HomeMy WebLinkAbout30.04 BOCC Staff Report 04.18.2016 Modified Planning Commission RecommendationBOCC April 18, 2016
DP
XII. MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
On March 28, 2016, Staff and the Applicant reviewed and discussed the Waivers and Conditions
of Approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Applicant requested a number
of clarifications and modifications to several of the Conditions. Below is a marked copy of the
changes generally agreed upon by the Applicant and Staff. This marked version builds off the
Planning Commission recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval. The following red lined
changes represent additional modifications to the Planning Commissions set of recommended
conditions that Staff recommends the BOCC incorporate should an approval with conditions be
considered.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners 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 for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan may be in the best interest of the health, safety,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County with the
following conditions.
4. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met
the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met
the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as
amended.
6. That the requested waiver from Standard §6-202(D), Bicycle traffic accommodation, of
the ULUR of 2008, as amended, is not granted.
7. The following waivers from minimum standards contained in the Garfield County Unified
Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) have been granted and determined
as appropriate for the health, safety and welfare of the future residents and the general
public:
a. Section 7-108 and Section 7-307, Road Standards;
i. Modification in road, right-of-way, drainage including curb and gutter, on -street
parking lane, shoulder width, sidewalks, and other design criteria identified in
Appendix B of the PUD Guide and shown on the Subdivision Preliminary Plan
(dated October 2015) for Major and Minor Collectors (Identified as "Entry Road"
and "Local" within the PUD Guide and Subdivision Preliminary Plan);
ii. Road standards for Alley, Garden Home Access, and Emergency Vehicle
Access which will be consistent with the design criteria identified in Appendix
B of the PUD Guide and shown on the Subdivision Preliminary Plan (dated
October 2015);
iii. Roundabout designs consistent with the preliminary designs submitted with the
PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Applications (dated October 2015).
71
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
b. Section 7-207 C.1., Detention Facilities:
i. Detention limited to Water Quality Capture Volume as defined by the Urban
Drainage Criteria Manual, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver,
CO (UDFCD) in accordance with the preliminary engineering design submitted
with the PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Applications (dated October
2015); and
ii Storm drainage systems designed in accordance with the UDFCD in
accordance with Preliminary engineering design submitted with the PUD and
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Applications (dated October 2015).
c. Section 7-305 A.1.f., Landscaping outside of the adjacent right-of-way: Allow
landscaping within the right-of-way in accordance with the landscape program
submitted with the PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications (dated
October 2015). County approval of specific plantings within the right-of-way shall
not be required.
d. Section 7-305 A.7., Minimum size of tree caliper: A reduction in the minimum tree
caliper from 2" to 1.5" for deciduous trees.
e. Section 7-405 C.1.a. Standards for public sites and open space: Approval of
private roads for public use.
2. The following waivers from minimum standards contained in the ULUR have been
conditionally granted:
a. Section 7-203, Restrictive Inner Buffer: A reduction in the structure setback for
placement of the bridge over Cattle Creek as shown on Sheet S01.01 of the
Drawing Package submitted with the PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Application (dated October 2015), provided that at the time of final plat the Owner
submits an updated site plan indicating the encroachments that will occur on the
site and identifies protective measures that will be applied to the setback area.
b. Section 7-206 B.2., Sub -drain requirement: Sub -drains shall not be required for
slab -on -grade as provided for by Sections IV.B.2(4) and V.A of the PUD Guide
unless the specific soils and geotechnical analysis as required in Condition 12(A)
provided at each final plat associated with the development indicates application
of Section 7-206 B.2 is necessary for protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the future residents and the general public.
72
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be
conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The approved PUD Site Plan, PUD Guide and Subdivision Preliminary Plan are attached
to this Resolution as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, and are incorporated herein by
reference.
3. The Subdivision Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of three years, or
until the first final plat has been recorded, whichever occurs first.
4. The Applicant shall provide a more detailed cost itemization for development
improvements, including soft costs. This updated cost itemization shall be reviewed and
accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
5. The maximum residential density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be
362 dwelling units.
6. The Affordable Housing Agreement will be required by the BOCC to be executed and
approved prior to submittal of the first final plat. As proposed, the phasing schedule
attached to this PUD Guide and total number of units (55) are to be incorporated into the
Affordable Housing Agreement. To finalize the Agreement, it will be necessary for the
Applicant to collaborate with the GCHA regarding their comments and concerns. The
Affordable Housing Agreement shall to be recorded and executed by both the property
owner and the BOCC prior to submittal of the first final plat.
7. The Applicant shall update the wetland determination with the Army Corps of Engineers
for the subject properties prior to submittal of grading permit.
8. The Subdivision Preliminary Plan is hereby vested under the LUDC effective July 15, 2013
and last amended December 7, 2015. AH future amendments to this Subdivision
Preliminary Plan or PUD shall be reviewed pursuant to the Land Use Code and
Development Code in place at the time of submittal for that amendment.
9. The revised Development Agreement and Phase 0 Improvements Agreement shall be
recorded as provided by state law and in conjunction with this Resolution. The following
amendments shall be made to the Development Agreement and Phase 0 Improvements
Agreement prior to recording.
a. Development Agreement:
i. The Applicant shall amend the Development Agreement to remove reference to
treating changes in the sequence of Filings in the Phasing Plan as non -substantial.
The process for modifications to the sequence of Filings shall be consistent with the
Land Use Code in place at the time of amendment.
ii. The Applicant shall include the Phasing Plan, identified as Appendix C of the PUD
Development Guide, as an exhibit with the Development Agreement and modify the
relevant references within the Agreement as appropriate.
73
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
iii. Should the BOCC not find the new timeline for expiration appropriate, the amended
Development Agreement shall be modified to reflect the approved vesting period.
b. Phase 0 Improvement Agreement:
i. The Construction Phasing Plan shall be recorded as an attachment to the Phase 0
Improvements Agreement.
ii. The Applicant shall provide an draft of the agreement with explanation as to how
the - - - - • - • e ` - • -- ee - • e Cattle Creek Metro District will provide
for the construction and installation of the improvements as identified in Recital 7 of
the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement prior to recording of the Phase 0
Improvement Agreement Document. This documentation shall be reviewed and
accepted by the County Attorney's Office prior to recording.
iii. Additional language has been added to the Indemnity provision of paragraph 4 of
the Phase 0 Improvement Agreement. This language shall be removed from the
Phase 0 Improvements Agreement.
10. Grading Activity / Reclamation
a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of the on-site activities and
improvements as set forth in the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement.
b. Revegetation security shall be provided at time of grading permit in accordance with
the terms of Phase 0 Improvement Agreement.
c. No development activity, including Phase 0 Improvements, of the project shall occur
until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SNAP) and Notice to Proceed has
been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Terrace
Parkway and the South EVA, or the fire district has waived the requirement for a South
EVA. Should the requirement for a South EVA be waived by the fire district, then
written confirmation from the district shall be provided to the County prior to submittal
of the grading permit for the Phase 0 Improvements.
d. The Applicant shall revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements
and/or temporary easements for grading along the north property line which shows
incomplete contours, trespass on the adjacent property to the north, and creates
drainage ponding areas. The revised grading plan shall be reviewed and accepted by
the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit.
e. The Applicant shall revise the applicable Preliminary Plan / Plat documents to show
and label storm drainage culverts. The revised plans shall be reviewed and accepted
by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit.
f. The Applicant shall revise the necessary Preliminary Plan documents to designed the
release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality pond. The revised
plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to
submittal of a grading permit.
74
g.
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
The storm drainage shall be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI parcel
into culvert c76 -a to alleviate concerns about potential flooding of downstream lots.
The Applicant shall redesign the offsite flow into culvert c76 -a for review and
acceptance by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading permit.
11. Vegetation
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat, whichever shall come
first, the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC
property and, if agreed to by the Roaring Fork Conservancy, on the Conservation
Easement.
b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5% requirement
prior to treatment of noxious weeds as state statute requires that state listed A and B
species must be eradicated when detected, and the County concurs with state law
regarding all noxious weeds.
c. County Vegetation Management Director shall be consulted regarding the calculation
of revegetation security.
d. With exception to relief provided as a waiver in this Resolution for setbacks for the
bridge over Cattle Creek, removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within
the thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody
is prohibited except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and
other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this
setback.
12. Geology
The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical
Engineering Report submitted for the project, as such recommendations may be amended
through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below. The
geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the recommendations provided
by the Colorado Geological Survey.
a. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be provided as part of the final design
submitted for each final plat and prior to the commencement of construction on the
site. In addition, geotechnical investigations for pre -development reclamation (Phase
0) activities, shall be conducted as part of obtaining the required grading permit.
Detailed cost estimates shall be included for mitigation done as part of the public
improvements.
b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit.
c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. The
Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation where further geotechnical investigations
reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections may lead to
failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for alternate temporary access. "Critical
road sections" are those road sections which if damaged by subsidence would
eliminate access to Tots within the REC project.
75
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
d. If an agreement is reached with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to stabilize the base of
steep escarpments, a copy of such agreement or plan and, if required, a copy of the
easement between the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the owner of the River Edge
Colorado property, shall be provided to the County Community Development
Department as part of grading permit application.
e. With exception to relief provided as a waiver in this Resolution, all building permits will
be required to provide an underdrain system to protect below -grade construction such
as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed
at each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade.
f. Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlot/mass grading, as applicable, cut depths for
buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to
10" in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut
and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected
against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap.
g.
The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the project
and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could impact
slope stability and foundations.
h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior
backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a
distance of at least 10 feet.
i. Roof downspouts and drains will be discharged a minimum of ten feet beyond the
limits of all backfill. Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the
provision of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to
ensure water application rated to not generally exceed evapotransporation rates.
j•
A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of each
final plat to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Where fill
placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with any final
plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of the final plat
application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities, a
geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County Building and Planning
Department for review prior to paving; such report shall demonstrate that the fill will
achieve the pavement design objectives in the pavement design report submitted with
the subject final plat.
k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain
Type I/II portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium aluminate).
76
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
13. Wildlife
The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the reports of its
consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following:
a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from
roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the
lighting plan submitted as part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces except
that required around building in accordance with safety requirements is not permitted.
Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the roadsides in
areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas.
b. Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82,
cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement
except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials that
mimic local native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance with the
landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application.
c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas shall be closed by the Property
Owners Association during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of
yards or dog parks, shall be on a leash year-round.
d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River
corridors.
e. Open Space Tracts are used as winter range; therefore, reclamation will need to occur
using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general conformance
with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans submitted with
the PUD Application. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds
should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range.
f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus
young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards; loose or
uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs are prohibited.
g.
Development of the REC project shall generally comply with the Erosion Control and
Sediment Control Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed with
each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from
developed areas from reaching Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff
should be filtered before running into the river, or caught and used for irrigation
purposes.
h. All utilities shall be buried.
Applicant shall adhere to the Roaring Fork Conservancy Grant of Conservation
Easement, recorded at Reception No. 559036 (Conservation Easement), and shall
work with Roaring Fork Conservancy to mitigate impacts concerning trails, river
access, and signage. Applicant shall forward any concerns regarding compliance with
the Conservation Easement to the POA. Applicant intends that its obligations under
the Conservation Easement will be assigned to the POA.
77
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
14. Access and Roadways
a. Prior to issuance of the grading permit or submittal of the first final plat, whichever shall
be submitted first, the Applicant shall execute and record the proposed easement for
Terrace Parkway. The final executed and recorded easement shall be provided to the
Community Development Department.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first final plat, whichever shall
be submitted first, the Applicant shall submit a Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA)
corridor Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for
Terrace Parkway and the south EVA, if required by state law. If PUC review and
approval of the crossing is not required the Applicant shall provide reasonable
evidence from the PUC to that effect which is acceptable to the Community
Development Department.
c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first final plat, whichever shall
be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide documentation from RFTA and
preliminary engineering plans regarding the acceptance of construction to cross the
Rio Grande Trail at -grade in the vicinity of the project entrance and the south EVA. If
construction collateral is not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement
shall be included in a County Improvements Agreement. The Preliminary Plans of the
crossing shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer. If an at—
grade crossing for both the trail and railroad corridor are not approved by RFTA and/or
the PUC, then the Applicant will be required to amend the approved Preliminary Plan.
d. Consistent with Section 9(a) of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the
Intersection of State Highway 82 at th6d,Jl nction of County Road 110 and County Road
113, the Applicant shall submit a draft Tdrmination of Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) (Reception # 824971) regarding funding and construction of improvements to
the east side of the intersection at SH 82 and Cattle Creek. The agreed upon
termination document of the MOU shall be brought before the BOCC for review and
consideration at a regularly scheduled public meeting. This agreement shall be
executed and recorded by the CI, LLC and the BOCC prior to grading permit or the
first final plat, whichever occurs first.
e. The Applicant shall submit license agreements with RFTA and any necessary PUC
approvals for bicycle and pedestrian access to the Rio Grande Trail along with
preliminary engineering plans for the proposed connections at Terrace Parkway and
at the Cattle Creek Intersection. The license agreements and preliminary engineering
plans shall be reviewed and accepted verified for consistency with the Preliminary Plan
by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the first final plat.
f. The Applicant shall revise the easement for the north EVA (Reception # 760451) to
better graphically depict the easement granted, and attach and record Exhibit C. The
new or revised easement document shall ensure legal access from the development
to County Road 154 as an EVA as shown on the Preliminary Plan. This easement
document shall be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to execution. The
executed version of the easement shall be submitted prior to grading permit.
78
g.
