Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ExhibitsEXHIBITS IRONBRIDGE PUD (FORMERLY ROSE RANCH PUD) ARY PLAT AND PUD AMENDMENT Board o Coun Commissioners October 6, 2003 Exhibit A: Proof of Certified Mailing Receipts Exhibit 13: Proof of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended Exhibit D: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 Exhibit F: Staff Report dated October 6, 2003 Exhibit 0: Application Materials Exhibit H: Letter from Balcomb and Green dated September 30, 2003, regarding Land Title Guarantee Exhibit 1: Robertson Ditch Agreements Exhibit J: Letter from Resource Engineering dated August 1, 2003 Exhibit K: Letter from the Office of the State Engineer dated August 6, 2003 Exhibit L: Letter from the Office of the State Engineer dated July 31, 2003 Exhibit M: Letter from the Office of the State Engineer dated August 2, 1999 Exhibit N: Letter from Torn Beard, Garfield County Housing Authority dated August 7, 2003 Exhibit 0: Letter from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management, dated September 30, 2003 Exhibit P: Email from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management, dated September 22, 2003 Exhibit Q: Letter from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management, dated July 31, 2003 Exhibit R: Exhibit S: Exhibit T: Exhibit U: Exhibit V: Exhibit W: Exhibit X: Exhibit Y: Exhibit Z: Exhibit. AA: Exhibit BB: Exhibit CC: Exhibit DD: Exhibit EE: Exhibit FF: Exhibit GG: Exhibit HH: Exhibit I1: • Letter from Jonathan White, Colorado Geological Survey, dated August 27, 2003 Letter from Jonathan White, Colorado Geological Survey, dated July 17, 2003 Letter from Jonathan White, Colorado Geological Survey dated July 12, 1999 Letter from Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, dated July 21, 2003 Facsimile from High Country Engineering dated August 12, 2003 Minutes from various Board meeting from 2000 to 2001 regarding CR 109 and CR 154. Letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service dated August 7, 2003 Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated July 26, 1999 Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated May 4, 1998 Email from Steve Hackett, Garfield County Compliance Officer, dated August 7, 2003, regarding road names Letter from the Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association dated August 1, 2003 Letter from Christina Chapin dated September 29, 2003 Letter from Robert Snyder dated September 24, 2003 Excerpt from the PUD Amendment No. 1 and Preliminary Plan application dated October 1998, regarding "Golf Play" Minutes from Board meetings between 1997 and 1999 Minutes from the Board meetings of July 20 and July 21, 1998 Letter from David and Jill McConaughy dated August 13, 2003 Letter from Dave and Rosella Leety dated September 25, 2003 • • Exhibit JJ: Copy of Golf Clubhouse/Community Park site plan submitted with Final Plat Exhibit KK: Excerpt of the Ironbridge Activity Center site plan provided to staff on July 20, 2003. Exhibit LL: Excerpt from the PUD and Sketch Plan application, February 1998 — General Information. Exhibit MM: Excerpt from the PUD and Sketch Plan application, February 1998 --- Common Open Space/Overlooks/Community Park Exhibit NN: Excerpt from the PUD and Sketch Plan application, February 1998 — Vehicular and Pedestrian Access and Circulation with map Exhibit 00: Excerpt from the PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan application, October 1998 — Affordable Housing Exhibit PP: Excerpt from the PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan application, October 1998 — project description Exhibit QQ: Minutes from the August 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. E(-(_LL(L • Maw 10`f '141W • r i visioiscs skvz ofv.-tiov daikof L . (.(2, -Loo DLefrloo G1,49(coc cla,t a p `Coy �(t vl(r, t 1 Pitt 0 ihtum_L[.kva i - i 11146-19 11101(Uft Part ?(AO }Atte gitliblub4/104,4" -0a ,iicq vt L {d t r PYA ,L .L ,a. c- { la, -,7 ckne.Attar(,,,,,Lts - Cc -1-e velt- 1-Go3 ta-P-c 'c e4k - PtcUo c ttjegx_ (P/{ 22) Cacao{ p l k Oc441 5kt-c 136 i L (LI , Lt j ) -. ' 'pct • • BOCC: 10/6/03 TP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for the Ironbridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) and PUD Amendment APPLICANT: LB Rose Ranch, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE (S): Mike Staheli and Richard Nash ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering ATTORNEY: Balcomb and Green, P.C. (Tim Thulson) LOCATION: The property is located west of the Roaring Fork River, along the east and west side of County Road 109, approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs, and directly sought of the West Banks Subdivision. WATER / SEWER: Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ACCESS: County Road (CR) 109, State Route (SR) 154, State Highway (SH) 82 LOT SIZE: Approximately 533 acres including the West Bank Subdivision golf facilities. EXISTING ZONING: PUD (Planned Unit Development) ADJACENT ZONING: North: PUD; South: AIRJRD and Open Space; West: AIR/RD; and East: A/RJRD and Commercial . DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant indicated that to -date the golf course has been completely constructed and approximately 93% of all required public infrastructure improvements under the Phase 1 Final Plat have been completed. Under Phase 1 Subdivision Improvements Agreement with the County (Exhibit 3.A of the application), the Applicant was required to secure construction of $7,021,526.24 of both on- and off-site improvements. Pursuant to Acknowledgments of Partial Satisfaction presented to and approved by the County, all but $495,681.56 of these improvements has been acknowledged as complete. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 2 During the course of completing construction of the Phase 1, Final Plat public improvements, the Applicant encountered on-site conditions which required certain deviations from the plans and specifications contained within the Preliminary Plan approval. The Applicant was informed by the County that although the deviations from the plans were, according to the Applicant, primarily addressed to technical engineering issues and not the nature of the development, such deviations were beyond those which may be sanctioned pursuant to a plat amendment and that a full Preliminary Plan review of the same would be required. The Applicant noted that in order to avoid unnecessary confusion, all the preliminary plan map materials and supporting documents are identified under the title: Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development. The Applicant indicated that following approval, and coincident with the filing of the first conforming final plat, the name of the project will change to Ironbridge Planned Unit Development. In accordance with the terms and provisions of Sections 4.12.03 and 10.00 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the Applicant is also requesting the following amendments to the planned unit development (PUD) that was submitted by LB Rose Ranch, LLC.: 1. Regional Trail relocation 2. Golf II Elimination 3. Community Park Elimination 4. Creation of PA 22 5. Interior Paths & Overlooks 6. Zoning Text Modifications 7. Affordable Housing Requirements 8. Construction Activities adjacent to Blue Heron Conservation Area (request has been withdrawn per Applicant at Planning Commission meeting). 9. Street Name Changes 10. Modifications to Lot Locations 11. Phasing Plan The Board of County Commissioners shall note that the request for Preliminary Pian and PUD Amendment are two separate actions. Staff has consolidated the analysis of both requests in this memorandum. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 3 II. BACKGROUND The Applicant received zoning and subdivision approvals for the location and construction of 322 residential dwelling units, an 18 hole championship golf course, a golf club house and other recreational community facilities pursuant to the following approvals: 1. Resolution No. 98-80: Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning approval (Exhibit 1 of application). 2. Resolution No. 99-067: Amendment to PUD zoning approval (Exhibit 2 of application). 3. Resolution No. 99-068: Preliminary Plan subdivision approval (Exhibit 3 of application). 4. Final Plat (Rose Ranch PUD, Phase 1), pursuant to plat approved and executed by the County on September 7, 1999 and recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder's of the County at Reception No. 568188. Ill. REFERRAL AGENCIES: The application was referred to the following agencies for comments. Comments that were received have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable. 1. Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District: No comments. 2. RE -1 School District: No comment 3. Colorado Department of Transportation: No comments. 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No recent comments. See Exhibits Y & Z for previous comments. 5. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comments. 6. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibits K & L. 7. Colorado Geological Survey: Exhibits R & S. 8. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit U. 9. Garfield County Vegetation Department: Exhibits 0, P & Q 10. Garfield County Housing Authority: Exhibit N 11. US Fish and Wildlife: X. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT I. APPLICARLITY FOR PUD AMENDMENT Amendments to PUDs are allowed pursuant to section 10.00 of the Zoning Resolution. Applications for amendments shall be in the form of a written request identifying the Applicant and clearly stating the nature of the proposed amendment and reasons in support of such change. • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 4 The County Commissioners shall refer each proposed amendment to the Planning Commission, which shall report its approval, disapproval or recommendation to the County Commissioners within sixty (60) days of such referral of the proposed amendment by the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners referred the application to the Planning Commission on July 7, 2003. The Planning Commission considered the request for a PUD Amendment on August 13, 2003, and forwarded a recommendation of approval with conditions (see Exhibit QQ). Prior to the final adoption of any amendments, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing. Pursuant to Section 4.12.03 of the Zoning Resolution, a PUD may be modified subject to the following: (1) No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modifications, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104. C.R.S., that the preservation of the entire PUD does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. (3) If time-share or fractional ownership units or other similar interest in property are proposed after PUD zoning is granted by the Board of County Commissioners, an application for such designation shall contain unanimous approval of all owners of real property within the PUD. (A. 97-109) (4) No modification removal or release of a TPUD plan shall be permitted which would cause any conflict with the operation or utilization of the adjacent Mass Transit Facility or with any of the standards contained in Section 5.11 et seq. of this zoning resolution. (added 2002-12) II. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUD As noted previously, below are the proposed modifications to the Rose Ranch PUD: 1. Zone Text Modifications • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 5 2. Regional Trail 3. Affordable Housing Requirements 4. Golf II Zone District Elimination 5. Community Park Elimination 6. Creation of PA 22 7. Interior Paths and Overlooks 8. Construction Activities adjacent to Blue Heron Conservation Area (request withdrawn by Applicant at Planning Commission meeting). 9. Street Name Changes 10. Modifications to Lot Locations 11. Phasing Plan 1. Zoning Text Modifications: The Applicant provided a revised "Land Use Summary Table and Ironbridge PUD Zone Text" that would replace the table and text included in Resolution No. 98-80 (see Exhibit 1 of the application), and so modified by Resolution No. 99- 067 (see Exhibit 2 of the application). The following summarizes the proposed modifications to the Land Use Summary: a) Change Duplex Lots designation to Medium Density Residential b) Change Club Homes designation to Club Villas and reduce the number of approved units from 67 to 47. c) Eliminate reference to Golf II, Clubhouse Apartments. d) Create PA 22, Medium Density Residential with 10 units in approximately 2.5 acres. e) Adjust the Subtotal Units from 322 to 302, with the ability to allocate a total of 20 accessory dwelling units to planning areas zoned "20,000 s.f.", "15,000 s.f." and "9,000 s.f" f} Eliminate Community Park use under Common Open Space. The Applicant asserted that the proposed changes to the Land Use Summary Table is a general attempt to make the zoning definitions more flexible in the "Duplex Residential" and "Club Homes" zones to allow future planning to respond to market demands. The Applicant noted that the housing market is more favorable towards single-family and townhouses and less favorable towards duplexes. The changes also modify the dimensional requirements in each of the zone districts. The definition of Golf Course has been modified to allow for the inclusion of the fitness/pool/tennis complex. The Applicant noted that precise calculations and "% of Total" calculations shall be completed for the Land Use Summary tables prior to final County approval. The Planning Commission agreed with the proposed zone text modifications as proposed by the • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 6 Applicant. 2. Regional Trail: The Applicant is proposing to construct the Regional Trail along the east side of County Road 109 from the southern most boundary of Rose Ranch to a termination point at the intersection opposite the Westbank Ranch Subdivision entryway, instead of along the west side of County Road 109 as originally approved. The Applicant believes that this relocation of the trail, from the west side of County Road 109, will eliminate any conflicts that may have otherwise occurred between pedestrians, bicycles and golf carts where the cart path and the regional path were to co- exist. If this relocation is approved by the County, the County will need to vacate the previously dedicated trail easement and accept the dedication of a new easement coincident with the filing of the amended plat. The Planning Commission approved the relocation of the Regional Trail as proposed by the Applicant. 3. Affordable Housing Requirements: Although not required in 1998, when the Applicant's predecessor went through the PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan process, Affordable Housing was a commitment made by the Applicant. Resolution No. 98-80 granted the first PUD approval. Condition No. D(19) of Resolution No. 98-80 stated the following regarding Affordable Housing: Provide a preliminary plan for 10 percent (10%) of the total housing units proposed as attainable housing units to be located on the project site. The Applicant shall work with the Carbondale Affordable Housing Corporation, the Garfield County Housing Authority, the Housing for Tomorrow Commission, and the Glenwood Board of Realtors. The housing shall be created to accommodate individuals who earn within 80% of the median income in this valley with not more than 1/3 of their income spent on total housing costs." Resolution No. 98-80, was amended by Resolution No. 99-067, which granted an amendment to the PUD approval. According to Condition No. I(2) of Resolution No. 99-067, which is also reflected as Condition (I)(D)(3) of Resolution No. 99-068, which granted Preliminary Plan approval, the following condition were imposed for Affordable Housing: The first Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall provide a preliminary plan for 10 • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 7 percent (10%) of the total housing units proposed as attainable housing units to be located on the project site. The housing shall be created to accommodate individuals who earn within 80% of the median income in this valley with not more than 1/3 of their income spent on total housing costs. Price restricted lots do not conform to these conditions of approval which clearly states "housing units" which are "to be located on the project site." The first ten (10) affordable housing units shall be built on site and during the first plan phase. Ten affordable housing (10) unit shall be built per subsequent phases until all thirty (30) such units are built. Ofj site mitigation or cash -in - lieu may be a possibility for the 10 units, with a corresponding reduction of the overall density of the PUD, should the regulations be amended accordingly for affordable housing. No further agreements shall be executed until such time as the affordable housing units are constructed as required. As a result of the Affordable Housing, the density of the project was allowed to increase from 292 units to 322 units. Condition No. III(A)(5) reads as follows: Allow a density increase from 292 units to 322 units with condition that the increase in thirty (30) units consist of ten (10) rent restricted rental units with the newly designated Golf 11 Clubhouse Apartment Zone District and twenty (20) restricted affordable housing units which are to be located on the project site. Should the Garfield county Affordable Housing Regulations be amended. the Board may approve an off-site location of the twenty (20) housing units. The changes made to the Land Use Summary included in Figure 2 of Resolution No. 99-067 included the following: 1. Addition of 10% on-site affordable housing (30 units) a. 10 units in the new Golf II Zoning District b. 20 units in PA 20 (Golf Clubhomes). The Golf Clubhomes parcel was enlarged by approximately 2.0 acres to accommodate the additional units. The acreage added to this parcel results in an approximately 2.0 acres removed from the adjacent open space and golf course tracts. c. The resulting total amount of allowed units for this amended PUD is 322 units — a density of 0.60 dwelling units/acre. • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 8 In addition, as outlined by the Applicant, in the Rose Ranch PUD Subdivision Improvements Agreement (see Page 8 and 9 of Exhibit 3A in the application), the following was required for Affordable Housing: a) 10 affordable housing units shall be constructed within a single structure located within Golf Course Parcel 6, also referred to as Golf Clubhouse/Community Park; b) construction shall be completed and the units shall be made available to rent prior to the time that the County has issued more than 50% of the Phase 1 building permits; c) Until such time as the Affordable Dwelling Units are constructed and made available for rent, the golf course cannot be operated unless satisfactory security is provided for the completion of the 10 affordable housing units; d) no additional phases or subdivision may be pursued until 10 units are provided; and e) the 10 affordable housing units shall be deemed acceptable to the County prior to the expiration of the SIA. The Applicant proposed in the application the following changes to the Affordable Housing requirements in order to enhance the quality of life for residences of the affordable housing units and improve the integration of the affordable housing units with other community elements. a) The 10 affordable housing units required for Phase 1 shall be constructed as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to 10 of the 66 houses constructed on interior lots located within planning area (PA) 10-13 and 15-18 within Phase 1. These ADUs will be owned and maintained by the individual property owners on whose lots these ADUs reside. The lots will be deed restricted in a manner acceptable to the County and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Authority. The 10 units will have I bedroom and range in size from 400 to 600 s.f. b) 10 affordable housing units will be located in the newly -created PA 22 situated immediately east of the golf driving range and south of the overhead transmission lines. These 10 units will be owner -occupied single-family homes with 3 to 4 bedrooms. The single-family lots will be deed restricted in a manner acceptable to the County and the Garfield County Affordable Housing Authority. c) 10 additional affordable housing units will be constructed as 1 bedroom ADUs in subsequent phases of Ironbridge in the following zone districts: 20,000 SF Residential, 15,000 SF Residential, and 9,000 SF Residential. For each additional ADU that is constructed within Phase 1 beyond the required 10 units, the number of ADUs to be situated in subsequent phases shall be reduced by one. • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 9 d) The obligation to provide 10 affordable housing units within Phase 1 shall be secured by the following instruments: i. A deed of trust recorded on PA 22 in favor of the County of Garfield in the amount of $500,000. ii. A deed restriction recorded on PA 22 which stipulates the land use as 10 owner - occupied, single family affordable housing units. e) In an effort to acknowledge that it will take several years to fully build out the Phase 1 neighborhood, the County will require that at least 15% of the housing constructed on the 66 Phase 1 interior lots shall contain deed -restricted accessory dwelling units until such time as all 10 units are constructed and made available for rent. In the event that 2 of the first 12 units constructed on the interior Phase 1 lots do not contain ADUs, or if after the 12 homes the number of percentage of units with ADUs, or if after the first 12 homes the number of percentage of units with ADUs falls below 15%, then the Owner shall place $100,000 for each deficient ADU into an escrow account, which funds shall be used for the construction of an ADU in Phase 1 or subsequent phases. As noted in the SIA, the purpose of the affordable housing units within the PUD is to provide the opportunity for housing of seasonal golf course employees. There are no provisions in the County regulations to allow for the deed -restriction for Accessory Dwelling Unit as proposed by the Applicant. Accessory Dwelling Units, pursuant to section 5.03.21 of the Zoning Resolution, are leasehold interests, are detached structures and are not required to be rented. There is no a mechanism in place to require property owners to rent out the ADUs in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Garfield County affordable housing regulations. Comments were received by the Garfield County Housing Authority (see Exhibit N). Tom Beard, Vice Chairman of the Garfield County Housing Authority ("GCHA") noted that the proposed ADU concept is not consistent with the GCHA's understanding of the requirements contained in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Beard noted that that the whole public process for selecting eligible individuals for affordable housing is bypassed in the proposal by Ironbridge. As a result of Staff's findings and the comments from the Housing Authority, the Applicant proposed the following language to the Planning Commission which was accepted by the Planning Commission and forwarded onto the Board of County Commissioners. This language was submitted to the Housing Authority for comment, however, prior to the distribution of this memorandum no written comments were received. 1. That Applicant shall create and obtain all subdivision approvals within PA 22 necessary locate therein 00 affordable housing units in partial satisfaction of the requirements set forth • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 10 within Section 4.07.15.01 (10% of housing mix). Applicant shall construct and offer for sale the (10) affordable housing units in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Affordable Housing Guidelines set forth within Section 4.14 of the Zoning Regulations. The obligation to provide the affordable dwelling units within the first subdivision phase of the Ironbridge PUD shall be secured by the following instruments: a. a deed of trust recorded on PA 22 as subdivided in favor of the Board in the amount of $500,000.00; and b. a deed restriction which shall be appurtenant to and run with title to the land of PA22 as subdivided, which shall require the location, construction and sale of the 10 affordable dwelling units in accordance with the terms and provisions of Sections 4.07.15.01 and 4.14 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. In order to ensure that affordable dwelling units are made available for sale in a manner corresponding to the development of non -restricted lots within the first subdivision phase and all subsequent phases of the Ironbridge PUD, Applicant shall be required at all times and until construction of the entire 30 affordable dwelling units is complete, to have constructed and sold or constructed and available for sale, affordable dwelling units in a number equal 10% of the total number of unrestricted units which have at that time been sold or made available for sale. If at any time, this percentage falls below the required 10%, Applicant shall be required for each such deficient affordable dwelling unit, to place $100,000 into an escrow account in favor of the Board, which funds the Board will then apply toward the construction of the affordable dwelling unit. 2. That in the event the Applicant is unable to obtain, pursuant to Section 4.07.15.01 of the Zoning Resolution, off-site units in satisfaction of its remaining (20) affordable dwelling unit obligation under future subdivision phases, Applicant shall be required as a condition precedent to the filing of a final plat in which such affordable dwelling units are required, to obtain from the Board all required subdivision approvals necessary locate said units within the Ironbridge PUD. 4. That Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Housing Authority and Garfield County Building and Planning Department semi-annual reports documenting the status of affordable dwelling units within the Ironbridge PUD. • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8113/03 Page 11 4. Golf II Elimination: As outlined in the `Affordable Housing' section above, should the County accept the proposed changes to the Affordable Housing requirements, as proposed by the applicant, the Applicant has asserted that there would be no need for the Golf II Zone District. As discussion previously, the Planning Commission accepted and recommended approval of the revised Affordable Housing restriction. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended the elimination of the Golf 11 zone district. As seen in Figure 2 of Resolution No. 99-067, the intent of the Golf Course II Zone District was "to provide an opportunity for recreational golf To provide rental residential units". The Applicant proposes that the Golf 11 zone district be eliminated and that the Golf Course Zone District be expanded to include the area previously designated as Golf II. The Applicant asserted that the primary distinction between Golf Course and Golf II was the allowance in Golf II of an affordable apartment complex. Staff does not agree with this conclusion. The Golf II Zone District does allow for some similar permitted uses outlined in the Golf Course Zone District, however, the following permitted uses, have been excluded: community greenhouse, community facility, day care center, homeowners' association facilities, caretaker's residence and rental residence units (10 maximum). In addition, the elimination of the Golf 11 Zone District would eliminate the Golf Club Homes Zone District (PA 20) on which 20 affordable housing units were to be constructed pursuant to Resolution No. 99-067. The intent of the Club Homes Residential Zone District was "individual lots and unit ownership / rental with single-family attached or detached residential structures." The new Land Use Summary incorporates PA 20 within "Club Villas Residential Zone District", which is only intended for "individual lot and unit ownership with single family residential structures." 5. Creation of PA 22: The Applicant proposes to create Planning Area 22 (PA 22) in the area located immediately east of the Golf Course driving range and south of the overhead transmission lines. The Applicant noted that this area will he approximately 2.2 acres in size, zoned Medium Density Residential and accommodate a minimum of 10 deed -restricted owner occupied units that would comply with affordable housing guidelines of Garfield County. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the creation of the PA 22 (see Exhibit QQ). However, the Applicant noted that as a result of the Planning Commissions recommendation, the configuration of PA 22 needs to be modified slightly along the west side to allow for the 10 single family houses (see Exhibit KK for layout of houses). The Applicant provided a revised copy of the PUD plans which illustrates the required modification of this planning area (attached • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 12 separately to previously distributed application material). 6. Community Park Elimination: The Applicant proposes that the 2.14 acre Community Park area be eliminated and that the fitness/poolltennis complex located in this area be alternatively located within the Golf Zone District and owned and operated by the Club at Ironbridge. Under this alternative, a sports membership would be included in the sale of each lot or residence at Ironbridge, giving all Ironbridge residents the opportunity to use the fitness/pool/tennis complex if they so desire, Residents would have the option of activating their sports membership if they so desired by the payment of monthly club dues. As represented by the Applicant at the Planning Commission meeting, these memberships will also be offered to the Westbank Subdivision residences and the monthly fee would be approximately $65.00. The Applicant believes that there are several good reasons as follows, to have the fitness/pool/tennis complex belong to the Club rather than the Ironbridge Property Owners Association. a) The number of families using this facility would expand beyond the number owning property at Ironbridge (previously Rose Ranch). b) The cost to operate and maintain the fitness complex would be shared by all of the golf members (totaling 450), plus those lronbridge (Rose Ranch) residents who only want to have a sports membership. The Applicant anticipates that the annual operation costs of this facility will approach $500,000 during the initial years. If only the 300 property owners were maintaining this facility, the cost of them would be approximately $140/month. If the complex is a part of the golf club, the number of users increases to approximately 650 and the cost per month to the property owners who do not wish to join the golf club drops to $65/month. c) Since the developer will include the initiation fee for a sports membership in the sale price of each lot, all residents of Ironbridge will have the option of being a member of the fitness/pool/tennis complex, but not obligated. d) Shifting the ownership and management of the fitness complex from the property owners association to the club eliminates the substantial administrative responsibilities of the association. The overside and management of the associations is limited to landscape maintenance, thus dramatically simplifying the association's operation practices. Staff had indicated to the Planning Commission that according to representation made in the Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan application (see Exhibit V), "an approximately 2.14 acre community park shall provide active recreational opportunities for residents of Rose Ranch. • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 13 It is anticipated that this area, adjacent to the golf clubhouse and club homes, will accommodate active recreational uses. Potential uses include tot lot, open space, volleyball, tennis, swimming, picnic facilities, horseshoes, multi -use facilities and other uses.... Homeowners ' Association facilities and a day care facility may be incorporated into this area if determined feasible." As seen in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 98-80, the intent of the Community Park was to provide an opportunity for active recreational activities for residents of Rose Ranch." As a result of the elimination of the Community Park area and the incorporation of this area into Golf Course, the following uses would be eliminated: day care, tot lot, picnic facilities, trails, open space, and homeowners' association facilities. The Planning Commission recommended that under the proposal provided by the Applicant, the elimination of the "Community Park" was appropriate (see Exhibit QQ). 7. Interior Paths and Overlooks The Applicant would like to remove the references to overlooks and interior paths on the PUD plan. Staff continues to be unclear exactly which interior paths and overlooks are being removed and why the Applicant as requesting that the references be removed. According to representation made in the "Common Open Space" and the "Vehicular and Pedestrian Access & Circulation" sections of (see Exhibits MM & NN) of the Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan application, trails linking golf, housing, recreation and open space were proposed. In addition, overlooks were also proposed for the enjoyment of residents of Rose Ranch and residents of Teller Springs, Upper and Lower West Back, River Ridge and the properties that abut the Roaring Fork River to the east of the Rose Ranch property. Pursuant to Resolution No. 99-O67, a secondary overlook was deleted from the trail located west of County Road 109. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("DOW"), it was recommended that the secondary overlook be removed to protect the golden eagle nesting as represented on the PUD plans as "Golden Eagle Protection Zone" (see Exhibit Z). However, the DOW indicated that educational signs should be placed at the primary overlook and that the ridge south to the eagle's nest shall be closed from March 15 to July 1'. The Applicant argues that the primary overlook is located within the Golden Eagle Protection Zone and the Planning Commission supported the argument made by the Applicant with respect to the removal of the references to overlooks and interior paths. Staff still maintains that additional clarification is required for this request in order to make an • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 14 appropriate determination as to whether nor not the reference to overlooks and interior paths should be eliminated since it was initially represented that thee overlooks would provide enjoyment to the residents of Ironbridge, Tell Springs, Upper and Lower West Back and River Ridge Subdivisions. There was a concern with respect to trespassing raised at the Planning Commission meeting with respect to the new river access proposed by the Applicant between Lots 15 and 16. It was noted that some of the lot on the adjacent side of the Roaring Fork River actually cross the river and abut that Ironbridge property along the east side. 8. Construction Activities adjacent to Blue Heron Conservation Area: The Applicant has requested clarification with respect to Item B.1.n of Resolution No. 98-80 which states that "the construction of homes from 15 February through 31 May on proposed lots 94-96 and 108-118" shall be prohibited. The Applicant is under the presumption that this is a restriction against any construction activities on the exterior of the house between these dates and that work can proceed on the interior where it does not impact the activities of the Blue Heron. It appears that this condition was a recommendation from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (see Exhibit Z). This application was referred to both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife, however, comments were not received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Comments were received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see Exhibit X). Allen Pfister of the US Fish and Wildlife Service noted that the wildlife specialists recommended an exterior construction season restriction from February 15 to May 31 and Ironbridge agreed with this restriction. Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that unless the Colorado Division of Wildlife amends their recommendations, this condition should remain as written and not altered without something in writing from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff's interpretation of this condition is that it pertains to the construction of home, exterior and interior. During the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant withdrew their request for clarification on this item and will work with this restriction as initially approved (see Exhibit QQ), 9. Street Name Changes The Applicant indicated that in November, a list of street names were forwarded to the County for Phase 1, as well as future phases. The Applicant is including the modification of street names as part of this formal amendment process. The street name changes are summarized in the chart below: N/A N/A River Bend Way River Bend Way _ Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 15 Existing PUD Map Road A Road B Road C Road D Road E Road F Road G Road H Road I Road J Existing Prelim, Plan / Phase 1 Final Plat River Edge Road Blue Heron Way Bear Grass Road / Blue Heron Way / Wild Rose Circle Revised PUD Map / Prelim. Plan / Phase 1 Final Plat River Bend Way Silver Mountain Drive Wild Rose Drive / Wild Rose Court White Peaks Lane White Peaks Land Road K Road Road M Road N Meadow Sage Road / Gamble Oak Circle Meadow Sage Road River Edge Road River Edge Lane River Edge Road Tamora Drive Big Wing Drive River Edge Road River Edge Road Red Bluff Circle River Bend Way Ironbridge Drive Meadow Sage Road River Bend Way River Bend Way Red Bluff Court Road 0 Long Shadow Lane Gamble Oak Lane Steve Hackett, Garfield County Compliance Officer, reviewed the proposed road name changes and indicated that there are no issues with the proposed names (see Exhibit AA). 10. Modifications to Lot Locations The Applicant noted that after reviewing the as -built location of the golf course, there appears to be enough land next to Lot 19 to add an additional lot. The Applicant proposes that a new lot be created in this location on the Preliminary Plan, called Lot 19A. In order to keep the total number of lots unchanged, the Applicant will eliminate Lot 62 from the Preliminary Plan in exchange for the creation of Lot 19A. Phase 1 Lots 90-71 Golf Course Phase 2 Pas 20, 22 and 7-9 Phase 3 Pas 1-6 and 21 Phase 4 PA 19 (Block 4) 12003-2005 • 1 Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 16 11. Phasing Plan: The Applicant indicated that phasing of the Rose Ranch Subdivision was established under its PUD zoning (Resolution No. 98-80 and 99-067), which was incorporated as Exhibit D within the Applicant's vested rights Development Agreement, originally executed on January 17, 2000 and amended on July 10, 2000, neither of which were provided with the application. The Applicant noted that under the phasing plan in the First Amendment to Development Agreement (see Exhibit 12 of the application), the Applicant is required to obtain its Phase 11 Final Plat by December 31, 2003, which the Applicant believes would be premature given the present status of available lots within the Rose Ranch Subdivision and anticipated market conditions. The Applicant indicated that a request to extend the phasing plan is being requested under the PUD amendment request. As seen in Exhibit 12.A of the application, the following Phasing Plan is requested: 20115-2008 2006-21110 X X The Phasing Plan as proposed above was approved by the Planning Commission. III. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSI©N FINDINGS: 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 17 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed planned unit development is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 6. Pursuant to Section 4.12.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the amendments sought by the Applicant: a) do not affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce the provisions of the PUD Plan established by the Board under Resolution Nos. 98-80 and 99-067, given that the Applicant is the sole resident, occupant and owner of the PUD and has consented to all such amendments; b) do not affect in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a benefit upon any person; c) do not propose time-share or fractional owernship units or other similar interests in property, and d) Do not cause any conflict with the operation or utilization of the adjacent Mass Transit Facility or with any of the standard contained within section 5.11 of the Zoning Resolution. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUD AMENDMENT The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners APPROVAL for the Planned Unit Development Amendment for lronbridge PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. All representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. •f • tyiGet 5 p1vccs air Gnu' 2 Resolution No. 99-067 (Exhibit ) that have not been modified or altered by the conditions All terms, conditions and provisions of Resolution No. 98-80 (Exhibit ) and of this Resolution, shall remain in full force and effect. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 18 A. Zone Text Amendments 1. The Applicant shall comply with the revised Land Use Summary Table and Zone District Text (Exhibit ) as follows: a) replaces the zone district text designated "Duplex Lots" with that designated within the application as "Medium Density". The Medium Density zone district text shall incorporate verbatim the test set forth within the revised Land Use Summary Table and Zone District Text (Exhibit ); b) replaces the zone district text designated "Club Homes" with that designated within the application as "Club Villas". The Club Villas zone district shall be capped at a maximum of 47 residential units and shall incorporate verbatim the text set forth within the revised Land Use Summary Table and Zone District Text (Exhibit ); c) eliminates all references to the Golf II zone district and to the Clubhouse Apartments; I t' 11 d) adjusts the Subtotal of Units from 322 to 302; and 5/40t13 2t S t c e) eliminates Community Park use from the Common Open Space zone district. 2. The Land Use Summary Table and Zone District Text (Exhibit ), shall supersede the Land Use Summary Table and Zone District Text within Resolution No. 98-80, Exhibit A, and Resolution No. 99-067, Figures 1 and 2. 3. Prior to the 1' Final Plat, the Applicant shall provide the precise calculations and "% of Total" calculations on the Land Use Summary tables. B. Zone District Amendments 1. With the filing of the 151 Final Plat, the Applicant shall file an amended PUD zone district map which shall include the following: Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 19 a) Creates PA 22. PA 22 shalt encompass approximately 2.5 acres, shall contain 10 residential units / lots and shall be subject to the zone district text applicable zone district designated "Medium Density"; and b) Eliminates the references to community trails and overlooks. 2. The revised Zone District Map required to be provided to the County under this Resolution shall supplant in its entirely its predecessor counterpart previously recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Garfield County on September 11, 2000, as Reception No. 569189. C. Regional Trail 1. The Applicant shall include within the 1" Preliminary Plan filed under this amended PUD approval, a redesigned public bike / walking trail along County Road 109 which is separated from the existing cart path servicing the golf course. At the time of 1" Final Plat and dedication of the redesigned trail, the Applicant shall present to the Board, all documents necessary to vacate the unimproved trail previously dedicated to the public under the Rose Ranch Final Plat, Phase 1 recorded on in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Garfield County as Reception No. D. Affordable Housing 1. That Applicant shall create and obtain all subdivision approvals within PA 22 necessary locate therein ( 10) affordable housing units in partial satisfaction of the requirements set forth within Section 4.07.15.01 (10% of housing mix). The Applicant shall construct and offer for sale the (10) affordable housing units in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Affordable Housing Guidelines set forth within Section 4.14 of the Zoning Regulations. The obligation to provide the affordable dwelling units within the first subdivision phase of the Ironbridge PUD shall be secured by the following instruments: a. a deed of trust recorded on P A 22 as subdivided in favor of the Board in the amount of 5500,000.00; and b. a deed restriction which shall be appurtenant to and run with title to the land of PA22 as subdivided, which shall required the location, construction and sale of the 10 affordable dwelling units in accordance with the terms and provisions of Sections 4.07.15,01 and 4.14. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 20 In order to ensure that affordable dwelling units are made available for sale in a manner corresponding to the development of non -restricted lots within the first subdivision phase and all subsequent phases of the Ironbridge PUD, Applicant shall be required at all times and until construction of the entire 30 affordable dwelling units is complete, to have constructed and sold or constructed and available for sale, affordable dwelling units in a number equal 10% of the total number of unrestricted units which have at that time been sold or made available for sale. If at any time, this percentage falls below the required 10%, Applicant shall be required for each such deficient affordable dwelling unit, to placeS100,0000into an escrow account in favor of the Board, which funds the Board will then apply toward the construction of th affordable dwelling unit. 1(50,6:09 tW r 011 t"`1 CGS i tf, 2. That in the event the Applicant is unable to obtain, pursuant to Section 4.07,15.01 of the Zoning Resolution, off-site units in satisfaction of its remaining (20) affordable dwelling unit obligation under future subdivision phases, the Applicant shall be required as a condition precedent to the filing of a final plat in which such affordable dwelling units are required, to obtain from the Board all required subdivision approvals necessary locate said units within the Ironbridge PUD, 3. That Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Housing Authority and Garfield County Building and Planning Department semi-annual reports documenting the status of affordable dwelling units within the Ironbridge PUD. E. Preliminary Plan Phasing 1. In its 1' Preliminary Plat filing under this amended PUD, the Applicant shall subdivide as Planning Areas 19 and 20 as block filings to be further subdivided in subsequent Preliminary Plan filings. 2. In developing future phases within the Ironbridge PUD, the Applicant shall follow the phasing plan schedule in Exhibit F. Street Name Changes 1, The Applicant shall include within all future final plats the street name changes identified within Exhibit G. Modification to Lot Locations • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 21 1. The Applicant shall eliminate form its 1' Preliminary Plan filed under this amended PUD the Lot identified in the previous Preliminary Plan as Lot 62 and shall replace the same within a Lot to be created adjacent to existing Lot 19. The new Lot shall be identified within the Preliminary Plan as Lot 19A. H. Community Facility The Applicant shall make available to all lot owners within the Ironbridge PUD without initiation fee charge, memberships in the Ironbridge Club's fitness / pool / tennis facilities. Membership, without initiation fee charge, shall also be offered / provided to the Westbank Subdivision residences. PRELIMINARY PLAN I. APPLICABLITY FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN: Pursuant to section 4:20 ofthe Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Commission shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. 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 approval, shall be set forth in the minutes ofthe 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. IL STAFF COMMENTS: As noted previously, there is no amendment to the Preliminary Plan process. Therefore, the Applicant is required to resubmit for Preliminary Plan and is subject to the provisions outlined in Section 4:00, Preliminary Pian, of the Subdivision Regulations, This memorandum only discusses the deviations from the plans and specifications and does not analyze the entire project. As seen in Exhibit 4 of the application, the following is a summarized list of modifications / deviations to the Preliminary Plan: Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 22 1, Lot changes and modifications: The lot area for Lots 16, 77, 78, 79, 105 and 171 have been modified; Lot 79a has been added; Lot 62 has been eliminated. 2. Westbank underpass easement was enlarged to allow for grading and revisions to underpass material and orientation. 3. Sections of the Robertson Ditch easement were relocated to straighten the ditch and allow the ditch to work with golf course grading. 4. The water tank easement was moved up the hill to satisfy elevation requirements of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. 5. New location of regional trail along County Road 109. 6. Golf cart underpass, near water tank, has been modified. The width has been increased from 10' to 12' and length from 90' to 190' 7. Modification of intersection located at County Road 109 and River Bend Way shown on Sheet 10 of 77. 8. Ponds: Pond C, D and G have been eliminated; Pond B has been relocated; Ponds H and E have been modified. 9. A 15' wide, newly -created river access corridor has been added between Lots 15 and 16 shown. 10. Modifications to culverts throughout the project. 11. Water Treatment Plan site changes. 12. Debris structure detail changes. The modifications / deviations listed above are discussed throughout the following sections of this memorandum. A new phasing plan was incorporated with the PUD Amendment request supported by the Planning Commission. A. Water Supply Domestic water to the Rose Ranch Subdivision will be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFW&SD) pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the Applicant and the District entitled Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Roaring Fork Investments, LLC Pre -Inclusion Agreement recorded as Reception No. 569193 in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office (see Exhibit 21 of the application). The Applicant noted that all infrastructure improvements required to extend District Service to the Rose Ranch PUD are constructed and in place and all security has been released under the Phase 1 Subdivision Improvements Agreement. According to the Applicant, all connection and other charges owed to the District have been paid by the Applicant. All future infrastructure necessary to serve future phases will be paid by the Applicant and bonded under the applicable subdivision improvement agreement with the County. • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 23 The Applicant noted that all water rights to be utilized within the Rose Ranch PUD, including all. those to be conveyed to the District under the District Water Agreement, are fully augmented under Case No. 97CW236. In accordance with the term set forth within Case No. OOCW019, water rights maybe diverted (alternate point of diversion) at the present well facilities owned by the District and located with the Corryell Ranch Subdivision. The engineering work supporting the court decrees are contained within the report dated February 20, 1989, prepared by Zancanella and Associates, Inc. At Preliminary Plan, comments were received from the Colorado Division of Water Resources indicating that the "proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injufy to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions- (See Exhibit M). As part of this application request, comments were received from the Colorado Division of Water Resources that indicate that based on the findings outlined in the letter dated July 31, 2003, (see Exhibit L), the State Engineer finds, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), "that the proposed water supply for irrigation and pond filling will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate, and that pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)0)(I4 it is [their] opinion that the proposed potable water supply will cause injury to existing water rights." Michael Erion of Resource Engineering, Inc., the engineering firm obtained by the County to review the project, indicated that the water rights and water supply for the project remain adequate for the PUD amendment (see Exhibit J). Mr. Erion indicated that it is unclear as to why the State Engineer's Office had issued a "letter of material injury" for the project. Mr. Erion indicated that Zancanella & Associates is currently working with the State to clear up the issue. There has been no resolution to -date. Mr. Erion also indicated that the new potable water storage tank location was made to better integrate into the RFW&SD system. The new water tank location was analyzed by HP GeoTech and appropriate engineering design ofthe tank by Brown & Caldwell is include with the application. Mr. Erion noted that minor pipeline system design changes were made to reflect requirements of the RFW&SD. A revised letter from the Office of the State Engineer was received after the distribution of Staffs memorandum to the Planning Commission which was provided to the Planning Commission (see Exhibit K). In summary, the Office ofthe State Engineer noted that "based on the [contents of the letter date August 6, 2003], the State Engineer finds, pursuant to CRS 30-28- 135(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply for irrigation and pond filling i ill not cause material injury to decreed water rights and it adequate, and that pursuant to CRS 30-28- • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 24 136(1)(h)(1l), it is [the State Engineers] opinion that the proposed potable water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights ". B. Wastewater All sewage generated by Rose Ranch PUD will receive treatment from the facilities owned and operated by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFW&SD). The service lines and other facilities appurtenant to the system are contained within the Rose Ranch PUD Construction Documents submitted with the application. Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc., indicated that the lift station was modified to include an "aesthetic building" rather than an "industrial vault". Mr. Erion noted that the wastewater system is adequate. C. Drainage Certain changes were made to the development plan in construction of the Rose Ranch PUD. These changes included the following: 1. Water storage tank relocation (mentioned previously) 2. Concrete cart path rather than wood cart path 3. Earthen debris flow mitigation structures rather than timber structures 4. Ductile iron and yellowmine sewer pipes with mechanically restrained joints. HP GeoTech provided comments, dated March 26, 2003, regarding the above-mentioned modifications (see Exhibit 13..1 of the application). HP GeoTech's comments are summarized as follows: Water storage tank: The tank footprint was relocated to be entirely on the bedrock in compliance with the design recommendations of HP GeoTech. HP GeoTech observed the tank excavation. The bedrock, at the cut depth, was judged to be suitable for support of the tank. 2. Concrete Cart Path: The cart path up the steep drainage was constructed with concrete slab -on -grade and pre -cast concrete stream crossing structures. HP GeoTech observed the foundation excavations for the crossing structures with respect to bearing and scour potential. The constructed concrete path is consistent with the recommendations presented for the wood path and timber crossing structures to bear below scour depth or be protected against scour erosion. 3. Debris Flow Mitigation Structures: Earthen embankment structures were designed by High County Engineering and constructed rather than the originally proposed timber crib structures. The design parameters, presented in HP GeoTech's previous report, were appropriate for the earthen embankment structures design. • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 25 4. Water and Sewer Pipes: The ductile iron water and yellowmine sewer pipe lines are mechanically restrained and in compliance with HP GeoTech's recommendations. A Drainage Report prepared by High Country Engineering ("HCE") dated April 3, 2003, was provided with the application (see Exhibit 19.1 of the application). In summary, HCE indicated that the drainage improvements and structures act together to convey expected surface runoff across the site while mitigating impacts to expected building types and the environment. Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc., indicated that the overall drainage plan for the proposed PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan is adequate. Mr. Erion noted that the debris flow mitigation structures in the Northeast Dry Park Drainage have been changed from a "crib wall" dam to an earth embankment dam. The earthen embankment dams provide the same function as the "crib wall" dams. Mr. Erion indicated that that as -built grading for the golf cart underpass at the Northeast Dry Park Drainage deviates from the design drawings. However, Mr. Erion indicated that the field inspection of the area indicated that there is no change in hydraulic capacity or function. Mr. Erion indicated that as previously noted for the project, the golf cart underpass area may experience nuisance debris flow from the small narrow drainage basin below sediment control dams. D. Wetlands / Cart Path A wood cart path along the drainage was initially proposed and approved for the PUD. Michael Erion, Resource Engineering Inc., noted that the cart path design had been revised and includes upside down "U" pre -cast concrete structures which span the Northeast Dry Park Drainage and significantly reduces the impact to "waters of the United States." The earth embankment dams have slightly more impact then the crib wall dams. The final configuration of impacts has been reviewed by Professional Wetlands Consulting (see Exhibit 14.H in the application) and deemed consistent with Nationwide Permit No. 26 issued by the US Corps of Engineers for the project. Mr. Erion noted that all previously approved wetland setbacks should be included with any approval of the amended project submittal. E. Soils/Geology Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc., indicated that there are several concerns with the site soil and geology which require mitigation and/or special considerations. Mr. Erion noted that the application submittal adequately addresses these issues. The proposed lined aesthetic ponds and stream water features will be eliminated from the project in planning area (PA) 11 through PA 18 at the southern end of the project. Mr. Erion indicated that removal of potential sources of new water to the underlying hydrocompactive soils is supported from a technical standpoint. • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 26 Jonathan White of the Colorado Geological Survey ("CGS") noted in his letter dated July 17, 2003, (see Exhibit S) that the major hazards that were identified for the Rose Ranch development were potential for hydrocompactive soils, potential for sinkholes, and required debris flow mitigation for the major drainage way that results in the large alluvial fan on the Rose Ranch property. Mr. White noted that on page 10 and page 14 of the application it states that the changes and deviations of the original plan still meet the geotechnical constraints and requirements set forth by HP GeoTech and recommendations and observations made by CGS. Mr. White noted that he did not receive the changed plan sheets. Mr. White noted that in reviewing the list of deviations / modifications outlined in Exhibit 4 of the application, he found no changes that would appreciably change the geotechnical and geologic hazard aspect of the development except for Items #19 and #25 which discuss a change in debris flow mitigation. Item 19 of Exhibit 4 of the application indicates that all changes to the debris flow structures were engineered by High County Engineering and meet government standards. And, Item 25 of Exhibit 4 of the application states that the debris structure changed from wood to earth construction materials, as engineered by High County Engineering. The changed plan sheets that were inadvertently omitted from the application material sent to CGS have been resent. Mr. White provided a letter dated August 27, 2003, which noted that the subsequent plans submitted to him did not show the as -built plans for the retention structures in the upper golf course. On August 15, 2003, Mr. White toured the upper golf course to review the debris flow mitigation structures. Mr. White noted that CGS concurs with HP GeoTech's letter dated March 23, 2003, that the earthen detention structures are appropriate for the conditions. Therefore, the concerns of CGS regarding the mitigation plan have been addressed. F. Roads Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc. noted that the intersection of County Road 109 and River Bend Way at the Southern end of the project was modified from the original design. Mr. Erion noted that this modification was reportedly based on discussions with the Road and Bridge Department and the County Commissioners. Mr. Erion indicated that the narrower intersection appears to be acceptable. Mr. Erion noted that High Country Engineering is in the process of providing documentation of the change. To -date, no documentation regarding the modifications to the intersection of County Road 109 and River Bend Way has been provided. Eric Tuin of High Country Engineering provided documentation regarding the modification to the intersection of County Road 109 and River Bend Way (see Exhibit V). In addition, copies of minutes regarding the modification of the intersection can be seen in Exhibit W. It appears from • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 27 the documentation submitted that no approval at a public hearing by the County was given for the modification to the intersection of County Road 109 and River Bend Way. Therefore, as part of this Preliminary Plan request, action by the Board of County Commissioners shall be taken on the existing modification to the intersection. Bobby Branham of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department indicated that the proposed changes outlined in the application do not have a negative impact on County Road 109 (Exhibit M). Mr. Branham did not provide any comments regarding the modified intersection design. G. irrigation Ditches Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc., noted that the Robertson Ditch, which serves other properties downstream of the project, has been modified and relocated within the project. Agreements with downstream users have been executed to authorize the existing and proposed modifications to the ditch within the project and ditch laterals in Westbank Ranch (see Exhibit 1). H. Vegetation Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, provided the following comments (see Exhibit Q): a. The tree inventory of 1997 indicates the presence of hundreds of Russian olives on the property. Russian olive has been designated a noxious weed in Garfield County since 2000. The Applicant shall submit a plan that provides for the control of Russian olive with the PUD. b. There have been reports, although not confirmed, that there may be some Tamarisk trees located along the east side of the property along the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant shall inventory the area within the PUD for Tamarisk, and provide a Tamarisk management plan if the plant is present. Tamarisk is a noxious weed in Garfield County. c. Complaints have been received from homeowners in the Teller Springs Subdivision regarding a sewer line that was put in by Rose Ranch PUD through Teller Springs property (along the east side). Apparently, Rose Ranch made a commitment to revegetate the disturbance created by the placement of this line. During investigation at the site in June, 2003, at the request of the Teller Springs Homeowners Association, it appeared that either the area had not yet been revegetated or the revegetation was unsuccessful. A condition of approval shall require Ironbridge to revegetate the area as per the original commitment of Rose Ranch to the Teller Springs Homeowners Association. Mr. Anthony has also provided updated comments addressing complaints that he has received regarding the vegetation issues related to activities at Ironbridge (see Exhibit 0). Mr. Anthony • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 28 noted that some of the complaints are related to noxious weeds and are subject to enforcement procedures as established in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan and the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Mr. Anthony noted that other complaints are not noxious weed related, however, he has provided suggestions to possible solutions, however, these suggestions do not fall under the noxious weed enforcement procedures. 1. Noxious Weeds Richard Nash of Ironbridge mapped out the noxious weeds found at Ironbridge on August 15, 2003. A copy of the map was provided to Mr. Anthony. The Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property include the following: Canada thistle, Oxeye daisy, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, Salt cedar / tamarisk, and Scotch thistle. Recommendations: Mr. Anthony indicated that the Russian knapweed, salt cedar, and Russian olive should be treated fall of 2003. Mr. Anthony strongly encourages Ironbridge to treat these 3 species within the next three weeks and provide the County with copies of the treatment applications by November 1, 2003. Treatment may be in the form of application records by a commercial applicator. The remaining weed species may be treated in the spring. Ironbridge shall provide a weed management plan for spring treatment of oxeye daisy and Scotch thistle. The plan shall also provide for a follow-up fall treatment in 2004 of Russian knapweed, Russian olive and salt cedar. 2. Revegetation A. Road Cut Revegetation: The revegetation done by the Applicant on the road cuts along CR 109 is still getting established. Two species of weeds, Russian thistle and kocia have gained a foothold in some bare areas of the road cut. These plants are not designated as noxious weeds in Garfield County, however, they have been a cause of concern to residents of Teller Springs as they become tumbleweeds. Recommendation: Request that the Applicant remove the tumbleweeds that have become established in bare areas, either mechanically or manually, before this winter. • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 29 B. Tall grass along berms and roughs around golf course perimeters: Many residents of Westbank have expressed concerns about the tall grass planted in the roughs and along the berms. Their concern is that the grass when dried out, becomes a fire hazard and is in close proximity to many homes. They are also concerned that leaving the grass tall provides habitat for rodent pest and that it also makes it more difficult to manage the noxious weeds in the same area. Recommendation: Request that the Applicant keep the tall grass mowed and trimmed. C. Lack of revegetation on sewer line that transects the eastern part of Teller Springs property: Mr. Nash and Mr. Anthony looked at this on August 15'", 2003. Mr. Nash stated that Ironbridge would reseed the area this fall. He has asked for a seed recommendation. Mr. Anthony suggests either a dry pasture grass mix or mountain meadow mix. Both are available at local supply stores. Recommendation: Request that the Applicant provide records of a fall 2003 reseeding once the work has been completed on the sewer line at Teller Springs. 1. Additional Comments: 1. Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association (WBHOA): Comments were received from WBHOA and can be seen in more detail in Exhibit BB. The purpose of the letter was to request that Staff recommend certain conditions described in the WBHOA comments. The following is an outline of the issues and concerns raised by WBHOA: A. Westbank Area Maintenance Building: WBHOA noted that when the old Westbank golf course was in operation, the clubhouse and maintenance facilities were operated out of the building located near the end of Westbank Road and maintenance traffic from the building was light. WBHOA knew that the Applicant intended to use this building for maintenance, offices, storage, or other development purposes. According to WBHOA, the Applicant's representatives told Westbank representatives that maintenance of the "upriver" holes on the other side of County Road 109 would be from maintenance facilities to be built in that area. WBHOA noted that the maintenance building in Westbank is being utilized to service the entire Rose Ranch project, on both sides of County Road 109. WBHOA understands that the maintenance fleet is in excess of 25 vehicles, which include mowers, gasoline or diesel fired service trucks of various sizes, often pulling trailers, and one or more large John Deere tractors. WBHOA asserted that the maintenance traffic is very heavy and • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 30 causes noise, dust and petroleum fumes. WBHOA noted that the maintenance fleet is an interference with the historic quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood. WBHOA requested that the following be added as a condition of approval for the project: Within a reasonable time, one year, the developer shall be required to construct maintenance and equipment storage facilities on the Rose Ranch side of County Road 109, and to use those facilities for all equipment and supply purposes, and all maintenance, on the Rose Ranch side of the development. In reviewing the previous application material and conditions of approval, there do not appear to be any commitments made by the Applicant that the Westbank maintenance building would not be the central building for maintenance, offices, storage, and other development purposes. B. Yard Road Strip: According to WBHOA, the Applicant constructed a new roadway on a 30 -foot wide strip of land owned by the Applicant, which had never before been used for road or golf course purposes. The new roadway is located between Westbank homes owned by Beattie and Haines on the east side of Fairway Lane, and by Komasiewicz and Smith on the west side of Fairway Lane. A map illustrating the location of the above mentioned property owners' parcels is attached to the WBHOA comments (see Exhibit 0). WBHOA noted that this roadway is used constantly by maintenance vehicles traveling to and from the maintenance building located in Westbank, to the entire remainder of the development above County Road 109. According to WBHOA, the new Yard Road constructed and placed into service by the Applicant did not exist before August 2001. WBHOA noted that the Yard Road Strip was never used for any golf course or maintenance purposes during the entire history of the old Westbank golf course. Two existing, unbridged ditches prohibited any travel across this area. WBHOA noted that the new Yard Road run directly through areas of properties used as residential yards since the homes were built in the 1970s, until the bridging of ditches by the Applicant in late 2001. WBHOA noted that the representations were made by the Applicant in 2001 that there was no intent to use the Yard Road Strip. WBHOA noted that the Yard Road is not necessary for Rose Ranch maintenance and there are other options readily available across fairways and adjoining cart paths. WBHOA requested that the following be added as a condition of approval for the project: That the Applicant immediately and permanently cease and discontinue all use of the Yard Road Strip for all purposes except open space. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 31 The Yard Road Strip was created by the platting of Westbank Ranch filing No. 2 in 1972, 30 years ago. According to WBHOA, this Yard Road Strip was never used for any road or any golf course purpose. The Applicant, the benefactor of the Yard Road Strip easement (see Exhibit H), has begun to utilize this Yard Road Strip for the purposes of the golf course operation. It is the responsibly of the WBHOA or property owner to obtain a court decision on the prescriptive use of the "Yard Road Strip". The County is not a party to this dispute. There are no conditions of approval that precludes the Applicant from utilizing this easement for their benefit. C. Pesticides and Fertilizers, Petroleum Storage and Washing Equipment at Maintenance Building: WBHOA is concerned with the substantial amounts of pesticides and fertilizers being stored at the maintenance facility on Westbank Road. WBHOA has substantial safety and health concerns. Westbank's domestic wells are located near the maintenance building. WBHOA asserted that substantial releases of fertilizers, pesticides, petroleum products or gray water could adversely affect Westbank's wells. In addition, WBHOA is extremely concerned about the potential for fire caused by the volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel on site. WBHOA requested that the following be added as a condition of approval for the project: That the County evaluates these concerns, determine what applicable limitations, prohibitions, and requirements exist and require the Applicant to strictly adhere to all ©f them. Staff is of the opinion that a condition of approval should be included that requires the Applicant to contact the Department of Public Health and Environment and the Garfield County Vegetation Manager to determine the appropriate procedures for the storage of pesticides and fertilizers so as to not affect the domestic wells that are located adjacent to the maintenance building. D. Unlicensed Traffic on Public Roads: WBHOA noted that the maintenance building in Westbank Ranch causes a large volume of travel by unlicensed maintenance vehicles on Westbank's streets, particularly Westbank Road. WBHOA requested that the following be added as a condition of approval for the project: That the use of Westbank Ranch roads by unlicensed vehicles in all locations except the Meadow Lane crossing accessing the County Road 109 underpass be discontinued. Richard Nash of Ironbridge contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles and indicated that leases were not required, only vehicles owned have purchased tags. Staff is unclear • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 32 as to exactly what was meant by the Applicant's statement. Staff continues to maintain that the Applicant shall contact the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office and the Garfield County Sheriff's Department to determine what, if any, maintenance vehicles are required to be licensed. The Applicant shall submit documentation in writing as to the maintenance vehicles required to be licensed. Should any vehicles be required to be licensed, they shall license prior to Final Plat submittal. E. Golf Course Maintenance Near Yards: The Westbank golf course property abuts the properties of Westbank Ranch homeowners in many locations on the Westbank side of the development. WBHOA noted that the "seamless transition" between Westbank Ranch properties and the golf course property as represented to them by the Applicant has been kept in native grasses and weeds, as a "design feature". WBHOA requested that the following be added as a conditions of approval for the project: That the Applicant be required to maintain the golf course as it adjoins Westbank Ranch properties as a groomed "second cut of rough", which means that the vegetation next to Westbank Ranch yards be regularly maintained and mowed to a height of 3 to 6 inches improving the visual appearance and transition between the golf course property and Westbank Ranch properties. In addition, this requirement would eliminate the potential fire hazard. There are no provisions, or conditions of previous approval, to require the Applicant to provide a "seamless transition" between the Westbank Ranch properties and the golf course property. Representations made by the Applicant to WBHOA, unless made at a public hearing, shall be resolved by the WBHOA and the Applicant. F. Garfield County Tee Time: WBHOA understands that the original approval required that the developer would provide a golf component for Garfield County golfers at a preferred rate. According to WBHOA, the Applicant has adopted a policy calling for six (6) Garfield County tee times per week, which is less than one per day on average. Although WBHOA understands that the Applicant is not presently enforcing this limitation, the restriction is nonetheless in place. WBHOA noted that although they respect the Applicant's right to develop a primarily private golf facility, the spirit of the original condition was certainly not as narrow as the restriction which the Applicant has imposed. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 33 WBHOA requested that the following be added as a condition of approval for the project: That a reasonable compromise, say 35 Garfield County tee times per week (an average of 5 per day), be administered in the Applicant's discretion. Pursuant to Resolution No. 98-80, which granted approval for the Rose Ranch PUD, with respect to the affordability of the golf course, Condition No. A(6) reads as follows, "the golf course operations shall have an affordable play component for Garfield County residents and a discounted green fee. The Applicant shall propose a method of establishing the operations as part of the preliminary plan submit." Exhibit EE is an excerpt of the October 1998, PUD Amendment NO. 1 and Preliminary Plan application which outlines the local affordable play component. It reads as follows "there will be a local affordable play component for the daily green frees for residents of Garfield County. The Applicant anticipates that the local affordable play component pricing to be significantly lower than the daily green fees to be charged out -of -County players. The local play component should be between 25% and 50% below the out-of- County ut-ofCounty daily green fees." There was a concern with members of the Planning Commission with respect with representations that were made during the initially review of the Rose Ranch PUD with regards to the golf course. During the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant stated that the golf course was originally modeled after the River Valley Ranch concept, a public golf course, but is now modeled after the Roaring Fork concept, which is a private golf course. There are a couple letters from citizens that were submitted after the Planning Commission meeting with concerns on the public golf play portion at Ironbridge which can been seen in Exhibits CC and DD. III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Planning Commission; 2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. 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 of the citizens of Garfield County; • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 34 4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. 6. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN: Garfield County Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan request for the Ironbridge PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioner, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. All terms, conditions and provisions of Resolution No. 99-068 (Exhibit ) which are not modified or altered by the conditions of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. 3. The Applicant shall maintain all drainage structures in accordance with the provision and re uirements of the Drainage Report prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc. dated April 3, 4. The Applicant shall include within and dedicate under the 151 Final Plat following this Preliminary Plan approval of the Community Trail as relocated. 5. Prior to the 1' Final Plat, the Applicant shall contact the Colorado Department of Health and Environment and the Garfield County Vegetation Manager to determine the appropriate procedures for the storage of pesticides and fertilizers so as not to adversely impact the domestic water wells serving the Westbank Ranch Subdivision L C at 0+114— koa- . Q t 0.44` ed &t E `Mee - 1 )4t" 6. The Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Garfield County Vegetation Manager dated July 31, 2003, and September 22, 2003, as follows: • • Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 35 a. The tree inventory of 1997 indicates the presence of hundreds of Russian olives on the property. Russian olive has been designated a noxious weed in Garfield County since 2000. The Applicant shall submit a plan that provides for the control of Russian olive with the PUD. b. There have been reports, although not confirmed, that there may be some Tamarisk trees located along the east side of the property along the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant shall inventory the area within the PUD for Tamarisk, and provide a Tamarisk management plan if the plant is present. Tamarisk is a noxious weed in Garfield County. c. The Russian knapweed, salt cedar, and Russian olive on the subject property should be treated fall of 2003. The Applicant shall treat these 3 species prior to November and and provide the County with copies of the treatment applications by November I, 2003. Treatment may be in the form of application recordes by a commercial applicator. The remaining weed species, Canada thistle, Oxeye daisy and Scotch thistle shall be treated in the spring. The Applicant shall provide a weed management plan for spring treatment of oxeye daisy and Scotch thistle. The plan shall also provide for a follow-up treatment in 2004 of Russian knapweed, Russian olive and salt cedar. d. The Applicant shall remove the tumbleweeds that have established on the road cuts along County Road 109 either mechanically or manually prior to November 2003. 