Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.13.2007Exhibits for Spring Valley Ranch PUD on BOCC on 11/13/07 (Continued to 12/7/07) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts (for Preliminary Plan only) B Proof of Publication (for Preliminary Plan only) C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended F Application to include: (also in DVD form) A Spiral Bound Binder: Traffic Impact Report 5= Spiral Binder: Preliminary Plan Drainage Report dated March 9, 2007 Y Binder #1: March 2007 :- Binder #2: March 2007 i- Binder #3 March 2007 Binder #4 March 20.07 G Staff Memorandum H Email from CDPHE dated 6/28/07 I Memorandum from the County Vegetation Director dated 7/19/07 J Memorandum form RFTA dated 7/20/07 K Letter from Spring Valley Sanitation District Engineer dated 7131107 L Letter from Don Helmich dated 8/2/07 M Letter from Bob and Tereasa Peckham dated 7/29/07 N Letter from James Condon dated 7/31/07 Current Community Housing Program required for 75 units in Spring Valley Ranch PUD dated November 2005 P Letter from Jim Austin dated 8/3/07 Q Letter from Wright Water Engineering to Craig Lis dated 8/20/07 R Letter from Division of Wildlife dated 7/21/07 (rec. 8/8/07) S Letter from the Glenwood Fire Department dated 8/30/07 T Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated 8/9/07 U Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated 9/05/07 V Letter from High Aspen Ranch HOA dated 9/5/07 W Email from County Housing Authority dated 9/4/07 X Supplemental Package from the Applicant received 9/4/07 Y Letter from Jim Austin Z Letter from Michael Birkeley dated 9/11/07 AA Letter from DWR dated 9/7/07 BB Revised Staff Report to PC dated 9/12/07 CC Staff PC Powerpoint Presentation dated 9/12/07 DD Applicant's Powerpoint Presentation dated 9/12/07 EE Applicant's proposed changes to PUD conditions FF Applicant's proposed changes to PP conditions GG Question submitted by Lois Veltus regarding Resolution 2000-95 HH CODT Permit II Additional Supplement from Applicant dated 1116107 Y V f3,L'15 (LiL,P41 I/24 ` ) 1,41, New Exhibits for 1217107 Hearing JJ Letter from Marvin & Ester Claridge 8/1/07 KK Email from the Garco Housing Authority dated 12/6/07 LL Letter from John and Resa Wing dated 12/4/07 MM Email from Garco R&B dated 11/13/07 NN Letter from Carlos. Cardenas dated 10/23/07 00 Letter from Mt Cross Engineering dated 11/12/07 PP Letter from Jim Austin dated 11/09/07 QQ Letter from the Nieslanik Family dated 9/6/07 RR Letter from a group of neighbors received on 12/6/07 SS Letter from a group of neighbors received on 12/6/07 . TT , s4 p , ) 5A i A� Y V f3,L'15 (LiL,P41 I/24 ` ) 1,41, REQUEST Ll 00 A'41 BOCC 11/13/07 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development Amendment for Spring Valley Ranch PUD OWNER Spring Valley Development, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE Jim Lochhead ENGINEERS Gamba & Associates, Inc. LOCATION A tract of land situated in portions of Sections 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, T6S, th R88W of the 6P.M. Located in the Roaring Fork Valley, west of Missouri Heights above the towns of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. SITE DATA 5,948.277 +- acres. WATER Central water supply SEWER ISTS & Central sewer (Spring Valley Sanitation District). ACCESS County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road) via Highway 82, and County Road 115 via County Road 114 (CMC Road) via Highway 82. ZONING PUD ADJACENT ZONING North: Open Space (Forest Service) East: A/R/RD West: A/R/RD South:A/R/RD, PUD NOTE TO BOCC: STAFF IS PROVIDING YOU WITH A STAFF REPORT WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSES AND COMMENTS INCLUDED IN RED FOR YOUR REVIEW. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT (BINDER AS EXHIBIT X AND ) THAT CORRESPOND TO THEIR RESPONSES ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECEIVED REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE FOLLOWING ENTITIES WHICH ARE ALSO ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS SINCE THE INITIAL REVIEW r LETTER FROM THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (EXHIBIT R) ➢ LETTER FROM MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING (ON BEHALF OF GARFIELD COUNTY AS EXHIBIT U) ➢ LETTER FROM THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (EXHIBIT T) > LETTER FROM THE GLENWOOD SPRINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT (EXHIBIT 5) ✓ LETTER FROM WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS (EXHIBIT 0) ➢ LETTER FROM JIM AUSTIN (EXHIBIT P) ) LETTER FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (EXHIBIT W) ) LETTER FROM THE HIGH ASPEN RANCH HOA (V) IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THEIR APPLICATION BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF MEMO AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 1) REINSERTED THE 75 COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS IN THE LOCATION THAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THE EXISTING PUD; 2) REDUCED THE FREE MARKET HOUSING FROM 502 UNITS TO 478 UNITS WHICH REDUCES THE OVERALL DENSITY FROM 11.84 TO 12.55 FREE MARKET UNITS (BY ELIMINATING THE PASTURE LOTS AND A VARIETY OF CABIN LOTS); 3) REVISED THE PHASING PLAN TO INCORPORATE EMERGANCY ACCESS ROADS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM EACH PHASE IF THE PROJECT DOES NOT REACH FULL BUILD -OUT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GLENWOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT; 4) REVISED THE PHASING PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION IN PHASE 2 AND PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE COMMUNITY HOUSING UMTS IN PHASES 7 - 10; 5) INCLUDED THE PROVISION OF 24 RENTAL EMPLOYEE UNITS (DEED RESTRICTED FOR 20 YEARS) THE APPLICANT WILL CONTRIBUTE ITS PRO -RATA SHARE TO PARTIALLY FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RFTA PARK -N -RIDE THAT EXISTS ON THE SE CORNER OF SH 82 AND CR 114 BASED UPON TOTAL FUTURE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATED FOR THE PROJECT DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL PROJECTED RIDERSHIP ORIGINATING AT THE RFTA PARK -N -RIDE DESCRIBED ABOVE BY RAFTA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRED, IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOCC REGARDING THE PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION. THESE ARE FOLLOWED BY A STAFF RESPOSE. 4 x 17.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the Garfield County Housing Authority regarding the location of the 75 Community Housing units or an offsite alternative affordable housing project. In the event no agreement is reached, the 75 community housing units shall be located as depicted on the supplemental plan. Staff Response Much discussion occurred at the Planning Commission regarding the provision of the 75 Community Housing units. As you will read in the supplemental information, no further discussions were able to occur between the County Housing Authority and the Applicant regarding the possibility of any new agreement to locate all ora portion of the units off site. Asa result, it remains Staff's opinion that the existing PUD and Comprehensive Plan require that these units be constructed on site. 18.0 The phasing of improvements to the intersection of Colorado State Highway 82 and Garfield County Road 114 shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation and shall be incorporated into the phasing plan for the project. Staff Response The intent of this condition was to determine exactly when off-site road improvements (intersection of State Highway 82 and CR 114) were to occur pursuant to the Applicant's Traffic Impact Study (TIS). As you will read, the TIS identifies short term and Ionq term improvements). The Applicant states that they will occur when CDOT requires them and will get permits accordingly. CDOT has issued an access permit to the Applicant that covers all of the short term improvements and provides a threshold at 740 Design Hourly Volume (DHV) for all traffic at the intersection. Based on this, Staff continues to be concerned that the improvements proposed in the TIS should be constructed so that they are in place when the impact occurs rather than wait for the impact to occur and then build the improvements. To do this, the Applicant should be required to point out in what phase these improvements would be constructed. To that end, Staff believes the BOCC should contemplate a condition of approval that addresses this issue and suggests the following condition that has also been suggested by CDOT: "That the Applicant shall tender a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 114 that specifically identifies the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) for all traffic at the intersection as well as the portion that is directly generated from the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. This TIS shall submitted at the time of every new phase of development. If, at such time, the aggregate total DHV exceeds 20% of 740 DHV established in the existing CDOT permit, the Applicant shall be required to complete all long term improvements identified in the TIS submitted with this Application." As the project is proposed, there has been no change to the phasing plan that indicates when the improvements are to occur. The BOCC should consider requiring points specific so that security could be obtained to ensure the improvements occur. 19.0 The Applicant shall construct interim improvements to CR114 to mitigate construction traffic impacts as part of Phase 2 in accordance with a plan approved by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Staff Response This condition was the result of a specific concern raised by neighbors in the area because they were concerned about safety issues, traffic conflicts, and the road widths and grades on CR 114 as the project infrastructure was being constructed with large heavy trucks. The Applicant has provided three plan / profile sheets showing areas of focus but there was no information regarding any communication or approval by the County Road and Bridge Department as to the adequacy of the plan. This condition has not been met. 20.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a schedule showing the ownership and timing of conveyance of open space, trails, and 24 employee rental units. Staff Response The Applicant's response provides that either Aspen Valley Land trust (AVLT) or a privately created foundation will own the open space and trails and that the Spring Valley Club will own the 24 employee units. The response does not indicate when these items will be conveyed; Staff continues to suggest that they are platted with the first Final Plat. Staff also notes that the Applicant has not included any restriction that prevents others (guests / members) from using the employee units. Lastly, Staff is unclear as to what entity is the Club. 21.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a public access plan for the golf course, trails and convenience shopping. Staff Response This plan was submitted but Staff is unclear as to how the plan will be implemented as a practical matter. 4 THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRED, IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOCC REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION. THESE ARE FOLLOWED BY A STAFF RESPOSE. 30.01 Mountain Cross Engineering ("IME") comments 1 to 13 and 15, except for 3 and 7, pertain to final plat conditions that will be fulfilled at the filing of each phase. With regard to comment 3, the community water system will be approved, permitted and operated pursuant to CDPHE regulations that will assure adequate water quality. With regard to comment 7, Applicant will prepare a traffic analysis on the identified intersections for submission to the BOCC prior to hearing. Staff Response The Applicant delivered their responses to Mountain Cross Engineering via email at 3:20 PM on Tuesday, November 6, 2007. Due to the very limited timing afforded and understanding that this memorandum had to be completed by Wednesday, no comments were available at the drafting of this memorandum. It is our hope that comments will be forthcoming at the time of the hearing. 30.02 Comments 14, 16 and 17 concern road engineering in the Mountain District, except for Sweetwater Draw. The Applicant will prepare design standards for road grades at intersections and switchbacks, and standards related to the location of guard rails for review and approval of MCE prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan. Staff Response The Applicant delivered their responses to Mountain Cross Engineering via email at 3:20 PM on Tuesday, November 6, 2007. Due to the very limited timing afforded and understanding that this memorandum had to be completed by Wednesday, no comments were available at the drafting of this memorandum. It is our hope that comments will be forthcoming at the time of the hearing. I. PROJECT HISTORY Spring Valley Ranch PUD was approved in August of 2000 which established the zoning for the property as a Planned Unit Development. Subsequently, the Preliminary Pian for the development was approved in November of 2001. Since that time, there have been several reiterations of the project resulting in several amendments to the PUD as well as new Preliminary Plans approved by the BOCC. These iterations primarily included modifications to the project's phasing plan (incorporate trails, infrastructure, and open space), realignment of a portion of CR 114 through Lake Springs Ranch, consolidation of conditions of approval, and inclusion of amendments to Glenwood Springs Fire Protection contract for services. With all of these amendments to date, the Preliminary Plan will expire on November 5 5, 2007. 11. CURRENTLY APPROVED PUD As a matter of background, most of the development is concentrated at the center of the property on a plateau above CR 115 in the area known as Spring Valley. Two entrances into the project are proposed: One about 114 mile east of the intersection of CR 114, and CR 115 (Main Entrance) and the other located west of the CR 115 and 114 intersections on CR 115 known as the Landis Creek Entrance. The property was rezoned in 2000 and consists of the following 13 separate zone districts. The matrix below is intended to show the breakdown of theses districts as well as any residential dwelling units associated with the zone district: Zone District Number of units Number of acres Percentage of total Acreage Open Space/Agricultural (Including 2 Golf Courses) 0 1,273 21.4 Golf Clubhouse 0 22 .04 Residential Lots Ranch Lots 91 2,981 50.1 Meadow Lot 1 30 0.5 Estate Lots 134 _ 700 11.8 Golf Lots 171 331 5.6 Cooperative Ownership Cabins 75 88 1.5 Duplex Townhomes 30 15 0.3 Commercial / Mixed Use (Village Center District) 75 48 0.8 Office 0 13 0.2 Metro (Fire/EMS stations) 0 6 0.1 Utilities 0 _ 2 0.2 Institutional Facilities 0 11 0.2 Total 577 5,948 100% [Note: Included in the total of 577 dwelling units are 20,000 square feet of commercial space and 75 Community Housing Units that are included in the RCMU (Village Center) District. Two (2) Fire/EMS stations are proposed within the Metro District.] 6 111. Proposed Amendments to the PUD and New Preliminary Plan The Applicant proposes to amend the existing approved project in the following manner: Project Component Currently Approved PUD Proposed PUD Dwelling Units 502 Free Market & 75 AH 577 Free Market_& 0 H 478 Free Market Units 75 Community Housing Units 24 Employee Housing Units Gross Density 11.84 acldu (FM units only) 10.31 acldu 12.44 acldu (FM units only) Golf Course 36 Holes 27 holcs 18 hole par 72 golf course 9 hole 3 -par "barefoot" course Equestrian Center _ Yes Yes Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. (relocated) The Residential component will include the following types of lots / units: Mountain Lots: 90 Tots that average 32 acres in size on central water and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems; Applicant's Response The 22 Pasture Lots have been replaced with 75 Community Housing units as defined in the Community Housing Program of the current PUD. Ranch Lots: 115 1211ots averaging 5 acres on the middle bench served by central water / sewer; Applicant's Response 60 Cabin Lots have been replaced by 6 Ranch Lots which bring the Ranch Lot total to 121 r Estate Lots: 138 Lots that average 2 acres on the middle bench served by central water / sewer; Cabin Lots: 492 132 Tots that average 1/4 acre are on the middle -bench around the golf -course and close to the Village Center served by central water and sewer; 7 Applicant's Response 60 Cabin Lots have been removed resulting in a total of 132 Cabin_ /Cottage Lots. The Applicant proposes to construct the improvements on the Cabin/Cottage Lots. The Cabin/Cottage Lots will offer a variety of product types at various price points: i) 18 "Camp" Cabins at 1,000 to 1,500 sg ft; ii) 37 "Village" and "Hillside" Cabins at 1,500 to 2,500 sq ft; iii) 49 "Golf" and "Hillside" Cottages at 2,500 to 4,000 sq ft; and iv) 28 Duplex Cabins (four of which will be employee rentals) in 14buildings at 4,000 to 5,000 sq ft. Please refer to Exhibit 17 - PUD Zone District Map and revised Section 8 - Zone District Standards provided in the supplement to the Preliminary Plan Application. r Lodge / Condominium Units: 19 units in the Village Center served by central water and sewer; and Applicant's Response The Condominium Units have been removed and replaced by 20 multi -family employee workforce rental units Located in the Village Center and/or the Metro District Yard which the Applicant will construct as apartments and "room and board" accommodations. Employee Housing: The developer may provide a minimum # of unrestricted units to be located in the Village Center and / or the Metro District Yard. Applicant's Response See above comments regarding four Employee Duplex Cabins and 20 multi- family, employee workforce rental unit as apartments or "room and board" units. The other main components to the project include the following: Village Center: Originally located in the pasture in the lower valley floor near the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115, this has been relocated to the middle bench. This center is proposed to provide the following amenities for the residents: r Restaurant/bar, fitness & spa facilities, party/event barn, kid's camp/activity center, outfitters cabin and a general store/post office/ fueling station. r Fire / EMS Department (As part of the Applicant's proposed Fire/Metropolitan District) with space provided for a Sheriffs Sub - Station and employee lodging. r Common Community Recreation facilities that may include swimming pool(s), tennis courts, a fitness center and pedestrian, bike & equestrian paths. 8 Applicant's Response Due to the conversion of the condominium units to employee housing, Applicant proposed 15 private guest rooms within the Village/Club district for use only by owners and their guests. Golf Courses. One 18 -hole golf course, one walking (9 hole) Par 3 "barefoot" course, and practice facilities are planned for the project. The golf pro shop, starter pavilion and driving range will be located on a knoll in close proximity to the Village Center and the golf maintenance facility to provide easy access and adequate parking. Y Equestrian Center. The Equestrian Center will be located in the Open Space/Pasture or Open Space/Recreation District. r Corporation Yard/Golf Maintenance. The Corporation Yard 1 Golf Maintenance facility will include: golf cart storage and maintenance facilities; vehicle maintenance for summer and winter road maintenance; equipment storage; a corporation yard for landscaping and maintenance needs; administrative offices; employee lodging; fueling station; and such other facilities as may be needed by the Metro District. r Trails and Open Space System. The open space system forms the framework around which the development is planned. Trails will connect neighborhoods and other recreational amenities throughout the community as well as access the adjacent National Forest and BLM lands. Golf cart paths will double as cross-country ski trails during the winter months. Easements will be provided where trails cross private property. The trails within the community will be managed and maintained by the Metro District or the HOA. Certain trails will be closed during specific times of the year at the request of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Landscaping. Native landscaping will be used when reasonable throughout the development. At lower elevations, cottonwood, oak and native shrubs will predominate. Spruce, aspen and alpine materials will predominate at the higher elevations. Design guidelines will emphasize the use of native vegetation and limit the amount of irrigated areas. Water conservation methods will be observed at all times. The PUD breaks down the square footage for specific amenities as follows: Restaurant/Club +1- 6,200 S.F. Fitness & Spa +1- 11,700 S.F. Party Barn +1- 8,500 S.F. Kids' Camp/Activity CenterlOutfitters Cabin +1- 1,500 S.F. General Store/Post Office +1- 2,600 S.F. Pool / Tennis Facility +1- 2,500 S.F. 9 Trail / Horse Stable +1- 2,500 S.F. Gatehouse/Reception/Security +1- 2,000 S.F. Sales Office +1- 4,300 S.F. Metropolitan. District Buildings (including Fire Station) +1- 26,000 S.F. Golf Operations +1- 1,700 S.F. Cart Storage Barn +1- 4,500 S.F. Golf Comfort Stations (3) +1- 1,000 S.F. Fishing Camp +/- 500 S.F. Outpost Camp +1- 2,300 S.F. Equestrian Facility +/- 20,000 S.F. Development Summary Total acres = 5,948 Total Dwelling units = 577 Total Common Open Space = 1,547.84 acres or 26.02% of the PUD, comprised of: • Useable Open Space = 410.2 acres • Recreational Open Space = 337.8 acres • Commercial Open Space = 252.9 acres • Limited Use Open Space = 546.86 acres Utilities and Infrastructure Utility services to be provided to all of the residential districts, except Lot P23, within the Spring Valley Ranch PUD consist of the following: 1. Central Water Distribution System 2. Sanitary sewer system connecting to the Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility 3. Electric 4. Telephone 5. Natural Gas Except for the Public Service Company's regional transmission line and the existing Holy Cross Electric line in the lower valley, including the existing service to Lot P23, utilities shall be underground and service connections for utility systems shall be extended to the lot lines. The utilities will be constructed within road rights-of-way and other utility easements. 10 IV. PROCESS The county land use regulations do not offer an amendment process for physical changes to Preliminary Plans. Additionally, while the PUD provisions in the code provide for an amendment process that deals with zoning matters, any change to a Preliminary Plan requires the resubmittal of the entire project in the form of a new Preliminary Plan. In the present application, the Applicant has submitted a new Preliminary Plan as well as an amendment to the PUD intended to address the requests above. As a matter of process, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners should make two separate motions; the first motion should address the amendment to the PUD while the second motion should address the (new) Preliminary Plan. The focus of this memorandum is intended to address points of concern related to standards and criteria required in the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the Subdivision regulations of 1984, as amended, and the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. V. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS The Applicant sent the proposal to the following review agencies whose comments are provided below and are incorporated in the memorandum where appropriate: A. Town of Carbondale: No Comments Received B. City of Glenwood Springs: No Comments Received C. RE -1 School District: No Comments Received D. Colorado State Forest Service: No Comments Received E. Spring Valley Sanitation District: Dean Gordon, P.E., with Schmeuser Gordon Meyer is the project engineer for the Spring Valley Sanitation District which provided a wide variety of comments regarding the provision of central sewer service to the project. These comments are too numerous to incorporate here. Please see Exhibit K). F. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: Exhibit S G. Colorado Department of Transportation: No Comments Received H. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received I. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit T J. Bureau of Land Management: No Comments Received K. Colorado Geologic Survey: No Comments Received L. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: No Comments Received M. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: It appears there will be a drinking water system that will require state approval. On the wastewater side, it looks like the bulk of the subdivision will be treated at the existing Spring Valley SD and the remainder will be /SOS at Less than 2000 gpd. So my only comment is state approval will be required for the drinking water system. (See Exhibit H) N. Roaring Fork Transit Authority: There is no mention of public transportation throughout the proposal. The developer does propose to provide carpool 11 incentives, repave and widen CR 114 from the SH 82 intersection up to the Colorado Mountain College (CMC) campus, and make some changes to the SH 82/CR 144 intersection, but there is no mention about how residents might be able to get down the hill without a car. The proposed improvements do not include a bike lane or pedestrian paths parallel to CR 114. In the past, CMC agreed to operate a van shuttle between SH 82 and the campus; however this service is now defunct. When the Bair Chase Development along the west side of SH 82 was still in motion, the developer agreed to partially fund improvements to the RFTA park -n -ride that exists on the SE comer of SH 82 and CR 114. Since that development has recently changed hands, RFTA asks that the new developer will also assist with funding improvements to the CMC Park -n -Ride. Additionally, RFTA is requesting that other developers in this area (i.e. Spring Valley Ranch PUD) also set aside some funds for park -n -ride improvements and other transit and pedestrian -oriented design alternatives, such as mutli-use paths or painted lanes parallel to roadways. (See Exhibit J). Applicant's Response The Applicant will contribute its pro -rata share to partially fund improvements to the RFTA park -n -ride that exists on the SE corner of SH 82 and CR 114 based upon total future ridership estimated for the protect divided by the total praiected ridership originating at the RFTA park -n -ride described above by RAFTA. 0. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: • inventory and mapping -The applicant lists noxious weeds found on the property, however this information is not represented on a map, staff requests that the applicant provide a map of the project area with the Garfield County listed noxious weeds, and the State of Colorado listed noxious weed, Absinth wormwood (Artemsia absinthium). • Weed management -The Weed Management Plan is incorporated into the attachment entitled "Best Management Practices." The recommended herbicides, glyphosate and 2-4,0 will have minimal results on most noxious weeds. • Revegetation and soils -The applicant has addressed revegetation and soil concerns. • Revegetation security -The applicant has not quantified the addresses surface area to be disturbed by new roads and utilities. Please provide this information so a revegetation security may be determined. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed 12 Management Plan Reclamation Standards. • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) may be present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is located on the property. If present, the locations shall be identified in general terms as they pertain to building envelopes. In addition, an acknowledgement and reference to Harrington's penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and to alert property owners of its significance. • This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is "vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known from 74 occurrences in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit counties and is found primarily in dry, sagebrush -dominated communities between 6,400 and 9,400 ft. (1,951 and 2,865 m) elevation. USDA Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensitive species; it is also included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensitive Species List. It is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is it currently a candidate for listing. Applicant's Response Applicant will provide an appropriate weed inventory and management plan as part of its Final Plat application for each phase of the development in accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. P. Garfield County Housing Authority: Exhibit W Q. Garfield County Sheriff Department: No Comments Received R. Mountain Cross Engineering: Exhibit U VI. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Proposed Land Use Designation map contained within the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 designates the subject property as Planned Unit Development. Staff finds the project generally conforms to the County's Comprehensive Plan with the following exceptions: As background, the Comprehensive Pian presently shows the property is located in Study Area 1 and is designated "PUD" on the proposed land use districts map. (The County designates properties as "PUD" on the map when a rezoning to PUD is approved.) Initially, the Applicant requested to amend the PUD by eliminating the required 75 on-site "Community Housing Units" and increase the 502 free market units to 577 free market units. Based on the following, Staff found this request 13 would render the project to be out of general conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, the Applicant has revised their request to leave the 75 Community Housing Units in the project which adequately addresses the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing component of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's Response The Applicant believes the application as originally submitted is in conformance with the Com rehensive Plan. However, to address the staff comments, Applicant proposes in its application Supplement to eliminate 60 Cabin Lots on the Middle Bench and replace the proposed 22 Pasture Lots with the 75 Community Housing units in accordance with the adopted PUD no net increase in density). In addition the Applicant proposes to deed -restrict 24 units for employee rental housing. The Applicant, therefore, proposes to reduce the number of free market units to 478. which is 24 units less that the market -rate density of 502 units in the approved PUD. A. The Property's Comprehensive Plan Designation is the Approved PUD As a PUD is approved, the terms of that PUD become the regulations of the County and development for that property is regulated to those terms. In this case, the presently approved PUD includes the provision of 75 Community Housing Units as a requirement of the PUD which means they are, in fact, required by County zoning. Therefore, because the Comprehensive Plan now designates this property as "PUD", the terms of its approval (including the 75 Community Housing Units) is required by the Comprehensive Plan and allows it to meet the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The approved PUD includes 75 units of "Community Housing," which are governed by standards contained in the 2005 PUD conditions approved by the BOCC Exhibit [x] in the Supplement binder). To meet the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to eliminate 53 Cabin Lots on the Middle Bench and replace the proposed 22 Pasture Lots with the 75 Community Housing units in accordance with the adopted PUD (no net increase in density). B. The Approved PUD requires 75 Community Housing Units Once the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the PUD, all of its terms and conditions become County regulations. As a result, they are now required as part of the PUD. Initially, the Applicant argued that the 75 Community Housing Units were an offering as part of the original PUD and never required due to the low density of the project. Staff disagrees, in that, while they may have never been originally required, they were offered by the developer to be part of the Zoning in the PUD and are now required by that PUD. Further, the property was designated PUD at the time the original Comprehensive Plan designations were established because the PUD (albeit, an older version) was already in place when the Comprehensive Plan was crafted. 14 Essentially, the Developer proposed (and the Board of County Commissioners agreed) that these 75 Community Housing Units were necessary to best meet the employee generation of the project. As a result, the PUD was approved with the units being required as part of the zoning. As a result, Staff finds the 75 units are not optional; they are now required by County Zoning in this existing PUD. The Applicant has agreed to include the 75 Community Housing Units within the PUD which satisfies the housing goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's Response Please refer to Response above. C. Project Results in an increase in Density Section 4.07.15.02(1) of the County's PUD regulations require that all Planned Unit Development proposals and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a mix of housing. The initial proposed PUD amendment resulted in an increase in density and would have been required to provide 10% of the housing to be affordable housing units as there was an increase in free market residential density from 502 free market units to 577 free market units. However, the Applicant has reduced the free market density which alleviates this issue. See their response below: Applicant's Response 3. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to reduce the number of free market units to 478 which is 24 units less than the market -rate density of 502 units under the approved PUD. A. Housing Goals r To provide a!! types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Staff Response In their original Application, the Applicant proposed to eliminate all of the 75 Community Housing Units presently required in the development. The Application stated that the Developer may provide a minimum # of unrestricted units to be located in the Village Center and / or the Metro District Yard. Outside of that optional 1 permissive offering, the development did not provide "all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities." However, 15 the Applicant amended their Application to address this issue and as a result, Staff finds this housing goal has been met. Applicant's Response 4. In order to meet the above Housing Goal, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to re -incorporate the 75 Community Housing units in the location and under the terms of the Community Housing Plan adopted by the BOCC in the current PUD and to eliminate the 22 Pasture Lots proposed in that location. Applicant also proposes to provide employee housing as follows: i) replace the 19 for -sale market - rate multi -family condominium units in the Village with 20 multi -family or "room and board" units in the Village andlor Metro District Yard, that would be deed restricted as rental units available only to the project's employees with rent increases limited to CPI for 20 years; thereafter the units may be rented or sold at market; and ii) to build and deed restrict 2 improved Duplex Cabin Lots as 4 rental units available only to employees of the project with rent increases limited to CPI for 20 years; thereafter the units may be rented or sold at market. To create more diversity in housing type and price, the Applicant proposes Zone District text that would limit size and type of residential improvements built by the Applicant in the Cabin District (R/C) to: i) 18 "Camp" Cabins at 1,000 to 1,500 sq ft; ii) 37 "Village" and "Hillside" Cabins at 1,500 to 2.500; iii) 49 "Golf" and "Hillside" Cottages at 2,500 to 4,000 sq ft; and iv) 28 Duplex Cabin units (four of which will be employee rentals) in 14 buildings at±4,000 to ±5.000 sq ft. Additionally, Applicant already restricted in its Application the FAR for different single-family detached market -rate residences in the project's Residential Zone Districts in order to encourage the construction of a mix of housing sizes and prices. Housing at cost of no more than 30% of gross median income. Staff Response The Applicant initial proposal was to eliminate all of the 75 Community Housing Units presently required in the development. As a result, that proposal did not provide any housing at a cost of no more than 30% of gross median income. However, the Applicant has revised their Application with the following that meets the intent of this goal: 5. To provide housing that can be purchased or rented for an annual payment of not more than 30% of annual AMI in Garfield County. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described in Responses 1 through 5 above, and to sell and/or rent a portion of such units in a manner which meets this goal_ Encourage mix of housing types within a development Staff Response Initially, the Applicant proposed to eliminate all of the 75 Community Housing Units presently required in the development. Further, the Application stated that the Developer may provide a minimum # of unrestricted units to be located in the 16 Village Center and / or the Metro District Yard. The only "mix" of housing types proposed are the condominium type housing units in the lodge units. Otherwise, all of the other units are single-family units on varying lot sizes. Staff interprets this goal to mean the provision of multi -family units which may also include rental units. However, the Applicant has revised their housing mix such that they meet this housing goal. Applicant's Response 6. To encourage a mix of housing types within the project, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a wide mix of housing types, sizes and prices as described above, particularly Responses 1 and 4. F. Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home. Staff Response Originally, there were no provisions in the development to place deed restrictions on any of the units to fix the increase in value of a home. However, the Applicant has revised their Application to meet this goal in the following way: Applicant's Response 7, To limit increases in home values and assure a mix of attainable housing in the project, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to deed restrict: i) the 75 Community Housing units to annual appreciation of 3%; ii) the 20 multi -family units to rentals onl for .ro ect em lo ees with rent increases limited to CH for 20 ears: and iii the 4 Duplex -Cabins units to rentals only for project employees rent increases limited to CH for 20 years. The Applicant no longer proposes to contribute funds to the Housing Authority, but instead will provide the units as described above. HOUSING OBJECTIVES 2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. Staff Response Initially, the Applicant proposed to eliminate the 75 Community Housing Units and instead, make a contribution to the County Housing Authority. No such agreement had been reached that would equitably replace or equal the 75 "roof tops" currently required in the PUD. However, the Applicant has revised their Application to meet this objective in the following way: Applicant's Response 8. To meet this Housing ObJective, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described in Responses 1 through 8 above. 17 HOUSING POLICIES 2.1 The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low and moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi- family and single-family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County. Staff Response As discussed, the Developer of the existing PUD proposed (and the Board of County Commissioners agreed) that 75 Community Housing Units were necessary to best meet the employee generation of the project. As a result, the PUD was approved with the units being required as part of the zoning. As a result, Staff finds the 75 units are now required by County Zoning in this existing PUD. By adding the 75 units into the PUD, they have become regulations and meet the very intent of this policy. Eliminating them altogether does not meet this housing policy. The Applicant revised their Application to include these as well as a variety of units which meets this policy: Applicant's Response 9. To meet this Housing Policy 2.11 Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described in Responses 1 through 8 above. HOUSING PROGRAMS 2.1 The County, by encouraging developers and landowners to use the Planned Unit Development regulations and other innovative tools, shall establish housing standards appropriate for the proposed scale of development which provide a wide range of housing types and costs. Staff Response The Applicant has met this in the following manner: Applicant's Response 11. To comply with Housing Programs 2.1, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described above. Applicant also will construct a mix of Cabin/Cottage units as provided in Response 5. Additionally, Applicant already restricted in its Application the FAR for different residential zone districts in the project's Zone District Text in order to encourage the construction of a mix of housing sizes and prices as described above, particularly in Response 4. 18 VII. AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Zoning Resolution §4.04 Consistency with the Master/ Comprehensive Plan: No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive Plan(s). When appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County Master/Comprehensive Plan may be a part of a PUD Application. Any Application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD Application and may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon the criteria for establishing the land use designations in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response Staff finds the proposed amendment to the PUD is in general conformance with the Housing component of the County's Comprehensive Pian. Applicant's Response 12. To com.l with the Housin• com.onent of the Count "s Corn.rehensive Plan, Applicant has included and proposes to provide a mix of housing types, sizes and prices as provided above, particularly in Response 4. Zoning Resolution §4.06 Internal Compatibility of Planned Unit Developments: It is recognized that individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to all the design elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly with one another. Therefore, a proposed PUD shall be considered from the point of view of the relationship and compatibility of the individual elements of the Plan, and no PUD shall be approved which contains incompatible elements internally or with neighboring property. Staff Response The Spring Valley Ranch PUD is generally secluded within a property that will have very little visual impact on its surrounding area. The PUD amendment proposes to relocate the village center out of the lower valley at the intersection of CR 114 / 115 to an area on the middle bench more central and focal to the development. In its place, the developer proposes to develop 22 "pasture Tots" averaging about 8 acres. Staff suggests that those 22 lots be eliminated out of the pasture altogether and relocated into the middle bench area so that they are less intrusive and leave the integrity of the existing undeveloped agricultural pasture intact. Zoning Resolution §4.07.02 Standards and Requirements: The number of off- street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than the 19 requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors: 1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD; 2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses; 3) Varying time periods of used whenever joint use of common parking areas is proposed. Staff Response The Applicant requests a modification in the required off-street parking calculations given the recreational and second -home nature of the project. The Applicant has proposed parking standards that deviate slightly from the County standards. However, they balance the overall project goals and objectives as well as the Comprehensive Plan policies toward minimizing the environmental impacts with the anticipated land uses. A. Residential (except group quarters) — 1 space per 600 square feet of floor area Applicant proposes: Pasture, Mountain & Ranch Districts - one space per bedroom with a minimum of two enclosed spaces and a maximum of six exterior/uncovered spaces; Estate District — one space per bedroom with a minimum of two enclosed spaces and a maximum of four exteriorfun-covered spaces; Cabin District — one space per bedroom with a minimum of two enclosed spaces and a maximum of two exterior/un-covered spaces. We believe that this is a typical ratio for residential parking spaces. The Garfield County regulation of 1 space per 600 s.f. of residential floor area would create an undue burden for larger homes and even smaller homes where the focus is to minimize the levels of disturbance, impervious surfaces, and environmental degradation. B. Residential — group quarters — not applicable C. Retail and service commercial — 1 space per 250 s. f. of floor area. Village/Commercial District — One enclosed parking space per bedroom. Minimum of one parking space for every 800 square -feet of habitable finished floor space for other uses. Employee, overflow and event parking will be provided as needed in the 20 Light Industrial Zone District (L/I) and the Open Space/Golf District (OSIG). With the Village Center concept, the variety of uses, and the seasonal nature of many activities, co -location and sharing of parking among various uses is appropriate. Golf Course — Minimum of 40 parking spaces. Employee, overflow and event parking will be provided as needed in the Open Space/Golf District (OS/G) for the Village/Commercial District (V/C) and the Light Industrial Zone District (L/I). 40 spaces for the 18 -hole course is a conservative estimate for an 18 -hole private golf facility with approximately 15,000 rounds per year. Given the time and physical restrictions on the number of players, approximately 20 foursomes can be accommodated in any single day. 40 spaces are more than ample for this limited number of rounds per day. These spaces will be located at the Pro Shop/Starter house and Clubhouse sites. Golf cart shuttle service will be provided from the Clubhouse and the Village. Light Industrial District — Minimum of one parking space for every three employees, plus minimum of one parking space for every staff bedroom. Employee, overflow and event parking will be provided as needed in the Light Industrial Zone District (L/I) for the Village/Commercial District (V/C) and the Open Space/Golf District (©SIG). With the Village Center concept, the variety of uses, and the seasonal nature of many activities, co -location and sharing of parking among various uses is appropriate. Zoning Resolution 4.07.03: The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved. (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. Staff Response Most of the project will not be visible from the immediate public view or neighboring properties with the exception of the pasture Tots. The project is physically located in an area surrounded by a variety of residential scenarios that include 35 -acre exempt lots to 2 and 5 -acre single-family Tots, as well as undeveloped ranch land, BLM and USFS lands. The overall density in the current application is within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Area 1 limits and is therefore appropriate to the area and the adjacent land uses. Furthermore, the Spring Valley Ranch PUD is designed to avoid impacts to neighboring properties. Staff agrees that the low density nature of the development (particularly on the valley floor where most neighboring properties are located), the integration of agricultural and equestrian uses, and the design emphasis on maintaining the open characteristics of the area, view sheds and wildlife habitat, assure that the development will be compatible with the surrounding area. �1 (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain. Staff Response The PUD meets or exceeds the requirements for open space. As mentioned above, Staff finds that a significant feature to the property is the pasture in the lower valley floor that has been primarily left undeveloped with the exception of 22 "pasture lots." Staff finds this standard could be better met if those lots were relocated to areas internal to the developed area of the PUD on the middle bench. Applicant's Response 13. To comply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan established in Section VI (A) of Staffs Comments above, Applicant has replaced the 22 Pasture Lots with 75 units in accordance with the Community Housing Program in the approved PUD. (5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. Staff Response The Applicant has revised their plan to meet thiss standard in the following way: Applicant's Response 14. To provide a variety in housing types and densities, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to construct detached and attached rental and for -sale residences as Cabins, Cottages.. duplexes, apartments and "room and board" facilities in a mix of size and price as described above, particularly in Response 4. Zoning Resolution §4.07.70 Standards and Requirements: If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such ownership shall be those that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PUD. Staff Response The Applicant states that "the Zone District Text (Section 8 of Binder 1) provides for potential one-quarter share fractional ownership in the Residential/Cabin District, and for multi -family or lodge units in the Village/Commercial District. Cabins, multi- family or lodge units may be divided into fractional one-quarter share interests and any such division shall be exempt from compliance with County subdivision or other regulation." Staff is uncertain that the "division" is exempt pursuant to the County's Resubdivision Regulations as follows: 22 7:10 The redivision into separate interest of any lot, block, parcel or multiple -dwelling unit, or the major relocation of or addition to any roads within a subdivision, shall be considered a resubdivision and shall be governed by the Subdivision Regulations. 7:20 The redivision into separate interests of large tracts or blocks of land, designed with the intention of resubdivision and so indicated on a recorded plat, may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision regulations, which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision. 7:30 The redivision, through conversion into condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision Regulations which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan and/or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision, provided the proposed conversion will not substantially increase land use density. Applicant's Response 15. Applicant submits that a fractional interest is legally not a "subdivision" or a "resubivision". A fractional interest is a joint tenancy or tenancy in common or other common interest in the same unit, which is considered as one unit and is assessed, taxed and otherwise treated as such. Therefore, the above - referenced provisions of the County regulations do not apply. In any event, the specific recognition of the creation of fractional interests as requested in the zone text would cover this issue, as it would give specific County approval of the creation of fractional units as part of the zone district text for the PUD. Consistent with the staff position, this would become a County "regulation" and would su ersede an contra eneral Count re ulation. Zoning Resolution §4.07.11 through .15 Standards and Requirements: AFFORDABLE HOUSING Staff Response Staff has presented a full discussion of this issue in the previous section of this memorandum. As a result of the Applicant's revisions, the proposal meets the PUD regulations pursuant to housing. (b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed; Staff Response The Application contains a phasing plan that shows the project will be developed in 11 phases. (See Exhibit 21 for the proposed phasing of the development plan.) Exhibits 19 & 20 also show the water and sewer infrastructure phasing. Exhibit 22 provides the proposed estimated development phasing schedule. The phasing shows that the Estate Lots are to be improved at the same time the middle bench lots and lower valley floor Tots with Phase 1 beginning in April 2008 and the final phase possibly starting in 2023 (a 15 year time span). Zoning Resolution §4.09.03 Standards and Requirements: Each stage within a PUD shall be so planned and so related to existing surrounding and available facilities and services that failure to proceed to a subsequent stage will not have a substantial adverse impact on the PUD or its surroundings. Staff Response Staff finds that the provision of water if wastewater lines through the phases appears to be adequate, however, it is unclear how the Applicant proposes to deal with long dead-end road segments were one phase ends and the next has yet to be constructed. The County's regulations require cul-de-sacs be limited to 600 linear feet unless the Applicant can demonstrate the need for 1) reasons related to topography and 2) it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design. The following will illustrate the issue: The dark lines show the road sections to be constructed in Phase I. They do not connect, are well beyond 600 linear feet, and would both dead end providing no alternative way out of the development in the event of a natural disaster (wildfire / debris flow). The Applicant has not shown how these issues have been accommodated so that failure to proceed to a subsequent stage will not have a substantial adverse impact on the PUD or its surroundings. This standard has not been met. Applicant's Response 17. The applicant agrees that the originally proposed Phasing Plan did not provide for adequate emergency ingress/egress in the event that subsequent phases of the development were not to occur. Therefore, included in the supplement to the Preliminary Plan Application as Exhibit 21 are: i) a revised Phasing Plan that depicts the extension of emergency access easements; and ii) a letter from the fire chief of the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District, Mike Piper, in which he indicates his support and approval of the proposed emergency access easements. 24 Staff also points out key off-site improvements that are currently required in the existing phasing plan followed by proposed changes with this PUD Amendment (in bold): Phase Improvements Schedule I Improve CR 114 from where the existing asphalt ends at CMC to the MAIN ENTRANCE on CR 115 and improve CR 115 from the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115 east to the intersection with Black Kettle Court (Road to the Metro District) Proposed to be Phase 2 Start in April 2007 and complete in November 2008 April 2008 through 2014 depending on market conditions (to be completed wlin 20 months) III Improve CR 115 from intersection of CR 115 and CR 114 to the Landis Creek entrance. Proposed to be Phase 7 Start in April 2007 through April 2009 depending on economic and marketing conditions April 2009 through 2019 depending on market conditions (to be completed wlin 20 months) VIII Improve CR 114 from CMC to intersection with State Highway 82 Proposed to be Phase 9 Start in April 2009 through April 2014 depending on economic and marketing conditions April 2010 through 2021 depending on market conditions (to be completed wlin 20 months) Applicant's Response 18. An updated estimated development schedule is provided in the supplement to the Preliminary Plan Application as part of Exhibit 21. This updated schedule identifies the proposed phasing of specific improvements such as the fire station and the required emergency access roads. The Schedule provided above presupposes the development of the project in accordance with the estimated construction schedule provided by the prior owner. Clearly, the dates in the original Schedule were not met because the project was not built, and, therefore, the old dates are not relevant. The application to amend the existing approvals maintains substantially the same timeline as the existing approvals based upon the phasing of the project. Applicant is not requesting any significant change in the construction schedule for the improvements. Staff continues to find the proposed phasing plan to be very general with no real commitment on when key components (such as Village Center, Fire Station, Metro District Facilities, trails, equestrian facilities, etc) are constructed due to the caveat "depending on market conditions" and the assumption that a Final Plat for Phase I is approved prior to April 2008. Of course, if a final plat is not approved within 1 year of Preliminary Plan Approval, the Preliminary Plan can be extended for 1 year and the project continues to linger on without any development which has been the case for many years. The BOCC has the authority to completely dissolve a PUD if the phasing plan becomes outdated. Because the project has had a very long history of "approvals" and "amended approvals" simply to "float" the paper project along, the phasing schedule be more concrete where if the project is not under development, 25 then the PUD and Preliminary be rescinded automatically. Perhaps this will encourage either 1) the development to actually occur or 2) allow the Board to rescind the approvals thus far. Applicant's Response 19. Applicant intends to develop Spring Valley Ranch under this application, if approved, or the current approvals. This application is not for a "paper" subdivision. It is for a project which is more attuned to current market demands while at the same time reducing the subdivision impacts on water, traffic and environmental disturbance relative to the existing approvals. The Ranch was once approved for more than 2,000 residential units. It is probably fortunate that those approvals were not realized. The prior delays that produced 'approvals" and "amended approvals" resulted from prior owner's bankruptcy and not from a nefarious scheme to "float" along a paper subdivision. The phasing of the project is a product of the Ranch's size. The Ranch is a very large, 6,000 acre property. Development of a phased project of this scale takes years, which is why County regulations allow for a 15 year build -out. Private facilities, such as the golf course, village, gym, lockers, swimming pool and equestrian center, are marketing amenities which will be constructed over time based upon contractual relationships between the Applicant and the buyers of Tots. The timing of their construction would be an inappropriate condition of approval. Staff finds this to be important because of the lack of interest / complacency the continued reiterations have created among review agencies who are tired of reviewing the same project (5 large binders) every few years just so the developer can float the "approvals along." Staff feels the same is true for the neighborhood. Not only that, there has been concern that the farther out the project goes, so to any road improvements to CR 114 which may need immediate attention. Why should the County improve sections of CR 114 when the developer is required to make those improvements with their development? This question continues to perplex Staff. Applicant's Response 20. The paucity of responses from review agencies is more likely a result of their having nothing to say, than their lack of interest. This application proposes minimal changes within the agencies' areas of authority. Most changes reduce impacts and, therefore, require no comment. The County has the obligation to maintain its roads with or without the pro1ect. If there is no project, there will be no developer funded improvements to CR 114, CR 115 and the intersection of CR 114 with SH 82, which currently suffer from deficiencies that were not caused or created by the project. You will recall the dismay of residents in the area being very concerned about the existing condition of CR 114 from CMC up to the project and in the general area of the project on CR 114 and CR 115. They raised the issue that as long as the developer continues to push out their project and loose phasing plan, the required improvements also get pushed out meanwhile the road continues to deteriorate. The County's position was that rather than put monies into the roads today only to 26 have them redone in a few years was money wasted. In fact, that is what has happened. The County has chip -sealed the section from CMC to the intersection of CR 114 and 115 last summer at a cost of $150,000.00 that has a life of 5 years. In theory, the existing phasing plan had these improvements starting in April 2007 and the proposed phasing plan has these improvements beginning in April 2008 if the amendment is approved. This is tax payer monies spent only to be torn up in two years. This needs to be fully explored by the Planning Commission and the BOCC. Applicant's Response 21. Please refer to response 20 above. In addition the updated Phasing Plan and estimated development schedule provided in the Supplement to the application provide a reasonable sequencing of the phasing of the infrastructure and residential units which assures that all lots within a final plat will be serviced. The development, marketing and sale of Tots in the Project will occur over time during which market conditions will undoubtedly vary. Therefore, the range in dates included in the estimated development schedule allows for a certain level of market responsiveness that is both appropriate and necessary with a project of this size. Furthermore, the phasing of the improvements to CR 114 and CR 115 is consistent with the traffic burden that the Project will put on these roads as homes are built. While the County must continue to maintain CR 114 and 115 prior to the completion of the Applicant's improvements, the County will also be responsible for the maintenance of these routes after the improvements have been made. Cars have very little impact on road deterioration. The greatest destructive impact on asphalt is transport truck traffic which will be at its highest volume during the early years of the Project. Improving CR 114 and 115 once transport truck traffic has subsided will lengthen the life of the road surface and reduce the County's future maintenance costs. Amendments to a PUD §4.12.03 Standards and Requirements: All those provisions of the Plan authorized to be enforced by the County may be modified, removed or released by the County, subject to the following: (1) No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modifications, removal or release 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 the provisions of Section 24-67-104. C.R.S., that the preservation of the entire PUD 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 a special benefit upon any person. Staff Response Staff finds the requested modification to the PUD specific to the elimination of the 75 AH units substantially adversely affects the public interest due primarily to the project's inability to offset / mitigate employee generation from 1) construction of the recreation / second home type residences, 2) operation and maintenance of these homes, and the employees needed for the project's amenities (golf course / restaurant / spa, etc.) In Staffs view, the State of Colorado's average household size is 2.43 persons according to the US Census Bureau's "2004 American Community Survey." At full build -out, this project could contain as many as 1,402 residents which is larger than the Town of Parachute's 2004 population (County Housing Assessment 2006). While the project is billed as a low density project, it will still be the largest development in Garfield County history, Even so, the developer requests eliminating its current requirement to provide affordable housing to off set the impacts this development will create regarding the jobs necessary to build, operate, and maintain this community. In Staffs view, the elimination of 75 "roof -tops" will substantially adversely affect the public interest. As a result of the revision below, Staff finds the proposal meets this standard. Applicant's Response 22. To comply with the County requirements to amend a PUD, the Applicant proposes in its Supplement to construct the 75 Community Housing units in accordance with the currently approved PUD and to provide 24 additional rental units for project employees as provided above, particularly Responses 1 through 8. VIII. RESPONSE TO RESOLUTION 2005-83 — PUD AMENDMENT As you will remember, the last iteration of review by the County on this project was primarily an exercise to review and consolidate certain conditions of approval from a variety of Resolutions into one resolution that would contain all obligations for this development. The BOCC approved the request which resulted in a set of conditions for the PUD as well as a separate list of conditions for the Preliminary Plan. What follows are the Applicant's response to these existing conditions, The entire list is at the end of this memorandum for your review. What follows here are only the conditions that the Applicant wishes to specifically address or amend while still agreeing to comply with all the other conditions. 5.0 Access agreements for out parcels need to be included in any preliminary plan submittal and the proposed covenants need to be changed to address these agreements. Staff Response All accesses to out parcels are depicted on the B sheets of Exhibit 26. 28 7.0 That all of the proposed Development Phasing Schedule be modified to require the final platting of all phases within 15 years of the platting of the first phase and that the completion of construction periods may be less as required by the applicable subdivision improvements agreement. Staff Response The Phasing schedule in the Preliminary Plan application demonstrates compliance with this condition. See Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. Staff finds that the phasing plan actually contains a significant caveat that essentially states the following: "Notwithstanding any dates to the contrary, the Final Plats for all lots in all phases must be approved no later than 15 years after the date of the approval of the Final Plat for Phase 1. Each phase must be developed sequentially in a manner to insure the installation of the appropriate infrastructure and other related improvements for each phase consistent with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations." Applicant's Response 23. Applicant's caveat does not derogate Applicant's obligation to comply with County Resolutions or Regulations in any way. The caveat actually assures compliance with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Re•ulations which •rovide that: i final .lats for all lots be a..roved within 15 years after the date of approval of the Phase 1 Final Plat: and ii) final plats must be sequenced in a manner which assures availability of infrastructure and other related improvements for all lots within each phase. 8.0 All trails and open space shall be included as part of phase 1. All infrastructure and public utilities may be phased in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. Staff Response The Applicant requests a change to this condition. The Applicant requests to amend this condition such that "Phase 1 will consist of the development of small marketing/ entry gate structures. As such the proposed Phase 1 uses will not benefit from the construction of trails and the additional platting of open space. Trails and open space parcels will be platted in accordance with the proposed phasing plan included in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4." The requirement to include trails and open space in the first phase was debated heavily and subsequently required by the BOCC on the basis that the first resident to the last resident should be able to enjoy these amenities and so there weren't trails to nowhere and that the open space could be used at the beginning of the development. Staff continues to recommend the Applicant be bound by this condition as written. 29 Applicant's Response 24. Applicant requested a change in this condition for three reasons: 1) the creation of open space lots and trail easements which are not coterminous with Phase 1 or Phase 2 requires extraordinary engineering and survey efforts, expenses and costs which would otherwise not be applicable to the preparation and recordation of a final plat for Phase 1, which contains no residential parcels other than the existin Ranch House, or Phase 2, which is the first phase containing new residential lots 2 recordation of open space parcels and trail easements which are not within the boundaries of a final plat for a phase would create undue economic and legal burdens over the remainder property on which final plats have not been recorded: and 3) since the internal trails and open space are for the use of the owners of property within the Project, no public benefit is served by requiring these dedications prior to the recordation of the final plat that included such dedications. The protections that the BOCC intended to provide for prospective buyers from these premature conveyances are already controlled by Colorado and Federal laws and disclosure requirement. not to mention the potential liability for misrepresentations. Under Colorado and Federal law. Applicant cannot legally represent to prospective buyers within any phase that Project facilities, including trails, will be constructed, unless Applicant either constructs or shows reasonable evidence that such facilities will be constructed by the date promised. Likewise, Applicant cannot legally represent to buyers within any phase that Pro1ect that open space will be created and made available, until and unless Applicant has dedicated such open space. Applicant requests that the trail easements and open space dedications be recorded with the final plats in which such open space parcels or trail easements is incorporated so long as the cumulative acreage of dedicated open space complies with the Garfield Count o•en space re•uirements. For these reasons A••licant requests that this condition not be imposed upon the Project. 9.0 Based upon the representations of the applicant, accepting the provisions of the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, dated September 12, 2000 (see attached Exhibit `B9, the following conditions are imposed; 9.1 The Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CCRs) for the Village Center shall provide that the Chenoa (Spring Valley Ranch) Home Owners Association will be the governing authority with all appropriate enforcement powers for operation and control of the Village Center, including all commercial and residential areas, as well as open space. Staff Response The Applicant states that this condition no longer applies because the Village Center has been relocated to the center of the property and is no longer adjacent to the Berkley property. Staff doe not understand the thinking behind their response and would ask for further clarification. 30 Applicant's Response 25. Applicant proposes to re -incorporate the 75 Community Housing units as provided in the current PUD, Therefore, Applicant will comply with provisions of this condition with respect to the Community Housing units, to witch "all dwelling units and Tots which protrude into the meadow area adjacent to the Lake Springs Ranch PUD should be relocated and contained within the area as shown on the August 3rd drawing provided by Spring Valley Development to Berkeley." However, the provisions of this condition which pertain to the regional park (proposed as open space), Commercial component of the Village Center (proposed away from the Berkeley's in a central location within the Project) and Church/Cemetery parcel (proposed as open space) are no longer applicable, as these uses and/or parcels are either not near the Berkeley's property or not included in the Application.. Further, the governance and management of the Community Housing Program has not been determined. A homeowners association, which exclusively represents the interest of the residents in the Communit Housinunits is the •robable •overnin• body. As neither the Berkeley's nor the owners within the Lake Springs Ranch PUD own •ro.ert within the Communit Housindistrict and therefore, would not be subject to the CC&R's, their inclusion in the association would be inappropriate. 9.2 These restrictions, based upon the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, (see Exhibit '8' attached), shall be included in the restrictive covenants binding upon such lands and running to the benefit of the owners of the Chenoa (Spring Valley Ranch) PUD and the owners of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and duly recorded of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County. Staff Response The Applicant states that this condition no longer applies because the Village Center has been relocated to the center of the property and is no longer adjacent to the Berkley property. Staff does not understand the thinking behind their response and would ask for further clarification. Applicant's Response 26. Please see Response 25 above. Additionally, since the concerns of the Berkeley's and their Lake Springs PUD have been rendered moot by the relocation of the Commercial uses, the inclusion of the owners of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD as a party to CC&R's, which pertain solely to the 75 Community Housing units, is no longer necessary, nor would such inclusion be appropriate or acceptable to the future owners of the Community Housing units. 16.0 No short term rental (daily or weekly) of the Wilderness Cabins be allowed. Staff Response The PUD plan has changed where the Applicant has eliminated the Wilderness cabins. The proposed cabin Tots located near the village center will comply with this condition. 31 IX. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW The following portion of this memorandum provides an analysis of the proposed Preliminary Pian. It is meant to serve as a review of the standards and criteria that may have not been adequately addressed in the Application. It has been formatted such that the standard is in bold italics followed by a Staff Response. A. Soils / Site Geology The Application contains a geologic / soils analysis prepared by CTUThompson, (Geologists and Geo -Technical Engineers) on behalf of the Applicant who have examined the entire property in order to identify known geologic hazards and suggest mitigation measures if necessary. As a result of their review, they state, "We discovered no geological or geotechnical constraints at Spring Valley Ranch PUD that would preclude development for the intended residential use. The subsoil conditions are, in general, favorable for the proposed development" There have been three separate reviews of the property by CTL/Thompson that continue to confirm their analysis and findings. From these analyses the potential geologic hazards that have been identified fall into three categories: • Potentially Unstable Slopes (PUS) • Potential Debris / Mud Flow Hazard • Potential Rockfall Hazard The Applicant proposes to mitigate these hazards in the following manner: A. Potentially Unstable Slopes The geologic investigation conducted by CTUThompson identified potentially unstable slopes as those areas with slopes steeper than 30% (Garfield County PUD Regulations -slopes over 40% should be avoided), which are not uncommon in the Roaring Fork Valley. From the standpoint of slope stability, where potentially unstable slopes might affect development, development will focus on enhancing or strengthening the slope stability where and when mitigation is necessary. Homeowners will be advised in the Design Guideline Documents that a detailed site specific geologyigeotechnical investigation should be performed based on their specific home design and specific footprint location within the pre -determined building envelope. Homeowners are required to submit an engineer's Soils and Foundations Report prior to obtaining a building permit. CTL/Thompson believes there are no "unbuildable" lots and that any adverse geologic conditions on any lot can be mitigated. Common methods of enhancing slope stability that will be addressed in the final design for each future residence include: 32 1. Avoid or minimize the removal of the natural soils at the base of slopes that would remove materials supporting the natural slopes and therefore potentially reduce the stability of these slopes. 2. Avoid or minimize the placement of fills at the tops of unstable slopes that would add weight and therefore increase the downward driving force that could reduce the stability of the natural slopes 3. Improve site drainage to reduce water infiltration into the ground at potentially unstable slope areas 4. Where development will encroach on areas near stability/failure equilibrium, proactive mitigation such as slope retainment (soil nails, tieback anchors, retaining walls) and/or subsurface drainage systems will be used to mitigate slope stability concerns. All homeowners will be required to submit an Engineer's report and recommended mitigation measures to both the Design Review Board and Garfield County Building Department prior to being issued a building permit. The Engineer's recommended mitigation measures will be based upon the specific home design and specific location within the building envelope. B. Potential Debris / Mud Flow Hazard Debris or mud flow hazards have been identified on existing debris (alluvial) fans and in existing drainage channels. The degree of potential hazard due to debris or mud flows is directly related to the magnitude of the flood potential within each debris fan or drainage channel. The drainage report, prepared by Gamba & Associates, is contained in Appendix S. The drainage report provides calculations for the peak flows within each significant drainage channel generated by both the 25 -year and the 900 -year storm events. The magnitude of the potential debris flow within each potential hazard area is determined by applying a debris "bulking" factor to the peak flow calculations. Debris and mud -flow will be mitigated where necessary by constructing the following common mitigation measures: 1. Debris Detention Structures 2. Debris flow conveyance channels 3. Debris flow energy dissipation or impact / diversion structures Any residential development within a debris or mud flow hazard area will be mitigated by the construction of either a debris flow detention structure or a diversion conveyance channel. Due to the relatively smaller magnitude of debris and mud flow events associated with this site, roads and utility infrastructure will require little or no debris flow mitigation. In those specific roadway and utility 33 locations where mitigation of the debris flow is necessary, the debris flow hazard will be mitigated by one or more of the above described methods during each phase of construction. C. Potential Rockfall Hazard: According to the CTL / Thompson Geologic Evaluation report, the rate of overall degree of rockfall hazard is low to moderate, as is common throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. Rockfall hazard mitigation methods consist of the following: 1. Stabilization or removal of the rockfall source by rock bolting, grading, and scaling 2. Protection of the development improvements (residences, roadways, above ground utility structures) by construction of impact structures such as mechanically stabilized earth walls or catchment structures Any residential development, roadways, or aboveground utility infrastructure within a rockfall hazard area will be mitigated by one or more of the methods described above in the normal course of geotechnical review prior to each phase of construction. The report does recommend that an engineer's Soils and Foundations Report be obtained prior to obtaining a building permit. The Applicant states that the PUD has been designed to avoid most known geologic and geotechnical constraints, severe or unstable slopes and other geologic hazards. Where it was not possible to avoid, site specific mitigation measures could be employed that are typical and similar to conditions encountered elsewhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS); however, no comments were received. B. Wildlife The Application contains an analysis prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services Inc. of the wildlife using the property, habitat characteristics, and potential impacts by the proposed development. This analysis can be found in Binder 2, Appendix E. Some of the key findings include the following: 1) T&E Species: There are no federally threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act know to occur or utilize habitats within the Spring Valley Ranch. 2) Impacts to Mule Deer Habitat: 1. Development of the Spring Valley Ranch will have minimal impacts to deer range around the mountain lots, but indirect effects of dogs, 34 noxious weeds, and traffic would compound habitat losses. Impacts to deer range in the area of the golf course lots will have more significant direct losses of habitat through conversion to homes, landscaped yards, roads and golf course features. Because of the ability for deer to habituate to human activities, deer use in these areas will likely continue, but with decreased herd sizes and increased stress levels. Deer damage to landscaping and golf course features is almost guaranteed. ii. Dogs will generally decrease habitat effectiveness, but if dogs were going to be allowed only in specific areas of the Ranch, then allowing dogs in the higher development density areas and not the mountain lots or meadow lots would be preferable as the lower home densities in the mountain and pasture lots would allow for more greater habitat effectiveness for mule deer, and controlling dogs in these areas would greatly benefit continued habitat effectiveness. Strict dog control policies and incorporation of a mitigation plan are recommended to minimize impacts and to possibly improve remaining habitats in the area of the Spring Valley Ranch development. 