Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.00 Application_Part1AK MEAD0Vils RANCH P.U.D. ING 4 -PHASE III Oak Meadows Ranch PUD — Filing 4 — Phase 111 Application Preliminary Plan App Table of Contents Section 1: Prelimin ' Plan A lication Form Section 2: Pro ect Consultant and Re.resentative List General• Hist() iso t of Oak Meadows Ranch PUD & Develo.ment Conce►t Section BOCC Resolution No. 76-47 BOCC Resolution No•6-48 -089 BOCC Resolution No. • • Own Mineral Ri hts Owners 0 0 o o BOCC Resolution No. X000 25 Viciriit Ma Prehmina Plan Ma Owners & P1 -P4 • Ad. ()Min Proie ce with Garfield Count Prelimina ia' SubmittalRepute— is Section 4: Com•lian Appendix A: Geotechnical Analysis by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc Anal sis O Geolo • is Site Assessment & Preliminary Geotechnical Stud o Potential Radiation Appendix B: Title Com Appendix C: Wildlife Map & R rt Rock Appendix D: Stormwater Analysis Appendix E: Water & Sewer S • stem Re Mountain Ecolo ical Services ort - Gamba & Associates_,ins. b E 1. Oak Meadows Reor.anizatio an E-2: 25 Sewer & Water Ta uit Claim Exhibit e Permit from the CDPHE • Exhibit Meadows Service Com • 0 • Exhibit E-3: Correa Exhibit E-4: A • . roved Dischar • Generation Analysis re ement Will Serve Letter s Deed for e ondence from the Office of the State En weer Appendix F: Road Desi n Res ort & Tri • Appendix G: Architectural Control Committee &Home Owners Association Rules and Re Mations Appendix H. Wildfire Miti_ation Re. ort – Anchor Point Grou• Au•ust 2007 Appendix I: _---- Wetland Delineation Anal sis -- Environmental Consultin Appendix J: SchooDistrict Land Dedication Documentation Appendix K: SCS Soils Info & Soils Map Appendix L:y�uetation Map a En_ineerint Plans (See Cover Sheet for Table of Contents) Exhibit 1– Prelimina Plat and Prelimin Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.945.3470 www.garfield-county.com Subdivision Application Form GENERAL INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant.) Subdivision Name: Oak Meadows Ranch - Filing 4 Type of Subdivision (check one of the following types): Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan XXX Final Plat A Name of Property Owner (Applicant): Oak Meadows III, LLC ➢ Address: 4450 Arapahoe Avenue Telephone: 720-220-3749 ➢ City: Boulder State: CO Zip Code: 80303 FAX: 720-304-3640 i- Name of Owner's Representative, if any: Land Design Partnership A. Address: 918 Cooper Avenue Ronald Liston, Planner Telephone: 970-945-2246 • City: Glenwood Springs State: CO Zip Code: 81601 FAX: 945-4066 ➢ Name of Engineer: Gamba & Associates ➢ Address: 113 Ninth Street Telephone: 970-945-2550 A. City: Glenwood Springs State: CO Zip Code: 81601 FAX: 945-1410 A Name of Surveyor: Gamba & Associates r Address: same as above Telephone: City: State: Zip Code: FAX: ➢ Name of Planner: Ronald Liston - L.AND postGN ?A 6P-S\-k\P ➢ Address: ojlf3 CooP6R AjE ➢ City: G t -EN WoOb SPR1 NUS State: C(} Zip Code: k 1 fn() 1 FAX: qq s - 90blo Telephone: Ci Z2 y� Location of Property : Location of Property: Section 15 Township 7 S Range 89 W Practical Location / Address of Property: Northwest of Oak Way North in the Oak Meadows Subdivision • Current Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres): 44.67 Number of Tracts / Lots Created within the Proposed Subdivision: 25 o Property's Current Zone District: Planned Unit Development O Comprehensive Plan Map Designation: Existing Subdivision Proposed Utility Service: 'r Proposed Water Source: Central Community Water - Oak Meadows Service Company fr Proposed Method of Sewage Disposal: Central Treatment — Oak Meadows Service Co. • Proposed Public Access VIA: Oak Way North (168) & Four Mile Road (117) Easements: Utility: Ditch: Total Development Area (fill in the appropriate boxes below): • Total Development Area (fill in the appropriate boxes below): (1) Residential Units / Lots Size (Acres) Parking Provided (2) Commercial Single -Family 25 9.443 Per Regulations Duplex Multi -Family (4) Public / Quasi -Public 2.616 Mobile Home (5) Open Space 1 Common Area Total 9.443 Total Base Fee: Sketch Plan - $325.Oo; Prelim Plan - $675.00; Final Plat - Floor Area (sq. ft.) Size (Acres) Parking Provided (2) Commercial (3) Industrial (4) Public / Quasi -Public 2.616 (5) Open Space 1 Common Area 32.611 Total 35.22 Base Fee: Sketch Plan - $325.Oo; Prelim Plan - $675.00; Final Plat - L THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS In order to subdivide land in Garfield County, an Applicant is required to complete the following land use processes in the following order. 1) Sketch Plan Review Process, 2) Preliminary Plan Review Process, and 3) Final Plat Review Process. This section will briefly describe the nature of each process and provide general direction including subdivision regulation citations to a potential applicant requesting subdivision approval in Garfield County. All of the Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are located for purchase at the Planning Department and can also be found on the World Wide Web at the following address: http://ww.v.garfield-county.com/building and planninq/index.htm A) The Sketch Plan Review (Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations) 1. Purpose The purpose of the Sketch Plan process is to allow an individual an opportunity to propose a subdivision in a "sketch" format to the Planning Department and the Garfield County Planning Commission in order to obtain a cursory review for compliance with the County's land use review documents, regulations, and policies to identify any issues that would need to be addressed if the proposed subdivision were to be pursued. 2. Applicability Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the Sketch Plan review process as the first step in Garfield County's Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision (Section 2:20.48) as the division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law. 3. Application / Submittal Requirements In order to apply for a Sketch Plan Review an Applicant is responsible for reviewing Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations and providing enough information to the Planning Department in the application to conduct a thorough review and provide the resulting comments to the Planning Commission for their review and comments. Specifically, Section 3:30, 3:32, and 3:40 of the Subdivision Regulations contain the specific information required to be submitted to the Planning Department in order to satisfy the application requirements in addition to the information requested on this application form. 4. Process / Public Meeting The Sketch Plan review process is considered a 1 -step process because the application is reviewed only by the Planning Commission at a public meeting. In order to appear before the Planning Commission, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal requirements mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will have 15 working days to review the application to determine if all the required submittal information has been submitted as required. If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission and will request the applicant supply additional copies to provide the Commission for their review. If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically complete. If the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time, the application will be terminated. Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been established as to when the Planning Commission will review the application, Staff will conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the Comprehensive Ran of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application. As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning Commission containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will also be furnished in advance to the applicant. At the date and time set for the public meeting before the Planning Commission, Staff will present the findings in the Memorandum and the applicant will be required to present the proposed subdivision and respond to comments and questions provided by the Planning Commission. The comments provided to the Applicant by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission as a result of the Sketch Plan Process will be kept on file in the Planning Department for 1 -year from the meeting date before the Planning Commission. If an Applicant does not submit a Preliminary Plan application to the Planning Department within the 1 -year timeframe, the Sketch Plan file will be closed and the Applicant will need to reapply for a Sketch Plan review prior to a Preliminary Plan review. B) Preliminary Plan Review (Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations) 1. Purpose The purpose of the Preliminary Pian review process is to conduct a thorough review of the many aspects that are associated with dividing land in Garfield County for the purposes of residential, commercial, and industrial development. This is the most intensive review step where the Building and Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will conduct a thorough review of all the issues associated with the proposed subdivision against the County's regulatory requirements. Ultimately, the purpose of this process is to identify all the major issues in the proposed subdivision by using the County's Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as well as other state and local referral agencies that will provide comments on any issues raised in their review. This is the process that will either approve or deny the application request. 2. Applicability Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the Preliminary Plan review process as the second and most intensive step in Garfield County's Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more Tots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law. 3. Application / Submittal Requirements In order to apply for a Preliminary Plan Review, an Applicant must have already completed the Sketch Plan review process addressed in Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations. An applicant requesting Preliminary Plan review will be required to submit this application form, all the required submittal information contained in Sections 4:40 to 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations as well as address all of the applicable Design and Improvement Standards in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations. In addition to the substantive submittal information related to the proposed subdivision project itself, an applicant is required to complete all the public notice requirements so that legal public hearings can be held before the Planning Commission and the BOCC which is addressed in Sections 4:20 — 4:31 of the Subdivision Regulations. 4. Process / Public Hearings The Preliminary Plan review process is considered a 2 -step process because the application is ultimately reviewed by two County decision-making entities during public hearings: the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the BOCC. In order to obtain dates for the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the BOCC, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal requirements mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will have 30 working days to review the application to determine if all the required submittal information has been submitted as required. If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission / BOCC. Additionally, Staff will provide the applicant with the notice forms to be mailed, published, and posted. If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal requirements and therefore has determined the application to be `"technically incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically complete. If the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time, the application will be terminated. Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been established as to when the Planning Commission / BOCC will review the application, Staff will conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application. As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning Commission / BOCC containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will also be famished in advance to the applicant prior to the public hearings. As mentioned above, Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the BOCC regarding the issues raised in the analysis of the proposed subdivision. The Applicant will first propose the subdivision to the Planning Commission who is responsible for making a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the BOCC. Next, the application will be reviewed by the BOCC during a regular public hearing. The BOCC will consider the recommendations from the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, the information presented by the applicant, and the public. As a result, the BOCC is the final decision-making entity regarding the proposed subdivision and will either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. If the BOCC approves the subdivision application at the public hearing, the approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. (See the specific information provided in Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations.) Following the hearing, Staff will provide a resolution signed by the BOCC which memorializes the action taken by the Board with any / all conditions which will be recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's Office. Once an applicant has Preliminary Plan approval, they are required to complete the third and final step in the County's Subdivision Process: Final Plat Review. C) Final Plat Review (Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations) 1. Purpose The purpose of the Final Plat review process is to provide the applicant with a mechanism to prove to the County that all the conditions of approval required during the Preliminary Plan review process have been met / addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff and the BOCC. This being the case, the chairman of the BOCC will sign the Final Plat and have it recorded memorializing the subdivision approval granted by the BOCC. This is the last step in the County's subdivision process. 2. Applicability Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the Final Plat review process as the third and last step in Garfield County's Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law. 3. Application / Submittal Requirements In order to apply for a Final Plat review, an Applicant must have already completed the Preliminary Plan review process addressed in Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations. An applicant requesting Final Plat review will be required to submit this application form, all the required submittal information contained in Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations and responses to all the conditions of approval required as part of the Preliminary Plan review process. 4. Process The Final Plat review process is considered a 1 -step process because the application is ultimately reviewed by the Building and Planning Staff and presented to the BOCC for their signature if the application satisfies all the required submittal information to the satisfaction of the Building and Planning Department. If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been scheduled to be presented to the BOCC for signature. (This is not a public hearing or meeting and therefore does not require public notice.) If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been established as to when the BOCC will review the Final Plat, Staff will review the application / Final Plat in terms of adequacy to determine if all the submittal information satisfies the Final plat requirements as well as the responses to the conditions of approval. During this review, Staff will forward the Final Plat the County Surveyor for review and a signature. In the event there are additional questions or clarification issues to be addressed, the County Surveyor will generally contact the applicant to have the plat adjusted as necessary. Once, Staff has completed the review and all required information has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the County Surveyor has signed the Final Plat in Mylar form, it will be scheduled at the next BOCC meeting to be placed on the consent agenda with a request to authorize the Chairman of the BOCC to sign the plat. Once the Final Plat is signed, it is then recorded by the County Clerk in the Clerk and Recorder's Office for a fee of $11 for the first sheet and $10 for each additional sheet thereafter. This fee shall be paid by the applicant. This act of recording the signed Final Plat represents the completion of the Garfield County Subdivision Process. Please refer to the specific language in the Final Plat portion (Section 5:00) of the Subdivision Regulations for specific timelines and additional responsibilities required of the applicant to complete the Final Plat process. Please Note: This information presented above is to be used as a general guide for an applicant considering a subdivision in Garfield County. It is highly recommended that an applicant either purchase the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations or access them on-line at: http://www.garfield-countv•com/buildinq and planninq/index.htm in order to ascertain all the necessary requirements for each of the three steps including Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary Plan Review, and Final Plat Review. have rea the stat-ments above and have provided the required attached information which is correct - d accur. e to the best of my knowledge. 01 ZcoF1 Rafae Pecchio cant/Owner) Rate Water Brauckmeyer (Applicant/Owner) Last Revised: 11/21/2002 61/2 9/2c o� Date GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT FORM (Shall be submitted with application) GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Oak Meadows IH, LLC (hereinafter APPLICANT) agree as follows: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for a Preliminary Plan (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. 4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, APPLICANT shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. APPLICANT acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any lause permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision plan. Walter rauckmeyer APP (CANT: Signature Rafael Pecchio Date: Of VI Zeta Oak Meadows 111, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80303 OAK MEADOWS RANCH - FILING 4, PHASE III PROJECT CONSULTANT & REPRESENTATIVE LIST APPLICANT OAK MEADOWS III, LLC. 4450 Arapahoe Ave, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 (720) 304-3640 (720) 304-3640 Fax Contact: Eric Fuhrmeister Walter Brauckmeyer (720) 256-0604 Rafael Pecchio (720) 256-0605 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTIVE LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-2246 (970) 945-4066 Fax Contact: Ron Liston PROJECT CONSULTANT TEAM LEGAL COUNSEL LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. 201 14th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-2261 (970) 945-7336 Fax Contact: Karl J. Hanlon DESIGN AND PLANNING ARCH 11, INC. 3100 Carbon Place, Number 100 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 546-6868 (303) 443-3910 Fax Contact: EJ Mead ENGINEERING & SURVEYING GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 113 9th Street P.O. Box 1458 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-2550 (970) 945-1410 Fax Contact: Michael Gamba GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERS HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-7988 (970) 945-8454 Fax Contact: Jordy Adamson WILDLIFE CONSULTANT ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 222 Bobcat Lane Carbondale, CO 81623-9441 (970) 963-2190 (970) 963-2190 Fax Contact: Eric Petterson WILDFIRE CONSULTANT ANCHOR POINT GROUP LLC 3775 Iris Avenue - Suite 2A Boulder, Colorado 80301 (303) 665-3473 (303) 665-3473 Fax Contact: Chris White WETLAND CONSULTANT IRIS MITIGATION & DESIGN INC. 3875 Meade Street Denver, CO 80211 (720) 272-1985 (720) 274-3092 Contact: Blair Leisure G A M B A & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS W W W.“14 AAAAA 1AaiA1•10,0M PHONE: 970/945-2550 -*AX: 970/945-1410 • . 13 NINTH STREET. SUITE 214 P.O. BOX 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602-1458 General History of Oak Meadows Ranch PUD & Development Concept January 31, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Oak Meadows III, LLC, enclosed please find our Preliminary Plan application for Oak Meadows Ranch PUD — Filing 4 — Phase III. Following is a brief summary of the history of the project and a brief description of the development concept. The Oak Meadows Ranch PUD consists of four primary filings developed between the early 1970s and the present. Filing 1 and Filing 2 were developed first, by Howard Motz, doing business as GMCO. Filing 3 and Filing 4 were acquired by Redstone Corporation in 1975 and at the time of purchase, Oak Meadows Ranch PUD - Filing No. 4 had been approved as a Planned Unit Development comprising 210 acres and 179 total units. Redstone Corporation developed the basic infrastructure for the entire Filing 3 and Filing 4 subdivision, including roads, water system, sewer system and other utilities. A series of separate plats were filed and approved within Filing 3 and Filing 4 from 1976 to 1978. Subsequently, Oak Meadows Development Corporation (OMDC) acquired the remaining development rights within Filing 4 of the Oak Meadows PUD. On April 3, 2000 the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners approved a Preliminary Plan for the remaining undeveloped portions of Oak Meadows Ranch PUD - Filing 4, also known as Oak Meadows Ranch PUD — Filing 4B. This approval is documented in the Garfield County Board of County Commissioner's Resolution No. 2000-25. This resolution approved the development of 85 additional single-family lots. Following the approval of the Preliminary Plan, OMDC filed and recorded the following Final Plats within Filing 4B in accordance with the approved Preliminary Plan, resulting in the platting of 60 of the 85 single family lots which were approved: Filing 4B -Final Plat Date Recorded No. Lots Filing 4B — Phase I Apri1l8, 2002 34 Filing 4B — Phase II July 7, 2005 26 Total Previously Platted Lots 60 Lots Approved By Resolution 2000-25 85 TOTAL LOTS REMAINING TO BE PLATTED 25 One of the conditions of approval included in Resolution No. 2000-25 required that all phases of the development be completed within 5 -years of the date of the approval of the resolution. Therefore, the Preliminary Plan for Filing 4B would have expired on April 5, 2005. On that basis, OMDC requested two extensions of the Preliminary Plan approval, both of which received approval from the county commissioners. The first extension was requested in November of 2004 for an extension through April 5, 2006. The second extension was requested on February 1, 2006 for an extension through October 5, 2006. These extensions were requested because the developer, OMDC, wished to slightly modify the approved Preliminary Plan for filing 4B — Phase III. At that time the county subdivision regulations did not allow for a Preliminary Plan amendment process. In order to revise an approved Preliminary Plan, the applicant was required to submit a complete Preliminary Plan application. However, at the time that each of these extensions was requested, the Garfield County Building and Planning Department was in the process of modifying the subdivision regulations. It was known that one revision to the regulations would be to provide for a Preliminary Plan "amendment" process. Therefore, it was the position of OMDC at the time that they would rather wait for the new subdivision regulations to be adopted and submit a Preliminary Plan amendment application, than submit an entire Preliminary Plan application. Unfortunately, due to the extremely heavy work load of the county staff and the onerous task of writing and editing a completely new development code, to date, the new Garfield County Subdivision Regulations have still not been adopted. On that basis, this application represents a complete Preliminary Plan application for the remaining 25 lots that were most recently approved by Resolution 2000-25. In October of 2007 Oak Meadows III, LLC, obtained the remaining undeveloped 44.67 acres from OMDC and is hereby submitting a complete Preliminary Plan application for the remaining 25 lots as approved within Oak Meadows Ranch - Filing 4B. These 25 lots represent the final build -out of Oak Meadows Ranch - Filing 4B. As noted above, the Filing 4B Phase III Preliminary Plan application proposes to provide for the development of the remaining 25 lots approved as part of Filing 4B. Also as previously noted, it was determined to be desirable to slightly modify the approved Preliminary Plan for Phase III. These proposed revisions are reflected in this application. The revisions were largely due to modifying the road and lot layout to more closely conform to the existing topography of the site and provide for safer road alignments with flatter grades. The proposed revisions improve the roadway safety and provide for better access to individual lots, while reducing the site disturbance and alterations to the natural environment. We believe that this application represents a significant improvement over the previously approved Preliminary Plan. All proposed lots will be provided with paved roadways, water services to a central water supply system, sewer services connecting to a central sanitary sewage collection and treatment system, natural gas services, and services to underground electrical, telephone and cable television systems. The proposed infrastructure will connect to and extend the infrastructure from Filing 4B — Phase II, which was designed to anticipate and provide for the future service of an additional 25 lots. All proposed lots will back up to open space. The open space consists of 32.61 acres (73%) of the overall property for the benefit of the future property owners as well as the preservation of natural wildlife habitat. The wildlife study included in the application shows that this specific project would not likely have significant impacts to overall available wildlife habitat. Enclosed please find the supporting documents & exhibits to fulfill the Garfield County requirements for a Preliminary Plan application. As previously stated, we believe that this application represents a significant improvement over the previously approved Preliminary Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this application. We look forward to working with you and your staff in creating a development that will be an asset to Garfield County. Sincerely, s<•ss ichael Gamba, P.E. & P.L.S. 28036 H:\03385\08\submittal\General History of Oak Meadows Ranch PUD 20080201.doc /AuJ L . 1986 L.. 1 ii�v:: • ., '1 - r.al Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, Colo ;7J PAGES 443 or MOIST • 19,76,,.....dao RESOLIJTIOCI 976-47 plans.and WHEREAS, r.R.S. (1971) 10-28-109 through JD -2R -I)6 provide for t11r approval of Ali zrnina the adoption and amendment of regu1Jl.luu:r and resnletVm% to trnplensalt nosh coning plans Ly the Iklarrl of Wt1EREAS, the Redstone Corp. and Howard Matz have Applied to the honied of County Commissioners of County Commissioners of a given counts: and parcel of land located ie Section 15, Township more y South, Range 39 CW staof thea II ' district lly local wr a P I 7 South, Range wast of the GE77 P.M., generally located as Phase JV u[ tbu Oak Meadows SrJ�ml n•i stun, particularly described as follows: (SEE D`K1I)IIEIIT AS MED 111 Ct. 6'S OFFICE) ' �I And said request for none district amundnunt seeks a cineole from Residential / Limited / Suburban Density meal of the request Eo Planned Inuit the and eco mend dCounty,rColorado; fthe and WHEREAS, the Planning Cmm�iissien of Garfield County, Col ora Jo his recommended art 1L ilea- . for said zone district amendment to the Roard of County Commissioners of mtsuch cat1ans bg ane or repro p� WHEREAS, this Doard 1ra8 given notice of Public 'roaring upon tions of general circulation In Garfield countygiven full hearing having been thereto,held 011 JJune 21st, 1776, and con- t inued to July , !9, 1076 and this Saari the application, makes the following w1fEREAs, this board, based upon the record in connection with said a more logical" l' findings in Theesregt stede zon to-wit; distr development t e pt pert would the plogica (1) requestted zone o-witict designation would allow development of the Property !n. t i and compatible runner with respect to its location and surrounding P I zone district designation. (2) The requesPlan zone did Cout designationeflecteduld bbyaconsiderationhandnGarfield interpretationtofGsaidal planPlatt, I (tapas/ nlcn 1ary-rerfield County) (3)' The necessary requirements for consideration of said request for zone district amendment as see for6h in he 3pp11Cable zoning and subdivision regulations of Garfield County, Colorado have been fulfilled. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, at r a amend ntpbe approved and9 thaththet zonin9he uontsaidtparcelsofnlandr be -changed, Seward he Redtoe to PIanned UnitoDevelopment. arta, 1 Rune pro tune to July 26, 1976. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO J/_ RESOLUTION 976'98 p WHEREAS, C.R.S. 1973 90-28-101, 30-28-110 and -30-28-133 provide for the approval of all subdivision i' plans and plats and the adoption of regulations governing such plans and plats by the Board of county .,Commissioners; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said authority, the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County29 re adopted and !. enacted by the Board of County Commissioners of said County on the 1st day of September, WHEREAS, the Redstone Corporation and Howard 11062 have submitted the final plat of Phases III and IV 4 of the Oak meadows Subdivision to the Board of County Commissioners= ! Garfield rC7unty, Col rad 89 for 1 approval, said parcel of land being located In Section 16, I 6th P.H. more particularly described as follows:• (SEE DOCUMENT AS FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE) WHEREAS, aha Preliminary Plats for the Phases III and IV -of the Oak Meadows Subdivision were recom- mended as approved to the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, by the Planning Commission of Garfield County, Colored, the 23rd day of April, 19741 and WHEREAS, the petitioners have [bemired waivers of public notice of the PIanning Commission action on the Preliminary PIat hearing before the Planning Commission from adjacent landowners who did nee receive notification of the Public Hearing as requited In Section 3.06 of the Subdivision Regulations Of Garfield County, Colorado/ and WHEREAS, the Board hes considered the final plat materials pertaining to•Phases III and Iv of the oak Meadows Subdivision; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado at its meeting held on the 19th day of July, 1976, that' (1) The previous approval of the Final Pl.et for Phase III of the oak Meadows SubdlVlsiOs taken on the June 21st, 1976 meeting of the Board of County Commissioner, of Garfield County be re -affirmed. (2) The Final Plat for Phase Iv of the Oak Meadows Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: (a) The Chairman of the Planning Commission of Garfield County review the Chanes made to the ' Final Plat, from the approved Preliminary Plat and consent to said change by signing the revised (b) Fine/ acceptance take plata by the RE -1 ScFinal Plat. ti tJoners hool Board of the offer made by the pe or fees BoaTd nd he County Commissioners off aeschool on ehalf of the arfieldCounty, Caloredo, to ba us dfora ; the purposeoft schools. of Nunn pro tune July 19, 1976. ATTEST: TRE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 011967 LLD COUNTY, COLORADO • AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into this day of / L',. , 1976, by and between REDSTONE CORPORATION (Redstone) and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO (County), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS Redstone has received conditional approval of two subdivisions located in Garfield County, Colorado, known as Oak Meadows Filing Number 3 'and Oak Meadows Ranch Filing Number 4, and WHEREAS the approval of the subdivisions.aforesaid is conditioned upon Redstone reaching an agreement with the Roaring Fork School District RE -1 (School District) concerning the dedication of school lands or payment of the market value thereof as required by state statute and resolution of the County, and WHEREAS Redstone and the School District have agreed upon the matter of school lands_,as'is_evidenced by the approval of School District appended to this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Within twelve (12) months of this date the County will request representatives of the School District to make a tour with Redstone of—the Four Mile Valley southerly of of Glenwood Springs to examine and evaluate alternative school sights and to recommend to the County one of the following alternatives, to -wit: (a) Redstone shall convey to the County, for the use and benefit of the School District, a tract of land seven (7) acres in size Within the boundaries of Oak Meadows Subdivision Filing Number 3 and Oak Meadows Ranch Filing Number 4 at such location as shall be mutually determined by the School District and Redstone; or (b) Redstone will acquire or otherwise make available a tract of land of equivalent market value to a seven (7) acre tract of land within the Subdivisions afore- said, the location of which shall be mutually determined by the School District and Redstone; or .