square feet, more or less, in size. 2. Lot 13 shall be deed restricted for use by Henke solely for parking by the owner occupants, invitees and customers of the Relay Station Parcel; provided, however, that Henke may at his option and discretion grade, landscape, light and do other things which are consistent with the use of Lot 13 as a parking area. Lighting shall be screened so as not to be directly visible and intrusive on the occupants of Ranch Creek PUD. References on the Final Plat of Ranch Creek to "common area" shall be deleted, and appropriate labeling shall be made to state the purpose of Lot 13. 3. Henke agrees to convey and or dedicate as requested by Brown, 1,368 square feet of property, more or less, presently constituting a portion of the Relay Station Parcel lying along the westerly boundary thereof, the same to be used as a part of the access right of way to the Ranch Creek PUD. Henke shall, however, have the right to use the access road of the Ranch Creek PUD for unobstructed access to the Relay Station PUD. 4. Henke agrees to deed restrict the Relay Station Parcel with the following covenants of a permanent nature which shall run with Parcel A and be a burden thereon: a. No music, live or recorded, shall be permitted to be played on the Relay Station Parcel outside of any building on the Relay Station Parcel, intended to be entertainment for the customers, invitees and guests of business operations on the Relay Station Parcel or to attract customers to the Relay Station Parcel. b. No open windows shall be permitted facing Ranch Creek Subdivision PUD at such time as music shall be played within any of the buildings on the Relay Station Parcel. David Philip Brown Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. July 3, 1997 Page 3 c. The Relay Station Parcel shall be required to have solidly screened trash areas, so that no trash shall be visible from Ranch Creek Subdivision PUD, the same to be installed and maintained by the owner of the Relay Station Parcel. Screening shall be to a height of five (5) feet and may be covered. If the windows of the bar and restaurant on the Relay Station parcel are replaced, the same will be replaced with insulated glass or storm windows. 5. Contemporaneously with the conveyance of Lot 13 to Henke, the conveyance or dedication of the portion of the Relay Station Parcel to be used as part of the access road way to Ranch Creek PUD, Henke agrees to irrevocably, fully and completely release the Parking Easement so that the same shall thereafter have no affect on the Ranch Creek PUD, and shall dismiss with prejudice the Litigation. 6. The conveyances proposed to be made by the parties shall be by general warranty deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, subject to those matters other than monetary liens which affect the title to those respective properties as shall be acceptable to legal counsel for the respective parties, in such form as shall be reasonably acceptable to counsel for Henke and Brown. 7. This Letter Agreement is founded on good and valuable consideration. The receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. The Letter Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto, their respective heirs, successor and assigns. APPROVED AND ACCEPTED this day of July, 1997: David Brown C:DATAhCC WENXELLE:&own617.97wpd LAW OFFICES OF E +7 OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENS`WA t. 1 3 19 s PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING (moi 4.1_ • LD 006 IN l I 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81511 LEONARD M OATES RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TEDD GARDENSWARTZ January 9, 1997 DAVID O KELLY RICH ORMAN OF COUNSEL ROBERT W HUGHES JOHN THOMAS KELLY Mark Bean Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81623 Re: Land Use Application - Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. Dear Mr. Bean: TELEPHONE 19701 920-1700 FACSIMILE 19701 920 1 1 21 0•mi311 ohkg@rof.n©t This firm of attorneys represents Phillip P. Henke who is the fee simple owner of the Relay Station property, which is Parcel A as shown on the attached Plat. Parcel B is owned by Stagecoach Associates, Ltd.,and is presently the subject of a land use application which has been filed by Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. Mr. Henke has rights for parking on Parcel B pursuant to a certain Parking Agreement, Right -of -Way and Noncompetitive Provision dated September 22, 1996 (the "Parking Agreement"), a copy of which is also enclosed. Our client attended the preliminary Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of Stagecoach's application on December 13, 1996. Mr. Henke had earlier discussions with Mr. John Wix, a principal of Stagecoach Associates, Ltd., the present owner of Parcel B, and with Mr. David Brown, who as we understand it is the contract purchaser of Parcel B, in connection with the Parking Agreement. Those discussions have been in terms of Mr. Henke waiving and releasing all of his rights under the Parking Agreement in consideration of the transfer to Mr. Henke of what has been preliminarily designated as Lot 13 on the pending Application. Mr. Henke attended the December 13, 1996 meeting and learned for the first time at the meeting that the proposed Lot 13 is designated as Open Space/Common Area. Although subsequent conversations have taken place between myself and the representatives of Messrs. Wix and Brown, no resolution appears forthcoming. OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. Mark Bean Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department January 9, 1997 Page 2 By this letter you are advised that Mr. Henke objects to any land use consideration or approval which would affect his rights under the Parking Agreement. In order that you may be fully informed, Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. in an effort to defeat Mr. Henke's rights under the Parking Agreement attempted to terminate the same by a document which was recorded in Book 695 at Page 888 of the records of Garfield County, Colorado. It is Mr. Henke's position that Stagecoach Associates had no right to do so and we have advised the legal representatives of both Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. and Mr. Brown that Mr. Henke intends to file a declaratory judgment action for a court determination that the Parking Agreement remains in full force and effect. Mr. Henke or his representatives will appear at all public hearings in connection with this matter to present Mr. Henke's objections. If you should have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH St GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. By LMO/ac Enclosure cc: Phillip P. Henke C. IDATAI ClienttlHENAEIltrb.1216. µnil Leonard M. Oates • PARKING AGREEMENT, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND NON-COMPETITIVE PROVISION (CONTINUED) BOOK 895 Pda(889 In witness whereof, these parties sshahavve set their hands and if seals this ,22 day of � 1986. STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD. By John Wix, President of Stagecoach Limited, General Partner B Phillip P//renke STATE OF COLO 