3) Impacts to Elk: The property lies within the larger winter range habitats of Missouri Heights. Large elk herds are known to move throughout the Missouri Heights area during the winter months, taking advantage of different ranges during intermittent snowfall and snowmelt events. The Spring Valley Ranch is unique as it also provides elk calving range as well. i. Winter Range Impacts The Spring Valley Ranch development layout in the mountain lot areas leaves quite a bit of potential elk winter range mostly intact on the steeper south facing slopes. Elk have been observed utilizing these slopes, and the light level of development on these sloes should not impair most elk use in these areas. Harassment by dogs and human activity though, would likely reduce the habitat effectiveness of these areas. The development of the higher density golf course lots and development of the lower benches to a relatively high homesite density would likely preclude most long-term and substantial elk foraging opportunities in these areas. However, the presence of the golf course in this area may encourage elk lingering in this area. This is because the application of fertilizers increases the nutritional quality of foraging in- and immediately adjacent to- golf course greens. This increased elk use of the golf course area may cause an "attractive nuisance" issue, where elk are drawn to the golf course area, and are then harassed or bothered by 35 humans and dogs from the area. Because the golf course will be placed in elk winter range, elk damage to golf course greens and rough areas will likely occur. Elk migration and movement through this area would still likely occur, as the home densities would still allow areas where elk could pass through the area. The dense oakbrush provides screening that would allow elk, for the most part, to feel safe enough to pass through the subdivision. However, the proposed level of development of this area would exclude the existing elk lingering and foraging use patterns that currently occur. As winter progresses, elk will continue to filter through the property more quickly, and move to lower elevations in the Roaring Fork Valley. During construction, the increased traffic and noise from construction activities would likely frighten elk and preclude most of the elk use in these higher density areas. CDOW has had numerous incidences of contractors bringing dogs to work, only to let the dogs run loose and harass wildlife. Without significant supervision by Spring Valley Ranch staff, this could become an issue and have further negative impacts on elk. Approximately 1,700 acres of elk winter forage habitats will be negatively affected by the development. As stated above, this does not mean that some level of elk use would not continue, but rather, long-term elk foraging opportunities in this area would be diminished, and elk movements through this area would be modified and changed to avoid human activity as much as possible. Within this area, approximately 230 acres would be converted to a golf -course with surrounding vegetation. In these areas, elk may be attracted to these habitats for watering and grazing. Elk will likely move through the subdivision during the nighttime hours to graze in hay meadows and surrounding slopes, but will still likely graze on the steep slopes. During the daytime hours, elk will likely bed down in the denser areas of oakbrush as they traditionally have done, but only as long as dogs and people do not bother or approach the elk. Elk can become habituated to vehicle traffic, but people walking along trails or dogs -off -leash can quickly discourage elk from using an area. Because elk are very habitual, they will likely show up in the area during the early winter as they move out of the high country onto their traditional winter ranges. 36 ii. Production Range Production (calving) habitats exist on the Spring Valley Ranch for elk. These habitats are generally found along the higher elevations of the property, where aspen and coniferous vegetation are more prevalent. Although the mapped production area encompasses much of the steep, shrubby hillside areas, the highest elk production will be within and adjacent to aspen stands, springs, seeps and water bodies. This is because nursing cow elk require significant amounts of drinking water. Therefore, elk production areas as mapped are likely concentrated too much on the south facing shrubby slopes, and actual elk production areas are likely higher on the property, more towards the northern boarder and within the more forested habitats on the property. The proposed development of the mountain lots will have direct and indirect impacts to elk calving areas. These impacts will come from the direct conversion of suitable habitats to roads and homesites, as well as the indirect impacts from traffic, use of trails, and dogs within this area. For the most part, homes are clustered close to roads, minimizing indirect habitat loss, and are of a very low density. However, elk calving activities are extremely sensitive to human activities (Phillips and Alldredge 2000). Homes scattered within the mountain lots located within the forested habitats will likely preclude some elk calving. This is not to say that elk calving will cease, but homes that are consistently used and/or have dogs within/around the home during the calving season will decrease the ability for cow elk to feel safe enough to calve near a consistently -used residential home. This will cause cow elk to seek out areas further away from the development, and may put additional stressors on calving elk, and may increase some level of calf abandonment or decreased fecundity (Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Morgantini and Hudson 1980, Kuck et al. 1985). In order to mitigate some of the impact to Mule deer and Elk, this report suggests the following measures be adhere to in the development of this property: A. Lighting Because the area will likely receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of the property and excessive lighting of roads (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Further, lighting of existing winter range beyond the building 37 envelope areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright backyard lights illuminating hay meadows or hillsides). Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate winter range areas in order to minimize unintended "spotlighting" of foraging game at night. Determination of these areas would likely need to occur after the development is mostly complete. B. Roads Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following requirements should be followed: • Fences along the roads should not be allowed. • Cut and/or fill slopes along the roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution. • Large or extensive retaining walls ( defined as slopes greater than 70°) should be minimized, or if needed, retaining walls longer than 60' in length should have "steps" or other features to allow wildlife to cross the area if engineering allows such features. C. Trails The following trail closures should be implemented and enforced by an HOA: • The Landis Creek trail and its extensions through the upper lot areas should be closed during the sensitive elk calving and raptor nesting season (May 1 through June 30). • Trails outside of the core golf course area lots, along the "Middle Bench" should be closed during the sensitive deer and elk winter season (December 1 through March 31). • Improved cart paths around the golf course and core residential development areas may be maintained year-round. • Dogs must be on a leash year-round. D. Fences In order to continue the effective use of the area by big game animals, fencing that would inhibit big game movement is strongly discouraged. Decorative fencing that is not designed to allow wildlife passage is strongly discouraged as well. Additionally, existing fencing that is not necessary for ranch operations should be removed as soon as possible. Fencing that is needed to keep pets and children adjacent to the houses are allowed (and encouraged) as well as to keep neighboring livestock from using the Spring Valley Ranch. Any fences intended to keep pets or children adjacent to the homes are acceptable, other fences to delineate the subdivision should comply with the following specifications: 38 • Fences should consist of two rails, with the upper rail 44 inches above the ground, and the top of the bottom rail 24 inches above the ground. This will allow adult animals to easily jump over fences, even in deep snow, and will allow calves and fawns to crawl under or pass through the rails. • For barbed wire fences, middle wires can be smooth woven wire. The bottom wire should be at least 16" off the ground, 20" would be better, but this may be too high to keep cattle calves from crawling under. • Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for big game species to cross, therefore buck and rail fences are strongly discouraged. • Prior to construction, snow fencing or silt fencing shall be erected at the edge of the building envelopes to contain disturbance to native vegetation by indirect construction activities (i.e. trampling of vegetation by equipment, etc.). E. Landscaping & Revegetation As the area is used as winter range (and critical winter range), reclamation of road cuts, infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using similar native plant species and vegetation profiles. Revegetation should also occur as soon as possible, however planting in the spring after big game have left the area would be best as newly planted materials would likely be browsed first, and plants with little time to set roots will likely be pulled up by grazing big game. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually in order to minimize their spread and impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities. Revegetation along roadsides should not include trees and tall shrubs (such as chokecherry or Gambel's oak) within 10 feet of the road to improve visual detection of wildlife along roadsides and to minimize road kill. Local native grasses, forbs and low shrubs may be planted along roadsides to keep wildlife habitat conditions as viable as possible. F. Domestic Dogs Dogs can have a significant impact on wildlife and the ability for wildlife to effectively use otherwise available habitats. Dogs can chase and kill wildlife, or so exhaust and injure wildlife that wildlife dies later. Larger mammals such as deer and elk are especially vulnerable during the winter/early spring, when their energy reserves are depleted, food resources are most limited, and most of the adult females are pregnant. Young wildlife are also vulnerable to attack and harassment by dogs. Even if not chased by dogs, wildlife tends to avoid areas where dogs are kept outside, which has the effect of creating a barrier to wildlife movement and reducing the available habitat. Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing -eye dogs or assistance dogs for the disabled, should be prohibited outside of residential areas and never be allowed to run free. 39 As this area is a very important big game winter and summer range habitat, it is inevitable that dogs allowed outside of fenced yards, even under leash control, will escape control and chase and likely injure wildlife. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following recommendations are presented: • As required by Garfield County, dogs will be limited to one per dwelling unit (plus young up to 3 months old). This restriction should also apply to cats. • Dogs should not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months (November 15 through March 15), unless under leash control. • Any fenced enclosures constructed for the overnight maintenance of dogs or cats must be within the building envelope. • Loose dogs should be prohibited. This includes dogs owned by contractors, subcontractors, delivery personnel, home owners and their guests. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to big game through direct and indirect mortality, increased stress, and displacement from preferred ranges. Control of dogs is vital when living within elk and deer range. In the past, CDOW has had numerous reports of dogs brought to construction sites by workers which chase and harass wildlife. • Due to the location of this ranch within sensitive wildlife habitat areas, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. • Mountain lots should be considered for a year-round dog prohibition. This area provides large expanses of continuous wildlife habitats, and dogs could have impacts far beyond that of the impacts from roads and homes. Elk calve in this area from late May through late June, and dogs could cause calf abandonment, calf death, and dogs themselves could also be attacked by cow elk protecting calves. Stray or loose dogs may be controlled by CDOW or Garfield County, which could include destruction of dogs chasing wildlife, as permitted by Colorado law. Under Colorado law, persons who are not in compliance with this dog policy will be responsible for any and all costs the CDOW or Garfield County may incur due to control of loose dogs on the property. If home owners knowingly permit illegal dog activity on the property, those persons will be financially responsible for costs of controlling dogs. CDOW and County representatives may be granted access to the property to enforce any of the dog restrictions and other wildlife restrictions set within these recommendations. CDOW enforcement may include the capture or destruction of any dogs running at large on the property, regardless of where the dogs may have originated. One possibility is of putting in a "dog park" on the property, away from the best big game habitats. This could assist with keeping dogs from running loose on the property, chasing wildlife, and otherwise harassing big game, or precluding habitat use through barking and "intimidation" of wildlife. This would also provide homeowners a place where dogs could run free and play without fear of harming wildlife or running off. 40 G. Domestic Cats Domestic cats can have significant impacts on local breeding bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations in area habitats. Keeping cats indoors will protect a major component of the potential non -game wildlife use in the area. H. CDOW Indemnification As the property occurs within mule deer and elk winter ranges, there will be damage and use of the landscaping by foraging big game. The property owners should be informed of this and agree to indemnify CDOW from wildlife damage and not seek funding for game damage reimbursement from CDOW. 1. Bears Black bears are very common in the area from spring (April) through fall (late November). There are existing problems with bears, garbage, and people in Garfield County and some bears have shown signs of habituation and aggression towards residents. Areas near the Spring Valley Ranch are considered to be "bear - human conflict areas" by CDOW The Gambel's oak, serviceberry and chokecherry stands on the property provide extensive black bear fall foraging areas. The proposed development of the area will convert areas of the property to non -habitat conditions. However, bear use of these areas will likely continue. With the residential and golf course setting, it is inevitable that garbage and food sources will become available to bears, and human/bear conflicts will likely occur. These conflicts, however, can be minimized by implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The following measures should be implemented to reduce potential bear problems: • There should be no dumps that have edible materials associated with the construction and post -construction activities. Construction workers and contractors should be notified and educated about the importance of keeping trash, food and drink items properly disposed of to discourage bear activities in the area. • Residential garbage should be placed in bear -proof dumpsters, individual bear -proof trash containers, or kept in trash cans inside closed buildings. Trash cans should not be left outside overnight prior to trash collection, as bears quickly become habituated to these schedules. • Because of the layout of the subdivision, there is an opportunity to install bear -proof centralized trash stations which will decrease the number and availability of trash cans for bears to rummage through. • Pets should not be fed outside. Bowls of pet food left around buildings will attract bears and other predators (e.g. coyotes or red fox) and nuisance species (e. g. skunks, raccoon, woodrats) of wildlife. • Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and removed altogether during the fall months (September 41 through late November). Catchment basins should be used underneath bird feeders to catch seed. Bears are known to visit birdfeeding sites where seeds have accumulated on the ground. • Nut, fruit, or berry producing trees or shrubs should not be used in landscaping in order to minimize an attractant for bears around homes and developed areas. • Instead of lever -action door handles, round door knobs should be used, as bears can open lever -action door handles. • Compost piles shall be forbidden. • Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner's brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW. J. Birds Many sensitive bird species utilize the area; therefore the following recommendations are presented: • Pet cats should remain indoors, as cats will readily prey upon these species and can have a significant impact on bird use in the area and on bird populations. • Bird feeders are discouraged due to the heavy black bear use in the area. Bird feeders can be used in the winter (from mid November through mid March), as bears are hibernating during this time. • Prior to initiation of construction, a qualified biologist will be retained by Spring Valley Ranch to conduct a raptor nesting survey. If an active raptor nest is found during the survey, heavy construction (e.g. earth moving and exterior house construction, use of cranes, etc.) should be prohibited within a radius of either 300 feet (if nest is in a conifer) or 400 feet (if nest is in a cottonwood or an aspen) until the young have fledged or the nest naturally fails. The typical fledging date for the area would be around July 1 • All bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, should be hung away from any window or deck, be at least 10' from the ground, and be suspended between two trees or posts. • Any seed feeders should have a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seed. K. Golf Course & Open Space Management Spring Valley Ranch should consider incorporating the following: • All persons within the Spring Valley Ranch development should be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing wildlife as part of effort to force wildlife off golf courses, open space areas, or conservation easement areas on the Ranch. 42 • Golf course staff will have the right to locally restrict wildlife from golf course tees, greens, landscaping clumps, and other sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected will not restrict free movement of wildlife but will be used only in small, isolated areas to help direct wildlife and/or people. • A Best Management Plan for the golf course will be implemented to apply the proper procedures for the application of fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and any other chemicals. Drainage has been designed to ensure that water quality measures are in place to prevent adverse impacts to streams, riparian corridors, ponds, wetlands or other sensitive areas. Based on this exhaustive list of suggested recommendations, Staff is unclear as to how the Applicant has addressed these comments and incorporated them into the development plan. Applicant's Response 27. The recommendations in the Wildlife Reportwill be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Project. Specific CC&R provisions that incorporate these recommendations are included in the Summary of CC&R Provisions in Binder 3, Appendix 1. C. Domestic Water Supply The Applicant proposes to construct a central water supply system to provide potable and fire protection water to all Tots within the entire development. The water will come from wells drilled on the property as well as from existing reservoirs and surface water for irrigation purposes. Physically, this system is generally comprised of a 12 -inch distribution line located primarily in the road right-of-ways. Due to elevation gain / Toss, some areas would be required to have booster pumps to maintain water pressure particularly for fire protection at the hydrant. The system will include two water storage tanks: a 1 -million gallon water tank in the Landis Creek Canyon serving the middle bench and a 500,000 gallon tank to serve the upper Mountain Lots. The Application contains extensive information regarding the legal water supply. A report found in Appendix C of Binder 2 states the following: The water supply will be obtained from existing and proposed wells and springs located on the SVR property, and from surface water under senior decreed irrigation water rights in Landis Creek. Extensive engineering investigations confirm that surface and groundwater resources are physically available for the development, and that well diversions will not have a Tong term negative impact on the water balance of the Spring Valley aquifer. The water supply for the development is authorized by Water Court decrees approving water rights, changes of water rights and two plans for augmentation. These existing decrees provide a legally adequate water supply for the entire residential development, commercial uses, golf course, and related potable and agricultural open space irrigation, as shown in the project plans. Augmentation 43 water necessary to offset any out -of -priority depletions under the augmentation pians will be provided pursuant to contracts with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. irrigation of the golf course and agricultural open space will occur under senior water rights, and will be supplemented by groundwater as necessary. Ultimately, this report in the Application states the following conclusions: A. On behalf of Garfield County, in 2000 Colorado River Engineering, Inc. reviewed the water supply for the Spring Valley Ranch. Exhibit S. This report concludes that "fojur review of available data and reports has indicated that the proposed water supply plan can provide a reliable water supply given the PUD water demand levels, available water rights, and physical supplies available from surface and groundwater sources." B. Also in 2000, the Colorado State Engineer reviewed the physical and legal water supply for the project and concluded that "the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions." Exhibit T. C. The water requirements for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD are less than the water requirements of the PUD as currently approved and as reviewed by the County and the State in 2000. The projected consumptive use associated with the current development plan for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD (not including agricultural irrigation in the Lower Meadow) is 545 acre-feet per year, as compared with 974 acre-feet per year under the currently approved plan that was analyzed in 2000. With the elimination of a golf course, the development is able to support continued irrigation of the valley floor. This irrigation component allows a "buffer" of water supply that can be used, or reduced, depending on climatic conditions and project water demand, to assure the continued sustainability of the aquifer, and a dependable water supply for the development. Therefore, a physically sufficient water supply, sustainable over the foreseeable future, exists to support the proposed residential and commercial development of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. D. This conclusion is supported by extensive geological and hydrological investigation. In addition, all of the required water rights are owned by Spring Valley Holdings, and augmentation plans have been approved and decreed by the Water Court. These augmentation plans provide for a full legal water supply to the development while assuring that no injury is caused to any other water rights. The entity that will own and operate the system will be the Landis Creek Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2. A copy of the approved Service Plan is contained in Binder #1, Section 6.0. At the outset, the Application states that the 44 Applicant "will provide construction funding through its development and construction funding sources and in accordance with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement that will be executed by the Applicant and Garfield County at the applicable Final Plat Approval. As explained in the Service Plan, "The Service District will be responsible for, or contracting for, managing the construction and operation of facilities and improvements needed for the PUD." The Service Plan also provides that the Landis Creek Metropolitan District No. 2 as the Service District will initially own and operate certain public facilities and infrastructure throughout the PUD. Landis Creek Metropolitan District No. 1, as the Financing District, will generate the tax revenue sufficient to pay the costs of the capital improvements as described herein and associated operations and maintenance." Staff referred this Application to the Colorado Division of Water Resources to be reviewed by the State Engineer. As of the drafting of this memorandum, no formal comments were received; however, the State Engineer did indicate they requested additional information from the Applicant which was not provided to date. As a result, the State Engineer verbally opined this development (as currently proposed) would result in material injury to decree water rights. As the Planning Commission is aware, Staff cannot recommend a project move forward without a Letter of No Material Injury" form the State Engineer as water is one of the most critical components to the project. Applicant's Response 28. As stated in the application, both the State and the County engineers previously found the physical and legal water supply to be adequate. No change has been made to the legal water supply, as none is required. As also stated in the application, the water requirements for the amended plan are substantially less than the currently approved plan. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that the agency recommendation should be any different. Applicant will work with the State to answer any questions. D. Waste Disposal The Application proposes to handle waste water generated from the development in two ways: a central collection / treatment system provided by Spring Valley Sanitation District and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). More specifically, the Application proposes to serve the following lots with a central system that will be located in the road right-of-ways: Residential/Pasture District (except Lot P23 — the existing ranch house), Residential/Ranch District Residential/Estate District Residential/Cabin District • Village/Commercial District • Light Industrial District 45 Open Space/Golf District The Applicant proposes that sewage disposal for the Residential/Mountain District and Lot P23 of the Residential/Pasture District will be provided by Advanced Treatment (ISTS) systems. In this case, Design Guidelines will require that each ISTS be designed by a registered engineer on the basis of a site-specific geological and geotechnical site evaluation. The designs must be approved by the engineer for the Landis Creek Metropolitan District, as well as Garfield County. Landis Creek Metropolitan District for the operation, maintenance and monitoring of the system after the Advanced Treatment ISTS is constructed. The central sewer collection and treatment will be provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District as the property has been annexed into the district and the facility has been constructed and is fully operational to handle an average daily flow of approximately 500,000 gallons per day and currently operates at 40,000 gallons / day. The Applicant estimates that the maximum hydraulic loading on the wastewater treatment plant from the project at full development and occupancy will be approximately 234,045 gallons per day (46.8% of capacity). Staff referred the Application to the District and received the following comments: 1. The Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) will provide wastewater treatment services to this proposed P. U.D. This review is limited to those issues associated with wastewater collection, transmission and treatment of the areas of the project proposed to be sewered. This project was reviewed previously by SVSD several years ago. It is our understanding that the site layout from a wastewater collection perspective has changed significantly since then. 2. This review is limited to a preliminary plan level of detail and is intended to review intent and adequacy of the overall design proposed. At the Final Plat stage, a review of engineering details will be provided. 3. All facilities constructed must meet the rules and regulations of SVSD. 4. At 200 scale, these drawings are very difficult to review from an intent standpoint. 5. The District Rules and Regulations require 50 scale drawings at Preliminary Plan stage. 6. Itis difficult to go between the overall sheets and the plan and profile sheets. Provide a key map on each overall sheet. 7. It is difficult to follow from one plan and profile sheet to another. Provide match lines on plan and profile sheets. 46 8. The force main and pressure sewer system designations are not consistent between overall sheets and plan and profile sheets. 9, In prior agreements, Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) has been designated for 646 EQR's. Based on the districts standard design of 350 gpd per EQR, this equates to 226,100 gpd. The report indicates an anticipated flow -rate of 234,045 gpd, equivalent to 669 EQR's. Explain calculated flow rate. 10. The rules and regulations require a Design Report as a basis for EQR determination. No report is included in the submittal package. Applicant should submit such a report as the basis for both EQR's and the wastewater contribution calculations. 11. SVSD Rules and Regulations require that a Design Report accompany the Preliminary Plan drawings as a basis for the design of infrastructure facilities. No such report was included in the application materials. 12. Gravity sewer lines were sized, but there was no basis provided for the sizing. 13. There were two lift stations indicated on the drawings. The detail drawings provided for the lift stations were generic with no detail. There was no basis provided for sizing. 14. There was no sizing provided for or a basis of sizing for force mains from lift stations. The only representation found was on the generic detail for a 4" force main. 15. There are a number of multiple user pressure sewer systems proposed in this system with the intent to transfer ownership to SVSD at completion. 16. The only currently approved supplier of pressure sewer systems in the district is E -One. While the district may consider other suppliers, it was unclear from the drawings who the proposed manufacturer would be for the systems. 17. There was no design report as a basis for sizing of the individual force mains. If SVSD were to assume ownership of the mains after completion and construction, then an integrated design for each system is required. 18. The design slopes were based on a center of manhole dimensions, whereas the invert elevations used were at the edges of the manhole. Actual line slopes of sewers would therefore be different than shown on the drawings. Please clarify. 47 19. There appear to be a number of areas where steep slopes transition to flat slopes in manholes, possible creating an energy dissipation requirement. Please clarify. 20. SVSG requires that facilities be located within roadway corridors for ease of future operation and maintenance activities. Exceptions may be considered upon a case by case basis. Generally, there are significant portions of this system which are not located within roadway corridors. 21. It generally appeared that 30' easements were proposed for sewer lines outside roadway corridors. Confirm intent. 22. If sewer lines outside roadway corridors are approved, it will be necessary to show adequate access to all off-road lines and manholes. Such access was not indicated on the drawings, noting there were many sewer runs which were either steep or with significant side slopes which would likely prevent the access to maintenance equipment. Graded access would be required along all easements. 23. A water/sewer crossing detail was not found. 24. There appeared to be some sewer runs which exceeded the district's limitation of 400'. 25. The detail for gravity sewer lines did not include an allowance for bedding beneath the pipe. 26. Trench details for force mains and pressure sewer lines were not included. 27. There was no drawing which showed water and sewer mains on the same page. It was not possible to determine if there were any conflicts between the two utilities. 28. Show all water line and storm sewer/ culvert crossings on profiles. 29. Show conflicts between deep utility systems which will require additional facilities in the field. Staff regrets that as of the drafting of this memorandum, there are no comments to provide from a County Engineering review. Applicant'sResponse 29. Prior to commencing constructioi of any component of the sewage collection system, Applicant will meet all regulations and conditions of the Spring Valle{ Sanitation District. 48 E. Internal Roads The Application proposes a private internal road network throughout the entire PUD with two main access points that connect to the County's road system. Generally, the road network is a large looped road system that meanders through the middle bench area and through the mountain lot area where one could access one side of the development to the other using three distinct routes. In a traditional subdivision, because the trips generated from this development are approximately 3,915 ADT, the road system would be required to be built to the Major Collector standard (trips above 2,500) which requires 80 -foot ROW. In this case, the Applicant is proposing a lesser design defined as "Collectors" and "Minor Roads" with 60 and 50 foot ROWs respectively with asphalt or concrete surfaces. See the following page that shows the general breakdown of the road design. Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. Street and Roadway Classification and Design Standards Road Classification Collector Road Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Maximum Number of Residences to be Served 577 140 40 Maxinuun average Daily Traffic Volume [vehicles per day] 8000 1400 400 Minimum Right -of -Way Width [feet] 60 50 50 Minimum Travel Lane Width [feet] 1'' 11 11 lNiininnun Shoulder` Width [feet] 4 ` Type of Road Surface (including travel lanes and shoulders) Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt or Concrete As the matrix shows, there are also 40 cul-de-sacs designed throughout the road system. The County can, by virtue of the PUD, approve modifications to the subdivision standards. As you are aware, the cul-de-sc regulations cap lengths at 600 linear feet in order to encourage designs that provide alternate methods of egress / access in the event of a natural disaster / wildfire so that residents are not trapped in an area. This development has 40 cul-de-sacs that are well beyond 600 linear feet. In these cases, Staff relies on the emergency service providers (primarly Fire District and Sherriff) to provide opinions on the road systems. The Glenwood Fire Protection District reviewed the road system and provided the following comment: We have reviewed your submittal of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. Street and Roadway Classification and Design Standards. During our previous review, we requested a revision stating that all structures in excess of 500 square feet be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13R or as otherwise required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). With the revision made we are pleased to accept the road design standards. If you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience. 49 The County Sherriff reviewed the proposal and provided the following comment: Staff regrets, as of the drafting of this memorandum, there are no County engineering review comments to provide on the revised road network from an engineering perspective. Staff does understand the Applicant's intent to reduce the road network footprint regarding cur and fill disturbance. I have reviewed your submittal of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. road design. After this review and the meeting we had on June 5, 2006 with Glenwood Springs Fire Department Chief Mike Piper and Tom Gray. Managing Principal of the Santa Lucia Preserve, I have no concerns as to the relationship of the road design and wild land fire mitigation. Also, since the Spring Valley Ranch has a contract with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department for fire protection and mitigation, I would defer any concerns to Chief Piper. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Applicant's Response 30. The earthwork calculations for all roads in the proposed plan result in the following quantities: cut of 706,820 cubic yards and fill of 308,733 cubic yards. The earthwork calculations for all roads in the approved development plan result in the following quantities: cut of 1,057,744 cubic yards and fill of 471,960 Cubic Yards. The proposed plan provides for a 33% reduction in cut quantities and a 34% reduction in fill quantities when compared to the approved plan and, therefore, requires far Tess disturbance and adverse environmental impact. F. Off-site Traffic Impacts The Application contains a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIS) prepared by Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig prepared for the Applicant that provides an analysis of the traffic generated form this development and its impact to the County and State road system in the general are of the project. The analysis concluded that (as a full-time residential development) the project would generate 3,915 daily trips. The report concluded the following findings and recommendations: 1. The primary access to the development will be CR 114. Several improvements are recommended to this road east of its intersection with SH 82. The two travel lanes will be widened to 12 feet each with four -foot shoulders on each side. The unpaved portion of CR 114 approaching Spring Valley Ranch as well as CR 115 within the development will be paved with improved shoulders. Analysis of the long range future peak hour volumes results in a volume/capacity of 0.48 for CR 114 indicative of LOS E. 2. In the short range future the following improvements are needed at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114: i. Add a westbound to northbound right acceleration lane to separate right turning vehicles from the other movements at this intersection. With this improvement the intersection is projected to operate at Level of service B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the evening peak hour. 50 3. The following improvements should be made near the intersection of CR 114 and the frontage road in the short range future: 1. Add a second westbound lane approaching the frontage road and SH 82; ii. Add a second lane for northbound traffic on the frontage road approaching CR114; and iii. Signs requiring motorists to not block the frontage road intersection should be added to the north, east, and south legs. With these improvements, all turning movements at this intersection will operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. 4. In the long range future, the following improvements are needed at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114: 1. Add a second Jet tum lane on SH 82 to the southbound approach to CR 114. This will require adding a second receiving lane on CR 114 to the west of the frontage road. With this improvement, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, given the long range traffic forecasts for both second home community and full time community. 5. The following improvement should be made to the intersection of CR 114 and the frontage road in the long range future: i. Add a second lane in the eastbound direction, east of the intersection to accommodate the additional receiving lane required to accommodate the dual southbound left turns at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114. With this improvement, unsignalized movements at this intersection will operate at LOS E or better during the peak hours. 51 The following graphic shows these improvements to the 82 / CR 114 intersection: II ALT"C i L!LLEVILl 00 NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION )J jI L SHORT RANGE 0 Add a second westbound lane on CR114 approaching the Frontage Road. Q Add a left tum an for northbound traffic on the Frontage Road. Q Add an acceleration lane tor traffic turning right onto SH82 from CR114. n cm) t fi r'',z r TA — ' OO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION OO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION 52 SHORT RANGE O Add a second westbound lane on CR114 approaching the Frontage Road. Q Add a left turn lane for northbound traffic on the Frontage Road. O Add an acceleration lane for traffic turning right onto SH82 from CR114, LONG RANGE • Add a second southbound left turn lane on SH82. e Add a receiving lane on CR114 for the southbound left traffic on SH82, This lane will continue east and taper off east of the Frontage Road,. As you may recall, the presently approved Preliminary Plan (Resolution 2005-84) requires the following conditions of approval regarding off-site road impacts to CR 115 and 114 as well as the intersection of CH 82 and CR 114: 3.0 The applicant shall make application the Colorado Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12)(b) of the State Highway Access Code, fora permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of CR 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permits shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat document, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. 4.0 The Applicant shall make the improvements to County Roads 114 and 115 as proposed in the application, at their own expense, regardless of cost, and consistent with the phasing of the improvements proposed in the application. The Applicant continues to commit to these conditions with this revised Preliminary Plan. You may also recall the current Preliminary Plan approvals include provisions / conditions for the possibility of the relocation of a portion of CR 114 as it enters the project through Lake Springs Ranch PUD. This possible realignment is shown on the right. The Applicant continues to commit to the conditions of the realignment; however, they request that the improvement occur in Phase 11 rather than Phase 1 as currently required. Applicant's Response 31. Phase 1 of the currently approved Preliminary Plan contains 50 residential units and certain common facilities. Phase 2 of the Application is more or less the equivalent to Phase 1 of the existing Preliminary Plan. Therefore. Applicant ..'' CMC proposes to comply with these conditions in Phase 2. Phase 1 of the Application contains only the project's entrance, Information/Sales office and Lot P23 (the existing Spring Valley Ranch House). It does not include any other residential units and, therefore, will have virtually no impact on traffic on SH 82, CR 114 or CR 115. • Proposed � U CD 53 G. Fire Protection The property is not located in a fire protection district but has entered into a contract with Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District for EMS and fire protection services since 2000. Basically, this agreement requires the Applicant to construct a fire station on the property, pay for fire fighting equipment, provide Staff, and make a payment to the District every year. This documentation can be found in Binder 1, Section 11. It is unclear when Applicant is to construct and staff the fire station. The Application also contains a wild land fire report prepared by Anchor Point Group which specializes in Fire Management. The report was produced in order to provide an evaluation of the wildfire threats on the property and provide adequate mitigation for those threats. Their report stated that their goals were to A. Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire; B. Provide development options for the mitigation of wildfire, ensure compliance with local fire district code requirements; C. Develop an integrated management approach that encompasses all natural communities represented at Spring Valley Ranch; and D. Provide a tool to help residents of Spring Valley Ranch understand the complexity of the ecosystem and more effectively protect their property from potential wildfire. The report concluded that vegetation management is needed throughout the upper montane zone of the western slope of the Colorado Rocky Mountains to return forests and rangelands to an ecologically sustainable condition and to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and insect epidemics. Vegetative conditions at the Spring Valley Ranch property are significantly divergent from their historic norm. A comprehensive evaluation of wildfire hazard within Spring Valley Ranch was conducted; findings should be integrated into the overall restoration prescriptions being developed for the property. Project -wide vegetation restoration treatments include the maintenance of meadows, strategic fuel breaks to reduce vegetation density primarily through selective cutting to remove undesirable species and retention of mature healthy plants, and implementation of prescribed burning where feasible. Other recommended actions include the utilization of ignition resistant construction for all homes built in the development, in combination with individual defensible space. Glenwood Springs Fire Department is the authority having jurisdiction and dictates water supply requirements. Other infrastructure recommendations are proposed to meet adopted code compliance. 54 Regarding the Preliminary Plan requirements, the following standards apply: 9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection district to ensure that al! lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire entrapment. Staff Response The Applicant has had the Glenwood Springs Fire Chief review the internal road system as well as by Lou Vallario, Sheriff of Garfield County, who has responsibility for wildfire protection. Chief Piper and Sheriff Vallario both conclude that the Spring Valley Ranch PUD meets this requirement. Letters from both Mike Piper and Lou Vallario regarding the proposed road system and road design standards are included in Appendix M. 9:72 Where a central water system has fire hydrants, all fire hydrants shall meet the specifications for the appropriate fire protection agency, particularly with regard to thread size on the fire hydrants. Staff Response The Applicant states that all fire hydrants installed will be in accordance with the fire hydrant specifications of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). 9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a centrally located fire protection storage tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire district. Staff Response The proposed water system includes the construction of a 1,000,000 -gallon water storage tank and a 500,000 -gallon storage tank. The Applicant states that these proposed water storage tanks will meet or exceed the fire protection standards of the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" Applicant's Response 32. A letter from Mike Piper, the Fire Chief of the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District, is included in the supplement to the preliminary plan application. Chief Piper states that the proposed on-site water storage meets or exceeds the water storage requirements of the International Fire Code and the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. 9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply. Staff Response 55 In addition to the proposed water storage tanks, four existing or proposed irrigation system reservoirs will be made available to the fire district via the installation of dry hyd rants. H. Drainage The Application contains a drainage analysis prepared by Gamba & Associates and is contained in Appendix S. The analysis points out that the majority of the property is tributary to the Roaring Fork River basin via Red Canyon Creek and Cattle Creek. A small portion of the property along the northern boundary is tributary to the Colorado River through Glenwood Canyon. The report ultimately concludes that "these hydrologic calculations demonstrate that the post -development peak rates of runoff for the 100 -year storm event can be mitigated to levels below the pre - development conditions for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD by constructing the storm water mitigation measures as proposed herein." More specifically, the analysis in the Application contains the calculations for the sizing of storm water detention structures that have been designed to adequately mitigate the increased post -development peak rate of runoff to levels equal to or less than the historic peak rates of runoff for the 100 -year storm event. Moreover, the analysis states that "all areas subject to inundation are within either a drainage easement or a drainage structure within a road right-of-way. The location and size of proposed culverts bridges, ditches and channels is provided in Appendix S and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Binder 4, Exhibit 26." Staff regrets, at the time of the drafting of this memorandum, Staff cannot provide any review opinion of the County contract engineer as to the adequacy of the design with regard to the County's regulations. 33. Following the review of the drainage analysis by the County's consulting engineers, Applicant will respond to any of questions or concerns regarding the com fiance of the drains e s stem's desi n with Count re ulations. Noxious Weed Management / Revegetation The County Vegetation Manager provided the following points of concern with the proposal: • Inventory and mapping -The applicant lists noxious weeds found on the property, however this information is not represented on a map, staff requests that the applicant provide a map of the project area with the Garfield County listed noxious weeds, and the State of Colorado listed noxious weed, Absinth wormwood (Artemsia absinthium). • Weed management -The Weed Management Plan is incorporated into the attachment entitled "Best Management Practices." The recommended 56 herbicides, glyphosate and 2-4,D will have minimal results on most noxious weeds. Revegetation and soils -The applicant has addressed revegetation and soil concerns. • Revegetation security -The applicant has not quantified the addresses surface area to be disturbed by new roads and utilities. Please provide this information so a revegetation security may be determined. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed Management Plan Reclamation Standards. • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) may be present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is located on the property. if present, the locations shall be identified in general terms as they pertain to building envelopes. In addition, an acknowledgement and reference to Harrington's penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and to alert property owners of its significance. • This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is "vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known from 74 occurrences in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit counties and is found primarily in dry, sagebrush -dominated communities between 6,400 and 9,400 ft. (1,951 and 2,865 m) elevation. USDA Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensitive species; it is also included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensitive Species List. It is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is it currently a candidate for listing. J. Minerals / Separated Estate It was unclear from the documentation if the owner of the surface of the project also owns the minerals underneath. This needs to be clarified. Applicant's Response 34. As shown on the title commitment, Appendix N, there are no separate mineral interests other than federal patent reservations. K. Required Development Fees 57 The Applicant is responsible for either providing a School Site Land Dedication or fees in lieu of those lands to be calculated at the time of final plat. X. Applicant Responses to Resolution 2005 — 84 (Preliminary plan) As you will remember, the last iteration of review by the County on this project was primarily an exercise to review and consolidate certain conditions of approval from a variety of Resolutions into one resolution that would contain all obligations for this development_ The BOCC approved the request which resulted in a set of conditions for the PUD as well as a separate list of conditions for the Preliminary Plan. What follows are the Applicant's response to these existing conditions. The entire list is at the end of this memorandum for your review. What follows here are only the conditions that the Applicant wishes to specifically address or amend while still agreeing to comply with all the other conditions. 5.0 The alignment of CR 114 is contingent upon application by Lake Springs Ranch for the realignment of CR 114 thru the Lake Springs Ranch and approval of such application by the County. The following conditions of approval shall apply only if Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114. Otherwise, the current conditions of approval related to CR 114 in its existing alignment shall apply, the applicant shall not show the realigned road on its final plat, and the preliminary plan shall be automatically and without further action amended to delete the realigned road and the following conditions of approval: Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.01 Because the proposed realignment of CR 114 will travel through Lake Springs Ranch, the Applicant shall obtain a right-of-way for CR 114 from the owners of the affected property prior to any approval of a final plat which right-of-way shall be dedicated to Garfield County. This shall be shown on all final plat documents as appropriate. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.02 If the proposed realignment of CR 114 is approved for both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch, prior to construction of the realigned CR 114, the owners for Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a Road Vacation Application, 8 executed by the owners of both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch under the County Road Vacation Policies. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.03 Because Spring Valley Sanitation District has made certain real improvements that are located within CR 114 as it is currently located, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Spring Valley Sanitation District regarding the improvements that have been installed within the existing CR 114 alignment so that there will be no disruptions to service a provided by the District and that costs for relocation of certain improvement, if necessary, shall be addressed in the agreement. This signed agreement shall be provided to Staff at time of the final plat. Staff Response The Applicant requests that In the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.04 Because the majority of the proposed realignment of CR 114 lies within the boundaries of the Lake Springs Ranch property, any approval for the realignment of CR 114 for Spring Valley Ranch shall not be considered approved unless a similar approval is obtained by Lake Springs Ranch. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.05 Spring Valley Ranch, in the design and reconstruction of CR 114, shall comply with the standards and criteria included in resolution 2002-109 as those conditions relate to shoulder width (6 feet), surfacing and ditch design. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.06 Prior to approval of a new alignment for CR 114, Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a plan for the intended use of the old CR 114 Right-of-way. Such plan shall be approved by the owners of Lake Springs Ranch and provide for proportionate cost sharing. If the plan proposes to leave the old CR 114 right - 59 of -way as is for a period of at least one year, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall provide a weed management plan for that Right-of-way. if the plan for the new CR 114 Right-of-way requires reclamation, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall submit 1) a plant material list, 2) a planting schedule, 3) an estimate in terms of acres or square feet of the area to be reclaimed, and 4) a re -vegetation bond or security before final BOCC approval. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.07 The revegetation security provided to Garfield County shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield 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. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.08 The Reclamation Plan anticipated in condition 5.07 above shall include 1) a plant material list (to conform with the surrounding native vegetation), 2) a planting schedule, 3) a map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (road cuts) and an estimate of surface area disturbed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security as part of the relevant subdivision improvements agreements. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.09 The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 1 of Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall provide that the Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 need not be commenced until 2 years after the date of the SiA for Phase 1, or the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. In the event the end of said 2 -year period falls between October 1 - March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the improvements agreement for Phase 1. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 is hereby amended to provide for the potential construction of Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. 60 Staff Response Phase 1 in Applicant's proposed amendment to the approved Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD consists solely of security and administrative building(s) and open space, which will have very limited impact on CR 114 traffic levels. Residential and commercial uses begin in Phase 2. Consequently, Applicant proposes to include improvements to CR 114 in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 2. Improvements to CR 114 will be made, but need not be commenced, until 2 years after the earlier to occur of: i) date of the SIA for Phase 2, or ii) the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. If the end of said 2 -year period falls between October 1 and March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the SEA for Phase 2. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 provides for the construction of Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. 6.0 A maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system must be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. Staff Response The Applicant suggests that roads may be maintained by either the Landis Creek Metropolitan District or the Home Owners Association. In the event that the roads will be maintained by the Home Owners Association, a maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system will be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. 9.0 The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements in a manner adequate to prevent damage or potential loss of life or structures within the subdivision, prior to the approval of the first final plat. Staff Response The Applicant asserts that a dam break failure of Hopkins reservoir will not affect any improvements proposed in phase 1 of the development. Therefore, the dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir will be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements agreement for Phase 2 and will be incorporated into subsequent phases as applicable. 20.0 Owners of existing permitted domestic wells in use fora single-family residence as of October 29, 2001 that are located on the properties that are contiguous to the boundaries of the Districts and therefore within the service area of the Districts to connect to the central potable water supply system of the Districts in the following conditions: 61 Staff Response The Applicant suggests the water supply report included in Appendix C incorporates an analysis of the potential service to the existing residences currently served by these wells if necessary. This analysis demonstrates that the applicant has adequate physical and legal water necessary to serve the existing residences currently served by these wells. Applicant will comply with this condition. 21.0 Individual well development shall be prohibited for new residential development Staff Response The Applicant suggests that they will comply with this condition for all proposed residential lots with the exception of lot P23 (Existing Ranch House) and OSR Parcel E (the proposed security and administrative build(s)) which will be served by individual wells. 27.0 Prior to the first final plat, the applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. Staff Response Phase 1 in Applicant's proposed amendment to the approved Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD consists solely of security and administrative building(s) and open space, which will have very limited impact on CR 114 traffic levels. Residential and commercial uses begin in Phase 2. Consequently, prior to the second final plat Applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. XI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on the forgoing, in September 12, 2007, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the BOCC approve the amendment to the PUD and the Preliminary Plan with the following findings and the conditions listed below. A. SUGGESTED FINDINGS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings; 62 3. That the application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended and Section 4.00 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; 4. That the proposed subdivision of land and amendment to the PUD is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 for the unincorporated areas of the County; and 5. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. B. Conditions for the PUD Amendment As the project is currently proposed, the Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the request to amend the Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1.0 The following conditions consolidate, amend, and restate as appropriate the conditions contained in the various resolutions approving, extending or amending the PUD for Spring Valley Ranch in Resolutions 2000-95, 2003-19, 2003-99 and 2005-83. They supersede and replace all of the conditions of approval in said resolutions, and the conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions shall be null and of no further force or effect. 2.0 All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, including at a minimum, but not limited to the following: 3.0 The following conditions included in the letter received from Nick Adeh of NA consulting dated June 13, 2000, are to be adhered to as a conditions of approval: 3.1 Construct the west entrance to County standards as a paved road and stop CR115 paving at this intersection. 3.2The remaining segments of the CR 115 that are beyond the property frontage must remain unpaved and rough as is. 3.3 Install selective signage on CR 115 just west of the PUD to discourage use of Red Canyon Road as an alternative access to State Highway 82. 4.0 During construction, the applicant will be responsible for all dust mitigation caused by the project on on-site and off-site roads. 5.0 Access for out parcels shall be shown on the applicable final plats. 63 6.0 The monitoring plan for the best management practices shall be controlled/ implemented by the Home Owner's Association or another body capable of managing the plan. 7.0 All of the proposed Development Phasing Schedule be modified to require the final platting of all phases within 15 years of the platting of the first phase and that the completion of construction periods may be less as required by the applicable subdivision improvements agreement. 8.0 All infrastructure, public utilities, trails and open space shall be phased in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. 9.0 Based upon the representations of the applicant, accepting the provisions of the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, dated September 12, 2000, the following conditionis imposed: 9.1 The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) for the Community Housing component of the project shall provide that a Home Owners Association will be the governing authority with all appropriate enforcement powers for operation and control of the Community Housing component. 10.0 Future use of additional wells (Gamba wells) requires the development of water rights and well permits if required by the appropriate state agency. 11.0 All conditions of the Division of Water Resources shall be met. Those conditions include but are not limited to: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to decreed terms and conditions. 12.0 Available surface water supplies shall be used to their fullest extent to provide the irrigation supply to the golf courses in order to minimize groundwater withdrawals. A groundwater monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor future water levels near the Spring Valley Ranch wells. The monitoring plan shall include water level measurements in the production wells and other wells at the PUD that can be used as monitoring holes. The monitoring plan shall include measurements made with enough frequency to observe seasonal groundwater fluctuations and long term groundwater trends. Results of the monitoring program shall be available to the public. 12.1 There will be an additional monitoring well developed or identified that is at least 2000 feet from the production wells. Either a new well or an off-site well meeting those criteria could meet the criteria. All of the monitoring reports will be available to the public. 64 13.0 The domestic water system must be constructed and operated in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regulations and standards. 14.0 The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions relating to wildlife: 14.1 Dogs: Dogs shall be allowed on each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot pursuant to Section 3.17 of the Applicant's proposed covenants unless Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision regulations are more restrictive. 14.2 Seasonal Use Restrictions: The seasonal use restrictions proposed by the applicant in the submittal shall be conditions of approval. 14.3 Educating Residents: Consistent with the provisions in the CDOW Letter of August 31, 1999, the Applicant shall provide an informative brochure at the first Final Plat which is intended to be provided to residents at the time of conveyance of each lot. 14.4 Additional Commitments: The Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposed by the Applicant shall be made a part of the proposed covenants. 14.5 Fencing: Fencing shall be allowed pursuant to Section 3.24 of the proposed covenants. 14.6 Horses and Livestock: As per the Applicant's submittal, horses shall be permitted pursuant to Sections 3.17 and 3.24 of the proposed covenants. 14.7 Building Envelopes: Building envelopes shall be represented by the Applicant on the Preliminary Plan Application consistent with this PUD Application. 14.8 Wildlife Mitigation: A Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be implemented through the Applicant's proposed covenants and deed restrictions as a condition of any Final Plat approval. 14.9 Bears/Trash Removal: The Applicant shall comply with Section 3.14 of the propose covenants submitted by the Applicant. 14.10 Riparian/Wetlands: The provisions listed in the CDOW letter of August 31, 1999, and Section 4.3.4 of Appendix E of the submittal (Wildlife report) shall be conditions of any approval. 65 14.11 Raptor Survey: At the time of the first Final Plat, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 4.3.3 of the "Wildlife Use, Impacts, and Mitigation" report submitted by the Applicant. 15.0 No new wood burning open hearth fireplaces shall be allowed within the development. 16.0 No short term rental (daily or weekly) of the Cabins located near the Village Center will be allowed, except for Club members and their guests. 171.6 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the Garfield County Housing Authority regarding the location of the 75 Community Housing units or an offsite alternative affordable housing project. In the event no agreement is reached, the 75 community housing units shall be located as depicted on the supplemental plan. '18.0 The phasing of improvements to the intersection of Colorado State Highway 82 and Garfield County Road 114 shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation and shall be incorporated into the phasing plan for the project. ( `19.0 The Applicant shall construct interim improvements to CR114 to mitigate construction traffic impacts as part of Phase 2 in accordance with a plan approved by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 20.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a schedule showing the ownership and timing of conveyance of open space, trails, and 24 employee rental units. 21'.(;Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a public access plan for the golf course, trails and convenience shopping. C. Conditions for the Preliminary Plan As the project is currently proposed, the Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the request for the Preliminary Plan Application with the following conditions: 1.0 The following conditions consolidate, amend, and restate as appropriate the conditions contained in the various resolutions approving, extending or modifying the preliminary plans for Spring Valley Ranch in Resolutions 2002-07, 2003-98 and 2005-84. They supersede and replace all of the conditions of approval in said 66 resolutions, and the conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions shall be null and of no further force or effect. 2.0 All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, including at a minimum, but not limited to the following: 3.0 The applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12)(b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat documents, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. 4.0 The applicant shall make the improvements to County Roads 114 and 115 as proposed in the application, at their own expense, regardless of cost, and consistent with the phasing of the improvements proposed in the application. 5.0 The alignment of CR 114 is contingent upon application by Lake Springs Ranch for the realignment of CR 114 through the Lake Springs Ranch and approval of such application by the County. The following conditions of approval shall apply only if Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114. Otherwise, the current conditions of approval related to CR 114 in its existing alignment shall apply, the Applicant shall not show the realigned road on its final plat, and the preliminary plan shall be automatically and without further action amended to delete the realigned road and the following conditions of approval: 5.01 Because the proposed realignment of CR 114 will travel through Lake Springs Ranch, the Applicant shall obtain a right-of-way for CR 114 from the owners of the affected property prior to any approval of a final plat which right-of-way shall be dedicated to Garfield County. This shall be shown on all final plat documents as appropriate. 5.02 If the proposed realignment of CR 114 is approved for both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch, prior to construction of the realigned CR 114, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a Road Vacation Application, executed by the owners of both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch under the County Road Vacation Policies. 5.03 Because Spring Valley Sanitation District has made certain real improvements that are located within CR 114 as it is currently located, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Spring Valley Sanitation District regarding the improvements that have been installed within the existing CR 67 114 alignment so that there will be no disruptions to service a provided by the District and that costs for relocation of certain improvements, if necessary, shall be addressed in the agreement. This signed agreement shall be provided to Staff at the time of the final plat. 5.04 Because the majority of the proposed realignment of CR 114 lies within the boundaries of the Lake Springs Ranch property, any approval for the realignment of CR 114 for Spring Valley Ranch shall not be considered approved unless a similar approval is obtained by Lake Springs Ranch. 5.05 Spring Valley Ranch, in the design and reconstruction of CR 114, shall comply with the standards and criteria included in Resolution 2002-109 as those conditions relate to shoulder width (6 feet), surfacing and ditch design. 5.06 Prior to approval of a new alignment for CR 114, Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a plan for the intended use of the old CR 114 Right -Of -Way. Such plan shall be approved by the owners of Lake Springs Ranch and provide for proportionate cost sharing. If the Plan proposes to leave the old CR 114 Right -Of -Way as -is for a period of at least one year, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall provide a weed management plan for that Right -of -Way. If the Plan for the new CR 114 Right -Of -Way requires reclamation, the owners of Spring Valley ranch shall submit 1) a plant material list, 2) a planting schedule, 3) an estimate in terms of acres or square feet of the area to be reclaimed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security before final BOCC approval. 5.07 The revegetation security provided to Garfield County shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield 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. 5.08 The Reclamation Plan anticipated in condition 5.07 above shall include 1) a plant material list (to conform with the surrounding native vegetation), 2) a planting schedule, 3) a map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (road cuts) and an estimate of surface area disturbed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security as part of the relevant subdivision improvements agreements. 5.09 The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 2 of Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall provide that the Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 need not be commenced until 2 years after the earlier of i) the date of the SIA for Phase 2, or ii) the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. In the event the end of said 2 -year period falls 68 i betweenOctober 1 — March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the subdivision improvements agreement for Phase 2. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 is hereby amended to provide for the potential construction of Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. 6.0 The internal private roads will be maintained by either the Landis Creek Metropolitan District or the Homeowner's Association. In the event the roads are maintained by the Homeowners Association, a maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system must be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. 7.0 The Applicant and Mrs. Veltus shall negotiate in good faith for the creation of a new road easement through the Applicant's property on reasonable terms and conditions. Such easement shall be identified on the final plat but shall not require a PUD amendment. 8.0 The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements agreement for phase 2 and incorporated into subsequent phases as applicable in a manner adequate to prevent damage or potential loss of life or structures within the subdivision. 9.0 The Applicant shall upgrade the electrical utilities consistent with a contract with Holy Cross Electric, at the developer's expense. 10.0 Prior to the recordation of the final plat that includes Lots R 92, 94 and 95, the Applicant shall install piezometers along the hillside in the location of Lots R 92, 94 and 95 to monitor groundwater conditions. This information shall be submitted to the Colorado Geologic Survey for their review and comment. The design for the development of such lots shall take this information into consideration, including the potential of a comprehensive solution and/or individual lot drainage mitigation. 11.0 Plat notes and covenants shall indicate that all lots require a site specific geological and geotechnical analysis prior to any construction. 12.0 The design guidelines shall include Best Management Practices which minimize directly connected impervious areas for storm water runoff within individual Tots as part of the first final plat and all subsequent plats. 13.0 Prior to the approval of any Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Office a Noxious Weed / Revegetation Plan which shall include a noxious weed inventory of the area of the property covered by the 69 plat. That Plan shall also include a specific planting schedule, along with the quantification of the acres or square footage of surface to be disturbed and revegetated needs to be developed. Additionally, the Plan shall include reclamation cost estimates for seeding, mulching and other factors that may aid in plant establishment as part of any final plat application and include revegetation security to hold until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the County's reclamation standards. Finally, this Plan shall include a Soil Management Plan to be developed for the project and submitted with any final plat application. 14.0 As part of all final plats, construction plans shall delineate all wetland areas and all wetland areas shall be clearly marked and fenced prior to construction. 15.0 As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless on extension of not more than one year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. 16.0 School Site Acquisition Fees shall be paid at the time of final plat as per Section 9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as amended. 17.0 The Homeowners Association must hire at least a Class C operator to operate and maintain the proposed Ranch Lot ISDS systems prior to issuance of the first ISDS system permit. If proof of the employment of such a person is not provided to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of said ISDS permit, the Building Department shall not issue the ISDS permit or any subsequently requested ISDS permit. 18.0 Prior to the approval of the final plat of each phase, the Spring Valley Sanitation District shall certify that sufficient capacity is available to provide for the development in such phase. 19.0 Owners of existing permitted or adjudicated water supplies in use for a single-family residence as of October 29, 2001 that are located on the properties that are contiguous to the boundaries of the Districts and therefore within the service area of the Districts to connect to the central potable water supply system of the Districts in the following conditions: 19.01 Each dwelling unit served by an existing permitted or adjudicated water supply shall be entitled to one tap for the provision of one EQR from the central potable water system; 19.02 Such owners shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and policies as all other residential users on such systems; 70 1 • 19.03 Such owners shall be charged in -District fees, charges, and rates even though they are out of the Districts; 19.04 In the event that such an owner's permitted or adjudicated water supply becomes unable to produce the quantities required for permitted domestic water use, not due to the admitted or judicially determined negligence of the owner, such owner shall not be required to pay a tap fee or for a physical connection at the time of connection to the water supply system; 19.05 The main infrastructure and distribution systems for the water supply system have been installed and tested and operational; 19.06 Such owners may choose to connect to the water supply system at any time after the system is installed and operational and shall connect to such system on any appropriate primary distribution line and SVD shall use all reasonable efforts to locate such distribution lines in a manner that, to the extent feasible and practical, it will accommodate a connection by such owners; 19.07 Such owners shall be responsible for all costs associated with constructing and extending the necessary water lines to connect to the water supply system's primary distribution lines; 19.08 Such owners may keep their existing permitted or adjudicated water supply in operation, the water court decrees that will legally support such service must be issued in Case Nos. 98CW254 and 255 in Water Division No. 5; and 19.09 Such owners will be responsible for securing any necessary rights-of-way from their property to the district boundary and SVD or the District will provide the appropriate rights-of-way, within the District boundary. 20.0 With the exception of Lot P23 and OSR Parcel E, individual well development shall be prohibited for new development. 21.0 The Applicant shall work with the water district providing potable water service to the development to adopt a water usage rate structure that encourages conservation. 22.0 Well water usage for agricultural and golf course purposes shall be allowed to supplement surface water sources in the event of a shortage of surface water supplies. 23.0 Valid well permits must be obtained for all of the wells included in the water supply plan and copies submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval. 71 24.0 Subject to the terms hereof, the Applicant shall provide a nonexclusive easement to allow for the conveyance of water piped from the BR Hopkins Spring located on Spring Valley Ranch PUD property to a point where the water from the BR Hopkins Spring is used on the LaGigilia property. The easement is not required to follow the historic pipeline corridor and it can be relocated to a preferred location mutually agreed to by the parties who have a right to the BR Hopkins Spring and any property owner whose property the new pipeline may cross. This easement to the BR Hopkins Spring shall be designed to allow access to the spring of an adequate width in order to perform improvements to and maintenance on the spring and any portion of a pipe conveying water. This easement shall be depicted on the final plat for review. Further, the Applicant shall be required to present the terms of the easement to the Planning Department for review at final plat and then subsequently recorded in the Office of the County Clerk and Recorder and cross referenced by reception #, book and page on the final plat. 25.0 All lots that require booster pumps shall be noted on any final plat and in the covenants. Unless otherwise required by the water district, all lots that require pressure reducing valves shall be noted on any final plat and in the covenants. 