7. All maintenance vehicles and vehicles associated with Ironbridge PUD utilizing roads that are maintained by the West Bank Homeowners Association but dedicated to the County shall be licensed prior to the Board of County Commissioners review of Preliminary Plan. The Applicant shall work with the Garfield County Sheriff's Department and the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office to determine the vehicles to be licensed. 8. Rose Ranch PUD shall be changed to Ironbridge PUD. All approvals, documentations, representations, so -forth under the name of Rose Ranch PUD shall pertain to Ironbridge PUD. 9. The following list of modifications / deviations to the Preliminary Plan granted pursuant to Resolution No. 99-068, shall be permitted unless otherwise specified within these conditions of approval: a. Lot changes and modifications: Modification of the area for Lots 16, 77, 78, 79, 105 and 171; Addition of Lot 79a and Lot 19A; Elimination of Lot 62. b. Enlargement of the Westbank underpass easement to allow for grading and revisions to underpass material and orientation. c. Relocations of sections of the Robertson Ditch easement to straighten the ditch and allow the ditch to work with golf course grading. d. The relocation of the water tank easement up the hill to satisfy elevation requirements of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Iron Bridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment PC: 8/13/03 Page 36 e. Modification of the golf cart underpass, near water tank: width increased from 10' to 12' and length increased from 90' to 190' f. Ponds: Elimination of Ponds C, D and G have been eliminated; Relocation of Pond B; Modification of Ponds H and E. g. The addition of a 15' wide, newly -created river access corridor between Lots 15 and 16 shown. h. Modifications to culverts throughout the project. i. Site change to the Water Treatment Plan. / 6ha,(,� 10. In accordance with the US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated August 7, 2003, the Applicant shall in late 2003 or early winter or spring 2004 provide the Fish and Wildlife Service documentation regarding the,3nonitoring for the presence and nesting behavior of the bald eagles. The monitoring y carried out in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the Colorado Department of Wildlife. Shall the bald eagle return, the Applicant willhavei}ey-wi tenter into an Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the Service will determine the adequacy of existing mitigation measures agreed to and implemented by the Applicant, and determine if other potential measures are appropriate to include, should the HCP be written: Prior to the approval of the 2nd Phase of the Ironbridge PUD, the Applicant shall provide documentation regarding the monitoring of the bald eagles and the determination of the Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the HCP. JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE MARIE MCPHEE AMANDA N. MAURER DEBORAH DAVIS* DAVID P. JONES ALSO ADMITTEO TC PI:a.CTICE IN NEW YORK AND MISSOURI • • BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELCPIIONF+:: 970.94 5.65 16 FAC'SIMIL : 970.945.8902 WWW.BALCOMUGREEN.COM September 30, 2003 Via Hand Delivery Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building & Planning 109 8'h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Iron Bridge Dear Tamara; RECENED SEP OF COUNSEL: KENNETH SALCOM@ igiang2-4019_, Enclosed herewith is the title policy issued by Land Title Guarantee to Roaring Fork Investments, LLC, and addressing the property incorporated within the West Bank Subdivision informally known as the West Bank Ranch Golf Course. Roaring Fork Investments, LLC, was the predecessor in interest to LB Rose Ranch, LLC, the present owner of this property. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By.i,.I Timothy A. Thulson. TAT/pal Enclosure * 2 ** 93j * *}c * Iivner's Policy American Land Title Association Owner's Policy 10-17-92 •No. 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 ar lien ar 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, attorneys' 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 tincluding, 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; (ill) 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 liv) 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 governmental police power not excluded by la) 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 creating subsequent to Date of Policy; or fel 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: (a) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (ii) 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 817 COLORADO AVENUE SUITE 203 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81802 3031945-, Authorized Signatory OM' Form 4020 - ALTA {hvner's Policy 10-1742 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Stock Company 900 Second Avenue South. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (614371-1111 By Attest 1 („1.?,Z President Secretary CONDITIONS ANO 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 virtue of a contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title, 2. Continuation of Insurance After Conveyance of Title. The 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 (i) an estate or interest in the land, or (ii) 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 promptlyfi writing (i) in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a) below, (ii) in case knowledge shall corse 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 this policy, or (iii) 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 terrninate 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 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. (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 (ii) in any other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable 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 Toss 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 damageFurther, 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, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All (Continued on inside back cover.) (Continued from inside front cover.) information designated as confidential by the it claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, itis 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: (a) 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 the 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. (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Insured or With the Insured Claimant, (i) 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 Cornpany up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay; or (ii) 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 (bHi) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the insured under this policy for the claimed lass 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, 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: (i) 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 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 Foss 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 ane or more of the parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled an a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to the value en 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. 70. 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 Non -cumulative. 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 Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 12. Payment of Loss. (al 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 lass or damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. 13. Subrogation Upon Payment or 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 (Continued on back cover / (Continued from inside cover.) remedies against any person or property necessary er 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 is $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 ilk 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 attorneys' 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 the 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. vner'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, Tide 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, attorneys' 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. la) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including, but not limited to. building and toning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating prohibiting or relating to til me occupancy, use, er enjoyment of the land, (ill the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; jiii) 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 governmental 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. (di attaching or creating 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: la) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or )b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (ii) 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 817 COLORADO AVENUE SUITE 203 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602 3016,15, "140"40 03,`945,"140"40 , .4urhonzed Signatory ORT Form 4020 - '-' Owner's PQi cy 10-17.5: OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Stork Company 400 Second Avenue Sourh, Mlnneapor+s, Minnesota 55401 t612137r-rrtt �Ce 5e,:reraT. Form AO 4/95 411 Poli. No. LTHH222192 Order No. GW222192 Amount $987,500.00 SCHEDULE A Address GARFIELD COUNTY 1. Policy Date: November 26, 1997 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Name of Insured: ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 3. The estate or interest in the land described 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: ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5. The land referred to in this policy is situated in GARFIELD County, Colorado, and is described as follows: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, ALL IN THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE COMMON CORNER TO SECTIONS 1 AND 2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING COMMON OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THENCE N 76 DEGREES 04'29" W 4185.64 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 21, WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION, FILING 1, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE THE FOLLOWING TWENTY FIVE (25) COURSES ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH, FILING 1: 1. S 09 DEGREES 00'22" W 226.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 2. S 69 DEGREES 53'22" W 82.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 3. S 06 DEGREES 59'38" E 79.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Page 1 This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached. Form AO 4/95 410 Poli. No. LTHH222192 Order No. GW222192 Amount $987,500.00 SCHEDULE A 4. S 55 DEGREES 29'38" E 95.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 5. S 75 DEGREES 13'38" E 215.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 6. N 88 DEGREES 58'22" E 451.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 7. N 82 DEGREES 55'22" E 240.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 8. S 20 DEGREES 35'18" E 185.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 9. N 69 DEGREES 24'42" E 210.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP L.S. NO. 19598 10. N 07 DEGREES 18'26" W 251.73 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 11. N 71 DEGREES 15'22" E 272.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 12. N 41 DEGREES 00'22" E 372.54 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 13. S 65 DEGREES 59'38" E 435.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 14. S 19 DEGREES 59'38" E 210.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 15. S 60 DEGREES 00'22" W 398.80 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 16. S 48 DEGREES 16'51" W 235.20 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 17. S 50 DEGREES 30'22" W 210.22 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 18. S 69 DEGREES 24'42" W 180.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 19. N 20 DEGREES 35'18" W 260.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 20. S 69 DEGREES 24'42" W 230.27 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 21. S 20 DEGREES 35'18" E 266.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 22. S 66 DEGREES 09'07" W 96.57 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 23. S 01 DEGREES 23'54" W 109.60 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 7168 24. S 28 DEGREES 05'38" E 250.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, (ILLEGIBLE) 25. S 67 DEGREES 07'27" E 149 99 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE), THE COMMON CORNER OF WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 AND WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 2, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 23 OF SAID FILING 2; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SEVENTEEN (17) COURSES ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 2: 1. S 69 DEGREES 05'38" E 633.53 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 2. N 78 DEGREES 31'22" E 318.16 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 3. S 62 DEGREES 19'08" E 376.50 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 4. S 84 DEGREES 58'08" E 192.70 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 5. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF OF 585.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 55'13" AND A DISTANCE OF 40.03 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 03 DEGREES 04'17" E 40.02 FEET) TO A NO. 5 REBAR 6. N 84 DEGREES 58'08" W 183.32 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Page 2 This Policy valid only it Schedule B is attached. Form AO 4/95 Order No. GW222192 Po111 No. LTHH222192 Amount $987,500.00 SCHEDULE A 7. N 62 DEGREES 19'08" W 133.53 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 8. N 10 DEGREES 46'22" E 65.11 FEET TO A 1 INCH STEEL PIPE 9. N 30 DEGREES 36'38" W 476.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 10. N 39 DEGREES 08'22" E 306.48 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 11. N 77 DEGREES 24'22" E 264.88 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 12. S 33 DEGREES 46'38" E 544.01 FEET 13. 8 18 DEGREES 29'38" E 217.00 FEET 14. S 06 DEGREES 49'38" E 218.79 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 15. N 84 DEGREES 58'08" W 259.29 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 16. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 645.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 33'20" AND A DISTANCE OF 40.03 FEET (CHORD BEARS 8 03 DEGREES 15'14" W 40.02 FEET) TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 17. S 84 DEGREES 5808" E 334.45 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR, THE COMMON CORNER OF WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 2 AND WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14 OF SAID FILING 3; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIXTEEN (16) COURSES ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3: 1. N 81 DEGREES 0737" E 357.91 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 2. N 89 DEGREES 54°22" E 200.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 3. S 78 DEGREES 32'08" E 216.49 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 4. S 74 DEGREES 29'38" E 173.39 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 5. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES 56'03" AND A DISTANCE OF 52.02 FEET CHORD BEARS N 00 DEGREES 36'54" E 51.95 FEET) TO A REBAR AND ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. NO. 11204 6. N 74 DEGREES 29'38" W 319.84 FEET TO A REBAR AND ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. NO. 11204 7. N 33 DEGREES 34'38" W 232.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 8. N 22 DEGREES 27'38" W 382.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 9. N 20 DEGREES 22'38" W 328.18 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 10. N 35 DEGREES 29'38" W 119.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 11. N 52 DEGREES 29'38" W 175.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 12. N 52 DEGREES 29'38" W 215.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 13. N 16 DEGREES 18'38" W 321.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 14. N 33 DEGREES 56'22" E 228.90 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 15. S 69 DEGREES 27'38" E 475.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Page 3 This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached Form AO 4/95 Order No. GW222192 L.S. NO. 9184 16. S 50 DEGREES 45'38" E 395.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 23 OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY N 42 DEGREES 04'22" E 160.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE THE TWELVE (12) FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAID CENTERLINE: 1. N 51 DEGREES 47'38" W 124.10 FEET 2. N 45 DEGREES 56'38" W 239.80 FEET 3. N 64 DEGREES 32'38" W 507.80 FEET 4. N 84 DEGREES 51'38" W 169.60 FEET 5. N 79 DEGREES 36'38" W 203.00 FEET 6. N 72 DEGREES 34'38" W 879.00 FEET 7. S 87 DEGREES 46'22" W 342.00 FEET 8. S 85 DEGREES 12'22" W 231.00 FEET 9. S 65 DEGREES 57'22" W 517.00 FEET 10. S 48 DEGREES 42'22" W 332.00 FEET 11. S 69 DEGREES 44'22" W 363.00 FEET 12. N 80 DEGREES 02'25" W 181.96 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SCHEDULE A Poli. No. LTHH222192 Amount $987,500.00 COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Page 4 This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached. Form AO 4/95 Order No. GW222192 411 Policy No. LTHH222192 SCHEDULE B 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. TAXES FOR 1997 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS ONLY, NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE. 6. DEED OF TRUST DATED November 25, 1997, FROM ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF GARFIELD COUNTY FOR THE USE OF LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,030,487.50 RECORDED November 26, 1997, IN BOOK 1044 AT PAGE 30 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 516998. 7. FINANCING STATEMENT WITH LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED November 26, 1997, IN BOOK 1044 AT PAGE 62. 8. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSIQN IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. 9. WATER RIGHTS OR CLAIMS TO WATER RIGHTS. 10. RESERVATIONS AS CONTAINED IN PATENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 11. ONE-HALF OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERALS RESERVED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1950 IN BOOK 254 AT PAGE 556, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 12. ONE-FOURTH OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERALS AS RESERVED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1959 IN BOOK 320 AT PAGE 400, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 13. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 13, 1931 IN BOOK 168 AT PAGE 159. Page 5 410 Form AO 4/95 •rder No. GW222192 Policy No. LTHH222192 SCHEDULE B 14. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1971 IN BOOK 422 AT PAGE 562. 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF LEASE RECORDED June 13, 1979 IN BOOK 529 AT PAGE 856 AND ANY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF OR AMENDMENT THERETO. 16. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF EASEMENT AND FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1987 IN BOOK 720 AT PAGE 982 AND ASSIGNMENT RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1995 IN BOOK 949 AT PAGE 694. NOTE: WAIVER OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL WAS RECORDED AUGUST 1, 1997 IN BOOK 1028 AT PAGE 820. 17. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED September 17, 1987, IN BOOK 720 AT PAGE 978 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED October 09, 1990, IN BOOK 790 AT PAGE 325. 18. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON SURVEY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED JULY 1, 1997, PREPARED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING AS JOB NO. 9704201 AND AS AMENDED PURSUANT TO PLAT NOTE NUMBER 5. NOTE: ITEMS 1-3 AND 5 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED FROM THE OWNER'S TITLE POLICY. NOTE: ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS IS HEREBY DELETED FROM THE OWNERS POLICY AS TO ANY LIENS OR FUTURE LIENS RESULTING FROM WORK OR MATERIALS FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE SELLER AS OF THE DATE OF THIS POLICY. Page • • B LC©MVIS & GREEN, P.C. JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMR LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHERL. GEIGER ANNE MARIE CALLAHAN AMANDA N. MAURER DEBORAH DAVIS* DAVID P. JONES ` ALSO *DMITTEU TO PRACTICE +N NEW VOR.. AND MISSOURI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 4.. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE; GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8`h Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.8902 www. ba Icombgreen.com June 3, 2003 EXHIBIT Of Counsel: Kenneth Balcomb Re: Application for Amendment to Planned Unit Development and Preliminary PIanILB Rose Ranch, LLC/Ditch Agreements Dear Tamara: For the purpose of addressing Michael Erion's concerns relevant to the changes and improvements effected by LB Rose Ranch, LLC under Zoning and Subdivision Entitlements to the Robertson Ditch and laterals, I include herewith for your review and reference as Exhibits A and B, respectively: 1. Ditch Agreement by and between Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association, Westbank Mesa Homeowners Association, Roaring Fork Investments, LLC (predecessor and interest to LB Rose Ranch, LLC) and the Brannan Family Trust. This agreement, which includes all parties in interest to the Robinson Ditch, authorizes all modification to the mainstem of the Robinson Ditch as it traverses the Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development property effected by LB Rose Ranch, LLC under its development plan. In this regard I would draw your attention to paragraph 11 of the ditch agreement; and REC E LVED JIJN 0 5 2003 6ARf HELD COUNT' !U111:11NG & PLANNtNG Tamara Pregl Page 2 2. Agreement by and between Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association and LB Rose Ranch, LLC dated April 16, 2002 This agreement authorizes all modifications to the ditch laterals to the Robertson Ditch as the same traverse the old Westbank Ranch and Golf Course property effected by LB Rose Ranch, LLC under its development plan. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By z!7,.° Tim. A. Thulson TAT/kb Enclosures cc: Mike Staheli IIID 11111 111111 hill 111 11 iIlII' IIIII IIIIIIII • 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 61396 80 M eLSooA. 1 of 52 R 261.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2001, by and between WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO , a Colorado non-profit corporation, whose address is P.O. Box 2703, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ("Westbank") and LB Rose Ranch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company whose address is c/o Ronald Jacobs, 730 17th Street, Suite 900 Denver Colorado, 80202 ("LBR"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on December 4, 1998, Westbank, Roaring Fork Investments, LLC ("RFI"), Westbank Mesa Homeowners Association and the Brannan Family Trust entered into a Ditch Agreement which addressed various matters pertaining to the ownership, operation, use and maintenance of the Robertson Ditch ("Ditch") and the various laterals extending therefrom. A copy of the Ditch Agreement was recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Garfield County, Colorado on December 7, 1998 in Book 1102, at Page 643 and Reception No. 536764; and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A. WHEREAS, LBR is the successor in interest in and to all of the rights, obligations and duties of RFI as related to the Ditch Agreement and the Ditch; and WHEREAS, LBR is in the process of constructing a new golf course and related facilities in part on the property previously occupied by the Westbank Golf Course (the "Golf Course Property"), more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Substantial portions of said golf course facilities are adjacent to properties owned by Westbank members; and WHEREAS, LBR has proposed to relocate, refurbish and/or pipe substantial portions of the laterals extending from the Ditch, and has commenced construction in Connection therewith. The portions of the laterals which are to be relocated, refurbished or piped are identified on the map attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit C and shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Piped System"; and WHEREAS, Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated by this reference is a color - coded illustration of the Ditch, the laterals prior to relocation, the laterals as relocated by the Piped System, and lots and streets, as located below (to the west of) County Road 109 on and in the vicinity of the Westbank Subdivision and the Golf Course Property; and WHEREAS, installation of the Piped System will change the manner and methods pursuant to which Westbank and its members have historically operated and maintained the Ditch laterals and have historically drawn water from the same; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth their understandings regarding their responsibilities for the installation, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Piped System and to amend the provisions of the Ditch Agreement relevant to the same. 1 Westbank Ditch Agreement Version 4 When recorded, return to: BEATTIE 8c CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 710 COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1 111111 11111 111111 111111 HI II lM 111 11111 1111 1111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 81396 P981 M RLSDORF 2 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements made and set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed, the parties agree as follows: • 1. Assumption of RFI Responsibilities. LBR hereby assumes all of the rights, duties and obligations of RFI as set forth within the Ditch Agreement, and agrees to timely perform all of the duties and obligations of RFT pursuant to the Ditch Agreement, except as modified herein. 2. Construction of Piped System. LBR, at its own cost and expense and in accordance with the terms, provisions and conditions hereinafter set forth, shall install and construct the Piped System in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc contained within Exhibit C hereto, and in the document entitled Specification for Installation of Corrugated Metal Pipe on the Robertson Ditch and Westbank Subdivision Laterals, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit E. a. Change Orders. In order to address unforseen matters which may be encountered on the ground during installation and construction, LBR, its contractors and agents may implement reasonable change orders, of which LBR shall provide Westbank with notice and copy of the same. b. Inspection. Westbank shall have the right, but shall have no duty, at all times during the installation and construction of the same to inspect the Piped System to ensure compliance with the plans and specifications. Whether or not Westbank elects to undertake any inspection, and whether or not Westbank observes and notifies LBR. of any apparent non-compliance, LBR shall be and remain solely responsible for construction of the Piped System in accordance with this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto. LBR shall have no right to rely on any inspection or construction observation by Westbank, or the absence of any inspection or construction observation by Westbank, for any purpose. c. Certification. Within ten (10) days of completion of the same, LBR shall provide Westbank written certification executed by LBR's engineer that the Piped System has been installed and constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications. 3. Lot Connections. As a part of its construction, LBR at its sole expense shall connect each and every Westbank Ranch property previously served by the lateral ditches, or whose prior source of service is otherwise altered by LBR construction, to the new Piped System. All connections shall be in a manner consistent with good pumping practices, providing for reliable withdrawal and irrigation use of water by Westbank Ranch and its affected members. 4. As -Built Drawings/Ownership. Within ten (10) days of the certification date hereinabove described, LBR shall provide as -built drawings of the Piped System to Westbank. In order to establish and maintain an insurable interest, LBR shall retain ownership of the physical improvements and components of the Piped System, subject always to Westbank's rights therein as set forth in the Ditch Agreement and this Agreement. Such ownership of 2 Westbank Ditch Agreement Version 4 1 111111 11111 111111 111111 1111 111 1I111 111 11111 1111 1111 612736 10/17/2002 04 26P B1396 P982 M ALSDORF 3 of 52 R 261.00 D 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO physical improvements and components by LBR shall not affect or change ownership of or rights in the laterals contained within the Piped System, as in existence prior to the execution of this Agreement. 5. Easements. Westbank is the assignee and holder of an easement through and across the Golf Course Property providing for Westbank's use, maintenance, replacement and addition to the ditches, laterals and other structures in the irrigation water system, and other uses and purposes, as set forth in documents recorded in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder in Book 720, at Page 982, Reception No. 385887, recorded September 17, 1987; in Book 949, at Page 694, Reception No. 481731, recorded August 9, 1995; and in Book 1241, at Page 83, Reception No. 578330, recorded March 30, 2001. Such easement rights shall exist and continue in effect notwithstanding the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement rights and duties of LBR set forth within Paragraph 6, hereinbelow. 6. Operation, Maintenance and Repair of Piped System. LBR shall be responsible for all costs associated with the installation, construction and thereafter, the operation, maintenance and repair of the Piped System, including the reverse siphon, lot connections and individual withdrawal points. LBR shall promptly perform any repairs or remedial work in the event that the pumps connected to the new culverts do not operate as intended. LBR shall repair or pay for any damage to any Westbank owner's property or component of property, arising out of or related to the construction or operation of the Piped System, including individual lot connections as installed by LBR. In the event LBR fails to operate, maintain or repair the Piped System in a manner sufficient to ensure the delivery of water to the members of Westbank served thereby in the quantity or quality accorded said members under the Ditch Agreement, Westbank or its members shall be entitled, through the exercise of the rights above described, to perform such operation, maintenance or repair as may be required to ensure said delivery of water to its members. In such event, LBR shall reimburse alI costs incurred by Westbank or its members and associated with such operation, maintenance or repair. LBR shall provide any necessary repairs, maintenance or other required actions in response to the matters addressed herein and otherwise related to the water supply as addressed in the Ditch Agreement, within 24 hours following notice (written or oral), except in the case of emergency, in which case response shall be provided as soon as possible. 7. Operation, Maintenance and Repair of Ditches and Laterals (West of C.R. 109). Upon execution of this Agreement and at all times thereafter, as between Westbank and LBR, Westbank shall be responsible for all costs associated with the operation, maintenance and repair of all portions of the Robertson Ditch and laterals extending therefrom, within Westbank Filings 1, 2, and 3, which are not contained within the Piped System. Westbank reserves the right to require contribution to such costs by Westbank Mesa Homeowners Association as provided for in Paragraph 7 of the Ditch Agreement. LBR shall be responsible for all costs associated with the operation, maintenance and repair of all portions of the Robertson Ditch and Laterals extending therefrom which are located on Golf Course Property. As to portions of the Robertson Ditch and laterals extending therefrom which are not located within Westbank Filings 1, 2, and 3, or within the Golf Course Property, costs associated with the operation, maintenance and repair shall be shared in the percentages provided for in Paragraph 7 of the Ditch Agreement. 3 Westbank Ditch Agreement Version 4 11111111111111111111111111111 IJIIIIH 11111 1111 612735 10/1712002 04126P B1396 P983 M ALSDORF 4 of 52 R 251.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 8. Amendment. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are intended to, and hereby do, supersede and replace, as between LBR and Westbank, the terms, the conditions wad provisions contained within Paragraph 7 of the Ditch Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein. All remaining terms, conditions and provisions of the Ditch Agreement not addressed herein shall remain unchanged. 9. Termination. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect until terminated by mutual agreement by the parties hereto, or as provided by law. 10. Recording. Upon execution this Agreement shall be recorded in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. 11. Authority. Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that he has been duly authorized by the party which he purports to represent to execute this Agreement, and has authority to bind said party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Colorado. 13. No Waiver. No provision of this Agreement may be waived except by an agreement in writing signed by the waiving party, A waiver of any term or provision shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term or provision. 14. Severability. If any part or section of this Agreement shall be found void or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect any remaining part or section, and said remaining parts or sections shall continue in full force and effect. The parties shall renegotiate in good faith any matter addressed by a part or section that is found void or invalid. 15. Notice. All notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be hand delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the parties herein set forth. Either party by notice so given may change the address to which future notices shall be sent. Notice to: LBR Richard Nash, Director of Development 1007 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: (970) 945-1329 Fax: (970) 945-9358 4 Westbank Ditch Agreement Version 4 111111 11111 1111111111111 IlII 1111111111!! IIl1 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 81396 P984 11 ALSDORF 5 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO With Copy to: William J. Hatch 650 Delaney Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 227-9840 Fax: (415) 227-9843 With Copy to: Notice to: Timothy Allen Thulson Balcomb & Green P.C. P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Tel: (970) 945-6546 Fax: (970) 945-8902 Westbank Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association Attn: President P.O. Box 2703 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 With Copy to: Steven M. Beattie Beattie & Chadwick 710 Cooper Ave., Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: (970) 945-8659 Fax: (970) 945-8671 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in multiple originals on the day and year first written above. L.B. ROSE RANCH, LLC By Authorized Signatory WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 5 Westbank Ditch Agreement Version 4 1111111111131iffilifiiiii 'I 111 11111 1111 1111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 61396 P985 M ALSDORF 6 of 52 R 261.00 D 0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO New York STATE OF ) COUNTY OFNem ` ' ; ss T e above and foregoing doe t was acknowledged before me this ,% day �f e of 3 , 2001by 9 2r�#2 �rap� authorized signatory for L.B. Rose Ranch, L C, a Delaware limited liability company. ... t.z E� , Witness my hand and official seal. • T A 13 y MARYANN VENE �-�- �„ a a Notary Public, State of New York ;' � No. 01VE6000184 �,^+•., t1 € �-- ,:Qualified in Racnmond County F: S ` Cnnwnission Expires Dec. She a My commission expires: My address is: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFTELD ) ) ss ) The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this //711-1 day of b e r- , 2001 by Zzrf Mar Pc f 6e r5e , President, Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. a1L- /' a o�9�aG NOt ry Public My commission expires: / — Z y- a a p '/ My address is: /o,?,,-/ Ade_ ku 7 ,e ‘---' /9--r-.- ; �C C-' 7 8 L.01 6 Westbank Ditch Agreement Version 4 1111111 11111 111111 III IIII 11'1 iiiii fill iiii 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P986 11 ALSDORF 7 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit A to Agreement J'estbrrrrk Ranch/LB .Rose Ranch 1111111 11111 111111 iinii ilii 111 1IIiII1 111111 111 1111 612735 18!17/2002 04:26P B1396 P994 M RLSDORF 15 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit B to Agreement XVestbank Ranch/LB Rose Ranch OLD •JBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSUIWCE COMPANY ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P995 M ALSDORF 16 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Our Order # GW222192-10 WESTBANK RANCH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, LTD., A COLORADO CORPORATION 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 35, 89 WEST AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF COLORADO; SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE AS FOLLOWS: TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE , RANGE 89 WEST, ALL IN GARFIELD, STATE OF PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED COMMENCING AT THE COMMON CORNER TO SECTIONS 1 AND 2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING COMMON OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THENCE N 76 DEGREES 04'29" W 4185.64 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 21, WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION, FILING 1, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE THE FOLLOWING TWENTY FIVE (25) COURSES ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH, FILING 1: 1. S 09 DEGREES 00'22" W 226.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 2. S 69 DEGREES 53'22" W 82.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 3. S 06 DEGREES 59'38" E 79.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 4. S 55 DEGREES 29'38" E 95.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 5. S 75 DEGREES 13'38" E 215.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 6. N 88 DEGREES 58'22" E 451.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 7. N 82 DEGREES 55'22" E 240.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 8. S 20 DEGREES 35'18" E 185.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 9. N 69 DEGREES 24'42" E 210.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP L.S. NO. 19598 10. N 07 DEGREES 11. N 71 DEGREES (ILLEGIBLE) 12. N 41 DEGREES 13. S 65 DEGREES 14. S 19 DEGREES 15. S 60 DEGREES PAGE 18'26" W 251.73 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 15'22" E 272.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP 00'22" E 372.54 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 59'38" E 435.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 59'38" E 210.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 00'22" W 398.80 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR OLD RJBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSUCE COMPANY ALTA COMMITMENT Sr'NRnULE A 1 111111 11111 111111 11011 1111 11 11111111 111 111111 111 1111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 81396 P996 M ALSDORF 17 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARF I ELD COUNTY CO 16. S 48 DEGREES 17. S 50 DEGREES 18. S 69 DEGREES 19. N 20 DEGREES L.S. NO. 19598 20. S 69 DEGREES 24'42" W 230.27 21. S 20 DEGREES 35'18" E 266.00 (ILLEGIBLE) 22. S 66 DEGREES L.S. NO. 19598 23. S 01 DEGREES L.S. NO. 7168 24. S 28 DEGREES (ILLEGIBLE) Our Order # GW222192-10 16'51" W 235.20 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 30'22" W 210.22 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 24'42" W 180.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 35'18" W 260.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP 09'07" W 96.57 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, 23'54" W 109.60 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, 05'38" E 250.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, 25. S 67 DEGREES 07'27" E 149.99 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE), THE COMMON CORNER OF WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 AND WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 2, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 23 OF SAID FILING 2; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SEVENTEEN (17) COURSES ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 2: 1. S 69 DEGREES 05'38" E 633.53 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 2. N 78 DEGREES 31'22" E 318.16 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 3. S 62 DEGREES 19'08" E 376.50 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 4. S 84 DEGREES 58'08" E 192.70 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 5. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF OF 585.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 55'13" AND A DISTANCE OF 40.03 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 03 DEGREES 04'17" E 40.02 FEET) TO A NO. 5 REBAR 6. N 84 DEGREES 58'08" 7. N 62 DEGREES 19'08" 8. N 10 DEGREES 46'22" 9. N 30 DEGREES 36'38" L.S. NO. 9184 10. N 39 DEGREES 11. N 77 DEGREES (ILLEGIBLE) 12. S 33 DEGREES 13. S 18 DEGREES 14. S 06 DEGREES L.S. NO. 19598 15. N 84 DEGREES 58'08" W 259.29 FEET TO A NO 5 REBAR 16. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 645.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 33'20" AND A DISTANCE OF 40.03 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 03 DEGREES 15'14" W 40.02 FEET) TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 08'22" 24' 22" 46'38" 29'38" 49'38" W 183.32 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR W 133.53 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR E 65.11 FEET TO A 1 INCH STEEL PIPE W 476.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, E 306.48 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR E 264.88 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP E 544.01 E 217.00 E 218.79 FEET FEET FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, PAGE 3 OLD RLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSUVCE COMPANY ALTA COMM I T M E N T SCHEDULE A 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 81396 P997 M ALSDORF 18 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Our Order ## GW222192 -10 17. S 84 DEGREES 58'08" E 334.45 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR, THE COMMON CORNER OF WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 2 AND WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14 OF SAID FILING 3; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIXTEEN (16) COURSES ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY QF SAID WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3: 1. N 81 DEGREES 07'37" E 357.91 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 2. N 89 DEGREES L.S. NO. 19598 3. S 78 DEGREES 4. S 74 DEGREES (ILLEGIBLE) 5. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES 56'03" AND A DISTANCE OF 52.02 FEET CHORD BEARS N 00 DEGREES 36'54" E 51.95 FEET) TO A REBAR AND ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. NO. 11204 6. N 74 DEGREES 29'38" W 319.84 FEET TO A REBAR AND ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. NO. 11204 7. N 33 DEGREES 34'38" W 232.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 8. N 22 DEGREES 27'38" W 382.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 9. N 20 DEGREES 22'38" W 328.18 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 10. N 35 DEGREES 29'38" W 119.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 11. N 52 DEGREES 29'38" W 175.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 12. N 52 DEGREES 29'38" W 215.00 FEET TO A REBAR. AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 13. N 16 DEGREES 18'38" W 321.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 14. N 33 DEGREES 56'22" E 228.90 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 15. S 69 DEGREES 27'38" E 475.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 16. S 50 DEGREES 45'38" E 395.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 23 OF SAID WESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY N 42 DEGREES 04'22" E 160.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE THE TWELVE (12) FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAID CENTERLINE: 1. N 51 DEGREES 47'38" W 124.10 FEET 2. N 45 DEGREES 56'381' W 239.80 FEET 3. N 64 DEGREES 32'38" W 507.80 FEET 4. N 84 DEGREES 51'38" W 169.60 FEET 5. N 79 DEGREES 36'38" W 203.00 FEET 54'22" E 200.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP, 32'48" E 216.49 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 29'38" E 173.39 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP PAGE 4 OLD •i3BLIC NATIONAL TITLE INAlkaCE COMPANY ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A MIL 11111 11011 111D illi 111 11111111111 I1DII III Illi 612733 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P998 M ALSDORF 19 of 62 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 6. N 72 DEGREES 34'38" W 879.00 FEET 7. S 87 DEGREES 46'22" W 342.00 FEET 8. S 85 DEGREES 12'22" W 231.00 FEET 9. S 65 DEGREES 57'22" W 517.00 FEET 10. S 48 DEGREES 42'22" W 332.00 FEET 11. S 69 DEGREES 44'22" W 363.00 FEET 12. N 80 DEGREES 02'25" W 181.96 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING Our Order # GW222192-10 COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO PAGE 5 1111111 11111 111111 111111 1111 111 I1II Ilr 111 111111111101 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 61396 P999 M ALSDORF 20 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit C to Agreement Westbank Ranch/LB Rose Ranch • SIALF3Z—L-UrniZINIZ 44:eer 014417 1.1040 11 FiCSUUf'[I` 21 of 52 R 261.00 0 0.00 GfRFIELD COUNTY CO IT mus S S y ::: g.ee WI, lit Mg �ea.e _ eaaa.e liti II MW ---� :1:1: �___. - .. 2 Is i mum a l I q� al 11P!i areae N!IUI .. —iiiui*I aa.e_ r NM. 1 .1. 1 l9. RD R+alwLLL CAPAELD WWI,. 44.737 o ROBE RANCH PRaecem offer' Ts oa £LIW0 alai/WOO 00'0 a 00'L9z a zs ;o ZZ fIff1I1111111III1111111IIIIIII IIIIII11IIII6111f011111 r#. Fp w9 NR _ iawSXw B'f DR1E I-27-61 nc weR—: 8 wg • mil hill Ili I simmic L®. Ras( 0001. LLL WP,IELE, C%IV _ coLcR*Qo ROSE RARCH PROPOSED MOH I.PRO EA6RS .a J HS11COINfrff 023 B41 '.IC MOMOLINIKCIO MINX al 13001 012-1R041/ ip:0211.5-:2611 R5. CP OR t r 94 2( 2-21-0, 101. 10 2 NO �Y tl g .. amp's!'.. IN ,� ;im 5 ■ • h .r um ii■■■■■■■ �ii � PO M inumulU "(mile r■■ ...MN MEM ■■■■■/ U II EV rifilPIMII WHEN C1llu'PM PAM a■■■ ImmutopEd ile PIE NM =w- ii■■B■■1 a .r OM ON 111111APAriiim. ElMile ill Will �. ., II wg • mil hill Ili I simmic L®. Ras( 0001. LLL WP,IELE, C%IV _ coLcR*Qo ROSE RARCH PROPOSED MOH I.PRO EA6RS .a J HS11COINfrff 023 B41 '.IC MOMOLINIKCIO MINX al 13001 012-1R041/ ip:0211.5-:2611 R5. CP OR t r 94 2( 2-21-0, 101. 10 2 NO IIII 11 !au impu---", liumnimo 1 ••••••••• L TAW _ ;immillion rapril -L. -i SIONIMINM -- Alli 111 'IlIMIMIERWAIPAIMil 10111. Anillnitiax.-mi I - pommouti -_ ....,,„......... Pm, .10eppit-- In II nom MU mimmi EMI- 1 Willi . i 1 1611 • PF[ROSE FANC11 PROPOSE:7 Mai RA 116 lea =CM AMUR 03 W1fl0Y O1i14WM W • 4 Q ilfl ��rr Y LG .�� i4 41Casitl Y 506Td 96FL6 d9 5B Z06S/LT/6I GCLzi9 Illi 11111111111111111111 111 1111 11111111111111111 1111111 DED. (Pr JR [Pr F. Cpue-2 i. rt DZ. 5PS..a' _ a iS 40 S SiN.1l' 81 4 E4Gt SP n I 347p.i/ +�P.,yy Sp1.13 A - - 563 ins — t. Pt. E 1 EKS 30 1m s LJP! ze ua ;+— 1 x i yi I 09 agg iuEnn9SE E,wcn uL eLa ownn, ca*E.ua POPE RAMIE PiD. MESTBAli( LEDPERPOADS CROSSPDG NSR W EN P+rE • = N -4 •-• — CD 0} END 0 — a " — mT— B-` 0 CO AD = o— m mol O Gni D� nar— oo- 21 0 NOi— N -.. w, ,A MEM g0 AV ts) •• p4- N� 0 0D DEM mA—_ �m� E9'p— CDis m m C -10 E�®A .11 ov— iD- nuri— ov- 0 WPM OCOMIYIEMOMBERM 000,91. . 12.0P42.+0150e ux E.e o. oxDE Err Ecu Err an _ Du_ wry _rB 1111MHHEINHIMElltHEMAL 612733 10/17/2002 04 26P 61396 P1010 M ALSDORF 31 of 52 R 251.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit D to Agreement T•Vestbank Ranch/LB Rose Ranch Lo -9x-4 31e9IN12,14 AM .001 q ldl ld, 539 IOWCCN 'DM wiwallEll Al Wlfn0 MON SINEIllanotkiVi FOLIO >HVpU} EN H:JNVk7 aat11uEnfnv NOW 3uar0 1 11111111110111111111111104131111111111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 61396 P1013 11 ALSDORF 34 of 52 R 251.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit E to Agreement Westbank Ranch/LB Rose Ranch • 1111111 nisi 111111 [IIUIII! 111 1I11 111 11111 1111111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P1014 r'1 ALSDORF 35 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO SPECIFICATION FOR INSTALLATION OF CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ON THE ROBERTSON DITCH AND WESTBANK SUBDIVISION LATERALS SECTION 02618 AND 02221 PART 1 - GENERAL The work under this section shall consist of supplying all corrugated metal pipe. PART 2 - MATERIALS 2.01 Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and connectors shall be manufactured and inspected in conformance with the requirements of AASHTO M-36 and as specified herein. The size, type, shape and gauge of the pipe to be furnished shall be as shown on the plans or specified herein. All pipe shall meet with the minimum requirements of the Colorado State Highway Department. In all cases, corrugated metal pipe shall be zinc coated (galvanized) unless otherwise specified or called for on the drawings. The minimum gauge shall be 16. A. Pipe shall be furnished in the longest lengths practicable to minimize the number of joints. B. Corrugated metal pipe shall have standard corrugations as provided by the manufacturer. 2.02 Miscellaneous A. Joints and Coupling Bands All joints in irrigation ditch piping shall be gasketed. Coupling bands shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M-36. Coupling bands shall be the same base metal as the pipe and shall be galvanized. Ends of spiral or helical corrugated pipe shall have the ends recorrugated with annular corrugations for compatibility with the annular corrugations of the coupling band. Gasket shall be an 0 -ring type gasket or a 3/8" thick by 12" wide rubber gasket. B. Fittings and Special Fabrications Where fittings and special fabricated pieces are called for, all items shall be shop fabricated either by welding, riveting or bolting. The jointed areas shall receive a protective coating which is the same or better as the original surface coating prior to delivery to the job site. Fittings shall be designed for the same pressure 1 111111 111111 1111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 612735 1011712002 04:26P B1396 P1015 M ALSDORF 36 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 2 requirements specified for the pipe. C. Repair of Damaged Coatings Field repairs to damaged spelter coatings shall be made by first wire brushing the damaged area to remove all loose and cracked coating after which the cleaned areas shall be prepared and neatly coated with 50-50 solder or other protection approved by the Engineer. All field cuts of galvanized metal shall be similarly treated. PART 3 - EXECUTION Installation shall be in accordance with Section 02221 of these specifications, with the tines and grades and details shown on the drawings, and with the manufacturer's recommendations. PART 4 - MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT All measurement and payment will be based on completed work performed in strict accordance with the drawings and specifications. No separate payment will be made for all work covered under this section of the specifications, and all such costs pertinent to these items shall be included in the contract price. SECTION 02221 TRENCHING, EXCAVATION, AND BACKFILLING FOR PIPE LINES PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 Scope Includes excavation, trenching and backfilling for the installation of utility lines of all types to the depths and dimensions indicated in these specifications or on the drawings. PART 2 - MATERIALS See Part 3.09 "Backfilling" of this section. PART 3 - EXECUTION 1111111 lIlIl III1111111111111111111 11111111111111111 612735 10117/2002 04:26P 81396 P1016 P1 ALSDORF 37 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 3.01 Clearing The right-of-way shall be cleared of trees, brush, rubbish and other objectionable matter as required to accomplish the work. Trees shall not be removed without prior approval of the Engineer unless such removal is specifically shown on the plans. Cleared materials shall be disposed of in areas selected by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer. 3.02 Trench Excavation A. General: The Contractor shall perform all excavation of every description and of whatever substances encountered to the depth indicated on the drawings or specified herein, including any required clearing and grubbing. All excavations shall be made by open cut unless otherwise specified or shown. During excavation, material suitable for backfilling shall be piled in an orderly manner a sufficient distance away from the edges of trenches to avoid overloading the sides of the trench. The Contractor shall excavate in advance of the pipe -laying operation only a sufficient length of trench to assure steady progress in the installation of pipe. In public and private rights-of-way, the amount of open trench permitted shall be in accordance with requirements of the Engineer. B. Existing Conditions Existing Property - All existing property adjacent to the work shall be properly protected from any damage by the Contractor. The Contractor, as determined by the Engineer, shall restore all adjacent property, including vegetation, landscaping and existing improvements disturbed or damaged during the performance of the work to original or better condition. The Contractor shall be liable for any damage to adjacent property and shall be responsible for all cost resulting from repairs. Existing Utilities - The underground utilities, as noted on the plans, are from available information as established from actual field observations and study of existing records. These utilities are noted for information of Bidders and are believed to be correct; however, the Contractor shall take sole responsibility for damage to any utility line encountered whether or not located on the plans, as well as paying for the cost of fines and/or revenue lost by a utility company resulting from outages. The Contractor shall notify the utility companies for field locations before the start of construction. No change in the Contract Price will be allowed for deflecting utilities up or down to clear a proposed improvement if such deflection can be accomplished 111111 nisi nail unu im 11 I1i uuuu 1011111 612735 10117/2002 04 26P B1396 P1017 M ALSDORF 38 of 32 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 4 by retrenching the utility within 10' of the proposed improvement. Similarly, no change in the Contract Price will be allowed for supporting utilities along the trench wall when such utilities may remain in essentially their current location. Should the Contractor encounter a utility conflict that required relocation, the Contractor shall inform the Engineer prior to relocating the utility. Once the Owner and Engineer have authorized a change order, the Contractor may begin the utility relocation construction. The Contractor will not be paid for any utility relocation completed prior to the approval of the Engineer. Soils - The Contractor shall be responsible for examining and managing the soils and ground water conditions encountered during his work within the limits of construction. C. Sheeting and Shoring: The Contractor shall abide by the "Rules and Regulations Governing Excavation Work" set up by the Industrial Commission of Colorado, as well as the Federal Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Standards -Excavations. Where trench sheeting is left in place, such sheeting shall not be braced against the pipe, but shall be supported in a manner that will preclude concentrated loads or horizontal thrusts on the pipe. Cross braces installed above the pipe to support sheeting may be removed after pipe embedment has been completed. D. Trench Width: The width of the trench shall be ample to permit the pipe to be laid and jointed properly, and the backfill to be placed and compacted as specified. Trenches shall be of such extra width, when required, as will permit the convenient placing of timber supports, sheeting and bracing and the handling of special units as necessary. In order to prevent superimposed loads on the pipe, the maximum width shall be limited to the pipe outside diameter, plus 16 inches on pipe 33 inches and smaller and to the pipe outside diameter plus 30 inches on pipe 36 inches and larger. This requirement shall apply from the bottom of the pipe to an elevation 12 inches above the top of the pipe. Above this elevation the trench walls may be sloped as required to obtain stable sidewalls. Trench Alignment: Horizontal alignment shall conform to the alignment shown on the plans and to the staking approved by the Engineer. Trench centerline shall not deviate more than six inches (6") from a straight line between staked points. Bell holes shall be dug at the proper intervals. 1 111111 11111111111 111111 1111 1110111111 612735 10/17/2002 04.26P B1396 P1018 M PLSDORF 39 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 5 Rock Excavation: Rock encountered in the trench excavation shall be removed to a minimum depth of 4 inches (4") below the bottom of pipe and replaced with approved earth or aggregate base course material compacted as directed by the Engineer and as required to provide a firm foundation for the pipe. G. Removal of Unstable Materials: Wherever, in excavating the trench, the bottom of the trench exposes peat, clay, quicksand or other materials which, in the opinion of the Engineer, will not provide a satisfactory foundation for the pipe, such material shall be removed to the depth directed by the Engineer and the excavation backfilled to trench grade with aggregate base course placed and compacted in layers not more than 6 inches (6") in loose thickness. H. Over Depth: Trenches shall not be excavated below the depth indicated on the plans or established by the Engineer, except as authorized for special bedding or for removal of unstable material. Any over -excavation shall be backfilled with compacted, approved material as directed by the Engineer at no additional cost to the Owner. Blasting: The Contractor shall notify the Engineer at least 24 hours prior to any blasting. All blasting shall be done in accordance with local, county, and state regulations governing this class of work. Any damage to persons or property resulting from blasting operations shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor and his surety. J. Watering: Water for compacting embankments, constructing subgrade and for controlling dust caused from grading operations or equipment traffic shall be ap- plied as required by the specifications or as directed by the Engineer. Watering shall consist of providing a water supply sufficient for the needs of the project and the hauling and applying of all water required. The Contractor shall make all arrangements for and provide all necessary water for his construction operations. If the Contractor purchases water from a water utility or obtains water from a fire hydrant on or near the project, he shall make all arrangements at his own expense and payment made directly to the water utility as agreed upon. The Contractor shall use only those hydrants designated by the water utility in charge of water distribution and in strict accordance with its requirements for hydrant use. The Contractor shall furnish all hoses, connections, wrenches, valves and tools that may be necessary to meet the requirements of the water utility pertaining to hydrant use. Use of pipe wrench for valving a hydrant will not be permitted. The cost of watering will be included in the price bid for the construction operation to which such watering is incidental or appurtenant, unless it is specifically called out in the Bid Schedule. 111110 11111 111111 1111111111111 IlIiiIl 1111111111111 6127357/2002 04:26P B13Q6 P1019 .00 D 0.00 GARFIELDCOUNTYLCOORF 40of52R Page 6 3.03 Use of Excavated Material Suitable material (as approved in writing by the Engineer) from the required excavation may be used for trench backfill or for other required purposes as directed by the Engineer. Unsuitable or excess materials removed in excavation shall be wasted or mounded neatly over the pipe or spread evenly over the area adjacent to the pipe trench, except in cases where mounding would disrupt the normal use of the area. In these cases, such materials shall be removed to disposal areas selected by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer. 3.04 Protection of Adjacent Property The Contractor shall exercise care in excavating the trench and maintaining it so that no damage will occur to any foundation, structure, pole line, pipeline or other facility because of slough of slopes or from any other cause. If, as result of the excavation, there is disturbance of the ground such as to endanger other property, the Contractor shall immediately take remedial action at his own expense. No act, representation or instruction of the Engineer or his representatives shall in any way relieve the Contractor from liability for damages or costs that result from trench excavation. 3.05 Underground Obstructions The Contractor shall preserve intact any water, sewer, gas and oil lines, underground conduits or cables encountered during construction. In case any underground utilities or other structures are broken or damaged, they shall immediately be replaced in a condition at least equal to that before excavation, all at the Contractor's expense. When required by the Engineer, and as shown on the drawings, the Contractor shall uncover existing pipe lines or other obstructions in advance of the work so that they may be protected or to verify that design grades will provide satisfactory clearance. 3.06 Maintenance of Services and Access The contractor shall conduct the trenching operations in a manner to avoid interruption of any utility service, traffic and access to public and private roads and drives including erection and maintenance of barricades, warning signs, lights, and temporary crossings in accordance with the requirements of the agency or owner. Each crossing of utility lines shall be located and exposed by hand digging prior to machine trenching in the vicinity of the buried line. All work at the crossing shall be carried on in accordance with the requirements of the owner of the utility. The Contractor shall be responsible for contacting the appropriate utility owner at least 48 hours in advance of doing an 1 III1U 11111 111111 IIIIfl Illi 111 I i I I 111 111111 1111 1111 612733 10117/2002 04 26P 51396 P1020 M ALSDORF 41 of 32 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 7 excavation in the vicinity of any buried line. Locations of buried lines as shown on the plans are approximate and shall not be assumed to be in the exact location. 3.07 Excavation for Appurtenances Excavation outside the limits of the trench shall be made as required for the satisfactory installation of manholes, inlets. special inlets, and other appurtenant structures. 3.08 Drainage The area adjacent to the pipe trench shall be graded as required to prevent the entrance of surface water into the trench. The Contractor shall provide all necessary pumping and temporary trenching necessary to keep trenches dewatered. Manholes shall have temporary covers or final lids installed at all times, and pipe ends shall be plugged until acceptance, to prevent unwanted water or debris from entering the sanitary sewer system. 3.09 Backfilling A. General: Prior to backfilling, all foreign materials and debris shall be removed from the trench. Sheeting used by the Contractor shall be removed just ahead of backfilling operations unless it is ordered by the Engineer to be left in place. Trenches shall not be backfilled until the pipe has been tested and the Engineer has approved the pipe installation, except that partial backfilling between joints may be made as directed by the Engineer and as required to hold the pipe in place during testing. Backfill material shall be placed in layers of the loose thicknesses hereinafter specified and compacted by methods approved by the Engineer to the required density. Backfill material shall be free from frozen material, excessive organic material and trash. Backfill shall be placed in a manner to prevent displacement or damaging of pipe. B. Lower Portion of Trench: Pipe bedding shall comply with the appropriate class below and as designated on the drawings. Class 13 - To be used for pipe under normal construction conditions. Class B bedding shall consist of compacted Class 6 aggregate base course, or 3/4 inch screened rock, under the pipe as shown on the drawings, and to a minimum of 12" above the top of pipe. Select Bedding Material - If specifically approved in writing by the Engineer, alternate materials may be used instead of the aggregate base course. 111111111111 i11 101111111111111'11111111111111 4 612273573510/17//22002 04:25P 8111 396 P1021 M ALSDORF 42 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 8 Class C - To be used only when specifically authorized, in writing, by the Engineer. Class C bedding shall consist of a compacted select backfill material, approved by the Engineer, to a minimum of 12" above the top of pipe. C. Remainder of Trench: The remainder of the trench may be filled by any suitable method so that damage to the pipe is avoided. The backfill from a point one foot (1') above the top of the pipe to a point six inches (6'°) below the finished or natural ground surface shall contain no rocks larger than six inches (6") in diameter. Backfill material shall be placed in layers not exceeding the thickness specified, and each layer shall be compacted to the minimum density specified as applicable to the particular area. Compaction of backfill under roadways, paved parking areas, and similar -use pavements, including adjacent shoulder areas. The backfill above the bedding shall be carefully placed and compacted by a suitable mechanical method in eight -inch (8") maximum lifts. Compaction by "Hydro -Hammering" or water jetting will not be permitted unless speci- fied on the plans and provided that specific compaction requirements can be met. Compaction shall be 95% of the maximum laboratory dry density, and at a moisture content within plus or Minus 2% of optimum, and in accordance with ASTM Specification, Designation D698 -64T. 2. Compaction of backfill under other areas. The backfill above the bedding shall be carefully placed in the trench in lifts not to exceed 18 inch in thickness. Each lift shall be compacted to a minimum density of 85% and at a moisture content within plus or minus 2% of optimum, ASTM Designation D -698-64T before the next lift is placed. Compaction by water jetting may be used for granular, non -cohesive soils when approved by the Engineer, provided that specified compaction requirements can be met. D. Finishing of Backfill: Where trench crosses surfaced roadways or drives, the surfacing shall be replaced to match the original construction. In other areas, where it will not be detrimental, any remaining excavated material shall be mounded over the top of the trench and graded and rolled to present a neat and workmanlike appearance. Stories and debris shall be removed from the project right-of-way, and disposed of in areas selected by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer. Drainage ditches and culverts shall be cleaned of all excavated material and restored to their original condition and operation. E. Maintenance of Backfill: The Contractor shall repair or remove and recompact 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 61396 P1022 M AL.SDORF 43 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page 9 any areas where settlement of backfill occurs and repair or replace any structures or surfacing damaged by settlement of backfill in accordance with the terms of the Contractor's guarantee. F. Backfilling Appurtenances: All backfill shall be brought up and compacted equally along all sides of the structure in such a manner as to avoid displacement of, or damage to the structure and to the compaction requirements under roadways as described elsewhere in this section. 3.10 Surface Restoration All existing ground surfaces disturbed or damaged during construction shall be restored to a condition equal to or better than the condition prior to construction. All restoration work shall be considered part of trenching and backfill, unless specifically itemized in the Bid Schedule Proposal. All roadways shall be restored to original condition using the same types of material removed. The minimum asphalt pavement replacement section shall consist of 3" depth of asphalt pavement and 8" depth of Class 6 aggregate base course material. Gravel roadways shall consist of an 8" depth of Class 6 aggregate base course. The minimum concrete pavement section shall consist of 6" depth of concrete on 6" depth of Class 6 aggregate base course. 3.11 Quality Control Compaction testing shall be performed as directed by the Engineer. The Contractor shall assist and fully cooperate with the testing operations. The Contractor shall excavate as directed by the Engineer to allow any necessary testing. The Contractor shall backfill all test excavations in accordance with the specified compaction requirements at the Contractor's own expense. The moisture/density curve shall be developed for the different soil types encountered in accordance with ASTM D698 or AASHTO T99. The field compaction tests will be performed using a nuclear density method in accordance with ASTM D2922. The frequency of testing shall be a minimum of one density test every 250 lineal feet of trench per lift and as directed by the Engineer. If the material placed by the Contractor fails the compaction requirement, the Contractor shall excavate, backfill and recompact all failed areas as directed by the Engineer. Ali retesting shall be at the Contractor's expense and shall be performed by a soils testing firm approved by the Engineer. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 61227375 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P1023 M RLSDORF 44 of 52 R 261.00 D 0,00 GPRFIELD COUNTY CO Page 10 PART 4 - MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 4.01 All measurement and payment will be based on completed work performed in strict accordance with the drawings and specifications. No separate payment will be made for excavation and trenching for items of work covered under this section of the specifications, and all such costs pertinent to these items shall be included in the applicable unit prices as indicated on the Bid Schedule. A. Pipe The length of the pipe installed will be measured horizontally along the pipe centerline with no deduction for fittings or manholes. Pipe will be paid for according to the applicable contract unit price per lineal foot for corrugated metal pipe of the various sizes, for which prices and payment thereof shall constitute full compensation for work performed, complete, including all incidentals thereto. B. Fittings Additional payment for fittings will be made only for those elbows, reducers or other fittings separately identified in the Bid Schedule. Payment for fittings will be at the unit price bid in the Bid Schedule, which prices and payment thereof shall constitute full compensation for work performed complete, including all incidentals thereto. C. Granular Bedding Materials No separate payment will be made for granular bedding material, except as specifically authorized by the Engineer where rock excavation or unstable subgrade conditions are encountered. Except as noted above, the cost of granular bedding, where required, shall be included in the unit bid price for the respective pipe sizes. Where granular bedding is required and authorized in writing by the Engineer for rock excavation or unstable subgrade, granular backfill material will be paid for at the contract unit price bid per cubic yard for "Aggregate Base Course" which price shall be full compensation for all materials, labor, tools and equipment required to furnish granular backfill. The cost of placing the Aggregate Base Course shall be included in the unit price for the pipe. 1111111111111111111111111 ` 1111111111111111 11273002 04:26P B1396 1024 M ALSDORF 61273°5 10117/2 45 of 52 R 261,00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO *1. 1111111111111111111111111111111111011111101111111 612735 10/17/2002 QR F .00 GARFIELD COUNTY�CO 47of 52 R 261,00 D Cost Savings Installed Cost Savings .MLl!ion s z _'_`� A. ctl, 1 'nave been installed in tna'.san.,"I,j J' S' seiwer Pr-7leCts nationwide, providing signiricJn1 cos; s:.,ie,ys while meeting owners' structural, hydraulic ono serv.ce life requirements. Because steel ULTRA FLO weighs less than 1O% of concrete pipe. handling and r'stallation costs are greatly reduced. Aluminum ULTRA ` 'as only 1/35' the weight of concrete Reduced excavation because of ULTRA FLO's smaller outside diameter. • pipe. Lower labor costs also result from lost and easy joining. Coupling bands do not require special skills ar tools. And CONTECH's QUICK STAB' is the fastest joining system in the industry Twenty -fool standard lengths mean Fewer ioints and 'osier installation. And, longer lengths are available on special order. ULTRA FLO has a smaller outside diameter than thick-walled concrete pipe. This permits a reduction in trench widths and depths, providing time and cast savings for both excavation and back. filling operations. Shop -fabricated fittings save installation time in the field while providing hydraulically efficient junctions. ULTRA FLO is available in long lengths. And, its Tight weight allows it to be unloaded and handled with small equipment. Handling Weights Table Handling Weigh? for ALUMINIZED STEEL Type 2 ar Galvanized Steel. ULTRA NO Diameter (Inches( 13 21 2.1 30 36 42 .13 54 50 ' ▪ 2 75 90 :02 (0.064") Weight (pounds/Lineal Feat) Specified Thickness and Gag` (0.0791 10.1091 16 14 2 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 30 12 59 67 75 83 92 100 108 116 125 133 140 Table 2 Handling Weight For ALUMINUM ULTRA FLO Diamei er (inches) 19 21 24 30 36 42 sit 5s 50 66 72 75 Weight (Pounds/Lineal Fool) Specified Thickness and Gage (0.060") (0.075") (0.105") 10.1351 16 14 5 6 7 9 11 12 v 11 13 15 17 19 12 10 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 23 26 30 34 37 41 45 d9 84 52 COHTECH ULTRA FtO Stora Saver PIii 1111111 I'IIII11 IIIIII 1111 III 11111111 III 111111 I1 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P1027 M ALSOORF 48 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Strength and Durability Structural Strength ULTRA i.!ruc,ur I 'gists analysis t Y5 s a ...•f.r _ _ i:- .` moi: d"'?] i;_. Sav .A, .796 and 3 7 901 e resuir.-4 ,_:�cn properties and ASTM design proced_-es '.mere ,sed 'o derive the allkwcb,e height of covers s dwn in Tcb es 3 4 5 and 6 Durability Corrucz•ec mete' Y - -as been in ..ise for tier 100 years. Tcdo;. s-etdiiic and nonmetallic castings, and pc•.e-hems ,.e ;;icale to provide the •equired service ULTRA FLO can be sucoiied in galvanized steel or where odded k..rability is reeled, ALUMINIZED STEELP' Type 2 or aluminum. ULTRA, F:O con also be asphalt -coated or asphalt.:gated wirh a coved invert. Depending on the site .,,.er cels •w;11 meet :he project's design _ ,ACOi� EC —i Sales E ;neer can provide more information on ULTRA HO's.. mc-er c:s, coatings and pavements. ULTRA FLO is also available in pipe -arch shape For low headroom applications. For multiple runs of ULTRA FLO, ample spacing must be provided berween the runs to allow proper side fill placement and compaction. Pipe spacing will change depending upon pipe diameter, backfill material and compaction methods. General guidelines for spacing berween runs of pipe are shown below. Pipe Diameters Spacing Upto24" 12" 24" to 72" Over 72' 1/2 diameter of pipe 'Spacing maybe reduced .f using controlled low strength material lflowabfe hill for the backfill. Proper backfill and its placement help ULTRA FLO achieve its designed structural capacity. uniu 11111 111111 111111 1111 111 IHII IJ 111111 111 1111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P1028 M ALSDORF 49 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Heighis of Caller Table 3 ALUMINIZED STEEL Type 2 or Galvanized Steel ULTRA FLO HS 20 Live Lood Diameter Minimum/Maximum Cover (Fee!) Specified Thickness and Gage (inches) (0.064") 16 (0.079"1 14 (0.109") 12 18 21 24 30 1.0/68 1.0/58 1,0/51 1.0/41 36 1.0/34 1.0/48 42 1.0/29 1.0/41 1 0/69 .18 1.0/25 1 .0/36 1.0/60 54 1.25/22 1.25/32 j 1.0/53 60 1.25/20' 1.25/28 1.0/48 66 1.5/26 1.25/44 72 1,5/24' i 1.25/40 78 1.75/22' 1.5/37 64 ` 1.75/34 90 I 2.0/32' 96 � 2.0/30' 102 2.5/28` Table 5 Steel ULTRA FLO Pipe -Arch HS 20 Live Load Minimum/Maximum Cover (Feet) Equiv. Pipe Dia. (In.) Span (In.) Specified Thickness and Gage 18 21 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 20 23 27 13 40 46 53 60 66 Rise (In.) (0.064") (0.075") (0.109") 16 14 12 16 19 21 26 .0/15 _0/15 .0/15 0/15 1.0/15 31 36 41 46 .0/15 M.L.' M.t,' M.t. 51 1 M.L. ' M.L.' 1.0/15 1.0/15 1.0/15 1.25/15 NOTES [Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6) 1. Allowable minimum cover is measured from top of pipe to bottom of flexible pavement or top of pipe la tap of rigid pavement. Minimum cover in invade areas roust be maintained. 2. All heights al cover are based on Trench conditions, 1f embankment conditions exist, there may be restrictions on gages for the large diameters. Your CONTECH Soles Engineer con provide further guidance for a project in embankment conditions. • 3. Tables 3. 4, 5 and 6 ore for HS -20 loading only. For heavy construction loads, higher minimum compacted cover may be needed. See Table 7. 4_ All steel ULTRA FLO is installed in accordance with ASTM A798 lnsta(ling Factory -Made Corrugated Steel Pipe for Sewers and Other Applications.' 5. Heights of corer ore for 3/4' x 3/4" x 7.1/2' external rib corrugation. "These sizes and gage combinations we installed in accordance wilh ASTM A796 paragraphs 17,2.3 and ASTM A798. For aluminum ULTRA FLO refer to ASTM 8790 and 8788. Table 4 Aluminum ULTRA FLO H$ 20 Liv. Load Diameter (Inches) Minimum/Maximum Cover (Feet) Specified Thickness and Gage (0.080") (0.075") 10.105") j0.1]S"1 16 14 12 10 18 21 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 1.0/55 1.0/47 1.0/41 1 .25/33 1.0/57 1.0/45 1.0/73 1.5/27 1.75/23' 1.25/38 1.5/32 2.0/28' 2.0/25' 1.0/61 1.25/52 1.5/46 1.75/40 2.0/36' 2.0/33' 2.25/30' Table 6 Aluminum ULTRA FLO Pipe -Arch H5 20 Live Load Equiv. Pipe Dia On.) 1.0/86 1.0/74 1.25/65 1.25/57 1.5/52 1.75/47 2.0/43 2.5/39' 2.5/34' Minimum/Maximum Cover (Feet) Specified Thickness and Gage Span Rise (in.) (In.) (0.0601 (0.075") (0.1051 (0.1351 16 14 12 10 18 21 24 30 36 42 46 54 60 20 23 27 33 40 46 53 60 66 16 19 21 26 31 41 46 51 1.0/15 1.0/15 1.25/15 1.50/15 1.75/ 15 1.0/15 1,25/15 1.50/15 1.0/15 t 25/15 1.50/15 1.75/15 2.0/15 2.0/15 1.0/15 1.25/15 1.25/15 ).50/15 1.75/15 Table 7 Heavy Construction Loads Minimum Height of Cover Requirements for Conalrudion Loads on ULTRA FLO Pipe Diameter/Span Axle toad (Kips) (inches) >32s50 5075 75x110 110s150 Steel 3/4' x 3/4' x 7.1/2" 15.42 j 2,0 h. 48.72 3.0 It. 78-108 3.0 ft. 2.5 h. } 3.0 h. i 3.0 11. 3.0 It. 3.5 h. 14.0 h. 3.5 h. 4.0 h. i 4.5 h. Aluminum 3/4" x 3/4" x 7.1/2" 15.42 2.5h. T 3.0 ft. 1 3.5 h. I 3,5 k. NOTES (Tables 5 and 6 only) 1. The foundation in the corners should allow for 4,000 psf corner bearing pressure. 2. Maximum cover shown for all pipe arch is 15 feet. 3. Larger size pipe -arches may be available an special order. 