41. County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this?IL day of , 1986 by John Wix, President of Stagecoach Limited, General Partner of Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. c Witness my hand and official se My Commission expires: /1'`V Address: STATE OF COLORADO County of 4) fl 14. Notary' koPlia V 4"y[• The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986 by Phillip P. Henke. Witness my hand and of f icia1 15.1 i N7,7 r .tary Public Address: 44/Jr- My 4ii- My Commission expires: l� et-, & 4 ', TP oP tat a 'L • ?d l•JdL£ 370 966T S0 '6 ny 9001 £96 0L6 'ON 3NOHd 2>1H9H d : 14021d r� /•kt u, � L. Reception Nc'` 374872 MILDRED ALSDORF, :ORDER GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO BOCK 695 PAGE S88 PARKING A e is , RIGHT-OF-WAY AND NON-COMPETITIVE PROVISION A. STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD. hereby grants PHILLIP P. HENKE the use of up to fifty (50) additional , adjacent parking spaces on Parcel B described on Plat dated,<;P/ 2 9 1986, recorded T 2, , 1986, Book , Page Reception No. 3 74,6'74 in the records of Garfield County, for use by the customers and patrons of the Relay Station Restaurant and Bar, or any successor restaurant and bar, during the hours of 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM. +a 4 shall provide adequate liability insurance sufficient to indemnify STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., or its successors, against loss arising from the use of such shared parking facilities and HENKE shall deliver to STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD. a copy of said insurance policy. In no event shall the amount of such coverage be less than $100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars) This license to use said shared parking facilities shall exist only so long as HENKE or his successors or assigns continue to operate a restaurant and bar on Parcel A. B. Ir is hereby agreed that all streets and driveways established by either party within Parcels A and B designated on the above referenced plat for the purpose of circulating vehicular traffic shall be available for the common usage of both parties, their customers, patrons, invitees, licensees and guests. C. STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, LTD. hereby agrees that no restaurant or lounge operation will be conducted on Parcel B so long as a restaurant and lounge is maintained on Parcel A. a The above represents full compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Agreement dated May 24, 1983 by and between the parties hereto. This agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. r NOICE OF TERMINATION OF LICENSE dr 6 9s ,PPOP THAT, WHEREAS, ON September 22, 1986, Stagecoach Associates, Ltd., as the rightful owner of lands adjacent to a restaurant and bar operation in Garfield County, Colorado, known as the Relay Station, owned by Phillip P. Henke, did enter with Henke into a PARKING AGREEMENT, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND NON --COMPETITIVE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), which document was recorded in the Garfield County Office of Clerk and Recorder on September 29, 1986, as Reception No. 374872, in Book 695 at Page 888; and WHEREAS, the Agreement grants a license to Henke and the Relay station for use by the customers and patrons of the Relay Station Restaurant and Bar, or any successor restaurant and bar, to use up to fifty (50) parking spaces on the land of Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. during the hours between 6:00 o'clock P.M. and 2:00 o'clock A.M. conditioned with the provision: THIS LICENSE TO USE SAID SHARED PARKING FACILITIES SHALL EXIST ONLY SO LONG A5 HENKE OR HIS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS CONTINUE TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT AND BAR ON PARCEL A; and WHEREAS, for an extended period of months in 1995 and 1996 the enterprise operated as a bar only without the preparation and service of food as required by the Agreement for a restaurant operation until the recent opening of the COOL BEANS full service restaurant on the premises and, further, the proprietor of COOL BEANS closed the restaurant operation and departed the premises on or about March 11, 1996, because the County of Garfield, at Noon of March 11, 1996, closed the premises for Building Code violations; and WHEREAS, THE Agreement further provides that Henke shall deliver to Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. proof of liability insurance protection to indemnify Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. against loss arising from use oy the Relay Station, its successors, assigns, patrons and customers of the shared parking facilities, and no such proof has been delivered. NOW, THEREFORE, unless good cause is shown in writing by the owner of Parcel A on or before March 22, 1996, why the Agreement has not terminated for Violation of the terms thereof, it shall then be deemed terminated. Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. by 746c,jfr J Wix, President, STAGECOACH LIMITED the General Partner State of Colorado County of Eagle -•The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /S day of March, 1"11995;''by John Wix as President of STAGECOACH LIMITED, he genera partner of : , ,Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. /,// rd. _ �-- iL�l �L/ v `, ~ Notary Public GC .7 -4.1y Coritibsion expires: Z. yi £d WdEE:TT 966T LT 'oec 9006 £96 0L6 : '0N 9NOE4d 3AN3H d : WO8J ..1anwr'y 70, I ]7 r GARY HUBBELL WRITING AND ISI IO'OGRAPFIV 04/6/ 0 c- 0038 Stagecoach Circle • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303) 963-0696 John Martin, Garfield County Commissioner 109 8tH Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Martin Please register my opposition to the proposed development at the Ranch at Roaring Fork for the Brown/Jenkins parcels. The developers do not have approvals from the membership to access the Ranch at Roaring Fork common areas, nor do they have sewer and water agreements. Until such agreements can be reached, I support the commission's decision to deny approval of the pro iect 1 am also not in favor of any developments that are platted for higher densities than current county standards In fact, I would rather see commercial •.ievelopment take place on this parcel than more residential development Thank you for your position on this matter. Sincerely, Gary Hubbell RECEIVED JAN i 1 1997 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i i,, JAN 3 1 1997 J. Richard Hunt cs..-- ------- 14913 Highway 82 3. ALO Carbondale, CO 81623 �f January 27. 1997 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse 109 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: Re: Jenkins/Brown Development At your Garfield County Commissioners meeting, January 20, 1997, Mr. David Brown outlined his plans for the Jenkins/Brown Development, which adjoins our property. He is asking for a considerable number of variances from the County regulations governing developments: the more important of which are: 1. Home density of more than four houses per acre. 2. Width of streets and paving of less than the 50 feet required. 