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
Prior to submittal of the first final plat, the Applicant shall verify whether the bridge
crossing Cattle Creek needs a floodplain permit and/or LOMR. Should the bridge
crossing require a floodplain permit and/or a LOMR, the applicable permits shall be
obtained prior to grading permit.
h. The Applicant shall amend the plans to accommodate turning movements into Moraine
Court from Trailside Drive. The revised plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the
Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the first final plat.
i. The Applicant shall provide preliminary engineering plans for bicycle accommodation
along Terrace Parkway. These preliminary engineering plans shall be reviewed and
accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of the first final plat.
j•
South EVA:
i. The Applicant shall obtain a CDOT Access Permit for the south EVA, as proposed.
The Applicant shall demonstrate approval of the CDOT Access Permit prior to
grading permit. Should the applicant obtain a waiver from the fire protection district
for the South EVA, then the Applicant shall provide written confirmation of this
waiver from the district. In addition, should the South EVA not be constructed as a
result of the waiver, then the Preliminary Plan shall be amended to remove this
access point and proposed improvement.
ii. The Applicant shall either amend the plans to meet CDOTs grade requirements or
demonstrate that CDOT has accepted the proposed grade for the south EVA road
prior to grading permit.
iii. The Applicant shall provide a RFTA license for a crossing of the Rio Grande Trail
at the proposed location for the south EVA that will permit access for emergency
vehicles from the project area to Highway 82. The Applicant shall submit a copy of
the RFTA license to Garfield County prior to grading permit.
k. Bicycle / Pedestrian Underpass
i. The Applicant shall redesign the underpass to either: (i) meet applicable CDOT and
AASHTO Standards for this type of facility. a shared use path in a rural area, or (ii)
to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a manner approved by CDOT and
Garfield County. The redesign shall be reviewed and reasonably accepted by the
Garfield County engineer and CDOT prior to submittal of the grading permit.
ii. The approach to the underpass as proposed does not meet the standards for
shared -use facilities. The minimum width of the approach shall either: (i) meet
CDOT and AASHTO Standards for a shared use path in a rural area, or (ii)
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a manner approved by CDOT and
Garfield County. The Applicant shall submit a design with an approach to CDOT
and Garfield County which design shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield
County engineer and CDOT which meets these Standards. This redesign prior to
grading permit.
79
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
iii. The Applicant shall provide a lighting plan for the bicycle and pedestrian underpass.
The plan shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to
grading permit.
iv. The applicant shall prepare a draft agreement for ownership and maintenance of
the underpass by the Cattle Creek Metro District to be reviewed by the Garfield
County Attorney's Office. Prior to submittal of the first final plat, the Applicant shall
execute the agreement following County review, and submit the final executed
version of the agreement with the first final plat application.
v. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Garfield County engineer and Road and
Bridge Department detailing the trail from the bicycle and pedestrian underpass to
the County road network on the east side of Highway 82. This detail shall be
reviewed and accepted prior to grading permit, with comments from the County
engineer and Road and Bridge Department incorporated therein.
vi. Drainage through the culvert needs to be accommodated separate from the shared -
use -path through the facility. The Applicant shall provide a plan to manage drainage
through the bicycle and pedestrian underpass. The plan should be reviewed and
accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to grading permit.
vii. Several design issues or inadequate information were identified with the proposed
design of the Underpass, including:
• Details need to be provided showing how the west extension will be
connected to the culvert.
• Details regarding waterproofing need to be provided.
• Details of the shared -use -path surface through the facility need to be
provided.
• Snow fencing shall be placed behind the guardrails to prevent trail users
and the trail from being hit by snow thrown from the Highway.
• More detail is necessary to determine if the proposed design would meet
ADA standards as required by CDOT, if such ADA standards are
applicable.
The Applicant shall provide plans to address these design issues. The plans shall
be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to grading permit.
15. Water / Wastewater
a. The applicant shall connect to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
(RFWSD) for both water and wastewater service.
b. The Applicant shall submit updated plans addressing the water line conflicts with the
36" storm drain culvert on Riverside Drive. The Applicant shall submit updated plans,
to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer, prior to submittal of the
first final plat.
c. The Applicant shall submit updated plans addressing how the fire hydrants throughout
the development are connected to the water distribution system. The Applicant shall
submit updated plans, to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer,
prior to submittal of the first final plat.
80
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
d. The Applicant shall submit the separate package identified on sheet SW02.01 of the
preliminary engineering plans for utilities under Highway 82. The Applicant shall
submit this separate package of plans, to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield
County Engineering Department, prior to submittal of the first final plat.
e. The Applicant shall provide a demonstration of adequate legal and physical water to
the Executive Lot. Should the Lot be served by RFWSD, then the preliminary
engineering plans shall be amended showing water and sewer connections. Should
the Lot be served by an individual well and Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
(OWTS), then the Applicant shall provide a demonstration of legal and physical water,
including pump test and water quality test, as well as a description of how the
wastewater is to be managed. The amended preliminary engineering plans or
demonstration of legal and adequate water and wastewater management shall be
reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer prior to submittal of a grading
permit.
f. The Applicant shall submit updated plans addressing the water line conflicts with the
Glenwood Ditch piping on Trailside Drive. The Applicant shall submit updated plans,
to be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County engineer, prior to submittal of
the first final plat.
The Applicant shall submit preliminary engineering plans for all offsite water and
wastewater infrastructure necessary to connect and serve the development by the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). These preliminary plans shall
be reviewed and accepted by the RFWSD prior to submittal of the first final plat.
g.
16. Final Plat Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the following final plat requirements in addition to those
requirements contained within the Land Use and Development Code in effect at the time
of submittal.
a. Consistent with the Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant shall provide the following
information as submittal requirements with the first final plat application:
i. An Improvements Agreement;
ii. Demonstration of formation of the POA;
iii. Draft deeds for conveyance of improvements, facilities or real property from the
Applicant to the POA;
iv. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) applicable to the development.
v. Development Agreement;
vi. Affordable Housing Agreement;
vii. Other items as identified in the conditions of approval within this Resolution.
b. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following:
i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development.
These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no
special foundation design is necessary.
ii. With exception to relief provided as a waiver in the Resolution of Approval, an
underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as
retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed
at each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish
grade.
81
BOCC April 18, 2016
DP
17. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for final plat in the
subdivision so that the amount of the fee -in -lieu payment of school land dedication for the
subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee -in lieu will be required prior to approval
of the first final plat for the subdivision and may be paid either for the whole development
at the time of the first final plat or paid as each final plat is submitted. Should the Applicant
choose to pay the fee -in -lieu on a per final plat basis instead of a lump sum at the first final
plat, then individual appraisals shall be made for each final plat in order to determine the
value of each payment.
18. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat the Applicant shall be required to
comply with Resolution 2008-05 which sets forth the required residential impact fee of
$730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this
fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision.
82
1
EXHIBIT
Garfield County
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. In 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.
Mailed notice was completed on th
J
day of
, 2016.
All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] Q,,L O iALf
■ Please attach proof of certified, return rece : requested mailed notice.
My application required Published notice.
/ Notice was published on the I U day of __
■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram.
My plication required Posting of Notice.
Notice was posted on the _1 IN day of $
2016.
2016.
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.
((W
Name: IVt A.bo ill
Signature:
Date: 3 / B f aci
For delivery information, visit our web
ru
co
0
RI
U.S. Postal Service"'
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mali Only
For delivery information, visit our website at www.uiptcom..
Certieed Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
CI (Endorsement Required)
t=1
IT'
r -
Restricted Delivery rFee
(Endorsement Requied)
Total P--0^^.• 0- ....in
Sent
or PO
Crty, S
Ln
Lfl
1-1
co
ru
1-1
C3
Er
m
P-
r -q
c0
3490 0001 2895
r-9
Save
p,.. or PC
Postmark
Here
TELLER SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
720 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611-2071
U.S. Postal Service'
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com%
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted DellveryFee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees $
ASPEN GLEN WATER & SANITATION
DISTRICT
9929 HIGHWAY 82
CARBONDALE, CO 81623-9682
Postmark
Here
Of
Stn
0(1 or 1
'oft)
PS •
U.S. Postal Service"'
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
r" r
•
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sent
City,
P INVESTMENTS, LLC
855 ROSE LANE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Postmark
Here
ru
u1
0
ru
rR
ru
JI
r4
Lr)
0—
c1:3
ru
rR
0
0
m
rq
CI
U.S. Postal ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL® R
Domestic Mail Only
EXHIBIT
-7—
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Deliveryree
(Endorsement Requ ed)
Total Postage & Fees
$entTo
Street &
or PO &
City, Stal
$
Postmark
Hero
REINARZ, BERNADETTE F TRUST
1110 COUNTY ROAD 110
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
U.S. Postal ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.cone.
r'441,
Lai
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum RecelptFee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted DeliveryFee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Feas
Postmark
Here
Sent ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATION
or PC
City,.
DISTRICT
PO BOX 326
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
U.S. Postal ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.cone'.
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Son
Sfre
or P
City,
HADAR, JOHN B
1108 13TH ST N
HUMBOLDT, IA 50548-1130
Postmark
Here
rn
m
0'
co
rR
D
D
D
0'
m
rR
D
f` -
U.S. I lostal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic A ail Only
For deil ery ('formation, visit our website at www.u$ps.com*.
t..,,S.stage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sent
Stret
or Pt
City.121.
$
Postmark
Here
CDOT REGION 3
222 SOUTH 6TH STREET #317
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
S SECTION ON DELIVERY
❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
(Pn ted Name) C. DM of D
cress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
nails 0 Priority Mali Express'
1 VI Return Receipt for Merchandise
ail jle Collect on Delivery
'livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
8384
PS Form 3811, July 2013
0
m
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. F ostal ServiceTM
CER1FIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domesi;fc Mhit Only
For dellv1sw.
ry ir,tormation, visit our website at wwusps com'.
:
—Fostage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
D (Endorsement Required)
D
0'
m
N
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
GLEASON, WALTER M ESTATE OF
C/0 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP INC -DBA
UNITED COMPANIES
PO BOX 3609
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502
Sent
Street
or PO
Cit%
PS Fe
Postmark
Here
ructions
PS Form 3811, July 2013
7014 3490
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. P iSit Service`"
CERTIFIED -MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mai �' 1y
For delivery Information, visit our webslte at www.usps.com".
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
(Printed Nme)
✓�
C.
-Agent
0 Addressee
D• eof
Zai
r-
ivery
(dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
• delivery address below: 0 No
Mail' 0 Priority Mail Express"'
td 'gi Return Receipt for Merchandise
Vlail 0 Collect on Delivery
)elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
X595 8308
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total DnMonn A. Daae
Sent
Stree
or PC
City, ;
PS F
Postmark
Here
WESTERN MOBILE NORTHERN, INC.
C/0 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP INC -DBA
UNITED COMPANIES
PO BOX 3609
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502
'ructions;
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
5 SECTION ON DELIVERY
6
Printed
a e)
ICJ'Agent
0 Addressee
C. D eof Dr very
Tress different from item 1? 0 Yes
ielivery address below: 0 No
ail° 0 Priority Mall Express'"
it Collect on Delivery
Return Receipt for Merchandise
!very? (Extra Fee) In Yes
95 8087
m
ru
ru
cII
ul
Er
ru
r -I
D
Q
D
D
tr
m
ra
D
P -
U.S. !'ostal Service'
CEFITIAIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Dame: tic I' fail Only
For del very information, visit our website at www.aSps.coma.
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Tot ._
Sen
Sire
or F
City
PS
Postmark
Here
HERRING FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLLP
31825 HIGHWAY 6
SILT, CO 81652
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. stat Service"'
CERT IFItED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domesti Ma.lOnly
For delive if-liarmation, visit our website at www.usps.com''.
S SECTION ON DELIVERY
1 -77741 --Mg
? /4,i9 0 Agent
'2 • 1-77 ' -Cg 0 Addressee
(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
1-yrfCr7C l'1 2/27/1 L
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: El No
1a® 0 Priority Mail Express"
gReturn Receipt for Merchandise
all Collect on Delivery
:livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
5 8223
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
D (Endorsement Required)
Er
m
r9
D
Total Postage & Fees
Ser
sirs
ori
cit
S
Postmark
Here
SHERICK, GEORGE W & JERI L
2550 COUNTY ROAD 109
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
PS Form
D
O
r1
co
ru
rR
0
0
0
0
LT'
m
a
UOmnesuc newrri
U.S. P\'stat Service"
CERT?FID MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic wail \nly
to
For delivery I\for atlon visit our website at www.usps com,'.
nstructions
Posta
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Hequred)
Total Postage & Fees
GRIEFENBERG, BERT & PORTIA
PO BOX 995
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO
81602-0995
Ss
sr
Of
Ci
Postmark
Here
4.4)1'S 63112
'ECT/ON ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
❑Addreressee
nted Name) / C. Date of Delivery
6. Zi c/
ss different from item 1? 0 Yes
III address below: 0 No
19 Pno Mall Express"
Re rn Receipt for Merchandise
Ilect on Delivery
reiryP xtra Fee) 0 Yes
i 8230
Instructions:
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
(grin
0 Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
_y-'oy
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
fail° 0 Priority Mail Express'
Return Receipt for Merchandise
til Collect on Delivery
'very? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
15 8100
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
ru
cc
00
rU
D
D
D
7014 3490
U.S. Pos'i a1 Service
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic M it C rly
For delivery ir form tion, visit our website at www.usps.comg..
Postsae,
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fee.
Se
Str
ar.
Cit
$
HOWE, JOHN J & HEATHER D
552 COUNTY ROAD 110
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Postmark
Mere
N.NIV
PrintRd Na e)
0 Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
cress different from item 1?
delivery address below:
❑ Yes
0 No
olaiP 0 Priority Mail Express'
i II Return Receipt for Merchandise
ail 0 Collect on Delivery
:livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
8254
PS Form 3811. July 2013
m
Cr
rR
0O
ir
00
rU
D
D
D
D
m
rR
C7
N
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Postal Servicer'
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domes\'Ic M`rtl Only
ar�1
For deltry irjformation, visit our website at www.usps.com5'.
o3tage
Certified Fee
Retum ReceiptFee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postana R Fax
$
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT
ASPEN GLEN
0080 BALD EAGLE WAY
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Postmark
Here
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
PS Form 3811, July 2013
00
0"
0D
n-1
or Instructions.
