HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Report BOCC 04.18.2016Board of County Commissioners, April 18, 2016
Exhibits - GCCI Zone Change
Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments
B Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended
C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended
D Application
E Staff Report, including Appendices A and B
F Presentation
G Letter dated October 28, 2015 from Balcomb & Green on behalf of the RFWSD
H Letter dated November 2,2015 from Andrew McGregor, City of Glenwood Springs
I Letter dated October 2J,2015 from Stacy Bernot and Gavin Brook, Carbondale
J Letter dated October 29,2015 from Dan Blankenship, Roaring Fork Transportatlon
Authority (RFTA)
K Letter dated October 29,2015 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management
L Letter dated October 24,2015 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering
M Email dated November 3, 2015 from Dan Roussin, CDOT
N Letter dated November 4,2015 from Rick Lofaro, Roaring Fork Conservancy
o Letter dated December 3,2015 from Roy Martayan, Baymar Hotels a!! l{qpg4ies
P Letter received January 6,2016 from David Dodson
a Letter received January 12,2016 from Dave Malehorn
R Letter received January 12,2016 from Jack Austin
S Email dated January 12,2016 from Terry and Lara Claassen
T Pre-Inclusion Agreement with Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
U Applicant Planning Commission Presentation
v Affidavit of Notice from Owner
w Letter dated April 15,2016 from Kyle Alpha, United Companres
x One page summary of Applicant Survey
Y Applicant presentation dated April 18, 2016
Board of County Commissioners
April 18,2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
saqqslTYPE OF REVIEW
APPLTCANT (OWNER)
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
ACRES
EXISTING ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Zone District Amendment
Garfield County Commercial lnvestment, LLC
Mike Cerbo, Galloway & Company, lnc.;
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek
West side of SH 82 north of Cattle Creek Road (CR
113) between the Rio Grande Trail and SH 82
43.25-acres
ResidentialSuburban
Commercial General
Residential High Density, Unincorporated
Community, Water and Sewer District
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC (GCCI), a subsidiary of Carbondale lnvestments, LLC (Cl)
requests a zone change on a 43.25-acre parcel on the west side of SH 82 between CR L13 and CR 114'
The Official Zone District Map of Garfield County designates the parcel as Residential Suburban and the
Applicant seeks to rezone the site to Commercial General (CG).
Historv
This 43.25-acre parcel has been the subject of numerous land use actions
when it was part of larger 159.161- acre property known as Sanders Ranch
PUD/Bair Chase and the Cattle Creek Colorado development proposals. ln
2008 the Board of County Commissioners rezoned that portion of the
Sanders Ranch PUD that was outside of the conservation easement areas
to Residential Suburban, Resolution No. 2008-1L2.
ln 2011 the owner, Carbondale lnvestments, LLC, divided the overall
L59.161-acre property into four parcels, two of those parcels were
approved as the River Edge PUD for 366 residential units as shown left.
The subject site is adjacent to the River Edge PUD, but not included in the
zoning or entitlements associated with that PUD development. The Rio
Grande Trail physically separates the two projects.
llPage
PROJECT INFOfiTVIATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
l;DESCRIPTION OF TH,E PROPOSAL
Board of County Commissioners
APril 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
Currently the 43.25-acre site could develop the Suburban dimensions, uses, and density which would
permit a maximum of 94 residential lots based upon the minimum lot size required in the Suburban zone
(20,000 square feet). Those lots could cover (rooftops and pavement/impervious surface) 21.6-acres of
the site with a maximum of 941,985 square feet of floor area within the 25 foot height restriction (two
stories).
Zone District Dimensions
lf rezoned to CG the permitted dimensions would allow up to 251 lots (minimum lot size 7,500 square
feet) to be used for commercial or residential use. lf commercial uses were proposed on the overall site
impervious cover maximum (rooftops and pavement) would be 35.8-acres of the site with a maximum of
94L,985 square feet of floor area within the 40 foot height restriction (four stories).
Appendix A includes photographs of the subject property and existing uses within the defined
unincorporated community area. Appendix B contains photographs of various large scale commercial
developments including the Meadows and Willits Town Center. The photos may be used as a comparison
regarding acreage and potential square footage on the subject site.
The complete Use Table - Table 3-403 of the LUDC, is included as Appendix C of this report.
Uses Permitted bv-right in Suburban (but not in CG)
Agriculture
Building or Structure Necessary to Agricultural Operations
Forestry
Riding Stable
Manufactured Home Park
Group Home Facilities
lnjection Well, Piped/lnjection Well, Small/lnjection Well, Large
Uses Permitted bv-right in both Suburban and CG
Products, Processing, Storage Distribution and Sale at Point of Production
Single Family Dwelling
Home Office/Business
Foster Home
Residential Suburba n (existing)Commercial General (ProPosed)
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet 7,500 square feet
Maximum Lot coverage 50%Commercial85%
Non-comme rcial T5o/o
Maximum Floor Area so%50%
Maximum Building Height 25 Feet 40 Feet
2lP a g e
ZONE DISTRICT U$ES AND DIMENSIONS
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Small Employee Housing Facility
Family Child Care Home
Park
U ltra-Light Aircraft Operation
Trail, Trailhead, Road
O&G Drilling and Production
Uses Permitted bv rieht in CG (but not in Suburban)
Community Meeting Facility
Library
Professiona I Office
Nursery/Greenhouse
Retail- General
Retail - Equipment, Machinery, Lumber Yards
Retail - Vehicle and Equipment Sales
Theater - lndoor
Recreation - lndoor
Eating or Drinking Establishment
Cabinet Making, Wood & MetalWorking, Machining, Welding
General Service Establishment
Laundromat
Vehicle Repair, Body/Paint or Upholstery Shop
Lodging Facilities
North: Commercial (vacant restaurant, Fyrwald Parcel)
South: Conservation Easement and Residential.
East: Service commercial and lnstitutional uses on the east
side of SH 82 including the Road & Bridge Facility.
West: Vacant - Vacant Residential (River Edge PUD).
Adjacent zoning includes Rural, Planned Unit
Development, CL and CG, as shown on the map, right.
Referral Comments were received from the following agencies:
Colorado Department of Transportation, Exhibit M - Dan Roussin responded to the request for comments
that they had no comments on the request to rezone the site but that should the property become
Remote Fracking Facility
Utility Distribution Lines
Neighborhood Su bstation
Utility Distribution Facility
Accessory Building or Structure
Fence, hedge, wall
Storage/M ini-Storage
Storage - Cold Storage Plants
Recycling Collection Center
Solar Energy System, Small
3lPage
ADJACENT USES
IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS
Board of County Commissioners
APril 18,2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
thesitewhichwouldbesharedwiththeadjacent
River Edge property. Further that there does not appear to be sufficient highway infrastructure to support
the commercial zoning requested.
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Exhibit G - Scott Grosscup of Balcomb & Green, P'C'
responded on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and its engineers that the
GCCI property is located within the RFWSD service area boundary; however the property has not yet been
included within the District. A pre-lnclusion Agreement with carbondale lnvestments, LLC (Cl), owners of
the properties to the west of the site, has been recorded which sets the terms and conditions of inclusion
of the properties (including GCCI) within the boundaries of the district whereupon RFWSD would agree to
provide water and sanitary sewer service to the properties.
Terms of the Agreement include paying for and constructing certain infrastructure necessary to provide
service to the properties. This includes the following improvements which would be the responsibility of
Cl or GCCI, whichever developed first:
1,. Extension of water lines from RFWSD existing infrastructure and/or construction of a surface
water treatment PlanU
2. Developing infrastructure necessary to provide sanitary sewer service;
3. Expansion of the RFWSD sewer treatment plant;
Specific development of the GCCI property was not contemplated at the time of the agreement and
instead 375 EeRs were dedicated for potential development based upon the exiting Suburban zoning.
RFWSD is unable at this time to determine if the infrastructure contemplated by the Pre-lnclusion
Agreement would be sufficient to meet future development on the re-zoned property.
Other Comments include:
o The type of commercial development can impact wastewater treatment operations.
o permitting, design, construction and acquisition of the property necessary to construct required
facilities can take several years.
o Off-site infrastructure required for service to the property will impact the CR 113, Cattle Creek
Road intersection with SH 82. Coordination must occur between GCCI, Cl, RFWSD and the County
on timing of improvements to coincide with intersection improvements.
The provision of water and sanitation to this site could allow adjacent parcels to be served by the District'
Town of Carbondale. Exhibit I - On behalf of the Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees and Planning and
Zoning Commission Stacey Bernot, Mayor and Gavin Brook, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, responded to the referral with concerns related to the vagueness of the application and the
fact that details are not provided regarding the intended commercial use of the property. The Town
4lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
wanceSthatwouldbepermittedbytheCGzonedistrictandquestions
the proposal's compliance with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria.
The Comprehensive Plan elements cited as not in general conformance with the proposal include the
Unincorporated Community description which states that neighborhood centers to primarily serve their
own population are appropriate - the rezoning of over 43 acres could allow uses that go beyond serving
the existing and potential residential units surrounding the GCCI property' The applicability of Rural
Employment Center is also questioned as it states that incidental retail sales are appropriate yet the parcel
would allow much more square footage than what is envisioned in this designation.
The town questions whether the proposal meets the rezoning criteria, particularly whether the
development would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, whether the area has changed
to the degree that the new use is necessary and serves the public interest, and the application has not
demonstrated a community need forthe proposed commercial use.
Additionally, Carbondale is concerned with potential loss of sales tax revenue if proposed commercial
uses at this site would compete with commercial uses in the incorporated area, particularly since the sales
tax rate would be significantly less in unincorporated Garfield County. The town cites a Comprehensive
plan policy that states that "...the county will discourage commercial development in the unincorporated
areas that would significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities."
The Town requests that the County Commissioners deny the rezoning for the above reasons.
Citv of Glenwood Sprines. Exhibit H - The City cites concerns with the proposal satisfying the rezoning
criteria in the county regulations:
1. Logical and orderly development pattern - An inventory of commercial uses currently exists in this
corridor of SH 82, some of which is vacant. The City questions the neglected condition of the property
and states that it is not good land use practice to create large tracts of commercially zoned property when
an inventory currently exists as this may pull existing commercial uses from neighboring cities and towns
resulting in a loss of sales tax revenues to the incorporated communities'
2. The area has changed and it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density -The City states
that circumstances have not changed as this and adjoining property have previously obtained
entitlements over the last 15 to 20 years, yet no development has occurred. The neighborhood and
unincorporated community do not support the demand based upon vacant commercial properties in the
area.
3. Rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need - The City responded that the Applicant has not
adequately addressed the community need for this magnitude of commercial rezoning; no statistical
evidence supports this request. The proposal does not comply with the County's adopted Comprehensive
plan as the project is intended to "...benefit the county as a whole." and that sales tax leakage will have a
negative effect on surrounding communities.
5lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
4. General conformity with the Comprehensive Plan - The City believes that the application is inconsistent
with the future land uses designation as this neighborhood cannot support the additional square footage
permissible by the zone district. The demand for new commercial development in the Roaring Fork Valley
is doubtful; instead this development would draw existing businesses out of incorporated cities and
towns.
Transportation issues were also identified due to the distance to a RFTA transit stop and issues related
to SH 82. Further, based upon assertions in the application, the commercial development could result in
a doubling of existing traffic volumes resulting in the potential for 36,450 vehicles trips on a Saturday.
The City's Planning and Zoning Commission endorses these comments. The City recommends that the
application be denied.
Roaring Fork Conservancv, Exhibit N - Rick Lofaro, Executive Director, commented that the Roaring Fork
Conservancy (RFC) administers the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement as well as the adjacent Heron
Point Conservation Easement. RFC has concerns regarding potential effects of commercial development
on the nearby conservation easements as well as Cattle Creek and the Roaring River. RFC is currently
working on a study of water quality in Cattle Creek and the increase in impermeable surfaces can increase
runoff and erosion which leads to concerns about potential pollutants reaching the waterways'
Other potential impacts include increased light pollution and traffic as they may impact the easements
which provide important habitat for blue heron and elk in the riparian corridor.
The Conservancy requests that if the application is approved that it be contingent on the Applicant
working in cooperation with the Conservancy to ensure that the conservation values of the easement and
the ecological integrity of the surrounding area be upheld.
Veeetation Manasement, Exhibit K - Steve Anthony noted that the subject parcel had been heavily
infested with Scotch thistle and that the noxious weeds were treated during the 201,5 growing season.
Mountain Cross Engineering, Exhibit L - Chris Hale responded that comments could not be provided as
the zone change does not include information related to site planning, grading, drainage, traffic, access
and/or other improvements for the site.
The 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) contains regulations regarding rezoning
of property within the County in Section 4-L73 C., Review Criteria
An application for rezoning shall demonstrate with substantial evidence that an error exists in the
Official Zone District Map, or meet the following criteria:
SlPage
. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern
and would not constitute spot zoning;
The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing
to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density
in the area;
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect
to facilities, services, or housing; and
The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
A. General - A rezoning request, if approved, would allow the site any by-right use permitted within the
CG zone, as well as the maximum dimensional allowances of the zone district. lf the rezoning is
approved there would be no further review of the development by the County Planning Department,
other than application for building permits. Conditions of approval are not applicable to a rezoning
to a standard zone district in the County.
Site planning or a determination of potential uses on the site has not been discussed as it is not a
requirement of a request to rezone to a standard County zone district. This information would be
required if the Applicant was requesting a PUD or a Land Use Change Permit. The CG zone offers a
wide variety of uses, some of which the Comprehensive Plan may support at this location, however
many other uses by-right are not within the scope of the unincorporated community designation.
Those CG uses by-right not supported by the Comprehensive Plan include any uses that would be
termed regional (the Roaring Fork Valley) or light industrial in nature, as the intent of the
unincorporated community is not to draw outside populations, as quoted from the Comprehensive
Plan - "Self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve
their own populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by one
or more special districts." ln this case the residential community consists of the River Edge PUD
(undeveloped), the residences on Coryell Road, and both the H Lazy F and Mountain Meadows Mobile
Home Parks. Regional retail, such as big-box stores, offices, and many other CG allowed uses would
not be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan designation at this location. The County
does not have the ability to limit, or conditionally approve specific by-right uses within the CG zone.
Size and Scope of Proiect - Once the site is zoned as CG there are no use or dimensional restrictions
nor requirements - otherthan those permitted within the CG zoning regulations. The result could be
a development approaching the size and scope of Glenwood Meadows or a development that is more
than twice the size of Willits Town Center, without site plan review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
TlPage
STAFT ANALYSIS
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 20L6
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
Staff provides photographs of existing commercial developments in Appendix B of this report.
Commercial square footage and acreage of these existing facilities is provided in the charts below to
aid in understanding the scale of the commercial uses at these existing developments. Visualizing the
potential scale of development at the subject site is critical in determining the appropriateness of the
requested zone district.
The Applicant has not provided details of what may be developed at the site, however this information
is not applicable to the current review as, once rezoned, the site is only required to comply with the
use and dimensional standards contained in the LUDC.
Since no details of the site were provided staff conducted a comparison of some existing commercial
sites to be used as reference for size and scale of potential new development.
Citv of Glenwood Springs Square Feet Acreage
City Market 47,337 4.19
Wal-Mart 116,815 5.77
Rite Aid 26,4L2 2.L
Source: City of Glenwood Springs
ln reviewing the Glenwood Meadows project in Glenwood Springs it appears that a significant portion
of that development (from Petco and Wells Fargo on the east end, to Chili's on the south, to the west
end at Lowe's, Target and Sports Authority on the north) is on approximately the same land area as is
proposed for the rezoning. Commercial square footage and parcel size at the development is provided
below:
The Meadows Square Footage Acreage
Lowes 128,230 12.417
Tarset 1,24,900 10.613
Vitamin Cottage 10,000 1.485
Pier 1/BB&B/Petco 81.,41.6 8.401
Market Street 40,515 4.853
chili's 6,3!2 .96
Wells Fargo 5,000 .s63
Su btota I 396,313 40.821 acres
Source: City of Glenwood Springs
Note: Staff has only included that development that 'fits' within the approximate size
parcel for rezoning
site as the
Willits Town Center
Located within the Town of Basalt, this mixed use development includes allowance for a maximum of
500,000 square feet of commercial space on approximately 15 acres. The commercial development
SlPage
Board of County Commissioners
APril 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
icalclinic,medicaloffices,andmiscellaneousretailincluding
restaurants, clothing stores, kitchen store and hair salons. A hotel is currently under construction.
The project manager stated that constructed commercial space is about 150,000 square feet,
approximately L13 of which is currently vacant.
Tree Farm - Ace Lane
Eagle County is currently reviewing a development proposed located on the east side of SH 82, across
from Willits Town Center. The Tree Farm development is proposing 400 dwelling units and 135,000
square feet of commercial space.
PUD Zoning Process
It is important to note that both the Meadows and Willits Town Center had gone through a PUD
process that allowed the municipalities to determine the appropriateness of the scale, elevations, and
uses on the site. That process also resulted in open space, housing and other public amenities -
including the Glenwood Springs Community Center. No amenities are associated with this rezoning
application, nor can they be required through this rezoning process'
lf the County would like to retain the ability to determine the appropriate uses and scale of
development on this parcelthen the request to rezone the site to CG should be denied.
B. Review Criteria - Section 4-1.13 C.
1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would
not constitute spot zoning.
Comment: The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed rezoning would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern. A logical and orderly development pattern is
a coherent, consistent and ordered pattern of development. The existing commercial zoning and
uses that currently exist between CR 114 (Spring Valley Road) and CR 113 (Cattle Creek) contain
a variety of uses ranging from contractor's offices, CNG sales, lumber
yard, restaurants, gas station, the Habitat Restore, and limited retail
uses. The Rural Employment Center asterisk, that the Applicant states
is applicable to this land, identifies 'small areas adjacent to major
roadways that allow light industrial, manufacturing, equipment
storage and incidental retail sales.'This asterisk is located at the
intersection of cattle creek and sH 82 in response to the existing uses
and staff does not believe this is intended to represent a preference
for application of this designation along the surrounding SH 82
corridor. Continuation of this wide variety of uses on the subject site
could occur with the proposed CG zoning and would not result in a
logical or orderly development pattern in the area.
The existence of adjacent commercial zoning is one factor the
Applicant has utilized in determining the appropriateness of additional
9lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
2.
con mercial uses in the area, but the continuation of commercial uses is determined by more than
just the existence of adjacent commercial zoning.
The proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning as adjacent parcels are currently zoned
commercial. Spot zoning is defined as applying zoning to a specific parcelor parcels of land that
exist within a larger zoned area. The parcels immediately north of the subject site are zoned
Commercial General -the former location of the Sopris restaurant, and the Fyrwald Exemption
which contains four (4) commercially zoned lots - two of which are vacant and one which is the
siteoftheHabitatRestore. Seemap,aboveright-orangeisCGzoningandbrownisCL.
The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
Comment: The area has not undergone significant change since the subject site was rezoned from
Sanders Ranch PUD to Residential Suburban in 2008. That rezoning occurred at the request of
the Board of County Commissioners due to a prior proposal on the site failing to commence
development.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that a new use or density in the area is in the public interest
as no analysis or data has been provided regarding the need for additional commercial activities,
nor did the Applicant provide any information related to public benefit of this development
proposal. As an example other large scale retail and/or mixed use developments, such as the
Meadows in Glenwood Springs or Willits Town Center in Basalt, provided some public benefit in
theformofcohesivedesignstandards,affordablehousing,trailsandotherpublicamenities. The
rezoning and future development of this site does not discuss or require the provision of any of
these amenities.
There has been no evidence provided that it is in the public interest to encourage commercial use
on this property.
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities,
service, or housing.
Comment: The Applicant has not provided analysis or data related to community need for the
proposed commercial use. This documentation would typically come in the form of a market
analysis or needs assessment which would analyze the existing commercial inventory in a region
to determine if there were gaps in services or commercial activities that one would assume to be
available to serve a population.
A windshield survey of existing commercial facilities in the Roaring Fork Valley has shown that
there are empty storefronts and for rent/sale signs in Glenwood Springs, Town of Carbondale,
Town of Basalt and in unincorporated Garfield County.
There has been no demonstration of community need related to the proposed uses on the site.
This could lead to migration of existing businesses from surrounding areas rather than creating
new businesses or retail operations.
3.
10 lPage
Fi$rr{ 4 " Suturc L6rd Ure Mep
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2015
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in
compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
Comment: Several referral agencies have commented that the proposal does not generally
conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and planning staff agrees with these agencies for the
following reasons (Please see Appendix A for photographs of the subject property and the
U nincorporated Community area):
A. Future Land Use Map
1) Residential Hieh - The existing underlying designation of the subject site is defined as a
density of residential uses from 3 dwelling units per acre to L dwelling unit per less than
2acres. ThisrangeofdensityistobespecificallydeterminedbythePlanningCommission
and will be based upon a "degree of public benefit", considering factors such as the
amount of affordable housing, parks/trails and open space, energy conservation, fiscal
impacts on the County, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public
needs, etc.
Compatible zoning for this designation includes Residential Suburban, Residential Urban,
Residential Mobile Home Park and PUD. The request to rezone the site for commercial
uses is not consistent with this designation.
2) Rural Emplovment Center (REC) - Staff does not
agree that this designation is applicable to the
subject site as the designation appears to have
been located in response to the existing light
industrial uses that occur today at the SH 82
intersection with Cattle Creek Road. Compatible
zoning for the REC includes both the CG and CL
zone districts.
Aside from the applicability of this designation on
the site, REC is described as "Small areas adjacent
to major roadways that allow light industrial,
manufacturing, equipment storage, and incidental
retail sales. This designation also includes
residential uses for employees of the business on
the property, such as live/work housing." The
request to rezone the subject site to CG would
allow the uses described, however it would not be
located on a 'small area' but on a 43.25-acre site
and would allow more than incidental retail sales.
11 lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
3)Unincorporated Communitv - This land use designation is described as "Self-contained
subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve their own
populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by
one or more special districts." Compatible zoning includes Residential Urban,
Commercial Limited, Commercial General and Planned Unit Development.
The Plan Glossary defines Unincorporated Community as "Generally, a small town that
has not been incorporated. They typically contain a mix of retail, office and residential
uses. The commercial uses are intended to serve their own populations and immediately
surrounding residences. Service and infrastructure are provided by a combination of
county (e.g. sheriff) and special districts (fire, water/sewer, school, etc.)."
The area included in this designation straddles SH 82 commencing north of Spring Valley
Road (CR 114) continuing south on both sides of the highway to Cattle Creek. Uses and
properties lncluded in this area include Nelson's Auto, Thunder River Market, Habitat
Restore area, Coryell Road, H Lazy F Mobile Home Park, the Sopris restaurant site, the
subject site, River Edge PUD, Road & Bridge facility, Ferguson Supply, Lumber Yard,
Dodson Engineering, Roto-Rooter, Mind Springs Health and Mountain Meadows Mobile
Home Park. The Comprehensive Plan supports commercial services to serve their own
population. The variety of commercial uses permitted by-right in the CG zone appears to
exceed the intent of commercial uses for this designated area.
Certainly some of the uses permitted within the CG zone would be in general
conformance with this designation; however the broad uses permitted within the zoning
category exceed the recommended land uses for the Unincorporated Community
designation. Neither the size nor scope of the proposed rezoning appears to be in
conformance with this future land use designation.
Water and Sewer Service Area - An area where central water and sanitation services are
available through a special district(s). The subject site is part of an executed Pre-inclusion
Agreement with Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD).
Area of Influence (3 Miles) - This is defined as areas that are located within three miles
of an incorporated jurisdiction. Garfield County has intergovernmental agreements with
incorporated areas whereby the County seeks review and comment from the jurisdiction
regarding potential impacts from a development proposal. Both the Town of Carbondale
and the City of Glenwood Springs recommend that the County deny the request to rezone
this property to Commercial General.
6) General - Five major themes are included in Chapter 2, Future Land Use of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Two of these themes are applicable to the review and
4)
s)
12 lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2015
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
determination of general conformity of the proposed CG zoning with the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicable themes include Growth in Unincorporated Communities and
Growth in Designated Centers.
Growth in Unincorporated Communities - Guidelines are provided for new or expanded
u nincorporated communities:
i. The development is not located within the UGA of existing municipalities;
Staff Comment: This development is not located within the UGA of any municipality,
but the site is located within the Area of lnfluence for the City of Glenwood Springs
and is located just outside of the Area of lnfluence for the Town of Carbondale.
ii. The development is served with urban services by a special distric$
Staff Comment: The subject site is located within the REC/Cattle Creek Metropolitan
District(s) and within the service area boundary of the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District.
iii. A contract for police from county sheriff is established;
Staff Comment: No information has been provided regarding this contract.
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense;
Staff Comment: The sole access to the site is proposed to be from SH 82.
v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered in the review of new unincorporated
communities;
Staff Comment: No information has been provided regarding fiscal costs to the public
that may result from the proposed rezoning of the site to Commercial General. This
would include potential fiscal costs to the public in comparison to sales tax revenues
generated by the development.
vi. Any internal commercial is primarily for the convenience of area residents
(minimize competition with existing communities);
Staff Comment: The wide variety of uses that are permitted by-right in the CG zone
exceed the 'convenience' uses to serve area residents. CG uses include offices,
general retail, retail -vehicle and equipment sales, retail - lumberyards, eating and
drinking establishments, and other usesthat may be regional in nature. Some of the
CG uses may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis with county review; however, in
general, the CG uses appear much broader than anticipated in this guideline.
13 lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
Future Land Use Map Details
Rural Employment Center - Pink
, 1'' i rruir (
\ i , ,/r. \\kffi
Un incorporated Community
Residentia I High Density Water/Sewer Service Area
r*B
L]
14 lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
vlr.Transit opportunities are provided;
Staff Comment: RFTA provides transit along the SH 82 corridor; however the nearest
bus stop is located at the intersection of SH 82 and CMC Road (CR 11"4), approximately
2,300feet north of the northern property line of the GCCI parcel. No information has
been provided regarding discussions with RFTA to secure a bus stop at this site'
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided;
Staff Report: No information was included regarding the provision of recreation or
other public amenities at this site. The Rio Grande Trail exists on the western
boundary of the subject site.
ix. School sites may be required (these locations are preferred over schools in rural
areas).
Staff Comment: A school site is not appropriate for consideration in the zone change
application.
Growth in Desisnated Centers - The Rural Employment Center designation is not
applicable to this site as it is located at the SH 82 /Cattle Creek Road intersection in
response to existing uses in that area.
B. Plan Elements - Economics, Emplovment and Tourism - Locating tax-generating commercial
uses at this site could negatively impact incorporated communities including the Town of
Carbondale, the City of Glenwood Springs, and the Town of Basalt. As is common in the State
of Colorado these incorporated areas generate a majority of their revenues from sales tax.
The County budget is primarily supported by property tax and severance tax, with the addition
of a !% sales tax to the county on sales generated by retail and commercial uses - regardless
of whether the use is located in unincorporated county or within an incorporated community.
This is a critical point as the County receives the same amount of revenue from sales
generated in unincorporated or in incorporated areas - however in the unincorporated areas
the County is required to provide services, public safety in particular, that cost the taxpayers
money.
The draw of commercial activities to this site could cause sales tax revenues to decline in the
incorporated areas in a concept known as "sales tax leakage". This concept relates to the
sales tax revenues that leave a particular community when new commercial uses are
constructed in near-by incorporated or unincorporated communities (this may be a "new"
commercial use or it may be the relocation of an existing commercial use). This leakage may
be greatest when the commercial activities decline in an incorporated area due to new
commercial developments in unincorporated areas -this may occur because sales tax rates
are lower in unincorporated county (3.9%) versus for the Town of Carbondale (8.4%) and the
City of Glenwood Springs (8.6%1.
15 lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
The charts below provide sales tax rates and 2015 sales tax revenues.
* City of Glenwood Springs has an additional 2.5%o Accommodation Tax on lodging and the Meadows has
a t.5% Public lmprovement Fee (PlF)
** Town of Carbondale has an additional 2%tax on lodging
The fiscal impact of locating potentially large-scale urban commercial uses in an unincorporated
area is that the required public services, particularly public safety, would be the responsibility of
the County. The application materials did not demonstrate that the potential sales tax generated
by the uses would pay for the additional services that the county would be required to provide to
the site. Any shortfall in the cost/revenue equation for new service (e.g. sheriff) would be borne
by the County taxpayers.
C. REFERRALAGENCY/PUBLIC RESPONSES-The incorporated communities within 3 miles of the subject
site are concerned with a potentially large-scale commercial development located midway between
the two existing commercial centers in the Roaring Fork valley of Garfield County. Neither jurisdiction
supports the proposed rezoning of this site to Commercial General and provides numerous reasons
why this is not supported by the County's own Comprehensive Plan. Exhlbits H and l.
CDOT responded, Exhibit M, that the highway may not have adequate infrastructure to support
commercial use at this location.
The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Exhibit G, states that a Pre-lnclusion Agreement
provides that the district will provide service to up to 375 EQRs on surrounding properties, including
the subject site of this application.