26.0 Prior to the second final plat, the applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. 27.0 The covenants or bylaws for the development shall obligate the Homeowners Association to require the development's private security company to enforce the at - large dog and cat restrictions included in the covenants. 28.0 The following plat notes will be included on any final plat: 28.01 All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. 28.02 Colorado is a Right -to -Farm State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. 72 28.03 All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. 29.0 All construction for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall be in accordance with the International Fire Code. 30.0 The Applicant shall address the comments prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering on behalf of the County in the following manner: 30.01 Mountain Cross Engineering ("MCE") comments 1 to 13 and 15, except for 3 and 7, pertain tc final plat conditions that will be fulfilled at the filing of each phase. With regard to comment 3, the community water system will be approved, permitted and operated pursuant to CDPHE regulations that will assure adequate water quality. With regard to comment 7, Applicant will prepare a traffic analysis on the identified intersections for submission to the BOCC prior to hearing. 30.02 Comments 14, 16 and 17 concern road engineering in the Mountain District, except for Sweetwater Draw. The Applicant will prepare design standards for road grades at intersections and switchbacks, and standards related to the location of guard rails for review and approval of MCE prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan. . 30.03 With regard to Comment 18, Applicant will study the need for additional mainline PRV's in the final design, and shall include a note on the final plat as necessary on all lots in that phase requiring an individual PRV. 30.04 With regard to Comment 19, Applicant will grade and maintain an unpaved access concurrently with the installation of the off-road water lines, which will be depicted on ihe final design drawings. An appropriate easement will be shown on the final plat. These accesses will be used for construction and ongoing operations. Winter maintenance and repair will require track - eq uipment. 30.05 With regard to Comment 20, the access roads to both water storage tanks will be depicted on the final design drawings. Appropriate easements will be shown on the final plat. 73 30.06 With regard to Comment 21, Applicant's final engineering and construction drawings will provide for a foundation that protects the Tank's structural fill and foundation from erosion. 30.07 With regard to Comment 22, Applicant will provide fora cleanout of the low- pressure main sewer line in its final engineering and construction drawings for the sewer system. 30.08 With regard to Comment 23, in conjunction with final design the Applicant will address of any byproducts generated by the MIOX disinfection system, including any state and federal requirements. 31.0 Prior to final plat, the Applicant shall meet the requirements set forth in the Spring Valley Sanitation District's "Will Serve" letter dated August 4, 2006, regarding the Spring Valley Ranch Project, which is included in Binder 3 Appendix H of the Application. 74 Fred Jarman From: Mark Kadnuck[rnakadnuc@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:43 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD EXHIBIT bi- Fred, I received an updated Spring Valley Ranch PUD directly from Gamba Associates and was not sure who to respond to. It appears there will be a drinking water system that will require state approval. On the wastewater side, it looks like the bulk of the subdivision will be treated at the existing Spring Valley SD and the remainder will be ISDS at less than 2000 gpd. So my only comment is state approval will be required for the drinking water system. Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. CDPHE-WQCD 222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 ph: 970-248-7144 fax: 970-248-7198 email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us 1 EXHIBIT is MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD 2007 Date: July 19, 2007 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. My comments are as follows: Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -The applicant lists noxious weeds found on the property, however this information is not represented on a map, staff requests that the applicant provide a map of the project area with the Garfield County listed noxious weeds, and the State of Colorado listed noxious weed, Absinth wormwood (A rternsia absinthium). • Weed management -The Weed Management Plan is incorporated into the attachment entitled "Best Management Practices." The recommended herbicides, glyphosate and 2-4.D will have minimal results on most noxious weeds. Revegetation and Soils • Revegetation and soils -The applicant has addressed revegetation and soil concerns. • Revegetation security -The applicant has not quantified the addresses surface area to be disturbed by new roads and utilities. Please provide this information so a revegetation security may he determined. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed Management Plan Reclamation Standards. Rare plant occurrences • The globally rare plant. Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon haarringtonii) may he present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is located on the property. If present, the locations shall he identified in general terms as they pertain to building envelopes. In addition, an acknowledgement and reference to Harrington's penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and to alert property owners of its significance. • This plant is ranked globally as a 03 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is "vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known from 74 occurrences in Eagle. Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit counties and is found primarily in dry. sagebrush-dominated communities between 6,400 and 9.400 ft. (1,951 and 2,865 m) elevation. USDA Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensitive species; it is also included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensitive Species List. It is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is it currently a candidate for listing. ROARING FORE( TRANSPORTATION( AUTRORITT Connecting our ntiglon with &annn and trails July 20, 2007 Subject: RFTA comments about Spring Valley Ranch PUD development proposal, Garfield County, CO. Size: 366 single family homes, 192 cabins, 19 luxury style apartment homes = 577 units Development will exist near the junction of CR 114 and CR 115, about 5 miles east of SH 82. Synopsis: There is no mention of public transportation throughout the proposal. The developer does propose to provide carpool incentives, repave and widen CR 114 from the SH 82 intersection up to the Colorado Mountain College (CMC) campus, and make some changes to the SH 82/CR 144 intersection, but there is no mention about how residents might be able to get down the hill without a car. The proposed improvements do not include a bike lane or pedestrian paths parallel to CR 114. In the past, CMC agreed to operate a van shuttle between SH 82 and the campus; however this service is now defunct. When the Bair Chase Development along the west side of SH 82 was still in motion, the developer agreed to partially fund improvements to the RFTA park -n -ride that exists on the SE corner of SH 82 and CR 114. Since that development has recently changed hands, RFTA asks that the new developer will also assist with funding improvements to the CMC Park -n -Ride. Additionally, RFTA is requesting that other developers in this area (i.e. Spring Valley Ranch PUD) also set aside some funds for park -n -ride improvements and other transit and pedestrian -oriented design alternatives, such as mutli-use paths or painted lanes parallel to roadways. Please contact Kristin Kenyon kkenyon@rta.com or Jason White jwhite@rfta.com with additional questions. Thank You for your inquiry, Jason White RFTA Assistant Planner jwhite@rfta.com 6 SCHMIIESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS d. SURVEY0RS DATE: July 31, 2007 1 1 8 w. 6TH. suITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 970-945. 1004 Fx: 970-945.5948 TO: Mr. Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Via Email: fredjarmanPgarfield-county.com FROM: Dean Gordon, P.E., SGM Spring Valley Sanitation Engineer RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Review of Preliminary Plan Submittal P.O. Box 21 55 ASPEN. CO 816 12 970-925-6727 Fx: 970-925-4 57 970.349.5355 Fx: 970-349-5358 Please accept this response from the Spring Valley Sanitation District as a referral agency for the above referenced project. GENERAL • The Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) will provide wastewater treatment services to this proposed P.U.D. This review is limited to those issues associated with wastewater collection, transmission and treatment of the areas of the project proposed to be sewered. • Documents reviewed: Preliminary Plan Sanitary Sewer Layout, dated March 9, 2007, prepared by Gamba and Associates Inc. • Report of Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facilities, dated March 9, 2007, prepared by Gamba and Associates Inc. • Letter from Leavenworth and Karp, P.C., dated August 4, 2006, representing SVSD. • This project was reviewed previously by SVSD several years ago. It is our understanding that the site layout from a wastewater collection perspective has changed significantly since then. • This review is limited to a preliminary plan level of detail and is intended to review intent and adequacy of the overall design proposed. • At the Final Plat stage, a review of engineering details will be provided. OVERALL COMMENTS • All facilities constructed must meet the rules and regulations of SVSD. • At 200 scale, these drawings are very difficult to review from an intent standpoint. I:\1981 - Fred Jarman.doc SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G I N E E R$ G S u R V E Y O S July 31, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Page 2 of 4 o The District Rules and Regulations require 50 scale drawings at Preliminary Plan stage. It is difficult to go between the overall sheets and the plan and profile sheets. Provide a key map on each overall sheet. It is difficult to follow from one plan and profile sheet to another. Provide match lines on plan and profile sheets. The force main and pressure sewer system designations are not consistent between overall sheets and plan and profile sheets. • In prior agreements, Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) has been designated for 646 EQR's. Based on the districts standard design of 350 gpd per EQR, this equates to 226,100 gpd. The report indicates an anticipated flow -rate of 234,045 gpd, equivalent to 669 EQR's. Explain calculated flow rate. The rules and regulations require a Design Report as a basis for EQR determination. No report is included in the submittal package. Applicant should submit such a report as the basis for both EQR's and the wastewater contribution calculations. DESIGN BASIS • SVSD Rules and Regulations require that a Design Report accompany the Preliminary Plan drawings as a basis for the design of infrastructure facilities. No such report was included in the application materials. • Gravity sewer lines were sized, but there was no basis provided for the sizing. • There were two lift stations indicated on the drawings. The detail drawings provided for the lift stations were generic with no detail. There was no basis provided for sizing. • There was no sizing provided for or a basis of sizing for force mains from lift stations. The only representation found was on the generic detail for a 4" force main. • There are a number of multiple user pressure sewer systems proposed in this system with the intent to transfer ownership to SVSD at completion, The only currently approved supplier of pressure sewer systems in the district is E -One. While the district may consider other suppliers, it was unclear from the drawings who the proposed manufacturer would be for the systems. 1:11981101503101503A1261NI20070731 - Fred Jarman.doc _............. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER e NGINEERS E SURVEYORS July 31, 2007 Mr, Fred Jarman Page 3 of 4 There was no design report as a basis for sizing of the individual force mains. If SVSD were to assume ownership of the mains after completion and construction, then an integrated design for each system is required. COMMENTS ON THE SYSTEM FACILITIES • The design slopes were based on a center of manhole dimensions, whereas the invert elevations used were at the edges of the manhole. Actual line slopes of sewers would therefore be different than shown on the drawings. Please clarify, • There appear to be a number of areas where steep slopes transition to flat slopes in manholes, possible creating an energy dissipation requirement. Please clarify. • SVSD requires that facilities be located within roadway corridors for ease of future operation and maintenance activities. Exceptions may be considered upon a case by case basis. Generally, there are significant portions of this system which are not located within roadway corridors. It generally appeared that 30' easements were proposed for sewer lines outside roadway corridors. Confirm intent. If sewer lines outside roadway corridors are approved, it will be necessary to show adequate access to all off-road lines and manholes. Such access was not indicated on the drawings, noting there were many sewer runs which were either steep or with significant side slopes which would likely prevent the access to maintenance equipment. Graded access would be required along all easements, • A water/sewer crossing detail was not found. • There appeared to be some sewer runs which exceeded the district's limitation of 400'. The detail for gravity sewer lines did not include an allowance for bedding beneath the pipe. • Trench details for force mains and pressure sewer lines were not included, • There was no drawing which showed water and sewer mains on the same page, It was not possible to determine if there were any conflicts between the two utilities. Show all water line and storm sewer/ culvert crossings on profiles. !:\1981\O1503\O1503A1261M20070731 - Fred Jarman.doc SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS b SURVEYORS July 31, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Page 4 of 4 Show conflicts between deep utility systems which will require additional facilities in the field. DWG CC: SVSD, Denis Diers, District Manager Via Email: sysanitation@yahoo.com Jim Neu, Esq., Via Email: jsn@Iklawfirm.corn f:11981\01503\O1503A\261M20070731 - Fred Jarman.doc DON HELMICH 4006 County Road 115 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 To: Planning Department - Garfield County 8-2-07 Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD EXHIBIT sL. It appears that l will not be able to attend the Public Hearing being held on August 8th for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD development and submit herein my comments regarding this application for amendment. My wife and I are full-time residents of Spring Valley and own 3 acres with improvements directly contiguous to the Spring Valley Ranch property. While visiting relatives in the Carmel, California area my wife and I were given a tour of the Santa Lucia Preserve in the Carmel Valley area by Mr. Tom Gray, the developer of the Santa Lucia Preserve and a principal in the Spring Valley development. We were quite impressed with the thoughtful and respectful manner in which the entire development was carried out. It reflects very favorably on any representations being made by the developer as to attention to detail, environmental sensitivity, long term esthetics, overall quality, and neighborly considerations. Developers are famous for struggling with doing what they say they are going to do (or worse, in the case of Bair - Chase). Based on what was accomplished at the Preserve and the current representations by Tom Gray, the Spring Valley Development should be carried out well and with integrity. All of us have some level of opposition to development and change, particularly when it has an impact on us personally with issues relating to traffic, road construction, noise, dust, careless construction workers, etc. It appears inevitable that development will occur on this piece of ground and that the negatives of development will be managed well by the developer based on their responses to questions raised in a series of neighborhood meetings held to explain development plans and gather concerns. The representations being made and the plan submitted appear to be definite improvements for us as neighbors when compared with previously approved applications from earlier developers. Based on these representations and the manner in which the Santa Lucia Preserve was carried out, it would be my recommendation that we support this developer ani# --their development after exercising your customary review of the submission.` .Thank you for your work on aur behalf. cc: Tom Gray Don l lmich July 29, 2007 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Administrative Building 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners We are neighbors of Spring Valley Ranch and own property that borders the northern boundary of the ranch and the national forest. We have attended a number of open houses at the Ranch House and appreciate their candid behavior with all the neighbors. They gave us access to their application to study at the ranch house. These guys are straight shooters. We're happy the project was scaled down to 577 units from the original old PUD of 2,700 units. We support their project and hope that you will approve it. Sincerely Bob and Teresa Peckham July 31, 2007 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Administrative Building 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners [EXHIBIT 1 M 1 live in Spring Valley on County Road 115 adjacent to Spring Valley Ranch. I have been invited to a number of open houses at the Ranch House where the general manager and land planners have been very open about their proposed plan. They have listened to all the neighbors and are working to satisfy all of our concerns. We are glad they plan on only one golf course now. We like the newer plan without the affordable housing and commercial density by our home. They even hand delivered a copy of their proposed plan on a disk to me. I support their project and hope that you will approve it. Sincerely, James Condon Community Housing Program Spring Valley Ranch PUD November, 2000 Background EXHIBIT D Spring Valley Development, Inc. (Applicant) was asked to communicate to Garfield Comity how affordable housing will be provided by the Applicant. Although affordable housing is not required by the County for Spring Valley Ranch PUD, the Applicant has chosen to offer a plan which, in many ways, exceeds the newly adopted Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Quoting from Resolution No. 2000-95, A Resolution Concerned with the Approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment for Spring Valley Ranch (aka Chenoa), condition #21 of the approval stated: "How affordable housing will be provided must be clarified by the Applicant. In addition, the enforcement of any and all affordable housing will be the responsibility of the Applicant and not the County. This must be done in any Preliminary Plan submittal." The plan outlined in this memorandum will be managed and administered by the proposed Spring Valley Metropolitan District or the Chenoa Homeowners Association. The plan addresses the intent of Garfield County's affordable housing guidelines. Objectives ♦ Meet a broad income range in order to avoid a "monoculture" or institutional feel t Respond to direct market demand identified during a presale/reservation period and insure that the housing created remains affordable for the community and the residents well into the future (considerations include sales price, mortgage market and retail market) • Encourage occupancy by residents who work as close to Spring Valley Ranch PUD as possible in order to minimize road impacts and transportation costs for residents ♦ Integrate the architectural feel of the buildings into the Village Center architecture ♦ Despite the potentially large differences in income, attempt to socially integrate the development where possible 1 Recommended Plan for Community Housing A. Affordable Housing Targets: Create 75 for sale units of housing which respond to the following income ranges: Unit Type Preliminary Price (2000) Median Income Range Targeted Initial Unit Allocation Small 800 sf 2 Bedroom Flat $125,000 80 — 100% 30 Larger 1200 sf 2 Bedroom With Attic (2 Floors); [Upgrade option to 3BR/2BA maybe offered.] Townhomes 1500 sf 3 Bedroom Units plus Attic Single Family with Basement Lots for Custom Homes for Employees of Chenoa $160,000 $198,000 Currently Being Evaluated 100 — 120% Over 120% 20 25 Total Chenoa Community Housing Units 75 Subsidy The targeted preliminary prices are based upon costs of units that are being considered for the property MINUS the full cost of the land, impact fees for roads and wildlife, and amenities (golf courses, Clubhouse, trails, parks, trailhead and equestrian facilities will not be charged to the units). The Applicant will contribute these costs (subsidy) in order to make the units more affordable. The subsidy for the units will be substantial enough to create not only a more affordable home price, but also an adequate incentive for the home buyer to agree to the deed restriction on appreciation which is proposed within the new ordinance. Our current market analysis suggests that these units are approximately $20-25,000 below the market of the Glenwood -Basalt area, which amounts to a developer total subsidy to the affordable housing program of $1.5 to $1.875 million. Market Responsiveness The Developer would like to retain the ability to shift the housing allocation highlighted above during pre -sales in order to respond to the actual demand from Garfield County households and employers. It is possible that the smaller two bedroom may be more popular than the townhome due to its price, however, it may also be that the private yard available with the townhome will be more popular. We have enough land dedicated to the Community Housing Program that we can make alterations to the mix of units based upon demand. We are also still evaluating a small single family unit as part of the mix of housing, however, the price point for these units, based upon the subsidy assumption outlined,. is less certain. B. Deed Restriction All units will be governed by a deed restriction which caps appreciation at the lesser of CPI or 3% per annum on a cumulative basis. C. Qualification Criteria 1. Income Guidelines: Resident households must qualify for their mortgages (30-40% of gross income), but must spend at least 22% of their household income on the housing costs. The Applicant would like to insure that Chenoa's Community Housing is sold (or rented — see Employer ownership below) only to families who need housing which is deed restricted. The Applicant is concerned, however, that fluctuating mortgage interest rates, a factor which is out of the control of the Applicant and Residents, could result in severe restrictions on the marketability of the units (i.e. If interest rates rise sharply, anyone who could qualify for a mortgage could not qualify under the HUD income guidelines). In order to insure the re -marketability of the Chenoa Community Housing now and in the future, the Applicant proposes that the units be offered to incomes which qualify for mortgage rates (i.e., 30% of income), but must spend at least 22% of income on housing costs. This approach not only will help the Chenoa Community Housing track market conditions over the long term, but also will be easier to explain to potential purchasers and mortgage lenders. Given the fact that the Roaring Fork Valley (outside of Aspen/Pitkin County) has very little deed restricted housing product, this is of particular concern. 2. Net Asset Test: Purchasers of Community Housing at Chenoa must have a current household net worth, minus qualified retirement assets, not in excess of $100,000. 3. Priority: Priority will be given to a person that works or resides in Garfield County. 4. "Fannie Mae Clause": The deed restriction will have language which allows mortgages to be qualified under Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac and VA). The inclusion of this clause is important in order to qualify mortgages at the lowest possible rates in the market. The inclusion of this clause (all affordable housing deed restrictions in the valley have this clause) permits the deed restriction to be eliminated in the event that the unit mortgage is in default and cannot be resold within a pre- determined period of time. Employer owned units as discussed below should also include this clause. D. Employer Sponsorship of Housing: The units also will be offered as 'for sale' housing to community employers. These Garfield County employers (including Spring Valley Homeowners Association) can rent units to households which qualify under Net Asset Guidelines stated above. The units will be deed restricted and have an appreciation cap in place. The employer will have the flexibility to rent the housing at the mortgage cost and expense, however, an employer may discount the rent further to make the unit more affordable. The employer can also sell the unit to a qualifying employee or community member. Note on Employer Sponsorship and the Telluride Case: There is ongoing concern relative to the ability to maintain rent controls on units due to the Telluride case. The Applicant believes that since the employers are not being required to purchase the deed restricted housing and that it is offered and purchased "free will," that the employer/purchasers may voluntarily commit to the affordability guidelines of Chenoa. The employer will not have a rent cap imposed, but will be expected to rent the unit for lease rates that are affordable (e.g., no more than 40% of household income), a guideline which is consistent with an employers objective of keeping and retaining good employees. The fact that the appreciation is capped on employer sponsorship units will also insure that the rent will not be severely below the market value of the asset. Employer sponsorship of some of the units is probably the best way to insure that units are allocated to employees in the area. Various area employers have expressed interest in the employer ownership opportunities. Chenoa will provide an additional opportunity to help employers keep their key employees in greater proximity to work—an important benefit to the overall affordability of a home. E. PresalefReservation and Resale Priorities: Priority will be granted in the first instance to employees of Garfield employers, then to Garfield County residents, and then to the qualified buyers who do not fit the first two criteria. Should more reservations be made than are available in the first offering time period, a lottery will be held which selects buyers from within the priority categories until all units are sold. If fewer reservations are made, units will be sold on a first come, first served basis. Resales will be made by the owners themselves, who may avail themselves of a prioritized waiting list which is maintained by the Manager of the Chenoa community Housing. A fee may be collected at resale in order to cover administration expenses. E. Community Access to Amenities: Amenities at Chenoa such as golf, trails, cross-country skiing, and the equestrian center, will be available to Chenoa Community Housing residents. The club memberships presumably will be beyond the economic reach of the Chenoa Community Housing residents, however, the public tee times, the trails system and the "pay as you go" Equestrian Center will be significant amenities to the residents. These will be available on a fee-for-service basis. G. Design Objectives: The site plan will encompass the following: Three tiers of parking on a schedule which is separate from the unit purchase: Surface/Street Parking Carport Parking Garage Parking ♦ Housing built around a "village green" atmosphere The housing architecture will follow these guidelines: • Building structures will provide the look and feel of a larger single family building. • Porches, balconies and decks will be used to transition from private indoor space to outdoor spaces. • The buildings will be two stories with possible third -story "dormer" and attic space. • The program will be fully compliant with Fair Housing Laws and the buildings will provide ground floor ADA access. • Multiple textures and colors will be used on natural finishes in order to provide a varied texture. Upgrade Options: • Chenoa Community Housing will be designed to allow residents to upgrade and grow into their units. Attic and basement spaces may be unfinished. Extra bathrooms may also be available for installation. The buyer may elect to add these items at purchase or over time and have these reasonable upgrades included in the deed restricted house value. The upgrade options are not included in the housing price estimates. H. Quality Management Management of the Chenoa Community Housing will be administered by the proposed Spring Valley Metropolitan District and/or the Chenoa Homeowners Association. Certain management functions (landscape, roads, etc.) will be administered by contract with the management company used by the entire development. Reserves and maintenance will be established which ensure the long term viability and quality of the housing. L Consider seeking a further subsidy from •the Colorado Division of Housing in order to have 5-10 housing units which will reach levels of affordability below 80%. 3 August, 2007 Members ofP & Z. 1 request two changes to the Spring Valley Ranch application: First, the applicant plans to use the limited and seasonal Landis Ck water to irrigate both new golf courses and the existing agricultural meadows. This is an over allocation of Landis Creek. 1 request that the applicant be required to augment that surface water with treated effluent from the Spring Valley Sanitation District plant. 1 believe this use ofthe effluent was a requirement in a previous application but it has been deleted from this latest application. Second, no improvements to CR 114 are planned until a later phase of the project This is wrong, dangerous, and a disservice to GarCo users ofthe Colorado Mountain College Road. The applicant might make the case that improvements to the intersection of Hwy 82 and CR 114 (Colorado Mountain College Rd) and CR 154 (Westbank Bridge Rd) may wait until the development begins to generate cash flow. This is open to dispute as this is clearly a very busy and dangerous intersection. However, no case can be made to delay improvements to the 4.5 miles of CR 114 from Hwy 82 to the Ranch entrance. The Ranch construction will generate substantial construction traffic that will slow down, disrupt, and make more dangerous everyone's use of CR 114. Some basic improvements to alleviate slow moving traffic's effect on normal traffic must be done in Phase 1. Thank you for your attention, - Jim Austin 3726 CR 115 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 - d 11131Ald013A3fl A1I Nf1 VW00 NV17Z:1 r LONE 'oro 1 MEMORANDUM To: Craig Lis, P.E. State Engineer's Office Via Email From: Wright Water Engineers, Inc. William L. Lorah, P.E. Date: August 20, 2007 Re: Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. Garfield County has referred the proposed Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) development plan to the State Engineer's Office (SEO) for review. In our opinion, SVR has a very firm set of water rights and a solid physical water supply source that will provide more than adequate water for the proposed development. The project is similar to a 2002 SVR development plan. The main difference is that the new plan eliminates one of the two originally planned golf courses. The new proposal requires less water. The 2002 was reviewed by the SEO which concluded that "... the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water right..." Attached are three pages from the County staff review of the currently proposed project. The pertinent section is "C. Domestic Water Supply". Per your request, we have developed and attached Table 1, which shows monthly water requirements (potable and non -potable), sources of water, and extreme dry -years augmentation requirements. Note that all depletions due to well diversions can be augmented with Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) contract water currently held by the developer. We understand your office is concerned about the ability of BWCD water contract to cover augmentation for golf course irrigation, pond evaporation shakeup, and other unspecified uses. We believe the District's water rights are fully authorized and decreed for all beneficial uses associated with the proposed development. We believe the BWCD has no problem with SVR's use of its contract water for any part of the development. Please note that the BWCD was the co -applicant in Case Nos. 98CW254 and 98CW255, which specifically identifies "free water surface evaporation" and "irrigation" as specified uses. (¶ 10 C). The BWCD was also the applicant in Case Nos. 84CW212 and 87CW155. You mentioned a possible 600 -foot well spacing issue. I can assure you that wells can be drilled without a 600 -foot space problem. The project owns 6,000 acres of contiguous land. Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 818 Coforado Ave , Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Tel. 970/945-7755; Fax. 9701945-9210, e-rnail:gws@wrightwater.com Craig Lis, P.E. 'August 20, 2007 Page 2 The developer of SVR will be going before the Garfield County Board of Directors on September 12, 2007 for project approval. We would appreciate your timely review of the project's water supply. Jim Lochhcad and I will be calling you on Tuesday, August 21, 2007. It is my understanding that if we cannot resolve the no injury issue by phone and email, we will meet with you in your office on Friday, August 24, 2007 at 10:00 am. Please calf (970) 945-7755 or e-mail me if you have any questions. cc: Fred Jarrnan Jim Lochhead, Esq. Tom Gray Attachments C:1 WOR WNW L'1911-004'C)4Ohrk1 iaMemo.do • All persons within the Spring Valley Ranch development should be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing wildlife as part of effort to force wildlife off golf courses, open space areas, or conservation easement areas on the Ranch. Golf course staff will have the right to locally restrict wildlife from golf course tees, greens, landscaping clumps, and other sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected will not restrict free movement of wildlife but will be used only in small, isolated areas to help direct wildlife and/or people. • A Best Management Plan for the golf course will be implemented to apply the proper procedures for the application of fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and any other chemicals. Drainage has been designed to ensure that water quality measures are in place to prevent adverse impacts to streams, riparian corridors, ponds, wetlands or other sensitive areas. Based on this exhaustive list of suggested recommendations, Staff is unclear as to how the Applicant has addressed these comments and incorporated them into the development plan. C. Domestic Water Supply The Applicant proposes to construct a central water supply system to provide potable and fire protection water to all lots within the entire development. The water will come from wells drilled on the property as well as from existing reservoirs and surface water for irrigation purposes. Physically, this system is generally comprised of a 12 -inch distribution line located primarily in the road right-of-ways. Due to elevation gain / loss, some areas would be required to have booster pumps to maintain water pressure particularly for fire protection at the hydrant. The system will include two water storage tanks: a 1 -million gallon water tank in the Landis Creek Canyon serving the middle bench and a 500,000 gallon tank to serve the upper Mountain Lots. The Application contains extensive information regarding the legal water supply. A report found in Appendix C of Binder 2 states the following: The water supply will be obtained from existing and proposed wells and springs located on the SVR property, and from surface water under senior decreed irrigation water rights in Landis Creek. Extensive engineering investigations confirm that surface and groundwater resources are physically available for the development, and that well diversions will not have a long term negative impact on the water balance of the Spring Valley aquifer. The water supply for the development is authorized by Water Court decrees approving water rights, changes of water rights and two plans for augmentation. These existing decrees provide a legally adequate water supply for the entire residential development, commercial uses, golf course, and related potable and agricultural open space irrigation, as shown in the project plans. Augmentation water necessary to offset any out -of -priority depletions under the augmentation plans will be provided pursuant to contracts with the Basalt Water Conservancy Agreement that will be executed by the Applicant and Garfield County at the applicable Final Plat Approval. As explained in the Service Plan, The Service District will be responsible for, or contracting for, managing the construction and operation of facilities and improvements needed for the PUD," The Service Plan also provides that the Landis Creek Metropolitan District No. 2 as the Service District will initially own and operate certain public facilities and infrastructure throughout the PUD. Landis Creek Metropolitan District No. 1, as the Financing District, will generate the tax revenue sufficient to pay the costs of the capital improvements as described herein and associated operations and maintenance." Staff referred this Application to the Colorado Division of Water Resources to be reviewed by the State Engineer. As of the drafting of this memorandum, no formal comments were received; however, the State Engineer did indicate they requested additional information from the Applicant which was not provided to date. As a result, the State Engineer verbally opined this development (as currently proposed) would result in material injury to decree water rights. As the Planning Commission is aware, Staff cannot recommend a project move forward without a Letter of No Material injury" form the State Engineer as water is one of the most critical components to the project. D. Waste Disposal The Application proposes to handle waste water generated from the development in two ways: a central collection / treatment system provided by Sanitation District and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). Spring Valley More specifically, the Application proposes to serve the following lots with a central system that will be located in the road right-of-ways: » Residential/Pasture District (except Lot P23 — the existing ranch house), > Residential/Ranch District r Residential/Estate District Residential/Cabin District Village/Commercial District > Light Industrial District Open Space/Golf District The Applicant proposes that sewage disposal for the Residential/Mountain District and Lot P23 of the Residential/Pasture District will be provided by Advanced Treatment (ISTS) systems. In this case, Design Guidelines will require that each ISTS be designed by a registered engineer on the basis of a site-specific geological and geotechnical site evaluation. The designs must be approved the Landis Creek Metropolitan District, as well as Garfield County. Landis Creek Metropolitan District for the operation, maintenance and monitoring of the system after the Advanced Treatment ISTS is constructed. (all values in acre-feet 9) QT to til . a) 0 C CO CO E C c O O 07 LL Li. co ▪ L L 3 0ww O a o 0 7 CD a ea`T o 6xX Mrn LO t j O 6 6 C O ° In c3 a a chi. Q '.. co 0N• � U LD, c o a as =� UczQ- o aT rn 0 `L d (I) N to co a -13 [• -tN m co cc 2 v N c a O (' J N 47 C c a N a`T� m1' am fai z�� D LU [a Q7 aT 6? N c R5 ~ n 7 c m c m e U fIT j tf3 N N U j, .. y C of aT cY 5. ta▪ © Q U N m E x a •O iz O : qT IDOL W N • a a Y i. t �' CSU pT y To m cajs 0 a `o `o Q c ,CS • tl Ica 0) an LL LL CD a N S CD CD fa d O a. C W DI co R C C v m e to. m a aro 3 F v ..c 0i 45 0, t...,_ ,2 vJ 3 E �eC� .9 N j 3 0 0 Q c CD i4 Q ID 77 _ v `7 — '- o m UN E 1d N- m 03 E E NT chi N N •0 CCI3 ]+ C CO O N UT C GO cd N J N c o5 -1 05 5 m t 0 =y 15 44 i13 -2 Q. Q ..N— I— N Kl @ — p CTT — R1 a tz a "p I" N to , C C ]+ m U ea o 3 0 w a s T S6 g --c, a) aT �a 7 3 N N 'C aT pN L C yy 6}-O (a co 0 to (a Vi -c 7 E E E co m o a r` o 9i 3 O N N 7 C.] aJ CO Q N N sC O CW C Q1 9`Q7 C E 1p1T N p `S < C3 aT Q Q II 111.1 1.10 @ink W �[V v c O E E o U ©I- c' m 3 o p -- to 'EE aQT0c r*7 r Q C CV co 0 7 cn .q C O 0 aT E N E c ..0 E 0 U TL N 1a U C 16 E E 1a O O© • O N aT co Ha o o j of O �. (a E RO)U N dU NU = O E- 4Tto ra) o ▪ • c Q r Nen v yCO kv D�..T CD d • Y 7, Y UJ c I .T {9 Id Q LU O STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mark B. Konishi, Acting Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.stateco. us July 21, 2007 Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD RECEIVE] AUG 0 8 2007 LANNING For Wildlife- For- People Dear Mr. Jarman: The Colorado Division of Wildlife staff has reviewed the request to subdivide 5,948 acres into 577 dwelling units with a golf course and equestrian center. The CDOW has made several previous comments on this project and continues to stress that there will be significant impacts to wildlife by this project. If copies of these letters are not available, please contact the DOW, DWM Kelly Wood at 970-948-6165 and she will assist in producing these documents. This area contains several important habitat areas for wildlife, including elk, mule deer, mountain lion, bears and numerous bird species. The property has been identified as big game winter range by the Division of Wildlife. Mule deer and elk use this area for resting, foraging and to move between different habitat areas. Studies have shown that habitat loss, conversion and fragmentation are the most serious issues facing wildlife. Despite this development, the Division believes this property is one of the few areas in Missouri Heights that could still be used to manage the elk herd that winters in this region. Development often removes management options and provides few alternatives to deal with problems. Although safety is a concern with the pending development, the DOW would recommend that an elk management plan be considered as an option by the developers. The damage created by protecting this herd could have substantial impacts to residents, landscaping and the agricultural businesses in the area. The DOW would be willing to assist with facilitating an agreement with the future owners. The Division of Wildlife, local residents, and wildlife are experiencing problems with dogs running at large and harassing wildlife, especially wintering deer and elk. When elk and deer have to flee from dogs, they use energy stored for winter survival. Although a dead elk/deer is not immediately seen, stress and the energy used fleeing from dogs may cause their death at the end of winter or early spring before they can get the nutrition they need. Pet owners need to be responsible and in control of their pets at all times. Civil and criminal penalties are available to the Division of Wildlife if dogs are caught harassing wildlife. We would also DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hanis D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair • Robert Bray, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler • Brad Coors • Jeffrey Crawford • Tim Glenn • Roy McAnally • Richard Ray Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp recommend that the Homeowners Association actively encourage owners to control their pets and enact penalties for those that don't. If fencing is necessary, the Division would recommend that it be kept to a minimum and built to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. The Division of Wildlife has a pamphlet available "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind", which has acceptable fencing designs for wildlife and livestock. Other wildlife comments include: Black bears - although infrequent, black bears may wander into this area and we would recommended that all trash be stored in a bear -proof trash container, in a centralized locking dumpster or inside a garage so as to prevent conflicts with bears and other wildlife such as skunks and raccoons. The Division has a list of companies providing such containers if needed. Bears and other wildlife are also attracted to pet food left outside, hummingbird feeders, BBQ's and compost piles containing food items. Mountain lions — mountain lions frequent this area. There are preventive measures that residents can take to reduce the potential for conflicts. Brochures with this information are available through the DOW and should be distributed to all residents and visitors. Lastly, if horses are allowed, we recommend storing hay and grain in a manner that minimizes conflict with the local wildlife. Since deer and elk inhabit and move through this area, haystacks should be enclosed or surrounded by an 8 foot high mesh fence. Grain should be stored in bear -proof containers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you need additional information, please contact DWM Kelly Wood at 963-6523. Sincerely, Perry ill Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, K.Wood, file 1 8-30-2007 Garfield County Board of Commissioners Fred Jarman, Senior Planner 108 Eighth Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Depma Re: Spring. Valley Ranch PUD - Amended PUD Application Dear Commissioners: EXHIBIT S I understand that the Garfield County planning staff has identified certain concerns related to emergency services with the Spring Valley Ranch PUD preliminary plan and the amended application dated March, 2007. As I understand it, their concerns are related to whether there will be adequate emergency access following the development of each phase of the development and as well, concerns surrounding the phasing plan for the construction of the fire station within the development and the sufficiency of the proposed water storage within the project. In that regard, I have met with the applicant's engineer to discuss those concerns. Based on our meeting, the applicant has prepared a supplemental Phasing Map (Exhibit 21) dated August 29, 2007 and an Estimated Development Phasing Schedule, dated August 2007. I have reviewed both documents and have determined that in these supplemental documents, the applicant has adequately addressed my concerns with respect to emergency services. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to construct emergency access roads extending from the ends of phases 2,6,8 and Mountain Phase 1 of the development which will provide adequate emergency access for all phases within the development. The applicant has noted in the Estimated Development Phasing Schedule that the access roads must be constructed in accordance with "the applicable minimum standards of the International Fire Code and the design must be acceptable to the Glenwood Springs Fire Department." These supplemental documents address all concerns I have regarding emergency access following each phase of development, 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 In regard to the phasing for the construction of the fire station, the supplemental Estimated Development Phasing Schedule states that the fire station would be constructed as part of Phase 2 of the development which is the first phase that includes any new residential lots. This also adequately addresses all concerns I may have regarding the phasing of the fire station. In regard to the sufficiency of the proposed water storage within the project, I believe that the applicant is proposing to provide more than adequate water storage. The applicant is proposing to construct a one million -gallon water storage tank that will serve approximately 490 residential units and the majority of the non-residential structures within the project, They are also proposing to construct a 500,000 gallon water storage tank that will serve approximately 90 single family residences. The applicant has also stated that all new structures with a floor area greater that 500 sq.ft. shall be provided with automatic fire protection sprinkler systems in accordance with N.F.P.A. requirements. Finally, the applicant is proposing to construct or improve up to four water storage reservoirs on the site and equip those reservoirs where practical and feasible with dry hydrant systems. I believe that the proposed water storage within the project meets or exceeds any applicable standards. Therefore, based on my review of both supplemental documents, the applicant has adequately addressed my concerns with respect to emergency services within the proposed development. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Michael E. Piper, Chief Glenwood Springs Fire Department 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 STAIEOFCOL 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 htlp:ll}l-r ugajarmanus Garfield County Panning Dept 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: August 9, 2007 EXHIBIT .°r° Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amended Preliminary Plan (2007) Secs. 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 & 34 T�6r S,,y R88W, 6TH PM �y W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Ritter, Jr Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director (Vacant) State Engineer Dear Mr. Jarman: Pursuant to our discussion on August 1, 2007, this letter is provided to you for your future reference. We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to subdivide a site of approximately 5948 acres into parcels for 577 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of commercial area, one eighteen hole golf courses, one nine hole golf course, an equestrian center, and parks and open space. The development will have two basic water systems: 1) a centra! potable water supply system to serve the in-house domestic needs and a limited amount of irrigation water for lawns, gardens and community areas, and 2) a non -potable system to irrigate the golf course, open space, driving range, clubhouse areas, and agricultural land. The non -potable system will have two supply elements: 1) a surface water supply from Landis Creek, and 2) water supplied by wells. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District. It appears that the water court decree 87CW155 does not augment uses (i.e., 150 acres devoted toward irrigation and evaporation) for the potable water system as proposed by the applicant. In addition, the applicant needs to demonstrate that out -of -priority depletions for consumptive use are no greater than 420 acre-feet. Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potential for injury to decreed water rights or the adequacy of the proposed water supply under the provisions of Cr n 20 36(1)(0 i ever, r« well permits will more than !ike(y be required if an CRS 3U-to-1.JG� i jEi it(A). � iiJdc.vai , new ..�.�, required expansion or change in use is requested. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at this office for assistance. Sincerely, Mark J. V7'relli, PhD, PE, PG, BCEE Water Re +urces Engineer MJV/Subdivision/SpringValleyRanch(2007) cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 RE , "17w- AUG 1 3 2007 September 5, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNT1 ENiINEE EXHIBIT • CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN 7 z0e7 RE: Review of Preliminary Plan and PUD submittals for Spring Valley Ranch, PUD Dear Fred: A review has been performed of the documents for the Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal of Spring Valley Ranch, PUD. The package was found to be thorough and well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: Attachments: 1. The range of water pressures that are anticipated for the subdivision may require individual residences have either booster pumps or pressure reducing valves. The lots to be affected by these pressures should be identified either on the Final Plat or within the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs). 2. There appears to be an adequate legal and physical water supply. The proposed water system will require approval from the State of Colorado prior to construction and prior to Final Plat. 3. The large water storage tank sizes and large water line sizes are beneficial for fire protection but can create problems with water quality. Because of the longer residence times within the system, water often becomes stagnant with low flows and low demands. The applicant should address means and methods of ensuring fresh water. 4. Notice of Intent to impound water should be filled out for non -jurisdictional dams. Jurisdictional dams will require approval from the State of Colorado prior to construction and prior to Final Plat. 5. The road standards propose that engineered pavement sections are to be used. Recommended pavement section should be incorporated into the plans at Final Plat. 6. The Geotechnical Report recommends that site specific individual soils reports are prepared for building construction. This should be required and incorporated into the CC&Rs or on the Plat. 7. The traffic report and analysis is silent concerning the impacts to the other intersections on County Road 114 between Highway 82 and Spring Valley Ranch. The impacts to the other intersections with Elk Springs, CMC, Pinyon Mesa, etc should be addressed. 8. The Applicant proposes individual onsite detention ponds for the residential lots within Watersheds I and K. Construction specifications and details for this construction need to be included within the CC&Rs and a note included on the plat for the affected lots. 9. The site will disturb more than one acre and will require a discharge permit for construction activities from the State. 10. The project may require an air pollution permit for construction activities from the State. 11. Engineered ISTS systems are proposed for the Mountain Lots. Affected lots should be identified within the CC&Rs and a note included on the Final Plat. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Spring Valley Ranch Page 2 of 2 September, 2007 12. The proposed road design standards generated no comments. 13. The Board of County Commissioners will need to approve the cul-de-sacs that are longer than 600'. Increased lengths due to topographical constraints are justified. Plan Sheets: 14. The road grades are of concern with the switchbacks on Hopkins Trail, Peaho Ridge, Escalante Springs, and Sweetwater Draw. The Applicant should evaluate the ability of drivers to negotiate vehicles through these switchbacks and S -curves during winter driving conditions. Flattening the road grades through the switchbacks is recommended. 15. Guardrail will need to be provided throughout the project. Details and warranted locations should be determined by the Applicant. 16. Road intersections often occur on steep road grades. Slowing and turning movements are difficult with winter driving conditions. Flattening the road grades through the intersections is recommended. 17. Landing areas at intersections of Sobita Crest, Sweetwater Draw, Shoshone Run, and Chipeta Run are very short. Slowing and turning movements are difficult with winter driving conditions. Flattening the approach grades at the intersections is recommended. 18. It appears that additional PRVs may be warranted in the Mountain Lots, most particularly on sheets W7, W9, and W 11. 19. There are significant stretches of off-road water lines proposed. The application is silent on the intended access proposed for the ongoing maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement of these water lines. The Applicant should address what is intended in these cases. Also the feasibility of maintenance and construction since some areas on very steep topography. 20. The tank access road is not shown for the Landis Creek Tank site. This should be included to verify constructability. 21. The Applicant should address the potential for Landis Creek to erode the tank structural fill. 22. The low pressure sewer will require periodic cleaning. Provisions should be included for a main line cleanout. 23. The Applicant should address any considerations that are necessary for any byproducts generated with the MIOX disinfection system. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain -Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE C: Michael Gamba, Gamba & Associates 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 August 28, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD/Roads EXHIBIT 1\/ Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the 29 homeowners of High Aspen Ranch, The Board of High Aspen Ranch Homeowners Association are asking consideration for road improvement to County Road 115 for the unpaved section going east from the Y with CR 114. We strongly feel the increased traffic on County Road 115 from the Spring Valley Ranch development will impact travel considerably, especially as residents go back and forth up -valley. Presently, the pavement begins at Highway 82 and the CMC Road (CR 114) and continues to the Y intersection with C.R. 115. It becomes dirt going east on C.R. 115 until the top entrance for the Ranch at Coulter Creek. Pavement continues from that point to Catherine Store Road, down the hill to Highway 82. The dirt section of C.R. 115 is constantly filled with potholes, dust and mud. Road and Bridge have the job to keep it serviceable but it leaves a lot to be desired most of the year. We are requesting pavement for the dirt section of C.R. 115 as part of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD approval. Respectfully submitted High Ajpen Ranc1 H nowners Association Ronald W. Weisser, President Patrick E. Sessions, Vice President Meme Kistner, Secretary Rick Griffin, Treasurer Attachment: List of High Aspen Ranch Addresses vcc: Fred Jarman, Garfield County Building and Planning 9495 Recd Canyon Rd. Gienwv d Brings, CO 81601 970.384.1213 • fax: 970.384,121 4 High Aspen Ranch Addresses: 9495 County Road 115 0054 White Tail Dr. 0057 White Tail Dr. 0190 White Tail Dr. 0436 White Tail Dr, • 0002 Mesa Creek Drive 0058 Mesa Creek Drive 0228 Mesa Creek Drive 0304 Mesa Creek Drive 0456 Mesa Creek Drive 0568 Mesa Creek Drive 0626 Mesa Creek Drive 0491 High Aspen Drive 0587 High Aspen Drive , 0758 High Aspen Drive 0909 High Aspen Drive 1137 High Aspen Drive 1232 High Aspen Drive 1422 High Aspen Drive 1649 High Aspen Drive 1690 High Aspen Drive 1743 High Aspen Drive 0172 Overlook Drive 0569 Overlook Drive 0683 Overlook Drive 0966 Overlook Drive 1061 Overlook Drive 1251 Overlook Drive 1268 Overlook Drive 1686 Overlook Drive 1818 Overlook Drive From: Kathryn Grosscup [mailto:kathryn-gcha@gwest.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:16 AM To: 'Geneva Powell' Subject: FW: Response to Staff comments regarding Spring Valley Ranch Comments on Spring Valley Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment: 1. It is good that they are willing to do on-site affordable housing. 2. Developer does not state that the 75 units will be built under the existing Affordable Housing Guidelines. 3. If Developer is not under existing Guidelines, then detail should be provided on: a. Sales price AMI categories b. Deed restriction & appreciation caps — would they be willing to make these in line with Guidelines (p. 13) c. HOA pro -ration? d. Bedroom mix across 75 units 4. 75 units are in accordance with previously adopted Community Housing Plan — what details does that offer on Spring Valley's plans? 5. Page 12, A. Housing Goals, "Housing at cost of no more than 30% of gross median income" — how will they meet this goal specifically with sales price if they are not subject to existing Guidelines? Thanks, Kathryn SPR!\G VALLEY RANCH P. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO AUGUST 31, 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AMENDED FLED & PR.ELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION Spring Valley Ranch PUD Supplemental Information Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment Application August 31, 2007 Table of Contents • Table of Contents • Cover Letter • Exhibit 3: Preliminary Plan Map with Road Classification • Exhibit 17: PUD Zone District Map • Zone District Text to be provided at a later date • Exhibit 21: Phasing Map • Estimated Development Phasing Schedule • August 31, 2007 Letter from Fire Chief, Mike Piper 1 1 IL A M B A & ASSOCIATES ONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS W p ns[UIna COM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHONE: 970/945-2550 Fax: 9701945-1410 I • 113 NINTH STREET, SUITE 214 P.Q. Box 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, OLORADO 81602-1458 September 4, 2007 Fred Jarman - Planning Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street - Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Supplement to Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan and Amended PUD Application Dear Fred: On behalf of Spring Valley Holdings, LLC we are submitting the attached supplement to the Preliminary Plan and Amended PUD application. This supplement is intended to respond to issues raised in the Garfield County staff report for the August 8, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. Specifically, this supplement intends to address issues raised in the staff report regarding the community housing proposal and the adequacy and phasing of emergency services as provided for in the original application. As you are aware, the applicant's original proposal was to remove the community housing component from the property, and in exchange provide funding for affordable housing through the Garfield County Housing Authority. On the applicant's part, this proposal was intended to be an improvement from the approved development plan. The applicant's position was that it is undesirable from a community planning perspective to locate 75 community housing units in a remote location that is more than 4 miles from Highway 82 and more than 9 miles from a municipality with full services (stores, schools, public transportation, etc.) the applicant believes that it is more appropriate to locate those housing units in or near a municipality with full services. In any case, we recognize the county staff's position regarding the lack of acceptability of the applicant's proposal. On that basis, we are proposing to duplicate the number and location of the approved community housing for the project. As you are aware, the approved development plan provided for the 75 community housing units to be located in the natural bowl northwest of the intersections of CR1 14 and CR1 15. In reestablishing the community housing component on the property, the applicant is proposing to eliminate all but one of the Pasture Lots as proposed in the application, and also eliminate Cabin Lots throughout the middle -bench of the development in order to maintain 577 overall residential units. The attached Exhibit 3 - Preliminary Plan Map and Exhibit 17 - Zone District Map depict the inclusion of the Community Housing units as well as the elimination of the various Pasture and Cabin Lots. The staff report also indicated a concern regarding adequate emergency access following the development of each phase of the project. The attached Exhibit 21 - Phasing Map indicates the provision of emergency access roads in accordance with the requirements of the Authority Having Jurisdiction from the end of each Spring Valley Ranch PUD — Supplement to Preliminary Plan and Amended PUD Application September 4, 2007 Page 1 of 2 phase of development so that in the unlikely event that the overall development is. not completed through the last phases, then each phase will be provided with adequate emergency access. We have also attached a letter from the Fire Chief, Mike Piper, also being the Authority having Jurisdiction, in which Chief' Piper indicates that with the inclusion of the proposed emergency access roads, he has no further concerns regarding emergency access for this development. The staff report also indicted that the Estimated Development Phasing Schedule did not clearly indicate the phasing for the proposed fire station for the project. In the attached Estimated Development Phasing Schedule, we indicate that the fire station will be included as part of Phase 2. Phase 1 only consists of the proposed Pasture Lot that contains the existing ranch house, and two additional parcels that could include the Sales Office and/or Gate House. Phase 2, on the other hand, includes 55 proposed residential lots. In discussions with the fire department, it was determined that the fire station was not necessary until Phase 2. This issue is also discussed in the attached letter from Chief Piper. If you should have any questions regarding this supplement to the Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan and Amended PUD application, please do not hesitate to contact either ourselves or the applicant. Sincerely, Gamba & Associates, Inc. chael Gamba, P.E. & P.L.S. 28036 HA01269118\Cammunications\From Gamba and Associates\Fred Jarman\20070904\Cover Letter for Supplement.dac Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Supplement to Preliminary Flan and Amended PUD Application September 4, 2007 Page 2of2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE Phase Elements Estimated Start of Construction Estimated Completion of Construction Phase 1 0 Cabin Lots April 2008 (see Note 1 on Sheet 5) November 2008 0 Estate Lots 0 Ranch Lots 1 Pasture Lots 1 Sales Office 1 Gate House 5 Open Space Parcels Phase 2 20 Cabin Lots April 2008 through April 2014 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction 26 Estate Lots 9 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 4 Open Space Parcels 1 Light Industrial Parcel Fire Station in accordance with the requirements of the AHJ Emergency Access Road extended along the alignment of Highgrange Pass to the Landis Creek entrance at CR115 in accordance with the requirements of the AHJ CR114 Improvements: From Road Centerline Station 160+00 as depicted on Sheet R41 of Exhibit 26 near CMC to the Main Project Entrance Phase 3 21 Cabin Lots April 2008 through April 2015 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction 39 Estate Lots 17 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 1 Mountain Lot 1 RR Parcel 2 Open Space Parcels Phase 4 8 Cabin Lots April 2008 through April 2016 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction 0 Estate Lots 0 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 20 Workforce Housing Units (see Note 3) 4 Village Center Parcels 3 Open Space Parcels AUGUST 2007 PAGE 1 OF 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE Phase Elements Estimated Start of Construction Estimated Completion of Construction Phase 5 48 Cabin Lots April 2009 through April 2018 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction 7 Estate Lots 14 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 3 Open Space Parcels Emergency Access Roads extended along the alignments of Ouray Trail and Sapinero Trail to Highgrange Pass in accordance with the requirements of the AHJ Phase 6 22 Cabin Lots April 2009 through April 2019 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction 34 Estate Lots 18 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 1 Utility Parcel 3 Open Space Parcels Cf115 Improvements: From CR114 to the Landis Creek Entrance to the Project Phase 7 13 Cabin Lots April 2009 through April 2020 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction 24 Estate Lots 1 RE Parcel 16 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 10 CH Units 2 CH Parcels 2 Open Space Parcels Phase 8 0 Cabin Lots April 2010 through April 2021 depending on economic and marketing conditions ! 20 Months after Start of Construction 8 Estate Lots 26 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 24 CH Units 1 CH Parcels 0 Utility Parcel 0 Open Space Parcels Emergency Access Roads extended along the alignments of Red Cliff Loop to Highgrange Pass in accordance with the requirements of the AHJ CR114 Improvements: From the End of the Phase 2 Improvements near CMC to the Intersection with State Hwy 82 AUGUST 2007 PAGE 2 OF 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE Phase Phase 9 Phase 10 Elements k� 0 Cabin Lots 0 Estate Lots 15 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 20 CH Units 1 Open Space Parcels 0 Utility Parcel 0 Cabin Lots 0 Estate Lots 6 Ranch Lots 0 Pasture Lots 21 CH Units 1 CH Parcels 0 Open Space Parcels Estimated Start of Construction April 2010 through April 2022 depending on economic and marketing conditions April 2010 through April 2023 depending on economic and marketing conditions Estimated Completion of Construction 20 Months after Start of Construction 20 Months after Start of Construction AUGUST 2007 PAGE 3 OF 6 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE Phase Mountain Phase 1 Elements 11 Mountain Lots Emergency Access Road through Mountain Phase 2 & 3 and down Landis Creek (see Note 2) Estimated Start of Construction April 2007 through April 2013 depending on economic and marketing conditions Estimated Completion of Construction 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 2 11 Mountain Lots April 2008 through April 2014 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 3 10 Mountain Lots April 2008 through April 2015 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 4 15 Mountain Lots 1 Utility Parcel April 2008 through April 2016 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 5 16 Mountain Lots April 2008 through April 2017 depending on economic and marketing conditions 17 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 6 6 Mountain Lots April 2008 through April 2018 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction AUGUST 2007 PAGE 4 OF 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE Phase Elements Estimated Start of Construction Estimated Completion of Construction Mountain Phase 7 5 Mountain Lots April 2008 through April 2019 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 5 3 Mountain Lots April 2009 through April 2020 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 9 3 Mountain Lots April 2009 through April 2021 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 10 3 Mountain Lots April 2009 through April 2022 depending on economic and marketing conditions 20 Months after Start of Construction Mountain Phase 11 8 Mountain Lots April 2009 through April 2023 depending on economic and marketing conditions 17 Months after Start of Construction AUGUST 2007 PAGE 5 OF 6 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE Note 1 (applies to entire schedule): The estimated start date for Phase 1 of April 2008 is based on the assumption that the Final Plat for Phase 1 will be approved prior to April 2008. In the event that the Final Plat for Phase 1 is approved after April 1, 2008, then the start date for Phase 1 will be the April following the Final Plat approval. In this event, the start dates for each subsequent phase shall be adjusted accordingly to correspond to the difference between the estimated start date for Phase 1 of April 2008 and the actual start date for Phase 1 based on the date of approval of the Final Plat for Phase 1. The reference to "depending on economic and market conditions" refers to the period of time between the start dates. With respect to the time periods set forth in the column entitled "Estimated Completion of Construction," these estimated time periods may be shorter if required in the applicable subdivision improvements agreement. Notwithstanding any dates to the contrary, the Final Plats for all lots in all phases must be approved no later than 15 years after the date of the approval of the Final Plat for Phase 1. Each phase must be developed sequentially in a manner to insure the installation of the appropriate infrastructure and other related improvements for each phase consistent with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations. Note 2: The emergency access road must meet the applicable minimum standards of the International Fire Code and the design must be acceptable to the Glenwood Springs Fire Department Note 3: The workforce housing units may be placed into other phases provided that the parcel in which the units are to be placed is platted and work force housing is a permitted use within the zone district of the parcel. H:1012691181submittallExhibit 211{development schedule 20070814.xIs]Note AUGUST 2007 PAGE 6 OF 6 8-30-2007 ��N,pooa Sp,i4, Garfield Cotrrty Board of Commissioners Fred Jarman, Senior Planter 108 Eighth Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 OEPAR1t Re: Spring Vallee Ranch P1:1) - Amended PUD :1pplication Dear Commissioners: I .n ici ; t:tmi�f dim the Garfield County planning stuft identified certain tureens related to emergency services with the Spring Valley Ranch PUD preiiumiliar) plan and the amended application dared \ !at cll. 2007. As [ understand it. concerns are related to +cltcthcr there will be adequate emergency access following the (les clop mem ofeach phase of the development ,and as well, concerns surrounding the phasing plum for the construction of the fire station within the development and t: e sufficiency of the proposed water storage Gi i t h the project. In that regard. I have met with the applicant's engineer to discuss those concerns. Based on our meeting, the applicant has prepared a supplemental Phasing Map (Exhibit 21) dated August 29, 2007 and an Estimated Development Phasing Schedule, dated August 2007. 1 have reviewed both documents and have determined that in these supplemental documents, the applicant has adequately addressed my concerns with respect to emergency Sen ices. Specifically, rhe applicant is proposing to construct emergency access roads extending from the ends ufphases 2,6,8 and Mountain Phase 1 of the development which will prosirle adequate emergency access for all phasts within the dc\elopment.. The applicant has noted in the atinsteci Ikselopiucnt Phasing Schedule that the access roads must be constructed in accordance +,v itlt "the applicable lnininmunit standards of the International Fire Code and time design must be acceptable to the Glenwood Springs Piro Department." These supplemental documents address all concerns ha► c regarding emergency access following each phase of developitl in. 10 1t, EST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD •,PRINGS, COLORADO 160 970.384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 iOEPARI In regard to the phasing for the construction of the fire station, the supplemental Estimated Developnlrnt Phasing Schedule states that the fire 5tation would be constructed as part of Phase of the development which t the first phase that includes any new residential lots. Thio aL' adequately addresses all concCrnis 1 may have regarding the phasing of t he fire station. Fre regard to the sufficiency o fthe proposed usiner storage within the project, I believe that the applicant is proposing to provide more than adequate water storage_ The applicant is prvpacing to construct a one million -gallon water storage tank that will serve approximately 490 residential units and the majority of the non-residential structures within die project, Ti --may are also proposing to construct a 500,000 gallon water storage tank that will servo approximately 90 single family residences, The applicant has also stated that all new structures with a floor area greater that 500 sq.ft. shall be provided with automatic fire protection sprinkler systems in accordance with N.F.P A. requirements. Finally, the applicant is proposing to construct or inlpro%e up to tour water storage reservoirs on the site and equip those r xvoirs where practical and fcasrble with dry hydrant systems. I believe that the proposed water storage within the project meets or exceeds any applicable standards. Therefore, based on nn' review of both supplemental documents, the applicant has adequately addressed mor concerns with respect to emergency services isithin the pngxised development. I f you have any questions, please feel free to contact ire directh, Sincerely, t v Michael E. Piper, Chief Glenwood Springs Fire Department 101 \\ t:ti ! iiTI1 S RFFT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-a80 FAX 970-945-8506 3 August, 2007 Members of P & Z, EXHIBIT v I request two changes to the Spring Valley Ranch application: First, the applicant plans to use the limited and seasonal Landis Ck water to irrigate both new golf courses and the existing agricultural meadows. This is an over allocation of Landis Creek. I request that the applicant be required to augment that surface water with treated effluent from the Spring Valley Sanitation District plant. I believe this use of the effluent was a requirement in a previous application but it has been deleted from this latest application. Second, no improvements to CR 114 are planned until a later phase of the project. This is wrong, dangerous, and a disservice to GarCo users of the Colorado Mountain College Road. The applicant might make the case that improvements to the intersection of Hwy 82 and CR 114 (Colorado Mountain College Rd) and CR 154 (Westbank Bridge Rd) may wait until the development begins to generate cash flow. This is open to dispute as this is clearly a very busy and dangerous intersection. However, no case can be made to delay improvements to the 4.5 miles of CR 114 from Hwy 82 to the Ranch entrance. The Ranch construction will generate substantial construction traffic that will slow down, disrupt, and make more dangerous everyone's use of CR 114. Some basic improvements to alleviate slow moving traffic's effect on normal traffic must be done in Phase 1. Thank you for your attention, Jim Austin 3726 CR 115 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 September 11, 2007 Garfield County Planning and Zoning I and my family are the owners of Lake Springs Ranch, the property along the southern and western borders of Spring Valley Ranch. Few properties are affected as much as ours by the Spring Valley Ranch development. In June of this year 1 visited the P&Z offices and reviewed the proposed amendments to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. The primary changes which 1 noted were: EXHIBIT 1 2' 1. Reducing the size of one golf course. 2. Elimination of the commercial center and locating a few commercial services close to the clubhouse. 3. Elimination of the "affordable housing" complex mitigated by funding of the Garfield County housing authority. I wholeheartedly supported these changes. Reducing the golf course size would help the tenuous water situation of Spring Valley. Elimination of the commercial center would reduce traffic and help preserve the rural nature of Spring Valley. And, more importantly, moving the affordable housing closer to the main transportation corridor would reduce traffic on County Road 114 and help to maintain the rural character of Spring Valley. County Planning Staff recommended denial of the amended PUD and, in response, the developers have reinserted 75 affordable housing units and 24 employee housing rental units. 1 believe that housing the employees who will work at Spring Valley Ranch is entirely appropriate. However, adding 75 affordable housing units adds to the traffic on County Road 114 and further diminishes the rural nature of Spring Valley. 1 might be accused of "NIMBYism", but in my defense I can say that I have already transferred much of my own 200 lot PUD into a conservation easement; I have sacrificed financial gain for the benefit of more open space in Spring Valley. I truly believe that Spring Valley is a special place in western Colorado, and any development must preserve the rural, agricultural character of the area. Placing high density affordable housing within Spring Valley does not accomplish this goal. Sincerely, rte` Michae Berkeley fir' PAM B'Berkeley Letter to Garfield Counun Planning and Zoning. wpd STAI1E OF COL OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division at Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX. (303) 866-3589 httpliwww.waterstate.co.us Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: September T, 2007 Spring Valley Ranch PUD — Revised Letter Amended Preliminary Plan (2007) Secs. 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 & 34 T 6J, R8OVV, U H PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 EXHIBIT IA -4 - f:Spec Bill Ritter, Jr Governor Barns D. Sherman Executive Director (Vacant) State Engineer Dear Mr. Jarman: Pursuant to our discussion on August 23, 2007, this letter provides to you our revised comments. We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to subdivide a site of approximately 5948 acres into parcels for 577 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of commercial area, one eighteen hole golf courses, one nine hole golf course, an equestrian center, and parks and open space. The development will have two basic water systems: 1) a central potable water supply system to serve the in-house domestic needs and a limited amount of irrigation water for 58 acres of lawns, gardens and community areas. and 2) a non -potable system to irrigate 200 acres of golf course, open space, driving range, clubhouse areas, and 220 acres of agricultural land. The non -potable system will have two supply elements: 1) a surface water supply from Landis Creek, and 2) water supplied by welts. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District. It appears that the water court decrees for Case Nos. 98CW254 and 87CW155 provides for the consumptive use of up to 974 acre feet of water for in-house use(i.e., includes domestic use, inside residential units and commercial buildings), irrigation and evaporation. These decrees provide adequate amounts of water to replace depletions. The surface water rights to be used for irrigation of the golf course and agricultural lands from Landis Creek are described in Case No. 81CW193. It is our understanding that these surface water rights will be dedicated to this development. Although, the applicant proposes to supplement golf course irrigation with water from the wells as needed, the agricultural land will be irrigated only when water is available in priority under the surface water rights. It appears f :m information provided by the appii{ ant that severe.! Spring Valley Ranch walls should provide sufficient water supply for the proposed subdivision. Based on the above, it is our 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 as the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits pursuant to Case Nos. 98CW254 and 87CW155. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance. Sincerely, Mark J. Va -Ili, PhD. PE, PG, BCEE Water Re-.•urces Engineer MJV!Subdivision/SpringValleyRanch(2007-Revised) cc: Alan Martellaro, PE, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 William L. Lorah, PE, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. REQUEST EXHIBIT PC 09/12107 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development Amendment for Spring Valley Ranch PUD OWNER Spring Valley Development, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE Jim Lochhead ENGINEERS Gamba & Associates, Inc. LOCATION A tract of land situated in portions of Sections 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, T6S, R88W of the 6th P.M. Located in the Roaring Fork Valley, west of Missouri Heights above the towns of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. SITE DATA 5,948.277 +- acres. WATER Central water supply SEWER ISTS & Central sewer (Spring Valley Sanitation District). ACCESS County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road) via Highway 82, and County Road 115 via County Road 114 (CMC Road) via Highway 82. ZONING PUD ADJACENT ZONING North: Open Space (Forest Service) East: A/R/RD West: A/R/RD South: AIRIRD, PUD NOTE TO READER: STAFF IS PROVIDING YOU WITH A REVISED STAFF REPORT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS BEFORE WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSES AND COMMENTS INCLUDED IN RED FOR YOUR REVIEW. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT (BINDER AS EXHIBIT X) THAT CORRESPOND TO THEIR RESPONSES ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECEIVED REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE FOLLOWING ENTITIES WHICH ARE ALSO ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS SINCE THE INITIAL REVIEW LETTER FROM THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (EXHIBIT R) fr LETTER FROM MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING (ON BEHALF OF GARFIELD COUNTY AS EXHIBIT U) LETTER FROM THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (EXHIBIT T) LETTER FROM THE GLENWOOD SPRINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT (EXHIBIT 5) L LETTER FROM WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS (EXHIBIT CI) fr LETTER FROM JIM AUSTIN (EXHIBIT P) • LETTER FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (EXHIBIT W) LETTER FROM THE HIGH ASPEN RANCH HOA (V) (PLEASE NOTE, DUE TO THE LATE SUBMITTAL OF SOME OF THESE EXHIBITS. THEY WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION IF NOT DISCUSSED WITHIN THE BODY OF THIS REPORT.) IN SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THEIR APPLICATION BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF MEMO IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 1) REINSERTED THE 75 COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS IN THE LOCATION THAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THE EXISTING PUD; 2) REDUCED THE FREE MARKET HOUSING FROM 502 UNITS TO 478 UNITS WHICH REDUCES THE OVERALL DENSITY FROM 11.84 TO 12.55 FREE MARKET UNITS (BY ELIMINATING THE PASTURE LOTS AND A VARIETY OF CABIN LOTS); 3) REVISED THE PHASING PLAN TO INCORPORATE EMERGANCY ACCESS ROADS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM EACH PHASE IF THE PROJECT DOES NOT REACH FULL BUILD -OUT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GLENWOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT; 4) REVISED THE PHASING PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION IN PHASE 2 AND PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS IN PHASES 7 - 10; 5) INCLUDED THE PROVISION OF 24 RENTAL EMPLOYEE UNITS (DEED RESTRICTED FOR 20 YEARS) 6) THE APPLICANT WILL CONTRIBUTE ITS PRO -RATA SHARE TO PARTIALLY FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RFTA PARK -N -RIDE THAT EXISTS ON THE SE CORNER OF SH 82 AND CR 114 BASED UPON TOTAL FUTURE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATED FOR THE PROJECT DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL PROJECTED RIDERSHIP ORIGINATING AT THE RFTA PARK -N -RIDE DESCRIBED ABOVE BY RAFTA. I. PROJECT HISTORY Spring Valley Ranch PUD was approved in August of 2000 which established the zoning for the property as a Planned Unit Development. Subsequently, the Preliminary Plan for the development was approved in November of 2001. Since that time, there have been several reiterations of the project resulting in several amendments to the PUD as well as new Preliminary Plans approved by the BOCC. These iterations primarily included modifications to the project's phasing plan (incorporate trails, infrastructure, and open space), realignment of a portion of CR 114 through Lake Springs Ranch, consolidation of conditions of approval, and inclusion of amendments to Glenwood Springs Fire Protection contract for services. With all of these amendments to date, the Preliminary Plan will expire on November 5, 2007. II. CURRENTLY APPROVED PUD As a matter of background, most of the development is concentrated at the center of the property on a plateau above CR 115 in the area known as Spring Valley. Two entrances into the project are proposed: One about 1/4 mile east of the intersection of CR 114, and CR 115 (Main Entrance) and the other located west of the CR 115 and 114 intersections on CR 115 known as the Landis Creek Entrance. The property was rezoned in 2000 and consists of the following 13 separate zone districts. The matrix below is intended to show the breakdown of theses districts as well as any residential dwelling units associated with the zone district: Zone District Number of units Number of acres Percentage of total Acreage Open Space/Agricultural (Including 2 Golf Courses) 0 1.273 21.4 Goff Clubhouse 0 22 .04 Residential Lots Ranch Lots 91 2.981 50.1 Meadow Lot 1 30 0.5 Estate Lots 134 700 11.8 Golf Lots 171 331 5.6 Cooperative Ownership Cabins 75 88 1.5 Duplex Townhornes 30 15 0.3 Commercial / Mixed Use (Village Center District) 75 48 0.8 Office . 0 13 0.2 Metro (Fire/EMS stations) 0 6 0.1 Utilities 0 2 0.2 Institutional Facilities 0 11 0.2 Total 577 5,948 100% jNote: Included in the total of 577 dwelling units are 20,000 square feet of commercial space and 75 Community Housing Units that are included in the RCMU (Village Center) District. Two (2) Fire/EMS stations are proposed within the Metro District.] 111. Proposed Amendments to the PUD and New Preliminary Plan The Applicant proposes to amend the existing approved project in the following manner: Project Component Currently Approved PUD Proposed PUD Dwelling Units 502 Free Market & 75 AH 577 Froe Market & 0 AH 478 Free Market Units 75 Community Housing Units 24 Employee Housing Units Gross Density 11.84 ac/du (FM units only) 10.31 ac/du 12.44 acidu (FM units only) Golf Course 36 Holes 27 holoc 18 hole par 72 golf course 9 hole 3 -par "barefoot" course Equestrian Center Yes Yes Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. (relocated) The Residential component will include the following types of lots / units: Mountain Lots: 90 lots that average 32 acres in size on central water and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems; T Pasture Lots: 22 lots that average 8 acrcc that will replace the "Village Applicant's Response The 22 Pasture Lots have been replaced with 75 Community Housing units as defined in the Community Housing Program of the current PUD. Ranch Lots: 115 121Iots averaging 5 acres on the middle bench served by central water / sewer; Applicant's Response 60 Cabin Lots have been replaced by 6 Ranch Lots which bring the Ranch Lot total to 121 Estate Lots: 138 lots that average 2 acres on the middle bench served by central water / sewer; Cabin Lots: 192 132 Lots that average '/a acre are on the middle -bench 4 around the golf -course and close to the Village Center served by central water and sewer; Applicant's Response 60 Cabin Lots have been removed resulting in a total of 132 Cabin/Cottage Lots. The Applicant proposes to construct the improvements on the Cabin/Cottage Lots. The Cabin/Cottage Lots will offer a variety of product types at various price points: i) 18 "Camp" Cabins at 1:000 to 1.500 sq ft: ii) 37 "Village" and "Hillside" Cabins at 1.500 to 2.500 so ft: iii) 49 `'Golf" and "Hillside" Cottages at 2,500 to 4,000 sq ft; and iv) 28 Duplex Cabins (four of which will be employee rentals) in 14 buildings at 4.000 to 5:000 sq ft. Please refer to Exhibit 17 - PUD Zone District Map and revised Section 8 - Zone District Standards provided in the supplement to the Preliminary Plan Application. - Lodge / Condominium Units: 19 units in the Village Center served by central water and sewer; and Applicant's Response The Condominium Units have been removed and replaced by 20 multi -family employee workforce rental units located in the Village Center and!or the Metro District Yard which the Applicant will construct as apartments and "room and board" accommodations. r Employee Housing: The developer may provide a minimum # of unrestricted units to be located in the Village Center and / or the Metro District Yard. Applicant's Response See above comments regarding four Employee Duplex Cabins and 20 multi- family, employee workforce rental unit as apartments or `'room and board" units. The other main components to the project include the following: Village Center: Originally located in the pasture in the lower valley floor near the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115, this has been relocated to the middle bench. This center is proposed to provide the following amenities for the residents: Restaurant/bar, fitness & spa facilities, party/event barn, kid's camp/activity center, outfitters cabin and a general store/post office/ fueling station. r Fire / EMS Department (As part of the Applicant's proposed Fire/Metropolitan District) with space provided for a Sheriff's Sub - Station and employee lodging. Common Community Recreation facilities that may include swimming pool(s), tennis courts, a fitness center and pedestrian, bike & equestrian paths. Applicant's Response Due to the conversion of the condominium units to employee housing, Applicant proposed 15 private guest rooms within the Village/Club district for use only by owners and their guests. Golf Courses. One 18 -hole golf course, one walking (9 hole) Par 3 "barefoot" course, and practice facilities are planned for the project. The golf pro shop, starter pavilion and driving range will be located on a knoll in close proximity to the Village Center and the golf maintenance facility to provide easy access and adequate parking. Equestrian Center. The Equestrian Center will be located in the Open Space/Pasture or Open Space/Recreation District. Corporation Yard/Golf Maintenance. The Corporation Yard / Golf Maintenance facility will include: golf cart storage and maintenance facilities; vehicle maintenance for summer and winter road maintenance; equipment storage; a corporation yard for landscaping and maintenance needs; administrative offices; employee lodging; fueling station; and such other facilities as may be needed by the Metro District. Trails and Open Space System. The open space system forms the framework around which the development is planned. Trails will connect neighborhoods and other recreational amenities throughout the community as well as access the adjacent National Forest and BLM lands. Golf cart paths will double as cross-country ski trails during the winter months. Easements will be provided where trails cross private property. The trails within the community will be managed and maintained by the Metro District or the HOA. Certain trails will be closed during specific times of the year at the request of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Landscaping. Native landscaping will be used when reasonable throughout the development. At lower elevations, cottonwood, oak and native shrubs will predominate. Spruce, aspen and alpine materials will predominate at the higher elevations. Design guidelines will emphasize the use of native vegetation and limit the amount of irrigated areas. Water conservation methods will be observed at all times. The PUD breaks down the square footage for specific amenities as follows: Restaurant/Club +1- 6,200 S.F. Fitness & Spa -1- 11,700 S.F. 6 Party Barn +1- 8,500 S.F. Kids' Camp/Activity Center/Outfitters Cabin +I- 1,500 S.F. General Store/Post Office +1- 2,600 S.F. Pool / Tennis Facility +1- 2,500 S.F. Trail / Horse Stable +1- 2,500 S.F. Gatehouse/Reception/Security +1- 2.000 S.F. Sales Office +1- 4,300 S.F. Metropolitan District Buildings (including Fire Station) +1- 26,000 S.F. Golf Operations +1- 1,700 S.F. Cart Storage Barn +1- 4,500 S.F. Golf Comfort Stations (3) +1- 1,000 S.F. Fishing Camp +1- 500 S.F. Outpost Camp +1- 2,300 S.F. Equestrian Facility +1- 20,000 S.F. Development Summary Total acres = 5,948 Total Dwelling units = 577 Total Common Open Space = 1,547.84 acres or 26.02% of the PUD, comprised of: • Useable Open Space = 410.2 acres • Recreational Open Space = 337.8 acres • Commercial Open Space = 252.9 acres • Limited Use Open Space = 546.86 acres Utilities and Infrastructure Utility services to be provided to all of the residential districts, except Lot P23, within the Spring Valley Ranch PUD consist of the following: 1. Central Water Distribution System 2. Sanitary sewer system connecting to the Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility 3. Electric 4. Telephone 5. Natural Gas3 Except for the Public Service Company's regional transmission line and the existing Holy Cross Electric line in the lower valley, including the existing service to Lot P23, utilities shall be underground and service connections for utility systems shall be extended to the lot lines. The utilities will be constructed within road rights-of-way and other utility easements. IV. PROCESS 7 The county land use regulations do not offer an amendment process for physical changes to Preliminary Plans. Additionally, while the PUD provisions in the code provide for an amendment process that deals with zoning matters, any change to a Preliminary Plan requires the resubmittal of the entire project in the form of a new Preliminary Plan. In the present application, the Applicant has submitted a new Preliminary Plan as well as an amendment to the PUD intended to address the requests above. As a matter of process, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners should make two separate motions; the first motion should address the amendment to the PUD while the second motion should address the (new) Preliminary Plan. The focus of this memorandum is intended to address points of concern related to standards and criteria required in the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the Subdivision regulations of 1984, as amended, and the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. V. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS The Applicant sent the proposal to the following review agencies whose comments are provided below and are incorporated in the memorandum where appropriate: A. Town of Carbondale: No Comments Received B. City of Glenwood Springs: No Comments Received C. RE-1 School District: No Comments Received D. Colorado State Forest Service: No Comments Received E. Spring Valley Sanitation District: Dean Gordon, P.E.. with Schmeuser Gordon Meyer is the project engineer for the Spring Valley Sanitation District which provided a wide variety of comments regarding the provision of central sewer service to the project. These comments are too numerous to incorporate here. Please see Exhibit K). F. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: Exhibit S G. Colorado Department of Transportation: No Comments Received H. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received 1. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit T J. Bureau of Land Management: No Comments Received K. Colorado Geologic Survey: No Comments Received L. Garfield County Road &Bridge Department: No Comments Received M. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: It appears there will be a drinking water system that will require state approval. On the wastewater side, it looks like the bulk of the subdivision will be treated at the existing Spring Valley SD and the remainder will be ISDS at less than 2000 gpd. So my only comment is state approval will be required for the drinking water system. (See Exhibit H) N. Roaring Fork Transit Authority: There is no mention of public transportation throughout the proposal. The developer does propose to provide carpool incentives, repave and widen CR 114 from the SH 82 intersection up to the Colorado Mountain College (CMC) campus, and make some changes to the SH 82/CR 144 intersection, but there is no mention about how residents might be able to get down the hill without a car. The proposed improvements do not include a bike lane or pedestrian paths parallel to CR 114. In the past, CMC agreed to operate a van shuttle between SH 82 and the campus; however this service is now defunct. When the Bair Chase Development along the west side of SH 82 was still in motion, the developer agreed to partially fund improvements to the RFTA park -n -ride that exists on the SE corner of SH 82 and CR 114. Since that development has recently changed hands, RFTA asks that the new developer will also assist with funding improvements to the CMC Park -n -Ride. Additionally, RFTA is requesting that other developers in this area (Le. Spring Valley Ranch PUD) also set aside some funds for park -n -ride improvements and other transit and pedestrian -oriented design alternatives, such as mutli-use paths or painted lanes parallel to roadways. (See Exhibit J). Applicant's Response The Applicant will contribute its pro -rata share to partially fund improvements to the RFTA park -n -ride that exists on the SE corner of SH 82 and CR 114 based upon total future ridership estimated for the project divided by the total projected ridership oriownatino at the RFTA nark -n -ride described above by RAFTA. 0. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: • Inventory and mapping -The applicant lists noxious weeds found on the property, however this information is not represented on a map, staff requests that the applicant provide a map of the project area with the Garfield County listed noxious weeds, and the State of Colorado listed noxious weed, Absinth wormwood (Artemsia absinthium). Weed management -The Weed Management Plan is incorporated into the attachment entitled "Best Management Practices." The recommended herbicides, glyphosate and 2-4,0 will have minimal results on most noxious weeds. • Revegetation and soils -The applicant has addressed revegetation and soil concerns. • Revegetation security -The applicant has not quantified the addresses surface area to be disturbed by new roads and utilities. Please provide this information so a revegetation security may be determined. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed Management Plan Reclamation Standards. 9 • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) may be present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is located on the property. If present, the locations shall be identified in general terms as they pertain to building envelopes. In addition, an acknowledgement and reference to Harrington's penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and to alert property owners of its significance. • This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant. according to CNHP is "vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known from 74 occurrences in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit counties and is found primarily in dry, sagebrush -dominated communities between 6,400 and 9,400 ft. (1,951 and 2,565 m) elevation. USDA Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensitive species; it is also included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensitive Species List. It is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is it currently a candidate for listing. Applicant's Response Applicant will provide an appropriate weed inventory and management plan as part of its Final Plat application for each phase of the development in accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. P. Garfield County Housing Authority: Exhibit W Q. Garfield County Sheriff Department: No Comments Received R. Mountain Cross Engineering: Exhibit U VI. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Proposed Land Use Designation map contained within the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 designates the subject property as Planned Unit Development. Staff finds the project generally conforms to the County's Comprehensive Plan with the following exceptions: As background, the Comprehensive Plan presently shows the property is located in Study Area I and is designated "PUD" on the proposed land use districts map. (The County designates properties as "PUD" on the map when a rezoning to PUD is approved.) Initially, the Applicant requested to amend the PUD by eliminating the required 75 on-site "Community Housing Units" and increase the 502 free market units to 577 free market units. Based on the following, Staff found this request would render the project to be out of general conformance with the County's 10 Comprehensive Plan; however, the Applicant has revised their request to leave the 75 Community Housing Units in the project which adequately addresses the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing component of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's Response The Applicant believes the application as oriainaliv submitted is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. However. to address the staff comments. Applicant proposes in its application Supplement to eliminate 60 Cabin Lots on the Middle Bench and replace the proposed 22 Pasture Lots with the 75 Community Housing units in accordance with the adopted PUD (no net increase in density). In addition the Applicant proposes to deed -restrict 24 units for employee rental housing. The Applicant. therefore, proposes to reduce the number of free market units to 478, which is 24 units less that the market -rate density of 502 units in the approved PUD. A. The Property's Comprehensive Plan Designation is the Approved PUD As a PUD is approved, the terms of that PUD become the regulations of the County and development for that property is regulated to those terms. In this case, the presently approved PUD includes the provision of 75 Community Housing Units as a requirement of the PUD which means they are, in fact, required by County zoning. Therefore, because the Comprehensive Plan now designates this property as "PUD", the terms of its approval (including the 75 Community Housing Units) is required by the Comprehensive Plan and allows it to meet the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The approved PUD includes 75 units of "Community Housing," which are governed by standards contained in the 2005 PUD conditions approved by the BOCC Exhibit [x] in the Supplement binder;. To meet the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to eliminate 53 Cabin Lots on the Middle Bench and replace the proposed 22 Pasture Lots with the 75 Community Housing units in accordance with the adopted PUD (no net increase in density). B. The Approved PUD requires 75 Community Housing Units Once the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the PUD, all of its terms and conditions become County regulations. As a result, they are now required as part of the PUD. Initially, the Applicant argued that the 75 Community Housing Units were an offering as part of the original PUD and never required due to the low density of the project. Staff disagrees, in that, while they may have never been originally required, they were offered by the developer to be part of the Zoning in the PUD and are now required by that PUD. Further, the property was designated PUD at the time the original Comprehensive Plan designations were established because the PUD (albeit, an older version) was already in place when the Comprehensive Plan was crafted. Essentially, the Developer proposed (and the Board of County Commissioners agreed) that these 75 Community Housing Units were necessary to best meet the employee generation of the project. As a result, the PUD was approved with the units being required as part of the zoning. As a result, Staff finds the 75 units are not optional; they are now required by County Zoning in this existing PUD. The Applicant has agreed to include the 75 Community Housing Units within the PUD which satisfies the housing goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's Response Please refer to Response above. C. Project Results in an Increase in Density Section 4.07.15.02(1) of the County's PUD regulations require that all Planned Unit Development proposals and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 1O% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a mix of housing. The initial proposed PUD amendment resulted in an increase in density and would have been required to provide 10% of the housing to be affordable housing units as there was an increase in free market residential density from 502 free market units to 577 free market units. However, the Applicant has reduced the free market density which alleviates this issue. See their response below: Applicant's Response 3. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to redu^e the number of free market units to 478, which is 24 units less than the market -rate density of 502 units under the approved PUD. A. Housing Goals To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Staff Response In their original Application, the Applicant proposed to eliminate all of the 75 Community Housing Units presently required in the development. The Application stated that the Developer may provide a minimum # of unrestricted units to be located in the Village Center and / or the Metro District Yard. Outside of that optional / permissive offering, the development did not provide "all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities." However, the Applicant amended their Application to address this issue and as a result, Staff i? finds this housing goal has been met. Applicant's Response 4. In order to meet the above Housing Goal, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to re -incorporate the 75 Community Housing units in the location and under the terms of the Community Housing Plan adopted by the BOCC in the current PUD and to eliminate the 22 Pasture Lots proposed in that location. Applicant also proposes to provide employee housing as follows: i) replace the 19 for -sale market - rate multi -family condominium units in the Village with 20 multi -family or "room and board" units in the Village and./or Metro District Yard, that would be deed restricted as rental units available only to the project's employees with rent increases limited to CP1 for 20 years: thereafter the units may be rented or sold at market: and ii] to build and deed restrict 2 improved Duplex Cabin Lots as 4 rental units available only to employees of the project with rent increases limited to CPI for 20 years: thereafter the units may be rented or soldat market. To create more diversity in housing type and price, the Applicant proposes Zone District text that would limit size and type of residential improvements built by the Applicant in the Cabin District (R/C) to: i) 18 `Camp" Cabins at 1.000 to 1,500 sq ft: ii) 37 "Village" and "Hillside" Cabins at 1.500 to 2.500: iii) 49 "Golf" and "Hillside" Cottages at 2,500 to 4,000 sq ft: and iv) 28 Du lex Cabin units four of which will be em lo ee rentals) in 14 buildin•s at -4.000 to ±5.000 sq ft. Additionally, Applicant already restricted in its Application the FAR for different single-family detached market -rate residences in the project's Residential Zone Districts in order to encourage the construction of a mix of housing sizes and prices. Housing at cost of no more than 30% of gross median income. Staff Response The Applicant initial proposal was to eliminate all of the 75 Community Housing Units presently required in the development. As a result, that proposal did not provide any housing at a cost of no more than 30% of gross median income. However, the Applicant has revised their Application with the following that meets the intent of this goal: 5. To provide housing that can be purchased or rented for an annual payment of not more than 30% of annual AMI in Garfield County. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described in Responses 1 through 5 above, and to sell and/or rent a portion of such units in a manner which meets this goal.. Encourage mix of housing types within a development. Staff Response initially, the Applicant proposed to eliminate all of the 75 Community Housing Units presently required in the development. Further, the Application stated that the Developer may provide a minimum # of unrestricted units to be located in the Village Center and / or the Metro District Yard. The only "mix" of housing types 13 proposed are the condominium type housing units in the lodge units. Otherwise, all of the other units are single-family units on varying lot sizes. Staff interprets this goal to mean the provision of multi -family units which may also include rental units. However, the Applicant has revised their housing mix such that they meet this housing goal. Applicant's Response 6, To encourage a mix of housing types within the project. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a wide mix of housing types. sizes and prices as described above, particularly Responses 1 and 4. Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home. Staff Response Originally, there were no provisions in the development to place deed restrictions on any of the units to fix the increase in value of a home. However, the Applicant has revised their Application to meet this goal in the following way: Applicant's Response 7. To limit increases in home values and assure a mix of attainable housing in the project, Applicant proposes in its Supplement to deed restrict: i) the 75 Community Housing units to annual appreciation of 3%: ii) the 20 multi -family units to rentals only for project employees with rent increases limited to CPI for 20 years: and iii) the 4 Duplex -Cabins units to rentals only for proiect employees rent increases limited to CPI for 20 years. The Applicant no Ionder_proposes tc contribute funds to the Housing Authority. but instead will provide the units as described above. HOUSING OBJECTIVES 2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. Staff Response Initially, the Applicant proposed to eliminate the 75 Community Housing Units and instead, make a contribution to the County Housing Authority. No such agreement had been reached that would equitably replace or equal the 75 "roof tops" currently required in the PUD. However, the Applicant has revised their Application to meet this objective in the following way: Applicant's Response 8. To meet this Housing Objective. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described in Responses 1 through 8 above. HOUSING POLICIES 14 2.1 The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low and moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi- family and single-family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County. Staff Response As discussed, the Developer of the existing PUD proposed (and the Board of County Commissioners agreed) that 75 Community Housing Units were necessary to best meet the employee generation of the project. As a result, the PUD was approved with the units being required as part of the zoning. As a result, Staff finds the 75 units are now required by County Zoning in this existing PUD. By adding the 75 units into the PUD, they have become regulations and meet the very intent of this policy. Eliminating them altogether does not meet this housing policy. The Applicant revised their Application to include these as well as a variety of units which meets this policy: Applicant's Response 9. To meet this Housing Policy 2.1. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described in Responses 1 through 8 above. HOUSING PROGRAMS 2.1 The County, by encouraging developers and landowners to use the Planned Unit Development regulations and other innovative tools, shall establish housing standards appropriate for the proposed scale of development which provide a wide range of housing types and costs. Staff Response The Applicant has met this in the following manner: Applicant's Response 11. To comply with Housing Programs 2.1. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to provide a total of 99 attainable residential units of which 24 will be for rent and 75 for sale as described above. Applicant also will construct a mix of Cabin/Cottage units as provided in Response 5. Additionally, Applicant already restricted in its Application the FAR for different residential zone districts in the proiect's Zone District Text in order to encourage the construction of a mix of housing sizes and Prices as described above. particularly in Response 4. VII. AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15 Zoning Resolution §4.04 Consistency with the Master/ Comprehensive Plan: No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive Plant's). When appropriate, an application for an amendment to the Garfield County Master/Comprehensive Plan may be a part of a PUD Application. Any Application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD Application and may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon the criteria for establishing the land use designations in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response Staff finds the proposed amendment to the PUD is in general conformance with the Housing component of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's Response 12. To comply with the Housing component of the Count's Comprehensive Plan. Applicant has included and proposes to provide a mix of housing types, sizes and prices as provided above. particularly in Response 4. Zoning Resolution §4.O6 Internal Compatibility of Planned Unit Developments: It is recognized that individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to all the design elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly with one another. Therefore, a proposed PUD shall be considered from the point of view of the relationship and compatibility of the individual elements of the Plan, and no PUD shall be approved which contains incompatible elements internally or with neighboring property. Staff Response The Spring Valley Ranch PUD is generally secluded within a property that will have very little visual impact on its surrounding area. The PUD amendment proposes to relocate the village center out of the lower valley at the intersection of CR 114 / 115 to an area on the middle bench more central and focal to the development. In its place, the developer proposes to develop 22 "pasture Tots" averaging about 8 acres. Staff suggests that those 22 lots be eliminated out of the pasture altogether and relocated into the middle bench area so that they are less intrusive and leave the integrity of the existing undeveloped agricultural pasture intact. Zoning Resolution §4.07.02 Standards and Requirements: The number of off- street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors: 1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD; 2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses; 3) Varying time periods of used whenever joint use of common parking areas is proposed. Staff Response The Applicant requests a modification in the required off-street parking calculations given the recreational and second -home nature of the project. The Applicant has proposed parking standards that deviate slightly from the County standards. However, they balance the overall project goals and objectives as well as the Comprehensive Plan policies toward minimizing the environmental impacts with the anticipated land uses. A. Residential (except group quarters) — 1 space per 600 square feet of floor area Applicant proposes: ✓ Pasture, Mountain & Ranch Districts - one space per bedroom with a minimum of two enclosed spaces and a maximum of six exterior/uncovered spaces; • Estate District — one space per bedroom with a minimum of two enclosed spaces and a maximum of four exterior/un-covered spaces; • Cabin District — one space per bedroom with a minimum of two enclosed spaces and a maximum of two exteriorlun-covered spaces. We believe that this is a typical ratio for residential parking spaces. The Garfield County regulation of 1 space per 600 s.f. of residential floor area would create an undue burden for larger homes and even smaller homes where the focus is to minimize the levels of disturbance, impervious surfaces, and environmental degradation. B. Residential — group quarters — not applicable C. Retail and service commercial — 1 space per 250 s. f. of floor area. Village/Commercial District -- One enclosed parking space per bedroom. Minimum of one parking space for every 800 square -feet of habitable finished floor space for other uses. Employee, overflow and event parking will be provided as needed in the 17 Light Industrial Zone District (LII) and the Open Space/Golf District (OSIG). With the Village Center concept, the variety of uses, and the seasonal nature of many activities, co-location and sharing of parking among various uses is appropriate. Golf Course -- Minimum of 40 parking spaces. Employee, overflow and event parking will be provided as needed in the Open Space/Golf District (03/0) for the Village/Commercial District (V/C) and the Light Industrial Zone District (LII). 40 spaces for the 18-hole course is a conservative estimate for an 18-hole private golf facility with approximately 15,000 rounds per year. Given the time and physical restrictions on the number of players, approximately 20 foursomes can be accommodated in any single day. 40 spaces are more than ample for this limited number of rounds per day. These spaces will be located at the Pro Shop/Starter house and Clubhouse sites. Golf cart shuttle service will be provided from the Clubhouse and the Village. ht Industrial District — Minimum of one parking space for every three employees, plus minimum of one parking space for every staff bedroom. Employee, overflow and event parking will be provided as needed in the Light Industrial Zone District (LII) for the Village/Commercial District (WC) and the Open Space/Golf District (OS/G). With the Village Center concept, the variety of uses, and the seasonal nature of many activities, co-location and sharing of parking among various uses is appropriate. Zoning Resolution 4.07.03: The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or mare of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved.. (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. Staff Response Most of the project will not be visible from the immediate public view or neighboring properties with the exception of the pasture lots. The project is physically located in an area surrounded by a variety of residential scenarios that include 35 -acre exempt lots to 2 and 5 -acre single-family lots, as well as undeveloped ranch land, BLM and USFS lands. The overall density in the current application is within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Area 1 limits and is therefore appropriate to the area and the adjacent land uses. Furthermore, the Spring Valley Ranch PUD is designed to avoid impacts to neighboring properties. Staff agrees that the low density nature of the development (particularly on the valley floor where most neighboring properties are located), the integration of agricultural and equestrian uses, and the design emphasis on maintaining the open characteristics of the area, view sheds and wildlife habitat, assure that the development will be compatible with the surrounding area. 18 (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain. Staff Response The PUD meets or exceeds the requirements for open space. As mentioned above, Staff finds that a significant feature to the property is the pasture in the lower valley floor that has been primarily left undeveloped with the exception of 22 "pasture lots. Staff finds this standard could be better met if those lots were relocated to areas internal to the developed area of the PUD on the middle bench. Applicant's Response 13. To comply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Pian established in Section VI (A) of Staff's Comments above. Applicant has replaced the 22 Pasture Lots with 75 units in accordance with the Community Housing Program in the approved PUD. (5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. Staff Response The Applicant has revised their plan to meet thiss standard in the following way: Applicant's Response 14. To provide, a variety in housing types and densities. Applicant proposes in its Supplement to construct detached and attached rental and for -sale residences as Cabins. Cottages. duplexes. apartments and "room and board" facilities in a mix of size and price as described above. particularly in Response 4. Zoning Resolution §4.07.10 Standards and Requirements: If any zone district within the PUD is proposed to contain time-share or fractional ownership units, or other similar interest in property, the provisions for such ownership shall be those that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the property is zoned PUD. Staff Response The Applicant states that "the Zone District Text (Section 8 of Binder 1) provides for potential one-quarter share fractional ownership in the Residential/Cabin District, and for multi -family or lodge units in the Village/Commercial District. Cabins, multi- family or lodge units may be divided into fractional one-quarter share interests and any such division shall be exempt from compliance with County subdivision or other regulation." Staff is uncertain that the "division" is exempt pursuant to the County's Resubdivision Regulations as follows: 19 7:10 The redivision into separate interest of any lot, block, parcel or multiple -dwelling unit, or the major relocation of or addition to any roads within a subdivision, shall be considered a resubdivision and shall be governed by the Subdivision Regulations. 7:20 The redivision into separate interests of large tracts or blocks of land, designed with the intention of resubdivision and so indicated on a recorded plat, may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision regulations, which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision. 7:30 The redivision, through conversion into condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units may not be required to comply with those provisions of the Subdivision Regulations which the Board determines are satisfied by reference to Preliminary Plan and/or Final Plat approval for the original subdivision, provided the proposed conversion will not substantially increase land use density. Applicant's Response 15. Applicant submits that a fractional interes is legally not a "subdivision" or a "resubivision". A fractional interest is a joint tenancy or tenancy in common or other common interest in the same unit. which is considered as one unit and is assessed, taxed and otherwise treated as such. Therefore, the above- referenced provisions of the County regulations do not apply. In any event. the specific recognition of the creation of fractional interests as requested in the zone text would cover this issue. as it would give specific County approval of the creation of fractional units as part of the zone district text for the PUD. Consistent with the staff position. this would become a County "regulation" and would supersede any contrary general County regulation. Zoning Resolution §4.07.11 through .15 Standards and Requirements: AFFORDABLE HOUSING Staff Response Staff has presented a full discussion of this issue in the previous section of this memorandum. As a result of the Applicant's revisions, the proposal meets the PUD regulations pursuant to housing. (b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed; Staff Response The Application contains a phasing plan that shows the project will be developed in 11 phases. (See Exhibit 21 for the proposed phasing of the development plan.) Exhibits 19 & 20 also show the water and sewer infrastructure phasing. Exhibit 22 20 provides the proposed estimated development phasing schedule. The phasing shows that the Estate Lots are to be improved at the same time the middle bench lots and lower valley floor lots with Phase 1 beginning in April 2008 and the final phase possibly starting in 2023 (a 15 year time span). Zoning Resolution §4.09.03 Standards and Requirements: Each stage within a PUD shall be so planned and so related to existing surrounding and available facilities and services that failure to proceed to a subsequent stage will not have a substantial adverse impact on the PUD or its surroundings. Staff Response Staff finds that the provision of water / wastewater lines through the phases appears to be adequate, however, it is unclear how the Applicant proposes to deal with long dead-end road segments were one phase ends and the next has yet to be constructed. The County's regulations require cul-de-sacs be limited to 600 linear feet unless the Applicant can demonstrate the need for 1) reasons related to topography and 2) it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design. The following will illustrate the issue: The dark lines show the road sections to be constructed in Phase I. They do not connect, are well beyond 600 linear feet, and would both dead end providing no alternative way out of the development in the event of a natural disaster (wildfire / debris flow). The Applicant has not shown how these issues have been accommodated so that failure to proceed to a subsequent stage will not have a substantial adverse impact on the PUD or its surroundings. This standard has not been met. Applicant's Response 17. The applicant agrees that the originally proposed Phasing Plan did not provide for adequate emergency ingress/egress in the event that subsequent phases of the development were not to occur. Therefore, included in the supplement to the Preliminary Plan Application as Exhibit 21 are: i) a revised Phasing Plan that depicts the extension of emergency access easements: and ii) a letter from the fire chief of the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. Mike Piper. in which he indicates his support and approval of the proposed emergency access easements. 2] Staff also points out key off-site improvements that are currently required in the existing phasing plan followed by proposed changes with this PUD Amendment (in bold): Phase Ili Improvements Improve CR 114 from where the existing asphalt ends at CMC to the MAIN ENTRANCE on CR 115 and improve CR 115 from the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115 east to the intersection with Black Kettle Court (Road to the Metro District) Proposed to be Phase 2 Improve CR 115 from intersection of CR 115 and CR 114 to the Landis Creek entrance. vill Proposed to be Phase 7 improve CR 114 from CMC to intersection with State Highway 82 Proposed to be Phase 9 Schedule Start in April 2007 and complete in November 2008 April 2008 through 2014 depending on market conditions (to be completed w/in 20 months) Start in April 2007 through April 2009 depending on economic and marketing conditions April 2009 through 2019 depending on market conditions (to be completed w/in 20 months) Start in April 2009 through April 2014 depending on economic and marketing conditions April 2010 through 2021 depending on market conditions (to be completed Win 20 months) Applicant's Response 18. An updated estimated development schedule is provided in the supplement to the Preliminary Pian Application as part of Exhibit 21. This undated schedule identifies the proposed phasing of specific improvements such as the fire station and the required emergency access roads. The Schedule provided above presupposes the development of the project in accordance with the estimated construction schedule provided by the prior owner. Clearly, the dates in the original Schedule were not met because the project was not built. and, therefore. the old dates are not relevant. The application to amend the existing approvals maintains substantially the same timeline as the existing approvals based upon the phasing of the project. Applicant is not requesting any significant chance in the construction schedule for the lmprovements. Staff continues to find the proposed phasing plan to be very general with no real commitment on when key components (such as Village Center, Fire Station, Metro District Facilities, trails, equestrian facilities, etc) are constructed due to the caveat "depending on market conditions" and the assumption that a Final Plat for Phase lis approved prior to April 2008. Of course, if a final plat is not approved within 1 year of Preliminary Plan Approval, the Preliminary Plan can be extended for 1 year and the project continues to linger on without any development which has been the case for many years. The BOCC has the authority to completely dissolve a PUD if the phasing plan becomes outdated. Because the project has had a very long history of "approvals" and "amended approvals" simply to "float" the paper project along, the phasing schedule be more concrete where if the project is not under development, 11 then the PUD and Preliminary be rescinded automatically. Perhaps this will encourage either 1) the development to actually occur or 2) allow the Board to rescind the approvals thus far. Applicant's Response 19. Applicant intends to develop Spring Valley Ranch under this application. if approved. or the current approvals. This application is not tor a "paper subdivision. It is for a .ro'ect which is more attuned to current market demands while at the same time reducing the subdivision impacts on water. traffic and environmental disturbance relative to the existing approvals. The Ranch was once approved for more than 2.000 residential units. It is probably fortunate that those approvals were not realized. The prior delays that produced "approvals" and "amended approvals" resulted from prior owner's bankruptcy and not from a nefarious scheme to "float" along a paper subdivision. The .hasin• of the • ro'ect is a product of the Ranch's size. The Ranch is a ve large, 6,000 acre .ro•ert Develo■ment of a +based roect of this scale takes ears. which is why Count regulations allow for a 15 year build -out. Private facilities, such as the golf course, village. gym, lockers. swimming pool and equestrian center, are marketing amenities which will be constructed over time based upon contractual relationships between the Applicant and the buyers of lots. The timing of their construction would be an inappropriate condition of approval. Staff finds this to be important because of the lack of interest / complacency the continued reiterations have created among review agencies who are tired of reviewing the same project (5 large binders) every few years just so the developer can float the "approvals along." Staff feels the same is true for the neighborhood. Not only that, there has been concern that the farther out the project goes, so to any road improvements to CR 114 which may need immediate attention. Why should the County improve sections of CR 114 when the developer is required to make those improvements with their development? This question continues to perplex Staff. Applicant's Response 20. The paucity of responses from review agencies is more likely a result of their having nothing to say. than their lack of interest. This application proposes minimal changes within the agencies' areas of authority. Most chances reduce impacts and, therefore, require no comment. The County has the obligation to maintain its roads with or without the project. If there is no project. there will be no developer funded improvements to CR 114. CR 115 and the intersection of CR 114 with SH 82. which currently suffer from deficiencies that were not caused or created by the project. You will recall the dismay of residents in the area being very concerned about the existing condition of CR 114 from CMC up to the project and in the general area of the project on CR 114 and CR 115. They raised the issue that as long as the developer continues to push out their project and loose phasing plan, the required improvements also get pushed out meanwhile the road continues to deteriorate. The County's position was that rather than put monies into the roads today only to have them redone in a few years was money wasted. In fact, that is what has happened. The County has chip -sealed the section from CMC to the intersection of CR 114 and 115 last summer at a cost of $150,000.00 that has a life of 5 years. In theory, the existing phasing plan had these improvements starting in April 2007 and the proposed phasing plan has these improvements beginning in April 2008 if the amendment is approved. This is tax payer monies spent only to be torn up in two years. This needs to be fully explored by the Planning Commission and the BOCC. Applicant's Response 21. Please refer to response 20 above. In addition the updated Phasing Plan and estimated development schedule provided in the Supplement to the application provide a reasonable sequencing of the phasing of the infrastructure and residential units which assures that all lots within a final plat will be serviced. The deveio•ment. marketin• and sale of lots in the Pro'ect will occur over time Bunn which market conditions will undoubtedly vary. Therefore, the range in dates included in the estimated development schedule allows for a certain level of market responsiveness that is both appropriate and necessary with a proiect of this size. Furthermore, the phasing of the improvements to CR 114 and CR 115 is consistent with the traffic burden that the Proiect will put on these roads as homes are built. While the County must continue to maintain CR 114 and 115 prior to the completion of the Applicant's improvements, the County will also be responsible for the maintenance of these routes after the improvements have been made. Cars have very little impact on road deterioration. The greatest destructive impact on asphalt is transport truck traffic which will be at its highest volume during the early years of the Project. Improving CR 114 and 115 once transport truck traffic has subsided will lengthen the life of the road surface and reduce the County's future maintenance costs. Amendments to a PUD §4.72.03 Standards and Requirements: t!! those provisions modified, Plan or authorized to be enforced by they may released by the County, subject to the following: (1) No modification, removal or release of the sr occupants and owners of visions of the Plan by the County shall affect the right the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modifications, removal or release 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 the provisions of Section 24-67-104• C.R.S., that the preservation of the entire PUD 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 a special benefit upon any person. 24 Staff Response Staff finds the requested modification to the PUD specific to the elimination of the 75 AH units substantially adversely affects the public interest due primarily to the project's inability to offset / mitigate employee generation from 1) construction of the recreation / second home type residences, 2) operation and maintenance of these homes, and the employees needed for the project's amenities (golf course / restaurant / spa, etc.) In Staff's view, the State of Colorado's average household size is 2.43 persons according to the US Census Bureau's "2004 American Community Survey." At full build -out, this project could contain as many as 1,402 residents which is larger than the Town of Parachute's 2004 population (County Housing Assessment 2006). While the project is billed as a low density project, it will still be the largest development in Garfield County history. Even so, the developer requests eliminating its current requirement to provide affordable housing to off set the impacts this development will create regarding the jobs necessary to build, operate, and maintain this community. In Staff's view, the elimination of 75 "roof -tops" will substantially adversely affect the public interest. As a result of the revision below, Staff finds the proposal meets this standard. Applicant's Response 22. To comply with the County requirements to amend a PUD, the Applicant proposes in its Supplement to construct the 75 Community Housing units in accordance with the currently approved PUD and to provide 24 additional rental units for project employees as provided above, particularly Responses 1 through 8. VIII. RESPONSE TO RESOLUTION 2005-83 — PUD AMENDMENT As you will remember, the last iteration of review by the County on this project was primarily an exercise to review and consolidate certain conditions of approval from a variety of Resolutions into one resolution that would contain all obligations for this development. The BOCC approved the request which resulted in a set of conditions for the PUD as well as a separate list of conditions for the Preliminary Plan. What follows are the Applicant's response to these existing conditions. The entire list is at the end of this memorandum for your review. What follows here are only the conditions that the Applicant wishes to specifically address or amend while still agreeing to comply with all the other conditions. 5.0Access agreements for out parcels need to be included in any preliminary plan submittal and the proposed covenants need to be changed to address these agreements. Staff Response All accesses to out parcels are depicted on the B sheets of Exhibit 26. 7.0 That all of the proposed Development Phasing Schedule be modified to require the final platting of all phases within 15 years of the platting of the first phase and that the completion of construction periods may be less as required by the applicable subdivision improvements agreement. Staff Response The Phasing schedule in the Preliminary Plan application demonstrates compliance with this condition. See Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. Staff finds that the phasing plan actually contains a significant caveat that essentially states the following: "Notwithstanding any dates to the contrary, the Final Plats for all lots in all phases must be approved no later than 15 years after the date of the approval of the Final Plat for Phase 1. Each phase must be developed sequentially in a manner to insure the installation of the appropriate infrastructure and other related improvements for each phase consistent with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations," Applicant's Response 23. Applicant's caveat does not derogate App'licant's obligation to comply with County Resolutions or Regulations in any way. The caveat actually assures compliance with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations which provide that. i) final plats for all lots be approved within 15 years after the date of approval of the Phase 1 Final Plat: and ii) final plats must be sequenced in a manner which assures availability of infrastructure and other related improvements for all lots within each phase. 8.0 All trails and open space shall be included as part of phase 1. All infrastructure and public utilities may be phased in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. Staff Response The Applicant requests a change to this condition. The Applicant requests to amend this condition such that "Phase 1 will consist of the development of small marketing) entry gate structures. As such the proposed Phase 1 uses will not benefit from the construction of trails and the additional platting of open space. Trails and open space parcels will be platted in accordance with the proposed phasing plan included in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4." The requirement to include trails and open space in the first phase was debated heavily and subsequently required by the BOCC on the basis that the first resident to the last resident should be able to enjoy these amenities and so there weren't trails to nowhere and that the open space could be used at the beginning of the development. Staff continues to recommend the Applicant be bound by this condition as written. 76 Applicant"s Response 24. Applicant requested a chanae in this condition for three reasons: 1) the creation of open space lots and trail easements which are not coterminous with Phase 1 or Phase 2 requires extraordinary engineering and survey efforts. expenses and costs which would otherwise not be applicable to the preparation and recordation of a final plat for Phase 1. which contains no residential parcels other than the existing Ranch House, or Phase 2. which is the first phase containing new residential lots: 2) recordation of open space parcels and trail easements which are not within the boundaries of a final plat for a phase would create undue economic and legal burdens over the remainder property on which final plats have not been recorded; and 3) since the internal trails and open space are for the use of the owners of property within the Project. no public benefit is served by requiring these dedications prior to the recordation of the final plat that included such dedications. The protections that the 3000 intended to provide for prospective buyers from these premature conveyances are already controlled by Colorado and Federal laws and disclosure requirement, not to mention the potential liability for misrepresentations. Under Colorado and Federal law. Applicant cannot legally represent to prospective buyers within any phase that Protect facilities. including trails, will be constructed, unless Applicant either constructs or shows reasonable evidence that such facilities will be constructed by the date promised. Likewise. :Applicant cannot legally represent to buyers within any phase that Project that open space will be created and made available. until and unless Applicant has dedicated such open space. Applicant requests that the trail easements and open space dedications be recorded with the final plats in which such open space parcels or trail easements is incorporated so long as the cumulative acreage of dedicated oven space complies with the Garfield County open space requirements. For these reasons Applicant requests that this condition not be imposed upon the Protect. 9.0 Based upon the representations of the applicant, accepting the provisions of the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, dated September 12, 2000 (see attached Exhibit `B), the following conditions are imposed; 9.1 The Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CCRs) for the Village Center shall provide that the Chenoa (Spring Valley Ranch) Home Owners Association will be the governing authority with all appropriate enforcement powers for operation and control of the Village Center, including all commercial and residential areas, as well as open space. Staff Response The Applicant states that this condition no longer applies because the Village Center has been relocated to the center of the property and is no longer adjacent to the Berkley property. Staff doe not understand the thinking behind their response and would ask for further clarification. 27 Applicant's Response 25. Applicant proposes to re -incorporate the 75 Community Housing units as Provided in the current PUD. Therefore, Applicant will comply with provisions of this condition with respect to the Community Housing units. to witch "all dwelling units and lots which protrude into the meadow area ajacent to the Lake Springs Ranch PUD should be relocated and contained within the area as shown on the August 3rd drawing provided by Spring Valley Development to Berkeley. However. the provisions of this condition which pertain to the regional park (proposed as open space), Commercial component of the Village Center (proposed away from the Berkeley's in a central location within the Project) and Church/Cemetery parcel (proposed as open space) are no longer applicable. as these uses and/or parcels are either not near the Berkeley's property or not included in the Application. Further, the governance and management of the Community Housing Program has not been determined. A homeowners association, which exclusively represents the interest of the residents in the Community Housing units. is the probable governing body. As neither the Berkeley's nor the owners within the Lake Springs Ranch PUD own property within the Community Housing district and, therefore. would not be subject to the CC&R's, their inclusion in the association would be inappropriate. 9.2 These restrictions, based upon the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, (see Exhibit `B' attached), shall be included in the restrictive covenants binding upon such lands and running to the benefit of the owners of the Chenoa (Spring Valley Ranch) PUD and the owners of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and duly recorded of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County. Staff Response The Applicant states that this condition no longer applies because the Village Center has been relocated to the center of the property and is no longer adjacent to the Berkley property. Staff does not understand the thinking behind their response and would ask for further clarification. Applicant's Response 26. Please see Response 25 above. Additionally, since the concerns of the Berkeley's and their Lake Springs PUD have been rendered moot by the relocation of the Commercial uses. the inclusion of the owners of the Lake Springs Rand PUD as a party to CC&R's. which pertain solely to the 75 Community Housing units, is no longer necessary, nor would such inclusion be appropriate or acceptable to the future owners of the Community Housing units. 16.0 No short term rental (daily or weekly) of the Wilderness Cabins will be allowed. Staff Response The PUD plan has changed where the Applicant has eliminated the Wilderness cabins. The proposed cabin lots located near the village center will comply with this condition. 28 IX. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW The following portion of this memorandum provides an analysis of the proposed Preliminary Plan. It is meant to serve as a review of the standards and criteria may have not been adequately addressed in the Application. it has been formatted such that the standard is in bold italics followed by a Staff Response. A. Soils / Site Geology The Application contains a geologic / soils analysis prepared by CM/Thompson, (Geologists and Geo -Technical Engineers) on behalf of the Applicant who have examined the entire property in order to identify known geologic hazards and suggest mitigation measures if necessary. As a result of their review, they state, "We discovered no geological or geotechnical constraints at Spring Valley Ranch PUD that would preclude development for the intended residential use. The subsoil conditions are, in general, favorable for the proposed development." There have been three separate reviews of the property by CTUThompson that continue to confirm their analysis and findings, From these analyses the potential geologic hazards that have been identified fall into three categories: • Potentially Unstable Slopes (PUS) • Potential Debris / Mud Flow Hazard • Potential Rockfall Hazard The Applicant proposes to mitigate these hazards in the following manner: A. Potentially Unstable Slopes The geologic investigation conducted by CM/Thompson identified potentially unstable slopes as those areas with slopes steeper than 30% (Garfield County PUD Regulations -slopes over 40% should be avoided), which are not uncommon in the Roaring Fork Valley, From the standpoint of slope stability, where potentially unstable slopes might affect development, development will focus on enhancing or strengthening the slope stability where and when mitigation is necessary. Homeowners will be advised in the Design Guideline Doc mt s h that bed oledn hee sspecific geologylgeotechnical investigation shoo pe ir specific home design and specific footprint location within the pre -determined building envelope. Homeowners are required to submit an engineer's Soils and Foundations Report prior to obtaining a building permit. CTU7hompson believes there are no "unbuildable" lots and that any adverse geologic conditions on any lot can be mitigated. Common methods of enhancing slope stability that will be addressed in the final design for each future residence include: 29 1. Avoid or minimize the removal of the natural soils at the base of slopes that would remove materials supporting the natural slopes and therefore potentially reduce the stability of these slopes, 2. Avoid or minimize the placement of fills at the tops of unstable slopes that would add weight and therefore increase the downward driving force that could reduce the stability of the natural slopes 3. Improve site drainage to reduce water infiltration into the ground at potentially unstable slope areas 4. Where development will encroach on areas near stability/failure equilibrium, proactive mitigation such as slope retainment (soil nails, tieback anchors, retaining walls) and/or subsurface drainage systems will be used to mitigate slope stability concerns. All homeowners will be required to submit an Engineer's report and recommended mitigation measures to both the Design Review Board and Garfield County Building Department prior to being issued a building permit. The Engineer's recommended mitigation measures will be based upon the specific home design and specific location within the building envelope. B. Potential Debris / Mud Flow Hazard Debris or mud flow hazards have been identified on existing debris (alluvial) fans and in existing drainage channels. The degree of potential hazard due to debris or mud flows is directly related to the magnitude of the flood potential within each debris fan or drainage channel. The drainage report, prepared by Gamba & Associates, is contained in Appendix S. The drainage report provides calculations for the peak flows within each significant drainage channel generated by both the 25 -year and the 100 year storm events. The magnitude of the potential debris flow within each potential hazard area is determined by applying a debris "bulking" factor to the peak flow calculations. Debris and mud -flow will be mitigated where necessary by constructing the following common mitigation measures: 1. Debris Detention Structures 2. Debris flow conveyance channels 3. Debris flow energy dissipation or impact / diversion structures Any residential development within a debris or mud flow hazard area will be mitigated by the construction of either a debris flow detention structure or a diversion conveyance channel. Due to the relatively smaller magnitude of debris and mud flow events associated with this site, roads and utility infrastructure will 30 require little or no debris flow mitigation. In those aspecific hed ebris oad brave aazar t iw l lity locations where mitigation of the debris flow is necessary, be mitigated by one or more of the above described methods during each phase of construction. C. Potential Rockfall Hazard: According to the CTL / Thompson Geologic Evaluationreport,rrt he h rate he Roaring of overall degree of rockfall hazard is low to moderate, as is com Fork Valley. Rockfall hazard mitigation methods consist of the following: 1. Stabilization or removal of the rockfall source by rock bolting, grading, and scaling 2. Protection of the development improvements (residences, roadways, above ground utility structures) by construction of impact structures such as mechanically stabilized earth walls or catchment structures Any residential development, roadways, or aboveground f ilitthe y ime hods described nfrastructure within a rockfall hazard area will be mitigated by one or moreriot to each phase of above in the normal course of geotechnical review p construction. The report does recommend that an engineer's Soil and Foundations tates that the PUD s Report be obtained prior to obtaining a building permit. The Applicant been designed to avoid most known geologic and geotechnical constraints, severe or unstable slopes and other geologic hazards. Wher itthwas t are tot p ossal ible s mivoid site specific mitigation measures could be employed Staff to conditions encountered elsewhere in the Roaring Fork however, Voalley. were referred the Application to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS); received. B. Wildlife The Application contains an analysis prepared bR cha octet Mountain E ological al Services Inc. of the wildlife using the property, habitat impacts by the proposed development. This analysis can be found in Binder 2, Appendix E. Some of the key findings include the following: 1) T&E Species: There are no federally threatenedn ro ccd o g Bredlize species s listed under the Endangered Species Act know within the Spring Valley Ranch. 2) Impacts to Mule Deer Habitat i. Development of the Spring Valley Ranch will have minimal impacts to deer range around the mountain lots, but indirect effects of dogs, noxious weeds, and traffic would compound habitat losses. Impacts to deer range in the area of the golf course lots will have more significant direct losses of habitat through conversion to homes, landscaped yards, roads and golf course features. Because of the ability for deer to habituate to human activities, deer use in these areas will likely continue, but with decreased herd sizes and increased stress levels. Deer damage to landscaping and golf course features is almost guaranteed. ii. Dogs will generally decrease habitat effectiveness, but if dogs were going to be allowed only in specific areas of the Ranch, then allowing dogs in the higher development density areas and not the mountain lots or meadow lots would be preferable as the lower home densities in the mountain and pasture lots would allow for more greater habitat effectiveness for mule deer, and controlling dogs in these areas would greatly benefit continued habitat effectiveness. Strict dog control policies and incorporation of a mitigation plan are recommended to minimize impacts and to possibly improve remaining habitats in the area of the Spring Valley Ranch development. 3) Impacts to Elk: The property lies within the larger winter range habitats of Missouri Heights. Large elk herds are known to move throughout the Missouri Heights area during the winter months, taking advantage of different ranges during intermittent snowfall and snowmelt events. The Spring Valley Ranch is unique as it also provides elk calving range as well. 1. Winter Range Impacts The Spring Valley Ranch development layout in the mountain lot areas leaves quite a bit of potential elk winter range mostly intact on the steeper south facing slopes. Elk have been observed utilizing these slopes, and the light level of development on these sloes should not impair most elk use in these areas. Harassment by dogs and human activity though, would likely reduce the habitat effectiveness of these areas. The development of the higher density golf course lots and development of the lower benches to a relatively high homesite density would likely preclude most long-term and substantial elk foraging opportunities in these areas. However, the presence of the golf course in this area may encourage elk lingering in this area. This is because the application of fertilizers increases the nutritional quality of foraging in- and immediately adjacent to- golf course greens. This increased elk use of the golf course area 32 may cause an "attractive nuisance" issue, where elk are drawn to the golf course area, and are then harassed or bothered by humans and dogs from the area. Because the golf course will be placed in elk winter range, elk damage to golf course greens and rough areas will likely occur. Elk migration and movement through this area would still likely occur, as the home densities would still allow areas where elk could pass through the area. The dense oakbrush provides screening that would allow elk, for the most part, to feel safe enough to pass through the subdivision. However, the proposed level of development of this area would exclude the existing elk lingering and foraging use patterns that currently occur. As winter progresses, elk will continue to filter through the property more quickly, and move to lower elevations in the Roaring Fork Valley. During construction, the increased traffic and noise from construction activities would likely frighten elk and preclude most of the elk use in these higher density areas. CDOW has had numerous incidences of contractors bringing dogs to work, only to let the dogs run loose and harass wildlife. Without significant supervision by Spring Valley Ranch staff, this could become an issue and have further negative impacts on elk. Approximately 1,700 acres of elk winter forage habitats will be negatively affected by the development. As stated above, this does not mean that some level of elk use would not continue, but rather, long-term elk foraging opportunities in this area would be diminished. and elk movements through this area would be modified and changed to avoid human activity as much as possible. Within this area, approximately 230 acres would be converted to a golf -course with surrounding vegetation. in these areas, elk may be attracted to these habitats for watering and grazing. Elk will likely move through the subdivision during the nighttime hours to graze in hay meadows and surrounding slopes, but will still likely graze on the steep slopes. During the daytime hours, elk will likely bed down in the denser areas of oakbrush as they traditionally have done, but only as long as dogs and people do not bother or approach the elk. Elk can become habituated to vehicle traffic, but people walking along trails or dogs -off -leash can quickly discourage elk from using an area. Because elk are very habitual, they will likely show 33 up in the area during the early winter as they move out of the high country onto their traditional winter ranges. 1i. Production Range Production (calving) habitats exist on the Spring Valley Ranch for elk. These habitats are generally found along the higher elevations of the property, where aspen and coniferous vegetation are more prevalent. Although the mapped production area encompasses much of the steep, shrubby hillside areas, the highest elk production will be within and adjacent to aspen stands, springs, seeps and water bodies. This is because nursing cow elk require significant amounts of drinking water. Therefore, elk production areas as mapped are likely concentrated too much on the south facing shrubby slopes, and actual elk production areas are likely higher on the property, more towards the northern boarder and within the more forested habitats on the property. The proposed development of the mountain lots will have direct and indirect impacts to elk calving areas. These impacts will come from the direct conversion of suitable habitats to roads and homesites, as well as the indirect impacts from traffic, use of trails, and dogs within this area. For the most part, homes are clustered close to roads, minimizing indirect habitat loss, and are of a very low density. However, elk calving activities are extremely sensitive to human activities (Phillips and Alldredge 2000). Homes scattered within the mountain lots located within the forested habitats will likely preclude some elk calving. This is not to say that elk calving will cease, but homes that are consistently used and/or have dogs within/around the home during the calving season will decrease the ability for cow elk to feel safe enough to calve near a consistently -used residential home. This will cause cow elk to seek out areas further away from the development, and may put additional stressors on calving elk, and may increase some level of calf abandonment or decreased fecundity (Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Morgantini and Hudson 1980, Kuck et al. 1985). In order to mitigate some of the impact to Mule deer and Elk, this report suggests the following measures be adhere to in the development of this property: A. Lighting 34 Because the area will likely receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of the property and excessive lighting of roads (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Further, lighting of existing winter range beyond the building envelope areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright backyard lights illuminating hay meadows or hillsides). Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate winter range areas in order to minimize unintended "spotlighting" of foraging game at night. Determination of these areas would likely need to occur after the development is mostly complete. B. Roads Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following requirements should be followed: • Fences along the roads should not be allowed. • Cut and/or fill slopes along the roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution. • Large or extensive retaining walls ( defined as slopes greater than 70°) should be minimized, or if needed, retaining walls longer than 60' in length should have "steps" or other features to allow wildlife to cross the area if engineering allows such features. C. Trails The following trail closures should be implemented and enforced by an HOA: • The Landis Creek trail and its extensions through the upper lot areas should be closed during the sensitive elk calving and raptor nesting season (May 1 through June 30). • Trails outside of the core golf course area lots, along the "Middle Bench" should be closed during the sensitive deer and elk winter season (December 1 through March 31). • Improved cart paths around the golf course and core residential development areas may be maintained year-round. • Dogs must be on a leash year-round. D. Fences in order to continue the effective use of the area by big game animals, fencing that would inhibit big game movement is strongly discouraged. Decorative fencing that is not designed to allow wildlife passage is strongly discouraged as well. Additionally, existing fencing that is not necessary for ranch operations should be removed as soon as possible. Fencing that is needed to keep pets and children adjacent to the houses are allowed (and encouraged) as well as to keep neighboring livestock from using the Spring Valley Ranch. 35 Any fences intended to keep pets or children adjacent to the homes are acceptable, other fences to delineate the subdivision should comply with the following specifications: • Fences should consist of two rails, with the upper rail 44 inches above the ground, and the top of the bottom rail 24 inches above the ground. This will allow adult animals to easily jump over fences, even in deep snow, and will allow calves and fawns to crawl under or pass through the rails. • For barbed wire fences, middle wires can be smooth woven wire. The bottom wire should be at least 16" off the ground, 20" would be better, but this may be too high to keep cattle calves from crawling under. • Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for big game species to cross, therefore buck and rail fences are strongly discouraged. • Prior to construction, snow fencing or silt fencing shall be erected at the edge of the building envelopes to contain disturbance to native vegetation by indirect construction activities (i.e. trampling of vegetation by equipment, etc.). E. Landscapinq & Revegetation As the area is used as winter range (and critical winter range), reclamation of road cuts, infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using similar native plant species and vegetation profiles. Revegetation should also occur as soon as possible, however planting in the spring after big game have left the area would be best as newly planted materials would likely be browsed first, and plants with little time to set roots will likely be pulled up by grazing big game. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually in order to minimize their spread and impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities. Revegetation along roadsides should not include trees and tall shrubs (such as chokecherry or Gambel's oak) within 10 feet of the road to improve visual detection of wildlife along roadsides and to minimize road kill. Local native grasses, forbs and low shrubs may be planted along roadsides to keep wildlife habitat conditions as viable as possible. F. Domestic Dogs Dogs can have a significant impact on wildlife and the ability for wildlife to effectively use otherwise available habitats. Dogs can chase and kill wildlife, or so exhaust and injure wildlife that wildlife dies later. Larger mammals such as deer and elk are especially vulnerable during the winter/early spring, when their energy reserves are depleted, food resources are most limited, and most of the adult females are pregnant. Young wildlife are also vulnerable to attack and harassment by dogs. Even if not chased by dogs, wildlife tends to avoid areas where dogs are kept outside, which has the effect of creating a barrier to wildlife movement and reducing the available habitat. Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing -eye dogs or assistance 36 dogs for the disabled, should be prohibited outside of residential areas and never be allowed to run free. As this area is a very important big game winter and summer range habitat, it is inevitable that dogs allowed outside of fenced yards, even under leash control, will escape control and chase and likely injure wildlife. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following recommendations are presented: • As required by Garfield County, dogs will be limited to one per dwelling unit (plus young up to 3 months old). This restriction should also apply to cats. • Dogs should not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months (November 15 through March 15), unless under leash control. • Any fenced enclosures constructed for the overnight maintenance of dogs or cats must be within the building envelope. • Loose dogs should be prohibited. This includes dogs owned by contractors, subcontractors, delivery personnel, home owners and their guests. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to big game through direct and indirect mortality, increased stress, and displacement from preferred ranges. Control of dogs is vital when living within elk and deer range. In the past, CDOW has had numerous reports of dogs brought to construction sites by workers which chase and harass wildlife. • Due to the location of this ranch within sensitive wildlife habitat areas, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. • Mountain lots should be considered for a year-round dog prohibition. This area provides large expanses of continuous wildlife habitats, and dogs could have impacts far beyond that of the impacts from roads and homes. Elk calve in this area from late May through late June, and dogs could cause calf abandonment, calf death, and dogs themselves could also be attacked by cow elk protecting calves. Stray or loose dogs may be controlled by CDOW or Garfield County, which could include destruction of dogs chasing wildlife, as permitted by Colorado law. Under Colorado law, persons who are not in compliance with this dog policy will be responsible for any and all costs the CDOW or Garfield County may incur due to control of loose dogs on the property. If home owners knowingly permit illegal dog activity on the property, those persons will be financially responsible for costs of controlling dogs. CDOW and County representatives may be granted access to the property to enforce any of the dog restrictions and other wildlife restrictions set within these recommendations. CDOW enforcement may include the capture or destruction of any dogs running at large on the property, regardless of where the dogs may have originated. One possibility is of putting in a "dog park" on the property, away from the best big game habitats. This could assist with keeping dogs from running loose on the property, chasing wildlife, and otherwise harassing big game, or precluding habitat use through barking and "intimidation" of wildlife. This would also provide homeowners a place where dogs could run free and play without fear of harming wildlife or running off. 37 G. Domestic Cats Domestic cats can have significant impacts on local breeding bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations in area habitats. Keeping cats indoors will protect a major component of the potential non -game wildlife use in the area. H. CDOW Indemnification As the property occurs within mule deer and elk winter ranges, there will be damage and use of the landscaping by foraging big game. The properly owners should be informed of this and agree to indemnify CDOW from wildlife damage and not seek funding for game damage reimbursement from CDOW. 1. Bears Black bears are very common in the area from spring (April) through fall (late November). There are existing problems with bears, garbage, and people in Garfield County and some bears have shown signs of habituation and aggression towards residents. Areas near the Spring Valley Ranch are considered to be "bear - human conflict areas" by CDOW. The Gambel's oak, serviceberry and chokecherry stands on the property provide extensive black bear fall foraging areas. The proposed development of the area will convert areas of the property to non -habitat conditions. However, bear use of these areas will likely continue. With the residential and golf course setting, it is inevitable that garbage and food sources will become available to bears, and human/bear conflicts will likely occur. These conflicts, however, can be minimized by implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The following measures should be implemented to reduce potential bear problems: • There should be no dumps that have edible materials associated with the construction and post -construction activities. Construction workers and contractors should be notified and educated about the importance of keeping trash, food and drink items properly disposed of to discourage bear activities in the area. • Residential garbage should be placed in bear -proof dumpsters, individual bear -proof trash containers, or kept in trash cans inside closed buildings. Trash cans should not be left outside overnight prior to trash collection, as bears quickly become habituated to these schedules. • Because of the layout of the subdivision, there is an opportunity to install bear -proof centralized trash stations which will decrease the number and availability of trash cans for bears to rummage through. • Pets should not be fed outside. Bowls of pet food left around buildings will attract bears and other predators (e.g. coyotes or red fox) and nuisance species (e.g. skunks, raccoon, woodrats) of wildlife. • Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and removed altogether during the fall months (September 38 through late November). Catchment basins should be used underneath bird feeders to catch seed. Bears are known to visit birdfeeding sites where seeds have accumulated on the ground. • Nut, fruit, or berry producing trees or shrubs should not be used in landscaping in order to minimize an attractant for bears around homes and developed areas. • Instead of lever -action door handles, round door knobs should be used, as bears can open lever -action door handles. • Compost piles shall be forbidden. • Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner's brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW. J. Birds Many sensitive bird species utilize the area; therefore the following recommendations are presented: • Pet cats should remain indoors, as cats will readily prey upon these species and can have a significant impact on bird use in the area and on bird populations. • Bird feeders are discouraged due to the heavy black bear use in the area. Bird feeders can be used in the winter (from mid November through mid March), as bears are hibernating during this time. • Prior to initiation of construction, a qualified biologist will be retained by Spring Valley Ranch to conduct a raptor nesting survey. if an active raptor nest is found during the survey, heavy construction (e.g. earth moving and exterior house construction, use of cranes, etc.) should be prohibited within a radius of either 300 feet (if nest is in a conifer) or 400 feet (if nest is in a cottonwood or an aspen) until the young have fledged or the nest naturally fails. The typical fledging date for the area would be around July 1 • All bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, should be hung away from any window or deck, be at least 10' from the ground, and be suspended between two trees or posts. • Any seed feeders should have a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seed. K. Golf Course & Open Space Management Spring Valley Ranch should consider incorporating the following: • All persons within the Spring Valley Ranch development should be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing wildlife as part of effort to force wildlife off golf courses, open space areas, or conservation easement areas on the Ranch. 39 • Goff course staff will have the right to focally restrict wildlife from golf course tees, greens, landscaping clumps, and other sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected will not restrict free movement of wildlife but will be used only in small, isolated areas to help direct wildlife and/or people. • A Best Management Plan for the golf course will be implemented to apply the proper procedures for the application of fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and any other chemicals. Drainage has been designed to ensure that water quality measures are in place to prevent adverse impacts to streams, riparian corridors, ponds, wetlands or other sensitive areas. Based on this exhaustive fist of suggested recommendations, Staff is unclear as to how the Applicant has addressed these comments and incorporated them into the development plan. Applicant's Response 27. The recommendations in the Wildlife Report will be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Project. Specific CC&R provisions that incorporate these recommendations are included in the Summary of CC&R Provisions in Binder 3. Appendix 1. C. Domestic Water Supply The Applicant proposes to construct a central water supply system to provide potable and fire protection water to all lots within the entire development. The water will come from wells drilled on the property as well as from existing reservoirs and surface water for irrigation purposes. Physically, this system is generally comprised of a 12 -inch distribution line located primarily in the road right-of-ways. Due to elevation gain / loss, some areas would be required to have booster pumps to maintain water pressure particularly for fire protection at the hydrant. The system will include two water storage tanks: a 1 -million gallon water tank in the Landis Creek Canyon serving the middle bench and a 500,000 gallon tank to serve the upper Mountain Lots. The Application contains extensive information regarding the legal water supply. A report found in Appendix C of Binder 2 states the following: The water supply will be obtained from existing and proposed wells and springs located on the SVR property, and from surface water under senior decreed irrigation water rights in Landis Creek. Extensive engineering investigations confirm that surface and groundwater resources are physically available for the development, and that well diversions will not have a long term negative impact on the water balance of the Spring Valley aquifer. The water supply for the development is authorized by Water Court decrees approving water rights, changes of water rights and two plans for augmentation, These existing decrees provide a legally adequate water supply for the entire residential development, commercial uses, golf course, and related potable and agricultural open space irrigation, as shown in the project plans. Augmentation 40 water necessary to offset any out -of -priority depletions under the augmentation plans will be provided pursuant to contracts with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Irrigation of the golf course and agricultural open space will occur under senior water rights, and will be supplemented by groundwater as necessary. Ultimately, this report in the Application states the following conclusions: A. On behalf of Garfield County, in 2000 Colorado River Engineering, Inc. reviewed the water supply for the Spring Valley Ranch. Exhibit S. This report concludes that "[o]ur review of available data and reports has indicated that the proposed watersupplyplan can provide a reliable water supply given the PUD water demand levels, available water rights, and physical supplies available from surface and groundwater sources." B. Also in 2000, the Colorado State Engineer reviewed the physical and legal water supply for the project and concluded that "the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions." Exhibit T. C. The water requirements for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD are less than the water requirements of the PUD as currently approved and as reviewed by the County and the State in 2000. The projected consumptive use associated with the current development plan for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD (not including agricultural irrigation in the Lower Meadow) is 545 acre-feet per year, as compared with 974 acre-feet per year under the currently approved plan that was analyzed in 2000. With the elimination of a golf course, the development is able to support continued irrigation of the valley floor. This irrigation component allows a "buffer" of water supply that can be used, or reduced, depending on climatic conditions and project water demand, to assure the continued sustainability of the aquifer, and a dependable water supply for the development. Therefore, a physically sufficient water supply, sustainable over the foreseeable future, exists to support the proposed residential and commercial development of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. D. This conclusion is supported by extensive geological and hydrological investigation. In addition, all of the required water rights are owned by Spring Valley Holdings, and augmentation plans have been approved and decreed by the Water Court. These augmentation plans provide for a full legal water supply to the development while assuring that no injury is caused to any other water rights. The entity that will own and operate the system will be the Landis Creek Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2. A copy of the approved Service Plan is contained in Binder #1, Section 6.0. At the outset, the Application states that the 4i Applicant "will provide construction funding through its development and construction funding sources and in accordance with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement that will be executed by the Applicant and Garfield County at the applicable Final Plat Approval. As explained in the Service Plan, "The Service District will be responsible for, or contracting for, managing the construction and operation of facilities and improvements needed for the PUD." The Service Plan also provides that the Landis Creek Metropolitan District No. 2 as the Service District will initially own and operate certain public facilities and infrastructure throughout the PUD. Landis Creek Metropolitan District No. 1, as the Financing District, will generate the tax revenue sufficient to pay the costs of the capital improvements as described herein and associated operations and maintenance." Staff referred this Application to the Colorado Division of Water Resources to be reviewed by the State Engineer. As of the drafting of this memorandum, no formal comments were received; however, the State Engineer did indicate they requested additional information from the Applicant which was not provided to date. As a result, the State Engineer verbally opined this development (as currently proposed) would result in material injury to decree water rights. As the Planning Commission is aware, Staff cannot recommend a project move forward without a Letter of No Material Injury" form the State Engineer as water is one of the most critical components to the project. Applicant's Response 28. As stated in the application, both the State and the County engineers previously found the physical and legal water supply to be adequate. No change has Peen made to the legal water supply, as none is required. As also stated in the application; the water requirements for the amended plan are substantially less than the currently approved plan. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that the agency recommendation should be any different. Applicant will work with the State to answer any questions. D. Waste Disposal The Application proposes to handle waste water generated from the development in two ways: a central collection / treatment system provided by Spring Valley Sanitation District and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). More specifically, the Application proposes to serve the following lots with a central system that will be located in the road right-of-ways: Residential/Pasture District (except Lot P23 — the existing ranch house), Residential/Ranch District :- Residential/Estate District Residential/Cabin District Village/Commercial District • Light Industrial District 42 Open Space/Golf District The Applicant proposes that sewage disposal for the Residential/Mountain District and Lot P23 of the Residential/Pasture District will be provided by Advanced Treatment (ISTS) systems. In this case, Design Guidelines will require that each ISTS be designed by a registered engineer on the basis of a site-specific geological and geotechnical site evaluation. The designs must be approved by the engineer for the Landis Creek Metropolitan District, as well as Garfield County. Landis Creek Metropolitan District for the operation, maintenance and monitoring of the system after the Advanced Treatment ISTS is constructed. The central sewer collection and treatment will be provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District as the property has been annexed into the district and the facility has been constructed and is fully operational to handle an average daily flow of approximately 500,000 galions per day and currently operates at 40,000 gallons / day. The Applicant estimates that the maximum hydraulic loading on the wastewater treatment plant from the project at full development and occupancy will be approximately 234,045 gallons per day (46.8°k of capacity). Staff referred the Application to the District and received the following comments: 1. The Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) will provide wastewater treatment services to this proposed P.U.D. This review is limited to those issues associated with wastewater collection, transmission and treatment of the areas of the project proposed to be sewered. This project was reviewed previously by SVSD several years ago, it is our understanding that the site layout from a wastewater collection perspective has changed significantly since then. 2. This review is limited to a preliminary plan level of detail and is intended to review intent and adequacy of the overall design proposed. At the Final Plat stage, a review of engineering details will be provided. 3. All facilities constructed must meet the rules and regulations of SVSD. 4. At 200 scale, these drawings are very difficult to review from an intent standpoint. 5. The District Rules and Regulations require 50 scale drawings at Preliminary Plan stage. 6. it is difficult to go between the overall sheets and the plan and profile sheets. Provide a key map on each overall sheet. 7. It is difficult to follow from one plan and profile sheet to another. Provide match lines on plan and profile sheets. 43 8. The force main and pressure sewer system designations are not consistent between overall sheets and plan and profile sheets. 9. In prior agreements, Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) has been designated for 646 EQR's. Based on the districts standard design of 350 gpd per EQR, this equates to 226,100 gpd. The report indicates an anticipated flow -rate of 234,045 gpd, equivalent to 669 EQR's. Explain calculated flow rate. 10. The rules and regulations require a Design Report as a basis for EQR determination. No report is included in the submittal package. Applicant should submit such a report as the basis for both EQR's and the wastewater contribution calculations. 11. SVSD Rules and Regulations require that a Design Report accompany the Preliminary Plan drawings as a basis for the design of infrastructure facilities. No such report was included in the application materials. 12. Gravity sewer lines were sized, but there was no basis provided for the sizing. 13. There were two Lift stations indicated on the drawings. The detail drawings provided for the lift stations were generic with no detail. There was no basis provided for sizing. 14. There was no sizing provided for or a basis of sizing for force mains from lift stations. The only representation found was on the generic detail for a 4" force main. 15. There are a number of multiple user pressure sewer systems proposed in this system with the intent to transfer ownership to SVSD at completion. 16. The only currently approved supplier of pressure sewer systems in the district is E -One. While the district may consider other suppliers, it was unclear from the drawings who the proposed manufacturer would be for the systems. 17. There was no design report as a basis for sizing of the individual force mains. If SVSD were to assume ownership of the mains after completion and construction, then an integrated design for each system is required. 18. The design slopes were based on a center of manhole dimensions, whereas the invert elevations used were at the edges of the manhole. Actual line slopes of sewers would therefore be different than shown on the drawings. Please clarify. 44 19. There appear to be a number of areas where steep slopes transition to flat slopes in manholes, possible creating an energy dissipation requirement. Please clarify. 20. SVSD requires that facilities be located within roadway corridors for ease of future operation and maintenance activities. Exceptions may be considered upon a case by case basis, Generally, there are significant portions of this system which are not located within roadway corridors. 21. It generally appeared that 30' easements were proposed for sewer lines outside roadway corridors. Confirm intent. 22. If sewer lines outside roadway corridors are approved, it will be necessary to show adequate access to all off-road lines and manholes. Such access was not indicated on the drawings, noting there were many sewer runs which were either steep or with significant side slopes which would likely prevent the access to maintenance equipment. Graded access would be required along all easements. 23. A water/sewer crossing detail was not found. 24. There appeared to be some sewer runs which exceeded the district's limitation of 400'. 25. The detail for gravity sewer lines did not include an allowance for bedding beneath the pipe. 26. Trench details for force mains and pressure sewer lines were not included. 27. There was no drawing which showed water and sewer mains on the same page. It was not possible to determine if there were any conflicts between the two utilities. 28. Show all water line and storm sewer/ culvert crossings on profiles. 29. Show conflicts between deep utility systems which will require additional facilities in the field. Staff regrets that as of the drafting of this memorandum, there are no comments to provide from a County Engineering review. Applicant's Response 29. Prior to commencing construction of any component of the sewage collection system. Applicant will meet all requlations and conditions of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. 45 E. Internal Roads The Application proposes a private internal road network throughout the entire PUD with two main access points that connect to the County's road system. Generally, the road network is a large looped road system that meanders through the middle bench area and through the mountain lot area where one could access one side of the development to the other using three distinct routes. In a traditional subdivision, because the trips generated from this development are approximately 3,915 ADT, the road system would be required to be built to the Major Collector standard (trips above 2,500) which requires 80 -foot ROW. In this case, the Applicant is proposing a lesser design defined as "Collectors" and "Minor Roads" with 60 and 50 foot ROWs respectively with asphalt or concrete surfaces. See the following page that shows the general breakdown of the road design. Spring Valley• Ranch P.U.D. Street and Roadwav Classification and Design Standards Road Classification Collector Road Itiiuor Road Cul -De -Sac 'Maximum Number of Residences to be Served 577 ; 140 40 Ma_ximum.veraae Daily Traffic Volume [vehicles per day] 8000 1.400 400 \liunntun Right -of -Way Width [feet] 60 ;0 50 Minimum Travel Lane Width [feet] 12 11 11 Mi uunuu Shoulder Width [feet] 4 Type of Road Surface including gavel lanes and shoulders) Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt OT Concrete Asphalt or Concrete As the matrix shows, there are also 40 cul-de-sacs designed throughout the road system. The County can, by virtue of the PUD, approve modifications to the subdivision standards. As you are aware, the cul-de-sc regulations cap lengths at 600 linear feet in order to encourage designs that provide alternate methods of egress / access in the event of a natural disaster / wildfire so that residents are not trapped in an area. This development has 40 cul-de-sacs that are well beyond 600 linear feet. In these cases, Staff relies on the emergency service providers (primarly Fire District and Sherriff) to provide opinions on the road systems. The Glenwood Fire Protection District reviewed the road system and provided the following comment: The County Shprriff reviewed the proposal anrJ provided the following comment. We have reviewed your submittal of the Spring Valle' Ranch P.U.D. Street and Roadway Classification and Design Standards. During our previous review, we requested a revision stating that all structures in excess of 500 square feet be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13R or as nthprwige rermired by the Authority Navin Jurisdi1ioji (.AH]). With the revision made we are I have reviewed your submittal of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. road dcsi`n. Atter this review and the meeting we had on June 5. 2006 with Glenwood Springs Fire Department Chief Mike Piper and Tom Gray, Managing Principal of the Santa Lucia Preserve, 1 have no concerns as to the relationship of the road dcsigi and wild land fire mitigation. Also, since the Spring Valley Ranch has a contract with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department for fire protection and mitigation. !would defer any concerns to Chief Piper. Staff regrets, as of the drafting of this memorandum, there are no County engineering review comments to provide on the revised road network from an engineering perspective. Staff does understand the Applicant's intent to reduce the road network footprint regarding cur and fill disturbance. Applicant's Response 30. The earthwork calculations for all roads in the proposed plan result in the following quantities: cut of 706,820 cubic yards and fill of 308,733 cubic yards. The earthwork calculations for all roads in the approved development plan result in the following quantities: cut of 1.057.744 cubic yards and fill of 471,960 Cubic Yards. The proposed plan provides for a 33% reduction in cut quantities and a 34% reduction in fill quantities when compared to the approved plan and. therefore, requires far less disturbance and adverse environmental impact. F. Cuff -site Traffic Impacts The Application contains a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIS) prepared by Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig prepared for the Applicant that provides an analysis of the traffic generated form this development and its impact to the County and State road system in the general are of the project. The analysis concluded that (as a full-time residential development) the project would generate 3,915 daily trips. The report concluded the foliowing findings and recommendations: 1. The primary access to the development will be CR 114. Several improvements are recommended to this road east of its intersection with SH 82. The two travel lanes will be widened to 12 feet each with four -foot shoulders on each side. The unpaved portion of CR 114 approaching Spring Valley Ranch as well as CR 115 within the development will be paved with improved shoulders. Analysis of the long range future peak hour volumes results in a volume/capacity of 0.48 for CR 114 indicative of LOS E. 2. In the short range future the following improvements are needed at the intersection of SH82andCR 114: i. Add a westbound to northbound right acceleration lane to separate right turning vehicles from the other movements at this intersection. With this improvement the intersection is projected to operate at level of service B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the evening peak hour. 3. The following improvements should be made near the intersection of CR 114 and the frontage road in the short range future: i. Add a second westbound lane approaching the frontage road and SH 82; ii. Add a second lane for northbound traffic on the frontage road approaching CR114; and iii. Signs requiring motorists to not block the frontage road intersection should be added to the north, east, and south legs. With these improvements. all funning movements at this intersection will operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. 47 4. In the long range future, the following improvements are needed at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114: 1. Add a second left tum lane on SH 82 to the southbound approach to CR 114. This will require adding a second receiving lane on CR 114 to the west of the frontage road. With this improvement, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, given the long range traffic forecasts for both second home community and full time community. S. The following improvement should be made to the intersection of CR 114 and the frontage road in the long range future: i. Add a second lane in the eastbound direction, east of the intersection to accommodate the additional receiving lane required to accommodate the dual southbound left turns at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114. With this improvement, unsignalized movements at this intersection will operate at LOS E or better during the peak hours. The following graphic shows these improvements to the 82 C CR 114 intersection: I.i SHORT RANGE 0 Add a second westbound lane or,CA114 approaching the Frontage Road. Q Add a Ie1t tum tale for northbound traffic on the Frontage Rosa. Q Add an ameleration lane for traffic turning right onto SHB2 from CR114. DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION; - 1 DO NOT BLOCK 1 INTERSECTION As you may recall, the presently approved Preliminary Plan (Resolution 2005-84) requires the following conditions of approval regarding off-site road impacts to CR 115 and 114 as well as the intersection of CH 82 and CR 114: 3.0 The applicant shall make application the Colorado Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12){b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the 41 SHORT RANGE O Add a second westbound lane on CR114 approaching the Frontage Road. O Add a left tum lane for northbound traffic on the Frontage Road. O Add an acceleration lane for traffic turning right onto SHB2 from CR114. LONG RANGE O Add a second southbound left turn lane on SH82. O Add a receiving lane on CR114 for the southbound left traffic on SH82. This lane will continue east and tater off east of the Frontage reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of CR 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permits shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat document, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. 4.0 The Applicant shall make the improvements to County Roads 114 and 115 as proposed in the application, at their own expense, regardless of cost, and consistent with the phasing of the improvements proposed in the application The Applicant continues to commit to these conditions with this revised Preliminary Plan. You may also recall the current Preliminary Plan approvals include provisions / conditions for the possibility of the relocation of a portion of CR 114 as it enters the project through Lake Springs Ranch PUD. This possible realignment is shown on the right. The Applicant continues to commit to the conditions of the realignment; however, they request that the improvement occur in Phase II rather than Phase 1 as currently required. Applicant's Response 31. Phase 1 of the currently approved Preliminary Plan contains 50 residential units and certain common facilities. Phase 2 of the Application is more or less the equivalent to Phase 1 of the existing Preliminary Plan. Therefore. Applicant proposes to comply with these conditions in Phase 2. Phase 1 of the Application contains only the project's entrance, Information/Sales office and Lot P23 (the existing Spring Valley Ranch House). It does not include any other residential units and. therefore. will have virtually no impact on traffic on SH 82, CR 114 or CR 115. G. Fire Protection The property is not located in a fire protection district but has entered into a contract with Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District for EMS and fire protection services since 2000. Basically, this agreement requires the Applicant to construct a fire station on the property, pay for fire fighting equipment, provide Staff, and make a 49 payment to the District every year. This documentation can be found in Binder 1, Section 11. It is unclear when Applicant is to construct and staff the fire station. The Application also contains a wildland fire report prepared by Anchor Point Group which specializes in Fire Management. The report was produced in order to provide an evaluation of the wildfire threats on the property and provide adequate mitigation for those threats. Their report stated that their goals were to A. Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire; B. Provide development options for the mitigation of wildfire, ensure compliance with local fire district code requirements; C. Develop an integrated management approach that encompasses all natural communities represented at Spring Valley Ranch; and D. Provide a tool to help residents of Spring Valley Ranch understand the complexity of the ecosystem and more effectively protect their property from potential wildfire. The report concluded that vegetation management is needed throughout the upper montane zone of the western slope of the Colorado Rocky Mountains to return forests and rangelands to an ecologically sustainable condition and to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and insect epidemics. Vegetative conditions at the Spring Valley Ranch property are significantly divergent from their historic norm. A comprehensive evaluation of wildfire hazard within Spring Valley Ranch was conducted; findings should be integrated into the overall restoration prescriptions being developed for the property. Project -wide vegetation restoration treatments include the maintenance of meadows, strategic fuel breaks to reduce vegetation density primarily through selective cutting to remove undesirable species and retention of mature healthy plants, and implementation of prescribed burning where feasible. Other recommended actions include the utilization of ignition resistant construction for all homes built in the development, in combination with individual defensible space. Glenwood Springs Fire Department is the authority having jurisdiction and dictates water supply requirements. Other infrastructure recommendations are proposed to meet adopted code compliance. Regarding the Preliminary Plan requirements, the following standards apply: 9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire entrapment. Staff Response The Applicant has had the Glenwood Springs Fire Chief review the internal road system as well as by Lou Vallario, Sheriff of Garfield County, who has responsibility 50 for wildfire protection, Chief Piper and Sheriff Vallario both conclude that the Spring Valley Ranch PUD meets this requirement. Letters from both Mike Piper and Lou Vallario regarding the proposed road system and road design standards are included in Appendix M. 9:72 Where a central water system has fire hydrants, all fire hydrants shall meet the specifications for the appropriate fire protection agency, particularly with regard to thread size on the fire hydrants. Staff Response The Applicant states that all fire hydrants installed will be in accordance with the fire hydrant specifications of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). 9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a centrally located fire protection storage tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire district. Staff Response The proposed water system includes the construction of a 1,000,000 -gallon water storage tank and a 500,000 -gallon storage tank. The Applicant states that these proposed water storage tanks will meet or exceed the fire protection standards of the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" Applicant's Response 32. A latter from Mike Piper, the Fire Chief of the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. is included in the supplement to the preliminary plan application. Chief Piper states that the proposed on-site water storage meets or exceeds the water storage requirements of the International Fire Code and the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. 9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply. Staff Response In addition to the proposed water storage tanks, four existing or proposed irrigation system reservoirs will be made available to the fire district via the installation of dry hydrants. H. Drainage The Application contains a drainage analysis prepared by Gamba & Associates and is contained in Appendix S. The analysis points out that the majority of the property 51 is tributary to the Roaring Fork River basin via Red Canyon Creek and Cattle Creek. A small portion of the property along the northern boundary is tributary to the Colorado River through Glenwood Canyon. The report ultimately concludes that "these hydrologic calculations demonstrate that the post -development peak rates of runoff for the 100 -year storm event can be mitigated to levels below the pre - development conditions for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD by constructing the storm water mitigation measures as proposed herein." More specifically, the analysis in the Application contains the calculations for the sizing of storm water detention structures that have been designed to adequately mitigate the increased post -development peak rate of runoff to levels equal to or less than the historic peak rates of runoff for the 100 -year storm event. Moreover, the analysis states that "ail areas subject to inundation are within either a drainage easement or a drainage structure within a road right-of-way. The location and size of proposed culverts bridges, ditches and channels is provided in Appendix S and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Binder 4, Exhibit 26." Staff regrets, at the time of the drafting of this memorandum, Staff cannot provide any review opinion of the County contract engineer as to the adequacy of the design with regard to the County's regulations. 33. Following the review of the drainage analysis by the County's consulting engineers, Applicant will respond to any of questions or concerns regarding the compliance of the drainage system's design with Countyreaulations. Noxious Weed Management / Revegetation The County Vegetation Manager provided the following points of concern with the proposal: • Inventory and mapping -The applicant lists noxious weeds found on the property, however this information is not represented on a map, staff requests that the applicant provide a map of the project area with the Garfield County listed noxious weeds, and the State of Colorado Listed noxious weed, Absinth wormwood (Artemsia absinthium). • Weed management -The Weed Management Plan is incorporated into the attachment entitled "Best Management Practices." The recommended herbicides, glyphosate and 2-4,D will have minimal results on most noxious weeds. • Revegetation and soils -The applicant has addressed revegetation and soil concerns. 5? • Revegetation security -The applicant has not quantified the addresses surface area to be disturbed by new roads and utilities. Please provide this information so a revegetation security may be determined. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Garfield County Weed Management Plan Reclamation Standards. • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) may be present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is located on the property. If present, the locations shall be identified in general terms as they pertain to building envelopes. In addition, an acknowledgement and reference to Harrington's penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and to alert property owners of its significance. • This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is "vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known from 74 occurrences in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit counties and is found primarily in dry, sagebrush -dominated communities between 6,400 and 9,400 ft. (1,951 and 2,865 m) elevation. USDA Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensitive species; it is also included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensitive Species List. It is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is it currently a candidate for listing. J. Minerals / Separated Estate It was unclear from the documentation if the owner of the surface of the project also owns the minerals underneath. This needs to be clarified. Applicant's Response 34. As shown on the title commitment, Appendix N. there are no separate mineral interests other than federal patent reservations. K. Required Development Fees The Applicant is responsible for either providing a School Site Land Dedication or fees in lieu of those lands to be calculated at the time of final plat. X. Applicant Responses to Resolution 2005 — 84 (Preliminary plan) 53 As you will remember, the last iteration of review by the County on this project was primarily an exercise to review and consolidate certain conditions of approval from a variety of Resolutions into one resolution that would contain all obligations for this development. The BOCC approved the request which resulted in a set of conditions for the PUD as well as a separate list of conditions for the Preliminary Plan. What follows are the Applicant's response to these existing conditions. The entire list is at the end of this memorandum for your review. What follows here are only the conditions that the Applicant wishes to specifically address or amend while still agreeing to comply with all the other conditions. 5.0 The alignment of CR 114 is contingent upon application by Lake Springs Ranch for the realignment of CR 114 thru the Lake Springs Ranch and approval of such application by the County. The following conditions of approval shall apply only if Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114. Otherwise, the current conditions of approval related to CR 114 in its existing alignment shall apply, the applicant shall not show the realigned road on its final plat, and the preliminary plan shall be automatically and without further action amended to delete the realigned road and the following conditions of approval: Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.01 Because the proposed realignment of CR 114 will travel through Lake Springs Ranch, the Applicant shall obtain a right-of-way for CR 114 from the owners of the affected property prior to any approval of a final plat which right-of-way shall be dedicated to Garfield County. This shall be shown on all final plat documents as appropriate. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.021f the proposed realignment of CR 114 is approved for both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch, prior to construction of the realigned CR 114, the owners for Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a Road Vacation Application, executed by the owners of both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch under the County Road Vacation Policies. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 54 5.03 Because Spring Valley Sanitation District has made certain real improvements that are located within CR 114 as it is currently located, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Spring Valley Sanitation District regarding the improvements that have been installed within the existing CR 114 alignment so that there will be no disruptions to service a provided by the District and that costs for relocation of certain improvement, if necessary, shall be addressed in the agreement. This signed agreement shall be provided to Staff at time of the final plat. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.04 Because the majority of the proposed realignment of CR 114 lies within the boundaries of the Lake Springs Ranch property, any approval for the realignment of CR 114 for Spring Valley Ranch shall not be considered approved unless a similar approval is obtained by Lake Springs Ranch. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.05 Spring Valley Ranch, in the design and reconstruction of CR 114, shall comply with the standards and criteria included in resolution 2002-109 as those conditions relate to shoulder width (6 feet), surfacing and ditch design. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.06 Prior to approval of a new alignment for CR 114, Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a plan for the intended use of the old CR 114 Right -of —way. Such plan shall be approved by the owners of Lake Springs Ranch and provide for proportionate cost sharing. If the plan proposes to leave the old CR 114 right- of-way as is for a period of at least one year, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall provide a weed management plan for that Right-of-way. If the plan for the new CR 114 Right-of-way requires reclamation, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall submit 1) a plant material list, 2) a planting schedule, 3) an estimate in terms of acres or square feet of the area to be reclaimed, and 4) a re -vegetation bond or security before final BOCC approval. 55 Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.07 The revegetation security provided to Garfield County shall be held by Garfield County uncil vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield 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. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition," 5.08 The Reclamation Plan anticipated in condition 5.07 above shall include 1) a plant material list (to conform with the surrounding native vegetation) 2) a planting schedule, 3) a map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (road cuts) and an estimate of surface area disturbed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security as part of the relevant subdivision improvements agreements. Staff Response The Applicant requests that "in the event that Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114 in accordance with condition 5.09 (below) the applicant will comply with this condition." 5.09 The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 1 of Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall provide that the Phase l improvements to CR 114 need not be commenced until 2 years after the date of the SIA for Phase 1, or the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. In the event the end of said 2 -year period falls between October 1 — March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the improvements agreement for Phase 1. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 is hereby amended to provide for the potential construction of Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. Staff Response Phase 1 in Applicant's proposed amendment to the approved Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD consists solely of security and administrative building(s) and 56 open space, which will have very limited impact on CR 114 traffic levels. Residential and commercial uses begin in Phase 2. Consequently, Applicant proposes to include improvements to CR 114 in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 2. improvements to CR 114 will be made, but need not be commenced, until 2 years after the earlier to occur of: 1) date of the SIA for Phase 2, or ii) the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. If the end of said 2 -year period falls between October 1 and March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the SiA for Phase 2. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 provides for the construction of Phase 2 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. 6.0 A maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system must be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. Staff Response The Applicant suggests that roads may be maintained by either the Landis Creek Metropolitan District or the Home Owners Association. In the event that the roads will be maintained by the Horne Owners Association, a maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system will be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. 9.0 The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements in a manner adequate to prevent damage or potential loss of Life or structures within the subdivision, prior to the approval of the first final plat. Staff Response The Applicant asserts that a dam break failure of Hopkins reservoir will not affect any improvements proposed in phase 1 of the development. Therefore, the dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir will be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements agreement for Phase 2 and will be incorporated into subsequent phases as applicable. 20.0 Owners of existing permitted domestic wells in use fora single-family residence as of October 29, 2001 that are located on the properties that are contiguous to the boundaries of the Districts and therefore within the service area of the Districts to connect to the central potable water supply system of the Districts in the following conditions: Staff Response The Applicant suggests the water supply report included in Appendix C incorporates an analysis of the potential service to the existing residences currently served by these wells if necessary. This analysis demonstrates that the applicant has adequate physical and legal 57 water necessary to serve the existing residences currently served by these wells. Applicant will comply with this condition. 21.0 Individual we!! development shall be prohibited for new residential development Staff Response The Applicant suggests that they will comply with this condition for all proposed residential lots with the exception of lot P23 (Existing Ranch House) and OSR Parcel E (the proposed security and administrative builds)) which will be served by individual wells. 27.0 Prior to the first final plat, the applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. Staff Response Phase 1 in Applicant's proposed amendment to the approved Spring Valley Ranch Preliminary Plan and PUD consists solely of security and administrative buildings) and open space, which will have very limited impact on CR 114 traffic levels. Residential and commercial uses begin in Phase 2. Consequently, prior to the second final plat Applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. XI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS TO PLANNING COMMISSION That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings; 3. That the application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended and Section 4.00 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; 4. That the proposed subdivision of land and amendment to the PUD is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 for the unincorporated areas of the County; and 5. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health. safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 58 XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As the project is currently proposed, Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners for the request to amend the Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: PUD 1.0 The following conditions consolidate, amend, and restate as appropriate the conditions contained in the various resolutions approving, extending or amending the PUD for Spring Valley Ranch in Resolutions 2000-95, 2003-19, and 2003-99. They supersede and replace all of the conditions of approval in said resolutions, and the conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions shall be null and of no further force or effect. 2.0 That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, including at a minimum, but not limited to the following: 3.0 The following conditions included in the letter received from Nick Adeh of NA consulting dated June 13, 2000, are to be adhered to as a conditions of approval: 3.1 Construct the west entrance to County standards as a paved road and stop CR115 paving at this intersection. 3.2 The remaining segments of the CR 115 that are beyond the property frontage must remain unpaved and rough as is. 3.3 Install selective signage on CR 115 just west of the PUD to discourage use of Red Canyon Road as an alternative access to State Highway 82. 4.0 During construction, the applicant will be responsible for all dust mitigation caused by the project on on-site and off-site roads. 5.0 Access agreements for out parcels need to be included in any Preliminary Plan submittal and the proposed covenants need to be changed to address these agreements. 6.0 The monitoring plan for the best management practices shall be controlled/ implemented by the Home Owner's Association or another body capable of managing the plan. 7.0 That all of the proposed Development Phasing Schedule be modified to require the final platting of all phases within 15 years of the platting of the first phase and that the completion of construction periods may be less as required by the applicable subdivision improvements agreement. 59 8.0 All trails and open space shall be included as part of Phase 1. All infrastructure and public utilities may be phased in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. 9.0 Based upon the representations of the applicant, accepting the provisions of the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, dated September 12, 2000 (See attached Exhibit `B'), the following conditions are imposed: 9.1 The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) for the Village Center shall provide that the Chenoa (Spring Valley Ranch) Home Owners Association will be the governing authority with all appropriate enforcement powers for operation and control of the Village Center, including all commercial and residential areas, as well as open space. 9.2 These restrictions, based upon the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, (See Exhibit 'B' attached), shall be included in the restrictive covenants binding upon such lands and running to the benefit of the owners of the Chenoa (Spring Valley Ranch) PUD and the owners Springs of Garfield Countyand . duty recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder 14.0 Future use of additional wells (Gamba wells) requires the development of water rights and well permits if required by the appropriate state agency. 11.0 All conditions of the Division of Water Resources shall be met. Those conditions include but are not limited to: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to decreed terms and conditions. 12.0 Available surface water supplies shall be used to their fullest extent to provide the irrigation supply to the golf courses in order to minimize groundwater withdrawals. A groundwater monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor future water levels near the Spring Valley Ranch wells. The monitoring plan shall include water level measurements in the production wells and other wells at the PUD that can be used as monitoring holes. The monitoring plan shall include measurements made with enough frequency to observe seasonal groundwater fluctuations and long term groundwater trends. Results of the monitoring program shall be available to the public. 12.1 There will be an additional monitoring well developed or identified that is at least 2000 feet from the production wells. Either a new well or an off-site well meeting those criteria could meet the criteria. All of the monitoring reports will be available to the public, 60 13.0 The domestic water system must be constructed and operated in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regulations and standards. 14.0 The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions relating to wildlife: 14.1 Dogs: Dogs shall be allowed on each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot pursuant to Section 3.17 of the Applicant's proposed covenants unless Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision regulations are more restrictive. 14.2 Seasonal Use Restrictions: The seasonal use restrictions proposed by the applicant in the submittal shall be conditions of approval. 14.3 Educating Residents: Consistent with the provisions in the CDOW Letter of August 31, 1999, the Applicant shall provide an informative brochure at the first Final Plat which is intended to be provided to residents at the time of conveyance of each lot. 14.4 Additional Commitments: The Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposed by the Applicant shall be made a part of the proposed covenants. 14.5 Fencing: Fencing shall be allowed pursuant to Section 3.24 of the proposed covenants. 14.6 Horses and Livestock: As per the Applicant's submittal, horses shall be permitted pursuant to Sections 3.17 and 3.24 of the proposed covenants. 14.7 Building Envelopes: Building envelopes shall be represented by the Applicant on the Preliminary Plan Application consistent with this PUD Application. 14.8 Wildlife Mitigation: A Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be implemented through the Applicant's proposed covenants and deed restrictions as a condition of any Final Plat approval. 14.9 Bears/Trash Removal: The Applicant shall comply with Section 3.14 of the propose covenants submitted by the Applicant. 14.10 Riparian/Wetlands: The provisions listed in the CDOW letter of August 31, 1999, and Section 4.3.4 of Appendix E of the submittal (Wildlife report) shall be conditions of any approval. 14.11 Raptor Survey: At the time of the first Final Plat, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 4.3.3 of the "Wildlife Use, Impacts, and Mitigation" report submitted by the Applicant. 6] 15.0 No new wood burning open hearth fireplaces shall be allowed within the development. 16.0 No short term rental (daily or weekly) of the Wilderness Cabins will be allowed. Preliminary Plan 1.0 The following conditions consolidate, amend, and restate as appropriate the conditions contained in the various resolutions approving, extending or modifying the preliminary plans for Spring Valley Ranch in Resolutions 2002-07 and 2003-98. They supersede and replace all of the conditions of approval in said resolutions, and the conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions shall be null and of no further force or effect. 2.0 That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, including at a minimum, but not limited to the following: 3.0 The applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12)(b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat documents, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. 4.0 The applicant shall make the improvements to County Roads 114 and 115 as proposed in the application, at their own expense, regardless of cost, and consistent with the phasing of the improvements proposed in the application. 5.0 The alignment of CR 114 is contingent upon application by Lake Springs Ranch for the realignment of CR 114 through the Lake Springs Ranch and approval of such application by the County. The following conditions of approval shall apply only if Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114. Otherwise, the current conditions of approval related to CR 114 in its existing alignment shall apply, the Applicant shall not show the realigned road on its final plat, and the preliminary plan shall be automatically and without further action amended to delete the realigned road and the following conditions of approval: 5.01 Because the proposed realignment of CR 114 will travel through Lake Springs Ranch, the Applicant shall obtain a right-of-way for CR 114 from the owners of the affected property prior to any approval of a final plat which right-of-way shall be dedicated to Garfield County. This shall be shown on all final plat documents as appropriate. 62 5.02 If the proposed realignment of CR 114 is approved for both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch, prior to construction of the realigned CR 114, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a Road Vacation Application, executed by the owners of both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch under the County Road Vacation Policies. 5.03 Because Spring Valley Sanitation District has made certain real improvements that are located within CR 114 as it is currently located, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Spring Valley Sanitation District regarding the improvements that have been installed within the existing CR 114 alignment so that there will be no disruptions to service a provided by the District and that costs for relocation of certain improvements, if necessary, shall be addressed in the agreement. This signed agreement shall be provided to Staff at the time of the final plat. 5.04 Because the majority of the proposed realignment of CR 114 lies within the boundaries of the Lake Springs Ranch property, any approval for the realignment of CR 114 for Spring Valley Ranch shall not be considered approved unless a similar approval is obtained by Lake Springs Ranch. 5.05 Spring Valley Ranch, in the design and reconstruction of CR 114, shall comply with the standards and criteria included in Resolution 2002-109 as those conditions relate to shoulder width (6 feet), surfacing and ditch design. 5.06 Prior to approval of a new alignment for CR 114, Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a plan for the intended use of the old CR 114 Right -Of -Way. Such plan shall be approved by the owners of Lake Springs Ranch and provide for proportionate cost sharing. If the Plan proposes to leave the old CR 114 Right -Of -Way as -is for a period of at least one year, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall provide a weed management plan for that Right -of -Way. If the Plan for the new CR 114 Right -Of -Way requires reclamation, the owners of Spring Valley ranch shall submit 1) a plant material list, 2) a planting schedule, 3) an estimate in terms of acres or square feet of the area to be reclaimed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security before final BOCC approval. 5.07 The revegetation security provided to Garfield County shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield 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. 63 5.08 The Reclamation Plan anticipated in condition 5.07 above shall include 1) a plant material list (to conform with the surrounding native vegetation), 2) a planting schedule, 3) a map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (road cuts) and an estimate of surface area disturbed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security as part of the relevant subdivision improvements agreements. 5.09 The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 1 of Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall provide that the Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 need not be commenced until 2 years after the date of the SIA for Phase 1, or the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. In the event the end of said 2 -year period falls between October 1 — March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the subdivision improvements agreement for Phase 1. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 is hereby amended to provide for the potential construction of Phase 1 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. 6.0 A maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system must be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. 7.0 The Applicant and Mrs. Veltus shall negotiate in good faith for the creation of a new road easement through the Applicant's property on reasonable terms and conditions. Such easement shall be identified on the final plat but shall not require a PUD amendment. 8.0 The debris flow/retention structures detailed on Sheet D-15 shall be located on the drainage plan sheets, including the proposed size of structure. 9.0 The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements in a manner adequate to prevent damage or potential loss of life or structures within the subdivision, prior to the approval of the first final plat. 10.0 The Applicant shall upgrade the electrical utilities consistent with a contract with Holy Cross Electric, at the developer's expense. 11.0 Prior to the recordation of the final plat that includes Lots G84 through G91, the Applicant shall install piezometers along the hillside in the location of Lots G84-91 to monitor groundwater conditions. This information shall be submitted to the Colorado Geologic Survey for their review and comment. The design for the development of such lots shall take this information into consideration, including the potential of a comprehensive solution and/or individual lot drainage mitigation. 64 12.0 Plat notes and covenants shall indicate that all lots require a site specific geological and geotechnical analysis prior to any construction. 13.0 The design guidelines shall include Best Management Practices which minimize directly connected impervious areas for storm water runoff within individual lots as part of the first final plat and all subsequent plats. 14.0 Prior to the approval of any Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Office a Noxious Weed / Revegetation Plan which shall include a noxious weed inventory of the area of the property covered by the plat. That Plan shall also include a specific planting schedule, along with the quantification of the acres or square footage of surface to be disturbed and revegetated needs to be developed. Additionally, the Plan shall include reclamation cost estimates for seeding, mulching and other factors that may aid in plant establishment as part of any final plat application and include revegetation security to hold until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the County's reclamation standards. Finally, this Plan shall include a Soil Management Plan to be developed for the project and submitted with any final plat application. 15.0 As part of all final plats, construction plans shall delineate all wetland areas and all wetland areas shall be clearly marked and fenced prior to construction. 16.0 As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless on extension of not more than one year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. 17.0 School Site Acquisition Fees shall be paid at the time of final plat as per Section 9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as amended. 18.0 The Homeowners Association must hire at least a Class C operator to operate and maintain the proposed Ranch Lot ISDS systems prior to issuance of the first ISDS system permit. If proof of the employment of such a person is not provided to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of said ISDS permit, the Building Department shall not issue the ISDS permit or any subsequently requested ISDS permit. 19.0 Prior to the approval of the final plat of each phase, the Spring Valley Sanitation District shall certify that sufficient capacity is available to provide for the development in such phase. 20.0Owners of existing permitted domestic wells in use for a single-family residence as of October 29, 2001 that are located on the properties that are contiguous to the boundaries of the Districts and therefore within the service area of the Districts to 65 connect to the central potable water supply system of the Districts in the following conditions: 20.01 Each dwelling unit served by an existing permitted well shall be entitled to one tap for the provision of one EQR from the central potable water system; 20.02 Such owners shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and policies as all other residential users on such systems; 20.03 Such owners shall be charged in -District fees, charges, and rates even though they are out of the Districts; 20.04 In the event that such an owner's well becomes unable to produce the quantities required for permitted domestic well, such well owner shall not be required to pay a tap fee at the time of connection to the water supply system; 20.05 The main infrastructure and distribution systems for the water supply system have been installed and tested and operational; 20.06 Such owners may choose to connect to the water supply system at any time after the system is installed and operational and shall connect to such system on any appropriate primary distribution line and SVD shall use all reasonable efforts to locate such distribution lines in a manner that, to the extent feasible and practical, it will accommodate a connection by such owners; 20.07 Such owners shall be responsible for all costs associated with constructing and extending the necessary water lines to connect to the water supply system's primary distribution lines;. 20.08 Such owners may keep their existing permitted well in operation, the water court decrees that will legally support such service must be issued in Case Nos. 98CW254 and 255 in Water Division No. 5; and 20.09 Such owners will be responsible for securing any necessary rights-of-way from their property to the district boundary and SVD or the District will provide the appropriate rights-of-way, within the District boundary. 21.0 Individual well development shall be prohibited for new residential development. 22.0 The Applicant shall work with the water district providing potable water service to the development to adopt a water usage rate structure that encourages conservation. 66 23.0 Well water usage for agricultural and golf course purposes shall be allowed to supplement surface water sources in the event of a shortage of surface water supplies. 24.0 Valid well permits must be obtained for all of the wells included in the water supply plan and copies submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval. 25.0 Subject to the terms hereof, the Applicant shall provide a nonexclusive easement to allow for the conveyance of water piped from the BR Hopkins Spring located on Spring Valley Ranch PUD property to a point where the water from the BR Hopkins Spring is used on the LaGigilia property. The easement is not required to follow the historic pipeline corridor and it can be relocated to a preferred location mutually agreed to by the parties who have a right to the BR Hopkins Spring and any property owner whose property the new pipeline may cross. This easement to the BR Hopkins Spring shall be designed to allow access to the spring of an adequate width in order to perform improvements to and maintenance on the spring and any portion of a pipe conveying water. This easement shall be depicted on the final plat for review. Further, the Applicant shall be required to present the terms of the easement to the Planning Department for review at final plat and then subsequently recorded in the Office of the County Clerk and Recorder and cross referenced by reception #, book and page on the final plat. 26.0 AH lots that require booster pumps shall be noted on any final plat and in the covenants. Unless otherwise required by the water district, all lots that require pressure reducing valves shall be noted on any final plat and in the covenants. 27.0 Prior to the first final plat, the applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. 28.0 The covenants or bylaws for the development shall obligate the Homeowners Association to require the development's private security company to enforce the at - large dog and cat restrictions included in the covenants. 29.0 The following plat notes will be included on any final plat: 29.01 All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. 29.02 Colorado is a Right -to -Farm State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural 67 character and a healthy ranching sector. Al! must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. 29.03 All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. 30.0 All construction for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall be in accordance with the International Fire Code. Newly suggested conditions: A. That the Preliminary Plan and PUD Application shall not be scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners until the State Engineer from the Division of Water Resources has provided an opinion as to the legal 1 physical status of the potable water for the project. B. That the Applicant shall address the comments prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering on behalf of the County prior to scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. C. That the Applicant shall address the comments prepared by Dean Gordon, P.E., with Schmeuser Gordon Meyer (project engineer for the Spring Valley Sanitation District) prior to scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 68 Spring Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development Amendment Preliminary Pian Garfield County Planning Commission September 12, 2007 6:30 PM Project Specifics • Applicant Spring Valley Development. Inc. is Representative Tom Gray & Michael Garnba • Site Acreage 5.948 acres • General Location SE of Glenwood Springs • Primary Public Access CR 114 / 115 • Water Central Supply (private) • Sewer Central Supply (District) — • Zoning PUO • Comprehensive Pian PUD Main Project Design Changes Prated Commons Dwelling Lin.ltx Gross Dense Goil Course Eluesfsran Center .� hlekjhbomoao Commercial Curremly Amp'oveel PLOD ' FYoposerr PUD 50: Free Market 75 AH 5.4-Freet . ;d Eli. ea ac+du rfM unix omni * 3 -tackle s2 11 he u. Hales Yes 20.000 Yes :e 000 se. 1t. (relocated). Vicinity Map New Supplement De9411 75 Commumly Housng Units 1 Phase7l Community Housing Units (Phasing) •Rpen Space Traci .5 Single Family Dwellings *Internal Access Road Phase 8: _..„r -Open Space Traci '--- •10 Srngle 1anUly Units -=-=- •2 Fp/Rolex 11 Fotept®x - •Internal Road Access 1 ?have 0. .... 1111`� '1 •4 Single Family Units It r1 •3 Flugpiexes ( Phase 1U. 10 . f .. I r_ -Open Space Traci r �. .1 Fortnplex, 1 hveplex - -- 2 slxplee _ :. ..'.. Project Issues / Concerns • DOW Comments • RFTA Comments • Domestic Water Adequacy— No Determination from CDWR • Requested changes to adopted conditions of approval in Preliminary Plan and PUD Resolutions • Staff Recommendation Project Issues / Concerns ■ Main Differences from Approved PUD / PP • Community Housing Unit requirements • Phasing Pian I■ Amenities (trails) a Fire Station (Glenwood Fire Dept. Comments) • Community Housing Units • Off site Road improvements • Emergency Egress per phase build -out • Fractional Fee Interest 1 Subdivision • Location of CH Units vs. Preservation of all of "Spring Valley" Comments from Glenwood Springs Fire Protection (Exhibit S) Comments from County Housing Authority (Exhibit W) .rnnteenls on $wing Valley P'H mmaty Pian are PUD Anh0NMmara- 1. 1115 g1550 that may are will2p tc on do=spa saveable nousie5. .. Developer ds not State Ir.at 1,11175 units ,,it Dr bud! uneer me exlslese *11000x015 i'5u5Ifl Gudeines. . v"L!evaioper 10 no uneer meeting Cieleei:nee. !nen 001215500'015€ 01100550 910 a. Sages pnee AMA ealege28s ,,. Creed ,001 .lbn 8 et peClal1Or. Cabe - wou2 Hoeg C '” wiling to mesa Mese In eon 000 Geten nes tp. 131 HOA prolalwln, 0 5esrop,^n int across 75 orals x. 70 Louts are m r0CC018bnCD 1110, pre .0usly aoepled Commonly Housing Plan - moat .. details goes Met .otter on Soreg9 '5110.0 plans, ., Foga 15.8. HLW11y Create. 5UL82lq 215,5101 nomnre Char: 31'.- et crass mentos - how es111112510102 ern on,* Sue0 rsaIty w+1n sane Rru a 31'ley ere not 5001001 10 income 00ng Su:'le,aree ..yam Project Issues / Concerns ■ Main Differences from Approved PUD / PP • Community Housing Unit requirements • Phasing Pian I■ Amenities (trails) a Fire Station (Glenwood Fire Dept. Comments) • Community Housing Units • Off site Road improvements • Emergency Egress per phase build -out • Fractional Fee Interest 1 Subdivision • Location of CH Units vs. Preservation of all of "Spring Valley" Comments from Glenwood Springs Fire Protection (Exhibit S) MI ..yam - - - - —' 1 r F'nasing Plan Is adequate for 1he provision 01 emecaerrCy 0.25VICBS (conslruCl emergency access roads out 01 Phase 2, 6. 8. and Mountain Phase 1 pursuant to International Fire Godo; 21 Construction of Fire sumo. in Phase 215 adequate; 3, Project provi0e5 mete than adequate water storage i2 lanlls: 1.5 millions! Ioor restcvoes and automatic sprinkler Cy51gm3 in Structures over 500 square feet. '--- Comments from Division of Water Resources (Exhibit T) 11 appear£ mai 1102 Wale erau11 decree 27'004155 Does out augment ,0500 ,1 c 150 =MS 00vole0 'award Irrrgetter a d 000pdrOIe1,I rot the potable water syslem as 010002etl 0y the 2 em:tan! 15 adman the at01Kapi need% 10 Cler0pnenale 1118' 080102nrrly 0enelto a lot enneumpm.e use aro- no greater Man 420 801012el 51502 nieurflcIara artormation was enamels] we :annul Comment en the 0010112! tot inion, 18 00211£29 w81e' ngnls et the •8eeuftev 0.11110. 000000., water supply untler Inc prrwslu+sel cutIneww*' nen ::r 0Lrr - a 10.00 tint*oe c•^ pe0 i' e oxnarsien dr` enan30 m u5C K 100neeted It you 5, tee aPoteent 050 any 0082022/0 rlore..n,ng 1 rn0 rroMm !tem.. cnstee1 ..r e: 11115 elle a ter ass:510n[e. 2 Comments from Division of Wildlife !problems Aimough salety is a concern with ane pending deve4mmmenr. the Dow would 'recommend that an elk management plan 6e oonstdefed es an option by 1he &V. CPers Th damage created 6y protecting firs herd could have subslanlal impacts to rexi40Ms. I,trascep.ng and the earicult:rca^ susiaesser. In em area. Tne DOW wound be wiling tJ 010i0! won Iaeierelmo X111 a4T6Crh.^"4vn1,010 rwne-!-. 1) Dogs running wild pressuring wildlife 2) Bear proofing trash containers 3) Minimise fencing in the entire development 41 Storing equestrian haystacksteed securely 1: Ctturty Requirements Ice 577 Units 2: Road Improvements to CR 114 111.5 Off-site Traffic 3: CDOT: HW 82 improvements 4; Condition No. 3 and 4 d the PF 0 p 0 1 Cr.' Nsanalrovrarawg Off-site Traffic 1: County Regterements for 577 tint 2,: Road Improvements to CA 1141115 3: CDOT: lIW 82 improvements 4: Condition No. 3 and 4 of the PP 3. The applicant shabl make application to the Colorado Department d Transportation. pursuant In Section 2.31'121tbl 01 the State Highway Access Code. lora permit For the reconstructor) of an existing access. al the intersection of Courtly Road 114 and Siam Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final pail documents. specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security tor 111e intersection improvements. 4. The applicant shall make the improvements to Counly Roads 114 and 115 as proposed in me application.. at their own expense. regardless of cost. and consistent with the phasing of the improvements proposed in Me application. Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit U) wavri411.741 Based on the comments provided. Staff suggests the Applicant meet with the County Engineer to discuss Ms concerns prior to any public nearing belore Mee BOCC- Off-site Road Improvements Phase 2: April 2008 to 2014 Phase 6: April 2009 to 2019 Phase 8: April 201010 2021 1 r Chedule Points att<9noern' 1. Needs Compression 2. Very loose time Frames for commencement 3. Otf-seta lmprovemems 4. CFI Units 2 3 Changes to Conditions • Preliminary Plan Conditions ✓ 5,0 — 5.49 Road realignment of CR 114 • 6.0 Internal Road Maintenance to include Landis Creek Metro District • 9.0 Reservoir Analysis in Phase 2 SIA s 20.0 This has been met • 21.0 Individual Wells s 27.0 Conform nodes of residual pressure prior to final plat — phase 2 Staff Recommendation • Approval with Conditions on both requests: ■ Amendment to the PUD w/ conditions ■ Preliminary Plan wf conditions Changes to Conditions • PUD Conditions • 8.0 Amend phasing of the platting of open space and trails to later phases • 9.0 -- 9.2 Berkeley Resident Changes • 16.0 Eliminated the Wilderness Cabins 4 LON `L Jagwoide OD 0 -c3 Eu CD c 0 < (.(:: ° X13 C]o5.= t 7)0 cco EXHIBIT B D) ER*$Lm* 01.00g.0 g=1;31 0 1_0-4 0 0 O w E � nn zm o mo m n �2m m m0 0cp 000 0;0 w 3 y R1 m O Q- -Ct m m m mx mu) zo O m0 domo Irn zm -c >c° "1-I Em T, _z my) mz > 0 �E G) m- z PO z m 0 M M z 73 N PE 0 0 C 70 m 0 m i ❑yd `uouun sewoyl mOm co 0 m> m mt=' Z oZ r in rO mo 0 ro cnn 0 40 Z C') 717 r WC r0 0> C) 71z E z cn O C c r m-1 z 0 m m z z n 0 1 m z z m z 0 cc r n z v C m z 0 a114M sraggO ue6JolN ueag dflOm9 1NIOd UGHONV 2 m 0 m 0 z 1NV13f1SNO0 31:114011M v m 0, 0 z z -o r z z z 0 uOSJa;lad 3P3 `- w rrrs 3 00 r D =coo g nc Q.zz mmr >1 T z nz 0 mmc b) �rn 0) S m 0 7 v 0 0< 7 m xC m� 0 C) CO Pwz TO b G Mr z r 0 0 C 0cn r m 7B rn rn z -1 -I 0 0 CP > O m m =-0 m 3 mz � 7-U r 0 1 m N 0 0 4ccnr *<z m a c r m z gm s v 73 m r o z 0 E 0 -o' m r z r -< 0 vT� a z 0 0 O z rn z 0 z m m z 0 •3•d 6ullyaow uyof 'ONI `NOSdINOH11710 ONII33NI9N3 11d3INH031O39 . Q C it) CD <11) (1) r -r � D CD CD C LP. CD C� CDCD -s r -r • {/} CD Q `< Q CD CD c Q cn CD CI) CQ� C)• Q Cn Cn ea Q -h z 0 CD cif)• CT Q Q ZD CO CD i3? C.) Q Ei O Q 3 co CD (D r -r CD cn CD Cn CD "C3 CD i!