Domestic Return Receipt
)stat Service'
IFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
M< i! Only
rin
ormation visit our website at www,usps.come
C7
Return Receipt Fee
c (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
c-.3 (Endorsement Required)
Q-.
Postage
Certified Fee
frl Total Postage & l-ees
Sent To
RUDD, WAYNE
0132 PARK AVE
BASALT, CO 81621
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Postmark
Here
Agent
/3" 0 Addressee
(Printed Name) C. Date'] of
Delivery
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
tall® 0 Priority Mail Express'"
I gReturn Receipt for Merchandise
til Collect on Delivery
livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
?895 81,95
SECTION ON DELIVERY
tr
0 Agent
T,' l 0 Addressee
(Printed Name)
C. ate of De ivery
ddress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
!pe
ed Mail® 0 Priority Mall Express'
tered ii2 Return Receipt for Merchandise
ad Mall 0 Collect on Delivery
ad Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
895 8414
ru
ru
m
13
rU
rR
O
0
O
U.S. Pl)stal Service'
CER11IFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domestl'� Ma Only
e'v= y'Int rrmatio , v : • r
Certit ed Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
0 (Endorsement Required)
Q-,
Total Postage & Fees
rR
O
Iti
Sent
Siree;
or PO
City,
Postmark
Hero
VILLIERE, TIMOTHY P & SUSAN
280 LARIET LANE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9657
PS Form 3811, July 2013
IT'
cp
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S.` Postal Service'
CELITIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domf stk! Mail Only
NNE
For dj:five, , information, visit our website at www.usps.coma.
S SECTION ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
0 Addressee
intecj Name)
C. Date of Delivery
cress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
4a®' 0 Priority Mail Express`"
gReturn Receipt for Merchandise
ail Collect on Delivery
'livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 8322
Postage
Caddied Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fee
Sen;
Site
or P
City,
ASPEN EQUITY GROUP LLC
PO BOX 1439
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Postmark
Here
S SECTION ON DELIVERY
Welted Na e)
ire• fid' ,re. from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
CId Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
lailr 0 Priority Mail Express'
1 i Return Receipt for Merchandise
ail 6 Collect on Delivery
livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
15 8094
PSForm 3811, July 2013
0
r -
U.S. Pcstal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
DomesticiMal+Only
For deliver • info mation, visit our website at
Domestic Return Receipt
w.usps.camo.
ore
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Se
Sd
Of
G
Postmark
Here
GARFIELD COUNTY
108 8TH STREET, SUITE 213
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-3363
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
(Printed Name)
❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
!dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
Mar 0 Priority Mail Express"
d Return Receipt for Merchandise
jail Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 8070
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
idress different from item 1? 0 Yes
r delivery address below: 0 No
m
oCt
11'
rU
r -R
0
0
tr
m
rR
0
1` -
U.S. Po tai ServiCeTM
CERTIF.IED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic M i�
y
For delivety 1 ,formation, visit our website a
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Peat% ' R FAAA 44
Sent
Striae
or PC
city,
Mackey, Gregg
P.O. Box 398
Basalt, CO 81621
Postmark
Here
HIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
r 0 Agent
d ,L/ 0 Addressee
y (P ' ed Name) C. Dat ofDeliver4
j r,r c 6/ ra ry --ib --
iddress different from item 1? 0 Yes
tr delivery address below: 0 No
PS Form 3811, July 2013
0
.11
(11
u
Cr
ca
fu
rl
0
O
0
0
0—
Fri
rR
O
r` -
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Posta:, rvice'M
CERTIFIED IL° RECEIPT
Domestic MaiOr,,
For delivery information tip is -r website at www.usps.com0.
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sen
-SFr";
or P
City,
Postmark
Here
RUDD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
132 PARK AVE
BASALT, CO 81621
0
Maim ❑ Priority Mail Express'
td ' 1-eturn Receipt for Merchandise
Nail l ■ Collect on Delivery
)elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
11 2895 8438
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
PS Form 3811, July 2013
fs-
N
m
rr
r3
0
0
0
m
r` -
Domestic Return Rece pt
U.S. P astai Servicer"
CER11FI D MAIL° RECEIPT
Domesti 7 Ma. Only
llilms
For deliv( ry Int rmation, visit our website at www.usps.com''.
(Pnnted Name)
0 Agent
❑ Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
,) • > ,
10
1 MaiP 0 Priority Mail Express"
red 'Return Receipt for Merchandise
Mail Collect on Delivery
Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 8360
4age
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postanp R For.
Postmark
Here
STEELE, W E & V M FAMILY LLLP
PO BOX 1507
or
cii GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816024507
'S Form 3811, July 2013
Instructions'
Domestic Return Receipt
SECTION ON DELIVERY
Pr ted Name)
ress different from item 1? 0 Yes
ieliveryry^gess below: 0 No
❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
ail® 0
Mail Express'"
Receipt for Merchandise
ect on Delivery
ry
ra Fee) 0 Yes
95 8377
U S. Otal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Clotes is {ja11Only
For dell4ery i formation, visit our website a
SECTION ON DELIVERY
age
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required}
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Fostoria & Fees
Sent To
-.1teefi
or P01
City Si
Printed Na
iress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
❑ Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
Postmark
Here
YORK, RONALD A & DENISE D
18091 RIVER CHASE COURT
ALVA, FL 33920
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Q'
m
m
l.r)
Q'
rU
r -R
0
0
0
0
Q'
m
ri
0
actions
Domestic Return Receip
U.S. Pystai ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
com/sticrail Only
Fo/deliv ry information, visit our website at www.usps.coma°.
Mail® 0 Priority Mali Express"
ad f� Return Receipt for Merchandise
Rail nj Collect on Delivery
)elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
8407
S S'_'CT/ON ON DELIVERY
klr
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted DeliveryFee
(Endorsement Required)
GOLUBA, NICHOLAS JR & JUNE E
485 COUNTY ROAD 167
• GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9335
Postmark
Here
IIs
r Instructions..
(Printe Name)
different from item 1? 0 Yes
ry address below: 0 No
0 Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
kali® 0 Priority Mail Express"
110Return Receipt for Merchandise
ail 101 Collect on Delivery
slivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
8339
PS Form 3811, July 2013
-n
rR
nJ
In
rr
co
R1
ra
0
0
0
0
m
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S.(P ,`stat Servic&M
CE/LT FLED MAIL'• RECEIPT
Dorn estiij Vali Only
(—
For 1#ebur ry information, visit our website at www.usps come.
S SECTION ON DELIVERY
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
r�
0 5i;
Of
Cn
$
Postmark
Hole,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, C/O
COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE
2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD
SILT, CO 81652
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Instructions„
Domestic Return Receipt
0 Agent
0 Addressee
(Printed Name)
C. Date of Delivery
Zry (!d
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
Maim 0 Priority Mall Express"
d gReturn Receipt for Merchandise
flail Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 821,6
co
N
N
r�
Er
u1
co
ru
ra
0
U.S. Pot,tal Service's'
CERTIOEP MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic G'nfy
For delivery i forrr ation, visit our website at wmv.l
D
6"
m
rR
0
N
Poiii tr;
Certified Fee
Postmark
Return Receipt Fee Here
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
CLAASSEN, TERRENCE C & LARA
650 LARIAT LANE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
15 SECTION ON DELIVERY
r Instructions
C
0 Agent
J Addressee
(Printed Name) C. D to ofi D livery
C' C��i73S��j
tri
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
Rail° 0 Priority Mail Express'
1 ' Retum Receipt for Merchandise
all Collect on Delivery
;livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
5 8278
PS Form 3811, July 2013
I ra
m
rip
Er
ru
ra
D
0
0
i"
m
r -a
0
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Postal Service'
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Damesti' Mal'► Only
i
For dative, y;infi irmation, visit our website at www.usps.coma.
?ostr e
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sfree
or P(
City,
$
GREMEL HOLDINGS, LLC
PO BOX 557
EMERY, UT84522
PS Form 3811, July 2013
r -R
r -a
u')
0
nJ
r-1
0
0
0
m
r+a
0
N
Postmark
Here
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Postal erviceTM
CERTt RCD MAIL® RECEIPT
Domes'';: Mall C:,ty
For dr live ,:,.formation, visit our website at www.usps.com''.
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Dervory Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Tntal Pnvtan» R Fea$
.�i
MSLHS PROPERTIES LLC
o, PO BOX 944
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Postmark
Here
SECTION ON DELIVERY
J
0 Agent
0 Addressee
Printed Name)C. Date of Delivery
nil ��- IG
Iress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
flail® 0 Priority Mail Express"
tReturn Receipt for Merchandise
fail Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 8131
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
0 Addressee
(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
//4--61/4,16,-4i
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
r1ail5 0 Priority Mail Express'
1 ' eturn Receipt for Merchandise
all Collect on Delivery
;livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
8117
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
J
2895 8391
rR
D
Restricted Delivery Fee
co (Endorsement Required)
1I
m
r-1
N
U.S. Postal ,ervice'
CERTIFIE MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mali Oni
moss
For delivery trifoi mati sr, visit our website at wwwwsps.
Postag
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sent
Wei
or Pr
City,
Postmark
Here
WAECHTLER, DONALD G & BONNIE F
7916 HIGHWAY 82
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9307
PS Form 3811, July 2013
m
Lr)
Ftrzeit
1U
U.S. P
CER1
Domestic
For deliv
Domestic Return Receipt
)Stal Service'
iripco MAIL® RECEIPT
*tall Only
*AL iit •t
t 1
r -a
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
rr
m
Certified Fee
r-4
rz3
N
Se
or
cn
A CA.A
A.7.A
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
El Agent
3 k..>„, Addressee
(Printed N)me) C. Date of Delivery
(A) 0._
!dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
Mall° 0 Priority Mail Express'
dF114 Retum Receipt for Merchandise
Ian o Collect on Delivery
slivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2295 8391
S SECTION ON DELIVERY
en
essee
C. Date of Delery
Postmark
Here
IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOC INC
1007 WESTBANK ROAD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Instructions
PS Form 3811, July 2013
m
0
t.r)
cr
ru
rR
0
rn
rR
N
cc)
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Postal ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Dotnestic ail pnly
For delivery nfotation, visit our website at www.usps.cone.
4 A
ta,
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sent To
-Street & A
or PO Box
PC Form
.(./5
g .130
Postmark
Here
AMERIGAS PROPANE LP
460 NORTH GULPH ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
f
(Printed Name)
dress different from item 1?
delivery address below:
o Yes
0 No
lair 0 Priority Mail Express'
d Lpteturn Receipt for Merchandise
lalt El Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
95 8 315
IS SECT19N ON DELIVERY
Agent
0 Addressee
(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
2-2-/(
jkfferent from item 1? 0 Yes
dVitry s below: -er-No
•
Mail® 0 Priority Mail Express"'
d IPRetum Receipt for Merchandise
tail i1 Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
8 9 5 8063
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
r-
ru
co
LI")
nJ
(-9
E3
D
D
D
0
rn
D
U.. Postal Service'
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Dom Only
For dE1.7r; information, visit our website at www.uspscom"'.
---r-tastage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsemen( Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Street
or PO
BURRY RANCH LLLP
9175 HIGHWAY 82
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Postmark
Here
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
Agent
dressee
elivery
6
III • •
nted Name)
radii
C. Date of
31 I
dress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
Mail° 0 Priority Mail Express'
d 93 Return Receipt for Merchandise
tail 0 Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 8247
PS Form 3811, July 2013
1.11
cO
ru
Lfl
0'
co
ru
D
D
D
cr
rn
D
r-1
r -
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Posial ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic lif.'111 Ody
For delivery r form Mon, visit our website at www.usps.com®.
Poateats
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sent To
Street & '41
or PO Box
City, State,
$
Postmark
Hero
HUNT, DORIS M FAMILY TRUST DATED
AUGUST 28, 2000
0329 CORYELL RIDGE ROAD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
IS SECTION ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
DAddressee
(Printed me) C. Date of Delivery
/ t411
dress . erent from tem 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
,Iaii° 0 Priority Mail Express"
1 C1344eturn Receipt for Merchandise
ail GI Collect on Delivery
;livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2895 8285
PS Form 3811, July 2013
I-1
co
co
ru
1-3
D
D
CI
m
D
r -q
r' -
Domestic Return Receipt
U.S. Pilstal ServiceTM
CERTFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Dontltic Atail Only
For deli \iteryit formation, visit our webslte at www.usps.como.
44 4 44 0 0,0
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Require())
Total Postage & Fees
so,
Stre
or1
Cit)
Postmark
Here
PAYNE, JOHANNA S & WAYNE S
PO BOX 8198
ASPEN, CO 81612-8198
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
'S SECTION ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
in Addressee
e of Delivery
/ 6
(Printed
me
C. D
3
dress different from item 1? • Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
fiail° 0 Priority Mail Express'
d gReturn Receipt for Merchandise
tail Collect on Delivery
elivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
i148
1
C2-11
ill Cr
itE rn
11
9( In
A Er
0
ru
1. Ar.
D
Er
IT1
2.
U.S. PostaServicer"
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domestic r'4ail Only
For delivery rntilmation, visit our website at www.usps.como.
ge
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorseinent Required)
Restricted Delivery Feo
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sem
Stre,
or
City,
Postmark
Here
KENEALY, MICHAEL E & PENNY L
554 COUNTY ROAD 110
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
PS Form 3811, July 2013
D
Lfl
P13
I1J
rnl
D
D
D
D0m—
D
e -g
Domestic Return Rece
U.S. Postal lervice
CERTIFIE( MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic 114!;il
For delivery irtform ition, visit our website at www.uspexon0.