The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Exhibit J, responded that specific comments cannot be
made due to the unknown mix of the proposed commercial development nor can potential impacts
SALES TAX RATES Unincorporated Citv of Glenwood Sprinssx Town of Carbondale**
State Tax 2.9%2.9%2.9%
Garfield County 1.A%1..0%1..O%
lncorporated Community 3.7%3.s%
Other (transportation, etc.)t.o%L.O%
TOTAL 3.9%8.6%8.4%
SALES TAX GENERATED 701.4 % of County
Sales Tax
Revenue
2015 Jan - April % of County
Sales Tax
Revenue
City of Glenwood
Springs
s3,994,899.81 46.70%St,zaz,stq.I 47.67%
Town of Carbondale 5 850,249.97 9.94%5 2s4,478.38 9.61%
Unincorporated
County
s 86s,340.06 10.12%$ 3s6,609.28 \3.47%
Source: Garfield County Sales Tax Reports
16 lPage
Board of County Commissioners
April 18, 2016
GCCI, LLC _ ZDAA8388
to the Rio Grande Trail and RFTA transit services be determined. However, in general, large-scale
commercial developments created outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries can pose challenges that
may not be offset by tax revenues - this could include traffic impacts in already congested highway
corridors. The development could increase demand for transit services however there would not be
any sales tax revenue generated for RFTA to offset the increased demand. The development could
potentially siphon off sates tax revenue from RFTA member jurisdictions (staff note: Garfield County
is not a member jurisdiction to RFTA). Commercial activity in this location could intensify existing
transportation challenges in SH 82 corridor.
The Roaring Fork Conservancy, Exhibit N, holds the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement and the
Heron Point Conservation Easement which are located adjacent to the subject site. The Conservancy
is concerned with potential impacts that may result from a commercial development at this location,
including impacts to Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River from traffic and runoff.
A letter was received, Exhibit O, from an adjacent property owner who owns the commercial
development across SH 82 at Cattle Creek. Mr. Martayan, owner of Baymar Hotels and Properties,
lnc. responded that additional commercial space is not required based upon existing inventory, and
that there is concern that the proposed development would adversely affect the existing commercial
real estate values.
D. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES - Staff has reviewed Table 3-403, Use Table, and determined that the
existing Suburban zoning would permit, with additional County review the following commercial uses:
Public and lnstitutional uses such as public buildings, libraries and museums -Administrative Review
General Retail - Administrative Review
Convenience Store - Major lmpact Review
Eating and Drinking Establishment or Laundromat - Limited lmpact Review
Lodging Facilities - Limited lmpact
The existing zoning would provide the county with the opportunity to review that development plan
against the Comprehensive Plan goals as well as the criteria contained in Article 7, Standards. lf these
potential uses are not sufficient for the Applicant, then Rural Zoning does broaden the ability to apply
for land use permits for commercial uses, including Limited lmpact review on Professional Offices and
General Service Esta blishments.
The final alternative proposed would be for the Applicant to apply for a Planned Unit Development
which would specify the layout, size, scale and uses proposed in the development, all of which would
then be reviewed by the County staff, referral agencies and general public during the process. The
PUD process would also require provision of open space and could result in additional benefits to the
general public.
lTlPage
Board of County Commissioners
Due to the concerns itemized above regarding compliance with the review criteria, and the discussion at
the Public Hearing provided below, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the
application to rezone the GCCI property from Residential Suburban to Commercial General. The public
hearing was held on January 13,2016 and the recommendation included the following findings:
t. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request to rezone the property is not in the best
interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
4. That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and
Development Code, as amended.
5. That the application is not in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
2030.
Planning Commission deliberation included the following discussion points:
o The Commission stated that the Comprehensive Plan would support limited commercial uses at
this location, and that they were supportive of this section of the Plan. However the Commission
determined that the broad uses permitted by-right in the Commercial General zone district were
inappropriate for this site and not supported by the Comprehensive Plan;
The Commission identified concern regarding the potential mass and scale of commercial
development on the site. The Comprehensive Plan would not support the scale of commercial
development that would be permissible if the site was rezoned to CG;
Concerns regarding the lack of further County review on any proposed development on the site
were identified, as once the zone change is granted the applicant only need apply for building
permits. This would not allow for site plan review or allow for a determination on the
appropriateness of the broad and multiple types of commercial uses that would be permitted by-
right on the site;
The development proposal discussed by the Applicant at the January hearing was to utilize the CG
zoning to create a "Regional Shopping Area" with a large format anchor (national chain store) as
a retail anchor. The regional aspect of the proposed development was discussed and found as
not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan since the recommendation of the plan is for
neighborhood retail and services in this area;
The Commission discussed the current allowance for retail sales in the existing Residential
Suburban zone district, permitted via the Administrative Review process. This review process
would allow the County to review development plans to determine the appropriateness of uses,
April 18,2016
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
18 lPage
PLANNING COMMISSION rION AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS
Board of County Commissioners
April 18,2016
GCCI, LLC - ZDAA8388
a
a
site layout and compliance of the proposalwith the minimum standards required by the LUDC.
The request for commercial uses by-right, with no further County review, was determined to not
be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan;
The rezoning is contrary to the comprehensive plan goal of supporting incorporated communities
and Urban Growth Areas. Potential sales tax leakage to the County could be detrimental to the
local jurisdictions. The Commission also discussed the possible fiscal impacts to the County to
provide urban level services to the development and the potential impact of this provision on
County resources;
One commissioner stated that approving the proposed zone change would be beneficial for
several reasons, including housing and economic development. However this commissioner also
stated that the current request for CG zoning was not the right zoning for a project at this location
due to the broad nature of the uses permitted in the CG zone;
The Commission suggested the Applicant consider alternate zone districts for the site including
Ruralor Planned Unit Development;
The project did not demonstrate a public need for additional CG zoning or commercial uses;
The Commission did not support the concept that jobs resulting in retail wages would diversify
the economy; did not agree that the Roaring Fork Valley was currently underserved by existing
retail facilities; and disagreed that the proposed extension of RFWSD would serve the public
interest.
Ultimately these deliberations resulted in a motion to deny the request due to the application not
satisfying any of the rezoning criteria. The motion was passed 6-0.
The Board of County Commissioners have several options regarding a decision on this application:
1.. Approve the request;
2. Deny the request; or
3. Continue the request in order to seek additional information from staff or the applicant.
The last option of denying the request could be supported by Planning Commission recommended
findings that the rezoning to Commercial General is inappropriate due to:
1. The proposal is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the
Unincorporated Community designation and the FLUM as well as the creation of potential
competition of the proposed site with existing municipal commercial facilities.
2. The lack of demonstrated community need;
3. The area has not changed to the degree that it is in the public interest to encourage this new use
and density;
4. The proposed CG zoning would not result in an orderly development pattern.
19 lPage
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION AND DECISION
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
GCCI Application - 4lLSlLG
1lr
APPENDIX A - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY PHOTOS
GCCI ApPlication - 4l LBI LG
2lPage
-t
,
+''tf t* -' .-
^-**--"rd
Approrim.tc subjcct propcrtyeilew
;f,;@* *"",_, :,r!-LFdtffi,'.,"
APPENDIX B _ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
GCCI Applica tion 4 / 18/ 1.6
2lPage
APPENDIX B - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PHOTOS
GCCI APPlica tion 4l L8l 16
Willits - Town of Basalt
6lPage
A
Garfield County
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. ln addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
/ Maited notice was compteted on ,h"#+ a^y ot {Lbfimtilv-,zoto.t
7 Atlowners of record within a 200foot radius of the subject parcelwere identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice,
Al[ owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means tlist] lliru,m{ Duilr f-
My application required Published notice.
/
_{
/ Noticewas pubtished on thelB-ury or f{bflt0{tt, zoro.
Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. 0
My qpplication required Posting of Notice.
! Notice was posted on the -l B- day of ry,zot6
Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate.
Name:
Signature:
Please attach proof of certified, return requested mailed notice.
Date:
Ad Name: 1 1886028A
Customer: Galloway
Your account number is:2582448
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
T[If BTf'LE
CIT-IZEN TELEGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO,
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
I, Michael Bennett, do solemnly srvear that I am
Publisher of The Rifle Citizett Telegrom, that the
same weekly nelvspaper printed, in ,uvhole or in part
and published in the County of Garfield, State of
Colorado, and has a general circr.rlation therein; that
said newspaper has been published continuously
and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for
a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks
next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal
notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been
adrnitted to the United States mails as a periodical
under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or
any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a
weekly newspaper duly qLralified for pLrblishing legal
notices and advertisements lvithin the meaning of the
laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement lvas
published in the regular and entire issue of every number
of said r,veekly newspaper for the period of 1
consecutive inser'tions; and that tl,e first publication
of said notice r,vas in the issue of said ner,vspaper dated
211812016 and that the last pLrblication of said notice
was dated 211812016 the issue of said nervspaper.
In rvitness rvhereof, I have
02t24t2016.
y hand this
Michael Pr-rblisher
Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a
notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State
of Colorado rhis 02124/2016.
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission expires:
November l,2019
FA}IELA J, SCHUI-TZ
niaTAR'/ ptELtc
STAIE OF COTCRADC- hOrAnY tD r1999{C30e7S
, &ttrirtioF EEfi ! qrw$s l, 2!1 9
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Ted Skokos of Garfield Coun-
ty Commercial lnvesiments LLC has applied lo the
Board of County Commissioners. Garlield County,
State of Colorado. to request a Rezoning: l\4ap
Amendment ol the Garfield County 20'1 3 Land Use
and Development Code, as amended, in connec-
tion with the following described property situated
in the County of Gadield, State of Coloradoi to-wit:
Legal Description EAST PARCEL:
A tract of land situated in the southeasterly quarter
of Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West,
and in Section 7,
Township 7 South, Hange 88 West ol the Sixth
Principa' Meridian. County of Garfield, State ol
Colorado. being more parlicularly described as fol-
lows:
Beginning at a point on the weste.ly right of way
line of Colorado Stale Highway 82. whence a2 112"
Brass Cap, found in place, and correctly marked as
the southeasl corner of said Section 7, bears S.
63'3'J'48' E. a distance of 23'1 2.55 feet;
thence, along the westerly right of way line of Colo-
rado State Highway 82 N.06'01'00'W. a distance
of 1 467.90 ,eet;
thence, N.08'53'00" W. a distance of 200.30 feet;
N. 00 18'30' W. a distance of 201.00 feeti
N. 06'01'00' W. a distance ol 700.90 leeti
N. 08"52'00' W. a distance of 31 3.00 feet;
thence, 346.52 along the arc ol a curve to the left
having a radius ol 1 820.00 leet, a central angle ol
10"54'32'and
sublending a chord bearing of N. 15'58'00" W. a
distance ol 346.00 Ieel:
thence, N. '1 '1'08'00" W. a distance of 97.90 feet;
thence, 250.29 along the arc of a curve to the lelt,
having a radius of 1 840.00 feet, a central angle of
7'47'38" and
subtending a chord bearing ol N. 28"'t9'00" W. a
distance ol 250.10 feet;
thence, N. 35"14'00'W. a distance of 122.52 feet:
thence, N. 89'17'09'W. a distmce of 7.98 leet to a
point on the easterly line of a parcel of land de-
scribed in Fleception No.575283;
thence along said easterly line S. 35'22'1 9' E. a
distance of 1.46 feet to the southeasterly corner of
said parcel;
lhence arong the southerly liae ol sard parcel, N
89"'17'09' W. a distance ol 224.24 feet lo lhe
soulhwesterly corner ol said parcel;
thence, N. 00 00'00'W. a dislance of 0.68 leet;
lhence, N. 89'30'08" N. a distance of 0.71 feel;
thence, N.00'20'09'E. a distance ol 0.49 feet to
lhe southeasterly corner oI a parcel ol land
described in Reception No.603760;
thence along the southerly line of said parcel the
lollowing three courses:
1) N. 89 44'57" W. a distance ol 0.99 feeti
2) N. 30 31'43' W. a distance or 65 06 leel:
3) N. 86"47'1 1 " W. a distance ol 65 63 feel to the
southwesterly corner ol said parcel;
thence, N. 86"47'1 1' W. a distance of 52.73 feeti
thence, N. 89'36'1 2' W. a distance of 292.61 feet;
thence, N. 89'43'30" W. a distance of 1 00.90 feet
to a point on the easterly right ol way line ol the
Boaring Fork Transit Authority Transporlation
Corridor Easement;
thence, along said easterly rrght of way lrne S.
19 38'52'E. a drslance ol 3829.47 leet:
thence, 79.82 along the arc ol a curve to lhe right
having a rad,us ol 291 5.00 feei. a central angle ol
1"34'08" and
sublending a chord bea.ing of S. 18 51"48'E. a
distance o[ 79.82 leel:
thence, departing said easterly right of way line N.
89'59'59'E. a distance of 73.94 feet to a point of
the westerly right ol way lrne of Colorado State
Highway 82, also being the point of beginning
County ol Garfield, State ol Colorado
PracticalDescriptionWest side of SH 82
adjacent to the Rivers Edge PUD between CR 1 1 4
(CMC Road) and CR 1 1 3 (Cattle Creek Road)
Request Description Applicant requests that a
43.zs-acrc property be rezoned from Residential
Suburban to Commercial General.
All persons affecled by lhe proposed Zone District
Amendment are invited to appear and state their
views, endorsements or objections. lf you cannot
appea. personally al such meeting, then you are
urged to state your views by lelter, as the Board ol
County Commissioners will give consideralion lo
the comments of surrounding property owners and
orhers altecied in deciding whelher to granl or deny
the request f or lhe land use request. This
applicatron may be reviewed al the office of the
Planning Department located at '1 08 8th Street,
Suite 40'1. Garfield Counlv Adminislration Building.
Glenwood Springs, Colorddo, between the hours 5f
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
lf you would like to view this application please visit
our website at
httor//ww.oarf ield-countv.com/oublic-records/cou
nty-documenls.asDx and insert the file number inthe search box. The tile number is
zDM-09,15-8388.
A public hearing on the application has been
scheduled,orMondav April I8. 2015 at 1:00
E.E in lhe County Commissioners Hearing Room.
Garfield County Administration Buildrng, Suite 100,
108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
Published in the Citizen Telegram February 1 8,
2016. (11886028)
Bennett,
Eo
EtrJIrr
Lrt
IT
co
ru
:r
rfr-
JI
Ef,rl
Eo
In
IT
Ea
ru
rjl
.j.
r:lclrr
fl$eiG
Frem
f; ,",*fmn?,*",t[a
,Sestrlcted Dorivrfl, Feetrl (Emorsgment Bequhed)tr
fr Totalposraae&F€el f$
ti o r$?#$#"ffi',i&1trlIr
J -,.-
sil:
p0s1.nark
Here
*q)
Postags
Corutied Feo
RE'NARZ, BERNADETTEF:TRUST ..Il111ficn r^rh, ^^1110 couNry ROAD 110-,
' ':
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Postigo
Cerltfled Fea
PERAU, RONALD G
2OO DEER RUN TRAIL
RIFLE, CO 81650
:r
r{cf
rL
r!
Jtr,
rL
LN
IT
EO
ru
sfi
orl
eit)
:r-
E
n-
Poslage
E ,*o*ffif,HSfr|,[6
-fiBstrlct€d Ulvory Feo6 (ErxlorsamentBequked)
ITJ Ta,,^ -.---. -.-m
11 CenifledFs€
f; ,*,*mnmfff
.sstrbled Dolkarv Fm[f {Etrdcr6ornent Bequhed)Ir 'l-
I
il TotalpostaoeAFaes l$
2$10
HABTTAT FOR HUMAr\ilrY ROARTNG
=FORK VALLEy; ... ,.-*i.-l::--
7025HWY 82 BOX2" '' "-'_---__-.
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
TFITTE
855 ROSE LANE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
mruslrr
El Yes
El No
lftr!tflr-
tnlr
EO
ru
riEE'rf,
Etr
m
J]
rjl
Lr)
.r-
rfl[r
rO
ru
ritrlE
EI
E[r)m
(Pinted Namel
Po6tago
cerlifled Fea
Rot m Rlc€lDt Foe
(Endorsement Borluked)
Besulcl6d D€livErv F€s
(Efl dors€ment Roq[dred)
Total Poslage & Foes | $
E Priority Mall ErPress"....,.,'.-
HERRING FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLLP
p Feturn RaceiPt for Merohandisa
El collecton Delivery
31825 HIGHWAY 6
slLT, co 81652
H LAZY F, LLC
PO BOX 185
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
,7u, /],'/r"a\& flfi1t
hress ditferent from item 1 ?
, delivery addiess below:
i -.
l6q5 :?5?8
[f PriodtyMau ExPress*
$ Retum RecelPt for Merchandisg
El collocton Delivsry=-
t-El Agent
t(Pinted Name)
different from ftem 1?E Yes
EI Nodelivery address belowl
& rb\r0cPU \6
. Postfiruk ..
. . ' tlero
tr{[fr"
51106l &
ot PO B.
?liri'e6
Cerlifled Fee
Rshrm RecolDt Fes
(End;isoment Roduked)
Raslrlct€d Dellv€ry Fee
(Endoteament Ftsquksd)
Total Po3lage & F€3s
,d
l
otPOE
;5r,
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363
Domestic Return FecelPt
.ru
: lJrl
r,i]-
,EO
t4tr
EO
ru
rl
Eftrl
EI
Eftr
fm
tr:lclr-
po6@e
C6rli[ed Fao
Rdum Rr6lo{ Fs
(EndoEamoni Eodukod)
HBsfr{clad Dollvorv Fao
(Endorsemeot Beqirhod)
TotatRoa4geaFeee | $
DellverY? {ErtraFee)
e855 Brr5E
,ps rorm 3811, .tuty zote Domestic Return Heceipt
Prlority MailExpress*
I
MAIL@
Garfield
108 8th St. suite
{ilL"cd*' t'
2016 *
fr:
{., r
r!Errr!
ll,
TTrB
ru
r:|EEE
Ef,IT
J
m
rl
E]r-
atI
ei$
iru
ITror-
Itn
TTr0
ru
r:lE
E3
tf,
tf,
TT
5-m
jr
r:l
E]f-
B
-lIJIr-
Ln
ITr{l
ru
r:lE
E3E
c3trI
m
*
r:lE
ru
Pot{agd
Gertffed F6B
Rstum Recelot Fee(Edorsofi ent HHirrlrcd)
Fesblcled Delivelv Fe6(Endor8oment RequhBd)
Fs rorm 3811, July 2013
Postago
Ccrtifled Fce
Rstim Fselpt Fso
(Endoleem€nt Roqulred)
R€sulclod D€lfuery Fffi
(Endorsemenl B€qukeo
Total Poglags & Foos
Cadfied Fee
Rstum Recelgt Feo
(EndoGomont Bduired)
Rs6lrlctod DsfivgIY Fea
(Endorsemcnt Requirod)
TOIFI Ptrdrer Fg
l frtnted Nane)
*+-;\.
ddress dlfferent rrom item 1 ?a'\r delivery address below:r.+\
Poarnark'- i
a,re,' uJe
-1
Agentu
tr
,e
I Mall@
fed
El Yes
trl No
RUDD LIMITED TIABILITY COMPANY
132 PARK AVE
BASALT, CO 81621
qPrlority Mail E\press*
flReturn Receipt for Merchandlse
h collecton Delivery
Domestic Return RecelPt
. f, :.1.,
HOWE, JOHN J & HEATHER D
552 COUNTY ROAD 110
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
PS Form 3B11,.lutyzots
. Postma*- : hier€
Domestic Beturn FleceiPt
,tallo tr PilorltyMallExpress"
f ffl R6tum Hec€lptforMerchandlse
differentfrom ltem 1? Ef Yes
address below: EI No
lail trl collect on Delivery
pllvary? PrtnFae)El Yes
s ?hbu
REYNOLDS, WILLIAM W & SHEPHERD,EI Priorlty Mall ExPr€ss*
ftetrm Re""lpt for Merchardlse
E Coilecton oeltveryJOAN E
1375 WALNUT STREET #10
BOULDER, CO 80302
ditterentfom item 1?
PS Form 381 1 , July zot o Domestlc Retum Fecelpt
below:tl No
MAIL@ RECEIPT
J
EO
JTrr
14
IT
Ef)
ru
rlEE
EI
E
IT
m
.:1-
r-l
E]rr
Agenttr
tr
Podtage
C€rtiti€d Fe6
Relum FccBlEt Fes
(Endorsem€nl Bo{iukoo
B€slrlc'lod Dgllvary F€6
(Endorssmsnt Requlred)
Total
lrorn item 1?
ir delivery address below:
Ef Yes
tl No
{)\t
M&M ENTERPRISES, LLC
133 MARAND RD'3-ra?i
or PO
aii';s
108 CROWN MOUNTAIN DRIVE
BASALT, CO 81621
Domestic Retum Rec€ipt
[1 Priorlg Mall Express*
@rtra Fee)
ls 7153
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9325
PS Form , July2013 Domestlc Heturn Beceipt
Cart'fled Fee
Rr[um BdcelDt Fee
(Endoraament Rsduhe4
mtn
-.or-
14
TT{
ru
rqE
EtE
TT
Jm
!
r{
Efr*
-stan;
otPOl
ait;ifr
:t
. r:l
r!r-
rrlr
EO
ru
A
EIEtf
E]tr
5-
m
.f
rqtf,rr
STEELE, W E & VM FAMILY LLLP
PO BOX 1507
PrlorltyMail E(press*
Gollect on
Regldctsd Delivsry Fee
6 (EndorsementRequked)
Total p^d6^a r =^^- I t
PS Form 381 1 , .luty zols
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-1507 (Ertra Fee)
ffietum Receipt for Merchandlse
h collecton Dellvery
E Agent
C, Date of Delivery
f6Metchandlss
ICIAL
dltferentfrom ltem 1? E Yes
address below: E t'to
E Prlority Mall Fnprass*
EFRatum Recelpt tor Merchandies
h Cotlecton Delivery
Poctaga
C€rUfod Fao
R€tum R8c€lot Fe€
(Endo$ernont Redulreo
BeEfitcfod Htuery Fse
(EndoBoment Requltso
Total Poetago & Fees | $
fp6i166'lt EYes
below: El No
PS Form 3811 , uuty zots Domestic Betum Receipt
815 ??f i
El Yes
MAIL@
5 ?hBrt
i
Mall@
rd
llail
I
I
l-
'' rLjf
iEO
lf,
IT
EO
ru
rltrl
ctrtrl
tf,
TT)
m
JI.rlElln-l
I.rl
r{
J]
t--
Lrltr4
ru
r:lEtfrf
E
TT5m
J
rlE
FL
Lr'l
fr-r-
lr)
tr.
Ecl
ru
ritrlEE
E
IT5m
r-CE
F"
poslago
Certfled Fee
._ _RstumRscohtFaa(tsndorsomsil B6(iukoo
fcltrhtod Doflverv Fd€(Ell{'or8ement Raq[,ired)
Totat poAtaos & Fers I $
Slredt I
orPOt
Dai:s;
PS Form 3811, .tuty zota
Postago
C8llilied Fee
F8tum RacolDt Fos
(Endorsemont Re{ulr6d)
Rs8trlclcd Dsliwry Fes
(Endorsomont Raqulrd)
Total Postade& Feag
PS Form 3811, ,tuty eota
Pg8iage
Cdltlled Fao
Ratum Recclot F6c
(Erdors€monl Reduhso
H6tlcted Dslivoru F8o
(Endorsam€rn Rcgutrsd)
Total Postsge & Feos
ASPEN EQUITY G
PO BOX 1439
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
iteml? Ef Yes
delivory address below: EI No
[f Prlodty Mail Eipress*p Hoturn Hecelpt for Merchandise
tl cotlecton Detlverv
(Exta Fee)Ef Yes
885 Br{?h
'
fromltem
addrass below:El No
EBB5 7L],5
Name)
ldress diffe€ntfom ttem'l?
I delivery address below:ENo
Maito El Priorlty Mail ExPress*
Domestic Fleturn
Domestic Flelurn Receipt
RUDD, WAYNE
0132 PARK AVE
BASALT, CO 81621
ERetum Recelpt for Merchardlse
h Golecton oelfuery
elivery? @rtra Fee)
CHOICE VENTUREs;LLC
8626 COUNW ROAD 301
PARACHUTE, CO 81635
PS Form 3811, .tuty zotg DomesUc Beturn Beceipt
l5 ?7r{5
El Yes
\'
hl
ed
nl
'-trt-
3,
ot,
rLrrJI
rL
tf,
IT
E0
ru
rl
EItrlE
E
IT
J
m
rqr:l
rL
Certilied Fe6
BstJn FlscaiDt Fes(Endorsement Reriuhod)
Jlgstrlct€d Dslivory Fco
{enootsemEnt R€qulred)
Tdrl p^+..- o. c* I G
DODSON LLLP
PO BOX 248
GLENWOOD SPRtNGS, CO 81602-0248
, July 2013
Oer{fled Fee
Retum BqcdPl Fes
(Endorsomont Fsiulrod)
Rosflcled Dellvgry Fsa
(EndorE€mont Bsqulrod)
Tolat Poslag€ A Foeo
from ltem 1?Yes
address below:El No
ditferentfrom ttem 1?
address below:
Poslaga
Postago
Ceftfled F6€
'r. -i '\
,.1
Poslmsrk l
Hore' ''
1I
;: '."
Poltrnarl
Hse
9\q\
a\
,1
^t
TTJIr-r*
lr)tr
EO
ru
r{[fEtrl
tf
TTa'm
r{
,E
:fL
DODSON PARTNERSIiIP
PO BOX 248
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0248
A
(t
Form
r,!.-o
i-5
irr
rft
I]-ro
r fLl
rq
EI
Ef,
Tf
;tf,IT
:J-m
El Yes
E3 No
-_ .FefumFecclotFsa [l
lenoorsement Hetiulred) J
6?H#"BiA,,i[[6 l-
rot'- I;
a\
P"!0r,J"l
H"r". IA: I
DAVID DODSON
PO BOX 248
GLENWOOD SPRtNGS, CO 81602-0248
E Agent
E Addressee
differentfrom item'l?Yes
:r delivery address belov/:El l.lo
Pdodty Mall FrPIess*
?h??
orP
i PSForm
(Extra Fee)
Service"'
MAIL@
I
I
I
l.
Mall Express*
Recelpt tor Msrchandlse
5 Tt rtt
3ta
UP
w,
I
I
1.1'ru
rL
n-
tf,
TT
cO
ru
rrltrl
trt
Ef
c3
IT
m
Jr:lEr-l
rUlr)r-r-
LrllIr
.tO
;ru
r{lfEE
t3
TT
m
!
r:l
Ef
. rt-
i/
dress different from item 1?
delfuery address below:
E Yes
El NoCedtied Fm
._ -RetumRgcolptFse(EndoGornant Requirco
- Re*kted Delfuery Fe€(kndorsmAnt RequLed)
Totatpctasa&rassl$
VAN RAND PARK ASSOCIATION, C/O '
DAVE DODSON
PO BOX248
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0248
1, .tuty Domestic Fletum tleoeipt
EJ Prlority Mail ExPress*
El Heturn Becelpt for Merchandlse
h collect on Delivery
(ExtraFee) El Yes
tB15 ??e1
hraip
io
Uall
Postaga
Certlfied Feo
...;\
1"\
RUDD, WAYNE & SUSA"N J
132 PARK AVENUE
BASALT, CO 81621-9338
Domestic Hetum Recelpt
from itsm 1?Yes
address belolv:Il No
(AttnFee)El Yes
855 ??se
Retum RBc€lDt FeB
(Endorsement Beriulrad)
Rostlcted Oeltuery Foo
(Endorsemont REquilod)
Torlal PnelAdA & Fms
{
t
II
!
Ef Prlority Mail ExPr€ss*
Reiurn Recelpt for Merchandlse
Oitt runtm*Jtm 1? E Yes
address below: E No
El PrtorttyttaitgxPress- ' 'i'
,B Retum BecelPt tor Merciandiso
fl collect on Delivery
?5t1
rlJIrrlr!
u-)Ir
EO
ru
EEE
Fe6t lcled Dsllvory Fos
i E (EndorsomontHsqulrsd)
iE1
:fm
i
r{g
r-
Total Poslage & Fees | $
stLT, co 81652
Domesticheium
C€rdliod Feo
Flohjm R€€lPt Fes
(€ndorssmglt Bequlred)
Radllct6d DB[Y8ry Fag
(gdors8mont B€qUI6d)
1ota1 P69ase &FoeB | $
r1l lF-ttn€
Ir)Ir
EA
ru
l.fEEE
Ertm
J;AEIr-
'PSi
I
I{Eiu-
]'f
l,.O
I
'r Lr'l
l: o-
ii co
irurl
i'rl,,8Ig3
rt:
;f=lrIrJltm
I
!.:fq
i,s;TL
trl
ruttl
EO
lr,tr
EO
ru
EI[f
EI
E
ITa'
m
)rl
EI
n-
ailo
lt
r
lress ditferent from ltem 1 ?
delivery address below:
(Printed Name)
Yes
trNo
(Extta Fee)E Yes
agrS 8513
fom item 1? El Yes
address below: E No
El Prlorlty Mail Exge$t'"
p.Beturn Recelpt for Merchandise
El Collecton
(ErtmFee)E Yes
:&ts 6q10
EI Prlorltv Mall Exoress*p Berum Recetpifor Merchandise
[J Colleoton Delivery
GREMEL HOLDINGS, LLC
PO BOX 557
EMERY, UT 84522
Domestio Flelurn Beceipt
ot Pl
PS Form 381 1 , luy eote Domestic Heturn Receipt
Postage
Certflsd Fea
-_ . Rslum Focolpt Fe6(EndorsonEnt Rsquhed)
.EesfrHed Oalvery F6e(Endorsomanl F€qulrsd)
<€lg!r!g:2
sma6ia
orPOB
iry.si;
Form 381 1 , July eol3
ldress diflerent from ltem 1?