} Create a diversity of housing types, sizes and affordability CD 1] C_ ' CD 3 5. CD Q0 CD C7 X Q 5. co co flJ CD fl3 — CSD CD C CD -, C!) co Q Q CQ eoeds uedo to uoltaodwd ub'IH Low density residential and recreational community saAROafgp 6uiuuId Proportional contribution to RAFTA Park-N-Ride 1 1 1 1 1 ca r+ C31 {LT CD 0 m 3 73 - = m 3 c. 3 0 co = CD -1 CD CD X _ : D) -a (O CD i 3 n CD ,•-Z 16 w 0 M 5 c cn n• o_ c- o na (12(C� cn — _ 3 E -8 w eL---a cn 3. en,-so m �= CDC -a LJ i co a .,co c) Q: 0 cnco 3 CD • C co 70 CD C -1 CD C_ = A� CD CD 0 - - 0 CD n C r+ CI M C7 r GO D C7 1F/3 �C - • D ca -s`-C cf) flJ 0 � coco 0 � 0 73 �+ D (Q CD 0 r+ o _ C C] CD— c m o v 'C [ � CD 01 c<-%S13 z C = a Project Advantages to the Community I 1 I �- Q m Q' o N...) 5- - cn CD s co na)o 0 o_ cp`co 3 C 43 gi Q`. 0 CCD u CI 3 CD n w �. rt tw - Ci)C Qc o CaCL z o Q thn r+ a r+ CD CD‘.< .GO c - a. Q , -�- =.Q C) Q) CD =� 0 w D- o 0 -=o N ,.' rn 5- 1,, = ct o c C O ca N - 0 0 cp CL a a o o C] T -o o a 6P.3 rn 3 T-7 3 ..< 3 -a C D o s 0 w c �. - ".RI - U CD 0 v tC Q CI) --h CI. a . 0u n( CO n 0 c@ 0 CD 0 = CD CD 0 2 Fa p cT - E in cri ---4 5. CO > 'n. -1. p CD i. a — ' . so ° on C (n' —. 0) 0) 5- CD 0 •• (n CD [j = CD CD D (� t --t (- _ C] CO 3' 3 cD Q o 0) CD `I 3_n CO F3 Et) F 3 * c� CD < co E. Cly Ci7- Sn O �--- CO D v 7 Ci) 51-- c-13 ic-5 5 • �• co 3co _ * 0 2 CD - D CD ,. CD 0 0 P v C c77 n o a) cg CD tl)(n CD C) Cn - '� iU 3 O. n CD 3 = p, C] 3 5 D — o- co o 1 -01Gni C C7 cr 3 {n Q CD 3 a3 LU () CD Ge) G1? r+ 0 0 CD G►) 0 0 rt CD 1 CU cpp Ch a 3 [5 0 {D Fp 0 0 CD 0 C 0 3 C CD • - 0 C El) 3 CQ rt co cr cp CD CO Broader mix of house and lot types and affordability QCD ?2 7-1:LD CD cif 75 O CD O r+ CID 0 al - Ca 3 CO 4C 0 - h 0 G7 CD 3 r+ Ci) C.7). 0) i) 3 CD Q) fa 3 0 0 0 Creation of a Village center at the heart of Spring Valley Ranch mprovements to the Existing Approva � 0 ETI x — C7 _ 7j N - C • CD C� CQ -% CD 0 cD m c) 0 5 =CD (1)0 F,' = c) o z' 0 , , o v - -�' 0 ,__,_ a �„ -im- 73. C) .d G7 co C.0 CD El) C _ v a)3 C a) -0 E3 5 CT a _ co 89© c a.n CO - C° 3 o o col ...< co c) a co o(7r. o_ CP 3 0 —1.1 N.) o . c z c73 co > CD CP •� E.CP ‘. 3 a cncn (p = (Tin C0' D a Ea a CD 3 = U) 3 (76 - CD co 0 mm N co fa M (0 C:L. 0 uo pue i7 [ G ainoH �o uo!T3 1 1 1 1 O 71 o CD u) =1., cp co o 100 CD cp ses( pug j uo!TC Oa3O aauaualu!a( — a u o!Waaaaj — 1 1 0 co0 0 0 1111 C cn cp ulaua9 aIPP!VII — uplunoj — sash pue-1 l Ruepise CD 3 CD fa) V CD 1 Q.) -0 Cn 3 3 v e5esnlem woo a3uegJnTsi❑ 6u!paie Elimination of agricultural use of Meadow Diversion 1,457 af Depletions 974 af 1.5 million cubic yards of cut/fill disturbance 2005 Approvals Continuation of agricultural use of Meadow Diversion 1,210 af 17% reduction Depletions 545 af 44% reduction 1 million cubic yards of cut/fill disturbance 35% reduction N) C] C7 0 a) C 0 C 3 0) 0 0 -1 cp CD Q CD 0 0 STUeWOAald WI eT!SJJO (7). c Full staffed fire station and emergency services for Spring Valley Region • CR 114 widened, climbing lane, re -paved • CR 115 paved to Project entrance • Improvements at SH 82 and CR 115 20,000 sq. ft. Village Center at County Highways 114 and 115 2005 Approvals No change, except location • No change • $15 million (est.) in improvements Village Center centrally located on middle bench IV 0 II �i 6. • • CD • • UO!TeMeSUO3 JOTS • • • • • • • • saeei[ AJen3 patepd fl Requirements for fire resistant building materials Linked defensible space and over -lot thinning stuewesee )ieeaglend m {n -s CD -. 0 [D p' -a 0 CD 3 Cn : r+ ) Comprehensive access, inspection and enforcement s 1'830 LIbnoaut peaJolu� -- Manages wildlife access to golf course and open space — Prohibits perimeter fences and walls — Protects wetlands and riparian areas 5uibeJo4 oJ!IpI!nn sebeuej — stsau JotdeJ stootoJd — — Restricts pets to protect wildlife — Requires wildlife proof trash and compost containers m -h N o_ S C 90 cfc I I I I P I C CD 0 CD C7 Q CD . 01 iv 3 to0) 1 01171 CD cpa CCD CD fl)— . CD o_ D z co cp = a cn co 6 CCD CD C� 3 — i 3 - c 0) v 01 CD cp 0 CD 0— CDSW g)0 LJ [I)Fr3CO co m �--h (1) T CD C/) V F 1?21c i CD c - 0 - _. CD ; 1 cp C) 0 eL —11 CD sI • • • . ■ Improves on-site community environment saitlll3eJ pue saolnaas ails-uo seseaaoul Improves the on-site infrastructure Permanently protects Spring Valley Meadow Adds 24 units of on-site, affordable workforce housing Provides 75 units of Community Housing Increases diversity of market -rate "roof -tops" Reduces the water, traffic and environmental impacts Offers recreational, shopping and educational benefits M 0 c V) 3 � CD C!) cr N Cl7 Q Q CD 0 Ct) Q CD o0 =_1, -s - CD -11 3 FD' 0) ' fl) Si) [Q '� CD 0 3 CD Z3 0) Provides $15 million in off-site infrastructure improvements 0 0 0 0 ;rI17 5-4!" z I Ir v e' Spring Valley Ranch Applicant's Proposed PUD Conditions September 12, 2007 Proposed Changes to Staff Recommendations Shown in Redline/Strikeout 1.0 The following conditions consolidate, amend, and restate as appropriate the conditions contained in the various resolutions approving, extending or amending the PUD for Spring Valley Ranch in Resolutions 2000-95, 2003- 19, and 2003-99 and 2005-83. They supersede and replace all of the conditions of approval in said resolutions, and the conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions shall be null and of no further force or effect. 1 2.0 That aAll representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, including at a minimum, but not limited to the following: 3.0 J/ 4.0 5.0 6.0 /7.0 The following conditions included in the letter received from Nick Adeh of NA consulting dated June 13, 2000, are to be adhered to as a conditions of approval: 3.1 Construct the west entrance to County standards as a paved road and stop CR115 paving at this intersection. 3.2 The remaining segments of the CR 115 that are beyond the property frontage must remain unpaved and rough as is. 3.3 Install selective signage on CR 115 just west of the PUD to discourage use of Red Canyon Road as an alternative access to State Highway 82. riles ca , „,, During construction, the app1icnt will be responsible for all dust mitigation caused by the project on on-site and off-site roads. Access agreements for out parcels shall be shown on the applicable final plats The monitoring plan for the best management practices shall be controlled/ implemented by the Home Owner's Association or another body capable of managing the plan. That aAII of the proposed Development Phasing Schedule be modified to require the final platting of all phases within 15 years of the platting of the first phase and that the completion of construction periods may be Tess as required by the applicable subdivision improvements agreement. 8.0 .-e a _ _ •. - All infrastructure and public utilities, trails and open space shall may be phased in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4. 9.0 Based upon the representations of the applicant, accepting the provisions of the letter of Mr. John R. Schenk, dated September 12, 20004,See attached Exhibit `B'), the following conditions arcis imposed: 9.1 The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (OCRs) for the Community Housing component of the proiectVillage Center shall provide that a - _ - _ Home Owners Association will be the governing authority with all appropriate enforcement powers for operation and control of the Community Housing component 10.0 Future use of additional wells (Gamba wells) requires the development of water rights and well permits if required by the appropriate state agency. 11.0 All conditions of the Division of Water Resources shall be met. Those conditions include but are not limited to: (1) the claimed water rights are dedicated to the project, and (2) the plan for augmentation is operated according to decreed terms and conditions. 12.0 Available surface water supplies shall be used to their fullest extent to provide the irrigation supply to the golf courses in order to minimize groundwater withdrawals. A groundwater monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor future water levels near the Spring Valley Ranch wells. The monitoring plan shall include water level measurements in the production wells and other wells at the PUD that can be used as monitoring holes. The monitoring plan shall include measurements made with enough frequency to observe seasonal groundwater fluctuations and long term groundwater trends. Results of the monitoring program shall be available to the public. 12.1 There will be an additional monitoring well developed or identified that is at least 2000 feet from the production wells. Either a new well or an off-site well meeting those criteria could meet the criteria. All of the monitoring reports will be available to the public. 13.0 The domestic water system must be constructed and operated in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regulations and standards. 14.0 The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions relating to wildlife: 14.1 Dogs: Dogs shall be allowed on each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot pursuant to Section 3.17 of the Applicant's proposed covenants unless Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision regulations are more restrictive. 14.2 Seasonal Use Restrictions: The seasonal use restrictions proposed by the applicant in the submittal shall be conditions of approval. 14.3 Educating Residents: Consistent with the provisions in the CDOW Letter of August 31, 1999, the Applicant shall provide an informative brochure at the first Final Plat which is intended to be provided to residents at the time of conveyance of each lot. 14.4 Additional Commitments: The Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposed by the Applicant shall be made a part of the proposed covenants. 14.5 Fencing: Fencing shall be allowed pursuant to Section 3.24 of the proposed covenants. 14.6 Horses and Livestock: As per the Applicant's submittal, horses shall be permitted pursuant to Sections 3.17 and 3.24 of the proposed covenants. 14.7 Building Envelopes: Building envelopes shall be represented by the Applicant on the Preliminary Plan Application consistent with this PUD Application. 14.8 Wildlife Mitigation: A Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be implemented through the Applicant's proposed covenants and deed restrictions as a condition of any Final Plat approval. 14.9 Bears/Trash Removal: The Applicant shall comply with Section 3.14 of the propose covenants submitted by the Applicant. 14.10 Riparian/Wetlands: The provisions listed in the CDOW letter of August 31, 1999, and Section 4.3.4 of Appendix E of the submittal (Wildlife report) shall be conditions of any approval. 14.11 Raptor Survey: At the time of the first Final Plat, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 4.3.3 of the "Wildlife Use, Impacts, and Mitigation" report submitted by the Applicant. 15.0 No new wood burning open hearth fireplaces shall be allowed within the development. 16.0 No short term rental (daily or weekly) of the Wilderness Cabins located near the Village Center will be allowed, except for Club members and their guests. de. 'V etth A t 4" /if c v �, 4-vAi-J11, tZ- 4)(9 pi, 41 6)0 51.14G 41-1*-": 12 prdr ;. 7c. -t £ rr 4 PiD6' 3 coil 5444-10 - Spring Valley Ranch EXHIBIT IFP Applicant's Proposed Preliminary Plan Conditions September 12, 2007 Proposed Changes to Staff Recommendations Shown in Redline/Strikeout 1.0 The following conditions consolidate, amend, and restate as appropriate the conditions contained in the various resolutions approving, extending or modifying the preliminary plans for Spring Valley Ranch in Resolutions 2002-071 and2003-98 and 2005-84. They supersede and replace all of the conditions of approval in said resolutions, and the conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions shall be null and of no further force or effect. 2.0 That aAll representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission or in the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, including at a minimum, but not limited to the following: 3.0 The applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12)(b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat documents, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. 4.0 The applicant shall make the improvements to County Roads 114 and 115 as proposed in the application, at their own expense, regardless of cost, and consistent with the phasing of the improvements proposed in the application. 5.0 The alignment of CR 114 is contingent upon application by Lake Springs Ranch for the realignment of CR 114 through the Lake Springs Ranch and approval of such application by the County. The following conditions of approval shall apply only if Lake Springs Ranch obtains approval for the realignment of CR 114. Otherwise, the current conditions of approval related to CR 114 in its existing alignment shall apply, the Applicant shall not show the realigned road on its final plat, and the preliminary plan shall be automatically and without further action amended to delete the realigned road and the following conditions of approval: 5.01 Because the proposed realignment of CR 114 will travel through Lake Springs Ranch, the Applicant shall obtain a right-of-way for CR 114 from the owners of the affected property prior to any approval of a final plat which right-of-way shall be dedicated to Garfield County. This shall be shown on all final plat documents as appropriate. 5.02 If the proposed realignment of CR 114 is approved for both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch, prior to construction of the realigned CR 114, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a Road Vacation Application, executed by the owners of both Spring Valley Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch under the County Road Vacation Policies. 5.03 Because Spring Valley Sanitation District has made certain real improvements that are located within CR 114 as it is currently located, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Spring Valley Sanitation District regarding the improvements that have been installed within the existing CR 114 alignment so that there will be no disruptions to service a provided by the District and that costs for relocation of certain improvements, if necessary, shall be addressed in the agreement. This signed agreement shall be provided to Staff at the time of the final plat. 5.04 Because the majority of the proposed realignment of CR 114 lies within the boundaries of the Lake Springs Ranch property, any approval for the realignment of CR 114 for Spring Valley Ranch shall not be considered approved unless a similar approval is obtained by Lake Springs Ranch. 5.05 Spring Valley Ranch, in the design and reconstruction of CR 114, shall comply with the standards and criteria included in Resolution 2002-109 as those conditions relate to shoulder width (6 feet), surfacing and ditch design. 5.05 Prior to approval of a new alignment for CR 114, Spring Valley Ranch shall submit a plan for the intended use of the old CR 114 Right -Of -Way. Such plan shall be approved by the owners of Lake Springs Ranch and provide for proportionate cost sharing. If the Plan proposes to leave the old CR 114 Right -Of -Way as -is for a period of at least one year, the owners of Spring Valley Ranch shall provide a weed management plan for that Right -of -Way. If the Plan for the new CR 114 Right -Of -Way requires reclamation, the owners of Spring Valley ranch shall submit 1) a plant material list, 2) a planting schedule, 3) an estimate in terms of acres or square feet of the area to be reclaimed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security before final BOCC approval. 5.07 The revegetation security provided to Garfield County shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield 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. 5.08 The Reclamation Plan anticipated in condition 5.07 above shall include 1) a plant material list (to conform with the surrounding native vegetation), 2) a planting schedule, 3) a map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (road cuts) and an estimate of surface area disturbed, and 4) a revegetation bond or security as part of the relevant subdivision improvements agreements. 5.09 The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) for Phase 42 of Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall provide that the Phase 42 improvements to CR 114 need not be commenced until 2 years after the earlier of i) the date of the SIA for Phase 42, or ii}the approval of the application by the Lake Springs Ranch developers to realign CR 114. In the event the end of said 2 -year period falls between October 1 — March 31, the Applicant may commence construction as soon as practicable when weather conditions permit. Security for the Phase 42 improvements to CR 114 shall be in place at the same time as other improvements set forth in the subdivision improvements agreement for Phase 42. The phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit 21 of Binder 4 is hereby amended to provide for the potential construction of Phase 42 improvements to CR 114 in accordance with this Condition 5.0. 6.0 The internal private roads will be maintained by either the Landis Creek Metropolitan District or the Homeowner's Association. In the event the roads are maintained by the Homeowners Association, Aa maintenance and repair plan for the internal private road system must be included in the covenants of the master homeowners association. 7.0 The Applicant and Mrs. Veltus shall negotiate in good faith far the creation of a new road easement through the Applicant's property on reasonable terms and conditions. Such easement shall be identified on the final plat but shall not require a PUD amendment. 8:-88.0 The dam break failure analysis for an enlarged Hopkins Reservoir must be incorporated into the drainage plan and subdivision improvements agreement for phase 2 and incorporated into subsequent phases as applicable in a manner adequate to prevent damage or potential Toss of life or structures within the subdivision, prior to the approval of the first fin.• 40,09.0 The Applicant shall upgrade the electrical utilities consistent with a contract with Holy Cross Electric, at the developer's expense. 11.010.0 Prior to the recordation of the final plat that includes Lots R 92, 94 and 95G8'l through G91, the Applicant shall install piezometers along the hillside in the location of Lots G84 91R 92, 94 and 95 to monitor groundwater conditions. This information shall be submitted to the Colorado Geologic Survey for their review and comment. The design for the development of such lots shall take this information into consideration, including the potential of a comprehensive solution and/or individual lot drainage mitigation. 112.011.0 Plat notes and covenants shall indicate that all Tots require a site specific geological and geotechnical analysis prior to any construction. 113.012.0 The design guidelines shall include Best Management Practices which minimize directly connected impervious areas for storm water runoff within individual Tots as part of the first final plat and all subsequent plats. I 44-013.0 Prior to the approval of any Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Office a Noxious Weed / Revegetation Plan which shall include a noxious weed inventory of the area of the property covered by the plat. That Plan shall also include a specific planting schedule, along with the quantification of the acres or square footage of surface to be disturbed and revegetated needs to be developed. Additionally, the Plan shall include reclamation cost estimates for seeding, mulching and other factors that may aid in plant establishment as part of any final plat application and include revegetation security to hold until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the County's reclamation standards. Finally, this Plan shall include a Soil Management Plan to be developed for the project and submitted with any final plat application. 14014.0 As part of all final plats, construction plans shall delineate all wetland areas and all wetland areas shall be clearly marked and fenced prior to construction. 1 16.015.0 As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless on extension of not more than one year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. 1 17.016.0 School Site Acquisition Fees shall be paid at the time of final plat as per Section 9:81 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as amended. 1 14,917.0 The Homeowners Association must hire at least a Class C operator to operate and maintain the proposed Ranch Lot ISDS systems prior to issuance of the first ISDS system permit. If proof of the employment of such a person is not provided to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of said ISDS permit, the Building Department shall not issue the ISDS permit or any subsequently requested ISDS permit. 1 10.018.0 Prior to the approval of the final plat of each phase, the Spring Valley Sanitation District shall certify that sufficient capacity is yailable to provide for the development in such phase. �yW 5-04/y ( 1 20419.0 Owners of existing permitted . Stic-wets ' in use for a single- family residence as of October 29, 2001 that are located on the properties that are contiguous to the boundaries of the Districts and therefore within the service area of the Districts to connect to the central potable water supply system of the Districts in the following conditions: 20.0119.01 Each dwelling unit served by an existing permitte well hall be entitled to one tap for the provision of one EOR from the central potable water system; 20.0219.02 Such owners shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and policies as all other residential users on such systems; 20.0319.03 Such owners shall be charged in -District fees, charges, nd.m rates even though they are out of the Districts; j . ' 20.0419.04 In the event that such an oer's-weft becom unable to produce the quantities required for permitted domestic well, such , lir veli owner shall not be required to pay a tap feeat the time of ro i connection to the water supply system; Ard 20.0519.05 The main infrastructure and distribution systems for the water supply system have been installed and tested and operational; 20-9619.06 Such owners may choose to connect to the water supply system at any time after the system is installed and operational and shall connect to such system on any appropriate primary distribution line and SVD shall use all reasonable efforts to locate such distribution lines in a manner that, to the extent feasible and practical, it will accommodate a connection by such owners; 20.0719.07 Such owners shall be responsible for all costs associated with constructing and extending the necessary water lines to connect to the water supply system's primary distribution lines,; 20.0819.08 Such owners may keep their existing permitted in operation, the water court decrees that will legally support such service must be issued in Case Nos. 98CW254 and 255 in Water Division No. 5; and 2-00919.09 Such owners will be responsible for securing any necessary rights-of-way from their property to the district boundary and SVD or the District will provide the appropriate rights-of-way, within the District boundary. 21.020.0 With the exception of Lot P23 and OSR Parcel E, (individual well development shall be prohibited for new reskleatidevelopment. 22.021.0 The Applicant shall work with the water district providing potable water service to the development to adopt a water usage rate structure that encourages conservation. 1 23:022.0 Well water usage for agricultural and golf course purposes shall be allowed to supplement surface water sources in the event of a shortage of surface water supplies. 1 24.023.0 Valid well permits must be obtained for all of the wells included in the water supply plan and copies submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval. 1 25.024.0 Subject to the terms hereof, the Applicant shall provide a nonexclusive easement to allow for the conveyance of water piped from the BR Hopkins Spring located on Spring Valley Ranch PUD property to a point where the water from the BR Hopkins Spring is used on the LaGigilia property. The easement is not required to follow the historic pipeline corridor and it can be relocated to a preferred location mutually agreed to by the parties who have a right to the BR Hopkins Spring and any property owner whose property the new pipeline may cross. This easement to the BR Hopkins Spring shall be designed to allow access to the spring of an adequate width in order to perform improvements to and maintenance on the spring and any portion of a pipe conveying water. This easement shall be depicted on the final plat for review. Further, the Applicant shall be required to present the terms of the easement to the Planning Department for review at final plat and then subsequently recorded in the Office of the County Clerk and Recorder and cross referenced by reception #, book and page on the final plat. 1 26.025.0 AH lots that require booster pumps shall be noted on any final plat and in the covenants. Unless otherwise required by the water district, all lots that require pressure reducing valves shall be noted on any final plat and in the covenants. 1 2-7,026.0 Prior to the firstsecond final plat, the applicant's engineer shall confirm that all nodes with residual pressure of less than 20 psi (pounds per square inch) will not affect the fire hydrants or individual residences. 1 28.027.0 The covenants or bylaws for the development shall obligate the Homeowners Association to require the development's private security company to enforce the at -large dog and cat restrictions included in the covenants, f 29.028.0 The following plat notes will be included on any final plat: 29.0128.01 All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. 29.0228.02 Colorado is a Right -to -Farm State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3- 101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. 29.0328.03 All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. 3829.0 All construction for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD shall be in accordance with the International Fire Code. 30.0 That the Applicant shall address the comments prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering on behalf of the County prior to scheduling the hearing before t sioncr ;in the following manner..-: 30.01 Mountain Cross Engineering ("MCE') comments 1 to 13 and 15, except for 3 and 7, pertain to final plat conditions that will be fulfilled at the filing of each phase. With regard to comment 3, the community water system will be approved, permitted and operated pursuant to CDPHE regulations that will assure adequate water quality. With regard to comment 7, Applicant will prepare a traffic analysis on the identified intersections for submission to the BOCC prior to hearing. 30.02 Comments 14, 16 and 17 concern road engineering in the Mountain District, except for Sweetwater Draw. The Applicant will re- evaluate these road grades and intersections identified by MCE and implement MCE's recommendations at final plat for the appropriate phase to the extent feasible. 30.03 With re•ard to Comment 18 A .• licant will stud the need for additional mainline P RV's in the final design, and shall include a note on the final plat as necessary on all lots in that phase requiring an individual PRV. 30.04 With regard to Comment 19, Applicant will grade and maintain an unpaved access concurrently with the installation of the off-road water lines, which will be depicted on the final design drawings. An a••ro•nate easement will be shown on the final ■lat. These accesses will be used for construction and ongoing operations. Winter maintenance and repair will require track -equipment. 30.05 With regard to Comment 20, the access roads to both water storage tanks will be depicted on the final design drawings. Appropriate easements will be shown on the final plat. 30.06 With regard to Comment 21, Applicant's final engineering and construction drawings will provide for a foundation that protects the Tank's strL ctural fill and foundation from erosion. 30.07 With regard to Comment 22, Applicant will provide for a cleanout of the low-pressure main sewer line in its final engineering and construction drawings for the sewer system. 30.08 With regard to Comment 23, in conjunction with final design the Applicant will address of any byproducts generated by the MIOX disinfection system, including any state and federal requirements. 31.OThat the Applicant :,hall address the comments prepared by Dcn Gordon, P.E.,with—S Buser Gordon Meyer (project engineer for the Spring Valley Sanitation District) prior to scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commisioners. 31.0 Prior to final plat, the Applicant shall meet the requirements set forth in the Spring Valley Sanitation District's "Will Serve" letter dated August 4, 2006, regarding the Spring Valley Ranch Project, which is included in Binder 3 Appendix H of the Application. EXHIBIT One of the conditions of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution 2000-95 is not included in the staff recommended conditions of approval following the restating of the various resolutions. The Zone District Map for the PUD, which is on page 3 of the staff report, Lists the Office District as 13 acres, but Board of County Commissioners Resolution 2000-95 states that the Zone District Map was to be revised showing the reduced size to be 8.95 acres and the buffer between the Office District boundary and private property to the east was to be designated open space. I respectfully request that this condition from Resolution 2000-95 be included in the Planning Commissions recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you EXHIBIT i STATE OF COQ Region 3 Traffic Section 222 S. Sixth St., Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 683-6284 Fax:(970) 683-6290 To: Charles W. Humber Spring Valley Holdings, LLC One California Street -22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Permittee or Applicant: IWOJITION1 aesweIIaMIXIW Permit No. 307250 October 30, 2007 1. Please review the attached State Highway Access Permit (Form #101) and all enclosed attachments. 2. If you choose NOT to act on the permit, please return the permit unsigned. 3. If you wish to APPEAL the Terns and Conditions of the permit, please refer to the attached Form 101, Pages 2 and 3 for an explanation of the appeal procedures. 4. If you ACCEPT the Permit and its Terms and Conditions and are authorized to sign as legal owner of the property or as an authorized representative, please siun and date the Access Permit form on the line marked "PERMITTEE". Your signature confirms your agreement to all the listed Terms and Conditions. 5. Provide a check or money order made out to the jurisdiction named on the next tine for the amount due. Make check or money order payable to: CDOT Amount Due: 5 300.00 6. Return the Access Permit including all pages of terms and conditions along with your payment back to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) at the address noted below. The Department will process and return to you a validated (signed and recorded) copy of your State Highway Access Permit. You may retain this cover letter for your records. 7. If you fail to sign and return the attached Access Permit within 60 days of the date of this transmittal letter, Colorado Department of Transportation will consider this permit withdrawn and void. As described in the attached Terms and Conditions, you must make a written request to obtain a Notice to Proceed. DO NOT begin any work within the State Highway Right -of -Way without a validated Access Permit and Notice to Proceed. Use of this permit without the Colorado Department of Transportation's validation shall be considered a violation of State Law. If you have any questions, please call Dan Roussin, Access Manager at (970) 683-6284. Please return Access Permit and attachments to: Region 3 Traffic Section 222 S. Sixth St., Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT CDOT Permit No. 307250 4 Permit fee $300.00 Date of transmittal 10/30/2007 Region/Section/Patrol 3 / 02 / 12-2 Randy Greeson State Highway No/Mp/Side 82 A / 7.327 / R Local Jurisdiction Garfield County The Permittee(s); Applicant: Ref No.: Spring Valley Holdings, LLC Charles W. Humber One California Street -22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-568-9510 is hereby granted permission to have an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with this permit, including the State Highway Access Code and any attachments, terms, conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any parts of this permit. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the eermit. Location: 1726 feet east of referancc point 7. This access is known as County Road 114 (CMC Road) Access to Provide Service to: (Land Use Code:) (Size or Count) (Units) 998 - County Road - County Road 114 740 DHV Other terms and conditions: Please review additonal terms and condi tons MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. Signature Print Name Title Date Upon the signing of this permit the permttee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from Initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify D'Wayne Gaymon with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Grand Junction, Colorado at (970) 683-3355, at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way. The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have full authority to accept the permit and its terms and conditions. Permittee Signature Print Name Date This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Signature Print Name Title Date (of issue) Copy Distribution: Required' 1.Regcon 2.Appltcant Make copies as necessary for: 3Staff Access Section Local Authority Inspector MICE Patrol Traffic Engineer &Central Files Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used Page 1 of 3 COOT Form #101 5107 State Highway Access Permit Form 101, Page 2 The following paragraphs are excerpts of the State Highway Access Code. These are provided for your convenience but do not alleviate compliance with all sections of the Access Code. A copy of the State Highway Access Code is available from your local issuing authority (local government) or the Colorado Department of Transportation (Department). When this permit was issued, the issuing authority made its decision based in part on information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which is assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and streets is available, and safety and design standards. Changes in use or design not approved by the permit or the issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permit. APPEALS 1. Should the permittee or applicant object to the denial of a permit application by the Department or object to any of the terms or conditions of a permit placed there by the Department, the applicant and permittee (appellant) have a right to appeal the decision to the [Transportation] Commission [of Colorado]. To appeal a decision, submit a request for administrative hearing to the Transportation Commission of Colorado within 60 days of transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the permit for signature. Submit the request to the Transportation Commission of Colorado, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222-3400. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include changes, revisions, or conditions that would be acceptable to the permittee or applicant. 2. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by a local issuing authority shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local authority. 3. In submitting the request for administrative hearing, the appellant has the option of including within the appeal a request for a review by the Department's internal administrative review committee pursuant to [Code] subsection 2.10. When such committee review is requested, processing of the appeal for formal administrative hearing, 2.9(5) and (6), shall be suspended until the appellant notifies the Commission to proceed with the administrative hearing, or the appellant submits a request to the Commission or the administrative law judge to withdraw the appeal. The two administrative processes, the internal administrative review committee, and the administrative hearing, may not run concurrently. 4. Regardless of any communications, meetings, administrative reviews or negotiations with the Department or the internal administrative review Committee regarding revisions or objections to the permit or a denial, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission for a hearing, the appeal must be brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the permit. PERMIT EXPIRATION 1. A permit shall be considered expired if the access is not under construction within one year of the permit issue date or before the expiration of any authorized extension. When the permittee is unable to commence construction within one year after the permit issue date, the permittee may request a one year extension from the issuing authority. No more than two one-year extensions may be granted under any circumstances. If the access is not under construction within three years from date of issue the permit will be considered expired, Any request for an extension must be in writing and submitted to the issuing authority before the permit expires. The request should state the reasons why the extension is necessary, when construction is anticipated, and include a copy of page 1 (face of permit) of the access permit. Extension approvals shall be in writing. The local issuing authority shall obtain the concurrence of the Department prior to the approval of an extension, and shall notify the Department of all denied extensions within ten days. Any person wishing to reestablish an access permit that has expired may begin again with the application procedures. An approved Notice to Proceed, automatically renews the access permit for the period of the Notice to Proceed. CONSTRUCTION 1. Construction may not begin until a Notice to Proceed is approved. (Code subsection 2.4] 2. The construction of the access and its appurtenances as required by the terms and conditions of the permit shall be completed at the expense of the permittee except as provided in subsection 2.14. All materials used in the construction of the access within the highway right-of-way or on permanent easements, become public property. Any materials removed from the highway right-of-way will be disposed of only as directed by the Department. All fencing, guard rail, traffic control devices and other equipment and materials removed in the course of access construction shall be given to the Department unless otherwise instructed by the permit or the Department inspector. 3. The permittee shall notify the individual or the office specified on the permit or Notice to Proceed at least two working days prior to any construction within state highway right-of-way. Construction of the access shall not proceed until both the access permit and the Notice to Proceed are issued. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation of construction within the highway right-of-way. A construction time extension not to exceed 30 working days may be requested from the individual or office specified on the permit. 4. The issuing authority and the Department may inspect the access during construction and upon completion of the access to ensure that all terms and conditions of the permit are met. Inspectors are authorized to enforce the conditions of the permit during construction and to halt any activities within state right-of-way that do not comply with the provisions of the permit, that conflict with concurrent highway construction or maintenance work, that endanger highway property, natural or cultural resources protected by law, or the health and safety of workers or the public, 5. Prior to using the access, the permittee is required to complete the construction according to the terms and conditions of the permit. Failure by the permittee to abide by all permit terms and conditions shall be sufficient cause for the Department or issuing authority to initiate action to suspend or revoke the permit and close the access. If in the determination of the Department or issuing authority the failure to comply with or complete the construction requirements of the permit create a highway safety hazard, such shall be sufficient cause for the summary suspension of the permit. If the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing authority and Department and included in the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any unauthorized use of the access pursuant to statutory and regulatory powers. Reconstruction or improvement of the access may be required when the permittee has failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to improper construction or material specifications, the permittee shall be responsible for all repairs. Failure to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. 6. The permittee shall provide construction traffic control devices at all times during access construction, in conformance with the M.U.T.C.D. as required by section 42- 4-104, C.R.S., as amended. 7. A utility permit shall be obtained for any utility work within highway right-of-way. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a permitted access, the relocation, removal or repair shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately. The permittee is responsible for the repair of any utility damaged in the course of access construction, reconstruction or repair. 8. In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right- of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department. 9. The permittee shall ensure that a copy of the permit is available for review at the construction site at all times. The permit may require the contractor to notify the individual or office specified on the permit at any specified phases in construction to allow the field inspector to inspect various aspects of construction such as concrete forms, subbase, base course compaction, and materials specifications. Minor changes and additions may be ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions. 10. Each access shall be constructed in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway or shoulder, and shall not interfere with the existing drainage system on the right-of-way or any adopted municipal system and drainage plan. 11. By accepting the permit, permittee agrees to save, indemnify, and hold harmless to the extent allowed by law, the issuing authority, the Department, its officers, and employees from suits, actions, claims of any type or character brought because of injuries or damage sustained by any person resulting from the permittee's use of the access permit during the construction of the access. CHANGES IN ACCESS USE AND PERMIT VIOLATIONS 1. It is the responsibility of the property owner and permittee to ensure that the use of the access to the property is not in violation of the Code, permit terms and conditions or the Act. The terms and conditions of any permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in -interest, heirs and occupants. If any significant changes are made or will be made in the use of the property which will affect access operation, traffic volume and or vehicle type, the permittee or property owner shall contact the local issuing authority or the Department to determine if a new access permit and modifications to the access are required. 2. When an access is constructed or used in violation of the Code, section 43-2-147(5)(c), C.R.S., of the Act applies. The Department or issuing authority may summarily suspend an access permit and immediately order closure of the access when its continued use presents an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety. Summary suspension shall comply with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. MAINTENANCE 1. The permittee, his or her heirs, successors -in -interest, assigns, and occupants of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the permit, the repair and maintenance of the access beyond the edge of the roadway including any cattle guard and gate, and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though deposited an the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. Within unincorporated areas the Department will keep access culverts clean as part of maintenance of the highway drainage system. However, the permittee is responsible for the repair and replacement of any access -related culverts within the right-of-way. Within incorporated areas, drainage responsibilities for municipalities are determined by statute and local ordinance. The Department will maintain the roadway including auxiliary lanes and shoulders, except in those cases where the access installation has failed due to improper access construction and/or failure to follow permit requirements and specifications in which case the permittee shall be responsible for such repair. Any significant repairs such as culvert replacement, resurfacing, or changes in design or specifications, requires authorization from the Department. Form 101, Page 3 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 307250 Located on Highway 082A near RP 7.327 Left Issued to Spring Valley Holdings, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS October 29, 2007 1. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. This Permit is issued in accordance with the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1), and is based in part upon the information submitted by the Permittee. Any subsequent relocation, reconstruction, or modifications to the access or changes in the traffic volume or traffic nature using the access shall be requested for by means of a new application. Any changes causing non-compliance with the Access Code may render this permit void, requiring a new permit. 2. The Permittee shall design and install a second WB lane on CR 114 approaching the Frontage Road. 3. The Permittee shall design and install a left turn lane for NB traffic on the Frontage Road in conformance with section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR 601-1. 4. The Permittee shall design and install a northbound to eastbound right tura acceleration lane in conformance with section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR 601-1. 5. The permittee shall install signs requiring motorists to not block the frontage road intersection at the north leg, east, and south legs as recommended by the traffic impact study dated August 31, 2007 by FHU. 6. The Permittee shall design and install a northbound to westbound right turn acceleration lane onto SH 82 from CR 114 in conformance with section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR 601-1. 7. A full width 2 -inch minimum depth overlay of the entire length of highway improvements may be required in accordance with section 4.7(6) of the Access Code. The determination of the overlay requirement shall be determined by the Department at the pre -design meeting. 8. It is understood that this is a Phase 1 Permit. Full build out will require a second access permit at some future date. Coordination will need to occur as the Phase 2 build out will likely required implementation of a "big picture" solution to the problems associated with the frontage road spacing. A conceptual level of study has already been completed by CDOT for this location that will need to be included in the Phase 2 TIS. 9. This access shall be constructed 40 feet wide with turning radii to accommodate the minimum turning radius of the largest vehicle. The turning radius shall be measured from the white line on the Hwy to the edge of the driveway. A drawing of the design vehicle turning template for the largest vehicle entering/exiting site will be required to ensure proper radius and lane widths 10. The access shall be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a minimum distance of 40 feet from the edge of roadway. Side slopes shall be at a 4:1 slope on the roadway and at 6:1 to the approach. The driveway shall slope away from the highway at a -2% grade for the first 20 feet of driveway. This design shall be in conformance with section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR 601-1. 11. This permit replaces any and all additional access permits that may be in existence. All other State Highway access to the property shall be removed. 12. The Permittee shall provide a performance bond that will insure completion of the required highway and all related intersection improvements in conformance with all Department standards and specifications. The bond must be at least 110% of the estimated total highway construction cost and the bonding agency must be surety licensed to do business in the State of Colorado. A thorough Construction Cost Estimate sealed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and a draft of the bond must be provided and approved by Department before acceptance of the final bond and before construction is approved to commence. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 307250 Located on Highway 082A near RP 7.327 Left Issued to Spring Valley Holdings, LLC October 29, 2007 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) 13. The permittee is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) that have been adopted by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), and incorporated by the U.S. Attorney General as a federal standard. These guidelines provide requirements for design and construction. The current Standards Plans and can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support web page at: http;liwww.dot.state.ca.usfDesignSupport/, then click on Design Bulletins. 14. A pre -design meeting is required prior to construction design. Required personnel for this meeting are: Professional Engineer of Record (ie. The person who shall sign and seal the plan set) , Design Engineer, and Permittee. Please contact Devin Drayton 970-248-7245 or Brian Killian at 970-248-7293 for scheduling this pre -design meeting. 15. A Notice to Proceed, CDOT Form 1265 is required before beginning the construction of the access or any activity within the highway right-of-way. To receive the Notice to Proceed the applicant shall submit a complete packet to CDOT with the following items: (a) A cover letter requesting a Notice to Proceed. (b) Certificate of Insurance Liability as per Section 2.3(11)(i) of the State Highway Access Code. (c) A certified Traffic Control Plan in accordance with Section 2.4(6) of the Access Code. The Traffic Control Plan shall provide accessibility features to accommodate all pedestrians including persons with disabilities for all pathways during construction. Ten copies of Construction Plans Stamped (11"x 17" with a minimum scale of 1" = 50') by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer in full compliance with the State Highway Access Code. (d) (e) (f) (9) Signed and sealed Notice to Proceed Checklist. Signed and Approved Performance Bond. Signed and sealed drainage report or narrative. (h) Prior to the issuance of any Notice to Proceed, the applicant shall schedule a pre - construction meeting including but not limited to applicant, Engineer of Record, Construction Inspector, construction personnel, permittee (if other than applicant), CDOT representative and Traffic Control Supervisor. (i) A construction schedule will be required at the pre -construction meeting. (j) A letter of concurrence from Garfield County agreeing with the terms and conditions of this access permit (307250). 16. No drainage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee is required to maintain all drainage in excess of historical flows and time of concentration on site. All existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department's standard specifications. 17. A new culvert may be required for this access. The drainage study will be used to size all culverts. As a minimum, an 18 -inch culvert with protective end treatments will be required. The culvert shall be kept free of blockage to maintain proper flow and drainage. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 307250 Located on Highway 082A near RP 7.327 Left Issued to Spring Valley Holdings, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) October 29, 2007 18. Open cuts, which are at least 4 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way, will not be left open at night, on weekends, or an holidays, or shall be protected with a suitable barrier per State and Federal Standards. 19. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional Federal, State and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this access permit does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. Permittee is also responsible for obtaining all necessary utility permits in addition to this access permit. 20. All workers within the State Highway right of way shall comply with their employer's safety and health policies/procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926 - Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Personal protective equipment (e.g. head protection, footwear, high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection, respirators, gloves, etc.) shall be worn as appropriate for the work being performed, and as specified in regulation. 21. CDOT requires submission of SWMP plans on any projects where the area of CDOT ROW impacted exceeds one acre. 22. A temporary construction easement is required if highway improvements necessitate entering anther private properties for any reason. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining the said easement and providing the lease information to CDOT prior to obtaining the NTP. The easement shall be a signed legal agreement between the property owner and the permittee of the access permit. This easement shall stipulate the range of dates the permittee's contractor may enter the property and provide any construction plan & profiles attachments that have been agreed upon. 23. On all CDOT access permit projects where the developers are required to apply and obtain a CSP (Construction Storm Water Permit) from the respective regulatory agency, "The Permittee/Applicant is required to include the portion of CDOT Rights of Way to be impacted by the construction of the access within their Construction Storm Water Permit (CSP). A notice to proceed will not be issued until the Permittee/applicant provides CDOT region permit office with the proof of such inclusion on the developer's CSP. 24. It is the responsibility of the permittee/applicant to determine which environmental clearances and/or regulations apply to the project, and to obtain any clearances that are required directly from the appropriate agency. Please refer to or request a copy of the "CDOT Environmental Clearance Information Summary" for details. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR CDOT PERMIT, OR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY OTHER AGENCIES. • ALL discharges are subject to the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations. Prohibited discharges include substances such as: wash water, paint, automotive fluids, solvents, oils or soaps. • Unless otherwise identified by CDOT or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) as significant sources of pollutants to the waters of the State, the following discharges to storm water systems are allowed without a Colorado Discharge Permit System permit: landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, uncontaminated ground water infiltration to separate storm sewers, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, footing drains; water line flushing, flows from STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 307250 October 29, 2007 Located on Highway 082A near RP 7.327 Left issued to Spring Valley Holdings, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) riparian habitats and wetlands, and flow from fire fighting activities. However, construction activities may require a Construction Stormwater Permit. Contact the CDOT Water Quality Program Manager at 303-757-9343. • ANY OTHER DISCHARGES may require Colorado Discharge Permit(s) or separate permits from CDPHE or the appropriate agency before work begins. For additional information and forms, go to the CDPHE website at: http://www,alphe.state.co.ustwo/PermitsUnits/wocdpmthtml. 25. Nothing in this permit shall prohibit the chief engineer from exercising the right granted in CRS 43-3-102 Including but not limited to restricting left hand turns by construction of physical medial separations. 26. A signed and approved temporary lease agreement is required if construction trailers are to be located on CDOT ROW during construction. 27. The Permittee shall provide accessibility features to accommodate all pedestrians including persons with disabilities for all pathways during and after construction. 28. During access construction no construction personnel vehicles will be permitted to park in the state highway right-of-way. 29. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be completed within 45 days from initiation of construction within State Highway right-of-way or in accordance with written concurrence of the Access Manager. All construction shall be completed in a single season. 30. AH costs associated with any type of utility work will be at the sole responsibility and cost of the permittee and at no cost to CDOT. 31. Any damage to present highway facilities including traffic control devices shall be repaired immediately at no cost to the Department and prior to continuing other work. 32. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited on the roadway shall be removed daily or as ordered by the Department inspector. If mud is obvious condition during site construction, it is recommended that the contractor build a Stabilized Construction Entrance or Scrubber Pad at the intended construction access to aid in the removal of mud and debris from vehicle tires. The details of the Stabilized Construction Entrance are found in the M & S Standards Plan No. M-208-1. 33. A fully executed complete copy of this permit and the Notice to Proceed must be on the job site with the contractor at all times during the construction. Failure to comply with this or any other construction requirement may result in the immediate suspension of work by order of the Department inspector or the issuing authority. 34. All construction and inspection work must be under the direction of a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The PE's responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (a) The PE shall evaluate compliance with plans and specifications with regard to the roadway improvements within the State right-of-way. The PE shall carefully monitor the contractor's compliance on all aspects of construction, including construction zone traffic control. (b) Engineering Certification: After inspection and before final acceptance, the Engineer shall certify to CDOT in writing that all inspections, materials, materials testing, and construction methods conform to the plans, specifications and purpose of design. Upon completion of STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 307250 Located on Highway 082A near RP 7.327 Left Issued to Spring Valley Holdings, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) the work, that responsible Engineer shall submit an "As Built" plans, showing in detail all approved construction changes, modification. 35. No work will be allowed at night, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays without prior authorization from the Department. The Department may also restrict work within the State Highway right-of-way during adverse weather conditions. 36. Areas of roadway and/or right-of-way disturbed during this installation shall be restored to their original conditions to insure proper strength and stability, drainage and erosion control. Restoration shall meet the Department's standard specifications for topsoil, fertilization, mulching, and re -seeding. October 29, 2007 Construction Completion & Final Acceptance 37. Upon the completion of the access and prior to any use as allowed by this permit, the permittee shall notify the Permit Manager by certified mail within 10 working days to request a final inspection. This request shall include signed and sealed certification that all materials and construction have been completed in accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications; and that the access is constructed in conformance with the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1, and the terms and conditions included in this permit. The engineer of record shall be present for this inspection. The access serviced by this permit may not be opened to traffic until the CDOT Access Manager provides written initial approval. 38. Following the final inspection, CDOT will prepare an Access Construction Inspection Summary Letter and send it to the applicant, permittee, and engineer of record. If additional items are required to complete the access construction, a list of these items will be part of the access construction inspection summary letter. All required items and final as -built survey shall be completed within 30 days from receiving the Access Construction Summary Letter. The access serviced by this permit may not be opened to traffic until written approval has been given from the CDOT Access Manager. If all work appears to have been done in general close conformity with the above named permit, an initial acceptance letter will be sent to the permittee and this access may be opened for traffic. 39. The 2 year warrantee period will begin when the initial acceptance letter is issued. In accordance with section 2.5(6) of the State Highway Access Code, if any construction element fails within two -years due to improper construction or material specifications, the Permittee shall be responsible for all repairs. Failure to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. The letter of final acceptance will be issued once the access has been inspected and is found to comply with all material and construction in accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications approx. 2 years after initial acceptance. EI6v1.1, SPRING VALLEY RANCH P.U.D. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOVEMBER 6, 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AMENDED P.U.D. & PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION November 6, 2007 Fred Jarman, AICP Director, Planning and Building Department Garfield County 108 8"' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Fred: Brownstein . Hyatt Farber Schreck Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, P.C. P.G. Box 357 818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 306 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602-0357 T 970.945.5302 F 970.384.2360 James S. Lochhead Attorney at Law C 970.618.3810 jlochhead@bhfs.com bhfs.com Thank you for your letter of November 2. 2007, asking for additional information with regard to the preliminary plan and amendment to PUD application for Spring Valley Ranch. We are providing our responses below. In addition to the conditions mentioned in your letter, the P & Z imposed conditions 30.01 and 30.02, which we think also call for responses from us. For your convenience, we have listed the applicable condition, together with our response. 17.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the Garfield County Housing Authority regarding the location of the 75 Community Housing units or an offsite alternative affordable housing project. In the event no agreement is reached, the 75 community housing units shall be located as depicted on the supplemental plan. See letter from Tom Gray enclosed as Exhibit A. 18.0 The phasing of improvements to the intersection of Colorado State Highway 82 and Garfield County Road 114 shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation and shall be incorporated into the phasing plan for the project. Condition 3.0 of the P & Z proposed conditions for Preliminary Plan provides: The applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department ofTransportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12)(b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved phasing plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat documents, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. bhfs.com Fred Jarman, AICP November 6, 2007 Page 2 In accordance with this condition, Spring Valley Holdings will submit a highway access permit application to CDOT prior to the first final plat. We anticipate that additional permit applications will need to be submitted to CDOT as subsequent phases are platted. Improvements to the CR 114/SH 82 intersection shall be made in accordance with the timing and requirements of the permit(s) issued in response to such applications. Security for such improvements will be included in the SIAs for the first and subsequent phases, as applicable to meet the timing of improvements required by CDOT in such permits. 19.0 The Applicant shall construct interim improvements to CR114 to mitigate construction traffic impacts as part of Phase 2 in accordance with a plan approved by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Spring Valley Holdings has developed a construction impact mittiigation plan, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit B. 20.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a schedule showing the ownership and timing of conveyance of open space, trails, and 24 employee rental units. Spring Valley Holdings LLC ("SVR) has held productive discussions regarding the protection of the Spring Valley Ranch open space parcels with Martha Cochran, the Executive Director of the Aspen Valley Land Trust. SVR and the Land Trust intend to partner in the conservation of Spring Valley Ranch's open space with the exception of the "Meadow"parcels. The active recreational, equestrian and neighborhood uses planned for the Meadow are inconsistent with the mission of the Land Trust, which prefers to be involved in large open space parcels designated for wildlife habitat or agriculture. This area will be owned by the foundation described below and be subject to appropriate conservation deed restrictions which assure that the Meadow will remain open space in perpetuity. SVR will incorporate an independent foundation for the sole purpose of conserving and protecting the open spaces and trail systems of Spring Valley Ranch. The board of the foundation will be appointed by the Spring Valley Homeowners Association. SVR will convey conservation deeds for each open space parcel and the trails thereon in fee to the foundation in accordance with the Spring Valley Ranch phasing plan. Concurrently, SVR will impose conservation easements in favor of the Aspen Valley Land Trust on each open space parcel, except for the Meadow. The foundation will be a Supporting Organization to the Land Trust in accordance with federal law. Lastly, the Spring Valley Club will own the 24 employee housing units to ensure the ongoing hiring and retention of seasonal and key Club personnel. 21.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a public access plan for the golf course, trails and convenience shopping. Public access participants must be registered voters over the age of 25 who live in the adjoining Spring Valley neighborhood, as defined by Exhibit C, ("Neighbors'), in the Cities of Carbondale or Glenwood Springs (together `Local Residents) or in Garfield County ("Public') Fred Jarman, AICP November 6, 2007 Page 3 Golf Course • Local Resident may play up to 5 rounds per year. • Local Resident may play on Monday -Thursday after 11a.m., excluding holidays. • Local Residents must arrange tee times through the Club. • Local Residents may reserve tee times up to 7 days in advance. • The Local Resident will pay the same fees as guest of Club Members, as determined from time to time by the Club. • Local Residents who are not accompanied by a Club Member will take a forecaddie. • Local Residents may play a total of 100 rounds per month in season. Each day during the appointed days and hours of Local Resident play, the Club will make available at least 8 rounds (2 foursomes) for Local Residents. Unused rounds will not carry forward month to month. Convenience Shopping • Upon the completion of the General Store in the Village, Neighbors will be provided access to Spring Valley Ranch for convenience shopping. • Neighbors who would like to utilize the General Store will be provided gate access to the Village during the Store's regular business hours. • Other community facilities, such as recreational, dining or other amenities, are not applicable to this access. Trails • The applicant will construct and maintain trails for hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and cross-country skiing in the "Meadow" open space parcel located to the southwest of CR 115 (OS/P Parcel A). • These trails will be open daily to the Public from sunrise to sunset.. Equestrian Center • If the applicant builds the Spring Valley Equestrian Center the meadow near the intersect of CR 114 and CR 115, the Center will be a semi -private facility that will provide boarding and other services to the general public as well as to members. 30.01 Mountain Cross Engineering ("MCE") comments 1 to 13 and 15, except for 3 and 7, pertain to final plat conditions that will be fulfilled at the fling of each phase. With regard to comment 3, the community water system will be approved, permitted and operated pursuant to CDPHE regulations that will assure adequate water quality. With regard to comment 7, Applicant will prepare a traffic analysis on the identified intersections for submission to the BOCC prior to hearing. In response to comment 7, a traffic analysis on identified intersections is enclosed as Exhibit D. 30.02 Comments 14, 16 and 17 concern road engineering in the Mountain District, except for Sweetwater Draw. The Applicant will prepare design standards for road grades at intersections and switchbacks, and standards related to the location of guard rails for review and approval of MCE prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan. Fred Jarman, AICP November 6, 2007 Page 4 In response to Comments 14-17, enclosed as Exhibit E is an Amended Road Design Report prepared by Gamba and Associates, that provides design standards for road grades at intersections and switchbacks and standards related to the location of guard rails. We hope this is responsive to your request, If you have additional information you require, or would like to discuss the application, please do not hesitate to contact Tom Gray, Mike Gamba or me. We appreciate your assistance. Sincerely, EXHIBIT A LETTER FROM TOM GRAY REGARDING DISCUSSIONS WITH GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY SPRING VALLEY RANCH November 6, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Garfield Housing Authority — Planning Commission Condition 17.0 Dear Fred, Attached are letters and e-mails that document the good faith efforts by Spring Valley Holdings LLC ("Applicant") to negotiate with the Garfield Housing Authority ("Authority") regarding an alternative offsite affordable housing program in -lieu of the 75 Community Housing Units ("CHU"). The chronology of the Applicant's efforts is as follows: • August 10, 2006 — Applicant's representative Tom Gray ("Gray") meets with Geneva Powell, Executive Director of the Authority, ("Powell") and Susan Shirley of the Mountain Regional Housing Corp. to discuss Kator Grove and other alternatives to the CHU. • August 2006 — Powell provides Gray with proposal for Housing Fund Investor (Attachment 1). • February 13, 2007 — Gray sends letter to Powell regarding funding of affordable housing (Attachment 2). • May 24, 2007 — Mary Jane Hangs, Chair of the Garfield Housing Authority, ("Hangs") sends Gray a revised Proposal for Housing Fund Investors based upon discussions between Powell and Gray (Attachment 3). • June 13, 2007 — Gray sends letter to Hangs a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") accepting the terms of Hangs' Proposal subject to certain terms and conditions (Attachment 4). • July 6, 2007 — Powell sends letter to Gray rejecting Applicant's MOU and referring the matter to the Board of County Commissions (Attachment 5). • July 30, 2007 — Gray sends letter to Powell requesting a meeting with the Authority's Board to discuss Applicant's affordable housing proposals (Attachment 6). • September 12, 2007 — Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of' Applicant's proposed amendments to the PUD and Preliminary Plan for Spring Valley Ranch, subject to certain conditions, including Condition 17.0. • October, 2007 — Gray places several calls to Powell to schedule a meeting with the Authority's Board without success. • November 5, 2007 — Gray send notice to Powell reiterating Applicant's willingness to fund affordable housing in accordance with MOU (Attachment 7). Thank you very much for your attention to the above. Should you have any questions, please call me. Best regards Tom Gray 4000 County Road 115, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Proposal for Housing Fund Investor August 2006 This proposal is between the Garfield County Housing Authority (including agreements with Mt. Regional Housing Corp and the Housing Fund) and the Developers of Spring Valley Ranch The developers of Spring Valley Ranch have proposed to invest in the Housing Fund through the Housing Authority a sum of $2,000,000. This sum is equivalent to the fee- in -lieu formula that was established for the County's consideration in the February 2006 Housing Assessment. The methodology is explained below: • Taking an average size home of 1200 to 1300 sq ft in the Carbondale/Glenwood Springs area and applying the figures on the chart on page ES -4 of the Garfield County Housing Assessment • Averaging the amounts of fee -in -lieu for 80-100% AMI ($53,907) and 100- 120% AMI ($34,719) • Equals $44,313 then multiplied by 10% of the estimated 450 units to be built(45) • Equals $2,000,000 total fee -in -lieu The development is not under the Garfield County Inclusionary Zoning guidelines and this proposal is being made as a separate negotiation. The investment will be used to support the Keator Grove development and used as allowed by the Housing Fund to promote affordable housing in the valley. The purpose and function of the Housing Fund as stated in the IGA is "to plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund." (IGA page 1) The Housing Fund will be managed by the Funding Partners organization and is under the oversight and guidance of the Housing Fund Board of Directors. This proposed investment will comply with an Equity Equivalent Investment Agreement between the Spring Valley Ranch developers and the Housing Fund (yet to be agreed on). However, this is a non-recourse and 0% interest investment for 10 years. Because this is an equity equivalent, no repayment of principal shall be required until maturity of the agreement. This agreement is being negotiated and will not be executed until the Spring Valley Developers, the Garfield County Housing Authority, the Housing Fund and the legal council for each above mentioned entity has agreed on the conditions. SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC February 13, 2007 Ms. Geneva Powell Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Dear Geneva: We have finished the replanning of the Spring Valley Ranch Project and are once again prepared to submit our application to amend the existing Preliminary Plan and PUD. We continue to advocate that any affordable housing provided by the Project would best be located near jobs, schools and services, rather than in a remote location some 8 miles up CR 114. As you and I have discussed, Spring Valley Holdings' preference is to assist the Housing Authority in fulfilling its mission to provide affordable housing in Garfield County. We believe that the Authority knows much better than we the location and type of housing that is needed. Even though the Project does not fall under the County Inclusionary Zoning guidelines, Spring Valley values the role that work -force must play in the future of Garfield County and the communities of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. We want to honor the intent of the commitment for affordable units included by the prior owners in the existing Preliminary Plan. The currently approved "Chenoa" plan sited 72 affordable units at the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115. Our proposal is to provide funding to the Housing Authority to construct a comparable number of units over time in more appropriate locations. You and I discussed the possibility of Spring Valley providing interest-free, non-recourse equity to a Housing Fund. As contemplated by the IGA, the Fund would "plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund." The Housing Fund would be independent of Spring Valley and managed under the oversight and guidance of a Housing Fund Board of Directors, in which Spring Valley need not participate. The Board would direct the investment of the Fund on a revolving basis in joint ventures that develop affordable housing projects in the Roaring Fork Valley. Spring Valley would be due no interest on its investment and would not participate in the profits from any of the joint ventures. At the end of ten years Spring Valley's contribution to the fund would be repaid. The Housing Fund would retain all joint venture profits, and thereby establish a permanent internal source for future investment. t6O ont*emery Strttt = 60' Fleocor _ 'S4in Irn ciwww, CA 941 11 Spring Valley Holdings, LI.,C — Affordable Housing Page 2 In concept Spring Valley offers to contribute $250,000 into the fund upon the approval of the amendments to the Project's current entitlements. Thereafter, Spring Valley would add to the fund at the rate of $25,000 for each market -rate residential lot upon the recordation of the final plat in which that lot is included. These contributions would continue until Spring Valley's investment in the Fund equals $2 million. While this proposal is the barest of outlines, we hope that you will be interest in pursuing an Equity Equivalent Investment Agreement between the Housing Authority and Spring Valley Holdings. Of course our discussions and correspondence are not binding on either of us until an formal Agreement has been approved and executed by all parties. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with you to provide affordable housing in the County. If you were able to provide us with your reaction to our suggestions by the end of the month, we would be very grateful. We are anxious to move an Agreement forward if you are interested. I am planning to be in the Valley in early March. Please call or email me with any comments or questions (831- 620-6708 or tomgray rr,santaluciapreserve.com). Very truly yours, Tom Gray Cc: Mr. Danny Goldberg Mr. Charlie Humber 1116/2007 8:30:07 AM SVR HousingProposal070213 Proposal for Housing Fund Investor May 24, 2007 The Garfield County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners have reviewed and discussed both the original proposal dated August 2006 and the response dated February 20, 2007 between the Housing Authority and the developers of Spring Valley Ranch. We respectfully submit the following: The developers of Spring Valley Ranch have proposed to invest in the Housing Fund through the Housing Authority a sum of $2,000,000. This sum is equivalent to the fee- in -lieu formula that was established for the County's consideration in the February 2006 Housing Assessment. The methodology is explained below: Taking an average size home of 1200 to 1300 sq ft in the Carbondale/Glenwood Springs area and applying the figures on the chart on page ES -4 of the Garfield County Housing Assessment Averaging the amounts of fee -in -lieu for 80-100% AMI ($53,907) and 100-120% AMI ($34,719) Equals $44,313 then multiplied by 10% of the estimated 450 units to be built (45) (or up to 72units) Equals $2,000,000 total fee -in -lieu The Garfield County Housing Authority appreciates your commitment to honor the affordable housing component that is included in the existing Spring Valley PUD. We believe that a 10 year loan would not be of optimum benefit for the development of affordable housing. We are requesting that you consider the proposed investment be given as a grant to the Housing Fund instead of a 10 year loan that was previously discussed. We believe that we can reach an agreement with your concept that `Spring Valley contribute $250,000 into the fund upon the approval of the amendments to the Project's current entitlements. Thereafter, Spring Valley would add to the fund at the rate of $25,000 for each market -rate residential lot upon recordation of the final plat in which that lot is included.' We request a proposed good faith estimated time line to show payment schedule and date of last payment. The investment will be used as allowed by the Housing Fund to promote affordable housing in the valley. The purpose and function of the Housing Fund as stated in the IGA is "to plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund." (IGA page 1) The Housing Fund will be managed by Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, a Colorado non- profit organization and certified Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) and is under the oversight and guidance of the Housing Fund Board of Directors. This proposal is between the Garfield County Housing Authority (including agreements with Mt. Regional Housing Corp and the Housing Fund) and the Developers of Spring Valley Ranch and will not be executed until the Spring Valley Developers, the Garfield County Housing Authority, the Housing Fund and the legal council for each above mentioned entity has agreed on the conditions The proposal is being negotiated separate from any commitment or requirement placed on the developer by County guidelines and regulations. Again, we are most thankful for your focus on affordable housing and your generous offer. We are anxious to work out these details and assist you in moving forward with your proposal as soon as possible. We will wait to hear from you. Sincerely, Mary Jane Hangs, Chair Garfield County Housing Authority SPTTIJG \'A.LLE;'' ffrr.11.1TITG r r c June 13, 2007 Mary Jane Hangs Chair Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Subject: Spring Valley Ranch; Memorandum of Understanding for Funding Grant Dear Ms. Hangs: Thank you very much for sending to us the Proposal for Housing Fund Investor dated May 24, 2007 ("Proposal"). The Proposal outlines the primary terms of a potential grant from Spring Valley Holdings, LLC ("SVH") to invest in the Housing Fund through the Garfield County Housing Authority ("Authority"). Please accept this letter, when acknowledged below by both parties, as a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the Authority and SVH concerning such terms as restated below. SVH is the owner of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, an approximately 6,000 acre property located in the Spring Valley/Missouri Heights area of Garfield County, Colorado (the "PUD"). SVH has filed applications with Garfield County for a Preliminary Plan approval and a PUD amendment (the "Applications") to develop 577 market -rate residential lots and appurtenant facilities and structures (the "Project"). The Project is not subject to Garfield County affordable housing regulations, and in particular is not subject to Section 4.07.15.