Pstisteg7'
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sr
ION ON DELIVERY
7
Name)
,teO
0 Agent
Addressee
C. D e of
Oven/
iffe n
y addre
. '
item 1 • Yes
elow: 0 No
'ty(
eturji
Express'
eipt for Merchandise
on Delivery
t2rFee) 0 Yes
46
3 SECTION ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
Addressee
I Delivery
t (C)
iffere from ite
address below:
Postmark
Here
PERKINS, MELVIN L & PHYLLIS M
448 COUNTY ROAD 110
Cit) GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9604
lair, 0 Priority Mail Express"'
1 icit Return Receiptior fvlerchandise
111 0 Collect on -Delivery
livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
289511 8209
PS Form 3811, July 2013
r-1
349O 0001, 2
r-9
D
Domestic Return Receipt
U. Postal Service-
CEIRTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Don= Mail Only
For d dives s Information, visit our website at www.usps.come.
sss
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Toter Prietz.,a
Seri-
Stree
or Pt
City,
Postmark
Here
BAYMAR HOTELS & PROPERTIES INC
1111 KANE CONCORSE #211
BAY HARBOR ISLANDS, FL 33154
SECTION ON DELIVERY
Ageht
0 Addressee
'Printed Name)
0. Nte of Delivery
2,0,4y) b
Tress different from item 1? 0 Yes
delivery address below: 0 No
lar 0 Priority Mail Express'
I Return Receipt for Merchandise
ail DI Collect on Delivery
ilivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
895 8186
PS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
zd!eoa!d =laid o!3sawo()
{
CD(
11918 OJ `N3dSV
133a1S N(h!N 3 OES
:o1 PassaiPPH alp!PV ' 4
• ■ •
)
}GI{\
-\
- a• • (1
0
7770
63'
2\)2»2
m,#-
-0 c
=tJ
%m
\[\&
\km•
e®E0`ƒ
=0 o0
* < » 9-
(\%)
a
0 0 E
@
\fit
;nc3,
k\ (
2Z
57
]#]O� C.,1-
349°
0002 2 895
&if f
g, � ƒ
0
/{ ƒ
> \ / ,
K
z
0
§
2
\
7n14 ]490 0001 2895 8421
U1
O
D N
O CD
O rD
cn
r+ r—
=
= O O
CD —h r )
(-) 70. (cv-r
�. O O
r+
(D -
-
CD 0_ N
rD fD -.
71-0
D n
n O
rD "
v) :
N 0_
70 W
O O
Cu O
0_
CD
CD
r --F
T
(D
0-
2
co
N
,.u -i
N
O
N
T
V ,
n
i O
0▪ _
n a)
D
0
r+
•z
araN
sluaua.sanu
north of the Cattle Creek Access Road.
Ln
O
rD
rD
r+
(D
N
O O
- , r)
(-I-
5
+
O' p.
G
a
N
0_ n
rD 'S
-'
71 (-I-
Q) o'
— =
0_
w
O
0
- h
rD
rD
r+
E
Q)
- 5n
W
N
0
N
O1
sluawlsanu
CJ7
0
O �p
r -r
O N
O O
CD �+ n
ta)-r O
CD
N
CD CD
D c o
N �
N 0_
O
W
Q
0_
CD
CD
e --F
SlU@W1S@AU
ih.
n
0
O
0_
n)
SlU@W1S@AU
--1.
CD to
O <
0_ N.
N
CT
co r
r' O
• -%
O
CD 00 r+
N 0
0
0ta
0 '
c O
n
- 0 O
cr
r a)
0
w
sa.uawlsanu
CD N'
O <
0_ N.
CD O
rr
n
c O
� rt
m 3 O
5. G N
(-r
CD co rt
0 N 0
CrQ
-S r+
O '
O
Q
n
cu
L s_
E c O
cu o 0▪ L
J V 1 V
w O
N —- '
O
CrQ
CI 1*
w
slu a W I.sanu
r-
0 O
n
a)
0-71'CD
• O
< <-+
in• = r
rD O
Vn n
(D O cur)
3 O
3 77 CI
SD
Tn n
H
D r
xj O 13
at) r-1- ro
f.+ m ..
o n
0) O
fD
r-
0 O
()
(J)r-r
• (D
O
(-F
O
— cn ()
O O v
r-r
70 - (D
T
rD
0
OrQ r-r
n
fi
0
O
-o
(D
e-+
r-
0 O
n
(/) r+
6i. CD
z
O
N' M
< r+
(n. = r
CD O
v) n
N O r
r+
a +0
CD
70 v
T
D m -1
•
o 73
O r+0
O n
v 73-c-3
(D
r+
r
0
n
cn r+
• CF
CD
O
N- • =
G rh
N O
(7D-
0( r)
n
r+
r- Ci- O
p
70 CI) rD
T -5 N
n el
D -
0M rr O
e-+ (1) "
o n
O
rD
r*
I--
0 O
n
v
Obi Q
D
O
N. =
N. (D O
N n
F. O v
r+
-v p
70 0-)(D
D
o O
ars r+ O
m .
o n
Q) O
rD
J
I-1 O
,poW N
r -t
O 0m
N
01 t
SI.0 W .S AU
Ad Name: 11885998D
Customer: Galloway
Your account number is: 2582448
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
THE RIFLE
CITIZEN TELEGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO,
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
I, Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that I am
Publisher of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the
same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part
and published in the County of Garfield, State of
Colorado, and has a general circulation 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
admitted 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 qualified for publishing legal
notices and advertisements within the meaning of the
laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every number
of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1
consecutive insertions; and that the first publication
of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
2/18/2016 and that the last publication of said notice
was dated 2/18/2016 the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this
02/24/2016.
Michael Bennett, Publisher
Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a
notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State
of Colorado this 02/24/2016.
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission expires:
November 1, 2019
PAMELA J. SCHULTZ
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID M 19997036875
*Commission Ewen Ncventer 1.261 G
EXHIBIT
.11/1Ir1 MAO
RNITEdge
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Division of Transportation Development
4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Shumate Bldg
Denver, CO 80222-3400
David Pesnichak
Garfield County
Community Development
108 8th St Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
David:
EXHIBIT
lZ
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed pedestrian crossing as part of the
River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan. After reviewing the plans which you sent to me I think that
the concerns which you have expressed are valid. As shown this structure does not meet the criteria
required by either CDOT or AASHTO for a pedestrian underpass. In my opinion this structure is not
acceptable as proposed and would not provide a comfortable experience for users. My concerns are:
1. It appears as though this proposed crossing is an existing drainage structure or wildlife
crossing that is being modified to become a pedestrian underpass. The existing structure
does not meet the horizontal or vertical clearance requirements for a pedestrian or multi-
use path underpass. Underpasses should be wide enough and tall enough to invite use and to
provide a sense of security when in use. As proposed this structure would be dark,
intimidating, and feet claustrophobic. The recommended minimums for a structure such as
this in a rural area is 12' of width and 10' of vertical clearance. A structure of this length
would ideally be even wider and taller than those required minimums.
2. If this structure is intended for bicyclist and pedestrian use then it should be designed to
shared -use facilities standards. The approach to the structure does not meet the minimum
width required for a shared -use path. The minimum width requirement for a shared use
path is 10'.
3. The proposed plans do not show any lighting being provided through the underpass. It is
unlikely that a structure of this length would be appropriately lit without illumination.
Guidance regarding selection of lighting for tunnels and underpasses can be found in the
AASHTO Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting or CDOT's Lighting Design Guide.
If you have any questions regarding the concerns above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ken Brubaker, PE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Engineer
Phone: 303-757-9804
4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Shumate Bldg. , Denver, CO 80222-3400 P 303.757.9804 www.coloradodot.Info
6SGM
www.sgm-inc.com
November 11, 2015
David Pesnichak, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Mr. Pesnichak:
EXHIBIT
1 13
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed SH -82 pedestrian underpass as part of the
River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan. After reviewing the plans and the comments from Mr. Brubaker at
CDOT, we agree with Mr. Brubaker's comments and would add the following:
1. SH -82 has a posted speed limit of 65 mph at this location and the traffic volume is in the range of
20,000 vehicles per day, according to CDOT traffic data (OTIS website). This combination of
speed and volume suggests that if a pedestrian crossing of SH -82 near this location is desired, it
should be either grade separated or at a signalized intersection with a pedestrian phase. It is our
understanding that at this time, only acceleration and deceleration turning lanes are proposed
being proposed at the intersection of Cattle Creek Road and SH -82. This type of intersection is
not conducive to pedestrian crossings because the mainline operates with continuous flow.
Therefore, a grade separated crossing, such as an underpass, is more appropriate at this location.
2. There is an existing access point from the Rio Grande Trail to SH -82 at the Cattle Creek Road
intersection. Therefore, cyclists and pedestrians who want to go from the Rio Grande Trail to
Cattle Creek Road currently have to cross four lanes of SH -82 at grade at this existing access
point. As proposed, the existing livestock underpass will provide access between the Rio Grande
Trail and Cattle Creek Road.
3. The Rio Grande Trail is a very popular regional multi -use trail. Cattle Creek Road is a popular ride
for road cyclists, providing access to the Spring Valley and Missouri Heights areas. Any proposed
improvements in this area should consider these uses and provide a crossing that is safe, usable
and inviting as a connection between these multi -use facilities.
4. The proposed box culvert extension and median infill segment consists of 4 -sided precast
concrete box sections. These sections are constructed offsite at a precast concrete manufacturing
facility, shipped to the site and set in place. The sections are typically 4' to 8' long and have 8" to
12" fillets at the inside corners as shown in the plans.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004
6SGM
www.sgm-inc.com
a. Structurally, these sections can easily be designed to withstand the forces of the road on
top and the soil pressure from the sides. However, special attention should be made when
using precast sections for pedestrian underpasses.
i. The joints between the boxes are prone to leaking unless the outside of the joints
are adequately waterproofed. No waterproofing is specified in the proposed details.
ii. The joints in the floor may result in a less than desirable riding surface for cyclists
and can present tripping hazards if the sections are not placed evenly. This is
sometimes mitigated by pouring a concrete topping slab on the floor after
placement of the precast sections.
iii. The fillets at the inside corners effectively reduce the available walkway width
inside the box. The existing box culvert is a cast -in-place concrete structure with no
corner fillets.
iv. Additionally, since the box culvert slopes down to the extension end, the fillets in
the bottom of the precast box sections will impede drainage in the event that water
enters into the culvert. This can cause ponding and potential icing issues in the
winter.
5. The proposed concrete wingwalls do not appear to be founded at or below frost depth. The frost
depth in Garfield County is 36 inches.
6. The details are unclear on how the west extension will be attached to the end of the existing
culvert. The provided details appear to pertain only to the median infill segment.
7. Removal of the existing concrete walls in the median will likely require temporary excavation
support (shoring) of the SH -82 roadway. This is not addressed in the plans. Additionally, SH -82
may have to be reduced to one lane in each direction or traffic may have to be shifted to the
shoulders. A construction traffic control plan should be developed to address this.
8. Users may perceive the underpass as being unsafe if it is not adequately lit and well maintained.
The plans do not address these concerns and it is recommended that lighting be added inside the
tunnel and at the ends of the tunnel. It is also recommended that the inside concrete surfaces be
painted with structural concrete coating and an anti -graffiti coating.
9. Snow fencing should be considered behind the guardrails at each end of the underpass to protect
trail users from snow being thrown from snow plows.
10. The proposed path width complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG). The proposed width is 6 feet and the minimum required per the ADAAG is 4 feet.
There is not enough information provided in the Item 21 plans to determine if the proposed path
grade complies with the ADAAG maximum permissible grade of 8.33%. In general, it appears that
the path rises approximately 8' to 10' from the underpass to the Rio Grande Trail (Elev. 6022.8 at
SSGM
www.sgm-inc.com
the underpass to roughly Elev. 6030 (+/-) at the trail). The length of the proposed path is
approximately 280 feet between these endpoints, which equates to overall gradient of 3.0 to 3.5%.
Therefore, it is assumed that the actual proposed grade can meet the ADAAG requirements, but
this should be verified.
Conclusions:
• We agree with Mr. Brubaker that the proposed underpass does not meet current CDOT or
AASHTO standards for a pedestrian underpass. However, despite the deficiencies of the
proposed underpass; a grade separated crossing is safer than crossing a four lane, 65 mph
highway at an uncontrolled intersection.
• The total length of the underpass will be more than 140 feet long, and it is our opinion that it will be
uninviting for pedestrians and cyclists given that it is only 7 feet tall and 6 feet wide.
• Users may perceive the underpass as being unsafe if it is not adequately lit and well maintained.
If you have any questions regarding our comments please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 945-
1004.
Sincerely, Reviewed By:
l c
Michael Fowler, PE Dan Cokley, P
I:\2014\2014-367-GarcoComDev\001-RiverEdge\A_Corresp\Item21_SGM_Review.docx
David Pesnichak
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
David Johnson <djohnson@rfta.com>
Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:51 PM
David Pesnichak
Dan Blankenship; Mike Hermes; Angela Henderson; Jason White
River Edge Colorado (REC) - Referral - PUD/Prelim Plan Amendment
Service Expansion Policy.pdf
EXHIBIT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
RFTA has the following comments on the application:
The referral states that the applicant is requesting amendments to the plan, primarily by relocating the access road
to/from SH8 2to the North from River Edge Drive to "Terrace Parkway." The Amendment also proposes to:
• Create a new Rio Grande Trail crossing and related improvements for Terrace Parkway;
• Eliminate the River Edge Drive Right -of -Way extension to State Highways 82 and related plat adjustments;
• Create new trail connections and/or crossings of State Highway 82 at the old access location;
• Relocate the secondary emergency vehicle access onto State Highway 82 to run through adjoining properties to
the north of the Project to connect to County Road 167;
• Reorganize the Subdivision Filings as reflected on the Preliminary Subdivision Plan; and
• Revise the PUD Phasing Plan to shift earlier phases of development to the vicinity of the new access point.