; dellvery address below:
Yes
ENo
-sia6i
at PO
PAYNE, JOHANNA S & WAYNE S
PO BOX 8198
ASPEN, CO 81612_8198
Ccditlad Foo
Retlm ReBlDt F6s
(Endorsement Re{ulrad)
F$ldcted Deltu€rv Fs
(Endorsem6nl Fequlreo
Total Poaaqe & Fees | $
MSLHS PROPERTIES LLC . I''i
PO BOX 944
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
C. Date of Deliyery\-I"lb
O Beturn Recelpt lor Merchandise
e655 8580
pS Form 3811,.tuty eote Domestic tletum Beceipt
CPIJ
E Agent
tu
t*, ,
'+/
_l
.__.1d
tu*r}-..,
Posttrark
;H*
Totat Poaage a Feoc | $
Postrnark
HBr€
co
m
rLrr
IJ'
TT
Eo
ru
rlE
EI
E]
cf
TT:r
m*r{lrrlt:]T.r- l,
TTJ]
f
EO
ll-ltr
Etl
ru
rl
Ettftf
Ef
TT
m
J
r{.Er-
;.3
i rjl
i LfI
ir!
:LOrl€
ru
r:lE
Ef
E]
E3
TTi
m
3-ritf,rr
EI Agent
Addresse6
t"l'r delivery address below:
,o
lDelivery? (Er#a Fee,
-
15 ??38
from item 1?Yes
trNo
El Yes
Cortiti€d Feo
(E.*ffinffm[i,
d'd##"Big'"iffi6
Tota, Poctase & Fsas I $
SrEaT&;
slregt r
orPA I
w,a
Csilfled Fee
Rctrrn FocelEd F€B
(EndoEemmt Rfliukso
Rodrlcted Ddivw Fe6
(Endo6€ment Reqfuroo
Tod Poaage & Fe€s | $
or PO
e/.i 5
ech
posrr&['\,
Hero i*.\
WAECHTLER, bcilnlo c a eorururr,i
7916 HTGHWAY 82 -i,'
! MdF El Prlori9MallExpress*
red pReturnBaceiptforMerchandlso
iMall [f Collecton Etelivery
Cny, Stat GLENWOOD SPRlNcs, co groor_g:oz
, July 2013 Domestic Beturn Recelpt
Caniliod F€6
Betum BecBlpt FeE
(Endorsomdnt BoqrkBd)
Fegtrkted Ooliv€ry F€s
(Endorsomofil Bequlrsd)
P O BOX 2508
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
Dornestic Beiurn Receipt
dilferentlrom ltem 1?Yes
idelivery address below:ENo
(ErtnFee) tl Yes
e&55 B4bq
PERKINS, MELVIN L& PHYLLIS M,'
448 COUNW ROAD n10
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9604
rftAt $ t $1S
?55rt
A -.b\
[:fi,ffk-3d
201F; :
td80itl P_vl /
MANSFIELD, UN;*-"9 lf Priority Mail Expr€ss"
td Retum Receipt for Morchandlse
fi cotlecton Delivety
PS Form 381 1 , .tuty zots Domestlc Return Recelpt
il
i
L14 p^-*e r*" I $
PS Form
I
A,(ai
'11 zfllE
Ir
mJI
rL
t4
TTro
ru
rl
E]Ecl
E
TT
J
m
Jrlrfr!
Cerdllod Fee
Rstum R6cslDt Feo
(Endorssment H€riulrad)
RaslrlcLd Ddlvary Fm
(Endorsefaor{ Eequlreo
Total Poaryo & rees I $
Domestic Return Fleceipt
filnted Name)
jress different from ftem 1 ?Yes
delivery addross below:El No
E Pdodty Mail Expr€ss*
Bstum Flecelpt for Merchandiso
Collecton
815 7t3t
,5 0r+r{5
C. Date of Delfuery
ftom item 1?[f Yes
ENo
. :i ..
REINKE, HENRY S
14OO SHELDON DRIVE
ELGIN, IL 60120
lrl
:f
EB
tJ.,[rcfl
ru
r-1
t3
IT
:1-m
I
Festric'ted Deltusry Fee
6 (EndorsemenlFequksd)
I
rH
i,rO
' tfl'tr
;6ru;rl
ElE
,EI
Ir
r5.'m
i!:rq
Er!
C€ftifl€d Feo
Fstum RacolDtFeo
(Endors€ment Rodukod)
Fastlcted Delfuerv Fm(EhdoGgmBnr Reqfjrsd)
"
Ps form 3811, uuty zolg
Postrnatk i .iellvw address below:
,,..]
6'fi8 BARNEIT-FYRWALD HOLDINGS; INC...ytro.
.^^:/j RoBrN FERGusoN
Tolal p--* r r* I .S
lalP El Priority ti4ail Exprcss*
I ISBotumHec€lptforMerchandse
all h Coltecton DdVery='-,
Wr',',1j.r:IoNDALE uviiizoo tlivoryT (ExtEFeo) E'rbs
LTTTLE ROCK, AR 72-202-201.7
e6t5 s53?
Hs:,o
AMERIGAS PROPAN.E .LP
460 NORTH GULPH ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
Domest'rc Fleturn Hecelpt
MAIL@ HECEIPT
fi rru,Jltt f)
'ci]fi Here i,,
ru
ruJItr
rl
IT€
ru
rlEtrlE
E
IT
fm
J
Err
E]
mro
rL
LTI
IT
EO
ru
A
E]
Et
E]
E
TTsm
f
11Er-
Cortfied Fes
tlefum Flece{ot Fse
(Endorsement Raiukeo
Basticied Ddlvery F6o(Endor6emont Bequkod)
Total Posfase e Fe6s I $
JSWLAW REI LLC
PO BOX 1800
GLENWOOD SPRIN65, CO 81602
1.111 KANE CONCORSE #211
BAY HARBOR ISLANDS, FL 33154
, PS fonn 381 , July2013
s15 ?s3u
lI Agent
toressdlfsf6tmm ftem1? El Yes
r delivery address below: E No
E3 Pilorlty Mail Express*
f Betum Becelpt for Merchandise
h C,ollacton Delivery
?hee
[f Prlority Mall Eipress*p Rerum necetpt for MerchandiseBAYMAR HOTELS &
Fcshnr ii
Gertifled Fee
Retum RscelDt Faa(Endoro€ment Hsduk6d)
ResMcled D6llv6ru Fee
(EndoIsoment Beqitr€O
Tcnal Postage & Fees | $
Et E€hJmRecshtFsLJ (Enbrsffiml B€ddr€d)
Bostldad D€tivorv F€gl (Endss€mfitBoqrdred)
3. Also complete
ry is desired.
ess on the reverse
cad to you.
ck of the mallpiece,
rrmits.
NSPORTATION
tw
STREET
8L611
,4" Signature
x E Agent
E]
C. Date of Delivery
D. lsdeliveryad<kessdifforentfrorn hern 17 E Yes
IfYEs,enterdeliveryaddressbolow: [f No
TordPosage &Fec6 l$
ROARING FORK.TRANSPORTATION',,-$6; A r rr;fr, AU t-HoRtTY:
1 530 E MAIN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
2. Ariicle Number :
(fmtsfer f rom * rvlce lafu .
3. ServlceType
4. Hestricted Delivery? (Ett/aFee) E yes
?nLLt 3rtlE Enlll e&15 7h3L
Fceflmed Mailo E PriorityMall Express*
ERegistercd pnetumReceiptrorMe{chardbe
tl lnsu!€d Mail El Colleoton Delivery
: PS Form 381 1,.tuty zota DofirBstio Beturn Receipt
to
EO
t,
fi
. 'to
xr
Eo
ru posrag€
=
cerdfiedFeal_ l-.,,
5 r",m*armh6+W,::'i.-,ffiffiaffi- ?r,1i6
fr roiarPo{a0e&F.ees i$fl#i..1' :i'
,up,fr,",ff1#[:ry;i,
(fransfer fro m serui ce labet)3q1U 0nB1 E8q5 ?565
B. Beceived by (Printed Nane)
D, ls dellvery ad&ess different from ltem '1?
lf YES, enter delivery address belowl
FO€rtified Mailo El Prlority Mail Express'
IlRegistered pHetumBeceiptforMerchandise
Ef Insured Mall Et Collect on Deliverv
L-; PS Form 3811,,tutyzote
I
Domestic Return Beceipt
TTJIf"
Ln
IT
EO
ITjJ-
m
jf
.jlErr
Postrnark \
nere l,;
?iti
l_
4. Hestricted Delivety? (&traFee) E yes
r Complete iterns 1,2, and g. Also complete
item 4 if Bestricted Delivery is desired.I Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Postago
C€rtfisd F€e Posfitark
HoreL ArticleAddressed to:
GLENWOOD REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT, LLC
PO BOX 2607
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502
2, Article Number
(fnnsfer tro m se rui ce labet)
H€lun Fl€ctt)tFsq
(Endo6€mont BeqiII€d,
Eostri:tod Nlvgry-F€g
(EndoEetneil Requres)*\/Sr/
- .Li
- o$u/TotareoaaPareos l$Q,,
GLENWOOD
INVESTMENT. LLC
PO BOX 2607
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502
4. Beskicte
?ulrt 3qBn IlEIll, e815 6rtB3
I
I
I
PS Form 381 1 , July 2013 Domesiio Hetum Receipt
i. ^.-
ffiEIlx pI
F R"*hfl
L-_ FrI D. ls detiv c=I rves. c:| 'crlBlrlm
3, Service {
Epc.rulH
fi nu*F
EI lnsun
Ga rf ield Cou nty Com mercia I lnvestments
Public Posting #I
February L8,201,6
Location Description:
Picture taken from Highwav 82 Right-of-Way.
The old restaurant is in the bacl<ground.
Ga rfield Cou nty Com mercia I Investments
Pu blic Posting #1,
Februa ry 25, 2016
Location Description:
Picture taken from Highway 82 Right-of-Way.
The old restaurant is in the bacl<ground.
Ga rfield Cou nty Com mercial
Pu blic Posting
lnvestments
#T
March 3,20LG
Location DescriPtion:
Picture tal<en from Highway 82 Right-of-Way.
The old restaurant is in the bacl<ground.
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments
Pu blic Posting #1.
March LO,2016
Location Description:
Picture taken from Highway 82 Right-of-Way.
The old restaurant is in the background.
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments
Pu blic Posting #2
Februa ry !8, 201"6
Location Description:
Just north of the Cattle Creel<.
Garfield County Commercia I lnvestments
Public Posting #2
February 25,2016
Location Description:
Just north of the Cattle Creel<.
Garfield County Commercial I nvestments
Public Posting #2
March 10,2016
Location Description:
Just north of the Cattle Creel<.
il
Ga rfield Cou nty Com mercia I lnvestments
Public Posting #2
March 18,2016
Location Description:
Just north of the Cattle Creel<.
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments
Pu blic Posting #3
February 25,2OLG
Location Description:
50 feet east of Rio Grande Trail and 300 feet
north of the Cattle Creek Access Road.
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments
Public Posting #3
March 3,2016
Location DescriPtion:
50 feet east of Rio Grande Trail and 300 feet
north of the Cattle Creek Access Road.
Ga rf ield Cou nty Com mercia I lnvestments
Pu blic Posting #3
March IB,20LG
Location Description:
50 feet east of Rio Grande Trail and 300 feet
north of the Cattle Creek Access Road.
PROJECT !NFORMATION
Req u est:
Applica nt:
Re p rese ntative:
Location:
Access:
Cu rrenl Zon ing:
Comprehensive Plan:
Rezone a 43.5-acre site to Commercial General
Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC
Mike Cerbo - Galloway & Company, !nc.;
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek
West side of SH 82 between CR L1,4 and CR LL3
SH 82
Residentia I Su bu rba n
Residentia! High Density, Unincorporated
Community, Water and Sewer District
ro
C)
o)
=1.o
=
Surrounding Land Uses / Ch aracter
This slide was originally created and used for
Sanders Ranch PUD - 2OO7
North
.CR 754 Commerciol Business Park
.CR 754 Mobile Home Park
.CR 774 Von Rand Commercial Pork
West
.lron Bridge: 7.39 oc/ du (HD)
.Teller Springs: 8.3 ac / du
East
. Four Lane State Highwoy
.CR 773 Commercial (BP)
. RFTA Roil / Troil Corridor
South
. LaForge Gravel Pit Operation
.Aspen Glen: 672 units (HD)
Background
ln 2008 the site was zoned Residential Suburban by the Board of County
Commissioners due to the revocation of the Sanders Ranch PUD. This action
occurred by Resolution 2008-772.
The Board commented that the revocation of the PUD and rezoning of the site
to Suburban would grant "...a greater ability [of the county] to encourage a
developer to come forward with a PUD process that really begins to address the
needs of the County and what actually can be responsibly built in a rural
County." and that it gives the Commission "...a greater opportunity to weigh in
on what ends up on that piece of property." Bocc minutes, Februarv 19,2008
Zone Districts
LUDC SECTION 3-101. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE DISTRICTS.
Commercial. General (CGl
The General CommercialZone District provides for General Retail, service, and
recreation-oriented commercial businesses intended to serve the County as a
whole. Clustering of business development in centers is encouraged.
Development standards and review criteria are specifically intended to
discourage strip development and encourage low-scale, low-impact commercial
a reas.
Com mercia I Genera I Zon i ng
Single Family Dwelling
Professional Offices
Retail, General
General Service Establishments
Eating and Drinking Establishments
General Service Establishments
lndoor Theatre
Nursery/Greenhouse
lndoor Recreation
Retail - Vehicle Equipment Repair; Body/Paint
Retail - Vehicle Equipment and Sales
Fabrication - Cabinet making, wood and meta!
working, machining and welding
Large and Small Contractor's Yard
Storage, Mini-Storage, Cold Storage Plants
Recycling Collection Center
Community Meeting Facility
Libra ry
Park
RS and CG
Zone District mensionsDi
:{EIT:
ffi :Jtttri
Minimurn
Lot Area{
Maximurn
Lot
Coverage
{%}
Maxirrum
Flocr Area
Ratio
Front Rear Side2
iffiil+Elffi
:-l r.l -t,ErrmiT;[C;
Zone District Arterial Locat
Rural
R 2 acres R: 15 N/A 50 25 25 10 fl.25
NR: 40
Residential - Sulrurban
RS 20.SGCI s.t,E/f 0.50 / 1.0 ES 25 l-tt tu a\-A;)
Residential - Urhan
RU 7"500 s"f.5fl 050/1.0 Er\urlJ 25 Zfr 10 25
Res identi al -Man uf actu red
Home Parlt
MHF
2 acres 50 5*zfi 25 10 25
Comnrerci,al - Linrited
CL 7.500 s.f.NC: 75
C: 85 0.50 i I.0 5S 25 R: 25
c'.7.5 10 4*
Comrnercial - General
CG ?.5fiCI s"f.NC: 75
F- c}q|r- {JLt
0.50 i 1.CI 50 25 R: 25
f,: 7.5 10 ,n
lnou$nal
I
21"780 s.f-75 I-JIA 5*Zfi 25 10 4fi
Table S-20{: Zoae Bishict flimeasions
Lot Size Eetbaclr= Feet}
RS and CG Development Yield
20,000 sq. ft. = 94 Lots
2l-.6-acres Commercial 36.8-acres
Non-Com mercial 3 1.4-acres
941,985 square feet 941,,985 square feet
40 Feet
7,500 sq. ft.= 253, Lots
Glenwood Meadows
Outlined area approximately 40.8-acres and contains 396,000 square feet of
commercial space.
The GCCI property is 43.25-acres and CG zoning would allow up to 945,000 square
feet of commercial space as a use by right on the property.
Willits
Willits comnercial area ls
approximately 15 acres with
15o,ooo square feet
exi:ting, The site is
approved fcr e rnaxinum of
SOC,OO0 square feet of
cornmercial space.
-+
u.,
',,,
Willits
tlA$"11 f. ( a,: .OR r.tx-)
LUDC Criteria $+-1-1 3 (C.)
The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development
pattern and would not constitute spot zoning.
The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is
changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a
new use or density in the area.
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with
respect to facilities, service, or housing.
The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive
plan and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
L.
3.
The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development
pattern and would not constitute spot zoning.
Rezoning of this site would not constitute spot zoning as there is Commercial
General zoning adjacent to the subject site.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed rezoning of the 43.25'
acre site to Commercial General would result in a logical and orderly pattern of
development.
Staff concerns include:
1,. That development would result in additional service demands on the County
with commensurate increase in revenues;
2. lncreased traffic on SH 82;
3. Lack of a cohesive development plan for the property that would allow a
variety of uncontrolled commercial uses that may not be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan or compatible with the neighborhood.
The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or
changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage
new use or density in the area.
The Area has Changed
The area has remained virtually unchanged since the site was rezoned to Residential
Suburban in 200712008, and even with the granting of numerous entitlements in the area
there has been no development in the immediate vicinity over the past decade.
Public lnterest
is
a
It does not appear to be in public interest to
appear to be a unmet demand for additional
County or in the Roaring Fork Valley.
encourage this new use. There does not
commercial or retail development in the
It does not appear that encouraging a new use or density in this location will result in
any benefits to the public other than the availability of additional retail/commercial
uses and potential for service industry jobs;
The lack of demonstrated need for additional commercial properties in the area may
result in the relocation of existing commercial uses to the site, commercial uses that
may currently be located in nearby jurisdictions;
Sales tax revenues to the City and Town could decrease as a result of sales tax leakage;
Staff does not believe it in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in this
area.
The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with
respect to facilities, service , or hor:1lg _
The Applicant has not provided evidence that clearly demonstrates a
community need for the proposed commercial zoning.
There are similarly sized commercial developments existing in the area
including the Meadows in Glenwood Springs and Willits Town Center in
Basalt. Appendices A and B of the staff report includes information of
commercial developments in the valley.
Based upon discussions with real estate professionals and property
managers there appears to be a sufficient, if not overabundant, supply of
commercial properties to serve the area. The Applicant presented findings
at the Planning Commission hearing from a survey they had conducted on
retail/commercial needs in Garfield County. The Applicant declined to
provide the survey or survey results to Staff.
3.
The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive
PIan and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
The Planning Commission determined that the proposed rezoning of
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically citing
components as examples:
the site is not in
the following
1,.
2.
Future Land Use:
a. Residential High Density this is a residential designation that does not
include commercial uses but allows density not to exceed 3 du/acre.
U nincorporated Communities
a. Limited commercial to serve the Unincorporated Community area.
b. Fiscal costs to public will be considered.
c. Recreation and other public amenities are provided.
3. Economics
a. Sales tax leakage.
b. Fisca I Ana lysis.
Comprehensive Plan
Land UseFutu re
Ir
L
!
j
l
I):/
13
I
i
Residential High Density
Comprehensive P an
Residential High Density
Laro Use
Drsexarpn Drscrupnor Companslr ZoNrNe
Residential
High (RH)
Criteria for determining RH density within the
allowed range will be specifically deterrnined by
the Planning Commission and unll be based on
"degree of public benefit", considering factors
such as: amount of affordable housing including
a mix of housing types, amount of parks/trailsl
open space, energy conservation, fiscal impacts
on the County, preservation of views, providing
for schools and other public needs, etc.
Residential Suburban (RS)
Residential Urban (RU)
Residentral Mobile Home Park
{RMHP}
Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
Density of residential uses.3 du per acre to du per <2 acres
Example.
Comprehensive PIan
U ni ncorporated Com m u n ity
ri
I,i,il-l1t
't3
Unincorporated Community
Comprehensive
Unincorpo rated
Plan
Community
Laxo usr
Desrexarmt DrscRrpaoN Coarparalr Zoxr*e
Unincorporated
Community
Self-contained subdivisions that contain town
and neighborhood centers pnmarily to serve their
own populations. Their infrastructure and certain
governmental functions are provided by one or
more special districts.
Residential Urban {RU}
Commercial Limited {CL}
Commercial General (CG)
Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
DensiS of residential uses. Determined by underlyng land use designation
Example:
Comprehensive Plan
Ru ral Employment Center
r-
l
.A-*lfrf-1.\
*,w&
,\ I
' r..
\\'i
Rural Employment Center - Pink
Comprehensive Plan
Wate rlsewer Service Area
Water/Sewer Service Area
Comprehensive Plan - Economics
Sales Tax Leakage
Sales tax leakage may occur when a retail operation moves from one town,
municipality or county to another, thus removing the sales tax revenue from the first
jurisdiction for the benefit of the second.
By way of example, if Walmart moved from it current location in the City of
Glenwood Springs to unincorporated Garfield County the City would lose all of the
tax generated by sales at the Walmart. However the County would not gain any sales
tax revenue from the relocation of the store to unincorporated area.
The municipal sates tax revenue is lost while the County does not derive any
additionat revenues to offset the cost of providing required urban level services to
the area.
Comorehensive Plan Economics
Sales Tax Leakage
Given the population of the Roaring Fork Valley there is a finite demand for retail
usgs.
The creation of "new" retail big box or other stores that are not currently
located in the area - has not been demonstrated through a quantitative needs or
market anatysis and there does not appear to be unmet demand for new retail in
the valley.
tf "new" retail is not needed then creation of additional commercial zoning may
result in existing commercial or retail sites moving to the new location. This
would result in sales tax revenue moving with the retail operation.
Local municipalities or towns are reliant on sales taxes generated to provide urban
level services necessary to serve the urban population. This includes public
health, safety and welfare issues such as police, fire and other public services.
The fiscal impact of locating potentially large-scale urban commercial uses in an
unincorporated area is that the County is then responsible for providing the
required urban level of public services - with no additional revenues generated to
offset the costs the County.
Refe rral Comments
Citv of Glenwood Sprinss -
The City of Glenwood Springs' staffhas substantial concems about thc proposed
rezoning as requested. The rezoning is a speculative act based not on a specific
developrnent proposal but rather a "build it and they will come" approach. Furthermore,
the rezoning action would be the public's only opportunity to comment as the vast
majority of uses allowed in the CG zone district are by- right uses.
In summary, the application does not demnnstrate compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan nor does it demonstrate that circumstances have changed to the
extent necessary to warranl such a large speculative rezoning. The City's Community
Development Department staff recommends that the application be denied.
This memorandum was presented to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission at their
October 27,2015 meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed
to endorsc thc commcnts contained above.
Refe rral Comrnents
Town of Carbondale - The Mayor and the Chairman of the Planning Commission
responded to the referral:
One of the policies in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is that'the county will
discourage commercial development in the unincorporated areas that would
significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities." The potential
retall development which could be constructed as a result of this rezoning would conflict
with this adopted policy.
The Town specifically requests that the County deny the application.
Refe rral Comments
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation -The site lies within the District's boundary and is
subject to a Pre-lnclusion Agreement. Without knowledge of the project details
infrastructure changes may be necessary due to Commercial General zoning.
Roaring Fork Conservancv - Concerns related to impact of development - runoff,
erosion, traffic and light pollution, on the Cattle Creek and Heron Point Conservation
Easements.
CDOT - lf the property becomes commercial CDOT would only allow one access to
the site which would be shared by the adjacent River Edge development. There may
not be enough highway infrastructure (access) for commercial use at this location.
RFTA - The commercial zoning may potentially increase regional demand for transit
servi-ice, however the lack of detai[ iegarding i:otential uses does not allow specific
comments on the rezoning. In general, large scale commercial developments outside
the Urban Growth Boundaries can pose challenges for the public sector including
increased demand and costs for public services, costs that are not always offset by
sales tax revenues. Large scale developments can potentially create undesirable
traffic impacts, especially in already congested highway corridors.
Cilizen Comments
Bavmar Hotels and Properties - Mr. Martayan owns the commercial development at
the intersection of SH 82 and CR 113:
First of all, we are truly surprised at the request submitted by the owner's of the [and. There are plenty of
commercial spaces that are still available tfuoughout tbe valley and rnost have been sitting empty for
years. Ifa study was made for them, they should have been strongly advised not to rezone the property.
Furthermore if they were to build comrnercial in this track of land they would ereate more vacancies that
uould adversely affect the existing commercial rcal cstate values and the real estate taxes collected
aecordingly.
Terry and Laura Claussen responded that they wanted to voice their opposition to the
proposed commercial development due to traffic, noise and air pollution.
Three letters of support were submitted from local business owners, including
Dodson Engineering, Outwest Drywall and Pro Auto.
Planning Commission
Recommendation
A Public Hearing was held on January 1.3,2Ot6 and, after considering Staff, Applicant and public
testimony on the proposal the Commission deliberation elicited the following comments:
The Comprehensive Plan would support limited commercial uses at this location, however the
Commission determined that the broad uses permitted by-right in the Commercial General
zone district were inappropriate for this site and not supported by the Comprehensive Plan;
The Commission identified concern regarding the potential mass and scale of commercial
development on the site.
The Comprehensive Plan would not support the scale of commercial development that would
be permissible if the site was rezoned to CG;
Regional commercial uses (ie big box stores or national chains) are not supported by the
Comprehensive Plan which specifically limits the commercial uses to those serving the
neighborhood;
'Concern regarding the lack of further County review on any proposed development on the
site, as once the zone change is granted the applicant need only apply for building permits.
This would not allow for site plan review or allow for a determination on the appropriateness
of the broad and multiple types of commercial uses that would be permitted by-right on the
site;
Planning Commission
Recommendation
The Applicant discussed potential development scenarios at th.e public hearing
which utilize the CG zoning to create a "Regional Shopping Area" with a national
chainstoreasaretail anchor. Theregional aspectoftheproposeddevelopmentwas
discussed and the Commission found the concept not in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan;
The Commission discussed the current allowance for retail sales in the existing
Residential Suburban zone district, permitted via the Administrative Review process.
This review process would allow the County to review development plans to
determine the appropriateness of uses, site layout and compliance of the proposal
with the minimum standards required by the LUDC. The request for commercial
uses by-right, with no further County review, was determined to not be in.general
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or the review criteria for a zone change;
The rezoning is contrary to the comprehensive plan goal of supporting incorporated
communitiei and Urban Growth Areas. Potential sales tax leakage to
unincorporated area within the County could be detrimental to the local
jurisdictions. Thepotential fiscal impactstotheCountyregardingprovisionof urban
level services to the development and the impacts of this provision on County
Planning Commission
Recommendation
The project did not demonstrate a public need for additional CG zoning or
commercral uses;
The Commission considered the Applicant's justification that the project would
serve the public interest -
The population is currently underserved by commercial/retail uses,
The project would diversify employment in the County,
The extension of water and sewer to this location would benefit the public
And did not agree that jobs resulting in retail wages would diversify the economy,
did not agree that the Roaring Fork Valley was underserved by existing retail
facilities. a-nd did not aeree thai the propos'ed extension of watei and sai'itation
was sufficient to demonitrate public interest.
Ultimately these deliberations resulted in a motion to deny the request due to the
application not satisfying any of the rezoning criteria. The motion wa3 passed 6-0.
Board Deliberation
The Board has the following options for a decision on the requested action:
Approve the request this would allow development on
compliance with the Commercial General Zone District. This
require amendment of the findings to support the approval;
Deny the request incorporating the Planning Commission
findings and clearly stating the reason for the denial based
crite ria;
the parcel in
motion would
recom mended
upon rezoning
E14G F#f,?H.fiF#,,SH*;
October 28,2075
Via lnternet
Ms. Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 Bth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 810601
keas tley@ga rf ield-county. com
RE:
Dear Kathy:
GCCI Rezone - File Number ZDAA-09-15-8388
On behalf of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District ("RFWSD"), thank you for
providing us with a copy of the Land Use Change Permit Application submitted by Garfield
County Commercial Investments, LLC ("GCCI") to rezone a 43 acre parcel of land from
Residential-Suburban to Commercial General. This letter incorporates the comments from the
District and its engineers at SGM, Inc.
The GCCI property lies within the RFWSD's service area boundary. The RFWSD, GCCI
and Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI" , which owns the adjacent parcels to the south and
known as the River Edge Colorado PUD) entered into a Pre-Inclusion Agreement, recorded at
reception number 825458, setting forth terms and conditions whereby the GCCI property and
CI property would be included within the boundaries of the RFWSD and the RFWSD would
agree to provide water and sanitary sewer service to these properties (the "Agreement").
Under the terms of the Agreement, CI and/or GCCI agreed to pay for and construct
certain infrastrucfure necessary to provide water and sanitary sewer service to the respective
properties. These included the extension of water lines from the RFWSD's existing
infrastructure and/or the construction of a surface water treatment plant as well as developing
the infrastructure necessary to provide sanitary sewer services to the properties and expansion
Scott Grosscup
Direct Dial (970) 928-3468
Receptionist (970) 945-6546
ssrosscuo@balcombgreen.com
t€
Mailing Address:
P.O. Drawer 79O
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
www.balcombgreen.com
Glenu o o d Springs Office:
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO
(970) 945-6546
Aspen Office:
0133 Prospector Road, Ste. 41028
Aspery CO 81611
(970) 920-5467
f3!ilGF,+5FS#,-'+,F,.-THSH*s Ms. Kathy Eastley
Re: File No. ZDAA-09-15-8388
October 28,2075
Page 2 of 2
of the MWSD's sewer treatment plant. These responsibilities applied to either CI or GCCI
depending upon which property developed first.
The Agreement provides that the District will provide service to up to 375 EQRs as
defined in the MWSD's Rules and Regulations. Depending upon the development that occurs
GCCI may need to construct additional facilities that were not originally contemplated by the
Agreement. This may include larger water storage tanks necessary to meet fire flow
requirements. That decision will be made when additional information about the type and level
of development is available.
Pursuant to the Agreement CI and or GCCI will need to construct on and off-site
infrastructure. Consultants for the two property owners have been in discussion with the
District regarding the timing, location, and construction of those facilities. Those discussions
and plan review will continue as required by the Agreement.
While the District has not taken a position on the land use change reques! development
of this property can bring the infrastructure necessary to allow adjacent parcels to connect to the
RFWSD. This could allow parcels within the District's expanded service area to ultimately
receive potable water and sanitary sewer from the District rather than rely upon their
individual systems.
Thank you for the opporhrnity to provide comments on the Land Use Change
Application. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
BaLcoNas & GneeN, P.C.
cc: Louis Meyer, P.E.