(c) In the event mutual agreement cannot be achieved as to either 1 (a) or 1 (b) above within eighteen (18) months from date hereof, or within six (6) months following completion of negotiations and receipt of written notice from the School District of its intent to exercise the alternative required by this paragraph, Redstone shall pay to the County, for the use and benefit of the School District, the sum of Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00). 2. The conveyance of land pursuant to paragraphs 1 (a) or 1 (b) above shall be by warranty deed free and clear of all liens and encumberances, except taxes not yet due or payable, reservations and exceptions contained in United States patents, prior mineral reservations of public record and easements and rights-of-way of public record. 3. The within Agreement establishes and determines the fashion in which Redstone shall satisfy its obligation to furnish real property or the dollar equivalent thereof for school and park purposes as required by State statute and County resolution for the subdivisions above identified. 4. The within agreement shall extend to and be binding upon the respective parties hereto, their successors and assigns, and shall be deemed a covenant running with the land known as Oak Meadows Filing Number 3 and Oak Meadows Ranch Filing Number 4 until such time as the terms and conditions hereof have been fulfilled. -2- 185625 B-959 P-166 11/21/95 03:51P PG 1 OF 2 REC DOC ,-ILDRED ALSDORF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 0.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday , the 20th of Noveadber:. A.D. 19 95 , there were present: MARIAN 1. SMITH ARNOLD L. MACALEY ELMER (BUCKEY) ARBANEY DON DEFORD MILDRED ALSDORF CHUCK DESCHENES , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 9 5-089 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THECLARIFICATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD ZONE DISTRICT FOR OAK MEADOWS FILING IV AND THE RESCINDING OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT FOR PORTIONS OF OAK MEADOWS RANCH, OAK MEADOWS FILING 4. WHEREAS, REDSTON E CORPORATION AND HOWARD MOTZ received approval for the Oak Meadows Ranch, Oak Meadows Filing 4 PUD and Final Plat from the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, by Resolutions #76-47 and #76-48 on July 19, 1976; and WHEREAS, Redstone Corporation and Howard Motz did file a Final Plat for Oak Meadows Ranch, Oak Meadows Filing 4 with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder on January 26, I977 in Cabinet No. 1, Page No. 3813; and WHEREAS, Redstone Corporation and Howard Motz tendered to the County a Subdivision Improvements Agreement together with security covering the proposed improvements necessary for the completion of the development; and WHEREAS, said Subdivision Improvements Agreement was never recorded by the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder and the security tendered is inadequate for the continued development of the remainder of Oak Meadows Filing 4, not previously replatted; and WHEREAS, it appears that the intent of Redstone Corporation is to file an amended final plat for those portions of Oak Meadows Filing 4 not previously replatted, but to retain the original Oak Meadows Ranch, Oak Meadows Filing 4, as the PUD Plan for Filing 4, as required by Section 4.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; and 485625 B-959 P-167 11/21/95 03:51P PG 2 OF 2 WHEREAS, the Board did publish notice of a public hearing on the issue of rescinding final plat approval for certain portions of Oak Meadows PUD Filing 4 and said hearing was opened on May 1, 1995 and continued to various days certain. NOW, THEREFOR 1? BE IT RESOLVED by the Board ofCounty Commissioners o f Garr field County, Colorado that based upon the evidence, sworn testimony, exhibits and comments from all interested parties at a public hearing opened on May 1, 1995 and continued to various days certain, this Board hereby rescinds Final Plat approval for Oak Meadows Ranch, Oak Meadows Filing 4, Areas I, III, VI, VII and VIII; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the rescinding of the approval of said final plat does not affect the Planned Unit Development approval and the housing densities approved therein, given by Resolution No. 76-47. Dated this 21siday.of November , A.D. 19 95 • ATTEST: GA-RFIEL-D- COUNTY BOARD- OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Clerk of the Board ; • '� =, Chairman vote: Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following MARIAN SMITH ARNOLD MACKLEY Aye Aye ELMER (BUCKEY) ARBANEY ,Aye STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State .aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 . County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners i 11111111111111111111111111111!11111111 ll11111111111111 361735 a ieii20ee e3:4$P P1181 P298 M RLSDORF 1 of 5 R e.ee D 0.00-GARFIELD COUNTY CD RECEIVED APR 1 4 2 STATE OF COLORADO ) )33 County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 4th of April A.D. 2000, there were present: John Martin McCown Walt Stowe Dari DeFord - , County Attorney Mildred Alsdorf _, Clerk of the Board Ed Green , County Administrator , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO 2000-25 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF VII AND N BELT PLAN SUFOR THE OAK MEADOWS RANCH PUD, FILING 4, AREAS I, III. I, WHEREAS, Oak Meadows Development Corporation filed an application with the Board of County Cominissioners of Garfield County for approval of Preliminary Plan for the Oak Meadows PUD, Filing 4, Areas 1, HII, VI, VII and Greenbelt Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Garfield County Planning Commission reviewed the Oak Meadows PUD, Filing 4, Areas i, ill, V1,143 and Greenbelt Subdivision Preliminary Plan application and recommended denial to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, based on the material submitted by the applicant, the recommendation of the Planuting Commission and the comments of the Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as follows: I. That proper publication, public notice and posting was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearings. wc47: to 00-LI-.td'd LP111.11111,011t11131111110 11111 Illi1111 2 of '� R 8.98 D 8.80 GMFIELD COUNTY co 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations sat forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County. 4. That all data, surveys. analysis, studies, plans and designs as required by the State of Colorado and Gtufteld County have been submitted, reviewed, and found to meet all sound planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 5, That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 6. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare Uf the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the Preliminary Plan of for the Oak Meadows I'UD, Filing 4, Areas L. ITT, VI, VIl and Greenbelt Subdivision unincorporated area of Garfield County described in the application, be approved with the following conditions: 1. All representations trade by the applicant at the public hearing and in the Application shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board including, but not limited to, the following items Iisted below. 2. A Final Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property, dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities. Additionally the following plat notes shall be shown: "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision; and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries, unless the dog is on a Ieash and tinder the control of the owner. The requirements are included in the protective covenants for the subdivision with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog from the area as a final remedy in worst cases; "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within subdivision. One (1 ) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances." "The subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision to prevent glare on adjacent properties, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." "Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner." N-# 1 ire nn-rT-.4d j 1111111111111111111111111:11p1111.1111111.1111111,11091 361730 04/07!2000 3 of S R 0.00 0 0.00 t iRf!ELD COUNTY co "All construction shall be consistent with the guidelines contained in Colorado State Forest Service publication CSFS #143-691." "AIl foundations will be designed by qualified registered engineer in accordance with the recommendations in the engineering report done by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc, April 15, 1998 Job No. 196 420 and any subsequent analysis of the area. Engineered designs will be submitted with each building permit application. 3. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and security, addressing all on-site improvements necessary for the first phase, as a apart of a final plat submission. 4. The applicants she submit improvement plans for All roads, bridges, utilities, fire protection, improvements, signs and drainage structures as a part of the final plat submission. All roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards for Rural Access roadways, with the 50 ft. ROW, 11 ft. driving lanes, six (6) 11. shoulders, six foot ditch and chip and seal surfacing. The proposed emergency gate at the end of the proposed Old Midland Spur will be included in the subdivision improvements and secured as a part of the Subdivision improvements Agreement. 5. That the app1h ants file the proposed Supplemental General Declaration Applicable to Areas I, III, VL VU, Oak Meadows Ranch, with a modification of the building height limitation to 25 feet, a minimum rear yard setback of 10 ft. for all lots backing up to public lands. Additionally, the protective covenants be emended to add covenants for the subdivision that allow a single dog per household and for graduated enforcement of pet proviaiuns allowing for the removal of a dog from the area as a final remedy in worst cases. Additional language will be added that notes that any two-family dwelling built on lots 1-18 will be required to submit and receive approval of an es -built amended plat to define thc common wall lot line between dwellings, where the common wall construction is not consistent with the surveyed common wall line. 6. That the proposed phasing schedule be modified to exclude any lots where the building footprint lies inside the mapped landslide complex as a part of phase one. Subsequent phases with lots with building footprints within thc mapped landslide complex, shall not be approved until the applicant's geotechnical engineer has a full year of ground water monitoring results and a supplemental slope stability analysis based upon thc monitoring data from the wells, inclinometers and peizometers used by the engineer. 'The Board will utilize the staff of the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) to review the supplemental slope stability analysis and may, based upon the recommendations of the CGS, reopen the hearing on the Preliminary Plan to consider further restrictions on the lots with, building footprints within the landslide complex or removal of certain lots from the subdivision. 7. All phases of the subdivision must be platted within five (5) years of the date of the approval of this resolution. d/7=fo co -LT-.," 1111111111111111111111111111 III I1111111111111111111111 561735 04/07/2000 03c40P 81181 P311 N RLSDORF 4 of 3 R 0.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD Coutm' CO 8. No additional phases of the subdivision beyond the first phase will be platted until a current report from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment is reviewed by the County Engineers office. If the treatment facility will reach 95% of capacity based upon actual per dwelling unit daily flow averages, as a result of the additional dwellings in the phase, the applicant will provide a specific construction xchedule for the second phase of the sewage treatment facility. Security to build the additional capacity will be a part of tate Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the phase. 9. All applicable road impact fees will he paid at the time of final platting, and for the purposes of calculating the fees, all lots shall be considered to be single family lots, unless they are platted as two family lots. 10. As a part of the Final Plat submission, the applicant's engineer will certify that the proposed water system will comply with the standard of NFPA 291, Fire Flow Testing and Marring cif Hydrants. Prior to the release of Subdivision Improvement Agreement obligations for the water system. the new system will be tested to meet the NFPA 291, Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants standard for 1500 gpm for Filing 48 and Beaver Court and 1000 gpm. for all other Oak Meadows filings. If the system cannot be certified for 150( gprn for two (2) hours, for the Filing 4R and Beaver Court, no dwellings over 3600 sq. ft. will be allowed and the covenants will be modified to reflect the change. 11. That the fel plat submission include a copy of a computer disk of the plat data, formatted for use on the County Assessor's CAD system. ATTEST: Dated this 3rd day of April c: • C1cr of the Board , A.D. 2000. GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF •.�COMMISSIONE S, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORAI1 Chairman ti Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vole: John Martin , Aye LarryMcCowD , Aye Walt,Stowe , Aye i2 rn no-LT—Atha 1111111Illl 1111111111I111111111llil@l1111I111i Illi 1111 3e273 �4/g'712ee0 1:4R eilai P302 !t ALSOORF 5 of S R LOB C 0.00 OARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield • County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, T have hereunto set my hand and affixed the ses1 of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of . A.D. 2040. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners ;,,,... PROPERTY LOCATION :i Vicinity Map Scale: 1" = 2000' Vicinity Map SCALE: 1"=2000' DATE. JANIZARY 31, 2008 DRAWN BY: TAB SHEET: 1 01 PROJECT: 03385.08 CHKD BY, DRAWING. Preliminary Plan Map.dwg DIRECTORY. H:103385108\plol\84 ASOCIATES GA=M BA Oak Meadows Ranch III, LLC Filing 4, Phase III GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 970/94S-2550 WWW.GAMBAENGINEERING.COM 113 2142 ,TE OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIP: and located in Sedian 15, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian ng of a portion of Area I of Oak Meadows Ranch - Oak Meodows Filing No. 4, as said Area I and appears on the plot recorded as Reception No. 276561 in the office of the Garfield 'k and Recorder; said parcel being described as all of said Area I, excepting therefrom that cid Area I lying within the boundary of Oak Meadows Ranch, Filing No. 4B, Phase II, as the :ribed and appears on the plat recorded as Reception No. 677734; and also excepting re porcel of land described in the Special Warranty Deed recorded in Book 1575 Page 274; being more particularly described as follows: t a point on the boundary of Oak Meadows Ranch Filing No. 4 recorded at reception 561 in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office; whence the southwest comer of rears 5 0759'77 W o distance of 2295.61 feet; whence the south quarter corner of said ars 5 89.44.38.6 o distance of 2624.04 het; said bearing being the bass of bearing; . the Point of Beginning olong the boundory of sold Oak Meodows Ranch Filing No. 4 the c"27' E o distance of 7325.86 feet; 418'33' E a distance of 1118.99 het; � the boundary of the Roaring Fork School 007401 RE -1 parcel as described in the Speciol 'd"'`/� d recorded in Book 1575 Page 274; thence along said school parcel bounden/ the CO..: b2 W a distance of 438.63 feet; '17'31' E a distance of 453.93 feet; - `g the arc of a non tangent curve to the right 178.00 feet, having a rodius of 376.96 feet, a ongle of 2903'19', and the chord bears N 41°07'01'E a distance of 176.35 feet; on the westerly right-of-way of Ook Way North as described on the plat of Ook Meadows 1 No. 4 recorded at reception number 276561 in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders ce olong said right-of-way the following three courses: FI"rRSJCop, fte arc of a non tangent curve to the left 446.02 feet, having a radius of 276.96 feet, a angle of 9716'13', and thechord bears 508°27'19'W a distance of 399.36 feel; -.L,�7GQ,T1H the arc of a tangent curve to the right 137.23 feet, having a radius of 445.13 feet, a central 17°39'49, and the chord bears 5 28°56'53' E o distance of 136,69 feet; °07'07 E a distance of 484.06 feet; 1t^ n th dh rfy b d ry of Ook Meadows Ranch Filing No. 4B, Phase II recorded at umber 677734; thence along soid northerly boundary the following seventeen courses: arc of a non tangent curve to the right 20.41 feet, having a rodius of 50.00 feet, a ogle of 23'23'04', and the chord bears N 60.24.39.W a distance off10 ,27 fee;, a control the arc of a tangent curve to the left 81.65 feet, g a roa 46°46'46', and the chord bears N 72°06'30' W a distance of 79.40 feet, to a point; the arc of a tangent curve to the right 27.55 feet, having a radius of 20.00 feet, o central 78°55'19, and the chord bears N 56°02'13' W a distance of 25.42 feet °3434.W a distance of 5.50 feet; .2526.W a distance of 50.00 feet; °3434' E a distance of 33.16 feel; arc of a non tangent curve to the right 81.87 feet, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a ngIe of 34°44'46', and the chord bears N 86'57'31 W a distance of 80.62 feet; 35.14•W a distance of 41.85 feet; ;2,g the arc of a tangent curve to the right 66.74 feet, having a rodius of 285.00 feet, a central if 13°17'4 r, and the chord bears N 675627 W a distance of 65.99 feet; '.4.17.27`W a distance of 3.93 feet; g the arc of a fongent curve to the left 69.43 feet, having a radius of 165.00 feet, a central 24°06'39', and the chord bears N 68°2046'W a distance of 68.92 feet; 1'2406'W a distance of 17.51 feel; the arc of a tangent curve to the left 81.37 feet, having a radius of 315.00 feet, a central f 14°48'02', and the chord bears N 87.48'07W o distance of 87.14 feet; 1'4T5?W 0 distance of 107.77 feet; the arc of a tangent curve to the left 61.29 feet, having a radius of 465.00 feet, a central If 07°33198', and the chord bears 5 81'01'18°W a distance of 61,25 feet; 74'45' W o distance of 62.22 feet; 1 '41'27. W a distance of 102.82 feet; n the boundary of said Oak Meadows Ranch Filing No. 4 recorded at reception number the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office; thence along the boundary of sold Oak ;cinch Filing No. 4 N 8718'33' W a distance of 1151.12 feet to the true point of beginning; .44.66 acres more or less. "o,Dwner Does Hereby Dedicate And Set Apart All Of The Streets And Roods As Shown On The Plat To The Use Of The Public Forever, And Hereby Dedicate To The Public Utilities Those Said Real Property Which Are Labeled As Utility Easements On The Accompanying Plat As !casements For The Installation And Maintenance Of Ufihfies, Irrigation And Drainage Facilities, W Not Limited To Eledri0 lines, Gas Lines, Telephone Lines; Together With The Right To Trim rets And Brush; With Perpetual Right Of Ingress Md Egress For Installation And Maintenance 1tes. Such Easements And Rights Shall Be Ufilired In A Reasonable And Prudent Manner. pence For Street Paving Or Improvements Shall Be Furnished By The Seller Or Purchaser, Not my Of Garfield. re Further States That Such Property Is And Shall Be Subject To The General Declaration, Oak Tench, Garfield County, Colorado, Recorded In The Office Of The Clear And Recorder Of county, Colorado As Reception No. 276560 In Book 492, Stoning At Page 894 With rds Thereto, Including But Not Limited To Supplemental Declaration Recorded In The Garfield :rk Md Recorder's Office As Reception No. IS WHEREOF SAID OWNER HAS CAUSED HIS NAME TO BE HEREUNTO SUBSCRIBED DAY OF A.D., 20_. MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY PRESIDENT ST: ECRETARY COLORADO) 55. OF GARFIELD I EGOING DEDICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS 20 . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. MY COMMISSION IXPIRES: DAY OF NOTARY PUBLIC Preliminary Plan Map shornM1nnn rite polinmon. The Applham mar maim adluslmnts ud not. baud armee deodd enymesnga ptomte, net Ittwd lo ,h brae.,moWwoeonriddpnmmtd la 1010,a1th000.mods, null. and u,Wle. Such adtmtnsm+hdlbra R 6,6%1,6 but We.wemmyln.dmw°" nm :net plat wM+d Kn,wen.lry d nm.mdlas *�n•°bm,mmg rhh pdia,nnot.+. a a 1 a 1 18 z O L a 2 cc - 0 2m 4 Shugart, &us k Janke 0804 Formbyll Ranch Road 5.r.00d 5prkg., CO 81601 Sundog Entepriss, LLC 6b Faranhyl Bonen Road 0.18002 Wog. CO 81801 Bureau of Land Almommont 50629 Highway 6 k 24 Glewood song., co .1601 NOTICE: According to Colorodo law you MUST commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discovered such defect. In no event, may on action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten yeors from the dote of the cenificalion shown hereon. tam lee. iw ketn s wdle61sX b repeats.. new eel*. w wa.we Id a re. dekl.d..se. a dsee bbd Ire Bakke r mea,adY.wkt al damn, dM 4sea, reekHY ad keeaSi Male+addle rakewok. enfeedi, 6111 cantle ray le volt 6N4 and dw.ikeiarwane d arwdle err 114.1161.dld,der Spear, Eugene M. Revocable Trust k SMar. Podgy A Rwooablo Trust 33 Waring Rood Loomis. WA 98627 sa w hen GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1114CN. 50 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL . 2 FEET /"\ Bureau of Laid Hammen 56829 1-119h0Oy 5 k 24 Glenwood Springs, CO 81801 Adloinina Property Owners 1. Ruse, Mak & Lea 63 Bever Court 001.0.2 Spring; CO 91601 0. 1301 Grab 110 2115 117 RD Glenwood Swinge, CO 61601 3. Arnold, Peter P.O. Bax 128 Cam...0w, CO 61623 4. Vas-Patte.on. Moe & Jeremy P. 43 Beaver Court Om.eed Spirngs, CO 81801 5. min, Ronny k Schwab, Chatty L P.O. Box 522 Glenwood Swings, CO 81802 8. Arnold, Peter P.O. Box 128 Carbondale. CO 81623 7. Harrison, Wendy L & Milan F. 845 Old Ilidod Spur Glmneed 5prk98. CO 81601 6. Owls, Camara A ! Jomna K. P.O. 00. 1652 Glenwood Spings, CO, 81802 A Griggs, Glenn 253 Mitchell Geek Rand Glenwood Springe. CO 51801 10. Oak Meadows Homeowners Aeso0a00. P.O. Box 2115 Glenwood Swings. CO 81802-2115 11. Tota Bolden. Ina. 283 61t.hell Creek Rood Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 12. Gabs; Leslie Mn 2005 Relaxable Trust 0/0 Thorns A. Pdaduk Oua1e 6 Brody 500 West Madsen St Sts 3700 Chicago, IL 80661 01 4) • m Ra OQ� � OCU 3 • ttD cts u¢ z N� WW '1 Q J ua O0 NW NW z aZ F. JE W W E N et Vlu w as E e E a 0 = - ta. es cL cn 0 0 .4.Iw19Pe 9911.911.11^w, w 6NP•99P 41e99199911.1,11 Pw19ue wen own. p Ion eq.., ,an '4°'a8oe 6u9.w w 981, 19P919w991N1e wri-.m9^ 1999.419.9. 9.,9NI PI P 9.e9.P 99. 98999,, 99+wmw •a 91 99.99,1 P9 9,9.91199 '99wgaw u9+*9L•PfeuP ew9rpegtga99999,99sI .9 1 uWee9m ,41.09.0!Rk 99.8x44 osoPos999pJ O"1 z z o v o6 09 i 1 1 dDW UDId AJDU!Wilald =0 •03 n0 a 3 1:1 m 112 Za m9, HO aD O"� �m N 0Z Tin •190a6aq urnogs 6646 y 60 pao aql;0 atop 141 woo. 1 1 41 pe 11911611911609 /owns 9µl to peep 116 uodn pesoq 6cµ06 uoROW 'luana 019 191 .pope µ'ns pannoogp Ivo not 11446 voal 11644 wglu9 60uns sop to 1040/410 uodn pasoq 1904161089 1196 0519060.95 15nW net 6641 opolgoo 04 e19lpacl oV :33110N ZZ'Z9 .5191, 4,19 L1 15x1 NAOt2Ae,1 91 COE ne,L.L1.9294 91 22 111 N.1182.69N tl 91 L[ 392,t2.91S 21 00 DS /9.9251 269 21 /9.92,92.919, 141'0,131 9.039 3ce96309 2,19 ee.81,10, 6110.22, 003976,19 113 118 /9.[087.(891 5089.11 .21E LE LB OID 26.139 NAVOL.9991 ,12,90.12 00'991 21'69 60 ,1.12.92.2914 1921.21 00592 91'99 90 2506 /1,21999,100'521 8'16 Lo Lt SZ 32120:955 60'52.2[ 00'0i SS'LZ 90 016[ MO2N0 19 LI02 M62FL0919 6909222 00'05 1,02 t0 69921 325.95.9299 2165 EI[2: ED 96660 91. 6„11.902 419,6 0E96E 90,9t LJ 22'9, 31WO. 11910.[L ,o OSOHJ ,110,11111019Dd NUM SRC. 1419,131 in/IIID 31891 9onn0 0.335 i . Tvna3L0 0061000 133i 05 1009 133.1 NI 31V3S 3IHdV2f`J 096 001 69900 rime 660 06660n192/014 99 • Pe919 61 0 Pe, 0 99.999 ,06o 0919 1.16 0.031 VJLS L.L.C. t/ 19 4 /7A/ / /7/ A! 0 O• rY 1 0 dDW Lipid AJDUIUUIOJd 0 IV so IC 0 kcb 4 F sy 0 eniDO nN2 0cab y C oeo,N N O OO 0 .993Z£4 3.LZ,14.09N AOytl130 »Rmy�.!•FN S"N1T•m.MW.••W 41.99,,,,9,1d •P•w .!!!!!!aa.•yw 1M'9•....W..% P.M. 9 rW MO mMl,°IW„�•hl°Y'•Ww•4Wm"^H^9 •WmIMA 'Iq.q•IM ,M1, n.....ir,,.,,•d 1,9.1"..,, w wetuoml, m.m m.. w•wWev •41 l.uYWH .,. we, .mW.a•.•4 oa,ay !,wells u003144,0D ay, w 00p aye !moll voaR !as !ow 0.10!1 paeuawwoe uaq Rauh: s1y0 w ualap Rum uodn pose., uoyoo uo Row yua.a ou 01 -00100 40010 p0mawomip svy 0OR 0ayo u0aR 00.11 uiyy n Ra,uns c4II ui 0a1.p Rue uodn pxoq uayeo X0201 Auo awauwOo 1SNW no00001 opowl0o 0L 611p10003 :3)110N 1333 0 • 000310100101003 1333 OS • HON! L 1334 NI 31VOS OIHdYNO DOL i Shuq:t. Brae* k dents 0804 Farash$1 8a4l Rod Gl..2.4 68wbs CO 81601 Sundog Enlrpris.e, LLC 640 Forann0 Ranch Road Glenwood Springs, CO 61601 Bureau of Land Masa9r.nat 50629 11195 5 6 4 24 Glenwood Springs, CO 91601 Spear, Eugene M. Revocable Trust k Savor, Gaphy A. Revocable Trust 33 Waring Rood Loomis, WA 98627 NOTICE: According to Colorodo low you MUST commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years offer you first discovered such defect. In no evens, may on action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than 1n years from the dale of the certihcalion shown hereon. 11.• mems dow•lx/66. ore mall...lben=emager. web .Mwts.* sock mann brad a woet4SSMM0wgmy*.me Iiiabl.aemendb 4.hale.Mkmab.sldl.••••ldh$11m, maw..nal,r.. b ea .MLb.Il.mrrdib ,dna* as, mm.wk. M admenow,af b any r led rsaSammy* deed*. m 4.441111.1 ee, w.k.m.T Pim. itt,i,_1 :i W 50 100 150 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 INCH• 50 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL w 2 FEET v1 7-- -i \ \. 5 15 22 — — _o Burenf 12,MoMonde...4 Mag.m 50529 Highway 6 & 24 aa.00d Springs, CO 81601 Adlolning Prooerty Ownert 1. Rune, Mark k Lao 83 Baer Court Glenwood Springs, CO 01801 2. 1301 grand LLC 2118 117 RO Glenwood Spiny, CO 81801 3. Arnold. Peter P.O. 805 128 Carbondale, CO 61623 ♦ Vass—Patter.en, Mar. St Aron* P. 43 Ness. Cart Glenwood SPktp., CO 81601 1 Ullrich. Ronny k Scbwab. Molt). 1. P.O. Nos 022 Glenwood Springs, CO 61602 6 Arnold Peter P.O. No. 128 Celbandola CO 81623 7. Horde" Wendy L & W6110121 F. 645 Cd Midland Spur Glenwood 5pr196 GO 01801 8. Day*, Gale A. & ..sena R. P.O. 8.. 1852 Glenwood SpIngs, CO, 81802 6 Griggs, Glenn 263 Mitchell Gert Road Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 10. Oak Meadaa Hnms.ens.s Aeeedp600 P.O. 80. 2115 Glenwood spring.. CO 81602-2115 11. Total Burden, Inc. 263 Mlt,d.ell Geek Rood Glenwood Spring., CO 81601 12. GM=s, Lsel. Mn 2005 R.vxsbl. Taut 5/0 than A. Poke:4k Oconee 4 Brady 500 West Madison 5t Sts 3700 011=96 6 80661 Ifo V k Z° >• ed N; W� V 4 08 n QE W J E 0 Io Vlu 9 tg 5 u :9, 3 3m Q 4 i Adjoining Property Owners 1. Russo, Mark & Lesa 83 Beaver Court Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2. 1301 Grand LLC 2115 117 RD Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 3. Arnold, Peter P.O. Box 128 Carbondale, CO 81623 4. Voss -Patterson, Marie & Jeremy P. 43 Beaver Court Glenwood Spirngs, CO 81601 5. Ullrich, Ronny & Schwab, Charity L. P.O. Box 522 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 6. Arnold, Peter P.O. Box 128 Carbondale, CO 81623 Harrison, Wendy L. & William F. 645 Old Midland Spur Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 8. Sarver, Susan V. 864 Colorado Ave. Carbondale, CO 81623 9. Griggs, Glenn 263 Mitchell Creek Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 10. Oak Meadows Homeowners Association P.O. Box 2115 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-2115 11. Griggs, Glenn & Lisa J. 0286 Silver King Court Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 i i i 12. Gerbaz, Leslie Ann 2005 Revocable Trust c/o Thomas A. Polachek Quarles & Brady 500 West Madison St Ste 3700 Chicago, IL 60661 13. Roaring Fork School District RE -1 1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 14. Spear, Eugene M. Revocable Trust & Spear, Glaphy A. Revocable Trust 33 Waring Road Loomis, WA 98827 15. Bureau of Land Management 50629 Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 16. Shugart, Bruce & Janice 0804 Faranhyll Ranch Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 17. Sundog Enterprises, LLC 840 Faranhyll Ranch Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 18. Oak Meadows Development Corporation P.O. Box 1298 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-1298 19. Arnold, Peter & Axthelm, Elizabeth J. P.O. Box 128 Carbondale, CO 81623 Mineral Rights Owners 1. Arbaney, Elmer 2585 Midland Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2. Letey, Beulah 2314 Bennett Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 OAK MEADOWS RANCH - FILING NO. 4 - PHASE III Preliminary Plan Submittal Direct citations from the Subdivision Regulations are indicated in italics and the Applicant's response is indicated in bold. 2:20.38 Preliminary Plan: The map or maps of a proposed subdivision, and required supporting material, prepared and submitted in accordance with these Regulations to permit evaluation of the proposal prior to final detailed engineering and design. 4:00 PRELIMINARY PLAN 4:10 PROCEDURE The Preliminary Plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Commission at least forty-nine (49) days prior to a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. The submitted material shall be sent to the Garfield County Planning Department, and shall include twenty (20) copies of the application form, map(s) and all supporting documentation, except only seven (7) copies of the drainage and utility plans are necessary. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all governmental or agency permits required by Colorado state law and these Regulations. Evidence that such permits have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained shall be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan. The Planning Department shall review the Preliminary Plan application for technical compliance with all information required by applicable rules and regulations within thirty (30) working days of submittal. If, due to the scope of the application, the workload imposed by other pending applications or for any other reasonable cause the Planning Department is unable to complete the review within the time stated above, the Planning Department may request an extension of time from the Board of County Commissioners for such review not to exceed an additional thirty (30) working days. If the Planning Department determines the application is not in technical compliance, the Planning Department shall notify the applicant in writing of any additional information needed for technical compliance and the application shall be suspended in the review process until such information is provided. 