The proposed new Rio Grande Trail crossing is a crossing of a railbanked rail right of way preserved for future transit
use. Consequently, this crossing and the Emergency Vehicle access at -grade crossing of the rail corridor will require
review and approval of the RFTA Board of Directors and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. RFTA is working with
the Applicant to relocate their approved main at -grade crossing to the "Terrace Parkway" location to provide greater
stacking distance for vehicles between the railroad corridor and Highway 82. By virtue of previous agreements, the
developer is committed to provide a grade -separated trail connection at the main vehicle access to the development,
but is seeking relief from that commitment. Ultimately, the RFTA Board will need to determine whether such relief will
be granted. RFTA is working closely with the developer with respect to its requests for vehicle and utility crossings.
Regarding transit, the approximately 360 residential units and the potential commercial development to the north will
likely create demand for transit services in an area that does not contribute sales tax revenue to support the service.
Moreover, the new development will potentially siphon off sales taxes for transit from other areas. The Board has
adopted a service provisioning policy (attached) indicating that a long-term financial commitment that fully funds the
operating and capital costs of the service required would be needed for RFTA to consider providing service to this
development; however, the RFTA Board reserves the right to determine whether it will serve it based upon the merits of
the development. Once there is more definitive information on the amount and type of proposed development, RFTA is
willing to work with Garfield County and the Applicant to forecast the potential transit demand, and then estimate the
capital and operating costs.
Thank you.
David Johnson, AICP
Director of Planning
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1340 Main Street; Carbondale, CO 81623
1
David Pesnichak
EXHIBIT
is
From: Sheata, Carrie A <Carrie.A.Sheata@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:51 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado (REC) - Referral - PUD/Prelim Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
We are responding to your October 28, 2015, request for comments on the River Edge Colorado project. The PUD and
Preliminary Plan Resolution identification number is Resolution #2011-84 and Reception #812357. The approximately
160 -acre project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs on the west side of State
Highway 82 between the Roaring Fork River and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Rio Grande Trail within
Section s 7 and 16, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, and Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, Garfield
County, Colorado.
The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to,
rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. Project features
that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the
Army authorization prior to starting work.
On October 13, 2010, Mr. Travis Morse, formerly of this office, confirmed the wetland boundary as prepared by PENDO
Solutions, Inc. on behalf of the applicant and that approximately 6.52 acres of waters of the United States occur within
the property. Since wetlands and other waters of the United States are affected over time by both natural and man-
made activities, local changes in jurisdictional boundaries can be expected to occur. As such, jurisdictional
determinations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time, therefore this verification is only valid for five years.
The applicant shall prepare a wetland delineation in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of
Preliminary Wetlands Delineations" and "Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory
Program" under "Jurisdiction" on our website at the address below, and submit it to this office for verification.
The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other
waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no
practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for
the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation.
Please refer to identification number SPK -2015-00972 in any correspondence concerning this project. For more
information regarding our program, please visit our website at
http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsSd2hJ5xxNYQsIefICXCQXTjsKejjod FTKCVssCM-rjKOMO-
yzsQsCQrl8Tjv7f6zASwJZ8iljQG2yeNtBVW1uRm UjbsKr8X5SnDE5XIrxcJOVJVZVwQsI KfZvC7QTAjhOPRXBQQjhODNEVKOU
VtzGBFHnjIKUDOEuvkzaTOQSyrpdTV4sMY_ssevd79KVI FRSyLdQSTZIIiTaOfMrBiAGM FwbYySvIW Nbs3MYTroNB_rR2vXfgkT
jrvSNIbsHBYSUgem3hOrloQAg80n8PYjhOd84vd40Bk-ItgGg83hg2NEid59EwbCy05-
XYoW ug82VEw2 Mj312QvfAGg801v13 h08a_11 n Ujd Kf6OtsyvXvyU7G.
Carrie Sheata
Project Manager
Colorado West Regulatory Branch
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1
EXHIBIT
1�
November 11, 2015
Garfield County Community Development Department:
Co
FOREST
SERVICE
Grand Junction District
2764 Compass Drive #238
Grand Junction, CO 81506
(970) 248-7325
I am writing in response to a request for the Colorado State Forest Service's comments on the River Edge Colorado
PUD and Preliminary Plan Amendment application.
After looking at the proposed location of the River Edge Colorado PUD, using aerial photos and looking through the
application, the wildfire hazard rating is Low to Moderate. The wildfire hazard rating is based on the location of
combustible vegetation on or near the property. Regardless of where the bulk of the vegetation is growing, an ember from
a nearby wildfire could potentially land in a pile of dead leaves against a structure or in landscape plants, shrubs and
ornamental grass, growing within five feet of a structure. Burning embers created by a wildfire can be carried by winds up
to one mile; this is why I make the following suggestions:
1. Make the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards required for every proposed structure on
the property. Our standards are found in a quick guide, Protecting Your Home from Wildfire, they can be viewed
at: http://static.colostate.edu/client-files/csfs/pdfs/FIRE2012 1 DspaceQuickGuide.pdf.
The area called Defensible Space has three zones. Zone One is where the bulk of the vegetation modification
takes place. The size of Zone One is at least 30 feet, measured from the edge of the flammable part of the
structure (roof line/porch). It can increase in size depending on the percent of the surrounding slope, as slope
becomes steeper, the vegetation must be mitigated at a greater distance to compensate for the heat and wind
moving up the slope.
Within Zone One, several specific treatments are recommended:
A) Plant no large shrubs or trees or allow any plants to grow within three to five feet of any structure. If
landscaped grass (specifically low growing lawn grass) is allowed to grow in the area around the structure it
must not grow taller than six inches. A large percent of structures are lost in a wildfire due embers landing in a
bed of dead twigs/leaves/grass created by vegetation located next to the structure. This can be avoided by
following Defensible Space standards and keeping the area around the structures maintained.
B) There is an exception to the above rule if the structure(s) are built with non-combustible siding, such as rock
or stucco. Widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs or other "fire -wise" plants are acceptable
within three to five feet of the structure. These shrubs must be kept small, watered and given yearly
maintenance to prevent any amount of dead leaves to accumulate. A fact sheet of FireWise plant material,
no. 6.305, has been produced and can be found at the Colorado State University's Extension's webpage at
www.ext.colostate.edu. There is also a publication on FireWise construction, design and materials that can be
directly downloaded from the Colorado State Forest Service's website at http://static.colostate.edu/client-
files/csfs/pdfs/firewise-construction2012.pdf.
C) It is ideal to remove all flammable vegetation, specifically native trees, in Zone One to reduce fire hazards. If
a native tree is kept in Zone One it should be considered part of the structure and the zone extended out
around it and the tree should be isolated from other surrounding trees by 30 plus feet. Landscaped trees,
particularly deciduous species (leaves drop in fall) are allowed in Zone One as long as there are no shrubs
growing beneath them which increases the amount of fuel available to the fire and the plants are on a
watering system to insure adequate plant moisture.
Zone Two is an area of fuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity (wind, heat, smoke) of any wildfire
approaching the structure. This zone is an additional 70 feet of mitigation, for a total 100 mitigated feet. Within this
zone, the following is recommended:
A) Trees and shrubs should be thinned so there is at least a 15 foot space between the edges of tree crowns.
Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch on one tree to the nearest tree branch on the
neighboring tree. On steeper slopes, allow more space between tree crowns as fire moves faster uphill.
B) Trees may be clumped together in twos or threes to create a more natural appearance, but adequate spacing
between clumps must be maintained, 15 to 20 feet.
C) Ladder fuels, such as small shrubs, young trees and very low growing branches, should be removed from
beneath remaining trees. These fuels can feed a wildfire and produce greater heat and intensity.
The main goal of defensible space is for a wildfire to encounter Zone Two, slow down its rate of movement and decrease
its intensity, then encounter Zone One where combustible vegetation is minimal, therefore the wildfire cannot make direct
contact with the structure and the wind will move the wildfire past without too much destruction to the vegetation.
The secondary goal of a defensible space is to limit the available fuel for embers, which can be carried in from nearby
wildfires. If the embers have do not have anything to catch fire, the homes have a better chance of survival.
Defensible space is not a onetime activity; it must be maintained by the homeowner every year as vegetation continues to
grow. Additional information from the Colorado State Forest Service can be found at our wildfire mitigation webpage,
http://csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire-mitigation/
Please feel free to contact me by email at kamie.lonq a(7,colostate.edu or at 970-248-7325 with any questions.
Raw& .649
Kamie Long
Acting District Forester
Grand Junction District
Colorado State Forest Service
Enclosures: Protecting Your Home from Wildfire quick guide (FIRE 2012-1), FireWise Plant Material fact sheet (6.305),
FireWise Construction booklet
David Pesnichak
From: Jeff Nelson
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 3:51 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: rivers edge comments
Attachments: potable water v2.pdf; potable water.pdf; trail location.pdf
EXHIBIT
1 -7-
Dave,
I only reviewed area related to the CR 113 - SH 82 project. I didnt have many comments. The site needs to be relative to
the East side and existing trail locations. If proper permits are requied to be obtained, CDOT and R&B we can review in
more detail at that time. See attached.
Sincerely,
Jeff Nelson
Assistant County Engineer
Garfield County
0375 County Road 352, Rifle, CO
Jnelson@garfield-county.com
970-625-5910 (Phone)
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information.
Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email
without further disclosure.
1
p
re
acv
-0
reF
0 Z
V
a
F
u
9,82
$ w5
1
x 3��
I Trail needs to
.1
connect to
r i
existing
~'� I underpass
% 1 -- -
/ eon arve
34,0vvx . mux
c
.M/... 3.11/3/3 1n. lUb
Tfl lAnl5l33nlSN.ln--0e�:+YJ 2vC�w.S\94Nu".wul 3..". i31
If boring sh 82 need util
permit from cdot and
garco road and bridge.
Need more detail on
where this will go and
sizing.
k- •
1
•" i •
7?),
•P2
• y.
gi
r•—"
• .
7- -1,
:-Lr--
ij / •
/
-
--„,„ ,. .,,"". ./i„ :i.•
...5. 2,-.....,„,,;•*,--- .',.....,..
.•,'..
W' 1
- - - .. • _.....,.
_-.. ' ...- , ...4
•'-'-:- r4'r:;.,'-"-.- ' '-... • ..-
.... '''''.. (''. ,,,e,,,,
I I) ' • .
;tit.......#. -tot -.4:t4',.•
1,-
--,--1-
_
\
'
I 0
7 V
N..
•
3,•-<1
}Claw .10,
CD
}
Q l H
U
2 - cc
.� o
�ZZ
a. 0
U
r4
•
t
la
Couldn't find separate
package. This should be
coordinated with future
county project
99.09
9 .109
Ox
11109
9909
CC
90
<:a
CS AIM
CCM
1,9 ZSS9
Ms[
8
a
I I
c/..,...,crivicrcurte TILLS ZUNI
re �',eni.'�rry Iowa
x; Ot�IXwY-+�+.—.3n.i'a'Ae['c�.n0.1x.96MI�\: 3mw iU
EXHIBIT
David Pesnichak
From: Dan Blankenship <dblankenship@rfta.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:41 PM
To: David Pesnichak; David Johnson
Cc: Mike Hermes; Angela Henderson; Jason White
Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado (REC) - Referral - PUD/Prelim Plan Amendment
David:
Angela Henderson is working closely with the developer on this project, but she is on vacation until November 30thI
don't think that this topic will get to the RFTA Board for a decision prior to February or March, but Angela will have a
better idea than I do about that.
Thanks,
Dan
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
November 19, 2015
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment
File Number PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214
Dear David:
EXHIBIT
1 1%
I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and
PUD Amendment. The application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire
Code (IFC) 2009 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
The proposed access to the development is acceptable. A relocation of the main entrance is
proposed off Highway 82 along with two emergency vehicle accesses (EVAs). One EVA would
connect from the south end of the development to Highway 82 and the second EVA would
connect to the north through the existing H Lazy F mobile home park.
Water Supplies for Fire Protections
The proposed water system and fire hydrant locations are acceptable. The development will be
serviced by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District through an expansion of the District's
infrastructure. Improvements will include additional transmission lines along with an additional
400,000 gallon water storage to be located along County Road 110.
Impact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer
will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording
of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $730.00 per unit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance.
B ill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 •970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
November 20, 2015
EXHIBIT
Garfield County
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Community Development Department
Vegetation Management
RE: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214
Dear Dave,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Noxious Weeds
Weed treatments -The applicant did initiate a weed treatment for county listed noxious weeds in early summer with a
follow-up in late summer. Staff requests that the applicant continue this in 2016 with at least 2 treatments again.
Please provide 2016 treatment records to the Vegetation Management Department by October 31, 2016.
Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) - There is a statement on page 4 of the OSMP, item 5, that states that "weeds
that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State Noxious Weed Act" This implies that a
cover of weeds of up to 5% is allowable. The 5% statement should be deleted or rewritten as a 5% foliar cover of noxious
weeds is not acceptable.
Revegetation
Maps, landscape/reclamation plans, and plant material lists have been provided and are acceptable
Staff requests a quantification of the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed that will require reseeding. These areas are
typically road cut and utility disturbances. The surface area of disturbance to be reseeded determines the amount of
revegetation security to guarantee that the work will be completed and vegetation reestablished. This situation is different
than most because of the removal of topsoil in a large portion of the property about 11 years ago. I recommend a meeting
between the applicant and the County to discuss the areas to be reseeded that would require a revegetation security.
This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the
Reclamation Standards in the current County Weed Management Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will
designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security.