Scott Grosscup
EXHIBlT
I
November 2,2015
To: Kathy Eastley, Senior Planncr, Garfield county communit5r Developmelt
FROM: Andrew McGregor', Communify Development Director, City of Glenrvood
Springs
RE: Referral Comments - ZDAA82L0 - GCCI Rezone
Please accept our cofilments into the record in reference to the above-noted application.
The City of Glenwood Springs' staff has substantial concems about the proposed
rezoning as requested. The rezoning is a speculative ait based not on a specific
development proposal but rather a "build it and they will come" approach. Fufthermore,
the rezoning action would be the public's only opportunity to comment as the vast
majority of uses allowed in the CG zone district are by- right uses. Any site specific
development application would proceed directly to a building permit process. It is
noteworthy that lot coverage and FAR maximums in the CG zone distrtct would allow an
extraordinalily large amount of commercial square footage to be constructed. Under the
FAR alone, almost a million square feet of retail could be constructed on a parcel of this
a$eage. Obviously other needs like parking,landscaping, drainage, etc. may reduce this
number, however the potential square footage of buildings in this requested 45 acre
rezoning remain enornous.
The Garfield County Land Use Resolution stipulates that in order to rezor\e a property it
rnust be demonstrated that a property was rezoned emoneously or that the four criteria
discussed below be satisfied.
1. The proposed rezoning'pvould result in a logical and orderly development pattern
andwould not constittie spot zoning. The CMC/Cattle Creek area along
Highway 82 akeady has substantial amounts of commercially zoned land. Some
of that affeage is vacant and is owned by the applicant. The neglected condition
of that property is indicative of a lack of community responsibility and
2.
stewardship. It is not good land use practice to create large of tracts of
commercially zonecl properties when an inventory aheady exists unless the
agenda is to pull pre-existing conxnercial uses from the neighboring cities of
Glenwood Splings and Carbondale or attract competing large fonnat retail which
will pirate retail dollars fi'orn the cities to these exurban greenfields where
development costs are lower and infi'astructurc is limited. A logical development
pattern places this magnihrde of development within an incorporated community.
The cu'ea to which the proposed zoning would apply has changed or is changing
to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encorrage a new use or density
in the area. Circumstances have in fact not changed appreciably in this locale.
This property and the adjoining parcel to the east have been a part of a series of
failed commercial and residential PUDs for the last 15 to 20 years. Regaldless of
the entitlements on these properties, no development has occurrecl. Now the
public is being asked to extend 45 acres of commercial zoning. Not only does the
neighborhood oL "unincorporated community" not support this dernand, as there
is plenty of vacant commercially zoned property in both the immediate area and
in the neighboring cities. While we acknowledge that there has been slow growth
in recent years in nearby subdivisions such as Eik Springs,Iron Bridge and Aspen
Glen, these new units have noi suddenly created the demand for many thousands
of square feet of new commercial or retail square footage.
The proposed rezoning addresses q demonstrated community need utith respect to
facilities, services and housing. The GCCI application does not adequately
address a "demonstrated comn-runity need" for this magnitude of commercial
rezoning. They supply no statistical evidence supporting this request. Within the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's definition, it states that an unincorporated
community is intended to be "self-contained subdivisions that contain town or
neighborhood centers primarily to serve their own populations." The applicant
even goes so far as to state in the application namative that "developrnent of the
subject property will benefit the County as a whole." The application fruther
states that "The proposed commercial and office uses will sele the immediate
residents of the local unincorporated community, as well as surounding
communities. .. " Sales tax leakage is already an issue for cities and towns.
Adding large aueage of commercial land in this location will have a negative
effect on suffounding communities by pirating existing and future development
from these communities. On page 50 of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy #2 states
that "The County will discourage commercial development in the unincorporated
at'eas that would significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated
municipalities. Perhaps the applicant should be requesting an amendment to the
3.
Comprehensive Plan in advance of a rezoning application of this magnitude as the
scale of this request clearly doesn't comply with the current "Unincorporated
Communities" designation that exists today in the Comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed tezoning is in general corformance u,ith the Cornprehensive plan
and in compliance with any intergovernmental agreement. This pzoning
Application is inconsistent with the current fi-rture land use designation which is
intended to have commercial zontngonly to "selve their own populations,,. This
neighbolhood center cannot support an additional million square feet (or even
some fiaction thereof). It is doubtful that the entire Roaring For.k Valley will
have this kind of demand for that quantity of new commercial square footage over
the next decade or two.
In summaty, the application does not demonstrate compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan nor does it dernonshate that circumstances have changed to the
extent necessary to warrant such a large speculative rezoning. The City's Community
Development Department staff recommends that the application be denied.
This memorandum was presented to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission at their
october 27,2075 meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed
to endorse the comments containecl above.
Attachments:
l. Additional review comments from var-ious City staff.
PLANNING ITEM: 42-ts
SUBJECT: GarCo Referral - Rezoning
CITY ATTORNtrY (Karl Hanlon)
CITY MANAGER (Jeff Heckset)
POLICE DEPARTMENT (Teny Wilson) - No comments.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR @obin Miflyard)
ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Dave Bettey)
BTIILDING DEPARTMENT (patrick Seydel)
CITY ENGINEER (Teri parrch)
R (Gretchen Ricehill, Senior planner) - See attached
MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT (Geoff Gutlu'ie) * See attached memorandurn.
WATER/WASTEWATER (Jerry Wade)
FrRE DEPARTMENT (Ronald Biggers) - We do not have any comments to make on thisrequest for rezoning" When the owners/developers submit d'evelopment plans for the site werequest to be contacted to review and comment on those plans.
CITY ELECTRIC (Doug Hazzard)
STREETS & ALLEYS (Rick Turner)
PARKS AND RECREATION (Tom Barnes)
FINANCE DIRECTOR (Charles Kelty) - No comments.
SOURCE GAS (Westerman & Gtren)
CENTURYLINK (Jason Sharpe)
WEST GLENwooD SANTTATION DIST. (Jordan voskvil)-
MEMO
Andrew McGregor
Community Development Director
FROM: Gretchen Ricehill
Senior Planner
October 19,2015
RE: Planning ltem 42-L5- Garfield County Referral- Rezoning -Galloway and Co-GCCt, Inc.
This application appears to be the same as, or very similar to a rezoning application that was
submitted in earlier this year.
As I understand it, the applicant requests to rezone this property from Residential Suburban to
General Commercial. The argument is based upon fhe fact that the County's comprehensive
plan identifles the property as lying within an area designated as "Unincorporated Community',
which is defined as "self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers
primarily to serve their own populations". Garfield County lists "General Commercial,, as one of
four zone district supporting the Unincorporated community designation.
Earlier this year you provided comments on the apptication which I feel are as valid today as
they were then. I do not believe that the appticant meets the necessary criteria to rezone this
property (Section 4-L13 Garfield County Land Use Development Code). I also do not believe
that in this instance, rezoning is supported by the comprehensive plan.
That being said, when reviewing this application, it is important to acknowledge that the City of
Glenwood Springs is placed at a distinct disadvantage in that it is not privy to the type of retait
development that is proposed or contemplated for this site and which is the reason for the
applicant's rezoning request. Therefore, the City has to assume that the applicant intends to
develop the property to the fullest extent that the General Commercial zoning would allow.
That is, 85% lot coverage of a 43.25 acre site and 40 foot tall buildings.
Now, the applicant made several statements in the application that lead me to believe that theproperty rezoning is needed to allow for commercial uses that would serye a regional clientele.
ln fact one statement (page 4) touted the benefits of having a Highway 82 frontige and divulged
that the owner "...has received expressions of interest from national and regional retailers
seeking to locate stores on the property.,,
NationaI and regional stores do not meet the definition of "Unincorporated Community,, which
calls for town and neighborhood centers ta "serve their own com ". The concept of
national and regional stores in unincorporated Garfield County is also in direct conflict with
Policy statement #2 (p. 50) of the Comprehensive plan which states that ,.The county will
discourage commercialdevelopment in the unincorporated areas that would significantly
reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities." However, the applicant (page 7)
dismisses this Policy by stating that "no evidence existsthat this developmentwould do so"
(italics added for emphasis). Again, the City of Glenwood Springs is not aware of the exact
nature of development contemplated for this property but it has to assume from the statements
made in this application that the intent is to court national and regional retailers.
Regardless, the County's own Comprehensive Plan recognized that "Commercial development in
unincorporated areas can reduce the sales tax receipts of incorporated communities, and
constrain their ability to provide services and amenities on which the majority of county
residents depend" (page 50). There is ample evidence to support this drain on revenue. When
retailers have opened in other areas, such Super Walmart in Rifle and Costco in Gypsum,
Glenwood springs has experienced a noticeable reduction in overall revenue,
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Please accept my comments into the record in reference to the above application.
This proposed rezoning as requested by the applicant raises significant
transportation-related concerns regarding traffic generation and State Highway 82 vehicular
access. Ofnote:
PUBLIC TRANSITACCESS
r The closest-in-proximity existing RFTA bus stop is approximately 0.49 miles north of the
northern parcel boundary line, at the SH-82 & CR 154 intersection. At an average
walking pace of 3mph, this equals about a lO-minute walk for bus passengers to access
the northern parcel boundary.
. The next-closest existing RFTA bus stop is located approximately 1.90 miles south of the
southern parcel boundary, at the entrance to Aspen Glen and SH-82. At 3mph walking
speed, this equals an approximately 3B-minute walk to the southern parcel boundary.
VEHICUI"ARACCESS: CATTLE CREEK ROAD & SH-82 intersection
o Due to existing private property uses bordering the northern end of this parcel, and the
railbanked RFTA railroad corridor bordering the west side of this parcel, existing
vehicular access to the parcel appears limited to its southern boundary from the Cattle
Creek Road & SH-82 intersection.
o The existing Cattle Creek Road & SH-82 intersection was identified as the #8 most
challenging intersection in CDOT Region 3 in the 2011 CDOT Region 3 lntersection
PrioriWStudv.
Andrew McGregor, Community Development Director
Geoff Guthrie, Transportation Manager
October2Q 2015
Planning ltem # 42-15 Garfield County Referralof proposed Rezoning
Request
Additionally, the 20L0 Traffic lmpact and Needs Assessment undertaken in 2010 by
Garfield County analyzed traffic levels of service (LOS) along the SH-82 mainline at
selected intersections, This 2010 capacity analysis showed that the Cattle Creek Road &
SH-82 intersection operates at LoS D and LoS F in the morning and evening peak hours,
respectively.
The same Garfield County 2010 Traffic lmpact and Needs Assessment indicated that
the grades increase by a consistent five percent from the highway and the turn lanes
are insufficient." The study also states that "the intersection is 'confusingi and causes
issues due to the lack of pavement markings, wide pavement section of Cattle Creek
Road, close proximity to adjacent intersectiont minor street skews impacting sight
distance from SH-82 turn lanes, and left-turning vehicles from Cattle Creek Road sit in
the median."
VEHICUTARACCESS: CR 154/CMC ROAD & SH-BZ intersection
Analysis in the 2011 CDOT Region 3 lntersection Prioritv Studv identifies the existing SH-
82 & CR 754/CMC Road intersection 0.49 miles north of this property as the #1 most
challenging intersection in all of CDOT Region 3.
Analysis of this intersection for the 2011 CDOT study showed that the RFTA park-n-ride
on the south side is about 30 feet from the intersection and is easily blocked by the
queues on CR 154... There are many other driveways on CR 114 and on the frontage
road nearthe intersection with the highway. The driveways are blocked at times if the
queues on the minor streets are extensive."
Further analysis of the CR 154/CMC Rd & SH-82 intersection notes 'the eastbound
direction enters the intersection from a sweeping horizontal curve which limits the
signal visibility, which is also hindered by the trees and vegetation along the roadway."
The Garfield County 20L0 Traffic lmpact and Needs Assessment also indicated that at
this intersection, "in the PM peak hour the minor approaches are failing due to the long
queues and potentialsignaldelay. lf the mainline does not max-out on its green time,
then these approaches can operate at LOS D."
TRIP GENEMTION
I lnstitute of Transportation Engineers trip generation study data notes avera ge 24-hour
trip generation rates per L,000 ft2 of gross floor area of a major discount supermarket
company located in the western U.S. Data is presented over three distinct time periods:
Tuesday to Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. Average trip generation rates per 1,000 ft2
of gross floor area are as follows:
Tuesday to Thursday 95.2 trips I L,OOOftzgross floor area
Saturday 121.5 trips / L,OOOftzgross floor area
Sunday L10.1trips / L,OOOftzgross floor area
ln the applicant's letter to the Garfield County Planning Manager, dated September 16,
2015, the final sentence before the conclusion paragraph indicates that there is the
likelihood this property "would accommodate a maximum of 300,000 square feet of
commercial development." Based on this proposed 300,000 ftz maximum development
size, using the trip generation numbers in the above table the amount of vehicular trips
generated over the average Z4-hour period could potentially be as follows:
The conceptual land use map included with this application indicates "roadway gradingl'
and a new vehicular access point to this property, located roughly at the center right of
the parcel and SH-82. This proposed access point would be new and would have to
meet all requirements of the State Highway Access Code, including conducting a signal
warrant analysis and traffic counts.
CONCLUSION
Existing CDOT SH-82 traffic count data at the two nearest stations to this parcel (SH-82 &
South Blal<e Avenue, and SH-82 & SH-133) indicate ADT numbers of 23,000 and
19,000 vehicles per day, respectively. The potential vehicle trips generated by a
commercial development of this proposed size, located about four miles south of
Glenwood Springs city limits, have the possibility of doubling existing traffic volumes
along the sH-82 mainline between Glenwood springs and carbondale.
It is recommended not only that the developer be required to include ADA-compliant public
transit access to this property from both travel directions of SH-82, but also as soon
as possible contact RFTA Operations Staffto discuss the feasibility of whether existing
RFTA bus routes and schedule timing can accommodate this proposed commercial
center and the potential trips it will generate, or if additional bus service and
equipment may be necessary.
Pursuant to the recommended intersection improvements as outlined in the 2011 CDOT
Reeion 3 lntersection Prioritv Study. it is strongly suggested that the developer,
Garfield County, and CDoT Region 3 staff work together to implement the fotlowing
improvements to the SH-82 & CR 154 intersection:
r Remove vegetation on the eastbound curve between the highway and the Rio Grande
Trail
Tuesday to Thursday 28,560 trips / 300,000 ft2gross floor area
Saturday 36,450 trips / 30Q000 ft2gross floor area
Sunday 33,030 trips / 30Q000 ft2gross floor area
a
a
o
a
Lengthen the eastbound SH-82 left-turn lane storage
Construct ADA-compliant 8'sidewalks to the RFTA bus stops
Lengthen the other auxiliary lanes to conform to CDOT State Highway Access Code
Consider providing alternate location for the RFTA park-n-ride on the southeast corner
of this intersection to remove the close-proximity driveway to sH-g2
Consider reconstructing the SH-82 & CR 154 intersection into a grade-separated
interchange to reduce existing delays and intersection-related accidents.
Pursuant to the recommended intersection improvements as outlined in the 2011 CDOT
Resion 3 lntersection priority Study, it is strongly suggested that the developer,
Garfield County, and CDOT Region 3 staff work together to implement the following
improvements to the sH-g2 & cattle creek Road intersection:
o Len8then the acceleration and deceleration lanes to conform to the CD0T State
Highway Access Code
r Conduct traffic counts (turning movement and hourly directional) to verifi7 signal
warrants per the MUTCD; if warrants are met, it is recommended that the developer
install a new traffic signal at this intersection
' lmplement access management techniques to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflict
' Redesign the frontage road and local streets to improve spacing
IL
TowN Or CnnToNDALB
511 CorcRADo Avslrup
CnRroNnlln, CO 81623
October 27,2015
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Garfield County Referral- Garfield County Commercial
lnvestments, LLC - Flezoning
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for referring the Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC rezoning
application to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comments. The
application is to rezone the Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC propefiy
(GCCI) which is a 43.25 acre propefiy from Residential Suburban to Commercijl
General (CG).
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its October 15, 20lS meeting. The
Board of Trustees discussed the application at its October 27,2015 meeting. This letter
is intended to convey our comments.
{qc91ding to the Garfield County pre-application conference summary, the area with the
gGGl property has several designations on the County's Comprehensive plan Land
Use Map:
1. Residential High Density
2. Unincorporated Community
3. There is an aslerisk for Flural Employment center that appears to be located
around the SH 82 - Cattle Creek area
4. A Water and Sewer Service Area
The application does not indicate what type and size of devetopment is ptanned for theproperty. The applicant's letter states that the uses allowed in the CG zone district willfill the need for commercial uses that focus on serving the population of the
unincorporated community, such as restaurants, convenienceltores,'recreation centers
and general retail. The letter is vague and does not outline the intended use of the
property.
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
The GCCI, lnc. property is 43.25 acres. The General Retail Use is a permitted use with
no site plan review process and a generous lot coverage allowance ai gSZ". This could
resuli in a significant amount of commercial square foolage with very litile oversight and
input from surrounding communities.
Hural Employment Centers are defined as small areas adjacent to major roadways that
allow light industrial, manufacturing, equipmenl storage and incidg_ntal retait sales. The
size of the GCCI parcel would allow much more square footage tfran what appears tobe envisioned in. a Rural Employment Center as defined -in the Garfield'County
Comprehensive Plan.
Unincorporated Communities in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan are intended
to be "self-contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily
to serve their own populations." A large retail store or stores would go beyond serving
the existing and potential residential units surrounding the GCCI propJrty.
Finally, the Town questions whether the rezoning criteria in the Garfield County Land
Use Code could b.e meJ with the proposal. Large commercial square footage would not
result in a logical and orderly developrnent pattem; the Cattie Creek area has not
changed to such a degree that it serves the public interest to rezone the property. The
proposal has not demonstrated a communily need. ln fact, the resulting development
could compete with existing municipalities. Finally, the rezoning does no1 appeai to be
in compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is it does not meet the
definition of Unincorporated Community and Rural Employment Cenler,
Garfield County has a 1% sales tax rale. lncorporated areas have an additional
percentage on top of that. ln the case of Carbondale, the Town has a 3.Syo sales tax
rate and 1% BFTA sales tax rate. Commercial uses competing with existing and future
commercial uses in Carbondale could result in the loss olsalei tax and serii"es to the
community and RFTA.
One of the policies in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is that "the county will
discourage commercialdevelopment in the unincorporated areas that would
significantly reduce sales tax revenues in incorporated municipalities." The potential
relaildevelopment which could be constructed as a result of this rezoning would conftict
with this adopted policy.
With the lack of detail in the application, it is ditficult to detennine how the GCCIproperty could be built out. However, for comparison's sake, Glenwood Meadows inGlenwood Springs is approximately 40 acres. il appears that 405,000 sq. ft. of gross
leasable square footage is allowed on the property. Gtenwood Meadows ii intenaeo to
function as a regionalshopp_ing center. The GCCI property is approximately 48 acres.
Assuming that the building floor area will be 30% 6t tre lot "r"i, the potential square
footage could be around 550,OOO sq. ft. This estimate is conseruative since this is
P":90 on a single story building and the altowed height in rhe CG zone district is 40 ft. inheight. We question whether there is a community need for this type and scate of
commercial property in this area.
Phone: (970)963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
The Gadield County Comprehensive Plan includes a policy that "Garfield County will
encourage the development of a diversified industrial base recognizing physical
location-to-market capabilities of the community, and the social and envJronmental
impacls of industrial uses.' lf the property is to be rezoned, some type of light industrial
zone district may be more appropriate to serve to meet the community needs in the
valley.
Garfield County has expendgd a significant amount of time and resources in developing
and adopting the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code. The Town askl
that the County Commissioners abide by the standards and guidetines included in thosedocuments. The Town respectfully requests that the Coun[r Commissioners deny the
rezoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.
Sincerely,
Sta6y Patch Bernot
Board of Trustees
Brooke
Planning and Zoning Commission
Phone: (97O) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-914O
Roorlng [or[ Tmnryortollon luf ho.ily
October 29,20L5
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Comm unity Development
108 8th Street, Suite 40l Glenwood Springs, CO g1601
Re: GCCI Request to Rezone 43.25 acres from Residentialto commercial
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for soliciting RFTA's comments for a second time on the proposed Request for a
Zone District Amendment on the 43.25-acre parcel adjacent to the River Edge property. As you
may recall, RFTA submitted comments on 4/tO/20L5 for the first rezone request. The
development team retracted the application before the P&Z could vote on the proposal. lt
appears as though the previous and current project applications are very similar. Therefore, we
are re-submitting our comments below with a few minor revisions.
without knowing the mix of commercial development that might be proposed by the developer
on this site in the future, RFTA cannot offer any specific comments about the potential impacts
that such development might have on RFTA transit services or the Rio Grande Railroad corridor.
RFTA owns the 34-mile "railbanked" Corridor and therefore is charged with keeping it intact
consistent with freight rail reactivation, possible future commuter rail use, interim trail use,
open space uses, and other lawful public purposes. This responsibility creates minimum
conditions to which all proposed uses (including crossings) of the Corridor should adhere.
ln general, large-scale commercial developments that are created outside of Urban Growth
Boundaries can pose challenges for the public sector. These challenges can take the form of
increased demand and costs for a variety of public services, which are not always offset by the
tax revenue created by the commercial activities. ln addition, large scale commercial
developments can potentially create undesirable traffic impacts, especially in highway corridors
that are already congested.
lf the County subsequently approves a large-scale commercial development on this site, RFTA
foresees that demand for its regional transit services could increase because of people wantingto access the businesses for employment and shopping purposes. However, because the
development would not be located within one of RFTA's member jurisdictions, there would not
be any sales tax revenue generated for RFTA to help offset any increased demand. ln addition,
the development might have the potentialto siphon off sales tax revenue from RFTA member
jurisdictions; further reducing resources RFTA relies upon to maintain and increase its transit
services.
When considering this request for a Zone District Amendment, RFTA is hopeful that Garfield
county will carefully evaluate the extent to which a significant increase in commercial activity at
this location might exacerbate existing transportation challenges in the Highway 82 corridor
and adversely impact the economies of nearby municipalities.
Thank you once again for soliciting RFTA's comments on this Request for Zone District
Amendment submitted by GCCI, LLC. lf you have additional questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Dan Blankenship
Chief Executive Officer
Gurlield Courn
Vegetation Management
October29,2015
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Community Development Department
RE: ZDAA-09-1 5-8388 Garfield County Commercial lnvestments
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for the opportunity to cornment on the rezone application.
The property is heavily infested with the county listed noxious weed, Scotch thistle.
The property owner heated the noxious weeds during the 2015 growing season.
Staff requests that the applicant continue these efforts, it may take at least two treatments per year for several years to
get the thistle under control,
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Garfietd County Vegetation Manager
0375 Cornty Road 352, Bldg 2060
Rifls, CO 81650 Phona:970-945-1377 x 4i105 Fax: 970{25-5939
v,
Steve Anthony
ITTOUNT6I
ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
October 24,2015
Ms. KathyEastley
Garfield County Planning
108 8tl'Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Reviery of the Garfield County Comrnercial Investments, LLC: ZDAA'09'15-8388
This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Rezoning application for
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC. The submittal was found to be thorough and
well organized. The following comment was generated:
o No site plan was included within the application so no review of site grading, drainage,
utilities, traffic, access, and/or other improvements could be performed. Any proposed,
future development should be reviewed for conformance to the Garfield County LUDC.
Feel fiee to call if you have any questions or comments.
EXHIBITIL
Sincerely, /
Mountaff,r Cross Enginpt'y/*(
e#r Hale, PE t
826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
Inc.
From:
Sent:
to:
Subject:
Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us>
Tuesday, November 03, 2015 10:10 AM
Kathy A. Eastley
Re: Referral Request - Garfield County Commercial investments LLC
Kathy - Thank you for the opportunity to review the re-zoning requrest. CDOT has no comments on
zoning. However, if the property became commercial, the CDOT would only allow one access to the site which
would be shared by River Edge group. I don't believe there is enough highway infrastructure (access) for
commercial zoning based upon Expressway category of the Highway 82.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
thanks
Dan Roussin
Permit Unit Manager
Traffic and Safety
P 970.683.6284 | F 970.683.6290
222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501
daniet.roussin@state.co.us I www.codot.eov/ | www.cotrip.orem
On Tue, Oct 6, 2Ol5 at 3:16 PM, Kathy A. Eastley <keastley@gadield- wrote:
Good afternoon,
Attached is a referral request to review an application to rezone a 43.Zl-acre parcel on the west side of SH 82
between CR 114 (CMC Road) and CR 113 (Cattle Creek Road) from Residential Suburban to Commercial
General. This parcel is adjacent to the River Edge PUD, south of the old Sopris Restaurant.
This application as originally submitted earlier this year and you may have previously provided
comments. The Applicant had withdrawn that application prior to hearing and are now resubmitting for
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner review. The new application does not differ in any
significant way from what was previously submitted.
l'^
ARINC
CONSE RVANCY
EXHIBlT
I
BOARD O[
DIRECTORS
I)iane Sch*c:ner
Presideti
Rick Neilel
tr'ice Presitlent
Jennifcr Saucr
Secretu'N'l'reosurtr-l'cd []olchelr
Stephen [illspermart
Jim l.ight
Rick l,olartr
Liet'tttite Dire<1or
Pa1 lulcMahon
I)on Schustcr
l,arry Yau'
Valerie Alcrander Yarr
PROCRAlII SI'AFF
Rick I..olhro
lixecu t ive I )irt'c I ot'
I leather Lslin
llotershed -lrtiort
Direc'tor
Christina Ntedved
litl uc' r.t t i o n D i r e c t o r
l.iza Nlitchell
Educttlion & Otiredclt
Cctordinator
Chad Rudou
l|'uter QtLalitl'
(loortliruttr>r
Sheryl Sahandal
Det:e I opm e n t .-l s :; ot in tt'
SariLh \\'oods
[)irector o/'
Pltilanthropy
November 4,2075
Ms. Kathy Eastley, Staff Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
keastley@ earfi eld-county. com
RE: File Number ZDAA-09-15-8388. GCCI Rezone
Dear Ms. Eastley,
Please accept these comments on the proposed rezoning of parcel 2393-072-00-
031, a 43.25 acre property located on the west side of Highway 82 between CMC
Road and Cattle Creek Road. This parcel, owned by Garfield County Commercial
Investments (GCCI), is associated with the 53-acre Cattle Creek Conservation
Easement held by Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC).
The Cattle Creek Conservation Easement and adjacent Heron Point Conservation
Easement, acqllired in 1998 and 1999 respectively, preserve valuable riparian
habitat at the conflLlence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Riparian
habitat (vegetation along river and stream banks), is among Colorado's most
important plant communities for wildlife and healthy r.vaterways, but comprises
less than 1% of the entire land area of the state. Essential riparian habitat, a
thriving great blue heron nesting colony, critical elk winter range, and high
quality water are among the many conservation vallles RFC is obligated to
protect, preserve and enhance in perpetuity within the conservation easement.
RFC has concerns with the potential effects of commercial development on the
nearby Conservation Easements as well as the Roaring Fork River and Cattle
Creek. RFC is currently engaged in a comprehensive scientific study of Cattle
Creek with the goal of improving water quality in the creek. The increase in
impermeable surfaces associated with commercial development and parking lots
can increase runoff and erosion, raising concerns about potential pollutants
reaching the waterways. Although some conceptual site data accompanies the
justification report submitted to Garfield County, RFC would like to see more
details regarding the design and function of the areas labeled open space/storm
water.
The impacts of possible increased light pollution and traffic associated with
commercial development are of particular concern because the Cattle Creek and
Heron Point Conservation Easements are home to a wide variety of wildlife,
P.O. Box 3349 tJas.rlt, Color..rclo [i1621 970.927.1290 rvu'w.roaringfork.org
ARING
CONSE RVANCY
notably a great blue heron nesting colony. Light pollution can inadvertently
interfere with the circadian rhlthm and migration patterns of wildlife, including
birds, potentially interrupting their groMh and reproductive cycles.l In addition,
lighting and traffic increases have been shown to negatively affect great blue
heron colonies potentially leading to site abandonment.2
RFC has engaged in preliminary conversations with the applicant and expressed
our desire to work closely with them on all matters concerning Cattle Creek and
the associated conservation easements. Should the proposed zoning change be
granted, RFC respectfully requests approval be contingent on working in close
cooperation with us to ensure the conservation values of the easement and the
ecological integrity of the surrounding area be upheld in the future planning of
this property.
Please contact me with any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
'?^*1dU-,s^
\-)
Rick Lofaro
Executive Director
t http://sierraclubmass.orelwp/?incsub wiki=dark-skies-outdoor-lishtins
2 htto://www.pugetsou nd nearshore.org,/technica I papers/herons.pdf
-, 1? Y ll1'li::"!':Y"11'l'u'l 970.927.1290 I lvrt'w.roaringfork.org
{:ITM
{
{l
BAMh4AR H@]TELS AND PR@PERITIES, [NG"
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Garfield County Planning Department
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
oEc 0 B U0t5
Re: Rezoning of track of land owned by Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC.
To whom it may concern;
We are the owners of Valley View Business Park located at 7800 Highway 82 in Glenwood Springs and
w€ are writing you this letter to address our conceni about the rezoning of the 43.25 acre property owned
by Garfield County Commercial lnvestments, LLC. from Residential Suburban to Commercial General.
First of all, we are truly surprised at the request submitted by the owner's of the land. There are plenty of
commercial spaces that are still available throughout the valley and most have been sitting empty for
years. If a study was made for them, they should have been strongly advised not to rezone the property.
Furthermore if they were to build commercial in this track of land they would create more vacancies that
would adversely affect the existing commercial real estate values and the real estate taxes collected
accordingly.