3. Set backs from lot lines less than required. 4. Open space allotments less than the minimum required. Mr. Brown implies that they are doing a good thing by only developing 25 units on the joint properties of Brown and Jenkins, when, in fact, only the Jenkins parcel presently has the right to develop homesites. Several of the building envelopes are within 100 feet or less of the Relay Station building. For a family dwelling, this is extremely close to a bar and dance hall and the confusion that goes on both inside and outside such an establishment. Mr. Brown also advised us of their plans to construct a number of homes as small as 850 square feet. As a comparison, the minimum size of any condo on the Ranch is 1250 square feet. I believe that building this small of a home is a downgrading of the architectural covenants of the Ranch. Apparently, there are many questions that the developer will have to work out with the Ranch at Roaring Fork, including services for water, sewer and garbage as well as street up -keep and maintenance. There also is the problem of how the Ranch can, or will, share recreational facilities and other amenities that the Homeowners have built, improved and paid taxes on over the past 24 years at their expense. The soil conditions on the Jenkins/Brown parcel are zero. There is gravel and boulder "soil" from the surface down. There will be a need to bring in topsoil, if the prospective homeowners are to have yards and gardens and plant shrubs and trees. Also, where will the rocks and gravel that will be excavated for foundations be dumped? Will it be on their site or off of the development? If the above concerns are properly addressed and if the developers follow architectural guidelines as prescribed by the Ranch at Roaring Fork, this could be a lovely development. The landscaping of the property is also very important and should be in keeping with the rest of the landscaping on the Ranch. It is my observation that the Ranch at Roaring Fork is not widely understood as a community from without or within. Having lived at the Ranch for twenty years, we have seen many changes here as well as in the rest of Garfield County. At present, the residents of the Ranch are a varied and stable group of people. We have school teachers, ski instructors, retired folks, real estate salespersons, policemen, firemen and many other people in the service area of our community. In addition to our permanent residents, there are homes that are rented or used as family vacation retreats. So, there are a fine mix of people. We are proud of what we have here at the Ranch and enjoy it with our children, grandchildren and friends. These are traditions and life styles that we would like to see continued. We would anticipate that Jenkins and Brown would want to make any additions to the community in keeping with this philosophy. Thank you for considering our concerns. Very truly yours, J. Richard Hunt CC: George Hopfenbeck Board of Directors, Ranch at Roaring Fork JOHN R. SCHENK DAN KERST WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III CAROLYN M.STRAUTMAN SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, LLP A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 302 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 310 GLEC3WOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447 TELECOPIER: (970) 945.2440 ,April 24, 1998 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street, Suite 304 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Basalt Water Conservancy District Dear Commission Members: (;R- TEK (MFIf ILLD CoUNlY I represent the Basalt Water Conservancy District. It has come to my attention that issues may have arisen at a recent meeting regarding the scope and effect of actions taken by the District. I will attempt to clarify what the Basalt Water Conservancy District does and does not do. The District's primary function is to allot by contract the District's direct flow and storage water rights (including contractual rights for the release of water from Reudi Reservoir) to provide a legal source of water for users within the District for substitute supply and augmentation plan purposes. The District's operating plan provides for the release of stored water or water available under a senior appropriation as necessary to satisfy the requirements of a contract holder's substitute supply or augmentation plan. At its regular monthly meetings, the Board of Directors considers applications for allotment contracts. While the District's water engineer completes an analysis of each application to confirm the allotment quantities requested, the District does not consider issues of injury between water users in its contracting process. Claims of injury and related issues are properly within the province of the State Engineer and Water Court. An allotment contract with the District will often help provide the legal water supply necessary for a particular land use. If the contract is to serve a property located within the District's service Area A, the boundary of which was delineated with the help of the Colorado State Engineer's office, there is a presumption of non -injury and the applicant is most often able to obtain a well permit and legal water supply on the basis of the District's contract. If the property is located within the District's service Area B, additional water rights and a completed water rights augmentation is generally required. In either case, the issue of injury to another's water rights can be raised either administratively with the State Engineer or in a Water Court action. The District makes no determination regarding the affect of a proposed water use plan on other water users. !! 41 nan.at7dlSCLGA9C11!'e I fl -i. April 24, 1998 Page 2— In summary, although a Basalt Water Conservancy District contract often provides a legal water supply adequate for a particular land use, the existence of the contract should not be viewed as a determination by the District that other water users will not be injured by the proposed land use. The determination of injury is made by the State Engineer's office. Let me know if you desire further information in this regard. DKJemb xc: Board of Directors Resource Engineering, Inc. 114110waliIISRGNIR I IL Lit.wnl G. Hopfenbeck-333 Logan Fax:303-765-2170 May 29 '97 14:41 P.01 George M. Hopfenbeck, Jr. my 1991333 Logan Street #108 Denver, CO 80203 , cowry Phone & Fax: (303) 765-2170 May 29,1997 Via Fax: (970) 945-7765 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Ranch Creek/Ranch at Roaring Fork Status Dear Mr. Bean: I will not be able to attend, on behalf of the Ranch At Roaring Fork, the Hearing on the Ranch Creek PUD/Subdivision be fore the Board of County Commissioners scheduled for June 2, 1997. Nevertheless, I want to confirm the information I reported to you on the phone about the status of arrangements between Ranch Creek and the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Ranch Creek has verbally agreed to matters addressing the chief concerns of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, most particularly to reductions in density and to an equitable tap fee. On this basis, we have