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060
Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939
November 23, 2015
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
1430 RAILROAD AVENUE, UNIT F
RIFLE, CO 81650
(970) 625-3589 or (888) 627-3589
Fax (970) 625-0859 * TTY (800) 659-2656
TO: David Pesnichak, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development Department
FROM: Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA)
RE: River Edge Colorado (REC) Preliminary Plan Amendment
EXHIBIT
I Z(
GCHA has reviewed the REC Preliminary Plan Amendment request that understands that the
applicant is proposing a reduction in the number of housing units from 366 to 362. The ratios for
Affordable Housing Units are to stay the same and the Affordable Housing Agreement will
reflect the reduction. The Affordable Housing Plan is still required to be completed at the first
Final Plat in conformance with the Development Agreement.
This reduction would trigger a corresponding reduction in the number of Affordable Housing
Units from the current PUD requirement of 55 units to a total of 54 units.
Incorporated in in these comments is the letter Dated May 31, 2011 from Geneva Powell to the
Garfield County Planning Department. GCHA has no record of these issues having been
addressed.
Thank you.
Katherine (Kate) T. Gazunis
Executive Director
Warning: Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, states that a person who knowingly
and willingly makes false or fraudulent statements to any department or agency of the United
States is guilty of a felony. This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
1430 RAILROAD AVENUE Unit F
RIFLE, CO 81650
(970) 625-3589
Fax 970-625-0859
May 31, 2011
TO: Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Planning Dept.
FROM: Garfield County
Housing Authority (GCHA)
REF: River Edge
Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan,
Affordable Housing
Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) has reviewed River Edge PUD and
understands that the applicant proposes 55 affordable housing (AH) units to be built over
11 phases or 5 AH units per phase. Homes are clustered into 3 tracks in the PUD.
GCHA offers the following comments:
On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA)
the applicant requires presales before building AH units. There is no precedent
for this in the County's guidelines. Would the applicant be released from his
obligation to build the AH units if there were no qualified buyer within the
applicants timeframe? GCHA believes that flexibility from both the applicant and
the guidelines would be of benefit to potential buyers of these AH units.
Currently, the downturn in the economy and the tightening of the lending industry
has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted.
We cannot foresee this trend during the build out of this development over the
next 10 to 20 years.
On Page 5, paragraph 5 of the AHPA the applicant provides 3 categories of
pricing for the AH units. The applicant proposes to allow buyers earning up to
150% of AMI instead of the maximum 120% AMI allowed in the County's
guidelines. GCHA views this as opening the buyer pool to a larger population
while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80%
to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% AMI to 110% AMI. If the
exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate these pricing categories,
GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Edge.
On Page 6, paragraph 9 of the AHPA applicant proposes option of renting AH
homes if not sold within the 120 days. This is not addressed in County's
guidelines. However, this is an interesting proposal as it is the intent of the
program that each AH unit be occupied by a qualified family. If allowed, the
rents would need to be below market rent to maintain the unit as affordable to
families within lower AMIs. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed
upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; If the units are
rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the
sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the
developer the property manager for the rental?
Additional comments on the AHPA are:
Could the AHPA be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build
out schedule?
Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase?
Are all 5 AH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started?
Would applicant consider designing an aspect to the AH homes that would permit
owners to improve their equity by finishing or improving the home (basements,
carports, decks etc)?
GCHA continues to look over the Declaration of Deed Restriction that was provided by
the applicant and may offer some comments before final recordation.
Sincerely,
Geneva Powell
Executive Director
Garfield County Housing Authority
1430 Railroad Avenue, Unit F
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-3589 Rifle
(970) 625-0859 Rifle Fax
(970) 945-8082 Glenwood
www.garfieldhousinq.com
November 24, 2015
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning
108 Stn Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
MOUNTAAIN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
RE: Review of River Edge Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment Applications: PDAA-
02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214
Dear David:
This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Preliminary Plan and PUD
Amendment Applications for River Edge. The submittals were found to be thorough and well
organized. The review generated the following comments:
1. No easement exists across the adjacent parcels for the proposed main entrance or for the
southern Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA).
2. The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to the subdivision: either connection
to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or providing their own
community system. The application materials seems to provide enough evidence that there is
a legal supply of water, however the physical supply is still pending negotiations. There are
requirements that the Applicant would need to meet with either option: well pump test, water
quality test, community water system approvals with CDPHE, among others if the applicant
were to provide their own system; and evidence of adequate capacity of the systems of
RFWSD connecting Other use approvals may be to provide a
if to them. land t.y � 3 necessaryr�
physical supply.
3. Similarly, the sewer treatment system has not been determined; either connection to RFWSD
or providing their own community system are the two options. Connection to RFWSD may
require a crossing of the Colorado River. Permitting and design were not included in the
application materials. Other land use approvals may be necessary with Garfield County and
the CDPHE to provide sewer treatment.
4. The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR
from FEMA depending on its impact to the floodplain.
5. The Applicant proposes a main entrance that is permitted by CDOT however a Notice to
Proceed has not yet been issued. Additionally, the Applicant does not provide sufficient
evidence that RFTA has approved the RFTA crossing of Terrace Parkway at the proposed
relocated entrance.
826'/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
River Ede
Page 2 of 3
November, 2015
6. It is unclear when signalization for the main entrance is proposed to occur. The Applicant
should clarify the timing of the signal installation.
7. Since the main entrance is proposed to be removed from Cattle Creek, the Applicant
proposes to remove their responsibility for the improvements to this intersection. It is
unclear how the improvements proposed to the Cattle Creek intersection will be permitted
and/or constructed.
8. The Application materials do not have a CDOT access permit or NTP for the southern EVA.
The Applicant should coordinate with CDOT to verify the feasibility of this.
9. Additional parking should be provided for the ball fields and playgrounds in the active
recreation areas.
10. The traffic calming island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine
Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate this.
11. An engineered pavement design should be provided based on project specific soils.
12. The project site grading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass on
the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage ponding areas. The Applicant should
revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary easements.
13. The north EVA access proposes to connect to CR154. Garfield County driveway permitting
may be required. The Applicant should coordinate with Road and Bridge.
14. The Applicant should coordinate with CDOT and RFTA for incorporation of comments to
the proposed trail and roadway connections as well as review of the proposed plans.
15. The cost estimates do not appear to include soft costs, such as construction observation,
testing, surveying, etc. The Applicant should verify that these should be included. A more
detailed itemization of the individual costs would usually be required to justify security
amounts for an SIA.
16. The proposed pedestrian underpass seems to be incongruent with typical pedestrian
underpasses. The existing box culvert is 7' tall by 6' wide and would be approximately 150
feet long. No lighting appears to be proposed. The Applicant should provide an analysis on
the adequacy of the structure as a proposed underpass.
17. The Applicant should design the release structures and routing for discharges from the water
quality ponds.
18. The plans and specifications concerning sewer and water will need to be approved for
construction by RFWSD if that option is pursued.
19. Storm drain culvert labels are not shown in the plans.
20. The storm drainage will need to be revised for the offsite flows flowing from the GCCI
parcel get into culvert c76 -a.
21. Miscellaneous fire hydrants are shown throughout the development without any connection
shown to the proposed water lines. The Applicant should clarify the connection, purpose,
and need of these hydrants.
22. On Trailside Drive, the water line is shown as conflicting with the Glenwood Ditch piping.
23. On Riverside Drive, the water line conflicts with the 36" storm drain culvert.
24. The construction will require a NPDES permit from the CDPHE.
25. The southern EVA access proposes an 8% slope to SH 82. This would be incongruent with
CDOT standards and may need to have the design revised.
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 1/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
River Ede
Page 3 of 3
November, 2015
26. The engineering plans provided are preliminary. Construction drawings are proposed to be
submitted at time of the Final Plat. Review of the Construction Drawings should be required
at that time.
Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mount n Cross Engin: erin:nc.
Chris Hale, PE
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826'/: Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
COLORADO
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821
Denver, CO 80203
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
November 25, 2015
EXHIBIT
� Z3
Re: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment
PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214
Sections 7 & 16, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
Section 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to amend a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), previously approved in 2011, for a residential development on 160 acres. The purpose of
this amendment is to accommodate the relocation of the access to and from State Highway 82.
From the submitted materials, it appears the amended proposal will now include 362 residential
units of various sizes and types (previously 366 were proposed), 40.60 acres of open space,
17.34 acres of common area, and 17.34 acres of parks.
The proposed source of water for the PUD continues to be through the Roaring Fork
Water & Sanitation District (the District). The applicant obtained water rights and an augmentation
plan decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in case nos. 01CW187, 07CW164 and 08CW198. A
Pre -Inclusion Agreement has been signed by the applicant and the District, where upon inclusion
of the property in the District, the Applicant shall convey to the District the water rights and plan for
augmentation decreed in the referenced court cases. As the information in the materials
submitted for this amendment did not include any details on the water supply other than a copy of
the signed Pre -Inclusion Agreement, this office presumes the information provided in the previous
referral from 2011 is still pertinent. As proposed in the referenced court cases, if a pre -inclusion
agreement is executed, potable water will be provided through existing alluvial wells and/or
surface water diversions operated by the District. Sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment will
also be provided by the District.
From that previous referral, the applicant anticipated a requirement of 375 Equivalent
Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units.
The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 01CW187 and amended
in court case no. 08CW198, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation
with potable water, using an assumption of 350 gpd per EQR. The annual demand for in-house
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us
David Pesnichak, Garfield County Building and Planning
River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment
PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214
November 25, 2015
Page 2
purposes and irrigation totals 143.90 acre-feet. Of that, 12.95 acre feet would be consumed,
which is based on an in-house consumptive use rate of 5% through a central wastewater
treatment plant and an 80% irrigation efficiency. The third court case, case no. 07CW164, allows
for an additional 850.45 ERQs using a 350 gpd per EQR assumption, and 4 acres of irrigation
using potable water. The total in-house and irrigation demand for these additional EQRs and
acreage is 342.57 acre-feet. Of that amount, 25.17 would be consumed, based on the same
consumptive use rates as the other decrees.
Finally, from the previous referral, the applicant anticipated a raw water demand for
approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring
Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the
Water Supply Plan provided with the previous referral, the applicant can divert approximately
12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the
Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the change of water right
and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01 CW 188 and 01 CW 189. The use of
these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with said decrees
and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of
the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 — 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the
terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these
ditches.
The State Engineer offers the opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights so long the
Applicant and District operate the water supply in accordance with the decreed terms and
conditions in cases 01 CW 187, 07CW164 and 08CW198. In addition, so long as the applicant
continues the preclusion agreement with the District that allows for the utilization of the District's
infrastructure, this office finds that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate. If you
or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 303-866-3581.
Sincerely,
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
MAS/ RiverEdge_PUDAmendment.docx
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45
555 Street Address, Room 555, Denver, CO 55555-5555 P 555.555.5555
EXHIBIT
z4
Garfield County
Road & Bridge
12/2/2015
River Edge —Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment
The North secondary emergency vehicle access would not require any permits from Garfield County
Road and Bridge. Access is through multiple private ownership property and permission would have to
be granted through them to reach Country Road 154. Attached is a map showing the private property
access route.
Would like to see details of Highway 82 pedestrian and bicycle underpass as it ties into County Road 113
(Cattle Creek).
Who will be responsible for maintenance of this path?
The intersection of Cattle Creek and Hwy 82 is a safety concern. With moving the main access North and
creating a new access (Terrance Parkway) may add a wider area of concern. Aligning the main entrance
with Cattle Creek intersection may keep traffic confined to one area.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this project.
Mike Prehm
Garfield County R&B
Foreman Glenwood District
Office (970) 945-1223
Fax. (970) 945-1318
Go 1e earth feet 1000
meters
300
A
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Region 3 Traffic Section
222 South 6th Street Room 100
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
(970) 683-6284 Fax: (970) 683-6290
December 2, 2015
«<Email»>
David Pesnichak, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th St Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: SH 82 and River Edge Colorado Development
Dear David Pesnichak:
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan and River edge
Colorado Planned United Development Plan.
Comments:
Access Permit #313037:
CDOT has issued an access permit #313037 for River Edge PUD. The traffic volume for this permit is 275
DHV (design hourly volume). The access permit will expire January 16, 2016. The applicant may extend
the permit for one additional year. If the project isn't built by January 2017, the access permit would
expire. However, CDOT would offer a similar permit if the applicant proposed similar uses.
The thought with this permit is to provide a full movement public intersection with the potential for
signalization in the future. The permit states this would be designed as a non -signalized continuous green
intersection. It is anticipated once Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC property develops, a
signal will be warranted. This signal is anticipated to work long-term with the future signal at Cattle
Creek/ SH 82 intersection. Therefore, both intersection would be long-term be Signalized Continuous
Green Intersection. The intent of this configuration was to make the signals at River Edge Colorado
intersection and Cattle Creek Intersection operate as one signal.
The access permit states all other access to this property would be closed including any field approaches or
other vehicular access. This permit is to provide Tong -term access to Garfield County Commercial
Investments, LLC property.
222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290 www.coloradodot.Info
Pedestrian Underpass:
It is vital to the transportation concept of a Continuous Green Intersection to provide a grade separated
pedestrian crossing of State Highway 82. The access permit requires a pedestrian underpass with this
project. There is a cattle passage approximately 300' south of Cattle Creek. It is anticipated that this cattle
crossing would be upgraded to accommodate pedestrians. CDOT recognizes the cattle crossing box culvert
doesn't meet any current standards for pedestrian underpasses. The Pedestrian Underpass shall be
maintain by either Garfield County or Cattle Creek Metropolitan District. CDOT will not maintain this
structure. Therefore, CDOT will require an agreement for the maintenance and operation of the
underpass.
Emergency Access:
CDOT has discussed with the River Edge Colorado representative about the possibility of providing
emergency vehicle access on SH 82. With the information provided, it very unlikely CDOT would approve
an emergency vehicle access for this development on SH 82. CDOT would recommend that the applicant
work with surrounding landowner to provide emergency access.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Respectfully,
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
Cc: Tamra Allen, Garfield County Community Development Manager (Electronically)
Fred Jarman, Garfield County Community Development Director (Electronically)
222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6284 F 970.683.6290. www.coloradodot.Info
oe co..