Most commercial brokers or residents will tell you that for the quantity of inhabitants that live in the
valley, the actual commercial ratio versus residential is enormous. There are not enough businesses to fill
the empties we have today and building more commercial on a scale planned by the above owners will
certainly be disastrous not only for the owners of the already existing commercial properties but also for
the whole community.
What we need is planned development and right now what the valley needs is affordable housing andlor a
rental project that could bring new business owners to move to the County. By doing so, we would at least
be able to raise the occupancy in the existing commercial spaces. We might even be able to create the
opportunity to build more commercial in the future.
Thank you for considering my letter.
o
llll Kane Concourse, #2ll,Bay Harbor Islands, FL33l54
Tel: (305) 864-6581 * Fax: (305) 866-7874 * E-Mail: Baymar@the-beach.net
Roy Martayan
Dodoo#
tqUsfird Prrol$.[r, 9rc.
OO33 MARAND ROAD P.O. BOX 248
5 MILES SOUTHON HIGHWAY 82
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602-0248
(97q94s-2233 * FAX (970) 94s-230A
davidd @ do4sonpine.cgm
IVIATERLALS AN D EOU IPMENT
Water Supply and Distibution
Sewage Collection and Disposal
Drainage and S tabilizatior
Lawn, Turfand Ag. Irrigation
.November 10,2015
Ms. Kathy Eastley, Staff Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Departmenr
108 Bth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
keastley @ garfield-county. corn
Dear Ms. Eastly,
As a business leader and property owner in the impacted area, I support the rezoning of parcel
2393-072-A0-031 from Residential-Suburban to Commercial-General because it meets the
requirements established by the County to justify rezoning and, more importantly, the type of
development described in the application would be a great benefit to our community.
There has been considerable residential development throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, but
concurrent and supplementary commercial retail development has not kept pace, leaving these
new residential communities with limited access to retail facilities. Key to the success of modem
residential developments are commercial destinations that are conveniently located in proximity
to the residential and that provide the types of goods and services that residents demand. Existing
commercial uses in the vicinity - such as contractors' offices, CNG sales, and a lumber yard - do
not meet the everyday shopping needs of residents in the Roaring Fork Valley. Rezoning this
property will allow for development of the types of commercial uses that the market demands,
will help create a sense of community, and will make the area more attractive to residents.
Therefore, the rezoning will meet a community need by helping to tie the local community
together around accessible retail and employment opportunities.
Moreover, rezoning the property to cornrnercial fulfills many of the County's goal, such as
reducing cross-county traffic by locating employment and retail opportunities near affordable
housing and diversifying the economic and employment base. Achieving these goals not only
benefits the County, but makes the area more attractive to new residents.
Finally, this property is naturally suited for commercial rather than residential development.
Given its proximity to State Highway 82, excellent visibility, and developable terrain, its highest
and best use is for large format retail. Many adjacent parcels are already zoned comrnercial, and
a number of commercial entities exist in the immediate vicinity. Rezoning this parcel to
commercial would be cornpatible with existing adjacent uses and would fit an existing pattern of
zoning and development. Adjacent and nearby businesses would benefit from the additional
commercial development and residents would have convenient shopping options. This is, in fact,
JAIJ I 2 ?0t6
January B, zo16
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
ro8 8th Street, Suite 4or
Glenwood Springs, CO 816or
Dear Commissioners,
I am raniting as a business owner and Garfield County resident, who is interested in
seeing our community grow and prosper. Therefore, I support the application for
rezoning parcel 2ggg-o72-oo-o3 as submitted by Garfield County Commercial
Investments, LLC. I feel that the application meets the county's requirements for
rezoning, and serves the needs of the local community.
Several adjoining parcels, to the north, east, and southeast are already zoned as
commercial, and the location is, in fact, perfectly suited for commercial, retail
development. It has great visibility and access from State Highway 83, and sees a
significant amount of vehicle traffic. Several existing commercial businesses are
established in the immediate area, though none feature the type of large retail business
that this location will attract, and which would serve the needs of local residents.
I also feel that rezoning this parcel will satisfy the goals and objectives of the County
Comprehensive Plan, among which are attracting newresidents and businesses,
reducing cross-county traftic, and building up the economic base of the county. 7-orung
this parcel as commercial and allowing retail development will make the surrounding
communities more attractive to newcomers, as they will have access to shopping and
other services. Cross-county traffic will be reduced by allowing the building of retail
stores close to the communities ihey will be serving. And bringing in new retail
businesses wi[ bring jobs and new revenue, contributing to the economic growth of the
County as a whole.
Sincerely,
Dave Malehorn
Pro Auto Glenwood Springs
EXHIBlT
I
IAN t 2Zr;rc
November 'J-1.,20L5
Kathy Eastley, Staff Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St., Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
kea stlev(&ga rfie ld-cor-r nty. co m
Dear Ms. Eastly,
I support the rezoning of parcel 2393-072-00-03 from Residential-suburban to Commercial-
general, because it will benefit the county as a whole, and the communities in its vicinity
specifically.
Allowing commercial development on this property will help the county attract the kind of high-
quality retail businesses that will meet the demand generated by a growing population, and
provide jobs and tax revenue. This is one of the only locations available in the county that can
offer high quality retail businesses the visibility, access to and from a major highway, and
proximity to a new and growing residential area that they require to prosper. The property is
nearly ideal for this type of business, and the addition of large-scale retail stores to the area will
provide local residents an access to these type of services that they currently need to travel
great distances for, and will complement the existing commercial development ad.lacent to the
p a rcel.
Bringing in large retail businesses will also have positive tax benefits to the county, as property
taxes wil! generate revenue to help Garfield Cor"rnty rnaintain rcads and bridges, fund public
schools, continue to provide the high standard of police, fire, and emergency medical service
that we are accustomed to.
Local communities will benefit from having retail services within close proximity. As it stands,
residents moving in to the new communities being developed in the Roaring Fork Valley need
to either drive a considerable distance to meet their day-to-day retail needs, or drive into Eagle
or Pitkin Counties. This, of course, denies Garfield County the benefit of their shopping dollars.
Rezoning this property for commercial-general will allow the kind of retail stores that the local
populous demandsto be established within the County, and to serve County residents.
EXHIBIT
\9
Kat
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fred Jarman
Wednesday, January 13,2016 3:47 PM
Kathy A. Eastley
FW: River's Edge
From: terry claassen [mailto:terryclaassen@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13,2076 3:37 PM
To : Fred Ja rma n <fja rm a n @ga rfie ld-co u nty.co m>
Subject: River's Edge
Fred, I am hoping to be at the hearing tonight but if I do not make it we wanted to voice our opposition to the proposed
commercial zoning. The river is under such tremendous pressure in the lower valley and feel a commercial use will add to
the traffic, noise and particulate air pollutions significantly.
Thank you,
Terry and Lara Claassen
650 Lariat Lane
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
303 549 7111 mobile
EXHIBITT
t
ROARING FORK WATER AJ\ID SANITATION DISTRICT'
CARBONDALE JN1IESTMBNTS, LLC, AND
GA RFIELD COUNTY COMMER CIAL IT'{VES TMENTS, LLC
PRE.NCLUSION AGRDEMENT
This Pre-Inclusion Agreement (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the last
date rvritten below (the "Effective Date"), by and betrveen the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District, a Colorado special district ("Districf'), Carbondale Investments, LLC
("CI"), and Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC ("GCCf"), herein referred to as the
"Parties."
, RECITALS-
A. The District is a Colorado special district, organize,J and operating under authority
of C.R.S. S$ 32-1-101 et seq.,and the District's Sen,ice PIan ordered and decreed by the
Garfield County District Court in Case No. 94CV29, as amended by the Sen'ice Plan
Amendment dated December 2000, and approved by the Board of County Commissioners for
Garfield County on May 7,2007, under Resolution No.2001-28 (collectiveiy, t-he "Service
PIan") and the RRVSD Rules and Regulations (the "Rules and Regulations") promulgated
thereunder, for the putpose of providing water and seu'er service in Garfield County, Colorado.
B. CI is the otvne,r and is the developer of that real property located in Garfield
County, Colorado, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by,this reference ("C{ Property") and generally depicted on the map attached as Exhibit
B, which'ieal property CI desires to have included within the District's boundaries in order to
receive water and sevuer service from the District.
C. GQCI is the owner of that real property located in Garfield County, more
particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorlrorated herein by this reference
("GCCI Property") and generally depictt-d on the map attached as Exhibit B, which real
property GCCI desires to have includeil rvithin the District's boundaries in order to receive water
and sewer seryice from the District.
D. The Distric,t has determined that the CI Property ard GCCI Property each
constitute "[r]eal propertj, capable of being served by the facilities of the District . . ." as that
phrase is used in C;R.S, fi 32-1401, for purposes of the inclusion of real property within a
special district.
E. CI has applied to Garfield County, Colorado (tie "County"), for approval of
planned unit development zoning ('?UD") for approximately 366 total dwelling units, together
with approximately 10,000 square feet of community center space, and necessary utility and
maintenance buildings (the "CI Project"). Subsequent to PUD and Preliminary PIan approval,
CI will apply to Garfreld Coun[r, Colorado for approval of final plats for phases of the PUD.
The development contemplated by the CI Project shall not total more than 375 EQRs as defined
in the Rules and Regulations.
4
. F. ,GCCIanticipates in the future developing the CCbI Property lbr residential
and/or commeicial uses (thl "GCCI Projeet") but has no immediate plans for'the development
of the GCCI Property.
G. CI and GCCI desire to receive rvater service from the District for all in-house
residential and commercial development on the CI Property and GCCI Property (collectivelY, the
"Eniire Property"), ,hot to exceed 375 EQRs on each property, together rvith up to seven (7)
acres of incidental in'igation within the Entire Property associated with residential di,vellings,
community areas, commercial areas and other miscellaneous outdoor uses.
H. The P-arties clesire to set forth in this Agreement the circumstances under rvhich
CI and GCCI each may petition for inclusion of its property into the District, and to set forth the
rights and obligations tf the party that is first ready (the "First Developer") to develop and
inilude its property (the "First Property") rvithin the boundaries of the District and the rights
and obligations of the other party (the "second Developer") to include its property (the "Second
Property") rvithin the boundaries of the District. The term "Developer'' is sometimes used in
this Agreement to identify the rights and obligations of both the First Developer and Second
Developer regardless of the order of inclusion of the propcrties within the boundaries of the
District.
I. CI and the District have prosecuted to conclusion the application in Case No.
08CW198 and the amended application in Case No. 07CW164, Water Division No. 5, and have
obtained decrees rvhich both CI and the District have revielved and approved- Upon inclusion of
the First Property (as defined belorv) rvithin the District, CI shall convey to the District the water
rights and plan for augmentation decreed in Cases Nos. 0ICWl87,08CW19E and A7CW164,
and assign that portion of its rights under the Basalt Water Conservancy District contract
necessary to serve the First Property in order to allow the District the legal ability to provide
water serv'ice hereunder.
J. CI and GCCI each desire to receive sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment from
the District upon the terms set forth herein.
K. Requirements and procedures for the inclusion of property into the District are set
forth in C.R.S. $$ 32-l-401 et seq. and the Service Plan. Pursuant to C.R.S . * 32-l-402(lXc),
agreements may be entered into "[b]etween a board and the owners of property sought to be
included in a special disnict with respect to fees, charges, tenns and conditions on which such
property may be included."
L. The District is authorized by C.R.S. S$ 32-1-1001(lxd) and3l-35-402(1X0 to
require reimbursement of its out-of-pocket costs in providing services to the District's custome.rs,
including but not limited to, sewer and water comections, inclusions to the District and planning
and review of line extensions.
M. The District and CI have entered into a letter agfeement dated April 29,2010 (rhe
"Reimbursement Letter"), which Reimbursement ktter has governed the reimbursement by CI
(-
e
of the actual costs incurred by the District relating to the inclusion of the CI Property. In
addition, pursuant to the Reimbursement Letter, CI has replenished in fulI its initial deposit to the
District of Twenty-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) (the "CI Deposit"). The
Parties desire that as of the Effective Date the payment and reimbursement provisions of this
Agreement shall govern in lieu of such provisions in the Reimbursement Letter.
N. Inclusion of the CI Property andlor the GCCI Property within the District and the
provision thereafter of domestic rvater serviee and setver sen ice by the District upon the tems,
conditions and provisions of this Agreement is consistent with and satisfies all requirements
under the Service Pian, including but not limited to all policies relevant to the provision of water
senice to the Regional Sen'ice Area as defined therein and all applicable Rules and Regulations
promulgated by the District thereunder. The District is or rvill be ready, rvilling and able to
provide v'ater and server service when needed to the CI Property and the GCCI Property, on the
terms set forth in this Agreement, and pursuant to its authority, its Service Plan, its Rules and
Regulations, and any other of its policies.
O. The Entire Property rvas subject to that agreement entitled River Bend Colorado
Pre-Inclusion Agreement benveen the District and River Bend Colorado, LLC, recorded at
Reception No.757074 (the "River Bend Agreement"). CI acquired the Entire Property through
foreclosure and subsequently convel'ed to GCCI the GCCI Property. As snch, the River Bend
Agreement was extinguished and is no longer in effect.
P. The District is amenable to addressing in this Agreement the inclusion of both
properties gir.en that the CI Property and GCCI Property both were previously the subject of pre-
inclusion agreements rvith the District, and that extending sen'ice to the Entire Property is
contemplated by the Senice Plan and rvould be beneficial to the District.
AGREENIENT
ARTICLE 1
II{CLUSION OF PROPERTY IYITHIN THE DISTRTCT
1.1 Inclusion rvithin th-e District. CI and GCCI each shall file with the Districr
pursuant to C.R.S. g 32-1-4U a petition to include the entirety of either the CI Property or the
GCCI Property, as applicable, within the boundaries of the District prior to obtaining approval of
the County of a final plat for its property. Upon the District's receipt of a petition for inclusion,
the District shall perform all necessary steps required by law to include the CI Properry or GCCI
Property, as applicable, rvithin the boundaries of the District including, but not limited to, the
holding of public meetings, and, if the petition is granted, obtaining an order of inclusion from
the Garfield County District Court and filing and recording said order with the Garfield County
Clerk and Recorder, lhe Garfield County Assessor and the State of Colorado Division of Local
Government. Said filings shall be complete before the date of the record.ing of said final plat
rvithin the subject property. If despite good faith efforts the District is unable to obtain the order
or orders of inclusion above described or if said order or orders fail in any maierial respect to
comply with the terms, provisions and conditions set forth in this Agreement, then the Parties
t
shall in good faith negotiate to amend this Agreement or otherwise cure any defects that caused
the failure to obtain the inclusion. If the Parties are unable to reach such agreement, then this
Agreement shall terminate; provided, however, that the provisions in the following Paragraph T.2
shall survive such termination.
1.2 Reimbursement of District Co-sts. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, Developer shall reimburse the District for all actual costs incurred by the District
directly reiating to inclusion of its property wittrin the boundaries of the District and the District's
review of plans and specifications for the Facilities required hereunder to be constructed for its
project, including engineering, Iegal, inspection, filing or recording fees and related expenses.
Additionally, CI shall reimburse the District for all actual costs incurred by the District relating
to the District's participation in Cases No. 08CW198 and 07CW764, Water Division No. 5
(collectively, the "District Costs"). Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, CI and
GCCI each shall reimburse the District for all such actual District Costs upon its receipt of
itemized billings for those services from the District. If CI fails to reimburse or provide written
objection to an itemized billing on or before sixty (60) days after the date CI receives a bill
therefor, then the District may draw r-rpon the CI Deposit to cover the subject District Costs. The
District shali keep the CI Deposit in a separate account of its choosing; provided that the District
shall return the CI Deposit, Iess any District Costs orved and outstanding to the District, to CI
upon completion of the First Del,eloper Off-Site Water Facilities and First Developer Off-Site
Sewer Facilities (as such terms are defined below) if CI is the First Developer, or, upon
completion of the Second Developer Off-Site Water Facilities and Second Developer Off-Site
Server Facilities (as such terms are dcfined below) if CI is the Second Developer. As of the
Effective Date, the payment and rcimbursement provisions of this Paragraph 1.2 shall govern
and such provisions of the Reimbursement Letter shall be of no further force and effect. Prior to
submission to the County of any development plan for the GCCI Property, GCCI shall provide
the District rvith a deposit in the amollnt of Trventy-Five Thousand and No/l00 Dollars
($25,000.00) (the "GCCI Deposit"), which GCCI Deposit shall be subject to the provisions of
this Paragraph 1.2 as it pertains to the CI Deposit for reimbursement of the District Costs
associated r.vith the GCCI Property and development plan.
1.3 District Charges. Upon the effective date of its inclusion within the boundaries of
the District, the CI Property and GCCI Property, as applicable, shali be subject to the provisions
of C.R.S' g 32-L4A2, including without limitation all of the taxes and charges imposed by the
District, and parties receiving wate.r and sewer service shall be liable for their proportionate share
of the annual operation and maintenance charges and the cost of the facilities of the District. The
District shali charge any and all service billings or charges, as the same are defined under the
Service PIan and Rules and Regulations, against that portion(s) of the CI Property and GCCI
Property that has been finally platted on a lot-by-lot basis solely on the same terms and
conditions as other property within the District, and as determined by the Rules and Regularions
then in effect, reserving to the District the right to put all or various portions of the CI Pioperty
and GCCI Property into service areas as provided in C.R.S.$ 32-r-1006.
1,4 District Service. The District shall make available and shall agree to serve the CI
Property and GCCI Property upon the effective date of the property's inclusion within the
4
o
o
,l
C
boundaries of the District the requested domestic water and sewer serv'ice, subject to the terms,
provisions and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Service Plan, and the Rules and
Regulations.
ARTICLE 2
1YATER FACILITIES EXTENSION AND TAP FEE PAYI\.IENTS
2.1 First Dgveloper's Construction of Off-Site Water Facilities. Prior to connection
to the District's water facilities the First Developer shall design, fund and construct the following
off-site water facilities (collectively, the "First Developer Off-Site lYater Facilities"), subject
to Paragraph 2.9 with respect to the konbridge Line and Alternative Line (defined beloiv);
2.1.I The Ironbridge Connection through the Teller Springs Subdivision for the
District rvater main (the "fronbridge Line," shown, together rvith the First Developer Off-Site
WaterFacilitiesdescribedinParagraphs2.l.Zthrough 2.L.4,onExhibitD)orsuchalternative
line (the "Alternative Line") as may be determined by the District, in its sole discretion,
provided, however, that the First Developer's obligation shall be limited to a line extension of no
more than 2,6A0 feet of 12 inch diameter and shall not include any requirement to cross the
Roaring Fork River;
2.1.2 The State Highrvay 82 u,ater transmission line;
2.I.3 The County Road 109 water transrnission line (the "CR 109 Line");
2.1 .4 Subject to Paragraphs 2.1.4(a) through (c) below, a 400,000 gallon buried
concrete water storage tank (the "}l'ater Storage Tank") to be sited on property for which CI
holds an easement (the "Tank Site") described, together with its associated access easements,
and generally depicted on rhe attached Exhibit E; and
(a) If GCCI is the First Developer, cI shall assign its rights in rhe
Tank Site and access easements to GCCI so that GCCI may consfruct the ivut"r Siorage Tank.
(b) upon completion of the water storage Tank, the First Developer
shall assign its rights in the Tank Site and access easement to the District so that the Disfrict may
operate, maintain, repair and replace the Water Storage Tank. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
any excess capacity in the Water Storage Tank shall be reserv'ed for the Second property andrights to access and construct a second 400,000 gallon buried concrete water storage tank (the
"Second Water Storage Tank") on the Tantrr Site, shall be resened to the Second Developer.
(c) Final design for the water Storage Tank (the ',pinal plan for theFirst Tank") shall be subject to the District's prior approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or withheld. The Final Plan for thi First Tank shall
demonstrate that the Tank Site is of sufficient size to accommodate the Water Storage Tank andthe Second lVater Storage Tank.
L
o2.1.5 Only if GCCI is the First Developer, the First Developer Off-Site Water
Facilities shall include the water distribution Iine through the CI Property as shown on Exhibit F
that is necessary to connect the GCCI Property to the other First Developer Off-Site Water
Facilities.
Facilities. T'he Second
Developer st utt, p.lor to "*r".tio, to the District's rvater facilities, design, fund and constrllct
the following off-stte warer facilities (collectively, the "seeond Developer Off'Site lVater
Facilities"):
Z.Z.I Subje6 ro Paragraphs 2.2.1(a) through (c) belorv, the Second Water
Storage Tank to be sited on the Tank Site; and
(a) The Second Developer indemnifies and holds the District harmless
from any and all damages,liens, claims, and liabilities rvhich are incurred by the District and
which arise out of the Jxercise by the Second Developer of its rights set forth in this SecLion 2.2,
except to the extent such damages, liens, claims, or liabilities arise out of the negligent or
intentional act or omission of the District'
(b) Final design for the Second Water Storage Tank shall be subject to
the District s approval, rvhich approval shall not be unreasonably delayed, conditioned, or
rvithheld.
(c) Upon completion of the Second Water Storage Taak, the Second
Developer shall assign its rights in the Tank Site and access easements to the District so that the
District may operate, maintain, repair and replace the Second Water Storage Tank.
2.2.2 A surface rvater treatment plant to be designed and constructed by the
District at the Second Developer's expense or a similar alternative source of supply of equivalent
cost (either, an "Alternative Supply") necessary to accommodate the 375 EQRs of the Second
Property. At the time of development of the Second Property, the Second Developer shall fund
the engineering, planning, permitting, design, andJor construction of the Altcrnative Supply to be
constructed and operationJ prior to connection. The District shall determine at the time of I't
Final Plat for the Second Property the extent and configuration of the Alternative Supply and the
appropriate funding mechanism to be imposed on the Second Developer to secure the same.
Developer shall not be required to fund the design or construction of any water facilities that are
not required to seryice the Second Property, provided however, that this provision shall not
prohibit the District from requiring the Developer to oversize certain facilities and for which
Developer may seek reimbursement from outside parties pursuant to Article 6.
2.3 On-Site Water Facilities. The First Developer and Second Developer shall, prior
to connection of its property to the District's water facilities, design, fund and construct, all water
distribution mains, lines and service connections within the boundaries of its property necessary
to provide domestic water service and fire protection to residential lots and to other lots or tracts
proposed for habitable buildings as part of the development of its property (for each property, the
o
(,"On-Site lYater Facilities"). The On-Site \Vater Facilities required for the CI Property are
generally depicted on the attached Exhibit G. The general design and location of the On-Site
Water Facilities for the GCCI Property shall be determined at the time GCCI submits to the
County a preliminary subdivision plan for development of the GCCI Property. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Agreernent, Developer shall not be required to design,
fund, construct, or provide security for On-Site Water Facilities necessary to sen ice a phase of
its project unless and until such phase receives final plat approval; provided hou'ever, that this
provision shall not prohibit the District from requiring the Developer to oversize certain facilities
and for rvhich Developer may seek reimbursement from outsids parties pursuant to Article 6.
2.4 Permits. AIl required permits for the First Der-eloper Off-Site Water Facilities
and the On-Site \Yater Facilities for the First Property shall be secured by the First Developer, at
the First Developer's cost, except that location and extenl approval by Garfield County pursuant
to C.R.S. S 30-28-110 (the "Location and Extent Approval") shall be secured by the District, at
the First Developer's cost; provided, however, that required permits for the konbridge Line or
the Alternative Line, as applicable, including the Location and Extent Approval, shall be secured
by the District, at the District's cost subject to Paragraph2.9, belorv. AII required permits for the
Second Developer Off-Site Water Facilities and the On-Site Water Facilities for the Second
Property shall be secured by the Second Developer, at the Second Developer's cost, except that
the Location and Extent Approval, if any, shall be secured by the District, at the Second
Developer's cost. The District shall cooperate in good faith rvith Developer in obtaining all
permits and approvals required for the First Developer Off-Site Water Facilities, the Second
Developer Off-Site lYater Facilities, and the On-Site \Vater Facilities (coilectively, the "lYater
Facilities"), which cooperation shall include, without limitation, signing or co-signing
applications for permits or other approvals as the owner of the propeily within which the \Yater
Facilities vnill be located or as the future transferee of such Water Facilities.
2.5 Required Rights-of-Wav. The First Developer and the Second Developer each
shall use good faith and commercially reasonable efforts to ohtain, at its cost, all required rights-
of-way or easements for the First Developer Off-Site Water Facilities and Second Developer
Off-Site Water Facilities, as applicable, where located outside existing rights-of-way and
easements, propefty owned by the subject Developer, and property owned by the District;
provided, ho$'ever, that in the event Developer in its reasonable discretion determines that it is
unable to acquire easements from a public entity, the District shall exercise its powers to request
use of easements and rights-of-way held by other public entities. In addition, a Developer shall
secure or transfer to the District required easements across the property of the other Deveioper.
Except with regard to required easements across the property of the other Developer, in the event
a Developer camot acquire any easement or righrof-way from a private party necessary for
construction of any First Developer Off-Site Water Facility or Second Developer Off-Site Water
Facility, the District may, in its sole discretion, acquire the easement or right-of-way through its
powers of eminent domain, at Developer's cost, in a timely manner so as to allow for
construction of the First Developer Off-Site Water Facilities and Second Developer Off-Site
Water Facilities, as applicable, by Developer in conjunction with its development.
Notwiihstanding the foregoing. existing easements and rights-of-i.vay shall be utilized rvherever
practicable. Additionally, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Districr shall be responsible for
1I
t
obtaining, at its cost, all required rights-of-u,ay or easements for the Ironbridge Line or the
Alternative Line, as applicable, subject to Paragraph2.9, below. The District hereby
acknowledges that it his all rights-of-rvay and/or easements required for the construction of the
CR 109 Line between the "Proposed Point of Connection" and the western edge of the "River
Crossing" as shorvn on Exhibit D and that the F-irst Developer shall have no obligation to obtain
any rights-of-way or easements for that portion of the CR 109 Line.
2^6 Securit:y for Water Facilities. Subject to Paragraph 5.3, Developer shall deliver to
the District, on or before the date of recording the first final plat for its property that contains a
lot or tract. that requires central rvater or central sewer service (each a "1't Final Plat"), in its
discretion, security in the form of a letter of credit or a cash escrow to ensure completion of the
First Developer Off-Site Water Facilities or the Second Developer Off-Site Water Facilities, as
applicable, and those certain On-Site lVater Facilities necessary to service the residential lots and
other lots and tracts proposed for habitable buildings on the 1't Final PIat for its property. On or
before the date of recording each final plat that is approved for a phase of development
subsequent to the 1" Final Plat for its property, Developer shall, in its discretion, provide to the
Distriit security in the form of a letter of credit or a cash escrow to ensure the completion of the
On-Site Water Facilities necessary to service the property included within such final plat'
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Developer shall not be
required to provide security for or to construct On-Site Water Facilities nccessary to service a
phase of development of its property unless and until such phase receives final plat approval-
Upon completion of the Water Facilities for a given phase (or sub-phase), the District shall
promptly notlfy the County of the same to ensure the County's prompt release of residential
building permits.
2] Partial Waiver of Tap Fees. In exchange for construction of the Water Facilities
applicable to its project, Developer shall be deemed to have paid the District's water tap fees for
development within its property. Provided, however, that within thirty (30) days after approval
of each final plat for a phase of developrnent within its property, Developer shall pay to the
District a fee equal to five percent (5Vo) of the District's then current water tap fee for each urnit
approved in each such iinal plat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall not be required
to puy tap fees for units within a phase of its project unless and until such phase receives final
plat approval.
2.8 Obligation to Provide Facilities. Construction by the First Developer of the First
Developer Off-Site Water Facilities and the On-Site Water Facilities required for the First
Property shali satisfy in furll the First Developer's obligation to provide facilities for potable
water for 375 EQRs of water demand and the First Developer shall have no further obligation to
participate in funding, designing, andlor constructing other sources of water supply, including
without limitation a surface water treatment plant, Construction by the Second Developer of the
Second Developer Off-Site Water Facilities and the On-Site Water Facilities required for the
Second Property shall satisfy in full the Second Developer's obligation to provide facilities for
potable water for 375 EQRs of water demand and the Second Developer shall have no further
obligation to participate in funding, designin g, and/or conslructing other sources of water supply.
r-\
e
il
{
C
2.9 Costs and Completion of the konbridge Line or Alternative Line
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Paragraphs2.4 and2.5, the costs incurred
by the District in (i) acqgiring the rights-of-way and easements required for the construction and
maintenance of and access to the Ironbridge Line or the Alternative Line, as applicable, and (ii)
obtaining permits for the construction of the konbridge Line or the Alternative Line, as
applicable, shall not exceed trvo-hundred thousand dollars (S200,000.00) (either, the
"fronbridge Cost Cap"); provided, holvever, that attorneys' and consultants'costs and fees and
appraisal costs and fees shall not be included in the calculation of the Ironbridge Cost Cap. Any
costs for acquiring the rights-ofuvay and easements for the Ironbridge Line or the Alternative
Liae, as applicable, and for obtaining permits for the construction of the Ironbridge Line or the
Alternative Line, as applicable, in excess of the konbridge Cost Cap shall be borne by First
Developer. In addition, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement,
the First Developer shall not be required to complete construction of the Ironbridge Line or the
Alternative Line, as applicable, prior to or as a precondition for connection to the District's rvater
facilities so long as the First Developer has provided to the District security for the konbridge
Line or the Alternative Line, as applicable, in accordance u,ith Paragraph 2.6 and is proceeding
diligently torvard completing construction of the same.
ARTICLE 3
WATER RIGHTS AND PERNIITS
3-1 Water Rights Appiications. CI and the District have prosecuted to conclusion the
application in Case No. 08CW198 and the amended application in Case No. 07CW164, Water
Division No. 5, and have obtained decrees rvhich both CI and the District have reviewed and
approved.