4. M.L. [Heavier gage is required to prevent crimping at the haunches.) C0MTi<CK ULTRA PI9 dors newer PIO@ Accessories QUICK STAB Joint 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I111I1i• 612739 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P1029 M ALSDORF 50 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO CONTECH's innovalive QUICK STAB joint is 50% faster than standard bands in joining sections of pipe There are no bands and no bolts to handle. ULTRA FLO pipe arrives at the job site with the QUICK STAB joint on one end of the pipe. Just insert the spigot end of another section of pipe and you have successfully joined them, QUICK STAB QUICK STAB Coupling System QUICK STAB Joint Corrugation l0 12 5 Engage Pipe End Bands Fittings Factory -made fittings offer a complete, fully compatible ULTRA FLO Pipe System that hydraulic junction losses. Manhole risers, catch basin risers, elbows, reducers and similor-type fittings are fabricated and shipped to the job site for quick and easy installation. Review with your CONTECH Sales Engineer the various fittings for your storm sewer project. minimizes installation time and ULTRA FLO fittings improve installation time in the field. This fitting incorporates an elbow, a riser and lateral stub. The fitting is reinforced according to NCSPA guidelines. Fluted Gasket with the Lower Flute Nearest the Pipe End Stab ill r__-_ Direction t! i'. h h'. • CONTECH's HUGGER Band offers simple installation and excellent pull -apart resistance For special design projects. The HUGGER Band is available with a variety of fasteners: Angles and bolts; a bolt, bar and strap connector plus gaskets meet most infiltration and exfiliration requirements. £W TECII Typical Fitting Milli ILO vs. Reinforced Concrete Pate 24' 30' 36' 42' 48- 60" rl-CP A FLt7 RCP— 11ia 1i5 RCP UjT�1T FCDTTCT—IIETTEKT=FCP 1ULr A FCO RCP :ULTRA. FIO RLP iJI.rEA FLT Cass I' 16 G4.! Clan IN i 16 Ga, (kali i 16 Ga Ctoss iii 16 Go. /Clots II H6 Ga. ?Claes LII !I d Go. Class III ! 12 Ga. 0414111112 Go.. 01:14;111 12 Ga. Pipe'ength. F,. 8 20 6 ' 20 ' 1 . 20 : 6 26 6-- 16 6 6 t 20 1 61 215 T 6 213— Apora. -I_ Lb /Ft.: 264_ 20 384 2-5 524 r 30 . 698 35 867 40 :1,295 i 61 1,811 ; 100 2,409 116 3,090 133 Apra,. ,.t. • �1 1 t per picee Lb 2.112 . 398 3,072 ' 498 4,192 596 ' 5,584 596 6,936 ' 796 7 770 i 1,224 10.866 1 1,992 '14,4_54 ! 2,322 18,540 2,652 114 98 Manhole, Catch Basin or Curb Inlet Ri ser 1 ant ommilumen 72T 84' Elevation View 96 i aun+de 5+a., n 7 —30 : 26 37 1 44 38 • 51 : 4-4 - 58 50 : 72 ! 62 861 74 1001 +war. o10.06h !ik Fs. r 15 51 1 15 , 4 16 : 34 1 16 29 4 . 25 Duck hood; per 1000 Ftof pipe Jatds par 5 14 • 7 004 Fr. al pipe 126 49 16 1 8 16 4 86 4 0 18 7 27 I 124 49 166 13 381 25 9 466 III 49 50,1 25 166 49 65 166 25 49 1 111111 11111 111111111111 1111 111 11111.111 111111 111 1111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P B1396 P1030 M fLSDORF 51 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Trench Installation Overview Millions of feet of ULTRA FLO have been installed in a variety of storm sewer prolecls across the U. S. Like all pipe products, proper installation is important for Tong -term performance. The installation of ULTRA FLO is similar to standard corrugated steel pipe in a trench condition. Your CONTECH sales engineer will be glad to assist you if you have any questions. Bedding and Backfill Typical ULTRA FLO installation requirements are the same as for any ether corrugated steel pipe installed in a trench. Bedding and backfill materials follow the requirements of the CSP installation specification, ASTM A 798; and must be free from stones, frozen lumps or other debris. When ASTM A 796 designs are to be followed for condition Ill requirements, indicated by asterisk l•1 in the tables on page 5, use clean, easily compacted granular backfill materials. Embankment Conditions ULTRA FLO is a superior CSP storm sewer product that is normally installed in a trench condition. In those unusual embankment installation conditions, pipe sizes and gages may be restricted. Your CONTECH sales engineer con provide you with further guidance. • Construction Loads For temporary construction vehicle loads, on extra omount of compacted cover may be required over the top of the pipe. The height -of -cover shall meet the minimum requirements os shown in Table #7, page 5. The use of heavy construction equipment necessitates greater protection for the pipe than finished grade cover minimums for normal highway traffic. The contractor must provide the additional cover required to avoid damaging the pipe. Minimum cover is measured from the top of the pipe to the top of the maintained roadway surface. Relining and Rehabilitation Restoration of failed or deteriorating pipe can be accomplished by relining with ULTRA FLO. Its low -wall profile may yield an inside diameter that approaches the original pipe, while the hydraulic capacity is improved. ULTRA FLO's light weight makes the fining process easier and can be provided in various lengths to meet individual site conditions. COIITIICR 1ltTall no Slarve Sewn Plps 1111111911111111111111111111111111111111111119111 612735 10/17/2002 04:26P 61396 P1031 M ALSDORF 52 of 52 R 261.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Specification for ULTRA ILO Storm Sewer Pipe Scope This specification covers the manufacture and installation the ULTRA FLO Pipe detailed in the project plans. Material The pipe material shall be: 1.ALUMINIZED STEEL Type 2 2. Galvani zed 3.Aluminum 4. Polymeric Installation Shall be in accordance with ASTM A 798 and A 796 (steel) and B 788 and B 790 (aluminum) and in conformance with the project plans and specifications. If of there ore any inconsistencies or conflicts, the contractor must bring Them to the attention of the project engineer. It is always the contractor's responsibility to follow OSHA guidelines for safe practices Pipe The ULTRA FLO shall be manufactured with the 3/4" x 3/4" x 7-1/2" external ribs in accordance with the applicable requirements of ASTM A 760 (steel) or 8 745 (aluminum). The pipe sizes and gages shall be as shown on the project plans. Handling and Assembly Shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the National Corrugated Steel Pipe Association. Construction Loads Construction loads may be higher than final loads. Follow the guidelines of the manufacturer or the Notional Corrugated Steel Pipe Association. CONTECH Solutions Innovative Civil Engineering Solutions is the hallmark of CONTECH's nationwide team of sales engineers. Combined with aur wide variety of site development products we can solve many civil engineering problems. Innovative applications For water detention systems, storm drainage, sewage lines, bridges, tunnels, retaining walls and erosion control begin at CONTECH. For more information, cull one of COH1ECH's Regional Offices: Arkansas (North Little Rock) 72115 California (San Bernardino) 92408 Colorado (Wheat Ridge) 80033 Georgia (Norcross) 30071 Indiana (Indianapolis) 46250 Illinois (Oak Brook} 60523 Kansas (Overland Park) 66210 Massachusetts (Palmer) 01069 North Carolina (Raleigh} 27609 Texas (Irving) 75062 Other Sales Offices in Principal Cities Visit our web site: www,cantech-cpl.corn 501/758-1985 909/885-8800 303/431.8999 770/409-08 I 4 317/842-7766 630/573-1110 913/906-9200 413/283-7611 919/781-8540 972/659-0828 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WARRANTY OR AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABIUTY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SEE CONTECH'S STANDARD QUOTATION OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR APPLICABLE WARRANTIES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS Of SALE. ALUMINIZED STEEL .1 o trademark of AK Steel Corporation. BRO-UF {Replaces LCP-19191 3/00 TOM H IPINOUCTS ©2000 CONTECH CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS INC, All rights reserved. Printed in USA. • 1 IIIi1i OHIJIIIII 111111111 IHIJI I!II 11111 1111 X111 036764 12/07/1998 04:57P 6110M ALSDORF 1 of 7 R 36.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO DITCH AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this •5/4 day of,/ e.; ./-:‹ , 1998, by and between WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, whose address is P.O. Box 2703, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (hereinafter "Westbank Ranch"), WESTBANK MESA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Colorado non- profit corporation, whose address is clo Kjeil Mitchell, President, 199 Dolores Circle, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (hereinafter "Westbank Mesa"), ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, whose address is 19555 East Main Street, Suite 200, Parker, CO 80134-7374 (hereinafter "RFI"), and the BRANNAN FAMILY TRUST, a Colorado trust, whose address is 214 Eighth Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (hereinafter "the Trust"). RECITALS 1. WHEREAS, Westbank Ranch, Westbank Mesa, RFI, and the Trust each own an interest in the following described water rights (hereinafter referred to as the "Water Rights"): Name Adjudication Date Appropriation Date Civil Action No. Decreed Amount (cfs) Priority No. 52 5/11/1889 2/11/1883 132 4.0 Priority No. 112 5/11/1889 4/111885 132 3.5 Priority No. 595 10/24/1952 4/2/1950 4033 9.0 TOTAL 16.5 The Water Rights are exercised through the Robertson Ditch (hereinafter the "Ditch"), and each of the parties hereto is a co -tenant in the Ditch and its associated structures; and 2. WHEREAS, Westbank Ranch owns the water right decreed in Case No. 93CW337 to the Robertson Ditch Westbank Ranch Expanded Use Enlargement in the amount of 1.65 cfs which water right is protected from administrative curtailment by the plan for augmentation approved in said decree; and 3. WHEREAS, RFI owns the water right decreed in Civil Action No. 3723 to the O'Neill Springs and Pipeline Ditch No. 316, Priority No. 474 for 1.4 cfs, and the right to carry and deliver such water through the Ditch, and the water right decreed in Case No. 96CW319 to the Glenwood Ditch for 2.0 cfs, and the right to divert and deliver such water through the Ditch. RFI is obligated to pay all maintenance expenses attributable to the carriage of these water rights through the Ditch; and WESTBANK-Robertson Ditch -Agreement -1 Ditch Agreement -Robertson Ditch Page 1 of 7 1110 IP 111111 11111 1111 1111111 11 ' I IIIA IIII IIII ' 536764 12/07/1998 a 4 M aL.oea, 2 of 7 R 36.00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO • 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a plan for augmentation described by decree in Case No. 94CW143, District Court, Water Division No. 5, Westbank Mesa must bypass at the headgate of the Ditch 0.78 cfs of its interest in the Water Rights; and 5. WHEREAS, the amount of water each party is entitled to divert through the Ditch at the Robertson Ditch headgate on the Roaring Fork River is as follows: Name RFI (cfs) Westbank Ranch (efs) Westbank Mesa (cfs) Brannan Family Trust Priority No. 52 2.72 0.80 0.40 0.08 Priority No. 112 2.38 0.70 0.35 0.07 Priority No. 595 3.75 3.50 1.75 __ Glenwood Ditch Right 2.0 --- --- SUB-TOTAL 10.85 5.0 2.5 0.15. Bypass --- --- 0.78 - TOTAL DIVERSIONS 10.85 5.0 1.72 0.15 6. WHEREAS, by document titled Assignment of Ditch Agreement dated November 30, 1993, Westbank Ranch acquired a 66% interest in a Ditch Agreement dated January 8, 1979, between James Rose and Westbank Development Co., Inc. The parties intend that this Ditch Agreement will be terminated by separate agreement; and 7. WHEREAS, Westbank Ranch No. 1, Ltd., Westbank Mesa's predecessor in interest, and Westbank Ranch entered into a Water Agreement on April 8, 1992, which is recorded in the Garfield County records in Book 837 at Page 565. The Water Agreement was amended by Addendum to Water Agreement dated December 2, 1993, recorded in Garfield County records in Book 884 at Page 481. This Water Agreement, in part, defines the parties' relationship in regard to the Ditch; and 8. WHEREAS, the Roaring Fork River --Robertson Ditch Company, which was organized on August 5, 1991, as a Colorado nonprofit corporation for the purpose of operating a portion of the Robertson Ditch, has now been dissolved; and 9. WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions of their agreement concerning exercise of the Water Rights and use of the Ditch, including its operation, maintenance and repair, the parties' respective liabilities, and the parties' conduct in the event the Ditch structure is altered or relocated by any party in the future. WESTBANK-Robertson Ditch -Agreement -1 Ditch Agreement -Robertson Ditch Page 2 of 7 111111!nuinuunniiuiIiIl1IlIununuimi 12/07/1998 .s., M w„oaa. 3 of 7 R 36.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The parties agree that the division of ownership in, and entitlement to water from, the Ditch are accurately set forth in paragraph 5., above. 2. At all times during the irrigation season, which shall begin no later than April 15 and end no earlier than October 31, RFI shall deliver the water to which the Trust is entitled at the South boundary of the Brannan Trust property at the high point as generally shown on the attached map labeled as diversion point for Brannan Family Trust shown on Sheet 1, Project No. 97409 dated 5/7/98, Zancanella & Associates entitled Proposed Irrigation Supply Pipeline, Robertson Ditch. RFI shall be solely responsible for constructing, operating and maintaining the supply pipeline from the Robertson Ditch to the point of delivery to the Trust in accordance with the plans and specifications set forth on the attached Sheet 1. At all times during the irrigation season, RFI shall deliver the water to which Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa are entitled at the measuring device to be located on the west side of C.R. 109, as provided in paragraph 5 below. Prior to initiating or terminating deliveries of water through the Ditch, RFI shall give notice to Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa sufficient to allow their members (a) to clean and prepare the Ditch for use, in the case of initiating deliveries, and (b) to shut off their pumps, in the case of termination of deliveries. Such notice shall be two (2) weeks, whenever possible. 3. At all times when the total amount decreed to the Water Rights is available in priority, RFI shall deliver 0.15 cfs to the Trust at the diversion point for Brannan Family Trust described in the preceding paragraph, 1.72 to Westbank Mesa and 5.0 cfs to Westbank Ranch at G.R. 109, in addition to any water RFI conveys beyond C.R. 109 for use on that portion of the Golf Course lying west of C.R. 109 (expected to be approximately 2.5 cfs) , less reasonable transit losses. Whenever less than the total amount decreed to the Water Rights is legally available for diversion at the headgate of the Ditch, RFI shall deliver to Westbank Ranch 1.65 cfs (in recognition of the fact that this quantity of water is augmented under the plan approved in Case No. 93CW336) and shall deliver to Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa a pro -rata amount of the water diverted into the Ditch in proportion to each party's interest as set forth in paragraph 5, above. However, in the event of a force majeure delay, including delays caused by acts of God, war, civil commotion, casualty losses, unusual weather conditions, strikes, walkouts, shortages in labor or materials that could not reasonably have been anticipated and other conditions beyond the reasonable control of RFI, RFI will be excused from performance of its delivery obligations and will be held harmless by the Trust, Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa. WESTBANK-Robertson Ditch -Agreement -1 Ditch Agreement -Robertson Ditch Page 3 of 7 1111111111111111111111111111111111 I1 III 1111111111111 536764 12/07/1998 04:57P 8110 46 M RL5DORF 4 of 7 R 36.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO • 4. The parties agree that Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa are authorized to beneficially use any and all water delivered to G.R. 109 and not diverted by RFI for use on the portion of the Golf Course located west of C.R. 109, which amount may be in excess of the amount set forth in Paragraph 3, above. RFI, at its sole expense, shall install and maintain an accurate measuring device of a form acceptable to the parties at the west side of C.R. 109. Each party shall be allowed access to the measuring device without advance notice to any other party, for the purpose of reading or maintaining the device. If Westbank Mesa or Westbank Ranch believes that it is not receiving all of the water to which it is entitled, that party shall notify RFI and RFI shall take all steps reasonably necessary to deliver the amount required hereunder. 6. RFI shall clean, maintain, repair and, if necessary, replace and install all of the Ditch and Ditch Facilities, including the headgate and existing measuring device, between the point of diversion and C.R. 109, and shall keep the Ditch in such condition as required to perform its function of delivery of water to the parties from the point of diversion on the Roaring Fork River to the point where the Ditch emerges from underneath C.R. 109. 7. Westbank Mesa, Westbank Ranch and RFI shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, cleaning and repairing the Ditch below (to the west of) C.R. 109. With respect to the main ditch, which generally runs parallel to Westbank Road from C.R. 109 to the point at which it returns to the Roaring Fork River, the costs associated with these activities shall be shared according to the following ratios: Westbank Ranch: 54%; Westbank Mesa: 19%; and RFI 27%. With respect to the lateral ditches that serve the Westbank Ranch subdivision and that portion of the golf course located west of C. R. 109, the costs associated with these activities shall be shared according to the following ratios: Westbank Ranch: 66.6%; RFI: 33.3%. RFI shall hold harmless and indemnify Westbank Ranch, Westbank Mesa and the Trust against any and all claims for injuries to persons or property resulting from: (a) the conduct or activities of any person entering onto any portion of the Robertson Ditch with the express or implied permission of RFI, (b) the exercise of RFI's water rights hereunder; (c) the construction, maintenance, repair, upgrade or replacement of any portion of the Robertson Ditch by RFI or any person performing such construction, maintenance, repair, upgrade or replacement with the express or implied permission of RFI, including, without limitation, any mechanic's liens which may be asserted or recorded against all or any portion of the Robertson Ditch for services performed or materials supplied in connection with any work performed on the Robertson Ditch by RFI or by any person performing such work with the express or implied permission of RFI; (d) any breach of this agreement by RFI. 9. RFI reaffirms that it, its successors and assigns are obligated to pay all operation and maintenance expenses attributable to the carriage of the water diverted through the Ditch Vi ES (TANK -Robertson Ditch -Agreement -1 Ditch rtgreement-Robertson Ditch Page 4 of 7 API 11111 111111 MEM 1111111 11 536764 12/07/1998 04:57P B1102 47 M ALSDORF °i of 7 R 36.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO • under the O'Neill Springs and Pipeline Ditch No. 316, Priority No. 474. 10. All rights and obligations of this Agreement shall run with title to the water rights described in paragraph 5 above. The parties acknowledge that Roaring Fork Investments may assign its rights in and to the Robertson Ditch and related facilities to a homeowners association, an entity which will be organized to operate the golf course, and or a water and sanitation district. To the extent that RFI transfers its water rights to any third party, it shall assign its corresponding rights and obligations under this Agreement to said third party. The obligations of Westbank Ranch, Westbank Mesa and the Trust shall not be increased, nor shall their rights under this Agreement be diminished or otherwise altered, by the transfer of water rights from RFI to any third party. 11. RFI contemplates modification of the Robertson Ditch and construction activities on and around the Robertson Ditch which may impact flows in the Ditch. RFI shall insure that such delivery will continue uninterrupted during those times when RFI is performing construction or maintenance on the Ditch, unless RFI obtains the prior written consent of the other parties, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Prior to any modification of the existing Ditch structure the modifying party shall submit plans and specifications for the proposed modifications to each other party, individually, for review and approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If a party does not approve or disapprove of the modifications within sixty (60) days after the plans and specifications are submitted, the modifications shall be deemed approved, provided that no modification shall operate to reduce the amount of water delivered to any party without its prior written approval. If the proposed modifications are disapproved, such disapproval shall be in writing setting forth the Objection to the plans and/or reasons for disapproval. Each party shall have no responsibility, and shall not be obligated to pay any costs, for any modifications made to the Ditch by any other party. Each party shall pay the actual and reasonable attorney's and engineering fees incurred by the other parties for review of the plans and specifications for any proposed modifications. 12. RFI hereby affirms that it will not install any ponds on the Robertson Ditch channel. 13. RFI hereby agrees to make all releases to the Roaring Fork River associated with its augmentation plan at a location or locations east of C.R. 109. 14. The parties agree that the sole purpose of the Robertson Ditch is for the conveyance of water diverted and delivered by and to the Parties, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Parties shall not recognize in or grant to themselves or any third party a right to use the Ditch as a stormwater drain or conduit for water other than water diverted and delivered under the Water Rights. WESTBANK-Robertson Ditch -Agreement -I Mich Agreement -Robertson Ditch Page 5 of 7 11111111111111111111111111IiIIIIIi 111 1111111111111 53fi764 12107/1688 04 57P B1648 M ALSDORF 6 of 7 R 36.00 D 0.00 GARFIELDCOUNTY CO s 15. No party shall introduce or authorize the introduction of pollutants into the Ditch. The Parties shall use their best efforts to prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Ditch by third parties. GENERAL PROVISIONS 16. Except as to notice required under paragraph 2 above (regarding the initiation and termination of deliveries) all notices, requests, demands, consents, and other communications pertaining to this Agreement shall be transmitted in writing and shall be deemed duly given when received by the parties at their addresses below or any subsequent addresses provided to the other party in writing: Notice to Westbank Ranch: With copy to: Notice to Westbank Mesa: With copy to: Notice to RFI With copy to: Notice to the Trust WESTBANK-Robertson Ditch -Agreement -1 Ditch Agreement -Robertson Ditch Page 6 of 7 Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association P.Q. Box 2703 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Caloia & Houpt, P.C. 1204 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Westbank Mesa Homeowners Association 199 Dolores Circle Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Caloia & Houpt, P.C. 1204 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Roaring Fork Investments, LLC c/o Ron Heggemeier 19555 East Main Street, Suite 200 Parker, CO 80134-7374 Delaney & Balcomb, P.C. P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Brannan Family Trust c/o Fay Faas 214 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1Hl1 H1D III1M 1111 111 IIIIIIIill111111111111111111111E ruipla • 536764 12/07/1998 04:57P B1101. P649 M ALSDORF 7 of 7 R 35.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO With copy to: Caloia & Houpt, P.C. 1204 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 17. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties, their assigns, transferees, and successors in interest. This document embodies the entire and complete agreement of the parties on the subject matter herein. No promise or undertaking has been made by any party except as expressly set forth herein. All prior and contemporaneous negotiations and understandings between the parties are integrated and merged into this Agreement. 18. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by amendments made by the parties in written form and executed in the same manner as this Agreement. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 19. RFI shall record this Agreement with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder for Garfield County, Colorado and provide copies of the recorded documents to all parties. 20. This Agreement shall become binding on the parties upon its execution by all parties. 21. Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she has been duly authorized by one of the parties to execute this Agreement and has authority to bind said party to the terms and conditions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. WESTBANK MESA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCI • TION r; By J/r-:if It chell WESTBANK RANCH ASS Q ;IA14IO' 3y t� r nom. yam' Teo Prinster HOMEOWNERS WESTBANK-Robertson Ditch -Agreement -I Ditch Agreement -Robertson Ditch Page 7 of 7 ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, LLC -By Ron Heggemeier BRANNAN FAMILY TRUST B6.. 1 _ Faye Faas R■■'U■ ���■■ i E S U R C ■■..■ R•■'E■ ■■■•■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2003 AFIELD COUNTY fLDING & PLANNING RE: Ironbridge (formerly Rose Ranch) PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan Ms. Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8`°' Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 EXHIBIT August 1, 2003 Dear Tamara: At the request of Garfield County Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the PUD amendment and preliminary plan for the Ironbridge (formerly Rose Ranch PUD) project. Michael Erion conducted a field review with Tamara Pregl on July 23, 2003. Our comments are presented below. WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY The Rose Ranch PUD is included in the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFW&SD). The water rights and water supply for the project remain adequate for the PUD amendment. The merging of systems with the RFW&SD required an additional Water Court filing in Case No. O0CWO19. The case has been adjudicated and was approved by all parties to the case, including the Division of Water Resources. It is unclear why the State Engineer's Office has issued a "letter of material injury" for review of this project. Zancanella & Associates is working with the State to clear up this issue. The potable water storage tank location was moved to better integrate into the RFW&SD system. The new water tank location was analyzed by H.P. Geotech and appropriate engineering design of the tank by Brown & Caldwell is included in the submittal. Minor pipeline system design changes were made to reflect requirements of the RFW&SD. WASTEWATER Wastewater will be collected and pumped to the RFW&SD regional wastewater treatment facility. The lift station structure was modified to include an "aesthetic building" rather than an "industrial vault". The wastewater system is adequate. DRAINAGE The overall drainage plan is adequate for the proposed PUD amendment and preliminary plan submittal. The debris flow mitigation structures in the Northeast Dry Park Drainage have been changed from a "crib wall" dam to an earth embankment dam. The earth embankment dams provide the same function as the "crib wall" dams. The as -built grading for the golf cart underpass at the Northeast Dry Park Drainage deviates from the design drawing. However, field inspection of this area indicates there is no change in hydraulic capacity or function. As previously noted for the project, the golf cart underpass area may experience nuisance debris flows from the small narrow drainage basin below the sediment control dams. WETLANDS The cart path design has been revised and includes upside down "U" precast concrete structures which span the Northeast Dry Park Drainage and significantly reduces the impact to "waters of the U.S." The earth embankment dams have slightly more impact than the crib wall dams. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, C0 81 601 • [970] 945-6777 ■ Fax [970] 945-1137 s • Tamara Pregl Page 2 August 1, 2003 The final configuration of impacts has been reviewed by Professional Wetlands Consulting and deemed consistent with Nationwide Permit No. 26 issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers for the project. All previously approved wetland setbacks should be included with any approval of the amended project submittal. SOILS/GEOLOGY There are several concerns with the site soils and geology which require mitigation and/or special consideration. The submittal adequately addresses these issues. During our field inspection of the site, Richard Nash indicated that the proposed lined aesthetic ponds and stream water features will be eliminated from the project in planning areas PA 11 through PA 18 at the Southern end of the project. Removal of potential sources of new water to the underlying soils is supported from a technical standpoint. ROADS The intersection of C.R. 109 and River Bend Way at the Southern end of the project was modified from the original design. This modification was reportedly based on discussions with the Road & Bridge Department and the County Commissioners. The narrower intersection appears acceptable. High Country Engineering is providing documentation on the change. IRRIGATION DITCHES The Robertson Ditch, which serves other properties downstream of the project, will be modified and relocated within the project. Agreements with downstream users have been executed to authorize the existing and proposed modifications to the ditch within the project and ditch laterals in Westbank Ranch. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENN ERRING, INC. Michael J. Erion, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MJE/mmm 88516.0 E:\Client\885\tp ironbridge review 885.doc CC: Tim Thulson, Esq. Mr. Matt Langhorst, High Country Engineering, Inc. RESOURCE • EXHIBIT STATE OF COLO. j4p- OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone I303i 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 WWW.waler.state.c_O. its Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY August 6, 2003 BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Iron Bridge PUD Amendment/Preliminary Plan Sec. 35, T6S, R89W & Secs. 1, 2 & 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 '•fl c o 1876' Bill Owens Governor Grey E. Walcher Exeublive Director Hal.. Simpson, PE. State Engineer Dear Ms. Pregl: We have received additional information concerning the above mentioned development proposal. Comments for this project (formerly Rose Ranch) were previously made in our letters dated October 27, 1997; May 15, 1998; February 4, 1999; August 2, 1999; and July 31, 2003. The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel of approximately 534.189 acres into a golf course, community areas and 292 residential lots (see Exhibit "A", Proposed Modifications to Preliminary Plan Construction Documents) on 115.34 acres, which will contain a maximum of 302 living units, including ADU's. (Note that the preliminary plat provided with this submittal appears to be outdated, since only 171 lots are listed in the land use summary contained therein.) The development will include a 233.514 -acre golf course with a clubhouse, community facilities and a multi -use irrigated field. Commercial floor space will be limited to 25,000 square feet. Common Open Space will encompass 162.308 acres. Water features such as ponds will be incorporated. The applicant proposes to provide water services via surface diversions through separate raw and potable systems pursuant to a change of point of diversion and place of use for irrigation water rights decreed in Case No. 96CW319, surface and storage water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 97CW236, and wells decreed as alternate points of diversion to surface rights in Case No. 00CW019. The water rights to be used in the potable system are to be transferred to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (formerly Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District), which will provide domestic water service to the development per a pre - inclusion agreement, a copy of which was provided. Per the agreement, domestic water service includes domestic in-house use and the irrigation of up to 6.31 acres of lawn and garden irrigation or other equivalent outside uses. The raw water system will be used to irrigate 130 ar:res of the golf course, 58 acres of lawns and gardens, and 7 acres of parks, playgrounds, garden areas, and a landscaped greenbelt. Direct diversions will be used to fill the ponds. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Case No. 96CW319 allows for the use of 2.0 cfs of the Glenwood Ditch water rights for the irrigation of 134 acres of land in the development, but Case No. 97CW236 indicates that only 89.2 acres will be irrigated via the these water rights, which prorates to 1.33 cfs. (Per Case No. 97CW236 the 89.2 acres consists of 58 acres of lawns and gardens, 7 acres of parks, playgrounds, garden areas, and a landscaped greenbelt, and 24.2 acres of the golf course.) This amount should be sufficient if land application is via sprinkler irrigation methods. The augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 97CW236 provides water for 550 EQR's (per said decree, each EQR is equivalent to 300 gallons per day, and 15 of these EQR's are dedicated • • Tamara Pregl Iron Bridge PUD Amendment/Preliminary Plan August 6, 2003 Page 2 to the golf course clubhouse) and ponds with a total surface area of 7 acres. Case No. 97CW236 also notes direct use of the Robertson Ditch water rights as follows: 2.5 cfs to irrigate 32.6 acres of the golf course; 3.64 cfs to continue historical irrigation of 73.2 acres of the Rose Ranch property (which is to be developed as part of the golf course); 1.21 cfs bypass for augmentation per dry -up of 24.6 acres of historical irrigation; and minimal outside uses, during April through October, such as car washing and landscaping, which is equivalent to 6.3 acres of irrigation and 0.312 cfs. A letter dated March 4, 2002, from Thomas A. Zancanella of Zancanella and Associates, Inc., states that 17.5 acre-feet of consumptive use from the Robertson Ditch water rights should be dedicated to the District so that the District will have adequate water rights to fulfill their water supply obligation. During a discussion of the issues with Tom Zancanella on August 6, 2003. Torn stated that his review of the consumptive use for the development indicated that 6 acre-feet of the pond evaporation occurred outside of the irrigation season, and since Robertson Ditch consumptive use credits are not available outside of the irrigation season, contract water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District would be used to offset these depletions. Subtraction of the 6 acre-feet from the 38.3 acre-feet of pond evaporation leaves 32.3 acre-feet to be replaced by Robertson Ditch consumptive use credits. Subtracting this from the 50 acre-feet of Robertson Ditch consumptive use credits results in 17.7 acre-feet available for transfer to the District. Additionally, Case No. 97CW236 claims conditional water rights of 7.5 cfs each for the Posy Pump and Pipeline and the Robertson Ditch, Rose Enlargement. This water was proposed to "be used for domestic, storage, commercial for a golf course and related facilities, fire protection uses and to serve as a potable water supply for a golf course /residential development of up to 550 EQR's" and irrigation. Although irrigation is listed as use for the subject water rights, later paragraphs under the titles Operation of the Plan for Augmentation and Dedication of Consumptive Use Credits state that irrigation is to be provided by direct use of the Robertson Ditch and Glenwood Ditch water rights. As such, a portion of the Robertson Ditch direct flow rights is dedicated to provide for the outside uses equivalent to 6.3 acres of irrigation. In contrast to the explanation provided in the plan for augmentation, the applicant proposes to augment the minimal outside uses with Robertson Ditch consumptive use credits and contract water. Noting that the Posy Pump and Pipeline and the Robertson Ditch, Rose Enlargement are decreed for irrigation, and that excess consumptive use credits from the dry -up under the Robertson Ditch are adequate to replace depletions from the minimal outside uses, this appears to be permissible under the decreed plan for augmentation. Assuming a liberal 0.25 gallons/day/square foot of diversions for commercial use, 21 of the 550 EQR's are adequate for the 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Subtraction of 21 EQR's for commercial use and the 15 EQR's dedicated to the golf course clubhouse leaves 514 EQR's for the 302 living units and community facilities (e.g., daycare). Also note that the decree limits irrigation of the golf course to only 130 acres of the 233.514 acres noted in the proposal [24.2 acres will be irrigated with Glenwood Ditch water rights, and 105.8 acres (32.6 acres + 73.2 acres) will be irrigated with Robertson Ditch water rights]. Similarly, no more than 7 acres of the 162.308 acres of Common Open Space may be irrigated. Based on the above, the State Engineer finds, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply for irrigation and pond filling will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate, and that pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(Il), it is our opinion that • • Tamara Pregl Iron Bridge PUD Amendment/Preliminary Plan August 6, 2003 Page 3 the proposed potable water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, 4/4 ick Wolfe, P.E. Chief of Water Supply DW/CMLJ Iron Bridge PUD.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 JUL-31-2003 13:22 DIV WATER RESOURCES 303 366 35q9 • STATE OF COLO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENCtNEER Div,,gn of Water Resnurre; Dep,xr rnent of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street Room 811 Dentia, Coloratiu 80203 Phone 0011. $66-3S81 FA* t.3n31 A66 -358n www.water 541te.CU us. July 31, 2003 EXHIBIT Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Iron Bridge PUD Amendment/Preliminary Plan Sec 35, T6S, R89W & Secs. 1, 2 & 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 asci Owen trOVernnr Greg €. �walehe+ O,,,. itor rbl 0 Sampson. PE. Stair Engineer Dear Ms. Pregl: We have completed our review of the above referenced development proposal. Comments for this project (formerly Rose Ranch) were previously made in our letters dated October 27, 1997; May 15, 1998; February 4, 1999 and August 2, 1999. The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel of approximately 534.189 acres into a golf course, community areas and 292 residential lots (see Exhibit "A" Proposed Modifications to Preliminary Plan Construction Documents) on 115.34 acres, which will contain a maximum of 302 living units, including ADU's. (Note that the preliminary plat provided with this submittal appears to be outdated, since only 171 lots are listed in the land use summary contained therein.) The development will include a 233.514 -acre golf course with a clubhouse, community facilities and a multi -use irrigated field. Commercial floor space will be limited to 25,000 square feet. Common Open Space will encompass 162.308 acres. Water features such as ponds will be incorporated. The applicant proposes to provide water services via surface diversions through separate raw and potable systems pursuant to a change of point of diversion and place of use for irrigation water rights decreed in Case No. 96CW319, surface and storage water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 97CW236, and wells decreed as alternate points of diversion to surface rights in Case No. 00CW019. The water rights to be used in the potable system are to be transferred to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (formerly Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District), which will provide domestic water service to the development per a pre - inclusion agreement, a copy of which was provided. Per the agreement, domestic water service includes domestic in-house use and the irrigation of up to 6,31 acres of lawn and garden irrigation or other equivalent outside uses. The raw water system will be used to irrigate 130 acres of the golf course, 58 acres of lawns and gardens, and 7 acres of parks, playgrounds, garden areas, and a landscaped greenbelt. Direct diversions will be used to fill the ponds. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Case No_ 96CW319 allows for the use of 2.0 cfs of the Glenwood Ditch water rights for the irrigation of 134 acres of land in the development, but Case No. 97CW236 indicates that only 89.2 acres will be irrigated via the these water rights, which prorates to 1.33 cfs. (Per Case No. 97CW236 the 89.2 acres consists of 58 acres of lawns and gardens, 7 acres of parks, playgrounds, garden areas, and a landscaped greenbelt, and 24.2 acres of the golf course.) Based on the duty of water in this area of 1 cfs for 40 acres, this amount may be insufficient for the intended irrigation if the land application is via flood irrigation methods. The augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 97CW236 provides water for 550 EQR's (per said decree, each EQR is equivalent to 300 gallons per day, and 15 of these EQR's are dedicated to the golf course clubhouse) and ponds with a total surface area of 7 acres_ Case No. 97CW236 3UL.- 31-2003 13:23 0]U WATER RESOURCES 303 BEE 3599 P.E3f03 • Tamara Pregl Iron Bridge PUD Amendment/Preliminary Plan July 31, 2003 Page 2 also notes direct use of the Robertson Ditch water rights as follows. 2.5 cfs to irrigate 32.6 acres of the golf course; 3.64 cfs to continue historical irrigation of 73.2 acres of the Rose Ranch property (which is to be developed as part of the golf course); 1.21 cfs bypass for augmentation per dry -up of 24.6 acres of historical irrigation; and minimal outside uses, during April through October, such as car washing and landscaping, which is equivalent to 6.3 acres of irrigation and 0.312 cfs. A letter dated March 4, 2002, from Thomas A. Zancanella of Zancanella and Associates, Inc., states that 17.5 acre-feet of consumptive use from the Robertson Ditch water rights should be dedicated to the District so that the District will have adequate water rights to fulfill their water supply obligation. However, review of the decree and attachments indicates that 35.3 acre-feet of the Robertson Ditch consumptive use credits are required for augmentation of pond evaporation. Thus dedication of 17.5 acre-feet of the 50 acre-feet of consumptive use credits available will leave the golf course unable to replace all of the depletions from the proposed 7 aces of ponds. Additionally, Case No. 970W236 claims conditional water rights of 7.5 cfs each for the Posy Pump and Pipeline and the Robertson Ditch, Rose Enlargement. This water was proposed to be used for domestic, storage, commercial fora golf course and related facilities, fire protection uses and to serve as a potable water supply for a golf course (residential development of up to 550 EQR's." Note that irrigation is not listed as use for the subject water rights. Furthermore. as stated in the preceding paragraphs. irrigation is to be provided by direct use of the Robertson Ditch and Glenwood Ditch water rights. As such, a portion of the Robertson Ditch direct flow rights must be dedicated to the District to provide for the outside uses equivalent to 6.3 acres of irrigation. Assuming a liberal 0.25 gallonsiday/square foot of diversions for commercial use, 21 of the 550 EQR's are adequate for the 25.000 square feet of commercial floor space. Subtraction of 21 EQR's for commercial use and the 15 EQR's dedicated to the golf course clubhouse leaves 514 EQR's for the 302 living units and community facilities (e.g., daycare). Also note that the decree limits irrigation of the golf course to only 130 acres of the 233.514 acres noted in the proposal [24.2 acres will be irrigated with Glenwood Ditch water rights, and 105.8 acres (32 6 acres + 73.2 acres) will be irrigated with Robertson Ditch water rights] Similarly, no more than 7 acres of the 162.308 acres of Common Open Space may be irrigated. Based on the above, the State Engineer finds, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply for irrigation and pond filling will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate, and that pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(11)(11), it is our opinion that the proposed potable water supply will cause injury to existing water rights. If you or the applicant has any questions conceming this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, Dick Wolfe, P.E. Chief of Water Supply DW/CML! Iron Bridge PUD.doc cc' Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 TOTAL P.03 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 FAX: (303) 866-3589 http://water.state.co.usidefault.htm • STATE OF COL August 2, 1999 Victoria Giannala Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Rose Ranch Final Plat Sec. 35, T6S, R89W & Secs. 1, 2 & 12, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Dear Ms. Giannola: Comments for this project were previously made in our letters dated May 15, 1998 and February 4, 1999. For the purposes of these comments, we are assuming that the proposal in identical to that commented on in our February 4, 1999 letter. Per said letter, the proposal is to subdivide a parcel of approximately 534.19 acres into a golf course, community areas and 245 residential lots (on 115.88 acres), which will contain a maximum of 322 living units, including 10 clubhouse apartments at the golf course. The development will include a 222.18 acre golf course with a clubhouse, community facilities and a multi -use irrigated field. Commercial floor space will be limited to 25,000 square feet. A Community Park will consist of 2.14 acres and Common Open Space will encompass 167 acres. Water features such as ponds will be incorporated. The applicant proposes to provide water services via surface diversions through separate raw and potable systems pursuant to irrigation water rights decreed in Case Nos. 96CW319 and an augmentation plan. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District. An augmentation plan, Case No. 97CW236, was signed on March 22, 1999. Case No. 97CW236 provides augmentation for: 550 EQR's (15 of these EQR's are dedicated to the golf course clubhouse); 130 acres of golf course irrigation; 58 acres of lawn and garden irrigation; a total of 7 acres of irrigation for parks, playgrounds, garden areas, and a landscaped greenbelt; ponds with a total surface area of 7 acres; and minimal outside uses, during April through October, such as car washing and landscaping equivalent to 6.3 acres of irrigation. Assuming a liberal 0.25 gallons/day/square foot of diversions for commercial use, 21 of the 550 EQR's are adequate for the 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. This leaves 514 EQR's for the 322 living units and community facilities (i.e., daycare). Also note that the decree limits irrigation of the golf course to only 130 acres of the 222.18 acres noted in the proposal. Similarly, no more than 7 acres of the 167 acres of Common Open Space may be irrigated. RECEIVED AUG 0 9 1999 • • Rose Ranch Final Plat August 2, 1999 Based on the above, and pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), it is our opinion that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KNNKICPv9URose Ranch 3.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38 • • August 7, 2003 Garfield County Planning Department Attn: Tamara Pregl 108 8th Street Glenwwod Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms. Pregl : EXHIBIT We have reviewed the proposal from the Ironbridge developer to use ADU's to satisfy a portion of their obligation to provide affordable housing units. We had a meeting several months ago with a representative from Ironbridge, Mike Staley, who discussed the ADU unit concept and its application in that project. We had some concern at that time, and still do today, that these units are not consistent with our understanding of the requirements contained in the subdivision regulations. The issue that most concerns us is the concept of the primary home owner soliciting for and selecting the occupants for these units. As you aware, housing provided by developers as a result of these regulations, is subject to public advertisement as to availability. Interested parties then submit an application to the Housing Authority to determine eligibility. Once a pool of applicants has qualified, we then conduct a public lottery and determine an order of priority for those successful candidates to continue on in the process. This whole public process seems to be bypassed in the Ironbridge proposal. In our opinion, the ADU units as presented to us do not meet the guidelines for their affordable housing requirements. Sincerely, Thomas B. Beard Vice Chairman Garfield County Housing Authority • • MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT 9 t To: Tamara Pregl From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Iron Bridge PUD Date: September 30, 2003 My office has received complaints over the last two years regarding vegetation issues related to activities at Ironbridge/Rose Ranch. Some of the these complaints are related to noxious weeds and are subject to enforcement procedures as established in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan and the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Other complaints are not noxious weed related. 1 can make suggestions an possible solutions; however they do not fall under the aforementioned noxious weed enforcement procedures. On August 15th, 2003, Richard Nash took me on a site visit of the property. I have also had conversations with residents of Westbank and Teller Springs. 1. Noxious Weeds Mr. Nash mapped out the noxious weeds found at Ironbridge on August 15th. Mr. Nash provided me with a copy of the map. The Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property are listed below: Canada thistle Oxeye daisy Russian knapweed Russian olive Salt cedar/tamarisk Scotch thistle Staff recommendation: The Russian kna,pweed, salt cedar, and Russian olive should be treated this fall. I_ strongly encourage Ironbridge to treat_those 3 species within the next three weeks and provide the county with_copies of the treatment applications by November 1, 2003. This may be in the form of application records by a commercial applicator. • • The remaining weed species may be treated in the spring. It is requested that Ironbridge provide a weed management plan for the spring treatment of oxeye daisy and Scotch thistle. The plan should also provide for a follow-up fall treatment in. 2004 of Russian knapweed, Russian olive, and salt cedar. 2. Revegetation a. Road Cut Revegetation: The revegetation done by Rose Ranch on the road cuts along CR 109 is still getting established. Two species of weeds, Russian thistle and kochia have gained a foothold in some bare areas of the road cut. These plants are not designated as noxious weeds in Garfield County; however they have been a cause of concern to residents of Teller Springs as they become tumbleweeds. Staff recommendation: Request that the applicant remove the tumbleweeds that have become established in bare areas, either mechanically or manually, before this winter. b. Tall -grass along berms and roughs around golf course perimeters: Many residents of Westbank have expressed concerns about the tall -grass planted in the roughs and along the berms. Their concern is that the grass when dried out, becomes a fire hazard and is in close proximity to many homes. They are also concerned that leaving the grass tall provides habitat for rodent pest and that it also makes it more difficult to manage the noxious weeds in the same area. Staff recommendation: Request that the applicant keep the tall grass mowed and trimmed. c. Lack ofrevegetation on sewer line that transects the eastern part of Teller Springs property. Mr. Nash and I looked at this on August 15`", 2003. Mr. Nash stated that Ironbridge would reseed the area this fall. He has asked for a seed recommendation from this office. I would suggest either a dry pasture grass mix or mountain meadow mix; both are available at local supply stores. Staff recommendation: Request that the applicant provide records of a fall 2003 reseeding once the work has been completed on the sewer line at Teller Springs. Tamara Pregl • From: santhony tsanthony@coop.ext.colostate.edU] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:02 AM To: Tamara Pregl Cc: Mark Bean Subject: RE: Ironbridge PUD Tamara I was out there a couple weeks ago with Richard Nash, and then at a later date have visited with John Haines. I11 get you something in writing either today or tomorrow. Have also talked with some residents of Teller Springs overe the last couple of years. Some of the issues raised can be addressed thru the various mechanisms that we have, that are "noxious" weed related. Some of them aren't "noxious" issues -such as the long grass planted on the berms at West Bank and the kochia (tumbleweed) that is growing on the CR109 Roadcuts (the reveg work by Ironbridge)....so we'll have to try to solve those concerns in other ways. also please use my county email "santhony@garfield-county.com" as I dont check this one very often thanks • • MEMORANDUM To: Tamara Pregl From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Iron Bridge PUD Date: July 31, 2003 1. The tree inventory of 1997 indicates the presence of hundreds of Russian olives on the property. Russian olive has been designated a noxious weed in Garfield County since 2000. I recommend that the applicant submit a plan that provides for the control of Russian olive with the PUD. 2. I have heard reports that (although I haven't confirmed this) that there may be some tamarisk trees located along the east side of the property along the Roaring Fork River. I am requesting that the applicant inventory the area within the PUD for tamarisk, and provide a tamarisk management plan if the plant is located. Tamarisk is also a noxious weed in Garfield County. 3. I have received some complaints from homeowners in the Teller Springs subdivision regarding a sewer line that was put in by Rose Ranch through Teller Springs property (along the east side). Apparently Rose Ranch made a commitment to revegetate the disturbance created by the placement of this line. I looked at the area in June of 2003 at the request of the Teller Springs Homeowners Association and either it wasn't revegetated or the revegetation was unsuccessful. I recommend as a condition of approval, that Iron Bridge shall revegetate the area as per the original commitment of Rose Ranch to the Teller Springs Homeowners Association. • STATE O. COL COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 RECEIVED Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 SEP r, GA4-0 tLr�"' August 27, 2003 Ms. Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 GA -04-0001 RE: Iron Bridge (formerly Rose Ranch) PUD Geologic Hazard Review Dear Ms. Pregl: EXHIBIT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Ronald W. Cattany Division Director Ronald W. Cattany Acting State Geologist Thank you for the submittal of the additional plan sheet concerning the debris flow mitigation for the Iron Bridge submittal. As mentioned in the CGS letter dated July 17, 2003 we did not receive the changed plan sheets in your earlier submittal, specifically the changes stated in items #19 and #25 that discusses a change in debris flow mitigation. Your subsequent plan sheets did not show the as -built plans for the retention structures in the upper golf course so on August 15, 2003 we toured the upper golf course to review the debris flow mitigation structures. We concur with the HPGeotech letter dated March 23, 2003 that the earthen detention structures are appropriate for the conditions so our concerns for the mitigation plan have been addressed. If you have any questions, please contact this office at (303) 866-3551 or e-mail: ionathan.white@state,co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 July 17, 2003 RECE1V"EL JUL 2 2 2003 GARFIELD COUNT). 3U11 'SING & PLANNING Ms. Tamara Pregl Garfielld County Building and Planning Department 109 8 Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 GA -04-0001 RE: Iron Bridge (formerly Rose Ranch) PUD Geologic Hazard Review Dear Ms. Pregl: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Governor Greg E Walcher Executive Director Ronald W. Cattany Division Director Ronald W. Cattany Acting State Geologist Thank you for the land -use submittal. At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) the Colorado Geological Survey has completed a geologic hazard review of the above-mentioned development. As we understand this is a re-application of the original Rose Ranch PUD that was required because of development deviations in the original plans and specifications of the approved Preliminary Plan during development construction. We have reviewed the Application for Preliminary Plan and Exhibit "A", Proposed Modifications to Preliminary Plan that were submitted with your packet. The geologic hazards and subsurface investigations by HP Geotech are that same that were previously submitted when the CGS reviewed this development plan. Our comments were in letters sent to Ms. Victoria Giannola. Copies of those letters were included in your submitted materials The -major hazards that were idenii ied for the Rose Ranch development were potential of hydrocompactive soils, potential for sinkholes, and required debris flow mitigation for the major drainageway that resulted in the large alluvial fan on the Rose Ranch property. The concerns and precautions we voiced in our original review letters remain essentially unchanged. The Application for Preliminary Plan Approval states on page 10 and page 14 that the changes and deviations of the original plan still meet the geotechnical constraints and requirements early set forth by HP Geotech and recommendations and observations made by CGS. We did not receive the changed plan sheets in your submittal. In our cursory examination of the Exhibit "A" list of changes, we found no changes that would appreciable change the geotechnical and geologic hazard aspects of the development except for items #19 and #25 that discusses a change in debris flow mitigation. This appears to differ with our understanding of the mitigation plan in the original submittal. We would need to see the revised plan sheets if Garfield County would like the CGS to review this change in debris flow mitigation. If you have any questions, please contact this office at (303) 866-3551 or e- mail: jonathan.white()state.co.us Sincerely, /al Jonathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist • COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 FAX: (303) 866-2461 July 12, 1999 Mr. Victoria Giannola Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • STATE OF CUL RE: Rose Ranch Final Plat Submission Dear Ms. Giannola: GA -00-0001 EXHIBIT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Waicher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the submitted materials for this proposed subdivision with regard to geologic hazards and the impacts such hazards will have. We have reviewed the Rose Ranch submission on earlier occasions. Our concerns were collapsible and compressible soils, subsidence and sinkhole development, and debris flow hazards. We have made a cursory examination of the plans, indemnity waivers, and the construction documents. We paid close attention to the plans and plan notes with respect to engineering of collapsible soils, design and mitigation to prevent deep wetting of potentially hydrocollapsible soils, and debris flow mitigation. It appears that for the most part, both the county and developer have done an admirable job of recognizing the potential hazards and have appropriately addressing them. We commend you both. Provided all construction plans are complied with and residential foundations are designed on a site-specific basis by a professional engineer with experience in the siting of structures on potentially hydrocoilapsible soils, hydrocompressible soils, and evaporate dissolution -induced subsidence, we find no geologic reason that would preclude this development as intended. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866 -3551 - Sincerely, onathan L. White Engineering Geologist • • Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 7300 Hwy 82, G lesawood Springs, CO 81 601 970-945-1223 ph, 945-1318 fai Date: 07-21-03 To: Tamara Pregle Building and Planning From: Bobby Branham Road and Bridge Dist. 1 Re: Iron Bridge 1 Rose Ranch Modifications The Road and Bridge Dist. 1 Office does not have concerns with regard to the relocation of the bike path, the creation of PA22, the relocation of dwellings, or the renaming of sub -division roads. It does not appear that any of these changes will have a negative impact on CR 109 or the road and bridge dept. Bobby Branham Dist. 1 Road and Bridge AUG -12-2003 TUE 03:37 PM HIGH UNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO. 3039250547 P. 01 FAX TRANSMITTAL. HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING. INC. FAX f 303) 925-0547 DATE Tuesday, August 12, 2003 TO: Tamara Pregl FAX NUMBER: 970-384-3470 FROM Eric P. Tuen, P E. HCE JOB NUMBER: 2000075.02 Total number of pages. including this cover page. 6 Brief Description or Additional instructions: Tamara - Attached is the correspondence regarding the CR 109 widening at the south eri r n.. L.e. There is a letter from Ms Pineda, Mark Bean, and Jeff Nelson. I believe Qprion A was the one that was approved by the commissioners and constructed 1 don't think there was any correspondence beyond this with_I oad and Bride, Since the_plans were blessed by the commissioners it was constructed just like the rest of the plans and the final approval comes from us when we complete the collateral release. — — -- - —- - 1Fyou have any questions please give me a calf. Eric 14 INVERNESS DRIVE EAST. SUITE D-136 ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO 80 112 Telephone 1303) 925-0544 - rex 0031 925-0547 AUG -12-2003 TUE 03:37 PM HIGRaikUNTRY ENGINEERING FtaX NO, 3039250547 AUG -12-03 TUE 03:02 PM H1GNIRUNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO, 970 945 5 r• , Garfield County Engineering Department To: Richard Nash Representative of the Rose Ranch Development Date: Monday, November 05, 2001 project; rose ranch off site Improvements on CR 109 Re: Re -design of previously approved off site improvement of CR 109 Dear Richard: P. 02 P. 02/00 0 After review of the revised plans submitted to me by High Country 5ngineering for the above mentioned project C have the foilow:ng comments and recommendations_ I sorted the recommended items into posittve and negative attr:hrnes per design revision. Comment& that apply to both design optlons: 1) The Garfield county approval of ro-0es19n can wait until spring of 2CC2 and roadway temporary striped thea winter In order for the engineer representing rose ranch can provide add'1ional important research data and plans to the aunty. 2) Existing right or way snows on plans and its location relative to the existing twenty two foot asphalt roadway differ from pian to plan. The original approved plan shows the existrg roadway offset within the sixty foot right of way. Tho reContly submitted plan shows the existing twenty two hot roadway centered within the sixty foot right of way. This throws up a red flag pertalning to right of way researc-h and or survey that should be clarified before going any further. I would recommend that the engineer submit p sealed right of way survey showing all property owners, rights of way, easements, etc... to clarify Ihis issue. 3) Per submitted traffic design counts and engineering the road does not appear to justify a telt tum lane southbound at this time. 4) Garfield county approval of re -design shall not constitute responsibility in any wisy by the county for recessery utility relocations or modifications of adjacent private property owners persorel property due to the design mcdifcatons related to these opt ons. 5) Guardrail needs to be shown on plans and instali;3d per previously approved submitted to by Garfield County planning department, "Option A" design: Positive attriautas of design: 1) Wider than existing twenty two foot asphalt roadway. 2) Existing wood power poles can remain in place. 3) Existing storm drainage and snow storage ditch can remain In place. 4) Snow storage Brea pkirntiful within the nght of way on the west side of roadway. Negat;ve attributca of design: 1) Raven feet of asphalt must be removed to have the constructed product match the engineers plans• 2) Rose ranch must convoy approximately twenty feet of right of way lo the ext9ting CR 109 right of way. 3) This option shows an eleven foot lane of asphalt and a fourteen toot lane. Aft lanes should be twelve feet if at all possible. x+ Page 1 of 2 109 8`•' Stasi, suite 100-a. Venwood Springs. C.O. 61501 -33rD. 945-1377 54 .4013 Wood .aarici -{ vntv.s<arrt Jnclaon@particktta,rnty.tam AUG -12-2003 TUE 03:38 PM HIGH POUNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO, 3039250547 AtJG- I2-03 TUE 03:02 PM H IGk UNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO. 970 MEW P. 03 P. 03/06 "Option b" desSgn: Positive attributes of design: 1) Closely resembles original approved plan. 2) Wider than existing twenty two foot asphalt roadway. 3) Snow strxage area plentiful within the right of way on the west side of roadway. Negative attributes of design: 1) Rose ranch must convoy approxirr.atsty thirty feet of right of way to the existing CR 109 right of way - 2) Existing wood power poles (2) must be rebcated to avoid traffic safety issue. 3) Pedino driveway appears to need rebuilding with new out cut and pan installed. 4) Curb and gutter must carry atoms water from ditch to Curb and gutter and back to ditch again, I was not able to verify this without the prefile view. If ths arca is a high point then this to not an issue. 5)River road located In rase ranch needs both tum radius re -designed due Eo cr 109 roadway relocatlan. 6) Existing ditch shall be rernoved on up west side of roadway for approximately eight hundred linear feet. if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to Call Sincerely, Jeff T Nelson Assistant County Engineer C Rs;1 Mihce, County Er nesr Page 2of2 AUG -12-2003 TUE 03:38 FM HIGH CUN`1RY ENGINEER]NG FAX NO. 3030250547 F. A AUG -12-03 TUE 03:02 PM HIG UNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO, 970 945 .5 P. 04/013 ld 1Garifie County 1 R [11 r.DING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 18, 2001 Linda Pineda 1550 County Road 109 Glenwood Springs, Co 81 601 RE: Rose Ranch Construction Dear Ms- Rineda: Please consider this letter to be ackaowkdgement of my receipt of your letter expressing concerns about the County Road 109 improvements being done in conjunction with the Rose Ranch project. Asa general comment CU state that you arc not obligatcd to move your driveway for the beneEt of the development, wtless roe agree to the rctOt.- Should you decide to agree to a relocation of your driveway, it will be necessary to pet a new driveway access permit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. Prior to approving a driveway access permit, one ofthe RoadBridgesupervisors will review the proposed location, to determine that the: appropriate maintained and that traffic safety issues are considered. If the County has additioruil right-of-way in that arca, we would have a deed and could provide you a copy of it. I have no specific knowledge of the status of the County Road 109 right-of-way and someone would have to do some research if this becomes an issue. A copy of your letter has been provided the developers represcatativcs, so they are aware `a yaur_cofv eres. As I noted previously; you are not obagatcd to move your driveway for the benefit of the Rose Ranch development, unless you choose to do so on a voluntary basis. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to call or write to this office or the Road and Bridge Department. Sincerely, Mark L. clean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970)945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (97d) 384-3470 AUG -12-2003 TUE 03:38 RM HIGH "Ct;NTRY ENGINEERING FAX Na 3039250547 F, 05 � RUG -12-03 TUE 03:02 Pit H I G Iry ENGINEERING FAR Nd, 970 945 • P. 05f06 � 0 { � i�, } 6 • RIMMED OC1 7 Linda Fineda 1550 County ltd. 109, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-68+68 October 16, 2001 Mark Bean, Building & Planning Director Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Rase Ranh Construction Dear Mr. Bean, 1 am writing to notify you of my stance in regard to any road construction for the Rose Ranch project that may impact my property here on 109 Road. IM.r. Beim, ba advised neither will 1 agree to nor wail] 1 allow any change in grade of my driveway entrance or change of angle to my driveway entrance without aka consultation from the county. Further,1 will not allow anyone onto my property to dismantle my fence until such consultation with a county representative. After conversations last May with Eric Tuit1, High Country Engineering,1 understand they arc cansidering construction of a turn -in lane almost directly along the front of rnyy property. To construct this new turn lane the road will need to be widened and my fence moved back. Further, Mr- "ruin indicated it would be helpful to their planning and construction if I would allow an increase in the grade of my entrance and driveway, and possibly a change oldie angle of my entrance. Mr. Bean, I realize there is a possibility my fence is standing on a county easement, but I expect you or your represemltive to contact me and provide proof. My views and stance on any such proposed construction are a direct result o the es treatment Pee been subjected to by Ciould Construction and 110 Country during the construction that occurred this summer for this project. During construction phases that disrupted my home business, halted mail and paper deliveries. blocked my driveway. disturbed vegetation on rity property, left cracks in the interior house walls, and gully disrupted my quality of life, 1 got neither notice nor consultation of their construction plans. Perhaps they thought because 1 am single minority woman 1 would not or could not protest their trampling of my rights- Of course, they are mistaken. There will be a reckoning for what has happened to me here; I have retained legal representation to address my grievances. Because of this climate of callous disregard for me, I am giving you advance notice that I am not likely to accommodate anyone involved with this construction project. Entrance onto my property will not be allowed until I've consulted with county representatives, and agreed to, any possible impact to me as a result of a road -widening project. AUG -I2-2003 TUE 03:39 PM HIGH QUNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO. 3039250547 AUG -12-03 TUE 03:03 PM HIG} UNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO. 970 945 M 2_ - Rose Ranch Construction It is unfortunate that the construction representatives never attempted thoughtful, honest communication, but now that I understand how they operate, I will not accommodate anyone until my conoerns and needs are met, Perhaps they have abandoned the road widening plan Mr. Tuin spoke of. However, since I have no knowledge of their construction plans, I am asking you to intercede an my behalf I have voiced concerns that require a response from you; therefore, I anticipate a reply at your earliest oonvenicncc. Sincerely, inda Pined P. 05 P. 06/06 AUG -11-2003 MON 04:35 PM HIGH COUNTRY ENG 1 NI -:ER I NG FAX NO. 3o392bo547 P. 01 • r".)< 1 R."IVSNIITY.41 HILI -1 cc -DL 11V1RY 1'-NC51N/EERP FAX (303) 42.E-0547 LDATE. AAori y. An.re3trsr i 1. 2003 TC): Tamara Pregl FAX NLJtvrt3 t -R: 470-304-3470 F1 C711A• Eric F' 1 Jrrl. P P b-iCE JC]E3 N LEMBER: 2000075. D2 Total number nr parges. thr.s.=c7vr`r page 3 Srlcf pcsc riptiora or AUeYitr0nad Err-.trr.se.t"ur+s. i"amarag - VWcfl. 1 am still ion kir7g ari J rr lay rlrzEr L rrCJFt LO ger your ira}+thrrac3 €` se2 uz.t.1 wPnneesd,cay cry r wrrl riot GE.' iri Glcr'rwoeid CO scarerr9rot. rl tt-lezrr frit -6 Until Cheri 1 frx_rnjJ di Fetter tr.' rrat L e)rnmiss+®Hers dater) 2001 vvhipc1-0 was true? flrs.r 1eneer wri1re•rr ro them rg arciinrl fuels matter and me rrieecir,c3 ru-+F3f.>c'- c rrly rherc after 1 trrirzk 2001. Ate..ears rt -le acg. e-nria sca t0-0erc S0--kot Fel tie s Ur+'tU[r ierrt7 "n [[it: +i ii++ute•s of ri"rC rrlearrng tam stilt! Ic3,0kiri0, for Li Ictt+er rrcarrr Rcxvel alrld Brie7ge b: -rt sera-" wr,sr,cie:rrr3y e1 it eXiStS. I will Co rlrlrIL.re tea Icsfak I crai"704. the m"nutr_'S woericl ne• rrp C]Cst trot from true Coernry's perspe.ccr.' 1-4.ster Errr t4 IN‘/ERNESS I0RI1/E E:7aSl-. SL.J1r - 1) 13f E1 J LEWOaC3. CCL c3rzsa,r)CS E10112 Te.-repernrre 13031 COS14 F,Jr. 13041 47-5-0547 AUG -Il -2003 MON _04:35 PM HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING FAX X NO. 3039?50547 P. 0? • _ccobcr 29, 2001 Mr. 3c hn Martin irttin 141r. /Larry 1vieC ,wen Mr. Walt Stowe Ciarticld Cetarity Board of +C -aunty Commissioners 109 t`"' Street, Suite 303 ellienwood Springs, CCP 81601 1te: Ft oszc Remelt 1'. U.]J- -- County Road 109/ River Page Road Intersection F1C.E Project 14s. 2000075.02 C3ent1crritrn: The appresval for the J oB4a Ranch P_U.F7. required hill turning lanes at the interacction of County Road 109 and River F.dgc Road. 'The condition was placed can the de'velepmcrit by C3artleld Cuwity. Read and firidge and approved by the Huard. 'fine intersection was designed for these lanes bused en the irtforrosticarr available sat the tithe- blow that the siva] restraints that prettibit the irtterscctiou Intersection is 14 be Cottstralctcd there are phy to be .o/istretctcd es designed. The grading that warn she was vrt the eri tinel plans cneraaches on to the ac#jaccnt land owners which would require- their cooperation aid perrttission to s`c mpictc the wcork as well as re -build their eicisiing drivewtays. Clue cot- the pwcaeric is beirag very vncooperalivt' at this time and is not interested in negotiating with the developer. There also exists art overhead power line inside the County FLoa•i Ri ght cif Way whicheatisc-w further problems with the original design. Enclesed with this letter are options for the irlterseetion. C3ptaon A..'leaves the west side cif c ora tea the -i ceint owner or impact the the County Road s it i..n w "ted doprovide not grab deriver polies. This aptiurt would provide; tdk,lit torn acceleration aaltddcc+;leratiori renes for River Edge Road on to C:otinty head 109. This caption dues nut provide lett turn toxic for traffic naming onto River Edge. Road. 1lcawever, a study was completed for this option to see if the intersection would operate properly withrrut the left turn lame- The C:thirsty Read will operate ata 1_evel C3S Sl -'1.6.0 a (1..t1S) A is the pelt hens even if traffic on the �L'.caunty Road was dcauble that of existing. traffic. The left aeon earl to die Comity Read will b et LOPS H in the peek laastar which is very aeceptahle. app . 134wnuld provide alt of the lane that were required by Road and Pricier. This caption requires installing a 2' ettrb and gutter 2' ot'f cif the cxistine: latawa=r poles ettd shifting the trent tants partially tin to the Rose Manch property. The lane wi atlas wvtrld be 1 517 /6.4.11.., A.wn.de Sn.. 101 14 /nvrrrvas.* tlr/vc 4-u.rl. SI.. 1 120 C11..rz nn4 Spring., CE. X)601 edawnnrl. CI! $0!I.l IyMn«n 970 945-867.5.1.4+ 970 944 255.5 dlhckrrc 30= 925 0544 - f -403 925-0 .1.47 RECEIVED Aij 3 1 k nu A&P�NG ANNING rlrrea..4 Jw.cmvn. Ci:" R, TC.J y +.o.m.* 970 Id5a-t19. -r AUU- 7 1 -2003 TION 04 = 30 PYl E3 1 Gfl (:E7UN'1'hY ENG [ NEER l NG VAX NO. -3133 921-3.0b47 P. 111.3 Garfield County C:antro. toners C?ctober 29. 2001 Page 2 of 2 driveways. path wo tl s 1' mil `turbacttto a cteldnrzaiaciate $ tIll ed sat slope fear the ro d. rt'Thics option would pada a till >ae roxisnately X00 feet long. rc;yuii� the county to maintain w section of curb end gutter upy7 ...rotate' win ..r both We me requesting some direction front staff -and the Board as to wham the county litre to be constructed at this location. and ase study £on lased drawings showingn. options its well ea the original desigi lace. the drainage lverts alcing Also, thane has been xianic JIY I Moson el s to whether to and Bridge- requeetcd that culverts be instlled at the Coaurty is 109_ ad since there eit1verte: were Fuautd during low points in, ext road st the diene wi t no culvertshe road. It1 High CYs tots in the said. It is kligh C_`ountry'x opinion that there 1. n aan, existing at c low points them 1 er need to install culverts i age provided rculverts toatea already e; a its where W1 request at the culverts 1)c left in place zutd drainage p necessary to facilitate eared drainage - Finally, Road Surd is reg . ado z for tta driveway exists to provide access to the regulation on wer of Comity Road It is our ptothin that this is driveway wax existing before the row rod work asci as nota new access which dues not require a spa cif+c design.. it will be replaced in better condition than it was previously. Please eoiitiaot tree if you have may yuetivits. Sincerely, HIGH C:C7k3N`1 RY>;i it.1 itll Ci. TNIC. 'Vernon T7, 1 -rope. 11. Principal Cc. Garfield County Planning — Mork i3earl Garfield County LLrigincerin1; — Bandy Withcia Gate G:apiterl, i .1.C= - Richard 'Nash Garfield Comity road and Ill idte — T'cirri Mussell Tamara New Intersection AUGUST 6, 2001 d. Road and Bridge - Temporary Road Closure - County Road 154 at Rose Ranch Tom said he was approached the Board for a temporary road closure during construction on CR 154 at Rose Ranch and would like to have it closed until September 21, 2001 due to work being done by C -DOT on Hwy. 82 and improvements to CR 154. Motion Commissioner McCown made a motion to grant the request for closure of CR 154 for construction improvements until September 21, 2001. Commissioner Stowe seconded. Discussion was held regarding the damage to Hwy. 82 when a huge rock fell bouncing across the northbound lane onto the southbound lane hit and continued onto the old Hwy. 82, fell into brush and finally into the river. Motion carried. September 24, 2001 MARK GOULD - CR 154/HWY. 82 - EXTEND ROAD CLOSURE Mark Gould and Don DeFord were present. The request to extend the road closure at CR 154 and Hwy. 82 was submitted and discussed - focus was on the progress of the project stemmed by Rose Ranch. Mark mentioned they will do the paving today and tomorrow - open road by Friday September 28th - make sure the stripping on the road - the road has both the excel and decel lanes - when opened up it will be safe for the citizens. Tom Russell agreed with this report. Mark Gould - they will open CR 154 onto Highway 82 open without the signal lights. He reported the signal lights have been ordered. When Rose Ranch was originally before the Board, the C -DOT had met with the developers and engineer and expressed that a signalized light would not be necessary until the specified numbers were increased - at that time they expected it to be no sooner than January 1, 2002. Mark requested an extension until September 29, 2001 and stated the road will remain closed until it was safe for the citizens of Garfield County to use the intersection. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Stowe to grant the road closure until September 29, 2001 as requested and presented by Mark Gould. Motion carried. • Tamara November 2001 (1) Rose Ranch - Richard Nash - CR 109 Intersection Change in Plans to Workable New Plan Randy Withee, Tom Russell, Jeff Nelson, Mr, Richard Nash, Tim Thulson and Joe Hope were present. High Country Engineering submitted a letter to the Board regarding the options for the intersection based upon physical restraints that prohibit the intersection to be constructed as designed. The grading that was shown on the original plans encroaches on to the adjacent-anaowners which would require their cooperative and permission to complete the work as well as rebuild their existing driveways. One of the owners is being very uncooperative at this time and is not interested in negotiating with the developer. There also exists an overhead power line inside the County Road Right of Way which causes further problems with the original design. Option A - leaves the west side of the County Road as it exists and does not grade onto the adjacent owner or impact the power poles. This option would provide right turn acceleration and deceleration lanes for River Edge Road onto County Road 109. This option does not provide left turn lane for traffic turning onto River Edge Road. Option B would provide all of the lanes that were required by Road and Bridge. This option requires installing a 2' curb and gutter 2' off of the existing power poles and shifting the turn lanes partially onto the Rose Ranch property, Don DeFord informed the Commissioners that the action they are about to begin d est ussing was formerly handled in a public hearing an_ d any changes in plans would_ have to be handled in a public hearing as well There are other property owners adjoining this intersection w o ave an interest in this that have not been notified pursuant to your regulations. After discussing this ig t was aeed that minor amendments were necessary and a public_h.ear g wQ set for Tuesday, November 13 at 1:15 P.M. No hearing was held after this until JUNE -31-2892- • River Ridge Drive and CR 109 Commissioner Stowe — As long as they are not roads, signs, signage, and private roads and all there where the Rose Ranch Development is, after you cross Hardwick bridge and are goinginto Westbank, there is a road called River Ridge Drive and it was signed. When Rose Ranch came that, out the signs down. He had a visit from the Carbondale Fire Chief about two weeks saying he needed signs back up.in, they took Walt said he talked to the developer on Rose Ranch and was told that hey, that was togoing to happen, but it continues to not happen. There was a sign there that said CR 109 and River Ridge ri get the Steve responded by saying River Ridge Drive is a private road; it makes the property responsible for the sign. Commissioner Stowe said the property owners already did that, but not the Drive. p p y owners on the road Ranch people have removed it — who is responsible? Steve said this is a civil matter between owners and Rose Ranch, Rose property Tamara - there are more Westbank Discussions know 2000 Discussions January 3, 2000 C. i PRESENTATION Tim Thulson t. SERVICE Mildred N present, PLAN FOR ROSE Alsdorf stared s RANCH MET District on Decemberhe 1eceived r ROPOLITAN aISTRICT to be tat16, I received he Service Plan for the presented to the p 99 along with the Rose Ranh Commissioners. Planning Cam SS00 fee. These Metropolitan Commission to hear and then come bac l oirie back to the County ready County Chairman Martin for their review, asked for a oration to Cora refer this to the Planning Commissioner Stowe so Mark I3 moved. Commissioner McCown Commission Bean asked the applicant for missioner Commission in Feb permission to McCown seconded. Tim mission stated February due to the overload schedule this for the writing. he would refer t rload on their T regular PI this to the agenda for January, arming applicant and submit their response in Motron carried. February 22, 2000 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION: RECORDINGQUESTF R E ROSE PRELIMINARY PLAN OF SECTIONS 7 'RANCH P APPROVAL I FOR ROSE NCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND FINAL PLAT APP 3.5 MILES SOUTH AND P EF SECTIONS NT, APPLICANT: INVESTMENTS, OF NTS, S OF SECTICiIIIS &� �rs5 R$ Tim APPROXIMATELY ROARING PORK INVEST GLENWOOD PORTIONS . repenting Roaring MENTS, SPRINGS, CO ALONG 9W, presented. anng Fork Investments HIGHWAY 82, Tim explained that the P and Ron He o Discussion and Iemeier of Rose Ranch Motion UD expires on May 4 and the Commissioner McCown y would need Final Flat recordings own made a until July 10. authorized €,s for motion to gain the too Rose ,Ranch PUD extension for P seconded the the Resolution submitted until July 1 f7, ? Preliminary Plan ::d motion, carried. y thea 000 and that the Chair to applicant. Commissioner Stowe March 20, 2000 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL LOCATED: APPROXIMATELY 3 S E SERVICE PL COUNTY ROAD los. AN FOR APPLICANT: ES SOUTH OF ROSE RANCH METR{} DIST ANT: ROSE RANCH LENWOOD SPRINGS OFF OF DISTRICT. conversations regarding Rose Ranch that are in - also regarding CR 754 closure and thatciuded in the new intersection - let me Kit Lyon, Jim Leuthueser J • Kit Lyon, Ji Tire Jeff Laurien, Mary JimHe - emeier, and the Tim That o for riR Jo Dougherty es nt Rose Ranch PUD were Y� Sisneros determined eachesection w present. ), Ron saying it was more detailed than there entitled to r as adequate, and advised the Commissioners the ppii action - Chainnan proceed. the a Jeff Laurier Martin the the speakers. PAlicant was . Exhibit A - following Exhibits: Exhibit B - Noticing Requirements as reviewed by Exhibit C _Service Plan for Rose Ranch Jim Staff Re v Metropolitan District dated Exhibit D - Operation rt and Attachments March 20 Planning Peration of Maintenance Ex ' 2000 g and Attorney's Offices. Parses far the District - Chaimzan Martin admitted Exhibits clarification for the A -D into the record. Jeffpresented the proposal: The applicant is approved proposing the formation of a Rose Ranch PUD. This includes 292ervice District to serve detached ed units with asingle-familyresidentiala attachedpn oathe affordable n estimated population of 73flnluheand housing housing units included in the approved but doesnnot include the 30 units are not to be included in the7Roav Ranch PUD. sunits ieh be in luded should increased s affordable affordable include le and hick would facilities, should ul old the increased costs o the street rove they and included. The District is improvements, both on-site tIirn without the boundaries of the district; water supply, and off-site proposed to pplY, storage, transmission ' a complete potable pct, waters sewage collection , and distribution system; and The Lary Project Info and transmissions andpotable local Information and Staff Com system. , a complete local submitted. Comments were summarized and the written report Recommendation: P The e Planning Commission recommended T lans: APPROVAL vf'the District with the following co Service Plan must be a to the RFWSD amended so that all facilities/im tHomeownerswill be expressly dedicated to the provements not dedicated hted Association. proposed District and not the Plan must be amended Further, the administrative costs to the District. to reflect the cost of these im r within the Service Improvementsbeing Agreement which is dedicated must be amended to dedicate all facilities/improvements aciliti which rvv must be to the part ofthe Rose Ranch PUD The Service Plan proposed District. p ements not dedicated to the must be amended so mills cannot be raised that theproposed Board ofCommissioners. above Sp mills without he amaximum mill le rais �'Y of50 ou The' Service Plan approval ofthe Garfield C Council for the County.e mended to reflect any County The Final Plat and accompanying changes recommended b mpanyin documents by the Bond "Roaring Fork Water and g mems rncludin Sanitation District n but not ve limited to the Roaring Fork Investments, LLC Pre- • Inclusion Agreement" of the Rose Ranch PUD must be recorded before approval of this District. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has amended the Service Plan to address all of these conditions. Thus, all of the conditions of the Planning Commission approval have been satisfied. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Service Plan for Rose Ranch Metropolitan District with no attached conditions. Tim Thulson - identified Mary Jo Dougherty, from law firm McGeady Sisneros, who had primary role in drafting the Service Plan and Ron Heggemeier, manager of Roaring Fork Investments, LLC - believe staff has adequately analyzed plan. Chairman Martin - asked about service to 30 affordable units - will service still be provided? Tim T. - need to distinguish the systems being discussed - primarily roads, bike paths and other infrastructures - clubhouse apartments will be served by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District - the District will have to maintain the roads and the houses have the right to use the roads - only reason the 30 affordable units were excluded was we wanted to simplify the definition of affordability. Mary Jo D. - they won't be subject to the District's mill levy - will make the project more affordable. A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to close the Public Hearing; carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to approve the Service Plan for Rose Ranch Metro District with staff recommendations as noted which follow the Planning Commissions' recommendations; Commissioner McCown seconded. Discussion: Jeff - there is a resolution for the Chairman to sign - Don DeFord has reviewed. Commissioner stowe - will include in motion to authorize the Chair to sign said resolution; Commissioner McCown seconded; motion carried. JUNE 20, 2000 Rose Ranch Development - Discussion Tim ThuIson submitted the Extension of Preliminary Plan and Filing of Final Plat for the Rose Ranch P.U.D., Phase 1 Form. The request made by Roaring Fork Investments, • LLC, and the developer of the Rose Ranch P.U.D. for extension to be heard by the Commissioners on July 10, 2000. Tim Thulson explained in detail the problem that had generated this request. He added that no action was being requested today, but wanted to provide the Board with this information and be on the agenda for July 10. Don DeFord stated that if the Board was going to approve the request, then a motion should be framed to extend the date for fling, Phase I and PUD for Rose Ranch to July 10. This issue would be placed on the Consent Agenda July 10, 2000 and would not require any action by the Board today. JULY 10, 2000 Don DeFord, County Attorney reported: a) Amended SIA & Development Agreement: Rose Ranch Tim Thulson w/Balcomb & Green representing Roaring Fork Investments, LLC., Ronald Jacobs with Leman Brothers Holding, and Deputy Treasurer Jean Richardson from the Treasurer's Office were present. Tim summarized that last week he met with Don DeFord. The Development Agreement had a provision in it that terminated after 6 months unless they filed the final plat. They are seeking an extension until September 11, 2000. Tim incorporated an amendment, a stand alone document that amends the development and extends the time period for the fling of final plat to September l I, 2000. Under this amendment, if the final plat is not filed by that time, the development agreement expires on its own initiative. These documents were provided the Board. Don said all these documents are combined in one. If the Board does not approve, Balcomb and Green are prepared to deposit the funds necessary to secure all the construction and completion of the Improvements. A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to authorize the Chair to sign the First Amendment to Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development, Phase I extending the time for filing of the final plat to September 11, 2000; carried. SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S UPDATE Don DeFord gave his update. Rose Ranch - Amended SIA and Agreement Attorney representing the developers of Rose Ranch Ron Jacobs, Attorney Tim Thulson, and Don have discussed the method of providing continuing security to the County until the sale is complete. Don stated that an agreement had been reached with Ron Jacobs, Georgia Chamberlain and himself that would amend the Rose Ranch Amended SIA. Today they would like to discuss and complete the final recording on the Final Plat. The change in the SIA involves making one change and a disbursement agreement to allow the County accepting $8,000,000 in cash. This allows the applicant to deposit cash for less than 7 days and then submit a letter of credit. In order to do this, the cash will be • held by the Treasurer in a interest bearing account. The County can retain the interest in lieu of the fee normally charged by the Treasurer. The Treasurer would hold approximately 880000.00. The interest would generate between 88 and S9,000 to the County. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Stowe to approve the 2nd Amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Roaring Fork Investments, LLC. and the Disbursement Agreement once it has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and that the Chair be to sign said agreement; carried. NOVEMBER 13, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDERATION SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT & SECURITY: ROSE RANCH Don DeFord and Georgia Chamberlain were present. Tim Thulson handed out the letter of credit that has been previously reviewed by Don DeFord. This is issued for 6 months and renewal for 12 months thereafter. The County needs to obtain a signature on the Third Amendment in order for the County to have the option of revoking the letter of credit in case the developer does not renew after the 6 months. A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe to approve the SIA as described by Don DeFord and the Chair the authority to sign the document. Commissioner McCown seconded. Carried. 2001 - Discussions September 17, 2001 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROSE RANCH PUD, PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS AND THE AMENDMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT. TIMOTHY THULSON - BALCOMB AND GREEN. Don DeFord and Attorney Tim Thulson submitted a letter of request for an extension of time. Tim explained the reason for filing the Third Amendment was that Rose Ranch was unable to complete the improvements within the anticipated one year period. Therefore, he requested to extend the date to September 1, 2002 but said this should be changed to March 1, 2002 because the Letter of Credit expires by its terms March 1, 2002 and they will need to do a renegotiation with Key Bank if they extend past that date. One other comment, we did mail the Power of Attorney to New York City for their signature; I talked with Bill Hatch today and it is literally sitting on a dust covered desk in the World Financial Center - she had signed it Monday and Marguerite Brogan mailed it, then we're all aware of what happened Tuesday - we're going to have to re -mail it to her when we 1 • get an address for her. With that he asked that the Board extend the date in the SIA which is an SIA Amendment because it's contained in the body of the Agreement. Don DeFord stated that they had agreed to a date of March 1, 2002 rather than September of 2002; and asked Tim if he would redraft this to reflect that - the Letter of Credit, the original SIA should have required that the Letter of Credit be in effect 6 -months beyond the date of completion and improvements. Tim said he would talk to Ron Jacobs to make sure he has the complete Letter of Credit - he may have to get that reformed by Key Bank - it should not be a problem. Don - we have a Site Specific Development Plan approval as part of this project. Tim - agreed and they were within the Phasing Schedule as set forth in the Development Agreement - that would not need to be amended. Tim Thulson mentioned that the golf course would be opened by August 2002. Richard Nash is the project manager on Rose Ranch. Mark noted the application was made before the drop dead date and is a valid request. Don asked if March 1st gives you efficient time to finish those Hwy. 82 improvements. Tim said he would talk to Joe Hope about it - he will be talking to Bill Hatch about extending that date today anyway. Motion Mark said the request to the Board would be to authorize the Chairman to sign the Amended Improvement Agreements once verified by Don and myself that it is consistent with this discussion. December 17, 2001 SITE APPLICATION FOR EXPANSION/NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES. ROSE RANCH Don DeFord, Mark Bean, Joe Hope of High County Engineering, Richard Nash, Director of Development, Eric Tooney, Ron Jacobs Limon, and Louis Meyer, Bob Penington, Senica Desalt with Garnba and Associates, and Attorney Tim Thulson were present. Don noted that this was a public meeting and no noticing was required. Mark summarized the project information and staff comments with particular emphasis on the State Statutes addressing the parameters by which the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division can review and approve or deny a site application for a lift station. He recommended the Board make a recommendation regarding the lift stations were undersized for the site application. The possibility of connecting the sanitation system in Westbank Ranch has not been included in the proposal or the eastern properties. Original Recommendation: That the Board of County Commissioners recommend denial of the site applications with the comment, that the applicants develop an application that analyzes the need for additional service to the properties to the east of the proposed lift stations and provides an opportunity for these properties to pay for the expanded capacity needed to serve those properties. • • Joe Hope explained the size of the facility and the position of Rose Ranch LLC would be for anyone who can get to their line. Each one would be responsible for out of pocket funds and any delay to their project nor to get in a bind for facilitation of getting these outlying properties hooked in having to go through an approval process. Bob Penington with Gamba Engineering mentioned the plans - to initially start going to Sander's Ranch, but this requires building a mile pipe line and therefore it is more economically Louis Meyer with Schrnueser Gordon Meyer - Engineer for the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District sewage treatment plant explained that this is part of their proposed regional area sometimes called the CMC Turnoff area and the Midsection area. This allows them to do a second crossing and are in favor of it and requested approval conditional to proceed. Westbank was not included as it was referenced in the City of Glenwood Springs 201 Water Plan. One issue is the wastewater treatment plant and sizing. Mark Bean suggested that we go with the alternative mentioned earlier that the Board recommend approval with the comment that the property to the east of this property be capable of connecting to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District at the eastern property owner's expense provided agreements can be reached to allow that to occur. Tim Thulson had no objection to that. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Stowe to recommend approval for Lift Station One and Lift Station Two with the condition that the group continue to work with the easterly property owners, hopefully they will have a name one of these days, to render this service to them along with the caveat that they would pay for any up sizing required by their connection and at their expense to get said utilities to the property line; motion carried. IN REPLY REFER TO: ES/CO:Garfeld County MS 65412 GJ Tamara Pregl Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • • United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services 764 Horizon Drive, Building B RE c E?vtyrq` tion, Colorado 81506-3946 AUG 11 2003 C tFJELU +-uuNrr %RIDING & PLANNING August 7, 2003 Dear Ms. Pregl: You have provided documents and requested comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service for County regulated changes to the Iron Bridge housing development in a July 7, 2003, cover Letter and verbally requested a copy of a letter documenting a field visit on July 10, 2003, attended by Terry Ireland of my staff, myself, and Mike Staheli, Manager of the Iron Bridge housing development (Iron Bridge). This letter will serve as the response to both requests. The reason for the field visit was to discuss the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest site adjacent to the Iron Bridge development area. Iron Bridge is a couple of miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, along the Roaring Fork River and was formerly known as the Rose Ranch Development. Several houses have already been built but the southern most part of the development still has unbuilt Tots. The lots and closest proposed houses are within 100 yards of the eagle nest. There has already been a golf course built to the west and north of the nest site, and except for some minor changes in the proposed development subject to County approval, all other approvals have apparently been granted by Garfield County, State, and Federal agencies (except for the concerns discussed below). The bald eagle nest is in a cottonwood tree on the west side of the river, which is on the same side as the proposed development area. The eagles appear to be a young pair and incubated Canada goose eggs rather than their own eggs this year, but may return next year to the same nest site. As we understand, Iron Bridge, has placed a Little over 7 acres of land in a conservation easement on Iron Bridge owned land on the east bank of the Roaring Fork River across and slightly upstream from the proposed development. The Roaring Fork Conservancy has management authority for the 7 acres and no one, except Roaring Fork Conservancy members monitoring the site, are allowed on the property. The conservation easement was placed there to protect a great blue heron rookery just upstream (south) of the eagle nest. On the west side of the river there was a little less than 7 acres that Iron Bridge agreed to fence off from February 15 to July 15, with at least temporary fencing, to protect the bald eagle. The fence would run along the back property boundaries of adjacent lots (94-96, 108-111, and 114-118) and run to the water's edge on the northern and southern extent of the exclosure. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, Roaring Fork Conservancy, and Crystal River Alliance provided the fencing recommendation • • Page 2 and other conservation recommendations. Additional recommendations agreed to by Iron Bridge include planting trees prior to housing construction near the back lot boundaries to limit visual disturbance to the eagle nest (and riparian corridor). An exterior construction season timing restriction from February 15 to May 31 was also agreed to by Iron Bridge. Also, no second floor balconies are permitted on the lots to help reduce disturbance to the eagles. During our field visit, it was stated by Mr. Staheli that Iron Bridge would monitor for presence of the eagles next winter and spring. If the eagles returned to nest, we discussed entering into a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process that would help protect the bald eagles but would also allow for "take" of the eagles, as defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It was also stated to Mr. Staheli that even if the bald eagle was delisted, it would still be protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. An HCP would not be written if it is taken off the threatened species list under the ESA, but "take" prohibitions under the other two Acts would still need to be addressed by Iron Bridge. If an HCP were written it would likely include the above conservation measures already agreed to by Iron Bridge but may also include other measures. Some of these other potential measures include, but are not limited to, additional trees being planted, purchase or management of mitigation lands, monitoring requirements, extension of the construction timing restrictions, and a "no construction" or "limited construction" (including timing restrictions) buffer zone. We expect to hear from Iron Bridge in late 2003 or early winter or spring 2004 regarding monitoring for presence and nesting behavior of the bald eagles. The monitoring may be carried out in cooperation with the Service and/or Colorado Division of Wildlife. If the eagles return, Iron Bridge will have to determine if they will enter into an HCP, and the Service will determine the adequacy of existing mitigation measures agreed to and implemented by Iron Bridge, and determine if other potential measures are appropriate to include, should an HCP be written. If the Service can be of further assistance, please contact Terry Ireland at the letterhead address or (970) 245-3920 or 243-6209, extension 16. Sincerely, Tlreland:COGarfieldCountyIron$ ridgeHous ingLtr.doc:080703 AT • n ' .''' fister Assistant Colorado Field Supervisor STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John W. Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 7-26-99 Garfield County Planning 109 8`s St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Rose Ranch Final Plat Dear Ms. Giannola: • For Wildlife — For People I have reviewed the final plat and have some comments/recommendations: 1. fishing easement — applicant will need to adequately sign the easement boundaries and access points. I would like the applicant to provide us with a larger scale map showing the easement boundaries and access points 2. covenants — missing maintenance of the vegetative screening for the area between lots 76/77. Also missing is maintenance of the gate/signs for the upper golf cart path (to be installed for winter closure) and the signs/fencing for the pedestrian trail across from the heron rookery in the area of the southern most overlook (around lot 96). Based upon the application and associated maps, I could not tell if the southern most overlook was pulled back I assume it has been as was agreed. 3. Site plan for the habitat improvement measures on the upper bench has not been completed but the applicant has committed to the improvements. This will depend upon final layout and construction of the golf course. 4. Vegetative screen will need to be fine-tuned once the lots and homesites are staked out as was agreed. The screen needs to be planted before construction begins so once final plat approval is granted, the screen should be planted I have not seen the educational brochure but did send examples of some of the items that need to be included. 6. 2°4 story decks and balconies for lots 108-118 will be reviewed once the screening is in. Screening may need to mature first. 7. I would encourage any fencing to be wildlife friendly to allow movement through the subdivision. Rail fencing should be the round or split rail type, 48" or less, 3 rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 8. In the Declaration of Golf Facilities Development Construction and Operational Agreement, there was not any language related to hazing elk/deer from the course. This language was in the covenants but needs to be placed here also so the golf course managers are made aware of this restriction. Since the Rose Ranch application was made there has been a substantial amount of concern regarding the 1 heron nest tree by lot 96. As the application went through the process the number of nests in that tree had increased to its present 4 nests. From the beginning, I had asked the applicant for a buffer around this tree. At that time the majority of the nests were across the river in the main rookery and the applicant did not want to provide a buffer for this tree and nest. Measures were being taken to minimize disturbance to the main rookery and I recommended an artificial nesting structure to be placed over by the main rookery. This was to help replace the nests in the single tree by lot 96. 1 have stated that with the development, that any nests in the single tree would most likely be abandoned and lost. The best situation for the single nest tree would be a buffer zone around the tree. if this cannot be accomplished, then I am optimistic that the artificial nesting structure may help. RECEIVED JUL 2 7 1999 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman • Mark LeValley. Vice Chairman . Bernard L. Black, Jr.,Secretary Members, Rick Enstrom . Marianna Raftopaulos • Arnold Salazar • Robert Shoemaker • Philip James • • There were a couple of things said at the 5-4-99 County Commissioner meeting which I was unable to attend that I need to continent on. I was shocked at what Mr. Beattie told the commission regarding going so close to the nest and trying to disturb them To refer that the birds were not disturbed is highly questionable. The primary reason the birds did not flush or abandon is because they had an investment in their nests with eggs in the nest If they would flush, the eggs and subsequent young would be Iost. To infer that construction activity at that time will not impact the birds is questionable. With the construction activity and disturbances associated with the homes, the herons will most likely abandon the nest tree. Mr. Gould also made some comments trying to link the herons with the bald ea1e nest at Aspen Glen. The eagles do not keep coning back each year to see what they have built That is totally erroneous. Bald eagles constructed that nest decades ago and return to the same nest each year. Nests are maintained and built up each year. What choice do the eagles have? Since the Aspen Glen construction and construction of other subdivisions along the rivers, the amount of bald eagle use has declined in these areas and increased in other areas not as yet impacted. The eagles still do return to the nest tree but the amount of time at the nest has been reduced We are hopeful that a more tolerant pair of birds will nest in the tree or the birds now using it will have to learn to become more tolerant of people Thank you for the opportunity to comment If you have any questions, please give me a call. Kevin Wright District Wildl. Carbondale STATE OF COLORADO • FIGURE 1 Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John W. Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 5-4-98 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Revised Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Dear Ms. Giannola: 997Y E A S S1947 OF F1ANAGINO YOUR WILbLkfE I will refer you to my 10-7-97 letter to you for a description of wildlife use and potential wildlife impacts from the proposed Rose Ranch PUD. The revised PUD and Sketch Plan have made many osit v ..�_ r.__.w.�, _.ei.ve and beneficial chani es �to' minimize i.mpac' s to wi1d1i b . In addit.a<on, ave me write -1 r.eggeme. er on s;�te on 4-9 and 4-30-98 to discuss wildlife concerns with the Sketch Plan. Mr. Heggemeier has been very receptive to my recommendations and has agreed to implement most all of them. 1 appreciate his cooperative nature and willingness to listen and change his plan. The following are positive changes made in the new PUD and Sketch Plan submission. I have also included recommendations which Mr. Heggemeier agreed to during our site visits of 4-9 and 4-30-98. These changes and recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Flvoester's Park. Fishermen's Park, and pedestrian trail 1^southern river fr©rif v`t`s: have�been —remoe- 2. 3.5 ac. upper recreational park has been removed 3. Agreed to remove the secondary overlook and connecting trail from the—pfimar"yoverlookuto``prateCC-`-trre golden -eagle en s isli- -cationalsigns will stirl Fi T c d"at Fie pri.mary overlook as well as.closinq the ridge south the eagle's nest from March 15 - Jul 1. This change needs to •e re in t e protective covenants Ar. IV, Sec. 12. (cam prlone conversation with Mr. Heggemeier on 5-4-98 indicated that the change would be made. 4. Area west of 109 Road and the golf/trail access easement to the upper golf course and ridge will be closed to huma, ec. o •-rc excluding golf maintenance activities. The golf/trail easement will beac_and ac rom signed. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chair • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chair • Mark LeValley, Secretary Louis F. Swift, Member • Bernard L. Black, Member Chuck Lewis, Member • John Stulp, Member • James R. Long, Member Page 2 • 5. Agreed and committed to habitat improvement measures on the upper bench west of 109 is w�.1-involve cutting some pin -on -juniper and reseeding with sagebrush, oakbrush, serviceberry, etc. shrub species. Specific site P n wi.1.L be ointl develo ed by Rose Ranch and the DOW. Native vege ation outside M -5 -76 -1 -(fairways, tees, greens, cart path) and areas of habitat improvement will be maintained and not disturbed. 6. Agreed to no construction of water tank and line west of 109 Road from March 15 - Ju 1 due to_golden eagle nesting. f 7. Agreed to create a vegetative screening plan and plant_, ve etative screen for th est b&d. or-D5r it 8-11� `an3' et i n Lots 70/80 and 76/77. The plan to be revieWed—anca— approved by the DOW 8. Agreed to modify the southern most Roaring Fork ez. overlook ,and move tide r TI a and overlook o mid Lot 96. This will be fenced and s g d....du-.irk the heron's critical nesting period (Feb. 15 -- July 15). This basically removed trai spur which led down to the river across from the heron rookery. 9. Reduced home density and increased lot size along the river from the original plan 10. No tree removal along the river and wetland areas except for exotic a ing specieg. 11. Agreed to .,create an educational brochure f or m. a b2nR. which will be provide sales personnel re ardin3c how to live with wildlife and any special restrlc ions in place to ra "im acts to wildlife. 12. Agreed to and has moved Sec. 9, Art.VII of the protective covenants regarding dogs to Art.IV, Sec. 12. In addition, the language was changed to allow only 1 dog/home.. 13. 50' wetland buffer will be met for all lots except for Lots 82-84 where there will be a minimium 25' buffer 14. Agreed to supply water to the larger trees, not classified as a safety hazard, along the Robertson Ditch (which will be lined). Wetlands below the ditch will be monitored by Rose Ranch for any impacts due to the lining of the ditch. Water will also be supplied to the wetlands if needed. 15. Agreed to maintain the 110' wide buffer between the Rose 'Manch an e e"r Sarin sin hat1ve Dreg n. A dg or split rail fence will be buil along t"tie aundaries Page 3 • with vegetative pockets planted alon homestivity an ma e this ective. 16. =• -d to provide a public fishing easement along the Wgstbank portion o e proper y, • o ream from the W 3 `brzdge. This wi a oW for pudic fishing while Maintaining the integrity of the wetlands upstream from the bridge and minimizing disturbance to the rookery. The PUD/Sketch Plan states that the golf course provides opportunity for wildlife migration. Mule deer and elk will use the golf course and I discussed this with Mr. Heggemeier as well as the potential for damage to the course, especially the upper 4 holes. When golf courses are built within big game winter range areas, there will be damage. I explained that it is not lawful for deer or elk to be hazed from the course. He agreed to the following on 4-30-98: Rose Ranch, including golf course maintenance personnel, shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, disturbing, hazing, or other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce big game (deer/elk) off of the golf course and open space areas. Rose Ranch has the right to locally restrict big game from the golf course greens, tees, landscaping by using temporary fencing or other passive means. Distances to the building envelopes from the heron rookery were made and mapped for Lots 108-118. For those lots directly across from the rookery, distances varied from 628' to 752'. The largest distance was 955' for Lot 109. These distances combined with rear yard setbacks, the river inbetween the rookery and lots, and vegetative screen to be planted should help to minimize disturbance to the rookery. Literature recommendations vary between 200m - 250m (656' - 820'). Mr. Heggemeier agreed to the following to help minimize impacts to the rookery: 1. Planting a vegetative screen along east boundary of Loth 4 :moo scree ornesTtes an ac yarn ac iN y. 2. yegetatay_e _sceen will be in p ace constru_gl e irnq 3. Noconstruction of s on Lots 94-96, 108-118 from Feb. 15 - May 31. (will be a can id ieli`b - 4. No human ac x 1 se o t e rxpa n a - etland •elow + 4-118 across from fn—rookery) from Feb. 15 - This will be accomp xs a rough signing anis` fencing, if needed. 5. Installation of artificial nesting platform on east side of river s'n•le nes • it to h moveme t corridor more_ •- • probably be abandoned. re • ace e e river whoa" will Cl(jr I k 6 L doW_ In addition, I have recommended that there be no second story decks/balconies facing the rookery for j.O-S 08 1' This is still being negotiated and may depend upon the design and effectiveness of the vegetative screen which is still being designed. Page 4 • • Included in the application was a section titled "Review by Kirk Beattie of Relevant Portions of Rose Ranch Sketch Plan PUD Comments and Deficiencies". In this section Mr. Beattie addressed those comments and deficiencies which were environmental or wildlife oriented. I would like to respond to his comments as I disagree with many of his comments and conclusions. I have discussed this section of Mr. Beattie's comments with Mr. Heggemeier and Larry Green, District Wildlife Manager, Glenwood Springs. DWM Green agrees with my comments and offered suggestions which I incorporated. Mr. Heggemeier was receptive to my comments. My responses correspond to the comment number of Mr. Beattie. I did not write a response to all of them. Comment #1 - It is stated that the PUD will not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife but yet in comment {#12 Mr. Beattie states that much of the present deer forage east of County Road 109 will be eliminated by the subdivision, refering that not as many deer will be present after construction. There will be loss of winter range habitat and some displacement of wintering wildlife. With construction of the golf course on the upper bench west of 109 Road there will be direct loss of critical mule deer winter range and elk severe winter range. There will be a habitat type conversion from sagebrush to grass. Depending on the winter, deer and elk need the shrub type forage species which stick up through the snow. sagebrush, oakbrush, serviceberry, bitterbrush, and other shrubs are very important during the winter months for mule deer and elk. The applicant has agreed to conduct some habitat improvement projects to help minimize this impact. Comment #5 - I question how a conclusion regarding heron nesting not being impacted can be made. The applicant is taking some measures to try to minimize any impact. However, once the subdivision is built and the vegetative screen planted, it will be very important to control the homeowners use of the riparian areas during the critical nesting period. It becomes a matter of enforcement of the measures adopted to protect the herons. If this is not done, then there will be negative impacts to the herons. It is hard to predict no impact with approximately 1,000 more people living across from the rookery. In addition, the single nest tree will probably be lost. That is a negative impact. The applicant has agreed to structure on the other side offset this impact. No-one effort but it is a positive optimistic about its success. install an artificial nesting of the river near the rookery to can predict the success of this and hopefully beneficial step. I am Page 5 Comment #9 and 10- It is during the harder winters that elk will use the sagebrush fields east of 109 Road and that is taken under consideration by the definitions of severe winter range. Elk will not always use the area in normal winters. Mr. Beattie's field surveys were not conducted after some of these harder winters. With Mr. Rose's cattle operation, elk would get into the feed lines with the cattle during these harder winters. As the valley continues to develop and more winter range is lost, the remaining shrublands will receive more winter range use and pressure. Comment #11 - In my original letter I indicated the use of black bear west of 109 Road. This was a statement of use and potential use by black bear west of 109 road, which the Rose Ranch is part of. There has been black bear use in the lower 4 -Mile area. In drought years as well as other years, we have had problems with bears in subdivisions and in towns such as Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, and Aspen as they look for food. Bears have been killed on Highway 82 across from the Rose Ranch and gotten into beehives behind the Sopris Restaurant. This could occur in the Rose Ranch. However, development of the Rose Ranch will not negatively impact the black bear population as it does not contain prime bear habitat. However, if trash, pet food, etc. is not properly taken care of, increased bear problems should be anticipated. Comment #12 - mountain lions are solitary animals and are not readily observed by most people. Lions do occur and occupy the area around the Rose Ranch, including the ranch. Lions will follow their main prey source of mule deer into subdivisions. This is well documented throughout Colorado. Not all mule deer use east of 109 Road will be eliminated by development of the Rose Ranch. Lions could come into the subdivision after the deer, resident's pets such as dogs and cats, and other wildlife species such as raccoons, skunks, marmots which are attracted to the subdivision due to food sources such as trash, gardens, compost piles, etc. I believe that residents of the subdivian should be made aware of this possibility and properly educated. There is currently a lion adjacent to and sometimes within a subdivision in lower 4- mile. I have also had lions within city limits of Carbondale, Ranch at Roaring Fork, as well as other locations in the lower Roaring Fork Valley. Comment #13 and 14 - I disagree. I have watched and observed the bald eagle use in the valley for the last 13 years. As development continues along the river system, there has been a change in eagle use. I don't believe that you can just look at one small aspect or picture of eagle use and say it will not impact the birds. All subdivisions, including the Rose Ranch, which develop along the river impact the use of the river by the eagles. You must look at the cumulative impact of all subdivisions, not just one since the one contributes to the whole. Without protection of certains areas along the river, Page 6 • • continued bald eagle use is threatened by development of the riparian areas along the river. Comment #15 and 16- I disagree that elk and mule deer will not be negatively impacted by construction of the golf course west of 109 Road and carrying capacity of that area reduced. By construction of the golf course west of 109 road, important winter range browse species will be lost which are needed in heavier snow years. Mule deer are primarily browsers and rely on sagebrush, oakbrush, serviceberry, bitterbrush, etc. during the winter. Converting this type of habitat to grass will not be beneficial to the deer. Elk will undoubtedly use the area in the winter. In lighter snow years they will readily graze on the course, but in heavier snow years when this area is covered deeply in snow, the loss of browse is significant. It takes much more energy to paw down through the deep snow to graze on the short grasses below. Browse species are more readily available and take much less energy to forage. With loss of this habitat type, the mule deer and elk will be negatively impacted. I disagree that elk and mule deer will not be displaced. Mr. Beattie already stated that there will not be as much deer use east of 109 Road. Combine that with the habitat conversion west of 109 Road and I believe they will be displaced to other areas. There will still be use but not in the amount their currently is. Closure of the area west of removal of the upper active the elk and mule deer and I discussed earlier will also 109 Road to human activity and recreation area will be beneficial to support it. Habitat improvement be positive and helpful. Comment #18 - Floaters park has been eliminated Comment #19 -- We have agreed to several measures to minimize the impact to the main rookery area. Installation of an artificial nest structure may help replace the single nest tree which will probably be abandoned. Comment #20 - Fishing Park has been eliminated Comment #21 - 1 disagree with his conclusion of no impact to the herons. Whether the main rookery area is impacted or not will depend upon the effectiveness of the measures recommended and their enforcement. This will be especially important at buildout when the residents will be living and recreating in the subdivision and along the river. He asked why the birds are not impacted during the heavier rafting months of June and July. At this time the riparian vegetation and trees are leafed out providing visual screening and more security. In addition, the herons have young in their nest at this time and are much more resistant to abandon the nest and their young as is reported in Page 7 • the literature. The most sensitive times when the herons could be disturbed and abandon the rookery is early in the nesting season (mid -Feb -- May) during courtship and egg laying when there is very little screening. There is very little rafting activity on the river at this time. There are fishing boats at this time but they are usually more quiet and float by. In his example of the Chatfield State Park with its viewing decks and shelter, the viewing decks are closed during the sensitive time period so not to disturb the herons. The shelters are still open but screen the public more than the viewing deck thus providing less disturbance. Most all researchers recommend buffer distances of 200 - 250m. Comment #22 - The secondary overlook and connecting trail have been eliminated after our 4-9-98 site visit. The educational sign at the primary overlook is still a good idea. Comment #24 -- Recommend that the dog restictions be placed under Sec. 12, Article IV. Recommend that the executive board not be able to allow more than one dog/home. This change has been made. Comment #25 - There are means to reduce Canada geese damage to golf courses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can issue a permit for specially trained dogs to chase geese off of golf courses. (geese are considered migratory waterfowl which falls under the authority of the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service). Comment #28 - Vegetative screening definitely needs to be in place before any construction of the homesites across from th cookera. I still believe it would b er or e owes to e constructed outside of the sensitive period and error on the sig- -, -. - ..-_. is. Comments #29, 30, 33, 36 - The floaters park, fishermens park, upper recreational area, and secondary overlook and connecting trail have been eliminated Comment #37 - 1 maintain that the primary overlook should notb cen o e con -+ rom 'arc imary overloo area is us-• • - golden eagle's mate as a perch site during this time. The less disturbance to the nesting effort the more successful it will be. Comment #44 - agree with removal of exotics or invasive species Comment #49, 61 - 1 still recommend that a public fishing easement be granted along the Roaring Fork River. Mr. Heggemeier has agreed to grant a public fishing easement along the river downstream from the Westbank bridge along the Westbank portion of Page 8 1 the property he owns which will be used as part of the new golf course. This will help to protect the sensitive wetlands and heron rookery areas upstream from the Westbank bridge along the main portion of the Rose Ranch and still provide a public benefit of public fishing access. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since•ely, Kevin Wrigh District Wi di fe Manager Carbondale • Tamara Pregl From: Steve Hackett Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:10 PM To: Tamara Pregl Subject: RE: T No Steve !laden Original Message From: Tamara Pregl Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:02 AM To: Steve Hackett Subject: Steve, Page 1 of 1 Rose Ranch PUD is requesting the following street name changes. Do you have any problems with what they are proposing? Tamara Existing PUD Map Existing Prelim. Plan / Phase 1 Final Plat Revised PUD Map / Prelim. Plan / Phase 1 Final Plat Road A River Edge Road Blue Heron Way River Bend Way Silver Mountain Drive Road B Road C Bear Grass Road / Blue Heron Way / Wild Rose Circle Wild Rose Drive / Wild Rose Court Road D White Peaks Lane White Peaks Land Road E Meadow Sage Road / Gamble Oak Circle N/A Road F Meadow Sage Road N/A Road G _ River Edge Road River Bend Way Road H River Edge Lane River Bend Way Road 1 River Edge Road Tamara Drive River Bend Way Ironbrid • e Drive Road J Road K Big Wing Drive Meadow Sage Road Road L River Edge Road River Bend Way Road M River Edge Road River Bend Way Road N Red Bluff Circle Red Bluff Court Road 0 Long Shadow Lane Gamble Oak Lane 8/7/2003 1411ESTBANK RANO Homeowners Association P.O. Box 2703 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 August 1, 2003 Tarnara Pregl, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Rose Ranch Subdivision Dear Tamara: RECEIVED AUG 01 2P0:1 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association ("Westbank") is a Colorado non-profit corporation made up of the 100 lot owners in Westbank Ranch Filings 1, 2 and 3. Westbank Ranch has been an existing subdivision of Garfield County for more than 30 years. We understand that Garfield County has received an application for preliminary plan for the Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development, also known as the Rose Ranch Subdivision and Ironbridge. The applicant is LB Rose Ranch LLC. For purposes of this letter, the development is called Rose Ranch, and the developer/applicant is called LBR. Westbank is of course aware that a PUD approval was issued to LBR's predecessor in 1999. Under the prior approval, LBR has built a golf course, buried and moved ditches, installed utilities, built roads and structures, and various other steps. Much of the Rose Ranch project has been on the former Jim Rose Ranch, located upstream from Westbank, to the east of County Road 109. However, seven of the golf holes, a major maintenance facility, new roads, and other structures have been constructed on the old Westbank golf course property on land which winds through and next to Westbank homes. It is this part of the Rose Ranch development that we are concerned about. For the most part, Westbank believes that the Rose Ranch project has been done in a professional, quality manner. However, in the process, LBR has taken various actions which are contrary to the interest of Westbank residents, and which were never specifically allowed by the previous Garfield County approval. Westbank understands that approval of a planned unit development is discretionary with the County, and that the County may impose reasonable conditions which are in the interest of the public and the neighborhood. The purpose of this letter is to ask that Garfield County staff recommend certain conditions, as described below. In considering Westbank's requested conditions, please be aware that Westbank and its representatives have had many conversations with LBR representatives over the past 2 'Y2 years. Certain promises were made by LBR to Westbank, and certain understandings were reached. Each and every condition requested by Westbank (other than item 6) arises out of understandings reached between Westbank and LBR, but changed by LBR as the project has evolved. 1 • • 1. Westbank Area Maintenance Building When the old Westbank golf course was in operation, the clubhouse and maintenance facilities were operated out of a building located near the end of Westbank Road. Maintenance traffic from the building was quite light. The owner operated on a shoestring, and there were very few maintenance vehicles. The few maintenance vehicles used the fairways of the golf course as maintenance access, with the sole exception of a passage between the building and old hole number 7 green (now new hole number 7 tee). Westbank knew that LBR intended to use this building for maintenance, offices, storage, or other development purposes. Conversations between Westbank and LBR began approximately January 2001, although there had been earlier conversations with LBR's predecessors. LBR was initially rather vague as to exact purposes. However, LBR representatives told Westbank representatives on several occasions that maintenance of the "upriver" holes on the other side of County Road 109 would be from maintenance facilities to be built in that area. This understanding was confirmed in a letter from Timothy A. Thulson, LBR's attorney, dated August 22, 2002 to Steven M. Beattie, Westbank's attorney (copy enclosed). Mr. Thulson's letter was responding to Mr. Beattie's letter of June 25, 2002, and talked about other subjects which will be addressed in the next section of this letter. However, the Thulson letter stated the following regarding maintenance and storage facilities: "Rose Ranch is not, however, completely unsympathetic to your concerns raised in this regard and is in the process of affirmatively taking steps to mitigate the impacts addressed therein. Specifically, Rose Ranch will locate within the clubhouse to be located on the old Jim Rose property, an equipment storage facility. Said facility will obviate the need for the daily commute across the Yard Road Strip of the equipment necessary to maintain the 12 golf holes located on the old Jim Rose property, which arrangement should greatly reduce the total amount of equipment haulage across the Yard Road Strip." (Emphasis added.) In fact, the maintenance building in Westbank is being utilized to service the entire Rose Ranch project, on both sides of County Road 109. Westbank understands that the maintenance fleet is in excess of 25 vehicles. These include gang mowers, gasoline or diesel fired service trucks or various sizes, often pulling trailers, and one or more large John Deere tractor. Maintenance traffic is very heavy. Neighbors report that it is not uncommon to see in excess of 30 maintenance vehicle trips per hour. The vehicles cause noise, dust and petroleum fumes. They are very definitely an interference with the historic quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood. Once again, all of the maintenance vehicles are coming from a building on the far end of Westbank, to service all of the Rose Ranch development. In recent conversations Mike Stahli of LBR has disavowed LBR's prior commitments. He says that LBR now has no intention of locating maintenance and storage for the Jim Rose Ranch side of the development on that property. 2 • • A condition should be added to any PUD approval that within a reasonable time (say, one year), the developer will be required to construct maintenance and equipment storage facilities on the Rose Ranch side of County Road 109, and to use those facilities for all equipment and supply purposes, and all maintenance, on the Rose Ranch side of the development. 2. Yard Road Strip In August 2001, LBR constructed a new roadway on a 30 -foot wide strip of land owned by LBR but never before used for road or golf course purposes. The new roadway is located between Westbank homes owned by Beattie and Haines on the east side of Fairway Lane, and by Komasiewicz and Smith on the west side of Fairway Lane. This roadway is used constantly by maintenance vehicles traveling to and from the maintenance building located in Westbank, to the entire remainder of the development above County Road 109. Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated June 25, 2002 from Mr. Beattie to Richard Nash of LBR and Mr. Thulson. The letter attaches a color -coded map showing the maintenance building in Westbank, the route being used by Rose Ranch for maintenance vehicles including the "Yard Road Strip," and alternative available maintenance routes. Westbank urges that you consider Mr. Beattie's letter carefully. The new Yard Road constructed and placed into service by LBR did not exist before August 2001. The Yard Road Strip was never used for any golf course or maintenance purposes during the entire history of the old Westbank golf course. Two existing, unbridged ditches prohibited any travel across this area. The new Yard Road runs directly thorough property used as residential yards since homes were built in the 1970s, until the bridging of ditches by LBR in late 2001. This action is directly contrary to statements by Bill Hatch, the designated representative for LBR, at a meeting on January 11, 2001. At that meeting, Mr. Hatch told Westbank board members in attendance that LBR had no intent to use this property. In reliance upon this and other statements made by LBR, Westbank cooperated with LBR, beginning in early 2001, to modify an existing ditch agreement and grant a variance to Westbank's protective covenants which facilitated the County Road 109 crossing. It is grossly unfair that LBR should be able to "change its mind" and construct a roadway which is heavily traveled through people's yards. As shown by the map attached to Mr. Beattie's letter, the Yard Road is not necessary for Rose Ranch maintenance. Other options are readily available across fairways and adjoining cart paths. Westbank residents now have muddy ruts being crossed by intrusive vehicles, across groomed yards near homes. See enclosed photos taken last summer. (It's worse now.) Any PUD approval should include the condition that LBR immediately and permanently cease and discontinue all use of the Yard Road Strip for all purposes except open space. 3 • • 3. Pesticides and Fertilizers, Petroleum Storage and Washing Equipment at Maintenance Building Westbank understands that substantial amounts of pesticides and fertilizers are stored at the maintenance facility on Westbank Road. Significant petroleum products (gasoline and diesel fuel) are being stored. An equipment washing facility is also in operation at the site. Westbank has substantial safety and health concerns. Westbank's domestic wells are located near the maintenance building. Substantial releases of fertilizers, pesticides, petroleum products or gray water could adversely affect Westbank's wells. In addition, residences are located immediately adjacent to this building. Westbank is extremely concerned about the potential for fire caused by the volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel on site. These concerns will be somewhat, but not totally, relieved if the condition addressed in Section 1 is imposed, and maintenance/storage facilities are required on the other side of County Road 109 for the upper portion of the development. Westbank does not know the exact details of these uses by LBR. Westbank does not know exactly what requirements apply, but assumes there must be limits on the storage of petroleum and hazardous materials in residential neighborhoods. As a condition of any PUD approval, Westbank requests that Garfield. County staff evaluate these concerns, determine what applicable prohibitions, limitations and requirements exist, and require that LBR strictly adhere to all of them. 4. Unlicensed Traffic on Public Roads The maintenance building in Westbank Ranch causes a large volume of travel by unlicensed maintenance vehicles on Westbank's streets, particularly Westbank Road. All streets within Westbank Ranch are public county roads. Any PUD approval should be conditioned on discontinuance of use of these roads by unlicensed vehicles in all locations except the Meadow Lane crossing accessing the County Road 109 underpass. 5. Golf Course Maintenance Near Yards The Westbank golf course property adjoins the properties of Westbank Ranch homeowners in many locations on the Westbank side of the development. Most Westbank homeowners take substantial time and pride in maintaining their yards. The character of the golf course as it abuts Westbank Ranch properties was a subject of several meetings and conversations in recent years. LBR representatives consistently referred to a "seamless transition" between Westbank Ranch properties and the golf course property. LBR representatives told Westbank that the golf course next to our yards would be irrigated and maintained. These statements have proved not to be true. As a "design feature," LBR has intentionally caused the areas between cart paths and Westbank Ranch yards to be kept in native grasses and weeds. LBR has irrigated most of these areas, and the result in most locations is a thick mat of vegetation 2 to 3 feet in height. This 4 • 1 result is the opposite of a "seamless transition," plus it has fostered a bunch of noxious weeds and encouraged rodent growth in this area. As a condition of any PUD approval, LBR should be required to maintain the golf course as it adjoins Westbank Ranch properties as a groomed "second cut of rough." This would mean that the vegetation next to Westbank Ranch yards be regularly maintained and mowed to a height of 3 to 6 inches. This change would improve the visual appearance and transition between our yards and golf course property, and would be consistent with prior LBR representations to Westbank. This result would also eliminate the potential fire hazard created in those portions of the golf course where the long, unmaintained grass and weeds are not irrigated, and are brown and dry, such as behind board member Cheri Cappo's home. 6. Garfield County Tee Times Westbank understands that the original approval required that the developer would provide a public golf component for Garfield County golfers at a preferred rate. LBR has adopted a policy calling for six (6) Garfield County tee times per week, which is less than one per day on average. Although Westbank understands that LBR is not presently enforcing this limitation, the restriction is nonetheless in place. Westbank respects LBR's right to develop a primarily private golf facility. However, the spirit of the original condition was certainly not as narrow as the restriction which LBR has imposed. As a condition of any PUD approval, Westbank suggests a reasonable compromise - say, 35 Garfield County tee times per week (an average of 5 per day), to be administered in LBR's discretion. CONCLUSIONS The conditions requested by Westbank are fair and reasonable. They would promote the safety and property enjoyment of Westbank and Garfield County residents, without imposing undue restrictions on the developer. Importantly, they would be consistent with statements by the developer to Westbank during the course of the project. Thank you for your consideration of these matters, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By: hn S. Haines, President 5 • • JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON LORI J. M. SATTERFIELD CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE MARIE CALLAHAN AMANDA N. MAURER DEBORAH DAVIS* * ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK AND M15SQuRI Via Hand Delivery Steven Beattie Beattie & Chadwick 710 Cooper Ave., Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. DRAwER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.8902 August 22, 2002 OF COUNSEL.: KENNETH BALCOMB RE: BEATTIIE PROPERTY/YARD ROAD STRIP AND PROPERTY TRIANGLE ISSUES Dear Steve: As previously represented to you, I had the opportunity to discuss the above -referenced matter with J. Thomas Schmidt of LB Rose Ranch, LLC ("Rose Ranch") and relevant to the same, have been authorized to communicate the following proposal to you, to wit: Property Triangle Rose Ranch is willing to convey ownership of the property identified in your correspondence of June 25, 2002 as the "property triangle" to the Beatties pursuant to boundary line adjustment agreement/other appropriate conveyance documents. This conveyance would be subject to the following conditions: 1. That title to the property be transferred to the Beatties without warranty of any kind. Our purposes of obtaining an amendment to your present owners policy or new policy I would be happy to provide you with a copy of the title policy originally issued to Rose Ranch, LLC for the entire Westbank Ranch and Country Club property, which policy addresses the Property Triangle; 2. That all required surveying charges and costs be borne by the Beatties. Given the extent of surveying that has been performed by High Country Engineering, Inc. for Rose Ranch relevant to this property, I believe that Frank Harrington I3ALCON E & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Steve Beattie Beattie & Chadwick August 22, 2002 Page 2 would be able to accomplish whatever is needed for this conveyance at a very minimal cost; 3. That said conveyance be subject to all required rights necessary for Rose Ranch to perform its maintenance and operation duties instant to the piped irrigation system under our agreement with the Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association; and 4. That subject to Rose Ranch legal review, all legal documents be drafted at the Beatties' expense. Yard Road Strip Rose Ranch is not willing to restrict its use of or otherwise encumber the property identified in your correspondence ofJune 251h as the Yard Road Strip. Quite simply, Rose Ranch disagrees that any of the arguments posited in your correspondence set forth a viable basis for the unilateral in position of any such restriction or encumbrance and would vigorously defend any such action to do so. Rose Ranch is not, however, completely unsympathetic to your concerns raised in this regard and is in the process of affirmatively taking steps to mitigate the impacts addressed therein. Specifically, Rose Ranch will locate within the clubhouse to be located on the old Jim Rose property, an equipment storage facility. Said facility will obviate the need for the daily commute across the Yard Road Strip of the equipment necessary to maintain the 12 golf holes located on the old Jim Rose property, which arrangement should greatly reduce the total amount of equipment haulage across the Yard Road Strip. Resulting in part from the very unique circumstances instant to the Rose Ranch go:f course (being incorporated within an established subdivision), Rose Ranch has virtually been inundated with various individual homeowner requests relating to the design, operation and maintenance of the golf holes located on the old Westbank Ranch and Golf Course property. Rose Ranch is of the opinion that if news of this proposed arrangement with the Beatties becomes public knowledge that the situation will only be exacerbated; accordingly. Rose Ranch would request that this proposal and, if agreeable to the Beatties, any subsequent agreements thereunder except to the extent the same must be recorded in the public records, be kept confidential as between Rose Ranch and the Beatties. Rose Ranch believes that the above constitutes a reasonable accommodation to your concerns and looks forward to bringing this matter to conclusion forthwith. • • BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Steve Beattie Beattie & Chadwick August 22, 2002 Page 3 Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. TAT/fa cc: J. Thomas Schmidt Richard Nash Very truly yours, BALC©MB & V' EN, ', liter/ IM y P. u son e-mail: timgbalcombgreen. com E:\WP DocsWelicia\Tim\Rose Ranchlitr to Steve Beattie re Beattie property O8.22.O2.wpd BEATTIE 8c CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 710 COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8160 i STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK KAREN J. SLOAT CYNTHIA C. TESTER MITCHELL 5. RANDALL June 25, 2002 Richard Nash LB Rose Ranch, LLC 1007 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 8I601 Timothy A. Thulson Balcomb & Green, P.C. P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Beattie Property - 0074 Fairway Lane Lot 24, Filing No. 2, Westbank Ranch Subdivision Dear Richard and Tim: TELEPHONE (970) 945.8659 FAX (970) 945.8671 This letter follows up my conversations with each of you in recent weeks in your capacities as the designated local representatives of LB Rose Ranch, LLC ("LBR"). This letter is written on behalf of Steven M. Beattie and Sharon R. Beattie as the owners and residents of the 0074 Fairway Lane property in Westbank Ranch. The purpose of this letter is to address two portions of LBR property which abut the Beattie property. The first is a strip of land referred to below as the "Yard Road Strip" located between several homes east and west of Fairway Lane. The second is a parcel of land referred to as the "Property Triangle" located at the southeast corner of the Beattie property. THE YARD ROAD STRIP In August 2001, LBR constructed a new roadway on a 30 foot wide strip of land owned by LBR but never before used for road or golf course purposes. The new roadway is located between Westbank homes owned by Beattie and Haines on the east side of Fairway Lane, and by Kornasiewicz and Smith on the west side of Fairway Lane. The new road runs approximately between the new 1-lole No. 5 green (old Westbank Hole No. 9 tee) and new Hole No. 8 green (old Westbank !foie No. 6 tcc). For purposes of this letter, the newly -constructed roadway is called the "Yard Road," and the 30 -foot strip is. called the "Yard Road Strip." All of the features addressed in this paragraph, and others, are displayed on the colored map attached as Exhibit A. The recent use of the Yard Road Strip for the Yard Road has cause substantial disruptions to the Beatties' quiet enjoyment of our horne. Property which has been a part Richard Nash Timothy A. Thulson June 25, 2002 Page 2 of 7 of the Beatties' yard for years is now being used as a maintenance road (although such use has diminished some in recent days). The irrigated, mowed lawn has muddy ruts. The noise and physical presence of maintenance vehicle is intrusive and disturbing. Beatties respectfully seek LBR's agreement that the Yard Road be permanently discontinued, and that the Yard Road Strip used be returned to its former use as open space. This could be achieved either by deeding of the Yard Road Strip to adjoining owners, or a recorded agreement limiting the use of such property to open space. A. Background and Discussion The Yard Road Strip was created by the platting of Westbank Ranch Filing No. 2 in 1972 - 30 years ago. To the best of the Beatties' knowledge the Yard Road Strip was never used for any road or any golf course purpose. It certainly was never so used since the Beatties bought our home 12 years ago, in 1990. In fact, the Yard Road Strip could not have been used for a road because of two unbridged ditches, one across the Yard Road Strip west of Kornasiewicz, and the other crossing just past the southeast corner of the Beattie property. The Beatties have continuously utilized the portion of the Yard Road Strip abutting our property for nor nal and customary yard purposes. The Beatties have watered, mowed and fertilized the Lawn on the Yard Road Strip. Uses of the property have included all ordinary family uses - walking the property, recreation and games, and generally enjoying the open space and the peace and quiet. These uses have become particularly important with LBR's insistence that Westbank residents not walk or do anything else on the golf course property. To the best of the Beatties' knowledge, the Yard Road was never intended when the development plan for Rose Ranch was submitted to Garfield County. Unlike the similar strip of land connecting the Westbank portion of the development to the Rose Ranch area upstream of County Road 109, which was shown and discussed in the development documents, the Yard Road Strip was not disclosed as a road area. Confirming this understanding, I recall clearly and have notes ofa discussion held at an early meeting involving Westbank Board members and LBR representatives on January 11, 2001. Bill Hatch, the designated representative for LBR, was explaining the project and seeking the cooperation of Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association "Westbank") on certain important pending matters. 1 specifically brought the Yard Road Strip to Mr. Hatch's attention, and explained its location in relation to the golf course and nearby homes. 1 specifically asked whether LI3R had any plans to use the Yard Road Strip for any active purposes. Mr. Hatch, after conferring briefly with other LBR representatives, confirmed that LBR had no such intent. He was advised by others that the area between the Beatties and the Haines was carefully and meticulously maintained. He observed that this kind of maintenance was to the benefit of the project, and that he saw no reason why there would be any interference with these Iong established yard uses. Richard Nash • • Timothy A. Thulson June 25, 2002 Page 3 of 7 Within two months following the January 2001 meeting, LBR proposed to Wcstbank substantial modifications to the ditch system which had served Westbank Ranch for many years, and to the Ditch Agreement under which the ditch system was operated. LBR needed Westbank's consent to make major changes to the system. Soon thereafter LBR representatives approached the Westbank Board in connection with a variance regarding the cart path intended to traverse Lot 15 in Filing No. 3, to Rose Ranch. LBR was also proceeding actively with golf course and related excavation. During none of these negotiation and activities, nor at LBR's presentation at the April 2001 Westbank Annual Homeowners Meeting, was the idea of the Yard Road ever revealed or discussed by LBR representatives. Only in August 200I, fully eight (8) months into the construction project, did LBR build rough plank and plywood bridges across the ditches crossing the Yard Road Strip, and start driving vehicles across that property. Given the sequence of events, the Beatties can only assume either (1) that LBR knew that it intended to create a Yard Road, but elected not to disclose the information because the subject might be controversial and interfere with agreements which LBR wanted, or (2) that LBR's on-site people decided at some point, "Hey, we own it, we might as well use it," without giving any thought to the impact on the Beatties. If the Yard Road was essential for golf course development and maintenance, the Beatties could perhaps understand LBR's choice to build and use the road. However, as shown above, the Yard Road was actually probably an afterthought. More significantly, from LBR's point of view, the Yard Road is not necessary, and is not even the shortest access route. Please refer to Exhibit A, the enclosed colored map. Two versions are enclosed to each of you, so that you will each have an extra to provide to other LBR representatives. LBR is utilizing the old Westbank clubhouse as the Rose Ranch maintenance building. The maintenance building is shown in the upper left hand quadrant of the map. The "point of beginning" for maintenance vehicles heading east toward new Hole No. 8 and points beyond, across County Road 109 to Rose Ranch, is the southwest corner of the Murray lot as noted on the map. This point of beginning is shown as "Start" on the map. The common end point of this access route is slightly beyond the southeast corner of the Beattie property, near new Hole No. 8 green, and is shown on the map as "End". Three alternate access routes are shown on the map from "Start" to "End." The Yard Road is the final portion of the access route shown in light blue on the neap. The first part of this route proceeds across and along new Hole No. 5 (old Westbank Hole No. 9). This is the route which the Beatties would like to see discontinued, at least as to the Yard Road portion. Richard Nash Timothy A. ThuIson June 25, 2002 Page 4 of 7 • • The available access route shown in green proceeds frotn the Start point, would cross new Hole No. 7, which was also old Westbank Hole No. 7, and would connect with the newly -constructed cart path along new Hole No. 8, to the End point. This is the route taken by golf carts and maintenance Vehicles over the entire history of the Westbank golf course. This route remains fully available to LBR_ Scaling of the route shown in green shows that this route is actually shorter than the route which includes the Yard Road as shown in light blue. Richard Nash told me in one of our conversations that the Yard Road route was important because of distances involved, and the need to save maintenance worker time, and maintenance vehicle fuel and maintenance. In light of the available historic route shown in green, why? The purported answer may be that the cart path as constructed for new Hole Nos. 7 and 8 proceeds around and to the north of the northerly pond, as shown in pink on the map. It is true that the pink route is longer than either the light blue or green route, to get to the End point of the map, although not much. Building the cart path along the pink route was a choice on LBR's part, and certainly does not preclude LBR from using the green route for maintenance vehicles. .hither the green route or the pink route would eliminate the very negative impacts of the light blue route which includes the new Yard Road. B. Surnniary and Conclusions There are obviously some difficulties in inserting a new golf course development in the middle of a residential subdivision which has existed for 30 years. From the developer's standpoint, it would appear to make sense to try to cooperate with existing homeowners. Such cooperation seems particularly appropriate here, where the Yard Road Strip property has never been used as a road, where the property has long been a part of residential yards, and particularly where the road is not necessary to the developer's operations. The Beatties have generally been supporters of the LBR project, believing that the new golf course will bring a touch of class to the neighborhood. I am an avid golfer. The Beatties hope to become members of the golf club if it is priced along the lines described by Dill Hatch at the April 2001 Annual Westbank Homeowners Meeting, as contrasted with Aspen Glen or Roaring Fork Club type pricing, which would be Unattainable. I am a past president oldie Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association. My law firm serves as legal counsel to the Association, which worked cooperatively with LBR on both the ditch system and the variance. We are not "malcontents." To the contrary, we like to think that we are the kind of people with whole LBR would like to develop a positive and continuing relationship. Richard Nash Timothy A. Thulson June 25, 2002 Page 5 of 7 • The Beatties do not want to become involved in litigation with LBR. However, given the importance of the issue, we believe that we would have no choice but to have a court determine rights of the parties, if agreement cannot be reached. At least five legal theories exist, including (I) construction of the Yard Road contrary to Garfield County planned unit development applications and approvals, (2) adverse possession, (3) negligent or intentional misrepresentation in connection with negotiations regarding the ditch relocation and variance, (4) detrimental reliance that no road would be constructed in the Yard Road Strip, and (5) common Iaw nuisance. Again, although this firm has Litigated these kinds of issues in other cases, the Beatties would much rather not litigate them here if agreement can be reached. THE PROPERTY TRIANGLE Historically two ditch laterals intersected near the southeast corner of the Beattie property, One Lateral flowed, and still flows, north from the main Westbank ditch, under Westbank road, along the easterly border of the Haines property, and finally in a northeasterly diagonal approximately 100-200 feet. This ditch lateral used to merge with another lateral which flowed in a U-shaped fashion around old Westbank Hole Nos. 5 and 6, generally along the west boundary of the homes on the west side of Meadow Lane, the north boundary of the hones on the north side of Westbank road, and the east side of the homes on the east side of Fairway Lane. LBR buried this ditch 111 a 24 inch pipe. The above -ground ditch lateral first mentioned above enters the underground pipe near the new cart path, near the back side of the new Hole No. 8 green. Please refer to the rnap enclosed as Exhibit A, and in particular the "Property Triangle" along the easterly side of the Beattie property. The westerly side of the Property Triangle is the legal boundary between the Beattie property and the golf course property. The southeasterly side of the Property Triangle is the tail end of the above- ground ditch lateral from the main Westbank ditch. The northeast side of the Property Triangle is the location of the other above -ground ditch lateral which is now buried. The Property Triangle has always been utilized solely and exclusively as a part of the 0074 Fairway Lane property. There are a number of trees which the Beatties estimate to be in excess of 60 feet in height within the Property Triangle. These were planted by the Beatties' predecessors at 0074 Fairway Lane. The Property Triangle is located "inside" the historic ditches, that is, toward the Beattie home from those ditches. The Property Triangle has never been used for any golf course purpose. The Beanies' sprinkler system extends to the outer (easterly) border of the Property Triangle. The Beatties have consistently irrigated, snowed and fertilized this area, as well as pruning and replacing trees and other vegetation. Our picnic table is located in the Property Triangle. On more that one occasion, the Beatties were advised by LBR representatives that golf course architect Arthur Hills found the trees 011 the Property Triangle to be a very Richard Nash Timothy A. Thulson June 25, 2002 Page 6 of 7 • • positive golf course design feature. The new golf cart path along new Hole No. 8 was constructed "outside," or to the east of, the Properly Triangle. Neither LBR nor its maintenance staff, nor the prior Westbank golf course owner, has ever asserted any dominion or control over the Property Triangle. They have never performed any maintenance of any kind within this area. In fact, when a giant willow tree near the north end split and fell 2 years ago, the Beatties cleaned up the portion which fell within the Property Triangle, and LBR or its predecessor cleaned up the part which fell on the golf course side of the Triangle. The Beatties believe that the Property Triangle should be surveyed and deeded to the Beatties as a part of a boundary adjustment. The outside, or easterly, boundary of the Beattie property would then be the location of the historic ditch laterals. This adjustment would have absolutely no negative impact on LBR or the development. The maintenance of the Property Triangle, which is far superior to the patchy unnaowed grass between this area and the cart path, would continue by the Beatties without expense to LBR. The Property boundary would be logical to reflect what is in fact in place. Potential landowner liability concerns, if any, would be eliminated for LBR. The Property boundary adjustment for the Property Triangle would require a meeting on site to establish the exact boundary, which would be coincident with the mowed and maintained Beattie yard. The necessary surveying would be relatively supple. The split willow tree should also be handled as a part of this process. The Beatties believe that it is only a matter of time, and a short time, before the rest of the tree cracks and falls. The tree is on golf course property, just inside the now -buried ditch lateral. 