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. Nonetheless, SVH wishes to support the efforts of the Authority to provide affordable and workforce housing in Garfield County by making a voluntary contribution to the Housing Fund. Therefore, the Authority and SVH wish to enter into an agreement under which SVH would provide a grant of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the Authority to be used by the Housing Fund to promote affordable housing in Garfield County. Upon your acceptance of this MOU, SVH and the Authority will negotiate in good faith to enter into a grant agreement containing the following essential terms (the "Grant Agreement"). The Grant Agreement shall be effective upon the final approval of the Applications by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County upon terms and conditions acceptable in the sole discretion of SVH as evidenced by a resolution executed by the Board, and the expiration of any period of appeal thereof (the "Effective Date"). 4000 Count, Road 115, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Spring Valley Holdings a. The Grant Agreement shall represent the binding commitment of SVH to fund a grant of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the Housing Fund through the Authority in furtherance of its mission "to plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund," located in Garfield County (the "Commitment"). b. The Housing Fund shall be managed by Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, a Colorado non-profit organization and certified Community Development Financial Institution that operates under the oversight and guidance of the Housing Fund Board of Directors. c. Within sixty days after the Effective Date, SVH shall contribute Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) of the Commitment. d. The Grant Agreement will provide that SVH shall continue to fund the Commitment at the rate of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for each market -rate residential lot platted within the PUD, upon recordation of the final plat in which such lot is included, until the Commitment has been funded in full, without interest. e. The Commitment shall be inclusive of any condition the Board of County Commissioners might place on the Project with respect to inclusionary housing. If the Board imposes any condition(s) on its approval of the Application which directly or indirectly requires a financial commitment from SVH regarding inclusionary, affordable or workforce housing, the Commitment shall be reduced dollar for dollar by the cost to fulfill such condition(s). f The Grant Agreement shall terminate and cease to exist upon the dissolution of the Housing Fund or the Authority, upon the termination of affordable housing programs in Garfield County, upon a finding by an appropriate authority that funds provided by SVH under the Grant Agreement are not or have not been used for their intended purposes, or upon a breach of the Grant Agreement by the Authority or the Housing Fund. Upon such event, all payments previously made by SVH to the Authority under the Grant Agreement shall be deemed to be non-refundable, and all parties to the Grant Agreement shall be relieved from any further liability thereunder, including without limitation any liability for damages, reliance or any other cause. This non-binding MOU covers the primary terms for a grant agreement between the Authority and SVH. It is not binding on either party unless and until a Grant Agreement that contains these terms and other appropriate provisions is executed by both parties. This MOU shall have no binding effect on the parties, except to cooperate in good faith to reach agreement on a Grant Agreement. Spring Valley Holdings As time is of the essence, this proposal shall be automatically withdrawn if not accepted by the Authority and returned to the undersigned by 5:00 pm PDT on Friday, June 22, 2007. We look forward to working with you to assist in addressing the critical need for affordable housing in Garfield County. Sincerely, Spring Valley Holdings, LLC Tom Gray Acknowledged and accepted this day of June, 2007 The Garfield County Housing Authority By Authorized Signature July 6, 2007 Tom Gray Spring Valley Holdings, LLC 600 Montgomery Street 40th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Tom; The Garfield County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners have reviewed and discussed the proposals dated August 2006, February 2007 and June 2007 from Spring Valley Holdings, LLC. Additionally we have looked at the Preliminary Plan Application submitted for our review July 2001 and the Amended PUD and Preliminary Plan Application dated March 2007, received for review in June 2007. We have some concerns that we would like to address. All of our negotiating has been based on your representation that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC was under no legal obligation to build the 75 affordable housing units. However, after careful review and consideration of all documents it is the understanding of the Garfield County Housing Authority that you do have a legal obligation under the existing approvals to build these units. Therefore, the Garfield County Housing Authority has no right of negotiation. We believe that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC needs to address this legal obligation with both the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. Only they can approve or deny your request for amendments to the original PUD and/or allow alternative negotiations. As a third party referral agency representing the interests of affordable housing, we have received your Application from the Garfield County Planning Department and will be submitting our comments for inclusion in the Garfield County's formal planning review. As previously stated by the Garfield County Housing Authority we always support the building of units instead of the donation of money and we have no fee in lieu regulations. We hope that you understand our position as you proceed with this process. Sincerely, Geneva Powell Executive Director Garfield County Housing Authority SPRING VALLEY RANCH Transmitted by e-mail — original will not follow by mail. July 30, 2007 Ms. Geneva Powell Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Proposal to fund affordable housing in Garfield County Dear Geneva: Thank you for the letter of July 6, 2007 regarding our proposal to fund affordable housing in Garfield County. I appreciate your bringing our offer before your board. Your response makes three points. First, you state that Spring Valley Ranch has a "legal obligation" to construct "75 affordable housing units." Your statement would seem to imply that the obligation is to construct 75 units that meet the County's affordable housing guidelines. While our predecessor's proposal would create affordable housing, its terms do not comply with the County's regulations. Second, you state that the Authority supports the building of units as opposed to the contribution of funds. We continue to believe that contributing funds is the most effective way for Spring Valley to help increase the County's affordable housing. Third, you note that only the Garfield County Commissioners can amend their previous approval for the project and that the Authority will comment to the County on the current application. It is precisely because of your commenting role that we initiated discussions with you on the best way for us to help provide affordable housing in Garfield County. We appreciate and understand your Board's position on each of these points. In the interest of continuing our dialogue, please allow me to respond to each in turn. I would also very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with you or your Board as to discuss these points further. As we have discussed, Spring Valley Holdings has a genuine desire to assist in meeting the County's. affordable housing needs. We are anxious to reach agreement with the Authority on the best way of doing so. As to the first point in your letter, I think it is important for us to first agree on the nature of the obligation in the current County approvals to construct "75 affordable housing units." The most recent approval for the project was granted by the Board of County Commissioners in resolutions 2005-83 and 84 on October 3, 2005. The original PUD at Spring Valley was for some 2700 dwelling units. Our predecessors obtained approval to amend the PUD to reduce this density to 577 dwelling units. In 2005, they received approval in Resolutions 2005-83 and 84 for amendments to the PUD and Preliminary Plan which consolidated and restated the conditions of approval contained in the prior approvals of the project. The two Resolutions, which are attached, do not specifically contain conditions regarding affordable housing. Only the omnibus clause contained in paragraphs 2.0 of both resolutions, which incorporates the commitments made by our predecessors, would seem to apply. I am enclosing a copy of the Community Housing Proposal made by our predecessors in their 2005 application. This Proposal was made voluntarily since the proposed 2005 amendments were not subject to the County's affordable housing regulations.' Neither the prior applications nor our application to amend the existing Spring Valley Ranch PUD are subject to the County's regulations regarding affordable housing. County regulations provide the following: • Section 4.07.15.02 For Lands With .4nv Land Use Designation Other Than High Density Residential: (1) Planned Unit Developments - All Planned Unit Development proposals, and 4000 County Road 115, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Spring Valley Ranch - continued You will note that the Proposal does not conform to the County's affordable housing regulations. Fifty (not seventy-five) of the units are income restricted. The remaining twenty-five units are net - worth restricted, but not limited as to income. No affordable housing is provided for residents with income from 60% to 80%Q of AMI. Additionally, the income restricted units are not required to meet an overall income limitation of 80% of AMI. The Proposal allows our predecessor to adjust the mix of units to meet market conditions. Thus, the obligation is not a firm commitment to provide even fifty affordable units as defined by the County's affordable housing regulations. The only quantified representation is that the pricing structure of the attainable units will result in an effective subsidy of $1.875 million by the applicant. We have made a good faith effort to provide the same affordable housing subsidy as quantified in our predecessors' commitment. Our offer of $2 million is roughly equivalent in current dollars to our predecessors' $1.875 million subsidy. Regarding the second point, our application to amend the Spring Valley Ranch PUD does not reaffirm the terms of our predecessors' Proposal. In place, we committed to work with the Authority to fund affordable housing in the County in an amount comparable to the previously approved subsidy. We do not feel that the previously proposed Village is an appropriate location for affordable housing. We believe our position is supported by very sound reasons. At our current project, the Santa Lucia Preserve in Monterey County, CA, we built on -location inclusionary units for our employees, which are similarly income and net -worth restricted. Rather than creating one isolated community of inclusionary housing, we interspersed the units within the broader Preserve community. We believed that we were doing the right thing. However, our housing, like our predecessor's proposal, is at least 10 miles from schools, churches, public transportation, services and activities. We have learned that our employees prefer to live in communities with their extended families and friends. There, family members can watch the children, and the services and facilities meet their needs. For these reasons we have a very difficult time filling the housing that we have built. Consequently, we believe that our predecessor's "Village" plan is seriously flawed by the same problems. Workforce families need housing in their communities, not isolated 8 miles up County Road 114. Moreover, the local Spring Valley community does not want the impacts that a dense development at the intersection of County Roads 114 and 115 would engender. We have held at least six neighborhood open houses, which have been attended each time by 20 to 30 people. Our neighbors do not want their rural lifestyle adversely impacted by a very dense Village of 75. The proposed Village is way out of context in the surrounding rural landscape. Locating the Village at the intersection of County Roads 114 and 115 would also harm the beautiful existing viewshed. We heard our neighbors. Based on that input, we have moved the community services, corporation yard and fire station for Spring Valley Ranch up to the center of the property where they belong. We have also eliminated the 75 units of high-density housing and commercial uses at the County Road 114-115 intersection. Concerning your third point, most certainly the Board of County Commissioners has the latitude to impose any condition on the approval of an application that they deem appropriate. Our Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement far a mix of housing. • 4.07.15.04 Any Planned Unit Development Amendment request, which results in an increase in density, shall be subject to these regulations. Neither application requested an increase in density. Our predecessor's community housing commitment was strictly voluntary, as are our offers to contribute to the housing fund. Page 2 Spring Valley Ranch - continued understanding, though, is that they are required by law to establish a nexus between the condition and the impact of the project. If Spring Valley Ranch is in fact not subject to the County's affordable housing regulations, it would seem reasonable to conclude that no nexus exists between our project and affordable housing. However, we committed to meeting the spirit, if not the specifics, of our predecessors' Community Housing Proposal. As a result, we have offered to fund a grant of $2 million to the Authority for the construction of affordable housing in Garfield County. Were the Authority to accept our offer, we would be bound at a minimum by the terms of our agreement as set forth in my letter of June 13th, regardless of any action taken by the Board. Would not this position be a win-win for the Authority? In short, we are not attempting to shirk our community responsibility. We want to participate in solving the County's affordable housing dilemma. However, we strongly believe that we are more capable of helping by providing funding, rather than building affordable units in the wrong location. There are organizations that are experienced in building and managing affordable housing. We are not, and our experience at the Preserve has proven our lack of ability. We hope that after you review this letter with your Board, they will reconsider our proposal to contribute $2 million into the Housing Fund. I would like to meet with your Board or any representatives to further our discussion, and solidify our commitment to participate in a positive solution to the County's housing needs. If a meeting or telephone conversation would be of assistance in clarifying our intentions or proposal, please let me know, and I will make myself available. Thank you for all of your time and effort to structure a beneficial relationship between the Housing Authority and Spring Valley Ranch. I hope that persistence will pay off. Best regards Tom Gray CC: Fred Jarman Page 3 SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC November 5, 2007 Ms. Geneva Powell Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Dear Geneva: As you are aware, on September 12, 2007, the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimous recommended for the approval of the amendments to the Spring Valley PUD and Preliminary Plan proposed by Spring Valley Holding, LLC. The Commission included Condition 17.0 to its recommendations: 17.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, Applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the Garfield County Housing Authority regarding the location of the 75 Community Housing units or an offsite alternative affordable housing project. In the event no agreement is reached, the 75 Community Housing units shall be located as depicted on the supplemental plan. I have called you a number of times to reinitiate our conversations regarding affordable housing. Since I have not heard from you, I assume that the Housing Authority is not interested in pursuing an alternative to the Community Housing Plan. None -the -less, this letter is to confirm that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC stands ready to honor its Memorandum of Understanding dated June 13, 2007. If the Housing Authority is interested in further discussion regarding an alternative affordable housing program, notwithstanding your letter of July 6, 2007, please contact me immediately. Our hearing before the Board of County Commissions is scheduled for November 13, 2007. Thank you very much for the attending above. Best regards, Tom Gray 600 114+0 ; +omry Sttrettt a #r''' Ftilro rumneisco, CA 94111 EXHIBIT B CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN MIN MI I= NM INN 1•111 1=1 MIN 1=1 111.1 IM =II 8 8 8 54634.6 450182 § g 8 51135.8 6034. 8 8 042 643 1 Gg. 8 ggg .504.7.• 663.62 8 8 I036 15 6 DV .5 6103.69 nral 6623,6 -t- —7- 14 91,16 6146.82 6185.43 635,4 9161e.'r• 6 2 1.. -- g • 8 621336 6276 2 e1.92•50 622367 5223 2.9 '• 6,113'2 622679322.96 623,10 tt'4 if 6333 51 61353 6236 8- 673,1 5 ▪ 6240.22 A 13. 1 I 1 LI111111111111111 Immimmim 63320nhi 6337.61 62 3. 6 2 r 6322 77 6327 69 ' 91314; 900303 6-131. 1 8 • sirs i 934630 5351.6 COMMOLTRII WNW PLED& IAAS- 661 rEW 4(1 5416 574161015 c111(0 85 RPM sr V319" ..,r‘okk C13‘61°1‘ kYCS 36+63 k 'XL. 6010.3 4 6 County Road 114 0+00 to 61 +00 F -50411E: kW, 4:75-1.7 [LATE M3,8 52663 FI'' 53 ay 1114 Limt rta oim••15 DRAWING mama, ni•ECTORY• 161/1116166•6 6.6.0661.. ICH4080. 814 SPRING VALLEY RANO 1 GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSU LYING ENGIN ERRS & LAND SURVEYORS 970/845-2580 WWW.RAMBAENGFNEERING.COM 1.3 w 114. WO. GOD 1414 OLE...WOOD SPRINDO. CO • 1.02 91E160 R39 MI MI MIN MI =I NM MMI NM MI MI MI 16.6 !1'x6.16 8 8 8 2 8 8 z L 8 8 1 8 8 T 2 9111 6 M. A CONSINCININ YENNU IASIIN6IMES TAA ANB DATE REN5ION MADE C i Kr. Rr 8 8 8 8 County Road 114 60+00 to 121+00 SLATE: 162Is-(1i II.DAif. !MAI, NU 1117.191.019. ay UN SHEkl. Maim I PROJECT 1120.11 CHKD 67. NG 'NRAKING �i1-HJR EMREC FORT. HillheLISINaginwrihdlfii 6 SPRING VALLEY RANCH [0 LI.D. GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 9701945-255D WWW.GAMESAENGINEERING.COM SHEET nO R40 1 E 11111 I N MO MN I E I M M M On N 54116 dnSa 1 fi9S13 111■■■■ 11 ■- ill fig o 11 1111 1 64Jd8 da.la 2c— i n■■■■■/■■.■■',. ■€■■■■■ d•0 ,� IllllII i r. -� IIII cgsn_— dai ■.■■■■� ■ ■� 111111.111 ' 111 i i iiiiIiUiiEIII. 11111"11111 t.,A�` ' . liilil lluIII .■u■■ ■.■■■ 8 jyt IIIIIi 111 "� 1 6454.49 8958 ii i 1 g E95/99 .■ n n ¢$ 11 ii 1�_ 1111 DYSkYi ff9 :.1 s4ss1__ b95I.d0 .•Sfr0 ■ ■ ■ NIL 1; ■ 1 ■ ■■■■n fi4 ..fi6 IIIIII 111 4n5J I_ 595SFi.r0 5.6v 1111111! 511 . ■ ■■l■n'l gsy;.2 dB5s.2 6iiiil l lip —fi9SS &5 ..x111 iIIIIIi1 0a51A22 ■ ■■ 1 ul, iA ii ■.TAIL i ii illiiii�i11111I1 096824 "IMPINIPti 11111111141.111° ■ ■■r° Lt;. i■ ° 9- 111I11IIIIIII I1 ill II _ 65lS+ tD 899]i fi541 Q5 i■ ■■n■i � ■1 n.n ff::.• IIIINIII 1 III 59991 da34.9U n■■■■i■■nt+i ■r:*■Ir■■■ ■�lii.I.....■ni IN i�li .■. ■._ ..iii _..T. ■■■ . i . .11.1! lb illi q 11111 151. 1111 ■ oilii 1 II INI i�i■ u�°-111 Rill1 ■ ■ -F IHhIIlll t 11111 I 7996 n. ■i■ ■iu u■■■■n■1 ■i■i ■■i ■ ■■ uu■■■■i► ■I lilllilillii1 IIID N 27 lrf%9 S ;r:r 9 n■n■■.■■■■■■ ■■■■� 12 liiiiihIiil: EXHIBIT C PROPERTY OWNERS ELIGIBLE FOR ACCESS TO GOLF COURSE, TRAILS AND CONVENIENCE SHOPPING EXHIBIT C PROPERTY OWNERS ELIGIBLE FOR ACCESS TO GOLF COURSE, TRAILS AND CONVENIENCE SHOPPING John, Debra & Maryann Keller 5000 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9024 Jennifer Weis, Beverly & Martin Locascio 5050 CR115 GWS, CO 81601 John & Jan Owen (Need mailing address) Lange, Rebecca L. & Troy A. (JT) 4348 CR 115 GWS, Co 81601-9020 Claridge, Marvin L. & Ester 4354 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 LaGiglia, Louis M. & Donnalynne 4002 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 Don & Linda. Helmich 4006 Cty Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 Arrington, Robert L. & Ann E. 3724 Cty Rd 115 GWS, CO 81 601-901 8 Patty Frederick 3720 County Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601 J&S Nieslanik LLLP Jim & Sharon Neislanik Thad & Tonya Neislanik Jeff & Britton Neislanik 3118 S. Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Raun E. & Gayle L. Samuelson PO Box 297 GWS, Co 81602-0297 Betsy, Brose & Gregory Brownell (Business address) PO Box 3944 Basalt, CO 81621 Joel Gdowski 1125 Palmer Ave GWS, CO 81601 Priscilla & Scott Cooper 4350 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 Wroblewski, Stanislaw & Gretchen 4351 County Road 115 GWS, CO 81601 Carol Rothrock & Gary PO Box 1583 Carbondale, CO 81623-1583 Sullivan, Michael & Christine 3780 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9018 Austin, James H. 3726 Cty Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601-9018 Julian & Debra Hardaker 3722 CR 115 GWS, CO 81602-1194 Neth, Samuel L & Koris, Linda C (J/T) 3215 Hager Lane No 1 GWS, CO 81601 Lois Veltus 6651 County Road 115 GWS, Co 81601 970-945-1440 Berkeley, Mariam M. 3961 CR 114 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601-9396 Mike & Maci Berkley 3961 CR 114 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601-9396 Cox, Calvin H. & Marilyn 3154 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601 Kor, Joy & Meyers Paul 3537 Red Canyon Rd. GWS, Co 81601-9076 Peckham, Robert & Teresa 3001 Sopris Ave GWS, Co 81601-4438 Condon, James P.O. Box 208 Carbondale, CO 81623 Anderson, John & Sandi 1332 CR 119 GWS, Co 81601-9313 Wing, John B., Holdings, Inc 1001 General Thomas Blvd Conroe, TX 77303-4454 Glenn, Daniel & Karen 3150 County Road 115 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Joel & Kathleen Trueblood 4577 CR137 GWS, CO 81601 EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFIED INTERSECTIONS FELSBURG HOLT U L L E V I G engineering paths to transportation solutions October 26, 2007 Mr. Torn Gray Santa Lucia Preserve One Rancho San Carlos Road Carmel, CA 93923 RE: Spring Valley Ranch, Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Report— CR 114 Intersection Analysis FHU Reference No. 06-072 Dear Mr. Gray: This supplemental report provides additional analyses related to the Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Feisburg Holt & Ullevig in March 2007. Spring Valley Ranch is a proposed development located in Garfield County, Colorado approximately 5 miles east of SH 82 near the intersection of County Road (CR) 114 and CR 115. At buildout the development will include 577 residential dwellings, one 18 -hole golf course, a clubhouse, equestrian center, trailhead recreation center, and a village center that will contain commercial land uses. The Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis from March 2007 analyzed the background and total traffic conditions for short-term and long-term scenarios as well as the existing traffic conditions at the intersections of SH 82/CR 114 and CR 114/Frontage Road. As requested by Garfield County, this supplemental report includes analysis of traffic conditions for all scenarios for the intersections along CR 114 between the SH 82 Frontage Road and the proposed development. This analysis includes five intersections as shown in Figure 1. All the intersections are stop - controlled with no auxiliary lanes. EXISTING CONDITIONS Peak hour counts were completed in September 2007 at the study intersections. Figure 1 provides the peak hour traffic volumes and the resulting levels of service (LOS) at each intersection. As shown, the turning movements at all the intersections currently operate at LOS A during both peak hours. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix A for existing conditions. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Background traffic is the component of traffic volumes on the roadway network which are unrelated to the proposed development. Background traffic on SH 82 is expected to grow at a rate of approximately 2% per year based on the 20 year growth factor forecasted by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Background traffic was estimated on CR 114 based on this growth rate for the short range future (2008) and the long range future (2027). Figures 2 and 4 provide the short range and long range future background traffic volumes, respectively. 1112 South Tejon Street, Suits Ct+lor:Illlr Springs, t. ,l0 S4:190 tel ! 1' . 314.1hN I:i\ 71). 314.1SL.14 1l‘vw.fitu ng.c sill irif,01!orliuen,, .4..1inll October 26, 260 Mr. Torn Gray Page 2 As shown in Figures 2 and 4, the turning movements at all the intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS A during both peak hours in the short range future and LOS B or better during both peak hours in the long range future. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendices B and D for short term and long term background conditions, respectively. SHORT RANGE FUTURE The short range future background traffic was combined with the site generated traffic to represent the short range future total traffic volumes as shown in Figure 3. As shown, turning movements at all the study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours in the short range future. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix C for short range total traffic conditions. LONG RANGE FUTURE The long range future background traffic shown in Figure 4 was combined with the site generated traffic to represent the long range future total traffic volumes as shown in Figure 5. The turning movements at all the study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours in the long range future, The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix E for long range total traffic conditions. Please call if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG David E. Hattan, PE, PTOE Associate Ot().16'e- Colleen Guillotte, El Transportation Engineer P C" Q kizoinn •FELSBURG (d HOLT & ULLEVIG LEGEND XXX(XXX) xlx l o')cb ./ 3 161) rocP cIt k oSH82 North = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign To Spring Valley Ranch Vet Clinic Elk Springs Ranch Pinon Pines Apartments Colorado Mountain College Condos Colorado Mountain College Figure 1 Existing Traffic Conditions Spring Valley Fannh, 06.072. 10,24+07 (4FELSBURG HOLT 67. ULLEVIG LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xlx = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service _ = Stop Sign to Vet Clinic To Spring Valley Ranch Elk Springs Ranch \I° SH 82 North Pinon Pines Apartments Colorado Mountain College Colorado Mountain College Condos Figure 2 Short Range Future (2008) Background Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch, 06.072, 10,24/'07 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEV[G LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service co h = Stop Sign w To Spring Valley Ranch bibs Vet Clinic Elk Springs Ranch \To SH 82 P North Y Pinon Pines Apartments 417 G Colorado Mountain College Colorado Mountain College Condos Lcva Figure 3 Short Range Future (2008) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch, 06-072, 10/25107 • FELSBURG (dHC7LT & ULLEVIG (16 kToSH82 North LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xlx = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Levet of Service = Stop Sign 4J� cti To Spring 7.--17iNc;-"N\ Valley to Ranch Vet Clinic Elk Springs Ranch Pinon Pines Apartments Colorado Mountain College 4� 5 Colorado Mountain College Condos IP 0,0 a� Figure 4 Long Range Future (2027) Background Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch, 06-072, 10124/07 LEGEND 14 A FELSBURG H C7 LT & XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ULLEVEG xlx = AMfPM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service 1-747 40 03 413 S 11 447 0 -ti CZ) k o SH 82 Ah. . North = Stop Sign CO oZ\ pi APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS pFELSBURG 01 HOLT & ULLEV1G Appendix A HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 4:CR114&CR10 1 .; ,-, Existing AM Peak Hour I Movement Lane Configurations SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER I 4 ve Volume (vehlh) 92 5 13 105 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop I Grade 0% 0°I° 0°I° Peak Hour Factor 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 100 5 14 114 2 3 I Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ffls) Percent Blockage IRight turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) I Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 105 245 103 I vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cant vol vCu, unblocked vol 105 245 103 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pQ queue free % 99 100 100 1 cM capacity (vehlh) 1486 736 952 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 105 128 5 1 Volume Left 0 14 2 Volume Right 5 0 3 cSH 1700 1486 852 I Volume to Capacity 4 Q6 0.01 0,01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.3 Lane LOS A A IApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.3 Approach LOS A 1 1 Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 Baseline 1 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: CR 114&CR 10 Existing PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 v Volume (veh/h) 107 4 7 123 1 12 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 116 4 8 134 1 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 121 267 118 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 121 267 118 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehfh) 1467 718 933 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 121 141 14 Volume Left 0 8 1 Volume Right 4 0 13 cSH 1700 1467 912 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary -1111111111111111111 Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch t ' Existing AM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 'f, Volume (vehlh) 13 82 68 0 1 31 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 89 74 0 1 34 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 74 191 74 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 74 191 74 tC, single (s) 4.1 6,4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 97 cM capacity ()rehlh) 1526 790 988 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 103 74 35 Volume Left 14 0 1 Volume Right 0 0 34 cSH 1526 1700 980 Volume to Capacity 0,01 0.04 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 3 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 8.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 intersection Capacity Utilization 21.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM UnsignalizedIntersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch Existing PM' Peak Hour I Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 T4 Volume (vehlh) 25 149 99 2 4 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 162 108 2 4 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 110 325 109 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 110 325 109 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (vehfh) 1480 657 945 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 189 110 14 Volume Left 27 0 4 Volume Right 0 2 10 cSH 1480 1700 833 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Existing AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 '+ Volume (vehlh) 1 14 7 78 47 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 15 8 85 51 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 151 51 51 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 151 51 51 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 837 1017 1555 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 92 51 Volume Left 1 8 0 Volume Right 15 0 0 cSH 1002 1555 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.3 19.9% ICU Level of Service 15 11111" ‘Fir A Baseline Synchro 7 e Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Existing PM Peak Hour "r 4\ t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Volume (veh/h) 3 8 17 84 70 2 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 9 18 91 76 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 205 77 78 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 205 77 78 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 773 984 1520 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 110 78 Volume Left 3 18 0 Volume Right 9 0 2 cSH 916 1520 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.0 1,3 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.0 1.3 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic Existing AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4* 4 Volume (veh/h) 15 22 65 5 32 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 24 71 5 35 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 35 95 139 138 59 138 173 35 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 35 95 139 138 59 138 173 35 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1577 1499 822 743 1006 824 710 1038 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 111 40 5 3 Volume Left 16 5 5 2 Volume Right 71 0 0 1 cSH 1577 1499 822 885 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0,00 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 1.1 1.0 9.4 9.1 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 1.0 9.4 9.1 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 11: CR 11484 Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour 4- 4\ t 41 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4* 44 4+ Volume (veh/h) 3 33 57 4 25 0 55 0 5 1 0 12 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 36 62 4 27 0 60 0 5 1 0 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 27 98 122 109 67 115 140 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 98 122 109 67 115 140 27 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2,2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 93 100 99 100 100 99 cM capacity (vehTh) 1587 1495 839 777 997 854 747 1048 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 101 32 65 14 Volume Left 3 4 60 1 Volume Right 62 0 5 13 cSH 1587 1495 850 1030 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 1 Control Delay(s) 0.2 1.0 9.6 8.5 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.2 1.0 9.6 8.5 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.4% !CU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 1 1 1 1 I•ICM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Existing AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 4 V Volume (vehlh) 14 7 0 31 25 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 8 0 34 27 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 23 53 19 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 23 53 19 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1592 956 1059 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 23 34 27 Volume Left 0 0 27 Volume Right 8 0 0 cSH 1700 1592 956 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Existing PM Peak Hour Movement EBT EBR WBS. WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 Volume (vehlh) 33 21 0 23 15 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0%© 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 23 0 25 16 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 59 72 47 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 59 72 47 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1545 932 1022 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 59 25 17 Volume Left 0 0 16 Volume Right 23 0 1 cSH 1700 1545 937 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 APPENDIX B SHORT RANGE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS (d FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix B HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 4: CR 114 & CR 10 AM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 Volume (vehlh) 95 5 15 105 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 103 5 16 114 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 109 253 106 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 109 253 106 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1482 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 99 99 728 948 Volume Total 109 130 11 Volume Left 0 16 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1482 824 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0,9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM UnsignaI zed Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 4: CR114&CR10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 ' Volume (vehlh) 110 5 10 125 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 120 5 11 136 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 125 280 122 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 125 280 122 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1462 705 929 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 125 147 22 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 16 cSH 1700 1462 860 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 9.3 Approach LOS A intersection Summar Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch AM Peak Hour t I ' \ Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 T Volume (vehlh) 15 85 70 5 5 35 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 92 76 5 5 38 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 82 204 79 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 82 204 79 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 1516 776 982 Direction, Lane # NB 1 513 1 SE 1 Volume Total 109 82 43 Volume Left 16 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 38 cSH 1516 1700 950 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.05 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 4 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch t ► `- r Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 4 1+ Volume (vehlh) 25 150 100 5 5 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 163 109 5 5 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 114 329 111 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 114 329 111 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1475 653 942 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 190 114 16 Volume Left 27 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 11 cSH 1475 1700 821 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.5 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.5 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 AM Peak Hour 4\ t ,� 4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 T Volume (veh/h) 5 15 10 80 50 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 16 11 87 54 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting votume 166 57 60 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 166 57 60 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 819 1009 1544 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 98 60 Volume Left 5 11 0 Volume Right 16 0 5 eSH 954 1544 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.9 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.9 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background PM Peak Hour 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 I Volume (vehlh) 5 10 20 85 70 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 22 92 76 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (iris) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 215 79 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 215 79 82 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 762 982 1516 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 114 82 Volume Left 5 22 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 896 1516 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.1 1.5 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.1 1.5 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 ICM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic AM Peak Hour f ir c 4- 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ - 4+ 4 40 I Volume (veh/h) 15 25 65 5 35 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0%© 0% 0% 0% 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 Hourfy flow rate (vph) 16 27 71 5 38 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians I Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) MNone None Medianedian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) I pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 43 98 152 149 62 152 182 41 vC1, stage 1 conf vol I vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 43 98 152 149 62 152 182 41 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1565 1495 802 732 1002 802 702 1030 I Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 114 49 11 11 Volume Left 16 5 5 5 Volume Right 71 5 5 5 cSH 1565 1495 891 902 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0,8 9.1 9.0 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.8 9.1 9.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% [CU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour 4\ t d Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR N8L NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 4 4. Volume (vehlh) 5 35 60 5 25 5 55 0 5 5 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 38 65 5 27 5 60 0 5 5 0 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage vehJ Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 33 103 139 125 71 128 155 30 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 33 103 139 125 71 128 155 30 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 93 100 99 99 100 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1579 1489 814 760 992 836 732 1045 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 109 38 65 22 Volume Left 5 5 60 5 Volume Right 65 5 5 16 cSH 1579 1489 827 983 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.4 1.1 9.7 8.7 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.4 1.1 9.7 8.7 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Short Term Background AM Peak Hour --► Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 ' Volume (vehlh) 15 10 5 35 25 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 11 5 38 27 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 27 71 22 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 71 22 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1587 930 1055 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 27 43 33 Volume Left 0 5 27 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1587 949 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 8.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 intersection Capacity Utilization 16.1 % Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos PM Peak Hour —P. —4 C 4— Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations '+ 4 ¥ Volume (vehfh) 35 25 0 25 15 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 27 0 27 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 65 79 52 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 65 79 52 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6,2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3,5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1537 924 1016 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 65 27 22 Volume Left 0 0 16 Volume Right 27 0 5 cSH 1700 1537 945 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 APPENDIX C SHORT RANGE TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS • rFEHOLT &LSBURG d LL LiLLEV10 Appendix C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 4: CR 114 & CR 10 AM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 1 4 f Volume (vehlh) 180 5 15 400 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 196 5 16 435 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 201 666 198 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 201 666 198 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1371 420 843 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 201 451 11 Volume Left 0 16 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1371 560 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.6 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.6 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Movement ---►--- 4 EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations, 4 *f Volume (vehT) 100 10 5 330 25 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 109 11 5 359 27 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 120 484 114 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 120 484 114 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3,3 p0 queue free % 100 95 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1468 540 938 Short Term Total AM Peak Hour 1 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 120 364 33 Volume Left 0 5 27 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1468 581 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 11.6 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 11.6 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch AM Peak Hour Movement NEL NBT SET SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 Volume (vehfh) 15 170 365 5 5 35 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 185 397 5 5 38 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (firs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 402 617 399 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 402 617 399 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 94 cM capacity (veh}h) 1156 447 650 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 201 402 43 Volume Left 16 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 38 cSH 1156 1700 615 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.24 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch Short Term Total 1 PM Peak Hour 1 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 1 Volume (vehfh) 25 410 255 5 5 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 446 277 5 5 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 283 780 280 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 283 780 280 tC, single (s) 4,1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 98 99 cM capacity (vehfh) 1280 356 759 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 473 283 16 Volume Left 27 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 11 cSH 1280 1700 551 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.17 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.7 0.0 11.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.0 11.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 AM Peak Hour t 41 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ¥ 4 Volume (vehfh) 5 15 10 165 345 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 16 11 179 375 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 579 378 380 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 canf vol vCu, unblocked vol 579 378 380 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 473 669 1178 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 190 380 Volume Left 5 11 0 Volume Right 16 0 5 cSH 606 1178 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.01 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 1 0 Control Delay (s) 11.2 0.5 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity'Utlization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 PM Peak Hour Movement t EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 f Volume (veh/h) 5 10 20 345 225 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 22 375 245 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft!s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 666 247 250 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 666 247 250 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free °% 99 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 418 791 1316 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 397 250 Volume Left 5 22 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 610 1316 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 11.1 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.1 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11:CR114&Vet Clinic Short Term Total AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4+ 4+ 4+ Volume (vehlh) 15 110 65 5 330 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%© Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 120 71 5 359 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 364 190 565 562 155 565 595 361 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 364 190 565 562 155 565 595 361 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1194 1384 426 428 891 427 410 683 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 207 370 11 11 Volume Left 16 5 5 5 Volume Right 71 5 5 5 cSH 1194 1384 577 526 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 2 Control Delay (s) 0,8 0.1 11.4 12.0 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.4 12.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour t441 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR I Lane Configurations 4, 4+4, Volume (vehlh) 5 295 60 5 180 5 55 0 5 5 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 321 65 5 196 5 60 0 5 5 0 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) I Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 201 386 590 576 353 579 606 198 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 201 386 590 576 353 579 606 198 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free %e 100 100 85 100 99 99 100 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1371 1173 409 424 690 420 408 843 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 391 207 65 22 Voiume Left 5 5 60 5 Volume Right 65 5 5 16 cSH 1371 1173 423 674 Volume to Capacity 0,00 0.00 0.15 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 14 2 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.3 15.1 10.5 Lane LOS A A CB Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.3 15.1 10.5 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary I Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 1 Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 4: CR 114 & CR 10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 'fir 4 Volume (vehlh) 370 5 10 280 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 402 5 11 304 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 408 731 405 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 408 731 405 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free °A 99 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1151 385 646 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 408 315 22 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 16 cSH 1700 1151 552 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.01 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos PM Peak Hour Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 'Fr 4 ' Volume (vehth) 295 25 5 180 15 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 321 27 5 196 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftts) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 348 541 334 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 348 541 334 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1211 500 708 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 348 201 22 Volume Left 0 5 16 Volume Right 27 0 5 cSH 1700 1211 540 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.00 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0,0 0.3 12.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 APPENDIX D LONG RANGE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS pFELSBURG (d HOLT ULLEV10 Appendix A HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 4: CR 114 & CR 10 AM Peak Hour Movement_ SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 ¥ Volume (veh/h) 135 5 20 155 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 147 5 22 168 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 152 361 149 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf voi vCu, unblocked vol 152 361 149 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1429 628 897 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 152 190 11 Volume Left 0 22 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1429 739 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.02 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.9 Lane LOS A A Approach. Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 4: CR 114 & CR 10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations T 4 Volume (veh/h) 160 5 10 185 5 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 174 5 11 201 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fits) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Medan type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 179 399 177 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 179 399 177 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free °% 99 99 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1396 602 866 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 179 212 27 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 22 cSH 1700 1396 796 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 9.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 9.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch Long Background Back round Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER AM Peak Hour 1 Lane Configurations 4 'Ii Volume (vehfh) 20 120 100 5 5 45 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 130 109 5 5 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 114 285 111 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 114 285 111 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 95 cM capacity (vehlh) 1475 695 942 Direction, Lane # NB 1 5131 SE 1 Volume Total 152 114 54 Volume Left 22 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 49 cSH 1475 1700 909 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.07 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 5 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.2 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.2 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary __ Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch PM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 I Volume (vehfh) 35 220 145 5 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 239 158 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 163 476 160 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 163 476 160 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1416 533 885 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 277 163 22 Volume Left 38 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 16 cSH 1416 1700 760 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.10 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 9.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 9.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Long Background Back round AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT 4/ SBR Lane Configurations 4 Volume (vehlh) 5 20 10 115 70 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 22 11 125 76 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 226 79 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 226 79 82 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 757 982 1516 Direction, Lane # EB1 NB1 SB1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS intersection Summary 27 136 82 5 11 0 22 0 5 927 1516 1700 0.03 0.01 0.05 2 1 0 9.0 0.6 0.0 A A 9.0 0.6 0.0 A Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 PM Peak Hour I Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations *ti 4 Volume (vehlh) 5 10 25 125 105 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 27 136 114 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 307 117 120 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 307 117 120 tC, singe (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 672 935 1468 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 163 120 Volume Left 5 27 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 827 1468 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 1.4 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 4: CR 114 & CR 10 AM Peak Hour ; Movement SET _ SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations '44* 4 f Volume (vehlh) 220 5 20 450 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 239 5 22 489 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 245 774 242 vC1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 245 774 242 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 98 99 cM capacity (vehih) 1322 361 797 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW '1 NE 1 None None Volume Total 245 511 11 Volume Left 0 22 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1322 497 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 12.4 Lane LOS A l3 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 12.4 Approach LOS 6 Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 11: CR 114 &Vet Clinic AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR_ WBL INT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4. 4 4 4+ Volume (veh/h) 20 35 95 5 50 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 38 103 5 54 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 60 141 207 204 90 207 253 57 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 60 141 207 204 90 207 253 57 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3,5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1544 1442 737 680 968 737 639 1009 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 163 65 11 11 Volume Left 22 5 5 5 Volume Right 103 5 5 5 cSH 1544 1442 837 852 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.7 9.4 9.3 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.7 9.4 9.3 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic Long Term Background PM Peak Hour c 4 k 4\ t! 4, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SB1 SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4 4+ Volume (vehih) 5 50 85 5 35 5 80 0 5 5 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 54 92 5 38 5 87 0 5 5 0 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 43 147 185 166 101 168 209 41 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 43 147 185 166 101 168 209 41 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 88 100 99 99 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1565 1435 756 722 955 786 683 1030 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 152 49 92 27 Volume Left 5 5 87 5 Volume Right 92 5 5 22 cSH 1565 1435 765 970 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 10 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.9 10.4 8.8 Lane LOS A A B A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.9 10.4 8.8 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos AM Peak Hour Movement 4 - EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations Fi 4 Volume (veh/h) 20 10 5 45 35 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 11 5 49 38 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage vehj Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 33 87 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 33 87 27 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 96 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1579 911 1048 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 33 54 43 Volume Left 0 5 38 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1579 926 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 9.1 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 9.1 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Long Term Background PM Peak Hour Movement --� 4 EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 NI Volume (veh/h) 50 30 5 35 20 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 33 5 38 22 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 87 120 71 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 87 120 71 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1509 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 98 99 873 992 Volume Total 87 43 27 Volume Left 0 5 22 Volume Right 33 0 5 eSH 1700 1509 894 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.2 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.2 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 APPENDIX E LONG RANGE TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS iFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix E HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 4:CR114&CR10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 vie Volume (veh/h) 420 5 10 330 5 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0%® 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 457 5 11 359 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 462 840 459 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 462 840 459 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 1099 332 602 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 462 370 27 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 22 cSH 1700 1099 518 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.3 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch. Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 4 + Volume (vehfh) 20 205 395 5 5 45 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 223 429 5 5 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 435 698 432 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 435 698 432 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 1125 399 623 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 245 435 54 Volume Left 22 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 49 cSH 1125 1700 590 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.26 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 8 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 11.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 11.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch PM Peak Hour t l \ Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 T ¥ Volume (veh/h) 35 480 300 5 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 522 326 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 332 927 329 vel, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 332 927 329 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p4 queue free % 97 98 98 eM capacity (veh/h) 1228 289 713 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 560 332 22 Volume Left 38 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 16 cSH 1228 1700 521 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.20 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 12.2 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 12.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service B Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 AM Peak Hour Movement J 4\ t EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT 4, SBR Lane Configurations 4 14 Volume (veh/h) 5 20 10 200 365 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 22 11 217 397 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 639 399 402 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 639 399 402 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 436 650 1156 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 228 402 Volume Left 5 11 0 Volume Right 22 0 5 cSH 592 1156 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.01 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 1 0 Control Delay (s) 11.4 0.5 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 PM Peak Hour Movement t EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ''Pf 4 10. Volume (vehlh) 5 10 25 385 365 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 27 418 397 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 872 399 402 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 872 399 402 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 98 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 313 650 1156 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 446 402 Volume Left 5 27 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 479 1156 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 0 Control Delay (s) 12.8 0.7 0.0 Lane LDS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.8 0.7 0.0 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 BR HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic Long Term Total AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 4 4 4 20 120 95 5 345 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Free Free Stop Stop 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 22 130 103 5 375 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 380 234 620 617 182 620 666 378 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 380 234 620 617 182 620 666 378 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1178 1334 391 396 860 391 372 669 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 255 386 11 11 Volume Left 22 5 5 5 Volume Right 103 5 5 5 cSH 1178 1334 537 494 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 2 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.8 12.5 Lane LCIS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.8 12.5 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4 4 4 Volume (veh/h) 5 310 85 5 190 5 80 0 5 5 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 337 92 5 207 5 87 0 5 5 0 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh} Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 212 429 636 617 383 620 660 209 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 212 429 636 617 383 620 660 209 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 77 100 99 99 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1358 1130 378 402 664 395 380 831 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 435 217 92 27 Volume Left 5 5 87 5 Volume Right 92 5 5 22 cSH 1358 1130 388 681 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.24 0,04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 23 3 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.2 17.2 10.5 Lane LOS A AC B Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.2 17.2 10.5 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos AM Peak Hour —► -- Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations '+ 4 Ire Volume (vehlh) 105 10 5 340 35 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 114 11 5 370 38 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 125 500 120 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 125 500 120 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 93 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1462 528 932 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 125 375 43 Volume Left 0 5 38 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1462 559 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 12.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 12.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Long Terrn Total PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations G, 4 Volume (vehlh) 310 30 5 190 20 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 337 33 5 207 22 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Waking Speed (fits) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 370 571 353 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 370 571 353 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 95 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1189 480 690 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 370 212 27 Volume Left 0 5 22 Volume Right 33 0 5 cSH 1700 1189 511 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.00 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 12.4 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 12.4 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 EXHIBIT E AMENDED ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD SPRING VALLEY RANCH P.U.D. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO AMENDED ROAD DESIGN REPORT November 6, 2007 PREPARED FOR: Tom Gray c/o Spring Valley Holding LLC One California — Twenty Second Floor San Francisco, California 94111 PREPARED BY: Gamba & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 113 Ninth Street — Suite 214 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: (970) 945-2550 Fax: (970) 945-1410 AND ?. ,,' 'r aiei�ri��r Michael Gamba P.E. & P,L,S. 28036 Spring Valley Ranch — Amended Road Design Report November 6, 2007 Page 1 of 8 1 Ifi�fl k A M B A & ASSOCIATES OONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1PHONE: 970/945-2.550 FAX: 970/945-1410 I 113 NINTH STREET, SUITE 214 P.O. Box 1458 IGLENWOOD SPRINGS. OLORADO 81 602-1 458 November 6, 2007 Tom Gray c/o Spring Valley Holding LLC One California — Twenty Second Floor San Francisco, California 84111 RE: Spring Valley Ranch - Road Design Report Dear Mr. Gray: The road network for the SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD project has been designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic and provide safe and convenient access to all segments of the development. A primary design parameter has been to minimize the amount of earthwork and the clearing of vegetation. While these roads have been designed to meet AASHTO (American Associates of State Highway Transportation Officials) Standards, the alignments have been designed to conform to existing topography as closely as possible with the goal of earthwork balance on centerline. This design philosophy has caused the roads to be designed with shorter curve radii and for slower speeds than are commonly seen in less challenging topography. The slower speeds resulting from this design are considered an asset relative to the atmosphere of the project and the protection of wildlife. Where the roads cross slopes in excess of 30% o, Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls and/or soil nail retaining walls will be used instead of long cut -fill slopes. Where cut and fall slopes are necessary, they will be constructed at a maximum slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical to better insure success in revegetation. The design of the horizontal and vertical alignments for all proposed roads within the Spring Valley Ranch PUD are depicted on Exhibit 3 and the Road Portion (R Sheets) of Exhibit 26 of the PRELIMINARY PLAN submittal. These sheets also contain typical cross sections of the various classifications of roads. Road design information relative to Emergency Service issues are depicted on the FIRE AND EMS MAPS included in Appendix G of the Preliminary Plan submittal. The final design of all roads, which shall be submitted with the final plat for each phase of the development, shall be designed in accordance with the following SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS. These roadway design standards shall apply to all roadways within the Spring Valley Ranch PUD unless otherwise approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 2 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS Road Classification Collector Road Minor Road , Cul -De -Sac Road Capacity and Geometry Maximum Number of Residences to be Served 577 140 40 Maximum Average Daily Traffic Volume [vehicles per day] 8000 1400 400 Minimum Right -of -Way Width [feet] 60 50 50 Minimum Travel Lane Width [feet] 12 11 11 Minimum Shoulder Width [feet] 4 2 2 Road Structural Section Type of Road Surface (including travel lanes and shoulders) Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt or Concrete Pavement Section (depth of asphalt) and Specification of Asphalt To be determined by Registered Geotechnical Engineer based on an HS -20 loading and the maximum average daily traffic volumes Aggregate Section (depth and specification of aggregate) To be determined by Registered Geotechnical Engineer based on an HS -20 loading and the maximum average daily traffic volumes Subgrade Stabilization To be determined by Registered Geotechnical Engineer based on an HS -20 loading and the maximum average daily traffic volumes Road Cross -Slope and Super -Elevation ypical Cross Slope Crown) 2% 2% 2% aximum Rate of Super - Elevation (Super - elevation design to be .erformed by rofessional Engineer in accordance with 2001 AASHTO Standards) 4% 4% 4% Shoulder Cross Supe Matches Adjacent Travel Lane Matches Adjacent Travel Lane Matches Adjacent Travel Lane Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 3 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Road Classification Collector Road 1 Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Road Vertical Alignment Maximum Centerline Grade 10% 10% l0°/v K -Value of Vertical Curves To be designed in accordance with AASHTO minimum K -values based on actual design speed of roadway Road Design Speed Typical Design Speed 25 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH Minimum Design Speed 10 MPH 10 MPH 10 MPH Road Horizontal Alignment Minimum Centerline Radius at Typical Design Speed without Superelevation [feet] 298.3 190.9 190.9 Minimum Centerline Radius at Typical Design Speed with maximum Superelevation [feet] 208.3 133.3 133.3 Minimum Centerline Radius [feet] 50.0 50.0 50.0 Switchbacks Definition A switchback is defined as any curve with a centerline radius greater than or equal to 150 -feet AND a central angle (Delta) greater than 140 degrees on a roadway having a peak hour volume (10% of the Average Daily Traffic Volume) greater than 5 vehicles per hour. Maximum Centerline Grade between PC and PT of Switchback 6% ° 6% 6% Maximum Rate of Super- elevation 4% 4% 4% Minimum Design Speed through Switchback 10 MPH 10 MPH 10 MPH Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 4 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Road Classification Collector Road I Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Roadway Intersections The following intersection design standards shall apply to all intersection where the peak hour volume (10% of the ADT) for the intersectin, road is greater than 5 vehicles per hour. Intersecting Angle of Centerlines Within 7 -degrees of perpendicular (83 degrees to 97 degrees) Minimum Length of Centerline Tangent for Intersecting Roadway outside the Edge of Pavement of the Through Roadway 20 -feet 20 -feet 20 -feet Centerline Grade and Minimum Length for Landing on Intersecting Road measured from the edge -of -pavement on the Through Road based on Peak Hour Traffic Volume (10% of ADT) Peak Hour Volume: < 40 VPH 6% for 20 -feet 6% for 20 -feet 6% for 20 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 40 VPH to 80 VPH 6% for 40 -feet 6% for 40 -feet 6% for 40 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 80 VPH to 120 VPH 6% for 60 -feet 6% for 60 -feet 6% for 60 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 120 VPH to 160 VPH 6% for 80 -feet 6% for 80 -feet 6% for 80 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 160 VPH 6% for 100 -feet 6% for 100 -feet 6% for 100 -feet Grade and Minimum Length for Centerline of Through Road on each side of Intersecting Centerline based on the Design Speed of the Through Road Design Speed of Through Road: 15 MPH Preferred: 3% for 80 -feet Maximum: 6% for 82 -feet Preferred: 3% for 80 -feet Maximum: 6% for 82 -feet Preferred: 3% for 80 -feet Maximum: 6% for 82 -feet Design Speed of Through Road: 20 MPH Preferred: 3% for 116 -feet Maximum: 6% for 120 -feet Preferred: 3% for 116 -feet Maximum: 6% for 120 -feet Preferred: 3% for 116 -feet Maximum: 6% for 120 -feet Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 5 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Road Classification Collector Road Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Design Speed of Through Road: 25 MPH Preferred: 3% for 158 -feet Maximum: 6% for 165 -feet Preferred: 3% for 158 -feet Maximum: 6% for 165 -feet Preferred: 3% for 158 -feet Maximum: 6% for 165 -feet Minimum Radius at Edge of Pavement for Intersection Returns 25 -feet 25 -feet 25 -feet Roadside Elements Minimum Clearance from Travel Lane to Roadside Barrier (guard rail/retaining wall/jersey barrier) 4 -feet 4 -feet ' 4 -feet Maximum Slope of Unretained Cut/Fill Slope [vertical feet:horizontal feet} 2:1 2:1 2:1 Guardrail Required on portions of road adjacent to any fill slope with the following criteria: • Fill slope steeper than 1:1 regardless of fill slope height • Fill slope steeper than 2:1 and fill slope height greater than 10 -ft. Stormwater Drainage Elements Roadside Drainage Conveyance Structures Designed by Registered Engineer to Provide Minimum Capacity to Convey Peak Flow from 100 -year Storm Event 1. Roadway standards shall apply for all roads serving more than 3 residences. 2. Road widths will increase at reduced radius curves and intersections in order to accommodate the traveled path of the fire apparatus as specified by the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District within a single lane of the roadway. 3 Roadways shall be provided with no less than 15 feet of vertical clearance. 4. All dead-end (cul-de-sac) roadways shall be equipped with a turn -around at the end in accordance with the design standards for a turn -around as approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 5. On cul-de-sac roadways longer than 600 -feet, in locations to be determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, but at intervals of approximately 600 feet, driveway Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 6 of 8 intersections with roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the minimum dimensions for the turn -around of emergency vehicles, to meet the standards of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Note: These Road Design Standards also assume the following conditions: 6. All Structures in excess of 500 square feet are sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D or as otherwise required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). 7. No on -street parking is allowed on any roadway. 8. Fire Hydrants are provided in accordance with Appendix C of the International Fire Code (IFC) adopted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction at the time of construction. 9. Fire Hydrants will meet the fire -flow requirements of Appendix B of the IFC adopted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction at the time of construction, with the 50% reduction as allowed in Section B105.2 for sprinklered structures. 10. Vegetation management and manipulation is performed on the site in accordance with the standards imposed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 11. In order to accommodate the longer cul-de-sac roadways, the water distribution system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Water Distribution System and Fire Protection Design Standards provided below. CUL-DE-SAC STANDARDS (Mountain Lot District Only) The following cul-de-sac design standards shall apply to all cul-de-sac (dead-end) roadways within the Mountain Lot District of Spring Valley Ranch PUD unless otherwise approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 1. All dead-end roads shall conform to cul-de-sac standards and requirements. 2. The end of all cul-de-sac roadways shall be provided with a turn -around having a minimum radius to the outside edge of the driving surface of 45 feet. On cul-de-sac roadways longer than 600 -feet, in locations to be determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, but at intervals of approximately 600 feet, driveway intersections with roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the minimum dimensions for the turn -around of emergency vehicles, to meet the standards of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 4. In order to accommodate the longer cul-de-sac roadways, the water distribution system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Water Distribution System and Fire Protection Design Standards provided below. Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 7 of 8 The road design standards provided above will allow the construction of roads on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD in a manner responsive to the existing topography and which will result in minimum environmental disturbance. These design standards will dictate slow to moderate posted speeds throughout the development. As is noted in the FIRE AND EMS MITIGATION REPORT, provided in Appendix G, additional design standards related to fire protection and emergency services have been provided order to accommodate emergency services such as police, fire and medical service. These proposed design standards have been reviewed by Mike Piper, the fire chief of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, and the Authority having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. Attached is a letter from Mike Piper indicating his approval of the proposed design standards. These proposed design standards have also been reviewed by Lou Vallario, the Garfield County Sheriff, who is responsible for law enforcement in unincorporated Garfield County and who is also statutorily responsible for wildfire management in Garfield County. Attached is a letter from Lou Vallario indicating his approval of the proposed design standards. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Garnba 8c• ss• 7 ichael Gamba, P.E.& P.L.S. 28036 H:\012691181Roads\Revised Preliminary Plan Road Design Report 20071106.doc Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 8 of 8 August 1, 2007 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Administrative Building 108 88' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Members of the Commission; EXHIBIT We are residents in Spring Valley and live at 4354 CR1 l5. We appreciate the current owners of Spring Valley Ranch being very forthcoming to all the residents in the area with the plans for their development. They've been very open and have show themselves to be good neighbors by getting together with all of the adjacent property owners in Spring Valley and listening to all of our concerns. We are still concerned about water, but feel these guys are going to do their best to work with everyone and mitigate any problems. We are also of the opinion that Garfield County has enough golf courses and jumbo size unaffordable housing. Sincerely, Marvin and Ester Claridge Fred Jarman From: Kathryn Grosscup [kat ryn-gcha@gwestoffice.net] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:37 AM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Cc: 'Geneva Powell'; Fred Jarman Subject: comments on Spring Valley PUD meeting 12/7/2007 Dear Commissioners: EXHIBIT � \(\&. I was asked by Ms. Geneva Powell to make the following comments for tomorrow's Spring Valley Ranch PUD meeting. Ms. Powell is out of the office today and cannot attend the meeting tomorrow. 