drafted an Agreement which has just been circulated to members of the Board of Directors of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Association for their review and to the relevant parties involved in the proposed Ranch Creek development. I understand that David Brown has furnished a copy of the draft Agreement to you. The Agreement, provides, among other things, for water and sewer service to Ranch Creek, for use of Ranch common area and facilities by Ranch Creek owners, and for maintenance of the roads serving Ranch Creek. The relevant parties have not yet had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Agreement but hopefully it will be finalized in the next few weeks. Once it is signed by the parties, the Agreement will still be subject to various conditions before it can become effective, the chief of which conditions are (1) that the members of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association approve the Agreement and the actions to be taken under the Agreement; (2) that financing is obtained for major improvements to the Association sewer plant together with expansion of the plant sufficient to serve Ranch Creek; (3) that various required government permits and amendments of permits are obtained; and (4) that the improvements to, and expansion of, the sewer plant are G.Ropfenbeck-333 Logan Fax:303-765-2170 May 29 '97 14:42 P.02 completed. We suggest that no action be taken on the Ranch Creek development until, at least, the Agreement is fnalized and signed, which will hopefully be accomplished before the end of June. Fecl free to call me if you have questions. Very t.'ly yours, George M. Hopfenbeck, Jr. cc. David P. Brown - Via fax: (970) 925-2258 Charles R. Holloway - Via mail Hardin Holmes- Via fax (303) 623-2062 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District September 30, 1996 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Ranch Creek P.U.D. Mark: 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2491 t F �7� 963-0569 f�, [OCT 0 1 1996 j ij ...ARFk LD C.,OLN iY I have reviewed the application for the Ranch Creek P.U.D. 1 would offer the following comments regarding fire protection for the subdivision. Water Supply Water supply for the subdivision via the existing 200,000 gallon water storage tank is adequate. The proposed water system and hydrant configuration is also acceptable. Access Access within the proposed subdivision is a concern, especially if on street parking is allowed. The drawings indicate road widths varying from 12 to 20 ft_ The Uniform Fire Code requires that access roads for fire apparatus serving three or more residential units have minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. The code allows the fire chief to modify the requirement if the buildings are completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system: 1994 UFC Sec. 902.2 Impact Fees The developer will be required to enter into a contract with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Please contact me if you have any questions. Since, ly ill Gavette Fire Marshal Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District May 29, 1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Ranch Creek - Preliminary P.U.D. Mark: 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2491 •C3AF-rilicLU COUNTY I recently met with Mr. David Brown to review a revised road and lot layout for the proposed Ranch Creek P.U.D. The site plan reviewed, marked "Revised May 12, 1997", is generally adequate for providing access for fire apparatus. The final design will need to provide for an adequate turning radius for fire apparatus. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerel Bill Gavette Fire Marshal a Y. 22. I998u 8360 '--ISTRYKER / DROWN; ENG FA'X'NO, 9709251974 No. 9367 P. 1/2. • From:OFFICE / MKTNG May 21, 1998 McLaughlinWater Engineers, Ltd 210A Vantner Ave- Aspen; C;lorado 81611 (97492S-10 • FAX (970) 925-1974 a?mAteena WWI) 1 gil:41C121Z co= 1 Witt leICHAECS MIME kidVS reA'a StelTe. MOW WA Al NOWA • DZAN MOSE WIAD.3I IMUN R. CSCIVAux PALL D.2•eiliti ).11Astow scam LEANDS11.11151 DPMEL IL WOW coxae Mark Bean Garfield County Building arelPlanrdng 109 8'1 St. Suite 303 Glenwood. Springs. Co. 81601 RE: Ranch Creek - Water Rights and Water Supply - 96-014.01? Dom Mark: The Ranch of Roaring*Fork Homeowners Association have been reviewing the valter.rights issues discussed m the Strut Enginleers.Letters by Steve Lantennahlager. In caernetsations with the Ranch of Roaring Fork.Water Right aturrney Slimy Wolin from Caksia and Haupt in Glenwobd Sizings, the Associalian and RaneirCiceit Developer. David Brown are tilking the position that Ranch Crew Property and was included in the aiiginal Water ig14 ling and decrees in 1973. A foririal water augmentation plan does not need to be provided to the State. The • Homeowners have more than adequate water, frons bothphysiod and deemed water sources io supply tM Ranch . Creek Project and tbe Ranch err Roaring Fork. The Ranch of Roaring Fmk is applying to the State of Colorado to Change the Point of Dintiiall of spme of their existing decreed water tights form their carrion. divert= -point to rho point of dicersion for their domestic Water supply, which. is the new Skinner Well and two back vp wens. This will allow additional diversions from the.wells to_serve both the Ranch at Roaring Bede and Ranch Creek? . . In discussions that Sherry Caloia has had with the State of Colorado Water Amour= Department they.have , informally agreed to the plan and we anticipate their appruval of the Change in Diversion and the Ranch Creek Project ifyou have any question!•, please feel free to cemete at any time. Atuiebniems CC:,CC: David Brown SB- Arch RC/1U' Ha:Winn • DOMIO,C0 MOWS° mostax., P.% OZIONdive • COIMITZ fb.CMCDS:10141C4tandi wo.11111 sac= promegmunam wars 711DafribIT #:WAVINIC21.700t4. 41MAIAVACX larAINALSI ISIUGATICIN FCUPITAINS. ROW UMW.= Mb RAM COMIC 03tnenCh.1rrAra4wrAND =USE MIPICITECCAN wassail icap.tcos OSCIALTt Mammy= ,RATa hums AND urazsms tcctiabm r• l t UL19 7 k LAW OFFICES OF � OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P � s, GM.*-3t.D GYk tifY PROFESS . NAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 91611 LEONARD M OATES RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TEDD GARDENSWARTZ July 15, 1997 DAVID B KELLY OF COUNSEL JOHN THOMAS KELLY Don K. Deford, Esq. County Attorney l' Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Mark Bean, Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81623 TELEPHONE 19701 920 1700 FAeSIMILE 19701 920 1 1 2 1 a mail ohkg@rot not Re: Agreement Between Phillip P. Henke and David Brown Regarding Parking Agreement Resolution /Relay Station and Ranch Creek P. U.D. Dear Don & Mark: You will please find enclosed herewith, a Letter of Agreement which has been entered into by Phil Henke with David Brown in connection with the matters relating to the termination of the Parking License enjoyed by the Relay Station; and, its release in consideration of a new arrangement upon approval of the Ranch Creek P.U.D. The Letter of Agreement of course is conditional upon approval of the Ranch Creek P.U.D. Based upon this Letter of Agreement and subject to David Brown's purchase of the property and fulfillment of the terms of the Letter of Agreement, Mr. Henke is now in a position to withdraw his prior opposition to the approval and advise of his support thereof. If you should need any additional elaboration or should be in need of additional information or materiels from Mr. Henke, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, OATES, KNEZEVICH& GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. By L LMO/amc Enclosure cc: Phillip Henke David Brown C 1DATAtClientsdIENAE1Ltr. Deford - Bean 7-I5-97.trpd nard M. Oates PHILLIP P. HENKE 0275 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 July 3, 1997 LETTER OF AGREEMENT David Philip Brown Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. 