1 Following receipt of a noncompliance letter, an applicant may request a conference with the Planning Department to review the identified deficiencies. Such conference shall be scheduled at a reasonable time following the date of the noncompliance letter but in any event not later than ten (10) working days after such receipt, unless an extension of time is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning Department. Following the receipt of a noncompliance letter, an applicant may furnish additional information to remedy any identified deficiency. Based on such additional information, the Planning Department then shall determine whether the deficiency in question has been remedied or not. A written notice of such a determination shall be sent to the applicant not later than ten (10) working days after receipt of the additional information. An applicant shall have six (6) months after the date of the noncompliance letter to remedy any deficiency and, if not provided within such time, the application will be considered terminated. A determination of technical compliance by the Planning Department shall not be deemed a recommendation of approval, a finding of adequacy of the application or a finding of general compliance with any goal or objective of this resolution. (2000-69) 4:11 At this point in the application process the applicant may decide to chose a "Cluster Option " for development of a parcel in A/I, A/R/RD or R/L (Valley Floor) Zone Districts. Upon submission of a Clustering option, a `Yield Plan' which defines the number of parcels which would otherwise be allowed with a two (2) acre minimum lot size, and the balance or remainder of the parcel which may be undevelopable, will be based on the applicants configuration of lots as would otherwise be allowed under two -acre minimum lot size regulations. If choosing to undertake the Cluster Option, the applicant shall submit a second Cluster Option Plan showing lot configurations based on a minimum lot size of one (1) acre, with lots clustered so as to preserve greenbelt and common open space areas on otherwise developable land. This second Cluster Option Plan will be subject to the same review criteria, and must contain the same elements, with the following additions: A.) A calculation of total developable land, based on land area contained in legal and allowable lots as defined, in a proposed Yield analysis. B.) A calculation of developable land reserved for greenbelt or common open space, as a percentage of total developable land. The number of lots allowed in the Cluster Option shall be the same as would be allowed in the Yield Plan, with a minimum size of one (1) acre, with additional lots allowed as follows: 2 1.) For preserving otherwise developable lands, as determined in the Clustering Option as defined by Garfield County, placed in a Common Open Space or Greenbelt designation amounting to twenty- five percent (25%) or more of the otherwise developable tract or parcel of land being subdivided, development applicants shall be entitled to one additional developable lot, or one additional developable lot for every sixteen (16) or more otherwise developable lots, whichever is greater, or, if the next threshold is met: 2.) For preserving otherwise developable lands, as determined in the Clustering Option as defined by Garfield County, placed in a Common Open Space or Greenbelt designation amounting to forty percent (40%) or more of the otherwise developable tract or parcel of land being subdivided, development applicants shall be entitled to one (1) additional developable lot, or one additional developable lot for every twelve (12) or more otherwise developable lots, whichever is greater. Constraints and analysis as required in the existing Zoning Resolution of 1978, specifically Sections 5.04.01 and 5.04.03, and Sections 2:20.30 and 9:12 shall be criteria applied to lot configurations of less than two (2) acres but at least one (1) acre in size, and those criteria shall be shown and addressed in the Clustering Option. Utilities, and specifically ISTS leach fields, are allowed to be placed in common open space or greenbelt areas, and allowed to be shared by multiple dwelling units where total capacity can be shown to be under 2000 GPD, and a specific common maintenance agreement is specified in the proposal. The Clustering Option Sketch Plan shall include a narrative description directly relating to Common Open Space or Greenbelt, including the following: A. A description of the land to be included in common open space or greenbelt. B. Ownership and proposed management of the common open space or greenbelt. C. A weed control and erosion management strategy for the common open space or greenbelt. D. Intended uses allowed in the common open space or greenbelt, and amenities and structures to be placed there, if any. Staff will review both the conventional and the Cluster Option proposals, determine the yield of lots allowable from the conventional plan, and determine whether the applicant's definition of otherwise developable land is appropriate in their findings in their report and recommendations to the Planning Commission. After submittal of the Clustering Option Plan, the applicant resumes the process as defined in this Section 4:0 and all processes and procedures defined herein thereafter proceed as otherwise defined. Staff may request additional information and clarification based on the clustering configuration and assumptions. Nothing in this Section prevents or precludes an applicant presenting a Yield Plan earlier in the application process, for instance at Sketch Plan, should the applicant desire to provide detailed site information sufficient for lot configuration analysis at that point. (Added this section 2003-18) 4:12 If the application is in technical compliance, the Planning Department will send copies of the application to review agencies for comment, which may include but are not limited to: A. The appropriate school district; B. Each county or municipality within two (2) miles of any part of the proposed subdivision and any municipality within three (3) miles of the subdivision, if the municipality has adopted a major street plan, as provided by Colorado state law or as agreed upon in any City/County agreement; C. Any public utility, local improvement district, service district, or affected incorporated or unincorporated entity or persons owning or controlling water rights or water right structures, when applicable; D. The Colorado State Forest Service, when applicable; E. Other planning commissions with jurisdiction over the area; F. The Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, when applicable; G. The appropriate local soil conservation district board or boards; H. The district, regional or state department of health, when applicable; I. The Colorado State Engineer; J. The Colorado Geological Survey; K. The United States Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, if applicable; and L. Any other agencies or persons who, in the opinion of the Planning. Commission, may be affected by the proposed subdivision be able to assist in the review of the proposed subdivision. This may include expert consultants hired at the expense of the applicant by the County. The agencies or persons named in this section shall have twenty-one (21) days within which to make comments, suggestions, or recommendations to the Planning Department, unless an extension of 4 not more than thirty (30) days has been granted by consent of the applicant and the Board of County Commissioners. The failure of any agency to respond within the specified period shall be deemed to have no comment on the Preliminary Plan; except that if the Plan involves twenty (20) or more dwelling units, a school district shall be required to submit comments on the adequacy of school sites and structures. (2000-69) 4:20 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND RECCOMMENDATION 4:21 The Planning Commission shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. The applicant shall be solely responsible for the publication, posting and mailing of all notices and shall present proof of publication and mailing at or before the meeting. Notice for the meeting shall be given as follows: (1) Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the subject lot, a description of the proposed subdivision and nature of the meeting, and the date, time and place for the hearing shall be given once in a newspaper of general circulation in that portion of the County in which the subject property is located at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date such hearing, and proof of publication shall be presented at hearing by the applicant. (2001- 87) (2) Notice by mail, containing information as described under paragraph (1) above, shall be mailed to all owners of record as shown in the County Assessor's Office of lots within two hundred feet (200') of the subject lot, all owners of mineral interest in the subject property, and all tenants of any structure proposed for conversion to condominiums, at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to such hearing time by certified return receipt mail, and receipts shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant. (2001-87) (3) The site shall be posted such that the notice is clearly and conspicuously visible from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department. The posting must take place at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the hearing date and is the sole responsibility of the applicant to post the notice, and ensure that it remains posted until and during the date of the hearing. (2001-87) 4:22 The Commission shall complete its review and make its recommendation to the Board at the public hearing on the Preliminary Plan or continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for additional information or public input before making a decision. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the Plan. The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of 5 approval, shall be set forth in the minutes of the meeting or in a written Resolution. If the Final Plat is to be phased, the Planning Commission shall recommend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval. 4:30 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING 4:31 The Board shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision within sixty (60) days after completion of the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant shall be solely responsible for the publication, posting and mailing of all notices and shall present proof of publication and mailing at or before the meeting. Notice for the meeting shall be given as follows: (1) Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the subject lot, a description of the proposed subdivision and nature of the meeting, and the date, time and place for the hearing shall be given once in a newspaper of general circulation in that portion of the County in which the subject property is located at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of such hearing, and proof of publication shall be presented at hearing by the applicant.(2001- 87) (2) Notice by mail, containing information as described under paragraph (1) above, shall be mailed to all owners of record as shown in the County Assessor's Office of lots within two hundred feet (200) of the subject lot, all owners of mineral interest in the subject property, and all tenants of any structure proposed for conversion to condominiums, at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to such hearing time by certified return receipt mail, and receipts shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant. (2001-87) (3) The site shall be posted such that the notice is clearly and conspicuously visible from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department. The posting must take place at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the hearing date and is the sole responsibility of the applicant to post the notice, and ensure that it remains posted until and during the date of the hearing. (2001-87) 4:32 The Board shall complete its review and make its decision on the Preliminary Plan within fifteen (1 S) days after the conclusion of the public hearing. The Board may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Preliminary Plan. The reasons for denial, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth in the minutes of the meeting or in a written Resolution. The Board may table the Plan, with the consent of the applicant and for an agreed upon number of days, pending further information or documentation. 4:33 The Board shall make its decision regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and on the conformity or compatibility of the proposed subdivision with the following: A. Garfield County Subdivision Regulations; 6 B. Garfield County Zoning Resolution; C. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan; D. Garfield County road standards and policies; E. Garfield County municipal comprehensive plans and municipal regulations, as applicable; F. Compatibility to existing land uses in the surrounding area; and G. Other applicable local, state and federal regulations, resolutions plans, and policies. 4:34 Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. A development of one hundred (100) lots or less may be phased such that all lots are final platted within five (5) years. Developments of over one hundred (100) lots may be phased over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) years. Any phasing must be approved by the Board at Preliminary Plan. 4:40 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 4:41 The Preliminary Plan submittal shall contain an application form, map(s), and required additional and supplemental information. All documentation shall be of sufficient detail and clarity to answer basic engineering questions and to permit evaluation of the application. Detailed construction, engineering and design plans will be developed at the time of Final Plat submittal. RESPONSE: The application form, maps, plans and additional information required by these regulations are contained in the Exhibits and Appendices included with this Preliminary Plan Application submittal. 4:42 Unless otherwise specified, maps and plans shall be to scale as follows: Subdivision Lot Area Scale Less than 10,000 sq. ft. 1 "=50' or less 10,001 sq. ft. - 2 acres 1"= 100' or less 2.01 acres or more 1"=200' or less RESPONSE: All maps and plans required by the Garfield County Preliminary Plan Regulations are in accordance with the scales stated above. 7 4:50 PRELIMINARY PLAN MAP The Preliminary Plan map shall show the entire area proposed for subdivision on one (1) sheet, if practical, at a size of 24" x 36". The map shall include the following information: A. Name of the proposed subdivision, which shall be different from that of any subdivision previously recorded in Garfield County. RESPONSE: The name of the proposed subdivision is "OAK MEADOWS RANCH — FILING 4 — PHASE III." B. Date of preparation of the map, graphic scale, basis of bearing and symbol designating North, certified by a Colorado registered professional surveyor; RESPONSE: The date of preparation, the graphic scales, basis of bearing, North arrow, and the certification by a Colorado Registered Professional Surveyor are provided on each sheet of the Preliminary Plan where applicable. C. Boundary lines with bearings and distances, survey ties and legal description of the proposed subdivision; RESPONSE: The boundary lines with bearings and distances, survey ties and legal description of the proposed subdivision are provided in the Preliminary Plan Map section (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. D. Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owner(s), applicant(s), planner(s) and engineer(s) for the proposed subdivision; names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of record of the proposed subdivision, and of the tenants of any structure proposed for conversion; RESPONSE: The names, addresses and phone numbers of the owners, applicants, planners, engineers, mineral owners and lessees, and tenants (if applicable) are provided in Section 2.0 of the Preliminary Plan application. 8 E. Vicinity map from U.S. G.S. quadrangle at a scale of 1 "=2000' depicting the location of streets, highways and adjacent utility systems within a minimum one-half (1/2) mile of the proposed subdivision and showing the natural drainage courses for streams flowing through the proposed subdivision with the limits of tributary areas shown where reasonable; RESPONSE: A Vicinity Map at a scale of 1" = 2000' is provided in Section 3.0 of the Preliminary Plan application. F. Departing property lines, names and addresses of owners of record of all parcels adjoining and within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed subdivision, including those separated by a public right-of-way; RESPONSE: The departing property lines and names of owners of record of all parcels adjoining and within 200 -feet of the proposed subdivision along with a list of the property owners addresses are provided in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (Sheet P2) of Exhibit 1. G. Street, block and lot layout within the proposed subdivision, including the approximate area of each lot; RESPONSE: The street, lot and block layout within the proposed subdivision and the approximate area of each lot is provided on the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. H. Proposed easements for drainage, irrigation, access and RESPONSE: The proposed easements for drainage, irrigation, and access, as well as utility easements are provided in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 1. Standard lot setbacks, which may be indicated by map note. RESPONSE: The standard lot setbacks for each lot are provided in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. J. Land use breakdown showing: 9 1. Existing zoning and proposed zoning change, if applicable; RESPONSE: The existing zoning is provided in the Land Use Summary in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. There is no proposed change to the existing zoning. 2. Total development area; RESPONSE: The total development area is approximately 44.67 acres. This is provided in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 3. Total number of lots proposed; RESPONSE: The total number of Residential Lots proposed is 25. This is provided in the Land Use Summary included in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 4. Total number of dwelling units proposed; RESPONSE: The total number of dwelling units proposed is 25 primary dwelling units. This information is provided in the Land Use Summary included in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 5. Total area of non-residential floor space; RESPONSE: There is no non-residential floor space proposed. 6. Total number of individual dwelling units proposed for each structure; 10 RESPONSE: The total number of individual dwelling units proposed for each structure is one (1). This information is also provided in the Land Use Summary included in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 7. Total number of proposed off-street parking spaces; RESPONSE: The total number of proposed off-street parking spaces will be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning, Subdivision and Building Regulations. 8. Total gross density proposed, number of dwelling units as a ratio to the total development area. RESPONSE: The total gross density proposed is 25 dwelling unit per 44.67 acres, or 1 dwelling units per 1.79 acres. This is provided in the Land Use Summary included in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. K. Existing contours with the following minimum contour intervals: 1. Two foot (29 contour interval for subdivision with any lot less than two (2) acres in size; 2. Five foot (57 contour interval for subdivisions with all lots being at least two (2) acres in size; (A note shall be included noting the origin and datum of topography). RESPONSE: The existing contours with 2 -foot contour intervals have been provided on the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. L. Common open space not reserved or dedicated to the public; RESPONSE: The Common Open Space, which is not reserved or dedicated to the public, is provided on the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. M. Sites to be preserved or dedicated for public parks, schools and other public buildings, facilities or use; and, or greenbelt space. 11 RESPONSE: There are no sites to be preserved or dedicated for public parks or greenbelt space or for schools and other public buildings or facilities. N. Approximate street grades and road centerline radii of curvature data; and RESPONSE: The approximate street grades and road centerline radii of curvature data is provided in the Road Plan and Profile portion (R Sheets) of Exhibit 1. O. Any existing easements, along with the name(s) and address(es) of the entity having an easement and legal description of those easements. RESPONSE: All known existing easements, along with the names and addresses of the entity having an easement are provided in the Preliminary Plan Map portion (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 4:60 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following information shall accompany the Preliminary Plan: A. Proposed terms of reservations or dedication of sites for public and/or common facilities or use, if any; greenbelt. RESPONSE: Not applicable B. Description of any proposed phasing plan, if any; RESPONSE: The project is to be completed in one phase, which will be accomplished in accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. C. Evidence that all lots and parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way, as required by Colorado state law; 12 RESPONSE: Evidence that all lots and parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way, as required by Colorado state law is provided in the Road Plan and Profile portion (R Sheets) of Exhibit 1. All new streets within Oak Meadows Ranch Filing 4, Phase III are proposed to be privately held and maintained by the homeowners association. Access is to be granted for police and emergency service personnel. The proposed street system will connect with Oak Way North (CR 169A) an existing public right-of-way, which is owned and maintained Garfield County. D. Total number of proposed off-street parking spaces, excluding those provided for single-family residential use; RESPONSE: The total number of proposed off-street parking spaces (excluding residential) is zero (0). E. Evidence that all areas of the proposed subdivision, which may involve soil or topographical conditions presenting hazards or requiring special precautions, have been identified, and the proposed uses of these areas are compatible with such conditions; RESPONSE: Hepworth-Pawlak (HP) Geotech, Geologists and Geo -Technical Engineers, have thoroughly examined the entire Oak Meadows Ranch — Filing 4 PUD area and have identified all known geologic hazards. HP Geotech concludes that, "development of the filing as planned should not encounter severe geologic constraints or potential hazards." The original HP Geotech reports are contained in Appendix A. F. Radiation evaluation for areas of potential radiation hazard to future land use; RESPONSE: The HP Report, Geologic Evaluation, (Appendix A), concludes that radiation levels "are consistent with normal background radiation in the area." G. A title commitment for property to be developed; and 13 RESPONSE: A current title commitment for the property to be developed is contained in Appendix B. H. If there is a subdivision of a section required, a copy of the final work sheet shall be provided for approval by the County Surveyor. RESPONSE: Not Applicable 4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: GEOLOGY, SOIL, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Information on the following characteristics of the area proposed for subdivision shall be shown graphically and/or by reports, whatever is appropriate, for a complete description of existing conditions, and shall include: A. Geology - Description and/or illustration by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado of bedrock lithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying unconsolidated materials in sufficient detail to indicate any potential development problems resulting from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations and ills, expansive soils, drainage patterns, structural bearing strength, or the like; RESPONSE: Please refer Appendix A for all the Geology/Geotechnical Reports pertaining to Filing 4 of the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD. The Applicant's Geology/Geotechnical Engineer (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc) has investigated the geology and geotechnical conditions and constraints for the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD. It is their determination that the geology/geotechnical conditions on the site should not present any severe constraints or potential hazards. HP further believes that none of the geologic conditions identified will prevent the development of the property for the intended use, provided that the geologic hazards are planned for and mitigated during the normal course of the development of the property. HP requests they provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations found in their report. 14 B. Soils - Map and description of soil types and their boundaries based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, and including a table of interpretations; RESPONSE: Gamba & Associates has compiled soil data from the Soil Conservation Service (NRCS) Study of the area. This information is contained in Appendix K. C. Vegetation - Map and description of plant associations following practices of the Soil Conservation Service and including a description of adapted materials and the location of major tree masses; and RESPONSE: The vegetation map is located in Appendix L. D. Wildlife - Description of wildlife habitation, including big game ranges based on the mapping practices of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. RESPONSE: Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services Inc. has conducted wildlife studies for the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD. His reports and his wildlife mapping of the subject property are contained in Appendix C. 4:80 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION A drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, shall depict the following information in graphic and/or written form: A. Existing water courses and lakes; RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan Drainage Analysis included in Appendix D depicts all existing water courses and lakes. There are no lakes or perennial water courses on this property. B. Limits of tributary areas, where practical; 15 RESPONSE: The limits of tributary areas are depicted on the Drainage Tributary maps (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. C. Computations of expected tributary flows; and RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan Stormwater Analysis included in Appendix D provides computations of expected tributary flows for both pre -development as well as post -development conditions. D. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off from entering damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm, showing: 1. Area subject to inundation; and 2. Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels. RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan Stormwater Analysis included in Appendix D provides computations of storm water detention structures that will 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. The proposed drainage system improvements are provided in the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. The information provided in Appendix D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1 demonstrate 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 D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 4:90 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: UTILITY PLAN 4:91 A water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or written form: A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall not be limited to: 16 1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or use of existing and proposed water rights; 2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights; 3. Amenability of existing right to change in use; 4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision, including the amount of water available for use within the subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending service to the area, proof of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation that all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adjudicated, prior to submission of the final plat; and 5. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for the subdivision. RESPONSE: The proposed water supply for the project is through an existing water system owned by the Oak Meadows Service Company (OMSCO). OMSCO has provided a can and will serve letter to the applicant for the proposed 25 lots. The OMSCO water supply has been determined by the Office of the State Engineer to be legally and physically adequate. Included in Appendix E is a water system report that provides more detail regarding the water supply for the project. B. If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general description of the system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. RESPONSE: Appendix E includes a general description of the central supply and distribution system for the proposed development. The Water Distribution System portion (W Sheets) of Exhibit 1 depicts the proposed water distribution system improvements. In addition: 1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water system; and 2. Proposed method of financing the water system. RESPONSE: Appendix E contains a letter from Oak Meadows Service Company stating that it is the owner and operator of the water and sewer system serving the proposed subdivision. Initially, the Applicant will provide construction funding through its development and construction funding sources and in accordance with the Subdivision Improvement 17 Agreement that will be executed by the Applicant and Garfield County at the applicable Final Plat Approval. C. If connection is to be made to an existing water system, a letter from an authorized representative of said system stating that the proposed development will be served, and evidence from either the Colorado State Engineer's Office or Water Court, Water Division No. 5, that the existing water system presently possesses an adequate legal water supply to serve the proposed development; RESPONSE: Appendix E contains a letter from Oak Meadows Service Company (OMSCO) stating they will serve the proposed development along with documentation that an adequate legal water supply exists. D. If individual water systems shall be provided by lot owners, a report indicating the availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable depths throughout the subdivision and the expected quality and long-term yield of such wells, with the written report by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, qualified to perform such work; and RESPONSE: Individual water systems will not be provided by lot owners. E. If applicable, a Plan of Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water supplies, as required by law, with the supporting engineering work signed by a Colorado registered engineer, shall be submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant is not the actual supplier of water. RESPONSE: The water supply for the project will be provided through the existing OMSCO water system. Appendix E of this application includes a water system report that provides details, which demonstrate that the existing OMSCO water supply is physically and legally adequate to serve the proposed development. 4:92 A sanitary sewage treatment plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or written form: 18 RESPONSE: Not Applicable RESPONSE: Not Applicable RESPONSE: Not Applicable RESPONSE: Not applicable. RESPONSE: Not applicable. A. If a public sewage treatment system is proposed evidence that provision has been made for an adequate sewage treatment works for the subdivision and, if other methods of sewage treatment are proposed, evidence that such systems will comply with state and local laws and regulations; B. If a sewage treatment works is proposed, a general description of the collection system and treatment facilities, as designed by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. In addition: 1. Copy of a completed, but unapproved, Colorado Department of Health Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Location Approval Application; 2. Nature of the legal entity which shall own and operate the sewage treatment works; and 3. Proposed method offinancing the sewage treatment works; C. If public or private sewage treatment facilities are to be provided by an existing district or through connection to an existing sewer system, evidence that the treatment facility or system can and will provide adequate sewage treatment for the proposed subdivision. In addition: 19 RESPONSE: The proposed sewage treatment for the development is to be provided through an existing waste water treatment facility owned by the Oak Meadows Service Company (OMSCO). OMSCO has provided a can and will serve letter to the applicant for the proposed 25 lots. The OMSCO waste water treatment facility is approved to operate through a Discharge Permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Included in Appendix E is a water and sewer system report that provides more detail regarding the sewage treatment for the project. 1. Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system stating that the proposed development can and will be served; 2. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the sewage treatment works; and 3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works; RESPONSE: Sewage treatment facilities and services will be provided by the Oak Meadows Service Company (OMSCO). The plant capacity necessary to provide the service is currently in place and approved by the CDPHE. Facilities to convey sewage to the plant will be constructed by the Applicant pursuant to subdivision improvements agreements, and will be conveyed to the Oak Meadows Service Company. OMSCO has provided a letter stating that the development can and will be served by OMSCO. This letter is contained in Appendix E. RESPONSE: Not Applicable D. If no central sewage treatment works is proposed and individual sewage treatment systems will be utilized, a description of sewage, the treatment means, as well as evidence as the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations to determine maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock shall be provided. In addition: 1. Indicated by location on the plat; 2. Performed and signed by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado; 3. Adequate in number and location to meet requirements of the Garfield County Individual Sewage Treatment Requirements and the Colorado Department of Public Health, Water Quality Control Commission; and 20 RESPONSE: Not Applicable 4:93 E. If individual sewage treatmentstems operation tod be einte utilized, a of proposed management plan for ded. h p on-site systems shall be pro All utility and road plans shall be marked "Not for Construction". RESPONSE: roadplans included in the Preliminary Plan submittal are marked "NOT All utility and P FOR CONSTRUCTION". subdivisions thrh 4:94 Off-site road impacts shall be evaluated forgenerate completion of a traffic study identifying the volume of traffic from the development, based on Trip Generation Rate cr tions utilizing the most current Institute off�Eng neersTrip Generation road impact Manual, to establish an Average Daily Traffic (ADT).erithThe road data fee shall be established as a result of g identified in the Road Impact Fee calculation Work Sheet located in Appendix A. Fifty percent (50%) of the road impact fees shall be collectesd at the Final al Plat for a subdivision, if the affected County road prof ect to start within five years in a Capital Improvements Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. All other road impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit. interes bearin Any road impact fees collected will be put into eeache that impact bet ri eg account in the County Treasurer's office, for ach roare collected. All fees collected and ad or which the fees were collected est accrued must be spent on capital improvements to the specific .fl capital within twenty (20) years of the date that the fee is estabvshed. plan used the the al ee.f expenditures must be consistentwith If afterlttwenty (20) Years, the fees as a basis for establishing collected have not been spent in accordance eesce ithbereturned tpital improvements plan used to establish the fee, f land owner of the property assessed an impact fee, with interest accrued. To the extent that the County has expended funds consistent with a capital articular road plan for a p and a property owner has not paid a road impact fee as required for a building permit, which he time a establishes additional ADT, the impact hfeexpenditure.shall be collected Any feest collected building permit is issued to recoup 21 RESPONSE: after the completion of an identified road project, will be credited to the appropriate project and will be used to reimburse the County for the funds advanced to complete the project. The County may use road impact fees for a specific road improvement identified as a critical facility with a high priori ty for health and safety reasons in a Capital Improvements Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, in advance of he improvement project. Any such use ocompletion of the entire road basis for the impact fee. If after the use of road impact feAnds must be es for a istent with crthe itical facility road improvement, the Coun cal identified in the capital improvements plan withcoin the plete twenhe Or ntir20 project period of collection, the proportionate share, with interest,( will be returned to the owner of the property subject to the impact fee based on the actual amount of the expenditures made on a particular road system. As a part of the Capital Improvements Plan, the Board may determine that certain portions of the road improvements to a road are critical to complete, before there are any additional traffic generating uses added to the road. If a development is proposed before the County has scheduled to make the necessary improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan, the developer may be allowed to pay the total cost of the needed improvements prior to the County's schedule. The County reimburse the portion of the cost that exceeds the amount that would bel applicable for road impact fees, plus interest, by the time that the project had originally been scheduled to be completed. If the Board of County Commissioners have not established a base road cost per ADT for the area in question, the applicant will not be obligated to provide an analysis of the off-site road impacts. A Trip Generation Analysis for the development is provided in A application, from which the off-site road impact fees can be determinppe ed by the county ix F of this planning department. 