3.2 Water Rights Dedication. \Yithin thirty (30) days after the date of the entry of the
order of inclusion including the First Property within the District as provided in Paragraph i.1,
CI and GCCI shall convey to the District by quitclaim deed and appropriate assignment, the
water rights and plan for augmentation decreed in Cases No. 01CW187, 08CW198 and
07CW164, and that portion of CI's interest in the Basalt Water Conservancy District Water
Allotment Contract No. 381b ("Basalt Contract") necessary to serve the First Property. The
District shall have no obligation to provide water service to the First Property until CI has made
such conveyance and assignment. Upon such conveyance and assignment, the First Property and
Second Property each shali have credit for up ta 375 EQRs of rvater service from the District
without the need for any further water rights dedication. Upon conveyance of additional portions
of the Basalt Contract, CI and GCCI shali collectively be entitled to additional rvater supply
credits up to a total of 1,200 EQRs for rhe Entire Property. From and after the date of such
conveyance and assignment, the District shall be responsible for all actions necessary to maintain
such rvater rights and its portion of the Basalt Contract, including rvithout limitation filing
applications for findings of reasonable diligence and maintaining its portion of the Basalt
Contract in full force and effect. CI and GCCI agree to cooperate with the District, and to
participate as co-applicants, and at their own cost, in fufure water court proceedings requesting
findings of reasonable diligence or to matrie conditional lvater rights absolute for those water
rights decreed in Cases No. 01CW187, 08CW198 or 07CW164. The District shall not amend or
9
{t
change the rvater rights subject to the decree in Cases No. 01CW187,08CW198 or 07CWi64 so
as to reduce or diminish the amount or timing of water service to the CI Property and GCCI
Properiy.
3.3 District Well Permits. The Distr-ict shall immediately corrlmence and in good
faith timely prosecute efforts to assure that the well permits for the Coryell and Aspen Glen
\Yells, owned and operated by the District, are adequate to allow for water service to be provided
from such wells to and rvithin the Entire Property.
ARTICLE 4
SANITARY SE1YER AND }I'ASTEIVATER TREATNIENT FACILITIES
4.1 Construction of Off-Site Sewer Facilities by First Developer. The First Developer
shall, prior to connection to the District's sanitary sewer facilities, design, fund and construct the
follorving off-site sanitary sewer facilities (collectively, the "First Developer Off-Site Sewer
Facilities"):
4.1.1 The sewer main shown on the attached Exhibit H;
4.I.2 The lift stations shou,n on Exhibit H; provided, horvever, that the First
Developer shall be obligated to design, fund, and construct the "Optional Major Lift Station"
depicted on Exhibit H if it is cletermined by the District's engineer at the time of the I't Final Plat i I
for the First Property that, based on the anticipated development plans for the First Property and \
Second Property, the Optional Major Lift Station is necessary to maximize the efficiency, cost
effectiveness, and maintainability of the sanitary server system, specifically including, rvithout
Iimitation, the sewer main crossing across Cattle Creek; and
4.1.3 Only if GCCI is the First Developer, the server facilities on, over, under,
and/or through the CI Property as shown on Exhibit I that are necessary to connect the GCCI
Property to the other First Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities.
4.2 Construction of Off-Site Sewer Facilities by Second Developqr. The Second
Developer shall, prior to connection to the District's sanitary setver facilities, design, fund, and
construct enhancements to the existing lift station(s) and ancillary facilities necessary to provide
sewer service to the Second Property. Notrvithstanding the foregoing, the District shall not
require the Second Developer to fund, design, or construct sewer facilities that are not required
for the development of the Second Properlyi provided horvever, that this provision shall not
prohibit the District from requiring the Developer to oversize certain facilities and for rvhich
Developer may seek reimbursement from outside parties pursuant to Article 6.
4.3 On-Site Sewer Facilities. The First Developer and Second Developer shall, prior
to connection of its property to the District's sewer facilities, design, fund, and construct, all
sewer mains, lines, lift stations, and appurtenant facilities necessary to provide selver service to
any residential lot and to other lots or tracts proposed for habitable buildings as part of the
development of its property (for each property, the "On-Site Sewer Facilities"). The On-Site :
10
e
I
q*_
L
Server Facilities required for the CI Property are generally depicted on the attached Exhibit J.
The general design and location of the On-Site Seu,er Facilities for the GCCI Property shall be
determined at the time GCCI submits to the County a preliminary subdivision plan for
development of the GCCI Property. Notrvithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Agreement, Developer shall not be required to design, fund, or construct, or provide security for
Ori-Site Sewer Facilities necessary to sen ice a phase of its project unless and until such phase
receives final plat approval.
4.4 Permits. All required permits for the First Developer Off-Site Seu,er Facilities
and the On-Site Sewer Facilities for the First Property shall be secured by the First Developer, at
the First Developer's cs-st, except that Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
("CDPHE") site application approvals required for the lift station(s) and Location and Extent
Approval, shall be secured by the District, at the First Developer's cost. All required permits for
the Second Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities and the On-Site Sewer Facilities for the Second
Property shall be secured by the Second Developer, at the Second Developer's cost, except that
CDPHE site applications, if any, and Location and Extent Approval, if any, shall be secured by
the District, at the Second Developer's cost. The District shall cooperate in good faith with
Developer in obtaining all permits and approvals required for the First Developer Off-Site Seiyer
Facilities, the Second Det eloper Off-Site Server Facilities, and the On-Site Sewer Facilities
(collectively, the "Sewer Facilities"), rvhich cooperation shall include, rvithout Iimitation,
signing or co-signing applications for permits or other approvals as the orvner of the property
rvithin rvhich the Server Facilities rvill be located or as the furure transferee of such Server
Facilities.
4.5 Required Riehts-of-Way. The First Developer and the Second Developer each
shall use good faith and commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, at its costs, all required
rights-of-rvay or easements for the First Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities and Second
Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities, as applicable, where locate<l outside existing rights-of-way
and easements, property owned by the subject Developer, and property owned by the District;
provided, however, that in the event Developer in its reasonable discretion de.termines that it is
unable to acquire easements from a public entity, the District shall exercise its powers to request
use of easements and rights-of-rvay held by other public entities. In addition, a Developer shall
secure or transfer to the District required easements across the property of the other Developer.
Except w,ith regard to required easements across the property of the other Developer, in the event
a Developer cantrot acquire any easement or right-of-rvay, from a private party necessary for
construction of any First Developer Off-Site Sern'er Facility or Second Developer Off-Site Sewer
Facility the District may, in its sole discretion, acquire the easement or right-of-way through its
porvers of eminent domain, at Developer's cost, in a timely manner so as to allow for
construction of the First Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities and Second Deveioper Off-Site
Server Facilities, as applicable, by Developer in conjunction rvith its development.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing easements and rights-of-way shall be utilized wherever
practicable.
4.6 Security for Sewer Facilities. Subject to Paragraph 5.3, Developer shall deliver to
the District, on or before the date of recording the 1" Final PIat for its property, in its discretion,
11
security in the form of a letter of credit or a cash escrow to ensure completion of the First
Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities or the Second Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities, as
applicable, and those certain On-Site Sewer Facilities necessary to sefvice the residential lots and
other lots and tracts proposed for habitable buildings on the 1't Final PIat for its property. On or
before the date of recording each finai plat that is approved for a phase of development
subsequent to the 1't Final Plat for its property, Developer shall, in its discretion, provide to the
District security in the form of a letter of credit or a cash escrolv to ensure the completion of the
On-Site Se,"ver Facilities necessa-ry to service the property included within such final plat'
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Developer shall not be
required to provide security for or to construct On-Site Sewer Facilities necessary to service a
phise of deielopment of its property unless and until such phase receives final plat approval'
Upo, completion of the Sewer Facilities for a given phase (or sub-phase), the District shall
piomptly notify the County of the same to ensure the Counfy's prompt release of residential
building permits.
4.1 lYastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Subject to the requirements of this .
Paragraph 4.7, (1) the First Property shall be entitled to receive wastewater treatment service
from the District's wastewater treatment plant for up to 375 EQRs and (ii) the District shall be
responsible, at CI's and./or GCCI's cost, for engineering, planning, permitting, and constructing
an expansion of the District's wastcwater treatment plant at the location shown on Exhibit H to a
capacity necessary to accommodate the development of the First Property (the "W\YTP
Expansion").
4.7 .l The District shall corlmence preparation of the engineering, planning, and
design processes reqr-rired for the WWTP Expansion (the "Expansion Plans"), which preparation
the Parties acknowledge will take approximately one (l) year to complete, Lrpon the eariier of:
(a) The District's receipt of written notice from CI to commence
development of the Expansion Plans; provided, however, that CI shall provide the District with
such notice within a reasonable time from CI obtaining approvals from the County of the PUD
and Preliminary Plan, but prior to CI fiiing a petition for inclusion of the CI Properry rvithin the
District; or
(b) GCCI obtaining approval of a planned unit development plan and
preliminary plan for the GCCI Property.
4.7.2 For purposes of this Section 4.7 .2, CI shall be deemed the Developer in
the event commencement of the Expansion Plans is triggered by Section 4.1 .1(a), and GCCI
shall be deemed the Developer in the event commencement of the Expansion Plans is triggered
by Section 4.7. 1(b). Developer shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the District in
preparing the Expansion Plans. The District shall provide Developer with written monthly status
i.ports regarding the District's progress in preparing such plans; provided, however, that prior to
commencing work on the Expansion Plans, the District shall obtain Developer's written
approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably rvithheld, of the District's budget for
pieparing the Expansion Plans (the "Design Budget"). The WWTP Expansion shall be designed
(-l
o
t2
and constructed consistent with and shall not require improvements or facilities in excess of
those which are described in Exhibit K unless otherrvise approved by Developer. As part of
ptepaing the Expansion P1ans, the District shall also secule all required permits for the 1VWTP
Expansion, including, rvithout limitation, CDPHE site application approvals and Location and
Extent Approval at Developer's cost. The District shall obtain Developer's written approval of
the Expansion Plans, which approval shall not be unreasonably rvithheld. Provided that
Developer has approved the Design Budget and the District complies rvith the saJne, Developer
shall reimburse the District for the actual costs it incurs in preparing the Expansion Plans on or
before sixty (60) days after the date Developer receives a bill therefor. In the event Developer,
as defined under this Section 4.7.2, is not the First Developer, Developer may recover its costs
from First Developer for the preparation of the Expansion Plans. On or before thirty (30) days of
the date Developer approved the Expansion Plans, the District shall prepare for Deyeloper's
approval; rvhich approval shall not be unreasonably u'ithheld, the estimated cost.s and expenses
required to construct the WWTP Expansion in accordance rvith the Expansion Plans (the
"IrylYTP Erpansion Cost Estimate").
4.7 .3 On or before the date of the recording of the First Developer's l" Final
Plat, First Developer shall deposit rvith an escrow agent (the "Escrorr Agent") funds in an
amount equal to one-hundred and ten percent (lLOTa) of the \\I\rTP Expansion Cost Estimate, to
secure construction of the \llVTP Expansion (as may be modified pursuant to Paragraph4.7.6,
the "IYIYTP Escron'ed Funds"). Any interest earned on the \\a\rTP Escrowed Funds shall be
part of the same. First Developer and the District shall mutually and reasonably agree on the
Escrow Agent and the terms of the escrorv agreement. The escrow agreement shall provide,
among other things, that: (i) the District shall have the right, rvithout obtaining First Developer's
prior approval, to drarv down on the W\YTP Escrorved Funds up to the amount of the WWTP
Construction Budget (defined belorv); (ii) ttre District shall provide First Developer s,ith a
quarterly accounting of the District's costs and expenses related to the \11I,'TP Expansion; and
(iii) upon the District's completion of the W\VTP Expansion, any remaiain_s WWTP Escrowed
Funds shall promptly be released to the Filst Developer.
+.7.4 Promptly following the First Developer's Deposit of the WaYTP Escrowed
Funds *'ith the Escrorv Agent, the District shall seek fixed price bids for the construction of the
$\lrTP Expansion in accordance rvith Colorado larv. If the bids received exceed the WWTP
Expansion Cost Estimate, the District shall not accept the lowest qualified bid wirhout the prior
uritten consent of the First Developer, and the District shall at the request of the First Developer
reject all bids and re-bid the project; provided, ho\r,ever, that the District shall only be required to
re-bid the project trvo (2) times after the initial bidding process. If the bids received by the
District exceed the WWTP Expansion Cost Estimate after the third time the District has
requested bids, then the lorvest qualified bid may be accepted and the District shall not be
required to re-bid the project. The amount of the accepted bid is referred to herein as the
"M4''IP Construction Budget. "
' 4.7 ,5 On or before tifteen ( 15) days of First l)eveloper's receipt of written notice
that a bid for the \VI&TP Expansion has been accepted by the District, the amount of the \IIMTP
Escrowed Funds deposited by the First f)eveloper with the Escrow Agenr shall be increased or
13
(-
t
t
decreased, as applicable, 1o an amount equal to one-hundred and ten percent (|[OVo) of the
WWTP Construction Budget.
4.7.6 The District shall complete construction of the WWTP Expansion rvith
commercially reasonable diligence but not later than eighteen (18) months after the Distriet
accepts the bid for W1VTP Expansion. In the event the District fails to complete construction of
the W"WTP Expansion by such date, to the extent there exists capacity in the waste,'vater
treatment plant, the District shall provide sen ice to the First Property from the rvastervater
treatment plant's existing capacity until such time that the \WVTP Expansion is completed,
4.7.7 To facilitate completion of the W1VTP Expansion in accordance with the
Expansion Plans, the District may propose reasonable change orders to the First Developer for
review and approval. Within ten (1O) days, or such lesser period as may be required under the
circumstances, of receiving notice and a copy of the proposed change order(s), the First
Developer shall either approve the same or propose an alternative(s), rvhich alternative shall not
result in additional cost or unrcasonable delay. A failure of the First Developer to respond
rvithin said ten (10) day period shall be deemed to constitute an approval of any requested
change order. AII approved change orders, including any change order deemed approved, shall
be incolporated into and become part of the Expansion Plans.
4.7 .8 A "Cost Oyerrun" shall be any cost in excess of the cost identified in the
WWTP Construction Budget as reflected in an approved change order. If the District incurs a
Cost Ovemrn, the District shall immediately provide,uvritten notice to the First Developer of the
nature and extent of said Cost Overrun. The First Developer shall have five (5) business days
after receipt of such notice to provide a rvritten objection to the Cost Ovemrn claimed, and
actually incun'ed, by the District. If no objection is provided within this time period, the First
Developer shall be deemed to have accepted such Cost Overun. If the First Developer provides
to the Disirict written notice of its objection to a Cost Ovemrn rvithin said five-day period, the
District shall, within five (5) business days of its receipt of the sarne, establish a date, time and
location for a joint meeting of the District and First Developer for the purpose of determining the
allocation of the subject Cost Ovemrn among the District and First Developer. Thereafter, the
District may draw down from the WWTP Escrorved Funds the amount of the Cost Ovemrn
allocated to the First Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the First Developer shall be
responsible for any Cost Ovem,rn incurred by the District as a result of a strike or labor dispute or
a natural condition rvhich was not reasonably anticipated in the Design Budget or the WWTP
Construction Budget, as applicable, and the District shall be responsible for any Cost Overrun
resulting from Cost Ovemrns not approved by Developer or the District's lack of oversight,
negligence or fraud.
4.7.9 The Parties acknoivledge and agree that CI's and/or GCCI's obligation to
fund the engineering, planning, permitting, design, and/or construction of the WWTP Expansion
shall be limited [o accommodating only the expansion necessary to meet the anticipated demand
of the First Property. At the time of development of the Second Property, the Second Developer
shall fund the engineering, planning, permitting, design, and/or construction of an additional
expansion to the District's wastewater treatment plant to be designed and constructed by the
14
C
(
t
t
District. The District shall determine at the time of l" Final Plat for the Second Property the
extent and configuration of the required expansion and the appropriate funding mechanism to be
imposed on the Second Developer to secure the same. Notwithstanding the foregoin g, any
funding obligation imposed on the Second Developer shall be limited to the cost of increasing
the capacity of the rvastervater treatment plant to meet the anticipated demand of the
development proposed for the Second Property.
4.8 Partial Waiver of Tap.Fees. In exchange for construction of the Sewer Facilities
applicable to its project, Developer shall be deemed to have paid the District's sewer tap fees for
development rvithin its property. Provided, however, that rvithin thirty (30) days after approval
of each final plat for a phase of development r.'ithin its property, Developer shall pay to the
District a fee equal to five percent (5Vo) of the District's then current seu,er tap fee for each unit
approved in €ach such final plat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall not be required
to pay sewer tap fees for units within a phase of its project unless and until such phase receives
final plat approval,
ARTICLE 5
CONNECTIOI.'{ TO DISTRICT FACILITIES
5.1 Prgcedure for Connection to District F.acilities. At any time subsequent to the
date of inclusion of its property rvithin the District, Developer may, upon notice to the District
and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, connect to the District's rvater and
sanitary selver systems for service to its property.
5.2 Plans and Specifications. The water facilities and sewer facilities described in
Article 2 and Article 4, above, (collectiveiy, the "Facilities") shall be located, constructed and
installed in accordance with this Agreement and in conformance with the Rules and Regulations
in effect at the time of said location, construction and installation. Prior to submission to the
County of the 1't Final Plat for its property, Developer shall provide the District's en,gineer (the
"District Engineer") rvith its plans and specifications for Facilities required to be designed,
funded, and constructed for the first phase of its project. Prior to submission to the County of a
final plat for a phase of its project after the I't Final PIat, Developer shall provide the District
Engineer with its plans and specifications for the On-Site Water Facilities and On-Site Sewer
Facilities necessary to service the property included rvithin such final plat. The District Engineer
shall provide Developer rvith its written approval or disapproval of the plans and specifications
submitted to it by Developer, rvhich approval shall not be unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or
withheld, *,ithin thirty (30) days of its receipt of the same. In the event the District Engineer
disapproves of such plans and specifications, the District Engineer shall by written notice to
Developer specifically describe the reasons for disapproval and the changes necessary to make
the plans and specifications acceptable to the District. On or before ten (10) days of receipt from
Developer of revised plans and specifications lvhich attempt to address the District Engineer's
reasons for disapproval, the District Engineer shall provide Developer with its written approval
or disapproval of such revised plans and specifications. In the event the District Engineer
disapproves such revised plans and specifications, the District Engireer shall by wriften notice ro
Developer specifically describe the reasons for disapproval and the changes necessary to make
15
the plans and specifications acceptable to the District. This process shall be repeated until the
District Engineer approves the plans and specifications; provided, however, that in the event the
District Engineer and Developer are unable to reach agreement on the plans and specifications,
Developer shall have the right to seek approval of its plans and specifications from the District
Board of Directors. In the event Developer and the District Board of Directors are unable to
reach agreement on the plans and specifications, then the District and Developer shall utilize the
dispute resolution procedure set forth in Article 9. Upon approval or resolution of Developer's
plans and specifications, the District.and Developer shall execute in duplicate a document clearly
specifying the same to provide both Developer ar-rd the District certainty as to the agreed-upon
plans and specifications (the 'Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications").
5.3 LOC or Cash Escrow for Water Facilities and Sewer Facilities. This Paragraph
5.3 establishes the requirements and procedure for the security required by Paragraphs 2.6 and
4.6; this Paragraph 5.3 shall not apply to the First Developer's or Second Developer's obligations
for the WWTP Expansion or to the Second Deve oper's obligations for the Alternative Supply.
5.3.1 Developer shall provide the District rvith a construction cost estimate for
all costs and expenses associated with the constnrction of the Facilities required to be constructed
by Developer for a given phase of its project (each a "Cost Estimate"). The Cost Estimate shall
be approved by the District Engineer in accoldance with the timing requirements and procedures
set forrh in Paragraph 5.2 for the approval of Developer's plans and specifications.
5.3.2 In order to onsure completion of the applicable Facilities, Developer shall,
in its discretion, either: (i) provide the District with a letter of credit ("LOC") in ar amount
equal to one-hundred and ten percent (llOVo) of the Cost Estimate, or (ii) subject to Developer's
and the District's mutual reasonable approval of an escrow agreement, deposit with the Escrow
Agent funds ("Facilities Escrowed Funds") in an amount equal to one-hundred and ten percent
(1lUVo) of the Cost Estimate.
(a) LOC. If Developer provides an LOC, Developer may, each time it
submits a Certification of Completion (as defined below) to the District, request in rvriting from
the District the partial release of the LOC attributable to the Facilities that are the subject of the
Certification of Completion. The District may thereafter inspect the subject Facilities to
determine whether the same are complete and comply with the Agreed-Upon Plans and
Specifications; provided, however, that within thirty (30) days of the District's re.ceipt of the
written request for partial release, the District shall either approve the request or deny the request
with written detail as to any aspect of the subject Facilities that the District reasonably
determines does not comply with the Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications. A failure of the
District to respond within said thirty (30) day period shall be deemed to constitute an approval of
Developer's request. Subject to Article 9, this process shall be repeated until the District is
satisfied, in its reasonable discretion, that the subject Facilities comply with the Agreed-Upon
Plans and Specifications. Upon the District's approval of a request for partial release, the District
shall, within five (5) days thereof, release to Developer the amount of security posted for the
subject Facilities. Upon the District's receipt of Certifications of Completion for and acceptance
("
t)
i6
of all the Facilities required as part of a finally platted phase of the subject project, the LOC shall
be released to DeveloPer.
(b) Facilities Escrowed Funds. If Developer deposits Facilities
Escrorved Funds with the Escrorv Agent, the Facilities Escrorved Funds shall be held in a
separate accolrnt in the name of the Escrorv Agent, for the benefit of Developer and the District'
Any interest earned on the Facilities Escrorved Funds shall be pa-rt of the same- Developer and
the District agree to require the Escrorv Agent to disburse the Facilities Escrowed Funds in
accordance with the terms set forth in this Agreement. The Facilities Escroled Funds shall be
made a,ailable to Developer to pay for the construction of the Facilities after submission to the
Escrow Agent, rvith simuit*.our copies to the District, of invoices for $'ork performed and
materials Jupplied ("Facilities Draw Request"). Prior to the release of such funds, the District
may inspecithe g,ork performed as identified in the subject invoices to determine rvhether such
*oik "o-plies
with the Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications; provided, however, that within
thirty (3gidays of the Disrrict's receipt of the Facilities Draw Request, the District shall either
uppior:" the request or deny the lequest rvith rvritten detail as to any aspect of the subject rvork
that the District reasonably determines does not comply rvith the Agreed-Upon Pians and
Specifications. A failure of the District to respond rvithin said thirty (3O) day period shall be
deemed to constitute an approval of Developer's request. Subject to Article 9, this process shall
be repeated until the District is satisfied, in its reasonable discretion, that the subject r.vort
"o*pli"r rvith the Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications. The Escrow Agent shall be required
to diiburse to Developer the amount set forth in a Facilities Drarv Request no later than three (3)
business days following Escrorv Agent's receipt of the District's w'ritten approval thereof. Upon
completion of construction of ail the Facilities required for a given phase of the subject project,
the Escrow Agent shall be required to disburse any remaining Facilities Escrorved Funds to
Developer-
(c) District Cure Rights. Under either alternaiive (a) or (b) described
in this Paragraph 5.3.2, if Developer fails to perform any obligation or condition to be performed
by Developer under this Agreement with regard to the Facilities for which an LOC or Facilities
Escrorved Funds has been provided, and such default remains uncured for more than forty-five
(45) days after Developer's receipt of rvritten notice thereof from tle District, the District may
cure the default and draw on the LOC or Facilities Escrowed Funds to pay the costs incun-ed in
connection therewith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the steps needed to cure a default are
such that the same cannot be reasonably completed ivithin said forty-five (45) day period, then
Developer shall undertake such cure within said forty-five (45) day period and shall diligently
prosecute the same to completion; if Developer fails, in the District's reasonable discretion, to
diligently prosecute such cure, the District may cure the default and draw on the LOC or
Facilities Escrowed Funds to pay the costs incurred in connection therewith.
5.4 Change Orders. To facilitate completion of the Facilities in accordance rvith the
Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications, the Rules and Regulations, and good engineering
practice, Developer, its contractors and agents, may propose reasonable change orders to the
Disirict for review and approval. Within ten (10) days, or such lesser period as may be required
under *1e gilsnm5tances, of receiving nolice and a copy of the proposed change order(s), the
I7
District shall either approve the same or propose an alternative(s), which alternative shall not
result in additional cost or unreasonable delay. A failure of the District to respond rvithin said
ten (10) day period shall be deemed to constitute an approval of any requested change order. All
approved change orders, including any change order deemed approved, shall be incorporated into
and become part of the Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications.
5.5 Inspections and Certification of Completion, The District shall have the right to
inspect the Facilities at reasonable times prior to the completion of construction and prior to
dedication of such Facilities to the District to ensure compliance with the Agreed-Upon Plans
and Specifications. Developer shall reimbrrrse the District for the reasonable actual costs of such
inspections pursuant to the District's Rules and Regulations. Upon completion of either, a
distinct Facility or an appropriate phase of Facilities, which may mean something less than all
Facilities required within a finally platted phase, Developer shall provide "as built" plans to tlle
District and certify to the District that Developer has completed construction of the applicable
Facilities in accordance with the Agreed-Upon Plans and Specifications ("Certification of
Completion"). The "as built" plans shall be reviewed and approved by the District Engineer,
which approval may not be unreasonably delayed, conditioned, or rvithheld. The as-built plans
shall be prepared in accordance rvith the follorving general requirements:
5.5.1 A certified field survey shall be included shorving the location of the
Facilities purslrant to the District's Rules and Regulations then in effect.
5.5.2 All benchmarks nsed rvithin the CI Property zrnd GCCI Property, as
applicable, to determine depth of lines or other facilities shall be shown on the drarvings and
shall be based upon U.S.G.S. datum and the requirements of the District's Rules and Regulations
then in effect.
5.5.3 Manufacturer's literature and prodtrct data, including catalog sheets and
descriptive literature for all materials and equipment used, shall be provided with the as-built
p1ans.
5.6 Dedicatisn of Facilities: Lien Waivers. Following inclusion of its property into
the District and after providing to the District a Certification of Completion, Developer shall
dedicate to the District the Facilities certified as complete by the subject Certification of
Completion. The District shall accept such dedication on or before thirty (30) days thereof
whereupon title to the dedicated Facilities shall be vested in the District. Developer shall also
execute a quitclaim deed and bill of sale to the District conveying any interests it has in such
Facilities, and shall provide to the District lien waivers from all contractors, subcontractors, and
material suppliers for work and materials furnished in connection with the Facilities conveyed.
5.7 Warranty. Developer shall warrant all Facilities conveyed to the District for a
period of trvo (2) years from the date such Facilities are conveyed to the District. Specifically,
Developer shall warrant that any and all Facilities conveyed to the District shall be free of any
defects in materials or workmanship for said trvo-year period.
(
(j
18
5.8 Convevance of Easemqnts/?lat Dedications. In addition to Developer's
obligations set forth in Paragraph2.5 andParugrapb 4.5, Developer shall convey to the District,
by plat dedication or easement agreement in a form and substance reasonably acceptable to the
District, the following described perpetual, nonexclusive easements to allorv the District to
construct, operate, repair, and replace the Facilities, free and clear of aII liens, encumbrances, and
title defects which could defeat the District's title, and any title defects lvhich rvould affect the
District's ability to use each easement for its intended purpose.
5.8.1 Developer shall convey to the District by plat dedication, on a plat by plat
basis, perpetual non-exclusive easements or rights-of-rvay extending over and across all those
portions of its property contai-ning the Facilities and that are necessary for the District to provide
water and server service to Developer's property.
5.8.2 The First Developer shall assign to the District all of its right, title and'
interest in and to the rvater tank easement agreefilent described in Paragraph2.1.4 concurrently
rvith the recording of the 1st Final Plat for the First Property, subject to the Second Developer's
retained rights described in Paragraph 2.1 .4(b).
5.8.3 Developer shall convey to the District by plat dedication, on a plat by plat
basis, perpetual non-exclusive easernents or rights-of-rvay over and across the Developer's
property for purposes of providing water and sanitary sewer service utilities to lands located
adjacent to and outside of its property but rvithin the District senice area as reasonable and
appropriate, provided that such easements and rights-of-way may be shorvn as temporary if there
is no immediate intent to plat the lands intended to benefit from such easements or rights-of-rvay.
Developer shall have the right to establish and relocate said easements and rights-of-way in a
manner that coordrnates rvith the development of and does not unreasonably restrict the use of its
property. These water and server utilities shall be planned to follow proposed road rights-of-way
rvhenever possible. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, CI shail convey or cause
GCCI to convey to the District, pursuant to the authority granted to CI by separate agreement
betrveen CI and GCCI, perpetual non-exclusive easements over and across that certain Roaring
Fork Conservancy oonservation easement area located within the GCCI Property for purposes of
providing \tr'ater and sanitary sewer service utilities to lands described in this Paragraph 5.8.3.
Developer shail and hereby does reserve the right to use in common rvith the District any
easements and rights-of-rvay it conveys to the District pursuant to this Paragraph 5.8, provided
such use does not interfere rvith the District's use, maintenance and operation of the Facilities.
All easements and rights-of-rvay to be established pursuant to this Paragraph shall be subject to
the obligation of the District to repair and revegetate disturbed areas to a condition and grade
substantially similar to tlat rvhich existed before the disturbance. Developer's obligation to
convey the easements and rights-of-way hereinabove described fuUy satisfies and discharges
Developer from any and all furure obligation(s) to extend its facilities for the purpose of
facilitating or allowing the extension of District water or server sen'ice to properties situate
adjacent to or outside the boundaries of Developer's property.