1 discussed this tree with both Richard Nash and Mitch Bowers in the spring of 2001. They said that the golf course would remove the tree in due course. Apparently other matters have taken priority over doing so. Although the Beatties are prepared to take responsibility for other trees and everything else within the Property Triangle, we ask that LBR agree to assume responsibility for the willow tree. It is our belief that the tree should be removed sooner rather that later, although we are certainly willing to discuss the question if you think the tree can be saved. We would also be willing to discuss the planting of a replacement tree in the same Iocation to maintain the visual design effect. CONCLUSIONS Although the Beatties firmly believe that the decision to build the Yard Road was wrong, it is not the purpose of this letter to criticize LBR, Richard Nash, or the maintenance staff. To the contrary, other than the Yard Road, we believe that Richard Richard Nash • Timothy A. Thulson June 25, 2002 Page 7 of 7 and the staff have done an excellent job in attempting to balance difficult considerations between the properly developer and the existing neighborhood. Even though I am the attorney for Westbank, this letter is in a personal capacity, on behalf of the Beatties. Although the Westbank Board and sorne of our neighbors are aware of our views, we are not "involving" Westbank or other neighbors at this point. We would rather see if these rnatters can be resolved by reasoned discussion between LBR and the Beatties. If not, there will be adequate time for developing the participation of others later. As shown below, we are sending a copy to County Attorney Don DeFord. The reason for doing so is that 1 have discussed with him the absence of Yard Road approval in the PUD, he is aware that Tim Thulson suggested that these matters be addressed in writing, and he requested a copy of the letter. We know that LBR is dealing with many duties and demands. None of us needs "one more thing" to have to handle. The Beatties would hope, in light of the facts, that this letter will be one of your simpler items. A favorable response has no material negative financial or operational impact on LBR. However, the Beatties do believe that it is important to know LBR's position as soon as feasible. If LBR does not want to agree, it will be necessary to pursue the next steps. Could you please provide LBR's response within two (2) weeks from the date of this letter, that is, by Tuesday, July 9, 2002. Thank you for consideration of these natters, Very t 1 y yours, ')//7 Steven M. Beattie SMB/mc Cc: Don DeFord, County Attorney (w/ enc.) ■ 4 II I axino'awiY; cai lglCOMIME WC pp WdEllA 11 rx. ! t Ill oAtt 1 • • Christina Chapin P.O. Box 783 New Castle, Colorado 81647 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Plaza 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT cc. September 29, 2003 Dear Honorable Garfield County Commissioners, The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention representations made by the developers of Ironbridge (formerly known as Rose Ranch) in the public record regarding the development's golf course. By way of explanation, I would like to clarify that certain issues regarding the Iron Bridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) came to my attention during a public hearing on August 13, 2003 while I was serving as a Planning Commissioner on the Garfield County Planning Commission. However, this letter reflects only my personal opinion regarding this matter and should in no way be construed as a statement on behalf of the Garfield County Planning Commission. 1 would also like to acknowledge how extremely helpful both the Clerk's Office and Planning Department have been in providing requested materials to me for review. At the 8/13/03 public meeting and hearing an issue arose regarding the "public play" component at the Iron Bridge development. The issue involved two different points: 1)To what extent the golf course would be open to the public (including out of town tourists and Garfield County residents) and 2) the reduced green fees for Garfield County residents. Several Planning Commissioners recalled that the golf course would have a significant public play component and that the six public tee times now offered did not seem consistent with previous understandings. I found this misunderstanding to be of some concern, and as a result I thoroughly researched the public record to determine what representations were actually made by the developer in the past regarding public play at the Iron Bridge Golf Course. The research consisted of listening to the tapes of the Planning Commission proceedings for the following dates: 5/27/98, 6/1/98, 2/10/99, and 2/17/99. I also reviewed all of the written Iron Bridge/Rose Ranch records housed at the Garfield County Planning Department, including the written minutes. I then listened to the tapes of the BOCC meetings/hearings for the following dates: 7/20/98, 7/21/98, and 9/8/98. Finally, I listened to the tapes from the most recent Iron Bridge public hearing on 8/13/03 which I attended. As a result of this research I wish to provide to you, by way of this letter, pertinent information to assist you in your decision-making role. In my opinion, the record clearly reveals that the original PUD approval included a representation by the developer that the golf course would be open to the public, would • enhance tourism, and would provide recreational opportunities for the residents of Garfield County. These representations were made in the written PUD application materials and verbally during the meetings. I arrived at this opinion based on the exhibits listed below: Exhibit A: THK Community Impact Analysis Exhibit B: Rose Ranch Project Fact Sheet Exhibit C: Golf Course Management Plan Executive Summary Exhibit D: Statement of Comprehensive Plan Compliance Exhibit E: Golf Course statements from PUD application Volume 1 Exhibit F: July 20 and July 21 1998 BOCC minutes Exhibit G: September 8, 1998 BOCC minutes The most specific numbers associated with the amount of public play can be found in Exhibit A, the Community Impact Analysis, which states, "A sizable percentage of the proposed course's golf rounds will be played by nonresidents, and the bulk of the nonresident rounds played at the course will be played by either golfers with secondlseasonal homes in the area or golfers staying at area hotels. As shown in Table C, hotel guests are projected to play an average of 7,000 rounds annually at the proposed course. This round play equates to an average of approximately 3,050 hotel room nights on an annual basis. Over the ten year projection period, golfers staying at area hotels will spend close to $2.7 million on hotel rooms — all subject to bed taxes — and approximately $4.7 million at area retail establishments — all subject to taxes". Based on the information found in Table C, in the first year of operation (year 2000) the projected number of tourist golf rounds is 7,000. If you divide this number by 52 weeks (assuming the golf course is open year round) the average number of tourist rounds per week would be 135. This number could then be divided by 4 players per tee time for a minimum of 34 tourist tee times per week. By the 10th year, the study estimates that 15,750 rounds will be played by tourist golfers, or roughly 76 tee times per week. It should be noted that these numbers exclude the public play contemplated by Garfield County residents, so the actual number of public tee times should be even higher. During the most recent public hearing on 8/13/03, the developer stated that the golf course was originally modeled after the River Valley Ranch concept, but is now modeled after the Roaring Fork concept. In my opinion the representation regarding the golf course has changed. Please refer to exhibits H and I. These are two very different concepts: one is private with very limited local resident play (Roaring Fork Club), and one is public (River Valley Ranch). I believe that the developer ought to be able to respond to market conditions as long as it is consistent with how the development was approved during the public process. If the developer is not held to the representations that are made during the public process, the process itself could become seriously undermined. • I have listened to roughly 20 hours of testimony of the original Planning Commission and BOCC meetings and hearings. The points most critical to this issue are discussed at the following places on the tapes: 5/27/98 P&Z Tape 2, Side A, points 61,5 to 69.3: Peter Wilson from THK Consulting discusses the market analysis for the golf course. The discussion includes specific statements about the fiscal benefits to the community based on 3,050 hotel rooms being occupied from tourist golfers and the other goods and services sold as a result of the public golf course, with associated tax benefits to the County. Tape 2, Side B, points 22.5 to 24.5: Planning Commissioner Anna Price asks a question regarding affordable housing. During the discussion the developer clarifies that when they use the word "residents" in relation to the golf course they mean specifically the residents of Garfield County, not of the development. 9/8/98 BOCC Tape 4, point 300 to 940: Regarding the golf course, the developer's attorney states, "no, it's not going to be private". At point 580 he further states that the salient points about the golf course are that it will be public, and will have an affordable play component. In this case representations were made during the "PUD zoning request" public hearings that the golf course would benefit Garfield county residents by offering public play, and would also benefit Garfield County residents by adding to the tourism market, and in turn would benefit the local economy. The resolutions of approval for this development contain the following condition: "That all representations made by the applicant, both in the application and at the public hearing before the Commission, shall be conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board". The fact is that the developer made two different representations concerning the golf course: 1 )that the golf course would be public and 2)that there would be an affordable fee structure for locals. To my knowledge, the fact that the golf course was to be public was never altered by the Board, therefore the original representations and approval stand until such time as the applicant comes to the Board with a formal request to make the golf course private. I respectfully request you give this matter serious consideration. If you agree that the original approval was for a public golf course, please hold the developer to this representation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ly, Christina T. Chapin CC: Garfield County Planning Commissioners Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Attorney's Office Garfield County Clerk's Office Balcomb & Green, P.C. Pa -i '/5/63 Enc(b -k COM_VILNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS ROSE RANCH GOLF COURSE GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO PREPARED FOR ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, LLC Economic & Market Research / Land & Development Planning Landscape Architecture / Community Planning & Design Golf Feasibility Analysis 1h{ • • PROJECTED ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED ROSE RANCH 18 -HOLE GOLF COURSE In addition to serving as a first-class recreational amenity for the local community, the proposed Rose Ranch golf course will have the potential to generate a variety of economic benefits for the area. Typically, a golf course of the caliber of the proposed Rose Ranch course w1 ave a significant positive impact on its surrounding economic environs. In the following three tables, THK examines a few of the more fundamental ways in which the proposed course will impact the local economy. THK has employed a very conservative approach in making its projections, which suggests that the actual economic benefits may ultimately prove considerably more substantial. In the first table, THK quantifies one of the course's more obvious economic impacts. Based on THK's cash flow analysis for the proposed course, it's estimated that the facility will have an annual payroll in excess of $500,000 in 2000. By 2009, total payroll will approach $700,000. To determine how much of this payroll will ultimately be spent at area retail establishments, THK first makes allowances for taxes and housing, transportation, medical and education expenses, and then estimates the portion of the remaining payroll (disposable income) that will be spent locally. As shown, THK estimates that approximately $200,000 of expenditures from golf course employees will be subject to area sales taxes in 2009. Table B isolates the sales tax impacts from pro shop and concessions sales at the proposed golf course. In its cash flow analysis, THK projected that the combined pro shop and concessions sales would jump from $230,000 in 2000 to over $525,000 in 2009. Given Garfield County's current sales tax rate of 1.0%, the county should collect just over $42,300 over the ten year period. a A sizable .ercentage of the pro.osed course's off rounds will be played b is the bulk of the nonresis ent rounds played at the course will be played b either golfers with second/seasonal homes in the area or go ers staying at area hotels. As shown in Table C, hotel _nests are uroaect�e• to p ay an average of nearly 7,010 rounds annually at the proposed course. This round play equates to an average of approximately 3,050 hotel room nig'its on an annual - basis. Over the ten ear projection period, go iers staying at -area Yols will spend close to $2.7 million on hotel rooms - all subject to ed taxes - and approximately $4.7 million at area retail establis ents - all subject to sales taxes. • • CDooCD. CDCDCa400 04 C7 C7 4 C7 4 C] 4 C7 CD 4 Cy C? CN vt N 4 -. M tiO .-- r 6-) ry ch fl � 'Np "0 N N 00 00 C 0\ N ui 64 64 69 .69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 CO 0 C7 0 0 0 4 0 0 Co 0 6. C1 '0 00 tD CNI CZ C} C d T 00'- 00 r."eq 1 N ,r C1 f 4 69 64 69 69 69 69 09 69 69 &N9- fro r1 Co 00 •."i N NN5 rY CO Cr 17 N N C? .-r N cc C3 '� 00 V'1 00 DO t .1-..000 t— N 00 d' 4 00 6-$ r'A N •--• 6 h rn h 0-1 0-0 CD "0 \ND ' V7 00 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 ''' V1 69 rn D a E. 00 O N M 'cf +t''U r- 00 O d 4 O 4 O O Q O > 0 N N N N N N N N N F 00 GJ L P a • ea • tea a Zw • ti C6 w a� o a ✓ � o O ' a isl En, 4 • L.) 17+ tE 1 �1 •p • f• aaU W •�0, 0 -, d r7 4 v1 CT Tr vl M r!1 r3 Ln •V7 �° p _© w x 4 CC DO d1 er N d CN- If 00i—d 0 > 4 '',3 In CT '�rl tom- 00 00 Do oo DO %-0 • Ln 0 P !r4 M rr1 ini/'1 L! 9 N 1 vv'1 V7 mr 0. (' f1? 7 49 69 69 64 b4 b9 H3 (A b J bra k �, 00 wa e67 4,1 N 0 r1 4 --• N Q 00 M 00 r- LQ t— 00 o P 4 M v1 d r+1 -+ —. N • as d ;n CT S7t '�Y YJ L7 rNr1 N kr) ▪ '�^ •5 [� an CT N en en Y7 P- 00 d C1 Go V1 y .0 .� M r- N N M rn M M ,7 M 00 0 b4 [t3 N rr1 M M M M r+'1 M N '� GI 0 45 b4 64 64 b4 b9 69 Ef} 69 C4 V3 Non a ea 0 ea •G P ca o 0 a)) 124 G z 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 4 4 '' C7 '$ r- fh en 'eD t-- t� 00 t'— in s7 -l- fit 00 CA, 0, 00 r--., e0 eel tr 0 Vl N. rr1 rl rri r1 M M. M M 0 y M [c1 P O U p 6.'1 ;o g .r 'a y,4. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 N d rr1 `• 43 0 N Cr ON d Cr, CA i"- Y1 N �D N > \ W 0 N V'1 f7"+ 0 N U"7 rfl --+ 4) fit �.D .0 '- 0 -. N d oo 0‘ 00 co co 0o n to fT P w rr, > in I) C a 0 � .5 - 4) c O d d 0 4 4 o c cs 0 4 2 ca 8 .) d C7 '.0 Lr, r- r!1 'r. V•1 !P1 V1 �t - 0) 'fy+ N 40f O t7 cr.:, v a t--[- t-- I r--... ao O st f� F, N 00 rr" +rl +/1 u'y v1 v'1 1?) r r+1 00 ^-- 7 •-•P Cd y. IS et 4) 0)0A Ca CI ~G , o am., y a. • 4 G ,, o m .F 2 c1 1 a 0 QM. eri bet1 j p d.1 - 0) • cn 4i w 4.) 0 = 0 P 0 0 N > ren cn J ✓ N r1 'Cr u1 '.4 C• CO CA 4 sn T yr rn r,) 0000000,000 U- 4 c < Q 00.00000000 > 0:› N N N N N N N N N N '¢ F"' --+ -1-N M Cl) Over the last several months, we at the Rose Ranch have had the opportunity to work with our neighbors, government agencies, and others who are committed to preserving the beauty and character of the Roaring Fork Valley. In all, more than twenty meetings were held. This collaborative process and dialogue has resulted in a greatly improved project which we believe will serve as model for future development in the area. Improvements to the project include: Protecting the Blue Heron & Other Wildlife • Providing screening to restrict views of Heron Rookery from lots during nesting period. Providing set backs of lots from Heron Rookery. Providing additional nesting poles for the heron. • • ♦ ♦ ♦ No construction during nesting period. Deletion of Floaters park from project. Prevention of human activity around Heron Rookery. Pulling back upper trail system to prevent any impact upon Golden Eagle nest. Creating "latoral shelves" in ponds to provide additional habitat for birds and wildlife. ♦ Planting serviceberry, chokeberry and shrubs as additional forage for deer and elk around upper golf holes. ♦ Planting vegetative screening along main migration corridors to protect deer and elk. Improving Traffic Safety # Rose Ranch will pay to reconfigure the intersection of Hwy. 82 and Rd. 154 and will add a much needed signal to the intersection - making it safer. Protecting the River # Protecting the riparian zone along the river to preserve sensitive wetland areas. • Developing an integrated pest management plan for the golf course to minimize pesticide use and prevent impacts upon the river. ♦ Employing "grass swales" rather than curbs and gutters along roadways to filter, and minimize run off. Enhancing Tourism & Recreation i 18 hole championship golf course with affordable public play component.. ♦ Hiking / Biking trail separate and parallel to Hwy. 109. ♦ Fishing access on North side of development to prevent impact on Heron Rookery. Reducing Density • Reduced density by nearly 20 percent from 350 to 292 units. # Doubled size of lots along river to provide more open space. 7 Helping Provide Affordable Housing # At the time a building permit is issued the Rose Ranch will give a voluntary ccptribution of $1,000 per lot to the G@nwood Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housing Fund. $1,000 per lot to the Carbondale Affordable Housing iCorporation and $200 per lot to the Garfield County Housing Authority. 1i Tgtal contribution will be $642,400. ♦ With each building permit that is issued the Rose Ranch will make a voluntaryl contribution of $750 to the Roaring Fdrk Transit Authority to be used for building Park N Ride facility at the CMC i intersection. Contributions will total $219,000. r-. Cu EX • Et 1726.10, /2 -0"/L -al AL° 01-1/1 dKd (1 \0\61?) ifVe_ Sex -6 (PA C�• [ftr� " c+'+VI VIcr'n ky` ,,, 4-1. LAJ..s dmfL �..'��U 1 ✓y� r" (�CZJI]� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Roaring Fork Investments, L.L.C. requested Environmental & Turf Services (E S) develop a low impact turfgrass management program based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM). This IGCMP (Part I of a 2 part document), The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, embraces the concepts for a sustainable future by adopting the strategies outlined in The "Golf & The Environment, Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States and includes proposed safeguards outlined under the Guidelines for Water Quality Enhancement Through the Use of Best Management Practices prepared for The Colorado Nonpoint Source Task Force. The Integrated Golf Course ivfanagement Plan (IGCMP) summarizes and outlines a set of voluntary principles which seek to produce environmental excellence in golf course planning and siting, design, construction, maintenance and facility operations. This document recognizes that both the principles and guidelines deliver .solid environmental and sustainable ecological approaches for the golf course and planned community. The guidelines assume the project will go beyond traditional regulatory compliance. Most significantly, the principles promote environmenta' "y sound golf courses as quality golf courses. This is important and will allow Rose Ranch to demonstrate how a public access facility can set a new standard for golfing communities within Garfield County. The Rose Ranch Golf Course is committed to following the principles attached because of the project's goals of maintaining environmental stewardship and quality. Ultimately, this will result in more public recreational opportunities, educational resources and revenues for the Town of Glenwood Springs. The project agrees to abide by and implement the recommendations contained within this IGCMP. i • • Roaring Fork investments. L.L.C. recognized the project would be contiguous with open space and natural settings and asked ETS to develop a sustainable management program for the golf course and residential community that would focus on improved environmental awareness and land management opportunities. Over the last several months. Rose Ranch has worked with neighbors, government agencies. and others committed to preserving the beauty and character of the Roaring Fork Valley. This collaborative process has resulted in a greatly improved project and a model for future development. Improvements to the project regarding the protection of the great blue heron rookery. & other wildlife areas, improving traffic safety, assisting with mass transit, enhancing tourism & recreation, reducing density. and helping to provide affordable housing are covered on a separate fact sheet developed for the project. These initiatives in open dialogue and communication have resulted in a collaborative effort in the design of the Rose Ranch Project. The concerns, interests and suggestions at each meeting were documented and melded into the proposed plan, including lot size compatibility, golf course routing. amount and location of open space, protection of existing environmental features and other general land use compatibility issues. Approximately 223 acres of the 533.5 acre parcel will be converted to golf. The golf course has been designed as a public access facility that will exist in harmony with the Roaring Fork River. One of the primary planning objectives of Roaring Fork Investments, is that the proposed development both fit into the natural and community surroundings as well as be a good neighbor within the county. Golf holes have been placed on high areas of the property to minimize shoreline and wetland impact. The actual acreage of managed turfgrass on the golf course was substantially reduced in order to allow for a more resource -efficient landscape and a more restrictive layout. Approximately 138 acres of managed turfgrass were arranged to allow for the proper management of the existing drainage and wetland features and to blend the existing hayfields and grazing lands into more naturalized grasslands or mountain pastures. The Roaring Fork River will provide natural open space for native vegetation, wildlife and fisheries ii ((P ()j , oi.C. tdY C. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Goals GOAL: An integral part of County land use planning is the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Rose Ranch development team has worked diligently with neighboring property owners over the past eighteen months in an effort to assure a development which is compatible with existing land uses. In this regard, the development team has met with the following groups/organizations on the following occasions: a. Friends of the Roaring Fork (comprised primarily of residents of the adjacent eastbank of the Roaring Fork River) - December 16, 1997 and January 22, 1998. b. Board of Directors, Westbank Mesa Homeowner's Association - August 6, 1997. c. Westbank Mesa Homeowner's Association - August 20, 1997 and February 17, 1998. d, Westbank Ranch Homeowner's Association August 6 and September 10, 1997 and February 24, 1998. e. Teller Springs Homeowner's Association - June 30, 1997 f. Aspen Glen. Water and Sanitation District - January 1998. As the result of comments and concerns raised during these meetings, the Rose Ranch PUD was modified in the following respects: • In order to protect existing well use, Rose Ranch PUD will now obtain its' entire domestic and irrigation water supply through surface diversions rather than the previously proposed well field pumping. • All lots within the Rose Ranch PUD located along the western bank of the Roaring Fork River were increased in size (and correspondingly decreased in number) to generally reflect the lot sizes present on the eastern bank of the Roaring Fork River. • All river fronting lots were pulled back from the river bank to provide a protective buffer for riparian habitat. • A 110 foot wide Common Open Space parcel was included between the Rose Ranch PUD and Teller Springs PUD to create a buffer zone between the • • developments and to serve as a wildlife corridor. Rose Ranch PUD has committed to performing improvements on the Robertson Ditch to facilitate downstream landowner use. Access to the recreational trail located along the ride line west of CR 109 and the golf course has been provided to all lot owners within the Teller S WestbankMesa, est c anc and River Ridge subdivisions. se r Litc& ` l%� -n•�e F. Recreation and Open Space GOAL: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors. One of the primary goals of the planning for Rose Ranch PUD was to make open space an integral part of the plan ---not an afterthought. In furtherance of this goal, over 73% of the area of the Rose Ranch PUD set aside as open space. Consistent with the objective of _ • ovidin: recreational opportunities to County residents, substantial portions of this oven space will be accessible by the residents of the surrounding communities and the • enexal public. Constituting perhaps its' most unique feature, the Rose Ranch PUD has purchased and will incorporate within the development, an existing golf facility - the Westbank Ranch Golf and Country Club. As previously discussed, this existing facility will be substantially upgraded through its incorporation into the championship (18) hole golf course proposed for the Rose Ranch PUD. Affordable ublic la the residents of Garfield County, will comprise an integral component of this new gol facili PLL '& _ 54)( • e The eighteen (18) hole golf course proposed within the Rose Ranch PUD will be owned bya private for-profit entity. Management of the course may take the form of self management by the entity or a private management company may be employed to manage the course. The • olf cou at the inception of play. The rates for each of these fee components wi Be . eterrnine+ a er ina construction costs and operational costs are determined for the golf course. Limited play is anticipated to begin in the year 2000. There will be a local affordable play component for the daily green fees for residents of Garfield County. The Applicant anticipates t at the local affordable play component pricing to e sight teantly lower than the daily green fees to be charged out -of -County players. The local play component should be between 25% and 50% below the out -of -County daily green fees. Pursuant to appropriate deed restriction, golf course operations shall be: A. responsible for the operation and maintenance of the gate restricting access to the golf cart path accessing holes 15 - 18, located on the upper basin; and B. subject to compliance with the provisions contained within the reports prepared by Environmental & Turf Services, Inc. titled, Part 1: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan (dated August 31, 1998) and Management Plan and Risk Assessment for the Rose Ranch Golf Course, Part 2: Water Quality Risk Assessment (dated July 10, 1998), including but not limited to the following: 1. , Part I: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, Pages IV -1 - IV -10, addressing the use of native vegetation requiring less water consumption (required under Paragraph D.9., Page 9 of 15, Board of Commissioner Resolution No. 98-80). 2. Part I: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, Pages IV -89 - IV -102 and Part II: Water Quality Risk Assessment, Section IX. Comparison of Modeling Results with Empirical Results, Section X. Conclusions and Section XI. Mitigation Measures, addressing the monitoring of surface water quality and the restriction of pesticide and fertilizer use (required under Paragraph D.16. Page 9 of 15, Board of Commissioner Resolution No. 98-80). 'vale membershi•s, .ublic memberships and daily green fees 3. Part I: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, Pages IV -129 - IV -137, addressing the practices to minimize watering, optimizing fertilizer usage and the use of sand filters and grass swales for the golf course (required under Paragraph E.21. b., Page 13 of 15,Board ir\uq-es i'70 8,, Lok,( map_ vuuss-i Joe Hope on Access of the Revene: Joe stated they looked at this very very carefully. The first issue was debris flow as there is a significant debris flow channel. The geotechnicai aspects were assessed and they determined several mitigation techniques would be required. At preliminary plan the Board will see the mitigation techniques to be used. Exhibit 0 - Irrigated Lands were submitted. 15( r Chairman Smith admitted Exhibit 0 into the record. Stuart Cohen and Michael O'Conner with Environmental Turf Services Inc. on Pesticide and Fertilizer Risk Assessment: Stuart presented a slide program showing the management and risk assessment plan. He stated this was their second golf course to be involved in Colorado. Michael followed Stuart and addressed pest management. He summarized that they requested that the project hire someone who is trained in integrated pest management technology and suggested the needed tools and information needed to make sure that the Rose Ranch Plan would move forth. Secondly, they provided a grassing specification that will reduce pesticide use; they've recommended specific grasses that have disease and pest resistant type genetics involved; they played into the agricultural side of this project and suggested such things as wheat grass, blue gamma, Indian grass, red top and the type of habitat that can blend with the native habitats and bring this project into a more integrated sustainable type of operation that will provide the buffers and again the checks and balances in these areas. Stuart Cohen defined Evaporative Transpiration mentioned by Michael O'Conner and addressed Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures. Pete Elzi with THK on Demand and Fiscal Impacts of the Golf: THK was the original planner for Snowmass Village and is familiar with golf in this area. Golf with a resident rate for the County at an affordable rate was a concern, Ford Frick with BBC Consulting on Fiscal Impacts on the Rose Ranch T?evetopment;_-Ie highlighted on the economic impacts including the payroll of 14 - 15 full time seasonal which would amount to 6 figures in income; and the income tax of$175,000 - $200,000 retained in the community subject to sales tax; the Pro -Shop and Concession Sales also subject to county sales taxes. T is mentioned that would add 3 000 room nights at motels at $75/per room _ $270,000 in hotel revenues and an increase in ci andfor coun taxes. Tourists also send money - estimated at $65.11 per person = ' 450,000 in other revenues that result in other taxes. Fred a so a dressed the traffic impacts. Ron Haggermier on County Road 109 Improvement: Ron said one of the traffic impacts that was not addressed earlier is that they will ask the County's permission to make one other traffic modification on County Road 109. This involves the curve that you encounter after coming over the Hardwick Bridge heading toward Westbank. The curve needs to be straightened out and they have talked with Joe Hope and he has indicated it can be straightened and made less of a dangerous situation. Ron said they would ask possibly that Rose Ranch would fund the cost of doing this, but would ask that it be applied against any road impact fee that comes to the project. Ron summarized: He said of the PUD and Sketch Plan that it contains a multiple amount of changes made during the various stages of planning. Throughout the process they would receive requests and would do them if possible. Some choices had to be made. They did attempt to reach a consensus of those spoken to about the project. Ron said he recognized this Board is the final authority and requested approval. Audience Participation included: State Geologist Jonathan White's remarks were postponed until Tuesday A.M. but he wanted to address debris flow and collapsible soils. His main concern is that mitigation will be properly proposed; and specifically with the amount of water to be introduced into the alluvial fans. Another concern were the ponds and irrigation ditches running in there. The worst case scenario would be what if there was a serious water line break and the soils become wet. His concern would be that of deep seated wettings. Rick Neiley, Lawyer representing Friends of the Roaring Fork submitted a petition signed by 200 individuals. Chairman Smith entered this as Exhibit P into the record. • • Rick addressed: 1) issue with comp plan conformity and submitted Exhibit Q showing the plot density; Exhibit R - Rose Ranch PUD plot adding that this project is far more dense than anything surrounding; Exhibit S showing the big picture issue with the surrounding areas and open space as plotted; and Exhibit T - an article stating that fishing alone generates more dollars than skiing, rafting or golf. 14e ultimately requested that the Board consider granting approval with less density. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibits PQRST into the record. Ernie Delto, homeowner off of County Road 109 across from the Southwest Corner said he was impressed with the material presented and that he was in favor of the project being granted approval. 1 -ie has concerns, however, as a neighbor with the proposed density as it exceeds what is currently zoned at Westbank and Teller Springs. He also mentioned that Ron Haggermier did not interview him. Mr. Delto is an architect and concerned about the rural character. He spoke on the lot prices of $150,000 plus the housing construction costs and basically concluded that this leaves the average working class people out. Therefore, these things needs to addressed as these are concerns in general among a lot of folks. Roger Trout owns 40 acres West of County Road 109 and his property borders on the South and East side of his land. He commented that this was 1) a beautiful proposal and well thought out; visually beautiful - the most attractive neighbors he could have and was impressed on the well planned community. 2) He was one that Ron did contact and explained the proposal, asked any concerns he might have, and stated he wanted to be a good neiglibor. Roger stated he has owned his property for 30 years but did not have access to the property. Ron gave them access so they can use their property. He said he felt that Ron and his team were trying to address every possible issue and can't believe it is going to be too upscale. He implored the Board to approval the PUD. Nancy Smith from Carbondale and a member of the Planning Commission. She stated that for the most part this was a good development. She did point out however, that any money that comes from the building permit comes from the lot owner and referenced the additional $750 and $1,000 for Glenwood Springs. She thinks this might create political pressure. She spoke on the issue of Affordable Housing and 10% should be allotted toward this goal. Victoria Giannola asked if the Board would like to take a field trip and walk the site prior to beginning the session on Tuesday. The Board stated they were familiar with the site and did not feel they needed to walk it. Recess - 8:10 P.M. A motion was made by Commissioner Martin and seconded by Commissioner McCown to recess until Tuesday, July 21 at 8:00 A.M.; carried. PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JULY 21, 1998 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Victoria Giannola, Don DeFord, Tim Thulson and Ron Heggermier were present. Comments from the public: Bart Victor, seller of Westbank Ranch, put out a questionnaire regarding the Rose Ranch Development for the residents in Westbank and wanted to submit it for the record. Chairman Smith admitted the comment sheet from Westbank residents as Exhibit U into the record. 'Discussion was held as to the Westbank Golf Course and tax exemption under the "open to the public" status. The question was raised as to whether or not Ron Heggermier intended to do the same with the Rose Ranch combined course with Westbank. • • Ron Heggermier clarified that he did not envision having a lease with the City of Glenwood so he did not see the same tax status remaining on the golf course. He added it would be open to the public as well as private and public memberships. The public would have a pre -determined amount of memberships; however the first couple of years more public than private would be the case. He anticipated making this open County -wide and establishing a fee structure of somewhere between half of what they would charge out-of-town players and estimated this would be between $35 and $40 range. Those figures have not been finalized at this point however. Commissioner Martin inquired of Bart Victor what his rates were for local players. Bart Victor commented they were $16 for 9 and $20 for 18 holes. Golf carts are $10 and $20 ___- respectively. The city is pleased with the combination of things they have done which is to provide for the pubic memberships and to have affordable public play for Garfield County residents; and they are making the course available to a number of youth programs including the High School golf teams. They are also working with the City's Recreational Director to try and make that available with the recreational program along with the swimming pool and tennis courts. John Huebinger of 73 Delores Circle - Westbank Mesa commented on taxes: John said he was the developer on Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa. He clarified some of the questions on taxes by saying that between 1974 - 1976 he was paying approximately $15,000 year in taxes on the golf course. He came before the County Commissioners and protested so Jim Drinkhouse suggested that they make the lease with the City of Glenwood Springs and in turn lease it back to get the exempt status. This was what the Rifle and Glenwood golf courses were doing at the time. The argument was that Westbank was providing recreation that possibly the County should have been doing so that's the reason the Commissioners suggested the tax exempt status. Commissioner Martin clarified that this comes under the definition of necessary facility under the tax laws. John Huebinger said by following that advice, they reduced the taxes. He also commented that he was in favor of what Ron was doing and believed there was a lot of pluses as far as the golf course and the intersection at Hwy. 82. He also believes that the majority of people support this project. Mike Deer, 516 Traver Trail- Glenwood Spgs. Commented in favor of the Rose Ranch Sketch Plan PUD. 1) It's been mentioned before that what this developer has for improvements to Hwy. 82 is real necessary and if it was up to the State and County to accomplish this, it would be a long time in coming; and 2) he has an interest in property in Teller Springs, and in driving on County Road 109 at the Hardwick Bridge, he certainly favors the proposal to include straightening the curve above that bridge. He summarized this was an opportunity to see a development by a developer that is 'impact sensitive' and has tried to address those fairly and honestly. He feels this meets the long range plans. Mike made reference to the Los Amigos Ranch and the request for individual septic tanks and the Board had indicated this was not appropriate and felt there should be an enlargement of the existing sewer system. When Aspen Glen went in, a plan was placed into effect including easements across Teller Springs for a sewer district anticipating growth at the Rose Ranch. Mike on the Golf Course: The City of Glenwood spent a considerable amount trying to do a golf course and did a feasibility study for the Wulfshon Ranch. Mike supported this strongly but the taxpayers in this community led by a group that didn't believe it was feasible for the municipality to be in that business and voted it down. But the need for a public course was established. The method of paying for it - the people said, we don't want to use our tax money for a public golf course, so let's let the private sector do this. Ron is proposing to do this and provide 18 holes of public golf by the private sector for the public and this is what the voters were telling us when they had that issue before them. He urged the Commissioners to approve this sketch plan for this project. Greg Rippy - 0213 Creekside Court - Westbank Ranch. Greg said that 10 years ago he was out on Hwy. 82 along with C -DOT as they did the turn lanes for Orison Distributing. At that time he asked about the possibility of getting some turn lanes onto Hwy. 82 from County Road 154. C -DOT commented they needed that badly and acknowledged it was a bad intersection but the lack of money was holding them back. This intersection needs to be upgraded now. He was therefore in favor of the project and proposal that includes addressing that intersection. He also easement will be created on the East bank of the Roaring Fork River and 6 acres were identified in that regard. Ron clarified the area by showing on the drawings before the Board. Tim Thulson on the issue of required 10% affordable housing on site said that Victoria has acknowledged that the Planning Commission did not require that as a condition of approval. Tim stated they specified at approval that there would be: $1,000 per unit to the Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housing Fund; $1,000 per unit to the Carbondale Affordable Corporation; and $200 to the Garfield County Housing Authority and these fees were to be paid upon approval at final plat. They have made a commitment to the Committee for Future Housing for Tomorrow an additional $1,000 per unit however that would be made a building permit. Ron - addressed the Affordable Housing issue and said several groups were involved and when the project was offered to the various groups, many stated that it offered a variety of things that they were unable to do in the past. Ron clarified that the project would provide the funds and the individual entities would need to decide how they were going to use the funds. Affordable Housing issues were discussed by various individuals. Closing Remarks: Victoria Giannola, in summary, presented her argument for a continuance of this PUD in order for her to meet with the developer and discuss the possibilities and modifications to the plan to help meet everyone's needs that has been heard in this Public Hearing. At an absolute minimum she agreed with the remarks made by Ralph Jones that this does not meet at least one of the pressing needs in the County and that is housing on site. She argued that even though the developer is offering money, the County will not be buying property between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs due to it being affordable. There is a chance that property could be purchased in New Castle or further West; however this doesn't help meet the needs that Bob Young, Calvin Lee and Mark Gould have voiced to the Board. There is a need for employees to be close to their operation. Don DeFord mentioned that other than just minor adjustments, anything that re -adjusts the densities that have been proposed as part of the Sketch Plan and PUD that would significantly alter the open space or the common elements including the golf course needs to be done now because if it is done later it requires a literal amendment to a PUD plan and a full public hearing. In terms of some of the conditions that the Planning Commission placed on their approval (these comments are only if the Board elects to go forward), phasing has not really been addressed either by the Planning Commission or by discussion in front of the Board. The developer has proposed a phasing plan that from his perspective is not real clear at least in one aspect and that is the Preliminary Plan. As he has recommended with all PUD's he thinks the Preliminary Plan, if the Board goes forward to that process, must be submitted at one time and not in phases. Otherwise, you don't have integrated planning that's required by the County's code. Also through the phasing plan the Board has heard and made comments about the intersection with Hwy. 82 and County Road 109 and various responses were made by Rose Ranch's engineer concerning this intersection. In some manner Don said he thinks this needs to be addressed for the safety of the public and at what point that would have to be controlled intersection. The State Highway Department has their position as to when this becomes a signaled controlled intersection. This Board also has safety concerns that they have to protect and so the Board can at least interject their position through this planning process. Procedurally, Don pointed out to the Board that if they have legal inquiries, and only legal inquiries, the Board is entitled to request an Executive Session in order for him to provide that advice. Additional discussion was held on: wetlands, geological concerns; location of golf holes; open space; drainage issues onto County Road 109; visual corridor; building heights; and sewer taps and capacity - EQR's. Don DeFord on sewer taps and capacity in the district: Don stated the sewer district also has commitments to other properties and the reason he mentioned preliminary plan is because at that point that there has to be a lawful source of sewer and the first -serve first come in theory, may create some risks. The Board would not want to be in the position of looking at a preliminary plan and going through that approval process and then have an intervening project. He stated this to support his comment that some assurance was needed by the district that adequate EQR's • • Cr if the access can not be acquired. That means there has to be a change in the PUD. So we continue the process. It's expensive for the applicant; it's expensive for the staff and our time. Access if one of the clearest things that has to be presented on any land use issue. If there is no access we should not go forward. We should secure that access and then move forward with our plans. We can talk about it and put it out there but until we secure access it really is just a dream. To start reality and start the process we have our access and know we can get to our property and develop what we dream. This is why I proposed that we go back and re -visit this and he things it is just impossible to really evaluate, truly evaluate what can happen in a PUD if we don't have access. Chairman Smith - said that she does agree with Commissioner Martin with access and thinks that we do need to know that we have legal access from a public road for a PUD. PUD's were set up to be able to (Eric did address a point - "PUD's were set up for a higher standard with encouraging innovative planning and land use".) She agreed to go back to make this as tight as possible. This is not just about Sander's Ranch - this is not her concept. Access is in the forefront of her mind since we have spent an hour or more discussing access today in an earlier dispute. These can be very emotional issues. Discussion included the fact that neither Chairman Smith nor Commissioner Martin were talked specifically about Sander's Ranch. They reiterated this fact several times. Commissioner McCown added that he didn't see how the Board could say they weren't talking about Sander Ranch because this very wording was changed at Mr. Hanlon's request to allow them to proceed with this development while RFRHA was deciding what they were going to do and how they were going to control the land in our valley. Chairman Smith agreed that it was, but it has broader implications all up and down the valley and that was the point she was trying to make. Commissioner Martin reiterated that he made comments that it wasn't just about one PUD or one application, what it amounts to is that we have numerous one that the Board will be considering in the future and need to be prepared for that. We need to take the lead on our own land use, make the decisions and others can put their rules in place because ours are. Findings: Don said that each Commissioner has stated their positions for those opinions, I would think at this point that Mark could prepare findings. Mark agreed he could. Don added if the Board could provide in their motion to give directions to the staff to prepare a Resolution consistent with these statements of the Board and then bring that back to the Board for review. Commissioner Martin said he would go ahead and amend his motion to include that. Commissioner McCown - amended his second. Vote on the Motion: Smith - aye; Martin - aye; McCown - no. A date and time was set to consider the findings. September 8 was set at 10:00 A.M. 1 4 September 8, 1998 FINAL CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION ROSE RANCH - DISCUSSION Don DeFord, Tim Thulson and Victoria Giannola were present and Don presented that Victoria was directed to put together a Resolution that included all the findings and conditions that the Board imposed as part of the hearing process on Rose Ranch. Victoria has put together a final draft that was presented to the Board for review. This was put together after actual consideration of the transcript prepared by the Court Reporter as well as the Minutes from the Clerk & Recorder's Office. Tim Thulson has had a brief opportunity to review this. Victoria went through the Final Draft of the Resolution for Rose Ranch page by page. • Discussion was held on the various points, one being the golf course and a consensus was made on the L Tim said they would be addressed in the Preliminary Plan. The approved wording on the golf was approved to read - '"The golf course operations shall have an affordable play component for Garfield County residents and a discounted green fee. The applicant shall propose a method of establishing the operations as part of the preliminary plan submittal." on stated with the changes as discussed Victoria can proceed to make those and bring the Resolution back to the Board of signature. Commissioner McCown so moved. Commissioner Martin seconded the motion but also reminded everyone that this was the biggest and most visible subdivisions to date. Vote taken: Smith - Aye; McCown - Aye; Martin - Nay. September 8, 1998 Chairman Smith reiterated that the total mill levy is a little over 13 for all county functions. Therefore, there was no slack. The Rose Ranch planned unit development was just approved_td will be one development that is adding a public golf source and will be allowing county residents to play at a reduced green fee. All the conservation trust dollars go into the Fairgrounds. August 17, 1998 April 20, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: (1) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND (2) PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBDIVISION REVIEW Ed Green, Don DeFord, Victoria Giannola, Tim Thulsonand Sally Vagneur. Don determined that notification and publication was in order and advised the Commt`ssionets they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Martin accepted the letter of April 16, 1999. Victoria Giannola submitted a letter of Request for reschedule for the Board of County Commissioners Hearing upon the Application of Roaring Fork Investments, LLC for combined Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment. The applicant requested a date set for May 4, 1999. Victoria submitted the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Notification and Exhibit B - Letter dated April 16, 1999 to continue. Chairman Martin admitted the Exhibits A & B. Tim Thulson stated the extension was a joint agreement as they wanted to supplement the application with a few issues. The extension will put them beyond the limits and the applicant is willing to consent this Don DeFord requested a decision by May 6, 1999 in order to render a decision and have all the paper work in order. Commissioner McCown made a motion to continue until May 4, 1999 at 1:30 P.M. Chairman Martin stepped down from the Chair to second the motion; carried. May 4, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: (1) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND (2) PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBDIVISION REVIEW (1) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Welcome to the Roaring Forrlub • Page 1 of 1 A .on• ate golf and fishing cc1ub rabic :c:onimiinity along the barks of �1~aslt,CQoo _• • Jack Nicklaus Sign at•tsrp C ours e • Hand -H ewn LogCabins • Gold Me dal Fly -Fishing Roaring Fork Club • 100 Arbaney Ranch Road • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 970.927.9000 Q 2000, Schwener Design Group and Roaring Fork Club. Site Powered by Intrcomm Technology's SMC Web Processor http://www.roarineforkclub.netl 914/2003 Membership • • Page 1 of 2 Letter from Managing Partner The Great Camp Golf c'3t Fain Gam & Suites Cvnserration Culture Membership Mere are few places where we can truly experience. at once, the simple pleasures of family, friendship, nature and sport. It pleases mc immensely to help create one such place where the honest pursuit of these pleasures occurs so easily. I believe these gracious traditions will endure for many generations to come at the Roaring Fork Club." tsdk4. e4 bevel f16t t# i ,Atatiiikp(A f 7A 6.& Rs tti l f nr4 Clash Meikimrhifr For its -small group of Members,e RoarinFork Club is.a private, intimate community where lifelong friendships are formed and generations of families may reunite. Mixing the time-honored traditions of golf and fishing with a relaxed and elegant mountain retreat, the Roaring Fork Club rises to new heights in the world of prestigious clubs. Members will find the pace refreshingly unhurried, the environment beautifully unspoiled, and the atmosphere simply uncrowded. With an abundance of amenities and services, Members can expect unparalleled quality and rejuvenation. Membership Types htto://www.roaringforkcluh.net/sitenacresinid4f nhn The Story • • Page 1 of 2 Letter from Managing Partner` The Grear Camp Golf & Fishing Cabins & Suites C anstrration & Culture Membership —1Iutis always best wia ch gives me to m clf." '-the CitItipx When Roaring Fork Club developers Jim Light, Jim Chaffin and David Wilhelm walked the 282 acres of ranchlands and ever that would become the Roaring Fork Club, their vision began to evolve. They wanted to create a unique golf and fishing experience in an environment that fostered family traditions and neighborly interaction...Jnlike other_private golf courses that focused heavily on real estate, this invitation -only club would feature a limited number of well -crafted log cabins and suites for members' lodging. Their inspiration: the Great Camps of the Adirondacks and genteel porch societies of the last century. Naturally, they envisioned a golf course of the highest quality, and hence, invited the best in the business to work his magic on the land. The resulting 18 hole Jack Nicklaus Signature Course blends effortlessly into the lush mountain valley terrain and provides a fortunate few the unhurried pleasure of a challenging game. Understanding that traditions, like heirlooms, should be passed from one LIZA, C generation to another, the three men sought to create an unparalleled AAA' C experience for anglers, young and old. With a healthy stretch of the famed Roaring Fork River already meandering through the property, they commissioned a spring fed creek, a fishery and nine well -stocked ponds. Almost a fairy tale come true, the Roaring Fork Club is a magical blend of rustic simplicity and refinement, spectacular wilderness and cultivated society set 16 miles west of Aspen in the charming mountain town of Basalt. http://www.roaringforkclub.netlsitet,a2es/nid41.nho Qa4Onnf River Valley Ranch's Grand0 ening--Rockies Golf Daily river valley ranch aspen golf vail Page 1 of 4 1 ex.= Search Here - DEPARTzteNts • Home • Course Reviews • Feature Stories • Course Guide • Golf Packagers • Golf Gear • Women's Goff • Instruction • Advertise Here Travel Tools Rod • Golf Packages • Colorado Golf Courses • Wyoming Golf Courses • Montana G ifurses • New Mexico Golf Courses • Colorado Golf Property • Montana Golf Property • Message Board STtNATICfi `lGUIDES Canada • Alberta Golf • British Columbia Goff • Okanagan • Vancouver • Vancouver Island • Whistler • Ontario Golf • Muskoka • Niagara • Toronto • Quebec Golf Colorado • Colorado Springs • Steamboat Springs • Boulder County Florida Golf Vacations -866-34g- Course 866 ung Orlando, Jacksonville, Naples__ and rna, Course Reviews Course Guide Feature Stories Golf Packages COURSE REVIEW River Valley Ranch's Grand Opening By Armee B. White Rockies Golf Daily Contributing Writer Carbondale, Colo. - River Valley Ranch in Carbondale, Colo., officially opened July 17th. Residents from throughout Colorado turned out for the grand opening of this, the newest public golf course in the Roaring Fork Valley. Located just 30 miles north of Aspen, River Valley Ranch is being dubbed the best new public course in Colorado by many golfers. In terms of scenery, this Jay Morrish -designed, championship course happens to have 13,000 ft. Mt. Sopris looming over the back nine and the Crystal River dashing through holes 1, 8, 10 and 18. The course also offers challenging play. QColorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses 'From the back tees, this golf course will definitely challenge the best of golfers,' says Ken Everett, general manager of the club. "Yet, with the large Greens and variety of tees, golfers of all levels should enjoy the layout. Jay (Morrish) describes it best when he says 'if a player becomes lost in his thoughts while viewing the mountains, there are several holes that will jolt him back to reality.' Jay Morrish, Golf World Magazine's 1996 Architect of the Year and the River Valley Ranch course designer, offered a few tips on how to play the new greens. If you hit the ball between the hazard and the middle of the fairway, you'll be rewarded on the course,' he promised. "There are no death sentences here." River V Ile Ra h is the latest golf course to open in the Roaring Fort V I y. an area known for its go1#_c_os.tLse exctu vity and high-priced, private club m erships. The Valley is home to only one other public course, spen Municipal, while it is_ rimmtng courses, Maroon Creek Club, Aspen Glen, Snowiness Lodge and Club and the now, Roaring Fork Club. Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses Colorado golf courses River Valley Ranch golf course developer, Steven Crown, CEO of Crown Golf Properties of Chicago, hopes that the of ubli • olf c http:1/www.rocki esgolf.com/white5.htm in the Roaring Fork Valley, such as River Valley Ranch, willincr-ease-h.e..number_o off v.cationers in the Aspen area. 1 hope other (local, private) courses go public," remarked Crown, "The more public courses eo• le have to • la on, the more likely peop e will plan golf vacations Frf We find tl 9/4/2003 • Robert J. Snyder 661 Delores Circle Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81611 970-945-1046 RECE VED )Eh September 24, 2003 John Martin, County Commissioner 109 8`h Street Ste. 300 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Re: Ironbridge Land Use Application Dear Commissioner Martin; 2003 I received notice of the upcoming land use hearing concerning certain changes that the Ironbridge/Lehman Bros. group has requested of Garfield County. I would like to enter into the record my comments and concerns. • Under no circumstances should any changes to the conditions governing the heron protection area Those rules were imposed for good reason and should remain without question. • Relocation of trails and parks. The only trail that I can understand being relocated is moving the bike path along 109 road to the east side of the road. Given the layout and how the east side of 109 road has been landscaped this makes complete sense. All of the other trails and parks should remain in the locations that were agreed to in the earlier approvals. • Employee housing. As a neighbor 1 am not an enthusiastic supporter of the on-site employee housing units but I also understand and accept the need for employee housing as an original condition of approval of this project. 1 would be supportive of relocating the employee housing off-site but not so they can increase the number of free market units on site. My final issue with this project and this application goes much deeper that the three issues 1 addressed above. When the is project was going through the original approval process, the applicant at the time, Ron Heggemeir and his group represented that the golf course was going to be a privately owned -publicly accessible course modeled after River Valley Ranch or Canterbury Crossing which is located in Parker that the applicant had developed. As a golfer 1 was aware of both projects and thought that it would be a good thing to exchange the poorly designed and maintained West Bank Golf Course for a first rate public course. Because of this representation during the original approval process 1 had no adverse comment because what was being proposed appeared to be a good thing for our neighborhood and the citizens of the valley. Now the golf course is complete. We endured the dust and dirt from construction for nearly four years and we are now told that the course will be a private course and if we want to join the price is $45,000.04. As 1 understand from my attendance at the hearings during the initial approval of this project is that this developer was allowed to use the open space from the purchased nine holes from the old West Bank Course in their open space calculations even though this open space had been already counted as open space in the original West Bank development that was approved in the early 1970's. The rationale given for this double use was the developer was going to create this first rate public course for the citizens of Garfield County. The current ownership of the project has stated that the reason they need to convert to this private club is they spent too much money to create the golf course. Their current answer to the public accessibility is that they will provide one tee time six days a week. Their answer as to how they got to that number is that is what the Maroon Creek Club and the Roaring Fork Club provides to the residents of Aspen and Basalt. Again, as a golfer who is familiar with both of those two clubs, such limited play translates to no public play at all as the perception is the club is private and non-members can't play the course. As to their argument that they spent too much money to build the course, the applicant represented in the first approval process that is what they were going to do, build a first class golf course in exchange for the approvals to create the density that was requested in their application. By building such a nice course the applicant was doing only what they were contractually obligated to do as their part of the deal. The homeowners association that 1 belong to, Westbank Mesa Homeowners Association was in negotiations with the developer this past winter to see if we could secure some type of an agreement as to where members of our homeowners association could get some type of season pass or other access to the course. After a series of meetings and negotiations we were offered a very limited access deal that was only good for a couple of years until they sold out their memberships. This deal was contingent upon the board of directors endeavoring to keep members of Westbank Mesa quiet during any future proceedings before your Board. This type of business conduct is nothing less than outrageous and this type of conduct offends me. 1 do not know what type of leverage the County Commissioners have on this issue but 1 feel our community has been double crossed on the golf course issue. 1 do not know what ended up in the final approval document but what is currently going on was not what the applicant represented when this was first submitted. Thank you in advance for addressing this issue when this applicant comes before you. • 60 piti,DimpAdou#10-1\101 otet pidtviihylaAtil %to The" eighteen (1 8) hole golf course proposed within the Rose Ranch PUD will be owned bya private for-profit entity. Management of the course may take the form of self management by the entity or a private management company may be employed to manage the course. The golf course will have private memberships, public memberships and daily green fees at the inception of play. The rates for each of these fee components will be determined after final construction costs and operational costs are determined for the golf course. Limited play is anticipated to begin in the year 2000. There will be acl_af__ fordable play component for the daily green fees for residents of Garfield County. The Applicant anticipates that the local affordable play component pricing to be significantly lower than the daily green fees to be c arge� ou -o aunty la ers. The oca play component should be between 25% and 50% below the out -of -County daily green fees. Pursuant to appropriate deed restriction, golf course operations shall be: A. responsible for the operation and maintenance of the gate restricting access to the golf cart path accessing holes 15 - 18, located on the upper basin; and B, subject to compliance with the provisions contained within the reports prepared by Environmental & Turf Services, Inc. titled, Part 1: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan (dated August 31, 1998) and Management Plan and Risk Assessment for the Rose Ranch Golf Course, Part 2: Water Ouality Risk Assessment (dated July 10, 1998), including but not limited to the following: 1. Part I: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, Pages IV -1 - IV -10, addressing the use of native vegetation requiring less water consumption (required under Paragraph D. 9., Page 9 of 15, Board of -Commissioner Resolution No. 98-80). 2. Part I: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Pian, Pages IV -89 - IV -102 and Part II: Water Quality Risk Assessment, Section IX. Comparison of Modeling Results with Empirical Results, Section X. Conclusions and Section XI. Mitigation Measures, addressing the monitoring of surface water quality and the restriction of pesticide and fertilizer use (required under Paragraph D.16. Page 9 of 15, Board of Commissioner Resolution No. 98-80). 3. Part I: The Rose Ranch Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, Pages IV -129 - IV -137, addressing the practices to minimize watering, optimizing fertilizer usage and the use of sand filters and grass swales for the golf course (required under Paragraph E.21. b., Page 13 of 15, Board • Assuming it meets the basic requirements, (Mark reported that this PUD has been received in his office as of last Thursday) and he, Don and Eric will review the application for completeness to determine referral to the Planning Commission before the Commissioners on August 4. The first thing necessary is for the applicants to sign an agreement recognizing their filing time does not start until a certain time and what they have said thus far is that if this is a complete application and depending upon the Board's referral on August 4, the 120 days will start when the Building and Planning is required to make a decision. Discussion was held regarding closure on the land acquisition or if they were doing the option. Mark stated closing was tomorrow. Technically the applicants are Jim Rose, Ross Jeffrey, and an entity The Roaring Fork Holding Company. The interesting part is they do have an 11 hole golf course in this application but it does not include Westbank course. However, the Building and Planning understand the purchase of Westbank golf course is part of their proposal. Westbank is a 9 hole course. September 2, 1997 CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE QF ROSE RANCH APPLICATION Don DeFord stated he had and Victoria Giannola had an opportunity to meet with the applicant and their representatives at some length. Prior to that meeting, Victoria prepared a detailed memorandum reviewing the application and among the items she noted were those things lacking in terms of completeness. We discussed those items, reached some agreements on what additional material would be submitted and Victoria has a position to state both in writing and verbally to the Board at this time. A letter from Mr. Ronald Heggemeier of Roaring Fork Investment, L.L.C. was submitted to the Board, Victoria Giannola, a senior planner with Garfield County Building and Planning Department, stating she had reviewed the Rose Ranch Application last week and met with the applicant and consultants to discuss a number of items that were found to be deficient and which would have led to a recommendation of incomplete before the Board today. The applicant and consultants were able to address those six items which are listed on the letter she handed out. They submitted those supplements to the application on Friday of last week and she reviewed them and completed her review this morning and determined that those six items have been adequately addressed so that she can proceed with the application in order to make a recommendation as to either approval, disapproval, or continuance. So there is sufficient information for her to proceed at this point. Commissioner McCown clarified that by the applicant meeting conditions 1 - 6 this application is complete. Victoria confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Martin clarified that these items were addressed after she had taken on the project, Victoria confirmed that was correct. Victoria stated the nature of the application has changed somewhat in order for us to consider complete and the major change has been the removal of the primary access to the site which was the preference for the applicant. The reason for this was the applicant at this point and time does not have rights of access or ownership to that particular property. So in lieu of that they are showing what would have been their secondary choice in terms of access which they do own the property itself. This changes the application somewhat. They are also instead of showing a specified number of golf holes, some of which would have been located off-site are now showing a general golf area all contained on-site but are not specifying the number of golf holes. The EXHIBIT FF • units are 354 single family and duplex in addition to the golf course and the other recreational amenities. Commissioner McCown - until these changes were made, did you consider the application incomplete? Victoria - correct. Don stated the next step in the process as Victoria has indicated in her letter is we need some agreement with the applicant on time frame and really what we need is a recognition of the 120 day review period. The applicant's attorney is present and did not know if the Commissioners had a chance to consider this at all. At any event, the project should move forward under our regulations with or without a specific written agreement. It should be referred to the Planning Commission at this point if the Board is willing to accept Victoria's recommendation on completeness. Commissioner McCown moved to accept the application and refer it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Martin seconded; carried. Don stated there was some discussion and a need for an engineer. Victoria will need this right away. Victoria stated that Don Elliott has agreed to meet with her. He is a planner and an attorney from Clarion which is based in Denver. Don stated Clarion was a planning group in Denver well known throughout the state and done a number of presentations. Mr. Elliott is an attorney but he primarily a planner. He is not an engineer. Don stated two things were needed: one would be a planner to assist Victoria when she thought she needed assistance which is perhaps a more limited role than the engineer. Commissioner McCown clarified that the applicant is in turn billed for time by the Engineer as we will have to go out of town to ... Don stated based upon the history of this project that was his recommendation. Victoria stated although she has not spoken with the gentlemen, her recommendation would be John Vanger out of Eagle County. The Board directed Victoria to speak to him and if he was unavailable it was also okay for her to proceed with Don Elliott for planning and to be sure he did not have a conflict of interest. Lastly, Don stated, while Victoria was present, he had done a memo on the Rose Ranch which he hasn't reviewed with Victoria but did with Mark to make sure the factual statements set forth in this memo were accurate. It really is a resuscitation of the events and difficulties already discussed today and stated that Victoria has prepared some very detailed memorandums on the meeting we have had to date with the applicant. Commissioner McCown questioned the need for this. Don commented it was mainly to have a statement in file. Chairman Smith stated if this was the case then the Board should accept it for the file. Don stated he would have the cc's stricken. September 8, 1997 Don stated that for Preliminary Plan which is the more technical review we have someone on board. Victoria is the one requesting engineering assistance. In terms of the Rose Ranch, the applicant will be paying for that. Mark stated it was within the Commissioner's authority and resolution that the Board adopted for preliminary plan the applicant can be billed for fees and other fees in association with the plan. Don stated this topic has already been introduced to the applicant and they have no objections within reasonable limits. Mr. Thulson and Mr. Delaney are the attorneys and High County Engineering. They are not the only engineers however on this project. Don stated the project also calls for a hydro -engineer and therefore recommended looking for a company that has this in their background as well. The water and sewer issues are not as significant on this project. They go through Teller Springs Subdivision. The Planner • Don stated that both he and Victoria have been searching for Planners outside of this valley. Victoria contacted Chris Durkson from Clarion Associates in Denver who does a lot of consulting with municipalities and counties. They do not consult in the private sector. They are a very good firm and very expensive, The firm is comprised of individuals who are both attorneys and planners. They have access to engineers by contract. Chris is the contact that Victoria can contact when she needs help. His rates are $160.00/hr. Don added he didn't anticipate Victoria needing extensive review help. It's when she runs into issues particularly on Colorado planning issues. The consultant can advise her this is what you see in the State, this is what the applicant is telling us about the design, their standards, this is what I've seen and where we are on this. We have some issues now on street alignments and the requirements of our Comp Plan. Victoria looks at this and asks Don what does the County do in this area. Don stated he shouldn't be advising her on that as this is not his area of expertise. Chairman Smith stated another source is the Engineer's Association of Planners; Nan Johnson at Boulder who has done some work in this area and works for Boulder County; and possibly other Counties that may have an engineer who could put in some hours for us. Also the engineer Mike Block from Golden was pulled in during the seepage issue in Castle Valley. Don summarized that the Board would like them to try further to find an engineer. He will advise Victoria to look further and bring this back to the Board next meeting. Don stated the time frame for Victoria, if she gets the last of the information, then she will submit the information to all the reviewing agencies next week. November 10, 1997 Rose Ranch Don reported that Victoria sent out her comments to the developers. They did withdrawn their application. Both the attorney and Mr. Heggermier will address Victoria's comments. Don said there will be a complete reset. January 26, 1998 Rose Ranch Don asked if the staff felt that anything was needed on the record. Eric commented there was various accusations flying around and a lot of concern for various lawsuits. Don commented he needs to advise of the County's position. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Martin regarding the Rose Ranch PUD Application and allow full participation of the entire Building and Planning Staff as needed for the sake of integrated planning within the County; carried. Engineering Interviews Mark stated he will set up interview for the two parties for February 11. The Board will sit in on the interviews. May 11, 1998 Rose Ranch Mark said the largest issue has previously been contracted with Wright Water Engineers and suggested to go forward the way it is. The Board agreed. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ZONE DISTRICT TEST AMENDMENT - SECTION 4.08.05(7)(f) and 4.09,01 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OF 1978 AS AMENDED • Don DeFord and Mark Bean were present. Don determined that adequate notification was given and advised the Board they could continue. Chairman Smith swore in the speakers. Mark presented the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Proof of Publication and Exhibit B - Memo to Board of County Commissioners from the Planning Commission Dated August 11, 1998. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibits A & B for the record, Mark read into the record a letter from Eric McCafferty and asked that it be entered as Exhibit C. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibit C for the record. Mark stated that the Board of County Commissioners referred a proposed amendment to the Planning Commission that would reverse the previous amendment to the PUJ) regulations regarding "legal access" to a proposed PUD. This proposed change would remove the previously approved language and revert back to the previous language. At the July 8th Planning Commission they recommended approval of the proposed text amendments, As with past proposals, the language in italics is to be deleted from the present regulations: 4,08.05 (7)(f) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to a PUD and/or documentation demonstrating that access will be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access will be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way, and 4.09 DEVELOPMENT IN STAGES 4.09.0I The applicant must begin development of the PUI) within one year from the time of its final zone change approval provided, however, that the PUD may be developed in stages and the Board may approve the commencement of development activity beyond one (I) year consistent with 4.08.05 (7)0 of this resolution. The applicant must complete the development of each stage and of the PUD as a whole in substantial compliance with the development schedule approved by the County Commissioners. In no case shall commencement of development of a PhD be extended beyond Iwo (2) years from the original date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff Comment: At the time this language was changed, staff did not concur with the proposed change for a number of reasons. Should the County be approving PUD's that do not have proven legal access for the proposed uses? The Comprehensive Plan was developed prior to the acquisition of the railroad right-of-way and the possible limitations or modifications of access were of record. Discussion was held among the Board members. Public Input included: Jim Lockhead - representing Sanders Ranch Holdings said he was in a Iarge decree of confusion with the proposed change and described Sanders Ranch Holdings as feeling very much like a ping pong ball which is about to whacked back to RFRHA. The change that is proposed is not something where there has been a demonstrated problem and in fact if it is adopted feels it would create significant problems for Sanders Ranch. By adopting this proposal, they are putting Sanders Ranch into a Catch 22 position between RFRHA and the County as to which approvals are required by whom first. Not knowing the type of development being proposed, there is nothing for RFRhIA to look at. Practically, in terms of the County's planning codes and what makes sense in terms of what is before the Board in any given application, it seems to him that the potential problems with TeKeKi and the lime limits raised in Eric McCafferty's letter is taken care of in the wording of the existing regulations as they are set now. The problem has not been identified. There are other requirements in the County regulations and this is not required in other re -zonings. Also the PUD regulations do not require that you have a vested water supply, nor a vested right for sewer system established, nor all the off-site easements for water, sewer, and utility pipelines and it seems to him that access is in the same category. Eric McCaffertv's letter raises a number of issues that he feels are some uncertainties and what he calls a "moving target" if the regulation is not changed. Again, he stated he feels this can be handled under the existing regulation i.e. an application would come in with a PUD Plan, they would show a proposed access location, the physical issues associated with that access could be addressed, the traffic issues with that access can also be addressed, the approval by definition is contingent on acquiring access before any subdivision or lots are sold. If that access point changes or anything else, then the developer would have to come back and amend the PUD Plan. Therefore, he didn't feel like it was a moving target at all by regulation as it is worded right now. If the Board does change this as proposed by staff, you are knocking the ping pong ball back to RFRHA and really delegating the land use responsibilities to RFRI-IA because it forces Sanders Ranch to go back and deal with RFRHA. There may be an access point that doesn't fit with the PUD Plan that you might approve and then that would create the need to come back here again. Really, they are asking for a set of rules to live by and this is an inadequate and unfair rule and requirement and do not see any reason that it needs to be changed. • Don DeFord and Mark Bean were present. Don determined that adequate notification was given and advised the Board they could continue. Chairman Smith swore in the speakers. Mark presented the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Proof of Publication and Exhibit B - Memo to Board of County Commissioners from the Planning Commission Dated August 11, 1998. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibits A & B for the record. Mark read into the record a letter from Eric McCafferty and asked that it be entered as Exhibit C. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibit C for the record. Mark stated that the Board of County Commissioners referred a proposed amendment to the Planning Commission that would reverse the previous amendment to the PUD regulations regarding "legal access" to a proposed PUD. This proposed change would remove the previously approved language and revert back to the previous language. At the July 8th Planning Conunission they recommended approval of the proposed text amendments. As with past proposals, the language in italics is to be deleted from the present regulations: 4.08.05 (7)(f) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to a PUD and/or documentation demonstrating that access will be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access will be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way; and 4,09 DEVELOPMENT IN STAGES 4.09.01 The applicant must begin development of the PUD within one year from the time of its final zone change approval provided, however, that the PUD may be developed in stages and the Board may approve the commencement of development activity beyond one (1) year consistent with 4.08.05 (7, of this resolution. The applicant must complete the development of each stage and attic PUD as a whole in substantial compliance with the development schedule approved by the County Commissioners. In no case shall commencement of development of a PUD be extended beyond two (2) years from the original date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff Comment: At the time this language was changed, staff did not concur with the proposed change for a number of reasons. Should the County be approving PUD's that do not have proven legal access for the proposed uses? The Comprehensive Platt was developed prior to the acquisition of the railroad right-of-way and the possible limitations or modifications of access were of record. Discussion was held among the Board members. Public Input included: Jim Lockheed - representing Sanders Ranch Holdings said he was in a large decree of confusion with the proposed change and described Sanders Ranch Holdings as feeling very much like a ping gong ball which is about to whacked back to RFRHA. The change that is proposed is not something where there has been a demonstrated problem and in fact if it is adopted feels it would create significant problems for Sanders Ranch. By adopting this proposal, they are putting Sanders Ranch into a Catch 22 position between RFRHA and the County as to which approvals are required by whom first. Not knowing the type of development being proposed, there is nothing for RFRHA to look at. Practically, in terms of the County's planning codes and what makes sense in terms of what is before the Board in any given application, it seems to him that the potential problems with TeKeKi and the time limits raised in Eric McCafferty's letter is taken care of in the wording of the existing regulations as they are set now. The problem has not been identified. There are other requirements in the County regulations and this is not required in other re -zonings. Also the PUD regulations do not require that you have a vested water supply, nor a vested right for sewer system established, nor all the off-site easements for water, sewer, and utility pipelines and it seems to him that access is in the same category. Eric McCafferty's letter raises a number of issues that he feels are some uncertainties and what he calls a "moving target" if the regulation is not changed. Again, he stated he feels this can be handled under the existing regulation i.e. an application would come in with a PUD Plan, they would show a proposed access location, the physical issues associated with that access could be addressed, the traffic issues with that access can also be addressed, the approval by definition is contingent on acquiring access before any subdivision or lots are sold. If that access point changes or anything else, then the developer would have to come back and amend the PUD Plan. Therefore, he didn't feel like it was a moving target at all by regulation as it is worded right now. Utile Board does change this as proposed by staff, you are knocking the ping pong ball back to RFRHA and really delegating the land use responsibilities to RFRHA because it forces Sanders Ranch to go back and deal with RFRHA. There may be an access point that doesn't fit with the PUD Plan that you might approve and then that would create the need to come back here again, Really, they are asking for a set of rules to live by and this is an inadequate and unfair rule and requirement and do not see any reason that it needs to be changed. 1 Mark said in terms of other re -zonings, Mr. Lockhead is correct as there is no specific requirement to prove legal access, but arguably at the time of a rezoning this could be a basis for denial, but the regulation as it is now written, there really is no basis for denial based on an applicant not having a legal access. Typically a rezoning goes through three basic questions: 1) the original zoning was in error; 2) there's been a change in circumstances to justify the change in rezoning; and 3) or in the comprehensive plan is a forced rezoning. These are the three basic criteria. From a staff point of view this is correct that there is no specific requirement for access to another type of rezoning but it also could be used as a basis if chosen for denial whereas in the present language it doesn't provide that opportunity if that's the case. Jim Lockhead - again argued that a PCD is being held to a higher standard and a requirement saying you will get access within a two year period, and this is a demonstration that in fact you are going to proceed to do that. There was a memo that isn't part of the Exhibits but a Planning Commission Memo July 10 where issues of "taking" were raised and part of the basis that Planning and Zoning considered. Jim said they do not feel there is a "taking" issue associated with the existing language. Mark - said this was brought up and staff is not raising this issue. It was brought up and covered in the Planning meeting by legal representation from Sanders Ranch as being a non -issue. Staff acknowledged that those statements were probably incorrect and in discussions with the County Attorney's office determined it was not a part of this decision. George Hanlon - added that staff did not retract that statement, Don DeFord said it wasn't an issue; however it did influence the decision of the P & Z and one comment was that it could potentially create a lawsuit the County would have to fund. Mark -reiterated that the Board makes the decision. Brad Hendricks - There is an issue here in TeKeKi regarding the ability to sue for access. In the current wording - this allows for the condemnation for access. The current wording depending on what the Board has for pre -approval, and if the PUD was hinging on access then he thought access could be pursued through a lawsuit. Jim Lockhead said there is a lawsuit between RFRI-IA and Sanders Ranch regarding the access. That access in the lawsuit is necessary for existing zoning. If the County wants to, by changing its land use regulations, give potential leverage to RFRHA in that litigation then he felt they should be up front in that. Chairman Smith said that what was in front of the Board today, was the exact wording on the books until the Board amended it. Mark confirmed that was correct and it was a matter of going back to what was in the books in 1997. George Hanlon - reiterated that he does feel like a ping pong ball. He came to the Board 1 1/2 years ago and expressed the problem. At the Board's direction he went to P & Z and spent 4 months with P & Z. He said he sees in the staff comments that P & Z objected to that process and when it was finally approve unanimously by the P & Z they objected yet he never saw any staff comments negative that came to the Board. As it relates to condemnation, Colorado as a State can condemn a right to access. TeKeKi did not chose this route as they didn't want to pay the price, but if he decides he needs a 50' right-of-way or a 100' right-of-way, first he has to prove that he is in need of an access and secondly there is an evaluation process that establishes not only the value of the sand but any devaluation of adjacent property - which he also has to pay for. So if in fact he wants to free up private land for access, he would have to pay for it. The County regulation suddenly trying to say well we dont allow that is totally in opposition to the Constitution that it is a right for the private property owner to condemn away or condemn access for their property. Therefore, he has a right as a property owner in this State if he is landlocked to condemn access. Mark - responded that during the discussions, first off the 1997 changes were significant in the number and types of issues discussed - this was one of those discussed. Overall changes to the PUD regulations were significant and included a number of different ones. The is one of the issues that staff did not support. Walt Brown - commented that he was in favor of the Board passing the proposal. He said he had read Eric McCafferty's letter and concur in all respects. The language being deleted in this proposed action today says that you have to document - "documentation illustrating that access will be acquired within 2 years of PUD approval. It goes on to say that the access will be vested." There is quite a time frame included. On Constitutional Rights Walt said he didn't think Mr. Hanlon's rights were being abridged. The overwhelming issue that, after everything is said and done, if the regulation stays at it is, he thinks the Board will be embroiled in every access issue of every developer. Access is a basic thing and whoever is developing should come before a public body with access in hand. He therefore supported the action and encouraged the Board to approve the language proposed. 411 411 Don explained that the language and the purpose for it originally was directed at the railroad right-of-way. The Board also needs to keep in mind that they have other provisions in the PUD regulations they are not considering today that require the consent of the landowner prior to submittal of a PUD and when you look at the language as it currently exists and compare it to that requirement there really is a conflict. RFRHA is a landowner and whether it be for the Sanders Ranch property or any other property owner along this right-of-way to the extent that a PUD proposal requires use of RFRHA property as part of the PUD proposal, you really should have the consent of the landowner. So to the extent that it bounces it back to RFRHA, the landowner whose property is proposed is to be included in the PUD. Jim Lockhead said this is still confusing and it would seen to him that RFRHA is an adjoining landowner and not a landowner within the PUD of whose consent would be required and it seems to him that if this is the County's position and an off-site adjoining landowner consent is necessary for an off-site easement, then what you are doing is giving the adjacent landowner veto authority over easements that are acquired for any off-site infrastructures necessary for development. Don had comments - he said first of all RFRHA is an adjoining landowner to one extent but to the extent you are going to propose to use their property for a road that's within the PUD, that road is part of the PUD - it is included in it; secondly, off-site improvements - the Board does require the consent downers for off-site easements. This was included in the Sanders Ranch project where their proposed infrastructure was to cross private property for easements. The Board determined that all public input was obtained. A motion was made to close the public hearing by Commissioner Martin and seconded by Commissioner McCown; carried. L'xectdive Session- Legal Advice A motion was made to go into an Executive Session to obtain legal advice by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Martin; carried. A motion was made to come out of Executive Session by Commissioner lvlcCown and seconded by Commissioner Martin; carried. Commissioner Martin said he was the one that debated this issue and requested the Planning Commission to review their change in wording; this came back to the Board, staff supports it; so he made, a motion to go ahead and to accept the approved version of Planning and Zoning and staff in front of the Board changing it back to the original wording for Section 4.08.05 7F and 4.09-01 PUD Text Amendment. Commissioner McCown seconded it only for the purpose of discussion. Discussion Don DeFord stated the Board needed to include their findings in the decision. Commissioner McCown said that he doesn't feel that the situation has changed since we accepted this regulation. He said he didn't feel that the County is being put in jeopardy; there are dates certain included in the resolution and these regulations and he remembered the reasons for the Board doing this - it hasn't been that long ago. We did it for the specific purpose to allow an individual to proceed with the process rather than wait an a two year or lengthy comprehensive plan and we knew full well with the conditions listed here. We felt comfortable with it at the time and everyone had an opportunity to review it and he still does feel comfortable with it. Commissioner Martin -said he would have to comment that he never felt comfortable with it; that he debated with this issue; he even mentioned that it was the wrong move in legislation to go ahead with this; he compromised himself because there were many other issues in the changes of the PUD proposals and believed those were very important; and he indicated he would like to discuss this further and so he did and there has been a great deal of debate in the Planning Commission as well as this Board; this change and the request change is not directed toward any individual or any individual subdivision or PUD. What it amounts to is that we are trying to keep our rules straight forward, simple and a level playing surface. What it amounts to is he thinks it compromises the County's position and puts the staff in a difficult position in trying to interpret and wait for either a lawsuit to be resolved or to wait for a two year period of time, and allow us too much flexibility and change; and also adds to the cost of the PUD, if the access can not be acquired. That means there has to be a change in the PUD. So we continue the process. It's expensive for the applicant; it's expensive for the staff and our time. Access if one of the clearest things that has to be presented on any land use issue. If there is no access we should not go forward. We should secure that access and then move forward with our plans. We can talk about it and put it out there but until we secure access it really is just a dream. To start reality and start the process we have our access and know we can get to our property and develop what we dream. This is why 1 • proposed that we go back and re -visits and he things it is just impossible to really evaluate, Truly evaluate what can happen in a PUD if we don't have access. Chairman Smith - said that she does agree with Commissioner Martin with access and thinks that we do need to know that we have legal access from a public road for a PUD. PUD's were set up to be able to .... (Eric did address a point - "PUD's were set up for a higher standard with encouraging innovative planning and land use".) She agreed to go back to make this as tight as possible. This is not just about Sander's Ranch - this is not her concept. Access is in the forefront of her mind since we have spent an hour or more discussing access today in an earlier dispute. These can be very emotional issues. Discussion included the fact that neither Chairman Smith nor Commissioner Martin were talked specifically about Sander's Ranch. They reiterated this fact several times. Commissioner McCown added that he didn't see how the Board could say they weren't talking about Sander Ranch because this very wording was changed at Mr. Hanlon's request to allow them to proceed with this development while RFRHA was deciding what they were going to do and how they were going to control the land in our valley. Chairman Smith agreed that it was, but it has broader implications all up and down the valley and that was the point she was trying to make. Commissioner Martin reiterated that he made comments that it wasn't just about one PUD or one application, what it amounts to is that we have numerous one that the Board will be considering in the future and need to be prepared for that. We need to take the lead on our own land use, make the decisions and others can put their rules in place because ours are. Findings: Don said that each Commissioner has stated their positions for those opinions, 1 would think at this point that Mark could prepare findings. Mark agreed he could. Don added if the Board could provide in their motion to give directions to the staff to prepare a Resolution consistent with these statements of the Board and then bring that back to the Board for review. Commissioner Martin said he would go ahead and amend his motion to include that. Commissioner McCown - amended his second. Vote on the Motion; Smith - aye; Martin - aye; McCown - no. A date and time was set to consider the findings. September 8 was set at 10:00 A.M. September 8, 1998 FINAL CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION - ROSE RANCH - DISCUSSION Don DeFord, Tim Thulson and Victoria Giannola were present and Don presented that Victoria was directed to put together a Resolution that included all the findings and conditions that the Board imposed as part of the hearing process on Rose Ranch. Victoria has put together a final draft that was presented to the Board for review. This was put together after actual consideration of the transcript prepared by the Court Reporter as well as the Minutes from the Clerk & Recorder's Office. Tim Thulson has had a brief opportunity to review this. Victoria went through the Final Draft of the Resolution for Rose Ranch page by page. Discussion was held on the various points, one being the golf course and a consensus was made on the issues. Tim said they would be addressed in the Preliminary Plan. The approved wording on the golf was approved to read - "The golf course operations shall have an affordable play component for Garfield County residents and a discounted green fee. The applicant shall propose a method of establishing the operations as part of the preliminary plan submittal." Don stated with the changes as discussed 'Victoria can proceed to make those and bring the Resolution back to the Board of signature. Commissioner McCown so moved. Commissioner Martin seconded the motion but also reminded everyone that this was the biggest and most visible subdivisions to date. Vote taken: Smith - Aye; McCown - Aye; Martin - Nay. September 8, 1998 Chairman Smith reiterated that the total mill levy is a little over 13 for all county functions. Therefore, there was no slack. The Rose Ranch planned unit development was just approved aid will be one development that is adding a public golf source and will be aliowing county residents to play at a reduced green fee. All the conservation trust dollars go into the Fairgrounds. August 17, 1998 April 20, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: (1) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND (2) PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBDIVISION REVIEW Ed Green, Don DeFord, Victoria Giannoia, Tim Thulson and Sally Vagneur. Don determined that notification and publication was in order and advised the Commissioners they were entitled to proceed. Chairtnan Martin accepted the letter of April 16, 1999. Victoria Giannola submitted a letter of Request for reschedule for the Board of County Commissioners Hearing upon the Application of Roaring Fork Investments, LLC for combined Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment. The applicant requested a date set for May 4. 1999. Victoria submitted the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Notification and Exhibit B - Letter dated April 16, 1999 to continue. Chairman Martin admitted the Exhibits A & B. Tim Thulson stated the extension was a joint agreement as they wanted to supplement the application with a few issues. The extension will put them beyond the limits and the applicant is willing to consent this Don DeFord requested a decision by May 6, 1999 in order to render a decision and have all the paper work in order. Commissioner McCown made a motion to continue until May 4, 1999 at 1:30 P.M. Chairman Martin stepped down from the Chair to second the motion; carried. May 4, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: (1) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND (2) PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBDIVISION REVIEW (1) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Don DeFord, Victoria Giannola, Scott Balcomb, Tim Thulson Attorney for Rose Ranch, and Ron Heggemeier Developer were present. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Don DeFord mentioned this was the continuance of a hearing that was started previously. The notice issues have already been addressed for both the Planned Unit Development hearing and the Zone District Text and PUD amendments. Victoria presented the following additional Exhibits for the record: Exhibit C - Garfield County Zoning Resolution; Exhibit D - Garfield County Subdivision Regulations; Exhibit E - Garfield. County Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit F - Applicants submissions, attachments & supplements to date; Exhibit G - Staff report; Exhibit H - New letters received today from a concerned resident --Joanne Paine dated 5/4/99; and Exhibit t - letter from the County Weed Manager Steve Anthony who reviewed the golf course management plan dated 3/19/99. Chairman Martin entered Exhibits C -1 into the record. Ron Heggemeier, manager of the management firm introduced the speakers. Jim Delay, Land Planner gave the visual presentation. He also asked this to become part of the record as well. The PUD is a total 533 !r2 acres of land. The site analysis mapping established the framework for the original development. The PUD Amendment consists of accommodating the affordable housing and the clean up as a result of the approval of Resolution 98 -SO. They created a distinct boundary to accommodate the affordable housing units. There are no changes in the Westbank easements. The Golf Course II is the only addition and change in order to have the affordable housing. They added two acres of ground and takes the number of houses up to 322 total. Some of the acreage was reduced and the density was increased. Mitch Black gave the details as to the building height and some of the studies the firm completed. This was in response to the existing houses that might be affected by this development. There was only one that would hinder the view of Sopris Mountain. They did a 3-D topographical view of Mt. Sopris and compared this to a 25 foot home versus a 35 foot home. Staff suggested restrictions in area 3 - 9 on all the river lots to a 25 foot view. The others would have a 35 foot height restrictions. The lots with restricted set backs were pointed out on the visual display. Exhibit J - Rose Ranch Presentation; and Exhibit K - Rose Ranch PUD Application were submitted. Chairman Martin admitted Exhibit 3 and K into the record. • Ron Heggemeier said the staff report has several comments that he wanted to address, Those are found on pages 18, 19 and 20 of the staffs submittal. The first one is grading on slopes that are greater than 30%. Because of all of the other issues that they have had to address concerning the locations, geotechnical issues, etc. there are some grading that exceeds 30%. These occur in the water tank area and the water tank access road, the golf cart path wind up the gulch to upper golf holes and one of the other passes along County Road 109. Ron asked that they be allowed to exceed 30 degree slopes in these limited areas, The Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval of that requested amendment. Second of all deals with the setback from the river on the lots. All lots were therefore measured from the high water mark line and there was an amendment requested for seven lots. This was necessary for Joe 1-iope to be able to survey and the County can check the measurement. The third issues is regarding native vegetation and they were wanting to follow the grassing recommendation of the expert golf management. The Planning Commission also unanimously approved this clarification. The fourth item deals with the increased density due to the requirement of 10% affordable housing on-site. At the time of passing the motion made by the Commissioners, it was not clear if the 10% was to be included in the original density or if it could be added. They are not asking that it be added density from 292 to 322 units. These units are being requested as: 10 of those be inside the Club House Area; 20 be in the patio home area. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that 10 stay in the club House Area and 20 be allowed off-site if this Commission adopted regulations forthcoming from the Affordable Housing Committee that would accommodate off-site housing. Therefore, if the Commissioners do adopt those proposed regulations, Rose Ranch would proposed that 20 be off-site. Ron referenced Exhibit K that mentions all the amendments they are requesting today and asked that these issues be cleared for the record. On County Road 109 Ron mentioned that the Commissioners did approve any credit on the cost to straighten out the extreme curve on CR 109 toward the impact fee. Additionally, since they last appeared in front of this Board, King Lloyd has requested that they make certain other improvements to CR 109 which they have agreed to do. Those arc contained on page 11 of the staff report 3A - 3F. Ron asked that these additional improvements be allowed to be credited to them for their road impact fee as well. Exhibit L - the request made today by Rose Ranch showing that the first paragraph incorporates Exhibit K. Chairman Martin admitted Exhibit L into the record. Victoria stated that this is preliminary plan and amendment to the PUD review for the Rose Ranch application. Victoria briefly reviewed the staff report that included the review comments from various agencies, major issues and concerns, recommended findings and outstanding plan deficiencies. The applicant is proposing to amend a PUD which will consist of 322 units, including 171 single family dwellings, 74 duplex units, 47 club homes, ten rent restricted apartment, and twenty price restricted lots on a 440 acre tract. The site will also contain a golf course which will link with the West Bank golf facilities to create an eighteen hole golf course with associated facilities including a restaurant, a day care center, and a maintenance building. Additional recreational amenities are proposed including a fishing park, overlooks, trails, greenhouse, and garden plots. Recreational facilities are proposed such as a swimming pool, tennis courts, playground, and picnic area, Victoria noted for the record: the applicant has obtained of a water board approved augmentation plan -- this was a recent submittal. And the response at this point will be upon the County to obtain a letter from the State of Colorado Office of the Engineer for non -material injury. Chairman Martin read in to the record: "This memorandum, Steve Anthony comments on the Rose Ranch Golf Course Management Plan. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Rose Ranch Golf Course. My comments are as follows: On page 4 - 7 of the IGMCP, the applicant states that the wetland corridors will use the same seed mix as the secondary roughs. This mix includes four species that are introduced - crested wheat grass, hard festuca, smooth roam and red top. 1 would encourage the applicant to use native grass in the wetland corridor area. Lumagama is also listed in the seed mix and although a Colorado native, it does not grow real well on the western slope. On page 16 of the same report, the second paragraph stares that the contractor shall mulch all areas within an improved wheat or oat straw that is weed free. I suggest that the change read pay for straw certified by the Colorado Department of Agricultural as weed free. On page 4 24 of the same report, table 7 lists 26 broadleaf weeds however it neglects to mention 2 thistles that are very common in the area plumis thistle and scotch thistle.. Also Russian Knapweed may be a concern in the area and it is suggested that the applicant conduct an on-site pre -disturbance noxious weed survey for the weeds listed on Garfield County's current primary undesirable plant list which is attached to the letter. One page 3-2 of the management plan and risk assessment of the Rose Ranch Golf Course, the applicant states that there are no sensitive, endangered or threatened fish species in the Roaring Fork River -- The Colorado River Cutthroat is a Division of Wildlife State special concern species." Victoria reviewed the recommendations of staff compared to what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended. The P & Z recommended approval for all the PUD amendment requests. Michael Erion - Wright Water Engineering - retained by the Board to review the project from the sketch plan to current, The issues have been narrowed down to just a few issues. 4128/99 letter presents the wrap on the issues, One was the cart path and he explained. The other issue is the 4-4 permitting. The Corps has indicated that an individual permit will not be required. The water supply - - final decree augmentation plan is in place with the State and no material injury to anyone's water rights. He recommended the 100 foot set back. Tim Thulson stated they would follow this recommendation of the 100 foot setback. Warren Wright - Westbank Homeowners - Water Systems Director - Volunteer to see if the area gets fair water. There is a potential risk to their wells. Some alternatives have been offered. He supports the staffs recommendation to keep the greens awa•y from the wells and also not to treat the grass within a specific 'stance and the third is to use organic chemicals and these are the ones they most fear. He asked the Commissioners to accept Alternative [given by the Heggemeier group and follow the staff's recommendation to keep the fairway greens away from the wells and that be adopted as a conditional of approval of this PUD. Susan Hassol - Representation of the Roaring Crystal Alliance - Ron has demonstrated his concern for the community. One thing is the setback for the 7 houses and would urge the Board to adopt the staffs recommendation on the set backs. The second thing on her own behalf regards a heron nesting tree on the Rose Ranch side of the river. Some new information came in to view. The majority of trees are on the opposite side of the river and this one tree where nesting takes place is an inadequate setback for the heron. A Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act " quote from the Regional Migratory Bird Coordinator --"any activity that causes nest abandonment and thus leads to failure to eggs to hatch can be interpreted as a take of migratory birds and therefore a violation of federal regulations. Therefore our advice is to avoid the immediate vicinity of nests that have the potential to cause nest abandonment." She encouraged this one house on one lot to be pushed back. She encouraged the Commissioners to take her comments in the context that what they are really concerned about here is the health of the river and heron species -- who likes to help the ecology system. This was submitted as Exhibit M. Chairman Martin admitted Exhibit M into the record. Calvin Lee -- Roaring Crystal Alliance (RCA) -- as far as the additional units requested by the developer, they have no objections and urge the Commissioners to approve the request for additional units. In fairness to the developer they were required to da the 10% Affordable Housing without having any realization that this was going to happen until Marian Smith actually said I think it should be on-site and through it should be 10%. Had the developer known or was aware of the regulation they may have proposed more units in the first place to make up for the requirement they knew they would have to do for the 10 additional units. The RCA also has no objections if the code is changed to the developer having these units off-site. The developer was not of any regulations or requirement but with this imposed upon them, they are proposing at Cardiff Glen be the off-site location of the 20 units. As far as the request from the developer for the exemption of the 7 lou to the 100 foot setback - the RAC are opposed to this. The RAC is named after the two rivers that are dear to their hearts -- the Roaring Fork River and the Crystal River and one main concern/goal/priority is to protect these rivers. The developer has not presented any difficulty in setting these units back. If we give an exemption to this developer, then we will be asked by others. The density of 322 houses is a lot -- they can either eliminate these 7 houses, charge more for lots but combining lots and urged the Board of County Commissioners to consider the rivers. Blue Herons Jeannie Bodprey - Director of the Roaring Fork Conservancy - a new nonprofit agency to protect the river and the heron. She urged the Commissioners to hold the conservation easement on the north side and initially it was felt that most of the heron nests were contained in that area. It actually turned out that those nests are in the Sanders Ranch and a buffer area has been worked out and an agreement to at least a minimum of 200 meters. In the one spot where it is 200 meters, they've also agreed to put up a screen and a berm and provide a lake. Beyond that it is beyond 200 meters in other areas. This actually includes putting in the conservation easement, the whole delta that is part of Cattle Creek. The nest on the south side is a concern to us; there are actually four nests in the tree and 6 birds -- eggs in the nests and the window that the building envelope that has been approved contradicts what they believe wilt be interference with the nests. July 15th is the likely date when construction could start without interference and the building envelope suggests that construction could start at the end of May. Studies show that herons can coexist -- but the birds have left in areas of Steamboat and Chatfield -- the herons do not disturbances. Ken Kriz - said of the densities that in prior meetings this was a big concern but the developer did lower those to everyone's satisfaction. It is commendable that the Commission that they would want the Affordable Housing and he's for it, however, he added that it's being thrown at us and the densities are back up where they were trying to avoid. He recommended the 10 apartment units he's recommending for the Club House remain are okay but the other 20 be allowed to be furnished off-site at Cardiff Glen. Other concerns is the setbacks. He is 135 feet back from the river and most of the houses built recently have been moved back. Mark Gould - the first of three area concerns is birds -- the fact that this particular subdivision has compiled with the Division of Wildlife -- he pointed out that when Aspen Glen was getting approved there was the same saying about the eagles. They've been out there for 5 years with bulldozers, etc. next to the line of the eagle buffer zone. There is proof that the eagles can live with man and construction. 2) The riverbank versus a mean water level. The example would be Blu Balcornb's old house now owned by Dave Harris. Most of the time of the year he has this mowed to riverbank. Sometimes during the 50 year stone, the water can be 20 feet upon his grass. The issue is where is the riverbank- A definition of where riverbank can be found would be the answer. The mean high-water mark versus high-water mark is because high-water is really a theoretical number whereas mean high-water is the high-water that we know is going to happen because it has already happened before. 3) Affordable housing -- Mark said he serves on the subcommittee and most of the Board is aware that Planning & Zoning and Affordable Housing are in favor of mitigating off-site affordable housing and staff opposes this concept. This Affordable Housing should be where we already have schools, transportation and a good example of where this works is like at Cardiff Glen. Dick Weinberg Victoria passed out the plan sheet. The contract that has been displayed regarding traffic on CR 109, he feels it should have some type of screen to block the noise. The trees will do no good. Joanne Paine - Exhibit H - was read into rd. Her concerns were the heron and she requested that construction not occur within 10,000 feet minimum from early February to late August. Chairman Martin mentioned this is a Review of the PUD Zone District Text and PUD Amendments; there is preliminary plan subdivision scheduled after this hearing later on today. The Board will make a decision about this hearing and then go on to the Plan itself. Additional comments: Michael Erion - wanted to clarify some issues that there seems to be confusion on. He said the discussion about the 100 foot setback and riverbank and mean high water line and he thought it would be. He clarified what is being talked about. Riverbank can be defined in 3 components - 1) the line from which a setback occurs -- this is more definable and can be identified in the field clearly is a setback from mean high water line. It's the water level that occurs every two years. It is a definite mark on the riverbank and it generally is associated with a change in the rock or the gravel bottom or hitting vegetation. It is very distinct. Where the setback is -- should be defined as from the mean water line. 2) the origin on the 100 foot set back from the riverbank text carne in the Resolution 95-80 and these building envelopes were then laid out based on what the applicant's consultants had defined as riverbank. Michael's definition may be differently than what was defined. It is a gray area. Some areas are slightly less than 100 feet; the original comment was a 50 foot set back from a wetland area. No clear cut technical support for 100 feet 70 or 80 feet - or 90 feet. 100 feet was an arbitrary number. One of Wright Water's original comments was to provide a minimum of a 50 foot setback off of the wetlands which occurs in all areas. There is no clear cut technical support for 100 feet or any other in saint of these instances. However, to go with the 50 foot setback off of the wetlands to the building envelopes would be the key. Don DeFord raised a few questions regarding Affordable Housing. if the Board follows the Planning Commission recommendation concerning off-site affordable housing, how would they address the questions about density that's currently proposed to accommodate affordable housing changes in zone districts that would be impacted by going off-site as opposed to the current on-site proposal; and how would they address phasing; and in terms of acquisition of actual housing units -- how would they demonstrate that you had acquired those and when? Tint Tluilson said the density would be reduced pro -rata -- if 20 units were to go off-site then the density on-site would be reduced pro -rata; they believe that this would require preliminary plan amendment; and they believe they can do that while mitigating Phase 1 and the 10 units on-site would be in the first phase. Ten would be in each of the 3 phases. This affordable housing has evolved as they are in the process. They would like to conform as to the final regulations that are adopted by the County Commissioners and it looks like there will be the need for a management agreement with the Garfield County Housing Authority if they are adopted. They are willing to comply with that fully. Ron Heggemeier - if we take units off-site the density would be Lowered. If they have to do a preliminary plat amendment if the 20 were moved off-site, then if the 10 were considered to be the phase 1 requirement, then if there was anything relative to helping the agency with startup funds, that would be find. What he doesn't want to do is to get caught where he has to chase back through this process without being able to get started. Don DeFord said if off-site required the preliminary plan amendments and also required an adjustment in a zone district, which would they be willing to process a preliminary amendment and PUD amendment simultaneously if that was required. Ron Heggemeier said yes and they would do that right away. He stated he hoped this wouldn't prevent them from getting started on Phase 1. Don DeFord - in regard to the first phase, assuming you do the 10 on-site units, will those have to be included as part security as common elements or how do they intend to assure those will get built'? Ron Heggemeier -- on phasing one - if they are required to do 10 they can not come and process another plant until this is addressed. The Affordable Housing Subcommittee is bringing forth to the Commissioners that it isn't necessarily fixed to be a two-bedroom house, a three bedroom, or a four -- they give different credits for the different number of bedrooms created. It's going to depend on the developer as to how much buy -down it takes from the price they come out with to get it down to that affordable number. Don DeFord -- so in terms of the specifics on acquisition, housing type and the actual presence of the housing, are they willing to address this in a preliminary plan amendment. Ron Heggemeier -- yes and all the recommendations of the regulations. Ron Heggemeier - summary - Mr. Wright asked them to stay 100 feet away from the wells in Westbank with any golf pro cue boxes -- they have stipulated to that. Secondly, on the particular lots they have asked the set back requirement that Michael Erion pointed out; all building sites have been moved as close up to the front of the Tots as allowed by the County setbacks. Ron summarized the problem they have in moving the building envelope further away from the riverbank saying it would require the road being moved and then there are geotechnical issues to address. Joe Hope verified that all the river homes are 50 feet from the wetlands. On the height limitations -- a view study was completed and determined that only one house's view would be blocked and therefore, on those lots where his view could potentially be blocked, they limited the height to 25 feet and on all the others they have asked for 35 feet which is the same height at Aspen Glen presently. Ron said -- on the Blue Herons - there is a single nest on their side of the river near lots 95 and 96. They have known this from day one and there is no new information about that nest. The main part of the Rookery is on the other side of the river on Sander's Ranch property. From the beginning Rose Ranch has agreed with Kevin Wright and worked extensively to develop a screening plan along these lots as they would view across to the main Rookery. 2) They have also been pulled those building envelopes • as far forward on the lots as they can possibly do. 3) They have agreed to limit house construction on those lots from 2115 to 5/31 dead year so no construction activity can take place on those. 4) Ron stated he would not do this by pointed out that under the Federal Migratory Bird Act -- after those birds leave the nest, the owner of property can go cut the trees down and destroy the nest. That's not a violation of law. What's a violation of law is disturbing the nest when they are either fledglings in or eggs in the nest. Ron said they have agreed to install artificial nesting platforms in a specific area as well knowing that might be the potential that they could relocate, they've agreed to come into this area and put in the artificial nesting platforms. They've not asked the Conservancy to do it although they said they were -- this is our responsibility to install those. They are types of platforms that have been used in the Chatfield Reservoir for example where a Blue Heron will nest in the tree and kill the tree over time -- after time the tree will fall down so they've come up with these artificial platforms to create other nesting sites for them. This tree in reference is currently dead and no one knows how long this tree is going to stand -- so the birds could leave anyway once the tree goes down. Kirk Beattie said there were six nests on the east side of the river and four of the west side of the river. Ron reiterated that this was never considered the main part of the Rookery by the Division of Wildlife. Additional discussion was held on Blue Herons and the measures Rose Ranch has taken to try and protect them. Michael Erion on the 30 degree slopes said if the Commissioners approve the request in the three areas that a condition be placed that Rose Ranch have a specific geotechnical analysis for those areas to ensure that there are no problems or concerns. Ron Heggemeier regarding Mr. Weinberg's concern for additional traffic on CR 109 said they have agreed to put up a vegetative screen. Rich Black for the record said that he spoke to Mr. Weinberg during the recess and basically I will go and visit him on the site and put those trees where he would like. Susan Hassol said she was under the understanding that July was the construction start up date and if they start May 31st it is not going to be safe for the fledglings, Most of the fledglings have not been born. One of the thing that happens -- birds are affected to human activity during this time when they are young and in the nest -- the young will have just been born and in the nest at this time. If they get scared they fly from the nest and often what happens they could knock some of the young out of the nest and could be killed. So May 3 Ist is not a comfortable date as far as protecting -- if you are interested in protecting the birds in those nests. Also the Migratory Bird Coordinator told me that the nests are protected all year long so that it would be a violation if you went in and cut down the tree after the nesting season was over. Kirk Beattie of Beattie Natural Research Consulting said in regard to Susan's second comment -- he talked to the special acting agent for the Division of Law Enforcement U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services in Washington, D. C. yesterday and as I knew hack when 1 used to teach wildlife law enforcement that you can legally destroy the nest if they are not occupied at the time either by eggs or fledglings. In fact Paul Cloud of Fish and Wildlife Service in D. C. reiterated that to me yesterday that some developers around the country have gotten by-passed the Endangered Species Act the MBTA etc. by going in there during the non -occupancy period and essentially cutting down the trees, It doesn't give you very good press in the newspaper but it's been done. I guess I'll disagree with that comment. As far as, essentially the birds are most sensitive from the beginning of the courtship process -- they become Tess sensitive as time goes on during the egg laying, incubation, the fledgling and the (lighting -- in other words there is a lot of literature to suggest that as time goes on the birds are less sensitive. i went out to the Rookery west of the river yesterday and I wrote a couple of reports for the Planning Commission -- a lot of times you can take what you read with a little half-truth so I like to go out in the field and do my own demonstrations. There were two birds incubating on two of the four nests west of the river yesterday. I just parked my pickup truck about 50 feet away, pulled out a 2x4 proceeded to pound 50 heavy nails into the 2x4 just to see what the reaction would be. I guess if they had flown away I could have been sighted for criminal violation of the MBTA but the two birds just looked in my direction and proceeded to incubate, I got hack to my truck, drove off and watched them for an hour and they did not fly from the nests. I still think the May 3 1st time period is realistic as far as beginning construction. Ron Heggemeier said he did check and the staff report went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright's comments. were in for lots 94, 95 and 96. So we had agreed to limit construction on those lots also. Ron Heggemeier regarding Steve Anthony's letter for grass seed said he would like the consultant for the golf course seed specialist to handle this and also said they do not have any problem on the change of the straw; he assured the Board they did identify the thistle and identified that some treatment would be needed for them so there is no need for a pre -disturbance noxious weed survey. If the Board was going to ask them to do another survey they would like to do it on non -disturbed ground not on disturbed ground. Victoria Giannola - asked to submit Rose Ranch's illustrative plan as an Exhibit. Chairman Martin entered Exhibit N into the record. Commissioner Stowe on the 30 degree grading -- these would need the geotechnical specific site analysis on these areas referenced. Ron Heggemeier said they will agree to a site specific geotechnical analysis. Joe Hope - said on the area far east, a small are down on the bottom that is up on the upper mesa where 30% grading would be done. They are laying back the revenue and it will be less than 30% when they are completed. Ron Heggemeier said they will stipulate to site specific geotechnical on this as well. Encroachment on the right-of-way Don responded that the original requirement on the PUD did address this issue but if not then this will need to be addressed at preliminary plan. Michael Erion commented on two items� Micllf it is not already a condition he suggested was to have Rose Ranch get their final confirmation from the Corps of Engineers on their nationwide permit prior to their final plat. Ron Heggemeier asked if the nationwide 26 permits being here by the time they record final plat -- will this be acceptable. They could hold the hearing, but couldn't record the plat until the permits were in hand. Don mentioned he thought this was handled and that there would be a representation from the Corps that the nationwide permit could be obtained. Michael Erion stated that this is what they have indicated but he is recotnmending that prior to final approval on the project that the final confirmation from the Corps be in hand. Don inquired as to what Michael meant when he said final approval of the project? Michael Erion -said the Corps, on nationwide permits, are preauthorized permits so the Corps issues a confirmation that this project is in conformance with those conditions set forth in their standards that authorize this activity. What they have asked Rose Ranch to do is to resubmit everything so that the Corps can take a final look at it and issue a confirmation letter that says yes we can confirm that your project is preauthorized under nationwide --- Don asked then if Michael was recommending that this confirmation letter be obtained before they proceed further with the preliminary plan or before they tender a final plat to the County? Michael Erion said before they get a final approval, a final plat. Ron said what he was trying to do was to prevent delays. Don DeFord asked if the letter from the Corps need to be included in the record of this hearing or will it be sufficiently direct that if they submit it along with their final plat submittal to the County that it will either confirm or will not confirm the availability of a nationwide permit? Don said what is in front of the Board is a preliminary plat -- if this is approved, with conditions, the next submittal will be a final plat submitted that has to be reviewed by staff in conformance with this approval. Then if that staff review is adequate, and then only can it go to the Board for signature and recording. Michael Erion stated prior to sending it for signature that the confirmation needs to be in the file. Ron asked then if the permits needed to be in place before they can even submit the application for final plat. Don DeFord said yes -- it would be a confirmation letter from the Corps of Engineers and it is important that it come in with the submittal of final plat documents so the staff will know that the design the County received has been reviewed by the Corps and is acceptable. School District for Fees Tim Thulson clarified that the fees were $200 per lot and he agreed they would pay them. Building Envelopes - Clarification Michael Erion mentioned there were several Tots that are 200 fact or more away from the wetland area. He asked for clarification if these building envelopes were going to stay as they are now and not moved closer to the wetland area. Ron Heggemeier stipulated to the placement of the building sites in Lots 84, 85 and 86 -- he is not asked to move them any closer. Joe Hope - clarified that any building envelope must be 50 foot from wetland, Commissioner McCown referenced page 17 or 20 -- RFRHA - should C -DOT require a separate crossing at the railroad e at that time the responsibility would fall on the County - this would be tremendous impact on the county - would there be a level of participation? This was not addressed initially. Ron Heggemeier said they would be willing to participate into the pro -rata costs for doing such -- especially if they could put it on some kind of benefit district to where it wasn't a cash outlay but it was a position against the property. Don DeFord said the way it has been stated is what you can require legatly and that's a pro -rata contribution. This has been discussed as a Board and the potential impact is great but we can not place upon the developer the burden of the existing development. There are no standards -- there's no amount assessed against the developer at this time but down the road -- if it's five years from now -- it will be very difficult to come back to the developer because they will be well into this project unless the developer wants to commit funds to that right now. Ron Heggemeier said it would be hard to commit funds to something that we don't know will be built or not. He asked was a workable solution? Tim Thulson stated they will be back for some more plats -- it could be addressed then. Don DeFord said as an example at Aspen Glen, the County did defer a decision to each final plat for Aspen Glen the question of funding a stopped intersection where Aspen Glen enters Hwy. 82 and the Commissioners can do the same thing here. That is with each submission of each final plat, have the applicant make an affirmative address as to what their pro -rata share for a separated grade crossing would be; With Aspen Glen that has not been required at this point by the highway department so their pro -rata share is nothing until that is required. But what this means is that when they complete their last phase, they are gone -- the developer is gone and there is no commitment. Ron Heggemeier said that they will be 7 to 8 years away before they get the fourth plat. They are already building the light al the intersection and if they build an overpass a lighted intersection will go away. Victoria Giannola clarified again Ron's point, because of the nature of the decision the Board made on the PUD Amendment request, the items no longer pertain are items D1 of page 13 related to grading; item 6 on page 14 of 20 related to the setbacks; item 10 regarding building height on 14 of 20 and item 11 regarding landscaping and grass usage; and item 4 related to grass selection. • Ron I leggemeier asked if the railroad required a separated grade intersection, would it be possible to do a general improvement district in that area? Don answered that it raises questions of title to that area because some history on that road and the actual railroad crossing -- what appears to be a County Road -- the railroad probably lies within the state highway right-of-way so there's a question as to whether a district could be established. Ron Heggemeier asked if they came to the County with a metropolitan district for off-site improvements and had the authority with that end, would that be something workable. Don DeFord said yes but it is much more difficult to get that authority for that area. Commissioner McCown moved to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner McCown seconded; carried. Motion Commissioner McCown made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Review for Rose Ranch with conditions following the Planning Commission recommendations to establish a structure for the collection of 5750 per unit to be issued the Roaring Fork Transit Authority for public transit facilities and services; to require that the Army Corps permit or validation of said permit be present at the time of submittal for plans for final plat to staff For review; they stipulated to the 4" of asphalt; working on the railroad crossing -- as a condition Commissioner McCown asked Don DeFord for the verbiage he used for each review of the plats. Don recommended the working that if they want a pro -rata share that the Board adopts language or condition of approval that requires the applicant at the submission of each proposed final plat, other than the first that should occur right shortly, that they provide an analysis of the need and requirement for a separate grade crossing between CR 154 and Hwy. 82 including the position of the State Highway Department and RFRHA. if such a separated grade crossing is required, that they pay the pro -rata share of the cost of that crossing at the time of that final plat. Commissioner McCown said he would include that in his motion. Also to be included all testimony and stipulations so given by the applicant today. Commissioner Stowe - seconded Vote: Martin - aye; Stowe - aye; and McCown - aye. Recommendation of Staff: A. It is recommended that the Garfield County Board of Commissioners approve with conditions the application for the Rose Ranch Amended PUD. The proposed increase in density to meet the requirements of affordable housing does not result in substantial change to the design of the subdivision nor does it result in adverse impacts upon the site. While the applicant's request to construct ten (10) rent restricted affordable rental units and design a new zone district labeled Golf 11 Clubhouse Apartments should be approved. the request to provide merely price restricted lots without actual units should be denied as it is hi direct conflict with the recorded resolution's condition of approval to provide affordable housing units on-site. However, the requested text amendments regarding setbacks from the river, nonnative landscaping, and grading on steep slopes is in direct opposition to the resolution of conditional approval issued by the Board of County Commissioners. In particular, the request to conduct extensive grading on slopes above thirty (30%) percent is in direct conflict with the applicant's consulting geotechnical engineer's report which states that no grading should be considered on slopes greater than thirty (30%) percent. Therefore, staff recommendation is approval of the proposed density increase from 292 units to 322 units with the condition that the increase in thirty (30) units consist of ten (10) rent restricted rental units within the newly designated Golf [I Clubhouse Apartment Zone District and twenty (20) deed restricted affordable housing units which are to be located on the project site. All other requests for PUD Amendments are to prohibited. B. The staff concurs with the Garfield County Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval with the exception of item VIII.A.S. Planning Commission Recommendation A. Request for PUD Amendment The Garfield County Planning commission has put forth a recommendation of conditional approval of the Preliminary Plan application for Rose Ranch based upon the staff items listed above (which include V.A, 1,3 a -f, 4,5; B. la -q; C. 1 a -b; D.2,3,5,5,8, 9a -b, 10, 12.13,114; E. 1 - 12; F.1; G. 1 -a -b; FI. la -b; and 1.1-11) in addition to the following items: 1. Complete the cart path redesign in the drainage gulch before appearing before the Garfield County Board of Commissioners and at least two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing before the Board. 2. Obtain pre -approval for the three golf cart underpasses and the road work prior on County Road 109. 3. Finalize copies of the indemnification agreement for securities for County Road 109 in the event of damage. 4. Complete all conditions outlined in the engineering review by Wright Water Engineers. 5. Obtain an letter of material non -injury from the Division of Water Resources regarding water rights and usage. 6. Establish a structure for the collection of $750.00 per unit to be issued to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority for public transit facilities and services. B. Request for PUD Amendments • 1. The Garfield County Planning Commission put forth a recommendation of approval of the application to allow grading on slopes above thirty (30 %) percent in specified areas for the Rose Ranch Amended PUD to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. 2. The Garfield County Planning Commission put forth a recommendation of approval of the application to allow planting of nonnative landscaping in accordance with the Golf Course Management Plan for the Rose Ranch Amended PUD to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. 3. The Garfield County Planning Commission put forth a recommendation of approval of the application to allow setbacks on specific building lots of between 70 and 90 feet from the river bank for the Rose Ranch Amended PUD to the Garfield. County Board of commissioners. 4. The Garfield County Planning Commission put forth a recommendation of approval of the application to allow a maximum building height of up to thirty-five (35) feet in specified areas for the Rose Ranch Amended PUD to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. 5. The Garfield County'' Planning. Commission put forth a recommendation of conditional approval of the proposed density increase from 292 units to 322 units with the condition that the increase in thirty (30) units consist of ten (10) rem restricted rental units within the newly designated Golf 11 Clubhouse Apartment Zone District and twenty (20) deed restricted atTordable housing units which are to be located on the project site. July 7, 1999 ▪ SIGN ROSE RANCH PUD/PRELIMINARY PLAN Victoria Giannola, Don DeFord, Tim Thulson were present. Victoria gave the final resolution to the Commissioners for review and discussed the resolution contents as compared to the [notion and taped session of the public hearing. Cash -in -lieu clause -- this was in the motion. There is a viable option of cash -in -lieu according to the motion. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Stowe to authorize the Chair to sign the resolution concerned with the approval of a preliminary plan application for the Rose Ranch Subdivision and Land Development; carried, • Preliminary Plan for Rose Ranch (Amendment) A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to authorize the Chair to sign a resolution concerned with the approval of a planned unit development (PUD) amendment application for the Rose Ranch Subdivision and Land Development; carried. September 7, 1999 PUBLIC MEETINGS: REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE BY BOARD ON ROSE RANCH FINAL PLAT, PHASE I, LOCATED: 2.5 MILES SOUTH OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. APPLICANT: ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, LLC. Don DeFord, Victoria Giannola and Tim Thulson were present. Tim Thulson requested a continuance due to an internal review mix-up and asked this to be placed on the September 13, 1999 agenda for the Commissioners between 2 and 4 p.m. Commissioner McCown moved this to be continued until September I3, 1999 between 2 and 4. Commissioner Stowe seconded; carried. CONTINUED REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE BY BOARD ON ROSE RANCH FINAL PLAT, PHASE I. LOCATED 2.5 MILES SOUTH OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. APPLICANT: ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, LLC. Victoria Giannola, Tim Thulson and Don DeFord were present. Tim stated that the Roaring Fork Investments were presenting the fmal plat documents. He has a letter of credit in place and will be asking the Board to hold all documents for filling under the regulations. With the letter of credit for improvements the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District expansion for S600,000. Don stated the only document missing with the be the actual letter of credit. SIA A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to authorize the Chair to sign the SIA with Rose Ranch; carried. OCTOBER 18, 1999 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: EXTENSION OF TIME - ROSE RANCH FINAL PLAT FILING Tim Thulson with Balcomb and Green representing the applicant, Roaring Fork Investments LOC. for the Rose Ranch PUD, submitted a letter to staff on October 1, 1999 requesting an extension of time for the Rose Ranch Final Plat filing. He stated the final plat was approved September 13, 1999 and all the final plat and all the relevant documents are being held by the Clerk & Recorder's office for tiling pending the posting of a letter of credit securing their subdivision improvements. Roaring Fork Investments is still in the process of negotiating with their lenders on the terms and conditions of the loan they want to secure. The letter of credit will be obtained consistent with the construction loan and what this is trying to avoid is right now we'll have to have that Ietter of credit posted by December 1 Oth. it doesn't do them a whole lot of good to have the construction financing in place by December due to the winter months, and they are asking for a 3 -month extension that will allow them more time to negotiate with the lenders and also avoid the carrying costs of having a construction loan in place in the winter months. With a 3 -month extension that would continue until March, 2000 when they can begin construction whenever the loan came in, Commissioner McCown inquired if they get this all put together do they anticipate starting earlier? Tim said they want to start as soon as they in the Spring so if there's a real Tight winter, as soon as they can get out there is when they will start. Commissioner McCown suggested March 6, 2000. Tim stated this would be more than workable. Chairman Martin inquired if this would put a hardship on the staff. Staff answered no. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Stowe to grant the extension until March 6, 2000 for the final plat filing; carried. • ROSE RANCH PUBLIC HEARINGS JULY 20, 1998 AND JULY 21, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING: ROSEBANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Victoria Giannola, Mark Bean, Don DeFord, Tim Thulson and Ron Haggermeir were present. Chairman Smith stated schedule wise we would go to 6 P.M. tonight. This will be continued at 8:00 A.M. Tuesday, and if someone in the audience that wishes to speak represents 10 or more they will be allowed 10 minutes; each individual will be allowed 3 minutes each. She requested no one disrupt the meeting with emotional outbursts. Names and addresses must be given at the time of the speaking. Do not repeat the comments. Tim Thulson stated there were two mailings, one listed a 2:30 A.M. hearing; they re -did the mailings stating the correct time of 2:30 P.M. Don DeFord reviewed the documents presented, determined that adequate and timely notification and publication were in order and advised the Commissioners they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Smith swore in new speakers. Victoria presented the following documents as Exhibits into the record. Exhibit A - Garfield County Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit B - Garfield County Zoning Resolution; Exhibit C - Garfield County Subdivision Regulations; Exhibit D - Application and all submissions and supplements; Exhibit E - Staff Report and Planning Commission Recommendation; Exhibit F - Public Notification; Exhibit G - Supplemental comments from the public; Exhibit H - A Petition from the Friends of the Roaring Fork; Exhibit I - Community Impact Analysis; Exhibit J - A letter to the Board of County Commissioners from the City of Glenwood Springs. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibits A - J into the record. An Exhibit, a letter from the office of Delaney and Balcomb regarding recommendations was not accepted into the record at this time however discussion was held as to the potential contents. Victoria stated this was a Planned Unit Development and Sketch Phan review for the Rose Ranch application for Roaring Fork Investments, LLC, and Norris Dullea Company planners located on an operating ranch located west of the Roaring Fork River approximately 2.5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs, and directly south of the West Bank subdivision on a 440 acre tract. It is to be combined with the West Bank subdivision golf facilities for a total of 533.5 acres. The plan is to develop a 292 lot residential subdivision and an associated golf facility, with additional recreational and open space amenities including a fishing park, overlooks, trails, greenhouse, garden plots, and recreational facilities such as tennis court, a swimming pool, playground and. picnic area. The residential subdivision includes 171 single family dwellings, 74 duplex units and 47 club homes. Victoria stated she had received a letter from the office of Delaney and Balcomb regarding recommendations. She added the letter outlines their perspective on the Planning Commission's motion to the Board of County Commissioners. They have asked that this be distributed. Her position as a staff person, is that it was her responsibility to prepare the staff report particularly when you have a motion made by the Planning Commission, then the staff is to put into it motion as it was made publicly. She does not believe that it is staffs role to debate the items between an applicant or his consultants. Victoria stated that she listened to the tape of the Planning Commission very carefully and believes it to be accurate. She left it up to the Board to determine if they wanted to accept the Delaney and Balcomb exhibit. 'Tim Thulson stated they received the staffs recommendations on Friday and listened to the tapes as well; and they have some disagreements on the agreements made in the motion by the Planning Commission made on June 1, 1998. He stated this is what they believe is on the tape. Victoria stated there was a lot of discussions. Her staff recommendation was on the motion and not on discussions prior to the reconunendations. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Marlin that the Board act at the time that these particular findings are discussed and not to review it at this time; carried, (Exhibit K) Victoria reviewed what she presented before the Planning Commission. Before the Board today is both the Sketch Plan and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). There needs to be a clear EXHIBIT • distinction between these two processes. The Sketch Plan portion will go through two other planned review stages where the public will be able to comment, the staff also; and the Planning Commission will have comments. The PUD is only reviewed once. This is the final stage for the Public Hearing for the PUD Application. It is clear that the decision today is on the PUD. Victoria stated the staff has two levels of concerns with this particular application: 1) Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the compliance with that document; and 2) the conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. Zoning The staffs main concern is the underlying geological conditions. Particularly there is hydro-compactable soils that are subject to collapse when wetted. The State Geologist is present today to testify to the site and his knowledge and professional opinion. Also there is a concern with increased traffic primarily on Hwy 82 and on County Road 109. There are some concerns also about the drainage on-site and the ability of this project design to mitigate those impacts. Another is the proposed Golf Course path that runs through the canyon area to the west of the site. Compliance to Comp Plan: there are 2 main issues. One is the shortage of attainable/affordable housing and the other is the lost of agricultural land. This project does not adequately address either of these issues. Victoria commented that the main things to look at when viewing a PUD is that the doors are open and is an opportunity to look at an innovative plan. This means as they lay out the plans before us, the Board may address any of the County's pressing issues. The three most pressing issues before this County are: affordable housing; the loss of agricultural land and open space; and traffic congestion. Any PUD that comes before the Board should have innovative solution to these problems. The PUD allows us a rare opportunity to establish a business relationship between the applicant, the developer, the County and its staff. Both parties' needs must he met. At this time the County's issues have not been addressed. Affordable I -lousing - examples have been seen in the County where an applicant has been required to provide affordable housing on site. Carbondale has a 99% sell out in the River Valley Ranch. This PUD should not be any different. if you don't provide this on site, where will this housing go? Think about how the money will be coming in. 292 units with 10% set aside for affordable housing would be 29 - 30 units. The PUD allows the Board to address this issue. Loss of Agricultural Land - a conservation easement should be allowed. Density - this comes up often. The concern is the level of density and should be consistent with the other side of the river. She recommends 2 acre sites in this PUD. These are the primary staff issues. Community Gardens was also mentioned as being a small patch of multiple use land where community gardens are allowed. If they do not want the land, it could be rented out, etc. All of these recommendations were called to the attention of the developers. Engineer - Michael Orion with Wright Water Engineers stated he had submitted his comments in the letter. Water: From an engineering standpoint, the legal supply of water augmentation plan can be developed as outlined in the Zancanella and Associates report. Soils/geological concerns: The alluvial fans were addressed and he stated a portion of the land planned in this development has not historically been irrigated. This is an area of concern. If the design continues, the developer needs to be sensitive as far as drainage, storm water infiltration basins wouldn't be appropriate in those areas and would need to be routed; and minimizing irrigation in those areas as well. Wastewater: The project has proposed to be served by the Aspen Glen Facility and by agreement they could have approximately 420 EQR's. Their proposal is approximately 330 EQR's. The District has provided a'can and will' serve letter. Wetland Issues: They recommended setbacks not to include wetland areas. Those revisions have been reflected. One item to be cleared up in their submittal under existing conditions in the Wcstbank Golf Course area - it shows wetlands. Ditches: They recommend a formal agreement with any other downstream users; and that they consider piping or fencing off the large ditch areas in residential areas for safety concerns. Sketch drawings: Will be directed toward the irrigation ditch and they would discourage putting storm water into the irrigation ditch. Drainage: The Northeast Dry Park for drainage is proposed to be maintained in its current configuration and in some of the areas, they appear unstable and may need some stream work restoration. Water Quality: They recommended that a sampling and water quality monitoring plan be developed for surface and ground water. Northeast Dry Park Drainage was addressed and Michael stated it was subject to flash flooding. Signage warning people might be appropriate. They recommended several designs on the golf course as well as recommendations regarding pesticides management plan and such. Traffic and Roads: Hwy 82 • is a poor intersection and they recommend a signal light be required and that it be required at the first final plat. C -DOT has approved a signal light at the intersection when build -out reaches a specific level. Commissioner Martin asked about RFRHA and C -DOT. They arc proposing an at -grade crossing. RFR1IA has sent correspondence suggesting that the number of traffic travel crossing at this intersection may need an 'at grade' crossing. Applicant's presentation: Ron Haggermier - Roaring Fork Investment for Rose Ranch and the applicant for the project - introduced the consultants that were present: Scott Balcomb with Delaney and Balcomb for Water Rights Issues; Tim Thulson for Land Use; Joe hope with High Country Engineering - civil engineering and traffic; Elden Violion on Civil Engineering; Steve Pollack with Hepworth and Pollack on geotechnical issues; Bob Thompson with CTL Thompson on geotechnical issues; David Steinman on wetlands issues; Curl Beattie with Beattie Natural Resources and Wildlife Issues; Frank Barrington with High Country Engineering on survey issues; Mr. Zancanclla with Zancanclla and Associates on Water Engineering; Jim Duclla and Mitch Norris with Norris-Dullea on Land Planning; Ford Frick with BBC Consulting on Fiscal Impacts on the Rose Ranch Development; Pete Elzi with TI -IK on Demand and Fiscal Impacts of the Golf; Jeff Graurer with Gulch Golf out of Dallas who did the initial golf routing for the project; and Michael O'Conner and Stuart Cohen with Environmental Turf Services, Inc. on Pesticide and Fertilizer Risk Assessment. Also assisting - Devin Davis and David Haggermeir. Exhibit K and L were submitted consisting of an outline of their presentation and a complete hard copy in detail of the computer generated presentation. Chairrnan Smith admitted these as Exhibit K and L. Ron Haggermier stated they had over 30 meetings with homeowners, referral groups and the development process is a reflection of that input and contains the visions of the developer. He stated they reviewed the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and believe this project is an embodiment of that plan. Jim Rose - spoke on the sale of his Ranch to the developer stating he had lived on this land nearly 60 years. He also submitted a letter and indicated all of the problems he encountered trying to operate agricultural land next to residential development. If he wanted to stay in ranching, he had to move. He added that he has seen agricultural land disappear at a rapid rate and he favored concentrated development where agricultural wouldn't be disturbed overall. He relayed his battle over water rights issues with Teller Springs and Aspen Glen. He could see that time was coming to a close on potential ranching in this area. Ron Haggermier came to him and said he wanted to develop the ranch. Before Ron, many potential buyers had approached him but none would qualify. Over 18 - 20 months, Ron and he worked closely and Jiin said he found Ron to be a man of his word and could trust Ron on a handshake. Jim found a ranch still in Garfield County where he now has 1,000 head of cattle and is raising a 1,000 tons of hay to feed them. l le spoke highly of Ron Haggermcir. Jim said he spent every dime he made off the sale of Rose Ranch and re -invested it in the new ranch. He urged the approval of this PUD. Ron Haggermier's comments on wildlife issues: The nesting grounds for the Blue Herons was discussed at length and they reached a balance. However, there is no guarantee of whether the Blue Herons will stay no matter what they do. On average the scientific register will tell you that the Rookeries last approximately 9 years; there arc instances where they have lasted almost 100 years; and there are instances where they've lasted only a year. One of the things they do know is that Eagles will attack Blue Herons and when this happens, many times they will move their nesting locations. Devin handed out an article from the newspaper that appeared recently in the Denver Post and was about Eagles attacking Blue Herons in Washington. The upshot was that the Eagles will prey on the young and also on the adult birds. So no matter what they do, we may not be able to keep them. He asked that this be entered as an Exhibit. Chairman Smith entered this news article as Exhibit M. Ron said as they went through the process initially, back in October when they made the first submittal however it was not actually turned in to the County, they were going to put in a floaters and a fisherman's park down near the Rookery area. The Blue Herons won out and the developer pulled those particular areas from the plan. This is still left open for public access for fishing. Working with Kevin of Division of Wildlife they have made 3 locations on the North end of the Westbank Golf Course for public access for fishing. • • Ron Haggermeir an Affordable Housing: This was brought up earlier. Initially and the proposal contains a letter to where We)/ had agreed to donate $2200 per unit for Affordable Housing at the time of building permit. This was $200 to the Garfield County Housing Authority, $100010 the Carbondale Affordable I-Iousing Fund, and $1000 per unit to the Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housing Fund. Those groups subsequently requested that the payment be made at the tisne of final plat, not at the time of building permit. At the Planning Commission, Ron said they did agree to do with that recommendation. Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Meeting, they had a meeting with the Planning Commission with Glenwood Springs and were requested that they place additional funds into the Glenwood Springs Affordable Housing Program. Ron said they agreed to do that, but asked that this be done at the time of building permit. This offer is being made and it should be contained within the referral letter. Ron Haggcrmicr on Historical Buildings located on the property: There are two buildings - one is a wind structure believed to be located off the old Midland Railroad near the Sunlight Bridge. It was built in the 1800's and Ron said they plan on restoring that building and relocating it within the landscaping of the golf course. There is another building that is a potato cellar. This building is in very poor condition at this point with the side walls and roof caving in. The only way to restore the cellar is to keep it in its place. That conflicts with another problem which is the recent concern with 1-lataviris and keeping buildings rodent proof; they haven't figured out how to restore that type of a structure and keep it rodent proof. Ron said they will continue to look at it as they come to preliminary plat. A historian has looked at it and given us a report on potato cellars in this particular valley. Ron Haggermeir on Public Transportation: They received a request from RFRHA to make a contribution to them and they have agreed on $700 per housing unit available to them. Ron said they asked that this be at the time of building permit because the income strain put on RFRHA would come at the time people occupy houses. The total contribution would amount to $214,000 and they had asked that the money be used for the construction of the park and ride facility which they were looking at near the CMC Intersection. Jim Duella, President of the Norris-Duella Firm, a planning consulting firm and landscape architect firm in Denver Colorado presented the Vision for Rose Ranch via a computer visual presentation. Jim's focus was to walk through the document - the submittal in the notebooks. His job was two fold - 1) to understand and try to implement the real creative aspects of community planning and 2) at the same time to understand the economics of making these work as well. Jim Duella - on the PUD Zoning and Sketch Plan: The work done thus far with the analysis was the building blocks to generate the PUD. They were trying to determine was the most appropriate areas to build; the most appropriate to build open space or golf; and where the areas were that needed to be left alone relative to slope, etc. Jim Duella on Zone Districts: This included the river residential 1 & 2; duplex residential; club homes; and common open space that included the golf course, community park and open space in general. 'The open space summary - 400 acres or 74% stay in some level of openness. Jim Duella on Phases and 1 -lousing Types: There will be four phases and a schedule of an 8 year time frame. The first phase is the golf course and open space. Joe 1 -lope with lligh Country Engineering on Traffic, Drainage and Geotechnical Concerns: Joe identified the problem at the intersection of County Road 154 and Highway 82. To determine the full impact of the problem, they had traffic counters set up for about two weeks. He stated they categorizd traffic concerns in levels from A - F. A is the best and F is failing. This intersection was determined to be at level F. The slope on County Road 154 is too steep and coming into Highway 82 is at an unusual angle, He met with Rich Ortcn and a determination was made that once the once the levels are met, which is 20 additional single family homes, the intersection would qualify for a traffic signal. Joe submitted a handout from C -DOT for the record. Chairman Smith entered Exhibit N into the record. • • Joe Hope on Access of the Reverse: Joe stated they looked at this very very carefully. The first issue was debris flow as there is a significant debris flow channel. The geotechnical aspects were assessed and they determined several mitigation techniques would be required. At preliminary plan the Board will see the mitigation techniques to be used. Exhibit 0 - Irrigated Lands were submitted. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibit 0 into the record. Stuart. Cohen and Michael O'Conner with Environmental Turf Services, Inc. on Pesticide and Fertilizer Risk Assessment: Stuart presented a slide program showing the management and risk. assessment plan. He stated this was their second golf course to be involved in Colorado. Michael followed Stuart and addressed pest management. He summarized that they requested that the project hire someone who is trained in integrated pest management technology and suggested the needed tools and information needed to make sure that the Rose Ranch Plan would move forth. Secondly, they provided a grassing specification that will reduce pesticide use; they've recommended specific grasses that have disease and pest resistant type genetics involved; they played into the agricultural side of this project and suggested such things as wheat grass, blue ganuna, Indian grass, red top and the type of habitat that can blend with the native habitats and bring this project into a more integrated sustainable type of operation that will provide the buffers and again the cheeks and balances in these areas. Stuart Cohen defined Evaporative Transpiration mentioned by Michael O'Conner and addressed Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures. Pete Elzi with THK on Demand and Fiscal Impacts of the Golf: THK was the original planner for Snowmass Village and is familiar with golf in this area. Golf with a resident rate for the County at an affordable rate was a concern. Ford Frick with BBC Consulting on Fiscal Impacts on the Rose Ranch Development: He highlighted on the economic impacts including the payroll of 14 - 15 full time seasonal which would amount to 6 figures in income; and the income tax of $175,000 - $200,000 retained in the community subject to sales tax; the Pro -Shop and Concession Sales also subject to county sales taxes. Tourism was also mentioned that would add 3,000 room nights at motels at $75/per room = $270,000 in hotel revenues and an increase in city and/or county taxes. Tourists also spend inoney - estimated at $65.00 per person = $450,000 in other revenues that result in other taxes. Fred also addressed the traffic impacts. Ron 1laggernmier on County Road 109 Improvement: Ron said one of the traffic impacts that was not addressed earlier is that they will ask the County's permission to make one other traffic modification on County Road 109. This involves the curve that you encounter after corning over the Hardwick Bridge heading toward Westbank. The curve needs to be straightened out and they have talked with Joe Hope and he has indicated it can be straightened and made less of a dangerous situation. Ron said they would ask possibly that Rose Ranch would fund the cost of doing this, but would ask that it be applied against any road impact fee that comes to the project. Ron summarized: He said of the PUD and Sketch Plan that it contains a multiple amount of changes made during the various stages of planning. Throughout the process they would receive requests and would do them if possible. Some choices had to be made. They did attempt to reach a consensus of those spoken to about the project. Ron said he recognized this Board is the final authority and requested approval. Audience Participation included: State Geologist Jonathan White's remarks were postponed until Tuesday A.M. but he wanted to address debris flow and collapsible soils. His main concern is that mitigation will be properly proposed; and specifically with the amount of water to be introduced into the alluvial fans. Another concern were the ponds and irrigation ditches running in there. The worst case scenario would be what if there was a serious water line break and the soils become wet. 1 -lis concern would be that of deep seated wettings. Rick Neiley, Lawyer representing Friends of the Roaring Fork submitted a petition signed by 200 individuals. Chairman Smith entered this as Exhibit P into the record. • Rick addressed: 1) issue with comp plan conformity and submitted Exhibit Q showing the plot density; Exhibit R - Rose Ranch PUD plot adding that this project is far more dense than anything surrounding; Exhibit S showing the big picture issue with the surrounding areas and open space as plotted; and Exhibit T - an article stating that fishing alone generates more dollars than skiing, rafting or golf. He ultimately requested that the Board consider granting approval with less density. Chairman Smith admitted Exhibits PQRST into the record. Ernie Delta, homeowner off of County Road 109 across from the Southwest Corner said he was impressed with the material presented and that he was in favor of the project being granted approval. He has concerns, however, as a neighbor with the proposed density as it exceeds what is currently zoned at Westbank and Teller Springs. Ile also mentioned that Ron Haggermier did not interview him. Mr. Delto is an architect and concerned about the rural character. 1-!e spoke on the lot prices of $150,000 plus the housing construction costs and basically concluded that this leaves the average working class people out. Therefore, these things needs to addressed as these are concerns in general among a lot of folks. Roger Trout owns 40 acres West of County Road 109 and his property borders on the South and East side of his land. He commented that this was 1) a beautiful proposal and well thought out; visually beautiful - the most attractive neighbors he could have and was impressed on the well planned community. 2) He was one that Ron did contact and explained the proposal, asked any concerns he might have, and stated he wanted to be a good neighbor. Roger stated he has owned his property for 30 years but did not have access to the property. Ron gave them access so they can use their property. He said he felt that Ron and his team were trying to address every possible issue and can't believe it is going to be too upscale. Ile implored the Board to approval the PUD. Nancy Smith from Carbondale and a member of the Planning Commission. She stated that for the most part this was a good development. She did point out however, that any money that comes from the building permit comets from the lot owner and referenced the additional $750 and $1,000 for Glenwood Springs. She thinks this might create political pressure. She spoke on the issue of Affordable Housing and 10% should be allotted toward this goal. Victoria Giannola asked if the Board would like to take a field trip and walk the site prior to beginning the session on Tuesday. The Board stated they were familiar with the site and did not feel they needed to walk it. Recess - 8:10 P.M. A motion was made by Commissioner Martin and seconded by Commissioner McCown to recess until Tuesday, July 21 at 8:00 A.M.; carried. PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JULY 21, 1998 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Victoria Giannola, Don DeFord, Tim Thulson and Ron Heggermier were present. Comments from the public: Bart Victor, seller of Westbank Ranch. put out a questionnaire regarding the Rose Ranch Development for the residents in Wcstbank and wanted to submit it for the record. Chairman Smith admitted the comment sheet from Wcstbank residents as Exhibit U into the record. Discussion was held as to the Westbank Golf Course and tax exemption under the "open to the public" status, The question was raised as to whether or not Ron Heggermier intended to do the same with the Rose Ranch combined course with Westbank. • Ron Ileggermier clarified that he did not envision having a lease with the City of Glenwood so he did not see the same tax status remaining on the golf course. He added it would be open to the public as well as private and public memberships. The public would have a pre -determined amount of memberships; however the first couple of years more public than private would he the case. _He anticipated making this open County -wide and_establishingafee structure of somewhere between half of what they would charge out=of-town players_and estimated this_ would-be between $3 —and $40 range. Those figures have not been finalized at this point — however. Commissioner Martin inquired of Bart Victor what his rates were for local players._ _ Bart Victor commented they were $16 for 9 ar -S2VUr 18 holes. Golf carts are $10 and $20 respectively,_ The city is pleased with the combination of things they have done which is to provide for the pubic memberships and to have affordable public play for Garfield County residents; and they are making the course available to a nurnber of outh programs including the High School golf teams. They are also working with the_City' Recreational Director to try and make that available with the recreational program along with the swimming pool and tennis courts. John I Iuebinger of 73 Delores Circle - Westbank Mesa commented on taxes: John said he was the developer on Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa. He clarified some of the questions on taxes by saying that between 1974 - 1976 he was paying approximately $15,000 year in taxes on the golf course. He carne before the County Commissioners and protested so Jun Drinkhousc suggested that they make the lease with the City of Glenwood Springs and in turn lease it back to get the exempt status. This was what the Rifle and Glenwood golf courses were doing at the Cone. The argument was that Westbank was providing recreation that possibly the County should have been doing so that's the reason the Commissioners suggested the tax exempt status. Commissioner Martin clarified that this comes under the definition of necessary facility under the tax laws. John (Iuebinger said by following that advice, they reduced the taxes. He also commented that _ he was in favor of what Ron was doing and believed there was a lot of pluses as far as the golf coursean iheintersection atTiwy. $2. He aTsv Telieves that the majority of people support this project. Mike Deer, 516 Traver Trail- Glenwood Spgs. Commented in favor of the Rose Ranch Sketch Plan PUD. 1) It's been mentioned before that what this developer has for improvements to liwy. 82 is real necessary and if it was up to the State and County to accomplish this, it would be a long time in corning; and 2) he has an interest in property in Teller Springs, and in driving on County Road 109 at the Hardwick Bridge, he certainly favors the proposal to include straightening the curve above that bridge. He summarized this was an opportunity to sec a development by a developer that is 'impact sensitive' and has tried to address those fairly and honestly. He feels this meets the long range plans. Mike made reference to the Los Amigos Ranch and the request for individual septic tanks and the Board had indicated this was not appropriate and felt there should be an enlargement of the existing sewer system. When Aspen Glen went in, a plan was placed into effect including easements across Teller Springs for a sewer district anticipating growth at the Rose Ranch. Mike on the Golf Course: The City of Glenwood spent a considerable amount trying to do a golf course and did a feasibility study for the Wulfshon Ranch. Mike supported this strongly but the taxpayers in this community led by a group that didn't believe it was feasible for the municipality to be in that business and voted it down. But the need for a public course was established. The method of paying for it - the people said, we don't want to use our tax money for a public golf course, so let's let the private sector do this. Ron is prosing to do this and provide 18 holes of puhlk_golf by the private sector for the public and this is what the voters were_telling us when they had that issue before them. He urged the Commissioners to approve this sketch plan for this project. Greg Rippy - 0213 Creekside Court - Westbank Ranch. Greg said that 10 years ago he was out on Hwy. 82 along with C -DOT as they did the turn lanes for Orison Distributing. At that time he asked about the possibility of getting some turn lanes onto I-Iwy. 82 from County Road 154. C -DOT commented they needed that badly and acknowledged it was a bad intersection but the lack of money was holding them back. This intersection needs to be upgraded now. He was therefore in favor of the project and proposal that includes addressing that intersection. Ile also • • commented that this is managed growth, the agricultural land was addressed and the developers have their work cut out to meet the expectations that this development has raised. Kevin Wright - 5026 Hwy. 6 - Glenwood Springs on Wildlife Issues: Kevin said that a lot of the wildlife issues have been addressed by the applicant for the Rose Ranch and Ron has been real receptive to just about everything the DOW has asked and recommended. It has been real pleasant to deal with this developer. Commissioner McCown addressed the Friends dile Roaring Fork questions on set backs from the River and asked if Kevin had any problem with the proposed set backs. Kevin Wright stated most of the wetlands along the river front are being protected and there will be no development in the ww s ar a.-The_Niigest_set%ackf`rom_the Blue Heron Rookery was 71 his concerti atad hosehomesitcs will have a vqgetative screen. There are only three lots closer to the wetlands than he wanted. Other questions and concerns involving the floating of rafters and fishing habits of the public as well as the golfers were discussed and addressed. Mark Gould - 0004 Westbank - stated that as a father he is very concerned about his wife and children using this bad intersection at County Road 154 and Hwy. 82 and is therefore excited about the project and the proposed improvements. As a homeowner in Westbank, he said the lots are too big; they are one acre lots and in his opinion this is way too much room for a nice community. As a contractor he looks at plans; does construction at Aspen Glen; Rose Ranch is a thoughtful development; this is a good plan; and urged the support of the Board to approve it. Jonathan White on Geological and Alluvial Fans: Jon stated if this is carefully done and as long as they balance out the water introduction with the golf courses, he feels this is feasible and added as long as there are no unlined open water on the alluvial fans. The biggest problem is above the existing drainage ditch - the Robinson Ditch. Everything below this has been saturated from years of irrigation. There is some sink hole problems in that area, but they have been identified by the geotcchs and Rose Ranch has retained two of the better well known and better geotechs in the State especially with experience in this arca. They can develop but need to be consonant of how these soils can react with the introduction of water and should he careful through their build -out and with people who want a small pond in their back yard. The Consultants are making a genuine effort and the County needs to ensure they follow through. The impletncntation process is very important. Commissioner Martin had a concern on the golf path. Jon stated the debris flow hazard appears to be effectively mitigated based on High Country's report. If the concrete crib structure on the golf path is designed property and as long as the engineers work together as far as the dynamic loading of a I00 year debris flow event, founded property, the abutments are designed properly, then most of the larger debris material will fall out behind it and the muddy water will go through the existing drainage. His big concern is that there be an ample maintenance procedure developed because with each debris flow event they will have to clean it out or they will lose capacity over time. This should be written into the I-Iomeowners Association or through the golf course. Chairman Smith referenced H -P Geotechnical report that even with mitigation efforts that building damages may be reduced without basement levels and basements should be avoided. Ron - said on basements that he has been assured by the geotechnical firms and engineers, that if anyone of those tells them that on the alluvial fans, as they proceed to preliminary plat, that they are uncomfortable with the pond or stream location, then Ron said they will put it out. So far they have indicated they can mitigate against that and it can be handled. They have also assured that the mitigation techniques for the individual foundations, which will be engineered and this will be required on each location, which they can do this with basements or slab work - either way it can be mitigated. Additionally, with the Homeowners Association in place they can work out a combination of zero scaping and very little turf management. Chairman Smith asked Joe Hope to explain the drains for the debris flow. Joc Elope - High Country Engineering - said this is really not concrete lined, it is a procedure designed and developed in California for this use. It is basically a series of concrete blocks with gaps to let the water escape. You want to detain the water but not retain the water to slow it • • down. Joe stated on debris flows that he will show these to Jonathan White and get his approval. Joe is aware of the soils. Ile will use recommendations from HP Geotechnical and others and combine all suggestions and recommendations using a combination of solutions. Commissioner McCown asked about the intersection traffic signal regarding time frame for this happening. C -DOT has Joe Hope said if the project is approved, the first 10 lots would make this happen. not put in a warrant of service (there are 13 traffic warrants that determine signalization) and are called a Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices that requires a set of calculations. Joe said when you meet one of those warrants, which is what they are required to follow, then they will allow the signal. Joe added that since he did his study, there have been 12 building permits pulled out there. This means at this rate, by Spring of 1999 they should warrant a traffic signal with or without Rose Ranch. With Rose Ranch, Joe's anticipation with just construction traffic increased by Rose Ranch that C -DOT would grant the signal. Joe has approval to do all the conduit and triggers for the light, electricity and all the bases - ail that he needs to do is put the poles up and it would be done. By the time he gets the widening done, he is confident they will be able to put the light up too. As inc is doing the widening, they are putting in a left turn acceleration turn as well. With a traffic signal the intersection will operate at a level 13. Commissioner Martin on the RFRHA letter said lie needed some clarification. He read into the record - "the project access is off of County 109 but the packet includes a access permit from the 1-Iighway 82. In either case the traffic for the project would have to cross the rail corridor as some point to get. to Hwy. 82 and would be in excess of the 35,000 risk opportunities prescribed by the PUC and trigger the need for separated grade crossing." Joe said Commissioner Martin was reading this correctly, but he did not know where they were getting the 35,000 possible conflicts. At the present time, including existing traffic, there is about 3500 trips per day crossing County Road 154 and Hwy. 82 and somewhere similar to the same number existing at the proposed crossing at the CMC light. Neither one of those arc anywhere close to 35,000. He suggested a zero wrong in RFRIiA's number or a zero wrong in his numbers. There is only 20,000 on Hwy. 82. Additional discussion was held on this issue including the addition of golf course traffic. Ron 1-Ieggermier said regarding the things on the location of the golf course clubhouse: They get a lot of interior residential traffic and by the placement of the clubhouse right by County Road 109, they divert the golf course traffic outside of the subdivision and bring it straight onto Comity 109. Secondly, Ron said they do not plan any commercial activities outside of the golf course. They do have a daycare facility for use within the subdivision and some office space within the clubhouse_ for the Homeowner's Association. Don DeFord asked if this application moves forward, does Joe Hope anticipate doing a count before that process. Joe said they could. He was comfortable that they would have had enough warrants on the 1996 accident count if the highway patrol had kept adequate accident data on those. The State Patrol did this in 1995 and 1997 but missed 1996. It takes mostly broadside accidents to warrant a signal. Chairman Smith inquired about the augmentation plan from West Divide. Scott Balcomb said the project has redundant water supplies that are very conservative in how they approach it. The preferred approach is to get winter water from West Divide because it minimizes on-site storage. They built into the plan a back-up in case West Divide was not able to get their round 2 water and this relies of water storage. The project has a 20% - 25% surplus in overall water supply. The Roaring Fork is a fantastic stream from a water supply standpoint and if you are a water rights guy, you couldn't ask for a easier job than to design a system from the Roaring Fork River. From a legal standpoint he did not feel there would be any problem at all with water supply. There is a pending augmentation case that they believe in about 60 days will be reduced to a final decree and there will be no questions at all. Chairman Smith asked questions on the ponds along the Robinson Ditch. Scott Balcomb commented that everywhere water surfaces on the plan, they have to account for evaporation on the augmentation plan. In some of those instances, sotne of the ponds would be planned to be constructed deeper to provide a storage capacity for winter water in the event for any reason West Divide were not able to provide service. Scott said he has been work two years on the most recent round of round two talks and is convinced the Bureau will be issuing contracts by August. • Commissioner Martin asked the Stale Water Engineer: There is a letter from the State Office of the State Engineer and this sentence bother him - "due to the lack of water court approval of the augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant to Section 30.28.136.1 EIL CRS that the proposed water will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." Scott Balcomb - the cast itself is proceeding logically toward decree and they should have a decree within 60 days and the State would revise its comment. Scott indicated that this is standard operating procedure and until the decree is entered, they always make that finding. The way the water supply works is you adjudicate junior water rights to operate your domestic system and these would be out of priority but Scott is augmenting thein with senior irrigation and storage releases. The State Engineer will not, unless they ask him to and they have not in this case, approve that himself. At times he will make a substitutive approval on limited instances. This project did not require that type of activity on his part, so they haven't asked. it is standard to say that until the court approves the augmentation plan, it is not adequate. Once the court does approve the augmentation plan, such as the issuance of well permits (which does not apply here) the water judge actually orders him to do it. The State Engineer's discretion is at an end once the water judge rules. There were a number of opponents from across the river concerned with the original plan which was to get the water from wells, they dropped this, and most of those original opponents have dropped out of the case. There were a few other typical water rights opponents like Twin Lakes and Colorado Springs and the State Engineer's Office. Scott said they have met with all of them and have a consent decree that they have verbally acknowledged will be adequate - now Scott is tine tuning it and circulating it for signature. Don DeFord asked Scott if the plan now in front of the Hoard has all the locations for water storage you would need if you rely on the decrees rather than West Divide. Scott Balcomb said he believes it does, there are about 10 locations included; however, it may require a necessity to come before the Board to move some of the locations slightly to correspond with "as builts." All of the movement will he internal and will not involve any other water right users. Jeff Rower - Golf Scapes - Arlington, Texas has been working with Jim Dullea and put the golf course in the best place on the plat. He said there is some wiggle room for ponds. However, he expects no major changes. Additional discussion was held with respect to the golf course location and turf management. Ralph Jones - 047 Westbank Road - Glenwood Springs has been a homeowners for 11 years and he is here in opposition of approval for this program. He added that he would be opposed even if he did not even live in this arca. His reasons were the density and lot size proposed. He favored larger lots adding that density creates increased water and air pollution and traffic congestion. He mentioned the road rage problems on Highway 82. Summarized that there were very few pluses for Garfield County the State and Westbank. Steve Gardner -3642 Hwy. 82 commented that his mother owns property on both sides of the river and asked the Board to deny this development until positive action is shown that takes current private property owners into consideration. 1 -le also was concerned that Rose Ranch makes no provision to protect children from the river. Tim Thulson addressed the applicant's concerns regarding the Planning Commission recommendations as they transcribed the taped session. He said they will stand by the tape on what the conditions of approval were and if this becomes a discussion issue, he will address the _ conflict point by point. Ron clarified that simply that Victoria's comment the Planning Commission had asked for 10% of the housing to be put in as "affordable" was not their understanding from the tape of the meeting. Clarification was needed that only Buffalo Grass was be used for the golf course and Ron indicated at the P & Z meeting they said no, they wanted to follow what the specialists recommended. He added that in the event someone were to ask if they agreed with everything that came out of Planning and Zoning, he just wanted to clear up a few things. Tim Thulson on RFRHA: Tim said it was his understanding that they had reduced what they would be mitigating to a fee of $750 to be paid at building permit. in the staff report it indicated that they would mitigate the impacts and Tim felt positive it was reduced to a dollar amount. On the Conservation Easement, reference was made to a river front casement along the project and it is his recollection and from reviewing the tapes that the applicant had stated a conservation • • easement will be created on the East bank of the Roaring Fork River and 6 acres were identified in that regard. Ron clarified the arca by showing on the drawings before the Board. Tim Thulson on the issue of required 10% affordable housing on site said that Victoria has acknowledged that the Planning Commission did not require that as a condition of approval. Tim stated they specified at approval that there would be: $1,000 per unit to the Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housing Fund; $1,000 per unit to the Carbondale Affordable Corporation; and $200 to the Garfield County Housing Authority and these fees were to be paid upon approval at final plat. They have made a commitment to the Committee for Future Housing for Tomorrow an additional $1,000 per unit however that would be made a building permit. Ron - addressed the Affordable Ilousing issue and said several groups were involved and when the project was offered to the various groups, many stated that it offered a variety of things that they were unable to do in the past. Ron clarified that the project would provide the funds and the individual entities would need to decide how they were going to use the funds. Affordable Housing issues were discussed by various individuals. Closing Remarks: Victoria Giannola, in summary, presented her argument for a continuance of this PUD in order for her to meet with the developer and discuss the possibilities and modifications to the plan to helpmeet everyone's needs that has been heard in this Public Bearing. At an absolute minimum she agreed with the remarks made by Ralph Jones that this does not meet at least one of the pressing needs in the County and that is housing on site. She argued that even though the developer is offering money, the County will not be buying property between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs due to it being affordable. There is a chance that property could be purchased in New Castle or further West; however this doesn't help meet the needs that Bob Young, Calvin Lee and Mark Gould have voiced to the Board. There is a need for employees to be close to their operation. Don DeFord mentioned that other than just minor adjustments, anything that re -adjusts the densities that have been proposed as part of the Sketch Plan and PUD that would significantly alter the open space or the common elements including the golf course needs to be done now because if it is done later it requires a literal amendment to a PUD plan and a full public hearing. In tens of some of the conditions that the Planning Commission placed on their approval (these comments are only if the Board elects to go forward), phasing has not really been addressed either by the Planning Commission or by discussion in front of the Board. The developer has proposed a phasing plan that from his perspective is not real clear at least in one aspect and that is the Preliminary Plan. As he has recommended with all PUD's he thinks the Preliminary Plan, if the Board goes forward to that process, must be submitted at one time and not in phases. Otherwise, you don't have integrated planning that's required by the County's code. Also through the phasing plan the Board has heard and made comments about the intersection with I Iwy. 82 and County Road 109 and various responses were made by Rose Ranch's engineer concerning this intersection. In some manner Don said he thinks this needs to be addressed for the safety of the public and at what point that would have to be controlled intersection. The State I-Iighway Department has their position as to when this becoines a signaled controlled intersection. This Board also has safety concerns that they have to protect and so the Board can at least interject their position through this planning process. Procedurally, Don pointed out to the Board that if they have legal inquiries, and only legal inquiries, the Board is entitled to request an Executive Session in order for him to provide that advice. Additional discussion was held on: wetlands, geological concerns; location of golf holes; open space; drainage issues onto County Road 109; visual corridor; building heights; and sewer taps and capacity - EQR's. Don DeFord on sewer taps and capacity in the district: Don stated the sewer district also has commitments to other properties and the reason he mentioned preliminary plan is because at that point that there has to be a Lawful source of sewer and the first -serve first come in theory, may create some risks. The Board would not want to be in the position of looking at a preliminary plan and going through that approval process and then have an intervening project. He stated this to support his comment that some assurance was needed by the district that adequate EQR's I • would be committed to this project at preliminary plan. Tim Thulson has been working on this for at least six weeks. Tim Thu!son said he met with the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitary District on July 15. Aspen Glen is facing a pressing issue as they arc coming to the Board with a final plat that presents the same question. There is an attempt to get both problems solved at one time prior to the August 17th meeting with Aspen Glen. At that time they hope to present a method to secure the funding for expansion. One other point made was in reference to the 428 EQK available right now and where that comes out of is the 'out of district contract' that was executed among the various parties. There is a provision in that contract that says irrcgardless of what's in the service plan, we are going to assume that they will commit past these 300,000 and it is for an assumption purpose only. When you ask the district specifically where do you get the 300,000 and what's that for, they respond "1 don't know." So the 428 comes out after you subtract what Aspen Glen's ultimate capacity requirements will be from the 300,000. The service plan is set at 600,000. It's a big plant and Louis Meyer has confirmed that the site can go over a million gallons per minute. The main issue is how the funding will be secured in advance. Tim said they hope to have something presented to this Board in August. Commissioner Martin stated he had five points on which he would base his disapproval. He thought it was well done on paper but his concerns are not adequately addressed physically and this bothers him. He said he has the same concern with Aspen Glen and their proposal which has been discussed numerous times and he is still not satisfied with this explanation. Ile stands on that and admitted it was his personal view. Don Delord added that Commissioner Martin was correct in that it has not been discussed actually on the physical construction on the plant facilities to meet future demands. The discussions have revolved around "paper commitments" because the actual capacity still so far exceeds the actual use, but there is a difference of opinion on that. Chairman Smith clarified that Don meant the 80% capacity ... Commissioner Martin said they should have their plan in front of this Board and be working on that now, but it is not there. Commissioner McCown said, require that it's actually 80% of capacity not proposed capacity. Ile knows Commissioner Martin's point and this has been discussed every time this particular district has come before this Board. Just because a lot has been committed to this district, it is not on line impacting this system. 1 think the system operates very efficiently and they have a very good record keeping system on what is going through the system. At which time it gets to the 80% level when they have to start the planning stage,1 believe the 90% level has to be under construction - his concern and what he believes that Tim is trying to address is the assurance that the funding is going to be in place whether it is in an account someplace in a Swiss bank, that we can begin construction. This is his concern and wants the assurance that the funding is there when the trigger trips 80% the study begins and at 90% we start building. Commissioner McCown said there is another sewer district in sanitation in place with this same type of agreements that are being discussed here, with the guarantee that the funds will be there, with the guarantee that the plant will be expanded and guess what - it's not. The physical plant can not handle any expansion and it can't handle what is already being used even though there is the same type of agreement in place and this concerns him. Therefore, he needs more assurance from Aspen Glen that this is not going to occur there. This is the requirement on Mr. Heggermier that this will be in place and he would have to step up to the plate and guarantee it in some way as well as Aspen Glen would have to be guaranteeing that they would use that to expand their facility and have the guarantee that the State Health Department would approve that plan. Don DeFord added that this is one of the reasons that he recommended to this developer through the Board that the Planning Commission condition, in order to meet that, Rose Ranch would have to show this Board at preliminary plan what the structure of the security would be at final plat. (The plan that would be put in place at final plat so that if the Board does not believe that this adequately assures that physical construction would occur, it could be dealt with at that time.) Don added that his understanding from the State, subject to Commissioner Martin's position, is that they actually could build the physical plant before they had to before the 80% but are not required to do that. Tim said the State really doesn't want you to do that because it really makes operations bad and added that on providing the commitment at preliminary plan - the problem they have with advance permit is a real Catch 22. The permitting is geared on actual flows and Aspen Glen have • platted over 300 lots now and they haven't discharged the draw because the flows are so low. If they go in and try to get an advanced site expansion, that expansion is only good for one year and then it expires. You have to construct under that approval or it expires. In talking to Dwain Watson, if you want to get on the bad side of him real quick, this would be to start flooding him with applications before you have any change to construct them. This puts them in a bind in this regard. Steve Gardner asked a question on the enforcement of these requirements on the developer. Past Commissioners have required certain requirements and once they got the Board's approval, they never did meet those requirements. How docs the Board of County Commissioners plan to enforce? Don DeFord stated that at PUD stage, any conditions that are applied, move to preliminary plan consideration and there is no project that can be developed directly from PUD, it has to go through preliminary plan and final plat and staging all of which the Board would enforce through the public hearing process. If the project were to ultimately go to final plat approval with all of the conditions that have been discussed, then yes, the Commissioners give the staff the resources to do the enforcement, be it engineering, be it attorneys, or whatever to get the enforcement accomplished. A motion was made by Commissioner Martin and seconded by Commissioner McCown to close the Public Hearing; carried. Deliberations: Motion to continue -.first motion: Commissioner Martin said he didn't think this was quite there yet and would like to make the motion to recommend that the Planning Staff continue to work with this and with the developer and addressing this issues that have been outlined in changing the density along the river; to increase the density within; to relocate a couple of the geological haa:trds which still concerns him; to put in an affordable housing unit so the Board of Commissioner could work with them; also continue to address the congestion of traffic and the conservation easement needs to continue; so the motion is to continue this so the staff would be able to work out some of the details that have been raised. Commissioner McCown clarified if this meant to continue both. Commissioner Martin said yes. Commissioner McCown said he could not second that. Don DeFord said the motion dies for a lack of a second and the matter is still before them. Motion to approve: Commissioner McCown made a motion to approve the Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan Review Application for the Rose Ranch containing therein the recommendations from the Planning Commission making note to #11 regarding the sewer treatment and encouraged correcting him if he missed any of these during the course of the on-going conversation, that this security for adequate sewage treatment would take place at the preliminary plan... Don DeFord - the plan for security Commissioner McCown - yes, that it would be guaranteed at that time. There was another one that we addressed striking the buffalo grass was clearly one he remembered. 1 may have missed some of these in my notes.... Tim Thulson - the affordable housing site issue Commissioner McCown ycs, strike that and allow for payment in lieu #45 under the staffs recommendations of conditions, I would strike the i ,000 buffer from the Blue Heron Rookery based on Kevin's assessment of that and I would also strike #46 on the 2 acre lot configuration along the river. Did you have any notes that I missed. Chairman Smith - well I didn't have any notes that you missed, I would like to see some housing on site. Don DeFord, your motion does it strike the housing on-site, Larry. Commissioner McCown yes it does and it allows for payment in lieu. Don DeFord, all right. • Commissioner Martin stated he would second the motion to go ahead and call for the question. Chairman Smith - without discussion? Commissioner Martin - without discussion. Chairman Smith called for the question: Vote - McCown - aye; Smith - no; Martin - no. Chairman Smith - let's try another alternative. Commissioner Martin - all right. Chairman Smith - are you going to make another one. Motion to continue - second motion: Commissioner Martin made a motion to go ahead and to continue the sketch plan process taking in consideration all recommendations that the staff has provided us but also heeding the warning of our legal whcih is to deny the PUD because we still do not have a full approval of the Sketch Plan, in other words he is separating both of them. To continue the Sketch Plan - continue the operation of that, but not to approve the PUD because of the possibilities of changes in the Sketch Plan and not being able to change the PUD itself. Don DeFord - on that motion, I have to make a quick comment. There's been discussion of this Sketch Plan and a PUD. The Sketch Plan is a Planning Commission issue and the Sketch Plan actually does not come to the Board of County Commissioners - it is a Planning Commission issue. What's in front of you is the PUD. Commissioner Martin - It's close but I don't think it is there yet and we need to still address some of the concerns of staff and we are not doing that by approval and I think that Mr. Heggermier has demonstrated that he can go ahead and work with the staff and he has done a very good job of working with the public but we still need work on it. Chairman Smith - my only concern is "on-site housing;" I think they are to be commended for their concept of tum lanes, working with intersections, lining the ponds, how they take care of the debris flow and the clean outs, planning the xeroseaping which a lot of people haven't been doing and I think this shows a commitment to conservation of water as well as protecting those foundations, they've got engineered foundation in there. My only concern is that 1 think you are well on the road to having something that will be outstanding in this valley but 1 would like to sec some affordable housing units on this site especially for, back to the continent that was made about the people that would be employed for example at the golf course. I just feel like some housing should be part of this project. You've done everything else very very well, I would like to see this an outstanding project. Don DeFord - John, do you have a pending motion? Commissioner Martin - I guess.. Chairman Smith - it didn't get a second. Commissioner Martin - it didn't get a second. Commissioner McCown - I wasn't clear on what it was though. Chairman Smith -1 didn't understand either - the PUD and Sketch Plan. Commissioner Martin - try and continue the hearing on the PUD. Chairman Smith - he just worded it again. Commissioner Martin - that's right Don DeFord - you want to move to continue the hearing on the PUD? Commissioner Martin - that is my concern. Commissioner McCown - I'll second for sake of discussion. Discussion: Don DeFord - okay, with that I would make a comment on the legality issue. With a second you can move to continue the hearing but we have a time problem on this project. The 120 days which is permitted under your regulations within which you need to make a decision is also enforced by State law concerning PUD's and without the acquittance of the applicant in this case to an extension of time beyond the 120 days, 1 don't believe that you can continue this hearing and still meet your obligation. Victoria may a have different position on timing, I'm not sure exactly where we are on the 190 days. Victoria Giannola said we would definitely need a time extension. Don DeFord - so to go forward with the motion which now has a second, you do need to discuss that with the applicant and for that sole purpose I think we need to re -open the Public Hearing. Commissioner McCown called for the question. Chairman Smith stated we do have a motion and called for the question. • Martin - aye; Smith - no; McCown - no. Final - Motion to approve: Commissioner McCown - okay, if what I'm hearing Marian, it seems like we can come to an agreement on this, if I would amend my motion "to include provision 1130 which would include 10% of the total housing units proposed as attainable housing units to be located on the project site." Don DeFord - for the record is all other respects, is your motion identical to the one you made earlier? Commissioner McCown - yes it is other than that correction. There would be no provision for payment in lieu. Chairman Smith - that would be strictly up to them, I will second that motion. Commissioner Martin - you will step down as Chair to second that, Chairman Smith - yes, I stepped down as Chair to second that motion. You weren't going to. Okay, are you ready for the question? Any discussion? Commissioner Martin - provision No. 38 - the drainage plan in place for the trail as well, I guess that is covered in there as well. That was under the provision 1138 - I just wanted to clarify that. Chairman Smith - the only thing that changed was the 1,000 foot buffer which is 500, it's in there, I can't remember what the buffer Ron - close to 800 foot. Chairman Smith - and the minimum lot size was... Commissioner McCown - I guess before we vote on this, Don if there was some concern about monitoring, is this the time that we would put into place provisions for an independent service that would monitor not only the wetlands mitigation but the drainage construction items? Don DeFord - yes and one of your regulations that can be applied to allow the County to do that both at final plat and at preliminary plan is, in time past when you specifically wanted to do that, it has been addressed at the PUD so this would be an appropriate time to address what responsibility the developer would have to compensate and assure the County that monitoring such things as geo-tech, wildlife, etc. would.... Commissioner McCown - I guess, can I go back and amend my motion to include that Don at this point? Chairman Smith - we've got a motion and a second. Are you going to amend it. Amended motion Commissioner McCown - yes, I would like to include that for the better ntunber somewhere it would be "#48 to include the hiring of an independent engineering company of the County's choosing to monitor all the mitigations that were proposed in the applicant's package," Don DeFord - "both for preliminary plan and fatal plat?" Commissioner McCown - yes. Don DeFord - is this an amendment to your motion? Commissioner McCown - yes it is. Definition of Attainable/Affordable Housing Don DeFord - before there is a second on that I would tell you that the question now of attainability on housing has arisen as part of this motion. Would the Board assist staff and the applicant by giving direction on what you mean by "attainable." Commissioner McCown that number was batted around last night. Don DeFord - I understand that and. I think you understand the problem both of us have - the applicant and staff - tumless you have given us direction because they'll have to address that if they go forward at the next stage and we need to know. Commissioner McCown - I think the common ground that seemed to be struck last night during the discussion with the P & Z members and Roaring Fork and if I'm not mistaken it was 80% of the median income in this valley. Chairman Smith - and no more than 1/3 of their.... Commissioner McCown - and no more than 1/3 of their income. Don DeFord - would you include that as part of your motion and part of the conditions? Would you include that definition? Commissioner McCown - in that attainable section? Don DeFord - yes Commissioner McCown - yes. Don DeFord - he has amended that motion. Chairman Smith - I will amend my second to include that for the conditions. 1 • Chairman Smith - now - all those in favor of the motion? Smith - aye; McCown - aye; Martin - no. 1 cion't that that we've gone far enough, 1 still think we need to take into consideration what staff has recommended. Chairman Smith - it passes. These are the recommended conditions of approval from the Garfield County Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners prior to the above motion that includes the addition and correction of some of the recommendations. Regarding the Underlying Geology and Soils: 1. The applicant will adhere to all recommendations contained within the reports of their consulting engineers including the following: a, establish a minimum setback from sinkholes of twenty (20') feet. In addition, subsurface voids will be engineered for stability when planning building site foundations; and b. protect against erosion through revegetation and rock rip -rap. Furthermore, grading will not be considered on slopes greater than thirty (30°) percent [in accordance with the The Preliminary Geotechnical Study Rose Ranch Development County Road 109 Garfield County, Colorado]. 2. Ponds will be located in the area of least geologic impact and will be lined with an industrial grade liner in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations with the exception of those ponds which are existing [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05 (7) (ii)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy, Section 1I1.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Geological Survey]. 3. The developer and his consultants will rebuild the road or provide the finances to do such should irrigated golf course holes 11 and 12 immediately above County Road 109 result in a continuation of road damage [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)E)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section I1I.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy Section III 8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Geological Survey]. 4. The develop and his consultants will indemnify the county from any claims by a homeowner associated with the following: a. homes which will be subject to breaks in their foundations due to collapsible underlying geology and highly permeable soils and the effects of irrigating the golf course holes and the lawns; b. lines which may break when a pond is at it's full water capacity if differential settlement of several inches occurs beneath them; c. severe hydrocompactive soil properties which are problematic for roadways and slab on grade pavements; d. potential ground subsidence in the majority of the alluvial fans where development is proposed resulting in ground subsidence, sinkholes, ground fissuring, and piping soil dissolution; and e. potential ground settlement and subsidence in the residential areas surrounding the proposed ponds within the alluvial fan area sue to severe wetting of these hydrocompactive soils by the ponds [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)E)(iv), Subdivision. Regulations of Garfield. County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.8,5 Objective and 8.5 Policy Section Ill 8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Geological Survey]. 5. The applicant will provide plat notes regarding the need for specialized engineered foundations on areas composed of hydrocompactive soils [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)E)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 11I.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy Section III 8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Geological Survey]. 6. The applicant will provide detailed plans on the mitigation of the collapsible soils for all building foundation and road construction proposed [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)E)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 1I1.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy Section 111 8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Geological Survey]. 7. The applicant will provide detail plans on the proposed foundation stabilization designs of the proposed pond [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)E)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of GarFeld County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section I11.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy Section 1118.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Geological Survey]. 8. The applicant will make use of native vegetation which requires less water consumption by requiring the planting of native grasses such as buffalo grass on all fairways and lawns on the site. The plan will abide by the recommendations of the consultant's golf course management - which to date the planning department has not been provided a conn of [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)E)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.8.2 Objective]. Regarding Water Consumptive Requirements: 9. Include evidence of a water court approved augmentation plan for review prior to approval of the preliminary plan for this project by the Board of County Commissioner [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.51, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resources]. 10. Ensure that an adequate potable water supply will be available to all units [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.51, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resources]. Regarding Sewage Treatment: 11. Secure adequate sewage treatment capacity from the Aspen Glen wastewater treatment plant through committed number of taps for the project 'Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.51, and in accordance with the State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resources]. Regarding Wildlife Protection: 12. The applicant has agreed to comply with the Division of Wildlife's conditions including the following: a. Place within the protective covenants (under Art. IV., Sec. 12.c), as a condition of approval, the placement of educational signs at the pritnary overlook regarding golden eagle nesting, and the closure of the ridge south of the eagle's nest from 15 March through 1 July with fines imposed on those found in violation; b. Place within the protective covenants the closure of the upper golf course and ridge to human activity, excluding maintenance, from 1 December through 31 March with a gate and a sign and fines imposed for any violation thereof; c. install habitat improvement measures on the upper bench west of CR 109, undertake the development of a site plan with the DOW, and provide for the maintenance and the protection from disturbance of the native vegetation outside of the golf course; d. Forbid the construction of the water tank and the line west of CR 109 from 15 March through 1 July due to golden eagle nesting activities; e. Create a vegetative screen approved by the DOW, and plant vegetation along the east boundary of proposed Lots 108 through 118, 70 through 80, and 76 through 77; f. Forbid the removal of trees along the river and the wetland areas except for exotic and invading species; g. Create an educational brochure for distribution to all homeowners on how to live with wildlife; h. Provide a 50-foot setback from the wetlands to the home-site; and i. Maintain the 100 foot buffer between Rose Ranch and Teller Springs in native vegetation, and install vegetative screening along all of those lot boundaries [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.5.3, Policy]. 13. Provide a public fishing easement along the West Bank property downstream from the bridge [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.5.3, Policy and 5.3 Program], 14. Forbid the construction of the primary overlook from 15 March through 1 July 'Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.5.3, Policy]. Regarding the Great )flue Heron Rookery: 15. The applicant has agreed to comply with the Division of Wildlife's conditions including the following: a. Plant vegetative screening along the east boundary of proposed Lots 108 through 118 to screen homesites and backyard activity from the rookery; b. Place vegetative screening before any construction activity; c. Forbid the construction of homes from 15 February through 31 May on proposed Lots 94 through 96 and 108 through 118; d. Forbid human activity in the riparian and wetlands areas below proposed Lots 94 1 through 118 and across from the rookery from 15 February through 15 July by the use of fencing and signage as well as fines imposed for any violation thereof; e. Install an artificial nesting platform on the east side of the river by the rookery; and f. Prohibit the construction of second story decks and/or balconies facing the rookery for proposed Lots 108 through 118 unless a screening plan subject to approval by the Divisions of Wildlife is submitted [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.8.6 Objective]. Regarding Fire Prosection Services: 16. Install vegetative screen to block the effects of increased traffic through the development of a screening plan for the Richard Weinberg property. 17. Ensure that water supplies from the Rose Ranch development are made available for future extension to these areas for fire protection purposes, Stub and size the lines appropriately so that they are available for future tap -ins for fire flow [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District]. 18. Require a minimum flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District]. 19. Provide impact fees adopted by the District which are due prior to recording of a final plat [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District]. 20. Complete plans in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Appendix 1II-A:: Fire Requirements for Buildings [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District], 21. Locate fire hydrants in accordance with the UFC Appendix II1-13: Fire Hydrant Locations and Spacing [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District]. Regarding School District Services: 22. Provide cash in -lieu of the calculated dedicated land, to be paid at the time of subdivision approval, to compensate for the increase in school children generated from this proposed development. The cash amount will be set at the time of final plat [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 4.08,05(E)). Regarding Public Transportation Services: 23. Mitigate the development's impacts on the existing or the future transit system by contributing a fair share of the costs associated with providing public transit service to the site including the Park and Ride facility, a transit shelter and parking spaces, rolling stock capacity, operating subsidy, and parking lot maintenance and snow removal. The applicant has offered S750.00 per unit for the construction of the Park and Ride facility to be paid at the time of submission of a building permit application [Garfield County Comprehensive Pian Section 111.3.1 and 3.3 Objectives, Section I11.3.3 and 3.6 Policies]. Regarding Prosection of the River Corridor: 24. Avoid erosion along the river bank that may occur during high water where construction has occurred by establishing a setback for building lots at one hundred (100') [Garfield. County Comprehensive Plan Section I]I.5.0(A) Goal]. 25. Avoid the loss of natural vegetation along the river banks, which provides protection for wildlife, by establishing a WildlifefVegctative casement/buffer along the river corridor on the preliminary plans for staff review [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section Ii1.5.0(A) Goal]. 26. Ensure that the trail along the west side of the Roaring Fork River is a continuous link; and construct the trail along CR 109 to Glenwood Spring's Rivertrails specifications [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.5.0(A) Goal]. 27. Develop a program for monitoring surface water quality, and restrict the use of pesticides and fertilizers [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.5.0(A) Goal], 28. Create a six (6) acre conservation casement along the riverfront of the project [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section II1.5.0(A) Goal]. 29. Eliminate the potential for river contamination through runoff from the golf course and support water quality monitoring efforts and monitoring of the riparian health [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.5.0(A) Goal]. Regarding 1 -lousing Provision, Traffic Improvements, Viewsheds, and Historic Features: 30. Provide for ten percent (10%) of the total housing units proposed as attainable housing units to be located on the project site. The applicant should work with the Carbondale Affordable Housing Corporation, the Garfield Housing Authority, the Housing for Tomorrow Commission, and the Glenwood Board of Realtors. Payment of any funds in -lieu -of shall be rendered at the time of final plat approval [Garfield County Zoning • • Resolution Section 4.04.4.07.01, and 4.07.03 and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.2.1 Objective]. 31. Construct a controlled intersection as proposed upon approval of the first final plat unless the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requires a grade separation intersection. In which case, the applicant will contribute its fair share of the total cost to construct a grade separated access at the intersection of SR 82 with CR 154, which is the preferred improvement design by both the CDOT and the Roaring Fork Railroad Bolding Authority for primary public safety reasons. The cost of such an improvement is estimated to start at two million dollars [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section II1.5.0(A) Goal]. 32. Provide payment of the applicable road impact fee at the time of final plat approval. 33. Construct improvements to CR 109 between Hardwick Bridge and the first entrance to the subdivision [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section ili.5.0(A) Goal]. 34. The proposed PUD will be permitted to provide the possible use of a maximum building height of up to thirty-five (35) feet based upon the application of preliminary plans which will be evaluated for potential impacts resulting from an increase in building height on the site specific locations [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 4.07.04(1)(2)(3)(5) and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.2.5 Objective]. 35. Save and repair Building 48. Evaluate the potential to save the cold storage cellar as a part of this proposed PUD [Garfield County Zoning Resolution Section 408.05(7)(G). Regarding Commercial Uses and Canyon Development: 36. Provide the total area of proposed nonresidential floor space prior to the PUD hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 3.3.21.5]. 37. Ensure that the cart path proposed within the drainage channel of the canyon will not increase the rate of runoff and debris flow and that mitigation structures are installed to manage these factors [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 3. 40.D and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 111.5.0 Goal, and Section I11.8.2 Policy]. 38. Provide a design of the canyon golf cart path which, from a geotechnical and debris flow model within the canyon arca, will be safe for pedestrians and for homcsites located down gradient [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 3. 40.D and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 1I1.5.0(A) Goal, and Section 111.8.2 Policy]. Regarding Agriculture: 39. Require xeroscape landscaping measures for all homes proposed within the development as part of the covenants [Section 408.05(7)(E)(iv) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section I11.8.2 Objective]. 40. The applicant will adhere to all recommendations of conditions of compliance as contained within the letter from Wright Water Engineers dated 21 May 1998. Regarding Homesites: 41. No outdoor lighting will shine off of the property, but rather shine down and in towards the structure; and the PUD will minimize outdoor lighting. 42. The applicant will provide $2,200.00 per lot to he paid at the time of final plat. 43. A limitation will be instituted of two (2) wood burning fireplaces in the clubhouse. all other structures and residences on the Rose Ranch development are prohibited from having wood burning fireplaces or stoves. 44. The applicant will abide by the "Conditions/Recommendations Agreed to by Rose Ranch Developers for Approval" as submitted by the applicant at the public meeting before the Planning Commission. B. Staff Recommendation of Condition in Addition to the Planning Commission's Conditions: Regarding the Great Blue Heron Rookery: Establish a one thousand foot (1,000') buffer around the nests to protect feeding areas [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section 11I.8.6 Objective]. Au(a,1i.1J..i1 2:1 r'v1 LtAVtN'NUHIH & KAK • David and Jill McConaughy 0515 County Road 167 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 August 13, 2003 Garfield County Planning Commission c/o Tamara Pregl VIA FAX 384-3470 Re: Amendment to Rose Ranch PUD (Ironbridge) August 13, 2003 Public Hearing Dear Commissioners: NU. 631 9/1 Hair RECEIVED 411G 1°, 11-0-13 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING We live directly across the river from Rose Ranchflronbridge. All winter long the most interesting element of our view is the elk herd that winters in the proposed development. We understand that the proposed PUD amendment includes moving a lot or adding a lot in the open areas where the elk spend their time_ We are not aware of the rationale for this change but would ask the Planning Commission to consider the potential impact on the elk herd in reviewing this application. Our adjacent neighbor at 0497 CR 167, Dr. Karat Schlundt, has asked me to state that he shares this concern. Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's hearing in person_ Thank you for your consideration, cc: Karat Schlundt Tim Thulson, Esq, (via fax) • RFCEWEIELDDCOUNTY cry- ? .� 24fl PLANNING DEPARTMENT 108 8TH STREET #201 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, 00 81601 Memo to: Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado • September 25, 2003 Subject: Accuracy of survey data presented by LB Rose RanchfBalcomb & Green P.C. in their request for Preliminary Plan Review and Amendments to their P.U.D.-Sections 4.12.03 and 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. This memo substitutes for personal attendance at the public hearing Oct. 6, 2003 as we will be out of country on that date. We are one lot owner (Westbank Filing 1, Lot 20) of many who border the Ironbridge Golf Course (LB Rose Ranch) with a common property line. It should be noted that we only reviewed one survey description (property line and property pin -our own) in hundreds of bearings and distances in nine pages of continuous survey data. We find in our case that the applicants survey description is in error and does not exist as they state, "rebar and cap, L.S. No. 19598" (see attachment). This rebar and cap is in fact buried under six feet of fill and rip -rap under a driveway constructed on Ironbridge Golf Course (LB Rose Ranch) property on an alleged 60' right of way easement. Our request to the applicant is that they replace that property pin they say legally exists as soon as possible at their expense. In addition, the questions arise; just how old is the nine pages of survey data? Was the data taken from a 30 -year-old plat plan of Westbank Filings 1,2 and 3 or was a more recent update attempted? Could there be more than just one isolated case of inaccuracy in all the meets and bounds presented? Nine pages of continuous survey data is not what you would call interesting reading for the average potentially effected homeowner. These questions should be addressed and answered for those Westbank residents who have property lines in common with the golf course. and for future homeowners of those properties. Homeowners may not know the current physical condition of their property corners after two and a half years of construction near their lot lines.If this is not addressed now it could cost the homeowner for a survey when they sell their property as it will us. Tha ou for your attention to thi,s matter. (_--; /2 Dave and Rosella Leety attachment .4 77.46410H64UT t94.Z0- • PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that LB Rose Ranch, LLC has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a Preliminary Plan review for Subdivision approval pursuant to Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as amended, and to request an amendment to its Planned Unit Development zoning pursuant to Sections 4.12.03 and 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to wit: Legal Description: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 4, 5. 10, 11. 12, 13. 15, 10, 17. 22, 23, 24. 2S, 29 '0 AND 34 OE SECTION 1 AND !AXIS 2. ; 4, 7, S. 9, 12, 13. 15, 16 O1' SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 7 SOU I FI. RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIX fl I PRINCIPAL. MERIDIAN. COUNTY OF GARFIELD, SIAM OF COLORADO: SAIL) PARCEL 01 1 ANI) BEING MORE PARTICULARLY AS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SFC"1'lON 1, A 1958 I3LM BRr1SS C,\I' LN1 PLACE: THENCE 5 56'22'41" E 515.09 FEET TO A 1'AIN1' ON THE sol I'11FRI.1`' LINE 01.7 TII,'11 pRopERTy DIESC.RIHFD [N 1300K 599 .11' P,\01.955 OF TI IF G:\RFI1.1,[) COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE. 111F POINT OF BEGINNING: 1 HENCE s 59'20'23" F :\ 0\G TII1'; SQl.i I IIE RI Y 1 INF OF 5 AID BOOK 590 AT PAGE 955, A DISTANCE 01- 208.21 FE.EL "1 111:\C'1. CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOI. THERLY LINE E 4 63''.47`19" E 60.78 FEET T() A REBAR AND CAP L.S. '117488 IN PLACE: THENCE (.'(\TI`L'ING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 5 63'-4^.'7," 1.4.00 FEET "10 '1 REBAR :AND CAP L.S. =:17458 IN PLACE: THENCE C'0\ I l\1: I\G ALONG ,AID SOUTHERLY EA RLY L 113E 5 63'47'20" E 334.00 FEET TO THE SOU'l BL AST CORNER OF SAID BOOK 590 .r AT PAGE 955, A REBAR AND CAP L.S. #17488 IN PLACE; THENCE N 37'11'37" E ALONG THE EASTERLY 1 INE OF SAID 1300K 590 A 1' PAGE. 955. 298.51 FEET TO A POIN F ON 111E CENTERLINE OF Tl-IIi ROARING FORK R1VER THENCE E THE FOLLOWING F'1VL•. (5) COURSES ALONG H11 LEN -1 FR1.INI:H 01' SAID RIVER: 1. S 64'20'33" E 539.13 FEL I 2. S 69`:24'54" E 523.30 FEET 3. S 61'41'54" E 147.51 FE1'l 4. S 34''19'54" E 646.80 FEET 5. S29'54'54"L? 516.97 EFF.' TOAPOINT i N1111'FA !TREY OF LOT 17 OF SAID SECTION 1: TIIENCE. LEAVING ING SAIL) LIN: ILRLINE S 00'42'38" E ALONG TILE EASTERLY 1.IN1. OF LOTS 17. 22 AND 29, A DINT INCE OF 2140.70 FEET: FIII NCE LE. 1G'ENG SAID EAS STERIN LINE N 8915'45" E 43.14 FEET TO THE NORTFI WES'1 CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY DES(;RIl3ED IN BOOK 511 Al P.A(GIE 103 OF Ti {1'. GARFICEI.D C01"I TY CLERK AND RECORDER'' 01:FI(.;E.: TI-IE\CE IFIL: POLL0\\ LNG SIX (6) COURSES ALONG 11IE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY: 1. S41 07'I0" E 559.76 FL Er 2. S47'56'30" E 519.80 FEET 3. 5 47'16'43" E 466.70 1'LET 4. S 34'28'09" E 123.72 FEET 5. S 04'45'38" E- 390.41 FEET 6. 5 08'01'51" \1' 130.25 FELL L I 0 THE SOL. 111W IS I CORNER 01 SAID PROPER] Y: THEN(F N 67'25'06" 1' ALONG THE SOL 1 1IERL.Y LINE O1' SAID PROPERTY 211.01)111110 A POIN f ON '111E EAS TL- ILL Y LINE OI' LOT 9 OF SAID SECTION 12: MENCE 8 00'22"1 1" F ALONG SAID FAS] FRIA' I.,INE 600.90 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORM R 01- SAID LOT 9. A REBAR AND AL1. MIN CAP.. • L.S. #22580, IN PLACE: THENCE V(_•[. S 03'11'58" 1V ALONG T IT E EAS I'ERLY LINE OF LOT 12 OF SAID SECTION 12 741.05 FEET TO THE 5()1ST CORNER OF SAID L()T 12, A REAR A\[) ;A1 (MINI NI CAP IN PLACE: T I11.\+'1 S 00'0602" I.ALONG THE 1.:151 ER [ l\f O1' 101 16 O1' SAID SEC HON 12 555.52 FEU LO THE SOL. 1111 rASI CORNER O1 SAID LO 1 16. A 1R1 BAR AND /A1.L1M[NUM C:AP IN PEACE. SAID POINT ALSO BEING I I IE NOR 1111-:1 S1 CORNER OF TELLER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION: THENCE S 89"59'08" W ALONG 111E NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID I_FI..LER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 220.61 1 I E I' TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FAR( T1. C OF RECEPTION NO. 444 311 OF VHF GARFIF;I..L) COUNTY (1.1:Rk :\\1) RECORDER'S OFFICE,: THENCE L1.AA 1\t 1 SAI[) NORTHERLY LINT \ 12'5748" 48" \A ALONG 1111. 1 \' 11: RI \ 1.1VE OF SAID RECEPTION NO. 444 311 169.14 FEET: 1T: 1 F[U\(1 \ 87'58'25" GA' ALONG HIE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAII) PAR(1.1. C 324 IFF. I' THENCE ALONG 1111-. WESTERLY I.INF OF SAID PARCH C• ALONG [11E. ARC OF A CURVE 10 1111: R1GI-IT HAVING A RADIUS 01: 2 .") 1 1 1. 1 r1\1:) f'A CENTRAL: \TR.A[ ANGLE OF 17 52'51" A l)[S1 INCE OF 11 . ' H 1:T (CHORD BEARS S1 '29'05' E 180.98 FEET) TO A POINT ON II*. \(R Fl11 [t1.Y LINE OF SAID FELLER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION; THENCE S 89 :52.26" W ALONG SAID NOR FFIERLV LINT i 7,..4 i FEET TC)THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TELLER SPRINGS OPEN SPACE; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTFIERLY LINE 5 21°55'10" W AlON(t 1111.7. WESTERLY LINE OF SAID OPEN SPACE 53.97 FEET TO THE NOP I I I1 AST CORNER OF LOT 5 01= SAID TI=-1.1.ER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON 1111 ;A\11•\DILL) PEAT 11fERE=OF:111F-\('F S {) ',')'0S"'41` A1,ONG THE 1ti(-)R'1'HI•RI.Y I,IN1 OF S:1I1) LOT 5 165.35 FEE:1: THEN( 1' CONTINUING At,O\Ci SAII) NORTHERLY 1..i\L N 45°01'42" W 28.27 F1 -:VI : 1111.\CE CON I1 1. 11NG ALO\(i SAID NORI IEERLY LINE N 89"59"08" AAI 855.53 ILL -1 10 THE NORTHWEST CORNER OE SAID LOT 5, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON TIUF EAS !TREY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CO1.1NTY RO.AE) NO. 109: THENCE THE FOLLOWING TNA ENT V-T1IRFF (23) COURSES ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY: 1. N 13''I5'08" 130.84 FEET 2. N 13''40'41" F. 86.E97 FEET 3. N 14'X26'34" 12 8.37 FEE 4. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 263,67 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22'42'13", A DEST.ANUL: OF 104.48 FEET" (CHORD BEARS N 03'05'28" E 103.80 FEET) 5. N 08' 15'39" W 721.97 FEE 6. N 09'37'30" 1E 215.26 FEET 7. N 09'32'11" \V _,16.14 FEET 8. N 09'24'15" 1A 1739.93 FEY.: 1 9. ALONG TI -IE ARC OF A C (.:RAV. TO TI -IES RIGHT HAVING :A R:•11 HUS OF 1870.0() FEET AND A C:E:: ti l RAL ,,\\GLIOF 05'38'7". A D1S1 ANi:'1 OF 184.38 FEET (CI -LORD BEARS N 06"35'06" W 184.30 FEL 11 10. N 03"45'38' W 70.62 FEE -.I 11. ALONG Tin :ARC OF A (:1'RVE TO THE LEFT I1AVI\(1 A RADIUS OF 1155.00 FEET AND A CI \'1 RAI. ANGLE OF 0S"59'23".:A DISTANCE: OF 181.22 FEET (CHORD 1;E ARS N 08'15'19" 1A` 181.03 HETI 12. N 12'45'01' \V 250.30 FEEL 13, i\l.O\(_i THE ARC OF .A CURVE TO TIIL LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 518.09 FEET :AND AA CI'N [RAI.. ANGLE. OF 35'11'37", A DISTANCE OF 318.23 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 30'20'49" W 313.26 FEET) 14. N 47'56"38" W 239.80 FL1'. 1 15. ALONG THE ARC OF :1 (1'RVE THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS C)1: 1520,00 FEET AND A ('I \ IRAL ANGLE 012 14"05'17", A DISTANCE OF 373.74 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 40'53'59" \V 372.8() FEET) 16. N 33"51'20" W 455.97 FEET 17. ALONG TEIE_ ARC O1' :A CURVE TO 'HIE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF • • 620.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1938'05", A DISTANCE (.)F 212.47 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 43°40'23" W 211.43 FEE -11 1S. N 53'29'25" W 511,09 FEET 19. ALONG T1 -IE ARC' O1= :A (1:RV1: 10THE .RIGH I HAVING A RADIUS 01: 470.00 FENT AND A CI:.N'I RA I. AN(JI.I. OF 34 '45'42''„A DIS I :rt(. I:. OF 285.15 FEET I CHORD (BEARS \ 36-06'34" \i` 280.801 f=1 1:: l ) 20. N 1S"43'43" W 773.97 FEEI 21. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGII 1' HAVING A RADIUS 0I- 620.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30'05'19", A DISTANCE OF 325.59 FI:I:-1 (CHORD BEARS \ 03''41'04" W 321.86 FFET) 22. N 11'21'36" E 171.27 FEET 23. ALONG THE. ARC OF A CURVE. TO LEFT 1 IA1'I\(i :A RADIUS' OF 380.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE, OF 02'00'46" A\1) ;A DISTANCE OF 13.35 HET (Cl-IORI.) I31 -ARS N 10`-'21'13" E 13.35 FEET).T() :A POINT ()N THE SO[ STI-11:RI LINE OF RIVER RIDGE P.LI.D.; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT -OE -WAY N 19`24'30" E AI.ON(; SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 83.25 FEET: THENCE CONTINUING .A.LOT\( SAID SOW]!ERL`:' LINE 5 65"25'04" E 20.16 FEET TO THE POINT ()F BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 274.291 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER MTI -1 A PARCEL. OF I..AN1) S1-11. \ 1'I.::I) IN LOTS 23 AND 28 OF SI(:1 ION 1 ANI) L0iS 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, TI1E \W 1 4NW1 4 :ANI) 1 LIE SW I,4NW1 4 OF SEC'"( 1ON 12, TOWNSHIP 7 SOLI H, R.A\GL S9 il'I;:S 1 OF -FHE SI.\'I•H PRI NC IP.