1. The Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) supports on-site development of the affordable housing units rather than off-site. 2. GCHA seeks clarification as to whether these affordable housing units will be subject to the County's Affordable Housing guidelines. Thank you. Kathryn Grosscup Program Assistant GCHA 384-6446 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 f Virus Database: 269.16.15/1174 - Release Date: 12/6/2007 10:11 AM 12/6/2007 December 4, 2007 Board of County Commissions Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado Re: Hearing on Spring Valley Ranch proposed Amendment to PUD and Preliminary Plan Dear Commissioners: As property owners within the Spring Valley Ranch, we would like to address the issue of the proposed amendments to the approved Spring Valley Ranch PUD and Preliminary Plan. After extensive meetings with Tom Gray, who is in charge of the project, and discussing the changes they are seeking, we are in support of the new plan and hopeful you will grant your approval. Our reasons are as follows: 1. The objections we had to the existing "Chenoa" plan; including issues of environmental disturbance, water diversions, county road traffic, all loudly echoed by our neighbors, will all be significantly reduced with their proposed changes. ❖ 35% less environmental disturbance ❖ 42% cutbacks in water diversions •,• 26% reduction in traffic on the county road (and the hwy 82 intersection) ❖ Less risk of wildfire 2. This developer has an approved PUD. This hearing cannot change that. Although I am sure all the property owners in the area would prefer not to have this project come to fruition, that is simply not a reality. This project is going to happen. The opportunity we now have in front of us to lessen the troublesome impacts should not be missed, The new plan is better for the neighbors, better for the county. Thank you, John and Resa Wing Fred Jarman From: Bobby Branham [bbranham @ garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:45 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Spring Valley Ranch CR114 road improvements Attachments: CR114 Proposed Interim Improvements for SVR Construction Traffic.pdf Fred, I do not have any problems with the proposed temporary alignments. I think it is a very good idea. I have spoken with Steve regarding the issue. Bobby From: Steve Gamba [mailto:Steve@gambaengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:30 PM To: bbranham@garfield-county.com Cc: mgamba@gambaengineering.com Subject: Spring Valley Ranch CR114 road improvements Dear Mr. Branham, I am contacting you regarding a condition of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Spring Valley Ranch PUD which reads: 19.0 The Applicant shall construct interim improvements to CR1 14 to mitigate construction traffic impacts as part of Phase 2 in accordance with a plan approved by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department Regarding this matter, Gamba & Associates has prepared supplemental information which has been submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. Attached please find a PDF file of the proposed interim improvements to CR114 to mitigate construction traffic beginning with the construction of Spring Valley Ranch PUD, Phase 2. The red hatch indicates areas along the current road prism that could accommodate a 12' wide or 16' wide passing lane without the need for additional fill. The passing lanes will be constructed using an adequate depth of base course and chip -and -seal. Appropriate signage will be placed in order to facilitate the use of the passing lanes. Spring Valley Ranch contractors will use these lanes, per a condition in their contract, any time they are traveling less than the posted speed limit and impeding any traffic on CR114. As per the P&Z condition of approval we are asking you to review and comment on the above mentioned plan. The Spring Valley Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan will be brought before the Garfield County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 and it would be helpful if we had your comments prior to that meeting. Please contact me with any questions or if you would like to meet onsite to discuss this further. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Steve Camila Garnha & Associates Tel: 970-945-2550 Fax: 970-945-1410 E-mail: gambafgambaengineerfig.com www.gambaengineering.com 11/27/2007 October 23. 2007 Attention: The Board of County Commissioners Regarding: Public Hearing on the Application by Spring Valley Holdings, LLC. on November 13, 2007 at 1:15PM in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building. To Whom It May Concern: 1 am writing this letter to state my concerns regarding the development of 5,948 acres located north of state highway 82 at the intersection of county roads 115 and 114 in Spring Valley by Spring Valley Holdings, LLC. I recently purchased land (in August 2006) located on Homestead Estates. This purchase was contingent on the well rights, its performance, and the quality of the water. I hired Samualson Well Company to perform these tests and the well passed. This brings me to my main concern: What will this large development do to my well and other wells in the area? This large development may tap into the same aquifer our wells are coming from. Will there be any guarantees that if our wells are affected by this huge development, the developers will provide at no cost to us, water and the infrastructure to deliver water to our properties? The other concern I have is the volume of traffic on the county roads in the area, roads 114, 115 and 119. Will they be improved and widened? Finally, the local community this may effect, mainly law enforcement, schools, and sanitation. These services are extremely important and costly to maintain long after the developer has completed the project. If this has not been planned out carefully, there will be huge consequences the landowners will face such as higher taxes, crime and diminished quality of life in the Roaring Fork Valley. In conclusion, I am not opposed to the development as long as it protects our resources and maintains the beauty and serene quality of life that the Roaring Fork Valley offers to all landowners such as me. Sincere! Carlos Cardenas 5910 W. Washington Blvd. Milwaukee, WI 53208 414-774-1917 November 12, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 81h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAI ENGINEE EXHIBIT d� CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Review of Additional Submittals for Spring Valley Ranch, PUD Dear Fred: A review has been performed of the additional documents for the Preliminary Plan and PUD submittal of Spring Valley Ranch, PUD. Provided all the modifications are incorporated as discussed in their correspondence, all questions, concerns, or comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain ross Engin ering, Inc. rc.C, Chris Hale, PE C: Michael Gamba, Gamba & Associates 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www,mountaincross-eng.corn Fred Jarman From: Jim Austin lima@co.pitkin.co.usj Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:17 PM To: Tresi Haupt John Martin; Larry McCown Cc: Fred Jarman; Tom Gray Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Nov. 09, 2007 Members of the Garfield County BOCC, In general. 1 support this latest development application for the 5948 acre Spring Valley Ranch. It is an improvement over previous applications. However, it could be further improved in significant ways: 1- Require developer to maintain CR 114 from Hwy # 82 to Ranch entrance and CR 115 within the Ranch boundaries during those construction phases which generate heavy construction traffic. 2- Add pedestrian paths on CR 114 and CR 115, especially in the vicinity of the Colorado Mountain College Campus. 3- Find an alternative for the Community Housing location. The proposed meadow location is not appropriate for affordable style housing for the following reasons: - The present application already proposes employee housing within the development. - County comprehensive plan discourages affordable housing located this far from schools, shopping, public transportation, etc. -- The meadow/ pasture area is recommended as open space. - More full time residents will create more CR 114 problems for even after CR 114 is fully rebuilt some years from now, it will still be an inadequate and potentially dangerous road. In the future CR 114 will need to handle traffic generated by Spring Valley Ranch, by Elk Springs, Colorado Mountain College, Pinyon Mesa, Lake Springs Ranch, Pinyon Pines, Auburn Ridge, Eagle Ridge, High Aspen Ranch, trucks supplying the sod farm, work trucks for local businesses, and traffic from other existing and future dwellings and businesses. Further, in the event of another closure of Red Canyon Rd, residents at that end of our valley wi11 also need to use CR 114. 4- Use Spring Valley Sanitation District treated effluent to supplement surface water for irrigation. Prior staff comments did request developer clarification of such use. 5- Prohibit long term pasturing of horses at individual parcels. A previous application allowed only holding corrals at individual parcels. Horses were pastured at the equestrian area. Thank you for considering these suggestions, Jim Austin 3726 CR 115 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 1 September 6, 2007 To whom it May Concern: We, the Nieslanik Family are not opposed to the Spring Valley Holding development, but we do have some concerns. We have leased the agriculture land since 1975. The people representing the development have been great working with us as the lessees for the agriculture land and also for keeping the neighbors informed as to their intentions with the development. One of our major concerns, of course, is the water. We have seen Landis Creek drop from 1-1 ''✓4 cfs in the early 1980's to 1/3cfs today at what we call the crossing above the upper fields. We have seen springs or seeps in the valley floor that would keep us from cutting the hay in those areas in the mid 1980's dry up and disappear. The winters have definitely became less severe and thus our seasons seem to be getting dryer. Even though you are offering subsidized housing within the property, we are still concerned that so much is geared toward high-end housing and gated communities. Do we really need more of this in our valley? There has been too much emphasis from all developments to bigger and more expensive and less attention to attainable housing. Other concerns that are always mentioned are the roads and the traffic. Spring Valley plans on leaving the original water (Landis Creek & Hopkins Reservoir) with the valley land. This is one of best things planned because it will lend to better maintaining the water table of the valley, keeping the existing wells of the valley operating at their present level. We have enjoyed working with this group, and will continue to cooperate and work with them as their development progresses. Sincerely, CI The Nieslanik Family To the Board of County Commissioners: As neighbors of the Spring Valley Ranch development, our first choice would be that there would never be any development to the property known at this time as Spring Valley Ranch. Realizing that our first choice is unrealistic, we have been very pleased to see that we have been included in many discussions over the last couple of years about the future development. Contrary to the previous developers, the present owners/developers have been sympathetic to our concerns and, we feel, have been very sensitive to the historic and natural workings of this landscape which we all share the enjoyment of. Much time, effort, and money have gone into revising the 2005 plan. These revisions make the proposed plan far superior in many critical areas. Certainly our biggest concern is water since in Colorado, as everyone knows, the very viability of any property, let alone it's value, depends on whether or not you have water. The proposed plan envisions using significantly less water...as the P&Z report points out, some 74% reduction in overall usage. In almost every area....grading disturbance, water usage, sustainable agriculture, visual impacts, offsite improvements, fire protection location, safety, water conservation, wildlife, and wildfire mitigation plan, significant improvements have been incorporated. These changes make the idea of a development in our "back yard" a lot easier to live with. The one exception would be the housing units which we feel would be more wisely placed near the towns of Glenwood or Carbondale because they would have a negative impact on both water usage and traffic on our rural roads. It is our understanding that the developers could be forced to develop the land according to the previously approved plan if approval of the revised plan is not considered or is denied. Therefore, we STRONGLY ENCOURAGE APPROVAL of the proposed new plan for the Spring Valley Ranch development, for the good of us all. Thank you for your consideration. C'fd,„ GiM 4.4 31 ~ , t5 1.4 C .' Awa, C v (444(9 6,0420/ 4350 c.k /is " kflfit/i '16 611-;'• /// C-1 7/ a, 7/7 40/4,, y hr4,,k14;4,1, tkAa 4-rt(idic Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Administrative Building 108 811' Street Glenwood Springs, CO Dear Commissioners We are neighbors of Spring Valley Ranch, residents of Glenwood Springs or Garfield County. The new owners of the property have been very forthcoming about their plans. We support their amended PUD for the project and hope that you will approve it. We prefer the new plan to the old one because of the following reasons: Commercial Village center is now inside the project instead of at the CRI 14 & CR115 intersection, thereby reducing traffic. ➢ Only one 18 hole course and a smaller practice course that are designed to use much less water. Retention of agricultural use in meadow. ✓ Better mix of housing for affordability. ▪ Redesigning of course for less grading Less overall visual impact to residents in Spring Valley Thank you for your careful consideration in this matter. Name CI 66 Name, Signature Name . Signature r�, U h Or f'a"l u[ n 1 • Signature-' Name Name (tc/tat—___ Y f Signature Signature it-4kt' Nam Signature tA‘Cie,e-H, Name eziN-\\is, Ys - Signature Na Nipe3 JIM Signature „atiz _/) j . 71- • 1'1) /1C- 11-7 k-1 Name Signature Name 1 ' id „ ?; ic-ci) Signature Sig a ny/e bri Name Name (-)11 mccEijca Signature It ill Name („4 -i ---- c Signature 3 e kAki Name Signature r c\L Name Signature Name Signat re— Name I (5.'D13 C o,J Signature Name ,r\ y Signature ity ignature /el ,4 Naive Signature L L Name Signature Name Si \O -t'\. -)\`((\e„(' ame Signatur ame Signature Name ignature - tj 1 f Name Signature Name Signature Name Signature Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg , 1313 Sherman St , Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 EXHIBIT I TT LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66563 - F DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 CHANGE/EXPANSION OF USE OF AN EXISTING WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 21 Township 6 S Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1100 Ft. from North Section Line 1200 Ft. from East Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zone:13, NAD83) Easting: Northing. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NO1 CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Weil Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 98CW254. This well is known as ASR 161Gamba 8. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 50 GPM. 6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 50 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures must not exceed 974 acre-feet. 7) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annuaffy) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and at least 600 feet from any existing well, completed in the same aquifer. that is not owned by the applicant. 10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall lake necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 11) The issuance of this permit hereby cancels permit no. 245477 . z- y ? For State Engineer By `Receipt No. 9502909F DATE ISSUED 11-26-2007 EXPIRATION DATE 11-26-2008 APPROVED MJV Receipt No. 9502909F WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66563 - F - Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration dale shown below. this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available. Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http://www.water.state.co.us/pubs/forms/gws-64.pdf, NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/or not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.). NOTICE: This permit has been approved for a change of the section location from section 16 to section 21in accordance with the decree in case no. 98CW256. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.) „7` (1/44/g„7 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St.. Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 274091 DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELI APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 29 Township 6 5 Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 50 Ft. from North Section Line 2000 Ft. from East Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,2one:13,NAD83) Easting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(I) for uses as described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(f). Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. This well is known as SVR Ranch Nouse Well. 4) This well must be equipped with a locking cap or seat to prevent well contamination or possible hazards as an open well. The well must be kept capped and locked at alt times except during sampling or measuring. 5} Records of water level measurements and water quality analyses shall be maintained by the well owner and submitted to the Division of Water Resources upon request. 6) Upon conclusion of the monitoring program the well owner shall plug this well in accordance with Rule 16 of the Water Well Construction Rules. A Well Abandonment Report must be completed and submitted to the Division of Water Resources within 60 days of plugging. 7) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with the well permit number and name of aquifer as appropriate, and shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) This well must be constructed by or under the supervision of a licensed well driller or other authorized individual according to the Water Well Construction Rules. if non-standard construction is anticipated, a variance request must be submitted in accordance with Rule 18 and approved prior to well construction. 9) A Well Construction and Test Report (Form GWS -31), including lithologic log must be submitted by the individual authorized to construct the well. For non-standard construction, the report must include an as -built drawing showing details such as depth, casing, perforated zones, and a description of the grouting type and interval. 10) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. .. NOTE: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 23-2187-211-00-137 NOTE: Assessor Tax Schedule Number: R260440 (totaling 3245 acres) APPROVED DMW cReceipt No. 9502829 State i tTteer r By DATE ISSUED 06-15-2007 EXPIRATION DATE 06-15-2009 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg . 1313 Sherman St . Denver Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 LAC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 276055 DIV 5 WD 38 DES BASIN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NW 114 SE 1/4 Section 29 Township 6 5 Range 88 W Sixth P.M DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1570 Ft. from South 1900 Ft. from East Section Line Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zone:13,NAD83) Fasting: Northing } 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 6) 9) 10) ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(I) for uses as described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(f). Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. This well must be equipped with a locking cap or seal to prevent well contamination or possible hazards as an open well. The well must be kept capped and locked at all times except during sampling or measuring. Records of water level measurements and water quality analyses shall be maintained by the well owner and submitted to the Division of Water Resources upon request. Upon conclusion of the monitoring program the well owner shall plug this well in accordance with Rule 16 of the Water Well Construction Rules. A Well Abandonment Report must be completed and submitted to the Division of Water Resources within 60 days of plugging. The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with the well permit number and name of aquifer as appropriate, and shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. This well must be constructed by or under the supervision of a licensed well driller or other authorized individual according to the Water Well Construction Rules. If non-standard construction is anticipated, a variance request must be submitted in accordance with Rule 18 and approved prior to well construction. A Well Construction and Test Report (Form GWS -31), including lithologic log must be submitted by the individual authorized to construct the well. For non-standard construction, the report must include an as -built drawing showing details such as depth, casing, perforated zones, and a description of the grouting type and interval This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this perm NOTE: Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 23-2187-211-00-137 NOTE Assessor Tax Schedule Number R260440 (totaling 3245 acres) rA%t 47.7 APPROVED MJV ,Receipt No. 9502909A For State DATE ISSUED 11-26-2007 By 11-26-2009 09-26-07 10:14AM FROM -Colo Div of Water Resources +3038663589 T -B37 P.065/00T F-547 Receipt No. 9542537E WELL. PERMIT NUMBER 66298 Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a completed Well Completion Report (GWS -31) and Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration date shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available. Contact DWR tor additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http:liwww.water,state,c a uslpubslformslgws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/os not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the dale of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 244-4-104 through 106, C,R,S,) /i3 r* 7 r 09-26-07 10:14AM FROM -Colo Div of hater Resources +3038863589 T -83T P 006/007 F-547 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg„ 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)885-3581 EXST WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66299 - F MD DIV. 5 WD 36 DES. BASIN SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFONIA STREET 22ND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY SW 114 SW 1/4 Section 22 Township 6 S Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1150 Ft. from South 670 Ft. from West Section Line Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters Zone:1 NAD83) Easting: Northing.. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDIITIQNs of APPROVAL 1) This well shell be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The Issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water riclht or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners or Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 an the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Pian approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigeiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course arid open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 980W254. The well is to be known as ASR 14. 5) The pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 100 GPM, 8) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 50 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures must not exceed 974 acre-feet. The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with welt permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request, 9) This well shall be constructed at least 500 feet from any existing wall, completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the applicant. 10) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. 11) This well was originally installed as a monitoring hole/well with a well permit number Mid -3517 ) APPROVED MJV For State Engineer ,Receipt No. 9502537C DATE ISSUED ay 09-25-2007 EXPIRATION DATE 09-25-2008 . 09-26-07 10:14AM FROM -Colo Div of Water Resources +3038663589 T-837 P.007/007 F-547 Receipt No. 95025370 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66299 -F Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a completed Well Completion Report (GWS -31) and Pump Installation and Test Report (LVW -3) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration .late shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available. Contact DWFt for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http:ilwww.water.atnte.co.uslpubslformsigws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not Issued for Industriai, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/or not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (6O days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-194 through 106, C.R.S.).f�1�s�y,a Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66563 -F DIV. 5 WO 38 DES. BASIN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 CHANGEIEANANaIVN jr vac jr AN E ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees. it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 98CW254. This well is known as ASR 161Gamba 8. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 50 GPM. 6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 50 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures muss not exceed 974 acre-feet. 7) The owner shalt mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and at any existing welt, completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the applicant. 10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these 11) The issuance of this permit hereby cancels permit no. 245477 . + rl%str�.• 7 lt1ST1NG WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 21 Township 6 5 Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1100 Ft. from North Section Line 1200 Ft. from East Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zone:13,NAD83) Easting: Northing. ) least 600 feet from and court case markings APPROVED /21 MJV For State Engineer Receipt No. 9502909F DATE ISSUED 11-26-2007 sy EXPIRATIO DATE 11-26-20013 , Receipt No. 9502909F WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66563 - F _ Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration date shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available. Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http://v.rww.water.state.co.us/pubs/forms/gws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/or not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.). NOTICE: This permit has been approved for a change of the section location from section 16 to section 21in accordance with the decree in case no. 98CW256. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.) fr /1/44 f+zW.,7 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISiON OFrWATER Coloro 03RES©URCE S 1318 Centennial Bldg , 1313 Sherman St(303] 866-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 6+ 346 -F DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. Si' IN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing er rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water rig r u preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construe or Rules 2 OCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well i )r ,[ruction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 on the conditi n that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plans approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case nc 98CW254 and 87CW155 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If is well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees, it will be subject to administration including orders to ease diverting water. ) The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside si, 1Ie family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space a 11-e protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses r ;r led for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 98CW254. This v. 1 i•. known as SVH Well No. 6. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 100 GPM. 6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceei 3l acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 ar.: limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures •nus r 4 exceed 974 acre-feet. The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit nurroer..), game of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precar,ro s to preserve these markings. A totalizing flow meter must be installed an this well and maintained in good v� irk ,ig order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) ,ins' submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specif ;d m this permit and at least 600 feet from any existing well, completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the apl lic,snt. 10) The owner shall rnark the well in a conspicuous place with well pe.mit numbe (r , name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and prec iut )ns to preserve these markings. NOTE: Expired permit no. 56718-F, was previously issued for this lot ,v I /a t /''s...7 APPROVE 3 .'YELL LOCATION GARFIELL COUNTY SW 1/4 rJE 1/4 Section 19 Township 3 S Range 88 W Sixth P M DISTANC rS FROM SECTION LINES 2200 Ft. orn North Section Line 2400 Ft. om East Section Line UTM CO }PDINATES (Meters,Zone:13,NAD83) Easting: Northing: 1 Page 1 of 2 APPROVED MJV Reroint No CIACt79096 For Slate Enginee DATE ISSUED 11-21-2007 By EXPIRATION DATE 11-21-2008 Receipt No. 95029098 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66546 -F - Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a completed Well Completion Report (GWS -31) and Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration date shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration dale may be available. Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at. http.11www.water.skate.co.uslpubsllorms/gws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented andlor not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.). NOTICE: This permit has been approved for a change of the maximum pumping rale and the average annual amount of groundwater to be appropriated in accordance with the decree in case no. 84CW212. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.)/trly�'aii C19-26-07 10:13AM FROM -Colo Div of water Resources Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT +3038383580 T-837 P.002/007 F-547 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 81a Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver. Colorado 8020 3 (3D3) 866-3581 EXST WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66297 DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN -F MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALI FONIA STREET 22ND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTINnt %N I 1 { APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 33 Township to $ Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 300 Ft. from North 400 Ft. from West Section Line Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zone:13,NAD83,1 Easting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) Thls well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Gnu, t in case no. 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. 4) The use of ground water from this well Is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree In Case no. 98CW254. The well is to be known as SVR 17. 5) The pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 75 GPM. 8) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 60 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case r . 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures must not exceed 974 acre-feet. 7) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at hast annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed at least 600 feet from any existing well, completed In the same aquifer, that is net owned by the applicant. 10) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. 11) The issuance of this permit hereby cancels permit no. 251755, Page 1 of 2 APPROVED MJV Far State Engineer ,Receipt No. 9502537A DATE ISSUED 09-25-2007 By XPIRATIO DATE 09-25-2008 09-26-0T 10:13A1w1 FROM -Colo Div of Water Resources +3038563589 T-837 P.003/007 F -54T Receipt No. 95O2537A WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66297 - F Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a completed Well Completion Report (GWS -31) and Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration crate shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available_ Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http://www.water.stnte.causipubstforms/gws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not Issued for industrial, municipal, constriction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/or not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the Issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (BO) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 108, C.R.S.)2---/ Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial 8Idg . 1313 Sherman St . Denver. Colorado 80203 (303)866-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66560 -F DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 32 Township 6 5 Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 430 Ft. from North 70 Ft. from East Section Line Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zane 13,NAD83) Fasting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . if this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees, it wilt be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 98CW254. This well is known as SVR 18. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 300 GPM. 6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 400 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures must not exceed 974 acre-feet. 7) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer. and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and at least 600 feet from any existing well, completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the applicant. 10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these marking r Page 1 of 2 if 2 APPROVED MJV For State Engineer ,Receipt No. 9502909C DATE ISSUED By 11-26-2007 EXPIRATION DATE 11-26-2008 Receipt No. 9502909C WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66560 F Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a completed Well Completion Report (GWS -31) and Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Oivision of Water Resources before the expiration date shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http:llwww.water.state co.us/pubsltormslgws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/or not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.).-Fy. )/ 126'2+� Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial 131dg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66561 DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN -F MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 33 Township 6 S Range 88 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 920 Ft, from North Section Line 40 Ft. from West Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zone.13,NAD83) Easting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights, The issuance of this permit does riot assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no 98CW256 on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no. 98CW255 as an alternate point al diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 98CW254. This well is known as SVR 19. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 300 GPM. 6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 400 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and alt other structures listed in. paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures must not exceed 974 acre-feet. 7} The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings, 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and at least 600 feet from any existing well. completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the applicant. 10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings" Page 1 of 2 l Oro?' APPROVED MJV For State Engineer Receipt No 9502909D _ DATE ISSUED 11-26-2007 By EXPIRATION DATE 11-26-2008 1 Receipt No. 95029090 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66561 F - Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE Unless a completed Well Completion Report (GWS -31) and Pump Installation and Test Report (GWS -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration date shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available. Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at: http:llwww.water.state.co.uslpubs/forms/gws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented andfor not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance,Jpursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.). '%.• ,/,�/lt�/..7 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg , 1313 Sherman St.. Denver, Colorado 80203 1303)886-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66562 -F DIV. 5 WD38 DES. BASIN MD SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC 1 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- (415) 568-9500 CHANGE1EXPANSION OF USE OF AN EXISTING WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 27 Township 6 5 Range 88 W Sixth P.M DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1850 Ft_ from North Section Line 2200 Ft. from East Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters2one 13,NAD83) Easting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The constniction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and Case no. 98CW256 on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no 98CW254 and pursuant to Case no 98CW255 as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit . If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decrees. it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to domestic including inside single family dwellings, commercial, irrigaiton of lawns and garden, shrubs, trees and golf course and open space and fire protection associated with the Spring Valley Ranch water supply system. A detailed description of the uses intended for the water withdrawn from the subject wells is described in detail in the decree in Case no. 98CW254. This well is known as SVR 201Gamba 1. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 75 GPM. 6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 75 acre-feet. The total annual diversions for this well and all other structures listed in paragraph 5 of Case no. 98CW254 are limited such that the total estimated annual consumptive use resulting from the diversions from said structures must not exceed 974 acre-feet. 7) The owner shalt mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 9) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and at least 600 feet from any existing well, completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the applicant 10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer. and court case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings 11) The issuance of this permit hereby cancels permit no. MH -34995 y rV2s-.,7 Page 1 of 2 APPROVED MJV Receipt No, BbUZBUBE For State Engineer DATE ISSUED 11-26-2007 EXPIRATIOiv SATE 11 26 2006 Receipt No, 9502909E WELL PERMIT NUMBER 66562 iF Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: Unless a Pump installation and Test Report (GWS, -32) is received by the Division of Water Resources before the expiration date shown below, this permit will expire on the expiration date. An extension of the expiration date may be available. Contact DWR for additional information or refer to the extension request form (GWS -64) available at. http://viww.waterstate.co.usipubstformsigws-64.pdf. NOTICE: This permit is not issued for industrial, municipal, construction, livestock, recreation, aesthetic, fish and wildlife uses as these uses were not augmented and/or not described in water court cases in the above paragraphs. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) day f the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C R.S. t ,a, --</e4/2-4, T 1 Preliminary Plan 1 • General Location as wQ u Q 0- (0 CO L L E 0 0 0 0 0_ 0) 0 N 1 0 0 0 0 .(7) 0 E 0 0 • BEIME iI 11M 111 E' Et BOOM l EL 1 MI g 2 ; 111 Project Issues /Concerns 00 0 0 0 E (r) cpU :4= c • "Z;3' c co W E +� E Q 0 U E n0 W a) 0 0 « i (c w c �`rr1 S i 0 E as c • • • co N O Q ■ Off site Road nterest /Subdivision ■ Fractiona 1 N U coo 11-1 4-4 U • O13-1 ■ DOW Comments ■ RFTA Comments ■ Domestic Water / Wastewater Adequacy ■ Mountain Cross ■ Letter from Neighbors 0 LSI C o 0_ c cri4-c-L c Q c coC E C .� (-71 TO o CT (1)� Cly CC cci CC 1 ■ Staff Recommendation Proposed PUD 577 Free Market & o AH 478 Free Market Units 75 Community Housing Units 24 Employee Housing Units 40.31 ac/du 12.44 ac/du (FM units only) 7 holes 18 hole par 72 golf course 9 hole 3 -par "barefoot" course U) a) 20,000 sq. ft. (relocated) Currently Approved PUD 502 Free Market & 75 AH 11.84 acldu (FM units only) 36 Holes Yes 20,000 sq. ft. Project Component Cr) a -J El D ) Q) 0 Gross Density Golf Course Equestrian Center Neighborhood Commercial ▪ a) 4E) 1,T5) = L _ [{'( o Lo © as C U 0)H O (7 > c N -0 0 oj a) cS 7 E I a c • Q 0 c o cz c 'U) c c QD c) TD 0 • � u) o .a o a)CZ E a_E o c E 05 1— 0 a Initial Unit Allocation M c 1 rs Total C;lhenoa Community Housing Units 75 Median Income Range Targeted I c 1 00 a' I 'CJ ri G,? 0 Preliminary Price (2000) 0 a 0 C7'v 0 Unit Type Small 800 sf 2 Bedroom Flat Larger 1200 sf 2 Bedroom With Attic (2 Floors): [Upgrade option to 3BRl2BA may be offered.] Townhomes 1500 sf 3 Bedroom Units plus Attic Single Family with Basement Lots for Custom Homes for Employees of Chenoa •Open Space Tract *10 Single Family Dwellings real Access Road •Open Space Tr Enz • •Internal Road Access •Open Space Tract 0 ci) D co ct E a. Q) Comments on Spring Va t)' a) — .c al c = a) _o i -D- -o 1 a) tc co 0 (_-) c Pco uo 12 < co E m al 7:3 cy) '5 or) c c cy) a) 2._ ...c U) a CJ) ' CD 0 Q) C1 0 .. 1 CD C.) CD -0 > • CD .E • 45 _• 0 CW *cTo ..c _c cu ›- E –Li o c • = a) E 92 cf) - — ...., 0 CC • 5 a) P P 0 a) = -o (a c o a) c >, 1-0_ -0 -C CI C%-• 4— Ct 0 W 00 44... CZ cai u) co co (I) c.) — 0 CC 6 C -0 — Trs o in . 04--, o.) a) I-rc 0 c - co .= ▪ -- z5 L(f) a) r---__ a) 065 Do Li 2 ic,i).) 9 6.- 12 >, 0 (Dui .65 a) .= t.; E_s 4--0 (1) .u)= f r.,=. ca o ca° 411i E 721 711 o 13 10.)0 .4.,, 1 < (1) CB:2 f ir 3 . 4 ` C 0 4-, (r' eL CO CD :17'..- 0 7D I CID 0 O 0- 0) O 0 C CD , -0 C\i_ = ...c-ji = a E a) 0 a) Lc) 1-1.; ct =(-) the affordable housing 0 .F) o I 75 C p 0 as 0 c 0, cz `r' ordable housing units will be subject to the County's GCHA seeks clarification as to whether these a Affordable Housing guidelines. CD Q 3 ' E — a? v +_ .E Ecf2 -05 Z3 13 C3 R3 — = p a La} E v elm, 0) *- C5 a) co z c0 — �- L OM L or E o a o •w ,0 c co to. L co ca} • al z E .. 0 = 4..r 0- E.-occ/3ED 8�-� E > Q! ._ L 4-, c CD — .2 8 E i�I cui.1-V3 cn o E sc - o w • co 5 ?a ow E 3 v v CIL �2 0. cn -0 .. < O Points of concern: commencer cD> E Fire Protection h �� CO - a a) EU C 0 (/) {[S L 0 03 C o.,0- 0 '0 O ▪ 'c 4F.J WI '_ L N :CT) C (2.)cZ Cil U7 2 (v = j o... E p co L m O 0 o p j Ct.cum _Q L is L (1) N (i) 05 LL 0 a E C ©CD [3 U) 2 Q3 0 (z • .0CLr C7L LI: u) iti (15 . N .0 O e), i • U) c •5 c 0 • �o o 2io, � i v cvf c c= • J • Q CM 2 05 • ivy Y i &2 L cr LL w Q 0 0 c 0-1-1) co 0_ Cr) Q E . 4 E1 co p c E N E Ci E •5 3 co a Qom. Z E O E. Q ©O o Uc00 U • O (1) a cCD '17 12) 0 Q 47,4 0 aQ CL) •c Q- Q u) (1) s N 0 C/) U Q Q o ._ 0 0 O co cti Z3 r.C[l C CU p - '4-- 0C C1i CU (I co o"o ( c c C CO 0 -0 Q a cv L V C7 }, cLQ - c 7�r--� • 4--L c 0- 0 i'- }� . Q Q r— E p a) -0 • • 0 {[S .�--. C� 0' Ri C1) .0 05 o c ( - Q C L E to E C • o C L L CCf Q D � C1) •C co 0 (1 co p —Q? Q� _C Ci$ 'CV CU C r—cei if ° C d CID 4� 0 ?-7) 1:4 • 0 O Ct • SHORT RANGE c0 a) c E C? 0 c 0 0 c co ro ▪ 0▪ (/) 1:5• a� c�LL o O CR CC 3 -c aJ _c U trU CSs a) ,- a3A c ca co r 0) cD Q to CC cz ca O m C - E ET • c L RS < 0 L < <20 0 0 0 LONG RANGE cti CC a3 O 3 C c- O 0,a 4U RD G3 ACV [a-= D 0 co2 0W -CS2 C 2 5 .G Q Q a) cn 0 coir v ami • c L co co co su 2. -6 c-0ca -o • <a cn car° O 0 Frontage Road -4 0 0 W -0 0 mUS 21 H d< ' 1 J SH d ►- SHORT RANGE 0 Get °It a) .Lo ai-0 0 u) H Ep r a•> 0 0 c.T) � 5 g F., 15 co 7, 0 C sca) 13 11 CD iii“..) 0- E t CU G) ti cc I (/i ai — C c > _ *w+ >+ (U .1•+ 0 (1) ai a) ac N ai 2 . — 5 4 " To w 0i c -Fn .5 )(,)( a) fi) ; g .r.,a3 ai=— H i*r=._ (G*., V} `~ 75 Se Oi 0 CD Q a) ai CD "7 C .ai c.i d E= +r 2 f 2 13 co CU W C o - E•L o U-0 Qo o ocuO U o . -•-8o cu m Q en� o 0_.c CI)E a 0 v CID E 5 o m } t5 Woo 17j 2• r� G 0 i $ o] o Q CD C PICI 0 E = 'il ca.00_c QN? _c Cll c t Ili.CZ C a " 7i 0 0 -C) )* Ct Q U qy c O g P4.c 0 C_ i e proposed temporary alignments. C 1 T1 • 1.1 •• R-1 c4,4 E 0 E E 0 L) 4.4 • 1-1 1- L TD W .gra e CD E a ° TO a7-0 1-6 � Qa QS _ca) c Q V E` 0 U E M 0) E (13a :!1 L (/3 0 9.2 u) o o_ :Cu': °a) ea 1— 0i Baa ct (v a C3 a3 - RI C 4-0 a 0 Qi (3 -0 4 c -.'a -a (C3 C c s E 10cts E 1 e owners 434 M1� C E Q) u rid a c W 0 (1) a) rn c c5Cr) `cc c -c • — o *— 0 c p W N L 01 . . c37 17) (I) L• 0 0 .- �CO2GO RFTA Comments ❑ Z C°1— ujil LLJ U. cc cc 2 cc cc Lu (.) CE. W I� J 0 Z J p o Q W HCn I— I— cn Z Q �— aW W q 2 I— a 1- W a <CC0CCI- I— a._cC W Z a W a '2 a CC r4 eX cc W ❑T (/)-WCC im acE Ci LeLJ u_ co r- ©SWI— �LWHHQ CI CC 0 LU Zn��zaC Na CC ~ W co O. a C . 1— cc Q .-. CI J 0 tJ 11.4 :r -. r" ."' 2 0 • V _ 6— till EC ''t ..a 4) 4- - i7;- c .=.. -b 'V. ,2:140) ›-,L) ,.., .:1 : '6--- - c • - PL. =;� 4 .� - • 0 Mi 5 ;...47.4 �3 - - . ,1 ['v L. C . C '-o - -, :1 713 '- = 3 ob 0= r .,.-1 ro'' J , c c.) .. .,..� q P. — 7 Q git tUW 0 E c a) .... C13 _C i ,co- N 4 u) ) `'],s. C 3 - 0 — ' 5 tJ) U) L . p L c Q `- C _` o i3 U I=kr)C tr) ( . Q) N ._. C3 ow Q) Q) : -J co Tti m£u)a o fil W L `>a.cE Iii N ") E c ' (3 2 u) - a_ a) r a)0 > N N Cf] C 0 -a t1) Cr) Q) 0Etli Cn © C © -CC ) •.- ILS a) C o — 0 'D Ci) L a6- q M -C-L- — . — r.� All tn ryyl��l Q Lau W 13 03 2 3 Q C .L o C O ,_ 7 Q a) C Q) o N a) t6 Q a) ED o O)a)0 N C6 V -: a) . -0N 0 EI) o_ cL V V' W i.a Z {I) t_.. 0 _ 673 - ") F n-1- Eoc, 2 Q) D � Cw co G) ® D Ca Q (/) CL) CI) Cr" 0 C 7' 0 'Fa C CL uy fLi C N RS U r c .=0 Q L Cr) O a cA -, cv 4 cn Q a ir; 0 `) a — — o r- .ui op j L Q 0 qW l Y G) 0 Q of 0 = C iU cn cu [CS Q co co a) o n4 Q U5 C Cil •� = Q. Q) N _c 4.1 0 c) L0 E Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit U) -S. = : - = T=. -E... .... ,::- ,I.-- --,:.• - _ . _,.., -,.: .i. -=-. -;,i 7 r • • 7 7 : • 4 ; - j = - 717 O U cc#2 ErTI o cl) � 'ap o Uftl Fop z coo D () i o as U _a eL Q CCi cli {.] .5 a CL u) E o rr E c ctl J+ o c Q} E 1 documents ents fur the Prcli 0-7rM 0 4 VI ei . 0) 0 4CT$ 8 ,.., E 2 -4 ...w .2 A 1 = ei. w�..r el -cO :0 Q CQ' a tt .= 1 ii t >-t 4) o •• v o .g ,-97 —g ez .4— = c.) 6 . ,.., 6, . 2 F4 5 . C4 2 = a .., 0 L., ° O ... .. 4 ‘.., ;-, s, ›..z 0 i.0 0 DI ut) I-, O cz. g E CSE a cct ,.= 8 I:3 = G. , ,.... , lal 4 -#:7-1 e._, (' 0 OD '14E"48p! a co .7i, tuttf) 0 2uoggti)0 -. 0 64 b Q CD Q a .7) • 0 k7454 v v 190 Y1t e r..4 2., .17.$ ,..F., g 040 te)1.0C) 7-13> 8 0E 0 0 z ,.. i. aW 7;Q .5 l'.' to"' 0 • ›-,0•E ✓ C4 G. a). ,,,„ vi. z › = va - 'a Letters from Neighbors i › .1..)c a a? ,� v 0 fn cd `• to › C 0 a V °� EA tiji Q 'd r+Fd d e. M CStic .0C 1704 Vc 74 0 E y .) v-. t� I.)) at) un En En 44-0 trot E t - 0 • N �4J -� sew ▪ c.) -Q � b rO U r1 0 co rn J to •I 0 • • r, 0 (IS 0 ti -H 4-1 0Z1 Q r1 4-1 O • 0 (1) 11 1w U 03 art .uo al CO ITS > o u Q{ -r O E 4 Q44 -a •r • tro tO co r4 m r -I • H Hb 0) 03 • • Q3 .r.1 0 Lit Q rd E H 4 -H U w~ � cid et cis 0 C.) if) v c ri; et Q 4-4 .- .- w r J 4.1 l - $2 c'Z,. `n C 'Al et e „„ •_ U -, =:t> 1 ..— et . 6.1 t— a, Q • V 1' U Di ..= = 10-'C3 ••• , ..+ A*,f4 f•k ;r7 saaai ti) J 1-0 r +0 7-7 tti:1 ,..� • rls 1 conclusion, 0.0 r Memberi of ve. A IF • r 1 Letters from Neighbors r_ 1 h r 0 Z C ›-, 0 T. J U LT Ct: ^ 0 LT 0 CI E Cia C3 afj Fal CZ 0 cI) a) . ..... 1 C ,..�� LJ rs V L II -0 v =a as 0 0 C 1..1 L.Lpt w C1J1 = :n v; . 1,11 • Letters from Neighbors 8 vo 2 cn • 'c C0 3 r c�u°a a 4- a— D a.•._ cts o a ID..>, a) Cl) a L a) a "453 r - o c U ,_ G c1 -a • o _0 w co a).o a tea -- a) fa, c0 If a al 2 'v a CJ as = 0 r.� _ 13 1) ' - i- 03 oo a) E C �S Q) v o CUA n E 0 a Ha. 0t8 Go .E_ a .- cis r'' 45 o cz Q) U3 c - o L (rS c�Z.. c { -c o 1:3 Ct E o .Q - w 8 g - i 43 Q U 0 Ct CD 0 0 "0 Cv � 0 Ctil o-4 Ct •"" ( Cd F� ••r -y r„y n 0 ) —0 a= • C ct ••0 1-1 - 721 0 Vr,. (Th r_ On J - S" �-1 •" w, ryl :� r '0 -d is r- Ct 0 0 0 711 0 to - r., 0 .f L . --. , 0 ° L Q r- >s,4 3 '4-' o c7 - o 0 C - r - Cafp )0``''C ;� ot-1 • Up i '"� :73 , 0 ,- , A-004• . 0.4 m C� O d '—, f-4 11-4 ct .1..1 0 0 Letters from Neighbors p 0_ C W- O O .CC CC 0 0 CU U) c V) -Q CO T3 C L) .)CD a) C = -0 Ctf O C Q CCS CZ w ID i� 0 .4--* 0 C � C0 i :i) i • O 07 co CU C . O 'a ,? Changes to Conditions iminary Plan Conditions ■ c CC 66 U c - 0 c c 7,6 O) . � -cn 22 2 0:5>s -o Tts °� as o C o . cc w c� 0 ▪ CC Q. E 0 c�i J ci • ■ • ■ 20.0 This has been met 0 1 • 1 0 0 0 0 ■ 27.0 Conform nodes of residua (NI co _c0 t. 0 4- 0 ■PUD Conditions c LE as cz C) a) a) "L-1 E cu o -a -0 o oC v m c c, Q, C] . • ■ Staff Recommendation ssues for discussion: -2 W I0 ( 0 c 2 0 C) E += U = 0 C] CD ._? c -- 0 .0 C • 0 O E O, C O cti (1)c . •— > OC c cic tii i Q - i— O 0,- 0 - • as . 1 < ■ ■ ■ Amendment to the PUD w/ conditions ■ Preliminary Plan w/ conditions 1 A 3 EXHIBIT xx December 7, 2007 Commissioners, As you know from years of previous exhibits and presentations, Spring Valley Development and the LaGriglia's have hada continuous water issue to bang toward commencement, that originated from the unilateral decision made by Spring Valley Development to destroy our water line that provided our property with water from the Hopkins spring. This past spring season, the house residing on SVD land no longer had potable water available, due to it's own well becoming defunct. Thus, meetings began with the LaGiglia's to provide water via a well in which both SVD and us would share. To date, SVD has drilled the well and provided the line from the well to the well housing. No line has been provided to our home due to the waiting for SVD to provide legal documents to us for well agreernent and easements. The state has not been able to provide a permit for such well, as they are waiting for the LaGiglia's to sign an agreement that allows the location of the well to be less than 600 feet from our existing well. The permit process will resume as soon as SVD is able to provide the legal agreements needed between both parties We are hopeful that SVD will soon get under way with completing the documentation as needed. Sincerely, Lou & Donnalyne LaGiglia • EXHIBIT Partial Analysis of Consultants Reports Concerning Water Resource Development As Prepared for Spring Valley Development, Inc. Contents Pages 1 — 4 Exhibit A References 1 — 4 annotated Robert L. Arrington, P.E. • February 11, 2001 • • • Partial Analysis of Spring Valley Development's Consultant Reports Discussion Pump Testing The pump test well is located southeast approximately 2150 feet', at an elevation of surface approximately 80 feet lower (-6900') from the Austin Well (-6980'}, and with a total depth2 80 feet deeper (both wells at 400' from surface). As further discussion will involve data from Ref. 2., I would like to point out apparent discrepancies or errors of information in that report i.e.: Table on pg.4 of Approximate Distances Between Monitored Wells Los Amigos and CMC are listed as 1.120 feet and 1,260 feet respectively and Figure 4 notes 10.000 feet to Los Amigos. These wells are not shown in topographic map Figure lof Ref. 1. The physical locations of these facilities served are approximately 2 miles away and the distances in the Table would probably be 10.120 feet and 10,260 feet to be accurate. This is very important to clarify, because there is later reference in Conclusion 4 of Ref.2 that the only drawdown was witnessed in SVR -1 at a radius of 500 feet of SVR -6. This misinformation of well distance would lead an observer to overlook for the damping effect of distance and possibly overlook or dismiss the fact that there was 9.5 inches of drop in CMC Well 2 and 6 inches in CMC Well 1 (Table 2) and slight down slope to graph in Figure 4 for Los Amigos (no raw data) that could be at least a foot drop. Further, no testing was done after March 21, 2000 to allow for the damped flow to further register. Ref. 2 in Conclusion 4. on pg,5 states. " Drawdown was observed in SVR -1, which is approximately 500 feet from SVR -6, but not in SVR -3. which is approximately 700 feet away. SVR -2, Los Amigos Well No. 6, and the Colorado Mountain College wells were not affected by pumping SVR -6. " Yet in the Austin Well (Exhibit A) approximately 1450 feet beyond SVR -3 there has been significant and lasting water level drop. The difference between Austin Well and SRV -3 is that Austin well is at higher elevation and blocked by a ridge formation from the artesian SVR -2 while SVR -3 is lower and in a gully from SVR -2. SVR -3 has a very distinct possibility of having SVR -2 "piping" from SVR -2. Since all the letters and reports fail to disclose any tracer test activity to show otherwise and SVR -3 displayed characteristic of drawdown (none) like SVR -2, it is very likely SVR -3 may be infiltrated from the artesian source formation. The Austin Well has had a historic water level depth of 89.5 feet from readings on 7113/82 and over 12 years later on 9/13/94. The depth of SRV -6 in Ref. 2 is stated as 5.38 feet, which would correspond for an elevation difference of 84.2 feet. A pumping that took water level down 83.5 feet would, on a same level basis, take the Austin Well down to 173 feet (distance probably prevented this much loss of level before pumping was ceased). By taking dater replenishment of level readings from 8/28/00 to 11126100, and projecting back on a straight line. a water drawdown of 125 feet is projected for graphing. This is conservative because the replenishment is actually exponentially curved with higher recovery rate occurring first and slower recovery rate as time progresses. However, 10-1/2 months later on 1/30/01, full recovery has not taken place with water level at 95.4 feet or 5.9 feet below historical level. If the aquifer is being 1 Scaled from Topographic map: Figure 1, Spring Valley Ranch, Location of Existing Wells attachments in leiter to Bill Preacher dated March 10.2000. RE- Spring Valley Upland Aquifer Pumping Tests — 2000, from Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Glenwood Springs. CO 81602 signed by Robin L. VerSchneider and Gary D Witt, P 2 Data from letter to Bill Preacher dated March 21,2000, RE: Spring Valley Ranch Well No. 6, from Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 from Robin L. VerSchneider and Gary 0 Wits, P G. • • constantly being replenished at a rate higher than usage rates. then full recovery should be expected. If full recovery is not attained then replenishment rate is not sufficient, soil permeability estimates are inaccurate or aquifer damage has resulted. The reports involved to SVD have not addressed these possibilities (unless there more than provided to Sherry A. Caloia, Esq. and copied to me). The study supporting permeability and the geology. including core sampling in Ref. 2, are backed by empirical data and are more likely to be accurate. Moreover, despite SVD reports of annual recharge rates exceeding anticipated diversions, the Austin well has not recovered to its' previous levels after 10-112 months from the SRV -S pump time interval. In Ref. 2, this is partially recognized in Conclusion 3., " Recovery of SVR -6 was relatively rapid during the first hour and gradually slowed over the next 24 hour period. This should be taken into consideration for operational planning purposes. Adequate recovery periods may be required between peak demand pumping intervals (i.e., greater than 250 gpm) once this well is put into production." This observation should have caused continued monitoring and testing the recovery as to determine if the recovery also involved collapsing damage in the aquifers or recharge not as voluminous or rapid as was pumping rates or both. R.U.D. Report Wright Water Engineers (WWE) have prepared a P.U.D. report3 that is based on HRS Water Consultants, Inc. (HRS)4and Jerome Gamba and Associates, Inc. reports. HRS report uses large-scale state precipitation maps by the Colorado Climate Center showing a contouring of precipitation bands for the underlying land areas to develop data for recharge estimates. in Ref. 3, HRS shows Table 1, 3, and 4 that put the acres under precipitation bands ranging from 20 inches to 30 inches of precipitation3. Table 1 establishes average values for the precipitation bands ands totals the acreage and estimated yearly recharge at 9728 A and 4,732 AF respectively. Going to Ref, 4, WWE's Lorah states. "The Spring Valley basin is defined as a 15.4 square -mile topographic basin tributary to the head of Red Canyon (Gamba). Precipitation varies from 16 -inches at the low elevation of 6,900 feet, to a high of approximately 30 inches at elevation 9.400 feet. The average basin precipitation, including rain and snow, is about 25 inches per year which is approximately 20,000 acre-feet (Gamba). For this analysis, it is assumed that the Spring Valley groundwater divide is the same as the topographic basin for the Spring Valley area, except for the southwest side of the area where the Spring Valley groundwater flows underground to the Roaring Fork River." (Bold emphasis added), Referring back to Ref.1 Figure 1 the preponderance of the valley floor is near or below the 6,900 -foot elevation. This significant acreage would certainly affect the aforementioned Tables 1. 3, and 4 by shifting allocated acres into much lower Estimated Recharge acre -ft. This shift could easily affect acres listed under 23 and 20 inch precipitation or approximately half the acres involved for evaluation. This is significant to the overall Water Balance and all assumptions of usage and augmentation plans. WWE cites to (Gamba) on pg.7 of Ref. 4 and uses 20,000 AF and 25 inches average precipitation in the Water Balance. The Water Balance of Ref. 4 is based on these values vs. 23.9 inches in Table 1 of Ref. 3 or WWE's statement on pg.2 of Ref. 4 of 22.5 inches.. Note: 15.4 sq.mi. x 640 Afsq.mi. = 9856 A. This times the 25 inches (2.083 ft.) avg. = 20530 AF or 20267 AF, if the Table 1 value of 1 9,728 acres is used. And since Lorah excepts one part of the Valley, 1 will use the 9,729 A. value. Consider then an average 23.9 inches would result in 19,375 AF vs. 20,000 AF. This shortfall (625 AF) would be equivalent to Spill Down Red Canyon. Going to pg.2 of Ref 4, WWE states they assumed 22.5 inches per year after adjusting for altitude and temperature and applied it to Glenwood data accordingly. This 22.5 inches would be 18,240 AF and would affect Underflow as well as Spilldown at a shortfall of 1,760 AF. Now it is known the ET would go down for lesser precipitation, but Lorah used 14,000 AF when HRS has 14.673 AF (calculated from Table 1 — 18.1 in. ET on 9728 A.) for 23.9 inches of precipitation average. Assuming the Diversions were not 3. Spring Valley Ranch P.U.Q.; Water Requirements, Water Resources, and Spnng Valley Area Water Balance; Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Glenwood Springs, Co 81602; William L. Lorah, P.E. Mar.2.2000 4. Tables and data from letter to Cam Kicklighter dated March 10, 2000, Re: Spring Valley Ranch — Review of Jerome Gamba & Associates, Inc. Report, The Spring Valley Hydrologic System, HRS Water Consultants, Inc. Lakewood, Co 80215, Mark R. Palumbo, VP 2 present, then 3,500 AF Underflow added to the 1,100 AF of Diversions would approximate the Average Year Scenario of Table 1, i.e., 4,732 AF recharge. This particular conflict of information is sufficient to point out that this Valley's hydrologic balance demands 25 inches of average precipitation given the other estimates of the Balance are correct and the 3500 AF Underflow is to be met. Conclusions The WWF pumping test reports cited only show that certain rates of pumping can be done for particular time intervals; and, on the test well SRV -6, the report notes recovery periods might have to required after high pumping. They have no data to support conclusive effects to pumping on a long-range basis, unless there are reports that have added but not sent to Sherry Caloia. In Conclusion 1 of Ref. 2, WWE states higher pumping rates may be possible in high recharge periods but there is no significant recovery data or long range empirical study data that would support this statement of conclusion. There appear to be errors in tabular data of Reference 2, coupled with a lack of field observance as to SRV -2 well location with respect to SVR -2 (Artesian), that could mislead conclusions on the effects on nearby wells. The Austin Well data shows unanticipated effects to the estimates, reports, assumptions, and conclusions submitted by WWE, 4. The Water Balance and supporting data for the P.U.D. report have been demonstrated for a most favorable scenario and do not show the effects based on the range of values for precipitation that have been presented from other reports. Even when reading the reports, critical values have been dismissed or left unaccounted for effects, i.e., the 16 inch precipitation value for 6,900 foot elevations which includes most of the valley floor. These values of the Water Balance, in themselves, are estimates and are taken from maps and charts that are based on estimates and projections. The precipitation data is not empirical and historical for Spring Valley, but is critical for proper evaluation. The limited study contained in the referenced reports tends to demonstrate the actual balance in Spring Valley is so critical, that if augmentation is the vehicle by which extra water usage is permitted, then conditions on that usage are necessary. Since this augmentation is not flow into the Spring Valley basin, but make-up for downstream demands, it should be part of the authorization that there be prioritization and limitation put on diversions that exceed the conventional and historical well usage for the potable water i.e., planned increase of irrigation from lower valley floor to upper valley. In dry years, the 80,000 AF aquifer could be drawn down by this increased demand such that other wells could cease or have impaired function and need deeper drilling, pumps reset, or suffer turbid supply. and/or experience aquifer collapse, subsidence, or interstitial plugging by debris. If less than 25 inches of precipitation in a year is the weather condition, then non-essential diversions of irrigation should be limited to upper well and surface water production. Valley floor wells should only provide potable water for domestic, livestock and immediate home irrigation as for other valley floor aquifer users. Augmentation can not prevent or correct excessive depletion of the valley floor aquifer. Adjusting usage to precipitation would require gauging stations and precipitation measurement with a usage program to respond to data 6. The Water Balance should be defined to show the effect of pavements, houses, and golf courses' contribution to ET as the ET shown is less than the ET for the undeveloped land. The evaporation on the grasses, pavement and other impervious surfaces will increase over the natural ground and estimated ET must be greater than that presented if all other factors are equal. • • 7. Spring Valley Development, Inc. (SVD) should be required to size water delivery systems to include other aquifer Users that are adjudicated users of the valley floor aquifer tapped by SVR -6. If future SVD usage does cause well water |oas, these users can be provided supply wthout cost of system exparision.Charges for such suppy shGuld not exceed the users historical cost except as adjusted for economic Lnflation ar recession. If the aquifes damaged such that a replacement water system s necessary, prior adjudicated well users should be suppIed water from any replacement system economcaIIy conditional as in above conclusion and not be included in any tax plan to fund the new system. Submitted by: Robert LArrington. P£.Colorado #11443 4 • • • Analysis of Austin Well Water Levels by Robert L. Arrington, P.E. 119 Water Levels In Austin Well coco x a 4 a T Q - a rn U 4l c571 • O 4 Q Q • a e a a e c F ' 7 zt 4' 7 o a n. a o o 1 MIND if Exhibit A Notes: Data from Samuelson Pump Co. testing of water depths in Austin Well. Water bearing layer is 370 to 380 feet deep.Well depth 400' Water depth levels: 1. 7113/82 - 89'-6" 4. 3/14/00 -125'-0" ** 7. 11/26/00 - 97°-4" 2. 9/03/94 - 89'-6" 5. 8/28/00 - 108'-8.5" 8. 12/30/00 - 96'-10" 3. 12/1/99 -89'-5"* 6. 9/01/00 - 108'-8.5" 9. 01/30/01 - 96-5" * Assumed for pumping start => - equal to elevation A + SVR -6 well depth at that date. ** Projected back from data 5., 6., and 7. (Conservative for exponential curve). Spring Valley Development (SVD) pumping test was performed from December 1999 to April 2000. Maximum level drop (4/30/00 - 126-0") projected from rate of replenishment in the interval from 8/28/00 to 11/26/00 and is a minimum since rate appears exponential, from succeeding data for 12/30/00, and actual drop would exceed this projection because of initial higher rate of recovery. 1_ Letter, Re: Application of Spring Valley Development, Case No. 98CW256, Water Division 5. Anne J. Castle to Sherry A. Caloia. Dated Nov. 15, 2000 .rte -7-- • /\,< ''2.,f, { r .. -.:-�- r y ,r .; .fes Rt .stay • / a/ m I • � � R • 1 4i `' V Bill Peacher Spring Valley Development, Inc. March 21, 2000 Page 4 APPROXIMATE DISTANCES BETWEEN MONITORED WELLS WELL NUMBER SVR -6 SVR -1 SVR -6 0 500 feet SVR -1 500 feet 0 SVR -2 1,250 feet SVR -2 SVR -3 Los Amigos CMC 1,250 feet 700 feet 1,120 feet 1,260 feet /4?rza 29/Z During the pumping test, approximately 32 feet of drawdown was observed in SVR -1 (11% of available saturated thickness), the closest well to SVR -6. WWE did not observe changes in water levels at SVR -2, SVR -3, Los Amigos Well No. 6, or the Colorado Mountain College wells that would indicate a negative impact from pumping at SVR -6. No drawdown was observed in SVR -3, which is the next closest well to the pumped well. SVR -2 is an artesian well serving the existing ranch house. The well maintained artesian conditions for the duration of the SVR -6 pumping test. Figure 4 presents a plot of the observed water levels for each of the well locations monitored. 750 feet 900 feet 1,100 feet 1,240 feet. 750 feet 0 1,250 feet 1,160 feet 1,300 feet SVR -3 700 feet 900 feet 1,250 feet 0 1,160 feet Los Amigos 1,120 feet 1,100 feet 1,160 feet. 1,160 feet 0 1,300 feet 160 feet .r ` CMC 1,260 feet 1,240 feet 1,300 feet 1,300 feet 160 feet Flows in Local Springs Flows were monitored in the BR Hopkins Spring and the Quigley Spring during the drilling period and during the pumping test of SVR -6. Chenoa and WWE installed a v -notch weir and staff gage at the BR Hopkins Spring for monitoring purposes. Readings at the Quigley Spring were obtained from a Parshall flume installed in the Quigley Spring Ditch. Table 2 presents a summary of the observed flow readings. WATER QUALITY Water quality samples were obtained on March 13, 2000, prior to ending the pumping test on SVR - 6. The samples were submitted to Barringer Laboratories in Denver for the State Drinking Water Standards analyses. Results are expected in 10-15 working days and will be reported on the required Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) forrns. As required by the CDPHE, WWE obtained a water quality sample and submitted it to the CDPHE Grand Junction laboratory for coliform analysis. Results are expected in 5-7 working days and will be reported on the required CDPHE forrns. E'IWork1W WE\931-Od4.0i 01SVR No. 6 Rcport.doc Bill Peacher Spring Valley Development, Inc. S March 21, 2000 Page 5 Samuelson conducted a Microscopic Particulate Analysis (MPA) test for SVR -6 over a 24.5 hour period from March 12 to March 13, 2000. The MPA filter was submitted to Microsearch Laboratories in Grand Junction for analysis. Results are expected in 10-15 working days and will be reported on the required CDPHE forms. CONCLUSIONS 1. Based on the results of the February -March 2000 pumping test conducted on SVR -6, the yield of the well is approximately 250 gpm given the hydrologic conditions in existence at the time of the test. This is considered a conservative estimate in that it is possible the well yield may be greater during high recharge periods (i.e., when the regional groundwater table is at the ground surface in the late spring or early summer). 2. There was no indication that boundary conditions had been reached during the test on SVR -6. At the end of the pumping, there was 43 feet of saturated thickness available above the pump intake even with the relatively shallow setting of the pump. if the well was completed at the depth of the current extent of casing (309 feet), the pump setting could be lower, resulting in additional saturated thickness. Based on the results of the pumping test, the well could pump at 250 gpm for several years without additional recharge due to the available saturated thickness. We believe there is a high probability this well could yield significantly more water than 250 gpm when the regional groundwater table is at the ground surface in late spring or early summer. 3. Recovery of SVR -6 was relatively rapid during the first hour and gradually slowed over the next 24-hour period. This should be taken into consideration for operational planning purposes. Adequate recovery periods may be required . between peak demand pumping intervals (i.e., greater than 250 gpm) once this well is put into production. 4. ',Rased on water level observations, the effects of pumping SVR -6 were limited to a radial distance of less than 700 feet. Drawdown was observed in SVR -1, which is approximately 500 feet from SVR -6, but not in SVR -3, which is approximately 700 feet away. SVR -2, Los Amigos Well No. 6, and the Colorado Mountain College wells were not affected by pumping SVR -6. 5. Based on observations made at the BR Hopkins Spring and the Quigley Spring, pumping of SVR -6 did not negatively affect spring flows at these locations. E:1Work1WWE1931-004.010LSVR No, 6 Report.doc r Water Level (ft) Q o o uI C7 0 4 0 a y a I # [IaM DIW 1 C!] Z A 4 Ai ficsrei WP. t fro Q a- 4 c a- *.l e� 1 i 1-7.> - !(c► At least 31 acres of land irrigated by the non -potable system will be exclusively irrigated by Landis Creek water and not by any of SVR's wells. The proposed water supply plan fits within the framework of the existing decreed augmentation plan and the decrees governing the Landis Creek Ditch rights. Consumptive Use Calculations lrrigation consumptive use and open water evaporation rates were estimated for SVR based on the 1989 through 1998 precipitation and temperature records from the Glenwood Springs No. 2 weather station (ID3359). The weather station is at 5,750 feet and five miles northeast of SVR's proposed golf courses. The Glenwood climatic data for temperature and precipitation was. adjusted to meet SVR's conditions. The median elevation of SVR's irrigation was estimated to be 8,250 feet. With an estimated lapse rate of 3.80 per 1,000 feet, the temperature was adjusted downward by 9.5°F for the 2,500 -foot elevation difference. Glenwood Springs' average precipitation over the last 10 years has been 18.4 inches per year. The Colorado Climate Center's average annual precipitation map shows Spring Valley Ranch receives between 20 and 30 inches of precipitation per year. Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) assumed the irrigated area of SVR receives 22.5 inches per year and prorated the monthly Glenwood Springs data accordingly. Appendix A presents the 10 -year monthly bluegrass irrigation consumptive use calculation for SVR based on Blaney Criddle methodology. Appendix B presents the 10 -year monthly open water surface evaporation for SVR pursuant to Senate Bill 120 guidelines. Water requirements for the development are based on the following assumptions: A. Potable Water System 1. 2,500 population equivalent requiring 100 gallons per day per person, 365 days a year (rounded from 2,457 in Table 1). (Note that this equates to 350 gallons per EQR, even though the decree m Case No. 87CW155 uses only 275 gallons per EQR.) 2. 325 people (about 13% of the population) are served by ISDS with a consumptive use of 15 percent (rounded from 319 in Table 1). 3. 2,175 people (87% of the population) are served by a central water treatment system with a consumptive use of 5 percent. 4. 90 acres of irrigated land (elevation ranges from 7,000 to 9,000 feet). 5. Irrigation efficiency is 80 percent (efficiency is percent of water evapotranspired to amount of water applied). B. Non -Potable Water System 1. A total of 181 acres are irrigated from Landis Creek water rights (two 18 -hole golf courses, driving range, clubhouse area, and open space). 2. Supplemental water will be provided by wells; however, no more than 150 acres will be irrigated by well water. 931-004.010 Spring Valley Ranch Page 2 March 2, 2000 The Spring Valley basin is defined as a 15.4 square -mile topographic basin tributary to the head of Red Canyon (Gamba). Precipitation in the basin varies from 16 -inches at the low elevation • of 6,900 feet, to a high of approximately 30 inches at elevation 9,400 feet. The average basin precipitation, including rain and snow, is about 25 inches per year which is approximately 20,000 acre-feet (Gamba). For this analysis, it is assumed that the Spring Valley groundwater divide is the same as the topographic basin for the Spring Valley area, except for the southwest side of the area where the Spring Valley groundwater flows underground to the Roaring Fork River. At the present time, no water is imported into the basin from transbasin diversions. In the future, effluent from the Spring Valley Sanitation District's wastewater treatment plant will be pumped into the basin and become part of the hydrologic water balance. It should be noted that most, if not all, of the water from the wastewater treatment plant would have been originally pumped from Spring Valley aquifer wells. Of the approximate 20,000 acre-feet of precipitation falling on the basin, up to 15,000 acre-feet per year is evapotranspired back to the atmosphere through natural mechanisms such as plant transpiration, evaporation, and sublimation from the snow pack (Gamba). Infiltration into the aquifer system averages at least 5,000 acre-feet in an average year. Only about 5 percent of the precipitation falling on the basin (1,000 acre-feet per year) runs off as surface flow mainly via Landis Creek. The reason for this small percent of runoff is presented in more detail in Gamba's geologic description of the basin. For the last 100 years, _41 essentially all of the flow m Landis Creek has been diverted and used for irrigation and other agricultural purposes. We estimate about 70 percent of this water is evapotranspired due to irrigation of crops and evaporation from ponds and other open water surfaces. Approximately 300 acre-feet of this surface water infiltrates into the upper and lower Spring Valley aquifer systems. There are several major springs around the Spring Valley aquifer. They include the B.R. Hopkins Spring, the Quigley Spring, the Cox Spring, and several other small springs. We estimate that the total annual flow of the springs is about 1,000 acre-feet. Some of the spring water is used for irrigation (e.g., Quigley Spring and Cox Spring); other springs are used for domestic purposes (e.g., B.R. Hopkins Spring). Approximately 70 percent of the spring water, which flows at a constant rate year-round, eventually infiltrates and becomes part of the water in the Spring Valley aquifer system. For this analysis, we have assumed that the existing Spring Valley aquifer diversions total 200 acre-feet per year with an estimated depletion of 100 acre-feet. In the future, as SVR and other developments build out, there will be more groundwater diverted from the Spring Valley aquifer. 931-004.010 Spring Valley Ranch Page 7 March 2, 2000 IW4 • • . 3 •-• ir4 u • • • Mr. Cam Kickligher March 10, 2000 Page 4 CEP 4 Landis Creek watershed. Outside of these periods, snowmelt was assumed to exceed snow accumulation, and the ET rate for the various vegetation types was used. Soil Moisture Budget Calculations A soil moisture budget was used to combine the precipitation and potential evapotranspiration components to estimate recharge to the ground water system. Under this method, soil moisture could be increased up to the maximum soil moisture storage capacity when monthly precipitation exceeded evapotranspiration. Once the upper limit of soil moisture was attained, all remaining water in a given month was counted as recharge. For months when evapotranspiration exceeded precipitation, the soil moisture could be depleted down to 70 percent of maximum soil moisture capacity. Below this soil moisture level, it was assumed that evapotranspiration rates would decline to near zero as plants were stressed. The soil moisture budget accounting was performed for each soil type within each precipitation band. The resulting estimates of recharge were then summed for each band based upon the proportionate acreage of each soil type. Table 1 provides a summary of estimated recharge for each precipitation band based on average annual precipitation. The total estimated recharge was approximately 4,700 acre-feet per year, or about 5.8 inches averaged over the watershed area. As expected, the highest recharge rates were in the higher elevation and precipitation bands. In addition to the average year analysis, recharge estimates were made for a wet year and a dry year based upon the 20 percent and 80 percent exceedence probabilities for precipitation at the Aspen climate station. For a dry year, estimated recharge was about 1,900 acre-feet, or 2.4 inches averaged over the watershed. For a wet year, estimated recharge was about 7,100 acre-feet, or an average of 8.8 inches. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the wet year and dry year analyses. Recharge Summary and Conclusions The use of the soil moisture budget method of estimating recharge provides a detailed estimate based upon the differing soils, vegetation and elevation conditions within the Landis Creek watershed. There are certain limitations to the methodology, however, which may affect the recharge estimates. The method relies on fairly generalized data for precipitation and evaporation, both of which were derived from large-scale maps. This data, however, was the best available for the watershed area. For the higher elevation portions of the watershed, the method may underestimate recharge during the spring snow melt period, because it calculates moisture storage occurring in the soil profile, instead of accumulating in the snow pack over the winter months. In addition, the use of monthly water budget inputs may not account for timing of some large precipitation events, which can exceed soil moisture storage capacities and evapotranspiration over short time periods, which can result in additional recharge. Overall, we believe that this methodology provides Mr. Cam Kickiigher March 10, 2000 Page 9 HRS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. An average year annual infiltration of approximately 4,700 afl'yr to the aquifers beneath the SVR is supported by a water budget analysis that includes precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil moisture, and the surface and subsurface materials. 2. The wet year estimate of precipitation recharge is approximately 7,100 af/yr and the dry year estimate is approximately 1,900 af/yr. 3. The vertical permeability of the soils on the SVR are sufficiently high to support an annual infiltration rate in excess of 7,100 ail 4. The vertical permeability of the aquifer materials beneath the soils on the SVR are sufficiently high to support an annual infiltration rate in excess of 7,100 af. 5. The volume of SVA groundwater available for withdrawal to the project's wells is approximately 82,000 af. Please call if you have any comments or questions concerning this letter. Sincerely, FIRS t ER ONSULTANTS, INC. MarR. Palumbo Vice President Cc: Jerry Gamba Anne Castle William Lorah Table 1 Spring Valley Ranch Landis Creek Watershed Recharge Analysis Summary Average Year Scenario Pond Estimated Estimated Area Precip. Evap. ET Recharge Precipitation Band (acres) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (acre -ft) 30 -inch precipitation 299 30 40.5 19.0 11.0 273 29 -inch precipitation 1567 29 41 17.5 11.5 1,508 26 -inch precipitation 2468 26 42 17.9 8.1 1,656 23 -inch precipitation 1985 23 43 18.2 4.8 802 20 -inch precipitation 3409 20 44 18.3 1.7 493 Average 23.9 42.7 18.1 5.8 Total 9,728 4,732 • • • Soil Survey Number Soli Name 7 Almy Loam 10 Anvik-Skylick-Sligting 11 Anvik Skylick Slighting 12 Arle-Ansae-Rock Outcrop Arte Ansari 12 Rock Outcrop 18 Cochetopa-Antropbus 19 Cachetopa Antrobus 34 35 Empedrado Loam 36 48 Fughes Stoney Loam 64 Jerry Loam 67 Jerry-Millerlake loams Jerry Millerlake 69 Kilgore Silt Loam 87 Marva' loam 94 Showalter-Morval 95 Showalter Morval 106 Tridell-Brownsto • Tridell Brownsto Table 2 Spring Valley Ranch Spring creek watershed Soils and Vegetation Properties Summary Distribution Factor Vegetation Type 1 grasses & sage 0.33 0.33 0.34 aspen forest aspen forest aspen forest 0.4 grasses & mtn shrubs 0.3 grasses & mtn shrubs 0.3 none 0.55 grasses 0.45 grasses & mtn shrubs 1 grasses & mtn shrubs 1 grasses & min shrubs 1 grasses & mtn shrubs 1 grasses 1 oak brush 0.55 0.45 oak brush grass & sage 1 grasses grasses 0.55 grass & mtn shrub 0.45 grasses 0.55 pinyon -juniper 0.45 pinyon -juniper Available Moisture Specific Combined Allowable (Inches) (Inches) Depletion Acreage % Area 7.53 7.71 4.68 2.40 1.64 0.00 3.96 2-68 4.76 6.63 3.41 5.52 3.00 3.50 6,44 0.7 98 1% 6.62 0.7 1045 11% 1.45 0.7 566 6% 243 2% 3.38 0.7 2100 22% 7.85 0.7 1516 16% 5.94 0.7 213 2% 4.76 0.7 1371 14% 5.60 0.7 137 1% 4.95 0.7 189 2% 5.52 0.7 488 5% 4.36 0.7 1699 17% 3.23 0.7 63 1% Total 9728 100% Table 3 • Spring Valley Ranch Landis Creek Watershed Recharge Analysis Summary Wet Year Scenario Pond Estimated Estimated Area Precip. Evap. ET Recharge Precipitation Band (acres) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (acre -ft) 30 -inch precipitation 299 36.9 40.5 19.9 17.0 423 29 -inch precipitation 1,567 35.6 41 18.9 16.7 2,184 26 -inch precipitation 2,468 32.0 42 20.2 11.7 2,415 23 -inch precipitation 1,985 28.3 43 20.5 7.4 1.224 20 -inch precipitation 3,409 24.6 44 20.5 3.1 884 Average 29.4 42.7 20.2 8.8 Total 9,728 7,131 • Table 4 Spring Valley Ranch Landis Creek Watershed Recharge Analysis Summary Dry Year Scenario Pond Estimated Estimated Area Precip. Evap. ET Recharge Precipitation Band (acres) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (acre -ft) 30 -inch precipitation 299 17.7 40.5 14.5 5.0 125 29 -inch precipitation 1,567 17.2 41 13.1 5.2 678 26 -inch precipitation 2,468 15.4 42 12.7 3.5 729 23 -inch precipitation 1,985 13.6 43 13.2 1.7 278 20 -inch precipitation 3,409 11.8 44 12.9 0.3 97 Average 14.1 42.7 13.0 2.4 Total 9,728 1,908 •