(
19
(
(
5.9 Control of Facilities. Once conveyed to the District, and subject to the r,varranty
provisions contained rvithin Paragraph 5.7 above, the District shall be solely responsible for the
operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Facilities, the WWTP, including all
expansions thereto, and the easements on the CI Property and GCCI Property that are dedicated
to the District. The Distrjct shall at all times operate the foregoing facilities and easements in a
commercially reasonable and economical manner, and shall make all repairs and replacements
necessary to assure continuous operation of the same so as to proyide a reliable and continuous
ler.el of service.
ARTICLE 6
REIIUBURSEMENT OF CI COSTS FROI\{ OUTSIDE PARTIES
6.1 Reimbursement for Oversizing of Facilities. Developer and the District
acknow'ledge and agree that certain Facilities will be oversized for the sole purpose of providing
excess system capacity to allow the extension of District water and sanitarl selver service from
Developer's property to owners of properties or customers r,vith properties lvithin the District but
outside the Dcveloper's property, and properlies outside the District to which out-of-district
water and u,astervater treatment service may be extended (each an "Outside Party"). To allow
Developer to recover the cost for such oversizing of the Facilities, Dcveloper and the District
agree as follorvs:
6.1.1 Dcveloper shall oversize the lvater and sewer mains and lift stations
identified as First Developer Off-Site Water Facilities, First Developer Off-Site Sewer Facilities,
Second Developer Off-Site Water Facilities, and Second Developer Off-Site Server Facilities to
accommodate the Regional EQR Projections set forth on the attached Exhibit L; provided,
however, that any oversizing, including the costs attributable thereto, beyond what is necessary
to accommodate the projections set forth in Exhibit L shall be the obligation of the District.
6.1.2 Developer shall certify to the District its total reasonable costs for such
oversizing rvhich amount shall be reviewed and approved by the District ("Oversizing Costs").
6.1.3 Prior to connection of any Outside Party to the Facilities constructed by
Developer, the District shall coilect from the Outside Party a pro rata fee ("Oversizing Fee")
calculated as provided below for reimbursemenI to Developer:
A .B = C; where:
A = Total amount of District water and sewer service requested by
the Outside Party, expressed as a percentage of the total excess
system capacity provided by the oversized Facilities;
B = Oversizing Costs for the service requested; and
C = Oversizing Fee
(
{)
20
(
The District shall promptly pay to Developer any and all Oi,ersizing Fees
collected by the District from Outside Parties.
6.1.4 The District's collection and reimbursernent obligations under this Article
6 shall continue for a period of fifteen (15) years follorving the date of acceptance by the District
of the applicable oversized F'aciiities, at rvhich time such obligation shall terminate.
6.? Reservation of Capacity for the Second Proper4'. The Second Developer shall be
subject to and responsible for paying to the District the Oversizirg Fees described in this Article
6. However, the District shall be required to reserve excess capacity in any oversized Facilities
for the Second Property in an amount equal to the capacity required to service 375 EQRs for the
Second Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, at the time of recordation of the preliminary
plat for the Second Property, the actual amount of EQRs reqr.rired to sen'ice the Second Property
is less than 375 EQRs, the amount of excess capacity required to be reserved for the Second
Property may be. adjusted accordingly.
ARTICLE 7
DISTRICT SER\'ICE CONDITIONS
7.L District Service Conditions. The District's obligations to provide domestic rvater
service and server service to the CI Property and GCCI Property, as applicable, shall be expressly
conditioned upon the satisfaction of the following conditions:
7.Ll The property shall be included within the District pursuant to the
provisions of Article t hereinabove,
7.1.2 CI shall convey all required water rights to the District as provided under
Article 3 hereinabove.
7 .1.3 CI and GCCI, as applicable, shall complete construction of the Facilities
required for their respective projects in accordance with this Agreement and shall make all
conveyances and plat dedications necessary for any lot or other portion of their respective
properties requesting District domestic water or sewer sen'ice to connect to the existing District
facilities as provided under Paragraph 5.8.
ARTICLE 8
IRRIGATION WATER
8.1 In'igation Water. It is the intent of the parties hereto that outside landscape
irrigation for the majority of lots within CI Property or GCCI Property shall be provided through
a ra1 water delivery system to be constructed by CI and/or GCCI and operated by an entity other
than the District. However, the parties also recognize that there may be limited outdoor irrigation
uses made from the District's potable system. To limit the use of potable water from the
District's system, CI and GCCI shall tfuough restrictive covenants on the CI Property and GCCI
Property iimit the use of the District's potable domestic water system rvithin such properties for
outside Iandscape irrigation to no more than five-hundred (500) square feet for each individual
2l
(
t
(
single family lot, and a total of not more than seven (7) acres rvithin the Entire Property. Ci
and/or GCCI rvill provide the District rvith copies of the non-potable irrigation system plans
provided to the County as pafl of each final plat application.
8.2 Irrigation Restriction Ruls rvith the Land. The above-described rvater use
limitations and restrictions shall constitute a burden running with the applicable portions of the
CI Property and GCCI Property and shall be deemed to benefit and run with the properties held
by the District, shall be binding upon the owners thereof, their successors and assigns, and shall
not be transferred separate or apart therefrom. CI and GCCI shall include a plat note on any final
plat to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, that contains a
limitation on the use of treated s,ater for irrigation purposes consistent r.vith the terms of this
Article 8 and provides that the District has the right to seek enforcement of this condition.
8.3 Allocation Between CI and GCCI. CI and GCCI acknowledge that the limitations
of this Article 8 apply to and limit potable rvater irrigation on the CI Property and GCCI
Property, and CI and GCCi shall, in a separate agreement to be provided to the District, allocate
the allowable seven (7) acres of potable water irrigation betrveen'their respective properties.
ARTICLE 9
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event CI or GCCI, as applicable, and the District are unable to agree upon any
engineering or technical matter addresscd within this Agreement, inclLrding but not limited to,
facility design, infrastructure location or layout, and supply or demand calculations, CI or GCCI,
as applicable, and the District each shall select a representative qualified with regard to the
engineering or technical matter in dispute (the "Disputed Matter") to represent its interests. The
selected representatives shall then appoint a third representative qualified rvith regard to the
Disputcd Matter, who shall provide a determination upon the Disputed Matter. In the event this
process of dispute resolulion fails, CI or GCCI, as applicable, and the District agree to resolve
such dispute by arbitration in accordance with the rules and regulations of the American
Arbitration Association then in effect. The determination of the arbitrator shall be f,rnal and
conclusive and judgment may be entered upon such determination in accordance with applicable
Iaw in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
ARTICLE TO
COi\TPLIANCE WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS
Upon inclusion of the CI Property and GCCI Property within the District and subject only
to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, CI and GCCI, and lot owners or customers within
their respective projects, shall be bound by and comply with the Rules and Regulations
applicable to properties within the District as the same may be arnended from time to time;
provided, however, that in the event of conflict between the Rules and Regulations and the terms
of this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.
fi
22
L
ARI'ICLE 11
AUDITS, REPORTS AND INSPECTIONS
The District shall maintain the records, accounts, and audits required by statute or ir,,hich
rvould be kept under normal business practice, and copies of such records shzrll be provided to CI
and GCCI upon request. The District shall, upon reasonable prior notice to CI and GCCI, have
the right to inspect the facilities located upon the CI Property and GCCI Property as provided in
the Rules and Regulations, and CI and GCCI shall, upon reasonable prior notice to the District,
have the right to inspect the District's lvells, water and rvastervater treatment facilities and other
appurtenant facilities.
ARTICLE 12
ORDER OF II\'CLUSION
lz.l GCCI's Right to Proceed with Inclusion. In the event GCCI is ready to develop
the GCCI Property in advance of CI's development of the CI Property, GCCI may, in accordance
rvith this Agreement, petition to include the GCCI Property or any portion thereof w,ithin the
District and receive credit for up to 315 EQRs of lvater and seu'er service from the District.
GCCI's right to petition for inclusion of the GCCI Property into the District ahead of the CI
Property* shall be subject to the prior rvritten consent of CI, rvhich consent may be rvithheld in
CI's sole discretion, and prior rvritten notice to the District. GCCI's right to include the GCCI
Property into the boundaries of the District in advance of the inclusion of the CI Property also
shall be subject to GCCI's fultillment of the First f)eveloper's obligations set forth in this
Agreement.
12.2 CI Oblieations. In order for the GCCI Property to connect to certain District
facilities, CI rvill be required to provide easernents on, over, under, and through the CI Property
for the construction, installation, and maintenance of certain Facilities.
12.3 CI Rights. In the event Ci grants GCCI the right to petition for the inclusion of
the GCCI Property into the District ahead of the CI Property as provided in Paragraph l2.I
above, CI shall be entitled to petition to include the CI Property w'ithin the District and receive
credit for up to 37 5 EQRs of rvater and sewer service from the District, subject to CI's fulfillment
of the Second Developer's obligations under this Agreement. [n addition, Ci shall retain the right
to receive from the District the CI Deposit as set forth in Paragraph 1.2 above.
12.4 Status Reports to District. On or before six (6) months after the Effective Date,
and semi-annually thereaf[er, CI and GCCI each shall provide the District with a written update
regarding the status of its respective project; provided, however, that the failure to provide such
written update shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement nor shall such failure excuse the
District from performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 13
GENERAL PROVISIONS
t 23
{
I3.1 Telmination. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect until terminated by
mutual agreement by the Parties hereto, or as provided by larv.
13.2 Acknowledgement of Termination of River Bend.Agreement. The Parties
acknorvledge that the River Bend Agreement has been terminated and is no longer of any further
force or effect. CI, GCCI, and the f)istrict are released from any Iiability thereunder.
13.3 Good Faith. The Parties agree to proceed diligently in good farth and to use
commercially reasonable efforts with the implenrentation of this Agreement.
13.4 Service Plan Integration. This Agreement and its Exhibits is consistent rvith the
District's Service Plan, as though set forth there verbatim.
13.5 Compliance with State and Federal Law. This Agreement shall not be construed
to be in violation with the law's of the United States or the state of Colorado, nor in any matrner
that adversely affects or diminishes the financing capabilities of the District.
13.6 Enforcement; Specific Performance. Subject to Articie 9, in theevent of any
material failure by any Party hereto to comply with the terms of this Agreement, any other Party
shall have standing to bring sLrit to enforce compliance herewith. Furthermore, in the event of a
breach of this Agree.ment, the non-breaching Parly(ies) may seck all remedies available at larv or
equity, including specific performance.
13.7 Assisnment. The entirety of each Party's obligations under this Agreement shall
be assignable to any grantee, purchaser, transferce, or assignee of the Party's interest, and shall
survive any such conveyancs, purchase, transfer, or assignment. No Party may assign only a part
or portion of its obligations under this Agreement to any third-party.
13.8 Covenaujs. Recording. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute
covenants running with the lands affected thereby, and upon its execution by the Parties, this
Agreement shall be recorded in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder.
13.9 AttorneJrs'Fees. CI and GCCI shall bear reasonable attorneys'fees incurred by
the District in the negotiation, execution, and implementation of this Agreeme.nt. However, in the
event arbitration or litigation is necessary to enforce the rights of the Parties to this Agreement,
as betrveen themselves, the prevailing party(ies) in such arbitration or litigation shall be entitled
to reasonable attorneys'fees and costs of suit actually incurred.
i3.10 Complete Agreement: Amendment. This Agreement constitlrtes the entire and
complete agreement between the Parties, and any modification or amendment hereto shall be
evidenced by a writing signed by the Parties; provided, however, that CI and GCCI shall, in a
separate agreement, allocate between themselyes certain costs and obligations incurred pursuant
to this Agreemelt.
13.11 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the Parties, their successors, grantees, and assigns. Nothing herein shall prevent CI or GCCI
24
e
()
tl
(
{
from selling, transferring or encumbering their respective properties and the benefits of this
Agreement shall be appurtenant to the property conveyed.
13.12 Authoritlr. Each person executing this Agreement represents and tt,arrants that he
has been duly authorized by the Party rvhich he purports to represent to execute this Agreement,
and has authority to bind said Party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
13.13 Governing Lav;. This Agreenrent shall be construed under the laws of the State of
Colorado.
13.14 No Waiiet. No provision of this Agreement ma1'be r.vaived except by an
agreement in w'riting signed by the rvaiving Party. A waiver of any term or provision shall not
be construed as a rvaiver of any other term or provision.
13.15 Headines. The paragraph headings in this Agreement shall not be used in the
construction or inteqpretation hereof, as they have no substantive effect, and are for convenience
only.
13.16 Severability. If any part or section of this Agreement shall be found void or
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect any remaining part or
section, and said remaining parts or sections shall continue in full force and effect. The Parties
shall renegotlate in good faith any matter addressed by a part or section that is found void or
invalid.
13.L7 Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be in rvriting and shall
be delivered by facsimile, hand delivered, or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the Parties herein set forth. Notices shall be
considered effective three (3) days after deposit postage paid in the United States Mail with the
proper address as set forth below. Either Party by notice so given may change the address to
g,hich furure notices shall be sent.
Notice to:Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District
P.O. Box 1002
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Fax:
Larvrence R. Green
Balcomb & Green P.C.
P.O. Drarver 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0790
Fax:
and:
Scott Grosscup
25
\lrith copy to:
L
a IN IYITNESS lYfmREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement in multiple
originals on the dates herein belorv set foith.
CARBONDALE INVE,STNIENTS, LLC
Rockwood
Its: Project
GARf,IELD COUNTY COMNIERCIAL
INYESTN,IENTS, LLC
ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATIOI.'{
DISTRICT
ATTEST:
'1<jqj
9i
C
gi SE
[.oe;':....?i"'
Shepard
Executi.,,e
Name: Ro c kwo
Iis: C>wn,.-. (e(&'?tr
27
--/u, 7Lr 7r4 r**:-
President
{
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
)
)
)
The foregoing ROARING FORK WATER AND SANI"IATION DISTRICT
EatdnrBdctoo
NCIARYPUBLIC
S'.AIEOFCOLoRADO
My corrirrioa expircs 02{8'15
STATE oF COIU'Ad,O
COUNTY OF
The foregoing ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
authorized signatory for Garfield(Qounty Commercial Investments, LLC, a Texas limited
liability company.
)
)
)C:
CARB OI\DALE INVES TNJENTS, LLC PRE-IN CLU S ION AGREEMEN T was .ackn o w ledged
before me this lto ooy or [V\n4, ,}ayLby ?oc,\c'-ooo( SY."efa-'-d u,
-.-.'t",}',.."s#i:1r3r,S "..4r'A.
VWd"- L3t lo,t, *o ItD t- ";" ?My cornmission expire t, ltWaJ^- LS:IP'? nv'ADL''.
2
Z-.i. i
=A='-3.'. P(tgLtc ; S
t4,,:, ;;ioo{:.*s'ot,**llf
itl$$F
CARB OND ALE DtVeS TMEI\TS, LLC PRE-IN C I-US ION AGREEMENT rvas ackn o rvl edged
before menisft day of N0 tl ,2077,by Rockw'ood Shepard as authorized
signatory for Carbondale Investments, LLC, a Texas limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Witness my hand and official seal.
28
*/r/2,,
t
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF GARFIELI)
The foregoing ROARLTIG FORK WATER AND SANIATION DISTRICT
CARB ONDALE INVES TMENTS, LLC PRE-INC LU S IOII AGREEMENT rvas ackno rvl edged
before me this l|auy of Oclo L,- ,2A11,by ,4/atb kacJol",A u,
President *ra -Toa-
t Q = as Secretary for the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District, a Colorado special district.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
I 3738\3\1 420109.23
)
)
)
L
NOTARY PUBTJC
STATE OF COLOHADO
29
EXHlBIT
Garfield Countv Commercial
Zone District Amend ment
Presented to:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
303.223.1 '100
Galloway & Company, lnc.
6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
303.770.8884
lnvestments
Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schrecl<
Garfield County
Planning Commission
,\
Galioway
.'::., r;,i:,r I ,^r'1: ,,..'r' ;; _. -.., I. : .
lntroduction Fjl#? T..; IL:,f
,, G a i ! oway
Propertv Owner
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments ("GCC|")
Brownstein Hvatt Farber Schreck
Carolynne White, Esquire, LEED AP
Gallowav
Mike Cerbo - Sife Development Coordinator, P.E., LEED AP
HDR
Pete Mertes - Senior Project Manager, P.E.
EIS
Wade Haerle - President
2
Subject Property PJI#?*?[1il.,, G a i ! oway
Subject Property
Rooftops:
Yfi*".
Itlestbank
Sbring ValleyEanch FUD
o Spring Valtey Ranch PUD - 577 Units
. Lake Springs PUD - 248 Units
. Los Amigos Ranch PUD - 816 Units
. River Ridge PUD - 8 Units
o HLazyF-I04Units
Westbank Ranch PUD - 63 Units
lronbridge PUD - 316 Units
River Edge Colorado PUD - 365 Units
Aspen Glen PUD - 630 Units
P;:#?''i?LLY.', G a !! oway
PUOI
\__
\
4
G:
3;
*3:G:g,;
.l-,
rCI
)>r..,t:tr-ocP'6*
in t/-lcr-
ES&,f r(o
-g)\-oIr*,ll(I)fE1+-.tGro
itC
a-
CoN
FL.o
ol-
IL
{-,
()or rrrrrlo
=a
Surrounding Uses Fil#?1:.il[:1il"' G a i! owav
a
a
a
a
Clydes Customs
Antiques
Pacific Motor Works
DJ's Auto and Truck Repair
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Habitat for Humanity ReStore
Roto-Rooter Plumbers
All State Communications
Adventure Auto Sales
KTM of Aspen
Dodson Engineered Products
Ferguson Plumbing Supplies
Roaring Fork Rentals
Farmers Welding
UPS
Defiance Auto Sales
Colorado Appliance Outlet
Names and Numbers
Meier Sl<is
Designer Door Hardware
The Elevator Company
Roaring Fork Tile & Stone
Cross Propane Gas
All Valley Storage 6
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
pj:#?llil[:,y-', Ga !i oway
Owned by affiliate of GCC|
Change in Access
Existing - Cattle Creek
Proposed - Middle of GCCI
Parcel
Addresses CDOT's Concerns
lncreases Safety
a
a
o
o
Fir#?r'jl IL:il'" ge !
! "wev
--:--lY, \J-rattl{Creek;
10
Surrounding Zoning
Current Uses FJiH?1...;[1il.,, G a !! oway
Commercial Limited
H:xl*tn HYatt Galiowav
Commercial Limited Commercial General
Commercial Limited
Current Uses
F;l#? i:l]L:,I,'' g e i i "vevCurrent Uses
pj:rum[:il.,' Galioway
Large Format Anchor...
...Anchors many users
Placemaki ng r sense of space
Tree Lined Areas
Mix of Uses
FJi#? if; [:il.,, G q i ! owsy
-
Appealing Outdoor
Areas
Placemaki ng r Activators
ar.i
Pjl#?i:.; LLy.,, G a ! i.oway
#r }(aq6r/
W*.*#:""^
mt?.l!J.r.'
fliP,rF,{tp#vegr{a-t
* r\i - Innr tllr: tT+t i,,*Jt'*-.ry{ \ 'xEs-lsg#ffi\. . brFEir-aro€/r€Io
Farmers Market
Open Play Area
Movie Night
Open Lounge Area
Outdoor Dining Areas
Placernaking - pubric space
{ I ri.&.pa,,*t-
| ---I .{
ili,-um:t* i{l H fl,ffiIj-
:
14' r:#-L*" -;
17
Pj:#?1|";L!il.,, Ga liowqv
Los Amigos Ranch PUD
Nearby Residential
Pj:#?Tf; IL:il.,, G a ! i oway
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Los Amigos Ranch PUD
Lake
Springs
PUD
Nearby Resldential
Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schrecl<Property
20
N
#t
1':50O'
Fj:#? '',.? LIil.,, G a i ! oway
2. Change in the Area
Garticld CMly h rl ffil msrcadr, Etdally il$
igrrrltEly. Liicr.&y, n crytiicthr cilfliffie ollhc
Cottrado 6rd Rmfilq Fst Riy6i- lt 8}3o cmtahs th€
iilEfficfoi ol tE lnlaltrts 70 I l-70) sd State HiJlsEy
82 (SH 82I- Frgwtiwv, it b atb at s clwo€ds bcnEco
I lErlEty sg[iqrtbml ca(lv md ffi that B Bloilty lwi19
toiEd a rubublo ffity.
C{fEH Cwrty k }a9. (M 3,000 lquilc s[or) a.rd th.
vst mir'dy o{ thc ryV i! oi$q wdcr f.d6.l juildictiq
u cxtmcly rDrut! dld vatEly kEcE$bL dtE io tmh
ffiUahtr- Thc @rirng EE!, wt$ch E rubicct !o th€
lwtdcEloprlHt prBlW, is do ttE ffil e$iblc
&d villtrlo pr.l of tE rully. lf fE krcl of prcicctcd Ewth
mltqialzq M ihc rcxt 20 yu{n tw it dfldopa rii ha€
r dl?@{ic inpGd m fi. $J*fty of lib ol tt Etddcoti, rrrd
tG n!c!, rcll-bektg o{ {E q@1.
"Land Use Decisions..... respond
to both the IMMEDIATE and
anticipated LONG-TERM needs
of the Cou nty"
Fip2 C#M@dhtu
tH CdBlrsE n E-
GmCwCffiffiPra2t3{l
Thc GsrfEld Csiy CmpGf!ffslE Phn {tE "Plsn'} has
bcs dffilopod !0 provtdc a gcnml ltslffit of diec{ion
ffi llnd @ plflolE n mhwporatad Gsfi"ld CMty.
TIE PlEn p.wil6 E fq{datloo toa deciEkrc r.}d poliiEi
0Et quid6 ffd diEct ltE phyricsa, eiat, r.rd effiic
dc€l@fiErd ls fE u.ftcilpqrtcd pqtim3 o{ the cMV
It E d8lgrEd b rm a e bol lq citizsi, cq{ity C.t
$d otcctsd oficidr, dld tM s E ps{rirq to bo$ fE
imcdi.t and 8ri,cirtcd hnqtslm red! o, ttE @nt}a
Tlts Pisn bttld! m praiu plffi- Msny ol llE i!ffi8,
polcbt,.nd !t .togiE, ir.ntncd h tH! Plrfi cs bc tE@d
b.ck to thG t 9e4 ..ld 20oo Gsfleld Cmty mp.6h.BiE
plao!, rllach h im, @hocd o nunbs ol idc!! Eld cffipt3
frm thc ffih/! qBhd mpGhonlirc plao of 1968.
24
GLossARy Camse 1: Cgrpra 2: CH,r.pren 3: Cp.rpren 4:
p RgfaC g lNTRooLcr$$ Furune L*.,o Us: Prelr Elsr,Exrs Arr*otxe TH: Pun
Fipr: A,dtuil
Tq,.tD-l9/hREad.
TreLE or CorreHrs
Demog raphics - Trade Area Fjl#?1|?[1il.,, G a !i oway
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
35,000
30,000
25,000
2000
,- 2010
2020
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2000
- 20t0
2020
0
Popu !ation Ho useholds
* Represents Rooring Fork Valley Trade Area 25
120,000
100,000
80,000
Demographics r county Pjl#?i:ilL!il.,, G a ii oway
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
POST IUnEPEI{Dnxr
Garfield County at front of continuing
Colorado population boom
"(The Comprehensive Plan\ focuses on
responding to the IMMEDIATE and anticipated
LONG-TERM needs of the county."
*Comp Plan - Pg. 9
60,000
40,000
20,000
Popu lation
*2015 and 2040 estimates from Rocky Mountain PBS l-News'
article dated Dec.28,2015 from Glenwood Springs' Post lndependent
hT 2000
@ 2010
2015
a 2040
26
Housing = Headlines Pj:#?l'fl LIil.', G a i i oway
PosT ImnppHlrllnxr
Itk paradise rr,THE PHIEE OF PARADISE
.!. but who can afford to stay?
1,000 residences planned along HighwaV 82
Development in the Roaring Fork Valley has
bounced back from the recession - in a big way.
I{extphase of Ironbridge housing approved
Affordable housing details to be worked out
Millennials choose where
to live first, then find work
'[ tlcfi rr itely rlo not rcn nt l:o gs, {xrck l:o l[,'ixclrt.sin.,'0tt(.sa:{A
BZ OS4AIA B D)9 'p uaanlaq luawaatbp uotsnpufald oj llQlUxJ *
,;alqoltoAo apow aq 4lpoar uol
to aJo sa)tAtas asaL,ll aJaLlM souo ut
palwol aQ ol saJt\Jas uoqJn auutnbat
luaudopAap il nln{ aAot no)u|,,
,,'Juau,tdolaAap Mau Jo{ saJtAJas JaJoA
puo JaMas punos AlloluawuoJtAua puo
aNp 4Ua-JSor /a
I q o p u ad a p'ap n b a p o
'lo1al {o uo1s1^ord aLll unsul,,
: u eld a^tsuaL{aJd uo]
{enno : ; e g rr*ill',j lr'r? JifJ:d Eorv oc!^ros popuBdxf
x1I
E
n
e
-
p;lgl*l1:il.,, GaliowayWillits
I I trrr
Need for Retail
Large format retail has not kept
pace with residential growth
Existing retail doesn't serve daily
customer needs
Vacant commercial space does
not support large format retail
Property's best use is for large
format reta i! a nchor
Sophisticated retailers have
expressed interest in locating on
property
Pjlg?11-;[:,y"' G a !i owav
G rocery Brownstein Hvatt
Farber SchrecliLarge-Format
Survey Background Fj:#E:? [1,y.,, Ga ii oway
161
Completed
Responses
(A typical response rate considering
bad numbers, disconnects, and
hang-ups)
ftS'. i '
r,z*n"J
':Iff:*lJ;'
Survey Results
42% travel more than 5
miles to shop
30% very satisfied with
current retail options
35% unsatisfied with
current retail options
52% think Roaring Fork
Valley will require additional
retail in the next 5 years
3L% want national chains
20% want specialized stores
FJI#i'',.?[1,y.,, Ga ii oway
Resident Responses
ffS, -,
.
Do Not
Support
Su pport
Additional
o
a
Letters of Support Pi:#?Tf'ln
HYatt Ga llowav
o 'This is one of the only locations available in the county that
can offer high quality retail businesses the visibility, access
to and from a major highway, and proximity to a new and
growing residential area that they require to prosper."
- Jack Austin, Outwest Drywall Supply
o "severa I existing com mercia I businesses a re esta blished in
the immediate are?, though none feature the type of large
retail business that this Iocation will attract, and which
would serve the needs of existing residents."
- Dave Malehorn, Pro Auto
. Adjacent and nearby businesses would benefit from the
additional commercial development and residents would
have convenient shopping options."
- David Dodson, Dodson Engineered Products
.#eo
N
lt'alqoltpAo apou aq filpoar uo)
JO AJO SastAJaS asaql aJaqAA soalo ut
palnq aQ ol sa)tNas uoqJn Auutnbat
lu a ut d o I aAa p at ryn{ a A ot n oc u1,,
,,'Juautdola+ap Mau to{ satttJas )aloltn
puo taMas punos Alloluauuo)tAua puD
II
anrpa$a-lsor ta
I q o p u ad a p'atro n ba p o
'1oAa1 {o uolslnotd aql arnsuJ,,
:ueld antsuaqalduo3
{enno i i e D,,*iil",j }# J'#j:d
tc{
sluotuo^ojdruI cllqnd
LE
I,I
6 ,n*J ld{Jru
\
l-)?Public lmprovements Pj:#?i:";[1ilu,, Ga !i oway
SH 82 lmprovements - Split 'T'
River Edge Colorado & GCCI Access
Cattle Creek Road lmprovements
Public lmprovements
F)?
PJIH? *",1 [:il.', G a ! i oway
plfi I vs.anoaro lntersectton
Standard lntersection
39
3E Sle E *L:> !
etc $sE i
B T S €EiE;3E EiFe
=EE =:=P;e 3 € ts P:s : u' i'"5 1€SSs E p,tt
i IF FEEE: $F il$EE
E$EsIEI
AJ(4
AJ
E
.\
t4
AJ
B
o
AJ
q
soU
o
AJ
ta
AJE
o'so
v,
G
(a
AJ
AJ
t-
C(o
o-
o
LN
C
OJ-o
o-
Eo(J
i
x
$
I,giEii iEiiiiitiifiiEii ii
i:giiliigiiiEiiiiiiiir
4.,
Eo()
S
G)
Eo(-
orFr
l-oao
()
Eob.
CUoo
al-o+tCo
O
F'Cq)
E
o
o-
E
tU
+.Co
E
o
o-
E
tU
=@L-o
o
a
Go
CI
=C
=E
Eo
O
\+J
JoqJ
B
AJE
Go
tr)
\
=o+rb
=o
o)
AJ
E
a.;
5
-)
AJ
+J
s
=o(J
AJ
+J
o'
+r
-ao
AJ
+J
OJ
\
AJta
AJ
S
B
o
'l-r
AJ(\
\o
o-
c
AJ
*.Jo*a
\.o5
AJvts
NE()O
r\ +JCGPbo:() \IJ
AJ Cl
G.