300 South Spring Street, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Resolution of Parking Agreement as Between Parcel A ("Relay Station Parcel') and Parcel B ("Ranch Creek PUD') RECITALS: A. Phillip Henke ("Henke") is the owner of Parcel A, the Relay Station Parcel, occupied by the Relay Station Bar and Restaurant. B. David Brown ("Brown") is the contract purchaser of the Ranch Creek PUD, proposed to be subdivided into 22 single family residential units. C. The Ranch Creek PUD is encumbered by a Parking Agreement for the benefit of Parcel A, recorded in Book 695 at Page 888 of the records of Garfield County, Colorado. ("Parking Agreement"). D. Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. is the fee simple owner of the Ranch Creek PUD and has disputed the validity of the Parking Agreement. E. Henke has sued Stagecoach, requesting an order of the Garfield County District Court finding that the Parking Agreement is in full force and effect. That matter is pending as Civil Action No. 97CV4-C, (the "Litigation"). David Philip Brown Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. July 3, 1997 Page 2 F. In the event that Brown shall close the purchase of Ranch Creek PUD, Henke and Brown wish to agree on a resolution on the Litigation, terminate the Parking Agreement, and provide 1 Ienke with adequate parking for the Relay Station Parcel. G. Brown desires, if he shall purchase the Ranch Creek PUD, certain assurances that the residents of the Ranch Creek Parcel shall quietly enjoy their property and the Parking Agreement shall no longer encumber the Ranch Creek PUD. Based upon the foregoing statement of facts, the parties hereto, Henke and Brown, agree as follows: 1. Upon approval of the Ranch Creek PUD by Garfield County, and conditioned thereon, and further conditioned on Brown purchasing the Ranch Creek PUD, Brown agrees to convey in fee simple to Henke what is shown as Lot 13 on Exhibit C attached hereto, which said Exhibit A consists of a parcel of land 11,884 square feet, more or less, in size. 2. Lot 13 shall be deed restricted for use by 1-ienke solely for parking by the owner occupants, invitees and customers of the Relay Station Parcel; provided, however, that 1lenke may at his option and discretion grade, landscape, light and do other things which are consistent with the use of Lot 13 as a parking area. Lighting shall be screened so as not to be directly visible and intrusive on the occupants of Ranch Creek PUD. References on the Final Plat of Ranch Creek to "common area" shall be deleted, and appropriate labeling shall be made to state the purpose of Lot 13. 3. Henke agrees to convey and or dedicate as requested by Brown, 1,368 square feet of property, more or less, presently constituting a portion of the Relay Station Parcel lying along the westerly boundary thereof, the same to be used as a part of the access right of way to the Ranch Creek PUD. Henke shall, however, have the right to use the access road of the Ranch Creek PUD for unobstructed access to the Relay Station PUD. 4. Henke agrees to deed restrict the Relay Station Parcel with the following covenants of a permanent nature which shall run with Parcel A and be a burden thereon: a. No music, live or recorded, shall be permitted to be played on the Relay Station Parcel outside of any building on the Relay Station Parcel, intended to be entertainment for the customers, invitees and guests of business operations on the Relay Station Parcel or to attract customers to the Relay Station Parcel. b. No open windows shall be permitted facing Ranch Creek Subdivision PUD at such time as music shall be played within any of the buildings on the Relay Station Parcel. David Philip Brown Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. July 3, 1997 Page 3 c. The Relay Station Parcel shall be required to have solidly screened trash areas, so that no trash shall be visible from Ranch Creek Subdivision PUD, the same to be installed and maintained by the owner of the Relay Station Parcel. Screening shall be to a height of five (5) feet and niay be covered. 1f the windows of the bar and restaurant on the Relay Station parcel are replaced, the same will be replaced with insulated glass or storm windows. 5. Contemporaneously with the conveyance of Lot 13 to Henke, the conveyance or dedication of the portion of the Relay Station Parcel to be used as part of the access road way to Ranch Creek PUD, Henke agrees to irrevocably, fully and completely release the Parking Easement so that the same shall thereafter have no affect on the Ranch Creek PUD, and shall dismiss with prejudice the Litigation. 6. The conveyances proposed to be made by the parties shall be by general warranty deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, subject to those matters other than monetary liens which affect the title to those respective properties as shall be acceptable to legal counsel for the respective parties, in such form as shall be reasonably acceptable to counsel for Henke and Brown. 7. This Letter Agreement is founded on good and valuable consideration. The receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. The Letter Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto, their respective heirs, successor and assigns. APPROVED AND ACCEPTED this Pa/A -C fit Gt David Brown C.10ATA1C6enk1HENKELLtr Brawn 61 T•9T.wpd Very truly yours, day of July, 1997: Aug, 1998 112:08PM !ISTRYKER BROWN ENG rAX NU. ylUVb1yf4 No, 04.34 r. From:OFFICE / MKTNG McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. 2420 Alcott street, Deaver, Colorado 97211 (303) 458.5550 Facsimile (303) 480-9766 mweiftwrewaterccom August 5, 1898 Ranch of the Roaring Fork Romeo► era Association Attn: Mr. George Hopfenbeck 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 RE: Existing Plant Capacity TEMENCE It =MN MOWN) E 141.41121‘24 / 1rd.b1 C$alL113311.1. foCalnCildwailK KW IL1+f•LA1N MICHAEL ELCOA1223 90DiTILIMIW N MAN =MAD G NANs ANCISISM LIAM= Lowo WOAD Daimillo ALUM }ML' O Dear George: We understand that the HOA has had requests to provide service to several new single farnil* residences (in addition to those already committed) In the near future the expansion program can be completed). You asked that we provide advice as to the plants handling the resulting flows. With regard to domestic Wastewater Toads, the existing plant is not yet at Ws pennitted capacity. We have previously cautioned the Board against ailoWing a significant number of new customers for two principle reasons; 1. Hydraulic Loading, The collection system has an infiltration (IA) problem and In flows have occasionally result in total flow exceeding the plant's permitted rapacity. The discharge permit requires planning for improvements when loads equal 80%6 of permitted capacity and to be under construction at 95%. This concern has been reduced by the fad that we now have planning completed and have started an >n corrections program. Also, on two occasions. Dwain Watson has said that the State will not enforce flow limitations caused by periodic high infiltration as long as the Ranch is correcting lA and the effluent meets permit quality standards. 