9:00 DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS 9:10 GENERAL SITE STANDARDS 9:11 In designing and planning individual lots and street layout for a subdivision, the constructed improvements and engineering design shall Y conform to the provision of this Section 9:00, as well as to other applicable Garfield County land use regulations and standards. 22 RESPONSE: The engineering design and planning of the individual lots, street layout and the proposed improvements for the development conform to Section 9:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 9:12 Land subject to identified natural hazards, such as falling rock, land slides, snow slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted for any use other than open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres, unless mitigation is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer qualified to do such design. Land subject to flooding, or in a natural drainage channel, shall not be platted for occupancy unless adequate provision has been made to eliminate or control any potential flooding. In no case shall a project conflict with the standards and requirements established in the Garfield County Floodplain Regulations. RESPONSE: Please refer to Appendix A for all the Geology/Geotechnical Reports pertaining to the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD. The Applicant's Geology/Geotechnical Engineer (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc) has investigated the geology and geotechnical conditions and constraints for Filing 4 of the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD. It is their determination that the geology/geotechnical conditions on the site should not encounter severe constraints or potential hazards. HP further believes that none of the geologic conditions identified will prevent the development of the property for the intended use, provided that the geologic hazards are planned for and mitigated during the normal course of the development of the property. HP recommends that they provide consultation during design and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations found in their report. 9:13 Development plans shall preserve, to the maximum extent possible, natural features such as unusual rock formations, lakes, rivers, streams and trees. Where appropriate, the subdivider may be required to dedicate lands to lot owners to preserve these features. In no case shall lots be designed such that a dwelling unit will be located closer than thirty feet (309 to a live stream, lake or pond, regardless of the fact that floodplain regulations may allow dwelling units located closer in some instances. RESPONSE: The proposed development plans preserve the natural features and topography of the property, to the maximum extent possible. In fact this application represents a modest 23 revision to the Preliminary Plan that was approved by Garfield County Resolution No. 2000-25 in order to further preserve the natural features of the property. 9:14 Public access and/or fishing easements to lakes, rivers and streams shall be provided as a part of any development proposal where it is determined to be appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. RESPONSE: There are no lakes, rivers or streams within the development property and therefore, this code is not applicable. 9:15 One (1) dog shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision; and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. The requirement shall be included in the protective covenants for the subdivision, with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog from the subdivision as a final remedy in worst cases. (99-096). RESPONSE: The applicant will comply with this regulation. See Appendix G, the rules and regulations for the existing HOA. 9:16 No open hearth, solid fuel fireplaces are allowed anywhere within a subdivision. One (1) new solid fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et.seq, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units shall be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. (99- 096) RESPONSE: The applicant will comply with this regulation as it is also stated in Condition 2 of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 2000-25 contained in Section 3.0. 9:17 Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision. (99-096) RESPONSE: The applicant will comply with this regulation as it is also stated in Condition 2 of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 2000-25 contained in Section 3.0. 9:18 No further subdivision of a recorded subdivision shall be allowed, except where it is provided for in an approved Preliminary Plan or when the 24 zoning of the property allows for multi family dwellings as a use by right and the application is for a multi family dwelling (99-096; modified 2002- 3). RESPONSE: The applicant will comply with this regulation. 9:20 LOT AND BLOCK DESIGN 9:21 Lot size, width, depth and shape shall be appropriate for the type of development proposed and shall meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution or PUD regulations, where applicable. RESPONSE: The lot sizes, width, depth and shape are appropriate for the type of development proposed and all lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements of the approved Oak Meadows Ranch PUD. 9:21.1 Individual lot sizes may be increased by the County above the minimum lot size allowed in the applicable zone district in areas posing a potential health hazard due to soil conditions or geology. RESPONSE: As previously noted, all potential geological and geotechnical hazards have either been avoided, or can be mitigated. Therefore, all lot sizes as approved in the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD Zone District Standards are appropriate. 9:21.2 Depth and width of lots shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated. RESPONSE: All lots are sufficiently sized to provide off-street parking in accordance with the approved Oak Meadows Ranch PUD Zone District Standards. 9:21.3 Corner lots for residential use shall have extra width to permit the required building setback from both roads, as required in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. RESPONSE: 25 Building envelopes are provided for all lots as indicated in the Preliminary Plat section (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1, which demonstrate that all lots have sufficient width to accommodate the required setbacks. 9:22 In no case shall a lot be created with accesses onto a public or private road with less than twenty-five feet (25) of street frontage. RESPONSE: All lots as depicted in the Preliminary Plat section (P Sheets) of Exhibit 1 are provided with a minimum lot frontage of 25 -feet onto public or private road rights-of-way. 9:22.1 Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to road right- of-way lines or centerlines. RESPONSE: A significant number of side lot lines are at substantially right angles to the road rights-of- way. However, it should be recognized that due to the relatively steep natural grade in some areas of this project, side lot lines that more closely parallel the topographic contours will better facilitate the construction of individual driveways between the road rights-of- way and the building envelopes. Therefore, in these areas, the side lot lines are oriented to parallel the topographic contours. 9:30 STREETS AND ROADWAYS 9:31 Access to all subdivisions shall be from a public street system. RESPONSE: The access to the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD is provided via Oak Way North (CR 168A), which connects to Four Mile Road (Garfield County Road 117), which are both public streets. 9:32 Streets and roads shall be designed so that alignments will join in a logical manner, such that adjacent road systems can be combined to form a continuous route from one area to another. RESPONSE: 26 The main road through Oak Meadows Ranch — Filing 4 - Phase III is a continuation of Silver King Court, which was constructed in conjunction with the development of Oak Meadows Ranch — Filing 4 - Phase II, a completed development contiguous with the southern boundary of Phase III. An alternate point of access to the development is provided from Oak Way North at a point north of the existing intersection of Oak Way North and Overland View Drive. Please refer to the "R" Sheets of Exhibit 1 for the preliminary design of the proposed roads for the development. 9:32.1 Street shall have the named of existing streets in the same alignment; otherwise there shall be no duplication of street names in the County. RESPONSE: The street names proposed for the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD are provided in the Road System portion (R Sheets) of Exhibit 1. According to available Garfield County records, none of the proposed street names are duplications of existing streets within unincorporated Garfield County. 9:32.2 No more than two (2) streets shall intersect at one point, with a minimum of two hundred feet (200') between off -set intersections, unless otherwise approved by the County Road Supervisor. RESPONSE: As depicted on the R Sheets of Exhibit 1, the applicant will comply with this regulation. 9:32.3 RESPONSE: Streets shall be designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography. The proposed development plan has been designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography of the site. This is demonstrated on the R Sheets of Exhibit 1. 9:33 Cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under the following circumstances: A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred feet (600') in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45) from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (50) right-of-way for residential development and not less than seventy-five foot (75') right-of-way for commercial/industrial development where tractor trailer trucks will enter the property or by providing a T-shaped turnaround with a minimum turning radius of fifty feet (50) for residential development and seventy-five feet (75') for commercial/industrial development where tractor trailer trucks will enter the property. 27 The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design; and B. Dead end streets shall be discouraged, except in cases where the dead end is meant to be temporary with the intent to extend or connect the right-of-way in the future. If a dead end street is approved, room for plowed snow storage shall be included by providing a T-shaped turnaround with a minimum turning radius of fifty feet (50) for residential development and seventy-five feet (75) for commercial/industrial development where tractor trailer trucks will enter the property. A dead end street being different from a cul-de-sac in that a dead end street has no permanent turnaround at the end of the street. RESPONSE: All proposed cul-de-sacs within the development have lengths less than 600 -feet and have been provided with appropriate turnarounds. This is demonstrated on the R Sheets of Exhibit 1. 9:34 All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision. RESPONSE: All roads are designed and will be constructed to standards generally consistent with the subdivision regulations. In many instances, the proposed road designs not only meet, but exceed the applicable subdivision regulations. The H.O.A will maintain all internal roadways. See Appendix G. 28 9:35 Street and Roadway Design shall be in conformance with the following standards: MAYOR MINOR SECONDARY RURAL SE2II PRIMITIVE PUBLIC TEMPLATE DESIGN COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ACCESS ACCESS PRIMITIVE RES1DEVTIAL LANDS ACCESS DESIGN' CAPACITY 2501-+ 401-2500 2291-400 101-200 21-100 11-20 NO ACCESS TO D.t. :501N1 MLI1 SO' 60' 54 50' t0 30 30' LANE V1DTH SL`GLE SINGLE LANE LANE 1 12' 11' 11' 8' 12' 12' SHOULDER V IDII-i 8' 6' 6 6' 6 IN MLN 4' TN MLN 4' LN MIN 2' IN MLN (PAVED) 0' DITCH WIDTH 10' 10' 6' 6 d' 3' CROSS SLOPE �n6 ?•. 2%CHIP'SEAL 2%CHIP:SE'AL 2% 3% GRAVEL 3% GRAIL. SHOULDER SLOPE 396 346 % 546 54a HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT DESIGN SPEED & 35 0 H 35 MPH NA NA NA NA NENLML'MRADIUS 425' 185' 80' 80' 50' 30' VERTICAL ALIGNMENT MAX % GRADE. 846 S% 10' 10% 10% 10' 1046 ROADWAY STRUCTURE SURFACE ASPHALTASPHALT OR CHIP & SEAL CHIP 3 SEAL GRAVEL GRAVEL NATIVE CHIP & SEAL OR GRAVEL MATERIAL ST-ABILIZATION ENG ENG ENG ENG ENG 4" NMN0 DRAINAGE ENG ENG ENG ENG ENG NA NA .NOTES I. DE SIGN CAPACITY JLAJOR MINOR SECONDARY RURAL SEMI COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ACCESS ACCESS PRIM TIVE (R.ELATLVETOTANDEM 125,- 21-125 11-20 6-10 1-5 .AXLE• TRUCKS OR LARGER) —------- DAILY AVERAGE EASED ON 5% OF ACTUAL - 29 ALL PROJECTIONS OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED BY A DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASED ON CALCULATIONS DEVELOPED FOR T_ -E: INSTITUTE 0 TIMLNSPORT.ATION ENGLVEERS TRIP GENERATION MODEL 'TANDEM TRUCKS ARE DEFINED AS A TRUCK WITH ONE (1) S1 tER2NG. AXTE AND TWO '_) A21ES ON THE REAR OF THE TRUCK 2. L\TERSECiION DESIGN DRAINAGE DESIGN - 3. LAND WIDTHS 4. NIA` A 5 FOOT ZONE BEING AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING SHOULDER WITH A NEGATIVE 2%-4% GRADE. TRAFFIC STOPPNG AREA FROM THE 5 FOOT ZONE TOA 25 FOOT ZONE, A M AXIMU314% GRADE, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, RILL BE ALLOWED BEFORE STARTEVG TIE TYPICAL OR 4IA.X MUM GRADE AS ENGINEERED FOR THE ROADWAY. WHERE A SLNC.r F ROAD SERVES 40 LOTS OR LESS, TI -I MINIMUM RO.W.. LADY) WIDTH, SHOULDER R D H AND DITCH WIDTH REQUIREMENTS MAY BE REDUCES BASED ON DESIGN CAPACITY V.P.D_ REQUIREMENTS DECREASING INCREMENTALLY. 12' - 14' SIN0T P LA's, TURNOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE THEY ARE INTERVLSIRI F OR AT 1,000 FOOT INTERVALS. TURNOUTS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO OUTSIDE CORNER 10' WIDE -50' LONG, WITH 5G' TAPERS ON EACH END. . GRADE VARIANCE . THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM GRADE SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 9:37 OF THIS REGULATION: 5. ROADWAY STRUCTURE ENGINEERED TO SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED WHEEL LOADINGS. 6. BRIDGE STANDARDS DESIGN CAPALII Y WILL BE 11-20 AND 100 YEAR FLOW NIINDJUM BRIDGE WIDTHS FOR 0-6-- V.P.D. - ROADWAY PLUS 4 FT., 600+ V.P.D. ROADWAY PLUS 6 FT. 7. ROADSME PARKING ADD 8 FT. PER SME, PARKING. FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE SHOULDER IF PARKING IS ALLOWED PER SIDE. 8. ALL SIGNING WILL BE N ACCORDANCE WITH 1LANti AL OR UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 9. GRAVEL SURFACES IS _ALLOWED FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 10 ACRES OR MORE. RESPONSE: All roads are designed and will be constructed to standards generally consistent with the subdivision regulations. In many instances, the proposed road designs not only meet, but exceed the applicable subdivision regulations. Please refer to the R Sheets of Exhibit 1 and Appendix F. 9:37 A variance to the maximum grade of 12% for minor collector and secondary access categories and up to 14% for rural access categories and up to 14% for rural access, semi - primitive and primitive residential, may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of the Preliminary Plan Public Hearing or if the Preliminary Plan has been approved at the time of adoption of these regulations. General consideration shall be given to the interrelationship between the length of grade; its relation to curves and intersections and the transition between those elements of a road. At a minimum, in order to approve the requested variance, the following standards shall be met: 30 RESPONSE: Not Applicable 1. The applicant shall, by way of graphic illustration on a topographic map, show the difference between a road that would comply with the grade requirements and the proposed road with excessive grade. 2. The excessive grade is necessary to avoid the creation of a cut or the fill slope that exceeds twelve (12) feet in height at the top of the cut or the bottom of the hill. 3. That the excessive grade section is the minimum length and the minimum increase in grade necessary to provide access to all lots. 4. The excessive grade has a slope with exposure to maximize solar exposure and minimize snow/ice build up. 5. All excessive grades in excess of 150 feet in length on dead end roads shall have a turnaround approved by the appropriate fire district as to the adequacy of the turnaround to meet fire equipment requirements. 6. If the applicant has not proposed or obtained Board of County Commissioner approval for fire fighting water storage of adequate capacity at the top of the excessive grade, the proposed excessive grade must permit the transport of such water. If the Board of County Commissioners find that a wild fire hazard is present in the proposed subdivision, the applicant for a variance to the maximum permissible grade must meet the following additional criteria: 1. Excessive grades shall only be approved if, in the judgment of the local fire fighting authority, the wildfire hazard presents a danger due to excessive vegetation, inadequate land widths or inability to transport water. 2. In areas where wildfire hazard presents a danger, excessive grades shall only be approved if landscaping requirements consistent with Forest Service recommendations to minimize wildfire hazards are not incorporated into the covenants of the subdivision. 3. A variance to the maximum grade shall only be allowed if the use of roof shingles and siding of the structure are built out of something other than fire retardant materials and/or sprinklers for internal structural fire protection are not mandated by covenant. 31 9:40 DRAINAGE 9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan Stormwater Analysis included in Appendix D was prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and provides computations of storm water detention structures that will 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. The proposed drainage system improvements are provided in the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. The information provided in Appendix D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1 demonstrate 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 D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm. RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan Drainage Analysis included in Appendix D provided hydrologic calculations for both the 25 -year frequency storm, as well as the 100 -year frequency storm. All drainage facilities have been designed to adequately convey and/or mitigate the peak rate of runoff from both the 25 -year and the 100 -year frequency storms. 9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year storm. RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan Stormwater Analysis included in Appendix D provides computations of storm water detention structures that will adequately mitigate the increased post - development peak rate of runoff to levels equal to or less than the historic peak rates of runoff for both the 25 -year and the 100 -year storm events. The proposed drainage system improvements are provided in the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. The information provided in Appendix D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1 demonstrate 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 D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. 32 9:44 RESPONSE: All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3) beyond the driving surface on each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load. The location, size and materials of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels is provided in Appendix D and the Drainage System section (D Sheets) of Exhibit 1. All culverts and drainage structures will comply with this requirement. 9:50 WATER SUPPLY 9:51 An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a subdivision, .taking into consideration peak demands to service total development papulation, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards. RESPONSE: The engineering reports included in Appendix E, confirm the physical availability of a sufficient potable and irrigation water supply to meet the peak demands of the proposed development at full build -out. 9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has submitted the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the Colorado Division of Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots within the development. RESPONSE: Individual wells are not proposed for any portion of the water supply for the subdivision. 9:53 Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water systems and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. Central water, and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado Department of Health. All lines in a central water system should be looped, with no dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there will either be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line. 33 RESPONSE: The proposed water distribution system is depicted in the Water Distribution System portion (W Sheets) of Exhibit 1. Appendix E includes a general description of the central supply and distribution system for the proposed development. The water distribution system design was prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer qualified to design water systems. All water distribution mains are looped except at two cul-de-sacs, in which case the dead -ends are provided with fire hydrants. 9:54 Water supply stems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or subsequent to flooding. RESPONSE: Not Applicable 9:55 RESPONSE: All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4'), provided storage facilities adequate for fire protection are available. All proposed water mains in the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD shall have a minimum pipe diameter of 8 -inches except on fire hydrant laterals less than 50 -feet in length that may be 6 -inches in diameter. Therefore, the proposed water distribution system design is in compliance with this requirement. 9:60 SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL 9:61 Disposal by individual sewage disposal systems may be permitted provided lot sizes are consistent with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Individual systems must have representative soil absorption tests performed by a qualified engineer registered to perform such tests in the State of Colorado. RESPONSE: Not Applicable 9:62 Central sewage treatment works shall be designed by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. The system shall be designed, in accordance with the standards established by the Colorado Department of Health. Site location approval shall be obtained from the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission for systems over two thousand (2,000) gallons per day. In no event may 34 a system be designed for less capacity than the anticipated maximum daily sewage flow or treatment requirements. RESPONSE: The development will be served by a central sewage system with treatment provided by the existing wastewater treatment facility operated by the Oak Meadows Service Company. More details regarding the wastewater collection and treatment system are provided in the Water and Sewer System Report, which is included in Appendix E of this application. 9:70 FIRE PROTECTION 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. RESPONSE: With the exception of the two relatively short cul-de-sacs, all lots within the proposed development have two points of access. 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. RESPONSE: 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. RESPONSE: Existing fire protection storage tanks totaling 200,000 gallons are provided to serve this development. 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. RESPONSE: Not Applicable. 35 9:80 PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACES The Board shall require the reservation and dedication of sites and land areas for schools and parks when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future residents. The applicant shall make Dedication of the sites and land areas to the County, to a School District, or to the public or, in lieu thereof payment of a sum of money not exceeding the fair market value of the sites and land areas. School site or park acquisition cash in lieu shall be based upon a study of the fiscal impact on the district by new subdivision development, approved by the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission. The use of any such fees shall be limited by the provisions of CRS §30-28-133, as amended. (99-096) RESPONSE: During the approval of the entire Oak Meadows Ranch PUD, a parcel of land was deeded to the local school district. This is documented in Appendix J of this application. 9:81 For property located in the RE -1 School District, the subdivider of land in each residential subdivision or portion of a subdivision which is intended for residential use, shall allocate and convey sites and land areas for schools when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future residents thereof by the application of formulas set forth below: Land area provided per student x students generated per dwelling unit = Land Dedication Standard. According to current school site size recommendations and reasonable building capacities, the District has determined that 1,776 square feet of land per student shall be provided for future school sites as stated below: Reasonable Capacity Recommended Acreage* Elementary School 550 15.5 Middle School 600 26.0 High School 800 38.0 Totals 1950 79.5 Total acres per student 0.04077 Total square feet per student 1,776 36 *Recommended acreage for school sites is based on the recommendations contained in the Guide For Planning Educational Facilities, published in 1991 by the Council of Educational Facility Planners International. The number of students generated per type of dwelling unit shall be based on the following: Single Family 0.49 Multi -Family 0.38 Mobile Home 0.71 Application of the formula results in the following Land Dedication Standards: Single Family 870 sq. ft. per unit or .020 acres Multi -Family 675 sq. ft. per unit or .015 acres Mobile Home 1,261 sq. ft. per unit or .029 acres Based upon the RE -1 School District's recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners can require a developer of residential housing to make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication to comply with the standards of this regulation. The formula to determine the cash - in -lieu payments as follows: Unimproved per acre market value of land x Land Dedication Standard x # of units = Cash -in -lieu. Unimproved market value of the property shall be determined by an appraisal performed within the last 24 months for the applicant, by an individual qualified in the State of Colorado to establish the unimproved market value of the property just prior to the approval of a Final Plat. Any dispute of the market value would be based upon a separate appraisal by an individual qualified in the State of Colorado to establish the value, paid for by the School District. (99-096) RESPONSE: During the approval of the entire Oak Meadows Ranch PUD, a parcel of land was deeded to the local school district. This is documented in Appendix J of this application. 37 Gtech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL December 5, 2007 Oak Meadows, LLC Attn: Eric Fuhrmeister 11250 Osage Circle, Unit A North Glen, Colorado 80234-4743 Hepkorth-P;ivcl;ik Geotechnical, Inc. SC2C County Road 15 } Gltn:v:+, l Sprung,:, Coh,r dJ . SI 601 Ph,ntc `)7C- 45-70S` Fay: arC `a{5 45} rm,til ITD:o 4Itp,ei,teclr.cmn Job No. 107 0895 Subject: Radiation Potential, Proposed Phase 3, Filing 4, Oak Meadows, Garfield County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Fuhrmeister: As requested by Tiffany Berry with Gamba & Associates, we have performed a cursory site reconnaissance and reviewed geologic information in the area with respect to radiation potential. We understand that the radiation potential of the project site is required for the sketch plan application. Our services were performed in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical services to Oak Meadows, LLC dated December 5, 2007. The project site is not in a geologic setting that would indicate high concentrations of radioactive minerals in the near surface soils and formation rock. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. It is difficult to detect radon gas in open areas before buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas levels could be done when the residences and other occupied structures have been completed. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas concentrations. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOT C. qi,,,r `d rti PCC # 10 it YYYYYY Yui YtiYYY�\;)\ Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E. Rev. by: SLP JZA/vad cc: Gamba & Associates — Attn: Tiffany Berry RECEIVED DEC 1 y i;"'7 Parker 303-841-7119 • CoL rad,) Shrin;• 719-633-5562 • `il vcrthc,rn 970-468-1989 r L C HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. April 15, 1998 Oak Meadows Development Corporation Attn: "Ralph Delaney. P.O. Box 1298 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Job No. 196 420 Subject: Report Transmittal, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Residential Development, Filing 4, Oak Meadows Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Delaney: As requested, we have conducted a geologic site assessment and preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the proposed residential development at the subject site. The purpose of the study was to review the geologic and subsurface conditions in the area for if potentially hazardous conditions or conditions that could have a significant impact on the proposed development. Development of the filing as planned should not encounter severe geologic constraints or potential hazards. Geologic conditions that should be considered in project planning include landslide stability, construction induced slope instability, flooding, expansive soils and earthquakes. It should be feasible to use spread footings placed on the natural subsoils at most building sites. An allowable soil bearing pressure between 1,500 psf to 3,000 psf appears suitable for building support. Due to the expansive potential of the clays the footings may also need to be designed for minimum dead load. The geotechnical conditions should be evaluated on a site specific basis. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, ORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy . As • ion, Jr. P.E. Rev. y: SLP JZA/ m TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2. . SITE CONDITIONS 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING 3 PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY 3 MELD EXPLORATION 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT :: 6 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 8 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS 8 FLOOR SLABS 8 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 9 SITE GRADING 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE 10 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 10 LIMITATIONS 11 .REFERENCES 12 FIGURE 1 - GEOLOGY MAP AND BORING LOCATIONS FIGURES 2 & 3 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 4 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 5 - 8 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 9 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS C PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a geologic site assessment and preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed residential development of Oak Meadows, Filing 4, Garfield County, Colorado. The project area is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to access the geologic and subsurface conditions for potentially hazardous conditions or conditions that could have a significant impact on the proposed development. Geologic conditions in the project area were observed during a field reconnaissance on March 27, 1998. In addition, we have looked at aerial photographs of the area and have reviewed geologic literature. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for professional engineering services to Oak Meadows Development Corporation, dated March 16, 1998. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously conducted a subsoil study for a proposed settling pond and 11 Lots in the northern part of Filing 4 and presented our findings in reports dated October 9 and 15, Job No. 196 420. Eleven exploratory borings were drilled to evaluate the general subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. A project area geologic map has been completed based on our field observations, aerial photograph interpretations and published regional geologic maps. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development and subsurface conditions encountered. H -P GEOTECH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed residential development will consist of 67 single family and 18 duplex lots as shown. on Fig. 1. We assume the residences will be typical of the area and be two to three stories with a partial or full basement. The development will include the construction of a water storage tank and a waste water treatment plant. Several roads will be constructed to provide access to the lots. If development plans change significantly from those described, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. SITE CONDITIONS Oak Meadows Filing 4 is in the Oak Meadows subdivision on Four Mile Creek about seven miles south of Glenwood Springs. The filing lies to the west of the creek in the western part of Section 15, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. The general topography in the area is shown on Fig. 1. The eastern part of the fling is on moderately sloping alluvial fans that slope down to the northeast at about 10%. The moderately sloping fans transition abruptly to steeply sloping hillsides in the western part of the filing. Slope of the hillsides is typically about 30% to 40%. In places, the steep hillsides are broken by benches that slope at about 15% to 25%. Drainages with perennial streams are not present in the filing. Four Mile Creek borders the east side of the development and is about 60 feet lower in elevation. In the past, most of the alluvial fans in the filing were irrigated pasture and hay fields. Oak and other brush is present on the valley side in the western part of the filing. Developed parts of Oak Meadows border Filing 4 on the east and south. Undeveloped land is present to the north and west. The existing water storage reservoir in the southwestern part of the filing near Boring 7 will be upgraded. At the time of our field review overflow from the storage tanks was discharging directly onto the steep hillside to the east of the tanks. There are numerous basalt boulders scattered throughout the project area. H -P GEOTECH C fl 3 GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located on the Grand Hogback monocline. The Grand Hogback forms the western limb of the White River uplift. Both are first order geologic structures that resulted from compressional stresses during the Laramide Orogeny about 40 to 70 million years ago. Four Mile Creek in the project area is in a strike valley underlain by the Mancos Shale to the west of the second -order Dakota Sandstone hogback. Bedding in these Cretaceous -age sedimentary rock formations strikes about N 25° W with dips between 50° and 60° to the west. Surficial soil deposits in the area consist of high-level basaltic gravels, alluvial fans, landslide deposits, and stream valley alluvium. A series of northwest trending bedding plane faults are present in the upper part of the Marcos Shale and lower part of the Mesaverde Group in. this part of the Grand Hogback monocline (Kirkham and Others, 1996). The mapped faults lie to the west of the project area and are believed to be associated with crustal strains associated with solution and flowage in the Eagle Valley Evaporite in the Roaring Fork valley to the east (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY The main geologic features in the project area are shown on Fig. 1 and described in the following sections. MAN -PLACED FILL AND DISTURBED GROUND There is a small area of man -placed fill and ground disturbed by grading (af) in the northern part of the filing. The area is about 1/4 acre and lies within part of a proposed lot. The excavation in this area is partly backfilled with large basalt boulders. The fill and disturbed ground should be evaluated for foundation support by a site specific investigation, if a building is planned in the area. H -P GEOTECH - 4 .- POORLY DRAINED GROUND A moderate size spring and poorly drained ground (Qpdg) is located in the northern part of the filing. The slope to the southwest of the spring could have relatively shallow ground water. The preliminary development plan indicates that construction is not proposed in the poorly drained area. A street and one lot are planned to the southwest of the spring. In this area, the street will be in a fill section with a maximum depth of about 8 feet at centerline. A subdrain will probably be needed below the street fill to prevent water level buildup from the spring. This area should be evaluated at the time of construction to determine street subdrain requirements. LANDSLIDE DEPOSIT . The western part of the subdivision is on the toe of an old landslide (Qls) deposit (Kirkham and Others, 1996). The landslide is a large complex that extends about 7,500 feet upslope to the west. The complex covers more than one square mile and has an average surface slope of about 23%. Slopes within the complex vary from 20% to 50%. Judging from the size of the complex, the depth to the basal shear surface is probably greater than 100 feet. The landslide has displaced the high-level basaltic gravels and may extend into the upper parts of the Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Group. The high-level basaltic gravels consist of sub -angular to rounded, predominantly basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy clay matrix. Topography consisting of an irregular slope profile is indicative of past landslide movements. The Landslide topography is not sharply defined, it has been modified considerably by erosion and deposition particularly in the toe area. This indicates that the landslide complex has been dormant with respect to large scale movements in the toe area for a long time, probably longer than 5,000 years. There are some indications on aerial photographs of possible small, local landslide reactivations upslope of the filing. Because of snow cover the upper part of the landslide complex could not be reviewed in the field at the time of this study. H -P GEOTECH r C ALLUVIAL FANS Coalescing alluvial fans form a nearly continuous apron of alluvium on moderately sloping ground along the toe of the Landslide complex in the eastern part of the filing. Large scale landslide movements do not appear to have occurred at the toe of the landslide complex since the fans developed. The fans probably developed during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, over 5,000 years ago, as a result of flash flood and debris flow deposition. The fan deposits consist of sandy clay with varying amounts of rock. The rock is predominantly sub -angular to rounded, basalt and sandstone gravel, cobbles and boulders. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 17 and 18, 1998. Eleven exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a track -mounted CME -45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/s inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figs. 2 and 3. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figs. 2 and 3. The subsoils consist of about 1/2 to 31/2 feet of topsoil overlying nil to 23 H -P GEOTECH 6 feet of stiff silty sandy clay. Relatively dense silty to clayey sand and gravel with basalt and sandstone "fragments to boulder size was encountered beneath the clay at depths between 1 and 20 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, Atterberg limits, unconfined compressive strength, gradation analyses and Hveem stabilometer `R' value. Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figs. 5 through. 8, generally indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions;.. of loading and wetting. A minor to low expansion potential was generally indicated when the samples were wetted at a light confining pressure. The sample from Boring I at 4 feet depth showed a high expansion potential after it was air dried (see . 5). Results of gradation analyses performed on small,diameter drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the coarser subsoils are shown on Fig. 9. The laboratory testing is sunuriarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the thne of drilling or when checked 1 to 2 days later. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist. GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT Development of the fling as planned should not encounter severe geologic .. constraints or potential hazards. There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered in development planning for Filing 4. These conditions are described in this section along with potential risks and possible mitigation options. LANDSIDE DEPOSIT The toe of the landslide complex in the project area appears to have been dormant with respect to large scale movements for several thousands of years or longer. Based on this, is seems unlikely that a large scale reactivation of the landslide could occur during the service life of the development. There could be some potential for local slope instability from grading and surface drainage modifications associated with development. H -P GEOTECH 7 The impacts and risks of this condition can be reduced by limiting development on the landslide deposit. Additional subsurface exploration, ground water and slope movement monitoring could be performed to evaluate the stability condition of the landslide complex. The monitoring would continue for at least one snowpack melt season. The developer and individual lot owners should be aware of the landslide condition and that building on landslides is not totally risk free, even if they have been dormant for a long time. The water tank over flow is on the steep slope above planned residential lots and should be improved as a confined channel. FLOODING The potential for flash flooding should be included in the storm water management plan for the filing. A hydrologist should evaluate the flood potential for the drainage basins above the alluvial fans and the capacity of the natural fan channels. Flooding on the large fan in the southern part of the filing could include hyperconcentrated debris flood and debris flows. Mitigation, if needed, could include channel improvements, deflection structures or flood proofing and direct building protection. EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake related ground shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable service life for the development, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The faults in the region, in our opinion, do not increase the seismic potential of the site. All occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area. H -P GEOTECH 8 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION The geotechnical evaluations and recommendations presented below are based on our current understanding of the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, the laboratory testing and aur experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design but site specific studies should. be conducted for individual lot development. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the building on the property. In most areas sandy clay and clayey sand and gravel will be encountered at typical foundation bearing depths for buildings with and without basements. Based on the nature of the proposed construction spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils should be suitable for building support with some risk of movement if the bearing soils become wetted. We expect the footings can be sized for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of 1,500 psf to 3,000 psf. The footings may need to be designed to impose a minimum dead load pressure to limit potential heave of expansive clays. A drilled pier foundation system may be an option in moderate to high expansive areas. The expansion potential should be evaluated on a site specific basis. Foundation walls should be heavily reinforced to span local anomalies, better withstand the effects of differential movements and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structures. Below grade areas and retaining walls should be protected from wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrain system. The footings should have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection. Large boulders and difficult excavation conditions could be encountered. FLOOR SLABS It should be feasible to use slab -on -grade construction at most building sites. There could be some post construction slab movement at sites with expansive clays. H -P GEOTECH L✓ Structural floors above crawlspace may be advisable if highly expansive conditions are encountered at the building site. To reduce the adverse effects of differential slab movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Because of the potential for temporary perched groundwater following periods of heavy precipitation or seasonal snow melt, it is recommended that below grade construction be protected by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free - draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel should be at least 11/2, feet deep. SITE GRADING The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located in the less steep lower part of the property as generally planned and cut and fill depths are limited. Cut and fill depths for the buildings, driveways and subdivision roads should not exceed about 10 to 12 feet. Deeper cuts and fills may be feasible and should be studied on an individual basis. Structural embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. The on-site soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be suitable for use in embankment fills. H -P GEOTECH - 10 - Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other means. Oversized rock from embankment fill construction will tend to collect on the outer face. Care should be taken to prevent rockfall into developed areas downslope of the embankment toe. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff from steep uphill slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. To limit infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted. PAVEMENT SUBGRADE A pavement section is a layered system designed to distribute concentrated traffic loads to the subgrade. Performance of the pavement structure is directly related to the physical properties of the subgrade soils and traffic loadings. Soils are represented for pavement design purposes by means of a soil support value for flexible pavements and a modulus of subgrade reaction for rigid pavements. Both values are empirically related to strength. The subgrade soils will likely vary throughout the development. In general, it appears that medium plastic clays will be encountered at shallow depth. An Hveem `R' value of 5 was determined for a sample of the plasticity clays. When the streets are near finished grade, it is recommended that specific sampling and testing be performed to determine appropriated subgrade 'R' values for the actual subgrade conditions. We expect the clays will have a typical `R' value of 10 and the gravelly soils will have typical 'R' value of 20 to 30. Structural fill placed for H -P GEOTECH r f. road subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 % of standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. The on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil and oversized rock, are suitable for road fill. Soft subgrade may be encountered in areas of shallow or perched groundwater and could require improvement. In soft areas, improvements may require partial stripping and placement with a geotextile and reinforcement mat (such as Tensar SS -I geogrid) and additional subbase aggregate. The geotextile and reinforcement mat should be installed according to manufacturer's specifications. The road subgrade should be proof rolled with a heavily loaded rubber -tired vehicle and soft deflecting areas stabilized prior to placement of the pavement section. We can assist with the pavement design when the subgrade conditions and traffic loading are better known. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of published geologic reports, the exploratory borings located as shown on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or H -P GEOTECH - 12 - modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, HEP . TH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. eg= Pactx_0,-LL Steven L. Pawlak P.E. JZA/ksm cc: Jerome Gamba & Associates, Inc. - Attn: Robert Pennington Western Slope Consulting - Attn: Davis Farrar REFERENCES Kirkham, R.M. and Others, 1996, Geology Map of the Cattle Creek Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 96-1. Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 97-1 H -P GEOTECH J _J - 10 - Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to -E 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other means. Oversized rock from embankment fill construction will tend to collect on the outer face. Care should be taken to prevent rockfall into developed areas downslope of the embankment toe. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. • SURFACE DRAINAGE The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff from steep uphill slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. To limit infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted. PAVEMENT SUBGRADE A pavement section is a layered system designed to distribute concentrated traffic loads to the subgrade. Performance of the pavement structure is directly related to the physical properties of the subgrade soils and traffic loadings. Soils are represented for pavement design purposes by means of a soil support value for flexible pavements and a modulus of subgrade reaction for rigid pavements. Both values are empirically related to strength. The subgrade soils will likely vary throughout the development. In general, it appears that medium plastic clays will be encountered at shallow depth. An Hveem value of 5 was determined for a sample of the plasticity clays. When the streets are near finished grade, it is recommended that specific sampling and testing be performed to determine appropriated subgrade 'R' values for the actual subgrade conditions. We expect the clays will have a typical 'R' value of 10 and the gravelly soils will have typical `R' value of 20 to 30. Structural fill placed for H -P GEOTECH road subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 % of standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. The on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil and oversized rock, are suitable for road fill. Soft subgrade may be encountered in areas of shallow or perched groundwater and could require improvement. In soft areas, improvements may require partial stripping and placement with a geotextile and reinforcement mat (such as Tensar SS -1 geogrid) and additional subbase aggregate. The geotextile and reinforcement mat should be installed according to manufacturer's specifications. The road subgrade should be proof rolled with a heavily loaded rubber -tired vehicle and soft deflecting areas stabilized prior to placement of the pavement section. We can assist with the pavement design when the subgrade conditions and traffic loading are better known. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of published geologic reports, the exploratory borings located as shown on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or H -P GEOTECH r L f. G L -12- modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, HEP ,_•_; TH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy Z. Revie ed By: Steven L. Pawlak P.E. JZA/ksm cc: Jerome Gamba & Associates, Inc. - Attn: Robert Pennington Western Slope Consulting - Attn: Davis Farrar REJ'.ERENCES Kirkham, R.M. and Others, 1996, Geology Map of the Cattle Creek Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 96-1. Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 97-3. H -P GEOTECH BORING 6 Vrf •A kye BORING 7 EXPLANATION of Man—Placed"' a Qpdg Poorly Drainer vr Qaf Alluvial Fan Qls Landslide Deposit • Exploratory Borinc p Pit Excavated far 1996, Job No..19. Spring vt• • I▪ '//, .• BORING 4 / 19.6 420 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. OAK MEADOWS FLING ""sturbed Ground nd frilled for this Study Ludy Dated October. 9, 420 ---",,,,,c3t: ,/_ /I • --tee,,,,egi „,a, _ . 1 LUQ .. Z .r= BORING 3 •!, BORING 11 0.:'/,. .� x,PROPOSED PIT 6WASTEWATER1� TREATMENT PLANT ca 125 • 250 SOO APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET .CONTOUR INTERVAL = 20 FEET GEOLOGY MAP AND BORING LOCA TIONS Frg. (D h7 CA (D O It Z •_ CO w _r cn Depth — Feet. 1f11 1111111111111111 N LO ( 11 7— ' \ ♦ N. . . . ) \ ) \. �y •.� �.yw ms s' 'P•4� tiQ:,'{n� •.` • 4 1-1 •.1 • _`ucba'Y�a •�0..4�.; M N N • NtDry Fi N_ N 11 H II o 0 d• N 0 h 3 n 4. 1 N eel as I-1 ni N. ..t. S. ♦� 4d YL-ic•,,:y; ••.v.o.40 .ta.: U e 4• =. v, 0%.•,6<. ••. N_ N N 11 �a 0 N NOM . N. N. S. N. . N. . . O 0 a N N O N rn ai in o o O $ CI I O _ 0 ,;:r:14:.;4414;L'AP.1;;IIR. 2W N. 1•^4 .\. •Ice 9•M .P •4 : a o N 11�11111111111111] Depth — Feet Note: Explanation of symbols Is shown on Fig. 4. 196 420 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 Q) r O CCD O !t Z ; O J m lil N Jd Cd 443 011 Z• -32 O J mw 0 Q N 0 i O mw d 0 it Zj uj EL' O J mw Depth — Feet 0 CON rN M N n \ 0 a t•I N I0 17 111 ,.1 `a•.Y•4.3 W. a jt .� �• Uac••�•••Do aR . N 0 a 0 _ 0 0 moo {CFI it 0 ti , n CO 1 0tw 0 n l M 1 Jat� ',0 N N O _ _ N N11 1 t_e� m -1 0 N N co . , . . , . , . , . . . , ., y m m0Np nnomI Q J N n 1 Mu 0 0 N N 0 0 M 1 , , , , ♦ \ . . . . . , . . o �n 0 1111 11!! 1 11111 1 [11 Depth — Feet N 0 CIS *t M Note: Explanation of symbols Is shown on Fig. 4 1 196 420 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL. INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 3 ILEGEND: ® TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, medium stiff, moist, black to dark brown. -7 c.. CLAY (CL); silty, slightly sandy to sandy, scattered gravel, cobbles and possible boulders, stiff to very stiff/hard, moist to very moist, yellowish brown to brown, siltstone/sandstone and basalt fragments, medium to high plasticity. SAND AND GRAVEL (SC—GC); clayey, silty, with silty sand (SM) pockets, scattered cobbles and boulders, dense to very dense, slightly moist to moist, brown to yellowish brown, subangular to rounded basalt and sandstone fragments, calcareous zones. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch 1.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586. Drive 'sample blow count; indicates that 41 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were 41/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. T Practical rig refusal. Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on March 17 and 18, 1998 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. Logs are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown an the exploratory boring Togs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 1 to 2 days later. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength ( psf ) LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) P1 = Plasticity Index ( % ) R = Hveem Stabilometer "R" Value 196 420 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 4 Moisture Content = 21.1 percent Dry Density = 102 pcf Sample of. Silty Clay From: Boring 2 at 3 Feet No movemen upon wettin g r. Moisture Content = 11.0 percent Dry Density = 112 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty- Clay From: Boring 1 at 4 Feet Note: Sample was a'r dried overnight before wetting. Expansion upon wetting c 0 N E 0 U 0 1 2 3 4 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -- ksf 100 196 420 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 j ast c 0 O CL x w O " •N E 0 0 Compression — Expansion 1 Moisture Content = 20.3 percent Dry Density 108 pcf Sample of: Silty Clay From: Boring 2 at 8 Feet 0.1 1 0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 18.2 percent Dry Density = 110 pcf Sample of; Sandy Clay From: Boring 6 at 9 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 196 420 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL --CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 100 Fig. 6 F-7 Compression — Expansion % Compression 0 1 2 0 1 2 Moisture Content = 15.3 percent Dry Density = 101 pcf Sample of:Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 9 at 4 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1 0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE --- ksf 100 Moisture Content = 18.5 percent Dry Density = 109 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 9 at 14 Feet Expansio upon wetting n 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 196 420 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, ING_ SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 7 Compression 0 1 2 3 4 0.1 196 420 1.0 10 APPUED PRESSURE — ksf HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 Fig. 8 Moisture Content w 20.4 percent Dry Density Weight = 106 pcf Sample of: Silty Clay From: Boring 10 at 9 Feet town■ No movement upon wetting 0 II 1 11 0.1 196 420 1.0 10 APPUED PRESSURE — ksf HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 Fig. 8 ' ERCE T PASSI HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIE READINGS 24 HR. 7 HR 45 UN. 15 UIN. 60 LUNAR 19L 4 YVL 1 111N. 1200 100 90 60 70 50 5a 40 30 20 10 a SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. STANOARo SERIES X00 ... I,30 f19 8 1 � r I OLEPA SQUARE OPENINGS 14 3/a 1/Y3 4• 11 • 3• rr 1 4 4 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.38 4.75 9.512_5. 19.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT GRAVEL 24 % LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand with Gravel SAND GRAVEL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 9a 100 37.5 76.2 152 203 127 FINE 1 1E13691 I COARSE SAND 34 FINE I COARSE SILT AND CLAY 42 PLASTICITY INDEX % FROM: Boring 3 at 4 Feet CD881.ES I HYORONETEH ANALYSTS 111.1E READINGS II 24 HR. 7 HR 45 LIIN. 15 891. 60 Li9.19 1184. 4 MIN. 1 MIN_ 12C0 100 r { 90 6D 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. STANDARD SERIFS CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS /4 3/6•'i r2 3/4• 11 3• 5 6 6•a { 1 F � � t 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 7D 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 CLAY 10 SILT I 1- .037 .037 .074 .150 '00 .800 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS SAND FINE I 4EDIU11 (COARSE .37.5 80 90 100 75.2 152 203 127 CAMEL. [ FINE 1 COARSE I GRAVEL 2 % LIQUID LIMIT 3B % SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay SAND 27 % SILT AND CLAY 71 % PLASTICITY INDEX 23 FROM: Baring 5 at 2 thru 5 Feet 196 420 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ' _. • CE T RETAIN ' ERCENT RETAIN ' GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 9 r-- 77II-7 7-1 771 r 7-1 i ) 1 1 1 I it 1 I f 1 it J l HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Job NO. 196 420 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT 1%) NATURAL DRY DENSITY {pcfl GRADATION PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE ATTERBEAG LIMITS UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IPSF) HVEEM VALUE SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE BORING DEPTH {feet) GRAVEL (%) SAND (%) LIQUID LIMfT MI PLASTIC INDEX 1%1 1 4 11.0 112 Sandy Silty Clay 9 10.8 58 Sandy Silt with Gravel 2 3 21.1 102 Silty Clay 8 20.3 108 Silty Clay 3 18 4 16.4 113 12.3 116 24 34 49 42 1111111111 11111111 Sand and Clay Clayey Sand with Gravel 5 11111111 2 to 5 2 27 71 38 23 Sandy Silty Clay 6 4 9 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EMI t 102 _- 18.2 110 84 4000 Sandy Clay Sandy Clay 9 2 to 5 87 46 31 5 Sandy Clay 4 101 Sandy Silty Clay 14 18.5 109 42 30 Sandy Silty Clay 10 4 16.1 113 10,000 Sandy Clay 9 20.4 106 Silty Clay Land Title Guarantee Company Date: January 22, 2008 OAK MEADOWS III, LLC 4450 ARAPAHOE #100 BOULDER, CO 80303 Enclosed please find the title insurance policy for your property located at The following endorsements are included in this policy: Deletion of Standard Exception(s) Please review this policy in its entirety. In the event that you find any discrepancy, or if you have any questions regarding your final title policy, you may contact Title Department Phone: 970-945-2610 Fax:970-945-4784 Please refer to our Order No. GB63000102 Should you decide to sell the property described in this policy, or if you are required to purchase a new title commitment for mortgage purposes, you may be entitled to a credit toward future title insurance premiums. Land Title Guarantee Company will retain a copy of this policy so we will be able to provide future products and services to you quickly and efficiently. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, Land Title Guarantee Company * * Owner's Policy * �~ American Land Title Association Owner's Policy 10-17-92 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, herein called * the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costs, attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers as of the date shown in Schedule A, the policy to be valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any govemmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. Issued through the Office of: LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY 1317 GRAND AVE #200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945.2610 Jto�t Authorized Signature AO.ORT (Form 402D) Cover Page 1 of 3 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Stock Company 400 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 371-1111 (,)4 CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in this policy mean: (a) "insured": the insured named in Schedule A, and, subject to any rights or defenses the Company would have had against the named insured, those who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of law as distinguished from purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, distributees, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors. (b) "insured claimant": an insured claiming loss or damage. (c) "knowledge" or "known": actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of the public records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart constructive notice of matters affecting the land. (d) "land": the land described or referred to in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of access to and from the land is insured by this policy. (e) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. (f) "public records": records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. With respect to Section 1(a)(iv) of the Exclusions from Coverage, "public records" shall also include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the United States district court for the district in which the land is located. (g) "unmarketability of the title": an alleged or apparent matter affecting the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage, which would entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be released from the obligation to purchase by virture of a contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title. 2. Continuation of Insurance After Conveyance of Title. The following coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given by a purchaser from the insured, or only so long as the insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any transfer or conveyance of the estate or interest. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either () an estate or interest in the land, ora an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given to the insured. 3. Notice of Claim to be Given by Insured Claimant. The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a) below, () in case knowledge shall come to an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title to the estate or interest, as insured, and which might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of of this policy, or (i) if title to the estate or interest, as insured, is rejected as unmarketable. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then as to the insured all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 4. Defense and Prosecution of Actions; Duty of Insured Claimant to Cooperate. (a) Upon written request by the insured and subject to the options contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations, the Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the the defense of an insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title or interest as insured, but only as to those stated causes of action alleging a defect, lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy. The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the insured as to those stated causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not insured against by this policy. (b) The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the insured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. AO.ORT.2 Cover Page 2 of 3 (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or order. (d) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the insured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (i) in any other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desireable to establish the title to the estate or interest as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such cooperation. 5. Proof of Loss or Damage. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been provided the Company, a proof of loss or damage signed and sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect in, or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured against by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of loss or damage. In addition, the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondense and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in this paragraph shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims; Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options: fa) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which were authorized by the Company, up to the time of payment or tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability and obligations to the insured under this policy, other than to make payment required, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. lb) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Insured or With the Insured Claimant. () to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay; or (i) to pay or otherwise settle with the insured claimant the loss or damage provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in paragraphs (b)() or (i), the Company's obligations to the insured under this policy for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation. 7. Determination, Extent of Liability and Coinsurance. This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent herein described. (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least of: (i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; or, (ii) the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. (b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or the full consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, then this policy is subject to the following: (1) where no subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that the amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or n where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount expended for the improvement. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy, and shall only apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. (c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 8. Apportionment. If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or more of the parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy. 9. Limitation of Liability. (a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land, or cures the claim of unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (b) In the event of any litigation including litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title as insured. (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 10. Reduction of Insurance; Reduction or Termination of Liability. All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. 11. Liability Noncumulative. It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter executed by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred to in Schedula A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 12. Payment of Loss. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. AO.ORT.3 Cover Page 3 of 3 13. Subrogation Upon Payment of Settlement. (a) The Company's Right of Subrogation. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the insured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. If requested by the Company, the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the insured claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and remedies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whole amount of the loss. If loss should result from any act of the insured claimant, as stated above, that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, shall be required to pay only that part of any losses insured against by this policy which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. lb) The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall exist and shall include, without limitation, the rights of the insured to indemnities, guaranties, other policies of insurance or bonds, notwithstanding any terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy. 14. Arbitration. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance of $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date the demand for arbitration is made or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Date of Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to award attomey's fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. 15. Liability Limited to this Policy; Policy Entire Contract. (a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered hereby or by any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this policy. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 16. Severability. In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 17. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy and shall be addressed to its Home Office: 400 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, (612)371-1111. Form AO/ORT Our Order No. GB63000102 Property Address: LTG Policy No. LTH163000102 Schedule A Amount $2,200,000.00 1. Policy Date: October 19, 2007 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Name of Insured: OAK MEADOWS III, LLC 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Schedule and which is covered by this policy is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered by this policy at the date hereof is vested in: OAK MEADOWS III, LLC 5. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached. Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company LTG Policy No. LTHJ63000102 Our Order No. GB63000102 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF OAK MEADOWS RANCH FILING NO. 4 RECORDED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 276561 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE; WHENCE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 15 BEARS S 02 DEGREES 59'12" W A DISTANCE OF 2295.61 FEET; WHENCE THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION BEARS S 89° 44'38" E A DISTANCE OF 2624.04 FEET; SAID BEARING BEING THE BASIS OF BEARING; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID OAK MEADOWS RANCH FILING NO. 4 THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES: 1) N 00° 41'27" E A DISTANCE OF 1325.86 FEET; 2) S 89° 18'33" E A DISTANCE OF 1118.99 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 PARCEL AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1575 AT PAGE 274; THENCE ALONG SAID SCHOOL PARCEL BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: 1) S 00° 01'02" W A DISTANCE OF 438.63 FEET; 2) S 89° 17'31" E A DISTANCE OF 453.93 FEET; 3) ALONG THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 178.00 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 376.96 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27° 03'19", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 41° 07'01" E A DISTANCE OF 176.35 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF OAK WAY NORTH AS DESCRIBED ON THE PLAT OF OAK MEADOWS RANCH FILING NO. 4 RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 276561 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: 1) ALONG THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 446.02 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 276.96 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 92° 16'13", AND THE CHORD BEARS S 08 DEGREES 21'19" W A DISTANCE OF 399.36 FEET; 2) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 137.23 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 445.13 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 39'49", AND THE CHORD BEARS S 28° 56'53" E A DISTANCE OF 136.69 FEET; 3) S 20° 07'02" E A DISTANCE OF 484.06 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF OAK MEADOWS RANCH FILING NO. 4B, PHASE II RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 677734; THENCE ALONG SIAD NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING SEVENTEEN COURSES: 1) ALONG THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 20.41 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23° 23'04", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 60°24'39" W A DISTANCE OF 20.27 FEET; 2) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 81.65 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46° 46'46", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 72° 06'30" W A DISTANCE OF 79.40 FEET, TO A POINT; 3) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 27.55 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78° 55'19", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 56° 02'13" W A DISTANCE OF 25.42 FEET 4) N 16° 34'34" W A DISTANCE OF 5.50 FEET; 5) S 73° 25'26" W A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; 6) S 16° 34'34" E A DISTANCE OF 33.16 FEET; 7) ALONG THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 81.87 FEET, HAVING A LTG Policy No. LTHJ63000102 Our Order No. GB63000102 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION RADIUS OF 135.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34° 44'46", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 86° 57'37" W A DISTANCE OF 80.62 FEET; 8) N 69° 35'14" W A DISTANCE OF 41.85 FEET; 9) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 66.14 FEET HAVING A RADIUS OF 285.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 17'47", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 62° 56'21" W A DISTANCE OF 65.99 FEET; 10) N 56° 17'27" W A DISTANCE OF 3.93 FEET; 11) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 69.43 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 165.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24° 06'39", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 68° 20'46" W A DISTANCE OF 68.92 FEET; 12) N 80° 24'06" W A DISTANCE OF 17.51 FEET; 13) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 81.37 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 315.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 48'02", AND THE CHORD BEARS N 87° 48'07" W A DISTANCE OF 81.14 FEET; 14) S 84° 47'52" W A DISTANCE OF 107.77 FEET; 15) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 61.29 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 465.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 33'08", AND THE CHORD BEARS S 81° 01'18" W A DISTANCE OF 61.25 FEET; 16) S 77° 14'45" W A DISTANCE OF 62.22 FEET; 17)S 00° 41'27" W A DISTANCE OF 102.82 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID OAK MEADOWS RANCH FILING NO. 4 RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 276561 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID OAK MEADOWS RANCH FILING NO. 4 N 89° 18'33" W A DISTANCE OF 1151.12 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO Form AO/ORT Our Order No. GB63000102 Schedule B LTG Policy No. LTHI63000102 This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. 2007 TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. 6. RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM, SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 14, 1898 IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 495. 7. UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERAL RIGHTS, AS RESERVED BY EMERY E. ARBANEY AND BEULAH M. ARBANEY IN THE DEED TO FLOYD E. BACHMAN AND HELEN A. BACHMAN RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1959 IN BOOK 321 AT PAGE 334, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF, OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 8. THE EFFECT OF THE RESERVATION OF AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERAL RIGHTS, AS RESERVED BY FLOYD E. BACHMAN AND HELEN A. BACHAMN IN THE DEED TO DON LAWSON LYNCH AND CHRISTINE G. LYNCH, RECORDED JULY 24, 1961 IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 282, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF, OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 9. THE EFFECT OF THE RESERVATION OF AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERAL RIGHTS, AS RESERVED BY DON LAWSON LYNCH AND CHRISTINE F. LYNCH IN THE DEED TO HAROLD H. QUIMBY AND WANETA QUIMBY RECORDED JANUARY 14, 1966 IN BOOK 372 AT PAGE 389, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF, OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 10. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 95-089 RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 1995 IN BOOK 959 AT PAGE 166. 11. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED JULY 17, 2000 IN Form AO/ORT Our Order No. GB63000102 Schedule B BOOK 1197 AT PAGE 602. LTG Policy No. LTHI63000102 12. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED MARCH 13, 2001 IN BOOK 1237 AT PAGE 250. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 2002 IN BOOK 1329 AT PAGE 929. 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 IN BOOK 1523 AT PAGE 186. 15. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 26, 1977, IN BOOK 492 AT PAGE 894 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MARCH 21, 1979, IN BOOK 524 AT PAGE 932 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 22, 2002, IN BOOK 1348 AT PAGE 263, AND RECORDED JULY 8, 2005 IN BOOK 1704 AT PAGE 823. 16. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY RECORDED JANUARY 26, 1977 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 276561 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED MARCH 22, 2005 IN BOOK 1672 AT PAGE 410. 18. ANY BOUNDARY DISCREPANCY DUE TO THE LOCATION OF FENCE LINES AND THE EFFECT OF ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THAT MAY BE CLAIMED DUE TO ANY SAID DISCREPANCY AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY DATED JUNE 4, 2007 PREPARED BY GAMBA ASSOCIATES, INC UNDER PROJECT NO. 03385-03. 19. DEED OF TRUST DATED OCTOBER 16, 2007, FROM OAK MEADOWS III, LLC TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF GARFIELD COUNTY FOR THE USE OF JOHN C. RICHERT, ETHAN A. JACOBSON & EMERALD ISLE LENDING COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,910,000.00 RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 2007, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 735655. Form AO/ORT Our Order No. GB63000102 Schedule B LTG Policy No. LTHI63000102 20. FINANCING STATEMENT WITH JOHN C. RICHERT, ETHAN A. JACOBSON & EMERALD ISLE LENDING COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION, THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 2007, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 735656. 21. DEED OF TRUST DATED OCTOBER 17, 2007, FROM OAK MEADOWS III, LLC TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF GARFIELD COUNTY FOR THE USE OF OAK MEADOWS INVESTORS, LLC TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,740,000.00 RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 2007, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 735657. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3 OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS IS DELETED AS TO ANY LIENS RESULTING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL CONTRACTED FOR OR FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF OAK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY LIENS ARISING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF OAK MEADOWS III, LLC. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. NEPA••WILDLIFE••VEGETATION••WILDFIRE MITIGATION••WETLANDS••PLANNING Wildlife Analysis Impact and Mitigation Report for the Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Residential Development Project Garfield County, Colorado Prepared for: Gamba & Associates September 2007 0222 BOBCAT LANE • REDSTONE • COLORADO • 81623 PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 • CELL: (970) 309-4454 EMAIL: ERIC.PETTERSON@STARBAND.NET Oak Meadows 3rd Filing 6Ylildfife Analysis Report September 2007 1 SUMMARY This Wildlife Assessment Report details the habitats, wildlife use, potential impacts and mitigation measures proposed on the Oak Meadows Subdivision, 3rd Filing (Oak Meadows), adjacent to County Road 117 (Fourmile Road) in Garfield County (see Figure 1). The proponent is proposing the development of the property, placing 25 building envelopes within the 44.67 acre parcel. The applicant is submitting a PUD application for the subdivision of the property. The site is located on the west side of the Fourmile Creek valley, just west of Dry Park. The Oak Meadows subdivision in general lies on the lower east facing slopes of what is Sunlight Peak. Above the subdivision, patchy but dense Gambel's oak (Quercus gambelii) covers much of the hillside, and eventually grades into aspen (Populus tremuloides) further towards the top of Sunlight Peak. The Oak Meadows 3rd filing site is dominated by a large meadow with high foliar cover of agricultural grasses. These grasses include smooth brome (Bromus anomalus), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), timothy (Phleum pretense), and wheat grasses (Agropyron spp.) among others. Gambel's oak surrounds the meadow, with oak transitioning to riparian and wetland vegetation associated with Fourmile Creek at the eastern side of the property. The Gambel's oak stands have a strong component of serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), with other sub -shrubs such as rose (Rosa woodsit), snowberry (Symphorocarpos rotundifolius), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). A wide variety of native forbs and grasses persist in the understory of the oak brush stands, but do not extend much into the agricultural meadows. Noxious weeds in the area were not common, but cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum) and plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) were detected. Other noxious weeds across the site are likely. The meadows were likely hayed or significantly grazed historically, associated with the area's widespread ranching operations. Consultation with Colorado Division of Wildlife staff has not occurred for the preparation of this report. 1.1 EVALUATED SPECIES Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from USFWS recovery plans, Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat mapping, various scientific studies and reports, and field reviews. The US Fish and Wildlife list of Threatened and Endangered Species was used to determine if any species potentially occurred within or adjacent to the property. Additionally, the Colorado Division of Wildlife's list of Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern was referenced to determine if any species had potential habitat on or adjacent to the property (see: http://wi Idlife.state.co.us/Wil dl ifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/ListOfThreatenedAn dEndangeredSpecies.htm for the complete CDOW list). Research was conducted by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services to determine relevant habitat associations, life history traits, the rangewide or statewide distribution of known populations, and current status and trends of each species. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program database was consulted to ascertain the existence of known occurrences within the project area. Habitat surveys were conducted in August 2007 by Eric Petterson, Principal Ecologist of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 2 Oak Meadows 3'' Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 Species chosen for impacts analysis have high biological, political, and public interest, as well as regulatory guidance issues. Individual wildlife species and groups not specifically mentioned in this assessment are not "insignificant", they are just not presently at issues because the limited extent of the proposed development would avoid or minimally impact these unmentioned species and their habitats. Species specifically addressed in this report include: o Elk o Mule Deer o Black Bear o Mountain Lion o Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (State Species of Concern) The property does not contain any habitat for Federally Threatened or Endangered species. The Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) (State Species of Concern) does have suitable habitat in the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries, including Fourmile Creek. The development of the property should not impact the ability of this species to utilize suitable riverine habitats near the project area. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. 3 Oak Meadows r Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 2 1.1 EVALUATED SPECIES 2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 3.1.1 HISTORICAL USE AND IMPACTS 5 3.1.2 UPLAND VEGETATION 5 3.1.3 FOURMILE CREEK RIPARIAN ZONE 5 3.2 FIGURE 1: MAP OF OAK MEADOWS 3RD FILING AREA 6 3.3 WILDLIFE USE OF AREA 7 3.3.1 MULE DEER 7 3.3.1.1 Impacts to Mule Deer and Habitat 7 3.3.1.2 Figure 2: Mule Deer Winter Ranges 9 3.3.2 ELK 10 3.3.2.1 Impacts to Elk and Habitat 10 3.3.2.2 Figure 3: Elk Winter Ranges 12 3.3.3 COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT 13 3.3.4 IMPACTS TO CRCT AND HABITAT 14 3.4 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 15 3.4.1 LIGHTING & GAME USE 15 3.4.2 ROADS 15 3.4.3 FENCES 15 3.4.4 LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION 16 3.4.5 DOMESTIC DOGS 16 3.4.6 CDOW INDEMNIFICATION 17 3.4.7 BEARS 17 3.4.8 MOUNTAIN LION 17 3.4.9 FIGURE 4: MAP OF BLACK BEAR HUMAN CONFLICT AREA (CDOW) 18 3.4.10 BIRDS 19 3.4.11 BIG GAME HABITAT MITIGATION 19 4 APPENDIX I: CDOW NDIS HABITAT DEFINITIONS 20 CKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICE INC. 4 Oak Meadows 3'd Filing Wild10 Analysis Report September 2007 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1.1 HISTORICAL USE AND IMPACTS The site was likely part of the area ranching operations, as evidenced by the dominance of the meadow by agricultural cultivar grasses. The Oak Meadows Subdivision has been in existence since 1976, and has significantly changed the character of the area. The oak brush stands on the hillslopes appear to be relatively undisturbed (aside from areas within the developed parts of the Oak Meadows Subdivision). 3.1.2 UPLAND VEGETATION The site is dominated by the large meadow bisecting the filing area. As previously mentioned, this meadow is dominated by agricultural grasses that were likely planted for grass hay production. These grasses are known to be aggressive and persistent in many areas, and therefore have likely excluded the recolonization of the meadow by native grasses and forbs. Along the western edge of the filing area, Gambel's oak stands persist with codominant serviceberry, and other shrubby species. Species include Gambel's oak, serviceberry, wild rose, snowberry, chokecherry, Fendler's bluegrass (Poa fendleri), Indian paintbrush (Castilleja chromosa), dwarf larkspur (Delphinium nelsonii), prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), sedge (Carex geophila), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), horsebrush (Tetradymia canescens), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), Orercarya spp., and milkvetch (Astragalus mollissimus var. thompsoniae) among other species. The oakbrush stands are very dense and have significant components of dead woody material in them, indicating maturity and possible stagnation. Photo of meadow and adjacent oakbrush stands proposed for development. 3.1.3 FOURMILE CREEK RIPARIAN ZONE Fourmile Creek forms the eastern edge of the 3rd filing area. Although the proposed development does not extend down to the creek, this area is important for wildlife. Fourmile Creek is known to contain greenback cutthroat trout-habittt (M. Lacey, USFS, pers. comm. 2007, Hirsch 2006). This area has an open and decadent narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) canopy, with a wide and complex wetland area with various wetland plant associations including willows, sedges, rushes, as well as shrubby vegetation. Vegetation surveys within this area were not intensive. Fourmile Creek has a number of beaver ponds in the area, which further increases the habitat complexity and structural diversity of the site. etiii* ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 5 Oak Meadows r Filing IF dale Analysis Report 3.2 FIGURE 1: MAP OF OAK MEADOWS 3RD FILING AREA September 2007 Approximate Development Area County Road 117 (Fourmile Creek Road) !; Legend Land Status OWNERSHIP BLM Private State USFS e,t Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. Inc. 0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone. CO 81623 970.963.2190 eric.petterson@starband.net Ownership Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Garfield County, Colorado Figure 1 Drawn By: Eric Petterson Date: September 2007 Scale: 1:22.541 6 Oak Meadows Yri Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 3.3 WILDLIFE USE OF AREA 3.3.1 MULE DEER The property has moderate levels of mule deer use, but this use becomes significant during the winter months. The CDOW has the area mapped as mule deer Winter Range. East of CR 117, on the hogback formation, mule deer Winter Concentration Area and Severe Winter Range is further delineated by CDOW (see Appendix I for a description of CDOW habitat classifications). Deer use of the area entails the crepuscular (morning and evening times) use of the meadows by grazing deer, with deer bedding down and seeking shelter in the Gambel's oak stands to west of the meadows. Deer would also be utilizing the natural openings with the Gambel's' oak stands. Due to the nearby presence of Fourmile Creek, deer will come down out of the uplands (both east and west of CR 117) to procure drinking water in the creek. The agricultural grasses in the meadows are not likely optimal forage for deer, but it would not be considered to be "bad" forage either. Deer use dramatically increases during the fall months. This is due to deeper snows and hunting pressure pushing deer into lower elevations, and out of the higher elevations on Sunlight Mountain. Further, deer likely use the subdivisions in the area as "hunting refuges". This is not necessarily an optimal situation, and deer grazing in peoples yards and seeking shelter in subdivision often causes other problem such as harassment of deer by pet dogs, and by having predators (most notably mountain lion [Felis concolor]) following deer herds down into subdivisions. Hunting refuges also create problems with hunters illegally hunting within subdivisions, and increases the likelihood of poaching. Management of deer herd sizes by CDOW is also difficult when deer utilize sizable hunting refuges. Because of the deer Winter Concentration Area and Severe Winter Range east of Oak Meadows, significant numbers of deer cross CR 117 as they move out of higher elevation habitats, down into the Dry Park area. Currently, traffic along CR 117 is estimated to be approximately 2,000 vehicles per day, and the proposed Ski Sunlight development would increase traffic to approximately 4,000 vehicles per day. As much of this traffic coincides with the morning and evening movement times of deer, mule deer moving and migrating to and from winter ranges in the Dry Park area will be under increasing threat of vehicular collisions. 3.3.1.1 IMPACTS TO MULE DEER AND HABITAT Mule deer habitat in the general area is fairly widespread, and this specific project would not likely have significant impacts to overall available habitat. However, cumulatively when considering other infill projects in the area and other development within and around the Dry Park area, mule deer habitats in general are becoming more restricted and confined, with mule deer either having to migrate through subdivisions and utilize habitats within subdivisions, or having to modify migration patterns around subdivisions. At this time, mule deer are likely both continuing to pass through subdivisions, and also modify migrations patterns around subdivisions to avoid human activities and domestic dogs. Mule deer have shown considerable accustomization to human activities within the area, and rarely flee human activities. However, it is well documented that deer stress levels, and thus overall fitness, is compromised when mule deer utilize habitats near and within rural subdivisions. As previously mentioned, for deer passing through subdivisions and utilizing subdivisions as hunting refuges, other negative issues arise such as dogs chasing and harassing deer, increased poaching, increased stress levels and damage to landscaping from deer browsing. Management of deer herds through hunting is also compromised. The development of the Oak Meadows filing ROCKY IVIOCNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 7 Oak Meadows 3"' Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 would add incrementally to these issues. Mule deer coming off of winter ranges with widespread development would likely have reduced fitness, and possibly reduced body mass due to compromised foraging opportunities, increased stress, and likely increased energy output and expenditure from being chased by dogs, avoiding vehicles, and other human activities. Traffic from the Oak Meadows filing will incrementally add to the current 2,000 VPD utilizing CR 117. Traffic data that may be generated from this specific development was not available during production of this report, however one can assume that each house adds 9.5 Average Daily Trips (ADT) (range is from 4.31 to 21.85) (ITE 2007). This equates to 237.5 ADT's for the 3rd filing (9.5 ADT for each home multiplied by 25 homes), or an average 11 % increase to the existing background traffic level at full build out. This background traffic level currently produces deer mortality, especially during the fall and winter when deer use is highest in the area, and increased traffic will lead to more mortality to deer along CR 117. However how much more mortality would occur because of this development would be speculatory. The current deer population in the area would be able to sustain this mortality, however mitigations should be considered to reduce deer mortality. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 8 Oak Meadows 3' Filing Wildlife Analysis Report 3.3.1.2 FIGURE2: MULE DEER WINTER RANGES September 2007 Legend MULE_DEER-severe_winter_STATE MULE_DEER-winter concentration_STATE M U LE_DE ER-winter_range_STATE Land Status OWNERSHIP BLM Private State USFS Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. Inc. 0222 Bobcat Lane. Redstone. CO 81623 970.9632190 encp e tte rso n@ sta r ba n d. net Mule Deer Winter Ranges Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Garfield County, Colorado Figure 2 Drawn By: Eric Petterson Date: September 2007 Scale: 1 10.000 9 Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 3.3.2 ELK The Oak Meadows subdivision area is mapped as elk Winter Range by CDOW. To the west of the subdivision, higher on the hillsides, Severe Elk Winter Range is mapped as well as to the east of CR -117 on the hogback. Elk use of the area is predominately during the winter months. Some light and incidental elk use of the area may occur during the summer months, but the time period when elk substantially utilize the area is during the winter when deep snows push the elk out of the mountains. Elk move down from higher summer and fall ranges on Sunlight Mountain during the early winter months, pushed down-slope by snowfall and hunting pressure. Most elk use of the Oak Meadows area by migrating elk starts around mid November. Elk only spend a comparatively minor amount of time in the Oak Meadows area, and more heavily utilize winter ranges in the Dry Park and valley floor of the Roaring Fork areas. However, some elk use of the Oak Meadow area is likely throughout the winter months. Dogs, traffic and other disturbance factors likely limited the amount of elk use in the greater Oak Meadows/ CR -117 area, and this is likely the reason that elk only utilize the area incidentally. Elk will, however, cross back and forth across CR 117 and the Oak Meadows subdivision area at various times throughout the winter months as they utilize various winter ranges in the area, depending on snowfall and intermittent snow melt events throughout the winter. As with mule deer, elk crossing CR 117 currently encounter moderate amounts of vehicular traffic, but with increasing traffic anticipated at Ski Sunlight, traffic levels will likely double, increasing the risk of vehicle collisions with elk. 3.3.2.1 IMPACTS TO ELK AND HABITAT As elk are generally utilizing the area only during the winter months, impacts to elk will therefore generally occur only during the winter months. These impacts would include avoidance of the area, possible increased mortality from increased road use, forcing of elk onto other adjacent properties, and subsequently more winter competition for resources in the greater area around the property. Further, as elk do not generally tolerate human activities as well as mule deer do, elk lingering within the subdivision and utilizing the area as a hunting refuge would not likely occur. Because of the elk use patterns in this area, harassment from human activities and domestic dogs will not be as noticeable as for mule deer. During the spring, summer, and fall months, elk are utilizing higher elevation habitats, far away from the Oak Meadows property. Harassment to elk migrating through the area, and during intermittent use of the area will still likely occur from traffic, domestic dogs, and other human activities. As elk generally do not significantly use the area for winter range, direct losses to winter range habitats would be minor, but cumulative in nature. This means that the Oak Meadows filing will add to the overall Toss and fragmentation of elk winter range habitats in the greater Fourmile Creek and Dry Park area. Based on the current land use plan, there will be some "Open Space" areas within the development (mainly the meadows and below the homesites near Fourmile Creek), and around some of the edges of the property. As elk can be very sensitive to human activities, elk will generally avoid much of the property and use of the Open Space areas would not likely be significant. Elk may pass through the property during the nighttime hours, as they move through the area looking for more suitable winter foraging opportunities. However there is even the likelihood that elk will browse within the subdivision after development. Because elk are very habitual, they will likely continue to show up in the area during the early winter as they move out of the high country onto ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAI, SERVICES, INC. 10 Oak Meadows 3"' Filing Wildl fe Analysis Report September 2007 their traditional winter ranges. Elk will likely continue to use the adjacent winter ranges uphill and east of the property. As elk will continue to use these traditional yet compromised habitats (Dry Park, the BLM lands, and adjacent ranches with scattered development), the ability of elk to find adequate forage throughout the winter, coupled with increased stress from elevated human activity in the area will likely mean that over -wintering elk will likely change winter range use patterns to utilize more of the Dry Park area now placed into a Conservation Easement (with Pitkin County in 2007), and to avoid the higher traffic and development pressure along the Fourmile drainage. In summary, this project will contribute with other land use changes in the greater Fourmile area that will have minor modifications to elk migration patterns and winter range use in the area. The direct negative impacts of this particular project on elk fitness and spring health of elk coming off of winter range is not likely measurable or quantifiable, but cumulatively the Toss of habitat within the Fourmile area, and increased traffic on CR 117 may produce measurable increases in elk mortality. Given the density of homesites proposed for the Oak Meadows property, and existing development, on-site habitat improvement or mitigations to increase winter forage quality on-site are not likely feasible or would have no measurable improvements to elk winter range. There are recommendations to minimize other stresses or negative impacts to elk moving through and using the area. These recommendations are listed further below in this document. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL S I:f.RVICES, INC. 11 Oak Meadows 3' Filing 3.3.2.2 F IGURE 3: ELK WINTER RANGES Analysis Report September 2007 12 I , , 1 ' L___. , . ., e i . ., , i , . . .-, - - .... „ . ......-- , ..... s \ „.... Ii 111 \ Legend ELK-winter_range_STATE ELK-winter_concentration_STATE ELK-severe_winterSTATE Land Status _ , / ,_, i" , , ' _1,.._i .-=20i,--.--- 1 ,iII,-',, /v - ,,, \ 11.,1 \\A4_.,,. ..\„ \ OWNERSHIP BLM Private State -7-r-i USFS / 77,/ i .. . , , ” .---7---r------1 1 - ,-, , , ‘ :,,,_,,,,_-.\\ ,, \ \ \ \,------, ,.-- i I-------- ______ / r Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Elk Winter Ranges Figure Drawn By: Eric Petterson eklat --- 0222 Bobcat Lane. Redstone. CO 81623 970.963 2190 Oak Meadows 3rd Filing 3 Date: September 2007 enc.petterson@starband.net Garfield County, Colorado Scale: 1 10 000 12 Oak Meadows 3's Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 3.3.3 COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT The Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) is a descendent of the Yellowstone cutthroat trout and is one of the several subspecies of inland cutthroat trout (Behnke 2002). The Rio Grande and greenback cutthroat trout are believed to have descended from the CRCT based on genetic research. The CRCT is particularly colorful and has intense reds, yellows, and oranges. There is considerable diversity, especially in the size and pattern of spots on the body, among CRCT. This variation is believed to have developed as more than one ancestor fish made a headwater transfer from the upper Snake River drainage into the upper Green River drainage in the Colorado River basin. The CRCT is specifically adapted to riverine environments. After the period of last glaciation, approximately 11,000 years ago, there were no large natural lakes formed in the upper Colorado River basin. Thus, no population of CRCT acquired special adaptation to a large lake environment. However there were some small lakes in Colorado (Grand Lake, Trappers Lake, and some lakes on the Grand Mesa) that supported CRCT. As nonnative trout were introduced, CRCT were rapidly replaced by these nonnative trout, except for the Trapper Lake cutthroat, which persisted as a relatively pure population until the 1970s when rainbow trout gained access to the lake and hybridization began. In small headwater streams such as Fourmile Creek, CRCT usually do not grow larger than 8 inches. In larger rivers and lakes, they can grow to a maximum length of approximately 20 inches. Similar to other inland subspecies of cutthroat, CRCT is highly susceptible to replacement by brook trout and brown trout and to hybridization with rainbow trout. In highly fluctuating and unstable small creeks and streams such as Fourmile Creek, CRCT generally avoid hybridization with nonnative trout. Throughout CRCT range, watersheds in the past 100 years have also been degraded by livestock grazing, which has increased erosion and sedimentation. The original range of CRCT is the upper Colorado River basin of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico. The northernmost distribution was in the headwaters of the Green River in Wyoming, and the southernmost distribution was the San Juan River drainage in northern New Mexico. CRCT are now extirpated from the San Juan drainage. Below certain areas on the mainstem of the Colorado and the Green Rivers (specifically near the towns of Rifle in Colorado and Green River in Wyoming) and smaller tributaries below 5,000 feet in elevation, lacked suitable temperatures and water quality to maintain trout. Many tributaries to the main stems at higher elevations held thriving native trout populations, but it was not until the intervention of modern water management and trans -basin diversions that suitable habitats were formed in the larger rivers. Some of today's notable tail water fisheries for nonnative trout in the Green River downstream from Flaming Gorge Dam, in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, and in the San Juan River below Navajo Dam are now suitable for nonnative and native trout use. Reservoirs settle out sediment and dams control the release of clear, cold water in a regulated flow, in which trout can flourish. As nonnative trout, particularly rainbow trout, were stocked in Colorado, they rapidly out -competed and hybridized CRCT to the point of extirpation from many of the main rivers in the state. By the mid -twentieth century, CRCT occupied only a tiny fraction of their original distribution, mainly in small headwater streams isolated by barrier falls from contact with nonnative trout. Current enhancement programs include transplants to establish new populations, stream improvements, and better management of livestock to restore riparian vegetation for stream -bank stability and StICKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 13 Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 reduced sediment loading. The restoration and enhancement programs for the CRCT have been formalized in a conservation agreement among various resource agencies. Presently, there are about 100 pure populations of CRCT, mostly in small, isolated streams, most of which have only one or two miles of suitable habitat. For about 100 years, Trappers Lake was the source of most of CRCT that were artificially propagated and stocked in mountain lakes and streams in Colorado. After hybridization with hatchery rainbow trout was detected in Trappers Lake, a new source for the propagation of pure CRCT was found in a lake in Rocky Mountain National Park. As nonnative trout were stocked in many of the tributaries around the Roaring Fork, CRCT would likely only occur in the highest reaches of the streams, or in the case of Fourmile Creek, in areas where low summertime river flows may limit distribution of nonnative trout. Individual CRCT may be found now and again in tributaries of the Roaring Fork River, but they are likely hybrids. Fourmile and Threemile Creeks have suitable habitat to support CRCT, and historically these streams had viable populations of CRCT (Hirsch 2006). Water diversion in the Glenwood Springs area is the most significant impact to CRCT habitat. Much of the water flowing down Threemile has been diverted over to Fourmile Creek, which diminished the potential habitat in Threemile, and improves habitat in Fourmile. However, historical mining activities around Ski Sunlight and widespread intense grazing pressure of riparian areas throughout the Fourmile drainage have negatively impacted water quality and riparian habitat conditions through increased sedimentation of potential spawning beds, reduced pool depth, and decreased riparian vegetation health. Water development projects upstream of Oak Meadows, such as snowmaking operations and water diversion in the Ski Sunlight area present seasonal depletion issues for CRCT, while non -point source pollutants from traffic and nearby residential homes likely have year-round negative impacts to water quality. Non-native brook trout are also common in Fourmile Creek and successfully out - compete CRCT in area streams (Hirsch 2006). 3.3.4 IMPACTS TO CRCT AND HABITAT As the 3rd filing area is situated relatively far away from Fourmile Creek, there is a sufficient buffer of meadows and shrubby habitats that would limit the possibility of most non -point source pollutants from entering Fourmile Creek. Increased traffic along CR 117 will add some risk to spills and non - point source pollutants which may impact Fourmile Creek, but these impacts would be difficult to measure or quantify for just the 3rd filing project. Increased water usage by homes may have indirect impacts to instream water flows along the Roaring Fork, but again, the level of water depletions to instream flows is insignificant and discountable due to the source of the water (no upstream water diversions along Fourmile Creek). Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), if implemented correctly, for reducing storm water impacts and construction impacts to water quality will likely mitigate most threats to CRCT habitat. In summary, this project should have no significant direct impact to CRCT habitats; however there are always risks from accidents and increased road traffic impacts which may have cumulative negative impacts to water quality in Fourmile Creek. flitlhaCROGKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 14 Oak Meadows Y 1 Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 3.4 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 3.4.1 LIGHTING & GAME USE Because the area will still likely receive some use by mule deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of the property and excessive lighting of driveways (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 envelopes is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright back -yard lights illuminating adjacent BLM lands and the meadow). Vegetation should be 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. 3.4.2 ROADS Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following requirements should be followed: o Fences along the roads should not be allowed and/or removed if currently existing to allow for uninhibited wildlife movement across roads. o 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. o Large or extensive retaining walls should not be utilized. o The County should strongly consider increasing clearing of shrubby vegetation from roadsides along CR 117. This should be done in order to increase the visibility of deer, elk and other wildlife species on road sides, which would allow drivers more time to slow down to avoid hitting wildlife crossing the road. Proposed widening and paving of CR 117 by Ski Sunlight would improve traffic flow, but would also likely increase traffic speeds, which would reduce the ability for drivers to avoid vehicle impacts with wildlife. The County should consult with CDOW to determine where most wildlife mortalities occur along CR 117, and consider installing warning signs and other methods (including lighting) to reduce wildlife mortalities. This should include areas adjacent to Oak Meadows, but also up and down CR 117. This is because increased traffic from Oak Meadows will indirectly have impacts to deer crossing CR 117 outside of the project area. Oak Meadows should not singularly be responsible for this increased clearing per se, but should incrementally contribute to increased vegetation clearing along with other new developments in the area based on relative contributions to increased traffic. 3.4.3 FENCES As the area will be used by big game in the winter months, fencing will inhibit big game movement, and is therefore strongly discouraged. As the area is no longer grazed by cattle or domestic sheep, fencing should not be necessary. Decorative fencing that is not designed to allow wildlife passage is strongly discouraged. Additionally, existing fencing should be removed as soon as possible. Fencing that is needed to keep pets and children adjacent to the houses are allowed and encouraged. Fencing aside from keeping pets or children within the building envelope should comply with the following: o Fences may 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 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 15 Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 jump over fences, even in deep snow, and will allow calves and fawns to crawl under or pass through the rails. Other wildlife friendly fencing standards are available from CDOW. o Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for wildlife to cross, therefore buck and rail fences are strongly discouraged. o If cattle or domestic sheep grazing resumes in the area, and fencing livestock out becomes a necessity, the property owners should consult with CDOW & BLM personnel to develop an acceptable fence design. There are various types of fences that are compatible with fencing out horses, domestic sheep, and cattle and still allow for wildlife movements across fence lines. o Prior to construction in or adjacent to winter range habitats, 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.). 3.4.4 LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION As the area is used as 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. Additionally, noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually during and immediately after construction 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 serviceberry) 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. 3.4.5 DOMESTIC DOGS Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing -eye dogs or assistance dogs for the disabled, should be prohibited outside of fenced areas within big game winter habitat areas. As this area is an important big game winter range habitat, it is inevitable that if dogs were allowed outside of fenced yards, even under leash control, dogs would escape control and chase and likely injure wildlife. Specifically: o Dogs should be not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months (November 15 through March 30). o 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 big game winter ranges. 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 and proximity of this parcel to sensitive wildlife habitat areas, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. 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 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 16 Oak Meadows 3"' Filing Wildlf e Analysis Report September 2007 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 Targe on the property, regardless of where the dogs may have originated. 3.4.6 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. 3.4.7 BEARS Black bears are very common in the area from spring (April) through fall (mid 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. The following measures should be implemented to reduce potential bear problems: o 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. o 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, and bears quickly become habituated to these schedules. o 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. o Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and removed altogether during the fall months (September through mid November) when bear activity is at its highest. o Nut, fruit, or berry producing trees or shrubs should not be used in landscaping in order to minimize an attractant for bears. o Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner's brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW. 3.4.8 MOUNTAIN LION The area around Fourmile Creek is known to have high levels of mountain lion activity, especially during the winter months when mule deer numbers swell in the area. Homeowners should be notified and be provided with educational materials such as CDOW's living in mountain lion country brochure. Pets and small children can be at risk to mountain lions. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICE INC. 17 Oak Meadows 3' Filing Wildlife Analysis Report 3.4.9 FIGURE 4: MAP OF BLACK BEAR HUMAN CONFLICT AREA (CDOW) September 2007 18 . Yi I" � �' l � se � o _ '`g & Grrr✓ f +'0" ��ar rL �1 rr 160 orf . .±r—.meow s r rore t rr , r 1 I (y 4te 1'4y, '73 .iik'�r' l rrf .ro III yr.r Ldp ;y� • Legend c)`,, t pry BLACK_BEAR-human_ conflict_ STATE Land Status -- — Q'�'l,�f�� �� '' r'P r'f P 60 OWNERSHIP r� BLM Private ETi State USFS J �ti I { t !� j r r rrtrrr 1� `frrrrr.r rrr' rr✓ r yr,o ��� rrrr ? : � rrr rre '`tri t! /�°:r , Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, inc.?sit Black Bear Figure Drawn By: Eric Petterson 0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone. CO 81623 970.963.2290 Oak Meadows 3rd Filing 4 Date: September 2007 eric.petterson@starband.net Garfield County, Colorado Scale: 1:10.000 18 Oak Meadows 3rd Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 3.4.10 BIRDS Many sensitive bird species utilize the area; therefore the following recommendations are presented. o 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. o 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. o 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. As the area can contain high numbers of cavity nesters, larger trees, and especially trees with cavities (woodpecker holes) should be preserved if possible, or nest boxes may be installed if many trees need to be removed. 3.4.11 BIG GAME HABITAT MITIGATION Much of the Gambel's oak and associated shrublands in the greater area are very decadent, old and have a significant amount of dead material. This provides excellent cover for wildlife, but relatively poor foraging opportunities. Manipulation of these stands to provide better foraging opportunities could help offset the loss of foraging areas. Chipping patches of oakbrush is known to stimulate grass and forb production, and within one year, sprouts from oakbrush and other brushy species will become more pronounced, and provide additional browse for deer and elk. Oak Meadows should consider beginning chipping of patches, from 1/2 acre to 3 acres in size, scattered around the property, and possibly on adjacent lands (BLM and area ranches) with assistance from CDOW. Chipping operations should begin prior to development activities in order to provide improved foraging conditions for deer and elk during the most active time of development- road building, installation of infrastructure, and construction. Although there would be a net decrease in available habitat from the development, chipping and allowing stands to naturally regenerate would improve foraging conditions of habitats in the greater area. A side benefit would also go towards wildfire mitigation. Converting the dense, heavily stocked fuels of these shrublands with more open and younger shrubs would reduce hazardous fuels loading, decreasing fire intensity. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this property. Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this report. Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 19 Oak Meadows Y' Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 4 APPENDIX I: CDOW NDIS HABITAT DEFINITIONS The following section defines the ungulate seasonal activity area definitions used by CDOW in their habitat mapping protocol. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of an elk population. PRODUCTION AREA: That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are Mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU). RESIDENT POPULATION: An area used year-round by a population of elk. Individuals could be found in any part of the area at any time of the year; the area cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges. It is most likely included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The winter of 1983-84 is a good example of a severe winter. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. High quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance are characteristics of these areas to meet the high energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general preparation for the rigors of fall and winter. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall, or during a site specific period of summer as defined for each DAU. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range of a species where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. MULE DEER CONCENTRATION AREA: That part of the overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly higher densities than surrounding areas. These areas are typically occupied year round and are not necessarily associated with a specific season. Includes rough break country, riparian areas, small drainages, and large areas of irrigated cropland. HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a mule deer population. RESIDENT POPULATION: An area that provides year-round range for a population of mule deer. The resident mule deer use all of the area all year; it cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges although it may be included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL S ERVICE4 INC. 20 Oak Meadows 3'd Filing Wildlife Analysis Report September 2007 WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. BLACK BEAR FALL CONCENTRATION: That portion of the overall range occupied from August 15 until September 30 for the purpose of ingesting large quantities of mast and berries to establish fat reserves for the winter hibernation period. HUMAN CONFLICT: That portion of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CDOW investigation, damage to persons or property (cabins, tents, vehicles, etc), and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a population of black bear. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: That portion of the overall range of the species where activity is greater than the surrounding overall range during that period from June 15 to August 15. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. 21 GAMBA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS WWW.O AAAAAA 61N[[N 1 NO.CON PHONE: 970/945-2550 "TA x: 970/945-1410 113 NINTH STREET. SUITE 214 P.O. BOX 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602-1458 Oak Meadows Ranch PUD — Filing 4 — Phase III Stormwater Analysis January 31, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Oak Meadows Ranch PUD — Filing 4 — Phase III — Stormwater Analysis Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Oak Meadows III, LLC, Gamba & Associates, Inc. has prepared this stormwater analysis report for the Oak Meadows Ranch PUD — Filing 4 — Phase III. Introduction and Location: Oak Meadows Ranch PUD is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs within the Fourmile Creek drainage basin. Within the PUD, Phase III of Filing 4 is located on the west side of Oak Way North (CR 168A) north of Phase II of Filing 4 and south of the dedicated school district parcel. The proposed development improvements in the area analyzed include the following: 1. The development of 25 single-family residences with appurtenances such as driveways, patios, etc. 2. The construction of the development infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed development including roads, utility systems, and drainage infrastructure. Hydrologic Area: The site consists of a watershed of approximately 140 acres lying south-west of the proposed development. For the purposes of this analysis, we have delineated 5 separate tributary drainage basins under predevelopment conditions, and 6 separate tributary drainage basins under post -developed conditions. Both the pre - development and post -development boundaries for the tributary drainage basins are depicted on the D -sheets of Exhibit 1 included with this preliminary plan application. Hydrologic Criteria and Methodology: Runoff flows for the different basins were calculated using the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 20 methodology. The hydrologic calculations, reach attenuation calculations, and detention pond routing analysis calculations were performed with the HydroCAD release 8.00 software by HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC. The following data and calculations for both pre -development and post -development conditions for each of the drainage basins are provided in the appendices: • the drainage basin areas • hydrologic curve numbers • times of concentrations • travel time • peak discharges • calculated hydrographs for the pre -development conditions • calculated hydrographs and proposed mitigation for post -development conditions The peak rate of runoff and the stormwater hydrographs for the 25 -year and 100 -year design frequency storm events were computed for each tributary area using the 25 -year and 100 -year frequency rain fall values for the 24-hour Type 11 storm from the NOAA Atlas 2, Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the Western United States, Volume III -Colorado 1973. The times of concentration for each tributary area are determined by separating the overland flows into the different categories of flow types based on the site specific conditions. Typically the overland flow is divided into three flow types, sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and channel flow. The specific flow paths for each tributary area are depicted in the D Sheets of Exhibit 1 included with this preliminary plan application. The calculations for the times of concentration for each tributary area are provided in the Appendix to this report. The T.R. 20 method requires the calculation of the times of concentration (Tc) of each tributary area as well as a subsequent travel time (Tt) from the outfall of the tributary areas to the composite watershed outfall point, where applicable. Those drainage basins that are not directly connected hydraulically to the primary basin outfall have been routed through "reaches" in order to provide for the travel time. The values of Tc as well as the Reach calculations for all tributary areas are provided in the Appendix to this report. The TR -20 method also requires the calculation of composite Runoff Curve Numbers (RCN) for each tributary area. Typically, the RCN is based on the hydrologic soil type as well as the land use and conditions. The hydrologic soil type (A, B, C or D) is determined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and provided on SCS maps of the specific area. SCS soils data for this project is provided in Appendix K of the preliminary plan application. The pre -development land use of the site consists of native oak brush, sage brush and meadow grasses. The post -development land use of the site will consist of single-family residences with a density of approximately 1 -residence per one- third of an acre and the construction of the proposed roadways on the developed portion of the property. The post -developed land uses for the undeveloped portion of the site will remain identical to the pre -development conditions. The composite Runoff Curve Numbers for each basin under pre - development and post -development conditions are included in the Appendix of this report. As previously stated, the drainage basin areas, hydrologic curve numbers, times of concentrations, runoff hydrographs with calculated peak discharges, and reach routing analyses are provided in the Appendix for both the pre and post -development conditions. Proposed Drainage Patterns and Mitigation of Peak Rate of Runoff: Under pre -development conditions, a significant portion of the upstream tributary areas (Area A-1, A- 2, A-3 and A-4) are conveyed to the northern boundary of the property via an abandoned railroad grade and an abandoned irrigation ditch. Under post developed conditions, the railroad grade will remain in place; however, the abandoned irrigation ditch will be removed to accommodate the development. Therefore, under post -developed conditions A-4, which is directly upstream of the irrigation ditch, will be joined with and contribute to post -developed flows in A-5. Under pre - development conditions the flows from A-2 cross the existing private driveway through the site, then enter the abandoned irrigation ditch and follow the ditch to the northern boundary of the property. In order to maintain this general flow pattern under post -developed conditions, a culvert will be constructed under the private driveway which will convey the flows from A-2 into the existing abandoned railroad grade, which will then convey the A-2 flows to the northern property boundary. Since the final outfall point of A-5, which contains all of the proposed development, falls within the only area of the property containing wetlands, it was determined that this outfall point was not an appropriate location for a detention structure. Therefore an alternate location for the detention structure was chosen. The proposed detention structure is located within the open space parcel between Lots 79 and 84, and is upstream of the final outfall point of the pre -development tributary Area A-5. Consequently, it was necessary to split A-5 into two separate basins for post -development purposes. Area A-5-1 Post is that portion of A-4 and A-5 that is tributary to the detention facility. Area A-5-2 Post is that portion of A-5 and A-4 that bypasses the proposed detention facility. However, by "over -detaining" the flows into the detention structure, the ultimate peak discharge at the outfall point "Post Outfall" (Link 6L in the Appendix) is less than or equal to the peak pre -development discharge at the same location. Summary — Pre -Development and Post -Development Peak Rates of Runoff: Following are the resulting calculations of the peak pre -development and post -development rates of flow for each outfall point resulting from the 25 -year and the 100 -year storm events. 25 -year Storm Outfall Point Pre- Development Area (Acres) Pre- Development Peak Flow from the 25 -Year Storm (CFS) Post- Development Area (Acres) Post- Development Peak Flow from the 25 -Year Storm (CFS) Irrigation Ditch Outfall (Node 10L Pre) (Node 14L Post) 127.162 8.93 118.541 8.54 Primary Development Outfall (Node A-5 Pre) (Node 6L Post) 13.474 4.92 22.099 4.95 100 -year Storm Outfall Point Pre- Development Area (Acres) Pre- Development Peak Flow from the 100 -Year Storm (CFS) Post- Development Area (Acres) Post- Development Peak Flow from the 100 -Year Storm (CFS) Irrigation Ditch Outfall (Node 10L Pre) (Node 14L Post) 127.162 36.52 118.541 33.42 Primary Development Outfall (Node A-5 Pre) (Node 6L Post) 13.474 11.23 22.099 10.71 Proposed Stormwater Quality Mitigation: Appropriate erosion control measures and Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be incorporated into the development plan and employed throughout the development process in order to appropriately mitigate the quality of stormwater runoff. As required by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Storm Water Management Plans will be prepared prior to the commencement of construction, and implemented during the construction process. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff from the developed areas is to be routed through a stormwater detention basin and/or longer reaches consisting of gently sloped ditches and swales. These measures will contribute to an overall improvement in the water quality of the stormwater runoff, by encouraging the settling -out and filtration of sediment carried with the stormwater. General Summary: The Garfield County Subdivision Regulations require that the drainage facilities be designed to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm. The proposed drainage improvements for this project have been designed to accommodate the peak flows from the 100 -year storm event. These designs are provided on the D Sheets of Exhibit 1 included with this preliminary plan application. The subdivision regulations also require that any increase in the peak rate of runoff due to the development must be mitigated to runoff rates less than or equal to the historic rates of runoff. This analysis demonstrates that with the proposed stormwater improvements including the detention structure, storm sewers and culverts, as depicted on the D Sheets of Exhibit 1, will result in post -development peak rates of runoff at levels equal to or below the pre -development peak rates of runoff. Sincerely, Gamba & • .so chael amba, P.E. & P.L.S. 28036 H:\03385\08\submittal\Stormwater Analysis for Oak Meadows Ranch PUD.doc POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcats) 28.154 48 Brush, Good, HSG B (A -1,A-1 Post,A-2,A-2 Post,A-3,A-3 Post,A-4,A-4 Post,A-5,A-5-1 Post,A- 1.936 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B (A -2,A-2 Post,A-4,A-4 Post,A-5,A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 Posi 202.474 65 Brush, Good, HSG C (A -1,A-1 Post,A-2,A-2 Post,A-4,A-4 Post,A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 Post) 0.181 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B (A-5-2 Post) 12.116 71 Meadow, non -grazed, HSG C (A -1,A-1 Post,A-2,A-2 Post) 1.754 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B (A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 Post) 22.198 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C (A -1,A-1 Post,A-2,A-2 Post,A-4,A-5,A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 0.765 79 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG C (A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 Post) 7.685 81 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG C (A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 Post) 1.686 98 Paved parking & roofs (A -1,A-1 Post,A-2,A-2 Post,A-3,A-3 Post,A-4,A-4 Post,A-5) 2.327 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (A-5-1 Post,A-5-2 Post) Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm 281.276 Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 3 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Time span=5.00-20.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 301 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment A-1: A-1 Runoff Area=90.823 ac Runoff Depth>0.13" Flow Length=4,850' Tc=15.4 min CN=65 Runoff=7.23 cfs 1.009 af Subcatchment A-1 Post: A -1 -Post Runoff Area=90.823 ac Runoff Depth>0.13" Flow Length=4,850' Tc=15.4 min CN=65 Runoff=7.23 cfs 1.009 af Subcatchment A-2: A-2 Runoff Area=23.351 ac Runoff Depth>0.17" Flow Length=3,384' Tc=10.6 min CN=67 Runoff=3.93 cfs 0.335 af Subcatchment A-2 Post: A -2 -POST Runoff Area=23.351 ac Runoff Depth>0.17" Flow Length=3,384' Tc=10.6 min CN=67 Runoff=3.93 cfs 0.335 af Subcatchment A-3: A-3 Runoff Area=4.367 ac Runoff Depth=0.00" Flow Length=1,147' Tc=7.5 min CN=49 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Subcatchment A-3 Post: A-3 Runoff Area=4.367 ac Runoff Depth=0.00" Flow Length=1,147' Tc=7.5 min CN=49 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Subcatchment A-4: A-4 Runoff Area=8.621 ac Runoff Depth>0.01" Flow Length=1,614' Tc=8.2 min CN=54 Runoff=0.02 cfs 0.007 af Subcatchment A-4 Post: A-4 Post Runoff Area=1.575 ac Runoff Depth>0.01" Flow Length=339' Tc=6.4 min CN=54 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0.001 af Subcatchment A-5: A-5 Runoff Area=13.474 ac Runoff Depth>0.26" Flow Length=855' Tc=9.3 min CN=71 Runoff=4.92 cfs 0.297 af Subcatchment A-5-1 Post: A-5-1 Post Runoff Area=9.621 ac Runoff Depth>0.32" Flow Length=960' Tc=6.3 min CN=73 Runoff=5.31 cfs 0.256 af Subcatchment A-5-2 Post: A-5-2 Post Runoff Area=10.903 ac Runoff Depth>0.29" Flow Length=819' Tc=8.2 min CN=72 Runoff=4.82 cfs 0.264 af Reach 1 R: A-1 Avg. Depth=0.55' Max Vel=3.24 fps Inflow=7.23 cfs 1.009 af n=0.040 L=1,017.0' S=0.0435 '/' Capacity=29.33 cfs Outflow=6.19 cfs 0.995 of Reach 2R: A-2 Avg. Depth=0.11' Max Vel=3.25 fps Inflow=3.93 cfs 0.335 af n=0.040 L=321.7' S=0.1722 '/' Capacity=234.76 cfs Outflow=3.67 cfs 0.333 af Reach 3R: A-2 Avg. Depth=0.55' Max Vel=3.45 fps Inflow=3.67 cfs 0.333 af n=0.040 L=1,292.5' S=0.0529 '/' Capacity=308.46 cfs Outflow=2.75 cfs 0.327 af Reach 4R: 4R Avg. Depth=0.02' Max Vel=0.88 fps Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af D=18.0" n=0.012 L=76.5' S=0.0180 '/' Capacity=15.28 cfs Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 4 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Reach 5R: 5R Avg. Depth=0.04' Max Vel=0.86 fps Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af n=0.035 L=170.1' S=0.0777 '1' Capacity=87.87 cfs Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af Reach 6R: 6R Avg. Depth=0.01' Max Vel=2.46 fps Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af D=18.0" n=0.012 L=285.9' S=0.1840 '1' Capacity=48.81 cfs Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af Reach 7R: 7R Avg. Depth=0.01' Max Vel=1.90 fps Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af D=24.0" n=0.012 L=116.0' S=0.0749 '1' Capacity=67.08 cfs Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.001 af Reach 8R: 8R Avg. Depth=0.08' Max Vel=6.30 fps Inflow=0.27 cfs 0.170 af D=24.0" n=0.012 L=196.7' S=0.1307 '1' Capacity=88.60 cfs Outflow=0.27 cfs 0.169 af Reach 9R: 9R Avg. Depth=0.09' Max Vel=4.26 fps Inflow=0.27 cfs 0.169 af D=36.0" n=0.012 L=230.8' S=0.0501 '1' Capacity=161.78 cfs Outflow=0.27 cfs 0.169 af Reach 10R: A-2 Avg. Depth=0.71' Max Vel=3.00 fps Inflow=3.93 cfs 0.335 af n=0.040 L=215.7' S=0.0285 '/' Capacity=59.65 cfs Outflow=3.70 cfs 0.334 af Reach 11R: A-2 Avg. Depth=0.72' Max Vel=4.40 fps Inflow=3.70 cfs 0.334 af D=18.0" n=0.040 L=20.7' S=0.0541 '1' Capacity=7.94 cfs Outflow=3.68 cfs 0.333 af Reach 12R: A-2 Avg. Depth=0.39' Max Vel=2.60 fps Inflow=3.68 cfs 0.333 af n=0.040 L=1,327.8' S=0.0445 '1' Capacity=29.65 cfs Outflow=2.47 cfs 0.326 af Reach 13R: A-1 Avg. Depth=0.55' Max Vel=3.24 fps Inflow=7.23 cfs 1.009 af n=0.040 L=1,017.0' S=0.0435 '1' Capacity=29.33 cfs Outflow=6.19 cfs 0.995 af Pond 5P: Pond 1 Peak Elev=6,842.41' Storage=0.121 af Inflow=5.31 cfs 0.257 af Outflow=0.27 cfs 0.170 af Link 1 L: RR -Outfall Inflow=6.19 cfs 0.995 af Primary=6.19 cfs 0.995 af Link 2L: Outfall Inflow=2.75 cfs 0.334 af Primary=2.75 cfs 0.334 af Link 6L: Post Outfall Inflow=4.95 cfs 0.433 af Primary=4.95 cfs 0.433 af Link 10L: Irrig Ditch Outfall Inflow=8.93 cfs 1.329 af Primary=8.93 cfs 1.329 af Link 14L: Irrig Ditch Outfall Post Inflow=8.54 cfs 1.321 af Primary=8.54 cfs 1.321 af Total Runoff Area = 281.276 ac Runoff Volume = 3.511 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.15" 97.57% Pervious Area = 274.431 ac 2.43% Impervious Area = 6.845 ac Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 5 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Runoff Subcatchment A-1: A-1 = 7.23 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.009 af, Depth> 0.13" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 11 24-hr25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 2.630 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3.410 71 Meadow, non -grazed, HSG C 84.013 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 0.328 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.442 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good. HSG C 90.823 65 Weighted Average 90.495 Pervious Area 0.328 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.8 100 0.0911 0.21 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 6.5 2,658 0.1775 6.78 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.1 2,092 0.2052 30.33 2,751.36 Channel Flow, Area= 90.7 sf Perim= 57.7' r= 1.57' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 15.4 4,850 Total Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 6 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 G 0 LL 4_ Subcatchment A-1: A-1 Hydrograph I7.23cfsI' Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfa11-2.10" Runoff Area=90.823 ac Runoff Volume=1.009 of Run-off Depth>0.13" Flow Length=4,850' Tc -15.4 min CN=65 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Time (hours) 20 — Runoff POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Runoff - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 7 2/4/2008 Subcatchment A-1 Post: A -1 -Post = 7.23 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.009 af, Depth> 0.13" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 2.630 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3.410 71 Meadow, non -grazed, HSG C 84.013 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 0.328 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.442 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 90.823 90.495 0.328 65 Weighted Average Pervious Area Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.8 100 0.0911 0.21 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 6.5 2,658 0.1775 6.78 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.1 2,092 0.2052 30.33 2,751.36 Channel Flow, Area= 90.7 sf Perim= 57.7' r= 1.57' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 15.4 4,850 Total POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111 Type 1124 -hr 25 Year 0 u_ Subcatchment A-1 Post: A -1 -Post Hydrograph - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 8 2/4/2008 1 7.23 cfs 4- Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall =2.10" Runoff Area=90.823 ac Runoff Volume=1.009 of Runoff Depth- >0.13" Flow Length=4850' Tc=15.4 min CN=65 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Time (hours) 20 — Runoff Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 9 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Runoff Subcatchment A-2: A-2 3.93 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.335 af, Depth> 0.17" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.063 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 0.408 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 4.091 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 2.648 71 Meadow, non -grazed, HSG C 16.139 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 0.002 98 Paved parking & roofs 23.351 67 Weighted Average 23.349 Pervious Area 0.002 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 100 0.1189 0.24 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 1.8 803 0.2173 7.51 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.3 2,228 0.1963 29.61 5,220.07 Channel Flow, Area= 176.3 sf Perim= 112.5' r= 1.57' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 0.5 253 0.0402 7.75 31.01 Channel Flow, Area= 4.0 sf Perim= 5.8' r= 0.69' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 10.6 3,384 Total Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111 - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.90" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 10 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Subcatchment A-2: A-2 Hydrograph 3.93 cfs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=23.351 ac Runoff Volume=0.335'af Runoff Depth>0.17" Flow Length=3,384' Tc=10.6 min GN=67 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) — Runoff Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 11 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Runoff Subcatchment A-2 Post: A -2 -POST 3.93 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.335 af, Depth> 0.17" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 11 24-hr25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.063 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 0.408 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 4.091 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 2.648 71 Meadow, non -grazed, HSG C 16.139 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 0.002 98 Paved parking & roofs 23.351 67 Weighted Average 23.349 Pervious Area 0.002 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 100 0.1189 0.24 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 1.8 803 0.2173 7.51 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.3 2,228 0.1963 29.61 5,220.07 Channel Flow, Area= 176.3 sf Perim= 112.5' r= 1.57' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 0.5 253 0.0402 7.75 31.01 Channel Flow, Area= 4.0 sf Perim= 5.8' r= 0.69' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 10.6 3,384 Total Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 12 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 0 LL 0 Subcatchment A-2 Post: A -2 -POST Hydrograph 1 3.93 cfs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=23.351 ac Runoff Volume=0.335 of Runoff Depth>0.17" Flow Length=3,384' Tc=10.6 min CN=67 5 , ... 6 7 .. -.. 8 .. .. 9 .. ..10 . ,11.. . 12 13 1 4 15 Time (hours) 16 17 18 19 20 — Runoff • 7.5 1,147 Total Subcatchment A-3: A-3 Hydrograph 0.00 Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 13 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Subcatchment A-3: A-3 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 4.278 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 0.089 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.367 49 Weighted Average 4.278 Pervious Area 0.089 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.8 100 0.3041 0.35 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 0.1 82 0.3790 9.91 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.6 965 0.0452 6.24 24.95 Channel Flow, Area= 4.0 sf Perim= 5.7' r= 0.70' n= 0.040 0 LL Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Rainfal1=2.10" Runoff Area=4.367 ac Runoff Volume=0.000 af Runoff Depth=0.00" Flow Length=1,147' Tc=7:5 m i n CN=49 cfs 0j.. .. 5 6 7 , 8 9 ' 10 11 12 13 14 �10. 8. 1,7. 1,8, 1,0, 20 Time (hours) — Runoff Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 14 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Subcatchment A-3 Post: A-3 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 4.278 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 0.089 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.367 49 Weighted Average 4.278 Pervious Area 0.089 Impervious Area Tc (min) 4.8 0.1 2.6 Length Slope Velocity Capacity (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) Description 100 0.3041 82 0.3790 965 0.0452 0.35 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 9.91 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 6.24 24.95 Channel Flow, Area= 4.0 sf Perim= 5.7' r= 0.70' n= 0.040 w 0 LL 7.5 1,147 Total Subcatchment A-3 Post: A-3 Hydrograph 0.00 cfs 04 . 5 6 Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.1'0" Runoff Area=4.367 ac Runoff Volume=0.000 af Runoff Depth=0.00" Flow Length 1,147' Tc=7.5 m i n CN=49 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Time (hours) 20 — Runoff Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 15 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Runoff Subcatchment A-4: A-4 = 0.02 cfs @ 18.43 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af, Depth> 0.01" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.298 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 6.178 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 0.279 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 1.565 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 0.301 98 Paved parking & roofs 8.621 54 Weighted Average 8.320 Pervious Area 0.301 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 100 0.1968 0.29 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 0.6 222 0.1611 6.46 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.9 1,292 0.0529 11.04 115.97 Channel Flow, Area= 10.5 sf Perim= 11.0' r= 0.95' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 8.2 1,614 Total Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 16 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 0.019- 0.018 0.017= 0.016= 0.015- 0.014= 0.013 0.012 H 0.011 0.01 c 0.009 L2'. LL 0.008- 0.007' 0.006 0.005 0.004= 0.003= 0.002- 0.001 Subcatchment A-4: A-4 Hydrograph L_ _J L_ _1 Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=8.621 ac Runoff Volume=0.007 of ,. Runoff Depth >0.01 Flow Length=1,614'Tc=8.2 min CN=54 i I I � � .4_ _ _ _ L 1 - 10 11 12 13 Time (hours) 1 0.02 cfs L • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 — Runoff POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Runoff 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 17 2/4/2008 Subcatchment A-4 Post: A-4 Post 0.00 cfs @ 18.38 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth> 0.01" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.050 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 1.307 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 0.052 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 0.166 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.575 54 Weighted Average 1.409 Pervious Area 0.166 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 100 0.1 44 0.3 195 Description 0.1732 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 0.2100 7.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.0679 10.19 40.77 Channel Flow, Area= 4.0 sf Perim= 5.7' r= 0.70' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 6.4 339 Total POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase!!! Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 Subcatchment A-4 Post: A-4 Post Hydrograph - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 18 2/4/2008 Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=1.575 ac Runoff Volume=0001 of Runoff Depth >0.01" Flow Length=339' Tc=6.4 min CN=54 L r' r - i 4 0.00 cfs t i t 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) 15 16 17 18 19 20 — Runoff POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Runoff Subcatchment A-5: A-5 4.92 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 19 2/4/2008 0.297 af, Depth> 0.26" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description 1.058 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 1.207 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 10.828 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 0.381 98 Paved parking & roofs 13.474 71 Weighted Average 13.093 Pervious Area 0.381 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.8 100 2.5 755 Description 0.1289 0.25 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 0.0976 5.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.3 N 0 LL 855 Total Subcatchment A-5: A-5 Hydrograph 4.92 cfs Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=13.474 ac Runoff Volume=0.297 af Runoff Depth>0.26" Flow Length=855' Tc=9.3 m i n CN=71 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) — Runoff` POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Subcatchment A-5-1 Post: A-5-1 Post Runoff = 5.31 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.256 af, Depth> 0.32" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 11 24-hr25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 20 2/4/2008 0.025 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 2.348 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 0.816 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 0.186 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 1.041 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers 0.694 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.126 81 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG C 0.385 79 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG C 9.621 73 Weighted Average 7.134 Pervious Area 2.487 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) Capacity Description (cfs) 5.0 100 0.2736 0.33 0.5 216 0.1965 0.6 478 0.0477 0.1 50 0.0186 0.1 116 0.0749 6.3 960 Total 7.14 13.70 78.09 8.78 15.52 21.35 67.07 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps Channel Flow, Area= 5.7 sf Perim= 4.0' r= 1.43' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 18.0" Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 24.0" Area= 3.1 sf Perim= 6.3' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished r= 0.38' r= 0.50' Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111 - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 21 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 7 0 LT Subcatchment A-5-1 Post: A-5-1 Post Hydrograph 5.31 cfs Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=9.621 ac Runoff Volume=0.256 of Runoff Depth>0.32" Flow Length=960' Tc=6.3 min CN=73 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) — Runoff POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Runoff Subcatchment A-5-2 Post: A-5-2 Post 4.82 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af, Depth> 0.29" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 11 24-hr25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Area (ac) CN Description - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 22 2/4/2008 0.379 61 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG B 2.482 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 1.209 74 Pasture/grassland/range, Good, HSG C 0.367 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 1.286 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers 1.060 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 3.559 81 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG C 0.181 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 0.380 79 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG C 10.903 72 Weighted Average 8.231 Pervious Area 2.672 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) Capacity Description (cfs) 7.3 100 0.1071 0.2 0.4 74 0.1553 400 0.0853 0.1 138 0.0517 0.2 107 0.0912 8.2 819 Total 0.23 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 1.20" 6.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 18.32 104.42 Channel Flow, Area= 5.7 sf Perim= 4.0' r= 1.43' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding 20.58 101.04 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 30.0" Area= 4.9 sf Perim= 7.9' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 11.81 47.25 Channel Flow, Area= 4.0 sf Perim= 5.7' r= 0.70' n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding r= 0.63' Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111 - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 23 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 0 LL Subcatchment A-5-2 Post: A-5-2 Post Hydrograph 14.82 cfs 1 Type II 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Runoff Area=10.903 ac Runoff Volume=0.264_af Runoff Depth>0.29" Flow Length=819' Tc=8.2 min CN=72 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) — Runoff Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 1124 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 24 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Reach 1R: A-1 Inflow Area = 90.823 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.13" for 25 Year event Inflow = 7.23 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.009 af Outflow = 6.19 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.995 af, Atten= 14%, Lag= 10.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 3.24 fps, Min. Travel Time= 5.2 min Avg. Velocity = 2.19 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.7 min Peak Storage= 1,942 cf @ 12.24 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.55' Bank -Full Depth= 0.99', Capacity at Bank -Full= 29.33 cfs 0.00' x 0.99' deep channel, n= 0.040 Side Slope Z -value= 2.5 10.0 '1' Top Width= 12.38' Length= 1,017.0' Slope= 0.0435 '1' Inlet Invert= 6,932.00', Outlet Invert= 6,887.75' < 0 L Reach 1R: A-1 Hydrograph 1 7.23 cfs 6.19 cfs 5-1 4- nflow Area=90.823 ac Avg. Depth -X0.55' Max Vel=3.24 fps n=0.040 L=1,017.0' S=0.0435 '/' Ca pacify=29.33.. cfs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) — Inflow — Outflow Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111 - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 25 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Reach 1R: A-1 Stage -Discharge 0.95= 0.9= 0.85- 0.8= 0.75- 0.7_ 0.65= 0.6= t 0.55-- t 0.5= m 0.45- 0 0.35= 0.3. 0.25 0.2= 0.15= 0.1- 0.05- 0 0 I I I 71 I I - - -7 - - - - T 1 I-, r 1 I I1-- -- I- ---- -- T I I ▪ I I 1 I I - I .4 4. L I ..__1 L J. 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Discharge (cfs) Reach 1R: A-1 Stage -Storage 0.95= 0.9- 0.85_ =--- 0.8=_ ......................._l...... 0.75=-- 0.7 0.65:- _........_......,-- --... _ _. _ ._ _... ........ T.... I I 0.6: r r I y 0.55_- r r - .c 0.5 0.45= __.. _ ... ____._._.... 0 0.4� 0.35j _+ i � I 0.3= 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Storage (cubic -feet) 5,000 6,000 Primary — Storage POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Inflow Area = Inflow Outflow = Reach 2R: A-2 23.351 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.17" for 25 Year event 3.93 cfs © 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.335 af 3.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.333 af, Atten= 7%, Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 3.25 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.7 min Avg. Velocity = 1.42 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 3.8 min Peak Storage= 377 cf @ 12.10 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.11' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 234.76 cfs 10.00' x 1.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Earth, cobble bottom, clean sides Side Slope Z -value= 10.0 '1' Top Width= 30.00' Length= 321.7' Slope= 0.1722 '/' Inlet Invert= 6,952.65', Outlet Invert= 6,897.26' - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 26 2/4/2008 Lag= 3.2 min 0 2 Reach 2R: A-2 Hydrograph 3.93 cfs I 3.67cfs IInflow Area=23.351 ac Avg. Depth=0.11' Max VeI=3.25 fps n=0.040 L=321.7 S=0.1722 /' Capacity=234.76 cfs 6 7 $ 9 .. 10....11.. 12.. 13....14, . , 16 . 16.. 1,7....16....1,9. Time (hours) 20 — Inflow — Outflow — Storage 1 POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Page 27 2/4/2008 Reach 2R: A-2 1 0 Stage -Discharge 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Discharge (cfs) 1 0 ( i T . 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,50 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 Storage (cubic -feet) Reach 2R: A-2 Stage -Storage Primary POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Reach 3R: A-2 23.351 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.17" for 25 Year event 3.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.333 af 2.75 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.327 af, Atten= 25%, Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 3.45 fps, Min. Travel Time= 6.2 min Avg. Velocity = 2.14 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 10.1 min Peak Storage= 1,034 cf @ 12.21 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.55' Bank -Full Depth= 3.22', Capacity at Bank -Full= 308.46 cfs 0.00' x 3.22' deep channel, n= 0.040 Earth, cobble bottom, clean sides Side Slope Z -value= 2.4 2.9'1' Top Width= 17.07' Length= 1,292.5' Slope= 0.0529 '/' Inlet Invert= 6,897.26', Outlet Invert= 6,828.86' Reach 3R: A-2 Hydrograph - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 28 2/4/2008 Lag= 11.5 min 3.67 cfs 2.75 cfs 0 2 - Inflow Area=23.351 ac Avg. Depth=0,55'_ Max Vel=3.45 fps n=0.040 L=1,292.5' S=0.0529 '/' Capacity=308.46 cfs 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 '20 Time (hours) — Inflow — Outflow — Primary — Storage 1 POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Page 29 2/4/2008 w s c m Reach 3R: A-2 Stage -Discharge 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Discharge (cfs) Reach 3R: A-2 Stage -Storage 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Storage (cubic -feet) 25,000 30,000 35,000 POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Reach 4R: 4R 1.575 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.01" for 25 Year event 0.00 cfs @ 18.38 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af 0.00 cfs @ 18.42 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Atten= 0%, Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.88 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.4 min Avg. Velocity = 0.83 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.5 min Peak Storage= 0 cf @ 18.40 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.02' Bank -Full Depth= 1.50', Capacity at Bank -Full= 15.28 cfs 18.0" Diameter Pipe, n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished Length= 76.5' Slope= 0.0180 '/' Inlet Invert= 6,920.93', Outlet Invert= 6,919.55' Reach 4R: 4R Hydrograph - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 30 2/4/2008 Lag= 2.4 min 0.003 0.003 0003 Inflow Area -1.575 ac 0.003 Avg. Depth=0.02' 0.003= 0.002- 0 002- 0z_°.°°2- Max VeI=0.88 fps 0 002- D=18.0 0.002_ 2 r 0.002 n=0.012: 0.001 = r - 4 L=76.5' 0.001-3 ___._._.�.__........_. _.__._._L.._. I I 0.001: S=0.0180 P - r 0.001 0.001. 0.000 0.000- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Capacity=15.28 cfs I I I 0.00 cfs Time (hours) 18 19 20 — Inflow — Outflow Primary POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase 111- Type II- Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year w w r Reach 4R: 4R Stage -Discharge 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 31 2/4/2008 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Discharge (cfs) Reach 4R: 4R Stage -Storage 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Storage (cubic -feet) 90 100 110 120 130 Storage POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Reach 5R: 5R 1.575 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.01" for 25 Year event 0.00 cfs @ 18.42 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af 0.00 cfs @ 18.51 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Atten= 0%, Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.86 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3.3 min Avg. Velocity = 0.81 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 3.5 min Peak Storage= 1 cf @ 18.46 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.04' Bank -Full Depth= 2.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 87.87 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.035 Earth, dense weeds Side Slope Z -value= 2.0 'P Top Width= 8.00' Length= 170.1' Slope= 0.0777 '/' Inlet Invert= 6,919.55', Outlet Invert= 6,906.34' 0 LL Reach 5R: 5R Hydrograph - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 32 2/4/2008 Lag= 5.6 min 0.003_. = Inflow Area -1.575 :aC 0.003_ Avg, Depth=0.04' 0.002 0002= Max Vel=0.86 fps, 0.002e 0.002_ n=0.035 0.001, Ooo1-0001+: S=0.0777 '/' 0 001 0.002_ L-170.1' .., • _ r_ .. ..y I � 001-Capacity=87.87 cfs 0.001 o.000- 0.000 0 T 11 0.00 cfs 5 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) 15 16 17 18 19 20 — Inflow — Outflow — Primary POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year 0 2 Depth (feet) Reach 5R: 5R Stage -Discharge 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 33 2/4/2008 i . 30 40 50 Discharge (cfs) Reach 5R: 5R Stage -Storage 60 70 80 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 Storage (cubic -feet) — Storage 1 0.003= 0.003 0.003= 0.003= 0.003:* 0.002- 0.002; • 0.002= 0.002- • 0.002 LL 0.001- 0.001- 0.001 0.001- 0.001 0.000 0.000. o-� 5 Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm POST Development-tb 20080204 Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. Page 34 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2/4/2008 Reach 6R: 6R Inflow Area = 1.575 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.01" for 25 Year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 18.51 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 18.58 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 3.9 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.46 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.9 min Avg. Velocity = 2.46 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.9 min Peak Storage= 0 cf @ 18.55 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.01' Bank -Full Depth= 1.50', Capacity at Bank -Full= 48.81 cfs 18.0" Diameter Pipe, n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished Length= 285.9' Slope= 0.1840 '/' Inlet Invert= 6,902.54', Outlet Invert= 6,849.94' Reach 6R: 6R Hydrograph Inflow Area -1.575 ac 9 p Avg. De th-0.01 Max _VeI=2.46 fps .;----r___ - --r--- D=18.0,,_ - -; _ n=0.012 L=285.9' S=0.1840 '/ Capacity=48-.81 cfs - II 0.00 cfs _-_ y ... __.I _. -_..-1.- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) - Inflow I - Outflow Storage 1 POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III - 25 -Year Storm Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Rainfall=2.10" Page 35 2/4/2008 w 0. r 0 0 1 0 Reach 6R: 6R Stage -Discharge 0 1- 10 15 20 25 30 Discharge (cfs) Reach 6R: 6R Stage -Storage 35 40 45 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 • 500 Storage (cubic -feet) Primary 0.003= 0.003= 0.003= 0.003 0.003- 0.002 0.002= 0.002- 0.002 0.002= 0.001- 0.001. 0.001. 0.001. 0.001. 0.000'7- 0.000- 0 POST Development-tb 20080204 Prepared by Gamba & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004371 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Oak Meadows Ranch - F4 - Phase III Type 11 24 -hr 25 Year Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Reach 7R: 7R 1.575 ac, Inflow Depth > 0.01" for 25 Year event 0.00 cfs @ 18.58 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af 0.00 cfs @ 18.61 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Atten= 0%, Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 1.90 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.90 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.0 min Peak Storage= 0 cf @ 18.59 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.01' Bank -Full Depth= 2.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 67.08 cfs 24.0" Diameter Pipe, n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished Length= 116.0' Slope= 0.0749'/' Inlet Invert= 6,849.69', Outlet Invert= 6,841.00' 0 LL Reach 7R: 7R Hydrograph - 25 -Year Storm Rainfall=2.10" Page 36 2/4/2008 Lag= 2.0 min I � I Inflow Area 1. 575 ac Avg. Depth=0.01' _ ...._ -- Max Vel=1.90 fps D=24.0" n=0.012 L=116.0, S=0.0749 ,/J _ Capacity=- 67.-08 -cfs I I -r---, -r 0.00 cfs _r 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) - Inflow j - Outflow