0.*
Garfield County
MEMO
EXHIBIT
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
108 8th Street, Suite 219
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-9150
TO: David Pesnichak and Tamra Allen
FROM: Kelly Cave
RE: Legal Review of Supplemental Information for River Edge Colorado (REC)
File Numbers PDAA-8212 and PPAA-8214
DATE: December 28, 2015
ISSUE: Review Easements associated with REC
CONCLUSION: Easements Are Not Completed
DISCUSSION
You asked me to review three easements: 1) the draft easement for Terrace Parkway
main entrance, 2) the emergency access easement with H Lazy F, LLC recorded as
Reception Number 760451 ("H Lazy F Easement"), and 3) the proposed access (no draft
provided) over Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority (RFTA) property on the southern portion of REC.
The Terrace Parkway proposed easement is acceptable. Outstanding issues still
need to be finalized with CDOT and RFTA regarding permits and crossings. Since legal
access is a requirement for the subdivision, I would prefer a final recorded easement and
formal approval from CDOT and RFTA. However, I understand the applicant's request to
delay the final easement until approval is received. I recommend conditioning the
approvals upon the review and approval of the Terrace Parkway easement, including,
without limitation, any permits or approval required by CDOT and RFTA, by the County
Attorney's office prior to final approval.
The H Lazy F Easement is difficult to understand. Exhibit C was not recorded with
the easement. As such, it is unclear where the easement is located. Recital C of the Hazy
Lazy F Easement states that County Road 167 is a public road that provides access to HLF
Property. However, the easement granted to REC does not connect with County Road 167.
Page 1 of 5
Further clarification is needed. If the easement connects with the private roads owned by
private parties, additional easements will be required. I recommend asking the applicant
to revise this easement to better depict the easement granted, attach an Exhibit C, and
record the same.
The proposed access to the southernmost portion of the subdivision is only in the
initial stages. A permit from CDOT and approval from RFTA have not been completed. I
recommend conditioning the approvals upon the review and approval of the southern
emergency access easement by the County Attorney' s office prior to final approval.
ISSUE: Review Revised PUD Guide
CONCLUSION: Acceptable
DISCUSSION
The redline of the PUD Guide did not make substantial changes to the main document
previously approved by Resolution No. 2011-84. The attached appendices were revised, but
without redline review. I did not review the appendices.
ISSUE: Whether to Terminate, Amend, or Restate the Memorandum of
Understanding Recorded as Reception No. 824971 (MOU)
CONCLUSION: Termination Recommended; Further Discussion with Applicant and
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (Board) Needed
DISCUSSION
The MOU appears to be satisfied since the proposed access point for the subdivision has
moved and REC has paid its share of expenses as agreed to by the Board. REC proposes a
certificate of completion for the MOU. Rather than a certification of completion, staff
recommends a termination of the MOU. The entire MOU was not "completed," and therefore, a
mutually agreed to termination is more acceptable.
The Board will need to determine if a new Memorandum is needed for any potential issues
with the new access point for the subdivision. Staff does not believe any outstanding issues exist,
and as such, no new Memorandum is needed. Prior to termination of the MOU, further discussion
with the Applicant and the Board is needed to determine if there are any remaining issues,
improvements or cost sharing needed.
Page 2 of 5
ISSUE:
Review of Pre -Inclusion Agreement with Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District (RFWSD) and Development of the Cattle Creek
Metropolitan District
CONCLUSION: Recommend Removing GCCI from REC's water and sewer service
agreements
DISCUSSION
The Pre -Inclusion Agreement with RFWSD was executed with Carbondale Investments,
LLC (CI) and Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC (GCCI). GCCI owns property to
the north of the REC subdivision. The Pre -Inclusion Agreement allocates 375 EQRs for CI and
375 EQRs for GCCI. Sewer treatment is also provided for both parcels. The tethering of these
two properties under this agreement is difficult. The ability of the subdivision to supply water is
now tied to a second parcel. This is not ideal. I recommend that the applicant revise its Agreement
with RFWSD to remove the GCCI services. This could be a condition of approval.
Finally, a location and extent application may be needed from Garfield County to provide
the services and should be a condition of approval.
ISSUE: Review Revised Development Agreement
CONCLUSION: Potential Issue with Prior Approved Section 2(c)
DISCUSSION
The prior Development Agreement included provision 2(c) which states the following:
The Parties acknowledge and agree that any request by Developer to alter the
sequence of Filings set forth in the Phasing Plan shall be treated as a non -substantial
modification to the REC PUD.
C.R.S. Section 24-67-106(2)(b) provides that no substantial modification of the provisions of the
plan by the county shall be permitted except upon a finding by the county following a public
hearing called and held in accordance with provisions of section C.R.S. Section 24-67-104(1)(e)
that the modification is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire
planned unit development, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment
of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD or the public interest, and is not granted
solely to confer benefit upon a person.
I do not approve of the Developer's right to alter the sequence of Filings as a non -
substantial modification that does not require a hearing and is solely determined by the Director.
Page 3 of 5
However, this was previously approved so I do not believe we have a strong argument to request
its removal at this stage. Further discussion is needed on this topic with staff.
Other than the above discussion, the redline of the Development Agreement is acceptable.
ISSUE: Review Revised Phase 0 Improvements Agreement
CONCLUSION: Need Construction Plans Attached or Recorded and Referenced
DISCUSSION
Recital 6 of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement references the Construction Phasing
Plan, but does not attach it to the Agreement as an exhibit. I recommend attaching the Construction
Phasing Plan as an exhibit. Construction Plans are referenced in paragraph 2. The Construction
Plans should be recorded or attached for clarification. The applicant wishes to delay production of
these plans until it applies for a grading permit. I do not support this request, as the Construction
Phasing Plan is clearly tied to the execution of the Phase 0 Improvements Agreement. The Board
needs to understand the full extent of these improvements prior to accepting and executing this
Phase 0 Agreement. If the Board approves of the delay, I recommend a condition of approval for
staff to review the Construction Plans and for applicant to record same with the filing of the final
plat.
A third party agreement with the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District has been added to
Recital 7. A draft of such agreement and further explanation of how the landowner and District
are incorporated is needed. As stated above, it is not desirable to have the CI parcel tied in with
the GCCI development for water and sewer services.
Additional language has been added to the Indemnity provision of paragraph 4. I
recommend deleting this addition since it brings in Third Party Entities. The County is responsible
if its employees are negligent, but not if Third Party Entities or their employees are negligent. That
is a decision for a court to make.
The other redlines in the Agreement are acceptable.
ISSUE: 2008 Land Use Code Versus 2013 Land Use Code
CONCLUSION: Need Clarification that Future Modifications Are Reviewed Under the
Current Land Use Code In Effect at that Time
DISCUSSION
There is some confusion concerning which land use code applies to these applications and
to future review by the County. For example, the Development Agreement terminates in 2016.
This document grants the applicant vested rights under a particular land use code at the time of
Page 4 of 5
approval (i.e. the 2008 land use code). If deadlines are modified on documents previously
approved under the 2008 land use code, these documents will need to be amended to utilize the
current land use code.
Additionally, future amendments of these documents should be reviewed with the then
applicable land use code. In order to clarify future County involvement with the subdivision, I
recommend a condition of approval that the applicable code be stated in the Preliminary Plan
Resolution. Staff's suggested language is "All future amendments shall be reviewed pursuant to
the Land Use Code or Resolution in place at the time of submittal."
Page 5 of 5
COLORADO
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821
Denver, CO 80203
December 31, 2015
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
Re: River Edge Colorado — Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment
PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214
Sections 7 & 16, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
Section 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
We have reviewed the information available regarding the potential water supply for the
executive lot located in above -referenced Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a residential
development on 160 acres. As indicated in our letter of November 25, 2015, the source of water
for the development was indicated by the applicant to be the through the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District. However, from the preliminary plans it appears that the water and sewer lines
may not extend to the executive lot at the southern end of the development.
While it is not clear what the purpose is for the executive lot or if it would require a water
supply, the lack of water and sewer lines raises the question what would be the water supply for
that lot should one be necessary. From our records there is no permitted production well on or
nearby the executive lot. If the applicant intends in the future to provide water to that lot from a
well, then Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a
subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. The source
of a well within this development would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. This area of
the Colorado River is over -appropriated; therefore, an augmentation plan is required to offset
depletions caused by the pumping of any wells within the subdivision.
If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at
303-866-3581.
Sincerely,
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
MAS/ RiverEdge_PUDAmendment_executivelot.docx
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us
43`76
David Pesnichak
From: Louis Meyer <LouisM@sgm-inc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:46 PM
To: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak
Cc: Scott Grosscup; Tonya Uren; Alan Leslie - EPC
Subject: RE: River Edge PUD amendment and Preliminary Plan amendment
Hello Tamra and David, I am responding as the District Engineer for the RFWSD. The District has committed to
providing water and wastewater service to Rivers Edge through the terms of the Pre Inclusion Agreement and as per the
terms of the current Service Plan Amendment approved by Garfield County.
The District has not completed the review of this application in detail in part because the current application in front of
GARCO states:
"Cl seeks to preserve the opportunity to construct, own and operate its own centralized water and sewer systems, or
alternatively to develop its own centralized water system but to connect its sewer system to the Roaring Fork Districts
existing sewer plant....".
Further the application states:
"Both water and sewer service will be provided through centralized systems, owned and operated by either the
POA or the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (the "Roaring Fork District"). Preliminary engineering
suggests that either alternative is technically feasible. However, feasibility involves more than the ability to build
collection and distribution systems and treatment plants. Ultimately, feasibility involves consideration of such
issues as water conservation, water rights utilization, stream flow, water quality, and economics, including the
financial burden on the Project, the imposition of protracted and unduly expensive permitting requirements, and
the existence of unwarranted environmental impacts. The decision of which of these entities will own and
operate the water and sewer systems is dependent upon the outcome of the ongoing negotiations between CI
and the Roaring Fork District over the terms of a pre -inclusion agreement for the Project and a complete
feasibility assessment by CI based on the information provided by the Roaring Fork District through these
negotiations such that the feasibility of the Roaring Fork District system may be assessed against the alternative
POA system in accordance with accepted CDPHE standards. The nearest point of connection from the Project to
the Roaring Fork District's existing sewage treatment plant is 1,000 feet and the District's nearest water source
with capacity to serve to the Project is located over 10,000 feet from the Project, both significantly exceeding the
County's standard for adjacency. In addition, the Roaring Fork District's existing wastewater plant does not have
adequate capacity to serve the Project and, therefore, CI will be required to finance an additional new phase of
the plant."
"CI seeks to reserve the opportunity to develop its own wastewater treatment plant on the west side of the Roaring
Fork River, to be owned and operated by the POA, with the expectation that the facility, as well as all associated
sewer lines and lift stations, will be transferred to a special district approved for the Project".
The District is unclear which option the applicant is proposing in this application. Because of the uncertainty for
the water and wastewater service provider and the lack of detail in the offsite infrastructure we have not proceeded
with a detailed review of the onsite infrastructure enclosed in this application. The RFWSD has maintained a clear
policy over the years that it will only provide service if it includes both water and wastewater.
1
it is likely that with the new HWY 82 access and intersection being proposed in this application, that the routing of the
offsite infrastructure may change should the applicant choose the RFWSD as the water and wastewater provider.
These issues will be discussed with the RFWSD Board on January 19th. Further technical referral comments can be
provided to GARCO after the RFWSD Board has provided direction.
Louis
From: Tamra Allen [mailto:tallen@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Louis Meyer
Cc: David Pesnichak
Subject: River Edge
Louis — Hello and Happy New Year! I visited with David Pesnichak earlier today regarding your conversation with him about the
status of RFWSD's obligations/commitments to serve the proposed River Edge development. Because this is relatively technical area
of the application, it would be greatly appreciated if RFWSD had someone available at the meeting that could provide input on any
technical shortcomings or any other issue that have been identified (eg.lack of engineering) that may be problematic or otherwise
inhibit the ability for RFWSD to provide water and sewer service to this development. As I believe David conveyed, the Application
indicates that they will be connecting the RFWSD for these services and thus having these services lined out is a key component of a
Preliminary Plan review. Please feel free to contact me directly this afternoon if you would like to discuss.
Thank you,
Tamra Allen, Planning Manager
Garfield County, Colorado
tallen@garfield-county.com
(970)945-1377 x1630
2
e?
Certification of Notice to
Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC
I, Ted Skokos, as Managing Member of Garfield County Commercial Investments, 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 Administration Building, Suite
100, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado for the purposes of considering the application
by Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI"), of which I am also the Managing Member, to amend
the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan, as further described
in the public notice of such hearing attached as Exhibit A (the "Hearing"). 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,
Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC
Subscribed and sworn before me on this /f day of April, 2016, by Ted Skokos, as Managing
Member of Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC.