2. Plant egmLijlen. The existing plant is in poor conditions and it's design does not conform to typical reliabiilgl criteria. Adding more toad would increase problems during equipment failures and similar risks. ceomermeasMINCSEIvicenntwAnKa3CASANDMICIAMS WAIVITVATiatirOfbEanairge4 glagAPAGICIAMIZ CROCATOON s'awL*.uwciAMIV:0DIXr oL WASTIWATIRCOMICI1ONTRZAINZPITANDlfrl E PULMORCT1214 WAif7tWin A1R>k SICIAVY1 YORAVNCi WAIS N:0sANDufiLITIlSECLwnoQ AIA €. 7. 1998. 112:08PM I11CTRYKER BROWWN ENG FAX N0. 91092b19(4 No. U434 r. b/b From:OFFICE / MKTNG Since the major improvement program has been approved by the Board and financing arranged, we nowbelieve that any Increased risk will be minimal because of the short time period unto new facilities are on line. The present 138 connected EQR (equivalent single m1y residential) units result in maximum month wastewater flows of approximately 36,000 gpd (during periods of nominal VI). To allow some safety factor and Omit intended flows to 95%, It is recommended that the Board limit additional taps to 35 EQR until construdion starts_ Very truly yours. McLaughlin Water Engines, Ltd. Ronald C. McLaughlin cc: Dean Derosier 2 Rcwmweor azo 000ecae. SER 30 '96 0?: GAM RANCH AT ROARING FORK September 25, 1996 To: Board of Directors -Ranch at Roarh z Fe.r1 Homeowners Association From: George Hopfenbeck, Chairman of L4 -al Committee Re: PUDISubdivi`ion Application for "Ranch Creek" Mix/Brown and Jenkins Parcels) As promised, I have reviewed the PUD/Subdivision Application for the project named Ranch Creek, dated August 2a, 1996, as submitted to Garfield County for approval. The Ranch received its first and only copy of the Application from the County about September 13. The Application covers the Jenkins parcel, which has previously been at,ometied into the Ranch, and the WixfBrown parcel, which has been carved our of the Commercial Parcel on which the Relay Station is located and which 1 -,as not been anne x; d to the Ranch. The Jenkins and WixfBrown parcels, combined, surround the Relay Station parcel on the east. south and west. The Application as submitted by Stryker/Brown Architects on behalf of the owners of the 2 parcels embraced in the PUD. Summary The following are the princ.pal items to consider, each of which will be discussed more fully below: (1)Tlie to al number of units planned s now 48, not the 28 which we were advised about. t2) Even the 28 units initially discussed, whcn added to the 10 lots coming en steam n the Elder Replay, may exceed the capacity of our sewer plant, our • , Ater sioraee tank and our water supply well; (3) The density is extreme at 43 relit=_ and, even at 23 units, is higher than density in the Phase IV and Phase V sir 2 `e farnily home areas of the Ranch and than the density provided under Garfield County zoning requirements: (4) There is no effort to satisfy the epert space re . luirements of the County; instead the Application seeks to claim credit for open ;pace in the Ranch even though the WixfBrown part of the PUD is not annexed t: the Ranch and has no ownership interest in the Ranch common area and pays nothing to ;upporr the Ranch common area; (5) Standards for the Ranch Cr:ek PUD “re at variance with Lhose in the Ranch at Roaring Fork, particularly: (...:1) the smaller lot sizes, (b) the narrow 3 to 5 foot side yard setbacks in the Ranch Creek PLJD instead of 10 feet as required in Phases IV and V of the Ranch .it Roaring Fork. (c) the allowance of uncovered parking on each lot in the Ran;.°ih Creek PUD rather than the requirement in Phases IV and V for garages (,`'or a minimum of 2 cars) on each lot, and (d) the 35 foot height limit in the Ranch Creek PUD compared to 30 feet in Phases 1V and V; (6) The Ranch Creek Pr'D in orporates existing roads serving rhe Ranch at Roaring Fork as par or 'he road system of the Ranch Creek PUD without dealing with the matter of shar.iig itt the costs of plowing, n, Z SEP 20 '96 07: 57AN RANCH AT ROAR I NI.3 FORK maintenance, ctc.; and (7) The PUD Applies tion contains assumptions and assertions which are questionable about the possibility of annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel into the Ranch, th? availability of water and sewer service from the Ranch, and use of Ranch recreatio ial facilities and common area. 1 will also include some miscellaneous _omments at the end of this memo. Substantial jnematja Number of Units. The Application for the Ranch Creek PUD asks for approval for 48 dwellirg units, instead of the 28 units which David Brown has previously represented to us. As previously represented, the Jenkins parcel, containing 2.599 acres, was ,,fanned for 4 single family lots and 4 duplexes (8 units) fora total of 12 dwelling units and the Wix/Brown parcel, containing 2.987 acres, was planned tor 16 ingle family lots for a total of 16 dwelling units. Combined, the two parcels, es originally represented, would have 20 single family lots and 4 duplexes of 2 un_ t_ each for a combined total of 28 dwelling units. However, now, as filed, the ''U'D Application would add an "ancillary" or "granny" unit of about 500 sq ldre feet of dwelling space on each of the 20 single family lots, adding 20 dwelling units to the plan. The "ancillary" units would be available for rental. The "anL:Mary" unit3 would have limits on the number of occupants. However, the limits rr Eght be illegal under federal laws preventing discrimination against families b:nn 1 need to check this further. Av ilaale Sewer and Water Capacity. We need to have kziowledgeahle experts determine whether our existing sewer and water facilities have sufficient capacity to add to our systems both the 10 1c t; in the Elder Replat and the 48, or even 28, units in the Ranch Creek PUD. tau-• existing taps are about 134, 1 understand. Adding 58 taps (10 Elder Repla, and 48 Ranch Creek PUD) would increase our taps by 43.28%! Adding just 38 taps (10 Elder Replat and 28 Ranch Creek PUD) would increase our taps by 28.36%. Ron McLaughlin of McLaughlin Water Engineers has reported n me that our existing sewer facilities and permit will not handle this kind of increase. I do not know whether our water well and water storage tank facilities ,.rid permit are adequate but know that we have at times experienced low water pre,sure during high residential water use periods of the day and have made efforts -o reduce demand on aur well and water storage tank by encouraging irngation of lawns with