!,,
*3'o(,r(oh:t]E t-lcP
H;t-L
Es&,I
E
G
5)
ol-
'LJVl
o
G+J
G\
:
>r
Eo
o(J
AJ
+Jr
o(-)
AJ
+J
;
General Conformance H:Xl*-;1Iil.', G a !i oway
General conformance does not require
compliance "with every policy category" in the
comprehensive plan
* Canyon Area Residents far the Env't v. Bd of County Comm'rs, No. 08CA2390, slip op. at 20 (Colo. App. June 18, 2009)
A land use application generally conforms with
the comprehensive plan so long as it does not
"trustrate or preempt achievement of the plan's
recommendations" and is "compatible with, and
does not frustrate the [comprehensive] plan's
goals and policies"
"Growth lnitiative Committee v. Jumpers, LLC,128 P.3d 452, 461 (Nev. 2006); Richmarr Hotty Hitts, lnc. v. American pCS, L.p.,7o1 A.zd879,893, 903 (Md. App. 1997)
sv 'sluap$ar Alunoc {o ato{1arn
puo fia{os 'Ufloaq ctpnd 1ua^o aqt spa}ordx
'puol nqpq dolanap o1 ry6u s,)au^ o
lyadotd alonud o uo a1uu{u! lou sao1*
'saDuatc$aut aJtNas
Ullrn ilunot aql uaptnq finpun Jou sao1*
'uotlltpsynI s,Alunoc
aql u!tllrtr sLualsisota aNUSuas aql spadsay *
:suotstSap
asn-puol salnsua uold aNsuaL,latduo2-
:sluaptsay Alunq Aq pa{puapt sanssl
;Jauuow paJuopq o u! ,,ll!l!qoA!1,, {o a1uot
' pootq p atatqro ol s4aas uold slL,g 'llunot
aql u! luawdopAap Jtuouola alopouuto)oo
ot At! I ! q lxa [ 6 u r rno
1 1 o "'s a U s u a p ]u a ut d o p
^a
p
{o aAuot o to{ Auruuold"'acods uado
1urutolal suoau y 'autos Jol 'aldoad ryata{fip
o1 sburql ryata{{rp suoaw Alunoc ,talqaNl,, Vt,
,,'Ju a utdopAap Aq palcod ut t Alnat r p
spoor asolll uo palorluasuo) aq ol
syuauanotdutt tvtollo pul spooJ Alunot
uo papaau sJuauanotdut aql alnpa)
IIt^ luautdo1anap atryn{ Aunotluaruo),,
'A1u noc
aql {o spaau wtal-Auo1 patrodr3tluo
puo atotpauut aqt Llpq o1 Awpuodsat
uo sasnco{ puo "'ltruno7 p1afiog
paptodtozutun ut 6utuuold asn puol to{
uoq)iltp {o luawalzls luaua1 o aptnotd
o1 padop^ap uaaq soq (,,uold,, aql) uold
aNSUaL4atd uto2 fiu no7 p1afi og atll,,
,{enno i i e D,,*i[';H,: JffJ:d
Hl#?1t.e1#il." Gaiieyey
Cu rrent Trend
Focused G rowth
*Comp Plan - Figure L0, Page 16
*Comp Plan - Figure 10, Page L6
Growth Areas
I,,t
,
il:#?tll]n Hyatr g"!i"ytv
m
c!rfi
ooc
Z
I
47
Comprehensive PIan Map
,.J!
Pjl#?i'.1; [!il.,, G s ! i oway
Commercial uses exist
the immediately
surrounding area
ii. A Rural Employment
Center is located directly
across SH 82 from the
P ro pe rty
iii. The County has for years
contem plated com mercia I
and high density
residential uses in the area
(as expressed in previous
Comprehensive Plans and
maps and approved PUDs)
The Property falls within
an existing water and
sewer service area.
.'?iffia. ,' Fl Rural Employment
Ce nte r
Area of lnf luence
Unincorporated
Community
Comprehensive Plan Ma
iv.
REC
REC
REC
Pj:#l';-; i:!il.,, G a ! i oway
REC
REC
T
-.e4\rqPITKIN
r\,t-it?.r li6l-\-i.:--"
Ru ral Employment Center
#' ,;
Goals & Policies Pj:#?1|.;1!il.,, Ga ! i oway
ervtces
Compatible Growth, Residential Growth Near
Employment
tryh, l,'f V
Certification of Notice to Carbondale Investments, LLC
[, Ted Skokos, as Managing Member of Carbondale lnvestments, LLC (the "Company"), hereby
certify that I and the Company had actual notice of the public hearing to be held on April 18,
2016 at 1:00 PM before the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners in the County
Commissioners Hearing Room, Garfield County Administuation Building, Suite 100, 108 8th
Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado for the purposes of considering the application by Garfield
County Commercial Investments, LLC ("GCCI"), of which I am also the Managing Member, to
rezone a 43.25-acre property owned by GCCI from Residential Suburban to Commercial
General, as further described in the public notice of such hearing attached as Exhibit A (the
'oHearing"). On behalf of the Company, I further hereby waive any and all notice requirements
and any and all defects in notice to the Company for such Hearing.
Ted Skokos
Managing Member,
Carbondale lnvestments, LLC
Subscribed and sworn before me on this E day of April, 2A16, by Ted Skokos, as Managing
Member of Carbondale Investments, LLC.
MyCommissionexpires: l-JS'/6
(Seal)
013738\0001u4643s69. 1
Notary Public
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Te.d Skokos of Garfield Countv Commercial Investments LLC has applied
to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a
Rezoning: Map Amendment of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Developrnent Code, as
amended; in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield,
State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description EAST PARCET,:
A tract of land situated in the southeasterly quarter of Section 1,
Township 7 South, Range 89 West, and in Section 7,
Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
County of Garfield, State of Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way line of Colorado
State Highway 82, whence aZ ll2" Brass Cap, found in
place, and correctly marked as the southeast corner of said Section
7, bears S. 63"31'48" E. a distance of 2312.55 feet;
thence, along the westerly right of way line of Colorado State
Highway 82 N. 06"01'00" W. a distance of 1467.90 feet;
thence, N. 08'53'00" 'W. a distance of 200.30 feet;
N. 00o18'30" W. a distance of 201.00 feet;
N. 06'01'00" 'W. a distance of 700.90 feet;
N. 08"52'00"'W. a distance of 313.00 feet;
thence, 346.52 along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius
of 1820.00 feet, a central angle of 10o54'32" and
subtending a chord bearing of N. l5'58'00" W. a distance of
346.00 feet;
thence, N. 11o08'00" 'W. a distance of 97.90 feet;
thence, 250.29 along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius
of 1840.00 feet, a central au;,gle of 7"47'38" and
subtending a chord bearing of N. 28o19'00" W. a distance of
250.10 feet;
thence, N, 35"14'00" W. a distance of 122.52 feet;
thence, N. 89'17'09" 'W. a distance of 7.98 feet to a point on the
easterly line of a parcel of land described in Reception
No. 575283;
thence along said easterly line S. 35o22'19" E. a distance of 1-46
feet to the southeasterly corner of said parcel;
thence along the southerly line of said parcel, N. 89"17'09" 'W. a
distance of 224.24 feet to the southwesterly comer of
said parcel;
thence, N. 00'00'00" 'W. a distance of 0.68 feet;
thence, N. 89o30'08" N. a distance of 0.71 feet;
thence, N. 00"20'09" E. a distance of 0.49 feet to the southeasterly
comer of a parcel of land described in Reception No.
603760;
thence along the southerly line of said parcel the following three
courses:
l) N. 89"44'57" W. a distance of 0.99 feet;
Practical Description
Request Description
2) N. 30"31'43u W. a distance of 65.06 feet;
3) N. 86"47'l l' W. a distance of 65.63 feet to the southwesterly
comer of said parcel;
thence, N. 86o47'1 I " W. a distance of 52.73 feet;
thence, N. 89o36'12" W. a distance of 292.61feet;
thence, N. 89'43'30" W. a distance of 100.90 feet to a point on the
easterly right of way line of the Roaring Fork Transit
Authority Transportation Corridor Easement;
thence, along said easterly right of way line S. 19o38'52" E. a
distance of 3829.47 feet;
thence, 79.82 alongthe arc of a curve to the right having a radius
of 2915.00 feet, a central angle of 1o34'08" and
subtending a chord bearing of S. 18"51"48u E. a distance of 79.82
feet;
thence, departing said easterly right of way line N. 89o59'59" E. a
distance of 73.94 feet to a point of the westerly right of
way line of Colorado State Highway 82, also being the point of
County of Garfield, State of Colorado
West side of SH 82 adjacent to the Rivers Edge PUD between CR
114 (CMC Road) and CR 113 (Cattle Creek Road)
Applicant requests that a 43.25-acre property be rezoned from
Residential Suburban to Commercial General.
All persons affected by the proposed Zone District Amendment are invited to appear and state
their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then
you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give
consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding
whether to grant or deny the request for the land use request. This application may be reviewed
at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County
Administration Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday.
If you would like to view this application please visit our website at http://www.eaffield-
county.com/public-records/count-y-documents.aspx and insert the file number in the search box.
The file number is ZDAA-09-15-8388.
A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for Mondav April 18.2016 at l:00
p.no. in the County Cornmissioners Hearing Room, Garfield County Administration Building,
Suite 100, 108 8th Steet, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
n hi h,'$ ut,
mhqp
www.unlad-6,i.com
An Oldcestlc Matcrirls C,ompeny
Oo,eastld
379{ County Road tcrg l3l2{ 6175 Rocd
Glcnwood Spriogr, CO El60l Monucec, CO 81403
o7ot7o448so (970t219-l8t'
96,{ CR 63L
Tdlud&, CO 8l{3J
te7o)128.3n5
fttmlGu,n
www.tcllutldqnwl.conr
hF2273 Riwr Rmd
nO, B{s 3609
Gnnd Ja., CO 8l t02
(970) 243-4900
Friday, April 15'l', 2016
Kathy Eastley * Sta/f Planner
Carfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms. Eastley and Garfield County Building and Planning Dcpnrtmcnt:
Between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale,43 acres of land along the west side of State Highway 82 ctm'ently
sits idle, This property is perhaps the premier undeveloped location in all of Gar'field County given its
extraordinary visibility, access, and traffic cotrnts. However, the vast potentialof this land will remain just
that-potential--without your department's approval in rezoning the property from residential to commercial.
Recognizing that the area sun'ounding this undeveloped land has already changed, and that the local population
is underserved commercially,I urge you to grant Garfield County Commercial Investment's (CCCI) application
to rezone the property.
To begin, the area suil'ounding GCCI's undeveloped land has already changed to a substantial degree, and will
continue to change and grow for the forcseeable future. Specifically, residential growth in Roaring Fork Valley
has surged in recent years, with nearly 6,000 households added between 2000 and 2010, and over 1,000 more
expected in the next four years. To meet the increasing demand of this growing residential market, Garfield
County must rezone the land in queslion. This will allow for the development of new, high-quality letail
destinations and employment opportunities near existing and planned residential developments,
Adding to these difficulties, the local population is already underserued in the type of retail lhat could be
accommodated on GCCI's land once the rezoning application is approved. New and exciting rctail
opportunities provide both increased employment and shopping opportunities to the thousands of new and long-
standing residents in the region.
As an employer of more than 430 people in Westem Colorado including approximately 30 that live in Garfield
County, our company is intimately familiar with the growth patterns and needs of this comnrunity. We live,
work, and play in Garfield County. Now, the time has come to invest in our conrmunity by allowing for
increased retail opportunities. This rezoning application provides the perfect channel for doing so.
Sincerely,
?t L<
Kyle Alpha, United Companies - General Manager
g'yhit, l X
Gorfleld County Suruey - Age and Gender QuotoErs is o LUT|o N s
Tot l Racor&:
Survey Responses
qlj llthHnl rDout your rhoprht h.!lB rrC ytur
noc yo{ tually tnquuq do ,ou H drt ulr
to.rlnt to* Vrlht h.t rd.qurt. $oDglnl
opport !ld6 Ir '.m
gur nllry?
q2: tls hr do you lypha[y rnrl tor yorr drryday
dtltborpft|?
ql:lllltrlharloutysropd@rnd tlEdlt Eyou
lnv.l lor yq[ rutuLrtlll rhot?l| Uflld you nn
Vour rdd*don?
qa! tbnlr lor your ruponta,lu r hI mn
qsldoa Do you thlnt.ddltloill r.t truli la
cquLtd to 'm lit poruLdon ot lh. 8ilrhl ldl
VrlGy h tlt. n.n f toE?
q& Conrtdshl ,toE lirt Io! lim ihoppad ,t h
od'd ilrl(.lr affi Cobndo rnd th. ounlv, d[t
woddFu ry br tn ol,or lou uold mrt li.r to
a @D lo 0|b 6d ol tir t{rtrt tort yr[a?
Qf,: bn qucrdo6, to, daitoanphk pur?ora+ uhrt I
YOU' lla:
lotd tontact
C.6d.t6
ldd.l 8.f!r.lr
NIS/E d NunbcE
us!.drbh
Awna(l5
WrdE Nwftq
Ton t0lttl70lt ,4,lLtlsl!,0lLrl20ts
r,28:752 t9:3rtr
16:8:its
1, Ur 66!16/2t:
t6x rfi l5:
tsrI 711 5 45,
a 0
f,
a95C1 29 0e/7,6,7 72.9C'
51911 29.&ll LE7 3L'a)
1AJll 9t.3ttt 7B\$.tT,
Conbc Pancdon
Pdd d e.d tlumbrr
Ui P6!r.t on
ToE ,al,rl2or!tolrslut!tol!rl2ot)tobl F!
LYg ,l 5:1/3:6r.91
L llo 5r 3{1i t 34 78?
i. Und.dd.d ldo mt G$),.7a4
t rdur.d (do not od).ooa
roT r lt:t z I lm 00ti
L Ls lht6 I Elb 2)rl 661
LltoSm[6 1:lt z7.rt}
l.tto t mlE 2l lI 15.5il
I Mon lllrl 5 dht ("1 3l li a2-24t1
i. Uni..ld.d (do oot Nd,L 24/
i.tlliflir(doml0O .00n
lt,TAL 16l &t!at 1m.mti
L vdy -r&0.d 1"22 ll 1!,9 '!tlL soffihat xtffiGd n 1t Z 116.stlr
l. Sonaht !nrtl'[.d 2t t l,t 9lrl
I vuy 6qttf.d l:7 tsA
t. Undcddad (do rct ddl Ll5r(
i ldlrd (do.ol udl a .0c1
rorAt 161 ti !I r(p,0o'
LY5 l(x 56 x 2t 62.1lt
!ilo a{ll 21 29.811
l. U^drddcd &0D
t ilasd ldo rct n dl ,00,,'
1,TAl 1,,t 1 {1@.d,''
g urlr ru4-.
nd.l rsa rnd tanl
[srn.db. {Itr lp.oott, Corto
ridSam'tOubl H 21 rl l1-ffi
loldirqot r^bC..lrmd
iudll 3l lj 1 m.n
1. 3atti.d slti c 6(3t 2!0.8
I ilo orlnlon ldo not Erd)1.as./
;. R.lund (do not Nd,.ffi/l
rorAl lr T 4 100.(x,l
L tD!',7rl
L SCX'I 1a cn
I. /acag 2t !:l{.91}
L 5&54 5l 2:2:31 5E/
i.gltl L:li tl tor
i.a5 croud 3t 22 t51
, Lfur.d ldo mt rudl (1 2{1
rotal t5,I l!lt 10@rt
L t.b 6l ,:1:2{3t 51tr
L Frnh s 5i t8 x 6La,(
tot r.&2!4 100 00t(
6cids Ov olrmrlonl
2,588
ht
1
!
sarnEf
Gmrf***# **urcev **ffi ffi*rcEmE B rev*st$Tt*mts
Zone District AmenO ment
Presented to:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
303.223.'l 100
Galloway & Company, lnc.
6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
303.770.8884
Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners
' Brownstein Hyatt
, Farber Schrecli
ci,lig*?v
lntroduction FJ:H?';?[:y.,, G a ii oway
Propertv Owner
Garfield County Commercial lnvestments ("GCC|")
Brownstein Hvatt Farber Schreck
Carolynne White, Esguire, LEED AP
Gallowav
Mike Cerbo - Sife Development Coordinator, P.E., LEED AP
HDR
Pete Mertes - Senro r Project Manager, P.E.
EIS
Wade Haerle - President
Phil Vaughan Gonstruction Management. Inc.
Phil Vaughan - President & Founder
Subject Property p;l#? ''!.;1.:,y.,, G a !i oway
Zoning:
C)oa
o
€5o
-la
-J
5'
ilq=oL)<rD<AJ
Lrl t4
3o65n-^.<o,a-r-io
P*,o
{o
a
C
-t-ToC
IJ
*5(o
No
:)
5'(o
ilry:aoH=a=
sa6f,11-r
o,a"t
oo
o
{o
Current Uses FJ:#?';p.:il", Gaiioway
.U
0)oo
3
0)
zI
:)(o
I
ao
Jao
o
aE
o)oo
TE
=oH=-rJ(, t4
3E65r1T
^.<OJ,"t
oo
o
{o
Placemaking r Activators Pj:#?';";[:,1.,, G a !i oway
Mix of Uses
Tree Lined Areas Appealing Outdoor
Areas
I
TE
r3
466:rn'T
^.<
Hoo
o
:{o
rotn
3
gaovtvo,:,r):''0
CI
aro
=,fga
o):
fD
vo):o
J
'o(-(f
A Lft t-r-E q)
=a-u5'o
oa
t
rn
x.a
=*f(o
Po
!
0):f
:]oo-
froa
-Io-o
EJ
r:!:
o)
Site - Staff
Staff Report:
36.8 Acres Lot Coverage
Roadways (Section 7 -IO7l
Drai nage (Sectio n 7 -2041
Parking(Section 7-302)
r I space/250 SF
Landscaping(Section 7-303)
. Off-Street Parking Area Buffers
. !nterior Parking Areas
Snow Storage(Section 7-305
. Not Allowed in Parking Areas
ProjectionPlan Fji#? i'f,l l.:|,f " G a ! i oway
Im pacts by LU DC:
N
{
=500'
a
a
a
Roadway & Grading
FJ:#?1i";L:il." GaiiowayProperty Ch aracteristics
Must Account For:
Su bd ivisio n
Setbacks, Access, Lot Lines
Pa rking
Roadway Inf rastructu re
. Grading and Slopes
Snow Storage
Drainage
General Rule of Thumb:
20-25% Building Area
35-40% Parking Lot
LO-LS% Drainage
20-30% ROW Drive lsles,
Landscope, Sidewalks
Open Space &
Stormwater Detention
Open Space &
Stormwater
Detention
Open Space &
Stormwater Detention
N
L
1 -=500'
a
a
a
o
Roadway & Grading
mmercia
Use
Roadway & Grading
,!
:
.ffi
2.C ge the than
Teg[E or C$rruurs
Grossrnv &urrsn'l:
- lmmrs
IJREFACE
,tt
n
Gurren2 Cx^PrEi 3: Crqren4:
Funnrl-r|oUse PuxB.enans AranoxonaPul
GsfEld Cffty r !t ffil cslda, filary rnd
figinliwly. Liicfdy, , 6rrtB t! cslhria c, t!.
Cob.ldo sd Re.ing Fql Rim. lt rbo cqtaiE tE
aEectan of tp lnbGillG 70 (L70) lnd sblr Hirmy
82 (SH 82!. Fillativst n b So d ! cc*o6dr bGtrs
! lJ ct .o.d&rd CMty 0d e th{l a dery lmrB
lurr!rubu!ilffity
GryfGB C6t b Lrg. (w 3,000 rqusE milal od llc
val miyily d t,l Mty tr c,ila{ Exrar Eda.r, iBlc-tin
tr axtmly Gro& .nd vitf,fy imcBbb (fuc b Ur.h
@trhtl Tha tqur*E a@, ryh&}l ! srt+lci b tha
trst oaElop,mnt p6re, r ds llE Nt r€libb
ln yilAra prt d lrc qFty- tt tha lcrcl ot prq.ctcd gwtt
ml6irtz6 ffi ttts mxl 20 y"B, hil d d.Eloro Bil he
t &mElt itp.cl a nE qudily oa ltb o{ ib Griirab, md
Ora fircd Ell{.iU oa itr q|oEmtrE rt
ttF Gnncb Cffity Csp.cfffi*E Pld (Ac 'Phn') hr!
b.cn dacbpcd to preir! a g"rsrl larbMt d dcctoi
to ,rnd E plt nirg fr uaindrDorat d Gsific$ Cffdy
TtF Pbo F9!ir6 r iqrrldat$ io. dettids lr|d pol 6
fitt Euib sn dtccl OE ,*ry!acal, sial, lrr(' cffic
dsl4nEnt ts th" qheqpootad polbm ot t}! canty
n 6 dcrlrncd lp !m ar r toot ts cit sr, csty !i!t
arxt cbctld oficiab, aid ,rc o clpoodng to both ttE
imadiAc .nd slrai[ild lo.€Ltffi rccdr d ihc @!rty.
Trris Plo &ild! 6 prcvx8 pte. Mey ot nE i!r€,
poliH. and lfrdrgic!. ircnMcd n tt6 Plan csn bG itrcad
brct lo tlE t994 lrxl 20OO Ga0.ld Cqely tmF.rncBrE
pla$, utidr h tum. Gchoad a ,wba o, irag rnd qcpb
trffi tE on!/r qBind sprchcBrv. pts ot 1968.
PJ:#?*.;1:il.,, G a ! i oway
\r
"Land Use Decisions..... respond
to both the IMMEDIATE and
anticipated LONG-TERM needs
of the County"
Firrr2: Cturet@dhtz
,168 CdEeh.e& Arr
22
hger: Adn@
,r4,iolga 8U
*
CeeCw
Cffisfta?030
lcsDemog Trade
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
H ouseh ol ds
* Represents Rooring Fork Valley Trade Areo
oway
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
r 2000
r 2010
m 2020
e 2000
3 201,0
,':,2020
Population
23
Demographics r county Pj:H? ';? l.:il.,, G a !i oway
GLENWOOD SPR!NGS
120,000
100,000
80,000
POST II{DT,PEI{DEI{T
Garfield County at front of continuing
Colorado population boom
"(The Comprehensive Pla n) focuses on
responding to the IMMEDIATE ond onticipoted
LONG-TERM needs of the county."
*Comp Plon- Pg.9
60,000
40,000
20,000
+2015 and 2040 estimatesfrom Rocky Mountain PBS l-News'
article dated Dec. 28, 2015 from Glenwood Springs' Post lndependent
r 2000
r 2010
$s 20L5
a 2040
Pop u lation
24
Housing = Headlines PJ:#?1...;p.:,1.,, G a !! oway
PosT INDnplIxileM
It's paradise rrr THE PRICE OF PARADISE
... but who can afford to stay?
1,000 residences planned along Highway 82
Development in the Roaring Fork Valley has
bounced back from the recession - in a big way.
It[ext phase of Ironbridge housirrg approved
Affordable housing details to be worked out
Millennials choose where
to live first, then find work
'l de.t'i n itelg rlo not wt trt tr; go ltuc.ft' to ll,'isconsitr.' 0ne .sqls
9Z os/AJa a D)9 'D uaelAtaq luauaeloD uotsnpurard olllQ!tlx! *
u'alq7l!o^o apow aq 4lpoar uo)
JO aJO Sa?tAJaS asAql AJaqtA SDaJO Ut
palwol aQ ol sazt^Jas uoqJn 1uurnbat
y aw d o1 a^ap u runl ab ot notug,,
,,'luautdolaAap l*au to{ saunJas Jalofir
puo Jaltas punos AlloluautuoJtAua puo
anrpat{a-lsol t a I q o p u ad a p'a1o n b ap o
'1oba1 {o uolslrtotd aqJ aJnsul,,
:ueld anrsuaqalduro3
)l)arL,l)s JaqJeJ
lreAg uratsuMoJB
w
w
[ervroileg
t
e
,{n{
fXpopSocrrueoJVUE
:
II-+.o
ilE
rEa=
s66fn-
t-
OJ
-i
oo
o
{0,
d i"''
"': t"'
li;;
N){
Need for Retail
Retail options have not kept pace with residential growth
Existing retail doesn't serve daily customer needs
Vacant commercial space does not support large format
reta il
Property's best use is for Iarge format retail anchor
Sophisticated retailers have expressed interest in locating
on property
Fj:#?''..? [:il.,, G a ! i oway
30
{,209
',IJ$:TT:J
PJI#?''i";[:il.,, G a !i oway
161
Cornpleted
Responses
(A typical response rate considering
bad numbers, disconnects, and
hang-ups)
ers'i.solurrorus
Survey Background
Survey Results
. 42Yo travel more than 5
miles to shop
o 30% very satisfied with
current retail options
. 35% unsatisfied with
cu rrent reta il options
o 62% think Roaring Fork
Valley will require additional
retail in the next 5 years
o 3l%want national chains
. zl%want specialized stores
Pj:#?if,li.:,Y"' G a !i owav
Resident Responses
Add itiona I
Reta il Not
Requ ired
Add itiona I
Retail
Required
32
Ouestlon 85: Shopplng Opportunltles
lriq. &lporina ioi Crylhld Coirnry. aOi--;;;;;, I
I ",o .r^rico J
llr
I
u€s^ fu''*'* {/-J I *\
) ottrt lourr,$orff
I
?a,
Br. rtry Poo.Elzl-lt@tIitryG6d
A$trgan af.nllt$d,Art
EI Csrbordal€. 3.1
Et Ghnwood Spings, 3.3
trl New Castle,2.9
El Prrachute.2.5
El Rifle.2.E
EI SiIt 2.9
County's Survey Rest Brownstein Hyatt GaiiOFarber Schrecl<way
2008 Garlield County Public Opinion Survey
What ls yd.n oJrafit ssossmsnl .lt tho lollorhg $da{rarEltx ot lh3 Ga6oU Couoty comtrurrry? A sclre ot t m€ans lory Poof ad a s@f3 d 5 moans ny€ry Good
Laad Conrulurt:
\irrr:.!\Y ... .*-..
Conltbuto.:
33
EISiSOLUTIONS
a&oreb@
lhotFln!O@ts.ll6. Yalas. Artatntnl
Letters of Support Fj:#?*.,i1*:,1.,, G a ! ! oway
' 'This is one of the only locations available in the county that
can offer high quality retail businesses the visibility, access
to and from a major highway, dnd proximity to a new and
growing residential area that they require to prosper."
- Jack Austin, Outwest Drywall Supply
' "several existing commercial businesses are established in
the immediate area, though none feature the type of large
retail business that this location will attract, and which
would serve the needs of existing residents."
- Dave Malehorn, Pro Auto
' Adjacent and nearby businesses would benefit from the
additional commercial development and residents would
have convenient shoppi ng options."
- David Dodson, Dodson Engineered Products
UN
.U
IJ\-(T
I'o
Tc
-to
o
3
(D
=F"Fa
ilry+9m<
-J
s66=NIFr4
OJ-i
oo
o
{o
:*r$ iis"[, :
S:EE i=F$ r*$+S E=e*t E*iliI HBi; L
i[$$iiHi
'[
*'
o)(Jl
1
{
l,}'t
oo
3
3
C:f
II
F{'
oo
0)
a
U
o
-la
-lr
m
3p-
o
3o
).+
ornOI95
8.9o3oo@fO'+
dq
IFF5q)JCNo
60 4I3 o.l
iiEf,$>!r I5U _ a
9is$. r*
!.
rI
e"1; ol
oi I
aoIi
iiitiiiii *iiiiiEiiiig
l"-:r
ii'iiiiEiiiEiiiEi[i iIiii'iiis'fiis'ii
TEao
H=
-JLn t4
+o6=n-/^\<
o,t-i
oo
o
{o
d =+si 8n Ste$ i: oos_. oI E8€3 f5 xf,on i.$ $sss 6d d'd'9ro !$ *F-is e,.rt \rrA:Lnq BsiFt\\lO\. ' -.X sI o; etou s=.=\.S eo=E s3h\Jis' s-a d
H\.S i.o *
=.. I a- .Q.s3€$o-
+BsEEii$s$r3 ES$sn3s: qNfS
*EE i i+$r
snB$ € $r=EsH; {ss8GATS [;€F
g=1 it S
=
I
=i**$ c.tsE
'\6- * I !o)\'os-J 5 5r0
General Conformance Pj:#? l,f,g:p " G a !i oway
General conformance does not require
compliance "with every policy category" in the
comprehensive plan
"Canyon Area Residents for the Env't v. Bd of County Comm'rs, No. 08CM390, slip op. at 20 (Colo. App. June 18, 2009)
A land use application generally conforms with
the comprehensive plan so long as it does not
"frustrate or preempt achievement of the plan's
recommendations" and is "compatible with, and
does not frustrate the [comprehensive] plan's
goals and policies"
*Growth lnitiative Committee v. Jumpers, LLC, 128 P.3d 452,461 (Nev. 2006); Richmarr Holly Hills, lnc. v. American PCS, L.P.,701 A.2d
879, 893,903 (Md. App. 1997)
40
Focused Growth FJ:#?1..?[:,Y"' Ga ii owav
U rba n G rowth Areas:
U n incorporated
Com m u nities:
!
41
FJ:#?1:T[:,1.,, G a i! oway
;t
42
MapprehensivePIan
m
or
m
C)oc2
-{
PITKIN COUNTY
Fj:H?'+Tl":il." G a ! ! oway
ii.
iii.
Commercial uses exist in
the immediately
surrounding area
A Rural Employment
Center is located adjacent
to south end of Property
The County has for years
contem plated com mercia I
and high density
residential uses in the area
(as expressed in previous
Comprehensive Plans,
maps and approved PUDs)
The Property falls within
an existing water and
sewer service area.
+- ."!ft,r' 'L!Rural Employment
Center
Area of lnfluence
Unincorporated
Community
Comprehensive Plan Map
frst-
-Tgl-
3{x
z
r)oc
{l<l
rn
3p_
o
3o:l
ilqaoH=
-lLn !1+Ea:lnT '<
OJ
-f
o
o,
o
{o
i;
I
t NnoS 319v3
ss
f-t