My Commission expires:
(Seal)
Notary Public
017608\0001\14643703.1
Exhibit A
[see attached]
017608\0001\14643703.1
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Carbondale Investments, LLC, represented by Pete Mertes of HDR, has
applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a
recommendation of approval for an amendment to a previously approved Preliminary Plan and
PUD (Resolution 2011-84) on a property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado;
to -wit:
Legal Description:
Parcel A (South Parcel):
A tract of land situated in the east half of Section 12, Township 7 South,
Range 89 West, and in the west half of Section 7
and in the north half of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of
the 6th 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 a 2 1/2" Brass Cap, found in
place and correctly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7,
bears S 78°4920" E a distance of 2150.14 feet;
thence, along said right of way line S 09°35°09 E a distance of 401.79
feet;
thence, S 09°35°09 E a distance of 1545.87 feet;
thence, 626.05 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of
1482.50 feet, a central angle of 24°11'44" and
subtending a chord bearing of S 21°41'02" E a distance of 621.41 feet;
thence, S 33°46°54 E a distance of 387.28 feet;
thence, 294.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
2815.00 feet, a central angle of 5°59'26" and
subtending a chord bearing of S 30°47°11 E a distance of 294.19 feet;
thence, departing said right of way line N 89°53°16 W a distance of
218.07 feet;
thence, N 40°23°30 W a distance of 69.38 feet;
thence, S 87°28°29 W a distance of 36.35 feet;
thence, S 83°52°12 W a distance of 10.80 feet;
thence, N 58°27°19 W a distance of 41.45 feet;
thence, N 29°51°31 W a distance of 8.28 feet;
thence, N 24°16°24 W a distance of 25.22 feet;
thence, N 69°00°53 W a distance of 9.87 feet;
thence, S 87°31°44 W a distance of 22.60 feet;
thence, N 57°25°01 W a distance of 17.28 feet;
thence, N 50°09°49 W a distance of 26.07 feet;
thence, N 46°21°12 W a distance of 9.99 feet;
thence, N 44°28°05 W a distance of 21.45 feet;
thence, N 55°50°08 W a distance of 49.05 feet;
thence, N 56°25°40 W a distance of 49.94 feet;
thence, N 68°12°23 W a distance of 36.45 feet;
thence, N 46°54°04 W a distance of 55.18 feet;
thence, N 68°49°21 W a distance of 25.14 feet;
thence, N 47°41°50 W a distance of 78.78 feet;
thence, N 30°26°40 W a distance of 24.58 feet;
thence, N 25°47°01 W a distance of 30.08 feet;
thence, N 18°11°39 W a distance of 34.61 feet;
thence, N 30°58°21 W a distance of 29.32 feet;
thence, N 21°59°14 W a distance of 27.50 feet;
thence, N 30°16°07 W a distance of 22.97 feet;
thence, N 25°41°38 W a distance of 169.44 feet;
thence, N 41°17°39 E a distance of 82.61 feet;
thence, N 38°34°52 E a distance of 15.89 feet;
thence, N 34°26°44 W a distance of 262.40 feet;
thence, N 57°58°09 W a distance of 102.47 feet;
thence, N 53°43°31 W a distance of 105.38 feet;
thence, N 55°58°11 W a distance of 126.13 feet;
thence, N 56°14°57 W a distance of 118.42 feet;
thence, N 49°16°04 W a distance of 136.33 feet;
thence, N 44°30°51 W a distance of 150.05 feet;
thence, N 32°49°55 W a distance of 102.14 feet;
thence, N 37°44°19 W a distance of 552.12 feet;
thence, N 18°10°02 W a distance of 47.26 feet;
thence, N 27°58°19 W a distance of 109.20 feet;
thence, N 35°01°36 W a distance of 71.09 feet;
thence, N 41°32°47 W a distance of 152.23 feet;
thence, N 40°22°24 W a distance of 339.82 feet;
thence, N 64°20°53 W a distance of 34.06 feet;
thence, N 45°00°36 W a distance of 52.42 feet;
thence, N 44°53°41 W a distance of 154.66 feet;
thence, N 32°35°48 W a distance of 86.59 feet;
thence, N 57°01°32 W a distance of 44.89 feet;
thence, N 30°33°12 W a distance of 85.72 feet;
thence, N 37°39°02 W a distance of 79.09 feet;
thence, N 37°32°30 W a distance of 63.32 feet;
thence, N 20°02°15 W a distance of 33.98 feet;
thence, N 39°52°25 W a distance of 42.02 feet;
thence, N 25°36°04 W a distance of 107.17 feet;
thence, N 30°34°08 W a distance of 164.72 feet;
thence, N 11°39°01 W a distance of 107.90 feet;
thence, N 24°56°06 E a distance of 163.60 feet;
thence, N 63°39°33 E a distance of 177.81 feet;
thence, N 83°14°43 E a distance of 393.54 feet;
thence, N 07°15°26 W a distance of 21.79 feet;
thence, N 80°51°11 E a distance of 50.00 feet;
thence, N 89°15°06 E a distance of 65.56 feet;
thence, N 57°50°04 E a distance of 50.12 feet;
thence, S 84°51°15
thence, S 81°39°50
thence, N 56°07°00
thence, N 07°38°31
thence, N 37°41°57
thence, N 50°00°15
thence, N 82°02°30
thence, S 63°34°38
thence, S 45°59°58
thence, S 14°44°20
thence, S 11°11°17
thence, S 14°58°41
thence, S 43°42°10
thence, S 31°36°59
thence, S 49°38°46
thence, S 45°30°55
thence, S 60°16°38
thence, S 73°16°24
thence, S 53°05°15
thence, S 63°37°30
thence, S 83°28°21
thence, N 86°20°27
thence, N 31°59°09
thence, N 06°58°38
thence, N 72°08°07
thence, S 24°51°03
thence, S 41°52°47
thence, S 54°44°21
thence, S 83°39°39
thence, S 57°11°12
thence, S 41°51°16
thence, S 57°39°13
thence, S 49°55°38
thence, S 61°04°52
thence, S 71°46°03
E a distance of 33.08 feet;
E a distance of 89.61 feet;
E a distance of 26.86 feet;,
E a distance of 27.93 feet;
W a distance of 28.06 feet;
E a distance of 22.23 feet;
E a distance of 36.49 feet;
E a distance of 54.05 feet;
E a distance of 20.95 feet;
E a distance of 29.18 feet;
W a distance of 26.42 feet;
E a distance of 30.14 feet;
E a distance of 69.77 feet;
E a distance of 56.76 feet;
E a distance of 40.12 feet;
E a distance of 40.88 feet;
E a distance of 43.39 feet;
E a distance of 67.60 feet;
E a distance of 15.86 feet;
E a distance of 52.31 feet;
E a distance of 46.95 feet;
E a distance of 61.04 feet;
E a distance of 47.07 feet;
E a distance of 32.16 feet;
E a distance of 7.98 feet;
E a distance of 72.35 feet;
E a distance of 50.71 feet;
E a distance of 38.31 feet;
E a distance of 87.15 feet;
E a distance of 77.06 feet;
E a distance of 88.65 feet;
E a distance of 65.60 feet;
E a distance of 74.96 feet;
E a distance of 43.44 feet;
E a distance of 55.45 feet to the point of beginning
•
Together with Parcel B (North Parcel):
A tract of land situated in the east half of Section 12, Township 7 South,
Range 89 West, and in the west half of Section 7,
Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County
of Garfield, State of Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning Garfield County Surveyor's 2 1/2" Brass, found in place, and
correctly marked as the southeast corner of said
Section 7, thence S 49°22'15" E a distance of 5479.54 feet to the true
point of beginning;
thence, S 89°43°30" E a distance of 1005.44 feet to a point on the
westerly line of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority
Transportation Corridor Easement;
thence, along the westerly line of said Easement S 19°38°52" E a distance
of 2644.53 feet;
thence, 494.34 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
2815.00 feet, a central angle of 10°03°42 and
subtending a chord bearing of S 14°37°01" E a distance of 493.70 feet;
thence, S 09°35'09" E a distance of 120.78 feet;
thence, departing the westerly line of said Easement N 65°36'14" W a
distance of 60.45 feet;
thence, N 49°54'10" W a distance of 64.72 feet;
thence, N 49°54'10" W a distance of 86.97 feet;
thence, N 48°11'10" W a distance of 54.30 feet;
thence, N 56°47'27" W a distance of 123.97 feet;
thence, N 83°47'24" W a distance of 93.00 feet;
thence, N 29°35'31" W a distance of 119.58 feet;
thence, N 78°00'43" W a distance of 33.84 feet;
thence, S 79°41'48" W a distance of 37.80 feet;
thence, S 22°57'52" W a distance of 56.05 feet;
thence, S 59°31'57" W a distance of 45.48 feet;
thence, N 82°32'35" W a distance of 28.23 feet;
thence, N 59°07'03" W a distance of 95.71 feet;
thence, N 71°20'44" W a distance of 85.73 feet;
thence, N 36°43'10" W a distance of 93.22 feet;
thence, N 25°39'22" W a distance of 181.92 feet;
thence, N 65°10'24" W a distance of 98.43 feet;
thence, S 85°02'33" W a distance of 52.20 feet;
thence, S 56°33'52" W a distance of 39.34 feet;
thence, S 20°49'33" W a distance of 42.96 feet;
thence, S 37°27'43" E a distance of 21.60 feet;
thence, N 77°02'57" W a distance of 89.66 feet;
thence, S 70°24'18" W a distance of 70.95 feet;
thence, N 88°59'39" W a distance of 55.55 feet;
thence, S 84°28'58" W a distance of 49.93 feet;
thence, N 14°22'48" E a distance of 68.20 feet;
thence, N 05°11'46" W a distance of 77.59 feet;
thence, N 18°20'05" E a distance of 10.82 feet;
thence, N 22°53'40" E a distance of 44.14 feet;
thence, N 10°34'58" E a distance of 35.11 feet;
thence, N 08°59'51" E a distance of 47.16 feet;
thence, N 03°48'08" E a distance of 36.48 feet;
thence, N 04°40'52" E a distance of 71.03 feet;
thence, N 07°37'51" E a distance of 54.66 feet.
thence, N 29°28'14" W a distance of 63.68 feet;
thence, N 32°00'44" W a distance of 61.05 feet;
thence, N 26°17'29" W a distance of 55.52 feet;
thence, N 38°14'36" W a distance of 44.36 feet;
thence, N 53°1 P32" W a distance of 37.73 feet;
thence, N 59°54'48" W a distance of 54.16 feet;
thence, N 87°51'35" W a distance of 36.97 feet;
thence, N 57°33'47" W a distance of 65.70 feet;
thence, N 81°56'22" W a distance of 85.02 feet;
thence, N 04°1 P29" W a distance of 158.65 feet;
thence, N 35°50'41" W a distance of 41.30 feet;
thence, N 54°46'03" W a distance of 24.70 feet;
thence, N 28°51'45" W a distance of 209.99 feet;
thence, N 11°58'37" W a distance of 33.82 feet;
thence, N 41°03'46" E a distance of 78.19 feet;
thence, N 06°29'01" W a distance of 117.20 feet;
thence, N 20°05'27" W a distance of 94.24 feet;
thence, N 11°32'03" W a distance of 63.83 feet;
thence, N 07°57'46" W a distance of 141.45 feet;
thence, N 09°56'14" E a distance of 50.76 feet;
thence, N 19°17'44" W a distance of 91.04 feet;
thence, N 44°41'59" W a distance of 134.55 feet;
thence, N 19°23'49" W a distance of 74.18 feet;
thence, N 19°33'06" W a distance of 43.27 feet;
thence, N 21°30'01" W a distance of 72.23 feet;
thence, N 00°16'30" E a distance of 217.77 feet;
thence, N 00°16'30" E a distance of 312.94 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with, Parcel C:
A tract of land situated in the southwest quarter of 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 a 2 1/2" Brass Cap, found in
place and properly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7, bears
S 78°01'43" E a distance of 2054.18 feet;
thence, along said westerly right of way line N 09°35'10" W a distance of
188.14
thence, 282.60 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of
2915.00 feet, a central angle of 5°33'17" and
subtending a chord bearing of N 12°21'49" W a distance of 282.49 feet;
thence, departing said right of way line S 90°00'00" E a distance of 49.74
feet;
thence, S 06°01'00" E a distance of 202.70 feet;
thence, S 04°34'58" E a distance of 260.70 feet to the point of beginning.
County of Garfield, State of Colorado.
Practical Description: Two parcels totaling 159.161 acres located approximately 5.5 miles south
of the City of Glenwood Springs off State Highway 82 and known as
Parcel Number 239307300032 (North Parcel) and 239307300033 (South
Parcel).
Project Description;
The Applicant is requesting to modify the PUD and Preliminary Plan as
approved in 2011 (Resolution 2011-84) to accommodate a relocation of
the subdivision's primary access to Highway 82. This relocation will
impact the design of the internal street network and will reduce the
overall number of units from 366 approved in 2011 to 362. The
amendment also requests to absolve or modify the Memorandum of
Understanding for improvements to the intersection of Hwy 82, County
Road 110 and 113 (Cattle Creek) recorded as Reception Number 824971
in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's records; creates a new Rio
Grande trail crossing for Terrace Parkway; eliminates the River Edge
Drive right-of-way extension to Hwy 82; creates a new bike/pedestrian
crossing under Hwy 82 at Cattle Creek by improving an existing drain
culvert; relocates the secondary emergency vehicle access to run through
adjoining properties to the north of the Project and connecting to County
Road 167; reorganizes the Subdivision Filings; and revises the PUD
Phasing Plan to shift earlier phases of development to the vicinity of the
new access point. The cumulative overall property is approximately
159.161 acres. The Property is zoned PUD.
GLENWOOD
SPRINGS
N
1 dl
o
eatlotaCto
Merrr train t c Na -•: r
'�
County
Road 110
PROJECT SITE
I
1
County
Road 113
5 OCC
•
•
4401.
3 MILE RADIUS \ . a
Roaring
Fork
River
SOLE FEET
OwnerlDeveloper:
RiVertrige
COI ()R;U)O
Carbondale Investments. LLC
7999 HWY 82
Carbondale. CO 81623
Phone No:
970.456.5725
0111
CARBONDALE
Title:
VICINITY MAP
Prepared by:
8140 Partners, LLC
Date:
12/01/10
Exhibit:
1
All persons affected by the proposed plan are invited to appear and state their views, protest or
support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, 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. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at
108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Alternatively, the application can
be viewed at http://records. garfield-
county.com/WebLink/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=BuildingDocumentSearch (Search for
File No. PDAA-02-15-8212 and PPAA-02-15-8214).
A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for Monday, April 18, 2016 at 1:00
P.M. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building,
108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County