raw water from our ponds rather than with treated water from our well and storage tank . Of course, if our members are willing, we can look into the feasibility of seeking revisions in our wastewater and well permits and of expanding our wastewater treatment, water Well and water storage tank capacity in order to be able to provide the needed ser.lce to the Ranch Creek PhD, However, 1 am sure that our members woulc not want to bear any cost in connection with such efforts. We are currency seeking homeowner approval of a - SEP 30 '9G 07:59AM RANCH AT ROARING FORT: special assessment to restore parts of our se=ver treatment plant and to add capacity but this effort is facing homeowner opposition r- may not succeed. Density Excessive. With 48 dwelling •grits on a combined 5.586 acres of the Jenkins and the Wix/Brown parcels, the density i5 8.6 units per acre. This is more than double the 4 units per acre density which 1 understand is normally allowed by County zoning. Even with the so called ancillary units eliminated, the overall density for 28 units will be a little over 5 units per acre. The density on the Wix/Brown portion of the Ranch Creek PUD is greater than on the Jenkins portion. With the ancillary units, he WixBrown parcel would have 32 units on 2.987 acres for a deesity of 10.7 units per acre. Without the ancillary units. the Wix/Brown parcel would have 16 units for a density of 5.4 units per acre. The Jenkins parcel, with ancillary units, would have 16 units on 2.549 acres for a density of 6.2 units per acre. Without ancillary units, the Jenkins parcel would have 12 units for a density of 4.6 units per acre. The high density of the PUD is acknowledged in an interesting oblique way in the PUD Application which. on page 3, states that the PUD is designed "to conserve land use." ick of Open Soave. The Ranch Creek PUD provides no open space although I understand that County requirements include requirements for open space. The lack of open space is explained b_/ statements that there is plenty of open space in the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Perhaps this can work for the Jenkins - parcel because it was always intended to be parr of the Ranch, it is annexed into the Ranch and it therefore shares in the ownership of the Ranch's Common Recreation Reserve. The Jenkins parcel also is and will be obligated to pay dues and assessments to the Association for maintenance, operation, improvement and replacements of the Common Recreation Reserve. However, the Wix/Brown parcel is no, annexed into the Ranch but is part of the Commercial Parcel described in our governing Second Amended Declaration (and its predecessor declarations). The Second Amended Declaration in Section 2.7 (and predecessor declarations states: "The Commercial Parcel, even though within the Ranch, shall not be paa of the [Ranch at Roaring Fork] project and shall have no appurtenant undivided interests, rights or easements in the Common Recreation Reserve or in the Common Elements within the project". Thus, as to the Wix/Brown parcel, it is not proper to satisfy open space requirements by using open space in the Rar.ch at Roaring Fork. It is like a developer claiming the National Forest or his rieig.hbor's land to satisfy open space obligations. 7 �. P. SEP 30 ' JC 0?: SSAM RAUCH AT roAR1H Fork Of course, if our members arc willing. we can consider annexing the WixfBrOwn parcel into the Ranch. atiotz Rc�ervc and the by givegive the Wix/Brown �he arcel an interest in the Ranch Common Recrc Wix/Brown parcel some basis to use the CoiLrrlOn Recreation Reserve to satisfy County open space requirements. However..e- indicated below, annexation of the WixiBrown parcel will require a 2/3rds vott of members and could be difficult to achieve. Difference in Development Standard. Lot sizes, particularly on the Wix/Brown parcel, are smaller than single family lots in the Ranch. This k hinted at in the PUD Application (page 2) which states. innocuously► that the project will provide "wider variety of home and lot sizes than is currently found in the area". The PUD Application does not point out that the wider variety is all on the smaller side. Specific standards are at variance with covenants governing single family homes in Phases IV and V of the Ranch. Garages are not required. Instead uncovered parking of up to 3 cars on a lot is permitted. Front yard setbacks for at least 16 lots on the Wix/Brown parcel arc less than the 30 foot front yard setback required in Phases IV and V. Side yard setbacks on the WixfBrown parcel are as low as 3 to 5 feet compared to the 10 foot side yard setbacks required in Phases IV and V. The height limit of 35 feet set forth on page 6 of thc PUS Application exceeds the 30 foot height allowed in Phases IV and V. And, of course, ancillary rental units are allowed on all lots, unlike Phases fV and V. Road System Issues. The primary acce -s roads serving the PUD are Stagecoach Lane on the east side of the PUD +ind Stagecoach Drive on the north and west sides of the PUD. I am not clear about the ownership of these primary roads or the respective rights of the parties to use hese primary roads but I understand that the Ranch, and not the County, handles the plowing of these roads if not other maintenance. The PLED Application does not address the rights of the PUD to use these roads and dces not address the obligation of the PUD to share in the costs of plowing and other maintenance. The PUD also shows two internal roads to serve the PUD, one on the Jenkins parcel and the other on the WixlBrown parcel. Since the Jenkins parcel is annexed into the Ranch, the Ranch would presumably be obligated to maintain and plow the internal road within the Jenkins parcel. If so, the Ranch should ask that the specifications for this road be set forth in the PUD approval and thc Ranch should insist that the specifications he acceptable for the Ranch to assume maintenance responsibility. SEP SO '96 07:59AM RAMCH AT ROARING FORK 1= _ r, The PUD Application does not address the means and manner or the party responsible for maintenance and plowing at the other internal road which is within the Wix/Brown parcel. Annexation into Ranch. The PUD Application expresses the hope that the PUD will be annexed into the Ranch (but states that the PUD will go forward whether or not annexation occurs). The Jenkins parcel is already annexed into the Ranch so only the Wix/Brown parcel would require annexation. Under the Second Amended Declaration governing the Ranch, annexation of the WixlBrown parcel into the Ranch will require the approval of 2/3rds of the voting power of the Association (See Section 5.1(b) of the Declaration). Members who fail to approve are considered as "no" votes, so annexation will not be easy to achieve. Without annexation of the Wix/Brown parce 1, matters raised above, such as credit for open space in the Ranch to satisfy County open space requirements and such as plowing and maintenance of roads serving the PUD, become significant. Members of the Ranch Association rn.ght disapprove of annexation of the WixiBrown parcel into the Ranch because of he high density, because the lot sizes and other development