=A1..:AIERIDI:AN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARCL.I. OF LAND REIN( MORE PARTICULARLY AS DESCRIBE() AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TIIE Sot. T11 WEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1, A BI -M BRASS CAP IN PEACE, THE POINT OF 13FGINNI\G; THENCE? S S8`08'24" E ALONCi THE NORTHERLY (..INE OF 1111NWI 4NA4 14 AND LOT 5 OF SAID SECTION 12 1925.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE S 01" 19'06" W 100.00 FEET; THENCE 5 58'08"24" E 150.00 FEE f; THENCE N 00''03'38" E 20010 FEET; THENCE N 88'08'24" Al 100.15 FEET TO A POINT ON .THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 28 OF SAID SECTION ION I ; 'THENCE N 01'16'57" 4V ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 2l AND 23 OF SAIL) SECTION 11061.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD 109; TI-IENCE LEAVING THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 23 THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (73 COURSES A1.:ONG THE. WES-1 FRLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUN'l'V ROAD) 109: 1. ALONG THE ARC. OF :A CI:RVE TO T1IL RIGHT 12AVING A RADIUS OF 458.09 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE 01= 36'07'56" A DISTANCE OF 288.88 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 30°48'59'• L 284.12 FEET) 2. S 12='45'01" F 247.15 FEET 3. ALONG THE :ARC OF A CURVE 1'0 Till MIFF I LAVING A RADIUS OF 1095.00 FEET AND :A GES 1 RAE ANGLE OF 08"5923", A DISTANCE OF 171.80 FEET (CILORU) BEARS 5 08'15'19" F 171,63 FEET) 4. 5 03"45'38" E 70.62 FLIT 5. ALONG TIME \RC OF A, CURVE TO 1'111 I..1T1 11 \\ ING A R,AI)IUS OF 1930.00 FEET ANDA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05"38`57", A DISTANCE OF 190.29 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 06'35'06" E 190.21 FEET) 6. S 09'24'35" E. 1739.96 FEET 7. 5 09'32'11" E 545.09 FEET (TO A POINT WHENCE AN ONE INCH IRON PIPL BEARS 5 80'139'46" NA' 15.01 FEET) THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY S 180 39'46" At' ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE EXTENDED AND •IHE NORTHERLY LINE 01- RECEPTION NO. 402764 156.56 FEET To AN ONE v INCFI IRC)N PIPE IN PLACE THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE S 46'49'46" W 319.59 FLLI -I O THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID RECEPTION NO. 402764. A RI.I3AR AND CAP IN PLACE; THENCE S 048'30'14" E ALONG THE WESTERLY LY LINE OF SAID RI::C FP TION NO. 402764 ANL) RECEPTION NO. 418590, 302.72 FEET 1' 10 1111; SOC I H I'.S I CORNER O1' SAID RECEPTION I ION NO. 418590; THENCE S 80'45'44" \.'V ALONG ( 1111•: \()R I III•:R1.Y LINE C)1 RI.C. 1:P I IO\ NO. 397182, 177.17 FEET "10 THE \(.)R 1 11\\'1 S 1 CORNER OF S:111) RECEPTION I PTION NO. 397152; THENCE S 17'25'15" 11' ALONG THE 1.4 ES -I ERL.Y LINE: OF RI.('1.P 1 ION NO. 397182 AND RECEPTION NO. 4 i P67. 741.91 F1:I:'1"TC) THE ft \OR 1l 11\' 1 51' CORNER OF LOT 21 OF SAID SECTION 12, ALSO B1:1\(.i THE \OR l 11\\1.5"1 CORNER OF TEI..I.SR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION; TIIL.NC E. S 0()'00'34 W ALONG TIIE WESTERLY 1.,INE OF SAID TELLER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION AND 111E. EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID SECTION 12 768.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 5.,lll) LOT 14: T1[1 N(:F: LEAVING 1III: WESTERLY 1.F 1 OF TELLER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 5 89'0O'59'. W ALONG TILT SOI' 1 IIERLY LINE 01' SAID LOT 14 =16K99 FEET "TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER UF SAID 1.0T 14; THENCE N 00'22'13" E 2\ LONG I'F[1 WES1 LANE OF SAIL} LOT 14 1378.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S:11[) LOT 14: FFIEN(:`F N " "17 •,3" ',1' ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SW' 114NW'T 4 OF SAID SECTION 12 1347.91 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAI[) SECTION 12, AN ALUMINUM CAP IN PLACE; THENCE N 00'33'14" \G ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 2728.80 FEET TO Tl Il: POINT OE BEGINNING. SAIL) PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 166.038 ACR1. . MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER W[TI1 A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSII.IP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST AND SECTION 2, TOW1`SHIP 7 SOUTFI, RANGE 89 WEST, ALL. IN THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL. MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF G ARFIE I I7, STATE OF COLORADO; SA11.) TRACT 01' LAND BEING MORE PARTICI 'EARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TFIE COMMON CORNER TO SECTIONS 1 AND 2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 59 WEST OF 1 HI SIN HI PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID CORNER ALSO 131=1\(.1 COMMON TO SECTIONS 35 :AND 36, TOWNSFIIP 6 SOUTH. RANGE 59 WEST OF'FHE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN: THENCE \ 76'04'29" W 4185.64 DEET TO THE NORTHEAST (:OR[R OF LO"I' 21, \\ E STB\NK RANCH SUBDIVISION, FILING 1.' THE POINT 01' BEGINNING: `IFIE\C1v THE FOLLOWING TWENTY FIVE (25) COURSES ALONG FELE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAIL) WES'FBANI4 RANCH, FILING 1: 1. 5 09'00'22" W 226.(10 FE1-"l"4'() A R.EI3AR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 2. 5 69'5322" W 82.00 FELT TO A REBAR AND CAP. L.S. NO. 19598 3. 5 06"59'38" E 79.06 14'.1;T 1"0 : REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 4. S 55'29'38" E 95.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (11.1.1 0113I.1') 5. S 75'13'38" E 2 i 5.00 FEET T() A NO. 5 RFEAR. 6. N 88'58'22" E 451.00 FEET TO A REBAR A\1) CAP (I1.LEG1BLE) 7. N 8255"22" F 240.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (11.LEGIBI.1 ) 8. 5 20'35'18" E 185.00 FEET ET TO A RI BAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 9. N 69'24'42" E 210.00 FEE f TO A REBAR AND CAP, 1..S. NO. 19598 10. N 07'18126" W 251.73 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 1 1. N 71'15'22" E 272.00 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 12. N 41'1.00'22" E 372.54 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 13. S 65"59'38" E 435.00 FEET TO A N(). 5 REBAR 14. S 19'59'38" E 210.00 FEET T() A NO, 5 REBAR 15. S 60''00'22" W 398.80 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 16. S 48'16'51" W 235.20 F E .E1..1..03 A NO. 5 REBAR • 17. S 50x'30'22" W 210.22 FEET `1() A NO. 5 REBAR 18. S 69"24'42" W 180.00 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 19. N 20'35'18" W 260.01) FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP. L,4. NO. 19598 20. S 69'24'42" W 230.27 FIEF 10 A NO. 5 REBAR 21. S 20'35'18" E 266.00 1ThE I. T() A REBAR ANI) CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 22. S 66"09'07" W 96.57 1.E1:1. 1 O A REBAR AND CAP, LS_ NO. 19598 23. S 01'23'54" W 109.60 FEET TO A REBAR AND ('.AP. L.S. NO. 7168 24. S 28°05'38" E 250.00 FEE I 10 A RHBAR .AND (.IAP (ILLEGIBLE) 25. S 67'07'27" E 149.99 f ['MI 10 A REBAR AND CAP (II_1.}(,1I31.1:), THE; COMMON CORNER OF WW 1.5 1 B \NK RANCH SUBDIVISION1 11.IN() I AND WLSTBANK RANCH SL..BDI VISION I'll ING 2. SAID CORNER AI .S0 REIN1.1 Till1 NORTHWES1 CORNER OF 1.ffl 23 01 SAID FILING 2: "II FENCE 1. 111E FOI.1.r0W1'ING SIEV'IEN,TEEN (17) COURSES ALONG TILL: NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WW'1.;' 113ANK RANCH SUBDIVISION .FILING 2: 1. S 69'05'38" E 633.53 FEE1 TO A NO. 5 REBAR 2. N 78'31'22" E 318.16 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 3. S 6219'08" E. 376.50 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (LLLEGII3LE.) 4. S 84'58'08" F 192.70 FEET A REBAR AND (lAP (ILLEGIBLE) 5. ALONG THE ARC:' OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT. HAVING A RADIUS OF 585.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03'55'13" ANL') A DISTANCE OF 40.03 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 03'04'17" E 40.02 FEET) TO A NO. 5 REBAR 6. N 84'58'08" W 183.32 FEET TO A NO. 5 REBAR 7. N 62'19'08" W 133.53 FEU '10 A NO. 5 REBAR 8. N 10'46'22" E 65.11 FEE 1 TOA 1 INC 11 STI 1'.1... PIPE 9. N 30'3638" W 476.00 FEU TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 9184 117. N 39'A08'22" E 306.48 FEET" TO A NO. 5 REBAR 11. N 77'24'2T' E 264828 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 12. S 33°4638" E 544.01 FEET 13. S 18'29'38" 1217.00 FEET 14. S 06'49'38" E 218.79 FEE 1' 10 A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO. 19598 15. N 84'58'08" W 259.29 I LII TO A NO. 5 REBAR 16. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE. WAIT HAVING A RADIUS OF 645.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF (13''33'20" AND A 018'1 Al CE OF 40.03 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 0315'14" W 40.02 FEET) TO A REBAR AND CAP (ILLEGIBLE) 17. S 84"58'08" E 334.45 FEET TO A NC) 5 REBAR, THE COMMON CORNER OF V. ES'I'BANK RANCH 51. BDIVESION HLING 2 AND 4 ESTBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3, SAID CORNER ;V1,80 BE1NO 1'HE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14 OF SAID FILING 3; THENCE111E FOLI_OVW INC3 SI\'TEEN (161 COURSES ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OL SAID WES'LBANK RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING 3: 1. N 81°07'37" E 357.91 FEE!. TO A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO, 9184 2. N 89"54"22" E 200.00 1 F..EE 1.0 A REBAR AND CWP, L.S, NO. 19598 3. S 78"32'08" E 216.49 1`L1:T1 1-O ANO. 5 REBAR ., 5'4•'29)'38" E 173.39 1 [[ 1 T'0 A REBAR AND ('AP ((LLI.GIBLEI 5. ALONG L1 IE ARC OF A CURVE "10 1'IIE LEFT T 11:'IVING ,& RADIL;S OF 300.00 FLIEI'..A CENTRAL TRAL ANGLE OF 09'56'03" AND A DISTANCE OF 52.02 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 00'36'54" E. 51.95 FEET) TO A REBAR AND ALUMINUM CAP, ILS. NO. 11204 6. N 74'297'35" W 319.84 FEET TO A REBAR AN[) ALI-MINMN CAP, 1..5. NO. 11204 7. N 33°34'35" W 232.00 FEE I. 10 A RI BAR AND CAP (ll.l EGIBLIE) 8. NI 22'27'38" W 382.0(1 FEET 1O A REBAR AND CAP, 1..S NO. 9184 9. N 20°22'38" W 328.18 FEET TO A NO, 5 REBAR 10. N 35"29'38" W4' 119.00 [1 [ 10 REBAR AND (:'AP. L.S. NO. 9184 11. N 52=29'38" W 175.00 FEET 1O A REBAR .1\D CAP, [:.S. NO. 9184 12, N 52'29'38" W 215.01) FELT' T() A REBAR V\D CAP. L.S. \'O. 9184 13, N 16"18'38" WV' 321.00 F1=1._T TO A REBAR VND CAP (IL.I.LGIBLE) 14. N 3.3°.56'22" E 228.90 FFL I TO A REBAR :AND CAP, L.S. NO, 9184 v 15. S 69'27'38" E 475.00 FEET TO A RE13AR AND CAP, L.S. NO, 9184 16. S 50'45'38" E 395.00 FELT TO 4 RE:BAR AND CAP, L.S. NO, 9154 P01\'1 ALS() BEING T 1IL \0k1I-TE:AST CORNER OF LOT 2; OF SAID \VLSI B..\ NE: RANCTI SUBD1\1SIO\ Ell 3. I'}fl:\C I: LEAVING SAII) 13(71 N1)ARY \ 42''04'22" 1:; 160.00 FEE 10 A 1'OlN I IN THE (TN l T.I. OF 'I'111= ROARING FORK R1\ ER:'THENCE THE TWELVE II2) 1:01.LOWING C.OI.RSES AI.s.)" ( SMD CENTERLINE: I. N 51'4738" W 124.10 FEET 2. N 45`56'38" \1' 239.80 FEEL. N 6492'38" 32'3S," W 507.80 FEET 4. N 54°5I'38" \V 169.6() FEET 5. N 79'36'38" \V 203,00 FEET 6. N 72`34'38" W 879.00 FEET . S 87'46'22" W 342.00 FEET 8. S 85°1.2'22" W 231-00 I I IT. 9. S 65"57'22" W 517.00 FEET 10. S 48"42'22" W 332.00 FEET 11. S 69'44'22" \V 363.00 FEET 12. N 80'02'30" \\' 181.97 FEET TO -PFIE POINT OF BEGIN I\(;: S.A D 1-RAC'T OF LAND CONTAINING 93.860 :ACRES. MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH A 30M0' WIDE ACCESS AND 1.-111.11 Y EASEMENT EXTENDING FROM MEADOW LANE FO CO4,NTY ROAD NO. 109 ANI) BEING THE SOUTHERLY 30.00 FEET OF 101 15, L\ F:S"1 H \NK SUBDIVISION, FII..ING NO. 3, 4S SHOWN ON THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CT..1fR.K :AND RECORDER'S. OFFICE. TOGETHER WITH A CART PATH CONSTRI'CT1ON EASEMENT THROUGH WEST BANK OPEN SPACE BEING A 25.00 1001` WIDE STRIP OF 1.:\ND SITUATED IN LOT 24, SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE S[I'FH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. (,_'()1:NTY OF G \REIELL3, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID STRIP ()F LANE) LYING 12,50 FEET TO EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED (:EN""1-ERLI:�IE: COMMENCING AT THI: SOI1 THWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1. A L3LM BRASS CAP IN PLACE: THENCE N 61°13'24" E 2223.28 FEE IT TO ,\ PO1N1 ON TEHL'. EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 24, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON SAID CENTERLINE, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING.; S \II) EASTERLY LINE N48'52'57" v\ ALONG SAID CENT TERLINE 236.91 FEI I : "fl ` C'E. CONTINUING \1 0 G SAID C T N7 AEON() FiIL:ARC OF \ (TERVE E TO TI IF RIGHT HAVING A RADIL.'S OF 1404.75 FEET \ND A CENTRA I. ANGI..1'. OF 10'55'42". A T)1S I ANCI OP 267.94 FET (C:11()RD (:BEARS N 43'25'05" W 267.53 FEET); THENCE C 0N'I lNT-;ING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 69'1U39" E 20.95 FEET `FO r\ POT\ T ON -MIT: SOUTI1 FSTERI.\ RIGIIT-OF-\\ A\' OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 109; TIIENC:1 LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE E S 69'16'39" \\+ 31).81 FEET: THENCE CONTINI7ING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE FO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADII S OF 25.0[) FEET AND :41 CENTRAL Rt\L AN LE OF 42'43'58", A DISTANCE OF 15.65 FEETt,CHORD BEARS N 89'21'2.2" \\' 18.22 FEET); THENCE C'ONTINI!ING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE \TERLI\E \ 67'59'23" \\' 56.79 FEET: T: TEILNC'E C"ONTI\l I\G ALO\Cr SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE AR{.' OF \ CI.IRVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RAD11.. { 1l 25.00 FEI. F AND A CENTRAL ANGLE (.1F 64'44'47", A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 79'38'13" \ ' 26.77 FEET). THENCE (.ON I1NL ING ALONCi SAID CENTERLINE S 47'15'50" \V 58.23 3 FEET; THENCE CON -1 I\1_,I\(; '\II ON(i SA11) CEN-TFRLINE ALONG THE :SRC; OF ."4 CURVE TO TIIE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1250.00 FEE I AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05'28'45". rA I)Iti'TA\C'E OF 119.54 FEET (CIIORI) BEARS S 44'31'27" V 119.49 F 1::1:1) 111ENC L CONTINUING A1C}\G SAID CENTERLINE S 41'47'05" W 96.44 FEf 1 1111 HENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAII) CENTERLINE ALONG TIIE. ARC OF A (.I :RYE 1 O THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 EEET '1 AND A CENTRAL ANGLE r 11. I 8"48'32". A DISTANCE OF 32.83 EL BEARS S 51'11'21" AV 32.68 FEET): THENCE CONTINUING Al ()\(i SAID CENTERLINE S 60''35'37" A\'' 46.99 1'1:171 THENCE (:'ONT1\L 1N(.,.\ION( SAID CEN -1 FRENE ALONG THE :ARC OF A CURVE R`'E TO 111f: RI(,l If HAVING :A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEU AND \ ('1E\1 R,AI, ,\\(;I:1. C)F 16'49'45", A DIS 1 \"( 1'. OI 29.37 F.EET(CIIORI) BEARS S 69`00'29" \V 29.27 FEED; TIIENCI CONI 1NLING ALONG SAID C'ENTFRLINE 5 77'25'22" \V 39.30 1 E.1=.'1; THENCE C'ONTIF.1 IN[ 1 .\LONG SAID CEN-FERLINI. ALONG T111 ARC' OF ;A CURVE TO' THE L1:1°1 HA \ 1\(`r A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33`^15'59", A DISI ANC I: OF 14.52 FELT (C.'HOR.L) 13E \RS S 60'4722" \\ 14.31 FEET); THENCE C'ONTINUI\(.:, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 5 44'09"23" W 33.76 FEET: THE' NCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG 'ME ARC: OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29'35'03", A DISTANCE OF 25.82 1 EET(C1-LORI) BEARS S 29"21'52" W 25.53 FEET); CONTINUING ALONG SAII:) CENTERLINE S 14-3420" W 21.94 FEET: ITIENC'E CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE Al O\( 11 IF ,ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEL 1 .AND A CEN 1 RAL ANGLE OF 25-18'20", .A DISTANCE OF22(18 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 01'5.5'10" \V 21.9(1 FEET); T) THENCE CON 11NL: INC; ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 10'44'00" E 127.50 FEET; THENCE CON 1 1\1: -INC/ :‘,LONG SAID CENTER 1\1: O\(; T1IF ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT (LAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 1111 .AND (TNI RAL ANGLE OF 71`=09'00" A DISTANCE OF 31,05 FI.ET(CI[ORI) BEARS S 24'50'30" W 29.09 1:F i ), 1111:•:\(.'F CONT 1NUING ALONG SAID CNN I I RUNE S 6V25'00" 'v1'' 83.15 FEET 11 f I.N('1'. CONTINUING Al ONG SAID (1 \ 1T;RI INE. ALONG THE ARC OF A C.URA'F CO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68"39"48". A DISTANCE OF 29.89 1.1.1:1 (CHORD BEARS S 26` 1(1'01" A4 28.14 FEE -I-); THENCE (:'ON"I 1\1 IN( 5 \LONG 5:\1D (,E.\ TERLINE 5 08`=04'58' E 10.(1; FEET TO A POI\ 1 ( )N 11 IL SUL."11 I I::RLY LINE (71 LUT 24 OF SAID SE:C"TIO\ 1. THE. TERMINUS: '`•'''111:\(`1. THE SOL HONEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1 BEARS 5 50'30'32" \'+- 1335.39 FEET. TOGETHER WITH A CART PAI I1 CONSTRLC TION EASEMENT THROUGH "TROUT BEING A 40.00 FOOT WIDE S TRIP OF LAND SITUATED I ED IN LOT 26 ANI) 27, SECTION 1 "TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WE OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL. IVIERIDI,\\. COUNTY OF GARFIEI,1:), STATE OF COLORADO: S,\1I) STRIP OF LAND LYING 20.00 FEET TO 1:ACI1 SIDE OF TME FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CE,NTERLINE: COMMENCING AT TIIF SOLTI1WEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1..\ BI_ 113RASS CAP IN PEACE; THENCE \ 50'3102" I- L135,39 35,39 Ff t '1• TO A POINT ON 1111 NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID EOT 26, SAID POINT ALSO E31 ING ON SAID CENTERLINE, THE POEN! OF BEGINNING; 1 IIENC:E LEAVING S AILS NORTHERLY LINE 5 08'04"58" W ALONG SAID ('E.\ Tf-.RLINE 38.58 FEET.'11 L N('1_: CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE I ERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A ('ERNE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE C)F 79"39'45". A DISTANCE OF 34.76 FEE.T(CIIORD BEARS 5 31-44'55" W 32.03 FEET); THENCE (:ONTIM lN(i ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 71`34'47" V1` 11.9 FEET: 'THENCE CONTINUING :'1E.ONG SAII) CENTERLINE ALONG TELL ARC (,)F A CURVE TO THE RIGHT H:A\ IN1Ci A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET AND A CEN I RAL ANGLE OF 21"47'02', A DISI ANCE OF 19.01 FEET(CHORD BEARS S 82:.'•28'18" W 18,90 FEET), I 111 NCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 81'44'27" W 16.8 FEET; THENCE C'ON'I IN.I IN(i .\1.ON(i SAID CENTERLINE ALONG 1IfE ARC OF A CI 10 THE 1_111' 11 A\ I t i ;A RADII -5 OF 25.00 I= 11 F AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 95"0944", A DISTANC1: 00 41.52 I LEI (CHORD BEARS 5 50'40'40" W 3691 11=.11) THENCE. CONI'€til I\C1.ALU\(1 w.111) CENTERLINE 5 01'01'23" \V 29.08 1 1:1.-1 THENCE CON 11\L1\0 AI.()NG SAID CENTERLINE ERLINE AI.O\0 1111: ARC; 01 1 CURVE TO 1111=. R1Ci}I 1 1011 i\G A RAL)IIUS 01' 50.00 FEET AND A C"I N-IR.AI. ANGI 1 OF 31`40'51,', A 1)151 \Nt 110F 27.65 FEET(Cf1ORD BEARS S I6`51'49" W 27.30 FFETO THENCE CON 1 I\I INt 1 1l.ON:( SAID CENTERU 0 S 32°42'14" 1`' 88.36 FEET, THENCE CON l I\1 I\t; .11 ON(; SAID CENTERLINE ALONG 1110 ARC 00 _A CURVE TO Till: f LIT 1 IA1 IN(i A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET IND A (.'1;\TRAI. A\Cri.[ (O1' 26"(11'5 4" 1 DIS LANCE 00 22.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS 5 19'41'17" W 22.52 FEET): THENCE (0NITINl'ING :ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 06'40'20" 4';,' 19.05 FEEF;-THENCE CON:T['\l'I\G ALONG SAID CL\ I'LRLI\L: ALONG "1-110 ARC OFA C'1:RVF TO 01-1E. LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'30'09".A DISTANCE 00 20.40 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 23'34'44" E 25.19 FELT); THEN C:°ONTI\IT\(i ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 53"49'49" E 8.39 FEE: THENCE NCI'. (.`0N'I'1N'. IN{i ALONG S:AII) CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF :A CI, R1 L 1'0 THE Rio) iT HAVING A RADILS (10 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE 00 28'50'52", A DISTANCE OF 12.63 FEET(CHORI) BEARS 5 39'21'22" E 12.50 FEET); THENCE E CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 24'52'56" E 10.28 FEET: THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO .11-10 R1G1-IT HAVING A RADIUS 01. 25.00 F01 l AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42'02'11", A DISTANCE 00 18.34 11 1T'(CHORD BEARS S 03"51'51" I?. 17.93 FEET): THENCE T: COTN'TlN1 1\(i ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 5 17='09'15" W 46.43 FEET: THENCE CONTINI. ING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG TIIE ARC: OF A CURVE TO THE RIG14.1 11 \\ IN( A RADIUS; 00 100.00 FEET AND ''fie CENTR'ti.I.. ANGLE OF 10`32'50", A DISTANCE OF 18.41 FFL:T((IIORD 03I -.ARS 5 22=25'40" 11' 15 ,5 001-. I): THENCE C ONI1\0 I?ti(:1LONG SAID CENTERLINE 5 27'42'05 1G' 49.78 FEET: THENCE CONT'1\1. ING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG '1 I -IE. ARCUFA CI RV1. TO THE LEFF HAVING A RADII'S OF 50.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46`09'03", A D[STANC'E OF 40.27 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 04'37'33" W 39.19 FEET): THENCE CONI ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 5 18 2(Y39" E 9.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG 'HIE ARC OF A CURVE. TO 1 HE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OE 70.00 FEET AND 1 CEN 112 1I, ANGLE. OF 41'51'43". 1 DIST'ANC'E OF 36.53 FEIT(CHORD BEARS 02:25'53" 1ti 25.72 11_L CONTINUING ALONG SAID (.:L\ 11:12f 1N1 4 23-24'44" l4' 52.26 FELT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID (.'0N I FR LINT ALONG IHE ARC 00 A CURVE TO FOIE LEFT HAVING 1 RADII Si )0 5o ") 1 1 1.'1' .1\1f) A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39'55'48", A DISTANCE T OF 34.5 0E1.1 1. 1 t C 1 LORD T3I:,\R5 S 03'26'50" 11- 34.14 (TET): THENCE CONTH \I IN( ; 11 ON{; SAID (1:N 11 RI.} II. S 10'31'04" E 5.35 FEET; THENCE CONTINI.HN{ i :\LONG SAID C LN I I.RI.INli ALONG 'f 111 ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 1Ir11 IN{ A RADII 5 O0 50.00 FLIT AND 'l CIN 1RAI. ANGLE 00 4853 14", A DISI .ANC E 00 42.00 100T (CI IORD BEARS 5 07'55"33" W 41.38 00000): 1 I IENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 5 32'22'11" 'Of 27.(14 FEET: `1II'LN( 1. C()\TYNE INC.; ALONG SAID CENTERLINE :ALONG TI-IIE ARC OF A CURVE TO TI F LEFT HAVING 1 R_XD1US OF 50.(5) FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26'24'43". '1 DISTANCE ()F 23.05 FEET (C:'HORD BEARS S 19'0}949°' «' 22.85 FEET): 'THENCE f ONTINUIN.o ALOivCI SAID CENTERLINE 4 05'57'27 1•t' 107.09 FEET; THENCE (UN l iNI;1\0 ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC 00 A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS ()F 100.01) FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05'31'35". A DIST'ANCT'. 00 9.65 00ET • • (CHORD BEARS S 03° 11'4(1" \V 904 FEET); THENCE CON 1 INl.1IN(i ALONG SAID CENTERLINES 00'25'52" W48.93 FEET; THENCE (:ONTI\IJ1NG ;1.L0`0 SAID (1.\rLfLiNE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE '.10 THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS O1= 100.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL :ANGLE OF 09'55'130". A DISTANCE OF 17.31 1 1'.1 T(CI-IORD BEARS S 05'23'22" G\' 17.29 FL1.1 1 1'O A POINT ON THE SOUTH RI 5' IN1:. OF LOT 20 OF SAID SF:t'TTON 1, 11 -IE TE.MIN1.1S; WHENCE 4111 501111 \VEI CORNER OF SAID Sl -C l'ION 1 BEARS N 88°08'24„ w 801.05 FEET. SAIF) PARCEL... CONT:\I\ING 534.189 ACRES_ l\1(3RE OR LESS. Practical Description: The property is located approximately 21/2 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs, along County Road 109, west of State Highway 82 and south of County Road 154. Request Description: The Subdivision Preliminary Plan approval addresses certain deviations from the plans and specifications contained within the Preliminary Plan approval, granted by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Resolution No. 99- 068, encountered during the construction of Phase 1 Final Plat public improvements. The Preliminary Nan application also requests the removal of Lots 172 through 245, said lots to be replaced with a Block Filing (Filing 4) requiring future Preliminary Plan review. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment application requests the following changes to the PUD zoning granted by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Resolutions No. 98-067 and 98-80 to 1) Relocation of the Regional Trail; 2) Elimination of the Golf II zone district; 3) Elimination of the Community Park area; 4) Creation of the Planning Area 22; 5) Remove references to the interior paths and overlooks; 6) Test modifications to the Land Use summary for the subdivision; 7) Changes to the Affordable Housing requirements; $)Clarification regarding construction activities adjacent to Blue Heron Conservation area; 9) Change of street names; and 10) Minor modification to lot locations. All persons affected by the proposed Subdivision Preliminary Plan application are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for Preliminary Plan and amended Planned Unit Development. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 6`h day of October, 2003, at 1:15 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County Plaza Building, Suite 100, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County OWNS .1•411.0 • ROSE RANCH GOLF CLLBHQGSE'COMIVRAT('( PARK tiALs,rspiAda : f 1 �1 IIS r EXHIBI r fiyai F43 46til Pito pof 67? General Introduction - Rose Ranch Rose Ranch, located west of the Roaring Fork River approximately 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs, is proposed as a mixed use, residential / golf community. When fully developed, the 533.5 acre community will accommodate an 18 hole golf course, community recreation facilities and a maximum of 292 homes on varying sized lots. Perhaps the most dominant feature of this development, however, is the extensive open space network. Although the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan designates the site for a density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre, this proposal is for a residential gross density of 0.54 dwelling units per acre, less than half that allowed. In this way, larger amounts of common open space, both developed and undeveloped, will be possible. The open space network ---in addition to the golf course ---includes some unique features. For example, a pedestrian trail along the ridgeline west of County Road 109 will provide extraordinary views and opportunities to encounter a variety of flora and fauna. Periodic overlooks are proposed along the river, while corridors of open space will separate individual clusters of residential units. Recreational trails will provide pedestrian access through the developed residential areas and along County Road 109. Between the recreational golf course, community park, overlooks and natural spaces, 73.3% of the site will remain open. The proposed golf course incorporates upgrades in quality and improvements to the existing West Bank Golf Course. The natural beauty of the site and its environs was paramount in the planning of Rose Ranch. The presence of the Roaring Fork River and its riparian habitat; views to off-site Mount Sopris; impressive stands of both deciduous and coniferous vegetation; the meandering Robertson Ditch; and interesting and varying topography all contributed to the careful planning of the golf course, open space and proposed residential uses. Areas of environmental sensitivity, including floodplains, wetlands and wildlife habitat, have been identified and protected by means of avoidance and definition of building envelopes. An extensive citizen participation process, including meetings with adjacent individual property owners and homeowner groups, was used to assure land use compatibility. In this process, several existing off-site issues related to drainage and access were identified and, where possible, solutions are proposed to address these concerns. Combined with the intent to allow adjacent subdivision residents and property owners access to the Rose Ranch open space network, the resulting plan proposes a community which will both fit into its surroundings and be a good neighbor within the County. rRofv) 410 esi4A-a) elan (eiii8) D. Common Open Space Common open space, totaling 73.7% of the site, will include several unique amenities. The common open space has been further subdivided into four categories defined by Garfield County including useable open space, recreational open space, commercial open space and limited use open space. The following table summarizes Common Open Space (C.O.S.) acreages in relation to PUD requirements: Type Useable Recreational Commercial Limited Use TOTAL Acres 78.48 2.14 223.2 89.5 393.32 Minimum Required Common Open Space Total Common Open Space Provided Maximum C.O.S. Allowed in Water Total Common Open Space in Water Maximum C.O.S. Allowed in Limited Use Total Limited Use C.O.S. Provided ° of Project (533.5 Acres) 14.7% 0.4% 41.8% 16.8% 73.7% of C.O.S. (393.32 Acres) 20.0% 0.5% 56.7% 22.8% 100% 133.38 Acres (25%) 393.32 Acres (73.7%) 98.33 Acres (25% of 393.32 Acres) 24.87 Acres (6.3% o) 98.33 Acres (25% of 393.32 Acres) 92.3 Acres (23.5%) All of the common open space amenities will be open to Rose Ranch residents, while much of the common open space acreage will be open to surrounding subdivision residents and landowners. The golf course is proposed to have an affordable public play component for Garfield County residents that will be further defined prior to course operation. The open space and associated community trail and overlooks west of County Road 109 are open to residents of the following communities: Teller Springs, Upper and Lower West Bank, River Ridge and those properties that abut the Roaring Fork River to the east of the Rose Ranch property. These common open space amenities include: 1. River Overlooks A series of overlook opportunities for pedestrian/visual enjoyment of the Roaring Fork River are located within the plan area. These overlooks will generally occur as "breaks" in the residential lotting and will be accessed by means of pedestrian and/or visual linkages. General improvements may include benches, trails and other improvements. 2. Community Park An approximate 2.14 acre community park shall provide active recreational opportunities for residents of Rose Ranch. It is anticipated that this area, adjacent to the golf clubhouse and club homes, will accommodate active recreation uses. Potential uses include tot lot, trails, open space, volleyball, tennis, swimming, picnic facilities, horseshoes, multi -use facilities and other uses. Parking for these facilities shall be shared with the golf course use. Homeowners' Association facilities and a daycare facility may be incorporated into this area if determined feasible. 3. Common Open Space Useable Open Space Includes stretches of linear natural open space which separate residential clusters; a series of ponds, providing visual interest and wildlife habitat opportunities within both the golf course and residential portions of the development; the Robertson Irrigation Ditch, an existing facility which will be improved and enhanced; flatter areas of open space located west of County Road 109; and other miscellaneous areas of open space that falls under the PUD definition. Recreational Open Space Includes a community park near the golf clubhouse area. Commercial Open Space Includes the golf course, golf clubhouse facilities, driving range golf cart access connections, golf maintenance facilities and other golf related uses. The golf course shall be a fee -play access and rnembership oriented course with an affordable public play component to be determined prior to beginning course operations. The proposed golf course includes upgrading and enhancing the existing West Bank Golf Course through reconfiguration and creation of a championship quality course. Limited Use Open Space Includes some areas west of County Road 109 where the steeper slopes occur and small isolated areas, primarily along the river, on the east side of CR 109. These areas shall retrain largely untouched, with the exception of potential golf cart path construction and possibly some pedestrian trail construction. loll PO. 711 -arm H. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access & Circulation EXHIBIT 1 MI Vehicular Access & Circulation Auto access to Rose Ranch will be provided at three safe and convenient points along the eastern side of Highway 109. The only motorized, vehicular access to the west of 109 will be the four tunneled golfcart paths designed to accommodate pedestrians, golf carts and maintenance vehicles. Required access permits to cross under CR 109 shall be obtained prior to construction in accordance with the requirements of Garfield County. Golf access permits to cross Meadow Lane shall be obtained during the platting process, All golf related automobile traffic will be isolated to the primary access point off of County Road 109 into the clubhouse area, minimizing disruption to the residential portions of the PUTS_ The primary central access road and the southern and northernmost secondary access points are designed to provide an interconnected community road system, providing access to all of the residential clusters. All roads in the community shall be constructed within a 60 -foot right-of-way, except for a single private drive located in the River Residential 2 area that shall have a 40 -foot right-of-way or tract. Roads shall be 24 feet wide with one -foot concrete ribbon curbs on each side. A borrow ditch shall be located on each side to accommodate drainage and act as extended detention/water quality ponds. These borrow ditches shall be a maximum depth of one -foot with side slopes of 3:1 maximum. A five-foot walk shall be located on one side of all streets outside of the borrow ditch. The 40 -foot tract shall have a 20 -foot wide street with similar improvements as the 60 -foot streets. Some small wetland crossings may be required with the appropriate permitting by the Army Corps of Engineers. Off-site improvements to the existing Highway 82 / County Road 154 intersection will be made by the applicant to resolve existing traffic conflicts. These improvements will include intersection realignment and installation of a traffic signal, as permitted by Colorado Department of Transportation. Bicycle circulation is allowed on the streets of the Rose Ranch development. The traffic flow of automated vehicles is low enough throughout the community to allow for safe bicycle circulation. Pedestrian Access & Circulation Pedestrian access will be provided by a series of trails, linking golf, housing, recreation and open space. A Rose Ranch community and surrounding subdivisions accessible trail (community trail) is proposed in the open space west of 109, along the ridgeline with two proposed overlooks. Construction of and pedestrian access along this trail will be governed not to conflict with the Golden Eagle nesting occurring in this area. A pedestrian trail system is proposed throughout the Rose Ranch community located east of County Road 109 to connect residents to all major destinations in the community. A County regional trail has been depicted with portions on both the east and west sides of CR 109 as a portion of the trail system linking Glenwood Springs to Aspen. This trail enters the south end of the Rose Ranch property on the east side of CR 109, crosses under to the west side of CR 109, crosses back under to the east side of CR 109 and continues on the east side of CR 109 to the north boundary of the Rose Ranch property. Additional detail for these trails shall be determined during detailed design efforts at Preliminary and Final Plat. A five-foot wide sidewalk (either attached or detached) will be constructed on one side of all streets throughout the subdivision. Sidewalks shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or tract (refer to Street cross-sections in this document for additional detail). 0 (J rri HDNVII pi* Arv,atinai,d- cold PleiLotmtel Nadi/ (;11 1cl i)) Under this application, the affordable housing required under Resolution No. 98-80, will be satisfied through the provision of ten (10) rent restricted rental units to be constructed by the Applicant and twenty (20) price restricted lots. The rental units have been included in the golf course clubhouse area in a new zone district termed Golf Course II. This parcel is differentiated from the other Golf Course parcels to allow the addition of the rental units only. The price restricted lots have been included in the Clubhomes development parcel (Planning Area 20). This parcel has been enlarged by approximately 2.0 acres to accommodate the additional lots. The acreage added to this parcel results in an corresponding approximate reduction from the open space and golf course tracts. The additional acreage is required in Planning Area 20 for addition of the price restricted lots and to keep the gross density at the maximum of 6.0 dwelling units per acre. The resulting total amount of allowed dwelling units for this amended PUD is 322 units for a total gross density of 0.60 dwelling units per acre. The rental, sale and occupancy of the rental units and price restricted lots shall be governed under the terms and provisions set forth in the MASTER DEED RESTRICTION AGREEMENT FOR THE OCCUPANCY, SALE AND RENTAL OF LOTS WITHIN THE ROSE RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ("Deed Restriction Agreement"), a copy of which is provided herewith. Under the Deed Restriction Agreement, Applicant has designated the Garfield County Housing Authority ("Authority"), as the entity responsible for enforcement of the terms and conditions contained therein. Applicant is presently attempting to facilitate the Authority in its effort to create a management structure that would enable the Authority to perform these types administrative services. If the Authority's efforts in this regard are unsuccessful, the responsibility for the enforcement of the rental and sales restrictions for the rental units and price restricted lots will need to be transferred to an administrative department within the County or other designated public or quasi -public entity. The Deed Restriction Agreement incorporates the standard set forth within Board of Commissioner Resolution No. 98-80 which provides: Provide at preliminary plan for ten percent (10%) of the total housing units proposed as attainable housing units to be located on the project site. The applicant shall work with the Carbondale Affordable Housing Corporation, the Garfield County Housing Authority, the Housing for Tomorrow Commission, and the Glenwood Board of Realtors. The housing shall be created to accommodate individuals who earn within 80% of the median income in this valley with no more than 1/3 rd of their income spent on total housing costs. However, due to the present unknown status of the Authority and the absence of established guidelines and criteria on this issue under the County's Land Use Code, as presently constituted, the Deed Restriction Agreement was drafted with the intent of minimizing the requirements • • placed upon the Authority. For instance, under the Deed Restriction Agreement, the Authority would not be required to pre-screen prospective tenants and/or purchasers for the purpose of limiting the lease/sale of the rental units/price restricted lots to persons falling within any predetermined income category. In lieu of such administrative oversight, the Applicant has assumed that the inherent controls in the market place will suffice. In submitting this proposal, Applicant recognizes that the present status instant to affordable housing mitigation in County is evolving. In recognition of this fact, Applicant's present proposal in this regard is intended only to provide a basic framework which is flexible and from which the County and Applicant in the course the review process may, craft a suitable solution for the Rose Ranch Property. ¶ofri BUD 7ifitt,diwibv1' cud • Rekiyi.41enPuto ( 61) ?PT Both a reduced, color rendered plan and a full-size black and white plan have been included in this application entitled Rose Ranch PUD Amendment No. 1. The edits to this pian include (1) edits to the Land Use Summary to include 30 additional units of affordable housing; (2) approximately 2.0 acres added to the Clubhomes parcel (Planning Area 20) to allow 20 additional units; (3) reduction in open space and golf course tract acreage (approximately 2.0 acres) adjacent to Planning Area 20; (4) division of the Golf Course zoned parcel identified for location of the golf clubhouse into two parcels — Golf Course (north) and Golf Course II (south - for inclusion of 10 affordable housing units); (5) the secondary overlook has been deleted from the trail located west of County Road 109, and (6) correction of the Common Open Space label located in the lower left hand portion of the plan - formerly mislabeled as "Community" Open Space. r,r r, r, HDNVII • P&Z Members Present Phil Vaughan David Stover Mike Deer Christina Chapin Colin Laird Roily Fischer Bob Fullerton Jock Jacober • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from August 13, 2003 Staff Present EXHIBIT Mark Bean, B&P Director Tamara Pregl, Planner Catalina Cruz, Assist. Cty. Atty. Roll call was taken and absent tonight are Cheryl Chandler and Michelle Foster. David Stover made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting as written and Colin Laird seconded the motion. All approved unanimously. The first item of discussion is a public meeting request to consider an Amendment to the Ironbridge Planned Unit Development (formerly Rose Ranch PUD). Location of property is approximately 2 '/2 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs, along CR 109, west of State Highway 82 and south of CR 154. The applicant is L.B. Rose Ranch, LLC. Phil Vaughan reviewed the process for this item. Staff presents first, Applicant is next and then public input is taken. The public has three minutes each to speak. Time can be donated up to 15 minutes. Then we will come back to Planning Commission for questions and comments and hopefully a motion. Present tonight for the applicant are Tim Thulson and Larry Green Attorneys for the Applicant of Balcomb & Green, Mike Staheli here on behalf of L.S. Rose Ranch, Steve Pawlik of HP Geotech, Eric Tuin, with High Country Engineering, and Richard Nash, Construction Manager for Ironbridge. Tamara Pregl, presented the staff comments. The request submitted is to modify the existing PUD. Page 16 of the staff report lists the ten proposed modifications to the PUD which are: 1.) Zone Text Modifications 2.) Regional Trail 3.) Affordable Housing Requirements 4.) Golf II Zone District Elimination 5.) Community Park Elimination 6.) Creation of PA22 1 7.) Interior Paths and Overlooks 8.) Construction Activities adjacent to Blue Heron Conservation Area 9.) Street Name Changes 10.) Modifications to Lot Locations Tamara said that "new information" was provided today by the Applicants Attorney about the Affordable Housing. Tamara asked the Planning Commission want they wanted to do because she hasn't had a chance to review and digest the new information. She is at a loss with the affordable housing issue. The question is do you want to continue this item until after the staff has had a chance to review or go forward tonight. Jock Jacober was appointed as the Alternate for this item. Tim Thulson stated that the application has stayed the same. The new information related to Affordable Housing is in response to the Staffs comments. Phil recommended proceeding with this hearing and the other Commissioners agreed. Tamara referred to the revised Land Use Summary Table and Ironbridge PUD Zone Text that the Applicant provided that would replace the table and text included- in Resolution No. 98-80 (exhibit 1 of application), and so modified by Resolution No. 99-067 (exhibit 2 of application). Proposed modifications: 1.) Change duplex Lots to medium density residential. 2.) Change Club Homes designation to Club Villas and reduce the number of approved units from 67 to 47. . 3.) Eliminate reference of Golf II, Clubhouse Apartments. 4.) Create PA 22, Medium Density Residential with 10 units in approximately 2.5 acres. 5.) Adjust the Subtotal Units from 322 to 302, with the ability to allocate a total of 20 accessory dwelling units to planning areas zoned 20,000 s.f, 15,000 s.f. and 9,000 s.f. 6.) Eliminate Community Park use under Common Open Space. Applicant is asking for the regional trail relocation from the West side of CR 109 to the East side of CR 109 and staff does not feel that is appropriate. Previously approved were 30 affordable housing units for Rose Ranch. The Applicant is proposing ADU's for 20 of the units required and 10 on-site affordable housing units in phase 1. Tamara brought up that ADU's are not deed restricted and there are no provisions in the County regulations to allow for the deed -restriction of an ADU as the applicant proposes. Section 5.03.21 of the Zoning Resolution states ADU's are leasehold interests, are detached structures and are not required to be rented. Comments were received from the Garfield County Housing Authority. (Exhibit Z) If the County accepts the Applicants proposed changes to the Affordable Housing requirements, the Applicant has asserted that there would be no need for the Golf II Zone 2 District. In addition to the elimination of the Golf II Zone District, they would eliminate the Golf Club Homes Zone District (PA 20) on which 20 affordable housing units were to be constructed pursuant to Resolution No, 99-067. The Applicant proposes a creation of the PA 22 Zone District to be created in the area located immediately east of the Golf Course driving range and south of the overhead transmission lines. This area is to accommodate a minimum of 10 deed -restricted owner occupied units that would comply with the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The Applicant would like to remove the references to overlooks and interior paths. Staff is unclear which interior paths and overlooks are being removed and why the Applicant is requesting that the references be removed. Staff is of the opinion that additional clarification is required for this request in order to make an appropriate determination. The Applicant has requested clarification with respect to construction activities adjacent to the Blue Heron Conservation Area for the construction of homes from 15 February through 31 May shall be prohibited. The Applicant believes that only applies to the exterior and that they can continue with interior work during those dates. Staffs interpretation of this condition is that it pertains to the construction of home, both interior and exterior, Staff recommends that unless the Colorado Division of Wildlife amends their recommendations, this condition shall remain as written and not altered without something in writing from the CDOW. The Applicant submitted a list of street names to the County for Phase 1, as well as future phases. A list of the names is summarized on pages 23 and 24 of the Staff Report. There are no issues with the names they are proposing per Steve Hackett, County Code Enforcement. Related to modifications to lot locations, there appears to be enough land next to Lot 19 to add an additional lot. The Applicant proposes that a new lot be created in this locations on the Preliminary Plan, called Lot 19A. In order to keep the total number of lots unchanged, the Applicant will eliminate Lot 62 from the Preliminary Plan in exchange for the creation of Lot 19A. Staff is in agreement with suggested modification numbers 2, 9 and 10. Staff recommends that the Garfield County Planning Commission recommend approval to the BOCC for the PUD Amendmentrequest that pertain to the following requested changes: 1.) Relocation of the Regional trail, which requires the vacation of the previously dedicated trail easement and the dedication of a new easement. 2.) Street Name Changes. 3.) Modifications to Lot locations which include the addition of Lot 19A and the elimination of Lot 62. Christina asked for a clarification, is that approval of 2, 9 & 10 and Tamara said that is correct. 3 • Moved to the Applicants presentation next. Mike Staheli spoke first and he complemented Tamara for her work. They are in support of most of the recommendations that Tamara has made. This effort is to make the Preliminary Plan work with the field issues and to make it more marketable. The Duplex Zone was too restrictive. More single-family or Town homes are more of what is needed. They looked at The Golf II and Community Park Zone District that was approved previously. Want to unify amenities now to allow residence participation to be optional not mandatory involvement. Affordable housing feel that existence of a 1 Q-plex is problematic. 90% of the staff is seasonal staff. Single-family units instead are the cleanest way to construct owner occupied homes at phase 1. Mike put up a map of the subdivision and reviewed. Lot sizes are 50' w X 80'd. Fine with doing away with the ADU's now. Phases 2, 3, & 4 will address. Previously approved for 322 units and they want to leave those numbers as is. Tim Thulson received a letter from the Housing Authority that stated what they were proposing would not work for the PUD requirement for affordable housing. Tim met with Tamara. The_Club Villas increase the numbers to the original 67 units. _ Would like to consider "By Down" or "off-site" construction. Willing to commit to a drop dead date for phase. Mike Staheli spoke about the regional trails and that they want it to stay on the east side of CR 109. Would propose change to asphalt on trail instead of concrete. Remove reference to "potential" from notation to trails and overlooks. Tim Thulson said thwould drop request completely for clarification related to construction adjacent to the Blue Heron Conservation Area. Took questions from Planning Commission Members. Jock asked about Community Park elimination clarification. Mike responded that the original PUD proposed and approved a swimming pool, tennis court and work-out room within HOA. Community Park is what they want to incorporate now. Bob asked is there any value on the Club Membership? Mike thinks there is some value on the lots. The membership_is included with the purchase of a lot at Ironbridge. A monthly fee would be charged to the owner. The member ship is also being offered to the Westbank Subdivision residence. 4 • Roily asked how much the membership costs? Mike thinks it is about $65.00 a month. A maintenance cost would be paid by all owners. Christina asked about the Golf 11 Zone District elimination. Are you still requesting that be eliminated? Tim responded they will eliminate. Tim said that Rose Ranch was the first subdivision to have to include affordable housing. Christina asked about the phasing of affordable housing. Tamara said that is part of the new information. Tim Thulson responded that 20 units off-site would require lower density on-site. Club Villas want 67 units; will have to comeback at a later date for each preliminary plan. Moved out to the public for comments next. The first speaker is Dorris Tesmer. Dorris would like to donate her three minutes to Steve Beattie. Mr. Johnn Huebnger who lives at 73 Dolores Circle would -like to speak next. He bought the Ranch back in 1969. In 1971, he went through the subdivision process for 2 acre lots which was the Westbank Subdivision. 93 acres of the golf course was used for density. Lots are about one acre each. Theywere made promises by -the Rose Ranch people that the golf course would opent4 the public Feel that promisehas not been kit. Was told that golf course would become private after they sell 100 memberships and they have sold about 40 so far. Westbank has not signed off on an easement that is being requested. Steve Beattie is the next speaker and he will be allowed 15 minutes because four people donated their time plus his own 3 minutes. Steve is a member of the Westbank HOA. Holes 2-8 of the golf course are situated in Westbank. Westbank as an HOA doesn't disagree with the development. He himself is a member of Ironbridge. You can impose conditions. Steve referred to exhibit "0". (See pages 10-14 of the staff report. It is important to understand the geological limitations. It is important to protect the people who have been there for 30 years. Steve brought up issues related to the maintenance building and the trucks, which there are approximately 25 in the fleet. They built a new road that had never existed and they dug ditches also to utilize. The concept of seamless transition from the golf course and adjoining property does not exist. There are high weeds next to the golf course in this transition area. Steve recited a quote from Ann Landers "make promises sparingly and keep them faithfully". Need to revegetate the area. Blend this development into the needs of the development, Mr. John Haines spoke next. Unfortunately, Westbank never got anything in writing from Rose Ranch Developers. John read Tim Thulson's letter into the record. He is here representing the homeowners and himself. Seamless area doesn't exist. Thistle weed exists in this area. There are also rats and mice in the weeds. Another commitment was made to put money towards the entry of Westbank Subdivision. Some work was put in 5 but not enough. (Look at his letter) Related to the maintenance facility there is.a lot of traffic travel behind their homes. A lot of Ironbridge cars are traveling on County Roads without any licensing. The next speaker is John Tesmer who is a resident in Westbank. He added one comment related to noxious weeds. As far as grasses taking over that area, it is questionable whether that will happen when it isn't watered. Rick Neiley, Council and Board Member for RF Conservancy, they have big concerns on request to modify on Rockery zone. From what he understands that request will be withdrawn. No construction will be allowed in designated areas as previously approved. Rick is also here representing Maria Maniscalchi. Maria donated her three minutes of speaking time to Rick. Maria's property is across the river and looks at the clubhouse facility. Applicant wants to remove the request to allow design of path and overlooks from the PUD approval process. Rick feels that there will be significant impact to adjoining property owners. New river access being proposed between lots 15 & 16. There are several private property owners along this area of the river. Concerned with proposal for potential users of public for facilities. She is also concerned with weeds. The developer needs to address. Related to maintenance facility, sympathize with Westbank but don't see anything in agreement that it can't be there. Thinks developer has been reasonable with light of situation. Sharon Beattie who lives at 74 Fairway Lane is the next speaker. She has lived in Westbank for 13 years. Seven days a week starting at 6:00 a.m. maintenance vehicles traveling behind their house. Promises in writing about this road have not been kept. Keep them accountable! Took comments from the Applicant next. Mike Staheli spoke first. This is the first year of operation and they are learning a lot about maintaining. Feel they are doing a good job. Appreciate the public coming out and commenting. Do have some communication glitches. Do have some positive impacts. Removed golf traffic; restaurant & bar for Westbank neighbors; removed a leaky fuel tank next to their well; planted trees; constructed 3 large ponds; upgraded their entry way; offered them special golf course membership. Some issues raised were storage area/maintenance facility. They do expect to store a number of units on the other side of CR 109. Will reduce the need to cross "that strip of land". L.B. Rose Ranch owns that road/land. It is not part of these people's lots. Applicant is willing to pave but the landowners adjoining do not want that. Acknowledge weed issue and they are trying to work on that. Added value to Westbank development. Need to delineate where the property lines are across the river from this property. Tim Thulson spoke about exhibit "0". His letter was taken out of context. (Page 5 of 7 in his letter) concerning disputed road "lawn strip". Proposal was given and no response was received. Tim read a lot of the June 25th letter into the record. 6 • Concerning the construction of a park -n -ride at CMC, there are no lots with building permits yet. Payment will be forth coming at building permit. Improved State Highway 82 at County Road 154. Donated golf course for three charity events; welcome the opportunity to contribute to the community; transfer assessment -improvement to education quality with this collection. Want to be a good neighbor to the community. Asking for approval of proposal as submitted except affordable housing changes that are before you. They don't think anything they are asking is unreasonable. Moved back to the Planning Commission for comments and/or questions. PUD Amendment request is discussed on pages 15-25 of the staff report. Christina commented that she is glad about the affordable housing_plan for 10 units durinfphase -1. She is also glad that the request related to construction in the Blue Heron area has been removed. - Roily wanted a point of clarification. Affordable Housing Regulations state they can be on or off-site is his understanding and what about phasing. Larry responded that regulations say whatever amount shall be produced at same proportion of what is being built. Roily also asked about the property across the river that Maria owns does she own streams and bed of Roaring Fork River? Yes was the response. Colin is also pleased with affordable housing proposal. He is uncomfortable with signing off on that without more staff review. Colin asked if it is common for a PUD to not have trails/paths and overlooks platted? Tim will provide comments by BOCC meeting from Housing Authority. Catalina asked about a possible Executive Session regarding some of the applicant's comments. David is happy with the affordable housing changes. He is not comfortable removing trails and overlooks. He is fine with the street name changes. Bob asked what is the reason toremove interior trail and path designations. Tim responded that the trails are depicted on the plat are visual and not precise placement. Want to still put in the subdivision. The Chair would like to request an Executive Session to get legal advice from Council. Chair would entertain a motion to do so. Larry Green said he doesn't understand the reasons given to need an Executive Session. This is an Amendment to a PUD. The issues before you are those issues that are the subject of the amended application. (9 items) None of these relate to issues from the public comments. Inappropriate to consider those comments in application before you. 7 • • Roily made a motion to go into Executive Session. No one seconded the motion so it did not carry. Christina Chapin moves that based on the proj ect recommend positive on page 24 of the staff report and to add con itipn of affordable housing requirement for 30 housing units on a phased basis and to strike the request related to construction in the Blue Heron Conservation Area to recommend approval to. the BOCC for the PUD Amendment request. - — Colin would like to make a friendly amendment to the motion to state applicant shall work with staff and the Garfield County Housing Authority to craft the proposed modification for the PUD. Christina wants to allow for flexibility to item #7. She wanted to make a point of clarification that she is not removing paths. Itis a marketability issue. She is not concerned that they won't provthem. Jock said all of this seems to tie into phases and possible review at each plat approval level. Colin concerned with not looking at paths at a later time. Can that be added at the preliminary plan? Mark Bean said at each plat paths will be determined. David Stover seconded the motion. Colin says we have never taken trails/paths/overlooks out of our review. Jock commented that we should list each condition of approval in the motion. Tamara said page 10 of her memo, includes phasing plan in PUD approval. Tim will commit to a trail on the south side of property. Mike envisions an interior bike path 8 feet wide asphalt path from north to south. Mark said it gives you a corridor. Christina added an amendment to motion for applicant to provide a continuance wide path to connect the north and south ends of property and request PUD modification oii page 10 of staff report related to phasing also is approved. (Recommendations): 1 .) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) Relocation of the Regional Trail, which requires the vacation of the previously dedicated trail easement and the dedication of a new easement. Street Name Change. Modifications to Lot locations which include the addition of Lot 19A and the elimination of Lot 62. Provide Affordable Housing phasing. Remove trails and overlooks on plat 8 • • 6.) Modify Zone Text. 7.) Eliminate Commercial Park as previously approved. 8.) Creation of PA22. 9.) Add Phasing Plan. David accepted the modification to the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request to consider a Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application for Ironbridge PUD (formerly Rose Ranch PUD). The property is located approximately 2 % miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs, along CR 109, west of State Highway 82 and CR 154. The Applicant is L.B. Rose Ranch, LLC. Phil swore in all speakers for this hearing. Catalina reviewed thepublic notice requirements with Tim Thulson, the Applicants representative. Public notice was published on 7/11/03 and certified return receipt letters were sent out. The County Assessor and Clerks Offices were used by Land Title toget the names of owners and mineral owners of property within 200'. Signs were posted and remain in place. They are visible from CR 109. Ten of the certified letters were returned as non -deliverable. Tamara Pregl is the County Planner on this project and she will cover the staff comments and findings. She asked Phil if she needed to read the exhibits into the record. Exhibits A -Z are included in the packet with a cover sheet listing them all out. Exhibits AA -DD were handed out tonight. The Chairman accepted exhibits A -Z and AA -DD all into the record. This is a preliminary plan request and since applicant needs amendments to the original approval they have to do a new application. Tamara pointed out the modifications and deviations. (See page 4 of the staff report) There are 12 items listed and will discuss throughout the presentation. Water supply: State Engineer letter dated August 6, 2003 states there will be no material injury to decreed water rights. Wastewater generated will receive treatment by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Michael Erion of Resource Engineering reviewed the wastewater proposal and feels the system is adequate. Certain changes were made to the development plan. The changes included: 1.) Water storage tank relocation 2.) Concrete cart path rather than a wood cart path 3.) Earthen debris low mitigation structures rather than timber structures 4.) Ductile iron and yellow mine sewer pipes with mechanically restrained joints 9 • • HP Geotech provided comments in a letter dated March 26, 2003 regarding the above modifications. A drainage report prepared by High Country Engineering dated April 3, 2003 was also provided in the application. Michael Erion indicated that the overall drainage plan for the proposed PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan is adequate. A wood cart path along the drainage was initially proposed and approved for the PUD. Michael Erion noted that the cart path has been revised and should significantly reduce the impact to "waters of the United States." The final configuration of impacts has been - reviewed by Professional Wetlands Consulting and deemed consistent with Nationwide Permit No. 26 issued by the US Corps of Engineers for the project. Michael noted that all previously approved wetland setbacks should be included with any approval of the amended project submittal. - Related to soils and geology, we received comments from Jonathan White of the Colorado Geological Survey in his letter dated July 17, 2003 (exhibit J) that the major hazards that were identified for the Rose Ranch development were potential for hydrocompactive soils, potential for sinkholes, and required debris flow mitigation for the major drainage way that results in the large alluvial fan on Rose Ranch property. Michael Erion noted that the intersection of CR 109 and River Bend Way at the Southern end of the project was modified from the original design. High Country Engineering is in the process of providing documentation of the change. To date, no documentation has been received. Prior to the Preliminary Plan meeting with the BOCC documentation regarding this intersection shall be provided. The Robertson Ditch, which serves other properties downstream of the project, has been modified and relocated within the. project. Agreements with downstream users have been executed to authorize the existing and proposed modifications to the ditch within the project and ditch laterals in Westbank Ranch. Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management provided comments. (See exhibit L) The tree inventory of 1997 indicates the presence of hundred of Russian olives on the property. Russian olive has been designated as a noxious weed in Garfield County since 2000. The applicant shall submit a plan that provides for the control of Russian olive with the PUD. It has also been reported that there are some Tamarisk tress located on the property. Tamarisk is a noxious weed in Garfield County. The applicant shall inventory the Tamarisk trees and provided the County with a management plan. There should also be a condition of approval included for revegetation of an area that a sewer line was previously installed and revegetation either never occurred or it did not take. 10 • • Comments were received from the Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association (WBHOA) and can be seen in exhibit "0". The letter outlines issues and concerns that they have raised in relation to this proposal. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the BOCC for the Preliminary Plan request. No questions were asked of Tamara at this time so we moved to the Applicant for presentation. Larry Green said they are ready to answer any questions at this time. David Stover suggested to Applicant to look at their debris flow structure for this area. Jock asked, will there be a condition of approval required on conditions of the roads? Tamara said she put condition of approval together. Tim Thulson reviewed the incorporated conditions: • Standard boiler plate; findings required; requested changes • Drainage changes, new report from High Country Engineering—Michael Ok'd. • Incorporate all information from hearing • Rededication of new trail on final plat • Vegetation: applicant will commit to address these concerns by BOCC meeting. Will agree to re -seeding and cutting down of olive trees • Storage of pesticides & fertilizers: abide by recommendations from the Colorado Department of Health Geologic review: haven't received a response from the State for the additional information that was sent to them • Vehicle licensing: Richard Nash contacted the DMV and leases are not required only vehicles owned have purchased tags • Name change from Rose Ranch PUD • Block Filing _ • Wildlife and Fish comments: Mike saidthere are Federal laws protecting birds in the area (nest of Golden Eagles) • Page 12 recommended findings for Resolution Tamara said these appear to address her comments except for the modification to intersection of CR 109. Tim responded that the redesign of the intersection is in the application. Christina wondered about river access corridor (15'). Mike responded that they want a 15' corridor, gravel trail to riverbank. Christina responded about Resolution and_ rewording to replace the others. Have one updated Resolution. Tim said he can provide a final draft. Public comments were taken next. The first speaker is Rick Neily and he is concerned about the river access corridor. Not possible to construct in that area because it is 11 mapped wetlands. Can't fence the river. Have ability to impose weed control on Rose Ranch (Ironbridge) Need to adopt and implement a weed control plan. Steve Beattie who lives at 74 Fairway Lane is the next speaker. He is here representing the Westbank HOA. Suggestion that Tim's letter to him indicated any intent on the part of L.B. Rose Ranch gave up their claim to yard road easement he retracts those statements. Letter commitment to build facility for maintenance equipment. Yard road strip is owned by L.B. Rose Ranch. Neverused as a road previously. He wishes them well on their development. John Haines of 28 Fairway Lane spoke next. He didn't realize that the main facility and the equipment facility are two different things. He spoke to Bill Hetch and was told they would use this as a temporary facility only. Closed public comments portion of hearing. Moved back to Planning Commission for comments. Mike Deer made a motion to -go into an executive session and Kit Chapin seconded the motion. Phil called the meeting back to order.. Bob Fullerton will be the alternate for this item. Mike had a question for the applicant. What is the intention for the golf play availability of this course for Garfield County Citizens? Plan is quite different from the original approval. Larry Green responded that he doesn't think that is an element of this application. No ability to dictate this as a public golf course. Mike Staheli looked at what was submitted on initial application; would be a 25% discount to residence of Garfield County. There was no definition what an affordable price was, when you could play, etc._ Look at others in the area for community requirements. Printed up a Garfield County Policy but haven't initiated yet. 60 times a week; 24 players; $85.00 cost. (100- 110 players a month) Mike Deer's concerns are not discounted fees. As a County volunteer, his question is what will this do for the County? We took nine holes that were opened to the public and we took that away to give it to Rose Ranch PUD. This could be an economic benefit for tourism. -A person from Denver can't play this course now and Mike doesn't think that was the intention of the original approval. Mike Staheli said there is no economic feasibility for public open course.. — Roily said as he recalls, with all the golf courses near by he would assume what you are talking about is that there is a lot more golf capacity then there is a market demand for public play. Mike S. stated that supply exceeds demand by a long shot now. Roily asked, can the public walk onto a course somewhere else (i.e. Vail, Aspen, etc.) and play? Is there public play capacity at those places? Mike Staheli responded. Kit is concerned with comments made by Mike Deer related to all rewresenations made from the applicant, hearings, etcits is an issue that the 'fanning Commission has a right to discuss. — - 12 Jock said they can't go further than to evaluate a standard. What are the demands for a public golf course. What's the benefit to allow for public plat time. Larry Green responded to Kit's comments. Some representation is being made that they aren't being met, (Satisfied) They do not know where that comes from. No commitment - was made that he is aware of that there would be a certain level of public play which isn't_ being satisfied. Mike Dor aid there was a private/public concept with the intent that someone that was a tourist to Glenwood Springs could come and play this course. David suggests to applicant to take a look at opening the golf course more to the public. Jock Jacober made a motion to move that the 12 items listed on page 4 that exist currently as part of the partially built out project be approved and incorporated into the preliminary plan as it exists. Also included in the motion are the 12 items listed in totality with modifications to intersection at CR 109 and River Bend Way with conditions so named in the 4 .page Resolution: 1.) All representations shall be conditions of approval 2.) Drainage 3.) Rededication of Community Trail 4.) Vegetation 5.) Storage of Pesticides and Fertilizers 6;) Geologic Review 7.) Vehicle licensing 8.) Name change 9.) Block filing 10.) US Fish and Wildlife Service Comments 11.) Integration 12.) Intersection Recommend approval of 4 page Resolution with additions. Motion failed for No Second. Jock put the same motion on the table again. David Stover seconded the motion but wantsto strengthen weed control. That it shall be presented in a weed management plan to Garfield County and approved by Steve Anthony. Richard Nash is meeting with Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management on Friday. Tamara said they need to comply with letter of July and submit a Weed Management Plan. - — Tamara made note of the change needed to change the block numbers to 1, 2, 3, & 4. 13 Tim Exhibit A is Exhibit 4 in the preliminary plan application, volume 1. Tim noted the 5th "Whereas" on same document needs to be removed. Friendly amendments accepted. Motion carries 5(Y) to 2(N). The next item on the agenda is a pubic hearing request to consider an Amendment to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2000. The proposed amendment will change the land use designation along CR 113 from Residential Low Density (10 acres or more per dwelling unit) to General Commercial affecting three (3) parcels. The applicant's are the Garfield County Planning Commission. Tamara presented the staff information and recommendation of approval. Adoption of the suggested land use designation is required to be codified by Resolution. Staff has prepared a Resolution of approval which was attached to your staff memo. Staff recommends. Chairman to sign the attached Resolution whicltchanges the land use designation from Low Density Residential to General Commercial affecting three parcels. (Parcel #23-93-074-00-0357, Parcel #2393-181-00-358 and Parcel # 2393-172- 00-222. Jock made a motion to approve the request and David seconded the motion. All approved. Under other items, related to the By -Laws, Kit made a motion to approve the By -Laws with a noted change to Article 2 to read "format to". Colin seconded the motion. All approved. White paper is the information provided on code re -write. Fred handed out the Spring Valley application and the Callicotte Ranch application to all members present tonight. Next public meeting for code re -write input is 8/27 in Rifle and 8/28 in Glenwood Springs. No other business so meetingis adjourned. 14 10f65/2003 20:01 6253627 UCt 03 03 12;20p l ronbr i dee • Octoer 2, 2003 PDAU AHD BRIDGE PAIGE 02 870 384o7p I RONBRIDGE Mr. S:eve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Management P. D. Box 426 Rifle CO, 81650 Via fax 625-8627 Subject Ironbeage Weed Management Plan Steve: EXHIBIT Thank you for taking the time to visit our deveioprtie nt t3nd provioing us with some suggestions for a weed management progrsrr I have received our copy of your memo to Ma. Tamara Pregi of Garfield County Planning Department and would like to address each of ycur suggestions herein Noxious weeds —We will treat the Russian Knapweeo, salt cedar and Russian Olives this fall as recommended Having licensed spray technicians on staff we have the expertise to appy these treatments with our own staff 'hereby reducing the expense to both us and the County by not having to use the rebate fund that you and E discussed. The balance of the weeds will be treated per the proposed Ironbridge Weed Control Program attached hereto. 2 Revegetathon — a. Road Cut Revegetatian - Subsequent to ycur visit the County has mowed the area in question along County Road 109. The east portion of CR 109 that borders Ironbridge is being maintained by a landscaping Company and will continue to be groomed in a like fashion b Tal grass along berms _. We need to continue to maintain the tall native fescue greases on the outer fringe of our golf fairways ir a vainer that enhances the golf experlenoe . The loner grasses are a distincfeve part of the design of the golf course and were never intended nor will they ever be mowed down to a 'short" grass level Our proposed fronbridge Weed Control Program addresses a program that will eradicate weeds in these areas. c. Revegetation of the force main through Tei ter springs — I have contacted Mr. Steve Brusig of The Groundcrew. (our professional landscaper) and have contracted with hire to hydro seed the area along Teller Springs where the force main was 1i -stalled. He will use RYAS WoraireasaIc* ousarooa ars ..*. Cv aaaa&a St Mai 7a ova,. }I-4t.OhS* 10/05:2003 20:01 6253627 ROAD AND BRIDGE Uct 03 03 12:20p 1ronbrdg• 410 970 3134670 one of the grass mixes as identified by your once. The work will be completed in the next Iwo weeks it should be noted that two previous applications of grass seed have been unsuccessful due to a lack of water in that area and motorized vehicle and horse traffic that are out of our control Thanks again for your input. Our goat ie to enhance not only our property but those around us as well. Sincerely: Richard A_ Nash Cc: Tom Schmidt Mike Staheli Mitch Bowers FT6E J3 p.3 10/E5/2903 Ul Y Ud 20:61 6253627 4.4.1 / C I COF Porivf 1 Srige • ROAD AND BRIDGE 870 364 • 0170 IRON IRIDQE Weed Control Proer*m The growth of weeds on the irortbridge property has been identified as a nuisance to the surrounding community during the PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan Amendment proceedings with the County of Garfield. In response to a request for an lronbridge Weed Control Program and in an effort to make reasonable attempts at controlling and reducing weed populations , we propose the following weed control measures: Golf Course }touch Areas The following activities are proposed in controlling weed populations in the outer-most boundaries of the golf fairways where native fescue grass species reside. L se of Herbicides: Mowing Schedule: Spot applications of Speed Lona, a broad leaf herbicide, shall be applied on a monthly basis io eJ! known weed species growing in the subject area. Ditch banks as well In addition to herbicide applications, maintenance crew will discourage additional weed growth by mowing the fescue grasses on a frequent basis to maintain an average height of 8•' from April to June 1. Mowing ofthc rough area will resume in the late fail to reduce rhe height of the native grasses to 8" in preparation for winter Areas Disturbed by Development Weed populations are also growing in areas that have been distLrbed from their historic condi ion by the development activities of lrnehridge These areas include the undeveloped fields to the north of the historic Rose Ranch headquarters and east of the golf fairways, and the developed lots located at the south end of Ironbridge in the Silver Mountain neighborhood. The reduction of weeds and promotion of grass growth will result from period mowing in these areas, We propose mowing these areas in June and in August to an average height of 8 inches. In the absence of irrigation water, the vegetation in hese areas will be limited in size if snowed twice during the growing season and should have a satisfactory appearance until such time as the areas are developed. Riney lata Corridor Due to the ecological sensitivity of the undisturbed riparian corridor areas along the Roaring Fork River, we propose that no Herbicide applications or mowing ace vines occur in the riparian corridor. lrunbrldge Weed Control Rog: am Pace 1 of 2 PAGE 04 P-• 10/05/2603 20.F11 6253627 [Jct. 03 03 12:21p Ironbridge 0 ROAD AND BRIDGE 70 3B4 -•i 7[7 Tree at Brush Removal The County has regaested that lrc►nbridgc cut dawn the Russian Olive trees growing in close proximity w the Westbank Ranch well system area and remo ,e the Tamarisk/Salt Cedar bushes located along the historic alignment of the Robertson Ditc=t, which fres since been diverted. In that there are over 100 Russian Olive trees in the Westbank Ranch subdivision, we propose that the Russian Olive trees on our properry terrain : ndisturbed, We propose that the Tamarisk bushes be removed as requested. Cottejslou It is our experience that the application of herbicides to larges areas is prohibitively expensive and is met with Ghon term results. Periodic mowing. on the other hand, frustrates the growth and promulgation of weed populations and enables grasses to eventually take over as the predominate species. In those cases where selective spraying is warranted, our Ool= Superintendent and his staff are licensed spray technicians and will be able to perform her'hicide applications as per governmental guidelines. RAGE 05 P-5 �fLt (»+-S3 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Re: Response to Ironbridge Weed Management Plan Date: October 6, 2003 This is staff's response to Mr. Richard Nash's faxed letter of October 2, 2003 and the Ironbridge Weed Control Program. My comments are as follows: 1. Russian olives salt and Russian olive In his letter Mr. Nash states that they will treat. Russian lanapweed as recommended. In the attached Weed Control Program it is stated that "we propose that the Russian olive trees on our property remain undisturbed". Staff is concerned that the Russian olives to the east of the golf course close are close to a bank above the Roaring Fork River and have the potential to spread up and down the river corridor. The statement is made by lronbridge that "there are over 100 Russian olive trees in the W estbank Ranch subdivision, we propose that the Russian olive trees on our property remain undisturbed." The Russian olive trees on Westbank are a separate issue, and should be dealt with accordingly, the issue at hand is the Russian olives on Ironbridge and it is staff's recommendation that they be taken out of the area east of the Golf Course. 2. Riparian corridor The Ironbridge Weed Control Program states that "due to the ecological sensitivity of the undisturbed riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River, we propose that no herbicide or mowing activities occur in the riparian corridor_" I would like Ironbridge to define the riparian corridor. If there is a presence of County -listed noxious weeds in the area, they would be expected to provide a weed management plan that addresses these noxious weeds in the area. 3. Mowing that it is done frequently Mowing is acceptable as a noxious weed control measure; provided enough so that the plant is not mowed after it has set seed.