criteria, such as setbacks. are at variance with those prescribed in the covenants affecting the sin;ie family home areas of Phases N and V of the Ranch, and because the conver :on of the Wix)Brown parcel from commercial zoning and use to residential will greatly increase the burden on the recreational facilities and Corn non Recreati n Reserve of the Ranch and on the Ranch's water and sewer facilities. On the other hand, members of the Association might be willing to approve annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel because they prefer residential development to the uncertainties of further commercial development on the Wix/Brown portion of the Commercial Parct=1 and because dues and assessments collected from the additional residential unit.; should reduce the dues and assessments payable by existing residential cwners in the Ranch. The Board of Directors cf :he Ranch Association obviously can not make the decision on annexation. PUD's Rights to Water and Sewer Ser: ice and to Use Ranch Common Area. The PUD Application asserts that owners within the PUD will have rights to water and sewer service from the Ranch and have rights to use the recreational facilities and Common Recreation Reserve kr such things as fishing, golf, tennis, baking, hiking and horseback riding. This is :rue for the Jenkins parcel because the Jenkins parcel has been annexed into the Ranch. 1t is unlikely this is true for the Wiz/Brown parcel, particularly if it is c.; everted from commercial zoning and use to high density residential zoning and use, SEP 30 '96 08:OIAN RANCH AT ROARING FORK: as Exhibit 12 to the PUD Application is totally incorrect in stating that the Ranch has agreed to provide water, sewer and fire protection services to the PUD. The basis for the letter is completely unknown. As far as 1 can determine, the letter was issued without authority from the Ranch or even consultation with the Ranch. The letter refers to exhibits supposedly d,ecumenting the asserted agreement of the Ranch but no such exhibit is attached or exists. Ron .McLaughlin has agreed to issue a letter revoking the letter attached as Exhibit 12 to the PUD Application.) gelocatign of Water - Line. The Site Plan for the PUD, dated August 25, 1996, indicates that a Ranch water line throug;t the PUD is to be "abandoned" and relocated to a tortuous route through the PUD. The Association has given no authority for such line relocation. Before giving such authority, the Ranch should try to determine if the relocation might have an adverse impact on water pressure and velocity or otherwise and/or make maintenance, repairs and replacements more difficult. Fishin Eas ments. The PUD plan indicates the existence of fishing and pedestrian easements along so-called Blue Creek at the south side of the PUD but does not indicate who will be entitled to use these easements. Ranch Not 1Special District. The PUD Application, on page 7, states that the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Assoc:iation is a "Special District". This is not correct. Notice to Individual Ranch Members. 'The PUD Application includes, as Exhibit 29, a list of property owners with property within 300 feet of the PUD, including, of course, many Ranch home and ondominiurn owners. I checked • with one on the list last weekend and he had not received any information about the PUD or the hearing on October 9, We sho-ald check to see if owners listed on Exhibit 29 are entitled to receive information and notice of the hearing and, if so, whether this requirement has been met. In any event, as we decided at the Board meeting on September 20, we should let our members know about this PUD Application and make our copy available at the Rarer office for r cm5c:s to review. Ranch Position. When David Brown came to the Board to describe his plans, the Board stated that the Board would not take action in support of his plans without more detail and without advising members of the Association about the plans and without receiving a vote or consensus in favor of Brown's plans. We now have more detail but not such vote or consensus. I understand the Ranch has been asked by the County to make comments on the PUD Application by September 30. Perhaps this memo can be usea for this purpose and for use at the hearing scheduled, 1 understand, for October 9. SE!"iU ' b k10: LUHI'I KHIYu"I Hi r uHr it 1u rt./Mk One reason why it is unlikely that the Wix/Brown parcel is entitled to water and sewer service or entitled to use the recreational facilities and the Common Recreation Reserve of the. Ranch aebed. because Secondthe Amended such service and use is much greater than was contempt Declaration (and its predecessors) contemplated only commercial use of the Commercial Parcel in its provisions for water and sewer service to the Commercial Parcel and for Commercial Par=:l use of the Ranch common elements. Specifically, the Declaration, in Section 2.7, describes and, perhaps limits, the use of the Commercial Parcel to "shops, stores, restaurants or other business or commercial space(s)". The WixiBrown parcel is part of the "Commercial Parcel" under the Declaration. if the Brown/Wix parcel is developed with 26, or even only 16, dwelling units rather than as commercial space, it will so significantly increase the burden of providing water and sewer service and the burden of allowing use of Ranch common elements that it could be deemed to void whatever obligations might otherwise exist if the land remained for commercial use. A clear reason the WixfBrown parcel probably has no right, at least under present circumstances, to water and sewer se;vice is that any obligation to provide water and sewer service to the Commercial Parcel (including the WixfBrown portion thereof) is conditioned there being sufficient capacity in the Ranch's water and sewer facilities. Section .5(d) of the Second Amended Declaration, governing water and sealer by the Ranch to the Commercial Parcel, states that the Ranch shall provide water and sewer service to the Commercial Parcel but "not to exceed the c;:pacity of the Association's water and sewer service facilities." As indicated above. it is highly doubtful that the water and sewer service facilities of the Ranch now have the capacity to serve the Wil/Brown parcel as well as the Jenkins parcel and the lots in the Elder Replat expected to soon need service. �o loch Agreement rzScrv._e,. The PL:D Application, on page 7, states that the Ranch Association has agreed to provide water and sewer service to the PUD. This is true as to the Jenkins parcel which is annexed into the Ranch but is not true as to the WixBrown parcel. A 1980 agreement to provide water and sewer service to the Commercial Parcel has rec:entl'► been terminated because of defaults in paying charges for service to the Relay Sration..A new agreement will have to be negotiated for the Relay Station and this new agreement or another special agreement for the Wix/Brown parcel will have to address whether or not service can and will be provided to the WixiBrown pare:. if it is converted from commercial use to residential use. (A letter from the Aspen office of McLaughlin Water Engineers attached r